Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Mankind and dinosaur side by side ? ?
gene90
Member (Idle past 3823 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 76 of 100 (8638)
04-16-2002 12:04 PM
Reply to: Message 75 by techristian
04-16-2002 10:58 AM


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]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by techristian, posted 04-16-2002 10:58 AM techristian has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by TrueCreation, posted 04-19-2002 6:59 PM gene90 has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 77 of 100 (8639)
04-16-2002 12:14 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by wj
04-15-2002 11:59 PM


quote:
And the preoccupation with personalities and motivations reminds one of a knitting circle.
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]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by wj, posted 04-15-2002 11:59 PM wj has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by Mister Pamboli, posted 04-16-2002 12:29 PM nator has replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 78 of 100 (8640)
04-16-2002 12:15 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by techristian
04-15-2002 10:37 AM


quote:
Originally posted by techristian:
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 !
Third I would like to ask if breeding was even ATTEMPTED (in a labratory) between both creatures at both ends of the "ring".
I won't accept "Lucy". After watching that program I noticed many things that weren't quite right about the "skeleton" such as different color bones. (which would lead me to think that "Lucy" was actually a combination of the bones of more than one individual.) I wrote an entire paper on the "Lucy" program.
To answer you honestly, there have been so many SCAMS with "Pilt Down Man" and others that I would almost need a missing link to walk up to me and say "I am a missing link. Try to disprove it!" Even "carbon dating" has been disproved when a pig bone (buried only a few years earlier) was said to be "MILLIONS OF YEARS OLD"
Scientists already tried to make their own "missing link" when they transplanted a baboon heart into a baby.............................. and FAILED MISERABLY.
Now Mark please tell me what it would take to make you believe in a SUPREME CREATOR.
Dan
http://musicinit.com

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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by techristian, posted 04-15-2002 10:37 AM techristian has not replied

  
Mister Pamboli
Member (Idle past 7577 days)
Posts: 634
From: Washington, USA
Joined: 12-10-2001


Message 79 of 100 (8641)
04-16-2002 12:29 PM
Reply to: Message 77 by nator
04-16-2002 12:14 PM


quote:
Originally posted by schrafinator:
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.

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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by nator, posted 04-16-2002 12:14 PM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by nator, posted 04-16-2002 12:36 PM Mister Pamboli has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 80 of 100 (8642)
04-16-2002 12:34 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by techristian
04-15-2002 10:37 AM


[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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by techristian, posted 04-15-2002 10:37 AM techristian has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 81 of 100 (8643)
04-16-2002 12:36 PM
Reply to: Message 79 by Mister Pamboli
04-16-2002 12:29 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Mister Pamboli:
quote:
Originally posted by schrafinator:
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.

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.

LOL!
But the question is, did your father knit in a circle with other knitters, preoccupied with people personalities and motivations?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by Mister Pamboli, posted 04-16-2002 12:29 PM Mister Pamboli has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by wj, posted 04-17-2002 8:51 PM nator has not replied

  
wj
Inactive Member


Message 82 of 100 (8680)
04-17-2002 8:51 PM
Reply to: Message 81 by nator
04-16-2002 12:36 PM


Sorry to cause a distraction by using the knitting circle analogy. Please feel free to insert your own appropriate analogy to convey the concept.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by nator, posted 04-16-2002 12:36 PM nator has not replied

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 83 of 100 (8713)
04-19-2002 6:31 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by Joe Meert
04-15-2002 1:00 PM


"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.
------------------

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by Joe Meert, posted 04-15-2002 1:00 PM Joe Meert has not replied

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 84 of 100 (8714)
04-19-2002 6:36 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by Joe Meert
04-15-2002 1:33 PM


"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.
------------------

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by Joe Meert, posted 04-15-2002 1:33 PM Joe Meert has not replied

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 85 of 100 (8715)
04-19-2002 6:40 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by gene90
04-15-2002 7:47 PM


"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.
------------------

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by gene90, posted 04-15-2002 7:47 PM gene90 has not replied

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 86 of 100 (8716)
04-19-2002 6:59 PM
Reply to: Message 76 by gene90
04-16-2002 12:04 PM


"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]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by gene90, posted 04-16-2002 12:04 PM gene90 has not replied

  
wj
Inactive Member


Message 87 of 100 (8717)
04-19-2002 8:31 PM
Reply to: Message 74 by Quetzal
04-16-2002 3:12 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Quetzal:
Joe - could you provide a link to your forum, or is it "by invitation only"?
Quetzal, the board is at http://communities.msn.ca/talkorigins/messageboard.msnw
The "offending" comments are in the thread titled "The Ocean Depth Pangea Problem".
It would be interesting to have comment from an uninvolved otsider.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by Quetzal, posted 04-16-2002 3:12 AM Quetzal has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by Joe Meert, posted 04-19-2002 9:04 PM wj has not replied
 Message 89 by Minnemooseus, posted 04-19-2002 9:45 PM wj has not replied
 Message 97 by Quetzal, posted 04-22-2002 3:23 AM wj has replied

  
Joe Meert
Member (Idle past 5680 days)
Posts: 913
From: Gainesville
Joined: 03-02-2002


Message 88 of 100 (8722)
04-19-2002 9:04 PM
Reply to: Message 87 by wj
04-19-2002 8:31 PM


Just don't say 'debunk'
Cheers
Joe Meert

This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by wj, posted 04-19-2002 8:31 PM wj has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by edge, posted 04-19-2002 11:21 PM Joe Meert has not replied

  
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3941
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 89 of 100 (8723)
04-19-2002 9:45 PM
Reply to: Message 87 by wj
04-19-2002 8:31 PM


What the hay, here's Joe's final message there:
quote:
Jeff sez: plus, I have a little speculation that the appeal of this as "folk science" is a means for the common man to take back something that was believed to be co-opted by an oligocracy of scientists who are trying to keep science out of the reach of your average Joe; sort of similar to the 'herbal remedies' vs 'medical science' phenomenon.
JM: Jeff, this is so true and it is partly the fault of scientists and partly the fault of our overall educational system in the US. I notice this in the statement I frequently hear from freshman; "I'm not a science person" or the corrolary "I am not a math person". In the case of the former statement, the more correct for should read "I was a great scientist up until age 6 or so and then I stifled my curiousity or my curiousity was stifled". In the case of the latter, the more correct statement is "I've been told by lots of people that it's ok if I don't understand math, so that must be the case". On the flip side, science has not done a good job of taking its case to the people. The notion that conventional science is an exclusionary effort is entrenched amongst creationists and for good reason. Here you have creation 'scientists' taking their case to the masses with 'good sounding' arguments in one hand, and the HOLY BIBLE in the other. Conventional science buries its head (not all but too many) and says "How can ANYBODY believe such nonsense" and then we go back to our labs, equations and work in oblivious bliss. The environment of the Universities is partly to blame as we are required to 'get funding' and 'publish' and that leaves little time for battling a movement that is perceived by science as nonsensical. In fact, if we took the time to explain a little bit more, participate in exposing the myths and errors of ye-creationism (and other pseudosciences) the creationists would not be so strong politically. Anyway, I'll get off my soapbox by saying that students can and do come out of this funk and when the absurdities of pseudoscience are pointed out to them, the light bulb goes on. Unfortunately, many teachers (not all, but IMO too many), concentrate on 'facts' and 'terms' and fail to explain how either were established. The fun and the joy of science is determining how things work and not memorizing terms.
Cheers
Joe Meert
And Terry's follow up comments:
quote:
No, it was not, wja. I did leave the message up, however, for evidence. I believe that was your complaint before; that the evidence had been removed. I had warned Joe repeatedly concerning the use of denigrating language against his opponent, and the use of the term 'pseudoscience' in particular. This conveys no information, adds nothing to the debate, and serves only to denigrate the opposition. That is not allowed, and will not be allowed, in this group.
Joe is banned from this group due to his inability to be civil. Anyone looking around his other sites can see that this is not an occasional slip, but is his principle method of communication.
When he re-joins under other names, they well be banned as well, and any new posts he makes will be removed.
Terry
Moose
edited to fix: sez
lus to sez: Plus
Moose
------------------
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]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by wj, posted 04-19-2002 8:31 PM wj has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 90 of 100 (8724)
04-19-2002 11:21 PM
Reply to: Message 88 by Joe Meert
04-19-2002 9:04 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Joe Meert:
Just don't say 'debunk'
Cheers
Joe Meert

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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by Joe Meert, posted 04-19-2002 9:04 PM Joe Meert has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 91 by Mister Pamboli, posted 04-20-2002 2:08 AM edge 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