I would say that almost destroyed is far in excess of badly damaged. A vehicle that was badly damaged might be repairable, one that was almost destroyed would I think not.
But to return to the article I posted, sort of finishes the land bridge argument to the Andaman Islands would you not say?
And I sleep very well thank you.
Sure I will. By PROOF.
So till you see and Dactyl flying past you will not accept that they could fly? There is, after all, no PROOF, is there?
Rokcet Scientist wrote:
Sure I will. By PROOF.
Until then one premise is as good as another.
Howdy RS. That's cool, but a boat or a raft carbon dated to 40,000 BC is never going to be found. So, I'm curious...will anything constitute proof?
I sure hope so. Obviously I don't know what form that proof will take. You seem already convinced it won't be a boat. But why not? How about good old fossils? Of boats, this time. Their – carbon – structures, like – carbon – skeletons, might have left imprints in calcium or sandstone formations. The Valsequillo footprints are dated how old again...?
Maybe we will find a perfectly preserved boat in the 6 meters (20 feet) of volcanic ash that the Toba eruption deposited (wouldn't that be nice for dating puposes!).
We found Pompeji and Herculaneum, didn't we?
Very well RS. Wood is not bone, and you seem to reject geological science. I had this same discussion with a fellow called Marduk, with the same results. I'll leave it there then, and not belabor the point with you any more. You're hard-headed my friend.
I'll just keep on posting the facts to new members.
I'll just keep on posting the facts to new members.
That's nice. You do that. And I'll keep pointing out that 1) there are more roads that lead to Rome, and that 2) it is not very sensible to presume too much, but to keep an open mind throughout.
Having decided the Abo's got to Oz by boat without evidence isn't exactly an example of open mindedness! But rather one of projection. Or wishful thinking, if you will.
Last edited by Rokcet Scientist on Tue Apr 15, 2008 1:15 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Or insisting against logic that they got there over a non existant land bridge. As I've pointed out a number of times the Sunda straight has never been either dry nor shallow.
Having decided the Abo's got to Oz by boat without evidence isn't exactly an example of open mindedness!
RS - you're not letting me walk away from this discussion.
There is nothing but evidence. These scientists are not dreaming this up, rather you are rejecting geology. Look for yourself and see if you can find one geologist that says there was a land bridge to Sahul. They are adamant that there was not.
You're rejecting that evidence.
The bones have been found and dated. I assume you believe that.
If you find any evidence of a land bridge to Sahul, I'm sure you'll post it.
Very selectively. After all Beag, I've never seen the bering land brdge but geaologist have sufficient evidence to convince me, and most others, those same people who say that there was no land bridge across the Sunda. Selective myopia I think.
Very selectively. After all Beag, I've never seen the bering land brdge but geaologist have sufficient evidence to convince me, and most others, those same people who say that there was no land bridge across the Sunda. Selective myopia I think.
Right Dig. I am leaving this again, but I had to respond to the "no evidence" remark. RS is cool, but he doesn't want to believe this and he has that right.
I should explain what I meant. When a boat is made, the wood is seasoned and dehydrated. That is enough to prevent petrification. The boat will eventually decay.
A live tree that is felled and immediately covered by any substance, and creating an anaerobic environment for the tree, may, under rare circumstances, petrify. That is assuming the right minerals are present.
Naturally a tree that falls is considered dead - but it's cell walls are still intact. This article explains better: http://www.geocities.com/Yosemite/Campg ... lette.html
Beagle wrote:Naturally a tree that falls is considered dead - but it's cell walls are still intact.
Not for long.
Decay sets in the very moment the systems arrest. That holds for every carbon-based living thing. Only the speed of decay from the moment of the arrest of systems – the moment we call 'death', and the creature is subsequently 'dead' – onward varies somewhat depending on species (a little bit) and circumstances (a lot).
The morphing of cell walls from intact to not-intact is a fuzzy and long drawn-out process. It doesn't happen from one second to the next. Not even from one day to the next. It is not a sharply definable point in time. More like an almost imperceptible slide – part of the whole decaying process.
So if by 'dead wood' you mean 'a felled tree with its cell walls still intact' please say so, because that is not everybody's definition of 'dead wood'.
To most people, for instance, a petrified tree trunk represents very 'dead wood'. The state of its cell walls is not an issue, I can assure you.
So if by 'dead wood' you mean 'a felled tree with its cell walls still intact' please say so, because that is not everybody's definition of 'dead wood'.
My definition of dead wood is the employee who I fired Friday.
Something is wrong here. War, disease, death, destruction, hunger, filth, poverty, torture, crime, corruption, and the Ice Capades. Something is definitely wrong. This is not good work. If this is the best God can do, I am not impressed.
