Skulls Found in Africa and in Europe Challenge Theories of Human Origins

NY Times ^ | August 6, 2002 | By JOHN NOBLE WILFORD

[Eaker]

The 1.75-million-year-old Georgian skull could answer questions about the first human ancestors to leave Africa, and why they ventured forth.

They could already see the writing on the wall??

Stay safe; stay armed.

[Othniel]

There is an article in the latest issue of Discovery about an Aussie fellow who found two skulls that seem to throw not a few monkey wrenches (heh heh) into the evolution-where did we come from-how did we get here debate. Turns out that the skulls cause problems with the migration of people to Australia. Further, he cites people who have the opinion that the different alleged "kinds of skulls" are merely different people groups. An Asiatic skull would be different from a Euro skull, which would differ from an African skull, and so on.

But it gets better. In a book called "Bones of Contention," the author puts out in chart form all the different kinds of skulls/skeletons (Cro-Magnan, Neadertal, etc) that have been found, where, and when, and y'know what? THERE IS A TON OF OVERLAP! It's not clean and constant, there are things appearing where and when they shouldn't, and other things living and appearing long after they're supposed to be dead! Pretty wild, huh?

Sorry, but I don't buy the evolution thing, and I didn't even before I became a Christian. Too many holes in the theories, and too many people pushing it as fact. BTW, the Aussie guy has been shunned by the "open minded members of the scientific community," showing how open some of these die hard evolutionists are to new ideas. Science? I think not.

[gore3000]

Perhaps it is time to revisit the Australian and Javan findings and think of many centers rather than "only Africa".

Oh yes, evolutionists need to keep re-examining the bones, redating them, finding new previously unrealized features and all that gobbledygook every time they need to fit the bones their theory. Some science! Make the facts fit the theory!

[DaGman]

"Creationism is a loose association of the dropouts of modern society, who have little in common other than zero understanding of, and hostility toward, science."

great point and so true.

[gore3000]

And that all dating methods are based on certain presuppositions - most of which have no true means of calibrating.

Quite true. The story of C-14 is instructive in this. Even though like the others it is based on changes in isotopes over time, it was sound found to be given incorrect readings. We were able to calibrate it because there are well documented historical events against which the C-14 findings could be checked. However, there is no such information available to calibrate the findings of methods used for earlier ages.

[Eaker]

Considering that all you ever post is(sic) insults and attacks on Christianity, perhaps you should look in the mirror.

He has done no such thing!! You did NOT read the entire thread before posting. Shooting from the hip makes you look very bad.

Stay safe; stay armed.

[Aric2000]

Here we go again, we refute it, he ignores it, then uses it again, and then tells us that we need to refute it again. Sorry, that game is old Gore, and so is that blue!!

So, when I see blue, from now, I will judiciously ignore it and move on. Just as you have done in so many threads.

[ZULU]

Right on. Every time something new turns up, forcing biologists to re-evaluate previous held views, the Creationists (that is such a BAD term. Spontaneous Generationists would be better - belief in Evolution does not necessarily negate belief in God and the hand of God in Evolutionary processes) have a field day. That is because their rigid, baseless theories NEVER change. No amount of new information will EVER alter THEIR preconceived notions.

The fact is that every new fossil discovered is merely one small brief snapshot and frequently an incomplete one of an event that occurred over MILLIONS of years. We will never know the EXACT story, but anyone with any intelligence and an opne mind can review all that has been accumulated to date and come to only one logical conclusion - a conclusion which escapes the Spontaneous Generationists ("Creationists").

[Aric2000]

And you have explained the paradoxes? How fasinating, if god is so perfect, and that is indeed the word of god, then there should be NO paradoxes. If there are paradoxes, then god CANNOT be perfect, but god is perfect, therefore man must have created the bible and it CANNOT be the word of god. I love logic, now throw at me your circular logic and we'll really have some fun!!

The constitution is a man made document, it is not perfect, but it is pretty darn close as far as I am concerned, but that is another reason that I am on this board, because my near perfect constitution is being ignored by the government it is supposed to control.

[JimSEA]

Your branch of the tree is easily irritated I see.

[B.Bumbleberry]

In my armchair studies all authorities have stated that Carbon 14 results become unreliable earlier than about 40,000 years. Your 80,000 year figure therefore is surprising.

[B.Bumbleberry]

And these are not half lives. They are the date rages for which the methods provide reliable results.

[MissAmericanPie]

Are you refering to the many creations of man in Genesis, and also the hybrids?

[gore3000]

Your branch of the tree is easily irritated I see.

Is that a refutation of my statement below or a is it just another gratuitous evolutionist ad-hominem?:

Oh yes, evolutionists need to keep re-examining the bones, redating them, finding new previously unrealized features and all that gobbledygook every time they need to fit the bones their theory. Some science! Make the facts fit the theory!

[gore3000]

Here we go again, we refute it, he ignores it, then uses it again, and then tells us that we need to refute it again. Sorry, that game is old Gore, and so is that blue!!

Two posts, two ad-hominems. Sounds lame to me. Again I ask, how come you have time to make lame attacks and no time to refute statements on the subject at hand?

[DennisR]

"Creationism is a loose association of the dropouts of modern society..."

Could you please, in great and excruciating detail, define what the precise characteristics are of "the dropouts of modern society?"

Thank you. Thank you very much.

[Aracelis]

If you scroll down from my original post, you will see I corrected myself.

[Aracelis]

Your 80,000 year figure therefore is surprising.

general_re addressed this issue in his earlier post: Post 18

[Aric2000]

OOHHH, he has discovered a new word, "ad hominem" how many times can he use it in a post? 2, 3 maybe.

Watch out, Gore got hold of a dictionary and has been reading it.

[crystalk]

You mean Atlanta is not its capital?

To a person who sees things as I do, all these are just a meaningless variety of chance types over millions of years, of now-extinct apes. Whatever be said of their physical form, their lifestyle was that of an animal, of an ape. A simian.

At some distinct one place and time, or at most just a few, someone Monkeyed with those Monkeys, and we are the finished product. No doubt genes from cats and fugu-fish and who knows what were borrowed as needed, as well as possibly some "image of [the] God[s]" genes from our creators themselves.

This latter perhaps took place on a dozen occasions over say the last 250,000 years.

These skulls are of rather small interest, any number of varieties may have died off here or there. These creatures were poorly adapted compared to many animals and must never have been numerous; each little "species" may have had only thirty or three hundred exemplars alive at a time...

Why so much fuss?