Oldest evidence of humans in Greece is 700,000 years old

[dlamberth]

"A prehistoric site in Greece pushes back the earliest known hominin presence in the region by up to 250,000 years."

Oldest evidence of humans in Greece is 700,000 years old, a quarter of a million years older than previous record

 

[Occams Barber]

"A prehistoric site in Greece pushes back the earliest known hominin presence in the region by up to 250,000 years."

Oldest evidence of humans in Greece is 700,000 years old, a quarter of a million years older than previous record

Whatever brand of hominin they were it sounds like they ate well;

"The researchers found numerous stone tools as well as remains of extinct species of giant deer, hippo, rhino, elephant and macaque"

OB

 

[SavedByGrace3]

I hold to Theistic Evolution.
This is no problem for us. I see "earth man" as truly evolved from beasts until Elohim loved them and chose to make them make them into Their image. Adam, the "spirit man," was then created in the garden and the two kinds of men jointed into what we have today.

 

[HARK!]

"A prehistoric site in Greece pushes back the earliest known hominin presence in the region by up to 250,000 years."

Oldest evidence of humans in Greece is 700,000 years old, a quarter of a million years older than previous record

Time to throw out more old science books.

 

[JohnEmmett]

until Elohim loved them and chose to make them into Their image.

The Anunnaki from the planet Nibiru

 

[Occams Barber]

The Anunnaki from the planet Nibiru

Nibiru: The Nonexistent Planet

Nibiru has been linked to NASA, and is also sometimes referred to or confused with Planet X, another supposed world for which there is no evidence.

www.space.com

 

[RileyG]

Fascinating

 

[JohnEmmett]

…

Hypothetical Planet X

Caltech researchers have found mathematical evidence suggesting there may be a "Planet X" deep in the solar system.

 

[AV1611VET]

Time to throw out more old science books.

Keeps those college bookstores in business.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Time to throw out more old science books.

Keeps those college bookstores in business.

I really don't understand why this is a negative point. New information is found that replaces older, now incorrect information and thus books have to be updated and replace. Why is that a bad thing?

 

[HARK!]

I really don't understand why this is a negative point. New information is found that replaces older, now incorrect information and thus books have to be updated and replace. Why is that a bad thing?

Why do you say "now incorrect?"

It was always incorrect; and it was presented as fact.

I didn't say that was a negative point.

Why would you infer that to be a negative point?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Why do you say "now incorrect?"

It was always incorrect; and it was presented as fact.

Why would that be a negative point?

Why do you act as replacing books with old scientific claims with newer and correct ones is a bad thing? Because that's what I take away from your comment.

 

[HARK!]

Why do you act as replacing books with old scientific claims with newer and correct ones is a bad thing? Because that's what I take away from your comment.

Why would you infer that I was acting? Let alone that burning propaganda books is a bad thing.

Let's not make this personal.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Why would you infer that I was acting? Let alone that burning propaganda books is a bad thing.

Let's not make this personal.

I'm not trying to make this personal, and I don't see how I'm making it personal. I'm just confused by what you're saying.

Are you saying that updating text books with newer information, and thus replacing older, out of date text books, is bad; yes or no?

 

[HARK!]

I'm not trying to make this personal, and I don't see how I'm making it personal. I'm just confused by what you're saying.

Are you saying that updating text books with newer information, and thus replacing older, out of date text books, is bad; yes or no?

You could try rereading what I wrote.

I try to avoid jumping to unfounded conclusions. That wouldn't be scientific.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

You could try rereading what I wrote.

Let's not jump to unfounded conclusions. That wouldn't be scientific.

Which is why I'm asking the question:
Are you saying that updating text books with newer information, and thus replacing older, out of date text books, is bad; yes or no?

 

[HARK!]

Which is why I'm asking the question:
Are you saying that updating text books with newer information, and thus replacing older, out of date text books, is bad; yes or no?

Did you read what I wrote?

I think that forcing the public to pay taxes, to be be used to force children to be indoctrinated with bad information, as those big corporations who profit from printing this bad information rake in the dough, is a bad thing.

Wouldn't you agree?

I would agree, even if I was a beneficiary of the raked dough.

I wonder how many millions of people still believe the bad information that they were coerced into memorizing.

 

[AV1611VET]

I really don't understand why this is a negative point. New information is found that replaces older, now incorrect information and thus books have to be updated and replace. Why is that a bad thing?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Did you read what I wrote?

I think that forcing the public to pay taxes, to be be used to force children to be indoctrinated with bad information, as those big corporations who profit from printing this bad information rake in the dough, is a bad thing.

Wouldn't you agree?

I would agree, even if I was a beneficiary of the raked dough.

Good to see that you're against people learning and you admit it.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

@AV1611VET you just quoted my post in triplicate.