Kabwe 1 Skull and Redating Human Evolution Again
Proponents of universal common descent have a difficult job, since they have to continually redate various various aspects of evolution. Especially when it comes to humans. Well, if accuracy and results are not that important, it is steady work. For example, the Kabwe 1 from Zambia, H. heidelbergensis.
The skull is thought to be part of an "archaic human" subspecies, H. heidelbergensis, and related to H. erectus, which was an ancient human that has been found in many places. For that matter, the Kabew 1 skull is from Zambia, but its relatives were found in Heidelberg. Ancient humans moved around and spread out quite a bit, and didn't even use private jets. The reason this skull (which has been around for about a hundred years) is garnering attention is because the date has been reassessed, and that in turn is causing problems for the human evolution timeline. These problems keep happening to folks who deny the truth of recent creation. Adam and Eve were our ancestors, not something descended from apelike critters.
We have two articles for your perusal. Similar, but they have different areas of emphasis. This first one discusses the problems of dating methods. These are based on presuppositions of deep time and naturalism, but the methods themselves are fundamentally flawed.
The Kabwe skull is rather complete, but it has been the subject of controversy since its discovery. The dating wreaks havoc with human evolution because of the alleged sequence of ancestors. Instead, they were contemporaries. Heads will roll.
"I hope that's the last joke, Cowboy Bob."
Reckon so. Let's move on.
 |
| Kabwe 1 skull cast image credit: Wikimedia Commons / Gunnar Creutz (CC BY-SA 4.0) |
We have two articles for your perusal. Similar, but they have different areas of emphasis. This first one discusses the problems of dating methods. These are based on presuppositions of deep time and naturalism, but the methods themselves are fundamentally flawed.
Christopher G. asked about a revised date published in April 2020 for the Broken Hill Skull found in Zambia in 1921. He referred to a report from Gizmodo magazine “Humanity’s Origin Story Just Got More Complicated”
You can read the full, uncut version of the article by clicking on "Dating Kabwe 1, the Broken Hill skull from Zambia — Why is Homo heidelbergensis so much younger than previously thought?" Remember to come back for the next one!. . .Christopher’s question was, “Why does an archaeological sample provide different dates through uranium dating. And why was the ‘thin mineral coating’, briefly mentioned in the article, responsible for a such a revised date?” Please help.CMI’s geologist Dr Tasman Walker responded (edited for the web):. . .The issue of dating is confusing to many people because they do not appreciate that researchers can essentially get any ‘date’ they like depending on what sort of date they are looking for. The dates they obtain depend on the samples they select, the sort of sample processing they undertake, the dating methods they use, and the way they interpret the results. And of course, that is all very much driven by their belief system, or worldview.
The Kabwe skull is rather complete, but it has been the subject of controversy since its discovery. The dating wreaks havoc with human evolution because of the alleged sequence of ancestors. Instead, they were contemporaries. Heads will roll.
"I hope that's the last joke, Cowboy Bob."
Reckon so. Let's move on.
To finish reading, click on "Kabwe Skull Casts Doubt on Human Evolution". Yippie ky yay, secularists!“Fossil Skull Casts Doubt over Modern Human Ancestry”. . .This headline above was not from a creationist-friendly publication but, to the contrary, was from a pro-evolution publication. It illustrates what creationists have been saying for decades: that to many scientists, human evolution has become a so-called scientific consensus that is not to be doubted, even when the facts contradict it. The result is that scientists, the courts, academia, the media, and even many, or even most, clergy and Christian colleges are on the side of evolution. What we have on our (the anti-evolutionism) side are the facts, and this is yet another article in a scientific publication that shows the persistence of belief in evolution in spite of the facts.