The Black Vault Message Forums

Discover the Truth!        

Scientific Discoveries and Advancements

100 Years of Australian Innovation (a short list)

The newest revelations in the scientific world -- post articles, discussions and your own ideas.

Postby Lashmar » Fri May 01, 2009 8:35 am

WANKER. go WANK so more and clear you mind. :roll:

Just F*** off. you're sooooooooooo wrong i can't be asked to help you.

Your just some jumped up twat. At least i'm a twat who is right about somethings and admits his country is falling apart. You're a wannabe yank, blind to every thing that isn't to do with you.

Do the world a favor, catch this flu. :roll:


that's a load of crap to you isn't it.

Research at two coastal sites, one of them at Happisburgh, Norfolk, showed humans could have settled in the country 700,000 years ago


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/2025530.stm

I feel sorry for you.
Read between the lies
User avatar
Lashmar
 
Posts: 5795
Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2009 11:54 am
Location: UK

Postby Lashmar » Fri May 01, 2009 8:40 am

does it hurt having an ego as BIG as your's. :)
Read between the lies
User avatar
Lashmar
 
Posts: 5795
Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2009 11:54 am
Location: UK

Postby Lashmar » Fri May 01, 2009 9:07 am

Wanker might have been harsh. how about Mr. Tosser. :lol:
Read between the lies
User avatar
Lashmar
 
Posts: 5795
Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2009 11:54 am
Location: UK

Postby rath » Sat May 02, 2009 12:19 am

Lashmar wrote:WANKER. go WANK so more and clear you mind. :roll:

Just F*** off. you're sooooooooooo wrong i can't be asked to help you.

Your just some jumped up twat. At least i'm a twat who is right about somethings and admits his country is falling apart. You're a wannabe yank, blind to every thing that isn't to do with you.

Do the world a favor, catch this flu. :roll:


that's a load of crap to you isn't it.

Research at two coastal sites, one of them at Happisburgh, Norfolk, showed humans could have settled in the country 700,000 years ago


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/2025530.stm

I feel sorry for you.
Image
rath
 
Posts: 4345
Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2009 11:54 am

Postby rath » Sat May 02, 2009 12:20 am

Lashmar wrote:WANKER. go WANK so more and clear you mind. :roll:

Just F*** off. you're sooooooooooo wrong i can't be asked to help you.

Your just some jumped up twat. At least i'm a twat who is right about somethings and admits his country is falling apart. You're a wannabe yank, blind to every thing that isn't to do with you.

Do the world a favor, catch this flu. :roll:


that's a load of crap to you isn't it.

Research at two coastal sites, one of them at Happisburgh, Norfolk, showed humans could have settled in the country 700,000 years ago


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/2025530.stm

I feel sorry for you.



quote="Lashmar"]WANKER. go WANK so more and clear you mind. :roll:

Just F*** off. you're sooooooooooo wrong i can't be asked to help you.

Your just some jumped up twat. At least i'm a twat who is right about somethings and admits his country is falling apart. You're a wannabe yank, blind to every thing that isn't to do with you.

Do the world a favor, catch this flu. :roll:


that's a load of crap to you isn't it.

Research at two coastal sites, one of them at Happisburgh, Norfolk, showed humans could have settled in the country 700,000 years ago


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/2025530.stm

I feel sorry for you.[/quote]


:roll: :roll: :lol:

The discovery of stone tools and animal bones in Eastern England has made scientists think humans may have been present in Britain 200,000 years earlier than previously thought.

Research at two coastal sites, one of them at Happisburgh, Norfolk, showed humans could have settled in the country 700,000 years ago.


The animal bones show markings which could only have been made by human chopping activity.

Human evidence of a stone tool made from a 700.000 year old stone .....

is not evidence of a 700.000 year old stone tool.

the age of the stone can not tell you when it was made into a tool ............

YOU TOOL.


relies on the work of amateurs in local areas.


amateurs ........ WELL DER.
Image
rath
 
Posts: 4345
Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2009 11:54 am

Postby rath » Sat May 02, 2009 12:27 am

Lashmar wrote:does it hurt having an ego as BIG as your's. :)




nup .......... but you should see my nadds ....... something that big ..... the pain.


WANKER. go WANK so more and clear you mind.



Again .......... man i just finished................ im still drained from the last round.
Image
rath
 
Posts: 4345
Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2009 11:54 am

Postby rath » Sat May 02, 2009 12:29 am

Lashmar wrote:Wanker might have been harsh. how about Mr. Tosser. :lol:



wanker ........ Tosser, its all good.


Just dont call me English .......
Image
rath
 
Posts: 4345
Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2009 11:54 am

Postby Lashmar » Sat May 02, 2009 2:08 am

the age of the stone can not tell you when it was made into a tool ............


I’ll explain this very slowly for you.

That is not a 700,000-year-old stone. It was made into a tool 700,000-years BP.

They know this because of the calcium that would have formed in the grooves of the flint.

I’m not sure if that’s right, I think it is.


Further analysis at Westbury-sub-Mendip in Somerset, where animal bones and teeth were discovered in the 1980s, now shows evidence of human activity 600,000 years ago.


Now even though that says teeth it was human teeth they found.


How do you think people staying in Africa for 1.6 ish million years then moved down through Asia and into Australia before they crossed that tiny little bit of water into Europe? How do you think that is right?

Then I’ve given you facts and then you think they are wrong because it’s not what you thought was right.

I hate to tell you but you idea is just wrong. It’s impossible for humans to have moved through Asia and into Australia before they went to Europe. It just couldn’t have happened.
Read between the lies
User avatar
Lashmar
 
Posts: 5795
Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2009 11:54 am
Location: UK

Postby rath » Sat May 02, 2009 12:28 pm

The Japan Times
January 10, 2001

DNA analysis of skeleton suggests Adam and Eve were Australians

Adam and Eve were Aussies, not Africans as most experts on human evolution now believe, recently completed Australian research claims.

The research, which is about to confound conventional wisdom, presents a new genetic tree showing anatomically modern humanity had common ancestors living in Australia 60,000 years ago.

Conducted by a team led by anthropologist Alan Thorne of Canberra's Australian National University, it also shows Australia was once home to a group of Aboriginal people whose genetic line died out.

The discoveries are based on new analysis of the oldest DNA ever recovered from human remains: a 60,000-year-old skeleton found in 1974 near Lake Mungo in the eastern Australian state of New South Wales.

Mungo Man, a relatively sophisticated bloke, had been ceremonially buried with hands crossed over the pelvis and sprinkled with red ocher.

Previously thought to be between 28,000 and 32,000 years old, his remains were subsequently redated at 56,000 to 68,000 years. Up to now, a Croatian Neanderthal who lived about 28,000 years ago had provided the oldest DNA recovered.

Mungo Man's DNA is creating a stir in the scientific community by casting serious doubt on the "Out of Africa" model of human evolution backed by most experts.

Conventional wisdom holds that all living people are descended from a group of homo sapiens that left Africa between 100,000 and 150,000 years ago. They and their descendants spread around the world, replacing existing populations of Neanderthals and homo erectus.

Thorne said most primitive forms of DNA known in living humans until now had been found in sub-Saharan Africa, leading to the Eve theory that mankind originated in Africa and left it as modern homo sapiens before spreading around the world.

"But what we have found is a lineage that is older than any of those, earlier than the putative most recent common ancestor, the so-called Eve point in mitochondrial evolution," he said. "Under a strict out of Africa hypothesis I have to say 'Well, they were wrong. Obviously Eve was an Australian.'"

But his key argument, due to be published by the U.S. journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, is that the Out of Africa model is simplistic and no longer tenable.

"Modern humans didn't just come from one area, they came from all areas," he said. "We assert that when people began to leave Africa 2 million years ago they were the ancestors of all modern people and we don't think modern humanity emerged from one place later on.

"We simply say that here we have a form much older than anything found in Africa and there's no evidence that it or the skeletal anatomy of the fossil that it comes from ever had anything to do with Africa."

The discovery that Mungo Man was a homo sapien and a modern man who came from a now extinct genetic lineage supports Thorne's argument, suggesting that humanity evolved in many parts of the world and in many ways.
Image
rath
 
Posts: 4345
Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2009 11:54 am

Postby rath » Sat May 02, 2009 12:35 pm

Mungo Man.

Mungo Man - The missing link?

Mungo Man - Mitochondrial DNA study.

Mungo Man shows how Australia was a cradle of culture.

Mungo Man's age rattles a few bones.

BBC News | SCI/TECH | Fossil challenge to Africa theory.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/1108413.stm


http://www.convictcreations.com/aborigines/prehistory.htm



read it & weep.

:lol: :lol: :lol:
Image
rath
 
Posts: 4345
Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2009 11:54 am

PreviousNext

Return to Scientific Discoveries and Advancements

cron
  • View new posts
  • View unanswered posts
  • Who is online
  • In total there are 0 users online :: 0 registered, 0 hidden and 0 guests (based on users active over the past 10 minutes)
  • Most users ever online was 292 on Mon Apr 23, 2012 3:19 pm
  • Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests