Pangea?

James_ wrote: So Egypt was once under an ocean........hmmm.

IBdaMann wrote:

James_ wrote: So Egypt was once under an ocean........hmmm.

Who travelled back in time and checked?

IBdaMann wrote:

James_ wrote: So Egypt was once under an ocean........hmmm.

Who travelled back in time and checked?

Swan wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

James_ wrote: So Egypt was once under an ocean........hmmm.

Who travelled back in time and checked?

No need to go back in time as ocean life fossils do not form on land

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

James_ wrote: So Egypt was once under an ocean........hmmm.

Who travelled back in time and checked?

No need to go back in time as ocean life fossils do not form on land

Who travelled back in time and verified it was ocean life?

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

James_ wrote: So Egypt was once under an ocean........hmmm.

Who travelled back in time and checked?

No need to go back in time as ocean life fossils do not form on land

Who travelled back in time and verified it was ocean life?

Swan wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

James_ wrote: So Egypt was once under an ocean........hmmm.

Who travelled back in time and checked?

No need to go back in time as ocean life fossils do not form on land

Who travelled back in time and verified it was ocean life?

The fossils survived in time, now stop being a troll

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

James_ wrote: So Egypt was once under an ocean........hmmm.

Who travelled back in time and checked?

No need to go back in time as ocean life fossils do not form on land

Who travelled back in time and verified it was ocean life?

The fossils survived in time, now stop being a troll

You always hurl the word "troll" when you have no answers ... and you didn't answer my question.

The fossils survived, but they are fossils of what? Who travelled time to verify that it was an oceanic lifeform and not a desert life form. I know you want everyone to believe that you are omniscient, but I'm going to hold out. The fossils might have been of an extinct amphibian species, and you know how you need to deny amphibious things. It could have been anything, and you are not omniscient. You are a troll, however.

Swan wrote: Have you always wanted to be a fossil denying troll? [/QUOTE ]
I am a fossil-accepting champion, and you are a confused troll who OBEDIENTLY regurgitates every claim of omniscience he is told to believe.

At least you acknowledge that you are merely regurgitating what you have been told to repeat, and that you gullibly fall for every scam you read. You ARE allowed to not actually believe anything you are saying.

[quote]Swan wrote: The fact is that you have no friends or family and need to have people care enough about you to desire to prove you wrong,

Swan wrote: Well you will die alone and in pain

keepit wrote: ibd,I don't think you're "know it all".

keepit wrote: I think you're a ... well, i won't say right now.

keepit wrote: You demonstrated your problem right there. You assume you know things and your assumptions are just misconceptions.

Swan wrote:Have you always wanted a fossil denying troll?

Swan wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

James_ wrote: So Egypt was once under an ocean........hmmm.

Who travelled back in time and checked?

No need to go back in time as ocean life fossils do not form on land

Who travelled back in time and verified it was ocean life?

The fossils survived in time, now stop being a troll

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote: Have you always wanted to be a fossil denying troll? [/QUOTE ]
I am a fossil-accepting champion, and you are a confused troll who OBEDIENTLY regurgitates every claim of omniscience he is told to believe.

At least you acknowledge that you are merely regurgitating what you have been told to repeat, and that you gullibly fall for every scam you read. You ARE allowed to not actually believe anything you are saying.

[quote]Swan wrote: The fact is that you have no friends or family and need to have people care enough about you to desire to prove you wrong,

I have family, but you are correct that I have no friends, because nobody likes a know-it-all.

Actually, I have one friend ... you. I appreciate the great extents to which you venture to show that you care.

Swan wrote: Well you will die alone and in pain

Death is often painful, but I won't be alone. I'll have all my passengers with me.



You are not omniscient; you are just a troll.

Swan wrote: Take your pills

John Marsriver wrote:
James Babbler, your link leads nowhere, so here is the story it seems you're talking about.

https://curiosmos.com/fossil-discovery-suggests-the-pyramids-and-sphinx-were-submerged-under-water/

It is indeed an interesting observation.

It supports my position that the Pyramids were blasted with scorching plasma, a fluid like substance, from the full force of the Universe, when a hole shattered in Heaven, in the mountains of the Saharan Desert, around the borders of Libya, Egypt, and Sudan.

IBdaMann wrote:
Death is often painful, but I won't be alone. I'll have all my passengers with me.

John Marsriver wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:Death is often painful, but I won't be alone. I'll have all my passengers with me.

A desire to take others down with you? That sounds like a quality you share with mass shooters!

IBdaMann wrote:

John Marsriver wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:Death is often painful, but I won't be alone. I'll have all my passengers with me.

A desire to take others down with you? That sounds like a quality you share with mass shooters!

No sense of humor and total inability to recognize a joke? That sounds like a quality you share with Marxists, Democrats and other leftists.

IBdaMann wrote:

John Marsriver wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:Death is often painful, but I won't be alone. I'll have all my passengers with me.

A desire to take others down with you? That sounds like a quality you share with mass shooters!

No sense of humor and total inability to recognize a joke? That sounds like a quality you share with Marxists, Democrats and other leftists.

John Marsriver wrote: You're not funny.

keepit wrote: ibd, You're not very productive.Sorry, it's a slow morning.

IBdaMann wrote:

John Marsriver wrote: You're not funny.

Either the problem is at my end, i.e. I'm not funny, or the problem is at your end, i.e. you're too stupid to understand a punchline or to even recognize one when you read one.

Hmmm, I wonder where the problem is. Can we deduce the solution? Let's see.
* You fell for a lame, obvious hoax.
* You believe that adding salt to water decreases the water's volume.
* You therefore believe that salt quantity determines the ocean level in different places where the salt quantity differs.
* You think there is/was glass surrounding the earth.

The results are in. Yes, we have sufficient information to determine that you are your problem, not I.

Whereas it is impossible for you to find me to be funny, I find you to be hillarious. Please keep it up. What's the next hoax we should "believe"?

I know, once upon a time, a carbon fiber-protected self-immolator removed all the salt from the ocean, causing the ocean's volume to violently increase as he set himself on fire, bursting his flaming body through the earth's surrounding glass and becoming the sun that shines upon Swan's tomatoes every day, right? Am I close?

... or was that totally not funny?

keepit wrote:
ibd,
You're not very productive.
Sorry, it's a slow morning.

keepit wrote: Don't you guys have anything better to do than to post 35,000 posts on this website over a period of a decade or more?

keepit wrote:Do you post on other websites?

IBdaMann wrote:

John Marsriver wrote: You're not funny.

Either the problem is at my end, i.e. I'm not funny, or the problem is at your end, i.e. you're too stupid to understand a punchline or to even recognize one when you read one.

Hmmm, I wonder where the problem is. Can we deduce the solution? Let's see.
* You fell for a lame, obvious hoax.
* You believe that adding salt to water decreases the water's volume.
* You therefore believe that salt quantity determines the ocean level in different places where the salt quantity differs.
* You think there is/was glass surrounding the earth.

The results are in. Yes, we have sufficient information to determine that you are your problem, not I.

Whereas it is impossible for you to find me to be funny, I find you to be hillarious. Please keep it up. What's the next hoax we should "believe"?

I know, once upon a time, a carbon fiber-protected self-immolator removed all the salt from the ocean, causing the ocean's volume to violently increase as he set himself on fire, bursting his flaming body through the earth's surrounding glass and becoming the sun that shines upon Swan's tomatoes every day, right? Am I close?

... or was that totally not funny?

John Marsriver wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

John Marsriver wrote: You're not funny.

Either the problem is at my end, i.e. I'm not funny, or the problem is at your end, i.e. you're too stupid to understand a punchline or to even recognize one when you read one.

Hmmm, I wonder where the problem is. Can we deduce the solution? Let's see.
* You fell for a lame, obvious hoax.
* You believe that adding salt to water decreases the water's volume.
* You therefore believe that salt quantity determines the ocean level in different places where the salt quantity differs.
* You think there is/was glass surrounding the earth.

The results are in. Yes, we have sufficient information to determine that you are your problem, not I.

Whereas it is impossible for you to find me to be funny, I find you to be hillarious. Please keep it up. What's the next hoax we should "believe"?

I know, once upon a time, a carbon fiber-protected self-immolator removed all the salt from the ocean, causing the ocean's volume to violently increase as he set himself on fire, bursting his flaming body through the earth's surrounding glass and becoming the sun that shines upon Swan's tomatoes every day, right? Am I close?

... or was that totally not funny?

You are again using death to make a joke. I do not appreciate sick humor.

John Marsriver wrote:
I don't have any problem determining there is glass all around Earth, the Atlantic is saltier than the Pacific, and that salt dissolved in water reduces the water's volume slightly.

John Marsriver wrote:
You do. But I do not think it should be my problem if you can't accept the conclusions of the tests repeatedly shown to you here.

Into the Night wrote:

John Marsriver wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

John Marsriver wrote: You're not funny.

Either the problem is at my end, i.e. I'm not funny, or the problem is at your end, i.e. you're too stupid to understand a punchline or to even recognize one when you read one.

Hmmm, I wonder where the problem is. Can we deduce the solution? Let's see.
* You fell for a lame, obvious hoax.
* You believe that adding salt to water decreases the water's volume.
* You therefore believe that salt quantity determines the ocean level in different places where the salt quantity differs.
* You think there is/was glass surrounding the earth.

The results are in. Yes, we have sufficient information to determine that you are your problem, not I.

Whereas it is impossible for you to find me to be funny, I find you to be hillarious. Please keep it up. What's the next hoax we should "believe"?

I know, once upon a time, a carbon fiber-protected self-immolator removed all the salt from the ocean, causing the ocean's volume to violently increase as he set himself on fire, bursting his flaming body through the earth's surrounding glass and becoming the sun that shines upon Swan's tomatoes every day, right? Am I close?

... or was that totally not funny?

You are again using death to make a joke. I do not appreciate sick humor.

You don't appreciate ANY humor. Must really suck to be you.

John Marsriver wrote:
I don't have any problem determining there is glass all around Earth, the Atlantic is saltier than the Pacific, and that salt dissolved in water reduces the water's volume slightly.

Still trying to deny physics, eh?

John Marsriver wrote:
You do. But I do not think it should be my problem if you can't accept the conclusions of the tests repeatedly shown to you here.

What 'tests'? Making shit up won't help.

John Marsriver wrote: I don't have any problem determining there is glass all around Earth,

John Marsriver wrote: the Atlantic is saltier than the Pacific,

John Marsriver wrote: and that salt dissolved in water reduces the water's volume slightly.

John Marsriver wrote:I cannot believe you are as ignorant as your comments indicate.

IBdaMann wrote:

John Marsriver wrote: I don't have any problem determining there is glass all around Earth,

Apparently you find it impossible.

John Marsriver wrote: the Atlantic is saltier than the Pacific,

Nope. Nobody has measured the saltiness of either the entire "Atlantic" or "Pacific."

John Marsriver wrote: and that salt dissolved in water reduces the water's volume slightly.

Someone played a nasty joke on you. Adding salt to water increases the overall volume, as one would expect.

John Marsriver wrote:I cannot believe you are as ignorant as your comments indicate.

Another waste of bandwidth. You had a perfectly good opportunity to support your absurd arguments, but instead tried to blame Into the Night for your own delusions.

John Marsriver wrote: Looks like you are the victim of a nasty joke, suffering delusions.

John Marsriver wrote:You believe that an unstable lunatic snapping and becoming violent, Buzz Aldrin, is a hero, perfectly justified in committing assault upon his warranted prosecutor.

IBdaMann wrote:

John Marsriver wrote: Looks like you are the victim of a nasty joke, suffering delusions.

... *or* ... you are. Let's analyze.

John Marsriver wrote:You believe that an unstable lunatic snapping and becoming violent, Buzz Aldrin, is a hero, perfectly justified in committing assault upon his warranted prosecutor.

You believe that your "reading" of an altercation determines that Aldrin never walked on the moon which, in turn, establishes that the earth is surrounded by glass.

Hmmmmmm.

I'm sorry, refresh my memory, who is suffering from self-delusion?

John Marsriver wrote:Clearly the altercation reveals he never went to the moon.

John Marsriver wrote: Now it is up to you to determine why he did not.

John Marsriver wrote: Lucky for you, the photography showing earth encased in glass has already been provided on this forum repeatedly, and you have acknowledged reading it.