Archaeologica.org

Tediously long and ponderously detailed, but a trove of carefully assembled information on an issue that, like Callico, Valsequello and other evidence that "can't be because it can't be," is nevertheless there and cannot honestly be dismissed because it's incongruous with the current paradigm.

http://www.s8int.com/truesuppressions4.html

As Christians, we don't accept any of the dates mentioned here and we think that there is ample evidence here that it is nearly impossible to do anything but guess on dates even as "young" as 1000 to 5000 years.

So we can safely dismiss these fools, then.

Everybody's Worldview can be blown up because it contains at least one faulty assumption.

But they all do.

So now what ?

That's a doozy, though.

Way better write-ups on these than the usual hatchet jobs

http://www.econ.ohio-state.edu/jhm/arch/outliers.html

All of that reminds me of Caesar's observation that "men willingly believe what they wish to be true."

Two way street, Min.

And that is where evidence comes in.

If evidence isn't congruent with the domimant paradigm, it's not evidence. You know that.

Everything incongruent with it is something else.

That's how Clovis stayed First.

If that were true, Uni, then Clovis-First would not now be pushing up daisies.

You are confusing the reluctance of a power structure to accept new evidence with the existence of the evidence itself. Acceptance does not happen like turning on a light switch.

Nay, Sir. I am remembering their arguments.

One site doesn't count, because it doesn't demonstrate a consistent pattern in space. Without which, individual discoveries are only meaningless curiosities. The context wasn't sealed. The 14C could have been contaminated by coal particles in the groundwater that could have been fluxuating. That means it was. That means it doesn't prove anything. The association of the point with the charcoal wasn't incontestable. The lab must have made a mistake. It can't be that old because there weren't any people here back then to make it. The hearth against the back wall of the cave ? Burning wood from a forest fire could have blown into the cave during a storm. Those "artifacts" are all frost-fractures.

And my all-time favorite :

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

(I.e., None of that stuff is evidence unless we agree that it is. And we don't. The real crux of the augument is what we experts believe.)

What buried it was the laughter from the audience.

They hate that.

If it hadn't been for the internet (the one venue they can't control), they'd still be in the driver's seat -- Judges, jury and executioners in one neat package.

Science advances one funeral at a time....as the late, lamented Digit used to say.

Lord Kelvin.

http://www.philipcoppens.com/copper.html

And the other side...

http://www.ramtops.co.uk/copper.html

Once again, the utilization of copper by the Andaste as covered in depth in "Man and Impact in the Americas".

To my knowldge, there is no better synthesis of the existing data.

uniface, would you care to confirm my assessment?