# Fossils from the day the dinosaurs died



## Old Rocks (Mar 30, 2019)

Hell Creek Formation yields fossils from the day the dinosaurs died.

Fossils show worldwide catastrophe on the day the dinosaurs died

Sixty-six million years ago, a massive asteroid crashed into a shallow sea near Mexico. The impact carved out a 90-mile-wide crater and flung mountains of earth into space. Earthbound debris fell to the planet in droplets of molten rock and glass.

Ancient fish caught glass blobs in their gills as they swam, gape-mouthed, beneath the strange rain. Large, sloshing waves threw animals onto dry land, then more waves buried them in silt. Scientists working in North Dakota recently dug up fossils of these fish: They died within the first minutes or hours after the asteroid hit, according to a paper published Friday in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, a discovery that has sparked tremendous excitement among paleontologists.


----------



## mudwhistle (Mar 30, 2019)

Old Rocks said:


> Hell Creek Formation yields fossils from the day the dinosaurs died.
> 
> Fossils show worldwide catastrophe on the day the dinosaurs died
> 
> ...


Jesus.....all this time I thought Socialism killed the Dinosaurs.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Mar 30, 2019)

Old Rocks said:


> Hell Creek Formation yields fossils from the day the dinosaurs died.
> 
> Fossils show worldwide catastrophe on the day the dinosaurs died
> 
> ...


That's just amazing.


----------



## progressive hunter (Mar 30, 2019)

Old Rocks said:


> Hell Creek Formation yields fossils from the day the dinosaurs died.
> 
> Fossils show worldwide catastrophe on the day the dinosaurs died
> 
> ...


BUT HOW DO THEY KNOW IT WAS 60 MILLION YRS AGO???

there is no way known to man to accurately date that far back


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Mar 30, 2019)

progressive hunter said:


> BUT HOW DO THEY KNOW IT WAS 60 MILLION YRS AGO???


Look it up yourself, ya lazy troll.


----------



## progressive hunter (Mar 30, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> > BUT HOW DO THEY KNOW IT WAS 60 MILLION YRS AGO???
> ...


I did,,,and found it wanting and bordering on crazy


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Mar 30, 2019)

progressive hunter said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > progressive hunter said:
> ...


No you didnt. Nor could you describe any of it, if your life depended on it. And you certainly could not make a cogent argument against any of our scientific knowledge in that regard. You are a fraud.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Mar 30, 2019)

Old Rocks said:


> Hell Creek Formation yields fossils from the day the dinosaurs died.
> 
> Fossils show worldwide catastrophe on the day the dinosaurs died
> 
> ...



Why was there fish in North Dakota, did Fred and Barney cause it by burning fossil fuel?


.


----------



## progressive hunter (Mar 30, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> > Fort Fun Indiana said:
> ...


says the moron that cant back it up with anything but personal insults,,,which is one of the reasons I think its crazy


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Mar 30, 2019)

bear513 said:


> Why was there fish in North Dakota,


Because there was surface water in North Dakota...?

You REALLY couldn't puzzle that out for yourself?


----------



## harmonica (Mar 30, 2019)

progressive hunter said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Hell Creek Formation yields fossils from the day the dinosaurs died.
> ...


these people are experts
they can date things fairly well
I'll take their word for now


----------



## alang1216 (Mar 30, 2019)

progressive hunter said:


> BUT HOW DO THEY KNOW IT WAS 60 MILLION YRS AGO???
> 
> there is no way known to man to accurately date that far back


You mean no way known to *you*.  Can you explain radioisotope dating you your own words?


----------



## progressive hunter (Mar 30, 2019)

alang1216 said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> > BUT HOW DO THEY KNOW IT WAS 60 MILLION YRS AGO???
> ...


I know enough to say its based on assumption and not provable facts


----------



## harmonica (Mar 30, 2019)

progressive hunter said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > progressive hunter said:
> ...


yes. they just pick any date


----------



## progressive hunter (Mar 30, 2019)

harmonica said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> > alang1216 said:
> ...


if you say so,,,I didnt


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Mar 30, 2019)

progressive hunter said:


> I know enough to say its based on assumption and not provable facts


No you don't, you fraud. You are just saying stupid shit to elicit responses. Because you are desperate for attention.


----------



## progressive hunter (Mar 30, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> > I know enough to say its based on assumption and not provable facts
> ...


why do you always respond with insults instead of something about the topic???

or it would help if you didnt respond,,,or you could just prove me wrong,,,easier to ignore me


----------



## fncceo (Mar 30, 2019)

Old Rocks said:


> Fossils show worldwide catastrophe on the day the dinosaurs died



And these are the polluting b'stards who did them in....


----------



## Wyatt earp (Mar 30, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > Why was there fish in North Dakota,
> ...




Uhm where was there salt water?


come on think real hard, I know they taught you in the 3rd grade that their was once a huge shallow sea in the Midwest.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Mar 30, 2019)

fncceo said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Fossils show worldwide catastrophe on the day the dinosaurs died
> ...


Too many "carbon footprints" from that mode of transportation...


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Mar 30, 2019)

bear513 said:


> Uhm where was there salt water?
> 
> 
> come on think real hard, I know they taught you in the 3rd grade that their was once a huge shallow sea in the Midwest


That's right:

Western Interior Seaway - Wikipedia

Do you have any other dumb ass shit you would like to say? Or did you maybe learn something today?


----------



## Astrostar (Mar 30, 2019)

progressive hunter said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > progressive hunter said:
> ...


Just like the bible, eh?


----------



## progressive hunter (Mar 30, 2019)

Astrostar said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> > alang1216 said:
> ...


I never said that,,,,,,

but the bible people  never claimed anything other than faith,,,

they both are after all just religions,and only one claims fact without proof


----------



## alang1216 (Mar 30, 2019)

progressive hunter said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > progressive hunter said:
> ...


If you know enough you should be able to say what the assumption is.  Please do.


----------



## progressive hunter (Mar 30, 2019)

its still 


alang1216 said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> > alang1216 said:
> ...


its still an assumption and not based on fact


----------



## Hollie (Mar 31, 2019)

progressive hunter said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > progressive hunter said:
> ...



I think you will find that paleontology, chemistry and biology doesn’t rely on bible thumping to examine evidence.


----------



## Hollie (Mar 31, 2019)

progressive hunter said:


> its still
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> ...



You’re making an assumption not based on fact.


----------



## alang1216 (Mar 31, 2019)

progressive hunter said:


> its still
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> ...


WHAT IS BEING ASSUMED?
I'll take your post as an admission that you don't know what assumption you are talking about, you are just parroting what someone has told you.  You need to start thinking for yourself.


----------



## progressive hunter (Mar 31, 2019)

alang1216 said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> > its still
> ...




you take it how you want,,, 

and unless you are one of the very few that have actually tested rocks you are also parroting what youve been told,,,

my opinion is based on decades of seeing evidence and asking questions

yours is just based on what youve been told


----------



## Hollie (Mar 31, 2019)

progressive hunter said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > progressive hunter said:
> ...



YouTube videos produced by conspiracy theory loons is not reliable evidence.


----------



## Hollie (Mar 31, 2019)

progressive hunter said:


> Astrostar said:
> 
> 
> > progressive hunter said:
> ...



No. The Bible people claim the Bibles as absolutely authoritative.


When science and the Bible differ, science has obviously misinterpreted its data.

_Henry M. Morris_


----------



## alang1216 (Mar 31, 2019)

progressive hunter said:


> my opinion is based on decades of seeing evidence and asking questions


BS.  You don't have a 'opinion' only a nebulous claim of an 'assumption' you know nothing about.  You're a fraud bearing false witness.


----------



## progressive hunter (Mar 31, 2019)

alang1216 said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> > my opinion is based on decades of seeing evidence and asking questions
> ...


so all you have is insults and no proof,,,got it


----------



## bodecea (Mar 31, 2019)

mudwhistle said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Hell Creek Formation yields fossils from the day the dinosaurs died.
> ...


Of course you did.


----------



## Hollie (Mar 31, 2019)

progressive hunter said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > progressive hunter said:
> ...



If you want as close to proof as one can get, you could review the research and peer reviewed data from any one of the US teaching / research universities. 

Trolling YouTube for silly videos produced by conspiracy theory loons is a waste of time for all but conspiracy theory loons.


----------



## gipper (Mar 31, 2019)

Old Rocks said:


> Hell Creek Formation yields fossils from the day the dinosaurs died.
> 
> Fossils show worldwide catastrophe on the day the dinosaurs died
> 
> ...


How do they know an asteroid caused this?  It could have been caused by a polar shift cyclical catastrophe.


----------



## bodecea (Mar 31, 2019)

fncceo said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Fossils show worldwide catastrophe on the day the dinosaurs died
> ...


Most likely the CRC image of ancient times.


----------



## progressive hunter (Mar 31, 2019)

gipper said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Hell Creek Formation yields fossils from the day the dinosaurs died.
> ...




oh no you didnt just question their belief???
you gonna catch hell for that one,,,


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Mar 31, 2019)

gipper said:


> How do they know an asteroid caused this?


Two things:

1) the boundary layer being rich in iridium

2) the glass spherules, which formed from molten rock being ejected into the air

It's as conclusive as it gets, as far as why these fish died.


----------



## progressive hunter (Mar 31, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> > How do they know an asteroid caused this?
> ...


thats conclusive???

sounds more like assumption to me since you didnt observe it and couldnt study it


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Mar 31, 2019)

Desperate,attention-begging trolls aside:

Anyone can examine the evidence. The research, along with images, is all publicly available. 10th graders study this and do class projects on it.

If anyone here has not yet learned about the iridium-rich boundary layer, go read up on it. It's one of the triumphs of modern science.


----------



## progressive hunter (Mar 31, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Desperate,attention-begging trolls aside:
> 
> Anyone can examine the evidence. The research, along with images, is all publicly available. 10th graders study this and do class projects on it.
> 
> If anyone here has not yet learned about the iridium-rich boundary layer, go read up on it. It's one of the triumphs of modern science.


I have no problem that it exists,,,its what the claims of how and when it was created I have a problem with

all youre doing is repeating what youve been told,,

simple minds are easily controlled,,,


----------



## mudwhistle (Mar 31, 2019)

bodecea said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...


Playing dumb is your forte.


----------



## Hollie (Mar 31, 2019)

progressive hunter said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > Desperate,attention-begging trolls aside:
> ...



The gods put it there 6,000 years ago to confuse you. 

Those gods are such kidders.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Mar 31, 2019)

The irony on display here is people like bear513 and the unnamed troll claiming everyone else is "mind controlled". Yet neither of them know fact one about any of this, and they are merely and unquestioningly obeying an iron aged book of myths. THAT is what mindless obedience looks like.


----------



## progressive hunter (Mar 31, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> The irony on display here is people like bear513 and the unnamed troll claiming everyone else is "mind controlled". Yet neither of them know fact one about any of this, and they are merely and unquestioningly obeying an iron aged book of myths. THAT is what mindless obedience looks like.


the truth is no one knows the facts,,,and that includes you,,,


----------



## Wyatt earp (Mar 31, 2019)

Old Rocks said:


> Hell Creek Formation yields fossils from the day the dinosaurs died.
> 
> Fossils show worldwide catastrophe on the day the dinosaurs died
> 
> ...



Five posters thought common knowledge that was taught in the 3rd grade was informative?


.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Mar 31, 2019)

bear513 said:


> Five posters thought common knowledge that was taught in the 3rd grade was informative?


These fossil finds are a new and exciting development that strengthens the theory. So, unless you are referring to 3rd graders of the future, your comment makes little sense.

And remember, you're the one that didn't know there was  a salt water sea covering this area at the time. So you should rate it "informative" as well, since you learned something.


----------



## progressive hunter (Mar 31, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > Five posters thought common knowledge that was taught in the 3rd grade was informative?
> ...


only in the simple minded


----------



## Crepitus (Mar 31, 2019)

bear513 said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > bear513 said:
> ...


Paleontology in North Dakota - Wikipedia


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Mar 31, 2019)

mudwhistle said:


> Jesus.....all this time I thought Socialism killed the Dinosaurs.


Nope, it was capitalism. Evolution is mindless capitalism.


----------



## alang1216 (Mar 31, 2019)

progressive hunter said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > progressive hunter said:
> ...


You've provided ample proof of your willful ignorance and lies.  Thanks for that.


----------



## progressive hunter (Mar 31, 2019)

alang1216 said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> > alang1216 said:
> ...


still with the insults and no facts or proof,,,


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Mar 31, 2019)

The iridium-rich boundary layer occurs all over the planet:

Montana:





Spain:


----------



## progressive hunter (Mar 31, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> The iridium-rich boundary layer occurs all over the planet:
> 
> Montana:
> 
> ...




the problem isnt that it exist,,,but when and how it was created,,,and to say it happened over millions of yrs takes a level of assumption and speculation that borders on crazy talk

and since we can easily replicate it we can more accuratly assume  it most likely happened very rapidly during a large scale hydro event


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Mar 31, 2019)

Desperate, attention-begging trolls aside:

The element iridium is very rare on the earth. No event is known -- and none has even been hypothesized that withstood even the mildest of scrutiny -- to explain the creation of such a world-wide, iridium rich layer, other than an asteroid impact. 

Furthermore, the date of the layer is extremely well known: 66.043 ± 0.011 Ma. That's a margin of error of about 1.7%..  No, the hilariously stupid and debunked idea of a 10,000 year old earth does not fit within this margin of error.  Sorry, YEC goobers.


----------



## progressive hunter (Mar 31, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Desperate, attention-begging trolls aside:
> 
> The element iridium is very rare on the earth. No event is known -- and none has even been hypothesized that withstood even the mildest of scrutiny -- to explain the creation of such a world-wide, iridium rich layer, other than an asteroid impact.
> 
> Furthermore, the date of the layer is extremely well known: 66.043 ± 0.011 Ma. That's a margin of error of about 1.7%..  No, the hilariously stupid and debunked idea of a 10,000 year old earth does not fit within this margin of error.  Sorry, YEC goobers.


and exactly how did they date it???


----------



## Hollie (Mar 31, 2019)

progressive hunter said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > The iridium-rich boundary layer occurs all over the planet:
> ...



Nonsense. There is no assumption required and no speculation involved.

Who is “we” who can easily replicate it?

I’m afraid these frantic rants of yours, totally unsupported and completely without substantiation are just silly.


----------



## alang1216 (Mar 31, 2019)

progressive hunter said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > progressive hunter said:
> ...


Not insults, facts.  Feel free to show me my mistake but your denials ring hollow.


----------



## progressive hunter (Mar 31, 2019)

alang1216 said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> > alang1216 said:
> ...


DENIALS IN WHAT???

your mistake is believe what youre told without looking for yourself

and youve done nothing but throw insults


----------



## alang1216 (Mar 31, 2019)

progressive hunter said:


> DENIALS IN WHAT???
> 
> your mistake is believe what youre told without looking for yourself
> 
> and youve done nothing but throw insults


You claim isotope dating is based on an 'assumption' that you will not or can not name.  Since you specify the presumed assumption was you are basically denying the facts.  Then you accuse me of doing exactly what you yourself are doing, reciting what others have told you.  It is you who insult my intelligence.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Mar 31, 2019)

bear513 said:


> Five posters thought common knowledge that was taught in the 3rd grade was informative?




Up to 8, now. why don't I see your name on the list? You learned something, remember?


----------



## LittleNipper (Mar 31, 2019)

harmonica said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> > alang1216 said:
> ...


No, but they (uniformitarians) clearly BELIEVE in a starting point of any given radioisotope which is not necessary where CREATION established it. Example: Was Adam created as a say 30 year old looking individual, or was Adam created a baby?

So, if a Christian is convinced in the GOD of nature and connected to everything that happens, there is no logical reason to believe that everything has always continued to progress from a square one (as some particular scientist believes), if GOD had reasons for that not to be the spot it needed to be.

The reality is that it is not enough for an individual to say he is a Christian and then accept anything without any regard for GOD.


----------



## progressive hunter (Mar 31, 2019)

alang1216 said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> > DENIALS IN WHAT???
> ...


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Mar 31, 2019)

LittleNipper said:


> No, but they (uniformitarians) clearly BELIEVE in a starting point of any given radioisotope which is not necessary where CREATION established it.


Well thats stupid to say, as the creation would just be their starting point then, and you have just designated a startimg point.

Unless you are just saying that god created the universe to fool us, which, as you have to admit, is laughably atupid.


----------



## Hollie (Mar 31, 2019)

progressive hunter said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > progressive hunter said:
> ...



There’s your problem. You spend your time with silly YouTube videos. I’m sure you like the bright colors and big letters, but YouTube is hardly the place to learn science.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Mar 31, 2019)

progressive hunter said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > progressive hunter said:
> ...


Nobody is going to watch a video you never watched and don't understand, and then spoonfeed it back to you.


----------



## LittleNipper (Apr 1, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> > No, but they (uniformitarians) clearly BELIEVE in a starting point of any given radioisotope which is not necessary where CREATION established it.
> ...


God Created and fools trick themselves into believing such is impossible.


----------



## LittleNipper (Apr 1, 2019)

Hollie said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> > alang1216 said:
> ...


Silly is as silly does!  ---- I rest my case!


----------



## LittleNipper (Apr 1, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> > alang1216 said:
> ...


 I watched it (not that I posted it) and it is not at all hard to understand (though I'm sure a Uniformatarian would have to disagree or cut his own throat). Remember Mount St. Helen. Things are seldom what they seem --- skim milk masquerades as cream...


----------



## Hollie (Apr 1, 2019)

LittleNipper said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > progressive hunter said:
> ...



I commend you for resting your case. 

Goofy comedians with a youtube channel are the last folks you should be learning science from.


----------



## Hollie (Apr 1, 2019)

LittleNipper said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > LittleNipper said:
> ...



Creation by supernatural processes is a claim made by many religions which had gods existing long before the invention of your particular gods. 

To the back of the line you go with your new fangled gods.


----------



## Old Rocks (Apr 1, 2019)

progressive hunter said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Hell Creek Formation yields fossils from the day the dinosaurs died.
> ...


They date them using the physical laws and math with which they build nuclear reactors. Reality cares not on whit what you believe or disbelieve.


----------



## LittleNipper (Apr 1, 2019)

Hollie said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...


And atheists are the last one's who should be condemning believers for being biased.


----------



## LittleNipper (Apr 1, 2019)

progressive hunter said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > progressive hunter said:
> ...


I could not have said it better.


----------



## Old Rocks (Apr 1, 2019)

progressive hunter said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > The iridium-rich boundary layer occurs all over the planet:
> ...


Hydro event? LOL  Someday you should make the acquaintance of a basic geology textbook.


----------



## Hollie (Apr 1, 2019)

LittleNipper said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > LittleNipper said:
> ...



Your juvenile hurt feelings are your own to deal with. 

I'm challenging you on the efficacy of your argument. When your arguments rely on a prior comittment to belief in magic and supernaturalism, I'm going to immediately call that out as bias.


----------



## Hollie (Apr 1, 2019)

LittleNipper said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> > alang1216 said:
> ...



And you didn't. 

Silly YouTube videos are convenient because the YouTube'er is not available to defend their claims. 

You may impressed by YouTube videos with bright colors and cartoons for graphics but not everyone is so gullible.


----------



## LittleNipper (Apr 1, 2019)

Hollie said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> > Fort Fun Indiana said:
> ...





Hollie said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...


Your arguments rely on a prior commitment to atheism. PS> Magic is a parlor trick a magician performs --- also known as slight of hand. The supernatural  is what Jesus did when HE brought the dead back to life and quieted storms, and when HE changed me from the inside out... HE can change you also, and then you will know the truth and that truth will set you free... One thing for sure ---- you will never feel the same about anything...


----------



## progressive hunter (Apr 1, 2019)

Old Rocks said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



so you dont know how they date them,,,

its time for old rocks to be buried and forgotten


----------



## LittleNipper (Apr 1, 2019)

This seems to be the most honest assessment:


----------



## progressive hunter (Apr 1, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> > alang1216 said:
> ...


that explains why you are so ignorant on the subject and resort to personal attacks instead of logical debate


----------



## alang1216 (Apr 1, 2019)

LittleNipper said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > progressive hunter said:
> ...


I watched and was saddened by the half-truths it contained  The Mt St. Helen dating was an excellent example of this.  The decay of K is given as 1.25 billion years.  This means that half the K will decay in 1.25 billion years.  How much of the K will decay in 10 years?  I can tell you, so little will decay that it will be impossible to accurately measure it.  The youngest material dated with this method is 20,000 years so no honest scientist would use this method on such young material.


----------



## progressive hunter (Apr 1, 2019)

alang1216 said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> > Fort Fun Indiana said:
> ...




the rocks at mt st helena are the same age as all rocks,,they didnt just appear when it blew,, there is more to it than what you focused on

and what about the others???

sorry but dating is nothing but speculation based on assumption and in noway can be trusted


----------



## alang1216 (Apr 1, 2019)

progressive hunter said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > progressive hunter said:
> ...


Thank you.  Was that so hard?  The video was weak on science but at least you tried.

When you walk down the street do you worry that you'll fly up into the air?  No, you 'assume' gravity will not suddenly cease since, in your experience, it never has.  You're welcome to doubt your eyes and believe something different but that is not how science works.


----------



## progressive hunter (Apr 1, 2019)

alang1216 said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> > alang1216 said:
> ...




its called the law of gravity and theory of evolution,,

big difference


----------



## Hollie (Apr 1, 2019)

progressive hunter said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > progressive hunter said:
> ...



Your science vocabulary is lacking. Your crank fundamentalist ministries have a reason to keep you ignorant.

Evolution is a Fact and a Theory


----------



## alang1216 (Apr 1, 2019)

progressive hunter said:


> its called the law of gravity and theory of evolution,,
> 
> big difference


No difference.  *Theory* is a explanatory framework. *Law* is a formula.  There are theories of gravity and laws of evolution.


----------



## progressive hunter (Apr 1, 2019)

alang1216 said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> > its called the law of gravity and theory of evolution,,
> ...


no there isnt any laws of evo,,,

and as I've proven there are to many flaws in evolution to consider it anything but a religion


----------



## Hollie (Apr 1, 2019)

progressive hunter said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > progressive hunter said:
> ...



You're everyones hero. With a single YouTube video, you refuted 150 years of peer reviewed science. 

I think a bible autographed by Heyzeus H. Christ should be your reward.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Apr 1, 2019)

What were the CO2 levels in the fossil fish?


----------



## Jitss617 (Apr 1, 2019)

If I catch any Mexican fish it’s over for them!


----------



## alang1216 (Apr 1, 2019)

progressive hunter said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > progressive hunter said:
> ...


     Darwin's *Law* of Evolution by Natural Selection (traditionally referred to as a "theory" to honor Darwin's original treatise, but now confirmed through observation and experiment) consists of four main tenets.

First, he describes how species can change in shape and character through selective breeding. No reasonable person, whether creationist or scientist, doubts selective breeding can morph a wolf into a pony-sized mastiff. Or evolve the same wild animal into a comically shrunk, rat-sized Chihuahua.
Second, he describes how species are neither completely uniform nor immutable, and how these natural variations are the grist upon which human selective breeding grinds. Once a new characteristic is established, these variations persist from generation to generation, and are systematically and predictably passed from parent to child. Again, all but the most radical creationists accepts these facts, widely employed since the birth of animal husbandry and agriculture  [3] .
Third, he recognized that Nature, through selective pressures like environmental shifts or changes in predation, can play the role of humans in selective breeding. Whether man selects a long-haired dog for its appearance, or colder winters favor the survival of thick furred over short-haired canines, the result is identical. Again, the power of evolution by Natural Selection is confirmed though field work (such as Darwin's finches), genetic mapping, and the experience of anyone who chooses to listen openly to nature.
Fourth, everyone agrees that, while changes within a species are indisputable and can be observed within a lifetime, no one has ever seen (nor is there a recorded observation after 5000 years of written history) one species transmuting to another. Fish never become fowl, insects never become birds, and monkeys certainly never become humans.


----------



## progressive hunter (Apr 1, 2019)

alang1216 said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> > alang1216 said:
> ...


DARWIN???
YOURE GOING TO CLAIM DARWINS THEORY IS LAW????

AND NOW WHO BELIEVES IN MAKE BELIEVE

 a change within species based on environment and breeding in no way shape or form proves that life came from non living matter, humans decended from apes or a common ancestor or the planet is billions of yrs old,,,or that anything ever gave birth to anything other than its kind

in fact all darwin did was prove life exists differently depending on environment,,,which we knew for centuries


----------



## alang1216 (Apr 1, 2019)

progressive hunter said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > LittleNipper said:
> ...


Actually, if they came from the magma source, they did just appear when it blew.  Magma is a fluid that does not become rock until it cools.


----------



## progressive hunter (Apr 1, 2019)

alang1216 said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> > alang1216 said:
> ...


thats a new one I havent heard before,,,but they change so much its hard to keep up


----------



## alang1216 (Apr 1, 2019)

progressive hunter said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > progressive hunter said:
> ...


Proof no, overwhelming evidence yes.

What Darwin did was offer a mechanism for how life descended from a common ancestor.


----------



## progressive hunter (Apr 1, 2019)

NO HE DIDNT


alang1216 said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> > alang1216 said:
> ...




what he proved is what man had known for centuries. that life changes based on environment and breeding and never has anything given birth to anything other than its kind

and I have yet to see this common ancestor or proof of it


----------



## alang1216 (Apr 1, 2019)

progressive hunter said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > Actually, if they came from the magma source, they did just appear when it blew.  Magma is a fluid that does not become rock until it cools.
> ...


It's a part of geology older than you are.


----------



## progressive hunter (Apr 1, 2019)

alang1216 said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> > alang1216 said:
> ...


source????


----------



## alang1216 (Apr 1, 2019)

progressive hunter said:


> NO HE DIDNT
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> ...


Proof no, overwhelming evidence yes.

If you're looking for a common ancestor, Darwin's finches are the classic study.


----------



## progressive hunter (Apr 1, 2019)

alang1216 said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> > NO HE DIDNT
> ...


hahahahhahahahaha

so a guy that saw a bird knows all,,,yeah right,,,,


----------



## alang1216 (Apr 1, 2019)

progressive hunter said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > progressive hunter said:
> ...


College geology 101 textbook


----------



## progressive hunter (Apr 1, 2019)

there i


alang1216 said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> > alang1216 said:
> ...



there in lies the problem,,,


----------



## alang1216 (Apr 1, 2019)

progressive hunter said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > Proof no, overwhelming evidence yes.
> ...


So you think you know more than someone who did field work and studied the results for 20+ years?


----------



## alang1216 (Apr 1, 2019)

progressive hunter said:


> there i
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> ...


Education?


----------



## progressive hunter (Apr 1, 2019)

alang1216 said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> > there i
> ...


that education is based on speculation made from assumptions and most of it proven wrong


----------



## progressive hunter (Apr 1, 2019)

alang1216 said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> > alang1216 said:
> ...


I never said that,,what I said was he discovered something that man knew for centuries


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Apr 1, 2019)

LittleNipper said:


> God Created and fools trick themselves into believing such is impossible.


Nah, thats a red herring. Nothing about science precludes creation. It merely precludes your very specific dogma of young earth bullshit. Get your story straight before commenting again.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Apr 1, 2019)

LittleNipper said:


> I watched it


No you didn't. Else you could summarize an argument from it .  You are lying.


----------



## Hollie (Apr 1, 2019)

progressive hunter said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > progressive hunter said:
> ...


That is just profoundly ignorant. It was more than finches.

Were you raised in a cave? Did you ever attend school?

Your sentence structure and lack of punctuation, among such limited knowledge of basic biology, suggests limited education.


----------



## Hollie (Apr 1, 2019)

progressive hunter said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > progressive hunter said:
> ...



Darwin's work was groundbreaking. 

You're just sprouting nonsense.


----------



## LittleNipper (Apr 1, 2019)

alang1216 said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> > Fort Fun Indiana said:
> ...


You honestly don't seem to grasp the implications?  Say a volcanic eruption happens 6000 years ago. How exactly is anyone  (like me or yourself) going to know it didn't happen 1.2 billion years ago...................? You are going to date the materials under the assumption that the strata, rocks, etc., are millions or 100's of thousands of years old. THERE IS NO ONE AROUND TO TELL YOU WHEN THE ERUPTION HAPPENED or the STRATA WAS LED.  Your assumption inevitably is that any of the material you find is ancient unless you are informed otherwise. OKAY, GOD has informed me through HIS word that (in all due respect) that the world is most likely only thousands of years old. I believe HE is right and your assumptions are in error because no one is alive to determine when any ancient evens actually occurred; however, you are aware of the Mt. Saint Helen event ---- but what if you were not?


----------



## alang1216 (Apr 2, 2019)

LittleNipper said:


> You honestly don't seem to grasp the implications?  Say a volcanic eruption happens 6000 years ago. How exactly is anyone  (like me or yourself) going to know it didn't happen 1.2 billion years ago...................? You are going to date the materials under the assumption that the strata, rocks, etc., are millions or 100's of thousands of years old. THERE IS NO ONE AROUND TO TELL YOU WHEN THE ERUPTION HAPPENED or the STRATA WAS LED.  Your assumption inevitably is that any of the material you find is ancient unless you are informed otherwise. OKAY, GOD has informed me through HIS word that (in all due respect) that the world is most likely only thousands of years old. I believe HE is right and your assumptions are in error because no one is alive to determine when any ancient evens actually occurred; however, you are aware of the Mt. Saint Helen event ---- but what if you were not?


I see you don't think much of scientists but they are not stupid, they don't assume anything unless there is evidence to support it.  Radio-isotope dating is one dating method but there are many.  In areas where there are annual dry and wet seasons you can see this reflected in tree rings and lake sediments that can be counted.

The world may only be a few thousand years old but it certainly LOOKS much, much older.  For instance, mountains rise and erode, we can see the evidence for ourselves.  It is hard to believe the Rockies were raised in just a few millennia or that the Appalachians rose *and* were eroded in the same time frame.


----------



## progressive hunter (Apr 2, 2019)

alang1216 said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> > You honestly don't seem to grasp the implications?  Say a volcanic eruption happens 6000 years ago. How exactly is anyone  (like me or yourself) going to know it didn't happen 1.2 billion years ago...................? You are going to date the materials under the assumption that the strata, rocks, etc., are millions or 100's of thousands of years old. THERE IS NO ONE AROUND TO TELL YOU WHEN THE ERUPTION HAPPENED or the STRATA WAS LED.  Your assumption inevitably is that any of the material you find is ancient unless you are informed otherwise. OKAY, GOD has informed me through HIS word that (in all due respect) that the world is most likely only thousands of years old. I believe HE is right and your assumptions are in error because no one is alive to determine when any ancient evens actually occurred; however, you are aware of the Mt. Saint Helen event ---- but what if you were not?
> ...


and every one of these dating methods are flawed since if you test the same item 3 times you get 3 different dates ranging in thousands of yrs


----------



## miketx (Apr 2, 2019)

progressive hunter said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Hell Creek Formation yields fossils from the day the dinosaurs died.
> ...


They don't. They just guess.


----------



## Hollie (Apr 2, 2019)

progressive hunter said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > LittleNipper said:
> ...



There are margins of error in all measurements. Plus or minus a few thousand years when science is dealing with timeframes of billions of years is a small margin of error.

That doesn't mean the testing is flawed. It just means the hyper-religious are desperately trying to defend a biblical 6,000 year old earth.


----------



## alang1216 (Apr 2, 2019)

progressive hunter said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > I see you don't think much of scientists but they are not stupid, they don't assume anything unless there is evidence to support it.  Radio-isotope dating is one dating method but there are many.  In areas where there are annual dry and wet seasons you can see this reflected in tree rings and lake sediments that can be counted.
> ...


Did you even read my post?  You're saying counting is flawed?   You're just fixated on isotope dating and pulling retorts out of your butt.


----------



## progressive hunter (Apr 2, 2019)

alang1216 said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> > alang1216 said:
> ...


your response doesnt change my facts,,,

all radio dating is flawed and most dates are selected from several dates given from the process


----------



## Hollie (Apr 2, 2019)

progressive hunter said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > progressive hunter said:
> ...


"Radio dating" is a meaningless term. To claim multiple methods of dating are flawed with nothing more than ".... because I say so", is comical.


----------



## alang1216 (Apr 2, 2019)

progressive hunter said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > progressive hunter said:
> ...


Please don't respond to my posts if you won't do me the curtesy of reading them first.


----------



## progressive hunter (Apr 2, 2019)

alang1216 said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> > alang1216 said:
> ...




I DID


----------



## LittleNipper (Apr 2, 2019)

alang1216 said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> > You honestly don't seem to grasp the implications?  Say a volcanic eruption happens 6000 years ago. How exactly is anyone  (like me or yourself) going to know it didn't happen 1.2 billion years ago...................? You are going to date the materials under the assumption that the strata, rocks, etc., are millions or 100's of thousands of years old. THERE IS NO ONE AROUND TO TELL YOU WHEN THE ERUPTION HAPPENED or the STRATA WAS LED.  Your assumption inevitably is that any of the material you find is ancient unless you are informed otherwise. OKAY, GOD has informed me through HIS word that (in all due respect) that the world is most likely only thousands of years old. I believe HE is right and your assumptions are in error because no one is alive to determine when any ancient evens actually occurred; however, you are aware of the Mt. Saint Helen event ---- but what if you were not?
> ...


But imagine the area underwater from the FLOOD. Those mountains were most likely lower and because of the wave action and the weight of water mounding up and the fracturing of the earth's crust, the now eroded mounds rise up and continued to look worn. Other mountain ranges formed where the crust fractured and slid upward, creating newer looking exposed rock.  In other placed canyons were formed from runoff where mud, silt, and gravel built up...


----------



## LittleNipper (Apr 2, 2019)

Hollie said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> > alang1216 said:
> ...


No, I feel people who are hoping to negate the existence of SIN and its consequences are bent on not believing in GOD the CREATOR. The very growing disintegration of our environment is proof of GOD trying to get our attention as our society becomes more insanely selfish and indifferent and in reality cannot do anything to stop it themselves....


----------



## Hollie (Apr 2, 2019)

LittleNipper said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > progressive hunter said:
> ...



There are many inventions of gods and creators. Why are you hoping to negate the existence of sin and its consequences at the hand of all those other gods?


----------



## LittleNipper (Apr 2, 2019)

Hollie said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...


The wages of sin is DEATH, but the gift of GOD is eternal life through JESUS CHRIST our LORD.

I'm not the one who thinks abortion is hunky dory and GAY/SODOMY liaisons equals GOD's marriage design, and believes GOD is some joke.


----------



## Hollie (Apr 3, 2019)

LittleNipper said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > LittleNipper said:
> ...



The wages of sin being death is an unsupported religious claim.


----------



## alang1216 (Apr 3, 2019)

LittleNipper said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > The world may only be a few thousand years old but it certainly LOOKS much, much older.  For instance, mountains rise and erode, we can see the evidence for ourselves.  It is hard to believe the Rockies were raised in just a few millennia or that the Appalachians rose *and* were eroded in the same time frame.
> ...


All this geologic activity in the last few thousand years but no evidence of fractured crust or faults where upward sliding took place.  Miraculous!  Literally.

Sorry but you're grasping at straws.  To a geologist, astronomer, anthropologist, biologist, or just about any other scientist, the Earth and the universe look immensely old.  To believe in a young Earth requires a belief in the supernatural.


----------



## progressive hunter (Apr 3, 2019)

alang1216 said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> > alang1216 said:
> ...


or maybe youre just blind since the proof is all over the planet

and evolution also includes the supernatural since it claims we came from a rock


----------



## alang1216 (Apr 3, 2019)

progressive hunter said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > All this geologic activity in the last few thousand years but no evidence of fractured crust or faults where upward sliding took place.  Miraculous!  Literally.
> ...


You claim proof but offer only vague theories of geologic processes that are not seen today and certainly violate everything we know about geology and physics.

As you've been told before, evolution does not include the origin of life so whenever you say it does you just show your ignorance of both.  Also, all the non-creationist hypotheses on the origin of life I know of use only natural forces and processes.  No supernatural component required.


----------



## Hollie (Apr 3, 2019)

progressive hunter said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > LittleNipper said:
> ...



Evolution claims we came from a rock?

Even by your standards of nonsense claims, that is plowing new furrows through ignorance.


----------



## progressive hunter (Apr 3, 2019)

alang1216 said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> > alang1216 said:
> ...


----------



## alang1216 (Apr 3, 2019)

progressive hunter said:


> origin of life is the basis for evolution


So you are doubling down on your ignorant assertion?  Evolution doesn't address how life began, it could be completely natural, it could be divine intervention, it could be alien transplants, etc., doesn't matter, the theory is still the same.  Only once life exists do evolutionary forces come into play.


----------



## progressive hunter (Apr 3, 2019)

alang1216 said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> > origin of life is the basis for evolution
> ...


seems like you are ignorant as to what evo claims as to the origin of life,,,

ever heard of the primordial soup???

of course you have cause I have posted about it many times

*Primordial soup*, or *prebiotic soup* (also sometimes referred as prebiotic broth), is the hypothetical set of conditions present on the Earth around 4.2 to 4.0 billions of years ago. It is a fundamental aspect to the heterotrophic theory of theorigin of life, first proposed by Alexander Oparin in 1924, and John Burdon Sanderson Haldane in 1929.[1][2]


----------



## alang1216 (Apr 3, 2019)

progressive hunter said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > progressive hunter said:
> ...


I see no connection between evolution and the origin of life in your post.


----------



## progressive hunter (Apr 3, 2019)

you wouldnt,,,


alang1216 said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> > alang1216 said:
> ...




you wouldnt


----------



## Hollie (Apr 3, 2019)

progressive hunter said:


> you wouldnt,,,
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> ...


How is it you know nothing of the subject you attempt to argue against?


----------



## alang1216 (Apr 3, 2019)

progressive hunter said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > I see no connection between evolution and the origin of life in your post.
> ...


Because I don't see things that don't exist?  So what is the connection (I'd appreciate something more than your word that there is one)?


----------



## progressive hunter (Apr 3, 2019)

alang1216 said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> > alang1216 said:
> ...




most people can take info and use it to expand their understanding of it,,,

sadly there are some that can only understand what their told too, and refuse to educate themselves


----------



## alang1216 (Apr 3, 2019)

progressive hunter said:


> sadly there are some that can only understand what their told too, and refuse to educate themselves


I know just how you feel.


----------



## progressive hunter (Apr 3, 2019)

alang1216 said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> > sadly there are some that can only understand what their told too, and refuse to educate themselves
> ...


not sure how,,,
at least I have a working knowledge of what I'm talking about while yours seems limited to what youve been told


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Apr 3, 2019)

progressive hunter said:


> at least I have a working knowledge of what I'm talking about


See, this is how I know you are a lying litle troll, saying things he knows are bullshit, just to get attention and to hijack threads.

Why anyone responds to you, other than to call out your obvious, idiotic trolling, is beyond me.


----------



## progressive hunter (Apr 3, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> > at least I have a working knowledge of what I'm talking about
> ...




so once again no substance followed by personal attacks with dumb insults,,,

now if you have something that proves me wrong please share them,,,


----------



## Hollie (Apr 3, 2019)

progressive hunter said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > progressive hunter said:
> ...



There are entire works of science that prove you wrong. You won’t find them at your madrassah.


----------



## SandSquid (Apr 5, 2019)

LittleNipper said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > LittleNipper said:
> ...



Sounds like how a few hundred years ago the Church was arresting people because they believed God through HIS word implied that the universe and the Sun revolve around the Earth.  Maybe check on how that turned out as more and more evidence showed that interpretation of the Bible to not be true.  

It is interesting how people pick and choose what from the OT is ok and what is not.  The rules for selling your children into sexual slavery.... not really followed to this day or approved by Christians.  "But dangit, he didn't like Gays, and I like that part so that's the one I'll really push instead".  

Maybe God used Evolution to eventually create man, and maybe humans view of time was skewed.  Or maybe God is a special needs God, and the Bible claiming he is omnipresent is a joke when he created beings with useless organs and parts.


----------



## alang1216 (Apr 5, 2019)

SandSquid said:


> Or maybe God is a special needs God, and the Bible claiming he is omnipresent is a joke when he created beings with useless organs and parts.


Lots of maybes.  Maybe what we call God is only the god of this planet/solar system/universe and every other planet/solar system/universe has it's own god.  Maybe what we call God was created by an even greater God but not given complete information so his claim to the only god is just his ignorance of the greater God.  Speculations maybe, but they can't be proven wrong and they would explain some things.


----------



## SandSquid (Apr 5, 2019)

progressive hunter said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > progressive hunter said:
> ...



Wait... Einsteins General theory of Relativity which superseded Newton's Theory is a Law?    

Are you just ignorant on the topics of what you speak?

Or are you choosing to intentionally lie to support your claim?

If you need to lie to support your claim, you are doing the opposite and actually debunking it yourself when you have to resort to using lies.

If you don't have even a basic grasp of the subject and are making your claims out of ignorance I think you should first choose to educate yourself on the subject before posting here. 

And yes, it's a scientific theory.   We aren't debating anymore that Evolution is real or it happens.  We just don't have all the answers to exactly how it works yet in every single circumstance.  Sure we have this great line of proof of how humans came from an ape ancestor.   But we may not have that same great fossil record for an eel to pinpoint exactly where and when it evolved.  We know humans evolved but maybe are unsure what function the appendix once was used for.  Thus it's a scientific theory, evolution exists and is real, but not a law since we don't have 100% of the answers for everything about how it works.  

But we've repeatedly tested and verified evolution in the real world, in accordance with the scientific method using accepted protocols of observation, measurement, and evaluation of results.

Evolution is a SCIENTIFIC Theory..   Just like the scientific theory that living things are made of cells.  Is some scientist going to come up someday and say "nope humans don't have cells, we are made up of small robots".   Of course not, but that cell theory may be adjusted to how they are created or work together as more is learned. 

There's a theory that says germs (pathogens) can lead to disease.  Does that mean in 10 years they will discover that HIV isn't from a virus but rather the temperature of your blood?   Of course not, but we still have more to learn on exactly how they work.  

We might discover more about how atoms work, but that doesn't make Atomic Theory something that is wrong.   We might discover a new tectonic plate under the earth which we thought was part of a different plate.   It doesn't mean the theory of plate tectonics isn't real, and that instead the Earth is made up of a ball of cheese. 

You do understand the basics of what a scientific theory is and how different that is from the use of the word theory in every day life don't you?

Just like evolution, while Einsteins theory on gravity is a scientific theory and not a law, what will happen if you jump off a building is known.   That humans and other animals evolved from predecessors is known.


----------



## progressive hunter (Apr 5, 2019)

SandSquid said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> > alang1216 said:
> ...




if its known then why dont we have proof???


----------



## Hollie (Apr 5, 2019)

progressive hunter said:


> SandSquid said:
> 
> 
> > progressive hunter said:
> ...



We do. Your ignorance is of your own making.


----------



## SandSquid (Apr 5, 2019)

progressive hunter said:


> SandSquid said:
> 
> 
> > progressive hunter said:
> ...



Of what?  Evolution?   We do in the fossil record.  We do with anatomical vestiges.  We do with evolution occuring in front of our eyes in some cases even. 

The question is why do people pop up youtube pages trying to say things that are debunked and not true and why do people believe them over actual facts used to support that scientific theory? 

My guess is because people are willing to lie and ignore truth if that allows them to believe something they wish could be true instead.   Simple minds are much more easily controlled when someone can tell them what they want to hear with a video, rather than actually educating themselves and learning something even if it goes against what they wish was true.


----------



## progressive hunter (Apr 5, 2019)

SandSquid said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> > SandSquid said:
> ...




we already established since the fossil record is based on the geo column its flawed since the ggeo column is flawed,,,

and the vestiges are not what are claimed which has been proven repeatedly,,,

and no facts for evo have been given,,
just speculation based on assumption,,,


----------



## SandSquid (Apr 5, 2019)

progressive hunter said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Hell Creek Formation yields fossils from the day the dinosaurs died.
> ...



Yes there is.   We've got thousands of years of human impact in written history which has dated strata in the earth and been compared to more traditional carbon dating methods and proven their correlation.  Glacier pacing based on how deep they cut and what they leave behind...  Tree rings have been able to create a direct record heading back approximately 14000 years which guess what happened when compared to a carbon dating test of the same thing?   A comparison of dates that confirmed each other multiple ways over and over. 



The question is why would you believe someone like Dr Hovind?  His work has been debunked from MULTIPLE angles by many scientific studies.  He literally tied Evolution to Communism... and the IRS (when he didn't want to pay taxes). 


Why decide not to believe the scientific evidence and instead believe the guy who says ""Not many folks realize it, but Obamacare Law HR3200, that NOBODY read before they voted for it, requires that everyone get an implanted micro-chip by March 23, 2013." and that "George W Bush is a Satanist".


No thanks.   The guy with the tin foil hat is NOT where I am going to go for a science lecture when he can't even defend his own debunked claims.

But simple minds want simple answers that they like.


----------



## progressive hunter (Apr 5, 2019)

SandSquid said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...





the simple minds thing is true since evos think we came from a rock


now whos wearing the tin foil hat


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Apr 5, 2019)

What were the CO2 reading in these fossils? How many ppm?


----------



## alang1216 (Apr 5, 2019)

progressive hunter said:


> we already established since the fossil record is based on the geo column its flawed since the ggeo column is flawed,,,QUOTE]
> Wrong.  Your understanding of the geo column is flawed but the science behind it is not.  You can choose to ignore what is in front of you but can't rationally claim that the fossil record is flawed.


----------



## SandSquid (Apr 5, 2019)

progressive hunter said:


> SandSquid said:
> 
> 
> > progressive hunter said:
> ...



This is from the guy literally opposing facts in order to buy into the person who believes "A drop of water can cover the entire planet if spread thinly enough"  

lol.   No.   Just no.


----------



## progressive hunter (Apr 5, 2019)

alang1216 said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> > we already established since the fossil record is based on the geo column its flawed since the ggeo column is flawed,,,QUOTE]
> > Wrong.  Your understanding of the geo column is flawed but the science behind it is not.  You can choose to ignore what is in front of you but can't rationally claim that the fossil record is flawed.


I just did,,,and there is no science behind it just speculation based on assumption,,,


----------



## progressive hunter (Apr 5, 2019)

SandSquid said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> > SandSquid said:
> ...




no facts have been given and I made no such claim,,,


----------



## SandSquid (Apr 5, 2019)

progressive hunter said:


> SandSquid said:
> 
> 
> > progressive hunter said:
> ...



While fun guys on youtube have CLAIMED without evidence and science that it is flawed, that is incorrect. 

Sorry.  I get it.  Simple minds want simple answers.   If someone makes a claim that's all you need, forget the evidence and reality.   That's your choice.


----------



## SandSquid (Apr 5, 2019)

progressive hunter said:


> SandSquid said:
> 
> 
> > progressive hunter said:
> ...



Just because you shove your head in the dirt and ignore reality, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.   Facts have been given.   Thousands of times on this subject.  You just CHOOSE to remain ignorant.


----------



## progressive hunter (Apr 5, 2019)

SandSquid said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> > SandSquid said:
> ...




your words not mine,,,

and what evidence???


----------



## progressive hunter (Apr 5, 2019)

SandSquid said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> > SandSquid said:
> ...




only speculation based on assumption have been given,,,no facts

and if its facts then why is it still the theory of evo???


----------



## SandSquid (Apr 5, 2019)

progressive hunter said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > progressive hunter said:
> ...



Yes you did.   Now there's hundreds of scientific documents on the fossil record, hundreds of peer reviewed studies using fact.   

And on the flip side there is you.   Saying "If I choose not to educate myself or look at those, I can say this instead".  

It's your decision to remain ignorant to keep your stance.


----------



## SandSquid (Apr 5, 2019)

progressive hunter said:


> SandSquid said:
> 
> 
> > progressive hunter said:
> ...



Yes, that is your position.  We know that.

Luckily for us academia.edu has THOUSANDS of scientific studies on fossils using facts which support the Scientific theory of Evolution.  

You can make the choice to ignore them, to not educate yourself with the facts available and instead rely on ignorance to fuel your claim.   That is your decision


----------



## progressive hunter (Apr 5, 2019)

SandSquid said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> > alang1216 said:
> ...


if you say so,,,what I read is not stated as fact but speculation


----------



## progressive hunter (Apr 5, 2019)

SandSquid said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> > SandSquid said:
> ...


if they are facts why is it still a theory???


----------



## Likkmee (Apr 5, 2019)

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/carbon-dating-gets-reset/


----------



## SandSquid (Apr 5, 2019)

progressive hunter said:


> SandSquid said:
> 
> 
> > progressive hunter said:
> ...



Exactly.  You have none.   That's the entire point.  There's thousands of studies with evidence on evolution that fit the Theory of Evolution.   Instead you want to believe the guy who has NO education in science, no doctoral dissertation for his "Degree" from Patriot College (not recognized by any University, association or gov't entity) and isn't in theology and divinity.  

The guy still hanging onto cold blooded and featherless dinosaurs.  (Called feathered dinosaurs "Baloney", but he says the Loch Ness Monster is real  lol)

Sorry, I can't ignore science to believe the guy who likes the theory UFO's are piloted by Satan.


----------



## SandSquid (Apr 5, 2019)

progressive hunter said:


> SandSquid said:
> 
> 
> > progressive hunter said:
> ...



I remember asking that question of my 5th grade elementary teacher in science class, which was where I learned the difference between a scientific theory and the other use of theory in the English language. 

facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts.


----------



## progressive hunter (Apr 5, 2019)

SandSquid said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> > SandSquid said:
> ...




so when you cant debunk it you attack the messenger,,,

sorry but he is one of many of my sources

you are severely brainwashed and refuse to hear anything other than what youve been taught by you government teachers, while I'm still looking for answers and willing to listen to other facts  when they are given,,,and the geo column isnt one of them since its based on assumption thats easily proven wrong


----------



## progressive hunter (Apr 5, 2019)

SandSquid said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> > SandSquid said:
> ...


and when did I say UFOs are satan???


----------



## hunarcy (Apr 5, 2019)

Hollie said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> > Astrostar said:
> ...



The Bible people think that interpretations are allowable because they can't KNOW the mind of God...and that you misinterpret lots of stuff so you're not to be taken seriously with your fringe "young Earth creationist" quotes.


----------



## SandSquid (Apr 5, 2019)

Likkmee said:


> Carbon Dating Gets a Reset



And thus why it's a THEORY.   Carbon dating is being adjusted about 10% older.   We aren't talking about 5 billion years ago being 4000 years ago all of a sudden.  We aren't disproving science but getting even more exacting using other proven data sources to dial that in.    Impressive that we are finding sediment levels, tree rings, coral growth and all are pointing to this long time frame along with Carbon 14 dating.    

But you have to throw all that evidence away to believe a literal biblical sense of the age of the planet.  Much like years ago you had to throw all the evidence of astronomy away to believe the literal biblical belief the earth went around the sun.   And yes, we have dialed in and adjusted the measurements of orbits and distance from the sun over time.   But it hasn't debunked heliocentric theory


----------



## hunarcy (Apr 5, 2019)

mudwhistle said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > mudwhistle said:
> ...



He's not playing.


----------



## progressive hunter (Apr 5, 2019)

SandSquid said:


> Likkmee said:
> 
> 
> > Carbon Dating Gets a Reset
> ...


its you thats stuck on the bible not me,,,

and just wait cause they change the dating several times until now and will most likely change it again later


----------



## SandSquid (Apr 5, 2019)

progressive hunter said:


> SandSquid said:
> 
> 
> > progressive hunter said:
> ...



Not you, but the source you choose.   Dr Hovind.   It's your choice to believe him and his crazy beliefs.   I'll take actual science from scientists.


----------



## progressive hunter (Apr 5, 2019)

SandSquid said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> > SandSquid said:
> ...




first you have to know what a scientist is,,,

I look at the message not the messenger


----------



## SandSquid (Apr 5, 2019)

progressive hunter said:


> SandSquid said:
> 
> 
> > Likkmee said:
> ...



Exactly.  Just like Earths orbit has been changed multiple times as we've gotten better and better at it.    Doesn't mean that Heliocentric theory (the earth revolves around the sun) is debunked in any way.   

What we have now is yet another completely different time measurement proving within 10% of Carbon 14, and putting it within 10% of coral growth, tree ring, and glacial movement records.


The ONLY outlier is the young earth creationism, which this new method once again debunks completely.


----------



## progressive hunter (Apr 5, 2019)

SandSquid said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> > SandSquid said:
> ...




tree ring dating is more  flawed than the geo column


----------



## alang1216 (Apr 5, 2019)

progressive hunter said:


> I'm still looking for answers and willing to listen to other facts  when they are given,,,and the geo column isnt one of them since its based on assumption thats easily proven wrong


The assumption is "what you see is what you get".  The science of geology is based on many intersecting lines of evidence.  Radio-isotope dating is only one of them and is only a very recent addition to geology.  Geology was firmly established before anyone ever heard of radio-isotope dating so if that is NOT the only "assumption thats easily proven wrong", I'm curious about the others.  Please explain.


----------



## SandSquid (Apr 5, 2019)

progressive hunter said:


> SandSquid said:
> 
> 
> > progressive hunter said:
> ...



Says you.  Science disagrees.   Unfortunately the only thing science agrees on is debunking the "young earth Conspiracy".

So why do you oppose fact and science and instead rely on the guy who believes in Nessie the loch ness monster, but not the scientific facts proven that dino's were warm blooded and many had feathers?


----------



## alang1216 (Apr 5, 2019)

progressive hunter said:


> tree ring dating is more  flawed than the geo column


What's the issue with tree ring dating?


----------



## progressive hunter (Apr 5, 2019)

SandSquid said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> > SandSquid said:
> ...




now whos denying science,,,not me


----------



## progressive hunter (Apr 5, 2019)

alang1216 said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> > tree ring dating is more  flawed than the geo column
> ...


that depending on conditions several rings can be produced each yr,,,

it represents moisture not years and a drought in the middle of a season can add a ring,,region can be a big factor


----------



## SandSquid (Apr 5, 2019)

progressive hunter said:


> SandSquid said:
> 
> 
> > progressive hunter said:
> ...



Yes.  I COMPLETELY agree.   So lets see your "scientist".   That would be Dr Hovind who you have been quoting and sourcing.  

A mail order doctorate from Patriot Bible College ($2000 a doctorate) in Biblical ministry and Theology.  

A degree which has no state recognition, no federal recognition, no professional associations willing to accept them.

With no proof of even a doctoral dissertation.   Universities make doctoal dissertations readily available online or in libraries.   His is unknown to exist.  

His supposed dissertation was reviewed by one person (president of Patriot U), whereas other doctors in actual accredited universities need 4-5 doctoral committee members.  

His Doctorate in "biblical ministry" made his dissertation available for sale in 2013 online and is called _What on Earth is about to Happen... for Heaven's Sake?: A Dissertation on End Times According to the Bible _which predicts the second coming in 2018 (since amended to 2028).

He has ZERO evidence of any studies in any earth or life sciences.

He has ZERO time found in any accredited lab working on any studies in any life or earth sciences.

He has ZERO peer reviewed papers found to be in circulation or even submitted for a peer review. 



So yeah, that's YOUR scientist.  The guy who calls himself "Dr Dino" and knows nothing about science or Dinosaurs.


----------



## progressive hunter (Apr 5, 2019)

SandSquid said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> > SandSquid said:
> ...




when you cant refute the message attack the messenger

as I said he is but one of my many resources


----------



## SandSquid (Apr 5, 2019)

progressive hunter said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > progressive hunter said:
> ...




And what about the dozens of studies on academia.edu that are a click away that specifically take into periods of higher moisture and drought and compensate for those?  (a quick search bring up scientists like Longman, Fritz, and Dean in different papers reaching similar conclusions supporting tree ring data with scientific fact).

What is your response to those?  What studies have debunked their works?  

Or are you just throwing darts at a board blindly and hoping they stick because they sound good rather than use actual scientific facts to support your argument... AGAIN.


----------



## SandSquid (Apr 5, 2019)

progressive hunter said:


> SandSquid said:
> 
> 
> > progressive hunter said:
> ...



So the guy who isn't a scientist is your rebuttal to scientific fact.   

Why do you deny science for the guy who believes Neanderthals weren't a different species, but just really old humans that had lived multiple hundreds of years (even though that isn't supported by neanderthal fossil records)?


----------



## SandSquid (Apr 5, 2019)

progressive hunter said:


> SandSquid said:
> 
> 
> > progressive hunter said:
> ...



The message is refuted.  It's refuted by scientific facts.    The guy who isn't a scientist being the one you have to rely on to try and debunk science is your problem not mine lol


----------



## progressive hunter (Apr 5, 2019)

SandSquid said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> > alang1216 said:
> ...


I would want to see each specific test to evaluate their findings,,,to make a blanket statement would be dishonest


----------



## progressive hunter (Apr 5, 2019)

SandSquid said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> > SandSquid said:
> ...




NO

and what proof exist they were an independent species???
NONE exists

neanderthals were a region specific group that had different characteristics,,,and some of  those exist today in the aborigines in australia


----------



## SandSquid (Apr 5, 2019)

progressive hunter said:


> SandSquid said:
> 
> 
> > progressive hunter said:
> ...



So yes.  If 1000 scientists come up to me with Newtons theories and says if you jump off this tower, you will fall and not survive.  And they bring studies where they've thrown things off the tower and studied the impact, and studies into the scientific theory of gravity, and compare each others studies and it keeps coming back I won't survive the 1000 foot fall....

and your crazy guy comes up and in between saying Obama is the anti-christ, tells me that in his unscientific opinion, I will float and all will be ok, and has zero studies to support his claim...


you can bet your ass I will believe the scientist telling me a fact over the other guy not using science to try and explain his beliefs on science.  

The messenger does matter, especially when he's bringing facts and has knowledge on the topic on which he is speaking.


----------



## SandSquid (Apr 5, 2019)

progressive hunter said:


> SandSquid said:
> 
> 
> > progressive hunter said:
> ...



Besides you mean of course the scientific facts.  The DNA evidence, the anatomical differences, the behavioral differences.


For example Ian Tattersall wrote a very good paper based on his fact based studies on the differences between the species.   What scientific report are you alluding to?


Or again, are you just digging you head in the dirt, ignoring scientific facts, making up your own and hoping they stick?


----------



## progressive hunter (Apr 5, 2019)

SandSquid said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> > SandSquid said:
> ...




its the law of gravity,,,and you shouldnt need a scientist to tell you that

more proof you only believe what youre told and cant think for yourself


----------



## SandSquid (Apr 5, 2019)

progressive hunter said:


> SandSquid said:
> 
> 
> > progressive hunter said:
> ...



So then why do you make a blanket statement against them when you say you are ignorant about them?  

Takes you a quick look through google, can use science direct.   Google scholar.   University online or actual libraries.    The info is out there.   

Why do you choose NOT to educate yourself on the subject, give a blanket statement that multiple studies and scientific facts debunk and instead repeat a youtube personality who isn't in any way studying or informed on science?


----------



## progressive hunter (Apr 5, 2019)

SandSquid said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> > SandSquid said:
> ...


I've tried to be specific but you spend so much time attacking and insulting this conversation is all over the place


----------



## SandSquid (Apr 5, 2019)

progressive hunter said:


> SandSquid said:
> 
> 
> > progressive hunter said:
> ...



Actually the law of universal gravitation has been superceded by Einsteins theory of general relativity.  There is no current law of gravity.  It is still taught because it gives a great approximation of the effects of gravity in most applications but it is no longer a law.  


But you are basing it on a scientific theory, not a law.   No more, no less than the scientific theory of evolution.

So are you intentionally trying to lie here by pretending Newton's law has still held up and wasn't superseded nearly 100 years ago?  

Or are you ignorant on the subject on which you speak?  

Just curious because you do that a lot.   Why do you feel the need to attempt to lie to support your claim?


----------



## progressive hunter (Apr 5, 2019)

SandSquid said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> > SandSquid said:
> ...


are you saying that in some cases if you jump off a 10 story building you could go up instead of down???


----------



## SandSquid (Apr 5, 2019)

progressive hunter said:


> SandSquid said:
> 
> 
> > progressive hunter said:
> ...



You literally threw out that youtube video of a non-scientist who likes the belief UFO's are being flown by satan over the hundreds of scientific studies using facts to support the scientific theory. 

Then yes I attack and insult you for lying or intentionally trying to hide actual facts.   I will continue to do that because I don't think lying and intentionally hiding scientific fact is a good way to make your point.   When a scientific fact debunks your belief, that should end your belief.  Instead you attempt to hide the fact to hold onto your belief.


----------



## SandSquid (Apr 5, 2019)

progressive hunter said:


> SandSquid said:
> 
> 
> > progressive hunter said:
> ...



Nope the scientific theory which has been proven with facts over and over says you will go down.   It is a theory because there are some circumstances which aren't fully explained, even though we know they work. 

Just like the scientific theory of evolution has been proven with facts over and over.

If you want, you can stick your head in the ground when the scientists show the evidence and believe the crackpots that say you will fly up, or that evolution isn't real.   You can say "it's only a theory"  I'll take the scientific facts and the scientific theories they support. 

I'll stick with science and proven facts.


----------



## progressive hunter (Apr 5, 2019)

SandSquid said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> > SandSquid said:
> ...


so you have proof all life came from a rock???

I would love to see it


----------



## progressive hunter (Apr 5, 2019)

SandSquid said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> > SandSquid said:
> ...




I dont think you know what a scientist is or what science is,,,


----------



## SandSquid (Apr 5, 2019)

SandSquid said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> > SandSquid said:
> ...





progressive hunter said:


> SandSquid said:
> 
> 
> > progressive hunter said:
> ...



Like how weak and bad does your conspiracy have to be that the guy with that education and those beliefs is your "go to" person for backing up your claims?  

I mean just how worthless is your belief when the best you have is a non-scientist, debunked by basic facts over and over and you are so far down the well looking for ANYONE to support your claim you say "well at least he' popular" and throw him in?

I mean I'm sure there are some CRAZY guys that believe in the cell theory and would say humans are made up of cells.   But I'd never use them when we have THOUSANDS of actual scientists to make the point. 

But instead you are forced to go to the crackpot for your belief right away.   He pops up to the top of the most viable supporters?    

You said more about your conspiracy and how apart from scientific fact it is than anyone else ever could with that.


----------



## progressive hunter (Apr 5, 2019)

SandSquid said:


> SandSquid said:
> 
> 
> > progressive hunter said:
> ...


when did I do that???


----------



## SandSquid (Apr 5, 2019)

progressive hunter said:


> SandSquid said:
> 
> 
> > progressive hunter said:
> ...



You literally tried using "Dr Dino" here as your debunking to science.   The guy with a fake theology degree..

This is amazing.  That of anyone YOU are the one questioning scientists when you run to the obvious fakes.


So what about those scientists papers and scientific facts they've collected are you actually debunking

Or are you just giving some mushy mouth non-answer devoid of any facts or reality but hey "it was a snappy sounding comeback".

Come on kid.  It's not 3rd grade recess.   debunking scientific fact with namecalling doesn't work.


----------



## SandSquid (Apr 5, 2019)

progressive hunter said:


> SandSquid said:
> 
> 
> > SandSquid said:
> ...



When you chose to use Kent Hovind as your evidence for a rebuttal in posts #31 and #50 in a thread on doubts about evolution as your PRIMARY AND FIRST source used... then tried defending him.  

Seriously, the crackpot non-scientists was your opening source.   

Do you not even realize you do this?


----------



## progressive hunter (Apr 5, 2019)

SandSquid said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> > SandSquid said:
> ...




you need to let go of the hate


----------



## progressive hunter (Apr 5, 2019)

SandSquid said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> > SandSquid said:
> ...


like I said he is one of many resources,,,

and it doesnt take a college education to be a scientist or conduct science


----------



## SandSquid (Apr 5, 2019)

progressive hunter said:


> SandSquid said:
> 
> 
> > progressive hunter said:
> ...



Not a hate at all.  If you want to name call when asked to refute scientific facts and that's all you have so be it.  

Done with you.  Name calling doesn't refute science.  It's what you do when you have no evidence to back up your claim.


----------



## progressive hunter (Apr 5, 2019)

SandSquid said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> > SandSquid said:
> ...




your the only one name calling and using insults and personal attacks


----------



## alang1216 (Apr 5, 2019)

progressive hunter said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > progressive hunter said:
> ...


So far as I know, all these are real issues.  Of course they have all been discovered up by the scientists that use tree ring dating and there are solutions for each that don't invalidate their use.  You can throw out the baby with the bath water but that is not how science works.


----------



## Old Rocks (Apr 5, 2019)

*Abstract*
The most immediate effects of the terminal-Cretaceous Chicxulub impact, essential to understanding the global-scale environmental and biotic collapses that mark the Cretaceous–Paleogene extinction, are poorly resolved despite extensive previous work. Here, we help to resolve this by describing a rapidly emplaced, high-energy onshore surge deposit from the terrestrial Hell Creek Formation in Montana. Associated ejecta and a cap of iridium-rich impactite reveal that its emplacement coincided with the Chicxulub event. Acipenseriform fish, densely packed in the deposit, contain ejecta spherules in their gills and were buried by an inland-directed surge that inundated a deeply incised river channel before accretion of the fine-grained impactite. Although this deposit displays all of the physical characteristics of a tsunami runup, the timing (<1 hour postimpact) is instead consistent with the arrival of strong seismic waves from the magnitude Mw ∼10 to 11 earthquake generated by the Chicxulub impact, identifying a seismically coupled seiche inundation as the likely cause. Our findings present high-resolution chronology of the immediate aftereffects of the Chicxulub impact event in the Western Interior, and report an impact-triggered onshore mix of marine and terrestrial sedimentation—potentially a significant advancement for eventually resolving both the complex dynamics of debris ejection and the full nature and extent of biotic disruptions that took place in the first moments postimpact.
A seismically induced onshore surge deposit at the KPg boundary, North Dakota

*From the PNAS.*


----------



## Old Rocks (Apr 5, 2019)

*Dino drama*
But the drama of a mass fish grave is minimal compared with the reaction to some of the other fossils DePalma says that he has found at Tanis, as described in the _New Yorker_ profile: a mammal burrow, dinosaur feathers, a ceratopsian hip bone with a skin impression (the ceratopsian fossil is briefly mentioned, though not officially described or pictured in detail, in the supplemental material accompanying the _PNAS_ paper).

A general dearth of fossils dating to just before the impact has led some scientists to speculate that perhaps the animals were already vanishing before the asteroid slammed into Earth. So the discovery of dinosaur fossils at Tanis, perhaps representing animals that drowned and were buried in sediment, could help prove the impact was the true culprit after all.

New fossils may capture the minutes after the dinosaur-killing asteroid impact

*Eagerly waiting for further papers.*


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Apr 5, 2019)

CrusaderFrank said:


> What were the CO2 reading in these fossils? How many ppm?


Why dont you look it up yourself,instead of begging strangers on the internet to spoonfeed it to you? Thanks.


----------



## SandSquid (Apr 5, 2019)

progressive hunter said:


> SandSquid said:
> 
> 
> > progressive hunter said:
> ...



Not really.   That seems to be your schtick.   When in doubt to lie and muddy the waters.   It's simple.  You believe the non-scientist who tries to build credence with a "Dr Dino" nickname, but then has proven himself to make assertations that completely conflict with facts.   

Then you try and pretend that there is no difference between a scientific theory and a common theory and intentionally correlate the two when they are different.

Then when called out to rebut actual facts which form that scientific theory of which there are hundreds of peer reviewed papers and studies, you get quiet and name call and try to muddy the waters of why you can't respond.

I am not sure if you are trolling, or if you really truly believe what you say.  If it's the first, bravo, good job.   If it's the second.   I'm sorry you believe that you are actually defending your position when you are just wallowing and sinking.


----------



## progressive hunter (Apr 5, 2019)

SandSquid said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> > SandSquid said:
> ...




again you cant refute the message so you attack the messenger,,,

now whos the troll

as for what I believe,,well there is nothing to believe as of yet from both sides,,,both religions are all based  on faith,,,its just one of them that claim fact without proof


----------



## Votto (Apr 5, 2019)

mudwhistle said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Hell Creek Formation yields fossils from the day the dinosaurs died.
> ...



Nope, they failed to turn to socialism

Socialism would have saved them

Global warming implicated in dinosaur extinction | Howard Lee

All the socialists needed to do was tax away the flatulent carbon emissions and they would have never gone extinct.


----------



## Hollie (Apr 5, 2019)

progressive hunter said:


> SandSquid said:
> 
> 
> > progressive hunter said:
> ...



That's the same tired slogan you cut and paste from thread to thread.


----------



## SandSquid (Apr 6, 2019)

progressive hunter said:


> SandSquid said:
> 
> 
> > progressive hunter said:
> ...



Nope I refuted the message too.   His message has no facts.  No studies.  And I've given you the sources for hundreds of studies and scientific facts that refute it.  His message is Dino's were all cold blooded.   Facts say otherwise.   His message was no Dino's had feathers.   Not factually true.  His message was there was no salt in any ocean until 3000 years ago.   Disputed with evidence of salt deposits .  His message was the 2nd coming would happen in 2018.   I disagree that has occurred.  


I've given you the resource depositories with hundreds of fact based studies disputing his claims and many others.   That's disputing the message no matter how you want to try and use some tired mushy mouth excuse to defend him.

You choosing to bury your head in the sand and repeat an irrelevant statement has no bearing on that


----------



## SandSquid (Apr 6, 2019)

progressive hunter said:


> SandSquid said:
> 
> 
> > progressive hunter said:
> ...



I'm just wondering if you can be real is all.

On one side you have scientific fact.

On the other you have the guy who likes the idea Satan flies UFOs and comes up with ideas disproven by science over and over.

Why do you choose the latter?

I'm sorry it offends you but if you act like a fucking moron, you shouldn't be surprised that you get called one a lot.    If you don't like that, maybe make smarter decisions.  Make the choice to stop trying to defend the indefensible with your belief that if you remain ignorant that allows you to keep believing it.

I guess that's where you and I will disagree.  Yeah as a kid for me it was fun believing in santa and the tooth fairy and Easter bunny.   As I grew up and questioned their existence, it sucked learning the evidence didn't support them being real.  This is where you and I diverge.  You don't want to face something you don't like so you come up with all these excuses to avoid accepting and looking at evidence intentionally choosing the path of ignorance.    I choose to go with the facts even if I'd rather live in the fantasy.

And I think you feel you are actually defending your position pulling up fake scientists, trying to distract to other topics than refute fact, intentionally choosing to not educate yourself.  But the reality is you are not.

That's your choice.  So if you get upset that everyone keeps calling you out on being intentionally ignorant, you have NO ONE to blame but yourself.  I'm sorry you don't like that, but that's not something I can change about you.   You've proven over and over here you have NO desire to take the first baby steps to educating yourself.   I get that.  You want the Easter Bunny to live forever.   Ok


----------



## SandSquid (Apr 6, 2019)

progressive hunter said:


> SandSquid said:
> 
> 
> > progressive hunter said:
> ...



You see. This is you distracting.  The fact still remains you are supporting "Dr Dino" who has a mail order degree farm unaccredited degree without a doctoral thesis in theology, and NO scientific theory and makes claims that I've shown you that have been debunked by reality many times over.

WHEN ASKED FOR PROOF, THIS WAS YOUR PRIMARY SOURCE...  TWICE.

You trying to distract from that doesn't change that reality.  I'm sorry you find it offensive being called out that you choose to be ignorant.  Maybe next time make a choice NOT to be ignorant and see how that works for you.


----------



## progressive hunter (Apr 6, 2019)

SandSquid said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> > SandSquid said:
> ...


my primary source is reality and the lack of proof from the evos ,,,and since I mostly get attacked I am sure I'm onto sonmething


----------



## SandSquid (Apr 6, 2019)

progressive hunter said:


> SandSquid said:
> 
> 
> > progressive hunter said:
> ...



that is interesting that you say that. In reality one can go back and look at what you posted where your primary source is the fake doctor.

Is lying just second nature to you? When in doubt just lie?

Your posts are right there. I even called them out by number.   now you're trying to tell me that they don't exist and you have some other mysterious primary source you forgot about? 

Do you actually think this lying is supporting your argument?

And you've been given proof from the scientific community. I gave you two entire repositories that included hundreds of research papers and scientific fact.  

Yep for some reason you're completely quiet and choosing to ignore actual facts.

again this is you distracting trying to pretend you didn't use him as your primary source. Trying to pretend there are no facts when the reality is you just don't want to look at them.

It's not working.


----------



## progressive hunter (Apr 6, 2019)

SandSquid said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> > SandSquid said:
> ...


youre the one thats lying,,,
you call him a fake doctor,,,he has the paperwork to back it up even if you disagree with it


if youre willing to lie on such an obvious thing you would lie on just about everything

and like I said you dont have to have a college degree to be a scientist or conduct science


----------



## SandSquid (Apr 6, 2019)

progressive hunter said:


> SandSquid said:
> 
> 
> > progressive hunter said:
> ...



I mean that's the only linked sources on the subject which you've used. And you've used them multiple times.

Is it some sort of psychosis that you are struggling with?   Where you write things and don't remember doing it or in your mind wrote something completely different?


----------



## SandSquid (Apr 6, 2019)

progressive hunter said:


> SandSquid said:
> 
> 
> > progressive hunter said:
> ...



Really. He has a dissertation?   Please I'd love you to back that up?   

I mean I could just write doctor in front of my name but that doesn't make me a doctor. It doesn't mean I've attended an accredited school. It doesn't mean that I've written a dissertation.


----------



## progressive hunter (Apr 6, 2019)

SandSquid said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> > SandSquid said:
> ...


noted,,


----------



## progressive hunter (Apr 6, 2019)

SandSquid said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> > SandSquid said:
> ...


when you can refute the claims without attacking the messenger get back to me,,,

that alone tells me youre wrong and afraid your religion will get called out for what it is


----------



## SandSquid (Apr 6, 2019)

SandSquid said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> > SandSquid said:
> ...





progressive hunter said:


> SandSquid said:
> 
> 
> > progressive hunter said:
> ...




And that's all I needed to see. Rather than the people who are educated on the subject who research the subject.  Who are experts on the subject you want those who haven't.  

Thank you for that.

I'm sure when you need an emergency appendectomy you say hey we shouldn't go to the doctors about this but let's instead go find a car mechanic.  Because they are the ones I'll use since they say I can go another 20000 miles before I need to fix it.


----------



## progressive hunter (Apr 6, 2019)

SandSquid said:


> SandSquid said:
> 
> 
> > progressive hunter said:
> ...


----------



## SandSquid (Apr 6, 2019)

progressive hunter said:


> SandSquid said:
> 
> 
> > progressive hunter said:
> ...



Already have refuted them. And yes the source is important of those claims.

I'm not attacking him I'm just saying that he has absolutely no education on the subject of Evolution and has been a proven liar on that subject.

To me that makes him somebody which I wouldn't listen to on that subject.

If I'm going to make an investment and the person offering me the investment has no experience in financial markets and has already been arrested for Ponzi schemes, yes the person bringing that info matters.   

and you keep pretending that I haven't brought up the subject itself where I have given you hundreds of reports that you continue to ignore because you would rather not educate yourself on them or discuss the scientific fact.


----------



## progressive hunter (Apr 6, 2019)

SandSquid said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> > SandSquid said:
> ...




no you havent,,,


----------



## SandSquid (Apr 6, 2019)

progressive hunter said:


> SandSquid said:
> 
> 
> > SandSquid said:
> ...



Remember this person you are using as your only source and trying to say is a doctor, had to tell his fans who were writing him when he was in prison for fraud to not call him doctor because he was unable to prove that he was actually a doctor to the warden and thus mail titling him incorrectly as "Dr" was returned.


----------



## SandSquid (Apr 6, 2019)

progressive hunter said:


> SandSquid said:
> 
> 
> > progressive hunter said:
> ...



It really must be a psychosis with you. Because I have given you two... Not one but two separate repositories of scientific papers and studies on evolution.  Each holding hundreds of articles.   And now you are pretending they don't exist when they are still right there a few pages back?

it really is you just saying if you shove your head in the dirt and pretend you don't see it it doesn't exist.

Thank you for proving that to me


----------



## progressive hunter (Apr 6, 2019)

SandSquid said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> > SandSquid said:
> ...




I never acted like they didnt exist,,,I just know they are  speculation based on assumptions that are easily proven flawed if not outright  wrong


----------



## SandSquid (Apr 6, 2019)

progressive hunter said:


> SandSquid said:
> 
> 
> > progressive hunter said:
> ...



This is literally the 3rd and 4th posts that are still up that you are claiming "don't exist".


You are actually trying to deny that scientific research has not been done about evolution now.


You do realize how you sound?  Or do you think you are making any sort of a logical argument here.


----------



## progressive hunter (Apr 6, 2019)

SandSquid said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> > SandSquid said:
> ...


thursday,,,


----------



## SandSquid (Apr 6, 2019)

progressive hunter said:


> SandSquid said:
> 
> 
> > progressive hunter said:
> ...



I've listed multiple ones even by the author's name.

Well it's fun that you say it's wrong there's this thing called facts which you seem completely oblivious to.  Which is what you are not using to defend your position.  Instead relying on your belief that what you think is reality is all that matters.  

psy·cho·sis
/sīˈkōsəs/

_noun_

a severe mental disorder in which thought and emotions are so impaired that contact is lost with external reality.
So do you have facts? Or just your belief that your emotional responses are enough to debunk reality?


----------



## progressive hunter (Apr 6, 2019)

SandSquid said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> > SandSquid said:
> ...


like I said,,,

when you cant refute the message attack the messenger,,,


----------



## SandSquid (Apr 6, 2019)

progressive hunter said:


> SandSquid said:
> 
> 
> > progressive hunter said:
> ...






progressive hunter said:


> SandSquid said:
> 
> 
> > progressive hunter said:
> ...



And I'm sorry but making a YouTube video is not "conducting science"

making the claim that dinosaurs are called blooded and never had feathers is not "conducting science"

Just making the claim that one drop of water spread out thinly could cover the entire planet is not "conducting science". 

So we both agree that unlike those who actually conducted science, by researching data and writing on that research like what I've given you, the fake Dr Dino does not even meet your own definition of a scientist.


----------



## SandSquid (Apr 6, 2019)

progressive hunter said:


> SandSquid said:
> 
> 
> > progressive hunter said:
> ...



And like I said it's already been refuted. You're just refusing to educate yourself on the data I have provided.   

And yes I will bring it up when you are trying to erase from reality things that were actually said and posted and can be veriified.  

I'm sorry that offends you that I keep asking for fact in reality and you keep trying to evade that.


----------



## progressive hunter (Apr 6, 2019)

SandSquid said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> > SandSquid said:
> ...




you are certainly  dedicated to youre religion and I respect that


----------



## progressive hunter (Apr 6, 2019)

SandSquid said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> > SandSquid said:
> ...


no it hasnt


----------



## SandSquid (Apr 6, 2019)

progressive hunter said:


> SandSquid said:
> 
> 
> > progressive hunter said:
> ...



That's awesome that you say that. but what you are refusing to do is provide any proof or data to support your argument.  An instead saying that you're emotional belief on this is more important than scientific fact which you have done nothing to debunk.

If you feel that the messenger is being attacked because they're lying, maybe stop lying and use fact based information instead..

Yes I am going to attack your only source of data which is a proven liar uneducateduon the subject making further lies which try to deubunk evidence with his YouTube video and 0 STUDIES AND ACTUAL RESEARCH.


----------



## SandSquid (Apr 6, 2019)

progressive hunter said:


> SandSquid said:
> 
> 
> > progressive hunter said:
> ...



Like I've given you already twice.  Two repositories of scientific data and research proving evolution in hundreds of different studies.   

Now you're trying to again say they don't exist.   Or that their scientific data is wrong because of your psychosis where your feelings and beliefs are what you see instead of factual reality.

Or do you have actual facts?


----------



## progressive hunter (Apr 6, 2019)

SandSquid said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> > SandSquid said:
> ...




how many times do I have to say they do exist,,,its just that i know what they are based on and choose to call them what they are,,,
OPINIONS


----------



## SandSquid (Apr 6, 2019)

That's one of the big problems with people that suffer from these kind of psychosis...

They done realize it.  

Thousands of scientists with hard data and hundreds of thousands of man hours studying the subject.

And the person instead goes for the guy with zero studies who also likes the belief UFO's are spacecraft that Satan himself is flying around.

That is what you are defending.  No matter how many times you try to distract and change the subject and not answer the question of your data to debunk theirs it comes back to you choosing the man convicted of fraud trying to tell you Obama was the Antichrist and microchipped every living American.


----------



## SandSquid (Apr 6, 2019)

progressive hunter said:


> SandSquid said:
> 
> 
> > progressive hunter said:
> ...



No. I've given you multiple ones where they actually use facts. Hard data.

That's reality. What you're giving me is an opinion.  That reality doesn't exist.   That's a psychosis.

if I tell you that if you jump off this building you're going to fall to your death that's still a fact. it doesn't matter if you think it's an opinion or not. In the real world that is a fact. Just like the data I have given you the opportunity to look at.   

Now depending on how strong your psychosis is you may think that reality doesn't exist for you.  That you can jump off the building and your opinion of what will happen is more important than the facts.


----------



## SandSquid (Apr 6, 2019)

SandSquid said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> > SandSquid said:
> ...


What your continuing to tell me is that your opinion on the real world is what is real to you no matter what the real world facts are. 

You are literally defining yourself as suffering from a psychosis.  You have zero data to disprove reality and choose instead choose to claim to your false beliefs that you are unable to prove with facts in the real world.

You are seeing posts that don't exist and not seeing ones that do.

Post after post your proving that you are not in touch with reality here.


----------



## progressive hunter (Apr 6, 2019)

SandSquid said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> > SandSquid said:
> ...




WHAT YOU CALL FACTS ARE JUST OPINIONS BASED ON FLAWED DATA,,,

I know this because there is no proof to back them up just flawed assumptions,,,


and because of this I am still on the fence waiting for proof one way or the other


----------



## progressive hunter (Apr 6, 2019)

SandSquid said:


> SandSquid said:
> 
> 
> > progressive hunter said:
> ...




my opinion is just that,,, opinion,,,


----------



## SandSquid (Apr 6, 2019)

and the sad part is I'm here trying to help you. Begging you to open your eyes. Begging you to look at reality. To look at the data.

And you just keep doubling down that you would rather stick to your emotional belief separate from reality with all these excuses and distractions of why you don't want to see reality


----------



## progressive hunter (Apr 6, 2019)

SandSquid said:


> and the sad part is I'm here trying to help you. Begging you to open your eyes. Begging you to look at reality. To look at the data.
> 
> And you just keep doubling down that you would rather stick to your emotional belief separate from reality with all these excuses and distractions of why you don't want to see reality


I've opened my eyes,,,and what I've found is lacking


----------



## SandSquid (Apr 6, 2019)

progressive hunter said:


> SandSquid said:
> 
> 
> > progressive hunter said:
> ...



No. Because those scientific studies use hard facts.

This is your excuse of choosing to remain separate from reality..

This is your way of trying to defend your psychosis.

By saying reality isn't reality but fake and flawed.


I mean you're still trying to defend yourself when literally the first source you pulled out in a second source you pulled out is the guy who believes Obama's The Antichrist and the devil is flying UFOs.   

You can't try and say that you're giving this equal thought when you ignore the reality and then immediately choose to side with The guy who suspends reality


----------



## progressive hunter (Apr 6, 2019)

SandSquid said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> > SandSquid said:
> ...




if they are hard facts please show me the common ancestor,,,

there has to be a picture somewhere

and this is just one of hundreds of crazy claims of evo


----------



## SandSquid (Apr 6, 2019)

progressive hunter said:


> SandSquid said:
> 
> 
> > and the sad part is I'm here trying to help you. Begging you to open your eyes. Begging you to look at reality. To look at the data.
> ...


I get it. Science isn't there for you. The convicted fraud who believes we're all microchipped is.

That's who you choose to believe over scientific facts.  The guy who believes in the loch Ness monster but not the reality of dinosaurs.   

As much as you try to talk around and distract, that's what you picked over scientific fact


----------



## SandSquid (Apr 6, 2019)

progressive hunter said:


> SandSquid said:
> 
> 
> > progressive hunter said:
> ...



Already have. There is a handful of papers on that included in the group which I gave you.

Now what about them are you claiming is incorrect?


----------



## SandSquid (Apr 6, 2019)

You see I gave you hundreds upon hundreds of studies.

You can no longer claim your ignorance is an excuse.   Unless you want to make it clear that you choose to remain ignorant when you have the information in front of you.  

See how that works. You can either do the work and educate yourself. Then maybe you would actually be able to come up with some factual based evidence for your claims...

or you can continue to tell me that you are going to choose to remain ignorant on the subject and ignore scientific facts to instead stick with your psychosis that your beliefs are instead reality


----------



## progressive hunter (Apr 6, 2019)

SandSquid said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> > SandSquid said:
> ...




again with the personal attacks,,,this is why I know youre a fraud dedicated to his religion of evolution,,,,


----------



## progressive hunter (Apr 6, 2019)

SandSquid said:


> You see I gave you hundreds upon hundreds of studies.
> 
> You can no longer claim your ignorance is an excuse.   Unless you want to make it clear that you choose to remain ignorant when you have the information in front of you.
> 
> ...


studies arent proof


WHERES THE PROOF???


----------



## SandSquid (Apr 6, 2019)

SandSquid said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> > SandSquid said:
> ...



You see when I gave you those two lists of studies on evolution it took away your ability to just make a blank and statement that you don't believe it.   Because now you have the information in front of you.

so now your choices to either educate yourself on the topic of which you're speaking and point out the actual inaccuracies you believe exist in those studies....

Or to say that you are willingly choosing not to educate yourself on them and make your claims out of a position of intentional ignorance.


----------



## SandSquid (Apr 6, 2019)

progressive hunter said:


> SandSquid said:
> 
> 
> > You see I gave you hundreds upon hundreds of studies.
> ...



Literally the data in the studies that was collected.

now are you saying that that data is flawed? Are you saying that the methodology to collect that data was flawed? Which parts and which areas?

Or are you saying you are willfully remaining ignorant and choosing not to educate yourself on the data I have provided you to look over?

are you saying you would rather stick your head in the dirt and not actually look at that data and come up with a fact based response to it?


----------



## SandSquid (Apr 6, 2019)

progressive hunter said:


> SandSquid said:
> 
> 
> > You see I gave you hundreds upon hundreds of studies.
> ...



Literally used in those research papers I gave you.

You do realize the majority of a research paper is collecting and analysing data?


so what you were telling me is as long as you don't look at the research papers and see the data then you can pretend there is no data and keep crying that you can't find it?

Do you see why I compare you to somebody sticking their head in the dirt in the middle of the day and then pretending that the sun doesn't exist


----------



## progressive hunter (Apr 6, 2019)

SandSquid said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> > SandSquid said:
> ...


like I said,,,
I have looked at them and found them wanting


youre worse than a Jehovah's witness


----------



## SandSquid (Apr 6, 2019)

progressive hunter said:


> SandSquid said:
> 
> 
> > progressive hunter said:
> ...



In what ways. Do you have any specifics. Or are you just making things up?

Is this further psychosis for you where you believe you have read them and studied them and found factual errors you can prove in the real world.... 

But in reality you have not read through them, have not found flaws in the data, and all this was happening in your head as you lose grip with reality


----------



## Hollie (Apr 6, 2019)

progressive hunter said:


> SandSquid said:
> 
> 
> > progressive hunter said:
> ...



Stereotypical for those with a pre-commitment to religious dogma.


----------



## TroglocratsRdumb (Apr 6, 2019)

*Archeologists have found Ruth Ginsberg’s fossilized foot prints next to dinosaur foot prints.
*


----------



## SandSquid (Apr 6, 2019)

progressive hunter said:


> SandSquid said:
> 
> 
> > progressive hunter said:
> ...



No I'm just not going to let you continue to lie when it is clear you choose the fraud with crackpot conspiracies over reality.  I want to try to help you with your lost grasp on reality


Which is why every time you accuse me of saying something untrue I will counter with facts based in reality.

And I count over 16 times in the past day where you have said something untrue oroused an untrue source which I have  called out...   and you have been unable to defend them so instead you switch over to a completely different topic pretending that that one is over.

In reality you have had to use 16 separate lies in the past day to support your claim that you have been unable to defend against reality and facts.

That's not including another 22 times at least I count where I asked you to back up your assertstions with fact and you were unable to do so.

Over 3 dozen times you have felt the need to either lie or make a statement you can not back up with fact. 

I get you think that is debating.   No it's lying.   I don't think you have a psychosis honestly.   I think you know reality but are just willing to lie and put out misinformation to try and change weak minded people to your opinion.   Just like that Hovid guy.  

Anyways just wanted to point that out before I put you on ignore.   Lying may get you places in life but it's not something I care to hear from you.

I guess that's where you and I will diverge here. If you accuse me of lying I'm going to bring fact and show you how it supports what I said.

When I accuse you, you try to hide what you said and move on and change the subject and ignore it.   I guess I can't just sit there and lie like that knowing what I am saying is not true, and hoping it slips by.

Have a good day!


----------



## progressive hunter (Apr 6, 2019)

SandSquid said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> > SandSquid said:
> ...


I never lied,,,,


----------



## Hollie (Apr 6, 2019)

progressive hunter said:


> SandSquid said:
> 
> 
> > progressive hunter said:
> ...



Except when you lied....


----------

