Miocene humans

The claims are fraudulent, meaning they are not accurate. I could go into detail, but there tends to be reliance on overatements, and then sometimes a scaling back.The overstatements are fraudulent in the sense they are an overstatement.For example, Pakicetus was originally presented as a webbed foot semi-aquatic creature. There was absolutely no evidence for it having webbed feet, now being semi-aquatic. The only reason I can think of for depicting Pakicetus in this manner was to exagerrate and overstate the finding in an attempt to make the whale transition connection stronger.Interestingly, although now Pakicestus is presented as a rat-like hooved creature, he is still called a cetacean despite it not sharing any of the primary qualities that identify a cetacean (whale) as a cetacean.This kind of reminds of how evos used the term "recapitulation." It took a long time but eventually evos admitted that "ontologeny does not recapitulate phylogeny", but they still maintained the term, "recapitulation" and kept the unproven claim of a phylotypic stage and some basic, but false and misleading claims, such as humans having gill slits, or gill pouches, embryos, and they kept using the term, recapitulation.That to me indicates a pattern of overstatement not connected to fact.

This doesn't go here. You state it as if it were fact, when you never succesfully established this in the appopriate thread. Packicetus was belived to have webfeet in 1998. New evidence has come to light reavealing that he didn't. Isn't science great? Allways willing to correct past mistakes in a continual push for the truth. I kinda like that aspect.Anyway... This all smacks of conspiracy theory to me. Like some evil conclave of scientists huddled in a dark room ploting to polute the minds of the populace. What the hell would be their motive anyway?I mean crap, science works. What the heck has religion ever done except give us pain, warfare, and dump ideas?

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.This was presented in places like the 12 page propaganda spread, which I read at the time, showing these erroneous claims as facts.It's par for the course. Evos overstate the evidence, and then sometimes scale it back, but note not all the way. They still call this creature a whale.Imo, were critics allowed to present the arguments and data critical of evolution in the class-room, evos would be the laughing-stock of the nation. I mean evos actually have web-sites with a large, hooved, rat-like creature running across the page with the caption "the first whale."It's farcical.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.What has evolutionism done? Take away ToE, and we would have all of the exact same advances in medicine, genetics, etc,....and that's because univeral common descent is not a necessary paradigm for working within these fields or even understanding evolutionary processes applicable to species in their generation. You can have micro-evolution, which no one denies, and reject the wild claims of universal common descent.

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. 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

Are you guys ever going to look at the evidence?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.Why so many claims of Miocene era humans, including claims put forward not be Cremo?And then once evos say it isn't possible, you guys write off such data. Looks suspicious to me.Fits the pattern of behaviour I have noted as an interested observer.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.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.Or maybe some of these apish hominids are really just apes.

Would love to! Where is it? What museum, who's the reasearcher, pictures, papers, etc.? 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! 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. 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. 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: 2,000,000,000,000BCThat'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

I would like to remind everybody here that the Piltdown man clearly abolishes secular conspiracy humanist athiest theories regarding the Africo-centric origin of man. The subsequent claims of 'fraud' only came about when it started to look like it was contrary to the Religion of Darwinism.The so called 'fraud' was the real fraud. They switched the skulls and replaced it with a painted gibbon skull. Like that wouldn't have been noticed by creationists for 40 years!!!!Science that relies on 100 year old evidence is the best science we have! Totally flawless, there were never any frauds 100 years ago, and randman and I would know. Thank goodness we don't use modern criteria for assesing the credibility of old evidence when deciding if something is true or not.Oh, wait a minute, this is randman isn't it? The person that demands that science not rely on 100 year old evidence, and should constantly reexamine evidence with modern methods? Well, I guess this makes the old finds instantly suspect. Hopefully we will make similar finds in our enlightened times which we can analyse fully and to everyone's satisfaction. Until then we have treat this as one those curiousities of those strange Victorian times.I'd certainly be interested to see a formal study done on the subject, but I'm not especially interested in going out of my way for conclusions based on some Victorian curios. However, I'll give the subject a quick read through to see if there is anything more interesting that hasn't been mentioned in the thread.

Gee, I don't know, so many topics to investigate, so little time. There's homeopathy, therapeutic touch, pyramid power, astrology, telekenesis, ESP, the effects of prayer, spoon bending, out-of-body experiences, poltergeist, astral projection, auras, mind-reading, clairvoyance, Noah's flood, hydroplate theory, vapor canopy theory, white holes, accelerated decay, rapid plate tectonics, rapid recolonization, and on and on. Now you're adding humans living back in the Miocene. I don't know about anyone else, but before I invest any time in it I'd need to know not only what sets the evidence for this a notch above the evidence for all these other things, but in what way it approaches the standard for scientific evidence.I still think these are the important points:

• You are mistaken that Cremo has raised some interest in some corners of the scientific community.
  ​
• Cremo's evidence is slight and of very low quality.
  ​
• Your attraction to wacko fringe theories calls your approach to judging something credible into question.

This thread has quickly reached a loop. You haven't gotten anyone interested in examining the "evidence", and you're taking every refusal as an opportunity to cast a variety of off-topic general accusations at evolutionists.You're going to have to face facts. The scientific community rejects Cremo, his ideas sound just as crackpot as lots of other crackpot ideas at various websites, which is where Cremo's ideas tend to get represented, and so far no one here finds his ideas credible, either. Maybe you'll get someone to nibble, but until then your time might be better spent finding some credible evidence.--PercyThis message has been edited by Percy, 08-08-2005 01:04 PM

So evidentiary claims of Miocene human artifacts and remains, attested to by a wide body of evidence and people, is dismissed a priori.Figures.

Who, and what are their credentials?

The difference is claims per mermaids and such did not have cooroborating data. What Cremo shows is that there was accepted by all standards, data and a lot of it, indicating Miocene human artifacts and remains.Evolutionists never used scientific studies to discount the body of this data.We also have accounts from other sources besides Cremo of a fairly wide body of evidence of Miocene human remains and artifacts, one linked to in the OP which mentions the museum and artifact specifically, and you can, if you want, pursue whether the fossil exists or not independently.So I have answered you, pointed to a wide body of evidence of Miocene man, and of multiple sources. Cremo is not the only person presenting this data. He is significant, crackpot or not, because he has done extensive research compiling this data, but it's been there all along, sort of like Haeckel's frauds.What's interesting is you guys complained that creationists and other critics don't substantiate their criticism with data, but when they do, you dismiss the data because they are the ones substantiating the data. It's fallacious and circular reasoning on your part.Take the instance of Haeckel's drawings. Creationists drew attention to the fact they were frauds, but evos kept using them for over 100 years because no evolutionist had done a study.Same process here. We have data showing strong evidence, it seems, of Miocene man, but the best you guys can do is smear some of the people that compiled some of the data.What is clear is evolutionists have not and do not act objectively in considering the evidence. They never examined all of these claims and showed them to be wrong, but just began to ignore this data because it did not fit with their ideas.Instead of developing the theory based on the data, they filter the data based on the theory, it seems.

No, you have it wrong. I'm not refusing to examine a "wide body of evidence". You don't have a "wide body of evidence", you just keep claiming you do. Your reliance on extremely old scholarship, your error in claiming that Cremo was gaining some attention from the scientific community, your inability to recognize the contradictions a Vedic interpretation has with many fields of science, these all combine to call into question your ability to make sound judgments regarding evidence.If you'd prefer to continue to use this thread as an extended rant against evolution and evolutionists then I guess just go ahead, but insult doesn't have a very successful history as a tool of persuasion. Your time might be better spent forthrightly addressing some of the questions that have been raised, such as making a well-argued case for accepting the antiquated scholarship you're citing, and going beyond simple dismissal of the scientific conundrums that a Vedic approach introduces.--Percy

The Miocene Human Fossil in GuadeloupeIf the skeleton is in a Miocene lime-stone deposit, which seems to be the case, that is problematic for current human origins scenarios.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.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.Either way, it is unlikely that any data can falsify evolutionist claims, but this would create a significant change in human evo-scenarios.

Okay, so what you have provided is an assertion that is not supported by any evidence and falsified on at least one point.What utter nonsense.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

quote:

---

if the deposits are considered millions of years old and the skeleton is dated as young, that would be evidence for YECers.

---

What? Your own source states: