Posted on 03/25/2011 3:49:13 PM PDT by Renfield
15,000 years ago, humans camped in a lush Texas valley, leaving thousands of artifacts behind, from tools to face paint. This could be definitive proof that ancient people arrived in America by boat, not by walking the Bering Strait.
Anthropologist Michael Waters and colleagues announced their findings today, detailing the almost 16,000 artifacts they found near Buttermilk Creek, outside the Austin area. Their discovery will change everything you thought you knew about how people arrived in the Americas.
Meet the Buttermilk Creek people
What's remarkable is that this places human occupation of America over 2,000 years earlier than previously believed. And apparently, these early settlers loved the Buttermilk Creek area - there is evidence that it's been a popular campsite for thousands of years. As Waters put it yesterday at a press conference:.....
(Excerpt) Read more at io9.com ...
“I cannot understand for the life of me WHY these nitwits seem to think that this entire landmass was totally empty and that there could not possibly have been a truly indigenous population.”
Because they believe in evolution, which requires the common descent of all men from one origin. So, everywhere else, except where that origin took place, wouldn’t have any “truly indigenous” people, according to that theory.
It also shoots down one of the prevailing theories of large mammal extiction.
“Adama. Red. Clay. Gee. Redmen.”
The Identity guys try to claim that means that Adam was a white man, since you can see red blood (blushing) through the translucent white skin. So, that argument can go both ways. Or maybe Adam just had a sunburn from not wearing any clothes in the Garden :)
|
· join list or digest · view topics · view or post blog · bookmark · post a topic · subscribe · |
|||
Antiquity Journal & archive Archaeologica Archaeology Archaeology Channel BAR Bronze Age Forum Discover Dogpile Eurekalert LiveScience Mirabilis.ca Nat Geographic PhysOrg Science Daily Science News Texas AM Yahoo Excerpt, or Link only? |
|
||
|
· Science topic · science keyword · Books/Literature topic · pages keyword · |
|||
Arrowhead hunting in certain parts of Texas is fantastic!
The “Bering Strait” thing never made much sense to me... To say that man followed the Mammoth across the ice sheet is alright, but what exactly were the Mammoths eating for a thousand mile trek over ice? It is far more palatable to assume man followed the edge of the ice (or island hopping) in boats, fishing and hunting seals to arrive by the Bering Sea... And if boats, there is no longer a need to assume a northern passage at all.
So do all kittens grow up to be tigers? I mean WHY does even ThaT theory make it necessary that we all had the same mama? I mean, where did all these kitties and doggies come from? And the nocems? Cockroaches? How many types of dinosaurs were there? Did they all crack out of the same egg? There is no logic to this. None.
They know that there were more than one type of “man” roaming around this big ol’ place, and they wouldn’t even admit that for the longest time because it threw their whole cockamamy “link” theory to the four winds. Now that there is evidence that these two “comingled” they can’t just dismiss the possibility that if there were two, there were others. The small bones found at Carmel, for instance. A whole race they had no knowledge of.
WHY isn’t it possible that the Creation of HUMANS happened everywhere on this planet? Why do they diminish Creation by inserting idiocy into what they call science when they have been refuted time after time after time?
www.sitchin.com explains a lot of it. There is an answer out there and we are unraveling the puzzle day by day.
Bingo! My thoughts exactly....
Bering always seemed suspect to me. The cultures get more sophisticated the further away you are from the straits.
I’d suspect landings further south with the northern primitives as refugees from failed societies.
Then about 17,000 years ago world climate changed. This presaged the meltdown that started about 14,000 years ago ~ but mostly it was just a change in ocean currents and major winds that allowed for a repeatable delineation of Winter Sea Ice in the North Atlantic on a seasonal basis.
What that did is create a semi-permanent population of fish and seals along a nearly stable ice mass that spread between Spain and North America. At that point people who delighted in seal hunting could make their way across the Atlantic in winter.
So, did they?
The situation in the Northwest was different. There the idea was that the ocean level dropped during the Ice Age so people had a full 100,000 years available to just walk to the Americas. Now why they should do that walking only at the END of the major glaciation, right when the ocean was rising and flooding Beringia is a good question.
Boats solve the problem. People could work their way around the litoral of the Pacific, and wouldn't need to cross through Beringia.
At the same time recent artchaeology suggests populations stopped in Alaska and the Aleutians for HUNDREDS OF YEARS and some of them actually returned to Asia ~ possibly with Japonica Rice!
I suspect humans simply could not for long penetrate inland into North America as long as the dire wolf and sabre toothed tiger were around. They were TOP TOP predators and given little provocation they would have attacked and eaten any humans.
As the Ice Age ended and the great herds moved further North for new grass ~ away from the advancing forests in the South ~ the tigers and wolves would have gone with them making it possible for humans to move in. It's possible people had been attempting to settle in North America for tens of thousands of years but were simply successfully exterminated by the predators. We should expect to find some of their remains every now and then.
“Native Americans” are undoubtably scrambling to re-bury all the evidence that in ever greater amounts shows the first Americans were from Europe and China.
Hey, I’m at least halfway with ya, man, insofar as I think the evolutionists are more concerned with trying to fit the evidence to their theory rather than finding the truth.
Now, I think there is some logic to common descent, but only within species, or type, whatever you want to call it (since scientists have made a complete mockery of taxonomy). For example, you ask about cats and dogs. Well, for domesticated dogs and cats, we know where all the varieties came from, and it’s just do to selective breeding creating new stable breeds from the pre-existing genepool. We can also conclude common descent for all canines and felines, since they can generally crossbreed and create hybrids. I think most of the “species” that scientists identify are nothing more than breeds, or what might properly be called subspecies, which arose through the same mechanism, but which occurred due to nature rather than husbandry. However, by classifying as many groups of creatures as separate “species” rather than just breeds, the evolutionist attempt to fit the data to their expected pattern of extensive, fluid speciation.
When it comes to humans, the fact that we can all breed with each other, and with very few negative results from those crossings, shows that not only are we one proper species, but also that the breeds of humans (racial/ethnic groups) are more compatible, and so logically more uniform in genetics, than many groups of animals. For example, you won’t produce sterile offspring from hybridizing any human breeds together, while this happens frequently with more divergent breeds of animals.
So, in my opinion, humans must have a common origin, though it can’t have happened the way that evolutionists speculate. The simple mechanics of sexual reproduction require that there must have been at least two original humans from which we derive common descent. That would be statistically impossible under the proposed mechanism of evolution, if the actual nature of species is taken into account.
“The cultures get more sophisticated the further away you are from the straits.”
Well, this could be explained, if, primitive tribes accumulated cultural adaptations as they progressed south through a variety of obstacles and challenges. The tribes that were closer to the point of origin would then have had to adapt and evolve less than those who travelled further. Of course, that’s total speculation, but it shows how easy it is to make a hypothesis to fit the conclusion you wish to reach.
“I suspect humans simply could not for long penetrate inland into North America as long as the dire wolf and sabre toothed tiger were around. They were TOP TOP predators and given little provocation they would have attacked and eaten any humans.”
What weighs against that is, when humans encounter a competitive or threatening predator species, the predator species pretty much always loses that encounter. We see it in the Americas, Europe, Australia, and continuing in the modern day in places like Africa and Asia. I guess if the groups of humans were small and nomadic, without great pressure to find a place to settle or secure new food sources, then they might just rather avoid that kind of confrontation. Basically, it might, as you say have been easier for them to turn around and go back, rather than press forward. In Europe, there were other humans pushing them on, who are of course more dangerous than the most daunting animal predators, and in Australia, they’d have to fight their way back across the the ocean and the previously settled archipelago.
So, maybe you are right, that people came and left or did not penetrate far, until later when more tribes migrating to the far east blocked their return and pushed them forward.
Funny, we used to play around Buttermilk creek as kids, making campfires and digging forts in the mud some 40 years ago and we never found any of these artifacts, but we left lots of them trying to make our own rock tools like the Flintstones. ;^)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
