Evolutionary news

[Guest]

in looking at this thread,i am glad i decided to remove myslef from it and i will stay out of it for the simple reason that there was no evolution, is no evolution nor will there be any evolution.

when those that advocate this theory return to reality then maybe i would address some of the issues but as it stands,it is a hopeless waste of time and energy discussing something that is unprovable, unverifiable and unobservable which leaves it vulnerable to the latest whims of fallible scientists.

if you want to stake your future and eternity on that theory that is your choice, my choice is that i go with the truth and that is the Bible and creation.

[Guest]

Archae means there is no Darwinian evolution, to be specific.

[oldarchystudent]

in looking at this thread,i am glad i decided to remove myslef from it and i will stay out of it for the simple reason that there was no evolution, is no evolution nor will there be any evolution.

when those that advocate this theory return to reality then maybe i would address some of the issues but as it stands,it is a hopeless waste of time and energy discussing something that is unprovable, unverifiable and unobservable which leaves it vulnerable to the latest whims of fallible scientists.

if you want to stake your future and eternity on that theory that is your choice, my choice is that i go with the truth and that is the Bible and creation.

A hundred odd years of research and discovery have produced physical evidence to say your creation myth is just that, a myth. You have no evidence, only faith. If you choose to follow that - fine, but you can't discount all the evidence for evolution - it's just not realistic. If you are leaving the discussion, so be it.

[Beagle]

Supraorbital Foramen (brow ridges) :

Nothing in the evolution of man in the past two million years is as visually dramatic as the slow disappearance of the large brow ridges that were prominent in Homo Erectus and Neandertal - to name two family members.

Additional features included protruding facial features and a sloping braincase.

Why the disappearance? The single simplest answer is the use of fire. The first known use of fire was 1.3 million years ago. Undoubtedly it's first use was for light and heat. When it was first used for cooking purposes is uncertain.

The supraorbital foramen are a part of the skeleto-muscular features of the head that allow for strong muscle and tendon attachment for the purposes of chewing food. Prior to the use of fire, man, like other primates had to eat food raw, including meat, nuts, tubers, wild grains. The farther north man lived, the more meat was present in the diet.
(anybody here ever eaten raw game?) Me either.

Fire technology spread quickly, and it "probably" wasn't too many millenia before man learned that food could be tenderized by cooking it over a fire.

If we conservatively figure that man has been eating cooked food for one million years, or even half a million years, his facial features have been evolving. The brow ridges are not needed, and neither is all the previous dentition.

The braincase has been able to move forward (it's often thought that we grew bigger brains, as manifested in the higher forehead, when actually Neandertal had an overall larger braincase.) The so-called "wisdom" teeth, or back molars are now almost vestigial and will eventually disappear altogether.

And still our food gets softer and softer. What will our face look like in another million years. (jokes are allowed here).

Some people may not even call this evolution, preferring to call it a "use it or lose it" law of nature.

I'll continue to maintain that Homo Sapiens did not complete a makeover into European features in only 40,000 yrs.

I forgot to add - I call it evolution.

[Guest]

Do you actually think, oas, that the geologic record reflects its formation by processes which are going on right now, which is Uniformitarian geological theory, the predicate of Darwinism?

[oldarchystudent]

Supraorbital Foramen (brow ridges) :

Nothing in the evolution of man in the past two million years is as visually dramatic as the slow disappearance of the large brow ridges that were prominent in Homo Erectus and Neandertal - to name two family members.

Additional features included protruding facial features and a sloping braincase.

Why the disappearance? The single simplest answer is the use of fire. The first known use of fire was 1.3 million years ago. Undoubtedly it's first use was for light and heat. When it was first used for cooking purposes is uncertain.

The supraorbital foramen are a part of the skeleto-muscular features of the head that allow for strong muscle and tendon attachment for the purposes of chewing food. Prior to the use of fire, man, like other primates had to eat food raw, including meat, nuts, tubers, wild grains. The farther north man lived, the more meat was present in the diet.
(anybody here ever eaten raw game?) Me either.

Fire technology spread quickly, and it "probably" wasn't too many millenia before man learned that food could be tenderized by cooking it over a fire.

If we conservatively figure that man has been eating cooked food for one million years, or even half a million years, his facial features have been evolving. The brow ridges are not needed, and neither is all the previous dentition.

The braincase has been able to move forward (it's often thought that we grew bigger brains, as manifested in the higher forehead, when actually Neandertal had an overall larger braincase.) The so-called "wisdom" teeth, or back molars are now almost vestigial and will eventually disappear altogether.

And still our food gets softer and softer. What will our face look like in another million years. (jokes are allowed here).

Some people may not even call this evolution, preferring to call it a "use it or lose it" law of nature.

I'll continue to maintain that Homo Sapiens did not complete a makeover into European features in only 40,000 yrs.

The saggital crest falls into the same discussion, althoug in that case it was to support the grinding needed to digest a diet that included a lot of coarse plant materials.

[Minimalist]

my choice is that i go with the truth and that is the Bible and creation.

[Guest]

There you go again, min, bringing religion back into it, you're obviously a Fundamentalist Darwinite troll.

[john]

in looking at this thread,i am glad i decided to remove myslef from it and i will stay out of it for the simple reason that there was no evolution, is no evolution nor will there be any evolution

please refer to me to the biblical verses which refer to the supraorbital foramen. and the presence - or absence - thereof in the tribes of israel. after all, it is you who claims that the bible contains the beginning and end of all knowledge.

john

[Beagle]

Well John - you've just confused the hell out of me. Not that it's a hard thing to do.

While reading todays posts, please notice that nobody has posted to our newest wacko. We have a new policy finally.

[Guest]

The "wacko" has too many questions which you Fundamentalist Darwinites are unwilling to try to answer, because your answers embarass you, so Beagle, your "new policy finally" is merely you clueless Darwinites having no rational answers.

[Minimalist]

http://www.theologywebsite.com/archives ... n_th.shtml



Here, John.....probably why ole Arch claims that catholics are not christians.

THE Vatican has issued a stout defence of Charles Darwin, voicing strong criticism of Christian fundamentalists who reject his theory of evolution and interpret the biblical account of creation literally.

Cardinal Paul Poupard, head of the Pontifical Council for Culture, said the Genesis description of how God created the universe and Darwin's theory of evolution were "perfectly compatible" if the Bible were read correctly.

His statement was a clear attack on creationist campaigners in the US, who see evolution and the Genesis account as mutually exclusive.

"The fundamentalists want to give a scientific meaning to words that had no scientific aim," he said at a Vatican press conference. He said the real message in Genesis was that "the universe didn't make itself and had a creator".

This idea was part of theology, Cardinal Poupard emphasised, while the precise details of how creation and the development of the species came about belonged to a different realm - science. Cardinal Poupard said that it was important for Catholic believers to know how science saw things so as to "understand things better".


His statements were interpreted in Italy as a rejection of the "intelligent design" view, which says the universe is so complex that some higher being must have designed every detail.

[Guest]

The Vatican certainly speaks for itself, but that's about it.

[Beagle]

http://www.theologywebsite.com/archives ... n_th.shtml



Here, John.....probably why ole Arch claims that catholics are not christians.

THE Vatican has issued a stout defence of Charles Darwin, voicing strong criticism of Christian fundamentalists who reject his theory of evolution and interpret the biblical account of creation literally.

Cardinal Paul Poupard, head of the Pontifical Council for Culture, said the Genesis description of how God created the universe and Darwin's theory of evolution were "perfectly compatible" if the Bible were read correctly.

His statement was a clear attack on creationist campaigners in the US, who see evolution and the Genesis account as mutually exclusive.

"The fundamentalists want to give a scientific meaning to words that had no scientific aim," he said at a Vatican press conference. He said the real message in Genesis was that "the universe didn't make itself and had a creator".

This idea was part of theology, Cardinal Poupard emphasised, while the precise details of how creation and the development of the species came about belonged to a different realm - science. Cardinal Poupard said that it was important for Catholic believers to know how science saw things so as to "understand things better".


His statements were interpreted in Italy as a rejection of the "intelligent design" view, which says the universe is so complex that some higher being must have designed every detail.

That's Arch for ya!

[john]

Well John - you've just confused the hell out of me. Not that it's a hard thing to do.

While reading todays posts, please notice that nobody has posted to our newest wacko. We have a new policy finally.

well, first you have to take the position of certain people that the bible is the sum total of all wisdom.

therefore, it should include all the physiological changes, as historical record, of the human genotype - remember, man was created instantaneously by god about 4k bc - during the last six thousand years.

i hope i'm not confusing you further,

but one simply must put one's faith in the bible

as the definition of all knowledge.

if you have a problem with this, you can join the ranks

of the scary, hairy unbelievers

on the rational, intellectual, and scientific side

and then you will be consigned to HELL.

forever.

are you willing to bargain away your eternal soul

for a bagful of scientific hershey bars?

i thought not.

OK.

real message:

the bible is an incredibly twisted socio-historical document which has nothing to do with the scientific evidentiary record.

not only did it get severely twisted by constantine, to further the roman empire's hold on certain middle eastern territories

but it further got twisted by successive generations of politicians to gain control all the way to norway, and iceland.

in short, the bible was - and is - used as an instument of propaganda to control territory and reduce insurgent populations.

and, of course, it gained its attendant administrative structure along the way - known as the "church".

one of the really good kickers with this admin structure is that church could tax the living shit out of the believers and live the good life. sweet.

read your history. its all there.

now, having said all this,

none of it has to do with archaeology.

thus my previous posts on whether we should change the name of this forum to jesus.com.

yes?

so now i'm going to shut down, i hope forever, on the bible as ANY source of archaeological evidence.


john