Posted on 08/17/2012 9:37:26 AM PDT by Pharmboy
The shared DNA is one of the most important aspects of evolution. It means that genes don’t have to be constantly totally invented. What changes is the timing and amount of time of the expression of different genes. For example apparently there is not a separate gene for the long neck of a giraffe. Rather there is a genetic mechanism in giraffes which turns the neck length gene on much longer than it is on for most developing embryos. This mechanism works for many different aspects of development in all creatures and plants. Thus, it does not take nearly as long to develop new species as it would if they had to be developed from scratch. Shawn Carroll wrote a fascinating book on this called “Endless Forms Most Beautiful.” A very interesting read.
Don't pick fights with new-earth creationists unless you have ample supply of aspirin handy. It is an exercise in futility.
Sadly, their clown car shows up on every science-related thread posted on FR making an intelligent discussion of such topics pretty much off-limits.
Homo Sapiens living in Africa did not have major ice ages to contend with. They had heat. Desert Africans tend to be taller and more slender than jungle Africans. The Africans that wandered north had to pass through the generally drier more savanna like lands that are now the north African desert before arriving in Europe. I don’t think it had anything to do with shortage of food or a kinder society.
Bishop Usher’s methodology was to look at the length of the “begats” in the bible. And if you look at your bible you will see they are years, not months and days. Then from this highly “scientific” methodology, with very exact time frames he stated that God created Adam and Eve on Dec. 23, 2004 BC, or some similar exact date. Anyone who could possibly believe that the Bishop achieved an accurate date with this method is dumb indeed.
Whiie on the subject of Genesis. How many people believe that God created Adam and Eve from the earth, and how many believe that God created Eve after he created Adam by taking out a rib. Two very different stories, with rather different implications for the relationship of woman to man.
Around 300,000 to 350,000 years ago the European population and the African population of this hominid became separated.Who got to keep the dog? And the cave? Was it amicable?
things they never tell us. (LOL)
1. It's easy to count up the years between Adam and the flood (about 1700 years).
2. From the flood to Abraham is about 300 years and from Abraham to Israel leaving Egypt, about 500 years = about 800 years.
-- So far, that's about 2500 years.
3. Israel's independence as a nation: about 1000 years from their exodus out of Egypt to the Babylonian captivity. (Side note: remarkable that Israel was an independent and free nation for so long.)
-- So far, that's about 3500 years.
4. The book of Daniel tells us it's about 500 years from the Babylonian captivity to Christ.
5. It's been about 2000 years since Christ.
There you have it - the Biblical record of the 6000 years of man from Adam to the present.
Although you can figure out the years using the biblical record of time, years, and genealogies, the Bible gives you a hint in the first chapter, Genesis 1. The Bible says one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day (2 Peter 3:8). It took six days to (re)create the earth and on the seventh day God rested. It's been 6000 years since (re)creation and we're rapidly heading into the 1000 years of Jesus ruling as King of Kings on the earth (His seventh "day" of rest).
How many times do you have to be corrected on this?
The color, eyes, nose and expressions are all wrong.
Here are some more realistic reconstructions:
PapaNew post #54: "No valid scientifically tested artifact has been validated to show 'modern man' existed before 6000 years.
The evidence is not only anemic, it’s non-existent.
Maybe something else like dinosaurs or monkey-type creatures.
But not 'modern man.' "
PapaNew post #81 "I try to based my beliefs on hard evidence not popular assertions.
As I said, I haven't seen any conclusive scientifically tested evidence of these things. "
Drew68 post #102: "Don't pick fights with new-earth creationists unless you have ample supply of aspirin handy.
It is an exercise in futility.
Sadly, their clown car shows up on every science-related thread posted on FR making an intelligent discussion of such topics pretty much off-limits."
Drew68 pretty much said it all, but still important to understand a bit of the how posters like PapaNew distort the truth.
In this particular example, PapaNew is relying on his unique (indeed, secret) definitions of terms like "valid science" and "modern man".
When PapaNew says "validated by true scientific investigation", he means: "validated by reading the Bible", since in PapaNew's mind, any investigation which might disagree with PapaNew's interpretations of Bible, cannot be "true science".
When PapaNew says "modern man", he means "mankind as described in the Bible -- as interpreted by PapaNew".
Since PapaNew makes no secret of his religious beliefs, understanding how he defines scientific terms is not all that difficult, once you "get it".
No secret - as I posted, valid science is that which has been tested by the scientific method and recognized and basically universally accepted by the science community.
"Modern man" was another poster's term I used. Put it this way - our ancestors. Not as mysterious as you portray.
The Bible and "valid science" are friends because both point to the truth. So far, I know of no "valid" scientific theory that goes against an accurate understanding of the Bible.
Your attack post doesn't present a positive argument, only an argumentum ad hominem which is a logical fallacy.
That creates a chronology problem for creationists. Creation was around 4000BC, but the Flood was around 2500BC. In the Flood, the human race supposedly perished except for Noah's extended family.
The chronology problem is that there are civilizations whose records extend past 2500BC, like Sumeria, Egypt, Indian, etc. Written records spanning the time line, of large and vigorous civilizations.
Yes they were not humans they were apes. :-)
And they would provide the genes that would enable dark-skinned "out of Africa" humans to survive in the North. Probably, also much of the technology for creating warm clothing necessary to survive in the North.
Nice try, no cigar. Gobekli Tepe goes back 10,000 years. Animals can't carve sculptures and engineer megalithic structures. Only humans can.
Let's see....took God 4 days to create the simple Earth but only one day to create hundreds of billions of planets and stars...this is all you need to know about the fail of the Creationism theory.
If there are indeed Creationists who make this claim, they misunderstand their own document.
Whether you agree with the biblical account or not, it does not say God created the heavens in a single day.
It says “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” No statement as to how long this took, or whether there was a gap in time before the start of the first day.
The “days” are describing the events leading up to making the earth habitable for Man, not the creation of the planet, much less the heavens.days
Again courtesy www.themandus.org, without the fur coat for illustration purposes:
Please write an essay in 350 words or less describing the creation of the universe, earth, and the order of the appearance of life on earth. Make this essay understandable to a very **primitive** people.
Let's see if you can do as well and as **accurately** as the first chapter of Genesis.
Unlike other creation stories of primitive people, Genesis conforms remarkably to what is not known scientifically about the creation of the universe, earth, the order of the appearance of life on earth.
God created Adam and Eve from the earth, and how many believe that God created Eve after he created Adam by taking out a rib.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Genesis was written for a very primitive people. So? ...What term would you use to explain to a primitive people that our first parents were composed of the common chemical elements of the universe ? “Dust of the earth” seems like a good choice to me.
Men have an XY gene that makes male. Women are XX. If you were to attempt to explain this to a primitive people would using the expression “rib” come to mind? Man is missing a “rib” which creates the Y gene.
Yes, it was well written for the "primitive" people of the day..the problem is there are people that actually believe in the 6 day Creation in this modern age.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.