I am claiming that people were much more advanced than what science is
claiming. Science is using evidence, I am using logic. The latest
evidence of wooden structure is 476 ky old. How old was the previous
evidence? 9 ky.
So, science concluded that people weren't advanced based on 9 ky old
evidence. Why they are not using logic instead? Logic is much more accurate.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Mario Petrinovic wrote:

I am claiming that people were much more advanced than what
science is claiming.

Paleo anthropology isn't a science.

Science is using evidence, I am using logic.

The problem with logic is that we think it's "a" thing when in fact
there's as many different versions as there are people.

The latest
evidence of wooden structure is 476 ky old.

Bullshit.

Remember THIS:

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/144203370383

There is a never ending flood of absolute BULLSHIT claims
made by the fraudulent pseudo science. But, when it
comes to the Out of Africa purity idiocy, they throw the
bullshit into overdrive... or they start feeding laxatives to
the bulls.

And in this particular case, the incredibly UNscientific
selection bias is working overtime:

https://deeprootsafrica.blog

Yeah, THAT'S who "Found" and are making these claims.
They're actually telling you that they're not looking for
human origins. They're telling you that THEY KNOW
human origins already, and all they're doing is digging
in Africa, where they already decided humans originated,
looking for those humans...

It's EXACLY what "Biblical Archaeologists" do, only they're
honest about it. The Biblical Archaeologist are honest. Not
the paleo anthropologists.

How old was the previous evidence?

About 400,000 years old. In France. Terra Amata.

So, science concluded that people weren't advanced based
on 9 ky old evidence.

If they find a broken rock in Africa: Tools! *Billions* of them!
Dig down a meter or METERS and you keep finding hand
axes... acres of them...

If they find a '57 Cadillac in the Americas: Geofact! Totally
natural. It just looks man made.






-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/144203370383

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 23.9.2023. 10:36, JTEM is so reasonable wrote:

Mario Petrinovic wrote:

I am claiming that people were much more advanced than what
science is claiming.

Paleo anthropology isn't a science.

Science is using evidence, I am using logic.

The problem with logic is that we think it's "a" thing when in fact
there's as many different versions as there are people.

Well, this isn't the fault of the logic, it is the fault of people who
are delusional, just like you are.

The latest
evidence of wooden structure is 476 ky old.

How old was the previous evidence?

About 400,000 years old. In France. Terra Amata.

Everybody, except you, know that those two things aren't the same.
Something is terribly wrong with you if you make such superficial
conclusions.

So, science concluded that people weren't advanced based
on 9 ky old evidence.

If they find a broken rock in Africa: Tools! *Billions* of them!
Dig down a meter or METERS and you keep finding hand
axes... acres of them...

If they find a '57 Cadillac in the Americas: Geofact! Totally
natural. It just looks man made.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 23.9.2023. 16:57, JTEM is so reasonable wrote:

Mario Petrinovic wrote:

JTEM is so reasonable wrote:

Mario Petrinovic wrote:

How old was the previous evidence?

About 400,000 years old. In France. Terra Amata.

Everybody, except you, know that those two things aren't the same.

You're barking at the moon again... incoherent gibberish.

Fake science: "France? No way! It's just a rock that looks like wood
or something."

Fake science: "It looks like a notch on this wood in Africa! The Spruce Goose was made of wood, CLEARLY they were building airplanes in
Africa 8 million years ago! Plus Naledi invented Calculus."

Again, very superficial thinking.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Mario Petrinovic wrote:

JTEM is so reasonable wrote:

Mario Petrinovic wrote:

How old was the previous evidence?

About 400,000 years old. In France. Terra Amata.

Everybody, except you, know that those two things aren't the same.

You're barking at the moon again... incoherent gibberish.

Fake science: "France? No way! It's just a rock that looks like wood
or something."

Fake science: "It looks like a notch on this wood in Africa! The Spruce
Goose was made of wood, CLEARLY they were building airplanes in
Africa 8 million years ago! Plus Naledi invented Calculus."




-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/144203370383

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Mario Petrinovic wrote:

Again, very superficial thinking.

Of course it is! And I just said that!

The people promoting the social program here, pretending
that they're finding billion year old houses, organized to
"Prove" their pre conceived notions.

Or "a-prior assumptions," if you prefer.

They made up their minds and are hunting for rationalizations
at this point. Everything is interpreted with the framework of
their conclusions. Their conclusion isn't arrived at, they are
hunting for excuses to justify it.

Here: https://deeprootsafrica.blog

Read it for the first time.




-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/728481130049896448

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)