Re: Sterkfontein might be too young

From: Jay Willingham (
Date: Sun Sep 22 2002 - 11:25:29 EDT

  • Next message: Glenn Morton: "RE: Sterkfontein might be too young"

    I liked the conditional tense "might" and "may" used in the Reuters

    Unfortunately, those candid observations were as usual followed by more
    pontifications of the definite tense uttered by those announcing their own

    All I am saying is the hypothesis of evolution as the source of life in
    general and man in particular morphs with every new "finding", making it
    certainly no more persuasive that the countervailing hypothesis which works
    at applying the ever-changing "facts" to the Genesis account.

    I find the "scientific consensus view" reminiscent of a fraternity/sorority
    consensus view. If you want to go to the parties or publish, you better
    prattle the party line.

    Jay Willingham

    ----- Original Message -----
    From: "Glenn Morton" <>
    To: <>
    Sent: Sunday, September 22, 2002 1:36 PM
    Subject: Sterkfontein might be too young

    > There is a report in Reuters that the famous Sterkfontein hominid site in
    > South Africa is a million years younger than previously thought. The
    > can be found at:
    > The implications of this is that the fossil australopithecines found there
    > had previously been believed to be 3-3.5 million years old. Now, the new
    > dating places them at 2 myr. This means that they are too young to be our
    > ancestors because the genus Homo was already in existence. Doubtless
    > Reasons to Believe, ICR and Answers in Genesis will have a field day with
    > this and they will never note that it was science correcting the error,
    > them.
    > glenn
    > see
    > for lots of creation/evolution information
    > anthropology/geology/paleontology/theology\
    > personal stories of struggle

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sun Sep 22 2002 - 15:34:45 EDT