Dinosaurs on the Ark: How It Was Possible

[renniks]

But that would be a falsehood if you did.

Says who? Somebody who read something different in a book or online.

 

[AV1611VET]

It is not my claim. Why would I test it? I am merely pointing out that their experiment was poorly conceived.

Then test it.

Don't just say I'm wrong to be saying I'm wrong.

Or can the scientific method take a hike?

Since you cannot or refuse to see the obvious let me explain it to you. The Catholics can claim that the change occurs after you eat it.

Show me. If it's so "obvious," then let me see what you see.

 

[AV1611VET]

Not at all. You are the one that should be saying "Science can take a hike" when the DNA of the eucharist did not change. Once again, I am applying your standards to the claim, not mine.

This is one of the silliest conversations I've had for some time now.

I'm glad to see you defending his position though.

That says a lot.

 

[Frank Robert]

No, because I agree " religion" must be taken on faith. You pretend you don't have to take the vast majority of the study of the past on faith. I don't pretend I can prove everything I believe. That's why it's a belief. You believe your books by fallible men, and that's fine. But don't tell me that they are facts.

You continue to be willfully ignorant to the fact that science is not about proof it is about evidence and predictions. Creationist apologists try really, really hard to diminish science when it corrects itself as better evidence becomes available. They even diminish the value of faith when they accuse science of being no better than faith. Unlike religion, science makes no claim beyond the current evidence and unlike creationist apologists scientist do not twist themselves into knots trying to to explain things like dinosaurs on Noah's ark in the 16th century BC.

 

[renniks]

You continue to be willfully ignorant to the fact that science is not about proof it is about evidence and predictions. Creationist apologists try really, really hard to diminish science when it corrects itself as better evidence becomes available. They even diminish the value of faith when they accuse science of being no better than faith. Unlike religion, science makes no claim beyond the current evidence and unlike creationist apologists scientist do not twist themselves into knots trying to to explain things like dinosaurs on Noah's ark in the 16th century BC.

No, creationists don't diminish science. And you tie yourself in knots trying to tell us science knows things it can't know. I constantly get bashed for stating the obvious, science can't prove anything. You all act like it's fact based while saying it isn't. It's really pretty funny.

 

[Subduction Zone]

She has to be a relation. If she's just an extinct primate, what have they got?
Look up " Australopithecus afarenisis: two sexes or two species" by Adrienne Zihlman.

There you go demanding that others do your homework for you again.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Says who? Somebody who read something different in a book or online.

Anyone that understands evolution. Don't you think that if the evidence refuted evolution that some creationist would not have published a proper scientific article about it? Even your fellow creationists that have studied this far more than you have, some of them actual scientists have not been able to do this.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No, creationists don't diminish science. And you tie yourself in knots trying to tell us science knows things it can't know. I constantly get bashed for stating the obvious, science can't prove anything. You all act like it's fact based while saying it isn't. It's really pretty funny.

Again that depends upon which definition of "proof" that you are using. By legal standards the theory of evolution is a slam dunk. So far you have not let yourself fully understand evidence and the burden of proof.

Lucy is just one small piece and you have not been able to refute her. There are millions, actually that is a gross underestimate, pieces of evidence that support evolution. There is no scientific evidence that I have ever seen for creationism. In fact most creation sites are not science sites. You cannot require your workers to avoid the scientific method and claim to be doing science.

 

[Subduction Zone]

This is one of the silliest conversations I've had for some time now.

I'm glad to see you defending his position though.

That says a lot.

And you being on the other side says even more.

By the way, why do you keep linking to old debates that you lost so badly?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Then test it.

Don't just say I'm wrong to be saying I'm wrong.

Or can the scientific method take a hike? Show me. If it's so "obvious," then let me see what you see.

Once again, it is the people that put that idea forward that have to test it. And that is only if they want to claim scientific evidence for it. You found a site that you though refuted it, but they messed up. And by your own standards, Jesus said it after all, you should accept the Catholic dogma.

 

[Subduction Zone]

She has to be a relation. If she's just an extinct primate, what have they got?
Look up " Australopithecus afarenisis: two sexes or two species" by Adrienne Zihlman.

Of course she is a relation. And the species almost certainly is an ancestor of our species. But it is a slow day so I did your homework for you. sort of. Even after I corrected your spelling error I came up with nothing when I did a google search of that title and that author:

Australopithecus afarensis: two sexes or two species" by Adrienne Zihlman. - Google Search

This is why you need to do your own homework. Any article that I chose you would probably claim is the wrong one.

I did the search that you should have done. Nothing was to be found. It looks as if she is a well educated and respected author. The articles I scanned did not seem to give you any support at all.

So please. When you make a claim you need to be able to quote and link the appropriate articles. Are you having troubles doing a copy and past? I am sure if that is the case that people here will help you.

 

[AV1611VET]

... you should accept the Catholic dogma.

I'll accept the Catholic dogma when I start baptizing infants.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I'll accept the Catholic dogma when I start baptizing infants.

I did not say that you have to accept all of it. Merely that piece of it. You accept other parts of their dogma.

 

[sjastro]

One of the great misconceptions is science is based on faith and proof.
Science is about continuous observation and testing even of established theories which is the antithesis of faith and proof.
If faith and proof are criteria in science then observation and testing becomes a pointless exercise if a theory meets this criteria.

As an example for around 250 years observation supported the theory the Moon orbited the Earth in a Keplerian orbit.
In typical scientist fashion this wasn’t good enough and Apollo astronauts put mirrors on the moon so the Earth-Moon distance could be accurately measured using lasers on Earth.
The new measurements found the Earth-Moon distance increases very slightly with each orbit hence the orbit is clearly not Keplerian.
This is how science works.

On a far more serious note I believe I have solved the problem of Noah loading dinosaurs on the Ark.
Like cramming people into an elevator Noah requested the dinosaurs to inhale.

 

[Subduction Zone]

One of the great misconceptions is science is based on faith and proof.
Science is about continuous observation and testing even of established theories which is the antithesis of faith and proof.
If faith and proof are criteria in science then observation and testing becomes a pointless exercise if a theory meets this criteria.

As an example for around 250 years observation supported the theory the Moon orbited the Earth in a Keplerian orbit.
In typical scientist fashion this wasn’t good enough and Apollo astronauts put mirrors on the moon so the Earth-Moon distance could be accurately measured using lasers on Earth.
The new measurements found the Earth-Moon distance increases very slightly with each orbit hence the orbit is clearly not Keplerian.
This is how science works.

On a far more serious note I believe I have solved the problem of Noah loading dinosaurs on the Ark.
Like cramming people into an elevator Noah requested the dinosaurs to inhale.

Even 250 years ago Newtonian graivty would have been used to explain the Moon's orbit. Since after all Newton's work explained Keppler's "Laws". And the increase in distance of the Moon is explained by Newtonian dynamics.

But otherwise you are right about science. The continue to test even the "known".

 

[AV1611VET]

I did not say that you have to accept all of it. Merely that piece of it. You accept other parts of their dogma.

And, pray tell, which of the following should I accept as well while I'm at it:

1. the immaculate conception
   
2. baptismal regeneration
3. apostolic succession
4. baptism for the dead
5. indulgences
6. purgatory
7. extreme unction

 

[renniks]

Of course she is a relation. And the species almost certainly is an ancestor of our species. But it is a slow day so I did your homework for you. sort of. Even after I corrected your spelling error I came up with nothing when I did a google search of that title and that author:

Australopithecus afarensis: two sexes or two species" by Adrienne Zihlman. - Google Search

This is why you need to do your own homework. Any article that I chose you would probably claim is the wrong one.

I did the search that you should have done. Nothing was to be found. It looks as if she is a well educated and respected author. The articles I scanned did not seem to give you any support at all.

So please. When you make a claim you need to be able to quote and link the appropriate articles. Are you having troubles doing a copy and past? I am sure if that is the case that people here will help you.

I know how to copy and paste. Not everything is online, you know.

" The extreme size variation is better interpreted as more than one species."

 

[sjastro]

Even 250 years ago Newtonian graivty would have been used to explain the Moon's orbit. Since after all Newton's work explained Keppler's "Laws". And the increase in distance of the Moon is explained by Newtonian dynamics.

But otherwise you are right about science. The continue to test even the "known".

That's not the point I was making.
A Keplerian orbit by definition is a repeatable non chaotic orbit.
Until laser measurements were employed there was not the accuracy nor precision in measurements to show any deviation from a Keplerian orbit.
Sure Newtonian dynamics in the form tidal forces can explain the deviation but the point is scientists did not assume a Keplerian orbit to be correct or an example of truth or proof.

 

[SelfSim]

Sure Newtonian dynamics in the form tidal forces can explain the deviation but the point is scientists did not assume a Keplerian orbit to be correct or an example of truth or proof.

Couldn't resist emphatically agreeing with this point ..

Soo many posts around these parts conflate the rules of reasoned logical discourse with what science is really about. It may well appear that science is about reasoned logic, (which science obviously also uses primarily to sustain the consistency of its models) .. but testing is the more doggedly persistent and demonstable behaviour, IMO.

 

[MIDutch]

Says who? Somebody who read something different in a book or online.

Ironic.

Given that the ONLY thing creationists do is "read something different in a book."