[quote]Charlie Horse wrote:
I am an atheist and do not believe in these imaginary sabertooth pandas!!!
Rolls eyes at foolish believers.
[/quote]
Do you live in the Canadian Bible belt?
One other thing, creationism v evolution is an onotological debate to which what counts as facts are two different things. Unless one is willing to change their ontology then there will be no winner in the debate because neither side will see the other facts as facts.
I really wanted to be a thread about sabertooth pandas until CH …
Edit for clarity.
CH believes that beavers created the world and enslaved everything sabertoothed. Flat teeth ruled, sharp teeth drooled.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
I’d be interested in having one you who scoffed - not someone else who is just now checking out this thread - explain to the Nation which dating method was employed and why it can be relied on without question.
Then please elaborate on how the theorized geological ages and the common dating methods are intertwined and depend on each other but yet we still objectively KNOW all of this is ironclad.
*Looked at the scoffers, here they are:
Ano
Christine
Tex Ag
John S
Each of you please address the above. If you can’t do so just sit back and watch me scoff.[/quote]
I am one too but I did not post because others did it for me and I didn’t want to turn this into that kind of thread.
[quote]limburg wrote:
If we are talking about a time prior to the sabertoothed panda, then we might be talking wooly cockroaches.[/quote]
If there were wooly cockroaches then there HAD to be wooly praying Mantises…IH would love that, those are his all time fave insects.
[quote]Grneyes wrote:
If there were wooly cockroaches then there HAD to be wooly praying Mantises…IH would love that, those are his all time fave insects.[/quote]
Doesn’t the female mantis eat the male after mating? That should be enough to disqualify it. That’s cold shit.
[quote]BeefEater wrote:
[quote]Grneyes wrote:
If there were wooly cockroaches then there HAD to be wooly praying Mantises…IH would love that, those are his all time fave insects.[/quote]
Doesn’t the female mantis eat the male after mating? That should be enough to disqualify it. That’s cold shit.[/quote]
The females also had the long fangs.
Males had buck teeth.
Known fact.
[quote]imhungry wrote:
The females also had the long fangs.
Males had buck teeth.
Known fact.[/quote]
GASP Sabertooth Wooly Mantis!
[quote]BeefEater wrote:
[quote]imhungry wrote:
The females also had the long fangs.
Males had buck teeth.
Known fact.[/quote]
GASP Sabertooth Wooly Mantis![/quote]
The best of both worlds!
[quote]Grneyes wrote:
The best of both worlds![/quote]
Or the stuff of nightmares…
[quote]BeefEater wrote:
[quote]Grneyes wrote:
The best of both worlds![/quote]
Or the stuff of nightmares…[/quote]
It’s gonna be next year’s summer Hollywood blockbuster.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]Tex Ag wrote:
…Fossils were used to link different stratas together (generally fossils of a particular plant/animal exists within a rather narrow range)…
[/quote]
Bingo.
This is called guesswork which has somehow evolved into “firm scientific understanding.”
[/quote]
Push, I mean this respectfully, but how do you think science and scientific discoveries work? How do they come about? When does it count as good enough?
[quote]pushharder wrote:
heed their high priests and blindly follow pseudo science with unflinching faith.[/quote]
Oh the irony.
[quote]Dr. Pangloss wrote:
Link: Extraordinary 298-Million-Year-Old Forest Discovered Under Chinese Coal Mine
[quote]American and Chinese scientists are flabbergasted after discovering a giant 298-million-year-old forest buried intact under a coal mine near Wuda, in Inner Mongolia, China.
They are calling it the Pompeii of the Permian period because, like the ancient Roman city, it was covered and preserved by volcanic ash.
Like Pompeii, this swamp forest is so perfectly maintained that scientists know where every plant originally was. This has allowed them to map it and to create the images above. This extraordinary finding “is like Pompeii”, according to University of Pennsylvania paleobotanist Hermann Pfefferkorn, who characterized it as “a time capsule.”
It's marvelously preserved. We can stand there and find a branch with the leaves attached, and then we find the next branch and the next branch and the next branch. And then we find the stump from the same tree. That's really exciting.
They are in fact finding entire trees and plants exactly as they were at the time of the volcanic eruption, just like archeologists in Pompeii found humans, animals and buildings at the base of Mount Vesuvius, near Naples, in the Italian region of Campania. Except Pompeei was buried in AD 79 and this forest was covered in ash 298 million years ago, during the Permian period.
Extraordinary 298-Million-Year-Old Forest Discovered Under Chinese Coal MineThe researchers discovered the 10,763-square-foot (1000-square-meter) area hidden under a coal mine using heavy industrial machinery. They believe that this frozen-in-time fossilized forest was covered under gigantic amounts of ash that fell from the sky for days.
So far, they have identified six groups of trees, some of them 80 feet tall. Some of them are Sigillaria and Cordaites, but they also found large groups of a type called Noeggerathiales, which are now completely extinct.
During the Permian, which extends from 299 to 251 million years ago, there weren’t conifers or flowers. Plants reproduced like ferns, using spores, and the modern continents were still joined in a single mass of land called Pangaea. This geologic period happened at the end of the Paleozoic era, after the Carboniferous.
During this time there were also animals. This is when the first groups of mammals, turtles, lepidosaurs and archosaurs started to roam the Earth. Scientist believe that the Permian�¢??and with it the entire Paleozoic era�¢??ended with the largest mass extinction ever, which obliterated 90 percent of the marine and 70 percent of the terrestrial species.
After this event, the Mesozoic era started with the Triassic period. That’s when the first true mammals evolved, the pterosaurs flew for the first time and the archosaurs’ rose to dominate Earth.
Pfefferkorn worked on the project with Jun Wang of the Chinese Academy of Sciences, Yi Zhang of Shenyang Normal University and Zhuo Feng of Yunnan University. The results of their findings have been published in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.[/quote]
Awesome discovery, this is a paleontologists wet dream. [/quote]
That is so fucking cool.
Can you imagine having the opportunity to explore a forest like that?
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]BeefEater wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
We’re not talking religious texts. In fact, for the sake of discussion religion has absolutely nothing to do with this thread.
Now tell me what you know about dating methods and how we KNOW we can trust them.
If you can’t do so, then you too need to head off to Rate My Physique.[/quote]
You are dodging my inquiries now. Again, as I have stated, I am not arguing that dating methods are perfect, science is constantly evolving. The dating methods that we have are the best we have to work with, but I’m sure that’s not good enough for you. But you will claim that because science can not prove they are infallible, that then you must then be right. But of course you will provide no evidence to back your claims.[/quote]
I’ve made no claims on this thread.
I have questioned those who unflinchingly and scoffingly look down on other points of view because their “bishops” and “cardinals” have told them that because we can presently observe potassium decaying into argon gas (or uranium into lead) at particular rate we can therefore remain convinced that it has always decayed at that rate - even hundreds of millions of years ago when no one was around to make the observations.
There are inherent problems with dating methods and even with those problems set aside assumptions must be made.
It’s funny and hypocritical how the scoffing crowd flies out of their kennels with slobber all a-drippin’ and fangs bared when much of their very ethos is founded on assumptions - and yet they supposedly abhor assumptions. Funny deal.[/quote]
As you’ve stated no one was around to make those observations in the past and it will never be possible. The only thing that they can base this information on is current observations, because that’s all they have. It’s not infallible but they’re assumptions are reasonable.