The Devil fools mankind again

Rushlimbo

http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/science/07/11/ethiopia.fossil.reut/index.html

ADDIS ABABA, Ethiopia (Reuters) -- Ethiopian scientists said on Tuesday they have discovered hominid fossil fragments dating from between 3.5 million and 3.8 million years ago in what could fill a crucial gap in the understanding of human evolution.

Ethiopian archaeologist Yohannes Haile Selassie said the find included several complete jaws and one partial skeleton and were unearthed in the Afar desert at Woranso-Mille, near where the famous fossil skeleton known as Lucy was found in 1974.

"This is a major finding that could fill a gap in human evolution," he told a news conference in Addis Ababa.

"The fossil hominids from the Woranso-Mille area sample a time period that is poorly known in human evolutionary study."

Researchers say the area, about 140 miles northeast of Addis, boasts the most continuous record of human evolution.

Last year, an international team of scientists unveiled the discovery of 4.1 million-year-old fossils in the region.

Lucy, the most famous find, lived between 3.3 million and 3.6 million years ago. But Yohannes said Afar had yielded early hominid fossil remains spanning the last 6 million years.

"This has placed Ethiopia in the forefront of paleoanthropology," he told reporters.

"Ethiopia is known to the world as the cradle of humankind."

tybird

More tomfoolery here, these things weren't mentioned in the Bible, you know:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/07/070711-mammoth-picture.html
uly 11, 2007—Talk about a mammoth surprise.

A Russian hunter traipsing through Russia's remote Arctic Yamalo-Nenetsk region in May noticed what he thought was a reindeer carcass sticking out of the damp snow. (See a map of Russia and its remote Siberian regions.)

On closer inspection, the "reindeer" turned out to be a 40,000-year-old baby mammoth, perfectly encased in ice.

The six-month-old female mammoth is the most well-preserved example yet found of the beasts, which lumbered across the Earth during the last Ice Age, 1.8 million to 11,500 years ago.

"It's a lovely little baby mammoth indeed, found in perfect condition," Alexei Tikhonov, deputy director of the Russian Academy of Science's Zoological Institute, told the Reuters news agency.

At 110 pounds (50 kilograms) and 51 inches long (130 centimeters long), the baby is the size of a large dog, Reuters reported.

Scientists are banking on the female—named "Lyuba" after the Russian hunter's wife—to reveal some of the genetic secrets of the prehistoric giants.

That's because Lyuda's excellent state—intact except for her shaggy locks—makes her a veritable treasure trove for research.

Emerging DNA technologies have already allowed some scientists to consider resurrecting the mammoth. (Read about the resurrection debate.)

Meanwhile, the newfound body will undergo three-dimensional computer mapping at Japan's Jikei University, followed by an autopsy at the Zoological Museum in St. Petersburg. The Ice Age toddler will end up on display in the Russian Arctic town of Salekhard.

—Christine Dell'Amore

Eliot Rosewater

Yeah, looks like Satan is pulling out all the stops these days to shake our faith. That dogfucker.

ForestBrain

Yeah...can somebody explain to me the science behind concluding that something is that freakin old? I'm a little in the dark on that one.

godpt3

ForestBrain wrote:

Yeah...can somebody explain to me the science behind concluding that something is that freakin old? I'm a little in the dark on that one.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiocarbon_dating

ForestBrain

Okay, from what I have read about radiocarbon dating, I have concluded that it is not something I could rely on. There are too many variables.

Bu2

....what has that have to do with the devil?

godpt3

Bu2 wrote:

....what has that have to do with the devil?

because the devil, as they say, is in the details

Bu2

godpt3 wrote:

because the devil, as they say, is in the details

my eggs.

Cosmo

ForestBrain wrote:

Okay, from what I have read about radiocarbon dating, I have concluded that it is not something I could rely on. There are too many variables.

...
Let's the Bible is right. Mankind is said to be what... 5,000 years old. Their estimates are 3.5 million to 3.8 million years.
So, they are off by 3,495,000 to 3,750,000 years.
...
What variables produce an error margin like that?

Rushlimbo

Bu2 wrote:

....what has that have to do with the devil?

There are some fringe religious elements that claim fossils were put on Earth by the devil to fool mankind that God does not exist and the bible is full of falsehoods.

Bu2

Rushlimbo wrote:

There are some fringe religious elements that claim fossils were put on Earth by the devil to fool mankind that God does not exist and the bible is full of falsehoods.

drive cars that use fossil fuels?

tybird

Bu2 wrote:

drive cars that use fossil fuels?

Just more tomfoolery by ole' Scratch......it's not really made from fossils.;) There was a recent Major League baseball player who believed that dinosaurs never existed and fossils were a plot of the devil......he was a real jerk....played for several times....can't remember his name.

jeffbr

tybird wrote:

Just more tomfoolery by ole' Scratch......it's not really made from fossils.;) There was a recent Major League baseball player who believed that dinosaurs never existed and fossils were a plot of the devil......he was a real jerk....played for several times....can't remember his name.

Those kind of people would be funny if they didn't breed.

soulsinging

Cosmo wrote:

...
Let's the Bible is right. Mankind is said to be what... 5,000 years old. Their estimates are 3.5 million to 3.8 million years.
So, they are off by 3,495,000 to 3,750,000 years.
...
What variables produce an error margin like that?

that number always cracks me up. ive taken pisses that lasted longer than the universe has existed according to creationists.

Mookie Baylock

godpt3 wrote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiocarbon_dating

actually, radiocarbon dating is not useful for dates older than about 50000 years. For something as old as this they would be using something more complex such as potasium argon to get an accurate date. Also we can date things relitively by seeing where the fossils lie (stratigraphy/depth-wise) compared to other fossils of known dates in the same area.

Ahnimus

ForestBrain wrote:

Okay, from what I have read about radiocarbon dating, I have concluded that it is not something I could rely on. There are too many variables.

There are many ways of dating that all arive at approx. the same conclusions.

RolandTD20Kdrummer

Haile Selassie Haile

Cosmo

Mookie Baylock wrote:

actually, radiocarbon dating is not useful for dates older than about 50000 years. For something as old as this they would be using something more complex such as potasium argon to get an accurate date. Also we can date things relitively by seeing where the fossils lie (stratigraphy/depth-wise) compared to other fossils of known dates in the same area.

...
Actually... I believe the more accurate method would be to compare the fossils with Joan Rivers.

Mookie Baylock

Cosmo wrote:

...
Actually... I believe the more accurate method would be to compare the fossils with Joan Rivers.

Zing!