Just goes to show you: Brown believes that tectonics doesn't happen; I contend that while the Bible doesn't specifically address the question, a literal reading of Genesis does support the idea of tectonics.

I certainly understand why non-literalists think that literalists are always changing what they claim. "History doesn't repeat itself; there are only historians repeating each other"--well, I guess to at least some extent, Biblical literalists are the exact opposite of that. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif[/img]

The (when it's working right, it keeps us humble [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img] ) Curtmudgeon

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: The Curtmudgeon on 2002-07-02 16:13 ]</font>

[quote]
On 2002-06-28 10:06, Donnie B. wrote:
Jim,

I think you misunderstood my original question. Tim's answer makes sense to me (though he left out the actual answer... see below).

I asked how much of the Sun was primordial (i.e. H and He from the Big Bang) and how much was produced in first or subsequent generation stars. Tim's answer was that we can't tell material that was produced in first-generation stars from that produced in subsequent generations -- not that we can't tell primordial material from star-cooked stuff.

One website states that the Sun is 90 % hydrogen, 9 % helium, and 1 % heavier elements. So I conclude the Sun is 90 % primordial, 9 % indeterminate, and 1 % post-BB.

This is contrary to the books and magazines I've read on biblical archeology. However it does highlight the two biggest problems with biblical archeology:

1.) The paucity of evidence to support any hypothesis. Often it seems scholars must use the lack of evidence to argue against a conjecture. I understand the inherit lack of evidence in any archeological endeavor, but I still would like to see the evidence actively support or contradict a hypothesis.

2.) Biased researchers. Obviously many of the researchers are Christian or Jewish who are looking to prove the some Biblical story. There seems to be a tendency to jump to conclusions. Just because we found Jericho does not make the story of Joshua true. Especially when there's no evidence Jericho ever had walls - see point 1.)

Regardless, thanks for the links. I'll check out the Sailhammer book.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Wiley on 2002-07-02 19:30 ]</font>

Thanks for setting me straight on that, Tim. And good links, too. From the Henry Norris Russell page there's a really cool link to an interactive HR diagram, where you can move your mouse across the chart to render ab. magnitude, spectral class, mass etc. for the stars in different sequences and variations within the main sequence. Bookmarked.

Cheers,

JB

CORRECTION: It seems that you can't access the interactive HR diagram from the Russell page. I originally saw it right at the bottom of the Hertzprung page provided by Tim. But to save time, here's the URL:
http://www.rundetaarn.dk/engelsk/obs...rium/hrd1.html

_________________
"Nowhere in all space or on a thousand worlds will there be men to share our loneliness..."

- Loren Eisely, "The Immense Journey" 1956

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Jovianboy on 2002-07-02 22:11 ]</font>

<a name="20020703.3:29"> page 20020703.3:29 aka NO No Nop
On 2002-07-02 15:44, beskeptical wrote:
So HUb', are you saying you are the Curtmudgeon?
------- -- ---- - 3:31 A.M. Nope? as far as I know
not one word have i "SAID" unless youve some
text to speach or PREACH {foorget the $ if you like}
converter programs? I'll go with the Sirius part this week.
My takes that Both Sirius followd Very closly (probably inthe wake of)
have just now crossed the Galatic Equator S to N ? and their4 the radiant of background may have JUST reversed pole$ i dont know as a Good As.
I do "BELIEVE" that we've Justcrossed the Line {use 10's thousand$ [YEAR]}

Wasn't berating you, just wanted to know how you reconciled the contradictions. It seemed to me, (and still does), you were ignoring the obvious in favor of nitpicking the evidence you don't like. It's interesting that you can make illogical statements like "cannot use [xyz as] proof", and, "...so you can't raise it as an objection to Biblical literalism", etc., etc., while at the same time say you believe in some text that was written by men (inspired or not, the Bible did not magically appear), in which just about everything in it can be nitpicked apart.

I think you might assess your own stand on the issue, rather than assume it is other people who are not open minded.

Cosmology and the Age of the Universe

I started this off by limiting myself to astrophysics, essentially stellar structure & evolution. My goal was to show that one could derive a minimum age for the universe, by deriving a maximum age for the stuff in it. The physics involved is, for the most part, fairly "straight forward", but draws on a wide range of disciplines. The application is complicated to say the least, but not overly speculative.

So far I think I have made the point. Natural science, soundly applied to the natural universe, allows for the derivation of a minumum natural age for the universe.

Now I want to switch subjects, and bring in cosmology. Beginning, perhaps, with COBE and the detailed study of the cosmic microwave background (CMB), we have entered the age of "precision cosmology". The detailed structure of the spectrum of anisotropies in the CMB allows for more precise, model dependent predictions of cosmological parameters than ever before. One of those parameters is the age of the universe.

There have been major strides forward, just in the last few years, in the ability to measure the anisotropy spectrum, and derive model parameters from those measurements. The most precise measurements yet made, were reported only last May (The Anisotropy of the Microwave Background to l = 3500: Mosaic Observations with the Cosmic Background Imager, T.J. Pearson et al., 3 May 2002, submitted to Astrophysical Journal), along with the derivation of cosmological parameters, compared with other, similar experiments (Cosmological Parameters from Cosmic Background Imager Observations and Comparisons with BOOMERANG, DASI, and
MAXIMA, J.L. Sievers et al., 23 May 2002, submitted to Astrophysical Journal).

The cosmological parameters, including the age of the universe, are model dependent, but also constrained by the observed anisotropy spectrum. So it's not just an age, but a range of ages, that are derived, based on the constrained model. In this case, the kind of precision & accuracy that astrophysics provides will not be forthcoming, since there is still more flexibility in choosing parameters.

The most probable, or best fit age reported in the abstract is 13.6±0.2 billion years. This compares favorably with the ages I reported for the oldest globular cluster in my first message (13±2.5 billion years, 14.5±4 billion years, 13.8±6 billion years). The apparently low uncertainty of 0.2 billion years on the cosmological age is a bit deceptive, as the spread of ages given in the paper is pretty much 10 - 16 billion years, depending on the model. But note that even here, the universe cannot be less than 10 billion years old in any model, and if you go back to my first message, you see that Omega Centauri also cannot be younger than 10 billion years.

So what we have here is a completely independent, cosmological determination of the age of the universe, that is in comfortable harmony with the astrophysical ages. There are other papers, and other derivations, but the results are all the same. The universe cannot be less than 10 billion years old in any of the cosmological models. And these models are not totally arbitrary, but constrained by observation of the anisotropy spectrum.

Once again, science says that the universe is "old".

• Max Tegmark's CMB webpages
• Ned Wright's Cosmology Tutorial
• The Cosmic Background Imager (CBI)
• Balloon Observation Of Millimetric Extragalactic Radiation ANd Geophysics (BOOMERANG)
• Millimeter Anisotropy eXperimant IMaging Array (MAXIMA)
• Degree Angular Scale Interferometer (DASI)
• Very Small Array (VSA)
• Microwave Anisotropy Probe (MAP)

Tim Thompson:

Thank you for all of the carefully documented information and for the excellent URLs in support of that information. I would not expect anybody who has an antipathy toward modern astrophysics and cosmology to be persuaded by any information you could offer. However, it is important to present the detailed information and URLs for the rest of us.

ljbrs [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img]

__________________
"There is in the universe neither center nor circumference." Giordano Bruno Born 1548. Torched 1600.

Curtmudgeon:

Out of curiosity, what scientific evidence would I have to present, to make you BELIEVE that the Universe/Sun is billions of years old?

Maybe when they finish translating the Dead Sea Scrolls, they will find a passage that says "I, God created the Universe billions of years ago. Someday you will know enough to figure it out."

__________________
Any day you wake up on "the right side of the dirt" is a good day.

T. Anderson

Yeah, well, I know what you mean; I was just perusing the latest issue of <u>Biblical Archaeology Review</u>, and sure enough there were references to 'the Deuteronomist' in the first article I looked at.

Regardless, archaeologists are not textual historians (and, of course, the reverse is just as true; if a textual historian talks about what "the most recent Egyptian finds" indicate, he's probably off by 10 or 20 years). You shouldn't expect the archaeologists to necessarily be at the cutting edge of textual criticism anymore than you would expect a cellular biologist to be at the cutting edge of astrophysics.

Yes, and I especially blame the new "Copenhagen school" of Biblical minimalists (not at all related to the Copenhagen school of quantum mechanics interpretation, but it's a weird coincidence, isn't it?) of using the argument from silence as their stock-in-trade. "We don't have any Egyptian evidence for the Exodus, therefore the Exodus didn't happen." Sorry, non sequitur.

Regardless, there is what to many people would be a surprising amount of actual evidence on (I should say, 'in') the ground, especially if they base their expectations on only what's readily available in the non-technical press.

Bias works both ways, of course, as there are today probably just as many archaeologists working from a basic (or 'base' if you prefer) assumption that the Bible is not true. <u>BAR</u>, which I mentioned earlier, is a good example of all of it, as they publish articles from archaeologists of all stripes, from conservative Judaism to atheistic/agnostic Jew, from conservative Christian to atheistic/agnostic "Christian" (i.e., Westerner); very often, <u>BAR</u> even sets up an issue with articles covering one particular issue (e.g., whether there was or was not a Davidic kingdom centered on Jerusalem around 1000 BC) from several divergent points of view, just so the readers can get a feel for the on-going disputes and have a chance at making their own analyses of the evidence.

Which brings me to the very point: Jericho did have walls, they are well-documented and dateable. Even Dame Katherine Kenyon, the most famous of the archaeologists who have worked Jericho, admitted to the walls, although the dating schemes of her day allowed her to say that the walls found couldn't possibly have been extant at the time of the Conquest (i.e., Joshua's time). Now, the current generation of archaeologists are admitting the possibility that the Ancient Near Eastern (and other Mediterranean) dating schemes have a definite problem because of being based on an erroneous Egyptian chronology, and one of the resulting changes is that the evidence of the collapsed walls at Jericho is precisely dated to the Conquest.

Links:

A Test of Time, by David Rohl (US version, Pharoahs and Kings, unfortunately now OOP), website Nunki.net

Centuries of Darkness, by Peter James et al. (also OOP, alas), website Centuries of Darkness

(Also, website Displaced Dynasties, by Jim Reilly, but I haven't read his books as yet.)

I have both of these books, and both present convincing evidence that the accepted Egyptian chronology has a built-in hole of about two centuries which causes all kinds of problems with other Mediterranean cultural chronologies which (for lack of better evidence) have to be based on the Egyptian. Neither Rohl nor James (or most of his collegues) are Biblical literalists, and neither started their analysis with any perceived "need" to support the Biblical accounts; both arrived (by slightly different paths) at the Biblical support for their positions rather serenditously. Rohl is an Egyptologist; James' background, while not directly stated, appears to be centered in ancient Grecian/Mycenaean archaeology.

The (dig we must) Curtmudgeon

[Edited to replace BAR example with a better]

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: The Curtmudgeon on 2002-07-05 16:30 ]</font>

The above is my last post in this thread. Tim started off the thread to discuss astrophysics and cosmological ideas. I feel I had a perferctly (sic) good right to jump in on any thread that specifically states that it is anti-Creationist to present the other side; nevertheless, it's gone on far enough that I don't feel a need to continue.

Add to that, that the thread has now diverged into two basically separate conversations going on around and through each other, and that's enough of a reason by itself for me to shut up now.

Tim, I hope that you don't think it was my intention to hijack the thread from you; it was merely that your initial post did wave a red flag at me. But I'm out of here (this thread only!) now, so have fun.

The (gone but not forgotten--I'll make bl**dy sure of that! [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif[/img] ) Curtmudgeon

I sympathise with those of you that are defending the bible, I believe in biblical inerrancy myself.

And, much as I would like to say otherwise, the Genesis account does seem to suggest 24hour days - "There was an evening..and a morning, the first day".

But there are so many independent pieces of evidence for a relatively old universe - as others have already mentioned. They don't all agree with each other, but they all point to a universe much older than 6000 years. And, no, not all of it can be explained by pointing to the presuppositions of the observers. Methodological Naturalism does not require one to believe in a billion year old universe (at least not directly) and most astronomers know this.

Unlike in the other historical sciences we can actually see back in time with astronomy. And we can see back allot further than 6,000 years. Yes, the speed of light in a vacuum may have changed over time. But not that much. If it did, there would be no universe as we know it. The speed of light is not just an isolated number - it is tied up with everything from atomic structure to the nature of mater itself. Just take an elementary physics class and you'll be surprised at all the weird places you use that pesky letter "C"....

The idea that time is different on earth than in the rest of the universe has the same problem, from what I've seen. It may indeed have, indeed relativity requires this to some degree - but not THAT much. Not 6,000 years here and a billion over in the Andromeda. Proportionality is important in science - and from what I've seen, young earth astronomers often ignore it.

Also the Big Bang theory came to be over the objections of those who wanted a purely naturalistic universe. It is a creationist theory in that it requires an actual beginning of time. Astronomers have been willing, reluctantly, to accept ideas with possible theistic implications - far more than evolutionary biologists have been.

As you might imagine, this does create some problems for me as a bible believer. But I do not think one ought to harmonize the bible and science if you must mutalate one or the other to do so. Relativity contradicts Quantum mechanics and we let both stand untill we learn better. I would be very surprised if our sincere interpretations of the bible matched our sincere interpretations of nature at every detail - I think it does match to a far greater degree than other ancient books do.

That being said, the Genesis account is presented as a kind of eyewitness account of the creation of the earth. When the narrator says the stars were created on day x - he may mean that they were made VISIBLE on day X. This is similar to what we say when we say the sun is rising - really, it didnt rise, but the earth rotated to bring it into view.

I am aware that this does not explain the Earth's 7 day creation - in fact, I think the language argues for a literal interpretation of that. But even here, there is no mention of age. The seven days, even perhaps the flood, could have happened billions of years ago. The geneologies are not a timeline - because ancient geneologies often skip generations. If this is not so, the gospel(the first 4 books of the New Testemant) geneologies contradict themselves.

To go beyond this requires more than my amateur knowledge of science. What I know of biblical interpretation (and I do have some expertise in this area) does suggest a real 7 day creation, the special creation of human beings starting with one man and one woman, and a global flood. If this conflicts with current science, so be it. I'd be suspicious if it didn't. If you look at an elephant from two different directions, you will see something different each time. Especially if, when looking at it for the first time, you were really interested in something far more important(as is the bible - it is about the redemption of humankind), and were looking at the elephant only as an afterthought.

Remember that you ARE looking at a translation. The words "day" "evening" and "morning" in english aren't exactly equivalents of the Hebrew words. What do you bet that all three words aren't 24-hour specific?

I believe that in Hebrew culture, 24 hour days go from evening to evening, rather than evening to morning.

I think in some part it was so they could point at some testable infinity - an infinite past, or an infinite size - and say "see, that's why we exist - we have to exist somewhere in the infinity, because anything is possible". Now all we have are big numbers. Are they big enough? It's not so easy to say "even the improbable must happen" any more. What will we discover as science progresses? Some say that we'll finally hit an infinity (eg. multiverse), some say we'll find God's hand. Hopefully he doesn't mind us stuffing his finger into a test tube, cause otherwise science would get boring. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif[/img]

The books of Bible and Nature. I believe that they agree - but our interpretations (theology and science, respectively) may need some amount of development. Do you let science critique your theology? Do you let theology critique your science?

Here we have, folks, in center stage Christian vs. Christian over whether or not "day" means "Earth day" or if it means something else.

Well, that's the problem when your core belief is in something other than science, or what comes out of science, yet you still have respect for science. When there's a discrepency, or apparent discrepency, between the two things you believe in, you either have to chose one and reject the other, or you have to reinterpret things to reconcile the differences. That's why it becomes so hard to sway someone one way or the other. No one likes their core beliefs messed with.

So, what does this have to do with astronomy? Only that astronomers and people who are interested in astronomy are all human beings, and human beings are effected by psychological processes - which includes such things as the need to know, the need to believe in something, and the need to have reasons for why things happen. Science doesn't answer the "why"s, I don't think. Psychologically speaking, that is why some so easily put science in the back seat; having peace with the "why"s of life are more imortant to them Maybe you have to be there to really understand.

__________________
"As I lay beneath the Southern Cross, the stars tell more than I could" . . . David Meece

Curtmudgeon: With absolutely no tongue in cheek at all, I affirm that when modern scientific theories clash with a literal reading of the Bible, I choose to consider that the human scientists are mistaken, by omission or commission. I contend that the actual evidential facts, as opposed to any interpretation of them, can be reconciled with the Bible, even if in particular cases I do not know how to do so myself. ...

This I have no major problems with. My beef is over the many individuals & organizations, who claim that the scientific evidence does in fact better support a "young" earth/universe over an "old" earth/universe. My own investigations haev not uncovered any scientific evidence which confidently indicates that the earth and/or universe are anything other than billions of years old.

I started this thread specifically to show that the scientific evidence does indicate an old earth/universe. At this point I am satisifed that (a) I have made my case clearly, and (b) there are no scientific counterarguments on the table. And so I can affirm that science clearly indicates an old earth/universe, whatever else one might think about other, non-scientific sources of information or inspiration.

With all due respect to everyone who reads and posts on this forum, Tim, I don't think we can claim to be the exhaustive repository of all the world's knowledge. While I agree with the spirit of your affirmation of an old Earth, I would imagine that our efforts here will not cause all YECs to suddenly come around and see the light... [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif[/img]

You have said two things here. 1) "...our efforts here will not cause all YECs to suddenly come around...

I'd say that's a given. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_rolleyes.gif[/img]

And 2) "...Tim, I don't think we can claim to be the exhaustive repository of all the world's knowledge."

I interpret this to be saying you are not comfortable with Tim's assertions that the YE idea is not scientific. I'm not saying which premise you accept, but that you think YE deserves to stay on the table.

As I said in an earlier post, you cannot elevate pseudoscience to the level of science by saying it is a matter of a difference of opinion. I think most of us know the difference between a disagreement on the interpretation of the significance of evidence, and asserting, with all due respect, that some things are just not scientific and do not need to be politely tolerated in scientific writings nor discussions.

That's my opinion, and in this case I'm asserting that I have reviewed the exhaustive repository of all the world's knowledge on this subject. There is no reason be less than frank in this matter. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif[/img] [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_lol.gif[/img]

No, that's not what I meant (though I understand how you could have read it that way). I was merely objecting to the tone of Tim's blanket assertions. I fully agree with his conclusions, but it struck me as a bit presumptuous to think that a few posts in an online forum were enough to put the whole issue to rest.

Do I think there's any scientific merit in YEC claims? No. Do I agree that Tim's evidence for an old Earth/universe is compelling? You bet. Has this thread resolved the issue? Well, no. Those who accept the evidence at face value were already in Tim's camp. But for the believers (among whom we can count our own Curtmudgeon), this discussion hasn't even dented the armor. It's still a seven-day creation, dang-blang it! It says so right here! [/Bible-thumping]

Donnie: ... but it struck me as a bit presumptuous to think that a few posts in an online forum were enough to put the whole issue to rest.

For the record, I certainly don't suffer from any such illusion. In fact, these discussion boards are quite useless as far as settling anything is concerned. That isn't even an issue with me.

However, the discussion boards are quite usefull for making information available to those who don't have it, regardless of which "side" of an argument they may be on. That's why I try to do more than just post an opinion, or a blanket assertion, but add as much as practicality permits, from references & links to original research & literature.

My assertion expresses the fact that the issue actually is already settled, making our discussion only of peripheral interest, and of meaning only to the few who are here. But the arena in which the matter was settled is not this one, but the much larger arena of the scientific research community. By making reference to that research, I hope to link my posts & assertions to that broader arena where the issue really is settled.

When I assert "I am satisifed that (a) I have made my case clearly, and (b) there are no scientific counterarguments on the table", the statement clearly only has meaning in our limited arena, for those few who are reading it. That's all the effect I can ever intend.

Really? They hardly ever go past a 50,000 year old humanity? I've never seen or talked to a YEC that went past a 6,000 year humanity(or earth, or universe, etc.)

__________________
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE-----
Version: 3.1
GCS/GM/GS/MU d- s+:+ a--- C++ U--->+++ P--->+++++ L+>+++++ E? W++ N? o? K? w+>--- O? !M V? PS !PE Y+ PGP t+(t++)>+++ 5 X+>++++ R tv+ b+>++ DI++ D+ G++>++++ e>+++ h! !r y?
------END GEEK CODE------

Can you give an example of a human artifact that is older than 6,000 years?

Doesnt the settlement of Catal Huyuk date back to 7000BC? I`d welcome any confirmation or refutation on this. My archeology is hazier than my astronomy thats for surue!

Bone and flint tools found in North America have been dated to more than 10,000 years BP (before present). But that's just North America. There are much older artifacts to be found elsewhere.

Jumbo: Doesn't the settlement of Catal Huyuk date back to 7000BC?

According to the Çatalhöyük blurb, "This produced dates centring around the period c.7,300 to 7,150 calibrated BC for the earliest known archaeological activity at the site (Figure 17)." (Çatalhöyük Radiocarbon Dating). But figure 17 looks to me like it shows dates as far back as 7500 calibrated BC. See the Çatalhöyük Excavations website at Cambridge, for more stuff on Çatalhöyük.

Indeed, there are older radiocarbon dates floating around. The significance of Çatalhöyük is that it's a real town, a definite sign of "civilization".

The radiocarbon time scale can be calibrated directly against tree rings and/or lake varves, into the range of 40,000 years ago (Extension of the C-14 calibration curve to ca. 40,000 cal BC by synchronizing Greenland O-18/O-16 ice core records and North Atlantic foraminifera profiles: A comparison with U/Th coral data, O. Joris & B. Weninger, Radiocarbon 40(1): 495-504, Part 1, Sp. Iss. SI 1998; A 40,000-year varve chronology from Lake Suigetsu, Japan: Extension of the C-14 calibration curve, H. Kitagawa & j. Van der Plicht, Radiocarbon 40(1): 505-515, Part 1, Sp. Iss. SI 1998). That's about as far back as I've seen radiocarbon calibration, though it can be pushed perhaps as far as 80,000 years BP (uncalibrated), with precision mass spectrometry.

And there are, of course, a host of other radiometric & non-radiometric dating techniques. The varve, rhythmite & ice core methods can count the years back to a few million as I recall, while the longest period radiometric methods go all the way back to the beginning of Earth over 4 billion years ago (Radiometric Dating Resource List).

Dunash: Can you give an example of a human artifact that is older than 6,000 years?

A recognition palaeomagnetic study of volcanic and sedimentary rocks from Dmanissi (Caucasus): implications for the oldest human occupation in Europe
A. Goguitchaichvili & J.M. Pares
Comptes Rendu de L'Academie des Sciences Serie II: Fasicule A - Sciences de la Terre et des Planetes 331(3): 183-186, August 15, 2000

ABSTRACT: We report the initial results of a palaeomagnetic study from Dmanissi (Georgia), which has yielded a human mandible and evidence of a lithic industry associated with a Late Pliocene-Early Pleistocene fauna. A preliminary combined palaeomagnetic-Ar/Ar study suggested an Olduvain age for the anthropological level, thus, becoming the oldest sign of human occupation in Europe. Our palaeomagnetic and rock-magnetic study reveals the presence of reverse magnetizations in the sediments that host the human remains and artifacts, thereby ruling out an Olduvain age for the site. An underlying basaltic lava shows intermediate polarities that, given the isotopic age of the rock (similar to 1.8 Ma), can be interpreted as the Matuyama-Olduvain transition.

The pliocene (older) - pleistocene (younger) boundary sits at about 1.8 million years ago (geological timescale). This coincides with the younger Matuyama - Olduvai boundary, also about 1.8 million years ago (the Olduvai chron is a short, normal polarity period inside the longer Matuyama chron; Olduvai runs from 1.8 to 1.95 million years ago; The Magnetic Field of the Earth - Paleomagnetism, the core, and the Deep Mantle, Merrill, McElhinny & McFadden, Academic Press, 1996, fig. 6.11, p. 244).

So we know from the abstract that this site sits on top of the first Matuyama - Olduvai boundary, and can't be more than 1.8 million years old. Although they don't give an age, they do report reversed polarity in the sediments. This means that the sediments are inside the reverse Matuyama chron, and therefore cannot be younger than roughly 730,000 years ago, where the Matuyama - Bruhnes boundary sits. But it is probably older than the Jaramillo, which would make it older than 1.1 million years (the abstract does not mention the older Jaramillo - Matuyama bounary, which leads me to believe that the site dates to the middle Matuyama between 1.1 and 1.8 million years ago).

So, at the youngest, the artifacts reported cannot be younger than 730,000 years old.

Chris Stringer's evolutionary claims that now
Africa is the source of humanity is presented as if it was an undisputed fact. Yet no human bone, artefact or record can be positively dated as being older than 10,000 years, and there is no evidence that our ancestors were apes or ape-like creatures, and no fossils have ever been found to
link human beings with anything other than human beings.

After years of careful study, top researchers like Lord Solly Zuckerman and Professor Duane Gish concluded that the
entire concept of man's evolution from an ape-like creature is a phantasm, and that all the once-sensationalised
"missing-links" such as Cro-Magnon Man, Peking Man, Java Man, Orce Man, Fontechevade Man, Wadjak Man, Grimaldi Man,
Olduvai Man, Foxhall Man, Nutcracker Man, Swanscombe Man, Leaky's 1470 Man, Heidelberg Man, Galley Hill Man, Piltdown
Man etc.etc., were either 100% ape, 100% homo sapiens or 100% hoax!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/sci...00/2118055.stm

The first sentence is simply not true. The second sentence all hinges on how you define "human beings". If you mean Homo Sapiens, then you are wrong. If you mean hominids, then there may be some truth to what you say. However, absence of evidence can't be used to draw any conclusion other than "there's an absence of evidence".

10,000 years? Sheesh!!!!!

While this is straying decidely off-astronomy, I couldn't lket this stand:

What do you accept as "positive"? It's a noted creationist tactic to deny any dating technique that indiactes anything is older than 6000 years or so.

Calling Duane Gish a top researcher is like calling the Fox Moon hoax show "well researched". Gish couldn't give an accurate portrayal if his life (or soul) depended on it.

This is no ad hominem: searching for Gish's name on the TalkOrigins page yields some interesting results.

If Homo Sapiens has been around for the claimed 1 million years, and even assuming an awesome cull rate of 95% per generation, why is humanity not to be numbered in the 100s of billions? Whereas a 6-10,000 year existence fits today's 7 billion perfecto!

http://www.ldolphin.org/popul.html