|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,904 Year: 4,161/9,624 Month: 1,032/974 Week: 359/286 Day: 2/13 Hour: 1/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Miocene humans | |||||||||||||||||||
Yaro Member (Idle past 6525 days) Posts: 1797 Joined: |
On what basis? They had no foot fossils at all. They deliberately depicted the creature as semi-aquatic and named him a Paki-whale without any real basis in fact. Yes actually. It was unequivocally a whale ancestor. Infact, other species that once lived side by side with pakicetus HAD webbed feet and WAS semi-aquatic. namely Rhodocetus. This is how science works, you take EVIDENCE, make preditions, if those predictions don't work you REVISE. You ever hear of phlogiston theory? It was an old theory that said things burned cuz they had stuff in it called "phlogiston". It was messurable, testable, and somewhat accurate. It was a prevailing theory of how things burn for quite a while until "caloric theory" put it to bed by bringing a more accurate idea about how things burn to the table. And guess what came after that (and because of both phlogiston and caloric) modern thermodynamics! So you see, science works by getting "right-er" and revising past mistakes. It dosn't throw out the baby with the bathwater simply cuz one thing may be wrong.
As far as religion and evolutionism, you are deeply misled, but that's a different topic. I'll just say this. There is not an area of the world that was not dominated at one time by a Christian paradigm where women are treated as equal or near equal, individuals are accorded rights considered given by God, and that people are free to choose their own religion or change religions. That is a different topic, and if you open it I can demonstrate to you how a christian paradigm has done no such thing which you mention. No superstitious thinking has ever (well, maybe not ever ) led to any good in the world. I'm not going to take this debate down a path of Evolution deffence because it is off topic. As I recall you were still in the process of deffending your sources. How is Mr. Cremo not a quack? ABE: I think I meant Remingtonocetidae. They were likely contemporary with the last of the pakicetids, Rhodocetus came later. I may be wrong on this, but I know paki and Remington were within a few million years of each other. This message has been edited by Yaro, 08-08-2005 11:41 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Yaro Member (Idle past 6525 days) Posts: 1797 Joined: |
Are you guys ever going to look at the evidence? Would love to! Where is it? What museum, who's the reasearcher, pictures, papers, etc.?
You asked why most dated 100 years ago, and the answer is that prior to evolutionism's knowledge filter, people were finding and science was willing to accept Miocene era humans. So you were answered. Right, and as I pointed out, 100 years ago mermaids were being researched. Is there a knowldge filter on the findings related to mermaids? Romans were theorized as the builders of the Maya/Aztec ruins, is there a knowlledge filter for this? If humans lived in the Miocene you can bet Scientists would be all over it! It would be the find of a lifetime! Nobel prizes for everyone!
And then once evos say it isn't possible, you guys write off such data. Looks suspicious to me. Right, once trained, established scientists, evaluate the available evidence carefully, subject it to rigorous peer review, and lay out a justification for their theories, I go ahead and disregard it. If you have a funny mole, and your doc. tells you it's cancer, would you belive him? I hope you would.
As far as the one anamolous claims on the spherical balls, we can dismiss that for this thread as that does not relate to Miocene era humans. It does actually. If Cremo puts this forward, but cannot produce the balls, or any reasearch done upon the balls, he is a huckster. It smacks of charlatanry to me, but hey, show me the metal balls and I will be inclined to listen to the man.
Also, modern Miocene humans does not even necessarily contradict ToE, although it could perhaps. It seems to me we see species, or genera, evolve within a range, changing in one direction and changing back. So maybe the more primitive hominids are the result of "devolution" from an ancestral form more like us. Cremo claimes not that humans were "devolving" or anything, he claims that there are actual CIVILIZATIONS that go back for more than 2 billion years! That's: 2,000,000,000,000BC That's a freaking long time! That's big news. We should se evidence for it! I wanna see Dinotopia ! This message has been edited by Yaro, 08-08-2005 11:52 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Yaro Member (Idle past 6525 days) Posts: 1797 Joined: |
...attested to by a wide body of evidence and people... Who, and what are their credentials?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Yaro Member (Idle past 6525 days) Posts: 1797 Joined: |
So... some people DIG and burry some other people in a 25 million year old limestone deposit, and this somehow means those people are 25 million years old?
They were PUT there, someone dug a hole and put them there. Further, bones are made of calcium much like limestone. As such, mineralization would happen much quicker. Those are just some ideas off the top of my head. Here is an excercise for you Randman, you found an interesting piece of evidence. My challenge for you is that YOU go find some contradictory evidence with which to weigh it against. That's how real scientists do it. ABE: Also, try and formulate alternate hypothesis as to how those bones got there. Formulate some tests to see if thos hypothesis hold up. If they do, then youre well on your way to winning the Nobel Prize! This message has been edited by Yaro, 08-08-2005 01:52 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Yaro Member (Idle past 6525 days) Posts: 1797 Joined: |
The site is referencing Cremo's work. It's currently in dispute in this thread. As such, this site is subject to all the same questions and scrutiny so far raised.
See if you can find some documents with findings latter than ... I dunno... 1930. This message has been edited by Yaro, 08-08-2005 02:02 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Yaro Member (Idle past 6525 days) Posts: 1797 Joined: |
Well, first off, intrusive burial would show evidence in the soil above the skeleton fossils, right? And the excerpt you site says nothing to contradict that the burial may have been intrussive. Maybe you should investigate further?
I see no one showing that, but rather claiming it MUST BE, just has to be, but if that's the case, wouldn't there be differences in the soil above the skeleton, evidence of intrusion. That's a good question, maybe you should investigate further? Do some reaserach on the find. Start by looking for the magazine and tracking down the people involved. See if any current work is being done on it. The rest is just a rant about the evil-evos. Exercise a little critical judgement yourself, see what you can dig up on these finds (pun intended).
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Yaro Member (Idle past 6525 days) Posts: 1797 Joined: |
Chiroptera,
Here is the dudes bibliography for the page:
*All material referenced and taken from "Forbidden Archaeology" (M.A. Cremo, R.L. Thompson, Bhaktivedanta Institute, San Diego; 1993, Govardhan Hill Publishing) p.422-432 See a pattern here? This message has been edited by Yaro, 08-08-2005 02:09 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Yaro Member (Idle past 6525 days) Posts: 1797 Joined: |
another important bit worth quoting:
Comment. the "facts" presented in the New Scientist and Ex Nihilo are so discordant that we await further developments with great interest and some amusement. Beach rock forms quite rapidly; and the skeleton could be very recent, despite the claims made in Ex Nihilo.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Yaro Member (Idle past 6525 days) Posts: 1797 Joined: |
I already explained that what I meant was the data was fraudulent in the sense of it being wrong. I cannot judge the motives of evolutionists so I have no way to tell if they somehow knew the data did not show webbed feet or not, and things like that. fraud Pronunciation Key (frd)
n. 1. A deception deliberately practiced in order to secure unfair or unlawful gain.2. A piece of trickery; a trick. 3. 1. One that defrauds; a cheat. 2. One who assumes a false pose; an impostor.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Yaro Member (Idle past 6525 days) Posts: 1797 Joined: |
In fact, I don't think evolutionists are necessarily aware that they rely on gross overstatements, but maybe that's another thread. Yes that's right. All modern scientists are just fools and you are one of the lucky enlightend few.
As far as papers, most of the public does not read academic journals. Evolutionists tend to present their findings to the public via popular magazines such as National Geographic which did present the webbed feet, as I have shown already several times but you ignore, TV shows such as PBS specials, textbooks, articles, etc,... That's called making a prediction from the evidence. At the time, it was the BEST GUESS of what the creature would look like. In this case it was slightly in error, it's not like they suddenly found out the creature was a turtle for goodness sakes.
Imo, presenting Pakicetus as a whale is passing off an absurd claim. If evos want to say it is precursor to the whale, fine, but they tend to overstate their case continually, and so insist on classifying the rat-like creature as a whale. Im sorry you don't like the fact that Pakicetus is put in the Order Cetacea. Just like dogs are in the same order as seals. Sorry that Paki dosn't look like what you think a whale ancestor should look like.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Yaro Member (Idle past 6525 days) Posts: 1797 Joined: |
Can you give me any scientific reason he isn't a whale?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Yaro Member (Idle past 6525 days) Posts: 1797 Joined: |
Randman, disregard my last post. Please adress the other points in this thread. Pakicetus belongs in the other thread on whale evolution.
Sorry for the OT tack. But we really must get some more sources other than the discredited Cremo. This message has been edited by Yaro, 08-08-2005 07:00 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Yaro Member (Idle past 6525 days) Posts: 1797 Joined: |
Are we done with this thread?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Yaro Member (Idle past 6525 days) Posts: 1797 Joined: |
Since we brought this up recently, I just figured I'd bump it up. Anyone out there wanna take a shot?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024