Mankind could be 4 Million years old...

by JH 4 Replies latest jw friends

  • JH
    JH

    The bible tells us that Adam, the first human, was born about 6000 years ago. Many think that mankind is much older. I found this article on the subject. What is your opinion on this?

    Humans may be 4m years old
    27Apr03
    A NEW dating technique suggests that a human-like fossil skeleton found in South Africa was buried about four million years ago, which makes it one of the oldest known hominid discoveries.

    That's one million years earlier than previously thought.

    The nearly complete skeleton came from the Sterkfontein caves that contain rich deposits of remains from the pre-human branches of the ancestral tree that led to modern humans. The bones are identified as a type of Australopithecus, an extinct form of pre-humans.

    Skeleton fossils unearthed in 1997 were age dated at about three million years using a technique that measured the changes in the Earth's magnetic field geochemically recorded within rocks found with the fossils. The results have been disputed by experts who say the method was not precise.

    In the new effort, researchers, led by Darryl Granger and M.W. Caffee of Purdue University, measured the decay of isotopes in cave sediments to establish the older ages. A report on their study appears tomorrow (Friday April 25) in the journal Science.

    The new technique is based on chemical changes in elements caused by cosmic rays. The bombardment of cosmic rays creates unstable isotopes of beryllium and aluminum, both of which decay at a known rate. The older a sediment is, the more isotopes it acquires.

    When the sediments are buried by an earth movement, the cosmic ray bombardment stops, but the isotopic decay continues.

    Granger said that the cave is carved by water out of dolomite and cherte rock. Over time, both the fossils and fragments of quartz crystals that were on the surface were washed into the cave and deposited together. Once the quartz is inside the cave, it is no longer being hit by cosmic rays.

    "That sets the clock," said Granger.

    He said by measuring the isotopic decay in the quartz, the researchers could establish when both the fossils and the quartz were deposited.v The other co-authors of the study are T. C. Partidge and R. J. Clarke, both of the University of the Witwatersrand in Johannesburg, South Africa. Partridge and Clark did the earlier studies on the Sterkfontein fossils.

    Australopithecus is an extinct hominid species that lived from about four to two million years ago. Lucy, a famed pre-human fossil find found in Ethiopia, was identified as a type of Australopithecus. The new age-dating technique suggests that the fossils from Sterkfontein Cave are even older than Lucy.

    Granger said only an Australopithecus fossil found in Kenya was older than the remains from the South African cave.

    However, some researchers said in Science that the specimens used by Granger and Caffee may have been contaminated by debris that was not deposited at the same time as the fossils.

    Henry Schwarez of McMaster University in Hamilton, Canada, said in Science that the collapsed cave ceilings may have dropped sediments into the area where the fossils were found and thus distorted the age-dating results. Schwarez said the Purdue researchers needed to test the technique using sediments from South African caves of a known age.

    Granger said the age-dating technique was not affected by sediments from inside the cave. He said the cave minerals were distinctly different from the quartz washed in from the surface. The material from the cave walls and ceiling was separated from the quartz before the isotopic measurements were taken, he said.

    This report appears on news.com.au.

  • rocketman
    rocketman

    Intriguing.

  • Satanus
    Satanus

    How can a cave stay a cave for 4,000,000 yrs? One would think that with continental movements, erosion, wind blown dirt, volcanoes, new condominiums, floods, and just general wear and tear, a cave would dissappear after a few thousand yrs.

    SS

  • Chap
    Chap

    Maybe they should try using the new method on "Lucy", she may be 5 million years old with the new method.

  • Abaddon
    Abaddon

    Argh...

    Okay, let's ignore fancy-smanchy dating techniques and look at trees. They have growth rings. Some species are really reliable in the way they produce growth rings, others less reliable, but it just so happens that one of the most reliable species for dendrochronolgy is the bristlecone pine of California. The oldest living species of tree. Convenient, huh?

    The varience of growth rings caused by differing climactic conditions each season allows matches to be made, so that the pattern of thick and thin rings at the begining of the growth of a tree now alive can be matched with the coresponding pattern of thick and thin rings on a tree that died when the tree now alive was young. The growth rings at the start of this second tree's life may be matched to the sequence of a third older tree, each successive match allowing a year-by-year count to go further back.

    Using this simple and almost unarguable form of dating lets us know that the Genesis account is non literal, as there were trees alive and standing before after and during the flood, i.e. the flood did not happen or was not global. It also shows that trees were alive before the Earth was created, at least according to Young Earth Creationists.

    As a couple of trees can falsify the literal nature of Genesis, it seems pointless to try and reconcile the rest of the creation account in Genesis, as it is similarly flawed even if you believe the first line of the Bible allows for Creation with an old Earth.

    Some people chose to try and defend the literalistic viewpoint, but I can't imagine why, as if Genesis IS just a well-educated goatherd's conception of how the world began, rather than god's inspired word, it doesn't reduce whatever truth or beauty can be found in the words of Jesus, for example.

    Given that there has ALREADY been falsification of Genesis as a literal account for many decades now, this new dating is utterly irrelevent to the issue.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit