I would certainly never worry about you acting as a more intelligent and well-informed person than me, or just about anyone else at this site. Hell, you can barely speak English.
When presenting a dishonest argument, it is always useful to selectively quote material, rather than give the full context. This can be seen above.
The Clovis culture (sometimes referred to as the Llano culture) is a prehistoric Paleo-Indian culture that first appears 11,500 RCYBP (radiocarbon years before present), at the end of the last glacial period, characterized by the manufacture of "Clovis points" and distinctive bone and ivory tools. Archaeologists' most precise determinations at present suggest that this radiocarbon age is equal to roughly 13,500 to 13,000 calendar years ago.
The Clovis culture was replaced by several more localized regional cultures from the time of the Younger Dryas cold climate period onward. Post-Clovis cultures include the Folsom tradition, Gainey, Suwannee-Simpson, Plainview-Goshen, Cumberland, and Redstone. Each of these is commonly thought to derive directly from Clovis, in some cases apparently differing only in the length of the fluting on their projectile points. Although this is generally held to be the result of normal cultural change through time, numerous other reasons have been suggested to be the driving force for the observed changes in the archaeological record, such as an extraterrestrial impact event or post-glacial climate change with numerous faunal extinctions. (emphases added)
Yeah, if you want to argue with someone, and claim an authority, be sure not
to provide the full context of your source, lest you weaken your own, snide argument.