MVP
Well-Known Member
We talking living beings. You think humans now are more primitive then 50.000 years ago for example?
Evolution discussion
- Thread starter One Brow
- Start date
We talking living beings. You think humans now are more primitive then 50.000 years ago for example?
MVP
Well-Known Member
It is not true. There was no such discovery, simple explanation. HOAX.
Your point is what? You think those photos are all homogeneous fakes?
And who says Credo's research has no value? You?
???? No hoax. Or is anything that refutes Darwin a hoax now?
The tools were determined to be man made and were sealed in Tertiary rock. From this you can conclude that they are at least the same age as the rock layer. There is no other reasonable explanation as to how they got there.
GVC
Well-Known Member
Jesus?
All of the postings I made on the prior page. I can go get more.
Darkwing Duck
Well-Known Member
Reading up on Cremo.
He also believes there's a worldwide scientific community effort to suppress the already gathered evidence in the paranormal AND Bigfoot/Yeti, etc.
The other criticisms brought by the scientific community is that he rejects modern data that refutes the conclusions on alleged artifacts found in the 1800s that no longer exist.
He also believes there's a worldwide scientific community effort to suppress the already gathered evidence in the paranormal AND Bigfoot/Yeti, etc.
The other criticisms brought by the scientific community is that he rejects modern data that refutes the conclusions on alleged artifacts found in the 1800s that no longer exist.
MVP
Well-Known Member
This is how scientist review Cremo's Forbidden Archeology
Tom Morrow of the National Center for Science Education noted that "FA devotes 400 pages to analyzing anomalous stone tools depicted in obscure literature over the past 150 years. Worse, these specimens no longer exist"
"On the whole, the work of recent palaeoanthropologists - in terms of both recent finds and reviews of current theory - is omitted from the discussion. FA's presentation means that the reader is not offered a thorough review of the relevant evidence, despite the book's great length...To attempt to resurrect an old paradigm the way they do, by analyzing outmoded scientific texts, is one of the recognized marks of 'pseudo-science'
Again, everybody can chose what to believe, real science or Krisna worshiping "researcher".
Tom Morrow of the National Center for Science Education noted that "FA devotes 400 pages to analyzing anomalous stone tools depicted in obscure literature over the past 150 years. Worse, these specimens no longer exist"
"On the whole, the work of recent palaeoanthropologists - in terms of both recent finds and reviews of current theory - is omitted from the discussion. FA's presentation means that the reader is not offered a thorough review of the relevant evidence, despite the book's great length...To attempt to resurrect an old paradigm the way they do, by analyzing outmoded scientific texts, is one of the recognized marks of 'pseudo-science'
Again, everybody can chose what to believe, real science or Krisna worshiping "researcher".
Darkwing Duck
Well-Known Member
What was the date given for the tools in tertiary rock? Tertiary period is too broad for dating techniques.
Darkwing Duck
Well-Known Member
Coincidentally, this kind of research is why archaeological digs of today are organized in SOOOOOOOOOO much detail. You can't touch ANYTHING until the site has been gridded. I can't remember all the details that go into making sure there's no chance of contamination of a site, particularly for dating procedures.
MVP
Well-Known Member
There is no proof for that unfortunately. Tell me what dating methods Ribeiro used to prove that it is Tertiary rock. You missing my point. If somebody like that would have been discovered in 1860 without any modern technology and carbon or radioactive dating don't you think findings like that would be repeated at least SINGLE time in our time? All archeologists would be digging whole Portugal now looking for that. But since every sane scientist knows it is fake nobody ever cared to do it.
MVP
Well-Known Member
His book Human Devolution, which like Forbidden Archeology claims that man has existed for millions of years, attempts to prove this by citing "every possible research into the paranormal ever conducted anywhere to 'prove' the truth of holist Vedic cosmology which proposes the presence of a spiritual element in all matter (which takes different forms, thereby explaining the theory of 'devolution')
How can anybody take that seriously?
For humans, you have this from 12Mya
To this at 4.5Mya
To this around 3.8Mya
50,000 ya
25,000 ya
Last one is "modern" human, Cro-magnon.
I'll take as fact that all of these images are correct and properly identified. How is it that you conclude that these species came into existence by way of evolving from one another.
carolinajazz
Well-Known Member
Now, after well over a century of extensive digging, vast numbers of fossils have been unearthed. There are a hundred million fossils, all catalogued and identified, in museums around the world.
After all this time, and the assembling of millions of fossils, what does the record now say? The fossil record is full of trends that paleontologists have been unable to explain. What has confounded such scientists is the fact that the massive fossil evidence now available reveals the very same thing that it did in Darwin’s day: Basic kinds of living things appeared suddenly and did not change appreciably for long periods of time. No transitional links between one major kind of living thing and another have ever been found. So what the fossil record says is just the opposite of what was expected.
A Swedish botanist Heribert Nilsson described the situation this way, after 40 years of his own research: “It is not even possible to make a caricature of an evolution out of palaeobiological facts. The fossil material is now so complete that .*.*. the lack of transitional series cannot be explained as due to the scarcity of material. The deficiencies are real, they will never be filled.”
Now, would you like to debate me on my favorite fossil subject...........Archaeopteryx"?
Cremo is the author of Forbidden Archeology, but he is distinct from the scientists whose research he compiles. Whether he believes in paranormal subjects is irrelevant. Incidentally, the government also believes in paranormal subjects, but that too is irrelevant here.
These artifacts are not "alleged" but verified by multiple scientists, as is standard procedure.
Your first instinct, it seems, is simply to discredit the discovery and the messenger of it. To my eyes, this is your normalcy bias (assuming you accept 'origin of species' as normal).
Last edited:
MVP
Well-Known Member
It is exact opposite. There is numerous transitional species documented. What transition is not clear for you? We already discussed land mammals to cetaceans. You want to talk dinosaurs to birds? Fish to amphibians? Apes to humans? Reptiles to mammals? Sorry bud, you already made fool of yourself trying to say that reptiles have scales and birds feathers completely forgetting or not knowing that birds have scales as well or that there were feathered dinosaurs. Are you sure you want to dig deeper?
I again would suggest to read this book - time very well spend.
https://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11630&page=1
MVP
Well-Known Member
There is no proof of that!
MVP
Well-Known Member
What is wrong with you creationists? This Nillson dude died in 1955 - thus he never knew anything about last 58 years of science, he was even unaware of continental drift! Can you guys please find some real and up to date scientist supporting your ridiculous claims?
"Oblivious to continental drift (not a commonly-accepted theory at the time), Heribert-Nilsson invokes tremendous tsunamis for the fact that many fossil floras, such as that of the London Clay, consist of species whose modern relatives live in tropical countries far removed from the site of deposition as G. Ledyard Stebbins writes in an article for The Quarterly Review of Biology in 1955.
According to Stebbins Heribert-Nilsson's final line of "evidence" against evolution consists of an attempt to criticise certain basic principles of genetics, particularly the linear order of the genes on the chromosomes.
As these principles are nowadays confirmed beyond any doubt, it is no surprise that Heribert-Nilsson's hypothesis of emication hasn't found any resonance."
Darkwing Duck
Well-Known Member
I'll assume "you" is the scientific community since I never received the training in forensic paleoanthropology. Basically, the techniques are very similar to forensic work. Teeth, skulls, and pelvises are really good bones to look at because that's where a lot of the similarities with small complexity differences come into play, which is the basis on which the branching model is made. These two species, or specimens, or whatever you're looking at, has x amount and y things in common as "z" type organism. All mammals have x. All primates have y. All homonoids have z. That's the main basis.
And here's the fun part, x, y, and z are subject to change. There has to be substantial factors to change the models, and it has definitely happened before. Would be interesting to see an unearthed fossil contradict the entirety of evolution on Earth, but I'm not holding my breath. Changes are more minute than that. A humanoid fossil in the past couple years has put into question when bipedalism developed in what became humans. Previously, it was thought it was a reaction to the loss of forest in Africa, and that the gained height of bipedalism, with the cost of losing the arboreal ability becoming moot, helped defend against predators. Recent discoveries had hominoids developing before the loss of trees, leading to new ideas and thoughts. Current ideas now are that having two hands for a growing intellect made males appear more helpful and desirable for females. Being bipedal also lets certain attributes be more visible to the opposite sex, another suggestion on why bipedalism was more attractive.