The Frauds of Evolution #13, Part B: OOPARTS–“Out of Place” Artifacts, or One More Reason Why the Evolutionists’ Dating Scheme is a Fraud

by / August 26, 2016

Part B

continued

“One of the crumbling citadels of orthodoxy…is the neo-Darwinian theory of evolution…The contradictions and tautologies of the synthetic theory have actually been known even longer, as a kind of open secret, and yet the dogma has been and still is strenuously defended by the academic community, with the penalty of discreet but effective ostracism for heretics. The reason for this paradox seems to be twofold: firstly, commitment to scientific theory can be as charged with emotion as a religious credo—a subject much in evidence throughout the history of science; secondly, the absence of a coherent alternative to neo-Darwinism makes many biologists feel that a bad theory is better than no theory at all.”—Arthur Koestler, from Janus, pg. 165

 

“There are quite a few authenticated cases of man-made artifacts being found in rocks that are thought to be very old, especially coal seams, for example. It is quite commonplace. What tends to happen is that conventional geologists take these artifacts and dismiss them immediately. They say they must be wrong, they couldn’t possibly be of that age.
“Well, I suppose there are two explanations for these artifacts. The first is that there really were people making things many, many millions of years ago or, alternatively, our dating methods are not as reliable as we think they are and the strata are much younger. I think on the whole the second explanation is probably the more sensible one.
“On the face of it an artifact, a human artifact found in a layer of rock which seems to be millions of years old is an inexplicable anomaly. It’s not so inexplicable if the strata isn’t millions of years old and if the dating method that’s been used is in fact inaccurate, and I suspect that in many cases that’s exactly what has happened.”– Richard Milton, from the YouTube video, “Forbidden Science – Shattering the Myths of Darwin’s Theory of Evolution

In Part A of this article, I related that Michael Cremo in his 914 page book, “Forbidden Archaeology,” and his book, “The Hidden History of the Human Race” (which is a 322 page condensation of “Forbidden Archaeology”), presents about SEVENTY-TWO EXAMPLES of OOPARTS (“Out Of Place” ARTifactS), which evidence, I would argue, conclusively falsifies the modern age schema of Darwinian evolution and Lyellian geology.
The evolutionists, of course, have gone to great lengths in attempts to discredit the validity of all of this information or to keep it hidden from the general public. (Such efforts are always pursued with an eye upon the general public, because it is the general public from whom, ultimately, most of the funding of academia and science research flows.) In his books, Michael Cremo documents specifically how and when this “knowledge filtration” process has occurred in these cases of OOPARTS. For the most part, modern evolutionists have treated all of these cases of “out of place” artifacts as if they simply do not exist. They have simply been ignored. In many cases which have been particularly damaging to the veneer of evolutionary credibility, debunking attempts have been made to make it appear as if the evidence has a different significance than it actually does.
The significance of “out of place” artifacts to evolutionary dogma is acutely recognized by evolutionary paleontologists. Consider these comments of evolutionist Steven M. Stanley, in his book, “The New Evolutionary Timetable”:

 

“There is an infinite variety of ways in which, since 1859, the general concept of evolution might have been demolished. Consider the fossil record–a little-known resource in Darwin’s day. The unequivocal discovery of a fossil population of horses in Precambrian rocks would disprove evolution. More generally, any topsy-turvy sequence of fossils would force us to rethink our theory, yet not a single one has come to light. As Darwin has recognized, a single geographic inconsistency would have nearly the same power of destruction.”—pg. 171

 

Well…where do I even begin regarding Stanley’s claim? (As an aside, I ask, why do we need a NEW evolutionary timetable, when evolutionists for many decades were quite emphatic that the old timetable was firmly established?) Multiple books could be written refuting Stanley’s claim that no “topsy-turvy” sequence of fossils has been found. (And such refutation is precisely what Cremo’s books are.) Topsy-turvy fossils most definitely have been found. So why do evolutionists maintain with such absolute insistent dogmatism that topsy-turvy (out of place) fossils have not ever been found? Are they being deliberately dishonest with us? Well, yes and no. It is all a question of how you do your “logic.”
The reader should understand at this juncture precisely what is involved in statements such as Stanley’s and how the “reasoning” process of Steven M. Stanley and evolutionists in general works in response to “out of place” artifacts. Every logical proposition (called a “syllogism” in the study of logic) begins with a premise, a starting point. Evolutionists begin their polemics, their logic, regarding evolution upon the premise that evolution is true (“from goo to you—by way of the zoo, over many millions of years”). This premise, or beginning point, itself is virtually never truly examined or investigated. It is simply assumed to be true. That is their beginning premise of thought.
So, beginning with this premise (or presupposition, or a priori assumption), the evolutionists “know” with absolute 100% certainty, that out-of-place artifacts “must” have some other explanation other than that the artifact is not really millions of years old or that the dating scheme itself is radically faulty. So—do you see how easy it is to “prove” that the evidence supports evolution? The logic is sound, even if the conclusion is false. This is what Steven M. Stanley means when he says that not a single topsy-turvy sequence of fossils has been found. Stanley is well aware that there are scores, if not hundreds, of topsy-turvy fossils and artifacts. If pressed, he will try to discredit the genuineness of the examples. I assert, therefore, that claims such as this from evolutionists are disingenuous subterfuge.
Beginning with the assumption, the premise, that evolution is true, evolutionists “know” with absolutely emphatic certainty that “out of place” artifacts “must” have fallen down crevices in the rocks into lower strata; or they “must” have been “intrusively buried” in some manner; or, they “must” (in regard to human skeletal remains) have been deliberately buried at their location by humans digging into the ground through layers of strata; or erosion (in regard to human footprints in “ancient” strata) “must” have occurred to non-human footprints in such a manner as to give the appearance of human footprints; or the evidence “must” be illusory, giving the appearance of being something it is not; or the evidence “must” be the result of a deliberate hoax or prank.
These “explanations” to account for “out of place” artifacts are the standard debunking tools in the typical evolutionary propaganda toolbox. These are the “explanations” evolutionists almost inevitably proffer to “explain” anomalous artifacts. The problem is that when you consider the actual details of the evidence of many artifacts, these “explanations” do not hold up to scrutiny and quickly evaporate. When this happens, the evolutionist academic establishment will quickly launch into personal vilification and slander and persecution against those who find such artifacts or those who defend an explanation of such artifacts in any manner inconsistent with evolutionary dogma—“discreet but effective ostracism for heretics” to use Koestler’s description. Cremo cites several examples of this, as we will see below.
I assert, moreover, that scientists who defend evolutionary dogma in this a priori manner are in fact doing so in a dishonest manner, whether deliberate or inadvertent. They understand very well, or should, that it is the very premise of their reasoning which is being questioned and not the logic which flows from that premise. I emphasize: evolution doubters are not questioning the logic of evolutionists; evolution doubters are questioning the very premise of evolutionary logic. If you assume that evolution has, in fact, occurred, then logic demands that out of place artifacts in “ancient” strata of rock indeed MUST be explained in some manner consistent with evolution. This is what evolutionists mean when they say there has not been even a single example of a topsy-turvy fossil found. These fossils, according to evolutionists, cannot possibly be what they appear to be! After all, we know this because evolution is true!
Evolutionist academicians and scientists, unfortunately, are absolutely committed to this a priori method of scientific investigation and explanation. It is completely circular “logic” we are dealing with here.

 

Michael Cremo

In the world of paleontology, and especially paleoanthropology, there is before Java Man, and there is after Java Man. Java Man (Pithecanthropus erectus, meaning “upright ape-man”) is a dividing point in the history of evolutionary speculation. In the late 19th century and in the early 20th century, for approximately a period of 50 years, the top three most influential “examples” or cases of “evolution” which, more than any others, solidified attitudes and beliefs in the Western world regarding the subject of evolution were 1) “Java Man,” 2) “Piltdown Man” and 3) “Nebraska Man” in chronological order. Java Man, Piltdown Man and Nebraska Man are how we got where we are today, at least as far as the storyline on human origins is concerned. It bears very strong emphasis that two of these three cases were outright fraudulent hoaxes (Piltdown Man and Nebraska Man) and the third (Java Man) an extremely dubious case involving incredible stretches of assumptions regarding the association of bones to one another, and some concealment of relevant evidence on the part of Java Man’s “discoverer,” Eugene Dubois. Cremo comments:

“Most of these fossils [Cremo refers here to human skeletal remains and man-made object “dating” to many millions of years] and artifacts were unearthed before the discovery by Eugene Dubois of Java Man…Java Man was found in Middle Pleistocene deposits generally given an age of 800,000 years. This discovery became a benchmark. Henceforth, scientists would not expect to find fossils or artifacts of anatomically modern humans in deposits of equal or greater age. If they did, they (or someone wiser) concluded that this was impossible and found some way to discredit the find as a mistake, an illusion, or a hoax. Before Java Man, however, reputable nineteenth-century scientists found a number of examples of anatomically modern human skeletal remains in very ancient strata.”—pg. 7, “The Hidden History of the Human Race“, emph. supp.

The newcomer attempting to understand the history of the creation-evolution controversy and the development of evolutionary dogma would be well counseled to start by researching the Java Man case in depth because of its pivotal place in shaping evolutionary doctrine into what it is today, including Cremo’s discussion.

Let us look at a few representative “out of place” artifacts Michael Cremo discusses and the reaction of the evolutionary establishment to these finds. The reader is strongly encouraged to obtain a copy of Cremo’s books as this article will barely scratch the surface. Even minus Cremo’s analysis of the rejected “anomalous” evidence, Cremo’s recounting of the accepted evidence, i.e., Java Man and Beijing Man, and his recounting of the course of the development of evolutionary speculations in the late 19th and early 20th century is worth the price of the book for its own sake.

A 200,000 year old coin unearthed in Illinois

Copper Coin found in Illinois at the 114-125 foot depth "dating" 200,000 - 400,000 years

Copper Coin found in Illinois at the 114-125 foot depth “dating” 200,000 – 400,000 years

One very interesting “out of place” artifact is a copper coin found in Lawn Ridge, Illinois in Marshall County during a well boring in rock strata at a depth of somewhere between 114 – 125 feet, reported by William E. Dubois of the Smithsonian Institution in 1871. Per Cremo’s inquiry to the Illinois State Geological Survey, the age of the deposits at the 114 feet level at that location dates “somewhere between 200,000 and 400,000 years ago.” The coin contained enigmatic figures and inscriptions on both sides in an unknown language. William Dubois concluded that the coin was made in a machine shop, on a rolling mill, cut with shears or a chisel and that the edges were filed down.

 

Evolutionists will, as predictably as night follows day, scream “hoax” or “intrusive deposition from a higher stratum” without any evidence of such being the case. They simply “know” that such explanations must be so because the existence of such an artifact from an unknown civilization, especially in the Americas, conflicts with the “orthodox” doctrine of evolution and its necessary dating schema. The most rational explanation to account for this coin is that the accepted geological dating schema is fundamentally flawed, or that human beings were making copper coins 200,000 – 400,000 years ago in the Americas.

Cremo comments:

“The quasi-coins above suggest the existence of a civilization at least 200,000 years ago in North America. Yet beings intelligent enough to make and use coins (Homo sapiens sapiens) are generally not thought to have lived much earlier than 100,000 years ago. According to standard views, metal coins were first used in Asia Minor during the eighth century B.C.”—pg. 110, “The Hidden History of the Human Race

 

Hueyatlaco and El Horno, Mexico; Sophisticated Stone Tools 250,000 Years Old and the Virginia Steen-McIntyre Case

“In the 1960s, sophisticated stone tools rivaling the best work of Cro-Magnon man [i.e., modern humans] were unearthed…at Hueyatlaco, near Valsequillo, 75 miles southeast of Mexico City. Stone tools of a somewhat cruder nature were found at the nearby site of El Horno. At both the Hueyatlaco and El Horno sites, the stratigraphic location of the implements does not seem to be in doubt…a team of geologists who worked for the U.S. Geological Survey gave them ages of about 250,000 years. This team, working under a grant from the National Science Foundation, consisted of Harold Malde and Virginia Steen-McIntyre, both of the U.S. Geological Survey, and the late Roald Fryxell of Washington State University.
“These geologists said four different dating methods independently yielded unusually great ages for the artifacts found near Valsequillo. The dating methods used were (1) uranium series dating, (2) fission track dating, (3) tephra hydration dating, and (4) study of mineral weathering.
“…(T)he date of about 250,000 years obtained for Hueyatlaco…provoked a great deal of controversy…it would have revolutionized not only New World anthropology but the whole picture of human origins. Human beings capable of making the sophisticated tools found at Hueyatlaco are not thought to have come into existence until about 100,000 years ago in Africa.
“In attempting to get her team’s conclusions published, Virginia Steen-McIntyre experienced many social pressures and obstacles…
“The publication of a paper by Steen-McIntyre and her colleagues on Hueyatlaco was inexplicably held up for years…”—
“On March 30, 1981, Steen-McIntyre wrote to Estella Leopold, the associate editor of Quaternary Research: “The problem as I see it is much bigger than Hueyatlaco. It concerns the manipulation of scientific thought through the suppression of ‘Enigmatic Data,’ data that challenges the prevailing mode of thinking. Hueyatlaco certainly does that!…Our work at Hueyatlaco has been rejected by most archaeologists because it contradicts that theory, period. Their reasoning is circular.”– pg 91-92, “The Hidden History of the Human Race

On page Pg. 93: Cremo comments: “The anomalous findings at Hueyatlaco resulted in personal abuse and professional penalties, including withholding of funds and loss of job, facilities, and reputation for Virginia Steen-McIntyre. Her case opens a rare window into the actual social processes of data suppression in paleoanthropology, processes that involve a great deal of conflict and hurt.”

Job termination and various forms of personal abuse are, unfortunately, very pervasive in academia and scientific research for anyone who dares to challenge Darwinian “orthodoxy.” As Stephen Jay Gould has observed, “Academia is a den of vipers” (pg. 112 , The Panda’s Thumb); and as Dr. Thomas Dwight of Harvard has observed, “The tyranny in the matter of evolution is overwhelming to a degree of which the outsider has no idea.” I think it is fair to say that this is the rule and not the exception. This has been dramatically demonstrated by Ben Stein in his landmark documentary video, “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed,” and by Jerry Bergman in his book and video,Slaughter of the Dissidents,” and in a research publication on the subject by Bergman, documenting very extensive censorship of information on origins.
The “consensus” on evolution in academia and science is maintained, not by reasoned analysis of evidence, but by intimidation and fear which is enforced by systematic personal abuse against Darwin doubters in the form of professional penalties, vicious campaigns of personal vilification, withholding of funds, job termination, censorship, and ignoring and repressing information.

 

 

2.8 billion years old grooved spheres from South Africa

"2.8 Billion" years old South African Sphere

“2.8 Billion” years old South African Sphere

I used the above photograph of a South African grooved sphere as the featured image in Part A of this article. I selected it because of the supposed immense age of the deposit it was found in, 2.8 billion years old! If it is a man-made artifact (and that is certainly the most rational explanation for the grooves), then it completely upsets the entirety of the evolutionary dating schema to which the current academic establishment is committed. The current academic establishment simply cannot accept the most obvious conclusion to be drawn here.
The sphere is one of hundreds of such spheres found by South African miners, but this one is of special interest because of its engravings. The spheres are metallic, perfectly round, very hard and cannot be scratched even by steel. There are three evenly-spaced parallel groves which circle around the equator of the sphere. The most rational explanation of this sphere is that it is a man-made object.
Cremo writes:

 

“Roelf Marx, curator of the museum of Klerksdorp, South Africa, where some of the spheres are housed, said, ‘The spheres are a complete mystery. They look man-made, yet at the time in Earth’s history when they came to rest in this rock no intelligent life existed’.” –pg. 121

 

Responding to Cremo’s inquiries about the spheres, Marx wrote:

 

“They are found in pyrophyllite…a quite soft secondary mineral…formed by sedimentation about 2.8 billion years ago. On the other hand, the globes…are very hard and cannot be scratched even by steel….
“Marx said that A. Bisschoff, a professor of geology at the University of Potchefstroom, told him that the spheres were ‘limonite concretions.’ Limonite is a kind of iron ore. A concretion is a compact, rounded rock mass formed by localized cementation around a nucleus.”—pg. 121

 

In other words, per the evolutionary academic establishment, the spheres, must be formed by natural processes because of their assigned age. It is simply “not possible” that the spheres are man-made because they are found in 2.8 billion year old rock and because evolution is true! The tautology, the circular argument, always reigns supreme in the speculations of evolutionists.
Cremo points out the flaws of the assumptions of this assertion:

 

“One problem with the hypothesis that the objects are limonite concretions concerns their hardness…standard references on minerals state that limonite registers only 4.5 to 5.5 on the Moh’s scale, indicating a relatively low degree of hardness. Furthermore, limonite concretions usually occur in groups, like masses of soap bubbles stick together. They do not, it seems, normally appear isolated and perfectly round, as is the case with the objects in question. Neither do they normally appear with parallel grooves encircling them…Even if it is conceded that the sphere itself is a limonite concretion, one must still account for the three parallel grooves. —pg. 121, emph. supp.

 

If considered in the absence of any presuppositions about the age of the sedimentary rock in which the spheres have been found or of evolutionary premises, the most compelling conclusion by far, considering what we know about limonite concretions, is that the spheres, especially the grooved one, are man-made objects. This seems patently obvious on its face. But the obvious here is simply not permitted.
This article will continue in Part C.

The following two tabs change content below.
Tom Shipley

Tom Shipley

I am a former atheist and evolutionist during my college days; came to faith in Christ at the age of 20; regard my pro-creation activities as part of the work of the kingdom of God; believe that a very tough, strident and unapologetic stance against evolution is called for though I may soften my tone if and when Mark Armitage and David Coppedge, fired for their creationist beliefs, are given their jobs back. Articles copyright Tom Shipley. All Rights Reserved.

Your Commment

Email (will not be published)