On Wed, 04 Feb 1998 19:17:18 -0600, Glenn Morton wrote:
[...]
>>GM>I don't know why you chose that figure. I would suggest that you
>>>should have problems with him being there 700,000 years ago. By
>>>140,000 years ago, it is much less certainty about the existence of
>>>someone in Australia.
>SJ>You mentioned that Homo erectus was on Flores 700,000 years ago and
>>that it isn't far from there to Australia:
GM>Yes it is not far, but it isn't Australia. As I said, there is no evidence
>of H. erectus on the Australian continent--ever. This could change but as of
>now, there is none.
Agreed. But your question was why I chose that figure of 700,000, not
whether there is any evidence of Homo erectus in Australia.
>SJ>BTW you just ignore (truncating my message without the usual
>>elipses), the New Scientist article "The drying of a continent" which
>>indicates "that large-scale destruction of the Australian vegetation
>>only occurred 10,000 years ago".
>>More seriously perhaps, you have also truncated (again without
>>elipses) my request for an explanation to Reflectorites of why on the
>>same day you appear to have removed the Jinmium line from your web
>>page, you were giving us all the impression that you would not remove
>>it.
SJ>I tire of dealing with this stuff and because of a weariness of answering
>your constant accusations
What "accusations", Glenn?
SJ>Steve, I am not even reading most of your posts
>anymore. I simply don't have time to answer the same question 55 times only
>to have to answer it the 56th. If you can't understand what I said the first
>55 times, then I am sorry. 56 probably won't help.
It would if you answered them *once*!
SJ>You say things like the above with no evidence whatsoever. I didn't remove
>anything from my web page. The list you refer to was put on my web page on
>the day in question. Prior to that day, the list of human technology was
>not there at all. At the time I placed that on the page, Jinmium was NOT on
>the list. Now I see no point to your silly unsubstantiated claim.
If the list did not include anything about Jinmium, then why did you talk
about removing it from your list if the outcome was that the thermoluminescence
dates fail:
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sun, 18 Jan 1998 17:28:29 -0600
To: evolution@calvin.edu
From: grmorton@waymark.net (Glenn Morton)
Subject: Re: Doubts over spectacular Jinmium dates
[...]
Anyway, I will await the outcome before removing it...
If the dates fail, you can be assured that I will remove it from my list. I
have already removed Orce from the copy that went into the book.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
GM>Because you have such trouble getting your facts right, makes it almost
>worthless reading what you write. I expect your usual flame to the effect
>that my stuff isn't worth reading either, so I would suggest that you don't.
Please give even *one* example of a "flame" from me in the two years I have
been posting to the Reflector.
If I don't get my facts right, then it should be child's play for you to set
me straight.
And I don't mind if you don't read what I write. But I will continue to read
what *you* write, and comment on it. If you don't want to respond to my
comments that's fine by me. Others will draw their own conclusions.
Steve
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen E (Steve) Jones ,--_|\ sejones@ibm.net
3 Hawker Avenue / Oz \ Steve.Jones@health.wa.gov.au
Warwick 6024 ->*_,--\_/ Phone +61 8 9448 7439
Perth, West Australia v "Test everything." (1Thess 5:21)
--------------------------------------------------------------------