Australian Public Schools Teaching Humans and Dinosaurs Co-Existed

Australia is facing a controversy that is all too familiar to Americans. Fundamentalists in state schools are teaching children that humans and dinosaurs lived together and Noah brought dinosaur eggs on to the Ark.

Children are also taught that Adam and Eve were not eaten by dinosaurs “because they were under a protective spell.”

This is consistent with Palintology — the new science advanced by Sarah Palin — which insists that man and dinosaur must have co-existed despite carbon dating and simple logic.
Source: News

452 thoughts on “Australian Public Schools Teaching Humans and Dinosaurs Co-Existed”

  1. If you wish for to get a good deal from this piece of writing then you have to apply these methods to
    your won weblog.

  2. I was wondering if you ever thought of changing the
    layout of your site? Its very well written;
    I love what youve got to say. But maybe you could a little more in the way of content so people could connect with it better.
    Youve got an awful lot of text for only having 1 or 2 images.
    Maybe you could space it out better?

  3. Bob Enyart,

    Most laymen (like the professor) use the term ‘carbon dating’ to describe any sort of radiometric dating. But you likely knew that…

  4. Jonathan, I imagine that by now you’ve realized that carbon 14 dating can only go back thousands of years, not millions, and that c-14 dating is never used on dinosaur fossils? I offered a $23,000 grant to C-14 date the soft-tissue t-rex found in the U.S., but to no avail. So, you were at least as confused as Sarah when you wrote, “Palintology… which insists that man and dinosaur must have co-existed despite carbon dating…” Oops.

  5. An article of Shri Nand Kishore Kapoor, Punarjanm Shodh Sansthan, Faridabad, India was published in a Sunday Supplement of ‘Aj’ (Hindi News Paper) sometimes during the year 2000. In this article the author writes the past life description by a girl during hypnosis. She told during regression that in her previous life a dinosaur was running after her and she was running away to hide herself in a cave. Based on this I am now writing my comments in Blogs on Biological Evolution that humans and dinosaurs coexisted.

  6. I know one story (imagination) of H.G.Wells. About 35 years ago when I was doing my first degree course in science, one of my senior colleague told me a story from Time Machine that a day will come when the size of humans would of size of a rat. Now see what has actually happened afterwards. About 2 or 3 years back I saw in a news paper that a giant sized rodent fossil had been found. This was almost to modern elephant size. This confirmed my belief that dinosaurs had not been wiped out. They are still found in smaller and smaller size, yes of course with some different characteristics. I think Gravitation Force is one of the major cause of genetic mutation. Gravitation Force is gradually increasing towards centre and compressing all members of animal kingdom bringing about genetic change with respect to size. A new evolved species or same species with some new characteristics created. I further believe that humans and dinosaurs co-existed. I know one evidence in support of this.

  7. The period of Lord Ram is believed to be 10 million years ago. Hanuman (Ape-man) also lived during this age. Period of Lord Ram and Hanuman signifies the separation of man and ape man from a common ancestor. Both used to communicate in same language.

  8. Bdaman
    1, October 17, 2010 at 12:14 pm
    Is there any evidence for what caused a second and third explosion in the manner to which firefighters described.

    This is a response to the comment by Bdaman above. It is difficult to tell the context of the discussion on the video you posted but my first thoughts are that only explosions directly proximate to the collapses would support controlled demolition (explosions not caught on any audio of the collapses, by the way) and that any loud report will generally be characterized as an explosion – additionally, given the unreliability of eyewitness testimony and the unimaginable stress that firefighters were under on that day, the video you linked is pretty much worthless as scientific evidence…

  9. This is a response to Byron’s comment on another thread.

    Byron said:


    Cardboard is analog to steel? Their modulus of elasticity is nowhere near the same. And cardboard isn’t ductile, at least as far as I know.

    You might be on to something though-high modulus ductile cardboard. We could build the new WTC with it.


    As long as Richard Gage isn’t the architect of the new WTC, it probably wont be built with cardboard…

    Here’s a video of Richard Gage making a fool of himself – I like it because the background picture has him playing with his cardboard boxes…

    If we can make the high modulus ductile cardboard out of recycled materials, I can’t see how it could fail – certainly it would meet Mr. Gage’s architectural standards… 😉

  10. Hey Slarti … didn’t see a post from you on the Hero thread … just wondering what your take is on the subject matter … I’ll check back tomorrow (today) to see if you took an interest in the matter

  11. Bob posted:


    AS usual your bullshit is beyond voluminous. One particular highlight of your deft reasoning skills was this: “No, I’m saying if there was thermite there that didn’t effect the collapse or have a role in causing it (maybe someone was storing it for a friend ) then it would be irrelevant to the discussion of controlled demolition.”

    There’s a certain mindset required to author bullshit like that.

    There are two elements that you are arguing – that thermitic materials were present in the collapses (which you support via the shoddy research of Dr. Jones, et al.) AND that those thermitic materials were used to initiate and accelerate the collapse (for which you have no valid support whatsoever). You’re a very clever writer, Bob, but until you can attack the conclusion of Bazant, et al. that: “These conclusions show the allegations of controlled demolition to be absurd and leave no doubt that the towers failed due to gravity-driven progressive collapse triggered by the effects of fire.” by arguing against their analysis on its merits the case you’re trying to make is DOA.

    While I’ve gotten a glimpse of it during this debate, my suspicions were confirmed when you vainly attempted to excuse Obama for embracing tyrannical policies, i.e. exercising power beyond right which no one has a right to.

    No, I believe in judging the president based on all of the issues, not just one (admittedly important) issue. I think that any political discussion that lacks nuance is fairly childish in this day and age and I think that to equate the sins of the Obama administration to those of the Bush administration is naive at best. If you want to trash the president and ignore the positive things he’s done going into this election cycle, that’s your right, but don’t come crying to me if you help elect a slate of tea party candidates that end up ushering in a new depression…

    In those exchanges, I witnessed the rushed sloppy thinking of a man bereft of principle.

    Nice to see you’re still an intellectually dishonest hypocrite launching boulders from his glass house. I don’t think that anything I’ve said shows a lack of principle, just different priorities and a belief that a single-minded focus on one issue to the exclusion of all others is naive and asinine. I never excused President Obama of the bad things that he’s done, I’ve simply evaluated him based on ALL the things he’s done (and I think that not supporting him right now is in effect an attempt to swerve the country back toward a cliff). I also think that equating the misdeeds of the Bush administration to those of the Obama administration is idiotic. History might not show President Obama as the next FDR, but I believe that it will show President Bush as far worse than Hoover.

    While claiming you respected the rule of law so long as it applied to Bush out of one side of your mouth, you made excuses for Obama for exercising the same policies, because of the economy no less, out of the other side of your mouth.

    No excuses, just support for the path that I believe is the best currently available for the country and I’m smart enough to understand that there is a difference between saying you have the right to murder someone (which is wrong – enormously more so if you actually do it) and deceiving the country into a war of choice which killed over 4000 Americans and countless more Iraqis, ordering the confinement and torture of at least hundreds if not thousands of people, many of them innocent, made our country demonstrably less safe by aiding the recruiting efforts of our enemies, allowed Iran a chance – possibly a good chance – of getting a sympathetic government in Iraq, gutting every regulatory agency possible, politicizing every governmental office possible, exploding the debt with giveaways to rich cronies and unending war. But I’m unwilling to unjustly accuse anyone (besides 19 terrorists and their co-conspirators) of having any more responsibility for the events of 9/11 than the negligence of failing to protect the American people due to incompetence. You’re just a narrow-minded fool who can’t see the forest for the trees.

    Likewise, for someone who professes ultimate concern for scientific rigor, your argumentation tactics can be said to be anything but moral.

    You mean tactics like pointing out how unscientific and illogical your positions are? Science is amoral and so are my tactics – I’m not arguing that your position is moral or immoral, I’m arguing that according to science it is almost certainly wrong. If it turns out (as is likely) that you are in the wrong, then you have been alleging that a monstrous crime has been committed by people who were actually innocent while in effect downplaying the monstrous crime that actually was committed by 19 terrorists. However, in the unlikely event that I am wrong, I still honestly presented the scientific evidence and advocated the conclusion that it (overwhelmingly) favored – I was just duped by people who were not just good at committing massive conspiracies, they were perfect.

    I’ve approached this as a scientist interested in finding the truth and understanding what happened while you’ve approached it as a defense attorney using every trick he can think of to convince the jury of his client’s innocence. Throughout this argument you’ve displayed multiple confirmation biases, hypocrisy, intellectual dishonesty, profound ignorance and misunderstanding of physics, and the use of multiple demonstrably false arguments. You seem willing to use any tactic that you believe might work no matter what. And while that may be admirable in a defense attorney trying to get his client off, it is a very poor way to search for scientific truth.

    Adopting only that maxim that you would will to become a universal law seems to only apply when and where you find it convenient.

    You know, as your attacks get more and more vague it becomes clear that they are complete bullshit. I’ve applied physical laws like conservation of energy universally because they hold universally and I’ve provided references to support my assertions even though anyone who passed a high school physics class should know that they are correct. You can’t attack any of the arguments I present on their merits so you resort to nebulous nefarious-sounding accusations in your desperate attempt to sway readers by any means possible.

    What if Harrit had issued a report on the collapse of WTC 7 while neglecting to do any physical testing of the metal altogether?

    What physical testing of the metal was necessary? NIST’s mandate was to determine the cause of the collapse and their model showed that the building would be expected to collapse in the way it was observed to if subjected to the damage and fire it was subjected to on 9/11.

    What if Harrit created a computer model that he claimed supports his collapse theory, but refused to release that model for inspection by the public?

    In science the standard is repeatability – one could argue that the NIST report provides sufficient detail for someone to reproduce their model, but a better question might be how do you think that NIST should have ‘released the model for inspection by the public’ and to what end. Certainly I would love to get my hands on their model and the software (and hardware) it runs on, but I don’t think that because I can’t that it is indicative of a serious deficiency in the report

    What if Harrit entirely ignored the voluminous evidence of molten metal at the building’s base, and steel sulfidation documented by FEMA, despite having directly raised these issues in press conferences, and public comment periods for this and a previous report on the Twin Towers?

    What happened after collapse initiation was not a part of their mandate (this is due to the fact that all the evidence shows that the collapses were all a direct or indirect result of airplanes being flown into buildings rather than controlled demolitions). There is no evidence that there was molten metal or steel sulfidation in WTC 7 before collapse initiation. In fact, there was no scientific evidence of molten metal, by which I mean no quantified evidence, at all, that I’m aware of.

    No wait; that was NIST. And if you were a man of principle, you’d find the foregoing a tad more dishonest than not testing the paints used in the Towers to see which ones allegedly burned hotter than the melting point of iron.

    Identifying the sources of iron-rich microspheres (I will remind you that Dr. Jones’ research shows multiple spectra of microspheres indicating multiple sources and Dr. Greening was able to come up with a half-dozen possible sources off of the top of his head) and, more importantly, showing that you can distinguish between microspheres with thermitic origin and those from other sources is the kind of thing that any competent scientist would do BEFORE publishing. I find it far easier to forgive NIST for not exceeding their mandate than to forgive Harrit, et al. for being incompetent hacks.

    Sadly, that’s not the case.

    What’s sad is that you’ve apparently stopped trying to win this argument on the merits and decided to attack me instead. Pretty pathetic, Bob.

    Apparently your reverence for the scientific method is as genuine as your respect for the constitution[sic].

    Bob, I hope your knowledge of the law isn’t as flawed as your understanding of science, but throughout the course of this debate I’ve seen that you lack respect for anything except your own prejudices so I don’t think you are an authority on what I do and don’t respect and I doubt that anyone gives your baseless attacks on me any credibility at all.

    NIST gets a free pass from you just as you looked the other way regarding Obama’s use of the constitution as a urinal puck.

    I’m not giving President Obama a free pass – I just think that the person who pissed on it is maybe not as culpable as the one who shredded it, put it in the urinal, repeatedly pissed on it, and dropped a urinal deuce. And, yes, I think that NIST gets a free pass for NOT EXCEEDING THEIR MANDATE.

    If you were truly a man of principle, you would not excuse Obama’s illegal actions because of a bad economy

    Is it so difficult for you to understand that we don’t have unlimited options right now and any of our choices have broad ramifications? I believe in principled pragmatism – to aspire for the best and strive for the best available. The upcoming elections will not be seen as a referendum on the Constitutionality of President Obama’s Justice Department, and if the Republicans regain control of either the House or the Senate they will do everything they can to reverse President Obama’s economic policies. I see this as a grave danger for our economy and our nation as a whole. In my opinion, President Obama’s policies are the best course available to keep the economy out of depression and restore it to health, even if it appears that we will have to get someone else afterwards to reduce executive power. Honestly, I don’t think that there is any chance that this will be accomplished until it becomes a priority of the people and I don’t think that can happen until the economy improves significantly.

    I also think that one of the least understood and most pernicious of the Bush administration’s sins is the politicization of the bureaucracy. Did you ever stop to consider that there might be reasons having nothing to do with the Obama administration as to why neocon legal briefs might be coming out of the justice department. Yes, I wish President Obama (and AG Holder) had gotten more done to change this, but it’s a small part of the monumental task they’ve been given and it’s not the most important part, in my opinion (an opinion which is firmly in the majority, not that it matters).

    and you would not implicitly condone NIST’s gross dishonesty [It was not dishonest of NIST to fail to exceed their mandate.] while reproving and thence dismissing Harrit for non-dispositive technical objections.

    On the contrary I have multiple technical (which, quite frankly, neither of us are qualified to judge on their merits), methodological, and ethical objections to Harrit, et al. (and the research of Dr. Jones in general)

    And as for my ‘non-dispositive technical objections’ – my objections, if correct, might not disprove Harrit, et al.’s thesis, but they eviscerate the quality of the scientific argument to the point where it is completely toothless (not that their scientific argument has that much validity even if my technical objections prove baseless).

    I’m dismissing Harrit, et al. for failure to provide a sound scientific argument for their hypothesis. In science a case is never dismissed with prejudice and can always receive reconsideration based on new evidence. I find it telling that Dr. Jones and Dr. Harrit are not doing the things that would be necessary for their ideas to gain support in the scientific community – getting their samples analyzed by an independent lab and performing their own analyses in a more rigorous and systematic way. Can you think of any reason for this behavior which doesn’t reflect poorly on Dr. Jones, et al.?

    But Bob, you should be attacking my arguments instead of me. Actually no; not in this case. Because the question arises: Why should I continue disproving every inane point you make when I have no reason to expect honest argumentation from you?

    Bob distorts matters again and accuses me of something he’s done – what a surprise. I have made an honest scientific argument throughout this debate while you have displayed your intellectual dishonesty and hypocrisy for all to see. You’ve made this personal from the beginning. I misunderstood a term you used* and you apparently jumped to the conclusion that I couldn’t possibly know anything about physics (or at least that you knew more than I did). Not even six months of me schooling you on the physics has prompted you to reconsider (Bob has another confirmation bias – what were the odds?). In case you forgot, the scientific thing to do is to reconsider your conclusions in the light of any new evidence. I’ve never seen evidence of you reconsidering any position for any reason.

    *The term was ‘heat of fusion’ – the additional energy required to liquify a compound when it reaches its melting point. After you pointed out (ever so sweetly) my mistake, I admitted my error and turned to valid critiques of your thesis. You, on the other hand, have yet to admit that any of the flawed theories you put forward are incorrect, even in the face of evidence, calculations, and laws of physics which show that you wrong.

    Just to make sure that Bob can’t accuse me of making specious claims about him, here are some of the things that Bob has advocated or claimed that are just flat-out false:

    Equivalent airspeed of Egypt Air 990 – Bob used an argument from ‘Pilots for 9/11 Truth’ based on computing the equivalent airspeed (EAS) for Egypt Air 990 when it broke up and comparing it to an estimate of the airspeeds of UA175 and AA11. Unfortunately, it turned out that the pilots were using (what is almost certainly) an overestimate of the speed of both planes that came from NTSB rather than the lower values that NIST gives. To make matters even worse, it turns out that the formula the Pf9/11T used requires a correction term for speeds above 0.6 Mach and a different formula entirely must be used above 0.8 Mach. EA990 was doing 0.99 Mach when it broke up. Oops!

    Then there’s the phantom ‘holes in the primary radar’ you insisted were proof that the terrorists had information they shouldn’t have – after repeated questioning as to the significance of these holes you finally told us that the terrorists supposedly raced into them for 10 minutes (as I read the slide you referenced the hole is in NH and VT while the entire flightpath is in MA and NY) but you don’t explain what they were supposed to have gained by flying into these holes or how that effected the events of 9/11. Again, this might be more excusable were it not for the fact that there were primary radar returns from both planes several times per minute from when their transponders were turned off until they crashed into the towers – to me that pretty much rules out the planes having ‘raced’ into a hole in the primary radar coverage if the entire flightpath was within the coverage of the primary radars.

    You said the collapse time of WTC 7 was 6.5 seconds and that the twin towers both collapsed in ‘about 8 seconds’. The seismic records of the WTC1 and WTC2 collapses both seem to take about 15-16 seconds and the collapse time of WTC7 was similar as well if you start from when the east mechanical penthouse starts moving rather than when the entire roofline starts to fall.

    You seem to think that the fact that the lower block held up the static load of the upper block for thirty years means that it should have been able to resist the dynamic load of the upper block moving at 8.5 m/s and dissipate all 1.36 GJ of its kinetic energy. Or, more generally, you’ve argued that the collapse, once initiated, would not be self-sustaining in the face of incontrovertible physics showing that the material properties of the structure were insufficient to arrest a collapse.

    Several times you linked to Jim Hoffman’s* article on the dust cloud – you know, the one that suggests that the dust cloud must have been 700°C despite the fact that many people were encompassed by the cloud without being roasted alive and basically argues that the pulverization of concrete was done with great difficulty by massive amounts of explosives in thousands of pre-drilled boreholes rather than by the simple and effective process of comminution which was driven by ample kinetic energy directed in a near optimum way to accomplish this task.

    * Jim Hoffman is the the owner of the 9/11 research website that you frequently link to where most of these false theories can be found.

    You suggested that we consider tracing the thermal energy of the hot spots in the rubble back to its source – a technique which is not commonly used due to the fact that it is mathematically impossible.

    You called the energetic jets of dust and debris coming from below the collapse zones explosive squibs, yet you had no answer when I pointed out that they start slow and speed up as if they are the result of air being compressed in the collapse rather than the high initial speed that would result from explosives.

    You alleged that the molten metal pouring from WTC 2 before it collapsed was steel, not explaining how that much structural steel could be liquified in a localized area and not cause a visible deformation of the structure while willfully ignoring all of the evidence that it was most likely molten aluminum rather than steel.

    You have no explanation as to why all three structures displayed exterior bowing before they collapsed – a feature NEVER seen in controlled demolition but indicative of the declining structural integrity of the buildings.

    You seem to think that any loud nosies at any time before or during the collapses are indications of CD, ignoring the fact that in controlled demolition loud, sharp detonations (which were NOT heard on 9/11) are immediately followed by collapse initiation.

    You’ve repeatedly used the argument that no steel framed buildings have ever before collapsed due to fire even though it is immediately obvious to any reasonable person that no valid comparison to these three cases has ever occurred.

    Finally, neither you nor any other advocate of CD has ever come up with a complete theory of the collapse and aftermath which estimates the type and amount of explosives and incendiaries that were used, how they were installed surreptitiously, how and when they were detonated, and how some of them failed to detonate on cue but were able to supply heat to the rubble for 5 months that is consistent with all of the observations of the collapses and their aftermath. In my opinion, this is because it simply cannot be done – any such hypothesis would lay bare the many unrealistic properties that you are ascribing to your mythical demolition charges and make it obvious to any thinking person that your scenario was outside of the realm of possibility.

    “if there was thermite there that didn’t effect the collapse or have a role in causing it??”

    Seriously Kevin? You apparently know no shame. You need to grow up or grow a conscience.

    I’ve made no arguments in this debate for which I should feel any shame at all. Unlike you who should have at least some momentary pause after all of the times you have been shown to have been wrong. I was just pointing out that you were trying to create another false equivalence – that thermitic material of any sort implies controlled demolition. The science says that the collapse (and aftermath) of all three buildings was what should have been expected after the plane impacts and the massive unfought fires in WTC 1 and WTC 2 and after the damage from the north tower’s collapse, the hours of unfought fires over several floors, and due to the column 79 design flaw in WTC 7. It also says that the observations of the collapses and aftermath were all pretty much unremarkable. This creates a heavy burden of proof for those who would argue that any of the collapses were the result of controlled demolition – a burden that Dr. Jones and Dr. Harrit are unable to shoulder. All you’ve got is the product of one extremely dubious research group that has failed to produce a solid scientific argument for their hypothesis and a long string of secondary hypotheses that have turned out to be wrong. I’m sure you have an amazing ability to rationalize why Dr. Jones, et al. should be excused from the requirements of the scientific method and why all of the other evidence that suggests that you are wrong should be disregarded, but that doesn’t make your position rational. Face it Bob, you’ve made your tinfoil hat and proudly put it on – for all your protestations, you’re made yourself into just one more wackjob raving about evil conspiracies while ignoring all of the evidence that shows you to be wrong.

Comments are closed.