I think what you're trying to say is that for all we know, the current state of the world is not the normal state and that we could be in the middle of a world wide flood right now. I'm not going to address this argument because in the context of this discussion "world wide flood" means the entire world covered by water at the same time. The opening post states, "There is plenty of evidence that the flood happened just like the Bible says." That's pretty clear.
Your original claim in Message 303 was about the skull.
Even though the fragments Richard Leakey found were dated to 2.5 million years old, the skull was the same shape as modern man.
When asked to cite your source you provide:
quote:"Unresolved is the relationship of the new find to Homo Habilis who's bone fragments were found in Olduvial Gorge 500 miles south of Lake Rudolf in a layer 1.75 million years old. The hand bones of this species suggested a dexterity approaching that of modern man and Dr Clarke suspects the new find may be an earlier form of homo habilis. However the brain chamber of this only measured 656 cubic centermeters compared to Mr Leakeys estimate of 800 for the newly peiced together skull"
How does one get from the cite to the claim? In future, could you provide a google map along with your citations?
Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them.
Or underwater reefs such as the one found in the Australian desert areas such as the Flinders Ranges Oodnaminta Reef
That's one of those features, like the Horseshoe Reef 2 km below my chair, that make the idea of a one-year flood and a young earth completely ludicrous, Peg.
On page 27 of your link, in what looks like a newspaper article bylined Walter Sullivan, the second paragraph reads:
”The fragments, making up a skull with striking resemblances [sic] to that of modern man, were found in a layer of material that had been deposited about 2.6 million years ago.”
But if one reads the next few paragraphs one can see that, in context, this skull’s striking resemblance is only so comparatively.
"Richard Leaky, co-leader of the expedition that found the bones, said the skull seemed to displace two other man-like creatures widely thought to represent the early stages in mans development.
One of them, a beetle-browed type known as Homo erectus, lived far more recently — about a million years ago — yet is less like modern man than the newly found skull.
The other reputed ancestor, Australopithecus, an ape-like “man” that walked relatively erect, lived 2.5 to 3 million years ago. It now appears to have been a contemporary of the more modern-looking type, rather than ancestral to the men of today.”
Nowhere, however, have I been able to find the claim to the skull being the same shape as modern mans.
AbE: Though it was never evidence for your flood, you now have one less evidence against reality.
Edited by lyx2no, : Fix link.
Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them.
here is a link to the article Lake Rudolph Skull Fragments
This is an old newspaper article about the finding of a skull now known as Homo rudolfensis, and you can compare the pictures of the skull in the article to the one here:
quote:ER 1470 was originally thought to have been a representative of the species Homo habilis, apparently vindicating Louis Leakey's long-held belief that large-brained members of the genus Homo existed in eastern African millions of years ago. The specimens cranial capacity of 775cc, is well in excess of earlier australopith brain size. The fossil was shown to Louis only several days before his death. But Richard Leakey, leader of the expedition which uncovered the skull, refused to firmly place ER 1470 into a species, listing it only as "Homo sp." or "genus Homo, but species indeterminate."
In the years that followed, as more examples of Homo habilis emerged, its assignment to the species H. habilis became a subject of debate. When compared with other Homo habilis specimens, such as KNM ER 1813 several morphological features differ from the classic habilis pattern. For example, in ER 1470, there is only a slight supraorbital torus without a depression behind it.
Many researchers now place ER 1470 within the species Homo rudolfensis along with several other early human fossils that had previously been assigned to H. habilis.
well the sediments are not consistent in the case of the Omo valley and Lake Rudolph. Even though the fragments Richard Leakey found were dated to 2.5 million years old, the skull was the same shape as modern man. He said that other bone fragments that were found such as the leg specimens were indistinguishable from the same bones of modern men.
but they were still dated to be 2.5 million years old.
As you can see from the above picture, the skull is clearly placed at an intermediate level of development along the trend of evolution from (B), Australopithecus africanus to (N), Homo sapiens, or (M) Homo sapiens, CroMagnon, at 30kyr old.
Further you can compare it to this 160,000 year old Homo sapiens skull and see that even then the brain capacity was significantly greater than is exibited by Homo rudolfensis:
quote:HsapiensAdultFE_med.jpg` The fossilized skulls of two adults and one child discovered in the Afar region of eastern Ethiopia have been dated at 160,000 years, making them the oldest known fossils of modern humans, or Homo sapiens.
The skulls, dug up near a village called Herto, fill a major gap in the human fossil record, an era at the dawn of modern humans when the facial features and brain cases we recognize today as human first appeared.
These Homo sapiens skulls fit between (I) and (M) in the picture above (J, K and L being neanders), close to (M).
No matter what the article says, do you not think that scholarship on the origins of man may have changed a little in almost 40 years? Never mind that you don't bother to read the whole article and pck and choose the quotes that remotely support you, the study of the origin of man has changed immensely since 1972.Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
Dr Ben is founder and high priest in the Craft of Amen-Ra and holds the title/rank of 360° Grand Master in the Craft of Amen-Ra.[citation needed] He has made clearly pseudo-historical claims such as Aristotle traveling to Egypt with Alexander the Great to retrieve information from the library at Alexandria, despite of the fact that the library was constructed long after the deaths of both Aristotle and Alexander.
Hard to take him as real reputable if he peddles this nonsense.
Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
one example is at Africa's Lake Rudolph and the Omo Valley (200kms away) where sediment layers were not consistent with each other. They were dated to the same period, but the pig fossils they found at each location were not the same type of pig fossil.
I can probably find fifty species of spider in a 10-acre field. Does this mean that different parts of the field are currently in different periods of time.
-----
Peg, post #284, writes:
...and there is evidence that the DNA you are talking about is found in all the people around the earth...not only the North Americans.
This is untrue. The same haplogroups are found in populations across the world, but the haplotypes, which are smaller branches of the haplogroups are not found outside of North America, but is found in the 10,000-year-old fossil Coyote was talking about.
*** GEOLOGIC TIMESCALE *** maximally reduced to SIX words.
As many missing links found as as many generated ages. One simple fact maximally reduces the illuminati GEOLOGIC TIMESCALE, as explained in 2000 by the last of End Time Prophets.
ALL [ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ] are the [ _ _ _ _] age
As of today Google only finds TWO pages with the exact six words.
Hint about the first word: [ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ] is the reason why the reduction of all the illuminati geologic ages does not return 0 but 1 age.
I can probably find fifty species of spider in a 10-acre field. Does this mean that different parts of the field are currently in different periods of time.
African pigs are not spiders. African pigs tend to wander farther and faster. Please refer to post 301. Pig fossils were indeed how the problem with the dating of the KBS tuff was brought to light. They also helped in identifying the same strata across some distance. As noted, African pigs are quite useful as index fossils. As suggested, read "Bones of Contention" by Roger Lewin. While most of what Peg has to say is worth a chuckle, in this one case she is spot on - east African pig fossils are excellent index fossils.
The point wasn't that pigs aren't useful index fossils, or even that Peg's example is invalid: the point was that Peg is failing to actually present the argument. How can we carry on a debate when Peg is only saying, "the pig fossils are not the same type"?
-----
P.S. Spiders regularly cross entire oceans by ballooning on threads of silk, and thereby colonized the Pacific Islands. Can pigs do that? :P
The point wasn't that pigs aren't useful index fossils, or even that Peg's example is invalid: the point was that Peg is failing to actually present the argument.
That would be really nice if that were how you presented the argument. In fact, you challenged Peg's assertion that pig fossils are, in fact, quite useful as index fossils over vast areas in east Africa. Moreover, you based that on the fact that many species of spiders can be found in a relatively small area. Don't you really understand how irrelevant your analogy is? The point is, in fact, that Peg's assertion is correct. The point is not whether she failed to present a valid argument. In fact, she did. The point is that you challenged her assertion reference to pig fossils with an irrelevant reference to spiders. In fact, the dating of the KBS tuff was rejected because the pig fossils were not the same type.
As I said, Peg gets very few points right. But in this case she did. And you decided to argue and present a totally irrelevant metaphor.
P.S. Spiders regularly cross entire oceans by ballooning on threads of silk, and thereby colonized the Pacific Islands. Can pigs do that?
My inclination would to have left a gross error alone. Do I need to explain why this little tidbit is just so much defensive fluff?
™ Version 4.0 Beta
