|
|
|
Espritch
Skeptic Friend
USA
284 Posts |
 Posted - 05/20/2002 : 18:17:06 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Depictions of dinosaurs on ancient Ican stones have been found
Well I just couldn't help but laugh out loud when I read that one.
I am not familiar with the other "evidence" you refer to, but I've heard about these. James Randi discussed them at some length in a booked called "Unicorns and other Imaginary Things" (I think - I may have the title somewhat garbled). Let us just say he was not kind to Eric Von Danken. See if you can find a copy in your library. I suspect you need to broaden your reading list just a little bit.
If you could provide links for some of your other "evidence", I would very much like to see some of these "dinosaur" depictions so I can judge for myself. Otherwise, as a skeptic, I have a tendency to doubt such claims.
Edited by - espritch on 05/20/2002 18:19:55 |
 |
|
|
Snake
SFN Addict
USA
2511 Posts |
Posted - 05/20/2002 : 18:41:19 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Have you ever seen a big, fifteen feet or so, King Cobra in a threatening display? I do some herpetology, and I have.
Filthy, we must talk. I have too, seen one, close up and personal. Ok, about 10 ft. away (and under the control of a handler) but.... I got some great photos.
I also love bikes.
Sorry, people for the off topic post but I love snakes....continue the argument.....
* * * * * *
*Carabao forever.
-----------------
Blessed are they who can laugh at themselves for they shall never cease
to be amused. |
|
|
|
Kacey
Skeptic Friend
USA
99 Posts |
Posted - 05/20/2002 : 20:32:44 [Permalink]
|
quote:
You seem to be woefully ignorant of the way this works. The person presenting the extraordinary claim (which contradicts repeatedly confirmed and established science) bears the burden of proof. It is not our duty to prove that you are wrong; rather it is your job to prove that you are right. We have called your sources into question, demonstrated your ridiculous leaps in logic and exposes the multitude of fallacies involved in the way you frame the issue, with no direct replies (other than obliquely accusing us of buying into a conspiracy that you have yet to demonstrate actually exists). What more do you want?
"The amount of noise which anyone can bear stands in inverse proportion to his mental capacity." --Schopenhauer
Hey Spockster I believe I presented 10 peices of evidence. Did you read them?
Kacey
I've read the end of the bible....the Christians win. |
|
|
|
Kacey
Skeptic Friend
USA
99 Posts |
Posted - 05/20/2002 : 20:37:18 [Permalink]
|
From Tiims Post:
If a great flood were responsible for the bulk of the strata, then we would expect to find one huge layer jumbled with
every species of plant and animal known to have existed throughout all of natural history in that particular section of
the world. It would be a virtual mega layer of assorted fossils--One perfect snapshot of every species that ever lived.
(And I've heard the theories of Morris and Gish, and I would not advise going there....Actually, go there. That should
be fun).
Tim, the flood was not a gigantic cement mixer like event.
The flood started out as many small flood that grew to one world wide flood. Then it returned to many smaller floods as the waters receeded.
Basically the strata represents different bimes from different areas.
I think you should re-evaluate your concept of the flood. It's incorrect.
Kacey
I've read the end of the bible....the Christians win. |
|
|
|
Kacey
Skeptic Friend
USA
99 Posts |
Posted - 05/20/2002 : 20:41:36 [Permalink]
|
Lars posted:
You then guessed that they might have thought that dragons were real because they in fact did actually exist. You
have brought no evidence for this theory.
Once again I point out the 10 evidences I presented above.
Your the second person who has made this claim, and the second person that did not explain why my evidences were not true.
Kacey
I've read the end of the bible....the Christians win. |
|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 05/20/2002 : 21:42:39 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Once again I point out the 10 evidences I presented above.
No wonder you believe this xian crap, you don't know the difference between evidence and a claim. You made 10 claims, but presented zero evidence.
-------
My business is to teach my aspirations to conform themselves to fact, not to try and make facts harmonize with my aspirations. ---Thomas Henry Huxley, 1860 |
|
|
|
Espritch
Skeptic Friend
USA
284 Posts |
Posted - 05/20/2002 : 21:48:27 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Once again I point out the 10 evidences I presented above.
Once again I must point out that you haven't presented any evidence. What you have presented are 10 assertions, given with no sources, no links, no references, no corroboration of any kind. This kind of "evidence" is referred to in Law Courts as hearsay and any competent Judge would toss it out.
|
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 05/20/2002 : 23:05:20 [Permalink]
|
So Kacey, did you ever think about how Jesus might be a woman because he wore a dress. Kinda makes you think....you know what I mean?
I mean evidence like that is pretty much irrefutable.
@tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law! |
|
|
|
ktesibios
SFN Regular
USA
505 Posts |
Posted - 05/20/2002 : 23:58:21 [Permalink]
|
quote:
[red]Once again I point out the 10 evidences I presented above.
Your the second person who has made this claim, and the second person that did not explain why my evidences were not true.
Kacey
I've read the end of the bible....the Christians win.
Okay, Kacey, it's put up or shut up time.
Presenting evidence means exactly that. Not making claims about the existence of evidence while keeping it conveniently unavailable for inspection.
Do you understand the difference between my claiming, for example, that I have a collection of Spanish doubloons in my closet at home, and my actually bringing them out and showing them to you? Or claiming that I own a Porsche versus showing you the car and the title to it?*
It really is that simple. If the things you say exist exist, the first thing you have to do is to haul them out and show them.
Then , since it's critical to your argument that your images exist and that they represent what you claim,you can start presenting evidence that your interpretation of the images you haven't yet presented are correct. It's already been made clear how you can go about defending the hypothesis that these are images of dinosaur - demonstrating that they conform to the known anatomy of the creatures you claim are represented, in enough points simultaneously to discount the possibility of coincidence.
And while we're at it, you can address the fact that even if your major premise (that if dinosaur and man existed at the same time ancient art could contain images of dinosaur taken from life) and your minor premise (ancient art contains dinosaur images) are true, your conclusion is still drawn by logic so faulty that it owns a place in the formal classification of logical errors, a point which you have completely neglected to respond to.
Even if you can demonstrate that an ancient image is indistinguishable from a known dinosaur species, to support your conclusion you've got to prove that the image was made from knowledge of the living animal and not from information gleaned from a fossil.
Unless you can eliminate all possible causes for B other than A, you cannot claim that A causing B means that B proves A. Otherwise you're literally reasoning bass-ackwards.
That's just basic logic. Can you comprehend that?
So, there it is. You claim to have evidence in support of your belief. Trot it out and let us see it.
You claim your identification of your (unseen) data is correct. Demonstrate that.
You have a conclusion you would like to draw on the basis of your data and interpretation of same. Show that you arrive at the conclusion by a logically valid process.
That's rather different from the drive-by flinging of dubious tidbits regurgitated from some out-of-his-depth preacher.
Put up or shut up and let us try to attract a better-quality troll to this joint.
* Note to potential neighbors-ass-coveters: I don't collect doubloons and I drive a Hyundai. And the radio doesn't work.
Ford, there's an infinite number of monkeys outside who want to talk to us about this script for Hamlet they've worked out.
Edited by - ktesibios on 05/21/2002 01:33:09 |
|
|
|
Lisa
SFN Regular
USA
1223 Posts |
Posted - 05/21/2002 : 01:14:34 [Permalink]
|
ketibios, great post.
Kasey, a quick question here. What do you think the "S" in "SFN" stands for? You've made some arguments, but have backed them, at my last count, with zero. There's been nothing I could hang an evidence hat on.
I have an idea. Go to your local library. Look for the section marked "Science". (The stern lady at the front desk will help you) Then read read read.
Look at it this way: once you reah 6th grade, you'll be ahead of all the other kids! Bonus!
Lissa
If you're not living on the edge, you're taking up too much room. |
|
|
|
LordofEntropy
Skeptic Friend
USA
85 Posts |
Posted - 05/21/2002 : 01:43:25 [Permalink]
|
I saw this drawing of Santa Clause with his reindeer, happy children, some kittens, and puppies.
Reindeer = real
Kittens = real
Puppies = real
Happy children = real
Santa Clause is real! All this time I've been lied to!
Entropy just isn't what it used to be. |
|
|
|
Tim
SFN Regular
USA
775 Posts |
Posted - 05/21/2002 : 04:09:31 [Permalink]
|
Hi Kacey, and welcome back for round two.
Since you broached only the subject of flood geology with me, then I will stick with flood geology. However, you are, again, beginning with a claim with no evidence to support it. Please, remember that the person making a claim is the one responsible for proving it. In this case, though, I will forgive you, and go to the source of your claim-—The book of Genesis.
“And the flood was forty days upon the earth; and the waters increased, and bare up the ark, and it was lift up above the earth,” Gen. 7:17.
“And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered. Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered,” Gen. 7:19-20
So, by these verses we are told that a great flood covered the entire earth in a period of only forty days. Plus, you are correct to say that, “The flood started out as many small flood that grew to one world wide flood,” as would be expected, even though your scriptures do not say this. However, for such a catastrophic rain to occur, you can bet that locally this flood would have been “a gigantic cement mixer like event.” I don't think you grasp the sheer volume of water that must fall upon the earth to cover the highest mountains in such a short period of time. The force of some local flooding would be tremendous.
Now Genesis 7:24 and 8:3 tell us that the waters covered the earth for one hundred and fifty days, and then “were abated,” and Genesis 8:5 goes on to tell us that the tops of the mountains were not seen until the tenth month following the rains. So, the water did recede either rapidly, or somewhat gradually.
Now, my question is how did the sorting take place? Did the heavier animals sink quickly to the bottom, while the lighter creatures stayed afloat longer? Then how did the very primitive soft-bodied animals end up buried more deeply than the dinosaurs? And, why aren't those jellyfish fossils all right on top?
Maybe, the swifter and more intelligent creatures were able to run for higher ground, leaving the slow and dumb critters behind. Well, maybe not, because we would then have to explain how tortoises got buried above…let's say T-rex.
And then, there's the problem of the plants. Why in the heck do those huge, woody, flowering trees seem to not even get buried until so recently in the column, compared to let's say those simple ferns?
Oh, and let's not forget about the fish. What possible sorting, other than evolution could have laid the fish down in the column perfectly arranged from the most primitive to the most modern? Miracles, perhaps?
Kacey, if you would like to read a complete discussion of flood geology, with links to both points of view, go to http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html#flood , and enjoy the read.
"The Constitution ..., is a marvelous document for self-government by Christian people. But the minute you turn the document into the hands of non-Christian and atheistic people they can use it to destroy the very foundation of our society." P. Robertson |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 05/21/2002 : 04:24:58 [Permalink]
|
Tim, the flood was not a gigantic cement mixer like event.
The flood started out as many small flood that grew to one world wide flood. Then it returned to many smaller floods as the waters receeded.
Basically the strata represents different bimes from different areas.
I think you should re-evaluate your concept of the flood. It's incorrect.
Kacey, I'm becoming rather fond of you. I like hard-headed people. Hell, I too suffer the affliction, more than most.
Tim is correct. The flood sediments would have been incredable as all of the earth's topsoils, became mixed. Listen, these would not have been calm waters (which begs the question of: How did Noah keep the ark from broaching? I don't recall reading of any sort of power or steerage on it). As these waters covered mountains, powerful currents and riptides would have formed around and over them. Also, the world's weather patterns would have been upset, possibly generating hurricanes, if those waters were warm enough, North Atlantic-style gales if they weren't. The ark would have had a very rough ride. All hands would have spent a lot of time snapping their lunchs over the rail. I do not believe that the ship building state of the art of the times was up to it. I further believe that the ark yarn was not concieved by a sailor, no matter how drunk.
And those resulting sediments!! They would have been Science's Great Wet Dream! They would be world wide and, I think, quite thick. Conditions for preservation of remains would have been excellent. Most if not all of the species of the world would have been represented in them and indeed found in places where they never existed and well mixed with our own bones.
Kinda' makes me wish the flood actually had happened. Even though I'm not a geologist nor a paleontologist, I'd love to dig in such sediments! Alas, neither I nor anyone else will ever do so.
Hey Snake!
The big King was at a private zoo that was being shut down. I was asked to help pack the snakes for shipment (my specality, if I have one, is venomous serpents). They had 2 Kings, a female about 9 feet long and a male that was about 15 - a whopper! These sizes are estimates. It's hard to get an accurate, live measurment on a snake.
Anyhow, the female proved to be easy, but the male got out on the floor, tried to run, then hooded up and turned to face me. I like to say that we were eye to eye. Makes a good story, but we weren't. Still, for about 10 seconds there, it was a hairy experience indeed, as my precious bod was well within strike range. To make it short, we got the snake under control and safely bagged up, and nobody, including the snake, got hurt. I also learned a little something about handling humongous cobras.
All luck,
f
"He who joyfully marches in rank and file has already earned my contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake, since for him the spinal cord would suffice."
- Albert Einstein
|
|
|
|
Lars_H
SFN Regular
Germany
630 Posts |
Posted - 05/21/2002 : 06:46:01 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Lars posted:
You then guessed that they might have thought that dragons were real because they in fact did actually exist. You
have brought no evidence for this theory.
[red]Once again I point out the 10 evidences I presented above.
Your the second person who has made this claim, and the second person that did not explain why my evidences were not true.
Kacey
I've read the end of the bible....the Christians win.
I might give it a last try, before I give up. The list of ten instances of artwork depicting 'dinosaur like creatures' prooves only one thing: that the people who made these things had stories about the creatures they depicted. They don't say one way or another wether these stories were based on real experiences of meeting dragons or merley legends about dragons.
You bring forth evidence for something that everyone has already has accepted. People in the old days might have belived, that creatures such as dragons were real. I agree with this theory. Most people would agree with this theory.
What you must proove is that those people who thought that dragons were reral, were in fact right!
You can't do this by beinging me more evidence that they belived they were right. You must try to proove this in other ways.
For example a living dragon would convince me and most other skeptics. The remains of a dino that has been dead for a relative short time would work to. More legends and pictures of dragons won't work.
|
|
|
|
Kacey
Skeptic Friend
USA
99 Posts |
Posted - 05/21/2002 : 06:51:50 [Permalink]
|
slater:
No wonder you believe this xian crap, you don't know the difference between evidence and a claim. You made 10
claims, but presented zero evidence.
Hey slater, send me your home address, I'll mail you the side of a cave wall or perhaps I'll take a trip down to South America and purchase you a stone. Would that be enoght evidence for you?
Kacey
I've read the end of the bible....the Christians win. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
