|
Author
|
Topic: Did Dinosaurs live with man?
|
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 305 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: 07-20-2006
|
Re: Evidence
Still no dragons, then?
|
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 305 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: 07-20-2006
|
So, still no dragons?
|
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 305 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: 07-20-2006
|
Re: Mythical rats and simians
And the dragons? Where are they? C'mon, take a little time out of your busy schedule of posting halfwitted nonsense on the internet, and find us just one teensy-weensy dragon.
|
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 305 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: 07-20-2006
|
Re: Mythical rats and simians
La-la-la, look at that learned Inadequate. He is such a rare erudite. So certain of his sixty-five million years gap chronology. But you know what? 65 million years is a long, long distance. It might be that from that distance not a single discernible trace is left but all is completely recycled by mother nature. I notice nothing in that stream of semi-consciousness was a dragon. Or evidence for dragons. Let us know.
|
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 305 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: 07-20-2006
(2)
| |
| |
| |
Re: Knilige of Dogma
Dinosaur is just a new-fangled name for the kind known as dragons since time immemorial to all simians of reason and learning. Really? Please identify the species of dinosaur shown below.
|
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 305 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: 07-20-2006
|
Re: Density of a quackademic skull
Now, how dense a learned skull can be? - wonders the Cheshire. How do you mean you have got a "fact" about dragons here, Vatican? There is no single eternal fact in science. Any presentation includes a number of interpreted assumptions taken by the presenter and the audience for granted for the sake of enjoying the exchange of presentations in hope of possible understanding. Those may be called facts for the sake of that particular presentation only. The "facts" are not doubted and examined by the presenter and the audience any too much simply because if each and every assumption were to be thoroughly examined first, no presentation of a hypothesis would be possible at all. No theorising would ever be started. That is all there is to the "facts", Vatican. Here's a fact: you can't find any dragons.
|
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 305 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: 07-20-2006
|
(1)
| |
| |
| |
|
Message 284 of 373 (698325)
05-05-2013 1:31 PM
|
Reply to: Message 281 by Faith
05-04-2013 11:33 AM
|
|
Re: Dating again
No I don't have the evidence you want though I think some creationistsw do, I just can never keep it all in mind. But I do have the Bible which is God's word, which says you're wrong. That really ought to suffice. Also, kudos to Coyote for being mentioned in the Bible.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 281 by Faith, posted 05-04-2013 11:33 AM | | Faith has not replied |
|
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 305 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: 07-20-2006
|
(1)
| |
| |
| |
|
|
Message 322 of 373 (698604)
05-08-2013 12:06 PM
|
Reply to: Message 294 by Faith
05-08-2013 12:36 AM
|
|
Re: Density of a quackademic skull
Why shouldn't every layer contain an array of all the animals supposedly living on the earth in that particular era? [...] Austin's nautiloid layer in the Grand Canyon has some other marine life in it Thanks for admitting that. Did all these other species have the same hydrodynamic properties as nautiloids?
... but it's full of nautiloids, which dominate, and no other largish sea creature. How could that have happened according to your illustrious theory? Because large shells survive decay better than, for example, fish.
Like it or not the only explanation for the sorting we see has to be some kind of mechanical/hydraulic principle. Although somehow this process forgot to hydraulically sort the actual sediments. Laws of nature can be kind of absent-minded like that. However, it did remember its main task, which was to arrange the fauna in the sediment in such a way as to deceive evolutionists.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 294 by Faith, posted 05-08-2013 12:36 AM | | Faith has not replied |
|
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 305 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: 07-20-2006
|
|
|
Message 331 of 373 (698694)
05-08-2013 9:48 PM
|
Reply to: Message 330 by NoNukes
05-08-2013 8:47 PM
|
|
Hydraulic Sorting Moves In Mysterious Ways
Not a single human, or rhino, or elephant, or lion, etc. Well, y'see, this magical hydrological sorting that couldn't distinguish between sand and mud did know the difference between large quadrupeds with dentary-squamosal jaw joints and large quadrupeds with quadrate-articular jaw joints. It's jolly bad luck for Faith that the magic water used that particular anatomical criterion --- imagine if it had instead just counted the legs. Or sorted them by size, the way non-magic water does with sediment. But no, it had to decide that the dentary-squamosal jaws got to ride on top. Pesky magic water, when it wasn't committing genocide it was using its detailed knowledge of tetrapod anatomy to fake the fossil record for the benefit of Darwinists. Tsk.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 330 by NoNukes, posted 05-08-2013 8:47 PM | | NoNukes has seen this message but not replied |
|
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 305 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: 07-20-2006
|
Re: Summary--dating
The only point the feline is pursuing here is spreading some doubt and confusion about the current quackademic dogma on dragons, Larn. Then you have failed. You have certainly exhibited doubt and confusion, especially confusion, but you have not spread it.
The Cheshire is a curious cat, he is quite intrigued by the dinosaur business and he would love to hear more different proposals to explain the fate of the beasts. Apart from the birds, they would appear to be dead. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 305 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: 07-20-2006
|
(1)
| |
| |
| |
Re: Summary--dating
Well, can we hear from any of these visitors of whom you speak? If anyone was tolerably sane on this subject before reading this thread, but has subsequently been driven insane by the influence of Maddenstein's ravings, and been inveigled under the spell of his schizophasic incantations to join him in a folie deux, then now would be a great time for him to step from the shadows and proclaim that whatever is wrong with our Alfred is contagious. Otherwise, my dear Maddenstein, I think that while you yourself may be confused, deeply confused, about what you are pleased to call "dragons", what you have inflicted on others is not a share in your confusion but rather a feeling of certainty concerning your mental incapacity.
|
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 305 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: 07-20-2006
|
Re: Summary--dating
Inadequate, why do you care so much about irrelevant issues? The Cheshire's being possibly mad and the bible-pushers being possibly wrong should be the least of your concerns and aspirations. As it is, you lot are hopelessly fixated on the bible and bible-pushers. You are totally dependent on them having no autonomous being of your own. You need to relax and cut the umbilical belt chaining you to the bible, Inadequate. While your delusions about me are every bit as risible as your delusions about dragons, they are not nearly so relevant to the topic.
|
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 305 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: 07-20-2006
|
Re: Summary--dating
If your delusional ravings about me and about dragons are in the nature of speculation, then you should not present them as though they were assured facts. You should instead preface them with some disclaimer such as: "Here is a daydream that I like to indulge in, even though I have no credible reason to believe it". Of course, we are aware that this is the case; but such a prefatory disclaimer would clear you of the imputation, which you apparently wish to deny, that you yourself believe that you are telling the truth.
|
™ Version 4.2
