Posted on 03/25/2011 10:56:16 AM PDT by wolfcreek
Archaeologists at a Central Texas site have unearthed artifacts indicating that the first humans arrived in North America roughly 2,500 years earlier than previously thought, raising questions about how they made it to the New World and what route they took.
(Excerpt) Read more at star-telegram.com ...
We're #1!
Primitive NA Ping!
Ping!
Got to ping txhurl too.
Oh damn. 15,000 years worth of big shiny belt buckles.
“Now Texas can boast having the oldest [human] archaeological site in North America,”
But, but when the patron saint of evolution, LSB Leakey, came to the US in the 1970s, he said California artfacts, believed to be 10,000 years old were really 100,000 years old!
If he is wrong about American artfacts could he be wrong about African artfacts?
And 20,000 year old American artfacts published in National Geographic were later found to be 2000 years old!
What can we believe anymore? Oh my brain, it’s strained!
And if those pre-Clovis points were bifacial, where but Europeans could they have come from as Asians used bone implanted with flint chips!
Why do people think that folks had to arrive from somewhere else? Why can’t they be created in that area? There are Indian nations across country that have stories about their origins. For example, the Tongva believe that the Creator (God) created them in a place that is now a garden on the campus of the California State University at Long Beach.
Science is never settled. Theories are always changing to fit new information.
Anyone who says different is a liar and/or a scam artist (Al Gore)
So maybe “Native Americans” weren’t really the aboriginal inhabitants of this hemisphere. It’s possible.
Hmm-m-m-m. All those tax credits and casinos, all the affirmative action benefits....
Can I have my tax money back with interest?
I know more than a few who would love to see them try.
Because every liberal in the US (and probably the world) is flat-out convinced that Africa is the source of homo sapiens, or homo homo sapiens, or something or the other.
The oldest remains apparently have been unearthed there. I wonder, though, if Africa may not have been the first place man appeared, but the last. The ancient remains, then, would be available simply because they are the newest, relatively speaking.
“Why do people think that folks had to arrive from somewhere else? Why can’t they be created in that area?”
My thoughts exactly.
:)
Homo Sapiens Sapiens is the sentient modern human.
Homo Homo Sapiens must be a liberal.
Well, now, maybe the “Native Americans” pushed out some groups that were here first...folks who were here some 2,500 years before them.
It’s possible.
“Leave the people your ancestors screwed alone.”
If it weren’t for my ancestors, Native Americans would still be cutting out beating hearts, abandoning their elders, and living hard, short lives.
Carbon (organic) dating doesn’t work beyond 10k years,
so they must have been dating them by dating the dirt they were in... but there’s another couple of problems there -
they can’t date sedimentary rock/soil, only volcanic, so they’d have to maybe go elsewhere to find “dateable” rocks (as was done with Lucy),
and what if they were buried in “old” dirt?
So many assumptions are made with this dating stuff,
and people just lap it up because “they’re scientists!”
Did you hear about that elk/deer/whatever that was carbon dated and found to have died a long agonizing death?
His front end died a couple thousand years before his back legs died... according to carbon dating.
To the victor goes the spoils. That's the way it was and that's the way it is.
So they find artifacts. Big deal. Time has passed AND THE LAND HAS NEW OWNERS.
no spanish writing?
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.