RugbyRebels

Uh, humans are still mammals. Not sure how you'd argue it's "misleading," when here you are basically saying exactly what I'd said earlier.



This is the splitting hairs argument I decided I'd prefer to avoid.

Still, it's a pretty amazing discovery. The NZ Herald describes it as 'huge.' http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/ar ... d=11764004

They need to get some DNA out of that mutha, sequence it, and run the homology. More data with which to cock slap creationism.

Which Tyler wrote:

Nice. Pretty much what I thought; just didn't have the energy to transcribe and debate it at that time of the morning

They need to get some DNA out of that mutha, sequence it, and run the homology. More data with which to cock slap creationism.


Also what I was thinking, though not in those exact words...

morepork wrote:They need to get some DNA out of that mutha, sequence it, and run the homology. More data with which to cock slap creationism.

I'm not sure it would make much of a difference. After all, God planted that as a test of our faith

WaspInWales wrote:

morepork wrote:They need to get some DNA out of that mutha, sequence it, and run the homology. More data with which to cock slap creationism.

I'm not sure it would make much of a difference. After all, God planted that as a test of our faith

And at some point science though the world was flat so how do we know they're right now?

WaspInWales wrote:

morepork wrote:They need to get some DNA out of that mutha,sequence it, and run the homology. More data with which to cock slap creationism.

I'm not sure it would make much of a difference. After all, God planted that as a test of our faith

Now, if I had posted that, the response would have been something like:

How do you know God planted it?

What evidence do you have for that claim?

Which God are you talking about anyway?

What proof do you even have that God exists?

Why are you so obsessed with religion?

What do you have against science anyway?

Wait - don't delete that! I know you edited something.


ad infinitum . . .

Digby wrote:And at some point science though the world was flat so how do we know they're right now?

Are you sure about that? certainly no seafaring nation ever did.
Ancients of Egypt and Greece certainly recorded the workd as being spherical; the Greeks with remarkable accuracy.
[align=center]Sorry, I know what you're trying to say; I'm just pathologically incapable of letting that one pass.[/align]

Which Tyler wrote:

Digby wrote:And at some point science though the world was flat so how do we know they're right now?

Are you sure about that? certainly no seafaring nation ever did.
Ancients of Egypt and Greece certainly recorded the workd as being spherical; the Greeks with remarkable accuracy.
[align=center]Sorry, I know what you're trying to say; I'm just pathologically incapable of letting that one pass.[/align]

True enough, though I'm sure it's a statement/question which would be made in support of uncritical thinking that goes along with much of creationism.

Digby wrote:True enough, though I'm sure it's a statement/question which would be made in support of uncritical thinking that goes along with much of creationism.

Well, given that the Egyptians knew the shape of the Earth before the Earth was even created... maybe that evidence is considered insubmissable?

certainly no seafaring nation ever did.

The greatest sea-faring 'nation' of the first millenium (AD), namely the Polynesians, believed the world was a giant shellfish.

Which Tyler wrote:

Digby wrote:True enough, though I'm sure it's a statement/question which would be made in support of uncritical thinking that goes along with much of creationism.

Well, given that the Egyptians knew the shape of the Earth before the Earth was even created... maybe that evidence is considered insubmissable?

This sounds highly unreliable

Which Tyler wrote:

Digby wrote:And at some point science though the world was flat so how do we know they're right now?

Are you sure about that? certainly no seafaring nation ever did.
Ancients of Egypt and Greece certainly recorded the workd as being spherical; the Greeks with remarkable accuracy.
[align=center]Sorry, I know what you're trying to say; I'm just pathologically incapable of letting that one pass.[/align]

Are you thinking of Eratosthenes? He was born in Ancient Egypt, yes (well, 276 BCE) but the city he was born in, Cyrene, was a Greek city.

cashead wrote:

Which Tyler wrote:

Digby wrote:And at some point science though the world was flat so how do we know they're right now?

Are you sure about that? certainly no seafaring nation ever did.
Ancients of Egypt and Greece certainly recorded the workd as being spherical; the Greeks with remarkable accuracy.
[align=center]Sorry, I know what you're trying to say; I'm just pathologically incapable of letting that one pass.[/align]

Are you thinking of Eratosthenes? He was born in Ancient Egypt, yes (well, 276 BCE) but the city he was born in, Cyrene, was a Greek city.

Rings a bell as the Greek, yeah

Though I have a feeling I'm confusing Egyptian and Chinese going further back; I can't really remember though.

rowan wrote:

WaspInWales wrote:

morepork wrote:They need to get some DNA out of that mutha,sequence it, and run the homology. More data with which to cock slap creationism.

I'm not sure it would make much of a difference. After all, God planted that as a test of our faith

Now, if I had posted that, the response would have been something like:

How do you know God planted it?

What evidence do you have for that claim?

Which God are you talking about anyway?

What proof do you even have that God exists?

Why are you so obsessed with religion?

What do you have against science anyway?

Wait - don't delete that! I know you edited something.


ad infinitum . . .

Stop being such a little bitch.The more data we have, the less water anecdote/analogy holds.

How much will they be able to learn from DNA testing on that feathered tail? Does anyone know? What most of us would really like to know is whether the dinos were warm-blooded like birds or cold-blooded like reptiles. I believe the current consensus is they were cold-blooded, unlike birds...

Looking to the future, it's pretty much a given that vegetables are far healthier for humans than meat, and that we could actually get along without meat, and certainly red meat, without too much difficulty at all. I'm guessing by the end of this century red meat will have all but disappeared from the human diet, and that by the end of the next we may be off meat altogether. And then we will come to regard meat-eating the way we regard cannibalism today, and look back upon these times as horribly barbaric.

Which Tyler wrote:

Digby wrote:And at some point science though the world was flat so how do we know they're right now?

Are you sure about that? certainly no seafaring nation ever did.
Ancients of Egypt and Greece certainly recorded the workd as being spherical; the Greeks with remarkable accuracy.

Mediaeval muslins produced a few clever scientician eggheads.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_o ... #Al-Biruni

Vengeful Glutton wrote:

Which Tyler wrote:

Digby wrote:And at some point science though the world was flat so how do we know they're right now?

Are you sure about that? certainly no seafaring nation ever did.
Ancients of Egypt and Greece certainly recorded the workd as being spherical; the Greeks with remarkable accuracy.

Mediaeval muslins produced a few clever scientician eggheads.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_o ... #Al-Biruni

Understatement of the century. Medieval Andalusia was the genesis of the European Renaissance.

Which episode of Lord Of the Rings were they in?

Vengeful Glutton wrote:Which episode of Lord Of the Rings were they in?

The one where the Andalusian Muslims bring science and enlightenment to the primitive backwoods of Europe, obviously.

Fascinating story about the first Australians here:



Many researchers have previously argued that the megafauna became extinct soon after the arrival of the First Australians.

For example, it has been argued that perhaps firing of the landscape dramatically altered ancient Australia’s ecology. One species in particular, the giant flightless bird Genyornis newtoni was investigated and shown to have succumbed to significant habitat change and direct predation.

But the hypothesis for Genyornis‘ extinction has come under significant criticism due to the emergence of counter evidence. Firstly the egg shells thought to be from Genyornis are considered by leading palaeontologists to perhaps be from a much smaller megapode.

The evidence for firing of the landscape, as studied through the genomes of fire sensitive plants, shows no record of plants going through genetic bottlenecks as a result of significant firing events.

It seems that Aboriginal populations may not have been that large until much later in prehistory. Our genomic research has revealed that significant demographic changes did not occur until some 10,000 years ago. The genomic evidence suggests that for tens of thousands of years, Aboriginal populations were not that large.

More careful analysis of the record often reveals a very different picture.

https://theconversation.com/aboriginal- ... gn_monitor

Australia is a big place and you don't get to clock up 30 000+ years of history by scorching the earth.

True, but what happens when you regard anything that walks, crawls or squirms as "good eatin" ?