Adam gives us the Fossil Elbow

[Thing]

**Early Man Fossils: KP 271
KP 271 (Elbow of a Homo sapien) **In 1965 Bryan Patterson of Harvard University found the lower end of a left upper arm bone in Kanapoi, southwest of Lake Rudolf in northern Kenya, Africa. It was well preserved and was dated at 4.5 million years.

Patterson and Howells compared the bone to modern humans, chimpanzees and Australopithecines. Their analysis revealed that it was “strikingly close” to modern humans but their conclusion was that is was an Australopithecine. Later, others such as Henry Mc Henry (University of California, Davis) stated “The results show that the Kanapoi specimen, which is 4 to 4.5 million years old, is indistinguishable from modern Homo sapiens …”. (Science 190 (31 October 1975):428)(Lubenow 1992, 53)

As it turns out, for this type of fossil it is relatively easy to discriminate between humans and other primates. It tests out to be human but is classified as an Australopithecine. Howells in 1981 gave the reason “We suggested that it might represent Australopithecus because at that time allocation to Homo seemed preposterous, although it would be the correct one without the time element”[1].

References:
[1] William W, Howells, “Homo erectus in human decent: ideas and problems”,
Homo erectus: Papers in Honor of Davidson Black, Becky A Sigmon and
Jerome S. Cybulski, eds., Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1981:
70-71 see also Lubenow 1992, 57.
Lubenow 1992, 53

 

[quasimodo]

the largest known prime number has 12,978,189 digits

 

[Thing]

the largest known prime number has 12,978,189 digits

…handy for typing.

 

[thistle]

**Early Man Fossils: KP 271
KP 271 (Elbow of a Homo sapien) **In 1965 Bryan Patterson of Harvard University found the lower end of a left upper arm bone in Kanapoi, southwest of Lake Rudolf in northern Kenya, Africa. It was well preserved and was dated at 4.5 million years.

Patterson and Howells compared the bone to modern humans, chimpanzees and Australopithecines. Their analysis revealed that it was “strikingly close” to modern humans but their conclusion was that is was an Australopithecine. Later, others such as Henry Mc Henry (University of California, Davis) stated “The results show that the Kanapoi specimen, which is 4 to 4.5 million years old, is indistinguishable from modern Homo sapiens …”. (Science 190 (31 October 1975):428)(Lubenow 1992, 53)

As it turns out, for this type of fossil it is relatively easy to discriminate between humans and other primates. It tests out to be human but is classified as an Australopithecine. Howells in 1981 gave the reason “We suggested that it might represent Australopithecus because at that time allocation to Homo seemed preposterous, although it would be the correct one without the time element”[1].

References:
[1] William W, Howells, “Homo erectus in human decent: ideas and problems”,
Homo erectus: Papers in Honor of Davidson Black, Becky A Sigmon and
Jerome S. Cybulski, eds., Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1981:
70-71 see also Lubenow 1992, 57.
Lubenow 1992, 53

Sorry but I’m at a loss to understand what this has to do with Sacred Scripture.

 

[Thing]

Sorry but I’m at a loss to understand what this has to do with Sacred Scripture.

mm… Adam was the first man created… the earliest *modern *humans remains so far appears to be this bone at 4.5 million years old… you know creation - evolution and HOMO HABILIS supposedly The first Homo who lived 2.2-1.6 million years ago.

 

[Bob_Crowley]

**Early Man Fossils: KP 271
KP 271 (Elbow of a Homo sapien) **In 1965 Bryan Patterson of Harvard University found the lower end of a left upper arm bone in Kanapoi, southwest of Lake Rudolf in northern Kenya, Africa. It was well preserved and was dated at 4.5 million years.

Patterson and Howells compared the bone to modern humans, chimpanzees and Australopithecines. Their analysis revealed that it was “strikingly close” to modern humans but their conclusion was that is was an Australopithecine. Later, others such as Henry Mc Henry (University of California, Davis) stated “The results show that the Kanapoi specimen, which is 4 to 4.5 million years old, is indistinguishable from modern Homo sapiens …”. (Science 190 (31 October 1975):428)(Lubenow 1992, 53)

As it turns out, for this type of fossil it is relatively easy to discriminate between humans and other primates. It tests out to be human but is classified as an Australopithecine. Howells in 1981 gave the reason “We suggested that it might represent Australopithecus because at that time allocation to Homo seemed preposterous, although it would be the correct one without the time element”[1].

References:
[1] William W, Howells, “Homo erectus in human decent: ideas and problems”,
Homo erectus: Papers in Honor of Davidson Black, Becky A Sigmon and
Jerome S. Cybulski, eds., Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1981:
70-71 see also Lubenow 1992, 57.
Lubenow 1992, 53

For a product of random chance chemical reactions, the old DNA molecule seems to be very, very robust. I think there’s something wrong with the dating.

There’s also a theory of cosmology by an Israeli astrophysicist, which explains the accelerating universe without the need for the ubiquitous “dark matter” and “dark energy” (which is the current scientific cop-out for being unable to explain the accelerating universe), and if is correct (and so far fits all observed criteria), reduces the age of the universe to a few thousand years.

I’ve attache a link to the theory on CreationWiki, plus a link to his biography. It appears he died in 2007. Who knows, the next Cosmological giant might be another Jew, after Newton and Einstein. It wouldn’t surprise me. Except that his recognition will have to be posthumous.

creationwiki.org/Cosmological_relativity

gap-system.org/~history/Biographies/Carmeli.html

 

[avgusto]

IMHO:The difference is not important. Important theological meaning of Adam & Eva, not anthropological

 

[twinc]

For a product of random chance chemical reactions, the old DNA molecule seems to be very, very robust. I think there’s something wrong with the dating.

There’s also a theory of cosmology by an Israeli astrophysicist, which explains the accelerating universe without the need for the ubiquitous “dark matter” and “dark energy” (which is the current scientific cop-out for being unable to explain the accelerating universe), and if is correct (and so far fits all observed criteria), reduces the age of the universe to a few thousand years.

I’ve attache a link to the theory on CreationWiki, plus a link to his biography. It appears he died in 2007. Who knows, the next Cosmological giant might be another Jew, after Newton and Einstein. It wouldn’t surprise me. Except that his recognition will have to be posthumous.

creationwiki.org/Cosmological_relativity

gap-system.org/~history/Biographies/Carmeli.html

It seems that it is impossible for bone to remain as bone for millions of years without completely disintegrating or mineralizing,so the bones as bone must be only thousands of years old - just another monkey hoax it would seem - twinc

 

[thistle]

mm… Adam was the first man created… the earliest *modern *humans remains so far appears to be this bone at 4.5 million years old… you know creation - evolution and HOMO HABILIS supposedly The first Homo who lived 2.2-1.6 million years ago.

Like I said what has this to do with Sacred Scripture. You have made no comments on how your opening post ties into it. You simply cut and pasted an article and made no comments of your own.
What point are you trying to make?

 

[Thing]

Like I said what has this to do with Sacred Scripture. You have made no comments on how your opening post ties into it. You simply cut and pasted an article and made no comments of your own.
What point are you trying to make?

I take it you are not a paleontologist. If you *had *just dug up what appeared to be a modern humans bone and dated it at about 2 million years before modern humans distant ancestors lived then the very first thing you would think of is the creationist-evolutionist row. Sacred Scriptures say creation. This bone says, possibly, modern humans ancestors came long after modern humans.
(if you do not like this thread, have it moved somewhere else by all means)

 

[thistle]

I take it you are not a paleontologist. If you *had *just dug up what appeared to be a modern humans bone and dated it at about 2 million years before modern humans distant ancestors lived then the very first thing you would think of is the creationist-evolutionist row. Sacred Scriptures say creation. This bone says, possibly, modern humans ancestors came long after modern humans.
(if you do not like this thread, have it moved somewhere else by all means)

Why?? Creation and Evolution are not exclusive and contradictory.
As Catholics we must believe that God created the universe out of nothing. How he allowed everything to then develop is up to him. We are allowed to believe in evolution.

 

[juliamajor]

I’m with you Thistle.This belongs in Philosophy or something else but not in Sacred Scripture.

 

[Thing]

Why?? Creation and Evolution are not exclusive and contradictory.
As Catholics we must believe that God created the universe out of nothing. How he allowed everything to then develop is up to him. We are allowed to believe in evolution.

Ah, you have an adjenda…; if you do not think of creationist-evolutionist when you see a 4.5 million yo modern-type human bone then you must be wonderfully restrained.
Move the thread… you have my permission!

 

[quasimodo]

Ah, you have an adjenda…; if you do not think of creationist-evolutionist when you see a 4.5 million yo modern-type human bone then you must be wonderfully restrained.
Move the thread… you have my permission!

you have an agenda

scratch an atheist(?) and you find a fundamentalist

 

[Thing]

you have an agenda

scratch an atheist(?) and you find a fundamentalist

I have an agenda? Moi?

I have no intention of scratching an atheist. And are you calling me a fundy atheist?

 

[twinc]

Why?? Creation and Evolution are not exclusive and contradictory.
As Catholics we must believe that God created the universe out of nothing. How he allowed everything to then develop is up to him. We are allowed to believe in evolution.

Sadly this is what is being accepted but it is not true - we are not allowed to accept or believe in the evolution of the real evolutionists or for that matter that of the phony/pseudo evolutionists - twinc

 

[thistle]

Sadly this is what is being accepted but it is not true - we are not allowed to accept or believe in the evolution of the real evolutionists or for that matter that of the phony/pseudo evolutionists - twinc

How is evolution different to “evolution of the real evolutionists”?

Catholics are free to believe in evolution or not but we must believe (and do) that God created the universe out of nothing.

 

[twinc]

oh no no Thistle - you must learn soon that Evolution is a con riddled with frauds,fakes and hoaxes.Here we have one of them.Many Catholics,both clergy and laity,now assume that the Catholic Church regards Evolution as an open question.They tend to say"Evolution is acceptable,as long as God was involved and,anyway Pope Pius XII taught that evolution is an open question".In fact he did not use the term"open question".Indeed Evolution per se is not an open question for Catholics in the sense that Pius XII placed creation and evolution on an equal footing.A parallel can be drawn between Evolution and Contraception where both Popes were confronting dissenters and both allowed research and discussion of opposing views but neither Pope intended to approve doctrinal innovations.The Pope allowed research and discussion-nothing more - and warned strongly that evolution seemed highly improbable and wrote against dissenters etc - {Creation Rediscovered] - twinc

 

[twinc]

Like I said what has this to do with Sacred Scripture. You have made no comments on how your opening post ties into it. You simply cut and pasted an article and made no comments of your own.
What point are you trying to make?

Oh Thistle - these bones were found as bone after millions of years they should have disintegrated or mineralised,so they must be thousands of years only because there was no death before Adam and the Fall and no thorns and thistles either - twinc

 

[thistle]

Oh Thistle - these bones were found as bone after millions of years they should have disintegrated or mineralised,so they must be thousands of years only because there was no death before Adam and the Fall and no thorns and thistles either - twinc

Let me guess. You are a young Earth proponent!