Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
A new (Sept. 2010) study by Carr et al (a total of six distinguished and noted paleo-ecological geologists from three prestigious universities in England and South Africa) utilized plant morphology and highly accurate isothermal thermoluminescence dating to accurately place (with conservative limitations noted) the lignite (coal-bearing) formation studied at a minimum of 1.7M years of age.
Many plant species and their pollens were clearly identified as belonging to long-extinct species. The geo-structure and materials were dated according to the latest methodologies available, resulting in a clarification of the age of this structure as middle Miocene.
This study and publication, peer-reviewed and in keeping with the latest geological and ecological validation techniques, includes corroboration with previous uncontested studies on this same formation. It thus flies in the face of a Creationist's literal interpretation of the ancient Middle Eastern-limited bible, and is clearly strong, technically supported evidence for an ancient, organically evolved world.
The Miocene contained many animal species whose ancestors are alive today. Epoch-versions of whales, seals, etc. were in abundance, but were transitional in their form as related to today's species.
Thank you. It is another bit of evidence added to the monumental pile.
It can easily be dismissed as just the opinions of atheist professors by those whose information comes direct from a god who nevertheless can't tell them when they get their facts wrong.,
is this discovery suppoesd to refute the existence of God in general or just refute the bible ?
The discovery serves to support science on ancient earth million year old rocks, science on palaeontology and evolution in general.
That in itself tends to refute the denial of evolution theory and ancient earth by Young earth Creationists.
It further tends to discredit Bible - literalist readings of genesis (including the Flood) and that's all it does.
Evolution does not disprove a First cause god or even Biblegod. It is not really part of the religion debate at all other than showing that the Bible cannot be taken literally first page to last (as though that needed to be argued) and that science can provide better answers than Goddunnit.
The discovery serves to support science on ancient earth million year old rocks, science on palaeontology and evolution in general.
That in itself tends to refute the denial of evolution theory and ancient earth by Young earth Creationists.
It further tends to discredit Bible - literalist readings of genesis (including the Flood) and that's all it does.
Evolution does not disprove a First cause god or even Biblegod. It is not really part of the religion debate at all other than showing that the Bible cannot be taken literally first page to last (as though that needed to be argued) and that science can provide better answers than Goddunnit.
Agreed! Obviously there are those who take the bible absolutely literally, no matter what new evidence is provided by modern scientific methodologies.
We occasionally get postings here on C-D about some new scientific find that supposedly proves dinos and sea serpents existed in biblical times, or that snakes once had legs and therefore the bible's true, or that Noah's Flood is validated by a lone 1.5 day super-über day hike undertaken by a bunch of some off-the-wall non-scientist money-grubbing felons out for a glory and money-raising hike.
We also have insistence that Evolution is a fairy-tale with no supporting evidence, and that the world was **Insta-Poof!!** created exactly 6035 years ago. That is can';t be older than, say, 12,00 to 15,000 years old.
Unfortunately, the supporting posts and links provided are always from a self-accredited Christian university operating out of an abandoned barn in central Australia, and the so-called theological scientists have degrees they printed up in their basements. Or on the prison printer where they are currently incarcerated for running scams...
My goal here is simply to show the prolific and high level of professional peer-reviewed and accepted work inherent in all research papers accepted in real journals for publication. To offset the relentless flow of semi-liquid excretia from quadripedal, bovinid ruminants which these protestant types strongly resemble both in mental capability and facial expression...
"Moooo-hoo-hooo!!"
The occasional but predictable non-scientific anti-Evolution and anti-ancient-Earth press releases from Creationist wanna-be types here is easily swamped by just such work as the OP's link, and I'll probably continue to post those as they regularly come up, just to show the relative percentage of believable information compared to the onesee-twosee make-believe stuff.
I do, however, honestly welcome a non-combative critical review of this particular study, in point form perhaps, as to the exact technical reasons their conclusions are invalid. I'd expect the author of such a rebuke to provide us with his or her brief summary of the specific flaws in the techniques used (with appropriate links to technical, not religious, sites), or the flaws in the very conservative conclusions the authors reached.
After All: One expects a decent, measured and intellectually honest answer from someone versed in the science being criticized if the critic's opinion is to be respected and considered.
Good on you mate. I used to think that evolution discussion belonged on the biology thread, if there is one, and had no place on religion, much less philosophy, but it is clear that it does conflict with a literalist reading of genesis. But how many believers really take that chapter literally?
Good on you mate. I used to think that evolution discussion belonged on the biology thread, if there is one, and had no place on religion, much less philosophy, but it is clear that it does conflict with a literalist reading of genesis. But how many believers really take that chapter literally?
The same people that would be scared of you because you have 666 reps.
Anyways, this is a very interesting find. Some researchers believe that South Africa was the birth place of humanity (that's humanity, not human civilization; the two are different).
The follow-on studies at this site are also v. interesting, with many additional conclusions I'll list once I return to my iniquitous den-studio-lounge-library!
The basic facts obvious from this (and other...) indisputable cutting-edge studies is that, of course!! the earth and it's inhabitants are WHAYYyyy older than 6035, or 10,000, or even 100,000... years of age. More like tens of billions, minimum. This makes the biblical 'version' impossible on all accounts ...
(unless we laughingly divert to those hilarious stories about how "God changed time, temporarily, just to allow enough time for a more "paced' Creation, then switched it all back, he being of less-than-infinite capacity after all, and therefore had to adjust time to make it all fit". Just where, exactly, is that specific version written up in the all-knowing bible?)
This study's implications should leave a gaping hole in the "understandings" by the fanatic fringe, leading them inexoribly to question it further. If they are intellectually honest of course....
Nothing could be further from their approach and interest levels. The lack of any critical Christian commentary here is hugely telling.
The Miocene contained many animal species whose ancestors are alive today.
I think you meant to say 'descendents', or something similar.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
