human life began in Africa, is this not what the bible tells us?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Queller

I'm where?
May 25, 2012
6,446
681
✟45,092.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Divorced
Politics
US-Others
If you want something that I supposedly indicated pointed out, that's for you to do.
I've already explained very clearly that you didn't indicate that you dishonestly chopped out portions of your copy/paste and you didn't indicate it was a copy/paste. That's really extent of the burden that is on me.

Desperate for what? Winning some kind of prize for making my point on an internet forum?
Yes, apparently. So far however, you have failed completely.
 
Upvote 0

stevevw

inquisitive
Nov 4, 2013
12,572
949
Brisbane Qld Australia
✟243,871.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
I am pointing to features YOU NEVER SEE IN MODERN HUMANS. You NEVER SEE A MODERN HUMAN WHERE THE TOP OF THEIR HEAD IS EVEN WITH THEIR BROW RIDGES.

NEVER

Am I making this clear enough?
Homo erectus didn't have the top of their head level with their brows and that is an exaggeration.

atapuerca.jpeg

HOMO ERECTUS MAN OF ISERNIA PALAEOLITHIC SITE

The Origin of Modern Humans: Multiregional and Replacement Theories

Plus there was a variation among homo erectus as well with some showing higher foreheads similar to modern humans.

230px-Homo_ergaster.jpg

Homo ergaster (meaning "working man") or African Homo erectus
Homo ergaster - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The other point is how do you explain the similar features that modern humans have as shown in the pictures of natives I attached. Some had very prominent brows that were similar to Homo erectus and especially Neanderthals. Where do modern humans get those features from if not still a carry over from the ancient humans. How do you explain that the natives only have them and not other modern humans that are more civilized and perhaps had mixed more.
 
Upvote 0

stevevw

inquisitive
Nov 4, 2013
12,572
949
Brisbane Qld Australia
✟243,871.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Why shouldn't we consider fossils to be a fact?

Turkana%20Boy.jpg


These fossils are so obviously transitional that your only recourse is to try and accuse scientists of faking the fossils. That is a despicable accusation, and one that you should be embarrassed by.
There is no definite transitional lines between Turkana boy and modern humans. From the neck down he looks similar to humans. There maybe a few small differences as cited by some evolutionists such as the holes in his vertebrae, through which the spinal cord goes, have only about half the cross-sectional area found in modern humans. But these dont indicate transitions. They can be easily fitted into the normal variations of modern humans. What evolutionists have done is to take small differences which are normal variations within the same species and then make them transitions between different species. It happens all the time with fossils where they have miss interpreted the observational evidence.

Turkana boy is similar to a modern African boy in many way. He just happens to have a more robust shape and that is how humans looked back then. But they didn't come from apes and continue any evolution from apes. They just changed because they mixed their genetics with other different shaped humans around at that time to blend their shapes new shapes that we see today. We know for a fact that different so called species of humans who had a great variation of shapes mated so they would have produced new shapes all the time. How do you tell the difference between those new shapes that were produced from mating and what is suppose to have evolved from random mutations.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Loudmouth

Contributor
Aug 26, 2003
51,417
6,141
Visit site
✟98,005.00
Faith
Agnostic
Homo erectus didn't have the top of their head level with their brows and that is an exaggeration.

It is much, much, much closer than it is in modern humans, even the modern human you keep linking a picture to where the top of the cranium is way above the brow ridges.

Homo_erectus_Sangiran17_200.jpeg


Here is a picture of H. erectus with some flesh on the bones.

Homo_erectus_reconstruction.gif


That dude couldn't even wear a baseball cap.

Sorry, but H. erectus is not a modern human.
 
Upvote 0

KEBO12345

Junior Member
Apr 12, 2015
46
2
New Zealand
✟15,177.00
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Private
Hi,
Genetic variability studies in humans and chimps, our closest cousin
have found that chimps are poised about where Man was about 4-5 million years ago.

Chimps have 2 species and 3 subspecies and all are geographically isolated in Africa/Asia by rivers mostly. The comparisons in DNA variability inside a species suggests that one such Homo species of man perhaps acquired the reflective mind (which all primates are working their way to) and smarter was able to cross rivers and conquer and interbreed with other less clever Homo species to ultimately produce what is today Homo sapiens sapiens.

The genetic studies indicate an initial breeding population for our species was around 20,000 individuals originating from Africa. This demonstrates a 'double dipping' type of evolution that allows for rapid developments. Indeed primate brain cc development is exponential whereas organismic mutation based evolution is normally a straight line or linear process. Big brains make bigger brains faster.

A thresh hold for brain size permitting the reflective mind was reached somewhere in
this period of evolution. A brain cavity of about 650ml must be attained at the age of
4 months or the being is destined to live its life in non reflective ambiance of the world.

Don't think this lines up with the creation sequence in Genesis very well.

And on that note... Perhaps the Garden of Eden refers to a different aspect of our
being, Where we have all been spat out by the Garden, that of our having been given the taste of Duality (the world and separation from God) or then choose Non Duality (non separation from God) where the world and cosmos becomes a different place where Love reigns supreme?
 
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,850,667
51,419
Guam
✟4,896,773.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Where we have all been spat out by the Garden,
Nice word choices in your post.

When you talked your science, you used specific (and respectful) terminology.

But when it came time to compare it to what the Bible says, suddenly you talk like this.

I think I know which side your bread is buttered on.

Welcome to CF! :wave:

You'll fit in nicely here!
 
Upvote 0

stevevw

inquisitive
Nov 4, 2013
12,572
949
Brisbane Qld Australia
✟243,871.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
It is much, much, much closer than it is in modern humans, even the modern human you keep linking a picture to where the top of the cranium is way above the brow ridges.

Homo_erectus_Sangiran17_200.jpeg


Here is a picture of H. erectus with some flesh on the bones.

Homo_erectus_reconstruction.gif


That dude couldn't even wear a baseball cap.

Sorry, but H. erectus is not a modern human.
It all depends on which example you like to show for erectus. You are choosing a illustration that is done to bring out the features that evolutionists want to show. If we use the actual skulls you will find there is a great variation of higher and lower foreheads. I am not saying homo erectus is a modern human. I am saying that they were humans who looked different many years ago. Not because they came from apes but because DNA was less mixed with other humans who has different shapes and sizes. Then as time went by they mixed with other humans and the shape became more blended. Thats why we then had Neanderthals who were less robust and eventually we have the modern look of humans.

But if you notice we still have the Neanderthal look in some of our natives because this was a more recent look that is still around more. The natives are more isolated so they havnt mixed as much and therefore their robust look hasn't been blended out as much. If this isn't the case then how is it that these natives still have the ancient looks that are so much like Neanderthals and erectus.

The fact is we can see some of those features still today but they are not so strong. They may not be as prominent but you can see that they use to be that way and they have come from those looks in the past. The other thing is as I said before at the time of erectus there were some humans who had more modern looks as well. Then at the time when erectus was suppose to have been overtaken by others like Neanderthals we still had erectus shapes around as well. So this shows that the vast range of variety in shapes was there and has always been there. So todya we see the remnants of this by the fact that we have such a varied amount of shapes as well. If dogs can have such a great array of shapes in the one species why cant humans.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

stevevw

inquisitive
Nov 4, 2013
12,572
949
Brisbane Qld Australia
✟243,871.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
So heres a couple of examples how the skulls of Homo erectus and Neandathals can show similar features. Neanderthals can show erectus features and erectus skulls can show Neanderthal features. So modern humans can also show some of these features as well.

Modern humans may not have the robust features as much today that erectus and Neanderthals showed. But you can still see some of those features in the natives of today. The natives of today were more isolated so they have retained more of the robust features of the ancient humans of years ago.

neanderthal.jpg

So this is a Neanderthal skull showing the lower forehead of erectus.

230px-Homo_ergaster.jpg
159.jpg

http://www.answers.com/topic/homo-ergaster
This is the erectus skull showing the higher forehead of Neanderthals and modern human. So that picture of the modern native fits very closely into the shape of this Homo erectus skull.

So we can see the great variation that was possible that could cover a lot of the features we see in modern humans but especially in later humans like Neanderthals and cro magnum man.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

stevevw

inquisitive
Nov 4, 2013
12,572
949
Brisbane Qld Australia
✟243,871.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Turkana boy IS A TRANSITIONAL.

If you don't think Turkana Boy is a transitional, then please list the features that a real transitional should have.
You cant list them because the transitions that are used to show the links between species have also been found in the same species. It can be easy for a scientists to mistake a feature that is a normal variation of the one species for a transition when they are looking at fragmented and old fossils. Look at the skulls at Georgia. They had all the features that scientists had used to prove transitions between species in the one species. The skulls at Georgia wiped out several species such as Homo Habilis, Homo rudolfensis, Homo ergaster and Homo heidelbergensis and put them into the one species Homo erectus.

The scientists went on to compare the Dmanisi remains with those of supposedly different species of human ancestor that lived in Africa at the time. They concluded that the variation among them was no greater than that seen at Dmanisi. Rather than being separate species, the human ancestors found in Africa from the same period may simply be normal variants of H erectus.
Skull of Homo erectus throws story of human evolution into disarray | Science | The Guardian
Ancient Skulls Suggests One Lineage for Early Human
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/ancient-skull-early-human/2013/10/18/id/531753/


 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Aldebaran

NCC-1701-A
Christian Forums Staff
Purple Team - Moderator
Supporter
Oct 17, 2009
38,653
12,106
Wisconsin, United States of America
✟622,944.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
if you search how many people were in the world at 6000bc it was about 5 million so Adam and Eve must have been really really " busy" at that to get the population to that level LOL

Or their children, grandchildren, great-grandchildren, etc. did their part.
 
Upvote 0

stevevw

inquisitive
Nov 4, 2013
12,572
949
Brisbane Qld Australia
✟243,871.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
if you search how many people were in the world at 6000bc it was about 5 million so Adam and Eve must have been really really " busy" at that to get the population to that level LOL
It actually doesn't take long to reach our present day population from just two people 6,000 ago. If the population doubled every 150 years which is conservative then after only 32 doublings, which is only 4,800 years, the world population would have reached almost 8.6 billion.You also have to consider people lived much longer and had more children in those days as the bible states. The question should be if humans have been around for millions of years where are they all. Even with very low growth rates we should see many billions of people.

Even if we say that humans have been around for 50,000 years and if we were to use the calculations above, there would have been 332 doublings, and the world’s population would be a one followed by 100 zeros. Thats
10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.
 
Upvote 0

Oafman

Try telling that to these bog brained murphys
Dec 19, 2012
7,106
4,063
Malice
✟28,559.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Politics
UK-Labour
It actually doesn't take long to reach our present day population from just two people 6,000 ago. If the population doubled every 150 years which is conservative then after only 32 doublings, which is only 4,800 years, the world population would have reached almost 8.6 billion.You also have to consider people lived much longer and had more children in those days as the bible states. The question should be if humans have been around for millions of years where are they all. Even with very low growth rates we should see many billions of people.

Even if we say that humans have been around for 50,000 years and if we were to use the calculations above, there would have been 332 doublings, and the world’s population would be a one followed by 100 zeros. Thats
10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.

Are you aware that people die?
 
Upvote 0

stevevw

inquisitive
Nov 4, 2013
12,572
949
Brisbane Qld Australia
✟243,871.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Are you aware that people die?
Yeah but with those sorts of numbers there's enough to have plenty living and plenty dead. There should be lots of evidence of people and their remains if there was that many people. I think they were calculating the growth rate over that amount of time and figured there should be a hell of a lot more people living today.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Loudmouth

Contributor
Aug 26, 2003
51,417
6,141
Visit site
✟98,005.00
Faith
Agnostic
It actually doesn't take long to reach our present day population from just two people 6,000 ago.

The problem is that there would only be 4 alleles for HLA markers in the current generation if that is how it would have happened, two from each of the original parents. As it turns out, there are thousands of HLA alleles in the human population. This alone disproves the recent Adam/Eve/Noah stories as being literal.
 
Upvote 0

Aldebaran

NCC-1701-A
Christian Forums Staff
Purple Team - Moderator
Supporter
Oct 17, 2009
38,653
12,106
Wisconsin, United States of America
✟622,944.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
The problem is that there would only be 4 alleles for HLA markers in the current generation if that is how it would have happened, two from each of the original parents. As it turns out, there are thousands of HLA alleles in the human population. This alone disproves the recent Adam/Eve/Noah stories as being literal.

Which means what? Did thousands of humans suddenly spring into existence all by themselves, independently of each other?
 
Upvote 0

stevevw

inquisitive
Nov 4, 2013
12,572
949
Brisbane Qld Australia
✟243,871.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
The problem is that there would only be 4 alleles for HLA markers in the current generation if that is how it would have happened, two from each of the original parents. As it turns out, there are thousands of HLA alleles in the human population. This alone disproves the recent Adam/Eve/Noah stories as being literal.
I am not an expert on Genetics. But I have read that the evidence points back to a bottle next of a small amount of people. Some say it is thousands and others say its in the 100s of people.
 
Upvote 0

Loudmouth

Contributor
Aug 26, 2003
51,417
6,141
Visit site
✟98,005.00
Faith
Agnostic
Which means what? Did thousands of humans suddenly spring into existence all by themselves, independently of each other?

It means that there was a constant population of thousands and thousands in which the alleles were passed around and diverged over time.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Loudmouth

Contributor
Aug 26, 2003
51,417
6,141
Visit site
✟98,005.00
Faith
Agnostic
I am not an expert on Genetics. But I have read that the evidence points back to a bottle next of a small amount of people. Some say it is thousands and others say its in the 100s of people.

"The Toba catastrophe theory as presented in the late 1990s to early 2000s suggested that a bottleneck of the human population occurred c. 70,000 years ago, proposing that the human population was reduced to perhaps 10,000 individuals[3] when the Toba supervolcano in Indonesia erupted and triggered a major environmental change."
Population bottleneck - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

10,000. Not 2. Not 8. 10,000.

None of the genetic studies I have read come even close to supporting the claim that genetic diversity came from 1 couple that lived 6,000 years ago, or one family that survived a flood 4,000 years ago. None.
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.