mibby529

And nothing mentioning Laughlin's admitted lack of evidence. I actually admire your tenacity. I've always had a spot for the longshot. Actually, most archeologists have given up on the land bridge already; only Hovind clones like yourself are maintaining it.

As someone here said, you can lead a creationist to evidence, but can't make him read it.

"The geologic evidence shows beyond any doubt that there was a land bridge."

But that doesn't mean anything CROSSED it. There's also an Antarctica, but humans don't live there. <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" />

"Apparently" is another word for "I have no evidence, but this makes me comfortable."

Your idiocy continues. He wouldn't simply restate Darwin; everyone (creationists like yourself excluded) agrees with Darwin. We have no evidence that man was anywhere near the land bridge during this time, now do we?

It's not a "false impression." What he's saying is that a whole ecosystem has to go through. Carnivores follow herbivores, herbivores require plants to go anywhere. Therefore, there must be plants there before carnivores can go there. Or are you going to assume that Indians brought a freezer stacked with TV dinners and a microwave? (Or a similar anachronism.)

That's the trouble with land bridges. You have to have a whole ecosystem (plants, herbivores, and carnivores, at the very least) to go through a land bridge. And, considering the number of mountain ranges that anyone crossing a land bridge would have to go through...I've been to Alaska.

Kevin Dorner

mibby529: Rufus has already asked you to watch the personal and emotional comments in this thread, and also suggested that you take a break from this thread in order to do so. While it appeared that you had taken this advice with your second-last post, these ad hominems in your most recent addition to this thread have indicated that this is not the case.

As this appears to be an ongoing discussion that a lot of effort has been put into, I do not wish to waste this effort, but I cannot allow the request of my fellow moderator to go unheeded. I am therefore locking this topic for approximately 12 hours, or until 09h30 (my time) or thereabouts tomorrow, to allow you to calm down. I trust that other moderators will see this note and reopen the topic tomorrow if by chance I am not able to do so.

If you cannot control your comments when it is reopened at that time, another moderator here or myself will close it for good.

Edit: Reopening topic as indicated.

[ August 19, 2002: Message edited by: Kevin Dorner ]</p>

mibby529

What about Sandia Cave? Hueyatlaco, Calico, and Toca da Esperanca? Some of these sites are about 250kya, according to the US Geological Survey.

Here's what some European anthropologists have had to say:

"For...decades, American anthropologists would labor under the view of man's relative recency in the New World, while the mere mention of the possibility of greater antiquity was tantamount to professional suicide...[I]t is not surprising that when the evidence of the antiquity of man in America was finally reported from Folsom, Clovis, and other High Plains sites, it was rejected out of hand by establsihed authorities despite the clear nature of evidence at multiple locations, uncovered by different researchers, and seen and attested to by a large variety of professional visitor/observers..."
(John Alsozatai-Petheo)

Game, set, match.

Richiyaado

Not so fast, Mibby. Before we award the trophy to Michael Cremo and the folks at Forbidden Archeology, see here:

<a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/mom/lepper.html" target="_blank">Hidden History, Hidden Agenda</a>

Mageth

That's one anthropologist.

You may be quoting from <a href="http://www.evergreen.edu/nwindian/curriculum/originsquotes.html" target="_blank">this site.</a>

Whatever, that's pretty much directly from <a href="http://www.powells.com/cgi-bin/biblio?show=Trade%20Paper:New:1555913881:18.95" target="_blank">Red Earth, White Lies: Native Americans and the Myth of Scientific Fact</a> by Vine Deloria.

(emphasis mine):

Oh, OK.

You haven't even hit the damn ball yet.

[ August 19, 2002: Message edited by: Mageth ]</p>

ps418

Even your insults demonstrate a complete and utter lack of critical thinking. After all, I'm not the one who seems to think that asian mammoths and north american mammoths were seperately created. And after all, I'm not the one Hovinishly misrepresenting scientific sources like Simpson, or Hovindishly ignoring radiocarbon dates even when they're placed right under my nose, or claiming repeatedly, and despite all common sense, that plate tectonics somehow refutes the existence of a land bridge, or repeatedly claiming that immigrants would have to have waded through 50m of water despite being repeatedly corrected on the point.

Actually I think Hovind's 'theory' makes alot more sense than yours. I dont blame you for refusing to discuss explicitly your own "theory," though. I suspect you realize that it cannot be defended scientifically.


There you go with those false assumptions again. The only reason you think this is game, set, match is because your havent been paying any attention to anything I or anyone else has said. So let me take this opportunity to point out that nothing I've said implies that asians migrated to NA at any particular time in the past, say 11,000 years ago. Although the land-bridge was last exposed ~11,000 years ago, sea-level rose and fell many times before that in the past 2.5 million years. For all I know the first humans came to NA 500,000 years ago. I am simply defending 1) that there exists geologic and paleontological evidence for a Pleistocene land bridge connecting Asia and NA, and 2) that most native american populations are descendents of population(s) that came from Asia to NA during the Pleistocene, either over the land bridge, or some other way, maybe by coastal migration as others have suggested. And for all your emotion, evasion, misrepresentations and insults, you've yet to provide a single iota of evidence that this hypothesis is wrong. I can assure you that this is painfully obvious to everyone here but you.

Perhaps you could make a start by explaining how mammoths and other megafauna could get from NA to Asia without a land bridge? Did they swim across the atlantic? Or were they seperately created, like humans? Or maybe you could explain why the genetic evidence already cited is not good evidence for the hypothesis?

Patrick

[ August 19, 2002: Message edited by: ps418 ]</p>

ps418

Ah, so that's where these wacky ideas are coming from! I can't wait to get a copy of that book!

Poor science. Always running against the teachings of the people <img src="graemlins/boohoo.gif" border="0" alt="[Boo Hoo]" /> <img src="graemlins/boohoo.gif" border="0" alt="[Boo Hoo]" />



[ August 19, 2002: Message edited by: ps418 ]</p>

mibby529

Can you prove that the Bering Strait theory was NOT related to de Acosta, though?

You still haven't explained the aforementioned cases.

What about Leakey's discoveries in Mexico?

<a href="http://tlc.discovery.com/tlcpages/dawn/time14.html?14" target="_blank">http://tlc.discovery.com/tlcpages/dawn/time14.html?14</a>

Here is the text in its entirety (my emphasis added):

I think that pretty much ends the discussion.

pz

Hmmm. I just saw a show on TLC that was taking Edgar Cayce's claims about Atlantis seriously.

No, it doesn't. It's not very credible.

I'm afraid the evidence is unambiguous and presently irrefutable. Native Americans are descended from Asian populations that migrated to North America on the order of 10K-20K years ago. I do not understand why you find that so objectionable. It has nothing to do with discrimination, or justification for the European invasion of the Americas, since there is nothing in the fact to argue that Native Americans are inferior or have any lesser claim to priority of possession.

You also seem to be very evasive about postulating specific alternatives to the idea of Asian origins. That does put you in the same unscientific category as the typical creationist.

Mageth

The Calico site is near Barstow, California, not in Mexico.

Interesting that you didn't highlight the last sentence of Whistler's quote:

"We simply lack a record of earlier man that archaeologists are sure of."

Read: archaeologists "aren't sure" of the accuracy of the Calico and other claimed ancient sites. In fact, many are convinced the claims of age aren't accurate.

Some reviews of the materials and of the mechanics of stone tool making indicate that Calico has no stone tools older than the Late Pleistocene, but the archaeologists at Calico cling to their belief that the site is significantly earlier. (I'm saying that it's not a "done deal" that the site has 200k year old artifacts).

Further by highlighting the mention of Louis Leakey, you commit the same error that many other Calico proponents do - citing Louis Leakey as an authority that presumably couldn't be wrong about his conclusions. Newsflash: he could. It's the science that counts, not the names.

[ August 19, 2002: Message edited by: Mageth ]</p>