The Water Cooler
See other The Water Cooler Articles
Title: Skip Intro Challenging A K A Stone on Origins
Source:
[None]
URL Source: [None]
Published: Sep 24, 2010
Author: Dabney Coleman
Post Date: 2010-09-24 13:52:14 by Skip Intro
Keywords: None
Views: 75521
Comments: 110
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: Skip Intro (#0)
I wish this cartoon at least accurately represented my views. Scientists today are backing off their silly claim that an asteroid killed the Dinosaurs. The fossil record says they were buried in mud laid down by water all over the earth. That is why you can find hundreds of dinosaur footprints fossilized at one place. Why do you think all those dinosuars were gathered together? It was because they were going to higher ground as the flood waters came in.
Why weren't any on the Ark?
Who said they weren't on the ark?
I prefer the explanation that they were all attending a party in the same apartment building. It makes a hell of a lot more sense than your explanation does.
Then where are they?
Scientists today are backing off their comment edited out for clarity of thought] claim that an asteroid killed the Dinosaurs. It does and no they aren't.
Dinosaurs in the Bible Job 40:15 KJV Behold now behemoth, which I made with thee; he eateth grass as an ox. 16 Lo now, his strength is in his loins, and his force is in the navel of his belly. 17 He moveth his tail like a cedar: the sinews of his stones are wrapped together. 18 His bones are as strong pieces of brass; his bones are like bars of iron. 19 He is the chief of the ways of God: he that made him can make his sword to approach unto him. 20 Surely the mountains bring him forth food, where all the beasts of the field play. 21 He lieth under the shady trees, in the covert of the reed, and fens. 22 The shady trees cover him with their shadow; the willows of the brook compass him about. 23 Behold, he drinketh up a river, and hasteth not: he trusteth that he can draw up Jordan into his mouth. 24 He taketh it with his eyes: his nose pierceth through snares.
There are some that do, as they believe that the asteroid was the crowning blow after diseases took their toll.
Then why was this on the cover of the liberal Time magazine? Maybe an Asteroid Didn't Kill the Dinosaurs http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1894225,00.html
Why are man and dinosaur footprints found together?
It's called science testing itself. Try it with religion some time.
The posit is that scientists are backing off their claim. The ones doing the questioning never subscribed. FWIW, I'm agnostic and don't really care. They aren't here where I am and, thankfully, neither are black bears.
There are no scientific tests to prove evolution or the age of the earth. They are all assumptions. Show me evolution in a test tube. Or anywhere in the world that it has happened.
Very few of the Dinosaurs you are attributing to the description could fit under a 'shady tree', unless it was a Redwood. And that was one big bunch of willows. It sounds like just another Bible description of a vague boogeyman needed to keep the faithful scared and compliant.
Dinosaurs were hatched from eggs. They didn't have navels on their bellies. Anyway, these passages from Job and the ones which precede it are metaphors for how faith is built. The passage that you cite is a metaphor FOR the strength of faith. You're welcome.
You say few of the dinosaurs could "fit" under a tree. It said the creature was lying down under the trees. Also no one here is scared.
Is that your opinion or a statement of fact. If it's the latter it's a lie. Prove to me with a test tube that planets exist. See how dumb your challenge was?
Why do you assume that all dinosuars layed eggs? What do you base that on? No it is not a metaphor. It is a description of a real creature by people what were there.
You say few of the dinosaurs could "fit" under a tree. It said the creature was lying down under the trees. How did it get under them, by crawling?
You don't need a test tube to prove planets exist. You can simply use your eyes at the right time of year, or a telescope. See how stupid your hypothesis was? Probably not, as you are slow and probably disabled (hence your 24/7 presence on the web).
I don't know or care. It doesn't validate or invalidate the account given. It doesn't really matter.
I based it upon paying attention in biology when the reproductive cycles of various species of life were discussed.
You don't need a test tube for evolution.
Wha...huh? Was that a gratuitous attack or is that Big Mac repeating on you?
You had dinosaurs with their insides intact? If you learned that way back when. There should be some article on the web that shows the insides of a dinosaur? And to survive intact billions of years. Amazing.
What is the Book of Job about?
You don't need anything for evolution, except an overactive imagination. Ok then give me one real world example of witnessed evolution. You can't because it didn't happen and will never happen. I'm taking one species to another.
It is about a man named Job (an easterner) probably asian and his life and struggles.
You're babbling. "Insides" can be determined from skeletal remains. Again something you would have learned had you paid attention in biology.
And Job had what tested?
Uh no they can't.
You can tell by the pelvic bone structure, in most cases it's very similiar to that of chickens.
Given that Palestine is in Asia...duh...
He had his faith tested. His blessings removed etc.
ROFLMAO... SAY GOOD NIGHT GRACIE. You just invalidated the ENTIRE science of FORENSICS. Nice job.
When you don't have an original you are guessing and making assumptions.
So it's not a book abut dinosaurs as you claim it is. You have a gross underknowledge of the religion you proclaim to adhere.
They have plenty of originals.
You're stupid. See the above post. In human beings yes because we have studied what the insides are and can make conclusions based on that. But on dinosaurs and other long extinct species it would be assumptions.
So it's your belief that dinosaurs are an outlier species. That everything that has been discovered and held true in forensic biology is not applicable to dinosaurs. Got it...thanks...
Show me one of these dinosaurs with its insides intact. Actually you would have to show me every kind of dinosaur that existed to have a valid point. Get busy.
Chuckles...okay. You play ball like a girl.
That's an easy one. It's when god and his drinking buddies got to talking about faith and satan - no, not that one, bet god that even his most loyal and righteous subject, Job, could be made to curse god if the proper inducements were made. God said to go ahead, just don't kill him. So Job lost all of his family, his possessions, and then his health. Then his friends came along to further torment him, but he never cursed god, so god said "That's good enough for me", and gave him a brand new family, wealth, and his health back. It is never explained what his old family did to deserve being killed for a bet, and apparently Job never missed them once he got his new family.
You have a gross underknowledge of the religion you proclaim to adhere. The book of John is not a book about pharisees. There are pharisees ih the book but that is not the core of the subject. I'm not surprised that you don't get that. You threw your common sense out the window when you started imagining evolution.
That's not a very nice, Christian thing to say.
Nice job. Stone's going to be responsible for thousands of convicted criminals being let out.
It's what Stone always says when he's losing.
It is what I say when people say stupid things. Got it idiot?
I doubt you would be able to tell the difference between a mammalian skeleton or that of a bird or dinosaur anyway. You lack curiosity and are afraid you might learn something,
We're discussing the Book of JOB, numbnuts. And the passages are as I described them.
It's what Stone always says when he's losing.
You really need to seek serious mental help, Stone. You've got problems, BIG ONES.
People did not call them 'dinosaurs' before the 1800s' because, the word was not yet inverted. They referred to them being 'monsters', and 'dragons', and 'leviathians' and other such names. The word (dragon or dragons) is mentioned 34 times in King James Bible. Not only are Dinosaurs in the bible, but dinosaurs did not live 65 millions years ago like many claim. Check out the link below discovery of blood cells and soft Tissue inside Dinosaur bone. "Round and tiny and nucleated, they were threaded through the bone like red blood cells in blood vessels. But blood cells in a dinosaur bone should have disappeared eons ago. 'I got goose bumps. ...It was exactly like looking at a slice of modern bone. But, of course, I couldn't believe it. ...The bones are, after all 65 million years old. How could blood cells survive that long?'" (Science, Research News, V.261, 9/7/'93)
Where'd Skip go, Goldi?
That and changing titles. A better one would be...watch what happens when Stone throws a snit fit because he can't debate worth a shit.
God turned him into a toad, for mocking creation?
Looks like he screwed up, because I'm back, but then he does that a lot.
How many posts do you want a day. 5, 10 or unlimited? Maybe it is zero. It is up to you.
Some species of chameleon lizards lay eggs. Others give live birth. Garter snakes lay eggs. Rat snakes give live birth. So explain how you could look at the skeletal structure (or anybody else, for that matter) and know from just that which lay eggs and which give live, yee of of infinite biological wisdom.
Baby dinosaurs would have been on the ark. I like your graphic. It shows how the dinosaurs would have crowded to higher ground and made all those footprints we see in the fossil record.
Please Paddy...as if I wouldn't know what an ovoviviparous reptile was.
You already demonstrated that you don't. Now you google a term and pretend you know something. Pathetic. You can never admit you are wrong.
They carry the egg inside of them, doof. Stop trying to argue with people who are no less that 50x smarter than you.
What? You think you are smarter then me? That is funny. You are so stupid that you think you came from an ape. I bet you fuck monkeys too.
I've already told you that we don't come from apes. There you go again...lying about the argument.
Okay you convinced me and since the Bible was written less than 2000 years ago they should be all around here. I think I'll be going out dinosaur hunting tomorrow instead of buying chicken on sale. Maybe I should check in with the Fish and Game to ask when the season starts though.
<2000 lol what a fool you are.
Want to join me? You could be the 'dog' and scare them out of those willows they love to hide in. I'll be on the stand, but I think I'll need to get a bigger rifle.
quit flirting with me. I'm happily married.
I was hoping you would do the skinning.
Ever see that sea dinosaur those Japanese fishermen brought on board?
You mean that big old fish? Alligators might qualify too. The theory is the sea was the safest place to be when the planet was being bombarded by space debris. I saw Fred's horse get a real nice third an hour ago. He led most of the race.
You haven't seen it.
Some have seen Nessie too. Which sounds rather dino like from descriptions.
Plesiosaur carcass from 1977. Quite a feat that it survived billions of years. Oh yeah that is right the earth isn't billions of years. That would be thousands of years not billions.
The Plesiosaur Site 50 Reasons to leave your faith (evolution) The Plesiosaur Site * Home * Creationism * A Message * 50 Reasons... * 50 Reasons..Page 1 * Page 2 * Page 3 * Page 4 * Page 5 * Page 6 * Page 7 * Page 8 * Page 9 * Page 10 * Page 11 * Page 12 * Page 13 previous page: statements 15-30 Statements 32-55 next page: statements 56-84 c) Ramapithicus 32 This animal was long believed to be the 1st branch from that line of apes which evolved into man about 14 million years ago. True, but this is no longer the case. TRUE 33 Noted scientist Dr. Elwyn Simons stated confidently, "The pathway can now be traced with little fear of contradiction from generalized hominids -- to the genus HOMO." The crucial importance of Ramapithicus as an early ancestor of hominids is evident in this comment by Simons in Time magazine (Nov. 7, 1977) Note 1977 - a long time ago, and in a popular magazine rather than a scientific journal. Science does not claim to be infallible. irrelevant 34 Ramapithicus is ideally structured to be an ancestor of hominids. If he isn't, we don't have anything else that is. How true a statement ! From what evidence are these conclusions drawn in the 1st place ? Once again a few teeth and a jaw bone. From this many drawings have been made of Ramapithicus walking upright. Ridiculous! Again, so what? It was a reasonable assumption in the context of out knowledge of human ancestry at the time. We now know a lot more! irrelevant 35 Renowned secular anthropologist Richard Leaky (American Scientist 64:174, 1976): "The case for Ramapithicus as a hominid is not substantial, and the fragments of fossil material leave many questions open." This is an illustration of science in action! irrelevant 36 Zilman and Lowenstein went even further: "Ramapithicus walking upright has been reconstructed from only jaws and teeth. In 1961 an ancestral human was badly wanted. The prince's ape latched onto position by his teeth and has been hanging on ever since, his legitimacy sanctified by millions of textbooks and Time-Life volumes on human evolution. This is, once again, an illustration of science in action! irrelevant 37 Harvard University paleontologist David Pilbeam, a hugely secular scientist summed up what all know is true (Science 82, April 6-7): "A group of creatures once thought to be our oldest ancestors may have been firmly bumped out of the human family tree. Many paleontologists have maintained that Ramamorphs are our oldest known ancestors. These conclusions were drawn from little more than a few jaw bones and some teeth. Truthfully, it appears to be nothing more than an orangutan ancestor." This from a top secular scientist ! This is, once again, an illustration of science in action! I'm very unclear as to what point the author is making in this section. It seems to be nothing more or less than a description of how different scientists draw different conclusions from limited evidence, and how those theories change as more evidence is uncovered. To repeat: Science does not claim to be infallible. irrelevant d) Australopithecus 38 Donald Johanson in his book "Lucy" refers to the "australopithecine mess" - and it definitely is that. The very word Australopithecus means "southern ape" because the first fossils were found in South Africa. The discoverer was Dr. Raymond Dart, professor of anatomy at Witwatersrand University in Johannesburg. So what? irrelevant 39 Dart was convinced that some teeth were man-like and thus concluded it represented a transitional between apes and man. His opinions on the matter were largely scorned by the scientists of his time (1924) who considered it nothing more than a chimpanzee. The skull was soon known derisively as "Dart's baby". So what? irrelevant 40 Perhaps no one has studied the australopithecenes more than Sir Solly Zuckerman who wrote: "Evolution as a Process" in 1954: "There is indeed no question which the australopithecine skull resembles when placed side by side with specimens of humans and living ape skulls. It is the ape-so much so that only detailed and close scrutiny can reveal any difference between modern ape and Australopithecus." Untrue - this was written in 1954. There have been many more discoveries of Australopithecines since then, and many people have studied them more than Solly Zuckerman! Once again, I am at a loss to understand why this should be offered as a reason not to believe in evolution. FALSE e. Australopithecus Afarensis "LUCY" 41 Discovered in 1974 by Donald Johanson was a half complete skeleton he named after the Beetle's song "Lucy in the Sky With Diamonds". A year later 13 more similar skeletons were found. Remarkably the skull was even more ape-like than other australopithecenes. irrelevant 42 In his book "Lucy, The beginnings of Human Kind," Johanson said: I had no problem with Lucy. She was so odd that there was no question about her not being human. She simply wasn't. She was too little. Her brain was way too small and her jaw was the wrong shape. Her teeth pointed away from the human condition and back in the direction of apes. The jaws had the same primitive features." irrelevant 43 On the basis of a hip and knee joint found later, however, Johanson "decided" that Lucy did walk in an upright bipedal fashion. He thus deduced Lucy was an ancestor of man, as well as an ancestor of A. africanus (the original Australopithecus). A reasonable deduction? irrelevant 44 Great science at work here. Possibly true - though the whole field of research in early human ancestry is so politicised that on occasion science loses out. Once again, I am at a loss to understand why this should be offered as a reason not to believe in evolution irrelevant f. Homo Habilis 45 The taxon Homo habilis had an illegitimate birth when Mary Leakey discovered some badly shattered skull fragments in 1959. Her husband Louis made the comment that it was nothing more than a "damned australopithecine". His attitude soon changed however when he found stone tools near the site of Homo habilis. Jumping into the fire, he quickly named it Homo and publicized the find widely. He was soon discredited when other australopithecenes were found in Africa, also with stone tools. Homo habilis was "demoted" to australopithecine. See my remarks about the politicisation of research into early human ancestry irrelevant 50 I didn't mean to exhaust so much space on Homo habilis, but I just can't stop. Let's talk about the dating of 1470. In 1969 samples of KBS tuft from just above the layer in which 1470 was found was sent to Cambridge University for potassium argon dating. Three different test gave an age of 220 million years old +or- 7 million years ! This was considered unacceptable for for this strata given its fossil content, so the errors were blamed on "extraneous" argon. Several more tests were done, and the best, most acceptable date was placed at 2.61 million years old. In National Geographic of June 1973 Richard Leakey stated," Either we toss out the 1470 skull or we toss out all our theories of early man. It simply fits no previous models of human beginnings. 1470 leaves in ruin the notion that all early fossils can be arranged in an orderly sequence of evolutionary changes." AGREED !! Again this is science in action. irrelevant 51 What was the problem? The problem, given the age of 2.61 myo, made 1470 contemporaneous with Australopithecus, if not older--yet looked identical to modern man. It was not identical to modern man. FALSE (Aren't you glad I kept going?) No 52 This absolutely unseated Australopithecus as ancestor of modern man ! No it didn't. It showed that that modern man did not evolve from Australopithecus through a single lineage, but that several closely related taxa of early hominid lived at the same time. See: a detailed review of human evolution http://www.plesiosaur.com/creationism/50reasons/50reasons-page-003.php
Because The Ark didn't leave port 65 million years ago.
BINGO. Just like baby elephants, rhinos, hippos, etc.
Paragraphs can be your friend. But it's too bad the big dinos went extinct so soon. I was really hoping to fill my freezer.
This animal lays eggs. And how would we know that from this skeleton?
Good to see you back.
It was exciting and lots of fun. We're pleased that he hit the board and did as well as he did after stepping up in class. Thanks for watching.
I thought he actually looked the best in the post parade. Your trainer has him in beautiful condition and you could tell he was rearing to go. Also some horses take a race or two to get used to the lights or the different surface. Your guy took them all in stride.
It doesn't "lay" eggs.
Could you have proved my point any better?
When I'm wrong I do admit it. I'd tell you to follow my lead but I haven't had to admit I was wrong yet. So you're on your own. I paid attention in biology and spent two years undergrad considering medical school. That was during years 3 and 4 of my Sophomore year. Year 5 of my Sophomore year was spent in a philosophy track. That was when I found that you Kant go home so I decided to become a Junior.
COMMENT REMOVED DUE TO PLAGARISM
Ok you plagarized it. Now prove it. Can you prove it? I know you can't.
The spiney anteater moves a fertilzed "egg" into a pouch. The mating process is actually closer to a reptile than a mammal.
See, war, the problem is that we're ALL related. Repeat. ALL RELATED. the fact that we have a 'word for 'nature' shows how off the track we are. That 'homo rapiens' think that 'we're APART from 'nature' is what's causing all of the problems. Because nothing that we know is as perfect/efficient(see 2nd Law of Thermodynamics;} as the 'operation' of this planet. And we only show our Ignorance and how fast we move to being extinct rather than extant, by claiming to know better. W/in 5 years, probably this winter, the human pop stabilizes. The implications: 1) at least 20 million 'removed'. 2) quickly followed by 75 million (the # of humans 'added' per year. 3) then every year after, at least another 75 million, showing 'stabilization after Asymptosis of a Leptokurtic aberration due to 'excess energy'(that would be 120 years of 50:1 EROEI) no longer available in quantity/EROEI. 4)then Non Linear Event (which could supercede any/all the above taking out 2 billion. 5) 800 million humans on the planet by 2060. Optimistic. With a gradual decline to 400 million by 2150. The Deepwater Horizon was/is the Dragon King. We won't have any more warnings. Evolution says time's up. And thanx for pulling out all of those hydrocarbons and cutting down all of the Ancient Forests. See ya. 8D
Please, A K. Do I need to repeat the Double Standards here every A.M.? That you can allow racist bigoted Post Titles?
Quit being a jerk Stoner. James' posting style is such that he copies and pastes relevant information, facts and opinions, to relevant threads. The information you deleted had reference to a web site. It said go to (I forget the name) for additional information. Put back what you deleted jerkwad.
Ok you plagarized it. Quit being a jerk Stoner. James' posting style is such that he copies and pastes relevant information, facts and opinions, to relevant threads. The information you deleted had reference to a web site. It said go to (I forget the name) for additional information. Put back what you deleted jerkwad. Just Double Standard Operating Procedure. But thanx for the Fine Defense there, Fred. 8D Lawyers Argue R-J Stories On Web Aren’t Protected by Copyright O'Donnell is right:: New DNA Research shows Discrepancies Between Chimp and Human DNA Christine O'Donnell: 'Evolution Is A Myth. Why Aren't Monkeys Still Evolving Into Humans?' (VIDEO) An ex of what passes for Breaking here at LF. I've covered/posted at least 6 different World Shaking stories elsewhere so far with only the: AbleDanger following Atta Months earlier TOTALLY discrediting the WH CT (of course they don't put it that way;} story making it here at LF- Where Evolution stops and Creationism is ignorantly displayed. I keep wondering at what the Science Dept must look like at places like Wake Forrest and Baylor. LMFAO
Were the others deleted?
I'm sure they would've been. That's One reason I just reply to posts here. LF and LP just don't think the Empire is really in that much trouble yet. Like I've been saying since Katrina. ;} http://abledangerblog.com/ Why the pentagon destroyed a book-The book exposed 9-11 as an Inside Job: Click here to order Operation Dark Heart today From the publisher: An exciting, eye-witness account of fighting terrorism in Afghanistan using the military’s most cutting-edge espionage tactics Lieutenant Colonel Anthony Shaffer had been part of espionage operations for years before he went into the field to help fight the war in Afghanistan. He led the charge in blocking the Taliban’s resurgence. But the policies that top officials relied on were hopelessly flawed. Shaffer and his team were forced to sit and watch as the insurgency grew just across the border in Pakistan. This wasn’t the first time he saw bureaucracy stand in the way of national security. He had participated in Able Danger, the aborted intelligence operation that identified many of the future 9/11 terrorists but failed to pursue them. His attempt to reveal it to the 9/11 Commission would not sit well with the top brass and would eventually cost him his job.
I remember quite a bit about Able Danger. Here's the dilemma James. Able Danger points to Atta and others, not Cheney and SS and NORAD. Shaffer is an intelligence officer, so I'm not sure whose story to buy. Woodward has a new book out about the Obama administration. Woodward is a former Naval intelligence officer in his youthful days.
All he has to do is put a link when he quotes. That is not asking to much.
Shaffer is an intelligence officer, so I'm not sure whose story to buy. Woodward has a new book out about the Obama administration. Woodward is a former Naval intelligence officer in his youthful days. OK. Fair enough, but it's like triangulation. OR maybe Rubik's Cube. AbleDanger is the color red square in the Middle of Cheney's white. You then go: Why was abledanger, and note the cutesy lingo here, in the picture at all. And the FBI's mole living with one of the 9-11 guys in LA. And Moussaui knowing Berg's(the first guy beheaded in Iraq by fat white guys wearing jewelry;} password and the ONLY FISA EVERdenied. Repeatedly by DC to Minnesota FBI. And I can go on and on. And then put in Hopsicker Venice Fl Atta Hilliard Heroin Bust Orlando -with AbleDanger following aLL the way. When you eliminate the impossible, you're left with what happened-paraphrase Sherlock Holmes...... "Politicians bend the truth, and use "lies, damned lies and statistics", because voters demand that they do. Obama is not an exception, and neither is the US. People don’t want to know the truth, they want to feel good. Still, "knowing for sure" that they're being lied to can make them feel less good. It’s a thin line between love and hate. Similarly, the National Bureau of Economic Research’s claim that the recession ended in June 2009 was received nationwide with wide-eyed wonder. What people need to understand is that the NBER’s methods in essence address only the financial system. And there is no recession there -for now-, because untold trillions of dollars have been pumped into it. The NBER is right from its own narrowly defined viewpoint; it simply is disconnected from real life." http://theautomaticearth.blogspot.com/ And NORAD/SS still to this day have not come up with a coherent timeline.
Oh, and Woodward. Ask yourself this- Why would Anyone, knowing Woodward's past and all his books on every POTUS, allow him w/in a mile of the WH. Because they're ordered to. Woodward is part of the Praetorian Guard. The CIA guy in charge of the Limited Hang out. No one gets to be POTUS w/o having at least one serious blackmail event.
That you can allow racist bigoted Post Titles? You don't have to explain anything to me. First off you consider the use of the word african as racist. It isn't. Secondly if you plagarize and don't give credit to the author in an effort to puff yourself up and make it look like those are your words (no source) then I may or may not delete it. If I see it I probably will delete it. I already explained this once and you complied and I thanked you.
I'm honestly not trying to single you out. I just happen to notice yours.
Ok you plagarized it. Now prove it. Can you prove it? I know you can't. #92. To: mcgowanjm (#90) The spiney anteater moves a fertilzed "egg" into a pouch. The mating process is actually closer to a reptile than a mammal To all the above. Watch a chicken. Look at the skeleton and/or Watch a vid of a raptor. ;} Baby snow leopard captured on camera for first time in Bhutan ... Sep 23, 2010 ... Snow leopards are amongst the most elusive and shy creatures on the planet. The big cats live at high altitude and are rarely seen by. www.gadling.com/.../baby-snow-leopard-captured-on-camera-for-first-time-in-bhutan/ - Cached Look at a 'walking stick'. Check out the camo of a snow leopard. And of course I don't have to prove anything. Just like the Altruistic Universe. The Most Realistic wins the prize. Everytime.
And, of course you hate that 'thinking out of your lizard brain cortex' thingy. When that describes Nixon to Obama exactly. ;}
I don't want to pick at you. But what you said in the last two posts seems like rambling.
He writes in verse of varying meter...
OR maybe Rubik's Cube. AbleDanger is the color red square in the Middle of Cheney's white. Thanks for taking the time to respond, James. Oh, what a tangled web they weave.
No problem. Pick away! 8D And it would seem that way to you because you think you have no choice. ;}
#2. To: A K A Stone (#1)
Scientists today are backing off their silly claim that an asteroid killed the Dinosaurs. The fossil record says they were buried in mud laid down by water all over the earth. That is why you can find hundreds of dinosaur footprints fossilized at one place. Why do you think all those dinosuars were gathered together? It was because they were going to higher ground as the flood waters came in.
#3. To: mininggold (#2)
Why weren't any on the Ark?
#4. To: A K A Stone (#1)
Why do you think all those dinosuars were gathered together?
#5. To: A K A Stone (#3)
Who said they weren't on the ark?
#6. To: A K A Stone (#1)
I wish this cartoon at least accurately represented my views.
#7. To: mininggold (#5)
#8. To: war (#6)
It does and no they aren't.
#9. To: war (#6)
#10. To: mininggold (#8)
#11. To: A K A Stone (#9)
#12. To: mininggold (#8)
#13. To: war (#11)
#14. To: A K A Stone (#7)
#15. To: A K A Stone (#7)
#16. To: mininggold (#14)
He moveth his tail like a cedar:
#17. To: A K A Stone (#13)
There are no scientific tests to prove evolution or the age of the earth.
#18. To: war (#15)
#19. To: A K A Stone (#16)
#20. To: war (#17)
#21. To: mininggold (#19)
How did it get under them, by crawling?
#22. To: A K A Stone (#18)
Why do you assume that all dinosuars layed eggs? What do you base that on?
#23. To: A K A Stone (#20)
#24. To: A K A Stone (#20)
See how stupid your hypothesis was? Probably not, as you are slow and probably disabled (hence your 24/7 presence on the web).
#25. To: war (#22)
#26. To: A K A Stone (#18)
No it is not a metaphor.
#27. To: war (#23)
You don't need a test tube for evolution.
#28. To: war (#26)
#29. To: A K A Stone (#25)
#30. To: A K A Stone (#28)
#31. To: war (#29)
#32. To: A K A Stone (#25)
(Edited)
You had dinosaurs with their insides intact? If you learned that way back when. There should be some article on the web that shows the insides of a dinosaur? And to survive intact billions of years. Amazing.
#33. To: A K A Stone (#28)
It is about a man named Job (an easterner) probably asian and his life and struggles.
#34. To: war (#30)
#35. To: A K A Stone (#31)
Uh no they can't.
#36. To: mininggold (#32)
You can tell by the pelvic bone structure, in most cases it's very similiar to that of chickens.
#37. To: A K A Stone (#34)
#38. To: A K A Stone (#36)
When you don't have an original you are guessing and making assumptions.
#39. To: war (#35)
#40. To: A K A Stone (#36)
#41. To: mininggold (#38)
They have plenty of originals.
#42. To: A K A Stone (#39)
You're stupid.
#43. To: war (#26)
What is the Book of Job about?
#44. To: war (#37)
So it's not a book abut dinosaurs as you claim it is.
#45. To: A K A Stone (#39)
You're stupid.
#46. To: war, A K A Stone (#35)
You just invalidated the ENTIRE science of FORENSICS.
#47. To: Fred Mertz (#45)
That's not a very nice, Christian thing to say.
#48. To: Skip Intro (#47)
#49. To: A K A Stone (#48)
(Edited)
#50. To: A K A Stone (#41)
how me one of these dinosaurs with its insides intact. Actually you would have to show me every kind of dinosaur that existed to have a valid point. Get busy.
#51. To: A K A Stone (#44)
The book of John is not a book about pharisees.
#52. To: Fred Mertz (#49)
That's not a very nice, Christian thing to say.
#53. To: A K A Stone (#52)
#54. To: A K A Stone (#7)
#55. To: A K A Stone, Fred Mertz (#53)
#56. To: reaganisright, .Fred Mertz, A K A Stone, mininggold, lucysmom (#47)
#57. To: war, A K A Stone (#55)
Where'd Skip go
#58. To: hondo68 (#57)
(Edited)
God turned him into a toad, for mocking creation?
#59. To: war (#56)
#60. To: war (#29)
#61. To: A K A Stone (#3)
Who said they weren't on the ark?
#62. To: Skip Intro (#61)
#63. To: no gnu taxes (#60)
#64. To: war (#63)
#65. To: A K A Stone (#64)
#66. To: war (#65)
#67. To: A K A Stone (#66)
#68. To: hondo68 (#54)
(Edited)
People did not call them 'dinosaurs' before the 1800s' because, the word was not yet inverted. They referred to them being 'monsters', and 'dragons', and 'leviathians' and other such names. The word (dragon or dragons) is mentioned 34 times in King James Bible.
#69. To: mininggold (#68)
Okay you convinced me since the Bible was written less than 2000 years ago they should be all around here. I think I'll going out dinosaur hunting tomorrow instead of buying chicken on sale. Maybe I should check in with the Fish and Game to ask when the season starts though.
#70. To: A K A Stone (#69)
<2000 lol what a fool you are.
#71. To: mininggold (#70)
Want to join me?
#72. To: A K A Stone (#71)
quit flirting with me. I'm happily married.
#73. To: mininggold (#72)
#74. To: A K A Stone (#73)
(Edited)
Ever see that sea dinosaur those Japanese fishermen brought on board?
#75. To: mininggold (#74)
#76. To: A K A Stone (#75)
(Edited)
You haven't seen it.
#77. To: mininggold (#76)
(Edited)
#78. To: All (#77)
#79. To: All (#78)
#80. To: A K A Stone, mininggold (#3)
Who said they weren't on the ark?
#81. To: A K A Stone (#62)
Baby dinosaurs would have been on the ark.
#82. To: A K A Stone (#79)
#83. To: war (#63)
#84. To: Skip Intro (#58)
Looks like he screwed up, because I'm back, but then he does that a lot.
#85. To: mininggold (#74)
I saw Fred's horse get a real nice third an hour ago. He led most of the race.
#86. To: Fred Mertz (#85)
It was exciting and lots of fun. We're pleased that he hit the board and did as well as he did after stepping up in class. Thanks for watching
#87. To: no gnu taxes (#83)
#88. To: A K A Stone (#59)
#89. To: A K A Stone (#64)
#90. To: war, All (#87)
#91. To: mcgowanjm (#90)
Mammals evolved from mammal-like-reptiles
#92. To: mcgowanjm (#90)
#93. To: war (#92)
(Edited)
#94. To: A K A Stone (#91)
Ok you plagarized it. Now prove it. Can you prove it? I know you can't.
#95. To: A K A Stone, mcgowanjm (#91)
Ok you plagarized it.
#96. To: Fred Mertz (#95)
(Edited)
#97. To: mcgowanjm (#96)
I've covered/posted at least 6 different World Shaking stories so far with only the:
#98. To: Fred Mertz (#97)
Were the others deleted?
#99. To: mcgowanjm (#98)
He had participated in Able Danger, the aborted intelligence operation that identified many of the future 9/11 terrorists but failed to pursue them.
#100. To: Fred Mertz (#95)
#101. To: Fred Mertz (#99)
Here's the dilemma James. Able Danger points to Atta and others, not Cheney and SS and NORAD.
#102. To: Fred Mertz (#99)
Woodward has a new book out about the Obama administration. Woodward is a former Naval intelligence officer in his youthful days.
#103. To: mcgowanjm (#94)
Do I need to repeat the Double Standards here every A.M.?
#104. To: mcgowanjm (#102)
#105. To: A K A Stone, war, All (#91)
Mammals evolved from mammal-like-reptiles
#106. To: A K A Stone, All (#105)
Mammals evolved from mammal-like-reptiles
#107. To: mcgowanjm (#106)
#108. To: A K A Stone (#107)
#109. To: mcgowanjm (#101)
OK. Fair enough, but it's like triangulation.
#110. To: A K A Stone (#107)
I don't want to pick at you. But what you said in the last two posts seems like rambling.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]