Bells, 1: What if they just didn't find bones elsewhere? 2: What if the dating on the bones they did find is wrong? 3: How many bones did they find and from how many subjects? If only one or two then they have not found everyone else so how can they claim to know where they came from since they have not found many at all? If i find a piece of gold in Peru that means there is no gold elsewhere? Fact is the bones do not exist anymore. Science has made admissions that it cannot date accurately objects from that time. The map: How did the Chinese and only Chinese get to China?
What? They dated the bones they did find. And until we find proof that the radiocarbon dating is incorrect, then we will stick with what we have John99. Yes, that's right, I can check these things. Your comment does not even make sense. How many do you think they need to find? Where do you think humans came from John99? Yes. They advised that they can give a close approximation of the period, not exact dates. Which is fine. What? *Mod Note* Ellie has been banned for being a sock of a permanently banned member John99. *End Mod Note*
Ellie's Join Date: 11-23-09 Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Wow! Now that was some planning ahead on his part.
well dywyddry .... Thanks for that welcoming goodbye.... But let me tell you something in two words: Originemology and Intelligence Konstant. Intelligence constant means there are only two ways we acquire information, by choice and by chance. By choice simply means you learn what you have in your mind through your teachers, parents, frineds, books, from animals and from nature. By chance means you discover something. Obviously when you were a baby you dont have any information stored in your mind yet. Originemology is the study of the roots or origins of concepts or ideas like etymology is the origin of words. This simply means what you have in your mind right now came from someone else ahead of you unless you discovered it. So what you are discussing here in this forum, can be found elsewhere. Colleges and universties are great sources. There are also such things as physics books, engineering books and google. Therefore there is nothing new here in this forum. All concepts know to men today has its own origin, roots or source. Unless again of course they are new discoveries. So my point here is jchill, be cool, let people express their knowledge, don't be grumpy. And my final word. There is such thing as zizo effect or what comes in must come out. Entertaining a negative attitude produces a negative output. This negative attitude might be a joke to you on this forum, but remember the repercussion of intelligence konstant through your actions. Thank you my friend.
Er, two (and it's THREE words, by the way) of your own made-up terms) doesn't help. So far you haven't displayed any knowledge, just wishful unsupported "thinking". Another of your made up terms? False assumption on your part. Please don't. I prefer to be friends with rational, intelligent people. Thanks all the same.
This is a discussion forum and not an educational forum. A educational forum would need to follow the rules of education which is to teach consensus theory. This is what industry wants so it has good soldiers in a row. Discussion forums are a looser format that make more room for other points of view. The idea is to look at reality from not only educational angles but also from different angles including outsi the box. When you enter a discussion forum it is not about being a closed mind and enforcing the consensus like a professor in college. It about having fun and making it interesting even for those who like to think outside the box. All the consensus theory was outside the box at one time. Don't be so serious about the letter of the law in a police state. We are among friends not big brother.
So what? How does that address anything said here? Agreed. But the idea is most definitely NOT to entertain unsubstantiated nonsense. Which constitutes the majority of your posts.
You never provide evidence for this so your criticisms are unsupported. How is that different? Anyone can say blah blah this is fruit salad and call that science. You don't see how you are embarrassing yourself. I am trying to help you. Maybe people who know you assume that is enough. But not everyone will bend over that way, but will assume you are full of crap until you prove otherwise. You come across as an angry man who like to be a bully too much but never tries to correct, inform, or enhance the discussion.
Still getting it wrong. It is up to the proposer to provide evidence for their contention. That which is claimed without evidence may be dismissed without evidence. No, you're simply making more unsubstantiated claims. That's because you consistently fail to read (or understand) my posts.
You act like a spoiled child looking for attention by means of being disruptive. It is waste of time giving you attention, since you never seem to learn anything. Your mother should not have spoiled you that way. Did you ever learn to play with other kids? Are you a stocker? It seems like you follow me around. If you wish to play you need to learn to contribute beyond links you may not fully understand. You learn to put it in your own words to show us you are not blinding copying without sufficient understanding.
More (false) amateur psychology. Let me try one more time: Why should your (and Ellie's) claims be taken seriously? You present no evidence or support whatsoever. If you can't be bothered to to substantiate what appears[sup]1[/sup] to be inane ramblings then why should we give it any credence? Why should I give evidence when dismissing your nonsense? A bare claim with no support does NOT require evidence to dismiss it. How many more times must I state this before you understand it? How many repetitions will it take for you to address this as opposed to resorting to ad homs? 1. I'm being generous here in that I'm acknowledging the possibility that there may be substance to your drivel.
Er, Ellie has been banned. "She" was a sock puppet for one our (decidedly) less intelligent former members.
