Posted on 11/19/2003 10:15:28 AM PST by yonif
Unless you can prove Biblical creation is a myth, your statement is also mythology.
What exactly is your point?
If you're lost, my work is done for a while. Dinner time.
Who drew this picture? Somebody looking at a pile of bones and guessing the creature had feathers? Or was it Fred Flintstone. VadeRetro, you are correct - it is a funny world.
I am not lost - I have no idea what you are trying to say and it has nothing to do with anything I have said.
How dumb do you want to play - the one above it does not seem to be a drawing. It is a picture of fossils and not somebody's dream of what a dinosaur might look like.
Everything looks like a colon when one's head is up one's...
When one is closed minded or prejudice, everything usually looks just the way they want it to.
(I am guessing you want to play the slogan game now)
Indeed it does not. My point. It is not a drawing. But let's go back to your response to 460:
Who drew this picture? Somebody looking at a pile of bones and guessing the creature had feathers?
Guessing? Nine minutes after I post, you're inviting people to believe that any feathers in the artist's rendition are a guess.
Now, in the post to which you make your incredibly reasoned and thought-out response, there is a link to the source. Anyone who clicked on that might well have found himself looking at the following pictures among others.
Who drew those? I mean, you could have taken a tiny smidgeon of care to find out if there was a good basis for saying "feathers" if you had the wit and the integrity to want to know. It was clearly more important to get a naysaying response out there fast. "Another funny drawing from the VAST EVOLUTIONIST CONSPIRACY."
Also, in your nine minutes of careful thought and composition it might have occurred to you to realize that the presence or absence of the feathers on the universally agreed taxonomic dromaeosaur don't matter that much, at least not to my point. It's still a dinosaur with practically the same skeleton as something the creationists secular evolution skeptics dismiss as "A bird! Just a bird!"
The first failure reveals a militantly willful level of ignorance. The second, a similar sort of stupidity.
I try to imagine what a truly secular skeptic of evolution would be like in debate. It seems extremely unlikely that such would be an ICR/AiG/(Your favorite YECcie org here) seminar graduate in every way except for not acknowledging his material.
C'mon! Where's that old secular skepticism?
I was under the impression you don't accept common descent, as it violates separate, special creation is only a theory or something. Anyway, that is what I was discussing with Abe when you jumped in to complain that all I had posted was insults and rhetoric. (Another ridiculous claim.)
He shoots! He misses!
"Shouldn't any two dinosaurs at all be more related to each other than any dinosaur and any bird?"
---------------------------------
It's called the religion of ATHEISM. If it is okay to teach the THEORY of evolution-atheism, it should also be okay to teach the FACTS of creationism.
BTW, until a little over a year ago (when I saw a lecture by Ken Ham) (http://www.answersingenesis.org), I did not believe in a "6 day" creation. However, after having seen Ken Ham's "6 day" argument twice, and after having watched several of the DVDs from an AIG conference (available online I think), I am now 100% CONVINCED about the "6 day" creation. Ken Ham's "6 day" arguments are VERY convincing!
---------------------------------
I AM RESPONDING:
Actually, it requires MORE faith! Check out http://www.answersingenesis.org .
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.