Again - if you cannot discuss the pros and cons of the material you are introducing from a source, then you are unable to discuss the truth or validity of those arguments.

Enjoy.

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS/HIV} {Protenes} and {Cancer} with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
	Message 2 by nO_JeZeBeL, posted 11-27-2006 12:20 PM		nO_JeZeBeL has not replied

RAZD

Member (Idle past 1436 days)

Posts: 20714

From: the other end of the sidewalk

Joined: 03-14-2004

Normal Thread Display

Message 4 of 5 (366612)
11-28-2006 7:56 PM

Reply to: Message 1 by Geno
06-11-2003 8:52 PM

Old topic (2003)

Another link to this information is
http://www.berkeley.edu/.../releases/2003/06/11_idaltu.shtml

Just a nit-pik point -- these are not the oldest human fossils but they (were) the oldest Homo sapiens fossils (at that time).

Fossils of Homo erectus are also considered "human" (Homo) and date older than these fossils.

These fossils being fully Homo sapiens fossils means that nO_JeZeBeL's bare link paste is completely irrelevant to the issue of this topic, a point that seems to demonstrate that nO_JeZeBeL is not really looking at the material involved, possibly not understanding it (actual arguments from nO_JeZeBeL have yet to be made that would allow one to assess this).

Enjoy.

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS/HIV} {Protenes} and {Cancer} with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
	Message 1 by Geno, posted 06-11-2003 8:52 PM		Geno has not replied

Replies to this message:
	Message 5 by mark24, posted 11-29-2006 5:47 AM		RAZD has not replied

Date format: mm-dd-yyyy

Timezone: ET (US)

Newer Topic | Older Topic

Do Nothing Button