rocket art Posted January 21, 2012 Author Report Share Posted January 21, 2012 if anything you are saying even had the semblance of reality I would be on your side but you are doing nothing but fantasizing, nothing you say has any more evidence behind it than the creationist crazies... You have a nice little mythos going on, I used to be into that stuff when i was a teenager but I realized what a crock of horse feathers it was and went on, i suggest you do so... That's sad, but then I suggest you should have heeded Einstein's advice instead: "Imagination is more important than knowledge." "Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one." "Great spirits have often encountered violent opposition from weak minds." (ehem) er, Pamela mind if I borrow the line He who can no longer pause to wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead; his eyes are closed. I am enough of an artist to draw freely upon my imagination. and to cap with my rockety philosophy: rockety: "Beware of tripping over between an overused left part of one's brain, and an empty right part." :hihi: :cool: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moontanman Posted January 22, 2012 Report Share Posted January 22, 2012 That's sad, but then I suggest you should have heeded Einstein's advice instead: "Imagination is more important than knowledge." "Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one." "Great spirits have often encountered violent opposition from weak minds." (ehem) er, Pamela mind if I borrow the line He who can no longer pause to wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead; his eyes are closed. I am enough of an artist to draw freely upon my imagination. You can take all your mined quotes and fold them into neat little triangles and stick them where the sun doesn't shine. All the quote mining in the world is not enough to make anything you are saying the least little bit compelling... and to cap with my rockety philosophy: rockety: "Beware of tripping over between an overused left part of one's brain, and an empty right part." :hihi: :cool: If you don't let your brain fall out there is no danger of tripping over it. You are still spitting into the wind, doesn't it get old letting all that spit cover you? I guess it's true when you can't dazzle them with brilliance you baffle them with bullshit... Address the issues, stop this insulting tirade and show us some tangible evidence, stop with the pseudoscience and show us real world evidence.. no wait i forgot you have none... If for no other reason your inability to understand deep times is defeating you, humans have not been around long enough for any of the stuff you are asserting to be a human myth, it's highly doubtful humans have even lived in the areas you are pontificating on until at least 20,000 years ago or so, seriously, lets see something beside myths and rumors, they just don't cut it... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sigurdV Posted January 22, 2012 Report Share Posted January 22, 2012 if anything you are saying even had the semblance of reality I would be on your side but you are doing nothing but fantasizing, nothing you say has any more evidence behind it than the creationist crazies... I will not po..ke at the scientific sense of this amusing debate, all i say is that rocket art in any case is not the worst fantasy writer ive ever read :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rocket art Posted January 22, 2012 Author Report Share Posted January 22, 2012 You can take all your mined quotes and fold them into neat little triangles and stick them where the sun doesn't shine. All the quote mining in the world is not enough to make anything you are saying the least little bit compelling... of course you won't, that's a heck of a closeminded bigotry with some itsy bitsy attachment to neg reps anyway :computerkick: :hihi: If you don't let your brain fall out there is no danger of tripping over it. You are still spitting into the wind, doesn't it get old letting all that spit cover you? yeah, right. could you pleaze wipe that eeky stuff of yours off the floor? It's making a mess in my thread y'know :naughty: I guess it's true when you can't dazzle them with brilliance you baffle them with bullshit... Address the issues, stop this insulting tirade and show us some tangible evidence, stop with the pseudoscience and show us real world evidence.. no wait i forgot you have none... If for no other reason your inability to understand deep times is defeating you, humans have not been around long enough for any of the stuff you are asserting to be a human myth, it's highly doubtful humans have even lived in the areas you are pontificating on until at least 20,000 years ago or so, seriously, lets see something beside myths and rumors, they just don't cut it... I see you are about to defeat yourself. Although the thread is still in the process of tackling geological evidence, you seemed not to have backread that leapfrogging to evidence 3 is not the deal. However for the sake discussion on this premature topic, you are to be reminded that while the present mainstream data as to Human evolution may have been traced as far as 5 Million years BC, the concept of an ancestry preluding the phenomenon much further beyond with possible hermaphroditic ancestors are now in the process of being mapped out, and researchers from the University of Pittsburgh may have discovered evidences of its first stages. However, with such fanatical paradigm and closemindedness you are exhibiting as to discounting any possibilty of outside interference to the Evolutionary process, it's likely that would serve some defeated purpose instead on your part as you'd more likely be groping in the dark. It is advised however, to refrain from discussing further on the issue as discussions on this thread are obliged to dwell on geological evidences for the moment. Now back to the main topic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rocket art Posted January 22, 2012 Author Report Share Posted January 22, 2012 I will not po..ke at the scientific sense of this amusing debate, all i say is that rocket art in any case is not the worst fantasy writer ive ever read :) try poking at his/her neg rep button, the hysterical reaction could be entertaining :hyper: how flattering :P , enough to actually inspire me to compose this rockety wisdom (dated 22 January, 2012): rockety: "the similarity between one's fantasy and reality is that both realms agree that one exists." Now where were we, ah yes talking about living up to one's name the topic for geological evidence has now skyrocketed to discussions on the Asteroid Belt... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CraigD Posted January 22, 2012 Report Share Posted January 22, 2012 Begin moderatorly missiveSo in this boxing ring of wits be assured I may have some punching skills to defend my positionRocket art, you’re badly misunderstanding the intended character of hypography. It’s not an arena for electronically mediated virtual bloodsport – a boxing ring of wits, if you will – but a forum for discussing science and technology in a friendly, respectful, non-specialized yet rigorous way – a living room of shared knowledge and opinion. As it says in the rules:... coming here with an agenda to pick fights is not welcome. It's usually wise to start out friendly, and we'll be friendly backPerhaps even more important than the “be friendly” directive (which your truly interprets as precluding demonstrations of punching skills) is the requirement to back up your claims with links and references. This doesn’t mean posting links to descriptions of a phenomena you explain in a way not contained in the text of those links, or to images you believe so awesome as to overturn a scientific consensus. It means no more or less than what a moderator or administrator interprets it to mean. Hypography’s metaphorically a private virtual living room, not a public space or a law-ruled courtroom. Another note on hypographic decorum: the moving of a thread to the strange claims forum does not grant license to continue making strange claims in it. The SC forum is intended to hold threads that fail to meet our standard for support with sound scientific references, so that people who count on this standard can either avoid the forum, or be warned of what here lies. Ideally, after being moved here, the quality of the thread can be improved, and later posts moved back to a "credible science" forum, so continued flaunting of our site rules, even in a SC thread, isn't acceptable. End moderatorly missiveI’m merely repeating what previous members have repeated ad nauseam in this thread, but the notion that ancient human experiences of geological processes such as the sinking of Kerguelen Plateau is plausible only when one conflates the phrase “a long time” to equate the human historical/prehistorical durations on the order of 10,000 years with geological durations on the order of 10,000,000. Simply put, there can’t be human myth about the sinking of any of the known microcontinents based on human experience of these events, because there were no humans around to witness them. The belief shared in pseudo-scientific communities that the theory of plate tectonics that appeared and came to be accepted in the first half of the 20th century supports the idea that geological processes explain lost land myths seems to me to get the history of geological science completely backwards. Valid (though ultimately discredited) scientific hypotheses proposing the sinking of large landmasses to explain common features of places currently separated by oceans, such as the Philip Sclator’s 1864 “Lemuria” hypothesis explaining fossil and zoological features shared by Madagascar and India, but not Africa, were offered because their authors found the explanation that separated lands such as Madagascar and India drifting apart less plausible than that a land connecting them sunk into the ocean. Rather than supporting sunken land hypothesis like Lemuria, plate tectonics is an alternative explanation discarding them. Moontanman 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
belovelife Posted January 23, 2012 Report Share Posted January 23, 2012 what i want to know is, can anyone translate this for me, looks like a chess board, using 9x9 instead of 8x8 for instance, the one that looks like a pyramid with another pyramid on top with a flat top instead of a point? ok, so relations? ald last, if a huge chunk of the planet subducted and cracked in the center of the pacific, is it possible that it created mountins on the west of america? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rocket art Posted January 23, 2012 Author Report Share Posted January 23, 2012 Begin moderatorly missive Rocket art, you’re badly misunderstanding the intended character of hypography. It’s not an arena for electronically mediated virtual bloodsport – a boxing ring of wits, if you will – but a forum for discussing science and technology in a friendly, respectful, non-specialized yet rigorous way – a living room of shared knowledge and opinion. As it says in the rules:... coming here with an agenda to pick fights is not welcome. It's usually wise to start out friendly, and we'll be friendly backPerhaps even more important than the “be friendly” directive (which your truly interprets as precluding demonstrations of punching skills) is the requirement to back up your claims with links and references. This doesn’t mean posting links to descriptions of a phenomena you explain in a way not contained in the text of those links, or to images you believe so awesome as to overturn a scientific consensus. It means no more or less than what a moderator or administrator interprets it to mean. Hypography’s metaphorically a private virtual living room, not a public space or a law-ruled courtroom. Another note on hypographic decorum: the moving of a thread to the strange claims forum does not grant license to continue making strange claims in it. The SC forum is intended to hold threads that fail to meet our standard for support with sound scientific references, so that people who count on this standard can either avoid the forum, or be warned of what here lies. Ideally, after being moved here, the quality of the thread can be improved, and later posts moved back to a "credible science" forum, so continued flaunting of our site rules, even in a SC thread, isn't acceptable. End moderatorly missive CraigD, I believe you have relevant pointers, but it had also been evident that other than your concern of having such as "badly misunderstood," it was actually due to what I perceived as being badly mistreated that elicited such appropriate reaction on my part. I did introduce the thread in a friendly manner, and some forumers were being patient, and even helpful as I requested considerable time to gather data in support of my position relative to the call for evidence. However, someone obviously manifesting patience not having one of his/her merits, conveniently lambasted, prematurely at that, my turf and yet without even giving any relevant contribution to the said topic. As may be recalled, unjust accusations had then been unceremoniously hurled at my domain when in fact, (I was spending time, despite being limited to it, trying to gather evidence to back up my position when the barrage occurred) I had not even started yet!. Also condescending words such as "nonsense, absurd" were bazooka'd at my turf such that I really needed to transform into Defense Mode and reciprocate it with, preferably, more than equal ammunition of wits . I cannot compromise my position and will dutifully defend my post for even the proponent manifested some degree of nonsense on his/her part as well, like insisting on romantic erosion when in fact the harsh topography portrayed in some concerned places manifested the stark contrast instead , and perhaps even entertaining ideas that the Planet is growing! And there will even be more I can refute as we go along. I do believe some forumers here also need some bits of spanking on their part. Besides, it seems I had also observed on some that I considered amusing reactions are actually elicited not because of Science, but as far as the topic in this thread is concerned, rather because of limitations in Science! With such development indeed I will be confident in maintaining and defending my still unperturbed position, and had done the necessary reciprocity to 'expected' ;) detraction with consequences that may now be divulging on an eeky meal of eating one's words or relegated into an animus moose to entertain spectators in a bullfighting arena. Having achieved so, all things be well and may we now proceed to more exciting journey of discovery and rediscovery in my rockety thread. :steering: :artgallery: (Actually, it's just that I really wanted to use that cool emo with a stick thingy ( ) and so I trumped in my psycho war strategy that actually worked well with Pacquiao's name sending spine jitters and stick as well that cool emo :lol: Seems you've been wanting to stick that emo too, now we're even haha.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CraigD Posted January 23, 2012 Report Share Posted January 23, 2012 what i want to know is, can anyone translate this for me, looks like a chess board, using 9x9 instead of 8x8for instance, the one that looks like a pyramid with another pyramid on top with a flat top instead of a point?This appears to be the famous/infamous “Rosetta stone of the Yonaguni Monument”. To the best of my knowledge, there’s no translation of it. It doesn’t appear in any legitimate scientific literature of which I’m aware. To the best of my knowledge, its present whereabouts are unknown to any credible organization – museum, university, etc. – making it difficult to research. Despite the dearth of scientific literature about it, I found some mentions of it in internet forums. Some, such as “byrd” at this webpage, believe it a “modern fake”, largely because it’s condition is inconsistent with the claim that it has been submerged for 10,000 to 3,000 years. Others, such as poster “snipero1” on this webpage believe “the stone talks about a peaceful ruler and his castle on land, which after the occurrence of a catastrophic event, ended up under the waves”. Given the absence of evidence that it has been examined by trustworthy archeologists, I’m inclined to agree that it’s a fake. As for the Yonaguni monument itself, though also not much examined or written about by trustworthy archeologists, the scientific consensus appears to be that it’s primarily a natural formation, possibly with some ancient or modern embellishments. It’s reasonable that, around 20,000 years ago, when sea levels were low enough due to the last glacial period, for the monument and surrounding seabed to have been above water, and humans are know to have been in this area since about 30,000 years ago, that prehistoric people visited and made marks on the monument. As it appears to be a single large natural formation, not composed of quarried blocks, I think the monument is a natural formation, not a building. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rocket art Posted January 23, 2012 Author Report Share Posted January 23, 2012 I’m merely repeating what previous members have repeated ad nauseam in this thread, but the notion that ancient human experiences of geological processes such as the sinking of Kerguelen Plateau is plausible only when one conflates the phrase “a long time” to equate the human historical/prehistorical durations on the order of 10,000 years with geological durations on the order of 10,000,000. Simply put, there can’t be human myth about the sinking of any of the known microcontinents based on human experience of these events, because there were no humans around to witness them. The belief shared in pseudo-scientific communities that the theory of plate tectonics that appeared and came to be accepted in the first half of the 20th century supports the idea that geological processes explain lost land myths seems to me to get the history of geological science completely backwards. Valid (though ultimately discredited) scientific hypotheses proposing the sinking of large landmasses to explain common features of places currently separated by oceans, such as the Philip Sclator’s 1864 “Lemuria” hypothesis explaining fossil and zoological features shared by Madagascar and India, but not Africa, were offered because their authors found the explanation that separated lands such as Madagascar and India drifting apart less plausible than that a land connecting them sunk into the ocean. Rather than supporting sunken land hypothesis like Lemuria, plate tectonics is an alternative explanation discarding them. Your points well taken. It does seem a baffling mystery how despite the colossal, very ancient chapters in Planetary history found its way resurfacing, time and again into Humanity's Collective Consciousness, in particular with the profound intangibility of the latter as understandably any rock on this planet will simply manifest its tangible data. Although as Sentient being, so do learned sages from among the rosters of Humanity, there may be profound reasons to it, but such mysterious aspect of Truth may as yet be considered with due considerations as the present limitations in Science when exacerbated with mediocrity and bigotry might even be subjected to unwarranted ridicule and animosity :rolleyes: Perhaps your mentioning of the Kerguelen plateau have something to do with the Tamil tradition of Kumari Kandam. It is to be reminded however, that the discussion revolving around my Cibolan Theory thread is referred to the legendary location of MU on the Pacific area (kindly consider the posted illustration of the legendary continent as intended for illustration purpose, and may be subject to further discussion as the topic goes along). However, with due consideration to the profound legacy of the Hindu Peoples, discoveries are now being revealed that shall ultimately vindicate them: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nQZFS9Hij0M I really have so many more to say and I will definitely reply to some of your pointers, and will reiterate further my position and still confident in providing more evidences for my unperturbed stand of the "Tribe" aspect, and even challenging what most of you probably had not been before. I have also observed possible loopholes relative to the geological process along the Pacific Ocean, etc. Be reminded that of the discoveries that Science had achieved in this modern era, it still admits limitations that our oceans are the least explored part of the Planet and I believe further discussions relative to the thread may perhaps even contribute extracting revelations from it. This I find exciting, will be discussing more when availability provides. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rocket art Posted January 23, 2012 Author Report Share Posted January 23, 2012 what i want to know is, can anyone translate this for me, looks like a chess board, using 9x9 instead of 8x8 may I request, being the proponent of this thread, that archeological discussions relative to evidence 3 be preferably discussed after geological evidence 2 be thoroughly tackled so as to ensure a more focused exchange of ideas with my rockety topic :thumbs_up: (Though I do admit those were very interesting hieroglyphics indeed. Hmm, have I possibly been reading something about teleportal travel and riding on ships, ziggurat spaceports with animated discussions on fishery, domestic horses, laboratory flasks and solar calendar? Interesting indeed :hyper: but then back to evidence 2 ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moontanman Posted January 23, 2012 Report Share Posted January 23, 2012 may I request, being the proponent of this thread, that archeological discussions relative to evidence 3 be preferably discussed after geological evidence 2 be thoroughly tackled so as to ensure a more focused exchange of ideas with my rockety topic :thumbs_up: (Though I do admit those were very interesting hieroglyphics indeed. Hmm, have I possibly been reading something about teleportal travel and riding on ships, ziggurat spaceports with animated discussions on fishery, domestic horses, laboratory flasks and solar calendar? Interesting indeed :hyper: but then back to evidence 2 ) Rocket art, you have not been attacked or treated unfairly, you made an assertion, it was easily falsified by currently scientific evidence. Until you can refute that real science all the other stuff you are posting is irrelevant. It's like i assert the earth is flat and start supporting my assertion with myths from around the world. Then someone else says no wait the earth is a sphere, we know it to be so and they show me the evidence that is backed up by science, but I keep on saying no just wait till I get the right myth sorted out and I can prove the world is flat. Not gonna happen, first you have to refute the data that precludes your idea being correct. If you cannot do that then you are spinning your wheels and getting nowhere fast... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pamela Posted January 23, 2012 Report Share Posted January 23, 2012 Rocket art, you have not been attacked or treated unfairly, you made an assertion, it was easily falsified by currently scientific evidence. Until you can refute that real science all the other stuff you are posting is irrelevant. It's like i assert the earth is flat and start supporting my assertion with myths from around the world. Then someone else says no wait the earth is a sphere, we know it to be so and they show me the evidence that is backed up by science, but I keep on saying no just wait till I get the right myth sorted out and I can prove the world is flat. Not gonna happen, first you have to refute the data that precludes your idea being correct. If you cannot do that then you are spinning your wheels and getting nowhere fast...see boldedthats not exactly true moon, go back a few pages and you will find that you have been a little "free" with your tongue rocket art 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moontanman Posted January 23, 2012 Report Share Posted January 23, 2012 see boldedthats not exactly true moon, go back a few pages and you will find that you have been a little "free" with your tongue How about you point out where I was out of line and then I'll apologize for it... as soon as this guy apologizes for using the forum to promote his own pseudoscience horse feathers with no supporting data... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pamela Posted January 23, 2012 Report Share Posted January 23, 2012 How about you point out where I was out of line and then I'll apologize for it... as soon as this guy apologizes for using the forum to promote his own pseudoscience horse feathers with no supporting data...Posted 21 January 2012 - 11:06 AM rocket art, on 21 January 2012 - 09:34 AM, said: Hmm..that well delineated portion between the Marianas & Philippine Trenches seem to be echoing the voices of the ancients after all, No, actually it just echos your own delusion... no one is asking you to apologise nor am I trying to ruffle anyones feathers horse or bird. Just take responsibilty for your words rocket art 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rocket art Posted January 23, 2012 Author Report Share Posted January 23, 2012 I’m merely repeating what previous members have repeated ad nauseam in this thread, but the notion that ancient human experiences of geological processes such as the sinking of Kerguelen Plateau is plausible only when one conflates the phrase “a long time” to equate the human historical/prehistorical durations on the order of 10,000 years with geological durations on the order of 10,000,000. Simply put, there can’t be human myth about the sinking of any of the known microcontinents based on human experience of these events, because there were no humans around to witness them. It seems the process of Evolution had been inadvertently overlooked in this comparison. Although geological duration relative to the topic may be recorded to a span of millions or even hundreds of millions of years as manifested by data on rocks and other inanimate objects, the evolution of organic life relative to the span of such duration can neither be disregarded, as genetic components also carry with it data. It is to be reminded that the complexity of Evolutionary process carry with it imprints that define the development of organisms from simple metazoan to extremely complex biological marvels as mammals and ultimately Humans, and neither the former cannot be discounted in defining the integral formation of the latter. This embedded data inherent to organic life that began in the earliest primordial stages and ultimately manifesting with the Human species may have been the key to record within the cellular and genetic imprints of any organic life the necessary functions to attain survival and eventual Evolution in this Planet. This may eventually manifest with more complex processing as animal instinct or Human reasoning, and ultimately the capacity of a more evolved Human for Intuition. It is therefore inappropriate for the notion of geological duration not to be considered beyond one's Conscious realm for in contemporary with such duration the integral component of one's organic genetic imprint that began in its primordial stage hundreds of million years ago and embedded through eons in the process of Evolution had actually been associated with its timeline. Having said that, discussion shall commence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moontanman Posted January 23, 2012 Report Share Posted January 23, 2012 As a guide to the origins of humanity I suggest this video... It's difficult to believe that a thread that asserts such inane horse feathers has been allowed to continue on this forum. JMJones i see that you have done your best to point out how meaningless the "evidence" so far provided has been. So far all you have done is spit into the wind, sadly as with many who are deeply into pseudoscience babble, spitting into the wind affirms their feelings of persecution because no one else really can see the reality they have built in their minds... I miss the old forum so much... Rocket art, you have been presented evidence that absolutely refutes what you are claiming. The genetic evidence and the geological evidence. You must show these to be false before anything else you show makes any sense. It doesn't matter how many legends you dig up, how many myths you quote unless you can refute both of those "bits" of real science your idea is bunk. You cannot argue anything until you can explain how the scientific evidence is false. No amount of wailing how unfair it is will help, either refute the evidence against your idea or stop asserting your idea, it's that simple... This is just silly, it's easy to refute both by geological evidence and the fact that it's easily demonstrable that Australia has not been connected to any other land mass since the evolution of humans, in fact the lack of placental mammals and the dominance of marsupials proves that no such land connection existed for many millions of years, quite possibly since before the extinction of the dinosaurs... BTW rocket art, thanks for the neg rep, you find I am thoroughly unimpressed by neg rep... feel free to give me as much as you like and I will continue to brow beat you with reality until you have a concussion... And by the way if such a continent ever existed it would raise sea levels to the point that little or no other land mass would protrude above the oceans of the world... You have a nice little mythos going on, I used to be into that stuff when i was a teenager but I realized what a crock of horse feathers it was and went on, i suggest you do so... Refute the evidence against your idea, pilling up more and more myths and legends will not ever be enough to refute real facts and will never amount to anything but a mole hill... No, actually it just echos your own delusion... Again, no it doesn't, geological evidence does not support the idea of a sunken continent, anywhere, much less where you are asserting... if anything you are saying even had the semblance of reality I would be on your side but you are doing nothing but fantasizing, nothing you say has any more evidence behind it than the creationist crazies... You can take all your mined quotes and fold them into neat little triangles and stick them where the sun doesn't shine. All the quote mining in the world is not enough to make anything you are saying the least little bit compelling... If you don't let your brain fall out there is no danger of tripping over it. You are still spitting into the wind, doesn't it get old letting all that spit cover you? I guess it's true when you can't dazzle them with brilliance you baffle them with bullshit... Address the issues, stop this insulting tirade and show us some tangible evidence, stop with the pseudoscience and show us real world evidence.. no wait i forgot you have none... If for no other reason your inability to understand deep times is defeating you, humans have not been around long enough for any of the stuff you are asserting to be a human myth, it's highly doubtful humans have even lived in the areas you are pontificating on until at least 20,000 years ago or so, seriously, lets see something beside myths and rumors, they just don't cut it... Rocket art, you have not been attacked or treated unfairly, you made an assertion, it was easily falsified by currently scientific evidence. Until you can refute that real science all the other stuff you are posting is irrelevant. It's like i assert the earth is flat and start supporting my assertion with myths from around the world. Then someone else says no wait the earth is a sphere, we know it to be so and they show me the evidence that is backed up by science, but I keep on saying no just wait till I get the right myth sorted out and I can prove the world is flat. Not gonna happen, first you have to refute the data that precludes your idea being correct. If you cannot do that then you are spinning your wheels and getting nowhere fast... see boldedthats not exactly true moon, go back a few pages and you will find that you have been a little "free" with your tongue How about you point out where I was out of line and then I'll apologize for it... as soon as this guy apologizes for using the forum to promote his own pseudoscience horse feathers with no supporting data... I stand by everything I said, I never attacked him personally but his arguments are delusional, he has no evidence to back up anything he is asserting, he has no concept of deep time and refuses to address the science against him... his arguments are delusional... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts