Neolithic artefacts ?

One of the more unsettling aspects of the Ginenthal et al historical revisionism is the possibility that artefacts uncovered by archaeology in the Rhine Valley, for example, may not date to 5000 years BP but might equally be assigned to a post Roman era.


Because of the entrenched belief of biological and geological evolution generally categorised as ‘Uniformitarianism’ and that humanity evolved, over time, from primitive forms to its present form today.

Hence all dating techniques are calibrated on artefacts categorised by the evolutionary presumption, that stone tools were the product of primitive hunters.

We do  not conclude that stone implements might have been created by post-catastrophe civilised humans suddenly left to fend for themselves when all the trappings of civilisation were destroyed.

Globally the earth is dotted with petroglyphs that have recently been interpreted as facsimiles of electric plasma sky phenomena and provisionally dated to 10,000 years BP.

I wonder if these petroglyphs might be younger and the record left by the survivors of a previous global catastrophe?

The obstacle is the belief of creation and its corollary Darwinian evolution; Darwinian evolution is essentially creationism removed to the past, and is as problematical as the recent one that remains in vogue with many of the devout.

This seems to be a new direction of research presenting itself.

About Louis Hissink

Retired diamond exploration geologist. I spent my professional life looking for mineral deposits, found some, and also located a number of kimberlites in NSW and Western Australia. Exploration geology is the closest one can get to practicing the scientific method, mineral exploration always being concerned with finding anomalous geophysical or geochemical data, framing a model and explanation for the anomaly and then testing it with drilling or excavation. All scientific theories are ultimately false since they invariably involved explaining something with incomplete extant knowledge. Since no one is omniscient or knows everything, so too scientific theories which are solely limited to existing knowledge. Because the future always yields new data, scientific theories must change to be compatible with the new data. Thus a true scientist is never in love with any particular theory, always knowing that when the facts change, so too must he/she change their minds.
This entry was posted in Hare-brained theories, History and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s