Fossilization and the Dinosaurs

[AV1611VET]

The Bible is inflammatory because it’s provoking.

Kinda gets right in there and strikes at the heart, doesn't It?

Get yourself a Bible and go down the street and talk to some children in their front yard, and watch how fast someone provoked shows up.

 

[That Guy 11200]

Thanks TG

I was aware of the 10,000-year fossil definition but initially left it out to keep things short and simple. It actually came up later in the thread. I was unsure if the level of mineralisation conflicted with the 10,000-year rule but you appeared to have provided the answer - it's a fossil after 10,000 years no matter what the level of permineralization.

I wasn't aware of the pollen 'eternal' shell. Do you know of any hard-shelled critters with a similar unremineralised shell?

OB

Shells made of calcium carbonate have a chance of remaining unaltered - 500 million year old trilobites, for example.

I think fossil teeth are often original material as well.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Kinda gets right in there and strikes at the heart, doesn't It?

Get yourself a Bible and go down the street and talk to some children in their front yard, and watch how fast someone provoked shows up.

I don't think it will be the bible in my hand that provokes parents when I talk to their children in their yard.

 

[AV1611VET]

I don't think it will be the bible in my hand that provokes parents when I talk to their children in their yard.

I got into this very subject on another site with a poster (Dan Laurier), so I'll ask you the same question I asked him:

If you look out of your window and saw a lady with a 1611 King James Bible talking to your kids in the front yard, how would you react?

 

[Hans Blaster]

I got into this very subject on another site with a poster (Dan Laurier), so I'll ask you the same question I asked him:

If you look out of your window and saw a lady with a 1611 King James Bible talking to your kids in the front yard, how would you react?

It wouldn't be the book that would bother me, it would be the stranger.

 

[AV1611VET]

It wouldn't be the book that would bother me, it would be the stranger.

What if it was the pastor from your local New Testament Baptist church?

(A "he" of course. Not a lady, as in my previous question.)

 

[Hans Blaster]

What if it was the pastor from your local New Testament Baptist church?

(A "he" of course. Not a lady, as in my previous question.)

How does that change anything? You're still bringing up a stranger talking to kids in the yard. None of these individuals are known to me, nor should I have reason to trust them around children. Book or no book.

 

[sjastro]

Of course it is.

Logic (the transitive property of equality) can take a hike now, can't it?



Sure thing.

Let's start with the online etymology dictionary, shall we?

creature

c. 1300, "anything created," hence "a thing" in general, animate or not, but most commonly "a living being," from Old French creature "created being; all creation" (Modern French créature), from Late Latin creatura "a thing created; the creation; a creature," from creatus, past participle of Latin creare "to make, bring forth, produce, beget," from PIE root *ker- (2) "to grow."

But that can take a hike too, can't it?

So using the transitive property of equality if AV = God's Creation and Pond Scum = God's Creation then AV = Pond Scum or alternatively if AV = Creature and Pond Scum = Creature then AV = Pond Scum
Hence in both cases you are Pond Scum.

Clearly you do not comprehend the transitive property of equality which applies to mathematical statements not to sentence construction or language in general.
Your illogical nonsense is refuted by a simple Venn diagram which shows you are not pond scum as there is no overlap.

​

The case is even more absurd using the examples of universe, creation and creatures, as the transitive property for equality is not applicable as universe and creatures are not even synonyms despite your attempts to show otherwise.

 

[AV1611VET]

How does that change anything? You're still bringing up a stranger talking to kids in the yard. None of these individuals are known to me, nor should I have reason to trust them around children. Book or no book.

Then I rest my case.

Kinda gets right in there and strikes at the heart, doesn't It?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Then I rest my case.

Kinda gets right in there and strikes at the heart, doesn't It?

You're being willfully ignorant here.

 

[AV1611VET]

The case is even more absurd using the examples of universe, creation and creatures, as the transitive property for equality is not applicable as universe and creatures are not even synonyms despite your attempts to show otherwise.

Suit yourself.

But when your body eventually decays to dust, don't come crying to me.

 

[AV1611VET]

You're being willfully ignorant here.

And he's being willfully evasive.

As I said, I've had this conversation before.

This isn't my first rodeo.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

And he's being willfully evasive.

As I said, I've had this conversation before.

This isn't my first rodeo.

No, he spelt it out in simple English, in black and white:

You're still bringing up a stranger talking to kids in the yard. None of these individuals are known to me, nor should I have reason to trust them around children. Book or no book.

That's no evasive, that's being bluntly honest. The book isn't the problem. It's the idea of having a stranger coming up kids and talking to them out of the blue.

This might not be your first rodeo, but you're still the rodeo clown.

 

[sjastro]

Suit yourself.

But when your body eventually decays to dust, don't come crying to me.

Off topic this is a thread involving fossilization not turning to dust.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Then I rest my case.

Kinda gets right in there and strikes at the heart, doesn't It?

What case is there to rest (or make)?

You should see if you can have something done about your BPS (Bible persecution syndrome). Its the thing the afflicts you every time someone doesn't use a christian term when you would.

I called out your term "sinner" because it was vague, not because it was religious. If you had said "bad guys" it would have deserved and received the same rebuke. I was clearly speaking of persons in the "deception and lie" category and "sinner" like "bad guy" is just too vague. (Additionally, you guys keep telling me that every one is a sinner, so its not really a category of any use at all. You might have well responded "human".)

When you're talking about a stranger with a bible talking to ones kids it is NOT the bible that is the concern. It is the stranger. We could go on a long time with a list of cases where you get caught up on the minor, and irrelevant, religious aspect and ignore the far bigger issue in the foreground.

No one is persecuting you and your bible. Certainly not on this site. It just isn't relevant for anything to do with dinosaur fossils, and so many other places you insist on injecting it into without welcome.

 

[JohnEmmett]

This isn't my first rodeo.

This is not a rodeo

 

[Hans Blaster]

And he's being willfully evasive.

As I said, I've had this conversation before.

This isn't my first rodeo.

What do you want me to say that I have a sign at the end of my driveway that reads:

PRIVATE PROPERTY

NO
TRESPASSING

SOLICITORS and
PREACHERS
*WILL* be SHOT

Sorry to disappoint, but I don't. I don't even have a shooty thing.

(Though I did once tear a tract left in my door in half and left it lie for weeks on the stoop like a cat leaving a dead bird as a warning. No, seriously I did.)

 

[AV1611VET]

The book isn't the problem. It's the idea of having a stranger coming up kids and talking to them out of the blue.

So I changed it to someone he would know, but he held me to the "stranger" part, which I forgot to edit out.

So I'm done with it.

 

[AV1611VET]

Off topic this is a thread involving fossilization not turning to dust.

Fair enough.

I'm done with this thread anyway.

The replies are ridiculous, as far as I'm concerned.

 

[AV1611VET]

It is the stranger.

Thanks for the QED of my reply to Warden.

As far as I'm concerned, this is CASE CLOSED, and I'm willing to drop my line of questioning.