Skip to main content

TR Memescape

  • Meh, I strolled over, read though, and found absolutely nothing of value at the "talk rational" forum. What a waste of time, space, and pixels.- utter rubbish.

Topic: Researchers validate ancient astronomical structures (Read 2909 times) previous topic - next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Re: Researchers validate ancient astronomical structures
Reply #450
Dave is confused.

Dave is  related to a chimpanzee.

Wow.

  • VoxRat
  • wtactualf
Re: Researchers validate ancient astronomical structures
Reply #451
Dave is confused.

Dave is  related to a chimpanzee.

Wow.
Dave has passed from  Bluff --> Bluster --> Bravado all the way into Buffoon mode,  in the standard Hawkins Cycle.
"I understand Donald Trump better than many people because I really am a lot like him." - Dave Hawkins

  • RAFH
  • Have a life, already.
Re: Researchers validate ancient astronomical structures
Reply #452

No. Many lines of evidence support the Noah's Ark account.

(and thank you for the lovely mental image of lice crawling around your bald crotch)

Which lines of evidence are those Bluffy?
Ignoring the physical impossibility of the whole myth and the impossibility of the numbers of alleles current in nearly all animals developing in just 4500 years, and the problem with ancient structures and cultures that date to well before you claim such a flood occurred, and the evidence from radiometrics, dendrochronology, ice cores, the Grand and other canyons, the geological column, DNA analysis, etc (the list goes on and on), your best bit of evidence is the claim all cultures around the world have a similar flood myth and such is based upon the event related in Genesis, and despite it being your best bit, it totally sucks.

Try this: Hypothesize that myths from cultures from around the world all stem from the event that is described by Genesis. Now, make some risky predictions that would follow from that hypothesis.
Such as all cultures would have flood myths that are essentially the same or very closely similar to the Genesis myth.
Such as there'd be no cultures that don't have such a myth.
Such as it would not matter if a culture was located in a river valley or on high plains or in mountains as to whether or not they have such a myth.

I'm sure there's lots of other risky predictions others can offer. But try showing the above ones are valid.

But give it a try.
Are we there yet?

  • RAFH
  • Have a life, already.
Re: Researchers validate ancient astronomical structures
Reply #453
Dave, by that logic, are you saying that all organisms that can't successfully mate CANNOT be blood relatives (related by common ancestry)?
No. Why would you think I'm saying that? Why don't you read exactly what I wrote?

Because it makes no sense.  Not unless you define what YOU mean by "blood relative".

If you mean something like "a lot more closely related to each other than most human beings are to each other, then nobody thinks that chimps and humans are "blood relatives" by that definition". If you mean "share a relatively recent ancestor", then they are.
Depending on the operative definitions of "relatively" and "recent".
Are we there yet?

  • RAFH
  • Have a life, already.
Re: Researchers validate ancient astronomical structures
Reply #454
Dave is confused.

Dave is  related to a chimpanzee.

Wow.
Dave has passed from Bluff --> Bluster --> Bravado all the way into Buffoon mode,  in the standard Hawkins Cycle.

Which stems from the General Law of Bluffoonery.
Are we there yet?

  • Pingu
Re: Researchers validate ancient astronomical structures
Reply #455
Dave is confused.

Dave is  related to a chimpanzee.

Wow.

Didn't you know?
I have a Darwin-debased mind.

Re: Researchers validate ancient astronomical structures
Reply #456
Actually, yes, I did know ... I AM related to a chimpanzee in the same sense as the Ford Mustang and the Dodge Caravan are related ... same Designer. :wave:

  • VoxRat
  • wtactualf
Re: Researchers validate ancient astronomical structures
Reply #457
Actually, yes, I did know ... I AM related to a chimpanzee in the same sense as the Ford Mustang and the Dodge Caravan are related ... same Designer.
Focus, Hawkins!
The term is blood-relative.

What about deer mice and house mice?   :popcorn:
"I understand Donald Trump better than many people because I really am a lot like him." - Dave Hawkins

  • RAFH
  • Have a life, already.
Re: Researchers validate ancient astronomical structures
Reply #458
Actually, yes, I did know ... I AM related to a chimpanzee in the same sense as the Ford Mustang and the Dodge Caravan are related ... same Designer. :wave:

Funny, I was unaware either of those vehicles had blood in them.
Are we there yet?

  • VoxRat
  • wtactualf
Re: Researchers validate ancient astronomical structures
Reply #459
Actually, yes, I did know ... I AM related to a chimpanzee in the same sense as the Ford Mustang and the Dodge Caravan are related ... same Designer. :wave:

Funny, I was unaware either of those vehicles had blood in them.
Define davine "blood".
"I understand Donald Trump better than many people because I really am a lot like him." - Dave Hawkins

  • RAFH
  • Have a life, already.
Re: Researchers validate ancient astronomical structures
Reply #460
Actually, yes, I did know ... I AM related to a chimpanzee in the same sense as the Ford Mustang and the Dodge Caravan are related ... same Designer. :wave:

Funny, I was unaware either of those vehicles had blood in them.
Define davine "blood".

Sorry, I'm not a bluffoon. No can do.
Are we there yet?

  • Faid
Re: Researchers validate ancient astronomical structures
Reply #461
Actually, yes, I did know ... I AM related to a chimpanzee in the same sense as the Ford Mustang and the Dodge Caravan are related ... same Designer. :wave:

Funny, I was unaware either of those vehicles had blood in them.

Actually, yes, I did know ... I AM related to a chimpanzee in the same sense as the Ford Mustang and the Dodge Caravan are related ... same Designer. :wave:

Funny, I was unaware either of those vehicles had blood in them.

Not if you hire the right people.

Who even made the rule that we cannot group ducks and fish together for the simple reason that they are both aquatic? If I want to group them that way and it serves my purpose then I can jolly well do it however I want to and it is still a nested hierarchy and you can't tell me that it's not.

Re: Researchers validate ancient astronomical structures
Reply #462
 Has anybody read the paper described in the OP? Would somebody please put it in the dropbox? Thanks

 I'm about ready to dive into stonehenge and see what we can learn.

  • Faid
Re: Researchers validate ancient astronomical structures
Reply #463
Well, that should be fun.
Who even made the rule that we cannot group ducks and fish together for the simple reason that they are both aquatic? If I want to group them that way and it serves my purpose then I can jolly well do it however I want to and it is still a nested hierarchy and you can't tell me that it's not.

Re: Researchers validate ancient astronomical structures
Reply #464
ctrl-f "cubits"?

  • Faid
Re: Researchers validate ancient astronomical structures
Reply #465
Dave, as you're "diving into Stonehenge", don't forget that (according to your buddy Brown's theories and charts) it was built less than 70 years after the Flood.
Who even made the rule that we cannot group ducks and fish together for the simple reason that they are both aquatic? If I want to group them that way and it serves my purpose then I can jolly well do it however I want to and it is still a nested hierarchy and you can't tell me that it's not.