Dinosaurs on the Ark: How It Was Possible

[renniks]

No. That is not true. You only made empty claims that you did not support. One of them appeared to be because what you posted was simply false. I even did your homework for you and posted a link from the search that I did. You could still not find your supposed article.

You have refuted yourself.

I gave you real quotes from real scientists. If you can't find them that's your problem.

 

[HitchSlap]

Now you are just being insulting. Get real.

He’s not wrong.

 

[AV1611VET]

So how old when he discovered the new world?

40

 

[dlamberth]

What are you doing to defend your doctrine against science? besides nothing?

Feeling incredibly blessed that in my Love of God there is no need to defend anything against science. For myself, there is no separation to defend.

 

[dlamberth]

Now you are just being insulting. Get real.

I think what he's saying is right on.

 

[AV1611VET]

Feeling incredibly blessed that in my Love of God there is no need to defend anything against science.

Well science could use a lot of thinkers like you.

When it comes to the defense of the Gospel, you're the conscious objector, aren't you?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Now you are just being insulting. Get real.

No, you were being insulting. When a person makes claims that he should be able to support, and when you claimed that there were specific articles you should have been able to quote and link them, and then that person does not provide the needed quotes and links one has to wonder why that act was not done. The one reasonable deduction is because those articles did not actually support the claims or did not even exist. You forgot the one time that I did your homework for you and the article that you named was not be to found. I posted the search link that I used and you did not seem to find anything wrong about it.

When you make claims in an online debate you need to be able to support those claims properly. One tacitly admits that one is wrong when one does not properly support claims.

 

[MIDutch]

Creationism is close minded, and starts with an answer, then looks for facts to support their conclusions.

Which is, of course, one of their biggest problems.

They cant find any.

So they basically just make stuff up. Whether it's fake dino along side human footprints, or an "ark" built on concrete pilings and with modern building tools and techniques, or hilarious "research papers in fraudulent "science journals", or just flat out bearing false witness about what real, working scientists way by quote mining or taking their words out of context.

 

[renniks]

I think what he's saying is right on.

No, it's absolutely ridiculous. To say someone can't be a scientist because of thier religious views? That's discrimination.

 

[MIDutch]

Now you are just being insulting. Get real.

I don't see it as being insulting.

I see it as you being defensive because you know he's right.

 

[MIDutch]

No, it's absolutely ridiculous. To say someone can't be a scientist because of thier religious views? That's discrimination.

Their are LOTS of scientists who are Hindu, Buddhist, Confucianist, Daoist, Shinto, Sikh, Jewish, Muslim, Christian, Pagan, Wicca, etc..

The vast majority of them leave their religious traditions, ideologies and dogma at the door to their laboratory, excavation site, or university.

I would imagine you would be one of the first ones in line if you thought a Hindu was trying to force your kids into learning science that was replete with references to his gods.

Fortunately, Hindu scientists aren't likely to do that. Christian creationists on the other hand ...

 

[renniks]

No, you were being insulting. When a person makes claims that he should be able to support, and when you claimed that there were specific articles you should have been able to quote and link them, and then that person does not provide the needed quotes and links one has to wonder why that act was not done. The one reasonable deduction is because those articles did not actually support the claims or did not even exist. You forgot the one time that I did your homework for you and the article that you named was not be to found. I posted the search link that I used and you did not seem to find anything wrong about it.

When you make claims in an online debate you need to be able to support those claims properly. One tacitly admits that one is wrong when one does not properly support claims.

The name of the article is: (Zildjian A.) "Australopithecus afarensis two sexes or two species."
And no, I didn't find it online. Apparently, everything has to be online or it doesn't exist now?
Apparently it's part of: "hominid evolution, past present and future." pp. 213-220

 

[dlamberth]

Well science could use a lot of thinkers like you.

When it comes to the defense of the Gospel, you're the conscious objector, aren't you?

I'm very much a defender of the Gospel of Love.

 

[renniks]

Their are LOTS of scientists who are Hindu, Buddhist, Confucianist, Daoist, Shinto, Sikh, Jewish, Muslim, Christian, Pagan, Wicca, etc..

The vast majority of them leave their religious traditions, ideologies and dogma at the door to their laboratory, excavation site, or university.

I would imagine you would be one of the first ones in line if you thought a Hindu was trying to force your kids into learning science that was replete with references to his gods.

Fortunately, Hindu scientists aren't likely to do that. Christian creationists on the other hand ...

You just assume they would let their views tell them what the evidence meant? Then, you are pre disposed to discriminate against them because of their religious view, and the problem is with you.

 

[dlamberth]

No, it's absolutely ridiculous. To say someone can't be a scientist because of thier religious views? That's discrimination.

That's not what I read. He's correct to say that a scientist follows the evidence that's in front of them. A scientist needs to be agnostic and not take their religious believes with them in their studies. Otherwise their results will be influenced.

 

[AV1611VET]

I'm very much a defender of the Gospel of Love.

That's nice.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The name of the article is: (Zildjian A.) "Australopithecus afarensis two sexes or two species."
And no, I didn't find it online. Apparently, everything has to be online or it doesn't exist now?
Apparently it's part of: "hominid evolution, past present and future." pp. 213-220

Actually it does mean that it does not exist. Anything published in a well respected professional journal can be found with that information.

But for fun, let's assume that there are two different species. What difference does that make? Finding another species of Hominid does not harm the theory of evolution. This is why you need to be able to find the article that you claim exists and quote and link it. Even if you are correct Lucy is still strong evidence for human evolution. Why is this so hard to understand. You are just clutching at straws.

And I still cannot find an article with that title. I quoted the parts of your post referring to the supposed article and searched for it. You can check these results. Is your article there? Quote it and link it please if it does exist:

(Zildjian A.) "Australopithecus afarensis two sexes or two species." - Google Search

I can only do so much of your homework for you. I still cannot find anything that would refute the fact that Lucy is strong evidence for evolution. This is the last time. If you do not acknowledge your failure when you cannot find what you claim exists it paints you in a very bad light.

One thought, are you getting this from a lying source? Creation sources tend to be extremely dishonest. Perhaps they are leading you on. It is rather clear that you did not do the research yourself.

 

[AV1611VET]

Otherwise their results will be influenced.

In what way?

I've challenged people several times to show me one button (or lever) an Atheist can push (or pull) that a Christian cannot.

 

[Hans Blaster]

In the loop or out, we came from the dust of the earth; not the seed of an animal.

Given the way "seed" is used in such contexts, it is the seed of one animal deposited in the womb of another to use the antiquated language. (Test-tube babies excepted.)

 

[MIDutch]

You just assume they would let their views tell them what the evidence meant? Then, you are pre disposed to discriminate against them because of their religious view, and the problem is with you.

Are you talking about the Hindu scientist who left his religion at the door?

Why would I discriminate against him if their is no evidence that his religion is "coloring" is science (such as his reciting entire passages from his religious scriptures as evidence for something that never happened)?