Theory debunked

:lol::lol::lol::lol:
I'm out for the day. I'll talk to you guys Monday!

[Xans]

Professor Chaos wrote

What a pathetic attempt at trolling, cunt* Xans.

*Sorry, typo. The "c" is right next to the "X," the "u" is a vowel, much like "a," and the "t" is...er...also typed with the left hand. Or something.

If it was my intent to troll, I'd respond to your insults more often.

Apparently I’m missing something here what exactly does this debunk?

Just Us Chickens wrote

Apparently I’m missing something here what exactly does this debunk?

It turns out that a "burst" of speciation that scientists thought happened 65 million years ago actually happened 20 million years before that. Xans somehow thinks this supports young Earth creationism.

Xans wrote

p.s. If something like this can "flabbergast" mainstream scientists, I can't wait to see their reaction to more evidence of a world wide flood and it's effect on their precious theories.

Such as...?

[Choobus]

fuck of Xancis you shit eating moron.

Evil_Mage_Ra wrote

It turns out that a "burst" of speciation that scientists thought happened 65 million years ago actually happened 20 million years before that. Xans somehow thinks this supports young Earth creationism.

But its still evolution they just had the time a little off. It would be interesting to know what made them change their minds about the time like but I can't imagine how the new development would support any of Xans views.

Just Us Chickens wrote

But its still evolution they just had the time a little off. It would be interesting to know what made them change their minds about the time like but I can't imagine how the new development would support any of Xans views.

The Nature article these conclusions are supposed to be presented in hasn't been released yet, so I haven't been able to see their methodology.

Evil_Mage_Ra wrote

The Nature article these conclusions are supposed to be presented in hasn't been released yet, so I haven't been able to see their methodology.

I have a poor understanding of science its so nice to have all of you in this forum around so that I can pick your brains :)

[Choobus]

Xancis logic: hey man, these so-called scientists made a minor mistake, that means everything they say is wrong and Jeebus rules. Now I'm going to get on my science powered computer and prove to the world that I am as much of a retarded cunt as I seem to be. But first I am going to suck off a priest.

[anthonyjfuchs]

Xans wrote

I don't see why he should be "flabbergasted". It's not like he was shown videos in high school of this now debunked theory.. as if it were fact... like I was. :rolleyes:

What shit-ass high school did he go to? Or was he home-schooled by a couple of know-nothing Jesus-junkies?

How exactly does one make a video of a scientific theory? How do you get it to stay still long enough to point a camera at it? Does taking a theory's picture trap its soul on the film?

Xans wrote

p.s. If something like this can "flabbergast" mainstream scientists, I can't wait to see their reaction to more evidence of a world wide flood and it's effect on their precious theories.

Yeah, that'd be great. If only there were even one scrap of evidence that such a mythological event took place, then it wouldn't sound like a fairy tale you pulled out of your asshole.

[nkb]

Xans wrote

"I was flabbergasted," said study co-author Ross MacPhee, curator of vertebrate zoology at the American Museum of Natural History in New York

I don't see why he should be "flabbergasted". It's not like he was shown videos in high school of this now debunked theory.. as if it were fact... like I was. :rolleyes:

p.s. If something like this can "flabbergast" mainstream scientists, I can't wait to see their reaction to more evidence of a world wide flood and it's effect on their precious theories.

It appears to be obvious to everyone but you, so let me say it again: Just because a scientific theory is disproven, or altered, due to new evidence, this in no way validates any moronic religious ideas by default.

Let me give you a simple example:
You say pi = 3 (as the good book tells you), and I say pi = 3.14.
If it is shown that my value is not completely accurate (which it obviously isn't), does this automatically mean that pi = 3?

Actually pi = 3.141 Looks like you're wrong, too, nkb.

[Kate]

Nuh uh! It's 3.14159265!

[anthonyjfuchs]

I prefer lemon merangue or key lime. But that's just me.

BA-DUM-CHING!!! I'll be here all week. Don't forget to tip your waitress.