55 thousand year old modern human from Manot cave in Israel

a reply to: BELIEVERpriest
you do realize that the 6,000 year date comes from a 16th century irish bishop and has absolutely no real basis in scripture.

The assertion that moses actually wrote the torah is not accepted by any serious scholars of the old testament.
The torah was written by four distinct people at different times in history, i actually attended a several hr University of Cal. lecture on this very subject, by one of the most recognized scholars in the field.
When the oldest copies are read in their original hebrew, the differeneces in the "hand" of the writers are clearly illustrated.

Beyond this reply i will no longer involve myself that facet of the conversation, there is a forum for the creationist hoo ha, please feel free to take your drivel there, as it has no bearing on the subject of this thread.

a reply to: punkinworks10

Have it your way, but understand, that the timeline offered by the article in you OP is not exempt from criticism, even if the opposing opinion is that of a creationist. The scientists who found that skeleton cannot prove its age, they can only speculate.

a reply to: BELIEVERpriest

So is Epic of Gilgamesh.
Shall we believe everything it says too?

a reply to: HarbingerOfShadows

I believe that portions of the Epic of Gilgamesh apply to the king Nimrod, "the mighty hunter against the Lord". How much is true is up for debate, but it does seem to have an element of truth.

originally posted by: MALBOSIA

originally posted by: BELIEVERpriest
a reply to: punkinworks10

So, 55k years old??? I doubt that. Maybe more like 5.5k years. If the skeleton is antediluvian, then it can be up to 6,123 years old at the most. If it is post-diluvian, then its can be no older than 4,467 years old. Earth maybe much older than 6,123 years, but human civilization is not. If we are talking modern human, then I would go with something within the 4k year figure. Neanderthals seem to be more associated with the antediluvian age (since so many caves are so "flooded" with neanderthal-like bones). The more domesticated features that modern humans have today seems to be a result of sudden environmental change.

This article opperates of two axiomatic biases: the Darwinistic theory (not fact) of evolution, and the idea that radio-active dating is reliable. There are too many unknown factors to rely on radio-active decay, and macro-evolution has yet to be proven.

This link shows a few of the shortfalls of radio-active dating:

www.pathlights.com...

Your right. Lets just believe the bible and stop science all together because the gospels are so much more accurate.

Humans no older than 6,000 years? You have to be religious to believe something that ignorant.

Lol, I was thinking the same thing.

Humans are no more than 6,000 years old?

That made me stop and say, "Hu?"

Rebel 5

originally posted by: BELIEVERpriest
a reply to: punkinworks10

Have it your way, but understand, that the timeline offered by the article in you OP is not exempt from criticism, even if the opposing opinion is that of a creationist. The scientists who found that skeleton cannot prove its age, they can only speculate.

I don't think anyone is in disagreement that any scientific inquiry or find is open to dispute. However, to dispute the data one must actually dispute it by addressing the errors with the science involved. That goes a bit beyond blanket statements on a repeating loop. I don't think most people who disagree with finds of this nature grasp the fact that once the data is published, it IS scrutinized by many people who's sole desire is to find errors in the work or methodology.

For example, regarding your critique of the timeline, you previously made the rounds with the same statement in variation as your opposition to the accuracy and dating if the specimen. I retorted with actual examples that you could have argued why those examples were wrong and what was incorrect with the science behind the claims. Instead you held fast to the scripture and for all intents and purposes his behind it and didn't even attempt to discuss let alone dispute the examples. So again, you have complete freedom to dispute any science based claims. You just have to support your position with something tenable. Can you do that? Or is there no disputing your theological disposition yet science is open season? It appears disingenuous and completely devoid of logic of that is indeed the approach and you might get better traction authoring a thread in Origins and Creationism where your leanings are more appropriately addressed. Disputing the OP is fair game, of that there is no argument. You just need to to so with legitimate citations and explanations that can be sourced. Otherwise you're addressing facts with nothing more than an opinion and that's just not how things are done in science. Testable, repeatable and verifiable are the hallmarks of scientific inquiry. Quoting scripture, not so much.

a reply to: peter vlar

You make a good argument, but unfortunately my area of research is prophecy and the very real conspiracies surrounding them. I can provide information to support the idea that the Elites are doing everything they can to burry our past, and I can even show you which calendar system they are following. I can give you their hopes, fears, and motives for obscuring the truth, but those are all off topic. However, you can find them in my threads.

As far as the true age of these ancient bones, all I can say is that the puppet masters of the established sciences do not really believe that human civilization is any older than 6,123 years to this very date. To me that speaks volumes. They are following an antiquated Paleo-Hebrew intercalary system that was designed to reconcile the sudden change in our solar year from 360 to 365.25 days. This change occured 4,467 years ago, and it almost wiped out all life on this planet. They placed this knowledge on the pyramid symbol on the back of our $1 bill, and the key to understanding the symbol is the pattern found in the biblical meter. THEY put it there, not bible thumpers. They have been hiding this information from Christians for ages.

If you are interested, you can take a gander at my "12/21/2012 Red Herring" thread.

I know the science is flawed, and I cant scientifically prove my case, I can only tell you what they are hiding, and why they are doing it...but to do that, would throw the thread way off topic, because the real issue is not the new discover, but the lies behind the cover-story.

You must have missed all the details in the bible claiming the earth to be around 6000 years old. When clearly we all know its much older than that
a reply to: np6888