|
|
Paul Crowley wrote:
> "Lee Olsen" <paleocity@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:1148170577.534213.222510@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> > > (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.
>
> God help us.
God needs to help you because science and evidence will not.
You really have no idea at all.
> The next large storm will rake them up again.
BS, you idiot, you just told us "buried deep". You did not understand
the URL I gave. The stratified layers of ancient beaches would not
exists if everything were constantly churned up to bed rock with each
large storm.
>
> > > > 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?
>
> Go to any beach.
Go to the beaches where all the handaxes were found.
Do you also want evidence
> that rain is wet?
Evidence has no impact on your brain-dead brain does it?
>
> > > 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.
>
> Now you are beginning to get somewhere.
> Perhaps you've studied some film material
> coming from planet earth. Us earthlings are
> commonly astonished when we re-visit a
> beach after (say) 10 years to see the extent
> of the erosion.
What you are saying is not evidence, it it just Crowley saying it and
that is not science.
Often we see the loss of
> thousands of cubic metres. The 'rate of
> turnover' of the rocks on the beach could
> easily be calculated. Maybe it's 10 times a
> year. In any case, over geological time, it's
> absurdly fast . . . which is the point that
> I'm trying to convey to you.
You have made no point. Imagination is not evidence. The 10,000+
year-old Clovis points prove it takes something longer than that to
erode one beyond recognition. 10,000 years is longer than two months,
is it not?
>
> I could show you plenty of coastal erosion
> around here: remains of old roads and railway
> tracks (around 100 years old) that have long
> been falling into the sea. On many beaches
> the rocks ARE never older than a few months.
> On nearly all beaches they are never older
> than a few years.
Prove it. You are nothing more than a liar. If you had the evidence to
support your claims you would cite it.
Another question you are trying to lie your way out of. Why are you
ASSuming the examples I gave were on a rocky beach? What was the rate
of errosion on the African beaches where the axes were found? And if
they were on rocky beaches, it would prove the axes were there intact
long enough for the beach to rise out of harms way, something longer
than 10,000 years.
>
> > > 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.
>
> That is because they have been raised well
> above sea-level. How come you think that
> this is evidence for anything?
Because the time it took to raise the beach was obviousy longer than a
few months, proving you are wrong, or else the axes wouldn't be there.
>
> > > " . . . 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.
>
> There are numerous beach fossil sites in these
> islands, where the fossils DO (or will) turn to dust
> within a few months, if they are not removed from
> the beach. They fall out of the cliff and are
> destroyed if not quickly found and removed.
Can't you read? I said Clovis, not fossils, not cliffs. Clovis/sand
beach. Answer the question.
>
> > Please educate yourself, this is a science forum.
> > http://www.sdnhm.org/research/paleontology/sdshoreline.html
>
> What is your point?
There is no point, there is evidence. Evidence is something you don't
have. You seem to have no shortage of lip service and imagination
however.
When there is uplift,
> (as is generally the case on the eastern edge
> of the Pacific, old beaches are often preserved.
Yes, I cited two examples of such, did you forget? The axes are still
there, you can't make them go away. Two months indeed.....
>
> > > > 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.
>
> Science is about the INTERPRETATION of
> data.
Yes, and you don't have any data, you have a million year lack of data.
You don't have to see something to
> know it exists. Most astronomers believe in
> 'dark matter' while admitting to not having a
> clue as to what it is. Science is also about
> imagination -- how did Einstein come to his
> concept of General Relativity? How did
> Newton begin to think about gravity?
There is a big difference, they imagined it and went out and gathered
the data to prove it, you have not.
>
> Of course, imagination is ruled out for all
> PA types. They have gone through some
> kind of "brain-cleansing" operation.
You are confusing imagining something, with the proof of something. Had
Einstien imagined a 100,000 lowland population and never found evidence
of one, he would have remained just as big a clown as you are today
with your imagination/no evidence hypothesis. They imagined, but they
also did the tests. To compare their data with your imagination is an
insult to science.
So sorry, the handaxes remain evidence, they should have been gone in
two months according to your imagination hypothesis. Of course if you
could prove the beach raised in less than two months, you would have an
argument. Well??????????
>
> > > 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.
>
> They ARE quickly destroyed (check with
> anyone who regularly prospects for any kinds
> of fossils on beaches). They can be found
> because they exist in HUGE numbers in
> alluvial soils (where those soils have remained
> above sea-level since the items were deposited).
> They are washed down regularly in rivers or
> fall from sea-eroded cliffs.
The Clovis points on McFadden Beach say you are a clown. By the way,
they have tried scuba diving for the source of these points with no
luck. Prove they have been on the beach less than two months.....
>
> > I gave 6 examples of raised beaches.
>
> Apparently you intended them as proof that
> beaches never get eroded -- since it is clear
> that you have never seen a beach on this
> planet.
Cite were I said beaches never get eroded. When you get so desperate
that you have to put words into my mouth, you have proven your
arguement is lost (along with being dishonest).
>
> > The Clovis points are still Clovis points. The Olduwan flakes are
> > still easly recognizeable as Olduwan. Hoxne handaxes are still
> > easily recognizable.
>
> Of course -- if they were not on a beach for more
> than a few days nor ground up by the waves.
> But you are missing the fact that numerous flakes
> of stone and grains of sand were once such things
> and are no longer recognisable.
Here is the end of your lying, lunatic argument...
Question for you, how long does it take to form a concretion?
Now, are you honest enough to admit you were wrong? The sad thing is,
I'll bet you don't even know what I'm talking about.
>
> > > 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.....
>
> It will, someday, be a crucial task of PA teams
> (in some long distant generation) to estimate
> FROM THE DATA how many such items
> existed in the ground in a variety of hominid
> habitats before they were destroyed by wave
> erosion. It is not an impossible task, even if
> the estimates may have a large margins of
> error.
You are assuming what you are trying to demonstrate, ahhh, I think they
call that circular reasoning on your part.
>
>
> > > 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.
>
> It seems that your home planet is like our
> moon -- geologically inactive. Your
> assumption that our planet is similar to
> yours is quite false. There is constant
> movement here -- and away from volcanoes
> and mid-ocean ridges, that activity is most
> noticeable on beaches.
Lip service is not evidence.
Concretions do not form in two months, think about it before you
embarrass yourself further.
>
> > > 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.
>
> If the only places you can find (say) lost
> coins is under street lamps, do you
> conclude that they can only exist under
> street lamps? Evidence has to be
> interpreted. But that requires intelligence.
> In your case, forget it.
The hand axes have already been found, and street lights were not
needed. Maybe if the Glomar Explorer had street lights onboard you
could find evidence of your 100,000 strong Atlantis population.
>
> > > What exactly is your 'argument'?
> > > a) That sea-levels have always been the same
> > > as they are now?
> > > b) That when sea-levels rise and fall, they do
> > > so in a mysteriously gentle manner? That
> > > waves and storms cease during such times?
> > > c) That the destructive effects that we can see
> > > on every beach are illusory?
> > > d) That since you have never thought of this
> > > before, nor read about it in any textbook or
> > > PA 'science' journal, then it can't possibly
> > > be true?
>
> > a), b), c), d), will not be evidence of 100,000 people living at
> > sea-level no matter how they are answered, got it?
>
> Attempts at honest answers will be a start.
> Given the extreme and frequent destruction
> of the ground in almost all paleo-hominid
> habitats, evidence in the form PA people
> have come to expect it will be hard to find.
> But there is some. A few sites escaped
> that destruction -- usually as the result of
> geological uplift. An evaluation of those
> sites (as a whole) should be useful --
> provided they are seen as representative
> of tens of thousands of others wiped out
> during the past 5 Myr.
If that is the case, clown, the same argument applies equally to the
savanna. Homo sapiens were on the savanna for the last 5.5 myr, we just
haven't found the evidence for them there yet. The evidence is buried
deeper than the exposed upland-savanna errosional areas. Prove me
wrong.......
>
> Of course, a 'savanna existence' is a complete
> nonsense for hominids. It's feasible only for
> species that eat grass, and those that eat
> them in turn. Hominids are in neither
> category.
Trying to change the subject? No evidnce on the beach, so now you drift
off into even more of your stupidity?
>
> It is no surprise that PA has made zero
> progress since Darwin, given that 'the
> savanna' has been the prevailing paradigm.
> And, of course, a discipline cannot stand still.
> If it cannot go forward, it will go backward.
> The savanna dead-end, in which it drove
> itself, made the rapid decline since Darwin
> inevitable.
Tools are found on the savanna from 2.6 mya until handaxes were
invented. It is estimated that 10% of the Mio/Pleistocene beaches
still remain. Then 10% of the number of tools found on the savanna
should be found on beaches during that period (or even less would prove
at least they were there). If you argue they haven't found them yet
(negative argument), then you have to answer why they are found after
handaxes show up. IOW, if they are found on beaches after 1.5 my, there
is no reason they should not have found at least a few tools before
that. You shot down your own argument when you said sea level. Not all
lowland, sea level sites were beaches. This means that even more than
the estimated 90% land now covered by the sea was exposed for hominid
use and tool deposits.
You have a million-year gap for no explainable reason.
What part of ZERO are you too stupid to understand?
|
|