6
   

Was this a 300 mya human femur?

 
 
Reply Fri 4 Feb, 2011 08:53 pm
Is the following article correct in describing a 300-mya human femur?
Edit [Moderator]: Link removed
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Question • Score: 6 • Views: 2,773 • Replies: 30
No top replies

 
littlek
 
  2  
Reply Fri 4 Feb, 2011 09:35 pm
@bewildered,
It must be true. It's from a blog.
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 4 Feb, 2011 10:48 pm
@littlek,
"Ed Conrad" has hundreds of goobledeegook web sites. This has been debunked several times, heres some counterinformation >Im beginning to believe that "bewildered" is working for the Creation Institute as a shill.http://www.geo.ucalgary.ca/~macrae/t_origins/carbbones/carbbones.html
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 4 Feb, 2011 10:55 pm
@farmerman,
This Ed Conrad may be associated with the "Medved" character of a few years ago. Medved had "undeniable proof" of some human digits from the Coal measures in the same area.
Also, a "fossilized hammer" from the Carboniferous was also found. When the hammer was de- plaqued, the makers badge (I believe it was made by Plumb) was seen on the center of the head.
JTT
 
  2  
Reply Fri 4 Feb, 2011 11:22 pm
@farmerman,
Quote:
When the hammer was de- plaqued, the makers badge (I believe it was made by Plumb) was seen on the center of the head.


Plumb is a very very very old company.
0 Replies
 
roger
 
  1  
Reply Fri 4 Feb, 2011 11:29 pm
@farmerman,
Well, Plumb has been in business a heck of a long time. I favor Vaughn for hammers, but that's just me.
0 Replies
 
laughoutlood
 
  2  
Reply Fri 4 Feb, 2011 11:51 pm
@bewildered,
hardly a bone of contention
Ionus
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Feb, 2011 12:02 am
Quote:
Was this a 300 mya human femur?
I thought they were talking about a 300 mya human lemur...the missing link at last ! No wonder it was so hard to find. What do they mean was.....is it younger now ?
0 Replies
 
FBM
 
  2  
Reply Sat 5 Feb, 2011 04:27 am
@bewildered,
bewildered wrote:

Is the following article correct in describing a 300-mya human femur?
Edit [Moderator]: Link removed


Just on the off chance that the OP isn't a joke, no. H. sapiens sapiens is much less than 1 million years old. You have stumbled upon a flake-fest.
rosborne979
 
  2  
Reply Sat 5 Feb, 2011 05:54 am
@bewildered,
bewildered wrote:

Is the following article correct in describing a 300-mya human femur?
Edit [Moderator]: Link removed

Is the article correct? ... Not a chance.
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Feb, 2011 05:56 am
@rosborne979,
It turns out fro McKays thin section analyses that the specimens werent even bones.
farmerman
 
  2  
Reply Sat 5 Feb, 2011 06:19 am
@FBM,
Quote:
H. sapiens sapiens is much less than 1 million years old. You have stumbled upon a flake-fest.
This is merely a Creation fest. (some people would argue that there is not much difference between the two). Their argument here is that " because of this discovery evolution i s knocked into a cocked hat". You see,weve "Falsified" one of the key "beliefs " of evolutionism (the religion of evolution), That belief being that all life developed from genera trhat appeared in a sequence through time and that mammal or human fossils would never EVER be found in the deeper time sediments of the Paleozoic. SO here the Creation "scientists" assert that theyve found a fossil that disproves that sequence. (Of course, I woulda hidden the hammer-although I would agree that Plumb is a very old name, I am , however, most certain that there werent too many Plumb Hammers made in the pAleozoic).

This falsification attempt succeeds (if true) to discount
1That humans did live in the mid CArboniferous along with other less advanced life forms

2HAving cast doubt on the sequences of lifes appearnce, the Creationists then try to assert that actually these sediments arennt as old as the Geologists say.

The two prinicple apologists for these fossils and what they stand for, have been trying this scam since the mid 1990's and there are several dozen other "dead" websites that have presented evidence of such "fossils" . The point isnt so much to try to advance science as it is to take a stand by counting on thescience community ignoring these specimens and, by ignoring them, allowing this crap to be continued.

There has been no credible evidence to support these findings . All the bones presented so far are either not bones at all or are brecciated animal bones found in gangue piles near coal mine dumps and the soil REDOX conditions have allowed the deposition of SIderite crusts on the bone matrix.

FBM
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Feb, 2011 07:54 am
@farmerman,
No, seriously. Tell me what you really think. Wink
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Feb, 2011 08:26 am
@farmerman,
farmerman wrote:
It turns out fro McKays thin section analyses that the specimens werent even bones.

Not surprising. Since we already know that evolution is a fact, anything which conflicts with the core model is always going to turn out to be an error or a hoax. I'm sure many Creationist minded people would jump on me for saying that, claiming that I'm not willing to test every discovery and to follow scientific methodology to validate evidence, but that mindset is simply wrong. Evolution is a fact and any apparent evidence which conflicts with its basic tenets are by definition an extraordinary claim and require extraordinary support before even qualifying for consideration.

By default, the answer to every single claim of evidence which conflicts with the core precepts of evolution is that the evidence is bullshit. And until a pile of qualified scientists are willing to stand behind that evidence, it doesn't even warrant consideration. The general public needs to understand this, and Creationists need to understand this, otherwise they are just fooling themselves into believing that evolution might not be true. But evolution happened and is happening and people need to accept it and move on and figure out a way to make their view of the world fit in with realty.
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Feb, 2011 09:04 am
Interesting thread. Piltdown part XDXXIV. Love it.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Feb, 2011 09:25 am
@FBM,
Quote:
No, seriously. Tell me what you really think
We just follow the evidence
FBM
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Feb, 2011 09:38 am
@farmerman,
farmerman wrote:

Quote:
No, seriously. Tell me what you really think
We just follow the evidence


The story is messing with my mind. All along, I thought God was planting dinosaur bones everywhere to test our faith, now I find out that he's planting human bones to confirm it. I think I need a beer or 6.
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Feb, 2011 11:39 am
@FBM,
Well then NA ZDROWIE.

You have just been introduced to the theory of "Vis Plastica" , an idea coined by Avicenna (probably a few years before you were born). He stated that all these foosils are little artifacts that Allah has put in the rock to fool everyone.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Feb, 2011 11:41 am
@laughoutlood,
Hehehehehehe . . . bad, bad joke . . . i love it . . .
JTT
 
  0  
Reply Sat 5 Feb, 2011 01:57 pm
@farmerman,
Quote:
We just follow the evidence


Unless it's too mentally distressing, right, Farmer?
 

Related Topics

 
  1. Forums
  2. » Was this a 300 mya human femur?
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 04/24/2024 at 06:55:17