Evidence for Creationism and Against Evolution

[Jonathan]

Originally posted by Cirdan
Why do cultures invent different things at different rates?

The simple answer is: Chance.
Chance plays a big role in this.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
I understand what you are saying Lief - it's just that you're argument makes no sense. Technology breeds technology. Just because metal wasn't used right away - does not mean that there weren't millions and millions of discoveries that needed to come about before metal could be smelted and used.

Metal itself allows for many new technologies. You can not make metal axes or spears without it. But without the knowledge of the stone axes and the stone spears - they would not have been able to apply metal and make these new evolved items.

Man had the brain capacity for millenium to make computers - but we didn't have the experience or background knowledge necessary.

Again, show me evidence that much advancement in technology happened in those years. It's such a vast slot of time, there should be substantial examples to show for it. We have human remains from those time periods. We have a rate of technological development visible to us from these recent 5,000 years, to judge our findings by, and see how adept they were at inventing. Allow me to quote some of the evidence I gave for incorrect dating, on Page 2 of this thread . . .

Large deviations in radiocarbon dates in individual ancient sites:
Tarim mummies: 4000 yr mummy and neighbor 6000 yr mummy
Jericho: nomadic hunters remain in the same spot from 10,000 BC to 4,000 BC
European cave art: unchanged between 30,000 BC and 5,000 BC.

Now if those evidences won't convince you that something's wrong, nothing will.

Those evidences actually helped to show a radiocarbon shift- a shift such as I already spoke about earlier, as being a possible cause for people's lifespan shrinking. They also help to demonstrate some of the fallicies in modern dating techniques.

Also, I'd like to know what evidence you have that it would have taken millions and millions of discoveries for man to uncover metallurgy. I know that Egyptians were smelting iron ores in the year 4,000 BC, but I don't know when the simplest techniques of metallurgy were developed. Lead is a lot easier to smelt than iron. Based upon the rate of development that's visible in ironworking and development of different technologies from iron onward, though, it is possible to see that it's unlikely metallurgy was initiated earlier than 20,000 BC, at the earliest.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally posted by Jonathan
I have evidence. If you want I can try to find a diagramme that shows the human population on a serious scientific website. You'll see how the population has gone up and down, and how it the last few hundred years have increased dramatically.
You can look back in history. Before the Industrial Revolution, men did not increase rapidly in numbers. At times, the human population on the planet decreased. For example, half of Europe's population died due to the plage in the Middle Ages.
When the Industrial Revolution saw the light of the day, men suddenly got what they needed to start increasing really fast and truly exponentially. This was not possible before the Revolution, and certainly not possible during man's time as a hunter.

I'd like to see the diagram. Particularly if it relates primarily to subjects post-5000 BC. I know, of course, that humanity has had its ups and downs, as a result of huge wars or environmental disasters, but those don't effect how many children people have, or have had.

Originally posted by Cirdan
If humans are so smart why do some develop technology and some do not? They presumably had the same amount of time. Why do cultures invent different things at different rates?

Humans are so smart- but some humans differ from others. Doesn't that happen in the past as well? True, some cultures have gone slower than others, but then civilizations also catch up. Different people and different groups do go at different speeds, but they do, in the long run (though in evolutionary standards for humans, the incredibly short term) make progress.

Originally posted by Cirdan
If technology is inevitable and must proceed at some defined rate then these differences are inexplicable.

Look at the overall rate, not some rate for each individual being. People differ, but the overall rate is a vast amount larger than the observable rate in the past.

[Jonathan]

Originally posted by Lief Erikson
I'd like to see the diagram. Particularly if it relates primarily to subjects post-5000 BC. I know, of course, that humanity has had its ups and downs, as a result of huge wars or environmental disasters, but those don't effect how many children people have, or have had.

I haven't found the internet based diagrams of the diagrams I'm looking for. However I found this diagram on a creationist's website. It shows the human population before and after the Flood and the population today
I wouldn't say the website's serious or scientific though.

[Lief Erikson]

I've just compared that diagram to the one in the World Book, and shown them to my Dad (a mathematician), and it does show exponential growth. Exponential growth rates sometimes vary, but they are exponential, nevertheless. The World Book version doesn't take the Flood into account, but it doesn't pass the year 2,000 BC, either. There is incongruency between the two diagrams up to the time of Christ, where the lines become the same.

Meanwhile, I don't see in that diagram (or the World Book one) the world population taking a decrease of any size worth recording. The diagram in The World Book shows a slow but constant increase until the year A.D. 500, when it starts to really move up fast.

The rate of increase has always overall been a rate of increase though, by this diagram. At the year 2,000 BC, there are recorded in the World Book diagram to have been only 108,000,000 people.

[Cirdan]

Originally posted by Lief Erikson
Look at the overall rate, not some rate for each individual being. People differ, but the overall rate is a vast amount larger than the observable rate in the past.

The rate varies in direct proportion to population growth. No large cities, no major technology. Human cultures do not vary in capacity. The true difference is found in the impetus for technology. The press of cultures closely bound, those that developed due to sharing of independently discovered basic technologies grew rapidly and faced the challenges of larger populations, as well as the benefits of specialzation of skills. Places like the fertile crest had the most geographic advantages (naturally occuring grains, wide variety of domesticable animals, contact with many other adjacent civilizations. Native americans were limited to corn and no domesticable animals. Migration was difficult and contact with other populations was very limited.

just for fun

[Lief Erikson]

50,000 years is an awefully short time for the human race to have developed into its current form, by evolutionary standards, and the average age limit of human beings being 10 years old seems very unlikely. It's in the early teens that kids begin to take sexual interest in each other. It doesn't seem likely that they'd be able to bear children then . . . women's sexual organs weren't even developed at that time! Much less could a handful of ten year olds for each bear the responsibility of leading and keeping a human race of children alive, in the face of massive competition from the animal world. And that without their developing much technology at all. Sorry . . . I shouldn't be critical of something that's just for fun .

Also, the technology rate doesn't always vary directly with the population, though population does tend to have a hand in it, in general terms. The U.S. has a lot more technology than China, despite our having less than half as much population. Isaac Newton made incredible scientific discoveries, and England wasn't the top of population either.

Originally posted by Cirdan
Places like the fertile crest had the most geographic advantages (naturally occuring grains, wide variety of domesticable animals, contact with many other adjacent civilizations. Native americans were limited to corn and no domesticable animals. Migration was difficult and contact with other populations was very limited.

All true, but none of it explains the hundreds of thousands of years of barely any technological growth, which we can compare with the increase in technology that has been observed in more recent of times. By more recent times, I speak of the past 10,000 or so years as a whole, in comparison with the equally capable people of the past.



Well, I thank you all for trying to respond to this, though I think none of you have answered the difficulty effectively. Technology's increasing barely at all, and these

quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Large deviations in radiocarbon dates in individual ancient sites:
Tarim mummies: 4000 yr mummy and neighbor 6000 yr mummy
Jericho: nomadic hunters remain in the same spot from 10,000 BC to 4,000 BC
European cave art: unchanged between 30,000 BC and 5,000 BC.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
difficulties with our dating anyway all do point to a far shorter existance for humanity. Likewise, we cannot possibly have survived as a minor or endangered species on this planet for the millions of years of our existence here. Small species like that, limited by resources, get wiped out. And if we weren't small and our growth rate was increasing exponentially, as it always has (on the observed scale), then we would have had to have originated far more recently than is supposed.

This theory is supported by the discrepancies I've observed on Page 2 in the radiocarbon amounts, and it explains away completely the lack of technology and necessary population for those vast tracts of time. I have as yet seen nothing that is convincing which fills up those periods of time, or supported by the visible, increasing population scale.

These visible evidences do support the Biblical point of view and are in the general ballpark of the Biblical dates. At the same time, they support the Biblical longer ages.

The same explanations have been reiterated a few times, and occasionally new ones come up with. Jonathan suggested that our population might not always have increased exponentially, Jerseydevil and Sheeana both suggested that technological development has actually happened in that period, and Cirdan has said it is explained because culture and distance have caused those differences. This last explanation simply falls flat because of the huge time lapse. But none of them work. Population always has increased exponentially (based upon what we observe and mathematics), and I have as yet seen no evidence for much technology during this time period.



Meanwhile, the quotes I've given and the other evidence on Page 2 for incorrect dating, shows scientific evidence for the difficulties that face the evolution of mankind by the current theory. Visible evidence and facts fit the Biblical explanation much better.

But now I'd like to move on- we've worn this subject down a lot. I'm going to watch a movie and then post on a different subject. Terribly sorry if this sounds arrogant . . . If anyone has new theories, please post them.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Lief Erikson
All true, but none of it explains the hundreds of thousands of years of barely any technological growth, which we can compare with the increase in technology that has been observed in more recent of times. By more recent times, I speak of the past 10,000 or so years as a whole, in comparison with the equally capable people of the past.

Can you please define barely any? There were tons of technological advances - but basic things. Man had to even learn how to make fire - something which we take for granted today. Do you know that NOTHING would be possible without knowing how to make fire? It may seem like a nothing invention today compared to computers - but do you know how to hit two stones together and make it? And do you think you could have figured it out on your own?

Although these books are of course fictionalised - I would highly recommend reading Jean Auel's - The Earth's Children Series which Clan of the Cave Bear is the first. If you've only seen the movie - then you don't know anything about the book. It shows a good representation of what we know about past man and what life what like back then.

This is also interesting - this is modern man trying to figure out how they cooked...

Cooking Clan of the Cave Bear Style!


While looking for a project to explore for an archaeology course at Simon Fraser University (Arch 372, taught by Michael Wilson) I recalled that I had read somewhere that cooking could be done in a hide container over a fire. When I called my sister in Hope, British Columbia, to inquire if I could use her land to build a fire on, she informed me that I had probably read this in Clan of the Cave Bear....

Looking for information on construction of such a pot, I came across the book Plains Indian and Mountain Man Arts and Crafts: An Illustrated Guide, by Charles W. Overstreet (1993). Herein I found information on the difference between rawhide and tanned leather, and several projects, none of which were a pot, but interesting for construction methods....

more...

If you read that article - don't forget that that was one of those "nothing" inventions that man had to do to get to where we are today. They had to do this while having a full time job (hunting and gathering) just to survive. There wasn't any leisure time - except for in the winter.

[Cirdan]

Originally posted by Lief Erikson
50,000 years is an awefully short time for the human race to have developed into its current form, by evolutionary standards, and the average age limit of human beings being 10 years old seems very unlikely. It's in the early teens that kids begin to take sexual interest in each other. It doesn't seem likely that they'd be able to bear children then . . . women's sexual organs weren't even developed at that time! Much less could a handful of ten year olds for each bear the responsibility of leading and keeping a human race of children alive, in the face of massive competition from the animal world. And that without their developing much technology at all. Sorry . . . I shouldn't be critical of something that's just for fun .

I think your not taking infant mortality into account. Also, I think they were saying 50,000 years in it's current form, Homo Sapiens sapiens. I thought you would like the population chart that starts with two people.

Also, the technology rate doesn't always vary directly with the population, though population does tend to have a hand in it, in general terms. The U.S. has a lot more technology than China, despite our having less than half as much population. Isaac Newton made incredible scientific discoveries, and England wasn't the top of population either.

You need to think in terms of populations, not nations. National boundaries do not preclude the exchange of ideas. Think instead of oceans, mountains, etc as inhibitors of the exchange of ideas. Native Americans, Aborigines, New Guineans, etc. were quite separated from Eurasian populations and their technologies until global navigation became commonplace.

All true, but none of it explains the hundreds of thousands of years of barely any technological growth, which we can compare with the increase in technology that has been observed in more recent of times. By more recent times, I speak of the past 10,000 or so years as a whole, in comparison with the equally capable people of the past.

There would need to be some motivation for innovation. Hunters and gatherers with plenty of game have no need of invention. It is also a great assumption that, without language, anthing other than basic tool making is possible. How long would you say it should take to learn to speak, create words, and have that language esablish itself in a population large enough to sustain any kind of specialized technology?




difficulties with our dating anyway all do point to a far shorter existance for humanity. Likewise, we cannot possibly have survived as a minor or endangered species on this planet for the millions of years of our existence here. Small species like that, limited by resources, get wiped out. And if we weren't small and our growth rate was increasing exponentially, as it always has (on the observed scale), then we would have had to have originated far more recently than is supposed.

This theory is supported by the discrepancies I've observed on Page 2 in the radiocarbon amounts, and it explains away completely the lack of technology and necessary population for those vast tracts of time. I have as yet seen nothing that is convincing which fills up those periods of time, or supported by the visible, increasing population scale.

These visible evidences do support the Biblical point of view and are in the general ballpark of the Biblical dates. At the same time, they support the Biblical longer ages.

The same explanations have been reiterated a few times, and occasionally new ones come up with *EDIT* during this time period.

The logic that technology must always progress at the the same rate is faulty. There is no mandatory rate as shown by variations among different populations. Averages wipe out significant data. An exponential line appears nearly flat as it approaches it asymtope near its origin. The population line looks quite flat at its origin as well.

The subjective view of what technologies are significant requires bias. The cultures that first developed tools, agriculture, and language made far greater leaps than say the invention of the electric can opener.

While it is easy to say that primative cultures did little inventing, it is impossible to prove. Many materials used by primative peoples known to us do not preserve.

Finally, if this question does not occur in a vacuum. There is a good deal of data that supports the existence of early man in a primative, yet quite adapted state, that for some cultures, continued tright into the modern era. If it works it does need new inovations. The important question is not "Why didn't they do it sooner?" but rather "Why did they do it at all?"

[samwise of the shire]

So Jersey, what if the sunset were there to please the eye? Just there to cause us to wonder if there really WAS a God? It's just a theory.
And you're absolutely right. I have not been supporting my evidence with books, but even when someone DOES present you with perfectly good information YOU DON'T LISTEN. So my evidence would not make a difference to you. You'd find another way to refute it.
Dinosaurs evolved into birds? What is your evidence for that? In all my lifetime I have NEVER seen a descendant of a reptile with feathers on it's body. And don't tell me it would take a long time. I KNOW that...which is exactly what is so confusing. I mean a reptile long ago might have had a baby with a defect of somesort...and as time went on the descendants of that reptile became more and more...evolved, and better so to speak through survival of the fittest, because a reptile with wings could escape better than a reptile without them...so why is it that I don't see a transitional descendant of that reptile today?
The flood DID leave marks. It's called sedimentary rock, and it is found over all the earth. And sediment, unless I am mistaken is formed when layers of different things like mud, sand, rocks, pebbles etc build up on top of each other. And it can happen over time, but it can also happen QUICKLY...and rivers, or any water for that matter carry stuff like that...it's called the rivers load.
What I don't understand is WHAT is so hard to believe about a world wide flood as a world wide drought caused by a meteor or something? Please tell me that without using that tone of "What a pill" I know I am a pill.
I wasn't saying the evolutionists should shut up, just to be a BIT more respectful, and open minded to what WE have to say for a change. You seem to want US to do that, but you don't want to listen to what WE have to say, and to LOOK into it in DEPTH. You might actually find something you like in the Bible, and I might find something interesting in Darwins Origin of Species.
Cheers,
Sam.

[jerseydevil]

Sorry Sam - byut you really have NO idea what you are talking about.

Originally posted by samwise of the shire
So Jersey, what if the sunset were there to please the eye? Just there to cause us to wonder if there really WAS a God? It's just a theory.

No - there is no reason for a sunset anymore than the beauty of IO or Jupiter or Saturn has anything to do with god or "evolution". Even without man on earth - the sun would still rise and set and cause beautiful sunsets. Man would just not be here to call them beautiful.

And you're absolutely right. I have not been supporting my evidence with books, but even when someone DOES present you with perfectly good information YOU DON'T LISTEN. So my evidence would not make a difference to you. You'd find another way to refute it.

Your statements have no basis in fact whatsoever though. If you're going to make statements concerning evolution - at least make sure they make sure you know what you are talking about first.

Dinosaurs evolved into birds? What is your evidence for that? In all my lifetime I have NEVER seen a descendant of a reptile with feathers on it's body. And don't tell me it would take a long time. I KNOW that...which is exactly what is so confusing. I mean a reptile long ago might have had a baby with a defect of somesort...and as time went on the descendants of that reptile became more and more...evolved, and better so to speak through survival of the fittest, because a reptile with wings could escape better than a reptile without them...so why is it that I don't see a transitional descendant of that reptile today?

Why would you see evolved animals? You don't see dinosaurs today - but they existed. The mammouth, the Siaber tooth Tiger. The reason why you don't see the "tranistional" is because the "transitions" die out and evolve. What happened to the dinosaurs it is believed is that they grew into what you see flying around you (at least some of the dinosaurs).

The flood DID leave marks. It's called sedimentary rock, and it is found over all the earth. And sediment, unless I am mistaken is formed when layers of different things like mud, sand, rocks, pebbles etc build up on top of each other. And it can happen over time, but it can also happen QUICKLY...and rivers, or any water for that matter carry stuff like that...it's called the rivers load.

And ocean of water leaves much more than what is indicated. Yes - the great plan states show evidence that they were underwater - as does southern NJ. But it's not all over like you claim. There isn't enough evidence of mass ocean erosion to indicate that entire world was underwater.

What I don't understand is WHAT is so hard to believe about a world wide flood as a world wide drought caused by a meteor or something? Please tell me that without using that tone of "What a pill" I know I am a pill.

It would be a lot easier to talk to you if your statements made sense. Where has it ever been said that a huge meteor caused a worldwide "draught"? The meteor threw up tons and tons of debris into the atmosphere - this caused the sun to be blocked out, which caused the earth to cool and the plants to die, as the plants died - the large herbivore dinosaurs didn't have enough to eat, as they died - so did the carnivores which relied on them for food. Other animals, mammals, insects and so forth - were able to scavage of their bodies and continue to survive. No where is it believed there was a worldwide draught. Believe start doing some research.

I wasn't saying the evolutionists should shut up, just to be a BIT more respectful, and open minded to what WE have to say for a change. You seem to want US to do that, but you don't want to listen to what WE have to say, and to LOOK into it in DEPTH. You might actually find something you like in the Bible, and I might find something interesting in Darwins Origin of Species.

I went to catholic school all my life - I have read the bible many times on my own. I, myself, have come to the conclusion that based on the evidence - evolution explains a lot more than creationism. Creationism is basically a simple childrens story - like most of the bible. Good rules to live by - at least the New Testament and the 10 commandments (which I only believe in the last 6)- but the rest is nothing more than stories. I however do not believe in a mythical supreme being anymore than I believe in Zeus on Mt Olympus.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
Can you please define barely any? There were tons of technological advances - but basic things. Man had to even learn how to make fire - something which we take for granted today. Do you know that NOTHING would be possible without knowing how to make fire? It may seem like a nothing invention today compared to computers - but do you know how to hit two stones together and make it? And do you think you could have figured it out on your own?

Very possibly not. That and stone tools are the only two things that were brought up in "The World Book," as inventions made during the 2 million years since early human beings showed up. I have yet to hear what the remaining thousands were. I also know that they knew how to paint . . . and in Europe didn't learn any new painting for 25,000 years.

Originally posted by jerseydevil
Although these books are of course fictionalised - I would highly recommend reading Jean Auel's - The Earth's Children Series which Clan of the Cave Bear is the first. If you've only seen the movie - then you don't know anything about the book. It shows a good representation of what we know about past man and what life what like back then.

This is also interesting - this is modern man trying to figure out how they cooked...


If you read that article - don't forget that that was one of those "nothing" inventions that man had to do to get to where we are today. They had to do this while having a full time job (hunting and gathering) just to survive. There wasn't any leisure time - except for in the winter.

Thanks . Now we've established that Neanderthals could think. I can now broaden the time span I'm wondering about from hundreds of thousands of years to 2 million.

Judging by the exponentially increasing scale, even if, as Cirdan says, it becomes nigh flat as we approach its source, this is an incredibly vast amount of time. And as yet we still have no evidence of any jumps or drops in this number. The exponential rate just doesn't go that flat, for that long. Besides, we have information that these early humans were in multiple places of the world and weren't a terribly minor species. Again, that seriously disputes exponential growth.

Originally posted by Cirdan
There would need to be some motivation for innovation. Hunters and gatherers with plenty of game have no need of invention. It is also a great assumption that, without language, anthing other than basic tool making is possible. How long would you say it should take to learn to speak, create words, and have that language esablish itself in a population large enough to sustain any kind of specialized technology?

You know what? I personally don't think it would take very long for language to begin. Difficulty in communicating (if I pretend I didn't believe Adam invented it) between early humans would have been a very great "motivation for innovation," as you put it . And humans are clever enough to immediately begin this. One of my brothers and sisters have invented their own sign language, albeit one with not too many words, so that they can communicate without my Mom or youngest brother knowing what they're saying.

Indians and white men didn't have to know one another's languages to make trades of weapons for furs, and things like that. In some instances they had interpreters, but in others they didn't. These trades were beneficial for both parties, and which also imparted technology. Sign language also is pretty universal, and can be of great assistance in trade or learning.

Captivity in warfare is another thing that causes languages to expand. As one group grows (and human groups do grow very fast), it gains contact with other groups. Mankind can tend to be a very warlike race, and various groups can beat other groups into submission. Slavery has been very common since incredibly early times in our history. It doesn't seem at all implausible that this existed 2 million years ago as well.

With slavery, people are forced into other groups, and frequently learn the language.

[Rían]

(Hi people! Wow, 7 pages since I started the thread ... I have some catching up to do. We had a great 4th of July block party, and my daughter had her bday party, too. I'll join in when I catch up on the thread, prob. Monday afternoon.)

[jerseydevil]

Here is a site Alaska Science Forum: Dinosaurs

Alaska Science Forum: Departure of the Dinosaurs Article #997

Like many children, I was fascinated by dinosaurs from the moment I toddled into my first natural history museum. The hardest thing to accept was that--except for the tyrannosaurs in my nightmares--none of them were left. How could an entire family of creatures that had ruled the earth for millions of years vanish so completely?

The theory popular back then blamed the upstart mammals for eating dinosaur eggs. I didn't buy that, I couldn't see mouse-size beasties gnawing through tough cannonball-size eggs. I blamed volcanoes--chiefly because of a vivid painting showing a family of duckbilled dinosaurs (like those that left fossilized remains in northern Alaska) watching from a verdant bog as great rivers of lava and ash flowed toward them from a line of erupting cones.

The prevalent view now is that dinosaurs were the victims of a celestial collision, and the evidence seems convincing. About 66 million years ago, something stunning happened on Earth. Before then, coniferous plants and giant reptiles dominated the land. Afterward, the dominant forms were mammals and flowering plants. The Cretaceous Period had given way to the Tertiary at what is called the K-T boundary.

The boundary is marked in the geologic record by a thin layer enriched in the platinum-group element iridium. Iridium attaches itself to iron, so nearly all Earth's store of it sank along with the iron to the core early in the planet's history. Normal iridium concentrations in the crust are tens of parts per trillion; at the K-T boundary, they've been found at 3,000 parts per trillion.

The father and son Alvarez team who first identified the iridium anomaly noted that the element is abundant in certain kinds of meteorites. They suggested that the iridium of the K-T boundary layer settled out of the dust cloud left by the impact of a meteorite 10 kilometers in diameter. This dust cloud, they proposed, would have blocked sunlight for years, chilling the dinosaurs (and 75 percent of everything else alive at the end of the Cretaceous) into extinction.

The Alvarezes' wild-sounding hypothesis sent scores of scientists back to the laboratory and into the field as they sought to support or refute the idea. Field workers found the high iridium layer on different continents, at 95 different sites so far. They also found evidence of a terrific shock, such as might be delivered by a monster meteorite slamming into Earth, in particles of transformed quartz.

At the K-T boundary, there are some quartz grains filled with parallel planes along which rows of atoms in the crystal lattice are rearranged. (Properly lit and observed through polarizing filters, a section of shocked quartz under a microscope looks as if it's been sliced repeatedly with a razor blade.) Previously, quartz like that had been found only near A-bomb test or meteorite impact sites. An even more rare form of pressure-transformed quartz called stishovite now is known also from one K-T boundary site in New Mexico.

The theoreticians calculating the impact effects of such a meteorite came up with enough horrible results to do in the dinosaurs ten times over. First, the shock would heat the atmosphere. Most of the debris plume would leave the atmosphere, ripping away part of the atmosphere with it. As ejected particles reentered the atmosphere, they would heat it even more; one scientist compared it to several hours of "a domestic oven set at Broil." What didn't cook immediately might be incinerated by ensuing wildfires; carbon, presumed to be soot, has been found at several K-T sites. The tremendous heat could have caused atmospheric nitrogen and oxygen to combine with water vapor, forming nitric acid: tremendous acid rains would have poured down. Eventually, perhaps, the remaining suspended particles and smoke would have intercepted enough sunlight so that a deep years-long chill would follow the great heat.

And perhaps volcanoes did play a role. The K-T boundary marks a great volcanic outpouring--the biggest pulse in the Deccan Traps, a long-lasting series of flood eruptions that built up a million cubic kilometers of basalt in what is now western India.

All in all, it's more surprising that anything survived than that the dinosaurs died. Our primitive mammalian ancestors of the time must have been terrifically tough--and awfully lucky.

As you can see in the second paragraph - science WILL throw out theories which no longer make sense if the evidence doesn't support it.

This is also something people might be interested in. It is a creationist site - people can look at it and say why it does or doesn't make sense.

Jesus, Dinosaurs and more

[jerseydevil]

Here is something else on the asteroid....

The Death of the Dinosaurs: UNO Department of Geology's Contribution

All geologists are now familiar with the widely accepted hypothesis about the cause of the extinction of the dinosaurs at the end of the Cretaceous Period by an impact of an asteroid or comet (bolide) in the Yucatan Peninsula, Mexico. What many NOGS members may not be familiar with is the role UNO played in providing evidence to support the hypothesis.

[Rían]

Originally posted by HOBBIT
I am not getting into this much but I can't sit by and let Samwise's post go by.

...

Originally posted by Samwise
Evolution is NOT real science....

Originally posted by HOBBIT
Excuse me while I go laugh my arse off at the most funny and most ignorant thing said so far in this topic.

I just finished page 1, and got to page 2, and got to the above statement by Hobbit.

I don't mean to be rude, Hobbit, but YOUR statement is one of the most ignorant things said so far on this topic. Samwise is absolutely correct. Evolution is a THEORY, not a science! Sciences are things like biology, physics, chemistry, geology, etc. - and evolutionists try to use scientific info gathered by biologists, physicists, chemists, geologists, etc., to support their THEORY. I think evolutionists often misuse the data (i.e., make invalid "logical assumptions" or extrapolations"), but that's another topic....

But evolution is NOT a science in itself.

I think the problem lies with the dual use of the word "science" and "engineer", like "domestic engineer" (what I do now , as opposed to my 10 years in the field of radar, where I was a more traditional engineer). Now evolutionists and creationists USE scientific methods and scientific data, but BOTH of their theories necessarily contain logical inferences, because we're talking about things in the past, that are NOT observable anymore!

Would those out there with uni-level studies or degrees in a scientific field agree? (BTW, Cirdan, I've been meaning to ask you - I have it in my head that you have a degree in microbiology. Is that correct?)

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Lief Erikson
Very possibly not. That and stone tools are the only two things that were brought up in "The World Book," as inventions made during the 2 million years since early human beings showed up. I have yet to hear what the remaining thousands were. I also know that they knew how to paint . . . and in Europe didn't learn any new painting for 25,000 years.

I don't have time to really reply to all your stuff Lief - Cirdan and others can handle it. But I have a question here. What does the fact that "The World Book" mentions just stone tools and fire have to do with the many other inventions that had to come about? You want a long list of inventions? It would impossible to list everything - as I have said - look at just the wheel, or baskets, or as you have mentioned paint. ALL these things were at one point in time inventions. You don't look at them as such - because you take them for granted. Everything we have done and do - had a start and was at one point in time an invention.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally posted by Cirdan


I think your not taking infant mortality into account. Also, I think they were saying 50,000 years in it's current form, Homo Sapiens sapiens. I thought you would like the population chart that starts with two people.

Thanks for being so considerate . Actually, though, when I'm talking trying to show fallicies in science, I tend to prefer not to rely upon the Bible.

Originally posted by Cirdan
You need to think in terms of populations, not nations. National boundaries do not preclude the exchange of ideas. Think instead of oceans, mountains, etc as inhibitors of the exchange of ideas. Native Americans, Aborigines, New Guineans, etc. were quite separated from Eurasian populations and their technologies until global navigation became commonplace.

Take a look at the Aztecs. They created awesome cities and gained the servitude of hundreds of towns. They were an incredible civilization- without European influence.

Originally posted by Cirdan
The logic that technology must always progress at the the same rate is faulty. There is no mandatory rate as shown by variations among different populations. Averages wipe out significant data. An exponential line appears nearly flat as it approaches it asymtope near its origin. The population line looks quite flat at its origin as well.

I know that with different tribes and different populations, it can move at a different rate. Regardless of population size, on occasion. But the sheer vastness of what has been uncovered, next to the infinitely smaller amount during 2 million years, shows that something might be incorrect in our reckoning. Agriculture I know had a lot to do with it. It's interesting to note that agriculture and corn planting were discovered at around the same time, though in completely different places.

I find the Aztecs an absolutely fascinating example to use, of human ingenuity. Without knowledge of grain (which was developed in the Middle East), they grew corn, avocados, beans, squashes, sweet potatoes, tomatoes, and many other crops. They produced cotton, papayas, rubber, and cacao beans. They dug irrigation systems for their crops. They learned the languages of multiple other tribes around them, the Comanche, Pima, Shoshone, and other tribes of North America. They learned to write and invented weapons and armor.

They originally were subjugated by the tribes around them, made slaves, before their civilization. A century after that, they had built their first city, and a century still further, they controlled a huge region and were making alliances with other city-states. After Montezuma 1, his successors expanded the empire until it extended between what are now Guatemala and the Mexican state of San Luis Potosi.

People have great creative abilities, despite language barriers and tribal differences, energies that can come together to form incredible things. The Aztec empire is an example of the awesome ability of men to build incredible things within short periods of time, and with small amounts of knowledge to begin with.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally posted by Cirdan
The subjective view of what technologies are significant requires bias. The cultures that first developed tools, agriculture, and language made far greater leaps than say the invention of the electric can opener.

Language I wouldn't say you're correct on. It doesn't take much time to realize that you need it, and it wouldn't take more than a day or two for early men to realize that they could communicate by signals, motions, and eventually even noises. If my brother and sister could form a small language out of necessity, it wouldn't be hard for early man to. Early man traveled in tribes, and would have required a way to communicate, anyway. I have little doubt that that would have been one of the first things they attended to.

Agriculture was discovered after 2 million years of man's existence, by current dating methods. There would have been motivation for innovation as well, here. Particularly as they knew that certain wild foods were possible to eat. Berries, fruits, and wild corn. It is possible to imagine people learning how those plants are grown, and reproducing them by planting. Sure, it would have taken study, but man is certainly capable of that. Even if he has to spend huge amounts of his day hunting, or, more recently, working on jobs. He still has time to ponder, as is evidenced by the invention of God, if you call him an invention, and his ponderings can have magnificent results, as is evidenced by the Aztec civilization. True, it might have taken a huge amount of time for planting to be discovered, but man did have time to ponder, to think, and to learn. This is plainly evidenced by the link Jerseydevil gave, about Neanderthal cooking.

Originally posted by Cirdan
While it is easy to say that primative cultures did little inventing, it is impossible to prove. Many materials used by primative peoples known to us do not preserve.

It is possible to deduce without much difficulty. Our population should have taken over the Earth while we were Neanderthals, as has been driven home to me by Jerseydevil's account. We were clever then. We did invent things then. With technology comes domination, and we should have dominated the animals to a far greater extent than we did.

Originally posted by Cirdan
Finally, if this question does not occur in a vacuum. There is a good deal of data that supports the existence of early man in a primative, yet quite adapted state, that for some cultures, continued tright into the modern era. If it works it does need new inovations. The important question is not "Why didn't they do it sooner?" but rather "Why did they do it at all?"

No it isn't. You're a human. You should know that humans are curious, that humans like to learn. Humans are not like other animals. Hunting and hunting and hunting for generations isn't the kind of existence that humans would live. Jerseydevil's account shows that Neanderthals were interested in the way things worked and invented complex items. This further demonstrates the futility of the "hunting was our occupation and we had no motivation to learn, and we weren't moving upward in technology fast enough either," argument.

[Rían]

by Cirdan
...and the other languages came from... other places and spread. If this were proof wouldn't everyone speak Hebrew?

You think everyone would speak Hebrew still? Why is it that I have to ask my Brit friends for translations of well-known Brit words? Why are there footnotes in books of Shakespeare's works with meanings of obsolete words?

And for that matter, why did the returning Noldorin elves have to learn Sindarin?

Languages change, and often very rapidly!