Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Once upon a time greater than 170 thousand years ago...

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Once upon a time greater than 170 thousand years ago...

    ... there were two late Middle Pleistocene human groups located in an area, what we now call, southern Greece. One of them was a Homo sapiens population, followed by a Homo sapiens neanderthalensis population. The results of the referenced research support the "multiple dispersals of early modern humans out of Africa" theory.

    According to the Wall Street Journal, the fossils were overlooked for nearly 40 years.
    "The exact sciences also start from the assumption that in the end it will always be possible to understand nature, even in every new field of experience, but that we make no a priori assumptions about the meaning of the word "understand"."

    Heisenberg
    .....................

    " It is the glory of God to conceal a matter, and it is the glory of a king to search out a matter. " ( Proverbs 25:2 )

  • #2
    Originally posted by inertia View Post
    ... there were two late Middle Pleistocene human groups located in an area, what we now call, southern Greece. One of them was a Homo sapiens population, followed by a Homo sapiens neanderthalensis population. The results of the referenced research support the "multiple dispersals of early modern humans out of Africa" theory.

    According to the Wall Street Journal, the fossils were overlooked for nearly 40 years.
    interesting
    When evil is powerful, good men are silenced.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by inertia View Post
      ... there were two late Middle Pleistocene human groups located in an area, what we now call, southern Greece. One of them was a Homo sapiens population, followed by a Homo sapiens neanderthalensis population. The results of the referenced research support the "multiple dispersals of early modern humans out of Africa" theory.

      According to the Wall Street Journal, the fossils were overlooked for nearly 40 years.
      See also here.

      https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...years-ago.html

      and the religious fundamentalists have...? (Crickets chirping in the background)! Or let me answer for you and save you the effort—, “It cannot be true because my Bible says so.”
      We shall not injure God by remaining ignorant of Him, but shall deprive ourselves of His friendship.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by inertia View Post
        ... there were two late Middle Pleistocene human groups located in an area, what we now call, southern Greece. One of them was a Homo sapiens population, followed by a Homo sapiens neanderthalensis population. The results of the referenced research support the "multiple dispersals of early modern humans out of Africa" theory.

        According to the Wall Street Journal, the fossils were overlooked for nearly 40 years.
        Wow.

        People left Africa.

        I think we call that the Exodus.
        THE BIBLE SAYS IT, THAT SETTLES IT.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by AV1611VET View Post

          Wow.

          People left Africa.

          I think we call that the Exodus.
          Hi AV1611VET -

          Well, there is that time differential between the exodus, this very-old-timer found in the Apidima cave, followed up by creatures much later on typically called Neanderthals.

          Last edited by inertia; 07-11-19, 11:58 PM.
          "The exact sciences also start from the assumption that in the end it will always be possible to understand nature, even in every new field of experience, but that we make no a priori assumptions about the meaning of the word "understand"."

          Heisenberg
          .....................

          " It is the glory of God to conceal a matter, and it is the glory of a king to search out a matter. " ( Proverbs 25:2 )

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by docphin View Post

            See also here....<snip>...and the religious fundamentalists have...<snip>...
            Thanks for the Daily Mail article.

            FYI

            The term "fundamentalist" within the United States wasn't always associated with young-earth-creationism. Historically, from this essay:

            " .... “The Early Narratives of Genesis,” Presbyterian theologian James Orr writes:

            You say there is the “six days” and the question of whether those days are meant to be measured by the twenty-four hours of the sun’s revolution around the earth—I speak of these things popularly. It is difficult to see how they should be so measured when the sun that is to measure them is not introduced until the fourth day. Do not think that this larger reading of the days is a new speculation. You find Augustine in early times declaring that it is hard or altogether impossible to say of what fashion these days are, and Thomas Aquinas, in the middle ages, leaves the matter an open question. To my mind these narratives in Genesis stand out as a marvel, not for its discordance with science, but for its agreement with it. "
            "The exact sciences also start from the assumption that in the end it will always be possible to understand nature, even in every new field of experience, but that we make no a priori assumptions about the meaning of the word "understand"."

            Heisenberg
            .....................

            " It is the glory of God to conceal a matter, and it is the glory of a king to search out a matter. " ( Proverbs 25:2 )

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by inertia View Post

              Thanks for the Daily Mail article.

              FYI

              The term "fundamentalist" within the United States wasn't always associated with young-earth-creationism. Historically, from this essay:

              " .... “The Early Narratives of Genesis,” Presbyterian theologian James Orr writes:

              You say there is the “six days” and the question of whether those days are meant to be measured by the twenty-four hours of the sun’s revolution around the earth—I speak of these things popularly. It is difficult to see how they should be so measured when the sun that is to measure them is not introduced until the fourth day. Do not think that this larger reading of the days is a new speculation. You find Augustine in early times declaring that it is hard or altogether impossible to say of what fashion these days are, and Thomas Aquinas, in the middle ages, leaves the matter an open question. To my mind these narratives in Genesis stand out as a marvel, not for its discordance with science, but for its agreement with it. "
              Interesting article but it does little to enlighten us on what separates fundamentalists who believe in young earth and fundamentalists who deny evolution. Both the age of the earth and evolution are based on hard scientific evidence. It is contradictory for anyone to concede on one hand that the universe is old then turn around and deny the physical evidence for evolution because of what?—their literal interpretation of scripture? They sit around their pulpit and say, “Evolution cannot be true because where did Adam come from? How do I admit to my flock that I have no clue what to make of Adam, therefore I must deny evolution.” Great! We are indebted to them for taking such a pious stand (and leading us in to error). Not! They failed us and millions of others. Therefore, I assert that Both the young earthers and the evo deniers are made from the same fundamentalist cloth, the difference being that one is irrational and uneducated while the other is just uneducated and too proud to admit it.

              I used to think Augustine was sincere when he wrote that the church would never reject the hard evidence of science but doubt his sincerity given the effort by the Roman church to suppress dissent and freedom of opinion. I think he was just saying what fundamentalists today falsely claim, that is, when they say that they agree with science (as long as it does not disagree with church doctrine). I O W they only agree with science if it agrees with them. It is disingenuous.
              We shall not injure God by remaining ignorant of Him, but shall deprive ourselves of His friendship.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by docphin View Post
                They sit around their pulpit and say, “Evolution cannot be true because where did Adam come from?
                Any preacher that says that isn't worthy to be in the pulpit.
                THE BIBLE SAYS IT, THAT SETTLES IT.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by AV1611VET View Post

                  Any preacher that says that isn't worthy to be in the pulpit.
                  News flash! Evangelical Christianity rejects evolution to include the sponsor of this forum.
                  We shall not injure God by remaining ignorant of Him, but shall deprive ourselves of His friendship.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by docphin View Post
                    News flash! Evangelical Christianity rejects evolution to include the sponsor of this forum.
                    What?

                    What I meant was:

                    Any preacher who doesn't reject evolution because the Bible rejects it.

                    To sit [sic] around the pulpit and say, "Evolution cannot be true because where did Adam come from?" ... he'd better be able to answer that question -- with the Bible.

                    No Spirit-filled preacher should be in the dark as to where Adam came from.
                    THE BIBLE SAYS IT, THAT SETTLES IT.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by AV1611VET View Post

                      What?

                      What I meant was:

                      Any preacher who doesn't reject evolution because the Bible rejects it.

                      To sit [sic] around the pulpit and say, "Evolution cannot be true because where did Adam come from?" ... he'd better be able to answer that question -- with the Bible.

                      No Spirit-filled preacher should be in the dark as to where Adam came from.
                      You prove my point. If you had no Bible (and your personal interpretation of it) then you would have no disagreement with evolution because the evidence overwhelming supports it. Which leaves you and the other evangelists sitting around the pulpit denying evolution because it undermines your doctrines.

                      Ask yourself, if evolution is true then where did Adam in the Bible come from?
                      We shall not injure God by remaining ignorant of Him, but shall deprive ourselves of His friendship.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by docphin View Post
                        You prove my point. If you had no Bible (and your personal interpretation of it) then you would have no disagreement with evolution because the evidence overwhelming supports it.
                        That's like saying if I had no ammunition in my gun, the first one who engaged me in a quick-draw would win.

                        Originally posted by docphin
                        Ask yourself, if evolution is true then where did Adam in the Bible come from?
                        IF evolution is true, then Adam is a collective term for Homo sapiens.
                        THE BIBLE SAYS IT, THAT SETTLES IT.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by AV1611VET View Post

                          That's like saying if I had no ammunition in my gun, the first one who engaged me in a quick-draw would win.



                          IF evolution is true, then Adam is a collective term for Homo sapiens.
                          And where did those homo sapiens come from? C’mon, your almost there...can you say it?
                          Last edited by docphin; 07-12-19, 10:45 PM.
                          We shall not injure God by remaining ignorant of Him, but shall deprive ourselves of His friendship.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by docphin View Post
                            And where did those homo sapiens come from? C’mon, your almost there...can you say it?
                            Homo erectus?

                            How far back do you want me to go?
                            THE BIBLE SAYS IT, THAT SETTLES IT.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by docphin View Post
                              ...... irrational and uneducated.....
                              Which one of these men and women are irrational and uneducated? ---> Reasons to Believe
                              "The exact sciences also start from the assumption that in the end it will always be possible to understand nature, even in every new field of experience, but that we make no a priori assumptions about the meaning of the word "understand"."

                              Heisenberg
                              .....................

                              " It is the glory of God to conceal a matter, and it is the glory of a king to search out a matter. " ( Proverbs 25:2 )

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X