Are scientists any closer

[TagliatelliMonster]

If I recall correctly from my reading, we're still living in an ice age. My cousin, a doctor, insists however that the earth is not getting warmer

Your cousin is demonstrably wrong.

Yet the news has it that bergs are melting and cities in coastal areas should watch out

Indeed.

This phenomenon is seen all around the world.

 

[ecco]

First of all, despite claims to the contrary, a day in the Bible does not always refer to a 24-hour time period. AND--I might venture to say--that not even Einstein thought a day was always 24 hours as timed by a clock on the earth. Biblical use of the word day is obviously NOT a 24-hour time period in the 'days' of creation. And other scriptures help to understand that the word day is not always 24 hours as we count time now, but can represent a set but unknown portion of time, with a beginning and an end.

Yadda, yadda, yadda. You completely (intentionally) missed the point which is about agreement:

Creationists don't all agree on the length of a "day".
Creationists don't all agree on the age of the earth.
Creationists don't all agree on the order of Creation events.​

You tried to knock science because of "disagreements". Yet you choose to completely ignore the fact that there is far more disagreement among Christians on far more matters, than among scientists.

 

[ecco]

It was a safeguard. The rest of the world did not have those sanitary or dietary restrictions as given to the Israelites.

Nonsense. Do you think Native Americans didn't know about basic sanitation (don't **** where you eat)? Do you think Native Americans drank water from pools that contained dead animals? Do you think the Asians did? Do you think the Australian aborigines did. Do you the Africans did?

I realize your view of human history only goes back about 6000 years. That's your problem. In the actual world, man learned what was and what was not harmful long before a tribe of hebrews ever had to capability to write things down.


Further nonsense is the fact that a lot of your hebrews' knowledge was wrong. Their writing reflects this. Their incorrect knowledge is what is in the OT, certainly not the knowledge of a god.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

There is no general consensus in science that the evidence for life ON EARTH originating in outer space is overwhelming.

I forgot to add the "on Earth". Thanks for correcting my omission.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

You make grandiose statements. Some scientists now revered were laughed at and scorned by their contemporaries. One well known but sad chap is Semmelweis, who displayed biblical measures by keeping clean, and as a result he changed the world of medicine. But not before he was laughed at, and scorned.
Medical Breakthroughs That Were Initially Ridiculed or Rejected (medscape.com)

Your link didn't work, so I have no idea of the information you used as a source.

However, he was a physician that determined through observation that antiseptic techniques with hands reduced the spread of infection in obstetric examinations. Since germ theory wasn't formulated until the 1890's, he had no way to explain his observations or determine if the hand washing was actually associated with the result. @Subduction Zone is correct. Some ideas take time to be accepted, because they are not fully understood. If it was difficult for science to accept, think about how much resistance you would find in the general population.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Unfortunately, your genetic statistics do not prove that man evolved as you would have it. But that's ok. You're entitled to your opinion even if you can't explain it with soundness (actual evidence) except for guesswork as to how it happened.. That's ok. You helped me.

Can you show me?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

The dates are conjectured, and I mean conjectured about "Neanderthal man." It's easy to do a search on this. Can you put a date on these things, in particular Neanderthal man? What do you believe, that's the thing.
Wikipedia says,
"Neanderthals are an extinct species or subspecies of archaic humans who lived in Eurasia until about 40,000 years ago. They most likely went extinct due to assimilation into the modern human genome (bred into extinction), great climatic change, disease, or a combination of these factors. They were fully replaced by early European modern humans."

The dates are estimates based on evidence. Conjecture is speculation without evidence.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

uh HUH. About not knowing about the DNA resemblance. OK. got it.

What are you talking about?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Scientists project a date based on how many bones? about the end of neanderthals then go on to talk about some other type of human that may have or who knows (not) intermingled with whoever there was.

Have you ever reviewed the literature on how things are dated? It does not appear as if you have.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Sorry, No. That's not true at all.
A lot that has been said in the Bible has been reproduced, continue to be reproduced, and is reproducible.
also, just because an explosion is reproducible, that does not mean that an explosion was responsible for... say, as an example, the universe.
The moon being where it is located, and the size it is, etc., is not proven to be so, because one can reproduce a deflection from a collision that one sets up with all the circumstances one wants to exist.
In other words, making assumptions does not prove anything scientifically.

Anyone can do that. "Let's see... This looks like that, and that looks like this, so that must have come from this."
"Yeah. You are right. See how that has two of these, and that has one. It's because the two became one."

Then the community agrees. All in favor say aye.

The oddballs get eyeballed... and treated... special.
Then you call it science. It's not.

I guess we have a lot of fools, but nobody will admit they are.

Then we have the discoveries that time and again confirm the Genesis account, but what happens... They get shoved into the other corner, where the community says with a smile, "That's ours. ". Or they are just ignored.

God’s Laws on Hygiene Were Ahead of Their Time
Does Science Agree With the Bible?

The cry of allegory just is one huge failure, when one knows what the Bible contains.

What do you mean reproducible and what from the Bible has been reproduced?

 

[YoursTrue]

I know you did, but you were very very late to the party. That was not what you were saying the other day

Missing links are really not the question here. Anyway, the term creationist leaves much open to ambiguity due to lack of definition.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Missing links are really not the question here. Anyway, the term creationist leaves much open to ambiguity due to lack of definition.

Usually a creationist is one that believes the Abrahamic myths of Genesis.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Your cousin is demonstrably wrong.



Indeed.

View attachment 50060

View attachment 50061

This phenomenon is seen all around the world.

The cousin is partially right. Lies are often based upon a nugget of truth. We are still in an ice age. That is a time when there are significant ice caps. Please note that scientist will usually refer to the "Last glaciation" meaning that latest glacial maximum. It was thought that some time in the future that we would reenter such a stage. That may have been ended, or at least indefinitely postponed by AGW.

A lay article so of course they use the phrase "ice age". But it appears that we may have put off the next glaciation for a long long time.

Global Warming Could Stave Off Next Ice Age For 100,000 Years

 

[McBell]

Anyway, the term creationist leaves much open to ambiguity due to lack of definition.

I agree.
Just like with the word "god"
And "kind"

 

[YoursTrue]

I know quite a bit of general knowledge, but no one can know all of the specifics. That is when you go to the specialists if you have a question. Why the interest in Neanderthasls? They were man, but a different species of man.

One reason I'm interested is because it is said that they comingled with homosapiens and left genes. I wonder what the neanderthal genes were exclusively with the before the comingling. I don't believe it so far just because they say it is so.

 

[YoursTrue]

The cousin is partially right. Lies are often based upon a nugget of truth. We are still in an ice age. That is a time when there are significant ice caps. Please note that scientist will usually refer to the "Last glaciation" meaning that latest glacial maximum. It was thought that some time in the future that we would reenter such a stage. That may have been ended, or at least indefinitely postponed by AGW.

A lay article so of course they use the phrase "ice age". But it appears that we may have put off the next glaciation for a long long time.

Global Warming Could Stave Off Next Ice Age For 100,000 Years

Ok let's say for the sake of discussion that global warming is a misnomer or ..not true. The icebergs are melting though, aren't they?

 

[YoursTrue]

Of course you don't.
How could you have any idea about any ancient events?

Lol ok. But others do, like with tools left behind in caves and figuring dates.

 

[YoursTrue]

How do you know that? Why could other cultures have similar messages from their mythical gods?

So far no one has explained if that is so. At least not to me. And that the Bible has survived through many trials and tribulations tells me that it's very special. Of course I realize others may believe their divine books are special perhaps from a superior source but I don't see anything that compares to the Holy Bible in recollection of years, places, and events.

 

[Subduction Zone]

One reason I'm interested is because it is said that they comingled with homosapiens and left genes. I wonder what the neanderthal genes were exclusively with the before the comingling. I don't believe it so far just because they say it is so.

Populations can be separated and later remeet each other. That is what appears to have happened with Homo sapiens and Homo neanderthalensis. When the remet the two different populations had evolved independently and the ability to interbreed was very limited. Just as would happen if a population and a population of tigers and lions met today. There would be very limited interbreeding. If one species went extinct there could be some tiger genes preserved in lions or vice versa.


You are not going to find any evidence contrary to evolution in the meeting of the two species.

 

[YoursTrue]

You cannot tell much difference between your great great grandfather and your great great grandfather's uncle just based on bones. What can be said that this group of bones belong to those who were either your direct ancestors or close kins. Same here. what we can do is identify a group of species, one member of which will be the ancestor species while the others will be close kins of the ancestor species. One cannot go beyond this from study of fossils.
One prediction of evolution is that such bones of such intermediate groups will be found who will have characteristics showing that were either common ancestors or close kins of such common ancestor species. So the presence of such fossils provide a strong line of evidence for the theory of evolution.

But so far humans with different genomes still remain humans in the term of homo sapiens.