yeh, an intelligent response with well thoughts and ample evidence and reasoning. I'm gonna play devils advocate and see if I can crack this one.
Code:
Science has shown that we all have a common male ancestor only 60,000 years in the past
I will show that the common male ancestor predates 60000 years as suggested by our friend.
Ardipithicus ramidus 5 to 4 million years ago The earliest fossil hominid, Ardipithecus ramidus, is a recent discovery. It is dated at 4.4 million years ago. The remains are incomplete but enough is available to suggest it was bipedal and about 4 feet tall.
Australopithecus anamensis 4.2 to 3.9 million years ago Anamensis lived between 4.2 and 3.9 million years ago. Its body showed advanced bipedal features, but the skull closely resembled the ancient apes.
Australopithecus afarensis 4 to 2.7 million years ago lived between 3.9 and 3.0 million years ago. It retained the apelike face with a sloping forehead, a distinct ridge over the eyes, flat nose and a chinless lower jaw. It had a brain capacity of about 450 cc. It was between 3'6" and 5' tall. It was fully bipedal and the thickness of its bones showed that it was quite strong. Its build (ratio of weight to height) was about the same as the modern human but its head and face were proportionately much larger. This larger head with powerful jaws is a feature of all species prior to Homo sapiens sapiens
Australopithecus africanus 3 to 2 million years ago was quite similar to afarensis and lived between three and two million years ago. It was also bipedal, but was slightly larger in body size. Its brain size was also slightly larger, ranging up to 500 cc. The brain was not advanced enough for speech. The molars were a little larger than in afarensis and much larger than modern human. This hominid was a herbivore and ate tough, hard to chew, plants. The shape of the jaw was now like the human.
Homo habilis 2.2 to 1.6 million years ago was called the handy man because tools were found with his fossil remains. This species existed between 2.4 and 1.5 million years ago. The brain size in earlier fossil specimens was about 500cc but rose to 800cc toward the end of the species life period. The species brain shape shows evidence that some speech had developed. Habilis was about 5' tall and weighed about 100 pounds. Some scientists believe that habilis is not a separate species and should be carried either as a later Australopithecine or an early Homo erectus. It is possible that early examples are in one species group and later examples in the other.
Homo erectus 2.0 to 0.4 million years ago lived between 1.8 million and 300,000 years ago. It was a successful species for a million and a half years. Early examples had a 900cc brain size on the average. The brain grew steadily during its reign. Toward the end its brain was almost the same size as modern man, at about 1200cc. The species definitely had speech. Erectus developed tools, weapons and fire and learned to cook his food. He traveled out of Africa into China and Southeast Asia and developed clothing for northern climates. He turned to hunting for his food. Only his head and face differed from modern man. Like habilis, the face had massive jaws with huge molars, no chin, thick brow ridges, and a long low skull. Though proportioned the same, he was sturdier in build and much stronger than the modern human.
Homo sapiens archaic 400 to 200 thousand years ago provides the bridge between erectus and Homo sapiens sapiens during the period 200,000 to 500,000 years ago. Many skulls have been found with features intermediate between the two. Brain averaged about 1200cc and speech was indicated. Skulls are more rounded and with smaller features. Molars and brow ridges are smaller. The skeleton shows a stronger build than modern human but was well proportioned.
Homo sapiens neandertalensis 200 to 30 thousand years ago lived in Europe and the Mideast between 150,000 and 35,000 years ago. Neandertals coexisted with H.sapiens (archaic) and early H.sapiens sapiens. It is not known whether he was of the same species and disappeared into the H.sapiens sapiens gene pool or he may have been crowded out of existence (killed off) by the H.sapien sapien. Recent DNA studies have indicated that the neandertal was an entirely different species and did not merge into the H. sapiens sapiens gene pool. Brain sizes averaged larger than modern man at about 1450cc but the head was shaped differently, being longer and lower than modern man. His nose was large and was different from modern man in structure. He was a massive man at about 5'6" tall with an extremely heavy skeleton that showed attachments for massive muscles. He was far stronger than modern man. His jaw was massive and he had a receding forehead, like erectus.
Homo sapiens sapiens 200 thousand years ago to present first appeared about 120,000 years ago. Modern humans have an average brain size of about 1350 cc.
Homo Sapiens first appeared about 120, 000 years ago in a line of evolution; therefore it is not possible to have a common ancesstor at 60000 on the time line as suggested. Code:
Simular species can mate, with more success than was thought possible a few years back. Example: Tigers and Lions have breed in zoos that did not keep the large cats seperated
yah i've seen the picture of the "liger" quite interesting. but, this is nothing surprising because different dogs can also mate. similiar speicies with genetic makeup that are similiar enough can mate. This is an interesting notion because humans and apes are only about 2-4% different In science, there's a rule saying that different species can not breed with each other. Based on this "liger," this rule should either be changed or tiger and lions are simply miss labeled as two different species.
Code:
Back to the Bible; There must have been a settlement called Nod close to Eden that was inhabited by a humanoid race that was not the perfect race of man created by God through Adam
The Himalayan foothills of the Indian sub-continent have yielded evidence humans having lived there around two million years ago. It is therefore possible that humans were present in Sri Lanka from at least as early as one million years ago. The evidence stems from excavations conducted in coastal deposits near Bundala. Patirajawela yielded a small-flake stone tool industry from horizons dated to 125,000 to 75,000 BP, while Bundala-Wellegangoda had comparable material from ca. 80,000 BP 2 . These people made tools of quartz (and a few on chert) which are assignable to a Middle Palaeolithic complex (ibid.:252-4,458,688). Apart from such tools, no other vestiges of their culture have survived the ravages of time and tropical weathering: we do not know what these people looked like, although it can be guessed that they were early Homo sapiens somewhat akin to anatomically modern South Asians. Even the sizes of their settlement are not known due to the limited scale of the evaluation excavations; surface indications are ca. 50 square metres or less per site. That they lived by hunting and gathering is obvious and it is probable that this conformed to the pattern discernible in the activities of their descendants some 100,000 years later.
Notice that these dates are way before the biblical acount in the genesis. You can read the rest here:
http://www.lankalibrary.com/geo/dera2.htmlCode:
The Book of Numbers is the most boring book in the Bible. It is just a long list of people, who their children were, and the age they were at the time of their first born. It lists the decendents of Cain and Seth (Adam & Eve's 3rd. son). A comparasion of these two family lines proves quite interesting
"God is not the author of confusion," (I Corinthians 14:33) and yet, the book of numbers cant be anymore confusing. This is just simply too long so go here and read if you have time.
http://www.awitness.org/contrabib/torah/balaam.html to be honest, i didnt even read all of it because it was too long and i'm getting a bit tire.
Code:
Some meager evdience of these Giant Humans have been found, a few teeth, not enough to determin anything but a rough guess to their weight of apx. 500lbs.
There is still evedience of this interbreeding today. Many humans have infertility problems today, more than our share when compaired to other animals on this planet. People are born with one or more physical aspects that resemble Nethanderal man more than modren humans.
I believe the 500lb remains you have suggested is the remain of the Homo sapiens neandertalensis. Infertility can not be arisen from what you suggests because if that was the case, they would not have been able to give rise to progeny in the first place. Infertility is most often observed interbreeding between closely related families not between seperate races. If a man were to mate with his sister, their children will most likely to be infertile. This is evolutionarily disavantaged. Even if you were to assume that the genes that are responsible for sexual reproduction are recessive genes that can hide in individuals and then resurfaces later on through chance, that possibility is still extremely low and uncommon. statistically speaking, such genes would have been eradicated millions of years ago before the apes.
Now lets just assume all my evidence and reasoning are incorrect. The bible is still unreliable because there is simply too much contradiction. If one part of the bible is wrong, how can we be so sure that the other parts are correct? For example: as far as i understand the earth is created 4.6 billion years ago but the bible suggests a far different date. If the bible gets this wrong, then what else is it wrong about?
---------------------------------------------------
In response to Izzy:
Code:
dinosaurs did not live 1,000,000 years ago, they lived around the time of adam and eve
I've actually heard this one over and over. Someone even told me that alligators or some sort of reptiles will grow to infinite size if they are not killed off by predators. All the "dinosaurs" that we have found are simply really big alligators and really big reptiles. This belief is wrong in so many ways that i dont even know where to begin. They totally neglect eveything about animal physiology, physics of carbon dating, and everything else in archeology.
Code:
look at those claims and say ok, sure, if scientific proof on carbon dating is based upon a false assumption, ok, maybe the world is only 6,000 years old.
carbon dating is not based on false assumption. It may not be perfectly acurate but it can provide a very valuable time frame with 99.9% accuracy.
Code:
Buddism is an older religion (arguably) and if you stop, and look at all these older religions, and see if they have anything in common, they do
Buddhism sprouted from Hinduism. Hinduism came from the "west." Pretty much, all religions came from Egypt. As they travel away from egypt they transform into a new religion because of local influence. The prime example is Judaism. If you study eqyption mythology you see the similarity and how names got changed around when the Jews "left" egypt and headed for Mesopotamia.
Code:
i would be interested in hearing how the hindus and buddists believe the world came into being.
I used to have a book with the world major relgions and mythology but i gave it away to a friend and now i cant remember anything baout hinduism. And google doesnt seem to understand "The hinud genisis."
As for Buddhism. You might find it surprising to find that the Buddha said nothing about how the world came into being. When one of his followers asked him this question, he told him that he has no answers. He said that a man of religion can not adequately and accurately answer such questions and it was better left for the men of science who study those fields. A truely humble and honest man.
---------------------------
reponse to Thremp.
evolution does not explain how things came into being. It simply explains how things may have derived. One of the explaination is that living beings transform from one form to another. I think this is where Christianity and Science clash because this suggests that the genisis is wrong. Sure you may say that god created everything and then evolution took over as a mechanism designed by god into things that you observe today. But, if you truely understand the two views, you realize that they can not coexist. evolution suggests of millions of years and creationism suggests a few thousand years and a being called "God." You can not have both, it is either one or another. In the contemporary world, evolution seems to be on the upperhand but nothing is absolute. The dark ages happend twice before, who is there to say that it will not happen again.
All the knowledge that we have not may become nothing but a
DARK LEGACY
You are steering this to a flamewar on purpose. 
