If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Past Horizons Archaeology)   NEWS: Scientists find an ancient settlement in Sudan. FARK: It's 70,000 years old   (pasthorizonspr.com) divider line 90
    More: Spiffy  
•       •       •

5766 clicks; posted to Geek » on 26 Jul 2014 at 8:20 AM (8 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



90 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-07-26 04:45:24 AM
Yeeaaahhh...I'm inclined to think that either someone forgot to carry the one, or it wasn't a human settlement.  70,000 years...that's really pushing the boundaries of what humans were capable of at the time.
 
2014-07-26 05:05:16 AM
Discoveries in Affad are unique for the Middle Palaeolithic

Say, would you crackers like to hear about the time we met the Loch Ness Monster?  Ooh, it must have been about seven, eight years ago. Me and the little lady was out on this boat, you see, all alone at night, when all of the sudden this huge creature, this giant crustacean from the Paleolithic Era, comes out of the water.
 
2014-07-26 05:17:50 AM

Ambivalence: Yeeaaahhh...I'm inclined to think that either someone forgot to carry the one, or it wasn't a human settlement.  70,000 years...that's really pushing the boundaries of what humans were capable of at the time.


7000 years ago, humans were making throw-away fall collections out of beautiful beaten bronze, which my local museums are loaded with.

What evidence do you have to disprove this thesis regarding technology possessed by a mere few generations hence?

/answer: bupkiss
 
2014-07-26 05:21:36 AM
And when I said "hence", I really meant "hither".

/so sorry you look so unkindly upon the intelligence of your ancestors
//but then intelligence tends to be inherited
 
2014-07-26 05:23:22 AM

Marcus Aurelius: 7000 years ago, humans were making throw-away fall collections out of beautiful beaten bronze, which my local museums are loaded with.

What evidence do you have to disprove this thesis regarding technology possessed by a mere few generations hence?

/answer: bupkiss


I don't know what species you're thinking of, but 63,000 years represents a hell of a lot more than "a mere few generations".
 
NFA [TotalFark]
2014-07-26 06:32:42 AM

Ambivalence: I don't know what species you're thinking of, but 63,000 years represents a hell of a lot more than "a mere few generations".


Scientists agree that modern homo sapiens evolved in Africa about 200,000 years ago.  So what seems out of place to you?  With 140,000 years of development under their belts, why would it be unlikely they built rudimentary pole framed structures such as huts?
 
2014-07-26 07:10:25 AM

NFA: Ambivalence: I don't know what species you're thinking of, but 63,000 years represents a hell of a lot more than "a mere few generations".

Scientists agree that modern homo sapiens evolved in Africa about 200,000 years ago.  So what seems out of place to you?  With 140,000 years of development under their belts, why would it be unlikely they built rudimentary pole framed structures such as huts?


The reason this is so unusual is that it's, thus far, been commonly recognized that homo sapiens didn't start building settlements until the advent of agriculture after the last ice age, somewhere between 10,000 and 14,000 years ago.  Before that, people were nomadic hunter/gatherers that didn't have a need for fixed buildings as they would follow the availability of food.   The idea that they were building settlements LONG before that is peculiar since they should not have had any reason to do so (taking care of crops and/or domesticated animals).  It's not a comment on intelligence, but need.
 
2014-07-26 08:11:37 AM
I blame █
 
2014-07-26 08:29:59 AM
They probably should test the remains for Cylon DNA.
 
2014-07-26 08:37:52 AM
The article seems to imply they're waiting to hear back on the luminescence data.

The site could be from 70,000 OR 20,000 years old the variety of animal remains cross referenced with what they already know about the local ecology (ie it could bet from the old wet period, or the newer one.)

I'd bet the data comes back with 20k. It would be pretty nifty if they find it's 70k. It would make those French caves johnny come latelies.
 
2014-07-26 08:38:45 AM

syrynxx: Discoveries in Affad are unique for the Middle Palaeolithic

Say, would you crackers like to hear about the time we met the Loch Ness Monster?  Ooh, it must have been about seven, eight years ago. Me and the little lady was out on this boat, you see, all alone at night, when all of the sudden this huge creature, this giant crustacean from the Paleolithic Era, comes out of the water.


Did he ask for tree fiddy?
 
2014-07-26 08:55:54 AM
...and this is strange exactly why?

Considering that people have been around for some time now, did folks just assume that they wandered alone and without any purpose until the space aliens came down to give them agriculture and technology?
 
2014-07-26 08:58:04 AM
NEWS: Scientists find an ancient settlement in Sudan. FARK: It's 70,000 years old

ISIS preps a demolition team for immediate dispatch.
 
2014-07-26 08:59:16 AM
static.fjcdn.com

/DNRTFA
 
2014-07-26 09:17:50 AM

hubiestubert: ...and this is strange exactly why?

Considering that people have been around for some time now, did folks just assume that they wandered alone and without any purpose until the space aliens came down to give them agriculture and technology?


People didn't start domestication of plants and animals till about 10k years ago. The ability to make your own food allows people to settle down and have the population density needed to stay in one spot. This would be a huge discovery if it's correct.
 
2014-07-26 09:17:51 AM

hubiestubert: ...and this is strange exactly why?

Considering that people have been around for some time now, did folks just assume that they wandered alone and without any purpose until the space aliens came down to give them agriculture and technology?


Don't be silly. Everybody knows those space aliens faked the Earth landing.
 
2014-07-26 09:23:13 AM

Doktor_Zhivago: hubiestubert: ...and this is strange exactly why?

Considering that people have been around for some time now, did folks just assume that they wandered alone and without any purpose until the space aliens came down to give them agriculture and technology?

People didn't start domestication of plants and animals till about 10k years ago. The ability to make your own food allows people to settle down and have the population density needed to stay in one spot. This would be a huge discovery if it's correct.


Yes, but hunters still have patterns in their migrations. Following seasons, following game, and that means running across the same places again and again, and having knowledge of the places that they went was an edge. That even includes where to camp that was defensible and convenient. Interesting to get a snapshot of that life, but not incredibly surprising.
 
2014-07-26 09:33:27 AM

Ambivalence: NFA: Ambivalence: I don't know what species you're thinking of, but 63,000 years represents a hell of a lot more than "a mere few generations".

Scientists agree that modern homo sapiens evolved in Africa about 200,000 years ago.  So what seems out of place to you?  With 140,000 years of development under their belts, why would it be unlikely they built rudimentary pole framed structures such as huts?

The reason this is so unusual is that it's, thus far, been commonly recognized that homo sapiens didn't start building settlements until the advent of agriculture after the last ice age, somewhere between 10,000 and 14,000 years ago.  Before that, people were nomadic hunter/gatherers that didn't have a need for fixed buildings as they would follow the availability of food.   The idea that they were building settlements LONG before that is peculiar since they should not have had any reason to do so (taking care of crops and/or domesticated animals).  It's not a comment on intelligence, but need.


What if the only reason we haven't found any older evidence of human structures is because none of them survived beyond 14K years? The only reason this one is preserved at all is because the climate in the area permanently changed to one that was less erosive (i.e. arid).

But yeah, it's good to be skeptical of course.
 
2014-07-26 09:37:30 AM

Bonzo_1116: The article seems to imply they're waiting to hear back on the luminescence data.

The site could be from 70,000 OR 20,000 years old the variety of animal remains cross referenced with what they already know about the local ecology (ie it could bet from the old wet period, or the newer one.)

I'd bet the data comes back with 20k. It would be pretty nifty if they find it's 70k. It would make those French caves johnny come latelies.


This.  You get the big "OMG 70,000 YEARS OLD!!!" headline, then they bury the "Well, it might only be 20,000, we're trying to figure that out" part way down in the last paragraph.
 
2014-07-26 09:40:31 AM
i291.photobucket.com

No, no, no, no...Billy Boy, this is Ghana. You, my friend, are shooting for The Sudan.

i291.photobucket.com
 
2014-07-26 09:43:26 AM

Ambivalence: Yeeaaahhh...I'm inclined to think that either someone forgot to carry the one, or it wasn't a human settlement.  70,000 years...that's really pushing the boundaries of what humans were capable of at the time.


Petitio principii, much?
 
2014-07-26 09:44:23 AM

Ambivalence: NFA: Ambivalence: I don't know what species you're thinking of, but 63,000 years represents a hell of a lot more than "a mere few generations".

Scientists agree that modern homo sapiens evolved in Africa about 200,000 years ago.  So what seems out of place to you?  With 140,000 years of development under their belts, why would it be unlikely they built rudimentary pole framed structures such as huts?

The reason this is so unusual is that it's, thus far, been commonly recognized that homo sapiens didn't start building settlements until the advent of agriculture after the last ice age, somewhere between 10,000 and 14,000 years ago.  Before that, people were nomadic hunter/gatherers that didn't have a need for fixed buildings as they would follow the availability of food.   The idea that they were building settlements LONG before that is peculiar since they should not have had any reason to do so (taking care of crops and/or domesticated animals).  It's not a comment on intelligence, but need.


Doesn't this site (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6bekli_Tepe#Interpretation ) call into question the assumption that agriculture is a necessary prerequisite for complex construction and settlements?

/Not an archaeologist, so I really am just asking.
 
2014-07-26 09:51:30 AM
Neat. o.o
 
2014-07-26 09:51:46 AM

hubiestubert: Doktor_Zhivago: hubiestubert: ...and this is strange exactly why?

Considering that people have been around for some time now, did folks just assume that they wandered alone and without any purpose until the space aliens came down to give them agriculture and technology?

People didn't start domestication of plants and animals till about 10k years ago. The ability to make your own food allows people to settle down and have the population density needed to stay in one spot. This would be a huge discovery if it's correct.

Yes, but hunters still have patterns in their migrations. Following seasons, following game, and that means running across the same places again and again, and having knowledge of the places that they went was an edge. That even includes where to camp that was defensible and convenient. Interesting to get a snapshot of that life, but not incredibly surprising.


Consider this also:  TFA says light wooden structures, which could mean practically anything.  Could be a framework covered in bark or animal skins.

I could even see a semi-nomadic people setting up frameworks in areas that they return to regularly.  Set up the frame, and inhabit it for a few months.  When it's time to follow the herds, you take the skin covering with you and leave the framework.  When you come back to the site again, instead of having to start from scratch, you fix the framework if there is any damage, clear out the overgrowth, and throw the skins over it again.
 
2014-07-26 09:52:10 AM

hubiestubert: Doktor_Zhivago: hubiestubert: ...and this is strange exactly why?

Considering that people have been around for some time now, did folks just assume that they wandered alone and without any purpose until the space aliens came down to give them agriculture and technology?

People didn't start domestication of plants and animals till about 10k years ago. The ability to make your own food allows people to settle down and have the population density needed to stay in one spot. This would be a huge discovery if it's correct.

Yes, but hunters still have patterns in their migrations. Following seasons, following game, and that means running across the same places again and again, and having knowledge of the places that they went was an edge. That even includes where to camp that was defensible and convenient. Interesting to get a snapshot of that life, but not incredibly surprising.


From what I've read, wet Sahara was pretty much paradise for hunters.  If there was a hyper-abundance of game animals, water fowl, fish, and wild food vegetables, why not stay for a while?
Given that the article mentions separate shambles and toolworks, it's not inconceivable that the sanitary issues which motivate some nomadic behaviour could have been dealt with.

Of course, most of the great cities of that era were on the coast and their lie under the ocean floor beneath the risen sea level.
 
2014-07-26 10:05:52 AM

hubiestubert: Doktor_Zhivago: hubiestubert: ...and this is strange exactly why?

Considering that people have been around for some time now, did folks just assume that they wandered alone and without any purpose until the space aliens came down to give them agriculture and technology?

People didn't start domestication of plants and animals till about 10k years ago. The ability to make your own food allows people to settle down and have the population density needed to stay in one spot. This would be a huge discovery if it's correct.

Yes, but hunters still have patterns in their migrations. Following seasons, following game, and that means running across the same places again and again, and having knowledge of the places that they went was an edge. That even includes where to camp that was defensible and convenient. Interesting to get a snapshot of that life, but not incredibly surprising.


I'm with this guy. My guess is that while it may not be a permanent settlement, it could be a hunting camp. They could have built a series of shelters along hunying trails and migratory paths. I think that would make more sense.
 
2014-07-26 10:18:16 AM

TheOther: hubiestubert: Doktor_Zhivago: hubiestubert: ...and this is strange exactly why?

Considering that people have been around for some time now, did folks just assume that they wandered alone and without any purpose until the space aliens came down to give them agriculture and technology?

People didn't start domestication of plants and animals till about 10k years ago. The ability to make your own food allows people to settle down and have the population density needed to stay in one spot. This would be a huge discovery if it's correct.

Yes, but hunters still have patterns in their migrations. Following seasons, following game, and that means running across the same places again and again, and having knowledge of the places that they went was an edge. That even includes where to camp that was defensible and convenient. Interesting to get a snapshot of that life, but not incredibly surprising.

From what I've read, wet Sahara was pretty much paradise for hunters.  If there was a hyper-abundance of game animals, water fowl, fish, and wild food vegetables, why not stay for a while?
Given that the article mentions separate shambles and toolworks, it's not inconceivable that the sanitary issues which motivate some nomadic behaviour could have been dealt with.

Of course, most of the great cities of that era were on the coast and their lie under the ocean floor beneath the risen sea level.


Actually that part of Africa and the Sahara  was all lush vegetation and rivers until about 1600 BCE, where shifts in the Earth's axis increased temperatures and decreased precipitation, which must have made for some awesome hunting grounds before that whole 'desert' thing.
 
2014-07-26 10:25:22 AM
Ambivalence:
The reason this is so unusual is that it's, thus far, been commonly recognized that homo sapiens didn't start building settlements until the advent of agriculture after the last ice age, somewhere between 10,000 and 14,000 years ago.  Before that, people were nomadic hunter/gatherers that didn't have a need for fixed buildings as they would follow the availability of food.   The idea that they were building settlements LONG before that is peculiar since they should not have had any reason to do so (taking care of crops and/or domesticated animals).  It's not a comment on intelligence, but need.

So your thinking is that for nearly 200,000 years, it never occurred to anyone to stop moving around and camp permanently in a very rich ecological area?  No one?

/implausibility factor Gamboge
 
2014-07-26 10:29:32 AM

BobBastard: hubiestubert: Doktor_Zhivago: hubiestubert: ...and this is strange exactly why?

Considering that people have been around for some time now, did folks just assume that they wandered alone and without any purpose until the space aliens came down to give them agriculture and technology?

People didn't start domestication of plants and animals till about 10k years ago. The ability to make your own food allows people to settle down and have the population density needed to stay in one spot. This would be a huge discovery if it's correct.

Yes, but hunters still have patterns in their migrations. Following seasons, following game, and that means running across the same places again and again, and having knowledge of the places that they went was an edge. That even includes where to camp that was defensible and convenient. Interesting to get a snapshot of that life, but not incredibly surprising.

I'm with this guy. My guess is that while it may not be a permanent settlement, it could be a hunting camp. They could have built a series of shelters along hunying trails and migratory paths. I think that would make more sense.


Yeah that sounds pretty plausible.  I'd hesitate to use the word settlement(as it implies a permanent place of dwelling), but I could easily see a long chain of temporary camps.
 
2014-07-26 10:45:57 AM
"As it stands, we can be certain that we have evidence for periodically occupied camps, with hominin groups manufacturing stone tools in the Levallois tradition, hunting exclusively for marshland animals, and possibly constructing semi-circular shelters and some other simple constructions in a well-organised camp."

/the age of the camp is interesting but IMO will be somewhat more interesting when they manage to pin it down within a range narrower than several tens of thousands of farking years
 
2014-07-26 10:47:02 AM
This is a huge duh to anybody who actually studies this or pays any attention to archeology. Which is why the mouthbreathers have such a problem with it and argue against it. They argue against everything that a normal human being can see with their own senses.
 
2014-07-26 10:50:59 AM

BobBastard: TheOther: hubiestubert: Doktor_Zhivago: hubiestubert: ...and this is strange exactly why?

Considering that people have been around for some time now, did folks just assume that they wandered alone and without any purpose until the space aliens came down to give them agriculture and technology?

People didn't start domestication of plants and animals till about 10k years ago. The ability to make your own food allows people to settle down and have the population density needed to stay in one spot. This would be a huge discovery if it's correct.

Yes, but hunters still have patterns in their migrations. Following seasons, following game, and that means running across the same places again and again, and having knowledge of the places that they went was an edge. That even includes where to camp that was defensible and convenient. Interesting to get a snapshot of that life, but not incredibly surprising.

From what I've read, wet Sahara was pretty much paradise for hunters.  If there was a hyper-abundance of game animals, water fowl, fish, and wild food vegetables, why not stay for a while?
Given that the article mentions separate shambles and toolworks, it's not inconceivable that the sanitary issues which motivate some nomadic behaviour could have been dealt with.

Of course, most of the great cities of that era were on the coast and their lie under the ocean floor beneath the risen sea level.

Actually that part of Africa and the Sahara  was all lush vegetation and rivers until about 1600 BCE, where shifts in the Earth's axis increased temperatures and decreased precipitation, which must have made for some awesome hunting grounds before that whole 'desert' thing.


So you're saying that the wet Sahara was pretty much paradise for hunters. If there was a hyper-abundance of game animals, water fowl, fish, and wild food vegetables, why not stay for a while?
 
2014-07-26 10:56:39 AM
Don't tell my fundie uncle.  I just got him to STFU about this crap and we've got a family dinner on Sunday.  He thinks the devil is testing us when evidence older than like 6K years pops up.  I told him the devil was testing me by telling me to choke out his sorry arse.
 
2014-07-26 11:04:22 AM
Biblical Science has established how this is an impossibility.
 
2014-07-26 11:10:10 AM
I visited an early human settlement in Malta that was about 7,400 years old, I believe it was Ghar Dalam. Isn't this the earliest evidence of a human settlement?
 
2014-07-26 11:14:28 AM

Ambivalence: Yeeaaahhh...I'm inclined to think that either someone forgot to carry the one, or it wasn't a human settlement.  70,000 years...that's really pushing the boundaries of what humans were capable of at the time.


I wonder about that. Homo Sapiens has had our human brain capacity for what, 500,000 years. It seems weird to me that it took 496,000 of those years just to get to being able to use fire to melt metal, and all our advancements only happen since then.

Put it another way. What out of our own civilization would last and be found 100,000 years from now? Mt. Rushmore might be about it. Plastic degrades, metal is gone, all electronic media is long gone.

I'm not saying there were computer literate advanced civilizations 400,000 years ago, but what I am saying is how would we know there were or weren't, when our own civilization won't be seen or heard from 100,000 years from now?
 
2014-07-26 11:18:54 AM

Generation_D: I wonder about that. Homo Sapiens has had our human brain capacity for what, 500,000 years.


anthro.palomar.edu
 
2014-07-26 11:26:46 AM
Take that, creationists!
/wow, that's in my phone's dictionary...
//got nothing
 
2014-07-26 11:57:06 AM

Ambivalence: Yeeaaahhh...I'm inclined to think that either someone forgot to carry the one, or it wasn't a human settlement. 70,000 years...that's really pushing the boundaries of what humans were capable of at the time.


If the timeframe turns out to be correct, what other species do we have evidence of that were advanced enough and capable of building structures at the time?  Sleestaks?
 
2014-07-26 12:03:28 PM

Cthulhu_is_my_homeboy: They probably should test the remains for Cylon DNA.


Or for artifacts from Minerva, she was cool before she broke up.
 
2014-07-26 12:38:40 PM
I'm sure some Islamic militants are already on their way to blow the whole site to smithereens.
 
2014-07-26 12:47:06 PM

Generation_D: Ambivalence: Yeeaaahhh...I'm inclined to think that either someone forgot to carry the one, or it wasn't a human settlement.  70,000 years...that's really pushing the boundaries of what humans were capable of at the time.

I wonder about that. Homo Sapiens has had our human brain capacity for what, 500,000 years. It seems weird to me that it took 496,000 of those years just to get to being able to use fire to melt metal, and all our advancements only happen since then.

Put it another way. What out of our own civilization would last and be found 100,000 years from now? Mt. Rushmore might be about it. Plastic degrades, metal is gone, all electronic media is long gone.

I'm not saying there were computer literate advanced civilizations 400,000 years ago, but what I am saying is how would we know there were or weren't, when our own civilization won't be seen or heard from 100,000 years from now?


this!   its like the matrix.. how many times have we got this far and fell apart  only to re-invent technology again
 
2014-07-26 12:48:59 PM

LewDux: Generation_D: I wonder about that. Homo Sapiens has had our human brain capacity for what, 500,000 years.

[anthro.palomar.edu image 577x208]


Alright I'd seen 500,000 years elsewhere, this chart says 100,000 .. my point still holds. Seems weird that for 96% of the history of this we'd be wandering around hunting and gathering, then suddenly one year go "hey, wait a minute, we could be planting things, melting metal into better tools, and brewing beer instead. What the hell have we been doing?"

Why the big time lag.. I can't blame all of it on ice ages.
 
2014-07-26 12:58:13 PM

Ambivalence: The reason this is so unusual is that it's, thus far, been commonly recognized that homo sapiens didn't start building settlements until the advent of agriculture after the last ice age, somewhere between 10,000 and 14,000 years ago. Before that, people were nomadic hunter/gatherers that didn't have a need for fixed buildings as they would follow the availability of food.


A precursor to much of the development of agriculture was living in areas with large seasonal variability in collectable food and the need to accumulate food for harsh times. Are you saying that humans didn't live in areas before 14,000 where they needed to stockpile?

This is probably a non issue for this camp which seems to have existed during one of the "wet Sahara" periods and the structures may have been built just so they could sleep without being rained on.
 
2014-07-26 01:16:26 PM

Generation_D: LewDux: Generation_D: I wonder about that. Homo Sapiens has had our human brain capacity for what, 500,000 years.

[anthro.palomar.edu image 577x208]

Alright I'd seen 500,000 years elsewhere, this chart says 100,000 .. my point still holds. Seems weird that for 96% of the history of this we'd be wandering around hunting and gathering, then suddenly one year go "hey, wait a minute, we could be planting things, melting metal into better tools, and brewing beer instead. What the hell have we been doing?"

Why the big time lag.. I can't blame all of it on ice ages.


Julian Jaynes, a neuroscientist, wondered the same, e.g., why did gilgamesh/old testament creation stories read one way - `ordered by a god' and by the time ancient greek drama was being penned there was a marked internalization of motive/purpose?  He posited a minor change occurred, probably related to our already existing use of language, in brain chemistry that put the `voices' - other than our own, on the shelf.
I'd think, like the rapid domestication of many species (much of that owing to lowering of stress hormones resulting in physiological alterations over generations) is a clue to our own seemingly `instantaneous' illumination (sumerian/babylonian - base 12 system - look at clock or GPS).

Just a hypothesis, but interesting:
http://www.amazon.com/Origin-Consciousness-Breakdown-Bicameral-Mind/ pr oduct-reviews/0618057072/ref=dpx_acr_txt?showViewpoints=1

Our `line' has been cleaving stone for around 3.4 million years and, simply picking up a fractured, sharp edged fragment of chert, busted on the rocks at one's feet after being lobbed at one by an enemy, and using it to cut the enemies throat requires no abstracted sense of self to noodle out and execute.  We spent a long time knapping...

Does rational intelligence trump reflex as a tool in the long term survival of the species?  Guess we'll find out if we defer to such along the path.
 
2014-07-26 01:29:12 PM
The houses were made of mud, and look at all the mud we found!
 
2014-07-26 01:37:54 PM

ReverendJasen: Ambivalence: Yeeaaahhh...I'm inclined to think that either someone forgot to carry the one, or it wasn't a human settlement. 70,000 years...that's really pushing the boundaries of what humans were capable of at the time.

If the timeframe turns out to be correct, what other species do we have evidence of that were advanced enough and capable of building structures at the time?  Sleestaks?


Ants.
 
2014-07-26 01:41:27 PM

Crazy Lee: Julian Jaynes, a neuroscientist, wondered the same, e.g., why did gilgamesh/old testament creation stories read one way - `ordered by a god' and by the time ancient greek drama was being penned there was a marked internalization of motive/purpose?


The nam-shub of Enki.
 
2014-07-26 02:18:25 PM
Hmmmmm ... Robert E. Howard joke or H.P. Lovecraft joke?  Choices choices ...

They discovered the temples of Stygia under the deserts of dark Africa?

/Robert E. Howards wins today!
 
2014-07-26 02:31:53 PM

SacriliciousBeerSwiller: Ambivalence: Yeeaaahhh...I'm inclined to think that either someone forgot to carry the one, or it wasn't a human settlement.  70,000 years...that's really pushing the boundaries of what humans were capable of at the time.

Petitio principii, much?


Props for using the concept correctly and a new phrase that avoids the commonly-bastardized "begging the question" wording.
 
Displayed 50 of 90 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report