How Do you Account for prehistoric Human Races IF NOT Theistic Evolutionist?

One might say what about carbon dating of those bones. The formula for that is c14/c12 x 1/2 the age of the earth. What is the unknown factor here? The age of the earth. Bible says God created the earth and creationist believe it to be 6000 +- years old. So using the c14/c12 premise we would multiply that factor by 3000 making those bones several 100's or 1000's of years old not millions. Have you everv noticed that they don't use carbon dating on the mummified bodies of the Egyptians. These have a known age and yet why not test your theory on those remains?
False theories bring false results.

 

Quote from this site below.

http://www.chcpublications.net/radcarbn.htm

BASIS OF RADIOCARBON DATING


Radiocarbon dating compares the amount of normal carbon with the amount of radioactive carbon in a sample. The normal carbon atom has six protons and six neutrons in its nucleus, giving a total atomic mass of 12. It is a stable atom that will not change its atomic mass under normal circumstances. The radioactive carbon has six protons and eight neutrons in its nucleus, giving it a total atomic mass of 14. This atom is not stable, and will break down, releasing nuclear energy in the process.

Radioactive carbon (Carbon 14) is formed in the upper atmosphere as a byproduct of cosmic radiation. Cosmic rays are positively charged atoms moving at enormous speeds. When they strike ordinary atoms in the upper atmosphere, the cosmic rays smash them apart. Some fragments produced in this way are neutrons. Some of these neutrons then collide with nitrogen atoms. This collision is less destructive than the initial collision that produced them. Usually a proton is knocked out of the nitrogen atom's nucleus and is replaced with the neutron. The proton takes an electron with it and becomes an atom of hydrogen. The nitrogen atom, which began with seven protons and seven neutrons, is left with only six protons and eight neutrons. As the number of protons decides the chemical nature of an atom, the atom now behaves like a carbon atom. However, because it has too many neutrons for the number of protons it contains, it is not a stable atom. Every 5,730 years, approximately half of this radioactive carbon spontaneously converts itself back into nitrogen by emitting an electron from a neutron.

As you might guess, radioactive carbon (C14) is quite rare. Only one out of every trillion carbon atoms is C14. However, it is present in all living organisms. The C14 created in the upper atmosphere reacts with oxygen to become carbon dioxide. The carbon dioxide is absorbed by plants, and the plants are eaten by animals, thus contaminating every living thing on earth with radioactive carbon.

Once an organism dies, it stops absorbing C14. As time passes, the C14 in its tissues is converted back into nitrogen. If we know what the original ratios of C14 to C12 were in the organism when it died, and if we know that the sample has not been contaminated by contact with other carbon since its death, we should be able to calculate when it died by its C14 to C12 ratio. But in actual practice, we know neither the original ratios nor if the specimen has been contaminated and are forced to make what we hope are reasonable assumptions.

The tiny initial amount of C14, the relatively rapid rate of decay (the half-life of C14 is currently about 5700 years) and the ease with which samples can become contaminated make radiocarbon dating results for samples "older" than about 50,000 years effectively meaningless. This limit is currently accepted by nearly all radiocarbon dating practitioners. It follows that the older a date is, even within this 'limit', the greater are the doubts about the date's accuracy.

 

First, there is nothing within the Scriptures to support the age of the earth pushed forward by Archbishop Usher (roughly 6000 years) but that also does not mean that the earth is automatically "millions and millions" of years old.

Second, carbon 14 has been used on almost everything imaginable and one of the calibration tests for it is to test on something relatively well known date wise. Yes, it has been used on Egyptian mummies, the Shroud of Turin, etc.

Third, carbon 14 has shown that it is relatively accurate in as much as there are "constants" of C14 over time (which is something that can only be postulated not proven). Becasuse of that, and the known half-life, a reasonable range of dating seems to be within 10,000 years. After that it gets sketchy and often becomes an argument from silence in a manner of speaking, i.e., that the lack of C14 indicates the age instead of the presence of C14.

Fourth, the dates most often found for C14 testing seem to indicate that most human activity centers within the last 10,000 years or so (in any reliable way of testing). Dates before that time rely on other means to discern and are subject to much debate and interpretation. Interesting is that there are often homo sapiens remains discovered in "older" layers beneath the most ancient (postulated) of human origin life. This is not widely or well reported. Also interesting is that C14 dates that seem "too recent" to support whatever current theory is postulated about any particular artifact are tossed out as anomolies. That, in and of itself, casts doubt on the use of the test for many items certified to a certain age by it, even if the test is indeed accurate (as it seems to be, properly used).

 

Why thank you Dr. Professor of Anthropology. Amazing work considering it's a 2" X 3" photo.

 

Those primates, human odditis you speak of could be those who lived pre-flood since only 8 folks came through the flood. There were nephalims on the earth during that time. Could these be the remains of the Nephalim although they were called giants by some. All human and animal life forms died during the flood and guess what they were buried under sediment, making fosils.
Isn't great how the bible answers all those questions. Think of the pressure upon those bodies with all the water it would take to flood the entire earth and how that could change the Carbon 14 readings.
the Bible is inspired by someone who was there at creation that being God, the Holy Spirit. I tend to believe what He had Moses and the other authpors to write over modern day scientist.

 

The flood was God's tool, of course God could have just as easily created the layers from the get go instead of forming them gradually as science teaches. The flood passages are very clear the earth opened up and the water from beneath came forth the rain from above the waters from deep beneath teh earth and the layers we no have were formed by that great flood.

 

OK........

 

I don't pretend to be a geneticist. However the mutation of DNA by it's self has yet to create an entirely new living organism.
Man has taken DNA from different species of life and put them together and created new species. Yet this has never happened naturally.
Evolution is not about mutations but about new living organisms comming from some thing entirely different as I understand it. An impossibility. If it were Posible why haven't we ever seen it. Fosil records prove nothing unless they prove different species came from earlier fosils and there is no way they can prove this. This is why evolution is just a theory.
MB

 

The problem is in my opinion is were the giraffes related. Did there DNA trace back to longer necked giraffes or vicea versa. They haven't shown this to be true at all. They have just assumed they were related.
Still scientifically a theory is just theory not fact and there is no reasonable reason to assume a theory is true.
MB

 

I agree with this. There was never any real evidence that these were even the same species.

 

As a science major and an actual research associate, I support Squidward. Yes, evolution within the species does exist. The species does change under influence of the environment. There are multiple examples of such evolution: from antibiotic-resistant bacteria to variation in humans (pigmentation, facial features, hair texture, etc).
However. Despite vigorous research, so far nobody could produce make one species to turn into another one. Not one single time, not even under laboratory condition on the bacterial level. Bacteria reproduce extremely rapidly and develop features like drug resistance, but they don't evolve into another bacterial species.
Look at dogs. All dogs, despite variations, can produce fertile offspring with their wild ancestor - the wolf. Same can be said about any domesticated animal, as long as the wild ancestor in known. Humans could not change the most distinctive characteristic of species: its DNA set. Not a surprise... Even slight changes in DNA set in animals are likely to be catastrophic for an individual.
The specimen presented by evolutionists are, most likely, extinct apes. We did not evolve form them!

 

I Don't Account for What I See...

...I haven't read the other responses to this post, but I did want to say that if there is evidence (indicators that can't be refuted) of these early life forms, then they must have existed. As to how long ago, well, that is a question I will have to wait for God to explain in eternity.

I do not feel like going through all the mental and intellectual gymnastics needed to argue, one way or the other, when it comes to the who, what, where, why and when of this factual evidence.

Like I have chosen to do with the Old Testament stories, I am willing to accept, by faith, what I see (and can't explain) because I know that all of this will be understood at the end. Sometimes I think the devil gets tons of mileage out of these unsettling findings, because he can use them to create riffs in the universe of understand, and often can keep some folks from coming to Jesus.

To argue that some form of evolution is impossible is meaningless, because if you just look at the realm of intellectual advancement in mankind, it is a form of evolution, and our technological growth is also a form of evolution. All things do evolve in one sense of the definition of the term; however, I will never accept the argument that we evolved from apes. If someone wants to believe they have a monkey for a great, great uncle, so-be-it. I can clearly see where the human body has benefited from growth (evolution) or the intellectual expansion of science and nutrition, but not to the point where one species evolved into another. To believe that would be to deny Scripture, and we must take our being here on faith, which at times is not simple, but it is pure!!! :type: