• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Did the Grand Canyon take 65 million to form?

No, because I believe the current science. 5-6 million years.

Any science to buttress Noah?
 
The only thing this research is evidence of is a fundamental misunderstanding of what epigenetics is. Epigenetics is the study of how environment and behavioral changes can alter the expression of a genome. Therefore, epigenetic differences between different species of great ape are a result of differences in behavior and environment, which control the expression of their genetic code, which itself is broadly similar among great apes. Therefore, epigenetic research on its own cannot in any way be used to extrapolate an evolutionary tree.
 
The Grand Canyon was carved over some 6 million years.
The oldest human artifacts found in the Grand Canyon are nearly 12,000 years old and date to the Paleo-Indian period. There has been continuous use and occupation of the park since that time. Photo of granaries above Nankoweap by National Park Service.

https://www.doi.gov/blog/13-things-...acts found,Nankoweap by National Park Service.
 
iguanaman said:
Sigh.....It's too bad there is no hell because there would be place for you there. God has no patience for false idols and liars.

Click to expand...
LOL you have no idea how offensive some fundie Christians find that.

Somehow, it insults them to the core that something that does not reflect on them in any realistic or personal way today relates back to hairy apes.

God "promised them that they're the best, superior, meant to rule all, pure, set apart." The stages of human evolution kinda throw a monkey wrench in that. (pun intended)
 

Did the long lived people have lamps on their heads to see where they were, before Noah and light arrived? Did the crops grow in darkness too?
 
iguanaman said:
Sigh.....It's too bad there is no hell because there would be place for you there. God has no patience for false idols and liars.

Click to expand...
Once again, atheist scientists have shown the DNA does not support this evolution. This stupid diagram is only a person's individual belief with no evidence of any missing links along the way. Especially since 40 million years ago we were to have evolved from a chimp. The DNA article I provided you does not support this model. It's a big lie. God said we are made in God's image. Not an apes.
 
Manc Skipper said:
Did the long lived people have lamps on their heads to see where they were, before Noah and light arrived? Did the crops grow in darkness too?
Click to expand...
There was light. But, the bad rays we try to avoid today that causes cancer did not get through the firmament as much as they did after the flood. I believe I explained this clearly for those with good reading comprehension skills.
 

aaaannnndddd/scene
 
What do you claim is happening in the past 20 years that is so revolutionary? Please support your claim.
 
12,000 years ago? Was there anyone there to see this, take pictures? No. You are relying on methods of dating things and beliefs of opinions about migrations of people. And, the GC's formation has gone from 250 million to 6 million to one million now. Keep going. You'll eventually get there. I've read all the stuff you are putting out over the past 60 years. Have you read anything I've put out today? Nope.
 
Human beings did not evolve from chimps, and evolutionary science does not and never has made such a claim. The only people who think that are people who do not understand how evolution works.

Humans did not evolve from chimps. We share a common ancestor with chimps. They are our closest surviving relatives, because all of the other species which were more closely related to us have since died out. You can think of chimpanzees as very distant cousins, who live a very different lifestyle, but who still share many biological similarities with us.
 
God didn't write the bible. It didn't fall out of the sky and be discovered on top of Mt Sinai. It was written and died m by men that didn't have the benefit of even a GED unless you can prove that your god fact checked it?
 
I wish people who claim evolution knew how evolution works. They don't either. Showing silly pictures of less hairy apes along a time line is as dumb as the formation pictures of life from the fertilization of the egg that we look like chickens, frogs...that are still in text books today. Including this chart of human evolution. We actually don't have that much similarity of DNA between Chimps and Humans. Not even close. The guy that put together a bones of the so-called ancestors back 5 million years ago had to force the bones to try and make them appear to be human related.
To place Ardi into human ancestry, as these authors insisted, creates more problems than it solves. For example, Ardipithecus' body structure shows no objective or undisputable transition toward uniquely human features. The authors themselves listed some of these differences: Humans have unique and interdependent sexual organs and reproductive biochemistry, unique feet, ankles and musculature, unique hip structure, unique teeth and crania, totally unique cognitive abilities, a distinct "gut structure," upright walking, unique vocal apparatus, a "precipitous reduction of olfactory receptors," mammary glands that retain a stable size, unadvertised female proceptivity, and an "unusually energy-thirsty brain."3
Speculation and evolutionary guesswork, not scientific observations, are offered to bridge these gaps. Consistent with this is the broad use of speculative verbiage on the part of the authors. In the eleven papers in Science, the word "probably" appeared about 78 times, and "suggest," "suggesting," "suggestive," or "suggests" were used 117 times, among other terms that are associated with an unsubstantiated story rather than a scientific description. - https://www.icr.org/article/4982

Ardi, Ardi, Ardi... how about Lucy? Same problems...Evolutionary guesswork, not scientific observations permeates evolutionary science. Fuzzy words used to fool the suckers into thinking these scientists know what they are talking about.
 

If nobody told them about gods from birth, how would they know them? "They" are not the deluded ones who can't see their delusion.
 
Grasshopper121212 said:
There was light. But, the bad rays we try to avoid today that causes cancer did not get through the firmament as much as they did after the flood. I believe I explained this clearly for those with good reading comprehension skills.
Click to expand...

Can you show any science for water vapour shielding some "bad rays" which cause massive ageing? Which part of the spectrum of sunlight is that?
 
There is currently no proof that the species of ardipithecus are the direct ancestors of humans. Rather, they are more likely a separate branch of our family tree, which occurred after the previous divergence between the last common ancestor of chimps and humans. This would put them in a similar category as australopithecines, for example, in that while they are a member of our broader evolutionary group, they are not a direct ancestor of modern humans.

However, modern humans did likely originally evolve from a species that looked very similar to them. You point out that the features of these species are very different from modern humans, but that makes sense, as these fossils are more than four million years old, which is not very long after the original split between the ancestors of chimps and humans, meaning that their traits would still be very "chimp-like" in nature. In fact, the more uniquely "human" traits, such as our greatly enlarged brain capacity, would not emerge until much later on in our evolutionary history.

It seems to me that much of the criticism leveled against the work of evolutionary scientists is a result of an extremely flawed understanding of the actual mechanics of evolution itself. If one means to debate productively, it is better to at least understand the basic principles of the subject being debated.
 
I assume that you aren't a math major. 96% out of 100% is very high. You are a lousy liar or did you think that I would not fact-check your claims?

Tiny Genetic Differences between Humans and Other Primates Pervade the Genome

Genome comparisons reveal the DNA that distinguishes Homo sapiens from its kin
www.scientificamerican.com

Is there such a thing as creation math as well?
 
Last edited:
And your religion went from the Earth being the center of the universe with everything revolving around it to it orbiting a nondescript star on an arm of the milky way galaxy which is 100,000 light years across. We are but a tiny planet orbiting a very ordinary star that is part of a universe with as many stars as there are grains of sand on Earth. Keep going you will eventually get there. But not by reading the reading that ludicrous garbage and no I do not read such stuff. It rots the brain and it is meant to fool the gullible. Also there were people at the Grand Canyon 12,000 years ago we know this because we found their bones and took pictures of them.
 
Last edited:
We share DNA with plants because they came first. Animals need oxygen to survive and there was no oxygen in the earth's air until plants (or more specifically blue-green algae) put it there by breaking apart CO2 molecules.
 
If you're going to quote me, at least have the courtesy of posting that attribution. What you did here is rude.
Wrong - by many miles. When dozens of DIFFERENT planetary sciences all come to the same conclusion, by taking different paths, by using different disciplines, by measuring different dynamics, and doing it at different times over more than a century, those aspects of planetary science very much ARE SETTLED!
Grasshopper121212 said:
It's about observation of the past in which we did not live nor were able to record.
Click to expand...
No - it isn't about that at all. Wherever do you get those silly ideas? We don't have be living in the past through the creation of sedimentary rocks when we can duplicate those dynamics in a lab, and learn exactly what it takes, what pressures, what temperatures, and how long. We have tens of thousands of boring records through sediment that we know are creating rocks as we speak.
Grasshopper121212 said:
Yet, the Bible is a record of the past. God's past. Again, creation scientists don't claim that their evidence or conclusions are fact either. They simply put out that their conclusions answer problems of old earth claims that even scientists have.
Click to expand...
Which is a lie. It's a feeble projection based on cherry picking favorable statistics, while completely dodging the big picture.
Grasshopper121212 said:
Yet, you seem fearful of this? Why?
Click to expand...
Quite the contrary, I have no stake in this game at all. I don't give a shit what you believe. I only insert my comments to correct the record, because you're regurgitating misinformation that you don't even understand. You're projecting your own feelings, because it is you who are terrified of the truth. The entire foundational effort in using the oxymoron "creation science" is the act of desperate, fearful religious religious adherents who feel the facts of science based on observable reality will destroy the underpinnings of their faith - because they CHOOSE to believe in the literal inerrancy of the bible. But the cosmology of the book of Genesis is bullshit. It's a tale told to a precocious child. It isn't science.
 
Manc Skipper said:
Can you show any science for water vapour shielding some "bad rays" which cause massive ageing? Which part of the spectrum of sunlight is that?
Click to expand...
Which ever rays that caused dying before 600 years old. Since the covering over the earth no longer exists, haven't a clue. But, in Genesis Chapter 1, verse 6 says on the second day, "And God said, let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters." Verse 7 continues, "And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament..." Later, it was the waters under the firmament or heaven that was gathered to make seas when the earth was formed and it was all dry land. That was on the third day. So, the waters remained above the firmament possibly surrounding the earth. The sun, moon and stars didn't appear until after life appeared (grass, trees...) If we think of the standard way of the solar system being created, that would make some sense. There would be a lot of gas clouds obscuring the sun. Light would appear and there would be other forms of light energy around the earth for the grass and trees to grow. And, of course, the Light of Christ as well as it was Christ who was the Architect in charge of building the Earth. In any even, there was a large mass of water above the earth or heavens for extra water for the Flood of Noah which was also obscuring the light ray that were harmful that cause skin cancer and stuff. We cannot go back to that time to do your science experiments.
 
"likely?" There is one of those fuzzy words to try and dupe people into believing their unknown proof and authority to pronounce how we humans got here. Am I supposed to take your likely word on "faith" because you "hope" you are correct in your assumptions? Actually, we have very few bones of any of those creatures of that time. They were most likely, a form of animal that looked like apes of some sort. And, died off. And, there is no missing link of the split you reference. So, your science is based on faith. Not any mechanics of evolution either. There is no proof that one species morphs into a higher form of the same species. I presented that information from ICR about the DNA of 3 types of apes, Gorilla, Orangatun and Chimps in which the evolution of the DNA was opposite of what it should have been. Now what? Oops! Your evolution is different than natural selection where the species doesn't change into a new species. It just adapts to it's natural surroundings. Like the wolf changing into cute little dogs. They are still wolves. Still animals. I'm open if you have anything else than fuzzy words. But, like I said, I went to college and studied all of what you have and have kept up with the science as well.
I'd also note that the Prophets don't use fuzzy words.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…