Originally posted by karoly aczel Oh no, I meant the bible was good for cross-refrencing other claims(from upto 3000 years ago,like you say).
After all there must be some truth in the bible otherwise I dont think so many people would follow it.
Actually the Bible has very little historical information prior to about 1000BC (I'm just guessing the date here, but lets just say from the story of Joseph backwards there is no real historical information at all).
Most of what follows is hardly unique in terms of historical records and is not always accurate. There are quite a lot of other historical records from the same period, I don't really understand why you singled out the Bible, or even why it is relevant when we are discussing a completely different period of history.
Originally posted by karoly aczel So the people that lived 150 000-200 000 years ago, would they have be like us or neaderathals?
Do you think all people evolved at the same rate, or do you think there were pockets of societies that were CONSIDERABLY more advanced than other societies of the same time ?
The genetic records suggest that we are all descended from a fairly small group of people that lived in Africa as late as 80,000 years ago. This is such a short time ago yet some evolution has taken place since then - hence the various races of humans. However, there is no real evidence that any one race is more intelligent, so I wouldn't say that any people evolved noticeably greater intelligence since then. What did evolve was society, and yes, some societies were considerably more advanced than others - and are to some extent to this day.
You mention our relatives the Neanderthals. They are an example of a branch of human evolution that did evolve quite differently physically, and they are not the only example of 'dead' branches.
Originally posted by ThinkOfOne Here's your proof that dinosaurs and man coexisted:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kqMzgPg9ZDE&feature=related
Next time do a little research.
Richrd L Thompsom and Micheal A. Cremo seems to take these 'evidence' to be 'the Truth', writing a sceptic book about it and make a lot of money from it.
Who is paying, and making the authors rich? Anti-science fundamnetlists!
Originally posted by vishvahetu Its ironic but true, science doesnt support evolution, its against evolution,and honest science shows us that evolution is false.
You don't accept scientific methodology, you don't accept the results of scientists, so why are you so desperate to have your beliefs labelled as 'science'? You seem to value the word and place some respect in it, whilst simultaneously trying to trash it.
Originally posted by Proper Knob They were anatomically like us. I would expect that cognitively they were the same as us also.
I don't think there is a physical missing link.
Do you mean settled civilisations? If you do we've only been doing that for 10,000yrs. It took civilisation 1300yrs or so to catch up with what the Romans managed to achieve. They were considerably more advanced than most of the populations in Europe at that time.
They were anatomically like us. I would expect that cognitively they were the same as us also.
Perhaps. This is no sure thing however, as there appears to be a marked change in material culture and habits that takes place somewhere between 70 and 90kybp, coincidentally close to a point in time which stands out as a genetic bottleneck in human history. This is also possibly coincident with the eruption of Toba - as I recall the largest volcanic eruption in human prehistory. Likely scenario involves near-extinction of h-sap at this point, settled as they were largely in coastal regions surrounding the Indian Ocean. This may well have been a significant speciation event, albeit one not revealed in physical development.
Originally posted by avalanchethecat [b]They were anatomically like us. I would expect that cognitively they were the same as us also.
Perhaps. This is no sure thing however, as there appears to be a marked change in material culture and habits that takes place somewhere between 70 and 90kybp, coincidentally close to a point in time which stands out as a genetic bottleneck in h ...[text shortened]... well have been a significant speciation event, albeit one not revealed in physical development.[/b]
Originally posted by vishvahetu "Forbidden Archeology" is the book that turned the scientific community upside-down, and finally put the last nail in the coffin of the debunkt Evolution Therory.
The evolution therory has been debunkt for a long time, but the puffed up pseudo scientists are clinging to this therory still, because to admit its failings is too painfull and embarrassing, ...[text shortened]... duty of every honest person to read this book and discover for yourself (the Truth).
Vishva
Forbidden Archeology has been criticized for failing to test simpler hypotheses before proceeding to propose more complex ones (a violation of Occam's razor) and for relying heavily on outdated evidence (often from the 19th and early 20th century).[14] Tom Morrow of the National Center for Science Education noted that Cremo's "specimens no longer exist" and called his work pseudoscience.[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Cremo
Originally posted by Proper Knob They were anatomically like us. I would expect that cognitively they were the same as us also.
I don't think there is a physical missing link.
Do you mean settled civilisations? If you do we've only been doing that for 10,000yrs. It took civilisation 1300yrs or so to catch up with what the Romans managed to achieve. They were considerably more advanced than most of the populations in Europe at that time.
I'm not sure if I mean settled civilizations . I'll have to think about my angle here a bit more.. thnx for the info...
Originally posted by Proper Knob Why would scientists wish to cover up the history of man?
For the same reason they wanted to cover up the facts concerning Global Warming. It doesn't fit their liberal agenda, the facts are contrary to their lie.
Originally posted by twhitehead The genetic records suggest that we are all descended from a fairly small group of people that lived in Africa as late as 80,000 years ago. This is such a short time ago yet some evolution has taken place since then - hence the various races of humans. However, there is no real evidence that any one race is more intelligent, so I wouldn't say that any peo ...[text shortened]... id evolve quite differently physically, and they are not the only example of 'dead' branches.
This is such a short time ago yet some evolution has taken place since then - hence the various races of humans. Um, what's a race of human? What you're espousing sounds informed to (perhaps) the uninitiated, but it's really just claptrap.
Originally posted by Una For the same reason they wanted to cover up the facts concerning Global Warming. It doesn't fit their liberal agenda, the facts are contrary to their lie.
So scientists are engaged in the cover-up of Global Warming, the suppression of mans true origins and the continued perpetuated lie of evolution.
Originally posted by FreakyKBH Um, what's a race of human?
It is a rather vague grouping of human beings based largely on outward appearance. But it has its uses.
What you're espousing sounds informed to (perhaps) the uninitiated, but it's really just claptrap. You are welcome to dispute any of my points and explain why. Simply calling it claptrap merely shows that you have no actual argument against it.
Originally posted by Proper Knob So scientists are engaged in the cover-up of Global Warming, the suppression of mans true origins and the continued perpetuated lie of evolution.
Sounds like a busy day.
Scientists would be only the "instruments" of the powers that be. They probably wouldn't know what was being intended for their work outside of their own speciality.
If they are engaged in any of the activities you mentioned, then I doubt that they are aware of it. Or have been paid or killed to be unaware of it.
Originally posted by twhitehead It is a rather vague grouping of human beings based largely on outward appearance. But it has its uses.
[b]What you're espousing sounds informed to (perhaps) the uninitiated, but it's really just claptrap. You are welcome to dispute any of my points and explain why. Simply calling it claptrap merely shows that you have no actual argument against it.[/b]
Oh. You mean ethnicity. Really nothing to do with evolution, wouldn't you say?
Forbidden Archeology.
29 Jul '10 11:171 edit
Back to Top