Re: Marc was right?

On Jul 9, 3:53 am, Marc Verhaegen <m_verhae...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Op 09-07-2007 02:48, in artikel
1183942119.847259.200...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Lee Olsen
<paleoc...@xxxxxxxxxxx> schreef:

On Jul 8, 1:26 pm, Marc Verhaegen <m_verhae...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
The Scars of Evolution, came to the same conclusion that we
had reached from quite different lines of evidence: the old SH was not
tenable.
Finally someone gets it. The OLD SH. Wonderful. Now if we could just get these

brain-dead morons to understand the up-to-date improved version, they would
understand why the first (and only) evidence for early Homo is on the savanna.



If you like to call a river delta plenty of sea shells savanna, go ahead, my
little boy...

Doughboy is so ignorant he doesn't know the difference between 2.6 mya
and 1.8 mya.
Doughboy is so ignorant as to think plenty of seashells is an argument
for something (it isn't clear what that might be).

If seashells are an argument for something, then so are sharks teeth
found with your dead-whale evidence.

http://www.archaeology.org/online/news/whale.html

"Fossils of a whale that beached on an African shore more than a
million years ago and was subsequently butchered by hominids have been
recovered near the town of Benguela, 250 miles south of Luanda,
Angola. This is the first time a dismembered whale has turned up at a
Palaeolithic site, elephants and hippopotamuses being far more typical
hominid prey. Manuel Guttierez of the Université de Paris-10 and
Angolan researchers from the Archaeological Museum of Benguela found
the whale's skull, the front half of its veterbral column, some ribs
and isolated vertebrae together with some 60 Olduvaian choppers and
flakes. The whale measured 18 feet long and was probably a baleen,
according to Claude Guérin of Lyon's Université Claude Bernard. The
site is still littered with the shells, sharks' teeth, and sea urchins
of the ancient shore, now two miles distant and 300 feet above the
sea. Excavations are ongoing at the site."

There can be only one conclusion, the sharks were eating urchins,
whales and Homo.
http://www.biarms.com/PhotoAlbums/sharkATTACK1.jpg

Everything is savanna in the eyes of SFs.

Of course, that is where all the hard evidence is at, don't have to
make it up as required by the wet apers.



.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: butchering sites at the intersection of river channels (Re: AAT is based on comparative data (Re
    ... > statement is because nowhere in that paper did Dennell make such a claim. ... > saying near lakes and seas. ... that's why I would like to see the site report on that whale ... evidence of the imagination is not allowed in science. ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)
  • Re: 7 Days
    ... Ther is no geological evidence for a world-wide flood. ... There are whale carcasses at the bottom of the sea now. ... It appears that they are commonly washed up on beaches where scavengers eat ...
    (uk.religion.christian)
  • Re: lower Paleolithic butchering of stranded whale
    ... The sharks were eating Homo? ... The sharks were eating the whale, Homo, and seashells? ... the more evidence of the presence of large bodies ... "The lake deposits consist of fine-grained clays and mudstones ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)
  • Re: 7 Days
    ... Ther is no geological evidence for a world-wide flood. ... What's the theory for how whales end up in the fossil record? ... There are whale carcasses at the bottom of the sea now. ...
    (uk.religion.christian)
  • Re: CBS Sunday nights--Screwed up by sports ... again
    ... in water tight plastic before dumping them. ... exposing himself and property to the evidence. ... Sharks likely won't eat stuff wrapped tightly in waterproof black plastic ... to take the body out of the bag because of 'transference'. ...
    (rec.arts.tv)