namelesstavern.net

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.

Why because it goes against what the bible says?

What's rich?

Hey look its nail #2349120102341020 in the coffin of your creation myth.

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

it doen't

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.




...or was it the word "homo?"

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

Lay off the homo stuff, he's sensitive about his dad.

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

Those carbon based date testers are hardly accurate.

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

Actually, they are pretty accurate, Kizz.

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.

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.

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...

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

Well, I'm still feinding for a cigarette.

Good for you, cancer lungs.

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: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?

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.

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)