The W
Views: 101475648
Main | FAQ | Search: Y! / G | Color chart | Log in for more!
20.12.07 1201
The 7 - Random - Man believed to be in America 50,000 years ago
This thread has 2 referrals leading to it
Register and log in to post!
Pages: 1 2 3 Next(659 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
User
Post (44 total)
BWT
Boerewors
Level: 40

Posts: 245/360
EXP: 430910
For next: 10403

Since: 27.1.04
From: Philly

Since last post: 3249 days
Last activity: 2853 days
AIM:  
#1 Posted on 17.11.04 2040.14
Reposted on: 17.11.11 2043.45
http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/science/11/17/carolina.dig/index.html

Really interesting stuff and this is coming from someone who doesn't know the first thing about archeology. Now nothing has been proved but it challenges some old theory's about how people first came to North America long before the land bridge.
Promote this thread!
Mr. Boffo
Scrapple
Level: 114

Posts: 769/3844
EXP: 16258247
For next: 51370

Since: 24.3.02
From: Oshkosh, WI

Since last post: 509 days
Last activity: 470 days
#2 Posted on 17.11.04 2134.22
Reposted on: 17.11.11 2134.51
IDK, http://science.howstuffworks.com/carbon-14.htm says that radiocarbon dating has an accuracy only to about 50,000 to 60,000 years. And I'm not sure how you're supposed to Carbon date a rock anyways, since carbon dating tells you how long the substance in question has been dead.
Jim Smith
Goetta
Level: 37

Posts: 6/303
EXP: 321536
For next: 16720

Since: 17.10.04
From: Bloomington, IL

Since last post: 2357 days
Last activity: 1789 days
#3 Posted on 18.11.04 0230.46
Reposted on: 18.11.11 0230.46


Um, wouldn't that make it perfect for testing whether humans were in North America 50,000 years ago?


    And I'm not sure how you're supposed to Carbon date a rock anyways, since carbon dating tells you how long the substance in question has been dead.


Nowhere in the article does it say what they carbon dated--it just says they found a lot of stone tools and carbon dated a lot of stuff, not that they tested the tools. I would assume they found remains of plants or animals at the site and are testing that.
Grimis
Scrapple
Level: 124

Posts: 4317/4700
EXP: 21723123
For next: 113539

Since: 11.7.02
From: MD

Since last post: 1327 days
Last activity: 1124 days
#4 Posted on 18.11.04 0651.12
Reposted on: 18.11.11 0659.01
Nor has anybody said whether or not they were homo-sapiens. If you remember the dwarf people that we had talked about that they found in Indonesia, that is believed to be a different species. There is nothing to say that they are not homo sapiens, but at the same time how the hell did they get there?

That's twice in the last month that we have had fascinating new questions about our evolutionary history....
StingArmy
Andouille
Level: 87

Posts: 141/2096
EXP: 6255127
For next: 137672

Since: 3.5.03
From: Georgia bred, you can tell by my Hawk jersey

Since last post: 12 days
Last activity: 13 hours
#5 Posted on 19.11.04 1058.54
Reposted on: 19.11.11 1059.01
    Originally posted by Jim Smith


    Um, wouldn't that make it perfect for testing whether humans were in North America 50,000 years ago?

I think he means that RCD is only accurate to 50,000 to 60,000 years precision, meaning whatever date it comes up with could be off by as much as 60,000 years.

- StingArmy
Deputy Marshall
Liverwurst
Level: 66

Posts: 130/1148
EXP: 2406413
For next: 55451

Since: 28.6.04
From: Troy, NY

Since last post: 65 days
Last activity: 4 days
#6 Posted on 19.11.04 1156.09
Reposted on: 19.11.11 1156.12
    Originally posted by StingArmy
    I think he means that RCD is only accurate to 50,000 to 60,000 years precision, meaning whatever date it comes up with could be off by as much as 60,000 years.


It means that Carbon-14 dating is accurate for objects that are less than 60,000 years old, not that it has a margin of error of 60,000 years.
Lise
Mrs. Guru
Level: 71

Posts: 107/1274
EXP: 3136236
For next: 30893

Since: 11.12.01

Since last post: 477 days
Last activity: 19 days
#7 Posted on 19.11.04 1355.05
Reposted on: 19.11.11 1355.31
Stone tools do not a settlement make. Even if you find what appear to be worked stone tools, if you do not find evidence of people making them, cores, rock shard from the flaking process... it doesn't mean anything. It has been shown for example, that military tank treads moving across river stones have a tendency to create textbook perfect examples of stone tools of early man. There's also the possibility of transported artifacts from elsewhere if they are genuine.

I am not familiar with this location, but it doesn't sound very convincing. There's no indication how they are getting their dates, and from what material. They could have a geological transform that is giving them a funny date.

However, there are some sites in South America with actual human remains and true evidence of settlement that are from much further back. The interesting part about these remains is that the skeletal remains indicate a people of direct African or Australian origins, not Mongoloid as the remains of the Native American peoples would be. There are rock paintings and all sort of things associated with these people, and every indication is that they came across the Pacific Ocean by boat, and were then later wiped out by the waves of people who came across on the landbridge.

Anyway, there's a lot of research going into trying to date nautical technology and its origins. Without going into a lot of detail, it looks like we can tentatively say that Homo erectus had boats of some kind because they ended up in parts of the world that were not accessible by land even with the much lower sea level.

So yes there are some interesting questions about when man arrived in the Americas, but not because of this site. Maybe there is something there, but what information is being given in this article, does not seem to indicate that they have anything other than a strange pocket of artifacts, that MIGHT be older than they thought. Chances are that something happened to that area (geological, climatic, or otherwise) that is giving to an interesting interpretation, that can likely be explained in another way.

I thought it was very interesting that they mentioned needing "uncontaminated radiocarbon dating samples" to test the validity of the site's date. What you might not know is that if you smoke, or have smoked in a period of a certain number of years (four to seven, I don't quite recall) that if you touch material that is to be radiocarbon dated, that sample can not be tested with any sort of accurate results. The lab will call and tell you that the sample was contaminated.

Stilton
Frankfurter
Level: 57

Posts: 450/793
EXP: 1406831
For next: 79106

Since: 7.2.04
From: Canada

Since last post: 3241 days
Last activity: 3241 days
#8 Posted on 25.11.04 0104.51
Reposted on: 25.11.11 0106.18
There are other methods of dating geological and archeological findings than just using carbon-dating, and I'm certain the scientists working on these findings are using all of them.

It's an interesting and important finding, and clearly more work needs to be done. I'm willing to let people work on the site before I call it bullocks.

But what does this mean to the 45% of Americans who still believe mankind was divinely created in its present form roughly 10,000 years ago?

That's just plain scary to me.

Source: http://www.gallup.com/poll/content/login.aspx?ci=14107
"Forty-five percent of Americans also believe that God created human beings pretty much in their present form about 10,000 years ago. A third of Americans are biblical literalists who believe that the Bible is the actual word of God and is to be taken literally, word for word."

(edited by Stilton on 25.11.04 0205)
CRZ
Big Brother
Administrator
Level: 214

Posts: 5421/16400
EXP: 144881627
For next: 843793

Since: 9.12.01
From: ミネアポリス

Since last post: 21 hours
Last activity: 11 hours
AIM:  
ICQ:  
Y!:
#9 Posted on 25.11.04 1022.49
Reposted on: 25.11.11 1023.52
http://www.cpod.ubc.ca/polls/index.cfm?fuseaction=viewItem&itemID=5108


    Polling Data

    Just your opinion, do you think that Charles Darwins theory of evolution is a scientific theory that has been well supported by evidence; just one of many theories and one that has not been well supported by evidence; or dont you know enough about it to say?

                                 Nov. 2004  Feb. 2001
    Supported by evidence 35% 35%
    Not supported by evidence 35% 39%
    Dont know enough to say 29% 25%
    No opinion 1% 1%

    Which of the following statements comes closest to your views on the origin and development of human beings: 1) Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process; 2) Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God had no part in this process; 3) God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so?

                                               Nov. 2004  Feb. 2001
    Man developed, with God guiding 38% 37%
    Man developed, but God had no part in process 13% 12%
    God created man in present form 45% 45%
    Other / No opinion 4% 5%

    Source: Gallup
    Methodology: Telephone interviews with 1,016 American adults, conducted from Nov. 7 to Nov. 10, 2004. Margin of error is 3 per cent.


I'd love to see the entire poll, but (of course) I'm too cheap to pay Gallup for it. Still, reading the wording of just THESE two questions...

    Originally posted by Stilton
    That's just plain scary to me.
What's so scary about it? I'm not seeing that many people make their daily OR life-and-death decisions based solely on how they personally believe man made it to the planet.
Stilton
Frankfurter
Level: 57

Posts: 451/793
EXP: 1406831
For next: 79106

Since: 7.2.04
From: Canada

Since last post: 3241 days
Last activity: 3241 days
#10 Posted on 25.11.04 1042.17
Reposted on: 25.11.11 1042.25
You're right about the wording of the questions, CRZ. Throwing Darwin's name in there as if to suggest that no further work has been done in the field of evolutionary research in over a hundred years. That seems a bit leading to me.

But you ask what I find so scary about creationism? Well, I know a few people like that. You bring them science, you bring them data, you bring them proof of, say, the existance of dinosaurs or geological evidence to the age of the planet, and they just clap their hands over their ears and say, "Blah blah blah, I'm not listening, I'm not listening to your blasphemy."

It's the willful ignorance I find disturbing, and yes, even scary. On a "fundamental" level, people who believe what they are told without proof or evidence in one area, while kicking and screaming against proof and evidence in another, are by definition irrational and potentially dangerous. From this population come the people who bash gays, assassinate doctors, bomb women's health care clinics and government buildings, and yes... and yes... from the other side of the world, even send passenger jets into the WTC. I see no basic logical difference between fundamentalism of any kind. It's such a medieval mindset, and it all scares me.


(edited by Stilton on 25.11.04 1147)
EddieBurkett
Boudin blanc
Level: 92

Posts: 1068/2322
EXP: 7698856
For next: 58111

Since: 3.1.02
From: GA in person, NJ in heart

Since last post: 1 day
Last activity: 9 hours
#11 Posted on 26.11.04 0018.45
Reposted on: 26.11.11 0020.28
    Originally posted by Stilton
    But you ask what I find so scary about creationism? Well, I know a few people like that. You bring them science, you bring them data, you bring them proof of, say, the existance of dinosaurs or geological evidence to the age of the planet, and they just clap their hands over their ears and say, "Blah blah blah, I'm not listening, I'm not listening to your blasphemy."

    It's the willful ignorance I find disturbing, and yes, even scary.


I'll admit that there are nutjobs who take these sorts of matters too far, but until you can prove that the world wasn't created five minutes ago, with this post (and the server it resides on), and the planet (with the dinosaur bones and everything you cite as "evidence") created as is, you can't win the argument. Its not necessarily a case of ignorance as much as its a case of questioning whether or not the "evidence" was planted.
Stilton
Frankfurter
Level: 57

Posts: 453/793
EXP: 1406831
For next: 79106

Since: 7.2.04
From: Canada

Since last post: 3241 days
Last activity: 3241 days
#12 Posted on 26.11.04 1455.53
Reposted on: 26.11.11 1459.03
    Originally posted by EddieBurkett
    Its not necessarily a case of ignorance as much as its a case of questioning whether or not the "evidence" was planted.


Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!

How circular! Are you for real? Planted by whom? The devil? (For me to believe that, you better come up with some "evidence" that he, or it, exists first, then prove that evidence wasn't planted...) Or by members of some conspiracy so intricate that they have fabricated the entire natural history of the planet in some underground laboratory, and then in dark of night go digging into precambrian rock to drop their hoax and wait for it to be discovered? Is there evidence of this? Um... I think I'll stick with science.
EddieBurkett
Boudin blanc
Level: 92

Posts: 1069/2322
EXP: 7698856
For next: 58111

Since: 3.1.02
From: GA in person, NJ in heart

Since last post: 1 day
Last activity: 9 hours
#13 Posted on 28.11.04 1502.32
Reposted on: 28.11.11 1502.44
    Originally posted by Stilton
      Originally posted by EddieBurkett
      Its not necessarily a case of ignorance as much as its a case of questioning whether or not the "evidence" was planted.


    Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!

    How circular! Are you for real? Planted by whom? The devil? (For me to believe that, you better come up with some "evidence" that he, or it, exists first, then prove that evidence wasn't planted...) Or by members of some conspiracy so intricate that they have fabricated the entire natural history of the planet in some underground laboratory, and then in dark of night go digging into precambrian rock to drop their hoax and wait for it to be discovered? Is there evidence of this? Um... I think I'll stick with science.


The argument you are going up against is that there is an greater power that created the universe. If this power is powerful enough to create the world (which it is, since that's a given in the argument), then this power is great enough to create the world with dinosaur bones already buried within. Which means that even though you can dig up the bones and study them, and ascertain that they are from dinosaurs that lived 65 million years ago, that never really happened. Part of the problem is that, if you follow this line of logic, is that since this power (God, presumably) created everything, that includes science, and therefore anyway we would have of understanding our surroundings, he created. He created radioactive decay, and carbon-dating, and everything. In the end, based on this logic, everything that exists is inadmissable as evidence. You still haven't proved that this server and this post weren't created five minutes ago (let alone five minutes ago from when I last posted.) This has nothing to do with religion, but you are losing the argument based on its definition. This is indeed a somewhat circular argument which is why this all comes down to faith instead of logic.
Guru Zim
SQL Dejection
Administrator
Level: 139

Posts: 2993/6035
EXP: 32341851
For next: 125676

Since: 9.12.01
From: Bay City, OR

Since last post: 21 hours
Last activity: 10 hours
AIM:  
ICQ:  
Y!:
#14 Posted on 29.11.04 0045.17
Reposted on: 29.11.11 0045.37
This kind of argument is pointless.

There is no part of your argument that proves anything - just that it is impossible to prove that time is passing and that we have memory of a real past instead of an implanted memory.

I guess if you want to live your life constantly thinking to yourself "The world was created NOW. Everything before now was implanted.... no wait, NOW. NO..... Now.... Now! Now..." infinitum, feel free.

It sounds pretty stupid to me. I think you are an idiot NOW.

No, now!
EddieBurkett
Boudin blanc
Level: 92

Posts: 1070/2322
EXP: 7698856
For next: 58111

Since: 3.1.02
From: GA in person, NJ in heart

Since last post: 1 day
Last activity: 9 hours
#15 Posted on 29.11.04 0622.20
Reposted on: 29.11.11 0623.55
    Originally posted by Guru Zim
    This kind of argument is pointless.


That was my point.
messenoir
Summer sausage
Level: 45

Posts: 244/449
EXP: 651255
For next: 8914

Since: 20.2.02
From: Columbia, MO

Since last post: 604 days
Last activity: 470 days
AIM:  
#16 Posted on 29.11.04 0816.14
Reposted on: 29.11.11 0820.38
What I found interesting was the large amounts of people thinking evolution happened but with guidance, like me. That theory makes the most sense, as there is evidence in support of macro-evolution, but there are some gaping holes in the theory also.

That's the main issue I have with strict evolutionists. They accuse creationists of taking everything blindly and on faith. And yet evidence for evolutonary theory can only take you so far, and then you have to extrapolate an entire theory from it not really supported by evidence.

Everything coming from a single cell is only supported by evidence because scientists go into explanations already denying any God. The actual physical evidence is tenuous, and only truly makes sense when you deny yourself alternate explanations from the get go. Then you start talking about species going from water to land, land to air, and while scientists can sure show some pretty pictures, they can't begin to explain the mechanics on how such a drastic change could happen.

There is evidence for evolution, there is evidence for the Bible. Both sets of evidence only lead you so far, then you have to extrapolate the rest on faith. So perhaps if both sides could stop being so smug and condescending and acting as if they have the true hold on intelligence and fact, and other side are a bunch of blind simpletons, we might actually arive somewhere, no?

tarnish
Frankfurter
Level: 60

Posts: 466/859
EXP: 1724732
For next: 48056

Since: 13.2.02
From: Back in the Heart of Hali

Since last post: 559 days
Last activity: 15 hours
AIM:  
Y!:
#17 Posted on 29.11.04 0844.05
Reposted on: 29.11.11 0847.35
    Originally posted by messenoir

    large amounts of people thinking evolution happened but with guidance...That theory makes the most sense



I think splitting hairs in this way tends to indicate that you don't feel comfortable in believing in the "one God, seven days," literal interpretation of the Bible but that you're also not completely comfortable with the idea of tracing your lineage back to primordial ooze sans divine intervention.

The argument for guided evolution was terribly elegant in "Inherit the Wind" but I'd be willing to bet neither scientists or the church are big on it because it causes more questions than it solves. Dogmatically, if God is God and has that omnipotence thing going for him, and you generally believe that, what's wrong with believing that we were "made" as per Genesis? Or is it too much like we're all self-replicating tinker-toys? Scientifically, there's no point in positing all of the things evolutionary science has thus far worked for just to get to a certain point and say, "and here's where God stepped in and made it all really happen." This is antithetical to the way science works.

My take? Evolution had nothing to do with "God". Life happens. It probably happened (several times, even) long before us and I suspect it will happen again after we've thoroughly destroyed ourselves. Our universe is a magic place that doesn't require the presumed "order" of a deity to hold it together. Do I have "evidence" of this? Hell no. But it's what seems most reasonable to me; and in the absence of any really hard evidence to the contrary...
Stilton
Frankfurter
Level: 57

Posts: 457/793
EXP: 1406831
For next: 79106

Since: 7.2.04
From: Canada

Since last post: 3241 days
Last activity: 3241 days
#18 Posted on 29.11.04 0927.30
Reposted on: 29.11.11 0928.51
Daddy said it best:

"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science."
--Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man

"They accuse creationists of taking everything blindly and on faith."

All faith is blind, by definition.

(edited by Stilton on 29.11.04 1030)

(edited by Stilton on 29.11.04 2026)
CRZ
Big Brother
Administrator
Level: 214

Posts: 5427/16400
EXP: 144881627
For next: 843793

Since: 9.12.01
From: ミネアポリス

Since last post: 21 hours
Last activity: 11 hours
AIM:  
ICQ:  
Y!:
#19 Posted on 29.11.04 0934.47
Reposted on: 29.11.11 0940.05
    Originally posted by tarnish
    But it's what seems most reasonable to me; and in the absence of any really hard evidence to the contrary...
Well, that sure is a real compelling argument. Given this sentence alone, it's hard to tell whether you come down on the side of creation or evolution OR somewhere in the middle.
pieman
As young as
he feels
Level: 111

Posts: 1623/3593
EXP: 14854117
For next: 14289

Since: 11.12.01
From: China, Maine

Since last post: 16 days
Last activity: 1 day
AIM:  
ICQ:  
Y!:
#20 Posted on 29.11.04 1122.38
Reposted on: 29.11.11 1125.46
    Originally posted by Stilton
    --Charles Darwin, The Decent of Man


I love when spell checking doesn't catch these kinds of terrific typos!
Pages: 1 2 3 NextThread ahead: Shin-Yokohama Ramen Museum
Next thread: A UFO in my local paper ...
Previous thread: Talk Radio and Sports Talk ......
(659 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
The 7 - Random - Man believed to be in America 50,000 years agoRegister and log in to post!

The W™ message board - 7 year recycle

ZimBoard
©2001-2014 Brothers Zim
This old hunk of junk rendered your page in 0.277 seconds.