Scientists Find Oldest Known Specimens of the Human Species

Please, if I might be so bold, find someone who gives a flying crap what you think.

 

Incidentally a theory or guess of mine (completely unsupported I admit) is that time ran at different rates at different times during the earth's (and the universe's) history. So for example a thousand years of "our" time might not correspond to a thousand years of "old" time.
After all, Einstein proved that time is not rigidly fixed but is stretchy and elastic, so anything's possible. Oops sorry was I rambling..

 

Well...at least you have the completely unsupported part correct.

 

So does Dawkins and his unsupported cockamamie theory of evolution..

 

Poppycock!
The theory of evolution is supported by a wide range of observations throughout the fields of genetics, anatomy, ecology, animal behavior, paleontology, and others.It's been tested and scrutinised for over 150 years,and has come out the stronger for it.

 

You gotta be jivin us boy!
Here's Dawks "theory" of how flight developed, count the number of "guesses" and "perhapses" in it..-
"My guess is that both bats and birds evolved flight by gliding downwards from the trees.. Here’s one guess as to how flying got started in birds.. Perhaps birds began by leaping off the ground while bats began gliding out of trees. Or perhaps birds too began by gliding out of trees." (Dawkins: Climbing Mt Improbable, pp. 113–4)

 

Quote mining is a fallacious tactic used by creationists.

 

Who me? I fully believe in evolution! BUT I can sense the guiding hand of a "Master Geneticist" behind it..
Senator John McCain summed it up nicely-
"I believe in evolution, but when I hike the Grand Canyon at sunset, I see the hand of God there also"

And some scientists say the same thing-
"There is for me powerful evidence that there is something going on behind it all....It seems as though somebody has fine-tuned nature’s numbers to make the Universe....The impression of design is overwhelming"- Paul Davies (British astrophysicist), The Cosmic Blueprint: New Discoveries in Nature's Creative Ability To Order the Universe. New York: Simon and Schuster, p.203.

"As we survey all the evidence, the thought insistently arises that some supernatural agency - or, rather, Agency - must be involved. Is it possible that suddenly, without intending to, we have stumbled upon scientific proof of the existence of a Supreme Being? Was it God who stepped in and so providentially crafted the cosmos for our benefit?"- George Greenstein (astronomer),1988. The Symbiotic Universe. New York: William Morrow, p.27

"When confronted with the order and beauty of the universe and the strange coincidences of nature, it's very tempting to take the leap of faith from science into religion. I am sure many physicists want to. I only wish they would admit it."- Tony Rothman (physicist),Paradigms Lost. New York, Avon Books, p.482-483

 

More Dishonest PLAGIARIZED Quote Mining.
That is, using OUT of Context quotes (some even Fabricated) to cast doubt on Evolution.
LINK?

The Quote Mine Project
Or, Lies, Damned Lies and Quote Mines
Introduction
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/project.html

[.....]
One frequent creationist poster to the talk.origins newsgroup produced a long list of what he dubbed "Famous quotes from famous evolutionists" [1]. It was not hard to discover that the list was taken, almost verbatim, from a creationist site called "Anointed-One.Net", where the list is called "Quotes by Famous Evolutionists." Lists like this, presented with little or no context except for vague claims that they somehow "disprove" evolution, are common among creationists. Indeed, entire books of these quotes have been published [2].

For a number of reasons, the posting of this list was illustrative of a persistent and basically dishonest practice, frequently engaged in by creationists, that has become known as "quote-mining." While the etymology of this term is obscure [3], the definition is clear enough. It is the use of a (usually short) passage, taken from the work of an authority in some field, "which superficially appears to support one's position, but [from which] significant context is omitted and contrary evidence is conveniently ignored"[4].

In response, numerous people took the trouble to look up the source material to learn the context of the passages. The result of this considerable effort demonstrated that these "quotes" were, in very large part, so out-of-context as to qualify as complete distortions of the authors' intent. As noted by Dana Tweedy, one of the responders:

Those quotations were carefully taken out of context, to change the meaning. The "evolutionist(s)" in those quotations [were] not admitting that "a portion of evolution" was "fraudulent". That is the whole point of a "lie of omission", to omit the part of the person's words that explains and clarifies the person's position. Those quotes you stole are classic lies of omission. They are false, and using them is perpetrating a falsehood . . . [5]

Another responder, John Wilkins, continued in the same vein:

It is worth observing too that not only were these quotes taken carefully out of context, but that they must have been deliberately done so. After [unearthing the context] I could not find there is [any] way these could have been taken accidentally or in ignorance out of the context.
[......]
Several of them turn out to be railing against creationists. More than a few turn out to be making the exact opposite point [than the bare words seem to indicate] and at least one was reporting secondarily on the ideas of others in order to rebut them. Once is a mistake, twice is carelessness, three times could be stupidity, but the sheer volume of these is a deliberately planned campaign of disinformation. [6]

Another aspect of this practice is that these "quotes" are widely passed around and used repeatedly by creationists, while neither bothering to check the original source nor giving any indication that they are taken from secondary sources. This is shown by the fact (as can be seen in a number of these cases) that there are errors that can and have crept into these quotes or their citations which are then propagated by other creationists when they are copied without attribution.​

 

But I quoted Dawkins word for word from one of his books..

 

Word-for-word for one or two OUT of Context sentences, that is/MAYBE, and using these "....." as well.
Which is NOT word for word, it's ... Omitting... words.
LINK for that "quote"?

So according to your DISHONEST "quote" then, Dawkins believes Evolution is Just a Guess?
Or he was just unsure on one small aspect of flight?
Dawkins believes in Evolution 100%.

[Like ChemEngineer] You are a charlatan and PLAGIARIZED those quotes/FAKE-quotes from some Creationist website or other Flat-Earther.
LINK?
Using precise quotes in a Precise order is a Singular idea, not general/open info.
LINK?

 

Congratulations. /sarc/

 

Actually the TOE has incredible documented support by virtually every educated and qualified person on Earth, as well as libraries of books, papers, studies and fossil evidence. and DARWIN (not Dawkins) simply put forth limited theory which then became what we call the theory of evolution.
That YOU, who is obviously of limited education on this subject and unable to grasp reality and complexity disagree does absolutely nothing to denigrate or damage the validity.

 

Thermoluminescence can be used for dating objects from 7,000 to 10,000 years old with confidence. The oldest artefacts that can be dated by thermoluminescence are around 250,000 years old. 300,000 years old is clearly out of the dating method's age range.

 

LUMINESCENCE

​

• 
  TL - Thermoluminescence
  OSL - Optically Stimulated Luminescence
  
  Like 14C dating, thermoluminescence is related to radioactive decay.
  
  Thermoluminescence is produced by radioactive decay particles (electrons), trapped in mineral grains. Heating the mineral (or exposure to light) releases electrons, and produces a flash of light, setting the clock to 0 (maybe only partial). Thereafter, luminescence accumulation is proportional to age. Used particularly for >50 ka archeological dates.
  
  Dating Range: 1,000 - 300,000,000 yrs

http://www.geo.arizona.edu/palynology/geos462/11datingmeth.html


Thermoluminescence (or TL) is a geochronometric technique used for sediment. The technique has an age range of 1,000 to 500,000 years.
https://geology.cr.usgs.gov/capabilities/gronemtrac/geochron/thermo/tech.html

Thermoluminescence dating

Description
A dating method that measures the amount of light released when an object is heated. Thermoluminescence, or TL, has been used since the 1950s to determine the approximated firing date of pottery and burnt silicate materials. TL has a wide dating range; it has been used to date ceramics from a few hundred years old to geologic formations that are half a million years old.

http://cameo.mfa.org/wiki/Thermoluminescence_dating

I'm just pulling this stuff out of articles. If you have inside knowledge let me know. I have a bit of interest in dating.

 

Preacher Brady does not process rational thinking, evidence analysis, intellectual honesty, curiosity, and a host of other normal cognitive functions. He works very hard at avoiding such hard work and spends most of his time pretending he is special.

Put another way, you are wasting your time.

 

If I still had my copy of Climbing Mt Improbable I'd scan pages 113/114 and post them here to show I'm not making it up, but as you presumably have a copy, why not scan it and post it yourself to prove me wrong?
Until you do, you might just as well save your breath and whistle dixie..

 

Haha atheists remind me of the knuckledragger priests and their lackeys who killed the prophets and Jesus, even poor Data got stabbed by an oafish blacksmith in "Thine own Self", that wasn't very "rational" was it..-

 

I make the same challenge to you as I did to Taxonomy, namely scan and post pages 113/114 of Climbing Mt Improbable to prove me wrong..

 

You pretty much HAVE been shown as incorrect and inaccurate in assumption but do not seem capable of realizing it or understanding the volumes of data that do so.

 

If quote mining is your idea of debating the evidence for evolution,don't expect to be taken seriously.

 

You're, of course, Not being truthful.
You never had the book, just like you didn't have the other SIX books your Quote Mines were PLAGIARIZED from. LOL. Many century-old tomes.
What would YOU be doing with them.
And of course the POINT of the book was to DEBUNK Creationists, and support Evolution.
IOW, the quote you Copied from some creationist website is OUT Of Context/Mischaracterizing Dawkins.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climbing_Mount_Improbable

Climbing Mount Improbable is a 1996 popular science book by Richard Dawkins. The book is about probability and how it applies to the theory of evolution. It is designed to Debunk claims by Creationists about the probability of naturalistic mechanisms like natural selection.[1]...".."
​

And of course the Book is ONLINE/Google Books.
Most are. You don't even know the internet at all!
And you didn't know that because you just PLAGIARIZED it like your other "quotes."
Your "quote" was a MISQUOTE/Chopped-quote from this paragraph/section using these "...."
https://books.google.com/books?id=g4gkhtRGSLgC&pg=PA124&lpg=PA124&dq="My+guess+is+that+both+bats+and+birds+evolved+flight+by+gliding+downwards+from+the+trees.&source=bl&ots=U0K_16WX2I&sig=DBp_fs4v0qEs_P6oZcL67wU8mCA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiX0aO607jUAhXGyT4KHSJJDKQQ6AEIKDAA#v=onepage&q="My guess is that both bats and birds evolved flight by gliding downwards from the trees.&f=false

So even though your 'challenge' was moot/a non sequitur, as you had already lost the point of Out of context quote-mining, I have now gutted on the Nature of the book AND the specific quote/MISQUOTE.
`

 

Here it is guys, I googled 'Climbing Mt Improbable birds' and this hit came up, the chapter is "Getting off the Ground" and Dawkins makes a bunch of guesses on various pages like this one, and admits the matter is far from cut and dried, saying- "the debate continues"..

 

The science suggests that this, in fact, may not be true. Try to get your head around that....

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2017/05/22/europe-birthplace-mankind-not-africa-scientists-find/

 

Steady on mate, healthy skepticism is good, but don't overdo it or you'll send yourself nutty..-
WIKI- "Paranoid personality disorder is a psychiatric diagnosis characterised by a pervasive and long-standing suspiciousness and generalized mistrust of others"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paranoid_personality_disorder