oldest known skulls of modern humans?

frogit

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/2983300.stm

If you missed the Neanderthal tobic this might interest you

frogit

ColdRedRain

Those fossils are false! We all know that humanity is only 6000 years old!

figureheaduk

I'd love to see the WT dismiss these findings - it's not as if they have a more accurate method of dating these sort of things!

Kenneson

Does that technically mean that we're all Africans? This will really thrill the white supremacists!

drwtsn32

WTS response:

1) These are not human remains.

2) They have been dated incorrectly.

JCanon

You know, if indeed the Bible is true about man's age, then this doesn't look good for science since apparently they seem rather incompetent in this regard, at least to dating, right?

But that is nothing new. Often scientists make decisions based upon a variety of feedbacks which they coordinate but when they don't have sufficient feedback then the degree of speculation is greater.

The other problem is that "science" is like it's own cult sub-religion and I think sometimes they are biased when it comes to agreeing with the Bible. My experience has been that pro-Biblical evidence that is available is usually delittled or avoided, so science certainly can't be considered unbiased.

But it's the same story really. If they ran a french fry through their dating system and it showed up as 10,000 years old they just say: "Ah! an anomaly. A false positive." So who is to say whatever they are testing are false positives based upon some inadequate area of expertise in dating?

Canon

drwtsn32

So who is to say whatever they are testing are false positives based upon some inadequate area of expertise in dating?

No offense, but your post shows a lack of knowledge when it comes to radiological dating. When I was a JW and clueless to how radiological dating worked, I had the same opinion. But after educating myself on how it actually works, I have changed my mind.

It is true that a single radiologcal dating method may be inaccurate because of various conditions. That's why science uses MANY different dating methods as a check. When you use half a dozen dating methods and they all agree on a date, you can be damn confident that the date is correct. For example, scientists might use a couple radiometric dating mechanisms but they will cross-check it with other things like sediment layers, ice core samples, tree rings, etc., etc.

Also, the analogy of using radiometric dating on a french fry is rediculous. Carbon dating works for objects that are hundreds or thousands of years old, not for things that are 1 week old. Other radiometric dating methods work for things hundreds of thousands of years old or millions of years old. It all depends on the half life of the radioactive isotope used in the dating method. (Carbon dating checks for the C14 isotope which has a half-life of 5700 years. Carbon dating is effective with objects up to 30,000 years old, if I remember correctly.)

You should read up on radiometric dating; it will probably change your mind.

Science, unlike religion, encourages people to disprove current theories. Religion is intolerant of change.

xjw_b12

drwtsn32 Good reply to JC, and done tactfully to boot. I salute you. I wish more posters here would refrain from the instant derogatory comments that appear when conflicting viewpoints arise.

Having said that, I'm sending JC some MacDonald's fries, that have been in the back of my truck, and will ask him to date them for me

Abaddon

JCanon; please present some actual data regarding your concerns with contemporary dating techniques; all you seem to be doing in your post is blustering and making unsubstansiated allegations.

You know, if indeed the Bible is true about man's age, then this doesn't look good for science since apparently they seem rather incompetent in this regard, at least to dating, right?

... hello, that's as good a point as saying "If the Lord of the Rings is true, then it doesn't look to good for...". Please try to make valid points, simple creationist spam is just a nuisance. For example 'x y and z data indicates the Bible is accurate chronologically speaking, thus a b c' .

As you seem so keen to point fingers regarding inaccuracy in dating, please explain to me the discrepancy between the supposed dates of the Flood, and the fact trees were standing before during and after all possible dates for the Flood (when such inundation would have killed them), and the fact delicate bands of deposits in lakes that were collecting before during and after the Flood seemed to have been totally undisturbed by the deluge.

hawkaw

Maybe this may help JCannon

1

oldest known skulls of modern humans?

Share this