Pages: 1 … 3 4 5 6 7 … 51

Topic closed

2006-03-24 14:10:15
Erkut.hv
Member
+124|6974|California

Skruples wrote:

erkut.hv wrote:

Why? I'll be dead. I'll give less than a shit what anyone does with this crap planet after I am gone. Selfish? Damn right, it's my life. When it ends, I'll have no reason to care about any of you.

jord wrote:

wow your like me.Thats why i don't give a flying fuck about global warming or running out of natural resources.Unless it affects me i dont care.I plan on living until im about 55 maybe 60 after that theres not much to do,shit sex,cant really play sports,start going deaf,kids in the street laughing at you.
I'm not sure what to say to this. Other than I'm sad that people like you exist.
My response was sarcastic. I forgot the tags. My mistake. I have a 9 year old, I have every reason to want to make the Earth a little better before I kick.

Last edited by Erkut.hv (2006-03-24 14:10:56)

2006-03-24 14:13:50
jord
Member
+2,382|6918|The North, beyond the wall.

Erkut.hv wrote:

Skruples wrote:

erkut.hv wrote:

Why? I'll be dead. I'll give less than a shit what anyone does with this crap planet after I am gone. Selfish? Damn right, it's my life. When it ends, I'll have no reason to care about any of you.

jord wrote:

wow your like me.Thats why i don't give a flying fuck about global warming or running out of natural resources.Unless it affects me i dont care.I plan on living until im about 55 maybe 60 after that theres not much to do,shit sex,cant really play sports,start going deaf,kids in the street laughing at you.
I'm not sure what to say to this. Other than I'm sad that people like you exist.
My response was sarcastic. I forgot the tags. My mistake. I have a 9 year old, I have every reason to want to make the Earth a little better before I kick.
Okay im not an expert on Global warming but i dont think it will affect your son in his lifetime but like i said im not an expert.
2006-03-24 14:19:43
Skruples
Mod Incarnate
+234|6940
I am glad to hear that erkut. As for you Jord, I do not mind differences of opinion, but saying that you dont care about the future of the human race is incredibely short-sighted. Do the millions of children alive today not have the same right to live as you? Are you somehow more important than the rest of us? Not caring about strangers is one thing, there are very few people who care about everyone around them. But taking the exact opposite attitude of "haha I don't care about anything because I won't be around. In fact I'm gonna take a crap on this guys lawn because hey, its not my problem right?" is despicable. Human society only functions because of mutual respect in some basic form. You don't have to care about everyone else, but you should at least consider the people around you.
2006-03-24 14:26:15
Skruples
Mod Incarnate
+234|6940

jord wrote:

Okay im not an expert on Global warming but i dont think it will affect your son in his lifetime but like i said im not an expert.
Global warming will do more than raise water levels. Many animal and plant species cannot survive in environments where the temperature is slightly different than what they are used to, meaning the slight increases in temperature brought about will cause many of them to go extinct. You may not care about this either, but you should; it takes alot of food to keep 6 billion people alive. The ozone layer depletion is also a growing problem. If you are unaware of the effects of increased UV radiation exposure, I suggest doing some research on Australia's skin cancer epidemic.
2006-03-24 14:28:09
jord
Member
+2,382|6918|The North, beyond the wall.

Skruples wrote:

jord wrote:

Okay im not an expert on Global warming but i dont think it will affect your son in his lifetime but like i said im not an expert.
Global warming will do more than raise water levels. Many animal and plant species cannot survive in environments where the temperature is slightly different than what they are used to, meaning the slight increases in temperature brought about will cause many of them to go extinct. You may not care about this either, but you should; it takes alot of food to keep 6 billion people alive. The ozone layer depletion is also a growing problem. If you are unaware of the effects of increased UV radiation exposure, I suggest doing some research on Australia's skin cancer epidemic.
I know the effects but im talking about when the effects will occur.Is it after 100 years around 2100?
2006-03-24 14:29:23
jord
Member
+2,382|6918|The North, beyond the wall.

Skruples wrote:

I am glad to hear that erkut. As for you Jord, I do not mind differences of opinion, but saying that you dont care about the future of the human race is incredibely short-sighted. Do the millions of children alive today not have the same right to live as you? Are you somehow more important than the rest of us? Not caring about strangers is one thing, there are very few people who care about everyone around them. But taking the exact opposite attitude of "haha I don't care about anything because I won't be around. In fact I'm gonna take a crap on this guys lawn because hey, its not my problem right?" is despicable. Human society only functions because of mutual respect in some basic form. You don't have to care about everyone else, but you should at least consider the people around you.
People around me as in strangers i will never meet or as in family and friends?
2006-03-24 14:32:27
Skruples
Mod Incarnate
+234|6940
The effects are already becoming obvious. Rates of skin cancer in Australia and around the world are already rising, and in some areas salmon can no longer reproduce because of temperature differences. Those are just minor examples.
2006-03-24 14:50:41
wannabe_tank_whore
Member
+5|7017

Marconius wrote:

The difference between scientific invention and religion is that no one has ever killed in the name of science.
Ever heard of Auschwitz?

http://www.remember.org/educate/medexp.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_human_experimentation

All in the name of science.
2006-03-24 15:07:45
Spark
liquid fluoride thorium reactor
+874|6914|Canberra, AUS

herrr_smity wrote:

may i point out that there is NOT inuff water to cover the globe
Yes there is.

To a depth of a few miles.

The effects are already becoming obvious. Rates of skin cancer in Australia and around the world are already rising, and in some areas salmon can no longer reproduce because of temperature differences. Those are just minor examples.
And what is RELIGION's answer to these problems? (I'm not saying that he is religious, i'm saying this to the people who will use this data as ammo)

I hear a lot of people complaining about problems that science creates. While religion sits on its backsides and shouts.

---

As I said before, a 5C increase in global temperatures is able to trigger a mass extinction. A 5C increase will release HUGE amounts of methane trapped in the sea floor. This will cause ANOTHER 5C increase, resulting in a mass extinction.

---

When will this happen? I posted this before...

So yes around 2100 or later. Unless something drastic happens (e.g. another ice age, a reversal of the magnetic poles, masive solar activity) which will kill us all anyway.

Last edited by Spark (2006-03-24 15:11:17)

The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
2006-03-24 15:22:39
wannabe_tank_whore
Member
+5|7017

Skruples wrote:

wannabe_tank_whore wrote:

Interesting!  I was gathering evidence and lo and behold I found 2 opposing arguments.  One for you side and one for my side.  And I discovered there are scientist on both sides as well.  And what a coincidence that the scientist opposing your viewpoints have been picked up by Christian sites.  Imagine that.  But in your case, forbidding me to post those links makes for an easy debate.
There may be scientists on both sides, but only one side is unbiased. Do universities have any motivation to disprove religious ideas? No. Do christians have any motivation to prove their beliefs are based on something other than faith? Big yes.
Actually, universities are quite liberal and most liberals don't believe in God.

http://www.ncpa.org/iss/gov/2002/pd090502c.html

So, I would imagine that if we have atheists working at a university then their research would be biased too.  You tend to lean on your beliefs when living your life and similar to what you said, non believers in God would try to prove their beliefs too.

Skruples wrote:

I too have read evidence for both sides (not so much on the issue of a global flood) but certainly on the issue of intelligent design. The advocates of intelligent design may be scientists, and they may be intelligent, but they started under the assumption that God created life, and then went about finding evidence to support that. On the other hand, the rest of the scientific community started with the assumption that life existed, somehow and went about finding likely explanations. God, however, is not a likely explanation. If you can find a university (one that is not religious I might add) or reputable scientific organization (such as the discovery institute) to back up these theories then I would be a little more convinced.
So too did non Christians start from a biased point.  "There is no God so I must find a way to prove how life evolved."  That would be what I would do in their shoes.  Credibility is key.  If you can discredit you opponents argument then you've won.

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB … mp;id=3122
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB … mp;id=2911
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB … mp;id=2632

Skruples wrote:

wannabe_tank_whore wrote:

My friend had faith in all chairs until he became 330 lbs and sat in a plastic one and it folded after 15 minutes of stress.
Does this have a point? Next you're going to tell me you had faith in the sun until it was cloudy one day. And if your friends faith in solid, tangible objects was misplaced, what does that say about your faith in God? Has god every talked or interacted with you? (If yes, I suggest seeing a medical professional).
No, I was merely pointing out that it is relative and added some humor in doing so.

Skruples wrote:

wannabe_tank_whore wrote:

Read my intro.  The Earth is still changing today.  Plate tectonics states the plates haven't stopped moving and thus the Himalayas, for example, are still rising.  A global flood could have helped move the plates at a very fast rate.  There is a hypothesis that the water erupted from underground and pushed the plates apart as well as fell from the atmosphere.
If you are not aware of the implications of several billion tons of rock moving quickly enough to cause the kinds of changes you describe, you should read up on it. You have not addressed the other issues either, such as the timeline laid out in the bible which has this all happening on an impossible timeline. (Or the freshwater fish surviving a global saltwater environment. Or the species on isolated islands. Or the logistics of fitting several million different species onboard a single wooden ship. Or... well, I think you get the point).
On the fish surviving, couldn't enough rainwater dilute the salinity of the seas?  Or at least make it bearable for a few weeks? 

Skruples wrote:

wannabe_tank_whore wrote:

But how did it get here?  To say it existed and we existed after the fact so now I don't have to contemplate how the universe got there in the first place is circular logic.  Did it self create?
The fact is that we may never know how the universe came into existence, and almost certainly not in our lifetime. But simply because we do not know how something occurred does not mean God did it.

I would also point out that there are several theories as to the creation of the universe put forth by the top minds in the physics field, but the concepts are so far above my level of comprehension that I'm not going to try and explain them.

wannabe_tank_whore wrote:

Agent_dung_bomb stated micro evolution.  From a single cell to the eyes we have today is quite a leap.  The eyes of those fish are no longer used but they're still there in an undeveloped state with a flap over them.  Kind of like my dark skin white skin explanation.  Do you need light to see in the dark?  Most certainly! 

If all was dark since the beginning would we have working eyes, sockets but no eyes, or nothing there at all?

And yet the fossil record remains silent.
Yes it is a big leap. One that took a couple billion years. Now think how quickly an organism can reproduce, and put that in terms of generations. How many generations have come and gone in the history of life on Earth? I would calculate it, but I think my computer would run out of zeroes first. The point? Going from a single celled organism to humans is a huge leap, but it had more than enough time to work itself out.

Besides which, God created all the cosmos with a thought, but it took 13-15 billion years to get around to humans? Seems pretty inefficient.

wannabe_tank_whore wrote:

This kind of logic kept the world flat for thousands of years. 

"Hey sailor what did you see?"

"I looked out and saw the edge of the world on the horizon.  Saw some monsters too."

"Why he must be correct because he has a boat and sails it daily.  He is an expert in his field.  It's a fact!"


I would assume his employer reviewed his references and confirmed his degree.  But this day and age you never know.  Look at GA Tech's old football coach... he lied about his degree but still worked for GA Tech because no one verified it.  In other words, they took his word on it because hey, why would he lie?  Oh yeah, money.

Ever hear of scientist falsifing data to continue to receive funding?  It happens more often than you think.  And what happens if the funders want a specific outcome.  Take MS for instance.  They hired a firm to review IE and then gave a press conference about how good IE is.
I won't dispute there are instances of scientists falsifying evidence for personal gain. But when almost every scientist is coming up with the same explanation? Are they all in some sort of global conspiracy to fool the common man? Or are they just coming up with the best possible explanation?

wannabe_tank_whore wrote:

Now that's a conundrum!  I think you have missquoted the theory.  If there are no positive changes and no negative changes then all would remain the same.  In the mutations, is DNA lost?  Can you name a single unambiguous example of the formation of a new species by the accumulation of mutations?
I think I can answer this by requoting myself: "The 'errors' caused by random mutation either cause the survivability of an organism to increase (leading to more offspring, and the perpetuation of that error)" or in other words causes that change to become more common, as it increases survivability. "or more likely it decreases the chances of survival (leading to the organisms death, and the extinction of that genetic line)" In other words eliminates or reduces negative changes, because they reduce survivability. I'm not sure how I can make that any simpler...

As for the second part of that, can you name a single unambiguous instance of the formation of a new species by Divine Will? I thought not.
I would like to point out that I do believe in the theories in microevolution.
Read this guy's comments:
http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/evolution.html
2006-03-24 16:58:28
dubbs
Member
+105|6871|Lexington, KY

Agent_Dung_Bomb wrote:

dubbs wrote:

It takes just as much faith to believe that there is not a god.  Also, there story of Noah is accounted in multiple societies, so it is believed that the flood did occur.  Archeologist (sp?) are finding more and more fact that there was a large flood.  We do not know how much land the flood covered, but it did at least cover a large area of land.
I don't doubt the fact that there may have been a flood.  My point was simply that the Bible states that it covered the entire Earth.  Whether their little area of their existence is all they knew doesn't matter.  It says the whole Earth was covered, and geological evidence clearly shows that all of the Earth was in fact not covered. 

dubbs wrote:

What evidence does Genesis have agaist it?  I do not mean theories, I mean physical evidence?
You're joking right?  If there is, in my opinion, any one area of the Bible that is most easily discreted, it is Genesis.  By the time line laid out by Genesis, the Earth and everything on it is only ~7K years old.  We have carbon dated human remains that are far older than that.  We have plant and animal fossils that are millions of years old.  We know that dinosaurs were here long before man, ruled for 100's of millions of years, died off and were gone for about 65 million years before the first humanoids began to appear.  Given the Earth's age, and the timeline during which humanoids have existed (about 1 million years), Genesis seems to neglect 99.9% of the Earth, and the Earth's plant/animal inhabitants.
http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/05agee3.htm

Scientist stated that the Earth is so many billions of years old based on the assumation that certain stars are a certain age.  There is no fact that the stars are a certain age.  As for the remains being so old, carbon dating is not as acurate as you like to believe.  There are things events that may change the date that the bones are with carbon dating.  If the human was cremated then the date would be wrong because there would be more carbon in/on the bones.  Also, there is a theory that the 6 "days" that are mentioned in Genesis is not 24 hour days.  This could lead to the Earth being populated by the dinosaurs.  Based on Genesis 1:28 there is a theory that there was life on Earth that was destoried then God created humans. 

Another fact, nobody has yet to find a complete dinosaur remain.  We have only been able to find near complete remains, never an complete remain.

http://www.allaboutcreation.org/dinosaur-fossils.htm

If you have read any of the sciene news lately, you relize that they are proving themselves wrong.  The three links below tell of how scientist state that they were wrong in the past.  They thought that a theory was correct but it was not.  Theories are not facts, so if we base this debate on facts then you have nothing to debate with.  Just to have another fact, here is the defination of theory,

1 : the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another
2 : abstract thought : SPECULATION
3 : the general or abstract principles of a body of fact, a science, or an art <music theory>
4 a : a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action <her method is based on the theory that all children want to learn> b : an ideal or hypothetical set of facts, principles, or circumstances -- often used in the phrase in theory <in theory, we have always advocated freedom for all>
5 : a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena <wave theory of light>
6 a : a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation b : an unproved assumption : CONJECTURE c : a body of theorems presenting a concise systematic view of a subject <theory of equations>

Here is one for facts:

1 : a thing done: as a obsolete : FEAT b : CRIME <accessory after the fact> c archaic : ACTION
2 archaic : PERFORMANCE, DOING
3 : the quality of being actual : ACTUALITY <a question of fact hinges on evidence>
4 a : something that has actual existence <space exploration is now a fact> b : an actual occurrence <prove the fact of damage>
5 : a piece of information presented as having objective reality

http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/science/03 … index.html
http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/science/02 … index.html
http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/science/03 … index.html

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

dubbs wrote:

Yet, our current history says that the Romans ruled all of the known world during their time.  Asia had a large population during the same time, but the Romans did not rule that area, but we still say that they ruled the world during their time.
Whose time? Noah's? During Genesis?! Good lord...
Actually it would be based on the people living at that time. It depends on what story of the Flood that you believe.
2006-03-24 17:07:47
unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+2,053|7011|PNW

dubbs wrote:

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

dubbs wrote:

Yet, our current history says that the Romans ruled all of the known world during their time.  Asia had a large population during the same time, but the Romans did not rule that area, but we still say that they ruled the world during their time.
Whose time? Noah's? During Genesis?! Good lord...
Actually it would be based on the people living at that time. It depends on what story of the Flood that you believe.
Ah, well, I just couldn't believe that you might have been suggesting that Romans ruled the known world as far back as (assuming they exist, for the sake of avoiding argument with athiest/agnostics) the time of the "Great Flood" or "Genesis..." If that was true, I'd have to throw all my books on archaeology straight out the window.

Last edited by unnamednewbie13 (2006-03-24 17:09:46)

2006-03-24 17:34:14
Ty
Mass Media Casualty
+2,398|7014|Noizyland

As a proud Athiest, I feel I'm best qualified to answer this, (ha ha haa...)

Okay, I'm not into religeon, I think that this life is all we get so we have to live like there's no afterlife. Having said that, I don't really do anything against the bible, (for example,) except swear, and say the lord's name in vain a Hell of a lot.

Still, I have seen how religeon has helped people, and I think that's great. A cousin of mine we all thought was going to go nuts and bring a semi-automatic weapon to a shopping mall, but he turned to God and he's turned out all right.

That's all well and good, BUT the whole family, meaning my Aunt, Uncle and three cousins, have all got into the church in a freaky way. They go to one of those churches where someone yells at them upfront telling them that God did this and that and how they're all going to Hell and by the way we're passing the collection plate twice today so I want to see some credit cards in there this time people, and they just raise their arms heavenward and shout "AMEN."

They pray a shit-load, my Aunt blesses every room once she's finished cleaning it, whenever I entertain them with a musical performance, (they always ask me to play the piano which I keep telling them I gave up when I was thirteen,) they always say 'God has gifted you child' and I am so fucking close to exploding and telling them that "God hasn't done shit!" I mean, it's one thing to compliment someone, but it's a whole different thing to say that "You havn't put any work into this talent of yours and God did it all for you." Fuck that. I worked fucking hard for my musicality.

They also gave me a christian book for christmas which has so much capitalisation of names in it that I knew it was trying to convert me so I stopped reading before the third chapter. I found myself agreeing with it too much so I stopped and thought, "Wait, is this really what I think?" turned out no, and that the book was warping my mind. Fuck them for trying to do that. I've chosen my way of life giving the cold shoulder to God, if that comes back and bites me in the arse later than I'll just have to cope with burning in Hell for all eternity. It can't be that bad I mean, there must be shit-loads of interesting people down there.

So in closing, religeon can be good IN LIFE by helping troubled people find support, (or giving them the inspiration to blow up themselves and a few non-believers, but I won't go into that,) but it can also ruin smeone's life by making you dedicate yourself to some bastard in a robe who's finding God by emptying out a lot of other people's pockets and seeing if there's anything inside, ("Only $100 this week Murial, I think we're going to have to take out another mortgage on your house arn't we.")

Fuck them. Fuck that. People can believe what they want to believe but enforcing it on other people or using it to take money from people is just wrong.

Ty out.

Last edited by Tyferra (2006-03-24 17:38:45)

[Blinking eyes thing]
Steam: http://steamcommunity.com/id/tzyon
2006-03-24 17:53:04
unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+2,053|7011|PNW

I bless every stick of RAM I put into my computers and they run four times as fast as factory timings and clock speeds would suggest. They even have an golden-white aura. What, don't believe me? Accept Jesus into your heart and you'll achieve overclocking potential that'll baffle the engineers.

[edit]There are rumors that several Protestant faiths are banding together with AMD to manufacture an onboard Jesus chip, which will not only save you, but your progress as well before either of you exit.[/edit]

Last edited by unnamednewbie13 (2006-03-24 17:56:28)

2006-03-24 17:53:41
herrr_smity
Member
+156|6867|space command ur anus

dubbs wrote:

Another fact, nobody has yet to find a complete dinosaur remain.  We have only been able to find near complete remains, never an complete remain..
It depends if you are looking for a small or a big dinosaur. we have hole dino skeletons small ones but still they are skeletons. we have  dinosaurs eggs we have Plesiosaurs aren't they dinosaurs.
its easier for a small skeleton to get covered by sediments or mud then a  big one, we have Even found soft tissue from a T-REX.
here are some hole skeletons
http://www.oceansofkansas.com/Plesiosaurs/noth01.jpg
http://www.gpc.edu/~pgore/students/f95/ … inopic.gif
2006-03-24 18:05:44
dubbs
Member
+105|6871|Lexington, KY

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

dubbs wrote:

unnamednewbie13 wrote:


Whose time? Noah's? During Genesis?! Good lord...
Actually it would be based on the people living at that time. It depends on what story of the Flood that you believe.
Ah, well, I just couldn't believe that you might have been suggesting that Romans ruled the known world as far back as (assuming they exist, for the sake of avoiding argument with athiest/agnostics) the time of the "Great Flood" or "Genesis..." If that was true, I'd have to throw all my books on archaeology straight out the window.
Well you should throw them away anyhow because they are not telling you that there is more then on story of the Flood.  Multiple societies in the Middle East say that the flood covered the known world at that time.  If you only knew about a certain area of the world, and the that entire area was flooded, you would also say that the whole world was flooded.  That is what the aurthors of the Flood story were telling us.  That the Flood covered their entire Earth.
2006-03-24 18:09:32
herrr_smity
Member
+156|6867|space command ur anus
quote=herrr_smity]may i point out that there is NOT inuff water to cover the globe

Spark wrote:

[Yes there is.

To a depth of a few miles.
About 3,100 cubic miles of water, mostly in the form of water vapor, is in the atmosphere at any one time. If it all fell as precipitation at once, the Earth would be covered with only about 1 inch of
water.http://ga.water.usgs.gov/edu/earthhowmuch.html


hmm an inch a mile hay what's the difference.
2006-03-24 18:24:47
unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+2,053|7011|PNW

dubbs wrote:

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

dubbs wrote:

Actually it would be based on the people living at that time. It depends on what story of the Flood that you believe.
Ah, well, I just couldn't believe that you might have been suggesting that Romans ruled the known world as far back as (assuming they exist, for the sake of avoiding argument with athiest/agnostics) the time of the "Great Flood" or "Genesis..." If that was true, I'd have to throw all my books on archaeology straight out the window.
Well you should throw them away anyhow because they are not telling you that there is more then on story of the Flood.  Multiple societies in the Middle East say that the flood covered the known world at that time.  If you only knew about a certain area of the world, and the that entire area was flooded, you would also say that the whole world was flooded.  That is what the aurthors of the Flood story were telling us.  That the Flood covered their entire Earth.
My point was never to jump into an argument of whether or not bible fables were true. I was originally questioning your line of thought, which I was trying to piece together from the content of your first sentences here that I've come across. From the exchange, it sounded like you were saying that the Romans were a world empire in the time the 'Great Flood' occured, or even during the Genesis period. Hopefully, you can now see the pickle I was in while attempting to logic out what you were really trying to get across. But how far-reaching the 'Great Flood' was is a viable topic for another debate.

Last edited by unnamednewbie13 (2006-03-24 18:25:10)

2006-03-24 18:26:19
herrr_smity
Member
+156|6867|space command ur anus

dubbs wrote:

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

dubbs wrote:


Actually it would be based on the people living at that time. It depends on what story of the Flood that you believe.
Ah, well, I just couldn't believe that you might have been suggesting that Romans ruled the known world as far back as (assuming they exist, for the sake of avoiding argument with athiest/agnostics) the time of the "Great Flood" or "Genesis..." If that was true, I'd have to throw all my books on archaeology straight out the window.
Well you should throw them away anyhow because they are not telling you that there is more then on story of the Flood.  Multiple societies in the Middle East say that the flood covered the known world at that time.  If you only knew about a certain area of the world, and the that entire area was flooded, you would also say that the whole world was flooded.  That is what the aurthors of the Flood story were telling us.  That the Flood covered their entire Earth.
http://www.robotwisdom.com/science/blacksea.html
i think that the origin of the flood comes from this event.
events like this are where legends and stories are made, a cataclysmic event that changes the known world. and are remembered for generations.
2006-03-24 18:31:05
dubbs
Member
+105|6871|Lexington, KY

herrr_smity wrote:

dubbs wrote:

Another fact, nobody has yet to find a complete dinosaur remain.  We have only been able to find near complete remains, never an complete remain..
It depends if you are looking for a small or a big dinosaur. we have hole dino skeletons small ones but still they are skeletons. we have  dinosaurs eggs we have Plesiosaurs aren't they dinosaurs.
its easier for a small skeleton to get covered by sediments or mud then a  big one, we have Even found soft tissue from a T-REX.
here are some hole skeletons
http://www.oceansofkansas.com/Plesiosaurs/noth01.jpg
http://www.gpc.edu/~pgore/students/f95/ … inopic.gif
I may have been wrong about the dinosaur thing, all of my Google searches returned that we have not found a whole dinosaur remain. 

On a side note, do you have sources about where we found soft tissue from a T-Rex?  The archaeology side of me wants to look at the info.

Last edited by dubbs (2006-03-24 18:31:37)

2006-03-24 18:35:24
herrr_smity
Member
+156|6867|space command ur anus

dubbs wrote:

herrr_smity wrote:

dubbs wrote:

Another fact, nobody has yet to find a complete dinosaur remain.  We have only been able to find near complete remains, never an complete remain..
It depends if you are looking for a small or a big dinosaur. we have hole dino skeletons small ones but still they are skeletons. we have  dinosaurs eggs we have Plesiosaurs aren't they dinosaurs.
its easier for a small skeleton to get covered by sediments or mud then a  big one, we have Even found soft tissue from a T-REX.
here are some hole skeletons
http://www.oceansofkansas.com/Plesiosaurs/noth01.jpg
http://www.gpc.edu/~pgore/students/f95/ … inopic.gif
I may have been wrong about the dinosaur thing, all of my Google searches returned that we have not found a whole dinosaur remain. 

On a side note, do you have sources about where we found soft tissue from a T-Rex?  The archaeology side of me wants to look at the info.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news … issue.html
2006-03-24 18:59:09
Z-trooper
BF2s' little helper
+209|6998|Denmark
Personally I dont believe in any of that religious hysteria.
I dont want to wast my life with false hope of being saved and forgived when the real world is nothing like that.

"Religion was invented by some lonely dude who needed a friend."  - Quote: ME!
2006-03-24 20:03:14
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6891|USA

Marconius wrote:

I believe in science...things that can be actively tested and measured and proven.  I've no need for faith in something that cannot be proven to or to not exist.  I also don't need to follow strict rules and dogma...I choose to live my life as I and common sense sees fit, and I believe that there is no afterlife.  The concept of heaven was created to enforce the dogmatic rules of the religions, to give justification to the control and oppression by religious leaders.  It is used for hope as well, but the main gist of it is with moral obligation/justification.

I believe that when you die, that's it.  No thought, no experience, no feeling, the end.  That's why you live your life to the fullest and make the most of it, rather than live it with expectations of something better down the road.
MARCONIUS.................MY MAN!!!!!.................I agree with every word you just said.....not only do I agree it but I thought it was well spoken.......finally an issue we see eye to eye on......................................................praise be to God!!!!!!!...............
2006-03-24 20:19:55
Major_Spittle
Banned
+276|6894|United States of America
Religion is made up by man. Look at all the different religions. Every group of isolated Island tribes has its own religion. All different, all with different miricles, rules, elc.... It is obvious to any sane person with an ounce of wit and ability to think things through rationally without giving in to societal pressures and taking everything their told at face value. How anyone can actually read the Bible, Quaran, Book of Mormon and whatever else without seeing that they are man made (and poorly at that) and are less divinely inspired that Dr. Zuess books. 

Sorry guys, but I will just opt. to worship the golden cow, for at least it is something that does exist.

No, I don't have the answers to the meaning of life and our existence, but the golden cow does.
2006-03-24 20:23:08
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6891|USA

Major_Spittle wrote:

Sorry guys, but I will just opt. to worship the golden cow, for at least it is something that does exist.

No, I don't have the answers to the meaning of life and our existence, but the golden cow does.
lol.........i like that

Topic closed

Pages: 1 … 3 4 5 6 7 … 51

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2024 Jeff Minard