Page 26 of 48
Posted: Thu Sep 21, 2006 5:17 pm
by Guest
Want to go with me to a Bible Board and start arguing with everything they say and going off the subject? Actually, I wouldn't do that but it sure seems to be a problem on this board.
be my guest. my perspective is not off topic and since you are new here i will let your comments go.
18,000 years ago, the invasion of the New World by humans about 12,000 years ago, and a global mass extinction about 11,000 years ago.
it is amazing how quickly the time frame lowers as evidence dictates it. though i think those dates maybe a little high still.
We already have bones that have survived millions of years, so yes, we do know that they can survive
sorry that is hypothesis not fact.
Re: Lucy's Baby
Posted: Thu Sep 21, 2006 5:32 pm
by oldarchystudent
Donna wrote:To Old Arch,
Want to go with me to a Bible Board and start arguing with everything they say and going off the subject? Actually, I wouldn't do that but it sure seems to be a problem on this board.
To Arch,
I just got on this board today and I read your message but I'm not sure I understood what you were saying? Are you saying bones can't survive in a fossilized form for 3 Million years or so? Were you saying you have already had this conversation and you are annoyed it was brought up?
Are you saying there is no such thing as science?
Honestly, I have no idea what the heck you are trying to say.
Donna
Hi Donna.
I have the same trouble with Arch - nothing makes sense to me. GV on the other hand can genrally articulate what he means, the problem is that his ideas are lunatic fringe. Yet between the two of them they manage to highjack every thread. Arch has decided he doesn't like the Harris Matrix. He has no idea what it is, what it does, how it works or why it's important. He just doesn't like it. The best advice is to ignore these guys. I'm trying.....
Posted: Thu Sep 21, 2006 5:34 pm
by oldarchystudent
archaeologist wrote:Want to go with me to a Bible Board and start arguing with everything they say and going off the subject? Actually, I wouldn't do that but it sure seems to be a problem on this board.
be my guest. my perspective is not off topic and since you are new here i will let your comments go.
18,000 years ago, the invasion of the New World by humans about 12,000 years ago, and a global mass extinction about 11,000 years ago.
it is amazing how quickly the time frame lowers as evidence dictates it. though i think those dates maybe a little high still.
We already have bones that have survived millions of years, so yes, we do know that they can survive
sorry that is hypothesis not fact.
Two perspectives on this Arch.
1 - Donna is new, but she's a lot smarter than you.
2 - You are probably a brilliant theologian, but when it comes to archaeology you have no clue....
More on the New Hominid Fossil - The Published Report
Posted: Thu Sep 21, 2006 5:38 pm
by FreeThinker
Hey all, just back from vacation. Good to be back too. Here you can find the article published in Nature detailing the hominid fossil child that has been generating news:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v4 ... 3278a.html
Always best to get the full info complete with references, eh?
Good stuff. Enjoy!!
Posted: Thu Sep 21, 2006 5:51 pm
by Guest
i was going to respond to you oas but your comments just demonstrate how little you know and how much you assume and any reply is just a waste of time.
just stick to the topic and don't make me the issue. by doing so only lets everyone know you have nothing to offer except to attack another person.
you also give us insight into your character which undermines what constructive posts you make.
Posted: Thu Sep 21, 2006 5:57 pm
by oldarchystudent
archaeologist wrote:i was going to respond to you oas but your comments just demonstrate how little you know and how much you assume and any reply is just a waste of time.
just stick to the topic and don't make me the issue. by doing so only lets everyone know you have nothing to offer except to attack another person.
you also give us insight into your character which undermines what constructive posts you make.
Personally I will be delighted if you decide I'm a waste of your time.
I will agree with you on the threads going off topic. Happens all the time. Not a lot of archaeology being discussed here.....
Re: More on the New Hominid Fossil - The Published Report
Posted: Thu Sep 21, 2006 6:08 pm
by Beagle
FreeThinker wrote:Hey all, just back from vacation. Good to be back too. Here you can find the article published in Nature detailing the hominid fossil child that has been generating news:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v4 ... 3278a.html
Always best to get the full info complete with references, eh?
Good stuff. Enjoy!!
Welcome back F/T - nice article.
Posted: Thu Sep 21, 2006 6:18 pm
by Leona Conner
Welcome Donna, and welcome back FT, missed ya.
NG has a good article on the new find. They called her "Lucy's Child" this should stir up the pot a bit.
Donna, as for Arch and GV, don't ask any questions that require a real answer. They will either make some sort of statement that's pompous or just plain ignore you. Notice how ignore and ignorance have the same root.
Like OAS I try to let them pass and pretend they aren't around, but sometimes you just have to respond.
Posted: Thu Sep 21, 2006 6:57 pm
by Minimalist
Arch has decided he doesn't like the Harris Matrix. He has no idea what it is, what it does,
Arch has the same trouble with archaeological evidence that he doesn't like, as well.
Posted: Thu Sep 21, 2006 6:58 pm
by Minimalist
Hey, F/T! Welcome home.
Posted: Thu Sep 21, 2006 7:05 pm
by oldarchystudent
Minimalist wrote:Arch has decided he doesn't like the Harris Matrix. He has no idea what it is, what it does,
Arch has the same trouble with archaeological evidence that he doesn't like, as well.
We have to conclude that evidence and facts are not compatable with mythology and dogma.
Back to archaeology.
Posted: Thu Sep 21, 2006 7:15 pm
by Minimalist
I'll buy that.
Posted: Thu Sep 21, 2006 8:01 pm
by Guest
Back to archaeology
now you are saying that the haris matrix isnot archaeology. okay i will buy that; it is dismissed and ignored.
don't ask any questions that require a real answer
well when you are ready to accept the answers then ask them.
Posted: Thu Sep 21, 2006 8:08 pm
by oldarchystudent
archaeologist wrote:Back to archaeology
now you are saying that the haris matrix isnot archaeology. okay i will buy that; it is dismissed and ignored.
don't ask any questions that require a real answer
well when you are ready to accept the answers then ask them.
I keep on hoping for sense from this guy and I keep on being disappointed.
Posted: Thu Sep 21, 2006 8:13 pm
by Guest
I keep on hoping for sense from this guy and I keep on being disappointed
frank isn't dumb you know. stop making me the issue and post something worthy of being here.