| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Bulsajo
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
joe_doufu
Joined: 09 May 2005
Location: Elsewhere
|
 Posted: Wed Jul 20, 2005 4:31 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
There's other evidence, too, I read it in National Geographic.
Monkeys crossed the Atlantic from Africa millions of years ago, before humans even evolved (probably on a tree that fell into the water). Why couldn't early humans have done the same? Land bridge my ass. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Wangja
Joined: 17 May 2004
Location: Seoul, Yongsan
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 20, 2005 4:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
But try not to teach anything other than literal creation, OK?  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 20, 2005 7:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
deleted
Last edited by Gopher on Fri Nov 02, 2007 4:48 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 20, 2005 7:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| joe_doufu wrote: |
There's other evidence, too, I read it in National Geographic.
Monkeys crossed the Atlantic from Africa millions of years ago, before humans even evolved (probably on a tree that fell into the water). Why couldn't early humans have done the same? Land bridge my ass. |
Yeah, but that still isn't a migration. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 20, 2005 7:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hmmmmm...
4004 BC + 2005 AD = 6,009 years old. Seems both groups are way over-estimating. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
joe_doufu
Joined: 09 May 2005
Location: Elsewhere
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 20, 2005 8:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Gopher wrote: |
| joe_doufu wrote: |
There's other evidence, too, I read it in National Geographic.
Monkeys crossed the Atlantic from Africa millions of years ago, before humans even evolved (probably on a tree that fell into the water). Why couldn't early humans have done the same? Land bridge my ass. |
Yeah, but that still isn't a migration. |
The monkeys migrated. South American monkeys are another evolutionary branch distinct from African monkeys and apes. It may have only taken a single mating pair to start it.
Humans (and pre-humans) have been around for hundreds of thousands of years. Fire is more than half a million years old. It's hard to imagine that not once would they have stumbled upon America until just recently. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
whatthefunk
Joined: 21 Apr 2003
Location: Dont have a clue
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 20, 2005 9:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Look to the stars, my friends! It was the aliens! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Derrek
Joined: 15 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 20, 2005 9:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
There were people around back in the time they planted those alien ships in the ground. Heck, there had to be or why else would they plant them there for later use?
Didn't you guys see War of the Worlds?
Geesh.... idiots, the lot of you!  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 20, 2005 9:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
[deleted]
Last edited by Gopher on Fri Nov 02, 2007 4:46 am; edited 2 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
whatthefunk
Joined: 21 Apr 2003
Location: Dont have a clue
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 20, 2005 10:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Gopher wrote: |
| There is simply no evidence to support a human presence in the Americas before this movement. |
Uhhhh...did you even read the article?! It said that a footprint was found in Mexico that was dated to be about 40,000 years ago. Is that not evidence? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 20, 2005 10:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
deleted
Last edited by Gopher on Fri Nov 02, 2007 4:45 am; edited 2 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
whatthefunk
Joined: 21 Apr 2003
Location: Dont have a clue
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 20, 2005 10:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Gopher wrote: |
| I read the article. You need more than a footprint in Mexico to undermine the general pattern created by thousands of Clovis sites throughout the Americas. |
Thousands of clovis sites do not mean that there was nothing before clovis sites. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 20, 2005 10:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
[deleted]
Last edited by Gopher on Fri Nov 02, 2007 4:45 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
whatthefunk
Joined: 21 Apr 2003
Location: Dont have a clue
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 20, 2005 10:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Gopher wrote: |
| whatthefunk wrote: |
| Gopher wrote: |
| I read the article. You need more than a footprint in Mexico to undermine the general pattern created by thousands of Clovis sites throughout the Americas. |
Thousands of clovis sites do not mean that there was nothing before clovis sites. |
Of course not, but to claim that there were, you'd need pretty strong evidence to support that. |
And a 40,000 year old footprint is a pretty damn good way to start out, dont ya think? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
