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.
So it dawned on me: Rick, you're an anthropologist. Maybe this has something to do with human evolution, and it's not the survival of the fittest in any one environment but the survival of the more versatile, the more general and flexible creatures that would really persist over time. This gave me a new insight into human evolution.
Originally posted by ButterCookie
According to evolutionists, mankind 'evolved, over a period of about 25 million years, and in anthropologic terms 'arose overnight' into modern man.....
As Sitchin presented, " The appearance of modern man a mere 700k years AFTER homo erectus and some 200k years BEFORE Neanderthal man is absolutely implausible".
Basically, how did the ancestors of modern man appear some some 300k years ago ....instead of 2 or 3 million years into the future, following normal evolutionary development? We should STILL be in caves, lerning how to plant crops and feed ourselves, according to evolution.
How did we evolve from simple farmers into ipad bearing spacemen in the space of just 200 years?
Originally posted by StripedBandit
Don't bait them into it, they will call the fossils a test of faith or something.
Originally posted by Freedom_is_Slavery
This is interesting stuff, I wonder what all the creationists have to say about this one,
Originally posted by Freedom_is_Slavery
Half of who,
Speak for yourself buddy
Only religious nut jobs deny evolution
True story
Originally posted by Solomons
Great news, will watch closely! As for bringing up religion, at the end of the day evolution is a fact, it is undeniable and if people still choose to ignore such a crucial part of reality for comfort or religious views then no amount of new fossil evidence will persuade them otherwise, for the rest of us this is an exciting discovery.
Originally posted by yadda333
reply to post by Lionhearte
You really think they used carbon dating for this find??edit on 9/9/2011 by yadda333 because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by Lionhearte
reply to post by yadda333
It doesn't matter what they used. I was using Carbon-Dating as an example.
The point still remains, that decay rates are not constant. That's the entire basis for any Radio-metric dating method, isn't it?
And again, they are STILL based on assumptions, one being that everything has been constant, which we know is not always the case. The second, being that all the conditions were the same, including if there was outside influence affecting the find. They assume perfect conditions.
Originally posted by Lionhearte
Besides, that's the real issue. The numbers. With everything. Think about it. I mean, seriously guys. You put so much faith in the fallible humans (this is undeniable) and hope we got our # right, yet exclude the possibility that there's an infallible God out there.
That's why carbon dating isn't the only method of dating as another poster pointed out.
I say what I always say when shown this stuff. How do they know?
To be specific, they mention the fossil is some hundred thousand years old (which is odd, I'll mention below)
How did they come to that conclusion? Why don't you people question that? Why are you such accepting-sheeple?
Obvious answer would be Carbon-dating, right? Well, that's recently been put under scrutiny and really should not hold any merit anymore because it is still based off too many assumptions. And, as I mentioned above, it's odd, because Carbon-dating can only date back 50-60k years. Some say 30k (ie, the guy who invented it).
Huh? I haven't invested much into it. I don't study evolution textbooks like scripture, I understand the basics of the concept though and it makes sense.
Why don't you question the truth? Isn't that what you're after? or do you just fancy the idea of Evolution too much? I guess I understand, it's hard to let go of something you've invested so much in.
You realize that's how science works, right? Whenever evidence surfaces that proves previous theories to be inaccurate, the theories are refined to fit the observations, calculations, discoveries, or whatever it is that calls the theory into question. Would you prefer one theory that doesn't change no matter what evidence disproves it?
Only a complete fool would swear by a theory. The whole concept of the theory of evolution, is an ever-changing argument. It needs to change, it needs to "evolve" in it's own way. When something comes and doesn't agree with the theory, they change the theory. That's how theories work. Convenient, if you ask me.
There isn't just one fossil that the theory of evolution is based on. We didn't dig up one fossil, and write textbooks of the entire theory of evolution. Again, you illustrate your poor understanding of how science works.
Exciting indeed, for all of us. Do you think Christians are cowering in fear out of this discovery? That it's just a 'test of faith'? I for one don't deny it's real. It looks just like any other humanoid fossil. I don't see how ONE FOSSIL confirms an entire theory. Usually you'll want several dozen AT LEAST, I'd go for a few hundred (after all, there was probably more than 1 of this species alive, it would need to reproduce, wouldn't it?), but that's just me. You can accept things that agree with you just as much as you want, doesn't mean it's 100% fact. After all, you'd tell me the same, wouldn't you?
And as noted above, carbon dating is not the only method used.
Anyways, as noted above, Carbon-14 is useless. They use it so freely because the majority of the population accepts it as fact without questioning it. Those who do question it will have heard the story of fresh blood from a dead seal which was dated at 1300 years prior. The Chekurovka mammoth fur, dated at 26,000 years prior, even though the peaty soil it was in was only 5600 years old.
.......So how old do you think the earth/universe is?
That's the main issue.. the dates. People believe it takes BILLIONS of years for change. No. No it doesn't. Look at the Grand Canyon. Formed over millions of years, right? Thanks to erosion, weather, time, etc.. right? People who actually believe this should look into the Little Grand Canyon in Georgia. It's 1/30th as deep, fairly small, but shares the same characteristics.. and guess what? It formed in decades. Even if it took the Grand Canyon 100x longer to form, that's still only 1500 years.
Not millions.
Why believe there is some macho wizard man running the show when we understand how things work in the world now? Maybe back in the day when people thought the earth was flat and thought a lunar-eclipse was a dragon eating the sun we needed a deity to explain things, but that's in the past. I don't put faith into humans, I put faith into the scientific method...well technically I don't, because faith refers to things that don't have evidence backing it, but you get the idea.
Besides, that's the real issue. The numbers. With everything. Think about it. I mean, seriously guys. You put so much faith in the fallible humans (this is undeniable) and hope we got our # right, yet exclude the possibility that there's an infallible God out there.
Evolution is not a religion, it is a scientific theory. Religion isn't a scientific theory, it's a book that people have no proof of that they put blind faith in. There is proof of evolution, there isn't proof of creationism.
Anyways, since "scientific" dating methods have been proven unreliable, let us remember that for those who desperately desire to reject God, evolution is a religion of last resort. If there is no Creator, there can be no sin, and no need of a Savior.
Ah, so because we can't yet perfectly explain every single detail of evolution with stunningly accurate detail, it's all gotta be false! Nice! It makes much more sense that some....thing just clapped it's hands or whatever, and all life appeared! It's brilliant! Add to that incredibly realistic approach to how life arose the mountains of evidence that back it up, and you have a theory that's so obviously true that it doesn't need to change over thousands of years no matter what contradicting evidence debunks it! :shk:
Bingo, that's why some of the theory has holes in it.
I advise you to read this article to get an understanding of exactly how wrong you are. Here's the most important part:
It doesn't matter what they used. I was using Carbon-Dating as an example.
The point still remains, that decay rates are not constant. That's the entire basis for any Radio-metric dating method, isn't it?
And again, they are STILL based on assumptions, one being that everything has been constant, which we know is not always the case. The second, being that all the conditions were the same, including if there was outside influence affecting the find. They assume perfect conditions.
With modern, extremely precise, methods, error bars are often only 1% or so.
Originally posted by Freedom_is_Slavery
This is interesting stuff, I wonder what all the creationists have to say about this one,
How did they come to that conclusion? Why don't you people question that? Why are you such accepting-sheeple?
I don't see how ONE FOSSIL confirms an entire theory
Originally posted by Griffo
reply to post by ButterCookie
According to evolutionists, mankind 'evolved, over a period of about 25 million years, and in anthropologic terms 'arose overnight' into modern man.....
Do you call people who believe in gravity (i.e. everyone) gravitists? Or people who believe in relativity - relitavists? Or even people who believe in cell theory - cellists? [I use believe in this circumstance for lack of a better word. As, believe in these theories or not, they are still true]
"Arose overnight" is probably using geographical terms, in which it actually means many hundreds of thousands of years (or even millions)
" The appearance of modern man a mere 700k years AFTER homo erectus and some 200k years BEFORE Neanderthal man is absolutely implausible".
Does this Sitchen fella go into more detail as to why it is implausible?
Basically, how did the ancestors of modern man appear some some 300k years ago ....instead of 2 or 3 million years into the future, following normal evolutionary development? We should STILL be in caves, lerning how to plant crops and feed ourselves, according to evolution.
Why should we still be living in caves? Homo sapiens means "knowing man"; H. sapiens was smarter than the other hominids that preceded it
Mankind has QUANTUM Leaped the normal evolution process.
YEAH!! Throw some complicated words in to make people think you know what you are talking about, but don't really mean anything.
And, we went from horse and buggy to landing on the moon in 67 years......
And I suppose all of those hard working inventors just sat on their arse's every day of their lives until an alien/Jesus/FSM appeared in their head and told them what to do?
There was obviously intervention...from a more advanced species.
[Citation needed]