I think Bigfoot is blurry. It's not the photographer's fault. Bigfoot is blurry. And that's extra scary to me, because we have a large out-of-focus monster walking around out there.... -Mitch Hedberg
Originally posted by RJHinds Do you believe all that? How do we know it is not speculation like most everything else like this?
Of course you would doubt anything like that since you have zero background in science except for a couple of years of undergrad work that I was taught in high school.
Since you do not follow the literature you cannot know the advances made in areas such as MRI, functional MRI, PET scans, micro bio analysis, DNA analysis and so forth. Since all that is just a blur to you, of course you would conclude such analysis is mere speculation.
Recent findings of very close study of some dinosaur fossils have shown some of them suffer from arthritis but of course that is just speculation, right?
Originally posted by sonhouse Of course you would doubt anything like that since you have zero background in science except for a couple of years of undergrad work that I was taught in high school.
Since you do not follow the literature you cannot know the advances made in areas such as MRI, functional MRI, PET scans, micro bio analysis, DNA analysis and so forth. Since all that is ...[text shortened]... ight?
My wife and I have had an MRI done. I just took my wife in to the hospital yesterday for a bone scan. That is common knowledge. The existence of DNA has been publicly known, at least, as far back as the O.J. Simpson murder trial, for the lawyers explained and debated it on public television. But the jury was to stupid to understand it. Any anaylsis can be marred by incorrect speculation as was shown by one of the lawyers in the O.J. Simpson trial. It was enough to convince the jury, however, in a similar way that you are convinced.
Originally posted by RJHinds My wife and I have had an MRI done. I just took my wife in to the hospital yesterday for a bone scan. That is common knowledge. The existence of DNA has been publicly known, at least, as far back as the O.J. Simpson murder trial, for the lawyers explained and debated it on public television. But the jury was to stupid to understand it. Any anaylsis can ...[text shortened]... on trial. It was enough to convince the jury, however, in a similar way that you are convinced.
Well then, since you are an avowed expert in the field, show me where the analysis of the dinosaur bones or the ice man is speculation. It is obvious you are an expert since your wife had an MRI done.
Originally posted by sonhouse Of course you would doubt anything like that since you have zero background in science except for a couple of years of undergrad work that I was taught in high school.
Since you do not follow the literature you cannot know the advances made in areas such as MRI, functional MRI, PET scans, micro bio analysis, DNA analysis and so forth. Since all that is ...[text shortened]... ight?
I'm not sure if more dimensions are mentioned but there are clues that there were lots of very large people in that land. Goliath was one of a tribe (Philistines) or race that lived in that area. You would have to do some reasoning by the text however.
Also when the 12 spies went out into the land they said the people were large and would devour us and we are like grasshoppers in their sight. Granted this is figurative or metaphorical language it's still a truth.
Originally posted by sonhouse Well then, since you are an avowed expert in the field, show me where the analysis of the dinosaur bones or the ice man is speculation. It is obvious you are an expert since your wife had an MRI done.
I am glad that you recognize my expertise for a change. But I will have to disappoint you because I do not have the MRI of the dinosaur bone to analysis for you. But I still believe speculation is the stock in trade of the evolutionary scientists.
Originally posted by RJHinds I am glad that you recognize my expertise for a change. But I will have to disappoint you because I do not have the MRI of the dinosaur bone to analysis for you. But I still believe speculation is the stock in trade of the evolutionary scientists.
So you look at a dinosaur bone with huge teeth marks in it and you go, oh, he fell off a cliff? Obviously.
Originally posted by RJHinds But how does that prove how old the bone was or if it really is a dionosaur or has anything at all to do with the theory of evolution?
Evolution and age of the bones was not the gist of the article. The gist of the article said this dino had arthritic conditions too. That was ALL it said. You seem to read things into it that aren't there, just like your religion.
As for what the bone was from, what animal it represented, why don't you undertake a study of that bone, there are photo's, you could easily prove it came from a cow, couldn't you?
Originally posted by sonhouse Evolution and age of the bones was not the gist of the article. The gist of the article said this dino had arthritic conditions too. That was ALL it said. You seem to read things into it that aren't there, just like your religion.
As for what the bone was from, what animal it represented, why don't you undertake a study of that bone, there are photo's, you could easily prove it came from a cow, couldn't you?
If it came from a cow it is not a giant human skeleton is it?
Originally posted by RJHinds If it came from a cow it is not a giant human skeleton is it?
So you read what I wrote and make that conclusion? We seem to be on two different planets here. You read into what others write what you want to see not what they wrote.
Originally posted by sonhouse So you read what I wrote and make that conclusion? We seem to be on two different planets here. You read into what others write what you want to see not what they wrote.
The fact that Dinosaurs may have suffered from arthritis has nothing to do with Giant Human Skeletons. The fact they might have had arthritis, like humans, is supposed to suggest what? I don't get it. And you were the one that brought up the idea that they might be cow bones with arthritis, which still doesn't have any thing to do with the OP that I can tell.
Originally posted by RJHinds The fact that Dinosaurs may have suffered from arthritis has nothing to do with Giant Human Skeletons. The fact they might have had arthritis, like humans, is supposed to suggest what? I don't get it. And you were the one that brought up the idea that they might be cow bones with arthritis, which still doesn't have any thing to do with the OP that I can tell.
When I said it could be cow bones, I was alluding to the idea you would discount the actual bone as being real. I was saying what you might have said in refutation.
Just like your statement that 'see, there were dinosaurs on the Ark, they were birds'.
You use that statement to further your agenda even though you know in your own mind that dinosaurs and men walked the Earth together. It is your agenda that made that statement.
You are desperate to prove your baseless hypothesis, that the Earth is a few thousand years old. That is the difference between real science and charlatanism.
Originally posted by sonhouse When I said it could be cow bones, I was alluding to the idea you would discount the actual bone as being real. I was saying what you might have said in refutation.
Just like your statement that 'see, there were dinosaurs on the Ark, they were birds'.
You use that statement to further your agenda even though you know in your own mind that dinosaurs an ...[text shortened]... rth is a few thousand years old. That is the difference between real science and charlatanism.
I am not a Charlatan because I am not trying to obtain money, fame or other advantages frome presenting the truth as I see it. I am not trying to trick you in any way. I have no book or anything to sell you. If you learn the truth from me, it is you that gains, not me.
Discovery of Giant Human skeletons
19 May '12 07:28
Back to Top