New Dinosaur Species Found in India

AP ^ | August 13, 2003 | RAMOLA TALWAR BADAM

[Aric2000]

In your minority opinion, yes, but many more, say that I am correct and that you are the one who is in error.

Then again, I do not claim to read god's mind, nor tell him what he is or is not capable of.

I will leave that to you.

If god is a liar and a joker, then science is wrong, but if god is not a liar and a joker, then science is on the right track to discover how he did it. Not why, not what forces he put into play to put those laws into effect, but discover the laws that he created that allowed us to exist.

I do not claim to know what god thinks, nor do I have the cahunas to tell people what he did or did not do, again, I will leave that to you.

We will see who is punished for what, or if either of us is punished at all.

Hopefully, niether of us will find out for a while though.

I have so much more to learn.....

And so do you.....

[AndrewC]

I am presently pondering the sphere.

Do you mean this sphere?

He was my first choice for 1544, but as I said, God works in strange ways. And I went from levity, which could have been misinterpreted, to seriousness, which was misinterpreted, but causality makes things clear. I do need levity at the moment.

[Junior]

Placemarker.

[PatrickHenry]

P L A C E M A R K E R

[BMCDA]

"This thread is a gem" Placemarker

[ThinkPlease]

http://www.ridgenet.net/~do_while/sage/v4i9r2.htm

http://www.ridgenet.net/~do_while/sage/v4i10f.hm

http://www.ridgenet.net/~do_while/sage/v5i9n.htm

So I took the time to read through these articles (have you taken the time to read through the links I've sent to you?). The author doesn't appear to have any sort of experience in dealing with radioactive dating, something that is readily apparent by reading his response to the person who is an expert in the field. Again, why do you think the opinion of an Ada programmer (which is what this guy is), is more knowledgeable in the field of radiometric dating than a Chemist who has spent his life learning about it? It's like going to a car mechanic to discuss matters of theology, he might have a pretty good idea of what is so and what is not so, but his level of knowledge of the depths of the subject will be lacking. Looking at this article, he's definitely out of his discipline here.

[RadioAstronomer]

Hi all! Sorry for being gone so much lately. Ol RA cannot even get to the internet from one of his locations and can only get on for a brief time from this one.

Will be chacking in periodically. Thanks :-)

[VadeRetro]

I'm not going to agree to limit discussion to whether or not the arguments I presented from AiG are true or false though because that is off the subject of this thread.

Take some responsibility! You post something like 1375, watch the holes get shot in it, and basically say, "Oh yeah? Well, how about this over HERE?" (And out flies some other canned article.)

The impression is that you hardly read the stuff yourself, can't defend it, and don't much know or care how it's going to hold up under examination.

Instead, try to imagine that when you post the kinds of material you have been posting, you are offering it as correct and are putting your credibility on the line. Stay around and face the music when the critiques come in. Try to defend your post or at least explain why you posted it. This will give you some perspective of the real difficulties of the YEC position and will encourage you to start pre-screeing your material before taking it on stage.

[js1138]

placemarker

[longshadow]

Hi all! Sorry for being gone so much lately. Ol RA cannot even get to the internet from one of his locations and can only get on for a brief time from this one.

Enough of this ruse!

You can't fool us any more! Obviously you're hiding in some super-secret government facility to protect the sanctity of your precious bodily fluids, and there's no internet access for fear that some prevert will send a virus that will compromise the purity of your life essence.

Furthermore, it has become obvious to everyone that all this chatter about your SETI project is just window dressing; you want us to THINK you're looking for ET, when in fact you're sitting out that at Area 51 WORKING WITH THEM AS WE SPEAK!

What do you take us for-- fools?

You and your ET friends and your precious bodily fluids can't fool us anymore; you're cold busted!

;-)

[goodseedhomeschool (returned)]

See, we do have common ground. Like you said, you do have much to learn. I'm glad we could agree. As for my "minority opinion", I would not be too sure about that one.
Regards.

[Right Wing Professor]

1111111111111112 pieces of evidence, eh? Interesting number to pick out of your hat ;)

Just another one of those binary thinker conservatives :-)

[DittoJed2]

As I said you can discuss whatever you wish. You do not need, nor will you receive, my approval to go along with your proposal. This decision is based upon several elements:

1) I have observed a strong bias against any creationist or non-evolution source of information on this thread.

2) The proposal assumes that if you can knock the legs out from underneath one argument, that must mean the rest of the science is bad across the board and all of the sources are flawed. There is no basis for that assumption whatsoever.

3)There is a fundamental level of unfairness about what you propose. I have been for 1500 or so replies largely standing alone against a team of evolutionists, some of whom are claimed to be scientists. Even if I had a PhD. in physics, I would personally not be an expert in all of the fields of science represented here on Free Republic and would not be able to tell if the arguments presented to me are valid or not. I have gone to sources that are more well trained than I in the area of science, but those sources are rejected outright.

In all this time, I have never seen proof that my sources are wrong, just blanket accusations that when they question the dating scenarios (which is the heart of the matter) of the evolutionists they are defying the laws of physics or something to that affect. If they lay down a plausible scenario about how it could have occurred another way, they are either ignorred or scoffed at.

4) I distrust your evidence because I know that it is based upon several presuppositions which I do not trust to be true. One of these presuppositions is that the geological column is dated correctly. I present evidence that dinosaurs could have lived much more recently and rather than even consider the fact that the dating could be wrong in the evolutionary scheme, the evolutionist response has been "gee, isn't it amazing that a dinosaur cold have survived 65 million years." I never said that such evidence negated the 65 million year claim, but there is an absolute REFUSAL to even so much as HINT at the idea that the dating of the column could be wrong. Hince, there is a blindness, based upon your presuppositions, that will not allow you to learn anything different than that which has been drilled into your head.

I present that there are unconformities in the radiometric dating system, but it is still proclaimed to be sound.

I could present evidence of humans living in just about every era where they weren't supposed to be found, but that would be explained away as well.

In other words, I will not be taking you up on your proposal, because a)it is set up deliberately to try to make me look inflexible (which I will at least admit as opposed to this group), gullible, and just plain stupid.

b)It assumes that evolutionary science is just "good science" and that all of its presuppositions which help it to come up with its conclusions are valid.

c)And, three, it assumes that if you can "demolish" one or more creationist's arguments that you can declare victory for the debate and with a broadbrush paint all creation scientists with the label of incompetency, lack of understanding of "true" science, and unreliability.

Again, nice try. However, I may not be a highly decorated scientist, but I am not stupid.

[DittoJed2]

VadeRetro,
I have not gone anywhere and I said that he could discuss anything he wants. Stop the "you're not taking responsibility" garbage. BTW, I have read what I have posted.

[DittoJed2]

Everyone in my family has been here since at least the late 1700s. Some go WAY back into the 1500s and 1600s. Got some Indian too, but can't quite prove which one it is. It's hard to do if they did not go west.

[DittoJed2]

What about the history of the Bible has led you to conclude that it is not to be taken literally?

[VadeRetro]

As for my "minority opinion", I would not be too sure about that one.

I suppose there are places someone like you wouldn't be a minority. Conservababes.com comes to mind. Nevertheless, my impression is that literal young-Earth creationism is a small but very loud movement which must rely on a high decibel volume of activism from its participants.

A freeper named Godel once polled crevo-thread participants for their views on evolution, up or down. It was set up on a web site with a link to it from an FR thread. Evolution won far more handily than the casual impression of some of these threads would convey.

(Actually, I suspect a count of this thread would show more evo posters than creo, but with a hard core of creo posters making lots and lots and lots of posts, exactly what Godel's poll suggests. But other threads have looked like a creo high-fiving party.)

Another funny thing about that poll. Two freepers tried to jam the poll with hundreds of votes. Both were creos. That's not a shock for people familiar with these discussions. You can't whip up that sort of activism without some people going too far.

[VadeRetro]

But then, some people point out that more creos get banned than evos, overall.

[balrog666]

Arg maceplarker.

[atlaw]

"The proposal assumes that if you can knock the legs out from underneath one argument, that must mean the rest of the science is bad across the board and all of the sources are flawed. There is no basis for that assumption whatsoever."

The forecast for today is scattered clarity and intermittent irony, with heavy parody settling in by nightfall.