- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Quote (SimplyForgiven @ Feb. 17 2011,07:17) Quote (Stu @ Feb. 11 2011,11:05) Quote (SimplyForgiven @ Feb. 10 2011,20:14) You should watch Drdino.com
That's a terrible thing to say!Stuart
Lol,
The guy lied on his taxes have some mercy on him.
and he is a bit crazy, but i like some of the points he made though i disagree with him in many aspects.Is that not ok with you?
He thinks dinosaurs and humans coexisted within the last 6000 years. That qualifies him as a moron.That is the choice he has made for his belief system, but I do object to him lying to children about natural history, which he did up until the time of his incarceration.
It is rare for a creationist to be jailed for lying, no matter that it was not for his lies about natural history.
That fact brings me no joy, of course.
Well OK, perhaps a flicker of a smile.
Stuart
Stu,
There is a definitition of moron and it is not someone who believes dinosaurs existed with humans. Perhaps you mean he is ignorant or in denial of the facts. Still the most that can be said that there is no reliable evidence to support his hypothosis at this time.
As for the conclusion of the argument made in Exodus Decoded I have my doubts as it seems the author is arguing it occured earlier than other evidence seems to point at. Still I have not confirmed anything as yet.
Quote (kerwin @ Feb. 18 2011,15:42) Stu, There is a definitition of moron and it is not someone who believes dinosaurs existed with humans. Perhaps you mean he is ignorant or in denial of the facts. Still the most that can be said that there is no reliable evidence to support his hypothosis at this time.
As for the conclusion of the argument made in Exodus Decoded I have my doubts as it seems the author is arguing it occured earlier than other evidence seems to point at. Still I have not confirmed anything as yet.
I don't think there is any evidence for an exodus at any time. Of course it is true that the absence of evidence is not evidence that it never happened, but there is a positive expectation that an alleged event of that nature would leave characteristic signs of having happened, and those signs have not been found despite significant work on the question. George and Ira Gershwin probably had it right…I would be happy to replace moron with liar if you feel more comfortable with that term. It is something which can be said about him without fear of a libel suit, after all!
Stuart
Quote (Stu @ Feb. 18 2011,20:36) Quote (kerwin @ Feb. 18 2011,15:42) Stu, There is a definitition of moron and it is not someone who believes dinosaurs existed with humans. Perhaps you mean he is ignorant or in denial of the facts. Still the most that can be said that there is no reliable evidence to support his hypothosis at this time.
As for the conclusion of the argument made in Exodus Decoded I have my doubts as it seems the author is arguing it occured earlier than other evidence seems to point at. Still I have not confirmed anything as yet.
I don't think there is any evidence for an exodus at any time. Of course it is true that the absence of evidence is not evidence that it never happened, but there is a positive expectation that an alleged event of that nature would leave characteristic signs of having happened, and those signs have not been found despite significant work on the question. George and Ira Gershwin probably had it right…I would be happy to replace moron with liar if you feel more comfortable with that term. It is something which can be said about him without fear of a libel suit, after all!
Stuart
Hi Stuart,Perhaps you don't know the definition of 'a liar' either?
A liar is one who knows the truth, but says things to mislead others away from the truth.
I'm sure he believes what he is saying; so he therefore cannot be considered 'a liar', period!
You are NOT 'a liar' either, but what you present is “False Truth”, believing many lies to be true.
Evolution is a lie, but you perpetuate this LIE anyways even though there is no proof whatsoever!I hope this helps you to better understand “Truth”!
God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgQuote (Stu @ Feb. 17 2011,17:35) He thinks dinosaurs and humans coexisted within the last 6000 years. That qualifies him as a moron.
Dinosaurs and humans co-exist today (e.g. crocodiles, tuatara etc) Stu, didn't you know?. That's why they're called “living dinosaurs”.
Quote (Is 1:18 @ May 22 2011,08:12) Quote (Stu @ Feb. 17 2011,17:35) He thinks dinosaurs and humans coexisted within the last 6000 years. That qualifies him as a moron.
Dinosaurs and humans co-exist today (e.g. crocodiles, tuatara etc) Stu, didn't you know?. That's why they're called “living dinosaurs”.
…and unicorns and talking snakes and talking donkeys. They all coexisted with humans too!Stuart
Nice side step. I was making a serious point though. What differentiates a Crocodile or Tuatara from the dinosaur?
Quote (TimothyVI @ Feb. 09 2011,04:07) Quote (princess @ Feb. 09 2011,00:44) tim of course the first thing to do is discredit the individual then add the purpose.
Hi Princess,
was that your attempt to first discredit me?I only said that Simcha was not a real archaeologist.
He is a Canadian film director, producer, free-lance journalist.
He holds a B.A. in Philosophy from McGill University and an M.A. in International Relations from the University of Toronto.
This may make him interesting to some, but in no way does it make him an archaeologist? He shows no aptitude for science
in my opinion.Tim
Tim I am not arguing either way, I haven't seen the video and neither do I know of the person in question.However, you say that this man has no aptitude for science.
My question to you. How can you make this judgement if you are not a scientist yourself? I mean you point out his lack of qualifications as the basis, and so the question inevitably arises as to what qualifications do you have in order to make such a judgement?
What makes you more qualified than him to say that he has no aptitude. To make such a statement, you are also saying that you have an aptitude for science and thus are entitled to this opinion. Are you are scientist? Did you get 10 science questions right on a Facebook app? What is the basis for your opinion?
Quote (t8 @ May 26 2011,19:44) Quote (TimothyVI @ Feb. 09 2011,04:07) Quote (princess @ Feb. 09 2011,00:44) tim of course the first thing to do is discredit the individual then add the purpose.
Hi Princess,
was that your attempt to first discredit me?I only said that Simcha was not a real archaeologist.
He is a Canadian film director, producer, free-lance journalist.
He holds a B.A. in Philosophy from McGill University and an M.A. in International Relations from the University of Toronto.
This may make him interesting to some, but in no way does it make him an archaeologist? He shows no aptitude for science
in my opinion.Tim
Tim I am not arguing either way, I haven't seen the video and neither do I know of the person in question.However, you say that this man has no aptitude for science.
My question to you. How can you make this judgement if you are not a scientist yourself? I mean you point out his lack of qualifications as the basis, and so the question inevitably arises as to what qualifications do you have in order to make such a judgement?
What makes you more qualified than him to say that he has no aptitude. To make such a statement, you are also saying that you have an aptitude for science and thus are entitled to this opinion. Are you are scientist? Did you get 10 science questions right on a Facebook app? What is the basis for your opinion?
Actually I should also add that scientists are probably more often wrong than right.There are a lot more theories about anything that are wrong, than there are ones that are right simply because there is one truth and then there is everything else.
Look how many times science changes its mind. Not bagging it, but just pointing out that scientists can be wrong and non-scientists can be right. Judging a person by their worldly qualification is very fickle.
Quote (Stu @ Feb. 15 2011,17:38) Quote (kerwin @ Feb. 15 2011,16:24) Stuart, Many Jews are secularist and or atheists. The only Jews that are more sincere would be the most strict to scripture would be the either the Orthodox or Modern Orthodox sects of the Rabbinical tradition or the equivalent sect of other traditions.
I am sure you are right. It might not be just the literal reading of the scripture of the religion that is the main point though. The exodus myth would be a mainstream idea that placed Jews firmly within the historical story of the Middle East, a kind of foot in the door when the politic of the existence of Israel is under attack from Islamic nations. I still think an atheist of Jewish ethnicity living in Tel Aviv would benefit from evidence in support of the exodus.Stuart
The Exodus myth comes from the same book and testament that says that Israel and Jerusalem would be destroyed and also says that Israel would once again be established and Hebrew once again spoken. Against all the odds it happened.In the New Testament, Jesus himself said that Jerusalem would be trampled upon by foreigners and that the people of Israel would be forced into exile. The Romans destroyed Jerusalem in the year 70 AD. Read about that in Luke 19:41-44.
Israel of course was re-established in 1948 and after that, Hebrew became the official language even though it was an almost dead language at that time.
Coincidence is a funny thing. But yeah, by all means Stu, get back to the Exodus Myth myth.
PS. 2000 years from now, one of your evolved offspring will probably be debunking the idea that Israel was re-established in 1948. OK, that is unlikely, but my point is that you can doubt all you like, but doubt doesn't alter the truth.
Quote (t8 @ May 26 2011,19:44) Quote (TimothyVI @ Feb. 09 2011,04:07) Quote (princess @ Feb. 09 2011,00:44) tim of course the first thing to do is discredit the individual then add the purpose.
Hi Princess,
was that your attempt to first discredit me?I only said that Simcha was not a real archaeologist.
He is a Canadian film director, producer, free-lance journalist.
He holds a B.A. in Philosophy from McGill University and an M.A. in International Relations from the University of Toronto.
This may make him interesting to some, but in no way does it make him an archaeologist? He shows no aptitude for science
in my opinion.Tim
Tim I am not arguing either way, I haven't seen the video and neither do I know of the person in question.However, you say that this man has no aptitude for science.
My question to you. How can you make this judgement if you are not a scientist yourself? I mean you point out his lack of qualifications as the basis, and so the question inevitably arises as to what qualifications do you have in order to make such a judgement?
What makes you more qualified than him to say that he has no aptitude. To make such a statement, you are also saying that you have an aptitude for science and thus are entitled to this opinion. Are you are scientist? Did you get 10 science questions right on a Facebook app? What is the basis for your opinion?
Hi T8,You said “However, you say that this man has no aptitude for science.'
That is not what I said at all.
I said ” He shows no aptitude for science
in my opinion.”I have watched his shows and , in my opinion, have not seen him use scientific methods to arrive at any of his conclusions.
He uses vague references to illustrate his pre-conceived conclusions for the sake of his productions.As for my qualifications, I don't know that I need any in order to have an opinion, but I am a retired mechanical engineer and utilized scientific principals in my lifelong work.
Tim
Quote (Is 1:18 @ May 23 2011,06:56) Nice side step. I was making a serious point though. What differentiates a Crocodile or Tuatara from the dinosaur?
The tuatara belongs to a really old line of descent off which sprang the line to dinosaurs. Tuataras are not dinosaurs.Stuart
Quote (Is 1:18 @ May 26 2011,19:48) Nice dino pics.
No, nice reptile pics, but not dinosaur pics.Stuart
Quote (t8 @ May 26 2011,20:38) The Exodus myth comes from the same book and testament that says that Israel and Jerusalem would be destroyed and also says that Israel would once again be established and Hebrew once again spoken. Against all the odds it happened. In the New Testament, Jesus himself said that Jerusalem would be trampled upon by foreigners and that the people of Israel would be forced into exile. The Romans destroyed Jerusalem in the year 70 AD. Read about that in Luke 19:41-44.
Israel of course was re-established in 1948 and after that, Hebrew became the official language even though it was an almost dead language at that time.
Coincidence is a funny thing. But yeah, by all means Stu, get back to the Exodus Myth myth.
PS. 2000 years from now, one of your evolved offspring will probably be debunking the idea that Israel was re-established in 1948. OK, that is unlikely, but my point is that you can doubt all you like, but doubt doesn't alter the truth.
Once you have a bible-believing superpower behind you, and the UK, I don't think you can really say it is against the odds that modern Israel came into being. It was almost inevitable, for various reasons.None of that makes the supposed exodus any more real.
Evolution does not move fast enough in humans for 2000 years to make any morphological difference at all.
Just thought I'd mention that for your edification.
Stuart
Here is the closest thing we have to an extant dinosaur:
http://www.mccullagh.org/db9/10d-16/assateague-seagull.jpg
…or perhaps not this exact species, but birds in general.
Stuart
Once more, with feeling:
Here is the closest thing we have to an extant dinosaur:
…or perhaps not this exact species, but birds in general.
Stuart
Quote (t8 @ May 26 2011,20:08) Actually I should also add that scientists are probably more often wrong than right. There are a lot more theories about anything that are wrong, than there are ones that are right simply because there is one truth and then there is everything else.
Look how many times science changes its mind. Not bagging it, but just pointing out that scientists can be wrong and non-scientists can be right. Judging a person by their worldly qualification is very fickle.
Scientists are more often right than creationists. Far more often.Science corrects wrong theories, which is more than can be said for religious verities. In fact the number of cases where major theories are entirely disproved is almost none: just about all advances in science are small incremental improvements in the model.
No one said scientists are right. The real value of science is in its permanent and compulsory state of uncertainty.
Once you are certain about something you are blind to any possibility you are wrong.
Like celestial conspiracy “theories” about Imaginary Friends, right t8?
Stuart
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
