Ancient Australian Footprints

marduk · Post by **marduk** » Sat Jul 29, 2006 7:48 pm

It really is time for humanity to grow up and stop hanging on to non-existent father figures

don't you mean long dead kings who declared themselves gods in their lifetimes took the same epitath as each other to prove it and who Judaism much later got confused over

Post by **Minimalist** » Sat Jul 29, 2006 7:50 pm

I'm speaking of all gods...not merely the johnny-come-lately yahweh.

marduk · Post by **marduk** » Sat Jul 29, 2006 8:18 pm

I wasn't talking about YHWH either

and the johnny come lately is Jehova
the god of christianity

Post by **Minimalist** » Sat Jul 29, 2006 8:53 pm

SS-SD

(Same Shit - Same Deity)

tj · Post by tj » Sun Jul 30, 2006 6:43 am

archaeologist wrote:
Oh, brother!
sorry but i am tired of people like tj who think they have a monopoly on intelligent thought and debunk anyone who disagrees with them. they are a joke because they are like spoiled children who get upset when someone challenges them and won't do what they want. tj acts like a 2 year old.

You misunderstand. Neither I, nor anyone else on this board, has a monopoly on intelligent thought. It's more like a poker game and you simply don't have enough chips to get into the game in any kind of meaningful way.

This little lover's spat we are having is a perfect case in point. If you would have assembled a coherent post in the first place, I wouldn't have jumped all over you. If you would have demonstrated that you had applied a half ounce of elbow grease and still disagreed with the dates, I would have engaged you civilly and respected your disagreement. Everytime evolution or dates in excess of your precious 12,000 years is brought up, it's nothing but knee-jerk histrionics from you.

If you want your intellect to be respected, earn it. After a 1000 posts, you haven't. Maybe the next 1000 will serve you better. Maybe they won't.

marduk · Post by **marduk** » Sun Jul 30, 2006 7:28 am

Maybe the next 1000 will serve you better. Maybe they won't.

Bet ?

tj · Post by tj » Sun Jul 30, 2006 7:58 am

Not a chance.

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Sun Jul 30, 2006 1:29 pm

It's more like a poker game

you are wrong again--when you grow up, come talk to me. there is mor ethan oneperspective on things, more thanone way to discuss things, when you realize that then maybe we can proceed but until then...

If you want your intellect to be respected

you are no one i should worry about getting repsect from, all you have shown me is that unless things are done your way you take your ball and go home

so you really have nothing to offer me especially when you can't post constructively but need to attack the person instead.

Frank made the cmment or asked the question about sepculation and to a point i see nothing wrong with it till you use that sepculation without proof to construct an idea that one has no idea or capibility of proving.

speculation is just speculation and to stake one's reputation on something that flimsy, let alone so obvious, is just foolish. my dog could have come to that conclusion presented in the article just by using his nose. these are supposed to be educated and intelligent researchers yet that is all they could come up with?

tj · Post by tj » Sun Jul 30, 2006 1:33 pm

archaeologist wrote:so you really have nothing to offer me especially when you can't post constructively but need to attack the person instead.

archaeologist wrote:speculation is just speculation and to stake one's reputation on something that flimsy, let alone so obvious, is just foolish. my dog could have come to that conclusion presented in the article just by using his nose. these are supposed to be educated and intelligent researchers yet that is all they could come up with?

You are indeed a gem.

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Sun Jul 30, 2006 5:22 pm

You are indeed a gem

show me something unique and constructive in that article? footprints have been discovered from the past all the time, this isn't news nor is it of any value unless it can shed light on something phenomenal which it doesn't.

the only thing it really does is to allow for evolutionists to talk about their dating ability (or lack thereof) or pontificate about nothing to justify their position concerning evolution.

marduk · Post by **marduk** » Sun Jul 30, 2006 5:26 pm

yeah sure Arch
whatever you say
You're obviously far more qualified than the thousands and thousands of qualified people who disagree with you

pontificate

what does the pope have to do with this

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Sun Jul 30, 2006 7:36 pm

well i more qualified and a lot more intuitive than you give me credit for and just because i disagree ith you or hold religious beliefs does it mean that you are more superior.

marduk · Post by **marduk** » Sun Jul 30, 2006 7:47 pm

well i more qualified and a lot more intuitive than you give me credit for and just because i disagree ith you or hold religious beliefs does it mean that you are more superior.

certainly not at grammar or spelling you are not
that indicates that you aren't superior in any way if you can't even use the language of your birth to elucidate your ramblings
my knowledge in these areas, even the one that you profess to believe in is clearly superior because i didn't stop investigating when i finished reading the bible the first time

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Mon Jul 31, 2006 12:48 am

thought you would like it... i am tired and typing is not my gift so if you don't like it too bad,.

Frank Harrist · Post by **Frank Harrist** » Mon Jul 31, 2006 10:58 am

archaeologist wrote:
You are indeed a gem
show me something unique and constructive in that article? footprints have been discovered from the past all the time, this isn't news nor is it of any value unless it can shed light on something phenomenal which it doesn't.

the only thing it really does is to allow for evolutionists to talk about their dating ability (or lack thereof) or pontificate about nothing to justify their position concerning evolution.

yOU WERE BITCHING ABOUT THEIR SPECULATING AND NOW YOU'RE BITCHING BECAUSE THEY AREN'T SPECULATING ENOUGH? WHICH IS IT? iF THEY DO SPECULATE YOU DISMISS IT AS A GUESS AND IF THEY DON'T YOU SAY "SO WHAT THEY'VE FOUND TRACKS BEFORE". bE CONSISTENT, ARCH. (SORRY ABOUT THE CAPS BUT i AIN'T TYPING THIS AGAIN.) They didn't claim that their theories mwere true as you can plainly see it say's "they are believed to be" or "they could have been" or "they seem to be". Clearly no one is trying to say this is the only explanation or trying to fool anyone. It's just news. It's just announcing the facts. Chill out a little guys. Ya'll spend more time attacking each other than debating the real points. That's why I don't post one this topic much.