Posted on 04/29/2004 1:32:24 PM PDT by me_newswire
WASHINGTON - More than three-quarters of a million years ago, early humans gathered around a campfire near an ancient lake in what is now Israel, making tools and perhaps cooking food, in the earliest evidence yet found of the use of fire in Europe or Asia.
Researchers have found evidence that these early people hunted and processed meat and used fire at a site called Gesher Benot Ya'aqov in the northern Dead Sea valley.
Developing the ability to use fire "surely led to dramatic changes in their behavior connected with diet, defense and social interaction," said lead researcher Naama Goren-Inbar of the Hebrew University in Jerusalem.
Occupation of the site has been dated at about 790,000 years ago, according to the research team. Their findings are reported in Friday's issue of the journal Science.
The remains of burned wood indicate the possibility of a hearth, the researchers said, and there were tiny flint pieces, probably chipped off in the process of making tools.
There also is evidence of consumption of meat, including bones with cut marks and breakage patterns indicating the extraction of marrow.
The evidence indicates the early humans ate a variety of animals including horses, deer, rhino, hippo and birds, Goren-Inbar said in an interview via e-mail.
Several types of wood were burned at the site, including willow, poplar, ash and wild olive. There also was evidence of oats, wild grapevine, bedstraw, barley and several types of grass.
The find "enlarges the scope of our understanding of the behavioral patterns of the early humans," Goren-Inbar said. "It allows us to understand that these hominins were capable of coping with dangers, food, acquire warmth and later on in the history of mankind enabled some very meaningful technological inventions."
The earliest previous sites in Europe and Asia that show evidence of human use of fire have been dated at about 500,000 years ago.
Thus, the new finding pushes back the earliest evidence for control of fire by residents of Asia or Europe by more than a quarter-million years.
There are earlier sites associating fire with early humans in Africa, though some researchers believe the evidence at those locations is ambiguous and natural fires cannot be ruled out.
Anthropologist Paola Villa of the University of Colorado, who was not part of the research team, called new the report an important find.
"The evidence presented in this paper is very convincing because it is based on a combination of different kinds of data," she said. "Supportive evidence for the presence of fireplaces is also provided. The authors have considered all possible alternative explanations," she said.
"This is an important find that will encourage European archaeologists to take a closer look at their data," Villa added.
The Israeli site is at a crossroads for movement between Africa, Asia and Europe and use of fire could have helped spur the colonization of the colder climate of Europe, which began about 800,000 years ago.
Still unknown is exactly who these early people were. The paper notes that residents of this site have been assumed to be the now extinct Homo erectus or Homo ergaster, but may also have been an archaic version of modern humans, Homo sapiens.
ON THE NET Science: http://www.sciencemag.org
--
See current Middle East News links at Mideast Newswire:
www.mideastnewswire.com
_________________________________________________________
Was bomb making equipment found?
Evidently the rationale they use is based on the 6 days of creation, then Noah, his sons Abraham etc etc etc etc Moses etc etc etc Jesus + 2000 odd years.
The only problem is that, just delving solely into the 6 days of creation alone, that the bible says that a day for God is not the same as that of a human. Who's to say those 'days' are not eons? I don't know ....and I'm certain the 6K age people also do not know for sure.
And if you look at the way Genesis depicts life coming to be it matches what science says to a T. From the fish in the ocean to reptiles etc etc. The only difference is that the Bible says 6 days while science says eons. But later on in the Bible it says a day for God is not what we would see as a day.
Hence, 6 days may mean 6 days ......or it may mean something totally different. But certainly the earth is not 6,000 years old ....there are a couple of civilizations older than that.
How long before the Paleostinians claim to be their direct descendants?
Umm...That's not quite what it says about days and time.
And if you look at the way Genesis depicts life coming to be it matches what science says to a T. From the fish in the ocean to reptiles etc etc. The only difference is that the Bible says 6 days while science says eons. But later on in the Bible it says a day for God is not what we would see as a day.
If you look again you will see that it is definitely not in the same order suggested by evolution.
Hence, 6 days may mean 6 days ......or it may mean something totally different. But certainly the earth is not 6,000 years old ....there are a couple of civilizations older than that.
Sorry, there is nothing older than that.
How can you be certain of that? Were you there when it was created?
There is plenty of good scientific evidence for a very young earth, just as The Lord God tells us in His Holy Bible.
However i would be exceedingly curious as to why YOU believe the world is 6,000 years old. Show me where in the Bible it says the Earth is 6K years old. I am certain you cannot. Why? Because that number was derived by 'biblical scholars' reckoning the age of the earth based on Biblical chronology. Basically guesswork based on certain events recorded in the Bible. Consequently it is not God through man but man through 'applied logic' (and this applied 'logic' has the same efficacy as me saying it took 80 days to write the book 'Around the World in 80 days' since in the novel Phineas Fog travels the globe in that time span.).
Anyways, the most important thing i would like you to 'humor' me with is HOW and WHY the 6,000 year number came up. I'd am truly curious as to that. And most importantly show me where in the Bible it says the world is 6,000 years old.
That is not too much to ask now, is it? Unless of course the 6K date is nothing more than what the early fathers used to do .....for example debating what shape an angel's wings are (actually happened), or coming up with human edicts like indulgences and other stuff that is not to be found in the Bible ....basically such stuff si the pure result of people sitting down and coming up with all sorts of things. More recently, a certain noted (and popular) Biblical scholar said the locusts that can sting in the Book of Revelations are Apache attack Helicopters. Hence my sceptical view of statements about the Bible that do not have a bilical basis.
And if you cannot give me a Biblical reference then maybe i can interest you in some shapes of angel's wings .....
Anyways, where does it say the Earth is 6,000 years old in the Bible? And let me add, I totally believe in the Bible .....however when people say the Earth is 6K yrs old, and they tie it to God's Word, then they better show me where it says so in His Word.
Oh, and by the way, the following article is on some recent developments in the carbon-dating of the Harrapa civilization and Mohenjo-daro. It is not that important here (i do not want to deviate from you telling me the source of the 6,000 year date), but it is interesting nonetheless.
Michael Cremo, Researcher of Ancient Archaeology
"Within the past few months, the engineers began some dredging operations there and they pulled up human fossil bones, fossil wood, stone tools, pieces of pottery and many other things that indicated that it indeed was a human habitation site that they had. And they were able to do more intensive sonar work there and were able to identify more structures. They appeared to have been laid out on the bank of a river that had been flowing from the Indian subcontinent out into that area.
According to the news releases, they have done a radiocarbon testing on a piece of wood from the underwater site that is now yielding an age of 9,500 years which would place it near the end of the last Ice Age.
Yes, those are the indications that are coming. There were actually two radiocarbon dates: one about 7500 years old and another about 9500 years old. The 9500 year old one seems to be the strongest one. That's the one they are going with. This was announced by Minister Joshi (Murli Manohar Joshi is Indian Minister for Ocean Technology) at this meeting I attended in Hyderabad, India. He said there is going to be more work going on. It's difficult because it's very difficult to see down there. There is a very swift current. So, it's going to have to be a pretty massive effort, but he said the government of India is willing to put the resources behind it to do whatever it takes to further confirm these discoveries.
I also spoke in Hyderabad with an independent archaeologist not connected with the Indian government, but who has a deep interest in these discoveries and he says they are still going to have to send divers down there. Up to this point, they have not sent divers down. The information they have is based on the sonar readings and the dredging they have done. Eventually, they are going to have to find a way to get people down there to take a closer look at this. I think this effort is going to go on.
Now, another American archaeologist, Richard Meadows of Harvard University, is proposing there should be an international effort here. On the surface that sounds like a good idea, but it also may be an effort of American archaeologists and others to control the project. I don't think they want to see a civilization being as old as it appears to be according to these new finds at 9500 years ago. So, I would hope the Indian archaeologists and government would be very cautious about letting outsiders in there who might have a different agenda and who might try to control what gets let out about this very important discovery. It could be quite revolutionary.
And let me add, I totally believe in the Bible .....however when people say the Earth is 6K yrs old, and they tie it to God's Word, then they better show me where it says so in His Word.
I have this same debate going on with a fellow Christian, who is very near and dear to me, who cannot provide the answers to these questions.
My point is it's not in the Bible, but to agree with her I must accept a mortal individual's interpretation of something that appears nowhere in the Bible. And I must reject all evidence I see before my eyes (the speed of light, carbon dating, etc.)
In my humble opinion, that is asking too much, especially when I can believe in the actual Word of the Bible without having to dismiss reality by accepting one mortal individual's interpretation of the Bible.
Curious are you? Well you could try the links I gave you.
How Archbishop Usser worked out the age of the Earth.
Below is an excerpt.
The Bible gives some large time periods which enable us to do the same calculations as Ussher, without going into all the intermediate details as he did.
From when Abraham left Haran to enter Canaan and Egypt until the Exodus, exactly 430 years to the day (Genesis 12:10, Exodus 12:40, Galatians 3:17). 2513
Exodus to start of Temple, 479 years (1 Kings 6:1, in the 480th year or after 479 years). 2992
Start of Temple to division of the Kingdom, 37 years (Solomon reigned 40 years, 1 Kings 11:42, temple started in his 4th year). 3029
Division of the Kingdom to destruction of Jerusalem, 388 whole years, plus part of two years (Ezekiel 4:4–6). 3417
Kingdom fell in 588 BC Hence date of creation = 588 + 3417 - 1 = 4004 BC This gives a rough idea of how Ussher did his calculations.
Astronomy and Ussher
Astrogeophysicist Dr John Eddy, who was at the time Solar Astronomer at the High Altitude Observatory at Boulder, Colorado, made some revealing comments at a symposium in 1978, as reported in Geotimes 23:18, September 1978. ‘There is no evidence based solely on solar observations, Eddy stated, that the Sun is 4.5-5 x 109 years old. “I suspect,” he said, “that the Sun is 4.5-billion years old. However, given some new and unexpected results to the contrary, and some time for frantic recalculation and theoretical readjustment, I suspect that we could live with Bishop Ussher’s value for the age of the Earth and Sun. I don’t think we have much in the way of observational evidence in astronomy to conflict with that.”’
Red
And if you look at the way Genesis depicts life coming to be it matches what science says to a T. From the fish in the ocean to reptiles etc etc. The only difference is that the Bible says 6 days while science says eons. But later on in the Bible it says a day for God is not what we would see as a day.
I agree, but many want to stuff I AM into a Julian calendar.
Show me where in the Bible it says the age of the world, and that its age is 6,000 years old, and then i will accept it.
And by the way .....doesn't Genesis say that the Spirit of God hovered above the waters? That was before the 6 day creation. This is what it says:
1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 The earth was without form, and void; and darkness was F1 on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.
That was before the 6 day creation, the human chronology and all that. Now, how did the Biblical scholars come up with 6,000 years? There is nothing as to how long it took before the creation of the earth and the beginning of the rest of creation.
Basically my only question is this ....where does it say the world is 6K yrs old? Give me a Bilbical answer and i will gladly believe it. I am a Christian, and hence i am not coming to this with a 'God is not real basis.' Nope ... I totally believe, worship, and adore God. I am just challenging a premise that the world is 6K years old, and that that is Biblical. And up to today no one has ever managed to answer that question. They either:
a) Flame me (if online).
b)Keep quiet and say nothing.
However up to date not one person has even shown me Biblically where the world is 6K years old, or even a place that merely alludes to that. Hence i classify that under the same drawer where i put the shapes of angel wings and indulgences.
And by the way, Protest1, Archbishop Usher also said the Gospel went first to Britain. That was one of the works he did (he also did a lot of work on pre-destination). Hence i would question his calculations.
Anyways, where in the Word of God does it say that. The reason i ask is many people have come up with weird stuff from the Bible. For example, have you heard of Bibliomancy? It is a type of divination where people open any book in the Bible and 'see' what is to be through that. Obviously not a good thing (divination that is).
Hence my need for Biblical assurance.
So much for even the 1948 borders! No bias in reporting here, no none at all. Did Arafat fund this research? Them Palis never give up...
I can believe the Bible and that my Lord is a loving God, or I can believe that my Lord set us up deceitfully to fail, and used a good archbishop as His unwitting tool.
Hmmm...My Lord's Word or an archbishop's word. Gee...that was pretty easy...I'll believe the Bible.
Science, by definition, is incapable of proving the supernatural. If you love both science and the bible and God, this should be clear to you.
Then perhaps it's time for you to re-examine your premises.
Or are you one of those folks whose motto is, "if the evidence conflicts with my beliefs, it must be disposed of"?
Because that's what the vast majority of the mountains of evidence indicates.
Were you there when it was created?
That (silly) excuse can be equally applied against the "young earthers".
There is plenty of good scientific evidence for a very young earth,
AAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Yeah. Sure. You betcha.
Feel free to present your top two pieces of "best scientific evidence for a young earth", and I'll show you what's wrong with it.
just as The Lord God tells us in His Holy Bible.
Really? Where?
It's Talmudic of God that, "If I knew Him, I'd be Him."
I rather try to have faith, which science only seems to support.
God Bless....
But it is capable of disproving particular misconceptions held by those who place too much stock in their own human fallibility when it comes to deciding what their gospels actually do or do not say.
It's an argument that can go on forever.
On one side we appear to have somebody who believes in the absolute accuracy of the Bible, and therefore anything which seems to contradict it must therefore be false.
On the other side we have somebody who believes in scientific evidence, and Occams Razor, and therefore believes that if a chain of scientific evidence definitely indicates a 6 billion year old universe, it is unreasonable to think that the universe is only 6000 (or 6500) years old and God scattered all this evidence around because He likes playing head games with us.
The claim that the research team was able to date this site to 790,000 years ago is a very dramatic and controversial claim, and it is the core element of this article, yet the authors offer no clue or evidence whatsoever of just how that age was determined.
Given that the half-life of carbon-14 is only 5,730 years, it is clear that carbon-14 dating could NOT have been used to date an item 790,000 years old. (Any remaining carbon-14 would have been reduced to less than one part in 1040.)
Since the claim of 790,000 years is so controversial, it makes you wonder why the authors failed to offer any substantiation of that claim.
--Boot Hill
Charred Remains May Be Earliest Human Fire (Israel - 800k yo)
Know what .....I am not the one getting hung up on a date, you are. Personally i adhere to the concept that in God's scheme of things there are more important things than whether the Earth was made 6,000 years ago (and I am still waiting for a biblical source from you confirming that), or whether it is much much older than that. And i find it intersting that you are saying it could be plus or minus some years (Whether it is 6000 or 6500 makes little difference ), but that is still being compared to a paradigm that states it took Billions of years. The disparancy between the two is prodigious, hence the 'rounding off' factor may be off by, who knows, several millenia, several thousand millenia .......there is a whole lot of spatial difference between 6,000 and 5-6 billion.
How many times have you read the bible? ----BibleWonk
Funny. I did tell Protest-1 that whenever i question someone about this, asking for biblical proof, they either say some smirky (or at times outrightly vitriolic) comment , or they hush. I guess you must be the former BibleWonk because i do not see how my reading of the Bible pertains to this. And to answer your question, I read it a lot. And not only in the normal translations but in the direct greek and Hebrew translations. And i have never found a place that says the world is 6,000 years old, nor have i found a place that says paying indulgences will lead to salvation, etc etc. And that is why i am asking if YOU have.
If your asnwer is to inquire how many times i've read my bible then i guess your belief in the 6K figure is also based on Archbishop Usher's calculations.
NO, it cannot prove anything supernatural.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.