LAWL

Real Life Events.

Go off topic and I will break you!

Moderator: Dictators in Training

Locked
Narrock
NT Patron
NT Patron
Posts: 16679
Joined: Mon Mar 15, 2004 11:54 pm
Location: Folsom, CA

LAWL

Post by Narrock »

Scientists Find Homo Erectus Skull Mon Aug 22, 3:05 PM ET



TBILISI, Georgia - Archaeologists in the former Soviet republic of Georgia have unearthed a skull they say is 1.8 million years old and part of a find that holds that oldest traces of humankind's closest ancestors ever found in Europe.

The Homo erectus skull was found earlier this month about 100 kilometers southeast of the capital, Tbilisi, in the same area where a jawbone believed to be the same age was found in 1991, Georgian National Museum director David Lotkipanidze, who took part in the dig, said by telephone.

Lotkipanidze said that the skull, which was unearthed on Sunday and sent to the museum for further study, was in the best condition of any of the five bone fragments that have been found in the area, called Dmanisi, in recent years.

"Practically all the remains have been found in one place. This indicates that we have found a place of settlement of primitive people," he said of the spot, where archaeologists have been working since 1939.

The findings in Georgia, which researchers said were a million years older than any widely accepted pre-human remains in Europe, have provided additional evidence that Homo erectus left Africa a half-million years or more earlier than scientists had previously thought.

Million-year-old fossils of hominids — extinct creatures of the extended ancestral family of modern humans — have been found in Africa, the Middle East, Asia, but not in Western Europe. Georgia is south of the Caucasus Mountains and northeast of Turkey, but is considered part of Europe.

That's rich. :teehee:
“The more I study science the more I believe in God.” -- Albert Einstein
User avatar
Gidan
Admin Abuse Squad
Admin Abuse Squad
Posts: 2892
Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2005 11:01 am

Post by Gidan »

Why because it goes against what the bible says?
For to win one hundred victories in one hundred battles is not the acme of skill. To subdue the enemy without fighting is the acme of skill.
User avatar
Langston
Nappy Headed Ho
Nappy Headed Ho
Posts: 7491
Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 4:07 pm

Post by Langston »

What's rich?
Mindia wrote:I was wrong obviously.
User avatar
mofish
NT Traveller
NT Traveller
Posts: 2859
Joined: Mon Aug 23, 2004 8:53 pm

Post by mofish »

Hey look its nail #2349120102341020 in the coffin of your creation myth.
You were right Tikker. We suck.
User avatar
Ganzo
Dictator in Training
Dictator in Training
Posts: 2648
Joined: Thu Mar 18, 2004 9:05 pm

Post by Ganzo »

Gidan wrote:Why because it goes against what the bible says?

it doen't
גם זה יעבור

Narrock wrote:Yup, I ... was just trolling.

Narrock wrote:I wikipedia'd everything first.
User avatar
Kaeerwen
NT Veteran
NT Veteran
Posts: 1103
Joined: Mon Mar 15, 2004 10:35 am
Location: cardboard box in your backyard

Post by Kaeerwen »

Oh Mindia, once again your higher intelligence amazes us all! Clearly you see an absolutely hilarious joke that flies well over everyone else's head. I'm jealous.

:bowdown:


...or was it the word "homo?" :boots:
"Jared's off the diet?!" a California woman said incredulously. "It's suicide for me!"
Zanchief

Post by Zanchief »

Kaeerwen wrote:...or was it the word "homo?" :boots:


Lay off the homo stuff, he's sensitive about his dad.
Tikker
NT Legend
NT Legend
Posts: 14294
Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 5:22 pm

Post by Tikker »

Ganzo wrote:
Gidan wrote:Why because it goes against what the bible says?

it doen't


if your creation myth only goes back 6000ish years, a 1,000,000+ year old fossil kind of does go against it
User avatar
The Kizzy
NT Patron
NT Patron
Posts: 15193
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 9:48 pm
Location: In the closet with the ghosts

Post by The Kizzy »

Those carbon based date testers are hardly accurate.
Zanchief wrote:
Harrison wrote:I'm not dead


Fucker never listens to me. That's it, I'm an atheist.
Zanchief

Post by Zanchief »

Kizzy wrote:Those carbon based date testers are hardly accurate.


Actually, they are pretty accurate, Kizz.
User avatar
kaharthemad
NT Traveller
NT Traveller
Posts: 3768
Joined: Sat Mar 27, 2004 8:47 am
Location: Somewhere South of Disorder

Post by kaharthemad »

Zanchief wrote:
Kizzy wrote:Those carbon based date testers are hardly accurate.


Actually, they are pretty accurate, Kizz.

Yup just last week we carbon dated Mindia Head. Truns out it is from a retarded Neanderthal.
Image
User avatar
Langston
Nappy Headed Ho
Nappy Headed Ho
Posts: 7491
Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 4:07 pm

Post by Langston »

Let's just say for a moment, that the carbon dating was 50% wrong. A FULL 50% off the mark.

That would make the fossil *ONLY* 500,000 years old.

See any difference in the basic premise of the article? Cuz I don't.
Mindia wrote:I was wrong obviously.
User avatar
Tacks
NT Legend
NT Legend
Posts: 16393
Joined: Mon Mar 08, 2004 1:18 pm
Location: PA

Post by Tacks »

The crazy religious fuckheads (read: brainwashed idiots) use the 'carbon dating isn't accurate' as much as they can just because there was one study 15 years ago about how it's only 80ish% accurate.

So lets do some math here...
Narrock
NT Patron
NT Patron
Posts: 16679
Joined: Mon Mar 15, 2004 11:54 pm
Location: Folsom, CA

Post by Narrock »

Hmm, funny how this turned into personal attacks against me in current affairs. Did I say anything about any of you in this thread? I merely posted an article I read on Yahoo news and laughed about it. How is that threatening or offensive to any of you? Grow up already. I know most of you believe in all this evolution business, and I'm not slamming you for it. I actually respect your opinions about it. But here you go again slinging mud around and getting all personal. Think about what you're doing.
“The more I study science the more I believe in God.” -- Albert Einstein
User avatar
kaharthemad
NT Traveller
NT Traveller
Posts: 3768
Joined: Sat Mar 27, 2004 8:47 am
Location: Somewhere South of Disorder

Post by kaharthemad »

Carbon dating is rather a subject that I dont understand fully. Can someone give a brief touch up. My field is in Military hardware and nerd shit like computers.

From what I gather it is the measuring of rate of absorbtion of atoms on a radioactive bombarded organic item. If someone can elaborate I would apreciate.
Image
Narrock
NT Patron
NT Patron
Posts: 16679
Joined: Mon Mar 15, 2004 11:54 pm
Location: Folsom, CA

Post by Narrock »

kaharthemad wrote:Carbon dating is rather a subject that I dont understand fully. Can someone give a brief touch up. My field is in Military hardware and nerd shit like computers.

From what I gather it is the measuring of rate of absorbtion of atoms on a radioactive bombarded organic item. If someone can elaborate I would apreciate.


Nobody here on the NT has the authority or the knowledge to give you such answers. Google it.
“The more I study science the more I believe in God.” -- Albert Einstein
User avatar
The Kizzy
NT Patron
NT Patron
Posts: 15193
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 9:48 pm
Location: In the closet with the ghosts

Post by The Kizzy »

Langston wrote:Let's just say for a moment, that the carbon dating was 50% wrong. A FULL 50% off the mark.

That would make the fossil *ONLY* 500,000 years old.

See any difference in the basic premise of the article? Cuz I don't.


Umm, I think you are mistaken there. If Carbon date testing is wrong 50% of the time, it means that it is wrong, not it doubles the age. Unless I just don't get what you are saying. Which is possible, I'm feinding for nicotine. :angel:
Zanchief wrote:
Harrison wrote:I'm not dead


Fucker never listens to me. That's it, I'm an atheist.
Narrock
NT Patron
NT Patron
Posts: 16679
Joined: Mon Mar 15, 2004 11:54 pm
Location: Folsom, CA

Post by Narrock »

That's Langstonmathematics for you Kizzy. Half of 1.8 million = 500,000. Didn't you know that?

:teehee:
“The more I study science the more I believe in God.” -- Albert Einstein
Zanchief

Post by Zanchief »

Well the popular belief (amongst morons) is that carbon dating is inaccurate, not wrong. So assuming that carbon dating is 50% inaccurate (which it isn’t) than the nothing has changed in the article.

IE Mindia is a douche.
User avatar
The Kizzy
NT Patron
NT Patron
Posts: 15193
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 9:48 pm
Location: In the closet with the ghosts

Post by The Kizzy »

Well, I'm still feinding for a cigarette.
Zanchief wrote:
Harrison wrote:I'm not dead


Fucker never listens to me. That's it, I'm an atheist.
User avatar
Tacks
NT Legend
NT Legend
Posts: 16393
Joined: Mon Mar 08, 2004 1:18 pm
Location: PA

Post by Tacks »

Good for you, cancer lungs.
User avatar
The Kizzy
NT Patron
NT Patron
Posts: 15193
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 9:48 pm
Location: In the closet with the ghosts

Post by The Kizzy »

I don't have cancer, just got a bunch of tests run, but thanks for caring enough to call me cancer lungs on a message board.
Zanchief wrote:
Harrison wrote:I'm not dead


Fucker never listens to me. That's it, I'm an atheist.
Narrock
NT Patron
NT Patron
Posts: 16679
Joined: Mon Mar 15, 2004 11:54 pm
Location: Folsom, CA

Post by Narrock »

Zanchief wrote:Well the popular belief (amongst morons) is that carbon dating is inaccurate, not wrong. So assuming that carbon dating is 50% inaccurate (which it isn’t) than the nothing has changed in the article.

IE Mindia is a douche.


What proof do you have that either radiometric or carbon dating methods are accurate? Hint: You don't have that proof. However, I can provide conclusive proof that both of those "scientific dating methods" have been extremely inaccurate. Care to challenge me on that, fruitcake?
“The more I study science the more I believe in God.” -- Albert Einstein
User avatar
Phlegm
Nappy Headed Ho
Nappy Headed Ho
Posts: 6258
Joined: Tue Aug 03, 2004 5:50 pm

Post by Phlegm »

From How stuff work

Dating a Fossil

As soon as a living organism dies, it stops taking in new carbon. The ratio of carbon-12 to carbon-14 at the moment of death is the same as every other living thing, but the carbon-14 decays and is not replaced. The carbon-14 decays with its half-life of 5,700 years, while the amount of carbon-12 remains constant in the sample. By looking at the ratio of carbon-12 to carbon-14 in the sample and comparing it to the ratio in a living organism, it is possible to determine the age of a formerly living thing fairly precisely.
A formula to calculate how old a sample is by carbon-14 dating is:


t = [ ln (Nf/No) / (-0.693) ] x t1/2

where ln is the natural logarithm, Nf/No is the percent of carbon-14 in the sample compared to the amount in living tissue, and t1/2 is the half-life of carbon-14 (5,700 years).

So, if you had a fossil that had 10 percent carbon-14 compared to a living sample, then that fossil would be:


t = [ ln (0.10) / (-0.693) ] x 5,700 years
t = [ (-2.303) / (-0.693) ] x 5,700 years

t = [ 3.323 ] x 5,700 years

t = 18,940 years old

Because the half-life of carbon-14 is 5,700 years, it is only reliable for dating objects up to about 60,000 years old. However, the principle of carbon-14 dating applies to other isotopes as well. Potassium-40 is another radioactive element naturally found in your body and has a half-life of 1.3 billion years. Other useful radioisotopes for radioactive dating include Uranium -235 (half-life = 704 million years), Uranium -238 (half-life = 4.5 billion years), Thorium-232 (half-life = 14 billion years) and Rubidium-87 (half-life = 49 billion years).

The use of various radioisotopes allows the dating of biological and geological samples with a high degree of accuracy. However, radioisotope dating may not work so well in the future. Anything that dies after the 1940s, when Nuclear bombs, nuclear reactors and open-air nuclear tests started changing things, will be harder to date precisely.
ClakarEQ
NT Traveller
NT Traveller
Posts: 2080
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2004 3:46 pm

Post by ClakarEQ »

I'm not jumping on the mindia wagon as I believe there is a mix of truth and lies (falses) on both sides.

You know God could have created all these species (fossils now) for the sole purpose to test your faith, keep that in mind (as silly as it sounds).

Also know that there were several distinct bi-ped species (not apes) that existed the same time the infamous "lucy" existed. In fact they are now estiamting that up to 12 some-odd "humanoid" species existed. The first carbon date on lucy if you don't know, was off by 500,000 years, that is some mistake, what others have been made, you nor I may never know.

Science in this discussion only knows what it knows from what it found. The fat lady won't ever stop singing in this song because we will NEVER find it all, and if you don't have it all, you are left to hypothesis against what you have found. There is this thing called hominid(sp) radiation. Even science knows and admits they'll never be 100% certain. So even that 1% means there could be a god to those unswerving evolutionists.

I'll repeat though, I'm not on the mindia wagon and have my own views just trying to spice it up a bit because I saw a great show on this very issue last night (think it was on discovery, not sure though)
Locked