digg

Join DiggAbout
See the original image at photography.nationalgeographic…

Prehistoric Human Skull - Qafzeh, Israel (Pic)

photography.nationalgeographic… — This 100,000-year-old skull was found in a cave in Qafzeh, Israel, along with other fossils, including a horse tooth and burned flints. Cutting-edge techniques were used to date the fossils —revealing that modern humans left Africa much earlier than had been thought, even coexisting with Neanderthals, once believed to be our ancestors.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • Azerael, on 07/16/2008, -5/+85It was obviously put there by Satan to trick us.
    • CosmicJustice, on 07/16/2008, -39/+5Go play with your Lego's. The adults are trying to talk now sweetie.
      • jrkagan, on 07/16/2008, -3/+26Relax. Azerael's comment was obviously a joke.
      • Azerael, on 07/16/2008, -2/+23Maybe I will... Lego is more intellectually stimulating than most things 'adults' talk about anyway.
      • thepeacemaker, on 07/16/2008, -1/+10 ...you've obviously never messed with Lego's mindstorm kits... that ain't no child's play.
    • dorsey47, on 07/16/2008, -18/+1so are you downplaying your own namesake here? I don't get it, how could a powerless insubordinate fool do anything but destroy himself? or are you of the noevilstarratsliveon type? anyway...I dig it for mispelled demons.
    • SickMonkey, on 07/16/2008, -2/+15If this story was posted on AOL or Yahoo News instead, there would be dozens of posters making the very same comment, only they wouldn't be joking.
      • flashback99, on 07/16/2008, -2/+6yup, AOL and Yahoo are the bastion of republicanism on the web. Their own little safe house.
    • CosmicJustice, on 07/16/2008, -10/+1Oh! Is your name supposed to be "Azrael"? How are you going to be the Angel of Death when you can't even spell it?
    • rinpoche, on 07/16/2008, -1/+12Is it a 100,000 year old Muslim skull or a 100,000 year old Jewish skull? Cause this will just clear up who owns the "holy land" once and for all.

      har!
      • nervoustwit, on 07/18/2008, -0/+0It is a 100 000 year old Brit, judging by the teeth.
    • mwalker05, on 07/16/2008, -6/+1is that sarcasm?
    • MOJIRA, on 07/16/2008, -1/+5I think satan was created by the dinosaurs to test our science.
  • Simus, on 07/16/2008, -2/+18OMG 2 more gaps!!!!
    • dorsey47, on 07/16/2008, -1/+6lol gaps...teeth and theories...
    • mostfynest, on 07/16/2008, -11/+0There'll be plently more of these by the time Iran and the rest of the arab world is finished with them!
  • agreenall, on 07/16/2008, -5/+17Its fascinating the advancements in archeology we have made now in 2001... oh wait its 2008...
    • dorsey47, on 07/16/2008, -2/+11what does time matter? okay so its 100,007 years old...lol
      • BoonTobias, on 07/16/2008, -2/+7that's over 9000!!!!!!!!!!!
      • tripledjr, on 07/16/2008, -2/+1And under 200,000!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
  • Dumbledorito, on 07/16/2008, -2/+35Cavewoman Fortune-Teller: (to a Neanderthall) "I see your little, petrified skull labeled and resting on a shelf somewhere."

    - The Far Side
    • AnonymousSkull, on 07/16/2008, -2/+9One of my favorites. You win teh day.
  • mostfynest, on 07/16/2008, -34/+3There'll be plently more of these by the time Iran and the rest of the arab world is finished with them!
    • damian7, on 07/16/2008, -1/+12Dumbass.
    • wertwwwww, on 07/16/2008, -2/+9Really classless.
    • mostfynest, on 07/16/2008, -17/+0It's true, I'm only trying to get a simple fact across, geez theres no need to get all up tight about it I love jews, look at Einstein and all brilliant people, it's just the way things are looking at the moment I don't think Israel has much time left on this planet.
      • exomni, on 07/16/2008, -0/+2You know how many nuclear weapons Israel has? You know how many Iran has?

        Yeah, I wouldn't worry about Israel.
      • mostfynest, on 07/17/2008, -1/+0You know how many arabs there are?
        Do you know how many NW it would take to eradicte those arabs?

        Yeah, I would worry about Israel.
  • palewook, on 07/16/2008, -11/+2babbabooey babbabooey babbabooey!
  • slurba, on 07/16/2008, -14/+2No missing links my ass.
    • exomni, on 07/16/2008, -0/+3This isn't a missing link, this is a prime example of ***** sapiens.
      • slurba, on 07/17/2008, -0/+0I'm pointing out how people think there are 0 fossils that exist beyond a couple thousand years. 100,000 years old for a human goes back much farther than most people would believe we do, thus its a link of human origins to the past. I should have clarified that.
  • paradisetonight, on 07/16/2008, -13/+1whoopdeedoo!!
  • dildoolielly, on 07/16/2008, -22/+11This 100,000-year-old skull was found in a cave in Qafzeh, Israel.

    It was obviously put there to "test" Christian's "faith".

    See, here is what you call "EVIDENCE".

    Also, a question Christians can never answer; "Why are more people burning in eternal hellfire than in Heaven?"

    Yeah, some "Almighty" Bible-God you got there!!

    And also, unless you Nutbars can find an eyewitness account of this "Jesus" fella, you can STFU too!
    • HakonD, on 07/16/2008, -4/+19Calm down.
      • dildoolielly, on 07/17/2008, -0/+2Sorry but promises of Eternal Hell fire sometimes gets people worked up
    • JeddHampton, on 07/16/2008, -10/+7I thought the Bible had a few eyewitness accounts written in it, or are you looking for someone who is still alive from 2000 years ago?
      • the6thReplicant, on 07/16/2008, -4/+1Like the guy who saw creation (twice!) and wrote about at it.

        I wonder where he is?
      • dildoolielly, on 07/17/2008, -0/+2------------I thought the Bible had a few eyewitness accounts written in it,-------------

        Yeah? What "accounts" where those?
    • dorsey47, on 07/16/2008, -5/+7I fear you are seriously mistaken
    • Nightlurker, on 07/16/2008, -8/+7Because there is nothing called Hell in the sense the Catholic church uses it. Its just a perversion of what the bible actually says, something made up by the church to scare more people to follow them.

      The bible as been right in several points, where science have been wrong. Like with the earth being flat. The bible stated that it was round long before Columbus even began on the thought it wasn't flat.

      But its up to every one what they want to believe. Some want to believe they just die and got nothing more to hope for, while others have a hope to live forever in a world with no war and death. Don't hate someone just because they don't believe the same as you, that's been a major factor for war through out the history of man.
      • Isileth, on 07/16/2008, -1/+7I really need to correct you on the whole round earth issue.

        The Greeks wrote about the Earth as being round back in the 6th century BC.
        Also in India during the 6th century BC Aryabhata worked out the circumference of the Earth to within 62km.

        It was a well known and accepted fact the world was round long before its usually claimed.
      • Azerael, on 07/16/2008, -2/+5Science has given us: Microwave ovens, motorvehicles, the Internet, recliner chairs, space travel, television, portable music, etc.

        Religion has given us: ...uh, Mormons?
      • dirtyfrog, on 07/16/2008, -1/+4When I dugg Isileth's comment the number went down so I figured I would at least provide a source. It is Wikipedia, but it speaks about the Greeks and Aryabhata and more.

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spherical_Earth
      • Nightlurker, on 07/16/2008, -3/+2It was written about yeah, but it was not accepted into science as a fact for a long while. Most people took it as fact that the world was flat. Isn't that sorta the point of science, to prove a fact and get it publicly accepted?

        Same goes for the world floating in free space. That was nothing we could confirm until we actually went up there and looked back at the planet. Yet this was a fact stated in the bible many thousand years before the whole space race was started.

        But either way, its a matter of choice what you believe. If someone believes in evolution that's their choice just like its my choice not to believe in it. But it must be possible to discuss it with out all the name calling.
      • dirtyfrog, on 07/16/2008, -1/+4@Nightlurker
        So it being written in the bible makes it true, but when written and taught by some of the greatest scientists in history it is false until it is observable? If the bible says these things and someone accepts the bible as fact, shouldn't it have been common knowledge the Earth was spherical and in free space when the bible was written? Why did followers of the bible need to wait until the late 1400's/early 1500's to know the world was spherical if the bible already said it was? I guess I am not completely following your points. I am by no means a student of religious doctrine so I am not sure what is actually said in the different books each religion follows regarding this.
      • crowleston, on 07/16/2008, -1/+1I thought scientists liked to shy away from the word "fact." Isn't it all theory?
      • Nightlurker, on 07/16/2008, -2/+1Because most of the people in that time could not read for them selves, and just got thought by the priests. And since the things the priests teached was more to their will then that of the bible, a lot of people had no choice but to believe it.

        As to your first sentence, no. I'm just saying that something science could not confirm until you could actually see it, was stated as fact in the bible a long time before. So people that say the bible is not compatible with science just don't know the whole deal.

        So until I observe evolution happening, I will trust the bible as it has in my view a better track record of being right.

        Its not really much different than scientists believing in the Higgs particle. Its not actually proved to be real with data, just on paper with mathematics.
    • sagat, on 07/16/2008, -6/+5Listen to yourself preach Dildo, same ***** different tune.
      • dildoolielly, on 07/17/2008, -0/+2Ah, yes, typical self-appointed righteous nutbar response.

        Its funny seeing Christians get pissed off with lack of evidence for the mythical Jesus. When you piss them off they start cursing like whorehouse bouncers. Even better yet, they don't recognize any irony in it.
    • SQLserver, on 07/16/2008, -3/+4Guys:
      Looking at this *****'s history, he's just a stupid YEC troll.

      Take back your diggs and digg him down, sirs.
      • dildoolielly, on 07/17/2008, -0/+2Your "response" is not a rebuttal. If you have any disagreements with what I said, state them. Otherwise, would you be so kind as to not click "Submit Comment" next time? Thank you.
    • wwwdot1jesdotus, on 07/16/2008, -3/+5I am a Christian.

      "Why are more people burning in eternal hellfire than in Heaven?"

      The answer: Nobody is burning in eternal hellfire. According to the bible, the judgment comes after the world is destroyed, after which those who's sins are not covered by Christ's sacrifice will be thrown into the lake of fire. Also, those who have died are asleep until Christ comes back and raises them so the only people in heaven are those who God brought there specifically.

      "And also, unless you Nutbars can find an eyewitness account of this "Jesus" fella, you can STFU too!"

      Now that's just silly. There are no eyewitnesses currently living any more than there are eyewitnesses of Socrates or Goerge Washington. However, the bible says Jesus was seen by 500 after the resurrection.

      If people decide they don't believe the bible that's your decision but don't go spouting off about it when you obviously haven't read it.
  • leladax, on 07/16/2008, -5/+18Proof we're all Jews.

    Rejoice to a new feeling of jewdom.
    • synaesthesia, on 07/16/2008, -17/+1***JEWDOM ACQUIRED***

      **PEROGATIVE_01** Secure Homeland [...SCANNING...SCANNING...SCANNING...]
      **PEROGATIVE_02** Homeland acquired. Evict leladax.
      **PEROGATIVE_03** leladax evicted. Occupy former home, relocate leladax to refugee camp, surround with walls and bomb routinely.
      **PEROGATIVE_04** ????
      **PEROGATIVE_05** Profit

      **JEWISH_INITIATION_PROGRAM_COMPLETE**
      • neko6, on 07/16/2008, -1/+6Why do you repeat inventions you know are lies? That makes you a liar as well...
      • AhniTipesh, on 07/16/2008, -1/+5You really had to bring that into this thread...? I mean COME ON...
  • UcIc, on 07/16/2008, -2/+25It's pretty impressive how straight and well kept it's teeth are. I've seen plenty of people today even who have worse teeth than that.
    • megamod, on 07/16/2008, -2/+8They didn't have sweet tarts and smarties 100K years ago. Also notice how his brain isn't disproportionately wide indicating they also did not have SUPA Size McD's meals back then.

      We fails as a species attempting to evolve.
    • rinpoche, on 07/16/2008, -3/+1That's because this skull wasn't found in Britain or in the Southern US.
    • boejangles, on 07/16/2008, -2/+1Lisa (Prehistoric Human Skull) Needs Braces!
  • michael43, on 07/16/2008, -4/+7Pretty good teeth for a 100,000 years. It looks like the wisdom teeth are missing, can anyone tell?
    • goodbyegalaxy, on 07/16/2008, -1/+6Nope, they're all there. 3 molars, 2 premolars, 1 canine and 2 incisors.
      • michael43, on 07/16/2008, -1/+1Thanks. It's remarkable that they are in that good a shape though. Even with modern super-duper electric brushes, water pics, and antiseptic mouthwash, most people still require some sort of dental work today.
    • shakin, on 07/16/2008, -1/+5The teeth are aligned properly because the skull was found in pieces and rebuilt. You can see the off-color patches where they used a binder like cement to replace missing parts of the skull. Besides, teeth are held in by tissue, not bone, so there is no way teeth will naturally stay in place on a skull. They are glued in.
      • michael43, on 07/16/2008, -1/+4oh. I've got one implant so if they find me in 100,000 years, I should still have 1 tooth. They'll probably think I'm from Arkansas then. :)
    • AbsurdParadox, on 07/16/2008, -1/+2Also, keep in mind that without modern levels of sugar in everything, tooth decay, even during the middle ages, was much rarer than today. I didn't have much luck googling, but I remember a news article from a year or so ago where a study was done on exhumed bodies from the 17th century, and cavities were fairly rare, especially by today's standards.
      • michael43, on 07/16/2008, -1/+1That makes sense. My doctor recently put me on a no sugar diet. I never realized how many things are full of sugar until I started shopping for what isn't.
  • rootsm3, on 07/16/2008, -8/+4A face only a mother could love.

    Are you eating?? You look pale!!
  • dorsey47, on 07/16/2008, -11/+2does this mean we change the text books again? nah...who cares, 100,000 is probably wrong too...at least we teach what we know is wrong, staying as far away from belief as possible.
    • SQLserver, on 07/16/2008, -2/+5Idiotic moron. This is just more evidence that agrees with the previous evidence.

      Jesus Christ you are an idiot.
      • SLAM22, on 07/16/2008, -7/+0yes, you cant even remember exact details of your own life from 1 year ago, but "science" can put a 100,000 year tag on somthing....i swear science could be the most retarded thing in the world.
        guess what, my late cousin ernie the winged horse with alligator fangs evolved 10 trillion years ago, isnt that awesome!!!!
      • shakin, on 07/16/2008, -1/+4"yes, you cant even remember exact details of your own life from 1 year ago, but "science" can put a 100,000 year tag on somthing"

        Those two examples are entirely different. You are comparing the memory of one person to a scientific dating process.

        The date for this skull is approximate. They add a margin of error to the final number that National Geographic didn't include in the photo's caption. Despite the fact that radiocarbon dating (I'm not positive that's what they used here) isn't perfect, it is impossible that the date could be off by 90,000 years for the young earth idea to be reasonable. We have dated far too many fossils old enough that proves beyond any doubt that life on earth has been around for many millions of years.
  • rocktopotomus, on 07/16/2008, -5/+1only 2 sentences? wtf?
  • sasmon, on 07/16/2008, -3/+2This isn't really anything new. It's already thought that humans coexisted with neanderthals and left africa around 100K years ago.
  • Depravo, on 07/16/2008, -10/+3This rather invalidates the Jew's claim to Israel as that skull clearly isn't Jewish.

    The nose isn't big enough.
  • SQLserver, on 07/16/2008, -6/+21Well, the crazies have arrived.
    Lets get something clear:
    A. There is a ridiculous amount of evidence that you are dead wrong.
    B. There is NO evidence(besides 2,000 year old fairy tales taken literally) that you are right.
    C. This SUPPLEMENTS the already found evidence, it does not contradict it.
    D. This is just 1 more fossil adding to dozens of fossils between humans and our common ancestor with apes.
    E. There are no gaps that cannot be filled in with simple micro-evolution in almost all major fossil records.(humans, dogs, horses, whales, etc.) Basically all the way from bacteria to you is supported with fossil, genetic, and DNA evidence.
    F. The majority of Christians are not complete crazy morons like you. YOU are alone. The majority of Christians laugh at you.
    • jebzaki, on 07/16/2008, -3/+4nicely put.(in point form)
    • CaptMonkey, on 07/16/2008, -3/+11Actually, D. is sorta wrong. See, according to the article (and the picture), this is a picture of 100,000 year old skull of a human (***** sapiens), which have existed for ~250,000 years. I'm not even sure why people are bringing evolution into the comments here.

      Yes, evolution is real, but it's not the point of this picture and accompanying text. The point was that humans were living in Israel 100,000 years ago, earlier than what we had believed. I guess most of these people failed reading comprehension.
      • kults, on 07/16/2008, -1/+1Israel? It has kind of existed for 60 years.
    • flashback99, on 07/16/2008, -2/+5The very definition of crazy means the very people you are trying to convince, will still believe god did it all.
    • Nightlurker, on 07/16/2008, -8/+1A: A lot of that evidence if not all is using techniques that can give false positives.
      B: Fairy tails that has had scientific facts right long before human science got it right
      C: True *point at A again*
      D: Weird how there is still apes around huh? And great how humans have evolved, more war and destruction now than there was even 100 years ago.
      E: And yet science can't produce living organic material from non organic materials
      F: The majority of Christians don't even follow the whole teaching of the bible, but rather just pick out the parts they like and fills in the rest them selves. I'd rather be alone thanks.
      • RSS14, on 07/16/2008, -3/+7How can you look at the Bible for scientific advice when it is the same book that has a man born out of a fish's belly. Without science, we would still be cleaning our asses with leaves.
      • Nightlurker, on 07/16/2008, -3/+3Well, then you must know something I don't. I can seem to remember where the bible says a man was born out of a fish belly, or was it that he was trapped there but eventually got freed? Something that is far more likely.

        And seeing as TP is made from processed wood, we are not that far from whipping our asses with leaves as it is ;)
      • rinpoche, on 07/16/2008, -3/+6Ah yes the whole argument that evolution can't be true because there are still apes. What a piece of crap argument based on nothing - not even a hint of logic.

        Apes have evolved along with humans. The fossil records prove this out perfectly. The earliest primates were the size of mice. ***** sapiens evolved, as did neanderthals, monkeys, gorillas etc.

        People did not live alongside dinosaurs, nor did Gorillas or orangutans.

        While there may be some gaps in scientific knowledge, the bible was never meant to be used as a science textbook or as pure history. And nobody, not one person, calling themselves a Christian follows the bible 100%. If you did, you would be stoning your naughty neighbors and burning bulls on an altar and refraining from wearing a poly-cotton blend shirt and about 10,000 other stupid rules that were only relevant 2000 years ago.

        BTW - many people don't know that the official position of the Catholic Church is that evolution is real - although I'm sure guided by God.

      • Nightlurker, on 07/16/2008, -6/+2"BTW - many people don't know that the official position of the Catholic Church is that evolution is real - although I'm sure guided by God."
        That just confirms what i said that most Christians don't even follow most of the bible, but i didn't know that. So thanks :)

        But all that you say about if you followed the bible 100% you would do all kinda crazy things like offering cow or what not is simply not true. And you would know that if you knew the build up of the bible. They used offering in the past so that they could pray to God. But after Jesus sacrificed him self that was not needed any more as humans had his offering to use instead of their own. This is just one of the many things people that have not really studied the bible get wrong.

        Its easy to read up on the whole theory of evolution and understand it, but its significantly harder to read and understand the bible.

        And that ape comment of mine might be flawed, but isn't it just as likely that the malformed skulls of neanderthals might just be a decease that did that to humans? Its not like we don't see malformed humans now a days getting caused by decease and not evolution.
      • alarion, on 07/16/2008, -4/+4lol right, because you must believe that the evolutionary path from ape to human meant that magically one night all apes turned into humans... Are you really this retarded?
      • ostracize, on 07/16/2008, -3/+5D. Even Answers in Genesis recommends creationists never use that argument because it is so absurd. That's like asking why Europeans are still around now that we have North Americans.
        E. No, of course not. The only thing we do know (and can empirically prove) is that it happened. If you want to hypothesize further, you need to do it outside of the science classroom.
        F. There is more to the Bible than just reading the words. You have to employ proper hermeneutics and exegesis to really understand what the author was trying to convey. The majority of Christians understand how important this is to really understanding the writings. If you are going to employ a fundamental reading of the Bible in Genesis 1, why not everywhere else in the Bible, say, Isaiah 53 too? Or Revelation 12? There is a lot about ancient Hebrew writing style that we don't understand. It's only when we look at the other cultures that the picture is clarified.

        Look, the Bible was intended to tell us everything we need to know that is necessary for our salvation, not everything we need to know about our physical universe. God gave us the gift and the innate desire to figure that out for ourselves.
      • tallguyg, on 07/16/2008, -1/+1So there just happens to be an entire race of diseased humans? what sense does that make?

        The Bible is not just one big history book and thus, not all parts of it should be taken literally. It was written in many different genres and styles of writing: narrative, historical, poetic, etc. Genesis 1 and 2 is actually a Hebrew poem. Why in the world would we want to take a poem literally? Even the scripture itself refutes a 7-day creation. That same Hebrew word used for "day" in Genesis can also be translated as "period of time". And later on in scripture it even says to God a day is like a thousand years and a thousand years is like a day (obviously not taken literally as well).

        I am a Christian as well but evolution makes no threat to my faith at all. One is science the other Faith. It is only a recent and predominantly modern western bias that unless its "historical" it is meaningless. And thus we have a bunch of American Christians spouting off literal readings of Genesis because for some reason if we dont believe the world was literally created in seven day, it means Genesis 1 and 2 is wrong and the bible has failed us. It hasn't

        The best way to put it is Genesis is a theological anthropology of the human race. not a literal origin of the human race. It does not make it any less true or meaningful.
      • Nightlurker, on 07/16/2008, -1/+1D. Yes, but the fact of the matter is I have not seen living proof of humans evolving. Some might say people might not be evolving physically but our minds are. But then why is the human race decaying instead of improving (related to war, sickness etc)?

        E. Well, then that might be something to figure out then? Seeing as the theory of evolution is that life started from lifeless material and then evolving based on natural selection. Finding old skulls is all nice and dandy but does not prove much if there isn't a proof of how it all started. Seeing as human cells can't function without all the parts being complete(much like how a mousetrap can't function with all its pieces in place), how can then evolution occur?

        F. Yes there is so much more to the bible than Genesis. There is so much in the bible that one human can probably not understand it completely. And as you said, just knowing the words isn't enough. I'm not gonna go into the parts of the bible you mention as it way to much to write about in a digg comment. But some parts of the bible is hard to understand but the parts about evolution really isn't.

        "Look, the Bible was intended to tell us everything we need to know that is necessary for our salvation, not everything we need to know about our physical universe. God gave us the gift and the innate desire to figure that out for ourselves."
        I agree completely, nothing else to say to that.
      • flashback99, on 07/20/2008, -0/+1The bible is work of fiction. Contains NO self-checking mechanisms like science has.

        Burning bushes, people coming back to life, water turning into wine, this called the IMAGINATION.

        The bible is irrelevant to today and I struggle to find it's relevance anywhere in history apart from all the wars caused by people who fought over it.

        It's a work of fiction just like harry potter. If you take it seriously there is something WRONG with you.

        Just because 10 people agree with you doesnt mean you are right, it means that there are 11 people who have something desperately WRONG with their reasoning ability.

        This especially true if you've already seen the evidence for evolution.

        You're wrong, plain an simple, and no amount of arguing and meandering is going to make god real or the bible true.
    • mwalker05, on 07/16/2008, -2/+4guys, lets argue about stuff, ON THE INTERNET!!!!
  • mediaspree, on 07/16/2008, -3/+4He had pretty good dental Hygene. Was this guy Royalty?
    • Coffeedemon, on 07/16/2008, -1/+2Not necessarily. They would have eaten nothing but natural food with no preservatives or additives such as corn syrup like we have in everything today. If they had sense enough to wash food and remove most of the dirt it would have reduced the wear on the enamel as well. Teeth are generally very resistant if treated halfway decently.
  • Ariada, on 07/16/2008, -2/+1really interesting ...
  • SLAM22, on 07/16/2008, -10/+1actually SQL you couldn't be more wrong. your problem along with all the other scientific athiests (not saying you are one) is that you try to fit God into a scientific box, if you cant explain it, then its not possible.

    if you could explain every aspect of God, how he always was, how he formed all this, etc. etc. then there would be no mystery or awe of God, and basically you would be God if you could explain it away. before you jump to conclusions on 1 comment by someone makes with nasty rhetoric, i sincerely ask you to do research, not here-say, read the bible cover to cover, intepret it the right way, seriously take a look at what you say you believe, and dont tell me you have done all this, cause alot of this research takes YEARS. i challenge you, i know you will digg me down probably, because i dont believe the intellectual science that is so easily absorbed by mindless people, but its cool man, at least i came at you, as a christian, with respect and a decent response
    • Depravo, on 07/16/2008, -4/+2"read the bible cover to cover, intepret it the right way"

      By that do you mean 'believe it unquestioningly'?
      • SLAM22, on 07/16/2008, -3/+1not at all. i question EVERYTHING man. i know many christians dont even read into it, they just believe, which is 'wrong" in my opinion. if you believe somthing you should deeply dwell on it.

        to sum up my belief without going into intense detail, i think your life depravo, and sql are worth so much more than millions of years of chance, so that you could just be here for 75-80 yrs and then poof, its like you never existed. Self worth, you say, well i can make a diff in those 80 yrs, but if its all by chance, whats it for? if its all gonna be meaningless in the end? if the world dies out by scientific reasoning, what was it all for? nothing. you can be as good as mother theresa, and there would be no point, except just to get by and admired in your 80 yrs. your worth way more than that, your too complex, and your just plain worth so much more. this is from my heart, im not a right wing bible thumper, but i have a heart for people, and i dont think that the beauty of this world, and space, and all this, was an accident. We have to many feelings, and emotions for it all to be an accident
      • Krille, on 07/16/2008, -1/+1@SLAM22
        what?
        I find my life meaningful and I'm an atheist.
        Please don't tell people their lives are meaningless unless they don't believe...
        To me it seems as if it's some kind of unconscious fear which makes people believe, for example that their life is useless otherwise etc.
        I might be wrong tho.
        But it's just how we see on things, for example I can say that life is useless if there is a god, I mean that means I'm just gods puppy, I'm just someones creation.
    • drn74, on 07/16/2008, -2/+1Incredible!!! science dont try to explain God... Who told you that is a fool? Open your eyes! do you belive that God love human stupidity?
    • yisforyeti, on 07/17/2008, -0/+0In all honesty, Slam, I respect where you're coming from. I think that unlike most of the people who share your views on this particular subject, you actually, genuinely mean well. The reason people react to those views in such a negative manner isn't necessarily because they think you're ignorant or want to tear down your belief system. More likely, they take your unresearched claims about the subject as offensive when compared to their own experience with your area of apparent expertise. That is, religion. Because everyone, EVERYONE, has at some time in their lives, whether they were in mortal danger, falling in love, or just high off their *****, has thought about God in a very serious way. Even the atheists. Hell, probably them more than most. It might not have been in the context of a belief system that has one name or the other, but they thought about it. The same can't be said of the science surrounding the theory of evolution. So, please, be polite and give it some consideration. Do some reading that goes deeper than the articles that get posted on this website. Then make your arguments if you still want to.
  • sultanica, on 07/16/2008, -4/+6700,000-year-old settlement discovered, Humans Wore Shoes 40,000 Years Ago, 37,000-year-old tools found in South Carolina, 100,000-year-old tools found in South Africa and more at http://thecrit.com/category/history/
  • mostfynest, on 07/16/2008, -7/+1There'll be plently more of these by the time Iran and the rest of the arab world is finished with them!
  • EvoPsy, on 07/16/2008, -2/+2Israel is basically a next door neighbor of Africa, so I'm not necessarily surprised that some migrated up to the fertile crescent that early in human history. I think it might be overstepping to suggest that humans migrated up to Europe and interacted with Neanderthals for that amount of time, however. Clearly they did about 40,000 years ago, and maybe earlier, but suggesting 100,000 from a fossil from Israel is misleading.
  • R3DBULL, on 07/16/2008, -8/+8But...but...the bible says....
  • ventralnet, on 07/16/2008, -7/+4IMPOSSIBLE! The world is only between 6,000 to 10,000 years old according to my creationist readings.
  • ganjaguru, on 07/16/2008, -2/+3Its interesting to note how much space there is in both the upper and lower jaws inspite of the fully erupted third molars (Wisdom teeth). As a dentist, most patients I see are have impacted (locked-in, unerupted, growing horizontally,etc.) wisdom teeth, simply because there is no real estate for their presence in the jaw. A few others don't have wisdom teeth at all. I predict the number of people actually having wisdom teeth to reduce over time thanks to evolution.

    A reason why the teeth have such good morphology is probably because a lot of raw food was consumed in those days, and this helped keep the teeth clean and in good function.
  • fx666, on 07/16/2008, -9/+2There is no proof this is a human scull, it could be an ape. The only way to prove that this is a humanoid is to show that he/she has a human blood type. But that is impossible for obvious reasons, so this conclusion is nothing more than a speculation.
    • definedbywords, on 07/16/2008, -1/+4um....what?

      My sarcasm meter is broken, so I'm not really sure what to think...
    • wunksta, on 08/15/2008, -0/+1wow, i thought a paleontologist would have better grammar. i guess ill have to take your word for it that its impossible.
  • adam71o, on 07/16/2008, -2/+0I think you misunderstood SickMonkey's comment, as your reply did not make sense logically, or even sarcastically.
  • fx666, on 07/16/2008, -2/+1You should be sarcastic about the anthropologists who in the beginning of the 20 century thought the orangutan is a primitive human species -- similar mistakes were made before. The anthropology is so imprecise that it cannot be considered as a science ( I am a physicist who deals with clearly defined concepts).
  • kirado4, on 07/16/2008, -1/+1so was it a jewish skull or an islamic skull? ouch my sides hurt..
  • mujahideenryder, on 07/16/2008, -4/+1Qafzeh, PALESTINE!
  • ButterBuddha, on 07/16/2008, -1/+1Nice teeth
  • exomni, on 07/16/2008, -1/+1http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qafzeh
  • WTF69, on 07/16/2008, -0/+1Why do they have a wallpaper button. Really some one would like to have it as their background?
  • rodrigo74, on 07/16/2008, -2/+1"even coexisting with Neanderthals, once believed to be our ancestors. "

    Scientists know that Neanderthals are not our ancestors for quite a few decades already.
  • drn74, on 07/16/2008, -1/+1Qafzeh!!! ....i am unable to pronunce that :D ...could not speleogist name him "John" for example?
  • robohiggins, on 07/16/2008, -0/+1I feel like we are still coexisting with Neanderthals.
  • lopla, on 07/16/2008, -3/+1I am sick of the constant abominations on this digg site, one after another! You 100,000yr old skull believing morons will burn in hellfire. So easy are some tricked by Satan. Praise the Lord and God Bless America!
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.