Interesting article

[Ella Mentry]

I have just come across this...it will be interesting to see what evolutionists have to say now

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101227/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_israel_ancient_teeth

[cbkb001]

That is very interesting! Civilization starting in Israel. Who would've thunk it!

I saw a National Geographic recently that had a picture of a skull and it said something like "2.5 million year old woman", coming from a place in Ethiopia where there are a bunch of fossils like that. The article showed that although the creature was similar to modern man, the brain was no where near what we have today.

It got me thinking - perhaps in creation, there have been numerous animals that were more similar to mankind than other primates, as in fact all other animals were created before man (Genesis 1: 24 - 26).

But then how much more weight Genesis 1:27 takes on, that finally, the time came, after all those creatures when "...God proceeded to create the man in his image, in God’s image he created him; male and female he created them." This was at last an animal, shaped as the other animals had been, but endowed with intelligence and attributes of other intelligent creatures (like angels), and capable of both serving Jehovah and caring for his earth.

One thing I appreciated at the last convention was the new brochures, and the point to bring up about gaps in the fossil records. If evolution were smooth, you'd dig down there and see it progress backward the deeper you got, but that doesn't happen - they find isolated spots of different animal life. Simply amazing!

I wonder when people used to read the bible before the theory of evolution was introduced - when they used to come across those words - 'according to their kind" - if they used to wonder "obviously they produce according to their kind, why does it keep saying that?!' To me, reading those words in there is a direct statement from Jehovah to we who live in this time, not to be fooled or made to feel stupid by this satanic theory of evolution, which is in direct conflict with the Word of God.

[Simon17]

Wouldn't we have to throw out the results of this, based on the errency of dating methods. Clearly a 400,000 year old human fossil is contradictory to the Bible, whether this article supports evolution or not, it doesn't support the Bible's view of human creation.

[rocket]

food for thought: A man was working a mine 2,000 years ago and that mine caved in. 2,000 years later archaeologists uncover the remains of said man only to date him to be 400,000 years old because he was found in a layer of soil or rock dating that old.- I don't trust their dating methods, to many variables.

[bookworm]

food for thought: A man was working a mine 2,000 years ago and that mine caved in. 2,000 years later archaeologists uncover the remains of said man only to date him to be 400,000 years old because he was found in a layer of soil or rock dating that old.- I don't trust their dating methods, to many variables.

I agree, their dating methods are not reliable. They will use the fossils they find in strata of rock to date the rock, and date the fossils by the strata of rock in which they are found. Seems like circular reasoning to me. And, of course, carbon dating has been thoroughly discredited.

[Simon17]

I agree, their dating methods are not reliable. They will use the fossils they find in strata of rock to date the rock, and date the fossils by the strata of rock in which they are found. Seems like circular reasoning to me. And, of course, carbon dating has been thoroughly discredited.

Well whether the dating methods themselves are correct is for debate but the process is logical. You cannot date rock directly since you need organic materials. But the location of the fossils IN the rock gives the relative dates (i.e., lower layers are older than higher layers by logic).

For example, you have the K-T boundary, the layer of rock, distinct throughout the world, which shows the massive disturbances that occurred on earth during the the million years or so after the asteroid strike in the Gulf of Mexico which had a hand in killing off the dinosaurs. This layer is distinct and found over the whole globe. The fossils IN that layer all date to the same time period. Whether the dating method is correct (which puts the event at 65 million years ago), is, as I said, up for debate. But things above that boundary date as newer; things below as older, etc. So the methodology works. Its just a question of the method and the answers.

[cbkb001]

Wouldn't we have to throw out the results of this, based on the errency of dating methods. Clearly a 400,000 year old human fossil is contradictory to the Bible, whether this article supports evolution or not, it doesn't support the Bible's view of human creation.

Hi Simon, it's obvious that you have done some research in this area, so I'm curious what you mean by 'throw[ing] out the results of this'?

[leannsmarie]

I agree, their dating methods are not reliable. They will use the fossils they find in strata of rock to date the rock, and date the fossils by the strata of rock in which they are found. Seems like circular reasoning to me. And, of course, carbon dating has been thoroughly discredited.

I'm curious about your statement that carbon dating is thoroughly discredited. By whom? Can you provide a source?

From what I understand, the model is more accurate now than it was previously.

Here is my source: 'Radiocarbon Daters Tune Up Their Time Machine' by Michael Balter on 15 January 2010

[sianrose]

Some points from "What Happened to the Dinosaurs?" ....g90 2/8

The Genesis Account and Dinosaurs

While the radioactive dating method is innovative, it is still based on speculation and assumption. In contrast, the Bible account in the first chapter of Genesis simply states the general order of creation.

It allows for possibly thousands of millions of years for the formation of the earth and many millenniums in six creative eras, or “days,” to prepare the earth for human habitation.

Some dinosaurs (and pterosaurs) may indeed have been created in the fifth era listed in Genesis, when the Bible says that God made “flying creatures” and “great sea monsters.” Perhaps other types of dinosaurs were created in the sixth epoch. The vast array of dinosaurs with their huge appetites would have been appropriate considering the abundant vegetation that evidently existed in their time.—Genesis 1:20-24.

When the dinosaurs had fulfilled their purpose, God ended their life. But the Bible is silent on how he did that or when. We can be sure that dinosaurs were created by Jehovah for a purpose, even if we do not fully understand that purpose at this time.

They were no mistake, no product of evolution. That they suddenly appear in the fossil record unconnected to any fossil ancestors, and also disappear without leaving connecting fossil links, is evidence against the view that such animals gradually evolved over millions of years of time.

Thus, the fossil record does not support the evolution theory. Instead, it harmonizes with the Bible’s view of creative acts of God.

One method being used to measure the age of fossils is called radiocarbon dating. This dating system measures the rate of decay of radioactive carbon from the point of death of the organism. “Once an organism dies, it no longer absorbs new carbon dioxide from its environment, and the proportion of the isotope falls off over time as it undergoes radioactive decay,” states Science and Technology Illustrated.

However, there are severe problems with the system. First, when the fossil is considered to be about 50,000 years old, its level of radioactivity has fallen so low that it can be detected only with great difficulty. Second, even in more recent specimens, this level has fallen so low that it is still extremely difficult to measure accurately. Third, scientists can measure the present-day rate of radioactive carbon formation but have no way of measuring carbon concentrations in the distant past.

So whether they use the radiocarbon method for dating fossils or other methods, such as employing radioactive potassium, uranium, or thorium, for dating rocks, scientists are unable to establish the original levels of those elements through ages of time. Thus, professor of metallurgy Melvin A. Cook observes: “One may only guess these concentrations [of radioactive materials], and the age results thus obtained can be no better than this guess.” That would especially be so when we consider that the Flood of Noah’s day over 4,300 years ago brought enormous changes in the atmosphere and on earth.

[Dages]

Insight is interesting about datation (look for the Great Flood)

[Ella Mentry]

Regardless of Carbon Dating or any other kind of dating...what interested me was the fact that it discredited evolution, if they can find a human tooth and not something that they are labeling as Neanderthal at an age that they had previously had said was stone age or some such term, then that to me is of great interest.

I accept that carbon dating is not fool proof as different types of material decay at different rates and also in different conditions. Its more the fact that it is causing people to think about creation and not evolution

[Simon17]

I agree, their dating methods are not reliable. They will use the fossils they find in strata of rock to date the rock, and date the fossils by the strata of rock in which they are found. Seems like circular reasoning to me. And, of course, carbon dating has been thoroughly discredited.

I'm curious about your statement that carbon dating is thoroughly discredited. By whom? Can you provide a source?

From what I understand, the model is more accurate now than it was previously.

Here is my source: 'Radiocarbon Daters Tune Up Their Time Machine' by Michael Balter on 15 January 2010

Agreed, carbon dating has not been thoroughly discredited, but it would have nothing to do with this story. Radioactive carbon iostopes have a half live of only a few thousand years, so you could never hope to date anything purported to be 400,000 years old by radiocarbon dating. For that age, scientists would use a different radioactive isotope with a longer half-life.

[Simon17]

Wouldn't we have to throw out the results of this, based on the errency of dating methods. Clearly a 400,000 year old human fossil is contradictory to the Bible, whether this article supports evolution or not, it doesn't support the Bible's view of human creation.

Hi Simon, it's obvious that you have done some research in this area, so I'm curious what you mean by 'throw[ing] out the results of this'?

I dont know if I've done a ton of research. What I meant was, as JW's we don't accept the correctness of the dating methods used to date things in this time span so it would be hard for us to then turn around and say "see, a 400,000 year old tooth -- that disproves the current model of early homo-sapien dispersion from Africa".