Texas A&M's Dating of Artifacts Discovered at Hueyataco,

Charlie Hatchett · Post by **Charlie Hatchett** » Sat Oct 28, 2006 4:52 am

Repeated, to bypass the caca storm that ensued immediately after posting:

I have heard of two micropaleontologists who have looked at it and say it is 'quite flawed'. I'm sure everyone here knows that peer review doesn't guarantee accuracy.

How do they say the study is flawed? It's good to hear two sides of an issue.

Thanks Doug.

To stop the proliferation of threads on similar topics, I'll post this here.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061026/ap_ ... otprints_1

Quote:
MEXICO CITY - A trail of 13 fossilized footprints running through a valley in a desert in northern Mexico could be among the oldest in the Americas, Mexican archeologists said.

The footprints were made by hunter gatherers who are believed to have lived thousands of years ago in the Coahuila valley of Cuatro Cienegas, 190 miles (306 kms) south of Eagle Pass, Texas, said archaeologist Yuri de la Rosa Gutierrez of Mexico's National Institute of Anthropology and History.

"We believe (the footprints) are between 10,000 and 15,000 years old," De la Rosa said in a news release Wednesday. "We have evidence of the presence of hunter gatherers in the Coahuila desert more than 10,000 years ago."

DougWeller · Post by **DougWeller** » Sat Oct 28, 2006 6:10 am

Charlie Hatchett wrote:Repeated, to bypass the caca storm that ensued immediately after posting:

I have heard of two micropaleontologists who have looked at it and say it is 'quite flawed'. I'm sure everyone here knows that peer review doesn't guarantee accuracy.

How do they say the study is flawed? It's good to hear two sides of an issue.

Thanks Doug.

I'd like to know more myself. When I do, or rather if I do, I'll post it here if no one beats me to it.

Doug

DougWeller · Post by **DougWeller** » Sat Oct 28, 2006 1:00 pm

Beagle wrote:Charlie that is really exciting news. Thanks. I'm with you though - I won't be a bit surprised to see these results withdrawn. It's happened before.

I'm going to miss a lot of the good discussion about this because I'm on vacation. Before I turn in I'm gonna go over to Virginia Steen-Mcyntires' website and see if this has been posted. I don't imagine that she'll ever get an apology, but this has to be exciting for her.

Thanks again Charlie.

An apoology? What for? And why specifically her?

Beagle · Post by **Beagle** » Sat Oct 28, 2006 1:47 pm

Doug - I suspect that we both know the answer to that question.
Also, despite what I posted, we know that VSM and other good people will never be recognized for their efforts.

That is the way of things.

DougWeller · Post by **DougWeller** » Sat Oct 28, 2006 2:08 pm

Beagle wrote:Doug - I suspect that we both know the answer to that question.
Also, despite what I posted, we know that VSM and other good people will never be recognized for their efforts.

That is the way of things.

No, I really don't understand. Why single her out and why apologise?
How about Fryxell? How about Malde? Why aren't they mentioned in this thread?

Beagle · Post by **Beagle** » Sat Oct 28, 2006 2:29 pm

DougWeller wrote:
Beagle wrote:Doug - I suspect that we both know the answer to that question.
Also, despite what I posted, we know that VSM and other good people will never be recognized for their efforts.

That is the way of things.
No, I really don't understand. Why single her out and why apologise?
How about Fryxell? How about Malde? Why aren't they mentioned in this thread?

I agree with you Doug that she shouldn't be singled out. Any scientist that puts in their time and effort should be worthy of a simple "thank you".

Being probably older than you , I can remember when the sciences were divided between "amateurs" and "professionals". The amateurs have very often made fantastic discoveries (especially in astronomy), but something very strange has happened in archaeology.

"Amateurs", like myself and yourself, have recently adopted a language that separates us all. Words like pseudo and alternative are only obstructions to moving forward, and they are only used to make amateurs feel more important or to hurl an insult.

I think we need to get grounded, and get realistic.

DougWeller · Post by **DougWeller** » Sun Oct 29, 2006 7:24 am

We also shouldn't take for granted any claims that the Steen-McIntyre somehow had her career ruined because she wrote a paper. One of her co-authors, Dr. Ronald Fryxell, has had an extremely successful career and has had an academic award and a moon crater named after him.

Everything that happened to Steen-McIntyre has happened to other geologists. But set all that aside--which is more likely to have been damaging to her career, a paper co-authored with 2 others, or her statements on the theory of evolution such as

" it is JUST a theory, and a shaky one at that.

But think for a moment. Every major despot and would-be dictator since Darwin has loved that theory -- Marx, Hitler, Mao. It gives them such freedom to kill off those they don't like and to mess around with genetics to create superman.

After all, when the Theory of Evolution is taken to its logical conclusion, the only moral imperative demanded is "survival of the fittest".

SO YOU DON'T LIKE THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION?

No, I don't like it, for scientific reasons: it goes against the Second Law of Thermodynamics for one thing. I don't like it for philosophical and religions reasons. I especially don't like it because it helped ruin my career."

The above is from an interview at http://www.s8int.com/wrong-science.html

By the way, if you scroll down to the bottom, you will find that she has published in the Barnes Review. Funny that she publishes there and criticises Hitler at the same time.

Doug

Beagle · Post by **Beagle** » Sun Oct 29, 2006 1:02 pm

http://cayman.globat.com/~bandstexas.co ... 202003.pdf

Here is an article (pdf) that Charlie posted in another forum. It's Virginias' story, in her own words. It's 16 pages long so those interested may want to download it for later reading.

Beagle · Post by **Beagle** » Sun Oct 29, 2006 1:11 pm

http://cayman.globat.com/~bandstexas.c ... 0talk.pdf

Yet another article written by Virginia. Pretty technical language regarding dating methods used at the site. (I picked Charlies pocket again).

DougWeller · Post by **DougWeller** » Sun Oct 29, 2006 1:36 pm

Beagle wrote:http://cayman.globat.com/~bandstexas.co ... 202003.pdf

Here is an article (pdf) that Charlie posted in another forum. It's Virginias' story, in her own words. It's 16 pages long so those interested may want to download it for later reading.

Which includes an attack on Darwinism and an apparent endorsement of the Vedic creationists Cremo and Thompson. Views which, I'd suggest, would not help one's scientific career.

marduk · Post by **marduk** » Sun Oct 29, 2006 4:15 pm

anyone supporting Cremo needs their head examined

Beagle · Post by **Beagle** » Mon Oct 30, 2006 5:34 am

DougWeller wrote:
Beagle wrote:http://cayman.globat.com/~bandstexas.co ... 202003.pdf

Here is an article (pdf) that Charlie posted in another forum. It's Virginias' story, in her own words. It's 16 pages long so those interested may want to download it for later reading.
Which includes an attack on Darwinism and an apparent endorsement of the Vedic creationists Cremo and Thompson. Views which, I'd suggest, would not help one's scientific career.

Doug, this is an interesting example of two people reading the same thing and forming different opinions.

When I read the part of this article that mentioned Cremo, I felt that she was saying that she had attempted to get her work published in any and all mainstream scientific journals, but her work was dismissed outright - and not published.

She then said that her story was picked up by "alternative" publications. At that time she began to get speaking engagements and radio show appearances. This eventually led to the investigation being reopened when funding was obtained from a wealthy philanthropist.

And that has led to the current fervor over Van Landinghams findings. Whether the findings are eventually confirmed or not, I think that it's great that the question will be put to rest, rather than swept under the rug.

I have no comment regarding her religious beliefs. And I don't think they're important to the conversation.

Charlie Hatchett · Post by **Charlie Hatchett** » Mon Oct 30, 2006 1:08 pm

She then said that her story was picked up by "alternative" publications. At that time she began to get speaking engagements and radio show appearances. This eventually led to the investigation being reopened when funding was obtained from a wealthy philanthropist.

And that has led to the current fervor over Van Landinghams findings. Whether the findings are eventually confirmed or not, I think that it's great that the question will be put to rest, rather than swept under the rug.

Interesting point, Beag.

Post by **Minimalist** » Mon Oct 30, 2006 2:49 pm

She then said that her story was picked up by "alternative" publications.

The Club probably hates the internet.....really cuts into their monopoly on information.

Charlie Hatchett · Post by **Charlie Hatchett** » Mon Oct 30, 2006 2:59 pm

The Club probably hates the internet.....really cuts into their monopoly on information.

Right. Let Freedom Reign!!