5
   

Fossil evidence of humans and dinosaurs together

 
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Jan, 2009 12:17 pm
@gungasnake,
gungasnake wrote:
Chuck Darwin's main "gifts" to the world were naziism, communism, eugenics, and two world wars.

That's like saying Jesus's main gift to the world was The Crusades.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Jan, 2009 12:23 pm
@Setanta,
I googled Vine Deloria and mishipishu together, TA DAAAH. Now I know how gunga makes these leaps of idiocy. This is from a site with quotes by Deloria (whose son is not proud of his ole mans trips in fantasy). I love how Deloria gets to the last line that "It must be a stegosaur". Why not a one eye, one horned , flying purple people eater?


Quote:
Indians generaly speak with a precise and literal imagery. As a rule, when trying to identify creatures of the old stories, they say they are "like" familiar neighborhood animals, but then carefully differentiate the perceived differences. I have found that if the animal being described was in any way comparable to modern animals, that similarity would be pointed out; the word "monster" would not be used.
Only in instances where the creature bears no resemblance to anything we know today will it be described as a monster. Since no dinosaur shape resembles any modern animal, and since the reports are to be given literal credibility I must suggest that we are identifying a dinosaur. Thus, in the story of large animals at Pomme de Terre prairie in southwestern Missouri, a variant of the story suggests that the western animals were megafauna and the creatures who crossed the Mississippi and Missouri Rivers and invaded the lands of the megafauna were dinosaurs. The dinosaurs thus easily displace the familiar, perhaps Pleistocene, megafauna and move west, where we find their remains in the Rocky Mountains today

In numerous places in the Great Lakes are found pictographs of a creature who has been described in the English translation as the "water panther" This animal has a saw-toothed back and a benign, catlike face in many of the carvings. Various deeds are attributed to this panther, and it seems likely that the pictographs of this creature which are frequently carved near streams and lakes are a warning to others that a water panther inhabits that body of water. The Sioux have a tale about such a monster in the Missouri River. According to reports, the monster had ". . . red hair all over its body . . . and its body was shaped like that of a buffalo. It had one eye and in the middle of its forehead was one horn. Its backbone was just like a cross- cut saw; it was flat and notched like a saw or cogwheel" I suspect that the dinosaur in question here must be a stegosaurus
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Jan, 2009 12:42 pm
@gungasnake,
Cute scientist babe.
Nice child's drawing on a rock too.
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Jan, 2009 01:42 pm
@rosborne979,
WQe discussed this at length months and years ago. Id posted the site where Dr SChweitzer was explaining the "HArd rock" matrix of this kergen like soft tissue.

Gunga's game is to underpin his claims with pseudo scientists, then when hes exposed, he tries to claim that some real scientist is in his camp. Hes so full of lies and fraud that hed make a great member of the Creation SCience Institute with Duane (Waddya want me ta make up) Gish
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Jan, 2009 06:28 pm
@farmerman,
farmerman wrote:
WQe discussed this at length months and years ago. Id posted the site where Dr SChweitzer was explaining the "HArd rock" matrix of this kergen like soft tissue.

Ah yes, I remember the discussions well. Gunga always brings us the best bullshit to gawk at. He's like a one-man army when it comes to sniffing out the best bullshit on the net.
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Jan, 2009 01:04 pm
The problem Fman is experiencing is a kind of a future shock thing. The gigantic time schemes we read about which have dinosaurs dying out 70,000,000 years ago were put there for the benefit of Chuck Darwin and his fellow travellers and mainly supported by circular logic and theories built on other theories. In past ages it was possible to simple bury evidence which turned up here and there and appeared to contradict the grand evoloser scheme; in the present internet age, it isn't.

F-man and a handful of others like him believe they can eliminate the problem via sheer meanness, i.e. if they work hard enough at vilifying everybody who ever says anything, the problem will go away.

The problem is, the problem is too big; it requries F-man to demonize too many people and he's going to end up looking stupid doing it.

He's calling me a liar for presumably putting words in Mary Schweitzer's mouth. I know perfectly well that Schweitzer has not been converted to a YEC. What I HAVE claimed is that these scientists HAVE found soft tissue inside a trex bone and that there is no way in hell that tissue is 65,000,000 years old. Bone isn't the MOST porous stuff in the world but it IS porous and for that stuff to have not been totally petrified in 65,000,000 years, it would have to have never rained in Montana or the Dakotas in all that time.

Likewise in F-man's strange little world, people like Carl Baugh and Don Patten are goobers and rednecks. Patten at least is a known quantity:

http://www.bible.ca/tracks/ask-creationist.htm

Likewise with the Amerind artist however long ago who drew the stegosaur image at Lake Superior:

http://www.istockphoto.com/file_thumbview_approve/1922007/2/istockphoto_1922007_agawa_pictographs_canoe_and_serpents.jpg

Presumably that guy's whole body was red more or less (being an Amerind) and you assume his neck was...

Likewise with numerous other Amerind artists from antique times, i.e. all the Mishipashoo/stegosaur glyphs around rivers, lakes etc. etc. in North America (Lewis and Clark noted their Indian guides being in mortal terror of them). Most are more like ideograms than like the halfway representational image at Lake Superior, all show the dorsal spikes of the stegosaur. Amerind traditions describe the water panther/stegosaur as having a sawblade back and a "great spiked tail" which he used as a weapon.

Likewise with Vine DeLoria, the best known of all Amerind authors and author of several standard university texts on Indian affairs: Yet another redskin-redneck goober in F-man's little world.

Likewise the ancient artisans responsible for numerous other dinosaur images in North American petroglyphs, e.g.

http://thefirstsixdays.com/TheDayMenSawDinosaurs.htm
http://thefirstsixdays.com/TheDayMenSawDinosaurs_files/image014.jpg

Likewise the ancient Cambodian artisan who included the stegosaur image in the temple column at Angkor:

http://www.theness.com/neurologicablog/?p=196
http://www.theness.com/images/blogimages/stegosaurus.jpg

Red + yellow is orange... That would make that artisan from 900 AD or whatever an orange-neck goober to F-man.

Likewise with the ancient mesoamerican artists responsible for Ica stones:

http://ka-boom.ru/tag/naxodki/
http://ka-boom.ru/wp-content/uploads/2008/08/09/ica_stone_lg.jpg

Redneck in Russian would be "красношейник" or some such (for F-man's benefit)....
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Jan, 2009 01:10 pm
@gungasnake,
Are you one of those fools who doesn't believe in Carbon Dating, Gunga?

There's a real lack of evidence to support your case; namely, pictures of things drawn or carved by people aren't scientific evidence those things exist. I mean, are you going to start arguing that Dragons are real? The number of ancient peoples who drew/carved those things are legion. Your logic seems to indicate that they MUST have existed...

Cycloptichorn
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Jan, 2009 01:15 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
The was no market or profit motive for dinosaurs at the time of the Lewis/Clark expedition.
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Jan, 2009 01:21 pm
@gungasnake,
gungasnake wrote:

The was no market or profit motive for dinosaurs at the time of the Lewis/Clark expedition.


You have no clue what the motivation was for anyone to draw any of these images; yet you seem to feel that it's appropriate to use them as evidence of a massive scientific hoax, perpetuated by thousands of scientists across the globe, who have all decided they are in on the lie.

You also don't seem to have much understanding of what a 'breeding population' is. If dinosaurs existed 500 or 1000 or even 10 thousand years ago, we would be finding huge numbers of their remains in different strata from where we find them. There wouldn't just be one un-fossilized bone, there would be thousands of corpses left for our scientists to pick over. And in order to support your theory that cultures all over the world were drawing pictures of them, the geographic spread would have to be large.

No such data has been found. You can't take a bone someone found, and some ancient drawings, and conclude that evolution is fake. It's ******* ridiculous and betrays your ignorance of the scientific process.

Besides, the theory of evolution has been born out in lab experiments -

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14094-bacteria-make-major-evolutionary-shift-in-the-lab.html

I'm sure you will also ignore this evidence.

Cycloptichorn
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Jan, 2009 01:26 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Quote:
You have no clue what the motivation was for anyone to draw any of these images; yet you seem to feel that it's appropriate to use them as evidence of a massive scientific hoax, perpetuated by thousands of scientists across the globe, who have all decided they are in on the lie...


More like they've succumbed to their own brainwashing and group-think.

Part of the problem is the present yuppifaction of science, i.e. the fact that most of the people doing science any more are what Japanese term "salarymen". In 1850 a scientist was typically also a member of the house of Lords and the Royal Society. That person was relatively free to espouse unpopular causes or ideas when there was some need for it. He might get laughed at, but he was used to that from serving in Parliament, and nobody could take his livelihood away from him for it.



Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Jan, 2009 01:30 pm
@gungasnake,
gungasnake wrote:

Quote:
You have no clue what the motivation was for anyone to draw any of these images; yet you seem to feel that it's appropriate to use them as evidence of a massive scientific hoax, perpetuated by thousands of scientists across the globe, who have all decided they are in on the lie...


More like they've succumbed to their own brainwashing and group-think.

Part of the problem is the present yuppifaction of science, i.e. the fact that most of the people doing science any more are what Japanese term "salarymen". In 1850 a scientist was typically also a member of the house of Lords and the Royal Society. That person was relatively free to espouse unpopular causes or ideas when there was some need for it. He might get laughed at, but he was used to that from serving in Parliament, and nobody could take his livelihood away from him for it.



Laughing

Do you understand what the Scientific Method is?

If Carbon dating didn't work, it would quickly be exposed; not because of people's opinions about it, but because the results are testable and replicable.

Your theories are neither testable nor replicable; and they do not conform to our knowledge about the science of breeding populations in the slightest. Nor do they accurately describe geology or the effects of fossilization.

There's no science involved in your stance at all; it's just an assertion on your part. Nobody is swayed by such weak ****.

Bring verifiable and testable results of actual science, not just your weak-ass theories, or prepare to be laughed at for some time. It's just idiocy on your part to be making the claims that you do.

Cycloptichorn
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Jan, 2009 01:50 pm
@gungasnake,
dinosaurs and homo sapiens are separated by hundreds of millions of years except for some who post on a2k.
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Jan, 2009 01:52 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Quote:

If Carbon dating didn't work, it would quickly be exposed...


As it has been. RC dating depends on several assumptions, not least of which is the assumption that the present ratio of carbon isotopes in our atmosphere is good for all time going backwards. It isn't, which is why items from the beginning of the industrial revolution often date as if from the early middle ages.

Moreover rc dating even in theory is only good for about the last 50,000 years. That's probably why you don't read about anybody trying to rc date those trex remains; they're likely afraid of what they'd see.

As for petroglyphs, it's far from obvious to me that rc dating would have any applicability. Some of what you read notes that the desert varnish is particularly heavy over most of them, indicating considerable age.
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Jan, 2009 01:57 pm
@gungasnake,
gungasnake wrote:

Quote:

If Carbon dating didn't work, it would quickly be exposed...


As it has been. RC dating depends on several assumptions, not least of which is the assumption that the present ratio of carbon isotopes in our atmosphere is good for all time going backwards. It isn't, which is why items from the beginning of the industrial revolution often date as if from the early middle ages.

Moreover rc dating even in theory is only good for about the last 50,000 years. That's probably why you don't read about anybody trying to rc date those trex remains; they're likely afraid of what they'd see.

As for petroglyphs, it's far from obvious to me that rc dating would have any applicability. Some of what you read notes that the desert varnish is particularly heavy over most of them, indicating considerable age.


Ooh, right. I'm going to have to go ahead and disagree with your bullshit assertions. Do some basic research on calibration and how they get around the issues you discuss.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiocarbon_dating

Cycloptichorn
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Jan, 2009 02:35 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Quote:
Ooh, right. I'm going to have to go ahead and disagree with your bullshit assertions. Do some basic research on calibration and how they get around the issues you discuss.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiocarbon_dating


Wikipedia is your idea of "research"??
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Jan, 2009 03:18 pm
@gungasnake,
gungasnake wrote:

Quote:
Ooh, right. I'm going to have to go ahead and disagree with your bullshit assertions. Do some basic research on calibration and how they get around the issues you discuss.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiocarbon_dating


Wikipedia is your idea of "research"??


Wikipedia is where you find the sources to do basic research, Gunga. If you don't trust what's written there, follow the citations. You do know what a citation is, don't you?

Cycloptichorn
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Jan, 2009 03:26 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Quote:
Wikipedia is where you find the sources...


All of them? Enough of them????

The general reality is that Wikipedia is useful for topics for which no sort of controversy could plausibly exist: "How does a steam engine work?"; "How does a two-stroke diesel engine work?"; "Where is the city of Gdansk and when was it founded?"....

For anything involving any sort of controversy at all, Wikipedia is totally worthless.
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Jan, 2009 03:29 pm
@gungasnake,
gungasnake wrote:

Quote:
Wikipedia is where you find the sources...


All of them? Enough of them????

The general reality is that Wikipedia is useful for topics for which no sort of controversy could plausibly exist: "How does a steam engine work?"; "How does a two-stroke diesel engine work?"; "Where is the city of Gdansk and when was it founded?"....

For anything involving any sort of controversy at all, Wikipedia is totally worthless.


Once again, you betray your idiocy. Wikipedia is not 'totally worthless'; in fact, it is of great value in finding original sources.

You just don't trust sources which aren't batshit crazy; that's not wikipedia's fault. I can't have a productive discussion with someone who claims the world's body of scientists are all in it together, cowed into constantly faking results and covering up for each other, in some sort of liberal conspiracy. What's more likely is that you are an idiot who doesn't understand basic science.

Look, just put some thought into things for a minute, gunga. Don't you think there would be far more evidence uncovered for the things you claim, if what you claim is true? Or do you suppose it's just a conspiracy to cover up that evidence?

Cycloptichorn
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Jan, 2009 04:06 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Quote:
Once again, you betray your idiocy.


Welcome to my ignore list.
Setanta
 
  2  
Reply Thu 15 Jan, 2009 04:07 pm
Man, FM has been just dyin' to get on that ignore list . . . and now Cyclo wins the prize . . . FM is gonna by pissed . . .
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Earthing - Discussion by Quehoniaomath
Faster Than light - Question by Magico-Pancake
Is Saturn a star? - Discussion by gungasnake
Do we or do we not live in a Matrix? - Question by Debra Law
gravity - Question by martinies
What's smarter, the brain or the cell that made it? - Discussion by peter jeffrey cobb
Archeoastronomy - Question by veloso
Universe not expanding - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 10/28/2021 at 11:37:55