I read the article, and did not see any distinct not solid evidence towards them rally being giant axe heads
Good Duke Voidless, are you being serious? I am dead honest.
Assuming you truly mean the words you put in print let me begin with the title of the article: "Giant Stone-age Axes Found In African Lake Basin" The very title alone would give even the most rudimental reader the fact the story is about "Giant" axes.
Secondly you say:
It is far more likely that they were used to break of smaller chunks of material to make knives or arrow heads. Or even to teach younger generations how to make such tools. It is no simple task getting the material to a usable size. Getting the technique down on a larger object helps the mind and hands grow accustomed such tasks.
I find this quite interesting. You could be quite right in this far reaching assumption. But the remarkable thing is you dismiss the scientists own research in favor of your own seemingly baseless opinion which is based on...? I say "baseless" because your thoughts do not follow any pattern of the story being covered. It is like you are one of those who say, "Please, my mind is made up. Do not confuse me with the facts."
Perhaps you missed this sentence, "Their research was prompted by the discovery of the first of what are believed to be
the worldâs largest stone tools on the bed of the lake." I would think that any common person who is being intellectually honest would admit that, yes indeed; science has discovered what up until now is "the world's largest stone tools".
That statement was immediately followed by a very provocative statement: "Although the first find was made in the 1990s, the discovery of four giant axes has not been scientifically reported until now." I personally find it interesting that the first findings were made
nineteen years ago but are just now coming to light. I can't help but wonder why they have kept the public in the dark for almost a generation about this discovery.
Yet we are not through. The last sentence reads thusly, "
Four giant stone hand axes, measuring over 30 cm long and of uncertain age, were recovered from the lake basin."
You said:
I read the article, and did not see any distinct not solid evidence towards them rally being giant axe heads.
How, Good Sir, did you truly miss this if indeed you did read the entire article? What I just quoted you was only from one paragraph.
Also, note how the surrounding area had several typical sized axe heads and the ilk.
I did indeed note not just that the area had "several typical sized axe heads and the ilk" but that "They have documented
thousands of stone tools on the lake bed".
That was from the 3rd paragraph.
What use would a giant have for such tools, yet alone be able to craft them?
From paragraph 8, "Itâs likely that early human populations would have seen this area as a prolific hunting ground when food resources in the region were more concentrated than at times when the regional climate was wetter and food was more plentiful and the lake was full of water." Even Giants have to eat Good Sir. Did you truly read this substance and see the attached picture in the aritcle that shows just how large these axes are?
Furthermore, no where in the article did it even imply they were actually used/usable.
Again, I truly have to wonder if you truly read the article. I can see how one can easily skim over and try to pick up a main point here and there, but as they say, "The Devil lies in the details".
By pointing out these obvious flaws in your argument Good Sir, I seek to bring you no shame. I only seek to bring forth that which some would rather go away.
I want to seek the Truth. There are many who know the Truth yet will reject Truth for their pride is much too great to trade.
I pray that is not your case Good Knight Deviodless.
May you find peace and blessings are yours this day and throughout the coming weekend Kind Sir.
Thank you for hearing my rebuttal.
Respectfully,
RM24
