Who Discovered America?

[blm]

You know I've been reading some interesting material pertaining to this and it amazes me how we refuse to accept hard evidence and therfore change curriculums. Damn conservatives. Hell we celebrate Columbus day and he didn't discover anything except Native Americans already settled.

It appears based on archaeological evidence that Asians migrated to the Americas over the Bering Straight. Due to glaciers, the water level receeded and created a land bridge thus allowing hunter-gatherers to migrate and follow the animals. This dates back nearly 13,000 years (the Clovis people).

Interesting stuff, eh?

[Shibby]

From what I've read, "The Americas" was discovered/named by Amerigo Vespuci (sp)

[Turbo3000]

I like the Bering Straight theory. I just know it wasn't Vespuci, Columbus or any of those guys, they found land that was already inhibited.

[Stonecold54]

I think the "Columbus" discovering america is more in the philisophical sense and not so much the actual physical discovery...he brought the first appearance of a civilized society to the region if you want to call back then "civilized"...yes there were people that were here before us and there were people here before the native americans were here.

[blm]

Originally posted by Shibby
From what I've read, "The Americas" was discovered/named by Amerigo Vespuci (sp)

Another common misconception. In the past those explorers were credited for it. However, modern dating systems of archaeological evidence show that it was inhabited long before they arrived to already find indigenous people there.

That is the problem with conservatives in office too. They are creationists and not eveolutionists. So they don't "believe" in theories that have been supported by true evidence and they won't change curriculums in schools.

[blm]

Originally posted by stonecold54
yes there were people that were here before us and there were people here before the native americans were here.

On earth yes, not the Americas. At least none that have been discovered thus far.

[blm]

People (Clovis man) expanded from Asia to N. America (hence becoming native americans..new label) by the Bering Straight. They developed their own cultures and complex societies (Mayans, Incas, Aztecs..etc..). However, that was destroyed in the last 500 yrs by modern European societies.

[Stonecold54]

Originally posted by blm
On earth yes, not the Americas. At least none that have been discovered thus far.

no I read an article that had evidence of a race that predated the "native" americans on this continent

[blm]

Originally posted by stonecold54
no I read an article that had evidence of a race that predated the "native" americans on this continent

I have read recently that they are trying to prove that there was a pre-Clovis man existed here, but they don't have significant evidence to support their theory.

[Stonecold54]

Originally posted by blm
I have read recently that they are trying to prove that there was a pre-Clovis man existed here, but they don't have significant evidence to support their theory.

yeah I can't remember where I saw it or read it.

[BBAddict]

Originally posted by blm
That is the problem with conservatives in office too. They are creationists and not eveolutionists. So they don't "believe" in theories that have been supported by true evidence and they won't change curriculums in schools.

First of all, the curriculums in school teach much more evolutionary "science" than creation "science". Secondly, neither theory of the origin of the universe and man can be scientifically proven because neither can be reproduced or observed. Both creation and evolution theories can provide substantial "evidence" that they are true, but after a rather exhaustive study, I have concluded that I will never know for sure. Therefore, I think both sides should be presented in schools. However, creation is very poorly represented currently in public schools.

[blm]

Originally posted by BBAddict
First of all, the curriculums in school teach much more evolutionary "science" than creation "science". Secondly, neither theory of the origin of the universe and man can be scientifically proven because neither can be reproduced or observed. Both creation and evolution theories can provide substantial "evidence" that they are true, but after a rather exhaustive study, I have concluded that I will never know for sure. Therefore, I think both sides should be presented in schools. However, creation is very poorly represented currently in public schools.

What can be can be proven about creationism? Noahs Ark never existed. Creationism is a joke. I never said that they don't teach either oneof them. I said they won't change curriculums and that is why kids still believe things like "Columbus discovered America."

[blm]

Originally posted by stonecold54
yeah I can't remember where I saw it or read it.

Yeah they are actually trying to find more evidence to date Asians arriving 20, 000 yrs ago. They have found artifacts in Chile leading them to believe this.

[BBAddict]

Originally posted by blm
What can be can be proven about creationism? Noahs Ark never existed. Creationism is a joke. I never said that they don't teach either oneof them. I said they won't change curriculums and that is why kids still believe things like "Columbus discovered America."

What can be proven about macroevolution? Clearly microevolution exists but there is no irrefutable proof of a single case of macroevolution. In fact there are examples of animals that could not have evolved through a series of "fortunate" mutations because some of their functions that support their life rely on several things working together that without any one of them would have killed any organism that did not have all those mechanisms.
As I said, "neither theory of the origin of the universe and man can be scientifically proven because neither can be reproduced or observed." Therefore, I can not prove creationism, but nobody can prove evolution either. That is why they are both out of place in a "science" class.

[blm]

Well I will have to politely disagree with you because there are certain aspects of evolution that can be reproduced, tested, and scientifically proven. Claims from the bible as far as I know can't. I think they should both be taught in schools. However, they need to teach students what scientific theory is before they tackle that. Theories change and so should curriculums. Knowledge is critical in order to make a real conclusion.

"Antievolutionists argue that there has been no proof of macroevolutionary processes. However, synthesists claim that the same processes that cause within-species changes of the frequencies of alleles can be extrapolated to between species changes, so this argument fails unless some mechanism for preventing microevolution causing macroevolution is discovered. Since every step of the process has been demonstrated in genetics and the rest of biology, the argument against macroevolution fails."