Push has stated he believes that our concept of time could be wrong due to the fact that he believes we were created and have a set date. The article that our beloved Jewish Guy posted happened to be way better at explaining what he believes and how the Bible doesn’t contradict an older Earth than anything posted by you.
You’re here for kicks…because you thought you could get some easy jabs in. There won’t be any scientific studies from you…or hell, anything meant to expand anyone’s knowledge base
Like always, you are here to throw tomatoes from the peanut gallery…again.
The thing is…I doubt anyone is looking forward to another overstand post.[/quote]
Good job addressing my actual post and not attacking me personally. That would have been really hypocritical of you.
Just to split hairs, this headline, by rounding the age to 300 m.y.o actually changes the relevance of the find as the “Permian” is defined at starting at 299 m.y.
SO FUCKING PRECISE! How do they Know? Because, they are scientists, and they know everything. And they know everything, because they are commu… err scientists.
SO FUCKING PRECISE! How do they Know? Because, they are scientists, and they know everything. And they know everything, because they are commu… err scientists.[/quote]
*Based on the best and most current data available.
This thread is so disappointing. Pushharder was able to basically twist this into a Atheists vs. Theists thread, when a few posters just made a few smartass comments about creationists who believe the world is 6000 years old. Not all theists. Really wasn’t worth arguing over for 25 pages.
[quote]BradTGIF wrote:
Anyone else bummed that they found only trees?
I was hoping for some badass sabertoothed pandas or some shit.
Very cool discovery though [/quote]
Yeah I think it’s kinda weird that they didn’t find a single creature (to hopefully resurrect with artificial DNA muhahaha). You telling me the entire fuckin’ swamp forest was empty? [/quote]
SO FUCKING PRECISE! How do they Know? Because, they are scientists, and they know everything. And they know everything, because they are commu… err scientists.[/quote]
*Based on the best and most current data available.[/quote]Scientific data. Sciency Scientifical Scientific data.
[quote]Grimlorn wrote:
This thread is so disappointing. Pushharder was able to basically twist this into a Atheists vs. Theists thread, when a few posters just made a few smartass comments about creationists who believe the world is 6000 years old. Not all theists. Really wasn’t worth arguing over for 25 pages.[/quote]
Actually I the article Jewbacca posted was well worth the trouble and I have enjoyed the professors comments.
[quote]Grimlorn wrote:
This thread is so disappointing. Pushharder was able to basically twist this into a Atheists vs. Theists thread, when a few posters just made a few smartass comments about creationists who believe the world is 6000 years old. Not all theists. Really wasn’t worth arguing over for 25 pages.[/quote]
Actually I the article Jewbacca posted was well worth the trouble and I have enjoyed the professors comments. [/quote]
I think this is a great story of a researcher staying the course of his hypothesis in the face of adversity from his peers who have a stake in the ‘scientific status quo’
[i]When Stanford proposed this “Solutrean hypothesis” in 1999, colleagues roundly rejected it. One prominent archaeologist suggested that Stanford was throwing his career away.
But now, 13 years later, Stanford and Bruce Bradley, an archaeologist at England’s University of Exeter, lay out a detailed case – bolstered by the curious blade and other stone tools recently found in the mid-Atlantic – in a new book, “Across Atlantic Ice.”[/i]
