It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by FlyersFan
The rock is definately much older than 40,000 years.
But who says they are human EARTHLING footprints?
Originally posted by DaddyBare
So what the folks here are eluding too is co-evolution while humans were evolving in Africa with no connection whatsoever Humans started to evolve here in the Americans as well... versus Land Bridge where they walked here...
Because modern Science has set a date for humans arrival in the new world and we know how deep into the ground to dig and look for clues to these ancient peoples it's rare anyone ever digs deeper looking for even older remains...
in other words no real search for older Americans has been been done simply because the texts book all say they couldn't be here... so why bother looking?
SC: Alas I do not have his book so I cannot shed any more light on this or confirm that it is "unsupported". If you have the full book and confirm this is indeed the case then I will gladly accept that.
SC: I've read the links you provided. But as I have explained to you, given the possibility (if not indeed probability) of polyphylogenetic evolution, the prevailing model of evolutionary theory cannot - IMO - be 'casually' used as evidence to bolster this 40K date. The picture may not be as simple as monophlylogenetic evolution suggests.
Let me put it to you this way. I take the view that it is more than likely that many other lifeforms (some intelligent) exist in our galaxy and indeed, the wider universe. Such life forms developed entirely separately from life on Earth (though some might argue with that). If life can occur independently at disparate locations all over the universe then I see no reason why life could not have taken root at disparate locations here on Earth and evolved different lifeforms from many "trees of life".
Think about it - does it really make sense to you that just ONE such 'tree of life' took root on the Earth?
Kandinsky: For a variety of reasons, I'm not convinced you have read any of the links provided. In fact, I'm not sure you read your own link...
"The Natural Sciences Know Nothing of Evolution"
By Dr. A. E. Wilder Smith
Only the contents of the Preface and Chapter 6 are included here.
SC: Alas I do not have his book so I cannot shed any more light on this or confirm that it is "unsupported". If you have the full book and confirm this is indeed the case then I will gladly accept that.
Kandinsky: The book was actually linked by you..."The Natural Sciences Know Nothing of Evolution"
Kandinsky: Your views about polyphylogenetic origins are unsupported elsewhere.
Kandinsky: I've looked. Amusingly, a google search of the term shows you on ATS.
Parallel Evolution - the evolution of geographically separated groups in such a way that they show morphological resemblances. A notable example is the similarity shown by the marsupial mammals of Australia to the placental mammals elsewhere. Through the courses of their evolution they have come to remarkably similar forms, so much so that the marsupials are often named for their placental counterparts (e.g., the marsupial “wolf,” “mole,” “mice,” or “cats”).
At this time, mammals on all three landmasses began to take on a much wider variety of forms and roles.
While some forms were unique to each environment, surprisingly similar animals have often emerged in two or three of the separated continents.
Examples of these include the litopterns and horses, whose legs are difficult to distinguish; the European sabre-tooth tiger (Smilodon) and the South American marsupial sabre-tooth (Thylacosmilus); the Tasmanian wolf and the European wolf; likewise marsupial and placental moles, flying squirrels, and (arguably) mice..
The available theories do sufficiently explain the evidence. If you read the links, you'd see that. You refer to 'other evidence from other sites in the Americas' supporting the possibility that a separate species of bipedal humanoid existed. A source would be interesting. As far as anyone is aware there is not even a glimmer of a serious theory that a separate species of humanoid existed in the Americas or elsewhere.
SC: I've read the links you provided. But as I have explained to you, given the possibility (if not indeed probability) of polyphylogenetic evolution, the prevailing model of evolutionary theory cannot - IMO - be 'casually' used as evidence to bolster this 40K date. The picture may not be as simple as monophlylogenetic evolution suggests.
The picture isn't 'simple.' It's extensive research founded on prior scholarly work, explained and referenced. You can check the references yourself
SC: Let me put it to you this way. I take the view that it is more than likely that many other lifeforms (some intelligent) exist in our galaxy and indeed, the wider universe. Such life forms developed entirely separately from life on Earth (though some might argue with that). If life can occur independently at disparate locations all over the universe then I see no reason why life could not have taken root at disparate locations here on Earth and evolved different lifeforms from many "trees of life".
Think about it - does it really make sense to you that just ONE such 'tree of life' took root on the Earth?
Kandinsky: You have excelled yourself here…. you've created another elaborate method of avoiding a simple reappraisal of beliefs. Chewbacca Defense
Originally posted by punkinworks09
I have just read an article, where an reasearcher has pinned the clovis culture to a time span of less than 600 years. Far to short of a time for a single culture to have spread so far across the continent, and to short a time to have developed such a defined point making industry.
Thats very important since there is no asian analog to the clovis point at that point in time.
Bryd, maybe you can answer this question, have any human remains been found in conjunction with a clovis site, in particular skulls?
Then later while visiting a very isolated mission, one of the locals told us there were other caves with drawings higher up in the mountains.
When we asked which way to go to get to the caves, he told us they dont show them to outsiders. He also told us he was descended from the original indians in the area and that his family has lived at the mission since it was built in 1703-4?.
"The Natural Sciences Know Nothing of Evolution" By Dr. A. E. Wilder Smith Only the contents of the Preface and Chapter 6 are included here.
SC: Who made the artifacts found at Valsequillo, Mexico dated by VSM to be around 250,000 years old? According to prevailing evolutionary theory such a remote date precludes homo sapiens sapiens.
SC: Who made the artifacts found at Valsequillo, Mexico dated by VSM to be around 250,000 years old? According to prevailing evolutionary theory such a remote date precludes homo sapiens sapiens.
Kandinsky: Evolutionary theory doesn't preclude anything at all.
Kandinsky: It's clear that you disagree with the links, it's becoming clearer you don't accept Evolution until it can be bypassed in parts to make allowances for your hopes.
Kandinsky: You're quite happy to rebut decades of interlinked, corroborating evidence and studies with a quote from a book written by a creationist. Incredibly it's done without irony.
Kandinsky: If you are leaning towards Creationism, please state the fact.
Kandisnky: The advance ancients that underpin your hopes are still elusive.
Kandinsky: Instead, we have to create a second-string evolution of beings that leave footprints, chert tools and nothing else. Hmmmm?
Kandinsky: Evidence of haplogroups (linked) that ALL humans fall within and share genetic commonalities make the parallel evolution moot.
Kandinsky: The single origin theory is almost unanimously held,
Kandinsky: The presence of humans in Americas is creeping further back into time. As Byrd mentioned and I linked early in the thread, pre-Clovis evidence is getting stronger. Hueytlico is being further investigated early next year.
I am totally on the side of evolution – of science. I see, however, that the evolution picture is much more complex than few have hitherto imagined. I embrace the concept of parallel evolution because it makes more sense to me and because it explains some of the shortcomings of the prevailing mono-evolutionary model. Is that so bad?
SC: Can you tell me the haplogroup of the makers of the tools found at Valsequillo?
SC: I don’t dispute this but what does it prove? Are you suggesting that homo sapiens sapiens were indeed in the Americas 250,000 or 1.3 million years ago?
Precambrian Earth - a sea bursting with trillions upon trillions upon trillions of primeval single-celled organisms. Do you really expect anyone to believe that only ONE of those primeval cells was capable of taking root and producing all forms of life on Earth? Do you not accept that if one of those primeval cells could achieve such then two or three or ten or a thousand such cells could have achieved the same?
Kandinsky: Parallel evolution isn't precluded by evolution, it's still evolution. Marsupial examples etc etc
Kandinsky: ' I'd write that there's no fossil record,
Kandinsky: you'll hint at academic misdeeds and paradigms whereby such evidence is ignored.
Kandinsky: You'd provide no evidence or links and offer possibilities.
Kandinsky: Haplogroups show that we are ALL from the same phylo tree.
Kandinsky: If you wish to entertain the possibility that a separate phylo tree managed to evolve to intelligent bipedal humanoids without leaving a fossil record, I won't argue with it.
Kandinsky: I consistently fail to see where you are totally on the side of anything in particular...especially science.
Kandinsky: You are on record making fairly inflammatory generalizations about science and academics.
SC: Can you tell me the haplogroup of the makers of the tools found at Valsequillo?
Kandinsky: Would you even care?
Kandinsky: You haven't acknowledged that the age of the site is in dispute.
Kandinsky: You blithely dismiss all evidence anyway.
Kandinsky: The point that the footprints have been dated to 40,000 ya based on supported evidence is, as usual, thrown out on the basis of what?
Kandinsky: Possibilities? Possibilities that the evidence is fudged.
Kandinsky: The one possibility that you often overlook is the people that come to such conclusions are probably correct.
Kandinsky: Do you really believe that one of them [Precambrian single celled organism] resulted in a humanoid species (other than ourselves) residing in the Americas? Let me guess...it's possible?
Originally posted by Scott Creighton
Kandinsky: ' I'd write that there's no fossil record,
SC: And you’d be wrong. Read Cremo & Thomson’s ‘Forbidden Archaeology’.
Originally posted by Scott Creighton
Kandinsky: ' I'd write that there's no fossil record,
SC: And you’d be wrong. Read Cremo & Thomson’s ‘Forbidden Archaeology’.
Harte: Why?
A book written by a college dropout and Hare Krishna advocate and published by a Hindu group whose stated aim is to promote Hindu religious creationist doctrine?
What on earth are you thinking?
Is there a large ring in your nose that can make it any easier for you to be led around by a bunch of fabulists?
Kandinsky is right about many things. But the two most obvious right now are:
1) there is no fossil record to indicate any "parallel evolution" leading to an entirely seperate phylum evolving into a bipedal hominid-type of creature,
2) you are willing to grasp at the most ephemeral of straws in your desire to live in your delusion.
Cremo's book is filled to the absolute brim with lies, half-lies, half truths, innuendo and outright fantasies.
Originally posted by Scott Creighton
Oops - guess I musta touched a raw nerve, eh Harte?
If the best way you can debunk the evidence presented in Forbidden Archaeology is to attack its authors as liars then I suggest this says more of your own sheer desperation and underhandedness than it does of these authors. It's an age-old tactic much beloved of skeptics but, alas, it rarely works.
Regards,
Scott Creighton
SC: Of course it is. But I ask - yet again - on what basis should it be accepted that all plant/animal life on Earth descended from ONE phylo-tree?. In an ocean bursting with trillions upon trillions upon trillions of single-celled organisms only ONE cell sprouted forth and produced all Earth life? Do you not accept that if one such cell could do this then there is a reasonable chance that OTHER cells would have done the same thereby establishing other separate phylo-trees?
SC: Why shouldn’t it? But show me the haplogroup of the maker of the 1.3 my old footprint. Show me the haplogroup of the toolmakers of 250,000 years ago in Mexico? Everything came from an ocean brimming with the same single-celled organisms sharing identical DNA so it is no surprise that species will share similar DNA. All phylo-trees would have sprouted forth from the same primordial ocean of Precambrian single-cells with identical DNA.
SC: If I have done so then I did so with good reason and with "witness" testimonies to back up what I have said. Or is it simply your preferance that such inappropriate activities by unscrupulous scientists should simply be brushed under the carpet, that we should turn a collective blind eye to such activity?
... it is much easier to tear down than to build up. It is safer to cower in the trenches of stagnant orthodoxy than to battle across the minefields in search of one's own truth. And, in presenting what I discover, I do not do so in search of medals, or honours or money or baubels - I do so only in the hope that I will find a better truth of our history and origins at the end of my journey than the one that spouts forth from the fetid mound of perceived wisdom that you so readily accept as gospel.
SC: Now you are just making things up here. I have not suggested any findings relating to this particular site/artifact have been fudged. And I’d much prefer that you refrained from so casually making such inferences.
SC: Neat sidestep. Now can you actually answer the original question I have posted to you (several times now)? Thanks.
Originally posted by by Scott Creighton... it is much easier to tear down than to build up. It is safer to cower in the trenches of stagnant orthodoxy than to battle across the minefields in search of one's own truth. And, in presenting what I discover, I do not do so in search of medals, or honours or money or baubels - I do so only in the hope that I will find a better truth of our history and origins at the end of my journey than the one that spouts forth from the fetid mound of perceived wisdom that you so readily accept as gospel.