Everything We Have Been Taught About Our Origins Is A Lie

[Taco]

A few things your Archeology professor forgot to tell you.

Everything We Have Been Taught About Our Origins Is A Lie
http://www.maltanow.com.mt/?p=2927

[Jester]

A few things your Archeology professor forgot to tell you.

Everything We Have Been Taught About Our Origins Is A Lie
http://www.maltanow.com.mt/?p=2927

Interesting article, new stuff, thanks.

Hard for me to believe that lumps of coal were large enough to hide the items mentioned. SOunds like bald-face lying to me.

OTOH some stories ring true, if we had better sources than MaltaNow.

[Dragon]

Everything about that article is so off.

1. Dating methods for wood, charcoal, rock (radiocarbon dating) didn't exist until after 1960 when Willard F. Libby discovered it. How the hell were were they able to date the rock and wood to hundreds of millions of years old in god damn 1936. Even more amazing when they knew the basalt lava rock was 15 million years old in 1889.

2. They mentioned the Idaho clay figurine was discovered at 320 feet when they were boring a water well. First of all, there's no way they could of dug something that deep in 1889, especially in what was probably a small town settlement in Idaho. For reference, the largest historical hand dug well in the US is the Kansas Big Well, which was 109 feet deep, and made two years prior in 1887. Second, they mentioned they were boring the well, which is indeed a common method to make wells...today. Boring a well requires sophisticated modern machinery and a drill bit that can dig at least least 320 feet into the group, where the statue was located, did simply not not exist in 1889.

http://www.unitechdrilling.com/images/f ... %20010.jpg

3. They called this guy named Stan Taylor an archeologist in the article, but he was actually a Reverend from Illinois and a god damn creationist film maker. In fact the hammer (London Hammer) in the beginning of the article is currently in a creationist museum in Texas right now, being used a justification and proof of creationism(?!) -- without any proof or scientific merit of course. This whole article is actually a god damn creationist article meant to deceive it seems. I don't know where they got their information from, but it shows a misunderstanding of actual scientific and engineering facts.

I could pick out more stuff from the article on why it's total nonsense but I think I made it clear enough.

[Luc Furr]

Dragon,

Regarding your comments:

1. Radiometric dating was "invented" in 1905 by Ernest Rutherford (British). The Earth was dated in 1920. wiki it if you want
Think it says that "the very top layer of lava HAS BEEN DATED TO at least 15 million years old" that could mean it was dated in 1980 or 2000 we don't know.

from wikipedia on wells:

2. "Woodingdean well, hand-dug between 1858 and 1862, is claimed to be the world's deepest hand-dug well at 1,285 feet (392 m)." Turns out Woodingdean is in the UK. Perhaps some Brits or French taught the Americans how to excavate so deep.

Everything about that article is so off.

1. Dating methods for wood, charcoal, rock (radiocarbon dating) didn't exist until after 1960 when Willard F. Libby discovered it. How the hell were were they able to date the rock and wood to hundreds of millions of years old in god damn 1936. Even more amazing when they knew the basalt lava rock was 15 million years old in 1889.

2. They mentioned the Idaho clay figurine was discovered at 320 feet when they were boring a water well. First of all, there's no way they could of dug something that deep in 1889, especially in what was probably a small town settlement in Idaho. For reference, the largest historical hand dug well in the US is the Kansas Big Well, which was 109 feet deep, and made two years prior in 1887. Second, they mentioned they were boring the well, which is indeed a common method to make wells...today. Boring a well requires sophisticated modern machinery and a drill bit that can dig at least least 320 feet into the group, where the statue was located, did simply not not exist in 1889.

http://www.unitechdrilling.com/images/f ... %20010.jpg

3. They called this guy named Stan Taylor an archeologist in the article, but he was actually a Reverend from Illinois and a god damn creationist film maker. In fact the hammer (London Hammer) in the beginning of the article is currently in a creationist museum in Texas right now, being used a justification and proof of creationism(?!) -- without any proof or scientific merit of course. This whole article is actually a god damn creationist article meant to deceive it seems. I don't know where they got their information from, but it shows a misunderstanding of actual scientific and engineering facts.

I could pick out more stuff from the article on why it's total nonsense but I think I made it clear enough.