Today’s Teabagger News: Only 41% of Texans know humans did not live with dinosaurs

It's questionable to claim outright that state-financed research institutions are environments of free inquiry.

As well, and not to be dramatic or jump to conclusions, but isn't a global expansion of socialist policy a motivation for politically-biased science as it relates to climate change?

I'm not saying these folks will get what they want, but you can't say they don't have a motive aside from saving the planet.
In general yes they are. They are also human institutions so they are not perfect but your comments here verge on the border of consipiracy theory. Bias is mostly introduced into scientific research not through politics, either internal or external, but through the funding process. But that's also why in science the peer review process exist. As a control and counter measure to such bias's. So your criticism is largely incorrect.
 
totally resistant to any change no matter what evidence comes up against it? I need a memory refresher here.
that would be Watermarkism....

If there was an abundance of dinosaurs living the past 60 million years, they would've left fossils. It would be exceedingly strange for them to have been the only fucking things in existence not leaving fossils. The only descendants of dinosaurs alive today are from a small group of therapods that evolved into birds.
/chuckle....you really need to avoid trying to prove things by the absence of evidence.....you've already established your "street creds" on the effectiveness of that approach.....

There are plenty of myths, PMP. If there were dinosaurs that late, what caused them all to dissapear?
I can think of a couple of things off hand......perhaps, like the wooly mammoth or the dodo, they were hunted into extinction, perhaps the dwindling gene pool made the species unsustainable....

Why didn't they, or any of their millions and millions of years worth of ancestors, leave any fossils?
fossils are rare.....the places where they are found are even rarer....as weather conditions changed, the watering holes and mud wallows were likely in different places than science currently mines for fossils.......also not every dinosaur needs to be 37 feet tall and weigh 20 tons......as they lost dominance, they probably also dropped lower in the food chain, which would increase the chances that their body parts got eaten instead of fossilized.........in the last ten years we have found evidence of humans that pushed the dating of human existence back a hundred thousand years.....before that, someone might have said "where are the fossils that show humans existed 195k years ago"......aren't you one of those people that says science will eventually prove everything?....:pke:
 
This has to be one of the all time stupid threads I've ever seen on JPP.

George W Bush, Robert Byrd and Dixie are all the evidence I need to conclude that dinosaurs still exist.
 
Last edited:
Did I ever say that I didn't believe in god? No.

And yes - there is a vast difference between solid proof and 100% fact. There really isn't that much that is 100% fact. But solid proof? Yeah, there is solid proof that man did not exist in the time of the dinosaurs. Things like radioactive dating, and the fossil record.

You're a hopeless fool, and once again, you have been badly, badly embarassed on a thread. I'm enjoying it, as usual.

:cof1:

i can't believe i have to educate you on what proof means.

the cogency of evidence that compels acceptance by the mind of a truth or a fact

i wouldn't be worried about anyone else's purported embarrassment, that i had to school you that proof leads to a fact is embarrassing in and of itself. you're probably confusing evidence and proof....
 
LOL... Jesus rode a dinosaur...

Anyway, I understand what I think Yurt is saying. It's possible that we'll discover something that will change our understanding of this particular knowledge of prehistory, however unlikely that may be. And I understand Adam's post. We can't let what we "know" get in the way of what we might discover.

Yurt isn't saying that he thinks dinosaurs roamed the planet with humans... at least I don't think he's saying that. Although PMP is.
 
PostModernProphet:

Personally I believe humans and dinosaurs did coexist....

Mott the Hoople:

This has to be one of the all time stupid threads I've ever seen on JPP.


Concur. But ya gotta admit, it’s almost worth the moments of pure comedy gold, provided by PMP and Yurt, et.al.

I wonder why the Jesus Rode a Dinosaur cabal is, in large measure the same cabal the were easily duped into supporting the Iraq fiasco, and are the same one in full on denial about climate science? The correlation between scientific illiteracy and the rightwing doesn’t appear to be random or inconsequential.


It's questionable to claim outright that state-financed research institutions are environments of free inquiry.

As well, and not to be dramatic or jump to conclusions, but isn't a global expansion of socialist policy a motivation for politically-biased science as it relates to climate change?

I'm not saying these folks will get what they want, but you can't say they don't have a motive aside from saving the planet.


Finally. After wading through reams of teabagger nonsense and hilarity, an island of sanity and an intelligent contribution.


No offense, but I'd like to see some real world, actual examples of what you're asserting about modern science.

No doubt the Nazi's hijacked science for political purposes. And I would submit that the subservience of science and engineering to the military industrial complex constitutes a warped and political-driven hijacking of science. But your assertion, more broadly, would be a massive conspiracy, on a global scale, that I'd like to see a preponderance of evidence for. It sounds very fantastical, frankly too fantastical to be boiled down to an unsubstantiated slogan on a message board.

But, in terms of all the great purely academic scientific theories of the last century, where are these real-world examples of science being hijacked by liberals and socialists for political ends? Science is practiced all over the world, in thousands of research universities. I would like to see some real world examples of science, on a global basis, somehow being hijacked by nefarious liberals using the tools of the state to do their bidding.

I can't think of one single major scientific theory advanced this century by acamedicians, that amounts to a cabal of liberal politization. The theory of realativity, black holes, plate tectonics, genetics. Even the environmental sciences......science spent decades studying the effects of cigarrete smoke on human health, or the effects of chemical carcinogens. And you know what happened? The "liberal" scientists were right all along. It was the pawns of corporate profit who fought with every fiber of their being, to keep the scientific facts from getting out, or being considered in the realm of public policy. The same sh*t is going on today with climate science. The corruption of science, or the roadblocks being thrown in the way of legitimate academic scientific investigation is largely, like it always has, come from reactionary elements; e.g., the church, the money men, the corporations, and other vested interests of financial power.
 
Last edited:
My mother is a huge believer in Jesus, but she believes that "God Created The Heavens And the Earth" covers hundreds of billions of years and that dinosaurs existed on earth when it was "without form and void".

She's of a group that believes that means that it had no life created by God (only through evolution) therefore it was "void"...

Anyway, my mother wouldn't be a Christian that believes that dinosaurs and humans coexisted...
 
So far as I recall, the evidence shows that the first mammals appeared at some point significantly later than the extinction of the dinosaurs. So mammals in general did not coexist with dinos at all.


I think the primate fossil record only goes back 10-12 million years or so. I could be a bit off there.

And there were some small mammal species in the Mesozoic. Certainly, nothing even remotely primate existed in the Mesozoic.

But, I would defer to your knowledge. That's probably what you were trying to say, anyway.
 
So far as I recall, the evidence shows that the first mammals appeared at some point significantly later than the extinction of the dinosaurs. So mammals in general did not coexist with dinos at all.
No, this is incorrect. Mammals existed along with dinosaurs they've just never found a single mammalian fossil from that time larger than a cat. It was those mammals that became our ancestors once the top of the chain was made more accessible...

http://teacher.scholastic.com/activities/dinosaurs/askdinodon/read.htm

(It's the second question answered by the dude).

About 62 Million years separate the appearance of the first humans with the death of the last dinosaur according to current fossil records.
 
My mother is a huge believer in Jesus, but she believes that "God Created The Heavens And the Earth" covers hundreds of billions of years and that dinosaurs existed on earth when it was "without form and void".

She's of a group that believes that means that it had no life created by God (only through evolution) therefore it was "void"...

Anyway, my mother wouldn't be a Christian that believes that dinosaurs and humans coexisted...


No doubt. I've never met a Quaker or Unitarian that thought the greeks and romans were dueling with tyranosaurus rex. And my experience with the catholic church, limited though it may be, appears to suggest that Catholic doctrine widely accepts that the earth is billions of years old, and that man evolved from earlier forms of primates.

But this is Texas we're talking about. Liberal churches, and mainstream progressive protestant churches I don't think are the majority. The biblical literalist strain of religion dominate the bible belt and many parts of rural america.
 
Only 41% of Texans know humans did not live with dinosaurs

And you KNOW humans didn't live with dinosaurs because you were here then, and you explored the entire Earth, every cave and crevasse, and you didn't see any humans?

I'm sorry, but I'm with Yurt on this one, and you can hurl any juvenile name you like at me, I just don't see where you have PROVEN man didn't (or couldn't have) roamed the Earth with the dinosaurs. Yes, I know it's impossible to prove a negative, which is why you can't argue that this has been proven!
 
Mission Accomplished!!!

My work here is done……



Poll: Only 41% of Texans Agree That Man did Not Coexist with Dinosaurs

Yurt:

whats truly funny is that you have NO SOLID PROOF one way or the other, but you come in here prancing a theory around as if it is fact.

lmao, you're stupid cypress.


PostModernProphet:

Personally I believe humans and dinosaurs did coexist.....

Dixie:

I'm sorry, but I'm with Yurt on this one, and you can hurl any juvenile name you like at me, I just don't see where you have PROVEN man didn't (or couldn't have) roamed the Earth with the dinosaurs.


jesusdino.jpg


.
 
Mission Accomplished!!!

My work here is done……

What was your mission work here? Preaching your theories as fact, or learning how to make big bold text with bb code? Because it certainly wasn't proving your point, unless your point was to prove you are stupid.
 
For the religious, if man coexisted with dinosaurs then why is there no real mention of them in the bible? I think a big part of Adam and Eve's lives would have been filled with dodging dinosaurs.
 
What was your mission work here?.


Smart and educated people probably know what mission was accomplished.


However, I will take pity, and bring it down to the teabagger level:


Mission not-at-all-Impossible: YOUR MISSION, SHOULD YOU CHOOSE TO ACCEPT IT -- To easily dupe climate science-deniers, Iraq war-supporters, and George Dumbya Bush voters into publicly displaying their buffoonery and scientific illiteracy
 
For the religious, if man coexisted with dinosaurs then why is there no real mention of them in the bible? I think a big part of Adam and Eve's lives would have been filled with dodging dinosaurs.

There is no evidence the story of Adam and Eve is the first account of humans on Earth. Religious people may take exception with this statement, but the Bible doesn't say Adam and Eve were the first humans, only the first to be "created in God's image." It doesn't say there were no other humans before this. Just an independent observation.

It's important to note, in 1860 (not that long ago) science suggested that germs were caused by "spontaneous generation" ...in other words, they just happened by chance, and there was nothing man could do about it. If some of you pinheads had been around back then, you could have laughed at Louis Pasteur for suggesting the Germ Theory, because it completely contradicted the prevailing scientific consensus of the time. How could something so small it couldn't be seen by the naked eye, possibly be responsible for killing a man? I am sure the pinheads of the day got a big chuckle out of that!
 
Back
Top