New Dinosaur Species Found in India

AP ^ | August 13, 2003 | RAMOLA TALWAR BADAM

[Aric2000]

I have yet to see ONE fact from you.

I see a lot of wishful thinking and chosen ignorance, but I have yet to see any facts to back up ANY of your assertions.

Such a statement by you is laughable in the extreme.

[StolarStorm]

So, you are never wrong when it comes to Christianity. Therefore, your viewpoints should not be questioned, yet you don't hestiate to question others who have spent a lifetime studying evolution?

You expect others to have an open mind. You need to open yours too.

[whattajoke]

One thing you learn at a golf range, don't try to help someone with their swing unless they ask.

Chief Justice Moore is fighting a losing battle, fore the Ten Commandments hold no authority if evolution is true.

Enough of the golf-isms! Joking aside, I'm unclear as to how an Alabama judge's money-wasting desire (in a state with a huge budget mess) to keep fighting for a marble slab with some decent moral codes on it (as well as some decidedly non-secular ones as well) has the slightest thing to do with a biological theory that does a darn good job at explaining the diversity of life on planet earth. IIRC, killing, stealing, lying, not adultering, and being good to one's parents were generally accepted "laws" before Moses' time.

[bondserv]

Just because you are a hideous deformation of the original design, doesn't mean the original design was a hideous deformation.;-)

Degeneration, Degeneraaation
It's driving me craaazy

Do you find yourself reaching for your reading glasses to read the directions on your bottle of Advil?

You should have seen the navaless one's in the garden, 900 year old living pure stud. We are not sure why lifespans dropped off after the flood. Probably something to do with higher exposure to the sun's negative mutating effects on the curse ridden human race.

[Alamo-Girl]

Just to let you know - and for any Lurkers following - the point you both made that time dimensions must be odd, here is my first substantive find:

Why odd-space and odd-time dimensions in even dimensional spaces? (pdf)

I'm still pondering on this article and the significance with regard to brane theory. Thank y'all so much for this line of inquiry!!!

[whattajoke]

You should have seen the navaless one's in the garden, 900 year old living pure stud. We are not sure why lifespans dropped off after the flood. Probably something to do with higher exposure to the sun's negative mutating effects on the curse ridden human race.

Instant Classic, no question.

[Michael_Michaelangelo]

Howdy Ichi...

From what I have read, the demise of the Dodo was due to humans, dogs, cats and pigs. They (the Dodo) were fairly easy to catch, and the dogs and cats were known to bust open the eggs and eat the contents, and also ate the fledglings, making the survivability of the Dodo impossible. Further, the Dodo was pretty damn nimble and fast, as opposed to the fat and bumbly disposition that evolutionists refer to. The European Colonists, most of which had never even seen a Dodo, like to draw them as fat and bumbly as well, contributing to the misinforamtion about the Dodo. Also, the skeletal reconstructions that have been done in the past are quite suspect, which is not surprising when one considers the many fraudulant reconstructions that have graced museums and textbooks world-wide.

FRegards, MM

[Lurking Libertarian]

Dodo placemarker.

[DittoJed2]

StolarStorm, don't start. Aric's post regarding Christian beliefs was, frankly, vain babblings not informed at all by reality. To suggest that most "biblical schlolars" don't take Genesis literally is just nuts! To suggest that there werent' creationists before the early 1600s is equally nuts. Aric has continued to attack, but I've seen no evidence on his behalf to back up his assertions. I have tried, to the best of my ability, to answer all of the questions these "open minded" evolutionists have hurled at me and have been called all sorts of names along the way. I have persisted, not for your all's sake, because I know that you will cling to the sacred theory until the cows come home. But for others who might question the "majority" view, I'm providing evidence that counters the theory of evolution. Aric has said I have posted no facts, when I've put a lot of effort into researching and answering the questions asked and have presented facts. It is NOT my problem if you all want to cling to a physical impossibility that has NEVER been demonstrated to be true. That is, non-living minerals can somehow join together, by chance (and I don't care what you say about it not being chance. Nobody is directing it, and it is chance) and form living matter. That is pseudo-science, and is highly relevant to this discussion, but the see no evil hear no evil speak no evil evolutionists on this thread refuse to even consider the facts and instead belittle me for "not understanding physics." Well fine. I suppose if physics says you can get something out of absolutely NOTHING (no allowance for particles, protons, chemicals, electrical current- NOTHING), If physics says that something impersonal can create something extremely complex and personal by itself with no outward manipulation, If physics says that a monkey can mate with a human and get a cross-species when this has NEVER been demonstrated to be true, If physics says all that, or evolutionary "science" says all that, then you are right, I don't understand it because it is claiming absolute straight-from-the-imagination impossible scenarios. Because I say that God caused life to exist, I'm considered closed-minded.

Whatever, guys. Keep you struggling and straining against biblical truth. You won't get anywhere, but at least you get an A for trying (sad, though, because although your peers may give you an A, in eternity your peers opinion matters zilch. To have lived a life clinging to a godless theory when evidence was presented to you to the contrary is very sad indeed).

[DittoJed2]

Maybe if you would remove your hands from your eyes and the plugs from your ears it would help.

[bondserv]

The guy on the golf range isn't trolling for converts to his bad swing.

Who is your instructor?

[Doctor Stochastic]

My extrapolation would be that there can only be 1,3,7, or maybe 15 time-like dimensions no matter the number of space-like dimensions. Of course, this is only an algebraic approach and need not be correct. The paper you noted looks at things from a different viewpoint.

[Aric2000]

Look who's talking.

Pardon me if I don't take that advice from someone who, in my opinion, is a close minded, science hating, literalist, christian fundamentalist.

[whattajoke]

suggest that most "biblical schlolars" don't take Genesis literally is just nuts!
I respectfully disagree. Only a small minority of (mostly) American bible literalist scholars view the Genesis account as anything more than myth.

suggest that there werent' creationists before the early 1600s is equally nuts.
I would probably agree with this, actually. But this hardly bolsters your viewpoint, since the Dark Ages were called the Dark Ages for a reason.

I'm providing evidence that counters the theory of evolution.
I won't pretend that I read every post, so perhaps I missed this revolutionary post. In the future, do please use the bold tag when you are posting Time's Man of the Year worthy posts.

That is, non-living minerals can somehow join together, by chance... and form living matter.
However, when you do make the Time's Man of the Year worthy ground breaking science re-defining post, do please try to avoid such glaring errors. For the record, "non-living minerals" have only "joined together" to form non-living mineral clusters, or more commonly, "rocks."

If physics says that a monkey can mate with a human and get a cross-species
It does not.

Because I say that God caused life to exist, I'm considered closed-minded.

Even though I don't believe in a diety, I would not say this of you. You are a christian and you believe in the Christian God. That's fine by me. In fact, several of the evolutionists here also believe in the same Christian God and also believe said Christian God created the heavens and the earth. They just happen to accept evolution, that's all. It's the Young Earth stuff and the bible literalism that people may have an issue with, because none of it jives with what we know, or in your case, what is readily available to you to learn.

[DittoJed2]

Question for the evolutionists. Is there any evidence that would cause you to abandon the theory of evolution and accept a literal Genesis account of creation? If so, second question, what kind of evidence would it take. Please describe.

[bondserv]

Instant Classic, no question.

You humor me, with humor.

I see that "whattajoke" refers to your views, as opposed to your views of others views.

[Aric2000]

YOU are the one struggling and strangling against biblical truth.

I NEVER said there were NO creationists before the 1600's, I said there were no LITERALISTS before the 1600's.

Creationism was a given, god made the heaven and the earth, but the literal truth of genesis is a relatively new phenomenon.

Literalism is new, creationism is not, there is a HUGE difference!!

I thought you said you had a degree in this stuff?

[StolarStorm]

Oral roberts university?

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so much for your comments!

Indeed, looking back on your previous observations, that is clear to me now. And when Physicist put the stamp of approval on the idea of odd numbered time dimensions so quickly, my first thought was "spin" (in a physics sense.)

The article may settle my curiosity from the physics side, but I am still wondering about the import of Minkowski space in higher dimension brane theory - or more specifically how calculable higher dimensional dynamics would be from a 4D worldview. I don't see how our current methods could "handle" it.

In sum, I still visualize the 4D timeline as a plane when viewed from an extra time dimension, and the full 4D as a block. Still pondering though…

[DittoJed2]

suggest that most "biblical schlolars" don't take Genesis literally is just nuts! I respectfully disagree. Only a small minority of (mostly) American bible literalist scholars view the Genesis account as anything more than myth.
Site your sources please.

suggest that there werent' creationists before the early 1600s is equally nuts. I would probably agree with this, actually. But this hardly bolsters your viewpoint, since the Dark Ages were called the Dark Ages for a reason.

Jesus and Paul believed in a literal creation account. Guess they were in the dark too. Sorry for the sarcasm here, however, it does bolster my point that Aric was way off base with his post.



That is, non-living minerals can somehow join together, by chance... and form living matter. However, when you do make the Time's Man of the Year worthy ground breaking science re-defining post, do please try to avoid such glaring errors. For the record, "non-living minerals" have only "joined together" to form non-living mineral clusters, or more commonly, "rocks."
You have given me a specific instance of non-living phenomena creating non-living phenomena. Show me where, by chance, non-living phenomena have joined together and made something living and personal.


If physics says that a monkey can mate with a human and get a cross-species It does not.
Because I say that God caused life to exist, I'm considered closed-minded.
Even though I don't believe in a diety, I would not say this of you. You are a christian and you believe in the Christian God. That's fine by me. In fact, several of the evolutionists here also believe in the same Christian God and also believe said Christian God created the heavens and the earth. They just happen to accept evolution, that's all. It's the Young Earth stuff and the bible literalism that people may have an issue with, because none of it jives with what we know, or in your case, what is readily available to you to learn.
I've seen an awful lot of oversimplifications of the creationist case and use of adjectives such as "most" and quantifiers such as none. This creates a case for evolution which is much stronger than it is in reality. It discounts opposing viewpoints and pushes forward the current atmosphere of scientific elitism which disregards evidence that doesn't support a theory.