Do you believe dinosaurs existed?
Options
Comments
-
no, an approximation is just that. just like i am approximately 5'5". ? , if you truly wanted to you could go see for yourself how radiometric dating works, science is not something kept away in secret from the masses.
I think what Edgar Cayce has to say about the subject is closer to the truth than what Scientist are saying.
And no, you aren't appoximately 5'5.
You are either 5'5 or your not.
You maybe approximately 5'5/5'6 with sneakers or sandals on is the appropriate statement
Approximate is like saying close to -
how you call yourself ms blue-black and have a light skin ass woman in your avi?
-
Ms Eudoxie wrote: »yes, I believe that science can help explain some things but science does not explain it all. It can help lead to hypothesis and theories and such, but at the end of the day we get close guestimates, not facts. My point is I don't accept everything science or man presents as facts. Cardon dating goes back about 50/ 60 thousand years while there are other methods that go further, none can prove dinosaurs to me when i already don't accept "fossils" knowing they create them in a lab everyday.
Interesting.
If that is so, why is it so hard to believe in/not deny the possibility of things that you cannot see or touch having existed/existing? -
edwardnigma wrote: »Still no facts to contribute? Still nothing valid to say but to diss?
What you want attention?
Only thing factual was the dinosaur bones in the museums being replicas.
It's pretty well known that dino fossils were discovered way before then,
it wasn't until in 1841 that richard owen realized that these fossils were
distinct from the teeth or bones of any living creature. He dubbed the
group "Dinosauria", which means terrible lizards. People before
then didn't call the bones, dinosaur bones. -
edwardnigma wrote: »What does that have to do with anything lol the guy hasnt quoted any scholars, enclopedias, he ain't provide any facts,
he just quotes me and says ? he would never say to my face and that have nothing to do with the subject of "Do you believe if Dinosaurs Existed".
He should make a thread called "how I feel about E. Nigma" otherwise get off my ? ya know
You and fiat and Kai are coming with it, but when you start dissin your showing you have no sort of information or eloquence to prove your point.
That's what I am saying, the disses/name calling doesn't further prove a point any more than if a discussion/debate were to be held by solely presenting facts, opinions and theories. And the irony was with the "who the ? are you" comment. Who the *bleep* are any of us?
"I am intelligent, because I know that I know nothing."
I'm just saying, in the grand scheme of things, we have to know that this quote is truth. -
perhaps them being in the ocean when a meteor struck the surface of the earth helped some. and sharks as we know them today are not the same sharks that existed in the dinosaurs time, they have evolved. don't tell me you don't believe in evolution also.
i wanna ask all these skeptics in here, what's the highest level of scientific education you have received? have any of y'all taking a science course in college or anything?
.....perhaps. Can be said for the entire convo tho. What did the former sharks look like and how did the scientists come up with their image? -
Conscious__Nkechi wrote: »Interesting.
If that is so, why is it so hard to believe in/not deny the possibility of things that you cannot see or touch having existed/existing?
I can't see air, parasites, particles with the naked eye but these things can be proven in any lab. It;s the difference between facts and theories. -
The ? is a troll
-
Only thing factual was the dinosaur bones in the museums being replicas.
It's pretty well know that dino fossils were discovered way before then,
it wasn't until in 1841 that richard owen realized that these fossils were
distinct from the teeth or bones of any living creature. He dubbed the
group "Dinosauria", which means terrible lizards. People before
then didn't call the bones, dinosaur bones.
Dinosaur is a word that cause Hysteria. TERRIBLE LIZARD
Like I said before, I believe Dinosaurs is an exaggeration of the truth.
There once was a time when alot of the creatures today were much bigger.
The Lizards were not that big, maybe the size of a human today, biggest was the ancestor to the elephant. Even humans, being 10 to `12 ft tall were in abundance.
I don't know why everyone is trippin. I didn't say anything outlandish but Scientist exaggerated a story.
Big Lizards and Birds didnt ? rule the earth, everything was ? bigger, and the Big People killed the big animals.
Thats so primitive and easy to understand.
If you can believe in Dragons and you can't believe that there were people taller then Andre the Giant then I just dont get that logic lol
why couldn't more creatures other than Lizrards have been humongous as well? Why do you peolpe think thats crazy
Because a scientist aint say so......yet? -
i'm guessing the answer to my question at the end is none huh? sweetie, go and take a science class please for all our sakes.
this thread has made me so sad. hopefully going to my microbio class can make me feel a little better.
Why skid around a simple question. Was that a factual statement you made or just another assumption, guesstimate, etc. -
well since there are an infinite number of miniscule measurements between 5'5" and 5'6", i can approximately be 5'5". just like Pi is approximately 3.14, you can get more and more approximate with every decimal place, and since pi is an irrational number you could go on like this forever.
Kai, C'mon son....approximate means close to.
So are you 5'5 or 5'6? Which is the fact? Not which one are you closest to. Tell me your actual height, not your approximate height. -
The first species of sharks were different, yes, HOWEVER: Studies show that Modern day sharks are the only species that did not change over time and these modern sharks have existed for over 100 million years and were here around the time of dinosaurs.
Ancient sharks date back to over 450 million years ago. These prehistoric sharks existed before dinosaurs. One significant difference between ancient and modern sharks was them not replacing their teeth as modern sharks do today.
People don't even realize how essential sharks are to our existence. Great whites are becoming more and more extinct but that's a whole different thread. -
KAi and Eudoxi are having a very cute debate, you two should put o live cams and do it in bikinis!
And stop believing in Dragons and Gargoyles folks. Not a good look. -
do you know that gravity is just a theory, you do believe in that don't you?
Gravity is a law. -
edwardnigma wrote: »Dinosaur is a word that cause Hysteria. TERRIBLE LIZARD
Like I said before, I believe Dinosaurs is an exaggeration of the truth.
There once was a time when alot of the creatures today were much bigger.
The Lizards were not that big, maybe the size of a human today, biggest was the ancestor to the elephant. Even humans, being 10 to `12 ft tall were in abundance.
I don't know why everyone is trippin. I didn't say anything outlandish but Scientist exaggerated a story.
Big Lizards and Birds didnt ? rule the earth, everything was ? bigger, and the Big People killed the big animals.
Thats so primitive and easy to understand.
If you can believe in Dragons and you can't believe that there were people taller then Andre the Giant then I just dont get that logic lol
why couldn't more creatures other than Lizrards have been humongous as well? Why do you peolpe think thats crazy
Because a scientist aint say so......yet?
Bruh...there was NO people at the time. -
Ms Eudoxie wrote: ».....perhaps. Can be said for the entire convo tho. What did the former sharks look like and how did the scientists come up with their image?
they rely on the morphology of current sharks most of the time. From what I know, it's
very rare to find their fossils intact. The most intact shark fossil was discovered in peru
in 1988. Most of the fossils discovered are normally shark teeth, since their skeletons
are made from cartilage. I have my doubts on that, especially the size estimates of the
supposed ancient shark megalodon. -
bankrupt baller wrote: »bruh...there was no people at the time.
and thats the ? lie! -
even though they find hundreds on new species a year its all lies because the bible and other culteres never mentioned such animals.
-
Ms Eudoxie wrote: »Gravity is a law.
ooooooooooooooohh Respect. -
bankrupt baller wrote: »even though they find hundreds on new species a year its all lies because the bible and other culteres never mentioned such animals.
I don't believe in the bible dog, if you talking to me -
edwardnigma wrote: »and thats the ? lie!
so are you saying humans were around millions or even billions of years ago? -
edwardnigma wrote: »I don't believe in the bible dog, if you talking to me
did you just try to insinuate im not real by calling me dog?
sup bruh you got beef? -
they rely on the morphology of current sharks most of the time. From what I know, it's
very rare to find their fossils intact. The most intact shark fossil was discovered in peru
in 1988. Most of the fossils discovered are normally shark teeth, since their skeletons
are made from cartilage. I have my doubts on that, especially the size estimates of the
supposed ancient shark megalodon.
Because a sharks body is mostly cartilage which decomposes rather quickly opposed to their teeth which can be well preserved for thousands of years which is mostly where they get their facts from. -
actually the rules within a theory are called "laws" and the inverse square law of the Newtonian theory of gravitation does describe gravity extremely well. a law in science describes an analytical statement, a theory is an accurate and predictive description of the natural world. to know the difference, you would actually have to take a class to learn this. and i ask you again, what's your highest level of scientific education?
not necessarily true -
Ms Eudoxie wrote: »Gravity is a law.edwardnigma wrote: »ooooooooooooooohh Respect.actually the rules within a theory are called "laws" and the inverse square law of the Newtonian theory of gravitation does describe gravity extremely well. a law in science describes an analytical statement, a theory is an accurate and predictive description of the natural world. to know the difference, you would actually have to take a class to learn this. and i ask you again, what's your highest level of scientific education?
sonned........
This discussion has been closed.