Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Kevin · 08-21-2002, 08:04 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by mibby529:
Ones that no one can read b/c we don't all have passwords.

There's a wonderful place full of fascinating information from the peer reviewed journals: it's called a library. I suggest checking there before complaining that "no one can read" the articles presented.

ps418 · 08-21-2002, 01:18 PM

Quote:

mibby:
Here's a challenge: Use the technology of 12kya and scale the Alaskan and Siberian mountains.

I guess no matter what happens, Mibby will just refuse to give up this persistent misunderstanding. The topography of northwest north America and northeast Siberia during sea-level lowstands did not require any passage over mountains. The rodents, humans, mammoths and other mammals that crossed the Pleistocene land bridge did not need to climb any mountains. This has been explained many times now. Do we need to use smaller words, or what?

Anyone interested should check out the <a href="http://ftp.ngdc.noaa.gov/mgg/image/2minrelief.html" target="_blank">topographic maps</a> at the <a href="http://ftp.ngdc.noaa.gov/ngdc.html" target="_blank">National Geophysics Data Center,</a> especially <a href="http://ftp.ngdc.noaa.gov/mgg/image/2minsurface/90N180W.html" target="_blank">this one, centered 90N, 180W.</a> With a 100+m eustatic sea-level drop, virtually the entire platform seen on this map would be exposed.

mibby529 · 08-21-2002, 06:52 PM

Hmm...Could it be that scientists might have a case of True Believer syndrome? Simply put, the first reference to the Bering Strait land bridge in particular that I could find was from the early 19th century. And we KNOW how accurate anthropology was then, now don't we?

There ARE pre-Clovis sites, BTW. There are so many, so far apart, that they couldn't ALL be forgeries or mistakes. Channel Islands, Monte Verde, Meadowcraft...And if you say they're "pre-Indian" or a "fourth migration," I'll bust you for ad hoc hypothesis.

The Lone Ranger · 08-21-2002, 07:58 PM

Quote:

Hmm...Could it be that scientists might have a case of True Believer syndrome? Simply put, the first reference to the Bering Strait land bridge in particular that I could find was from the early 19th century. And we KNOW how accurate anthropology was then, now don't we?

Aristotle wrote about the sphericity of the Earth more than 2,000 years ago, and we know how accurate astronomy was back then. Obviously, the notion that the Earth is spherical is wrong, therefore.

Quote:

There ARE pre-Clovis sites, BTW. There are so many, so far apart, that they couldn't ALL be forgeries or mistakes. Channel Islands, Monte Verde, Meadowcraft...And if you say they're "pre-Indian" or a "fourth migration," I'll bust you for ad hoc hypothesis.

If -- I say if -- these sites turn out to be genuine, it's no big deal. It just means that people have lived in the New World longer than we'd thought. So?

Cheers,

Michael

[ August 21, 2002: Message edited by: The Lone Ranger ]

Clutch · 08-21-2002, 09:24 PM

May I point out the utterly unsurprising connection between de Acosta's Christian assumptions and the best supported theories of today?

They both propose the common ancestry of humans.

So in some limited respects, they will support the same or similar inferences. Obviously this indicates nothing about one depending on the other, however. (Are you claiming, Mibby, that Darwin based the theory of common ancestry on Genesis?) If the "logic and common sense" rejection of Bering migrations requires also rejecting the theory of evolution, then this discussion is a waste of time. (It may be in any case.) But if one accepts the common ancestry of humans -- on the grounds that everyone here accepts it, that is, and not on biblical grounds -- then either native Americans got to America somehow, or humans originated in America and migrated elsewhere.

There's no remotely serious debate on which of these alternatives is correct, though.

Hence the curiosity of posters regarding mibby's own views about the origins of native Americans. There does not appear to be room for any view save by denying common ancestry. Since mibby seems persistently to be courting the special creation of native Americans, his/her habit of using the term "creationist" as a purely emotive expression of dislike is doubly remarkable.

Finally, the red flags in the thread seem to me to have been mibby's assertion that he/she simply does not trust anything written about native Americans by non-natives, and, in the same vein, his/her suggestion that scientists in general have True Believer complex on the migrations issue. These sorts of blanket denigrations of the extant evidence, as presented by experts, are indeed familiar from creationist communiques, as cards to be played whenever the cherished doctrine is palpably contradicted by the received expert opinion.

[ August 21, 2002: Message edited by: Clutch ]

ps418 · 08-22-2002, 12:50 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by mibby529:

There ARE pre-Clovis sites, BTW. There are so many, so far apart, that they couldn't ALL be forgeries or mistakes. Channel Islands, Monte Verde, Meadowcraft...And if you say they're "pre-Indian" or a "fourth migration," I'll bust you for ad hoc hypothesis.

In what way is this supposed to be relevant to our discussion about how and where from the ancestors of native americans came to NA? Did I ever suggest that there were no pre-Clovis sites? Nope. Monte Verde is widely accepted as a pre-Clovis site. Why do you always suggest I hold views which I do not hold and have not espoused?
And BTW, your posts here show that you wouldn't know an ad hoc hypothesis if it bit you on the nose.

Patrick

[ August 22, 2002: Message edited by: ps418 ]

mibby529 · 08-22-2002, 03:10 PM

Quote:

Aristotle wrote about the sphericity of the Earth more than 2,000 years ago, and we know how accurate astronomy was back then. Obviously, the notion that the Earth is spherical is wrong, therefore.

This assumes Aristotle was biased in favor of a spherical earth. The Bering Strait was brought to you by the same ppl who brought you phrenology and anthropometry. The same ppl who said Indians were "racially incapable of telling myth from fact" and "racially prone to violence."

Quote:

If -- I say if -- these sites turn out to be genuine, it's no big deal. It just means that people have lived in the New World longer than we'd thought. So?

There are too many sites for them to not be genuine; what's your point?

Quote:

If the "logic and common sense" rejection of Bering migrations requires also rejecting the theory of evolution, then this discussion is a waste of time.

That's a straw man. I still believe in evolution; it's only logical. But the Bering Strait is illogical.

I shall quote some of those who argue in favor of the Bering Strait:

"...we should be very careful in drawing definite conclusions from the fact that little or nothing is known from the Bering Strait area and the adjoining area northeastern Asia, in connection with the eventual migration of late-Pleistocene man by that route. The region has not been extensively investigated and if we compare it with the development of our knowledge of Paleo-Indian cultures in the United States, much may change within the next decades. [sic]" (T. van der Hammen)

Scientists normally call this possibilism.

mibby529 · 08-22-2002, 03:23 PM

Quote:

Finally, the red flags in the thread seem to me to have been mibby's assertion that he/she simply does not trust anything written about native Americans by non-natives...

The anthropologist in the field is a recent phenomenon. Until then, they based all their theories on missionary accounts and physiognomy. Further, the New-Age-claiming-to-be-Indian Bible seems to consist of Black Elk Speaks and the Sorceror's Apprentice, both of them by PhDs in anthropology. And we both remember the Yanomamo's case, don't we?

Quote:

...in the same vein, his/her suggestion that scientists in general have True Believer complex on the migrations issue.

Whenever a pre-Clovis site comes up, ppl theorize a "fourth migration," with no evidence of one other than present dogma. (Circulus in demonstrando, ad hoc hypothesis.) On talk.origins, when I brought it up, I didn't get any references to archeological evidence, just that the Bering Strait was the "best" theory. (Meta-argument.) Oh, and of course, the fact that there are NO archeological digs in Alaska suggesting a Bering Strait migration doesn't stop them; they simply turn to possibilism.

Quite the evidence of TBS, wouldn't you agree?

ps418 · 08-22-2002, 04:03 PM

Quote:

Mibby: The Bering Strait was brought to you by the same ppl who brought you phrenology and anthropometry. The same ppl who said Indians were "racially incapable of telling myth from fact" and "racially prone to violence."

Should I conclude that all native americans are superstitious idiots because some of them believe that rain dances affect the weather? Or does this "logic" only apply to whites?

Mageth · 08-22-2002, 04:04 PM

<a href="http://www.blm.gov/education/mesas/discovery.html" target="_blank">One archaeological site in Alaska</a>

<a href="http://www.civilization.ca/academ/articles/cinq1_1e.html" target="_blank">The Bluefish Caves, in the Yukon</a>

<a href="http://www.nps.gov/akso/akarc/early.htm" target="_blank">Another good article</a>

In the latter, pay attention to the "Paleoarctic tradition" section:

Quote:

The Paleoarctic Tradition is widespread in Alaska, especially the hallmark microblade and burin technological complex. Paleoarctic type assemblages have been found in or very near every NPS area in Alaska except SITK and KLGO. Paleoarctic materials, sometimes called the Denali Complex, have been found at Dry Creek (Component II) in the Interior by DENA, and at Aishihik Lake in western Canada near WRST. Along the coast it has been called the Paleomarine and has been found at Groundhog Bay on the tip of the Chilkat Peninsula, just outside GLBA, at Hidden Falls on Baranof Island, and Chuck Lake on Hecata Island. These coastal sites provide support for the theory of a coastal migration route for the early settlement of the New World that Fladmark (1979) first proposed.

08-21-2002, 09:24 PM	#105
Clutch Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Canada Posts: 3,751	May I point out the utterly unsurprising connection between de Acosta's Christian assumptions and the best supported theories of today? They both propose the common ancestry of humans. So in some limited respects, they will support the same or similar inferences. Obviously this indicates nothing about one depending on the other, however. (Are you claiming, Mibby, that Darwin based the theory of common ancestry on Genesis?) If the "logic and common sense" rejection of Bering migrations requires also rejecting the theory of evolution, then this discussion is a waste of time. (It may be in any case.) But if one accepts the common ancestry of humans -- on the grounds that everyone here accepts it, that is, and not on biblical grounds -- then either native Americans got to America somehow, or humans originated in America and migrated elsewhere. There's no remotely serious debate on which of these alternatives is correct, though. Hence the curiosity of posters regarding mibby's own views about the origins of native Americans. There does not appear to be room for any view save by denying common ancestry. Since mibby seems persistently to be courting the special creation of native Americans, his/her habit of using the term "creationist" as a purely emotive expression of dislike is doubly remarkable. Finally, the red flags in the thread seem to me to have been mibby's assertion that he/she simply does not trust anything written about native Americans by non-natives, and, in the same vein, his/her suggestion that scientists in general have True Believer complex on the migrations issue. These sorts of blanket denigrations of the extant evidence, as presented by experts, are indeed familiar from creationist communiques, as cards to be played whenever the cherished doctrine is palpably contradicted by the received expert opinion. [ August 21, 2002: Message edited by: Clutch ]</p>

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

08-21-2002, 06:52 PM	#103
mibby529 Regular Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Cali Posts: 170	Hmm...Could it be that scientists might have a case of True Believer syndrome? Simply put, the first reference to the Bering Strait land bridge in particular that I could find was from the early 19th century. And we KNOW how accurate anthropology was then, now don't we? There ARE pre-Clovis sites, BTW. There are so many, so far apart, that they couldn't ALL be forgeries or mistakes. Channel Islands, Monte Verde, Meadowcraft...And if you say they're "pre-Indian" or a "fourth migration," I'll bust you for ad hoc hypothesis.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.