New human relative

JackRT said:

No, it happens all the time. For example, the aboriginal people of Australia arrived there between 50,000 and 60,000 YBP.

Click to expand...

No they didn't.

JackRT said:

No, it happens all the time. For example, the aboriginal people of Australia arrived there between 50,000 and 60,000 YBP.

Click to expand...

Inobservant fellows weren't they?

Ttalkkugjil said:

No they didn't.

Click to expand...

And I suppose Siberians didn't colonize the Americas 12,000 to 15,000 YBP? The record of creation was written in the stones and the bones and the stardust long LONG before it was written on parchment.

JackRT said:

And I suppose Siberians didn't colonize the Americas 12,000 to 15,000 YBP?

Click to expand...

Of course not. How could they have when the earth is only about 6,000 years old.

Ttalkkugjil said:

Of course not. How could they have when the earth is only about 6,000 years old.

Click to expand...

There is zero scientific evidence to support that assertion. An interpretive mythology written 3,000 YBP does not count as such evidence.

JackRT said:

There is zero scientific evidence to support that assertion. An interpretive mythology written 3,000 YBP does not count as such evidence.

Click to expand...

And of course, there's no scriptural support for that belief.

JackRT said:

There is zero scientific evidence to support that assertion. An interpretive mythology written 3,000 YBP does not count as such evidence.

Click to expand...

The Bible trumps science. Where the two seem to disagree, the win goes to the former.

Ttalkkugjil said:

The Bible trumps science. Where the two seem to disagree,...

Click to expand...

...then you have misunderstood one or both of them. And it's equally possible to misunderstand either of them.

Ttalkkugjil said:

Of course not. How could they have when the earth is only about 6,000 years old.

Click to expand...

Wherever did you get the idea that the Bible tells you how old the Earth is?

sfs said:

Wherever did you get the idea that the Bible tells you how old the Earth is?

Click to expand...

I forget exactly where I first learned of this truth.

sfs said:

Wherever did you get the idea that the Bible tells you how old the Earth is?

Click to expand...

Not the Bible. That interpretation was by Bishop Ussher in 1658 who believed the world was created October 23 at 9:00 AM in 4004 BC. You will not find that in the Bible.

Ttalkkugjil said:

I forget exactly where I first learned of this truth.

Click to expand...

So you don't know why you believe something, and on that basis are willing to lecture others about it?

sfs said:

So you don't know why you believe something, and on that basis are willing to lecture others about it?

Click to expand...

Faith has been given to me by the Spirit of God. Oh, and I'm conversing, not lecturing. But nice try.

Ttalkkugjil said:

Faith has been given to me by the Spirit of God. Oh, and I'm conversing, not lecturing. But nice try.

Click to expand...

Faith has little, if anything, to do with belief or dogma or doctrine. On the other hand, faith is a deep and profound trust that, no matter what happens, God is always with us. A belief in an earth that is about 6000 years old is a belief in one man's interpretation of certain Biblical passages. It is a belief that is not shared by a great many, in fact the majority, of Christians.

JackRT said:

Faith has little, if anything, to do with belief or dogma or doctrine. On the other hand, faith is a deep and profound trust that, no matter what happens, God is always with us. A belief in an earth that is about 6000 years old is a belief in one man's interpretation of certain Biblical passages. It is a belief that is not shared by a great many, in fact the majority, of Christians.

Click to expand...

Source of stats please.

Ttalkkugjil said:

Source of stats please.

Click to expand...

Those you can determine for yourself. The official positions of the major Protestant denominations plus the Catholic church would be a good place to start. Together they make up the vast majority of Christians. Also keep in mind that the USA is the only major nation where a literal/inerrant approach to the Bible is popular and even there it is a minority opinion.

JackRT said:

Those you can determine for yourself. The official positions of the major Protestant denominations plus the Catholic church would be a good place to start. Together they make up the vast majority of Christians. Also keep in mind that the USA is the only major nation where a literal/inerrant approach to the Bible is popular and even there it is a minority opinion.

Click to expand...

Your source please.

Ttalkkugjil said:

Your source please.

Click to expand...

Start with https://www.pewforum.org/2009/02/04/religious-groups-views-on-evolution/

JackRT said:

Start with https://www.pewforum.org/2009/02/04/religious-groups-views-on-evolution/

Click to expand...

That's your answer? A reliable source with numbers clearly presented to back up your claim would be preferable.

"Archaeologists in Luzon Island have turned up the bones of a distantly related species"

The very description of the title is specious. Bones do not last more than a few hundred ears under the best of conditions. It goes on:

"At least 50,000 years ago, an extinct human species lived on what is now the island of Luzon, researchers reported on Wednesday. It’s possible that Homo luzonensis, as they’re calling the species, stood less than three feet tall."

With all of the hoaxes, and scientists attempting to force history, why should anyone believe their lies? Did you know that dinosaurs were an idea in someone's head before any dinosaur "fossil" had ever been discovered? And the first dinosaurs were found not by a farmer in his field but by "paleontologists". I don't suppose those paleontologists had incentive to find these massive beasts? It's a fact that once these rocks fossils are found, the dinosaur is sketched and it's whole habitat is formulated from its diet to its mating habits and how it hunted. All this "information" comes from one fossil, not a complete skeleton. They literally make a whole dinosaur story from one or two fossils.
Many of the cave man fossils "discovered", have also been hoaxed, just as dinosaur fossils. If this find in Luzon is in fact human, it's simply a child. And not 50,000 years old. More likely a few hundred or a few thousand at the most.
The carbon dating method itself is flawed to make everything look much much older than what it is. They skewed the numbers of the method at the very beginning to give an almost timeless "belief" to historical studies in order to support the case of evolution. Dinosaur/caveman history is nothing more than manipulation of information at best in attempts to fracture any belief in creation which is given to us in the bible.