by The Quiet One 754 Replies latest watchtower bible
That would be incorrect,Viviane. I was just responding to Cofty's assumption: This is what happens when you feel free to make stuff up on the spot with no knowledge of your subject and no respect for facts.
So then the assertion of defending Cofty would draw the parallels on what you just mentioned.
Yes, you're responding, by making stuff up, some of it about teeth and others about Cofty. You're not respecting the facts or the limits of your own knowledge and certainly not other people.
To call someone ignorant you must first study your own fallacies. -WID
Please show me where I called anybody ignorant in a pejorative sense.
Your confusion starts as the animal kingdom developed let’s say fangs.
I'm not confused, you are. Dinosaurs had incisors millions of years ago.
Animals have been inflicting the sort of pain and suffering on each other for millions of years before Homo sapiens appeared. Therefore, despite all your obfuscation, theists have a dilemma.
Here is a fossil of a Smilodon. This creature lived during the Pleistocene epoch that stretched from 2.5 million years ago up to 12 000 years ago.
Does it's teeth look like they have evolved to bite through tough leaves?
Would your illustration be before or after that creation would have sinned to go from vegetation to meat. To have teeth for foraging and digging to preservation. The bible states vegetation, however you seem to imply a marvel of modern science to know implicitly. Did you build a time machine? So then, your point being!!!!!!!!!!!!!! If you wish to continue, the forum is yours, I find your argument redundant at this point.
When scientists discovered the fossilized skull of a huge prehistoric rodent six years ago in Uruguay, they could tell right away that the extinct buffalo-sized creature had freakishly large incisors.
But a new analysis of the specimen of Josephoartigasia monesi -- believed to be the "the largest rodent ever to have lived" -- reveals that this ancient relative of the guinea pig used its gigantic teeth for more than delivering a powerful bite.
“We concluded that Josephoartigasia must have used its incisors for activities other than biting, such as digging in the ground for food, or defending itself from predators," Dr. Philip Cox, a professor of physiology at the University of York and Hull York Medical School in England, who led the research, said in a written statement. "This is very similar to how a modern day elephant uses its tusks."
While not so huge as the largest non-avian dinosaurs, Gastornis was nevertheless a giant in its Paleocene and Eocene heyday between 55 and 40 million years ago. In Europe the bird towered over the mammals who inhabited the same forests – the largest herbivores and carnivores of the day were about the size of a German shepherd, with many being considerably smaller. (In North America, where Gastornis fossils were previously labeled “Diatryma“, some of the contemporary herbivorous mammals grew to bigger sizes, but there were still many smaller beasts running about.) So it seemed only natural that the monstrous bird would have preyed on the scurrying mammals, pouncing on “dawn horses” and cleaving lemur-like primates in two with it’s powerful beak. In museums and documentaries, Gastornis marked the last gasp of dinosaur dominance before mammals took over the world.
But recent research has found that Gastornis wasn’t so terrifying, after all. While a 1991 paper concluded that the bird’s beak could have made short work of many small mammals, other publications pointed out that such a beak would have been just as well-suited to cracking seeds and crunching tough fruit. More recently, tracks of Gastornis – née “Diatryma” – found in Washington show that the bird had blunted toes rather than vicious talons, and a preliminary study of dietary clues preserved in the bones of a German specimen of the bird suggested a menu of plants rather than flesh. And now paleontologist Delphine Angst and colleagues have added another line of evidence that Gastornis probably wasn’t a rapacious mammal-muncher.
I didn't post you a picture of Josephoartigasia. It has gnawing teeth.
Would your illustration be before or after that creation would have sinned to go from vegetation to meat
Is 2.5 million years before "sin"?
And the one from earlier that you ignored...
Another interesting example is the 3 million year old Australopithecus fossil known as the Taung Child.
It has always been a puzzle why no more similar fossils have been found in the same location. Then a close examination of the skull revealed tell-tale marks caused by the talons and beak of an eagle as it carried off the infant and later gouged out it's eyes.
Can you imagine the agony of the child and the distress of it's mother? The screams piercing the sky above the Pliocene forests.
And your god observed with indifference.
Would your illustration be before or after that creation would have sinned to go from vegetation to meat.
You've zero proof that happened.
To have teeth for foraging and digging to preservation. The bible states vegetation, however you seem to imply a marvel of modern science to know implicitly. Did you build a time machine? So then, your point being!!!!!!!!!!!!!! If you wish to continue, the forum is yours, I find your argument redundant at this point
Poor logic aside, you are simply making things up that is contradictory to all evidence to preserve the notion that your death cult blood god is worthy of fealty.
“We concluded that Josephoartigasia must have used its incisors for activities other than biting, such as digging in the ground for food, or defending itself from predators," Dr. Philip Cox, a professor of physiology at the University of York and Hull York Medical School in England, who led the research, said in a written statement.
You don't get to reject science when it proves your blood cult death god isn't real and then try to ride it like a temple concubine when you mistakenly think it helps your case.
I was also fishing for anyone who has ever written a lab report above the grade 12, who I thought would "almost immediately" recognize these terms and could understand what I meant.
I am a senior engineer with a large engineering firm and have written countless reports, the first thing you learn is that the executive summary should be written so that anyone can understand it. I am afraid your meaning is no more clear to me than anyone else in this thread. Your Yoda like grasp of grammar denies anyone the chance of understanding anything you write, word salad is less enlightening than just writing what you mean clearly.
Of course if your aim is to obfuscate rather than illuminate then congratulations, you have succeeded.
I am a senior engineer with a large engineering firm
I'm curious, what type of engineering scale do you carry in your pocket for when you need to measure how much money you have?
