Posted on 10/12/2006 8:27:21 PM PDT by Iscool
Well, there goes your land bridge...
Mmmm ... quote salad.
Hey, nobody disputes the fact that there were people in the U.S when Chris Columbus showed up...
Has anyone tried to state that the New World was uninhabited in 1492? The linked information was not an attempt to disprove the idea that no one met Columbus. It's a theory about how the people got here.
The big question is: Did people walk across a bridge or row to the US at some time in history or was the entire land mass one big continent with people already on it when the mass separated???
Is there any scientific evidence that the latter was not the case???
Instead of tossing out a potentially misleading quote from one of the links I provided, why don't you try reading and understanding the information.
For instance, you could have read the very next sentences in the article:
The traditional theory held that the first Americans crossed the land bridge from Siberia to Alaska around 11,500 years ago and followed an "ice-free corridor" between two large Canadian ice sheets (the Laurentide and Cordilleran) to reach unglaciated lands to the south. These first inhabitants, whose archaeological sites are scattered across North and South America, were called the Clovis people, named after the town in New Mexico where their fluted spear points used for hunting mammoth were first found in 1932.There is now convincing evidence of human habitation sites that date earlier than the Clovis culture including sites located in South America. Monte Verde, a well-studied site located along a river near southern central Chile, dates 12,500 years ago. This site contains the buried remnants of dwellings, stone tools including large bifacial projectile points, and preserved medicinal and edible plants. How did people manage to settle this far south at such an early date? A coastal migration route is now gaining more acceptance, rather than the older view of small bands moving on foot across the middle of the land bridge between Siberia and Alaska and into the continents. Emerging evidence suggests that people with boats moved along the Pacific coast into Alaska and northwestern Canada and eventually south to Peru and Chile by 12,500 years ago—and perhaps much earlier. Archaeological evidence in Australia, Melanesia, and Japan indicate boats were in use as far back as 25,000 to 40,000 years ago. Sea routes would have provided abundant food resources and easier and faster movement than land routes. Many coastal areas were unglaciated at this time, providing opportunities for landfall along the way. Several early sites along the coast of Canada, California, Peru, Ecuador, and Chile date between 10,000 and 12,000 years ago. Many potential coastal sites are now submerged, making investigation difficult.
So the theory this article outlines says they got here on boats. It does not rule out a land bridge, and it does not include your theory.
But yet we all know that there are scientists out there who do believe the bible account of creation...
This site contains the buried remnants of dwellings, stone tools including large bifacial projectile points, and preserved medicinal and edible plants
Gen 1:12 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
Don't you guys think it's fascinating that God wrote about the plants you guys have found 4000 years before the word archaeology was even invented???
This statement is so general as to be meaningless.
Don't you guys think it's fascinating that God wrote about the plants you guys have found 4000 years before the word archaeology was even invented???
Even if I knew what you think you're getting at, I doubt I'd find it fascinating. (I do not speak for Coyoteman).
I think I know what he's getting at, but I'm not sure of the details. I think it amounts to the bible doesn't mention the people in the New World or something like that.
Apologetics, not science.
I'm just sayin' sometimes science lines up with the bible...Lotsa people say it has to be either/or...And then you guys say it's all science...
So look...God says He created the heaven and earth...
And some time later He created light...He then called light and darness, day and night...And this was the first day...
And then, he creates everything after it's own kind...Now we don't have to be an archaeologist or a theologian with a phd to understand what that says...What is says is easy...The tough part is believing it...
God says he created plants after their kind...That says plants were there before the biblical account of Genesis...The pre-historic plants you guys find were put there eons ago by God...And they didn't evolve...Everything was made after it's own kind...
I remember seeing a photo of some footprints of a humanoid type creature next to footprints of some really large 3 toed creature...Apparently when the prints were made, these beings were walking in some sort of mud...
It had hardened and turned to some sort of rock so they are clearly visable today...Somewhere in Texas I believe...
Most bible people say the picture can't be real...Dinosaurs or pre-historic animals never existed...
Many scientists say this couldn't happen since there were no modern humans when these old time critters roamed the earth...
The bible gives a pretty good hint that you're both wrong...
But I'm still waiting for you guys to discover the very large ocean out beyond the Hubbel Telescope...
~~~Gen 1:7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.~~~
Plants evolve like crazy. Where do you think corn came from? And most of our other food plants?
I remember seeing a photo of some footprints of a humanoid type creature next to footprints of some really large 3 toed creature...Apparently when the prints were made, these beings were walking in some sort of mud...
It had hardened and turned to some sort of rock so they are clearly visable today...Somewhere in Texas I believe...
Those are at the Paluxy River, near Glen Rose, Texas. Even most creationists agree that they are not real.
Dinosaurs or pre-historic animals never existed...
Sorry, that happens not to be the case.
Many scientists say this couldn't happen since there were no modern humans when these old time critters roamed the earth...
There are a lot of Pleistocene megafauna (mammoths and mastodons, etc.) with spear points embedded in their bones. No dinosaurs with points in them, but the late Pleistocene critters were hunted in many parts of the world.
I got an idea.
You stick to religion and stay away from science. Then we'll all be happy.
|
· 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 Discovery 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 · |
|||
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.
