Paul Crowley wrote:
> "Lee Olsen" <paleocity@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> >> > Wrong, or there wouldn't be fossils other than your ground up flint
> >> > points found on the ocean bottoms. To grind up a hand axe by such a
> >> > process would take a longer period of time than hominids have been on
> >> > this planet.
> >> Hand axes were produced by grinding,
> >> and at an economical rate by hominids.
> >> Put them on a pebble beach and they'd
> >> be ground (and broken) to dust within a
> >> few years (or even months).
> > Where is your evidence that the whale and the other five examples I
> > gave (as opposed to your zero examples) were deposited on a pebble
> > beach?
> The examples you gave (such as the whale)
> were of exceptions so rare that they illustrate
> the rule. 99.9999% of beached whale carcases
> are destroyed -- something everyone knows,
> but you are too dishonest to admit.
You did not answer the question, can't you read or are you just
Where is your evidence that the whale and the other five examples I
gave (as opposed to your zero examples) were deposited on a pebble
> only ones that can survive are those landed
> under 'geologically freakish' conditions -- at the
> peak of a long-term rise in eustatic sea-levels,
> just before they fall.
Because you say so? How long does it take concretions to form?
> > All beaches now have pebbles on them according to you? Are you
> > really that ignorant?
> Again, it is your ignorance that is demonstrated.
All beaches now have pebbles on them according to you? Are you really
> The sea is a giant sifting mechanism, and it is no
> accident that sand finishes up on sand beaches
> and pebbles on pebble beaches.
(In fact, on
> long pebble beaches -- like that of Chesil Bank in
> Dorset, England -- you get the large stones at one
> end, and the small ones at the other..) The notion
> that a hand-axe left on ANY kind of beach would
> remain in the same location or condition for more
> than a few months -- or remain recognisable as a
> hand-axe for more than a few weeks -- could only
> be held by a someone as ignorant as a PA
> academic; in other words, someone who is,
> almost by definition, profoundly ignorant of
> every aspect of every science.
Answer the question, what makes you think the bones and axes were found
on a beach with round rocks? Why do you keep babbling about rocks?
Prove flint tools would get ground up on a sand beach in less then two
months and don't change the subject.
> >> > <snip rest of UFO argument>
> >> Who do you think you are fooling?
> >> Like all who pretend to PA expertise,
> >> you are a total waste of space -- and
> >> thoroughly dishonest. You cannot
> >> deal with the simplest questions.
> > This is a science forum, it clearly states that in the title. If
> > science is so stressful for you to deal with, why aren't you over at
> > the UFO forum? There, all you have to do is think something exists and
> > poof, it magically becomes real and proven evidence for an argument.
> > Unlike your circular arguments here, where you keep repeating yourself,
> > I have presented data that at least some axes older than
> > 100 k years occur on raised beaches and certainly didn't get turned to
> > dust in that amount of time, let alone in a few months.
> When a beach gets 'raised', it is no longer a
> beach. There are numerous 'raised beaches'
> in mountains (such as the Andes, or the
> Himalayas) at heights of 10,000 feet or more.
> The presence on some of the more recent
> (such as that in Nambibia with the whale, and
> that in Eritrea) of hand-axes is solid evidence
> that beaches were a hominid habitat of major
Yes, a million years after they were discovered on the savanna. How
many times do you have to be told that? I'll guess it will take at
least 50 more times for someone as dense as you. Don't bother repeating
your circular argument about they haven't been found yet, because you
will just hear in return that they also haven't been found earlier on
the savanna because they haven't been found yet. How do you like
dealing with negative arguments?
> > If however,
> > they existed in the billions in these once sea-level areas, then a
> > seaside pattern should exist.
> This is a statement that reveals a profound
> ignorance of elementary geography and
> geological history. While you are not to be
> personally blamed for this -- in that this level
> of ignorance is standard throughout all of PA.
> It is present in all PA textbooks and journal
> articles. Nevertheless, it is still shameful and
Your saying so does not make it so. In all these posts you have
presented nothing more than lip service, imagination, and negative
arguments. Evidence means nothing to a UFO-argument freak. You have a
one million year gap. Then suddenly you don't on the same beaches.
Also, you completely forgot about the fact that not all sea level or
near sea level ground was under water. You have given no reason
what-so-ever why sites should not exist in these areas just as well as
on the savannas.
> >> Here's another chance:
> > The reason you are forced to ask nonsensical questions is because you
> > do not have any evidence of your own,
> There is nothing nonsensical about these
> questions. What is remarkable is your
> inability to answer them.
How long does it take to form a concretion?
> 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?
> > it all exists in your
> > imagination. I can't refute your negative evidence because that is not
> > how science works. The burden is on you to produce the counter evidence
> > and you have not produced anything so far but wild imagination,
> > lip-service, and circular arguments.
> I am doing no more than pointing out
> obvious undeniable facts -- that have been
> ignored by PA 'science' for the simple
> reason that no PA 'scientist' has thought
> about them.
Your ignorance of the literature is not my problem, numerous papers
have been written
about the possibility of offshore sites. The evidence remains zero,
like your education.
It is accepted that sea-levels
> rise and fall.
Who said they didn't?
But PA people do not begin
> to comprehend the drastic implications of
> those fluctuations on the fossil record of
> species and populations that live at (or
> close to) sea-level
None of this proves how long it takes to grind an axe into dust. The
only dust is in your head. For a million years after savanna tools are
found, nothing is found on the beaches, then it is. So the argument
that they haven't found it yet is lunacy. You have to explain this
discrepancy. Any argument that says they haven't found it yet applies
to early savanna arguments also.
"Could it be?" arguments are for science-fiction forums, not here.