Freethought & Rationalism Archive

tgamble · 12-23-2002, 07:23 PM

Quote:

"For years the KBS tuff, named for Kay Behrensmeyer, was dated using Potassium Argon (K-Ar) at 212-230 Million years."
All the scientists undeniably agreed that the tuff was 212 � 230 million years old.

"Then skull #KNM-ER 1470 was found (in 1972) under the KBS tuff by Richard Leakey. It looks like modern humans but was dated at 2.9 million years old. Since a 2.9 million year old skull cannot logically be under a lava flow 212 million years old many immediately saw the dilemma. If the skull had not been found no one would have suspected the 212 million year dates as being wrong. Later, 10 different samples were taken from the KBS tuff and were dated as being .52- 2.64 Million years old. (way down from 212 million. Even the new "dates" show a 500% error!) Bones of Contention by Marvin Lubenow, pp. 247-266"

After the skull was found, scientists undeniably agreed that the tuff was between .52- 2.64 Million years old. I know for a fact that this really did happen exactly as Kent Hovin said.
http://www.drdino.com/cse.asp?pg=faq&specific=3

Even through Dr. Dino is a brilliant and respected scientist. (

) I have serious doubts that the above claims are accurate or complete in all details. I'm hopeing someone here knows the full story. Thanks!

edited to add:

Found these links giving some information about it.

http://www.mc.maricopa.edu/academic/...bi/koobi3.html

http://members.cox.net/ardipithecus/...es/lie024.html

Any additonal information would still be welcome.

Outblaze · 12-23-2002, 09:58 PM

http://www.asa3.org/archive/ASA/199711/0419.html

http://www.asa3.org/archive/ASA/199711/0429.html

ps418 · 12-24-2002, 12:27 PM

Quote:

Then skull #KNM-ER 1470 was found (in 1972) under the KBS tuff by Richard Leakey. It looks like modern humans. . .

KNM-ER 1470 (H. rudolfensis) looks like "modern humans"? That statement is so obviously wrong that I hardly know where to begin. 1470 looks very different from modern humans. To start with, the cranial volume is about 700cc, about half of modern human skulls. Because of its similarity to the australopithecines, some paleoanthropologists have proposed that this skull should be referred to that genus rather than to Homo. Creationists themselves are divided on whether 1470 is "fully ape" or "fully human."

Quote:

"The endocranial capacity and the morphology of the calvaria [braincase] are characters that suggest inclusion within the genus Homo, but the maxilla [upper jaw] and facial region are unlike those of any known form of hominid." (Leakey 1973)
"From the size of the palate and the expansion of the area allotted to molar roots, it would appear that ER 1470 retained a fully Australopithecus-sized face and dentition." (Brace et al. 1979)

"KNM-ER 1470, like other early Homo specimens, shows many morphological characteristics in common with gracile australopithecines that are not shared with later specimens of the genus Homo" (Cronin et al. 1981)

"There is no evidence that this cranium particularly resembles H. sapiens or H. erectus according to either phenetic or cladistic evidence. Phenetically, KNM-ER 1470 is closest to the remains from Olduvai [considered apes by creationists] referred to H. habilis. (Wood 1991)

"Ignoring cranial capacity, the overall shape of the specimen and that huge face grafted onto the braincase were undeniably australopithecine." (Walker and Shipman 1996)

Creationist Arguments: Homo habilis

JonF · 12-30-2002, 04:52 PM

You might find Re: The KBS tuff and Radiometrics interesting (it's a reply to Re: The KBS tuff and Radiometrics). See also Radiometric Dating and the Geological Time Scale - Specific Examples: When Radiometric Dating "Just Works" (or not) - A poor example

Godbert · 12-30-2002, 04:58 PM

I think the two most common dating errors are being fashionably late and proposing to split the bill.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

12-23-2002, 09:58 PM	#2
Outblaze Junior Member Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: NC Posts: 33	http://www.asa3.org/archive/ASA/199711/0419.html http://www.asa3.org/archive/ASA/199711/0429.html

12-30-2002, 04:52 PM	#4
JonF Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Acton, MA USA Posts: 1,230	You might find Re: The KBS tuff and Radiometrics interesting (it's a reply to Re: The KBS tuff and Radiometrics). See also Radiometric Dating and the Geological Time Scale - Specific Examples: When Radiometric Dating "Just Works" (or not) - A poor example

12-30-2002, 04:58 PM	#5
Godbert Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: southern california Posts: 779	I think the two most common dating errors are being fashionably late and proposing to split the bill.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.