Atlantis Online

Science & Technology => History of Science => Topic started by: Trina Prior on August 25, 2010, 12:59:19 am



Title: Darwin May Have Been WRONG, New Study Argues
Post by: Trina Prior on August 25, 2010, 12:59:19 am
Darwin May Have Been WRONG, New Study Argues

Huffington Post   |  Bianca Bosker First Posted: 08-24-10 11:37 AM   |   Updated: 08-24-10 11:37 AM

(http://i.huffpost.com/gen/195283/thumbs/s-DARWIN-WRONG-large.jpg)

A new study published in Biology Letters argues that Charles Darwin's theory of evolution may have been wrong.

While Darwin argued that competition was the key force driving evolution, a research team from the University of Bristol argues that "living space" is in fact the primary driver. Michael Benton, a co-author of the study, said his team concluded that "competition did not play a big role in the overall pattern of evolution."

"The new study proposes that really big evolutionary changes happen when animals move into empty areas of living space, not occupied by other animals," BBC News explains. "For example, when birds evolved the ability to fly, that opened up a vast range of new possibilities not available to other animals. Suddenly the skies were quite literally the limit, triggering a new evolutionary burst."

Slate describes how PhD student Sarda Sahney conducted her research:

    Using fossils to study evolutionary patterns over hundreds of millions of years of history, Sahney and team found that biodiversity, at least among the land animals that they decided to focus on, matched the availability of living space through time. Living space refers to the particular requirements of individual organisms to thrive and reproduce. It can include several components but primarily describes the availability of food and favorable habitat.

"Throughout geological time, patterns of global diversity of tetrapod families show 97 per cent correlation with ecological modes," Sahney writes in the Biology Letters article co-authored by Michael Benton and Paul Ferry.

Not all have accepted the team's conclusions. According to BBC News, Yale University evolutionary biologist Stephen Stearns said the interpretation was "problematic." "What is the impetus to occupy new portions of ecological space if not to avoid competition with the species in the space already occupied?" Stearns asked.

What do you think of their theory--is it bogus or does it have legs? Weigh in below.


Title: Re: Darwin May Have Been WRONG, New Study Argues
Post by: Trina Prior on August 25, 2010, 01:04:59 am
Links between global taxonomic diversity, ecological diversity and the expansion of vertebrates on land

   1. Sarda Sahney1,*,
   2. Michael J. Benton1 and
   3. Paul A. Ferry2

+ Author Affiliations

   1.
      1Department of Earth Sciences, University of Bristol, Wills Memorial Building, Queen's Road, Bristol BS8 1RJ, UK
   2.
      2Eikonworks, 805 3rd Street, Canmore, Alberta, Canada T1W 2J2

   1. *Author for correspondence (s.sahney@bristol.ac.uk).

Abstract

Tetrapod biodiversity today is great; over the past 400 Myr since vertebrates moved onto land, global tetrapod diversity has risen exponentially, punctuated by losses during major extinctions. There are links between the total global diversity of tetrapods and the diversity of their ecological roles, yet no one fully understands the interplay of these two aspects of biodiversity and a numerical analysis of this relationship has not so far been undertaken. Here we show that the global taxonomic and ecological diversity of tetrapods are closely linked. Throughout geological time, patterns of global diversity of tetrapod families show 97 per cent correlation with ecological modes. Global taxonomic and ecological diversity of this group correlates closely with the dominant classes of tetrapods (amphibians in the Palaeozoic, reptiles in the Mesozoic, birds and mammals in the Cenozoic). These groups have driven ecological diversity by expansion and contraction of occupied ecospace, rather than by direct competition within existing ecospace and each group has used ecospace at a greater rate than their predecessors.
http://rsbl.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/6/4/544.abstract



Title: Re: Darwin May Have Been WRONG, New Study Argues
Post by: archaeologist on August 25, 2010, 03:54:51 pm
Quote
While Darwin argued that competition was the key force driving evolution, a research team from the University of Bristol argues that "living space" is in fact the primary driver. Michael Benton, a co-author of the study, said his team concluded that "competition did not play a big role in the overall pattern of evolution."

this just shows how ridiculous evolutinists get. first, they cannot prove their own theory correct, then they keep making things up to provide the illusion that they are actually working on the theory.

this idea quoted above is just one side of the coin.  with limited living space, the species, if this theory actually was true, would still have to compete to survive. fighting is one form of competition. but all this article proves is that evolutionists have no clue about their so called theory and thatthey do not know what they are talking about.


Title: Re: Darwin May Have Been WRONG, New Study Argues
Post by: Robert0326 on August 26, 2010, 10:34:04 am
Just because scientists change their theories on evolution doesn't mean that the theory is bogus.  It's called learning and good science.  Maybe you should actually try learning.  You might be surprised at what you find. 


Title: Re: Darwin May Have Been WRONG, New Study Argues
Post by: archaeologist on August 28, 2010, 03:39:02 pm
Quote
Just because scientists change their theories on evolution doesn't mean that the theory is bogus

yes it does. it means you do not have a clue what the truth is and will change it to fit your fancy.

Quote
It's called learning and good science

no, it is called bad science because you can't find the truth and those who support evolution do not know what the truth is and cannot be trusted.

Quote
Maybe you should actually try learning.  You might be surprised at what you find. 

personal attack. the Bible never changes that is one reason we know we have the truth. we can have confidence in it information and peace for we do not have to keep searching or changing our beliefs. the truth never changes, what was true 5,000 years ago, 2,000 years ago is still the truth today and modern science cannot do anything about it.

the theory of evolution isjust giving humans a chance to be creators of their own past, a false one, butit makes them feel like they are above God, when they are not.


Title: Re: Darwin May Have Been WRONG, New Study Argues
Post by: Forms of Things Unknown on August 28, 2010, 04:49:42 pm
Whew!  Attack of the zealots!  Good luck, Robert.   :o


Title: Re: Darwin May Have Been WRONG, New Study Argues
Post by: Rebecca on August 28, 2010, 08:13:26 pm
Quote
Quote
Just because scientists change their theories on evolution doesn't mean that the theory is bogus

yes it does. it means you do not have a clue what the truth is and will change it to fit your fancy.

No, it means that science isn't as rigid and ideological as religion is.  Of course, the Bible was not meant to be either a science book or a history lesson.


Title: Re: Darwin May Have Been WRONG, New Study Argues
Post by: Robert0326 on August 28, 2010, 11:35:30 pm
The bible was the first and worst attempt at explaining the natural world and the origins of our species.  Given what we know now I'm not surprised about this study.  If you ask a evolutionary biologist how it all begin, chances are that he or she will say that they don't know.  And there is absolutely nothing wrong with that.  That is why they continue to learn and change with they thought they knew when they make a new discovery.  Unlike people like you archeologist who would rather bury your heads in the bible and put your hands over your ears going...  LALALALALALALA i CAN'T HEAR YOU! LALALALALA!


Title: Re: Darwin May Have Been WRONG, New Study Argues
Post by: archaeologist on August 29, 2010, 01:01:54 am
Quote
it means that science isn't as rigid and ideological as religion is

it means that secular science does not know what the truth is, for it is the blind leading the blind, and it blows with the whims of those running it. you cannot trust secular science for it is looking for the wrong answers in the wrong places.

At least the Bible gives the correct answers and it is found in the correct place.

Quote
the Bible was not meant to be either a science book or a history lesson.

The Bible does record literal history and provides the origins of all people, the earth and the universe. It also records the history of the Israelite people. Albright said:

Quote
Hebrew national tradition excels all others in its clear picture of tribal and family origins. In Egypt and Babylonia, in Asyria, and Pheonicia, in Greece and ARome, we look in vain for anything comparable. There is nothing like it in the traditions of the GErmanic peoples. Neither India nor China can produce anything sinilar...

Quote
In contrast with these other peoples the Israelites preserved an unusually clear picture of simple beginnings, of complex migrations, and of extreme vicissitudes...

{both quotes are found on page 1 of his bookThe Biblical Period from Abraham to Ezra.}

as for science, it does NOT produce what the secular scientists considers science but then the secular scientist makes things up to provide an alternative to the Biblical record. Something they cannot verify nor ever prove true.

Quote
If you ask a evolutionary biologist how it all begin, chances are that he or she will say that they don't know.  And there is absolutely nothing wrong with that.  That is why they continue to learn and change with they thought they knew when they make a new discovery

Actually there is something wrong with that for we already know how it all began and the evolutionist is wasting time, money and energy following a lie. those things would be better spent helping the less fortunate.

they keep changing their thoery because they are finding out they cannot prove one iota of it. Origins did not happen the way evolutionists want and they are stuck. they keep changing it to look more and more like creation.

Quote
Unlike people like you archeologist who would rather bury your heads in the bible and put your hands over your ears going...  LALALALALALALA i CAN'T HEAR YOU! LALALALALA

actually i do not do that. secular science doesn't have the truth and all their work is meaningless. One does NOT change from the truth regardless of what secular scientists or science says. They are not an authority nor the final determiner of what took place in the begining and were NOT there so all their experiments are a waste.


Title: Re: Darwin May Have Been WRONG, New Study Argues
Post by: Robert0326 on August 29, 2010, 09:28:11 pm
Wrong!!  Present the evidence that the bible is absolutely true when it comes to how everything got started?


Title: Re: Darwin May Have Been WRONG, New Study Argues
Post by: archaeologist on August 31, 2010, 04:16:52 am
Quote
Wrong!!  Present the evidence that the bible is absolutely true when it comes to how everything got started?

first you present the evfidence that shows i am wrong beyond a shadow of a doubt.  oh and do so by using independent studies from non-evolutionists and non-scientists.

i gave you the evidence, read genesis 1-11.  you might also want to read te first page of albright's book, 'the biblical period from abraham to ezra. it is quite interesting

secular science is looking for the wrong answers in the wrong places and is too corrupt to trust.


Title: Re: Darwin May Have Been WRONG, New Study Argues
Post by: archaeologist on August 31, 2010, 04:18:53 am
while you are at it, visit every nursery for humans, animals, and plants and see that everything goes according to the Genesis record.  there is no evidence for any evolutionary reproduction and there are no fossils showing the appearance or developement of the womb and reproducitve systems.

secular science has nothing.


Title: Re: Darwin May Have Been WRONG, New Study Argues
Post by: Robert0326 on September 01, 2010, 06:04:50 pm
If the bible is the best evidence you have then you have a lot more work to do than I do.  It's sad that you are relying solely on Iron Age myth and legend to try and back up your claims.  Why are you so afraid of open inquiry into our origins?


Title: Re: Darwin May Have Been WRONG, New Study Argues
Post by: Qoais on September 01, 2010, 09:35:39 pm
Where do you suppose the people who wrote Genesis got their information?  Before writing, stories were handed down over the generations.  Something that was deep and meaningful was likely kept as sacred and everyone was taught this "history".  Seriously, we know that man lived long before the Bible was ever written, so where did the writers get their info?  Obviously from stories that were handed down.  Here's an excellent explanation for Genesis in my opinion.  I like it because it's been researched and makes a lot of sense.

http://ghulamakbar.com/?p=78


Title: Re: Darwin May Have Been WRONG, New Study Argues
Post by: archaeologist on September 02, 2010, 04:12:02 am
Quote
It's sad that you are relying solely on Iron Age myth and legend to try and back up your claims. 

prove they are a myth and only legend. empty declarations like that are not proof of anything.

Quote
Why are you so afraid of open inquiry into our origins?

not afraid, just tired of evolutionists trying to brainwash children with their lies. did you know that not one evolutionary experiment actually replicates the claimed process or declared changes?

Quote
Where do you suppose the people who wrote Genesis got their information

#1 it is not 'people' but Moses. one person

#2 from God.

Quote
Before writing, stories were handed down over the generations

please prove that true. the idea that there was no very early writing comes from an argument of silence not fact.

Quote
Seriously, we know that man lived long before the Bible was ever written, so where did the writers get their info?  Obviously from stories that were handed down

prove it. because some modern peoples, aborigines to name one, could not read nor write in their early days, doesn't mean that the ancestors of the israelites could not.(or other ancient societies)

from your link:

Quote
Many scholars are of the opinion that the initial chapters of the book of Genesis were written in the land of Mesopotamia (present Iraq), in about 1400 BC,

notice the words 'many scholars' and 'of the opinion'  obviously they are selected scholars who do not believe the Bible and may only be 10 in number and they canot prove it true and have no evidence to support that opinion.

Quote
This concept is even older than the pre-historic epoch (i.e. 3200 BC). So obviously the concept of Heavens must have been borrowed from some other nation by the writer of the book of Genesis

in dealing with secularists it is often the case that  they will attribute the wrong source then accuse the biblical writers of something they did not do and that these secularists cannot prove.

the ancient israelites did not have a reputation for copying other nations beliefs BUT the old babylonians did (Mesopotamia and the Bible by Childress and Younger jr., pg. 161-3)

research?

Quote
I have written this series of articles based on my research work for “Pick Me Up” organization

this is simply hearsay and does not prove he actually researched anything and his conclusions are not factual but his misinterpreted andmisapplied ideas.


Title: Re: Darwin May Have Been WRONG, New Study Argues
Post by: Robert0326 on September 02, 2010, 10:11:33 am
Name one instance that people have forced the study of evolution on people.  Now religion on the other hand has had a long bloody history of brainwashing and forced indoctrination.  The "get them while their young" approach has worked very well for far too long.  Here are some links to a few web sites on the evolution of our species.  Please feel free to look at your leisure.  And if your truly not afraid of open inquiry into our species I hope that you will actually read the information.

http://www.archaeologyinfo.com/species.htm

http://www.wsu.edu:8001/vwsu/gened/learn-modules/top_longfor/timeline/timeline.html

http://www.onelife.com/evolve/manev.html

 


Title: Re: Darwin May Have Been WRONG, New Study Argues
Post by: archaeologist on September 03, 2010, 06:29:19 am
Quote
Name one instance that people have forced the study of evolution on people.

middle & high schools, universities.

i have studied evolution and i can tell you that there is not one evolutionary experiment that replicates the supposed changes claimed by evolutionists. evolutin never existed and theory is a complete fabrication.

one or two fossils do not make a new species. nor do 50. it is all conjecture.


Title: Re: Darwin May Have Been WRONG, New Study Argues
Post by: Robert0326 on September 03, 2010, 07:59:36 am
If all the fossils are not the ancestors of man, then what exactly would you call them?  I say the bible and god are man-made creations.   


Title: Re: Darwin May Have Been WRONG, New Study Argues
Post by: Qoais on September 03, 2010, 09:54:56 am
The thing is, how can you prove Moses wrote Genesis?  How can you prove anything the Bible says, any more than scientists can prove evolution?

The Bible is the religious Book for a group called Christians.  There are other religions, and they too, will say their method of worship is the correct one as they were told by THEIR prophet. 

The main factor in a religious belief, is not about who is right or wrong in how they worship - it's in what you do in your life to make you a better person. 

The Old Testament - which is part of the Bible - and tells about God - is full of killing and suffering and anger.  I find the teachings of the Tibetan Lamas much more spiritual.  They take only what they need, and spend their lives, trying to enlighten others and raise their spiritual consciousness. 

You, yourself archaeologist, sound like you're angry all the time.  It sounds like you've been disillusioned with something and are retaliating somehow.  Did you once believe in evolution only to find it didn't satisfy you?

Here's a link to Stephen Hawking's latest theory.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2010/sep/02/stephen-hawking-big-bang-creator


Title: Re: Darwin May Have Been WRONG, New Study Argues
Post by: Robert0326 on September 03, 2010, 02:29:53 pm
The reason I think Archeologists reason for not (for lack of a better word) "believing" in evolution is that he and many others feel threatened by evolution because it contradicts genesis and the bible.  Oh, about about your response archeologist that schools force evolution on students is just not true at all.  Parents have the option of enrolling their kids in private school if they so choose.  They don't force students under the punishment of eternal damnation of they don't learn evolution.  Israeli archeologists have not found anything what-so-ever to back up the claims made in the bible.  And it is a fact that even the Exodus never happened.  There are no Egyptian records to back it up.  And they pretty much wrote everything down.  I think that something of that significance would have been written down.  Don't you think? 


Title: Re: Darwin May Have Been WRONG, New Study Argues
Post by: archaeologist on September 04, 2010, 06:53:49 am
Quote
If all the fossils are not the ancestors of man, then what exactly would you call them

#1. there is only 1 race of man, not 4 and not several seperate 'species' of man i.e. neanderthal, cro-magnom etc. any HUMAN skeletons all were the descendants of Adam and any animal skeletons were all descendants of their kind.

#2 fossils do not prove any claim of evolutionary process or change. it is impossible to tell which would be the mother or daughter fossil and dating via the dirt is not proof for you cannot prove that those skeletons lived at that exact time. they could have been placed in the dirt at a later date or even an earlier one and eventually covered over by other dirt.

Quote
I say the bible and god are man-made creations

that is your choice but you would be flying in the face of true facts.

#1 no scientific discovery has proven the Bible false

#2 no archaeological discovery has proven the Bible false.

#3 all reproduction follows Genesis 1

#4 in evolution there is no reason for death to exist but in creation there is. it entered the world at adam's fall. with the Bible we have reasons for everything that exists and their purpose, with evolution there is no reason or purpose. there is no reason for the reproductive systems in evolution either and no reason for a male and female for each species and humans. in evolution there is no reason for sex.

Quote
how can you prove Moses wrote Genesis?  How can you prove anything the Bible says, any more than scientists can prove evolution?

we can prove the Bible far easier than secular scientists can prove evolution.

#1. reproduction is found in all the nurseries of the world for plants, animals and humans. doesn't change and it doesn't take millions of years to see it take place.

#2. we have the existence of light, the sun, the moon and stars as described in the Bible.

#3. ancient socieites and their legends reflect the creation and flood acounts yet not 1 has any evolutionary tales, bed time stories, nor sightings of intermediary species and NOT ONE writing on evolution. kep in mind that the ancients charted the stars, measured the globe, built huge structures, had modern type technology and so on without modern tools, lasers, etc. they would know if evolution existed or not and recognize it BUT they do not teach it at all.

#4. K.A. Kitchen proved that the price recorded in the Bible for selling Joseph as a slave was the correct price fo rthat time period.

#5. the amarna or ugarit tablets show that the patriarchal names were in use at the time the Bible says they were. though we can't prove they were the actual patriarchs, having the correct names is important.

#6. people die just like the Bible says and their lifespan is where God set it at and as the Bible records.

#7 the ancient civilizations mentioned in the Bible are in the correct time and geographical position as recorded.

#8 the discovery of the hittite people

#9. israel restored as a nation. no other people ha sever experienced that feat.

shall i continue?

Quote
The Bible is the religious Book for a group called Christians.  There are other religions, and they too, will say their method of worship is the correct one as they were told by THEIR prophet. 

yet the Bble outsells them all, both past and present, most ancient religions are dead and gone while the Bible survives, theirs do not have the archaeological or scientific proof to support their claims and so on.

Quote
The Old Testament - which is part of the Bible - and tells about God - is full of killing and suffering and anger.  I find the teachings of the Tibetan Lamas much more spiritual.  They take only what they need, and spend their lives, trying to enlighten others and raise their spiritual consciousness. 

you keep forgetting that God is allowed to punish those who disobey Him or follow sinful ways. you only focus on what you want to see andforget that people have free choice and they suffer because they do not follow God or His ways.

Quote
The main factor in a religious belief, is not about who is right or wrong in how they worship - it's in what you do in your life to make you a better person

this is wrong because if there is no right or wrong then hitler would be right and no one could condemn or fight against him for their way is not right either. you have to have a right or wrong or no one would have any standard to convict criminals or point out false  teachings that lead people to destruction. everything would be right.

the legal system is basically following the biblical right or wrong.

Quote
Here's a link to Stephen Hawking's latest theory.

i read it and he embarasses himself once again.  he wasn't at creation thus he cannot say that God did not do it. he is merely a handicapped man who does not believe thus he has to make something up to justofy his salary.

who is stephen hawkings? a person , a human, who cannot see into the past andhas noidea what took place because he rejects the truth. he also isn't an authority, nor one who canmake any determination about what did or didn't happen a few thousand years ago.

Quote
The reason I think Archeologists reason for not (for lack of a better word) "believing" in evolution is that he and many others feel threatened by evolution because it contradicts genesis and the bible.

can't be afraid of something that doesn't exist.  doesn't matter f it contradicts genesis or not, it isn't truth and as i have shown, the modern secular scientist cannot replicate the claimed actual changes nor the original conditions that spawned said changes. 

there isn't anything to evolution  and it isnot something one should put faith in, it is a complete lie.

Quote
Parents have the option of enrolling their kids in private school if they so choose

the atheist can build their own schools and pay extra tuition if they want to teach evolution. evolution is a lie and does not belong in ppublic schools.

Quote
Israeli archeologists have not found anything what-so-ever to back up the claims made in the bible

this is a lie as the dan stele has been found, the merepthah stele has been found, and so muchmore. you obviously do not know what you are tlaking about.

Quote
And it is a fact that even the Exodus never happened.

prove it.

Quote
There are no Egyptian records to back it up

doesn't have to be but there i sone, the ipuwer papyrus but manyscholars date it to the wrong dynasty because they are afraid of the truth.

Quote
And they pretty much wrote everything down. 

you obviously know nothing about egyptians or how they kept records. read Old Testament Times by RK Harrison and see for yourself. i will give you a hint--the ancient egyptians did not record defeats.



Title: Re: Darwin May Have Been WRONG, New Study Argues
Post by: Qoais on September 04, 2010, 10:36:06 am
Quote
Quote
The main factor in a religious belief, is not about who is right or wrong in how they worship - it's in what you do in your life to make you a better person
Quote
this is wrong because if there is no right or wrong then hitler would be right and no one could condemn or fight against him for their way is not right either. you have to have a right or wrong or no one would have any standard to convict criminals or point out false  teachings that lead people to destruction. everything would be right.

the legal system is basically following the biblical right or wrong.

I was not talking about this sort of thing.  I was talking about which religion was right or wrong. And whether or not the Bible outsells other religious writings is irrelevant. It's not about money.   Hinduism is the oldest recorded religion and I know those that adhere to it live their life according to their religion.  I have many friends who belong to the Hindu faith.  They accept that Christians believe in Jesus and don't put us down for it.  They don't try to change us or convert us to Hinduism.  They believe everyone has the right to worship the way they want and that God loves everyone, not just a chosen few. 

Most countries' legal system follows their religious beliefs. 

Quote
we can prove the Bible far easier than secular scientists can prove evolution.

I asked specifically, how can you prove Moses wrote Genesis?  Even in those days, they understood about reproduction.  They weren't blind.  They'd been farmers for 2000 years by that time, and I'm sure they noticed how reproduction works.  They butchered their animals and could see how the insides were.  They used bladders for carrying water, etc.  They could also see the sun, and moon and stars, etc.  However, they thought the earth was the center of the universe and that the sun revolved around the earth. 

They would not have sitings of intermediary species because according to science, the species we have today, were the same as back then.  Science is talking in hundreds of thousands of years, not just a few thousand.

In those days, names were passed on in families so surely in all the Bible, they'd get at least something right.  The odds favor them getting at least a few things correct.  The Bible was a compilation of the writings of different people.  They were relating what they knew from their reference point.  They probably had records that showed what slaves sold for, that's not rocket science. 

And I will say again, that you can believe in a God that doles out "punishment" if you want.  Perhaps you feel you've been so wicked you need and desire and enjoy punishment.  Those of us who have suffered cruelty at the hands of others, don't agree with you.  I have known love and I have known hate and let me tell you, I would prefer to be treated with love any day over hate.  Man has been given free will according to the Bible.  Some choose to dominate others through fear and cruelty.  Feel they have to "punish" others.  That is not love as I've said before.  God is Love.  Real love.  Not what man perceives as love.

People who have had a Near Death Experience tell about the sense of love that enfolds them when they are "on the other side".  They say there are no words to describe the beauty of it.  THAT is what I would call God's love.  Indescribable beauty. 


Title: Re: Darwin May Have Been WRONG, New Study Argues
Post by: archaeologist on September 06, 2010, 03:17:57 am
Quote
I was not talking about this sort of thing

it is allpart of it for if there i sno right or wrong in worship then there is no right or wrong. God states how to worship as well, the instructions are in the Bible and there is a right and wrong way.

Quote
Hinduism is the oldest recorded religion

that is not correct.

Quote
They believe everyone has the right to worship the way they want and that God loves everyone, not just a chosen few. 

this doesn't make them special for christianity believes the same thing BUT to get to heaven, to be a follower of God you ave to follow God's plan of salvation. everyone is called to salvation but sin is left behind, it is not welcome and that includes false religions like hinduism.

Quote
ost countries' legal system follows their religious beliefs. 

you misunderstand---they follow the Biblical way not just their false religious beliefs.

Quote
They would not have sitings of intermediary species because according to science, the species we have today, were the same as back then.  Science is talking in hundreds of thousands of years, not just a few thousand.

modern scientists were not present 100,000 years ago and they have no clue what took place when. what they say means nothing because they have no ancient writings to support their theory and they are only guessing because they do not want the biblical way.

Quote
However, they thought the earth was the center of the universe and that the sun revolved around the earth. 

no they didn't you just extrapolate a few statements from a minute number of people to all ancient peoples.  for all modern scientists know, the earth could be the center of the universe for they do not know where the boundaries lie.

Quote
In those days, names were passed on in families so surely in all the Bible, they'd get at least something right.  The odds favor them getting at least a few things correct.  The Bible was a compilation of the writings of different people.  They were relating what they knew from their reference point.  They probably had records that showed what slaves sold for, that's not rocket science. 

you do not know anything about the ancient world, so stop talking like you are an expert. you make justifications and excuses so you can continue to follow lies.

Quote
Those of us who have suffered cruelty at the hands of others, don't agree with you

ahh yes, the old 'we did this and are the only ones who have done it so we know everything' defense. you are not the only ones to have suffered, you know nothing. your whole post is just jibberish and vacant of fact, evidence and anythign legitimate.

you certainly do not know what you are talking about so unless you have something new to present get back on topic.  darwin and all evolutionists are wrong. in fact not one evolutinary scientist is or has replicated one actual claimed change attributed to the process of evolution. it fails as science and it fails as the truth.


Title: Re: Darwin May Have Been WRONG, New Study Argues
Post by: Robert0326 on September 06, 2010, 09:14:35 am
You still didn't answer my question Archeologist.  If these are not the ancestors of man, what exactly are they?


Toumai - Sahelanthropus tchadensis
Kenyanthropus - Kenyanthropus platyops
Australopithecus afarensis
Australopithecus africanus
Australopithecus anamensis
Australopithecus garhi
Australopithecus aethiopicus
Australopithecus boisei
Australopithecus robustus
Homo habilis
Homo rudolfensis
Homo ergaster
Homo erectus
Homo neanderthalensis
Homo sapiens
Homo habilis
Homo rudolfensis
Homo ergaster
Homo erectus
Homo neanderthalensis
Homo sapiens

The Tel Dan Stele mentions the house of David.  Big deal

The Merenpthah Stele mentions Israel and Canaan, however, is brief, and a large part of the stele concerns Merneptah's campaign against the Libyans.  Again... Big deal.




Title: Re: Darwin May Have Been WRONG, New Study Argues
Post by: archaeologist on September 06, 2010, 04:25:21 pm
Quote
If these are not the ancestors of man, what exactly are they?


they are all mis-identified bones or partial skeletons and are names made up by those who want alternatives to the Bible. since none of those creatures has ever been observed alive at best the identifications are assumptions, conjectures, and wishful thinking.

you cannot determine evolutionary processing by just looking at old bones, there are too many plausible sources for any differences in the skeletons. plus not one of those changes has ever been observed in action to prove it was the process of evolution at work or responsible nor has any of those claimed changes been replicated by secular scientists. artificial experiments do not count for they lack the original conditions that made said claimed evolutionary changes.

now do not give me the old song and dance that 'evolution simply means change'. i have heard far too often and it is a bogus definition meant to distort the fact that evolution cannot be proven true as claimed by darwin or subsequent evolutionary scientists. it is too broad and there is NO time to prove that the changes were from evolutionary activities.

p.s. you have neanderthal listed twice as well as sapiens, erectus and a few others.


Title: Re: Darwin May Have Been WRONG, New Study Argues
Post by: Robert0326 on September 07, 2010, 09:01:42 am
Wow!  You actually used that lame explanation.  ::)  I guess it could have be worse.  You could have used the even more laughable, "god put them there to test our faith" explanation.  Or do you creationists just use that one to explain the dinosaurs.  I swear you guys read by script when debating.  ::)

They haven't been observed in real life is because they are extincted.  It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that one out. Yes you can observe the evolutionary process by studying old bones.  That's how it is done.  So clearly you have no idea what you are talking about.  Curious as to no rebuttal about the Stele.  I guess I gotcha on that one, huh.  ;D

And nitpicking about typing a few species a few time..  Really?


Title: Re: Darwin May Have Been WRONG, New Study Argues
Post by: Qoais on September 07, 2010, 11:25:16 am
It would appear Robert, that archaeologist feels he is totally in the know beyond all the scientists who have given us what they've learned in all the different fields, so I for one, will leave him to his delusions.  He calls himself archaeologist but decries what that subject teaches. Perhaps he and Ostanes should get together and turn the world on it's ear :D  Between them, they must know everything in the world and beyond, that there is to know.  At least, that's what they seem to be saying.  

I don't believe EVERYTHING science teaches, but let's give credit where credit is due.  Without the scholars in these different fields, we would still be back in the dark ages, believing the world was flat and putting to death anyone who said different and burning people at the stake because they had a vision or the "second sight".   I've never claimed to be an expert on anything.  What I've said, is that I've researched what others say, so I can learn for myself.

I said that Hinduism was the oldest religion, because most reference books list it as the world's oldest (organized) religion; mainly because it has the oldest recorded history which stems from Dravidianism which is estimated to have been in practice around 6000 BCE and therefore predates Sumerian, Babylonian and Egyptian beliefs. ( Hinduism itself, dates back to 1,500 BCE, when the Vedas, the sacred texts of Hinduism, were written.   Hinduism as a religion has no known creator, as it was put together from a variety of traditional beliefs from different cultures and mythologies.)   If one wants to split hairs, one could say perhaps that witchcraft or a type of shamanism was the first religion, perhaps resulting from dreams and visions acquired in a trance state, or altered state of consciousness.
If you know something different archaeologist, why not so state, instead of just telling me I'm wrong?  

 

 


Title: Re: Darwin May Have Been WRONG, New Study Argues
Post by: Tom Hebert on September 07, 2010, 11:39:46 am
The oldest religion is sun worship.


Title: Re: Darwin May Have Been WRONG, New Study Argues
Post by: Robert0326 on September 07, 2010, 03:20:07 pm
Your right Qoais, without science, free-thinking and open inquiry I think we would be still in the dark ages.  He has not produced one article or any rational response to this debate.  All he does is quote scripture and rant about the bible as the only truth in the universe.  It's a shame that we live in the 21 st. century and people like archeologist are as ignorant as they were in the dark ages.


Title: Re: Darwin May Have Been WRONG, New Study Argues
Post by: Qoais on September 07, 2010, 05:08:56 pm
The oldest religion is sun worship.


Older that the Hindu beliefs Tom?

Hinduism


Surya
The Ādityas are one of the principal deities of the Vedic classical Hinduism belonging to Solar class. In the Vedas, numerous hymns are dedicated to Mitra, Varuna, Savitr etc.
Even the Gayatri mantra, which is regarded as one of the most sacred of the Vedic hymns is dedicated to Savitr, one of the principal Ādityas. The Adityas are a group of solar deities, from the Brahmana period numbering twelve. The ritual of sandhyavandanam, performed by Hindus, is an elaborate set of hand gestures and body movements, designed to greet and revere the Sun.
The Sun God in Hinduism is an ancient and revered deity. In later Hindu usage, all the Vedic Ādityas lost identity and metamorphosed into one composite deity, Surya, the Sun. The attributes of all other Ādityas merged into that of Surya and the names of all other Ādityas became synonymous with or epithets of Surya.


Title: Re: Darwin May Have Been WRONG, New Study Argues
Post by: archaeologist on September 09, 2010, 06:44:04 am
Quote
You actually used that lame explanation

what lame explanation? you should know by now that evolutionists look at skeletons and bones and simply apply assumption or conjecture to to explain them.  if you have read ann gibbons' book,  you would know how minute the bones are with which anthropologists use as jumping off spots fo rtheir huge theories.

Quote
They haven't been observed in real life is because they are extincted

{extinct not 'extincted'} yes i am well aware of the double standard that evolutionists set for themselves to get around their own rules.

Quote
Yes you can observe the evolutionary process by studying old bones.  That's how it is done.  So clearly you have no idea what you are talking about.

no you can't because it is all assumption and the dating systems are faulty. i assure you i most certainly do know what i am talking about but i see you do not. what stele? don't even recall reading it.

your blind faith in evolution and evolutionists just shows you are no different from christians except for the object of your beliefs.

Quote
It would appear Robert, that archaeologist feels he is totally in the know beyond all the scientists who have given us what they've learned in all the different fields, so I for one, will leave him to his delusions.  He calls himself archaeologist but decries what that subject teaches

such stupidity means i won't respond to your post and hinduismis not the oldest religion, in fact no one knows where the eastern indian originated from and given the fact that worship of God went back to adam and eve it is not hard to see how wrong you arer.

Quote
Your right Qoais, without science, free-thinking and open inquiry I think we would be still in the dark ages.

the same old same old. you evolutionists need to get new scripts. but since you went to the personal attack it is not hard to see you have nothing to refute the truth. evolution does not exist in any form and all secular scientists are wrong.


Title: Re: Darwin May Have Been WRONG, New Study Argues
Post by: archaeologist on September 09, 2010, 06:45:30 am
darwin was never right nor was wallace.


Title: Re: Darwin May Have Been WRONG, New Study Argues
Post by: Robert0326 on September 09, 2010, 08:34:39 am
The Tel Dan Stele mentions the "house of David" but doesn't prove anything.  The Merneptah Stele briefly mentions Israel and Canaan and is more about Merneptah's campaign against the Libyans.  Again, doesn't prove anything.  All this means is that there was a house of David and Israel and Canaan were around.  So what.  What I think of the evolutionary process is not blind faith.  I read the what they know and about what they have discovered and base my own opinion on the subject.  So I am in no way like a Christian or you who believe in myth and superstition.  That was a very mean and insulting they to say.  You are wrong about everything you've said and the bible is a lie.  See, I can say that too.  I can also use your, you weren't there when it all began so therefore you can't know how it all got started.


Title: Re: Darwin May Have Been WRONG, New Study Argues
Post by: Qoais on September 09, 2010, 09:51:56 am
Quote
to refute the truth. evolution does not exist in any form and all secular scientists are wrong.

Hee hee hee   :) :D ;D

Well, I'm sure glad all those secular scientists are wrong about diseases and how to cure them and how to do operations and restore people to health.   :D :D :D  It's such a shame that they save so many people and relieve their suffering isn't it?

What a perfectly stupid thing to say - all secular scientists are wrong.  Another poster who likes to bait people and get them to argue instead of contributing anything to the knowledge base of any subject.


Title: Re: Darwin May Have Been WRONG, New Study Argues
Post by: archaeologist on September 10, 2010, 05:53:47 am
Quote
Tel Dan Stele mentions the "house of David" but doesn't prove anything.  The Merneptah Stele briefly mentions Israel and Canaan and is more about Merneptah's campaign against the Libyans.  Again, doesn't prove anything.  All this means is that there was a house of David and Israel and Canaan were around.  So what.

#1. it gives extra-biblical evidence of king david and israel. there is no extra-evolutionary evidence.

#2. it shows that ancient people could read and write. evolution does not have 1 ancient monument, text, or any other recording to support its claims.

#3. the dating of these monuments supports the biblical record and puts the correct ancient people in the correct country at the correct time just as the Bible says. nothing ancient does that for evolution.

Quote
What I think of the evolutionary process is not blind faith.  I read the what they know and about what they have discovered and base my own opinion on the subject.  So I am in no way like a Christian or you who believe in myth and superstition

#1. you have to have blind faith because there is no proof that the evolutionist is correct in his/her assumptions, conjecture, speculations, hypothesizing and so on. there is nothing from any time in history that rallies behind evolution.

#2. they discover partial skeletons, lone bone fragments and build a whole species out of them. the hoaxes alone shoul dmake you question the validity of the evolutionary theory and you cannot hide behond the self-correcting system for any field that falss for so many hoaxes is just not credible.

#3. but you do believe in myth and superstition, for no ancient record backs up any claim evolutionists make and evolutionists do not even replicate true evolutionary changes, they are all artificial experiments extrapolated and attributed to the process of evolution but with NO real proof those claimed changes took places as said.

Quote
You are wrong about everything you've said and the bible is a lie.  See, I can say that too.  I can also use your, you weren't there when it all began so therefore you can't know how it all got started.

except i have the evidence on my side. and no i wasn't there BUT I AM NOT the one trying to construct an alternative past. I am taking the words of the ONE WHOS WAS there, believing them and then telling you so you know. i do not have to be there to know the Bible is true but evolutionists do have to be there for they are the ones who are trying to construct an alternative history from nothing.



Title: Re: Darwin May Have Been WRONG, New Study Argues
Post by: archaeologist on September 10, 2010, 06:02:31 am
Quote
Well, I'm sure glad all those secular scientists are wrong about diseases and how to cure them and how to do operations and restore people to health.

how can you be sure it was only the secular scientists who did all that. if you remember the majority of early modern scientists were christian or religious pasteur, curie, newton and so many more. so do not be hasty in your accolades {read Men of Science, Men of God by Henry Morris}

Quote
It's such a shame that they save so many people and relieve their suffering isn't it?


are they really? why don't you take an honest look at the field and see how much suffering they cause. not just creating medicines whose side effects are worse than the disease itself, but the wrong limbs cut off, the mis-diagnosises, the wrong medication given, the wrong amount and so much more.

if you were honest you would be honest with yourself and carefully examine the whole issue open-mindedly and see how bad they really are. oh and by the way uess who made the weapons people use to kill others and the ammunition to go withthose weapons? who made the mustard gas, the nerve gas and many othe rgases that nations use to threaten other nations?

take a long hard look at the field you treasure fo rit is not pretty. and i am not baiting just stating simple facts