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

Dixie said:
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?
Click to expand...

Such an isolated population is unlikely to survive very long, because there would be inbreeding problems. Especially over 60 million years. It would definitely be one of the only times in history that it had happened.

It would also be a ridiculous coincidence for it to have completely died out just a few thousand years ago. There is a point at which you are just putting up ridiculous hypothesis just to shield your claims from any possible disproof. It's a special pleading.

We can't believe things just because it would be cool. We need evidence.
 
Dixie said:
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.
Click to expand...

It hasn't been established because you can't prove a negative. It also hasn't been established that there is no little china teapot floating in between earth and mars. It would be ridiculous, however, for me to believe this, or to demand other people respect such a ridiculous and unjustified belief.
 
HUGO STIGLITZ said:
It hasn't been established because you can't prove a negative. It also hasn't been established that there is no little china teapot floating in between earth and mars. It would be ridiculous, however, for me to believe this, or to demand other people respect such a ridiculous and unjustified belief.
Click to expand...

you once vehemently argued this with me. i told you basically the same thing and you said i was crazy.
 
Superfreak said:
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.
Click to expand...

this post kicks all sorts of ass
 
Onzies said:
So, why don't you have that same standard in the abortion debate?
Click to expand...

Yes, you are right... I should never state that it's "scientific fact" that life begins at conception. Based on the preponderance of evidence, and given the criteria for what we have previously determined "life" to be, it appears to begin at conception, and no scientific evidence exists that it begins at any other time. Is that better?
 
HUGO STIGLITZ said:
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.
Click to expand...

perhaps in your opinion.....when I look at the Genesis creation story I find it fascinating that sand scrubbing barbarians conceived the progression of time-laws of nature-matter-form-life (simple to complex) as an explanation of origin.....
 
HUGO STIGLITZ said:
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.
Click to expand...

???...considering your explanation how is it the dinosaur "layer" converted from mud to stone while the human "layer" visible therein was still mud?.........
 
Dixie said:
Yes, you are right... I should never state that it's "scientific fact" that life begins at conception. Based on the preponderance of evidence, and given the criteria for what we have previously determined "life" to be, it appears to begin at conception, and no scientific evidence exists that it begins at any other time. Is that better?
Click to expand...

Well, since you stated that it was "exactly your point" that ALL science is tentative, yes, that might be a better way to put it. At least it isn't scientific fact, so there is no way you can be right in your contention that life begins at conception, and it's perfectly okay for people to believe otherwise.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
perhaps because science HAS established that the unborn are distinct human being apart from the mother?.....
Click to expand...

Guess you can't read there, PMP. Dixie said that ALL science is tentative, so there is no way this can be scientific fact.

Thanks for playing though. It was fun having you.
 
HUGO SHITZ said:
Such an isolated population is unlikely to survive very long, because there would be inbreeding problems. Especially over 60 million years. It would definitely be one of the only times in history that it had happened.

It would also be a ridiculous coincidence for it to have completely died out just a few thousand years ago. There is a point at which you are just putting up ridiculous hypothesis just to shield your claims from any possible disproof. It's a special pleading.

We can't believe things just because it would be cool. We need evidence.
Click to expand...

Right, so we can't "believe" that man wasn't roaming the earth during the days of the dinosaur, because it would be cool to think we evolved from monkeys much later! ...We need evidence! I'm glad you came to realize how stupid you were being about this. You've made great progress, Waterhead!

You can talk about coincidence and likelihood all you like, I have no problem with that. If you want to argue it's "not likely" man roamed the earth with the dinosaurs, I can accept that, it's a valid opinion to have. Remember, I am not arguing in contradiction to the belief that man didn't exist at the time of the dinosaur, I am in the camp who isn't sure and doesn't profess to know the answer to that particular question at this time. I do reject the continued insinuation that this is some kind of empirical fact that science has proven, because that is a lie.

HUGO DITZ said:
It hasn't been established because you can't prove a negative. It also hasn't been established that there is no little china teapot floating in between earth and mars. It would be ridiculous, however, for me to believe this, or to demand other people respect such a ridiculous and unjustified belief.
Click to expand...

Yes it would be, because there is no plausible explanation for why a china teapot got there. Being that humans are inhabiting earth now, and being that earth was conducive to their habitation then, it's a completely different set of circumstances. I understand why you want to make the argument ridiculous, but you are going to the extreme with it, and that is not being honest. What is ridiculous, is you continuing to argue that something is a fact, when it's not, and anyone with half a brain understands it's not.
 
Onceler said:
Well, since you stated that it was "exactly your point" that ALL science is tentative, yes, that might be a better way to put it. At least it isn't scientific fact, so there is no way you can be right in your contention that life begins at conception, and it's perfectly okay for people to believe otherwise.
Click to expand...

Oh, people can deny what science suggests all they like, they do it everyday, look at the Warmers! If you want to believe life begins at some point other than when science suggests, that is up to you. But you are correct that it's not a "fact" ...life may actually begin BEFORE conception, and we just don't know it yet!
 
Dixie said:
Oh, people can deny what science suggests all they like, they do it everyday, look at the Warmers! If you want to believe life begins at some point other than when science suggests, that is up to you. But you are correct that it's not a "fact" ...life may actually begin BEFORE conception, and we just don't know it yet!
Click to expand...

Good - then you should have no issues whatsoever with Roe.

I'm glad to see you've finally come around to freedom of choice...
 
Dixie said:
Oh, people can deny what science suggests all they like, they do it everyday, look at the Warmers! If you want to believe life begins at some point other than when science suggests, that is up to you. But you are correct that it's not a "fact" ...life may actually begin BEFORE conception, and we just don't know it yet!
Click to expand...

Life is continuous. The sperm and the egg are alive.

Everyone has jumped on the DNA wagon without understanding what the hell they're doing. Like the "know-it-alls" who testified in a case, years ago, stating the biological children of a certain woman were not her children. They didn't know a person can have two sets of DNA.

DNA is one way of classifying something. It is not the only way.
 
Onceler said:
Guess you can't read there, PMP. Dixie said that ALL science is tentative, so there is no way this can be scientific fact.

Thanks for playing though. It was fun having you.
Click to expand...

so I guess I beat both of you with a single argument?.....does that make me awesome?.....
 
Last edited:
apple0154 said:
Life is continuous. The sperm and the egg are alive.

Everyone has jumped on the DNA wagon without understanding what the hell they're doing. Like the "know-it-alls" who testified in a case, years ago, stating the biological children of a certain woman were not her children. They didn't know a person can have two sets of DNA.

DNA is one way of classifying something. It is not the only way.
Click to expand...

????....are you trying to argue that because in some bizarre circumstance someone had two sets of DNA, that therefore we can't accurately determine an unborn child is not his mother?.....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top