Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 6/25/03 11:41 PM, Jimsween wrote:

That doesnt help much.

What's confusing you? The dating of the campfire remains could be 42 000 or 58 000 years old and 50 000 is the mean between the two.

What does the civil war have to do with this?

It states that the british owned Florida until the civil war but the declaration of independence was already in effect.

You don't have proof, you have a journal of a guy who kept a fake journal, barely knew the Arawak people (he cause their population to drop to 500 but by the time he died there was still much more that 500), and on top of it all says something that would make that civilization stand out over every single one in history.

No remains of weapons in archaelogocal surveys, what does that tell you? He kept ONE journal, and that was on his FIRST journey TO America. He did not have a use for a fake journal in America or on his way back to America nor did he have one. The Tibetans didn't have any weapons either.

And you claimed that it was the natives that migrated to asia. Even though thier are much older fossiles in Africa than there is in S. America.

Do Asians look like Africans to you?

You were the one who said it might never have existed in the first place, who is to say if it might never have existed in the first place that it couldnt have existed 3,000 years earlier. And you avioded the fact that there was another land bridge 50,000 years ago.

Then our dear friend in Brasil would have had Eurasian traits, wouldn't you say?

I can't belive you just said that, you never took a biology class in your life. If you did you would know that if two organisms can successfully reproduce that thye are of the same species. Don't lie to try to impress me.

If you get a german sheperd and a rotweiler to breed, they will have offsprings. Yet, they're totally different from one another aren't they?

The siberian natives migrated from anothe rplace and evolved to fit thier environment, just as the Indians did.

So why would it be impossible for the natives to have migrated from America to Asia?

What you are saying is de-evolving, we already proved through science that it is impossible for two organisms can evolve into the same species seperately. What you are claiming has no scientific evidence to back it up and actually has science against it, ther is more proof that aliens abduct cows to make deit cola out of them.

If that were true then trees and flowers would've had to also walk across the Bering Strait.

Hundreds of years of sciences, not hundred year old science. There is a huge difference.

Yes, the theory that Indians came from Europe is both etnocentric and obsolete. (hundreds of years old)

::

None of this applies to 2 million years ago, and furthermore.

Humans didn't even exist 2 million ago.

::
:This is all assuming that humans already existed there and it was only a matter of survival, the process of mutation is completely random and does not care what the surroundings are, unless there happens to be a large producer of radtiation near which would cause more mutations.

Mutations caused by radiation isn't a form of evolution. I'm sorry but survival is the complete opposite of random. Ever heard of "Survival fo the fittest"?

:By now it has become obvious that you didnt take any biology classes,

I took ecology classes in grade 7, biology classes in grade 10 and biological anthropolgy classes in grade 11.

:this should be a lesson to you that lying in order to prove your point does not help your case it only hurts it.

The only thing I've learned is that you enjoy calling people liars.

At 6/26/03 12:39 AM, nailbomb wrote:

At 6/25/03 11:41 PM, Jimsween wrote:

That doesnt help much.

What's confusing you? The dating of the campfire remains could be 42 000 or 58 000 years old and 50 000 is the mean between the two.

We were talking about the Ice bridge 50,000 years ago, taht is why that makes no sense.

What does the civil war have to do with this?

It states that the british owned Florida until the civil war but the declaration of independence was already in effect.

And what does that have to do with what we are talking about?

You don't have proof, you have a journal of a guy who kept a fake journal, barely knew the Arawak people (he cause their population to drop to 500 but by the time he died there was still much more that 500), and on top of it all says something that would make that civilization stand out over every single one in history.

No remains of weapons in archaelogocal surveys, what does that tell you? He kept ONE journal, and that was on his FIRST journey TO America. He did not have a use for a fake journal in America or on his way back to America nor did he have one. The Tibetans didn't have any weapons either.

1: Weapons dont always leave remains, they could have used wood. And many times through history small civilizations like that leave no trace whatsoever of existing.

And you claimed that it was the natives that migrated to asia. Even though thier are much older fossiles in Africa than there is in S. America.

Do Asians look like Africans to you?

thousands of years of time change that easily, Europeans dont look like any other race but they exist.

You were the one who said it might never have existed in the first place, who is to say if it might never have existed in the first place that it couldnt have existed 3,000 years earlier. And you avioded the fact that there was another land bridge 50,000 years ago.

Then our dear friend in Brasil would have had Eurasian traits, wouldn't you say?

Your dear friend was a skull fragment. Kinda hard for him to look like anything.

I can't belive you just said that, you never took a biology class in your life. If you did you would know that if two organisms can successfully reproduce that thye are of the same species. Don't lie to try to impress me.

If you get a german sheperd and a rotweiler to breed, they will have offsprings. Yet, they're totally different from one another aren't they?

Those are breeds not species and they share over 99.9% of the same DNA, you certainly never took a biology class or you would have known that.

The siberian natives migrated from anothe rplace and evolved to fit thier environment, just as the Indians did.

So why would it be impossible for the natives to have migrated from America to Asia?

Because a animals cannot develop into a species two times, it is IMPOSSIBLE.

What you are saying is de-evolving, we already proved through science that it is impossible for two organisms can evolve into the same species seperately. What you are claiming has no scientific evidence to back it up and actually has science against it, ther is more proof that aliens abduct cows to make deit cola out of them.

If that were true then trees and flowers would've had to also walk across the Bering Strait.

No, PANGEA! You must have never taken an earth science class.

Hundreds of years of sciences, not hundred year old science. There is a huge difference.

Yes, the theory that Indians came from Europe is both etnocentric and obsolete. (hundreds of years old)

No, it is the truth. It is IMPOSSIBLE, not unlikely or unprobable it is IMPOSSIBLE for the animals to have evolved into the human twice. We don't even have a number that high to tell the probability of it. 1 in 1 and then 3 million 0's. That is what it would be. What you are claiming has no scientific evidence to back it and is completely impossible, it could never happen.

None of this applies to 2 million years ago, and furthermore.

Humans didn't even exist 2 million ago.

You just made Homo Erectus cry.

This is all assuming that humans already existed there and it was only a matter of survival, the process of mutation is completely random and does not care what the surroundings are, unless there happens to be a large producer of radtiation near which would cause more mutations.

Mutations caused by radiation isn't a form of evolution. I'm sorry but survival is the complete opposite of random. Ever heard of "Survival fo the fittest"?

I already stated this above but you must have just been to lazy to read it. Mutaions happen completely random, mutaions and survival of the fittest are two different things. Survival of the fittest only applies to if the animal who has the mutation will spread the gene.

By now it has become obvious that you didnt take any biology classes,

I took ecology classes in grade 7, biology classes in grade 10 and biological anthropolgy classes in grade 11.

Your teachers must be very ashamed of you because you.

this should be a lesson to you that lying in order to prove your point does not help your case it only hurts it.

The only thing I've learned is that you enjoy calling people liars.

Judging from the knowledge from your science classes you posses that is the only thing you have learned ever.

At 6/26/03 12:39 AM, nailbomb wrote:

Humans didn't even exist 2 million ago.

Newsflash buddy, true humans were around that time.

At 6/26/03 02:32 AM, darkmage8 wrote:

Newsflash buddy, true humans were around that time.

You consider Homo Habilis to be human?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/cavemen/chronology/contentpage3.shtml

Anything belonging to the Homo Genus is human.

At 6/26/03 02:05 AM, Jimsween wrote:

We were talking about the Ice bridge 50,000 years ago, taht is why that makes no sense.

Well I doubt they walked across an ice bridge and built a fire at the same time. IN BRASIL.

And what does that have to do with what we are talking about?

You said that Florida was still under British control, it wasn't.

1: Weapons dont always leave remains, they could have used wood. And many times through history small civilizations like that leave no trace whatsoever of existing.

Wood does remain Jim, so does pollen in flowers that was layed onto the body of a recently deceased Australopithicus. That's why they were able to date a CAMPFIRE at 50 000 years of age.

thousands of years of time change that easily, Europeans dont look like any other race but they exist.

Then Asian and Natives wouldn't look the same since they both stayed in different regions of the world, Africans moved north which spawned Europeans and Arabs, which look nothing alike but then comes Asians and Natives who were supposed to have evolved during thousands of years apart but somehow didn't... how strange...

Your dear friend was a skull fragment. Kinda hard for him to look like anything.

*sigh*...so much to learn, so young.... When you finally get a course in forensical and cultural anthrpology, e-mail me. Then we'll discuss how different races have different skull structures, just like they have different skin color.

Those are breeds not species and they share over 99.9% of the same DNA, you certainly never took a biology class or you would have known that.

I was implying that the human in America and the human in Africa were of the same species: homo but of a different breed.

Because a animals cannot develop into a species two times, it is IMPOSSIBLE.

Listen to yourself Jim. "THE EARTH ISN'T ROUND, IT IS IMPOSSIBLE!"

No, PANGEA! You must have never taken an earth science class.

Thatwas sarcasm Jim, if different kinds of plants originated here what was stopping mammals and humans?

No, it is the truth. It is IMPOSSIBLE, not unlikely or unprobable it is IMPOSSIBLE for the animals to have evolved into the human twice. We don't even have a number that high to tell the probability of it. 1 in 1 and then 3 million 0's. That is what it would be. What you are claiming has no scientific evidence to back it and is completely impossible, it could never happen.

HA! LISTEN TO YOURSELF! You would kill all scientists if you had the chance. Because the earth was flat and that was the truth. Ha! They didn't evolve twice, they evolved separately.

You just made Homo Erectus cry.

You call that damn dirty ape human?

I already stated this above but you must have just been to lazy to read it. Mutaions happen completely random, mutaions and survival of the fittest are two different things. Survival of the fittest only applies to if the animal who has the mutation will spread the gene.

Holy crap, that is NOT how evolution works.

Your teachers must be very ashamed of you because you.

Because I.....?

Judging from the knowledge from your science classes you posses that is the only thing you have learned ever.

I'm guessing that the only thing you learned in English class was to insult other people's intelligence.

At 6/26/03 11:21 AM, nailbomb wrote:

At 6/26/03 02:05 AM, Jimsween wrote:

Well I doubt they walked across an ice bridge and built a fire at the same time. IN BRASIL.

Which is exactly why I pointed out that the dating can have a 8,000 year margin of error and that they obviously meant around the time of 50,000 years ago. even 10 years would have been enough for them to walk that distance.

You said that Florida was still under British control, it wasn't.

It wasnt independant at the time you are claiming this "genocide" happened.

Wood does remain Jim, so does pollen in flowers that was layed onto the body of a recently deceased Australopithicus. That's why they were able to date a CAMPFIRE at 50 000 years of age.

Wood decomposes, escpescially in hot tropical areas like the indies. Nobody is going to pick up a pile of mush and decide to carbon date it. However charcoal doesnt decompose, and charcoal might seem suscipicious near a place you found a 15,000 year old skeleton fragment.

Then Asian and Natives wouldn't look the same since they both stayed in different regions of the world, Africans moved north which spawned Europeans and Arabs, which look nothing alike but then comes Asians and Natives who were supposed to have evolved during thousands of years apart but somehow didn't... how strange...

Asians and natives do not look exactly the same, and even moreso the asians and natives live in very similar climates. And Asians look nothing like south Americans. You obviously need to get your eye's checked.

*sigh*...so much to learn, so young.... When you finally get a course in forensical and cultural anthrpology, e-mail me. Then we'll discuss how different races have different skull structures, just like they have different skin color.

It wasnt a skull, it was a Fragment of a skull. You CANNOT do forensic studies to see what race a skull fragment looks like. YOU are the one who should be taking those classes, but I suggest you take a notmal science class first because you still can't seem to get that right.

I was implying that the human in America and the human in Africa were of the same species: homo but of a different breed.

No, homo is the genus. Homo sapien is the species. A poodle and a german shepard ditn evolve into dogs seperately. A common Ancestor dog migrated to different places and dogs in those different places adapted to thier environment. But he was always a dog, he couldnt have been a wolf in the first place because that kind of similarity couldnt happen naturally.

Listen to yourself Jim. "THE EARTH ISN'T ROUND, IT IS IMPOSSIBLE!"

No, your the one who is saying the Earth is flat. I'm the one who has all the evidence and hundreds of years of science backing me up. You have NO proof and NOTHING to suggest that your theory happened. NO evidence and nothing to make is seem plausible= didnt happen. You have EVERYTHING against you, statistics, modern science, and just plain common sense.

Thatwas sarcasm Jim, if different kinds of plants originated here what was stopping mammals and humans?

Different kind's of plants originated from plants that were all over during pangea. None of those plants came into the same species in two different places. That would be scientifically impossible. Those plants formed different plants that were different species. You are claiming that humans developed twice sperately, when pangea didnt even have mammles much less humans. Again, you have no proof. Not even speculation on your side, not even lose connections to support what you are saying.

HA! LISTEN TO YOURSELF! You would kill all scientists if you had the chance. Because the earth was flat and that was the truth. Ha! They didn't evolve twice, they evolved separately.

In order for them to evolve into humans seperately they would ahve had to evolve twice. You are the one who has all science agaisnt you, and no educated scientist ever said the world was flat you are working under an outdated stereotype. They all could see that boats dissapeared when they went across the horizon. If you even had one shread of evidence, or even one shread of logic in your theory you could call me the one who is outdated but everything you have said so far has been nonsense. Don't claim I am the one who is saying the earth is flat. That would be you, even more so because of you constant ignoring of all scientific facts.

You call that damn dirty ape human?

He belongs to the HOMO genus, everything in the homo genus is a human.

Holy crap, that is NOT how evolution works.

Yes it is. Mutations occur randomly and if the mutation helps the animal survive and reproduce the mutation spreads and through a series of those the animal eventually becomes so different from thier ancestor that they can no longer reproduce with them. That is evolution, not the crazy mumbo jumbo you have been talking about.

Because I.....?

Have absolutly no knowledge of any genetic science and surely not anthropology. I would not be at all suprised if you were actually an 8 year old child.

I'm guessing that the only thing you learned in English class was to insult other people's intelligence.

What intellegence?

At 6/26/03 09:30 PM, Jimsween wrote:

Which is exactly why I pointed out that the dating can have a 8,000 year margin of error and that they obviously meant around the time of 50,000 years ago. even 10 years would have been enough for them to walk that distance.

Or the skull is actually 58 000 years old and that land bridge is 42 000 years old.

It wasnt independant at the time you are claiming this "genocide" happened.

They never declared war on the natives. It is a genocide.

Wood decomposes, escpescially in hot tropical areas like the indies. Nobody is going to pick up a pile of mush and decide to carbon date it. However charcoal doesnt decompose, and charcoal might seem suscipicious near a place you found a 15,000 year old skeleton fragment.

It wasn't charcoal, they had no knowledge of charcoal and its flammability.

Asians and natives do not look exactly the same, and even moreso the asians and natives live in very similar climates. And Asians look nothing like south Americans. You obviously need to get your eye's checked.

Lmao, yes The mountains of Tibet are very similar to the great plains of Nebraska and the jungles of Viet-Nam are very similar to the glaciers of the Northwest Territoties and Nunavut.

It wasnt a skull, it was a Fragment of a skull. You CANNOT do forensic studies to see what race a skull fragment looks like. YOU are the one who should be taking those classes, but I suggest you take a notmal science class first because you still can't seem to get that right.

it was 1/3 of a skull, that's plenty.

No, homo is the genus. Homo sapien is the species. A poodle and a german shepard ditn evolve into dogs seperately. A common Ancestor dog migrated to different places and dogs in those different places adapted to thier environment. But he was always a dog, he couldnt have been a wolf in the first place because that kind of similarity couldnt happen naturally.

Uhm...huskies?
If Sapien is the species then what is African, European, Asian and "Indian"?

No, your the one who is saying the Earth is flat. I'm the one who has all the evidence and hundreds of years of science backing me up. You have NO proof and NOTHING to suggest that your theory happened. NO evidence and nothing to make is seem plausible= didnt happen. You have EVERYTHING against you, statistics, modern science, and just plain common sense.

It's nice of you to say that I don't have proof when I show you my proof and you say to have proof when you don't show any.

Different kind's of plants originated from plants that were all over during pangea. None of those plants came into the same species in two different places. That would be scientifically impossible. Those plants formed different plants that were different species. You are claiming that humans developed twice sperately, when pangea didnt even have mammles much less humans. Again, you have no proof. Not even speculation on your side, not even lose connections to support what you are saying.

http://www.cabrillo.cc.ca.us/~crsmith/firstamer.html
http://www.calverley.ca/Part01-FirstNations/01-006.html

In order for them to evolve into humans seperately they would ahve had to evolve twice. You are the one who has all science agaisnt you, and no educated scientist ever said the world was flat you are working under an outdated stereotype. They all could see that boats dissapeared when they went across the horizon. If you even had one shread of evidence, or even one shread of logic in your theory you could call me the one who is outdated but everything you have said so far has been nonsense. Don't claim I am the one who is saying the earth is flat. That would be you, even more so because of you constant ignoring of all scientific facts.

Uhm...what facts? You haven't provided me with any facts.

He belongs to the HOMO genus, everything in the homo genus is a human.

Yes but he lacks the cranial capacity for any plans to go to America.

Yes it is. Mutations occur randomly and if the mutation helps the animal survive and reproduce the mutation spreads and through a series of those the animal eventually becomes so different from thier ancestor that they can no longer reproduce with them. That is evolution, not the crazy mumbo jumbo you have been talking about.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-definition.html
Find me a sentence with the word mutation in there.

Have absolutly no knowledge of any genetic science and surely not anthropology. I would not be at all suprised if you were actually an 8 year old child.

I love you too.

What intellegence?

Marry me?

At 6/27/03 06:54 PM, nailbomb wrote:

At 6/26/03 09:30 PM, Jimsween wrote:

Which is exactly why I pointed out that the dating can have a 8,000 year margin of error and that they obviously meant around the time of 50,000 years ago. even 10 years would have been enough for them to walk that distance.

Or the skull is actually 58 000 years old and that land bridge is 42 000 years old.

That could be possible but seeing as how there is a skull down there and the only for it to have got there is if someone crossed the land bridge up there it seems more likley that the land bridge would be older.

It wasnt independant at the time you are claiming this "genocide" happened.

They never declared war on the natives. It is a genocide.

What about the french indian war? And Congress doesnt have to declare war, niether does the former monarch of englad or spain. They can have attacks at any time they want.

Wood decomposes, escpescially in hot tropical areas like the indies. Nobody is going to pick up a pile of mush and decide to carbon date it. However charcoal doesnt decompose, and charcoal might seem suscipicious near a place you found a 15,000 year old skeleton fragment.

It wasn't charcoal, they had no knowledge of charcoal and its flammability.

You said there was a bonfire, when you burn things you have ashes and charcoal. Fire burns things. Charcoal is rarely flammable.

Asians and natives do not look exactly the same, and even moreso the asians and natives live in very similar climates. And Asians look nothing like south Americans. You obviously need to get your eye's checked.

Lmao, yes The mountains of Tibet are very similar to the great plains of Nebraska and the jungles of Viet-Nam are very similar to the glaciers of the Northwest Territoties and Nunavut.

You obviously have no knowledge of solar rays and vegitation.

It wasnt a skull, it was a Fragment of a skull. You CANNOT do forensic studies to see what race a skull fragment looks like. YOU are the one who should be taking those classes, but I suggest you take a notmal science class first because you still can't seem to get that right.

it was 1/3 of a skull, that's plenty.

No, the only way it could be enough is if it was the jaw and part of the nose, and even then it woudl be hard.

No, homo is the genus. Homo sapien is the species. A poodle and a german shepard ditn evolve into dogs seperately. A common Ancestor dog migrated to different places and dogs in those different places adapted to thier environment. But he was always a dog, he couldnt have been a wolf in the first place because that kind of similarity couldnt happen naturally.

Uhm...huskies?
If Sapien is the species then what is African, European, Asian and "Indian"?

Homo sapien is the species, and those are all races, much similar to breeds of dogs. And huskies are not wolfs, when they mate with a wolf thier offspring cannot have children the breeding is not successfull.

No, your the one who is saying the Earth is flat. I'm the one who has all the evidence and hundreds of years of science backing me up. You have NO proof and NOTHING to suggest that your theory happened. NO evidence and nothing to make is seem plausible= didnt happen. You have EVERYTHING against you, statistics, modern science, and just plain common sense.

It's nice of you to say that I don't have proof when I show you my proof and you say to have proof when you don't show any.

What proof have you shown, none. I'm the one with all the scientific and geographic evidence.

Different kind's of plants originated from plants that were all over during pangea. None of those plants came into the same species in two different places. That would be scientifically impossible. Those plants formed different plants that were different species. You are claiming that humans developed twice sperately, when pangea didnt even have mammles much less humans. Again, you have no proof. Not even speculation on your side, not even lose connections to support what you are saying.

http://www.cabrillo.cc.ca.us/~crsmith/firstamer.html

And there was a land bridge he could have crossed 50,000 years ago.
and 12,000 years ago.

http://www.calverley.ca/Part01-FirstNations/01-006.html

See above.

In order for them to evolve into humans seperately they would ahve had to evolve twice. You are the one who has all science agaisnt you, and no educated scientist ever said the world was flat you are working under an outdated stereotype. They all could see that boats dissapeared when they went across the horizon. If you even had one shread of evidence, or even one shread of logic in your theory you could call me the one who is outdated but everything you have said so far has been nonsense. Don't claim I am the one who is saying the earth is flat. That would be you, even more so because of you constant ignoring of all scientific facts.

Uhm...what facts? You haven't provided me with any facts.

The probability of it happening, the fact that they could have crossed the land bridge 50,000 years ago, and the fact that If they did we would not be able to successfully mate with them.

He belongs to the HOMO genus, everything in the homo genus is a human.

Yes but he lacks the cranial capacity for any plans to go to America.

Nobody ever planned to go to America, they followed the animals there.

Yes it is. Mutations occur randomly and if the mutation helps the animal survive and reproduce the mutation spreads and through a series of those the animal eventually becomes so different from thier ancestor that they can no longer reproduce with them. That is evolution, not the crazy mumbo jumbo you have been talking about.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-definition.html
Find me a sentence with the word mutation in there.

That has to be the most vague description of evolution ever. The closest thing to genetics they mention is alleles.

Here, read this before you reply again. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution

Have absolutly no knowledge of any genetic science and surely not anthropology. I would not be at all suprised if you were actually an 8 year old child.

I love you too.

O...k

What intellegence?

Marry me?

No thanx...

Ale, feel free to jump in and start telling nailbomb why he is wrong anytime.

At 6/27/03 06:54 PM, nailbomb wrote: It wasn't charcoal, they had no knowledge of charcoal and its flammability.

It was carbon. Carbon (as a product of a flame) will last a long time, especially if it is buried.

Lmao, yes The mountains of Tibet are very similar to the great plains of Nebraska and the jungles of Viet-Nam are very similar to the glaciers of the Northwest Territoties and Nunavut.

Siberia's climate resembles Nunavut and Tibet's climate somewhat resembles the upper Rockies. Please don't make comparisons of Vietnam to Nunavut to prove your point.

it was 1/3 of a skull, that's plenty.

Depends on what part of the skull it was. To accurately determine the race the person was, you'd have to examine the facial features primarily the variations in the nose and eye sockets. Mongoloids have a broader nose ridge than Caucasians. Even so, it is very difficult to determine the race of an individual if he/she doesn't have an entire skull; putting thousands of years on that piece would make the job practically impossible.

Uhm...huskies?
If Sapien is the species then what is African, European, Asian and "Indian"?

That is not taxonomy, that is genetics. Skin color is determined by polygenic inheritance, that is, it's determined by multiple genes.

http://www.cabrillo.cc.ca.us/~crsmith/firstamer.html
http://www.calverley.ca/Part01-FirstNations/01-006.html

Those support the theory that humans came from another place (not evolved in America or came across the ice bridge). Try again.

Yes but he lacks the cranial capacity for any plans to go to America.

They didn't push the onstar button in their car and randomly decide out of the blue to come to America, the followed the herds of animals.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-definition.html
Find me a sentence with the word mutation in there.

Mutation is the change of a chromosome order from parent to offspring. Several mutations will bring a change over time. Evolution is the change of a species over time. See the link.

People who wear "SPEAK ENGLISH OR GET THE FUCK OUT" shirts need a ncie little reconciling

Racism is only thinking about yourself and your interests,while patriotism is being willing to lay down your life and sacrifice everything you have for your country. That my friend is the difference.

At 6/28/03 07:09 AM, leperchaun81 wrote: Racism is only thinking about yourself and your interests,while patriotism is being willing to lay down your life and sacrifice everything you have for your country. That my friend is the difference.

I'm not even sure why this thread keeps going...nailbomb is never going to be able to link patriotism to racism...and it just seems like he and Jim have gone off on a debate about another topic...I appreciate healthy debate, and respect the opinions of others and all that good stuff...but it seems like this topic is pretty much played out, and Jim and nailbomb should maybe move their debates to some other topic...perhaps the one about Evolution? Just a thought...I could always be wrong.

At 6/27/03 07:27 PM, Jimsween wrote:

That could be possible but seeing as how there is a skull down there and the only for it to have got there is if someone crossed the land bridge up there it seems more likley that the land bridge would be older.

Show me some proof of that land bridge, not once in my life have I seen concrete evidence of the magical Bering Strait.

What about the french indian war? And Congress doesnt have to declare war, niether does the former monarch of englad or spain. They can have attacks at any time they want.

They declared war. If congress doesn't declare war but the president still carries out military orders of war, the war violates both the constitution and the U.N. charter. (even though the genocide of natives predates both of those.)

You said there was a bonfire, when you burn things you have ashes and charcoal. Fire burns things. Charcoal is rarely flammable.

Holy crap eh? Musn't be a very practical fuel if it isn't flammable.
Char"coal`\, n. [See Char, v. t., to burn or to reduce to coal, and Coal.] 1. Impure carbon prepared from vegetable or animal substances; esp., coal made by charring wood in a kiln, retort, etc., from which air is excluded. It is used for fuel and in various mechanical, artistic, and chemical processes.
Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.

You obviously have no knowledge of solar rays and vegitation.

no, you said their climates are identical when they're binary opposites.

No, the only way it could be enough is if it was the jaw and part of the nose, and even then it woudl be hard.

Oh, I see that you have studied forensical anthropology to a collegiate degree. It wouldn't be hard at all; you can tell the difference between a Crow and Navajo (for example) by measuring the outlines of their skulls.

:: :

Homo sapien is the species, and those are all races, much similar to breeds of dogs. And huskies are not wolfs, when they mate with a wolf thier offspring cannot have children the breeding is not successfull.

"Race" is a non-applicable term since it refers only to modern humans.

What proof have you shown, none. I'm the one with all the scientific and geographic evidence.

Show it to me.

Different kind's of plants originated from plants that were all over during pangea. None of those plants came into the same species in two different places. That would be scientifically impossible. Those plants formed different plants that were different species. You are claiming that humans developed twice sperately, when pangea didnt even have mammles much less humans. Again, you have no proof. Not even speculation on your side, not even lose connections to support what you are saying.

There is a 50 000 year old sorpse in Brasil and artefacts over 80 000 years old in Canada.
There is no proof of any land bridge being formed at any time.
What does that tell you?

And there was a land bridge he could have crossed 50,000 years ago.
and 12,000 years ago.

Show me proof of those land bridges and I'll gladly shut up. oh and one that dates before 80 000 BC

The probability of it happening, the fact that they could have crossed the land bridge 50,000 years ago, and the fact that If they did we would not be able to successfully mate with them.

wheeeeeeeeeeeeee! Those aren't facts. Those are Jimsween's assumptions and thoughts.

Nobody ever planned to go to America, they followed the animals there.

DID ALL ANIMALS LEAVE EUROPE? Then why would they follow a bunch of mammoths here and wouldn't they have killed them all before reaching America unless they were following a dozen million of them?

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-definition.html
Find me a sentence with the word mutation in there.

That has to be the most vague description of evolution ever. The closest thing to genetics they mention is alleles.

Then look up another source if that one doesn't please you. Jeebus!

Here, read this before you reply again. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution

According to this http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/faq/cat01.html#Q01 there is no such poo-poo of radiation that you were claiming. :)

O...k

Well it's better than flaming. *licks the back of your neck*

::

No thanx...

meanie! :(

At 6/28/03 02:03 PM, aviewaskewed wrote:

I'm not even sure why this thread keeps going...nailbomb is never going to be able to link patriotism to racism...

9/11

At 6/28/03 01:20 AM, alejandro1 wrote:

It was carbon. Carbon (as a product of a flame) will last a long time, especially if it is buried.

In this case it was in an underground cave, but yeah it wasn't CHARCOAL.

Siberia's climate resembles Nunavut and Tibet's climate somewhat resembles the upper Rockies. Please don't make comparisons of Vietnam to Nunavut to prove your point.

Yes but Sweden, Norway, Iceland and Greenland also resemble Nunavut and Siberia, shouldn't we be finding Native/Asian-looking people there too? Tibet is far from ressembling the rockies, temperatures there go from -40 to 30 degrees Celsius and it is the most elevated point on the planet, you could comapre the rockies to the alps but sertainly not to the Himlayas in Tibet.

Depends on what part of the skull it was. To accurately determine the race the person was, you'd have to examine the facial features primarily the variations in the nose and eye sockets. Mongoloids have a broader nose ridge than Caucasians. Even so, it is very difficult to determine the race of an individual if he/she doesn't have an entire skull; putting thousands of years on that piece would make the job practically impossible.

The distance between the eyes is probably the most important factor. It's nice to meet another forensics buff! :) But honestly, do you think they found all those dinosaur skulls in perfect condition? They had bits and pieces and used symmetry to fill in the pieces of the puzzle.

That is not taxonomy, that is genetics. Skin color is determined by polygenic inheritance, that is, it's determined by multiple genes.

Well is it a species or a genus or what?

http://www.cabrillo.cc.ca.us/~crsmith/firstamer.html
http://www.calverley.ca/Part01-FirstNations/01-006.html

Those support the theory that humans came from another place (not evolved in America or came across the ice bridge). Try again.

Didn't read both articles huh?
"Goodman’s book supports two claims that natives have put forward -- first, the claim that they were the first men on the western continents, and that the Amerinds took human culture to Asia."

They didn't push the onstar button in their car and randomly decide out of the blue to come to America, the followed the herds of animals.

Honestly, how many fucking animals are they going to follow to a place they've never seen before and how much distance was there between them and the animals that they never caught up with them after walking over thousands of miles? Unless they were following millions of animals into America, they would've hunted those that they needed and then went back home.

Mutation is the change of a chromosome order from parent to offspring. Several mutations will bring a change over time. Evolution is the change of a species over time. See the link.

Yes, it's mutations in that sense of the word but is sure as hell isn't radiations as claimed by Jimsween.

At 6/28/03 07:20 PM, nailbomb wrote:

Show me some proof of that land bridge, not once in my life have I seen concrete evidence of the magical Bering Strait.

Riiight, so now the bering strait doesnt exist? I shouldnt have to give proof since you never gave proof to anything you have said so far but by saying it never happened makes you look so stupid I'll do it just to be nice, http://www.gi.alaska.edu/ScienceForum/ASF13/1304.html
Even in your own link they gave evidence of the land bridge.

They declared war. If congress doesn't declare war but the president still carries out military orders of war, the war violates both the constitution and the U.N. charter. (even though the genocide of natives predates both of those.)

No, find me where in the constitution that you have to declare war for it to be a war, it doesnt even say that in the UN charter. You can't jsut make things up and assume nobody would care.

Holy crap eh? Musn't be a very practical fuel if it isn't flammable.

Char"coal`\, n. [See Char, v. t., to burn or to reduce to coal, and Coal.] 1. Impure carbon prepared from vegetable or animal substances; esp., coal made by charring wood in a kiln, retort, etc., from which air is excluded. It is used for fuel and in various mechanical, artistic, and chemical processes.
Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.

COAL, not charcoal. Charcoal is the remnace of a once living thing where the carbon covers it. In your definition it specifies the last part is COAL not charcoal.

no, you said their climates are identical when they're binary opposites.

No they arent, and I said they are similar. Climate includes solar rays and climate controls the vegitation.

Oh, I see that you have studied forensical anthropology to a collegiate degree. It wouldn't be hard at all; you can tell the difference between a Crow and Navajo (for example) by measuring the outlines of their skulls.

No you can't, you would need to see facial fetures. Don't claim you took an anthropology class when you are jsut spewing stuff out your ass. Proof would be nice.

"Race" is a non-applicable term since it refers only to modern humans.

Because prehistoric humans had much more similar DNA that us, and the things you were saying are modern humans. So all you accomplished showed everyone that you really do not know what you are talking about.
the scientific and geographic evidence.

Show it to me.

The theory of evolution is on my side, all the land bridge stuff, and the FACT that the probability of it happening is 1 in 1, and then 3 million 0's. How about you show some proof instead of dancing around the facts by making unfounded claims.

There is a 50 000 year old sorpse in Brasil and artefacts over 80 000 years old in Canada.
There is no proof of any land bridge being formed at any time.
What does that tell you?

First of all, you can't accurately measure the date of artifacts because the materials they were made out of could have been around much longer than that and there was in fact a land bridge 70,000 years ago. So by adding the margin of error in to the Carbon dating the artifacts could of been 70,000 years old. And could you show me some proof of those artifacts from reliable links?

Show me proof of those land bridges and I'll gladly shut up. oh and one that dates before 80 000 BC

It doesnt need to, you have no proof of the artifacts. Even in you link it says there was a land bridge old enough for those. Show me proof of those artifacts.

wheeeeeeeeeeeeee! Those aren't facts. Those are Jimsween's assumptions and thoughts.

No, those are all facts. I have shown evidence proving them and you replied with moronic comments to change the suject, you have said nothing to prove them wrong.

DID ALL ANIMALS LEAVE EUROPE? Then why would they follow a bunch of mammoths here and wouldn't they have killed them all before reaching America unless they were following a dozen million of them?

Oh my god you are so stupid, they follow heards of animals. When they go hunting they find the animals and kill one or two but the rest escape, they keep having to move thier tribe closer to the animals to shorten the travel. Any science class will tell you that, this once again shows that you obviously did not take any of the classes you claim you did. And many people would agree with me that you are surely not the age you say you are, more likely 10.

Then look up another source if that one doesn't please you. Jeebus!

I already gave you the other source from PBS which is much more respected then some random site, that gives an accureate description of evolution. Read that before you say anything else because i'm positive you have never took a class where they have told you about evolution before.

According to this http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/faq/cat01.html#Q01 there is no such poo-poo of radiation that you were claiming. :)

Everything emits radiation stupid, I was just giving an example of how something like that could speed up mutations. And nothing in there said there was not radiation. Maybe while your at it you should go look at the sesame street part of it so you can learn how to read.

Well it's better than flaming. *licks the back of your neck*

Dumbass.

meanie! :(

Grow up and learn how to debate.

At 6/28/03 10:41 PM, Jimsween wrote:

::

Riiight, so now the bering strait doesnt exist? I shouldnt have to give proof since you never gave proof to anything you have said so far but by saying it never happened makes you look so stupid I'll do it just to be nice, http://www.gi.alaska.edu/ScienceForum/ASF13/1304.html
Even in your own link they gave evidence of the land bridge.

If Elias is correct, all sorts of new creatures walked across Alaska much more recently than previously thought, and they walked on spongy tundra rather than dry grasslands.
No proof, only theories.

No, find me where in the constitution that you have to declare war for it to be a war, it doesnt even say that in the UN charter. You can't jsut make things up and assume nobody would care.

Don't assume I'm making things up. I always have proof
http://www.tompaine.com/feature.cfm/ID/7196

COAL, not charcoal. Charcoal is the remnace of a once living thing where the carbon covers it. In your definition it specifies the last part is COAL not charcoal.

Coal and charcoal are synonyms. A synonym is two words that have the same definition.

No they arent, and I said they are similar. Climate includes solar rays and climate controls the vegitation.

Well they aren't similar either.

No you can't, you would need to see facial fetures. Don't claim you took an anthropology class when you are jsut spewing stuff out your ass. Proof would be nice.

The whole skull can be used to determined a race. Look at the picture below for my anthropology credentials.

Because prehistoric humans had much more similar DNA that us, and the things you were saying are modern humans. So all you accomplished showed everyone that you really do not know what you are talking about.

No, I was poiting out that you use "race" since it can't be applied in a universal sense.

The theory of evolution is on my side, all the land bridge stuff, and the FACT that the probability of it happening is 1 in 1, and then 3 million 0's. How about you show some proof instead of dancing around the facts by making unfounded claims.

A theory and land bridge stuff is not scientific proof. Neither are impressive made-up numbers made up by you.

First of all, you can't accurately measure the date of artifacts because the materials they were made out of could have been around much longer than that and there was in fact a land bridge 70,000 years ago. So by adding the margin of error in to the Carbon dating the artifacts could of been 70,000 years old. And could you show me some proof of those artifacts from reliable links?

Here. http://www.science-frontiers.com/sf051/sf051a01.htm

It doesnt need to, you have no proof of the artifacts. Even in you link it says there was a land bridge old enough for those. Show me proof of those artifacts.

See above! ^_^

No, those are all facts. I have shown evidence proving them and you replied with moronic comments to change the suject, you have said nothing to prove them wrong.

A theory is as right as the other until proven wrong.

Oh my god you are so stupid, they follow heards of animals. When they go hunting they find the animals and kill one or two but the rest escape, they keep having to move thier tribe closer to the animals to shorten the travel. Any science class will tell you that, this once again shows that you obviously did not take any of the classes you claim you did. And many people would agree with me that you are surely not the age you say you are, more likely 10.

Yes, but when they have collected their meat they go back to camp.

I already gave you the other source from PBS which is much more respected then some random site, that gives an accureate description of evolution. Read that before you say anything else because i'm positive you have never took a class where they have told you about evolution before.

Evolution was a topic in both my Anthropology and Psychology classes.

Everything emits radiation stupid, I was just giving an example of how something like that could speed up mutations. And nothing in there said there was not radiation. Maybe while your at it you should go look at the sesame street part of it so you can learn how to read.

If that were true, we'd have a shitload of useless features/body parts if evolution was affected by radiation. But we all know that radiation kills things, the opposite of evolution.

Dumbass.

Enjoying your ban?

Grow up and learn how to debate.

Flaming isn't debating.

Forgot to attach that picture in my other post. It's a bit blurry but you can still see my mandatory Social Sciences first semester courses.

At 6/28/03 07:24 PM, nailbomb wrote:

9/11

Isolated instances...and I gave an example of even non-arabs being targeted as possible terroists (and it was something I PERSONALLY witnessed), so I think the isolated instances of Arab persecution after 9/11 is a weak example for you're overall point.

At 6/29/03 11:30 PM, aviewaskewed wrote: Isolated instances...and I gave an example of even non-arabs being targeted as possible terroists (and it was something I PERSONALLY witnessed), so I think the isolated instances of Arab persecution after 9/11 is a weak example for you're overall point.

Isolated I think not.
http://www.expressindia.com/fullstory.php?newsid=19264

At 6/30/03 12:27 AM, nailbomb wrote: Isolated I think not.
http://www.expressindia.com/fullstory.php?newsid=19264

How does this link to patriotism, though?

A certain religious/ethnic group attacks your country but you love your contry therefore you want to kill everyone in that religious/ethnic group.

At 6/30/03 12:43 AM, Commander-K25 wrote:

How does this link to patriotism, though?

That's what I've been asking...I mean, I see the racism...but I don't see it linked to patriotism...I see scared stupid people who might have been racist to begin with, popping out of the wood work taking advantage of a situation to commit hate crimes...I just think it's impossible to link the two together...I mean, I think Patriotism can be viewed from different levels...I don't agree with things I see the government doing...I'm not sure they're safeguarding the freedoms and principles this country was founded on...so when election time comes around, I'm gonna vote for some changes...couldn't you consider that to be patriotic too?

At 6/30/03 01:06 AM, nailbomb wrote: A certain religious/ethnic group attacks your country but you love your contry therefore you want to kill everyone in that religious/ethnic group.

They don't hate Arabs because they love their country, they hate Arabs because they were attacked by them. Even if they hated their country, they could still have the same feelings.

At 6/30/03 01:06 AM, nailbomb wrote: A certain religious/ethnic group attacks your country but you love your contry therefore you want to kill everyone in that religious/ethnic group.

Not true...I certainly don't...but I don't think I'm unpatriotic...I'm just not a racist...I personally would like to see Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda put out of business (and yeah, if it involved killing him, I probably wouldn't shed a tear) but that's only because they are guilty of murder...they make the world unsafe to live in. I just think you're stating an opinion as though it were a point of fact...you can look at the news for the negative actions of people, who are disguising their racism in a patriotic garb, or you can look at real patriots who ran out and helped their countrymen in need, and people who do that everyday. Racists are just racists, no matter what they try and disguise it as.

I guess this another situation where a small group of people stick out like a sore thumb and create a stereotype for a ceratin group of people .

At 6/30/03 01:48 AM, nailbomb wrote: I guess this another situation where a small group of people stick out like a sore thumb and create a stereotype for a ceratin group of people .

Exactly, and not everybody buys into the stereotype...just the ignorant looking for a way to vent.

At 6/29/03 11:14 PM, nailbomb wrote:
If Elias is correct, all sorts of new creatures walked across Alaska much more recently than previously thought, and they walked on spongy tundra rather than dry grasslands.
No proof, only theories.

Look at where it talks about pollen. Please read the ENTIRE link beofre you start talking again.

Don't assume I'm making things up. I always have proof
http://www.tompaine.com/feature.cfm/ID/7196

Again, it says congress has the right to declare war, it doesnt say that have to.

Coal and charcoal are synonyms. A synonym is two words that have the same definition.

No, charcoal is a byproduct of burning something carbon based, coal is a fossile fuel made in peat bogs from thousands of years ago.

Well they aren't similar either.

As similar as the looks of Asians and Native Americans, and most importantly, until you know the science of what makes the people look like that then you can't possibly claim taht the climates need to be more similar.

The whole skull can be used to determined a race. Look at the picture below for my anthropology credentials.

No, first of all, those credentials coudl be anyones and do not prove anything. Second, you cannot just say I took an anthropology class, take my word for it. You have to offer proof of your claims either way.

No, I was poiting out that you use "race" since it can't be applied in a universal sense.

It can, that is what humans are seperated into. Race and breed are the same thing, just for different species. And if you are going to claim that I can't use race then you cant be using dogs breeds because that is not universal.

A theory and land bridge stuff is not scientific proof. Neither are impressive made-up numbers made up by you.

It's called math, when you have a fraction of probability than you multiply it by another fraction, not add. The fraction of a certain mutation happening is 1 million to one, and there were over 1 million different mutations. You do not multiply 1 million and one million you have to multply one million by one million one million times. And the land bridge has much more proof than what you are claiming, and more importantly the land bridge doesnt have as much proof against it as you do.

Here. http://www.science-frontiers.com/sf051/sf051a01.htm

Taht is based on relative dating not absolute dating. When you go by layers it is not accurate because they could have been overturned by many things. And this does not mantion any specific artifacts.

See above! ^_^

Try again. And dont just have something that says there was an older artifact, it needs to have more than one sentance about it or else for all we know someone could just be making it up since most of these sites are owned by individual people.

A theory is as right as the other until proven wrong.

And I have given so much proof, you have not rebuted one bit of it. And you have no proof, so by default it would be proven wrong. Quoting yourself is not a valid argument.

"A witty quote proves nothing"- Voltaire

Yes, but when they have collected their meat they go back to camp.

And when the meat gets too far away to keep making the trip they have to set up camp closer.

Evolution was a topic in both my Anthropology and Psychology classes.

And eitehr you werent paying attention or you did not take them, please read the link in the PBS website. Mutations are the main part of evolution and they are completely random.

If that were true, we'd have a shitload of useless features/body parts if evolution was affected by radiation. But we all know that radiation kills things, the opposite of evolution.

Remember teh appendix, and that third eye we have on the top of ym head that only senses light. Small amounts of radiation causes mutations, large amounts killes, many times when you are near Nuclear power plants you will see either 4 leaf clovers or some other odd things, like a 3 eyed fish.

Enjoying your ban?

I was, I dont know if you were making the assumption that I was coming here during my ban or what.

Flaming isn't debating.

Niether is constantly saying, no your wrong and my anthroplogy classes say so.