Neat, but those pictures are just slightly creepy at the same time.
"It appears that Yuka was pursued by one or more lions or another large field, judging from deep, unhealed scratches in the hide and bite marks on the tail," Fisher said. "Yuka then apparently fell, breaking one of the lower hind legs. At this point, humans may have moved in to control the carcass, butchering much of the animal and removing parts that they would use immediately.
"They may, in fact, have reburied the rest of the carcass to keep it in reserve for possible later use. What remains now would then be 'leftovers' that were never retrieved."
He explained that the removed parts include most of the main core mass of Yuka's body, including organs, vertebrae, ribs, associated musculature, and some of the meat from upper parts of the legs. The lower parts of each leg and the trunk remain intact.
Buigues added that it appears the humans were particularly interested in the animal's fat and its large bones, which they kept close to the body of the carcass. He believes it is possible that a ritual may have taken place involving the bones.
So.. does this disprove Christian God yet?
poor guy probably didn't survive "Kick a Ginger Day."
So.. does this disprove Christian God yet?
So.. does this disprove Christian God yet?
How? Man lived with and likely hunted/ate mammoths according to both theories.
Even though the body is well-preserved, if the DNA material was frozen, it will present the same challenges as the others (molecular damage to DNA)...right?
But the latest project is far more ambitious.
The Kyoto University researchers are planning an expedition to the Siberian permafrost this summer in search of a flash-frozen specimen still rich in DNA.
Phenomena which can cause damage to cells during cryopreservation mainly occur during the freezing stage, and include: solution effects, extracellular ice formation, dehydration and intracellular ice formation. Many of these effects can be reduced by cryoprotectants.
When having reached the frozen stage, the preserved material is relatively safe from further damage. However, estimates based on the accumulation of radiation-induced DNA damage during cryogenic storage have suggested a maximum storage period of 1000 years.
You seriously think that they give "no reason" for the disappearance? You almost said it yourself: Noah's flood. Even if they didn't believe that the climate changed drastically, which they do, NOTHING they believe contradicts with mankind hunting them to extinction while the climate changed, which is exactly what happened. They simply believe that the population was additionally threatened due to being restarted after the flood and believe that the climate change was due to the flood while we believe the climate change was part of Earth's natural ice age cycle.well, fundies believe that such animals exist because of Noah, yet they give no reason for their disappearance...and only accept that such animals exist in a world that is only 5-6k years-old.
You are seriously misguided if you think they religiously believe that the Earth is 5-6K years old. It's not in their doctrine and is estimated. I've heard fundie estimates between 18-22K years coming straight from the mouths of Creation Research Institute "scientists." There is NO Jewish, Muslim, or Christian agreement on the estimated age of the Earth and the estimate varies WIDELY and EASILY INCLUDES man's encounters with mammoths.Mammoths haven not walked the Earth in ~10k years, dinosaurs ~50mill (well, the "lizard dinosaurs," anyway)
This isn't going to get you any farther because it's all the same facts they dispute. They believe that you are "measuring with your own yardstick" and that the Old Testament has perfect descriptions of dinosaurs (Leviathon and Behemoth). Regardless, it is not even applicable to the 10K year mammoth "contradiction" that isn't a contradiction.This is all fact, of course.
I have to wonder just how much incentive you had to twist this into some anti-fundie "discovery." Admit it: You just hate them.so, basically: you just have to wonder how worthwhile that second theory is, no?
You seriously think that they give "no reason" for the disappearance? You said it yourself: The flood. Even if they didn't believe that the climate changed drastically, which they do, NOTHING they believe contradicts with mankind hunting them to extinction while the climate changed, which is exactly what happened.
You are seriously misguided if you think they religiously believe that the Earth is 5-6K years old. It's not in their doctrine and is estimated. I've heard fundie estimates between 18-22K years coming straight from the mouths of Creation Research Institute "scientists." There is NO Jewish, Muslim, or Christian agreement on the estimated age of the Earth and the estimate varies WIDELY and EASILY INCLUDES man's encounters with mammoths.
This isn't going to get you any farther because it's all the same facts they dispute. They believe that you are "measuring with your own yardstick" and that the Old Testament has perfect descriptions of dinosaurs (Leviathon and Behemoth). Regardless, it is not even applicable to the 10K year mammoth "contradiction" that isn't a contradiction.
I have to wonder just how much incentive you had to twist this into some anti-fundie "discovery." Admit it: You just hate them.
Yet another frozen mammoth does not contradict the timeline/dating dispute any more than a fossil and many believe the earth to be plenty old enough so you are really forcing your own narrow idea of what "fundies" believe in an attempt to laugh at them. If anything, it only helps their case that man co-existed with all animals on this planet in the last 30,000 years, and yet you come to the exact opposite conclusion of what it means for them.
You are seriously misguided if you think they religiously believe that the Earth is 5-6K years old.
Are you serious? Based on evolutionist claims, the earth is millions (maybe billions) of years old, and that is how one thing evolved from another until it finally made its way to modern man. Science totally refutes these claims. I'll paste the website I found all this in at the end of this post, but here are some of my favorites:
Research studies indicate that our sun is gradually shrinking at a steady rate of seconds of arc per century. At its rate of shrinkage, as little as 50,000 years ago the sun would have been so large that our oceans would boil. But in far less a time than 50,000 years, life here would have ceased to exist. Recent studies have disclosed that neither the size of the sun, nor our distance from it, could be much greater or smaller—in order for life to be sustained on our planet.
30 - EARTH ROTATION—The spin of the earth—which is now about 1,000 miles [1609 km] an hour—is gradually slowing down. Gravitational drag forces of the sun, moon, and other factors cause this. If the earth were really billions of years old, as claimed, it would already have stopped turning on its axis! This is yet another evidence that our world is not very old.
Lord Kelvin (the 19th-century physicist who introduced the Kelvin temperature scale) used this slowing rotation as a reason why the earth could not be very old. The decline in rotation rate is now known to be greater than previously thought (Thomas G. Barnes, "Physics: A Challenge to ‘Geologic Times,’ " Impact 16, July 1974).
Using a different calculation, we can extrapolate backward from our present spin rate; and 5 billion years ago our planet would have had to be spinning so fast it would have changed to the shape of a flat pancake. We, today, would still have the effects of that: Our equator would now reach 40 miles [64 km] up into the sky, and our tropical areas—and all our oceans—would be at the poles. So, by either type of calculation, our world cannot be more than a few thousand years old.
31 - MAGNETIC FIELD DECAY—As you probably know, the earth has a magnetic field. Without it, we could not use compasses to identify the direction of magnetic north (which is close to the North Pole). Dr. Thomas G. Barnes, a physics teacher at the University of Texas, has authored a widely used college textbook on electricity and magnetism. Working with data collected over the past 135 years, he has pointed out that earth’s magnetic field is gradually decaying. Indeed, he has shown that this magnetic field is decreasing exponentially, according to a decay law similar to the decay of radioactive substances.
In 1835 the German physicist, K.F. Gauss, made the first measurement of the earth’s magnetic dipole moment; that is, the strength of earth’s internal magnet. Additional evaluations have been carried out every decade or so since then. Since 1835, global magnetism has decreased 14 percent!
On the basis of facts obtained from 1835 to 1965, this magnetic field appears to have a half-life of 1,400 years. On this basis, even 7,000 years ago, the earth would have had a magnetic field 32 times stronger than it now has. Just 20,000 years ago, enough Joule heat would have been generated to liquefy the earth. One million years ago the earth would have had greater magnetism than all objects in the universe, and it would have vaporized! It would appear that the earth could not be over 6,000 or 7,000 years old. (On the accompanying graph, beyond the point where the curve becomes vertical, our planet would have had the magnetosphere power of a magnetic star!)
"The over-all intensity of the field is declining at a rate of 26 nanoteslas per year . . If the rate of decline were to continue steadily, the field strength would reach zero in 1,200 years."—*"Magnetic Field Declining," Science News, June 28, 1980.
"In the next two millennia, if the present rate of decay is sustained, the dipole component of the [earth’s magnetic] field should reach zero."—*Scientific American, December 1989.
This magnetic decay process is not a local process, such as one would find in uranium, but worldwide; it affects the entire earth. It has been accurately measured for over 150 years, and is not subject to environmental changes since it is generated deep in the earth’s interior.
If any fundamental planetary process ought to be a reliable indicator of the earth’s age, it should be our earth’s magnetic field—and it indicates an upper limit of decidedly less than 10,000 years for the age of the earth.
Most of the factors described above would apply to the age of the earth, which appears to be decidedly less than 10,000 years.
Most of the following items of evidence would apply to the length of time since the Flood, which evidence indicates may have occurred about 4350 years ago.
http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/sci-ev/sci_vs_ev_4.htm
Evolution is the easy way out, not belief in a loving God from the New Testament in the Bible. Evolution removes all responsibility from mankind for our sin because we can blame it on our "animal instincts". Charles Darwin himself later in his life refuted all his evolutionary research as a made up idea. The earth did not randomly happen millions of years ago, nor are any of my ancestors monkeys
well, fundies believe that such animals exist because of Noah, yet they give no reason for their disappearance...and only accept that such animals exist in a world that is only 5-6k years-old.
Mammoths haven not walked the Earth in ~10k years, dinosaurs ~50mill (well, the "lizard dinosaurs," anyway)
This is all fact, of course.
so, basically: you just have to wonder how worthwhile that second theory is, no?
You seriously think that they give "no reason" for the disappearance? You almost said it yourself: Noah's flood. Even if they didn't believe that the climate changed drastically, which they do, NOTHING they believe contradicts with mankind hunting them to extinction while the climate changed, which is exactly what happened. They simply believe that the population was additionally threatened due to being restarted after the flood and believe that the climate change was due to the flood while we believe the climate change was part of Earth's natural ice age cycle.
I don't usually post but you guys are all so smart I just wanted to congratulate you
With a song
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5eBT6OSr1TI&sns=em
No--I said very well that it wasn't Noah's flood--They exist because Noah saved them, obviously. (How would I have suggested that they were killed in the flood at the same time they were saved from the flood?) But then no reason is given for their disappearance in a world that is only 5-6k years old--A world that is factually far too young for these animals to have even existed, period.
You didn't read my comments.
Yes, I don't like fundies because they are purposefully ignorant and misguided.
This has nothing to do with religious people. I am talking about fundies. I dislike them probably as much as you hate and fear evil libruls.