New evidence disproving the evolutionary timeline.

[Malus 12:9]

At least there is more physical evidence of dinosaurs then evidence of God.

 

[Fluffy]

If they have no empirical basis, then they are science fiction.

I'm sure you don't mean that Druidus. There are plenty of things with no empirical basis that are not science fiction. Think along the lines of rationalism.

 

[Scuba Pete]

but baseless theories are useless.

Are they? I'm sure that radical theory about "thunder lizards" seemed pretty baseless at one time, while the flat earth was firmly supported by the science of the day. You have to entertain the bizarre in order to expand your horizons and to be able to discern how to prove/disprove the concept.

Should we present the bizzaro as FACT? Surely not, and I think I addressed that in this thread (or possibly another).

 

[Scuba Pete]

At least there is more physical evidence of dinosaurs then evidence of God.

That's funny: dinosaurs ARE evidence for God.

 

[Malus 12:9]

Not necessarily, maybe in some religious beliefs...

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Science does not deal in "what if's" and "maybe's";

I wholly disagree! These are the genesis of scientific investigation.

They are also the genesis of pathetic delusions, wondrous fairy-tails, turgid science fiction, lucky successes, and unlucky failures. The "what ifs" and "maybes" that inspire science are typically those which are informed by science, i.e., the inspirations of the scientist steeped in the relevant knowledge and debates of the time. But this, too, is not science. Science is method. Science is what the scientist does with these "what ifs' and "maybes" - and the first thing that the scientist does is take off the table those "what ifs" and "maybes" that are not testable.

 

[Sunstone]

That's funny: dinosaurs ARE evidence for God.

If you're serious, NetDoc, could you explain how dinosaurs are evidence for God?

 

[Feathers in Hair]

(Dear Mods: the report this post was sent in error. I hit the wrong button)

No worries! (I was giving myself fits, struggling to figure out what the problem was, so I'm a bit relieved!)

 

[gtrsgrls]

Actually yes, I haven't seen any further comments on this thread by the one who started it.

Where O where have you been gtrsgrls?
Where O where can you be?
It's been so long, since the moon has gone.
and 0 what a wreck you've made me.

I don't normally respond to my own threads thank you!Usually if someone makes me mad enough I'll PM about it but I don't normally post it.I will under these circumstances.

 

[Malus 12:9]

Usually if someone makes me mad enough I'll PM about it

What made you mad enough to pm me about my post atop this page? And why did
you PM me about it? What was I supposed to do?

 

[Kowalski]

At least there is more physical evidence of dinosaurs then evidence of God.

totally agree, the fossil record is well attested by science, wheras God is just a human construct without the slightest basis in reality. Don't argue with science, it has empirical proofs, whilst faith has none whatsoever.

K:jam:

 

[Ryan2065]

Are they? I'm sure that radical theory about "thunder lizards" seemed pretty baseless at one time, while the flat earth was firmly supported by the science of the day. You have to entertain the bizarre in order to expand your horizons and to be able to discern how to prove/disprove the concept.

Your point? If you are trying to say that science has been interpreted wrong at some point in history then I think that no one will disagree with you. Druidus is trying to say that if there is NO evidence to support an idea (ie NOTHING NOTTA ZIP) then it is considered science fiction. At one time peoeple did believe that the earth was flat... This is what the science of the day told them. I would say that if someone came up and said "The Earth is actually round and the earth revolves around the sun" without any evidence to back up his idea then that would be science fiction in that day, even though it is true.

 

[Druidus]

That's exactly what I mean, Ryan.

 

[Quoth The Raven]

I don't normally respond to my own threads thank you!Usually if someone makes me mad enough I'll PM about it but I don't normally post it.I will under these circumstances.

Well then, if the hit and run is the way you do business, I'm sure no-one will expect a response from you in the future. You may find, however, that - knowing as we do now that you have no intention of supporting your position in the public forum - people may well decide that it's pretty pointless for them to even bother debating you. After all;if the opening poster doesn't consider the thread worth posting in, then why should anyone else?

 

[Malus 12:9]

Maybe gtrsgrls is t3gah lol...

 

[Quoth The Raven]

Maybe gtrsgrls is t3gah lol...

Can't see it...he had no problem jumping into his own threads and stirring the pot a bit.He also didn't seem to feel the need to use the PM function when something as simple as a rebuttal would do the job.

 

[Malus 12:9]

I recieved a PM from the gtrs person, I am still at a loss what I was to do about her disagreement
with my post?

 

[Malus 12:9]

So how would the humans even know what a dinasaur was if they had been extinct for so many millions of years.

That's what museums are for, silly.

 

[Neo-Logic]

lol this thread is hella funny. we should all become satire writers.

 

[painted wolf]

you know what is really neet about those "inca" stones?
*drumroll*
they all look like dinosaurs as people from the decade they were found thought they looked.

you never see a T.rex with feathers.. or a four footed sailed Hadrosaur... and all the Sauropods are tail dragging swamp lovers.... never mind how inaccurate the pterosaurs are. :biglaugh:

very interesting.