PDA

View Full Version : History of the World



shrewsbury
06-01-2012, 06:26 PM
on the history channel they are playing the history of the world

i cannot believe they still are using the bering straight hypothesis when it is obviously incorrect.

habsheaven
06-01-2012, 07:44 PM
And the correct hypothesis is what? Tower of Babel?

shrewsbury
06-01-2012, 09:09 PM
no, the fact we migrated from france via the ocean over 25000 years ago

tower of babel has nothing to do with it, i find it funny the first thing you do is try to attack the bible or assume (because you know i am christian) that i only go by things written in the bible

how would this be biblical or anti-biblical?

habsheaven
06-01-2012, 10:05 PM
no, the fact we migrated from france via the ocean over 25000 years ago

tower of babel has nothing to do with it, i find it funny the first thing you do is try to attack the bible or assume (because you know i am christian) that i only go by things written in the bible

how would this be biblical or anti-biblical?

I haven't heard that one. I will have to look into it. How does bringing up the Tower of Babel make that an attack? Isn't the "Tower of Babel" the biblical theory on migration? Why do you, and others, have to interpret everything said as an "attack"?

Typing on here is beginning to feel like "walking on eggshells". I've never seen a more defensive group in all my life.

JustAlex
06-01-2012, 10:17 PM
Isn't the "Tower of Babel" the biblical theory on migration?

I've heard of that as well.

From what I've been told, the "Tower of Babel" story is the explanation for all the different human languages in the world, as well as the different races.

habsheaven
06-01-2012, 10:19 PM
Well a google search provided nothing on migration from France 25,000 years ago. I will keep my eyes open for it though.

stlcardinalsfan
06-01-2012, 10:37 PM
I've heard of that as well.

From what I've been told, the "Tower of Babel" story is the explanation for all the different human languages in the world, as well as the different races.

correct

now for different races i havnt heard that.

alot of people beleive that the mark of cain was his skin was turned black (black/brown) so that could help explain the different races ect

in genises it also says a passage about the "sons of god" and from the context its in it sounds like god had more than one son, i dont remember it word for word off the top of my head....but "they" were "intermingling" and i beleive that could also explain different races.

ancient aliens (tv) has used this as a possible case of aliens mixing with humans.

Star_Cards
06-01-2012, 11:49 PM
has the bering strait theory been disproven?

shrewsbury
06-02-2012, 12:01 AM
well the evidence does point to this.

the main thing is the clovis arrowhead, this was the only point used by the ancients in the americas.

new findings, which includes scientists from the smithsonian, have found the arrowheads migrated from east to west, and when tracing it back the only place on earth that used it was in france.

at first they believed these people sailed over and landed in maine, then slowly migrated out west. this would have taken many years, so it puts us in america quite earlier than previously thought. the latest find in kentucky date back to some 29000 years ago.

recently then have begin to rethink this and assume when the atlantic was frozen, we walked over to the americas from europe

i will find some links and post them, so really neat stuff.

habs, sorry if i was off base.
the tower a babel, in my opinion, has nothing to do with language or races, but rather cutting off one of the main things that make us human, communication

language developed because we were in different areas, races developed do to enviromental conditions

Star_Cards
06-02-2012, 12:11 AM
interesting. I would think that traveling over the frozen Atlantic would be plausible as well. It does seem interesting that the people we know as native americans would be descendants or migrated from the same areas that were populated by primarily white, but I'm no expert.

shrewsbury
06-02-2012, 12:11 AM
http://io9.com/5890637/could-the-first-humans-to-reach-the-americas-have-actually-come-from-europe

http://cogweb.ucla.edu/Chumash/EntryDate.html

http://lithiccastinglab.com/gallery-pages/cloviswheredidcomefrompage2.htm

http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/307618/20120301/first-americans-solutrean-hypothesis.htm

shrewsbury
06-02-2012, 12:14 AM
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=solutrean+hypothesis&oq=solutrean&aq=1&aqi=g6&aql=&gs_l=youtube.1.1.0l6.22317.24403.0.26400.9.7.0.2.2 .0.84.481.7.7.0...0.0.WInwyTVGZvo

JustAlex
06-02-2012, 12:27 AM
well the evidence does point to this.

the main thing is the clovis arrowhead, this was the only point used by the ancients in the americas.

new findings, which includes scientists from the smithsonian, have found the arrowheads migrated from east to west, and when tracing it back the only place on earth that used it was in france.

I know this is off topic, but I HAVE TO ASK IT:

Why do you accept these findings from scientists, but when we were talking about evolution you don't accept the mountains of evidence for that?

I mean, I'm not disagreeing with you on THIS topic, I actually think it might be interesting.

But I just want to know why you accept SOME scientific findings and not others...


BTW, I saw the program (History of the World) and thought it was very well made.

shrewsbury
06-02-2012, 12:49 AM
when we were discussing evolution i never said all of it was wrong, but it had flaws, and disagreements even among those that support the hypothesis, this is why i pointed out the savanah and aquatic hypothesis, if i thought science was crap, why would i know about it?

i don't think anything in science disproves or disagrees with my views on jesus and what god is, in fact they intertwine quite nicely sometimes.

evolution of man and other living species is apparent, but i don't agree on the the few fossils of lucy and the new find (name escapes me) as proof humans evolved from other species. we changed do to enviroment, but we did not evolve from apes, those that did, died off and were killed off by us many years ago.

there are more fossils in flores than lucy and the other combined, but yet this has been put to the side, digs stopped, and all is quiet, why? well one reason might be we would have to rewrite evolution and our origins

stlcardinalsfan
06-02-2012, 01:04 AM
interesting. I would think that traveling over the frozen Atlantic would be plausible as well. It does seem interesting that the people we know as native americans would be descendants or migrated from the same areas that were populated by primarily white, but I'm no expert.


it shows up as asian when u do a dna test

i am part native american.

1/16 cherokee,1/16 blackfeet,1/32 iroqouis

its not much but its rich with in my family and ancestors and i take pride in it as many with native ancestry do

i am decended from the group of cherokee that traveled where the trail of tears state park is in missouri (the memorial burial there is of one of my ancestors)


the land bridge theory sounds plausable to me

JustAlex
06-02-2012, 01:13 AM
when we were discussing evolution i never said all of it was wrong, but it had flaws, and disagreements even among those that support the hypothesis, this is why i pointed out the savanah and aquatic hypothesis, if i thought science was crap, why would i know about it?

Ok, fair enough.

The only thing I can say is that evolution might have some holes/flaws, but the theory is still VERY WELL made and as of this moment it is the cornerstone of biology, in fact there is NO biology without evolution.

There's a reason why 99% of Scientists agree with evolution...


i don't think anything in science disproves or disagrees with my views on jesus and what god is, in fact they intertwine quite nicely sometimes.

Correct, evolution does NOT disprove god or Jesus.

However, it does go against Genesis, that's the only thing I will say on that.


evolution of man and other living species is apparent, but i don't agree on the the few fossils of lucy and the new find (name escapes me) as proof humans evolved from other species. we changed do to enviroment, but we did not evolve from apes, those that did, died off and were killed off by us many years ago.

I really don't understand this part of your comment.

You believe that certain species have evolved, but you don't believe that modern humans have evolved?

I know some people have a hard time grasping the idea that humans are indeed animals, but that's just how it is.

Every animal has traits that has helped it survive, our trait is intelligence.

Humans ARE part of the animal kingdom, we ARE animals.


there are more fossils in flores than lucy and the other combined, but yet this has been put to the side, digs stopped, and all is quiet, why? well one reason might be we would have to rewrite evolution and our origins

I haven't heard of this...

But I can tell you one thing.....Science doesn't have a bias, it just doesn't!

Science is only interested in finding the truth, if the truth leads to God, then that's how it is.

Remember, Science is EVER CHANGING, and many years from now there might be new evidence that might change certain scientific ideals.

However, the theory of evolution is just as solid as the theory of gravity.

It IS observable and it has pretty much been proven to be true thanks to DNA, you can't escape the fact that Human DNA is almost identical to chimpanzee DNA.

shrewsbury
06-02-2012, 02:50 AM
justalex good post

but i think if you dig a little deeper you will find nearly all branches of science is not as cut and dry as it seems. there are numerous quarrels within, and those that have the power do not accept change.

look at some of the facts of the hobbits of flores. you will see this find shook science and the bigwigs stepped in to disprove it. after numerous studies that proved these so called hobbits were indeed human, still modern science would not budge. then when numerous skeletons were discovered of more hobbits, the digs were closed and no one is allowed to do any further studies there. seems odd, sure you could say it's the old conspiracy theory excuse, but facts are facts.

here is a link to start you off, though it leaves out much of the controversy it shows the actual finds, pretty cool stuff.

http://humanorigins.si.edu/research/asian-research/hobbits

also with the newer out of america hypothesis, it is beginning to show perhaps we did not evolve from one area and spread out, but rather were showing up all over the place.

with the hobbits, you have to realize if they were our ancestors and part of the evolutionary chain that died off, they would have had to migrate to flores ten of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of years before they would have evolved into the small hobbit, just like the other animals that morphed into smaller versions, it took a long time for them to evolve the trait to make them adapt and live longer, by being small.
it took homoerectus about 1.6 million years to evolve so how long for the hobbits?

just 60 years ago einstein showed that gravity is not really a force, so who knows what we will figure out

shrewsbury
06-02-2012, 02:52 AM
[QUOTE]the land bridge theory sounds plausable to me[QUOTE]

yes sir it does

perhaps it was both and we migrated from the bering straight and acrossed the atlantic

JustAlex
06-02-2012, 03:03 AM
justalex good post

but i think if you dig a little deeper you will find nearly all branches of science is not as cut and dry as it seems. there are numerous quarrels within, and those that have the power do not accept change.

look at some of the facts of the hobbits of flores. you will see this find shook science and the bigwigs stepped in to disprove it. after numerous studies that proved these so called hobbits were indeed human, still modern science would not budge. then when numerous skeletons were discovered of more hobbits, the digs were closed and no one is allowed to do any further studies there. seems odd, sure you could say it's the old conspiracy theory excuse, but facts are facts.

here is a link to start you off, though it leaves out much of the controversy it shows the actual finds, pretty cool stuff.

http://humanorigins.si.edu/research/asian-research/hobbits

also with the newer out of america hypothesis, it is beginning to show perhaps we did not evolve from one area and spread out, but rather were showing up all over the place.

with the hobbits, you have to realize if they were our ancestors and part of the evolutionary chain that died off, they would have had to migrate to flores ten of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of years before they would have evolved into the small hobbit, just like the other animals that morphed into smaller versions, it took a long time for them to evolve the trait to make them adapt and live longer, by being small.
it took homoerectus about 1.6 million years to evolve so how long for the hobbits?

just 60 years ago einstein showed that gravity is not really a force, so who knows what we will figure out

Honestly, I have heard about this but I haven't looked into it that much, I'll take a look at your link and any other source I can find.

shrewsbury
06-02-2012, 03:04 AM
However, it does go against Genesis, that's the only thing I will say on that.

i know you like to think some of us cherry pick what we want out of the bible.

but here are some straight facts

christianity is about the teachings of jesus, not the bible

jesus said respect the laws of moses, but never said moses wrote the history of the world

man wrote the bible and sure they were inspired by god, but that does not mean god directly told them what to write, in fact paul never even seen jesus in the flesh nor was a student of his, yet his works are the most prominent in the NT.

i respect the views of christianity by the apostles, but it is just their version of the teachings of jesus.

i personally only go by the literal words of jesus that are contained in a few works, the other stuff is a great help, but is not the direct word of god

theonedru
06-02-2012, 05:26 AM
My belief is that Theories like Leakey and Johanson's are on the right track but not exactly correct, for instance take the concept of a yeti..Who is to say one of the ape or hominid species didn't die off but evolved into them... After all it was thought the Coelacanth extinct during the Late Cretaceous era yet in 1938 they appear off of South Africa.

habsheaven
06-02-2012, 07:44 AM
http://io9.com/5890637/could-the-first-humans-to-reach-the-americas-have-actually-come-from-europe

http://cogweb.ucla.edu/Chumash/EntryDate.html

http://lithiccastinglab.com/gallery-pages/cloviswheredidcomefrompage2.htm

http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/307618/20120301/first-americans-solutrean-hypothesis.htm

Thanks for posting the links. I read them all, and after doing so I can't find any basis for your initial comment on the subject:

"i cannot believe they still are using the bering straight hypothesis when it is obviously incorrect."

Not one of those links debunks the Bering Strait hypothesis.

shrewsbury
06-02-2012, 12:00 PM
i think the clovis technology shows where the first americans come from. the siberian methods were not similiar, but the french were right on

habsheaven
06-02-2012, 12:21 PM
i think the clovis technology shows where the first americans come from. the siberian methods were not similiar, but the french were right on

Well apparently you and 2 scientists (looking to explain a quirk in all the data acquired so far) are the only ones discounting the Bering Strait theory. That hardly qualifies as definitive.

ensbergcollector
06-02-2012, 01:04 PM
Ok, fair enough.

The only thing I can say is that evolution might have some holes/flaws, but the theory is still VERY WELL made and as of this moment it is the cornerstone of biology, in fact there is NO biology without evolution.

There's a reason why 99% of Scientists agree with evolution...



Correct, evolution does NOT disprove god or Jesus.

However, it does go against Genesis, that's the only thing I will say on that.



I really don't understand this part of your comment.

You believe that certain species have evolved, but you don't believe that modern humans have evolved?

I know some people have a hard time grasping the idea that humans are indeed animals, but that's just how it is.

Every animal has traits that has helped it survive, our trait is intelligence.

Humans ARE part of the animal kingdom, we ARE animals.



I haven't heard of this...

But I can tell you one thing.....Science doesn't have a bias, it just doesn't!

Science is only interested in finding the truth, if the truth leads to God, then that's how it is.

Remember, Science is EVER CHANGING, and many years from now there might be new evidence that might change certain scientific ideals.

However, the theory of evolution is just as solid as the theory of gravity.

It IS observable and it has pretty much been proven to be true thanks to DNA, you can't escape the fact that Human DNA is almost identical to chimpanzee DNA.

I respect that you look for evidence and proof of your opinions but to claim that science has no bias and is only after the truth loses you some credibility imo. In a field where billions and billions of dollars in money and grants are given out, there is more than enough reason for science to have bias. To think otherwise is just as shortsighted as you think christians are.

shrewsbury
06-02-2012, 05:17 PM
habs, way more than me and two scientists, and i don't even count

when artifacts found on the east coast date earlier than any on the west coast, it would seem to point we first came to the east coast. when we start finding even earlier arrow points in the west, then i will change my mind again. but we keep pushing back the timeline further and further each time.

habsheaven
06-02-2012, 06:23 PM
habs, way more than me and two scientists, and i don't even count

when artifacts found on the east coast date earlier than any on the west coast, it would seem to point we first came to the east coast. when we start finding even earlier arrow points in the west, then i will change my mind again. but we keep pushing back the timeline further and further each time.

First, it doesn't matter if it is 2 or more than 2. They are vastly outnumbered by those that still subscribe to the Bering Strait crossing theory. Second, it's not like we have a complete picture yet. Tons of artifacts are still to be found and dated. Finally, why do you suppose EVERYONE hasn't jumped on the "France to N.A." migration theory? What are they waiting for if the "Bering Strait migration" is so OBVIOUSLY wrong?

Your contention that it is wrong is not only premature but it is also unfounded.

theonedru
06-02-2012, 06:54 PM
Forget following the artifacts, follow the trail of dna

shrewsbury
06-02-2012, 07:06 PM
the same dna that takes us back to africa?

habs, same reason everyone hasn't jumped on the hobbits of flores, science, whether you like it or not, can be as stubaorn as anyone else, including a bible toten fool

no one jumped on einstein, it took many years, and two solar eclipses.

mrveggieman
06-04-2012, 08:55 AM
Typing on here is beginning to feel like "walking on eggshells". I've never seen a more defensive group in all my life.


Post of the day!!

Star_Cards
06-04-2012, 11:54 AM
it shows up as asian when u do a dna test

i am part native american.

1/16 cherokee,1/16 blackfeet,1/32 iroqouis

its not much but its rich with in my family and ancestors and i take pride in it as many with native ancestry do

i am decended from the group of cherokee that traveled where the trail of tears state park is in missouri (the memorial burial there is of one of my ancestors)


the land bridge theory sounds plausable to me

That's one reason why I always sort of thought native americans migrated from asia. if you look at skin color and other features it makes complete sense that they were originally from parts of asia.

Star_Cards
06-04-2012, 11:58 AM
[QUOTE]the land bridge theory sounds plausable to me[QUOTE]

yes sir it does

perhaps it was both and we migrated from the bering straight and acrossed the atlantic

could definitely see that as well. if it was both I'd assume that more made it through from asia than over a frozen atlantic just based on the extended distance. not a journey I'd want to make. talk about difficult.