Archaeologica.org

You aren't going to quibble about a mere 50,000 years, are you?

Wait, is that BC or AD... ...

Quote:

The Rocky Mountains took shape during a period of intense plate tectonic activity that formed much of the rugged landscape of the western United States.Three major mountain-building episodes reshaped the west from about 170 to 40 million years ago (Jurassic to Cenozoic Periods). The last mountain building event, the Laramide orogeny, (about 70-40 million years ago) the last of the three episodes, is responsible for raising the Rocky Mountains...



This sketch shows the plate tectonic setting during the growth of the Rocky Mountains (Laramide orogeny). The angle of the subducting plate is significantly flatter, moving the focus of melting and mountain building much farther inland than is normally expected.

http://wrgis.wr.usgs.gov/docs/parks/pro ... kymtn.html





Quote:

The formation of the Andes extends into the Paleozoic Era, when terrane accretion was the dominant process. It was during the Cretaceous Period that the Andes began to take their present form, by the uplifting, faulting and folding of sedimentary and metamorphic rocks of the ancient cratons to the east.

http://www.geo.arizona.edu/geo5xx/geo52 ... intro.html

Charlie, that's what the club has come with. I just love all the uplifting that went on! And what the hell is terrane accredition, that's a new one for me.

I'm impressed by the way everyone is pitching in to help our friend Texas Charlie. I am getting a lesson in geology which I admit is over my head!

I have always found geology quite overwhelming.

Paleozoic, cretaceous, mendacious, creosotic what do I know!

stan wrote:I'm impressed by the way everyone is pitching in to help our friend Texas Charlie. I am getting a lesson in geology which I admit is over my head!

Yup. To paraphrase an English football chant - Charlie is our leader. Preclovis wise, he looks like he's coming up with the goods. Plus I've heard that only a fool would pick an argument with a Texan.

Charlie, that's what the club has come with. I just love all the uplifting that went on! And what the hell is terrane accredition, that's a new one for me

True, Bruce. That is the club interpretation. Can you shed light on any difficulties with their interpretations. I'm always ready to learn.

And what the hell is terrane accredition

I think it's when two tectonic plates collide, and build up terrane.

I'm still learning too, Bro. I may be wrong.

I'm impressed by the way everyone is pitching in to help our friend Texas Charlie.

Me too!! I think we're all learning here!!

I don't even bother posting much on the DNA stuff...I don't know jack. I've been reading along and learning, though.

Yup. To paraphrase an English football chant - Charlie is our leader. Preclovis wise, he looks like he's coming up with the goods. Plus I've heard that only a fool would pick an argument with a Texan.

There are a lot of cool, new archeological developments in North America. We all get to watch the new story unfold before our eyes. Cool times to be living, if your interested in this stuff.

Chris Hardaker provided me with a couple of schematics that help clarify the difference between the Caulapan and Hueyatlaco strata:

Charlie,

looks like those artifacts are right on top of an "unconformitie" which I guess means they don't know how that layer got there, right?

Charlie,

looks like those artifacts are right on top of an "unconformitie" which I guess means they don't know how that layer got there, right?

Right. The Hueyatlaco artifacts rest upon the Xalnene, which rests, uncomformably, upon the limestone bedrock. Waters and Gonzales disagree on the Xalnene dating (1,300,000 B.P. vs. 40,000 B.P.). The kicker, though, is the Hueyatlaco Ash, at the Hueyatlaco Site, securely covers the artifacts and the Xalnene (second diagram). At Hueyatlaco, no one has come up with a lower date than 200,000 B.P. for the Hueyatlaco Ash. Thus, it seems reasonable to assume the Xalnene is older than 200,000 B.P.

The younger carbon dates, that Gonzales et al. obtained, were from Barranca Caulapan, 5 km away, and from material which was located in a much younger inset, which was deposited after an erosional event dissected the already existing Xalnene and Hueyatlaco Ash (first diagram).

Charlie et al,

Sorry if you have covered this before..

It just struck me reading this "rebuttal" that the authors conclusions are highly questionable.

http://www.centerfirstamericans.org/new ... rticle.pdf

so...

rather than go with (my bold)

If the markings on the exposed surface of the tuff are human footprints recorded soon after its eruption, the obvious implication is that they are 1.3 million years old.

they summarise

If the markings are hominid footprints, they would be most likely to have been made by a hominid that existed before H. sapiens,
and we consider such a possibility to be extremely remote. We conclude that the identification of any of these features as syndepositional hominid footprints is erroneous.

Note that the authors feel no need to reference the _consideration_ that the possiblity is "extremely remote".

ROTFLMAO - is this what they call scientific?

If the markings are hominid footprints,
they would be most likely to have been made
by a hominid that existed before H. sapiens,
and we consider such a possibility to be
extremely remote.

Ah, yes....meet Homo Erectus....

Fossilized remains dating to 1.8 and 1.0 million years old have been found in Africa (e.g., Lake Turkana and Olduvai Gorge), Europe (Georgia), Indonesia (e.g., Sangiran and Trinil), and China (e.g., Lantian). H. erectus remains an important hominin since it is believed to be the first to leave Africa.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_erectus


And they never made hand axes in the Americas, either!

The following article shows the same bias as the comments on the
age of the footprints in Mexico:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3715132.stm

American mystery

The paper's authors agree and instead suggest that it may fit a more ancient separation between the human lineage that led to Homo sapiens and one that led to a species known as Homo erectus.

This split probably occurred anywhere between 1.8 million years ago and 1.2 million years ago.

"If you do the calibrations on the split, that's the only one that makes any sense," co-author Dr Vince Smith, of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, told BBC News.

By one million years ago, Homo erectus was established both in Africa and in East Asia. In Asia, erectus could have remained isolated until a second wave of migration out of Africa brought modern humans into contact with them - and their lice - after 100,000 years ago.

The authors explain away the problem of H. erectus not being in America at such an early date by conveniently isolating them in Asia. How the last African dispersal selectively picks up the American lice and transports them to the Americas to the ensuing, total lack of surviving lice in Asia is beyond me ... how did they do that? Ancient germ wars?

Has it ever occured to anyone that our entire view of pre-history could be wrong?

http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/11/14/news/meteor.php

Quote:
When the chevrons all point in the same direction to open water, Dallas Abbott, an adjunct research scientist at Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory in Palisades, New York, uses a different satellite technology to look for oceanic craters. With increasing frequency, she finds them, including an especially large one dating back 4,800 years
.
For all you coastal dwellers. Don't know if these would cause 40 days and 40 nights of rain but certainly would cause a memborable event-for the survivors

I have got to say this post has got me thinking. Pretty much a no-brainer for "the flood" I would have thought?