On 04/08/2022 00:30, John wrote:
> There would be little point, I remember having a previous conversation
> with you about carbon dating, which you dismissed out of hand.
If you mean that I dismissed C14 dating out of hand, then you are
correct - but if you think that I missed something in my analysis, you
are welcome to point it out.
> Piltdown man was a fraud according to the sources I've checked
That is the point.
> By Dartford man do you mean Swanscombe man? Apart from it being the
> skull of a woman I can find no evidence it was a fraud.
Sorry, yes. I found the skull in Dartford museum (many years ago) and
the curator seemed regretful that no one paid it any attention any more.
He seemed pleased when I expressed an interest in seeing it and
photographing it and that was when I was allowed to handle it.
Er - which of the skull features showed that it was a woman?
> Peking man, again from sources I've checked, suggest it wasn't a fraud.
Depends on what you mean by "fraud". Certainly it was not in the same
class as Piltdown, but you won't find any mention of it in modern
textbooks. It seems to have dropped out of the reckoning. Why?
> Only neanderthal and denisovan have existed alongside sapien, since
> erectus became extinct and sapien replaced erectus, so was obviously
> more adaptable to the climate back then.
You are assuming two things: first, that the dating methods are reliable
and correct; second, that all the sapiens bones have been found. Lucy's
bones, for example, were found scattered over the ground, but what if
her sapiens neighbours buried their dead in a cave somewhere or cremated
them or even threw them into a river?
> As inbreeding has existed over the centuries since Jesus, why are we not
> seeing similar offshoots of homo sapien today? I mean the population has
> exploded since then so you'd have thought it much more common.
I used to work in a home for retarded children, a number of whom were
the result of incest. One lad in particular looked exactly like the
text-book illustrations for Cro-Magnon man, another could have passed
for the Floriensis hobbit. So I would say that we *are* seeing such
> Anyway, you disn't answer the question. Was Adam habilis, erectus,
> sapien, neanderthal or denisovan?
Or possibly none of the above. If the Flood was as devastating as some
believe, it is unlikely that any human remains will be found from that