Go Back   Matt-Hughes.com Official Forums > General Discussions > The Woodshed

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #121  
Old 11-12-2009, 10:50 PM
Buzzard
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CAVEMAN View Post
Did anyone look at the link I posted on page 10 of this debate!

http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/giants.htm

Just curious as to what you all think?
I looked at it and found that it was debunked years ago. It was interesting though and caused me to do a little more research into it.
Reply With Quote
  #122  
Old 11-12-2009, 10:51 PM
CAVEMAN
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Buzzard View Post
I looked at it and found that it was debunked years ago. It was interesting though and caused me to do a little more research into it.
Care to share a resource that debunked this? I would be interested to read it.
Reply With Quote
  #123  
Old 11-12-2009, 10:56 PM
mscomc
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CAVEMAN View Post
Did anyone look at the link I posted on page 10 of this debate!

http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/giants.htm

Just curious as to what you all think?
I did look at them. Fascination stuff man, good links.

I do recall vaguely seeing stuff similar to this back in 1st year undergrad science studies. I believe the explanation was that these large "humanoid" skeletons are likely some kind of an anscestor the modern day gorillas and stuff. As you may know, the muso-skeletal system of a gorilla or ape is quite homologous to a human. This is was supported by the belief of scientists (both creationists and evolutionary biologists) that humans are getting larger and taller in this day an age, and were probably alot smaller thousands of years ago.

Ie: the example of david and golliath..... was david really a normal sized man and golliath a huge giant? many beleive that daivd was a normal sized man, but back than a normal sized man was just really small by todays standards. Where as golliath may have been ahead of the curve and just been relatively large guy by todays standards (thus making him seem giant like)

anyway, just my take. Ill see if i can find some peer reviewed science articles on the large human fossils i saw back in the day, because i could have sworn i read some....ill get back to you.

Later man
Reply With Quote
  #124  
Old 11-12-2009, 11:02 PM
mscomc
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mscomc View Post
I did look at them. Fascination stuff man, good links.

I do recall vaguely seeing stuff similar to this back in 1st year undergrad science studies. I believe the explanation was that these large "humanoid" skeletons are likely some kind of an anscestor the modern day gorillas and stuff. As you may know, the muso-skeletal system of a gorilla or ape is quite homologous to a human. This is was supported by the belief of scientists (both creationists and evolutionary biologists) that humans are getting larger and taller in this day an age, and were probably alot smaller thousands of years ago.

Ie: the example of david and golliath..... was david really a normal sized man and golliath a huge giant? many beleive that daivd was a normal sized man, but back than a normal sized man was just really small by todays standards. Where as golliath may have been ahead of the curve and just been relatively large guy by todays standards (thus making him seem giant like)

anyway, just my take. Ill see if i can find some peer reviewed science articles on the large human fossils i saw back in the day, because i could have sworn i read some....ill get back to you.

Later man
Okay, from a quick search....i think these are couple of them:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1...m&ordinalpos=2 (published in US national academy of science)

Here was another one, that specifically looked at such finds that you mentioned that were in Africa....but they also admit that more study needs to be done.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12028792?ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez. Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_SingleItemSupl.P ubmed_Discovery_RA&linkpos=5&log$=relatedreviews&l ogdbfrom=pubmed


Hope that helped friend...
Reply With Quote
  #125  
Old 11-13-2009, 02:49 AM
Buzzard
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CAVEMAN View Post
Care to share a resource that debunked this? I would be interested to read it.
I just googled some of the names and places of where the evidence was found and found many different sites with the information. I don't have any of them here right yet to link you to, but that is where I started on my search.

If you haven't found any of the info by the time I next check in, I'll see what I can dig up.(pun intended)
Reply With Quote
  #126  
Old 11-13-2009, 04:32 PM
Chris F
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mscomc View Post
I gave a citation for how chickens may have come from lizards.....

I also gave some examples of benefical mutations, that may have contributed to our evolution (but maybe not on a macro scale, but defninetly micro)

What is your opinion on those? Just curious is all
I certain believe in micro changes. Many thing must adapt in order to survive and/or become viable. I apologize but I did not see your link about the lizzard -chicken thing. Can you re post that link please.
Reply With Quote
  #127  
Old 11-13-2009, 04:37 PM
Chris F
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Buzzard View Post
Can you provide any scientific citations to disprove the theory of evolution and/or to prove your belief of the earth being only 6000 years old? Can you provide scientific citations to back any of your beliefs?

You call the theory of evolution science fiction yet you believe in things that can't be proven, haven't been proven and are far more out there as far as beliefs go. You seem to always fall back on "faith" as being the answer. That isn't the answer for any of it yet you cling to it so very tightly. How many drinks of water did it take for you to swallow your propaganda pill?

If points were being scored on who brought what to the table, you would clearly be losing. Yeah, just my take though I am looking at what was presented and trying to be unbiased in my opinion. Even when I was a believer I couldn't believe some of the things that were put out in front of me no matter how hard I tried.

It's too bad shon8121 isn't able to defend his position here. I have been enjoying reading the threads and responses given by both sides.
Well Buzzard then you certainly are just being bias. I admitted mine was faith and was not trying to win any argument. He started the thread and the burden of proof is on him not on me. That is argumentation 101. In court the prosecution has the burden all a defense attorney need to do is cast doubt. SO no Buzzard I would not loose because he has not made his case and there is plenty of doubt. When he provides real scientific evidence i will address it, but since that does not exist I will just sit and observe.
Reply With Quote
  #128  
Old 11-13-2009, 06:58 PM
mscomc
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris F View Post
I certain believe in micro changes. Many thing must adapt in order to survive and/or become viable. I apologize but I did not see your link about the lizzard -chicken thing. Can you re post that link please.
Sure....

The question (from crisco) aroused of what came first, the chicken or the egg? I used this time to give an example of macro evolution, and some of the evidence behind it....i showed why biologists gave beleive the chicken game first..

i wrote the following, followed by a research paper publication...

"Hmmmm not that I am a proponent of Macro evolution as Nate and I had this conversation some time back. But if I recall correctly (evolutionary was a long time ago for me), science seems to point out that the chicken came first...how you ask?

Well, from an evolutionary perspective, many of the genes in a chicken are very homologous to that of a reptile; particularily with: crocodiles, snakes etc etc. Also, scientists have been able to locate these very genes in the chicken and discovered that they were repressed (over what they believe to be millions of years ago). Thus, they were able to turn these genes on, an noticed the chickens were able to grow reptilian like teeth, which is HUGE since they dont have teeth to begin with. Also, their muscle structure also changed (heres one paper that was published)"....

So in short, at some point a lizard creature gave birth to a chicken type creature.

The Development of Archosaurian First-Generation Teeth in a Chicken Mutant
Current Biology, Volume 16, Issue 4, Pages 371-377
M. Harris, S. Hasso, M. Ferguson, J. Fallon



There are dozens and dozens maybe even hundreds of papers doing similiar experiments on different animals.
Mr. Ferguson works in Wisconsin I beleive.
Reply With Quote
  #129  
Old 11-13-2009, 07:13 PM
rockdawg21's Avatar
rockdawg21 rockdawg21 is offline
I'm kind of a big deal
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 5,584
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by VCURamFan View Post
I think anyone here would openly accept micro-evolution, which is the evolution within a single species (why we're taller than our great-grandparents, why there are multiple types of dogs, etc.). I do not, however, believe that there is evidence for macro-evolution (amoeba - fish - lizard - mammal - man).
Exactly what I agree as well. To tell me I evolved from a fish, whatever...

Mr. Garrison said it perfectly about how stupid that concept is:

http://www.southparkstudios.com/clip...term=evolution

"You're the retarted offspring of 5 monkeys having butt sex with a fish frog, congratulations."
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #130  
Old 11-13-2009, 07:21 PM
Buzzard
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris F View Post
Well Buzzard then you certainly are just being bias. I admitted mine was faith and was not trying to win any argument. He started the thread and the burden of proof is on him not on me. That is argumentation 101. In court the prosecution has the burden all a defense attorney need to do is cast doubt. SO no Buzzard I would not loose because he has not made his case and there is plenty of doubt. When he provides real scientific evidence i will address it, but since that does not exist I will just sit and observe.
Seems he can't provide anything now because so many complained about him and wanted him banned, so he has been temporarily banned.

When you provide some scientific evidence that the world is only 6,000 years old +/- a few hundred years, we can talk about that then. Much of what you rely on faith as evidence can be dis-proven through science. No need for anyone to provide the evidence as it is out there for anyone to access, and if provided you would probably ignore it anyway because you have already stated that any science that contradicts what the Bible says is wrong, or words to that effect.

In case you didn't notice, we are talking in a forum, not in court. Big difference.

He has provided evidence of other things yet you won't or haven't bothered addressing those, so why should I think you would address other evidence, as again you said you don't believe anything that contradicts the Bible.

Psst, I think the word you wanted was lose. Just a pet peeve. So many people mix those up and I can't understand why. Another one is using mute instead of moot, as in a moot point.

Have a great day and please note that I am not speaking out of spite, anger or anything, just having a discussion like I would have with my friends. Just because we disagree on things doesn't mean I don't like you or that I hate you. We just disagree on certain things.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 02:56 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.