200,000 year old human hair found in dung

I have two issues with this article:

1. How did they date the dung? And can you seriously, accurately date something that old?

2. They do not definative proof that the hair is human. They only state that it is similar to humans and they can't pull any DNA from the hair.

I don't think they have proved anything.

Originally posted by secretstash
I have two issues with this article:

1. How did they date the dung? And can you seriously, accurately date something that old?

2. They do not definative proof that the hair is human. They only state that it is similar to humans and they can't pull any DNA from the hair.

I don't think they have proved anything.

1. I'm sure they'll tell us if we ask. And, yes, you date something within a reasonable degree of accuracy that is MUCH older than that. 200K is nothing.

2. They stated "it is similar to humans", because they aren't done examining it yet. So they don't make unequivocal statements. "Time will tell."

The major problems with a lot of these findings is that they are dated long before this universe existed, and that is entirely impossible.

Every dating method that exists uses false assumptions that lead to entirely erroneous dates. One of the things you have to take into account, for any dating method to be accurate, is the parent/daughter ratio. How can we accurately know the parent/daughter ratio when the object being tested was originally formed? The answer is that we can't, unless we know when it was created... and we almost never do. We also assume that that there has been no loss or addition of the parent or daughter component throughout it's history. This is a terrible assumption. How can we know it to be true, unless we were able to monitor it throughout it's existence.

So if scientists are going to begin from a false assumption, then it follows that their findings will also be false.

[edit on 12-5-2009 by one_enlightened_mind]

reply to post by Daniem


just like a scientist to pick my statement about GOD to try and make a point. why didnt you address one of the statements about amino acids or the universe.
and if you know so much why dont you try and make a life from. take all the building blocks known, and build a life from that doesnt exist now. maybe some kind of plant, animal,or lets say humanoid. and i'm talking about from scracth, not some kind of cloning or gene splicing. i'm talking about raw building blocks no known cells in them at all. or maybe try to make a universe, and i'll even let you have one atom to start with, seeing how most scientists think thats how the big bang started i bet you a years salary you cant do it.

more and more scientist every day are starting to think that there was design to life, and thats how every thing started.
you know i think there was a show on the histroy channel or discovery channel about it.

so as part of my faith, i belive the designer was GOD, and that the word of GOD was inspired, man may have writen it but God told him what to say

Of course it could be human hair. That has nothing to do with proving or not proving there is a GOD.

They claim we have similar DNA to cavemen as well.
SIMILAR and IDENTICAL are two different things.
Yes, there were "people" before GOD created "MAN".
Programed, much like animals with survival skills etc.
Perhaps they were just another form of animal to GOD....and then he thought about it...."Let's make them like US"

However, in the bible, it plainly states that the animals were made ACCORDING TO THEIR KIND ( indicating they had previously existed ), and that MAN was made IN GODS IMAGE.
THIS TIME, we were made differently. Able to think for ourselves, deduct, reason, plot and plan, if you will....

The bible is just a history of "our time".
The world was filled and destroyed many times. But it did not just go away altogether. It was void before US...immersed actually.
Obviously, the dinosaurs were a bit much for the earth ( although an great source of future fuel)

GOD is a bit more open minded than the church would like you to believe too.
"Let US make man in our image". ( Way to delegate, dude!)

Logic tells us, if everything started with ONE CELL, an elephant and a fish would have "similar" DNA. If man came from monkeys, there would be no more monkeys, or there would be monkeys evolving into men before our eyes.
A sea turtle and a land turtle are still turtles, after all.
Let's not confuse ADAPTATION with evolution.
The first men began in an area where much skin pigment was needed, so all were dark. And yet we have white people in areas where as much pigment is not needed. Yet, we are still people. No one evolved into white blobs ( in less you count fat-a$$ rednecks and such...j/k)

Originally posted by deltaalphanovember

Seeings as there are people in this world who believe the world is less than 10 000 years old, I would love to know how they are going to explain this one.
Creationists

Well, it's obvious,
They'll say that the dates are wrong and that the human was eaten by one of the hyaenas that survived on Noah's Ark...

Originally posted by Gawdzilla
[
I love the "photographic proof" they post under the Dinos lived with Humans section. A grainy B&W photo of a supposed dino print in the mud. It's not even centered in the shot. If I found a fresh dino print I would take more than one shot of it, and it would have been documented a bit more thoroughly.

Uh...a dino print can't be fresh...
2nd______

Originally posted by one_enlightened_mind
The major problems with a lot of these findings is that they are dated long before this universe existed, and that is entirely impossible.

Every dating method that exists uses false assumptions that lead to entirely erroneous dates. One of the things you have to take into account, for any dating method to be accurate, is the parent/daughter ratio. How can we accurately know the parent/daughter ratio when the object being tested was originally formed? The answer is that we can't, unless we know when it was created... and we almost never do. We also assume that that there has been no loss or addition of the parent or daughter component throughout it's history. This is a terrible assumption. How can we know it to be true, unless we were able to monitor it throughout it's existence.

So if scientists are going to begin from a false assumption, then it follows that their findings will also be false.

[edit on 12-5-2009 by one_enlightened_mind]

My guess is that most who read this post cannot even attempt to refute this statement. Yet they will still argue philospohical statements flush with pride that they know so much more than YEC do.