How did we get where we are today? Evolution v. Creationism...

Same here!

 

Hum...Evolution!

 

no i absolutely dont believe iin god.
i rather believe in extraterestrial planting(like there was a bacteria or some proteine son as astreroid whoch smack the earth)
thats much more possible than **** creationismus
think of in europe to ask this question

 

There are rock engravings and the like tens of thousands of years old.

That's just speculation/guessing. We don't know that those engravings are that old.

 

Oh yes, archaelogists/anthropologists just look at something and go, 'That looks 30000 years old to me.' No evidence or scientific method whatsoever.

DDiscoveries in Blombos cave, situated in South Africa, have totally changed the history of art. Stones were discovered that were decorated with complex red arrays, showing that early HomoSapiens were capable of abstraction and production of art. These impressive works date back from 70,000 years ago i.e. more than 50,000 years compared to Lascaux in France

 

Again, how do they know that those things are actually so many thousands of years old?

 

Not being an anthropologist/archeologist, I can't be sure. For items containing organic matter, they use carbon dating I imagine (accurate to ~50,000 years IIRC).

The items portrayed in the art also- they can work out approximately when animals went extinct, and use that.
Here's a short page on how they do it.

You might want to take a look here also.

 

(accurate to ~50,000 years IIRC)

That's only if there's not been anything that's happened to it in the past to alter it's rate of decay or whatever. And remember, those people's interpretation of carbon dating data is based on the prior assumption that the earth has been around for millions and billions of years. It's however much carbon 14 (or 12) it's got left relative to how much other objects have left. And, by the way, there are no objects (the kind that get carbon dated) that have no detectable carbon 14 in them. And supposedly there wouldn't have been any left for many millions of years.

 

"And, by the way, there are no objects (the kind that get carbon dated) that have no detectable carbon 14 in them. And supposedly there wouldn't have been any left for many millions of years."

I'm not quite sure what you're saying here. The rate of decay slows as you get lower and lower amounts of carbon-14 in it. Not to mention that new carbon-14 is being formed all the time, and that is taken into account in the dating process. It takes nearly 6000 years for the amount of carbon to halve, it's only used to 60K year- after that the C14 is undetectable.

Edit: Frankly, as I'm not an expert on this subject, if you don't trust scientific methods then there's nothing I can say that will convince you otherwise. Thus there's little point continuing this.

 

if you don't trust scientific methods then there's nothing I can say that will convince you otherwise.

Why don't you take a look at this.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/radio/pdf/carbondating.pdf

It is kinda long though, so if you want you can just skip right to about a third of the way through where you'll see this. http://img129.imageshack.us/img129/3048/carbon7sz.jpg

 

Why don't you take a look at this.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/c14datc.htm

Greater minds than I have considered this already.

 

The article that you linked says things that are not true of creationism. We don't just flat-out reject the carbon dating method, we question whether or not the people who use the method to get these dates are doing it properly and objectively. Incase you didn't read the thing I linked, there's lots of testing results that are thrown out because the dates don't fit what the evolutionists thing it's supposed to be. And then they make excuses for it like, "It had too much radiation", etc.


I want to post more, but I have to go now, so I will when I get back.

 

Yo might want to look at noanswersingenesis for correct information.

 

I find it HILARIOUS that someone who's entire arguement is based on their FAITH in religion is having a shot at someone over a lack of their proof in dating artifacts.

Are you serious ?????????

 

The people who run the no answers in Genesis site sound quite angry to me.


Anyway, when I posted earlier about the supposed age of humans, that according to evolutionism we've been around for well over a hundred-thousand years, I was doing it to make a point.

If humans have been around for such a long time, then why does recorded history not even go back ten-thousand years? Why in all that time did nobody ever think to come up with a system of writing? Were people just not curious back then?

This is an issue that I believe most people simply take for granted. They just accept that people didn't start actively recording history until just a few thousand years ago, but never give any thought as to what they themselves would've done had they lived at the time. If intelligent humans have been around for so long, then why isn't technology so much more advanced? Why hadn't people already figured out these things like thirty-thousand years ago?

Of course one could easily say that humans just weren't as intelligent until recently, but they'd be saying we hadn't fully evolved yet (like as much as we've evolved by now). One could also say that people did have some technology way way back, or at least that people did build some stone mega structures over a hundred-thousand years ago, but over time, due to earthquakes and things, they've been destroyed and the remains are all gone now (like dust). But if natural disasters can erase evidence of objects over that amount of time, then how could there possibly be any TWO-HUNDRED-MILLION year old dinosaur fossils left? And in good condition!

One more thing. Did people tens of thousands of years ago not bury their dead? Cause their should be many pre-ancient corpses buried all over world (or at least in the eastern hemisphere). Even if we assume there weren't a lot of people who lived at any given time back then, there should still be tons of evidence for it. Let's assume a generously low average of one thousand people were alive back then, and let's say they've only been burying the dead for thirty-thousand years. Do the math, and the number is still at least half a million. A more probable estimate would put the total number of buried corpses well over 50 million. If intelligent human civilization has existed for as long as it supposedly has, the evidence for it would be indisputable. There'd be thousands of times more evidence than just the relatively few cave paintings and tools that "objective" carbon dating results show to be 10,000+ years old.

 

Evolution.

 

If humans have been around for such a long time, then why does recorded history not even go back ten-thousand years? Why in all that time did nobody ever think to come up with a system of writing? Were people just not curious back then?

It's not like people popped into existance and starting writing. There are cave paintings and relics from those time periods, and that's as far as they got at the time getting more detailed and advanced as time went on.

This is an issue that I believe most people simply take for granted. They just accept that people didn't start actively recording history until just a few thousand years ago, but never give any thought as to what they themselves would've done had they lived at the time. If intelligent humans have been around for so long, then why isn't technology so much more advanced? Why hadn't people already figured out these things like thirty-thousand years ago?

A few thousand years ago a head of state was shone a boiler sphere that spun in circles to to steam shooting out from two holes. He thought it an interesting toy as did the inventor and nothing more came of it. This from a civilization with record keeping, philosophy, advanced language etc. No leap of imagination was made.
Ancient Man had a rough existance to survive through and were probably more worried about being eaten that whether they should build spaceships.

But if natural disasters can erase evidence of objects over that amount of time, then how could there possibly be any TWO-HUNDRED-MILLION year old dinosaur fossils left? And in good condition!

Are you trying to say Ancient man build monoliths? None have been found. Dinosaur bones fossilized meaning they have become as hard as rock. Having an active geology on Earth many things will be moved, buried, shifted, melted, scattered, and manipulated by the environment. Some things survive, some do not.

One more thing. Did people tens of thousands of years ago not bury their dead? Cause their should be many pre-ancient corpses buried all over world (or at least in the eastern hemisphere). Even if we assume there weren't a lot of people who lived at any given time back then, there should still be tons of evidence for it.

And there is tons of evidence. What do you think anthropologists find?

If intelligent human civilization has existed for as long as it supposedly has, the evidence for it would be indisputable.

It is indisputable.

There'd be thousands of times more evidence than just the relatively few cave paintings and tools that "objective" carbon dating results show to be 10,000+ years old.

There would probably be more evidence if and active geology didn;t wreck things, and if we had more anthropologists in the field full time.

 

Are you trying to say Ancient man build monoliths?

Ancient, as in three or four thousand years ago, yes. (not necessarily monoliths though but at least great statues and other large structures) We all know they did, they're called, the wonders of the ancient world.

Now if you mean ancient as in tens of thousands of years ago, I don't believe people existed yet, or that the universe is that old for that matter.


VLM, you seem to be yet another person who takes the non-curious mentality of the alleged prehistoric humans for granted. I have heard the thing about the guy who invented all that stuff including the steam engine thing back in the Roman empire. IMO, that only serves to prove my point. My point being that if humans have been just as intelligent as we are now for 40 or 50 thousand years, and at least almost as intelligent like half a million years ago, that's quite a lot of time to go by without people wanting to build better shelters to stay in. And from there getting curious and wanting to make/invent even better things, and so on. It hasn't taken us long to figure vast amounts of stuff out in the past few thousand years (even things as advanced as boilers early on). So why do you think it would've taken them so long to do it?

-----------------------------------------------------------
One more thing. Did people tens of thousands of years ago not bury their dead? Cause their should be many pre-ancient corpses buried all over world (or at least in the eastern hemisphere). Even if we assume there weren't a lot of people who lived at any given time back then, there should still be tons of evidence for it.

And there is tons of evidence. What do you think anthropologists find?
-----------------------------------------------------------

Have they found millions of buried corpses?


There would probably be more evidence if and active geology didn't wreck things

Just further proves the point that there should be nothing left from hundreds of millions of years ago as that would easily given active geology enough time to totally wreck everything.

 

I would give you further explanation but:

I don't believe people existed yet, or that the universe is that old for that matter.

If you cannot get past the fact that all...ALL...evidence shows that the Universe is far older than a few thousand years then there is no point in conversing about history in any sense with you.

 

Yet he CAN believe that an all powerful omnipotent being created the world within a week..



It takes all types I suppose.

 

If you cannot get past the fact that all...ALL...evidence shows that the Universe is far older than a few thousand years...

Evidence can be interpreted in many different ways. It's mostly about the observer's prior assumptions (That is, when it's about things that happened a long long time ago. Not so much with disaster or crime scene type stuff).

Pretty much the only thing that really seems to indicate an old universe is the stars being millions of light-years away. Cause any phenomena observed from a star that's a million light-years from earth couldn't have actually happened. Or could it? While this may seem like creationism has no way out, there is actually a pretty good theory (that would fit perfectly with what scientific knowledge we have in the present) of how the stars could be so far away with the earth still being only 6009 years old. It uses Einstein's theory of general relativity, that time can go by faster or slower depending on various conditions.

You can read about it here.

If you just want to read where it tells what the theory actually is, just scroll to almost the end of the article.

 

I've already read this article and it's bunk. Also, Answersingenesis as a source of legitimate scientific specualtion is like using dark sunglasses as a tool for astronomy.

 

DK, you linked to this to provide proof against carbon dating. But wouldn't we need to believe a flood killed off everyone on Earth 4500 years ago first? (Note: The Egyptians lived through that time and didn't drown)

 

It's mostly about the observer's prior assumptions

From that article about stars:
By basing our scientific research on the assumption that His Word is true (instead of the assumption that it is wrong or irrelevant)

Exactly.

http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/unravelling.shtml?main

 

I' saying evolution, but if there is a God, and I get a chance to meet Him (or Her) in the afterlife, it wouldn't surprise me if He/She answers my question about how life began:

"Oh that! I went with evolution. No real reason, just because I wanted to."