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

[Timshel]

I didn't say I "believed" any theory! I am on the side which says WE DON'T KNOW! Can you possibly grasp that concept? Is it fathomable in your pinhead mind, that man may possibly NOT know the answers? I mean, I fully understand why you want to make your theories into facts, because that would relieve you from the burden of having to rely on FAITH. But what I don't understand, is how people who claim they are believers in science, can so easily discard the scientific method and fundamental premise of science itself. Science doesn't "prove" or "disprove" anything, ever!

There is absolutely no proof to support the shit you just pulled out of your ass. There is overwhelming proof to support the theory that dinos died long before man. To pretend that these two are equivalent is ridiculous. To pretend belief in the two is equally reasonable is ridiculous.

Science is not like your religion, where you simply make it up as you go.

Yeah, but most dinosaurs would have eaten lions as appetizers. I think, if man were around during the time of dinosaurs, even with the small undeveloped brains, they would have had enough instinctual sense to stay the hell away from them. Just my opinion.

The fact that they would have an aversion to dinosaurs would not cause their remains to scatter through different periods of time.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

Personally I believe humans and dinosaurs did coexist.

Why?

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

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.

There's a difference between letting what we know get in the way of what we might discover (an error that science was specifically designed to avoid, unlike religion), and believing in something fully that is completely and totally unjustified evidence. I will believe that dinosaurish animals lived for tens of millions of years after the extinction when I see the fossils.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

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?

You don't have to do all of that to refute a POSITIVE belief that humans lived with dinosaurs. You just have to show the lack of evidence. Without the evidence, what justifies the belief? Nothing.

Again, this is the classic obfuscationist trick of attempting to transform a positive into a negative.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

There is absolutely no proof to support the shit you just pulled out of your ass. There is overwhelming proof to support the theory that dinos died long before man. To pretend that these two are equivalent is ridiculous. To pretend belief in the two is equally reasonable is ridiculous.

Science is not like your religion, where you simply make it up as you go.

Overwhelming proof to support the theory? That sounds as if it's not a conclusive fact at all, that a possibility remains for some other explanation! You don't need overwhelming proof to support the possibility of a FACT!

I'm not "pretending" anything, you are! You are pretending that something which has not been proven or established, is indeed proven and established fact. I am taking a much more pragmatic approach, and saying that I don't know the answer one way or the other, and I am willing to keep an open mind about it at this time.

The fact that they would have an aversion to dinosaurs would not cause their remains to scatter through different periods of time.

No, but it would reasonably explain why you haven't found their remains in the same proximity of dinosaurs. As we've previously established, you haven't explored every place on Earth, through every time period from the beginning. Once you've done that, and found no evidence of man before dinosaurs, then you can make the argument you are making. Until then, you are drawing a conclusion based on speculation, which is based on limited information. As I pointed out earlier, it's a good thing you weren't around calling the shots when Louis Pasteur stood the scientific community on its ear with his Germ Theory.

The fact is, you have no fact! You have an idea, a theory... maybe you even have a valid and legitimately based theory, maybe a preponderance of evidence and opinions support your theory, but it's still only a theory, not a fact. You can't ever make it a fact, no matter how much you wish it to be one, or how many names you call me.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

Uhh... I don't know, perhaps their fossil remains are beneath that great impact crater off the Yucatan peninsula? Maybe the evidence is beneath 5000 kilometers of lava at La Garita Caldera? Or possibly at the bottom of the ocean, where man has never explored?

The lack of human fossil remains, doesn't automatically mean there weren't any humans. I would venture to say, if there were humans, they weren't mingling with the dinosaurs, so we wouldn't expect to find evidence of humans where we find evidence of dinosaurs.

The lack of evidence doesn't mean there were no humans. It just means that any positive belief that there were humans that long ago is unjustified.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

the Bible doesn't outline all the parts of anyone's lives.....for simple example, you can read all four gospels aloud in just a few hours, but it describes at the very least a three year period of Jesus' life....

the purpose of the bible is not to tell you what happened in everyone's lives, but to tell you what God wanted you to know about salvation......

It only seems to ever tell you things that we'd expect sand-scribbling barbarian peoples to already know. Isn't that funny? It almost fits a much more common sense pattern, that the ancient people just made the myths up, rather than the fanciful and ridiculous notion that some dude was specially communicating with the creator of the universe and writing down his exact words.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

Overwhelming proof to support the theory? That sounds as if it's not a conclusive fact at all, that a possibility remains for some other explanation! You don't need overwhelming proof to support the possibility of a FACT!

There's no such thing as 100% fact.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

Not that the Bible is scientific proof of anything, but it is indicative of how your pinhead minds operate... because something isn't believed to be a certain way, it is therefore impossible for it to be that way!

A claim no one has made. Again, transforming a negative into a positive. If we just believed anything that had any shred of possibility associated with it, then we would believe in everything, because everything is possible.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

There is never an amount of positive evidence large to "prove" anything at all, but any negative evidence contradicting a theory means that the theory has to be either revised or abandoned.

It is silly to even seriously entertain the idea that dinosaurs walked with humans, because there's no proof for it. You can't just go around coming up with "what if?" scenarios and randomly giving them seriously belief without any justification just because it would be cool. And that's how far too many people seriously arrive at their BELIEFS.

Now, present me with a fossil of a dinosaur walking with humans and I'll turn over and accept this in an instant, until there is more contradicting evidence.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

You don't have to do all of that to refute a POSITIVE belief that humans lived with dinosaurs. You just have to show the lack of evidence. Without the evidence, what justifies the belief? Nothing.

Again, this is the classic obfuscationist trick of attempting to transform a positive into a negative.

In 1850, there was a complete lack of evidence to refute the theory of "spontaneous generation" and most credible scientists of that time period, believed it was not possible for germs to occur any other way. Louis Pasteur refused to accept what was the common thought of the day, he didn't just accept something because there was no evidence to refute it. This is how some of the greatest discoveries in science have been made. Einstein's theory of relativity was widely controversial, it flew in the face of what was conventional wisdom of the time, and there was no evidence to support his theory, until he discovered it!

There is currently no evidence to suggest man roamed the earth with dinosaurs, but that doesn't mean they didn't, it just means there has been no evidence discovered to suggest it. Have we discovered everything? Do we know the answers to everything? If so, we can make definitive claims like you have made, but if not, we must remain open-minded to the possibility (as remote as it may seem to you) that man doesn't know all the answers.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Now, present me with a fossil of a dinosaur walking with humans and I'll turn over and accept this in an instant, until there is more contradicting evidence.

Of course, you will immediately refute this as a "hoax" but it's what you just asked for, so here it is! Let's see how fast you "turn over and accept" this!

As I pointed out to Stringy, we aren't likely to find evidence of humans living among the dinosaurs, unless they were pinhead humans without enough sense to hide from them! Maybe all the humans back then were living inside caves deep within mountains, to prevent from becoming a dinosaur snack... and we haven't discovered the remains because the caves collapsed and buried the remains underneath a huge mountain? I'm not saying I think this is the case, but it's a possible scenario, and one that must be considered.

Oh... but that can't be so, because it would completely contradict your theories on evolution, wouldn't it? You see, pinheads like you, have concocted an idea in your head, and despite ANY evidence that is presented, or ANY common sense approach to the question, you cling to your FAITH that what you theorize is a proven fact of life, and it's just not.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

There's no such thing as 100% fact.

Unless it is the belief that humans didn't exist during the time of the dinosaur! THAT seems to be a 100% fact, as professed by pinheads here! Or, if we are talking about the possibility of "creationism" ...then it's a 100% fact that never happened, and a 100% fact that man evolved from a single cell organism! It also seems to be a 100% fact that if we don't agree with you, we are stupid science deniers. I see a LOT of things in this thread being presented as if it were 100% fact, and very few of you who are willing to admit it might not be.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

Of course, you will immediately refute this as a "hoax" but it's what you just asked for, so here it is! Let's see how fast you "turn over and accept" this!

As I pointed out to Stringy, we aren't likely to find evidence of humans living among the dinosaurs, unless they were pinhead humans without enough sense to hide from them! Maybe all the humans back then were living inside caves deep within mountains, to prevent from becoming a dinosaur snack... and we haven't discovered the remains because the caves collapsed and buried the remains underneath a huge mountain? I'm not saying I think this is the case, but it's a possible scenario, and one that must be considered.

Oh... but that can't be so, because it would completely contradict your theories on evolution, wouldn't it? You see, pinheads like you, have concocted an idea in your head, and despite ANY evidence that is presented, or ANY common sense approach to the question, you cling to your FAITH that what you theorize is a proven fact of life, and it's just not.

Dixie, there are fossil layers. That's how they date fossils. You wouldn't find a human and a dinosaur together because they wouldn't be in the same layer - they would've been fossilized millions and millions of year apart, and the dinosaurs would be buried far below in sediment while humans would be much higher. If we found a dinosaur in the same vertical layer as a human being at all, that would be big news. It's not about horizontal proximity.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

In 1850, there was a complete lack of evidence to refute the theory of "spontaneous generation" and most credible scientists of that time period, believed it was not possible for germs to occur any other way. Louis Pasteur refused to accept what was the common thought of the day, he didn't just accept something because there was no evidence to refute it. This is how some of the greatest discoveries in science have been made.

The difference is that Pasteur just didn't come up with that idea and say "Hey, they's cool. It must be true! Everyone has to believe me now!'' That's what religious people do.

It would have been silly to believe theories contradictory to spontaneous generation without evidence. Pasteur found that evidence, and everyone accepted his evidence and moved on. That's how science works.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

Does anyone have the heart to tell poor little Cypress about the hi-jacking of science by the global warming fear mongers? Should we point out yet again how they misled the public with their fear mongering? Should we point out yet again how the power grab by the politicians hijacked the science behind the studies? How the suppression of opposing views, the demand that a 'consensus' had been reached and that the 'debate was over', how the data was unassailable.... only to find out....

1) No significant warming for 15 years (from the mouth of one of the leading fear mongers)

2) NO conclusion on whether the medieval warming period was warmer than now due to lack of data.

3) IPCC pushed propaganda and proclaimed it was 'science'... now we find one error after another.

Why? What could be the motivation that the flat earth global warming fear mongers have for doing so? Could it be the power the government agencies would then have over the corporate world and the citizens? Could it be the potential for BILLIONS more in funding that the 'scientists' would get? Nah... that couldn't be it.

Just ask Cypress.... he will STILL tell you it is a settled debate... he will still try to equate those who question the AGW theory with Holocaust denialists... because that makes them sound 'evilzzz'. He will now also try to pretend that only right wing blogs are reporting on the errors or quoting Jones. He will still pretend that there is no doubt. He will still mock the idiots who proclaim that the current east coast snow storms are proof that AGW is wrong, while at the same time ignoring all the idiots that have used severe weather incidents as proof of AGW.

But yeah Cypress.... the liberal side has NEVER hijacked Science.

Guess we can add you and Yurt to the list of the scientifically illiterate. Can't we?

 

[Mott the Hoople]

In 1850, there was a complete lack of evidence to refute the theory of "spontaneous generation" and most credible scientists of that time period, believed it was not possible for germs to occur any other way. Louis Pasteur refused to accept what was the common thought of the day, he didn't just accept something because there was no evidence to refute it. This is how some of the greatest discoveries in science have been made. Einstein's theory of relativity was widely controversial, it flew in the face of what was conventional wisdom of the time, and there was no evidence to support his theory, until he discovered it!

There is currently no evidence to suggest man roamed the earth with dinosaurs, but that doesn't mean they didn't, it just means there has been no evidence discovered to suggest it. Have we discovered everything? Do we know the answers to everything? If so, we can make definitive claims like you have made, but if not, we must remain open-minded to the possibility (as remote as it may seem to you) that man doesn't know all the answers.

Wouldn't it just be easier to state that all science is tentative? Is this the point you are trying to make?

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Dixie, there are fossil layers. That's how they date fossils. You wouldn't find a human and a dinosaur together because they wouldn't be in the same layer - they would've been fossilized millions and millions of year apart, and the dinosaurs would be buried far below in sediment while humans would be much higher. If we found a dinosaur in the same vertical layer as a human being at all, that would be big news. It's not about horizontal proximity.

I just posted a picture of a (supposed) human footprint on top of a dinosaur footprint. Some people claim this is evidence humans were here during the time of the dinosaur, others claim it is a hoax... let us guess which category you are in?

I am not making a determination here, let's remember that. I am saying there is a possibility of something that hasn't been proven impossible. Let me interject a dose of possibility here, what if, during the time of dinosaurs, there were very FEW humans on Earth... and "endangered species" as it were? Being that there weren't very many of them, would it be unreasonable not to find fossil evidence of one, millions of years later?

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Wouldn't it just be easier to state that all science is tentative? Is this the point you are trying to make?

Yes, that's the point exactly! However, in this debate, we are inundated with opinions which indicate a belief in scientific evidence as empirical fact. Something can't be empirical fact and also be tentative, that's impossible.

I have no problem with someone making the argument/statement, that we have no evidence man existed at the time of the dinosaur. That is a true statement, and I can respect that opinion. I reject the opinion that it's a proven fact man didn't exist at the time of the dinosaur. That hasn't been established at this time.

 

[Onceler]

Yes, that's the point exactly! However, in this debate, we are inundated with opinions which indicate a belief in scientific evidence as empirical fact. Something can't be empirical fact and also be tentative, that's impossible.

I have no problem with someone making the argument/statement, that we have no evidence man existed at the time of the dinosaur. That is a true statement, and I can respect that opinion. I reject the opinion that it's a proven fact man didn't exist at the time of the dinosaur. That hasn't been established at this time.

So, why don't you have that same standard in the abortion debate?