Originally posted by cashthetrashStop dodging the question, numbnuts!
Are you randomly qualified to discuss this? I am talking about science not always being right. Yet they claim it as fact. Then when another theory comes along they claim that as fact. What I am saying is science is a good thing, and very interesting. But too many use small bits of information and then think that was how it was everywhere. A good scienti ...[text shortened]... ey would rather treat the symptom as opposed to the cause. But enough of this it is off topic.
Originally posted by cashthetrashNo wonder Xanthos doesn't agree with you! You can't even agree with yourself. 😛
You did and you didn't but not on anything that mattered. Besides I agreed with you to a point so we would have been arguing unimportant issues. Besides you are just a theory. The Chinese think you are nothing but a bad dream or...somthing like that.
Originally posted by Sicilian SmaugGuess what, I don't know either way. I have already said that. Based on what I was taught in school. The answer would be no. Based on what I have seen from human nature is, that when a group of scientists decide to say other wise suddenly everyone's opinion changes that is if it helps to support some other theory. When and if the scientists say 6000 years and come up with some kind of creditable evidence to support evolution as a result. I am sure the evolutionist will mostly fall in line. They always do. To a flat Worlder what seemed like a joke then didn't seem so funny when they found out how stupid they had been. I have never known an exact age nor do most scientists. There age descriptions usually vary to a large degree. To me, my World is only as old as I am. But, I hope it survives long after I am gone. Just in case you happen to out live me.
6000 years 😉 ?
Originally posted by Sicilian SmaugIf I understand you correctly. You were implying that I, because I play chess am not qualified to have an opinion. And I was asking you, if you are qualified under your own terms to have an opinion? Pulling up articles off the Internet, of he said, she said could go on for months. For one, I am not prepared for a debate of that type. And the argument really doesn't interest me enough to spend the time looking up articles of what some other dingbat has or has not discovered that in itself is debatable. Tell you what though. There is a place in Glenrose Texas where you can see some dinosaur fossils discovered there. They have found fossils of man and dinosaur living during the same period together. And the man wasn't a monkey. Actually it was a female human. So maybe man was a monkey but Females weren't. Who knows. Fly out and take a look.
I said:
"I'm more inclined to believe those qualified to discuss these matters than a random person on a chess site"
"Randomly qualified" is your choice of words, I don't know what it means, so I'm asking you.
Originally posted by Sicilian SmaugAnd as far as I know you too have no qualifications or done any research that would make you knowledgable about this matter. Which could put us both at an advantige seeing what I have witnessed from some of the nutty professers I have seen. Now please tell me if you know the difference between a "fact" and a "theory". Because I believe I have already proven that "common facts" are not facts when proven false. Such as ulcers, and flat Worlders. Which is why I claims the fact of hotter when dinosaurs were alive might not be a fact. Now you could be right. However I question the so called "fact". There are so many theories as to how dinosaurs went extinct. One is the Ice age. Not sure it is correct. Another is volcanic ash which shielded the suns rays. Sounds like that might cool the planet. Maybe man itself caused the extinction. (Been known to happen.) Ever hear the fact of the Earth being hit by meteors which caused the extinction of Dinosaurs. Did that cause it to get hotter or colder? So who is to say. But the thing is I am not arguing the the Earth was hotter or colder. I am arguing that facts are not always facts. I just asked you to prove it. To me you haven't.
😕 No. Just I mean you are a random person that I wouldn't be speaking to if not here on this chess site, you have no qualifications that I know of or doen any research that would make you knowledgeable about this matter, but yet you chose to argue against the commonly known fact that the Earth was hotter in the time of the dinosaurs, and yet you show me nothing.