Fossils from the day the dinosaurs died

[progressive hunter]

when you cant refute the message attack the messenger

as I said he is but one of my many resources

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.

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

Actually the law of universal gravitation has been superceded by Einsteins theory of general relativity.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So are you intentionally trying to lie here by pretending Newton's law has still held up and wasn't superseded nearly 100 years ago?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?

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

Nope the scientific theory which has been proven with facts over and over says you will go down.

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

If you want, stick your head in the ground when the scientists show the evidence and believe the crackpots that say you will fly or that evolution isn't real since they are only scientific theories.

I'll stick with science and proven facts.

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

I would love to see it

 

[progressive hunter]

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

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.

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

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?

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

You literally threw out that youtube video of a non-scientists 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.

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

 

[SandSquid]

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

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.

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

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?

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

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.

What's the issue with tree ring dating?

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

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.

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

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?

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

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]

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.

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

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?

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

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.

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

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.

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

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?

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

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.

when did I do that???

 

[SandSquid]

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.

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

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?

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

You literally threw out that youtube video of a non-scientists 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.

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

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]

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

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?

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

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.

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.

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

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?

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

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.

when did I do that???

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]

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

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?

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

You literally threw out that youtube video of a non-scientists 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.

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

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.

you need to let go of the hate

 

[progressive hunter]

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?

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

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.

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

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?

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

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.

when did I do that???

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?

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

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

 

[SandSquid]

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?

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

You literally threw out that youtube video of a non-scientists 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.

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

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.

you need to let go of the hate

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]

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

You literally threw out that youtube video of a non-scientists 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.

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

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.

you need to let go of the hate

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.

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

 

[alang1216]

tree ring dating is more flawed than the geo column

What's the issue with tree ring dating?

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

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]

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]

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]

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]

What's the issue with tree ring dating?

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

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.

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

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?

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

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]

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

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.

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

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?

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

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.

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]

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.

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

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]

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.

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

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?

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

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.

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

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

 

[SandSquid]

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.

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

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?

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

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.

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

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]

You literally threw out that youtube video of a non-scientists 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.

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

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.

you need to let go of the hate

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.

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

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