Homo Erectus/Neanderthal in North America?

stan · Post by **stan** » Sun Apr 16, 2006 11:55 am

Here is a montage I put together to illustrate the point:

Way to go, Freethinker!

PS..Ewing has a chin, too.

PPS... It sounds like arch is a racist, saying Ewing looks like a
Neandertal

Leona Conner · Post by **Leona Conner** » Mon Apr 17, 2006 3:50 pm

Thought Neandertals were kinda short and stocky. Ewing certainly doesn't fit that discription.

New issue of Archaeology has an article on "Impossibly Old America?" It's about the Oppper site. Neat pictures. Haven't read it yet, it just arrived.

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Tue Apr 18, 2006 1:43 am

I am sure you must be refering to Patrick Ewing.

my mistake, i never remember his first name.

I can assure you he is not a Neanderthal

i really wasn't calling him a neanderthal but using him as an illustration. i think it would unfair to those bones' owner to classify them just by the few skeletal structures you have.

the problem with this classification is that no one really knows if they are right or not. no matter how many bones you dig up that are comparably the same, there is no i.d. tag on them saying this is what they are.

What you are doing is having some scientists create a name for the discovery off the top of his head and everyone else jumps on the bandwagon and believe the fiction.

Your whole take on science is that it is full of disreputable hoaxers with an axe to grind against the bible

no you have misunderstood what i was proving. i am saying that science is not the definitive answer to all things. it is full of fallible people making mistakes and falllible judgments based upon faulty and limited data.

Without the rigorous system replicatable experimentation and peer review none of the advances of science would have been possible

you keep believing in your rigorous system, i have shown it can be manipulated for whatever reason. it is as error prone as as anything else on earth because it is driven by non-objective humans.

Indeed, the very system we are communicating with, the internet, would have been impossible without modern science

my point exactly, computers are one of the worst inventions ever as it draws people away from each other not the reverse.

archteryx · Post by **archteryx** » Tue Apr 18, 2006 4:56 am

Nonetheless if Ewing was a neanderthal, he would not be walking around per se, probably locked up in a cage somewhere for study.

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Thu Apr 20, 2006 7:00 pm

Homo Erectus

has anyone considered that this name could be just an erotic joke done by a scientist from the gay community?? you would think that with all their intelligence, they would come up with something less sexual.

(when i am under the weather, i have too much time on my hands)

Post by **Minimalist** » Thu Apr 20, 2006 9:32 pm

Just about your best post ever.

FreeThinker · Post by **FreeThinker** » Thu Apr 20, 2006 10:24 pm

In high schools across the land biology classes lose all semblance of order when the lesson turns to the topic of "Homo Erectus". From an english perspective it is the all time grand champion of unfortuanately suggestive names. Too funny! Of course, in Latin it means "upright man".

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Fri Apr 21, 2006 4:37 am

Of course, in Latin it means "upright man".

doesn't that bring it to the same point??

i would like to say 'no kidding' but i don't want to be sarcastic.

Frank Harrist · Post by **Frank Harrist** » Fri Apr 21, 2006 6:01 am

That's pretty juvenile, guys. When the term was first used it didn't have those conotations. Erect has only been used to refer to penises in the last few decades. Stop giggling!

Erect: vertical in position; also : not spread out or decumbent <an erect plant stem> b : standing up or out from the body <erect hairs> c : characterized by firm or rigid straightness in bodily posture <an erect bearing>
Ok now you can giggle.

gunny · Post by **gunny** » Fri Apr 21, 2006 6:43 am

Best one yet-----Archy

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Sat Apr 22, 2006 2:16 pm

That's pretty juvenile, guys. When the term was first used it didn't have those conotations. Erect has only been used to refer to penises in the last few decades.

i am not being sophomoric and though you are right about connotations, there are many words that have assumed sexual conotations over the years that were never applied before, i just think your argument is a little STIFF.

by the way, it is okay for me to talk and joke about the human body and its function as God created it and called it good. thus i do not look upon sex as dirty or nasty (or any other negative connotation) but as good, wholesome and wonderful.

i just think that despite the correctness of the name, it should be changed to someting less provocative and erotic, just for sanity's sake.

Leona Conner · Post by **Leona Conner** » Sun Apr 23, 2006 6:05 pm

[quote]i am not being sophomoric[/quote]

Oh, yes you are.

Frank Harrist · Post by **Frank Harrist** » Mon Apr 24, 2006 6:29 am

It's only provocative and erotic to a juvenile mind.

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Mon Apr 24, 2006 1:47 pm

just lightenup. i was just trying to inject some humor into these discussions. a good laugh now and then is good for you.

gunny · Post by **gunny** » Mon Apr 24, 2006 2:14 pm

Archy---we luv ya-----however keep your kinky sex life out of the data