Miocene humans

Let check out some of the "quality" material in Nexus:

quote:

---

The Gilgamesh Project
With multiple awards to his name for cancer research, this childhood prodigy was silenced when his forbidden science began closing in on the secret of eternal life.

---

Page not found - Nexus Magazine

quote:

---

he Dragon Snake
A Solomon Islands UFO Mystery
This former RAAF engineer's startling experiences, along with his knowledge of the Solomon Islanders' long history of encounters with strange aerial craft and alien beings, sparked him to search for hidden UFO bases.

---

Page not found - Nexus Magazine

quote:

---

An Alien Detour
Stopped at night on the side of the road, two Russian truck drivers were astounded by the sight of a spaceship before them and amazed when one of the drivers was welcomed aboard.

---

Page not found - Nexus MagazineThe creationist site is the normal crap upto and including rubbish like this:The page you requested cannot be found!

The guy is a crackpot - moreover like our Friend Randy (everyone remember Randy?) he perfers to rely on citing evidence from the 19th century rather than anything modern that might upset his pet theory.There is a good review of his stuff here (awful awful web design however).Forbidden Archaeology: Antievolutionism Outside the Christian Arena

quote:

---

Quotations of the 19th-/early 20th- century material are copious -- comprising, I would guess, at least 25 percent of the book. A few examples: (1) a 1935 work of Weidenreich is cited as opposition to a 1985 work of Binford and Ho (p. 553); was there no current reference to refute Binford and Ho, and if not, what does this mean? (2) a question is raised about the geological time-scale, and the latest reference on the matter cited is a lecture given by Spieker in 1956 (p. 16); surely additional and more recent work is available on the topic of such importance as this; (3) a 1910 work of Osborn is used that mentions archaeological work done in 1863 and 1867, which seems desperately searching for supportive evidence in old reports; (4) experts are cited -- from ca. 1870 -- on the subject of shark teeth to suggest that these Pliocene fossils were drilled by humans (p. 49-51); this case is conspicuous in its avoidance of modern sources on shark biology and paleontology, sources that might better elucidate the work of tooth decay, parasites, and fossilization at work on shark teeth.

​

I do not indict the sincerity and ground-breaking of 19th century scholars. However, because knowledge seems to accumulate and research techniques seem to improve, assuming a blanket equivalency of research level between 19th and 20th century science is just going too far. Forbidden Archaeology does make such an argument, which I discuss next.

​

Assume Equivalency between Old and Recent Research

​

A foundation of the book’s arguments is that the research of the 19th- and early-20th-century scientists (esp. those presenting anomalous evidence for the antiquity of modern-type humans) should be considered equivalently factual relative to modern reports. (p. 22) The work further implies that modern scientists tend to accept one "set" of reports (modern ones) while rejecting another set (19th century ones); "it would be especially wrong to accept one set as proof of a given theory while suppressing the other set, and thus rendering it inaccessible to future students."

​

Well, maybe. But if the authors, who are not archaeologists, found these old reports, I hope archaeology students might do just as well. More to the point, we can argue whether scientists do reject early research -- which seems a rather simple statement covering a complex situation. Reliance on work of over a hundred years past is implicit in our accumulation of knowledge and refinement in understanding. But we are not belittling important groundbreaking when we do not a priori make direct use of the conclusions drawn in the good old days. Said another way: we should not make fools out of early doctors struggling with the few resources they had, nor should we rely on early medical texts or supply them to our doctors for consultation.

---

Percy - do you happen to know which conferences he is suppose to have spoken at? Which elements of the scientific community are suppose to support him?This seems like the standard "they" support him, with no actual evidence of who "they" are.

thanks I'll explore them in more detail in the morning.

Sure you have..."what's in Book X is true!! It must be true because it says so in book X!"Surely that sounds slightly familar.

New Scientist will publish anything - I had some great fun last year when they took a claim of a fully functioning turing test busting AI at face value - How did they test it?They talked to it online from their offices....em....er...

sometimes, other times they go out and investigate claims or at least they did when I had to tell them "bacon foil" was not much use in science neither was a Farral cage.ABE: yes but as you say it's mainly reporting.This message has been edited by Charles Knight, 08-Aug-2005 04:44 PM