Talk:Castenedolo, Olmo, and Calaveras skulls were found in Pliocene strata (Talk.Origins)

I mean no disresprect, but this article is horribly wrong - it'll require a complete re-write, and complete reversal of opinion. This was obviously written without knowledge of the skulls in question, nor of the creationist literature. It is true several uninformed creationists and creation groups (including AIG and CMI) have rejected the Calaveras skull, but sadly this is uninformed. See the 1996 CRSQ article by Ed Lain for a fairly exhaustive overview of the evidence with the Calaveras skull - and bear in mind that the CRSQ article did not go into exhaustive detail about the hundreds of human artifacts found in the same layer, as well as other skull fragments from human skulls. Even saying the Calaveras skull was faked (Lain demonstrated quite conclusively this was false), you still have hundreds of human artifacts in the same layer, some of which were discovered before the Calaveras skull, and even before the advent of evolution.

So I bring this up for discussion because while I'd be willing to re-write the article, I'm asking first of all how the re-write will be received (or rejected?), and how should it be re-written?

So what say ye all?

Ian

Addendum: Found this article on creationwiki, which acknowledges Lain's article: http://creationwiki.org/Calaveras_skull

I don't know why that page didn't show up in Google, but this one (Castenedolo, Olmo, and Calaveras skulls were found in Pliocene strata (Talk.Origins)) did. Further to this, a few anti-creationist websites are claiming that creationwiki also agrees that the calaveras was a fake, citing the present page, and not the page devoted to the Calaveras skull. So we have a contradiction here on the creationwiki. Thoughts on what should be done about it? Ian


 * I don't know enough about it to weigh-in on the find. But the main article Calaveras skull could definitely use much expansion, so feel free to take that on - and then update the T.O. article with an excerpt.


 * It is however, important to represent the creationist position as it currently stands with as much objectivity as possible. If there are reservations about the find from CMI/AiG, these must also be detailed or preserved.


 * I updated the CRSQ link with a full version I found on a different website, and formatted the article for the new "ref" system. Take note of how that system works (http://creationwiki.org/Help:Footnote) and try to source everything as well as possible.

--Ashcraft - (talk) 06:42, 24 August 2010 (PDT)