Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Miocene humans
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 1 of 89 (230375)
08-06-2005 1:31 AM


Awhile back on one of these threads, someone suggested ToE could be falsified if we found very old human remains or artifacts, such as millions of years in the past.
That made me wonder if perhaps this hasn't already occurred, and like much of the story of evolution, the data has been twisted to make it fit into evolutionary paradigms, and sure enough, we see human artifacts and remains in the mid Miocene period.
In 1872, at the International Congress of Prehistoric Anthropology and Archaeology meeting in Brussels, Ribeiro gave another report on his discoveries and displayed more specimens, mostly pointed flakes. A. W. Franks, Conservator of National Antiquities and Ethnography at the British Museum, stated that some of the specimens were the product of intentional work.
Ribeiro's Miocene flints made an impressive showing, but remained controversial. At the Paris Exposition of 1878, Ribeiro displayed specimens of Tertiary flint tools in the gallery of anthropological science. De Mortillet visited Ribeiro's exhibit and, in the course of examining the specimens carefully, decided that they had indubitable signs of human work.
De Mortillet, along with his friend and colleague Emile Cartailhac, enthusiastically brought other archaeologists to see Ribeiro's specimens, and they were all of the same opinion: the flints were definitely made by humans. Cartailhac then photographed the specimens, and de Mortillet later presented pictures in his Muse Prhistorique (G. and A. de Mortillet, 1881).
De Mortillet (1883:99) wrote: "The intentional work is very well established, not only by the general shape, which can be deceptive, but much more conclusively by the presence of clearly evident striking platforms and strongly developed bulbs of percussion.
....
Miocene flint tools are reported from Puy de Boudieu, near Aurillac, in the department of Cantal in the Massif Central region of France (Verworn, 1905). The flint implements were found in layers of fluviatile sands, stones and eroded chalk, along with fossils of a typical Miocene fauna, including Dinotherium giganteum, Mastodon longirostris, Rhinocerus schleiermacheri and Hipparion gracile. The implement-bearing layers were covered with basalt flows (Verworn, 1905:17).
Verworn was very cautious in identifying the objects he found as objects manufactured by humans. Summarising his methodology, Verworn (1905:29) said:
"Suppose I find in an interglacial stone bed a flint that bears a clear bulb of percussion, but no other symptoms of intentional work. In that case, I would be doubtful as to whether or not I had before me an object of human manufacture. But suppose I find there a flint which on one side shows all the typical signs of percussion, and which on the other side shows the negative impressions of two, three, four or more flakes removed by blows in the same direction. Furthermore, let us suppose one edge of the piece shows numerous successive small parallel flakes removed, all running in the same direction, and all, without exception, located on the same side of the edge. Let us suppose that all the other edges are sharp, without a trace of impact or rolling. Then I can say with complete certainty: it is an implement of human manufacture."
Page not found - Nexus Magazine
Thus the stone tools he found in them were evidence for a human presence in the Tertiary of Portugal. Most of his discoveries occurred in formations of lower Miocene age, which would make them about 20 million years old. For decades, his discoveries attracted considerable and often favorable attention in scientific circles. But the announcement of the discovery of Java man in the 1890s changed things. Java man was from the earliest Quaternary, and was accompanied by no stone tools. From that point on, most scientists thought it impossible that makers of stone tools existed in the Tertiary, and Ribeiro's discoveries slid into oblivion. Having only read about them in his reports, it was quite an experience, this July, to go into the old Museum of Geology in Lisbon, and handle the actual artifacts. They were hidden away in the storage cabinets, no longer displayed to the public.
When I looked at the collections, I saw that some of them had some interesting labels. Originally classified by Ribeiro as Miocene or Pliocene, the new labels, written in the early 20th century, assigned the objects to accepted stone tool industries of the middle and late Pleistocene. At that time, the objects were apparently still on display. But some time after that they were removed from display. When I was at the museum, the director said he would like to put the objects on display once more. I take that as a sign of progress. It was also interesting to touch and read Ribeiro's original field notes and maps. And finally, it was interesting to retrace his steps to some of the sites where he found his Miocene artifacts. The paper I gave on Ribeiro's discoveries was well received at the European Association of Archeologists annual meeting in Lisbon this September. Ribeiro must have felt something special when he took the artifacts out of the ground, where they had lain buried for millions of years. And I felt something special as I took them out of the scientific oblivion, in which they had lain for many decades.
flash3
In the basement of the British Museum of Natural History there is a two-ton slab of limestone which was quarried from the Grande Terre deposits on the Caribbean island of Guadeloupe, in 1812. The rock is dated by evolutionists as being Lower Miocene. The slab clearly contains the skeletal remains of a female human being who died a violent death. She would have stood about 5 feet 2 inches high.
The limestone is harder than statuary marble, and it enveloped the body while the sediment was still in a liquid state, prior to hardening into rock. The body was buried suddenly and catastrophically based upon the position of the bones. The organic material in the rock proves that the body had not decayed prior to burial. Using evolutionary time scales this human skeleton would be dated as 25 million years old! That would be 21 million years earlier than any supposed findings of pre-humans in East Central Africa. (Kinda like the right hand doesn't know what the left hand is doing.)
This evidence was not hidden at first. During the early nineteenth century it was openly displayed in England as a scientific curiosity and many other such remains were claimed to have been found on the island. Once Darwinianism became established in academic circles, however, the specimen was quietly removed to the basement of the Museum where its last public viewing was in the 1930s. (The last geological survey of the island that mentions the presence of human remains in these Lower Miocene deposits, is that of Spencer, 1901.)
The page you requested cannot be found!
This message has been edited by randman, 08-06-2005 01:34 AM

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Yaro, posted 08-06-2005 10:23 AM randman has not replied
 Message 4 by Yaro, posted 08-06-2005 10:35 AM randman has not replied
 Message 6 by Percy, posted 08-06-2005 11:27 AM randman has not replied
 Message 22 by wj, posted 08-07-2005 7:08 AM randman has replied

  
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 2 of 89 (230386)
08-06-2005 4:00 AM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

  
Yaro
Member (Idle past 6496 days)
Posts: 1797
Joined: 07-12-2003


Message 3 of 89 (230404)
08-06-2005 10:23 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by randman
08-06-2005 1:31 AM


Do you have any references to anything found after 1905?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by randman, posted 08-06-2005 1:31 AM randman has not replied

  
Yaro
Member (Idle past 6496 days)
Posts: 1797
Joined: 07-12-2003


Message 4 of 89 (230406)
08-06-2005 10:35 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by randman
08-06-2005 1:31 AM


Your Sources
NEXUS Magazine?
This is from their home page:
NEXUS is an international bi-monthly alternative news magazine, covering the fields of: Health Alternatives; Suppressed Science; Earth's Ancient Past; UFOs & the Unexplained; and Government Cover-Ups.
Time to get your:
The other source (Michael A. Cremo) is some Quack promoting Hindu Mysticism. His book is titled:
HUMAN DEVOLUTION:
A VEDIC ALTERNATIVE TO DARWIN'S THEORY
Amazon
And your final link: Creation Worldview Ministries
Seems to buy all the crap in the rest of your sources, not giving a whit that the proponents don't even support the christian world view your trying to promote.
I don't think, given the quality of the sources, we can even proceed with a discussion. Do you have anything more credible?
This message has been edited by Yaro, 08-06-2005 10:42 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by randman, posted 08-06-2005 1:31 AM randman has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by CK, posted 08-06-2005 10:56 AM Yaro has not replied

  
CK
Member (Idle past 4128 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 5 of 89 (230410)
08-06-2005 10:56 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by Yaro
08-06-2005 10:35 AM


Re: Your Sources
Let check out some of the "quality" material in Nexus:
quote:
The Gilgamesh Project
With multiple awards to his name for cancer research, this childhood prodigy was silenced when his forbidden science began closing in on the secret of eternal life.
Page not found - Nexus Magazine
quote:
he Dragon Snake
A Solomon Islands UFO Mystery
This former RAAF engineer's startling experiences, along with his knowledge of the Solomon Islanders' long history of encounters with strange aerial craft and alien beings, sparked him to search for hidden UFO bases.
Page not found - Nexus Magazine
quote:
An Alien Detour
Stopped at night on the side of the road, two Russian truck drivers were astounded by the sight of a spaceship before them and amazed when one of the drivers was welcomed aboard.
Page not found - Nexus Magazine
The creationist site is the normal crap upto and including rubbish like this:
The page you requested cannot be found!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Yaro, posted 08-06-2005 10:35 AM Yaro has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 6 of 89 (230416)
08-06-2005 11:27 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by randman
08-06-2005 1:31 AM


This is the Internet, where anyone can say anything they like. The only interesting question suggested by your OP concerns what criteria you are applying when you judge a source credible. What would you think of an atheist who posted this in one of the religious forums:
I found this site that says that Christianity was actually a Roman plot that backfired. They funded a local religious firebrand named Jesus to promote his anti-Jewish teachings in order to undermine Jewish resistance to Roman rule. This site describes ancient Roman writings that show this is what happened. (followed by a site excerpt full of fabrications, misquotes, out-of-context quotes and quotes from charlatans; other parts of the site deal with alien abductions, pyramid power and spoon bending).
Would you think the person posting this perhaps lacks critical judgment?
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by randman, posted 08-06-2005 1:31 AM randman has not replied

  
Yaro
Member (Idle past 6496 days)
Posts: 1797
Joined: 07-12-2003


Message 7 of 89 (230494)
08-06-2005 3:46 PM


*BUMP*
Just didn't want randman to forget his other thread. Were all so busy with the whale thing and all.

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 8 of 89 (230498)
08-06-2005 4:06 PM


the book Nexus quotes is well-attested to
Nexus is just repeating a different source, Michael A. Cremo, and he is not some quack. I suggest some of you study up on the subject before you bash something you do not understand.
Part of the problem with using the internet is that much of real data is not available in copy and past mode. It is written in books, and where you find the quotes are often in web-sites that are less than desirable, as in this case, but that does not change the source material, which one would have to buy and painstakingly retype to reproduce here.
Are any of you willing to tackle the claims, the actual data, shown in the quotes?
thought so

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by Yaro, posted 08-06-2005 4:12 PM randman has replied

  
Yaro
Member (Idle past 6496 days)
Posts: 1797
Joined: 07-12-2003


Message 9 of 89 (230505)
08-06-2005 4:12 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by randman
08-06-2005 4:06 PM


Michael A. Cremo
By Alexandra Alter
Religion News Service
Washington, July 3--(RNS) What's a creationist doing bashing Darwin at the World Archaeological Congress?
Michael Cremo, a research associate at the Bhaktivedanta Institute for consciousness studies in California, is not picketing outside. He's arguing that human civilization may have existed millions of years before the accepted dates, making the self-described Hindu creationist something of a unique voice in the ongoing debate between Darwinists and creationists.
Cremo, who has spent more than 20 years looking for evidence of ancient human civilizations, is now pressing the scientific community to be more tolerant of different metaphysical views.
In a radical departure from both Darwin's theory and Christian creationism, Cremo comes at the question of evolution from the Hindu understanding of time as cyclical. It was his study of the Puranas--sacred Sanskrit texts that speak of ancient civilizations--that led him to search for evidence of "extreme human antiquity."
While presenting his paper "Archaeology in the Service of Darwinism" to a group of seasoned archaeologists last week (June 26), Cremo told his rapt audience that archaeologists have overlooked a large body of evidence that contradicts Darwinian evolution. He buoyantly described a mortar and pestle that were found lodged in an fossilized riverbed dated to about 30 million years ago, noting that no fissures in the rock formation could account for their presence there.
"When operating from a different metaphysical perspective, I seem to see the evidence in a different light," he said, adding that these discoveries are not well known today because they contradict Darwinian principles of evolution, Cremo said.
Although his 1994 book "Forbidden Archaeology" is a top seller among archaeology books on Amazon.com, Cremo hasn't enjoyed the same warm reception from the scientific community. Now in his 50s, Cremo has sp ent nearly 20 years fighting "Darwinian fundamentalists" who he claims have dismissed evidence proving the existence of human beings as early as 2 billion years ago. According to most scientists, the first anatomically modern humans appeared about 100,000 years ago.
"The problem is, there's so much evidence against it," said Eugenie Scott, physical anthropologist and director of the National Center for Science Education, a nonprofit organization that defends teaching evolution in public schools. "For his view to be right would require answers that he can't provide."
Professor Jonathan Marks, a biological anthropologist at the University of North Carolina who reviewed Cremo's book in the American Journal of Physical Anthropology, said Cremo relies on poorly documented 19th century archaeological finds.
"What Cremo does in `Forbidden Archaeology' is he takes all this stuff that has been confined to the rubbish pile and says, `Look at all this evidence that archaeologists have ignored,"' Marks said. "It's not evidence at all. He believes humans existed in the Precambrian era, but the world was a very different place then. There was no oxygen, there was no life; without multi-cellular organisms, there wouldn't have been anything for them to eat."
But for Cremo, the periodic disappearance of life from Earth is merely a glitch in an endless process of creation and destruction that is laid out in Hindu sacred scriptures.
One unit of Vedic time, known as the day of Brahma, lasts about 4 billion years, he explained. Each day of Brahma is divided into 14 periods called manvantaras--after Manu, Hinduism's Adam--which last about 300 million years and are punctuated by a devastation, after which all life forms have to be reintroduced. The lifeless early Precambrian, in Cremo's view, was one of those times.
"I was surprised to find there was so much evidence that is consistent with the Puranas," he said.
For example, the current day of Brahma began 2 billion years ago, the rough date that most paleontologists give to the beginning of life on the planet, he said. Moreover, most paleontologists agree that there have been six extinction events in the history of the planet; likewise, six devastations have happened in the current day of Brahma according to Vedic time.
But where Cremo finds common ground with paleontologists, he diverges from biblical creationist theory. Young Earth Creationism, based on the Book of Genesis, dates the advent of humans to about 6,000 years ago and the origins of the Earth to 10,000 years ago.
Some prominent Christian creationists, however, approve of Cremo's work because of his efforts to prove that humans coexisted with ancient primates rather than evolving from them.
"Christian creationists would disagree with me about the age of the Earth, but they would agree that humans were there since the beginning," Cremo said, adding that Islamic scholars have also written him and complimented his work.
Dennis Bonnette, a professor of metaphysics at Niagara University and author of "How Humans Evolved," a study of evolution and creationism from a Catholic perspective, said Cremo's book has opened doors for creationists of all creeds.
"It does provide credible evidence that the standard view on human evolution may be incorrect," Bonnette said. "Paleoanthropology may be consistent with both the Hindu Vedic and the Catholic perspective. There is plenty of room for different metaphysical perspectives."
Although their ideas draw scorn from the scientific establishment, researchers like Cremo and Bonnette have ample company in the creationist camp. A 2001 Gallup Poll showed that 45 percent of Americans believe God created humans in their present form within the last 10,000 years, while only 12 percent believe human beings evolved from less advanced forms over millions of years. Thirty-seven percent said the process of evolution is guided by God.
Like many creationists, Cremo rejects the idea that human evolution resulted from a series of random accidents.
"A cyclical concept of time doesn't rule out evolution; neither does the Bible," Cremo said. "But Darwinist scientists believe evolution was a completely material process with no intelligence behind it."
In his forthcoming book, "Human Devolution: A Vedic Alternative to Darwin's Theory," set to be released by Torchlight Press this September, Cremo describes how humans first exist with God on the level of pure consciousness before they take on material bodies.
Cremo, who practices a theistic strain of Hinduism known as Vaishnaism, began searching for evidence to corroborate the Vedic idea of ancient human civilizations in 1984. It was his spiritual teacher, the late Bhativedanta Swami, whom he met in India in the 1960s, that inspired Cremo to begin his scientific search.
"My simple goal was to show that human civilization has been around for the day of Brahma," he said.
It may require a lot more digging and some more reliable dating methods to get scientists on board, however.
"Theories get overturned consistently in science," Marks said. "But one of the standards we use is that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."
Copyright 2003 Religion News Service. All rights reserved. No part of this transmission may be reproduced without written permission.
He also belives in Atlantis.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by randman, posted 08-06-2005 4:06 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by randman, posted 08-06-2005 4:28 PM Yaro has replied
 Message 11 by CK, posted 08-06-2005 4:39 PM Yaro has not replied
 Message 12 by randman, posted 08-06-2005 4:43 PM Yaro has not replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 10 of 89 (230509)
08-06-2005 4:28 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by Yaro
08-06-2005 4:12 PM


Re: Michael A. Cremo
That article is just a smear. He does not appear, for instance, to be a creationist, but if he was, so what?
Moreover, the evidence he cites was well-established, peer-reviewed, and to this date, never been properly refuted. Evolutionists, as I have certainly noticed, just decided to dismiss the claims because of the discovery of Java man and the fact this data did not fit well with their scenarios.
Also, I wouldn't count on the fact he believes in Atlantis, but there was a time when, gasp, some dared to believe in Troy!
This message has been edited by randman, 08-06-2005 04:32 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Yaro, posted 08-06-2005 4:12 PM Yaro has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by Yaro, posted 08-06-2005 5:06 PM randman has replied

  
CK
Member (Idle past 4128 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 11 of 89 (230513)
08-06-2005 4:39 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by Yaro
08-06-2005 4:12 PM


Re: Michael A. Cremo
The guy is a crackpot - moreover like our Friend Randy (everyone remember Randy?) he perfers to rely on citing evidence from the 19th century rather than anything modern that might upset his pet theory.
There is a good review of his stuff here (awful awful web design however).
Forbidden Archaeology: Antievolutionism Outside the Christian Arena
quote:
Quotations of the 19th-/early 20th- century material are copious -- comprising, I would guess, at least 25 percent of the book. A few examples: (1) a 1935 work of Weidenreich is cited as opposition to a 1985 work of Binford and Ho (p. 553); was there no current reference to refute Binford and Ho, and if not, what does this mean? (2) a question is raised about the geological time-scale, and the latest reference on the matter cited is a lecture given by Spieker in 1956 (p. 16); surely additional and more recent work is available on the topic of such importance as this; (3) a 1910 work of Osborn is used that mentions archaeological work done in 1863 and 1867, which seems desperately searching for supportive evidence in old reports; (4) experts are cited -- from ca. 1870 -- on the subject of shark teeth to suggest that these Pliocene fossils were drilled by humans (p. 49-51); this case is conspicuous in its avoidance of modern sources on shark biology and paleontology, sources that might better elucidate the work of tooth decay, parasites, and fossilization at work on shark teeth.
I do not indict the sincerity and ground-breaking of 19th century scholars. However, because knowledge seems to accumulate and research techniques seem to improve, assuming a blanket equivalency of research level between 19th and 20th century science is just going too far. Forbidden Archaeology does make such an argument, which I discuss next.
Assume Equivalency between Old and Recent Research
A foundation of the book’s arguments is that the research of the 19th- and early-20th-century scientists (esp. those presenting anomalous evidence for the antiquity of modern-type humans) should be considered equivalently factual relative to modern reports. (p. 22) The work further implies that modern scientists tend to accept one "set" of reports (modern ones) while rejecting another set (19th century ones); "it would be especially wrong to accept one set as proof of a given theory while suppressing the other set, and thus rendering it inaccessible to future students."
Well, maybe. But if the authors, who are not archaeologists, found these old reports, I hope archaeology students might do just as well. More to the point, we can argue whether scientists do reject early research -- which seems a rather simple statement covering a complex situation. Reliance on work of over a hundred years past is implicit in our accumulation of knowledge and refinement in understanding. But we are not belittling important groundbreaking when we do not a priori make direct use of the conclusions drawn in the good old days. Said another way: we should not make fools out of early doctors struggling with the few resources they had, nor should we rely on early medical texts or supply them to our doctors for consultation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Yaro, posted 08-06-2005 4:12 PM Yaro has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by randman, posted 08-06-2005 4:52 PM CK has not replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 12 of 89 (230516)
08-06-2005 4:43 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by Yaro
08-06-2005 4:12 PM


Re: Michael A. Cremo
Ok, awesome. Some honesty from an evolutionist! From your link,
"The problem is, there's so much evidence against it," said Eugenie Scott, physical anthropologist and director of the National Center for Science Education, a nonprofit organization that defends teaching evolution in public schools. "For his view to be right would require answers that he can't provide."
This is the central problem with evolutionists. They need to have an answer, and their nearly religious need for an answer drives them to make things fit when they don't.
Take this example. He doesn't say Cremo's data is wrong. He admits the real problem is it doesn't fit, that there is no good answer from his perspective on why the data is what it is, and that's the real problem with evolutionists.
So instead of doing what is reasonable and admitting this data is real, does not fit with ToE or current scenarios, and admitting the obvious truth, which is from a scientific persepective:
WE DON'T KNOW.
But they can't do that. So they go the other route and with selective use of evidence, ignoring all sorts of evidence against it, evolutionists ply their scenarious to each other and the public, and demonize the character, integrity and intelligence of their critics.
That's why I think of evolutionism as a cult.
You even see it here. One time in a debate, AdminNed obnoxiously insisted I say what I think happened, what was my theory, and just could not seem to accept the honest answer that, imo, we don't know. It's better to say we don't know than to insist on calling a lie the truth or calling it factual.
Science does not need an alternative theory to know the current one is wrong. That's a deep fallacy with evolutionists.
Evolutionists need to own up to the weaknesses in their models and theories. They don't have to abandon evolution altogether, just return it to the realm of good science.
If you find data that disproves your model, but is unexplainable, don't just sweep it under the rug. Admit a reworking is necessary, and before you have another good hypothesis, admit the data is a problem.
Evolutionists appear to do the opposite, imo.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Yaro, posted 08-06-2005 4:12 PM Yaro has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by nator, posted 08-08-2005 8:35 AM randman has not replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 13 of 89 (230519)
08-06-2005 4:52 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by CK
08-06-2005 4:39 PM


Re: Michael A. Cremo
Uh, so evolutionists still to this day rely on their own twisting of Von Baer's claims, from the mid-1800s, in maintaining the claim of a phylotypic stage, and yet you guys think you have a leg to stand on here?
When was the geologic column developed?
Fact is there is every reason, considering the numbers of corroborating scientists of the time, to believe these artifacts were indeed found in the Miocene period.
The reason, btw, the author brings up these pre-Java man artifacts is to show how mainstream evolutionists twist the evidence, which we see all the time, and how they choose to selectively deny evidence that does not fit with evolutionary theory.
That's why, btw, it took over 100 years to get evolutionists to quit using Haeckel's drawings, which were gross fakes. They play so loose with the rules on the data, with such a strong bias, that even obvious fakes which interested observers such as myself, could find out about, they were largely unaware of or refused to accept, and kept the fakes in their textbooks.
Same with excessive depictions of Neanderthals as ape-like. We've known since the 50s that was not the case, but it's only been the last few years evolutionists in teaching evolution have begun to depict Neanderthal more accurately.
Same with Pakicetus. Evos came out with a semi-aquatic creature 8 years ago, complete with webbed feet, and did so with great fanfare.
Well, now the real picture emerges and yet evos still want to call this creature a "whale" which is absurd.
So it is important to view all of the data, including data which indidentally others besides Cremo bring up, that show Miocene human remains and artifacts. Cremo, by the way, is getting fanfare because he provided so much documentation, which no one has yet to refute, in his book. Crackpot or not (Darwin was probably a crackpot too), his data seems to be unassailable.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by CK, posted 08-06-2005 4:39 PM CK has not replied

  
Yaro
Member (Idle past 6496 days)
Posts: 1797
Joined: 07-12-2003


Message 14 of 89 (230527)
08-06-2005 5:06 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by randman
08-06-2005 4:28 PM


An aside
Also, I wouldn't count on the fact he believes in Atlantis, but there was a time when, gasp, some dared to believe in Troy!
LOL! I hear this so much from the creationist crowd. "They found Troy! Maybe they will find Sodom! Or some other biblical city."
The funny thing is, that just cuz they found troy existed dosn't mean that Zeus, Achilles and Athena existed?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by randman, posted 08-06-2005 4:28 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by randman, posted 08-06-2005 5:07 PM Yaro has replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 15 of 89 (230528)
08-06-2005 5:07 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by Yaro
08-06-2005 5:06 PM


Re: An aside
No one ever made that claim either.
But nice try to divert the thread from the data.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Yaro, posted 08-06-2005 5:06 PM Yaro has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by Yaro, posted 08-06-2005 5:10 PM randman has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024