Posted on 07/28/2007 6:00:30 PM PDT by blam
1m-years-old footprints found at Margalla Hills
By Sher Baz Khan
ISLAMABAD, July 27: In what appears to be a major discovery, archaeologists have found two over one million years old human footprints preserved on a sandstone at the Margalla Hills.
The Indusians Research Cell, which is working under the supervision of world renowned archaeologist and historian Dr Ahmad Hassan Dani of Taxila Institute of Asian Civilisations, Quaid-i-Azam University, Islamabad, has made the discovery, which is likely to add a new chapter to the archaeological history and heritage of the federal capital and attract visitors.
A footprint of 1 feet is in complete and well preserved form while another is broken from the finger side which is also of the same size in comparative manner. The notable marks of the feet are the clear veins and opposite folded appearance.
“A huge stone on the top of the hill is the secure home of these prints since about over one million years ago,” says A.K. Azad, an archaeologist and head of the project.
Further research may give more clues of the foot marks through anthropological and geophysical methods, he observed.
The recent discovery is the continuity of the Indusian Research Cell’s earlier research about human evolution which previously revealed a fossilised upper jaw from the site of Dhudhumber, foot and hand prints from Attock and Palaeolithic cave from Margalla hills.
Pakistan’s geomorphologic research was conducted to compare with the Alps of Europe during the period of 1930-1939 by a French mission. Since then, lots of other dimensions of the research opened the doors of scientific research in Pakistan as the country provided the glacial sequence, fossilised evidences of Pre-Cambrian to Holocene epochs, earliest evidences of the anthropoid existence, earliest cultural centre at Mehargarh (contemporary of Jericho and Jarmo) and most advanced civilisation of the world (Indus valley).
Indusians Research Cell started the second phase of the project “Post-earthquake Explorations of Human Remains in Margalla Hills” under the supervision of A.K. Azad.
According to Mr Azad the formation of the Margalla Hills goes back to the Miocene epoch. The dominant limestone of the Margalla is also mixed with the sand stone.
“So we can assume that due to availability of the water in ancient times many marks of the zoological as well botanical significance may lead to our objectives,” the young archaeologist hopes.
In 1976, Pakistan opened another chapter of human evolution, which makes case for Asian anthropoid origin from this region.
During the ‘60s and ‘70s, Pilbeam led expeditions to the Siwalik Hills badlands of northern Pakistan, searching for further Ramapithecine remains.
In March 1975 and January 1976 team members made surface recoveries of four bone fragments which fit together to form the most complete mandible recovered yet. The mandible shows that Ramapithecus did not have a parabolic, human like dental arcade, as originally thought, but rather a V-shaped, more apelike arcade. Though the shape of the arcade is not now regarded as one of the more anatomically important characters, Ramapithecus is no longer granted the high status that it once received.
Different scholars have defined the word ‘Potohar’ differently. But, anthropological research marked it, as the grand father of hominid, also known as Punjabicus found from the Potohar region.
So the government of Pakistan had given the name to this specie Potoharmans.
According to Mr Azad, the problem of human evolution is still hanging around that when and where Anthropoid got physical changes from the Apes?
After India, Kenya and China, he says important discovery was from the Potohar region from fossils of the similar species found in 1976 and 1982. The probable dating given to this specie was 20 million years.
“It has provided a missing link, which was spread of 6 million years. So Potoharmans declared as the grand father of hominid, which evolved from the different stages and reached at the Homo sapiens,” he observes.
The stories behind the similar marks are also significant in mythical associations with saints and renowned people i.e. hand prints of the Baba Guru Nanik near Hassanabdal, foot prints of Hazrat Ali in Hyderabad, foot prints of the Guru Padma Sambhava (Second reincarnation of Buddha) in Swat, Adam’s peak of Sri Lanka etc.
“If these are true than we can also claim of the mother Eve’s foot prints from Margalla Hills,” Mr Azad observed.
That's your problem. I am ready to accept any challenge that involves facts. Your creationists lies are the problem. Creationists have yet to post anything even remotely technically coherent, let alone accurate. they prefer to sit in a chair and shout their Amens rather than actually engage in the deep technical details that could gain them a shred of credibility. And then they complain that they are being 'censored.' If they actually had a point, then it may credibly be called 'censorship' but keeping out every nutball, pseudoscientific or supernatural excuse out of science class keeps students from learing garbage that will only make doing and unserstanding real science that much more difficult.
Does your lack of response to my question imply that you are not sincere, don't know or something else?
All phenomena can be reduced to that logic. By that line of reasoning no causal relationship can be said to be understood. Everything that can be said about the relationship of one object to another is something someone imputed to it. Observation becomes moot.
Man ... please tell me that was sarcasm.
[[Refusal to look at evidence is not diagnostic of stupidity.]]
How abnout ‘refusal to buy into assumption driven opinions about evidence based on how “old” soemthign looks and based on tests that get somewhere in the ballpark of oh- say- a few million years provided the earth really is that old- which is really, in the end, nothing more than an assumption again, based on how old stuff looks’? Does that qualify as doltry? (yep- new word)
You insinuate that really, only dolts would dissagree with ‘consensus’ which changed from being one of hypothesising about young earth to one thast now hypothesisis about old earth. As you know, Consensus doesn’t equal fact- facts equal facts, opinions are stated utilizing facts but can be way off and even be a consensus of opinion, but still be wrong.
I’m not suggesting that it is unreasonable to ‘look at hte evidence’ and come to an opinionated conclusion- however, it is unreasonable to suggest that the opinion is the only sound opinion around when the fact is that what we are measuring are events that took place in the past, can’t be directly observed, and use assumption driven tools in order to come to an opinionated conclusion.
What you are doing is stating that because folks don’t hold the same opinions as the ones you agree with, that they are stuck-in-the-dark-ages dumb, shouldn’t be taken seriously, and should be promptly discredited as dolts.
That conlusion might be fine if the certainty of old earth age were more securely arrived at, but the fact is that there is much much uncertainty, an innability to directly observe the past, and a foredrawn conclusion that everythign must be old, and that any coutnerevidences must therefore be dismissed or waved away. In regard to hte flood- it is unscientific to simply wave a hand and suggest that evidences that support the hypothesis are of no consequence, and it is a biased opinion to suggest that ‘serious’ scientists know better than to even concider what is presented, and that all ‘serious’ scientists have abandoned the idea. Many have indeed- but based on what? indisputable evidneces? Indisputably accurate dating methods? Problem free, non divisive annalysis? Certainly not.
It just dawned on me Doc- that I ran into you before awhile ago- you were no different then than you are now- as such, I’ll leave you to your bitter pill all by your lonesome- enjoy it.
Observation certainly is moot with respect to any of the historical sciences.
The concept of God seems to be too abstract for Apes and many scientists.. God bless them they are doing the best they can evidently..
Science is neither.
There is only one race.. the human race.. The only difference between the races is cultural.. or percieved attributes.. Eugenics is bull squeeze.. like that..
Is that the Gregorian Calendar, or the other one? Time is such a bitch.
IIRC, it was “God created man in “their own” image.”
Unless “god” is the name of some gene splitting bio-tech corporation, there is a “possessive” problem in the sentence ( or at least the translation.)
That is the problem when one relies on the words of middle-ages writers working on hebrew and greek texts for a British King....but I digress,
Wow, I took four years of geology courses and we did not discuss the biblical flood at all.
Yes, we did discuss the geological background of climate change. And this was 25 years ago.
I have no idea which sciences you consider historical and which you don't so you'll have to give me a little help with that. All of the sciences I am aware of base all of their many facets on the single starting point of observation.
In essence what you said before is that human perceptions are too unreliable to trust any conclusion that a human comes to regarding causal relationships. It follows then that if observation is moot then science is moot.
What you seem to be saying is that all opinions are of the same value. That is both doltish and dishonest. You do not act on this premise when selecting a doctor or a pilot. No one having the ability and willingness to understand the evidence doubts the age of the earth.
\ Yup.
If all you are looking for is a reconciliation of Daniel's prophecy of 483 years to the "cutting off but not for himself", here it is:
Ezra 7:11-26 records the decree of Artaxerxes Longimanus directing return and reconstruction to proceed. Ezra tells us that decree was rendered prior to the seventh year of Artaxerxes Longimanus (because Ezra also tells us in 7:9 that he commenced his journey pursuant to the decree on the first day of the first month of the seventh year).
Artaxerxes Longimanus is credited by Persian historical records with a reign from 464 BC to 424 BC however that term is derived from Persian records which count a reign from the year in which the individual first begins to serve, even in a co-regency; or other capacity.
Longimanus was the son of Xerxes.
Although it is clear that Xerxes was murdered in 464 BC by Artabanus, a Hyrcanian usurper, it is also clear that Artabanus served as King for some period thereafter, probably into August of 461 BC when he was slain by Longimanius.
The Jews counted co-regencies and disputed reigns as separate reigns; and counted regency from the first day of the first full year in which the reign commenced. Thus for purposes of the Jewish book recounting in Ezra, Longimanus would commence his reign on the first day of the year which commenced in the spring (after the vernal equinox in March) of 460 BC. Thus his seventh year was the year beginning 453; so assuming the decree of Ezra 7:11 was rendered in the year prior to the year which began on the day on which he started to go to Jerusalem, 454 BC., then: 454 BC to 30 AD = 484 - 1 year (no year 0) is 483 years to the date of cruxification of Jesus Christ on April 5, 30 AD.
Faulstich ran all his dates back in Anno Mundi and then forward against the calendar in use--so you could look at his dating on the Julian-Gregorian corrected Calendar.
Oh What A Night!!!
Frankie Valle ping!
I see no reason why you should have, in a geology course.
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.