Do atoms confirm or refute the bible?

quote:

---

This could be metaphorically refering to man as being a coagulation of atoms.

---

I concur, by virtue of this being an appropriate term to address all generations of mankind. Man is for sure made of the earth's elements [oxygen, water, minerals such as calcium, iron, iodine, etc], and the dust is its basic particles, even those smaller than atoms and quarks. Life, from the inorganic, is also catered to in genesis, very appropriately - and there is no alternative answer in science how life evolved from matter.One has to respect an ancient document which nominates 'dust' as the basic comonents of life [as opposed head-bashing dieties battling for superiority]; and which also says the universe is finite with a 'beginning'; a formless void followed by form [entropy], and goes on to record the first chronological emergence of life forms [evolution], each species containing a seed which is able to transmit all data for repro. This is 100% science, even when it has percieved variances from some current notions of science.

quote:

---

Leviticus 34:28 writes:
And he was there with the LORD forty days and forty nights; he did neither eat bread, nor drink water. And he wrote upon the tables the words of the covenant, the ten commandments.

---

40 days and nights without food, is not controverisal or unscientific: in this particular context. The text is not saying John Doe did so, but that this occured in its given and qualified extraordinary context only.

Its not unscientific in its context, but only if it is seperated from God speaking to a human. One cannot say, the Creator premise is unscientific - there is no scientific alternative or disproof.

quote:

---

People are using the bible instead of Science for their opinion on how Earth and the rest of the universe formed.

---

Whoa! - not so fast if your talking science. Which part of the creation account in Genesis is unscientific?1. That the universe was 'created' and is 'finite' - as opposed to which other scientific alternative theory?2. That formless became formed [entropy] - how else?3. That light was a primodial factor - what else would you nominate?4. That the elements were critically seperated [eg. water from land; light from darkness; etc]- how else could life emerge?5. That the first emergence of life forms were dual-gendered ['Man and woman created he them'] - this is a legitimate premise, with no alternative to a female emerging from a dual-gendered life?6. That there was a graduating chronological order of life forms - sea born; air born, transit mamals, land based, humans [Evolution]?7. That repro is via the seed factor - is this not manifest?8. That a seed shall follow its own kind - is this not manifest?9. That humans were the final life form?10. That speech endowed humans are less than 6000 years old, vindicated by the world's most accurate and oldest calender - with no counter conclusive proof anywhere?I would say, science was introduced in genesis, with the first cosmological account of the universe's formation and that it is finite, given in an orderly, step by step description [scientific]. Medicine, a foremost faculty of science, was also introduced here, with the first seperation of it from the occult: consider the first recording, ID, treatment, quarantine of leprosy, which is a form of incurable malignancy, that it is both contagious and infecticious, that the victim requires seperation from the community, all possessions destroyed by fire - eg. wood, but not iron. Previous and outside of the OT, a leper was regarded cursed by an evil spell - while the OT was first to dislodge this notion.The premise of ex nihilo also stands, because we have no alternative scientific explanation for the universe emergence. It had to be created, via something from nothing, because at one time there were no tools and elements to produce matter or energy.Creationism and Monotheism are 100% scientific premises - with no alternatives.Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

quote:

---

anything that is supernatural is unscientific.

---

There is no such thing as nature - this is only an expression we use as a placebo for the unexplained. Please show me a thing called nature in a science vase, how many types and colors they come in, how is it produced: then let's define what is natural and un-natural. I say, the term 'nature' is not scientific - actually, and thus not a suitable responsa.

And you cannot prove there is something called nature.

Absolutely, with all rebuttals considered. Nor is this because there was no writings.This does not apply to any prototypes of the human species, but actual speech endowed humans only being applicable. C14 datings, cave scratchings, alledged imprints of mass burials & agriculture, colored beads, etc do not apply or impact: they display no alligning population and mental prowess graduations. Eg. Re. claims the Australian Aboriginals are 60,000 years old - why is their population not in the trillions?Its very simple to disprove me:Just give a 'NAME' of anyone older than 6000?A name is an irrefutable proof of speech, and needs no writing: it can be recalled, as with traditional songs, recipies and myths. But no name = no speech Endowed humans; and no history per se pre-6000.Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

And there are a host of scientists who disagree. Nor is this acceptable proof. If speech was prevalent 300K years ago - its evidencing would hardly be confusing or doubtful: there would be millions of transit evidences in all parts of the planet - as opposed to a co-incidental factor of one bone, alledged or supposed to be the cause of speech via de-construction under a microscope.For such a vital issue, such evidence is ridiculous.

Applicable factors which refute your claim by leading scientists. ToE does not apply, and in fact, speech is the most negeting factor of the ToE premises of adaptation and survival of the species:

quote:

---

It is highly significant that Chomsky, the leading world expert in the science of linguistics, cannot see how the human language acquisition system could possibly have evolved by natural selection.

---

quote:

---

http://www.eridu.co.uk/Author/human_origins/article3.html
Language Barriers

​

Many scientists believe that language is the key to mankind's great leap forward, since it uniquely enables us to communicate and transfer ideas and experiences from one generation to the next. Until recently, this leap forward was associated with the behavioural changes which swept Europe around 40,000 years ago. Then, in 1983, there came the shocking discovery of the 60,000-year-old Neandertal hyoid bone which proved that Neandertal could talk.

​

The origin of human language capability remains a controversial subject and raises more questions than answers.

​

The pioneering work of Noam Chomsky has shown that newborn babies inherit genetically an innate and highly advanced language structure. According to Chomsky's widely-acclaimed theory of universal grammar, the child is able to subconsciously flick a few simple switches in order to comprehend and speak the language of its parents, wherever in the world it happens to be born. It is highly significant that Chomsky, the leading world expert in the science of linguistics, cannot see how the human language acquisition system could possibly have evolved by natural selection.

​

One of the foremost evolutionists, Stephen Jay Gould, acknowledges the difficulties with the evolution of language by effectively admitting that it was a freak or chance development:

​

The universals of language are so different from anything else in nature, and so quirky in their structure, that origin as a side consequence of the brain's enhanced capacity, rather than as a simple advance in continuity from ancestral grunts and gestures, seems indicated. (emphasis added)

​

Why did man acquire such a sophisticated language capability? According to Darwinian theory, a few simple grunts would have sufficed for everyday existence, and yet here we are today with more than 26 alphabet sounds and an average vocabulary of 25,000 words.

​

Moreover, speech capability was not such an easy or obvious target for natural selection. The human ability to talk resides in both the shape and structure of the mouth and throat, as well as in the brain. In adult humans the larynx (voicebox) is situated much lower than in other mammals and the epiglottis (the flap of cartilage at the root of the tongue) is incapable of reaching the top of the roof of the mouth. Thus we cannot breathe and swallow at the same time and are uniquely at risk from choking. This unique combination of features can have only one purpose - to make human speech possible. In all other respects it is an evolutionary disadvantage. Apart from the risk of choking, it causes our teeth to become crowded, so that, prior to the advent of antibiotics, septic impacted molars would often have proved fatal. Just as it is difficult to reverse-engineer the development of the brain and its language acquisition capability, so it is also difficult to reverse engineer the development of speech capability.

---

quote:

---

As a result of the conclusive dating of contemporary Neandertal and Homo sapiens remains, a new theory has emerged suggesting that both must have stemmed from an earlier 'archaic' Homo sapiens. Several fossils have been found, supposedly of this archaic species, which combine different aspects of primitive erectus and modern human anatomy. It is commonly cited in the popular press that these archaics emerged around 300,000 years ago. But it turns out that this is pure supposition based on a small sample size, preconceptions and guesswork.

---

C14 does not impact:

quote:

---

... our control of fine chronology is inadequate for periods prior to the finite limits of radiocarbon dating (c. 35,000 years BP) and from there back through most of the Middle Pleistocene.

​

A further seminar in 1992 also focused on the question of the transition from archaic to modern. One of the papers presented included the following comment:

​

The timescale of this transition lies beyond the dating range of C14 and therefore has necessitated the employment of a battery of new dating techniques.

---

Homo sapiens do not impact:

quote:

---

The contemporary history of Homo sapiens (sapiens) remains bafflingly obscure... so little do we know about the approach to one of the great turning points of our global history.

​

Meanwhile, Roger Lewin, writing in 1984, stated:

​

The origin of fully modern humans denoted by the subspecies name Homo sapiens (sapiens) remains one of the great puzzles of palaeoanthropology.

---

IMHO, the lack of a 'NAME', and the lack of periodical, graduating imprints, puts PAID to these spins, positied as factual and good science. We know for example, the words PYRAMID, WHEEL, CAR, could not have been possible pre-6000, because these items did not exist. This says, there is no reason not to recall a name pre-6000. We are left only with fossil imprints, which can only cater to grunts and coos; while we know language did not evolve that way, but appeared suddenly and in an already advanced state. The above links acknowledge this.Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

quote:

---

Your links do nothing to show that language developed just 6,000 years ago.

---

They have nothing to do with genesis - that is an independent science research conclusion. What it does is dismisses the antithetical premises about speech origins, and by default negate the notion of speech prevailings 100s of 1000s of years. You also have Chompanski, the world's leading scientist, dismissing that speech could be the result of ToE. Your now in selective denial.Notwithstanding that all of the above related to a most ubsurd premise that a soft bone accounts for ape-man talking. I say even proving their desperate spin [acknowledged as such in the link] has no connection with the subject, and all pointers point to my premise. The stand out factor is not that we dont have proof of speech for 100s of 1000s of years - but that all imprints of this factor become deathly silent and vacant - exactly at the 6000 point. I don't ask you for a 'NAME' going back 100K or 50K or even 10K years: 6001 will do, and just ONE single example of such: what's the problem - a freak co-incidence?

quote:

---

But they do show that you have absolutely no grasp of science, nor of history.

​

And they have shown me that discussing these matters with you is a total waste of time.

---

You never mentioned which part of history my grasp is deficient with? - and my science has prevailed with regard to speech - by the most clever atheist [anti-genesis] scientists in the world. I would say you are hard to please, and maintaining a talabanic disposision here.When proof and reasoning do not suit - they deem it a waste of time - instead of admitting they were wrong or that they should do some more research of both sides of the coin.

Science works on probabilities. And this has no meaning if not correctly applied to the advent of speech: it is a resounding improbability [I say an impossibility], that we do not have speech proof not just beyond 6000, but at every 200 year period, in transitory grads of evolution, the past 300K years - in ALL sectors of the planet. Lets not get confused.

I surely do not support it - because I see no imprints of life outside this planet. There are no ETs - which has nothing to do with genesis, but is my observation from the maths conclusions. I quoted leading scientists only, and referred it to speech origins. Your post is deflecting and inconnected with me.

You should be in panic trying to come with a name 6001 yrs old. Just a ONER. There is ubsurd denial here of a terrible truth in our midst - but the losers prefer a cherish lie. Its not science when there is a blind rejection - nor does the term 'bible' apply to all scriptures. Differentiating is a fulcrum requirement in science.

I dont think so. That nothing can be proven an absolute is generic, and cannot apply to the issue of evidence of speech on this planet. i gave sound reasoning, evidence and the negation of your premise by leading scientists. It appears many cannot give the point to Genesis here, no matter how much clear evidences prevail, and you cannot take it away from false and wrong scientific premises anymore. This is like sectors of bad science becoming akin to a belief system - it becomes a blasphemy to go against it and a heresy to side with genesis.

quote:

---

7,300 years ago in the Saharan, some Nabta desert folks built a tomb for a cow. If you can tell me how one of these guys got the others to bust their butts ceremonially burying a cow without the use of language I'll hear you out. Otherwise, you're talking out of your backside.
Page non trouve - Comp archaeology

---

Firstly, your on the right track answering the vital factors. Now let's look closer at your link?

quote:

---

Introduction

​

Located 100 km west of Abu Simbel, in southernmost Egypt, Nabta Playa is a large, internally drained basin,

---

Wow - what's a 'BASIN' - we know the nile never runs dry from the OT, so this not a big deal?

quote:

---

today it contains dozens, and perhaps hundreds, of archaeological sites.

---

Interesting - lets see what they mean by archaeological sites, and how it relates to speech.

quote:

---

People came from many regions to Nabta Playa to record astronomical events, erect alignments of megaliths, and build impressive stone structures.

---

Not a name recalled - are we still talking 'speech'?

quote:

---

From around 65,000 years ago until about 12,000 years ago the Western Desert was hyper-arid, at least as dry as today and perhaps drier. This began to change after 12,000 years ago when the summer rains of tropical Africa began to move northward, bringing sufficient moisture for a wide variety of sahelian grasses, trees and bushes to grow, and for a few small animals to exist, mostly hares and small gazelle, but also including a few small carnivores.

---

We know from the link I gave previously, C14 does not apply to periods over 35,000 years. However, the link is hardly addressing speech evidence when it mentions arid deserts a few small carnivores. Correct so far?

quote:

---

The earliest (11,000 - 9300 years ago, calibrated) settlements at Nabta were composed of small seasonal camps of cattle-herding and ceramic-using people. These early cattle are regarded as domestic (Wendorf and Schild 1994), and it may have been in the Western Desert that the African pattern of cattle herding developed, wherein cattle serve as a "walking larder" and provide milk and blood, rather than meat (except for ceremonial occasions) and are the economic basis for power and prestige.

---

The above passage relies on this: 'These early cattle are regarded as domestic (Wendorf and Schild 1994)'. I disagree. Early cattle does not point to domestic agriculture by itself.

quote:

---

Pottery is very rare in these sites, but distinctive. It is decorated over the entire exterior with complex patterns of impressions applied with a comb in a rocking motion. The source of this pottery has not been identified,

---

If it is not identified, it does not apply. Nor has it anything to do with speech.

quote:

---

By 9000 years ago (8000 bp, uncalibrated),

---

Everything I said IS calibrated. Its supposed to be a science thread!

quote:

---

the settlements were much larger, and their inhabitants were able to live in the desert year-round, digging large, deep wells and living in organized villages consisting of small huts arranged in straight lines. The many plant remains in these sites tell us they were collecting large numbers of edible wild plants, including sorghum, millets, legumes, tubers, and fruits. Around 8800 years ago (7800 bp, uncalibrated), they began to make pottery locally,

---

So the only example, when there should be 1000s - is 'uncalibrated'. And this is also a hoaxy line: 'The many plant remains in these sites tell us they were collecting large numbers of edible wild plants, including sorghum, millets, legumes, tubers, and fruits'. Finding fruits and grains does not accord with what is concluded. And the 'huts, deep wells and living in organized villages consisting of small huts arranged in straight lines' is for sure a hoax: we know for a fact ancient egypt is newer than ancient Babylon - both being less than 5,500 years old.

quote:

---

A few hundred years later, around 8100 years ago (7100 bp, uncalibrated),

---

Were still in 'uncalibrated' territory, even 8000 years ago.

quote:

---

sheep and goats occur for the first time at Nabta, almost certainly introduced from Southwest Asia, where domestic caprovids had been known for over 2000 years. There must have been many changes in the settlement system to accommodate these new animals; the settlements are very large and contain numerous hearths, but there is no evidence of huts or houses.

---

Sheep and goats - but no huts anymore.

quote:

---

A major change occurred in the character of the Neolithic society at Nabta occurred around 7500 years ago, following a major drought which drove the previous groups from the desert. The groups who returned to the desert now clearly had a complex social system that expressed a degree of organization and control not previously seen in Egypt. They sacrificed young cows and buried them in clay-lined and roofed chambers covered by rough stone tumuli, they erected alignments of large, unshaped stones, they built Egypt's earliest astronomical measuring device (a "calendar circle" which appears to have been used to mark the summer solstice), and they constructed more than 30 complex structures having both surface and subterranean features. A shaped stone from one of these complexes may be the oldest known sculpture in Egypt.

---

The last line 'may be' applies to the whole passage. Its all gibberish, hyped up spin to make things allign with what the author wants. If people were sacrificing - they would by then have NAMES of deities - because one cannot worship without words, names and languages. Apes do not do such, nor can any other life form, nor can humans.

quote:

---

These structures are important because they indicate the way the people were able to organize work, celebrate their culture, and perhaps express their religious beliefs, and furthermore, they tell us that the Saharan people may have been more highly organized than their contemporaries in the Nile Valley.

---

This last passage makes quantum leaps, based on 'structures' - which are these uncaliberated items:'clay-lined and roofed chambers covered by rough stone tumuli'.The entire earth is clay lined. There are no man-made structures in egypt older than 6000. There are also no relics, writings, tables, beds, alters, drawings on stones, and guess what: there are no NAMES.I find it amazing you can accept such gibberish, for such an important issue, with no requirement for a single, non-debatable, non-confusing piece of evidence. I find it laughable you have not come to realise how close these dates are to Genesis, in time and area, namely 1200 years - and see no stark reality there is much say genesis is no myth, but that it stands today in the face of the most state of art science - that genesis is not myth but authentic and contemporary history: no such words as 'maybe'. The best your links do is surmise of a period much too close to genesis - with hoaxy examples. Back to the drawing board for you - come back with a NAME?