# Well what do ya know...



## bullethead (Aug 31, 2011)

Monkeys used hand tools????????

http://news.yahoo.com/ancient-humans-used-hand-axes-earlier-thought-171718527.html

The article:
"LOS ANGELES (AP) — Ancient humans fashioned hand axes, cleavers and picks much earlier than believed, but didn't take the stone tools along when they left Africa, new research suggests.

A team from the United States and France made the findings after traveling to an archaeological site along the northwest shoreline of Kenya's Lake Turkana. Two-faced blades and other large cutting tools had been previously excavated there along with primitive stone flakes.

Using a sophisticated technique to date the dirt, researchers calculated the age of the more advanced tools to be 1.76 million years old. That's older than similar stone-age artifacts in Ethiopia and Tanzania estimated to be between 1.4 and 1.6 million years old.

This suggests that prehistoric humans were involved in refined tool-making that required a higher level of thinking much earlier than thought. Unlike the simplest stone tools made from bashing rocks together, the early humans who shaped these more distinct objects planned the design and then created them.

This "required a good deal of forethought as well as dexterity to manufacture," said paleoanthropologist Eric Delson at Lehman College in New York, who was not involved in the research.

Results of the study, led by Christopher Lepre of Rutgers University and Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, appear in Thursday's issue of the journal Nature.

The stone tools, known collectively as Acheulian tools, are believed to be the handiwork of the human ancestor Homo erectus. The teardrop-shaped axes were "like a stone-age Leatherman or Swiss Army knife," said New York University anthropologist Christian Tryon.

The axes were suited for butchering animals or chopping wood while the thicker picks were used for digging holes.

Homo erectus walked upright like modern humans, but possessed a flat skull, sloping forehead and a smaller brain. It emerged about 2 million years ago in Africa. Most researchers think Homo erectus was the first to fan out widely from Africa.

There's archaeological evidence that the first to leave carried only a simple toolkit. The earliest sites recovered in Asia and Europe contain pebble tools and flakes, but no sign of Acheulian technology like hand axes.

Why that is "remains an open question," said anthropologist Sally McBrearty of the University of Connecticut, who had no role in the research.

Theories abound. Some surmise that the early humans could not find the raw materials in their new settlement and lost the technology along the way. Others suggest they later returned to Africa where they developed hand axes.

NYU's Tryon, who was not part of the study, has a different thought. Perhaps the early populations who expanded out of Africa didn't need advanced technology because there was less competition.

Early humans were "behaviorally flexible" and making hand axes "was something that they did as needed and abandoned when not needed," Tryon said.

The latest work does little to settle the issue, but scientists now have identified the earliest known site in the world containing Acheulian tools.

Geologists collected about 150 samples of sediment from the site in 2007. To come up with an age, they used a technique known as paleomagnetic dating, which takes advantage of the flip-flop of Earth's magnetic field every several hundred thousand years.

The tools were not too far from where the bones of Turkana Boy — the most complete skeleton of a prehistoric human — were unearthed in 1984.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 31, 2011)

Excellent videos, 3 part series.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/evolution/becoming-human-part-2.html


----------



## ambush80 (Aug 31, 2011)

Nova is run by Satanists.


----------



## bullethead (Sep 1, 2011)

Darn them and their evidence!


----------



## Huntinfool (Sep 1, 2011)

I can see it now...


Bobo's Body Shop

"We'll fix your coconuts right, the FIRST time...or your poop's back!"


----------



## rjcruiser (Sep 1, 2011)

bullethead said:


> Using a sophisticated technique to date the dirt,





Didn't know dirt aged.


----------



## Huntinfool (Sep 1, 2011)

My question is what was the pick-up line that got the dirt's attention...


"Hey baby...you sho is lookin' brown tonight.  Wanna go out sometime?"


----------



## stringmusic (Sep 1, 2011)

Huntinfool said:


> My question is what was the pick-up line that got the dirt's attention...
> 
> 
> "Hey baby...you sho is lookin' brown tonight.  Wanna go out sometime?"





Slow going in the forum today fellas.


----------



## stringmusic (Sep 1, 2011)

Oh and BTW anybody seen Atlashunter lately? I know he spends alot of time in the PF but I ain't seen him in here in a while.


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Sep 1, 2011)

Here's a good discussion on the Homo genus by two leading evolutionists.    Paints a good picture of how paleontologists lump together these monkeys.   lol



http://crev.info/content/hominids_homonyms_and_homo_sapiens

_Homo erectus is particularly controversial, because it is such a broad classification.  Tattersall and Schwartz find no clear connection between the Asian, European and African specimens lumped into this class.  “In his 1950 review, Ernst Mayr placed all of these forms firmly within the species Homo erectus,” they explained.  “Subsequently, Homo erectus became the standard-issue ‘hominid in the middle,’ expanding to include not only the fossils just mentioned, but others of the same general period....”.  They discussed the arbitrariness of this classification:

    Put together, all these fossils (which span almost 2 myr) make a very heterogeneous assortment indeed; and placing them all together in the same species only makes any conceivable sense in the context of the ecumenical view of Homo erectus as the middle stage of the single hypervariable hominid lineage envisioned by Mayr (on the basis of a much slenderer record).  Viewed from the morphological angle, however, the practice of cramming all of this material into a single Old World-wide species is highly questionable.  Indeed, the stuffing process has only been rendered possible by a sort of ratchet effect, in which fossils allocated to Homo erectus almost regardless of their morphology have subsequently been cited as proof of just how variable the species can be._


----------



## gtparts (Sep 1, 2011)

bullethead,

Please tell us why you started the OP with a comment about monkeys. I have not found any reference to them in the article you posted. Is there some spiritual connection? Again, I am having a hard time with why this was posted at all. What's your point?


----------



## TripleXBullies (Sep 1, 2011)

rjcruiser said:


> Didn't know dirt aged.



That quote does sound funny, but dirt isn't a special substance that is not affected by time.


----------



## rjcruiser (Sep 1, 2011)

TripleXBullies said:


> That quote does sound funny, but dirt isn't a special substance that is not affected by time.



So...dirt evolved?  I thought dirt was dirt was as old as the earth.

Seems to me, dirt would just be as old as the planet...but hey, maybe I'm wrong.  I will say, it does appear that some of the dirt around my house is starting to show some wrinkles and sun spots.


----------



## gordon 2 (Sep 1, 2011)

rjcruiser said:


> So...dirt evolved?  I thought dirt was dirt was as old as the earth.
> 
> Seems to me, dirt would just be as old as the planet...but hey, maybe I'm wrong.  I will say, it does appear that some of the dirt around my house is starting to show some wrinkles and sun spots.



 Dirt is being made all the time. Peat Moss is dirt who's decay to finer dirt is slowed down by acids. Dirt evolves depending on the genetic meterial that decays. If the genetic meterial changes so does the dirt.

Dirt has horizons and profiles. Dirt is leached into layers over time and then again to minerals, clays etc....


----------



## gordon 2 (Sep 1, 2011)

gtparts said:


> bullethead,
> 
> Please tell us why you started the OP with a comment about monkeys. I have not found any reference to them in the article you posted. Is there some spiritual connection? Again, I am having a hard time with why this was posted at all. What's your point?



x2.


----------



## bullethead (Sep 1, 2011)

gtparts said:


> bullethead,
> 
> Please tell us why you started the OP with a comment about monkeys. I have not found any reference to them in the article you posted. Is there some spiritual connection? Again, I am having a hard time with why this was posted at all. What's your point?




I had no idea I had to check with you before I make a post.
No spiritual connection and probably the reason I did not put it in the Spiritual forum. I figured some guys would consider them monkeys since they are not like Mr.Adam and Mrs.Eve.

My point is that there was a creature very close to "us" but not quite "us". They WERE real and inhabited the earth long before "us". Possibly a transitional species.


----------



## bullethead (Sep 1, 2011)

gordon 2 said:


> x2.





> i had no idea i had to check with you before i make a post.
> No spiritual connection and probably the reason i did not put it in the spiritual forum. I figured some guys would consider them monkeys since they are not like mr.adam and mrs.eve.
> 
> My point is that there was a creature very close to "us" but not quite "us". They were real and inhabited the earth long before "us". Possibly a transitional species.



x2!


----------



## hummdaddy (Sep 1, 2011)

rjcruiser said:


> So...dirt evolved?  I thought dirt was dirt was as old as the earth.
> 
> Seems to me, dirt would just be as old as the planet...but hey, maybe I'm wrong.  I will say, it does appear that some of the dirt around my house is starting to show some wrinkles and sun spots.



each layer of subsoil  is from a different period as plant and animal life die off more layers are made


----------



## hummdaddy (Sep 1, 2011)

gordon 2 said:


> Dirt is being made all the time. Peat Moss is dirt who's decay to finer dirt is slowed down by acids. Dirt evolves depending on the genetic meterial that decays. If the genetic meterial changes so does the dirt.
> 
> Dirt has horizons and profiles. Dirt is leached into layers over time and then again to minerals, clays etc....



i simplified it for him


----------



## bullethead (Sep 1, 2011)

The article shows that there was a species on earth before "us" and the best the believers can do is talk about dirt???


----------



## rjcruiser (Sep 2, 2011)

bullethead said:


> The article shows that there was a species on earth before "us" and the best the believers can do is talk about dirt???



When the whole article and study is based on "a sophisticated way to date dirt," then yeah, that is the best thing I can talk about.

Really, the article does nothing to say there were species on the earth before "us."  It just shows that a tool was left next to a skeletal remain that was from a different period.


----------



## bullethead (Sep 2, 2011)

rjcruiser said:


> When the whole article and study is based on "a sophisticated way to date dirt," then yeah, that is the best thing I can talk about.
> 
> Really, the article does nothing to say there were species on the earth before "us."  It just shows that a tool was left next to a skeletal remain that was from a different period.



(Clink on the link to the Videos........)

1.7 million years ago might qualify as before "us".


----------



## gtparts (Sep 2, 2011)

bullethead said:


> Monkeys used hand tools????????
> 
> http://news.yahoo.com/ancient-humans-used-hand-axes-earlier-thought-171718527.html
> 
> ...



It appears that this article presents very little that is regarded as being concrete. Speculation is a hallmark of ancient anthropological research. There seems to be significant opposition to some of the ideas presented. A few things are stated as fact, yet the conclusions drawn are nearly impossible to confirm.
Take this paragraph for example: 



> Theories abound. Some surmise that the early humans could not find the raw materials in their new settlement and lost the technology along the way. Others suggest they later returned to Africa where they developed hand axes.



How likely would you say it is that a small group of pre-humans, having developed flint or obsidian cutting tools, a great leap in technology, would leave it behind or lose it when they relocated? Does it really make sense that they could develop that technological boon and subsequently discard it? No wonder we have no contemporary Homo erectus 

Some poor journalism major had to cook up an article to keep his or her job. I am just surprised that someone would put any confidence in what is basically a fluff piece.


----------



## bullethead (Sep 2, 2011)

gtparts said:


> It appears that this article presents very little that is regarded as being concrete. Speculation is a hallmark of ancient anthropological research. There seems to be significant opposition to some of the ideas presented. A few things are stated as fact, yet the conclusions drawn are nearly impossible to confirm.
> Take this paragraph for example:
> 
> 
> ...



In the videos it shows a site where the pre-humans sat around and chipped the stones to get the final product. The area is littered with the fragments and stones that did not quite meet the needs.

I would say the likeliness of such things occurring are much greater than 90% of what is written the Bible(speaking of fluff pieces) to have occurred. Mainly because of the EVIDENCE to back up the claims.


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Sep 2, 2011)

bullethead said:


> In the videos it shows a site where the pre-humans sat around and chipped the stones to get the final product. The area is littered with the fragments and stones that did not quite meet the needs.
> 
> I would say the likeliness of such things occurring are much greater than 90% of what is written the Bible(speaking of fluff pieces) to have occurred. Mainly because of the EVIDENCE to back up the claims.



Your 'turkana boy' fossil was found not far from this sight.  This 'boy', from the neck down, is no different than men walking around today, and its skull charecteristics are well within the limits of men today.    

I agree with GT....sounds like scientists (in there continual desire to get their names associated with hominid fossils and sites) have taken another modern human fossil and ran with it!!   lol

I read not long ago where an anthropologist was studying american indians that had died 1000 years ago in an epidemic.   (I forget his name...I'll find that later)  This guy, an evolutionist, said that the bones of these indians (1000 year old homo sapiens) would have been classified as another species, or even genus, had they been discovered as fossils!!!    lol     

There's also a group of evolutionists that want the entire homo erectus assortment of fossils relegated to homo sapiens, as they don't differ any more from modern humans as modern humans do between races, tribes, etc

Bullet posted this thread because he's quick to believe everything he reads in the headlines....never questioning...just taking it hook, line and sinker!  

always question, Bullet.   always ask..."I wonder what the scientists are NOT telling us?"


----------



## CAL (Sep 2, 2011)

Amazing how things can be classified as 1000 years old or 1.5 million years old and I can't remember yesterday hardly.Hard as I try.

The Bible talks about people who lived several hundred years.Wonder if there years were the same as ours?


----------



## bullethead (Sep 2, 2011)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> Your 'turkana boy' fossil was found not far from this sight.  This 'boy', from the neck down, is no different than men walking around today, and its skull charecteristics are well within the limits of men today.
> 
> I agree with GT....sounds like scientists (in there continual desire to get their names associated with hominid fossils and sites) have taken another modern human fossil and ran with it!!   lol
> 
> ...



Glad you think you know me, but I DO question everything and then go with what makes more sense.

Don't sell me short Bandy, I'll read Pro and Con before I type, not just go with a headline.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Sep 2, 2011)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> Your 'turkana boy' fossil was found not far from this sight.  This 'boy', from the neck down, is no different than men walking around today, and its skull charecteristics are well within the limits of men today.
> 
> I agree with GT....sounds like scientists (in there continual desire to get their names associated with hominid fossils and sites) have taken another modern human fossil and ran with it!!   lol
> 
> ...




Christian pastors are quick to devote their lives to a god and a church so that they can read a book a couple of times a week, think about what to talk about, then talk on Sunday morning..... And THEN pass the offering plate around. VERY SIMILAR.


Believing what he reads and going for it hook line and sinker?? Really? How can you say that? I wouldn't say it to begin with, but I will say that is NO different than reading a book bound in leather and devoting your very existence to it. Is it really better because "everybody" else is doing it?


----------



## TripleXBullies (Sep 2, 2011)

CAL said:


> Amazing how things can be classified as 1000 years old or 1.5 million years old and I can't remember yesterday hardly.Hard as I try.
> 
> The Bible talks about people who lived several hundred years.Wonder if there years were the same as ours?



Not everyone is an old redneck  

I am too though


----------



## bullethead (Sep 2, 2011)

TripleXBullies said:


> Christian pastors are quick to devote their lives to a god and a church so that they can read a book a couple of times a week, think about what to talk about, then talk on Sunday morning..... And THEN pass the offering plate around. VERY SIMILAR.
> 
> How was this guy studying indians from 1000 years ago? Was he interviewing them, but then said that if they were found as fossils it would be something? Joking and really asking...
> 
> Believing what he reads and going for it hook line and sinker?? Really? How can you say that? I wouldn't say it to begin with, but I will say that is NO different than reading a book bound in leather and devoting your very existence to it. Is it really better because "everybody" else is doing it?



Yeah I gotta shrug off the comments about being quick to believe everything I read....all things considered!


----------



## TripleXBullies (Sep 2, 2011)

Exactly what I did. 

I edited my post initially because I re-read that he was studying bones. Do bones not decay to dust in 1000 years if they are not fossilized or petrified? I don't know for sure.


----------



## bfriendly (Sep 10, 2011)

rjcruiser said:


> Didn't know dirt aged.



Somehow we both saw the same thing here

I wonder how sophisticated aging dirt is......like, do they have a Proven aged sample to compare with?

I know, I know, Lets just call it, Sophisticated


----------



## TripleXBullies (Sep 10, 2011)

I agree, that sounded dumb... But when you really get to it, I bet there really is a sophisticated way of aging layers in sediment. Does that sound sophisticated?


----------



## ted_BSR (Sep 11, 2011)

bullethead said:


> Glad you think you know me, but I DO question everything and then go with what makes more sense.
> 
> Don't sell me short Bandy, I'll read Pro and Con before I type, not just go with a headline.



Bullet - *I *don't think you "just go with a headline".

I have known you to be thoughtful, insightful, and always civil, but you must see that posting belief in the "evidence" of million year old missing link fossils interpreted by biased scientists with an agenda and scraps of data is as ridiculous to us believers as our biblical beliefs are to you. You might as well be quoting scripture bro.

Your arguements backed up by "scientific evidence" are as laughable to believers as our divinely inspired scipture is to you.

I say this with respect to you, as you have always shown respect towards me.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Sep 11, 2011)

My last reply was similar. What I call it is another whiiiiffff at this point.. for me.. Is 2 strikes for hayzues and 2 for evo.. when either can take forever to strike out.


----------



## bullethead (Sep 11, 2011)

ted_BSR said:


> Bullet - *I *don't think you "just go with a headline".
> 
> I have known you to be thoughtful, insightful, and always civil, but you must see that posting belief in the "evidence" of million year old missing link fossils interpreted by biased scientists with an agenda and scraps of data is as ridiculous to us believers as our biblical beliefs are to you. You might as well be quoting scripture bro.
> 
> ...



Ted, I hear you and the give the same respect back at you.

All I can say is that given a choice between the two I go with the one that uses methods that we use every day in every other aspect of our lives. We trust science for our food, water, air, medications, health, knowledge, weather, entertainment, transportation, agriculture, space exploration, clothing, sports equipment, safety, car waxes, cleaners, education and you name it, we use science to check it and make it better. I know nothing is 100% especially in science as it changes...but it seems to change for the better as we are constantly checking and re-checking the findings. Science is not content to stop and let faith take care of the rest. I trust the methods we use every second of every day in everything we do. If someone tells me they shot a nice buck and shows me a pic of them with the buck then I believe them. If someone tells me a T-Rex lived and I see the bones of a T-Rex then I believe them. If someone tells me dirt is (X) years old and they use the best methods they have available to come to that figure, then I believe them until I hear otherwise. If someone tells me there was a giant boat that carried all the animals of the world to save them from obliteration.... well I wanna see proof.

I cannot and will not take stories written and re-written and re-re-written over thousands of years as proof of anything. I totally believe that some stories have a base of truth like real people and real places but then it is added to by the best guess or one man's thoughts of how it all came to be. Similar stories have been told by every race and creed and religion worldwide. They are all magnificent tales that while awe-inspiring, are nothing more than fables told generation after generation picked up by other cultures and re-told to their liking over and over and on and on constantly changing to the new tellers version. None of the grand events that happen in any of those stories have ever panned out to have happened. None have happened since and I seriously doubt any will ever happen in the future. 
Meanwhile since I have typed this science has just figured something new out, or found something that we never knew existed or figured out a way to make something happen. Not because some magical mystical being poofed it into existence right into their lab desk, but because through thorough methods, trial and error, screw ups or just plain luck.....thoughts and theories turned into fact.


----------



## ambush80 (Sep 11, 2011)

bullethead said:


> Ted, I hear you and the give the same respect back at you.
> 
> All I can say is that given a choice between the two I go with the one that uses methods that we use every day in every other aspect of our lives. We trust science for our food, water, air, medications, health, knowledge, weather, entertainment, transportation, agriculture, space exploration, clothing, sports equipment, safety, car waxes, cleaners, education and you name it, we use science to check it and make it better. I know nothing is 100% especially in science as it changes...but it seems to change for the better as we are constantly checking and re-checking the findings. Science is not content to stop and let faith take care of the rest. I trust the methods we use every second of every day in everything we do. If someone tells me they shot a nice buck and shows me a pic of them with the buck then I believe them. If someone tells me a T-Rex lived and I see the bones of a T-Rex then I believe them. If someone tells me dirt is (X) years old and they use the best methods they have available to come to that figure, then I believe them until I hear otherwise. If someone tells me there was a giant boat that carried all the animals of the world to save them from obliteration.... well I wanna see proof.
> 
> ...



I think you expressed well the reason why claims made by science are far more reliable then claims made by any religious text.  

Science doesn't claim to know anything for certain.  The methods they use are based on sound, proven principles like mathematics and chemistry.  The experiments they perform can be replicated by anyone either seeking to verify or deny the results.  

Those science guys do good work.


----------



## fish hawk (Sep 11, 2011)

bullethead said:


> Monkeys used hand tools????????



Thats no surprise,they still use rocks today to crack nuts and such,but I've never seen a monkey sit down and knapp out a tool or spearpoint.


----------



## bullethead (Sep 11, 2011)

fish hawk said:


> Thats no surprise,they still use rocks today to crack nuts and such,but I've never seen a monkey sit down and knapp out a tool or spearpoint.



Exactly


----------



## ted_BSR (Sep 11, 2011)

bullethead said:


> Ted, I hear you and the give the same respect back at you.
> 
> All I can say is that given a choice between the two I go with the one that uses methods that we use every day in every other aspect of our lives. We trust science for our food, water, air, medications, health, knowledge, weather, entertainment, transportation, agriculture, space exploration, clothing, sports equipment, safety, car waxes, cleaners, education and you name it, we use science to check it and make it better. I know nothing is 100% especially in science as it changes...but it seems to change for the better as we are constantly checking and re-checking the findings. Science is not content to stop and let faith take care of the rest. I trust the methods we use every second of every day in everything we do. If someone tells me they shot a nice buck and shows me a pic of them with the buck then I believe them. If someone tells me a T-Rex lived and I see the bones of a T-Rex then I believe them. If someone tells me dirt is (X) years old and they use the best methods they have available to come to that figure, then I believe them until I hear otherwise. If someone tells me there was a giant boat that carried all the animals of the world to save them from obliteration.... well I wanna see proof.
> 
> ...



I trust God for those things, and everything else. Here is an example. When someone I know is sick, I pray that God will give the doctors wisdom and skill to treat them correctly.

I don't think it is all just about the bible for proof either, and I understand how difficult it is to put faith in it.

I don't think the type proof you seek about God's existence exists. I don't think it works that way.


----------



## ted_BSR (Sep 11, 2011)

ambush80 said:


> I think you expressed well the reason why claims made by science are far more reliable then claims made by any religious text.
> 
> Science doesn't claim to know anything for certain.  The methods they use are based on sound, proven principles like mathematics and chemistry.  The experiments they perform can be replicated by anyone either seeking to verify or deny the results.
> 
> Those science guys do good work.



I think he expressed his opinion very well, and I think his opinion is sensible.

I also think your view on science is accurate, unfortunately, there is a lot of grout filling in the cracks of science. There is a lot of opinion involved. If I dig up some fragments of an old skull, there will be a lot of opinions about what it is and where it came from.

Somewhere out there exists the absolute truth about that skull. We may never find it.


----------



## hummdaddy (Sep 11, 2011)

ted_BSR said:


> I trust God for those things, and everything else. Here is an example. When someone I know is sick, I pray that God will give the doctors wisdom and skill to treat them correctly.
> 
> I don't think it is all just about the bible for proof either, and I understand how difficult it is to put faith in it.
> 
> I don't think the type proof you seek about God's existence exists. I don't think it works that way.



i don't ask god for that .. i hope they have studied enough in school and  enough time in the hospital to know what to do ...


----------



## bullethead (Sep 11, 2011)

ted_BSR said:


> I trust God for those things, and everything else. Here is an example. When someone I know is sick, I pray that God will give the doctors wisdom and skill to treat them correctly.
> 
> I don't think it is all just about the bible for proof either, and I understand how difficult it is to put faith in it.
> 
> I don't think the type proof you seek about God's existence exists. I don't think it works that way.



Well I ask the Oak Tree in my yard to provide the same skill to the doctors. Which one actually helped the Docs? Maybe Buddah? Rah? Oden? Zuess? Same proof or lack of can be used for each of them.


----------



## bullethead (Sep 11, 2011)

ted_BSR said:


> I think he expressed his opinion very well, and I think his opinion is sensible.
> 
> I also think your view on science is accurate, unfortunately, there is a lot of grout filling in the cracks of science. There is a lot of opinion involved. If I dig up some fragments of an old skull, there will be a lot of opinions about what it is and where it came from.
> 
> Somewhere out there exists the absolute truth about that skull. We may never find it.



But at least the skull is there.


----------



## hummdaddy (Sep 11, 2011)

im gonna ask one of the  god's to pay my bills


----------



## ted_BSR (Sep 11, 2011)

hummdaddy said:


> im gonna ask one of the  god's to pay my bills



Better ask the right one!


----------



## ted_BSR (Sep 11, 2011)

bullethead said:


> Well I ask the Oak Tree in my yard to provide the same skill to the doctors. Which one actually helped the Docs? Maybe Buddah? Rah? Oden? Zuess? Same proof or lack of can be used for each of them.



As I said, I don't think the kind of proof you seek exists.


----------



## bullethead (Sep 11, 2011)

ted_BSR said:


> As I said, I don't think the kind of proof you seek exists.



You are right Ted. And there is a good reason that it does not exist.


----------



## ted_BSR (Sep 11, 2011)

bullethead said:


> You are right Ted. And there is a good reason that it does not exist.



And you believe the reason is that it is not true (I assume).

We are such confident creatures, to a fault I am afraid.


----------

