This is taken from the BBC news website. Very interesting, especially the last line of the blurb below the video. BBC News - Evidence of early man found in Israel
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Evidence of early man found in Israel
- Thread starter Youtellme
- Start date
Rainbow Mage
Lib Democrat/Agnostic/Epicurean-ish/Buddhist-ish
Wow very interesting indeed. Watch the creationists take this and run with it though.
Yep. But why not eh?
fallingblood
Agnostic Theist
I don't see how creationists could really even use this. It doesn't even support the idea of creationism. The only thing that it could help is by simply ignoring what the article states. And then, they have gotten nowhere.
I think what could be said is that if it turns out that early man didn't come out Africa but the middle east, then that is closer with where the Bible said man originated.
outhouse
Atheistically
LOL man did not originate in the middle east. Homo sapiens originated out of africa 200,000 years ago.
Different homo species originated in different areas
this discovery will change absolutely nothing about the origins of mankind. It will only add to what is already known.
ellenjanuary
Well-Known Member
That's funny. Evolution basically states (gross exaggeration alert) that we are tool-using monkeys. Creationist say, no; we're special! But they are sure quick to pick up a tool and act like a monkey. 
outhouse
Atheistically
the fact they say the tooth is 400,000 years old has question to who the tooth belonged to.
my question is why are they jumping on the homo sapien so fast when many other homo species share the same type teeth.
So can teeth alone be identified solely as homo sapien over other previous species.?
its funny though now creationist will jump on the bandwagon of how accurate dating is and how correct science is now lol
my question is why are they jumping on the homo sapien so fast when many other homo species share the same type teeth.
So can teeth alone be identified solely as homo sapien over other previous species.?
its funny though now creationist will jump on the bandwagon of how accurate dating is
and how correct science is now lol
painted wolf
Grey Muzzle
This is a very interesting find... especially if the date can be verified.
I'm also wary of claims based on a few teeth.
wa:do
I'm also wary of claims based on a few teeth.
wa:do
I'd like to see a lot more info' before I let three permanent mandibular and two deciduous teeth make such a big splash.
The teeth bear several Neanderthal traits and I suspect Paul Mellars is onto something in that this find may be more likely related to Neanderthals. In Hershkovitz and Gopher's defense the paper is tentative as far as these being human teeth. They're understandably excited and expect to see their find confirmed, but they're scientists so they realize the empirical evidence needs a helluva lot of fine toothed combing before anything definitive is set. I am a little wary that they based the date solely on the stratigraphy and dental morphology- I'm waiting for more detailed tests to come.
Middle pleistocene dental remains from Qesem Cave (Israel) - Hershkovitz - 2010 - American Journal of Physical Anthropology - Wiley Online Library
The teeth bear several Neanderthal traits and I suspect Paul Mellars is onto something in that this find may be more likely related to Neanderthals. In Hershkovitz and Gopher's defense the paper is tentative as far as these being human teeth. They're understandably excited and expect to see their find confirmed, but they're scientists so they realize the empirical evidence needs a helluva lot of fine toothed combing before anything definitive is set. I am a little wary that they based the date solely on the stratigraphy and dental morphology- I'm waiting for more detailed tests to come.
Middle pleistocene dental remains from Qesem Cave (Israel) - Hershkovitz - 2010 - American Journal of Physical Anthropology - Wiley Online Library
outhouse
Atheistically
I'd like to see a lot more info' before I let three permanent mandibular and two deciduous teeth make such a big splash.
The teeth bear several Neanderthal traits and I suspect Paul Mellars is onto something in that this find may be more likely related to Neanderthals. In Hershkovitz and Gopher's defense the paper is tentative as far as these being human teeth. They're understandably excited and expect to see their find confirmed, but they're scientists so they realize the empirical evidence needs a helluva lot of fine toothed combing before anything definitive is set. I am a little wary that they based the date solely on the stratigraphy and dental morphology- I'm waiting for more detailed tests to come.
Middle pleistocene dental remains from Qesem Cave (Israel) - Hershkovitz - 2010 - American Journal of Physical Anthropology - Wiley Online Library
absolutely and by the ring of things and speculation of homo sapiens im suspicious we have creationist bias in their initial report
painted wolf
Grey Muzzle
Not necessarily.... some paleoanthropologists like to slap the claim of "oldest human" to their finds... and if they don't, the media does.
It's just the nature of the hunt for human ancestors... Lewis Leaky was always claiming to have found the "oldest human".
It's not malicious, it's just over eager. Which is why a lot of researchers and experienced fans of the subject try to keep a level head on such things.
wa:do
outhouse
Atheistically
Not necessarily.... some paleoanthropologists like to slap the claim of "oldest human" to their finds... and if they don't, the media does.
It's just the nature of the hunt for human ancestors... Lewis Leaky was always claiming to have found the "oldest human".
It's not malicious, it's just over eager. Which is why a lot of researchers and experienced fans of the subject try to keep a level head on such things.
wa:do
make sense
wa:do
outhouse
Atheistically
the main people behind this are jewish.
Many are not YEC and when I see someone reaching I wonder
Kilgore Trout
Misanthropic Humanist
This is weird, because evidence of late man is found at my desk every morning.
Carbon dating is not reliable... :run:
outhouse
Atheistically
It's not even technically untrue.Not necessarily.... some paleoanthropologists like to slap the claim of "oldest human" to their finds... and if they don't, the media does.
It's just the nature of the hunt for human ancestors... Lewis Leaky was always claiming to have found the "oldest human".
It's not malicious, it's just over eager. Which is why a lot of researchers and experienced fans of the subject try to keep a level head on such things.
wa:do
RedOne77
Active Member
Please enlighten me.