The Devil fools mankind again

RushlimboRushlimbo Posts: 832
edited July 2007 in A Moving Train
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."
War is Peace
Freedom is Slavery
Ignorance is Strength
Post edited by Unknown User on

Comments

  • tybirdtybird Posts: 17,388
    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
    All the world will be your enemy, Prince with a thousand enemies, and whenever they catch you, they will kill you. But first they must catch you, digger, listener, runner, prince with the swift warning. Be cunning and full of tricks and your people shall never be destroyed.
  • Eliot RosewaterEliot Rosewater Posts: 2,659
    Yeah, looks like Satan is pulling out all the stops these days to shake our faith. That dogfucker.
  • ForestBrainForestBrain Posts: 460
    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.
    When life gives you lemons, throw them at somebody.
  • godpt3godpt3 Posts: 1,020
    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
    "If all those sweet, young things were laid end to end, I wouldn't be the least bit surprised."
    —Dorothy Parker

    http://img210.imageshack.us/img210/6902/conspiracytheoriesxt6qt8.jpg
  • ForestBrainForestBrain Posts: 460
    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.
    When life gives you lemons, throw them at somebody.
  • Bu2Bu2 Posts: 1,693
    ....what has that have to do with the devil?
    Feels Good Inc.
  • godpt3godpt3 Posts: 1,020
    Bu2 wrote:
    ....what has that have to do with the devil?

    because the devil, as they say, is in the details :D
    "If all those sweet, young things were laid end to end, I wouldn't be the least bit surprised."
    —Dorothy Parker

    http://img210.imageshack.us/img210/6902/conspiracytheoriesxt6qt8.jpg
  • Bu2Bu2 Posts: 1,693
    godpt3 wrote:
    because the devil, as they say, is in the details :D

    my eggs.
    Feels Good Inc.
  • CosmoCosmo Posts: 12,225
    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?
    Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
    Hail, Hail!!!
  • RushlimboRushlimbo Posts: 832
    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.
    War is Peace
    Freedom is Slavery
    Ignorance is Strength
  • Bu2Bu2 Posts: 1,693
    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?
    Feels Good Inc.
  • tybirdtybird Posts: 17,388
    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.
    All the world will be your enemy, Prince with a thousand enemies, and whenever they catch you, they will kill you. But first they must catch you, digger, listener, runner, prince with the swift warning. Be cunning and full of tricks and your people shall never be destroyed.
  • jeffbrjeffbr Seattle Posts: 7,177
    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.
    "I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
  • soulsingingsoulsinging Posts: 13,202
    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.
  • godpt3 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.
    "Science has proof without certainty... Religion has certainty without proof"
    -Ashley Montagu
  • AhnimusAhnimus Posts: 10,560
    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.
    I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
  • Haile Selassie Haile
    Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
    and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
    over specific principles, goals, and policies.

    http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg

    (\__/)
    ( o.O)
    (")_(")
  • CosmoCosmo Posts: 12,225
    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.
    Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
    Hail, Hail!!!
  • Cosmo wrote:
    ...
    Actually... I believe the more accurate method would be to compare the fossils with Joan Rivers.

    Zing!
    "Science has proof without certainty... Religion has certainty without proof"
    -Ashley Montagu
Sign In or Register to comment.