The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
I heard two people talking about this the other night, and was wondering what you guys thought. Is being gay in your DNA, or is it 'acquired' through your life?
So yeh, enlighten me...
So yeh, enlighten me...
Page:
Carbon dating?
I wanna see the baby carbons!!!!
No no no *Promotes safe Carbon sex*
I wanna see the baby carbons!!!!
No no no *Promotes safe Carbon sex*
Was there a point?
Forest Fan wrote:
> The world was around 5,500 years ago, hence my point Pandaemonium.
Can't argue my points in the slightest, spouts garbage.
> The world was around 5,500 years ago, hence my point Pandaemonium.
Can't argue my points in the slightest, spouts garbage.
The world was around 5,500 years ago, hence my point Pandaemonium.
Forest Fan wrote:
> They're not records plus anything with an estimated time span of
> 30,000 years is sure to be a wacky scientific guess.
I love this. Evidence of early communication [edit] which fits in quite nicely with your "means of preserving knowledge" (which it is) and immediately disregarded as it goes against early Sumerian Cuneiform, the earliest known writing (from 3300 BC) and doesn't fit in nicely with the Hebrew creation myth.
If it's not this form of writing you are using as the reference point, how can these [URL]http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/334517.stm[/URL] be classed as records exactly? They are thought to originate around the same time as sumerian, ACCORDING TO CARBON DATING, WHICH YOU ALREADY HAVE RUBBISHED.
""It's a big question as to if we can call what we have found true writing,"
> They're not records plus anything with an estimated time span of
> 30,000 years is sure to be a wacky scientific guess.
I love this. Evidence of early communication [edit] which fits in quite nicely with your "means of preserving knowledge" (which it is) and immediately disregarded as it goes against early Sumerian Cuneiform, the earliest known writing (from 3300 BC) and doesn't fit in nicely with the Hebrew creation myth.
If it's not this form of writing you are using as the reference point, how can these [URL]http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/334517.stm[/URL] be classed as records exactly? They are thought to originate around the same time as sumerian, ACCORDING TO CARBON DATING, WHICH YOU ALREADY HAVE RUBBISHED.
""It's a big question as to if we can call what we have found true writing,"
From www.dictionary.com:
Record:
An account, as of information or facts, set down especially in writing as a means of preserving knowledge.
In this sense was the word used.
Record:
An account, as of information or facts, set down especially in writing as a means of preserving knowledge.
In this sense was the word used.
Forest Fan wrote:
> They're not records
Fine COMPACT DISCS then. Honestly, some people...
> They're not records
Fine COMPACT DISCS then. Honestly, some people...
Hang on. I'll ask god.
God says to ask Tommy Cooper.
Hang on...
God says to ask Tommy Cooper.
Hang on...
They're not records plus anything with an estimated time span of 30,000 years is sure to be a wacky scientific guess.
Forest Fan wrote:
> Or just observe that human records go no further back than 6000
> years, we all have two common human ancestors and you've got the
> story of Adam and Eve proved.
[URL]http://www.artchive.com/artchive/C/cave.html[/URL] Cave paintings, 10,000 bc? Not strictly "records" but evidence of primitive humans starting on the route to sophisticated language.
> Or just observe that human records go no further back than 6000
> years, we all have two common human ancestors and you've got the
> story of Adam and Eve proved.
[URL]http://www.artchive.com/artchive/C/cave.html[/URL] Cave paintings, 10,000 bc? Not strictly "records" but evidence of primitive humans starting on the route to sophisticated language.
Page: