'First human' discovered in Ethiopia

[Percepi]

I think they dated a recent dead seal washed up on the beach at 60,000 years old....this nonsense has been proven to be just a gimmick for those trying to prove evolution.

I didn't ask about the seal, I asked about the date of the earth.

 

[Tintin]

I didn't ask about the seal, I asked about the date of the earth.

13.75 billion years since the Big Bang
4.5 billion years - the date of the Earth

Apparently.

But I don't believe a word of it.

 

[AgeofKnowledge]

Lucy is a hominid, specifically named Australopithecus afarensis (e.g. A. afarensis) that Neo-Darwinists believe gave rise to Homo habilus from which they hypothesize that modern humans ultimately emerged.

Side note: Evolutionists also assert a group called the robust australopithecines emerged as an evolutionary side branch from A. afarensis that are not part of the supposed human lineage.

Now, scientists recovered an A. afarensis jawbone in 2002 and immediately the popular media published exactly the same content they're publishing with this latest find... almost word for word. But subsequent analysis of the specimen showed that it resembled a gorilla rather than a human.

What this meant was that the jawbone anatomy resembled robust australopithecines not humans meaning that it was a dead end and there was no evolutionary pathway from A. afarensis (e.g. Lucy) to modern humans.

You see paleoanthropologists interpret hominids within an evolutionary framework and most of them adhere to general evolution as ardently as an orthodox Muslim does Islam. So, now they have a new jaw bone and are claiming the exact same thing they claimed with the one in 2002... word for word.

Hominids belong to the animal kingdom. God never endowed them with the Imago Dei. Despite some similarities, all of them are materially distinct from modern humans in cognitive capacity, behavior, "technology", "culture," etc...

Wasn't this a intentional attempt to deceive people? Or is this where they found bones over a mile away and tried to claim they was from the same source?

 

[AgeofKnowledge]

As for carbon dating, this website offers the present academic explanation: radiocarbon WEB-info

 

[dcontroversal]

WOW...it is a miracle......was ADAM'S name inscribed on the jawbone.....? No offence, but a bunch of educated idiots............and fools to boot!

 

[GodIsSalvation]

13.75 billion years since the Big Bang
4.5 billion years - the date of the Earth

Apparently.

But I don't believe a word of it.

This reminds me. Since they be fixing to revise the Donkey Kong Era myth up by 400,000 years I wonder if that means they will have to revise the mythological age of earth. Maybe they'll go for a nice round 5 billion.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KG4-XGVSUoA
[video=youtube;KG4-XGVSUoA]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KG4-XGVSUoA[/video]

 

[royalscot]

1 Timothy 6:20
O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:

for the record i never wrote the news.
strange, i was crying because the killed lucy. and take a giant step backwards. 400,000 years.
so in short, all the science papers that have been talking about lucy, or now as good as you put it babbling in vain.

 

[Lizathrose]

This reminds me. Since they be fixing to revise the Donkey Kong Era myth up by 400,000 years I wonder if that means they will have to revise the mythological age of earth. Maybe they'll go for a nice round 5 billion.

...Adding 400,000 years to the presently-established age of the planet wouldn't take it anywhere close to 5 billion years. It'd require almost 500,000,000 years, silly. Moreover, the geological age of Earth has nothing to do with the age of certain specimens that at one point lived on its surface.

 

[Viligant_Warrior]

Liza's been watching "Bones" again?

Wondered where that "learned jargon" was coming from.

 

[royalscot]

if proof is in finding , then what is left for belief. so is science proof, not found yet,to who made the world., so even if science facts change with every new discovery, so what is science asking, who made it, or how old is it. .

 

[Champa]

It amuses me how they find fragments of stuff, assume it is from this or that, arbitrarily assign ages that never existed to them, and then weave such elaborate mythologies around them.

Then again I suppose if they said they found some bones from a monkey that was only a few hundred to a few thousand years old it would be of no hype and they'd get little or no funding.

Clearly you don't understand atomic physics or how dating works, because if you did you'd know this statement was ignorant. Why are you even commenting on this?

There's a saying about pretending to know about things you know nothing about. Something along the lines of ''you shouldn't do it''.

 

[Viligant_Warrior]

Clearly you don't understand atomic physics or how dating works ...

I can't speak for GIS, but your assumption is arrogant and unnecessarily condescending. I, for certain, know how radiometric dating works and I would guess that GIS does as well, so you owe him an apology.

The only reliable dating technique is carbon dating, but even it is based on shaky evidence. There is no guarantee that Carbon-12 and -14 were evenly distributed, even in the same sample. Even if it was, carbon dating is reliable only to 6,800 years +/-. Other radiometric isotopes supposedly useful for dating purposes are so rare, the claims to their reliability are laughable.

So all we really have is a dating technique that goes back to the beginning of the YEC timeline for Creation. Isn't that convenient?

 

[Mitspa]

I didn't ask about the seal, I asked about the date of the earth.

No you mentioned Carbon dating...and I was making a point about how insane it is to trust what is clearly not a accurate science by any standard.

 

[Mitspa]

...Adding 400,000 years to the presently-established age of the planet wouldn't take it anywhere close to 5 billion years. It'd require almost 500,000,000 years, silly. Moreover, the geological age of Earth has nothing to do with the age of certain specimens that at one point lived on its surface.

How long was that after nothing blew up and made everything?

I heard they did a science project where they threw nothing against the wall a million times and guess what? It did not blow-up and make anything?

 

[Viligant_Warrior]

She uses big words.

She must be smarter than Christians?

Dazzle 'em with brilliance. If that fails, baffle 'em **edited**.

 

[Champa]

Lucy is a hominid, specifically named Australopithecus afarensis (e.g. A. afarensis) that Neo-Darwinists believe gave rise to Homo habilus from which they hypothesize that modern humans ultimately emerged.

Side note: Evolutionists also assert a group called the robust australopithecines emerged as an evolutionary side branch from A. afarensis that are not part of the supposed human lineage.

Now, scientists recovered an A. afarensis jawbone in 2002 and immediately the popular media published exactly the same content they're publishing with this latest find... almost word for word. But subsequent analysis of the specimen showed that it resembled a gorilla rather than a human.

What this meant was that the jawbone anatomy resembled robust australopithecines not humans meaning that it was a dead end and there was no evolutionary pathway from A. afarensis (e.g. Lucy) to modern humans.

You see paleoanthropologists interpret hominids within an evolutionary framework and most of them adhere to general evolution as ardently as an orthodox Muslim does Islam. So, now they have a new jaw bone and are claiming the exact same thing they claimed with the one in 2002... word for word.

Hominids belong to the animal kingdom. God never endowed them with the Imago Dei. Despite some similarities, all of them are materially distinct from modern humans in cognitive capacity, behavior, "technology", "culture," etc...

Evolution is the only, and I mean the only, way that life could have diversified on this planet, so if they interpret things using an evolutionary framework, then they do so because it's a necessity. Otherwise, how else did a progressive, bottom-up diversity of life come to exist in the strata?

Little green men?

 

[p_rehbein]

Evolution is the only, and I mean the only, way that life could have diversified on this planet, so if they interpret things using an evolutionary framework, then they do so because it's a necessity. Otherwise, how else did a progressive, bottom-up diversity of life come to exist in the strata?

Little green men?

There is no evidence of "bottom-up" diversity of life as it relates to evolution. If by this, you are suggesting that a specific life form "evolved" into a different "specific" life form as in man evolving from apes............or whatever way they are trying to hold onto this flawed theory now.

There is no evidence of advanced evolution of life forms.

All that is seen in nature is adaptation. Pretty simple. And, given that the Creator, God, is capable of creating life, then it is no stretch to realize that within the life He created, He endowed that life with the ability to adapt to whatever environmental conditions/situations it found itself in to assure it's survival.

That is Created Adaptation. And when one applies this to all the evidence Darwin put forth to justify his theory, it is a more logical and believable concept than evolution.

Evolution is a sham..............plain and simple.

 

[Oncefallen]

Evolution is the only, and I mean the only, way that life could have diversified on this planet, so if they interpret things using an evolutionary framework, then they do so because it's a necessity. Otherwise, how else did a progressive, bottom-up diversity of life come to exist in the strata?

Little green men?

Ummm, a Creator made it that way???

Sometimes I can't help but wonder how someone who claims to be a Christian can reject one of the most basic doctrines of Christianity which is an all powerful, all knowing God that is capable of creating everything from nothing.

 

[InSpiritInTruth]

for the record i never wrote the news.
strange, i was crying because the killed lucy. and take a giant step backwards. 400,000 years.
so in short, all the science papers that have been talking about lucy, or now as good as you put it babbling in vain.

No, I didn't say you wrote the news story, and hopefully you don't believe it. But when I hear of these new finds by scientists that are contrary to the Creation account found in the Holy Bible, I then think of the "vain babblings of science" Paul was telling Timothy to avoid.

 

[Champa]

I can't speak for GIS, but your assumption is arrogant and unnecessarily condescending. I, for certain, know how radiometric dating works and I would guess that GIS does as well, so you owe him an apology.

The only reliable dating technique is carbon dating, but even it is based on shaky evidence. There is no guarantee that Carbon-12 and -14 were evenly distributed, even in the same sample. Even if it was, carbon dating is reliable only to 6,800 years +/-. Other radiometric isotopes supposedly useful for dating purposes are so rare, the claims to their reliability are laughable.

So all we really have is a dating technique that goes back to the beginning of the YEC timeline for Creation. Isn't that convenient?

If it came across as condescending, it's because you clearly don't understand it either. Let me help you.

Dalrymple 2000; Lindsay 1999; Meert 2000

As for your other crap, it's crap. Radiocarbon dating is very accurate to the age you've given, and other dating methods are accurate beyond it. Even if we didn't have dating methods for carbon and other elements, we have deondochronology, speleothems and a plethora of other dating methods.

You must have selective science classes where you live.