Slashdot Mirror
Oldest Modern Humans Found
DrLudicrous writes "Anthropologists have reconstructed and dated three skulls from Ethiopia that they believe to be the oldest anatomically modern human skulls in existance. They date to 160,000 years ago, in agreement with genetic studies that pin the arrival of modern humans to at least 150,000 years ago. The skulls also demonstrate evidence of ritual burial." UC Berkeley has the original release as well.
It's time to revise the Bible again! Damn science, it makes my work so much harder.
Until Slashdot fixes the funny modifier, use insightful or interesting. The poster knows your intentions.
Strom Thurmond's head?
Not that hominids, though, arrived considerably earlier than this... what's the latest figure? somewhere in the 4 million range? Some of them wren't exactly dumb either; neanderthals, in fact, are supposed to have had more brain mass than humans did/do.
How come there are modern human and non-modern?
What's next?
newmodern?
gerymodern?
Crux?
Bluecurve?
-- Hasbullah bin Pit (sebol)
along with the skulls are some tools, and their way of burial is more than a simple "covering up with dirt and let's move on", which sort of indicates these ancestors are pretty smart and know what they were doing.
are we going to discover even earlier "modern" human remains in order to find out how we really came from??
What they din't tell you is they also found remains of a time machine, indicating that they are from people from the 31st century
Now ware did I put my tin-foil hat
Modern humans. Come on, think before you post.
The Herto skulls were not found with other bones from the rest of the bodies, which is unusual, White said, leading the researchers to infer that the people "were moving the heads around on the landscape. They probably cut the muscles and broke the skull bases of some skulls to extract the brain, but why, whether as part of a cannibalistic ritual, we have no way of knowing."
I was rather surprised by the possibility of ritualistic brain-eating amongst the earliest ancestors of our species. Maybe they were extracting the brains not for appetizers, but for the same reasons Egyptians removed the brains prior to mummification: so that dead would not be encumbered by the useless grey gunk inside their head on the journey to the afterlife.
You think it's confusing now? Wait until we get the postmodern humans. I shiver at the idea of self-referential genetics.
Personally, I don't know if they are that old...i've heard that those dating techinques fail alot...kinda like mine :-D
Also found with the body, a rock tablet pecking stone. Scientists will never be sure what the writing on the tablet means, but have surmised that it was either the etchings of a madman, or the first failed attempt at hand writing recognition software, ancient ancestor to the newton. :)
(age > 6000) + "years"
Too many digits.
Some even weigh 800 lb. They own insane amounts of cash. These gorillas control millions of supposedly more intelligent sapient humans.
Evidence of evolution is also seen in the computing industry. 30 years ago, smart humans sat in front of dumb terminals. These days dumb bimbos operate smart PCs.
At Slashdot, a few ninja monkeys....
If you keep throwing chairs, one day you'll break windows....
hehe
Perhaps non-modern refers to homo-erectus, the first hominid which lived ~2 million years ago, whereas modern humans refers to homo-sapiens (you and I and most slashdot readers).
I like how you said 'most slashdot readers'. Where do the others fit in? homo-dickus
If I point out that you are incorrect, making me a foe does not make you any more correct.
Yeah... and the next thing they'll come up with is that humans are descendants of apes...
Damn scientists!
p/s: Long time no see sebol... Remember me?
Welley Corporation - SLM Scammers
i refuse to believe my ancestors were
you know
"black"
that they believe to be the oldest anatomically modern human ... they date to 160,000 years ago
...
Come on Grandpa, you've been living off the state long enough now
"It's not your information. It's information about you" - John Ford, Vice President, Equifax
Is that, Okay, Great^n Grandpawas around 160,000 years ago, complete with stone tools and burial practices.
Yet Civilization only 'started 6-10,000 years ago.
Why does this just not quite add up to me. I mean, our ancestors were not stupid, they posessed the same intuition and logic that we do today. Whay did it take so long to get where we are now though?
Just food for thought.
You say you want a revolution....
I think that the most important part of this discovery, though is that it pretty much rules out the descent of homo sapiens from homo neanderathalensis. I know that there was a lot of evidence of that, anyway, but this seems pretty conclusive.
Still, I think that more interesting discoveries would be from 5 million years ogo. In particular, I would like to see remains of the ancestors of Australopithecenes and Ardopithecenes which would support the evolution of modern chimpanzees and modern humans from a common ancestor.
http://yetanotherpoliticalrant.blogspot.com
OOG the Open Source caveman LIVES!!!
this sig limit is too small to put anything good h
No, apes are descendants of humans. We just haven't discovered the joy of flinging poo, yet.
(alright alright, SOME of us haven't discovered yet)
I always thought this was the oldest fossil.
I wonder if they predate lawyers. Would tell us which way evolution has been going ever since.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
So you must be one of those proponents to "God part of the brain" theory, yes? I understand it's purpose is for the cognitive mind to not break down psychologically to the mear thought of death. After all, just seeing something dead will for a moment give us a bit of fear due to self reflection to just how mortal we really are. In the end though, it doesn't matter. I believe there is a God. Something/s had to come from nothing. And that my friend, is a miracle unto itself.
Life is not for the lazy.
Uhh, Homo erectus was not the first hominid. Not by a long shot. Try Ardipithecus ramadis at 5 to 8 million years ago, or arguably something earlier. A. ramadis is most likely bipedal however, which is typically the criteria for early hominids.
If you were refering to the first in the Homo genus, that would be (in my opinion) Homo habilis or possibly Homo heidelburgensis. These were characterized by the earliest confirmed tool use (Homo habilis means "handy man"). These fellas were around for several hundred thousand years before H. erectus and H. ergaster.
Sorry about the lack of italicised names, I'm lazy.
Jeremy
Maybe myths of Atlantis and other advanced civilizations are true? For some reason they fell. Maybe this happens in cycles where humans get advanced and then nearly destroy themselves in the process. Then its back to the stone age. Your thoughts?
Oh, and to answer your half-question. There were also "archaic Homo sapiens" as a sort of intermediate between what we call anatomically modern Homo sapiens and H. erectus. Not a separate species, because they simply transitioned into us.
Jeremy
IANA geneticist, but I wonder whether some rapid evolution occurred amongst these small subgroups that gave modern humans the advantage over the Neanderthals?
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo
--Andy Finkel (J. Klass?)
We just haven't discovered the joy of flinging poo, yet.
obviously missed a few presidential debates.
THE WORLD IS GOING TO END!!!! eventually.
Are you being serious? If so, please explain where you would get that idea. If not, please explain the joke.
http://yetanotherpoliticalrant.blogspot.com
...a twinkie. What else could be preserved that long?
Jeremy
Whoops. Good call. You are absolutely correct. I wasn't thinking. Homo rudolfensis is around then too. I wouldn't consider Homo heidelburgensis to be the first hominid, only because it came about so close to the evolutionary division which eventually resulted in Homo neandethalensis on one end, and Homo sapiens on the other. This subject is somewhat debatable, but the point is that they were after Austrolopithecus Garhi.
That's really going to irritate everyone in Kansas that fought to have evolutionary theories suppressed...
Ok, I'm thinking of Java man, from the island of Java. I must have learned this from grade school and I thought that was a silly name to call a primitive man, because it was coffee, right? So it must have stuck in my head that way, that primates came from Java, and I assumed they must have migrated to Africa and elsewhere. So apparently these primitive men can build ships and navigate waters too...
Was he buried? Or did they find him where he fell?
Scavengers would have made off with the rest of his body and left the skull (due to the lack of meat).
Error encountered in IAWebSig.clsSig.Create: Last Procedure: sPrc_Ins_tblSig
You would be annoyed if someone digged up your grave. It's disrespectful considering our current social norms.
But imagine a few years into the future, and someone digs up your corpse, and people there think it's ok.
Hmmm.
Pet peeve: Profane people propagating perfunctory pedantry.
The first such major project to act on this took several years and thousands of DNA samples. They determined that Eve was from the Phillippines, and this was announced with quite a bit of publicity, articles in Time magazine, etc. Unfortunately, it was soon found that the analysis had been done with a faulty understanding of how the analysis software worked. Or something like that. Can't remember anymore. Anyway, for whatever reason, the results were not meaningful, and the data they had gathered couldn't be re-used. It was quite a disappointment for all involved. But you still hear references to Eve having lived in the Phillippines because of this.
A witty saying is worth nothing - Voltaire
Like why the hell would God put the genetic code for teeth in birds? Was God lazy? Was it an accident?
The "evolution vs. creation" section on that side explains the many creatures as things he did during the initial seven "days" (by the way, it says God is in his seventh day now, and is therefore resting, so quit bothering him, omnipotent beings get tired too, dont they?). So if a creature is found that didnt exist 160,000 years ago what other way can the vague first chapter of Genesis be stretched?
It isn't really an oxymoron when you think about it. Most anthropologists consider anything that falls in the genus Homo a human. This includes H. habilis, H. rudolfensis, H. erectus [ergaster], H. heidelbergensis, H. neanderthalensis, and H. sapiens.
H. sapiens and its subspecifics are obviously modern humans. The newly named specimen H. s. idaltu is modern and our subspecies, H. s. sapiens, the subspecies that spread all over the globe, is what we call an anatomically modern human.
Religion is often seen as an advance in a culture's history. Burial rituals imply a seeking for meaning after death and lead to religion. Unfortunately, religion tends to lead to organized religion, and then people start telling people what to do, and the next thing you know you have currency and trade and everything goes right to hell.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
"Homo sapiens (archaic) Discovered by villagers at Petralona in Greece in 1960. Estimated age is 250,000-500,000 years. It could alternatively be considered to be a late Homo erectus, and also has some Neandertal characteristics. The brain size is 1220 cc, high for erectus but low for sapiens, and the face is large with particularly wide jaws." Actually, the age was originally determined to be much older, 700,000-800,000 years, but there seems to be an organised program to discredit those findings, presumeably because it turns all the established theories on the origins of man on their head. However, even the most conservative estimates are still much older than the ethiopian finds.
Now? I thought that it was already covered by the infinite monkeys theory.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Actually, the term hominid has become somewhat broader in recent years. Hominid is a derivative of Hominidae, the family once used to describe humans and their extinct relatives but now inclusive to the non-human great apes as well--both gorilla species, both orang-utan species, chimpanzees, and bonobos.
Humans and their relatives tend to be grouped in the subfamily Homininae these days. Thats where the term "hominin" comes in to play.
"The Herto skulls were not found with other bones from the rest of the bodies"
Too bad they can't count the ribs.
- "They misunderestimated me."
Over the years those who had the power (kings and churches) sought to enhance and secure their position by keeping the people dumb and manipulating them by altering passages from the bible in their favour.
[9F18] "... and the Lord said, Whack ye all the serpents which crawl on their bellies and thy town will be a beacon unto others. So you see Lisa, even God himself endorses whacking day."
Saw a show on something related to this, "The Journey of Man", difference was using mutations on X chromosomes, which are passed unchanged from father to son, aside from random mutations. Anyways, a researcher (Spencer Wells) analysed the mutations in the X chromosomes from people all over the world, and came up with a map of sorts on the way people branched out.
. html
In summary, we're all descendant of a man who lived in Africa about 50,00 years ago (~2000 generations), with genes basically the same as bushmen.
The researcher laid it out quite clearly and convincingly, so it's worth a watch/read:
http://pup.princeton.edu/titles/7442
It really made me realize how related we all are, and silences the idiots who think blacks are closer to the apes, and whites are more advanced, etc.
Your hybrid is not saving the environment. Its purpose is to make you feel good about buying something.
Sounds like argument from design
Analytic & algebraic topology of locally Euclidean meterization of infinitely differentiable Riemmanian manifold
No, because you still have to bury them after they die in the 'retirement home'.
Manipulate the moderator system! Mod someone as "overrated" today.
Just a small nit-pick: I believe you mean Y chromosome, not X. All men get their X chromosome from their mother, and can only pass it on to their daughters. Y chromosome inheritance works as you described, though.
"Any fool can make a rule, and any fool will mind it."
--Henry David Thoreau
... that we're really the VHS of evolution, and killed out Betamax while it was still young? :)
-- B.
This sig does in fact not have the property it claims not to have.
Nowhere did I say that Christianity is wrong. I do, however, strongly oppose the idea that the bible is inerrant. Whether the Christian doctrine is true is not the question here. You are free to decide that for yourself, based on all the facts and beliefs you hold dear.
I read there yesterday that there was no evidence that these early humans buried their dead and that the marks may have been from canabalism.
-- Karma Karma Karma Karma, Karma Chameleon - Boy George
Most certainly.
You can most vividly see the changes and omissions made by comparing several translations of the bible. Some will have extra verses and some verses will be missing. Some are obvious and reasonable, others are disputable. But certainly there have been made other changes over the course of history, for which you will have to do some deeper research. If you'd like, I can dig it up.
And don't get me started on the inconsistencies that are evident in the bible, neither. They are numerous as are the various explanations possible to harmonize these discrepancies.
How can anything that old still be modern? Haven't people got any taste? ;-)
I love creationist theory. Adam was the first man and eve was the first woman. I asked a creationist 'doesn't this mean we are all related and have fu*ked up mutations. No he said there son got a different wife. From where I said. He goes. its in the bible, he went over the hills to get his wife. What a crock. Where the hell did this other woman come from. how can you believe this.
Mark me as troll!!!
-- Karma Karma Karma Karma, Karma Chameleon - Boy George
I'd like to wait for the full report to be released but I've got some thoughts on this article.
There's too many conclusions drived from too little facts. How can a conclusion be derived about wether they used plants if only the Volcanic Layers and fossils were tested for age? There's no mention of testing or even finding any sort of plant material. Geology researchers (about 98% of them anyways) are not going to know or care about testing for this sort of thing.
Furthermore, there's no mention of attempting to re-create the environment that the fossils were found in based on geological tests, it seems that theories were based only on the fossils found. (At least that's what I get from the wording of the article). For all we know these fossils were moved from a different area/region/continent. The fossils were found bashed in. Was the bashing the result of being prey for a different, un-discovered predator?
Also, did anyone catch, near the end of the article, the following quote:
In this single study area, the team has found fossils dating from the present to more than 6 million years ago, painting a clear picture of human evolution from ape-like ancestors to present-day humans.
Is it me or is there something REALLY wrong in the fact that such a wide age range of fossils were found IN ONE STUDY AREA? I refuse to accept the fact that ALL of the fossils came from ONE area without some sort of assistance in reaching their final destination.
I did my U-Grad work in Archaeology and didn't pursue it because of these 'play in my sandbox or else' reserchers and their theories that never hold water.
Archeaologists/anthropologists seem to make their fame on either discoveries and their theories with the connection to human evolution or disproving said theories in research journals.
Dolemite
________________________
Save the World! Use a Quote!
And you don't think that this Jesus character might not kind of twig onto who was believing in him for the right reasons {being a good person}, and who was beliveing in him for the wrong reasons {fear of going to hell}?
.....
Any god like that frankly doesn't deserve to be believed in
Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
You are correct! I'm sorry I didn't finish reading before I posted the link(showes me to RTFA first!). I am aware of talk.origins website and lurk their newsgroup regularly.
(OTOH, they did have a nice physical comparison table, that was my original motivation)
Thank you for correcting me.
Or is this more of the overly simplistic logic that starts by assuming the Bible is false and then proceeds to construct some alternative scenario?
How do we know anything is true, we must and do on a daily basis make assumptions about the world around us from what we observe. I see a table, i walk up to it, touch it, i know it's a table. We use simple logic to assume things are right or wrong, true or false. If i am told something is true i do not believe it unless i can verify it for myself.
As such, i believe there is a book called the bible with many secular variations. Having read some of it, I know it contains some fascinating insights into human nature and accounts of historic events. But my wider knowledge allows me to put it in picture with the history of the roman occupation of the area, simultaneous Chinese philosophy, Mayan empires, etc. And my knowledge of human nature, culture, behaviour; to come to the simple logical conclusion that it is most likely that Jesus existed and was immensely insightful into human nature and further evolved a system of living by which humanity and all it's individuals could prosper. However i see no good evidence for divine intervention.
What your parents tell you to believe in ... isn't always right
My spelling isn't bad, I'm evolving the language
The Bible says God created Man first, then took out one of his ribs to make Woman. Jehovah's Witnesses and probably some other groups still claim this as evidence for the biblical creation myth, even though there have been found enough women with 12 ribs and men with 14 to dilute the gender - rib count correlation.
What's to say that God didn't actually create Woman first, then cut off her willy to make Man?
Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
> If they "don't even know anymore what parts were actually in the original scripture" they how do they know they have changed?
History.
> Do you have any proof of your assertion that people changed the Scriptures to fit their needs, and those changes have not been caught and reversed?
How about the fact that even today not all sects agree on the same canon, let alone on the translation and interpretation of its contents?
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
...seems the joke went way over someone's head, eh? :)
The establishment encourages humor...sorry if it's a bit too sophisticated. Next time I'll dummy it down....not!
... neanderthals ... are supposed to have had more brain mass than humans did/do.
The ratio of brain mass to body mass determines intelligence, not brain mass alone.
Women have smaller brains than men, but that doesn't make them less smart: their bodies are proportionately smaller, so the brain/body mass ratio remains constant. (See The Dragons of Eden by Carl Sagan for more details.)
-kgj
The artist's illustration in the Berkeley article (also used on the cover of the current edition of Nature) is misleading, in as much as it gives the figure kinky hair and thick lips, making for a more "African" look than is likely to have been the case.
The truth of the matter is that the earliest men almost certainly would have had straight hair, not curly or kinky but straight, and thin lips, just like most Europeans and Asians today. The wild-type for hair in primates is straight, and all of the great apes conform to that type. Similarly, no ape has thick lips, and our closest living relatives are pretty much lipless. Given these facts, why would any reasonable person expect the "first" men to look like modern day Africans?
Of course, it is logically impossible to rule out that our species evolved to gain the features of modern-day Africans only to lose them once again, but this flies in the face of both probability and Occam's razor - it is extremely unlikely that a feature, once lost, can then be regained down the line, simultaneously around all of the world outside Africa.
One mistake people tend to make is to assume that because our species originated in Africa, modern day Africans are somehow "closer" to what we must have originally been like, but this is nonsense. Africans are just as far removed from the original homo sapiens populations as any other population groups, so they've had just as much time to diverge from the original type. Africans, like any other populations, haven't stood still in evolutionary terms, contrary to the misleading notion that this article illustration propagates.
...
Burial rituals imply a seeking for meaning after death and lead to religion.
Well, maybe. And maybe not. In making that statement, you are projecting notions of afterlife on people who may have simply had reverence for a body that once was a living person, someone of significance to them. There's nothing in the simple fact of a burial "ritual" -- which in this case may or may not have been a ritual, but which involved treatment of the body before disposal [burial] -- that points to "meaning" much less "religion."
Imagine that you *don't* believe in afterlife, and death is the ultimate challenge to meaningful life. Now imagine that someone you love a lot or respect a lot dies. They're lost, forever, they ain't coming back (at least, no one else has) and you feel sad as heck. The body's all you've got left, and you know from previous experience that it isn't going to keep for long. Elaborate burial might be merely a mark of respect and of bitter acceptance that when it's over, it's over.
Without a lot more data, there's no way of knowing what death meant to these folks, or what the after-death treatment of the bodies signifies.
OK, now what?
---------------
Together, we will drive the rats from the tundra.
How about the fact that even today not all sects agree on the same canon, let alone on the translation and interpretation of its contents?
Now it appears you are talking about two different things. The assertion, at least as far as I understood it, was that some group was actually manipulating the source material, such as the Dead Sea Scrolls. This idea is obviously false.
People will always manipulate scripture to try and support their own desires. The scripture even predicts that very thing. But the scripture itself (speaking in terms of the source material) has not changed.
Tracing human migratin through gene/DNA studies of widely separated human populations has revealed a lot of new information in recent years. This discovery confirms a lot that is already known. There is an interesting (and very readable) book called Mapping Human History. Recommended to anyone interested in human history, evolution, ... and you will know how wrong all those race supremist theories, racial conflicts, ... are.
> Now it appears you are talking about two different things. The assertion, at least as far as I understood it, was that some group was actually manipulating the source material, such as the Dead Sea Scrolls.
I wouldn't know about that.
> This idea is obviously false.
It's obviously not obvious to everyone participating in this thread.
> People will always manipulate scripture to try and support their own desires. The scripture even predicts that very thing. But the scripture itself (speaking in terms of the source material) has not changed.
Didn't read my history link, did you.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Well, or you could read the bible.
Gen 5:3 And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat [a son] in his own likeness, after his image; and called his name Seth:
Gen 5:4 And the days of Adam after he had begotten Seth were eight hundred years: and he begat sons and daughters:
Gen 5:5 And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died.
Now In answer to the GP question, what about genetic diseases and mutations
Given:
God Created Adam and Eve.
God Created them Perfect
Minor Conclusion
Mutations came later.
Conclusion:
Interbreeding wasn't harmful until mutations came along.
Food not Bombs is a nice platitude but it breaks down when you notice that the Bombees are usually well fed
Yes and no... there are some ambiguities about translation of the bible. Some words only appear a few times, or even once, making their meaning impossible to know for sure. The meanings of words also change over time, so a word that meant something when the bible was translated into greek, say, might have been given a different meaning than when it was first written down.
This is not to say that translation is impossible or a useless effort. It's just to say that the exact meaning of a given word is often ambigous. Often, these (in my view, somewhat silly) arguments about what the bible says center around individual words.
For example, does "four corners" mean four geometric corners? Does it mean "prominent places", or was it a colloquial expression?
(My favorite one is when the Israelites were building the Tabernacle in the desert, and they used "Dolphin Skins". Where did they get Dolphin skins from? It's a funny little thing, and you wonder if the text is really refering to the skins of animals we call dolphins, or something else. But dolphin skins? From Egypt?)
The whole topic of translating ancient texts (not just the bible) is a facinating one. If you're interested in an alternate english translation of the bible, the Jewish Publication society put one out under the name "Tanakh" (the Jewish word for the bible). Every page there are footnotes with the comment "meaning of original hebrew uncertain" , or providing an alternate translation.
DISCLAIMER - I am not a linguist or biblical scholar. (IANALOBS)
It's not wasting time, I'm educating myself.
If you consider that even when these prehistoric humans lived to the age of 35, they were "old" and they were somebody's "grampaw" and "grammaw." Compare that today with many people waiting till the age of 35 for their first young 'un. In 100 years today, a family may spawn three generations. Back then, the number would be closer to seven generations of skulls. In that context, it's easier to see how skull shapes could change in only 160,000 years or so. Back then we were generating new skulls and losing the ineffective ones at a much faster rate. Not that we're creating fewer skulls today...quite the contrary. It's just that we hang on to the less efficient ones for a lot longer.
Didn't read my history [wikipedia.org] link, did you.
We seem to be referring to do different things. There's no question that the arrangement of the Bible has changed. It's well documented and most certainly admitted by any reputable biblical scholar. In fact, anyone suggesting otherwise is flat wrong, without question, and should be removed from your list of critical thinkers.
However, the contents of the scripture, the individual lines of scripture and the message that the scripture conveys, is remarkably true to the original. You should check out Geisler's book "Christian Apologetics" for some interesting information on the reliability of scripture and for a comparison of how well the original manuscripts stack up against the commonly accepted translations of today.
When you are dead you are dead and that is all that there is to it.
There is no heaven and there is no afterlife. There is no God.
Humanity is the result of a slow and gradual process of evolution from simpler life forms.
Just deal with it.
Thank you for explaining that. For a second I thought there was another possibility to the one you just stated, but nope. There in black and white.
http://use.perl.org
Homo sapiens lived a nomadic hunter-gatherer-fisher life for the first 90% of their existance- much like the aborigional populations did. It sis thought they full language capabilities by 50,000 years ago, when most of the world was quickly occupied by humans. However it is one of the great mysteries why poepl did start vivilization until the end of the last glaciation.
You think that by misquoting me you can achieve something?
You mean like the sewage system involving both public sewage run-off from public baths/toilets and private septic tanks for individual homeowners in Pompeii some 3000+ years ago??
Food not Bombs is a nice platitude but it breaks down when you notice that the Bombees are usually well fed
If warm climate is a factor, then it was warm 110,000 and 60,000 yearts ago- well after the new homo sapien skull discoveries. You have to explain why civilization did start then.
> We seem to be referring to do different things.
Yes, to a big extent we are talking past each other.
> There's no question that the arrangement of the Bible has changed. It's well documented and most certainly admitted by any reputable biblical scholar. In fact, anyone suggesting otherwise is flat wrong, without question, and should be removed from your list of critical thinkers.
> However, the contents of the scripture, the individual lines of scripture and the message that the scripture conveys, is remarkably true to the original. You should check out Geisler's book "Christian Apologetics" for some interesting information on the reliability of scripture and for a comparison of how well the original manuscripts stack up against the commonly accepted translations of today.
I don't have any problem with that; I just think it's odd that you're focusing on the fact that the sentences haven't changed within such-and-such a book, but whole books have been swapped in and out of the canon.
What ultimately matters is that the canon was established by men by a combination of formal and informal negotiations that lasted over centuries. Is it really so hard to see that the end result represents "a change", and that the process was subject to the pressures of special interest groups?
E.g., some wanted to exclude St. John's Revelation, not because they didn't think it was inspired, but because they observed that it was a keystone of competing traditions.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
was the discovery of some DOS manuals along with some early remains in Ethiopia. We all know that 'real men use DOS.'
photosMy Photostream
The concept to stop chasing wildlife, and to settle down and grow crops is revolutionary, and would be a scary step
What's worse, there seems to be evidence that growing crops put individuals at a short-term disadvantage over hunter-gatherers, giving them a poorer diet for more work! The primary advantage of crop growing, though, is that it supports a higher population density, so even if your hunter-gatherer tribe may be living better than the nearby village growing crops, the village can feed ten times as many people and so they can expand faster than you and win any conflict between you.
It occurs to me that this post is either interesting and funny or overrated and offtopic. Such is the way of the world.
There is also a good deal of information on using mitochondrial DNA to track this information, which comes down through the women only (the men pass mitochondria along with sperm, but it gets left behind with the "shell" and only the regular DNA is used for fertilization). This mitochondrial DNA is very stable and you can track human spread over very long periods of time. The Y-chromosome, which isn't quite as stable and mutates, can be used to track migrations over a shorter span of time.
cLive ;-)
-- Trinity in high heels carrying a whip: The donimatrix - there is no spoonerism
For those interested in really seeing what the Bible teaches and how science the Bible compliment one another nicely, please visit Reasons To Believe
You will never "find" time for anything. You must "make" it.
Simply not true.
The "Authorized King James Version" published by the Mormon church has omissions and additions made in the last 150 years
The "Bible" that the Jehovah's Witnesses use has significant differences where they took things out or added them.
Neither of these should properly be called Bibles as they were obviously changed to fit with their beliefs.
There are about 6 major translations in use by protestant churches I can guarentee that at the very least those 6 agree with each other verse for verse.
The Catholic Church also has a translation, the only difference between it and the Bibles in use by protestant churches is the Catholic Bible includes several books called the "Apocrapha", these books don't disagree with the rest of the Bible.
Translations today agree because they are not translated from each other or even from past modern translations. All new translations are done from anchient manuscripts and as I pointed out in earlier post there are over 10,000 sources and most Bibles document the small differences between them.
The Anti-Blog
There is an inherent paradox in the notion of "Canon" - Christians should believe that God is the highest authority. But how can this be, when the books that are supposedly authoritative have been "established" by a council of men? Doesn't that men that, in the end, the men are really the ultimate authorities? The theological answer is that Christians *don't* believe they were established by men - they were established by God. Chapter 1, Sec. 4 of the Westminster Confession of Faith talks about this:
The essential paradox remains no matter how it was decided - if it was a world-wide democratic vote, or one guy in is basement, you still have this problem. Therefore, the only way to believe in both God and canon is to believe that God establised it, we obey it because God established it, and that the natural consequence is that the we know the canon is "correct" because He is sovereign and supervised the process. For example, the book of Hebrews was probably included because they thought it was written by Paul. Nowadays, Heberews is attributed to an anonymous author, but it's role in the lives of Christians is invaluable.
This is one of those issues where outsiders scratch their heads and go "huh?". But if you were God, what would you do? Dropping a book out of the sky really isn't the way to go - that breeds far more skepticism than the process used in the current NT canon. Besides, the NT is a message, not a rulebook (OT is different story). It seems like the method chosen of finding the most accurate gospels and pulling the best of Paul's letters was a good way to go, IMO.
Really, you are getting nowhere with this. I'm not even paying attention, see?
The Catholic Church also has a translation, the only difference between it and the Bibles in use by protestant churches is the Catholic Bible includes several books called the "Apocrapha", these books don't disagree with the rest of the Bible.
They don't? That's humorous at best. Why do you think they are called 'The Apocrypha'? What do you think is the origin of the term apocryphal? Of course they contradict the rest of the Bible and specific beliefs held by the Protestants.
And the Catholic Church doesn't call it 'The Apocrypha' any longer, they use the term 'Septuagint' (from the fact that there are *7* books.)
My journal has hot
Because I could give you examples that you could check out for your own.
Not to mention, there is mounting evidence that complex protiens rain down on Earth (and of course, everywhere else) from space via ) all the time. So, from my seat, this "video" strengthens that view, not the creationist view.
"The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance - it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel Boorstin
what is interesting is that all non african people come from one woman who migrated out of africa with her family becasue all non africans are part of the same mDNA tree and africans have a more diverse mDNA tree.
I am the Alpha and the Omega-3
The title is a joke for anime fans :)
But now for the real meat.
The snowballs from space thing is more or less science fiction not science. The science holds that we did come from earth that we simply started as single celled creatures and evolved over time.
But dose this preclude adam and eve? Thelogens will argue the more dynamic point that adam and eve were the first single celled creatures and in this way theology holds true.
Wiccans already clame the pagan myths are not litteral but symbolic. Eventually Christians will need to make the same clame.
Some theologens already do.
Most of the Christian bible is a historical document but some of it wasn't a matter of historical record.
The mirricals are a matter of interpretation and much debate.
There has even been some scientific exploration into how the red sea could have been parted.
Your welcome to believe what ever you like so long as it fits available facts.
But life from space snowballs dose not.
I don't actually exist.
Wonder if they found a mud filled watch casing that the lead archaelogist throws away while commenting that it must be some discarded child's toy.
Invalid Checksum. Retrying.
When I die, I want someone find my skull 160 millenia from now and gape in awe and wonder. In fact, I'm going to put a big sign on my grave that says, "Do not open until Christmas, 162,052 A.D."
Puny humans.
Visit me on the web at Permanent4.com.
I would like to see some credible evidence before I'll believe that contradictions exist in the Bible.
Perhaps you haven't investigated this too deeply. I would suggest taking a look at this enumeration of "apparent" contradictions.
I am not attempting to discredit the Bible or the religion it supports. I am simply pointing out there's a lot to analyse and contemplate on this particular subject.
Go read for yourself.
Join Tor today!
I've been watching the oldest modern human once a year on his "Rockin New Year's Eve" show for as long as I can remember.
When life gives you lemons, make lemonade. But when life gives you crap, please don't make a beverage out of it.
> And the Catholic Church doesn't call it 'The Apocrypha' any longer, they use the term 'Septuagint' (from the fact that there are *7* books.)
Ah, no. "Apocrypha" just means "hidden away". ["apo" = "away", "kryph-" related to "crypto"]
"Septuagint" refers to the tradition that the Jewish scriptures were translated into Greek by 70 scribes, way back when.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
This new discovery might be a proof that the Christian Religion has some false beliefs... I consider my self as a Christian, but I think we have the right to question some parts of the bible in the light of modern scientific discoveries
If you give a rat's ass about the goofy proto-science and dull genealogical records which comprise the Old Testament. Some of us just stick with the New, which is basically the important part.
ASA
All employees must wash hands before seeking equitable relief.
For those interested in seeing how uninsightful, superstitious, and self-contradicting the works of one of the dozens of ancient civilizations can be, feel free to check The Skeptic's Annotated Bible
Especially if you are a woman, just, or tolerant.
R: That voice. Where have I heard that voice before? B: In about 365 other episodes. But I don't know who it is either.
I thought Dick Clark is the oldest. He must be 250 years old.
"It really made me realize how related we all are, and silences the idiots who think blacks are closer to the apes, and whites are more advanced, etc."
I was watching a show on discovery, and they were talking about how there was a massive genttic bottleneck in the huma race about 75,000 years ago, whre the human race was reduced to a couple of thousand individuals world wide. They couldnt figure out why, untill a vulcaologist saw a talk they gave, and he happend to know about the toba explosion in the pacific that happed at the same time. basically, the human race was damn near wiped out by the volcano, to the point that the average chimpanzee family, has more genetic diversity than the whole human race.
All Troll + "offtopic" mods are meta moderated as "Unfair", because you abused the system.
At last an intelligent comment, culture is cumulative. Other than this posting and one or two others, the level of this discussion is mind-boggling. I saw a PBS special 10 years ago that said foo, I googled and found one page that said bar. Sheesh, it's like a paleoanthropologist or geneticist forum discussing linux based on a single news report of Steve Ballmer's latest gurglings. For those that actually want some information on this topic, try http://anthro.palomar.edu/homo2/ for general paleoanthropology or http://www.wam.umd.edu/~mturn/WWW/deacon.html for an interesting starting point on the prehistory of language.
the apocrypha is totally different than the extra books you are talking about.
what you are referring to is the "deuternomical" books. These were considerred secondary by jewish tradition, and were removed by Martin Luther in his translation.
The apocrypha - are tottally different, and do disagree with much of the rest of the bible... like the bible according to timothy.
... hi bingo
This is the result of a misunderstanding of creationism.
And I wouldn't worry about you being marked as a troll. Evolutionists are almost never marked troll. I find however, no matter how rational or kind/non confrontational I make my pro-creationist posts they get modded troll. But I don't mind, people like my other posts enough that my karma will be impervious to their attacks!
Here is what happened. Adam and Eve were created man and woman, the first two humans. They had many children, sons and daughters. These sons and daughters married each other (if there was an official ceremony) and had children. These children were safe from the dangers of mutations since they were the offspring of flawless parents. That means there were no common recessive harmful mutations to share amongst each other. Incest was only outlawed much later (around 2000 years later I think) when mutations had become rife and the dangers were stronger. Then it wasn't restricted to cousins - in fact, amongst cousins I believe the danger is ~2% or something, but that could be wrong.
As for going over the hill, that is a load of crock - and the result of a misreading of the Bible (or perhaps imagining verses that aren't there), and a misunderstanding of genetics.
thomas, not timothy...
thomas has jesus doing miracles at like age 9...
... hi bingo
I cannot possibly reply any more eloquently than Black Parrot does in this post.
Join Tor today!
I have to say that I am slightly amused that "Captain Beefheart" is talking about brain food and nutrition.
Life moves pretty fast; if you don't stop and look around once in a while, you could miss it. -FB
Not according to the Old, which proclaims that the Jews are the chosen people of God.
... discovering quarks qualifies as a miracle, in my book), and not in a burning bush. God has stopped screaming, and started whispering, it seems to me.
All the New Testament does is revise this, saying that "whosoever shall believe in me shall not die but have everlasting life." This is nothing more than a questioning of the Old Testament's teachings in light of new evidence. Why stop there?
Can you prove that the light of scientific discovery is not the Voice of God for a new generation? It certainly seems plausible that the miracles being shown to everyday people in the current day and age are inside of science ("whoa, electrons, protons, and neutrons are not the fundamental particles"
Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former. (Einstein)
I am a creationist ::hears laughter in the background::. Is anyone else? Doesnt anyone know what a load of bull this is?
The skulls also demonstrate evidence of ritual burial.
They must have been going for chivalry. Knights kick ass.
you are getting [...] attention
Well, maybe you should just ignore him.
-no broken link
You might want to reconsider you comments, or enjoy your time in hell. :)
Scott
> He clearly, many times in the NT, directly claims to be fully God.
Is it possible he never claimed that? Maybe all his followers were putting words into his mouth. Which appears to be what you are doing to the parent poster -- he didn't call Jesus a liar or a lunatic.
Your claim that he was just a really insightful good teacher is, well, just plain wrong.
:)
Why can't you be an insightful, yet insane, good teacher? A good teacher with a god complex, if you will?
No, Mitochrondria is basically a mini-cell within a cell. These "power plant" units have their own DNA. These can only come from the egg, so the mitochrondia DNA isn't re-combined with that male/female XX/XY process. Thus, it is a much better way to map history than the usual DNA.
You've been reading too much C.S. Lewis. This is a classic, and now textbook, example of a false dilemna. Real people are complex, and real people have all sorts of complex mixes of nutty and insightful. Newton was a genius: he was also nuts when it came to the arcane. People can have all sort of crazy beliefs and also be insightful. People tell the truth a little, people lie a little, and some people are a little bit nutty (the vast majority of people with mental illness aren't "insane" but are quite high functioning, just with some odd beliefs: just look up schitzotypal personality disorder). In fact, you don't even take your own argument seriously because if you did you'd have to accept the claims of mystics and phrophets in a whole host of other religions who made extreme claims about who and what they were, but also made insightful comments.
Sorry, that's incorrect. Homo and australopithecine species are known as "Hominids" or family Hominidae. The great apes are all "Hominoids" or superfamily Hominoidia.
Jeremy
Not incorrect. It really depends on who you ask.
Some scientists prefer a broader definition of the Hominidae, others a narrower definition. The broader definition has gained significant ground with scientists in the past two decades as a result of molecular studies illustrating that all the great apes (humans included) form a clade of very closely related species.
The narrower definition is a left-over of the days of mythological distinctions between man and animal.
These days, Hominoidea is still a superfamily constituting the Hylobatidae (gibbons and siamangs) and the Hominidae. Within the Hominidae are the subfamilies Ponginae (orangs) and Homininae (the African apes). Still further below the Homininae is the tribe Hominini (humans and our related bipedal apes).
Gee, I just graduated Monday with a degree in Primatology and this is news to me. The wonders of Slashdot!
Jeremy
What kind of a fascist Moderation is this?
I expressed my opinion in the start of this thread with specific points and paradigms...
And I get a flamebait??
Even though I explicitly say that this is only a 'food for thought', an opinion???
Dear Moderator, congratulations on bringing the Slashdot in the dark ages when the so-called 'witches' were burned in a pyre!!!!
You haven't have the slightest idea what moderation means, my friend.
Moderation is a responsibility. You don't just 'flambaiting' someone for having a different opinion!!
I believe that Iam entitled to be leveled at least to a score 0.
I dont want to be moderated as Interesting or Insightfull or anything but it is a matter of personal integrity not to be regarded as a flamebait for simply expressing (with examples, logic and facts) my opinions
because thats where the money is.
I mean thats where the funds for studies are sanctioned.
Thats how you can prove...SEE? africans are primitive.
If africans get their act together they'll fund studies showing whites are H.erectus not even neanderthals.
Because africa is where modern humans emerged, and messopatamia is where civilization first emerged. Two completly different things. Think of the difference between an anthropologist and an archealogist.
Jack Valenti and Orrin Hatch will be first up against the wall when the revolution comes.
With all the bible trashing it hasn't really occured to anyone that a single origin for all of mankind from the area where the garden of eden is supposed to be located is now supported by the scientific evidence. I don't think it's a coincidence. Is it religion that must accomodate science, or science converging with religion?
Intelligent Design Theory is not Creationism
Actually, you might be more familiar with them as the Phonecians... bit to late historically to be Neanderthals, sorry.
DNA just wants to be free...
BTW, that holds true for ALL documents. Just because Tom Clancy puts "Based on a true story" at the beginning of a book doesn't mean it actually happend (I don't know if he ever has, I don't read Tom Clancy). Again, I'm not saying the Bible is complete fiction, but you can't take a book at face value just because said book tells the reader that everything in it is true.
A man who can't pronouce "nuclear arsenal" shouldn't have one -sig ends here.
If you are studying the development and relationships of and between primates, it makes sense start at the place where there is the most varieties. Besides, you are referring to the beginning of civilization, which is about the point in time where this type of research stops. Not much happens genetically in 8000 years when your time between generations is at least 12 years or so.
Nicholas Harbour
Nearly half of all people are below average
No, the apocrypha (or deuterocanonicals as we call them) do not disagree with the rest of the Bible. In fact, these books were included in the Septuagint, the Greek version of the Bible used by the Evangelists.
Speaking of good science articles, if I were only able to buy one, should I buy a subscription to Science or Nature? I can handle 100 dollars a year, but I'm not so sure about 200.
And I'm sorry to see that this has turned into a creationism vs. evolution debate. (Evolution is a fact, btw). But it's like flogging a dead horse.
Scientific American and Discover are good too, but it's pretty cool reading the actual publications they refer to.
Also, how big is a typical issue of Nature or Science? I'd think they're pretty big by the TOC, which was quite impressive for a single issue.
Thanks; I'd never heard of that idea before. I had heard that lots of ancient cultures drank weak beer whenever they could instead of water for the health benefits (fewer deleterious microorganisms), but it hadn't occurred to me that beer is one "food" source you can't pluck off a bush or hit with a spear.
Do you know where you heard this, off-hand? I'd like to see what the evidence is; it would be hilarious if civilization was the result of beer.
But specifically, in reference to your listing of Piltdown, Nebraska man, and Java man, read the extensive talk.origins FAQs on these very items: (emphasis added by me)
Nor is it true, as is often claimed, that Dubois kept the existence of the Wadjak skulls secret because knowledge of them would have discredited Java Man. Dubois briefly reported the Wadjak skulls in three separate publications in 1890 and 1892. Despite being corrected on this in a debate in 1982 and in print (Brace 1986), Gish has continued to make this claim, even stating, despite not having apparently read Dubois' reports, that they did not mention the Wadjak skulls (Fezer 1993)."
In the 90 years since then have we developed better and more rigorous testing methods? Yes. But even during those 40 years it took for the full hoax to be revealed, faults with Piltdown were found, long before testing showed that they were recent skulls: "...It should be remembered that, at the time of Piltdown finds, there were very few early hominid fossils; Homo neanderthalensis and Homo sapiens were clearly fairly late. It was expected that there was a "missing link" between ape and man ... Piltdown man had the expected mix of features, which lent it plausibility as a human precursor.
This plausibility did not hold up. During the next two decades there were a number of finds of ancient hominids and near hominids, e.g. Dart's discovery of Australopith
My personal take on Hell is it is simply getting what you ask for, to have nothing to do with God. If you believe as I and many others do, you know that God is everywhere within His creation, so no matter what you do in this life he is never far from you. God reaches out to you and comforts you even though you are unaware and are sometimes hostile to Him.
Imagine the feeling youâ(TM)d have if you killed everyone you love (including you wife with whom you are just as madly in love as the day you married her over 15 years ago) in a plain crash. All because you didnâ(TM)t take the time to pay attention to what you were doing and were willfully negligent. You are the only survivor and become stranded by yourself for the rest of your life. What if that rest of your life were thousands of years and you spent each day knowing that you put all those people who loved you so much, and who you loved so much, away from you forever? Imagine the loneliness, the regret, the despair. Imagine that every day after the crash you felt just as alone and just as regretful as the first day. Imagine NEVER feeling better. All of this happening because of your own choices, and you have no one to blame but yourself. That would only be a small glimpse of what hell might be like.
Now imagine the flip side. Imagine that instead of being alone for all eternity you were loved. What if instead of never seeing or talking to anyone again, you were part of a society that is governed by a perfect being and therefore keeps all members in perfect check without even needing to discipline His citizens. Imagine a place where all desires are pure and never unfulfilled. Again only the smallest glimpse of what Heaven might be like.
How could God force either on us and still love us? He couldnâ(TM)t let everyone into heaven because heaven is being with him and He is perfect. Imperfect (sinful) beings like us canâ(TM)t exist in the presents of perfection. (That is why Jesus died, to take the rap for our sins making us clean and therefore able to stand in the presence of God.)
Likewise He wonâ(TM)t send everyone to Hell; that is not what we were created for (Do you have children with your spouse with the express purpose of harming or abandoning them?). In order for a choice to be with God to mean anything the option to not be with Him must be there. When given a choice people are bound to make different choices for different reasons. God knows what we are going to chose because he is not âoein timeâ and therefore sees His creation as a whole not only as something with a beginning and end. In other words we are not fated to go to one or the other by God. Just because God knows what we will chose doesnâ(TM)t mean we donâ(TM)t still have to make the choice.
Now if God were to truly prove His existents beyond all doubt, where would the choice be? If He removed all doubt that He exists how could anyone choice to NOT follow Him?
Obviously I presuppose that God exists and that judeo Christian beliefs are correct. If you want to scoff at my beliefs as absurd I sure hope you donâ(TM)t believe in evolution. Because if you do then youâ(TM)re telling me that itâ(TM)s more absurd to think that we were created by God then to think that all life came from a rock. I donâ(TM)t expect that everyone will agree with me, or that I will really change peopleâ(TM)s minds.
P.S. I would like to apologize for all those people who do not present to gospel and anything more than a cure for hell.
First, he ain't my saviour. :) I just like playing Devil's Advocate (if you'll pardon the pun ;). Second, sure, why not?
:)
Jesus: You should all be nice to one another, 'cuz we're all human beings and thus we are brothers.
Some Guy: Yeah, you're totally right, Jesus. Great idea!
Jesus: Yeah, and then you have to be saved through me, because you are a sinner in the eyes of almight God. Otherwise you will burn in the depths of hell for eternity!
Some Guy: Err... okay... *backs away slowly*
See, insightful, but a nut all the same.
Well, if
Nothing is absolutely, positively NOTHING! NOTHING!!
Than it never existed, and never happened. If nothing is absolute than there was nothing, including NO GOD.
Wasn't someone earlier talking about contradictions?
Mike
> maybe when they become FOSSILIZED
Despite the fact that there was no post, the point is very good. Since they are fossils, they are just copies of the original skull (fragments) made from deposited rock/limestone/whatever and not the actual skull of the person.
again, you are using the wrong term.
... off hand.. ruth, maccabes, baruch... and one or two others. They are still included in the Catholic bible, but not in an "protestant" version, as Martin Luther mis-interpreted the jewish tradition of considering them to be secondary to the pentateuch.
the apocrypha refers to books outright rejected from the (roman catholic) canon, because they are not considerred to be divinely inspired.
in the roman catholic tradition, the books you refer to are called the deuternomical texts. these deuteronomical texts. these are
the preceding wellesly link considers the books i'm talking about to be apocrypha, because the welleslyan church is an offshoot of luther.
i'm guessing that you are educated in a protestant tradition, which is why we are arguing semantics here, however i feel it is necessary to draw a line between deuteronomic texts such as baruch and ruth, and apocrypha such as Enoch and the Gospel according to Thomas.
if you read the deuteronomic texts that i refer to, and compare them to some of the apocrypha i have listed, you will notice that the apocrypha most definitely does not fit in with the rest of the bible, and the deuteronomics aree a nice companion and in agreement, though not necessary.
seriously, read the gospel of thomas and tell me that its congruent with the rest of the christian bible.
... hi bingo
try this link, damnit
... hi bingo
Interestingly though, the Berkley article states that "Howell added that these anatomically modern humans pre-date most neanderthals, and therefore could not have descended from them, as some scientists have proposed."
If the relative age difference could be relied upon (which is suspect considering the possibility of excess argon in the volcanic layers they dated), this could point to a possible "dark ages" of civilization after an initial period of greater civilization.
If you believe the general flow of history as documented by the Bible, this would be consistent with an intelligent race which falls into decline after a widespread flood followed by an ice age.
Life's a lot like money-- you spend it, then it's gone. Spend wisely.
> your time between generations is at least 12 years or so.
12 years? Wouldn't that mean that the average woman becomes pregnant at the age of 11yrs 3mos? I realize you said "at least" 12 years, but it looks like a low estimate to me.
The new findings show that modern looking Homo sapiens existed 160,000 years ago. Petralona is one of many skulls that show that earlier Homo sapiens didn't look like modern humans, i.e. none of these earlier skulls could be confused with a modern human. These earlier fossils range from not-quite modern to not-quite Homo erectus.
It's not the book, it's the knowlege inside the book. You try and make it sound like people are basing their belief of some fancy wood plup.
"Mitochondrial Eve has been shown in secular literature (ever heard of the magazine "Science") to have lived ~6000 years ago. Evidence of the flood here."
.
What's going on?! I used the exact same message (below) already once this week for the exact same argument. Fortunately somebody else already took care of the rest of your message so I don't have to.
One nit to pick. Going back to the original "Research News" article in Science (vol 279 issue 5347 pg 28-29), we see that instead of this being evidence for a ~6000 year old mitochondrial eve, we have to reconsider some of our beliefs about mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA), or more specifically a region of mtDNA called the D-loop, which comprises only 7% of mtDNA and which most mtDNA studies have used. One of the biggies is that most mtDNA studies use "so-called "noncoding" sequences of the control region of mtDNA, which do not code for gene products and therefore are thought to be free from natural selection." to quote the article. Another is to check and see if we are instead hitting "hotspots," regions with above-average mutation rates; hotspots will have more back- and parallel-mutations which will cloud the picture. A third is that the mutation rate may vary over time. A fourth is to investigate the issue of heteroplasmy--having multiple mtDNA sequences, even though for a given region there should be only one. For a while it was thought to be rare, now 10-20% of the population could be heteroplasmic. All of these issues would need to be addressed by the creationists before it could be considered evidence of a ~6,000 year old mitochondrial eve rather than a problem with the underlying assumptions of the technique. Indeed, with the advancement of our ability to manipulate and sequence DNA, we no longer have to utilize only 7% of the mtDNA--we can sequence the whole thing--all 16,000 or so base pairs of it. A recent study published in Nature (vol 408 pg 708-713, Dec. 2000) using mtDNA--all of it--found that the D-loop (used in most mtDNA studies) does not have a constant mutation rate. The study goes on to show (again using the whole mtDNA sequence) that the date of "mitochondrial eve" is about 170,000 years ago. A more reader-friendly report by the author of the Nature paper can be found here
Say, you ever get a chance to actually read that Dalrymple article you so badly mangled? Here's a refresher. Just go up the thread.
This would put humans WAY before the creation of Adam and Eve date-wise according to the Bible! More evidence against validity of the Bible in my opinion.
oldest modem people found
and thought I was going to be reading about a bunch of hard core 110 baud folks..
every day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random
Sorry, my mistake, I got confused from reading some of the parent posts and thought you were talking about what Protestants call the apocrypha, and we Catholics call the deuterocanonical books, and saying that those were "totally different" from the rest of the Bible and disagreed with it.
However, I think you're wrong about the term "deuteronomical". As I understand it, that's an adjective that describes something having to do with the book of Deuteronomy. The correct term should be, as I had said earlier, "deuterocanonical".
Anyway, sorry about the misunderstanding!
12 years sounds crazy now days, but up until recently life spans were only until your twenties. We as a species have not always held your victorian view of sexuality. In nature, things generally become sexually active with puberty. I am not sure what the exact mean age for girls to hit puberty is but it has been documented to have increased throughout history. If you go back 10 or 15 thousand years, a 12 year old girl would be sexually mature (And theoretically in a mid-life crisis :) and would likely be pregnant as soon as possible. You must not also forget that in those days you needed to give birth often, because the odds of it surviving to maturity were even at best.
So to answer you question no, it is not a particularly low estimate. But the time between generations is important to adaptability in genetics, since everything works on a generation level. Thats why those cockroaches can adapt so much faster that us. They can have hundreds and thousands of generations before we can have one. if you look at the original post, the context of that was that 8 thousand years is not much time genetically speaking when you have to wait at least 12 years to give birth. If you feel more comfortable saying 18 then that would only further prove my point, even though it is false.
Nearly half of all people are below average
There are multiple FAQs/reviews on Bones of Contention. "The major argument of Marvin Lubenow's book Bones of Contention (1992) is that the various species of hominid cannot form an evolutionary sequence because they overlap one another in time... Once it is realized that this argument is based on a misunderstanding of evolutionary theory, Lubenow's book loses much of its force."
Do you think Java man is a human or ape? Looking at all the species of hominids we know about, can you draw a line to separate human from ape? Why can't Gish, Lubenow and others agree on which are apes? As one Lubenow FAQ asks: ""If two eminent authorities cannot agree whether these skulls are human or ape, does this not imply that they are, um, intermediate?"
Interesting point on Scopes. Another FAQ on Nebraska Man (including the Scopes trial) talks about this "...Osborn apparently began to have doubts about his identification of the tooth shortly before the Scopes "monkey trial" in July 1925, and he stopped mentioning it in his publications. It seems likely that the crumbling of the Fundamentalist assault on evolution in the years following the Scopes trial prevented the Hesperopithecus affair from becoming a serious embarrassment to evolutionists. Although Nebraska Man did not survive long enough to become widely accepted by the scientific community and was quickly forgotten when its true identity was recognized, Hesperopithecus is again being trotted out in the current recrudescence of creationist attacks on evolution. The creationists who belittle mistakes by scientists cannot admit that science advances, in part, by correcting error. "
First of all, what we define as civilization is largely a product of ego. We look for characteristics of ourselves when we're looking for "civilization". We are mostly sedentary(i.e. not nomadic) with a hierarchial power structure and specialization of labor. (e.g. we have doctors, butchers, farmers, etc.) Arguably, for the few nomadic groups we haven't dragged out of the jungles & deserts and sent to work in factories yet, civilization came a lot earlier and only know are we decending into barbarism. I, however, like my bed, my fridge, and my TV, so let's go with what we know.
Most traditional archaeologists tend to think of civilization as a sort of ladder, and the first few rungs were actually quite slippery. Here's one possible ladder: (there are several)
First, if you want to have a town with art, politics, beer, hookers, etc. the first thing you need is a food supply that is reliable and doesn't move around a lot.
Deer, elk, tapirs, camels, elephants, etc. all move around most vexingly. Turnips do not. Agriculture is the way to go! For agriculture, you need a crop. Something to grow.
We can grow beans, squash, wheat, turnips, you name it. Unfortunately, these are all highly domesticated plants that we've been selectively breeding for thousands of years. Take corn for example. Today a stalk of corn puts out great big honking cobs chock full of juicy kernals. 50,000 years ago the stuff looked a lot like grass. It is in fact, more than a little bit unlikely that you could have lived off the stuff back then. (more on that later) So if no suitable crops existed, we had to breed one.
Here we hit a major hang up. Breeding massive changes into plants isn't exactly a speedy process when you *know* what you're doing. How exactly our ancestors ever managed to develop a crop suitable for agriculture is actually quite a hot topic of debate! Still, somehow we managed, but it probably took a while. Even for relatively smart people, it is not inconceivable that this took tens of thousands of years.
-----
Now for an alternate take on things... Beer is the root of civilization. Yes, that most lovely of liquids: the Wobbly Pop.
Take the domestication of corn in the america's for example. At first we had a sorry grass-like plant that would have been a royal pain in the ass to try to live off of. However, as it was, collecting relatively small ammounts to ferment into chicha (BEER!) for those important social events (religion?) was a much more reasonable undertaking. Of course, excessive beer consumption does tend to make one lazy, so naturally our fastly-becoming-religious ancestors decided to start throwing a bunch of seeds together in one place so they didn't have to look all over the bloody planet to round up enough for a good er... mass. Gradually they tossed the crappier grass out and the better stuff got inbred, mutated all to hell, and gradually become more and more like the corn of today. Eventually, we got a crop good enough to actually become a dietary staple. Someone might then have said "Hey guys! We can eat this stuff too! F@$* this walking around all day BS. Let's just stay here all the time. There's BEER!"
So we have a nice town springing forth from the wilderness. Art, culture, and all the trappings of civilization are flowering forth... and people are shitting in the river. This is baaad. People are getting sick! Fortunately, achohol tends to be safer to drink than brownish water! While the high-proof Canadian beers of today would be a tad difficult to live on, the watered down chicha of the day was just the thing for daily consumption. To this day there are still countries where beer is cheaper than safe drinking water. As a beneficial side effect, people with beer tend to be easier to talk into paying taxes, running off to kill people they've never met before, building pyramids, etc...
Of course, archaeology itself would be nowhere without beer. Seriously, how many major archaeological digs ar
This is the result of a misunderstanding of creationism.
... lacking (to use a polite description)?
... lacking (to use a polite description)?
Have you ever considered that there are enough science literate people on Slashdot that understand creationism, and have found it
I find however, no matter how rational or kind/non confrontational I make my pro-creationist posts they get modded troll.
Again, have you ever considered that there are enough science literate people on Slashdot that understand creationism, and have found it
Also, when you talk about creationism, do you mean Young Earth, Old Earth, Intellegent Design, etc, or any of the other creation myths of all those other religions? One thing all of these have in common is that:
1. They are not scientific
2. There is little if any evidence for it outside of their own religious texts
Now, when I say they are not scientific, I mean that it does not meet any of the criteria needed to be a scientific theory - Explaining the evidence, making predictions that can be examined, and be falsifiable (you can devise tests that could possibly disprove it). For years, creationists have been asked for a scientific theory of creationism on the Usenet newsgroup talk.origins - and none has *ever* been posted.
And as far as using the Bible as evidence, I hope you realize that the Bible is full of inaccuracies and total falsehoods (example: The Great Worldwide Flood - there is overwhelming evidence that it never happened).
Now, your explanation of how the human race was created, well, it is amusing fiction. Of course, it completely contradicts all known fossil and genetic evidence. It's ironic when you talk about others having a misunderstanding of genetics when you post this stuff.
-asb
Yes, I have - and I've found it not to be true. I have *never* found a slashdotter who yet understands the creationist position. And the biggest problem is that they all *think* they do when their posts display obvious fundamental misunderstandings.
Again, have you ever considered that there are enough science literate people on Slashdot that understand creationism, and have found it ... lacking (to use a polite description)?
That's still no reason to moderate it troll. Overrated....maybe, but certainly not troll.
Now, when I say they are not scientific, I mean that it does not meet any of the criteria needed to be a scientific theory - Explaining the evidence, making predictions that can be examined, and be falsifiable (you can devise tests that could possibly disprove it). For years, creationists have been asked for a scientific theory of creationism on the Usenet newsgroup talk.origins - and none has *ever* been posted.
Every time this has been posted I ask the person who seaid it to provide me first with the equivalent evolutionary theory, so I can produce or see if something of a similar nature can be made. Besides, creationism model isn't scientific in the true sense, but it does make a few predictions that can be proven right or wrong by the use of scientific methods. Evolution employs unscientific methods also, AFAIK. For example, has anyone ever observed the whale evolving from a land mammal? What is a scientific, repeatable, observable test to prove that?
And as far as using the Bible as evidence, I hope you realize that the Bible is full of inaccuracies and total falsehoods (example: The Great Worldwide Flood - there is overwhelming evidence that it never happened).
How pursuasive. Care to point me to actual arguments?
Now, your explanation of how the human race was created, well, it is amusing fiction. Of course, it completely contradicts all known fossil and genetic evidence. It's ironic when you talk about others having a misunderstanding of genetics when you post this stuff.
I wasn't presenting a scientific argument. I was demonstrating within the constraints of the Biblical explanation, how it is possible that these first children found partners. Besides, the problem with most fossil/genetic evidence is that it's based on evolutionary assumptions. For example, mtDNA was believed to prove show that mtDNA eve lived around 200,000 years ago. However, the rate of mutation of mtDNA was decided by evolutionary assumptions, ie "mtDNA eve should have lived around this long ago, so this is what the mutation rate should be". Later it was discovered the mutation rate was around 20x faster, resulting in an mtDNA eve around 6,000 years ago. So I am skeptical that there is huge amounts of fossil and genetic evidence - I'm guessing, case by case, that these were all dated by evolutionary assumptions rather than blind tests...and there's other evidence that indicates a young earth.
I consider it the role of posters to demonstrate the incorrect or inaccurate nature of a post - definately not the role of mob moderation. We're not interested in whether someone *thinks* something is incorrect, but rather why it is incorrect.
Arent they? All the books within it a supposedly written by people anyway. Im just saying that there is no reason to have DNA at all if God created all of us.
Fine, how about this. When you go to heaven its a happy place right? Most people will assume they can remember their coporeal life (if you couldnt, youd be rewarded for things you cannot remember, or punished for that matter). Dont you think youd have sorrow or grief for people you knew that didnt make it? Thats not too happy, getting to witness people you love burn forever.
And how is this any different than basing your beliefs on a book filled with provable facts?
You might want to note that the article you linked to is a teaser for a book whose table of contents includes an appendix titled "HIV is Not the Cause of AIDS", a view he shares with few people except Falwell and Mbeki. He's also written a book about "orgones", some sort of pseudoscientific chi energy thing. (I became suspicious when I noticed a white American blaming all the ills of humanity on Africa and Asia, and singling out England in particular as a last European bastion of "matrism".) Not such an intellectual it seems. But, lest you rightly accuse me of attacking one work on the faults of another, I've read his article and I can poke some big holes in it:
In summary, as compelling as his argument sounds at first, I'm going to need to see proof--not just logical explanations accompanied by evidence that seems entirely one-sided, before I'll accept DeMeo's theory of patrism and matrism. As tempting as it is to accept a theory that supposedly explains all of human suffering and blames it on authoritative men who repress and abuse women and children, it just isn't that simple.
Gates' Law: Every 18 months, the speed of software halves.
Now, suddenly, the Bible is innerrant (something that would require precisely what you are trying to prove)? Beg any more questions today, or are you done with your half-assed apologetics?
Regardless, I don't consider Jesus to be a particularly outstanding or original moral teacher. Name me one moral idea of his that was original, or even articulated better than previous thinkers.
And don't even try to sell me on the suspiciously pagan voodoo sacrifice trope wherein the blood of an innocent gives magical cleansing power to the unclean. God briefly murders himself to "pay back "a debt that he is demanding... apparently from himself. That sure makes a lot of sense! Are we going to toss the virgin Mary into a volcano next to appease the great Volcano gods?
A common textbook definition of it is: Evolution can be precisely defined as any change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next.
Here is a simplified version of it: Evolution is a process that results in heritable changes in a population spread over many generations.
About the evidence refuting a worldwide flood:
How pursuasive. Care to point me to actual arguments?
Sure. Heres a Link that not also gives the arguements, but also has links to additional information.
About mtDNA:
Later it was discovered the mutation rate was around 20x faster
Parsons found a rate that was 20 times higher than other researchers, but the original value tends to result in better correlation with the fossil record.
It seems that you are a young earth creationist - here is a page with links to articles on the problems with a young earth.
If you have not already done so, there is a great book called "Rabbi Jesus" that you might care to read. It changed my way of thinking about a few things, which is damned hard to do (I'm a stubborn old fart). And as for the 160,000-year-old skulls, I don't know about you folks but I feel a lot younger already!
Let me pull up what I think summarizes the "ideas" of Jesus the best, Matt 22:34-40:
Jesus himself admits these ideas aren't "new" - they go back all the way to Genesis if you look. These laws are merely a summary of the OT laws (and "Law", the Pentateuch), with "your neighbor" now meaning "all people" as opposed to simply Isreal. Let's face it, given how selfish people are, if everyone "loved their neighbor as yourself", there would be world peace! World peace in five words. So how was this idea better articulated by someone else?
I'd really like to thank you for that link to the ICR. Several months back I was arguing the exact same issue and I was wondering where exactly the source was from. Now whenever I need to present clear-cut examples of "scientific" creationist fraud I've got another excellent example. The ICR can't even read a table correctly: the "dates" that they give for the lava samples aren't dates at all, but instead refer to how far an individual sample was from the expected concentration of Ar-40. The ICR also fails to mention that some samples had lower levels of Ar-40 than expected. The true irony is that rather than this article (Dalrymple) undermining the validity of radiometric dating, it is clearly supporting.
But don't take my word for it. Read the paper yourself: G.B. Dalrymple, "40Ar/36Ar Analyses of Historic Lava Flows," Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 6 (1969): pp. 47-55. It'll be available at (or at least through interlibrary loan) any university.
> Why does it appear that anthropologists only
> work in Africa?
Good question, why does it appear to *you* that anthropologists only work in Africa. Could it be that you simply don't pay attention to the many news items about finds in Portugal or Croatia, or Iraq, or Mexico?
> Why don't they go to the real birthplace
> of human civilization?
Maybe because it's currently a war zone?
And What does civilization have to do with it? that's not what these particular anthropologists are stufying. These finds relate to remains that are 140,000 years away from "civilization".
> The bottom line is that the fertile crecent
> area of Mesopotamia is where everything got
> started, not Africa
Hmm, did Uzxgrip from the Planet Xenon tell you this directly? Just because agriculture, and writing may have started there (among other places) doesn't mean that everything else started there. Do you assume that the Finns invented mathematics because you know that Linux was invented in Finland?
12 years sounds crazy now days, but up until recently life spans were only until your twenties
Good point. The only change I would make is "up until recently in industrialized countries". The odds of living past thirty are less than even in many countries of the world today.
Uh: by virtually every other major moral philosopher in previous history (Socrates, for one)? By many different Eastern mystics and philosophers? I mean, the idea that if we treat each other well, the world will be great, is not exactly an earth-shattering insight.
Quotes? Examples? Who are these Eastern mystics that said your salvation was dependent on your heart, not on what you do? That obedience to God was fulfilled in loving your fellow man? Ancient religions were full of "salvation by works" notions... but what Jesus talked about was entirely new - so new, in fact, the Jewish authorites felt the need to have him crucified.
Here is a simplified version of it: Evolution is a process that results in heritable changes in a population spread over many generations.
Bah, that's not evolution at all. I mean, it is and it isn't. The evolution I disagree with is the idea that all living things alive today could have originated from simple single celled live, over time evolving through inheritence to become what we see today. What you describe as evolution I have no problems with.
So give me the description of the theory that causes so much controversy.
So give me the description of the theory that causes so much controversy.
Sorry, but that is the theory. I guess you don't realize that the long term implication is that starting from a simple single cell, over time evolving to become the diversity of life that we see today.
As far as controversy, in the fields of science related to biology, there is no controversy. And even major Christian denominations, such as the Methodist Church and Catholic Church have no problem with evolution. They even teach it in their biology classes
-asb
The disagreance is whether those mutations lead to the simple organisms->today's life, and that is simply not covered by the theory you provided. We believe these mutations are insufficient to ever lead to what evolutionists claim.
As far as controversy, simply because many people accept evolution does not mean it is right - evolutionists are fond of quoting Galileo's experiences, so am I. Galileo was by far a minority view. I have no problem with considering something that is a minority view to be correct.
Now you need to provide for me the description of the testable theory that creationists disagree with - simple organisms->life today. The statement you gave does not describe that at all.
Something I should have picked up before:
Parsons found a rate that was 20 times higher than other researchers, but the original value tends to result in better correlation with the fossil record.
What you are saying is that even though the true mutation rates did not fit with the fossil record, the ones that were invented based on the fossil record correlate with it better and so should be used. Or something else? It seems to me you are saying that "if something disagrees with what we believe it can't be true". I think you need to explain this more carefully, because right now it looks like you are willing to invent numbers to support evolution.
And then He got first post?
you're right...
:-)
deuterocanonical.... is what i was talking about, and apocrypha has always meant "things that were never included in the bible"
so... what were we arguing about again?
... hi bingo
The disagreance is whether those mutations lead to the simple organisms->today's life, and that is simply not covered by the theory you provided. We believe these mutations are insufficient to ever lead to what evolutionists claim.
:). Now, I didn't just say that many people accept evolution, I indicated that experts in the areas of science and religion accept it. While I myself have no problems with considering a minority viewpoint, to take the other viewpoint against such a well supported theory such as evolution requires real evidence - which creationists don't have - such as a mechanism that would prohibit species evolving into new new species.
No. New species arise from existing species. The only way that it wouldn't is if there was some sort of mechanism that would keep sufficient mutations from accumulating from happening - something that has never been found.
As far as controversy, simply because many people accept evolution does not mean it is right - evolutionists are fond of quoting Galileo's experiences, so am I. Galileo was by far a minority view. I have no problem with considering something that is a minority view to be correct.
Well, you know the old saying: They laughed at Galileo, they laughed at Einstein. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown.
What you are saying is that even though the true mutation rates did not fit with the fossil record, the ones that were invented based on the fossil record correlate with it better and so should be used.
No, I did not say that. I said he found different values than did other researchers. And the values others found (not invented) correlate better with known information.
I think you need to explain this more carefully, because right now it looks like you are willing to invent numbers to support evolution.
Actually, it looks more like your side is willing to invent numbers, since you are willing to grab one set of numbers that do not correlate with what all the other researchers have found. It reminds me of the "moon dust", where creationists tried to use long discredited results from a poorly run experiment to claim that a lack of deep moon dust was evidence of the moon being young.
BTW, in an erlier post, you seem to indicate that you are a young earth creationist - do you realize that it was a hot topic (Omphalos Hypothesis) back in the 19th century, but it was dropped because of the quandry of having God creating the earth relatively recently but leaving overwhelming evidence of great age - God the deceiver. The young earth creationist has problems with many other branches of science, including Geology, Chemistry, Physics, Astronomy, not just Biology. All of these sciences point to a very old earth and older universe.
-asb
I have been reading up on this issue for a long time.
No. New species arise from existing species. The only way that it wouldn't is if there was some sort of mechanism that would keep sufficient mutations from accumulating from happening - something that has never been found.
You are not going to fool me - this works the other way. Mutations have not been observed to gradually give rise to new species. The processes that evolution claim created life on earth have *never* been observed. You make it sound like these mutations are assuredly going to give rise to new species. In fact, you just have no understanding of genetics. These mutations change information, but they don't demonstrate the process by which the original simple single celled life could have possibly obtained more information to create more complex life forms. We simply don't observe it - and that is why it is unscientific to claim that it happened. Don't you see though - you have taken something that is observed, and extrapolated that into something we can't observe. That is unscientific.
Again regarding mtDNA I suggest you read my post here and then view the responses and replies by BCGlorfindel, perhaps that will make it clearer for you.
And ditch your elephant hurling - "This is a debate tactic known as âelephant hurlingâ(TM). This is where the critic throws summary arguments about complex issues to give the impression of weighty evidence, but with an unstated presumption that a large complex of underlying ideas is true, and failing to consider opposing data, usually because they have uncritically accepted the arguments from their own side. But we should challenge elephant-hurlers to offer specifics and challenge the underlying assumptions." (from AiG website). I'minterested in specifics, not generalities. Problems with geology, chemistry, physics, astronomy, biology? I'd rather deal with them because I think they can be answered. Your general responses do nothing to pursuade me.
Obviously you are knocking on a book you haven't read. This subject, too, is accounted for.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not a Bible thumper. (sometimes I wish I had the courage to be, though). What I am saying is that it takes more faith to believe in big-bangs and mutating monkeys than it does to believe in God. It was with that realization in mind that I decided to actually study that book to see for myself
SL33ZE - Artificial Intelligence is No Match For Natural Stupidity -
You think that I haven't looked into this at all don't you? You think that I've heard some people saying "we have overwhelming evidence that the earth is young" and left it at that?
And how many scientists in the field of biology, geology, astronomy, physics, and chemistry have you convinced? About zero. You cannot even convince most mainstream Christian denominations.
Mutations have not been observed to gradually give rise to new species.
Just grabbing a few quick references...
Barton, N. H., J. S. Jones and J. Mallet. 1988. No barriers to speciation. Nature. 336:13-14.
Callaghan, C. A. 1987. Instances of observed speciation. The American Biology Teacher. 49:3436.
Cracraft, J. 1989. Speciation and its ontology: the empirical consequences of alternative species concepts for understanding patterns and processes of differentiation. In Otte, E. and J. A. Endler [eds.] Speciation and its consequences. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, MA. pp. 28-59.
Schluter, D. and L. M. Nagel. 1995. Parallel speciation by natural selection. American Naturalist. 146:292-301.
Ramadevon, S and Deaken, M.A.B., 1991, The Gibbons speciation mechanism, Journal of Theoretical Biology, Volume 145(4) pages 447-456.
Sharman, G.B., Close, R.L, Maynes, G.M., 1991, Chromosome evolution, phylogeny, and speciation of rock wallabies, Australian Journal of Zoology, Volume 37(2-4), pages 351-363.
Nevo, E., 1991, Evolutionary Theory and process of active speciation and adaptive radiation in subterranean mole rats, spalax-ehrenbergi superspecies, in Israel, Evolutionary Biology, Volume 25, pages 1-125.
And here is a nice page.
The processes that evolution claim created life on earth have *never* been observed.
Sorry, but evolution has nothing to do with the creation of the initial life form - it deals with life once it has formed. The area investigating initial life forms is referred to as abiogenesis.
And ditch your elephant hurling - "This is a debate tactic known as âelephant hurlingâ(TM). This is where the critic throws summary arguments about complex issues to give the impression of weighty evidence, but with an unstated presumption that a large complex of underlying ideas is true, and failing to consider opposing data, usually because they have uncritically accepted the arguments from their own side.
ROTFL. I'm not really here to teach you biology. There are large complex undelying ideas in evolution, but there is also a tremendous amount of evidence in support of it. Consider opposing data? Well, I've seen so many creationist whoppers that I have a hard time understanding how some of them can look at themselves in the mirror with the lies that they have told. Noah's ark, the speed of light, 2nd law of thermo, dinosaur/manprints, the Grand Canyon, basking shark/plesiosaur, blatent misquotes of various evolution supporters.....
Problems with geology, chemistry, physics, astronomy, biology? I'd rather deal with them because I think they can be answered.
Go ahead. But so far, you and your supporters have failed to convince a noticable number of scientists working in those areas.
-asb
And how many scientists in the field of biology, geology, astronomy, physics, and chemistry have you convinced? About zero. You cannot even convince most mainstream Christian denominations.
Again, I don't care. I personally have not convinced any - however, there have been scientists and Christians numerous times pursuaded. Even if there weren't, I still base my opinions on what I understand (not desire) to be correct.
Just grabbing a few quick references...
You are mistaken if you think I'm going to go to my library and borrow or purchase any of these books. As for the talkorigins site, I might be willing to examine each of those in detail, but I really don't feel like doing that with you. Maybe another time
Sorry, but evolution has nothing to do with the creation of the initial life form - it deals with life once it has formed. The area investigating initial life forms is referred to as abiogenesis.
A common copout. Of course the theory of evolution strictly refers to after the formation of life. However, the general phrase "evolution" refers to a number of realms besides biological evolution (even though this is not correct usage). If it is demonstrated beyond doubt that the earth is in fact around 6000 years old, then the theory of evolution will be declared false. If it is demonstrated beyond doubt that the first life that evolution requires could never have formed or come into existence, then evolution will be declared false. So even though evolution doesn't directly deal with these areas, it lies on that foundation without which it has no foothold. That is why it is a copout to ignore them. But in the phrase you were replying to, I was referring to the process of evolution not the initial formation of life.
ROTFL. I'm not really here to teach you biology. There are large complex undelying ideas in evolution, but there is also a tremendous amount of evidence in support of it. Consider opposing data? Well, I've seen so many creationist whoppers that I have a hard time understanding how some of them can look at themselves in the mirror with the lies that they have told. Noah's ark, the speed of light, 2nd law of thermo, dinosaur/manprints, the Grand Canyon, basking shark/plesiosaur, blatent misquotes of various evolution supporters.....
You can stop laughing now. As I said to another once - I contend that the problem is not with the creationist arguments but instead with your biased misinterpretation of them. For example, many of the points in SciAm's 15 answers to creationist nonsense are based on misunderstand or misrepresentation of the creationist position (example, no creationist with the slightest bit of knowledge would argue against natural selection). But I don't have time to talk with you. I'm interested to see if you have realised your mistake with mtDNA after reading those other responses. I have read up on this issue a great deal, I have seen arguments for both creationists and evolutionists.
I know, I have something we can discuss - how about you cite for me one major evidence for evolution? Then we can talk about that. I prefer to deal with specifics, because there's no way to argue against a statement like "amazing amount of evidence in support of it".
Go ahead. But so far, you and your supporters have failed to convince a noticable number of scientists working in those areas.
And I don't suppose that has anything to do with the materialistic/atheistic bias of many/most of these scientists? No, of course not. Because while creationists are fairly accused of bias, it is unfair to accuse materialistic atheists of being biased against creationism.
Heck, I know a Christian biologist who is also an evolutionist. He's relatively high up in his work place. He believes evolution, but he hadn't even *heard* about the creationist arguments. So it's absolutely no surprise to
"They were mis-labeled as "Hittites" by their discoverers because - you guessed it - they were trying to read the Bible into what they found. Scholars wring their hands over that fact, but all recognize that it's too late to change it now due to the amount of material that has been published and the confusion that would result from a name correction after all these years."
Makes you wonder how much hand-wringing is going on all over the impunable "scientific" world, doesn't it? So, the choice should have been made first to discount the Bible, right? Sounds fair to me. I mean, why bother to get the facts right in science? It might be inconvenient or confusing. So, we'll just labor along with the fallacy and hope it just goes away. I doubt any serious student of any scientific discipline would as openly admit to propagating a lie for appearance's sake as you now have. I now lean back effortlessly into the arms of science for matters concerning the Bible. Thanks heaps.
Windows XP SP2 told me to install third-party software that prevents viruses and protects stability... I chose Ubuntu
Here is a simplified version of it: Evolution is a process that results in heritable changes in a population spread over many generations.
I thought I should retouch this after coming across another website I had heretofore been unaware of. He talks about the definition given by talkorigins of evolution, and makes precisely the same statement I did:
Talk.Origins is very hard to targetâ"a fact that may be so by design. For example, if a person disagrees with TO on the âfact of evolutionâ(TM), these people will employ a definition of evolution [âoeBiological evolution is a change in the genetic characteristics of a population over timeâ] that makes it impossible to disagree and, if one does argue, then that person comes across as being uninformed or irrational or fanatical. This might be acceptable if only it remained right there.
I wish and hope you can understand this - that we don't disagree with that plain defintion - but that this definition does not necessarily lead to what talkorigins was designed to defend. I don't appreciate this kind of deception, not in the slightest. You may read the full article here.
Found this too, a reply to your nice page.
About abiogenesis:
:).
:).
A common copout. Of course the theory of evolution strictly refers to after the formation of life. However, the general phrase "evolution" refers to a number of realms besides biological evolution (even though this is not correct usage). If it is demonstrated beyond doubt that the earth is in fact around 6000 years old, then the theory of evolution will be declared false.
Yep, like all scientific theories, it is falsafable. And since there is overwhelming evidence in the fields of geology, astronomy, and physics that the earth is billions of years old, there is plenty of time for evolution to occur.
If it is demonstrated beyond doubt that the first life that evolution requires could never have formed or come into existence, then evolution will be declared false.
Nope - it doesn't matter if the first life arose from natural causes, The Invisible Pink Unicorn, your God, or aliens from planet Zork - that wouldn't prove that evolution was false.
So even though evolution doesn't directly deal with these areas, it lies on that foundation without which it has no foothold. That is why it is a copout to ignore them.
But as I said, it really doesn't matter where the first life came from.
I know, I have something we can discuss - how about you cite for me one major evidence for evolution?
How about this? It's a listing of a set of 29 evidences for macroevoultion.
And I don't suppose that has anything to do with the materialistic/atheistic bias of many/most of these scientists? No, of course not. Because while creationists are fairly accused of bias, it is unfair to accuse materialistic atheists of being biased against creationism.
While I don't know what percentage of scientists working in the areas related to evolution or the age of the earth who are Christian, it is a significant number, and it is one of the reasons I have mentioned numerous times that many major Christian denominations have no problems with evolution - or are they atheists in disguise?
Heck, I know a Christian biologist who is also an evolutionist. He's relatively high up in his work place. He believes evolution, but he hadn't even *heard* about the creationist arguments. So it's absolutely no surprise to me
Well, my wife is a Christian biologist, and is also an evolutionist - she got her degree from a Methodist college, where evolution is taught as part of the normal curiculum.
For example, many of the points in SciAm's 15 answers to creationist nonsense are based on misunderstand or misrepresentation of the creationist position (example, no creationist with the slightest bit of knowledge would argue against natural selection).
Ever heard of the Institute for Creation Research? Duane Gish? Ken Hovind? It's ok if you want to distance yourself from these guys.
-asb
Yep, like all scientific theories, it is falsafable. And since there is overwhelming evidence in the fields of geology, astronomy, and physics that the earth is billions of years old, there is plenty of time for evolution to occur.
Stop trying to drop elephants into every line. It was unecessary to say there's overwhelming evidence, because again I disagree. I'm interested in specifics, not general copycat lines.
Nope - it doesn't matter if the first life arose from natural causes, The Invisible Pink Unicorn, your God, or aliens from planet Zork - that wouldn't prove that evolution was false.
And to think of all the times evolutionists accuse creationists of being able to fall back on the "God did it" argument, making our position unscientific. If you can invent all manner of excuses, then what makes you so sure this is scientific to believe at all? Here is an excellent quote:
Be careful not to be hypocritical, accusing us of unscientific positions when you yourself propose unscientific propositions. You tell me - did that first life come from God, pink unicorns or chance? What you believe, not what is possible.
But as I said, it really doesn't matter where the first life came from.
It matters if your personal position is naturalistic atheism. If you believe it was God then we have a whole set of different problems to discuss. But this question is important.
How about this? It's a listing of a set of 29 evidences for macroevoultion.
How about this, a reply in which I posted a link to a rebuttal of those 29 evidences? How about you pick one of those you consider very convincing and we'll look at it in detail? I'm not going to skim over 29 examples - it is far better to examine one in depth.
While I don't know what percentage of scientists working in the areas related to evolution or the age of the earth who are Christian, it is a significant number, and it is one of the reasons I have mentioned numerous times that many major Christian denominations have no problems with evolution - or are they atheists in disguise? :).
They are considered allies of evolution only so long as there is resistence. If the creationist movement was to ever be utterly destroyed, then I imagine the atheistic evolutionists would then move to attack Christian evolutionists. For now they tolerate Christian evolutionists because it provides a useful (but irrational) argument with which to pursuade other Christians to accept evolution. I couldn't care less about numbers as I said before - I'm interested in truth. And I've seen a great deal of lies and misrepresentations on behalf of evolutionists, and creationists have been accused of it too. That's why I want to look at specifics in detail, because that's how I'll be pursuaded - not by generalities that only reveal an ability to repeat what one has heard other say.
Well, my wife is a Christian biologist, and is also an evolutionist - she got her degree from a Methodist college, where evolution is taught as part of the normal curiculum.
And you yourself are not a Christian? Tell me, in how much detail did she analyse the creationist position before rejecting it?
Ever heard of the Institute for Creation Research? Duane Gish? Ken Hovind? It's ok if you want to dist
Stop trying to drop elephants into every line. It was unecessary to say there's overwhelming evidence, because again I disagree.
Disagree all you want - there is no credible evidence that the earth is not billions of years old - at least evidence that would convince scientists working in the related fields.
Be careful not to be hypocritical, accusing us of unscientific positions when you yourself propose unscientific propositions. You tell me - did that first life come from God, pink unicorns or chance? What you believe, not what is possible.
Taking me out of context, I see. I guess I'll have to restate it - BIOLOGICAL EVOLUTION OCCURS AFTER THE FIRST REPLICATING CELLS HAVE BEEN CREATED - THEREFORE, HOW THE FIRST CELL CAME ABOUT IS NOT PART OF EVOLUTION.
How about this, a reply in which I posted a link to a rebuttal of those 29 evidences? How about you pick one of those you consider very convincing and we'll look at it in detail? I'm not going to skim over 29 examples - it is far better to examine one in depth.
A strawman rebuttal to the link I provided.
About that many major Christian denominations have no problems with evolution, and many scientists in the fields related to evolution are Christian:
They are considered allies of evolution only so long as there is resistence. If the creationist movement was to ever be utterly destroyed, then I imagine the atheistic evolutionists would then move to attack Christian evolutionists.
Are you serious? I think that you need a reality check - you seem to think that there is some sort of conspiracy. And you seem to think that creationism is taken seriously by scientists in anything other than a political sense.
They aren't involved with AiG, ICR or any of the other major organisations I respect, so yeah.
Duane Gish is with the ICR, btw. You actually respect the ICR? I consider the ICR despicable for their dishonesty - "Lying for Christ" is not the way of a true Christian. Here's a visit.
I'll tell you how I feel about this whole thing. I've talked to many evolutionists, and they all come from a patronising position as if I am a fool to believe what I do. And I think this is mostly due to organisations like talkorigins.org and a general culture of intolerance.
How do you feel about people who believe that the earth is flat? That the haulocaust didn't happen? That the moon landing didn't occur? They believe these things with a passion, and that there is some sort of conspiracy against them.
I want to deal with specifics as I've said before. I want to demonstrate to you step by step, if you are willing, that I have indeed thought about what I believe and I don't just blindly accept. So you can also see that I have a rational mind and I listen to reason.
No, you don't. You use (post) strawman arguements, and have the mind of a "true believer". Your dismissal of the virtually unanimus agreement by scientists in the fields of biology, astronomy, physics, and geology, along with agreement with mainstream Christian denominations proves it.
-asb
Disagree all you want - there is no credible evidence that the earth is not billions of years old - at least evidence that would convince scientists working in the related fields.
This is what I meant about throwing elephants. You summarise complex issues into one statement arguments. I haven't even started talking with you about the problems with dating, and you come up with summary statements like this. Just ditch it unless you want to go through them one by one in detail.
Taking me out of context, I see. I guess I'll have to restate it - BIOLOGICAL EVOLUTION OCCURS AFTER THE FIRST REPLICATING CELLS HAVE BEEN CREATED - THEREFORE, HOW THE FIRST CELL CAME ABOUT IS NOT PART OF EVOLUTION.
Oh yes, the evil creationists taking someone out of context *again*. I've already said I agree with you that biological evolution does not answer the question about where the first cell came from. There's no need to shout. But you'd be a fool to think that it isn't important for biological evolution if it cannot be demonstrated reasonably that the first cell could come about. Now if you believe it's God that put it there, that's one thing. But if you think that it came there by chance mixing of certain chemicals, etc, then that's another thing. We know most/all of the possibilities of how that first cell came about - stop pretending it's not important. If you believe it's God, we'll discuss one thing. If you think it's chance we'll discuss another.
A strawman rebuttal to the link I provided.
Woah ho! You sure make a pursuasive argument. You summarised the whole response as a strawman? And you think I should be pursuaded?!? A one sentence answer to the creationist page??? I think you should do better than that. Why, exactly, is it a strawman?
Are you serious? I think that you need a reality check - you seem to think that there is some sort of conspiracy. And you seem to think that creationism is taken seriously by scientists in anything other than a political sense.
I am no fool, I've seen some of the things that famous evolutionists have said, such as Gould. I know that many of them push evolution precisely because they have materialistic beliefs. They work with the attitude that evolution must be right, rather than looking at the evidence for the best answer. There are creationists who do that to. I don't care what you say about a reality check. You can bet that if evolution ever destroyed the creationist position totally, that the next thing on the agenda would be Christianity. It is inevitable. People may not think it now - but once there is no real world evidence for Christianity, most/all will begin to question their faith. Evolutionists do it now. They act patronising and arrogant to the simple minded creationists who can't see past their faith to the pure facts of science. Once there is no scientific hold for creationism, it will be resigned to minority groups.
Of course, I'm not worried about any of this - I have examined the evidence for evolution and creation quite a lot, and so far the evolutionist position is weak. I've offered to look at it in detail with you, but...
No, you don't. You use (post) strawman arguements, and have the mind of a "true believer". Your dismissal of the virtually unanimus agreement by scientists in the fields of biology, astronomy, physics, and geology, along with agreement with mainstream Christian denominations proves it.
a) It is not unanimous, a few significantly e
Here's a link to the response to Camp's critique. It explains the strawman arguements that he used.
And now you tell me there's a unanimous consensus about the facts of evolution when I can assure you that:
a) It is not unanimous, a few significantly educated scientists reject evolution
First, I said *virtually*. Also, most of those few scientists who disagree are not working in the fields related to evolution - they are speaking outside of their expertise. Or, to quote, "Take me out of my field of study and I'm just another guy sitting on a barstool".
You know, have you actually ever bothered to look past the talkorigins propaganda and see if what the creationists are saying is true? It's awfully easy to stand with a bunch of bullies throwing stones at someone, never asking whether what you are doing is right. It is another thing entirely to actually step inside our shoes and consider. I'm not talking about our faith - I'm talking about logic, reason and fact. You betray ignorance and worse than that - arrogance. You spew forth the same propaganda rubbish that every other evolutionst seems to.
Doing what is right? Give me a break! I would say refuting creationist lies and falsehoods is doing right. And as far as bullying goes, I would say that some creationists attitudes that Christians who accept that the theory of evolution is correct are not real Christians and will burn in hell is far worse than anything that the T.O regulars have done.
I looked at your ICR criticisms - I have in fact discussed some of those issues with an evolutionist. We didn't get on well. Regarding asking to date a knowingly young sample when the lab said they couldn't is dodging the root question: why is the lab unwilling to date samples, say, less than 2Ma? Answer that question.
I assume it is due to the type of equipment or proceedure that they use. But to abuse that like Austin did raises ethics questions on his part - that is the *real* root question.
The transitional fossils that have been presented so far are less than weak, certainly not enough to pursuade a rational man. Darwin himself expected a lot more. The predictory power of evolution failed to predict what the fossil record explains - so the liquid nature of evolution was changed to now predict such a fossil record.
No, the traditional fossil record is not weak, and have convinced quite a few scientists. Darwin did not expect alot more, even though we have found far more transitional fossils since Darwin's time. Your comment about evolution changing - are you referring to punctuated equilibrium? Darwin states this in the Origin of the Species:
Lucky for me, I can post links too, a defence of the criticisms given in the link you just posted. My link is newer, do I win?
Or would you rather stop link posting, and we look at one example in detail ourselves, rather than hoping on the most recent rebuttal of others?
First, I said *virtually*. Also, most of those few scientists who disagree are not working in the fields related to evolution - they are speaking outside of their expertise. Or, to quote, "Take me out of my field of study and I'm just another guy sitting on a barstool".
First of all, though the strict theory of evolution is biological only, it also relies on a number of assumptions in other fields without which it would be impossible. For example, we cannot discuss the creation of a palace on a mountain if the mountain itself does not exist. You cannot avoid that - so the questions of geology and other fields in relation to evolution are vitally important.
Secondly, there are a number of creation biologists. But I know your response - this list is small. I know a Christian biologist who has never even thought about creationism. He just accepted evolution because that is what he was taught. I am betting that most biologists today are evolutionists purely because that is what they have been told - and I'm betting that most of them have never considered creation or looked into it. So to me, the numbers of biologists is largely irrelevant. The fact is, there are some creation biologists, and that is significant.
Doing what is right? Give me a break! I would say refuting creationist lies and falsehoods is doing right.
Call a spade a spade. I'm happy for you to refute creationist lies and falsehoods. But I doubt that you are informed enough to recognise them. Do you want to look at any specific area in detail with me and find out who is right? I asked you a question: have you bothered to look past the propaganda of talkorigins and mainstream media to consider whether creationism is right? Or have you always approached it from the angle of "these poor misguided religious zealots, why can't they see the truth?" - or whatever stance it is you take.
And as far as bullying goes, I would say that some creationists attitudes that Christians who accept that the theory of evolution is correct are not real Christians and will burn in hell is far worse than anything that the T.O regulars have done.
We are the Church of God, Creator of the Heavens and the Earth. He has saved us, and called us to judge each other. You as an outsider cannot tell us how we should run our affairs. We listen to Him alone, and He requires us to guard carefully that which He gave us. I personally do not condemn evolutionist christians as unsaved. I do chastise Christians who believe evolution - I give them the benefit of the doubt, that they have not considered what they believe. But once having understood what is truly at stake in the creation evolution controversy, they must ultimately make a choice.
I assume it is due to the type of equipment or proceedure that they use. But to abuse that like Austin did raises ethics questions on his part - that is the *real* root question.
Be careful what you assume. This is *exactly* the problem I'm talking about. You talk about how Austin acted deceitfully, or unethically, but you don't even know why they can't date less than 2Ma!! And the answer to that question demonstrates beyond doubt that Austin acted with integrity, and his point was affirmed and strengthened. Do you care why? In fact, this experiment is one of the simplest demonstrations of the complete bankruptcy of evolution, yet so many fail to see. I wonder if thats because one needs a blind attitude in orde
One of the key points that the theory of evolution requires is vast ages of time. No one thought those were necessary until they wanted to disprove the Bible. But since evolution hinges on long ages, a key place to check to see if it could be true is in the area of timing it took to form parts of the earth.
A key part of this is how long did it take for the continent base rocks, the granites, to form? Evolution requires something like the planetary accretion disk approach in order to get the time spans needed. By this idea, the granites formed over vast stretches of time from a molten mass, then hardened gradually.
However there is hard evidence, published in secular highly respected journals, which indicates that is not possible. The pleochroic halos that Gentry found in granites show clearly and distinctly that the granites were formed in a matter of seconds or minutes. Any longer than a few minutes in a molten state and the Polonium halos would not have formed. Either that or, radioactive decay rates have been immensely discontinuous in the past - which would throw out all radiometric dating methods. Either way, long ages are disproven.
And don't bother with Brawley's incredibly weak talkorigins post about Gentry, if you even begin to understand the issue you can see the flaws in his arguments.
And without vast stretches of time, no evolution had time to happen.
Quod Erat Demonstratum.
Got Wisdom?
Hmmm..
First, a note about Granites; they do doffer substantially from the bulk composition of the continental crust, being somewhat lighter and SiAl-rich by comparison. Typically we see ancient groundwater/hydrothermal systems associated with them - systems which give rise to hiughly useful mineral deposits; we see large scale metamorphic haloes caused by the emplacement of hot rocks and subsequent recrystalisation of the country rock. At places like Yellowstone, we even see the process going on today. Can you explain why a god would set this all up to make it all look so old?
Don't suppose you'd like to tell me why these polonium isotopes were 'created', but none of the other short lived (i.e. half life less than around 10 million years) isotopes? Things like Technitium? Plutonium?
Anyway, you know the explanation for those haloes, even if it annoys you. Zircons in granites contain high concentrations of Uranium; polonium is part of the decay chain of uranium. You will notice that it is directly below Radon; Radon, being a gas, will diffuse through the rock and hence when it decays to Polonium, it will appear that the polonium has just appeared. Problem solved.
Had Radon diffused through the minerals, it would have left a trail of halos, a cylindrical tube as it diffused (varying with diffusion rates in its intensity). This has _never_ been observed. Also, Gentry did specific experiments, which you would be aware of had you read the original papers, designed to find any traces of Radon seepage. There was no evidence at all. Also the chain through Po takes three steps; many of the halos had only two of those steps. No way that would happen in your scenario. But again, if you'd read the papers, you'd know that.
You also asked me to speculate on why you assume age for some formations. Sorry, you'll have to ask someone else that question.
If you would like to read the original papers, here is a list of them:
Gentry, R.V. 1968. "Fossil Alpha-Recoil Analysis of Certain Variant Radioactive Halos." Science 160, 1228.
Gentry, R.V. 1970. "Giant Radioactive Halos: Indicators of Unknown Alpha-Radioactivity?" Science 169, 670.
Gentry, R.V. 1971. "Radiohalos: Some Unique Pb Isotope Ratios and Unknown Alpha Radioactivity." Science 173, 727.
Gentry, R.V. 1973. "Radioactive Halos." Annual Review of Nuclear Science 23, 347.
Gentry, R.V. 1974. "Radiohalos in Radiochronological and Cosmological Perspective." Science 184, 62.
Gentry, R.V. 1975. Response to J.H. Fremlin's Comments on "Spectacle Halos." Nature 258, 269.
Gentry, R.V. 1977. "Mystery of the Radiohalos" Research Communications NETWORK, Breakthrough Report, February 10, 1977
Gentry, R.V. 1978a. "Are Any Unusual Radiohalos Evidence for SHE?" International Symposium on Superheavy Elements, Lubbock, Texas. New York: Pergamon Press.
Gentry, R.V. 1978b. "Implications on Unknown Radioactivity of Giant and Dwarf Haloes in Scandinavian Rocks." Nature 274, 457.
Gentry, R.V. 1978. "Reinvestigation of the ? Activity of Conway Granite." Nature Vol. 273, p 217-219 May 18, 1978.
Gentry, R.V. 1979. "Time: Measured Responses." EOS Transactions of the American Geophysical Union 60, 474.
Gentry, R.V. 1980. "Polonium Halos." EOS Transactions of the American Geophysical Union 61, 514.
Gentry, R.V. 1982. Letters. Physics Today 35, No. 10, 13.
Gentry, R.V. 1983a. Letters. Physics Today 36, No. 4, 3.
Gentry, R.V. 1983b. Letters. Physics Today 36, No. 11, 124.
Gentry, R.V. 1984a. "Radioactive Halos in a Radiochronological and Cosmological Perspective." Proceedings of the 63rd Annual Meeting of the Pacific Division. American Association for the Advancement of Science 1, 38.
Gentry, R.V. et al. 1973. "Ion Microprobe Confirmation of Pb Isotope Ratios and Search for Isomer Precursors in Polonium Radiohalos." Nature 244, 282.
Gentry, R.V. et al. 1974. "'Spectacle' Array of Po-210 Halo Radiocentres in Biotite: A Nuclear Geophysical Enigma." Nature 252, 564.
Gentry, R.V. et al. 1976a. "Radiohalos and Coalified Wood: New Evidence Relating to the Time of Uranium Introduction and Coalification." Science 194, 315.
Got Wisdom?
Obviously you have never read the original papers; this is most often a claim that evolutionists level against creationists. The shoe is now on the other foot.
Apart from the fact that you COMPLETELY FAILED to answer any of the other points raised.
Had Radon diffused through the minerals, it would have left a trail of halos, a cylindrical tube as it diffused (varying with diffusion rates in its intensity).
Would it? Only in a perfectly uniform rock; not in granite. And a section through such a cylinder would look axactly like a single halo.
This has _never_ been observed
Well, see above. I'm not surprised. Patterns of haloes along cracks and fissures have. By me.
Also, Gentry did specific experiments, which you would be aware of had you read the original papers, designed to find any traces of Radon seepage. There was no evidence at all.
That is a bit strange, given that granites *do* seep Radon. Tends to make me think the experiment was flawed.
Also the chain through Po takes three steps; many of the halos had only two of those steps. No way that would happen in your scenario. But again, if you'd read the papers, you'd know that.
Which implies that the non-3 step haloes were not Polonium. Which kind of argues against your case.
You also asked me to speculate on why you assume age for some formations. Sorry, you'll have to ask someone else that question
Translation: You have no answer.
Bottom line: read the original papers. Why are you unwilling to do so?
Got Wisdom?
If it annoys you, perhaps it is because your understanding is incorrect.
It's not some meaningless blief in God that saves you.
It is faith in Him to trust you. Much like saying to a friend "I trust you with my life" in a dangerous situation.
The reason why you and I would go to hell without Him, is because each of us has sinned, and the wages of sin is death. Of course few today realise how grave it is to rebel against God. Once realised though how deep ones corruption goes, that is when one realises that they, you and I, are in need of His forgiveness. Like a friend you have wronged and you ask them to forgive you - except our crimes are much worse.
Well, let's see..
Science 169, 670 - Documents the existance of giant halos, but pretty much admits that they are the result of standard decay of U and Th. At that time, the idea of superheavy elements with long half-lives was not out of the question.
Science 173, 727. - Documents the existance of halos dominated by U-238 derived lead; i.e from Radon movement.
Annual Review of Nuclear Science 23, 347. - Now this actually gives some interesting data, notably that Po-210 and Rn-222 haloes are going to be virtually indistinuishable. Indeed, the given uncertanties in measurement are larger.
Science 184, 62 - Apart from the given diagram siomply not supporting the text, there is no new evidence here. There is a *claim* [That the haloes can't come from Rn-222], but no supporting evidence is given.
Most of the later references either seem to be in non-peer reviewed publications or unavailable online, which is a pity.
And this is the problem. None of the published material excludes the alternative hypothesis [i.e. decay chain element migration].
And if we look for example, we see that Po-209 is the most stable isotope of polonium, yet we don't see any haloes from that. This is really the show stopper.
So, I've looked at the papers. There is nothing there to support instantaneous creation. Now, will you answer my questions?
You claim that Po-209 being the most stable Po isotope is a show stopper; yet from the reference you provided a couple of posts ago Po-209 is NOT on the decay chain of U->Pb. So why are you making Po-209 the "showstopper" when your own background data shows it's not relevant?
Also Po halos are not smeared as they would be by Rn migration along fault and crack lines; instead the published (in peer-reviewed journals) pictures clearly show point sources. If you have contradictory evidence, you should definitely publish; Science and Nature would surely welcome anything to refute Gentry that would pass peer review. And since the peers are clearly slanted against Gentry, your getting published should be quite simple.
And since the Rn222 halo would be roughly 2 microns wider than the Po210 halo, it would be quite clear if Rn222 had been the parent of the Po218. But many halos have been published which have the Po and not the Rn halos.
Additionally, before you go attack Gentry as many anti-creationists have tried to do, based on his experimental technique, you should know that while at ORNL he headed a team of seven scientists. One of them, an atheist, was asked about Gentry's technique: "Impeccable -- one of the most careful researchers with whom I have ever worked". When asked for an alternative explanation to fiat creation, the same person said "Well, I don't have a better explanation, but I hope that at some future time there will emerge a more acceptable explanation of the data."
Got Wisdom?
You claim that Po-209 being the most stable Po isotope is a show stopper; yet from the reference you provided a couple of posts ago Po-209 is NOT on the decay chain of U->Pb. So why are you making Po-209 the "showstopper" when your own background data shows it's not relevant?
IF fiat creation was the answer, we would expect to see Po-209 haloes. It's not a show stopper for the hypothesis that the Po is a result of Rn-222 decay, but it is for fiat creation.
Also Po halos are not smeared as they would be by Rn migration along fault and crack lines; instead the published (in peer-reviewed journals) pictures clearly show point sources.
Problem is, of course, that the pictures are available on line, and they are blurred. Plus, what does a section through a cylinder look like?
And since the Rn222 halo would be roughly 2 microns wider than the Po210 halo, it would be quite clear if Rn222 had been the parent of the Po218. But many halos have been published which have the Po and not the Rn halos.
Certainly not in the papers you cite. There's a danger of sending people to look at papers. You do realise that 2 microns is right at the edge of resolution for a geological microscope on a thin section, don't you?
No, because my link included a refutation to his rebuttal to my rebuttal.
First of all, though the strict theory of evolution is biological only, it also relies on a number of assumptions in other fields without which it would be impossible.
And you will note that in this thread, I refer to those areas, like geology, astronomy, physics. And the vast majority of scientists in those fields, that work in the the areas that have an impact on evolution, agree with the findings that are important to the theory of evolution - as an example, geologists who work in the area realated to the age of the earth - very, very few would argue that the age of the earth is substantially different than 4.7 billion years old. Or, very, very few astronomers would argue that the age of the universe is substatially different than around 14 billion years old. Of course, this impacts evolution because of the time scales required.
The fact is, there are some creation biologists, and that is significant.
Not really. In any sufficiently large group, you will find a few, "interesting" individuals, to put it politely. And when you throw in religion in, interesting things can happen - look at the Branch Davidians, Jim Jones (Kool Aid), The Church of Jesus Christ and Aryan Nation (I am *not* making this one up!), etc.
We are the Church of God, Creator of the Heavens and the Earth. He has saved us, and called us to judge each other. You as an outsider cannot tell us how we should run our affairs. We listen to Him alone, and He requires us to guard carefully that which He gave us. I personally do not condemn evolutionist christians as unsaved. I do chastise Christians who believe evolution - I give them the benefit of the doubt, that they have not considered what they believe. But once having understood what is truly at stake in the creation evolution controversy, they must ultimately make a choice.
And that is why I have mentioned over and over that mainstream Christian denominations such as the Catholic Church and the Methodist Church do not have problems with the theory of evolution.
Do you know anything about research and performing experiments? You seem not to. Not only are Austin's results not good for anything, it is unethical to try to draw the types of conclusions he did from the lab results.
If the dating method fails with samples of known age, dating them to be old, then how do we know samples aged in the millions of years are being dated correctly?
No - if you abuse the technique, don't be surprised if the results are wrong - garbage in, garbage out.
But as we have seen, even organisms that elave excellent fossils, like turtles, are lacking in intermediates.
But as we have seen, even organisms that elave excellent fossils, like turtles, are lacking in intermediates
The evolution of of reptiles to turtles occured more than 250 million years ago, so I'm not surprised that there are not a large number of intermediates found.
So if today it is quote common for fossils to form, then what excuse is there for the almost empty fossil record for the last supposed couple of billion years?
Well, prior to the cambrian explosion around 550 million years ago, creatures had soft bodies - so they didn't fossilize very well. Also, a fossil has to do more than be formed, to be found millions of years later - it has to survive.
-asb
This is the list of links I have so far:
Initial article
Response by Camp to initial
Response to Camp
Response by Camp to the response of his first response
Apart from these I cannot find an additional link that you mentioned. Could you post it please?
Do you know anything about research and performing experiments? You seem not to. Not only are Austin's results not good for anything, it is unethical to try to draw the types of conclusions he did from the lab results.
Why don't you elaborate on why I misunderstand research, why Austin's results are good for nothing, and why his conclusions were unethical, instead of just telling me it's a fact?
As for the rest of this post, I have lost the motivation to reply.
It's on the same web page as the response to Camp.
Why don't you elaborate on why I misunderstand research, why Austin's results are good for nothing, and why his conclusions were unethical, instead of just telling me it's a fact?
When you do research or perform experiments, you should never improperly use a proceedure or method and then try to use those results to draw conclusions. Anyone who would do that deserves a sharp blow on the knuckles using the edge of a ruler by their boss.
-asb
Ah, you mean interspersed? Needless to say, I haven't read these evidences, and I'm guessing you haven't read the responses. Still, that was a fun exercise in link posting.
When you do research or perform experiments, you should never improperly use a proceedure or method and then try to use those results to draw conclusions. Anyone who would do that deserves a sharp blow on the knuckles using the edge of a ruler by their boss.
This is the same response I always receive. This is just a play with words and semantics. What Austin did was apply a blind test to the method. It's an amazingly simple concept, and I'm constantly astounded that people don't understand it. The lab returned dates that demonstrated that young samples have enough Ar to be dated older than they really are....I just don't know how to explain this any simpler. It's a blind test, and it failed.
Maybe you can help me understand why you think that he used the procedure improperly (considering the conclusion he drew), but from where I stand this is a powerful blow to geological dating.
Nope, it is a powerful blow to Austin's credibility. You say that you have recieved the same response before - I'm not surprised since this is such a basic thing. You seem to be hung up on the idea that it was a blind test - but it was a poorly done test because he violated a simple but very important rule. So of course you get a garbage result - garbage in, garbage out.
By the way, the samples were low in Ar - from
talkorigins.org
-asb
Let me see if I can make this simple again. I find a rock that is amongst strata "known" to be 2.2Ma. I send it off to the lab to be dated (though in reality I possibly wouldn't date it since it's already "known" to be 2.2Ma). The lab returns a result of 1.8Ma. I think "accounting for errors and the nature of this work, that's pretty close". Then I suddenly see that the rock is of the same material of a nearby lava flow. I realise that the rock was added to the 2.2Ma strata accidently, and it actually came from the nearby flow that is only 50 years old. What then?
That's what the test proves. What you are telling me, is that somehow when we know the age of a sample it suddenly, magically, makes it impossible to work. But so long as the date is unknown the results are accurate?
Austin applied the lab to a blind test. In these cases of young ages, the lab *should* have said "not enough argon to potassium to produce a date". Instead, they reported back varying ages, sometimes saying too young, other times up to 2Ma and older. How can this not be a powerful testimony against the validity of K/Ar dates? I hope you can see why I don't understand your claims of his [Austin] unethical behavior. If we can't apply K/Ar dating to blind tests, how can we ever be sure of it's validity? That's not science.
In fact, this sounds like a perfect way to falsify K/Ar dating methods. Wouldn't you agree that K/Ar is falsified if a knowingly young sample reports back an age >1Ma? If not, then what is science?
Is in error. See, God made us in His image; when you start to dictate how He should have made the world, that's you making Him in an image you constructed.
Once you invoke the supernatural as an explanation, you are of course abandoning any semblance of being scientific. You can assert anything supernatural you like, but it's not a valid answer.
You claim the Rn222 halos would not be visible is obviated by the papers.
I didn't claim that - I pointed out that they could not be distinguished from polonium haloes due to the inherent limitations of thin section technique. Assuming that Gentry has chosen to publish the best, hand picked specimens to try and make his case, the evidence is simply lacking.
Your claim that the halos of Rn222 and Po210 are indistinguishable due to equipment limitations is obviated by the lack of response to the original papers. Were you correct, the peer review process would certainly have stopped the publication of the papers, since that was a central point in them. Instead, as I mentioned above, it is likely a limitation in the resolution during the transfer to electronic media. I have seen the halos in color plates and the distinction between the annuli is quite clear. Yes they're close, but they do not blur together in one massive ring. Try to either get hold of Gentry's book, which has color pictures of the halos used in the papers, or get an original publication. Unfortunately many have been microfilmed, and that will impose a resolution limit which could make it more difficult, I have not looked at microfilmed versions and can't tell you if they're obscuring or not.
Note also that Henderson's original work in the 1930's showed the same effect, and he was puzzled by it. In fact it was Henderson's original work which Gentry built on (originally using some of his samples in fact). Henderson was certainly not a creationist, yet he found the same anomalies. And again his work passed peer review. I have not found any of his papers in a journal that retains the resolution, so I can't personally judge the quality of the photographs, but I think we have to agree that his peers reviewing the work would certainly have examined the photographs before recommending publication.
God loves you, fluffy666, no matter what you've done. Just as he loves me, no matter what I've done. And I'm far, far, far from "good". He "is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance." [2 Peter 3:9]
Got Wisdom?
Yet that means you are unwilling to accept anything but natural causes. That bias indicates you have a mind closed in some areas, which is unfortunate.
The whole point of science is that supernatural explanations are not allowed! This is not closed mindedness, it is part of the whole process - and if you wish to participate in it, you are bound by the rules.
Your claim that the halos of Rn222 and Po210 are indistinguishable due to equipment limitations is obviated by the lack of response to the original papers.
Actually, the lack of response was probably more due to apathy and lack of time than anything else. Plus these papers were not published in the geological journals; journals like Science and Nature tend to have a less specialist set of revewers.
But as far as the thin sections go, I've done a LOT of thin section work in my time. Geological specimens - especially in rocks with large crystals - are very difficult to get thin enough (the crystals tend to break along cleavage planes, and the harder parts will resist polishing). This limits the resolution you can get, and means you are always looking at a 3D picture. There is no way you could distinuish rings so close together under these conditions.
For an instantaneous creation hypothesis to be correct, the following would have to follow:
a) The haloes would have to be present in association with Te or Se minerals; the lower O group elements would be expected to occur together. Instead, they are only found in association with U cointaining minerals.
b) We would expect to see haloes indiciating the presence of all isotopes of Po; the fact that all of those present are from the decay chains of long lived isotopes is storng evidence against a supernatural origin.
c) We would would also expect to find evidence of other related elements (At, Fr, etc..). Indeed, if we assume that all isotopes of all elements were 'created' with abundances in proportion to the stable isotopes we see today, we should see literally dozens of such isotopes. But we don't - we only detect those isotopes that have either very long half-lives (U, Th, etc), exist in the decay chains of these isotopes, or are made by cosmogenic processes.
The hypothesis fails because the predictions that come from it (as above) fail. And this is science; you can't ignore failures in prediction.
Oh really, inventing the rules by which God had to create the universe is more than a bit presumptuous. Sure a theory has to have its predictions borne out, but you're working on the prequel, not the sequel, to use vernacular. Predictions are worthwhile criteria when they are used to predict subsequent events. Einstein's special theory of relativity was tested by his prediction that light would have its path altered by a strong gravitational field. And in the next eclipse that provided an opportunity to see if his prediction was correct, his theory was confirmed. Predictions like "there will be salt water found under the crystalline rock at the base of the Bosporus and Dardanelles" provide real tests since the facts are not known in advance. This prediction, made in 1995, was confirmed in 1998. That or Einstein's are the kind of prediction which have merit, as no one believed either happened and the theories made predictions which were counter to common beliefs.
Your preconditions that science utterly excludes supernatural causes is a refreshing admission, thank you for categorically stating that. Since by science's rules something cannot come from nothing (that would be beyond the rules), and since something is here, clearly science is incapable of explaining everything.
Your casting aspersions on the reviewers of Gentry's work is clearly unfair; unless you have full information on them, your attacks are unfounded and ad hominem. Try a factual argument instead of attacking people.
Got Wisdom?
Occasionally sperm can contribute mitochrondrial DNA, though. It does happen.