Page 8 of 9
Re: Boats?
Posted: Wed Oct 07, 2009 8:24 pm
by Rokcet Scientist
Quake update:
there were THREE in quick succession. All in the same area near the Solomons. Ranging from 7.1 to 7.8 on the Richter scale. Big mothers!
Re: Boats?
Posted: Wed Oct 07, 2009 10:19 pm
by Minimalist
But anyone swept out to sea is not going to walk back.
Now, OTOH, if they had a boat.......
Re: Boats?
Posted: Thu Oct 08, 2009 3:18 am
by Digit
You can see it, no one else can. Even with your suggested sea levels there is still no signs of your land bridges.
And petrologists claim there have been none within the life time of homo.
The ball is still in your court to supply the evidence, not require acts of faith.
Ranging from 7.1 to 7.8 on the Richter scale. Big mothers!
Yep1 And still no signs of any land bridges bobbing up from the sea bed!
Roy.
Re: Boats?
Posted: Thu Oct 08, 2009 3:32 am
by Rokcet Scientist
Digit wrote:
Yep1 And still no signs of any land bridges bobbing up from the sea bed!
You wouldn't know it if bit you in the arse, Roy: that sort of movement usually takes (tens of) thousands of years. Waaay too slow for (your) personal observation.
OTOH: sometimes it's fast too! Like in 1963 when the whole world witnessed an island "bobbing up from the sea bed" in a few weeks. I remember it well. You could
see it grow every day on the nine o'clock news. I guess you would have had to be around. And some people have convenient short memories.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surtsey
Re: Boats?
Posted: Thu Oct 08, 2009 3:38 am
by Digit
OTOH: sometimes it's fast too!
Yeah. Well I'd better protect myself then.
The island was called Surtsey BTW.
And there's still no sign of any land bridges regardless of speed, any land bridge would leave signs on the land it joined, show me some!
Roy.
Re: Boats?
Posted: Thu Oct 08, 2009 3:41 am
by Rokcet Scientist
Digit wrote:OTOH: sometimes it's fast too!
Yeah. Well I'd better protect myself then.
The island was called Surtsey BTW.
And there's still no sign of any land bridges regardless of speed, any land bridge would leave signs on the land it joined, show me some!
Roy, you're the quintessential doubting Thomas. But that's OK too.
Re: Boats?
Posted: Thu Oct 08, 2009 4:51 am
by Digit
Agreed! And you seem to be attempting to start a new religion.
'This is the world according to RS. Believe brother!'
Roy.
Re: Boats?
Posted: Thu Oct 08, 2009 8:48 am
by Minimalist
you seem to be attempting to start a new religion.
Warn me if he breaks out a collection plate.
Re: Boats?
Posted: Thu Oct 08, 2009 9:11 am
by Digit
That's the least of your worries Min. The circumcision's done with two bricks!
Roy.
Re: Boats?
Posted: Thu Oct 08, 2009 10:12 am
by Minimalist
"Just take a little off the top!"
Re: Boats?
Posted: Thu Oct 08, 2009 10:36 am
by Digit
Roy.
Re: Boats?
Posted: Thu Oct 08, 2009 10:56 am
by kbs2244
Just as a matter of clarification,
The 2 brick procedure is for castration, not circumcision.
Re: Boats?
Posted: Thu Oct 08, 2009 11:10 am
by Digit
The Rabbi's short sighted!
Roy.
Re: Boats?
Posted: Thu Oct 08, 2009 2:12 pm
by Minimalist
THAT REALLY DOESN'T HELP, KB!!!
Re: Boats?
Posted: Sun Oct 11, 2009 8:16 pm
by Rokcet Scientist
Oh, รก propos wade-walking, Roy:
there was a very amusing episode of Top Gear tonight where an Alfa Romeo 159 raced a man to the other side of the river Humber right next to the Humber Bridge, at low tide. A distance of one and a half miles of mud and strong currents. Neither was allowed to use the Humber Bridge. So the man had to wade-walk, and the Alfa Romeo 159 had to take a detour of 65 miles via the next bridge.
The man won...
