Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

Now intelligent design is being linked to some textbook or other presumably in the hope that by doing so intelligent design can the more easily be undermined. The easiness being the main thing as with the linking of intelligent design to Creationism.

I'm trying to discuss social forces and their consequences.

We have partial Neanderthal DNA that is 3 times older than your entire earth age allows. When do you stop cherry picking those laws of science that you support vs those that you must, by creed, reject?

Last time I checked, dating techniques are not 'laws of science'.

Are you saying that one cannot question the assumptions that underlie dating methods?

An Evolution Revolution
By: Tiffany Mayer, March 20, 2001
Every so often science is forced to question the status quo and to rethink the views that dominate our world. And sometimes, it takes only a small event to trigger such major change, such as Galileo's telescope, Darwin's trip to the Galapagos Islands, and Einstein's pondering of the nature of space and light.

The same thing might have just happened to our understanding of human prehistory with the radioactive dating of Nanjing Man.

Nanjing Man is the name given to a Homo erectus fossil found in China. He was thought to be around 400,000 years old. But, last month, a quartet of scientists from China and Australia re-dated Nanjing Man using uranium-series dating and found he was actually at least 620,000 years old.

This made the scientists question the dates given to other major archaeological finds - finds that have come to shape evolutionary theory as the world knows it.

Suddenly, Nanjing Man became the catalyst for an evolutionary coup d'etat that could end Mitochondrial Eve's reign as the most accepted theory of human evolution.

The Mitochondrial Eve theory claims Homo sapien populations migrated from Africa between 100,000 and 200,000 years ago and replaced Homo erectus populations wherever they went.

But, based on his new age, Nanjing Man could very well be chalked up as another victory for the less-popular multi-regional model of evolution.

Multi-regionalism argues that modern Asian populations were not replaced by African sapiens. Instead, they evolved directly from Asian Homo erectus and Nanjing Man's new age would provide more time for this evolutionary process to have occurred.

Nanjing Man's age and his implications for evolutionary theory have prompted the Chinese-Australian team of scientists who dated him to re-date other major archaeological finds using the uranium-series dating technique that derived Nanjing Man's age.

"Many Homo erectus sites are not well-dated," says Dr. Ken Collerson, a member of the team who dated Nanjing Man.

This is because of the limited capabilities or questionable results from other dating techniques such as electron-spin resonance, which Collerson refers to as "in the realms of alchemy."

By re-dating major archaeological finds, Collerson says he thinks the multi-regional theory of evolution will displace the Mitochondrial Eve theory as the most accepted evolutionary model.

"If I had to bet, I think the multi-regional model will probably be the one to emerge as a more realistic interpretation."

Zhao Jian-xin, a member of the team that dated Nanjing Man, agrees. An archaeologist since 1997, he started his career as a geologist who knew little about evolutionary theory.

"I think the multi-regional theory, within the next 10 years, will take the upper hand," Zhao says. "The most important thing we want to push is a chronological framework to show that (Mitochondrial Eve) is wrong,"

Zhao says the Eve model's timeline of human evolution is too compressed to be accurate. Modern hominids had to have evolved and replaced ancient hominids around the world in too short a time period for the Eve theory to be plausible.

Nanjing Man's age suggests that Asian erectus had a longer time to evolve into modern hominids than previously thought. This makes it less likely for modern hominids from Africa to have replaced Asian erectus. The two populations would not have overlapped as the Eve theory speculates.

The four scientists credited with dating Nanjing Man measured the decay of radioactive uranium (U) by counting the number of thorium (th) atoms present in the stratigraphic layers above and below where Nanjing Man's fossil was found. They used thermal ionization mass spectrometry (TIMS) to do this.

Over time and at a steady rate, uranium transforms at the atomic level into thorium. This means that as objects age, the amount of thorium they contain increases as the uranium in them decrease. Because this happens at a steady rate, thorium provides a good estimate for the age of rocks.

This provides a bracket of dates between which Nanjing Man lived with the bottom layer providing the earliest possible date and the top layer the latest date.

TIMS U-Th dating is particularly helpful in dating fossils found in limestone caves where a method like potassium argon (KAr) dating would be inadequate.

Potassium argon (KAr) dating uses crystallized volcanic ash found on or around a fossil in an open area to derive the fossil's age. KAr dating is not suited for dating cave fossils because there is often little volcanic ash to be found inside caves for this method to work.

But, TIMS U-Th dating is suited for dating cave fossils because the limestone retains radioactive elements.

TIMS U-Th dating also provides a larger, more accurate window of time for fossil dates, possibly up to one million years, unlike other techniques such as carbon dating.

Carbon dating actually dates the fossil itself, which does not retain any radioactive elements, and only provides a maximum age of up to 50,000 years.

However, TIMS U-Th dating is nothing new. Henry Schwarcz, a geologist at McMaster University in Hamilton, developed it in 1975.

"We've looked for many different clocks to trace human evolution," Schwarcz says. "The decay (of uranium) is like a ticking clock and this will give us an answer. It is the most precise and accurate."

As for the impact that his dating method will have on evolutionary theory, Schwarcz says that while everyone thinks Africa was where all the action was, this idea won't last.

"It appears China was an important area for evolution. This opens up a whole new window into the time scale of human evolution in that part of the world."

Uranium decay is fuelling a new age of discovery
Published: 12 September 2001

Dr Jian-xin Zhao has developed a ground-breaking geological dating technique, allowing new insights into human origins and the history of climate change.

Dr Zhao, from the School of Physical Sciences, has been using the decay rate of uranium atoms to estimate geological dates with considerable accuracy.
His work has implications for many disciplines.

One of Dr Zhao's most publicised findings involved the dating of an ancient human-like fossil known as Nanjing Man.

By analysing the uranium decay in a calcite flowstone layer just above the fossil bed within a cave, Dr Zhao was able to estimate the human-like remains were at least 620,000 years old - considerably older than previously thought.

The finding is consistent with the 'multi-regional' evolutionary model that argues modern Asian populations evolved directly from Asian Homo Erectus, rather than evolving from populations out of Africa.

'Nanjing Man was discovered in 1993, but until recently there had been no reliable dating of the fossil,' he said.

'Chronology of many similar sites had previously been determined by dating fossil bones, teeth and burnt flints.

However the reliability of these methods is commonly compromised - it's a bit like using an old-fashioned telescope to observe objects in deep space.

'The fact that the remains lay directly below clean calcite flowstone presented a wonderful opportunity to apply our geological dating method, using the accumulation of thorium-230 from decay of uranium-238.

'Because China has not developed the dating techniques, the analysis had to be carried out at the Radiogenic Isotope Geochemistry Laboratory at The University of Queensland.'

Coincidentally, Dr Zhao was an undergraduate at Nanjing University in the early 1980s, but was made aware of the important fossil discovery during a field trip to China five years ago.

'The next stage of my research is to date human fossils in the Guangxi Province in south-west China - the geological conditions, characterised by numerous karst caves, are perfect for this geological dating technique,' he said.

Dr Zhao plans to use the method to establish a reliable chronological framework for anatomically modern H. sapiens - the immediate ancestor of modern human beings - in China, and attempt to resolve the pronounced controversy on human origins.

His preliminary results suggest that modern H. sapiens fossils in China are much older than previously thought, which may provide considerable evidence for the multi-regional evolution model.

Dr Zhao has also analysed radioactive decay in a stalagmite from a cave in Tasmania to gain the first high-precision climatic record of the Southern Hemisphere.

This work has implications for understanding global warming.

'My research suggests that it has been 11,500 years since the last ice-age, and the warm and wet period prior to that lasted only 7000 years,' he said.

'Therefore I would argue that an unstable climatic phase leading to the next ice-age is long overdue.'

With his $70,000 research excellence award, Dr Zhao plans to date synchronous rapid global climatic oscillations during the last glacial period and obtain new constraints on climatic connections between east Asian and northern Australian monsoon regimes.

This study will enable a better understanding of the mechanisms driving climate change and help the assessment of the anthropogenic impact on current climate and prediction of future climate trend and catastrophic climatic events.

The results will improve our knowledge of the east Asian and Australian monsoon activity and the long-term rainfall variation in Australia that is vital to Australia's sustainable socio-economic planning.

Dr Zhao came to Australia in 1987 on an Overseas Study Scholarship. He completed a masters degree at Adelaide University and PhD at the Australian National University before joining the Earth Sciences Department at The University of Queensland in 1995.

He was awarded a three-year Australian Postdoctoral Fellowship in 1995, followed by a five-year Australian Research/QE II Fellowship by the Australian Research Council (ARC) in 1998, and is an honorary research fellow at the Guangzhou Institute of Geochemistry, Academic Sinica.

The conventional view is that humans evolved roughly 30,000 to 50,000 years ago in Eurasia and later crossed the Bering Straits land bridge into North America around 15,000 years ago. Thus there cannot be any indigenous man-made artefacts in North or South America older than around this date.
In the late 1960s Dr Viriginia Steen-McIntyre and Harold Malde, both of the U.S. Geological Survey and Roald Fryxell of Washington State University, were working under a grant from the National Science Foundation at a site called Hueyatlaco (pronounced way-at-larko) 75 miles south east of Mexico City.
Steen-McIntyre and her colleagues found very sophisticated stone tools there, rivalling the best work of Cro-Magnon man in Europe (similar to the design illustrated here.) The scientists applied four dating methods to the finds and the strata in which they were found: uranium series dating; fission track dating; tephra hydration dating and mineral weathering study. The four methods yielded a unanimous date of around 250,000 years.
This finding fundamentally contradicts the belief of anthropology not only in the New World but regarding the whole history of mankind. People capable of making the kind of stone tools found at Hueyatlaco are thought not to have come into existence until around 100,000 years ago, in Africa. Steen-McIntyre's findings were first ridiculed and then quietly forgotten about.
Advanced palaeolithic and neolithic flake tools have been found in Argentina, Canada, Mexico, New Mexico, California, Wyoming, and elsewhere by professional geologists and palaeontologists. All have been subjected to campaigns of denigration and ridicule and the finds relegated to museum basements or store rooms. In some cases (Hueyatlaco for instance) state or government authorities will no longer grant permission for investigators to visit these sites -- presumably in case they make any more embarrassing scientific discoveries.

Ancient Artefacts? The case of Sandia Cave

All of these sites have serious problems with them which "Forbidden Archeology" ignores. These problems are noted in the review by Leper (1994) given below.

++ Locations ++

Sandia Cave - Sandia Mountains of New Mexico.
Hueyatlaco - near Vasequillo, Mexico, about 75 miles southeast of Mexico City
Calico - Mojave Desert, California
Toca da Esperanca - town in Brazil about 200 miles to the south of a rock shelter site, called Boqueirao da Pedra Furada.

These sites are discussed briefly by Lepper (1994) who gives citations containing information about these site. Lepper (1994) can be found on-line at: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/mom/lepper.html .
At that URL, Lepper (1994) states:

"They refer to claims of great antiquity for artifacts from the Calico, Pedra Furada, Sandia Cave, Sheguiandah, and Timlin sites, but are apparently unaware of recent (and some not so recent) work concerning these sites which substantially refutes (or calls into serious question) the claims of the original investigators (e.g., Cole and Godfrey, 1977; Cole et al., 1978; Funk, 1977; Haynes and Agogino, 1986; Julig et al., 1990; Kirkland, 1977; Meltzer et al., 1994; Preston, 1995; Schnurrenberger and Bryan, 1985; Starna, 1977; Taylor, 1994)."

++ Sandia Cave ++

Sandia Cave, which lies in the Sandia Mountains of New Mexico, is an another example of the failure of "Forbidden Archeology" to present the entire story about a subject.

Most glaring omission is that the details of stratigraphy of and numerous radiometric dates from Sandia Cave that are given and discussed by Haynes and Agogino (1986) concerning the Sandia Cave. These critical data are completely ignored by "Forbidden Archeology" although published several years after Haynes and Agogino (1986).

Haynes and Agogino (1986) is a critical paper because it directly discusses and refutes claims raised by "Forbidden Archeology" concerning the Sandia Cave Site. If nothing else, they show how very sloppy the research for "Forbidden Archeology" actually was despite the plethora of citations it gives.

I. On page 376, "Forbidden Archeology" states:
"In 1975, Virginia Steen-McIntyre learned of the existence of another site with an impossibly early date for stone tools in North America- Sandia Cave, New Mexico, U.S.A., where the implements, of advanced type (Folsom points), were discovered beneath a layer of stalagmite considered to be 250,000 years old. One such tool is shown in Figure 5.11."
In this paragraph along there are numerous errors and omissions.

1. The first problem is that the stratigraphy of the deposits found in Sandia Cave are extremely complex as is typical of the sediments that accumulate in any cave. In Sandia Cave there are three "layers of stalagmites." The first and lower one, the "Lower Dripstone layer," Unit D of Haynes and Agogino (1986) lies stratigraphically beneath a breccia, Unit F of Haynes and Agogino (1986), containing the Folsum artifacts and above a layer of yellow ochre, Unit C, the Limonite Ochre layer of Haynes and Agogino (1986). A second "layer of stalagmite," Unit G, Intermediate Dripstone Layer of Haynes and Agogino (1986) lies above the breccia, Unit F, containing Folsum artifacts. This is illustrated by Figures 5 and 7 of Haynes and Agogino (1986).
At Meters 11-13 in the cave, the highly simplified stratigraphy of Sandia Cave is:
--------- surface ----------
Unit J, Upper Loose Debris layer
Unit I, Upper Dripstone layer
Unit H, Upper Breccia layer
Unit G, Intermediate Dripstone layer
Unit F, Lower Breccia layer (with Folsum artifacts)
Unit D, Lower Dripstone layer (dated u-s. 226,300+/-16,200 B.P.)
Unit C, Limonitic Orche layer
Unit B, Limestone Residuum
----- cave floor ------
Unit A, Bedrock - Paleozoic limestone

2. It is true that Folsum artifacts underlie beneath a "layer of stalagmite" (the Intermediate Dripstone layer). Furthermore, the artifact shown in Figure 5.11 of also came from the Intermediate Dripstone layer. However, the uranium-series date of 226,300+/-16,200 B.P., which is likely the 250,000 B.P. date that Dr. Steen-McIntyre heard about second-hand came from Unit D, Lower Dripstone layer. Thus, this date lies below the breccia containing the Folsum artifacts.

The source of the confusion results from the fact that Unit D is a discontinuous layer. Where Hibben (1941) excavated and found Folsum and other Paleo-Indian artifacts, the Lower Dripstone layer, Unit D, is missing. The breccia, Unit F, containing the Folsum artifacts lies directly on Unit C and under Unit G, Intermediate Dripstone layer. As a result, Hibben (1941) assumed that Unit G, Intermediate Dripstone layer where he was excavating was the same as the Unit D, Lower Dripstone layer found towards back of the cave. When Dr. Steen-McIntyre heard second-hand about the 250,000 B.P., date not having ever directly studied the site, she used his faulty assumption that there was only a "single layer of stalagmites" to naturally, but incorrectly, concluded that the date came from the dripstone layer lying above the breccia containing the Folsum artifacts. Because its authors failed to consult Haynes and Agogino (1986), "Forbidden Archeology" also confused the Intermediate Dripstone layer with the Lower Dripstone layer. As a result, it falsely claims that the so-called "Folsum blade" was dated to around 250,000 B.P. when that date applies to the dripstone ("stalagmite") layer lying below the Folsum artifacts.

3. Finally, there are problems with the 226,300+/-16,200 B.P uranium-series date. Unit D, the Lower Dripstone layer was also dated by radiocarbon dating at 32,000+/-2000 B.P. (I-337)(Haynes and Agogino 1986, Table 2). This only an apparent date because much of the carbon in the dripstone comes from Paleozoic limestone in which the cave has form. As a result, this date like similar radiocarbon dates from the other dripstone layers as the Sandia Cave Site would overestimate the age of the dripstone layers. For example, if only 50 percent of the carbon was "dead" carbon from the limestone, then the real date would 27,500 B.P. Regardless, the uranium-series date greatly overestimates the age of the dripstone relative to the radiocarbon dates.

Similar problem occurs in Unit H, Upper Breccia layer. There a bone was dated at 73,000+/-4000 B.P. by the uranium series dating. When dated by radiocarbon, the organic fraction of the *same* bone, which should not be contaminated by carbonate from the surrounding Paleozoic limestone, yielded a radiocarbon date of 12,830+/-490 B.P. (A-367). Organics also from the Upper Breccia Layer, Unit H, yielded a radiocarbon date of 9,100+/-500 B.P. (A-368) and organics from Unit F, Lower Breccia layer containing the Folsum artifacts yielded a radiocarbon date of 12,000+/-400 B.P. (A-369)(Haynes and Agogino 1986, Table 2).
Thus, according to the most reliable material dated at Sandia Cave, the organic material from bone and dripstone, the uranium-series dates greatly overestimate the age of carbonate from this site. The most damning date is the radiocarbon date, 12,830+/-490 B.P. (A-367), from the organic fraction of the same bone that uranium-series dated at 73,000+/-4000 B.P. Because both breccias likely have been churned by rodents before cementation, then they, as the radiocarbon dates show, are mixtures of material from a several thousand year period of time. This is a process called "time-averaging" that has been well documented by paleontologists, i.e. Graham (1993).

The artifacts from Unit F, Lower Breccia layer are consistent with the breccias. Some of the projectile points that Hibben (1941) identifies as Folsum include points that could be classified as Agate Basin and Milnesand. In addition, there is the base of a point that could be a Clovis point, but is more likely a Folsum point (Haynes and Agogino 1986, pp. 27-28). The age range of these point types as established at other sites by numerous radiocarbon dates in undisturbed contexts is 9,000 to 11,000 B.P. Given that the breccias represent a mixture of materials deposited over a few thousand year period, the age of the artifactual material is consistent with the radiocarbon dates from organic material at this site.


II. On page 377, "Forbidden Archeology" quotes Dr. Steen-McIntyre as saying:
"Did you know they now have a 250,000 year date on the stalagmite layer in Sandia Cave, N.M., the one that sealed of leaf-shaped points and fire hearths?"

1. As discussed above, there are more than one "stalagmite layer." The lowermost "stalagmite layer" the Lower Dripstone layer, Unit D, was not continuos enough to have sealed the strata beneath it from disturbance. In fact, in prehistoric times, Native Americans mined ochre from Unit C, the Limonite Ochre layer, that lies beneath the Lower Dripstone layer (Haynes and Agogino 1986).

2. The Sandia points, called "leaf-shaped" points by Dr. Steen-McIntyre, were found by Dr. Hibben in Unit X of Haynes and Agogino (1986, pp. 27). Unit X, the Lower Loose Debris unit consisted of uncemented breccia that occupies burrows within the Limonitic Orche layer. It has been churned by rodent activities. Rodents had gone through breaks in the Lower Dripstone Layer and churned the strata beneath it. Charcoal, bone, and wood from the Lower Loose Debris layer unit gave dates ranging from 1890+/-90 (SMU-77) to 13,700+/-400 (A-384) Years B.P. The presence of "small fragments of paper, burned matches," and these radiocarbon dates in the Sandia point-bearing, Lower Loose Debris unit show that rodents had been churning it from about 14,000 B.P. into historic times (Haynes and Agogino 1986).

3. Thus, the Sandia points are younger than 14,000 B.P. At this time, insufficient data exists to know how old or young these points because they lie strata disturbed by burrowing between 14,000 B.P. and present (Haynes and Agogino (1986, pp. 29) The age of the Lower Dripstone is irrelevant to the age of the Sandia points as contrary to what either Dr. Steen-McIntyre or "Forbidden Archeology" claim these burrow fills are much younger than the Lower Dripstone layer, Unit D.


III. On page 377, "Forbidden Archeology" states:
"Steen-McIntyre sent us some reports and photos of the Sandia artifacts and said in an accompanying note: The geochemists are sure of their date, but archaeologists have convinced them the artifacts and charcoal lenses beneath the travertine are the result of rodent activity . . . . But what about the artifacts cemented in the crust?"

1. The artifacts are clearly in rodent burrows as discussed above. Curiously, neither Steen-McIntyre nor "Forbidden Archeology" mentioned anything about the "250,000 year old" burnt matches also found beneath the travertine in the same stratigraphic unit as the Sandia points.

2. In the case of the "artifacts cemented in the crust?," these artifacts are encrusted in Unit G, Intermediate Dripstone layer, not Lower Dripstone layer, Unit D as discussed above.

3. Although irrelevant to the age of any of the above artifacts, the uranium-series dates clearly have serious problems with them as discussed above.


III. Conclusions:
In my opinion, the observations and data presented by Haynes and Agogino (1986) demonstrate that "Forbidden Archeology" is incorrect in claiming that the Folsum artifacts came from beneath the "layer of stalagmite" that was dated to "250,000" B.P. By relying only on second hand reports from Dr. Steen-McIntyre instead of reading Haynes and Agogino (1986), it failed to realize that the uranium-series date came from the wrong layer which actually underlies the Folsum artifacts. Haynes and Agogino (1986) also show that the Sandia points, the "leaf-shaped" points by Dr. Steen-McIntyre, occur within rodent burrows that range in age 14,000 B.P. to historic times.

The Sand Cave is also interesting because a combination of radiocarbon dates derived from organic matter and artifacts of know cultural association clearly show that uranium-series dates can seriously overestimate the age of sites by an order of magnitude. A person has to wonder if uranium-series dates of similar age at Valsequillo Reservoir Site, Mexico noted by Szabo et al. (1969), where a similar discordance between radiocarbon and uranium series dates are also just as erroneous as the Sandia Cave uranium-series dates. If the uranium-series dates at this site can wrong by an order a magnitude, then claims about the validity of such dates at the Hueyatlaco Site could be just as wrong.

IV. In addition, had the authors talked with archaeologists, they would have found that serious allegations concerning the validity of the excavations and origin of the "leaf-shaped" Sandia points mentioned in "Forbidden Archeology." These concerns greatly complicate any straight forward interpretation of the material found at Sandia Cave. These concerns have since been documented by Preston (1995). Thus, through lack of research, this book failed to present an important aspect of the conventional views about Sandia Cave.


References Cited

Cole, J. R., R. E. Funk, L. R. Godfrey, and W. Starna (1978) On Criticisms of 'Some Paleolithic Tools from Northeast north America': rejoinder. Current Anthropology. vol. 193, pp. 665-669.
Cole, J. R. and L. R. Godfrey (1977) On Some Paleolithic Tools from Northeast North America." Current Anthropology. vol. 18, no. 3, pp. 541-543.
Funk, R. E. (1977) On Some Paleolithic Tools from Northeast North America. Current Anthropology. vol. 18, no. 3, pp. 543-544.
Graham, R. W. (1993) Process of time-averaging in the terrestrial vertebrate record. In S. M. Kidwell and A. K. Behrensmeyer, ed., pp. 102-124, Taphonomic Approaches To Time Resolution in Fossil Assemblages. Short Course in Paleontology no. 6, Paleontological Society, Knoxville, TN.
Haynes, C. V., Jr., and G. A. Agoging (1986) Geochronology of Sandia Cave. Smithsonian Contributions to Anthropology. no. 32. Smithsonian Institution. Washington, DC, United States.
Julig, P. J., W. C. Mahaney, and P. L. Storck (1991) Preliminary Geoarchaeological Studies of the Sheguindah Site, Manitoulin Island, Canada." Current Research in the Pleistocene, vol. 8, pp. 110-114.
Hibbens, F. C. (1941) Evidence of Early Occupation of Sandia Cave, New Mexico and Other Early Sites in the Sandia- Manzano Region. Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections. vol. 99, no. 23, 77 pp.
Kirkland, J. (1977) On Some Paleolithic Tools From Northeast North America. Current Anthropology. vol. 18, no. 3, pp. 544-545.
Lepper, Bradley T. (1996) Hidden history, hidden agenda: review of Hidden History of the Human Race. Skeptic. volume 4, number 1, pp. 98-100.
Meltzer, D. J., J. M. Adovasio, and T. D. Dillehay (1994) On a Pleistocene Human Occupation at Pedra Furada, Brazil. Antiquity, vol. 68, no. 261, pp. 695-714.
Preston, Douglas (1995) The mystery of Sandia Cave The-New-Yorker. vol. 71, pp. 66-72 (June 12, 1995)
Schnurrenberger, D. and A. L. Bryan (1984) A Contribution to the Study of the Naturefact/Artifact Controversy. In Stone Tool Analysis, M. G. Plew, J. C. Woods, and M. G. Pavesic, (eds.) pp.133-159. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.
Starna, W. A. (1977) On Some Paleolithic Tools from Northeast North America." Current Anthropology, vol. 18, no. 3, pp. 545.
Szabo, J., E. Malde, and C. Irwin-Williams (1969) Dilemma posed by uranium-series dates on archaeologically significant bones from Valesquillo, Puebla, Mexico. Earth and Planetary Science. vol. 6, pp. 237-244.
Taylor, R. E. (1994) Archaeometry at the Calico Site. The Review of Archeology. vol. 15, no. 2, pp. 1-8.


++ Reviews of "Forbidden Archeology" and "The Hidden History of the Human Race" ++
Good on-line reviews of "Forbidden Archeology" and its condensed version "The Hidden History of the Human Race" can be found at:

I. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/mom/groves.html . A review of Forbidden Archeology: Creationism: The Hindu View, by Colin Groves

II. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/mom/lepper.html . A review of The Hidden History of the Human Race: Hidden History, Hidden Agenda, by Brad Lepper

The problems with these books are well documented and discussed in a number of reviews. They include:

Feder, Kenneth (1994) Review of Forbidden Archeology: the Hidden History of the Human Race. GeoArcheology. volume 9, number 4, pp. 337-340.
Lepper, Bradley T. (1996) Hidden history, hidden agenda: review of Hidden History of the Human Race. Skeptic. volume 4, number 1, pp. 98-100.
Marks, J. (1994) Review of Forbidden Archeology: the Hidden History of the Human Race. American Journal of Physical Anthropology. volume 93, number 1, pp. 140-141.
Murray, Tim (1995) Review of Forbidden Archeology. British Journal for the History of Science. volume 28, pp. 377-379.
Tarzia, Wade (1994) Forbidden Archeology: antievolutionism outside the Christian arena. Creation/Evolution. volume 14, number 1, pp. 13-25.

Has the issue of the creation of DNA as evidence of an intelligent designer been raised yet? ...

... This is a very long thread, so if anyone could point me to any posts on this point I would be grateful.

spendius wrote:

I'm trying to discuss social forces and their consequences.

No, you persist in trying to shift the focus of the discussion through attempting to overlay your ludicrously misguided and wholly irrelevant "social forces and their consequences" agenda.