Evolution controversy erupts

PostmodernProphet said:
can you document that this human skull was over 2 million years old?......(I already know you can't document the date of the flood).......
Click to expand...

It's dated at 1.8 million years old.

We can't document that flood at all. It's all based on a book that even believers claim is factually inaccurate and filled with lies.
 
Professor Baxter said:
The find of the 1.8 million year old skull sure causes some problems for the cultist who try to twist the bible to support an argument that Noah's flood was local and happened when all humans lived in the same location. :)
Click to expand...

I never said that all humans lived in the same location.
 
Professor Baxter said:
It's dated at 1.8 million years old.
Click to expand...

as I asked, can you document that?.....

science may not agree with you.....
The oldest fossil remains of anatomically-modern humans are the Omo remains, which date to 195,000 (±5,000) years ago and include two partial skulls as well as arm, leg, foot and pelvis bones.[5][6]

Other fossils include the proposed Homo sapiens idaltu from Herto in Ethiopia that are almost 160,000 years old[7] and remains from Skhul in Israel that are 90,000 years old.[8]
Click to expand...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anatomically_modern_humans
 
Professor Baxter said:
I am not sure if your problem is lack of intellect, lack of honesty or low reading comprehension. You figure it out.

The science agrees with what I said.
Click to expand...

if fully developed modern humans existed 1.8 million years ago, would science agree with you about how much more time you would have needed for that randomly occurring evolutionary development to have happened?........
 
let's explore honesty.....do you believe the 1.8 million year old skull that was discovered is that of a creature that qualifies as a modern day human....
 
PostmodernProphet said:
let's explore honesty.....do you believe the 1.8 million year old skull that was discovered is that of a creature that qualifies as a modern day human....
Click to expand...

Did I say that? No, i did not and so you are a liar for implying I claimed anyhting of the kind.

It's classed as homo erectus.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
so, if its not a human skull why claim its going to shatter beliefs about floods drowning humans?.......
Click to expand...

It is a human skull. It is not a modern human skull.

You are so practiced in your deceitful tactics of dropping context that I am not sure you realize how worthless and ignorant your thoughts are. Like I said, nevermind.
 
Professor Baxter said:
It is a human skull. It is not a modern human skull.
Click to expand...

then it predates modern humans and has no relevance to the issue of a flood......no one is arguing that the flood occurred prior to modern humans......as I recall science concluded that modern humans all stem from somewhere in Africa dating about 65,000 years ago.....
 
PostmodernProphet said:
then it predates modern humans and has no relevance to the issue of a flood......no one is arguing that the flood occurred prior to modern humans......as I recall science concluded that modern humans all stem from somewhere in Africa dating about 65,000 years ago.....
Click to expand...

You recall wrong.

You argued it occurred when all humans were in the same location.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
no I don't......we were quite clear on that......
Click to expand...

Well, then you are just wrong. Modern humans are commonly believed to have appeared 200,000 years ago. They are believed to have spread throughout Africa and into Southwest Asia by 115,000 years ago. To South Asia by at least 50,000 years ago and possibly as early as 100,000 years ago.

Also, it is not clear that early homo sapiens had achieved complete reproductive isolation from homo erectus or neanderthals and the regional continuity arguments, which argues that modern humans evolved from archaic forms in several locations simultaneously, has not been falsified.

Your local flood would have had to be a long long long time ago. It's quite absurd to think that a several thousand year oral account would be accurate and yours would have been tens of thousands of years.

We were clear on what? You have a serious problem with over using pronouns and vague language. You are never clear on anything. I doubt it is done mistakenly. What is clear is that you intend to distort the facts and truth.
 
Professor Baxter said:
Well, then you are just wrong. Modern humans are commonly believed to have appeared 200,000 years ago. They are believed to have spread throughout Africa and into Southwest Asia by 115,000 years ago. To South Asia by at least 50,000 years ago and possibly as early as 100,000 years ago.

Also, it is not clear that early homo sapiens had achieved complete reproductive isolation from homo erectus or neanderthals and the regional continuity arguments, which argues that modern humans evolved from archaic forms in several locations simultaneously, has not been falsified.

Your local flood would have had to be a long long long time ago. It's quite absurd to think that a several thousand year oral account would be accurate and yours would have been tens of thousands of years.

We were clear on what? You have a serious problem with over using pronouns and vague language. You are never clear on anything. I doubt it is done mistakenly. What is clear is that you intend to distort the facts and truth.
Click to expand...

so you're saying science was wrong?......
 
PostmodernProphet said:
so you're saying science was wrong?......
Click to expand...

No, I am saying you are stupid or possibly insane to believe that the story of Noah was the least bit accurate or should be considered when attempting to understand human history or that of other life. Clearly there was no worldwide flood. There is no proof that humans ever lived all in one location that could be effected by a normal flood.

Science is wrong about what?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top