PDA

View Full Version : 160,000-year-old Skulls Are Oldest Modern Humans


vniow
Jun 13, 2003, 03:08 PM
Berkeley -- The fossilized skulls of two adults and one child discovered in the Afar region of eastern Ethiopia have been dated at 160,000 years, making them the oldest known fossils of modern humans, or Homo sapiens.

The skulls, dug up near a village called Herto, fill a major gap in the human fossil record, an era at the dawn of modern humans when the facial features and brain cases we recognize today as human first appeared.

The fossils date precisely from the time when biologists using genes to chart human evolution predicted that a genetic "Eve" lived somewhere in Africa and gave rise to all modern humans.

"We've lacked intermediate fossils between pre-humans and modern humans, between 100,000 and 300,000 years ago, and that's where the Herto fossils fit," said paleoanthropologist Tim White, professor of integrative biology at the University of California, Berkeley, and a co-leader of the team that excavated and analyzed the discovery site. "Now, the fossil record meshes with the molecular evidence."

"With these new crania," he added, "we can now see what our direct ancestors looked like."

"This set of fossils is stupendous," said team member F. Clark Howell, UC Berkeley professor emeritus of integrative biology and co-director with White of UC Berkeley's Laboratory for Human Evolutionary Studies. "This is a truly revolutionary scientific discovery."

Howell added that these anatomically modern humans pre-date most neanderthals, and therefore could not have descended from them, as some scientists have proposed.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2003/06/030612090827.htm

CaVoLo
Jun 13, 2003, 04:43 PM
i personally dont belive this....due to the fact that scienctists methods of determing the dating of things tend to be very unaccurate....plus im not an evolutionist (i choose to belive in an all powerful God versus a speck of dirt :-)

to test the accuracy of the differnt dating methods scientists have tested boots....recently created of course....and it turns out that they were over a million years old....hmmm i dont think they had those machines back then to create boots....because there was no earth a million years ago in my opinion

wdlove
Jun 13, 2003, 06:20 PM
I believe that the Bible is compatable with present scientific knowledge. It is all because God is in full control, to him a day is a 1,000 years and a 1,000 years is a day!

Ugg
Jun 13, 2003, 07:54 PM
It's nice to see some of the gaps in homo sapiens' family tree filled in. With every discovery comes more knowledge and more discussion to fuel the debate, very healthy IMO.

As far as carbon dating is concerned, it seems to be pretty accurate, to dismiss it is to deny science its due.

topicolo
Jun 13, 2003, 08:08 PM
Originally posted by CaVoLo
i personally dont belive this....due to the fact that scienctists methods of determing the dating of things tend to be very unaccurate....plus im not an evolutionist (i choose to belive in an all powerful God versus a speck of dirt :-)

to test the accuracy of the differnt dating methods scientists have tested boots....recently created of course....and it turns out that they were over a million years old....hmmm i dont think they had those machines back then to create boots....because there was no earth a million years ago in my opinion

Just as you don't trust radioisotope dating because of sufficient trustable evidence, I can't trust what you're claiming about the boot until you provide links.

In the meantime, I'm just going to claim that the world is flat because I almost fell off yesterday so there!

maluscanis
Jun 13, 2003, 11:36 PM
I think we have to come to the realization that our "proven" scientific methods and procedures are based on certain assumptions (which are often very good).

Radioisotope dating is fundamentally very solid science...however, you have to assume that you know how much of that isotope was there originally and that none of it was leached. There are several cases were our dating methods have given blatantly errant results; however, this does not disprove the usefulness of dating methods but only proves that they should be used within their limits.

What does dissapoint me is the unaccepatable evolutionary bias of today's mainstream scientists. If you want to prove something badly enough, you can easily make the data fit your theory.

The fact is evolution is not a fact but a theory. It is a viable theory worth researching but does have a long way to go before becoming a law.


remember: science is supposed to be OBJECTIVE. Something, evolution and creation scientists should take a lesson in.

groovebuster
Jun 14, 2003, 12:31 AM
Originally posted by CaVoLo
to test the accuracy of the differnt dating methods scientists have tested boots....recently created of course....and it turns out that they were over a million years old....hmmm i dont think they had those machines back then to create boots....because there was no earth a million years ago in my opinion

For me it is always funny, when people like you question scientific results the way you do.

One method alone can be inaccurate once in while, but there is a tendency overall in different scientific fields that leads to the assumption that the earth and the universe is billions of years old.

On the other hand there are so many things proving, that the good old story in the bible just can't be. God put the bones of dinosaurs in the ground because he wanted to see how we make funny assumptions? What about all the stuff they found out in astronomy over the years?

If it would be for the (christian) church, the earth would be still flat and the sun evolving around the earth. The church is always only giving up positions that are 150% disproved (no 100% are not ebough), and there are even lemmings (no offense) who always believe what the church is telling them beacause it must be the "word of God"!

I tell you what... I am also christian, but I don't care at all, how God maybe created the world, because it has nothing to do with being a christian at all! It is just about how you interact with your environment with Jesus as a role model. That's it!

The bible of course is not accurate because how can a human being that, scientifically spoken ;) , had the knowledge of 4 y.o. compared to today explain correctly how the world was created? A person that didn't even know how big the world is and only knew his little sand-box where he lived?

It's like you would explain to a 1st grader detailed how to genetically manipulate crop and he has to write it down afterwards. Would that paper be accurate at all? No! Because he doesn't have the horizon to even understand basically what you were telling. he would just summarize it in a way how he understood it, missing the big picture.

But even if he would have been able to write it down (enlightened by God), would the other kids understand what he is saying? No, because the also don't have the horizon to get it.

It was not God who created the amenities of today's life, it was science. Think about it the next time you sit in your car... ;)

groovebuster

mactastic
Jun 14, 2003, 01:17 AM
Wow, that is really cool. 160,000 years is a long time. Interesting that these were actually found in 1997, but only now is the published work coming out. I guess 6 years isn't really that long when you think about it though.:p

Kethoticus
Jun 14, 2003, 05:49 AM
One method alone can be inaccurate once in while, but there is a tendency overall in different scientific fields that leads to the assumption that the earth and the universe is billions of years old.

True, methods that go beyond C14 dating. But the gentleman you're responding to does, to my limited knowledge at least, make a point. The radio-isotope methods do not produce perfect results.


On the other hand there are so many things proving, that the good old story in the bible just can't be. God put the bones of dinosaurs in the ground because he wanted to see how we make funny assumptions? What about all the stuff they found out in astronomy over the years?

The Bible does talk about God sending (or allowing) a great deception in the last days. But my knowledge of that is sketchy at best.

As for the fossil record, Creationists have their counter-arguments, explaining why/how it in fact supports an intelligent Designer. Have you ever researched that? I am SLOWLY doing so. But there is just so much information out there to study. And time is just never in plentiful supply.

I hear what you're saying about the fossil record. But again, if you haven't, you might want to hear another point of view regarding that fossil record and jump to some creationist sites.

As for "... all the stuff they found out in astronomy over the years", you really need to read up on this stuff a bit more. From what I've been reading lately, evidence for the big bang theory seems to support the idea that there was JUST the right amount of heat dissipation to allow JUST the right amount of necessary elements to form so that JUST the right conditions for life could exist. (Largely this appears to be based on the many studies of the cosmic background radiation over the past decade.)


If it would be for the (christian) church, the earth would be still flat and the sun evolving around the earth. The church is always only giving up positions that are 150% disproved (no 100% are not ebough), and there are even lemmings (no offense) who always believe what the church is telling them beacause it must be the "word of God"!

This is an unfair overgeneralization. Job himself talked about how the earth is suspended on nothing.

Job 26:7 reads: "...He suspends the earth over nothing."

The ancient Catholic Church's stance on things is not indicative of Christianity as a whole or the Bible itself. For crying out loud, they instituted all sorts of things that had more to do with their own lust for power than for a love for God and his people.

To say that "the" church (whichever one that is) is always supporting positions that are (somehow) 150% disproven, that has sometimes been true, and sometimes Christians, going on the Bible, knew things that archaeologists didn't know until they eventually got around to digging up the evidence.

As for lemmings always believing what the church tells them, you're right. But you seem to be guilty of something similare, spewing out some things you've heard without seriously investigating it from both sides.

But I agree with what you said to a point. Too many times I've heard ignorant people who probably (I'm assuming here) read a tract or small booklet in their local Christian bookstore and then think they can wipe out the knowledge of paleontologists or geologists with one magical sentence. And of course, all they do is fuel perceptions such as yours after said scientists twist their words around their throats with great adeptness.


I tell you what... I am also christian, but I don't care at all, how God maybe created the world, because it has nothing to do with being a christian at all! It is just about how you interact with your environment with Jesus as a role model. That's it!

I disagree. I believe that evolution and Christianity completely invalidate each other. I've already explained in another recent thread, but I'll see if I can outline it quickly here.

1) Evolution assumes death before the spiritual fall of man in Eden. In fact, it assume no spiritual fall at all. Genesis clearly states that man knew no death until after he committed his first sin. Evolution depends on the survival of the strongest, implying the death of the weakest from the very beginning of life on earth.

2) This survival-of-the-fittest system is inconsistent with the character of the Judeo-Christian God. You ain't strong enough? Too bad. You die. I can just see Jesus preaching that.

3) Evolution seems to imply that if a deity was responsible for the evolution of life on earth, he/she/it seemed more to be experimenting and perfecting their creation over time. The omniscient Judeo-Christian God has no need for experimentation.

4) Finally, if all sin is is a collection of animal passions inherited from our apelike ancestors, then God clearly has no right to hold us accountable and send us to Hell for those things. If we are the result of his grand, eons-long project, having selfish tendencies that together are called sin in the Bible (such as a self-centered survival instinct, lust for more than one mate, etc.) is nothing more than being exactly what God created us to be. And yet, the Judeo-Christian God felt it necessary to allow Himself to be brutally murdered for those mere animal instincts so that we could have eternal fellowship with Him. That might make sense to you, but it makes none for me.


The bible of course is not accurate because how can a human being that, scientifically spoken , had the knowledge of 4 y.o. compared to today explain correctly how the world was created? A person that didn't even know how big the world is and only knew his little sand-box where he lived?

To say that the Bible is not accurate is to assume its writers were not divinely inspired. To assume that unravels the foundations of Christianity. You can not call yourself a Christian if you believe this, at least not by using the definition of the word as it was originally intended ("little Christ", meant mockingly--but actually quite complimentary--if memory serves, by the people of ancient Antioch).


But even if he would have been able to write it down (enlightened by God), would the other kids understand what he is saying? No, because the also don't have the horizon to get it.

Horizon?!? Um, anyway...

As a Christian, I believe God told us in the way that we needed to know, in a way that could best be understood. Of course, that is just a belief, nothing provable there. But of course, the same could be said for some of what you've said.

However, I also believe that the people in ancient times were no different than we are today. I do not believe human intelligence or the human heart has changed since the day we were created. I believe that if God wanted to reveal some scientific detail about His creation, they could have absorbed it.


It was not God who created the amenities of today's life, it was science. Think about it the next time you sit in your car...

Heh. It was intelligent design that created the automobile (a device believed to be causing severe environmental breakdown I might add). But the vastly more complex living cell formed accidentally.


Look, I understand what you're saying, but some of your arguments are without merit. Just like some of the things my fellow born-againers come out with are ignorant and ill-informed.

groovebuster
Jun 14, 2003, 08:08 AM
Originally posted by Kethoticus
True, methods that go beyond C14 dating. But the gentleman you're responding to does, to my limited knowledge at least, make a point. The radio-isotope methods do not produce perfect results.

I never doubted that... he was questioning modern science in general and that's what I was replying too...

Originally posted by Kethoticus
The Bible does talk about God sending (or allowing) a great deception in the last days. But my knowledge of that is sketchy at best.

Something that is right for all the time since humans exist. I am very sceptical about those prophecies since they would be always right no matter when the end finally woul be there...

Originally posted by Kethoticus
As for the fossil record, Creationists have their counter-arguments, explaining why/how it in fact supports an intelligent Designer. Have you ever researched that?

Yes, I did! My mother-in-law studied theology at universiyt and is also a creationist. Believe me, I know enough about it...

Originally posted by Kethoticus
I hear what you're saying about the fossil record. But again, if you haven't, you might want to hear another point of view regarding that fossil record and jump to some creationist sites.

As I said before... I am already well-informed about that stuff and I can tell you that for me it is not more than bending facts to make them fit into the bible, no matter what. Regarding that it is way worse than maybe science being a little bit off and searching permanently for the truth...

Originally posted by Kethoticus
As for "... all the stuff they found out in astronomy over the years", you really need to read up on this stuff a bit more.

No, I don't! Why are you questioning my competence here even though I didn't make a specific statement? I studied physics at university after high-school and I guess I know more about that stuff than most other people normally do. My point was something totally different, a pity that you missed it.

Originally posted by Kethoticus
From what I've been reading lately, evidence for the big bang theory seems to support the idea that there was JUST the right amount of heat dissipation to allow JUST the right amount of necessary elements to form so that JUST the right conditions for life could exist. (Largely this appears to be based on the many studies of the cosmic background radiation over the past decade.)

Your point is? I didn't claim any different! And as I already said, I AM a christian as well and I never said that God didn't create the world. I just doubt that it was like the bible tries to explain it...

Originally posted by Kethoticus
This is an unfair overgeneralization. Job himself talked about how the earth is suspended on nothing.

Job 26:7 reads: "...He suspends the earth over nothing."

If you think that I am generalizing then prove me wrong. I was talking about the church as an institution and not about the individual being a christian.

By the way, Job was wrong anyway, because there is no "nothing" out there. As well it doesn't say anything about the shape of the earth. In ancient thinking the world wasn't infinite, it was just a flat something with a certain size, means that it ends somewhere. There are a lot of illustrations from old times showing that. Just google a little bit.

Originally posted by Kethoticus
The ancient Catholic Church's stance on things is not indicative of Christianity as a whole or the Bible itself. For crying out loud, they instituted all sorts of things that had more to do with their own lust for power than for a love for God and his people.

I never said that. Your point is?

Originally posted by Kethoticus
To say that "the" church (whichever one that is) is always supporting positions that are (somehow) 150% disproven, that has sometimes been true, and sometimes Christians, going on the Bible, knew things that archaeologists didn't know until they eventually got around to digging up the evidence.

Like? Except historical events?

Originally posted by Kethoticus
As for lemmings always believing what the church tells them, you're right. But you seem to be guilty of something similare, spewing out some things you've heard without seriously investigating it from both sides.

Which side? I am a christian myself (third time now). You don't know my background at all and who I am, so you are guilty to judge people by wrong assumptions made on too little information...

Originally posted by Kethoticus
But I agree with what you said to a point. Too many times I've heard ignorant people who probably (I'm assuming here) read a tract or small booklet in their local Christian bookstore and then think they can wipe out the knowledge of paleontologists or geologists with one magical sentence. And of course, all they do is fuel perceptions such as yours after said scientists twist their words around their throats with great adeptness.

At least we agree on something, but still have to tell you that I can think myself and don't always need scientists to tell me what to think! Thank you!

Why do I have the feeling you are assuming to be way more smarter than I am??? ;) Your are guilty of another thing then: arrogance.

Originally posted by Kethoticus
I disagree. I believe that evolution and Christianity completely invalidate each other. I've already explained in another recent thread, but I'll see if I can outline it quickly here.

Did I ever say that I completely support the theory of evolution? Exactly! So your point is?

groovebuster
Jun 14, 2003, 08:09 AM
Originally posted by Kethoticus
1) Evolution assumes death before the spiritual fall of man in Eden. In fact, it assume no spiritual fall at all. Genesis clearly states that man knew no death until after he committed his first sin. Evolution depends on the survival of the strongest, implying the death of the weakest from the very beginning of life on earth.

So it made man equal to every other being on earth. So what's wrong with that? Evolution was something valid for every other being on earth, just not for the humans? What kind of logic is that? Humans are even having 99.5% of the same genes as Gorillas proving the evolutionary neighborhood to other primates.

Originally posted by Kethoticus
2) This survival-of-the-fittest system is inconsistent with the character of the Judeo-Christian God. You ain't strong enough? Too bad. You die. I can just see Jesus preaching that.

Well, actually that's exactly what's happening around you! When you were going outside the last time and open your eyes? That has nothing to do with Jesus as a role model to make a difference for social human beings.

Originally posted by Kethoticus
3) Evolution seems to imply that if a deity was responsible for the evolution of life on earth, he/she/it seemed more to be experimenting and perfecting their creation over time. The omniscient Judeo-Christian God has no need for experimentation.

Wrong! If God is almighty and knows already what the future will bring, a process like evolution that is bound to time as a dimension doesn't have any surprises for him. He could have just "planned" the system from beginning in a way that the "result" would be as expected. Why people always claim how great God is and that we are too little to understand his power and concept. But when it comes to things like that he's just human in his abilities again... Funny somehow! Can you please stick to one theory people?

Originally posted by Kethoticus
4) Finally, if all sin is is a collection of animal passions inherited from our apelike ancestors, then God clearly has no right to hold us accountable and send us to Hell for those things.

That what makes us different from animals is the (partly) free will and morals. We can decide to do not this or that sin! That's what makes us human. An animal always decides not based on morals.

And I don't believe in hell anyway...

Originally posted by Kethoticus
If we are the result of his grand, eons-long project, having selfish tendencies that together are called sin in the Bible (such as a self-centered survival instinct, lust for more than one mate, etc.) is nothing more than being exactly what God created us to be.

Exactly! But still he gave us possibilities to decide! That's the big difference!

Originally posted by Kethoticus
And yet, the Judeo-Christian God felt it necessary to allow Himself to be brutally murdered for those mere animal instincts so that we could have eternal fellowship with Him. That might make sense to you, but it makes none for me.

He wasn't murdered for the instincts, he was murdered because people to let the instincts to be stronger than their morals and faith.

Sorry dude, you are simplifying things exactly in the manner you need them to support your point of view, even though you could find the answer yourself, if you would consider "both sides"!

Wait! Didn't I hear that already today from somebody else advising me? ;)

Originally posted by Kethoticus
To say that the Bible is not accurate is to assume its writers were not divinely inspired. To assume that unravels the foundations of Christianity.

I didn't say that! I just said that they only could express themselves in a way they could understand their environment themselves. How would you explain a concept to somebody who doesn't have a clue about anything you try to explain to him? Exactly! You try to find metaphors so that he gets what you are saying.

I believe that those people were really inspired by God, he just talked to them like to a little kid, because otheriwse they wouldn't have understood what he meant

Originally posted by Kethoticus
You can not call yourself a Christian if you believe this, at least not by using the definition of the word as it was originally intended ("little Christ", meant mockingly--but actually quite complimentary--if memory serves, by the people of ancient Antioch).

Who are you to decide who is a christian and who is not?

Wasn't Jesus always hunted by those priests who accused him to be "unjewish"???

Originally posted by Kethoticus
Horizon?!? Um, anyway...

Wonna go on talking in German? That's my mother tongue! In german we use horizon also to describe the intelectual scope of a person. Too bad that english can't keep up...

Originally posted by Kethoticus
As a Christian, I believe God told us in the way that we needed to know, in a way that could best be understood.

Yeah! That's why we have so many different kinds of christian churches and so many different points of view about almost everything written in the bible, right? It is so easy to understand. ;) It can't be mistaken...

Reality check? Please?

Originally posted by Kethoticus
Of course, that is just a belief, nothing provable there. But of course, the same could be said for some of what you've said.

At least I disproved it with one sentence... should make you start thinking...

Originally posted by Kethoticus
However, I also believe that the people in ancient times were no different than we are today. I do not believe human intelligence or the human heart has changed since the day we were created. I believe that if God wanted to reveal some scientific detail about His creation, they could have absorbed it.

Errrmmmm... absorbed it... well, what exactly did you mean by that?

Originally posted by Kethoticus
Heh. It was intelligent design that created the automobile (a device believed to be causing severe environmental breakdown I might add). But the vastly more complex living cell formed accidentally.

The environmental consequences by misuse of precious energy resources were not the subject. And it was also not the point to compare science as an substitute for God. I wonder why you always mistake my statements on purpose?

I just said that science made it possible for humans to build something like a car or a power-plant, to find medicine to cure most plagues. Science is giving the knowledge and tools to do all that. Not the bible or the church or the priest whe he's preaching.

Science asks always why and as an output we have the things we are enjoying today (like exchanging opinons on the internet).! ;)

Originally posted by Kethoticus
Look, I understand what you're saying, but some of your arguments are without merit.

If you say so, daddy! :rolleyes:

But maybe you are the one who doesn't get it?

Originally posted by Kethoticus
Just like some of the things my fellow born-againers come out with are ignorant and ill-informed.

Then don't be ignorant by calling somebody else ill-informed you don't even know, just because you don't get his point.

Thanks for "listening".

groovebuster

pseudobrit
Jun 14, 2003, 11:41 AM
Oh Jesus. How did this automatically turn into a creationist denial-fest?

Look, the Catholic Church, the most stubborn old mule of an organisation in the history of the world has said evolution does not interfere with the Bible, because the Bible is only infalliable on matters of faith (i.e. those that cannot be proven or disproven by science or facts) alone.

This means that you can have death before the Garden, Earth does not need to have "ends" nor be suspended over nothing and rabbits don't have to learn to chew cud in order to fit the Bible.

"Survival of the fittest" being transferred into human social ideology was the work of extreme capitalists who went picking-and-choosing over the theory to justify their greed in the totally unrelated way of thinking of Social Darwinism, which is NOT a theory at all.

The Big Bang theory has been kicked around for decades and still isn't wholly accepted as gospel. Science is a process, not an absolute answer. So should the Bible be.

(All puns herein were intended)

Kethoticus
Jun 14, 2003, 12:51 PM
...I wasn't trying to argue with you. I was merely trying to simply correct a few things you said that made no sense to me. Relax. And as it stands, you still do not seem to be understanding me completely.

Secondly, I want to but do not have the time to respond to your second, two-part post. In fact, I only skimmed through it since it's just too long and I spend too much time in these threads anyway. But one thing that stood out in your original post to me that led me to believe that you had a very simplistic understanding of everything was your english. I wondered if maybe you were foreign or something because your sentence structure was so poor (which you later clarified for me when describing your German background). Arrogance had nothing to do with my response. All you did was to spew out cliches, and in broken english yet. You did not sound like someone with the background you claimed to have (not that I'm doubting your truthfulness).

I must say however that I'm impressed with your second post. To a point. Your writing seems much more adult than in your first post, and you present some challenging counterpoints. Maybe someday we'll be able to do this again in a way that doesn't require me to sit in front of my machine for hours.

As for the rest of y'all, it wasn't my intention to start a creationist argument (in fact, I'm somewhat suspicious of the movement myself). I merely wanted to respond to some things that didn't sound right to me. And I do not believe that I was argumentative in the process, altho Mr. Groovebuster does seem to have misread me a bit in both of his postings, taking me the wrong way and responding emotionally. Perhaps my wording left something to be desired?

Ugg
Jun 14, 2003, 01:06 PM
Survival of the fittest is one of the most misunderstood elements of the theory of evolution. It is not about who is the strongest or who kills more of his opponents, it is about adapting to one's surroundings.

Darwin's studies of the finches in the Galapagos is a prime example of what survival of the fittest is all about. The other aspect of survival of the fittest is being able to adapt to environmental change. Ice ages, floods, fires, volcanoes all can severely impact a species and the survival of a species depends upon its ability to change its habits based on the new environment.

hvfsl
Jun 14, 2003, 02:42 PM
There is a lot of falsified results in this area about how human fossels. Some of it is about trying to be the first to find the so called missing link or the oldest human, while others are made up to try and disprove the Bible. Like the case of Sir Arthor Conan Doyal (Sherlock Homles author) who was a devil worshiper and created a missing link out of a human and monkey skull. It fooled the scientific world for decades until an objective Japanesse scientist took a look at the skull and in just a few minuites realised it was a fake.

Also the inventer of carbon dating has gone on record talking about the problems of the results not always being acurate.

vniow
Jun 14, 2003, 02:44 PM
How the **** did this turn into a creationist/evolutionist debate!?

[mod. edit - Don't circumvent the profanity filter.]

jelloshotsrule
Jun 14, 2003, 02:46 PM
Originally posted by vniow
How the **** did this turn into a creationist/evolutionist debate!?

i think it was this:

i personally dont belive this....due to the fact that scienctists methods of determing the dating of things tend to be very unaccurate....plus im not an evolutionist (i choose to belive in an all powerful God versus a speck of dirt :-)

to test the accuracy of the differnt dating methods scientists have tested boots....recently created of course....and it turns out that they were over a million years old....hmmm i dont think they had those machines back then to create boots....because there was no earth a million years ago in my opinion

:)

so... post 2. that's a quick turnaround. hah

Kethoticus
Jun 14, 2003, 05:23 PM
I realize no one intended for this to be a debate. Vniow found the story interesting (as did I when I read it a couple of days ago), and probably just wanted to start an intellectually stimulating thread.

Unfortunately, you have all sorts of people on this list. Folks, this is a PUBLIC forum. That means you get all kinds of viewpoints here. It becomes a problem when someone can not hold back their frustration or annoyance at someone else's comments and begins to respond sarcastically to that post. For crying out loud, this nonsense happens between computer platform fanatics, religious and secular fanatics, and man have you guys ever been in a sports thread? Holy smoke. Just get into one involving Red Sox and Yankees fans.

We need to know that if we publish anything in any public thread that we run the risk of watching our good intentions crumble to dust. God forbid someone here says something technical about the 970, e.g., because someone else will think they know more, and actually criticize the person for being a moron who doesn't know what they're talking about. Completely unnecessary, but it often happens.

It's easy to insult and start arguments with people whose eyes you can not look into.

voicegy
Jun 14, 2003, 07:16 PM
Originally posted by Kethoticus
Holy smoke. Just get into one involving Red Sox and Yankees fans.

Yeah, but I'll bet the general discussion stays with baseball.

It is fascinating how this scientifically interesting post went South so quickly, in my opinion. But it's much like opening ones' mouth in a crowded bar...everyone has something to say about it. Vniow has quite the point...what seemed to me one post went into something that I'm not interested in reading anymore. But I'm glad to know of the discovery, nonetheless. And perhaps that's enough in itself.

vniow
Jun 15, 2003, 01:33 AM
Originally posted by Rower_CPU

[mod. edit - Don't circumvent the profanity filter.]

Err...I thought asterisks were ok, just not other character substitites...

Rower_CPU
Jun 15, 2003, 03:37 AM
Originally posted by vniow
Err...I thought asterisks were ok, just not other character substitites...

They are when it takes out the whole word. Substituting a single letter is pointless.

CaVoLo
Jun 15, 2003, 10:57 AM
Originally posted by pseudobrit
Oh Jesus. How did this automatically turn into a creationist denial-fest?

lol sorry that would be me :-(

skunk
Jun 15, 2003, 02:13 PM
Originally posted by Kethoticus
But one thing that stood out in your original post to me that led me to believe that you had a very simplistic understanding of everything was your english. I wondered if maybe you were foreign or something because your sentence structure was so poor (which you later clarified for me when describing your German background).
How patronising and arrogant can you get?
Arrogance had nothing to do with my response. All you did was to spew out cliches, and in broken english yet.
This is correct English?
I must say however that I'm impressed with your second post. To a point. Your writing seems much more adult than in your first post, and you present some challenging counterpoints. Maybe someday we'll be able to do this again in a way that doesn't require me to sit in front of my machine for hours.
If I was Groovebuster, I wouldn't bother. If your ridiculous adherence to every word of a self-contradicting Jewish text is all you can offer, what's there to discuss?
And I do not believe that I was argumentative in the process, altho Mr. Groovebuster does seem to have misread me a bit in both of his postings, taking me the wrong way and responding emotionally. Perhaps my wording left something to be desired?
Damn right it did.

Mr. Anderson
Jun 16, 2003, 07:49 AM
Damn, I'm at Geekfest and miss this thread....:mad:

Regardless of what your beliefs on evolution are, the fact remains that the fossils were found and that they're ancient. They fit within the gaps of the fossil record and none of this should be up for debate. Its huge and has some significant implications - the pre neanderthal issue for one.

Personally I think that coming in here and stating that its all a bunch of crap because you don't believe in it is only inflammatory and drags the thread in the wrong direction.

Science and faith are two things that hardly mix well, why make an issue of something that has been discussed ad nausium in a few other threads. Dig up the evolution thread if you want to discuss it.

D

hvfsl
Jun 16, 2003, 07:56 AM
Originally posted by Mr. Anderson
Damn, I'm at Geekfest and miss this thread....:mad:

Regardless of what your beliefs on evolution are, the fact remains that the fossils were found and that they're ancient. They fit within the gaps of the fossil record and none of this should be up for debate. Its huge and has some significant implications - the pre neanderthal issue for one.

Personally I think that coming in here and stating that its all a bunch of crap because you don't believe in it is only inflammatory and drags the thread in the wrong direction.

Science and faith are two things that hardly mix well, why make an issue of something that has been discussed ad nausium in a few other threads. Dig up the evolution thread if you want to discuss it.

D

I am a christian and think evolution is real, but this might not be. There have been a lot of scientists that have come out with so called facts, then to only retract them after futher testing. It is just that there is a lot of misinformation in this area of science and I will believe it is true when scientists from all around the world have looked at the fossels, not just western ones.

An example of problems with fossels can be found at the UK natural history muesum where the diplodocus (a dinosaur) has had its bones moved around at least 3 times over the years as scientist find that the previous config was wrong.

Just because Bush says there are WMD in Iraq, does not mean there really is.

Although I see now reason why christians should have a problem with this because humans lived for a thousand years before the flood.

Mr. Anderson
Jun 16, 2003, 08:13 AM
Originally posted by hvfsl
There have been a lot of scientists that have come out with so called facts, then to only retract them after futher testing. It is just that there is a lot of misinformation in this area of science and I will believe it is true when scientists from all around the world have looked at the fossels, not just western ones.

An example of problems with fossels can be found at the UK natural history muesum where the diplodocus (a dinosaur) has had its bones moved around at least 3 times over the years as scientist find that the previous config was wrong.

Sure there have been dating issues in the past - but one thing that is a huge bit of help here is the stratigraphy - "The research team also unearthed skull pieces and teeth from seven other hominid individuals, hippopotamus bones bearing cut marks from stone tools, and more than 600 stone tools, including hand axes. All are from the same sediments and, thus, the same era. \"

We're not just talking about the scientists finding some bones in the dirt - these fossils were found in and amongst many other artifacts and animal fossils that can also be dated. That along with dating fossils and chemicals in the layers above and below where the fossils were found make the dating more valid.

I've spent some time working with geology and even spent some time in Greece doing an archeological dig in Isthmia. The dating techniques used are varied and quite accurate. With a find of this nature it would be foolish to assume they've only used one method of dating the fossils - the find is too important and controvertial.

At the very bottom of the article....;)

The sediments and volcanic rock in which the fossils were found were dated at between 160,000 and 154,000 years by a combination of two methods. The argon/argon method was used by colleagues in the Berkeley Geochronology Center, led by Paul R. Renne, a UC Berkeley adjunct associate professor of geology. WoldeGabriel of Los Alamos National Laboratory and Bill Hart of Miami University in Ohio used the chemistry of the volcanic layers to correlate the dated layers.

D

D*I*S_Frontman
Jun 16, 2003, 09:16 AM
This thread has taken on an interesting life of its own, so I'll add my two bits:

1) GAP THEORY: There are plenty of Bible-believing fundamental Christians who do not have a problem with an ancient earth. Those in this camp see a potential "gap" between Genesisi 1:1 & 1:2, allowing for an Earth to be billions of years old.

2) MICRO vs. MACROEVOLUTION: Everyone knows that adaptations occur in nature. It is self evident that species can adapt their coloration in just a few hundred years if survival depends on it. If white butterflies get eaten in a new environment, the off-white ones have a better chance at surviving, and from their offspring, the darkest have the best odds, and so on until the most beneficial new color is found.

The problem with "big-picture" evolution is that it involves the creation of new organ systems and other such innovations that we have never been able to prove in the fossil record. Things change and move, but nothing truly "new" is presented. For evolution to create complete functioning new organ systems is impossible because while the end result is great for the final creature, all of his predecessors who were just beginning to form these new organs had no evolutionary advantage during the process--in fact, the energy to carry and maintain extra useless organ systems could only be a disadvantage for them.

3) THEISTIC EVOLUTION: This always sounds like a nice comprimise! "God created man by GUIDING his evolution." Well, when you look at that further, you find that it is completely absurd, and here's why:

Evolution is a process in which random mutations over epochs create genetic diversity, affording some creatures additional survival-enhancing benefits over the rest of their species, which they pass on to the next generation, so on and so on.

If God exists along side evolution, ALL HE CAN DO IS EXIST. Evolution is a closed system. God could have done little more than put the Earth in an orbit 93 million miles from a nice warm sun and check back on his experiment 4 billion years later.

_____

If one believes (as I do) in an active, powerful Creator who can enter the otherwise "closed" system of our universe and do whatever he wants--mitigate the laws of physics, alter matter and energy in any way he sees fit--then theistic evolution is an unnecessary compromise. If his very words can call the universe into existence, then whipping up the fauna and flora of our tiny little world would be no problem.

Oh, and the correlation between the genetic similarity between man and gorilla? To that I say, a great artist is allowed to have common element of style and technique, are they not? Rembrandt or Monet have their signature techniques for painting, yet the subjects of their paintings are quite different. The great genetic sculptor who crafted our world evidently had a style.

pseudobrit
Jun 16, 2003, 11:54 AM
Originally posted by D*I*S_Frontman
1) GAP THEORY: There are plenty of Bible-believing fundamental Christians who do not have a problem with an ancient earth. Those in this camp see a potential "gap" between Genesisi 1:1 & 1:2, allowing for an Earth to be billions of years old.

Why can't Genesis just be a quaint little tale? It doesn't instruct on faith, it instructs on fact and history, two areas where we know for certain the Bible can be flawed.

2) MICRO vs. MACROEVOLUTION:
The problem with "big-picture" evolution is that it involves the creation of new organ systems and other such innovations that we have never been able to prove in the fossil record. Things change and move, but nothing truly "new" is presented. For evolution to create complete functioning new organ systems is impossible because while the end result is great for the final creature, all of his predecessors who were just beginning to form these new organs had no evolutionary advantage during the process--in fact, the energy to carry and maintain extra useless organ systems could only be a disadvantage for them.

What about humans with mutations -- 6 fingers and the like -- or frogs with several legs? Mutation does exist; mutation is the first step in the evolution of new species. Over centuries, a single recessive or dominant mutation can prove advantageous in the progeny of the mutant.

Or are you going to dispute the science of genetics too??? Simply because it contradicts millenia old Jewish storytelling?

3) THEISTIC EVOLUTION: This always sounds like a nice comprimise! "God created man by GUIDING his evolution." Well, when you look at that further, you find that it is completely absurd, and here's why:

...If God exists along side evolution, ALL HE CAN DO IS EXIST. Evolution is a closed system. God could have done little more than put the Earth in an orbit 93 million miles from a nice warm sun and check back on his experiment 4 billion years later.

Why not? Why could He not have started it all and just let it play out hands-off 99.99999% of the time?

Oh, and the correlation between the genetic similarity between man and gorilla? To that I say, a great artist is allowed to have common element of style and technique, are they not? Rembrandt or Monet have their signature techniques for painting, yet the subjects of their paintings are quite different. The great genetic sculptor who crafted our world evidently had a style.

You're in such denial... if one's faith cannot stand the grave threat from science telling them all the stories in their Holy Book may not be 100% true then I have to wonder about the strength of that faith.

mactastic
Jun 16, 2003, 12:21 PM
So... no discussion from anyone who actually knows anything about anthropology? That sucks, I was hoping at least someone here was in that field and could put some focus on this discussion the way it was intended. Unfortunately it seems to have become a science versus religion pissing contest. Science and religion are hereby given a restraining order and ordered to remain 500 yeards apart at all times. Go start a creationist / scientific thread if you want.

My knowledge of physical anthropology is almost 10 years old now however, and this is a field that changes quite often. I am amazed how much the human timeline has changed since I took these classes. The fact that these specimens fill in the area beyond 100,000 years ago is amazing. There was virtually nothing known about this time period when I was in this class. In addition to being purely a physical anthropologist's wet dream, the evidence of scratch marks deliberatly made on the skulls (did very many of you actually read the article, or just jump into the debate?) has incredible value to a cultural anthropologist as evidence of ritual mortuary practices, and other evidence that points toward cannibalism. Fascinating stuff, but so far not one post talking about it...:mad:

pseudobrit
Jun 16, 2003, 12:37 PM
It's hard to argue about planetary science if some people deny that the Earth revolves around the Sun.

mactastic
Jun 16, 2003, 12:50 PM
No it's not, you get a couple people with a decent knowledge of plane_ary science, and ignore the people who are off-topic. If they get too annoying, invite them to start a the-earth-revolves-around-the-sun vs. no-it-doesn't discussion of their own.

Mr. Anderson
Jun 16, 2003, 01:35 PM
Originally posted by mactastic
My knowledge of physical anthropology is almost 10 years old now however, and this is a field that changes quite often. I am amazed how much the human timeline has changed since I took these classes. The fact that these specimens fill in the area beyond 100,000 years ago is amazing. There was virtually nothing known about this time period when I was in this class.

My knowledge of the subject goes back about 12 years and even then the big talk was still about Lucy the australopithecine - there was nothing going back more than 50k for modern humans, most of the finds before that were Neanderthals. That's were the whole Neanderthal debate comes from.

I personally think the Neanderthals were a side branch, dead end, that evolved during the times of the heavy ice ages.

D

mactastic
Jun 16, 2003, 03:13 PM
I think the general consensus is that Neanderthals were a side branch that died out, or were possibily wiped out by another branch (possibly our own). I have heard some suggestion that one of the ways homo sapiens became dominant despite a larger cranial capacity in Neanderthals was the seeminly insignificant ability to make complex sounds. The theory goes that we were able to express strategic tactics because we were able to develop many sounds and therefore more concepts could be tied to them. So while the Neanderthals communication was limited to something like "CHARGE", homo sapiens were able to express things like "You charge with most of our warriors up the middle, while I take these guys and sneak up behind their leader." Sure would be wierd if the determining factor in race survival turned out to be a small bone in the throat.

pseudobrit
Jun 16, 2003, 10:17 PM
I think too that I remember reading that Homo sapiens could breed with Neandertals and the Neandertal women would have children but they'd be sterile. Perhaps it was only a theory. The idea was that the Neandertals were sexed to death by the Homo sapiens. I'm thinking of the article in National Geographic a year or so ago.