800,000-year-old footprints in UK

#1
Scientists find 800,000-year-old footprints in UK Evidence is earliest proof of human life in Northern Europe, oldest prints found outside Africa. February 7, 2014.
http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2014/2/7/scientists-find-800000yearoldfootprintsinuk.html

I find these discoveries very interesting in several ways. One, for furthering knowledge and understanding anthropology. The other, for challenging the academic establishment and dogma. And finally observing the spectacle that the status quo becomes performing frantic and hysterical mental gymnastics attempting to explain away data and facts with belief and then ridicule. Not rational rebuttals.

This find;
The human skull that challenges the Out of Africa theory
http://www.ancient-origins.net/human-origins-science/human-skull-challenges-out-africa-theory-001283
...is still ruthlessly and harshly marginalized and continually buried under nonsense..
 
#2
challenging the academic establishment and dogma. And finally observing the spectacle that the status quo becomes performing frantic and hysterical mental gymnastics attempting to explain away data and facts with belief and then ridicule. Not rational rebuttals.
Ah but rational is built on what is currently held to be true. For instance, that those prints are as old as claimed but were not there a year ago in our timeline would be said to be rational. Yet, though I don't know that about these particular prints, that sort of "not rational" occurrence does take place.
 
#3
Where do you get dogma or ridicule in that article? It looks like most of the people quoted found the results intriguing. And the research paper doesn't make it sound like that the results would be impossible under current ideas.

???

Linda
 
#4
Where do you get dogma or ridicule in that article? It looks like most of the people quoted found the results intriguing. And the research paper doesn't make it sound like that the results would be impossible under current ideas.

???

Linda
Where in my post did I claim there was either in that article?

I thought it was implied it would be "challenging the academic establishment and dogma" as an institution, system etc...

My apology if that was not clear.
 
#5
Where in my post did I claim there was either in that article?
Apologies. When you referred to an interest in observing the spectacle of the status quo, I thought you had found that spectacle somewhere with respect to this research - perhaps in the article you linked. I misunderstood.

I thought it was implied it would be "challenging the academic establishment and dogma" as an institution, system etc...

My apology if that was not clear.
I'm confused because I haven't seen any indication that this does so. The scientists generally seemed intrigued (as is usually the case) by these novel results/findings.

Linda
 
#6
Apologies. When you referred to an interest in observing the spectacle of the status quo, I thought you had found that spectacle somewhere with respect to this research - perhaps in the article you linked. I misunderstood.

I'm confused because I haven't seen any indication that this does so. The scientists generally seemed intrigued (as is usually the case) by these novel results/findings.

Linda
Give the mainstream "skeptics" some time. I feel confident they will not disappoint and vigorously hand-wave at some point at something.

However, there was a second article I posted. That may be a better example.

Would you like more examples?
 
Top