How to upset Creationist and Darwinians.

[Hyperbol 9]

Right, my second post, so I might as well jump in at the deep end. Having had a looksee at the creationist V evolution thread it put me in mind of.... Ancient Traces, which was a very mixed read, and I quite liked some of the theories thrown up. Okay, I've researched them as much as the author, so who's to say whether it's claptrap or there is something in it? But it's all good clean fun. Later. I was asked to write something for a office rag and so offered up the following. I attempted to toe the line a little as my colleagues would be reading and I had to live/work with them. However, shock horror. I work with more woo woo brigade members than you can shake the preverbial stick at and much black-eyed looks did I receive.

So I thought I'd chuck it in here where we can have a PROPER chat about it.....

In museum and university basements the world over boxes are being opened and archaeological finds that have been accidentally misplaced for the last century or so are being examined, often for the first time. Why should this be? A century ago Darwin published his famous work and launched a new religion, the belief in evolution. Since that time the supporters of Darwin have run the show and staked reputations, careers and pride on making the theory of evolution puzzle fit precisely to their every whim. Any who dare dig up (literally) an alternative to the established view are shot down in flames, careers ruined. The problem is Darwinian theory has as many holes in it as a fishing net. That is not to say that there are no doubt elements of truth in it but for every so-called fact or truth that has added to the mainstream orthodox view there are many more discoveries that throw it all into doubt. By setting their theories in stone, destroying the careers and credibility of those who dare find conflicting discoveries and by brainwashing the world at large with the help of an unwitting media, the Darwinists have become as staid in their claims as the preachings of the churches they deny. However, the day of the Darwinists is at best looking glum as a new generation of scientist decide that enough is enough and true science must again reign.

I’ve always had a bit of a problem with Darwinian evolutionary theory. This is not to say I’m a creationist, heaven forbid, but some aspects of natural selection have never added up. It never sat quite right. Indeed, there is much more to the story of mankind than we have been lead to believe. Darwin himself admitted, and indeed wrote at length, that the fossil record that should reveal evolutionary change was not merely lacking but completely missing. He hoped that his ideas would be proven accurate as the years went by and more discoveries were found. A century later we are all still waiting for this evidence to emerge. By this I mean that the fossil records only ever produce fully formed species, there are no traces of the half-way creatures, giraffes with short necks, elephants with long noses and so on. Life, both flora and fauna burst into existence fully formed in what is referred to as the Cambrian Explosion, 530 million years ago. But we hear none of this in the popular media, instead a carefully contrived truth is presented to us. Many of you will remember the acclaimed BBC series Apeman a few years ago. We have all heard of Mitochondrial Eve and the Out of Africa theory. All makes perfect sense doesn’t it. But does it?

Before I go any further let’s take a look at some suppressed archaeological findings that do not fit with orthodox scientific teachings. Some of these discoveries date from the 1800s to the 1950s, well before the major Darwinian discoveries, particularly of the 1970s.

Timescale (years since strata was formed):

590 – 505,000,000: Sandal imprint found inside split shale, Antelope Springs, Utah.

320 – 260,000,000: Eight-carat gold chain found inside lump of coal, Illinois, USA.
Carat is an alloy and eight carat not a mix made in recent times.

250,000,000: Human footprints found in rock, Kentucky, USA.

248 – 213,000,000 (Triassic): Shoe imprint found in rock, Nevada, USA.

150,000,000: Human footprint found in rock alongside dinosaur tracks, Turkmenistan.

55- 33,000,000: Stone pestle and mortar found at Table Mountain, California.

25 – 5,000,000: Tool markings on rhinoceros thighbone, France.

5 – 2,000,000: Tool markings on whale fossil.

3.8 – 3.6,000,000: Laetoli footprints. Human footprints in lava.

3.5,000,000: Lucy, Australopithecus (Southern Ape – considered early human).

2.5 – 2,000,000: Red Crag, Suffolk, Drilled holes in shark teeth from sea that had
been there.

250,000 – 25,000: Neanderthals existed.

200 – 150,000: Mitochondial DNA “Eve” in Africa. All human DNA
traced to one woman!? Out Of Africa theory.

125,000 – 65,000: North American tools found. (12,000 is accepted belief of
colonization via Bering Strait).

115,000 – 100,000: Homo Sapien skeletons found below Neanderthal skeletons in
Qafzeh Caves, Israel.

90,000: Proof of Homo Sapien and Neanderthal co-existence.

60,000 – 50,000: Homo Sapiens and Neanderthals diverge

50,000: Orthodox scientific view of out of Africa migration of first Humans.

40,000: Accepted Darwinian supporters view that first Homo Sapiens (anatomically
modern humans) evolved.

I remember seeing the film One Million Years BC in which Raquel Welch screamed her lungs off while being chased by dinosaurs. I remember my parents telling me how ridiculous this was because humans, even primates, didn’t come along for millions of years after the dinosaurs became extinct, which in any case was 65 million years ago. Thus I grew up appreciating that it was a daft film. The archaeological evidence above tells us that it may not be such a daft film afterall, well not from a historical perspective anyway. And one other thing, are all dinosaurs extinct? That’s another story, but it goes far beyond such narrow view bandwagon pop culture as the Loch Ness Monster. As with aliens and UFOs and so on, pop culture blinds us to more possibly believable fantasies. Another time perhaps.

Research came to the conclusion that all humans alive today have the same origin in a relatively small population of who lived in Africa 200,000-150,000 years ago. Scholars sometimes referred to this finding as the “African Eve” or “Mitochondrial Eve” hypothesis. All anatomically modern people, Homo sapiens sapiens and groups like the Cro-Magnon’s, can trace their history back to this time through DNA found only in females. This belief supports the “Out of Africa” theory that all humans evolved from Africa and migrated outwards approximately 50,000 years ago. But what if this is nonsense? For starters, even if we accept the more conservative archaeological data that is not generally disputed, MDNA Eve only takes us half way back to the development of Homo sapiens. This fact is nothing short of a bottleneck in the middle of the human story. And then there’s the Baboon Marker.

Scientists recently discovered that millennia ago a virus nearly eradicated the primate population of Africa. Initially baboons were tested and a defensive gene against the virus was found. The gene is akin to humans eventually evolving a defensive gene to say, for example, cancer. All other African primates were found to have the now redundant, but nevertheless present, gene. Primates on other continents do not have the gene, it is unique to African primates. Humans, we are told, evolved from African primates and therefore should logically possess the gene. Afterall, 97% of human DNA is junk, not used, it would still be there surely. It is not. How then could humans have evolved from African primates that to this day possess the gene?

Darwin told us that natural selection is a species way of evolving, primarily to live in harmony in it’s environment, which we all know means survival skills. We know that primates came down out of the trees and spread onto the African savanna, possibly because the forests were in retreat. But consider this fact for an opener; humans are the only mammals that sweat, thus losing water and salt. Bodily salt can be depleted in three hours in the right conditions and in extreme cases can lead to death, conditions such as an African plain. Look out natural selection, your argument has started to look decidedly fragile. Furthermore, the savanna is full to brimming with four legged animals. This arrangement is the most efficient way to travel at speed by using the least amount of energy, which is a good idea for predators and prey alike. How then can we sit comfortably with the notion that primates that could move at speed on four limbs, even in spite of being tree dwellers, would give up this ability to walk or run on two legs, most of the energy being used to balance and hold the body upright. Not such a great fad gadget when a tiger is after you. We would have at best been prey, yet we have forward facing eyes. In nature all predators have forward facing eyes, whereas prey, such as a rabbit, has eyes on the side of its head so as it has a good idea of what’s going on around it.

In fact humans have physiognomy more akin to aquatic mammals such as whales, seals and sealions. Ever stopped to think about bodily hair? Most people with an average IQ will know that the absence of hair in a typical climate doesn’t make an awful lot of sense as an evolutionary imperative. Why would we need clothes otherwise? In fact could bodily hair be evolution in reverse to the accepted view, could humans actually be developing hair as part of ongoing climatization to evolutionary imperative? So do we have anything to account for the lack of a hairy coat like all other sensible animals. In fact we do, a layer of fat under the skin, which no other land based mammals have. In the sea, however, the aforementioned whales and company share this attribute, which is a great insulator in water but not so effective in air. There is of course more. These same marine mammals are the only other species that mate facing one another (humans have a choice I suppose, but you get my gist), and the larynx of humans and marine mammals in what is called a descended larynx. Again, no other land-based mammal has this arrangement, which allows humans to not only speak but to control breathing. Basically the windpipe and gullet are not separated by the structure of the throat and the ability to control breathing is advantageous to aquatic mammals when diving. It helps humans to choke on food that has gone down the wrong hole. It is obvious, however, that humans did not descend from aquatic creatures in the not-so-distant past. So, based on these few points alone, natural selection doesn’t pass the test. A theory that is gathering support is one of chaos theory whereby, rather than a progressive and improving evolution, small mistakes, both good and bad, in generation after generation have resulted in the creatures we see today. But if natural selection is still your thing, how about a credible alternative to the savanna theory? One scientist has an interesting theory that considers several separate ideologies and brings them all together. Lateral thinking at last!

The Danakil Highlands in Ethiopia border the Red Sea and Gulf of Aden. At about the same time as primates were believed to be taking to the savannas it became an island after a sea had receded leaving, if you like, a giant lake. As the sea level at the base of the island dropped the whole area would have become swampland and the primates living in the trees would have been cut off from the rest of Africa. Not only would this microcosmic condition enable breeding without contamination from other species, as is required to account for evolutionary development, but they would have been shielded from the plague that nearly wiped out the African primates and thus would not have developed the defensive gene. When leaving the trees they would find themselves in water and so a layer of fat beneath the skin might be preferable to fur. Furthermore, if they were not natural swimmers in the first instance they would need to keep the head above water thus rearing up on the hindquarters, especially when wading in the shallows. As the water receded the primates would then be free to go exploring the big wide world. An interesting theory you would have to admit. But as with all of the points raised here, it is just a theory, just as natural selection is a theory. There are no definitive answers and to show that anything is up for grabs there is an argument that if the primate virus wiped out most of the population, then there would be few survivors, which in turn could account for the MDNA Eve bottleneck problem.

I later stuck the above on the Fortean Times boards and, as usual, upset those poor souls who do not have the mental capacity to even consider ammending their mindset, be it creatinist or evolutionary/Darwinian. All good fun eh.
;)

[Matabiri]

Originally posted by Hyperbol 9
But consider this fact for an opener; humans are the only mammals that sweat, thus losing water and salt.

At the very least, where did you get this piece of rubbish from? Lots of mammals sweat. Horses and hippos, to name two.

Hippos sweat sunblock, in fact.

[JamesM]

Originally posted by Hyperbol 9
I later stuck the above on the Fortean Times boards and, as usual, upset those poor souls who do not have the mental capacity to even consider ammending their mindset, be it creatinist or evolutionary/Darwinian. All good fun eh.
;)
Given the huge number of unsourced claims you make in this article, perhaps you could focus on a smaller number, providing citations for them?

I have to say, I suspect you are in for an even rougher ride here than at the FTMB - good luck.

[LTC8K6]

Human footprints in lava.

I take it that the bones were found nearby?

[Hyperbol 9]

It was in the book... it said it was a fact..... so there you go... must be true ;)

Perhaps I should explain before I go too much further (and as being new I'm an unknown commodity. But a quick intro: I'm one of Most Haunted's biggest adversary on the Fortean Times Boards). The article I wrote was presented in a very tongue in cheek manner and I had to take a certain stance to present the thing in the rag, but there are a few eyebrow raisers that I'd like discussed properly: The baboon marker and MDNA Eve bottleneck. However, as I said, I have only read, not researched and it is most certainly fringe reading and an overview, not a detailed study. It all sounds a bit dodgy doesn't it. It went on to talk about Atlantis and reincarnation and all sorts.... but I couldn't bring myself to dredge through any of that pish.

[Dragon]

Originally posted by JamesM

Given the huge number of unsourced claims you make in this article, perhaps you could focus on a smaller number, providing citations for them?

I have to say, I suspect you are in for an even rougher ride here than at the FTMB - good luck. Seconded, put that blunderbuss away. For starters why not pick what you think is the single best example of a "hole" in the neo-Darwinian synthesis. Proper references please.

[Brian the Snail]

By this I mean that the fossil records only ever produce fully formed species, there are no traces of the half-way creatures, giraffes with short necks, elephants with long noses and so on.

This is untrue. See here (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part2c.html) :

2. Giraffes: Branched off from the deer just after Eumeryx. The first giraffids were Climacoceras (very earliest Miocene) and then Canthumeryx (also very early Miocene), then Paleomeryx (early Miocene), then Palaeotragus (early Miocene) a short-necked giraffid complete with short skin-covered horns. From here the giraffe lineage goes through Samotherium (late Miocene), another short-necked giraffe, and then split into Okapia (one species is still alive, the okapi, essentially a living Miocene short-necked giraffe), and Giraffa (Pliocene), the modern long-necked giraffe.

A whole section on elephants can be found here (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part2b.html) .

[Vitnir]

I have heard from somewhere that one possible explanation for the lack of findings of this missing link is that then we were living at coastal areas which now are well below water.

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Hyperbol 9
Right, my second post, ..
;)

If you'd like a critique, here it is in a nutshell:

o You mistake evolutionary theory for concerns about the exact evolution of man.

o The "fossil gaps" are bogus. Intermediates certainly do exist in the fossil record. And, logically, whenever one such gap is filled with a fossil sample, the immediate construction of two new gaps can be argued. If you think about it, you realize you are arguing a Zeno's paradox here. The question itself is wrong.

o Your discussion of our physignomy is interesting, but do not claim the swimming ancestors theory as yours. This theory originated with Sir Thomas Hardy long ago and is referred to as the Hardy Aquatic Ape theory.

o Your "lost gene" discussion is seriously flawed. You need some grounding in both molecular and theoretical population genetics to fully understand why. I am willing to discuss all of that at length if you are willing to work at it.

[Zep]

Originally posted by Hyperbol 9
Timescale (years since strata was formed):

590 – 505,000,000: Sandal imprint found inside split shale, Antelope Springs, Utah.
How do they know it was a SANDAL print? Could it have been a moccasin? Or a pair of Julius Marlowes?

320 – 260,000,000: Eight-carat gold chain found inside lump of coal, Illinois, USA. Carat is an alloy and eight carat not a mix made in recent times.
kar·at also car·at
A unit of measure for the fineness of gold, equal to 1/24 part. Pure gold is 24 karat; gold that is 50 percent pure is 12 karat.

You ought to get your terms straight first, before you make such claims. And 8-carat gold is used quite frequently today. Look here (http://www.forbiddenplanetstore.com/acatalog/LOTR_Jewellery.html) for a sample (scroll down for "The One Ring").

250,000,000: Human footprints found in rock, Kentucky, USA.
Prehistoric Kentuckians? Dare I make a joke here?

248 – 213,000,000 (Triassic): Shoe imprint found in rock, Nevada, USA.
What sort of rock? Lava?

150,000,000: Human footprint found in rock alongside dinosaur tracks, Turkmenistan.
Oh, well that's different than from some creek in Texas, I suppose.

55- 33,000,000: Stone pestle and mortar found at Table Mountain, California.
So if the rock is that old, that's how old the object made from it must be too. Right?

25 – 5,000,000: Tool markings on rhinoceros thighbone, France.
Chain-saw, no doubt.

5 – 2,000,000: Tool markings on whale fossil.
Waterproof chain-saw.

3.8 – 3.6,000,000: Laetoli footprints. Human footprints in lava.
What LTC8K6 said! :)

3.5,000,000: Lucy, Australopithecus (Southern Ape – considered early human).

2.5 – 2,000,000: Red Crag, Suffolk, Drilled holes in shark teeth from sea that had been there.
Or the shark had a bad dental caries issue. Or was dead a real long time, perhaps?

250,000 – 25,000: Neanderthals existed.
Hey, Oog baby! You call this existing? Let's live a little!

200 – 150,000: Mitochondial DNA “Eve” in Africa. All human DNA traced to one woman!? Out Of Africa theory.

125,000 – 65,000: North American tools found. (12,000 is accepted belief of colonization via Bering Strait).

115,000 – 100,000: Homo Sapien skeletons found below Neanderthal skeletons in Qafzeh Caves, Israel.

90,000: Proof of Homo Sapien and Neanderthal co-existence.

60,000 – 50,000: Homo Sapiens and Neanderthals diverge

50,000: Orthodox scientific view of out of Africa migration of first Humans.

40,000: Accepted Darwinian supporters view that first Homo Sapiens (anatomically modern humans) evolved.

By any chance, do you happen to be acquainted with this guy? (http://www.drdino.com)?

[Bottle or the Gun]

Originally posted by Matabiri


At the very least, where did you get this piece of rubbish from? Lots of mammals sweat. Horses and hippos, to name two.

Hippos sweat sunblock, in fact.

It's called blood-sweat, because of the pinkish hue.

Also, isn't Darwinism constantly portrayed in the literal context of when it was first written? It is an evolving theory that allows for new advances in science. My understanding is that evolution does not have to be so gradual either, and that not only the physical environment but social pressures can cause changes. And social pressures could be thought of as having an origin only in perception and not reality.

The human male sperm count is lower today when compared to several hundred years ago, due to population pressures, something that does not have anything to do with your immediate physical environment, like growing longer arms or necks to reach the best food. What is the trigger for this change? I also understand that a person's sperm count will rise if he THINKS his wife is having multiple partners, so his genetic material will have a chance to be successful over the other donors. Why do your reproductive organs care how many males are in the western hemisphere?

[Nigel]

as posted by Zep
250,000,000: Human footprints found in rock, Kentucky, USA.
Prehistoric Kentuckians? Dare I make a joke here?

Oh, go ahead Zep. Sure, I live in Kentucky.....but I'm not from here. So it's not like I'll be offended. :D

I could start, but that should go in another thread. :)

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Bottle or the Gun
Also, isn't Darwinism constantly portrayed in the literal context of when it was first written? It is an evolving theory that allows for new advances in science. My understanding is that evolution does not have to be so gradual either, and that not only the physical environment but social pressures can cause changes. And social pressures could be thought of as having an origin only in perception and not reality.
It is mostly referred to today as the neo-Darwinian synthesis because of the convergence of facts from molecular biology, molecular genetics, theoretical population genetics, and paleo-this-and-thats.

[Brian the Snail]

Before I go any further let’s take a look at some suppressed archaeological findings that do not fit with orthodox scientific teachings. Some of these discoveries date from the 1800s to the 1950s, well before the major Darwinian discoveries, particularly of the 1970s.
.....
3.8 – 3.6,000,000: Laetoli footprints. Human footprints in lava.

3.5,000,000: Lucy, Australopithecus (Southern Ape – considered early human).

How are these "suppressed archaelogical findings" given that they well known and accepted by paleontologists. There's information about them all over from "evolutionist" sources. They basically show that early, bipedal forms of humanoids were around 3 million years ago, that weren't human in the modern sense, but weren't apes either. So they're fully consistent with an evolutionary origin of humans.

Ditto with the stuff about Neanderthals. Yes, early Homo Sapiens and Neanderthals coexisted (in fact Neanderthals were Homo Sapiens, just on a different branch on the evolutionary tree to us). How does this contradict evolution?

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

When spewing pseudo-facts gleaned from hither and yon, it is best to spew a torrent. Come on, Hyper, pick one or two pieces of evidence and let us get into the details.

~~ Paul

[MRC_Hans]

So, Hyperbol 9: Since you denounce both evolution AND creationism (and I would love to discuss you points - one at a time), then how DO you assume that several million different species came to exist on this planet?

Hans

[Dragon]

Hey, Hyperbol 9, I thought you wanted a proper chat ... :con2:
Please don't be another drive-by troll, that's no fun at all.

[RamblingOnwards]

Originally posted by Hyperbol 9
How then can we sit comfortably with the notion that primates that could move at speed on four limbs, even in spite of being tree dwellers, would give up this ability to walk or run on two legs, most of the energy being used to balance and hold the body upright. Not such a great fad gadget when a tiger is after you.

To be an absolute pedant, there have never been tigers on the African Savannas.

[Zep]

Originally posted by Nigel

Oh, go ahead Zep. Sure, I live in Kentucky.....but I'm not from here. So it's not like I'll be offended. :D

I could start, but that should go in another thread. :) I'll be gentle... :D

Prehistoric Kentuckian.

http://www.tvder60er.de/bilder/boone.jpg

[Nigel]

Originally posted by Zep
I'll be gentle... :D

Prehistoric Kentuckian.

http://www.tvder60er.de/bilder/boone.jpg
I have to Fess up, that's good. But I wonder if that footprint mentioned by Hyper was found in a Parker lot.

[Zep]

Originally posted by Nigel

I have to Fess up, that's good. But I wonder if that footprint mentioned by Hyper was found in a Parker lot. Da-boom TISH! :)

[Hyperbol 9]

Originally posted by Dragon
Hey, Hyperbol 9, I thought you wanted a proper chat ... :con2:
Please don't be another drive-by troll, that's no fun at all.

Well, as first posts go I've done better.

Hey guys, I'm on your side, as you'll see if you read my little explanatory opening paragraph. It was a book I'd read (bits of) and stuck out as an article as I was asked to do something and it was all fresh in me head. Yep, I translated the slant of the book as presented as it wasn't the time and place for the debates such as has started here but a mag article needed in a hurry. My mistake is in presenting it in a format from a completely different environment. But perhaps you're all right in one respect. I've fed a load of plodders at work a load of unfounded twaddle, which is a bit out of order in retrospect. Was meant to be lighthearted office rag stuff only.


So, please, please,please (begging lots) don't think I'm a woo woo for a second. Anonymity here aside, that would still bother me terribly. I wrote a summary of a book I had written. I don't prescribe that any of it as true or false... just interesting.

Okay, perhaps I overloaded on stuff, I just cut and pasted the Word doc I kept. The baboon marker I do find interesting and haven't investigated. This is what forums are fore, eh? The lazy way of finding out. Any thoughts?

And I hope that as my posts go by I will relieve your troubled brows and show I am not a drive-by troll. Take a look at my stuff in FTMB as Hyperbol IX if you're still not convinced.

Originally posted by MRC_Hans
So, Hyperbol 9: Since you denounce both evolution AND creationism (and I would love to discuss you points - one at a time), then how DO you assume that several million different species came to exist on this planet?

Hans

I denounce or support neither. Creationism I do not subscribe to. Darwinianism (as called in my neck of the woods) has been challenged. I post so there is counter-argument. I may then wish to disagree, but I see nothing so far that I particuarly disagree with. That said, I only wished to get a debate going about 'research' gathered into an overview and stuck into a book. I've read Bible Code and all sorts of pap, doesn't mean I fall for theories, but read to broaden the mind and often to have a laugh, as we do - the weekly newsletter on this site for starters. But hey, I'm telling you grass is green. Everyone has launched into attacks (perhaps too strong a word but you get my gist) in the theories and stuck them my direction as if I have swallowed the stuff hook, line and sinker

Anyway, I'll shut up with the defence stuff and try to get on with proper debate.

There.

The book is ancient Traces by Michael Dawkins by the way.

:D

[richardm]

Originally posted by Hyperbol 9
These same marine mammals are the only other species that mate facing one another


Er, actually, no. Bonobos are a prime example of another. Also gibbons, capuchins, black spider monkeys and oran-outans. And quite a few other species of primate. And I would not be in the least bit surprised to learn that there are other non-primate examples too.

[Dragon]

OK - Hyperbol - I withdraw the suggestion of drive-by trolling.
Welcome to the forum. :)
The "Baboon Marker" it is then -
Originally posted by Hyperbol 9
Scientists recently discovered that millennia ago a virus nearly eradicated the primate population of Africa. Initially baboons were tested and a defensive gene against the virus was found. The gene is akin to humans eventually evolving a defensive gene to say, for example, cancer. All other African primates were found to have the now redundant, but nevertheless present, gene. Primates on other continents do not have the gene, it is unique to African primates. Humans, we are told, evolved from African primates and therefore should logically possess the gene. Afterall, 97% of human DNA is junk, not used, it would still be there surely. It is not. How then could humans have evolved from African primates that to this day possess the gene?
First thoughts -
Reference or link, please!
Also, when is this virus supposed to have "nearly eradicated the primate population of Africa" ? Because if it is since we had a common ancestor with the other primates ...

[Ladewig]

After reading your post I can see that you are right.

You have upset creationists and Darwinists (not Darwinians).
The catch is you have not upset anyone by providing useful evidence against a well-established theory.

I am at a loss as to why you would bury a topic you wanted to seriously discuss in a post filled with unsubstantiated claims and easily discredited theories.

[patnray]

Originally posted by Hyperbol 9
All anatomically modern people, Homo sapiens sapiens and groups like the Cro-Magnon’s, can trace their history back to this time through DNA found only in females. ;)

Just one example of the glaring misstatements in the material you quote. MDNA is found in ALL humans, male and female. It is INHERITED only from the female...

[Hyperbol 9]

Originally posted by Dragon
since we had a common ancestor with the other primates ... [/B]

Good point. I will have a look. Book and article were read/written back at Christmas so it's all long gone.

[Hyperbol 9]

Wow, we've slowed down at last. Right, too business.....

Originally posted by Vitnir
I have heard from somewhere that one possible explanation for the lack of findings of this missing link is that then we were living at coastal areas which now are well below water.

Yeah, but it depends on which,say for example, ice age we are talking about? The end of the last one 10,000 odd years ago is a blinking of the eye evolutionary speaking when the coastline last rose considerably. The coastline only grew by several hundred feet. But go back further to previous ages, for evolution to kick in timewise, and ask why would the animals not find higher ground as humans did?

I live on chalk and flint downland, which a whatever million years ago were the middle of an ocean, as was much of the UK. It is now land. So the reverse also applies but your theory holds. It needs to be tied in with rising and falling sea levels and timelines of evolution, but it sounds promising... the evidence of certain stages of evolution is not available because the UK at that period was ocean. The land then that holds possible evidence is underwater and so cannot be researched just now. But can that balance of sea and land be a diametrically opposed constant worldwide. Nope.

[Dancing David]

Hi Hyperbole9. Welcome to the forum.

What a load of unsubstantiated twddle you have dumped here, there is every piece of bogus information you could imagine and almost no MAINSTREAM science at all .
You claim to critique the theory of evolution through natural selection, but you have demonstrated a complete and total lack of knowledge of what the theory is and what evidence supposrts it.

Effort: A
Documentation of sources: F
Understanding of the material at hand: F-
Politeness:A

I highly suggest that you read up on evolutionary theory and the current debates in it. You have presented the usual creationist views of evolution and don't seem to know what the theory of evolution is about.

Your understanding of human archaelogy and archaeology is general needs to be worked upon greatly.

Very nice attempt, very poor execution.

Out of the load of misinformation presented this stands out in extreme:

Life, both flora and fauna burst into existence fully formed in what is referred to as the Cambrian Explosion, 530 million years ago.


You cite no source but where did you get this a creationist web site?

I highly suggest that you do a web search on the "Burgess shale" and "pre-cambrian life" and prehaps "abiogenesis".

Welocme to the forum but your post contains so many errors in information that it would be hard to point them all out.

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by Hyperbol 9
Wow, we've slowed down at last. Right, too business.....



Yeah, but it depends on which,say, ice age we are talking about? The end of the last one 10,000 odd years ago is a blinking of the eye evolutionary speaking when the coastline last rose considerably. But go back further and ask why would the animals not find higher ground as humans did?



This is what I mean by a lack of undertsanding of the basis of archaeology there are at least three issues you need to think about in this context
1. Where is a hole dug?
2.How did the material get there?
3.Why was the material preserved?

ALL OF THE ARCHAELOGICAL RECORD is full of holes and spotty at best. It is not as though all species just went and laid down where someone was going to dig a hole and covered themselves with preservative. The nature of deposition is crucial to the preservation of remains, which is why they find mummies in dry soil.

There is a myth of the Magdelian Explosion presented by French and German archaeologists who want to say that culture arose in Europe abot 12,000 years ago. they point to fine bone tools and all this cool stuff. Well it just happens that that is also the window of preservation for those objects. They ignore the fact that there is evidence for agriculture in North Africa 60,000-40,000 BP and that the evidence points squarely at India as the cradle of civilization.

Why ? Beacause they found some materials that had beeen preserved in a cave, the same materials thatw ere created in wetter cliamtes but not preserved, the evidence for argiculture in North Africa and India is based upon stone tools because there are no wooden implements from 40,000 BP.

[Hyperbol 9]

Originally posted by Dancing David

Very nice attempt, very poor execution.

You cite no source but where did you get this a creationist web site?

Welocme to the forum but your post contains so many errors in information that it would be hard to point them all out.

Why not make a start rather than glory in the rhetoric? Why not read some of my secondary posts? I did in fact quote the source. As for Creationist... well you must be the first person to call me one of those in a fairly long life. Well done. A good judge of character DD. Jeez, no wonder this isn't so much a debate forum as a load of bods agreeing with one another and generally indulging in backslapping. Anyone with a degree of differing opinion has obviously been soon browbeaten away. I get called narrowminded by believers in this that and everything else on other forums by those who themselves are in fact narrowminded to the other extreme. So argue a point.

Okay, I've chucked in a load of pish. Enjoy it, knock it down, applaud it, do whatever you want. But c'mon, lighten up. I said right at the beginning it was lighthearted and tongue in cheek. But it is nevertheless a challenge to established theory and should be tackled as other posters above have more eloquently done.

And I don't see how it is creationist? Say what you will about the source material and worth of the research (or lack of) of this particular book, it merely attempts to give a third alternative to how we ended up here, one in tune with evolution but not necessarily agreeing with established viewsof the journey from A to B.

[Hyperbol 9]

Originally posted by Dancing David


This is what I mean by a lack of undertsanding of the basis of archaeology there are at least three issues you need to think about in this context
1. Where is a hole dug?
2.How did the material get there?
3.Why was the material preserved?

ALL OF THE ARCHAELOGICAL RECORD is full of holes and spotty at best. It is not as though all species just went and laid down where someone was going to dig a hole and covered themselves with preservative. The nature of deposition is crucial to the preservation of remains, which is why they find mummies in dry soil.

Good, we're up and running.

Your points above are valid. However, holes have been dug for a long time now. Surely someone would have got lucky. Again it comes down to probability. Yeah, the in-between species are probably there, but please explain to this poor ignorant sod how the jackpot doesn't seem to be hit? Must be a few in the dry soil.

I can't believe I'm challenging something from a 'Believers' viewpoint. What went wrong?

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Hyperbol 9
And I don't see how it is creationist? Say what you will about the source material and worth of the research (or lack of) of this particular book, it merely attempts to give a third alternative to how we ended up here, one in tune with evolution but not necessarily agreeing with established viewsof the journey from A to B.

"Ancient Traces" Author: Michael Baigent (http://www.growinglifestyle.com/psearch/Author/Book/Michael_Baigent/index.html)

[thaiboxerken]

I think that Hyperbole did a great job of upsetting "Darwinists". Of course, he had to spout nonsense and fabrications to do so.

I don't know if you are just ignorant about evolution theory, stupid, or a liar, but you certainly aren't saying much that is true.

[Hyperbol 9]

Is the quote and hyperlink to suggest otherwise? Works mainly about Freemasonery as I see it. Whatever the man's religious beliefs, my statement stands with regard to the book. The chapter to which I refer does not come from a religious viewpoint. He later goes on in said book about reincarnation. I chose not to bother with that rubbish. Doesn't change the fact that the chapter to which I refer is not IMO creationist.

[richardm]

Thing is, I don't think it's very clear that what you're proposing is a new idea. You say:

A theory that is gathering support is one of chaos theory whereby, rather than a progressive and improving evolution, small mistakes, both good and bad, in generation after generation have resulted in the creatures we see today

I would suggest that this is exactly what most people mean when they talk about evolution. The idea that it is "improving" towards some future goal is incorrect, I think.

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Hyperbol 9
Is the quote and hyperlink to suggest otherwise? Works mainly about Freemasonery as I see it. Whatever the man's religious beliefs, my statement stands with regard to the book. The chapter to which I refer does not come from a religious viewpoint. He later goes on in said book about reincarnation. I chose not to bother with that rubbish. Doesn't change the fact that the chapter to which I refer is not IMO creationist.
Obviously I disagree. The "facts," as you've related them, have the clear sniff of creationism. The link I provided was to provide evidence both of the author's interests and the character of the book, which is neither textbook or peer-reviewed journal article. When skeptics ask for evidence, they are looking for this primary source or close-to-primary-source evidence.

Now, would you care to discuss the evidence? Would you care to respond to the questions and counters to your claims? Baigent is not a good source for these technical questions, however interesting an author you may find him.

[Hellbound]

Originally posted by richardm
I would suggest that this is exactly what most people mean when they talk about evolution. The idea that it is "improving" towards some future goal is incorrect, I think.

Exactly.

Stephen Gould's Full House is an excellent book that touches on precisely this issue (as well as the dissappearance of .400 hitting in baseball). Mutations are as likely to go one way as another (more complex or more simple, etc). The idea that evolution has a goal or a pinnacle is nonsense. It simply develops for the specific conditions and times the species exists in...in other words, things evolve into a niche. For that matter, the most successful organisms ever produced (whether in terms of habitats, biomass, number of species, proliferation, or any other criteria) are bacteria...which don't even have a nucleus.

It seems that a lot of your article is shooting down, basically, a strawman of evolution, rather than evolution as it is actually understood by science.

[Hyperbol 9]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
I think that Hyperbole did a great job of upsetting "Darwinists". Of course, he had to spout nonsense and fabrications to do so.

I don't know if you are just ignorant about evolution theory, stupid, or a liar, but you certainly aren't saying much that is true.

Yardy yardy yardy. It'd be good to get going here but all I see is a load (not all) of self-important bores who prefer throwing insults and not saying much else. Then you have to come back and waste time. Yes, I know all about evolution. I don't have a problem with it particuarly. YAWN. Just thought I'd get some banter going. But hell, some of you take things seriously, almost as a personal attack. I go hammer and tongs with people on other forums, yet as much as we disagree, laugh at one another and so on, it's kept civil. Should be ashamed of yourselves, did ya parents teach you no manners? Okay, I chucked some controversial and not particuarly well researched stuff in there... but to generate good conversation. Thought that was why we're here, to have a laugh, chat, etc. I entered pleasantly enough. What's the problem? Take my thread title. In the UK it's humour. Not meant to really upset or offend anyone. It's said with a smile. Obviously doesn't translate too well over the Atlantic.. Take it with the pinch of salt it is intended, think about it, learn from it. Some hope. Tiresome.

[Z]

Here's a question I've always had:

Let's say, hypothetically, that humankind in whatever form once had a modern technological civilization similar in advancement and technology to our own. How long would it take for every artifact trace to be destroyed through natural forces? How long before every building frame, plastic milk-bottle, and fiberglass automobile shell would be dissolved into nothingness? How long before even 'preserved' items would deteriorate and vanish? With these questions in mind, is it even vaguely possible that, millions of years ago, Mankind had steel and glass cities, aircraft, and so forth?

Now apply this thinking to civilization as we know DID exist, and let's see how long it would take for even preserved items to deteriorate beyond recognition - couldn't tech-oriented life on Earth be, therefore, near-infinitely older than we give it credit for?

[Ipecac]

Originally posted by Hyperbol 9


Yardy yardy yardy. It'd be good to get going here but all I see is a load (not all) of self-important bores who prefer throwing insults and not saying much else. Then you have to come back and waste time. Yes, I know all about evolution. I don't have a problem with it particuarly. YAWN. Just thought I'd get some banter going. But hell, some of you take things seriously, almost as a personal attack. I go hammer and tongs with people on other forums, yet as much as we disagree, laugh at one another and so on, it's kept civil. Should be ashamed of yourselves, did ya parents teach you no manners? Okay, I chucked some controversial and not particuarly well researched stuff in there... but to generate good conversation. Thought that was why we're here, to have a laugh, chat, etc. I entered pleasantly enough. What's the problem? Take my thread title. In the UK it's humour. Not meant to really upset or offend anyone. It's said with a smile. Obviously doesn't translate too well over the Atlantic.. Take it with the pinch of salt it is intended, think about it, learn from it. Some hope. Tiresome.

The problem is, I don't think anyone here understands what you're trying to do.

Are you trying to mock creationist beliefs by summarizing many of their ill-reasoned arguments? Or are you proposing a new theory that mixes creationism and evolution? It's not remotely clear what the heck you are getting at.

Obviously, most people are assuming that you're making arguments. If you're not, then perhaps you should be more clear what your point is.

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Hyperbol 9
Thought that was why we're here, to have a laugh, chat, etc. I entered pleasantly enough. What's the problem?
Well, this is an educational forum sponsored by a skeptical organization. Having laughs and good chats is part of the picture, but so are cleaving to the facts and citing good evidence. This dismissive attitude of yours so far simply signals you as trolling. If that is not the case, then, shall we stop the whining and start addressing the evidence?

Anytime you're ready.

[rebecca]

Originally posted by Hyperbol 9
Say what you will about the source material and worth of the research (or lack of) of this particular book, it merely attempts to give a third alternative to how we ended up here, one in tune with evolution but not necessarily agreeing with established viewsof the journey from A to B.

I think the reason why the forum is treating you to such harsh (though in my opinion, deserved) criticism is wrapped in the above quote. You appear to be playing devil's advocate without really understanding or appreciating your own viewpoint. This tactic was fun when I was a kid trying to goad people, but I now find that discussions are much more interesting when a person defends his OWN opinion, and not someone else's.

[Hyperbol 9]

I'm not knocking anyone. I can and do, but am not here. I think I should have not been lazy and pasted my opening post as it was verbatim from it's original source. It translates like I am a fruitcake I agree. It is also a tad lengthy. My mistake, I can only apologise. I will not defend particularly as I think it's all cloud cuckoo land myself. I thought it amusing with a hint of, what if?, and thought, like elsewhere, the posters would lay into it in a general manner.

I had a brief look at the boards before I registered but obviously got the measure of this one wrong. It is a no-nonsense thing obviously and you take it all very seriously.

Perhaps I was off to a bad start as I said to Dragon. I think I'll learn from my mistake and nip in other threads and see if I can build back some credibility there. You may be surprised!?

Rebecca, my own opinion it is then. I am sitting here scratching my head wondering why I am defending Baigent and be seen as the woo woo brigade rep. I think it is because I have spent much time on forums arguing with the woo woos that I have got the context wrong. I do not wish to undermine intelligent debate, but have perhaps spent too long among the believers in things that go bump in the night and have become lazy.

Right outtahere.

[Z]

Just remember, you are now participating in a forum where the standard responses to "I watched the sun rise this morning" would be divided among those who would want you to show proof that you watched it; those disputing that what you saw was, in fact, the turning of the earth and the revelation of the sun, from your point of view; and those who would want to tell you that, in fact, those thinking the earth was turning were wrong.

So... have fun, but be prepared to defend yourself!

[Matabiri]

Originally posted by zaayrdragon
Here's a question I've always had:

Let's say, hypothetically, that humankind in whatever form once had a modern technological civilization similar in advancement and technology to our own. How long would it take for every artifact trace to be destroyed through natural forces? How long before every building frame, plastic milk-bottle, and fiberglass automobile shell would be dissolved into nothingness? How long before even 'preserved' items would deteriorate and vanish? With these questions in mind, is it even vaguely possible that, millions of years ago, Mankind had steel and glass cities, aircraft, and so forth?

Now apply this thinking to civilization as we know DID exist, and let's see how long it would take for even preserved items to deteriorate beyond recognition - couldn't tech-oriented life on Earth be, therefore, near-infinitely older than we give it credit for?

I don't think so. If that were the case you wouldn't expect to find an evolution of tools (stone -> bronze -> iron, for example) and building materials archaeolgically. The Romans had glass windows, some of which have been found, but they were crudely made and not very flat. This implies that the technology has been developing over the observed timescale, which is inconsistant with your idea.

[Matabiri]

Originally posted by Hyperbol 9
I'm not knocking anyone. I can and do, but am not here. I think I should have not been lazy and pasted my opening post as it was verbatim from it's original source. It translates like I am a fruitcake I agree. It is also a tad lengthy. My mistake, I can only apologise. I will not defend particularly as I think it's all cloud cuckoo land myself. I thought it amusing with a hint of, what if?, and thought, like elsewhere, the posters would lay into it in a general manner.

They did lay into it in a general manner. That manner was "this is all fluff we've seen before - what's your point?" Make a specific, defendable claim, and you'll get a better response.

[Hyperbol 9]

Originally posted by zaayrdragon
Just remember, you are now participating in a forum where the standard responses to "I watched the sun rise this morning" would be divided among those who would want you to show proof that you watched it; those disputing that what you saw was, in fact, the turning of the earth and the revelation of the sun, from your point of view; and those who would want to tell you that, in fact, those thinking the earth was turning were wrong.

So... have fun, but be prepared to defend yourself!

Cheers. And no probs. I think I got the measure wrong as I printed off and took home the weekly bulletins, which are a riot, I read and cried laughing for hours. As such I thought the boards would be a similar vein, as they are, say, on Fortean Times. Apparently not. Still, as my old pappy used to say, The older you get the more ways you find to be stupid. Ah well.

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by Hyperbol 9


Why not make a start rather than glory in the rhetoric? Why not read some of my secondary posts? I did in fact quote the source. As for Creationist... well you must be the first person to call me one of those in a fairly long life. Well done. A good judge of character DD. Jeez, no wonder this isn't so much a debate forum as a load of bods agreeing with one another and generally indulging in backslapping. Anyone with a degree of differing opinion has obviously been soon browbeaten away. I get called narrowminded by believers in this that and everything else on other forums by those who themselves are in fact narrowminded to the other extreme. So argue a point.

Okay, I've chucked in a load of pish. Enjoy it, knock it down, applaud it, do whatever you want. But c'mon, lighten up. I said right at the beginning it was lighthearted and tongue in cheek. But it is nevertheless a challenge to established theory and should be tackled as other posters above have more eloquently done.

And I don't see how it is creationist? Say what you will about the source material and worth of the research (or lack of) of this particular book, it merely attempts to give a third alternative to how we ended up here, one in tune with evolution but not necessarily agreeing with established viewsof the journey from A to B.

It was a rather long introductory post and very rhetorical and it is full of crap. Nowhere do you say that it is lighthearted and ment in jest. It sure contains a lot a of crap, the only one you left out was the dinosuar footprints next to human footprints.

So would you care to sum up your arguements for while you feel that darwins theory of natural selection leading to evolution is full of holes. You made the statement so perhaps you can explain what you mean by it?

You yourself may not be a creationist but you have either misquoted a good text or quoted a miserable text. It is so full of crap that it would be hard to know where to begin, so I ask again, where are the caping holes in the theory of natural selection?

it merely attempts to give a third alternative to how we ended up here, one in tune with evolution but not necessarily agreeing with established viewsof the journey from A to B.


This statement right here seems to indicate that you know little of the current state of evolutionary theory and the changes that it has gone through and is still under going, it is not a homogenous edifice that shuts out eveidence.


Then there is this statement from the OP

Since that time the supporters of Darwin have run the show and staked reputations, careers and pride on making the theory of evolution puzzle fit precisely to their every whim. Any who dare dig up (literally) an alternative to the established view are shot down in flames, careers ruined.

Any proof of this outrageous statement or do you just expect a bunch of sceptics to pat you on the back and say "Oh that is right thge scientific method is subverted all the time and there is a vast conspiracy that suppresses the evidence". So it is either carp or hyperbole.


590 – 505,000,000: Sandal imprint found inside split shale, Antelope Springs, Utah.

320 – 260,000,000: Eight-carat gold chain found inside lump of coal, Illinois, USA.
Carat is an alloy and eight carat not a mix made in recent times.

250,000,000: Human footprints found in rock, Kentucky, USA.

248 – 213,000,000 (Triassic): Shoe imprint found in rock, Nevada, USA.

150,000,000: Human footprint found in rock alongside dinosaur tracks, Turkmenistan.

55- 33,000,000: Stone pestle and mortar found at Table Mountain, California.

25 – 5,000,000: Tool markings on rhinoceros thighbone, France.

5 – 2,000,000: Tool markings on whale fossil.


Now those I can beleive are humor, they are so patently false and lacking in provenance that they have been dealt with in the archaelogical jpurnals already, there is no repression, the evidence has been found wanting. What a hoot!

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by Hyperbol 9


Good, we're up and running.

Your points above are valid. However, holes have been dug for a long time now. Surely someone would have got lucky. Again it comes down to probability. Yeah, the in-between species are probably there, but please explain to this poor ignorant sod how the jackpot doesn't seem to be hit? Must be a few in the dry soil.

I can't believe I'm challenging something from a 'Believers' viewpoint. What went wrong?

Maybe it's what happens when you quote a beleiver!

So you are upset that the geologic record does not show a progression of intermediate species or that a particular species does not show a clear cut record of intermediaries.

The argument that the creationists dont like is selctive breeding of domestic animals. It shows very clesarly that the mutability of the genome is a real phenomena, you have dogs with narrow features bred into dogs with broad features, all through artificial slection, when you see the braod face of a pug you might think, well gosh that dog type has always existed , well it hasn't there were many intermediaries along the way. That is not deifinitive proof but it is supporting evidence of a theory called natural selection.

As to the Baboon Bottleneck, there are a lot of human theorists who believe that the homo spaiens ancestors arose in Africa, went to Asia and that the true progenitor of gracile homo sapiens evolved in Asia and radiated back into Agfrica, which could explain how human primates don't have the viral marker.

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by zaayrdragon
Here's a question I've always had:

Let's say, hypothetically, that humankind in whatever form once had a modern technological civilization similar in advancement and technology to our own. How long would it take for every artifact trace to be destroyed through natural forces? How long before every building frame, plastic milk-bottle, and fiberglass automobile shell would be dissolved into nothingness? How long before even 'preserved' items would deteriorate and vanish? With these questions in mind, is it even vaguely possible that, millions of years ago, Mankind had steel and glass cities, aircraft, and so forth?

Now apply this thinking to civilization as we know DID exist, and let's see how long it would take for even preserved items to deteriorate beyond recognition - couldn't tech-oriented life on Earth be, therefore, near-infinitely older than we give it credit for?

Interesting idea , however the evidence of mining would last a really long time, there would be coal pits and metal mines and other traces of thier existance. If they were ercent enough we could find layers of sediment in the ocean and lakes that would indicate polution made by technology.

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by Hyperbol 9


Cheers. And no probs. I think I got the measure wrong as I printed off and took home the weekly bulletins, which are a riot, I read and cried laughing for hours. As such I thought the boards would be a similar vein, as they are, say, on Fortean Times. Apparently not. Still, as my old pappy used to say, The older you get the more ways you find to be stupid. Ah well.

Gee don't run away so soon, we were attacking the ideas not the person!

I have had my ideas laid into as well here, it is a scpetics board after all. And there are good reasons to question the way evolution is often presented.

Perhaps if you had said that you read the book and presented ias sport then you would not feel put upon. And gosh, you ought to read the debates in the R&P forum!

[DaveW]

Originally posted by zaayrdragon
Here's a question I've always had:

Let's say, hypothetically, that humankind in whatever form once had a modern technological civilization similar in advancement and technology to our own. How long would it take for every artifact trace to be destroyed through natural forces? How long before every building frame, plastic milk-bottle, and fiberglass automobile shell would be dissolved into nothingness? How long before even 'preserved' items would deteriorate and vanish? With these questions in mind, is it even vaguely possible that, millions of years ago, Mankind had steel and glass cities, aircraft, and so forth?

Now apply this thinking to civilization as we know DID exist, and let's see how long it would take for even preserved items to deteriorate beyond recognition - couldn't tech-oriented life on Earth be, therefore, near-infinitely older than we give it credit for?

It seems to me that people are neglecting to read through the second paragraph. It seems zaayrdragon's point is not that it is possible we would find record of people millions of years ago driving around automobiles while talking on their cell phones, but that it is possible that primitive technology existed before it is generally accepted it might, due to degradation of the more primitive materials used. I'm not sure I agree with him, but it is an interesting question. Then again, maybe I also failed to fully grasp his train of thought.

[Dragon]

Hyperbol,

Plenty of laughs to be had here - try the "Forum Community" or "Humor" forums (or almost any post by Lucianarchy, olaf or Riddick).
Meanwhile - what about the "baboon marker virus"?
I'm genuinely intrigued, got any decent references?

It seems it could be a challenge to the theory that man came out of Africa fairly recently ( ie < 1m years) - but not to human evolution per se.
What say you?

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by DaveW


It seems to me that people are neglecting to read through the second paragraph. It seems zaayrdragon's point is not that it is possible we would find record of people millions of years ago driving around automobiles while talking on their cell phones, but that it is possible that primitive technology existed before it is generally accepted it might, due to degradation of the more primitive materials used. I'm not sure I agree with him, but it is an interesting question. Then again, maybe I also failed to fully grasp his train of thought.

Your point is the one that I was presenting, perhaps poorly. The preservation of bone, wood and hides is going to last about 14,000 years in most cases, except for really rare cases of mummification. And hence we have artifacts from France and Germany in caves and in Swiss and other bogs. And we also have the old convention that culture arose in these place about 12,000 BP. But there are stones that indicate at least older dates than that for North Africa.

[Z]

Well, yeah, that's my train of thought - if we 'assume' that mankind is X thousand years old based on fossil evidence and artifacts, have we even considered the probability that artifacts and fossils will, eventually, deteriorate as well? That even the sturdiest steel will eventually oxidize, disintigrate, disappear?

So I think... in a way... it's folly for us to state with any level of certainty how 'old' man may be - or technology use, in general, for that matter. Of course, what my theory would need to REALLY support it would be some well-preserved artifact or fossil much, MUCH older than expected - like, some human artifact somehow preserved through incredible circumstance in amber or encased in crystal, then somehow being undisturbed for 25 thousand years or more...

I'd say the probability of ANY artifact of Man surviving umpteen-thousands of years is incredibly low - but then again, simple natural fossils seem to last for an even LONGER period of time, and this suggests that humans may not have been around so long after all. Then again... ASSUMING long periods where humans never preserved their bodies, ASSUMING that humans didn't fall prey to tar pits or sudden freezes or lava flows, ASSUMING that their tool use stayed at some low, rudimentary level for several millenia... would it be even slightly probable that humans could survive for thousands of years without leaving a trace, under these arguably outlandish assumptions?

Really - it's just a thought I've been mulling over. Frankly, I'd be pretty darned depressed to learn that it took any longer than, say, 20,000 years to get where we are today. Heck, even that figure is pretty darned depressing.

[RamblingOnwards]

Metals decompose, but processed materials stay 'unnatural' for a long time.

Rather than cell phones and steel buildings, what about plastic being laid down in sea beds?

How long would it take for the quantity of heavy metals in landfills to disperse enough not to be significant?

How long before diamonds showed no signs of having been worked?

How long for nuclear waste to become indistinguishable from naturally occuring deposits?

How long until all the space junk falls into unstable orbits?

I would actually like to know the answers, but I have a feeling that a civilisation like ours would have had to have occurred a very long time ago for us to not be able to detect it.

[plindboe]

Hyperbol 9,

Most people here have seen those kinds arguments hundreds of times before. Just about any of the creationist arguments are based on either strawmen, outright lies, and most often severe misunderstandings of science, and it's frustrating to keep explaining the same thing again and again. Creationists spread their poor arguments like propaganda and don't care about quality only about quantity, and this way they convince alot of people who haven't got the education to know any better. You might not be a creationist, but what you have offered is unrecognizable from the typical ignorant creationist propaganda, so that's why people react a little hostile(though in this thread I think most people have been fairly nice).

That said, welcome aboard and enjoy your stay. :)

[Z]

Oh, I agree, Ramblin'... I doubt sincerely that a Tech-age civilization has really existed to any great degree, but what I'm really wondering is how much older might Man be than what we've seen?

I personally think there might still be some validity to the 'space seed' theory, though I gotta wonder what would possess some advanced race to put human life on THIS planet!

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by zaayrdragon
I personally think there might still be some validity to the 'space seed' theory, though I gotta wonder what would possess some advanced race to put human life on THIS planet!

But if you scratch that theory a bit, you'll find it simply bleeds the begging the question fallacy. The essential questions are: how did life arise and how did we get this incredible diversity. The "space seed" theory does little to address it; it simply moves the action and the questions off this planet. Unless there is clear evidence for it, we must apply Occam's razor and declare it a non-starter.

[LawnOven]

Why is it people always thing archaeologist and palentologists have these dark secrets that thier hiding from the public?

All of this reminds of "The Mysterious Origins of Man"

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/mom.html

I saw that this semester in a "Fantastic Archaeology" class

and "Forbidden Archaeology" because ooooh the archaeologists have terrible secrets they must hide from the public ammounting to 800 pages of danger! Big suprise it's published by a religious organization, but probably not by the religion you are thinking.

as seen here:

http://nersp.nerdc.ufl.edu/~ghi/fa.html

so what's my point?

I have no point really, other than conspiracy theories of repressed science because it would like CHANGE THE WORLD AS WE KNOW IT! I find hilarious.


I wonder when I get my official repressing the secrets of humanity card. I graduate tommorrow.

[thaiboxerken]

Originally posted by Hyperbol 9

Should be ashamed of yourselves, did ya parents teach you no manners? Okay, I chucked some controversial and not particuarly well researched stuff in there... but to generate good conversation. Thought that was why we're here, to have a laugh, chat, etc. I entered pleasantly enough. What's the problem? Take my thread title. In the UK it's humour. Not meant to really upset or offend anyone. It's said with a smile. Obviously doesn't translate too well over the Atlantic.. Take it with the pinch of salt it is intended, think about it, learn from it. Some hope. Tiresome.

The article was not well researched and your dry British humor is not funny. Telling lies and fabrications about scientific studies is hardly funny, especially since there really are people out there that try to seriously and sincerely spread the very same nonsense. What next, will you joke about the holocaust?

[Ratman_tf]

Originally posted by Hyperbol 9
Right, my second post, so I might as well jump in at the deep end. Having had a looksee at the creationist V evolution thread it put me in mind of.... Ancient Traces, which was a very mixed read, and I quite liked some of the theories thrown up. Okay, I've researched them as much as the author, so who's to say whether it's claptrap or there is something in it? But it's all good clean fun. Later. I was asked to write something for a office rag and so offered up the following. I attempted to toe the line a little as my colleagues would be reading and I had to live/work with them. However, shock horror. I work with more woo woo brigade members than you can shake the preverbial stick at and much black-eyed looks did I receive.

So I thought I'd chuck it in here where we can have a PROPER chat about it.....

In museum and university basements the world over boxes are being opened and archaeological finds that have been accidentally misplaced for the last century or so are being examined, often for the first time. Why should this be? A century ago Darwin published his famous work and launched a new religion, the belief in evolution.

...aaaaand you lost me. :P

[Ratman_tf]

Originally posted by Huntsman

It seems that a lot of your article is shooting down, basically, a strawman of evolution, rather than evolution as it is actually understood by science.

This is a common YEC tactic. I would reccomend, Hyperbol that you do a bit of reading on the subject before starting a conversation and posting some really bad arguments that have been floating around for years.

http://1reader.com/talk/origins.html
http://home.austarnet.com.au/stear/default.htm

[pupdog]

But it seems that a lot of the Creationists have heard the counterarguments, they have had their mistakes pointed out to them, and yet they ignore or pooh-pooh the criticisms and continue with their misinformation. Examples can be found in the links cited by Ratman, above (for example, comments at talkorigins by Richard Wein regarding William Demski's evasion or dismissal of criticism.

[Renfield]

Originally posted by Hyperbol 9


Yardy yardy yardy. It'd be good to get going here but all I see is a load (not all) of self-important bores who prefer throwing insults and not saying much else. Then you have to come back and waste time. Yes, I know all about evolution. I don't have a problem with it particuarly. YAWN. Just thought I'd get some banter going. But hell, some of you take things seriously, almost as a personal attack. I go hammer and tongs with people on other forums, yet as much as we disagree, laugh at one another and so on, it's kept civil. Should be ashamed of yourselves, did ya parents teach you no manners? Okay, I chucked some controversial and not particuarly well researched stuff in there... but to generate good conversation. Thought that was why we're here, to have a laugh, chat, etc. I entered pleasantly enough. What's the problem? Take my thread title. In the UK it's humour. Not meant to really upset or offend anyone. It's said with a smile. Obviously doesn't translate too well over the Atlantic.. Take it with the pinch of salt it is intended, think about it, learn from it. Some hope. Tiresome.

Most of the posts here were rational, well thought out responses to your arguments. I think its telling that you choose to focus on one like this and ignore the rest. Giving yourself an excuse to ignore all the rest perhaps?

[Ratman_tf]

Originally posted by pupdog
But it seems that a lot of the Creationists have heard the counterarguments, they have had their mistakes pointed out to them, and yet they ignore or pooh-pooh the criticisms and continue with their misinformation. Examples can be found in the links cited by Ratman, above (for example, comments at talkorigins by Richard Wein regarding William Demski's evasion or dismissal of criticism.

Yeah, this stuff tends to turn into a-

"Nuh-uh!"

"Un-huh!"

-thing after a while.

[DangerousBeliefs]

Originally posted by LawnOven
Why is it people always thing archaeologist and palentologists have these dark secrets that thier hiding from the public?

All of this reminds of "The Mysterious Origins of Man"

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/mom.html

I saw that this semester in a "Fantastic Archaeology" class

and "Forbidden Archaeology" because ooooh the archaeologists have terrible secrets they must hide from the public ammounting to 800 pages of danger! Big suprise it's published by a religious organization, but probably not by the religion you are thinking.


Did you read where the book quotes Weekly World News as a source?

:dl:

It is important to note at this time, that (Jimison 1982) is:
Jimison, S. (1982) Scientists baffled by space spheres. Weekly World News, July 27.

Forbidden Archeology cites as a credible source of reliabe information the Weekly World News, a tabloid known for its largely or completely fictional news stories.