Archaeologica.org

archaeologist wrote: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.

Beagle wrote: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.

Beagle wrote: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.

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

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.

Minimalist wrote: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.

Beagle wrote: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.