Australian Tools Found

Beagle · Post by **Beagle** » Wed Apr 16, 2008 2:12 am

So if by 'dead wood' you mean 'a felled tree with its cell walls still intact' please say so, because that is not everybody's definition of 'dead wood'.

I already said so above RS. Please read the link I posted.

In any case, you're changing the subject. The fact is, you are refuting the geologic evidence. So, please say so. Y no mas.

Rokcet Scientist · Post by **Rokcet Scientist** » Thu Apr 17, 2008 2:06 am

Beagle wrote:The fact is, you are refuting the geologic evidence.

No, Beags, I'm refuting the geological opinion...

Digit · Post by **Digit** » Thu Apr 17, 2008 2:20 am

I'm refuting the geological opinion...

Would that be the opinion in favour of the Bering land bridge or the opinion against the Sunda land bridge?
Why do you favour the one against the other? Do you have any non-geologocal evidence in support of your beliefs if you don't accept that from the geologists, if so let's hear it RS.

Rokcet Scientist · Post by **Rokcet Scientist** » Thu Apr 17, 2008 2:31 am

I follow the premise that both the Bering and Sunda landbridges existed, Dig. Though not concurrently.

And FYI: geology has a "Club" too (like all sciences). Their opinions are not holy writ to me.

Digit · Post by **Digit** » Thu Apr 17, 2008 2:42 am

So in the absense of info from geologists what do you use to support your ideas? Or do you accept their word when you wish and ignore it when you wish, if that is the case what evidence do you offer against their opinion.
I would point out that petrologists, whose jobs depend on their opinions being correct actually supports the geologists.
As do the engineers who examined the possiblity of a Sunda bridge. That's 3 to 1 agin you.

Rokcet Scientist · Post by **Rokcet Scientist** » Thu Apr 17, 2008 2:47 am

Digit wrote:That's 3 to 1 agin you.

I'm not too worried about that until they throw me in jail for my opinions like they did Galileo Galileï, Dig.

Rokcet Scientist · Post by **Rokcet Scientist** » Thu Apr 17, 2008 2:58 am

Digit wrote:So in the absense of info from geologists what do you use to support your ideas?

For the Sunda landbridge?
Seismology, volcanism, tectonics. Whatever you want to classify it as. There's a mother of a volcano there: Krakatoa. I find it entirely plausible, no, I find it likely, that it once lifted up the seafloor and created a landbridge, and destroyed it again millennia later. I have seen, with my own eyes (OK, OK, it was on television...) an island – land – rise up out of the sea as a direct result of volcanism. That was offshore from Iceland. I think it was 1962. It can happen in a matter of weeks.
Hawaii is 'walking' eastward too. Creating new land on its eastern end, while subducting 'old' land on the west side. That's what volcanoes do.
Hell, the whole string of western and southern islands of Indonesia exist because of the volcanoes! The volcanoes created Indonesia!

Digit · Post by **Digit** » Thu Apr 17, 2008 4:59 am

It must have submerged again PDQ for no other large animals to cross in either direction don't you think? The ice you're skating on gets daily thinner. RS is correct and every branch of the scientific community is wrong.
This is the reasoning of the mad house.
It was Iceland by the way, it's called Surtsey, and it's still above water and colonised by plants and sea birds, didn't vanish again. Same with the 'Big Island' in Hawaii, it's still there. The remains of Krakatoa are still visible as well, along with evidence of its destruction, as shown be geologists of course. Your land bridge must be about the only one to have vanished without trace.
You sure its not Lemuria you're looking for?
Any news on your land bridge to the Andamans or are you saying that conveniently vanished as well?

Rokcet Scientist · Post by **Rokcet Scientist** » Thu Apr 17, 2008 5:12 am

Digit wrote:Any news on your land bridge to the Andamans or are you saying that conveniently vanished as well?

Thanks for your kind inquiry. And so nicely phrased, too.
No, I haven't figured out the Andaman landbridge yet. But 1) it lies on top of the same tectonic subduction zone as Krakatoa and the rest of south-western Indonesia, so the same principles apply, afaic, and 2) any indication of 70,000 year old boats sofar has still eluded us completely. So that landbridge – or a peninsula like Tasmania was – remains the most plausible in my mind.

Digit · Post by **Digit** » Thu Apr 17, 2008 5:46 am

Granted that the Andamans are on the same plate but as they have yet to vanish over the edge of the subduction zone there should remain some evidence of the bridge, unless that mysteriously vanished leaving the isalnds without trace. Again, unlikely, and as you point out that is the same zone as Krakatoa, which we know of 'cos it hasn't vanished into thin air, there is geological evidence for very ancient eruptions from Krakatoa, nothing for either bridge, so Krakotoa remains and your bridges convenietly disappear.
I agree that evidence for 70000 yr old water craft has eluded us, and may well for ever do so, but if you wish to date items from the age of artifacts that we know of even murals appear fully fledged, beautifully coloured, complete with perspective, over night and with no learning curve.
Not logical.
If you use that sort of scenario for dating, Homo Sapien wandered the northern steppes without clothing, 'cos we have not found clothes as old as stone tools. Rubbish!

Rokcet Scientist · Post by **Rokcet Scientist** » Thu Apr 17, 2008 6:01 am

Sorry, Dig, I'll bow out of this debate for now as you seem to persist in displaying a demeanour I don't appreciate.
Had a fight with your wife this morning?

Beagle · Post by **Beagle** » Thu Apr 17, 2008 6:27 am

Let's just chill out a bit. RS, you've maintained this thinking for a couple of years at least. At the Palanth forum your posts were thrown immediatly into the misc. file.

You're a lucky fellow to be in a "big tent" forum. Don't go insulting anyone just because you maintain a "middle ages" attitude. We'll just go ahead with what we do and accept you as a quirky "oldtimer".

Given your acceptance on other forums, you should feel pretty good about that.

Rokcet Scientist · Post by **Rokcet Scientist** » Thu Apr 17, 2008 6:40 am

So you're implying I ought to be grateful for the opportunity to air my opinions here? That is an elitist perspective I don't identify with.

I try to maintain a civil tone. Unlike some, it seems.

Beagle · Post by **Beagle** » Thu Apr 17, 2008 6:49 am

Rokcet Scientist wrote:So you're implying I ought to be grateful for the opportunity to air my opinions here? That is an elitist perspective I don't identify with.

I try to maintain a civil tone. Unlike some, it seems.

I am not implying anything RS. You were banned from this forum for your "civil tone". It has not been that civil since you were allowed back in.

You and I have always been civil toward one another. You now seem bent on totally pissing me off. It's really best to drop this.

Digit · Post by **Digit** » Thu Apr 17, 2008 6:56 am

Haven't had a fight with any one RS, but I would remind you of the comment about sleep earlier.
I would personally be delighted if some evidence of land bridges to the two sites were to be found, our knowledge would thus be increased by that evidence. I do not have a partisan view on the subject. I have reviewed the current info, such as no large animals making it to the two sites prior to man, no evidence of land bridges within the time span needed, the fact that the Sunda straight is narrower now than ever before, shallower than before and possibly due to those points, with a stronger current than before.
What is on offer to support any alternative to sea travel?