The Theory of Evolution

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Czar
rip

about how old is the earth? <-----answer this first


how long have homo sapiens been on earth? <-----answer this second

did dinosaurs exist and how long ago did they walk to earth? <---- answer this third

???

 

[Forsythe]

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: Fox5

Originally posted by: Czar
rip,
Why are those questions so hard to answer?

Because they're attacking his credibility?

If he says the Earth is only a few thousand years old, he's taking a viewpoint only supported by some people's interpretations of the Bible, and it would hurt his position in a scientific discussion.
If he says humans are as old as the Earth, that also hurts his position.
If his says dinosaurs didn't exist...I don't think that's even a possible position to take as their fossils clearly exist. If he says they coexisted with man, once again that's a position only supported by the Bible.

Or he could take the scientific answers...
Earth is millions or billions of years old.
Humans have been around for around 20,000-60,000 years.
Dinosaurs existed 65 million years ago.

which may lead to another attack on his credibility, like why does he believe those and not evolution?

How so?

If he says humans are as old as the Earth, that also hurts his position.

If Homo sapiens have been around for 3.6 million years then humans lived at the same times as as Australopithecus afarensis, Australopithecus robustus and all the other extinct apes and extinct races of men that they allegedly descended from.

I don't see what you mean, we might aswell have forefathers in common with them. But what i heard is that humans as we know them existed for around 60-100k years.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Forsythe

Originally posted by: Riprorin
If Homo sapiens have been around for 3.6 million years then humans lived at the same times as as Australopithecus afarensis, Australopithecus robustus and all the other extinct apes and extinct races of men that they allegedly descended from.

I don't see what you mean, we might aswell have forefathers in common with them. But what i heard is that humans as we know them existed for around 60-100k years.

Our current species has only been traced back that far. That's where the genetic differences cease to be varied enough to detect the migration of humans. I don't believe homo sapiens as we are existed before 200,000 years ago. Before that was the Neanderthal.

This is an excellent book that touches on that subject (but is really about tracing our past back via the Y-chromosome):
The Journey of Man: A Genetic Odyssey

This one discusses the use of mitochondrial DNA to trace us back a bit further:
<a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbninquiry.asp?userid=jd3N12aBjI&pwb=1&ean=9780393323146">
The Seven Daughters of Eve: The Science That Reveals Our Genetic Ancestry</a>

 

[LongCoolMother]

perhaps everyone should read what Charles Townes, Nobel Prize Winner in Physics has to say about it. evolution does not have to contradict with intelligent design. looks like most of you just got clowned.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: LongCoolMother
perhaps everyone should read what Charles Townes, Nobel Prize Winner in Physics has to say about it. evolution does not have to contradict with intelligent design. looks like most of you just got clowned.

But his idea of "intelligent design" is far different from that held by the Fund-A-Mentals

 

[Riprorin]

Evolutionists outline the links in the chain as follows: australopithecines > Homo habilis > Homo erectus > Homo sapiens.

There is only one problem with this theory: paleoanthroplogists have discovered yhat australopithecines, Homo habilis and Homo erectus existed at the same time in different parts of the world.

 

[rahvin]

Originally posted by: Riprorin
Evolutionists outline the links in the chain as follows: australopithecines > Homo habilis > Homo erectus > Homo sapiens.

There is only one problem with this theory: paleoanthroplogists have discovered yhat australopithecines, Homo habilis and Homo erectus existed at the same time in different parts of the world.

Evolution doesn't require a linear model, even if the tree branches the trunk can still grow.

Rip, In your opinion how old is the earth?

 

[Riprorin]

Originally posted by: rahvin

Originally posted by: Riprorin
Evolutionists outline the links in the chain as follows: australopithecines > Homo habilis > Homo erectus > Homo sapiens.

There is only one problem with this theory: paleoanthroplogists have discovered yhat australopithecines, Homo habilis and Homo erectus existed at the same time in different parts of the world.

Evolution doesn't require a linear model, even if the tree branches the trunk can still grow.

I see.

But you think that australopithecines, Homo habilis and Homo erectus are all transitional forms?

 

[PatboyX]

Originally posted by: LongCoolMother
perhaps everyone should read what Charles Townes, Nobel Prize Winner in Physics has to say about it. evolution does not have to contradict with intelligent design. looks like most of you just got clowned.

i think the point was that it shouldnt be taught alongside evolution, not that they were irreconcilable.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Riprorin
Evolutionists outline the links in the chain as follows: australopithecines > Homo habilis > Homo erectus > Homo sapiens.

There is only one problem with this theory: paleoanthroplogists have discovered yhat australopithecines, Homo habilis and Homo erectus existed at the same time in different parts of the world.

That's a problem? Assume for a moment that Evolution is true, don't you think that would be necessary? It's not like one day all of one became another, it would be that some made the transition, but others didn't. Eventually the former would die out as it not being as fit as the form(s) that eventually survive. Even within each group there could be multiple sub-groups branching off in different directions.

 

[rahvin]

Originally posted by: Riprorin
I see.
But you think that australopithecines, Homo habilis and Homo erectus are all transitional forms?

There can be no discussion or interaction if you refuse to answer questions. This is not a one sided debate. If you wish to have a discussion with me, answer my question.

Rip, In your opinion how old is the earth?

 

[imported_Pedro69]

Just yesyerday I found an interesting article in the National Geographic: Hobbit-Like Human Ancestor Found in Asia

From the Article:

The original skeleton, a female, stood at just 1 meter (3.3 feet) tall, weighed about 25 kilograms (55 pounds), and was around 30 years old at the time of her death 18,000 years ago.

The skeleton was found in the same sediment deposits on Flores that have also been found to contain stone tools and the bones of dwarf elephants, giant rodents, and Komodo dragons, lizards that can grow to 10 feet (3 meters) and that still live today.

Homo floresienses has been described as one of the most spectacular discoveries in paleoanthropology in half a century?and the most extreme human ever discovered.

The species inhabited Flores as recently as 13,000 years ago, which means it would have lived at the same time as modern humans, scientists say.

 

[Riprorin]

Originally posted by: rahvin

Originally posted by: Riprorin
I see.
But you think that australopithecines, Homo habilis and Homo erectus are all transitional forms?

There can be no discussion or interaction if you refuse to answer questions. This is not a one sided debate. If you wish to have a discussion with me, answer my question.

Rip, In your opinion how old is the earth?

I already replied to that question.

What does it have to do with the topic?

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: rahvin

Originally posted by: Riprorin
Evolutionists outline the links in the chain as follows: australopithecines > Homo habilis > Homo erectus > Homo sapiens.

There is only one problem with this theory: paleoanthroplogists have discovered yhat australopithecines, Homo habilis and Homo erectus existed at the same time in different parts of the world.

Evolution doesn't require a linear model, even if the tree branches the trunk can still grow.

I see.

But you think that australopithecines, Homo habilis and Homo erectus are all transitional forms?

They very well could have lived at the same time. What's the problem with that?

Anyway, educate yourself:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_%28genus%29

 

[rahvin]

Stop dodging the question, either answer it or stop posting in this thread. Your refusal to participate in anything but a one sided debate is pathetic. Your comments are worthless if you refuse to clarify your position by answering rather simple questions.

Rip, In your opinion how old is the earth?

 

[conjur]

How old is the earth, Rip?

 

[Riprorin]

Originally posted by: conjur
How old is the earth, Rip?

quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I already replied to that question.

What does it have to do with the topic?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: conjur
How old is the earth, Rip?

quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I already replied to that question.

What does it have to do with the topic?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It goes to the state of your opinion and you have not answered the question. Why not be a man and answer it? Hmm? Afraid of exposing your faux faith?

 

[Riprorin]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: conjur
How old is the earth, Rip?

quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I already replied to that question.

What does it have to do with the topic?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It goes to the state of your opinion and you have not answered the question. Why not be a man and answer it? Hmm? Afraid of exposing your faux faith?

quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I already replied to that question.

What does it have to do with the topic?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If you want to know my answer, search this thread or this thread:

Link

 

[rahvin]

The age of the earth is a quintescential requirement of the current theory of evolution, for without significant age there wouldn't be enough time for the mechanisms described to work. This was one of the essential problems with it's development when initially proposed by Darwin and his associates because the age of the earth was believed to be only 100k years. It wasn't until the later radio dating methods validated the age to be much longer than previously believed that validation was obtained for the theory.

But, just goes to show Rip has so much confidence in his opinion that he is afraid to reveal it. Everyone should just ignore him if he's too chickensh!t to tell us what he thinks.

 

[Riprorin]

Originally posted by: rahvin
The age of the earth is a quintescential requirement of the current theory of evolution, for without significant age there wouldn't be enough time for the mechanisms described to work. This was one of the essential problems with it's development when initially proposed by Darwin and his associates because the age of the earth was believed to be only 100k years. It wasn't until the later radio dating methods validated the age to be much longer than previously believed that validation was obtained for the theory.

But, just goes to show Rip has so much confidence in his opinion that he is afraid to reveal it. Everyone should just ignore him if he's too chickensh!t to tell us what he thinks.

As I've already discussed in another thread:

How old is the lava dome at Mount St. Helens?

According to radioisotropic dating, the lava dome which formed from October 18, 1980 to October 26, 1986 is 0.35 to 2.8 million years old!

"Radioisotope dating is widely perceived to be the "gold standard" of dating methods and the "proof" for millions of years of earth history. But when the method is tested on rocks of known age it fails miserably."

Link

 

[rahvin]

Originally posted by: Riprorin
As I've already discussed in another thread:

I'm not the Riprorin research assistant. I do not search every thread you have ever posted in nor do I intend to look through pages of some other thread looking for some answer that doesn't answer the question in a straight forward manner.

Why don't you just stop dodging the question and just answer it or stop replying in threads that you refuse to particpate in except as a troll.

 

[Riprorin]

Originally posted by: rahvin

Originally posted by: Riprorin
As I've already discussed in another thread:

I'm not the Riprorin research assistant. I do not search every thread you have ever posted in nor do I intend to look through pages of some other thread looking for some answer that doesn't answer the question in a straight forward manner.

Why don't you just stop dodging the question and just answer it or stop replying in threads that you refuse to particpate in except as a troll.

I've already answered the question in to to threads, now I've answered it in a third:

Link

That has to be some kind of record!

 

[rahvin]

Originally posted by: Riprorin
I've already answered the question in to to threads, now I've answered it in a third:

Link

That has to be some kind of record!

I already told you I'm not your personal researcher. Answer my question, right here, right now in straight forward terms. Don't go off talking about a volcano, don't go trolling about how it's not on topic. Don't post links to other threads. THAT ISN'T ANSWERING THE QUESTION.

Rip, In your opinion how old is the earth?

You answer should comprise a set of numbers, not a link, not a complaint that it's not on topic, not a discussion about an unrelated mountain. Answer the question or stop trolling.

 

[Riprorin]

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: rahvin

Originally posted by: Riprorin
As I've already discussed in another thread:

I'm not the Riprorin research assistant. I do not search every thread you have ever posted in nor do I intend to look through pages of some other thread looking for some answer that doesn't answer the question in a straight forward manner.

Why don't you just stop dodging the question and just answer it or stop replying in threads that you refuse to particpate in except as a troll.

I've already answered the question in two threads, now I've answered it in a third:

Link

That has to be some kind of record!