Oldest Americans 1.3 millon years???

reply to post by Kandinsky

Hello Kandinsky,

Kandinsky: I made a number of requests for you to be clearer in your views of our history. They were summarily evaded or ignored. I asked if you believed in ID, ancient lost civilizations, Creationism or alien intervention? You were clear that you don't subscribe to Creationism and were emphatic that you trust only the science (when it can be trusted). The reasons I asked were made clear that by understanding your perspective, it would make your position more transparent. Nevertheless, repeated evasions always feed suspicions..

SC: My views on our origins and history are more than adequately expressed and published elsewhere so I saw no need to go into them again here. Nice to see you managed to find them though.

Kandinsky: It appears the suspicions were correct. You believe in a possible alien intervention, Atlantis and a lost advanced civilization.

SC: Alien intervention? This is news to me. Please show me where I say I believe in Alien Intervention.

Atlantis? Please show me where I say I believe in Atlantis?

Lost advanced civilization? Please show me where I say I believe in a lost advanced civilization?

If you read my writings on the subject of Atlantis / Lost civilization you will find I don’t actually say I believe such. Rather that I like to keep an open mind to such questions. You might ask why I do not simply close the book on such topics and consign them to the bin of “mumbo jumbo” much beloved of orthodoxy? Two reasons:

1) The anomalous artifacts (anomarts) found the world over. Whilst I accept that many such artifacts can be reasonably explained within our existing understanding of our history and origins, there are others that I find more problematic and have to be explained in some other way within the realm of science.

2) The ancient texts – particularly those of Ancient Egypt that are largely ignored by mainstream Egyptology as “myths” e.g. the Building Texts of The Temple of Horus at Edfu. If you want to know where Plato got his inspiration for his ‘Atlantis’ allegory then read these texts. I take the view that these ancient texts may actually tell us more truth than myth.

Kandinsky: As an outcome of those beliefs, it's imperative for you to dismiss the science that fails to support them. Some of the science conflicts with these beliefs entirely. For these reasons, it becomes apparent why you insist in offering 'possibilities' and questioning the validity of science.

SC: With respect but current science does not presently support the prospect of intelligent species of hominid in the Americas some 250,000 years ago – or longer. And no one is dismissing science although I do question why – on occasion – some scientists find the need to dismiss their own scientific findings, tehreby presenting a distorted picture of our past.

Kandinsky: For the beliefs to stand, science has to be undermined, evidence ignored and new theories created to allow for the 'possibilities.'

SC: How exactly is a proposal of “Parallel Evolution” undermining science? As I have said to you previously, such an idea is proposed to HELP the science of evolution, not to undermine it. And as I have said above – scientists do enough all by themselves to undermine the validity of their own discipline without requiring any help from anyone else.

Kandinsky: I can understand why you were reluctant to share these ideas.

SC: Your links to my work in public forums (here on ATS and on GrahamHancock.com) completely undermines your assertion that I am reluctant to share my ideas.

Kandinsky: The Giza Pyramids were built to a template that 'fell from the sky' (alien intervention?)

SC: No – a design that came from the heavens, in my view, simply means a design based on the stars in the heavens i.e. Orion’s Belt.

Kandinsky: and warns of cyclical catastrophes.

SC: Without doubt the Gizamids present an astronomical clock that indicates two dates close to the two culmination points of the Orion’s Belt stars. The Great Pyramid – in my view - clearly demonstrates to us how the heavens shifted (a tilt of the Earth’s polar axis) by some 6.5* at some time close to the minimum culmination of the Belt stars c.10,500BCE. The structures also demonstrate the maximum culmination of the Belt Stars c.2,500CE. I’ll leave you to draw your own conclusion as to the significance of the dates but these published articles might help:

The Great Pyramid and the Axis of the Earth - Part 1
By Scott Creighton and Gary Osborn

www.grahamhancock.com...


The Great Pyramid and the Axis of the Earth - Part 2
By Scott Creighton and Gary Osborn

www.grahamhancock.com...

Kandinsky: Where could such extensive knowledge come from?

SC: From a civilization that is infinitely older than most people realize but which Egyptology actually knows but through their anodyne approach to such limits their study to – at best – the Archaic Period.

Kandinsky: Now the reasons for you refusing to believ the footprints are 40ka becomes clearer. Your insistence on science's inherent dishonesty and choosing evidence that suits it becomes ironic.

You'll be aware, having read so many science papers that a caveat is present at the foot of each one...

Conflict of interest statement: No conflicts declared.

SC: I have no conflict with science although – at times - it seems to have a conflict with itself.

Kandinsky: By failing to make your interest clear, you've effectively committed the same intellectual dishonesty that offends you in the world of science. Very naughty Scott

SC: Laughable. I’m not the one here that distorts evidence in oredr to get it to fit into a particular historical paradigm. It’s the scientists that do that.

Regards,

Scott Creighton

Why some people believe that evolution is some kind of ideology that has to be fulfilled?

The fact that all humans descend from one Eve has nothing to do with evolution. And there is no special meaning to it. The agenda that appeals to eugenicists is strictly political. Evolution is used as an excuse to establish authority (as in "top predator" agenda - the "nobility").

Evolution is strictly recording changes of forms as compared to other forms, especially the preceding ones (as parents and ancestors). It is a statistical, chronological sorting, nothing else. It doesn't prove some hidden agenda as if there was a "goal" for certain "species" to accomplish. Even "species" is a statistical category and it is a matter of consensus what "differences" shall we consider relevant to definition of species.

If the environmental conditions are to prove something, it is exactly the case of species which have different history (ancestry), yet they have achieved similar characteristics, as in case of smilodon like beasts. So what is more important, ancestry or the present functional form? I say insisting on genetic ancestry is purely political way of classifying.

When we talk of human beings, it is considered that both homo sapiens neanderthalensis and homo sapiens sapiens diverged from the certain homo erectus Eve some 600.000 years ago. So we have at least two homo sapiens species living parallel in both same and different environments.

Even homo erectus evolved ("developed") to homo heilderbegensis, which is still considered homo erectus, only it had brain capacity of 1280 cubic cm, which fits into the description of modern humans, though on the lower end.

The whole species of homo erectus varies from brain capacity of 800 - 1300 cubic cm, which is a very lose criteria, isn't it? Because it is artificially considered to have lasted as a species during 1,5 million years. This is by no means scientific approach, this is purely statistical approach and totally inadequate as a source of reliable data.


It is possible that most humans today are actually homo erecti, and only few are actually homo sapiens sapiens. This if we look strictly on certain abilities. We can easily turn this into a political matter, as in case of racial differences.

In our political life belonging to certain ancestry is a primary factor. Shall we be stupid or corrupted enough to call it "evolutionary" achievement which needs to be properly awarded in society?

In my opinion, looking at things in this manner is extremely dangerous and has a very unethical purpose and application.

On the other hand, cultural and innate abilities or disabilities within one species (race) are also a strong factor which cannot be ignored, despite ideological classifications which totally ignore them (like "democratic rights" which are the same for everyone, although everyone is in fact different). These rights are only on paper, while in reality situation is very much the opposite. In reality, the "struggle", which is also ideologically purported, is ongoing, because of the specific ideological agenda which is imposed - proving one's excellence as opposed to others.

This kind of competition does not exist elsewhere in nature. Prevailing of one species in certain environment is not the result of struggle between species. It is simply the ability to survive in the given environment, but it is not an ideologically created environment in order to support certain variation, as is the case among human beings in various "intended" societies.

Finds from Flores island is a proof that there was a parallel hominid evolution, and now scientists make themselves an object o ridicule trying to fit this "hobbit" within the species of homo erectus. Why is this necessary? Only to prove that certain, prevailing ideology among scientists is valid? It is really shameful, and is not proof of intelligence at all.

reply to post by DangerDeath


Hello DangerDeath,

DD: Finds from Flores island is a proof that there was a parallel hominid evolution, and now scientists make themselves an object o ridicule trying to fit this "hobbit" within the species of homo erectus. Why is this necessary? Only to prove that certain, prevailing ideology among scientists is valid? It is really shameful, and is not proof of intelligence at all.

SC: Nicely said.

Regards,

Scott Creighton

Originally posted by Scott Creighton
reply to post by DangerDeath

DD: Finds from Flores island is a proof that there was a parallel hominid evolution, and now scientists make themselves an object o ridicule trying to fit this "hobbit" within the species of homo erectus. Why is this necessary? Only to prove that certain, prevailing ideology among scientists is valid? It is really shameful, and is not proof of intelligence at all.

SC: Nicely said.

I disagree that it is nicely said. Dangerdeath's statement makes it sound as if the entire scientific community is in agreement as to the story of H. floresiensis, which is patently untrue. There is an intense amount of debate being conducted, and that is how a healthy academic process behaves. You don't just slap a label on it and move along.

So Scott, you ought to know better than to behave like a bobblehead, because anyone who reads a newspaper is aware that the jury is still out on H. floresiensis, and is likely to be for some time yet.

reply to post by JohnnyCanuck

Hello Johnny,

JC: You don't just slap a label on it and move along.

SC: Indeed we should not. And neither should we change the label if the date it presents does not fit into the model of our past we have so meticulously constructed.

Regards,

Scott Creighton

What say for argument sake... we approach this from a different angle... lets set aside the where and let me ask what would a 1.3 million year old hominid be like? were they tool makers? what modes (if any) of transportation would they have?

What say for argument sake we halve that age, lets quarter it, and ask what would a 200,000 year old human be like? were they still cave dwellers? flint knappers? did they at least have fire?

Why I ask is maybe were taking the wrong tact here. I mean we know about Folsom Man, Sandia man and Clovis man from the things they left behind.... what kinds of things would a far older humanoid leave behind?

then maybe we can look at what artefacts we do have, and their suspected date(s) and see if from the general facts people of that age could have left said artifacts? ie footprints in ash etc...

It is a fact that the whole concept of homo erectus, supported by the auxiliary concept of homo habilis is false, because scientists in reality gave up the idea of the "missing link" and replaced it with this relativist concept of a "garbage heap" from which anything may stem. Even the concept of Australopithecus as predecessor to modern humans is totally unconvincing and has no appeal neither to evolutionists nor to the creationists. It is now a known fact that straight walking hominids existed more than 4 million years ago and Lucy's kind clearly evolved after them.

And the ongoing discussion withing the scientific circles is nothing but beating the straw in an empty hope to shake out some healthy grain.

Also human skulls which were found (Kenya or Ethiopia) to be old around 100.000 years show that their volume was 10% bigger than modern humans, so what does that prove? It's more a proof of de-avolution, than evolution if we read into it the idea of "progress" - better, faster, higher.

Science is so indoctrinated with various ideologies that it is really very difficult to place our trust in it.

There are many reports of modern day homo erectus, but nobody is really trying to examine them. From Caucasus region, from Mongolia, Java, Himalaya, North America. If it was proven that homo erectus still exists, it would bring down many beliefs and concepts attached to the idea of evolution and what it really means to evolve.

The theory of morphogenesis is much more likely than the theory of evolution. The observation of the monkeys which washed potatoes, and how this habit spread to groups of the same species divided by huge distances is a proof that knowledge and advance in behavior is spread by metaphysical and not by physiological means.

The experiment with rats, where negative selection was applied, where only those rats which were unable to find their way out of the maze were kept, also proves this theory correct. At one moment, all those rats which were unable to find their way developed an excellent ability to move through labyrinths, and the whole species of those rats suddenly gained this ability.

And how to explain the fact that more and more elephants lose their tusks? Because of excessive hunting to collect their tusks, the whole species is losing this feature. How does this information spread through the whole species? Genetically? By picking out those which tusks were underdeveloped? No. That is not true. The concept of evolution falls here with a big thump.

And the finds about the bacteria which do not activate their sudden spread before their population reaches certain amount? How does this information spreads and who spreads it? Theory of evolution cannot explain that.

There is much more at work here, and it can not be comprehended by relying on empirical fact. Empirical data is collected in a reflective manner, it does not offer a ground for creative comprehension.

You can watch things move in a mirror, and you can draw conclusions from that movement and arrangements that take place, but if you are not aware that it is just a mirroring image, unaware that there is something more to it, like someone or something standing outside of the mirror, then your belief will be aimed at a very wrong place and conclusions will be anything but correct.

Originally posted by DaddyBare
What say for argument sake... we approach this from a different angle... lets set aside the where and let me ask what would a 1.3 million year old hominid be like? were they tool makers? what modes (if any) of transportation would they have?

What say for argument sake we halve that age, lets quarter it, and ask what would a 200,000 year old human be like? were they still cave dwellers? flint knappers? did they at least have fire?

Why I ask is maybe were taking the wrong tact here. I mean we know about Folsom Man, Sandia man and Clovis man from the things they left behind.... what kinds of things would a far older humanoid leave behind?

then maybe we can look at what artefacts we do have, and their suspected date(s) and see if from the general facts people of that age could have left said artifacts? ie footprints in ash etc...

Humans were never cave dwellers. Caves were populated only during seasonal migrations. Never a permanent home.

Artifacts could have been of wood, skin, perishable materials which can not be preserved. Spiritual culture would not leave much proof of advanced society.

I've heard some theories which claim that homo erectus spent too much energy on chewing raw meat and that didn't allow it to become clever! Now, homo erectus used hand axe and with that tool you can mince meat into a very soft pulp and feed toothless babies with it. And that is called a scientific theory! Nonsense. Some scientists are reading their childish ideas into proper science and get away with it.

Hominid traces in the petrified ground can be million years old. Now, it is another fact that somebody doesn't want to believe that they existed in America, based only on the theory which strictly relies on the excavated data so far. The truth is, the data which we have is so minuscule that no valid theory can be conceived from such a standpoint. So, eventually, it all becomes an empty academic talk shaw.

Originally posted by DangerDeathThe truth is, the data which we have is so minuscule that no valid theory can be conceived from such a standpoint. So, eventually, it all becomes an empty academic talk shaw.

Isn't it great that one can totally ignore the scientific evidence and methodology proffered and such aggressive ignorance has no serious bearing on day-to-day matters?

I'm sure you'd be a little more respectful of Academe if your well-being actually depended on it. You know, as in "Don't bet the farm?."

Mind you, I've got this handful of magic beans if you really want to sell that cow...

reply to post by JohnnyCanuck

Hello Johnny,

JC: Isn't it great that one can totally ignore the scientific evidence and methodology proffered ...

SC: To be honest, I see no evidence presented in any of the many links in this thread that proves monophylogenetic evolution (i.e. from a single Precambrian cell).

Curiously though, when I first raised the idea of polyphylogenetic evolution (Precambrian Parallel Evolution) in this thread, the idea was initially dismissed and I found myself on the receiving end of a number of ad hominems.

Now, having thought a bit more about what I am arguing, a number of people in this thread who were initally against the idea now see the simple logic of Parallel Evolution and now consider it a "possibility".

That's progress as far as I am concerned.

None, however, have yet conceded that such parallel evolution could lead to complex organisms developing which I completely fail to see the logic of. If one Precambrian cell can "take root" and evolve and ultimately produce higher life forms, then why can't two - or more such Precambrian cells do the same?

Far from ignoring evidence - I am trying to find a better evolutionary framework for the extant evidence.

Regards,

Scott Creighton

reply to post by JohnnyCanuck


Your argument is so generalized that it isn't argument at all.

That all life on Earth stems from one precambrian cell is similar to the theory of Big Bang.
This is absolutely the ideology of "central perspective" and pyramidal structure of human society as it is and is needed to justify the existing authoritarian system. I don't see how you are actually contributing to this thread. On the contrary, you are trying to use authority of some highly mystified "science" which reserves the right to prove nothing to anyone.

Nevertheless, science is changing its "view" every now and then, often contrary to the previous view, and still it demands to be respected as the only truth bearer. No way sir! That is not going to happen.

The picture of human evolutionary tree is still vivid, the ape-men with slightly bent spinal cord, and gradually "straightening up". What nonsense! There is not one single vertebral species on this planet that has "bent spinal cord"! The position of spine and pelvis decides whether this living being will walk upright or not. And this theory of evolution of human beings was supposed to be scientific?

there are so many experiments and observations with chimpanzees, and very few with orangutans. But I have seen why. If you remember Chantek the orangutan, who was perfectly capable of communicating with people using hand signs, practically on the same level as human beings. Why are orangutans so bluntly avoided in scientific studies? Because the proof that the size of brain has nothing to do with intelligence. Even more than that, the theory that speech as in humans is essential to creative behavior.

There are many entries about this "guy" Chantek, this is only one:
en.wikipedia.org...

Like children, Chantek prefers to use names rather than pronouns - as the reference is fixed - even when talking to a person. He even invents signs of his own (e.g., 'eye-drink' for contact lens solution, and 'Dave missing finger' for a special friend). He developed referential ability as early as most human children, and points to and shows objects just like humans do. Chantek uses adjectives to specify attributes, such as "red bird", and "white cheese food eat", yet he overgeneralizes in interesting ways, too. For example, he uses the sign 'Lyn' for all caregivers, but never for strangers.

Chantek also demonstrates self-awareness, by grooming himself in a mirror and by using signs in mental planning and deception. Rather than simply exhibiting conditioned responses, as critics of primate intellect contend, Chantek has learned roles - and role reversals - in games like 'Simon Says'. Like many other orangutans who have demonstrated problem solving skills, Chantek exhibits certain intuitive and thinking character traits comparable to the rationality used in human engineering. His intellectual and linguistic abilities make some scientists, including Dr. Miles, regard him as possessing personhood.

Speech in practice is mostly used to deceive others and to self-deceive. In politics, speech is always used to lie. In politics truth is perceived as death. This fear of truth has polluted science, and despite the existing scientific method, basically analytical method, the interpretation of the results is most of the time intentionally wrong, not to mention all those scientific truths which are "classified" and out of reach for common mortals. instead, we get false dilemmas like: were Neanderthals capable of speaking?

Yes, Neanderthals were capable of much more than just speaking, and they were not willing of deceiving themselves and chose a better path than creating and living in such a murderous and farcical kind of civilization some are so proud of. The whole history of humankind is the history of murder, enslavement, prosecution of all those who are not tame and obedient, of all those who show some spark of intelligence. And science has assumed a role of inquisition in many cases, burying all those who come up with theories which are not supporting the "official" version. They simply don't get funds if their research can not be used by society to further on the existing oppression. Not to mention the worst cases, which end in murder, like in case of Wilhelm Reich...

The ruling elite is so proud of their "theory" (and that is the official scientific theory) about "top of food chain predator". They like to compare with lions, tigers and eagles. While in truth, the true top of food chain living beings are the bacteria and fungi. Only, that truth doesn't fit into their coats of arms so nicely.

And most of natural history shows are telling us how important this battle for survival is, while in fact there is no such battle for survival, there are no planned executions in nature, there is no planned selection in nature, there is no criminal behavior in nature - it only exists among homo sapiens sapiens.


Today, they have found single cell living beings high above mesosphere, which rejoice in ultraviolet light, so another theory of origin of life goes down, and another theory of possibility of life elsewhere in the Universe goes down. And all that without excuse from scientific "truth holders". They just move along and forget about their old theories, we were all been made to believe.

One of these days it will become known to everyone that there is no such thing as empty space between planets. It is all populated by living beings, invisible only to those who wear heavily restrictive oculars, dictated by the "unseen" authority. But, they are not really invisible, they're just transparent.





[edit on 1-6-2009 by DangerDeath]

reply to post by Scott Creighton
Hello Scott,

Atlantis? Please show me where I say I believe in Atlantis?

Lost advanced civilization? Please show me where I say I believe in a lost advanced civilization?

Around 12500 years ago the Earth was devastated by a series of apocolyptic cataclysms of cosmic origin which triggered the end of the last ice age.

Millions of plants and animals, the world over, were destroyed in these cataclysms- some never to be recovered.

It seem also from the evidence we find encoded into the pyramids of Giza, that a relatively advanced civilization existed on the Earth at the time and- as Plato confirms- was completely destroyed.

Scott Creighton Powerpoint (Slide 1-4)

The only destroyed civilization Plato referred to was Atlantis...

Also advanced civilizations again?

Kandinsky: I await the theory that explains how this advanced technology wiped out it's entire record of existence. Modesty?

SC: No, much of the evidence of their existence is languishing on unseen shelves, gathering dust in university broom cupboards, hidden from view for no other reason than our current model of history cannot explain it.

There's also a thread were another member advises you to avoid referring to lost civilizations and, in particular Atlantis, because people will be distracted from your Giza theory. Good advice; well heeded.

The Giza Orion theory rests on the contention that 'possibly' Imhotep received a codex that 'fell from the sky.' The idea lends itself to alien intervention unless an extensive building plan that predicts a cyclical cataclysm was also an outcome of parallel evolution?

It's textbook bad science. A conclusion has been drawn from the positions of the Giza Pyramids. The evidence came second and was found wanting. Each possibility was unsupported or in direct conflict with myriad discipline in science:time lines, fossils, geology, archaeo/anthropology, human evolution, migration etc etc etc. Rather than go back to the drawing board, we find ourselves here, casting doubt on accepted models of science and espousing 'possibilities' of a parallel evolution and ooparts.

These ideas have been 'peer-reviewed' on Hall of Maat and were disputed by conflicting evidence. In another post, you mention sending letters to numerous places and receiving little support. There's a possibility you are wrong and your loyalty to the idea is clouding your judgment. Is it possible your disaffection with accepted science results in reluctance to accept the footprints as being 40ka?

SC: From a civilization that is infinitely older than most people realize but which Egyptology actually knows but through their anodyne approach to such limits their study to – at best – the Archaic Period.

Everyone is wrong but you? Ignoring 'infinitely,' are you sure Egyptology is concealing an ancient civilization? Are you aware that you deny belief in lost civilizations and then refer to them in other posts as being real? Is it faith-based or evidence-based belief? Examples? Sources?

SC: Laughable. I’m not the one here that distorts evidence in order to get it to fit into a particular historical paradigm. It’s the scientists that do that.

Again, generalizing aspersions across science and scientists is distortion. Your faith in a lost civilization that flies in the face of evidence means that you actually do 'distort evidence.' Applying your pre-Cambrian parallel evolution theory to avoid the acceptance of the evidence of a 40ka footprint is a form of 'distortion.'

Anyway, enough said...

reply to post by DangerDeath

Humans were never cave dwellers.

Caves were populated only during seasonal migrations. Never a permanent home. Artifacts could have been of wood, skin, perishable materials which can not be preserved. Spiritual culture would not leave much proof of advanced society.

Are you sure?

400 000 year old spears found in cave

# Olorgesailie (Acheulian site in Kenya 1.0 - 0.5 my) ... a series of sites buried in lake margin and stream sediments at the foot of a volcano, preserve lots of handaxes, and also good evidence of butchery (e.g. smashed hippo bones associated with stone tools)... plus a site with the remains of over 50 giant gelada baboons associated with handaxes and other stone tools.... suggesting either that this was some type of mass kill site, where a troop was surprised and killed off (which would be evidence for cooperative hunting), or a site where baboons were regularly killed. (Remember that chimpanzees not only hunt, but they hunt cooperatively, using ambush techniques...)

Homo erectus and the Acheulian

Our early ancestors were throwing rocks before they began using fashioned tools. How did they prepare the 'wood, skin?' They used stone tools. We've left evidence of our presence in a lot of places. The evolution of lithics design is very well documented.

reply to post by Kandinsky


They used caves, but for what? As butcheries, workshops. I really doubt they lived there at all times. Maybe some did, but caves are really scarce to be such a commonly used place of habitation.

Building a simple "house" is not at all so difficult. Even apes build their nests every evening anew. Using wood, tusks, ropes, skins, probably occurred very early. Except for tusks, everything else would have disintegrated.

Caves were used even in the Eneolithic and in early bronze age, as temporary shelters in areas where there was already developed agriculture and metal working (like in the Balkans) during seasonal migrations.

I am only speaking about caves like this because of, I think, heavy prejudice that those hominids were some stupid beasts without any finesse in what they were doing. I think it is totally wrong. Human beings can easily degrade in their behavior, and there are many examples of this in today's world, but that is a totally different matter and has to do with systematic insistence on being ignorant and unethical. Nothing to do with natural ability to be creative.

Now this is very interesting.

he relationship between Neandertals and modern humans, who are thought to have arisen in Africa some 120,000 to 150,000 years ago, and the demise of the Neandertals are intertwined. The two coexisted in Southwest Asia for a long period (see "The Peopling of Eurasia," ARCHAEOLOGY, January/February 1996). Excavations at sites in Israel have yielded remains of modern humans at Skhul and Qafzeh caves dated from as early as 120,000 to 90,000 years ago, and Neandertal remains at Kebara Cave dated from 60,000 years ago and Amud Cave dated from 40,000 to 50,000 years ago. In western Europe, Neandertals persisted until 30,000 years ago and possibly somewhat later. The question arises: To what extent did the two interact in terms of cultural exchange or trade and interbreeding? Were the Neandertals out-competed by modern humans or killed off by them, or were they absorbed into the population and genetically swamped?

From here: www.archaeology.org...

Modern humans in this region preceded Neanderthals.
So, who really out-competed whom at those times?
But in text there is an assumption that modern humans out-competed Neanderthals, although Neanderthals lived to a later date.

We don't know the reason, and have no clue what really happened and perhaps they lived together without competition. Who is to say?

Also interesting and not consistent with "One Eve" theory.

New dates for Homo erectus fossils from Ngandong, Java, suggest this hominid lived as recently as 53,000 to 27,000 years ago.

www.archaeology.org...

"It is rather striking to see that this overlap between long-lasting archaic populations and modern humans is documented only at the two extremities of the Old World, in the two culs-de-sac which are Western Europe and Indonesia," says Hublin. "In both places, each year brings new evidence of the possible interaction between contemporary but different groups of humans.

Yes, striking. Why is it striking? It only strikes on some preconceptions, nothing else. To me it looks like more likely to have occurred in many places.

reply to post by Kandinsky

Hello Kandinsky,

SC: Atlantis? Please show me where I say I believe in Atlantis?

Lost advanced civilization? Please show me where I say I believe in a lost advanced civilization?

Around 12500 years ago the Earth was devastated by a series of apocolyptic cataclysms of cosmic origin which triggered the end of the last ice age.

Millions of plants and animals, the world over, were destroyed in these cataclysms- some never to be recovered.

It seem also from the evidence we find encoded into the pyramids of Giza, that a relatively advanced civilization existed on the Earth at the time and- as Plato confirms- was completely destroyed.
Scott Creighton Powerpoint (Slide 1-4)

Kandinsky: The only destroyed civilization Plato referred to was Atlantis...

SC: Fact: The Earth was devastated by a series of cataclysmic events some 12,500 years ago.

Fact: Many animal and plant species disappeared at that time.

Fact: The story of Egypt's most ancient past - it's very beginnings - inscribed on the walls of the Temple of Horus at Edfu speaks of an ancient People of Shebtiu "Elders" or "Sages" whose island homeland was destroyed by a sudden cataclysmic flood. Tell me this is not where Plato (via Solon) obtained his original inspiration for his allegorical tale of Atlantis. It may have been allegorical to Plato but perhaps not for the first inhabitants of Ancient Egypt.

Fact: The date the AE indicate in their Grand Precession Clock (that is the structures at Giza) concords incredibly well with the date Plato gives for the destruction of this island people.

As I said - I consider there to be more to these ancient texts that modern Egyptologists simply write off as myth or religious mumbo jumbo.

Kandinsky: I await the theory that explains how this advanced technology wiped out it's entire record of existence. Modesty?

SC: Advanced "technology"? What ARE you talking about? What "technology" exactly do ytou have in mind? The skills these ancient Shemsu-Hor (Followers of Horus) would have had was a profound understanding of the motions of the Earth and the stars, the ability to navigate the seas (probably using the stars), the ability to work and move heavy stone. If you consider these as being "advanced" skills then I guess these ancient people must have been advanced.

Kandinsky: The Giza Orion theory rests on the contention that 'possibly' Imhotep received a codex that 'fell from the sky.' The idea lends itself to alien intervention unless an extensive building plan that predicts a cyclical cataclysm was also an outcome of parallel evolution? It's textbook bad science.

SC: And what you have written above is textbook obfuscation of the highest order. You are mixing two completely separate strands of my research in a delibertae attempt - I guess - to create as much confusion as you can. Let's be clear then for the benefit of you and others reading this thread:

I do not require an intelligent hominid species to have existed 250kya or even 40kya to somehow validate my theories concerning Giza. We know categorically that "high civilisation" existed (at least) 8,000 years before the Pyramid Age began. All you need do is to look at the sophistication of Göbekli Tepe to know that.

My theories on evolution are presented in order to try and explain what I see as shortcomings in evolutionary theory and to try and explain anomarts found the world over. This has little to do with my research into Ancient Egypt so do not confuse the two. As for the Sphinx - I don't consider it to be a million years old but I am convinced it predates Giza. The Inventory Stele as well as the geomorphy of the Giza site (vis-a-vis Colin Reader's work) tells us that much.

Kandinsky: A conclusion has been drawn from the positions of the Giza Pyramids. The evidence came second and was found wanting.

SC: Explain clearly what you are referring to here. What evidence was "found wanting"?

Kandinsky: Each possibility was unsupported or in direct conflict with myriad discipline in science:time lines, fossils, geology, archaeo/anthropology, human evolution, migration etc etc etc. Rather than go back to the drawing board, we find ourselves here, casting doubt on accepted models of science and espousing 'possibilities' of a parallel evolution and ooparts.

SC: Complete rubbish! How can "parallel evolution" be in conflict with anything if you (and others) now see it as a possibility? If ONE cell can evolve and ultimately produce higher life forms, why is it not possible that two or more such cells could have done the very same?

Kandinsky: These ideas have been 'peer-reviewed' on Hall of Maat and were disputed by conflicting evidence.

SC: I have proved my case for a Giza-Orion connection (if that is what you are alluding to) far and above reasonable doubt. Whilst there are many knowledgeable people on HoM site, most fail to grasp the very simple idea that whilst they know much, there is a big piece of the AE story that they i.e. Egyptology as a whole, has entirely overlooked or deliberately dismisses. So, they can dispute the evidence I present till they are blue in the face. I know the Giza-Orion connection is right and I have proven so - beyond reasonable doubt. BTW - I thought this post somewhat hit the proverbial nail on the head as to the "Methods of Ma'at".

How very, very different you must find things here on GHMB, where the promoters of alternative ideas and explorers of new theories can not be simply bullied off the forum by a crowd of clucking, tutting, sneering cynics in residence.

The Hall of Ma’at, that tomb of dead ideas and intellectual cowardice, where the closing of ranks replaces debate and where any argument which challenges the smug preconceptions of the regulars is stamped upon. Where posts are edited, censored, or removed at the merest whiff of any dissent or alternative argument that might hold water, and where the slightest inkling of a fresh and thought-provoking take on the ancient world is enough to bring the moderators in like fussing mother hens to close down the thread.

Continued.....

reply to post by Kandinsky

Continued....

Yes, how very different you must find GHMB, when you regularly hone your skills on a forum where anyone with an alternative view has to proceed with two hands tied behind their backs while a gang of co-dependent reactionaries lay into them with full editorial backing and who then have the gall to pretend that they are actually freely debating anything or “weighing the evidence”. Why, it was daily entertainment at one point to tune in to that site just to hear the regular thud-thud-thud of Scott Creighton’s threads being shut down by the panicking moderators as quickly as he could start them. At one point they split the entire Ancient History section in two to try to quarantine Scott’s contributions.

Such was the fear of new ideas. Such was the loathing for an independent mind. Such was the intolerance of anyone who dared to try to waken those leaden, sleeping, pedestrian brains, some of whom had once dabbled in alternative theory themselves and had their fingers burnt and so took up their new closed mindsets with all the venom of the convert. Yet when Robert Bauval visits the forum they all roll over to have their bellies tickled by the great man – his fame and book sales overcoming their die hard allegiance to the orthodox view. A most unedifying sight, a most unhealthy environment, and indeed it would all be weirdly funny were there not so many decent and open minded people interested in the alternate history field who wander innocently in to the midst of this self-serving cabal only to get the intellectual equivalent of a mugging.

Source: www.grahamhancock.com...

Kandinsky:There's a possibility you are wrong and your loyalty to the idea is clouding your judgment.

SC: I don't doubt this - but not so far as the Giza-Orion connection goes. It's Orion. Period.

Kandinsky: Is it possible your disaffection with accepted science results in reluctance to accept the footprints as being 40ka?

SC: No, not at all. And you're actually forgetting VSM's much older date of 250kya. The model of of evolution and human migration you adhere to is just plain wrong if this date is indeed confirmed. Like many of us "unorthodox" have been trying to tell you. Science would not accept VSM's 250kya date for what reason? Do tell us? Why was her date rejected? We KNOW why, don't we! Because it did not fit the science of the time. So, I have no disaffection with science - as I keep telling you - it is those scientists that will not accept the results of their own science that I have a problem with. And, for that matter, so should you.

SC: From a civilization that is infinitely older than most people realize but which Egyptology actually knows but through their anodyne approach to such limits their study to – at best – the Archaic Period.

Everyone is wrong but you?

SC: No - I've been wrong on occasion and am big enough to concede when I am. I can show you some examples if you like?

Kandinsky: Ignoring 'infinitely,' are you sure Egyptology is concealing an ancient civilization?

SC: It's not deliberate. They just do not focus too much on anything beyond Menes. The AE civilisation goes many tens of thousands of years further back in time than Menes. The Edfu Building Texts tells us that.

Kandinsky: Are you aware that you deny belief in lost civilizations and then refer to them in other posts as being real?

SC: The only "lost civilisation" I see are those Ancient Egyptians that Egyptology never discusses i.e. far beyond Menes and the Archaic Period. Ancient Egypt's true heritage truly will become "lost" if mainstream Egyptology continues to ignore and dismiss it.

Kandinsky: Is it faith-based or evidence-based belief? Examples? Sources?

SC: Try Reymonds The Mythical Origins of the Egyptian Temple for starters.

Kandinsky: Your faith in a lost civilization that flies in the face of evidence means that you actually do 'distort evidence.'

SC: The evidence of a "lost chapter" in AE history is written in the walls of the Temple of Horus at Edfu but is largely ignored by mainsteam Egyptology. This is the "lost civilisation" I am talking about. Hope that's now clear.

Kandinsky: Applying your pre-Cambrian parallel evolution theory to avoid the acceptance of the evidence of a 40ka footprint is a form of 'distortion.'

SC: No - applying my Precambrian Parallel evolution model is not about avoiding anything. It's about trying to provide a framework of evolution that can make sense of artefacts that are 250kyo (or older). And, as I have said to you time and again - a footprint dated to 40kya does not tell us when the footprint's owner landed in the Americas, now does it?

Regards,

Scott Creighton

just a brief note - oh and well said Kandisky

I have proved my case for a Giza-Orion connection (if that is what you are alluding to) far and above reasonable doubt.

Laughable Scot, as is your odd denial of not mentioning Atlantis. You did why not just admit that you did and move on?

You haven't proved your case at all. As you well know science is based on acceptance and concensus - so who supports your idea? Please list them? You haven't convinced any Egyptologists that I'm aware of or any Archaeologists. There are no peer reviewed papers supporting your theory. It is not discussed at conference - National Geographic haven't called have they? Yours is just another of the 700 or so failed theories about the pyramids. They lay littered around like the pieces of the L'Orient at Aboukir.

Self acceptance is not acceptance by the scientific community - now we both know you already know that so why the foolish statement above?

Please stop the silliness. All you have is an idea that fails because it lacks sufficient evidence. Full stop.

I consider the speculation about multi-evolution of more interest. Let your dead idea rest and move on.

Greetings, Scott.

Originally posted by Scott Creighton
I am talking about the evolutionary point before any plants or animals had evolved from that single cell in the Precambrian oceans; a Precambrian ocean that would have been brimming with innumerable single-celled organisms with identical DNA.

They weren't brimming with innumerable identical single celled organisms with identical DNA.

This world isn't a giant petri dish. It was never a giant petri dish.

It rotates; so sometimes the sky is full of direct radiation (the sun is a very high radiation source) and sometimes it isn't. The moon was nearer, so tidal influences that were stronger swept over the area at different times of the day. The ocean floor was not a consistent depth, so currents existed in the environment.

The minute one of those proto-bacteria got swept into another area, it would change. And the first proto-bacteria is now the mother of the second one, and the second one can spawn others... and so on and so forth.

Those that make it to the poles or to the other side of the Earth... offspring of that first proto-bacteria.

So, does it remain your view that only ONE of these cells in the Precambrian ocean managed to evolve, eventually resulting in all past and present plant and animal species on Earth?

Yes. The world is not a huge petri dish. The minute its offspring got out of the area and into another area, they changed. They became many things, including many failed lineages.