Re: Bogus Barney

EvMick@aol.com
Wed, 27 May 1998 16:54:31 EDT


In a message dated 5/26/98 7:06:27 PM Central Daylight Time, harv@gate.net
writes:

>Oops! Why "supposed" gigantic size? You keep saying that you're not
leading this thread anywhere, but then you also keep slipping in clues
that you really don't believe in dinosaurs. You seem to already have
decided that dinosaurs never really existed.

I don't "beleive" in "beleive"...I try to make judgements based on evidence.
And my statement regarding what I thought I knew regarding elephants in regard
to their strength weight ratio cast all larger land animals (unseen...deduced
from fossil evidence) in doubt. Might there be an alternative explanation?

> You seem to already have
> decided that dinosaurs never really existed.

Actually...no.

But in the interest of precesion in speech...since "words mean things"...and
imprecise speech leads to imprecise thinking...
>
> - "Bogus" Barney

Title of thread...ment to acquire the attention of the "reader"...

> - Dinosaur "Hypothosis"
> - Dinosaur "Theory"

Is that not correct? Are you ABSOLUTELY certain...beyond ANY shadow of a
doubt...that our current idea of dinosaurs is correct? Or to put it another
way...show me a dinosaur...if you can't...it's a theory.

> - fossils aren't bones

are they?

> - "Is T-Rex possible...?"

is this not a valid question?....dragons used to be deemed possible...and sea
serpents..why...astounding as it might appear in this enlightened age...honest
politicians were once thought to exist....does it hurt to question basic
assumptions?

EvMick