Register | Sign In

Understanding through Discussion

EvC Forum active members: 50 (9179 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: Jorge Parker
Post Volume: Total: 918,221 Year: 5,478/9,624 Month: 503/323 Week: 143/204 Day: 13/4 Hour: 1/0

Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Author Topic: - What do you think?
Member (Idle past 1458 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004

Message 40 of 167 (388004)
03-04-2007 2:14 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Tusko
03-03-2007 11:13 AM

someone has started up a new wiki aimed at countering the perceived liberal bias in Wikipedia.
well, the facts have a liberal bias.
i think the answer to this is clear: promote the hell out of it. if it's really a wiki, like it claims to be, the mostly-liberal population of the internet will quickly correct it back into being accurate. it'll be fun to see them ban people who break no rules...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Tusko, posted 03-03-2007 11:13 AM Tusko has not replied

Member (Idle past 1458 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004

Message 117 of 167 (388435)
03-06-2007 1:14 AM
Reply to: Message 68 by Jon
03-05-2007 1:09 AM

to the moon, alice.
edit: sorry, moose, i think i was writting this post when you posted the warning to stop.
i had to back-track to this post from a few confusing (and confused) posts. you seem to be strangely suffering from the same misconceptions the article you cite does.
but it also claims that tides cause moon "buldges"
the article you cited has:
The cause of the bulge on the Moon to lock in its rotation remains a mystery to those who reject design.
in other words, "god did it." not tides. further, they don't seem to understand tidal forces.
As to the Moon, the tidal forces on the Earth cannot account fully for its bulge or egg shape.
this implies to me that they are thinking scientists mean the changing hieght of sea level caused the moon's deformation. they don't understand the relationship or definitions, and so they uses phrases like this. and so do you. but they seem to fail to grasp that the moon is actually the cause of tides on earth, and that two bodies attract each other with gravity. the moon deforms the earth's oceans. the earth would similarly deform the moon if it were liquid. and considering that the moon does not have a core, we then have a fairly good explanation for the moon's shape: it was once liquid, specifically formed from the earth's mantle.
and that tidal forces on Earth could actually have broken the moon into pieces if it ever got too close!
tidal force is the secondary effect of gravity between two bodies. it's responsible for the earth's tides. "tidal forces on earth" is kind of an odd phrase. the moon exerts a tidal force on the earth (and vice versa). but it would be the tidal force OF the earth ON the moon that would (hypothetically) break up the moon.
not that i'm totally sure that's even possible. and that "150,000 miles" sounds rather familiar. and it's rather interesting that they believe tidal forces are strong enough to break up the moon, but not strong enough to change its shape a little.
Edited by arachnophilia, : note to moose

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by Jon, posted 03-05-2007 1:09 AM Jon has not replied

Member (Idle past 1458 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004

Message 148 of 167 (389329)
03-12-2007 7:26 PM
Reply to: Message 146 by CK
03-12-2007 8:37 AM

Re: Dinosaurs
read the whole thing.
oh god, i dunno if i can! it's so bad!
For example, trained scientists have reported seeing a live dinosaur.[4]
# ‘
aig? that's your source? the bit they're referring to is a mokele-mbembe sighting (which, btw, i would be absolutely THRILLED if m-m was real and a dinosaur). but that's the same aig article with this gem:
It is possible too that some of those huge flying reptiles, the pterosaurs, also survived Noah’s Flood and lived into recent times. The Illustrated London News of February 9, 1856 (p. 166) reported that workmen digging a railway tunnel in France last century disturbed a huge winged creature at Culmont, in Haute Marne, while blasting rock for the tunnel.
The creature was described as livid black, with a long neck and sharp teeth. It looked like a bat, and its skin was thick and oily. It died soon after. Its wingspan was measured at 3.22 metres (10 feet 7 inches). A naturalist ”immediately recognised it as belonging to the genus Pterodactylus anas’, and it matched the remains of known pterodactyl fossils.
"anas" as in duck. since the story takes place in france, does anyone know the french word for "duck?"
the story is a well known hoax. well known. in fact, so well known that the author himself retracted the claim:
[Ed. note: the author has since retracted his claim about the Illustrated London News report on the living pterosaur, since new evidence shows that it was a hoax. And in late 2005, John Whitmore wrote that the early reports of ”unfossilized’ dinosaur bones were overstated, as recent analysis shows that they should be referred to as ”fossilized’ ( ”Unfossilized’ Alaskan dinosaur bones? Letter to the Editor, Journal of Creation 19(3):60).]
and the aig version:
[Ed. note: In late 2005, a report in TJ provided an update on the scientific appraisal of some of the bones discussed in this article. See John H. Whitmore, ”Unfossilized’ Alaskan dinosaur bones? TJ 19(3):60.]
yes. let's trust this source.
A thousand people reported seeing a dinosaur-like monster in two sightings around Sayram Lake in Xinjiang according to the Chinese publication, China Today. [5]
same aig article, which references something else, which makes a vague claim about another mokele-mbembe-type lake monster. wow.
An expedition which included Charles W. Gilmore, Curator of Vertebrate Paleontology with the United States National Museum, examined an ancient pictograph which is claimed to point to dinosaurs and man existing [6][7].
hava supai. which sure doesn't look like a dinosaur to me. it DOES vaguely look like an inaccurate coloring book version of a dinosaur, though, i'll give them that.
The World Book Encyclopedia states that: "The dragons of legend are strangely like actual creatures that have lived in the past. They are much like the great reptiles [dinosaurs] which inhabited the earth long before man is supposed to have appeared on earth. Dragons were generally evil and destructive. Every country had them in its mythology." [8]
yes, dinosaurs have big nasty teeth and claws. but they sure don't look like medieval european dragons and wyverns, and they don't look even remotely like chinese dragons.
The Nile Mosaic of Palestrina, a second century piece of art, is said to appear to be a piece of artwork that shows a dinosaur and man coexisting. [9]
again, doesn't look like a dinosaur. looks like a dark-ages fantasy.
This is quite hard evidence.
ha! hahaha! hahahahahaahaha!
hearsay, conjecture, and rumor is hard evidence? tell me another one!
Since 565 A.D. there are reports about the Loch Ness Monster (Nessie by birth)
ok, they CAN'T be serious. this site HAS TO BE a joke.
People who saw Nessie described the Monster as it would look similar to a dinosaur.
dinosaurs were not aquatic. other archosaurs, however, like the pleisiosaurs and elasmosaurs were.
In the life story of St. Columba, there is an account of him driving off a monster attacking a Pict. Some have taken this to refer to the Loch Ness Monster.
sure, why not. and grendel and his mother, while we're at it, were also dinosaurs. why not.
Dinosaurs and Birds
As a number of feathered dinosaur fossils have been discovered, and the similiarity in the bone structure between birds and dinosaurs, scientists contend that modern birds are a descendant of dinosaurs.
...that's it? that's all they wrote? i guess they can't find any good objections?
perhaps the most telling are their references:
1. ‘ - Dinosaurs - About The Animals
2. ‘
3. ‘
4. ‘
5. ‘
6. ‘ Doheny Scientific Expedition, Hava Supai Canyon, Arizona
7. ‘ The page you were looking for doesn't exist (404)
8. ‘ In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - References and Notes
9. ‘
10. ‘ Genesis, 1:25
11. ‘ Genesis 1:29-30
12. ‘ "Were dinosaurs on Noah’s Ark?", Answers in Genesis
13. ‘ "Dinosaur bones”just how old are they really?", Creation 21(1):54-55, December 1998
14. ‘ "Are dinosaurs alive today?", Creation 15(4):12-15, September 1993
15. ‘ "Could Behemoth have been a dinosaur?", TJ 15(2):42-45, August 2001
16. ‘
creationist source after creationist source. they don't even use those entirely honestly, either. look at the bible citations:
that dinosaurs were created on the 6th day of the Creation Week[10] as a final addendum to the wonders God created, approximately 6,000 years ago; that they lived in the Garden of Eden in harmony with other animals, eating only plants[11];
the verses they cite in genesis certainly don't say that!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 146 by CK, posted 03-12-2007 8:37 AM CK has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:

Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024