Close Topic Options

When Did Man Come To The Americas?

SCIENTIST: MAN IN AMERICAS EARLIER THAN THOUGHT

Archaeologists say a site in South Carolina may rewrite the history of how the
Americas were settled by pushing back the date of human settlement thousands
of years.

Why are some people calling the discovery a "potentially explosive
revelation"? We'll talk to the archaeologist responsible for the find, Albert
C. Goodyear.
Ref. https://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/science/11/17....dig/index.html

Americas To Man When

I don't believe you can believe what they think they know. Look at history. We are often told a certain thing happened in a particular way, and the assertion is that this is a fact. Then many years later someone else tells us there is proof it happened another way. I don't think science will ever be able to reliably tell me everything there is to know.

When Did Man Come To The Americas? UFO & Writing Art Education Sciences

The thing with Scientists is they are only looking for truths, if you read the Book of Mormon it tells you that the first Americans came over a little past the Tower of Babel (about 2200 B.C.). Or you can go back even further to when Adam and Eve got kicked out of The Garden of Eden which is located here on this continent. Believe only about half what Scientists tell you and be suspicious about the other half. :truth:

Americas To Man When

Well, it depends on what you consider RELIABLE. People seem to have a misunderstanding of science, assuming that what science claims is fact, or that scientis believe they really know everything.
Science is about having an open mind. The power behind science, is that it continually attempts to disprove what it has asserted to be true, in order to verify itself. In science, nothing is truly a LAW. Everything is theory, and there is a reason for that.

True knowledge of anything (other than our own knowledge that we are incapable of knowing) does not exist.

"The reason for this is the subjective nature of all other kinds of knowledge, drawing as it must not from logical necessity but rather from subjective experience which cannot be generalized with any certainty of correctness beyond mere probability." -TM Riddle

That in mind, one must simply be content with the fact that information science provides is never free from scrutiny or the need for refinement. Nothing is certain. This may bring you to the conclusion that believing in anything is pointless. Well, if you have goals in life, and this existence in which we toil means anything to you, then you have no choice but to accept what you observe. A brick will fall to the ground when dropped. A human being will starve without food. Seeming 'LAWS' such as these, are what science attempts to explain. Scientists are not trying to TELL us how things are, or force their views upon us.
They are simply saying:
"This is what we've found to be true so far. But don't worry, we're still looking into it."
And so, they will ALWAYS be looking into it, as long as the human concious remains subjective. Therefore, I see no reason to disbelieve what scientists uncover, simply account for the fact that that knowledge is open to change.

Americas To Man When

This may be true technically, but it isn't true relative to how things are generally presented to the general population. The theory of evolution is a perfect example. There are many scientists who don't accept this theory as fact, but it is certainly presented to the general population as fact. Simply inserting the word theory in front of the name doesn't really mean it is being presented as simply one of many theories. I don't think one can argue intelligently that the theory of evolution is taught as truly just a theory. It is definately considered a fact. Perhaps some of the details are still considered theory.

This statement makes no sense to me. Especially after everything else you wrote. If, in fact, something that is taught today as fact is likely to change or be proven wrong in the future, I think that is the perfect reason not to believe it today.

When Did Man Come To The Americas?

What I'm trying to get at is this:

You might as well believe what is presented by science, because the probability of what science presents as being true, is relatively high. Just understand, that it isn't a guarantee. Don't be angry if later they say that things aren't how they originally presented them.

For example: The theory of photosynthesis. Currently all logical evidence and data suggests that the theory of photosynthesis is true. However, it is POSSIBLE that it might not be true. Does that mean we should disbelieve it? I don't believe it does. It just seems pointless to doubt information that has probable basis when there is nothing to suggest the contrary other than uncertainty itself.

But anyway, that's just my opinion.

When Man To Americas

If you do not believe that Earth was created 7,000 years ago, or however many years the bible tells, I think there is no reason not to believe in this. They have found evidence, and they have carbon dated the fossil. In that those men of 50,000 years ago stayed there until recently I am not sure. The Indians were too much like us for them to be isolated 50,000 years. Perhaps those humans died long ago, or migrated to another area.

Offtopic but, QUOTE If, in fact, something that is taught today as fact is likely to change or be proven wrong in the future, I think that is the perfect reason not to believe it today Everything changes over time. Not only scientific beliefs, but also religious ones. In the Greek and Roman empires the belief was in multiple gods, now most religions believe in one god only. Even with that, every religion is amended a bit to emerge into another.

Everything changes over time. Not only scientific beliefs, but also religious ones. In the Greek and Roman empires the belief was in multiple gods, now most religions believe in one god only. Even with that, every religion is amended a bit to emerge into another.

When Man To Americas Sciences Education Art Writing & UFO

When you accept the date set by carbon dating you have to accept the process by which they do the carbon dating. I am not convinced this is a reliable process. Also, since I believe the world was created by using matter that existed prior to the creation of this world, it is possible, in my opinion that this carbon dating process is actually reading data from prior to the creation of this earth.