Age of the Earth 2

[Guest shadow2b]

-Please someone enlighten me...

Does this topic have some religious significance? I don't understand...

-WeLLLLLLLLLLLL,Steve--This is a novel-debate between "a Scientific-Athiest" &

-Christians supposedly trying to show--prove-to SA there is a Creator-GOD----

-Which in all probability is jest NOT gonna happen----NOT taday--Not Tamorry---

-sooooooooo--It's a totally useless exercise in futility--- {IMHO}of course- hope that clarifies this lill-novella furr yuse--

[artsylady]

http://www.evolution-facts.org/2evlch18b.htm

An interesting site with great tidbits, including references from science magazines and quotes from scientists.

[Steff]

However, there are human fossils that are not hoaxes and cannot be easily dismissed.

Please post them I'd like to see it.

[Bread_of_Life]

artsylady,

Talk origins devotes a whole paragraph to each archaological anomaly

They also give references to the original papers that they're quoting. That means that, if I want to find out whether or not they're accurate, I can just read the papers for myself.

I have heard a lot of creationist claims in my time, and I often find it useful to go back and read the original research papers to find out the truth. When these arn't given, I grow very suspicious as to the motives of the researcher.

So you accept only evidence that has been found by actual archaeologists? Hmmm that's interesting.

THat isn't what I said. But a sentence starting:

"a woman once found," or

"an iron pot was found,"

without any papers confirming this, without a picture, without any scientific analysis of the find, without any confirmation that the find is actually genuine, with no details on who this woman was so that she can be contacted and asked about her find - is extremely dubious. It's what urban legends are made of artsylady, not science.

http://home.hetnet.nl/mr_9/95/krocat/english/news/news4.htm

Versus the very short paragraph from Talk Origins.

These were about different subjects. The Talk Origins paragraph refered to the Laetoli footprints, which have been dated about 3.5 million years old, and are australopithecine tracks.

The article in National Geographic is about human tracks, made about 100,000 years ago, believed to be the first evidence of modern humans. They were found in South Africa, which was already thought to be at or near the birthplace of modern humans.

The articles do not conflict, but nor do they overlap. It is therefore not surprising that the Talk Origins site doesn't do the National Geographic article justice - that's because it's not talking about the same find.

SA, could you please direct me to the paper writtem by the team who discovered any archaeological evidence of "early man"?

By early man, you're talking about modern humans, like the article artsylady posted up - or you're talking about transitional fossils?

Either way, I'd be happy to give you references that you will be able to find in journals at your local library.

SA: And just to prove that AIG is credible and interested only in truth, this is what they had to say about Castenedolo Man.

Well, it proves that AiG are more credible than sites still displaying these "finds" - but it sure doesn't prove they're credible.

-Please someone enlighten me...

Does this topic have some religious significance? I don't understand...

The answer is no, the topic has no religious significance in my mind - although clearly it has in other people's minds.

[truseek]

Please, transitional humans, I gotta see this.

Yours in

Christ

Truseek

[Guest shep]

Hello SA:

Thanks for your explanation of the Age of Earth and how it was obtained. I also see that you've run in to Those who would try to discredit you and ridicule and change the subject. There are those Christians who are interested in your posts.

Shep

[truseek]

I think that the topic does indeed have religious signifigance, perhaps indirectly however. The age of the earth and evolution are two closely related topics, it's pretty hard to debate one without debating the other. Scripture speaks of creatures (clearly dinosaurs) who lived during the time of man. If the old earth theories are ture, and the opinion that dinosaurs dies off long before man is true, than that part of scripture is a lie.

Yours in Christ

Truseek

[stevehut]

This is a novel-debate between "a Scientific-Athiest" &

-Christians supposedly trying to show--prove-to SA there is a Creator-GOD-----Which in all probability is jest NOT gonna happen----NOT taday--Not Tamorry---

Hmmm...

He already has his mind made up.

So why does he come to a Christian forum like this??

[Bread_of_Life]

Shep

It's my pleasure, thankyou for your kind remarks.

TruSeek

Please, transitional humans, I gotta see this.

I agree, I rather think you do have to see this!

http://members.aol.com/darwinpage/hominid.htm#Transitionals

This page present photos and timelines/phylogenies of homonid and australopithecus transitionals found thus far. As you can see, throughout the page on each transitional there are links that you can follow - many are pdf copies of the original papers on that species of transitional.

Also, just out of interest, if you want to find out about the laetoli footprints, a link to the paper is included in the Australopithecus Afarensis part - and also a paper on Lucy (who you may have heard of in creationist literature, often as a "hoax", which she aint!), whose skeleton proudly stands at the Natural History Museum in London.

Scripture speaks of creatures (clearly dinosaurs) who lived during the time of man.

Don't some people think these are hippos and stuff? I mean, it doesn't say "dinosaur" does it?

Anyhow, as you rightly said, dinosaurs died out 66 million years ago (along with all life over 25kg, in the K-T extinction), so it can't have been dinos they were talking about.

[truseek]

Well, it refers to them as leviathan and behemoth. Behemoth is found is Job 40:15-24. I think it is interesting to note, here that the word behemoth is merely the hebrew word for beast (behem) with the feminine plural ending (oth), it clearly refers to a single creature however. This is in corellation with the tradition of using plurality to denote great power, a tradition found in many cultures. Anyhoo, Behemoth has the following qualities:

It