Skip to comments.Mammoth Discovery
Posted on 07/11/2007 4:17:12 PM PDT by dynachrome
A mammoth that died 10,000 years ago was unearthed in Siberia.
(Excerpt) Read more at cnn.com ...
A mammoth that lived 4000 years ago was found in Alaska a few years back.
Also, scientists are mapping neanderthal DNA.
Mammoths and cavemen, together again. (they oughtta check the DNA of a couple of guys I work with, throwbacks for sure)
Just looks like a baby African elephant to me.
Wow, 3000 years before the earth. How is that possible.
“baby African elephant”
Maybe it was a hairless variety and that’s why it didn’t make it. Global warming in Siberia?
Rut row. Call Algore. New Climate Change info for Algore. Paging Algore.
I am totally serial about this!
Very kool video.
It does look like a baby elephant though.
I have seen other unearthed mammoths and they all still have remnants of hair.
I may have missed it but did not see anything that resembled hair / fur.
“Wow, 3000 years before the earth. How is that possible.”
The earth is only 7,000 years old? By what clock, or by what calendar? If this comment has anything to do with what it says in Genesis Chapter 1, there is nothing there to date the earth.
Gen 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
Gen 1:2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
There is nothing in Genesis to date verse 1 relative to anything else in the Bible. There is no reason to believe that “In the beginning...” was only 7,000 years ago. And it is entirely probable that there was a creation relative to life on earth before Genesis 1:2. Genesis 1:2 describes a condition of chaos. I do not believe that God created chaos. Water covered the earth. It was dark. The water was likely frozen until the thawing effect of the Spirit of God moving upon the face of the deep. The earth was covered by “flood waters”.
My son is pretty sure he dug up a mammoth a few years ago, they’ve found them before in the vicinity but the boss told him they couldn’t afford a delay so he re-buried it. Whenever we visited he took us to show us where it is.
I think it was a sarcasm without a /sarc tag. It’s hard to believe that someone could put it seriously nowadays unless the one is from the Amazon rainforest or the Afghan highlands.
Is that the youngest ever found? 4000 years is fairly recent.
Maybe it’s one of L. Ron Hubbard’s aliens...
“I think it was a sarcasm without a /sarc tag.”
Agree. Thought so when I wrote my reply comments. Just wondering if I might get rebuttals from any who might really think “7,000” or so years.
Without mentioning “names” though I know a few people in certain churches who think that the Bible says things that it does not say - interpretations and even the reading is subject to doctrinal teachings. Doctrine of course is a nasty thing - doctrine is man-made, just as religion is man-made. The religious system that God hates includes denominations that think “they” are the only ones not destined for “hell”.
Mammoth tusk was hunted as a gem commodity in Siberia in the last 1800’s, early 1900’s. Most of the stuff you find for sale today on eBay and other sites was found in that time frame.
Got ‘em too here in Los Angeles.
Russians are full of crap. That’s an elephant not a Mammoth.
With a little luck, in 3-4 thousand years, they'll find Al Gore frozen in the ice like Oetzi the Iceman.
That's true. Sometimes people mix up a faith and a religion. I guess it's a result of a natural human tendency to simplify things that are not easy for them to comprehend in the true colors, when reliance on dogmas replaces critical reasoning and analysis.
To make a long story short, obscurantism must die:)
I think it is the youngest found. It was found on an island off the north coast of Alaska.
Please FREEPMAIL me if you want on or off the
"Gods, Graves, Glyphs" PING list or GGG weekly digest
-- Archaeology/Anthropology/Ancient Cultures/Artifacts/Antiquities, etc.
Gods, Graves, Glyphs (alpha order)
His expaination of frozen mammoths is the most comprehensive one I've seen.
Check his Origin of the Grand Canyon, too.
There is a mammoth running loose on the Sci-Fi channel right now.
“mammoth running loose on the Sci-Fi”
Quality on par with the epic “Frankenfish” or “Supergator”!
My former pastor used to state in church that the earth was only 6,000 years old, based on adding up the “begats”.
I never agreed with that but a lot of fundamentalist types do.
Just looks like a baby African elephant to me.
Poor Dumbo, I have often wondered what happened to that silly little fellow.
Figures, just when the thing wants to make friends, some body in a "suit" shoots him..........
So how can you tell -- you do know that most Mammoths were NOT Wooly Mammoths?
I clicked this link, but got a Page Not Found message.
Regarding the little elephant, it looks as if he may have a bit of a hump on the back of his head. Is this relevant? He is missing his ears which may be because they were fragile and were destroyed, or perhaps they were small because he lived in a cold climate,
Obviously they got the carbon dating wrong....
“My former pastor used to state in church that the earth was only 6,000 years old, based on adding up the begats. I never agreed with that but a lot of fundamentalist types do.”
Perhaps you can do that to date back to Adam. I believe there was an earth long before Adam - maybe eons before. The Bible does not date the earth. I believe there was a flood in the time of Noah, and if my additions are correct, Methusealah died the same year as the flood.
There is a reason in Genesis Chapter 5 for the geneology from Adam to Noah - it is to establish that Noah’s seed was pure. Much of man’s seed had been corrupted by the nephalim. Noah’s had not. The flood was intended to rid the earth of the corrupt seed.
I believe there was a creation before Adam, before the present creation that we are a part of - I think that this earlier creation was wiped out when Lucifer was thrown out of heaven, destroyed by a flood, perhaps eons before the present creation.
Unexplainable fossil evidence can be explained if we accept that there was an earlier creation. Lucifer, before his fall, was given dominion over the earth. For him to have dominion, I believe there had to be a creation that was subject to Lucifer - he was not given dominion over a sphere floating in space with nothing here.
You haven’t spent much time on the Intelligent Design and Evolution threads have you? LOL
The earth has been here for eons. And I do not believe the best scientific guesses as to how long that might be come anywhere close to actual.
Intelligent Design? Evolution? ... Theories
The choice is to accept what the Bible says, or to reject it.
As you are a believer in Noah’s Flood, please explain how water 15 cubits deep covered Mt Ararat which is about 16,000 feet at the peak? A cubit is the length of the forearm with fingers extended, about 18 inches. Thus 15 cubits is water about 22 feet deep. Obviously then it was the storm surge from a hurricane/cyclone(the dirty NE quadrant as they say along the Gulf Coast, from low pressure/CCW rotation)that swept Noah’s RAFT out to sea.
His descendents then jazzed up this old, but true, family story of sea survival into a MYTH, to counter all the other creation myths floating around in iraq at the time. One of THEIR descendents was a young boy named ABRAM....does the TRUTH hurt?
I agree. There is so much contained in the first few lines of Genesis. It tells us of an age before this one. The earth is billions of years old but this present "2nd. age" started about 14,000 years ago with mankind coming into existance on the 6th day (6,000 years ago - a day is to the Lord as 1,000 years).
There is a lot of depth to the story in Genesis. Much more than we were taught when we were children.
“...a day is to the Lord as 1,000 years...”
Six earth days, or 6,000 earth years doesn’t make much difference to me. Time is for us, not for God. God is in an eternity that confounds our natural minds, though we give lip service to “eternity”.
The reason it does make a difference, to me, is that some don't believe in God because they see contradictions or things they don't understand so they consider them lies, myths, etc. about God's Word. If it could be explained to them, shown to be truth then perhaps they would reconsider. Other than that, I agree in that it makes no difference.
I believe there was a creation before Adam, before the present creation that we are a part of - I think that this earlier creation was wiped out when Lucifer was thrown out of heaven, destroyed by a flood, perhaps eons before the present creation.....Unexplainable fossil evidence can be explained if we accept that there was an earlier creation. Lucifer, before his fall, was given dominion over the earth. For him to have dominion, I believe there had to be a creation that was subject to Lucifer - he was not given dominion over a sphere floating in space with nothing here.
I agree. The Bible tells us that there was a creation before our present age and Lucifer did have dominion over the earth. He fell and God overthrew that earth age - water covered the earth (this was not Noah's flood). Our present age began when, "....And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters"(Gen.1:2)
The problem is that our churches don't teach this so most simply don't understand and when faced with science showing fossils, etc. that prove the earth is older than what they believe the Bible says is the age of the earth, they dismiss all of it. That said, I must also say, I do not believe in evolution. Man is as God made him.
“The problem is that our churches don’t teach...”
You and I are in agreement. And I understand the reason you give that the “day with the Lord is as a thousand years” is important. And the problem is THAT OUR CHURCHES DON’T TEACH. Our churches regurgatate Church Doctrine - and all doctrine is man-made. Religion is man-made. God is a spiritual being, and what is of God is spiritual, not religious.
You are correct in saying that this present age began when the “Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters”. I believe the last ice age ended with that beginning. When Lucifer fell, we are told that the Sun, Moon and Stars were turned off - waters flooded the earth to wipe out the creation under Lucifer’s dominion. With the “Sun turned off”, we have instant deep freeze and an ice age that ended with the thawing resulting when the “Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters”.
The “creative acts” in the first few verses of Genesis were “restorative acts”. We had creative acts when living things were put upon the earth. The forming of Man from the dust of the earth, and God breathing life into that Man, was a creative act.
When God told Adam and Eve to be fruitful and multiply, what he actually told them was to “replenish” the earth. This is exactly the same thing God said to Noah after the flood - “replenish” the earth.
Yes, Noah’s flood was the second flood. I believe the sign of the rainbow as God’s covenant sign that he would not again destroy the earth with flood, was because it was not the first time, but would be the last.
Until Noah’s flood, it had not rained on the earth. Watering was done from the ground. So, where did the rain come from? Where was this water, enough to cover the earth? We know from various scientific discoveries that air pressure was at one time nearly twice what it is now. We also know that the oxygen content was 30 + percent. For the first 1600 years or so the creation lived in a hyperbaric chamber. Man’s lifespan approached a thousand years. I think there was an ice shield that completely covered the earth, some miles up. This trapped the oxygen and enabled higher atmospheric pressure.
When it was time for 40 days and 40 nights of continuous rain upon the earth, God caused this ice shield to be broken, and as the ice chunks fell into the warm atmosphere they thawed and produced rain.
Now, of course, such conversation as we have been having on this thread blows fundamentalist minds, but I think we are much closer to the truth of the Bible and to the truth of scientific discovery.
Religion and science both make a similar mistake. They each one decide on their “conclusions” and then try to make their “discoveries” fit their “conclusions”. Religion and science remain at odds because each is trying to “prove” their “conclusions”. In reality, the truth of the Bible and the truth of Science are not at odds, but in agreement. Science will find no “missing link” because there is no evolution. When Science lets the evidence lead to a conclusion, Science will begin to know the truth of Science. Religion will not know the truth of the Bible unless religious men become spiritual men and let the Spirit of God lead them through His Word.
Another interesting but confusing point for those who believe in a literal Bible is Genesis 4:15-24, which says in part. “And the Lord set a mark upon Cain, lest any finding him should kill him. And Cain went out from the presence of the Lord, and dwelt in the land of Nod, on the east of Eden. And Cain knew his wife, and she conceived and bare Enoch, etc. etc.”
So as you mentioned regarding early peoples, obviously the Bible also refers to this possibility, otherwise why would God need to protect Cain from “any finding him” and how would he have been able to find a wife. Certainly these others were not in any way related to Adam and Eve, or this would undoubtedly have been explained. Actually reading the Bible is so interesting.
I think there was an ice shield that completely covered the earth, some miles up.
I don't know if it was ice or water but I too believe that is where some of the waters of the flood came from.
You see more than most people do and I agree with you.
God tells us in Gen.1:26-27 that He created man in His image on the 6th day. Adam wasn't formed until the 8th day, 2:7. Mankind was around long before Adam and from them Cain got his wife.
How far have you delved into Genesis? What do you believe actually happened in the Garden with the serpent (hint - there was no apple)?
Reading the Bible, with understanding, is so fascinating. I wish these things had been explained to me at an earlier age.
About that serpent. From what I have read in African mythology and folk tales. I would say that the serpent is a very explicit sexual image, and “of course” anything having to do with sex is all women’s fault. Just see how the Muslim fanatics have carried this to its logical vicious extreme with burkas, genital mutilation of little girls, etc.
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.