And you had what in mind? Don't rebut without offering something.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mutatis-Mutandi
Printable View
And you had what in mind? Don't rebut without offering something.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mutatis-Mutandi
I'm sorry, but that is not just creativity. I figured that you would just dismiss the evidence. It seems that any evidence that I could ever give would be dismissed as well. There are pictures (good pictures) of a triceratops and a small T-Rex, which could only have been drawn that accurately if one would have actually SEEN it. This is not just one case of chance. But it seems that evolutionists like the extremely high odds...or rather impossible odds. Don't lecture me on credibility. Evolutionists try to construct a complete skeletal modal based on sketchy parts. Let me see some of YOUR evidence.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mutatis-Mutandi
First one has to question the evidence - in this case what 'evidence' is there that they were drawn in the time of the dinosaurs, and not by a couple of pranksters last month or year (in recent history). Absolutely not one jot of evidence! I can count the evidence on the fingers of one foot - none, zero, zip and zilch! If they are badly drawn creatures (say mammals) that happened to look a little like dinosaurs, well I suggest everyone read Salvador Dali's Hidden Faces to avoid further confusion.
Jesus would be frowning from his burnt toast...
Rebut? Rebut what? This is what you said:Quote:
Originally Posted by deryk
How am I supposed to rebut that? What is there to rebut? Here's my rebuttal. When a person dies, their spirit drifts through the air into the nearest animal, preferably a cat, and then that animal, in secret, portals itself into an ethereal alternate universe where the spirit is dropped off in a waiting room where it awaits an embryo to inhabit. That's my alternative. It seems just as likely.Quote:
Originally Posted by deryk
What "good pictures"? I saw drawings and sculptures that looked on par with what kindergarteners do, just like all caveman drawings. That is absolutely NO proof that they saw a dinosaur. More likely they saw a lizard, maybe even a big one like a Komodo Dragon and either A. got *creative* or, (and just as likely) B. they were poor artists. You explain to me how that is credible proof.Quote:
Originally Posted by BienvenuJDC
You accuse me of dismissing your evidence off-hand without even considering it--a baseless assumption, especially since I watched and considered that whole video of yours. I can easily link troves and troves of evidence to suggest that dinosaurs indeed existed millions of years ago, and not with humans, but you'd dismiss it just as you accuse me of doing. Hell, you already dismissed it above before it was even posted!
Here's something I don't get. What does it matter? Are you a Bible literalist? Does the possibility of evolution and dinosaurs that lived millions of years ago somehow invalidate your faith? Isn't that what creationism was invented for, to give comfort to the religious as they are confronted with reality?
Thanks, that's what I was looking for. Maybe you should read the rest of my posts in their entirety before responding. These loaded "religious" threads become encumbered with more banality than they can support simply because they attract people's emotions more than anything else.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mutatis-Mutandi
http://static-www.icr.org/i/articles...riceratops.jpgQuote:
Originally Posted by Mutatis-Mutandi
This looks like a good picture to me... better than Picasso's best.
You're the one that ridiculed me for thinking that man coexisted with dinosaurs. How did the Inca's know what a triceratops looked like? What does it matter? It matters that scientists and the education system has been lying to us, and that evidence like this has not been shown to people so that they can decide if the Inca's lived along with the triceratops, or not. This is NOT a Komodo dragon. You cannot offer any evidence that can disprove something that is obviously been proven. But be my guest....show us what you've got...
It wasn't intended to be. Read the posts at which it was directed. I'm not going to baby-sit your lack of sarcasm detection on a literary forum. Read the context. I'm sorry, this response originally confused me because I assumed you understood that I was making an argument for materialism. I didn't know where you were coming from.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mutatis-Mutandi
Those particular burial stones are a hoax. Deinonychus skeletons are not, however. Dinosaurs are birds now.Quote:
Originally Posted by BienvenuJDC
Not that it matters in the slightest. If there was a god, I doubt it would disregard its own methods of creation.
I thought the purpose of this thread was whether or not a supreme being exists, I don't think creation by magic supports any argument.
That sure does closely resemble a triceratops. I understand why you would use it to confirm your beliefs. But really, do you think this resemblence, which could be attibuted to some combination of imagination and chance, should be sufficient cause to outright do away with all the science which indicates, if not entirely proves, that dinosaurs existed tens of millions of years before humans ever appeared on this earth? Scientists are after the truth. They come from many different backgrounds, atheist and religious. Here or there a scientist may have a hidden agenda, but, as a whole, science is an "objective" pursuit of the truth. Science itself is not inherently anti-Biblical, anti-religous. Its the facts which are.Quote:
Originally Posted by BienvenuJDC
Edit: After doing a little digging it seems that those stones are a hoax. They cannot be carbon-dated. The guy who found them has confessed to decorating them himself. Others show pictures of ancient astronauts. Not legitimate.
Even if the stones were not a hoax, it requires quite a leap of the imagination to conclude they represent real animals. First of all, they would be a rather bad depiction of a triceratops since the horns are in the wrong place, and they didn't have back spines. Secondly, if we say this represented something Incans actually lived alongside, you'd have to agree that Greeks really did live alongside gorgons, hydras, and sphinxes. Moreover, given the tremendous amount of evidence about the age of dinosaurs, if we assumed these depicted things the Incans had seen, it would be more reasonable (but still ridiculous) to say they came across fossils and imagined them as alive. To say they actually lived alongside triceratops requires massive delusions about the amount of evidence out there.Quote:
Originally Posted by deryk
But, of course, they have been admitted by the artist who created them that they are a hoax. Their veracity has been promoted by a man who has made quite a lot of money off of operating a tourist site based around them.
That's interesting - I'd want to check that date first though (and it may still be a forgery).Quote:
Originally Posted by BienvenuJDC
But given the benefit of the doubt, most of Inca culture was wiped out when Cortez arrived around 1500, and why they couldn't have had a dragon belief when China and Europe both had one - all stable and ancient civilisations each - well, they may well have...
1500 to 500 hundred years ago (supposedly) is well within the timeframe that humans have been mining and finding fossil skeletons though. If that's a triceratops and not an extinct relative of an armadillo (Dodoes became suddenly extinct too - though because they and their eggs were tasty, perhaps these met a similar fate) I'd be surprised.
Third possibility is still that the artist simply imagined a beast that happened to resemble very much a particular dinosaur. And also the oral tradition for established tribes with limited written language is very powerful. I hope their ancestors were around at the time of the big lizards; that would truly be something incredible.
Still a bit Chariots of the Gods to me however
Apparently biblical literalists are also forced to believe that Noah brought dinosaurs onto his ark.
When I said, "Well, that's scientific. :lol:" I was just kidding around. Chill out. As to the purpose of this thread, deryk, read the idiotic OP. The purpose of this thread was a dumb joke. I can't believe it made it to a second page, much less spawned the discussion it did.Quote:
Originally Posted by deryk
As for the triceratops picture from Bien, others have done the work for me by pointing out that the picture is a forgery. Try again.
The "artist" who admitted to creating the pottery was a paid leftist puppet, and carbon dating is invaild.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mutatis-Mutandi
(this Biblical literalism stuff is easy)
Also, he managed to round up two of every individual non-flying insect on every continent of earth. I can't decide which sounds most unlikely.Quote:
Originally Posted by Darcy88
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...rorsus_old.jpg
Triceratops skeleton 1898 ^ Still a fantastic looking head.
That 'Inca artist' really was quite creative.
Oh, was there someone on here who thought the earth is flat?:banghead:Quote:
Originally Posted by Mutatis-Mutandi
I think the universe is flat.Quote:
Originally Posted by KCurtis
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/uni_shape.html
Please tell me why that would be far fetched? Do you think that the dinosaurs were hatched out in a colossal size?Quote:
Originally Posted by Darcy88
Try nabbing a bear cub from every bear species, polar, black, grizzley, ect, and if you have any limbs left then go get a young lion, tiger, cheetah, panther, ect. Good luck. I think getting two baby dinosaurs of every dinosaur species would be a task immeasurably more daunting than even that. Actually it would be impossible, since we know that dinosaurs went extinct long before man first drew breath.Quote:
Originally Posted by BienvenuJDC
And I don't see how he would even know whether he'd gotten every species. The science of taxonomy was crude if not non-existent back then.
Yeah dude, I'm pretty sure he thought Mozart didn't exist too. Also, those vapor lines left after a plane flies overhead? Deliberately excreted poisonous chemicals orchistrated by the British government.Quote:
Originally Posted by KCurtis
We KNOW? I'm sorry, but that goes against the evidence. Oh...but it's easier to just throw out the evidence instead of changing our beliefs.Quote:
Originally Posted by Darcy88
He thought many things.Quote:
Originally Posted by KCurtis
And I can't help but notice Bien has decided to just ignore how everyone pointed out that his wonderful piece of "evidence" was a fake. I think this would apply nicely to Bien himself:
Quote:
Originally Posted by BienvenuJDC
That was added while I was writing. It's just hilarious. Speak for yourself, Bien.Quote:
Originally Posted by BienvenuJDC
What evidence? Those fabricated stones?Quote:
Originally Posted by BienvenuJDC
Noah would have had to have ventured to the North and South poles, deep into the Amazonian rainforest, down to Patagonia, way over to the Galapagos Islands. And, assuming he somehow knew he'd gotten them all, he'd have had to have gone back and released them back into their native habitats. You'd think there might be some mention of these vast distant lands somewhere in the bible.
Edit: It appears that the bible says the animals "came unto Noah." Which means, I suppose, that God somehow commanded them to converge upon ancient Israel. Polar bears, mountain gorillas, kangaroos.... all migrated across continents, compelled by God, and embarked upon Noah's boat upon which they rode out the storm. In a world-view wherein nothing is impossible, I guess not even that is impossible. And since all things are possible with God, it would seem that once you're made the choice to believe in Him you can believe just about anything. Fair enough.
Why, man was also created from clay??:drool5:Quote:
Originally Posted by Darcy88
Enjoy!
The Power of Cosmic Thinking
Daniel Honan
Managing Editor
There is a Native American belief that one has the responsibility to think seven generations ahead. While this is a nice sentiment, it's not good enough, argue Nancy Ellen Abrams and Joel R. Primack in their book The New Universe and the Human Future: How a Shared Cosmology Could Transform the World. Abrams and Primack argue we are living in a cosmically pivotal moment today, and we have a higher level of responsibility than any generation that came before us. READ/Watch video »http://bigthink.com/ideas/41338
Yes, that is exactly how evidence is rejected. Have you investigated the evidence? What makes you think that they are fabricated? OH...because it is in contradiction to what you believe? That is AMAZING!!Quote:
Originally Posted by Darcy88
I think they are fabricated because the guy who supposedly "found" them has since confessed to having fabricated them. They also show pictures of ancient astronauts. Do you believe in them now too?Quote:
Originally Posted by BienvenuJDC
I do. The secret of Himmler in Atlantis and Nepal. What's not to know is to believe or disbelieve and let it be. If it is to know, there will be an answer. If it is not to know, yet posed as knowledge, an arsenic pill.Quote:
Originally Posted by Darcy88
Bah - and I believed in fairies.Quote:
Originally Posted by deryk
Yet I don't think that accounts for thoughts or the mind. The potassium and sodium etc etc - are the vehicles for thoughts to arise not the thoughts themseves. You said it yourself - if those conditions aren't there, then there is no thought manifesting.
There may be no magical abstractions - though I never mentioned magic - but you have this magical analogy of hard drives. I don't think science can account for the mind or thoughts, though they can see the process of the meat machine better these days. Or am I wrong?
Have YOU investigated the evidence? The guy who found those stones ADMITTED that they were FABRICATED! Seriously, are you being intentionally obtuse now just to rile people up, or what?Quote:
Originally Posted by BienvenuJDC
Evidence is like Big Foot. The question is: If there are imprints of Bib Foot then where is the so-called Big Foot???
Much is said about the UFO's but why these chiefly appear in the US and not in other countries, such as the Far East or the Middle East??
My question is, what should we do when we bump into people with opinions like those of Bien? It's clear that the debates go nowhere. When you have a normal debate, sometimes you make good points or your opponent does and that changes someone's mind on an issue which is always cool because it means that there's been growth. Bien will NEVER change his mind, so do we just not bother to argue? If we don't argue against people like that, is doing nothing while they loudly insist on such outdated ideas going to have negative consequences (for example, are they going to start to force biology teachers to teach creationism in schools and push for them to cease teaching evolution altogether, or send kids to "learn how not to be gay with the power of Jesus" camps)? Arguing against them is tedious, and the subject is very very stupid which makes me feel stupid for giving it time in the first place, but should we argue anyway to prevent vocal fundamentalist Christians from getting too much attention which might lead to terrible decisions being made in politics and education?
Well Juniper, I think we should respect people's beliefs so long as they do not force them upon us or, as you say, introduce them into a school's curriculum. The scientific method should be the standard by which the material taught to children should measured. Beyond that I say let people believe what they want to believe. While I disagree profoundly with what Bien has said in this thread, I do respect his right to believe as he chooses and to freely express those beliefs.
Would Juniper ever change hers?Quote:
Originally Posted by JuniperWoolf
Hey, Bien, what do you think about those pictures you posted of the fabricated drawings?
I totally disagree that the so-called scientific method should be taught to children. Let's just leave the THEORIES out of the curriculum. I as well respect your beliefs, but don't you see that your belief is just as subjective as mine?Quote:
Originally Posted by Darcy88
I'll admit that is possible. Can you document that, or do I just take your word for it?Quote:
Originally Posted by Mutatis-Mutandi
The difference is that my beliefs can be empirically verified. Science is self-correcting, it refines itself through the ever ongoing interplay of hypothesis, evidence and theory. The bible, on the other hand, is set in stone. A scientific fact is reliable in a way that a biblical statement is not. What reason do you have for having faith in the bible? Its almost arbitrary. Why not the Book of Mormon, why not the Koran? What reason do I have for believing in evolution? The evidence indicates that the theory is true, that's my reason. Science relies on evidence, the bible relies on itself. Evolution is "true" because of what our observations of the natural world lead us to conclude. The bible is true why? Its true because its true?Quote:
Originally Posted by BienvenuJDC
I'm sorry....evolution cannot be empirically verified. What you call scientific fact, is NOT a fact. It's called the THEORY of Evolution for a reason. The Bible CAN be verified by archeological evidence. But I'm wasting my breath...Quote:
Originally Posted by Darcy88
I said the evidence "indicates" that its true. Of course its just a theory. I see that the main thrust of my response has been dodged. None of the supernatural claims in the bible can be verified, nor supported in any meaningful way. The theory of evolution has volumes of naturalistic observations backing it up, not proving it, but indicating the incredible likelihood of its being true.Quote:
Originally Posted by BienvenuJDC
A scientific claim refers beyond itself to the world at large. The bible refers to back onto itself. In the end all the believer can say is "its true because its true."