Posted on 10/18/2005 7:19:16 AM PDT by Junior
But your dog is, in fact, a carnivore, right?
One can determine carnivore status by dentiture.
It's quite possible that you may be correct. The data is weighted toward the carnivore status, however.
50,000 years from now they could find human foot prints heading into the water.... but that doesnt' mean that they have gills.
ROTFLMAO .... That was a good one!
It's built on data points. As for being smarter than y'all, it is possible. For instance, I made the effort to learn about this stuff rather than remain ignorant (there's a long story behind that). That might be a good indication of intelligence.
This story is like the judicary. It's built on itself. It has no real merit except to say "we found some footprints.... and if what other people over the years have said is true... then it might mean.... yada yada yada". (Oh and please renew our endowment next year because we're hard on the trail of learning)
Might not be. It might be an indication of self esteme issues that manifested themselve in the need to acquire learning, even to the degree that the respondent readily accepts ideas passed around in "learned circles" for the sake of the self esteme.
That's not how science works. What those other people have said over the years has been tested time and time again, so confidence in it is high. None of this stuff is taken in a vacuum.
"You and I are not equal in the "not-scientists" department."
According to Junior, he is so much more of a "not-scientist" than you are.
That's about the best line I've ever heard in a p!ss!n contest. That settles it for me. He has beaten you.
Well, how would you explain that the tracks become less deep and in the end only claw marks. You seem to consider it dubious to infer that the animal was bouyed up by water. Are you saying we should consider the hypothesis that it was wearing anti-gravity generators?
I'm starting to think you're not for real... You're just playing with us. Even an uninformed person can list dozens of untested, unproven scientific theories that have been built on over the years.
The desire to learn is not an indication of some innate intelligence? The desire to remain ignorant is not an indication of a lack thereof? IQ-wise, I may be pretty average (I haven't been tested since grade school), but I cannot stand being unable to follow a conversation on any topic, even if I don't know enough about it to make a contribution. There have been threads on this forum that have sent me rushing off to the library because of this.
There are 1000's of possibilities. Science believes what it is suppose to believe based on it's years of ideas laid as a foundation.
Nice thread, but I'm kinda committed not to ping the list for "just another fossil" stuff. Besides, we've had so many threads pop up lately that I'll just pass. Nothing personal. The Grand Master sends his compliments.
I think you just re-enforced my post about self esteme.
No they can't. If it hasn't been tested, how can it be a theory? BTW, theories are never proven. Data accumulates as to whether one can have confidence in a theory or if it should be abandoned.
"One can determine carnivore status by dentiture."
You made up a word there (I give you points for creativity). But I still understood what you meant.
Name two.
What are you saying?? You don't think it's been proven that a spaceship can orbit the earth? You don't think that was once a theory???
Buddy....you're proving that you just stayed at Holiday Inn last night.
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.