On Aug 17, 10:38 am, bo...@xxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
We will now look at evidences of early man that conflict with
evolutionary theory:

To begin with, let us examine two skeletal finds of REAL "ancient
mankind"! Both are sensational, but neither will ever be mentioned in
a textbook for reasons to be explained below.

GUADELOUPE WOMAN-Well, you say, I've never heard of this one." No,
because it is never discussed by the evolutionists.

It is a well-authenticated discovery which has been in the British
Museum for over half a century. In 1812, on the coast of the French
Caribbean island of Guadeloupe, a fully human skeleton was found,
complete in every respect except for the feet and head. It belonged to
a woman about 5 foot 2 inches [15.54 dm] tall.

What makes it of great significance is the fact that this skeleton was
found inside extremely hard, very old limestone, which was part of a
formation more than a mile [1.609 km] in length! Modern geological
dating places this formation at 28 million years old-which is 25
million years before modern man is supposed to have first appeared on

Since such a date for a regular person does not fit evolutionary
theory, you will not find "Guadeloupe Woman" mentioned in the Hominid
textbooks. To do so would be to disprove evolutionary dating of rock

When the two-ton limestone block, containing Guadeloupe Woman, was
first put on exhibit in the British Museum in 1812, it was displayed
as a proof of the Genesis Flood. But that was 20 years before Lyell
and nearly 50 years before Darwin. In 1881, the exhibit was quietly
taken down to the basement and hidden there.

CALAVERAS SKULL-In 1876, 130 feet [39.6 dm] below ground, "Calaveras
Skull" was found in the gold-bearing gravels of the Sierra Nevada
Mountains of California. The skull was completely mineralized, was
authenticated by a physician as equivalent to a modern man, and
certified by an evolutionist (*J.D. Whitney, chief of the California
Geological Survey), as having been found in Pliocene stratum. That
would mean that this person lived "over 2 million years ago,"-thus
disproving evolutionary theories regarding both rock strata and the
dating of ancient man. Literally dozens of stone mortars, bowls, and
other man-made artifacts were found near this skull.

*Dr. W.H. Holmes, who investigated the Calaveras skull, presented his
results to the Smithsonian Institute in 1899:

"To suppose that man could have remained unchanged physically,
mentally, socially, industrially and aesthetically for a million
years, roughly speaking (and all this is implied by the evidence
furnished), seems in the present state of our knowledge hardly less
than a miracle! It is equally difficult to believe that so many men
should have been mistaken as to what they saw and found."-*W.H.
Holmes, quoted in H. Enoch, Evolution or Creation (1966), pp. 124-125.

THE CASTINEDOLO SKULL-For many years, the oldest skulls of man known
to exist have been those found at Calaveras, in California, and the
perfectly human skull in Castinedolo, Italy. *Arthur Keith, one of the
group that announced Piltdown Man to the world, said this:

"As the student of prehistoric man reads and studies the records of
the Castinedolo finds, a feeling of incredulity is raised within him.
He cannot reflect the discovery as false without doing injury to his
sense of truth, and he cannot accept it as a fact without altering his
accepted beliefs (i.e. his belief in the evolution of man). It is
clear that we cannot pass Castinedolo by in silence: all the problems
relating to the origin and antiquity of modern man focus themselves
round it."-*Sir Arthur Keith, The Antiquity of Man, p. 43.

THE MOAB SKELETONS-Two skeletons were found in Cretaceous rock that
supposedly dates back to 100 million years in the past.

Moab, Utah is located in eastern Utah on the Colorado River, close to
the Colorado border. The Big Indian Copper Mine had been digging into
this rock for several years, when the quality of ore became too poor
to continue excavation. Work was stopped about 15 feet [45.7 dm] below
the surface of the hill. Mr. Lin Ottinger, a friend of the mine
superintendent, received permission to dig for artifacts and azurite
specimens. Accompanied by friends from Ohio, he dug and found a tooth
and bone fragments, all obviously from human beings. Tracing them to
their source, he uncovered one complete skeleton. At this, he stopped
and notified W. Lee Stokes, head of the geology department of the
University of Utah, who sent the university anthropologist, J.P.
Marwitt, to investigate.

Working with Ottinger, Marwitt found a second skeleton. The bones were
in place where they had been buried, undisturbed, and still
articulated (joined together naturally)-indicating no pronounced earth
movement. They were also green from the malachite (copper carbonate)
in the surrounding sandstone.

These two skeletons were definitely Homo sapiens, and definitely
ancient. They were found in Cretaceious strata (supposedly 70-135
million years ago). The bodies were obviously buried at the time of
the emplacement of the sandstone rock, which itself had been
completely undisturbed prior to uncovering the skeletons.

"Black bits of chalococite, a primary type of copper ore, are still in
place [on the skeletons when found]. Chemical alteration changes this
to blue azurite or green malachite, both carbonated minerals formed in
the near surface or oxidized areas of the earth's crust. This
diagenesis takes time."-Clifford L. Burdick, "Discovery of Human
Skeletons in Cretaceous Formation" in Creation Research Society
Quarterly, September 1973, p. 110.

The bones, clearly ancient, were then tested for age, and found to be
only several thousands years old:

"University of Arizona personnel performed the Micro K Jell Dahl or
nitrogen retention test on the bones, and found them comparatively
recent in origin, that is well within Biblical time limits."-Ibid.

Additional details of this find will be found in the Burdick article,
quoted above.

I did a Google on skeleton and "Guadeloupe Woman" and got three pages
of hits. They all read the same. As far as I could tell, none of the
websites has a photo or even an eye-witness account of Guadeloupe
Woman, nor the person that found the bones. Strange aint it.

The real mystery about her is why there's no citation to a newspaper
account of the skeleton being exhibited at the British museum. I can
see the vast international atheist conspiracy (that does not exist)
hiding the skeleton in the vast caverns of the BM basements, but I
can't fantom their removing every newspaper in London that ran the



Relevant Pages