RE: Sterkfontein might be too young

From: Glenn Morton (glenn.morton@btinternet.com)
Date: Sun Sep 22 2002 - 20:15:26 EDT

  • Next message: Dawsonzhu@aol.com: "Re: The Flood Hoax"

    I would point out that there are australopithecines in localities other than
    Sterkfontein which do have more secure dates dating to 3.5 myr. South
    Africa sites have been tough to date because they lack volcanic ash. The
    East African Rift has no such lack.

    glenn

    see http://www.glenn.morton.btinternet.co.uk/dmd.htm
    for lots of creation/evolution information
    anthropology/geology/paleontology/theology\
    personal stories of struggle

    >-----Original Message-----
    >From: Jay Willingham [mailto:jaywillingham@cfl.rr.com]
    >Sent: Sunday, September 22, 2002 7:25 AM
    >To: Glenn Morton; ASA
    >Subject: Re: Sterkfontein might be too young
    >
    >
    >I liked the conditional tense "might" and "may" used in the Reuters
    >article.
    >
    >Unfortunately, those candid observations were as usual followed by more
    >pontifications of the definite tense uttered by those announcing their own
    >findings.
    >
    >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" <glenn.morton@btinternet.com>
    >To: <asa@calvin.edu>
    >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
    >report
    >> can be found at:
    >>
    >http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&cid=585&ncid=585&e=7&u
    =/nm/2002
    0920/sc_nm/safrica_fossil_dc_1
    >
    > 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,
    not
    > them.
    >
    > glenn
    >
    > see http://www.glenn.morton.btinternet.co.uk/dmd.htm
    > 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 - 15:38:53 EDT