New Dinosaur Species Found in India

AP ^ | August 13, 2003 | RAMOLA TALWAR BADAM

[Right Wing Professor]

Oops, mistake, should have been to 'all'.

[goodseedhomeschool (returned)]

I am not this Al fella, to be sure. This is why I know this whole thread is a game to run people like me off.

[Aric2000]

I have been holding back in posting much factual information here because I know they don't really want to hear it, they just want to argue.


Please, I would LOVE to see your "Facts". That is just too funny, if they are anywhere near the caliber of DJ's it should be a short discussion.

By the way, I have said at least 3 times on this thread alone, something about my wife, and yet you continue to call me a she, I find that rather amusing as well.

If you are as clueless as to call me a she, when from my profile, my posts etc that it is OBVIOUS that I am a he, then you are going to be another one of those Clueless posters that think that AIG is actually a fair and balanced site and has information that means anything.

Bring on the facts, could be fun.

You've made the challenge, now back it up there CT.

And the reason I responded to you is that you were obviously trolling for some sort of response from me, or why would you do a hack job on my tagline and use it on your own?

You are just a lily white virgin, yep, I have heard that one before too.

Perhaps you will do better this persona around.

[goodseedhomeschool (returned)]

Who/what are you. Let me say this slowly. LEAVE ME ALONE!

[Right Wing Professor]

I do believe ct would be better ignored.

[VadeRetro]

I disagree with the hypothesis that he is ALS reincarnate...

I lean far the other way. ct started out very polite, but his "polite muscles" got tired very quickly.

He uncharacteristically congratulated Ichneumon on the use of the Lincoln dog's-tail-as-a-fifth-leg story. ALS had used that one earlier, as effdot noted.

He's calling Aric "she." ALS couldn't lay off the puerile, gender-mixing, homo innuedendo stuff.

If Aric hadn't made the mistake of prompting for it, ct would have called someone "Sparky" before the day was over.

[Aric2000]

Sorry Andrew, I have my suspicions, and until it is a thorough yeah or nay, I will see how things go.

But the answer is a big fat no about leaving this forum, I would miss you too much Andrew, and I couldn't have that.

Sorry, when someone OBVIOUSLY trolls for a response from me, I will respond, when that someone is OBVIOULSY suspicious to me, I will voice my suspicions, and see how the poster reacts. So far the poster has reacted EXACTLY as expected.

I will give it a few more weeks, and if I am convinced that this poster is NOT ALS, then I will apologize and move on.

But I am convinced otherwise, and no amount of, "you should feel guilty Aric" is going to change my mind.

If this poster agrees to the agreement and abides by it, that would allay my concerns and suspicions greatly, but we shall see.

I believe that concisetraveler is ALS in another persona, and I will continue with that assumption until proven otherwise.

[Aric2000]

You are right, but I was very tired last night, I should have just gone to sleep and not posted until this morning.

[Alamo-Girl]

To continue the research into the antiquity and authenticity of Enoch, I am now pursuing the earliest date for man’s observation of a supernova. At post 2266, I pondered whether this verse from Enoch was a reference to a supernova:

“And I saw another thing regarding lightening: how some stars arise and become lightening and cannot dwell with the rest.” 1 Enoch 44

The earliest I’ve found is in China:

A Brief History of High-Energy Astronomy: Pre-1800 Era

Apr, 4 BCE (or BC) Chinese astronomers observe and record for about a month a `po star' towards the direction of the modern constellation of Aquila. Wang et al. (ApJ, 569, L43, 2002) argue that this `po star', unlike most others which are now believed to be comets, was actually a hypernova (a supernova like SN 1998bw which had much more kinetic energy release than the typical value), and that the soft gamma repeater SGR 1900+14 is the neutron star created in this event.

Baker’s History of Astronomy

1054 AD SUPERNOVAE DISCOVERED, ASTRONOMERS IN CHINA & JAPAN

Reported New Star In Constellation Taurus. This was later established to be a supernova which was the birth of the crab nebulae.

The relevance of this inquiry is from post 2370, that 4Q208 fragment of a copy made at Qumran (Dead Sea Scrolls) of the 1 Enoch book on astronomy has a Paleographic age 200, and was carbon-dated - calibrated 166-102 BC and 186-92 BC.

[Aric2000]

And you are correct as well RWP.

Virtual Ignore is on.

[PatrickHenry]

You have made several accusations in your post 2455. One is that the thread displays "obvious attack against Christians." Please support that accusation. You say:

It seems to me like it muzzles the creationist and gives the evolutionist free reign to insult, name call and taunt until the creationist no longer wants to take the time to post anything.

Please support those accusations.

You insult the education of the evolutionists when you say: "I wonder how many evolutionists on this thread are even out of college at this time." As you undoubtedly know, among the evolutionists are physicists, biologists, geologists, astronomers, etc. Your post is an obviously insulting provocation.

You further engage in provocation by saying: "Back to Arica2000. My calling her a crybaby ..." It was typical of a former freeper, ALS, that he would "insult" posters by calling them girls. You are engaging in the same kind of schoolyard, provocative behavior.

You further insult by saying:

We already know that the ACLU, NEA and other organizations are liberals and we also know what their agenda is. That they want to destroy God In America.

You are thereby saying that the evolution side are liberals and atheists. You cannot support those statements.

Under the agreeement, with which you are already familiar, if we (the complying posters) observe a poster causing a problem on a thread, we are obligated under the agreement to first politely ask that the poster come into compliance using words such as the following:

Hey concisetraveler, that post of yours (2455) was a bit provocative. Under our agreement, the actions of provocateurs, trolls, spammers, and disruptors are prohibited, as is the use of obscene or belittling words to describe another poster or his beliefs. I understand that you're momentarily swept up in the debate, but please restrain yourself.

If the non-complying poster (whether the poster has signed the agreement or not) continues to provoke, troll, spam or disrupt then warnings will be posted to others on the threads, to avoid posting to non-complying poster (or a specific non-complying poster) since it could lead to flame wars, etc.

If the conduct continues, any of the otherwise complying posters may engage the non-complying posting with harsh language otherwise prohibited by the agreement.

This is your "polite warning" which the agreement requires. Please conduct yourself in a manner which complies with the agreement.

[Junior]

The earth IS the center of the universe, spiritually. There is no life out there. Other than God and the angels, we are all alone.

"Famous Last Words" placemaker.

[VadeRetro]

The fun thing is that, for however long ct hangs around, even if he is ALS, he will be unable to do what ALS wanted to do. He can only survive by keeping the lowest possible profile.

I still suspect, however, that one day soon we will notice that all ct's posts now read

___________________________________________________________
Post NNNN deleted by AdminModerator
___________________________________________________________

[Right Wing Professor]

And I saw another thing regarding lightening: how some stars arise and become lightening and cannot dwell with the rest

I'm uncertain about whether this refers to supernovae or meteorites. The 'lightning' would suggest the latter; supernovae become bright instantaneously, all right, but they take a while to fade.

[Aracelis]

It is pretty clear that people who think they can insult a man by calling him a woman (i) are misogynist (how sad for the women, if any, in their lives that they think calling someone a woman is an insult!)

Ah, but everyone "knows" that God created man first...Adam was the prototype. By the time God got around to creating Eve, He had worked out all the bugs. ;^)

[Right Wing Professor]

By the time God got around to creating Eve, He had worked out all the bugs.

Oh, well at least you admit God is male :-)

[balrog666]

It is pretty clear that people who think they can insult a man by calling him a woman (i) are misogynist (how sad for the women, if any, in their lives that they think calling someone a woman is an insult!) (ii) have gender identity issues. Maybe by misassigning the gender of others, they can make go away those nagging doubts they themselves have about their masculinity.

BWAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHA, nailed it! All too reminiscent of ALS's little (short man syndrome) homosexual innuendos.

[Shryke]

The earth IS the center of the universe, spiritually. There is no life out there. Other than God and the angels, we are all alone.

Are you suggesting God could not create life on other planets? Or that God has chosen not to? Or what?

[Alamo-Girl]

AndrewC, I do not know a single poster who wishes you were not here and thus I can see no motive for anyone wanting you to leave.

concisetraveler, we invite you to join us in the Agreement of the Willing on Science Threads. There is understandable concern at this point-in-time regarding previously banned posters returning to post under false IDs. This concern is based on past history and remarks made by f.Christian on this thread: post 505 and post 540 “oops --- resurrection - trouble ahead - coming !” Following those posts is a discussion of past incidents of false identity postings.

At the moment however, referring to other posters as “crybaby” and calling them girls and using the “PMS” remark will be taken as a provocation and thus I also recommend to all complying posters who wish to avoid flame wars, please either ignore the provocation or the poster.

[DittoJed2]

Naturalistic, materialistic science,

As if there could ever be "super-naturalistic" and "im-materialistic" science
And why not? Because Science is too proud to admit there are some things science can not know? I'm not even asking that you accept the Genesis account of creation. The very thought that life is so intricately woven together and the EXACT conditions for life to exist are present everywhere around us should open the possibility that we were intelligently designed to be just as we are and it all did not happen by chance. But Science refuses to even admit this possibility and scoffs at those who do.
That's a very shaky statement of what evolution says. And it is NOT a theological statement. It is no more theological than is chemistry when it explains -- naturalistically (gasp!) -- how elements combine into compounds.
If I make a statement that the wall is black. It may be a statement based upon my observation, but it also infers many things. It infers that the wall is not white, yellow, blue, or any other color. When Science says we came about by chance random processes. It infers that we were not created and therefore makes a theological statement.

It [Naturalistic, materialistic science] trys to exclude God from the mix (rather than humbly admit that there are some things beyond the realm of science)and explain everything according to the wisdom of man.

I truly shudder to think what a "proper" science book would look like if it met your standards. What do you want? A humble declaration of ignorance? A prayer for wisdom? A confession of sin? That's science?
No, I want honesty in the text books not propaganda. And, I would like for alternate theories of origins to be explored as well, along with the proofs and weaknesses for each (Intelligent Design and Creation being two of them). I do not think it is necessary that science classes teach the biblical account, necessarily. But teaching evolution as if it is the only theory going when in reality there are even several theories of evolution out there which are not classically Darwinian, is frankly propaganda, not science.

It [Naturalistic, materialistic science] also does a very poor job of explaining much of everything and expects the world to take as facts that man is the gradual result of chance. It does not adequately explain intelligence, ignores known things (the impersonal creating the personal), and otherwise pushes what in reality is an unproven hypothesis. Examples of "missing links" are heralded before the public as fact, even though each link is highly speculative and debated (even by evolutionists). And, yet, evolutionary science expects to be lauded for its objectivity.

Hard to know where to begin there. Difficult to respond, because all you've said amounts to nothing more than a hard-core anti-science rant. So, no rebuttal there. I accept that as your emotional response to science.
This is not an emotional response. This is a response based upon observation. There are extreme differences in the reality of what makes up human beings that science absolutely ignores. To the evolutionary scientist, we are just bones and chemicals. Evolution doesn't even come close to explaining how through random chance processes we went from ape to composing minuets, writing literature, becoming mathematicians, sending folks off into space. Not even close. Darwinism is completely inadequate as a system to explain life, and that is not an "emotional response." That is reality.

It [Naturalistic, materialistic science] sees what it wants to see and discounts everything else. Whether or not God can be measured, His presence is witnessed in everything around us. Some are willfully blind to it, but it is there.

Earlier, I had asked you how science could deal with (measure, see, test, etc.) the supernatural world. You have no answer, except to continue to bash science for not doing what it cannot do. I may as well beat my dogs because they can't fly.

First of all, the comment [about bias influencing results] was on Darwin.

My comments about worldwide peer review and verification of lab results applies to evolution as well as everything else. My point was that a Hindu or Japanese biologist would have none of the alleged bias that you ascribe to Darwin

Second, would you send an agent of Osama Bin Laden before a jury of Al Qaeda for judgment? The peers reviewing the evidence also have a highly evolutionary bias.

Okay. Everyone is in on the conspiracy. I gotcha.
I wouldn't say it is a vast conspiracy. But it is a brainwashing. The scientists of today were trained by the Darwinists of yesterday. They were trained to believe Darwinism is fact, even though the evidence was not there to support that claim. Today, anyone who questions the theory suffers the not-so-subtle intimidation of being mocked by their peers. Even at seminary, one of my professors said that Young Earth Creationists are just "anti-realists." What kind of freedom for exploration can exist in an environment which produces such jibes?

That's a very superficial dismissal of one of the most dramatic events in the intellectual history of western civilization. If only the church fathers had listened to you, ol' Galileo would have had no problems at all.
Do not tag me with the Catholic church's dismissal of Galileo. It is not relevant to this discussion.

Yet, as lenient as you say you are about the once blasphemous solar system theory, you are astonishingly harsh on those who advocate evolution. I still don't understand your double standard.
No double standard. I do not consider the Catholic faith at that time as something that represented true Christianity. Study a little church history and you will find the various doctrines espoused at that time do not have their basis in Scripture but in Tradition. I am a person of the book. Judge me by my adherance to it, but not to a group of theologians that I would never agree with in the first place.

I will just be criticized for posting another AIG link, but AIG and Christiananswers.net among other links have plenty of information regarding the Galileo controversy as well as the supposed geocentrism of Scripture.

Right. Don't bother.

However, Galileo's problems were more with the Aristotelian thinking of the churchmen of his day as opposed to Copernican thinking - and the Bible would have been used out of context to back up those assumptions.
Sorry. I just can't take your word for it. The learned churchmen who persecuted Galileo were undoubtedly more skilled in their scripture than even you are. And consider this ... if they could, as you claim, erroneously take scripture out of context to persecute the solar system theory, isn't it just possible that you are doing the same thing in attacking evolution theory? I mean, it's possible, right?
No. It is not. This is a ludicrous suggestion by anyone who understands Scripture as you do not. I have studied Scripture since I was a child. I grew up in a Christian school. I received a Masters Degree from a very reputable seminary (known primarily for its academic accumen). I would put my knowledge of Scripture against ANY of the churchmen of Galileo's day any time of the day.

Give me a break! First of all, the "latest scientific research" changes with the wind. It will continue to change with the wind.

No. It doesn't change with the wind. But it does change to be consistent with newly-discovered data. This is not a weakness, as you believe. It's the reason science is so successful.
Whatever.

It is inadequate to explain what we see and furthermore presents a worldview that is downright dangerous.

Scientific theories to a very adequate job of explaining what we see. That's the very definition of a theory. "Dangerous?" Yeah. I suppose the discovery of fire was dangerous too. Sorry, that's a terrible argument.
No it isn't. Look at what Evolution has produced. You tell people they are animals and they act like it. Hitler, Mussolini, and the New World Order all have their roots in evolutionary thinking. It's the same old story of man trying to be his own god and it will end in man's destruction.

With that said, I do find it important as a seminary educated theologian (also have a secular Masters and Bachelors) to stay on top of what is going on in the world of science, but hardly look to it as some sort of authority which can change the truth of the Word of God.

We're back to the original question I posed. It's the same question Galileo posed. If you can see something that is contradicted by scripture, what do you believe? Scripture or the evidence of your senses. This question is at the core of all our other issues.
I believe Scripture because my senses are not perfect, but Scripture is. Ask a pilot. If his senses tell him one thing and his instruments another, what should he follow. The Bible is my guide. But, frankly, your question is a false choice because I do not see ANYWHERE where my "senses" contradict Scripture.

I made the argument before, but just think about it. If the Genesis account of creation is only an allegory, then you have no foundation (other than some fairy tale) for marriage, for families, for sin and salvation, or a need for a Savior. If Genesis is untrue, what basis do you have to trust any more of the book?

That's exactly the kind of argument that was leveled at Galileo. "If the Bible were wrong in so many places about the immovability of the earth, then it all comes unraveled, the people will lose faith, and there will be chaos everywhere." That's what they feared. As I've been saying, the struggle you're waging against evolution, for the very same reasons, has been waged 400 years ago. But we all accept the solar system, and our religion survives anyway.
The struggle against the evolutionary hypothesis is not 400 years old, first of all. And second, if one rightly understands the passages in their context (CONTEXT IS A VERY IMPORTANT THING), one will see that the Bible does NOT contradict true science. It contradicts the evolutionary hypothesis, but even scientists can't agree to the mechanics of how that was supposed to occur. The argument here is not the same as the one with Galileo. You are attacking the very core of everything else in the Bible. You are attacking the Bible's foundation. It isn't a matter of interpretation as to whether or not Genesis' creation account should be taken literally. Jesus took it literally and we should too. It is a matter of authority. Who is authority- man or God? I choose God.