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: 77958
Comments: 110
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-43) not displayed.
.
.
.
#44. To: war (#37)
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?
Comments (84 - 110) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/LatestSo 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)
.
.
.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]