rza!!! Dude!!! It's LEVIATHAN!!!

SlinkyMike

SlinkyMike

Honorary Master
Joined
Jan 23, 2006
Messages
10,402
Reaction score
5,731
Location
Sometimes anti-social, always anti-fascist.
Hoping rza will see this... BBC News is reporting the discovery of evidence for a massive whale with huge teeth and aggressive tendencies.

Only problem is that the evidence is fossils that date back 12 million years so it is doubtful then that this is the 'dinosaur' from biblical times 'that walked the earth alongside man'... sorry about that pal. :cry:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science_and_environment/10461066.stm
 
Dam those evil cardon dating methods! Lying to us about leviathans age. Very inconsiderate. At least they learnt not to include any soft tissue fossils as evidence. Those evil scientists are learning from their mistakes.

On a more realistoc note: interesting find :)
 
SlinkyMike said:
Hoping rza will see this... BBC News is reporting the discovery of evidence for a massive whale with huge teeth and aggressive tendencies.

Only problem is that the evidence is fossils that date back 12 million years so it is doubtful then that this is the 'dinosaur' from biblical times 'that walked the earth alongside man'... sorry about that pal. :cry:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science_and_environment/10461066.stm
Click to expand...

I don't know if it meets the description described in the bible, so it might be their Leviathan but I doubt if it's the Leviathan mentioned by the bible. The Leviathan mentioned in the bible was alive in 800BC, hence it's mentioned.

I'm surprised that evolutionists continue to ignore soft-tissues in their dating of fossils. Remember that conversation we once had, about soft tissues not being older than 100 000 years? Some people never change.
 
Carcharodon megalodon would have eaten this thing for breakfast. Maybe it was the Leviathan? Far closer to biblical times also at a possible 1.5million years.
 
rza said:
I don't know if it meets the description described in the bible, so it might be their Leviathan but I doubt if it's the Leviathan mentioned by the bible. The Leviathan mentioned in the bible was alive in 800BC, hence it's mentioned.

I'm surprised that evolutionists continue to ignore soft-tissues in their dating of fossils. Remember that conversation we once had, about soft tissues not being older than 100 000 years? Some people never change.
Click to expand...

FFS rza, those were not actual soft tissues. We are going to get you to understand this here and now, I dont care how long it takes. Soft tissues can make imprints on harder materials (in that particular case it was rocks) and its then the rocks that survive with the imprint on them. So no actual flesh survives
 
Archer said:
FFS rza, those were not actual soft tissues. We are going to get you to understand this here and now, I dont care how long it takes. Soft tissues can make imprints on harder materials (in that particular case it was rocks) and its then the rocks that survive with the imprint on them. So no actual flesh survives
Click to expand...

Not interested in conversations about dating methods, so let's not go there. Evolutionists says this 'leviathan' is 12 million years ago, I say no animals existed beyond 6000 years ago, so we are always going to disagree. I'm not up to the copying and pasting that will follow if we engage in this conversation.
 
rza said:
Not interested in conversations about dating methods, so let's not go there. Evolutionists says this 'leviathan' is 12 million years ago, I say no animals existed beyond 6000 years ago, so we are always going to disagree. I'm not up to the copying and pasting that will follow if we engage in this conversation.
Click to expand...

I was not discussing dating methods, but the creation of soft tissue fossils. No actual flesh survives, hence its possible to have soft tissue fossils that are 6000 years old (or older).
 
rza said:
I'm surprised that evolutionists continue to ignore soft-tissues in their dating of fossils. Remember that conversation we once had, about soft tissues not being older than 100 000 years?
Click to expand...

Archer said:
FFS rza, those were not actual soft tissues. We are going to get you to understand this here and now, I dont care how long it takes. Soft tissues can make imprints on harder materials (in that particular case it was rocks) and its then the rocks that survive with the imprint on them. So no actual flesh survives
Click to expand...

rza said:
Some people never change.
Click to expand...

True, true. :wtf:
 
One more link to ponder on Rza -

Fossils show earlier evolution

2010-07-01 09:30 Paris - Scientists unveiled fossils from west Africa Thursday that push back the dawn of multicellular life on Earth by at least 1.5 billion years.

Just how complex the newly discovered organisms are is sure to be hotly debated.

But there can be no doubt that the creatures unearthed from the hills of Gabon, visible to the naked eye, have upended standard evolutionary timelines.
Click to expand...
 
Archer said:
Dam those evil cardon dating methods! Lying to us about leviathans age. Very inconsiderate. At least they learnt not to include any soft tissue fossils as evidence. Those evil scientists are learning from their mistakes.

On a more realistoc note: interesting find :)
Click to expand...

Don't forget all the other radiometric dating methods and how they're all inaccurate in ways that correlate with the inaccuracies of the carbon14 method. :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
SlinkyMike said:
** Until they prove something that the Bible says.
Click to expand...

So true brother.

I actually hope rza keeps posting in this thread. He may be able to get away with the craziness in PD but in here he is probably going to be a in a bit of trouble.
 
Wow, there are still people who think the universe is not older than 10 000 years.

That's one scary sea guppy though.
 
rza said:
Not interested in conversations about dating methods, so let's not go there. Evolutionists says this 'leviathan' is 12 million years ago, I say no animals existed beyond 6000 years ago, so we are always going to disagree. I'm not up to the copying and pasting that will follow if we engage in this conversation.
Click to expand...

BS...
 
Bóшù said:
Wow, there are still people who think the universe is not older than 10 000 years.

That's one scary sea guppy though.
Click to expand...

They do not think the world is less than 10000 years old, they know that the world is approximately 6000 years old.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X