Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Science Forum

Science Forum

  1. Standard member RJHinds
    The Near Genius
    01 Jun '13 04:09
    The post that was quoted here has been removed
    I see they decided to leave out any declaration of age of the woolly mammoth in this case. A wise decision indeed.

    The Instructor
  2. Standard member RJHinds
    The Near Genius
    01 Jun '13 05:38
    The post that was quoted here has been removed
    I spoke too soon. They were a little more conservative than they usually are. Normally, I would expect a declaration of 50,000 or more. Still how they could think it is even 10,000 years old is beyond belief.

    The Instructor
  3. Standard member sonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    12 Jun '13 14:51
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    I spoke too soon. They were a little more conservative than they usually are. Normally, I would expect a declaration of 50,000 or more. Still how they could think it is even 10,000 years old is beyond belief.

    The Instructor
    Only beyond YOUR distorted belief. If we built a time machine and went back when there were only dinosaurs on Earth, you would deny deny deny, perhaps saying we didn't go to Earth's past, we went to another planet entirely.
  4. Standard member RJHinds
    The Near Genius
    12 Jun '13 15:42
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    Only beyond YOUR distorted belief. If we built a time machine and went back when there were only dinosaurs on Earth, you would deny deny deny, perhaps saying we didn't go to Earth's past, we went to another planet entirely.
    It is clear dinosaurs lived with humans.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R6GiNQvugn0

    The Instructor
  5. Standard member sonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    12 Jun '13 15:56
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    It is clear dinosaurs lived with humans.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R6GiNQvugn0

    The Instructor
    More creationist claptrap. You can find human footprints inside dino's but that doesn't prove they happened at the same time. A dino walking around 70 million years ago leaving a print that gets fossilized and buried and then some kind of erosion happens and the footprint is later exposed and then humans walk on the same ground and their footprints get imprinted on top of the dino's is not even CLOSE to proof they existed together.

    Again, it is creationist religious political agenda talking. They could care less about real truth, only in destroying established sciences so they can force their blighted views on the public, force creationism to be taught in schools and if possible, not even allow evolution to be taught at all. That is the ultimate goal and the rest of the world sees that quite clearly.

    Your antics neither sway us or deceive us, we know EXACTLY where you and your creationist buddies are going with all this obfuscation.
  6. Standard member RJHinds
    The Near Genius
    13 Jun '13 20:19 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    More creationist claptrap. You can find human footprints inside dino's but that doesn't prove they happened at the same time. A dino walking around 70 million years ago leaving a print that gets fossilized and buried and then some kind of erosion happens and the footprint is later exposed and then humans walk on the same ground and their footprints get impr , we know EXACTLY where you and your creationist buddies are going with all this obfuscation.
    Nonsense! The footprint was inside the dino foot print and then fossilized. A fossilized footprint can't get eroded so another footprint can't be impressed in it like that. You are talking bullcrap.

    The Instructor
  7. Standard member sonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    13 Jun '13 20:42
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    Nonsense! The footprint was inside the dino foot print and then fossilized. A fossilized footprint can't get eroded so another footprint can't be impressed in it like that. You are talking bullcrap.

    The Instructor
    What in the pea brained hell makes you think a fossilized footprint can't get eroded? That's what happens when a 70 million year old footprint gets exposed to the top layer of soil through several processes like mountain building, folding of the crust due to continents crashing into one another and so forth and when it gets to the surface, normal erosion takes place. What do you think that fossil is anyway? Stainless steel? It's frigging ROCK and rock gets eroded all the time. You might think Grand Canyon? Krist you are dense sometimes.
  8. Standard member RJHinds
    The Near Genius
    14 Jun '13 01:17
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    What in the pea brained hell makes you think a fossilized footprint can't get eroded? That's what happens when a 70 million year old footprint gets exposed to the top layer of soil through several processes like mountain building, folding of the crust due to continents crashing into one another and so forth and when it gets to the surface, normal erosion ta ...[text shortened]... rock gets eroded all the time. You might think Grand Canyon? Krist you are dense sometimes.
    It is not going get eroded so that a person could come along millions of years later and step on it and a new fossilized footprint within a dinosaur footprint appears in its place, numbnuts.

    The Instructor
  9. 14 Jun '13 05:48
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    I see they decided to leave out any declaration of age of the woolly mammoth in this case. A wise decision indeed.

    The Instructor
    Woolly mammoths are not dinosaurs, they are related to elephants and died out as late as 4000 years ago in some places.

    So, according to you, how long can blood remain in a frozen mammoth? Do you dispute the dating based on the existence of blood, or do you only dispute it because it contradicts your religion?
  10. 14 Jun '13 07:13 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    It is not going get eroded so that a person could come along millions of years later and step on it and a new fossilized footprint within a dinosaur footprint appears in its place, numbnuts.

    The Instructor
    silly man; denying that some rock can be eroded.
  11. Standard member RJHinds
    The Near Genius
    15 Jun '13 00:06
    Originally posted by humy
    silly man; denying that some rock can be eroded.
    I am not denying rocks can be eroded at all. I am denying it can happen in the way sunhouse says.

    The Instructor
  12. Standard member sonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    15 Jun '13 00:18
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    I am not denying rocks can be eroded at all. I am denying it can happen in the way sunhouse says.

    The Instructor
    You can deny deny deny but that won't put humans petting dinosaurs. That is the absolute most stupid concept outside of creationism itself. You want to distort the real world to fit into the twisted timescape of imaginary creationist bullshyte.
  13. Standard member RJHinds
    The Near Genius
    15 Jun '13 12:03
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    You can deny deny deny but that won't put humans petting dinosaurs. That is the absolute most stupid concept outside of creationism itself. You want to distort the real world to fit into the twisted timescape of imaginary creationist bullshyte.
    To deny the existence of the Creator is the most stupid thing to me.

    The Instructor
  14. Standard member sonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    15 Jun '13 12:55 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    To deny the existence of the Creator is the most stupid thing to me.

    The Instructor
    I don't give a rats ass if there IS a creator. It would not be the insane vindictive version of a god invented by religious megalomaniacs interested in one thing and one thing only, making a religious empire.
  15. 17 Jun '13 17:36
    Sorry, I thought this was the science forum.