I definitely and without hesitation am proud to admit I have faith in man. Especially when they have proven over and over that they are correct. That when we put our minds to it, we can unlock almost any of the universe's secrets.
And I've done a ton of studying in the area of anthropology. All the fossil evidence does exist. No one is "making it up". People tried that (see: Piltdown man), and guess what? The scientific method triumphed again. The fraud was discovered. End of story. I've seen fossils. I've seen dig sites. Believe me, learned white folks aren't in the deserts of africa digging with toothbrushes and pickaxes for the heck of it.
Hundreds and thousands of fossils discovered by hundreds and thousands of people who were in no way affiliated with each other.
Not sure if this was answered yet or not but. . .
You need to get a bit more specific. I mean, lots of animals live in tribes and stuff.
If you mean the rise of some kind of culture, then Neandertals may fit your description. They did things like bury their dead (we've found Neandertal burials complete with burial items like spears) and take care of their elderly and sick/injured. Common thought is that they arose around 250,000 years ago and died out or were replaced or integrated into our species around 30,000 years ago.
As far as people from our species that looked like us (Homo sapiens), figure around 100,000 years ago. Around 40,000 years ago there seemed to be a great cultural leap forward. Tools made of lots of different things, cave paintings, figurines etc began to be developed around this time.
I've done my fair share of studying on this topic as well, and from what I've read and seen, men prove over and over again that they don't know and therefore can't be trusted. So we'll have to agree to disagree on that issue for now.
Piltdown man, for which it took 41 years to discover was a hoax, was not the only such misrepresentation of a fossil. Nebraska man and Java man among others, exist. And in fact the reality is such that the fossil evidence does not exist at all. While there is no denying the fact that some bone fragments and partial skeletons have been found which men suggest prove that man evolved, to suggest as you do that a plethera of fossil evidence exists that proves the existence of transitional forms necessary for man to have evolved is pure hyperboly. The last two hours google searching seems to confirm this, links to the contrary would be appreciated.
There is however, no doubt that a lot of sincere individuals put in a lot of effort unearthing fossils in an effort to recreate the past as they understand it and to understand the present as they believe it to be, my sister didn't spend an afternoon scraping away the still rotting flesh of a buffalo head for the sheer pleasure it gave her nostrils. However, sincerity in ones beliefs as to the origins of a fossil and the truth about the origins are not one in the same, sincerity does not equal truth.
Without the misguided dates (which even you yourself don't seem to certain about) and most notably, man's desire to be responsible to himself only and not his Creator, we wouldn't be discussing the origin of the fossil fragments found. They would either be classified as apes or humans, end of story. However, such is not the case and we must therefore look more closely at the evidence. A good starting point to the understanding of the dating methods used is located here, pay closer attention to his rant on circularity.
Originally posted by: ThisIsMatt
Ok...so what I'm getting at is: shouldn't there be a _lot_ more skeletons in the earth?
An excellent question Matt. The fact of the matter is, conditions must be almost perfect for bones to turn into fossils. Things like moisture and some types of soil will prohibit bones fossilizing. The egyptians went to great lengths to preserve their dead. Nature isn't as careful. In places like the rain forest, fossilization is very difficult, it almost never happens. Deserts are better. Nice and dry. Just search for fosilization in google. Check the first few links.
On the piltdown man from the site you linked : Piltdown man And yes, it was 41 years, but we aren't talking 1960-2001. It was discovered to be a hoax in 1953. 50 years ago. Think about how far science has come in 50 years and if they could tell that was a hoax, then scientists today would be able to tell if the hundreds of other fossils were also hoaxes or false.
As for Java man, are you saying that was a hoax, too? Not a chance.
As for links, here is a cousin of Java man - Ape or Human?
If you want a more complete specimen, see - Turkana boy
Those look pretty transitional to me.
I agree that sincerity does not equal the truth. I have no doubt that you are very sincere in your beliefs. However, I don't want you to think that because I gave a range of dates, I am uncertain about them (although they are subject to slight expansion if other evidence is found). I gave ranges of the species' likely existance on earth. You can be responsible to your creator, thats fine, but the fossil and scientific evidence is there.
As for the dating link, I read it. I am confused as to why you linked it. The author's point is that these dating methods are entirely non-circular. I like the quote "The geological time scale is far from dogma".
Vic
Elite Member
- Jun 12, 2001
- 50,422
- 14,337
- 136
SO THAT'S WHAT HAPPENED!! :| :|
Oh yeah, and I do believe.
Reasons are simple as to why. First, I've actually read the Bible, and I appreciate the wisdom and philosphies involved. Even if I didn't believe, I would still appreciate the book for those reasons alone. Second, I refuse to believe that my life is pure chance and/or that it has no purpose. Call me vain or self-centered, I don't care. Third, it's logical. Fourth, if when I die there is no God, I will have lost nor gained nothing, but if when I die there is a God well hey, it helps to be on the winning team
Fifth, with the vast number of people who seem to have some great need for everyone NOT to believe and froth at the mouth in anger of the mere mention of God, I figure there must be something to it.Don't side me with the "born again" freaks though... I feel no need to save any of you, I'm following Jesus' advice and saving myself.
My point on the 41 years aspect was more a matter of scientists holding up that trophy for 41 years going "look at this, God is dead" and by the time they realized their mistake the majority of the damage had already been done. A generation or two had been raised on the belief that man evolved, of course Charles Darwin had already laid the groundwork for the change in beliefs.
The reason I mentioned Java man is because it seems largely believed now that the thigh bone/femur is that of a modern human and not of some 700,000 to 1,700,000 year old evolutionary state of men. And that while Java man was not explicitly a hoax, in the sense that someone didn't willfully commit a provable fraud to further his system of beliefs. Someone clearly had an overactive imagination, and quite likely a sincere desire to provide some answers to man's past.
Now, I'm not sure what makes you say that a partial skull and a nearly complete skeleton "look pretty transitional", but to me they look like what they are, a partial skull and a nearly complete skeleton. And that if it were not for the "absolute" date given them by the "absolute" dating methods they would be nothing more than that, for clearly that is what they are.
As I would say you are sincere in your beliefs, but again sincerity doesn't equal truth. While you may be certain that you've heard those dates before, I did some searching on google and it seems neanderthal has gained a couple hundred thousand years. And that while there is definately fossil and scientific evidence of something, I suggest that something is really nothing other than the imagination and wishful thinking of men who believe that evidence for evolution must exist because the God of the Bible is dead. After all, that's what everyone is taught in school and so it must be true, why?, just look at the dates...
Which is why you have to pay closer attention, you must follow what he says to its logical conclusion, and not just accept it because you've been taught to accept anything that shows evolutionary beliefs in a positive light.
The fact of the matter is that after blatently lying in regards the possibility that circularity is used in dating the fossils, he then goes on to prove that circularity is used in establishing those dates.
I think you have your timeline confused. Piltdown man wasn't the first pre-modern human fossil to be discovered. 50 years before Piltdown Neandertals had been discovered and the Origin of Species published. Darwin believed himself to be a good Christian. The generation or two that had been raised before Piltdown man was discovered to be a hoax already didn't give much credence to Piltdown. By the 1930s and later Piltdown was largely ignored. It didnt fit into our understanding of human evolution. I'll quote -
"Over the years it had become an anomaly; some prominent authors did not even bother to list it. In Bones of Contention Roger Lewin quotes Sherwood Washburn as saying
"I remember writing a paper on human evolution in 1944, and I simply left Piltdown out. You could make sense of human evolution if you didn't try to put Piltdown into it."
Finally, in 1953, the roof fell in. Piltdown man was not an ancestor; it was not a case of erroneous interpretation; it was a case of outright deliberate fraud. "
Piltdown History
Again, Piltdown is an example of good science triumphing, and shows that there is absolutely no conspiracy going on between scientists and nothing that won't be questioned in the scientific community.
The femur found 40 feet away from the skullcap may be that of a modern man, but the skullcap itself most certainly isn't. Java man's brainsize is around 940cc. Thats tiny. Besides, the dude who thinks the femur is from a modern human is just Erik Trinkaus, my boring professor at Washinton U, and no one mentions it much. The skullcap found cannot objectively be placed in the "ape" or "man" category.
What make the skull and body of specimens like Turkana Boy look transitional are things like a pronounced brow ridge above the eyes, no forehead, no chin, huge teeth, large jaw, and a very low, long skull. And thats just the skull. Modern humans have no brow ridges, much smaller teeth and jaws, as well as chins and foreheads. These guys didn't. Even without the dating evidence these specimens cannot be neatly placed in the "ape" or "human" category.
The research I've done yields that we think Neandertals arose around a quarter of a million years ago. I'd be interested if there have been other discoveries to push that date back.
A lot of scientists believe in the god of your bible.
A lot of scientists don't believe he/she/it ever lived (so it couldn't have died).
A lot of scientists don't care one way or the other.
And the circularity in dating guy says that to the uninformed observer, this dating technique can appear to be circular, but isn't. Regardless, carbon-14 isn't the only specific dating method used, and isn't likely to be incorrect by orders of magnitude.
I'm under the impression that a lot more public interest was payed to the discovery of piltdown man than to previous ones. That Darwin considered himself to be a good Christian is of little value considering that he disagrees with God in the first chapter of God's word. God says "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them." (Genesis 1:27), whereas Darwin speaks of the Descent of Man from some lower form.
And while it would appear from your quote that the scientific community no longer considered Piltdown Man to be a factor in the descent of man, that says nothing of the tendency of the masses to view Piltdown Man as a factor.
That a fraudulent fossil was exposed for what it was does not prove that no conspiracy is going on. And for a scientist or two to willingly question the validity of a largely accepted idea, is not the same as willingly opposing a largely accepted idea.
The first paragraph is your opinion, opinion which you are most certainly welcome to have, but nonetheless still just opinion, and one for that matter, which I obviously disagree with.
As far as the second paragraph, it would seem that Richard Leakey disagrees with you for he clearly states in the 1988 video Mysteries of Mankind,and I quote "I think [the Turkana Boy] is remarkable because it's so complete, but perhaps another aspect that is often overlooked is that many people who don't like the idea of human evolution have been able to discount much of the work that we've done on the basis that it's built on fragmentary evidence. There have just been bits and pieces, and who knows, those little bits of bone could belong to anything. To confront some of these people with a complete skeleton that is human and is so obviously related to us in a context where it's definitely one and a half million years or even more is fairly convincing evidence, and I think many of the people who are fence-sitters on this discussion about creationism vs. evolution are going to have to get off the fence in the light of this discovery." (emphisis added)
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 22K
-
News NVIDIA and Intel to Develop AI Infrastructure and Personal Computing Products- Started by poke01
- Replies: 387
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
Facebook
Twitter