Ancient human skulls and bones

Not Neo's original post. Possible board hiccup put my post in place of his introductory one.

------I believe this is his original point-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What if the skulls and bones we find which we catalogue as neanderthals and cro magnon etc. are simply the remains of the pre-Flood humans who became a thousand years old? Compare a modern child's skull with that of a grown man and that of an elderly man, then add 900 years to the evolution of our bones, and you might have a neanderthal or similar. In the Pre-Flood world humans lived to be a thousand (biblical) or even tens or hundred thousands (Sumerian/Egyptian/Indi) of years old. Compared to these, modern humans at 100 years old, are mere children and even infants. This might also explain the finds of seemingly modern human skulls found where they "should not be", so called "out of time/place artifacts".

Also, the dragons were obviously dinosaurs, and there has been found "fossile" footsteps of modern humans in the same track as dinosaurs, as if we hunted for them.... What if the elite knows this and try to cover it up?

edit on 8-10-2010 by Byrd because: fix problem with first post.

reply to post by Neo Christian Mystic


Show me a dinosaur footprint inside of a human footprint and I might believe they coexisted.

I always thought that neanderthal could be the biblical nephilim. We know that neandethal and modern humas wer roaming the planet at the same time, so why couldn't those giants, spoken about in Genesis, actually be neanderthal?

Our popular image of neanderthal is wrong, as they weren't dumb bruts, well at least they weren't dumb, as they had bigger brains than us. So, if you put 2 and 2 together and realize that our dating of the stories in the bible could be wrong, then the giants of Genesis were most likely neanderthal, which modern archeology supports.


--airspoon

Originally posted by snusfanatic
reply to post by Neo Christian Mystic

 

Show me a dinosaur footprint inside of a human footprint and I might believe they coexisted.

It's unlikely that a human foot (with a body weighing 70 kilos) would make an imprint in a huntable dinosaur foot (at ten tons) in mud. We have however found modern human footprints in the same layer of clay as dinosaurs (if you disagree, proove it).

Originally posted by airspoon
I always thought that neanderthal could be the biblical nephilim. We know that neandethal and modern humas wer roaming the planet at the same time, so why couldn't those giants, spoken about in Genesis, actually be neanderthal?

Nah, I'd disagree. Everything points in the direction that the Neanderthals had bigger brains than us, and that they were peaceful hunters and gatherers, with interest in music (first seven tone scale instruments) and so on. They were probably "exstinct" since God tampered with our genome just before the Flood, limiting our thelomeres in our cells to sustain cell division for a maximum of 120 years. A giant still living today is the GIRAFFE. According to myth the sons of God made it by mixing the leopard and the camel, hence the Greek name, Camelopardalis.

Our popular image of neanderthal is wrong, as they weren't dumb bruts, well at least they weren't dumb, as they had bigger brains than us.

I agree, they sure weren't stupid. The modern white man alltogether share up to 5% of it's unique human genes with neanderthals. Africans don't have these genes. This indicates how Man interbred with neanderthals either immediately after leaving Africa, or that the interbreeding was infact the reason for us leaving Africa in the first place. White skin, blonde hair and blue eyes are all remnants of "Neanderthal genes".

How about the classical Riddle of the Sphinx, "What walks on four, then two, and then three?" -- Well humans ending up with a cane. But what if we lived even longer, perhaps we would end up where we started. On all four. What if apes are degenerated ancient and damn old elders of homo sapiens? Just a thought.

reply to post by Neo Christian Mystic

Originally posted by Neo Christian Mystic
What if the skulls and bones we find which we catalogue as neanderthals and cro magnon etc. are simply the remains of the pre-Flood humans who became a thousand years old?

Because nobody has ever lived to a thousand years old.

The other major flaw in your argument is that Neanderthal skeletons have been found from each morphological step, child to elderly. It's not like we have just a few dozen skeletons that are old and hunched, we have skeletons that show Neanderthals that are in their physical prime and developmental stages as well.

Compare a modern child's skull with that of a grown man and that of an elderly man, then add 900 years to the evolution of our bones, and you might have a neanderthal or similar.

Except that you wouldn't. This seems to take a lot from Kent Hovind, the infamous "Dr. Dino"
He's unfortunately a well-respected person in the Creationist community, but here is a website that catalogs and systematically refutes his points. Kent Hovind (aka Dr. Dino)

In the Pre-Flood world humans lived to be a thousand (biblical) or even tens or hundred thousands (Sumerian/Egyptian/Indi) of years old.

Well, here's the other problem, there's no evidence of a Biblical flood. There's evidence of individual catastrophic floods, but nothing near a global phenomenon. You're also taking info from myths rather than observed scientific fact.

Compared to these, modern humans at 100 years old, are mere children and even infants. This might also explain the finds of seemingly modern human skulls found where they "should not be", so called "out of time/place artifacts".

Except that all of these cases have been found to be fraudulent or cases of ineptitude by amateur researchers.

Also, the dragons were obviously dinosaurs, and there has been found "fossile" footsteps of modern humans in the same track as dinosaurs, as if we hunted for them.... What if the elite knows this and try to cover it up?

No, there's absolutely no evidence that human and dinosaur coexisted outside of episodes of "The Flinstones".

Yabba Dabba Doo

reply to post by Neo Christian Mystic

Nah, I'd disagree. Everything points in the direction that the Neanderthals had bigger brains than us, and that they were peaceful hunters and gatherers, with interest in music (first seven tone scale instruments) and so on. They were probably "exstinct" since God tampered with our genome just before the Flood, limiting our thelomeres in our cells to sustain cell division for a maximum of 120 years. A giant still living today is the GIRAFFE. According to myth the sons of God made it by mixing the leopard and the camel, hence the Greek name, Camelopardalis.

Lol, everything doesn't point to them being peaceful. Scarred bones from spear jabs and what have you. Furthermore, there is no scientific evidence for a world-wide flood so if a flood did happen, it was probably localized and either perceived or recorded as world-wide, due to the limited perception of the recording civilization.

Also, one of the leading theories for Greek mythological creatures, is that they were trying to make sense of recovered dinosaur bones that were exposed due to earthquakes. We do know that they recovered dinosaur bones and since they would have no idea what dinosaurs were or where and when they lived, it would take mythology to try and explain them.

The modern white man altogether share up to 5% of it's unique human genes with neanderthals.

The study/theory suggest 4% and this would only reinforce the notion that they could have been biblical nephilim, as the only reason why Europeans and Asians could share these genes and not Africans, is because they probably interbred.

White skin, blonde hair and blue eyes are all remnants of "Neanderthal genes".

No, your exaggerating the study a little. Blonde hair for instance probably came about in women around 10,000 years ago, as a result for competing for male attention. You see in Europe, women had to rely on men for food. In Africa and other parts of the world, they didn't, relatively speaking. In Africa for instance, women could gather berries and fruits or even trap smaller game. In Europe on the other hand, where the Ice sheets were retreating, there was only grasses, rough terrain and very large game. Their was probably a disproportionate number of males since hunting parties would have a long way to trek through dangerous terrain. Many males would dies along their hunting treks, leaving a large number of women to compete with each other for males and their resources. Europe was a man's world back then. Scientists theorize that blonde hair was a result of this competition between females.

As far as light or blue eyes, it is actually a gene mutation that has been traced back through DNA to about 6-10,000 years ago. There is absolutely no scientific evidence to suggest that blonde hair, blue eyes and white skin came from neanderthal and human interbreeding, while there is scientific evidence to suggest that these traits did not come from interbreeding.


--airspoon

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by Neo Christian Mystic

 

Because nobody has ever lived to a thousand years old.

Noone is capable of living that long with your genome. According to you. What is your degree in paleontology and nuclear genetics which makes you an expert on what age genetically designed life can become and of dating the age of who ever owned those bones? Oh, I thought so. Never mind. I'll keep on reading....

The other major flaw in your argument is that Neanderthal skeletons have been found from each morphological step, child to elderly. It's not like we have just a few dozen skeletons that are old and hunched, we have skeletons that show Neanderthals that are in their physical prime and developmental stages as well.

Still today we have dwarves and giants, "hobbits" and degenerated people being born. First off, take a look at Thelomeres, it's a kind of repeating chunk of DNA which sits in the end of the genetic nucleus in all cells in our bodies. And guess what. Modern genetics concludes with what Biblical scholars have said all along, that the human genome per today, is limited with only enough thelomeres to sustain cell reproduction for about 120-130 years. Exactly what God said just prior to the Flood.

Instead of debunking what you can't simply know anything about, rather look at this: What if the "pre-Flood" Man has another thelomeric markup, allowing cells to reproduce for another 1000 years? We could reinvent near eternal physical life. I'd rather twinkle in the direction of the scientists working on that particular problem.

Compare a modern child's skull with that of a grown man and that of an elderly man, then add 900 years to the evolution of our bones, and you might have a neanderthal or similar.

Except that you wouldn't. This seems to take a lot from Kent Hovind, the infamous "Dr. Dino"
He's unfortunately a well-respected person in the Creationist community, but here is a website that catalogs and systematically refutes his points. Kent Hovind (aka Dr. Dino)

I have no idea who that guy is. Sounds reasonable though. I'll check out the link when I'm finished laughing of your pragmatic geocentric, "the Earth is in the center of the universe, for my teacher says so. They ALL say so! Therefore it must be right!" lol

In the Pre-Flood world humans lived to be a thousand (biblical) or even tens or hundred thousands (Sumerian/Egyptian/Indi) of years old.

Well, here's the other problem, there's no evidence of a Biblical flood. There's evidence of individual catastrophic floods, but nothing near a global phenomenon. You're also taking info from myths rather than observed scientific fact.

OK. There is no evidence. Right. Wasn't that the whole point with the Flood? To wipe the Earth completely clean of anything manmade? What about all the ice-ages? Ice is water, and the remnants of some of these these glaciers (frozen water -- Ice, not snow) rests at quite high altitudes, showing there must have been quite high waters. I myself own a few specimens of "rur" or "Balanidae" which lives in the area around the sea surface. Only problem was these were found about 30 meters above today's sea level. Well. And there is more too, but you would never listen anyway, so I'll rather keep on reading.

Compared to these, modern humans at 100 years old, are mere children and even infants. This might also explain the finds of seemingly modern human skulls found where they "should not be", so called "out of time/place artifacts".

Except that all of these cases have been found to be fraudulent or cases of ineptitude by amateur researchers.

OK. Have you ever been to "fraudulent" British Museum? There you will find horned skulls of seemingly modern humans found to be millions of years old. However, they are kept out of sight, but since you are such an excellent researcher, you could possibly ask them to show them to you to prove your own research is fraudulent.

Also, the dragons were obviously dinosaurs, and there has been found "fossile" footsteps of modern humans in the same track as dinosaurs, as if we hunted for them.... What if the elite knows this and try to cover it up?

No, there's absolutely no evidence that human and dinosaur coexisted outside of episodes of "The Flinstones".

Yabba Dabba Doo

Check out "Against All Odds" by Carl Baugh. And check out the researche done to human footsteps alongside dinosaur footsteps in the Paluxy River banks in Glen Rose, Texas. Even podiatrists examined one such specimen of human fottstep fossils alongside dinosaur footsteps, beneath tons and tons of rocks, gravel and mud, and they concluded they were indeed made by humans, and the dating matched, as did the podiatrists conclusions, they were genuine. However, it was obviously too much to take for certain groups within the scientific community (all Darwinian evolutionists btw., thus even inhabilis to the theories that humans and dinos have once shared common grounds).

- Go go Gadget chopper!
- There is no such thing!
- Oh yeah?

reply to post by airspoon


So the Neanderthals were stupid, violent cavemen, since they were hunted down and destroyed by modern man (as say modern science) since they have scar-markings on their bones. Leave the elderly cavemen alone I say! One of the reasons we find them so well hidden inside caves or high up and far from where it would be more practical and lucrative tells me that they were running away from something and hiding. We have found Neanderthal graves with tons of flowers in them. And modern man outside Africa carry from 2-5% Neanderthal DNA, showing they even interbred with "us". Certainly looks like they weren't loved. Yeah right!

Or to say it differently: You find a dismembered, horribly slaughtered human skeleton. And your first idea is that this must have been a horrible violent man who simply got what he deserved? Well...

And....

"Recently, human mtDNA has been retrieved from skeletal material on both sides of the transition from Neanderthals to modern humans: No genetic continuity is discernible between the late Neanderthals and the early modern Europeans" (Caramelli et al., 2003).

Originally posted by Neo Christian Mystic

Originally posted by snusfanatic
reply to post by Neo Christian Mystic

 

Show me a dinosaur footprint inside of a human footprint and I might believe they coexisted.

It's unlikely that a human foot (with a body weighing 70 kilos) would make an imprint in a huntable dinosaur foot (at ten tons) in mud. We have however found modern human footprints in the same layer of clay as dinosaurs (if you disagree, proove it).

edit on 2/10/2010 by Neo Christian Mystic because: Cleaified

Nope these claims have been disproven and the claim has been withdrawn by numberous creationist even becuase they recognised that it was not true. The only one who continues to use this arguement is Carl Baugh, and he also makes numberous other rediculous claims which he fails to produce evidence for. The markings have been researched for many years and have been found not to be human. Some of them were found to have been carved even, as in falsified. Sorry.

Man tracks?

Originally posted by Neo Christian Mystic
What if the skulls and bones we find which we catalogue as neanderthals and cro magnon etc. are simply the remains of the pre-Flood humans who became a thousand years old? Compare a modern child's skull with that of a grown man and that of an elderly man, then add 900 years to the evolution of our bones, and you might have a neanderthal or similar.

This is not true because there are important morphological differences between humans and neandertals. There are also genetic differences, they are essentially two different species and the mitochondrial DNA studies have shown this.

Knight A. (2003): The phylogenetic relationship of Neandertal and modern human mitochondrial DNAs based on informative nucleotide sites. Journal of Human Evolution, 44:627-32.

In the Pre-Flood world humans lived to be a thousand (biblical) or even tens or hundred thousands (Sumerian/Egyptian/Indi) of years old. Compared to these, modern humans at 100 years old, are mere children and even infants. This might also explain the finds of seemingly modern human skulls found where they "should not be", so called "out of time/place artifacts".

See the problem with this statement is that there is no evidence to support your assertion. the only source we have that people lived to 1000 is the bible. This is not a scientific source and you have no other evidence. Scientist do not make assertions based on one source and niether can you.

Also, the dragons were obviously dinosaurs, and there has been found "fossile" footsteps of modern humans in the same track as dinosaurs, as if we hunted for them.... What if the elite knows this and try to cover it up?

No see my above post and the link tot he evidence. Not true. Dinos and humans did not live int he same time period, not even close.

Originally posted by Neo Christian Mystic

Noone is capable of living that long with your genome. According to you. What is your degree in paleontology and nuclear genetics which makes you an expert on what age genetically designed life can become and of dating the age of who ever owned those bones? Oh, I thought so. Never mind. I'll keep on reading....

There is NO evidence that anyone ever lived that long, which makes this arguement just silly. Just because you speculate on something doesnt make it true. YOU are the one to make the claim and so you are the one who needs to come up with evidence to support it. not the other way around. The whole of modern genetics is my arguement....

Instead of debunking what you can't simply know anything about, rather look at this: What if the "pre-Flood" Man has another thelomeric markup, allowing cells to reproduce for another 1000 years? We could reinvent near eternal physical life. I'd rather twinkle in the direction of the scientists working on that particular problem.

Sure, I guess this is possible, just produce me some "pre-flood" DNA and ill take a look at it. If you cannot then this is a moot point because yours is a theory that cannot be proven.

OK. There is no evidence. Right. Wasn't that the whole point with the Flood? To wipe the Earth completely clean of anything manmade? What about all the ice-ages? Ice is water, and the remnants of some of these these glaciers (frozen water -- Ice, not snow) rests at quite high altitudes, showing there must have been quite high waters. I myself own a few specimens of "rur" or "Balanidae" which lives in the area around the sea surface. Only problem was these were found about 30 meters above today's sea level. Well. And there is more too, but you would never listen anyway, so I'll rather keep on reading.

Umm no, here is evidence of ice cores going back 40,000 years. No evidenece of any flood outside the normal range for the area.

Johnsen, S. J., H. B. Clausen, W. Dansgaard, K. Fuhrer, N. Gundestrap, C. U. Hammer, P. Iversen, J. Jouzel, B. Stauffer, & J. P. Steffensen, 1992. Irregular glacial interstadials recorded in a new Greenland ice core. Nature 359: 311-313.

Alley, R. B., D. A. Meese, C. A. Shuman, A. J. Gow, K.C. Taylor, P. M. Grootes, J. W. C. White, M. Ram, E. W. Waddington, P. A. Mayewski, & G. A. Zielinski, 1993. Abrupt increase in Greenland snow accumulation at the end of the Younger Dryas event. Nature 362: 527-529.


And why does a year long, worldwide flood not show up in tree ring data going back 10,000 years?

Becker, B. & Kromer, B., 1993. The continental tree-ring record - absolute chronology, C-14 calibration and climatic-change at 11 KA. Palaeogeography Palaeoclimatology Palaeoecology, 103 (1-2): 67-71

Becker, B., Kromer, B. & Trimborn, P., 1991. A stable-isotope tree-ring timescale of the late glacial Holocene boundary. Nature 353 (6345): 647-649

Originally posted by Neo Christian Mystic
Noone is capable of living that long with your genome. According to you. What is your degree in paleontology and nuclear genetics which makes you an expert on what age genetically designed life can become and of dating the age of who ever owned those bones? Oh, I thought so. Never mind. I'll keep on reading....

Ah, so you'll ignore my statement because I'm simply not an expert? It doesn't matter if I'm an expert if I have a valid argument. I simply stated it because it's true, but I can support my argument.

That's attacking me, not addressing the statement I made. You're also immediately stating that humans are 'genetically designed life' without proof, and you don't have to date the bones, you can actually tell the age of the person who died through forensic anthropology methods.

As for the questioning of my ability to understand the claims based upon scientific expertise, I may not be a geneticist, but I have a pretty decent understanding of genetics. And I may not be an anthropologist, but I actually studied a bit of it.

How would a creature with powerful bones and musculature possibly be confused for an elderly human...much less an incredibly elderly and decrepit one?

I'm going to simply provide evidence from an external source since you don't think I'm a good enough source of information.

From TalkOrigins

Still today we have dwarves and giants, "hobbits" and degenerated people being born.

Ok, but that doesn't explain why there would be a great variety of Neanderthal skeletons of various age ranges. You've dodged the question.

[quote[
First off, take a look at Thelomeres, it's a kind of repeating chunk of DNA which sits in the end of the genetic nucleus in all cells in our bodies. And guess what. Modern genetics concludes with what Biblical scholars have said all along, that the human genome per today, is limited with only enough thelomeres to sustain cell reproduction for about 120-130 years. Exactly what God said just prior to the Flood.


I'm sorry, but where does the Bible speak about human genetics?

Instead of debunking what you can't simply know anything about, rather look at this: What if the "pre-Flood" Man has another thelomeric markup, allowing cells to reproduce for another 1000 years? We could reinvent near eternal physical life. I'd rather twinkle in the direction of the scientists working on that particular problem.

I've already pointed out the 'pre-Flood' human is a misnomer as there is no 'Flood' to come before, but either way you're simply making an entirely speculative claim. What if early humans were purple? What if they had orange stripes on their faces and red spots on their stomachs?

Well, those claims could obviously be examined through genetics, and we've found that there's no evidence to support that early humanity was capable of living longer than we were.

I have no idea who that guy is. Sounds reasonable though. I'll check out the link when I'm finished laughing of your pragmatic geocentric, "the Earth is in the center of the universe, for my teacher says so. They ALL say so! Therefore it must be right!" lol

Wow, not only did you avoid the issue, you just compared me to a geocentrist...when you're the one that's actually putting forth a position more similar. You don't have a point to make so you simply lol at your own attacks on me.

I've examined the science to the best of my abilities (and though I'm not the most scientifically literate person in the world, I would consider myself more scientifically literate than average) and had it explained to me by those that understand. I'm not taking anything on authority, I'm taking it on argument and evidence.

OK. There is no evidence. Right. Wasn't that the whole point with the Flood? To wipe the Earth completely clean of anything manmade?

And what about geologic evidence? We'd see evidence in tree sampling. The trees we take core samples of that have been alive for thousands of years don't show any evidence of a global flood. There's no evidence in the geologic strata of a global flood. There's no evidence of a global flood in ice cores from the arctic.

What about all the ice-ages? Ice is water, and the remnants of some of these these glaciers (frozen water -- Ice, not snow) rests at quite high altitudes, showing there must have been quite high waters.

...Snow is frozen water. Snow is ice. You don't even demonstrate a basic understanding of what snow is and expect me to take your arguments seriously... Snow is a vast array of ice crystals. Compacted snow can form into ice crystals, I'm sure you've experienced this on roads at some point in your life.

This is a basic explanation of how glaciers form

I myself own a few specimens of "rur" or "Balanidae" which lives in the area around the sea surface. Only problem was these were found about 30 meters above today's sea level. Well. And there is more too, but you would never listen anyway, so I'll rather keep on reading.

I would listen, but you're simply assuming I won't and not providing any references or explanations, simply vague comments

OK. Have you ever been to "fraudulent" British Museum? There you will find horned skulls of seemingly modern humans found to be millions of years old. However, they are kept out of sight, but since you are such an excellent researcher, you could possibly ask them to show them to you to prove your own research is fraudulent.

So your argument is:
The British Museum has 'horned modern human skulls found millions of years ago'
They keep them out of sight, so I don't have to provide evidence of my claim
Insult me because I claimed that I have an understanding of science.

Show me evidence of the British Museum having these skulls.


If you don't, by your logic I could say a Church has a Polaroid photo that I took 2010 years ago with Jesus with him holding up a sign in Greek stating that he's just some dude trying to spread the peace, not the son of God.

Check out "Against All Odds" by Carl Baugh.

This is a common thing I find from Creationists, they tell me to read a whole book. I never, ever tell people to read the entirety of "On the Origin of Species" by Darwin unless they're looking for an interesting read.

Just for future reference and what I would consider a general level of courtesy, please provide links to something that's less intensive. I'm not going to stay buying a book and then reading the whole thing to formulate a proper reply to an argument in a forum. And it would be quite unreasonable for you to expect me to debunk the entirety of that book on my own in my spare time. Not that I wouldn't be able to do it, it would just take time and effort.

However, I'll be the more reasonable person and simply provide some links that criticize his work.
Or just one...creationists criticizing his work. This is an excerpt from a paper from Answers in Genesis, scroll down to the 'man-track' claim
That's the creationists themselves disavowing him, which is immediately a bad sign for 'creation scientists'

And check out the researche done to human footsteps alongside dinosaur footsteps in the Paluxy River banks in Glen Rose, Texas. Even podiatrists examined one such specimen of human fottstep fossils alongside dinosaur footsteps, beneath tons and tons of rocks, gravel and mud, and they concluded they were indeed made by humans, and the dating matched, as did the podiatrists conclusions, they were genuine.

Except no. Here's something that disproves that claim with a lot of references

However, it was obviously too much to take for certain groups within the scientific community (all Darwinian evolutionists btw., thus even inhabilis to the theories that humans and dinos have once shared common grounds).

...calling someone a "Darwinian Evolutionist" is like calling someone a "Newtonian Physicist" or a "Turingist Computerist" etc. It's an absolutely childish attempt to make it out to seem that Darwin is viewed an infallible figure, whilst the majority of evolutionary research has actually gone to modify claims by Darwin as he wasn't privy to such wonders of science as genetics or modern paleontology or radiometric dating.

Originally posted by Neo Christian Mystic
We have however found modern human footprints in the same layer of clay as dinosaurs (if you disagree, proove it).

You're kidding, right?

Nothing like turning logic on its head

In all life we know of, cells die withing a relatively short time from them being created from cell division. Every cell your own genome produce proteins to govern processes including reproducing every cell in your body within seven - 7 - years. Now what does that tell you about how old a bonehead would be when it died? Nothing. Ageing of bones and fossils is done by measuring the bones with bloody straightedges and the coroner's gut. These "ancient humans' bones" does look old as in worn out or very solid. God gave us a disease about 5000 years ago, which helped us with the problem that all of us grew into becoming "neanderthals". These bones are old, in all extents of the word.

reply to post by Neo Christian Mystic

Dear Neo Christian Mystic, you don't have a hope. There are two reasons for this.

First, and less important, the sceptics who haunt this forum seriously know their onions. They've heard your arguments a dozen times before and debunked them a dozen times, too. You're performing way below the level where you can even begin to hold your own against them.

Second, the clincher: Biblical creationism is wrong. I don't doubt that the Book of Genesis gives an accurate picture of cosmology and evolution according to the beliefs of its authors' day. But several thousand years have gone by since it was written. We understand the world a little better now.

Why can't you believe in God, and embrace the supposed truths of Christianity, without making an ignoramus of yourself?

Please feel free to tell me my post is just telling you you're wrong without showing any evidence for it. You've already had some of the evidence from madnessinmysoul and kokoro. There's plenty more where the stuff they gave you came from. A mountain--no, an entire Himalayan mountain range--of it. The evidence comes from astronomy, physics, geology, palaeontology, genetics (it's a telomere, not a thelomere, by the way), microbiology and field biology--among other places. That's a lot of evidence, and it all fits together to tell us what we know.

I'm sorry you can't find a way to reconcile your faith with modern knowledge, because it means you have to hedge the moral truths of Christianity with lies. This cannot be good for you. I hope some day you will find the courage to accept the truth. It will--as your Lord once pointed out--make you free.

reply to post by Astyanax


Biblical Creationism? I am not member of a group who believe the Universe was created sixthousand years ago, so please read what I write in a scientific perspective and don't act like some excuise for bad behaviour and memorised knowledge.

Seriously do you think " footsteps of modern humans in the same track as dinosaurs" should be taken more serious then a 6000 year old Earth/Universe ?

As everyone has already pointed out there is no evidence of any of your claims.

Originally posted by nophun

Seriously do you think " footsteps of modern humans in the same track as dinosaurs" should be taken more serious then a 6000 year old Earth/Universe ?

Knowing what I do... Yeah. I have seen dating being done before my own eyes and can by knowledge and understanding, and a billion in numbers evidental specimen to explain that this world is dead old, not a thing except in our minds exists from the first time "GOD" made these scenarios possible

As everyone has already pointed out there is no evidence of any of your claims.

Then this is probably a damn good clue to follow. Fool everyone about climate is down the drain, lets go genetic now that we know that the Neanderthal got older than us. Probably