35,000 year old "modern human" remains Discovered!

Yahoo News ^ | Sat Mar 6,11:27 AM ET | By ALISON MUTLER, Associated Press Writer

[patriot_wes]

Obviously a "normal" happy family sitting around the cave waiting for Domino's Pizza delivery.

[orionblamblam]

> How would you try to show that they are different species.
St.Bernard and Poodle fossils would probably be considered different species.

Valid questions. But then... can, say, a male St. Bernard truly create successfuly offspring with, say, a female Chihuahua?

How woudlw e show that a Homo Erectus is a different species froma Homo Sapiens? Not sure, without breeding stock. But it is clear thatserious changes occured over time, and the lineage can be traced back a half billion years.

Of course, creation "science" has no valid hypothesis to explain the existence of Homo Erectus or any of the other millions of extinct, distinct fossil species... or how to explain why they are geologically stratified in the fossil record. Find a Tyrannosaur with a human femur in it's teeth, or a trilobite in the stomache of a bird, and maybe y'all will have something. But even after more than a century of searching, and numerous frauds, your side has utterly failed to deliver on actual evidence... while the evidence in favor of evolution has piled up like a mountain.

Y'all are reduced to such ludicrous notions as argueing against carbon dating because of some wacky notion that a miles-thick ocean of water was somehow suspended in the friggen *sky,* blocking cosmic radiation (but magically allowing sunlight to get through, imagine that).

[Diamond]

So you're Plaisted?

No, of course not.

You got your text from here, all of it.

Of course I did. I used quotation marks and the word [snip] to indicate exactly that, and I linked the source so that you would see exactly where it came from. Which makes me wonder why you asked me if I'm Plaisted. (?)

Apparently on the same day in Feb, 1998,, one Arthur V. Chadwick posted this:

http://www.asa3.org/archive/ASA/199802/0170.html

Plaisted gives the link in my linked article to you as: "http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/faq/radiocarbon.shtml:" (the link does not work)

The colon at the end of the aforesaid link in the Plaisted article indicates that what follows is a QUOTATION from the link. Therefore Chadwick is the source. You are correct about that, but there is nothing sinister or unethical about it, either from me or from Plaisted.

Cordially,

[VadeRetro]

You're right, I simply missed your unobtrusive "source" hyperlink at the end of the quote. Got a very wrong impression for which I apologize. That said, dendochronology stands as one calibration of C14. Creationist criticisms of it are little more than smoke and mirrors. There have apparently since been other calibrations. (Wiens mentions varves and stalactites.)

I'll recap why this matters. Because C14 dating works and routinely dates things farther back than the 6K age of the Earth which YECs allow, the ICR paper's arm-waving explanation of why there's still so little C14 in the coal doesn't work. The only reason there's any C14 at all is because it's contamination. If there were no contamination, there wouldn't be any C14 there at all. A little contamination is to be expected and amounts to no more than a harmless noise floor to the kind of measurements for which C14 is useful.

I have saved a link to this thread so I can rub a certain party's nose in his deliberate amnesia the next time he shows up again remembering nothing, anticipating no counter-arguments, and demanding to be dragged through the refutation of that ICR article.

[balrog666]

Nose-rubbing placemarker.

[Diamond]

Thanks for your response, Vade. Actually, on second glance the apology should be mine. I could have been clearer in the format of my post.

Let me just say that the reason I posted the quote was that since Ferguson on Bristlecone pines had been sourced as an authority by several posters, I thought the email by Chadwick contained some interesting countervailing opinion; namely, (and let the reader judge the credibility of his assertions; I have no way of verifying them or disproving them)

1. It purports to be from one who has taught dendrochronnology.
2. He asserts personal knowledge of one of his graduate students who went to work for Ferguson in his lab at U of A, and who was the curator of Ferguson's work after his death.
3. He asserts that this graduate student is presently probably the only one who knows anything about how Ferguson produced the bristlecone chronology.
4. He further asserts that another of his graduate students gave a seminar to the lab on dendrochronology of fossil trees and had ample opportunity to analyze the procedures there, and to work with Ferguson.
5. And from the foregoing, he asserts that on "pretty firm grounds" his opinion that the Bristlecone chronology before 4000bp is fraught with problems and unanswered questions."
6. He asserts that "while Ferguson was alive, he never allowed anyone to analyze his original data or the bases for the many suppositions that went into the establishment of the chronology. Thus the chronology was not subjected to the normal rigors of science."
7. After some complementary remarks about Ferguson, he asserts that the most important rings in any chronology are the "missing rings" which have to be added by the investigator.
8. He states his opinion that dates older than 4,000 years are entirely dependent on C14 dates of the wood, and is thus are tautologous.

Just for the record.

Cordially,

[VadeRetro]

Thank you for reading it to me again. On second reading, it's still bogus as noted earlier.

[vessel]

> Valid questions. But then... can, say, a male St. Bernard truly create successfuly offspring with, say, a female Chihuahua?

Are you suggesting that they are different species? I didn't expect you to actually apply the same logic you use to seperate human fossils into a different species. But you did.

The "serious changes" over time which produced both a Chihuahua and a St. Bernard are very well understood and easily applicable to the differences between Homo Erectus and Homo Sapiens.

> Of course, creation "science" has no valid hypothesis to explain the existence of Homo Erectus or any of the other millions of extinct, distinct fossil species... or how to explain why they are geologically stratified in the fossil record.

No sources neccessary try these things at home... so you won't be embarassed.

Play around with one of those sand & water panels with different densities and sizes of particles. You'll find that allowing rapid depostion creates distinct layers but if the angle of descent or rate of deposit is decreased greater homogization occurs.

Also try playing with sand and rocks, put some rocks in the bottom of a bucket of sand and shake it up a bit, the rocks will float. Thus larger fossils on the top, smaller on the bottom.

This is all first hand evidence, not conjecture.

> ... some wacky notion that a miles-thick ocean of water was somehow suspended in the friggen *sky,* blocking cosmic radiation (but magically allowing sunlight to get through, imagine that).

Who said miles thick? That was your based on your assumption that the topography didn't change as a result of the flood. A fairly flat landscape wouldn't require any more water than we have to be flooded.

And ozone is an invisible gas yet able to block radiation very well, remember.

[orionblamblam]

> Thus larger fossils on the top, smaller on the bottom.

Oh, RIIIIGHT. That's why the giant femurs of a Seismosaurus are found down low... in the same strata as the rest of the skeleton... why the miniscule femur of a fossile mole from 30 million years later is found far above it.

RIIIIIIGHT.

>Who said miles thick?

Mount Ararat.

[vessel]

> What in the world are you talking about?

Belief in Evolution made Hitler do what he did

[PatrickHenry]

Belief in Evolution made Hitler do what he did

Actually, to the extent you can believe his own words, Hitler was a creationist:

For it was by the Will of God that men were made of a certain bodily shape, were given their natures and their faculties. Whoever destroys His work wages war against God's Creation and God's Will.
-- Adolph Hitler, creationist

Source: Book 2, Chapter 10, Mein Kampf by Adolf Hitler.
Discussed at Adolf Hitler's Religion

[vessel]

> That's why the giant femurs of a Seismosaurus are found down low... in the same strata as the rest of the skeleton... why the miniscule femur of a fossile mole from 30 million years later is found far above it.

And what is your explanation for "more primitive fossils" found in layers above "more modern". Uplift, subduction and a double gainer with a quarter turn?

>Mount Ararat

Post flood topography.

[orionblamblam]

> And what is your explanation for "more primitive fossils" found in layers above "more modern".

Examples? Where, for instance, have trilobites been found with tyranosaurs?

[vessel]

> the giant femurs of a Seismosaurus are found down low... in the same strata as the rest of the skeleton... why the miniscule femur of a fossile mole from 30 million years later.

Next you'll be saying the mole evolved from the Seismosaurus. Or maybe a Brontosaurus (Oh, yeah I forgot, Bronto baby got found.) Which brings us back to many of the fossil finds which are not as you describe... in the same strata as the rest...poly-strate fossils with no weather or wear for millenia of stratification.

[VadeRetro]

Next you'll be saying the mole evolved from the Seismosaurus. Or maybe a Brontosaurus (Oh, yeah I forgot, Bronto baby got found.)

No. Dinosaurs are diapsid reptiles. Mammals evolved from synapsid reptiles.

[vessel]

> Examples? Where, for instance, have trilobites been found with tyranosaurs?

How about Precambrian over Cretacous The Lewis Overthrust

[VadeRetro]

Lewis Overthrust. So what?

[vessel]

> No. Dinosaurs are diapsid reptiles. Mammals evolved from synapsid reptiles.

At least we agree one did not come from the other.

[vessel]

> Lewis Overthrust. So what?

"Oldest" on top.

[VadeRetro]

Older on top. Non-biblical mechanism.