It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

43 Dinosaur Eggs Discovered in China by Construction workers.

page: 9
44
<< 6  7  8    10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 28 2015 @ 03:28 AM
link   
a reply to: AngryCymraeg

Just ignore the fella people we are wasting our time.




posted on Apr, 28 2015 @ 04:13 AM
link   
a reply to: boymonkey74

Really.

Sure wish the thread was started without the silly religious connotation. Know what I mean?



posted on Apr, 28 2015 @ 04:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: stormbringer1701
Sooooo.... this thread isn't about a clutch of dinosaur eggs; amirite? huh? huh? did i guess it?


No you are not right, this thread is about bashing someone who believes that dinosaurs didnt exist

I think irrespective ofa persons belief, that bashing someone for their opinion if valid or not is in poor taste so I just thought I would shine a light on all these other peoples silly religious beliefs

As angry said I am questioning science, how dare I
The others are sidestepping answering the question.

I would appreciate an answer, would you like a go at answering the question. I am asking because I dont know the answer

Stratigraphic Principle and Relative time (note that this does not mean there are no exceptions but just because there are SOME exceptions does not mean they are prevalent.


So lets whip this dead horse

Can you be kind enough to tell me why the exceptions are not prevalent and what are the exceptions and are not exceptions and how we can tell if they are exceptions or not exceptions



posted on Apr, 28 2015 @ 04:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: smirkley
a reply to: boymonkey74

Really.

Sure wish the thread was started without the silly religious connotation. Know what I mean?


Hey smirkley I know what you mean, I agree

Why was this thread started with the abuse aimed at someone in the OP

Thats sad.



posted on Apr, 28 2015 @ 05:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: borntowatch

originally posted by: smirkley
a reply to: boymonkey74

Really.

Sure wish the thread was started without the silly religious connotation. Know what I mean?


Hey smirkley I know what you mean, I agree

Why was this thread started with the abuse aimed at someone in the OP

Thats sad.


Surely you jest. The fact that someone believes that dinosaurs are a fraud perpetuated by 'Big Paleo' is so ridiculous that anyone with half a brain is always going to greet it with hysterical laughter. And yet you think that she has a point. I wonder why?

Now if you'll all excuse me, I'm off to the next staff meeting for Big Paleo, where I will be given a great big cheque for being a shill for them. (Actually I'm off to buy some fresh bread.)



posted on Apr, 28 2015 @ 05:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: borntowatch

Do you have a better explanation for these things and can you provide evidence for it?


If the answer is no for either then it is obvious.


The answer is always no! He disregards the qualitative and quantative evidence to continue an incestuous conversation with himself. Most people on this board have made some contribution or presented some evidence to backup their opinion. Whether we all agree with that opinion is irrelevant - what's important is the evidence for that opinion. borntowatch has never posted an iota of evidence to backup his claims. What that says to me is that he is just a troll looking for a fight.

He must be a lot of fun at the local pub!



posted on Apr, 28 2015 @ 05:39 AM
link   
And I apologize to the OP for the diversion into no-man's land.



posted on Apr, 28 2015 @ 09:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg


Surely you jest. The fact that someone believes that dinosaurs are a fraud perpetuated by 'Big Paleo' is so ridiculous that anyone with half a brain is always going to greet it with hysterical laughter. And yet you think that she has a point. I wonder why?

Now if you'll all excuse me, I'm off to the next staff meeting for Big Paleo, where I will be given a great big cheque for being a shill for them. (Actually I'm off to buy some fresh bread.)


Angry thats called a strawman argument, you should know that..I never suggested if I thought she had a point or not, you elude to a lie, a blatant misrepresentation

Shill, buy bread, do whatever you like but please dont create strawmen. It makes you look a little more than pathetic when you have to make things up to look clever



posted on Apr, 28 2015 @ 09:52 AM
link   
a reply to: AngryCymraeg

Have you noticed Born is has become a angry individual....Iam sure he knows the T&C's and knows you shouldn't call other shills.



posted on Apr, 28 2015 @ 10:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: borntowatch

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg


Surely you jest. The fact that someone believes that dinosaurs are a fraud perpetuated by 'Big Paleo' is so ridiculous that anyone with half a brain is always going to greet it with hysterical laughter. And yet you think that she has a point. I wonder why?

Now if you'll all excuse me, I'm off to the next staff meeting for Big Paleo, where I will be given a great big cheque for being a shill for them. (Actually I'm off to buy some fresh bread.)


Angry thats called a strawman argument, you should know that..I never suggested if I thought she had a point or not, you elude to a lie, a blatant misrepresentation

Shill, buy bread, do whatever you like but please dont create strawmen. It makes you look a little more than pathetic when you have to make things up to look clever


No, you said that we shouldn't make fun of her because of her ridiculous position on dinosaurs (which is still utterly ridiculous, complete with her insane conclusion that 'big paleo' created fossils after the theory of dinosaurs emerged, which is so stupid that I can't believe that I just typed it) because... well you were doing your usual thing of attacking the science without actually providing any evidence. Therefore you were defending her position, or perhaps just her right to have a position.

Your second paragraph is... fascinating.



posted on Apr, 28 2015 @ 02:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: borntowatch

originally posted by: Barcs

It states that all the matter was very close together (compacted) soon after the expansion started.

It doesn't comment on how it got there or what started the expansion, because that is unknown and impossible to study.

We don't even know for sure that it was a singularity.

We can only go back so far before we can't tell what happened.

For all we know it could be a stream of energy that crossed from one dimension to another, or be based on membrane collisions.

We generally don't know the answer to that question, but we do know that energy and matter started close and have been expanding ever since.



You asked me why i dont believe it


You just answered your own question for me


So, you can't even put your ego and crusade against science aside for one single post to honestly answer a question. Guess I'll just go back to ignoring you, because an actual religious / spiritual person would have explained their viewpoint. You are just a troll, likely an atheist trying to paint Christians / creationists in a negative light. If that is true, it is reprehensible behavior.



posted on Apr, 29 2015 @ 06:27 PM
link   
a reply to: Phantom423

Oh, no need to apologise my friend. Between this and "post a funny pic" thread, I visit here every morning for my LOL's.

The fact is, I refuse to let this CaD TRIPE go unchecked, they will continue to be taken to task.

Again, I wonder what Dino the eggs came from, and I wonder what she thinks of the discovery - I emailed the YT channel for comments

Unfortunately........ C R I C K E T S



edit on 29-4-2015 by Sublimecraft because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 30 2015 @ 04:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: Barcs

So, you can't even put your ego and crusade against science aside for one single post to honestly answer a question. Guess I'll just go back to ignoring you, because an actual religious / spiritual person would have explained their viewpoint. You are just a troll, likely an atheist trying to paint Christians / creationists in a negative light. If that is true, it is reprehensible behavior.


Its called a strawman and its disingenuous

I like science, just not stupid religious beliefs masquerading as science, no crusade.

My viewpoint has been explained countless times, I am over it, justifying my position.

Please go back to ignoring me, I would appreciate that. I think You are just a troll, likely an atheist trying to paint Christians / creationists in a negative light. Average behavior


barcs if you are so clever answer my question, hey great time to ignore me, I reckon turning tail and running is your best defence


Unfortunately........ C R I C K E T S



posted on Apr, 30 2015 @ 08:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: borntowatch

originally posted by: Barcs

So, you can't even put your ego and crusade against science aside for one single post to honestly answer a question. Guess I'll just go back to ignoring you, because an actual religious / spiritual person would have explained their viewpoint. You are just a troll, likely an atheist trying to paint Christians / creationists in a negative light. If that is true, it is reprehensible behavior.


Its called a strawman and its disingenuous

I like science, just not stupid religious beliefs masquerading as science, no crusade.

My viewpoint has been explained countless times, I am over it, justifying my position.

Please go back to ignoring me, I would appreciate that. I think You are just a troll, likely an atheist trying to paint Christians / creationists in a negative light. Average behavior


barcs if you are so clever answer my question, hey great time to ignore me, I reckon turning tail and running is your best defence


Unfortunately........ C R I C K E T S


Aha. I note that a) you haven't actually posted any links to actual facts of your own and b) you only like the science that you agree with, the science that fits your own personal world view. Oh and c) you seem to think that a belief in science is somehow 'religious'. It's impossible to argue with you because you continuously move the goalposts.



posted on Apr, 30 2015 @ 10:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg


Aha. I note that a) you haven't actually posted any links to actual facts of your own and b) you only like the science that you agree with, the science that fits your own personal world view. Oh and c) you seem to think that a belief in science is somehow 'religious'. It's impossible to argue with you because you continuously move the goalposts.



and I could say the exact same thing about you, throw in all your strawman attacks and personal attacks and lack of any evidence

I dont care, you cant answer my question, it still stands

Unfortunately........ C R I C K E T S



posted on Apr, 30 2015 @ 11:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: borntowatch

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg


Aha. I note that a) you haven't actually posted any links to actual facts of your own and b) you only like the science that you agree with, the science that fits your own personal world view. Oh and c) you seem to think that a belief in science is somehow 'religious'. It's impossible to argue with you because you continuously move the goalposts.



and I could say the exact same thing about you, throw in all your strawman attacks and personal attacks and lack of any evidence

I dont care, you cant answer my question, it still stands

Unfortunately........ C R I C K E T S


Thank you for demonstrating, again, why it's pointless to argue with you. I did post links, links showing how birds are descended from dinosaurs, on this thread. Links that I note that you ignored. Because that's how you operate. Now, you're going to say that this is another attack. It's not, I'm just stating the facts. Because that's how you operate in thread after thread after thread. You always dismiss evidence, claiming that it's not really evidence as only you seem to know what the correct standard of evidence is that you will accept. We've seen this in thread after thread after thread.



posted on Apr, 30 2015 @ 06:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

Thank you for demonstrating, again, why it's pointless to argue with you. I did post links, links showing how birds are descended from dinosaurs, on this thread. Links that I note that you ignored. Because that's how you operate. Now, you're going to say that this is another attack. It's not, I'm just stating the facts. Because that's how you operate in thread after thread after thread. You always dismiss evidence, claiming that it's not really evidence as only you seem to know what the correct standard of evidence is that you will accept. We've seen this in thread after thread after thread.


Angry, to deny the speculation in relation to satisfactory evidence, ...
Youknow what, I dont care, I think your links are at the very worst lies , at the best a religious take on science because


Angry, your links hold no value.

You are not stating facts, they are theories based on belief, hope and desperation.



posted on Apr, 30 2015 @ 07:06 PM
link   
a reply to: borntowatch

Why don't you show that you've actually read any of the links by pointing out the specifics and explaining what precisely is wrong and show how they are a religious version of science. You did read the links right? Because if so, it shouldn't be any skin off your back to actually explain what is wromg with the science demonstrated in the links. Specifics please, no more of your bull s# blanket statements which are devoid of anything resembling specificity. I realize this will take you off script into unexplored territory but you shouldn't be afraid of expanding your horizons. Should you?



posted on May, 1 2015 @ 03:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: borntowatch

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

Thank you for demonstrating, again, why it's pointless to argue with you. I did post links, links showing how birds are descended from dinosaurs, on this thread. Links that I note that you ignored. Because that's how you operate. Now, you're going to say that this is another attack. It's not, I'm just stating the facts. Because that's how you operate in thread after thread after thread. You always dismiss evidence, claiming that it's not really evidence as only you seem to know what the correct standard of evidence is that you will accept. We've seen this in thread after thread after thread.


Angry, to deny the speculation in relation to satisfactory evidence, ...
Youknow what, I dont care, I think your links are at the very worst lies , at the best a religious take on science because


Angry, your links hold no value.

You are not stating facts, they are theories based on belief, hope and desperation.


Thank you for proving my point, exactly as I predicted. You didn't say why my links were wrong, you didn't counter with your own links, you simply dismissed them as 'lies' and as 'a religious take on science' (which makes no sense). You also didn't state what 'satisfactory evidence' even is - you set no standard because only you seem to know what classifies as that standard. And finally, you mention 'desperation'. Yes, there is desperation on this thread. But it's not coming from me. Are you really that terrified of science?

EDIT: And here's a little something that I found this morning. Quite a nice little cite. I'm sure that you'll find a way to ignore it though.
edit on 1-5-2015 by AngryCymraeg because: Added cite.



posted on May, 1 2015 @ 07:33 AM
link   
a reply to: AngryCymraeg

Very nice paper on dinosaur-bird transition, Cymraeg - thanks for posting it. I put it in my library.



new topics

top topics



 
44
<< 6  7  8    10  11 >>

log in

join