5
   

Fossil evidence of humans and dinosaurs together

 
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Jan, 2009 09:08 am
Hey, FM, since you have "thumbs-downed" my thread to which you took childish exception, i'm reduced to using another thread to point out to you that:

You were complaining that i was calling you names after you quoted a response of mine to JTT, and not to you, which you might have known if you had had the competence to pay some attention. It's bad enough having a ****-slinger like JTT take off on me, calling me names, i don't need to get **** from you for something which i did not say to you. Get a grip, and pay attention.
High Seas
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Jan, 2009 09:40 am
@gungasnake,
Gunga - you never even looked at the magnificent new issue of The Lancet, which I linked! You may find at least some of the contents are unobjectionable:
http://mag.digitalpc.co.uk/fvx/lancet/darwinsgifts/

The bioethics part in the last chapter (entitled 21st century eugenics) is absolutely fascinating - to me, at any rate, since part of my work is on risk modelling and management for insurance.
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Jan, 2009 01:00 pm
@Setanta,
OK OK OK. I hadda go back and look at the adress box and it was JTT you were unloading on. I was busy posting at George and spendi, so I quickly scanned and thought that the snotty remarkes were meant for me.


PS, but I took no childish exception to your thread, I ws (and am) firmly convinced that you were easily sold a bill of goods on this presidents valedictory crap.

Remember, it was only several months ago that Georgie even recognized that a "middle class" under stress, even exists.





Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Jan, 2009 02:32 pm
@farmerman,
I haven't been sold a bill of anything. I came up with the thread topic on my own, and not in response to any prompting by a media source. I don't care why he's acting this way, what is important is that he is acting this way.
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Jan, 2009 02:51 pm
@Setanta,
Hey, youre blocking the incoming line. Gunga will be here shortly with his incontroveratble evidence about ICA stones.

I neesd to see the news about how the ICA stones have shown computer screens and automobiles. YAd think that , if someone had invented it before, wed at least see the paint shop. Or am I clinging to a mere hope?
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Jan, 2009 03:42 pm
@farmerman,
You know, a couple of years ago--and it may have been in response to such Gunga Dim nonsense--i came across some good evidence that those were faked, including an allegation that the jokers who were faking them admitted it. I'm too lazy to go lookin' for it again, though.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Jan, 2009 04:04 pm
Several problems with the Ica stones: The location at which they are alleged to have been found has never been identified, making it impossible to date them from strata or organic material in the strata in which they are alleged to have been found. Dr. Javier Cabrera, the physician who has opened up a "museum" in Ica, claims to be an expert in ichthyology, but avoids ever being obliged to identify fish engraved on the stones. Dr. Cabrera has stated that the stones could not have been "carved" (they're not carved, they're etched) because they are too hard, and that cannot have been accomplished by people using stone tools--Dr. Cabrera hews to the "extraterrestrials did this" line; but there is yet another problem with this, and that is that Peruvians were probably the most advanced metallurgists in the western hemisphere at the time of the Spanish conquest, and they were using copper and bronze tools at that time, and probably had been for eight centuries or longer (Inca civilization was not itself that old, but the predecessor culture, the Mochica, also used copper and bronze). Finally, under Peruvian law, two of the people identified by Dr. Cabrera as having "found" many of the stones were prosecuted for selling antiquities, at which time the stated that they had not found the stones, but had etched them themselves.

Off to find a link.
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Jan, 2009 04:12 pm
In theory,
next week a dinosaur who had failed to become extinct
coud be discovered in some unexplored area;
maybe swimming deep in the ocean, having lots of fun.

I don 't believe that this woud have an evidentiary bearing
upon Darwin 's theory.





David
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Jan, 2009 04:22 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
You are right . However, its not whether diosaurs occured with humans (during humans existence) , but that human fossils occur with dinosaurs. That WOULD upset a few pieces of evidence.
Of course , it is a form of "fasifying" the fossil record which underpins evolution.
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Jan, 2009 04:36 pm
The Ica stone page at Skeptics-dot-com.

The "About-dot-com" article, which stops short of calling them a hoax.

The site "Bible and Science-dot-com" expresses skepticism.

From the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry: "Ica Stones: Yabba-Dabba-Do!"

Jesus . . . it takes forever to wade through all the lunatic fringe web sites of the Eetee lovers and creationists who so desperately want to believe.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Jan, 2009 05:58 pm
I guess gunga bought off on more than he can eschew.
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Jan, 2009 07:18 pm
@farmerman,
farmerman wrote:

Quote:
You are right .
However, its not whether diosaurs occured with humans
(during humans existence) , but that human fossils occur with dinosaurs.
That WOULD upset a few pieces of evidence.

It woud if the human fossils were dated to 66,000,000 years ago.

0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Jan, 2009 07:20 pm
How much effect did it have on Darwin 's thoughts
when living coelacanths were discovered ?
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Jan, 2009 07:38 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
Coelacanths were not discovered while Darwin lived.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  0  
Reply Sun 18 Jan, 2009 07:43 pm
From Dino Fish-dot-com:

Quote:
Pre-dating the dinosaurs by millions of years and once thought to have gone extinct with them, 65 million years ago, the Coelacanth was "discovered" alive and well in 1938.
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Jan, 2009 09:46 pm
@High Seas,
Sounds like you have an actual need to comprehend some of this stuff; that's sort of rare. Two things you might want to take a look at would be my own little take on the question of 'genetic death' which comes up in population genetics:

http://able2know.org/topic/73697-1

and the article which Sir Arthur keith wrote while WW-II was in progress describing the influence which Darwinian thought had on Nazi racial politicy:

http://siris-libraries.si.edu/ipac20/ipac.jsp?uri=full=3100001~!266417!0
http://catalogue.nla.gov.au/Record/1598972

0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Jan, 2009 10:04 pm
@farmerman,
have at it...

http://able2know.org/topic/128167-1
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Jan, 2009 05:19 am
@gungasnake,
IPSEDIXITISM__ "One of its meanings in present usage, is the tendency for self reference in technical literature as a call to authority"

eg
"GUNGASNAKE says that Ica stones are not fake , and he proves it by providing a seris of quotes that he himself has written about the subject"

What the hell gunga, were you up searching for all that junk while the playoffs were on TV?

YOU are very easily impressed with ****. Are you able to distinguish good stuff from bad? Im sure some of us will go over and ,by using similar type quotes but from more reliable sources, try to convince you of the error of your ways.

farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Jan, 2009 05:33 am
@Setanta,
LAtemeria, the coelecanth, was named after the woman who collected it from a fishermans net off Bird Island off the coast of eastern South Africa , a Miss Courtney LAtimer was a young curator of zooligical specimens for CApe Province.She glommed the specimen fish from a group of fishermen who caught it in about 250 ft of water off the Chalumna Estuary.

THE really important thing was a poem about the coelecanth written by Ogden NAsh.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Jan, 2009 06:21 am
Ogden Nash put Grandpa Darwin to shame . . .

The rhino is homely beast,
For human eyes he's not a feast.
But you and I will never know
Why nature chose to make him so.
Farewell, farewell, you old rhinoceros;
I'll stare at something less prepoceros.
 

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 10:44:34