5
   

Fossil evidence of humans and dinosaurs together

 
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Jan, 2009 04:20 pm
@gungasnake,
gungasnake wrote:

Quote:
Once again, you betray your idiocy.


Welcome to my ignore list.


Thank you, christ.

Now I can belittle your lack of knowledge without having to put up with your feeble attempts at retort; it will save us both time in the future.

Cycloptichorn
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Jan, 2009 05:16 pm
@gungasnake,
Radioisotope dating is not even a point that you can discuss technically , so dont even start. Its a technique that has been established by lab confirmation . To establish that "a day" may have been shorter in the Cretaceous, has no bearing on the method. Didintegrations are counted by the second, not by a variable year. BTW, we dont use Radiocarbon to date dinosaur deposits. You know this. Only the YECs still argue the Radioisotope question as if their point had any validity. REMEMBER, YECS MUST deny most science
1Genetic evidence of "fossil" DNA is invalid

2ALL strtigraphy and paleontology is incorrect

3Radioisotopes ditto

4Geomagnetics is wrong (AS is seafloor spreading because paleo mags maps the spread of seafloors)

5Structural geology is incorrect because it interprets the movements of landmasses over one another and these movements are traced by tectonic (F1-Fn deformational analyses)

6Cladistics has gotta be incorrect because no elephants have been found in the CAmbrian, or no mammoths were ever found with dinosaurs (let alone humans).



Quote:
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,
Now gunga is expert on what can or cannot be the fossil result of diagenesis. We have several examples of fossil trilobites that have been preserved as "waxy" material and entire insects in amber with all fluids still readable and exoskeletal material still mostly keratin. We have kerogen deposits fom the CRetaceous back to the PErmian.
Schweitzer had to treat the matrix around the blood vessels of the T rex with acid to dissolve the cementiteous matrix. Its like the soft parts were encased within cement. They used Hydroflouric acid to treat it and to release the parts) Everything fits into a model of about 70 mya. Gunga just doesnt understand the chemistry and certainly has no expertise to even comment less even understand.

Ive only commented on the phoney credentials of all his sources so far, not Dr SChweitzer. Dr SChweitzer has been publishing about the soft tissue in the T rex, perhaps gunga doesnt want to keep up to date.

PS the Tika stones youve described have no bases in fact to even be greater than about 100 years old. Noone is certain that these stones werent carved by some recent tricksters. I dont know enough about them.

If all those petroglyphs and columns were of dinosaurs still alive, where are they?.Artistic fancy doesnt need a scientific basis. The Cambodian "Triceratops" is the only one that copuld be interesting to actually track down. I suspect that the entire column has several fanciful animals that are takeoffs of monkeys, rhinos, elephants etc.

I sure as hell wouldnt make myself a science denier by such flimsy evidence. Gunga is trying to place his petroglyphs up against over a hundred years of good solid science. CAn you say flat earther?
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Jan, 2009 07:18 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Thank you, christ.

Now I can belittle your lack of knowledge without having to put up with your feeble attempts at retort; it will save us both time in the future.

Welcome to "The List" Cyclo, glad you could join us Smile It's a great perch from which to sit and snipe at the snake.

0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 16 Jan, 2009 12:31 am
@gungasnake,
The "stegosaurian" fossil was from the Temple of Ta Prohm, from the emporor JAYAVARMAN VII (circa 1180 CE).
The templke was used in a Laura Croft movie and the original carved medallion may have been crushed and the film crew may have added a dino embellishment (That was one of the possibilities from Cryptozoologist). I dont buy that cause , even though the dino medallion seems like it was actually wiped up, I follow the rock structure throughout the medallion.

My own theory is that this specimen isnt a stegoasaur at all. Its a Protoceratopsian, a Cretaceous mono horned ceratopsian . The "plates on the back arent unique to the protoceratops, if you look up and down, all the animals shown (including the monkey, on whose back the whole deal is resting, has decorative "plates around his head. Further, the snakes that form the circular surrounds of all the animals , , have plates too.

Ceratopsians were common fossils in lower Asia , from the continental riverine deposits of the area from the Gobi to the South. Ceratopsians and a large brachicephalus are unique to this part of the world. The creature in the temple has a large head and a single "horn" like protuberance. Fossils of this animal were found in curiosity collections of Chinese scholars. ASuppose a drawing would have been made and shown to Jayavarman. That makes more sense to me since the obvious question is , where is the specimen of the live ceratopsian (or stegosaur) , if gungas assertion has any merit at all.

0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 16 Jan, 2009 12:45 am
@gungasnake,
Quote:
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.
This is all bullshit. The only people "Hiding" or making up evidence is the YECS and OECs. ALl the past phony fossils have been disclosed by science , members of the fraternity who, dont trust any data unless its been verified seceral times over.

When Piltdown Man was discovered, it took scientists to uncover the (by todays standars) a clumsy bit of aging with potassium permanganate and some bone fitting. The sinopteryx that was manufactured by a fossil dealer in Liao ning was uncovered by detailed rock analysis by a petrologist. Also, the fakery that was "Nebraska Man" was disclosed by the work of a stratigrapher.

I recall the crap that gunga has been trying to pass off on us over the years, such as the cast fossil of a dinosaur with a hominid in its mouth.(Gunga had suddenly disappeared when it was disclosed that this was a hoax), Also his petroglyphs and now "man and dinosaurs living together". If anyone is guilty of deception Id say gungasnake is a student of hispseudoscience heroes.


F'man is quite comfortable working in the field of geology where we tear each other apart from a technical standpoint . We dont engage in phoneying up data or making connections where none exist .


Chusck Darwin is in fine states of evidence, something that I bet you wish you had to parade about gunga. However, I always get amused at how many times gunga tries to bring up the same **** (nothing new since 2003) and fool new folks.

I wonder why we dont get tired of playing with him?
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 16 Jan, 2009 12:47 am
@gungasnake,
Quote:
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:
Sounds like youve given up on Baugh. Thats a lot different than what you were saying about him just a few days ago. Then, he was a solid scientist with serious credentials. Were you lying then or are you lying now?
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 16 Jan, 2009 12:53 am
@farmerman,
ICA STONES ARE FAKE from a topic wiki.



Quote:
The Ica stones are stones from Peru, claimed to be ancient, and engraved with unhistorical scenes of flying machines, dinosaurs, brain surgery, the use of telescopes, and other such anachronisms. They have a special appeal to those who wish to rewrite prehistory.

[edit] Provenance
There are reports of engraved stones from the area going back as early as the sixteenth century; however, the particular stones in question were "discovered" in the 1960s, when one Dr Cabrera brought them to public notice after he had bought thousands of the engraved stones from a farmer called Basilo Uschuya.

Arrested for selling antiquities, Uschuya confessed to faking the stones. On the one hand, it may be argued that if he had maintained that they were genuine, he'd have gone to prison. On the other hand, he must have done something to persuade the police that the artifacts were not genuine: it would be interesting to know what. Nor would fear of arrest explain why he should give an interview to a newspaper (Mundial, No. 6, January 17) in which he and his wife tell how they faked the stones using comic books, school books, and magazines as sources for their pictures, and aged them by leaving them in a chicken coop.

The stones have no archaeological provenance at all. They are supposed to have been found in a cave, but the location of the cave remains a secret. Offers by archaeologists to be taken there blindfolded have been rejected.

It is not possible to date the stones directly; nor is it possible to date them by studying the site where they were supposedly found, because, as noted, this is a secret. It is, however, possible to put a date on the clay figurines which have been produced along with the stones. Erich von Daniken sent one to the University of Zurich for dating and they reported that the figurine was modern. His colleague Johannes Fiebag sent two other samples to the University of Weimar who reported that the samples were “relatively young” and still contained water.

0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Fri 16 Jan, 2009 07:30 am
Quote:
ICA STONES ARE FAKE from a topic wiki....


Ica stones are the sort of controversial topic for which Wikipedia is known to be totally worthless, likewise with F-man here claiming to have gone from total ignorance to being an authority on the subject in one day. Separate thread on Ica stones today or tommorrow. There are at least two overwhelming arguments against any sort of a claim of those stones being fakes or forgeries.
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Fri 16 Jan, 2009 07:34 am
http://www.aetherometry.com/Electronic_Publications/Politics_of_Science/Antiwikipedia/images/Wikipedia_Techno-Cult_of_Ignorance.jpg

http://www.aetherometry.com/Electronic_Publications/Politics_of_Science/Antiwikipedia/awp_index.html

0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Fri 16 Jan, 2009 07:41 am
http://www.alexcartoon.com/cartoons/ax080604.gif
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  0  
Reply Fri 16 Jan, 2009 10:12 am
I find it laughably ironic that Gunga, of all people, is actually complaining about the accuracy of online information sources.
Setanta
 
  0  
Reply Fri 16 Jan, 2009 10:13 am
@rosborne979,
I was thinking the same thing, Roswell.

Are you on the ignore list yet . . . along with the rest of us elite members?
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 16 Jan, 2009 10:45 am
@Setanta,
yeh, rub it in dog breath.
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 16 Jan, 2009 10:50 am
Im going to stick with my original hunch that the ICA stones are fakes that were produced by this Peruvian dude who had a ready market and a vivid imagination and a "Dremel".

Gungas gonna provide us with some unimpeachable internet source that will obviously trump anything that the wiki presented.(PS it wasnt wikipedia but a source document ). Whenever someone confesses without reason Im willing to listen to him. Like those British crop circle guys.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  0  
Reply Fri 16 Jan, 2009 11:00 am
@farmerman,
Don't despair, Boss . . . if you continue to fight the good fight, some day you, too can be on the ignore list . . .
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 16 Jan, 2009 11:11 am
@Setanta,
Its a curse , being considerate and polite.
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Fri 16 Jan, 2009 11:15 am
@farmerman,
Just be glad you don't suffer from it . . .
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Fri 16 Jan, 2009 11:28 am
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:

I was thinking the same thing, Roswell.

Are you on the ignore list yet . . . along with the rest of us elite members?

Yes, the mighty bow-hunter has proclaimed me to be worthy of "The List". Essentially implying that my comments are more than the slithery wuss can handle. Smile
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Sat 17 Jan, 2009 08:40 pm
Unimpeachable evidence about ICA stones from gunga please. If not here in another 12 hours I win by default. THEY ARE FAKE
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Jan, 2009 08:52 am
Bottom line: Human stories, whether written in ancient texts or engraved on rocks, do not trump natural physical evidence.
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 10/25/2021 at 11:56:19