Skip to comments.
Astonishing Skull Found in Africa
BBC ^
| 10 July, 2002
| Ivan Noble
Posted on 07/10/2002 11:51:16 AM PDT by Mr.Clark
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-60, 61-80, 81-100 ... 281-287 next last
To: Icthus
The statement should actually read: "We do not have the slightest idea regarding the origin of this piece of bone and where it may have came from. However, we feel confident that it must be the missing link we've heard so much about".You are right, of course. I was just trying to be "diplomatic."
61
posted on
07/10/2002 12:40:22 PM PDT
by
RobRoy
To: Junior
This is a creationist canard. Funny, I thought it was a joke. 8^>
62
posted on
07/10/2002 12:42:10 PM PDT
by
RobRoy
To: Moonman62
It's hilarious to listen to the "experts" whenever one of these new finds hits the media. Every year or two they change their theories to something new, so they don't have to admit that they were dead wrong to begin with.
63
posted on
07/10/2002 12:42:19 PM PDT
by
Icthus
To: Oldeconomybuyer; Willie Green
Between y'all's posts #2 and #5.........I made it no further before spewing Pepsi all over my lovely 21" monitor and my VERY expensive laptop. You two WILL get my bill.......:)
To: RobRoy
LOL! This is a blend of 1 part Science, 1 part Fiction & a dash of Comedy!
65
posted on
07/10/2002 12:44:00 PM PDT
by
Icthus
To: LiteKeeper
Beware of the "carbon-dating" ploy. Only capable of measuring back about 30,000 years...and no more. Certainly not in the millions of years. Carbon-14 dating is only one of a half-dozen or so radioisotopes they routinely use for dating. Different isotopes have different usable ranges. For example, the commonly used Potassium-40 dating is good from about 100,000 years to at least 4 billion years, though having a lower resolution than Carbon dating (which can be very precise). Obviously they would use something other than Carbon-14 to measure age, most likely Potassium-40.
66
posted on
07/10/2002 12:44:05 PM PDT
by
tortoise
To: LiteKeeper
Beware of the "carbon-dating" ploy. Only capable of measuring back about 30,000 years...and no more. Certainly not in the millions of years. Often they date the fossils by the geologic formations they are found in. But if you talk to geologists, they date the strata of rocks by the fossils they find. Can anyone spell "circular reasoning"? Exactly my point. Radiometric dating is used as the third point in the circular argument. But all forms of radiometric dating have been shown erratic and wrong. If radiometric dating gives outrageously bad dates for objects of known age, then how can it be used reliable for objects of unknown age. So the scientific community has based their religion on the following reasoning you know the age of the fossils by the age of the rocks and the age of the rocks is known by the age of the fossils and if you dont believe them then the radiometric dating can verify the age of rocks and we know that thats correct because radiometric dating is usually wrong except when it is verified by the age of the fossils.
67
posted on
07/10/2002 12:44:41 PM PDT
by
DaveyB
To: Junior
This is a creationist canard. Rocks are dated using one or more of about a dozen radiological methods.Of course there are over a dozen. They have to able to pick which one that gives them the date they want.
To: Gumlegs
To: Darth Reagan
I kind of like "Encino Man."
To: far sider
Read the link.
71
posted on
07/10/2002 12:55:10 PM PDT
by
Junior
To: Icthus
"Every year or two they change their theories to something new, so they don't have to admit that they were dead wrong to begin with."
I believe that by changing the theory they *are* admiting they were wrong. That's the diferrence between science and mythology. Science asks a question and picks the answer with the most evidence supporting it. If the evidence changes, so do the theories.
Mythology starts with an answer, and then tries to restate the question until it fits.
How long did it take to get Galileo off the banned book index? Eppur si mouve....
72
posted on
07/10/2002 12:57:23 PM PDT
by
mykej
To: general_re
Clearly, it's a good thing I'm not in the fossil naming industry. How about Particles?
73
posted on
07/10/2002 12:58:44 PM PDT
by
Gumlegs
To: RobRoy
We know it was seven million years old because it was in a rock that oldCan you say sand?
It was found in the desert in Chad by an international team and is thought to be approximately seven million years old
It seems to not have been dated yet.
74
posted on
07/10/2002 1:01:20 PM PDT
by
AndrewC
To: DaveyB
Radiometric dating is used as the third point in the circular argument.It isn't part of your "circle." The theory behind and techniques of radiometric dating are independent of fossil finds.
But all forms of radiometric dating have been shown erratic and wrong.
You have some evidence that the theory of radioactive decay is wrong?
75
posted on
07/10/2002 1:05:01 PM PDT
by
edsheppa
To: Junior
I've never seen so many people so desperately rejecting even the idea of a pre-human species. Of course, if pre-humans existed, someone's fairy tale would be in jeopardy, so it's much more comforting to shut your eyes, plug up your ears, and insist that the whole thing's a fraud. Or that the people who found it are fools, while those refusing to even consider its existence are really the bright guys. It's fascinating to see this stuff in action.
To: RobRoy
Interesting reading. I'll bookmark it and study it more later. Thank you.
To: EternalVigilance
Imaging you are putting together a jigsaw puzzle. You don't have all the pieces, and you don't know quite what the puzzle is supposed to look like, but you have a general idea that it's a landscape of some sort. There is a hole in the sky portion of the puzzle, right on the edge, that you want to fill in.
Might you reasonably hypothesize that there is a blue puzzle piece with a straight edge, maybe behind a baseboard somewhere in your house? And say you're in your attic one day, and lift a box of old magazines and find a blue puzzle piece with the straight edge underneath, might you reasonably conclude that it fits the puzzle near the hole in the sky, probably somewhere along the edge?
To: mykej
Mythology starts with an answer, and then tries to restate the question until it fits. From the article: "I knew I would one day find it... I've been looking for 25 years," said Michel Brunet of the University of Poitiers, France.
OK then, I'll file this under 'Mythology'...
To: AndrewC
From the article in Nature:
"Since 2001, the Mission Paléoanthropologique FrancoTchadienne (MPFT), a scientific collaboration between Poitiers University, Ndjamena University and Centre National d'Appui à la Recherche (CNAR) (Ndjaména), has recovered hominid specimens, including a nearly complete cranium, from a single locality (TM 266) in the Toros-Menalla fossiliferous area of the Djurab Desert of northern Chad (Table 1). The constitution of the associated fauna suggests that the fossils are older than material dated at 6 Myr from Lukeino, Kenya8, 9. Preliminary comparison with the fauna from the Nawata formation at Lothagam, Kenya12, 13, suggests that the fossils are from the Late Miocene, between 6 and 7 Myr old. All six recovered specimens are assigned to a new taxon that is, at present, the oldest known member of the hominid clade."
80
posted on
07/10/2002 1:09:54 PM PDT
by
mykej
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-60, 61-80, 81-100 ... 281-287 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson