Ancient Hearths Test Carbon Dating (Humans In Brazil 56K+ Years Ago)

ABC Science Online ^ | 11-17-2003 | Bob Beale

[blam]

Notice how all the dates regarding humans just getting older and older.

[blam]

Ping.

[Batrachian]

They are dating charcoal, so those petroglyphs are somewhat misleading, or have they been dated too? Charcoal occurs naturally, and could be of any age. I would say that this research is far from conclusive, although there is no theoretical reason why humans couldn't have come to the new world 56,000 years ago. The problem is lack of evidence.

I don't believe that the South American Indians have diverged from their Mongolian ancestors sufficiently to account for 50,000+ years of seperation, but that's pure speculation on my part.

[blam]

It's been an on-going debate for some time

Brazilian Findings Spark Archaeological Debate

[aruanan]

Notice how all the dates regarding humans just getting older and older.

Ha ha ha.

[VOYAGER]

"These dates are good and reliable and there's no reason to doubt them," Dr Michael Bird, a member of the team who developed the new dating technique, told ABC Science Online.

Not only is the carbon dating getting older and older but the evolutionists are getting bolder and bolder and further and further from the only accurate dating, the Bible.

I believe that God's account of creation is the only truth that is acceptable, and He said the way it is, only once, and His creation statements are final.

Save your breath and your flames of denial because they would just be wasted on this believer.

[Little Bill]

I may yet get my wish, before I croak, to see the out of Africa crowd impailed before their door posts.

[RightWhale]

what may be the oldest known human record in the Americas.

It's a record if it is written or drafted. It should also be recorded at the local recorder's office, although that office may be long gone. Otherwise it is a fact or possibly information, and it is probably data, too. The date is about the same as the date of earliest Australia, so what is going on here?

[ElkGroveDan]

I don't believe that the South American Indians have diverged from their Mongolian ancestors sufficiently to account for 50,000+ years of seperation, but that's pure speculation on my part.

Though there were people there that long ago, nothing says they had to be the genetic ancestors of the current inhabitants

[fiscally_right]

I can't tell if you guys are serious sometimes

[fiscally_right]

What's wrong with the out of Africa theory? I don't get it

[Batrachian]

"There is a feeling that it's a blow against U.S. imperialism."

Well, if you're fighting "U.S. imperialism" (a communist codeword, BTW), then you can come up with all sorts of crackpot findings to support your noble fight against the Yankees. If there's one thing I hate, it's the politicization of science.

[Chad Fairbanks]

My family has been in the Northern New England/Upstate New York/Southern Canada area for at LEAST 10,000 years. We arrived there from somewhere else, but it certainly wasn't an overnight thing.

People have been in the Americas for far longer than previously thought has always been my opinion...

[blam]

"The date is about the same as the date of earliest Australia, so what is going on here?"

Early waves of humans going everywhere.

I posted an article about a week ago about the 1.8 million year old human skeletons found in the country of Georgia, they aren't suppose to be there....and then we still have the 200K yo Calico site in California too.

[Batrachian]

I'm not sure I follow you. Are you saying that the American Indians are not necessarily descended from Asians, or that the more modern Indians are not descended from the first inhabitants of the New World, possibly from 50,000 years ago?

BTW, did you read the statement by the scientist about how her findings are a blow to "U.S. imperialism"? Kind of makes you wonder about her scientific detachment, not to mention integrity.

[blam]

"My family has been in the Northern New England/Upstate New York/Southern Canada area for at LEAST 10,000 years."

You must be from the Red Paint People, nice to meet you.

[blam]

"Are you saying that the American Indians are not necessarily descended from Asians, or that the more modern Indians are not descended from the first inhabitants of the New World, possibly from 50,000 years ago? "

All skeletons found anywhere in the Americas that are older than 6,000 years old, are not Native Americans/American Indians as we know them today. Prior to 6,000 years ago there were other people here. There has been a slow drift/change in the language. If you'll notice the term Paleo-Americans and Paleo-Indians make a break at about 6,000 years ago.

[Chad Fairbanks]

I'm guessing that we wiped them out, actually. We tended to be a bit agressive at times... ;0)

[RightWhale]

My family has been in the Northern New England/Upstate New York/Southern Canada

We are related. Distantly, of course, since I am more Pigrim than anything else.

[Little Bill]

I all started with the statement, with me anyway, "That just because you find it there, it doesn't mean that it originated there."

When you look at the distribution of remnant cultures, Bushmen for example, at present and then look at their historical distribution it seemes that they have been pushed to their present locations by people entering Africa not leaving, the same could be said of other remnants in other parts of the world.

I have always found it curious that things evolved in Africa and then left, it seems to me that the evidence points to things entering in waves.