Originally posted by stokerSo you accept one bit of science (continental drift) but reject another (the history human migration and evolution) - even though they overlap quite a bit in terms of the science involved.
or so they would have you belive . and it could be the facts are below the waves
Who are 'they' that would have us believe these supposedly erroneous facts? How do you know that 'they' have not equally conned you with regards to continental drift?
Originally posted by twhiteheadi do not reject human migration and evolution. in fact i accept it in the main i just find it to conveniant that we evolved on some coast and migrated from there. I put my point that we could have evolved at some earlier point in time but that evedence is below the waves.
So you accept one bit of science (continental drift) but reject another (the history human migration and evolution) - even though they overlap quite a bit in terms of the science involved.
Who are 'they' that would have us believe these supposedly erroneous facts? How do you know that 'they' have not equally conned you with regards to continental drift?
As for "they" im sorry i do not have all the names, but from darwin onwards the origon of species has had many a advocate, similar to continental drift. But i am of the mind that this was in gods plan But when i get the chance to ask then i wont be bothered about it
Originally posted by stokerBut there is plenty of evidence above the waves for when we evolved, and plenty of evidence for the ocean levels and the timing of continental drift. The Atlantic ocean was around long before even monkeys evolved. You suggestion that man crossed to the Americas before the Atlantic appeared basically means the science of continental drift (and most of geology along with it) is totally wrong. Yet you still talk as if you believe the science ie you talked with confidence about which oceans formed and which continents moved.
i do not reject human migration and evolution. in fact i accept it in the main i just find it to conveniant that we evolved on some coast and migrated from there. I put my point that we could have evolved at some earlier point in time but that evedence is below the waves.
Originally posted by twhiteheaddo you reject about the oceans formed and which the continents moved. I have no problem with science. in the now north sea it was land untill the melting of the ice caps. now this happened over quite a period of time so there could of been settlements forced apart. the question you seem to be uncertain about is that mans history. well the question of how man came by way of apes thro africa yet still manged to populate america seems a bit strange if the atlantic ocean was blocking there passage
But there is plenty of evidence above the waves for when we evolved, and plenty of evidence for the ocean levels and the timing of continental drift. The Atlantic ocean was around long before even monkeys evolved. You suggestion that man crossed to the Americas before the Atlantic appeared basically means the science of continental drift (and most of geol ...[text shortened]... the science ie you talked with confidence about which oceans formed and which continents moved.
Originally posted by stokerWell you seemed to be rejecting large parts of science when you suggested that man existed before the Atlantic ocean. Either that or you simply do not know sciences findings on the matter.
do you reject about the oceans formed and which the continents moved. I have no problem with science.
in the now north sea it was land untill the melting of the ice caps.
I think you mean it was ice. Unless you are talking about shallow seas which would have been land when the sea levels were lower.
the question you seem to be uncertain about is that mans history.
I am not uncertain about it. You are. You suggested that you do not know how long man has been around and that he might have been here millions of years ago when the Atlantic ocean was still forming, whereas I am quite certain that modern man is a mere 50,000 years or so old.
well the question of how man came by way of apes thro africa yet still manged to populate america seems a bit strange if the atlantic ocean was blocking there passage
Its not strange at all. Man went via Asia and the bearing straights (which were either frozen over or out of the water due to lower sea levels). The genetic evidence backs that up too. Native Americans are more closely related to the Chinese and north Asians than they are to Africans.
Originally posted by twhiteheadno but i put forward a possibility, and when i say man i mean the early know man or before that time.
Well you seemed to be rejecting large parts of science when you suggested that man existed before the Atlantic ocean. Either that or you simply do not know sciences findings on the matter.
[b] in the now north sea it was land untill the melting of the ice caps.
I think you mean it was ice. Unless you are talking about shallow seas which would have ...[text shortened]... ve Americans are more closely related to the Chinese and north Asians than they are to Africans.[/b]
yes sea levels were lower but were they seas or rivers.
well if your certain man is a mere 50,000 years then i understand your view but man before man as we know him its to simple to say we went via asia yet got to america and crossed a larger ocean via some luck or good fortune.
Originally posted by stokerAccording to Wikipedia, the Atlantic is approximately 130 million years old.
no but i put forward a possibility, and when i say man i mean the early know man or before that time.
yes sea levels were lower but were they seas or rivers.
There were dinosaur until about 65 million years ago.
The first human ancestors to walk upright, were about 10 million years ago.
Homosapiens appeared about 170,000 years ago (thats about 0.2 million years ago)
Modern humans diverged about 50,000 years ago.
well if your certain man is a mere 50,000 years then i understand your view but man before man as we know him its to simple to say we went via asia yet got to america and crossed a larger ocean via some luck or good fortune.
The closest land mass to the American contents today is Asia.
If you look at a world map you will see that Alaska nearly touches Asia and in the winter, it is possible to get from one to the other via the ice of the north pole. It would have been even easier in the past when the ice extended further south.
But most importantly, as I have already pointed out, the genetic evidence shows that American natives are related to tribes in northern Asia.
Originally posted by twhiteheadAnd, as we all KNOW, if it is written in the sanctified pages of Wikipedia, it MUST be true...😉
According to Wikipedia, the Atlantic is approximately 130 million years old.
There were dinosaur until about 65 million years ago.
The first human ancestors to walk upright, were about 10 million years ago.
Homosapiens appeared about 170,000 years ago (thats about 0.2 million years ago)
Modern humans diverged about 50,000 years ago.
[b]well if your ...[text shortened]... ed out, the genetic evidence shows that American natives are related to tribes in northern Asia.
Originally posted by PinkFloydI don't know if its true or not. I do think it is likely that if it is on Wikipedia, then it is the finding of scientist (which I respect even more). But if Wikipedia got it terribly wrong (as in not correctly reporting the findings of scientists) I am sure someone here would have pointed it out.
And, as we all KNOW, if it is written in the sanctified pages of Wikipedia, it MUST be true...😉
The issue was that stoker accepts certain findings of science such as continental drift and the fact that the Atlantic ocean was not there in the past, but he rejects the dates that go with those findings.