Re: all serious PAs now belive the savanna hypothesis.
- From: "J.LyonLayden" <JosephLayden@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2009 08:54:04 -0700 (PDT)
Name a coastal site older than 2.6 million years. Why do stupid people
refuse to read the archaeological record?
I don't agree w/ Marc.......but Lee...c'mon.
How can you have a coastal site over 2.6 million years when all coasts
adjacent to human habitation that existed before 2.6 mill are now
underwater as of 16,000 to 8,000 ybp?
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: all serious PAs now belive the savanna hypothesis.
- From: Paul Crowley
- Re: all serious PAs now belive the savanna hypothesis.
- From: Lee Olsen
- Re: all serious PAs now belive the savanna hypothesis.
- References:
- Re: all serious PAs now reject the savanna nonsense
- From: mclark
- Re: all serious PAs now reject the savanna nonsense
- From: Mario Petrinovic
- Re: all serious PAs now belive the savanna hypothesis.
- From: Lee Olsen
- Re: all serious PAs now reject the savanna nonsense
- Prev by Date: Re: Cliffs
- Next by Date: Re: all serious PAs now belive the savanna hypothesis.
- Previous by thread: Re: all serious PAs now belive the savanna hypothesis.
- Next by thread: Re: all serious PAs now belive the savanna hypothesis.
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
