Toni, don't flatter yourself.
I don't do 'Tantrums', but as you chose the word, it is more likely you do as it appears you are more familiar with the word.
The truth is I don't care whether it was 10 or 60 thousand years.
What is more to the point and most revealing is YOUR continued insistence on being right.
You see I don't care if I am wrong, I wasn't there.
So you are then going to question my info source.
You weren't there either so why are you right? Oh that's right, because YOUR source is better than mine.
That's good, I'm not complaining, but if you think I'm going to question Google or Wiki, over, well, 'nothing', you are sadly mistaken.
So no tantrum, just another boring reply to an annoying commentor.
I want to give you a wake up call.
I don't like WIKI because, again, I heard that the information can somehow be altered by people who access the medium.
Now I have no idea what that means, because I don't use it, but it is the main reason I don't use or believe it.
It may or may not be true, either in part or whole, but I have never heard of any such compromises with Google.
You may choose to put WIKI over Google, that's none of my business, I'm not computer literate enough to engage in any debate about that, so I stick to what I know and would ask you, why would Google promote errors?
What's in it for them?
And if, as you say Google is not as knowledgeable as WIKI, would someone not have informed Google of their errors as they are exposed, if there really are any?
So sorry Toni, no tantrums today.
But you go right ahead, I wouldn't dream of stopping you.

//I don't do 'Tantrums'//

Lol.

//Oh that's right, because YOUR source is better than mine.//

My source bases its figure on tried and tested archaeological methods. For all we know about your source, which you once again steadfastly refuse to provide, the figure was arrived at by a random number generator. So yes, obviously I consider a source which is based on established scientific principles better than a source where the figure is arrived at by means unknown.

//And if, as you say Google is not as knowledgeable as WIKI, would someone not have informed Google of their errors as they are exposed, if there really are any?//

Google is a search engine, ALTRAV, not a source. We've been over this. If you'd just provide your sources, we could get your little misunderstandings straightened out more quickly. I suspect what's happened is that you've read an article which discussed 10,000 year old Aboriginal remains, and you misread it as implying that that was the upper limit for human settlement in Australia. And now, through sheer obstinacy, you refuse to consider any other possibility.

Toni, obstinacy aside, I'm prepared to consider your take on my comments because it is not entirely impossible.
Having heard the words 'search engine' for many years, I have always scoffed at the term because like many things today, they don't correctly describe the thing they are naming, and still, even today, I do not know what it means.
I mean, search 'engine', really?
There is an 'engine' somewhere in all this computer world?
I've always used Google, by just typing in leading words and 'hey presto', up comes a stream of answers.
I have never had reason to doubt Google and am still not quite sure of the distinction and differentiation you place on it.
But anyway, I find Google easy to use and so prefer it.
Have you heard anything about this suggestion that people can change the info on Wiki?
I would like to clear that one up if I could, if there is any truth in it.

ALTRAV- Being an engineer the word "search engine" is an amusing term.