Dinosaurs on the Ark: How It Was Possible

[Subduction Zone]

I took science, but thanks anyway.

Taking it is one thing. Understanding it is another. You probably do not even understand the concept of evidence.

 

[renniks]

Taking it is one thing. Understanding it is another. You probably do not even understand the concept of evidence.

You probably don't even understand basic math. See how insulting you are?

 

[Subduction Zone]

There is not a single verse in the Bible saying the earth is flat, not one.

Actually there are quite a few. There is of course the "circle of the Earth" verse. Circles are flat. It is even worse for you in Hebrew. The term used is that of a compass (of the compass and protractor sort) Compasses can only draw very flat circles. And then it does so in deed. There are two clear verses where a tall object is climbed to see the entire Earth. Even being a "vison" does not excuse that because going up will not allow one to see the entire Earth. It would work on a Flat Earth though.

You are putting your interpretation through a false filter.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You probably don't even understand basic math. See how insulting you are?

No, one's accusations have to be based on observations. I am sure that I offered to go over the basics of evidence with you. Many creationists spread the falsehood of "No evidence for evolution". If one understands the concept of evidence that is an open lie. I do not like to think that I am debating with liars so it is much more generous to assume that they do not understand the concept of evidence.

Would you rather have people call you a liar? It is much more generous to assume that you do not understand evidence.

 

[renniks]

No, one's accusations have to be based on observations. I am sure that I offered to go over the basics of evidence with you. Many creationists spread the falsehood of "No evidence for evolution". If one understands the concept of evidence that is an open lie. I do not like to think that I am debating with liars so it is much more generous to assume that they do not understand the concept of evidence.

Would you rather have people call you a liar? It is much more generous to assume that you do not understand evidence.

Let's go over your ABCs. I bet you can't even spell "evidence" without spell check.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Let's go over your ABCs. I bet you can't even spell "evidence" without spell check.

Please, you are now trying to insult someone because they pointed out an obvious fact.

Why not learn what is and what is not evidence instead? If you actually do understand the concept of evidence then the lesson will be vary short.

Here is a simple test question:

In November 24 of 1974 "Lucy" was found. Was the find evidence for evolution?

Lucy (Australopithecus) - Wikipedia

 

[renniks]

Please, you are now trying to insult someone because they pointed out an obvious fact.

That " fact" being that I'm obviously uneducated because I don't believe in darwinism. You might want to look in the mirror if you want to see who started the insults.

 

[renniks]

In November 24 of 1974 "Lucy" was found. Was the find evidence for evolution?

Although that has been claimed, it has also been highly debatable. In fact some of the people who discovered the bones see them as a mix of species, but Johanson created a theory of them all being one species dispute much opposition in the paleo community.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Although that has been claimed, it has also been highly debatable. In fact some of the people who discovered the bones see them as a mix of species, but Johanson created a theory of them all being one species dispute much opposition in the paleo community.

Sorry, there is nothing controversial about it, and you are grasping at straws. Also you demonstrated that you do not understand the concept of evidence.

One baboon bone was found mixed in with it. That changed nothing. You appear to be using dishonest sources. The correct answer was "Yes".

 

[Subduction Zone]

That " fact" being that I'm obviously uneducated because I don't believe in darwinism. You might want to look in the mirror if you want to see who started the insults.

You may be educated in areas other than the sciences. All of us have different areas of expertise. In the sciences you lack an education. There is nothing wrong with that, until you try to oppose the works of those that do understand the sciences.

As to who started the insults, that was you. I did not try to imply that you lack education that you clearly have. That was your sin.

By the way, it is almost always those that lack an education that call evolution "Darwinism".

 

[Subduction Zone]

In my sig I have a definition of scientific evidence. I can provide multiple sources that use this definition. It was not written for the theory of evolution, but it does show that evolution is supported by scientific evidence.

When it comes to an observation one should be asking only two questions:

1. Does the observation support the theory of evolution. In the case of Lucy there is no doubt that the answer is "Yes".

2. Is the hypothesis refutable? In other words is there a reasonable test that could show that the theory is wrong, based upon the theories own merits and claims, and for evolution the answer is again "Yes". If you need to know some of the observations that could refute it I would be more than happy to go over them with people.

So is there scientific evidence for evolution? There is no doubt about it. Is there scientific evidence for creationism, there does not appear to be one whit. Here is the question that needs to be answered first:

What reasonable test, based upon the merits and claims of creationism could show that it is wrong? If you cannot think of a reasonable test then you have also admitted that you do not know of any scientific evidence for creationism.

 

[renniks]

As to who started the insults, that was you. I did not try to imply that you lack education that you clearly have

Now you are just lying.

 

[renniks]

Sorry, there is nothing controversial about it, and you are grasping at straws. Also you demonstrated that you do not understand the concept of evidence.

You seem to have some gaps in your education. There's even disagreement about Lucy being female. Look up Schmid and Hausler and the claim that the Hadar find material is a jumble of species.

Or are you only taught the theories that are convenient for Darwinism? These conclusions are not nearly as agreed upon as we are commonly told.

 

[AV1611VET]

By the way, it is almost always those that lack an education that call evolution "Darwinism".

Ditto for those who call miracles "magic."

 

[Subduction Zone]

Now you are just lying.

Nope.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You seem to have some gaps in your education. There's even disagreement about Lucy being female. Look up Schmid and Hausler and the claim that the Hadar find material is a jumble of species.

Or are you only taught the theories that are convenient for Darwinism? These conclusions are not nearly as agreed upon as we are commonly told.

A couple of scientists disagreeing about the gender of Lucy is grasping at straws. Even if correct, and it does not appear that their claims are well accepted it would make no difference at all. At best it would be a distinction without a difference:

Distinction without a difference - Wikipedia.

In other words it is an example of grasping at straws. A desperate tactic by a person that knows that he is wrong.

By the way, it is up to you to provide articles that you think are of note. If all you can do is to make faulty claims that you do not support no one will take you seriously.

Like it or not even if Schmid and Hausler were correct Lucy would still be evidence for evolution.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Ditto for those who call miracles "magic."

Not so much. Those that try to rely on miracles are simply reminded what they are. Evolution has gone far past what Darwin introduced. He has been shown to be largely correct, but there were flaws with his work. Not significant ones that would falsify it. The claims for "miracles" has not advanced over time. In fact those claims have lost a lot of ground.

 

[coffee4u]

Actually there are quite a few. There is of course the "circle of the Earth" verse. Circles are flat. It is even worse for you in Hebrew. The term used is that of a compass (of the compass and protractor sort) Compasses can only draw very flat circles. And then it does so in deed. There are two clear verses where a tall object is climbed to see the entire Earth. Even being a "vison" does not excuse that because going up will not allow one to see the entire Earth. It would work on a Flat Earth though.

You are putting your interpretation through a false filter.

No there isn't.
A flat earth proponent on here gave me a list of verses and because I am a Bible literalist I went over each one because if the Bible did teach that the earth was flat I would be the first to believe it.
Not a single verse he gave me teaches that the earth is flat.

Circle of the earth means the earth looks like a circle from a distance. Both a flat disk at the right angle or a sphere can look like a circle. If anything it is harder for the flat earth model to look like a circle because if you have looked at the model it is not a flat disk it is more like a flat top with an oddly shaped tapering underneath.
The only thing that verse teaches us is that we can know the earth isn't a pyramid or a cube.

The verses they pick are poetry. When the Palmist writes 'the trees clap their hands' it is meant to evoke a picture of leaves rustling in the wind. No one is trying to make a doctrine out of trees having hands, its understood to be poetry. There is a difference between poetry and historical narrative.
When someone says "That was beautiful sunset" They don't mean the earth is flat and the sun just moved across the sky. They use the words "sun set" because it's a poetic colloquialism.

Poetry can support a doctrine but you can't build a doctrine based on poetry. What shape the earth is, is of no importance. As I have said before, it could be shaped like a potato for all I care. It is a side track, a topic that takes focus off Christ crucified. God can do his work on whatever shaped earth he likes.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No there isn't.
A flat earth proponent on here gave me a list of verses and because I am a Bible literalist I went over each one because if the Bible did teach that the earth was flat I would be the first to believe it.
Not a single verse he gave me teaches that the earth is flat.

Circle of the earth means the earth looks like a circle from a distance. Both a flat disk at the right angle or a sphere can look like a circle. If anything it is harder for the flat earth model to look like a circle because if you have looked at the model it is not a flat disk it is more like a flat top with an oddly shaped tapering underneath.
The only thing that verse teaches us is that we can know the earth isn't a pyramid or a cube.

The verses they pick are poetry. When the Palmist writes 'the trees clap their hands' it is meant to evoke a picture of leaves rustling in the wind. No one is trying to make a doctrine out of trees having hands, its understood to be poetry. There is a difference between poetry and historical narrative.
When someone says "That was beautiful sunset" They don't mean the earth is flat and the sun just moved across the sky. They use the words "sun set" because it's a poetic colloquialism.

Poetry can support a doctrine but you can't build a doctrine based on poetry. What shape the earth is, is of no importance. As I have said before, it could be shaped like a potato for all I care. It is a side track, a topic that takes focus of Christ crucified. God can do his work on whatever shaped earth he likes.

Now you are merely reinterpreting the Bible to satisfy your own prejudice. That is a fail.

And climbing a tall tree or mountain to see all of the Earth makes no sense on a spherical Earth. It does make sense on a Flat one. Even if one claims "vision" One does not need to climb a tall tree to see a vision.

Being overly literalistic is not a good idea when it comes to the Bible.

 

[coffee4u]

Now you are merely reinterpreting the Bible to satisfy your own prejudice. That is a fail.

And climbing a tall tree or mountain to see all of the Earth makes no sense on a spherical Earth. It does make sense on a Flat one. Even if one claims "vision" One does not need to climb a tall tree to see a vision.

Being overly literalistic is not a good idea when it comes to the Bible.

Show me the verses that teach that the earth is flat. Book, chapter and verse.
I am a Biblical literalist. Why do you think I believe in 6 days of creation and a global flood? I would believe in a flat earth if the Bible taught that.