Tanzanian Tracks Show Man's Early Steps

---

Thats not really saying much for the Bible then is it? It contradicts itself within a few lines.

Thor, I'd just like to say that if anything I say in this post sounds harsh, its not meant to be. I'm in a bit of a bad mood at the moment so it may accidentally translate into this post. Originally Posted By: thor Originally Posted By: bobaliciousGod created the birds and asked Adam to name them, meaning Adam had already been created.See what sdp posted...no sense in repeating it.God made man, then birds, then man... again. Not really the best argument. Originally Posted By: thor Quote:The only thing close to this that I can find is THIS article from the Institute for Creation Research.That's not it.Well, until something is shown to me, the point is useless. Originally Posted By: thor Quote:What was made up about the moths?...He placed some of the samples of moths onto the barks of trees, somewhere that they didn't usually sit.That's it.The moths did sit on the barks of trees, just not as commonly as was done in the experiment. Its not the only aspect of the study and was not the deciding factor. So nothing was actually made up, it was just a bit of poor observation. Originally Posted By: thor Quote:But even with these errors in his methodology, his work still had its merit and its conclusion was correct, and was fully supported by a study in 1998 by Michael Majerus.No credit for attempted mitigation of the fabrication of evidence.See above. Errors in original investigation were corrected in the later one. Originally Posted By: thor Quote:And to keep to your point, no evidence was manufactured with the intent to discredit the Bible or Creationism, nor was it manufactured to prove Evolution.For the bazillionth time, the issue is "Natural Selection"...not evolution.Correcting the words I use? Obviously you must agree with the rest of it then, if thats all you can say. Originally Posted By: thor Quote: Originally Posted By: thor Quote:The Bible says that the Earth was created before the stars.Where?You kidding? On the first dayGen 1:1 - In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And on the fourth dayGen 1:16 - And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.That requires literal interpretation of the passages of time...which I've already told you I don't believe in as far as the creation story is concerned. If you wish to prove your point, find someplace else in the Bible where it says that.You'll have to give me a detailed list of all the passages that are meant to be taken literally then, because you obviously have a very unique way of reading the Bible. Originally Posted By: thor Quote: Originally Posted By: thorI really haven't considered that question long enough to form an opinion one way or another...but my gut tells me no.Take as long as you want to form your opinion. My only suggestion would be to ignore your gut and consider the facts instead. I will when I see any. Fair enough.

Originally Posted By: bobalicious

Thats not really saying much for the Bible then is it? It contradicts itself within a few lines.

When fully studied, it is obvious that portions of the Bible are steeped in metaphor. The only person drawing the conclusion you made above is one who is more interested in dismissing the Bible than they are at getting to the truth of the matter. Either that, or they just haven't studied the Bible enough to know what they're talking about.

Quote:Errors in original investigation were corrected in the later one.That would only apply to an error in judgement...not an error in fact. It was an error in judgement to put the moth on the tree for the sake of photographing it there (as was later admitted) in evidence. In reality, they never did show that the moths sit on those trees any more than the non-colored ones did. Even less so, if I recall the facts of the study correctly.

Originally Posted By: thor Originally Posted By: bobaliciousThats not really saying much for the Bible then is it? It contradicts itself within a few lines. When fully studied, it is obvious that portions of the Bible are steeped in metaphor. The only person drawing the conclusion you made above is one who is more interested in dismissing the Bible than they are at getting to the truth of the matter. Either that, or they just haven't studied the Bible enough to know what they're talking about. As I said in my previous post, please give me a detailed list of which verses are metaphors and which ones are literal, according to you.

Originally Posted By: thorIn reality, they never did show that the moths sit on those trees any more than the non-colored ones did. Even less so, if I recall the facts of the study correctly.I'm afraid you don't recall correctly. Kettlewell placed equal numbers of both types of moths onto the barks of trees to see if the darker ones' visibly better camouflage helped its survival, which it did. The error he made was extensive use of the tree barks as a testing location, not that he used the bark at all. The moths did land on tree barks, the problem was that it wasn't their primary resting location. And although Kettlewell did test their other locations, he wasn't as thorough there as he was with the tree bark, probably due to the difficulty in testing in those locations. So what he did was not purposeful manipulation of the facts. The tests in the other locations still supported the theory. The only corrections to his work were more extensive studies in the moth's other locations, which supported his original experiment.

the documentary about middle eastern floods I saw was so long ago now that I can't even remember the source... Discovery, National Geographic or what.I don't even know if I remember enough to track it down but I'll give it a go.Unless, of course, the damn liberals have erased it from history.So, is the bible history or allegory? Would people please make up their damn minds?

This is in reference to the Discovery Station special I was talking about that was on several years ago. Whether it's the same one you and thor are talking about I don't know. The point of that show was that the rising or flooding of the Black Sea was the impetus for the story of Noah's flood. I would say that's barely a ringing endorsement of the story found in the bible, but that's my opinion. The researchers in the show thought they found evidence of human habitation at the bottom of the Black Sea (something akin to the Bimini road) as it turned out, in the show, what they found was inconclusive at best. Ancient Black Sea Flood: Nuisance or Calamity?Emily Sohn, Discovery NewsFeb. 19, 2009 -- Something happened along the shores of the Black Sea about 9,500 years ago. According to one theory, a huge flood suddenly drowned the landscape, forcing some of the planet's first farmers to move elsewhere.A new study paints a different picture."I would say there was never a big flood," said Liviu Giosan, a geologist at Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute in Cape Cod, Mass., and lead author of the study. "What we showed was that it's impossible."The new work fuels an ongoing debate about the geologic history of the Black Sea. Research there has lagged behind other parts of the world, and many questions remain about how water levels have fluctuated over the years. It's a unique place. The Black Sea is an inland sea, surrounded by Turkey, Georgia, Russia, Ukraine, Romania and Bulgaria. It was once a freshwater lake surrounded by rich and fertile plains. But about 9,500 years ago, sea levels rose as the climate warmed, and saltwater poured in from the Mediterranean through the Sea of Marmara.The fossil record clearly shows a shift from freshwater to saltwater species around that time. Whether the change happened gradually or dramatically, however, is something scientists are still debating.The details are murky because for decades, the Soviets carefully controlled who did what in the region, said Giosan, himself a native of Romania. Soviet-funded studies were published over the years, but the papers were short on details about study methods, making their conclusions unreliable.In the mid-1990s, Columbia University geologist William Ryan teamed up with Russian and Turkish researchers to study the geology of the Black Sea for the first time with state-of-the-art methods. Based on seven key observations about the shorelines and fossil record, the team concluded that there had been a massive, catastrophic flood, which they dubbed "Noah's Flood." The theory has been controversial ever since. Giosan and colleagues approached the question in a new way. Instead of looking underwater, like previous studies have done, they drilled a 42-meter (140-foot) hole in the Danube delta -- a flat plain that has formed out of sediments deposited by the Danube River as it pours into the Black Sea. Layer by layer, their core samples went back more than 10,000 years -- allowing the scientists to see what happened both before and after the flood.By dating sediment layers as well as clam shells that were still closed shut (indicating that the animals were buried and preserved in the same place they lived), Giosan's group determined that the Black Sea was 30 meters (98 feet) below present its level at the time of the flood, not 80 meters (262 feet) as Ryan's team maintains. That suggests the flood was much smaller than originally thought."It moves the balance of evidence from this being a big, catastrophic event to its not being such a big event," said oceanographer Mark Siddall, of the University of Bristol in the United Kingdom.Ryan remains skeptical about the new paper, which he said depended largely on analyses of just two mollusk shells that were completely destroyed by the work, leaving no opportunity for the results to be replicated. Giosan said he has invited Ryan to join him in an effort to replicate and extend the results by drilling more cores in the Danube delta.Now that the area is open for business, scientists hope that gaining a clearer picture of the Black Sea's past will help them get to the bottom of another important question: How much has climate change contributed to the region's history, and what does the future hold in store?

Originally Posted By: OldFolksThis is in reference to the Discovery Station special I was talking about that was on several years ago. Whether it's the same one you and thor are talking about I don't know.It's not what I was referring to...

cool!