Moderators: winston, another_commander, Cody
Forbidden
You don't have permission to access /Images/humanfootprint04.jpg on this server.
I ran into the same problem, but the image is on this page (scroll down to "Fossilised Human Footprints"):SandJ wrote:Forbidden
You don't have permission to access /Images/humanfootprint04.jpg on this server.
The problem with this sort of thinking is that it sees science as some sort of static, autocratic belief-system, determined to defend its established point of view at all costs and against all comers. Whereas in reality, if someone was able to "disprove evolutionary dating of rock formations", they would become one of the most famous and respected scientists in their field.What makes it of great significance is the fact that this skeleton was found inside extremely hard, very old limestone, which was part of a formation more than a mile [1.609 km] in length! Modern geological dating places this formation at 28 million years old—which is 25 million years before modern man is supposed to have first appeared on earth!
Since such a date for a regular person does not fit evolutionary theory, you will not find "Guadeloupe Woman" mentioned in the Hominid textbooks. To do so would be to disprove evolutionary dating of rock formations.
In 1812, several skeletons were found on the island of Guadeloupe. They were all pointing the same way, were not disjointed, were only partly mineralized, and a dog and implements were found with them. This implies a burial, rather than a mass death. The dog and the partial mineralization imply they are post-Columbian.
One of the skeletons, of a woman, was presented to the British Museum. It has been on and off public display ever since.
In 1983, the Australian creationist journal Ex Nihilo ran an article by W. R. Cooper. He claimed that the skeleton was found in a 25 million year old Lower Miocene deposit. He said that it showed signs of drowning in the Flood. He also claimed that it was taken off display, in Darwin's day, to conceal the evidence against Darwin's theory. The Natural History Museum curators say that they didn't move it down to the basement until 1967.
And there the matter sits. Cooper has not produced an independant opinion that his dating (to the Miocene) is correct. The skeleton has not been carbon-dated, although the Museum offered to do so for a fee.
A reference:
"The case of Miocene Man", Howgate and Lewis, New Scientist 29 March 1984 pp. 44-45
Thanks.Disembodied wrote:I ran into the same problem, but the image is on this page (scroll down to "Fossilised Human Footprints"):
http://www.ancient-wisdom.co.uk/ooparts.htm
Like the "So, do you believe in Darwinism?" question.Disembodied wrote:The problem with this sort of thinking is that it sees science as some sort of static, autocratic belief-system, determined to defend its established point of view at all costs and against all comers.
Ooparts? really??Disembodied wrote:
These tree casts formed during the 1965 eruption, when lava flowed through forest. Where the lava came in contact with a tree, it chilled to form a solid rind surrounding the trunk, while the rest of the flow remained molten. The trees in Lava Trees State Park “were formed during a small eruption in the late 18th century. A fissure — one of the early vents of the eruption — has drainback features formed when some of the lava poured back into the fissure at the end of the eruption, a process typical of fissure eruptions. The drainback lowered the original flow surface, exhuming the lava-covered tree trunks that now stand above the flow. Tree moulds are also abundant in the park.”
They're very interesting, although totally unconnected!Greyth wrote:These are interesting... possibly...
Irish megalithic tombs and some lunar features share some superficial similarities in shape, but are vastly different sizes and have totally different causes. The tombs were built by people, and the geological (or selenological?) features on the moon are a result of meteorite impacts and lava upwellings.
It has been postulated that Luna once had an atmosphere and if that is true then she may have supported life, so it is not totally inconceivable that they are artefacts/structures.