MF> Concerning the evolution of man, there has been many
MF> cases of dishonest science practice. I would like
MF> to expose some of the fraudulent practices.
Me too! Mark Fox has posted this set of so called frauds before. On at least 2 occasions I have pointed out that at least 2 of these "frauds" are nothing more than bunk. On both occasions I gave my reasons why and asked for the sources he had plagerized from so that I could check them out. I repete those questions below as well as document my findings that show Fox for the fool he is. Todate he has not replied. Could it be that he is more interested in exposing himself, er in repeting his unsupported attack on the history of evolution, than actually finding out if his stolden ideas have any merit. Hum that almost sound like the defination of fraud. Could it be that Mark Fox is just as guilty of what he accuses others of. Would that make him not a christian?
MF> Guadeloupe Bones--1812, found in Miocene limestone,
MF> a human skeleton was found in articulate shape. This
MF> human skeleton is perfectly human and not primitive
MF> at all. It was proudly displayed as proof the Flood.
MF> In 1881, after the Darwinian theory, find was moved
MF> to the storage area of British Natural History Museum
MF> (basement) not to be seen--the find did not support
MF> the theory. Almost 100 years later archaeologist Bill
MF> Cooper got pictures of it and as a result got it back
MF> into the limelight. According to scientific dating,
MF> it is 28,000,000 years old. In other words, still
MF> does not fit the theory.
As I said as early as 5-23-94:
Where is it today? When was it "carbon dated"? Where are the results documented? This claim is pure BUNK! Know why? "Carbon dating", because of the relativly short half life of carbon, around 6,000 years, is limited to dating things well under 100,000 years of age. Radioactive dating using other elements is required for longer age frames. Anyone making such a claim as above is obviously ignorant of dating techniques. I suggest that unless you can provide the references necessary to check out this absurd claim, that you are spreading false witness.
Since then, I've been to the library and tried to find this "Bill Cooper". I could find NO books by archaeologist "bill" or William Cooper. I wonder if Mark doesn't have this confused with UFO-ologist Bill Cooper.
MF> Cro-Magnon Man--Very human cavemen. Famous paintings
MF> from these people (Altamira, Spain, and Lascaux, France)
MF> showed them contemporaneous with wooly mammoths (oops--the
MF> theory of prehistoric mammoths had to be revised).
MF> These men were very artistic in using the contours
MF> of the walls to make the paintings 3D. They were also
MF> into astrology. Marshack 1979 Paintings have women
MF> wearing fine dresses and their hair pinned up. Yet
MF> publications still promote pictures of cavemen as carrying
MF> clubs and dragging women. Dishonest images.
Again, on 5-23-74, I said:
Evidence or more false witness?
Since then, I DID find more information and now post it for the first time. Based on Mark's reference to Marshack, I found that an Alexander Marshack wrote a book titled _The Roots of Civilization_ with editions in 71, 72, 91. Without a more detailed reference from Mark, I can only assume he has his year wrong, so what else is new?
I looked at Marshack's latest edition and found it a fasinicating inquiry into the mind of early man. Marshack examined several pieces of carved bone. One described on page 21 is from the Congo, Africa 8,500 years ago. It includes a series of marks that indicate that humans then were aware of prime numbers and multiplication. On page 32, he indicates that work done since his first edition had dated some of the artifacts he studied to a 20 to 25 thousand year ago time frame. The most interesting artifact he studied was an antler bone with a series of dots in a serptine arrangement. He concludes that it is a record of the moon phases over a period of a few months. This is apparently the discovery that Mark refers to above in his plagerized account as indicating "They were also into astrology. Marshack 1979". Since astrology is generally associated with the signs of the zodiac and not the phases of the moon, I assume Mark's source actually said astronomy not astrology. But again, what else is new with Mark.
This bone along with a brief description is featured on pages 140-144 of _The Emergence of Man: Cro-Magon Man_ by Tom Prideaux, Time-Life 1973. Unfortunatly for Mark, this book also features on pages 150-151 pictures of what are undoutbably the source for his outlandish claims of "women wearing fine dresses and their hair pinned up". In many of the pictures there appears to be a difference between men and women. They look much like the stylized pictures on restroom doors! So much for "fine" dresses! Now what about those hair pins? Most of the drawings show peoples heads in a blob like shape similar to a mushroom or the head of an uncurmcised penis. Anyway, you get the general drift. (grin) In one drawing there is a smaller person, presumably a child, that instead of the blob head, has a circle head with 2 small round bumps. The text describes this as braids. There is not enough deatil in the drawing to justify that interpertation, just as their isn't enough to declair that the hair was "pinned up".
In summary, I close with a previous reply to Mark:
MF> These are the earliest finds after Darwin's plagiarized
MF> theory was prod Please note, from the stolen theory
MF> to 1920's everything is being built on fraud, dishonesty,
MF> and unfounded rumor.
I suggest that it is the two absurd examples above that are based on unfounded rumor. Perhaps you can show me wrong?