Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Question for you: What segregates Australopithecines with modern humans? We define humans as beings with souls. What's to say that the Genesis account wasn't talking about Adam and Eve as some more primitive being than a 'modern human'? After all, there's no account that shows Adam and Eve building cities or villages, or making tools...The geologic evidence demonstrates that the world was not completely covered at any time in the last 100 million years, at a minimum.
Every fossil they dig up supports this finding, and the genetic evidence also supports it. The differences between the chimp and human genomes puts our common ancestor at 5-8 million years ago.
3 million years ago we find Australopithecines. No modern humans, and no Homo species whatsoever. It isn't until about 1.5 million years ago that we start seeing early Homo species that still have ape-like features. At about 200,000 we start seeing modern humans. The Neanderthal genome also supports this, showing that our common ancestor existed about 500,000 years ago.
I would say no. The only reason mankind is having more impact now is because of the vast numbers of humans on the planet breathing and eating and living.Then would you agree that man's burning of fossil fuels is responsible for recent global warming? Yes or no?
The fact that climate changed drastically many times when humans weren't there in great numbers to cause it.Based on what evidence?
You believe that the extinction of animals proves that global warming is harmful?Can you show me a living dodo bird? What about a living passenger pigeon?
Those are just two examples that prove you wrong.
Everyone has an agenda. I just wish everyone would be forthcoming with what that agenda is...What evidence do you base this on?
Except that you have failed to demonstrate that it isn't true.
You haven't shown that the conclusions are wrong.
Links? I don't believe 97% of scientists agree on the exact same premise.There have been several published peer review studies that have examined the published peer review climate research literature. It is not opinions of scientists, it what 97% of the research shows. Would you like links to some of them?
The reason for the current inter-glacial is due to Milankovitch Cycles. That cycle is now in a down turn where we should be cooling, but instead we are warming at a rate faster than any previous warming rate in geologic history. Furthermore, there were not 7 billion people on earth 11,700 years ago. Things are a bit crowed now with deforestation increasing, climate conditions changing in agricultural areas, and ocean acidification increasing. 11,000 years ago AGW would not have been a problem, today it is.
Do you believe that animals and people dying is the definition of 'harm'? One of the scientists' greatest ideas was 'survival of the fittest' to describe how evolution occurs. Do you think that, if the oceans are rising, people won't figure out that they need to move? Do you think that Florida was always there?You are arguing that if temperatures fluctuate through natural processes in the past that this means humans can't do the same. This is obviously false.
You are shifting the goal posts, as usual.
You are arguing that warming won't hurt anyone. Will flooding nearly the entire state of Florida cause harm?
links? I've heard that the ice in Antarctica is actually increasing.In reading the article in full, it is make the case that sea ice globally over all is decreasing and also makes the very clear point that the Antarctic and Arctic are completely different situations (topography). Furthermore, that is a 2014 article, Antarctica has lost much ice volume in that time. Also, note the word "volume". That is much more important than extent (area).
How would a human in those days know if a flood was local or worldwide? Also, the question arises, why wouldn't a people report that their area was flooded, and why couldn't many of them occur at the same time?Then why should geologists reject all of the evidence for local floods spanning billions of years simply because someone makes the claim that the supernatural created that evidence?
How are the characteristics of a sediment layer any different than a fingerprint? We can observe natural processes produce these same sediments in the here and now just like we can observe fingers leaving fingerprints.
Because that is how science works. When you are doing science you have to use a testable and falsifiable hypothesis.
If you want, you can certainly reject the scientific method and believe that everything is made through supernatural means no matter if there is evidence for a natural process. However, I think you can see that such a method just isn't that useful for understanding how the world around us works.
The same argument could be used to throw DNA and fingerprint evidence out of a court case.
Actually, we have just proved that it is.The weight of evidence isn't imagined.
Question for you: What segregates Australopithecines with modern humans? We define humans as beings with souls. What's to say that the Genesis account wasn't talking about Adam and Eve as some more primitive being than a 'modern human'? After all, there's no account that shows Adam and Eve building cities or villages, or making tools...
I agree with you, but we also believe, most Christians, that is, that time in Genesis is not linear, nor is it literal. Time in Genesis is very fluid. We are to believe that it happened, whether or not the way it is portrayed is accurate.Maybe not Adam and Eve, but "And Cain knew his wife; and she conceived, and bare Enoch: and he builded a city, and called the name of the city, after the name of his son, Enoch."
That's just one generation after Adam and Eve (who lived to a ripe age, as the story goes).
Thank you for your interest. Here's links to 4 papers published in peer review journals showing the 97% consensus.Links? I don't believe 97% of scientists agree on the exact same premise.
It is currently at its lowest recorded point.links? I've heard that the ice in Antarctica is actually increasing.
I prefer looking at the actual science rather than media opinion. Here's a link to a paper NASA (Hansen, Makiko, 2011) on Paleoclimate Implications for Human-Made Climate Change, where Milankovitch Cycles are discussed in detail. http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2011/20110118_MilankovicPaper.pdf
"known" being the operative word.
Regarding Chinese history, how do you know there's no gap? And what if the Chinese culture started at the end of the Flood?
Question for you: What segregates Australopithecines with modern humans?
We define humans as beings with souls.
What's to say that the Genesis account wasn't talking about Adam and Eve as some more primitive being than a 'modern human'? After all, there's no account that shows Adam and Eve building cities or villages, or making tools...
I agree with you, but we also believe, most Christians, that is, that time in Genesis is not linear, nor is it literal. Time in Genesis is very fluid. We are to believe that it happened, whether or not the way it is portrayed is accurate.
I would say no. The only reason mankind is having more impact now is because of the vast numbers of humans on the planet breathing and eating and living.
But I can also tell you that electric cars aren't going to do anything much, because electricity is most efficiently generated by burning fossil fuels...
The fact that climate changed drastically many times when humans weren't there in great numbers to cause it.
You believe that the extinction of animals proves that global warming is harmful?
Everyone has an agenda. I just wish everyone would be forthcoming with what that agenda is...
How would a human in those days know if a flood was local or worldwide?
Also, the question arises, why wouldn't a people report that their area was flooded, and why couldn't many of them occur at the same time?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?