It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The 1.85 million-year-old little finger bone that could rewrite human evolution: Giant human (homo)?

page: 2
26
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 22 2015 @ 11:31 PM
link   
a reply to: Frocharocha

Wouldn't the Smithsonians make this discovery "disappear" ? I mean they did that when they found remains of giants in North America.




posted on Aug, 22 2015 @ 11:32 PM
link   
a reply to: starwarsisreal



I mean they did that when they found remains of giants in North America.

No they didn't.



posted on Aug, 22 2015 @ 11:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: ChesterJohn
No. You did not read that in Omni magazine.
Omni got its science right. Also had bitchin art. I have a file folder full of it.




Phage I apologize

I stand corrected I put 3 mil it was 1.3 million in omni sorry I am typing from an iPod and it is both hard to read and type



posted on Aug, 22 2015 @ 11:43 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

I really liked omni mag. And yes they did have great art. In one of there 1984 editions they had an art piece that later was used for the Pava Laguna character in fifth element.
edit on 22-8-2015 by ChesterJohn because: (no reason given)

edit on 22-8-2015 by ChesterJohn because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 22 2015 @ 11:44 PM
link   
a reply to: ChesterJohn

I can't find anything about that from Omni, all of it comes back to some creationlist scientist and them using not carbon dating but another method and then using that method incorrectly.
www.noanswersingenesis.org.au... Here is one thing about it.
Think you can find what you are talking about?
edit on ndSat, 22 Aug 2015 23:46:42 -0500America/Chicago820154280 by Sremmos80 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 22 2015 @ 11:45 PM
link   
a reply to: ChesterJohn

I stand corrected I put 3 mil it was 1.3 million in omni
Still wrong. The best carbon dating can do is about 50,000 years and at that range the margin of error is extreme.

Omni is the first place I saw Giger's artwork.



posted on Aug, 22 2015 @ 11:52 PM
link   
a reply to: Sremmos80

Not all things can be found on the net

I do nothing but bump heads with those young earthers. They cannot believe what they read in the bible and add to it to fit their agenda.

The earth itself is much older and it outdates the current universe and it had no water on it originally. Just like the new one that will be created later won't have water.
edit on 22-8-2015 by ChesterJohn because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 22 2015 @ 11:59 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

I remember it because it was so amazingly different than the current understanding of the time. It is just a shame that they have not progressed in their conclusions of dating



posted on Aug, 22 2015 @ 11:59 PM
link   
a reply to: ChesterJohn

Well actually these days it could.
Your claim is that the rock was dated, your claim is with carbon dating, to 1.3 millions years.

Seems like if that was a legit claim, it would be backed by someone other then YEC's.

If you butt heads with them then you shouldn't parrot their claims.



The earth itself is much older and it outdates the current universe and it had no water on it originally. Just like the new one that will be created later won't have water.


Just saw this... Seriously?
Can this also not be found on the internet?
edit on rdSun, 23 Aug 2015 00:02:28 -0500America/Chicago820152880 by Sremmos80 because: (no reason given)

edit on rdSun, 23 Aug 2015 00:02:58 -0500America/Chicago820155880 by Sremmos80 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 23 2015 @ 12:00 AM
link   
a reply to: ChesterJohn




I remember it because it was so amazingly different than the current understanding of the time.

You obviously remember wrong.
Carbon dating is not capable of such determinations.



posted on Aug, 23 2015 @ 12:04 AM
link   
a reply to: ChesterJohn

Ha fairy tales? rich coming from you isn't it?.
I wish we could have a thread without the usual suspects bleating nonsense which they know nothing about.
Cool find OP.



posted on Aug, 23 2015 @ 12:06 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage

I don't remember that name but there were great amazing art works that were ahead if their time and done without computer generation.

Back then I operated an IBM that the CPU tower was as big as my fridge, we had green or orange letters on or monitors. I had a large reel to reel for my LPT 1 drive and a memory circuit board larger than an opened lap top that had dozens of chips just to have 32mbs. We had a 20 ft room full of floppy disc stacked twelve high in a 15 ft bank.

Those were the days
edit on 23-8-2015 by ChesterJohn because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 23 2015 @ 12:07 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage




Omni is the first place I saw Giger's artwork.


Get away from her you bitch!



posted on Aug, 23 2015 @ 12:09 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Then how are they in this article coming to the conclusion of 1.8 million year old bone?



posted on Aug, 23 2015 @ 12:10 AM
link   
a reply to: ChesterJohn
Yeah. Programming with punch cards was fun. Until you dropped the pile and had to get them all back into order.

Programming a mainframe was fun. Until after waiting 2 hours for the batch run you found out your code had an infinite loop and the output was aborted.

Give me interactive compiling and coding, anytime.


edit on 8/23/2015 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 23 2015 @ 12:17 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage

I had to giggle remembering those punch cards. Changing reels to load different programs is something I don't miss.

Interactive is really the way to go. I like my new HP Envy 23 with the i5 it is great. Already outdated and it is not even a year old. With the 3D modular you just move you hands over it to create 3D image height widths and depths. Not sure if I will ever catch up to all the advances in autocad.
edit on 23-8-2015 by ChesterJohn because: (no reason given)

edit on 23-8-2015 by ChesterJohn because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 23 2015 @ 12:28 AM
link   
a reply to: Domo1

HR GIGERS A HER?

Am I thinking of the wrong giger too?

Man I must have done too much drugs in the 80's.



posted on Aug, 23 2015 @ 12:31 AM
link   
a reply to: ChesterJohn
That's a quote from Aliens.

I always thought that Alien 3 should have been called "Still More Aliens." Still would have sucked as a movie, but the title would have been better.

Alien
Aliens
Still More Aliens

edit on 8/23/2015 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 23 2015 @ 12:33 AM
link   
a reply to: ChesterJohn

You're thinking into the crappy joke too much. Or am I? WoooooOOOOOoooooo (I don't know how to type the "scary" music I'm making with my face).



posted on Aug, 23 2015 @ 12:33 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Oh now I got it. Man we're getting older that's for sure.




top topics



 
26
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join