More fake fossils found..

[shropshire 0]

clicky


But... but how can this be? The Earth is only 6 - 10 thousand years old....... Isn't it?

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[stevebabin 0]

Yet another step closer to the truth....

"Science, logic and reason will fly you to the moon. Religion will fly you into buildings."
"Because figuring things out is always better than making shit up."

[skydyvr 0]

But a day to the lord is as a thousand years . . .

ZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzz.......

. . =(_8^(1)

[shropshire 0]

Of course... how silly of us.

Anyway, this is a great story... To think that something like this has been lying under sand, known for so long, until a storm uncovered it..... How many more mysteries lie under, say the Sahra?

I love stuff like this. (The religious crack is just a wind up... my sand storm to uncover the nutters)

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[warpedskydiver 0]

There is probably a prehistoric DZ under the Sahara, jumpers lauching eight way chunks off the wings of a Pterodactyl.

[shermanator 4]

so, you can't just post a link about prehistoric trees? What is it that makes you have to throw in a punch to those who are religious? I'm just curious, afterall, it is said that the religious zealouts force their religioun to eveyone, but what I see is those who are not religious, are the ones trying to force their views on everyone.

CLICK HERE! new blog posted 9/21/08
CSA #720

[warpedskydiver 0]

eh?

I think you meant to respond to Shropshire.

I won't be knocking anyones religion or lack thereof, nor endorsing one.

I have my own beliefs and those are personal.

I was raised Catholic and still am BTW.

[shropshire 0]

That would be me not the warp'd one.... and because I thought that it was funny... If anyone is daft enough to believe that world is only a few thousand years old, then they are a prime and open target.... Still, you can't please all of the people all of the time... Oh well.

P.S you don't see me forceing my beliefs upon anyone.

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[warpedskydiver 0]

I don't think the earth is only thousands of yeaers old either, I do however beleive it would be billions of years old.

That would probably fit the idea of the expanding universe and "Big Bang" theory quite well.

[ErricoMalatesta 0]

I can't believe god keeps planting these things!

[jakee 1,596]

Quote

What is it that makes you have to throw in a punch to those who are religious?

It wasn't a punch to those who are religious.

Just those stupid enough to think the Earth is only 6,000 years old. Lets face it, people that gullible need to be mocked at every available opportunity!

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[shropshire 0]

Correct

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[shropshire 0]

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[freethefly 6]

Archeologist have also uncovered the first computer. They have also discovered the first spam email on the hard drive after being able to reboot the system. The hard drive has a 120 gigarock capacity. Sadly, the programs installed on the prehistoric computer are not Vista compatible and is prone to crashing.

"...And once you're gone, you can't come back
When you're out of the blue and into the black."
Neil Young

[pajarito 0]

Quote

BBC NEWS: “Finds test human origins theory”

Evolutionists are busy rewriting the story of the evolution of humankind, reports the BBC’s James Urquhart. Two hominid fossils from Kenya have prompted the revisions, which entail a new hypothesized evolutionary relationship between Homo habilis and Homo erectus, as claimed in the journal Nature.

Until these recent revelations, Homo habilis was believed by evolutionists to have been the direct predecessor of Homo erectus; the latter was also considered the immediate predecessor of Homo sapiens. The latest evolutionary speculation, however, is that Homo habilis and Homo erectus were “sister species that overlapped in time” rather than successive members of the hominid sequence.
At the center of this revised account of human evolutionary history is what has been labeled the youngest specimen of Homo habilis ever found—or, to be more precise, a jawbone found in Kenya and “attributed to Homo habilis because of its distinctive primitive dental characteristics.” The broken maxilla was dated to approximately 1.44 million years ago.

Meanwhile, evolutionists have assigned to the Homo erectus category a skull comparable in size to those of Homo habilis. The BBC explains that, despite its diminutiveness, the skull belongs in the Homo erectus category because it “displayed typical features of erectus such as a gentle ridge called a ‘keel’ running over the top of the jaw joint.” Scientists dated the skull to 1.55 million years old.
Of course, 1.55 million years is a bit larger than 1.44 million years, and thus, based on their own old-earth dating techniques—dating techniques that are as much assumption and convenience as science—these scientists were forced to acknowledge an overlap between Homo habilis and Homo erectus. This overlap, of course, severely (though not completely) undermines the hypothesis that the latter evolved from the former.

Why not “completely”? Fred Spoor, a University College London professor of developmental biology and coauthor of the Nature paper, throws out one hypothesis:

“It’s always possible that Homo habilis lived, let’s say, 2.5 million years ago and then in another part of Africa, away from the Turkana basin, an isolated population evolved into Homo erectus. [...] But that is a much more complex proposition,” Professor Spoor explained, “the easiest way to interpret these fossils is that there was an ancestral species that gave rise to both of them somewhere between two and three million years ago.”

So, in other words, the “easiest” way to interpret the discovery is that the story of human evolution as presented in books, museums, and classrooms for decades is wrong according to evolutionists themselves! The question is, then, after such reversals, does the ordinary individual view with any greater skepticism evolutionists’ stock teaching? For example, after this complete reversal, how much faith will people place in this evolutionary assurance:
The fossil record indicates that modern humans (Homo sapiens) evolved from Homo erectus.

Sadly, it seems that even these substantial revisions in the evolutionary story are quickly recast as the irrefutable, unchallengeable “facts” to be presented in books, museums, and classrooms. In fact, the AP version of the story strives to allay fears that these continual upheavals undermine the tale of human evolution:

Susan Anton, a New York University anthropologist and co-author of the Leakey work, said she expects anti-evolution proponents to seize on the new research, but said it would be a mistake to try to use the new work to show flaws in evolution theory.
“This is not questioning the idea at all of evolution; it is refining some of the specific points,” Anton said. “This is a great example of what science does and religion doesn't do. It’s a continous self-testing process.”

It seems amazing that the authors of the work have to tell the reader how to interpret and not interpret their results; it’s as if they are saying, “Because we are obviously smarter than you, you can only see these results the way we want you to.” Furthermore, if evolutionary science is truly “self-testing,” then why is evolution itself somehow beyond this testing? The more evidence comes to light that the story of evolution is—just that—a story, the more evolutionists do everything but test the theory. Anton is right in one regard, however. Historical science is not like religion (especially materialism masquerading as historical science): historical science that excludes God depends upon the limited, fallible understanding of humans, whereas biblical Christianity depends upon the accurate, reliable, eye-witness account given by the One who was actually there.

[shropshire 0]

Hi Paj'

To me, such research and findings are great, they show that science is not infalable and can, given time and new evidence, stand to be rewriten.

There are large holes in the fossil sample chain, that can only be filled by theory and interpolation untill a missing piece in the puzzle is discovered.

This does nothing (in my mind at least) to re-enforce the ID cause (not that your are saying that it is, by the way).

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[Royd 0]

Reply To
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


What is it that makes you have to throw in a punch to those who are religious?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote

It wasn't a punch to those who are religious.

Just those stupid enough to think the Earth is only 6,000 years old. Lets face it, people that gullible need to be mocked at every available opportunity!

Amazingly though, the trees have been determined to be Cypress. Not Precypress, or Preprecypress, just Cypress.

Just for those stupid enough to think that everything used to be something else.

[JackC 0]

Quote

historical science that excludes God depends upon the limited, fallible understanding of humans, whereas biblical Christianity depends upon the accurate, reliable, eye-witness account given by the One who was actually there.

Now that is the funniest thing I've seen all week. I've got to hand it to you guys, you've got ironic comedy perfected.

[philh 0]

Paj
It appears to me you have very little understanding of science. All scientifc statements are contingent. They are statemtns based upon the evidence as we have it. The superiority of science as a method of understanding the unvierse is that it can change its conclusions if the evidence demands it. That way scientific conclusions are more likely to be correct than any other forms of inquiry eg religion, which do not change their views when the evidence demands it.

If new evidence shows a change in our understanding of the lineage of homo erectus and homo hablis, so what? This does not in any way dispute the evolution occured, merely the path that it took. If i beleved I was descended from those I believe to be my mother and father and then it turns out I was wrong and I was adopted does that deny the idea that i was descended from someone else ? Of course it doesnt. there are things that could disprove the idea of hominid evolution. One example ,would be the lack of a fused chromosone in the human genome , but it turn out we do have one, so youll have to do better than your misguided misunderstanding of science.

[jakee 1,596]

Quote

Just for those stupid enough to think that everything used to be something else.

Sorry dude, you don't get to play this game - you're just on the wrong side of the fence.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[jakee 1,596]

Complete garbage, and, while I realise it would be like sacriledge for you to alter one of those C&P jobs from the source that you so idolise (isn't there a commandment about that somewhere?) it's also pretty fucking disingenuous of you to run with the headline "BBC NEWS" on top of that piece of junk journalism from AiG.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[freethefly 6]

Quote

Complete garbage, and, while I realise it would be like sacriledge for you to alter one of those C&P jobs from the source that you so idolise (isn't there a commandment about that somewhere?) it's also pretty fucking disingenuous of you to run with the headline "BBC NEWS" on top of that piece of junk journalism from AiG.

He must had missed reading this part:
Susan Anton, a New York University anthropologist and co-author of the Leakey work, said she expects anti-evolution proponents to seize on the new research, but said it would be a mistake to try to use the new work to show flaws in evolution theory.
“This is not questioning the idea at all of evolution; it is refining some of the specific points,” Anton said. “This is a great example of what science does and religion doesn't do. It’s a continous self-testing process.”

If anything, it only reinforces the theory and provides new avenues to research. Science is not an absolute. It is forever expanding and builds has it goes. We would not be where we are today if science were like religion which never expanded beyond a book that claims the earth was created in six days and then it was time for a rest.

"...And once you're gone, you can't come back
When you're out of the blue and into the black."
Neil Young

[Stumpy 284]

Quote

Complete garbage, and, while I realise it would be like sacriledge for you to alter one of those C&P jobs from the source that you so idolise (isn't there a commandment about that somewhere?) it's also pretty fucking disingenuous of you to run with the headline "BBC NEWS" on top of that piece of junk journalism from AiG.

Agreed.
Its a shame i'm not christian otherwise I could say he had broken another one of those commandments by fibbing about his sources.

Never try to eat more than you can lift

[shermanator 4]

Quote

eh?

I think you meant to respond to Shropshire.

sorry about that, I just hit the reply on any of them, not meaning a specific person.

CLICK HERE! new blog posted 9/21/08
CSA #720

[shropshire 0]

>>

We weren't something else before. Species evolved from other species - something different altogether.

Of course, it's far more sensible to believe that we were created by some mystical being from pixie dust and that women were made out of a mans spare rib and then the human race was born our if incest , presumably.

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome