Yeah I know U_B , it's cool. Your right, one false move and all credibility is lost.
3 Million year old pre-human found
by monkeyshine 25 Replies latest social current
-
-
monkeyshine
they want to grab on to anything that even remotely shows it had any similarity to humans instead of accept that we were designed and created by a higher intelligence.
The reason is that we were told all of those years "where's the missing link? Why is there no in between? "
Now we are told "It's an extinct ape."
What about the time line? It's still there.
And to say creation fits in is credible. But what about all the hardcore no flex policies of the past? We would be laughed at for considering these ideas that are NOW accepted by believers of God.
-
Mr. Kim
....and how exactly was the "time span" measured?
-
read good books
It seems like science at times is too anxious to believe some piece of evidence that they engage in a leap of faith similar to what many religions, (one we all know in particular) do to establish their views. Fifty years from now will all this stuff be on the trash heap of past science where there are probably libraries needed to hold all the discarded views.
-
monkeyshine
....and how exactly was the "time span" measured?
For me to spend countless time showing how they come up with dates would be useless. Why? Because if people want to believe the opposite then that beats any science.
I see from the responses that this is a very touchy subject. It is very deep and requires research before making presumptions.
To immediately dismiss such a find is not fair to yourself or others.
Fifty years from now will all this stuff be on the trash heap of past science where there are probably libraries needed to hold all the discarded views.
Or will it be on the other heap of past science which was once considered nonsense by creationists and others and is now common knowledge?
I can't wait for 50 years from now (whether I'm here or not) because science will have brought us even closer to the REAL truth.
Being in the Org for so long some of us, including me at one time, think of scientists as a bunch of anti-bible people who dedicate their life to pulling people away from God. They taught us that science was an evil work performed by a bunch of blundering idiots. Maybe they (JW's) were wrong on this one too.
IMO, of course.
-
John1:3
National Geographic and the Evolutionists have been wrong before and they are wrong again. Remember that dino bird fossil? Of course you heard about the dino bird fossil. Lots of hype about the NG article on the news but when it was proved to be handmade by the Chinese who knew the scientists would pay a lot for it... there was no follow up. When it was proved a fake you could hear crickets from the scientific community , they were so embarassed. No press conference when National Geographic had to retract the lie.
Under_Believer said humans were not here 3 million years ago? I agree. That's because the earth wasn't here 3 million years ago. Just like God made Adam an adult , not a baby... he made the universe with the appearance of age. I mean why would he make stars millions of light years away, ,never to be seen by human eyes? He made the light from them to already reach earth the instant he made them. Scientists HAVE to date things very old otherwise there would not be enough time to support their evolution theory. Even though Mt. St. Helen (volcano) erupted in the 1980s , its newly formed rocks were tested to be millions of years old. Embarassing for the geologists but true.
Under_Believer please check out the information on this modern human fossil KNMER 1470. It was found in Kenya, completely human and aged to be about 2 - 4 million years old. There are all kinds of these anamolies... called polystyrate (not sure of spelling) fossils. These are Fossils that don't FIT the evolution timeline, like flowering tree fossils found upright crossing through various rock strats representing millions of years. Maybe you've heard about the small mammal in the stomach of the dinosaur fossil?
Also... how about those living fossils.... animals and plants that NEVER evolved and are still with us today? coleocanth fish, red maple, croccodile, ginko tree etc....
Just because this primate fossil looks somewhat human doesn't make it our ancestor. By their logic just because 2 cars or 2 chairs look alike.... so that would mean one is the ancestor of the other. Errr, no.... It means they have a common design
-
hampstead
looks a little like my younger brother...hmmmm....
has anyone heard from LIMITLESS??? shes the girl that fell in love with the confused JW and then her brother was in an accident in Taiwan????? If anyone hears from her, pls say hi from ME!!
-
Leolaia
National Geographic and the Evolutionists have been wrong before and they are wrong again. Remember that dino bird fossil? Of course you heard about the dino bird fossil. Lots of hype about the NG article on the news but when it was proved to be handmade by the Chinese who knew the scientists would pay a lot for it... there was no follow up. When it was proved a fake you could hear crickets from the scientific community , they were so embarassed. No press conference when National Geographic had to retract the lie.
1) The fossil was not a through-and-through fake like the Piltdown hoax. The archaeoraptor fossil consisted of two real fossils (half of a Microraptor fossil and half of a Yanornis fossil) that were glued together to form a fabricated whole.
2) It was assembled by a poor Chinese farmer who wanted to increase the monetary value of the find. Complete fossils bring in more money than fragmentary fossils. So he glued together two fossils that fit together convincingly.
3) The fraud was uncovered by a scientist (read: evolutionist) who realized that the two parts didn't fit together and found more of the original Microraptor fossil. That's how science works, correcting the mistakes of others.
4) The fossil is actually more valuable now after the fakery had been uncovered, since it furnishes fossil evidence of two separate species earlier unknown, both of which attest to the dinosaur-bird transition (e.g. a feathered dinosaur and a bird with primitive avian and retained saurian features).
5) National Geographic did not lie (they reported what they knew at the time) and they published a full retraction (in October 2000). National Geographic, being a popular publication, likes to sensationalize finds and the premature press conference, before the fossil had been adequately examined, was of course a mistake. Most scientists do not sensationalize their finds, and the great bulk of evidence bearing on the question of evolution is to be found in academic journals little read by the general public.
Under_Believer said humans were not here 3 million years ago? I agree. That's because the earth wasn't here 3 million years ago. Just like God made Adam an adult , not a baby... he made the universe with the appearance of age. I mean why would he make stars millions of light years away, ,never to be seen by human eyes? He made the light from them to already reach earth the instant he made them.
In other words, any evidence that would be inconsistent with your faith position can be dismissed as "that's just how God made things that way". That is to say, your position is unfalsifiable and thus outside the realm of scientific inquiry. One could similarly argue that the universe was created six days ago and only appears to be much older (your memories included). This position is just as unfalsifiable as yours.
Scientists HAVE to date things very old otherwise there would not be enough time to support their evolution theory.
You make it sound as if dates for the antiquity of earth and primeval life are dishonestly invented to accommodate "evolution theory". In reality, many 19th-century scientists were Bible believers who were forced by the sheer weight of the physical evidence to concede that the earth is much, much older than apparent from traditional interpretations of the Bible, leading to new interpretations like the "day-age" and "gap" interpretations of the creation narrative. See the article "Scripture in the Hands of Geologists" by Davis Young in Westminster Theological Journal (1987).
Even though Mt. St. Helen (volcano) erupted in the 1980s , its newly formed rocks were tested to be millions of years old. Embarassing for the geologists but true.
Citation?
Under_Believer please check out the information on this modern human fossil KNMER 1470 . It was found in Kenya, completely human and aged to be about 2 - 4 million years old.
"Completely human"??? This homo habilis/rudolfensis fossil is profiled here:
http://www.archaeologyinfo.com/er1470.htm
It is most certainly not a "modern human" fossil, e.g. homo sapiens. It is "human" in the sense that it belongs to the homo genus and thus lacks certain australopithecene features (such as crests and heavy muscle markings on the skull, a cranial capacity exceeding the 375-550 cc range), and it is closer to homo sapiens in some respects than homo erectus (e.g. lacking the brow ridges and flexed occipital bone characteristic of erectus). But as one would expect, this fossil falls far short of sapiens (which has a cranial capacity of 1350 cc) by having a cranial capacity of 775 cc and other primitive non-sapiens features (e.g. very large incisors and canines, longer face), i.e. transitional between earlier and later morphologies. It shows that there were no sharp boundaries in hominid evolution, as can be seen creationist indecision of whether this specimen should be regarded as an "ape" or "human".
There are all kinds of these anamolies... called polystyrate (not sure of spelling) fossils. These are Fossils that don't FIT the evolution timeline, like flowering tree fossils found upright crossing through various rock strats representing millions of years.
Geological strata are not always neat...just as every archaeologist knows that archaeological strata can be disturbed post facto by burials or other intrusions, so can tree roots intrude through older soft layers (such as clay) while upper layers can be deposited rapidly near rivers and wetlands. No archaeologist would reject the importance of stratigraphical evidence (as of no merit) because of uneven length of deposit layers or the existence of intrusions. I would suggest you read some non-creationist literature (polystrate is a creationist, not a geological term) to learn more about the sciences of taphonomy and stratigraphy.
Maybe you've heard about the small mammal in the stomach of the dinosaur fossil?
Again, you are not well-acquainted with the palentological literature, which recognizes that dinosaurs and early mammals were contemporaries as this is what the evidence indicates. Why would contemporary theories of paleontology expect anything different? Do you mean that dinosaurs should cease to exist once mammalian species arose?
Also... how about those living fossils .... animals and plants that NEVER evolved and are still with us today? coleocanth fish, red maple, croccodile, ginko tree etc....
"Never evolved"? It is not claimed that the body plan of these plants and animals did not arise through evolutionary processes. As for the continued existence of these body plans with little change from earlier epochs (note: not no change, in fact some examples may retain only some primitive features), the stability is evidence only for their success in their given ecological niches....there is no divine mandate or requirement that life forms must undergo drastic morphological change through time; change occurs when there is a need to adapt to a new or altered ecology. Some "living fossils" are not instances of a single species existing through the ages but represent a sole survivor of an originally diverse genus or family that otherwise has no other living representatives. A good survey of the terminological and biological facts can be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Living_fossils.
-
TopHat
Three million years? Hard to believe any remains of any living creature could have survived that long and not turned back into the earth.. Three million years is a long long time.
-
Arthur
Scientists HAVE to date things very old otherwise there would not be enough time to support their evolution theory.
Statements such as these show a gross naivete as to how the process of dating fossils and publishing such data works. No scientist can just arbitrarily assign a date / age to a fossil without it being subject to intense scrutiny by others in their respective field. Fossils undergo a number of several dating methods regardless of the scientist's personal estimates. Such test results as well as the scientist's methods are published in peer reviewed journals and are further discussed and critiqued. Also, the scientific community is quite competative. No one is allowed to "half-ass" their research. This is because their research must pass the scrutiny of other scientists and universities who would only be too eager to prove them wrong. Those who try to cheat or fudge their data are promptly exposed and ridiculed in their respective fields. Such a snafu can spell the absolute doom to a scientist's reputation and career. What archeolgist or paleontologist could get grants or funding after being exposed as being sloppy or dishonest?
The various scientific fields are not so monolithic that they would excuse each other's sloppy or dishonest research. These fields are filled with competitave individuals who are devoted to scrutinizing their peers; and pointing out their flaws. It is a transparent and self-correcting process.