This latest discovery, assuming carbon dating can be used as a basis for deteremining age, indicates possible Atlantic crossings. This also assumes the humanoids do not appear spontaneously as certain creatures seem appear in history. According to Barry Fell's book America B.C., there was trade activity in America thousands of years ago. For example, he thought that Nordic navigator-traders brought woven goods to Ontario to barter for copper ingots in 1700 B.C. Recall the Kennewick Man, a non-Mongolian, was dated at over 8,000 years hanging around in the Colombia River in the Pacific Northwest.

Scientist: Man in Americas earlier than thought
Archaeologists put humans in North America 50,000 years ago

Wednesday, November 17, 2004

(CNN) -- Archaeologists say a site in South Carolina may rewrite the history of how the Americas were settled by pushing back the date of human settlement thousands of years.

But their interpretation is already igniting controversy among scientists.

An archaeologist from the University of South Carolina on Wednesday announced radiocarbon tests that dated the first human settlement in North America to 50,000 years ago -- at least 25,000 years before other known human sites on the continent.

"Topper is the oldest radiocarbon dated site in North America," said Albert Goodyear of the University of South Carolina Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology.

If true, the find represents a revelation for scientists studying how humans migrated to the Americas.

Many scientists thought humans first ventured into the New World across a land bridge from present-day Russia into Alaska about 13,000 years ago.

This new discovery suggests humans may have crossed the land bridge into the Americas much earlier -- possibly during an ice age -- and rapidly colonized the two continents.

"It poses some real problems trying to explain how you have people (arriving) in Central Asia almost at the same time as people in the Eastern United States," said Theodore Schurr, anthropology professor at the University of Pennsylvania and a curator at the school's museum.

"You almost have to hope for instantaneous expansion ... We're talking about a very rapid movement of people around the globe."

Schurr said that conclusive evidence of stone tools similar to those in Asia and uncontaminated radiocarbon dating samples are needed to verify that the Topper site is actually 50,000 years old.

"If dating is confirmed, then it really does have a significant impact on our previous understanding of New World colonization," he said.

CNN (http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/science/11/17/carolina.dig/)

This was put into question before. There was something else in another publication, Discover, I think. Some sites in South America are older than those in North America and the oldest ones in North America are on the east part of the continent. Plus, DNA analyses of a 40,000 year old site in South America has shown a correlation to Europeans but none to Asians.

So there were a few racially 'European' people in prehistoric America. So what? It's also possible that the Chinese were the first (aside from the Native Americans) to 'discover' the Americas, but they do not deserve credit for this because, unlike the Europeans, they made no 'use' of their discovery.

Likewise, the same is true of these 'European' settlers, who (if in fact they existed) by no stretch of the imagination made the same impact on the Americas as the American Indians-- unless you are to invent a fictitious 'Golden Age of America' in which Caucasoids founded an advanced (possibly space-faring) civilization, of which all trace was wiped out by barbaric Siberian hunters. :D

Peoples of the European race have, sporadically, settled Asia for millennia, but this does not mean Asia belongs to their modern European brothers. If we are to divide the world into 'homelands' (as many people here are attempting to do), the Americas are as much of a Mongoloid homeland as Asia.

Hehe, stupid injuns can't even discover their own 'homeland' first, the white man literally has to do everything for them. Make them their liquor, discover their homeland, civilize it for them,...

These kind of theories just demonstrate how contradictory evolutionist timetables are.

Evos are going to annihilate each other and Creationists will inherit the Earth.

:D

Internal evolutionary squabbles overlooked

As shown later, this program advocates what is called the ‘Out of Africa’ model, without saying so. This is where modern humans came out of Africa and replaced less evolved hominids that had emerged from Africa much earlier.

But there is another evolutionary idea, called the ‘multi-regional’ or ‘regional-continuity’ hypothesis, where the hominids that emerged from Africa 2 Ma evolved into modern humans in many parts of the world. This is one of the most vitriolic debates among paleoanthropologists, yet this episode presents only one side. The acrimony between the proponents of these rival theories is due, according to the anthropologist Peter Underhill of Stanford University, to: ‘Egos, egos, egos. Scientists are human.’

We think both sides are right—in their criticisms of each other, because humans did not evolve at all!

http://www.answersingenesis.org/pbs_nova/0930ep6.asp


Petr

Hehe, stupid injuns can't even discover their own 'homeland' first, the white man literally has to do everything for them. Make them their liquor, discover their homeland, civilize it for them,...

You shouldn't be laughing, as your people certainly were not the first to discover their 'homeland'. This is backed up by more legitimate science than are the few (shady) "the-first-Americans-were-white" claims.

- "Hehe, stupid injuns can't even discover their own 'homeland' first, the white man literally has to do everything for them. Make them their liquor, discover their homeland, civilize it for them,..."


Now, now. One of the greatest Western artists ever, Albrecht Durer, showed great appreciation for the Aztec art:


"During the late summer of 1520 (August 26 to September 3) Albrecht Durer - the supreme German painter and engraver of the epoch - visited Brussels. At that moment,the first display of aboriginal Mexican art to reach the other side of the Atlantic had on Charles V's order been sent north from Spain to his headquarters in the Low Countries.

Fortunately for art history, Durer saw this Mexican exhibit and recorded his delight and wonder in a memorandum book,a copy of which is in the Staatlichen Bibliothek at Bamberg.Edited in 1884 and frequently thereafter in the original German (as well as in translations), his remarks still bear repetition.

Durer's father was a goldsmith and he begins with exclamations over "a sun all of gold a whole fathom broad and a moon all of silver the same size."He stands in awe of"wonderful objects of human use, much better than prodigies,"which range from armor and raiment to litters.

"Summarising his feelings at an art exhibit valued at 100,000 florins,he writes (Schriften.Tagebucher.Briefe,ed.Max Steck[Stuttgart:W.Kohlhammer,1961],p.48):

"Und ich hab aber all mien Lebtag nichts geschen ,das mien Herz also erfruet hat als diese Dinge.Den ich hab dabei geschen wunderbare kunstvolle Dinge und hab mich verwundert der subtilen ingenia der Menschen in fremden Landen."

William Martin Conway translates this to read:

"All the days of my life I have seen nothing that rejoiced my heart so much as these things,as I saw amongst them wonderful works of art,and I marvelled at the subtle 'Ingenia' of men in foreign lands."

Durer concludes: "Indeed I cannot express all that I thought there."


http://www.ocarina.demon.co.uk/Aztec1.html


Petr

Where Clovis spear people Europeans?

Scientific American Frontiers . Coming Into America | PBS
http://www.pbs.org/saf/1406/index.html

Where the First Americans European?

For years it was believed that Clovis people came through Alaska using a land bridge from Siberia, then traveled south just as ice sheets across Canada were breaking up. So archeologists have long looked for signs of Clovis people in Alaska.

In 1989, road builders in Alaska's Tanana River valley accidentally uncovered a site called Broken Mammoth. With artifacts dating back 14,000 years, it was the oldest site in Alaska-but it held no Clovis points. Later, another nearby site yielded artifacts a few hundred years older, but still no Clovis points. It did, however, contain microblades and scrapers typical of Siberian and Russian sites going back more than 20,000 years.

For Alaska state archeologist Chuck Holmes these findings suggest that early Alaskans weren't the predecessors to Clovis. And he's not alone.

Dennis Stanford of the Smithsonian Institution spent years in Alaska and found no connection between Siberian artifacts and Clovis technology. His new theory is that Clovis people came not from Siberia, but from Europe. The Solutrean people of France and Spain were their predecessors, he says.

Photo of Clovis spear shaft wrench.

This Clovis spear shaft wrench was made first by the Solutrean people --found in France and Spain.


Shared technology-including bifacial points and a spear shaft wrench made of mammoth bone-and cultural traits suggest the two are related. But, as Stanford explains to Alan, there are two problems with this theory. First, the Solutrean culture is 5,000 years older than Clovis. Second, how did the Solutreans cross the Atlantic Ocean to get to North America?

A site in Virginia called Cactus Hill may hold some of the answers. Artifacts found there have been dated at 18,000 years-too early for Clovis, but just right for Solutrean. Stanford believes a fossil walrus jaw found in the nearby Chesapeake could suggest how the Solutreans made their way to North America. Ice-loving walrus could only have reached the Chesapeake during the height of the last Ice Age, around 15,000-20,000 years ago. Stanford says that's when the Solutreans got here, and they did it by bringing their boats along the ice edge which stretched across the ocean at the time.

These kind of theories just demonstrate how contradictory evolutionist timetables are.Sure -- take it from the "unbiased experts" at AnswersInGenesis.com. LOL

And it's not like your mythology of choice is exactly self-consistent or in touch with reality, either. Or have you found that firmament yet? How about the "fiery, revolving sword"? Move any mountains with your faith lately, Petr? Know anyone who has? Cast out any devils?

Science gets results. Religion accomplishes nothing except the closing of minds and the enslavement of intellects.

Evolution happened, Petr. The totality of the details regarding how it happened are not clear, and of course there is still debate about some matters. But the fact that evolution happened IS clear. Try attacking atomic theory instead -- you'll make more progress. :rolleyes:

- "Sure -- take it from the "unbiased experts" at AnswersInGenesis.com. LOL"

ALL people are biased, in a way or another. Impartiality and total objectivity are abstract myths. Evolutionists are insanely biased against the concept of a sovereign Creator-God.

It's not the question of "who's biased" but "who's biases would the evidence at hand seem to support best"?

This is the very policy of AIG, and you are definitely putting words in their mouth when you claim that they claim to be "unbiased".

Say it loud - I'm biased and I'm proud!


And save us from your banal retro-18th century "freethinking" pep talk, Angler.

We should present you with a "fiery, revolving sword"? Your literalist banality matches almost that of Voltaire.


Petr