Another Flood Question

[Justatruthseeker]

-_- dude, Google search cro-magnon right now. You really should have done it before making this post.

This is a recreation of what a cro-magnon looked like, and I find absolutely 0 evidence that they were ever portrayed as significantly ape-like:

Why what do you know, just several pictures down from the one you posted.

Apparently one of us didn’t do his research properly, I’ll give you that as truth. Like I said, once depicted as ape like to support the theory. You forget I’m 55 years old and know what was once taught. All you know is today’s story.....

 

[Justatruthseeker]

The problem with human origins topics has been, that standard pronouncements are basically nonsensical no matter where you turn.

If you want to believe that humans evolved from hominids, you need to believe that some hominid/human-wannabee:

• Lost his fur coat while an ice age was going on.
• Lost 99% of his sense of smell while trying to make it as a prey animal on land.
• Lost almost all of his night vision at a time when night was the only time of day to be had.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Why what do you know, just several pictures down from the one you posted.

View attachment 212605

Apparently one of us didn’t do his research properly, I’ll give you that as truth. Like I said, once depicted as ape like to support the theory. You forget I’m 55 years old and know what was once taught. All you know is today’s story.....

Interesting that you post a children's toy as if it is a scientific portrayal of cro magnons. Also, I Google searched that image specifically... It's a Neanderthal statue... No seriously, it's not even a portrayal of cro magnons at all.

You got to be careful about that, because a lot of the images that pop up when searching "cro magnons" are of Neanderthals, so you have to go to the source of the image to double check and make sure.

Here's the little cro magnon statue to go with your Neanderthal one:

also, a cro magnon woman portrayal from 1972 http://cdn2.fast-serve.net/cdn/yest...tic-Custom-Builder-Kit-1972_700_600_5RPKW.jpg
Yeah, so... you were saying about how cro-magnons were portrayed as more ape like?

 

[PsychoSarah]

Evolutionists like to present evolution as scientific, even though it’s not.

You say as I am literally preparing an evolution experiment right now.

 

[PsychoSarah]

The problem with human origins topics has been, that standard pronouncements are basically nonsensical no matter where you turn

Lost his fur coat while an ice age was going on.

Because our species arose in Africa, kinda close to the equator where it would have been about 10 degrees F lower than today. So it would have been 76 F during the day at that time rather than 86 degrees F, on average (24 degrees C instead of 30 degrees C). Not exactly chilly.

Lost 99% of his sense of smell while trying to make it as a prey animal on land.

-_- pulling that straight from nowhere, seeing as chimps don't have a good sense of smell either. Plus, in case you didn't know, we don't need a good sense of smell to track down animals because we are smart enough to use their footprints and other leavings to track them with.

Lost almost all of his night vision at a time when night was the only time of day to be had.

XD what? Day lengths weren't notably shorter 2.6 million years ago (when the most recent ice age started). Also, I guess you've never been out hunting before, but if you are actually outside in natural light while it transitions to night time, everything appears about as bright as twilight. My first time hunting, that actually threw me off guard; I hadn't realized it had passed 1 am.

Of course, as we age, our night vision becomes poor, so you might not be able to replicate that for yourself, unfortunately.

 

[inquiring mind]

It's something that purports to be science, but is not. Hence the prefix 'pseudo', meaning it ain't science.

The Bible seems to be quite clear that it’s not science:
"By faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that the things which are seen were not made of things which are visible." (Hebrews 11:3, NKJV)

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Interesting that you post a children's toy as if it is a scientific portrayal of cro magnons. Also, I Google searched that image specifically... It's a Neanderthal statue... No seriously, it's not even a portrayal of cro magnons at all.

You got to be careful about that, because a lot of the images that pop up when searching "cro magnons" are of Neanderthals, so you have to go to the source of the image to double check and make sure.

Here's the little cro magnon statue to go with your Neanderthal one:

also, a cro magnon woman portrayal from 1972 http://cdn2.fast-serve.net/cdn/yest...tic-Custom-Builder-Kit-1972_700_600_5RPKW.jpg
Yeah, so... you were saying about how cro-magnons were portrayed as more ape like?

No, here’s your Neanderthal, nothing ape like about them.

Nothing ape like about any of our ancestors once you remove the evolutionary PR and pre-conceived silly notions of ape like ancestors from the artists minds.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

The Bible seems to be quite clear that it’s not science:
"By faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that the things which are seen were not made of things which are visible." (Hebrews 11:3, NKJV)

But it is the understanding of the things made from that which is invisible (energy) which leads to understanding of Him. Romans 1:20

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Because our species arose in Africa, kinda close to the equator where it would have been about 10 degrees F lower than today. So it would have been 76 F during the day at that time rather than 86 degrees F, on average (24 degrees C instead of 30 degrees C). Not exactly chilly.


-_- pulling that straight from nowhere, seeing as chimps don't have a good sense of smell either. Plus, in case you didn't know, we don't need a good sense of smell to track down animals because we are smart enough to use their footprints and other leavings to track them with.


XD what? Day lengths weren't notably shorter 2.6 million years ago (when the most recent ice age started). Also, I guess you've never been out hunting before, but if you are actually outside in natural light while it transitions to night time, everything appears about as bright as twilight. My first time hunting, that actually threw me off guard; I hadn't realized it had passed 1 am.

Of course, as we age, our night vision becomes poor, so you might not be able to replicate that for yourself, unfortunately.

Don’t give me that bull, our current warm spell started 25,000 years ago, the cold lasting for 125,000 years, cycling back and forth every 125,000 years.

The ice cores show you really don’t know what you are talking about.

Standard evolutionary PR, to ignore the ice ages that have occurred every 125,000 years like clockwork.

We just came out of a little ice age about 2000 years ago that barely made it to -.6

These conditions led to widespread crop failure, famine, and population decline. And that was only -.6 and lasted only a few years.

In between those brief warm spells it’s been fluctuating down to -10 and lasting for 100,000 years.

Don’t try that it’s been balmy routine for 2.6 million years when the actual scientific evidence says just the opposite.

It was approximately 33.8 degrees colder in Southern Africa during the little ice age, and that only lasted for a few hundred years at the occasional dip to -.6 not -10 for 100,000 years.

Come on Sarah, use your common sense and stop regurgitating evolutionary PR which doesn’t match the realities. I know what you are told to believe, but the evidence doesn’t support their assertions in the least.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Don’t give me that bull, our current warm spell started 25,000 years ago, the cold lasting for 125,000 years, cycling back and forth every 125,000 years.

I was going by the major ice ages, not the minor ones "At least five major ice ages have occurred throughout Earth’s history: the earliest was over 2 billion years ago, and the most recent one began approximately 3 million years ago and continues today (yes, we live in an ice age!)."
This source rounded up from 2.6 million https://geology.utah.gov/map-pub/su.../ice-ages-what-are-they-and-what-causes-them/
The start of the major ice age is much more relevant to your contention that humans lost their hair during an ice age, since that trend predates our 200,000 year old species.

Also, source for the temperature differences Study Finds the Tropics Can Cool

Since the equator itself wasn't frozen over during the last ice age, major or minor, there wouldn't be ice cores from that area aside from high up mountains.

Standard evolutionary PR, to ignore the ice ages that have occurred every 125,000 years like clockwork.

-_- oh, like it is your standard PR to not even account for the fact that our species has been around for about 200,000 years and that we are still in an ice age, and you are thinking we lost our hair after our species already existed, or you don't think we have existed long enough to predate the minor ice age you are thinking of.

That, and I guess you think ice age means it couldn't be warm anywhere, which isn't correct.

We just came out of a little ice age about 2000 years ago that barely made it to -.6

-.6 what? Use units of measurement.

These conditions led to widespread crop failure, famine, and population decline. And that was only -.6 and lasted only a few years.

We'd already changed our original lifestyle and spread outside of our natural habitat long before that happened. Also, in case you didn't notice, that population decline didn't kill us off.

In between those brief warm spells it’s been fluctuating down to -10 and lasting for 100,000 years.

-10 what? Use units of measurement. Also, relative to what temperature?

Don’t try that it’s been balmy routine for 2.6 million years when the actual scientific evidence says just the opposite.

-_- we had a misunderstanding about which ice age was being talked about. I inferred that you had to be talking about one that predated our species, since the hair loss development in terms of evolution does predate us. I didn't actually think you could have possibly thought that evolution claimed our species started out as hairy as a gorilla.

Summary of my main points:
1. even during ice ages, it isn't super cold everywhere.
2. as it so happens, one of those not so cold areas is where our species first arose.
3. It wasn't darker during the ice age like you claimed; it's not like it would have produced more clouds to blot out the sun.

 

[PsychoSarah]

No, here’s your Neanderthal, nothing ape like about them.

View attachment 212625

Nothing ape like about any of our ancestors once you remove the evolutionary PR and pre-conceived silly notions of ape like ancestors from the artists minds.

-_- Neanderthals aren't one of our ancestors, dude, we actually have their DNA sequenced and can tell.

Also, humans are apes. Neanderthals are apes. We are ape like. Given the variety in how hairy Neanderthals are depicted, I don't think it is known how hairy they were.

But... you were claiming that CRO MAGNONS were depicted as particularly ape like in the past, not Neanderthals. And I never claimed that Neanderthals weren't ever portrayed as overly hairy, etc. Just going to try to shift your position without me noticing that? I'm not having any of that, I'll gladly discuss the Neanderthal shenanigans with you after you admit that you were wrong about cro magnons being portrayed with exaggerated ape features... despite your claim that physically being there at the time makes you know better. Until you are willing to admit you were thinking of Neanderthals instead or that you were just flat out wrong about that 1 thing, I'll consider you too stubborn for simple conversation.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

I was going by the major ice ages, not the minor ones "At least five major ice ages have occurred throughout Earth’s history: the earliest was over 2 billion years ago, and the most recent one began approximately 3 million years ago and continues today (yes, we live in an ice age!)."
This source rounded up from 2.6 million https://geology.utah.gov/map-pub/su.../ice-ages-what-are-they-and-what-causes-them/
The start of the major ice age is much more relevant to your contention that humans lost their hair during an ice age, since that trend predates our 200,000 year old species.

And I suppose you don’t consider global temperatures falling to -10 C to be of any concern? So what was the global temperature during the major ice ages Sarah?

And you are confused.

“The ice age began 2.6 million years ago at the start of the Pleistocene epoch, because the Greenland, Arctic, and Antarctic ice sheets still exist.“

It didn’t end 2.6 million years ago, it started then....

Also, source for the temperature differences Study Finds the Tropics Can Cool

Since the equator itself wasn't frozen over during the last ice age, major or minor, there wouldn't be ice cores from that area aside from high up mountains.

And yet Africa has terrain clearly formed from receding glaciers......

-_- oh, like it is your standard PR to not even account for the fact that our species has been around for about 200,000 years and that we are still in an ice age, and you are thinking we lost our hair after our species already existed, or you don't think we have existed long enough to predate the minor ice age you are thinking of.

That, and I guess you think ice age means it couldn't be warm anywhere, which isn't correct.

Yes, 2.6 million years of glaciation, which only warms up for 25,000 years every 125,000 years, and then right back to glaciation again. We are in a warm spell Sarah, what do you think is going to happen when we cross that precipice and fall once again like has always happened?

-.6 what? Use units of measurement.

It’s right there on the graphs, but I guess you ignored those.

We'd already changed our original lifestyle and spread outside of our natural habitat long before that happened. Also, in case you didn't notice, that population decline didn't kill us off.

And that was only -.6C for a few hundred years, not -10C for 100,000 years. But that doesn’t seem to enter your thought processes.

-10 what? Use units of measurement. Also, relative to what temperature?

It’s right there is the graphs you didn’t bother to look at.

-_- we had a misunderstanding about which ice age was being talked about. I inferred that you had to be talking about one that predated our species, since the hair loss development in terms of evolution does predate us. I didn't actually think you could have possibly thought that evolution claimed our species started out as hairy as a gorilla.

Your the one that claims we had a common ancestor. Evolutionists are the ones that draw them all looking apelike and with hair.....

Study: Last Common Ancestor of Humans and Apes Looked Like Gorilla or Chimpanzee | Anthropology | Sci-News.com

Summary of my main points:
1. even during ice ages, it isn't super cold everywhere.

It was globally -10C for 100,000 years.

2. as it so happens, one of those not so cold areas is where our species first arose.

We agree that Noah and his descendants spread out from around Northern Africa.

3. It wasn't darker during the ice age like you claimed; it's not like it would have produced more clouds to blot out the sun.

And yet with constant sun it wouldn’t have gotten to -10C globally. Most believe the little ice age was caused from volcanic eruptions which reduced sunlight reaching the earth. Now imagine what it would take for a drop to -10C globally for 100,000 years...... every 125,000 years like clockwork....

 

[Justatruthseeker]

-_- Neanderthals aren't one of our ancestors, dude, we actually have their DNA sequenced and can tell.

Also, humans are apes. Neanderthals are apes. We are ape like. Given the variety in how hairy Neanderthals are depicted, I don't think it is known how hairy they were.

But... you were claiming that CRO MAGNONS were depicted as particularly ape like in the past, not Neanderthals. And I never claimed that Neanderthals weren't ever portrayed as overly hairy, etc. Just going to try to shift your position without me noticing that? I'm not having any of that, I'll gladly discuss the Neanderthal shenanigans with you after you admit that you were wrong about cro magnons being portrayed with exaggerated ape features... despite your claim that physically being there at the time makes you know better. Until you are willing to admit you were thinking of Neanderthals instead or that you were just flat out wrong about that 1 thing, I'll consider you too stubborn for simple conversation.

Yes, yes. We only mated with them but don’t share ancestory, just have their genes in us. Yet having shared genes is why you claim ape and man came from the same common ancestor.

But there goes ignoring scientific definitions again.

Definition of SUBSPECIES

“a category in biological classification that ranks immediately below a species and designates a population of a particular geographic region genetically distinguishable from other such populations of the same species and capable of interbreeding successfully with them where its range overlaps theirs”

Haven’t we discussed this ignoring your own scientific definitions before?

Why Am I Neanderthal?

You are all just confused. They were simply different races of humans, that looked different, like a poodle looks different from a Husky. But since evolutionists refuse to apply observations of how we observe life to propagate and variation to enter the species to the past, they get confused. I understand. I would be confused too if I ignored all the observational evidence and refused to apply it to the past. I certainly don’t believe our ancestors looked like we do, any more than I think a poodle looks like a wolf.

Those races of humans just went extinct, as 99% of life on this planet has went extinct at one time or another.

 

[inquiring mind]

But it is the understanding of the things made from that which is invisible (energy) which leads to understanding of Him. Romans 1:20

God certainly works through the things He has created and even though they were made ‘out of nothing,’ there is no reason the doctrine of creation can’t exist alongside the science of ‘how creation works.’ This is provided science doesn’t try to reduce creation to only quantitative stuff.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

And now we are to believe that minor volcanic eruptions caused the little ice age and a drop in global temperatures to -.6C for a few hundred years because of lack of sunlight, but then are expected to believe that a drop in global temperatures to -10C lasting for 100,000 years left the earth nice and sunny. Oy vey.

It caused dramatic changes everywhere, and this was just a two degree drop in what was steadily increasing from the previous 12 degree drop.

Water on Sand

Now imagine what a 12 degree drop causes everywhere.... and not just for a few hundred years, but for 100,000 years every 125,000 years.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

God certainly works through the things He has created and even though they were made ‘out of nothing,’ there is no reason the doctrine of creation can’t exist alongside the science of ‘how creation works.’ This is provided science doesn’t try to reduce creation to only quantitative stuff.

It’s not science, it’s the evolutionary PR. One just has to learn to separate the two. Science says energy can be neither created or destroyed, has just always existed for eternity. That everything is made from energy and everything contains energy.

They just fail to realize that God is Energy/Mind.

 

[Jimmy D]

One is a paradigm of the other.

What!?!?

(This is a rhetorical "what", I don't require an explanation.)

 

[Jimmy D]

Because you aren’t supposed to know about it, being a mere student. It’s one of those things paleontologist learn about, but never bother to mention to their students because it tends to falsify their theories of dinosaur extinction.

LOL.

You couldn’t google dinoasuars and the 3 meter gap?

Dinosaur extinction: closing the "three meter gap"

It’s one of the longest outstanding controversies regarding their extinction. But to date only a couple bones and a set of tracks has been found in this three meter gap. Showing that by the time of the K-T event dinosaurs were well on their way to extinction.

Who said otherwise? Also there are a few sets of tracks, not just one.

However, the 3-meter gap does not exist if one includes footprints. The youngest-known dinosaur fossils so far are actually a set of hadrosaur tracks found by Lockley and Hunt (1995, p. 23) in a sandstone shelf only 37 cm (less than 15 inches) below the iridium layer near Ludlow, Colorado, in the Raton Formation.

This discovery provides obvious proof that at least one group of dinosaurs was alive and well very near the end of the Cretaceous--and narrows the gap of missing dinosaur remains by an order of magnitude.

In fact, it may narrow the gap even more than that if the time frame rather than the sediment thickness is considered. The track bearing layers containing the hadrosaur tracks, which are rich in plant remains and thought to represent a coal swamp or peat bog environment. Based on sedimentation rates in similar environments today, Lockley and Hunt (1995) estimate the 37 cm may represent only a few thousand years or less. Additional hadrosaur tracks have also been found within the 3 meter gap, including a set 59 cm below the K-T boundary at the same site, and another Raton Formation Site about 12 miles south, which contains both hadrosaur and ceratopsian tracks within 1 or 2 meters of the K-T boundary (Lockley and Hunt, 1995).

http://paleo.cc/paluxy/maps97a.htm

So this guy finds a single solitary brow horn, and concludes dinosaurs were thriving. A 3 meter gap almost completely devoid of fossils shows just the opposite, that they were already almost extinct. And need we keep pointing out almost every one before the 3 meter gap is found buried in sedimentary strata.

Where does he say they were "thriving"?

I don't see what any of this has to do with your claims of a global flood anyway, care to explain?

 

[Jimmy D]

And now we are to believe that minor volcanic eruptions caused the little ice age and a drop in global temperatures to -.6C for a few hundred years because of lack of sunlight, but then are expected to believe that a drop in global temperatures to -10C lasting for 100,000 years left the earth nice and sunny. Oy vey.

It caused dramatic changes everywhere, and this was just a two degree drop in what was steadily increasing from the previous 12 degree drop.

Water on Sand

Now imagine what a 12 degree drop causes everywhere.... and not just for a few hundred years, but for 100,000 years every 125,000 years.

What is this reference to the little ice age related to? Trying to change the subject because the inadequacies of your arguments have been exposed?

What is your point?

 

[Jimmy D]

All dinosaurs went extinct 100,000 years before the event, worldwide, and in sedimentary strata. Not my fault you can’t accept the evidence for what it is. Don’t worry, you can admit to it, I am not implying at the least that that flood had anything to do with Noah’s flood at all.

There is no trick, no deception, the two events are totally unrelated.

It’s one of the longest outstanding controversies regarding their extinction. But to date only a couple bones and a set of tracks has been found in this three meter gap. Showing that by the time of the K-T event dinosaurs were well on their way to extinction.

So this guy finds a single solitary brow horn, and concludes dinosaurs were thriving. A 3 meter gap almost completely devoid of fossils shows just the opposite, that they were already almost extinct. And need we keep pointing out almost every one before the 3 meter gap is found buried in sedimentary strata.

Two assertions:

"All dinosaurs went extinct 100,000 years before the event, worldwide"

"by the time of the K-T event dinosaurs were well on their way to extinction."

Which was it? It almost sounds like you don't know what you're talking about.