100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Let's Try This Again | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
I heard that there is a theory that god is a figment of people's imagination. That they use god as an emotional crutch and try to convert all the freethinkers in the world to a sick cult. But that's ok, I think I will stick with Darwin and his boys/girls. Im sure that the discovery of the Cradle of Civilisation back to 12,000 BC is before 4000BC. (isnt it?) no rambles......proof that is all that is required on this thread.....so far have not gotten.......so toodles.. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
From National Geographic Human fossils found 38 years ago in Africa are 65,000 years older than previously thought, a new study says—pushing the dawn of "modern" humans back 35,000 years. New dating techniques indicate that the fossils are 195,000 years old. The two skulls and some bones were first uncovered on opposite sides of Ethiopia's Omo River in 1967 by a team led by Richard Leakey. The fossils, dubbed Omo I and Omo II, were dated at the time as being about 130,000 years old. The new findings, published in the February 17 issue of the journal Nature, establish Omo I and II as the oldest known fossils of modern humans. The prior record holders were fossils from Herto, Ethiopia, which dated the emergence of modern humans in Africa to about 160,000 years ago. "The new dating confirms the place of the Omo fossils as landmark finds in unraveling our origins," said Chris Stringer, director of the Human Origins Group at the Natural History Museum in London. The 195,000-year-old date coincides with findings from genetic studies on modern human populations. Such studies can be extrapolated to determine when the earliest modern humans lived. The findings also add credibility to the widely accepted "Out of Africa" theory of human origins which holds that modern humans (later versions of Homo sapiens) first appeared in Africa and then spread out to colonize the rest of the world. 160,000 years old ... is that older than 4000 BC? ok this is good....thank you......And what were omo 1 and omo 2 before they were homo sapiens? And proof please. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I heard that there is a theory that god is a figment of people's imagination. That they use god as an emotional crutch and try to convert all the freethinkers in the world to a sick cult. But that's ok, I think I will stick with Darwin and his boys/girls. Im sure that the discovery of the Cradle of Civilisation back to 12,000 BC is before 4000BC. (isnt it?) no rambles......proof that is all that is required on this thread.....so far have not gotten.......so toodles.. The earliest signs of a sedentarization process can be traced back to the Mediterranean region to as early as 12000 BC, when the Natufian culture became sedentary and evolved into an agricultural society by 10000 BCE. The importance of water to safeguard an abundant and stable food supply, due to favourable conditions to hunting, fishing and gathering resources including cereals, provided an initial wide spectrum economy that triggered the creation of permanent villages. The earliest proto-urban settlements with several thousand inhabitants emerge in the Neolithic, while the first city to house several tens of thousands were Memphis and Uruk, by the 31st century BCE. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Belushi
on
Mon 08/11/08 09:45 PM
|
|
double post - oops
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ok this is good....thank you......And what were omo 1 and omo 2 before they were homo sapiens? And proof please. I dont need to give proof. You have given it to me. You have accepted that omo1&2 were beings and all I needed you to do was that. By you doing this, your "theory" that nothing existed before 4000 BCE is non-sensical, by your own admission. So, YOU prove that there is nothing before 4000BCE, because I have proved and you have accepted that there was. No ramblings please, just facts ... and not scriptures, as I see them as fairytales. |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
MorningSong
on
Tue 08/12/08 03:39 AM
|
|
Belushi...
Regarding the Natufian Period that you mentioned in your post above........this info you shared is based on Radiocarbon dating, which has TOO TOO MANY TIMES BEEN ALREADY PROVEN INACCURRATE . (See Feral's thread on Carbon dating). Radiocarbon dates of 14,500–11,500 BP place this culture just before the end of the Pleistocene. The period is commonly split into two subperiods: Early Natufian (14,500–12,800 BP) and Late Natufian (12,800–11,500 BP). The Late Natufian most likely occurred in tandem with the Younger Dryas. Belushi....again...Too many errors have been Found with RadioCarbon Dating...and btw, this has been KNOWN FACT for awhile now. So therefore, the info on the actual age of the Natufian period is a miscalculation, along with a lot of other Carbon dating info. http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c007.html |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Krimsa
on
Tue 08/12/08 04:18 AM
|
|
I heard that there is a theory that god is a figment of people's imagination. That they use god as an emotional crutch and try to convert all the freethinkers in the world to a sick cult. But that's ok, I think I will stick with Darwin and his boys/girls. Im sure that the discovery of the Cradle of Civilisation back to 12,000 BC is before 4000BC. (isnt it?) no rambles......proof that is all that is required on this thread.....so far have not gotten.......so toodles.. The earliest signs of a sedentarization process can be traced back to the Mediterranean region to as early as 12000 BC, when the Natufian culture became sedentary and evolved into an agricultural society by 10000 BCE. The importance of water to safeguard an abundant and stable food supply, due to favourable conditions to hunting, fishing and gathering resources including cereals, provided an initial wide spectrum economy that triggered the creation of permanent villages. The earliest proto-urban settlements with several thousand inhabitants emerge in the Neolithic, while the first city to house several tens of thousands were Memphis and Uruk, by the 31st century BCE. Absolutely correct. Let’s talk a little about the excavation of Catalhoyuk located in Turkey, lower Anatolia. At its bottom most layers, this Neolithic settlement dates back to 7500 BCE. But here is the most interesting aspect of their culture as it relates to this discussion. Look here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catalhoyuk#Religion |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I heard that there is a theory that god is a figment of people's imagination. That they use god as an emotional crutch and try to convert all the freethinkers in the world to a sick cult. But that's ok, I think I will stick with Darwin and his boys/girls. Im sure that the discovery of the Cradle of Civilisation back to 12,000 BC is before 4000BC. (isnt it?) Indeed it is. Sigh... 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I cannot agree with any carbon dating techniques or even others being used as present to uphold or disprove any statements period.
As a coatings chemist i am fully aware of the attempts of antique conservationist attempting to determine the ages of early and even fairly new materials found on wooden objects even a few hundred Yrs. old or less. It has been shown that CDating is most unreliable dating furniture with the substance to be thousands of years old when in fact it was only 200yrs old at the most. i will not get into the specifics, but i will say - until someone without an agenda to do no more than come up with a extremely reliable method to date any and all organic and inorganic material comes along, i will disregard any evidence given here as - ">>>unreliable."<<< |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I cannot agree with any carbon dating techniques or even others being used as present to uphold or disprove any statements period. As a coatings chemist i am fully aware of the attempts of antique conservationist attempting to determine the ages of early and even fairly new materials found on wooden objects even a few hundred Yrs. old or less. It has been shown that CDating is most unreliable dating furniture with the substance to be thousands of years old when in fact it was only 200yrs old at the most. i will not get into the specifics, but i will say - until someone without an agenda to do no more than come up with a extremely reliable method to date any and all organic and inorganic material comes along, i will disregard any evidence given here as - ">>>unreliable."<<< How convenient that the method of proving the god squad wrong is being discounted as .... unreliable. Why isnt the bible being discounted as also unreliable? After all it is a collection of fairy stories used to subjugate women, enslave huge tracts of the population and as an excuse for war. |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Big_Jim
on
Tue 08/12/08 09:22 AM
|
|
I'm with Abra on this.
Now, I respect Christian beliefs. I have to, being as I am dating one. Seriously, though... You are all so preoccupied with proving evolution wrong, why don't you prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that your god is real? That would throw a huge wrench into the evolutionary theory and win the arguement in your favor. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fair enough Tribo. But can you clarify if you believe the Earth is only 6000 years old? I am not arguing with you but simply would like your take on that statement of "biblical fact"?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I cannot agree with any carbon dating techniques or even others being used as present to uphold or disprove any statements period. As a coatings chemist i am fully aware of the attempts of antique conservationist attempting to determine the ages of early and even fairly new materials found on wooden objects even a few hundred Yrs. old or less. It has been shown that CDating is most unreliable dating furniture with the substance to be thousands of years old when in fact it was only 200yrs old at the most. i will not get into the specifics, but i will say - until someone without an agenda to do no more than come up with a extremely reliable method to date any and all organic and inorganic material comes along, i will disregard any evidence given here as - ">>>unreliable."<<< How convenient that the method of proving the god squad wrong is being discounted as .... unreliable. Why isnt the bible being discounted as also unreliable? After all it is a collection of fairy stories used to subjugate women, enslave huge tracts of the population and as an excuse for war. Belushi, because working backwards from an assumption will get you nowhere. That is the whole point, at the end of the day. There is no evolution. there is only God speaking this whole into existence. marvel at its wonders. Man always has. Sometimes discovering good things and sometimes discovering things that can be used for nefarious purposes as well. How ingenius. Man is inventive an great at manipulationg things. Thus the thumb. But does all thumbs ring a bell?   
all in good fun. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Krimsa
on
Tue 08/12/08 09:26 AM
|
|
I'm with Abra on this. Now, I respect Christian beliefs. I have to, being as I am dating one. Seriously, though... You are all so preoccupied with proving evolution wrong, why don't you prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that your god is real? That would throw a huge wrench into the evolutionary theory and win the arguement in your favor. Yeah! I promise the entire "god squad" that if you can do this or at least provide factual evidence to support any of these fairy tales, I will SHUT UP and convert tomorrow. Deal? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm with Abra on this. Now, I respect Christian beliefs. I have to, being as I am dating one. Seriously, though... You are all so preoccupied with proving evolution wrong, why don't you prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that your god is real? That would throw a huge wrench into the evolutionary theory and win the arguement in your favor. they cant, and so they try to disprove science. If god wanted us all to believe then he would plant his hairy existential butt on the planet and say "Oi! over here" Unless this planet is a pimple on his butt! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah! I promise the entire "god squad" that if you can do this or at least provide factual evidence to support any of these fairy tales, I will SHUT UP and convert tomorrow. Deal? 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Man is inventive an great at manipulationg things. Never a truer word spoken. Is it any wonder jesus is called a shepherd ... all his followers are bleating sheep. bleating the party line in the vain hope that the rest of the animal kingdom will follow blindly too! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm with Abra on this. Now, I respect Christian beliefs. I have to, being as I am dating one. Seriously, though... You are all so preoccupied with proving evolution wrong, why don't you prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that your god is real? That would throw a huge wrench into the evolutionary theory and win the arguement in your favor. the wrench is already in the evolution conjecture. that's the rub. it is a guess, not fact. It is that simple. and it gets paraded as fact by its devotees because they want it to be so, not because it is so. They seek to disprove God by it. So let them finish their delusional pursuit. They need something to do anyway since they would rather distract themselves from truth, apparently. Anyone that parades speculation and incomplete data as fact and not as the conjecture that it is deserves to be left to their foolishness. No one need distract them from their duties. It is those very duties that are a point of discerment for mature thinkers and deliberate men that follow the facts and pursue truth, unlike their counterparts that have no capacity for truthfulness. Arrogance and deceit are what they are. And you want what? transference to occur in your spin on things? 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
they cant, and so they try to disprove science. If god wanted us all to believe then he would plant his hairy existential butt on the planet and say "Oi! over here" Unless this planet is a pimple on his butt! I believe they are just lashing out because they have no proof. I mean, if the cross from the crucifixion was found, or maybe the bones of a few diciples, the holy grail, the blade of infinity, or maybe even the arc of the covenant... But they have nothing while the scientists of today have hard proof of their discoveries and it torches the christian's a$$es. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I cannot agree with any carbon dating techniques or even others being used as present to uphold or disprove any statements period. As a coatings chemist i am fully aware of the attempts of antique conservationist attempting to determine the ages of early and even fairly new materials found on wooden objects even a few hundred Yrs. old or less. It has been shown that CDating is most unreliable dating furniture with the substance to be thousands of years old when in fact it was only 200yrs old at the most. i will not get into the specifics, but i will say - until someone without an agenda to do no more than come up with a extremely reliable method to date any and all organic and inorganic material comes along, i will disregard any evidence given here as - ">>>unreliable."<<< How convenient that the method of proving the god squad wrong is being discounted as .... unreliable. Why isnt the bible being discounted as also unreliable? After all it is a collection of fairy stories used to subjugate women, enslave huge tracts of the population and as an excuse for war. Mr. B, please read closer - but i will say - until someone >>>without an agenda<<< to do no more than come up with a extremely reliable method to date any and all organic and inorganic material comes along, i will disregard any evidence given here as - ">>>unreliable."<<< By an "agenda" i mean "any agenda" be it christian or atheist, all i'm stating is, that it is "not accurate" in dating organic or inorganic materials such as fossils or beeswax or resins as to actual time placements. my sources do not have an agenda past trying to discover the "age" of the types of coating material used in the past. they are not or could care less about the religious or non religious nature of the substances being studied - they only want to confirm the age and C-dating does not provide them that ability in any sort of consistancy. However they are currently working on other methods to do so. If and when those are fully developed and can show me consistant accuracy across the board as to timelines - i will be more than glad to offer or accept such evidences in the future - i have no agenda in this matter accept for not applying unacceptable evidences for either side to say - >>>>>see here!!<<<<<<< |
|
|
|
|
