I always had wondered who the “other people were” that Cain need be so fearful of, when he was sent away from Adam and Eve, after killing Abel.
I wondered if there indeed were an Adam and Eve, who gave birth to Cain and Abel etc…
as well as the existence other humans who inhabited the earth with them at that same time? The scripture seemed to naturally lead me to those questions.
Could it be that evolution and Adam and Eve are both a reality?
I strongly suspect it, because I feel it unwise to believe that 99.9 % of scientists are wrong, or are just making evolution up in some grand scheme to disprove the Bible and Christianity.
Hi Greg,
When you asked the staff of the Museum about the Conrad skull, what did they say?
1 Like
This post is awesome sauce!
2 Likes
Four of his eleven references are Wikipedia. One is a lesson plan for a third grade science lesson. That might not make the article “fake news” but it should definitely make you wonder if it’s “real science.”
2 Likes
I did not ask about that of them. I personally dug via internet towards my best for reliable sources- hard to come by.
believing evolution is a natural inclination if there is no God allowed in the lab (as necessary because the science lab is naturalistic in its essence. What other choice is there-right?
If I am observing and assume no miracles, then my observations will always slant toward this presupposition that the miraculous impossible.
Someone said science is not science-ology or some semantic like that. But most of science by 99.9% of colleges and universities assumes naturalism rules thereby cannot help but interpret through these goggles that are founded upon the belief system. To me, this is dangerous. They may be drawing conclusions based on predetermined belief system that naturally will conclude with a results that are not true.
I believe sometimes we need to leave a mystery a mystery. Yet I see an amazing Creator react in my life in unique ways when I revere the words in the Bible. That is pretty subjective but for another day.
I appreciate the hard work, Greg. Several folks have provided links in this thread to reliable sources that analyze the Conrad skull. One particularly helpful source describes where the artifact was found. Did you read that source? What impact does the site of the finding have on its usefulness?
Also, a good measure of scientific reliability is whether a research finding conforms to the standards of the scientific community. Are you familiar with those standards? How would you describe them in your own words? Does the Conrad skull publication conform with those standards?
Thanks,
1 Like
I have heard this. The study appears legit anyway. I still wonder why there is no reliable source investigating into this find.
This what I learned in college:
The conservation of energy is an absolute law, and yet it seems to fly in the face of things we observe every day. Sparks create a fire, which generates heat—manifest energy that wasn’t there before. A battery produces power. A nuclear bomb creates an explosion. Each of these situations, however, is simply a case of energy changing form. Even the seemingly paradoxical dark energy causing the universe’s expansion to accelerate, we will see, obeys this rule.
Point is energy and matter cannot come from NOTHING. And energy and matter cannot disappear into NOTHING. And the universe cannot be infinitately old. It had to have a start…ok getting a headache thinking about that one.
Don’t blame me how the skull was found. But it was found and apparently the excavators submitted themselves to lie detector tests that indicated that they did dig it from a coal seam. Did anyone do any tests on it? Did anyone to a carbon dating test on it? There should have been a LANDSLIDE of scientists like flied on a …yet I had to learn of a Taiwanese scientist on a CNN website offshoot to learn about the tests accomplished which supposedly determined it indeed a human skull.
If fossils are rare, and to me, human fossils extremely rare, then one single find can rewrite the books.
How far back does the accuracy of carbon dating go, Greg?
You are wrong about how it got discovered, I think. Here’s the documentation I found:
“While walking back to my car, I spotted a copper-colored, peculiarly shaped small boulder in the distance and, for some strange reason walked Over to investigate,” said Conrad. “When I looked it over more closely, I got the distinct impression that it resembled a large skull and took it home.”
So no, it was not found between coal veins. It was found lying about on top of the dirt.
Please bear in mind that there is abundant reason to doubt Liangtai’s supposed analysis that he posted to a CNN public forum:
- Liangtai does not make his primary research available to other scientists. If he were legitimate, he would post links to CT image files in MHD or DICOM format. (It just so happens that I am doing machine learning analysis of CT images recently, so this is something I know a lot about.) The lack of genuine research artifacts is a strong indication that Liangtai is fabricating out of whole cloth.
- His work has not been reviewed by any peers.
- Lin Liangtai is not a scientist. Google his name and look for his profile; you will find nothing. Really, nothing. He is not a faculty member of any university. He is not a researcher at any private institution or company. The 75th result in a Google search is to NBA player Jeremy Lin. There are multiple actresses in morally dubious low-budget films listed in the Google search. But no scientist.
There are also strong indications that the whole thing is a fabrication.
- Conrad’s original reports mention written lab analyses from reputable sources, but they are not published anywhere.
- Supposedly the skull was entrusted to the Hazleton History Museum. I searched the Hazleton History museum website and found not a single mention of the skull. WARNING The site is littered with disgusting spam. Hold your nose if you insist on repeating my search.
I hope these facts help you evaluate the reliability of the Conrad skull, Greg.
I wholeheartedly agree with you, Greg. God created the universe out of nothing. 
2 Likes
Greg, let us just look ar that. Is he a scientist? We know nothing about his training, does he even have a legitimate degree? None are listed. He makes claims that are truly earth shattering, yet has not followed through. Why has he not published this? Does he have a track history of good work? I see only National Enquirer type stories, no body of work? Does he even have an electron microscope? We do not see any association with a research facility. Those are just warning signs that he is not what he appears to be.
Is it a fossil? Look at documented fossils. You will see the skulls are fragmented and look more like pieces of a jigsaw puzzle. It does not have the appearance of a fossil, even to an inexperienced eye like mine.
In short, everything points to a fabricated story. We are told to be wary of such stories and of such people by the Bible. I admire your tenacity, but reserve your energy to defend that which is true.
3 Likes
Evolution does not automatically equal Atheism- another Creationist misconception. Darwin was an Agnostic at the end of his life, but did say in his earlier years that the existence of God was NOT ruled out due to his theory. Some scientists around the same time who looked at similar evidence before the publication of Origin of Species were committed Christians.
People become Atheists when they are led to believe by Creationists that they have to choose between science or God.
1 Like
Here is a collection of related pages:
I have not yet found any material on John A. Wilson, of the Texas Natural Science Center (circa 1964). The Science Center no longer maintains a page on John Wilson or his find:
ROONEYIA
Rooneyia is an extinct genus of primate. The genus includes the species Rooneyia viejaensis. It lived 35 million years ago. Tim Ryan, at the Pennsylvania State University, has scanned the only known specimen.[1]
Rooneyia is an omomyid, which is a prosimian primate family,[2] related to the lemurs and the aye-aye. It is a member of the Subfamily Omomyinae and Tribe Rooneyini. John A. Wilson, at the Texas Natural Science Center, discovered the type specimen in 1964.[2]
Class :Mammalia
Order : Primates
Family : Omomvid
Subfamily : Omomvinae
Genus : Rooneyia Wilson, 1966
Species : R. viejaensis
John A. Wilson, at the Texas Natural Science Center, discovered the type specimen in 1964.[2] Tim Ryan, at the Pennsylvania State University, has scanned the only known specimen.[3]
References
1.^ Amy Barth, “the Secret Life of Fossils”, Discover Magazine, July/August 2009. pp. 38, 40.
2.^ a b c U of Texas website. Accessed June 10, 2009.
3.^ Amy Barth, “the Secret Life of Fossils”, Discover Magazine, July/August 2009. pp. 38, 40.
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
According to this site, there was another example of primate fossils being found in coal-bearing geology:
“Actually, hominid fossils have been reported from coal veins before, notably the “Abominable Coalman” found in an Italian coal mine. See Ancient Man.
From Science Frontiers #77, SEP-OCT 1991. © 1991-2000 William R. Corliss”
Anthracite man?
It is not surprising that the discovery described below has not made its way into mainstream scientific literature. Most mainstream anthropologists would shy away from human bones reputed to come from anthracite coal measures hundreds of millions of years old! Our source is a small newspaper in eastern Pennsylvania.
Scientifically acceptable hominid fossils are no older than a few million years at most. So, when anyone cognizant of prevailing paradigms enters the Greater Hazelton Historical Society Museum, he is astonished to find an:
"…elaborate display of rock-like objects found in the anthracite region by Ed Conrad who insists, based on his 10 years of exhaustive research and scientific testing, that he possesses undeniable evidence that they are petrified bones. "
“Society officials undoubtedly are impressed because a small sign displayed on a front window carries some very large words: ‘This is the only museum in the world where petrified bones, found between coal veins, are on display.’”
The photos accompanying the newspaper article certainly portray objects that “look like” human skulls. E. Conrad also asserts that he had also found hominid jawbones, teeth, a femur, and even a petrified brain! (Anonymous; “Bone Display Draws National Interest,” Hazelton Standard Speaker, December 8, 1990. Cr. L. Farish.)
http://www.science-frontiers.com/sf077/sf077g11.htm
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
[BRIEF WIKIPEDIA ARTICLE GLEANED FROM ANOTHER SITE]
Presumably, based on the skull being found in coal layers more than 30 million years and having primitive enough features, the skull is sometimes referred to as Rooneyia!
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
[BRITANNICA ARTICLE]
OLIGOCENE:
Information on primate evolution during the Oligocene Epoch (33.9 million to 23 million years ago) rests principally on discoveries in two areas—Texas and Egypt. The earliest platyrrhine fossils were found in South America and are only about 25 million years old, so much remains to be learned about their earliest evolutionary history.
[NORTH AMERICAN SKULL - A Omomyid called Rooneyia]
Of unusual interest is the recent discovery of the cranium of a North American omomyid called Rooneyia; it is of particular note in view of a belief that primates had disappeared from North America by late Eocene times. Rooneyia is also of considerable interest in itself. The skull possesses a mixture of primitive and advanced features, precisely the combination that might be anticipated in a transitional form between lower and higher primates.
But by far the most important Oligocene site is Egypt. From the Fayum (al-Fayyūm) region of the Western Desert, from the Qasr El Sagha and Jebel Qatrani formations, has come the first evidence of the emerging Catarrhini. A number of different genera have been described from Fayum, including Catopithecus, Proteopithecus, Apidium, Qatrania, Propliopithecus, Oligopithecus, Parapithecus, and Aegyptopithecus. The first two of these, together with some other primates of uncertain affinities, are from the Sagha Formation, which, technically, is latest Eocene in age, but the deposits are continuous. Aegyptopithecus went on to give rise to living catarrhines (Old World monkeys and apes, whose ancestors did not separate until sometime between 29 million and 24 million years ago). The Fayum seems to depict the cradle of the catarrhines and possibly of the New World monkeys too, since some authors consider the family Parapithecidae (containing Parapithecus, Apidium, and Qatrania) to be closer to the platyrrhines. The other genera represent structural common ancestors of the Catarrhini, which indicates that the catarrhines and platyrrhines had by now become separate, whereas the two modern groups of catarrhines (cercopithecoids and hominoids) had not. From the evidence provided by the Fayum primate fauna, it is evident that quadrupedalism was becoming established as the typical locomotor pattern and that vertical clinging and leaping, the characteristic gait of the Eocene forebears of the fauna, was no longer retained by the genera represented at this site.
Oreopithecus
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (April 2009)
Oreopithecus is an extinct hominoid primate from the Miocene epoch whose fossils have been found in today’s Tuscany and Sardinia in Italy; (from the Greek ὄρος, oros and πίθηκος, pithekos, meaning “hill-ape”). It existed 9 to 7 million years ago in the Tusco-Sardinian area when this region was an isolated island in a chain of islands stretching from central Europe to northern Africa in what was becoming the Mediterranean Sea.[explain 1]
Oreopithecus was one of a large number of European immigrants that settled this area in the Vallesian-Turolian transition and one of few hominoids, together with Sivapithecus in Asia, to survive the so-called Vallesian Crisis.[1] To date, dozens of individuals have been discovered at the Tuscan localities of Montebamboli, Montemassi, Casteani, Ribolla, and, most notably, in the fossil-rich lignite mine in the Baccinello Basin,[1] making it one of the best-represented fossil apes.
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
[CREATIONIST PAGE: HUMAN OR NON-HUMAN JAW]
Was Oreopithecus human or related to humans?
Creationists have taken Hürzeler’s claim to mean that he believed it to be fully human. For this to be true, it would need to show modern morphology. This is nonsense: it belongs to a fossil primate, Oreopithecus bamboli, which flourished during the Miocene period, around twenty million years ago. Some creationists have now reversed their position on the fossil, calling it “an aberrant ape or an aberrant relative of monkeys”. This is a typical creationist ploy: if a fossil is classified as a near-human ancestor, they make it fully human, whereas, if it is classified as unrelated, they make it fully ape or monkey.
The shape of the jaw, which widens towards the read (usually described as being V-shaped) is quite unlike the mandibles of Homo sapiens, in which the sides are more-or-less parallel (usually described as being U-shaped). The teeth (and especially the molars) are quite unlike those of any human ancestor and suggest that Oreopithecus belonged to a different lineage. A visual comparison with other extinct ape species shows just how unlike humans it was. It is now generally classified as a monkey, not an ape.
Below is a link to an earlier issue of the same periodical (via Google Books), dated March 30, 1961, New Scientist, pages 817- +:
GOOGLE BOOKS: New Scientist Periodical, March 30, 1961, pages 817+
What do we think the chances are that Conrad is still alive, or that his work is being preserved by some friend or relative? His email address is listed in this writing:
"Conrad has previously assumed that his findings indicated man’s presence on Earth in the accepted period of the Carboniferous age, i.e. almost 300 million years ago, and his writings in some of the documents noted here reflect that. . . . .
Ed Conrad can be reached at edconrad@postoffice.ptd.net
A special vote of thanks to Dale Jacobson ( jacobson@census.gov ), the best photographer amongst my friends, for the photography on this page and other pages in this WWW system. "
Ironically, I found this on a page that didn’t have a single photo or image… . just text…
This is another view of the famous CNN “ireport” article… the article was written by Lin Liangtai, of Taiwan, who also has more important bulletins, including a Mars meteorite covered in the remains of brain tissue … this sounds like it could be pretty important …
I just read this link below. Here is a quote by Conrad:
“When I brought this to the attention of various scientists and scientific institutions, I was totally ignored and in fact, they treated me as though I was a crackpot, he said. And at this point, I knew I required documentation of the cell structure in my rock like specimens from major laboratories, However, I learned rather quickly that they simply refused to perform the testing, even though I was quite willing to pay them or their time and effort. They simply returned my specimens untested with one weak explanation or another.”
Fact is that there is some kind of fellowship of what I might call the science establishment out there. There is a worldview at play within this fellowship and whether Conrad speaks the truth or not (I have no reason to disbelieve him in this article although if this is a truly unique find, it could indeed sway a person’s demeanor towards odd) I have learned of other instances where what I will call the scientific establishment has thumbed their noses and rejected any who provide evidence that would speak against their common viewpoints-and probably for good reason-there is a money trail not to mention the idea of God and Jesus stinks to a dying world and Christians talking about creationism will usher the idea of God.
I’m sure that there is still good science. I like to hear from the ones who show that rare precious jewel of accepting of the possibility that God could have intervened at any point and in major ways or minor in human kind which would cause for them to pause from determine something to be ultimately true through the likes of naturalistic scientific testing.