why we cannot trust scientists

nature has evolved perfect hunters, perfect defenders, what about perfect hiders?

now I can use my experience with talking with creationists. here we go.
if we put a group of people from for example thousand years ago and a group of velociraptors, who would win? people, with a weapon that could kill velociraptors before they even reach people, or velociraptors with tiny brain, whose claws can attack on only 1 meter? that's why people are perfect predators - because of their incredible intelligence in a comparass between them and e.g. dinosaurs.

why aren't people that big as dinosaurs are? there are two not excluding each other explanations. it's because a build of dinosaurs was better at big sizes - they are strongly inclined and long, which makes them balance better and not damage their skeletons in a scale of whole life. second of all - in the times of dinosaurs there was more oxygen than now. now oxygen level is lower than 20% in the air, then it was over 50%. it's been tested and checked in the ambers. some farmers also done the test. they increased the level of oxygen in their glasshouse and let tomatoes grow in it. after some days, they returned, and the tomatoes were sometimes even 4 or 5 times bigger.

Are you denying bioluminescence?

Quote from: FlatBrainer on March 27, 2015, 02:22:47 PM

now I can use my experience with talking with creationists. here we go.
if we put a group of people from for example thousand years ago and a group of velociraptors, who would win? people, with a weapon that could kill velociraptors before they even reach people, or velociraptors with tiny brain, whose claws can attack on only 1 meter? that's why people are perfect predators - because of their incredible intelligence in a comparass between them and e.g. dinosaurs.

why aren't people that big as dinosaurs are? there are two not excluding each other explanations. it's because a build of dinosaurs was better at big sizes - they are strongly inclined and long, which makes them balance better and not damage their skeletons in a scale of whole life. second of all - in the times of dinosaurs there was more oxygen than now. now oxygen level is lower than 20% in the air, then it was over 50%. it's been tested and checked in the ambers. some farmers also done the test. they increased the level of oxygen in their glasshouse and let tomatoes grow in it. after some days, they returned, and the tomatoes were sometimes even 4 or 5 times bigger.

You're wrong.

Also, you have absolutely no evidence that humans would win in a fight against velociraptors. Nice theory-crafting, but it's not science and the fact that you are trying to pass this off as some sort of hard fact is absolutely astounding and leaves me dumbstruck.

Adding to this, velociraptors are infinitely faster and more dangerous with humans. If you threw them on the same planet together at the same time, I'd say that velociraptors would have the advantage almost immediately. Humans would have to devise ways of defending themselves, but by that time the velociraptors would have torn their small splintered civilization apart. Simply looking at the anatomy of both subjects makes this clear.

Quote from: FlatBrainer on March 27, 2015, 02:22:47 PM

now I can use my experience with talking with creationists. here we go.
if we put a group of people from for example thousand years ago and a group of velociraptors, who would win? people, with a weapon that could kill velociraptors before they even reach people, or velociraptors with tiny brain, whose claws can attack on only 1 meter? that's why people are perfect predators - because of their incredible intelligence in a comparass between them and e.g. dinosaurs.

why aren't people that big as dinosaurs are? there are two not excluding each other explanations. it's because a build of dinosaurs was better at big sizes - they are strongly inclined and long, which makes them balance better and not damage their skeletons in a scale of whole life. second of all - in the times of dinosaurs there was more oxygen than now. now oxygen level is lower than 20% in the air, then it was over 50%. it's been tested and checked in the ambers. some farmers also done the test. they increased the level of oxygen in their glasshouse and let tomatoes grow in it. after some days, they returned, and the tomatoes were sometimes even 4 or 5 times bigger.

You're wrong.

Also, you have absolutely no evidence that humans would win in a fight against velociraptors. Nice theory-crafting, but it's not science and the fact that you are trying to pass this off as some sort of hard fact is absolutely astounding and leaves me dumbstruck.

Adding to this, velociraptors are infinitely faster and more dangerous with humans. If you threw them on the same planet together at the same time, I'd say that velociraptors would have the advantage almost immediately. Humans would have to devise ways of defending themselves, but by that time the velociraptors would have torn their small splintered civilization apart. Simply looking at the anatomy of both subjects makes this clear.

Quote from: Vauxhall on March 27, 2015, 02:16:17 PM

Are you denying bioluminescence?

Uh... nope.  Where did I say that?

BTW, I'm getting a horrible feeling in my transverse colon that this is gonna segue into a discussion about moonshrimp.   

Yeah the anatomy would give them such an advantage.

Quote from: ausGeoff on March 27, 2015, 02:38:51 PM

Quote from: Vauxhall on March 27, 2015, 02:16:17 PM

Are you denying bioluminescence?

Uh... nope.  Where did I say that?

BTW, I'm getting a horrible feeling in my transverse colon that this is gonna segue into a discussion about moonshrimp.   

You certainly implied that the bioluminescence of insects is farfetched.

Let me guess, Geoff, you think that little insects carry around small lanterns. Don't you? I bet you also think these lanterns work underwater, huh?

Have you tried signing up for a forum that's more inclined to children? You might have better luck discussing your "theories" there. 

Quote from: neimoka on March 27, 2015, 02:39:50 PM

Yeah the anatomy would give them such an advantage.

Congratulations on successfully making me laugh out loud. If you read the entire discussion, you'd see how ridiculous posting a picture of a gun is in response to the argument. First, humans would have to build shelter and defensive measures against dinosaurs, while at the same time being pursued by them and having their families eaten alive. Guns would not be developed due to the amount of research it would take to make one, especially when you consider the absurd amounts of pressure that hounding dinosaurs have on a human's mental state.

If anything, society remain stagnant. Humans would be prey and dinosaurs would be the dominant species on the Earth. Fuck, this is WHY they were the dominate species on the Earth for such a long time... because they didn't allow room for other species to advance. They are the ultimate predator. No amount of smarts is going to save you from a planet full of meat eating dinosaurs.

I don't think you know how many dinosaurs were actually roaming the Earth at that time.  Sure, we'd take out dinosaurs pretty quick in this day and age... but not when we were a fledgling species, no way in hell.

Quote from: ausGeoff on March 27, 2015, 02:38:51 PM

Quote from: Vauxhall on March 27, 2015, 02:16:17 PM

Are you denying bioluminescence?

Uh... nope.  Where did I say that?

BTW, I'm getting a horrible feeling in my transverse colon that this is gonna segue into a discussion about moonshrimp.   

You certainly implied that the bioluminescence of insects is farfetched.

Let me guess, Geoff, you think that little insects carry around small lanterns. Don't you? I bet you also think these lanterns work underwater, huh?

Have you tried signing up for a forum that's more inclined to children? You might have better luck discussing your "theories" there. 

Quote from: neimoka on March 27, 2015, 02:39:50 PM

Yeah the anatomy would give them such an advantage.

Congratulations on successfully making me laugh out loud. If you read the entire discussion, you'd see how ridiculous posting a picture of a gun is in response to the argument. First, humans would have to build shelter and defensive measures against dinosaurs, while at the same time being pursued by them and having their families eaten alive. Guns would not be developed due to the amount of research it would take to make one, especially when you consider the absurd amounts of pressure that hounding dinosaurs have on a human's mental state.

If anything, society remain stagnant. Humans would be prey and dinosaurs would be the dominant species on the Earth. Fuck, this is WHY they were the dominate species on the Earth for such a long time... because they didn't allow room for other species to advance. They are the ultimate predator. No amount of smarts is going to save you from a planet full of meat eating dinosaurs.

I don't think you know how many dinosaurs were actually roaming the Earth at that time.  Sure, we'd take out dinosaurs pretty quick in this day and age... but not when we were a fledgling species, no way in hell.

who would win? people, with a weapon that could kill velociraptors before they even reach people, or velociraptors

In what situation would modern humans face off against dinosaurs? Please use your brains people. I am not arguing an imaginary scenario that would never happen. I was arguing the logic behind the perfect predator. Perfect being almost subjective in this case. My argument still stands. Proto-humans would not stand a chance against dinosaurs. Period. If anything, I responded to a straw man argument made by FlatBrainer, and I suppose that was my mistake.

FlatBrainer's originally contention that humans are the perfect predator is inherently false. Lions, tigers, cougars, and other fast land-based predators are even more "perfect" than humans also.

Quote from: Vauxhall on March 27, 2015, 03:01:17 PM

In what situation would modern humans face off against dinosaurs? Please use your brains people. I am not arguing an imaginary scenario that would never happen. I was arguing the logic behind the perfect predator. Perfect being almost subjective in this case. My argument still stands. Proto-humans would not stand a chance against dinosaurs. Period. If anything, I responded to a straw man argument made by FlatBrainer, and I suppose that was my mistake.

FlatBrainer's originally contention that humans are the perfect predator is inherently false. Lions, tigers, cougars, and other fast land-based predators are even more "perfect" than humans also.

you're wrong. what makes us that we're perfect predators isn't our anatomy, it's our intelligence. lions, tigers, even velociraptors - they had the same thing. not so biggest intelligence. we're really smart and because of our intelligence, we developed advance weapons. so if we were fighting with e.g. velociraptors, we should use intelligence, so we should use weapons we developed by intelligence. weapons can only be used by people, not by any other animal, so we can attract weapons as our natural attack-dealing attribute. and please, educate yourself in case of the straw man definition.

Quote from: FlatBrainer on March 27, 2015, 03:11:46 PM

Quote from: Vauxhall on March 27, 2015, 03:01:17 PM

In what situation would modern humans face off against dinosaurs? Please use your brains people. I am not arguing an imaginary scenario that would never happen. I was arguing the logic behind the perfect predator. Perfect being almost subjective in this case. My argument still stands. Proto-humans would not stand a chance against dinosaurs. Period. If anything, I responded to a straw man argument made by FlatBrainer, and I suppose that was my mistake.

FlatBrainer's originally contention that humans are the perfect predator is inherently false. Lions, tigers, cougars, and other fast land-based predators are even more "perfect" than humans also.

you're wrong. what makes us that we're perfect predators isn't our anatomy, it's our intelligence. lions, tigers, even velociraptors - they had the same thing. not so biggest intelligence. we're really smart and because of our intelligence, we developed advance weapons. so if we were fighting with e.g. velociraptors, we should use intelligence, so we should use weapons we developed by intelligence. weapons can only be used by people, not by any other animal, so we can attract weapons as our natural attack-dealing attribute. and please, educate yourself in case of the straw man definition.

You're wrong. You're arguing for a different point. Like I said, this argument is about as valid as "if people made weapons that could kill gods, would they be able to kill gods?" It's a redundant stupid question. Proto-humans is what I was arguing for. If you want to warp my contention, so be it.

Also, by your logical, "guns" are the perfect predators. Not humans.

Quote from: Vauxhall on March 27, 2015, 03:13:02 PM

Quote from: FlatBrainer on March 27, 2015, 03:11:46 PM

Quote from: Vauxhall on March 27, 2015, 03:01:17 PM

In what situation would modern humans face off against dinosaurs? Please use your brains people. I am not arguing an imaginary scenario that would never happen. I was arguing the logic behind the perfect predator. Perfect being almost subjective in this case. My argument still stands. Proto-humans would not stand a chance against dinosaurs. Period. If anything, I responded to a straw man argument made by FlatBrainer, and I suppose that was my mistake.

FlatBrainer's originally contention that humans are the perfect predator is inherently false. Lions, tigers, cougars, and other fast land-based predators are even more "perfect" than humans also.

you're wrong. what makes us that we're perfect predators isn't our anatomy, it's our intelligence. lions, tigers, even velociraptors - they had the same thing. not so biggest intelligence. we're really smart and because of our intelligence, we developed advance weapons. so if we were fighting with e.g. velociraptors, we should use intelligence, so we should use weapons we developed by intelligence. weapons can only be used by people, not by any other animal, so we can attract weapons as our natural attack-dealing attribute. and please, educate yourself in case of the straw man definition.

You're wrong. You're arguing for a different point. Like I said, this argument is about as valid as "if people made weapons that could kill gods, would they be able to kill gods?" It's a redundant stupid question. Proto-humans is what I was arguing for. If you want to warp my contention, so be it.

Also, by your logical, "guns" are the perfect predators. Not humans.

quote yourself where you posted that you were arguing about that proto-humans aren't perfect predators, not just humans.
guns are manned by intelligent people. guns alone can't fire and kill. animals also can't kill with guns, it's only an attribute attracted to people.

Quote from: FlatBrainer on March 27, 2015, 03:39:51 PM

Quote from: Vauxhall on March 27, 2015, 03:13:02 PM

Quote from: FlatBrainer on March 27, 2015, 03:11:46 PM

Quote from: Vauxhall on March 27, 2015, 03:01:17 PM

In what situation would modern humans face off against dinosaurs? Please use your brains people. I am not arguing an imaginary scenario that would never happen. I was arguing the logic behind the perfect predator. Perfect being almost subjective in this case. My argument still stands. Proto-humans would not stand a chance against dinosaurs. Period. If anything, I responded to a straw man argument made by FlatBrainer, and I suppose that was my mistake.

FlatBrainer's originally contention that humans are the perfect predator is inherently false. Lions, tigers, cougars, and other fast land-based predators are even more "perfect" than humans also.

you're wrong. what makes us that we're perfect predators isn't our anatomy, it's our intelligence. lions, tigers, even velociraptors - they had the same thing. not so biggest intelligence. we're really smart and because of our intelligence, we developed advance weapons. so if we were fighting with e.g. velociraptors, we should use intelligence, so we should use weapons we developed by intelligence. weapons can only be used by people, not by any other animal, so we can attract weapons as our natural attack-dealing attribute. and please, educate yourself in case of the straw man definition.

You're wrong. You're arguing for a different point. Like I said, this argument is about as valid as "if people made weapons that could kill gods, would they be able to kill gods?" It's a redundant stupid question. Proto-humans is what I was arguing for. If you want to warp my contention, so be it.

Also, by your logical, "guns" are the perfect predators. Not humans.

quote yourself where you posted that you were arguing about that proto-humans aren't perfect predators, not just humans.
guns are manned by intelligent people. guns alone can't fire and kill. animals also can't kill with guns, it's only an attribute attracted to people.

A computerized gun that aims and fires itself is the perfect predator.

If you don't realize what I was initially defending then you only have your own incompetence to blame. No where did I mention the word "guns". I even explained that humans would not have had the chance to develop weapons technology due to constantly defending themselves from dinosaurs. I thought my contention was self-explanatory, but apparently I need to start dumbing down even the simplest of arguments now... great... 

Quote from: Vauxhall on March 27, 2015, 03:13:02 PM

Quote from: FlatBrainer on March 27, 2015, 03:11:46 PM

Quote from: Vauxhall on March 27, 2015, 03:01:17 PM

In what situation would modern humans face off against dinosaurs? Please use your brains people. I am not arguing an imaginary scenario that would never happen. I was arguing the logic behind the perfect predator. Perfect being almost subjective in this case. My argument still stands. Proto-humans would not stand a chance against dinosaurs. Period. If anything, I responded to a straw man argument made by FlatBrainer, and I suppose that was my mistake.

FlatBrainer's originally contention that humans are the perfect predator is inherently false. Lions, tigers, cougars, and other fast land-based predators are even more "perfect" than humans also.

you're wrong. what makes us that we're perfect predators isn't our anatomy, it's our intelligence. lions, tigers, even velociraptors - they had the same thing. not so biggest intelligence. we're really smart and because of our intelligence, we developed advance weapons. so if we were fighting with e.g. velociraptors, we should use intelligence, so we should use weapons we developed by intelligence. weapons can only be used by people, not by any other animal, so we can attract weapons as our natural attack-dealing attribute. and please, educate yourself in case of the straw man definition.

You're wrong. You're arguing for a different point. Like I said, this argument is about as valid as "if people made weapons that could kill gods, would they be able to kill gods?" It's a redundant stupid question. Proto-humans is what I was arguing for. If you want to warp my contention, so be it.

Also, by your logical, "guns" are the perfect predators. Not humans.

quote yourself where you posted that you were arguing about that proto-humans aren't perfect predators, not just humans.
guns are manned by intelligent people. guns alone can't fire and kill. animals also can't kill with guns, it's only an attribute attracted to people.

You don't understand. Even computerized guns are developed by people. It uses AI, an artificial intelligence which is used to imitate people's intelligence. Still it proves that people are the most perfect predators on the world, because no predator can even compete to people.

Quote from: FlatBrainer on March 27, 2015, 03:58:24 PM

You don't understand. Even computerized guns are developed by people. It uses AI, an artificial intelligence which is used to imitate people's intelligence. Still it proves that people are the most perfect predators on the world, because no predator can even compete to people.

AI doesn't give a shit who made it. By your logic, unicellular organisms are the perfect predator because they made us.

Quote from: Vauxhall on March 27, 2015, 04:01:26 PM

Quote from: FlatBrainer on March 27, 2015, 03:58:24 PM

You don't understand. Even computerized guns are developed by people. It uses AI, an artificial intelligence which is used to imitate people's intelligence. Still it proves that people are the most perfect predators on the world, because no predator can even compete to people.

AI doesn't give a shit who made it. By your logic, unicellular organisms are the perfect predator because they made us.

They didn't made us, we evolved from them.

Quote from: FlatBrainer on March 27, 2015, 03:39:51 PM

Quote from: Vauxhall on March 27, 2015, 03:13:02 PM

Quote from: FlatBrainer on March 27, 2015, 03:11:46 PM

Quote from: Vauxhall on March 27, 2015, 03:01:17 PM

In what situation would modern humans face off against dinosaurs? Please use your brains people. I am not arguing an imaginary scenario that would never happen. I was arguing the logic behind the perfect predator. Perfect being almost subjective in this case. My argument still stands. Proto-humans would not stand a chance against dinosaurs. Period. If anything, I responded to a straw man argument made by FlatBrainer, and I suppose that was my mistake.

FlatBrainer's originally contention that humans are the perfect predator is inherently false. Lions, tigers, cougars, and other fast land-based predators are even more "perfect" than humans also.

you're wrong. what makes us that we're perfect predators isn't our anatomy, it's our intelligence. lions, tigers, even velociraptors - they had the same thing. not so biggest intelligence. we're really smart and because of our intelligence, we developed advance weapons. so if we were fighting with e.g. velociraptors, we should use intelligence, so we should use weapons we developed by intelligence. weapons can only be used by people, not by any other animal, so we can attract weapons as our natural attack-dealing attribute. and please, educate yourself in case of the straw man definition.

You're wrong. You're arguing for a different point. Like I said, this argument is about as valid as "if people made weapons that could kill gods, would they be able to kill gods?" It's a redundant stupid question. Proto-humans is what I was arguing for. If you want to warp my contention, so be it.

Also, by your logical, "guns" are the perfect predators. Not humans.

quote yourself where you posted that you were arguing about that proto-humans aren't perfect predators, not just humans.
guns are manned by intelligent people. guns alone can't fire and kill. animals also can't kill with guns, it's only an attribute attracted to people.

A monkey could fire a gun. Probably not with much skill though.

Quote from: FlatBrainer on March 27, 2015, 04:04:03 PM

Quote from: Vauxhall on March 27, 2015, 04:01:26 PM

Quote from: FlatBrainer on March 27, 2015, 03:58:24 PM

You don't understand. Even computerized guns are developed by people. It uses AI, an artificial intelligence which is used to imitate people's intelligence. Still it proves that people are the most perfect predators on the world, because no predator can even compete to people.

AI doesn't give a shit who made it. By your logic, unicellular organisms are the perfect predator because they made us.

They didn't made us, we evolved from them.

And? AI would naturally evolve from us.

You're serious?

Frankly FlatBrainer (and I'm going to try to be nice here), I don't like you. I immediately disliked you the moment you made that long derogatory post in response to JRowe. Your understanding of basic (and I mean, REALLY basic) concepts is very lacking, and you are slow to pick up on new ideas - even ones that aren't nonsense. Your username is supposed to be ironic, and it is (don't get me wrong), but it's not ironic for the reasons you think. It's ironic because it describes you. You are basically a child. You are quick to anger and you don't belong here. I think most everyone will agree after they've witnessed your complete breakdown in response to Jrowe, and I don't think you'll be missed.

If you want to grow up a bit and have a civilized debate (snide jabs and comments completely acceptable and encouraged to an extent), then please do so. But if you're going to continue being a spoiled child who pitches fits every time you don't get your way then please leave and don't come back.

Quote from: FlatBrainer on March 27, 2015, 04:08:19 PM

You're serious?

Yes, I'm absolutely serious. I hope this concept doens't fly over your head like almost all the others appeared to.

Here's some basic definitions for you, kiddo.

e·volve
ēˈvälv/
verb
1.
develop gradually, especially from a simple to a more complex form.
"the company has evolved into a major chemical manufacturer"
synonyms:   develop, progress, advance; More

Quote from: Vauxhall on March 27, 2015, 04:12:53 PM

Frankly FlatBrainer (and I'm going to try to be nice here), I don't like you. I immediately disliked you the moment you made that long derogatory post in response to JRowe. Your understanding of basic (and I mean, REALLY basic) concepts is very lacking, and you are slow to pick up on new ideas - even ones that aren't nonsense. Your username is supposed to be ironic, and it is (don't get me wrong), but it's not ironic for the reasons you think. It's ironic because it describes you. You are basically a child. You are quick to anger and you don't belong here. I think most everyone will agree after they've witnessed your complete breakdown in response to Jrowe, and I don't think you'll be missed.

If you want to grow up a bit and have a civilized debate (snide jabs and comments completely acceptable and encouraged to an extent), then please do so. But if you're going to continue being a spoiled child who pitches fits every time you don't get your way then please leave and don't come back.

Quote from: FlatBrainer on March 27, 2015, 04:08:19 PM

You're serious?

Yes, I'm absolutely serious. I hope this concept doens't fly over your head like almost all the others appeared to.

Here's some basic definitions for you, kiddo.

e·volve
ēˈvälv/
verb
1.
develop gradually, especially from a simple to a more complex form.
"the company has evolved into a major chemical manufacturer"
synonyms:   develop, progress, advance; More

Yeah, Mikey is right, FlatBrainer is annoying, just look at his posts: http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=63149.200#.VRXnJ_yG_zM

You certainly implied that the bioluminescence of insects is farfetched.

Some days of our lives shit right here.