Posted on 10/18/2005 7:19:16 AM PDT by Junior
The O.J. jury perhaps. Or are you one of those folks who think forensic science is just so much guesswork?
This is pretty well stated. I hadn't heard the term pit-ignorant in a long time. My grandfather use to use it when talking about someone who would believe anything you told them. Of course... in 1969 he was saying that there was no way those guys were really on the moon. :)
Well, your post 6 indicates you haven't studied at all. As I said, you berate with ignorance.
Well... I don't believe everything I see on CSI... do you?
Did I say anything about CSI? Do you think CSI is the only example of forensic science?
I just asked you if you believed everything you see on CSI? Do you have a problem saying NO... I don't believe all of that?
It's already hot and heavy here. Who woulda thunk it for a dinosaur thread?
And do you really think that saying "all dinosaures we have found to date with 3 toes were carnivores".... do you really think that's a part of forensic science???
I've studied enough about forensic science to know some of the stuff shown on that show is just straight fiction. I still enjoy the show, though.
It's a good thing you pinged some help.... I think you're gonna need it.
You're suppose to be smarter than the rest of us non scientists.... why are you pinging somebody else here to help you???
That the footprints are 165 million years old.
This footprints went from land into water.
This dinosaur was 6 feet tall.
This dinosaur ate meat.
This dinosaur is an ancester of birds.
This dinosaur was born on a Tuesday.
Every statements above are ludicrous and could only be made by someone who is ignorant of science.
The really stupid statement is when he says "all 3 toed dinosaures to date were carnivores"... and then he talks about forensic science.....
The modern animals that dwell along the beaches and then go swimming (seals, sealions, walruses, whatnot) are carnivores; they enter the water to hunt fish or shellfish. There isn't a whole lot of grazing available that close to shore. So, we have two data points for the animal being a carnivore. In the actual published paper (not the article above) odds are the researchers will say the animal was probably a carnivore.
It's built on supposition. That's what we're telling you. And you can believe it because you're smarter than the rest of us.
Might as well toss in "grammatically challenged". As has been pointed out already, the first few statements can quite readily be inferred from the evidence. The last two are simply your own invention and really don't fit in with the rest, unless the purpose of such a post is to compare and contrast someone else's knowledge and insight with your own...well, whatever it is.
" Three-toed dinosaurs discovered to date have been carnivores."
Based on what evidence?
I doubt they found their intestines lying around for perusal.
I'm not just guessing here. This is all testable and verifiable. I may be mad, but I am a scientist.
Now, if you knew anything about science, as I pointed out earlier, you would know how the researchers arrived at their conclusions, which makes your last two list items and your concluding statement look ignorant in the extreme. Nice try, though, trying to get your two ignorant conclusions lumped in with the well-founded conclusions drawn by the researchers and then claiming the entire thing was ignorant.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.