|
|
Paul Crowley wrote:
> "Lee Olsen" <paleocity@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:1147888781.715126.122750@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> > > I was merely pointing out that hominids
> > > have manually ground hand-axes. The
> > > 'grinding' that takes place naturally on
> > > beaches would be far more severe.
> >
> > Well, if there were a substantial number of these Atlantians making
> > handaxes by the billions now covered by the ocean, then the axes would
> > be washing up on the beaches in all stages of being ground up, some
> > half ground, some quarter ground and so on. Are you so ignorant that
> > you think all the worlds beaches exist in a single stage of
> > development, that every rock on them has been turned to dust quickly?
>
> It seems that you have never seen a beach.
> (PA people always give the impression of
> coming from another planet.) If you ever do
> visit one, you will notice that most stones of
> any size are smooth and round.
You have presented zero evidence on how long this process takes, so you
have no argument (except a circular one) until you do.
Any sharp
> edges get rubbed off quickly. A hand-axe left
> on a beach would not be recognisable after a
> couple of days. If you ever do spend a couple
> of days on this planet, find a beach and do the
> experiment.
Why are you lying and changing the argument?
Crowley: "Put them on a pebble beach and they'd
be ground (and broken) to dust within a
few years (or even months)."
Nobody said sharp edges can't get dulled on a beach, that wasn't the
argument, either by me or you. Other than losing the argument, why are
you lying?
(Btw, you'd have to make the
> 'hand-axe' radio-active, or something, to be
> able to find it again -- waves can move stones
> large distances and bury them deep.)
Yep, when they get buried deep, waves can no longer roll them and the
process of grinding them to dust stops----end of story.
>
> > That no rocks exist on beaches that are of a softer material than
> > flint? Why do you continue to embarrass yourself like this?
>
> It's quite clear that the information you were
> sent about this planet was hopelessly distorted.
What is there to distort? You said ground to dusts in a few months,
which is absolute stupidity. Where is your evidence? I know, Crowley
said so......
> Your problems come from applying theoretical
> 'rules' without ever seeing the practical results.
> While flint is indeed hard, and other rocks are
> softer, flint rocks lose their sharp edges very
> quickly in the processes of massive abrasion.
Losing a sharp edge is not the same thing as massive abrasion. Only a
total fool would confuse the two, otherwise there would never be rocks
older than a few months on any beach, they all would be dust.
> That may seem to be contrary to "theory" (as
> you have studied it from the tapes), but it is the
> case, as all humans who have seen a beach will
> be able to confirm.
I have given six examples where 100,000 year-old-plus artifacts have
not been destroyed by the sea. You still remain locked on Zero. Where
is your data to prove an ax will turn to dust in a few months? You
don't need to give an overwhelming 6 cases, just one will do. Please
do not reply with: "because I said so" and make yourself look even more
foolish than you already have.
>
> > > Seashores move rapidly (as it seems you don't
> > > realise). I'm close to the sea at the moment
> > > (as are a high proportion of modern humans).
> > > 15 kya it would have been about 300 miles
> > > away from here. Human fossils from that era
> > > are NOT located around here (one reason
> > > being the half mile of ice covering the ground)
> > > but close to those coasts. The 'sea-shore'
> > > pattern of those fossils would -- if they still
> > > existed -- be deep under the sea.
> > >
> > > It is quite interesting how such basic facts
> > > have been well 'known' for decades -- but have
> > > not been absorbed IN ANY WAY by standard
> > > PA. Your profound ignorance of all relevant
> > > issues is characteristic of the entire "science".
> >
> > http://www.proctormuseum.us/Texas/McFadden-Beach/TRIP-3April2004.htm
> > It is quite interesting how evidence has absolutely no impact on you,
> > but then again, evidence would require something more than your
> > brain-dead imagination to produce, so you are quite happy to live
> > without it in your imaginary world.
>
> Isn't it curious that the websites you quote
> always contradict the point that you are trying
> to make? You have not yet mastered earth
> languages nor earth logic. That site states:
>
> " . . . This is an alluvial area from prehistoric times. That means that
> rivers washed debris down from the more recent Pleistocene epoch
> and on into the present, Holocene epoch. There are some Indian artifacts.
> Texas Highways Magazine and other sources credit McFadden Beach
> with having had more Clovis Points . . "
What part of Clovis points (older than 10,000 years) washing around on
an ocean beach are you to stupid to understand? They did not turn to
dust in a few months.
>
> > > > http://www.archaeology.org/online/news/whale.html
> > > > "....together with some 60 Olduvaian choppers and flakes. The whale
> > > > measured 18 feet long and was probably a baleen, according to Claude
> > > > Guérin of Lyon's Université. The site is still littered with the
> > > > shells, sharks' teeth, and sea urchins of the ancient shore, now two
> > > > miles distant and 300 feet above the sea."
> > > >
> > > > Dust in months, right?
> > >
> > > IF the bones of every whale that died on a
> > > beach remained undamaged, we'd have paleo-
> > > coastlines marked by huge piles of them,
> > > thousands of feet high, and kilometres wide.
> > >
> > > It is astonishing that you regard the survival
> > > of the bones of a single whale as remarkable.
> >
> > Because it is one single example more than you have provided.
>
> So, according to you, the survival of this one
> whale (left at the maximum reach of the sea
> since it was deposited) proves that whale
> bones are never ground down to dust on
> normal beaches?
...asks the mind of a 4-year-old.
Please educate yourself, this is a science forum.
http://www.sdnhm.org/research/paleontology/sdshoreline.html
>
> > Because it is one single example more than you have provided.
> > You haven't progressed passed the number zero yet. Zero from
> > you is not astonishing at all, it is to be expected. Science is about
> > evidence and tests-----something you lost Atlantis people need
> > not trouble yourselves with.
>
> Ah, I now see what you want -- which is to
> find all the grains of sand that made up one
> particular hand-axe of about a million years
> ago, and re-assemble them, proving that they
> were all part of that axe (and no other). Of
> course, you'd want at least 100 hand-axes
> re-assembled in this manner. OK, ok. I'll get
> right to it. And while I'm at it I'll find all the
> parts of the LCA of chimps and hominids and
> re-assemble them as well.
>
> Isn't it fun to do science with someone who
> really understands both the theory and the
> practice?
It would be more fun if you were to present something besides
lip-service and circular arguments to demonstrate your claims are worth
a hypothesis.
>
> > You seem totally oblivious to the fact that there is
> > nearly a million year gap between the first savanna tools and the tools
> > first found on a beach. I'm sure your lost Atlanis theory will cover
> > the gap nicely.
>
> And, in your mind, this proves that no hominid
> ever visited such a beach up to then? Whereas
> they had been living on the savanna for millions
> of years before that?
Science is about data, you are confusing evidence with imagination.
>
> Where do stone tools on a beach come from?
And a million and a half years after that human debris ended up on the
moon doesn't mean hominds were always on the moon. By your way of
thinking, because we find debris there after 1960 it must have been
there a million and a half years ago.
> As the website you quote tells you -- they are
> washed down with alluvial soils. They are then
> quickly destroyed by wave-action. You have
> not got the faintest notion of the normal
> processes of weathering.
If they were quickley destroyed, they wouldn't be finding them on the
beaches.
I gave 6 examples of raised beaches. The Clovis points are still Clovis
points. The Olduwan flakes are still easly recognizeable as Olduwan.
Hoxne handaxes are still easily recognizable. Yet if you imagine
something, that then becomes fact that trumps on-the-ground evidence.
>
> There could have been a population of 100,000
> living at sea-level (if not much on the beach).
> They would have left no fossils, since all would
> have been destroyed by wave-action, etc., as
> sea-levels rose and fell. A tiny number of the
> hominids made it up to the savanna -- on
> forced treks as 'refugees' (perhaps once every
> three generations). They would have left stone
> tools there, to be found a few million years
> later by PA dopes.
There could have been????? There could have been beings from Andromeda
there also, we just haven't found the flying saucer yet.....
Wrong, away from the beach zone bones would be just as likely to
fossilize (and did) as in the highland sites. You still have about a 1
million year gap that isn't going to go away without hard evidence.
http://www.sdnhm.org/research/paleontology/sdshoreline.html
Of course you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him
drink....
>
> > > It is astonishing that you regard the survival
> > > of a tiny number -- washed up above the
> > > level of last high tide at that location -- as
> > > remarkable.
> >
> > It is not astonishing at all that you can't come up with one example of
> > a half-ground away axe on a beach somewhere around 2 1/2 mya.
>
> Yep, you have clearly never seen a beach
> (not on this planet, anyway). Or perhaps,
> when you did, your human guides forgot to
> tell you about tides and storms, and how
> beaches are created.
You must mean the beach with the billion ground up axes on it. Well no,
I guess I haven't seen to that one yet, where did you say it was?
>
> On your next visit to this planet, find a coast-
> line and take look at the enormous difference
> between the land above the water and that
> beneath it. Find a fossil site close the sea, and
> imagine what would happen if eustatic sea-
> levels were to rise to cover it to a depth of (say)
> 10 feet or 20 feet. You will be very surprised.
On your next visit to the moon, imagine that flag being there a million
and a half years ago.
>
> <snip brain-dead rantings>
>
> Simple questions that you can't answer do
> not constitute "brain-dead rantings". Here
> they are again:
Your irrelevant questions do not constitute evidence to support your
case, only with contrary evidence of your own can you falsify the
established savanna evidence. Negative arguments, from brain-dead
clowns, belong on UFO forums.
>
> What exactly is your 'argument'?
Evidence....try it sometime.
a), b), c), d), will not be evidence of 100,000 people living at
sea-level no matter how they are answered, got it?
<snip>
|
|