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.
Feel free to critically review this study.
and.... Merry Christmas
...yes, six distinguished paleo-ecological geologists making what still amounts to an unprovable assumption based on an organically evolved world that no one was around to observe. Where are the transitional fossils of these "epoch-versions of whales, seals, etc...? Information must have a source. The Blessings of The Eternal One bring you joy...
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.
Feel free to critically review this study.
What about adding supporting information?
(From 2009)
"Archaeological excavations at the site of Dmanisi in the Republic of Georgia have uncovered two partial early Pleistocene hominid crania. The new fossils consist of a relatively complete cranium and a second relatively complete calvaria from the same site and stratigraphic unit that yielded a hominid mandible in 1991. In contrast with the uncertain taxonomic affinity of the mandible, the new fossils are comparable in size and morphology with Homo ergaster from Koobi Fora, Kenya. Paleontological, archaeological, geochronological, and paleomagnetic data from Dmanisi all indicate an earliest Pleistocene age of about 1.7 million years ago, supporting correlation of the new specimens with the Koobi Fora fossils. The Dmanisi fossils, in contrast with Pleistocene hominids from Western Europe and Eastern Asia, show clear African affinity and may represent the species that first migrated out of Africa."
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?
I think there is a disproportionate number here on cd. In real life, most believers I encounter don't take it literally (and many are ok with evolution too, but that's another thread).
I think there is a disproportionate number here on cd. In real life, most believers I encounter don't take it literally (and many are ok with evolution too, but that's another thread).
To the OP: Cool article. Thanks for posting!
I think that believers who are excited about archaeology that supports the bible, have a right to take that archaeology literally, and it literally increase their belief.
I think there is a disproportionate number here on cd. In real life, most believers I encounter don't take it literally (and many are ok with evolution too, but that's another thread).
To the OP: Cool article. Thanks for posting!
And now to the Republican debate on MSNBC last night, for which I want to give the same kind of performance analysis as I did for the Democratic debate last week - that is, how presidentially the candidates presented themselves, as distinct from whether or not I agree with their positions.
Except — I just have to say — did you see that three Republicans raised their hands to signify that they did not believe in evolution? And, once again, the camera did not move in close enough. From what I could see, it wasn't Giuliani or McCain and I'm pretty sure it wasn't Romney at the other end. But three others Republican candidates did raise their hands. (They have been identified as Sen. Sam Brownback, Gov. Mike Huckabee, and Rep. Tom Tancredo.) The mind boggles"
And now to the Republican debate on MSNBC last night, for which I want to give the same kind of performance analysis as I did for the Democratic debate last week - that is, how presidentially the candidates presented themselves, as distinct from whether or not I agree with their positions.
Except — I just have to say — did you see that three Republicans raised their hands to signify that they did not believe in evolution? And, once again, the camera did not move in close enough. From what I could see, it wasn't Giuliani or McCain and I'm pretty sure it wasn't Romney at the other end. But three others Republican candidates did raise their hands. (They have been identified as Sen. Sam Brownback, Gov. Mike Huckabee, and Rep. Tom Tancredo.) The mind boggles"
I didn't watch the debate, but it doesn't surprise me. After all, they are politicians and are going to "believe" whatever they think will gain them votes.
Mickiel - I agree that there are many who cherry pick which archeological evidence to believe. The refusal (or downright inability) to pick and choose evidence to support one's belief (i.e. confirmation bias) is a major contributor to fallacious reasoning. However, in my post I was merely saying that not all believers that I encounter in real life (i.e. not online) take the bible literally.
I didn't watch the debate, but it doesn't surprise me. After all, they are politicians and are going to "believe" whatever they think will gain them votes.
Mickiel - I agree that there are many who cherry pick which archeological evidence to believe. The refusal (or downright inability) to pick and choose evidence to support one's belief (i.e. confirmation bias) is a major contributor to fallacious reasoning. However, in my post I was merely saying that not all believers that I encounter in real life (i.e. not online) take the bible literally.
Well I understand, but the evidence is there in archaeology that proves many biblical events. Yet Atheist and Christians are locked into a battle to disprove the other, as if one cannot disagree with them both. Well I do, and see hyproacy in them both, stimulated by a desire to be the king of whats real, when in reality they both are imputent and sullen. Neither can carry the light of understanding.
In my view, one comes closer to the truth by ignoring both camps, their endless need to discredit the other. My senselessness is then apparent, because I engage both at times, knowing the fruitlessness of it all.
There is a great gulf fixed in understanding, and those who think themselves wise will try to fill it, with themselves.
Not knowing that their understanding can never fill the gap.
I believe this cartoon says it all when one argues about scientific vs biblical methods of research.
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.
