Homo floresiensis : Image Source : Wiki Commons
1 posted on
09/08/2011 1:17:18 AM PDT by
SunkenCiv
To: SunkenCiv
"Could humans have developed in Australia at the same time they were developing in Africa? " Well, sure, except for the female's pouches.
2 posted on
09/08/2011 1:46:00 AM PDT by
FroggyTheGremlim
(Democrats: the Party of NO!)
To: SunkenCiv
What big eyes you have, grandma.
3 posted on
09/08/2011 1:48:44 AM PDT by
Jonty30
To: SunkenCiv
Look at those teeth! I didn’t know there were English cavemen!
To: SunkenCiv
Although this date is disputed it is now universally accepted as the most accurate and reliable.
Sounds like the nuttery they say about Global Warming.
5 posted on
09/08/2011 3:20:20 AM PDT by
UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide
(REPEAL WASHINGTON! -- Islam Delenda Est! -- I Want Constantinople Back. -- Rumble thee forth.)
To: SunkenCiv
we know that Sahul, the original name of Australia during prehistoric times,
How do we know this?
6 posted on
09/08/2011 4:03:33 AM PDT by
freedomfiter2
(Brutal acts of commission and yawning acts of omission both strengthen the hand of the devil.)
To: SunkenCiv
These fellows’ credibility is immediately suspect when they state as fact that “Sahul” was the original name of Australia. How on earth would they have any hint of what the Australians 40k years ago called the place? Where are the properly carbon-14 dated recordings of 40k year old speech?
7 posted on
09/08/2011 9:07:52 AM PDT by
arthurus
(Read Hazlitt's "Economics In One Lesson.")
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson