Proof of Creation?

Doveaman · Jan 10, 2015

[FONT=&quot]

bhsmte said:
How do you explain this?

How long have we been here? | Natural History Museum

Im not opposed to the idea of prehistoric life existing before Genesis. There were a number of mass extinctions throughout earths history, the most recent occurring during the last ice age. During that time the earth had become frozen and the remaining prehistoric life went extinct. Eventually the ice melted and the earth was buried in water. It was at this time that the earth was formless and empty, and darkness covered the deep waters. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the surface of the waters. Then God said, Let there be light, and the rest is history. [/FONT]

lewiscalledhimmaster · Jan 10, 2015

EternalDragon said:
A bunch of naturalistic philosophy. I really enjoyed the part that states
"In principle the more ancient the population, the more time it has had
to build up diversity."

That would mean Noah's family must have had a great deal of diversity
in their DNA to repopulate the earth.

How do you reconcile your view with what was written beneath the skull?

'....Reconstruction of Homo sapiens skull from Omo Kibish in Ethiopia. Argon dating of volcanic ash deposits has revealed that this skull is close to 195,000 years old. ....'

Additional Readinig: John Hawks - My Travels In Ethiopia

EternalDragon · Jan 10, 2015

lasthero said:
That's not the way it works. 'Diversity' isn't the reason you can't get a viable population with only eight individuals.

That is what people argued on here in a whole other forum topic.
That there was not enough DNA diversity throughout 8 people.

So now you are saying if the group is large enough it will happen like
in the out of Africa idea? I don't think the size of the population has any
bearing on it.

Kylie · Jan 10, 2015

EternalDragon said:
That is what people argued on here in a whole other forum topic.
That there was not enough DNA diversity throughout 8 people.

So now you are saying if the group is large enough it will happen like
in the out of Africa idea? I don't think the size of the population has any
bearing on it.

Do you actually think you can get as much diversity in a population of 8 as you can in a population of 8 million?

lasthero · Jan 10, 2015

EternalDragon said:
That is what people argued on here in a whole other forum topic.
That there was not enough DNA diversity throughout 8 people.

So now you are saying if the group is large enough it will happen like
in the out of Africa idea? I don't think the size of the population has any
bearing on it.

Well, you're wrong. It does have a bearing.

EternalDragon · Jan 10, 2015

KTS said:
Do you actually think you can get as much diversity in a population of 8 as you can in a population of 8 million?

Common ancestry supposedly started out like that so why not?

Kylie · Jan 10, 2015

EternalDragon said:
Common ancestry supposedly started out like that so why not?

You got a source that supports this? A source that says once upon a time there was only a single life form?

lasthero · Jan 10, 2015

EternalDragon said:
Common ancestry supposedly started out like that so why not?

One of these days you really should take the time to actually learn about the stuff you're denying, you know? Biology books don't bite.

stevevw · Jan 10, 2015

lewiscalledhimmaster said:
How do you reconcile your view with what was written beneath the skull?

'....Reconstruction of Homo sapiens skull from Omo Kibish in Ethiopia. Argon dating of volcanic ash deposits has revealed that this skull is close to 195,000 years old. ....'

Additional Readinig: John Hawks - My Travels In Ethiopia

What I find hard to accept is that they can tell so much from a couple of old deteriorated skulls. They say they look like modern humans in the shapes. They have some doubt about skull 2 as it has a slightly sloping forehead which can indicate more primitive features. Then some say this could also show the great variety with humans in their shapes. How do we know they just aren't modern humans like today but just different variety and shapes. Look at the skull shapes we have today. Look at all the different things that can go wrong with human bone structures with deformities. I think to many scientists are eager to put names to anything they find in the ground.

There have been cases where several different shaped skulls spanning the shapes of different species that evolutionists had named new and different species in the past. But these skulls were found all together which showed it was actually different variation of the same species. There is still a lot of dispute about what constitutes a new species and what is modern human and what is ape. I thing some are to willing to make apes into humans and humans into apes when the variations of both can span all the different shapes they have found.

GoldenBoy89 · Jan 10, 2015

Doveaman said:
[FONT=&quot]I’m not opposed to the idea of prehistoric life existing before Genesis. There were a number of mass extinctions throughout earth’s history, the most recent occurring during the last ice age. During that time the earth had become frozen and the remaining prehistoric life went extinct. Eventually the ice melted and the earth was buried in water. It was at this time that “the earth was formless and empty, and darkness covered the deep waters. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the surface of the waters. Then God said, ‘Let there be light’”, and the rest is history. [/FONT]

Were the sun, moon and stars already created at this point? Or were see prehistoric animals in constant darkness?

EternalDragon · Jan 11, 2015

lasthero said:
One of these days you really should take the time to actually learn about the stuff you're denying, you know? Biology books don't bite.

I am studying one now.

EternalDragon · Jan 11, 2015

KTS said:
You got a source that supports this? A source that says once upon a time there was only a single life form?

How far do you want to go back? Go back far enough and you have
something springing from nothing and somehow getting the spark of
life. Not to mention encoded information to be able to function.

We came from rocks or microbial mats. Darwin proposed this and
the evolution theory proposes it. I am amazed you were unaware of
that.

The last universal ancestor (LUA), also called the last universal common ancestor (LUCA), cenancestor, or progenote, is the most recent organism from which all organisms now living on Earth have common descent.[2] Thus it is the most recent common ancestor (MRCA) of all current life on Earth. The LUA is estimated to have lived some 3.5 to 3.8 billion years ago (sometime in the Paleoarchean era).[3][4] The earliest evidences for life on Earth are graphite found to be biogenic in 3.7 billion-year-old metasedimentary rocks discovered in Western Greenland [5] and microbial mat fossils found in 3.48 billion-year-old sandstone discovered in Western Australia.[6][7]

In 1859, Charles Darwin published The Origin of Species in which he twice stated the hypothesis that there was only one progenitor for all life forms. In the summation he states, "Therefore I should infer from analogy that probably all the organic beings which have ever lived on this earth have descended from some one primordial form, into which life was first breathed."[16]

lewiscalledhimmaster · Jan 11, 2015

stevevw said:
What I find hard to accept is that they can tell so much from a couple of old deteriorated skulls. They say they look like modern humans in the shapes. They have some doubt about skull 2 as it has a slightly sloping forehead which can indicate more primitive features. Then some say this could also show the great variety with humans in their shapes. How do we know they just aren't modern humans like today but just different variety and shapes. Look at the skull shapes we have today. Look at all the different things that can go wrong with human bone structures with deformities. I think to many scientists are eager to put names to anything they find in the ground.

There have been cases where several different shaped skulls spanning the shapes of different species that evolutionists had named new and different species in the past. But these skulls were found all together which showed it was actually different variation of the same species. There is still a lot of dispute about what constitutes a new species and what is modern human and what is ape. I thing some are to willing to make apes into humans and humans into apes when the variations of both can span all the different shapes they have found.

I think I understand some of the difficulties involved, not that I've ever dug up and pieced together a skeleton. (except of course, when as a teenager I found plastic full sized skeleton in a coffin, after breaking into a Freemason's Hall)
Of course, what you aught to be considering is the age of ash, and the testing done on it to ascertain how old the ash is. No?

stevevw · Jan 11, 2015

lewiscalledhimmaster said:
I think I understand some of the difficulties involved, not that I've ever dug up and pieced together a skeleton. (except of course, when as a teenager I found plastic full sized skeleton in a coffin, after breaking into a Freemason's Hall)
Of course, what you aught to be considering is the age of ash, and the testing done on it to ascertain how old the ash is. No?

Yes but I am skeptical of this as well. I am not sure if the testing methods are correct. But on the other hand even if they are this doesn't mean that the fossil is evidence of the evolution of man. It could be a fossil of a man who is 200,000 years old. I think that if a person has already decided that a theory is true then everything they find is going to be made to fit that theory. So bones deep down have to be old and old bones have to be an earlier stage in evolution. Sometimes it can be circular reasoning like an assumed old bone dates the ground its found in as old and an assumed old ground dates the bones that are found in it as also old. Whereas it could be that if you believe say Noah's flood or it could be from any flood or movement in the earth the ground is mixed up and old dirt is mixed with newer dirt. Old fossils are mixed up and some are up in the higher levels. There are still a lot of discrepancies with the fossil records so I think you have to be careful not to believe everything that is said. I think some evolutionists build stories to fit their beliefs that are not necessarily based on truth.

florida2 · Jan 11, 2015

EternalDragon said:
I am studying one now.

Hooray! Which one?

lewiscalledhimmaster · Jan 11, 2015

stevevw said:
Yes but I am skeptical of this as well. I am not sure if the testing methods are correct. But on the other hand even if they are this doesn't mean that the fossil is evidence of the evolution of man. It could be a fossil of a man who is 200,000 years old. I think that if a person has already decided that a theory is true then everything they find is going to be made to fit that theory. So bones deep down have to be old and old bones have to be an earlier stage in evolution. Sometimes it can be circular reasoning like an assumed old bone dates the ground its found in as old and an assumed old ground dates the bones that are found in it as also old. Whereas it could be that if you believe say Noah's flood or it could be from any flood or movement in the earth the ground is mixed up and old dirt is mixed with newer dirt. Old fossils are mixed up and some are up in the higher levels. There are still a lot of discrepancies with the fossil records so I think you have to be careful not to believe everything that is said. I think some evolutionists build stories to fit their beliefs that are not necessarily based on truth.

Yes, but you're avoiding the obvious first matter. Old ground, is old ground, no matter where it's found. Testing the age of bones, is yet another matter. If you can't trust the testing, then you can't begin anywhere.
As to the matter of sinking, shifting sands etc. I've read enough of those arguments to know, that those who are knowledgeable or rather experienced archeologists, geologist and the like -- have strong views, which one will have to contend with -- before one does the old hand-waive.

NB: In fact, we're about to explore this under 'Lines of Evidence' (my thread) -- after we've finished discussing cellular and molecular evidence (here) In fact, I think I'll move on to that if there isn't any reply from Doveaman.

lasthero · Jan 11, 2015

We came from rocks or microbial mats. Darwin proposed this and
the evolution theory proposes it. I am amazed you were unaware of

Darwin never proposed that we came from rocks or microbial mats and evolutionary theory doesn't, either. That's abiogenesis. Evolutionary theory addresses the diversification of life.

stevevw · Jan 11, 2015

lewiscalledhimmaster said:
Yes, but you're avoiding the obvious first matter. Old ground, is old ground, no matter where it's found. Testing the age of bones, is yet another matter. If you can't trust the testing, then you can't begin anywhere.
As to the matter of sinking, shifting sands etc. I've read enough of those arguments to know, that those who are knowledgeable or rather experienced archeologists, geologist and the like -- have strong views, which one will have to contend with -- before one does the old hand-waive.

NB: In fact, we're about to explore this under 'Lines of Evidence' (my thread) -- after we've finished discussing cellular and molecular evidence (here) In fact, I think I'll move on to that if there isn't any reply from Doveaman.

If the ground/rocks are found to be old that really doesn't mean much anyway. As it may just mean that man as we know him has been around a lot longer than we thought. It still doesn't mean that man came from an ape. That is still up for debate. I tend to go somewhere in the middle. I dont think the rocks are as old as scientists say. Because they have to make some assumptions in the first place about dating those rocks and those assumptions maybe wrong. But I also dont think they are as young as some creationists think either.

florida2 · Jan 11, 2015

stevevw said:
I dont think the rocks are as old as scientists say. Because they have to make some assumptions in the first place about dating those rocks and those assumptions maybe wrong. But I also dont think they are as young as some creationists think either.

You base this on what?

If you can disprove dating methods please go and collect your Nobel prize.

stevevw · Jan 11, 2015

florida2 said:
You base this on what?

If you can disprove dating methods please go and collect your Nobel prize.

Its not a case of disproving it. Its a case of it being proven to be accurate.
All radiometric dating methods require making at least three assumptions. These are:
1) The rate of decay has remained constant throughout the past.
2) The original amount of both mother and daughter elements is known.
3) The sample has remained in a closed system.

http://www.earthage.org/EarthOldorYoung/Radiometric%20Dating,%20and%20The%20Age%20of%20the%20Earth.htm

Proof of Creation?

Re-Created, Not Evolved.

georgemacdonald.info

Counselor

Defeater of Illogic

Newbie

Counselor

Defeater of Illogic

Newbie

inquisitive

We're Still Here

Counselor

Counselor

georgemacdonald.info

inquisitive

Well-Known Member

georgemacdonald.info

Newbie

inquisitive

Well-Known Member

inquisitive

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency