|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9163 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,419 Year: 3,676/9,624 Month: 547/974 Week: 160/276 Day: 34/23 Hour: 1/3 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: 101 evidences for a young age... | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9142 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.3 |
You committed to continuing this topic in an appropriate thread. Are you now backing down?
You have been given the link to the appropriate thread. You have posted to other threads since you agreed. Is there a problem? Do you need someone to start the debate? Are we to assume since you have hit your quota of 20 you are no longer posting? Or that you realize you can not back up your assertions? Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2127 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
RAZD, I have presented evidence far better than what the creationists have presented showing that centaurs and humans coexisted.
They use various rock paintings and carvings of dubious detail to show dinosaurs are/were still around just a few thousand years ago. Those paintings and carvings, as you point out, are subject to multiple interpretations and prove nothing. But the carving I linked to, being correct in anatomical detail, definitively proves that centaurs existed! And if you want to discard this evidence, you'll break a lot of creationists' hearts as they are relying on much flimsier evidence for their claims. So are you going to be a big meanie and dash all of their hopes and aspirations that dinosaurs and humans were cavorting about together just a few thousand years ago, thereby "proving" a young earth? Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Blue Jay Member (Idle past 2719 days) Posts: 2843 From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts Joined: |
Hi, RAZD.
RAZD writes: However, the argument is that these depictions are anatomically correct, thus demonstrating knowledge of the living animal. I disagree with this. Wirkkalaj's argument is that dinosaurs influenced ancient cultures and art, not that the ancients were particularly good at anatomical illustration. Your entire line of argument is easily defeated by Wirkkalaj suggesting that the artisan was carving based on an anecdote, or from memory long after the sighting. -Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus) Darwin loves you.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluescat48 Member (Idle past 4211 days) Posts: 2347 From: United States Joined: |
And if you want to discard this evidence, you'll break a lot of creationists' hearts as they are relying on much flimsier evidence for their claims. Maybe their hearts wouldn't break if they got some legitimate evidence.The next thing they will be saying that the Flintstones proves young earth, oh, I forgot that they have already tried that, the "Creation Museum." There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002 Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969 Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1426 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi Bluejay, I think you are reading more into his argument than exists.
I disagree with this. Wirkkalaj's argument is that dinosaurs influenced ancient cultures and art, not that the ancients were particularly good at anatomical illustration. I went back over all his posts on this thread and did not see that argument.
Message 75Message 80 Message 93 Message 95 Message 99 Message 101 Message 102 Message 110 What I did see was:
Message 72quote: Message 87quote: Your entire line of argument is easily defeated by Wirkkalaj suggesting that the artisan was carving based on an anecdote, or from memory long after the sighting. A position that also destroys the argument that they are drawn\carved etc from first hand knowledge, as he is quoted as arguing. No, for the only way the argument can be valid is if the argument follows this form: Depiction (A) shows a dinosaurthis depiction compares to (B) a known dinosaur Therefore humans and dinosaur (B) co-existed And there can be no anatomical errors (spikes on the head instead of the tail, head too large, etc) Enjoy. by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. • • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
wirkkalaj Member (Idle past 5355 days) Posts: 22 From: Fernley Joined: |
Not at all. I just do not post as often as I'd like to. I will continue the debate, but it comes at a bad time. I am moving to Hawaii on the 24th of Aug. It will take me a while to get settled, but I look forward to getting my computer set-up! I still don't have a laptop.....I want one sooo bad!
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coragyps Member (Idle past 755 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: |
I am moving to Hawaii on the 24th of Aug. You poor thing! Eat some shrimp from one of the white trucks, and think of us poor suckers you left here on the mainland.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9142 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.3 |
Whatever happened to posting to the dating thread? You said multiple times you were going to bring your argument to a thread where it would be on topic. We never did see you there.
As a reminder.
Radioactive Carbon Dating Edited by Theodoric, : fixed coding Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
holerelay Junior Member (Idle past 5352 days) Posts: 1 Joined: |
(The movement has begun. Joint it. Copy the following message to your email address, enlarge it and send it to the people on your list.) Nature has always been God's most powerful spokesman. The natural beauty which compose our world and summon awe have all testified. Now, for the first time ever, natural science has reveled to the world the afterlife. The secret diary of an anonymous physicist details the recent discovery. Despite attempts to conceal the diary, "Doe's Account", it has finally been made available to all through DoesAccount.com People of faith and progressive thinkers are uniting under this single discoveryJoin the movement. Forward this to all those you care for and help build the staircase to heaven. {For unknown reasons, someone registered 3 months ago, and this is the members first message.- Adminnemooseus} Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Peek away to see the content. It's spam, but an odd spam. Not banning the spammer.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
pandion Member (Idle past 3021 days) Posts: 166 From: Houston Joined: |
{For unknown reasons, someone registered 3 months ago, and this is the members first message.- Adminnemooseus}
It smacked of Heaven's Gate complex to me. Or even Jim Jones.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Blue Jay Member (Idle past 2719 days) Posts: 2843 From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts Joined: |
Hi, RAZD.
I didn’t even see this reply, and it’s really old now. But, I’m kind of bored right now, so I might as well stir up the old pot a little again. Also, this serves as a bump for dragon material, which has recently cropped up in TOE and the Reasons for Doubt.
RAZD writes: Hi Bluejay, I think you are reading more into his argument than exists. This was kind of an odd thing to say to the person who was taking a more conservative stance on the topic than you were. Bluejay: Wirkkalaj thinks ancient humans saw dinosaurs and made artwork about them. RAZD: Wirkkalaj thinks ancient humans saw dinosaurs and made perfect anatomical reconstructions of them. -----
RAZD writes: Bluejay writes: Wirkkalaj's argument is that dinosaurs influenced ancient cultures and art, not that the ancients were particularly good at anatomical illustration. I went back over all his posts on this thread and did not see that argument. You know damn well Wirkkalaj was arguing that the ancients saw dinosaurs and made artwork of them, not that the ancients were good at drawing dinosaurs. Even though he made one statement about the accuracy of the reconstruction, this is at best a peripheral issue in his argument, and defeating that one statement wouldn’t even come close to defeating his overall argument. You were willing to accept that inaccurate reconstructions of jaguars and eagles don’t mean the ancients didn’t see jaguars or eagles, but, in the case of dinosaurs, you demanded higher standards. Why? Was the perfection/accuracy of the art really the issue here? -----
RAZD writes: Bluejay writes: Your entire line of argument is easily defeated by Wirkkalaj suggesting that the artisan was carving based on an anecdote, or from memory long after the sighting. A position that also destroys the argument that they are drawn\carved etc from first hand knowledge, as he is quoted as arguing. Which also wasn’t the core issue of his argument. He doesn’t have to argue that the artists carved the dinosaur while looking at one grazing in a nearby field in order to argue that ancient humans saw dinosaurs and depicted them in their art. The discrepancies can be chalked up to bad memory, bad art skills, or fixation on one particular aspect of the animal at the expense of others. -----
RAZD writes: Depiction (A) shows a dinosaurthis depiction compares to (B) a known dinosaur Therefore humans and dinosaur (B) co-existed And there can be no anatomical errors (spikes on the head instead of the tail, head too large, etc)
Why can there be no anatomical errors? I hear first-hand bug stories all the time about cockroaches six inches long and spiders with twenty or more legs (neither of which has ever been documented)... I’m very familiar with the inability of people to properly diagnose the weird stuff right in front of their eyes. Look at this carving of a human:
Here all of its anatomical inaccuracies:
Does this mean the artist never saw a human? Why do you demand that depictions of dinosaurs be more accurate than depictions of humans or jaguars? Can’t they be authentic without being perfectly faithful reproductions? ----- Disclaimer: Sure, humans certainly never saw dinosaurs. But, discrepancies in the details of ancient artwork are not a good way to support this, because the quality and accuracy of ancient artwork are always suspect anyway. -Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus) Darwin loves you.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluescat48 Member (Idle past 4211 days) Posts: 2347 From: United States Joined: |
One point that I haven't seen is this. How sure are we that our depiction of Dinosaurs is correct? Could it be that our depiction is more from these drawings than from a totally scientific depiction. Obviously there has to be some speculation as to the actual shape since no one was there to "Take pictures." I find this similar to those who "See" Christ or the Virgin Mary in toast or some other medium. Who, today, knows what they looked like? Again no Photos.
There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002 Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969 Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
greyseal Member (Idle past 3883 days) Posts: 464 Joined: |
humourously enough (if you'll forgive the sidelining) that particular picture, to the more conservative historians of yesteryear, was recreated and redescribed as a saintly picture with a holyman/angel of some sort opening his chest to reveal his pure heart.
Rather than, you know, a woman pulling her second pair of lips wide...
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1426 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi Bluejay, yeah, old posts
Does this mean the artist never saw a human? No, what it means is that the statue is not proof that the artist did see humans.
Why can there be no anatomical errors? I hear first-hand bug stories all the time about cockroaches six inches long and spiders with twenty or more legs (neither of which has ever been documented)... I’m very familiar with the inability of people to properly diagnose the weird stuff right in front of their eyes. Because only with anatomically correct representations can you conclude that they co-existed. Any other depiction that can be derived from seeing fossil bones can only prove that they saw fossil bones. Enjoy by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. • • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Blue Jay Member (Idle past 2719 days) Posts: 2843 From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts Joined: |
Hi, RAZD.
RAZD writes: Because only with anatomically correct representations can you conclude that they co-existed. But, you can't expect too much of ancient people. The quality of, for instance, the Angkor-Wat carving, if interpreted as a stegosaur, is consistent with the quality of the other pictures depicting other creatures. By the way, Stegosaurus was endemic to North America, so there's no way the Angkor-Wat carving was based on Stegosaurus: however, there are Old World stegosaurs that have horns on their shoulders, very near to their heads, e.g.:
If they only ever saw such an animal with its head down in the grass than I suspect it would look like it had horns on its head. Again, it's just apologetics, but I think it's only fair to grant that we can't really expect much more than that level of quality from the ancients. I don't know what else the carving could be interpreted as, other than a stegosaurid, so it at least shows that the ancient Cambodians knew about stegosaurs. But, the best argument against this isn't to point out its anatomical inaccuracies, because everything back then was carved with anatomical inaccuracies. -Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus) Darwin loves you.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024