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: rickymouse
Since when do we have to choose something else to believe in just because we do not believe in a present theory. Isn't it good enough to say that it really doesn't matter where man came from?
originally posted by: np6888
a reply to: peter vlar
And where is the evidence that the UK is connected to the mainland 7000 years ago?
The Channel is of geologically recent origins, having been dry land for most of the Pleistocene period. It is thought to have been created between 450,000 and 180,000 years ago by two catastrophic glacial lake outburst floods caused by the breaching of the Weald–Artois anticline, a ridge that held back a large proglacial lake in the Doggerland region, now submerged under the North Sea. The flood would have lasted for several months, releasing as much as one million cubic metres of water per second. The cause of the breach is not known but may have been an earthquake or the build-up of water pressure in the lake. The flood carved a large bedrock-floored valley down the length of the Channel, leaving behind streamlined islands and longitudinal erosional grooves characteristic of catastrophic megaflood events.[6][7] It destroyed the isthmus that connected Britain to continental Europe, although a land bridge across the southern North Sea would have existed intermittently at later times after periods of glaciation resulted in lowering of sea levels.[8]
originally posted by: np6888
a reply to: peter vlar
So basically, you just keep quoting arcane articles to prove your point, how do we know any of this date is correct?
Out of all Out of Arica theories, I have not seen anyone that suggests that we migrated 2 million years ago.
And where is the evidence that the UK is connected to the mainland 7000 years ago?
originally posted by: knightsofhonor
Where do Black Africans fit into this? Because modern day media and history teaches that Black Africans were stupid and tribal savages?
originally posted by: Hanslune
However, based on the time frames 'Black Africans' probably didn't exist nor did any other recognizable race (to us today) exist in the time frame looked at in this paper, 130,000 and 75,000 years ago. You are looking at about 6,500 generations.
originally posted by: sidhedarkness
originally posted by: Hanslune
However, based on the time frames 'Black Africans' probably didn't exist nor did any other recognizable race (to us today) exist in the time frame looked at in this paper, 130,000 and 75,000 years ago. You are looking at about 6,500 generations.
Wouldn't it be a fairly safe bet that the EMH inhabiting Africa would have had dark skin given the climate and their status as a native species to the region? Was the climate different enough that the dark "black" skin we see in African humans today would not have existed?
originally posted by: rickymouse
a reply to: Hanslune
I was six in 61. Our books were old when I was young, they used to use them for years to conserve on money. It seems like they are changing them every year now, the teachers don't even get a chance to get used to them. But that is another subject all together.
Columbus discovered America till I was at least fourteen, then we were told that maybe some other Spanish conquistador was possibly here way before. Heck, Columbus's name isn't even Columbus, it was something like Colon.