(November 16, 2011 at 10:16 pm)Epimethean Wrote: From: http://www.unearthingtrex.com/pages/rex_...html#teeth

The teeth in your mouth have different shapes and functions - sharp ones cut food; flat ones mash it up. T. rex had only one basic shape of tooth: pointy, serrated bananas (although they vary slightly, from rounder to D-shaped to skinnier, and come in different sizes). T. rex had no mashing teeth, which means no chewing! Imagine what that meant for T. rex's eating habits: bite, shear, swallow.

The lower, or dentary, teeth are rounder in cross-section than the upper, or maxillary teeth. All T. rex teeth have two serrated edges for cutting. Most have one in front and one in the back, but the position of the serrations depends on each tooth's position in the mouth. The serrations follow the shape of the jaw, like a cookie cutter - so T. rex could bite chunks that would fit in its mouth. At the back of the mouth, serrations are at the front and back; by the time you get to the front of the jaw, the serrations are both on the back of the tooth.

Ok, where in there does it say what T-rex was biting, shearing, and swallowing?

(November 16, 2011 at 10:21 pm)edk141 Wrote: I haven't read the thread, where do you stand on the whole dinosaurs existing thing?

I believe dinosaurs existed yes. The point was to show atheists how absurd and downright annoying many of the games they play are by playing the same game back concerning the existence of dinosaurs. When I was in high school I worked in a pharmacy, and two of the pharmacy techs got into this very same squabble. It was one of the most hilarious things I had ever seen, because you really can’t “prove” dinosaurs existed, and the one tech was very good at pushing that point.

(November 16, 2011 at 10:29 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote:

(November 16, 2011 at 10:21 pm)edk141 Wrote: I haven't read the thread, where do you stand on the whole dinosaurs existing thing?

I believe dinosaurs existed yes. The point was to show atheists how absurd and downright annoying many of the games they play are by playing the same game back concerning the existence of dinosaurs. When I was in high school I worked in a pharmacy, and two of the pharmacy techs got into this very same squabble. It was one of the most hilarious things I had ever seen, because you really can’t “prove” dinosaurs existed, and the one tech was very good at pushing that point.

Well I would say there are degrees of how provable something is, I mean some things are certain, or so close it's impossible to tell them apart, and some aren't proved at all, and there are things in between. Like we can say dinosaurs existed with greater certainty than that the moon is made of cheese.

"Ok, where in there does it say what T-rex was biting, shearing, and swallowing?"

You're playing Min's fool again, Stat.

From the above source:

Believe it or not, we've actually found T. rex poop. We know it's T. rex poop because of its size (no one else who lived at that place, at the time, was big enough to make such a thing) and because it was made by a meat-eating dinosaur (it has pieces of bone inside). Some poop found with Sue had acid-etched duckbill bones mixed in. Because these bones are preserved, we know that it had a short and rapid digestive system. In contrast, bones eaten by a crocodile are completely dissolved within the digestive tract before excretion. This tells us that a T. rex digestive system worked more like a bird's than a crocodile's.


And,

From: http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/200...rans.shtml


To find out what meant turning not to the bones of T. rex but to the remains of an animal eaten by one, a Triceratops. These animals were hefty herbivores, ten tonnes of muscle with a characteristic armoured head. And when scientists began to uncover bones baring huge tooth marks, they knew Triceratops had been T. rex food. So Horner turned to a plaster cast of part of a Triceratops, the sacrum, fused vertebrae littered with nearly sixty frenzied T. rex tooth marks. Baring such terrible scars this enormous bone had been held up as conclusive proof of T. rex as a predator. Horner wanted to reanalyse the specimen, to see if there was anything previous researchers had missed, and they had. It was not the size or the shape of the bite marks they’d overlooked, it was where they were. The sacrum is a well protected part of a Triceratops skeleton. It’s the reinforced bone at the base of the spine, enclosed by the heavy muscle of the legs and the belly. The bite marks were on the underside of this concealed bone. The one part of a Triceratops body impossible for a T. rex to get to if its meal was still alive and kicking.

There is much more to read there, Stat. Take your time.

orogenicman Wrote:Statler, you'd have to be the dumbest person on the planet to subscribe to anything you just posted. Congratulations.

Statler Wrote:Haha, I am arguing exactly how atheists argue, so if you think it’s dumb then….LOL

No sir. You aren't making any meaningful arguments. You are simply being an ass.

---

Statler Wrote:I believe dinosaurs existed yes. The point was to show atheists how absurd and downright annoying many of the games they play are by playing the same game back concerning the existence of dinosaurs. When I was in high school I worked in a pharmacy, and two of the pharmacy techs got into this very same squabble. It was one of the most hilarious things I had ever seen, because you really can’t “prove” dinosaurs existed, and the one tech was very good at pushing that point.

I can't "prove" that you exist either, but I'd be naive to argue from ignorance that you don't.

(November 16, 2011 at 10:08 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote:

(November 14, 2011 at 11:31 pm)tuxcomputers Wrote: There is? Where? Is there a hypothesis or theory that is able to make predictions based on the data?

When I used the word “proof” why did you automatically assume we were talking about scientific inquiry? Whenever I say proof I mean deductive proof, not scientific induction.

... and the provision of that proof is where?????

(November 16, 2011 at 10:08 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Actually even if you take all the interactions between atoms in the universe over the history of time abiogenesis is still a statistical impossibility. It’s funny you have so much blind faith on certain matters but not others.

Well sort of, I have faith in the scientific process that would have ripped apart the hypothesis if it wasn't viable. It hasn't been, unless your smart enough to provide some proof that "god did it"

(November 14, 2011 at 9:54 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote:

Quote:... and them finding a surprise proves what? That the predictive power of the theory is not perfect and discover a new dinosaur or the entire thing needs to be chucked in the bin in favour of your "just random shaped rocks hypothesis?

No you just seemed to imply it was a perfect science, so I was merely correcting you.

No, your just an arsehole.

(November 14, 2011 at 9:54 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote:

Quote: You posted an image of some statues implying they were "proof" of giant, that was intellectually dishonest any surrounding material was structurally the same as the end product. The process of fossilisation produces 2 different types of material. That takes a long long time, millions of years, not enough time for human bones to fossilise.

You and I both know that nobody has ever even observed “the process of fossilization” to take place, so stop engaging in storytelling and stick to actual science please.

No one has observed an electron but you are perfectly happy to use a computer to show the world your a dick. Nobody has to "observe" the process, they observed different stages of the process with different fossils. They had an idea how it happened, they produced... oh wait I already told you how sciencey stuff all works... but you are numbfuck skull.

(November 14, 2011 at 9:54 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote:

Quote: So how do the same shapes keep appearing in the same strata and not out of place in a different strata. Your hypothesis is that given enough time a fully formed a T Rex shaped rocks would appear in the completely wrong strata right?

Nope, given enough time all of those shapes could appear in similar layers of strata. It’s just a coincidence.

More numbfuckery, at what point would you stop saying "just a coincidence"? Never?... yeah thought so.

When the idea that these "rocks" were actually ancient bones of extinct animals I am sure the initial reaction from scientists was the same as yours. As more and more evidence was mounted that it was more than mere coincidence their position became less and less tenable.

I think they might have missed the bit in your scientist training that evidence can be more than just direct observation. I would suggest you write a VERY angry letter to wherever you went that they missed teaching you such a basic concept. You are piss poor example of how good their education is, please let us know where you went so that we can avoid such a pathetic institution.

(November 14, 2011 at 9:54 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote:

Quote: How do you explain the linear time line of evolving animals? Less evolved shapes appear in older strata, more evolved animals with similar shapes appear in later strata.

Wait, are we still talking about dinosaurs here or now evolution?

Please tell me that you have enough brain power to be able to breath without mechanical assistance because you don't seem to be demonstrating enough in this thread.

(November 14, 2011 at 9:54 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote:

Quote: You really do have your head up your arse don't you.... next post just say "lalalalalalalalalalala.... I can't hear you.... I can't hear you", it's just as intellectually honest

Do you usually try to talk trash after getting intellectually spanked or is this a new thing you are trying out?

ummm I think you have the wrong idea about the concept of spanking.... when your arse is being paddled it's not you giving the spanking.

(November 16, 2011 at 10:08 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Winning by letting arguments stand un-refuted? Maybe you shouldn’t be anyone’s coach on here.

ummmm... I don't think you know the meaning of "un-refuted"

(November 16, 2011 at 10:08 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: I actually am employed as a scientist Toots.

Quote: They produce data from experiments based on that idea.

Oh snap! Where are the experiments proving that fossilization occurs naturally over millions of years like you assert it does!? We didn’t even make it past your second step. I told you that you were telling stories and not engaging in real science.

ummmm... if you are for real and you are employed as a scientist you better hope they never find out about you being on here making such stupid comments.

(November 16, 2011 at 10:08 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote:

Quote: If there was a scientist that was able to prove that fossils are just rocks that looked like bones they would be so fucking famous that 16yo virgin school girls would line up around the block to suck his 75 year old cock.

Burden of proof fallacy, it is up to you to prove they are the remnants of animals that died millions of years ago. Since you don’t have any empirical data proving fossilization even occurs you have a bit of an uphill road my friend.

No, you have your proof they are, your just ignoring it and doing the equivalent of "lalalalalalala".

Quote:You're playing Min's fool again, Stat.

A fool can play no other role.

Stat is a scientist-a christian scientist. That is as far as his understanding of biology, taxonomy, and natural history goes. If it ain't in his silly old book, it ain't real: Which, of course, sets him up for a real Cartesian wallop.

(November 16, 2011 at 10:08 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Well I see this exercise didn’t go over your head like it did everyone else’s. Kudos to you.
So if a teacher or encyclopedia says something is true it is true?

I've been looking at a lot of your answer, you simply say "it isn't true" to about anything that is presented to you. In fact that's your core argument "nothing is true"

How long do you think you can push the same argument over and over?

Once again, tell us what is true. Show us your explanation then.

For the teachers and the museums, it turned out they are right most of the time. There is a trigonometry and it works as they've said. There is a P-51 Mustang plane, the Air and Space Museum didn't lie to me. It also turned out that the map I was shown in class was right, there is a place call the USA and an other called Canada. Even though from here in Europe you cannot see them, so you are tempted to believe they do not exist. The number 10 actually comes out after the number 9, just like they said it would! And look, they even taught me writing, that's how you and I communicate. So according to you I should turn my back on society and all of the information it passed down onto me. Sure, but for what? Tell me what should replace all of those things society has given me? I understand you have rejected it but why should I? Convince me a bit and I'll follow you.

This thread started with a link from that pesky Summer Queen. I've been over that page and find is a great example of science misunderstanding. There are repeated nonsense like "Fossilisation can't happen because of the second law of thermodynamics". LOL what? The rest of the page are referring to obvious discovery and statements which are never ever referenced. The person who wrote that page makes many simplistic and bold statements that are backed up by absolutely nothing. It is as bad as reading a Kent Hovind dissertation. But at least the man tried his best.

So, I'd love to read your dissertation, the one in which you lay out the TRUTH the societies of the entire world seems to have failed noticing. After all you have been so dismissive of everything else it must be because they are all untrue. Now is the time when I sit and learn from you, but I can't learn from silence.


So please, I beg of you, explain to us what those fossils are, how the world was created, what are those different stratas one sees in the ground, how old is our planet and the others, how life began?

You know I think I'm slowly deciphering what it is all about. Schools, teachers and museums are how society passes down knowledge to other members, the next generation or those who want to extend their competences.

You want us to throw it all away.

The dinosaur bit is just a pretext to reject everything such as the government and it schools, its universities, its museums and other educational institutions. What you are promoting is nothing but a selfish and destructive anti-social agenda in which nothing can or should be taught outside of the bible. That's ok for individuals to do, but in the end we will need engineers, teachers, doctors, lawyers, people with an education that's outside the realm of the Bible. You know, reality, the real world where actual things get done.

Ever considered joining a monastery or a Kibbutz? You would be happier there than you are among us, the productive people who have found a place in society.

(November 16, 2011 at 10:29 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: I believe dinosaurs existed yes. The point was to show atheists how absurd and downright annoying many of the games they play are by playing the same game back concerning the existence of dinosaurs. When I was in high school I worked in a pharmacy, and two of the pharmacy techs got into this very same squabble. It was one of the most hilarious things I had ever seen, because you really can’t “prove” dinosaurs existed, and the one tech was very good at pushing that point.

Except that you "proved" no such point. You picked a terrible cross to bleed and die on because the existence of dinosaurs is well demonstrated, the difference between fossils and rocks well understood. There is no discord, there is no doubt. This is why your constant appeals to your version of logic are plainly retarded. While science is mostly built upon induction, it works. Further, the problem of induction has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not these fossils were bone, because no induction is required. That's just chemistry, anatomy, geology, it's cut and dry. Induction comes in when we determine that they were once alive. What would the logical argument to the contrary be (how else could these things be explained)? See how pointless this is? The inductive "leap" if you will, is that all things with bones were once alive (nothing specifically to do with dinosaurs at all). If you want to argue that, be my guest. It's not exactly equivalent to god claims, or the act of being skeptical about such claims. So just stop.