Sorry Larry - don't have such a thing. Remember - I'm really in this for
the discourse, not because I'm well versed on the matter, or hold an intent
to persuade anyone. Sometimes I get a little something out of these things
and sometimes it's just discourse.
Well, until you can come up with something that overrules the fossil
evidence, I'll remain skeptical (and that's putting it mildly).
Dinosaur fossils are found in strata dated at,IIRC, 65 million years old
Human (depending on your definition) fossils are found in strata dated
no more than 4 million years ago. And homo sap not over 100,000 years
or so, although that does seem to get pushed back a few thousand years
from time to time.
Not much room there for coexistence :-).
Not at all. The basic truth of the matter is that the whole topic is
something that has never been a compelling interest to me, but has at the
same time held a mild curiosity within me. As a result of it not having
been a compelling interest, I largely ignored it with the exception of being
only casually aware of some claims from both sides. I didn't know for
example that the dinosaur/man tracks in Texas had been brought into question
by even those who had originally supported the finds until this thread. I
remembered hearing about it a long time ago and it just kind of stuck in my
mind. So, I threw it out there to see what the answers would be regarding
it. To the extent that I have a casual interest in the stuff, this served a
purpose for me. Likewise with the cave paintings.
Not trying to stir anything up or make wild fundie claims. Just inquiring a
bit from a standpoint of being a not very studied individual on the matter.
That's why I explained that in the very beginning. I will say that from my
uneducated perspective, the wild claims are not limited to fundies.
Sorry if I intruded on a thread that is limited to those with higher degrees
in these studies. I asked genuine questions, attempted to be civil in my
approach, and only varied from that when I got fed up with some of the
condescending attitudes that popped up from time to time.
Fundi - hmmmmm. Again, I'd have to ask what you mean by that. It's the
second time a derogatory term has been tossed out inferring that having a
faith is somehow the mark of a lesser man. I haven't given any indication
of what my faith includes and you'd probably be surprised if you knew it.
It certainly does not include a closed mind. But then again one with a
closed mind does not enter into these discussion with questions, and even
admissions of his own error, now does he?
It's as much or more the way you've thrown out the tidbits you've
done--as if they're facts and w/o doing apparently the least be of
rational thinking about whether there is any plausible basis for them...
Only if the poster posts a question in a declarative form. A question
in English ends in a question mark and includes an interogative form,
not declarative. At least the posts of yours I read lacked both.
Hence, it's not at all surprising they were taken as declaratives and a
statement of personal belief.
Well Duane, one confirmation is all that is necessary to affirm what I
feared. I do offer my apologies. I had hoped that by establishing myself
in the manner that I did at the outset, that I would have laid a groundwork
to be less concerned for how I posted things, and adopt a conversational
manner. Clearly this is not the case. The tidbits were just my way of
getting the things I was aware of out there at what seemed like an
No contest. Realize though that when one positions themselves as I did -
something of a no-op at the level of intellectual battle on this particular
field, it is easy and maybe even natural (at least it was to me) to assume
that the other players recognize that you aren't trying to make "real"
assertions. Hell - you've already admitted you can't. No matter. The
point is well taken. I had assumed that my opening declarations had
provided me a certain freedom in the manner in which I posted and like all
Well - I can assure you there are a large number of people like me in that
respect. One of the problems with anything that we don't really follow or
stay abreast of is that the things we hear, or read, or encounter tend to
stick with us and often times at the peril of having been proven to be wrong
a long time ago. For those of us that don't stay abreast of this stuff, we
often don't even know what has been proven to be wrong, false, etc. So...
we bring up what we do "know". It's not in attempt to impress a fact, it's
in attempt to be part of the conversation. Though it's only at a layman
level, there is within most of us a desire to pick up a little something as
we participate in these types of things.
Having said all of that - just what is the purpose of your comment Doug? I
had just acknowledged that I had poorly articulated my thoughts, apologized
and tried to explain (briefly) that my real intent was far different from
that which I had apparently caused some to believe. You chime in with your
comment which to be frank is pure bullshit. The implication in your
statement is that there is a problem in being poorly informed on a matter.
I suggest you leave yourself open to a large amount of ridicule if that's
your position on things.
The problem here is that you stated things you think as if you knew them.
And there have been so many posts in these threads it is impossible to keep
track of an individual person's bona fides. So I suggest, not just to you,
that statements of knowledge should include references to someone who does
know, and that opinions should follow words like "I think ..." or "IMO" or
such. It will make it easier to follow.
And I'm supposed to feel *better* now that you tell me that? Just because "a
large number of people" believe something does *not* make it true.
Then perhaps you should stay out of the debates? Certainly, if you insist on
joining in under those circumstances, you should not be surprised when you are
told that what you think you know... ain't so.
Perhaps you should consider the wisdom of making comments on subjects on which
you *know* you are uninformed.
Incorrect. The message is that there is a problem with speaking publicly on
subjects about which you are poorly informed.
I'm comfortable with that... Are you comfortable with the ridicule you risk
inviting by asserting that man and dinosaurs coexisted based on the "evidence"
of cave paintings allegedly depicting dinos? I notice you still haven't
answered my challenge of a couple days ago to cite just *one* instance of a
cave painting that clearly depicts something unambiguously recognizable as a
dinosaur, that has *not* been shown to be a modern fake.
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
Doug - you're making an ass of yourself barking because you heard the
howling in the woods.
Irrelevant. Feel as you will.
You clearly have no clue what you're braying about now Doug. It would
behoove you to read what was posted before jumping off on a rant.
Perhaps you should read posts before you attempt to so soundly put another
in their place. You need the practice.
You are making a fool of yourself Doug. I've acknowledged this stuff enough
times and there's no point in doing so further just to satisfy your ego.
I'm oh-so sorry if you feel left out because I did not humble myself before
your obvious greater wisdom, but you just don't mean that much to me Doug.
Take your self serving attitude and place it where... well, you know the
Look - we've had decent enough conversations in this group in the past and
there's probably no reason not to anticipate that going forward. You've
elected though to jump on something that has been acknowledged and explained
and which is not as you portray it. Get over it. It may come as a shock to
you, but there are things in the world that are not as they appear to you.
Clearly, I caused more than just you to take my comments the wrong way and
I've stepped up to that. It's your turn now - I've set the record straight
on the matter. Either accept it or not, but at this point any furtherance
of this discussion is nothing more than a reflection of your insistence.
On 10/12/2005 1:18 PM Mike Marlow mumbled something about the following:
If you THINK you know something, DAGS and find out before you post.
This is the easiest way from getting slammed. At least then, you have
something to back what you think you know, although there is still a
good chance it's wrong.
At the risk of belaboring a point I'll try to illustrate why I think some of
your comments were viewed as "statements" as opposed to a dialogue of
I agree that usenet can be a difficult medium for communication, which in
some ways makes it even more important to try to make it clear what you are
trying to communicate. Here's an example of your comments that seem to be
more statements than questions:
"World Traveler" had written:
<snip> ... The statements on ID that I've seen include: Man and dinosaurs
Your response was:
Now, I've been to museums that portray that very thing, have read about
fossilized footprints of man and dinosaur (one inside the other).
Larry Blanchard responded: References, please.
Your response was:
Fair question. I've seen museum displays that positioned man and dinosaur
in NYC, and Albany, NY years ago. Don't know what they display now as that
was many years ago. Can't tell you where I've read about the superimposed
footprints. Seems it might have been National Geographic or similar. If my
memory serves me correctly (which is a big assumption sometimes...), I
believe the find might have been down in Texas or in that area.
Not very convincing reference, but it's the best I can do.
Granted, you acknowledge that you are not an expert in the field, but it
seems to me that you are making statements of "fact" supporting that
dinosaurs and man coexisted as opposed to simply raising questions about. I
would hope that you can see how this looks like you are stating "facts",
even under your umbrella of your lack of knowledge.
For an absurd analogy, what if I said: I'm not a mechanic, and I don't
really understand how engines work, but I know of a solution to our energy
problems because I read an article about a guy that developed a car with an
engine that runs on urine. I can see how you could interpret this statement
as a way to open a dialoge to discuss whether there really is an engine that
runs on urine, but I think a more common interpretation would be that I was
stating a "fact".
I would also say that your comments on the cave paintings sounded more like
an argument that there are cave paintings of dinosaurs as opposed to raising
it as a question/discussion topic.
I too wish to not belabor the point. It is true that like beauty,
interpretation is "in the eye of the beholder". I accept the responsibility
that if I want to be understood in a certain manner, the ultimate
responsibility is on my shoulders to make sure that I articulate in such a
way as to ensure that outcome. My mistake was in assuming that I had
purchased a certain literary license for myself by stating my lack of
qualifications up front, and that I could be more lax in my presentation
than it turns out was acceptable. I appreciate your candor and your
On Mon, 10 Oct 2005 10:14:31 -0700, fredfighter wrote:
Especially since coyotes and the rest of the apes hadn't evolved yet,
either. NEWS FLASH: Homo sapiens is a great ape.
What are the creationists smoking when they dream up their crap? There is
this great, wonderful, awe-inspiring universe just on the other side of
their eyeballs, and they persist in self-delusion. Here's another news
flash: there is no Santa Claus, God, or Easter Bunny. They are all fairy
tales for the amusement and control of children and the feeble-minded.
The cave paintings of Lascaux and La grotte Chauvet-Pont-d'Arc, to mention
only two, are a testament to the wonderful creativity of the human mind.
People, just like us, produced images of their mental worlds. The artists
left us a magnificent gift across the millenia. To diminish the work of
those great artists by deliberately misconstruing the content to support
one's delusion is despicable.
Understanding the world is hard work. No one can any longer know the full
content of human knowledge. That is no excuse not to try. Some give up,
and accept a small, dark, dank, and smelly room instead of facing the
gaping universe. I pity them. They can at any time escape their
self-imposed exile from reality by cracking open a book (non-fiction,
duh. I suggest the 500s shelf at the library.). Ignorance is curable.
Willful ignorance is tougher to beat.
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.