recently the extremely smart (so he tells us) but comparatively inexperienced person, elected by the very smart people who live in the usa, to be their president, announced that he was limiting ties with qatar (a small arab state in the middle east) on the grounds that they were supporting terrorism.. and yet, the very next day, he authorises the sale of twelve billion us dollars worth of modern american fighters (f15s) to that small state, in which is located ... .
" ... the biggest us military base in the middle east, al udeid.
ten thousand american personnel are there, many of them prosecuting the air war against isis in syria and iraq.
I asked a question, since Trump has felt free to cancel other agreements made by a previous administration, why did he not cancel this one?
Is there an answer to my question?
Beyond that, is there any genuine evidence that Qatar really does support terrorism?
recently the extremely smart (so he tells us) but comparatively inexperienced person, elected by the very smart people who live in the usa, to be their president, announced that he was limiting ties with qatar (a small arab state in the middle east) on the grounds that they were supporting terrorism.. and yet, the very next day, he authorises the sale of twelve billion us dollars worth of modern american fighters (f15s) to that small state, in which is located ... .
" ... the biggest us military base in the middle east, al udeid.
ten thousand american personnel are there, many of them prosecuting the air war against isis in syria and iraq.
Mr Trump has 'cancelled' some 'deals' made by previous American regimes. Why not this one? Particularly if Qatar does support terrorism, as Trump claims? Which claim is not at all clear.
Many claims have been made that Saudi Arabia supports terrorism also. Does it? If it does, why does Trump create the impression that Saudi Arabia does not support terrorism? And why does he sell arms to the Saudi's?
recently the extremely smart (so he tells us) but comparatively inexperienced person, elected by the very smart people who live in the usa, to be their president, announced that he was limiting ties with qatar (a small arab state in the middle east) on the grounds that they were supporting terrorism.. and yet, the very next day, he authorises the sale of twelve billion us dollars worth of modern american fighters (f15s) to that small state, in which is located ... .
" ... the biggest us military base in the middle east, al udeid.
ten thousand american personnel are there, many of them prosecuting the air war against isis in syria and iraq.
Recently the extremely smart (so he tells us) but comparatively inexperienced person, elected by the very smart people who live in the USA, to be their President, announced that he was limiting ties with Qatar (a small Arab state in the Middle East) on the grounds that they were supporting terrorism.
And yet, the very next day, he authorises the sale of twelve billion US dollars worth of modern American fighters (F15s) to that small state, in which is located ...
" ... the biggest US military base in the Middle East, Al Udeid. Ten thousand American personnel are there, many of them prosecuting the air war against Isis in Syria and Iraq. "
Quoted from the UK magazine, The Spectator. (Reference: https://www.spectator.co.uk/2017/06/donald-trumps-big-trouble-in-little-qatar/ )
How did this man fool so many Americans into thinking that he was so 'smart?'
Footnote: My original source was a news story in the UK Independent: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/donald-trump-qatar-weapons-deal-12-billion-day-accuse-terrorism-saudi-arabiaqatar-signs-loa-for-the-a7790956.html?cmpid=facebook-post
science is a self-correcting journey.
any error in thought will be corrected by later research or discoveries, so the common concept that we humans (homo sapiens) developed something like 200,000 years ago is undergoing a major correction.
the discovery of fossilised bones of at least five individuals have been recovered from an old mine in morocco.
Anyone interested in a more technical understanding of the discoveries mentioned in this thread, may like to read the overview in an issue of Nature Journal ( a leading UK scientific publication).
https://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v546/n7657/full/nature22336.html
Quote: "Fossil evidence points to an African origin of Homo sapiens from a group called either H. heidelbergensis or H. rhodesiensis. However, the exact place and time of emergence of H. sapiens remain obscure because the fossil record is scarce and the chronological age of many key specimens remains uncertain. In particular, it is unclear whether the present day ‘modern’ morphology rapidly emerged approximately 200 thousand years ago (ka) among earlier representatives of H. sapiens1 or evolved gradually over the last 400 thousand years2. Here we report newly discovered human fossils from Jebel Irhoud, Morocco, and interpret the affinities of the hominins from this site with other archaic and recent human groups. We identified a mosaic of features including facial, mandibular and dental morphology that aligns the Jebel Irhoud material with early or recent anatomically modern humans and more primitive neurocranial and endocranial morphology. In combination with an age of 315 ± 34 thousand years (as determined by thermoluminescence dating)3, this evidence makes Jebel Irhoud the oldest and richest African Middle Stone Age hominin site that documents early stages of the H. sapiens clade in which key features of modern morphology were established. Furthermore, it shows that the evolutionary processes behind the emergence of H. sapiens involved the whole African continent."
You may be able to gain access to the full article through your local library.
science is a self-correcting journey.
any error in thought will be corrected by later research or discoveries, so the common concept that we humans (homo sapiens) developed something like 200,000 years ago is undergoing a major correction.
the discovery of fossilised bones of at least five individuals have been recovered from an old mine in morocco.
zeb: I saw a doco sorry cant recall the details of graves found in Spain which were Neanderthal. This was proven by artefacts' etc. The finders took some samples and tested for DNA and found guess what? Not human.
Hi zeb, I guess I shouldn't comment without reading the article you referred to, but I'll hazard some guesswork.
I think your reference may have been to a claimed discovery of DNA from soil samples, which was an interesting claim as ancient DNA is usually found in small quantities that are often fragmentary and damaged, as this extract from a Smithsonian Institute discusses:
Quote: "Organisms decompose after death. Water, oxygen and microbes break down DNA. Within 100,000 years, all DNA is destroyed. Ancient DNA tends to be found in small quantities. The DNA that is extracted is generally fragmentary and damaged. Some damage results in changes to the DNA sequence. Cytosine can change to uracil, which is read by copying enzymes as thymine, resulting in a C to T transition. Changes from G to A also occur. DNA errors are very common at the ends of molecules."
That's not to say the skilled technicians can't come up with a result by making allowances for 'known' potential changes. But before I (personally) would include that information in my thinking, I will wait for further research.
The above Smithsonian article also stated that Neanderthal and humans share some DNA (but not all) sequences.
Quote: "Researchers have developed ways to analyze the results of ancient DNA sequencing efforts to determine whether contamination is likely and how much has occurred. Analysis of the results and efforts to keep labs and specimens free of modern DNA is very important as some researchers believe that the early studies of Neanderthal DNA included modern contaminants."
Here's the link to the above article:
http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/genetics/ancient-dna-and-neanderthals/sequencing-neanderthal-dna
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Earnest: It is also quite significant that these fossils were found in Morocco. Previously it had been thought that early man developed in East and Southern Africa. The identification of such old fossils so closely related to modern man in an area far from the "cradle of mankind" suggests palaeontologists simply have no idea where homo sapiens came from. Clearly they will have to revise their current assumptions.
Not sure Earnest, what point you're inferring, outside of your final sentence, quote:
"Clearly they will have to revise their current assumptions."
But that's what happens all the time in the 'scientific method.' And most of the media references to the discovery mention the change to previous thinking, in their conclusions.
I suggest that at this stage, there is no need to postulate a change to the 'supposed' beginnings/origins of humans. If the Moroccan discovery conclusions are sustainable in the long run, then all it means is that the spread of proto-humans (if that's the best descriptive term) occurred earlier than previously thought, and in a different direction to what was previously thought. And, I'm sure you will agree that humans could walk a long, long way in a few thousand years.
The discovery doesn't really change (to any great extent) current thinking about human origins. If as this 2002 discussion in the New York Times states, human origins may be far older than 300,000 years BP.
Quote: "The first human ancestors appeared between five million and seven million years ago, probably when some apelike creatures in Africa began to walk habitually on two legs. They were flaking crude stone tools by 2.5 million years ago. Then some of them spread from Africa into Asia and Europe after two million years ago."
Reference: www.nytimes.com/2002/02/26/science/when-humans-became-human.html
science is a self-correcting journey.
any error in thought will be corrected by later research or discoveries, so the common concept that we humans (homo sapiens) developed something like 200,000 years ago is undergoing a major correction.
the discovery of fossilised bones of at least five individuals have been recovered from an old mine in morocco.
And, as a personal thought: It would not really matter if the dating methodologys used, later came up with a major correction, reducing the date from 300,000 years BP to say 10,000 years BP. It would still indicate that the Genesis account is only what it is, an origin myth, trying to (but not succeeding) in explaining how humans came to exist on this earth.
And, the dating is only one feature, the other more important feature is the differences in the skull, similar to modern humans, but not identical. The Genesis account can give no reason as to why we can find similar human remains in different locations around the planet,
What do christians imagine that the YHWH/JESUS designers were doing? Experimenting with different creative designs, until they got it right (in their own image-grin!!)? If YHWH (at least) is perfect as imagined in the Jewish sacred texts that christians now call the Bible, why would he need to experiment. Surely. he would get it right the first time?
And, its not just humans, there are animal remains from the past, similar to modern Australian fauna, but much larger, like this giant platypus:
over one metre long. Was that a failed creation also?
http://newsroom.unsw.edu.au/news/science/giant-extinct-toothed-platypus-discovered
There are others too, browse this Australian Museum site to examine them:
https://australianmuseum.net.au/australias-extinct-animals
And going back a bit further you come to the dinosaur type life forms,
The Genesis account makes no effort to explain these extinct life forms. Why? because the author of Genesis could no nothing about them - therefore neither YHWH or JESUS (if they exist) could be the authors of the Genesis account.
science is a self-correcting journey.
any error in thought will be corrected by later research or discoveries, so the common concept that we humans (homo sapiens) developed something like 200,000 years ago is undergoing a major correction.
the discovery of fossilised bones of at least five individuals have been recovered from an old mine in morocco.
Ha!! I note that the Sydney Morning Herald (surely one of Australia's premier newspapers) has chosen to head their take on this story in some web editions with the line:
"The human bones that prove 'there was no Garden of Eden'
Not sure why, unless its a reaction to recent controversy over gay marriage with a former tennis stare (Margaret Court) turned christian fundamentalist minister leading the charge.
Anyway the SMH provided added detail with more information concerning the dating methodology:
"Professor Grun and other geochronologists, led by Associate Professor Daniel Richter from the Max Planck Institute, used two methods to determine the age of the specimens.
One used a technique that measured the build-up of uranium and thorium isotopes in the tooth enamel. This put the age of the human tooth at 286,000 years, plus or minus 32,000 years.
The other technique looked at the build up of electrons in quartz in flint artefacts that had previously been heated.
Dr Kira Westaway, a geochronologist from Macquarie University not connected with the study, said: "In this application they've used flint artefacts that have been deliberately or accidentally heated."
She said during extreme heating electrons are expelled from "traps" in the quartz and rebuild during non-heating periods.
"We can work out the date of the last major heating event by measuring how many electrons have been trapped ... The build-up is proportional to the amount of time since heating."
There was also a nice pik of the site.
with the comment:
"Co-author of the paper dating the fossils Dr Shannon McPherron, also from Max Planck Institute, said: "The overall picture we have [from this dig] is of a hunting encampment in a cave on a hill, with early humans taking shelter as they move across the landscape."
He said the site had strong evidence of fires and a mix of animal remains – gazelle, zebra and even lions – that these humans consumed. There were also stone tools – cutting implements and spear heads – they had presumably used to hunt and consume those animals."
david goldman's hongkong based (and web published) media journal, the asia,times describes what may be the world's longest running terrorist insurrection in india.
their latest success was an attack on india's state security forces, in which they killed 26 members of the security force.. you can read the at's attempt to analyse the origins and causes of the naxalite (they are also called maoists) rebellions at: http://www.atimes.com/indias-maoist-violence-must-resolved-dialogue/.
the hindustan times has a table detailing the dead in this rebellion.. finally, i saw nothing about the latest attack (april) in the aussie media.
A thoughtful discussion on the problem of terrorism: It was published in a web-based Australian site controled by a group of universities.
science is a self-correcting journey.
any error in thought will be corrected by later research or discoveries, so the common concept that we humans (homo sapiens) developed something like 200,000 years ago is undergoing a major correction.
the discovery of fossilised bones of at least five individuals have been recovered from an old mine in morocco.
Science is a self-correcting journey. Any error in thought will be corrected by later research or discoveries, So the common concept that we humans (Homo sapiens) developed something like 200,000 years ago is undergoing a major correction
The discovery of fossilised bones of at least five individuals have been recovered from an old mine in Morocco. Testing brought the amazing information that they are 300,000 years old.
Note the similarity of the jawbone of one individual to modern humans, in this video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UagdU1qYnC8
More on this discovery can be found in this account from the UK Guardian:
There will, of course, be different arguments as to how the humans who once lived in that area fit into a 'first humans' and the 'spread of humans' accounts, and more discoveries may adjust the account. But that's how science works - each discovery corrects earlier misconceptions.
i'm hopeful that this topic has been discussed before, but out of love for my mentally imprisoned former brothers and sisters (or, indeed any christian), we can look at it again.. here's an interview with an astrophysicist:.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jxaokvnv7mc.
So, is your thinking evidence based or anchored in credulity?
