[_ Old Earth _] OLD FOSSILS!

[neanderthal]

Australopithecus boisei
synonyms: Zinjanthropus boisei, Paranthropus boisei, OH 5.

Australopithecus boisei was the first, major, early, fossil hominid (australopithecine) find made at Olduvai, Tanzania (East Africa). This particular specimen (the type specimen of the species) was excavated by Mary and Louis Leakey in 1959, and is an almost complete cranium, including the full, adult dentition, but with the third upper molars (M3) only partially erupted. It is a large, robust cranium, with a big (median sagittal) crest (related to its large chewing - temporal - muscles), and huge premolar and molar teeth. The cranium is postulated as coming from a young, male individual, and it has been dated, by the radio-active, potassium-argon method, as 1.75 million years old (1.75 Ma).

A Neanderthal skull. Neanderthal man was first discovered in Neanderthal, Germany, hence the name. Neanderthals have been proven to have coexisted alongside homo sapiens for thousands of years, destroying the evolutionary theory that they are our ancestors. They died out around 26,000 b.c., probably from being outcompeted for food by homo sapiens. Image from BBC News.

Once again the evolutionary zealots have been proven wrong. Neanderthal man, once thought to be one our immediate ancestors, has now been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt to be not an ancestor of homo sapiens, but a form of mankind that had been created and had developed parallel to homo sapiens. However, though the already dubious theory of evolution may have been dealt a mortal blow by these findings, the final destruction of evolutionary theory may open up a Pandora's box of speculation about our origins that many may find disturbing.

according to the bible, man was created 6,000 years ago. this frightens many christians!!! : : :

 

[reznwerks]

read

You need to read the other posts on this board and follow the links as well. The only people trying to debunk evolution are bible literalists.

 

[neanderthal]

so much for your answer, whether bible literalists or not, i have yet to see either a theory or an explanation on any side.

 

[Asimov]

so much for your answer, whether bible literalists or not, i have yet to see either a theory or an explanation on any side.

What are you asking?

 

[neanderthal]

how do christians explain these fossils in comparison to the genesis of man supposely begin with adam circa 6,000 B.C. even if there some christians here that are biblical literalist and believe the bible speaks of some sort of evolutionary process, how would they explain these fossils?

 

[reznwerks]

evidence

so much for your answer, whether bible literalists or not, i have yet to see either a theory or an explanation on any side.

Then you either haven't looked or choose to ignore what is there. Do you think 98% of the people that understand evolution and accept it as fact do so because they all want to go for breakfast together? Now one more time, go back and read the posts and follow and study what is available in the links.

 

[Barabbas]

Well let me ask another question that just occured to me. Just how does one explain the existance OF a fossil?

 

[Barabbas]

Hey, I've got another question. Has anyone found a NEW fossil? I mean the title of this thread is OLD FOSSIL, but what about new ones?

 

[reznwerks]

fossils

Hey, I've got another question. Has anyone found a NEW fossil? I mean the title of this thread is OLD FOSSIL, but what about new ones?

I really don't know where to begin. Try this for starters.
http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/fossils/contents.html

 

[Barabbas]

Nope sorry. Don't ever give me some convoluted website or a dissertation/thesis. If you've got something to say, do it as if we were face to face, like at a party. Some of you guys on this board sound real interesting and might be fun to actually talk with. However, a website/thesis is a waste of time for you and me, unless, I need directions somewhere on a rabbit trail I'm following. My time is limited. Thats why I'm a hard case about this.
Now, back on topic. I suppose we should be able to get some new fossils from the Mt. St Helens eruption, or the 1993 MS River flood.? Anyone got a prediction on when we might can expect them?

 

[SyntaxVorlon]

Nope sorry. Don't ever give me some convoluted website or a dissertation/thesis. If you've got something to say, do it as if we were face to face, like at a party. Some of you guys on this board sound real interesting and might be fun to actually talk with. However, a website/thesis is a waste of time for you and me, unless, I need directions somewhere on a rabbit trail I'm following. My time is limited. Thats why I'm a hard case about this.
Now, back on topic. I suppose we should be able to get some new fossils from the Mt. St Helens eruption, or the 1993 MS River flood.? Anyone got a prediction on when we might can expect them?

Depends on the speed of lification, etc. Depends on a lot of things.

 

[unred typo]

Reznwerks wrote:

You need to read the other posts on this board and follow the links as well. The only people trying to debunk evolution are bible literalists.

I agree. :wink: You need to read this:

http://www.christianforums.net/viewtopic.php?t=13827

Excerpts from the article:

A flamboyant anthropology professor, whose work had been cited as evidence Neanderthal man once lived in Northern Europe, has resigned after a German university panel ruled he fabricated data and plagiarized the works of his colleagues.

Chris Stringer, a Stone Age specialist and head of human origins at London's Natural History Museum, said: "What was considered a major piece of evidence showing that the Neanderthals once lived in northern Europe has fallen by the wayside. We are having to rewrite prehistory."

"Anthropology now has to revise its picture of modern man between 40,000 and 10,000 B.C.," added Thomas Terberger, an archaeologist at the University of Greifswald.

Frankfurt University's president, Rudolf Steinberg, apologized for the university's failure to curb Protsch's misconduct for decades. "A lot of people looked the other way," he said.

How many are looking the other way on some of these other dating "problems" for Bible literalists? :roll:

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/print ... E_ID=42940

 

[Barbarian]

Incidentally, there is no such community as "Neandertal, Germany."

The first specimen was found in the valley of the Neander river. Hence, the term "Neandertal" (valley of the Neander).

 

[unred typo]

The Barbarian wrote:

Incidentally, there is no such community as "Neandertal, Germany."

The first specimen was found in the valley of the Neander river. Hence, the term "Neandertal" (valley of the Neander).

Is that supposed to be a trivial pursuit rabbit trail? :wink: Did anyone even think Neanderthal was a community in Germany? :-? Was the first specimen a fake or a distant cousin 4 billion times removed?

 

[reznwerks]

read

Reznwerks wrote:

You need to read the other posts on this board and follow the links as well. The only people trying to debunk evolution are bible literalists.

I agree. :wink: You need to read this:

http://www.christianforums.net/viewtopic.php?t=13827
Look, one bad apple caught by his own is proof that scientists and evolutionists are after one thing and that is the truth. One bad apple does not discount ALL the other evidence (and that is considerable) that persuade 98% of all those schooled in this science to accept evolution as fact. The exact process of evolution may not be correct but not understanding something or not totally agreeing on something is not proof of a creator.
I have far more links than this one and I really think you should look at them and see what is NOT DISPUTED and why.

 

[unred typo]

Rezenwerks wrote:

Look, one bad apple caught by his own is proof that scientists and evolutionists are after one thing and that is the truth. One bad apple does not discount ALL the other evidence (and that is considerable) that persuade 98% of all those schooled in this science to accept evolution as fact. The exact process of evolution may not be correct but not understanding something or not totally agreeing on something is not proof of a creator.
I have far more links than this one and I really think you should look at them and see what is NOT DISPUTED and why.

Read this again, please:

Frankfurt University's president, Rudolf Steinberg, apologized for the university's failure to curb Protsch's misconduct for decades. "A lot of people looked the other way," he said.

Maybe they are not disputed, but that doesn’t mean they shouldn’t be.
Here’s another example of things that are NOT DISPUTED but I can‘t figure out why:

Geologist Jere Lipps (UC Berkeley Museurm of Paleontology) offers the following perspective on the generally accepted view of these varves, If anyone in your class claims that the Green River varves are not annual, share this statement with them, and encourage them to bring in their source.
[quote:5647a]"The Green River Formation laminae are considered varves, although not
formed under glacial conditions. They consist of a thin, dark winter layer
and a thicker lighter summer layer. These formed by seasonal
events--incresed spring and summer productivity of algae, and accumulation
of finer material in the winter. Some geologists have had a few other
ideas about the Green River Fm, but the seasonal changes accounting for the
laminations seems secure. Thus, they are annual varves."

[/quote:5647a]

Notice how these things are “generally accepted’ views that “seem secure†and “considered†to be annual and opponents are only making “claims.†Some geologists may “have had a few other ideas†but they are discarded with the single unproven statement of not just an assumption, but fact, “Thus, they are annual varves."

To me they look like the same layers built in hours at Mt .St Helens, but what do I know? They are the undisputed experts, after all.

The following excerpts expose some of the problems within the scientific community:

Six months ago, the young German physicist Jan Hendrik Schön seemed like the next best thing to Einstein. But then some of his colleagues took a closer look at his research and unraveled a scientific scandal….
Schön’s work, published in renowned scientific journals like Science and Nature, was ground-breaking and quickly catapulted the physicist into the top tier of his field. Almost overnight he became a favored nominee for the Nobel prize. The first experimental reports were quickly followed up by several more. Within two years time, Schön had published some 90 articles, most of them in leading scientific journals. Working under the feverish pace of the "publish or perish" climate of the scientific community, Schön quickly became a leading figure, something of a superstar among physicists.

The questions started to arise when a few inquisitive researchers were unable to reproduce Schön’s results, despite numerous attempts in well-equipped laboratories

Bell Labs then launched a full-scale independent investigation into Schön’s research. According to Malcolm Beasley, a professor of electrical engineering at Stanford University who oversaw the investigation, Schön had substituted figures from various papers, removed data points that disagreed with his predictions and used mathematical functions in place of real data points. In 16 of 24 cases, Schön’s data was found to be manipulated or falsified.

The once "highly competent system of rigorous analysis and observation" doesn’t hold up any more under the numerous publications in the field, said Ingolf Ruge, director of Systems of Communication at the Fraunhofer Institute for Applied Science. Speaking in an official statement on the state of science, Ruge criticized the "neglect of ethics in the scientific community" and said that the sharp referee system of peer review prior to publishing was a "mess."

I question if the referee system of peer review was ever anything but a mess, although hidden in the laboratory closet far from the inquiring, yet quite uninformed and gullible, minds of the general public.

 

[unred typo]

neanderthal wrote

according to the bible, man was created 6,000 years ago. this frightens many christians!!!

Only those who have forgotten how to laugh. This is funny if you can find the punch line: :

New Findings Bolster Case for Ancient Human Ancestor By Malcolm Ritter
Associated Press
posted: 06 April 2005
01:36 pm ET

NEW YORK (AP) -- New fossil finds and a computer reconstruction of a skull bolster the case that an ancient creature that grabbed headlines in 2002 really is the earliest known ancestor of modern humans, researchers say.
In that year, scientists announced finding jaw fragments, some isolated teeth and a skull of a creature nicknamed "Toumai'' in Chad. At some 6 million to 7 million years old, the fossils came from around the time of a major split in the evolutionary tree, with one branch leading eventually to humans and the other branch leading to chimps.
The researchers argued that the creature, which they dubbed Sahelanthropus tchadensis, belongs on the human branch and so is the oldest known hominid. Some others disagreed. In any case, the skull provided a puzzling combination of human and chimp traits and raised what one expert called "a wheelbarrow full of questions'' about evolution at that time.
Many scientists now think S. tchadensis was probably a hominid, and more evidence appears in Thursday's issue of the journal Nature. It comes from Michel Brunet of the University of Poitiers in France, who led the team that made the original discovery, and colleagues.
Other experts said the new work strengthens the case for hominid status but doesn't clinch it.
"This isn't a smoking gun,'' said David Begun of the University of Toronto.
A big question is whether S. tchadensis walked upright, because that's a key characteristic of hominids. Brunet, in an e-mail, said given the available evidence it would be a "great surprise'' if it didn't walk upright. But he agreed with other scientists that to be sure, scientists would have to find and analyze skeletal bones that carry signatures of upright walking, like a knee, hip or foot.
In Nature, Brunet and colleagues report discovering two new jaw fragments and the crown of a tooth in the same geographical area as the earlier findings. Analysis shows similarities to hominid fossils and differences from ape traits, they said.
They also present a computerized reconstruction of the skull, because the fossil had been distorted in the ground. The reconstruction confirms that S. tchadensis shared several features with later hominids, the researchers wrote. In addition, the position of the hole where the spinal cord enters is like what's seen in humans but not apes, which suggests upright walking, they wrote.
Rick Potts, director of the Human Origins Program at the Smithsonian Institution's National Museum of Natural History, said the position of that hole doesn't necessarily prove S. tchadensis walked upright. Still, Potts said he thinks the creature was probably a hominid.
Begun agreed, and said the chances are "pretty good'' the creature walked upright, although "I'll be convinced when they find a knee joint.''
Bernard Wood of George Washington University said he finds too little evidence to declare S. tchadensis a hominid with certainty, although it might well be true. If it isn't, the creature might have belonged to a branch of the evolutionary tree that has no living representatives, he said.

Sounds like the fragments from different “creatures†are being put together to form a picture that supports a biased view. For all they know it was a man climbing up a tree beside an ape when a tsunami (caused by the breaking up of the fountains of the deep in Genesis 7:11) overtook them and deposited parts of them together in the same mud pile. The very implication that any knee joints or leg bones found in the general area can be considered part of this individual’s skeleton is preposterous. If people of the pre flood era were subjected to a major famine as reported in Jasher, they would show evidence of osteoporosis, rickets, and other bone deformities as well. How this constitutes convincing proof of these remains belonging to a branch of the evolutionary tree some 6 million to 7 million years old defies reason and common sense.

Brunet, in an e-mail, said given the available evidence it would be a "great surprise'' if it didn't walk upright.

You thought this was gonna be a blond joke, didn't you? :-D