A
Anonymous
Guest
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Miocene Human Fossil in Guadeloupe
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 1812, several skeletons were found on the island of Guadeloupe. They were all pointing the same way, were not disjointed, were only partly mineralized, and a dog and implements were found with them. This implies a burial, rather than a mass death. The dog and the partial mineralization imply they are post-Columbian.
One of the skeletons, of a woman, was presented to the British Museum. It has been on and off public display ever since.
In 1983, the Australian creationist journal Ex Nihilo ran an article by W. R. Cooper. He claimed that the skeleton was found in a 25 million year old Lower Miocene deposit. He said that it showed signs of drowning in the Flood. He also claimed that it was taken off display, in Darwin's day, to conceal the evidence against Darwin's theory. The Natural History Museum curators say that they didn't move it down to the basement until 1967.
And there the matter sits. Cooper has not produced an independant opinion that his dating (to the Miocene) is correct. The skeleton has not been carbon-dated, although the Museum offered to do so for a fee.
A reference:
The case of Miocene Man, Howgate and Lewis, New Scientist 29 March 1984 pp. 44-45
Source:-
http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/guadeloupe.html
Anyone know if this one has been solved yet? I'm not a creationist myself, I'm still interersted to know more, the skeleton is housed at the British museum apparently.
The Miocene Human Fossil in Guadeloupe
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 1812, several skeletons were found on the island of Guadeloupe. They were all pointing the same way, were not disjointed, were only partly mineralized, and a dog and implements were found with them. This implies a burial, rather than a mass death. The dog and the partial mineralization imply they are post-Columbian.
One of the skeletons, of a woman, was presented to the British Museum. It has been on and off public display ever since.
In 1983, the Australian creationist journal Ex Nihilo ran an article by W. R. Cooper. He claimed that the skeleton was found in a 25 million year old Lower Miocene deposit. He said that it showed signs of drowning in the Flood. He also claimed that it was taken off display, in Darwin's day, to conceal the evidence against Darwin's theory. The Natural History Museum curators say that they didn't move it down to the basement until 1967.
And there the matter sits. Cooper has not produced an independant opinion that his dating (to the Miocene) is correct. The skeleton has not been carbon-dated, although the Museum offered to do so for a fee.
A reference:
The case of Miocene Man, Howgate and Lewis, New Scientist 29 March 1984 pp. 44-45
Source:-
http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/guadeloupe.html
Anyone know if this one has been solved yet? I'm not a creationist myself, I'm still interersted to know more, the skeleton is housed at the British museum apparently.