Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 57 (9054 total)
335 online now:
dwise1, jar, nwr (3 members, 332 visitors)
Newest Member: EWolf
Post Volume: Total: 888,271 Year: 5,917/14,102 Month: 65/438 Week: 109/83 Day: 11/21 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   dinosaur and human co-existence
ZenMonkey
Member (Idle past 3575 days)
Posts: 428
From: Portland, OR USA
Joined: 09-25-2009


Message 73 of 271 (559476)
05-09-2010 9:10 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by Peg
05-09-2010 7:44 PM


Re: Where are the bones?
Peg writes:

Dr Adequate writes:


No, it means that their literal name is dinosaur. No scientist in the world would be stupid enough to call them lizards.

the point is, that IS what the word means....its a desciptive word.

If dinosaurs dont mean that, then they should change the name to what they believe it means.

And the literal translation of gastritis from the Greek means "stomach fire." Doest that mean you think that doctors treat ulcers with fire extinguishers?


I have no time for lies and fantasy, and neither should you. Enjoy or die.
-John Lydon

What's the difference between a conspiracy theorist and a new puppy? The puppy eventually grows up and quits whining.
-Steven Dutch


This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by Peg, posted 05-09-2010 7:44 PM Peg has not yet responded

  
ZenMonkey
Member (Idle past 3575 days)
Posts: 428
From: Portland, OR USA
Joined: 09-25-2009


Message 74 of 271 (559477)
05-09-2010 9:12 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by Buzsaw
05-08-2010 9:58 PM


Re: Reptiles and Dinosaurs
Buzsaw writes:

But Bluejay, your two word terms, misinformation and clarification are relative to your secularistic con-ID premise from which you extrapolate from observed evidence.

Well that would seem to be the problem, Buz. The scientific view is based on actual evidence. You, on the other hand, are making up made-up things.

Oh, and if you're going to use the Sinclair logo as evidence that snakes are the ancestors of dinosaurs, then can I use this as evidence that dogs and dinosaurs are also closely related?

Edited by ZenMonkey, : No reason given.


I have no time for lies and fantasy, and neither should you. Enjoy or die.
-John Lydon

What's the difference between a conspiracy theorist and a new puppy? The puppy eventually grows up and quits whining.
-Steven Dutch


This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by Buzsaw, posted 05-08-2010 9:58 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded

  
ZenMonkey
Member (Idle past 3575 days)
Posts: 428
From: Portland, OR USA
Joined: 09-25-2009


Message 106 of 271 (559661)
05-11-2010 12:13 AM
Reply to: Message 105 by Buzsaw
05-10-2010 11:58 PM


Re: Evidence Of Curse
Buzsaw writes:

bluescat writes:

That would have no effect on radioactive decay

I didn't say rate of decay. I said element makeup.

So sulpher used to be lead and carbon used to be argon, and so on down the line?

By the way, as best I remember, you made the same claim - that the Flood somewhow fundamentaly changed the structure of matter and that's why radiometric dating is unreliable - in a previous thread. You never did come up with any evidence for that assertion at the time. Maybe while I go look up which thread that was, you can go find that evidence of a massive reality shift occuring some time around 6000 years ago. Because a massive reality shift is what you'll need to explain something as fundamental as a change in atomic decay rates (or "element makeup" whatever that is).

Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Guess.


I have no time for lies and fantasy, and neither should you. Enjoy or die.
-John Lydon

What's the difference between a conspiracy theorist and a new puppy? The puppy eventually grows up and quits whining.
-Steven Dutch


This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by Buzsaw, posted 05-10-2010 11:58 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded

  
ZenMonkey
Member (Idle past 3575 days)
Posts: 428
From: Portland, OR USA
Joined: 09-25-2009


Message 125 of 271 (559782)
05-11-2010 3:39 PM
Reply to: Message 114 by Buzsaw
05-11-2010 1:21 PM


Re: Reptiles and Dinosaurs
Hi Buz,

Buzsaw writes:

No. The evidence which better satisfies the co-existing dino/shortie problem you have yet to explain, as to just the dinos (I say dinosaurs themselves-not their descendents) at large, became extinct exclusively and relatively suddenly.

So if your "theory" is a better explanation for the evidence, then could you answer the following questions?

1. Are you saying that the K-T extinction event, which took place 65 million years ago and is the one in which the large majority of the dinosaurs became extinct, is the same event as the Fall, which by most creationist calculations took place less than 10,000 years ago? If so, which date is wrong - 65 million years or 10 thousand years?

2. If the K-T event does represent the Fall, what was the cause of the many other mass extinction events our planet has undergone, such as the Triassic-Jurrasic (205 ma, 23% of all families extinct), or the Permian-Triassic (251 ma, 97% of all marine species and 70% or all land species extinct)? Did God have to curse all of the non-mamalian Theraspids in some previous Fall? Was the the Lemorosaurus the most subtle beast of the Permian Garden of Eden 250 million years ago?

3. How do you explain all of the other non-dinosaur families and genera that also died off in the K-T event? Did all the molluscs that went extinct get caught in some general curse fall-out, or can we assume that they did something naughty too?

4. How do you explain the evidence that indicates that mass extinction events extend over thousands or even millions of years?

As far as I can tell, there is no "dino/shortie" problem that needs to be explained, and current scientific theory is quite adequate at explaining the above evidence, none of which the Buz Hypothesis accounts for.


I have no time for lies and fantasy, and neither should you. Enjoy or die.
-John Lydon

What's the difference between a conspiracy theorist and a new puppy? The puppy eventually grows up and quits whining.
-Steven Dutch


This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by Buzsaw, posted 05-11-2010 1:21 PM Buzsaw has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 126 by Buzsaw, posted 05-11-2010 4:52 PM ZenMonkey has responded

  
ZenMonkey
Member (Idle past 3575 days)
Posts: 428
From: Portland, OR USA
Joined: 09-25-2009


(1)
Message 132 of 271 (559835)
05-11-2010 7:32 PM
Reply to: Message 126 by Buzsaw
05-11-2010 4:52 PM


Re: Reptiles and Dinosaurs
Hi Buz.

Buzsaw writes:

No, Zen. My position has always been throughout this thread and elsewhere that the dinos became extinct at the commencement of the alleged ww flood. which allegedly took place about 4350 years ago or so.

You're dodging the real issue. In fact, you've made your position even more untenable, hard as that may be to believe. Are you now contending that the K-T event took place about 4350 years ago and not 65 million? What's your evidence for this claim, and how do you counter the whole body of evidence that says otherwise?

Buzsaw writes:

Zen, the fall, according to the Genesis curse account, i.e. non-dino types would not have existed until the time of the curse when the existing dinos laid their eggs. All embryos from then on would be non-dino types. All the account establishes is that a serpent/reptile beguiled the woman. It doesn't say or imply snake, serpent being the word depicting all reptiles.

What happened to your oft stated assertion that no kind of creature can give birth to another kind? A T. Rex laying an egg and hatching an iguana or a cobra seems like a single-generation change in kind to me. Also, you're missing the point of the question again. Granted that the K-T event represents the Flood and not the Fall (apparently), then what explanation is there for the other major extinction events? Are you asserting that humans were around 250 million years ago as well, and that God had to wipe them out with a Great Permian Flood too?

Buzsaw writes:

Did the molluscs all die off 65 million years ago in the K-T event with the dinos? I don't think so.

No, but a lot of them did, as well as plenty of plants, fish, insects and micro-organisms. Were they cursed too? Also, if the K-T event is the same thing as the Flood, which is what you seem to be saying now, does this massive die-off of dinos and non-dino simply represent all the families and genera that didn't make it onto the Ark?

Buzsaw writes:

Zen, the fall, according to the Genesis curse account, i.e. non-dino types would not have existed until the time of the curse when the existing dinos laid their eggs. All embryos from then on would be non-dino types. All the account establishes is that a serpent/reptile beguiled the woman. It doesn't say or imply snake, serpent being the word depicting all reptiles.

1. Do you mean is that the dinosaurs were changed at the Fall and within a single generation started giving birth to snakes?

2. Additionally, are you claiming that some of the individuals who were cursed at the Fall then lived on until the Flood, thus explaining the co-existence of snakes and dinos? That gives us some pretty old dinosaurs, don'tcha know?

3. So the Serpent was perhaps actually a velociraptor, or some other devilish bipedal predator? (I just don't see a duckbill being up to the job.)

Buzsaw writes:

ZenMonkey writes:

How do you explain the evidence that indicates that mass extinction events extend over thousands or even millions of years?

To my knowledge none of these was as abrupt or extensive an event as the K-T event. The focus of this thread is suppose to be the dinos so to go in depth on other groups would lead off topic.

The Permian-Triassic extinction event was far more extensive, as I mentioned in my previous post. Also, an abrupt event in geological terms means something that took place over thousands rather than millions of years. Not one year. Did the Flood just sorta kill off the dinos but let some of them linger for a few thousand years afterwards? Oh wait, or are you saying that there are still dinosaurs alive today?

You can see the sorts of issues that arise when you start to claim that events that happened over the span of millions of years actually all happened in the last six thousand. Considering that Jericho, for example, has had people living in it continuously for at least two or even three thousand years before the date of the Fall, never mind the Flood, you can start to see how it's getting difficult to figure out how your chonology is supposed to work. As I understand it, your particular version of OEC asserts that the Creation Event took place at some unknowably distant point in the past. Did Adam live for millions of years from Creation to Fall? Are you claiming to be accurate back until 6000 years ago or so, and then everything before that just goes all whacky and utterly mysterious?

And I believe that bringing in non-dinosaur extinctions is on-topic, as your theory has to account for them too. If you want to claim that humans were indeed alive at the same time as the dinosaurs were, then you should be able to provide some sort of chronology for all these events: Creation, Fall, and Flood. And you also have to somehow be able to reconcile a geological record that shows multiple extinctions events just like the one that killed off the dinosaurs going back hundreds of thousands of years.

Lots of questions. Take your time.

Edited by ZenMonkey, : No reason given.


I have no time for lies and fantasy, and neither should you. Enjoy or die.
-John Lydon

What's the difference between a conspiracy theorist and a new puppy? The puppy eventually grows up and quits whining.
-Steven Dutch


This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by Buzsaw, posted 05-11-2010 4:52 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded

  
ZenMonkey
Member (Idle past 3575 days)
Posts: 428
From: Portland, OR USA
Joined: 09-25-2009


(1)
Message 135 of 271 (559879)
05-11-2010 11:24 PM
Reply to: Message 133 by Buzsaw
05-11-2010 10:17 PM


Re: Reptiles and Dinosaurs
Buzsaw writes:

Now we're back to square one which again goes into how the observed evidence of the by and large extinction of dinos and the survival of the others is interpreted. I have no other direct evidence. If my understanding is correct, you have no direct evidence that an asteroid wiped out the dinos or whatever event you attribute their extinction to.

quote:
Evidence for the Asteroid Impact Hypothesis

Impact Crater
This 150-kilometer-wide crater lies just off the Yucatan peninsula. Scientists calculate that it was blasted into Earth by a 10-kilometer-wide asteroid or comet traveling 30 kilometers per second -- 150 times faster than a jet airliner.

Scientists have concluded that the impact that created this crater occurred 65 million years ago. The date corresponds perfectly to the date of the dinosaur extinction.

Rare Metal
The metal iridium, which is similar to platinum, is very rare on Earth's surface but is more common in asteroids and in molten rock deep within the planet.

Scientists have discovered levels of iridium 30 times greater than average in the Cretaceous/Tertiary (KT) boundary, the layer of sedimentary rock laid down at the time of the dinosaur extinction.

Melted Rock
These pieces of once-molten rock, called impact ejecta, are evidence of an explosion powerful enough to instantly melt bedrock and propel it more than a hundred miles from its origin.

Ranging in size from large chunks to tiny beads, impact ejecta are common at or near the Cretaceous/Tertiary (KT) boundary, the geological layer that defines the dinosaur extinction.

Fractured Crystals
These crystals, often called "shocked quartz," show a distinctive pattern of fracturing caused by high-energy impacts or explosions.

Some scientists maintain that the fracture pattern in these quartz crystals could only have been caused by a massive asteroid or comet impact. The pattern is prevalent in quartz found at or near the Cretaceous/Tertiary (KT) boundary, the geological layer deposited at the time of the extinction.

Fossil Record
A gradual decline in the number of dinosaur species would likely mirror an equally gradual cause of their ultimate extinction. Conversely, a sudden "now you see them, now you don't" end to the dinosaurs implies a catastrophic cause. Depending on location and interpretation, the fossil record seems to say different things.

Some paleontologists see evidence in the fossil record that dinosaurs were doing quite well prior to the end of the Cretaceous -- that they were in no way declining in abundance when the impact occurred.


Of course, some of this evidence is also in agreement with the hypothesis that a period of increased volcano activity and subsequent climate change was a cause of the K-T event. It's possible that both were major factors. And as the article notes, the fossil record is not conclusive with regard to how long the full K-T extinction event took. What is quite clear, however, is that there is no evidence whatsoever that T. Rex and friends went extinct because they somehow lost their passports and tickets to get on the Ark some 6000 years ago. And you admit as much.

Lots of evidence. No evidence. Who appears to be making the better case?

Edited by ZenMonkey, : No reason given.

Edited by ZenMonkey, : No reason given.


I have no time for lies and fantasy, and neither should you. Enjoy or die.
-John Lydon

What's the difference between a conspiracy theorist and a new puppy? The puppy eventually grows up and quits whining.
-Steven Dutch


This message is a reply to:
 Message 133 by Buzsaw, posted 05-11-2010 10:17 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded

  
ZenMonkey
Member (Idle past 3575 days)
Posts: 428
From: Portland, OR USA
Joined: 09-25-2009


Message 150 of 271 (560026)
05-12-2010 4:23 PM
Reply to: Message 140 by Buzsaw
05-12-2010 10:59 AM


Re: Reptiles and Dinosaurs
Buzsaw writes:

The evidence remains being what is observed; fossils showing that long legged repiles have become extinct and that a large array of close to earth reptiles thrive abundantly.

This coupled with physical evidence attributed to the flood (another topic) and recorded history becomes inclusive in the thesis. applying the 4350 or so date .

This is not right. There are no 4000 year old fossils. So far as I can research it, the most recent fossils are 10,000 years old. Anything younger than that is a bone, not a fossil. And, as has been pointed out many, many times, there are no unmineralized dinosaur bones. They don't exist.

And, yes, I very aware that creationists often claim that it only takes a few years to make a real fossil. This is simply not true. If you can find a reputable study - and not unsupported claims from a creationist website - that says otherwise, I'd be delighted to hear it.

Once again:

Fossils are not bones.

Fossil remains of bones are rocks.

Rocks take time to form under natural conditions. (And yes, I know that you're going to claim that the Flood created exactly those magical, unrepeatable conditions, the same ones that apparently make radiometric dating completely unreliable from your point of view. This claim is also utterly unsupported by evidence.)

The only preserved remains of dinosaur bones ever found have been rocks, and not bones.

Ergo, no dinosaurs living 4000 years ago. None.


I have no time for lies and fantasy, and neither should you. Enjoy or die.
-John Lydon

What's the difference between a conspiracy theorist and a new puppy? The puppy eventually grows up and quits whining.
-Steven Dutch


This message is a reply to:
 Message 140 by Buzsaw, posted 05-12-2010 10:59 AM Buzsaw has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 156 by Buzsaw, posted 05-13-2010 10:42 PM ZenMonkey has responded

  
ZenMonkey
Member (Idle past 3575 days)
Posts: 428
From: Portland, OR USA
Joined: 09-25-2009


Message 161 of 271 (560278)
05-14-2010 2:47 AM
Reply to: Message 156 by Buzsaw
05-13-2010 10:42 PM


Whaaaa???
Buzsaw writes:

Your evidence is observed data interpreted on the basis of relative uniformativity for the last 20,000 years or so. If there was a flood, the same data would not necessarily calculate the same from a non-uniformative premise.

Yes. Evidence. Observed data. That's what science works with. The only interpretation of uniformity on the part of science is that things we observe and measure today operate in the same fundamental ways and are subject to the same fundamental laws that they did in the past, unless there is compelling, verifiable evidence to suggest otherwise.

Light travels at 299,792,458 metres per second. Period. Measure it any way you like, you'll get 299,792,458 metres per second. Why on earth should we decide that maybe 6000 years ago light only traveled at 20,000 meters per second instead? (That's about the same ratio of error as your assertion that dinosaurs died out 4350 years ago instead of 65 million.)

Floods don't somehow magically alter the fundamental nature of matter, which is what you keep asserting time after time. Reality is reality, Buz, that's the only assumption that science is making here. If you want to deny that, then I guess you are perfectly justified in making up stories in direct contradiction to the way the world really works, and you must believe that your God has created a universe in which nothing makes sense from one minute to the next. Feel free to live in fantasyland and pretend that reality is whatever you want to be; I'm starting to suspect that that's exactly what you do.

I also note that you haven't yet replied to my questions in Message 132, nor have you acknowledged Message 135 in which I refute your claim that there's no more evidence that it was astroid that contributed to the extinction of the dinosaurs 65 million years ago than there is that they drowned in a magical flood 4350 years ago. Can we assume that you're tacitly admitting that your claims are nonsense?


I have no time for lies and fantasy, and neither should you. Enjoy or die.
-John Lydon

What's the difference between a conspiracy theorist and a new puppy? The puppy eventually grows up and quits whining.
-Steven Dutch


This message is a reply to:
 Message 156 by Buzsaw, posted 05-13-2010 10:42 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded

  
ZenMonkey
Member (Idle past 3575 days)
Posts: 428
From: Portland, OR USA
Joined: 09-25-2009


(2)
Message 172 of 271 (560356)
05-14-2010 4:00 PM
Reply to: Message 166 by Buzsaw
05-14-2010 11:05 AM


Random reality.
Hi Buz,

Buzsaw writes:

That's the kicker; our current understanding, which is solely relative uniformitarian.

What do you mean by relative uniformitarianism? The way you're using this phrase, all I can think is that you mean "thinking that the world is understandable and consistant" as opposed to "believing that reality can change at random anytime God wants it to so who knows what anything means."

This is like two guys looking at a spoon on a table. The first guy says, "Hey, that's a spoon."

The second guy says, "Maybe that looks like a spoon, but that's just because you're assuming that it's a spoon. I think that it was a hamster yesterday."

"Why on earth would you think that this spoon used to b a hamster? That's a spoon. I used it to eat my Cap'n Crunch yesterday morning."

"That's just your interpretation of the evidence. My interpretation of the same evidence is that this might be a spoon today, but you can't prove that it didn't used to be a hamster, now can you?"

"But...."

"Besides, my Holy Book of Hamster says that there were no spoons before today. They all used to be hamsters. And you know, that spoon is round on one end and then it gets skinny. A hamster is round on one end and then gets skinny, too. I think that it's obvious that this spoon used to be a hamster."

"But...."

"You just deny hamsters because you hate God, don't you?"

And so on.

Edited by ZenMonkey, : No reason given.


I have no time for lies and fantasy, and neither should you. Enjoy or die.
-John Lydon

What's the difference between a conspiracy theorist and a new puppy? The puppy eventually grows up and quits whining.
-Steven Dutch


This message is a reply to:
 Message 166 by Buzsaw, posted 05-14-2010 11:05 AM Buzsaw has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 178 by Buzsaw, posted 05-15-2010 3:15 PM ZenMonkey has not yet responded

  
ZenMonkey
Member (Idle past 3575 days)
Posts: 428
From: Portland, OR USA
Joined: 09-25-2009


Message 221 of 271 (560701)
05-17-2010 2:17 AM
Reply to: Message 216 by Dr Adequate
05-16-2010 11:59 PM


Re: Reptiles and Dinosaurs
Dr Adequate writes:

We have the skeletons of many other extinct reptiles besides dinosaurs, and you know this damn well if you've bothered to read this thread. I've supplied you with photographs, for pete's sake.

I think I've got Buz's logic figured out for this one.

When you go to the museum to see dinosaurs, all you see are displays of bones.

Your pictures were of displays of bones.

Therefore, all of your pictures were of dinosaurs.

Thus, only dinosaurs were made extinct by the Flood/Meteor Strike 4350/65,000,000 years ago.


I have no time for lies and fantasy, and neither should you. Enjoy or die.
-John Lydon

What's the difference between a conspiracy theorist and a new puppy? The puppy eventually grows up and quits whining.
-Steven Dutch


This message is a reply to:
 Message 216 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-16-2010 11:59 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

  
ZenMonkey
Member (Idle past 3575 days)
Posts: 428
From: Portland, OR USA
Joined: 09-25-2009


Message 222 of 271 (560703)
05-17-2010 2:37 AM
Reply to: Message 214 by Buzsaw
05-16-2010 11:43 PM


Re: Reptiles and Dinosaurs
Buzsaw writes:

Science = amount of carbon and other elements on earth and atmosphere affect dating data.
Buzsaw/Genesis = Catastrophic non-uniform elements on earth before 4350 years ago.

Buz, I've asked you about this sort of claim plenty of times before. What on earth do you mean by non-uniform elements? What about the elements in the pre-Flood world was different from the elements making up matter today? Or is your only problem the fact that the very nature of matter shows that your assertions are as so far removed from reality that the Andromeda galaxy is just down at the end of the driveway by comparison?

I quote myself from Message 161:

quote:
Floods don't somehow magically alter the fundamental nature of matter, which is what you keep asserting time after time. Reality is reality, Buz, that's the only assumption that science is making here. If you want to deny that, then I guess you are perfectly justified in making up stories in direct contradiction to the way the world really works, and you must believe that your God has created a universe in which nothing makes sense from one minute to the next. Feel free to live in fantasyland and pretend that reality is whatever you want to be; I'm starting to suspect that that's exactly what you do.


I have no time for lies and fantasy, and neither should you. Enjoy or die.
-John Lydon

What's the difference between a conspiracy theorist and a new puppy? The puppy eventually grows up and quits whining.
-Steven Dutch


This message is a reply to:
 Message 214 by Buzsaw, posted 05-16-2010 11:43 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded

  
ZenMonkey
Member (Idle past 3575 days)
Posts: 428
From: Portland, OR USA
Joined: 09-25-2009


(1)
Message 249 of 271 (561453)
05-20-2010 4:11 PM
Reply to: Message 244 by Buzsaw
05-20-2010 12:15 AM


Re: Reptiles and Dinosaurs
Hi Buz,

Buzsaw writes:

Percy, can we agree that an hypothesis having a premise of a global flood as per the Genesis account would needs assume non-uniform planet properties relative to elements in the atmospher and planet surface?

I see that in your proposed thread What The Genesis Noaic Flood Would Not Produce. you intend (finally!) to address the issue of this supposed non-uniformity betwen the pre-Flood and post-Flood world. Provided that this thread gets promoted, may I make a suggestion? I would appreciate it if you could focus on two things:

1. You continue to assert that the world changed because of the Flood. Please explain the mechanism by which a year-long innundation of water would effect all of the changes you've listed. It's simply not enough to say that it did. You have to have some idea of how it would have done these things. Anything else is simply dismissing the issue, which then turns the Flood into some sort of magic wand that can make anything happen.

2. You should also make sense of at least some of the things that we know a flood of that magnitude must have done and yet somehow didn't in this case. For example, water is much denser than air, and most of the sun's light is filtered out only 30-35 feet below the surface (less if the water is at all turbulant). Unless you have a very, very shallow flood, not only all of your plant life, but most if not all of the coral on this planet would have died out too. Coral is delicate and can be killed off by even slight changes in salinity and temperature, both necessary consequences of a sudden innundation of rainwater. And guess what? No big die-off of coral, either 4350 years or 65 million years ago. Didn't happen. (Unless of course you want to again claim that all dating methods are meaningless, and the massive extinction of marine life in the Permian-Triassic extinction event 250 million years ago is the same thing as the K-T extinction event that happened 65 million years ago.

Again, the whole point is for you to explain the nature of this Flood in physical terms, so that we can understand how it changed the pre-Flood world in all the ways you say it did, as well as why it didn't do the things that we would reasonable expect it to. Anything else is simply saying that it was all magic and that there's no way to make sense of the world, in which case there's no need for you to claim that science can validate your views.

Edited by ZenMonkey, : Spelling

Edited by ZenMonkey, : No reason given.


I have no time for lies and fantasy, and neither should you. Enjoy or die.
-John Lydon

What's the difference between a conspiracy theorist and a new puppy? The puppy eventually grows up and quits whining.
-Steven Dutch


This message is a reply to:
 Message 244 by Buzsaw, posted 05-20-2010 12:15 AM Buzsaw has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 250 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-20-2010 11:51 PM ZenMonkey has responded

  
ZenMonkey
Member (Idle past 3575 days)
Posts: 428
From: Portland, OR USA
Joined: 09-25-2009


Message 251 of 271 (561516)
05-21-2010 1:39 AM
Reply to: Message 250 by Dr Adequate
05-20-2010 11:51 PM


Re: Reptiles and Dinosaurs
I suck. I was thinking of what I thought was the proportionately larger die-off of coral in the P-T event, and didn't double check to see how extensive the loss was during K-T event. *sigh* Every time I think that I'm saying something smart...

Nevertheless, I think that Buz has more explaining to do than I do.

Edited by ZenMonkey, : No reason given.


I have no time for lies and fantasy, and neither should you. Enjoy or die.
-John Lydon

What's the difference between a conspiracy theorist and a new puppy? The puppy eventually grows up and quits whining.
-Steven Dutch


This message is a reply to:
 Message 250 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-20-2010 11:51 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2021