- This topic has 5 voices and 11 replies.
-
Posts
-
Ancient rock shelter reveals Neanderthals kept organised and tidy homesJust posting this article to show it as one of the many examples of science not being science (which is rampant in evolutionary "studies"). How do they know they were Neanderthals? Where's the science? Absolute zero proof to backup their claim. Yet it's these same people who bash Creationists for being unscientific. I would normally laugh it off or ignore it, but seeing that they somehow convinced 99+% of the scientific/archaeological/anthropological community of the biggest lie ever in human history, it's not funny.
While they don't explain how they know it's a Neanderthal cave, I think we can presume that such a conclusion has already been made through other scientific examination. They can use carbon dating on the bones, as well as TL dating on items which may have been in the hearth (e.g. pottery). Maybe they don't mention this in the article simply because the main issue written about is the domestic activities of Neanderthals, rather than the issue of whether they actually lived in the cave. Just my thoughts.
http://www.ucdenver.edu/about/newsroom/newsreleases/Pages/New-evidence-suggests-Neanderthals-organized-their-living-spaces.aspxThe findings are based on excavations at Riparo Bombrini , a collapsed rock shelter in northwest Italy where both Neanderthals and, later, early humans lived for thousands of years. This study focused on the Neanderthal levels while future research will examine the more recent modern human levels at the site. The goal is to compare how the two groups organized their space.It all depends on the source used to inform about a fact. The closer, the better.
I'm curious to know about what creationists can say about archaeological studies such like this one
Simple answer: skepticism. Personally, I'm not convinced that the dating is accurate and/or correct. It will take a lot to convince me that plate tectonics has no affect on any of the current dating methods used. That the evolutionary theory changes back and forth every 5 or 10 years, and I mean completely changes, makes me, and should make anyone else question the validity of the whole theory.There are 15 (to my knowledge) theories of abiogenisis. Which ones are all the kids using these days?And then we have genetic modeling. RNA was the way to go, now it's not. Then came DNA, but too many things didn't fit the narrative. So now they moved onto mDNA (mitochondrial), and ignore the fact that mDNA dating is highly inaccurate beyond 40,000 years, yet scientists use it as "evidence" to date things beyond 2.5 million years. And in just reading many of the peer-reviewed articles concerning evolution there are WAY too many occurrences of "it is suggested", "we believe", "it may". That's more like religion than science.
Aeth, what gets me most is how science students are just expected to take things as fact that are not fact in any scientific sense. A textbook will say something is so many million years old and that's supposed to be taken as fact without question. If the student looks into it further, he may find that this million year old thing is just a speculation, not fact.Until evolution is observable and testable, which it's not, then it should be considered a humanity like philosophy or religion, and not taught as science.
http://www.ucdenver.edu/about/newsroom/newsreleases/Pages/New-evidence-suggests-Neanderthals-organized-their-living-spaces.aspxThe findings are based on excavations at Riparo Bombrini , a collapsed rock shelter in northwest Italy where both Neanderthals and, later, early humans lived for thousands of years. This study focused on the Neanderthal levels while future research will examine the more recent modern human levels at the site. The goal is to compare how the two groups organized their space.It all depends on the source used to inform about a fact. The closer, the better.
The findings are based on excavations at Riparo Bombrini , a collapsed rock shelter in northwest Italy where both Neanderthals and, later, early humans lived for thousands of years. This study focused on the Neanderthal levels while future research will examine the more recent modern human levels at the site. The goal is to compare how the two groups organized their space.
Proof? I'm assuming they found 2 sets of bones dated approximately 60-100,000 years apart?
The site comprises three levels assigned to Neanderthals. Scientists found that Neanderthals divided the cave into different areas for different activities. The top level was used as a task site – likely a hunting stand - where they could kill and prepare game. The middle level was a long-term base camp and the bottom level was a shorter term residential base camp.
Proof that Neandertals and not the humans divided the cave?
Wasn't there an organism in Japan or something that they have observed evolving over a human timescale? I vaguely remember reading something about it a few years ago but can no onger remember the reference. I will try to find it.Here are the examples I found: The Peppered moth changed its coloration to fit the environment in England.The one I remember reading was the Nylon eating bacteria. The bacteria supposedly prove evolution because nylon is a completely synthetic material that has existed for less than 100 years, yet here they found a bacteria that eats it.I am not making an argument for or against evolution or creationism. I actually think the debate is stupid as neither will ever really be proved to be big "T" truth as far as I can guess.
Here are the examples I found: The Peppered moth changed its coloration to fit the environment in England.The one I remember reading was the Nylon eating bacteria. The bacteria supposedly prove evolution because nylon is a completely synthetic material that has existed for less than 100 years, yet here they found a bacteria that eats it.
Those are more examples of adaptation rather than evolution.As far as not being able to prove evolution or creation, just talk to any evolutionist. According to them, it's been proven. From a scientific method viewpoint, that's just laughable.
Just like Pyrrho of Elis: nothing can be known for certain. The senses are easily fooled, and reason follows too easily our desires. I agree that scepticism should be the attitude that must prevail about any aspect of beliefs, especially towards any kind of dogmatism.And Scout's words of wisdom are particularly true : "neither will ever really be proved to be big "T" truth"However I think those researches were published according to a scientific method: intended to be as objective as possible in order to reduce biased interpretations of results and available for careful scrutiny by other scientists (full disclosure) TMO it's more interesting to check the original publication and to be careful of popular science sources
OK, I'm trying to not go on any rant here but this is what gets me about evolution in today's schools: They seem to ignore the “nothing can be known for certain” rule. Every reputable peer-reviewed journal, every text book…all of them teach evolution as fact. Yes, they do admit that things are unknown, but their minds are so closed that they won't (can't?) accept any other alternative. And they dismiss relevant questions.It's the same with man-made global warming. Pretty much any scientist who questions it or goes against the current grain of thinking is either ridiculed or accused of being funded by Exxon. And that's not by laymen or comments on newspapers, that's by other scientists in the field. Do a search on Dr. Richard Lindzen. This guy has advanced degrees from RPI and Harvard and is one the top climate scientists at MIT. He's not even anti man-made GW, he's just telling everyone to tone down the alarmism about it. You should see some of the personal attacks he faces from other climate scientists just for saying this.
I am not sure that there are that many scientists who assert that evolution is a fact, but when people say that they are wrong of course. Evolution is and always will be a theory. It is a fact that all the evidence we have is consistent with it and that since it was proposed a great many new facts that would be predicted by it have come to light. So given what a successful theory it is, and indeed what a beautiful and elegant one it is, I suggest that if people skip the 'only a theory' detail they are not really misleading anyone. I can forgive that.The biggest tragedy is that the Neanderthals didn't survive long enough to hear it. If they liked things to be neat, well there are fewer things neater than the way that evolution explains the way the world works.
