Haha.

I might retire for a few pages as this is turning into a freakshow of epic proportions. There's deluded and simply mad.

Why do you have to end with comments like "Rock Jockeys"? I'm not being an about it, why are you?

Is that all you've got to go off regarding the non-existence of dinosaurs? Michael Forsell was only a student of paleontology, and a known conspiracy theorist by the looks of it. Out of interest, did he make any money out of his claims? And is he religious?

The example he used was a fossilized egg vs a rock. Pretty similar I'd agree with him, but how about ammonites? You yourself can travel to Whitby tomorrow (close to where I lived as a child), go to the beach, crack open some rock and find them. Do you believe they were planted there somehow, within the rock?

I imagine people had much bigger priorities back in Biblical times than digging deep to find fossils that they didn't know were there. Just because something isn't mentioned by the Bible doesn't mean it didn't exist, it's not an encyclopedia.

Please feel free to point out any contributions you've made. I just see many questions dodged, other posters antagonised (comments about their children), other posters met with personal insults, and above all no interest in RL (which makes it really weird that you're here).

I'm not sure what you mean by love from rocks. I've seen you ask it a few times, but as people have pointed out to you, they have no idea exactly what you're asking. Maybe you could elaborate and explain exactly what you're asking.

Precise opposite. My posts are orderly and to the point. The responses from you/Stan have this weird hysterical style, and never get to the point, just generalised waffle and preaching, with ad hominems usually thrown in. It is also typical that you attribute YOUR OWN behaviour bizarrely to others.

Yadaa yadda ... but you as ever refuse to address any of the points so your pejorative ranting is literally pointless.


No, they definitely are just a collection of old writings. Adherents of various holy books believe that the writings in their particular holy book are in fact somehow communications from a deity. Which is always the particular deity they happen to believe in. But nobody AFAIK actually claims any deity wrote any of the words and so all we know is they were written by humans and so are indeed collections of old writings.


Indeed. Who said it was?


Which are tosh. It predicts nothing except perhaps in the same way as Nostradamus predicts things. If such prophets genuinely were able to predict the future then why didn't they? Why instead use completely opaque and flowery nondescript phrases that could mean anything? Like Nostradamus, their adherents only claim after the event that he predicted this, or that. And that is because he did no such thing, else we'd al have been told it was coming.


Of course they are comparable as they are collections of disparate old writing dealing with belief systems.

As for bloodthirstiness, unless you haven't actually read the Bible, you would know that it is easily in 1st place on the bloodthirstiness front, so don't come that one!


So why make the suggestion? Nobody said they are "the same". Of course they're not the bloody same! They are however the product of humans at various places and times resorting to belief in deities to actually organize people's lives according to the supposed requirements of their particular supposed gods.


It wouldn't make any difference whether it was or it wasn't. You attach importance to labels where there is none.

I don't have a belief system, thanks. Neither do I have my own world. I live in the same one as people like you.

The rest of your paragraph is just emotive fantasy claptrap. Why would I, or any normal person "back" such persons as you refer to as "them"?

Who are "they" and in what way do I "back" them, that you do not?

If you had any evidence of such awful crimes then as a decent human being you would have reported it to the police. Of course, many of those in power throughout the ages have committed and continue to commit appalling crimes, genocide, etc. but you speak as if that is somehow secret information than only you know. It's not! If there are any constants throughout history then (a) abuse of power and (b) vile acts justified in the name of religions, would be very good candidates.


Science is the antithesis of religion. the rest of your abusive name-calling tirade is just patent nonsense that you / Stan repeatedly see fit to spout when you want to sound off. You do this because you are incapable of discussing anything in a reasonable manner. You are incapable because you have no answers to science, logic and fact, and because you are brainwashed by whatever religion it is you follow (you don't actually say0 into an unshakeable mere belief that your non-existent deity is the one true deity and that you are in some elite club who alone know "the truth".

To keep that up, you risibly have to support a vast and grossly unfeasible propsed web of fakery, lies, deceits, worldwide, happening all the time, involving millions, that yet no conspirator of these millions has ever revealed. Your protestations about simple facts (like the detection of gravitational waves) reveal that you are brainwashed to the extent that nothing, at all, can be true and you can't see how utterly impossible your position is.

I mean, if you want to believe in deities, or even fairies, I have no problem with that but this constant denial of every morsel of the vast quantities of absolutely solid and worldwide science from not one but hundreds of thousands of completely independent scientists, researchers, observers in most countries of the globe, is what confirms 100% that you are simply delusional.

People have been trying over this and other threads to "have a conversation with" You/Stan, but it has been a one way street; you/Stan have been thoroughly shown up time and again and being almost unbelievably gullible, brainwashed and impervious to any single thing however evidenced, if it would challenge your beliefs. Your mind is closed. You're not listening. THAT is why it isn't possible to have a conversation with you. If you're brainwashed to the extent that you actually believe the world is flat, then delusion cannot be better evidenced than that.

If he admits dinosaurs or any fossil he has to admit to deep time, which he can't do because it makes the biblical claim of the earth's age incorrect, which we all know it is. This is the trouble with unswerving literalism. It requires more and more effort to lie and make-up contradicting reasons that they struggle to keep track of them all. It gets to the point that there are so many lies and contradictions that it becomes easier to ignore the problems and convince yourself of your own lies and stupidity. You wont reason with someone who thinks the sky is a hologram and the sun and moon, light sources a few thousand miles up. Forgivable a thousand years ago, but today it's just very very sad.

The reason nobody would answer such a question is not what you say, but because it is a really dumb question. Nobody knows what the fsck you are talking about.

These fossils cannot be dated accurately. The original living material, and the material that is used to produce its fossil, are often two different things, and thus the ages of both are different as well. Most alleged ancient fossils are found near the surface of earth, and are dated by the age of the rocks near where they are found. If a modern-day animal was to die and its remains found in the same location, would it be dated the same age of the alleged ancient fossil ?

According to Margaret J. Helder, Ph.D., in her book Completing The Picture, A Handbook On Museums And Interpretive Centres Dealing With Fossils, "Scientists used to be very impressed with the potential of radiometric for coming up with absolutely reliable ages of some kinds of rocks. They do not feel that way anymore. Having had to deal with numerous calculated dates which are too young or too old compared with what they expected, scientists now admit that the process has many more uncertainties than they ever would have supposed in the early years. The public knows almost nothing about uncertainties in the dating of rocks. The impression that most people have received is that many rocks on earth are extremely old and that the technology exists to make accurate measurements of these ages. Scientists have become more and more aware however that the measurements which the machines make, may tell us nothing about the actual age of the rock."

Margaret J. Helder continues to explain: "Under what circumstances did whole organisms remain intact long enough to be fossilized? In most cases it seems, these victims were rapidly buried in great loads of sediment, which quickly hardened into rock. Not only did these situations require catastrophic burial but also the sediment involved had to be very fine grained in order for such exquisite preservation of detail to come about. Geologists generally interpret silt beds as the result of fine particles settling gradually out of still water. If that had happened in these instances, the corpses would have decayed long before burial and lithification (turning to rock) could occur."

The replacement process is supposed to involve calcium in skeletal material being replaced, atom by atom, by silica, calcite, pyrite, dolomite, etc., over a long period of time. This goes against the natural law of increasing disorder, entropy. How are all these dead atoms intelligent enough to know what to do and where to go to produce the finished fossil?

Another alleged mode of preservation is permineralization, whereby porous bone structures are supposed to become more dense by the deposition of mineral matter by groundwater. The more porous the bone, the more susceptible it is to destruction. In Speed and Conditions of Fossilization, we learn that "secondary mineralization, re-mineralization, leaching of bone mineral, and biologically-induced mineralization begin very rapidly after the bone is exposed to the environment. If the bone is not buried or underwater within 1-2 years of de-fleshing, it will literally become dust in the wind. The bone fragments may persist for several more years, but they are unrecognizable as to species." After a so-called dinosaur dies, I would conservatively estimate the chances of its bones becoming buried or underwater within 1 to 2 years of de-fleshing at much less than one in a thousand. "Hype-rsaline environments in which carbonates are precipitating favor bone re-mineralization and secondary mineralization. Saline environments also are good, but there the processes are slower." Are not dinosaurs supposed to have lived in a relatively non-saline fresh water environment? Inducing mineralization under ideal laboratory conditions is one matter, but completely different than real-world natural processes that tend to dissolve, not precipitate, bone mineral. Once the internal part of a decaying bone fills up with saline water from a sea, I am unaware of any reason why it should be a preferred location for mineral precipitation compared to the rest of the sea bottom.

Fossilization is also discussed at Evolution versus Creation, where we learn that "... there are no fossils being formed today on a large scale like they did many years ago ... when a fish dies, it doesn't sink to the bottom of the ocean and become a fossil, it merely decays and is eaten by other fish or animals. Even today, there is hardly a trace of the millions of buffalo that once existed, but were slaughtered all over the plains just a couple of generations ago. (Some herds were big enough to cover a whole state)." More eye-rolling by Ph.D Margaret Helder. See fossilization dating is hopelessly flawed. Turning into rock can be achieved sooner than you think. Not my words Margaret Helder Ph.D. Whitby no thanks.

[iAttenborough hahahaha don't make me wee. Dinosaurs on the BBC it must be true. Hahahaha. Reptiles ruling the earth its true because that Attenbrough said so. Well done you're learning Attenborough is a Mason.Gee whizz the government have done a grand job on you. ..[/i

Get a job.

Quote ="whothefeckisalice"These fossils cannot be dated accurately. The original living material, and the material that is used to produce its fossil, are often two different things, and thus the ages of both are different as well. Most alleged ancient fossils are found near the surface of earth, and are dated by the age of the rocks near where they are found. If a modern-day animal was to die and its remains found in the same location, would it be dated the same age of the alleged ancient fossil ? According to Margaret J. Helder, Ph.D., in her book Completing The Picture, A Handbook On Museums And Interpretive Centres Dealing With Fossils, "Scientists used to be very impressed with the potential of radiometric for coming up with absolutely reliable ages of some kinds of rocks. They do not feel that way anymore. Having had to deal with numerous calculated dates which are too young or too old compared with what they expected, scientists now admit that the process has many more uncertainties than they ever would have supposed in the early years. The public knows almost nothing about uncertainties in the dating of rocks. The impression that most people have received is that many rocks on earth are extremely old and that the technology exists to make accurate measurements of these ages. Scientists have become more and more aware however that the measurements which the machines make, may tell us nothing about the actual age of the rock." Margaret J. Helder continues to explain: "Under what circumstances did whole organisms remain intact long enough to be fossilized? In most cases it seems, these victims were rapidly buried in great loads of sediment, which quickly hardened into rock. Not only did these situations require catastrophic burial but also the sediment involved had to be very fine grained in order for such exquisite preservation of detail to come about. Geologists generally interpret silt beds as the result of fine particles settling gradually out of still water. If that had happened in these instances, the corpses would have decayed long before burial and lithification (turning to rock) could occur." The replacement process is supposed to involve calcium in skeletal material being replaced, atom by atom, by silica, calcite, pyrite, dolomite, etc., over a long period of time. This goes against the natural law of increasing disorder, entropy. How are all these dead atoms intelligent enough to know what to do and where to go to produce the finished fossil? Another alleged mode of preservation is permineralization, whereby porous bone structures are supposed to become more dense by the deposition of mineral matter by groundwater. The more porous the bone, the more susceptible it is to destruction. In Speed and Conditions of Fossilization, we learn that "secondary mineralization, re-mineralization, leaching of bone mineral, and biologically-induced mineralization begin very rapidly after the bone is exposed to the environment. If the bone is not buried or underwater within 1-2 years of de-fleshing, it will literally become dust in the wind. The bone fragments may persist for several more years, but they are unrecognizable as to species." After a so-called dinosaur dies, I would conservatively estimate the chances of its bones becoming buried or underwater within 1 to 2 years of de-fleshing at much less than one in a thousand. "Hype-rsaline environments in which carbonates are precipitating favor bone re-mineralization and secondary mineralization. Saline environments also are good, but there the processes are slower." Are not dinosaurs supposed to have lived in a relatively non-saline fresh water environment? Inducing mineralization under ideal laboratory conditions is one matter, but completely different than real-world natural processes that tend to dissolve, not precipitate, bone mineral. Once the internal part of a decaying bone fills up with saline water from a sea, I am unaware of any reason why it should be a preferred location for mineral precipitation compared to the rest of the sea bottom. Fossilization is also discussed at Evolution versus Creation, where we learn that "... there are no fossils being formed today on a large scale like they did many years ago ... when a fish dies, it doesn't sink to the bottom of the ocean and become a fossil, it merely decays and is eaten by other fish or animals. Even today, there is hardly a trace of the millions of buffalo that once existed, but were slaughtered all over the plains just a couple of generations ago. (Some herds were big enough to cover a whole state)." More eye-rolling by Ph.D Margaret Helder. See fossilization dating is hopelessly flawed. Turning into rock can be achieved sooner than you think. Not my words Margaret Helder Ph.D. Whitby no thanks.'" Didn't Stan say that copy and paste answers weren't allowed: loveforlife.com.au/content/10/09 ... saurs-scie Note who the publisher was of Margaret's book: Creation Science Association of Alberta. Of which she is/was vice-president. Basically you're quoting a creationist, who's area of expertise is botany. and an associate editor of a Christian magazine. Any quotes from anyone without a vested interest in the subject?

Quote ="whothefeckisalice"These fossils cannot be dated accurately. The original living material, and the material that is used to produce its fossil, are often two different things, and thus the ages of both are different as well. Most alleged ancient fossils are found near the surface of earth, and are dated by the age of the rocks near where they are found. If a modern-day animal was to die and its remains found in the same location, would it be dated the same age of the alleged ancient fossil ? According to Margaret J. Helder, Ph.D., in her book Completing The Picture, A Handbook On Museums And Interpretive Centres Dealing With Fossils, "Scientists used to be very impressed with the potential of radiometric for coming up with absolutely reliable ages of some kinds of rocks. They do not feel that way anymore. Having had to deal with numerous calculated dates which are too young or too old compared with what they expected, scientists now admit that the process has many more uncertainties than they ever would have supposed in the early years. The public knows almost nothing about uncertainties in the dating of rocks. The impression that most people have received is that many rocks on earth are extremely old and that the technology exists to make accurate measurements of these ages. Scientists have become more and more aware however that the measurements which the machines make, may tell us nothing about the actual age of the rock." Margaret J. Helder continues to explain: "Under what circumstances did whole organisms remain intact long enough to be fossilized? In most cases it seems, these victims were rapidly buried in great loads of sediment, which quickly hardened into rock. Not only did these situations require catastrophic burial but also the sediment involved had to be very fine grained in order for such exquisite preservation of detail to come about. Geologists generally interpret silt beds as the result of fine particles settling gradually out of still water. If that had happened in these instances, the corpses would have decayed long before burial and lithification (turning to rock) could occur." The replacement process is supposed to involve calcium in skeletal material being replaced, atom by atom, by silica, calcite, pyrite, dolomite, etc., over a long period of time. This goes against the natural law of increasing disorder, entropy. How are all these dead atoms intelligent enough to know what to do and where to go to produce the finished fossil? Another alleged mode of preservation is permineralization, whereby porous bone structures are supposed to become more dense by the deposition of mineral matter by groundwater. The more porous the bone, the more susceptible it is to destruction. In Speed and Conditions of Fossilization, we learn that "secondary mineralization, re-mineralization, leaching of bone mineral, and biologically-induced mineralization begin very rapidly after the bone is exposed to the environment. If the bone is not buried or underwater within 1-2 years of de-fleshing, it will literally become dust in the wind. The bone fragments may persist for several more years, but they are unrecognizable as to species." After a so-called dinosaur dies, I would conservatively estimate the chances of its bones becoming buried or underwater within 1 to 2 years of de-fleshing at much less than one in a thousand. "Hype-rsaline environments in which carbonates are precipitating favor bone re-mineralization and secondary mineralization. Saline environments also are good, but there the processes are slower." Are not dinosaurs supposed to have lived in a relatively non-saline fresh water environment? Inducing mineralization under ideal laboratory conditions is one matter, but completely different than real-world natural processes that tend to dissolve, not precipitate, bone mineral. Once the internal part of a decaying bone fills up with saline water from a sea, I am unaware of any reason why it should be a preferred location for mineral precipitation compared to the rest of the sea bottom. Fossilization is also discussed at Evolution versus Creation, where we learn that "... there are no fossils being formed today on a large scale like they did many years ago ... when a fish dies, it doesn't sink to the bottom of the ocean and become a fossil, it merely decays and is eaten by other fish or animals. Even today, there is hardly a trace of the millions of buffalo that once existed, but were slaughtered all over the plains just a couple of generations ago. (Some herds were big enough to cover a whole state)." More eye-rolling by Ph.D Margaret Helder. See fossilization dating is hopelessly flawed. Turning into rock can be achieved sooner than you think. Not my words Margaret Helder Ph.D. Whitby no thanks.'" Didn't Stan say that copy and paste answers weren't allowed: loveforlife.com.au/content/10/09 ... saurs-scie Note who the publisher was of Margaret's book: Creation Science Association of Alberta. Of which she is/was vice-president. Basically you're quoting a creationist, who's area of expertise is botany. and an associate editor of a Christian magazine. Any quotes from anyone without a vested interest in the subject?

[iWell Attenborough and the elite have got a vested interest haven't they.[/i

Exactly. Their Darwinian Mythology evilution link.

A vested interest that creationists/conspiracy theorists have made up.

to take all the space

At the same time in North America, marsh and cope, faked, named and produced the dinosaurs. Utter fabricated masonic garbage and the sheople lap up the Dino pooh. Unbelievable.

You surely can't believe that, can you?

It takes a special kind of 'special' to even type that.

In 20 years that is THE most ridiculous thing I've ever seen on the internet. In fact it's so stark staring bonkers barking mad I'm going to print it out and pass it around.

Come on now, honest answer, you're on a wind up.

The Galapagos Landings were a hoax! Darwin never went!

Now come on folks, you simply couldn't get this level of comedy anywhere else!

I now realise there ARE no Galapagos islands! The many documentaries I've watched were all in fact filmed in a fake island built in the middle of a fake ocean hidden somewhere in Hollywood! The giant tortoises - some of which you can "see" in zoos around the world - are just animatronics!

How could we all have missed this?

[i
And you surely can't believe humans existed from 200,000 years ago? You are just believing fairytale stories. You have no evidence. Look at all that incessant rant you went on, and it's all 'logic' stories without one piece of evidence.

How could you document the moment you ask? Why not document even one piece of transformation? Nothing. You believe they found 'dinosaur' bones (that look like whale bones and other bones mixed together) from 64 million years ago yet not one skeleton to prove any such in-between to prove the wild claims made about evolution?

Exactly what I said would happen with you, and I am right that evolution is the easiest of the hoaxes to expose. You have nothing. Darwin was a devout Freemason so even he didn't believe his own bull.

[/i

I'm glad I found this collection of posts. I've spent most of my working day reading through it. Comedy gold.

Come on Stan, your audience awaits!


Does this look like a "whale bone" to you?

[i

Quote ="Ferocious Aardvark"Come on Stan, your audience awaits! Does this look like a "whale bone" to you?

'"

Awe you're becoming more of an embarrassment with every post. It looks like a tree trunk simulated to look like a bone. Now hrere's that very supposed bone which is a replica as mentioned in tht Telegraph article. Hahaha they even tell you in plain sight it's a replica. Poor Aardvark falls for it every-time its hilarious.

[/i

[i[size=150Sir David Attenborough with a =#BF0000replica of the titanosaur's femur Photo: BBC[/size[/i