January 2, 2020 | David F. Coppedge

Dates of Human Fossils and Foods Challenge Credibility

Nobody would believe these stories if the fossil dates hadn’t been previously whitewashed with the coating of “science.”

If people were to look at these fossils with an open mind, without having first been indoctrinated into evolutionary thinking, they would never believe what scientists are saying about them. The scientists themselves admit that their own interpretations are hard to believe. Yet believe they must, because they had already chosen an evolutionary worldview. All data must fit the worldview, even when the implications sound absurd.

Try a thought experiment. Purge your mind of all evolutionary indoctrination and moyboy beliefs. Just look at these fossils, and then watch what evolutionists say about them.

Fossil Food

A cave in South Africa has turned up the charred remains of vegetables. How old were they when they were burned? And what do they say about the people who ate them? New Scientist says,

By studying the charred remains of hundreds of modern plants under a microscope over the following years, the team were finally able to identify the charcoal fragments as being the rhizomes – subterranean stems – of a plant from the genus Hypoxis….

The rhizomes of Hypoxis plants can be as rich in carbohydrates as potatoes, although they taste more like a yam, says Wadley. They are still eaten today, though they have become rare due to overexploitation.

The eaters, from some time before recorded history, ate potatoes. So much for the paleo diet, quips the author. But now consider that the “expert” scientists say that these remains are 170,000 years old. Not only that, they point to plant remains in Israel that are much older: “Seeds of root vegetables and other plants have found at an 800,000-year-old site in Israel where early humans lived,” the author says, “but Wadley’s find is the earliest clear evidence of roasting.” Are such extreme dates credible?

The scientists sheepishly admit that this overturns the myth that early humans ate meat predominantly. Wadley says with chagrin, “I’m afraid the paleo diet is really a misnomer.” The eaters apparently had a more balanced diet than popularly believed. The scientists also admit that the 170,000-year date seems absurd. Phys.org says,

It is extraordinary that such fragile plant remains have survived for so long,” says Dr. Christine Sievers, a scientist from the University of the Witwatersrand, who completed the archaeobotanical work with Wadley.

The paper in Science claims that the remains were dated by electron spin resonance, but clearly no scientist ever lived long enough to calibrate the method, since electron spin was not even known a century ago, and no scientist could know the pitfalls of extrapolating current processes backward by 3 orders of magnitude. Lead author Wadley works at the Wits Evolutionary Studies Institute at the University of the Witwatersrand, South Africa. Wouldn’t he get drummed out of the institute if he didn’t find evolution?

Scientists like Wadley approach data with expectations about evolution and how long ago humans evolved from an ape-like ancestor. They pick dates that fit those expectations. This forces them to abandon common sense, and tell “extraordinary” stories, wondering how “fragile plant remains have survived for so long.”

Look at the remains under the microscope. None of them come with a “Use By” date on them. Would you have believed the claimed date of 170,000 Darwin Years without prior indoctrination?

You Can Trust Us Now

How many times would you trust a group of experts who keep saying, ‘We were wrong then, but you can trust us now’? The history of early man stories is filled with reversals and revisions. Here comes another one. Paul Rincon at the BBC News announces, “Homo erectus: Ancient humans survived longer than we thought.” Who’s we, Paleface? Don’t let the Tontological phraseology suck you in to someone else’s error.

And what an error: bone diggers looking for Homo erectus fossils in Indonesia “have provided what they describe as a definitive age for the bone bed of between 117,000 and 108,000 years old,” Rincon says. The dates you can dispute, for the reasons stated above. But the real problem confronts the Darwinians: “This represents the most recent known record of Homo erectus anywhere in the world.” He explains why this overturns evolutionary beliefs. (Again, don’t get sucked in by the Tontologisms.)

The findings further underline the shift in thinking this field of study has undergone over the decades. We used to think of human evolution as a progression, with a straight line leading from apes to us. This is embodied in the so-called March of Progress illustration where a stooping chimp-like creature gradually morphs into Homo sapiens, apparently the apex of evolution.

These days, we know things were far messier. The latest study highlights a mind-boggling truth: that many of the species we thought of as transitional stages in this onward march overlapped with each other, in some cases for hundreds of thousands of years.

Darwin’s views led to many racist depictions of evolutionary “progress” – an “ascent of man” from the apes. Such diagrams have long been known to be fake.

So again, Who’s “we,” Paleface? It’s the Darwinians who believed and taught those errors for a century and a half! Can anyone trust them now? If so, there’s a resort on the Isle of DeBris for sale.

Why is this especially problematic for the Darwinians? Homo erectus was supposed to have died out hundreds of thousands of years before modern humans evolved. Instead, they were living side by side with Neanderthals and modern humans. More recent findings show evidence of interbreeding or hybridization with all these groups. There was no evolution; by implication, they were varieties of the same human species. Notice the surprised look on the face of Chris Stringer, a noted “expert” on human evolution:

This age is very young for such primitive-looking Homo erectus fossils, and establishes that the species persisted on Java for well over one million years.

By naming these non-white-European humans with a different species label “Homo erectus,” the evolutionists are acting like racists. They demean people who could sail and travel the world, make tools and cook their meals. You can almost hear the retort from a Homo erectus chief, ‘Who you calling primitive, you jackass? We were hunting mammoths and cooking steaks and potatoes before you were even born!’

Even worse, the Darwinians challenge credibility by insinuating the upright-walking beings with multiple skills never thought of planting a farm, riding a horse, or coming out of caves for hundreds of thousands of years. That challenges everything we know about human ingenuity. In less than 10% of that length of time, humans went from grass shacks to the moon.

The Bible teaches that all humans date back only thousands of years, and arose from one human pair at the creation. After the Flood, it’s easy to suspect due to the human propensity for racism, that certain people groups with deformities were relegated to outcast conditions while their ‘modern’ brethren were building cities. The Biblical story of mankind has not needed revisions every year like the evolutionary story has. Why do people keep falling for Darwin’s tale?


(Visited 929 times, 1 visits today)

Leave a Reply