Mike, that reply may have been a little gruff, but the facts it stated are true. Usenet as a whole is a little short on politeness, but that's just something we all have to get used to. If some particular individual is grossly impolite, folks just tend not to read his/her posts.
If you really want to see some impolite replies, ask what color latex paint you should use on cherry furniture :-).
Cherry Jell-O, of course :)
Do you _really_ think it any more credible that coyotes and apes coinhabited with dinosaurs than did humans?
Cite just *one* that (a) is clearly and unambiguously recognizable as a dinosaur and nothing else, AND (b) has not been proven to be a modern fake.
Faked drawings don't qualify as evidence of any sort, circumstantial or otherwise.
Nope. Kool-Aid. I just read it today.
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.
circumstantial
Only beaten by arrogance and ill founded pride.
really? I've never heard of any. where are they?
actually, it sounds like you just mouthing off, making wild fundie claims and not being able to back them up.
oh well.
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?
Great post. Thanks.
A bit confused are you? The age of the earth has nothing to do with ID..... your confusing your groups
confused again
What could Noah's flood have to do with our origin? Although to hear the global warming zealots such a flood might happen.
ID would have no inherent trouble supporting the BIG BANG......... What you have done is consistently confused creationists or young earthers (a very small group of Christian believers) with ID'rs snip
That is primarily what ID'rs believe
Maybe if you first found out what ID was and was not you might have a different understanding......young earth it is not.....Rod
[snip]
No, you can't get away with that -- that's the usual ID'ers evasion -- when someone starts to point out the illogicalities in the ID thinking, to simply aver that ID isn't that. In fact, the predominant proponents of ID adhere to the Adam and Eve creation, Garden of Eden, Noah and the flood and all the animals, etc. description of ID. If you've got a different version of ID, spell it out and explain why the fundamentalist Christian view is wrong.
more popular in the Orthodox Church than the Catholic Church.
No, you did not point out any illogicalities...in fact you pointed out nothing of substance ....as you misidentified the very group you were attempting to illuminate. For sake of clarity young-earthers believe in a literal biblical origin, with a 7day creation, Adam, Noah's flood etc. all only a few thousand years ago. Where-as Intelligent design (try reading Hugh Ross)
That may be your differentiation, but the predominant explanation of ID is the biblical variety, suspiciously like the concept of Creationism. Just to be clear, however, for you,
Intelligent Design means that you:
-- DISAGREE with the concepts of Creationism and
-- DISAGREE with the viewpoint of Intelligent Design as a Supreme Being who created the earth 6-10K years ago, and with the religious list of personalities that were involved
-- AGREE with the work done in "mainstream science" which pertains to such things as gravity, energy, speed-of-light, etc.
-- is that right?
...
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. ...
Hi Mike,
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 questioning.
BadgerDog:
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: ... The statements on ID that I've seen include: Man and dinosaurs coexisted.
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.
My comments: 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.
Best Regards, BadgerDog
Unfortunately,
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 appropriate point.
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 assumptions...
Problem is, you're "aware of" things that have no basis in fact. Like the cave paintings of dinosaurs.
HomeOwnersHub website 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.