'Lucy's baby' found in Ethiopia

fortuneandglory

New member
How did they obtain that date? I mean really, how do you date sediments around it? Carbon dating? Surely not, Carbon dating doesn't go back that far.
 

Finn

Moderator
Staff member
fortuneandglory said:
How did they obtain that date? I mean really, how do you date sediments around it? Carbon dating? Surely not, Carbon dating doesn't go back that far.
They say it in the article. Sediments around the skeleton (and now we'll just wait and see when the first post with controversial evidence about this dating system being "off" appears).
 

Finn

Moderator
Staff member
If you view Eve as a half-monkey, then sure.

It's not exactly human remains we talk here, in <i>Homo Sapiens</i> mind.
 
"the first post with controversial evidence about this dating system being "off"

Give what a load of unsupported, spurious bollocks such a proposal would be, calling it "evidence" is giving it too much credit.
 

Aaron H

Moderator Emeritus
Java-man...yup, that would be my dad. He fixes the meanest cup-o-joe you've ever seen.


Seriously, I take finds like these with a grain of salt...come to think of it I take "Lucy" with a grain of salt. So, carbon dating is out of the question, instead they test the stuff around it...yeah, that sounds smart.:rolleyes: Didn't these guys go to school for years and years and years? You would think that...nevermind, continue about your daily lives.
 

Johan

Active member
funny thing about this is that monkey's (I know...I'm just being slang) are not evolving into humans any more.
I've seen some wierd shaped skulls in my lifetime, people with deformities, and disablities...who's to say that was not the case? It's not like they are finding them consistantly.
Even though I am a creationalist...if I wasn't I would find this stuff it hard to buy into.
 

fortuneandglory

New member
Finn said:
They say it in the article. Sediments around the skeleton (and now we'll just wait and see when the first post with controversial evidence about this dating system being "off" appears).

I asked about the sediments Finn, read it. I'm wondering how they dated these sediments!
 

Finn

Moderator
Staff member
fortuneandglory said:
I asked about the sediments Finn, read it. I'm wondering how they dated these sediments!
http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~qtls/sediment.htm

Here's a site that explains the process. Don't ask me how, didn't understand the half of it.

<small>DISCLAIMER: The website in question is believed to be in no way biased as it simply explains the process, doesn't make a statement towards one or other direction.</small>

Yes, the dating can be off because God created the Earth only 7000 years ago which means the evidence that points to elder times that were simply created by God. Which means that our fossil was also created by God.

Now that this has been said out loud, could we please stick to what things seem to be?
 

Johan

Active member
Finn said:
http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~qtls/sediment.htm

Here's a site that explains the process. Don't ask me how, didn't understand the half of it.

<small>DISCLAIMER: The website in question is believed to be in no way biased as it simply explains the process, doesn't make a statement towards one or other direction.</small>

Yes, the dating can be off because God created the Earth only 7000 years ago which means the evidence that points to elder times that were simply created by God. Which means that our fossil was also created by God.

Now that this has been said out loud, could we please stick to what things seem to be?

NIce disclaimer...I'm not even fully convinced the earth is that old Finn, no worries.
I think there could have easily been millions of years in between the day's God used to create the earth. Bible didn't say they they were consecutive days. But I also recognize the possibility of it being 7000 yrs old
 

Finn

Moderator
Staff member
IndyJohan said:
I think there could have easily been millions of years in between the day's God used to create the earth. Bible didn't say they they were consecutive days. But I also recognize the possibility of it being 7000 yrs old
All I'm asking at the moment, thank you. No need for me to deny God as we don't really have solid proof one way or other.

Now what about Lucy & co being the ancestors of man? Still would love to hear your insight on that. (As nothing scientifical implies that evolution wouldn't simply be God's work.)
 

Johan

Active member
Finn said:
All I'm asking at the moment, thank you. No need for me to deny God as we don't really have solid proof one way or other.

Now what about Lucy & co being the ancestors of man? Still would love to hear your insight on that. (As nothing scientifical implies that evolution wouldn't simply be God's work.)

As I said before...today we see many deformations and some wacky looking skulls (many people that have disablities) heck I work with people with disablities for a living and I could see how scientists would make those mistakes....who's to say that wasn't one of them? It could also be an extinct species of monkey. I DO believe in adaptation, and humans have adapted better than any other animal in several atmospheres, but only because he has set us apart with greater intelligence than any other animal. Instead of growing more hair up here in Canada, we put on a coat. We choose our foods based on taste not instinct. Humans are the only creatures that would starve themselves to look better in the eyes of others ect..

I mean its not like we are finding these things all over the place or seeing monkey's still evolving. I mean the monkey had to of come from somewhere too. God would not use evolution to create a human being...simply for the fact that he has set apart humans from the rest of creation. We were formed in HIS image...I don't think he is saying He is a monkey. His purpose for us was to worship Him and have us be a bride for His son (a whole other theology that would take forever to explain)...I don't think he would want His son to be a monkey.
I believe in the biblical description of creation.
Apart from things quoted in scripture all of what I say is theoretical of course.
 
Last edited:

Finn

Moderator
Staff member
Something you obviously haven't gotten about evolution is that firstly it's not a process that takes places in a forthnight. And secondly, one subject of certain species doesn't change by itself.

Giraffe's neck median may get an inch taller in a century. Give it five hundred years and you have five inches. Sure, you may not be around anymore to see the change.

A bug living in a monkey's fur carries a virus monkey either is resilient to or not. Those that are not, die. Those that are, live and breed. Their spring are resilient too. Evolution doesn't always mean visible change.

Visible evolution happens mostly visible when the surroundings of species change. If current kind of monkeys have been living in trees for millennias, there may not be need for them to change anymore. Evolution happens out of necessity. It's not a random process.

A monkey with enough brain capacity to outsmart a predator lives. It breeds and teaches what it knows to its spring. Monkey Junior comes after its father and finds a yet another way to protect itself. And so on. And so on. A tedious process that visibly affects brain capacity in about thousand years or so.

So species are evolving all the time. Heck, even human being is evolving as we speak. The height median of man during the Roman times was 5' 4" (a fact, non-deniable). Nowadays it's 5' 9". Women favor tall men (not all, I know). Tall men breed children who'd become tall. That's natural selection for you.

Sure, nothing of this happens by rule. It's more like play with probabilities and chances. But the chance is bigger if the ability already exists. Probabilities happen more often than improbabilities. And THAT is a rule.

But you're right in a way that the newly-found skeleton is not human ancestor. It's more likely the one that was smart enough to dodge the hazard and die of old age. :)

A post scriptum yet... the fact that a human being sets itself above all the other species is not called proof of divine intervention. It's called human arrogance. Another sign of it is taking this "scripture" more seriously than anything else.
 

Johan

Active member
A post scriptum yet... the fact that a human being sets itself above all the other species is not called proof of divine intervention. It's called human arrogance. Another sign of it is taking this "scripture" more seriously than anything else.

And this is where the fair disagreement lies. Because I do take scripture seriously and believe it to be infallable. So begins the circle of arguement.
You also have to remember that there were tall people like "Goliath" between 9 and 10 feet tall thousands of years ago. Although the average Roman may have been short, there could have been a progression in inter-racial breeding.
I do believe in adaptation...but not evolution. I agree that the polar bears were once grizzly bears and adapted to thier enviroment. But I would not call my saying "humans are set apart" human arrogance (although to many it would be) in my situation I would call it "Biblical".
By the way Finn...I have to say that your way of presenting an argument is much more effective and productive than most around here. You don't slam, you state... very admirable
 

Johan

Active member
Finn said:
I know I shouldn't be asking this here, but... why?

Because when it is used...I have seen the supernatural. And if I believe in God...I believe He is big enough to keep his word infallible.
 
Top