America's Judgment - A Losing War with Islam

[TheDude]

I was under the impression that dinosaurs were extinct before man was even around. So if god created everything in six days, how is it human fossils can not be found in the same time period as dinosaurs?

Creationist do not believe in carbon dating or anything that says the earth is older than 6 thousand years old; so they dismiss that dinosaur fossils are far older than the fossil of a Neanderthal or anything in between. According to them, your great(x50) grandfather could have in all probability ridden a stegosaurus into battle.

Ask yourself this, do you think stone-age man could have survived when competing against the dinosaurs? To creationist, the Flintstones is a documentary.

 

[fossten]

Or, some survive the millions upon millions of years through the sheer luck of circumstances; ever consider that? There is much evidence that points to several mass extinctions throughout earth 'life' cycles; not just one huge flood.

Let's see your evidence.

In the meantime, you can look at some of mine.

A ‘165 million year’ surprise
by Andrew A. Snelling

A ‘mysterious network’ of mud springs on the edge of the ‘market town’ of Wootton Bassett, near Swindon, Wiltshire, England, has yielded a remarkable surprise.1 A scientific investigation has concluded that ‘the phenomenon is unique to Britain and possibly the world’.

The mud springs
Hot, bubbling mud springs or volcanoes are found in New Zealand, Java and elsewhere, but these Wootton Bassett mud springs usually ooze slowly and are cold. However, in 1974 River Authority workmen were clearing the channel of a small stream in the area, known as Templar’s Firs, because it was obstructed by a mass of grey clay.2 When they began to dig away the clay, grey liquid mud gushed into the channel from beneath tree roots and for a short while spouted a third of a metre (one foot) into the air at a rate of about eight litres per second.

No one knows how long these mud springs have been there. According to the locals they have always been there, and cattle have fallen in and been lost! Consisting of three mounds each about 10 metres (almost 33 feet) long by five metres (16 feet) wide by one metre (about three feet) high, they normally look like huge ‘mud blisters’, with more or less liquid mud cores contained within living ‘skins’ created by the roots of rushes, sedges and other swampy vegetation, including shrubs and small trees.2 The workmen in 1974 had obviously cut into the end of one of these mounds, partly deflating it. Since then the two most active ‘blisters’ have largely been deflated and flattened by visitors probing them with sticks.3

In 1990 an ‘unofficial’ attempt was made to render the site ‘safe’.4 A contractor tipped many truckloads of quarry stone and rubble totalling at least 100 tonnes into the mud springs, only to see the heap sink out of sight within half an hour! Liquid mud spurted out of the ground and flowed for some 600 metres (about 2,000 feet) down the stream channel clogging it. Worried, the contractor brought in a tracked digger and found he could push the bucket down 6.7 metres (22 feet) into the spring without finding a bottom.

’Pristine fossils’ and evolutionary bias
So why all the ‘excitement’ over some mud springs? Not only is there no explanation of the way the springs ooze pale, cold, grey mud onto and over the ground surface, but the springs are also ‘pumping up’ fossils that are supposed to be 165 million years old, including newly discovered species.1 In the words of Dr Neville Hollingworth, paleontologist with the Natural Environment Research Council in Swindon, who has investigated the springs, ‘They are like a fossil conveyor belt bringing up finds from clay layers below and then washing them out in a nearby stream.’1

Over the years numerous fossils have been found in the adjacent stream, including the Jurassic ammonite Rhactorhynchia inconstans, characteristic of the so-called inconstans bed near the base of the Kimmeridge Clay, estimated as being only about 13 metres (almost 43 feet) below the surface at Templar’s Firs.5 Fossils retrieved from the mud springs and being cataloged at the British Geological Survey office in Keyworth, Nottinghamshire, include the remains of sea urchins, the teeth and bones of marine reptiles, and oysters ‘that once lived in the subtropical Jurassic seas that covered southern England.’1

Some of these supposedly 165 million year old ammonites are previously unrecorded species, says Dr Hollingworth, and the real surprise is that ‘many still had shimmering mother-of-pearl shells’.1 According to Dr Hollingworth these ‘pristine fossils’ are ’the best preserved he has seen … . You just stand there [beside the mud springs] and up pops an ammonite. What makes the fossils so special is that they retain their original shells of aragonite [a mineral form of calcium carbonate] … The outsides also retain their iridescence …’6 And what is equally amazing is that, in the words of Dr Hollingworth, ‘There are the shells of bivalves which still have their original organic ligaments and yet they are millions of years old’!1

Perhaps what is more amazing is the evolutionary, millions–of–years mindset that blinds hard–nosed, rational scientists from seeing what should otherwise be obvious—such pristine ammonite fossils still with shimmering mother–of–pearl iridescence on their shells, and bivalves still with their original organic ligaments, can’t possibly be 165 million years old. Upon burial, organic materials are relentlessly attacked by bacteria, and even in seemingly sterile environments will automatically, of themselves, decompose to simpler substances in a very short time.7,8 Without the millions–of–years bias, these fossils would readily be recognized as victims of a comparatively recent event, for example, the global devastation of Noah’s Flood only about 4,500 years ago.

No explanation
Even with Dr Hollingworth’s identification of fossils from the Oxford Clay,3 which underlies the Kimmeridge Clay and Corallian Beds, scientists such as Roger Bristow of the British Geological Survey office in Exeter still don’t know what caused the mud springs.1 English Nature, the Government’s wildlife advisory body which also has responsibility for geological sites, has requested research be done.

The difficulties the scientists involved face include coming up with a driving mechanism, and unravelling why the mud particles do not settle out but remain in suspension.1 They suspect some kind of naturally–occurring chemical is being discharged from deep within the Kimmeridge and Oxford Clays, where some think the springs arise from a depth of between 30 and 40 metres (100 and 130 feet). So Ian Gale, a hydrogeologist at the Institute of Hydrology in Wallingford, Oxfordshire, is investigating the water chemistry.9 Clearly an artesian water source is involved.10 Alternately, perhaps a feeder conduit cuts through the Oxford Clay, Corallian Beds and Kimmeridge Clay strata, rising from a depth of at least 100 metres (330 feet).3 The mud’s temperature shows no sign of a thermal origin, but there are signs of bacteria in the mud, and also chlorine gas.11 But why mud instead of water? Does something agitate the underground water/clay interface so as to cause such fine mixing?10

Conclusion
Research may yet unravel these mysteries. But it will not remove the evolutionary bias that prevents scientists from seeing the obvious. The pristine fossils disgorged by these mud springs, still with either their original external iridescence or their original organic ligaments, can’t be 165 million years old! Both the fossils and the strata that entombed them must only be recent. They are best explained as testimony to the global watery cataclysm in Noah’s day about 4,500 years ago.

http://answersingenesis.org/creation/v19/i2/surprise.asp?vPrint=1

 

[fossten]

...Earlier fossils differ from newer ones, we can track how animals changed and evolved to adapt to a changing planet. You won't find complex mammals or birds 500 millions years ago, but you will 250 million years ago (that’s just an example, I am not a evolutionary scientist with die hard specific facts)

Here is direct refutation of your claim:

Fossils—do they get more complex?
Another evolutionary idea rattled by research
One thing that most people think they ‘know’ about evolution is that organisms become more complex as they evolve. After all, isn’t that how a single-celled organism became a person?

There are ways for evolutionists to try to test this assumption by looking at the fossils. Within their system, as you go up through the fossil-bearing rock layers, they believe you are looking at millions of years of time unfolding slowly. So do the fossils show increasing complexity? We are not talking here about looking at a reptile in one layer, and then a bird in a higher layer and comparing the complexity. In such a situation it would be enormously difficult to determine which was objectively more complex anyway.

‘Everybody knows that organisms ... get more complex as they evolve.’

‘The only trouble with what everyone knows, says McShea, an evolutionary biologist at the University of Michigan, is that there is no evidence it's true.’1

Several researchers have tried looking at the fossils of spiral-shelled creatures called ammonoids, to see if apparently related types get more complex as one goes higher in the layers. Another evolutionist, Dan McShea of the University of Michigan, approached the same question using detailed measurements on the backbones of many creatures which evolutionists believe represent ancestor-descendant pairs. His aim was to see if the ‘descendant’ was more complex than the ‘ancestor’ on the average for each case.

What would the creationist expect the result to be, and why? Obviously, the two fossil creatures believed to be an ancestor-descendant pair would most likely be of the same created kind, laid down at different times during the Flood. There would be no reason for any trend in complexity, if enough pairs are looked at.

And this is precisely what was reported in these studies by evolutionists—no trend at all.
This should not be a surprise to those who realize that the Word of the Creator God, who knows all, is not going to mislead us concerning the real history of the universe.

 

[TheDude]

No, but don't be a crackhead when a scientist comes out and says "The Bible says this, and if it were true, we should see such and such evidence." Then they go out and find the evidence. Or, they find evidence on Earth, and say "Based on this evidence, it appears there was a massive global flood that rapidly buried all these fossils. That is in direct support of the Biblical account of the flood."

Pictures like these are a summary:

The fish one's do not prove a thing, not sure why you posted it. In my aquarium, I have found fish that died trying to swallow too large of a meal. Could it be possible those fish died the same way, sank to the bottom of the ocean or river and the circumstances were just right for their remains to fossilize? That couldn't even be a possibility or did God have to do it no if's and's or but's?

The tree one is interesting, do you have the link to the article; I'd be interested in reading it. Because, not all layers in the ground mean 'millions' of years of deposits.

 

[TheDude]

Yeah, and there's numerous scientists that have done population scenarios using verified computer simulations, accounting for global events (wars, famines, plagues, etc), plugged in the number "8" about 4300 years ago, and it returned 6 billion population today. If they plug in 100,000 years, we won't fit on Earth, standing shoulder to shoulder.

So over population will become a problem if we keep multiplying like we are? The science community agrees.

 

[TheDude]

Here is direct refutation of your claim:

Fossils—do they get more complex?
Another evolutionary idea rattled by research
One thing that most people think they ‘know’ about evolution is that organisms become more complex as they evolve. After all, isn’t that how a single-celled organism became a person?

There are ways for evolutionists to try to test this assumption by looking at the fossils. Within their system, as you go up through the fossil-bearing rock layers, they believe you are looking at millions of years of time unfolding slowly. So do the fossils show increasing complexity? We are not talking here about looking at a reptile in one layer, and then a bird in a higher layer and comparing the complexity. In such a situation it would be enormously difficult to determine which was objectively more complex anyway.

‘Everybody knows that organisms ... get more complex as they evolve.’

‘The only trouble with what everyone knows, says McShea, an evolutionary biologist at the University of Michigan, is that there is no evidence it's true.’1

Several researchers have tried looking at the fossils of spiral-shelled creatures called ammonoids, to see if apparently related types get more complex as one goes higher in the layers. Another evolutionist, Dan McShea of the University of Michigan, approached the same question using detailed measurements on the backbones of many creatures which evolutionists believe represent ancestor-descendant pairs. His aim was to see if the ‘descendant’ was more complex than the ‘ancestor’ on the average for each case.

What would the creationist expect the result to be, and why? Obviously, the two fossil creatures believed to be an ancestor-descendant pair would most likely be of the same created kind, laid down at different times during the Flood. There would be no reason for any trend in complexity, if enough pairs are looked at.

And this is precisely what was reported in these studies by evolutionists—no trend at all.
This should not be a surprise to those who realize that the Word of the Creator God, who knows all, is not going to mislead us concerning the real history of the universe.

Again, I do not think it that cut and dry, like I said, I am no scientist, but I believe 'things' evolve out of necessity, 'survival of the fittest if you will'. Take the great white shark for example; it has barely changed over the eons because it hasn't had too. There are also new theories saying that viruses have played a major role in evolution, I haven’t looked too deeply into it, but what I read was interesting.

I can find article after article that explains what I am saying about evolution and changing to environmental issues much more clearly and precisely if you like and post them.

 

[fossten]

like I said, I am no scientist, but I

did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night.

 

[TheDude]

did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night.

The Gideon’s bible was missing from the nightstand drawer; did you take it so you could stand on it and talk down to me?

 

[RRocket]

Fossten,

Sorry I didn't reply sooner. I was away. At any rate, you assume many things about me. I'll tell you about me so you don't have to guess anymore. You assume I "don't know the Bible". I was a very devout Catholic, raised by a very devout Catholic family. I went to church at least 2X a week (which is more than most Catholics I knew). I was an altar boy since I was 4, and from the time I was a teen, I was an "on call" altar boy. That meant that any time there was a religious service, day or evening they would call me to serve. Since I was at a Catholic school, it was "ok" to leave school for this. Often times, I served 7 days a week, often more than once a day. Funerals, weddings, special services, shut-in services, hospital services...you name it! I did all the large services (Christmas and Easter I did like 5-6 services a day!) I worked with American bishops, and our Canadian bishops too. Plus helping with maintenance in the church, fund raisers, etc. I nearly went to Seminary too! So all in all, about as religious as someone growing up can be. I've read the bible over many times (like yourself I assume). I've heard both sides of the interpretation of the bible. For me, I just found too many descrepancies, errors, half truths, etc.. I didn't go to a "liberal" university. Does it matter what type of university you go to? I mean the Bible is the Bible is the Bible no matter where you go to school, although certian interpretations of the Bible can alter some of the passages. It was just for me there were too many "leaps" to accept everything in the Bible, and as I was taught and the Bible says it "all or nothing". You simply can't choose to believe one part of the Bible and ignore other passages. While I wouldn't say it's "unconditional", you have to be REALLY strong in faith to accept alot of what's written. I will never begrudge someone for their faith no matter what religion gives them solace. It just wasn't for me after I really studied the scriptures closely. I'm glad you find solace with it and maybe it helps your life to be easier. I'm happy for you. But it's just not for me anymore. So that's my story. You really shouldn't assume that I made my choice because of a lack of understanding on the subject.....

 

[Barwick]

Creationist do not believe in carbon dating or anything that says the earth is older than 6 thousand years old; so they dismiss that dinosaur fossils are far older than the fossil of a Neanderthal or anything in between. According to them, your great(x50) grandfather could have in all probability ridden a stegosaurus into battle.

Ask yourself this, do you think stone-age man could have survived when competing against the dinosaurs? To creationist, the Flintstones is a documentary.

Explain to me two things, but first a little background. You understand that "cave men" exist today, in that a "cave man" is simply a person who lives in a cave. Right? Now, my two questions:

1) Why do ancient cave drawings from completely uncivilized areas (not affected by modern culture) have drawings of dinosaurs?
2) Why are 11 of the 12 animals on the Chinese calendar "real" animals, while the 12th (Dragon) is not? And where did wholly separate cultures across the Earth all get the same idea of a Dragon? Same question for Leviathan.

 

[Barwick]

The tree one is interesting, do you have the link to the article; I'd be interested in reading it. Because, not all layers in the ground mean 'millions' of years of deposits.

The picture is from Dr. Walt Brown's book, here's the link to the online version (a couple hundred pages are online, I linked to the specific page):

http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences26.html

Figure 11: Polystrate Fossil. Fossils crossing two or more sedimentary layers (strata) are called poly (many) strate (strata) fossils. Consider how quickly this tree trunk in Germany must have been buried. Had it been slowly, its top would have decayed. Obviously, the tree could not have grown up through the strata without sunlight and air. The only alternative is rapid burial. Some polystrate trees are upside down, which could occur in a large flood. Soon after Mount St. Helens erupted in 1980, scientists saw trees being buried in a similar way in the lake-bottom sediments of Spirit Lake. Polystrate tree trunks are found worldwide. (Notice the one-meter scale bar, equal to 3.28 feet, in the center of the picture.)

 

[Barwick]

The fish one's do not prove a thing, not sure why you posted it. In my aquarium, I have found fish that died trying to swallow too large of a meal. Could it be possible those fish died the same way, sank to the bottom of the ocean or river and the circumstances were just right for their remains to fossilize? That couldn't even be a possibility or did God have to do it no if's and's or but's?

The tree one is interesting, do you have the link to the article; I'd be interested in reading it. Because, not all layers in the ground mean 'millions' of years of deposits.

Regarding the Fish, the same thing has happened with discovery of Wooly Mammoths. One mammoth still had identifiable food in its mouth and digestive tract. To reproduce this result, one would have to suddenly push a well-fed elephant (dead or alive) into a very large freezer that had, somehow, been precooled to -150°F. Anything less severe would result in the animal’s internal heat and stomach acids destroying the food.

Not to mention the fact that Mammoths couldn't have survived in the arctic. It would take even too much energy just to melt (and then heat up inside their body) enough water for their daily required water intake. Not to mention the fact that there would not be enough food to feed a Mammoth in that climate. More than likely they lived like Buffalo, in a temperate climate.

 

[Barwick]

So over population will become a problem if we keep multiplying like we are? The science community agrees.

It would appear that way wouldn't it? But no, because the modern population explosion we've seen is the result of advances in medical technology, allowing people to live longer, while still working with the same generations of people who were routinely part of 6, 7, 8, 9 children families (they had to have large families because often times children died young, and so they started with 6 and ended up with maybe 3 that live to be 50 years old).

Today, most modern countries have birth rates of about 2.2 children per family, while third world countries have higher birth rates because they also have higher mortality rates. As a matter of fact, the United States would have negative population growth if it weren't for immigration. So actually, it appears that medical advances have slowed the growth of population (the US is staying steady, while 3rd world countries are growing)

 

[fossten]

Fossten,

Sorry I didn't reply sooner. I was away. At any rate, you assume many things about me. I'll tell you about me so you don't have to guess anymore. You assume I "don't know the Bible". I was a very devout Catholic, raised by a very devout Catholic family. I went to church at least 2X a week (which is more than most Catholics I knew). I was an altar boy since I was 4, and from the time I was a teen, I was an "on call" altar boy. That meant that any time there was a religious service, day or evening they would call me to serve. Since I was at a Catholic school, it was "ok" to leave school for this. Often times, I served 7 days a week, often more than once a day. Funerals, weddings, special services, shut-in services, hospital services...you name it! I did all the large services (Christmas and Easter I did like 5-6 services a day!) I worked with American bishops, and our Canadian bishops too. Plus helping with maintenance in the church, fund raisers, etc. I nearly went to Seminary too! So all in all, about as religious as someone growing up can be. I've read the bible over many times (like yourself I assume). I've heard both sides of the interpretation of the bible. For me, I just found too many descrepancies, errors, half truths, etc.. I didn't go to a "liberal" university. Does it matter what type of university you go to? I mean the Bible is the Bible is the Bible no matter where you go to school, although certian interpretations of the Bible can alter some of the passages. It was just for me there were too many "leaps" to accept everything in the Bible, and as I was taught and the Bible says it "all or nothing". You simply can't choose to believe one part of the Bible and ignore other passages. While I wouldn't say it's "unconditional", you have to be REALLY strong in faith to accept alot of what's written. I will never begrudge someone for their faith no matter what religion gives them solace. It just wasn't for me after I really studied the scriptures closely. I'm glad you find solace with it and maybe it helps your life to be easier. I'm happy for you. But it's just not for me anymore. So that's my story. You really shouldn't assume that I made my choice because of a lack of understanding on the subject.....

Jeez. Use paragraphs please, I had to struggle to read that.

The only thing I want to clarify is that I didn't make a connection between your understanding (or lack thereof) and your "choice." I made the connection between the university you went to and your lack of understanding.

I could debate this for hours, but even the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville where I live is so liberal that they don't even believe or teach that the Bible is error-free anymore. This is a result of using too many differing translations.

If I understand correctly, you decided to junk the whole Bible because you didn't want to believe only parts of it? Is that correct? I'm just curious.

Anytime you'd like to discuss the "descrepancies, errors, half truths" in the Bible I'd be happy to. Just open up a new thread and I'll jump in with both feet. I'll challenge you right now that there are none, only human misunderstanding. There are things in the Bible that are hard to understand, but that's not God's fault, that's the fault of humans.

 

[TheDude]

Explain to me two things, but first a little background. You understand that "cave men" exist today, in that a "cave man" is simply a person who lives in a cave. Right? Now, my two questions:

1) Why do ancient cave drawings from completely uncivilized areas (not affected by modern culture) have drawings of dinosaurs?
2) Why are 11 of the 12 animals on the Chinese calendar "real" animals, while the 12th (Dragon) is not? And where did wholly separate cultures across the Earth all get the same idea of a Dragon? Same question for Leviathan.

1) I haven't seen cave drawings of dinosaurs, but could it be possible that the cave artist was drawing using his or her imagination? Just one out of many possibilities.

2) If I recall directly, the 'Dragon' in Chinese culture is religious based, so that is why it is included in their calendar. Could it be possible that different cultures discovered dinosaur bones since dinosaurs existed across the planet and these odd shaped extremely large bones lead less advanced and highly superstitious people to believe in dragons? That again is one of many possibilities.

 

[fossten]

1) I haven't seen cave drawings of dinosaurs, but could it be possible that the cave artist was drawing using his or her imagination? Just one out of many possibilities.

That's the only possibility you'll accept, because it's the only way it supports your position on evolution.

And it's patently absurd.

"The cave artist"? You mean you haven't seen these drawings, but you know that there's only one?

"Imagination?" You mean like the imagination you're using by throwing up any desperate idea you can come up with?

What are the other of "many" possibilities? I can't wait to hear this. I'm laughing my a$$ off.

 

[TheDude]

That's the only possibility you'll accept, because it's the only way it supports your position on evolution.

And it's patently absurd.

"The cave artist"? You mean you haven't seen these drawings, but you know that there's only one?

"Imagination?" You mean like the imagination you're using by throwing up any desperate idea you can come up with?

What are the other of "many" possibilities? I can't wait to hear this. I'm laughing my a$$ off.

And you'll only accept the position that your great(x80) grandfather had a velociraptor as a cave pet since it supports your position on creation; tell me that isn't absurb?

Look, a documentary! (Though it should really read 4000 years B.C.)

Well, lets see, we're talking about cave drawings right, basically a form of art. So use your imagination; cultures around the world have images of many creatures, does this mean that they are direct depictions of what the artist actually witnessed OR is it even the slightest possibility that the artist used his or her imagination? A drawing of a large dinosaur like creature doesn't automatically mean the artist drew from a living sketch. You must believe the Sphinx was an actual creature that was witnessed, since it is depicted in Egyptian art. I'm laughing my ass off at your narrow mindedness.

 

[fossten]

Well, lets see, we're talking about cave drawings right, basically a form of art. So use your imagination; cultures around the world have images of many creatures, does this mean that they are direct depictions of what the artist actually witnessed OR is it even the slightest possibility that the artist used his or her imagination? A drawing of a large dinosaur like creature doesn't automatically mean the artist drew from a living sketch. You must believe the Sphinx was an actual creature by your rational, since it is depicted in Egyptian art. I'm laughing my ass off at your narrow mindedness.

The only thing I've done is show you actual evidence after actual evidence that shows that evolutionists are full of it. All you've done is dream up crazy ideas to try to explain the obvious discrepancies. I get accused of being a Bible-thumping creationist, but I have not used anything but scientific evidence to prove my point. You, on the other hand, are using nothing but your imagination to try to prove yours. Who's being narrow minded here?

Me: But the scientific evidence says...
You: You're being narrowminded! I don't want to accept your scientific evidence! What if this happened?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
The only people who are using their imagination doing drawings in this setting are evolutionists.

Ernst Haeckel

Haeckel advanced the "recapitulation theory" which proposed a link between ontogeny (development of form) and phylogeny (evolutionary descent), summed up in the phrase "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny". He supported the theory with embryo drawings that have since been shown to be oversimplified and in part inaccurate, and the theory is now considered an oversimplification of quite complicated relationships. It is thought that Haeckel deliberately faked the images to get more support for his ideas. Haeckel introduced the concept of "heterochrony", which is the change in timing of embryonic development over the course of evolution.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernst_Haeckel

Piltdown Man

Features of Piltdown Skull "Deliberate Fakes"

Lower Jaw that of Chimpanzee?

Manchester Guardian November 23, 1953


Recent improvements in the technique of fluorine analysis made possible some of the tests which led three scientists to conclude that the mandible and canine tooth of the "Piltdown skull" were "deliberate fakes." The report of the three investigators–Dr. J. S. Weiner, Dr. K. P. Oakley, and Professor W. E. Le Gros Clark–appears in the "Bulletin of the British Museum (Natural History).

Fluorine tests carried out in 1949 says the report, did not resolve the seeming contradictions between "a cranium closely similar to that of Homo Sapiens" and "a mandible and canine tooth of simian form." Not until Dr. Weiner suggested one possible explanation–"the mandible and canine tooth are actually those of a modern ape (chimpanzee or orang) which have been deliberately faked to simulate fossil specimens"–did the investigators take what they now find to be the right track.

Experiments produced evidence that the peculiar way in which the teeth were worn down could well have been brought about by the artificial abrasion of chimpanzee's teeth.


"No doubt"


Further and more advanced fluorine tests left "no doubt that, whereas the Piltdown cranium may well be Upper Pleistocene ... the mandible, canine tooth, and isolated molar are quite modern." An analysis of the nitrogen content of these and other fossils as well as of modern bone and teeth, confirmed this result.

Other tests showed that the outer coating on the mandible and teeth did not correspond to that on the cranium. The black coating on the canine tooth turned out to be not, as the first discoverers had thought, ferruginous but "a tough, flexible paint-like substance."

"Whereas the cranial fragments are deeply stained (up to 8 per cent of iron) throughout their thickness, the iron staining of the mandible is quite superficial. A small surface sample analysed in 1949 contained 7 per cent iron, but, when in the course of our re-examination this bone was drilled more deeply, the sample obtained was lighter in colour and contained only 2-3 per cent of iron."

The first pieces of the skull to be discovered, but not later ones, had been mistakenly dipped in a solution of bichromate of potash. It was, says the report, not to be expected that the mandible (which was excavated later) would be chromate stained.


Deliberate


"In fact ... the jaw does contain chromate .... The iron and chromate staining of the Piltdown jaw seems to us to be explicable only as a necessary part of the deliberate matching of the jaw of a modern ape with the mineralised cranial fragments.

"It is now clear (the investigators conclude) that the distinguished palaeontologists and archaeologists who took part in the excavations at Piltdown were the victims of a most elaborate and carefully prepared hoax. Let it be said, however, in exoneration of those who have assumed the Piltdown fragments to belong to a single individual, or who, having examined the original specimens, either regarded the mandible and canine as those of a fossil ape or else assumed (tacitly or explicitly‚ that the problem was not capable of solution on the available evidence, that the faking of the mandible and canine is so extraordinarily skilful, and the perpetration of the hoax seems to have been so entirely unscrupulous and inexplicable, as to find no parallel in the history of palaeontological discovery.

"Lastly, it may be pointed out that the elimination of the Piltdown jaw and teeth from any further consideration clarifies very considerably the problem of human evolution. For it has to be realised that 'Piltdown Man' (Eoanthropus) was actually a most awkward and perplexing element in the fossil record of the Hominidae, being entirely out of conformity both in its strange mixture of morphological characters and its time sequence with all the palaeontological evidence of human evolution available from other parts of the world."

http://www.clarku.edu/~piltdown/map_expose/featur_piltskull_delibfake.html

Skull drawing frauds

DECEPTIVE FOSSIL INTERPRETATIONS OF EVOLUTIONISTS

Before going into the details of the myth of human evolution, we need to mention the propaganda method that has convinced the general public of the idea that half-man half-ape creatures once lived in the past. This propaganda method makes use of "reconstructions" made in reference to fossils. Reconstruction can be explained as drawing a picture or constructing a model of a living thing based on a single bone-sometimes only a fragment-that has been unearthed. The "ape-men" we see in newspapers, magazines, or films are all reconstructions.

Since fossils are usually fragmented and incomplete, any conjecture based on them is likely to be completely speculative. As a matter of fact, the reconstructions (drawings or models) made by the evolutionists based on fossil remains are prepared speculatively precisely to validate the evolutionary thesis. David R. Pilbeam, an eminent anthropologist from Harvard, stresses this fact when he says: "At least in paleoanthropology, data are still so sparse that theory heavily influences interpretations. Theories have, in the past, clearly reflected our current ideologies instead of the actual data".61 Since people are highly affected by visual information, these reconstructions best serve the purpose of evolutionists, which is to convince people that these reconstructed creatures really existed in the past.


Imaginary and Deceptive Drawings













In pictures and reconstructions, evolutionists deliberately give shape to features that do not actually leave any fossil traces, such as the structure of the nose and lips, the shape of the hair, the form of the eyebrows, and other bodily hair so as to support evolution. They also prepare detailed pictures depicting these imaginary creatures walking with their families, hunting, or in other instances of their daily lives. However, these drawings are all figments of the imagination and have no counterpart in the fossil record.

At this point, we have to highlight one particular point: Reconstructions based on bone remains can only reveal the most general characteristics of the creature, since the really distinctive morphological features of any animal are soft tissues which quickly vanish after death. Therefore, due to the speculative nature of the interpretation of the soft tissues, the reconstructed drawings or models become totally dependent on the imagination of the person producing them. Earnst A. Hooten from Harvard University explains the situation like this:

To attempt to restore the soft parts is an even more hazardous undertaking. The lips, the eyes, the ears, and the nasal tip leave no clues on the underlying bony parts. You can with equal facility model on a Neanderthaloid skull the features of a chimpanzee or the lineaments of a philosopher. These alleged restorations of ancient types of man have very little if any scientific value and are likely only to mislead the public… So put not your trust in reconstructions.62


THREE DIFFERENT RECONSTRUCTIONS BASED ON THE SAME SKULL



As a matter of fact, evolutionists invent such "preposterous stories" that they even ascribe different faces to the same skull. For example, the three different reconstructed drawings made for the fossil named Australopithecus robustus (Zinjanthropus), are a famous example of such forgery.

The biased interpretation of fossils and outright fabrication of many imaginary reconstructions are an indication of how frequently evolutionists have recourse to tricks. Yet these seem innocent when compared to the deliberate forgeries that have been perpetrated in the history of evolution.

http://www.evolutiondeceit.com/chapter8.php

 

[TheDude]

Me: But the scientific evidence says...
You: You're being narrowminded! I don't want to accept your scientific evidence! What if this happened?

Listen, just about every single piece of 'scientific proof' you post to support the Bible in reference to creation can be disproved, if you do a little research. So what it comes down to is faith, that simple. You either have faith thet the Bible is completely and utterly infalible, even in the more absurb parts or you have faith in years upon years of scientific research, trial and error and using what we know of our current surroundings and applying them to the past. I choose the latter.

I did a quick google search just now on 'dating the earths age', here's a site you might find interesting, at least in the science part titled 'Thousands or Billions'. He covers the age of the earth from continental shifting to civilizations older than 6k years and so on. It's large so I didn't want to post it. This is only one of many and there are far better with far better documented scientific proofs.

http://www.biblicalnonsense.com/chapter8.html

http://www.biblicalnonsense.com/

 

[RRocket]

Anytime you'd like to discuss the "descrepancies, errors, half truths" in the Bible I'd be happy to. Just open up a new thread and I'll jump in with both feet. I'll challenge you right now that there are none, only human misunderstanding. There are things in the Bible that are hard to understand, but that's not God's fault, that's the fault of humans.

There ARE anomalies in the Bible. Some passages avocate murder, rape, genocide. Yet multiple verses clearly say to forgive. There is no misunderstanding on my part, nor from the priests, theology professors, bishops and other theologians I've spoken to. You and I could discuss this for eternity, and neither of us would be swayed by the other. You have as much chance of convincing me otherwise as someone has converting you to a Muslim. I mean...can you convince me Jonas(h) lived in a whale's belly for 3 days and 3 nites, then was puked up after the whale was commanded by god to do so? A good christian must believe this story without question. I don't believe it. Further, is ANY human able to accurately determine what god/christ was REALLY trying to say? Is any human that pious to be on god's level of understanding? As I said..we could go on, and on, and on. Religion is a lifestyle choice, plain and simple. You've obviously chosen to believe because it gives you some kind of comfort..and for that I'm very happy for you. But you and I will forever disagree.

Oh..here's my paragraph...happy?? LOL

 

[fossten]

There ARE anomalies in the Bible. Some passages avocate murder, rape, genocide. Yet multiple verses clearly say to forgive. There is no misunderstanding on my part, nor from the priests, theology professors, bishops and other theologians I've spoken to. You and I could discuss this for eternity, and neither of us would be swayed by the other. You have as much chance of convincing me otherwise as someone has converting you to a Muslim. I mean...can you convince me Jonas(h) lived in a whale's belly for 3 days and 3 nites, then was puked up after the whale was commanded by god to do so? A good christian must believe this story without question. I don't believe it. Further, is ANY human able to accurately determine what god/christ was REALLY trying to say? Is any human that pious to be on god's level of understanding? As I said..we could go on, and on, and on. Religion is a lifestyle choice, plain and simple. You've obviously chosen to believe because it gives you some kind of comfort..and for that I'm very happy for you. But you and I will forever disagree.

Oh..here's my paragraph...happy?? LOL

Here's some more info on your dispute about the stoning of women and children:

There is much in the OT law for the Jews that we appropriately do not practice as Christians. It's also not recorded that ANY child was ever stoned for being rebellious. Although it may have happened -- who knows?

We don't sacrifice animals, we are not tied to the Sabbath -- that was given explicitly as a commandment to the Jews in Ex 31:16, we don't keep the feasts, etc. The New Testament explicitly lays out the practice for the NT church. The NT repeats and even extends commandments on murder (hatred), adultery (lust), lying, etc. Ephesians has perhaps 80 explicit commandments in it. The NT also gives liberty on when Christians can meet.

Explicitly NT instruction on children is given many times -- note especially Eph 6:1-4. Children are not instructed to obey parents for fear of stoning, but because 'this is right.'

To your comment on murder being advocated in the Bible, it simply isn't true. Nor is rape condoned in the Bible. They are present in the Bible, but not condoned. The word 'genocide' doesn't appear in the Bible.

WRT your comment about Jonah, your disbelief in God and His ability to perform miracles totally obviates any explanation I could make. But your belief is a conscious choice, whereas I don't simply choose to believe in God, I actually can see His handiwork all over creation and common sense tells me that humans aren't the most advanced life form in the universe.

I'm sorry that you have nothing to look forward to at the end of life.

 

[Barwick]

1) I haven't seen cave drawings of dinosaurs, but could it be possible that the cave artist was drawing using his or her imagination? Just one out of many possibilities.

2) If I recall directly, the 'Dragon' in Chinese culture is religious based, so that is why it is included in their calendar. Could it be possible that different cultures discovered dinosaur bones since dinosaurs existed across the planet and these odd shaped extremely large bones lead less advanced and highly superstitious people to believe in dragons? That again is one of many possibilities.

I can see how people might think these things...

These cultures were so primitive, they wouldn't have known how to put a dinosaur skeleton back together, let alone their flesh and texture.

 

[Barwick]

Well, lets see, we're talking about cave drawings right, basically a form of art. So use your imagination; cultures around the world have images of many creatures, does this mean that they are direct depictions of what the artist actually witnessed OR is it even the slightest possibility that the artist used his or her imagination? A drawing of a large dinosaur like creature doesn't automatically mean the artist drew from a living sketch. You must believe the Sphinx was an actual creature that was witnessed, since it is depicted in Egyptian art. I'm laughing my ass off at your narrow mindedness.

If (like they do for dinosaurs) every single one of those drawings were very similar, even though they were drawn by completely independent people in completely separate cultures that had no contact, then yes, I would think they drew from their experiences, a living sketch.

 

[Barwick]

There ARE anomalies in the Bible. Some passages avocate murder, rape, genocide. Yet multiple verses clearly say to forgive. There is no misunderstanding on my part, nor from the priests, theology professors, bishops and other theologians I've spoken to. You and I could discuss this for eternity, and neither of us would be swayed by the other. You have as much chance of convincing me otherwise as someone has converting you to a Muslim. I mean...can you convince me Jonas(h) lived in a whale's belly for 3 days and 3 nites, then was puked up after the whale was commanded by god to do so? A good christian must believe this story without question. I don't believe it. Further, is ANY human able to accurately determine what god/christ was REALLY trying to say? Is any human that pious to be on god's level of understanding? As I said..we could go on, and on, and on. Religion is a lifestyle choice, plain and simple. You've obviously chosen to believe because it gives you some kind of comfort..and for that I'm very happy for you. But you and I will forever disagree.

Oh..here's my paragraph...happy?? LOL

*sigh*... we're not going to get into THIS topic in this thread... Let's just suffice to say it this way... You believe God created the universe from nothing (no small feat), yet you think it's impossible for God to keep a person alive in the belly of a whale for 3 days? You think it's impossible for Balaam's Donkey to start talking smack to him, the person riding it? Ok...

And you're right, I cannot convince you of anything on my own. The only way you're going to see God's truth is if He opens your eyes and draws (the literal interpretation is more like "drags you, kicking and screaming") you to Jesus Christ. Otherwise, you'll always believe as you believe.

I didn't set out to become a Christian one day. I wasn't sitting there with my girlfriend at the time, thinking "Wow, you know what, today I think I'm going to become a Christian". It was God who drew me to him, and if he didn't I'd still be fighting this battle, and probably be on your side, I have a similar upbringing to you.

 

[mach8]

Let's summarize:

The creation folks are basing their claims on the oft translated recaords of tribal oral history, from one region of the globe, whch cannot be validated.



The evolution folks are basing their claims on a theory which is oft misrepresented and cannot provide any unquestionable evidence that this theory is valid.

I believe these two guesses of how we got here are just as valid as the sci-fi folks who claim we didn't orginate on this planet at all, but came here from another orb. God delivered us, and everything else, from his skyship. Why? Who knows? Does a child understand why it's important to be trustworthy? ( Do Preidents?, that's another thread...) Does this sound any whackier than Genesis or Darwin? Not really.....