THAT SCIENTISTS REFUSE TO CALL OUR ANCESTORS HUMANS IS ALWAYS INTERESTING.
THE TERM THEY USE IS "HOMINID" OR "HOMININ".
Hominid – the group consisting of all modern and extinct Great Apes (that is, modern humans, chimpanzees, gorillas and orang-utans plus all their immediate ancestors).
Hominin – the group consisting of modern humans, extinct human species and all our immediate ancestors (including members of the genera Homo, Australopithecus, Paranthropus and Ardipithecus).]
FOR THOSE OF US WHO CONSIDER TIME TO BE "RELATIVE", A MERE THOUGHT UNIQUE TO OUR SPECIES, OR WHOSE INDIGENOUS ANCESTRY BELIEVED THAT HUMANS WERE PLACED ON THE EARTH SOON AFTER IT WAS FORMED, THIS NEWS IS NOT NEWS, BUT AN AFFIRMATION.
FOR THOSE OF US WHO ARE WELL AWARE OF THE FALLACIES AND FAILURES OF RADIOCARBON AND OTHER DATING PROCESSES, WE CAN ONLY CELEBRATE THAT, SLOWLY, MAN IS BEING SEEN AS A CREATURE WHO HAS EXISTED SINCE TIME BEGAN.
IN THE NEWS TODAY, FROM A LEAKEY FOLLOW-UP TEAM IN AFRICA (A STONY BROOK TEAM),ON THE DISCOVERY OF 3.3 MILLION-YEAR-OLD TOOLS:
"Of course, the most intriguing question is whether even older stone tools remain to be discovered.
We have no doubt that these aren’t the very first tools that hominins made.
The Lomekwi tools show that the knappers already had an understanding of how stones can be intentionally broken—beyond what the first hominin who accidentally hit two stones together and produced a sharp flake would have had. We think there are older, even more primitive artifacts out there, and we’re headed back out into the badlands of northern Kenya to look for them."
IF MAINSTREAM SCIENCE AND MAINSTREAM MEDIA COULD JUST COME CLEAN ABOUT THIS ISSUE, WE'D SOON SEE HOW VERY OLD WE HUMAN BEINGS ARE, AS A SPECIES.
YES, OUR ANCESTORS DID INDEED 'WALK WITH DINOSAURS', AND WERE FAR MORE 'ADVANCED' SINCE EVEN ANCIENT TIMES THAN WE'RE ALLOWED TO BELIEVE TODAY.
AS EVIDENCE GATHERS TO REFUTE THE CLAIMS OF THE OLD SCHOOL SCIENTISTS, OUR STUBBORN "EXPERTS", WE WILL PERHAPS BE ABLE TO FINALLY COME TO TERMS WITH HOW THESE MANY MILLIONS OF YEARS WAS MERELY YESTERDAY, AND THAT MANKIND SAW ALL CREATURES COME AND GO BEFORE HIS ASTONISHED EYES.
ONE SCIENTIFIC STUDY PUTS THE NAME ADAM ON THE FIRST KNOWN HUMAN, AND GIVES HIM A BIRTHDATE OF 209,000 YEARS AGO, SAME AS 'EVE'.
"The team dated ‘Adam’ using existing genetic data. To calculate the age of the Y chromosome they multiplied data on the average age that fathers have their first child with the number of mutations of they uncovered.
They then divided this figure by the mutation rate of the Y chromosome – or how many years it took on average for the mutation to appear.
‘Of course, we can manipulate each one of these variables to make a finding look younger or older,’ Dr Elhaik told MailOnline.
‘In our paper, we showed the previous study manipulated all these variable to predate the Y chromosome.’
‘We can say with some certainty that modern humans emerged in Africa a little over 200,000 years ago,’ he added.
‘It is obvious that modern humans did not interbreed with hominins living over 500,000 years ago. It is also clear that there was no single “Adam” and “Eve” but rather groups of “Adams” and “Eves” living side by side and wandering together in our world.’ "
SINCE NO ONE, AS IN NOT A ONE, WHO GUESSES AT (ESTIMATES) THE AGE OF "MODERN MAN" WAS ACTUALLY ALIVE BACK THEN, NOBODY KNOWS FOR CERTAIN, DO THEY?
WE HAVE NO VIDEOS, NOT EVEN A TAPE RECORDING BY OR A JOURNAL THAT WAS WRITTEN BY "FIRST MAN" OR "FIRST WOMAN".
WE HAVE TO FACE IT...WE JUST DON'T KNOW.
SO, WHICH "EXPERTS" WILL WE BELIEVE?
WHICH ILLUSTRIOUS, LEARNED MEN OF SCIENCE KNOW WHEN MAN ARRIVED HERE?
WHICH ONES CAN PROVE BEYOND ALL DOUBT THAT THEIRS IS THE CORRECT GUESS?
LET'S LOOK AT HOW GUESSES FAIL.
FAILURE OF RADIOCARBON DATING
"Carbon 14 is a radioactive element with a half-life of 5730 years. This means that half of the carbon 14 will decay in 5730 years. By 50,000 years, it will be almost completely gone, as shown in this diagram by Thomas Higham. 2
The red line shows how much carbon 14 will be in a sample, starting at 100% zero years ago, decaying to 0% after 50,000 years before the present (50 K years BP)."
Since all the carbon 14 is gone in 50 thousand years, it certainly can’t be used by evolutionists to prove that dinosaurs lived 50 million years ago.
There would not be any carbon 14 left in the sample to measure.
That’s why knowledgeable evolutionists never claim that carbon 14 is used to prove that dinosaurs lived 50 million years ago.
But our high schools are apparently filled with kids who have been told by their science teachers that carbon dating proves dinosaurs are millions of years old.
Here’s what they didn’t teach you in high school.
In order to compute the carbon age date, you need to compare the amount of carbon 14 in the specimen with the amount of carbon 14 it had to begin with, and you don’t know how much carbon 14 it had to begin with.
You can make a pretty good guess, and that’s where the correction factors come in.
The simplest guess is that the ratio of carbon 14 to carbon 12 is the same today as it was thousands of years ago.
We know that isn’t the case.
The carbon ratio is very easily upset by a variety of factors.
Pearson (1979:21) has suggested:
"Those involved in radiocarbon dating should be alert to the various possible sources of error and recognize that the precision quoted on a date may be quite unrealistic if the error sources have not been investigated in detail".[SEE: Gordon Pearson. 1979. "Precise 14C Measurement by LS Counting". Radiocarbon 21(1):1-22.]
"What would happen if a dinosaur bone were carbon dated?
At Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Scientists dated dinosaur bones using the Carbon dating method.
The age they came back with was only a few thousand years old.
This date did not fit the preconceived notion that dinosaurs lived millions of years ago. So what did they do?
They threw the results out.
And kept their theory that dinosaurs lived "millions of years ago" instead.
There is also documentation of an Allosaurus bone that was sent to the University of Arizona to be carbon dated.
This test was done on August 10, 1990.
The results were 9,890 +/- 60 years and 16, 120 +/- 220 years.
No one told them that the bones they were dating were dinosaur bones.
The result was sample B at 16, 120 years.
The Allosaurus dinosaur was supposed to be around 140,000,000 years. The samples of bone were blind samples."
Willard Libby (December 17, 1908 – September 8, 1980) and his colleagues discovered the technique of radiocarbon dating in 1949.
Libbey knew that atmospheric carbon would reach equilibrium in 30,000 years.
Because he assumed that the earth was millions of years old, he believed it was already at equilibrium.
However each time they test it, they find MORE c14 in the atmosphere, and have realized that we are only 1/3 the way to equilibrium.
What does this mean?
It means that based on c14 formation, the earth has to be less than 1/3 of 30,000 years old.
This would make the earth less than 10,000 years old!
WELL, IT'S LITTLE WONDER THEN THAT EVEN EVOLUTIONISTS ARE HAPPY TO REPORT THAT CARBON 14 DATING IS NOT RELIABLE ENOUGH.
THEY CAN CLAIM THAT THEIR DATING DINOSAUR BONES TO A FEW THOUSAND YEARS AGO WAS "FLAWED" AND MANIPULATE THE DATA (AND THE TRUTH) BY OTHER MEANS.
Both creationist and evolutionist have taken the one material that cannot be accused of being contaminated and have used supposedly 500 million year to 3 billion year old diamonds to see if there is any carbon 14 in them.
Anything that old should not have even one atom of carbon 14.
Yet both sides get the same result and that is that 100 million year old diamonds do have carbon 14 in them.
This is a serious problem.
FAILURE OF OTHER DATING METHODS
Other radioactive dating techniques (potassium-argon, rubidium-strontium, uranium-lead, etc.) can’t be calibrated against historical data because their half-lives are so long that the theoretical line would go from 100% at 0 years ago to 99.9999% (or something very close to 100%) at 5,000 years ago.
In other words, in a mere 5,000 years, there isn’t time for any significant amount of the radioactive material to decay, so one can’t verify that the expected amount has decayed.
AS I REPORTED BEFORE, THAT OLD THEORY OF EVOLUTION IS FALLING, CRUMBLING MORE EACH DAY.
IN THIS CURRENT TOPIC, SCIENCE DOESN'T KNOW WHAT TO MAKE OF ANCIENT ART WHICH DEPICTS DINOSAURS QUITE CLEARLY.
FROM CHINA AND INDIA TO SOUTH AMERICAN INDIGENOUS TRIBES AND NORTH AMERICAN TRIBES, DINOSAURS HAVE BEEN DEPICTED, WITH AND WITHOUT HUMANS RIDING THEM OR USING THEM AS DOMESTIC ANIMALS.
Top left: Relief carving at Angkor Wat, Cambodia (1186 AD). Top Right: Textile from Nazca, Peru (700 AD). Bottom: Tapestry in the Chateau de Blois (1500 AD)
GRAVE ROBBERS IN SOUTH AMERICA FOUND DINOSAUR TOYS BURIED WITH CHILDREN.
Back in 1925 Waldemar Julsrud discovered the first of what would become known as the
Acambaro figurines. Many of them depicted dinosaurs. Obviously, they have never been
accepted by conventional archaeology.
accepted by conventional archaeology.
SLOWLY, THE FIGURINES WERE PROVEN NOT ONLY "POSSIBLY AUTHENTIC",
BUT WAY AHEAD OF SCIENCE!
BUT WAY AHEAD OF SCIENCE!
In 1993, Stephen Czerkas, writing in geology magazine noted that sauropods may
have had spikes on their backs extending from their heads to their tails. Science had
previously drawn sauropods as smooth skinned.
The artists who made the Acambaro figures may have been a step ahead of science
and of Czerkas.
Geology Magazine, 1993 on Sauropod Skin
"While collecting in a Wyoming quarry in 1990, Czerkas uncovered fossilized skin
impressions belonging to a new species of dinosaur related to the well-known
Diplodocus. The impressions clearly show that the skin was pebbled with large
bumps about 3 centimeters in diameter.
Czerkas also found impressions of many cone-shaped fossils, some of which were
connected to the tail. The smallest "spines" appear at the end of the tail, whereas
larger ones occur farther up the tail.
The largest of the spines would have measured around 18 centimeters high, Czerkas
reports in the December GEOLOGY.
The fossils indicate that this animal had spiny growths along its tail and possibly
along its entire length, says Czerkas, who proposes that other types of sauropods may
have sported similar spines."
HOW DID AN ANCIENT PEOPLE KNOW THIS BEFORE SCIENCE DID?
THEY HAD TO HAVE SEEN THE ANIMALS THEMSELVES!