I would put money on it!
But what your proposing is that every skull not identified as homo-sapiens is an individual suffering from a bone disease! Including children. (from memory I think there is somewhere near 120 Neanderthal individuals unearthed ranging over much of Europe over a long period of time).
Yes I am proposing exactly that. Are you proposing it is impossible to find 120 individuals burried in cemetaries today with similar bones diseases?
I.e dig a body up at random and find the first 120 with a bone disease. In fact IÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ll go one further, I would bet a pound to a penny that the first 120 bodies you dig up do no all die from the same cause nor over their lifetime be inflicted with an identical disease. But you need not dig up bodies just walk around the city and observe 120 people at random, it the same thing, yes?
As for the historical bones (mis-identified as Neandrathal) I would not be surprised to find far more. Within the proposal that biblical creation is our history is the implication that there were tens (?) hundreds (?) of thousands, milllions (?) of people on the planet when God flooded the Earth and only 8 people survived. Post flood live spans began to decrease due to the introduction of solar radiation but would for some time still be extensive compared to now. Methusala was the oldest pre-flood human recorded at near 1000 years. 120 bodies recovered from so many candidates indicates there should be many more available. It is unlikely they will be found though due to the flood and the decay it would have caused.
There is much difficulty in finding scientific evidence to back up these biblical claims. Science currently has evidence for and claims:
a. old earth/universe,
b. no evidence of a global flood,
c. no evidence that a human can live much beyond 110,
d. no reason to expect solar radiation (what spectrum are you proposing has changed?) has change significantly.
I think we are slipping into an area of belief here, IMO one can choose to believe what one desires, but if you wish to claim that there is scientific evidence for the things you claim, we can discuss that.
So, what is the body used to decide proper, acceptable proportions for a modern human? I looked around my neighborhood and could not decide whose body was normal. Scandanavians are regarded as genetically adapted to the cold. If we open the graves of people buried within the last year is it impossible that there will be bodies of healthy, robust, people who were active and broke their bones?
There is significant
anatomic differences. All humans (including Scandinavians) are adapted for the heat not cold, naked body, sweat glands on the skin, high surface area to body proportion. The Eskimo has somewhat adapted to the cold with a stocky body, but is still out of his ideal element. By comparison the Neanderthal is an ultra-eskimo
, large face (to accommodate better nasal cavities), I think the teeth are different too but donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t quote me on that, huge chest, much thicker bones, a little shorter, much stronger, shorter legs. In a recent documentary on the Neanderthal they analysed this aspect of cold adaptation in the Neanderthal, and reasoned that he would have a hard time in a warming climate, and deforestation, it was proposed he was not athletic like a homo-sapiens (i.e. long distance running).
chance> ItÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s like taking a road trip across the USA blindfolded (as a passenger) then removing the blindfold every one hundred or so kilometres for a split second. Sometimes little would have changed as you travel through those rectangular states in the middle as farming land goes by, but if you come to a mountain range the topography will change much faster, would even be possible to miss it.
Your analogy ignores my point. The massive number of fossils available from sediment indicates most (90%, a guess) of fossils uncovered in massive deposits of sediment placed by water. Does this have to be "Noah's flood"? No. But such a flood wuld leave such a deposit.
I was attempting to demonstrate that there are not a massive number of fossils
, when compared to the amount of biota that has existed, not to mention the amount discovered, it is a pitifully small percentage. The fossils we do have are, as you say, linked (in most cases) to water. Land animals are fossilised usual due to dieing near a river (seasonal flood), or some sediment collecting area under the ocean.
The Noachian flood would give a radically different strata (and fossils contained) that what is currently found.
Young Earth Evidence
A Google search for rapid fossil formation found 721,000 siites.
Yes it can. And we have the fossil record to prove it. The question is; How long can the dead organism lay on the surface awaiting burial. According to evolution these rotting corpses stayed in tact while thousands of years of sediment coverd them milimeters at a time. For the duration evolution requires the corpse to await burial it is impossible for the corpse to remain intact.
Thanks for the two links IÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ll get round to them later. A quick perusal however sees some very dubious claims.
An animal that is fossilised requires burial before it decays away, nowhere have I seen a scientific explanation of an animal lying on the surface for thousands of years, that is not evolutionary theory (strictly speaking the fossilisation process).
This site has views from both sides. Even those unwilling to yield to creation seem to agree the fossil record is unsupportive of evolution. Even if we cannot agree that evolutin is not proved invalid can't you see that evolution has too many unknowns to be varified at this point?
The standard response to the question of unknowns is: The fact that evolution occurred is undisputable, the current disputes are centred on the exact mechanisms that drive evolution. Of course there are going to be unknowns thatÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s what science is all about solving. But as I have stated many times on these forums when one starts digging into the specifics of these YEC claims, they are unfounded, sometimes worse.
I have to admit to regurgitation on this point for now as I cannot find a site speaking of the mechanics of virus mutation, only that they do. It was explained to me in this manner;
As is true with any life form on earth, there is variation. Viruses (?) of similar disease have individual characteristics. The medicine used to counter the virus cannot be designed to counter all the individual virus but is designed against the most common. Viruses need numbers to overwhelm the immune system. Once the numbers are reduced enough they cannot repel the immune sytems own attack. The immune is usually able to defend from this partcular virus. The problem is too often people decide they are healed before their immune system has taken hold because the administered antibodies are creating a stable system for the immune system to recover and attack from. Quitting the antibodies early causes the immune system to fail its attempt at irradicating the virus entirely. The viruses which remain are not the viruses the administered antibodies are designed to treat. So when it is re-administered it is unable to affect the remaining viruses. To call this a new virus is equal to saying a man with no arms is new. He is simply harder to handcuff. Of course the reverse may occur and a stronger form of the virus may be the second line of this attack. But now we can only equate it to a man with arms being the replacement. In both cases we have no new virus, just different. in most cases it is the lesser version that remains and is and is more reliant on the human and less distinct from the human host.
Sorry about the length. I'll try to find you a site. but I am up too late now, 0400 is my wakeup.
I agree with much of that explanation. However there are some points that need expanding, viruses and bacteria do survive by shear weight of numbers, in addition to a fast life cycle (more opportunity to evolve).
Viruses are dealt with our immune system (generalising) not drugs, (bacteria are dealt with by drugs, and the white cells in our blood) you seem to be including the treatment of bacteria and viruses as if they were the same. But the principle is ultimately the same, bacteria and viruses that survive the initial onslaught go on to producing drug (immune system) resistant strains. Basic Darwinian survival of the fittest (bacteria and viruses are individuals just like us, all individuals are different in some small way, that small way may just be enough to survive a medicine.