Did Ancient Humans Coexisted with Dinosaurs?

a reply to: coomba98

lol.. you star wars people

homeschooling aside... complete dismissal of anything that he's actually asking for

Noinden offered so much... yet his last link was "possibly porn" according to Rabbidy

Poor Peter vler's head is about to explode!

And the end of the world has passed.. again...



My vote for "Best Thread Ever"

EVER!!!!

*stumbles out the of the room*

originally posted by: Akragon

EVER!!!!

*stumbles out the of the room*

originally posted by: Akragon

EVER!!!!

*stumbles out the of the room*

Lol

Noindy, Barcs, Pete, Page, this it, send in the clowns are these guys those you send in after a tragedy or the pawns to waste because they have little value
Is this your best

Evidence according to the scientific method, please

originally posted by: Raggedyman
Noindy, Barcs, Pete, Page, this it, send in the clowns are these guys those you send in after a tragedy or the pawns to waste because they have little value
Is this your best

Evidence according to the scientific method, please

Yeah, the scientific method is garbage. I far prefer the "I read it in an old book and take it on faith" method. That's the real way to prove things. Forget repeatable tests and observations.

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: Raggedyman
Noindy, Barcs, Pete, Page, this it, send in the clowns are these guys those you send in after a tragedy or the pawns to waste because they have little value
Is this your best

Evidence according to the scientific method, please

Yeah, the scientific method is garbage. I far prefer the "I read it in an old book and take it on faith" method. That's the real way to prove things. Forget repeatable tests and observations.

You're forgetting an advanced degree from the University of YouTube!

a reply to: Raggedyman

Once again you refuse to even look at the evidence. Phantom423 supplied the link not I. I'm just reposting it.

So the evidence has been posted. You refuse to read it. The conclusion can thus be made. You are trolling or scared of the truth. Or perchance both?

You are quite simply not capable of understanding the evidence.

a reply to: bloodymarvelous

Yeah nah.

DNA is not that stable (even when frozen). 65 million years (give or take a few 100 000 years) is far too long for something to be frozen, and even look like the origional form. Let alone re-animate.

The stability of DNA is one reason Jurasic Park is not ever going to happen. The DNA in a mosquito trapped in amber, fell apart to nothing coherent long ago.

Stick with paranormal explanations, they are more likely No not being sarcastic.

a reply to: Raggedyman

How abouts, if you can not read the evidence when supplied. You walk away? Because this very thread, had a big fat collected tome of it supplied. You refuse to acknowledge it. The conclusion as to why you do that is simple.

a reply to: Akragon

Well to Raggedyboy it is probably offensive. It is after all, full of the evidence (or citations there of) he demands. That must make him very uncomfortable and warm

Initiate Luddite to English translation/

originally posted by: Raggedyman
Noindy, Barcs, Pete, Page, this it, send in the clowns are these guys those you send in after a tragedy or the pawns to waste because they have little value
Is this your best

Evidence according to the scientific method, please

Raggedy man is incapable of reading things which make him question himself and his deeply held gnoses. It makes it worse if words are big and esoteric.

HE will thus insult people, and ignore what they actually post.

end Luddite to English translation

Read the cited book I posted. Or admit you are afraid to do so.

a reply to: Noinden

Im starting to believe he can't actually read very well...

let alone form a proper sentence

a reply to: Akragon

There is that option too. I'm still leaning to either:

(a) Troll
(b) Zealous Creationist, who is incapable of groking anything but what he is told in church.

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: Raggedyman

How abouts, if you can not read the evidence when supplied. You walk away? Because this very thread, had a big fat collected tome of it supplied. You refuse to acknowledge it. The conclusion as to why you do that is simple.

Its got big fat zero scientific method evidence
Big fat zero

Thats why I am asking for it

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: Akragon

There is that option too. I'm still leaning to either:

(a) Troll
(b) Zealous Creationist, who is incapable of groking anything but what he is told in church.

Or someone asking a question and seeking evidence

You are here trolling the thread, arguing what was proposed
I havnt brought creation into the discussion, you are in my opinion

(a) Troll
(b) Zealous religious atheist, who is incapable of groking anything but what he is told by his priests

Ta da.

Closed for review.