|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Mankind and dinosaur side by side ? ? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
gene90 Member (Idle past 3823 days) Posts: 1610 Joined: |
In the future I would prefer if you reposted here.
[QUOTE][b]It would seem to me that anyone seeking funding, for purposes of exploration, could be guaranteed sufficient funding only if a "rare find" of a "missing link" could be proved, and I think that his "documentary" may have achieved that purpose.[/QUOTE] [/b] Why would he go to public television when we have peer review? How many times has Lucy been mentioned in the journals? Now why would he need a documentary to get funding? Anyway all this page is is a prolonged game of semantics with what the experts said on an episode of NOVA. A quick scroll down didn't find any evidence at all for what you are purporting. I can play games with semantics with you later, but first you will have to: (1) Define the problem, that is, tell us what would be a transitional and would be so convincing you could not deny it. (2) Account for the lack of dinosaur-man crossover if those alleged footprints are real and if you claim that dinosaurs and man were contemporaneous. Also I believe we were discussing the implications of C-14 dating and the age of the Earth. Why should we jump to new topics whenever you get tired of the old ones? It is an inefficient use of time and you're accumulating a backlog. TC, maybe you could visit his site and give us your thoughts. [This message has been edited by gene90, 04-16-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2169 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: Now, now, let's not get into gender stereotyping, please. Some of the most scheming and political people I have ever known have been men, and that kind of activity definitely requires more than a little attention to personalities and motivations. AND, some of the most political, backbiting places on earth are universities. Not all of them, but some university departments could give Fortune 500 boardrooms a run for their money in the political power-play area. [This message has been edited by schrafinator, 04-16-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5195 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
quote: Techristian, I would accept God coming down to earth, & performing miracles under lab conditions as evidence of a SUPREME CREATOR. I'll ask again, what would you accept as a transitional? Please note, I DID NOT ask what you wouldn't accept. If I could be cheeky, & add to that, what criteria would you apply to all fossils to determine whether they are transitional or not? Mark ------------------Occam's razor is not for shaving with.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Mister Pamboli Member (Idle past 7577 days) Posts: 634 From: Washington, USA Joined: |
quote: Now, now, let's not get into gender stereotyping, please.Some of the best knitters I have ever known have been men, including my father (who knitted me a wonderful Guernsey when I was at university), and, of course, Kaffe Fassett.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2169 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
[QUOTE]Originally posted by techristian:
[B]Ok here is your answer Mark. First of all I won't accept one type of GULL and another type of GULL. THEY ARE BOTH GULLS FOR CRYING OUT LOUD !Secondly I won't accept one type of SALAMANDER and another type of salamander. THEY ARE BOTH SALAMANDERS ![/QUOTE] So, does this mean that you accept that new species can emerge? Perhaps you could define both "kind" and "species" for us. Specifically, I would like to understand exactly what criterion to use to tell one "kind" from another. I already know the criterion with which to identify different species, but I am wondering if you do. For example, you essentially say above that "a salamander is a salamander." Well, is a "cat a cat"? Are Bengal tigers and my housecats the same "kind"? Are Chimps and Orangutans the same "kind"? How about Bonobo Chimps and humans? Are bats and eagles the same "fowl" kind (the Bible defines them both as "fowl")? Please relieve my confusion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2169 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: LOL! But the question is, did your father knit in a circle with other knitters, preoccupied with people personalities and motivations?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
wj Inactive Member |
Sorry to cause a distraction by using the knitting circle analogy. Please feel free to insert your own appropriate analogy to convey the concept.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
TrueCreation Inactive Member |
"JM: TC, do you mean, how many carnivorous Dinosaur fossils have been found? Your question is a bit vague."
--Yes it is rather vague, though it is what is to be looked for, to be specific, it would be to sort these various carnivores into a table for how many of each type found. I know that there have been very few relatively complete T. Rex's found, and if it is the same for the many others, there is little to be validly conclusive in this argument. "I also want to call your attention back to your flood model thread. Are you preparing an answer, or have you abandonded the topic?"--Yes, I am going down the list in the forums, I'm of course in Evolution now. I am not abandoning the topic, but like, unto the same I cannot give a conclusive answer, most especially to the workings of your equation. Simply because it requires an input of variables, to find these variables, research needs to be done. ------------------
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
TrueCreation Inactive Member |
"JM: I've been banned repeatedly from CARM. It's sort of an on-again, off again thing and I finally just quit posting. The ruler of that site is also pretty heavy, if unevenly, handed about censorship. He also had one creationist pushing him to 'ban' me. I finally got so frustrated with the 'you're allowed' and 'you're not allowed' to and fro, that I gave up. "
--I've heard of the CARM forum, though after attempting to handle two forums, creationweb.org and percipients , I find it much too difficult, as usual at the time I was heavily bombarded with commentary and replies, many significantly extensive. I think I have found that Percipients forum suits me well, appetizing navigation and the frequent participants are in the most part, intelligent and worth the while in contributing with. ------------------
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
TrueCreation Inactive Member |
"New" opponents usually get the most attention. When we get used to them it settles down a little bit. But often they vanish before that happens. First few weeks are probably very hard on them."
--Yes this is evidently true. I never left this forum and continued discussions in the most part, my frequent posts seemingly attracted opponents, as you can see in this forums history, it basically started to take off right around the vicinity of my joining in mid December. "As for your question, what do you mean? By species or by individual finds?"--If I read you correctly, both? See my reply #83. ------------------
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
TrueCreation Inactive Member |
"TC, maybe you could visit his site and give us your thoughts."
--Thank you for your inquisition for my incite. Well you most certainly can tell that techristian and the writer in the article he supplied is his own! My thoughts on Australopithecus is that it was a rather unusual ape, now extinct as is numerous other types in the fossil record and the same is happening today. Australopithecus was an unusual knuckle walking ape with their longer curved fingers and toes. Some such as ICR and AIG make the claim that 'CAT scans of australopithecine inner ear canals (reflecting posture and balance) by anatomist DR Fred Spoor and his colleagues at University College, London, showed they did not walk habitually upright', unfortunately, I haven't too much knowledge on this process so I would not use it as support, still speculative, it is interesting. ------------------ [This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 04-19-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
wj Inactive Member |
quote: Quetzal, the board is at http://communities.msn.ca/talkorigins/messageboard.msnwThe "offending" comments are in the thread titled "The Ocean Depth Pangea Problem". It would be interesting to have comment from an uninvolved otsider.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Joe Meert Member (Idle past 5680 days) Posts: 913 From: Gainesville Joined: |
Just don't say 'debunk'
Cheers Joe Meert
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Minnemooseus Member Posts: 3941 From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior) Joined: Member Rating: 10.0 |
What the hay, here's Joe's final message there:
quote: And Terry's follow up comments:
quote: Moose edited to fix: sez ------------------BS degree, geology, '83 Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U Old Earth evolution - Yes Godly creation - Maybe [This message has been edited by minnemooseus, 04-19-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1706 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
quote: Actually, Terry just banned three more people including myself earlier today. It was really pretty comical. He had posted, "No one will say that Creation science is without scientific foundation either." There were just too many of us that couldn't resist... It made an otherwise bad day quite bearable.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024