New Dinosaur Species Found in India

AP ^ | August 13, 2003 | RAMOLA TALWAR BADAM

[goodseedhomeschool (returned)]

I don't think it's the "science minded" issue at all. I suspect that you know that too. I gather you are assuming that science minded people must be predominatly evolutionists. I would not agree if such were the case.

[Nataku X]

I apologize; I interpreted your wording to mean that you were speaking for all those who signed in the agreement.

[StolarStorm]

One of the differences I preceive to be b/w scientists and creationist, is that of willingness to change a viewpoint. Is their anything that would/could convince you that your viewpoint on YE crationism is wrong? How much evidence would it take? What specific types of evidence could change your mind? I fear that no amount of evidence could convince many YE creationists (not necessarily you) because their beliefs ARE based on faith wen it comes down to it.

[goodseedhomeschool (returned)]

I think it is not that you are curious because from reading, others have touched on some things and dismisal seems to be the norm. If you are really curious, there is a google search that can be very helpful. All you have to do is take the time to look at the other side. That side has many scientists who have some awsome work out there. I will not fall into that "set them up to knock them down" routine. Thank you anyway.

[DittoJed2]

Have you interviewed all scientists? There are evolutionists that agree that you will not see the entire complete column in existance anywhere on earth. Othere, such as neo-catastrophists know that the old explanation of how things evolved doesn't work so they put forward new theories of origins, non creationary of course, but evolutionists themselves disagree on how evolution supposedly occured. Regardless, "majority opinion" is not a good criteria for determining truth, particularly when the other side of the debate has been subverted for decades.

[AndrewC]

Aren't these species of trees??

Black oak Fagaceae Quercus velutina

Sugar maple Aceraceae Acer saccharum

[Doctor Stochastic]

I keep a (computer) dictionary open most of the time here. I get in trouble with things like "the separate appearance of an existence license" etc. (Of course exercise just may be an umlauted exorcism.)

[goodseedhomeschool (returned)]

Your statement could be said to you from a creationist almost verbatim.

[Ichneumon]

If evos were interested in objective science, or facts they wouldn't be evos.

You forgot to present some of this objective science or facts which you claim make evolution self-evidently wrong.

They're only running from God,

You are mistaken, but that's a common misbelief for some reason I have yet to figure out.

[AndrewC]

Sorry, I see that you have already posted what I found. Slow on the trigger.

[StolarStorm]

"I gather you are assuming that science minded people must be predominatly evolutionists."

I don't know about 'science minded" per se, but most scientists believe evolution is currently the best theory out there. I also suspect that most people in general believe that as well... so the odds are that you're going to have more such reading these threads. This may not be the case in your specific community, but it is true world wide. The stats indicate that.

[Alamo-Girl]

Indeed, you are in compliance with the agreement - and IMHO, justified as well. I explained this more fully at post 624.

I do however very much agree with Nakatu X that because a warning is up from one complying poster, it should not be taken as "must conform" by others. Each person will have a different way of valuing an offense and the sum of shunning speaks to the consensus.

With regard to the case at hand, I had already previously decided not to engage as the best method to achieve peace at this time under these circumstances.

[RightWingNilla]

I think it is not that you are curious because from reading, others have touched on some things and dismisal seems to be the norm

OK, I promise not to "dismiss" you. I only wished to discuss the evidence and perhaps present an alternative interpretation. Isn't this a science thread?

[goodseedhomeschool (returned)]

Ok this is your idea that most do, but can you substantiate that with facts?

[DittoJed2]

To say Champy is "Driftwood" ignores eyewitness testimony.

[goodseedhomeschool (returned)]

Yes it is a science thread. Allbeit I have not seen much science discussed as of yet. I think I will refrain friend.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so much for your post!

The two links are the threads here on Free Republic where we are gathering the various points of view. You can get a good overview of the diversity just by reading through.

Please post your views and comments as well. Thanks!

[StolarStorm]

I can speak for others, but I can be convinced. You'd have to work hard though, as you'd have to throw out an awful lot of science.

[Ichneumon]

I learned a long time ago that evolution belief was more of a religion than creationism

The only way that this old saw can be made true is to stretch the definition of "religion" so far that it becomes a redundant synonym for "something believed to be true".

By the usual meanings of the word, however, belief in evolution can hardly be called a religion.

[Alamo-Girl]

I'm glad the information was helpful! As y'all discover other information on the subject, I'd greatly appreciate a heads up!