Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Anijen

First Humans Adam And Eve?

Recommended Posts

It is now believed that Homo Erectus which lived about 1.8 million years ago had a rudimentary language due to the formation of a language center in their skull, and the larynx which apparently was situated deep in the throat, giving them a wider vocal range than other primates.

I seem to recall Joseph Fielding Smith saying that such primitive humans were actually degenerate descendants of Adam and Eve, who through their wickedness, became a corrupted form of human.

Share this post


Link to post

Paul--I really think you need to go back to school.

Adam didn't live 60,000 years ago.

... according to who?

How do you know how long Adam was in the garden of Eden before he and his wife ate of that fruit?

Share this post


Link to post

Pretend I'm stupid and just sum it up in a nutshell.

What makes any of those people absolutely certain?

Because God told them so?

Share this post


Link to post

It is now believed that Homo Erectus which lived about 1.8 million years ago had a rudimentary language due to the formation of a language center in their skull, and the larynx which apparently was situated deep in the throat, giving them a wider vocal range than other primates.

And how do they know there was a language center in a 1.8 million year skull? Did Homo Erectus happen to leave his/her brain in formaldyhide for modern science to examine and compare to a modern human? Or perhaps Homo Erectus left an MRI of his/her brain - make that three; one while silent, one while grunting, and one while speaking? Maybe Homo Erectus left a tape recording. Wait, maybe the skull was a different size and this, of necessity, means language center. :P

Share this post


Link to post

It is now believed that Homo Erectus which lived about 1.8 million years ago had a rudimentary language due to the formation of a language center in their skull, and the larynx which apparently was situated deep in the throat, giving them a wider vocal range than other primates.

Dogs have a rudimentary language.

Share this post


Link to post

I seem to recall Joseph Fielding Smith saying that such primitive humans were actually degenerate descendants of Adam and Eve, who through their wickedness, became a corrupted form of human.

A prophet he was, a scientist he wasn't.

Share this post


Link to post

But, you and all the other Ministers of Scieigion - your thought processes do not exlcude any possibilities, right? :P

Actually, in a sense, that's true. My thought processes do not exclude the possibility that the LDS church is true. But you're going to have to prove it to me. My thought processes are definitely biased against things which cannot withstand scrutiny, and things which are only claimed to be true, but priveleged from a need for proof by various forms of special pleading.

So go ahead, I'm open to new ideas, and new evidence. Got any?

Share this post


Link to post

Actually, I am. Do you care enough to try to enlighten me now?

How do you know all living organisms are carbon based life forms?

How do you even know you know them all?

Obviously you wouldn't use carbon dating on an organism that didn't have carbon in it.

Share this post


Link to post

Actually, I am. Do you care enough to try to enlighten me now?

How do you know all living organisms are carbon based life forms?

How do you even know you know them all?

I don't think the Dude, or anyone else, is saying there's no possible way for a non-carbon based organism to exist. Fortunately for us, the specimens that are carbon dated are known to be from species which are in fact carbon-based.

I suppose when we actually discover a non-carbon based life form, you'll be correct in saying that carbon 14 dating won't be effective on them.

Btw, as has been mentioned, carbon 14 dating is only one of the various dating methods that have been developed. There are a few others.

Please allow me to invoke the Grand Wiki of Pedia on the subject. I know some of you have no truck with that source, but I'll just say that this same info can be found elsewhere:

Dating methods

* Radiometric techniques measure the decay of radioactive isotopes, and other radiogenic activity.

* Incremental techniques measure the regular addition of material to sediments or organisms.

* Correlation of marker horizons allow age-equivalence to be established between different sites.

[edit] Radiometric dating

By measuring the amount of radiocative decay of a radioactive isotope with a known half-life, geologists can establish the absolute age of the parent material. A number of radioactive isotopes are used for this purpose, and depending on the rate of decay, are used for dating different geological periods.

* Radiocarbon dating. This technique measures the decay of Carbon-14 in organic material (e.g. plant macrofossils), and can be applied to samples younger than about 50,000 years.

* Uranium-lead dating. This technique measures the ratio of two lead isotopes (Pb-206 and Pb-207) to the amount of uranium in a mineral or rock. Often applied to the trace mineral zircon in igneous rocks, this method is one of the two most commonly used (along with argon-argon dating) for geologic dating. Uranium-lead dating is applied to samples older than about 1 million years.

* Uranium-thorium dating. This technique is used to date speleothems, corals, carbonates, and fossil bones. Its range is from a few years to about 700,000 years.

* Potassium-argon dating and argon-argon dating. These techniques date metamorphic, igneous and volcanic rocks. They are also used to date volcanic ash layers within or overlying paleoanthropologic sites. The younger limit of the argon-argon method is a few thousand years.

Other radiogenic dating techniques include:

* Fission track dating

* Cosmogenic isotope dating

* Rubidium-strontium dating

* Samarium-neodymium dating

* Rhenium-osmium dating

* Lutetium-hafnium dating

* Paleomagnetic dating

* Thermo-luminescence dating (quartz exposure to heat)

[edit] Incremental dating

Incremental dating techniques allow the construction of year-by-year annual chronologies, which can be fixed (i.e. linked to the present day and thus calendar or sidereal time) or floating.

* Dendrochronology

* Ice cores

* Lichenometry

* Varves

Share this post


Link to post

I don't think you understand radio carbon dating. Radio carbon dating is not dating how old the carbon is.

In radio carbon dating one takes the ratio of C-14 atoms to C-12 atoms currently in a specimen and compares it to the ratio of the isotopes expected in the organism.

How many isotopes should a person expect to see in a dinosaur bone?

It sounds like you're describing starting out with an assumption and then seeing if the evidence can possibly support that assumption.

Many things are possible that are not true.

At death the interchange of carbon atoms within the organism stops. The expected ratio of isotopes at death is based on the determined or expected ratio of carbon isotopes in the environment at the time. One then compares the current ratio of isotopes to the expected starting ratio, and can determine an age based on the known rate of decay of C-14 into N-14. The date is thus not the age of the carbon, but a calculation based on the different ratios of isotopes.

Sounds like more assumptions that are built on assumptions.

If you start out wrong and don't know that, it is hard to go right.

There have been instances where some organism remains were tested and it was later found that the carbon isotope ratio in their local environments (and thus their bodies) were not typical of the general world environment.

How do you know what is typical to begin with... especially in something from long ago that is not the same now as it was then.

The ratios of isotopes of other elements are also used to do radiometric dating of things farther back in time than carbon, and where there is overlap between two methods they can calibrate against each other.

Edit: C-14 decays into N-14. Not C-12. Sorry.

They can, huh. Can they also not calibrate if you consider some other possibilities?

Obviously you wouldn't use carbon dating on an organism that didn't have carbon in it.

No kidding. :P

Share this post


Link to post

... according to who?

How do you know how long Adam was in the garden of Eden before he and his wife ate of that fruit?

Uh--hello! It doesn't MATTER how long Adam was in the garden--they didn't reproduce until after they LEFT the garden (and he immediately began farming for a living.)

Share this post


Link to post

Dogs have a rudimentary language.

They do, but their language in the wild is basic non-verbal. Dogs only bark in captivity due to their delayed adolescence. Humans, require certain items to be in place for speech to operate. One, they need a part of the brain called Broca's brain. This normally cannot be ascertained except through an autopsy. The part of the brain that houses Broca's brain also produces a bulge on the inside of the cranium. This is evident in modern man as well as Homo Erectus. Two, it also needs an alignment of skull called the cranial flexion at the base of the skull. One researcher has found.

"He [Laitman] found that Australopithecus had vocal tracts much like

living apes. He was unable to study the base of Homo habilis crania as

they are fragmentary, but Homo erectus had a larynx with an equivalent

position to that of an 8-year-old modern child. He believes that it was

only after 300,000 years ago, with the appearance of archaic Homo

sapiens, that the larynx assumed its modern position, giving at least

mechanical potential for the full range of speech sounds used

today."~Brian M. Fagan, The Journey From Eden, (London: Thames and

Hudson, 1990), p. 87

There are several other factors which influence speech, but what I have presented should be sufficient.

Share this post


Link to post

Uh--hello! It doesn't MATTER how long Adam was in the garden--they didn't reproduce until after they LEFT the garden (and he immediately began farming for a living.)

Uh--hello!

So how long ago did Adam live, or how old was he, in relation to his literal children?

... considering the fact that Adam was living in the garden before the fall.

I think some people assume he and his wife ate the fruit the same day they were created.

... and even if they did, how long was that day?

How long is a day in eternity?

Share this post


Link to post

Actually, in a sense, that's true. My thought processes do not exclude the possibility that the LDS church is true. But you're going to have to prove it to me. My thought processes are definitely biased against things which cannot withstand scrutiny, and things which are only claimed to be true, but priveleged from a need for proof by various forms of special pleading.

So go ahead, I'm open to new ideas, and new evidence. Got any?

If you are only interested in empirical evidence, I'm afraid you'll never find what you're looking for when it comes to things spiritual. No amount of tantruming will change the reality and necessity of faith.

You do realize, don't you, that empiricism is philosophy and the current philosophy of science at that, right? Why do you insist on using nomothetic tools to understand idiothetic things? On the other hand, science and religion are not necessarily at odds.

You might need to rethink using spiritual tools (in this case, things LDS) to understand spiritual things. If you know more than God, then how do you expect to learn anything from God. If the only space you have in your mind that you are wrong is if you have personally tangible evidence to compel you to "believe," then you are in a sad place.

How long have you been away now?

Share this post


Link to post

Nope. No kidding. :P

Thank you for proving my point.

... all carbon based life forms have carbon, but not necessarily all living organisms.

<_<

Share this post


Link to post

The part of the brain that houses Broca's brain also produces a bulge on the inside of the cranium.

Broca's area produces a bulge on the inside of the cranium? Are you sure about that? If so, do they have a full 1.8 million year old skull, or enough of one to reliably state this? Are you sure about all of this? Further, Broca's area produces a bulge? Are you sure that can be said?

Share this post


Link to post

Thank you for proving my point.

... only carbon based life forms have carbon, not necessarily all living organisms.

:P

You're welcome. Though I'm confused as to what you think you've accomplished.

We should be open to discovering (or being discovered by?) forms of life that are not based on carbon. I think that will be pretty darned cool when that happens.

Share this post


Link to post

Alma 30:48

48 Now Korihor said unto him: I do not deny the existence of a God, but I do not believe that there is a God; and I say also, that ye do not know that there is a God; and except ye show me a sign, I will not believe.

It would seem that many LDS are eager to give a little to the scientist because they cannot argue against scientific evidence even though it goes against everything the scriptures and Prophets (including latter day ones) have said. Though I cannot prove anything and I concede that most on this board are far more learned than I am in things of science.

I admire Paul and his zealousness. I do also side with him also and will admit right up front I don't know the answers to the questions sethbag has made. But I also want to quote Father Adam I don't know why but am commanded to do so... (well something like that) I believe that Adam and Eve were our first parents but I cannot reconcile the time line, I have no urgency to do so. I guess I will be just labeled a dumb hick blind faith follower or whatever label you might want to apply to me is fine I can handle it. I just feel within my heart to have faith and listen to the Prophets and read my scriptures and in the very end when all this doesn't matter anymore I don't feel that the scientist will have one up on me because they knew more or because I went with faith over what seems to be the current logical assumption based on science.

Share this post


Link to post

You're welcome. Though I'm confused as to what you think you've accomplished.

We should be open to discovering (or being discovered by?) forms of life that are not based on carbon. I think that will be pretty darned cool when that happens.

I saw a silicon-based life form on Star Trek, once. :P

HiJolly

Share this post


Link to post

Uh--hello! It doesn't MATTER how long Adam was in the garden--they didn't reproduce until after they LEFT the garden (and he immediately began farming for a living.)

That is precisely why Joseph Fielding Smith rejected evolution. Evolution presupposes death, and there was no death before Adam. Thus, no evolution.

Share this post


Link to post

You're welcome. Though I'm confused as to what you think you've accomplished.

I've simply shown, with your help, that carbon isn't necessarily present in all living organisms, or beings.

We should be open to discovering (or being discovered by?) forms of life that are not based on carbon. I think that will be pretty darned cool when that happens.

I look forward to seeing what God is made of. :P

Share this post


Link to post

I've simply shown, with your help, that carbon isn't necessarily present in all living organisms, or beings.

Sorry, ALL life on earth is carbon-based. That is black letter science.

Share this post


Link to post

I've simply shown, with your help, that carbon isn't necessarily present in all living organisms, or beings.

I look forward to seeing what God is made of. <_<

So you're arguing that fossils are of non-carbon-based organisms? :P

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...