ChristianToolKit's logo
  "And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature." - Mark 16:15 


Crazy Scientists Dating How Long People Have Been on Madagascar

From BBC Science & Environment Article, Link

Prehistoric humans are the suspected culprit of wiping out one of the largest birds to have existed, the elephant bird of Madagascar, some 10,000 years ago, according to scientists.
"Prehistoric humans are under suspicion of wiping out the largest birds that ever lived after fossilised bones were discovered with telltale cut marks.

According to scientists, it's evidence that the elephant birds of Madagascar were hunted and butchered for food."
According to scientists, as shown from the quote above, fossils have been found - stones, with some marks on them, which scientists say are cut marks on bones, from some 10,000 years ago, and they were caused by human hunters.

Here are a picture of the stones, and from the ruler beside it, they appear to be stones at some approx 7 centimetres (approx 3 inches);

Stone Fossils of Elephant Birds

The old theory - Humans lived on Madagascar 2,500 - 4,000 Years Ago

"Until now, the first settlers were thought to have arrived on the island about 2,500 to 4,000 years ago."
Dr James Hansford,
"This does push back the date of human arrival by 6,000 years, at least," says Dr James Hansford, a scientist at Zoological Society London, UK.
Dr Hansford, of the Zoological Society London, goes on to give us even more theories, proposing re-writing the entire history of all the islands wildlife,
As well as raising questions about human history, the discovery suggests a "radically different extinction theory" is required to understand the loss of the island's unique fauna.

"Humans seem to have coexisted with elephant birds and other now-extinct species for over 9,000 years, apparently with limited negative impact on biodiversity for most of this period, which offers new insights for conservation today," says Dr Hansford.
A fascinating elephant bird egg being compared to a chicken egg;

Embed from Getty Images

What Do You Think?

Notice how the conversation by the scientists has went from "suspected" to a conversation of a "radically different extinction theory", the emphasis has changed from "suspected", "seemed", and, based on what?  A couple of stones with, let's be honest, a couple of stones with some marks on them, literally, as can be seen from the picture, some scratches on them.

How did those scratches appear?  Are they natural?  Did they happen to the stone at a later date?  Were they done by humans at a later date?  Were they done by another animal who was testing its claws or filing its claws?

Here's a picture of a black bear having left its claw marks on a tree;

Black Bear Claw Marks on a Tree

Done by human hunting, or some other animal? Or some other act of nature?

Truthfully, I would say that the 'evidence' based on some scratch marks on a stone (in the picture at the top, notice only one stone has a mark on it), is highly unrealistic to begin with.  I think using the words, 'suspected', 'seemingly' is stretching things as they are.  However, it's enough for scientists to get carried away with fanciful ideas.

And what of people who simply read the headline?  It's easy, from the headline, to assume that it's true: Humans DID live on Madagascar some 10,000 years ago, and, of course, scientists are professional, educated and generally trusted people, how could they get something like this wrong, or would they really base their idea on such flimsy information?  Apparently, they would, and do.

"Suspected" to "Overturns"

Here we have the following quote from the article, pushing the envelope of flimsy 'evidence' even further.  The article moves from "suspected", "seemingly", which were stretches to begin with, to using the word, "overturns", as if, before the end of the article, it's already been proven: Humans hunted elephant birds 10,000 years ago on Madagascar.
"The research also overturns our ideas about the first human arrivals on the tropical island."
Unsurprisingly perhaps, Professor Wright doesn't have any evidence of these people,
"We do not know the origin of these people and won't until we find further archaeological evidence," says Prof Patricia Wright from Stony Brook University, co-researcher of the study.


I wanted to expound on this science article, to show how flimsy the science really is, when it comes to 'investigating' the past, and the lengths scientists are willing to go to pass over something which is nothing, to basically be, hard proof.

Of course, some science IS correct, however, science such as this, science such as evolution, the history of life on the earth, is all rather far fetched and flimsy.  Truthfully, as I look into it, it really does seem as though the purpose is to lead astray, and to try to substitute the truth.  The truth that the earth IS old, however, people have only lived on it for some 6,000 years.  Basically, to try to replace God.

Which is why actual evidence of civilization can only be found covering the last 6,000 years, with most of it in the last 5,000 years, which was the time of Noah's flood, destroying most of the evidence of civilization between 5,000-6000 years ago.
"The question remains - who these people were? And when and why did they disappear?" Professor Wright
You decide!  Personally, I am highly suspect of what so called science like this claims to know or investigate!

β€œHe taketh the wise in their own craftiness: and the counsel of the froward is carried headlong.” Job 5:13
β€œO Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:” 1 Timothy 6:20

Please also read this article, were tests show that it is impossible to distinguish between tool marks on bones and animal marks on bones.

16th September 2018


sitewizardlogo - Top Baptist Websites      KJV Bible Top 500 The Fundamental Top 500