Oldest evidence of human remains?

[j102]

Here is an article published today that I thought would be of interest.

JERUSALEM - Israeli archaeologists said Monday they may have found the earliest evidence yet for the existence of modern man, and if so, it could upset theories of the origin of humans.

A Tel Aviv University team excavating a cave in central Israel said teeth found in the cave are about 400,000 years old and resemble those of other remains of modern man, known scientifically as Homo sapiens, found in Israel. The earliest Homo sapiens remains found until now are half as old.

"It's very exciting to come to this conclusion," said archaeologist Avi Gopher, whose team examined the teeth with X-rays and CT scans and dated them according to the layers of earth where they were found.

He stressed that further research is needed to solidify the claim. If it does, he says, "this changes the whole picture of evolution."

....

unfortunately the evolutionist and atheist will do 1 of 2 things, either ignore this finding and keep silent about it or twist the findings to support their own cause

[Longford]

Here is an article published today that I thought would be of interest.

JERUSALEM - Israeli archaeologists said Monday they may have found the earliest evidence yet for the existence of modern man, and if so, it could upset theories of the origin of humans.

A Tel Aviv University team excavating a cave in central Israel said teeth found in the cave are about 400,000 years old and resemble those of other remains of modern man, known scientifically as Homo sapiens, found in Israel. The earliest Homo sapiens remains found until now are half as old.

"It's very exciting to come to this conclusion," said archaeologist Avi Gopher, whose team examined the teeth with X-rays and CT scans and dated them according to the layers of earth where they were found.

He stressed that further research is needed to solidify the claim. If it does, he says, "this changes the whole picture of evolution."

....

unfortunately the evolutionist and atheist will do 1 of 2 things, either ignore this finding and keep silent about it or twist the findings to support their own cause

I do not understand why you say that evolutionists and atheists would "ignore this finding and keep silent about it or twist the findings to support their own cause." Are you implying that the finding somehow disproves the concept of evolution? I can see that it might change the timeline, but I cannot see that it in any way challenges the concept. Please explain.

[j102]

Here is an article published today that I thought would be of interest.

JERUSALEM - Israeli archaeologists said Monday they may have found the earliest evidence yet for the existence of modern man, and if so, it could upset theories of the origin of humans.

A Tel Aviv University team excavating a cave in central Israel said teeth found in the cave are about 400,000 years old and resemble those of other remains of modern man, known scientifically as Homo sapiens, found in Israel. The earliest Homo sapiens remains found until now are half as old.

"It's very exciting to come to this conclusion," said archaeologist Avi Gopher, whose team examined the teeth with X-rays and CT scans and dated them according to the layers of earth where they were found.

He stressed that further research is needed to solidify the claim. If it does, he says, "this changes the whole picture of evolution."

....

unfortunately the evolutionist and atheist will do 1 of 2 things, either ignore this finding and keep silent about it or twist the findings to support their own cause

I do not understand why you say that evolutionists and atheists would "ignore this finding and keep silent about it or twist the findings to support their own cause." Are you implying that the finding somehow disproves the concept of evolution? I can see that it might change the timeline, but I cannot see that it in any way challenges the concept. Please explain.

i say it because its true.....how often do they have some new explanation and then find out it's wrong? also compare the media

exposure a new finding gets and compare it to how much media exposure that same "explanation" gets when the scientific community finds out they were wrong. does anyone remember the pigs tooth fossil that was supposed to be the missing link?

also i wonder why they dont want to talk about the fossil footprints of human and dinosaur right next to each other? and those footprints were made pretty much at the same time, not millions of years apart like evolutionist preach.

[j102]

I, I, say boy there be trolls under thare bridge

Edited January 10, 2011 by j102

[Longford]

Here is an article published today that I thought would be of interest.

JERUSALEM - Israeli archaeologists said Monday they may have found the earliest evidence yet for the existence of modern man, and if so, it could upset theories of the origin of humans.

A Tel Aviv University team excavating a cave in central Israel said teeth found in the cave are about 400,000 years old and resemble those of other remains of modern man, known scientifically as Homo sapiens, found in Israel. The earliest Homo sapiens remains found until now are half as old.

"It's very exciting to come to this conclusion," said archaeologist Avi Gopher, whose team examined the teeth with X-rays and CT scans and dated them according to the layers of earth where they were found.

He stressed that further research is needed to solidify the claim. If it does, he says, "this changes the whole picture of evolution."

....

unfortunately the evolutionist and atheist will do 1 of 2 things, either ignore this finding and keep silent about it or twist the findings to support their own cause

I do not understand why you say that evolutionists and atheists would "ignore this finding and keep silent about it or twist the findings to support their own cause." Are you implying that the finding somehow disproves the concept of evolution? I can see that it might change the timeline, but I cannot see that it in any way challenges the concept. Please explain.

i say it because its true.....how often do they have some new explanation and then find out it's wrong? also compare the media

exposure a new finding gets and compare it to how much media exposure that same "explanation" gets when the scientific community finds out they were wrong. does anyone remember the pigs tooth fossil that was supposed to be the missing link?

also i wonder why they dont want to talk about the fossil footprints of human and dinosaur right next to each other? and those footprints were made pretty much at the same time, not millions of years apart like evolutionist preach.

I'm sorry, but you seem to have forgotten to actually answer the question. Let me repeat it, more clearly this time: Are you implying that the finding (the finding of evidence for an earlier date for modern man) somehow disproves the concept of evolution? If so, please explain exactly what the contradiction is.

[Longford]

also i wonder why they dont want to talk about the fossil footprints of human and dinosaur right next to each other? and those footprints were made pretty much at the same time, not millions of years apart like evolutionist preach.

It appears they don't want to talk about it because it has been thoroughly debunked. Here is a typical quote:

"For many years claims were made by strict, "young-earth" creationists that human footprints or "giant man tracks" occur alongside fossilized dinosaur tracks in the limestone beds of the Paluxy River, near Glen Rose Texas. If true, such a finding would dramatically contradict the conventional geologic timetable, which holds that humans did not appear on earth until over 60 million years after the dinosaurs became extinct. However, the "man track" claims have not stood up to close scientific scrutiny, and in recent years have been abandoned even by most creationists. The supposed human tracks have involved a variety of phenomena, including forms of elongate, metatarsal dinosaur tracks, erosional features, indistinct markings of uncertain origin, and a smaller number of doctored and carved specimens (most of the latter occurring on loose blocks of rock). A few individuals continue to promote the Paluxy "man tracks" or alleged human tracks in pre-Tertiary rocks from other localities, but such claims are not considered credible by either mainstream scientists or major creationist groups. When examined thoroughly and carefully, the Paluxy tracks not only provide no positive evidence for strict creationism, but are found to be among many other lines of geologic evidence which indicate a long and complex earth history." Glen J. Kuban, http://paleo.cc/paluxy/paluxy.htm

If you follow the link, you will find this discussed in great detail.