Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'm no different than any of the many non-believers that post on here. Only thing is, apparently I'm getting on your nerves a bit because you simply cannot answer the question.
At what point does a human become human? What makes it immoral to murder another human being?
How are you defining human? Biologically humans became human when the species was identifiably different from other primates.
Morality is a human invention, as is society. It isn't "Wrong" per se to kill another human, any more than its wrong to kill any other animal.
Its wrong in a societal sense because societies reason for existence is to create a higher quality of life for people. Kinda hard to have a higher quality of life if its ok to just kill other folks & take their stuff.
But again, thats only due to human inventions. As far as nature is concerned theres nothing wrong with killing another animal to get whats theirs or preserve whats yours.
I think you really want to know when humans became civilized.
You were not there when the gorges were formed so to assume 100K thousand years is absurd. We cannot relay on present rates to determine past rates. This is unscientific.
Granted I was not there but neither were you there back in the supposed creation days or flood or exodus. This is not my assertion of 100k years, this is what we were taught and it was geologists cam up with
Quote:
If we look at the American Grand Canyon, the layers of sedimentary rock are folded and warped without cracking prior to errosion. Meaning that these layer were still wet and pliable. If this was the case, then the errosion of the canyon could have occured at a very quick rate with the water cutting through soft mud rather then solid rock (with the rock hardening at a later date). A similar even could have occured on these falls in Zambia.
All of our evidence is the same. It is the interpretation of the evidence that is different. Just saying that the evidence is in plain sight is absurd. That would mean that every crime could be solved just by looking at the crime scene, but it is not. Evidence has to be interpreted.
I cannot comment on the grand canyon as I never studied it. I agree in the interpreting the evidence is essential but this of course is not done by - hmmm maybe it was softer rock back then, or hmmm maybe it was more sediment back then. The evidence is clear of predecessors of the falls in the gorges, the way it zig zags as opposed to gentle meandering. If one were to go all the way to the 9th gorge, I am guessing 5 miles or so downstream, all you see there in the pic was flowing over the 1st to the 8th gorges - the river is relatively shallow just before the actual precipice of the 1st gorge. I will see if I can dig up some pics of the 1964 flood so that you can see how far out the river spread about 1.5 times its normal width.
FWIW, I also posted the devils cataract where it can be seen the water cutting back into the river. Based on observations (tests) the next gorge will be fully formed in 10-15k years from now. By then we will be fossil fuel (or museum pieces)
It depends for what each of you consider a soul. It could be you, your spiritual essence. It could be what you believe in, but also it could be what you embrace and accept. I personally believe it is where you are spiritually, your soul can be inhabited by Jesus, the Light, or you could embrace a sinful life. I am not saying that whoever does not follow Jesus embraces a sinful life but that you may walk in darkness not knowing where you are going. But Jesus he's the eternal Light it will never be snuffed out however one man or an entire country will try Jesus, God, the trinity will be in existence for eternity and those who embrace Him will know the light and be able to enter into the kingdom of Heaven
I have found in the past, people who talk a lot often remind me of used car salesmen. They often talk a lot to mask the obvious. In my day we had a saying. If you can't convince them with facts, dazzel them with B.S.
Nope. The reason I produce long posts is that there's apparently a huge amount of info you choose to ignore, but then there's always the hope you might learn.
BTW, a lot of others might also point out that there are those who deflect with insults, refusing to answer even simple questions, because they're truly NOT open to learning or to even modest concessions. These types often go down with the ship, refuse modern anti-biotics, call all science "fraudulent and biased" (except when it makes a point for their side...), but, oddly, also, absolutely and admittedly, have no education in areas they claim to be expert in. Hmmm.....
The figurines from El Toro mountain, require something more than riflemans smell test, or personal view.
I agree.
What is needed, is a scientific review.
Allow me, once again. First, a summary statement, not by me:
"However, there is no reliable evidence for the validity of the Acambaro figures as actual ancient artifacts; they are accepted by no credible scholar of archaeology or paleontology, and the motives of many who support them are questionable."
"It seems another creationist's scam to prove that dinosaurs were alive 4000 years ago. How can anybody obtain radiocarbon dates in ceramics? (Tom never answered this concern...) Well, some of the 33,500 found were made of stone:
There were not only ceramic pieces but also stone pieces.
also check this out:
In the 1940s and 1950s the Iguanodon was completely unknown.
Oooopsss, eh, Tom! Details, details..... "The devil's in the details", eh, Tom? As in......
No hoaxer could have known of the Iguanodon existence much less made a model, for it wasn't until 1978 of 1979 that skeletons of adult Iguanodons were found with nests and babies."
And are you suggesting that I am irrational for wanting such a review?
Nope, just inerrantly, hopelessly closed to such subsequent proofs. Your irrational behavior and consistent denials? Proven.
And so you do not believe in the figurines of El Toro Mountain, only because they do not pass your (personal) smell test? Is this the kind of science you believe in?
Hardly. I've repeatedly derfined exactly what's wrong with the hoax. hoaxes ALWAYS get found out. Conspiracies always fail. and yet, your big global science conspiracy theory has never even been shown in any way to exist.
We have all grown especially tired of answering your many inquiries just like this one, of posting the research and results that have demoted this fraud to the earthy level where it so richly belongs, only to have you dismiss them again with an unscientific handwave, and then, a few posts later, you say, again, (and again [and again]):"Show me the research."
Are you blind? Deaf? Dumb? What, exactly?
I, and others here, have also given up in spending our time in providing you with the many links to the research that proves this is/was all a big fat hoax. Since that is unacceptable to you, your mind rebels, you insult (see above) and you dismiss.
And of course, you can always get people to universally believe in certain theories, especially when all other evidence is rejected by you and other like believers. And why is that evidence rejected?
Because it was proven to be false by rational men.
Only because that evidence does not agree with your personal opinion, or your personal smell test.
I'm calling you on this one, Tom. You obviously have no idea of my capabilities or experience in research and science, yet you have admitted you have none. You don't like my posts, so you call me a hoax. You think you can criticize my approach to research and my ability to separate out the scientific facts from religious fiction. Even when I post educational links, politely.
Who, exactly, would win on that point alone in an adjudicated honest face-to-face debate? Who.
I was unaware, that your personal opinion equals a scientific review.
Why must you make thing up, Tom? Like a schoolyard bully I think. My opinions are reached only after careful thoughtful and objective review of all the available data. They're NEVER just personal, unlike yours, which so obviously ARE!
I've checked out all the links you've provided, on everything from Evolution to the Ark to missing fossils. All of them. Yet you NEVER check out all of mine. If you did, you'd still be too busy reading and educating yourself to be answering so glibly here!
And, sadly, in almost every case, your links of "proof" (at least to your loose standards...) come from that thoroughly discredited and culturally dangerous "answers in genesis" website. Known to be unsubstantiatable tripe.
On the page this specific link goes to, they have the arrogant and stupid audacity to blame Darwin for recent shootings in Finland. and other things....
"The horrible school shooting in Finland in 2007 is a prime example. The killer stated: “I am prepared to fight and die for my cause, . . . I, as a natural selector, will eliminate all who I see unfit..."
Imagine! Darwin's enlightened conceptual discourse,over 160 years old, directly responsible for a mentally ill student going on a shooting rampage.
Next, they stupidly blame Darwin for racism.
"Consider the continuing problem of racism. Darwin wrote that within the human kind, some people groups were closer to their supposed ape-like ancestors than others."
They then blame Darwin for abortion:
An increase in abortion has gone hand in hand with the growing acceptance of evolution.
What, then, would "answers in genesis" have us do? Why, we should just ban Darwin's ideas, of course! Burn science books! Torture those who disbelieve in Jesus! (See: The Spanish Inquisition").
And now you say I have guided the conversation in a last ditch effort to disprove what is universally accepted. Evolution may be accepted by some, yet most of the people in the states do not believe it.
Wrong again. (your score's not so good right now, Tom my lad...) Perhaps you can provide a link, as we have for our argument, refuting the inexorible decline in Christianity in America (20% in the last decade), and the relative percentage rise of a rational belief in Evolution by each major religious group (32% in that same decade)?
So here again, you are in error. (Huh?) Your whole belief rests on the personal views and theories of others.
You are truly quite amazing, Tom. To spout lies like this is quite un-Christian, wouldn't you say? The entirety of science's conclusions are all just "personal views and theories" of others? I ask again: are you deaf, blind, or dumb?
My whole belief (and, yes, by now, my faith) in fact rests on the hundreds of thousands of studies and theories and conclusions of others (besides me...) who have proven their credibility to the world, scientific or not. You even suspend your disbelief in their dating techniques for this particular investigation, then slam that door shut again, being terrified of the other ruths it would unearth to you.
I've had over 15 papers published in the scientific literature. And you? Are my methods, learned the hard hard way, just dismissed out of hand because you don't like them? If so, I daresay, sorry for you!
And any evidence that would refute that belief is ignored because it does not agree with your (PERSONAL) beliefs. (BS. rflmn) How can you talk about scientific honesty, when there is evidence out there being rejected, not by facts, not by scientific review, but personal opinion only?
Who? Where? links?
Your rejection of the El Toro figurines, is based on (FAITH). (Again, BS, as you know. rflmn) And I thought you based everything on science. LOL Now, if I'm wrong, could you present me with the scientific review that clearly shows us the figurines are fakes?
Sorry, not again and again and again. My last efforts at broaching the wall of ignorane are the links above, which you'll ignore, as usual.
Most recently, I checked your link about that pseudo-Doctor who claimed to prove these ceramic dino-playdough things were verifiably valid. A quick Google™ and a few moments of honest research showed all the links where, in fact, he was proven to be an outright fraud.
Tom, why do you then disregard those investigations? If his work were truly honest, his methods incontrovertible and his conclusions reasonable, the scientific community would have accepted him. Instead, they found that his integrity was of the "slime-mold" variety.
Is that the integrity you personally uphold? Do you EVER question anything from "answers in genesis", or is it ALL gold to you?
Perhaps sanspeur, another faker, could step in here and relieve me. Or perhaps an open-minded Christian, bluepacific, could assist?
Certainly, the scientific approach could provide us with this information. Could you give us the date, and the lab your people sent these figuriens out to be time tested? LOL
(re: blue highlghts directly above Science has already. Unlike me, you won't read any of them, or if you do, you dismiss them out of hand. Quite the little researcher, aren't you, Tom?
This request also ignores the fact that the local Mexican mayor won't allow even a tiny piece out for a valid dating check (I'll provide the postage, insured, to the University we both agree on).
If such an analysis clearly shows that these pieces are, say, 55 or 70 years old, what then will you say? "OK, Evolution is a fact! I concede." Unlikely. You'll call it just another example of scientific dishonesty! Unless, of course...
....if they show them to be, incontrovertibly*, 1600 or more years old, I'll concede that 1) they are likely ≈1600 years old, yeppers, but 2) not that Evolution is thus disproved (because that's unrelated, like apples & chainsaws.). I.e.: Because there's no such a logical conclusion that can be reached from this fact.
Some with a far better sense of succinctness would say here, to all of my time and thoughts posted above:
"There's no point in arguing with a pig in a mudhole. Eventually you come to realize that the pig's enjoying it, and you're getting nowhere!"
*incontrovertible: "an idea or evidence for which there is only one inescapable conclusion, no other formulative rationales or conclusions possible."
PPS: Tom: please do respond and highlight the parts of my response which you categorize as BS and unfounded. I,and possibly a few others, would love to know how you think.
Last edited by rifleman; 03-23-2009 at 05:36 PM..
Reason: typos
How on earth can you two ignore so much evidence? Do you not have eyes?
The major geologic exposures in the Grand Canyon range in age from the 2 billion year old Vishnu Schist at the bottom of the Inner Gorge to the 230 million year old Kaibab Limestone on the Rim. Interestingly, there is a gap of about one billion years between the stratum that is about 500 million years old and the lower level, which is about 1.5 billion years old. That indicates a period of erosion between two periods of deposition.
How can we ignore so much evidence? That is the whole problem here, you guys can't show us any evidence. I have asked for evidence that could show what conditions existed back 50,000 years ago, and I'm told those are stupid questions. IF YOU CAN NOT SHOW US FACTS, THEN DON'T EVEN TRY TO TELL US SCIENCE IS ON YOUR SIDE. Because real science requires facts, NOT BLIND FAITH.
(re: blue highlghts directly above Science has already. Unlike me, you won't read any of them, or if you do, you dismiss them out of hand. Quite the little researcher, aren't you, Tom?
This request also ignores the fact that the local Mexican mayor won't allow even a tiny piece out for a valid dating check (I'll provide the postage, insured, to the University we both agree on).
If such an analysis clearly shows that these pieces are, say, 55 or 70 years old, what then will you say? "OK, Evolution is a fact! I concede." Unlikely. You'll call it just another example of scientific dishonesty! Unless, of course...
....if they show them to be, incontrovertibly*, 1600 or more years old, I'll concede that 1) they are likely ≈1600 years old, yeppers, but 2) not that Evolution is thus disproved (because that's unrelated, like apples & chainsaws.). I.e.: Because there's no such a logical conclusion that can be reached from this fact.
Some with a far better sense of succinctness would say here, to all of my time and thoughts posted above:
"There's no point in arguing with a pig in a mudhole. Eventually you come to realize that the pig's enjoying it, and you're getting nowhere!"
*incontrovertible: "an idea or evidence for which there is only one inescapable conclusion, no other formulative rationales or conclusions possible."
PPS: Tom: please do respond and highlight the parts of my response which you categorize as BS and unfounded. I,and possibly a few others, would love to know how you think.
The figurines of El Toro mountain have been tested no less then four times, and the last time they were tested was back in 1997. And each test involoved numerous tests of the figurines. So I have no idea why you believe they are not being allowed to be tested today. And every test shows them to be ancient. And every time the results are displayed, believers in Evolution refuse to believe those dates. How many times do they need to be tested, before one of you guys will believe those test results. Once the world discovers that dinosaurs existed at the same time man existed, it will help to expose the myth of Evolutions time scale. It will not end evolution, yet, it will expose another one of their false beliefs.
You were not there when the gorges were formed so to assume 100K thousand years is absurd. We cannot relay on present rates to determine past rates. This is unscientific.
If we look at the American Grand Canyon, the layers of sedimentary rock are folded and warped without cracking prior to errosion. Meaning that these layer were still wet and pliable. If this was the case, then the errosion of the canyon could have occured at a very quick rate with the water cutting through soft mud rather then solid rock (with the rock hardening at a later date). A similar even could have occured on these falls in Zambia.
All of our evidence is the same. It is the interpretation of the evidence that is different. Just saying that the evidence is in plain sight is absurd. That would mean that every crime could be solved just by looking at the crime scene, but it is not. Evidence has to be interpreted.
Nikk-
Do you think that you could google a little bit about geology? I only had one class in college and I have seen many TV shows on the subject. I am hardly an expert, but I know enough to know that you do not understand geology at all.
Whenever you see layers of rock that are folded and warped, they were made that way by pressure exerted over a long period of time. Not usually when they were wet. Can you take several layers of soft mud and fold and warp them? Will it make a big squishy mess? The layers themselves took a very long time to accumulate.
How can we ignore so much evidence? That is the whole problem here, you guys can't show us any evidence. I have asked for evidence that could show what conditions existed back 50,000 years ago, and I'm told those are stupid questions. IF YOU CAN NOT SHOW US FACTS, THEN DON'T EVEN TRY TO TELL US SCIENCE IS ON YOUR SIDE. Because real science requires facts, NOT BLIND FAITH.
This confirms it...You are not only not open to evidence, you are not open to anything new at all...Did your brain stop working when you were a child? We show you facts which you ignore, and you show us myths, frauds and hoaxes which we prove are just that....We may as well debate a rock.
For a considerable distance above the falls, the Zambezi flows over a level sheet of basalt, in a shallow valley bounded by low and distant sandstone hills. The river's course is dotted with numerous tree-covered islands, which increase in number as the river approaches the falls. There are no mountains, escarpments, or deep valleys which might be expected to create a waterfall, only flat plateau extending hundreds of kilometres in all directions.
The recent geological history of Victoria Falls can be seen in the form of the gorges below the falls. The basalt plateau over which the Upper Zambezi flows has many large cracks filled with weaker sandstone. In the area of the current falls the largest cracks run roughly east to west (some run nearly north-east to south-west), with smaller north-south cracks connecting them.
Over at least 100,000 years, the falls have been receding upstream through the Batoka Gorges, eroding the sandstone-filled cracks to form the gorges. The river's course in the current vicinity of the falls is north to south, so it opens up the large east-west cracks across its full width, then it cuts back through a short north-south crack to the next east-west one. The river has fallen in different eras into different chasms which now form a series of sharply zig-zagging gorges downstream from the falls. (more)
compiled and edited by Camerapix (1996). Spectrum Guide to Zambia. Nairobi: Camerapix International Publishing. ISBN 978-1874041146.
Archaeological sites around the falls have yielded Homo habilis stone artifacts from 3 million years ago, 50,000-year-old Middle Stone Age tools and Late Stone Age (10,000 and 2,000 years ago) weapons, adornments and digging tools.
Homo habilis - slam dunk?
Homo habilis (pronounced /ˈhoʊmoʊ ˈhæbəlɪs/) ("handy man", "skillful person") is a species of the genus Homo, which lived from approximately 2.5 million to at least 1.6 million years ago at the beginning of the Pleistocene.[1] The definition of this species is credited to both Mary and Louis Leakey, who found fossils in Tanzania, East Africa, between 1962 and 1964.[2]Homo habilis is arguably the first species of the Homo genus to appear. In its appearance and morphology, H. habilis was the least similar to modern humans of all species to be placed in the genus Homo (except possibly Homo rudolfensis). Homo habilis was short and had disproportionately long arms compared to modern humans; however, it had a reduction in the protrusion in the face. It is thought to have descended from a species of australopithecine hominid. Its immediate ancestor may have been the more massive and ape-like Homo rudolfensis. Homo habilis had a cranial capacity slightly less than half of the size of modern humans. Despite the ape-like morphology of the bodies, H. habilis remains are often accompanied by primitive stone tools (e.g. Olduvai Gorge, Tanzania and Lake Turkana, Kenya).
I guess this is why they did not teach creation "science" in Africa. To much damn evidence and maybe why the origins are traced back to Africa.
Continental Drift
During an expedition in 1997, Sereno and colleagues found the neck, trunk, ribs, and spine of Spinostropheus gautieri, a 15-foot-long (4.6-meter-long) dinosaur that represents an ancient relative of Rugops and other abelisaurids.
"This is a group of worldwide distribution that for reasons we don't know, went extinct in the north," Sereno said.
Together, the finds provide fresh evidence about when Africa, Madagascar, South America, and India finally split from each other as a result of continental drift.
Dinosaurs were the only large-bodied animals that lived, evolved, and died at a time when all continents were united. As such, they are excellent organisms through which to study the effects of continental drift, as the animals covered continent-scale distances.
The Great Frontier
In Argentina in 1988 Sereno unearthed the first complete skeleton of the Herrerasaurus, the oldest dinosaur ever found. In the early 1990s, his focus shifted to West Africa. There, Sereno has excavated several other dinosaurs, including Jobaria and Afrovenator, and has also found a fossil of the 40-foot-long (12-meter-long) crocodilian Sarchosuchus, also known as SuperCroc.
Sereno is now working on cleaning and casting two other species that he found during his 2000 expedition. Next year the paleontologist plans to excavate a new Saharan site that may yield discoveries of dinosaurs that lived in Africa after the Rugops.
"Africa has been like the great frontier," Sereno said. "There has been so little work there, but it holds so many of the answers."
Oh there's more, much, much more where that came from. Google is your friend. It highlights all the co-conspirators websites in the world "lying" about paleontology and science with equally funny words ending in -ogy
More irritating facts to keep you occupied (or ignore) while you figure out how to debunk cave formations and ice core ages.
And just for fun, we have our own version of the Grand Canyon called the Blyde River Canyon - strange the similarities we see hey?
This confirms it...You are not only not open to evidence, you are not open to anything new at all...Did your brain stop working when you were a child? We show you facts which you ignore, and you show us myths, frauds and hoaxes which we prove are just that....We may as well debate a rock.
I show you myths, frauds, and hoaxes? And you proved that they were? That's funny, I don't recall you proving anything was a fraud. I do recall you saying what I have presented was a fraud. I don't recall you proving it was a fraud.
I do recall saying that evolutions Piltdown man, Nebraska man, Java man, and Orce man, were more frauds than anything else. And I did point out how National Geographic tried to pass off a fake fossil from China in 1999 as a evolutionary intermediate. That I recall.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
A short point-by-point response.
Science has already. Unlike me, you won't read any of them, or if you do, you dismiss them out of hand. Quite the little researcher, aren't you, Tom?
Facts of Victroria Waterfalls Wikipedia.
