Is There Scientific Evidence Supporting the Floor of Noah?

[WinterBorn]

LOL! I am having trouble? You are the one bringing old shit up. You claim you ran me out of a thread. You called me names. You scream "LIAR!!". I am quite happy to discuss the topic.

Although I may need to go into work, so you chew on the links I posted and we will talk.

see you misquoted me again,,,I said you ran away,, not that I ran you away

LIAR LIAR pants on fire

I believe you said I ran away because of what you posted.

believe what you want,,I have no idea other than you were losing the debate and then werent there,,,

Funny, before you said "remember the one you had to run away from because I wouldnt let you put words in my mouth???". Now I just disappeared?

And why can't you stick to the topic?

National Geographic is a well respected organization that presents scientific data and research. As opposed to a church based publication trying to prove their own ideology.

physical evidence has no church

And the physical evidence is that there was a mass extinction around 65 million years ago.
Here are some links from reputable scientific sources:
K–T extinction | Overview & Facts

K-T Event

The KT extinction

 

[progressive hunter]

see you misquoted me again,,,I said you ran away,, not that I ran you away

LIAR LIAR pants on fire

I believe you said I ran away because of what you posted.

believe what you want,,I have no idea other than you were losing the debate and then werent there,,,

Funny, before you said "remember the one you had to run away from because I wouldnt let you put words in my mouth???". Now I just disappeared?

And why can't you stick to the topic?

National Geographic is a well respected organization that presents scientific data and research. As opposed to a church based publication trying to prove their own ideology.

physical evidence has no church

And the physical evidence is that there was a mass extinction around 65 million years ago.
Here are some links from reputable scientific sources:
K–T extinction | Overview & Facts

K-T Event

The KT extinction

opinion is not physical evidence,,,

 

[TNHarley]

Ohhhh...I see. You’re one of those ‘earth is 6000 years old’ fellas. Well I have debated your ilk before, so I’ll just bow out now. You can’t debate just plain stoopit.

So what makes GOD stupid? And it is possible that the age of the earth is off by a few thousand years perhaps, but not 100's of millions and billions. This is simply a ridicules attempt to replace THE CREATOR of all things with enough T I M E.

God is stupid. He made plants before sunlight.

Where does that put you?

Smarter than him, obviously.

You're a fucking tard for suggesting a human being is smarter than God. Seriously. Were you born that stupid, or did you have to work at it? Are your parents from Alabama, or Palatka?

God is subjective. It can't be proven. It is not fact. I am.
For you to suggest otherwise makes you the stupid one. Also intellectually dishonest. Which is even worse.
You must be from FL or some other shithole state huh?

 

[WinterBorn]

I believe you said I ran away because of what you posted.

believe what you want,,I have no idea other than you were losing the debate and then werent there,,,

Funny, before you said "remember the one you had to run away from because I wouldnt let you put words in my mouth???". Now I just disappeared?

And why can't you stick to the topic?

National Geographic is a well respected organization that presents scientific data and research. As opposed to a church based publication trying to prove their own ideology.

physical evidence has no church

And the physical evidence is that there was a mass extinction around 65 million years ago.
Here are some links from reputable scientific sources:
K–T extinction | Overview & Facts

K-T Event

The KT extinction

opinion is not physical evidence,,,

Those are not opinions, but presentations of scientific evidence.

You demand evidence, then when I present reputable publications presenting scientific research, you dismiss it as opinion.

What is your evidence that man and T-Rex existed simultaneously?

 

[progressive hunter]

believe what you want,,I have no idea other than you were losing the debate and then werent there,,,

Funny, before you said "remember the one you had to run away from because I wouldnt let you put words in my mouth???". Now I just disappeared?

And why can't you stick to the topic?

National Geographic is a well respected organization that presents scientific data and research. As opposed to a church based publication trying to prove their own ideology.

physical evidence has no church

And the physical evidence is that there was a mass extinction around 65 million years ago.
Here are some links from reputable scientific sources:
K–T extinction | Overview & Facts

K-T Event

The KT extinction

opinion is not physical evidence,,,

Those are not opinions, but presentations of scientific evidence.

You demand evidence, then when I present reputable publications presenting scientific research, you dismiss it as opinion.

What is your evidence that man and T-Rex existed simultaneously?

publications are nothing but opinion when there is no physical evidence to back it up,,,

and since t-rex is a dino there are thousands of examples of coexistence which have already been posted


you trying to only talk about T-rex shows your dishonesty in the discussion,,,

 

[Marion Morrison]

which is all a deflection from the main topic because your a liar,,,

Wait, you said you never quoted me, I call you on that, and now you claim I am deflecting from the main topic? lol Okey dokey then.

I am not running from the main topic at all.

what I want to see is your evidence that man and dino didnt coexist and see how that weighs up against the evidence they did coexist

when you do that and stop making it personal we can have an adult conversation,,,

LMAO!!! You scream "LIAR!!!" and yet I am making it personal? Project much?

T. rex Extinction- EnchantedLearning.com
"T. rex went extinct during the K-T mass extinction, about 65 million years ago."

Tyrannosaurus Rex, Dinosaur Pictures, Dinosaur Facts - National Geographic
"Tyrannosaurus rex lived in forested river valleys in North America during the late Cretaceous period. It became extinct about 65 million years ago in the Cretaceous-Tertiary mass extinction."


There are a couple of links that might help you.

Introduction to Human Evolution

That last links shows the history of man and the first fossil evidence of his existence is around 4 million years ago.

sorry but opinion doesnt over ride physical evidence

So you think National Geographic prints opinion without factual evidence?

I do, but as far as you and that guy's argument, I'm rooting for you because you're more right. You take things as fact that I don't and vice versa, but that's not germane to the argument between you 2 and I think you're more right in that particular situation.

I say the earth is less than 7000 years old.

I have a fossilized clam in my back yard that came from a North Carolina mountain peak. How did clams get to the top of a mountain in NC, hmm? I don't think they migrated there. Just a hunch.

 

[WinterBorn]

Funny, before you said "remember the one you had to run away from because I wouldnt let you put words in my mouth???". Now I just disappeared?

And why can't you stick to the topic?

National Geographic is a well respected organization that presents scientific data and research. As opposed to a church based publication trying to prove their own ideology.

physical evidence has no church

And the physical evidence is that there was a mass extinction around 65 million years ago.
Here are some links from reputable scientific sources:
K–T extinction | Overview & Facts

K-T Event

The KT extinction

opinion is not physical evidence,,,

Those are not opinions, but presentations of scientific evidence.

You demand evidence, then when I present reputable publications presenting scientific research, you dismiss it as opinion.

What is your evidence that man and T-Rex existed simultaneously?

publications are nothing but opinion when there is no physical evidence to back it up,,,

and since t-rex is a dino there are thousands of examples of coexistence which have already been posted


you trying to only talk about T-rex shows your dishonesty in the discussion,,,

Because this line of discussion started when James Bond posted "Would you live next to a TRex? I'm sure if you did, then we'd find your fossil." as a reason why no terrestrial fossils are found on Mt Everest.

And if you do not accept publications (especially reputable scientific publications) then you obviously do not want to see any evidence. Scientists do research and publish it for peer review. Do you expect me to post pictures of the K-T Mass Extinction? The publications I posted explained what scientists found and how they came to the conclusions they did.

 

[WinterBorn]

Wait, you said you never quoted me, I call you on that, and now you claim I am deflecting from the main topic? lol Okey dokey then.

I am not running from the main topic at all.

what I want to see is your evidence that man and dino didnt coexist and see how that weighs up against the evidence they did coexist

when you do that and stop making it personal we can have an adult conversation,,,

LMAO!!! You scream "LIAR!!!" and yet I am making it personal? Project much?

T. rex Extinction- EnchantedLearning.com
"T. rex went extinct during the K-T mass extinction, about 65 million years ago."

Tyrannosaurus Rex, Dinosaur Pictures, Dinosaur Facts - National Geographic
"Tyrannosaurus rex lived in forested river valleys in North America during the late Cretaceous period. It became extinct about 65 million years ago in the Cretaceous-Tertiary mass extinction."


There are a couple of links that might help you.

Introduction to Human Evolution

That last links shows the history of man and the first fossil evidence of his existence is around 4 million years ago.

sorry but opinion doesnt over ride physical evidence

So you think National Geographic prints opinion without factual evidence?

I do, but as far as you and that guy's argument, I'm rooting for you because you're more right. You take things as fact that I don't and vice versa, but that's not germane to the argument between you 2 and I think you're more right in that particular situation.

I say the earth is less than 7000 years old.

I have a fossilized clam in my back yard that came from a North Carolina mountain peak. How did clams get to the top of a mountain in NC, hmm? I don't think they migrated there. Just a hunch.

Thanks. I appreciate the vote of confidence.

As for the fossilized clam, the mountains did not start out as mountains. They rose up due to the forces of the tectonic plates. The areas were underwater prior to being pushed up by the forces of the plates.

 

[progressive hunter]

physical evidence has no church

And the physical evidence is that there was a mass extinction around 65 million years ago.
Here are some links from reputable scientific sources:
K–T extinction | Overview & Facts

K-T Event

The KT extinction

opinion is not physical evidence,,,

Those are not opinions, but presentations of scientific evidence.

You demand evidence, then when I present reputable publications presenting scientific research, you dismiss it as opinion.

What is your evidence that man and T-Rex existed simultaneously?

publications are nothing but opinion when there is no physical evidence to back it up,,,

and since t-rex is a dino there are thousands of examples of coexistence which have already been posted


you trying to only talk about T-rex shows your dishonesty in the discussion,,,

Because this line of discussion started when James Bond posted "Would you live next to a TRex? I'm sure if you did, then we'd find your fossil." as a reason why no terrestrial fossils are found on Mt Everest.

And if you do not accept publications (especially reputable scientific publications) then you obviously do not want to see any evidence. Scientists do research and publish it for peer review. Do you expect me to post pictures of the K-T Mass Extinction? The publications I posted explained what scientists found and how they came to the conclusions they did.

a conclusion is an opinion,,,,

 

[WinterBorn]

And the physical evidence is that there was a mass extinction around 65 million years ago.
Here are some links from reputable scientific sources:
K–T extinction | Overview & Facts

K-T Event

The KT extinction

opinion is not physical evidence,,,

Those are not opinions, but presentations of scientific evidence.

You demand evidence, then when I present reputable publications presenting scientific research, you dismiss it as opinion.

What is your evidence that man and T-Rex existed simultaneously?

publications are nothing but opinion when there is no physical evidence to back it up,,,

and since t-rex is a dino there are thousands of examples of coexistence which have already been posted


you trying to only talk about T-rex shows your dishonesty in the discussion,,,

Because this line of discussion started when James Bond posted "Would you live next to a TRex? I'm sure if you did, then we'd find your fossil." as a reason why no terrestrial fossils are found on Mt Everest.

And if you do not accept publications (especially reputable scientific publications) then you obviously do not want to see any evidence. Scientists do research and publish it for peer review. Do you expect me to post pictures of the K-T Mass Extinction? The publications I posted explained what scientists found and how they came to the conclusions they did.

a conclusion is an opinion,,,,

Not when it is based on scientific evidence.

But, by your own definition, you have no evidence of the T-Rex existing at the same time that man did. The "mountains of evidence" you claimed exist are simply opinion.

 

[progressive hunter]

opinion is not physical evidence,,,

Those are not opinions, but presentations of scientific evidence.

You demand evidence, then when I present reputable publications presenting scientific research, you dismiss it as opinion.

What is your evidence that man and T-Rex existed simultaneously?

publications are nothing but opinion when there is no physical evidence to back it up,,,

and since t-rex is a dino there are thousands of examples of coexistence which have already been posted


you trying to only talk about T-rex shows your dishonesty in the discussion,,,

Because this line of discussion started when James Bond posted "Would you live next to a TRex? I'm sure if you did, then we'd find your fossil." as a reason why no terrestrial fossils are found on Mt Everest.

And if you do not accept publications (especially reputable scientific publications) then you obviously do not want to see any evidence. Scientists do research and publish it for peer review. Do you expect me to post pictures of the K-T Mass Extinction? The publications I posted explained what scientists found and how they came to the conclusions they did.

a conclusion is an opinion,,,,

Not when it is based on scientific evidence.

But, by your own definition, you have no evidence of the T-Rex existing at the same time that man did. The "mountains of evidence" you claimed exist are simply opinion.

but it is when physical evidence says otherwise,,,

 

[WinterBorn]

Those are not opinions, but presentations of scientific evidence.

You demand evidence, then when I present reputable publications presenting scientific research, you dismiss it as opinion.

What is your evidence that man and T-Rex existed simultaneously?

publications are nothing but opinion when there is no physical evidence to back it up,,,

and since t-rex is a dino there are thousands of examples of coexistence which have already been posted


you trying to only talk about T-rex shows your dishonesty in the discussion,,,

Because this line of discussion started when James Bond posted "Would you live next to a TRex? I'm sure if you did, then we'd find your fossil." as a reason why no terrestrial fossils are found on Mt Everest.

And if you do not accept publications (especially reputable scientific publications) then you obviously do not want to see any evidence. Scientists do research and publish it for peer review. Do you expect me to post pictures of the K-T Mass Extinction? The publications I posted explained what scientists found and how they came to the conclusions they did.

a conclusion is an opinion,,,,

Not when it is based on scientific evidence.

But, by your own definition, you have no evidence of the T-Rex existing at the same time that man did. The "mountains of evidence" you claimed exist are simply opinion.

but it is when physical evidence says otherwise,,,

What physical evidence? The physical evidence that is reported in a published work? Your rules say that is just opinion.

Now if the published work is by the scientists who did the actual research, it is valid evidence. At least in my opinion. You can dismiss it if you want. But the standards for accepting what is evidence should be the same.

 

[progressive hunter]

publications are nothing but opinion when there is no physical evidence to back it up,,,

and since t-rex is a dino there are thousands of examples of coexistence which have already been posted


you trying to only talk about T-rex shows your dishonesty in the discussion,,,

Because this line of discussion started when James Bond posted "Would you live next to a TRex? I'm sure if you did, then we'd find your fossil." as a reason why no terrestrial fossils are found on Mt Everest.

And if you do not accept publications (especially reputable scientific publications) then you obviously do not want to see any evidence. Scientists do research and publish it for peer review. Do you expect me to post pictures of the K-T Mass Extinction? The publications I posted explained what scientists found and how they came to the conclusions they did.

a conclusion is an opinion,,,,

Not when it is based on scientific evidence.

But, by your own definition, you have no evidence of the T-Rex existing at the same time that man did. The "mountains of evidence" you claimed exist are simply opinion.

but it is when physical evidence says otherwise,,,

What physical evidence? The physical evidence that is reported in a published work? Your rules say that is just opinion.

Now if the published work is by the scientists who did the actual research, it is valid evidence. At least in my opinion. You can dismiss it if you want. But the standards for accepting what is evidence should be the same.

a publication without physical evidence is just opinion and physical evidence is just that, whether its published or not

 

[WinterBorn]

Because this line of discussion started when James Bond posted "Would you live next to a TRex? I'm sure if you did, then we'd find your fossil." as a reason why no terrestrial fossils are found on Mt Everest.

And if you do not accept publications (especially reputable scientific publications) then you obviously do not want to see any evidence. Scientists do research and publish it for peer review. Do you expect me to post pictures of the K-T Mass Extinction? The publications I posted explained what scientists found and how they came to the conclusions they did.

a conclusion is an opinion,,,,

Not when it is based on scientific evidence.

But, by your own definition, you have no evidence of the T-Rex existing at the same time that man did. The "mountains of evidence" you claimed exist are simply opinion.

but it is when physical evidence says otherwise,,,

What physical evidence? The physical evidence that is reported in a published work? Your rules say that is just opinion.

Now if the published work is by the scientists who did the actual research, it is valid evidence. At least in my opinion. You can dismiss it if you want. But the standards for accepting what is evidence should be the same.

a publication without physical evidence is just opinion and physical evidence is just that, whether its published or not

And yet, when asked about the "mountains of evidence" of dinosaurs and man co-existing, you posted links. Are they just opinion too?

 

[progressive hunter]

a conclusion is an opinion,,,,

Not when it is based on scientific evidence.

But, by your own definition, you have no evidence of the T-Rex existing at the same time that man did. The "mountains of evidence" you claimed exist are simply opinion.

but it is when physical evidence says otherwise,,,

What physical evidence? The physical evidence that is reported in a published work? Your rules say that is just opinion.

Now if the published work is by the scientists who did the actual research, it is valid evidence. At least in my opinion. You can dismiss it if you want. But the standards for accepting what is evidence should be the same.

a publication without physical evidence is just opinion and physical evidence is just that, whether its published or not

And yet, when asked about the "mountains of evidence" of dinosaurs and man co-existing, you posted links. Are they just opinion too?

physical evidence is not opinion,,,

 

[WinterBorn]

Not when it is based on scientific evidence.

But, by your own definition, you have no evidence of the T-Rex existing at the same time that man did. The "mountains of evidence" you claimed exist are simply opinion.

but it is when physical evidence says otherwise,,,

What physical evidence? The physical evidence that is reported in a published work? Your rules say that is just opinion.

Now if the published work is by the scientists who did the actual research, it is valid evidence. At least in my opinion. You can dismiss it if you want. But the standards for accepting what is evidence should be the same.

a publication without physical evidence is just opinion and physical evidence is just that, whether its published or not

And yet, when asked about the "mountains of evidence" of dinosaurs and man co-existing, you posted links. Are they just opinion too?

physical evidence is not opinion,,,

What physical evidence? YOu cannot post the actual evidence online. It must be publications.

And what about the conclusions drawn? Are they not opinion? You said the conclusions of the scientists I posted were just opinions.

 

[progressive hunter]

but it is when physical evidence says otherwise,,,

What physical evidence? The physical evidence that is reported in a published work? Your rules say that is just opinion.

Now if the published work is by the scientists who did the actual research, it is valid evidence. At least in my opinion. You can dismiss it if you want. But the standards for accepting what is evidence should be the same.

a publication without physical evidence is just opinion and physical evidence is just that, whether its published or not

And yet, when asked about the "mountains of evidence" of dinosaurs and man co-existing, you posted links. Are they just opinion too?

physical evidence is not opinion,,,

What physical evidence? YOu cannot post the actual evidence online. It must be publications.

And what about the conclusions drawn? Are they not opinion? You said the conclusions of the scientists I posted were just opinions.

they have been posted several times and all you and other evos do is attack the messenger and ignore the evidence,,,,,,,,

 

[progressive hunter]

 

[WinterBorn]

If it is indeed scientific evidence, aren't you relying on a publication of these pictures? Isn't that opinion?

There was a claim many years ago that there were dinosaur and human footprints along side the Paluxy River. That was debunked.

The Delk Print

This link brings up some problems with the Delk Print. First of all, if the prints were made within minutes or hours of each other, as is claimed, why are the human footprints the same depth as the dinosaur's, given that the dinosaur weigh a few tons. Also, there is the issue of the lack of compression of the layers under the prints. Also, there is evidence of the removal of material around the top of the dinosaur track. And the toes of the dino track do not fit what Baulk claims the dion is.

That and the known frauds perpetrated by Baulk (fake degrees ect) call into question his credibility.

Here are some remarks concerning these tracks:
"Moreover, the digits on the Delk print show little if any indications of individual digit pads which are normally detectable on real dinosaur tracks with such a distinct outline. However, it does resemble a number of other likely carvings that were made decades ago, as well as some that have come out of the Glen Rose and Stephenville area in more recent years, and which were sold to tourists. I've personally inspected several of these prints, including some of the recent examples that happened to be broken through the track depressions. Unlike real tracks that show deformational lines corresponding to the print depression, the subsurface features of these loose tracks were truncated by the depressions, strongly indicating a carved origin".

"

 

[progressive hunter]

If it is indeed scientific evidence, aren't you relying on a publication of these pictures? Isn't that opinion?

There was a claim many years ago that there were dinosaur and human footprints along side the Paluxy River. That was debunked.

The Delk Print

This link brings up some problems with the Delk Print. First of all, if the prints were made within minutes or hours of each other, as is claimed, why are the human footprints the same depth as the dinosaur's, given that the dinosaur weigh a few tons. Also, there is the issue of the lack of compression of the layers under the prints. Also, there is evidence of the removal of material around the top of the dinosaur track. And the toes of the dino track do not fit what Baulk claims the dion is.

That and the known frauds perpetrated by Baulk (fake degrees ect) call into question his credibility.

Here are some remarks concerning these tracks:
"Moreover, the digits on the Delk print show little if any indications of individual digit pads which are normally detectable on real dinosaur tracks with such a distinct outline. However, it does resemble a number of other likely carvings that were made decades ago, as well as some that have come out of the Glen Rose and Stephenville area in more recent years, and which were sold to tourists. I've personally inspected several of these prints, including some of the recent examples that happened to be broken through the track depressions. Unlike real tracks that show deformational lines corresponding to the print depression, the subsurface features of these loose tracks were truncated by the depressions, strongly indicating a carved origin".

"

sorry but opinions dont debunk physical evidence,,,,