|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Miocene humans | |||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 394 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
"Enough of this OLD earth, bury me in some New Earth!"
Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Yaro Member (Idle past 6496 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
Here is another example where evolutionists just dismiss the data out of hand, and then when finally getting someone to research and confirm conclusively ancient modern man, not buried intrusively, evolutionists still ignore the data, and even today make spurious claims that somehow the data was dismissed back then when in reality the scientists that studied the bones and area where they were found agreed it was indeed old.
Ragazzoni, a teacher from the Technical Institute of Brescia, found what appeared to be human remains amongst fossil shells near the area of Castenedolo in Italy during the late 1800’s. He took the remains to two geologists and inquired on whether the physical characteristics of the bones would warrant them being contemporary with the fossil shell layer (in other words, if they were buried at the same time as the layer in which the shells came from). They immediately poo-pooed the idea. The layer for which the shells are found were assigned the Astian age in the fossil layer (for the record, I do not subscribe to the geologic time scale and the assumptions which deduce such numbers). Ragazonni threw the bones away, taking the word of the geologists that the bones were of no importance. Still, it intrigued him that there could possibly be human remains within strata thought to be so old (given an age of 1.5-4 million years old). He suggested to a friend of his that the land around Castenedolo was a good buy, and that the land itself had a plentiful resource of rich fertilizer among the soils. He informed the friend that while digging for fertilizer, he should keep a careful eye out for any human remains that might be buried there. He told him to inform him the moment they found anything out of the ordinary. Sure enough, more bones were found in the basic vicinity of where Ragazzoni found the initial human remains. Ragazzoni, a trained geologist of his day, excavated (with the help of others) a total of four individuals over a localized expanse of the hillside. He confirmed that, undeniably, these perfectly modern human skeletons were found among the Astian clay, intermixed with fossil shells. He then brought a trained anatomist, Professor G. Sergi from the University of Rome, into the investigation. Sergi had concluded that the remains consisted of four individuals; a woman, a man, and two children. Both Ragazzoni and Sergi had lingering doubts as to the nature of the material within the Astian layer. They suspected, like the previous two geologists, that these human remains might have been buried in the Astian layer well after it had been laid down (this is what is known as an intrusive burial). IF this had been the case, the stratigraphy of the Astian soil, as well as the several layers of soil above it (all colored differently from the Astian) would have been disturbed, intermixed, with definite borders to the grave walls and the like.However, Ragazzoni concluded that these skeletons were not an intrusive burial. They were buried at the same time that the Astian layer was layed down (1.5-4 million years according to the evolutionary timescale). Sergi agreed with this statement, and both he and Ragazzoni never recanted their initial findings to my knowledge. According to Ragazzoni (1880, p.123); The stratum of blue clay (Astian layer), which is over 1 meter (3 feet) thick, has preserved its uniform stratification, and does not show any sign of disturbance. In accordance with the judgment of the excavator himself, who is not preoccupied with any preconceived ideas, the skeleton was very likely deposited in a kind of marine mud and not buried at a later time, for in this case one would have been able to detect traces of the overlying yellow sand and the iron-red clay called feretto, which forms the top part of the hill, and which by successive floodings has washed down and covered the lower formations of conglomerate and sand that cover the shelly Subappenine blue clays. http://www.calarts.edu/~shockley/castenedolo.html
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Yaro Member (Idle past 6496 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days) Posts: 6367 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? Well, first off, intrusive burial would show evidence in the soil above the skeleton fossils, right? 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. This was not shown with the Italian find, for example. What appears to me is that prior to evolutionists being close-minded about finding ancient human remains, quite a few were found, but ever since they adopted the no ancient human stance, they have not properly inviestigated the claims and did not go back and review all of the existing data to see if the claims of ancient men were correct. They ran with relatively few fossils and ignored a large body of evidence indicating ancient man. Part of why they may have done this is the "progress" mentality that evolutionists tended to think in. Evos do say that evolution is not progressive, not upwards, but just is change. But back in the early days of evolutionism, the idea of progress was strong and this ideology may have caused evolutionists to erroneously assume that baser, "devolved" forms of ancient humans could only have been precursors to modern humans, and not considered that, even within ToE, they do not rule out that modern man existed a long time prior and these forms devolved from modern man. The fact is evos developed very dogmatic beliefs based on paltry levels of evidence and ignoring the evidence for ancient man.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
The person who set up that web page is enrolled in the character animation department at California Institute of the Arts. An animator -- pretty cool. I hope he doesn't waste his talents on Bible drek.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Yaro Member (Idle past 6496 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 6496 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
So all randman's "sources" are referencing the same book? That's a meaning of "verification" that I haven't heard before.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
CK Member (Idle past 4128 days) Posts: 3221 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22394 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
In the hopes that it will help, let me explain why this seems incredibly poor evidence.
One important principle of archeology is that artifacts removed from their original site lose a great deal of their ability to tell us anything. This principle did not exist in the early 1800's, and so I assume the skeletons were removed and none remain as originally found. If this is not true, if some of the skeletons were left in place, then it only remains to conduct an archeological investigation on the site. Does anything remain at the site, and is Cremo investigating. If nothing remains at the site, indeed, if the site cannot even be identified today, then there is probably nothing that can be done. The skeleton in the British museum is useless as evidence. The article says implements were found with them. One of the first questions you want to ask concerns the nature of these implements., i.e., were they axes, rakes, hoes? Were they metal or stone? Was there any wood attached to the implements? What period of human history do the implements appear to come from. There was a dog at the site. Was the breed of the dog identifiable? If so, what breed was it, and when did the breed first appear? Or is it a completely unknown breed? Since the excavation was in 1812, what evidence did W. R. Cooper use in 1983, more than 150 years later, to decide that the skeleton at the British museum had come from Miocene layers. He claims the skeleton show signs of drowning, but what signs can a skeleton have of drowning? Why hasn't Cooper payed to have the skeleton carbon dated. All he needs is to find that the date is indeterminable (meaning the skeleton would have to be at least 50,000 years old) to have some really serious data. So why hasn't he done this? Carbon dating only costs a few hundred dollars. The article says the skeletons appeared to have been subjected to a burial. Is it safe to presume the skeletons were found buried only a few feet down? I don't know, the article doesn't say. After all, they might have been digging a well. But since the area dug up was broad enough to include several human skeletons and a dog skeleton as well as some implements, it might be safe to assume they weren't conducting this excavation at any significant depth, and that they were found relatively near the surface. So one logical question to ask is, "What is the geology of Guadeloupe like? Are layers from the Miocene present near the surface?" The answer appears to be yes, but it is the upper Miocene, not the lower. But any graves would likely be dug into Miocene layers. Lastly, what do archeologists say about Guadeloupe. Information on the Internet is sparse, but one site (Global Industry Market Sizing - NationMaster) says it was first inhabited by humans around 300 BC. Archeologists have found no sign of earlier habitation. Now let's examine your own analysis.
If the skeleton is in a Miocene lime-stone deposit, which seems to be the case, that is problematic for current human origins scenarios. Limestone is a likely possibility, but nothing in the article says limestone. You shouldn't be drawing conclusions out of thin air. If you have a reason for suspecting limestone, say what it is. But of greater concern is your conclusion that burial in Miocene limestone layers "seems to be the case." All you've got is an anecdotal story. As far as you can tell from the article, no one has examined the site since 1812. Concluding from this sparse and unverified information that it "is problematic for current human origins scenarios" calls your judgement into question.
It may or may not be evidence of the Flood, but if the deposits are considered millions of years old and the skeleton is dated as young, that would be evidence for YECers. You can't take Cooper's statements at face value to reach any conclusions. And you're ignoring the possibility that burial below a few feet on Guadaloupe might place you in Miocene layers.
If the skeleton and deposit are both old, then that would still be problematic for current evo-scenarios, but it would just push back the start of modern man much further, probably resulting in a theory that currently esteemed "lower" hominids were devolved forms, so to speak, and that man's evolutionary history would be much longer. Again, you've got almost nothing to go on. You're leaping to conclusions. You need to raise the standard of the evidence you consider. You must become much more circumspect, else you will be cast about from fad theory to fad theory. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2170 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: No, that is not correct. "Fraud" implies an intent to deceive. In other words, a lie, possibly criminal. "Inaccurate" imples a mistake. Support the claim of intentional deception with specific evidence or withdraw it. Or, if you want to claim mistakes or incompetence, a slightly less serious but still major accustion in the scientific community, provide evidence for that as well or withdraw the claim.
quote: Oh, do please go into detail. Please provide detailed evidence of either an intent to deceive or major mistakes or incompetence on the part of scientists in, let's say, five Evolutionary Biology papers. All you ever do is remain vague when discussing the evidence. What I'd like you to do is find a few specific EvoBio papers, read them, find the fraud or the overstatement that you say is so prevalent, and then cut n paste a link to them here along with your analysis of the details of the fraudulent claims and/or major mistakes made by the Evolutionary Biologists. Surely this shouldn't be that hard since such fraud is so common all throughout science, correct?
quote: So, is it your claim that scientists, specifically Biologists, are making false claims which are intended to deceive their peers, the rest of the scientific community, including various disciplines (including medicine, genetics and agriculture) which use EvoBio findings in their research, and the entire world?
quote: Citation, please.
quote: Why not? Please be specific in your explanation. In specific, references to comparitive anatomy information would be useful. This message has been edited by schrafinator, 08-08-2005 02:42 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
I'll match your webpage with another:
In SF#27, an article in Ex Nihilo, an Australian creationist publication was reviewed. This article described the discovery of the famous Guadeloupe skeleton in limestone that seemed very ancient indeed from all indications. The article also stated that the British Museum had suppressed discussion of this paradigm-shifting discovery by hiding the skeleton away somewhere.
It seems that the skeleton was never hidden and, in fact, was on public display between 1882 and 1967. The claimed Miocene dating of the skeleton has also been challenged, although no one seems to agree on just how old the bones may really be. The geological facts mentioned in SF#27 are not discussed at all in the article referenced below. A post- Columbian date was suggested on the basis that implements and a dog's skeleton were also found with the Guadeloupe skeleton. The whole business has split the ranks of British scientific creationists.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Yaro Member (Idle past 6496 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
CK Member (Idle past 4128 days) Posts: 3221 Joined: |
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...
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024