ANSWERS: 56
  • As far back as I can be sure of it: Scotland on my Mum's side. A mixture of Ireland and Portugal on my Dad's side. I ended up in Wales.
  • Ireland . I was born in London , England , and now live 30 miles South in Crawley.
  • I'm a Scottish American, both pairs of my grandparents immigrated from Scotland. I've never even been there.
  • Shetland Isles in Scotland and i live in England.
  • my dads side was Lithuanian and my moms side was Irish and German. I'm 6th generation American.
  • Scotland. My ancestors had farm land in middle Georgia. At one time in the 1880's they had the largest farm in middle Georgia. I grew up about 10 miles from their homestead.
  • My great-great grandparents, as far as I know, came to the US from Germany and England, sometime in the 1800's. My parents were born and raised in the Mississippi Delta, and I'm from Memphis, TN. Me and Elvis, LOL.
  • My mothers maternal grandparents came to England from Russia during WW2. I dont know about my Grandpa's parents. My fathers parents I also have no idea, although they lived in Liverpool, and most of them are Irish to begin with. I'm a Leeds girl, born and bred.
  • My Grandfather & Grandmother came from Cuba but my Grandfather was a radical againist Fidel Castro, his hands were tattood because they were considered weapons over in cuba, He escaped before they captured him over something he had did (supposibly he had blown a building up with people in it) he left, then later brought my Grandmother & Father over to Miami.
  • From Ireland and Germany. That's where I got my sprinkling of freckles and my occasional stubborness!!! I ended up in mid-America...
  • On my mother's side of the family they originally came from Germany and my father's side of the family originally came from Ireland. My greatgrandparents,grandparents,mother & father and 7 sisters were all born in Nebraska. I was born in California.
  • My ancestors are from India, and I ended up in the US. I was born here in Virginia.
  • Wales and Scotland and I am in England. I was born in Wales though. My Mam did some family history research - I think we are pretty much British as far back as can be traced. LOL - 100% pure blood! Which is ironic as we are the least nationalistic people you could imagine. :)
  • My fathers side is Basque,(Spanish and French) My Father was born in San Sebastian, Spain. My Mothers Family are from the 1600s English, but settled in Eire because of the religious troubles. They are Irish although many of them returned to England and others emigrated to America. My Maternal family are divided between England, Texas, Florida and Tennessee. My Father, after my parents divorce, returned to Europe and lectured at Cambridge until he was taken ill and eventually died two years ago.
  • My ancestors are from Scotland. My family has been in Canada for as far back as anyone in our family knows - sometime in the 1800's. Strange that I still cheer for Scotland in the World Cup of soccer, when I've never been there and don't know anyone who has.
  • As nearly as I can tell, my ancestors are from every place there are people. I am very proud to be a member of humanity.
  • My fathers parents came from Naples Italy and my mothers parents were both born in New York but I am sure somewhere along the lines someone came over to the US from Ireland on her side. I was born and raised in New York City actually in Brooklyn to be exact and I miss it very much :(
  • Mother's side is English - Father's side is Scotch/Irish and German - Father's family settled in Indiana. Grandpa and Grandma moved to Georgia. Father joined WWI and met Mother and married her and brought her home. Of 3 daughters, two of us are now in Florida and one is in Texas. We have 2nd and 3rd 'greats' (cousins aunts uncles) all over the US from Father's side, but Mother's family still pretty much in same town she grew up in.
  • Ireland, France, England - I ended up in Minnesota
  • Germany, mostly, with some Scots-Irish and Scottish thrown in. I'm in California, but that's subject to change.
  • My mothers side is Irish. My fathers side is French, with just a little German thrown in the mix. I was born in D.C.
  • My ancestors came from Ireland, Italy and the shores of Lake Superior. I live In Superior Wi, right where my Ojibwa ancestors lived. I feel so at home here, I could never leave. Unless I was to move to Ireland.
  • My mother's side are Jewish, from Yugoslavia. When Tito took over Yugoslavia they fled to Italy. When Mussolini took over Italy, and Hitler was going for the rest of Europe, they fled to the US. My father's side are Haitian mulattoes. When Papa Doc Duvalier took over Haiti, they fled to the US. They met in New York. So, if it were not for a bunch of megalomaniacs, I would have never been born. :)
  • ... the area around Europe's North Sea ... mostly Sweden ... but a few are from Norway and the northern coast of Germany ... I have been in 28 countries, but now reside in Montreal, Canada. My extended family of aunts, uncles, cousins, etc. has been scattered over many parts of the world ... some have returned to Sweden, a few are in Iceland, many are in Canada & the U.S., a pair are in Nambour, Australia, several are in New Zealand, a couple are right at Italy's heel, several dozen are in Polynesia & Micronesia, and one is a missionary somewhere in sothern Africa.
  • My family is from Germany mostly, except my Grandma on my Dad's side.She's from Holland. I am only the 3rd generation from Europe on my Dad's side. I ended up in Iowa, US, because this is where they moved to almost directly after coming to the U.S.,within 20 miles.
  • My ancestors came from America, and America is where I ended up.
  • My moms side is from Norway, and my dads is from Germany.
  • French Hugeonots, ended up in Wales - I now live near Liverpool, UK.
  • Ny ancestors came from Nova Scotia Canada 300 years ago and settled in south central Louisiana. Before they moved to Canada they lived in France. I don't know which area of France they migrated from, but judging from my looks, I'd say northern France rather than southern France. I am a Cajun.
  • Donegal Ireland
  • My ancestors were from Sicily, Ireland, Wales and Scotland. I ended up in California.
  • England. My mom moved here (America) when she was 10
  • Most are from England. Some are from France (de Sutton, De Dudley for 2) via England. I know my great great grandfather emigrated from Poland to France then England. His granddaughter married my grandfather. My dad therefore had very little Polish blood but in school he was called Polack. I am in Massachusetts where the first immigrant ancestor came to. Other members went all over the country - Idaho, NY, Utah, California, New Orleans.
  • England, Scotland, Poland & Ireland. Connecticut.
  • It isn't very interesting but here it is anyway. My mum's side are scottish. My dad's side are Irish. I'm in scotland.
  • Spain and France and I'm in Mexico.
  • Both my mother and father's family's came primary from the UK. My namesake came from York and when I lived in the UK I went there to look it up. My name is actual a derivative of a Danish Vikings word for "a clearing at the edge of a village." They settled eastern and east southern England and lived with the Saxons after landing on the east shore in the 900s and fighting them. My mother's maiden name of Dennis is Scottish and I had that verified when I was in Edinburgh. Her mother's maiden name was Duke. However, we also have a strong Cherokee and Choctaw heritage since my family has been in America since at least 1750 and I had that verified through geologists in 2005. My dad, his dad, his sister, me and my daughter show our native American heritage very prominantly in our features but we do not have the records to substanciate lineage.
  • My great-grandfather (on my dads side) came from England to Canada around 1909 when he was 13 or so. My mom doesn't know where her family originated from. I'm still in Canada.
  • I as well as my parents came from Belgium, the French side, not the Flemish side. We moved to California, USA when I was about 4 years old. On one side of my mother's family someone came from England about 140 years ago. My father's side as far as I can tell has been mostly from Belgium itself, maybe with a little Germanic thrown in. My husband is 3rd generation Californian and I traced his family back to North Carolina in the 1600s. Then he traces back to York until at least 1400s. I haven't been able to get further back.
  • From my father's side Serbia and Bosnia, from my mother's is more complicated but I know more about it: France, Poland, Geogia and Russia-my grand grand mother and father emigrated at the last moment before comunists came, so here we are in south-I love to live in Serbia!
  • Ireland Germany France Netherlands America- Native American Indians Me, I ended up in America.
  • In the early 1900's we were in India. Frome there we went to Guyana(formerly British Guiana)in South America, in like the the 1920's. My parents came to New York inn the 1980's they fit in well! I was born there. :)
  • I've been doing a genealogy project lately... (very irresponsibly) and as far as I can tell so far... Troy, Italy, France, Germany, Europe in general, Scandinavia, Britain longer ago... More recently mostly England and Germany, but also Scotland, Ireland and France. More recently than that, New England specifically Massachusetts, Connecticut, New Jersey and Pennsylvania. And I live in Delaware at the moment.
  • I am half blackfoot indian with some irish and a pinch of african american. I ended up in the pacific northwest.
  • Scotland and Germany for the most part. I am from Utah and now live in the Seattle area, Washington.
  • My family is from Spain and Italy, I ended up in North Carolina.
  • my ancestors are from Spain and Africa. i live in Florida now.
  • AUSTRIA AND FRANCE
  • Same place as where we started. Casinos in southern California.
  • Germany..I ended up here in ohhellno(ohio)
  • Maternal Side: -- Northern Germany (1810s on) > Western NY, USA (1860s/1870s) -- Co Clare, Ireland (1830s on) > Western CT, USA (1880s) Paternal Side: -- England > Massachusetts, USA (1632) > CT (1636-1798)> Central NY (1798-1820s) > Western NY (1820s) -- England > Massachusetts, USA (16xx's-1730s) > Southern VT (1730s-1760s) > Northern VT (1770s-1800s) > (somewhere) > Western NY (1816) -- Northern Germany > Western NY, USA (1860s/1870s) Short Answer: England, Germany, Ireland Should be able to go back further in Germany and England. Currently at a brick wall in Ireland.
  • DeHaven is last name and where did this name come from or what country?
  • Ancestors from Africa I ended up in Detroit.
  • CERTAINLY NOT MONKEY-LAND!! ENJOY THE FOLLOWING: PROFESSORS: GIG’S & GENG’S WISDOM TIME AGAIN: EVOLUTION: Monkey-Ape Time Mrs Iva Tail To Tell (Dean of Makittup University) declared, "Our direct forefathers were gorillas. We straightened our backs and shortened our arms. The latter [or is that ladder?] meant we couldn't have such high shelves of course. But you can't have everything. Yes, we must have come from gorillas because they look more like us on the outside than anything else. That's obvious proof". "Yes", said Prof Gig (Professor in nuts bolts and screws of all kinds), "many years ago they used to talk about how intelligent dogs were, but now we say how intelligent gorillas are. Soon we will have research to prove that they are more intelligent than all other animals; if we can get someone to fund it". Mrs Soarit of Perth WA says, "I watched it on TV, how they put a monkey in a room with a box and put a banana on a string that he couldn't reach. The monkey worked out to move the box over and get onto it to get the banana. The only thing is I've seen a dog do the same thing years before". Dr Ivanew Mith (Vetinary Surgeon of Wefixit Clinic) said, "a gorillas stomach is very different from ours and many other parts. If we ate what a gorilla eats in a day (bamboo shoots) we would be dead. We are more like a horse in eating habits and can eat most things they do. Also we can eat most things birds eat. So horses or birds must be our closest relatives". Dr R E Movitt (Brain Surgeon of Qurem Hospital) said, "Talk is made of people having a so called "human" extra piece on our brains, that apes don't have, that makes us more intelligent. But there are many people who are born without this section as a deformity but it creates no thinking or action disability: The person is completely normal". Prof Gig stated in regard these things; "there are always facts we need to ignore in the pursuit of theoretical science and funding. In this case quite a lot of facts. But then we also get a lot of funding here, as it's a popular theory". Miss Itneedsta Makesens commented, "even if we found a group of monkeys that once wrote their history it still wouldn't prove that apes changed into man. All it would prove is that we found an intelligent group of apes. And anyone with any imagination could come up with another theory of our existence that would sound far more realistic than apes changing into people _ or at least equally as irrational". Why didn't I evolve into a human so that nothing would step on me? Evolution Dr F Roard (Phd., DOB, FBI, KGB, MIA, POT) said, "things all changed by deformities that survived and got passed on. So we believe that something as complex as an eye just happened by chance. Over MILLIONS of years, of course. It makes it sound more believable when we say that because no one can conceive millions of years. So each deformity that went into making an eye was passed on to the next generation. Now I know what you are thinking. You are wondering why we can't seem to find loads of animals, insects or people existing today with only partly formed eyes. Yes, it is true that there would need to be countless masses of them, for the working eye to exist on such a large scale. Particularly considering the seemingly endless intermediate steps and those who would have therefore failed to evolve the rest of the eye correctly by chance. We try to ignore these facts in the interest of 'truth'. And the theory is popular." Professor Messa of the Institute for Lost Scientists said, "We believe the other theory where evolution happened because things decided that they needed to change for their environment. Animals also did this. A lizard decided that it wasn't safe or getting enough food on the ground so it thought about the problem and decided that wings were the best solution to the problem and so he'd become a bird. It realised that this would take MILLIONS of years, of course. So as each of its children were born the lizard passed on his plan so that the children would carry on that approach to the problem. They, in turn, had to pass on this approach to their children to resolve the problem also. He had to make sure that they kept on with that plan or they would die out from the problem that they needed to change for. Fortunately he could foresee this problem becoming bad enough to need to make this change MILLIONS of YEARS before they actually would die out. Strangely enough lizards didn't die out anyway. So it was all in vain. But birds are glad that lizards did so; and now some birds feed on lizards, making it all the better that lizards didn't die out, but leaving lizards wondering about the wisdom of it." Miss White of Brisbane asked, "If we are evolving does that mean we may end up being little green men and going to other planets"? Professor I Dunno of the Institute for Unemployed Scientists said, "one day life just suddenly sprang up and there was an incredibly complex living cell". I asked how this could happen. He explained that it was sort of statistical/magical luck. "Then the cell got lonely and decided it wanted another one; so it worked out how to evolve so it would be capable of splitting (highly intelligent these cells); and did so. And then there were 2 of them", he said. "And before you know it they were just splitting everywhere and we had piles and piles of them: All over the place". I asked him how no life had ever existed throughout all eternity before that time? "Well this has probably happened elsewhere, I'd suppose", he said. "So this amazing magic of an appearing complex living cell just popping up from nowhere has happened other times you feel professor", I asked? "Well, over many MILLIONS of years, you see", he replied. Mr/Ms Los Tie-Dentitti says, "women have evolved into men's bodies". Mr I. L. Watchit asks, "I saw a documentary on TV about moths in a place in England. They explained how there used to be more light moths and few dark ones because the dark ones were seen on the light trees and eaten by birds. But now with so much smog the trees are dark and there are more dark moths, as the birds eat the light ones. But this only proves survival of the fittest. This doesn't prove the evolutionary theory because it was already known when the theory was invented. To prove the theory evidence would have to come forth to prove the theory itself, not the known facts it was based on."? Mr B Acake of Sydney asks, "as I have rheumatism in my back wouldn't it have been better to have stayed without one"? Of evolution Dr Pluggitt of Drippie University states, "yes, we now know that bugs turned into people". When I asked him how this could possibly be, he explained, "yes, well, it all happens over MILLIONS of years, you see. Anything can be believed if you talk about MILLIONS of years". PROFESSORS GENG AND GIG – AT IT AGAIN!! QUESTION: If we were to search for the Dead Center of EVOLUTION, would we find it at Darwin Cemetery, in Fred Flintstone’s Dinosaur Zoo or at a Barney’s Rubble’s Skeleton Bank??!! Ezekiel, Skeleton Bank Teller: ‘Dem bones … dem bones … dem dry bones…’ ‘Dem bones … dem bones … dem dry bones’ ‘Dem bones … dem bones … dem dry bones’ ‘Oh hear the word of the Lord.’ Dating Methods Professor Lessor of Fundus Institute commented, "we use the finest dating methods. And we know that we are right that these bones are MILLIONS of years old. Carbon dating has been shown to be correct sometimes, to some degree, over periods of hundreds of years _ usually only being hundreds of years out. And we have other dating methods now that are almost as accurate; particularly when we recalibrate our machines when we know what date is required". Mr Form at Hard Drive said, "I was watching a program on TV the other day that carbon dated a skull found in Australia to be 2,500 years old. But the scientists didn't like that date so they went around trying all these other dating methods and finally found one that said it was about 60,000 to 70,000 years old and so they took those dates. When asked why they didn't use the carbon dating method that is so 'accurate' they said it was because the lime in the soil must have confused it". Dr G Etpade of Theoretic Institute stated, "we are at a new age now where we no longer have the problems of science in the past that almost always had theories that have been proven wrong in spite of them proving them right at the time. All our theories are correct because we have proven them right on TV. We also have a new advantage to use to convince people we're right called 'dating methods'. This is a cleaver idea where you use some instrument to obtain the date you want. We decide it's MILLIONS of years old then it becomes MILLIONS of years old". Elder Harris (The Church of Jesus Christ LDS missionary) questions, "I have heard that a rock formed by a volcano only a short time before was carbon dated to be MILLIONS of years old. Also that a rock only a few years old, brought back from the moon, was similarly dated. On both occasions the truth had been kept from those doing the dating. Why should anyone believe all this, unproven, MILLIONS of years stuff"? Dr Thinkitt of the Local Logicians Club said, "All accepted fact must be based on proven facts (premises). Therefore talk of MILLIONS of years is illogical as no one can PROVE what happened in a time of which we have no way to prove it absolutely correct. If someone makes a claim about ancient Egypt from known facts about Egypt it could be logical. But we have no written record of MILLIONS of years ago and we can't go back to prove or disprove the claim or the premises upon which it is based: Regardless of what instruments are used. No logician could accept someone saying they KNOW about MILLIONS of years ago as anything but the ravings of a fool". Miss Daytmee of Hobart says, "yes, well, my dating method is to play hard to get".
  • OUTSIDE MONKEY-LAND! ENJOY THE FOLLOWING: PROFESSORS: GIG’S & GENG’S WISDOM TIME AGAIN: EVOLUTION: Monkey-Ape Time Mrs Iva Tail To Tell (Dean of Makittup University) declared, "Our direct forefathers were gorillas. We straightened our backs and shortened our arms. The latter [or is that ladder?] meant we couldn't have such high shelves of course. But you can't have everything. Yes, we must have come from gorillas because they look more like us on the outside than anything else. That's obvious proof". "Yes", said Prof Gig (Professor in nuts bolts and screws of all kinds), "many years ago they used to talk about how intelligent dogs were, but now we say how intelligent gorillas are. Soon we will have research to prove that they are more intelligent than all other animals; if we can get someone to fund it". Mrs Soarit of Perth WA says, "I watched it on TV, how they put a monkey in a room with a box and put a banana on a string that he couldn't reach. The monkey worked out to move the box over and get onto it to get the banana. The only thing is I've seen a dog do the same thing years before". Dr Ivanew Mith (Vetinary Surgeon of Wefixit Clinic) said, "a gorillas stomach is very different from ours and many other parts. If we ate what a gorilla eats in a day (bamboo shoots) we would be dead. We are more like a horse in eating habits and can eat most things they do. Also we can eat most things birds eat. So horses or birds must be our closest relatives". Dr R E Movitt (Brain Surgeon of Qurem Hospital) said, "Talk is made of people having a so called "human" extra piece on our brains, that apes don't have, that makes us more intelligent. But there are many people who are born without this section as a deformity but it creates no thinking or action disability: The person is completely normal". Prof Gig stated in regard these things; "there are always facts we need to ignore in the pursuit of theoretical science and funding. In this case quite a lot of facts. But then we also get a lot of funding here, as it's a popular theory". Miss Itneedsta Makesens commented, "even if we found a group of monkeys that once wrote their history it still wouldn't prove that apes changed into man. All it would prove is that we found an intelligent group of apes. And anyone with any imagination could come up with another theory of our existence that would sound far more realistic than apes changing into people _ or at least equally as irrational". Why didn't I evolve into a human so that nothing would step on me? Evolution Dr F Roard (Phd., DOB, FBI, KGB, MIA, POT) said, "things all changed by deformities that survived and got passed on. So we believe that something as complex as an eye just happened by chance. Over MILLIONS of years, of course. It makes it sound more believable when we say that because no one can conceive millions of years. So each deformity that went into making an eye was passed on to the next generation. Now I know what you are thinking. You are wondering why we can't seem to find loads of animals, insects or people existing today with only partly formed eyes. Yes, it is true that there would need to be countless masses of them, for the working eye to exist on such a large scale. Particularly considering the seemingly endless intermediate steps and those who would have therefore failed to evolve the rest of the eye correctly by chance. We try to ignore these facts in the interest of 'truth'. And the theory is popular." Professor Messa of the Institute for Lost Scientists said, "We believe the other theory where evolution happened because things decided that they needed to change for their environment. Animals also did this. A lizard decided that it wasn't safe or getting enough food on the ground so it thought about the problem and decided that wings were the best solution to the problem and so he'd become a bird. It realised that this would take MILLIONS of years, of course. So as each of its children were born the lizard passed on his plan so that the children would carry on that approach to the problem. They, in turn, had to pass on this approach to their children to resolve the problem also. He had to make sure that they kept on with that plan or they would die out from the problem that they needed to change for. Fortunately he could foresee this problem becoming bad enough to need to make this change MILLIONS of YEARS before they actually would die out. Strangely enough lizards didn't die out anyway. So it was all in vain. But birds are glad that lizards did so; and now some birds feed on lizards, making it all the better that lizards didn't die out, but leaving lizards wondering about the wisdom of it." Miss White of Brisbane asked, "If we are evolving does that mean we may end up being little green men and going to other planets"? Professor I Dunno of the Institute for Unemployed Scientists said, "one day life just suddenly sprang up and there was an incredibly complex living cell". I asked how this could happen. He explained that it was sort of statistical/magical luck. "Then the cell got lonely and decided it wanted another one; so it worked out how to evolve so it would be capable of splitting (highly intelligent these cells); and did so. And then there were 2 of them", he said. "And before you know it they were just splitting everywhere and we had piles and piles of them: All over the place". I asked him how no life had ever existed throughout all eternity before that time? "Well this has probably happened elsewhere, I'd suppose", he said. "So this amazing magic of an appearing complex living cell just popping up from nowhere has happened other times you feel professor", I asked? "Well, over many MILLIONS of years, you see", he replied. Mr/Ms Los Tie-Dentitti says, "women have evolved into men's bodies". Mr I. L. Watchit asks, "I saw a documentary on TV about moths in a place in England. They explained how there used to be more light moths and few dark ones because the dark ones were seen on the light trees and eaten by birds. But now with so much smog the trees are dark and there are more dark moths, as the birds eat the light ones. But this only proves survival of the fittest. This doesn't prove the evolutionary theory because it was already known when the theory was invented. To prove the theory evidence would have to come forth to prove the theory itself, not the known facts it was based on."? Mr B Acake of Sydney asks, "as I have rheumatism in my back wouldn't it have been better to have stayed without one"? Of evolution Dr Pluggitt of Drippie University states, "yes, we now know that bugs turned into people". When I asked him how this could possibly be, he explained, "yes, well, it all happens over MILLIONS of years, you see. Anything can be believed if you talk about MILLIONS of years". PROFESSORS GENG AND GIG – AT IT AGAIN!! QUESTION: If we were to search for the Dead Center of EVOLUTION, would we find it at Darwin Cemetery, in Fred Flintstone’s Dinosaur Zoo or at a Barney’s Rubble’s Skeleton Bank??!! Ezekiel, Skeleton Bank Teller: ‘Dem bones … dem bones … dem dry bones…’ ‘Dem bones … dem bones … dem dry bones’ ‘Dem bones … dem bones … dem dry bones’ ‘Oh hear the word of the Lord.’ Dating Methods Professor Lessor of Fundus Institute commented, "we use the finest dating methods. And we know that we are right that these bones are MILLIONS of years old. Carbon dating has been shown to be correct sometimes, to some degree, over periods of hundreds of years _ usually only being hundreds of years out. And we have other dating methods now that are almost as accurate; particularly when we recalibrate our machines when we know what date is required". Mr Form at Hard Drive said, "I was watching a program on TV the other day that carbon dated a skull found in Australia to be 2,500 years old. But the scientists didn't like that date so they went around trying all these other dating methods and finally found one that said it was about 60,000 to 70,000 years old and so they took those dates. When asked why they didn't use the carbon dating method that is so 'accurate' they said it was because the lime in the soil must have confused it". Dr G Etpade of Theoretic Institute stated, "we are at a new age now where we no longer have the problems of science in the past that almost always had theories that have been proven wrong in spite of them proving them right at the time. All our theories are correct because we have proven them right on TV. We also have a new advantage to use to convince people we're right called 'dating methods'. This is a cleaver idea where you use some instrument to obtain the date you want. We decide it's MILLIONS of years old then it becomes MILLIONS of years old". Elder Harris (The Church of Jesus Christ LDS missionary) questions, "I have heard that a rock formed by a volcano only a short time before was carbon dated to be MILLIONS of years old. Also that a rock only a few years old, brought back from the moon, was similarly dated. On both occasions the truth had been kept from those doing the dating. Why should anyone believe all this, unproven, MILLIONS of years stuff"? Dr Thinkitt of the Local Logicians Club said, "All accepted fact must be based on proven facts (premises). Therefore talk of MILLIONS of years is illogical as no one can PROVE what happened in a time of which we have no way to prove it absolutely correct. If someone makes a claim about ancient Egypt from known facts about Egypt it could be logical. But we have no written record of MILLIONS of years ago and we can't go back to prove or disprove the claim or the premises upon which it is based: Regardless of what instruments are used. No logician could accept someone saying they KNOW about MILLIONS of years ago as anything but the ravings of a fool". Miss Daytmee of Hobart says, "yes, well, my dating method is to play hard to get".

Copyright 2018, Wired Ivy, LLC

Answerbag | Terms of Service | Privacy Policy