Creationist Explains How Humans Could Have Hunted The Tyrannosaurus Rex [Archive] - Page 3

Simmy

04-26-13, 10:59 AM

Back to the same game again? In that light there is no such thing as a "scientific fact". All science is theory. Reread NeonSamurai's posts to find out what a Theory really is.

Oh yes, because his supposed reasoning agrees with yours?

WEBSTER - 2: A PROPOSED EXPLANATION WHOSE STATUS IS STILL CONJECTURAL.
6: A GUESS OR CONJECTURE.

When a theory is proven then it becomes actual science. Many theories have gone the way of the dust bin because they were shown to be wrong.

You better check on the meaning of "theory" and "scientific fact".

I only mention 6,000 years as an age because many people following the bible backwards come to that age as the time earth/universe was created.

Music theory can be shown to work, at least in part, but the theory breaks down at different points. Some things that should work don't and some things that shouldn't work do.

How people can conclude that evolution is a science fact when there are so many different theories and so much disagreement between "experts" is very strange.

Sailor Steve, you should let people discuss general topics in general topics and stop with the I know everything frame of mind. You may not agree with them but who in the hell are you to attack people you don't know over subjects you don't seem to have much of a grasp on?

Skybird

04-26-13, 11:18 AM

Sigh.

A scientific theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. If enough evidence accumulates to support a hypothesis, it moves to the next step—known as a theory—in the scientific method and becomes accepted as a valid explanation of a phenomenon.

When used in non-scientific context, the word “theory” implies that something is unproven or speculative. As used in science, however, a theory is an explanation or model based on observation, experimentation, and reasoning, especially one that has been tested and confirmed as a general principle helping to explain and predict natural phenomena.

Any scientific theory must be based on a careful and rational examination of the facts. In the scientific method, there is a clear distinction between facts, which can be observed and/or measured, and theories, which are scientists’ explanations and interpretations of the facts. Scientists can have various interpretations of the outcomes of experiments and observations, but the facts, which are the cornerstone of the scientific method, do not change.

A theory must include statements that have observational consequences. A good theory, like Newton’s theory of gravity, has unity, which means it consists of a limited number of problem-solving strategies that can be applied to a wide range of scientific circumstances. Another feature of a good theory is that it formed from a number of hypotheses that can be tested independently.

A scientific theory is not the end result of the scientific method; theories can be proven or rejected, just like hypotheses. Theories can be improved or modified as more information is gathered so that the accuracy of the prediction becomes greater over time.

Theories are foundations for furthering scientific knowledge and for putting the information gathered to practical use. Scientists use theories to develop inventions or find a cure for a disease.

A few theories do become laws, but theories and laws have separate and distinct roles in the scientific method. A theory is an explanation of an observed phenomenon, while a law is a description of an observed phenomenon.

http://www.livescience.com/21491-what-is-a-scientific-theory-definition-of-theory.html

Google is your friend.

Sailor Steve

04-26-13, 11:21 AM

Oh yes, because his supposed reasoning agrees with yours?
No, because we've already been over this and you're bringing it up again like it's something new.

When a theory is proven then it becomes actual science. Many theories have gone the way of the dust bin because they were shown to be wrong.
I guess you missed the part where a theory can never be proven, only disproven. Or did you just choose to ignore it.

You better check on the meaning of "theory" and "scientific fact".
Or maybe you should. This goes all the way back to you not believing that different fields have their own dictionaries.
Truth in science, however, is never final and what is accepted as a fact today may be modified or even discarded tomorrow.
http://ncse.com/evolution/education/definitions-fact-theory-law-scientific-work

I only mention 6,000 years as an age because many people following the bible backwards come to that age as the time earth/universe was created.
Yes, the Creationists we were talking about in the first place. Without them we wouldn't be having this discussion. This means that what the Bible actually says on the subject is irrelevant. What is relevant is that some people believe it, and insist on it. They are the ones who attack Evolution the hardest.

Music theory can be shown to work, at least in part, but the theory breaks down at different points. Some things that should work don't and some things that shouldn't work do.
Again, different fields, different meanings. Studying the science of music is like studying mechanics - we already know it's there, we study it to find out how and why it works the way it does.

How people can conclude that evolution is a science fact when there are so many different theories and so much disagreement between "experts" is very strange.
Per my earlier link, there is no such thing as "fact" in science, just today's assumptions waiting to be disproven. What you choose to ignore is that the majority of scientists accept evolution because it is the theory that currently fits the known facts (i.e. the fossil record) the best. Tomorrow it may no longer be, but that's tomorrow.

Let me ask you a question: What would you replace it with?

Sailor Steve, you should let people discuss general topics in general topics and stop with the I know everything frame of mind. You may not agree with them but who in the hell are you to attack people you don't know over subjects you don't seem to have much of a grasp on?
I'm telling you you can't discuss it? You seem to be telling me I shouldn't discuss it.

Second, when have I ever claimed to know everything? I don't claim to know anything. That I argue against your points because they seem to me to be lacking.

Third, when have I attacked you? Saying you're playing the same game? That was a reference to what I said earlier, that you're repeating arguments you've already made in a fashion that makes it look like you've come up with something new.

Lastly, you say I don't seem to have much of a grasp on the subject. That's true, but I can read what has been written and learn from it. Are you saying your grasp on the subject is better? Then show it. Until then, ending your post with a rant does a disservice to both of us.

Simmy

04-26-13, 11:24 PM

A scientific theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. If enough evidence accumulates to support a hypothesis, it moves to the next step—known as a theory—in the scientific method and becomes accepted as a valid explanation of a phenomenon.

Yes, when you need something to hang on to to keep from drowning, you create your own definition. Much like they did with the word "planet".

Per my earlier link, there is no such thing as "fact" in science, just today's assumptions waiting to be disproven. What you choose to ignore is that the majority of scientists accept evolution because it is the theory that currently fits the known facts (i.e. the fossil record) the best. Tomorrow it may no longer be, but that's tomorrow.

Oh I don't ignore anything and understand that most scientist accept one or the other of the many versions of the theory. That still does not make it fact.

http://ncse.com/evolution/education/definitions-fact-theory-law-scientific-work
Yes there is truth in science, well truth as far as we will ever be able to prove it. That's when something is so well proven that no one can demonstrate it to be wrong.

Third, when have I attacked you? Saying you're playing the same game? That was a reference to what I said earlier, that you're repeating arguments you've already made in a fashion that makes it look like you've come up with something new.

When was it I made this argument before? You must be confusing me with someone else. And who could come up with something new concerning something people have argued about now since the 1800's? That is a ridiculous statement.

My original post was mainly in light of the title of this thread. Men never walk the earth with dinosaurs, though it appears both have existed.

Anyway each to his own.

Sailor Steve

04-26-13, 11:31 PM

Are you saying I said that? Better look again.
No, the quote was from the link. I'm sorry, I could have done that better, but a quick read-through should have shown you that.

When was it I made this argument before? You must be confusing me with someone else.
:rotfl2: :damn:

Laughing at myself, and kicking myself at the same time. Yes, in tiredness and not thinking I confused "Simmy" with "Sammi". My fault, and I apologize. And I'd like to start over please. :oops:

soopaman2

04-26-13, 11:57 PM

http://web.stagram.com/p/437731966365779464_15896072

Anthony Cumia from the Radio duo Opie and Anthony has this in his yard.

He is also a hardcore right winger.

Coincidence?:O:

Skybird

04-27-13, 06:22 AM

Yes, when you need something to hang on to to keep from drowning, you create your own definition.

It is not "my definition" neither by wording nor by content, it is common academic consensus. But feel free to continue clowning along. Why caring for facts or reality, if one has a personal "opinion" painting things differently.

Simmy

04-27-13, 12:18 PM

It is not "my definition" neither by wording nor by content, it is common academic consensus. But feel free to continue clowning along. Why caring for facts or reality, if one has a personal "opinion" painting things differently.

Theory

A scientific theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. A theory is valid as long as there is no evidence to dispute it. Therefore, theories can be disproven. Basically, if evidence accumulates to support a hypothesis, then the hypothesis can become accepted as a good explanation of a phenomenon. One definition of a theory is to say it's an accepted hypothesis.

Example: It is known that on June 30, 1908 in Tunguska, Siberia, there was an explosion equivalent to the detonation of about 15 million tons of TNT. Many hypotheses have been proposed for what caused the explosion. It is theorized that the explosion was caused by a natural extraterrestrial phenomenon, and was not caused by man. Is this theory a fact? No. The event is a recorded fact. Is this this theory generally accepted to be true, based on evidence to-date? Yes. Can this theory be shown to be false and be discarded? Yes.

Anne Marie Helmenstine, Ph.D.,

Look, all I am saying is that a theory by any other name is still a theory.

Laughing at myself, and kicking myself at the same time. Yes, in tiredness and not thinking I confused "Simmy" with "Sammi". My fault, and I apologize. And I'd like to start over please.

No harm done. And yes, let's start over:)

Buddahaid

04-27-13, 12:27 PM

Well one could argue the bible is a fantasy. Shall we start splitting hairs on that definition.

...the forming of mental images, especially wondrous or strange fancies; imaginative conceptualizing.....

August

04-27-13, 12:31 PM

...the forming of mental images, especially wondrous or strange fancies; imaginative conceptualizing.....

How else would you describe a concept that the human race barely comprehends let alone understands?

Buddahaid

04-27-13, 12:51 PM

How else would you describe a concept that the human race barely comprehends let alone understands?

I can't August but I grow tired of defending scientific theory as more than a fantasy.

Simmy

04-27-13, 03:11 PM

Well one could argue the bible is a fantasy. Shall we start splitting hairs on that definition.

Be my guest. Me is thinking you think I have some motive, I don't.
Just adding to a general topic. The definition I posted was by a scientist with a PH.D who does not happen to be a creationist.

I grow tired of defending scientific theory as more than a fantasy.

I nowhere claimed the theory was a fantasy. Only that it is a theory.
And who are you to be defending scientific theory? You are an expert in this theory I'm thinking?
I only care about the truth. If the theory is proven true, well and good with me. I look at a number of things of interest and I don't claim to be an expert of any of them. Sometimes you post something people are interested in and sometime not so much. I can take it, it's only a past time that changes no one and convicts no one.

Safe-Keeper

05-11-13, 04:18 AM

Are people still, after 30+ pages, stuck on the "evolution is just a theory" discussion:doh:?
Wow.

Theory

A scientific theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. A theory is valid as long as there is no evidence to dispute it. Therefore, theories can be disproven. Basically, if evidence accumulates to support a hypothesis, then the hypothesis can become accepted as a good explanation of a phenomenon. One definition of a theory is to say it's an accepted hypothesis.

Example: It is known that on June 30, 1908 in Tunguska, Siberia, there was an explosion equivalent to the detonation of about 15 million tons of TNT. Many hypotheses have been proposed for what caused the explosion. It is theorized that the explosion was caused by a natural extraterrestrial phenomenon, and was not caused by man. Is this theory a fact? No. The event is a recorded fact. Is this this theory generally accepted to be true, based on evidence to-date? Yes. Can this theory be shown to be false and be discarded? Yes.

Anne Marie Helmenstine, Ph.D.,Bad example aside, there are countless theories out there that are also proven facts. Such as, oh, evolution.

I think maybe what confuses you is that scientists are always open to being proven wrong, and that this to us laymen could be taken to mean that "oh, they don't have enough evidence to be 100% certain yet". Not quite. Sure, we could discover tomorrow that the Earth is really flat, and sure, we're open to the possibility, but it's still safe to consider it a fact that the Earth is round.

Either way, I still find it funny how religious people have so high standards for evidence regarding ideas they dislike... yet buy into their own worldview solely on the basis of "faith" :P .

Look, all I am saying is that a theory by any other name is still a theory.Um, no. The word "theory", like most every other word, has different meanings in different contexts. It's a red herring anyway, of course, 'cause evolution has so much evidence going for it that it doesn't matter if there are still "holes" or uncertainty.

Meanwhile, why don't you go tell the residents of Hiroshima that atoms are "only a theory". I'll be rigth here.

Hottentot

05-11-13, 05:12 AM

In before 60th page.

Cybermat47

05-11-13, 06:09 AM

Seriously? This thread is still going? :doh:

u crank

05-11-13, 06:40 AM

Are people still, after 30+ pages, stuck on the "evolution is just a theory" discussion:doh:?
Wow.

It wasn't stuck, it was over.

You're the first poster in two weeks. :O:

Jimbuna

05-11-13, 07:54 AM

Aye that :yep:

Sailor Steve

05-11-13, 10:04 AM

Yep. It was nicely and neatly done, but you had to bring it back just so you could point out it was still going...

Catfish

05-11-13, 02:32 PM

I am probably the last to post in this thread.
:)

05-11-13, 02:57 PM

Is someone trying to rise the dinosaurs?

http://www.releasedonkey.com/med/MV5BMjE2MTUzNTU2NF5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTcwOTg5MTY3Ng@@._ V1._CR341,0,1365,1365_SS160_/picture-of-sam-neill-in-jurassic-park-iii.jpg

Betonov

05-11-13, 03:50 PM

As long as this thread is up again, anyone got any good recipees to share :hmmm:

Cybermat47

05-11-13, 04:32 PM

As long as this thread is up again, anyone got any good recipees to share :hmmm:

I'll go and check...

Sailor Steve

05-11-13, 04:35 PM

We have enough bad joke threads already. Please leave this one alone.

Simmy

05-23-13, 02:32 AM

Bad example aside, there are countless theories out there that are also proven facts. Such as, oh, evolution.

?????????????????????????
This is your answer to a scientist with a Ph.D.?
Now I am happy because you have made it so clear!:huh:

Meanwhile, why don't you go tell the residents of Hiroshima that atoms are "only a theory". I'll be rigth here.

Why would anyone want to tell them atoms are "only a theory" when they are a fact???????????

:har::haha: This is the best post on this whole subject...:rotfl2:

Cybermat47

05-23-13, 02:40 AM

^^^^

Um... you do realise that you just revived this completely pointless thread, right? :nope: :down:

Catfish

05-23-13, 05:55 AM

Now for something not so completely different.
Here is a recipe (one of the favourite university jokes, in paleontology):
http://recipes.stevex.net/recipe/anomalocaris_noodle_casserole

Anomalocaris (from early to mid-cambrian) should have died out long ago, or to be more precise since at least 485 million years, but since we have this recipe this is the evidence they still roam the seas.

On the other hand (quote):
" *If anomalocaris is out of season (or era) tuna is an acceptable
substitute."
:yep:

Hottentot

05-23-13, 06:18 AM

Um... you do realise that you just revived this completely pointless thread, right? :nope: :down:

The power of Last Word Syndrome is compelling.

Sailor Steve

05-23-13, 10:13 AM

This is your answer to a scientist with a Ph.D.?
Then why can't you figure out how to use the 'quote' button? It's on the lower right. That way people wouldn't have to hunt around to find out who you're responding to and when they said it.

Also, the posts above are right. If you're going to respond to something, try to do it immediately, not almost two weeks later.

And if you're going to respond, at least make an effort to actually make an argument, not just insult people because you think it's funny.

Please feel free to respond, but only if you actually have something to add. Otherwise, please let it die.

Platapus

05-23-13, 05:47 PM

^^^^

Um... you do realise that you just revived this completely pointless thread, right? :nope: :down:

To quote Pet Semetary: Sometimes dead is better

Jimbuna

05-23-13, 06:10 PM

The power of Last Word Syndrome is compelling.

Amen

Simmy

05-25-13, 09:33 AM

Then why can't you figure out how to use the 'quote' button? It's on the lower right. That way people wouldn't have to hunt around to find out who you're responding to and when they said it.

Also, the posts above are right. If you're going to respond to something, try to do it immediately, not almost two weeks later.

And if you're going to respond, at least make an effort to actually make an argument, not just insult people because you think it's funny.

Please feel free to respond, but only if you actually have something to add. Otherwise, please let it die.

I'm sorry, I learn something new everyday.
I replied late because it's the first time in a while that I was able to check in.
I didn't mean to insult anyone, sorry for that, I did just think it was funny.
And I here by declare this subject dead and gone.:)

Iceman

05-27-13, 08:42 PM

Lol... Nothing new under the sun...

Simmy

05-28-13, 05:14 PM

Lol... Nothing new under the sun...

Well I thought it was done and over.
And then Iceman throws this diddy in.
So I am wondering, where is Sailor Steve with that same nonsense he gave me? What does this statement mean? I have no idea.

I see he has quoted Solomon with no real reference to the question at hand.
Take note Sailor Steve.

To me quotes that have no bearing on the subject are just meaningless.

Here is the problem plain and simple:
If you believe in "creation" and think the earth is 3,000 years old, then science presents you with a big problem since it can show that the earth is hundreds of thousands if not billions of years old.

If you believe in "evolution" then you have to choose which theory within the theory you subscrribe to. Not everyone in the evolution boat believes in the same idea. It is as simple as that.
So you give me your answer and I will give you the reply of men/women who went to the same colleges and universities with the same degrees who will disagree with your belief.

So in the end, nothing changes except the misquided thought patterns of people who see things one way, their way.

Since this can go no further, I declare it closed, unless Sailor Steve can find something else I alone have violated.:)

Have a nice day.

Sailor Steve

05-28-13, 08:23 PM

Well I thought it was done and over.
And then Iceman throws this diddy in.
So I am wondering, where is Sailor Steve with that same nonsense he gave me? What does this statement mean? I have no idea.
First, he only posted two days after you did. Silly and useless, but it looks like he didn't plan on posting more, so I let it slide. He didn't come in after two weeks and try to revive an old argument.

I see he has quoted Solomon with no real reference to the question at hand.
Take note Sailor Steve.
I have no idea what he meant or why he said it. It was pointless, sure, but it was also obvious he wasn't trying to have the last word. Apparently he was making a joke about some people's inability to let go. On the other hand Iceman is a confessed Christian who used to post regularly, but these days seems to prefer hit-and-run posting.

To me quotes that have no bearing on the subject are just meaningless.
And rehashing the same points over and over isn't?

Here is the problem plain and simple:
If you believe in "creation" and think the earth is 3,000 years old, then science presents you with a big problem since it can show that the earth is hundreds of thousands if not billions of years old.
Already been said several times in the thread.

If you believe in "evolution" then you have to choose which theory within the theory you subscrribe to. Not everyone in the evolution boat believes in the same idea. It is as simple as that.
So you give me your answer and I will give you the reply of men/women who went to the same colleges and universities with the same degrees who will disagree with your belief.
And?

So in the end, nothing changes except the misquided thought patterns of people who see things one way, their way.
To paraphase Solomon, there's nothing new in this thread. Still you insist on trying to prove you are right. Why?

Since this can go no further, I declare it closed, unless Sailor Steve can find something else I alone have violated.:)
So after "declaring" the thread "dead and gone" you drop back in to continue the argument and then "declare" it closed again? Also, "you alone". If you bothered to look you would see I said much the same to SafeKeeper two weeks (but only one page) earlier.

I'd say Hottentot was right:
The power of Last Word Syndrome is compelling.

NeonSamurai

05-28-13, 08:53 PM

In before the lock :D

I guess this would be a bad time to post responses to what we were debating about over a month ago... Always had meant to come back to this thread and answer some questions posed and debate some other stuff, but alas no time, no time.

Cybermat47

05-28-13, 08:59 PM

This thread's being locked?

YEE-HAAAW!

*Rides lock bomb*

:arrgh!:

razark

05-28-13, 09:19 PM

Always had meant to come back to this thread and answer some questions posed and debate some other stuff, but alas no time, no time.
Just wait around until the next incarnation of this topic.

(Not that debate is going to change anybody's mind.)

August

05-28-13, 09:35 PM

IBTL :yep:

CaptainHaplo

05-28-13, 09:36 PM

People have opinions.

Some people think the sky is blue. Technically, its not. A "green shirt" isn't really green - it merely reflects that amplitude in the light spectrum to our eyes. It is all a matter of perspective.

None of us will know the ultimate "TRUTH" until we die in this plane. If some people are right and there is no God , then it really won't matter. On the other hand, if those of Faith are right, it will. I choose my side, you choose yours. It's all good - because we don't have to agree. I choose Faith. Many others will. Many more won't. Their choice.

Nothing worth arguing about when you look at it from that light.

Sailor Steve

05-28-13, 10:18 PM

This thread's being locked?
Since Neon is one of the forum moderators, if he was going to lock it I assume he would have done so when he posted.

Sailor Steve

05-28-13, 10:19 PM

Nothing worth arguing about when you look at it from that light.
And yet you're still arguing about it.

CaptainHaplo

05-29-13, 05:52 AM

And yet you're still arguing about it.

Uhm - Steve... where in my post did I make any argument? Nowhere did I say that "my view is right because of A,B,C and any other view is wrong because of X,Y,Z".

C'mon now....

Skybird

05-29-13, 06:07 AM

People have opinions.

Some people think the sky is blue. Technically, its not. A "green shirt" isn't really green - it merely reflects that amplitude in the light spectrum to our eyes. It is all a matter of perspective.

:dead:

"People have no opinions. It is just a dance of electrons and neurotransmitters, performing patterns and sequences that only show that they do it this way, and not in any other way. It is all a matter of perspective."

What you say, in my book ranks as total nihilism. According to Camus, nihilism does not mean to believe in nothing, but not to believe in what is.

Skybird

05-29-13, 06:11 AM

People wonder when this thread will get locked? Maybe this quote can accelerate things a bit:

"The argument for religious faith would be an insult to an ape, let alone a human being. So why is religion popular? Because it's easy to explain to idiots. Magic always is."

Pat Condell

CaptainHaplo

05-29-13, 07:27 AM

Skybird - you cannot DISPROVE that a Supreme Diety exists. I can not (to your satisfaction) prove one does. By extension, no person of Faith can prove the existence of God to another person, nor can any atheist disprove the existence of God. Thus, it becomes a matter of personal opinion based on experience and the choice of what to believe.

Nothing nihilistic about that.

I will say that I doubt insults will get the thread locked, but may very well get you an infraction.....

antikristuseke

05-29-13, 10:42 AM

Well, in the absence of evidence there is no reason to assume there is a supreme being, but it is also foolish to claim that there can not be one.

Oberon

05-29-13, 10:48 AM

Like the Tyrannosaurus Rex, let this thing rest in peace.

Sailor Steve

05-29-13, 10:54 AM

Uhm - Steve... where in my post did I make any argument? Nowhere did I say that "my view is right because of A,B,C and any other view is wrong because of X,Y,Z".

C'mon now....
Then why jump back in at all. Technically you only stated your opinion on faith. Yet this thread was never about faith; it was about a person saying that he believed that paleontology could be reconciled with creationism by explaining how people within the biblical context could have caused the extinction of the dinosaurs. You never addressed that particular point, and have more than once tried to turn it into an argument about the existence of God, therefore only a matter of opinion. That itself is indeed an argument.

Platapus

05-29-13, 04:29 PM

None of us would stand by and watch a dog suffer, but we somehow keep this thread alive.....:hmmm:
:D

Jimbuna

05-29-13, 04:38 PM

Agreed...getting a bit worn now.

CaptainHaplo

05-29-13, 06:56 PM

Then why jump back in at all.
I dunno - why did you? Or am I wrong for doing so but your not?

Technically you only stated your opinion on faith. Yet this thread was never about faith; it was about a person saying that he believed that paleontology could be reconciled with creationism by explaining how people within the biblical context could have caused the extinction of the dinosaurs. You never addressed that particular point

He believes something. He can't prove it. Thus he has faith... And as for never addressing his idea regarding humans hunting T-rex, sure I did - see post #85 where I called him a moron.
http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showpost.php?p=2036736&postcount=85

Prior to that my posts were pointedly about how mocking those of Faith because they choose to believe does not follow the guidelines of Subsim.

, and have more than once tried to turn it into an argument about the existence of God, therefore only a matter of opinion. That itself is indeed an argument.

I reread every post I made in here. Know when I talked about the existence of God in any way? It was in answering questions - and it happened 2x in this thread. Both times my post was in response to a question posed by someone else. In fact, the first time I did so was in response to YOU, Steve. So who was making it about the topic? You who asked, or me for answering?

If you ask a question about creationism, I am not somehow forcing a discussion on the existence of God when I answer, since creationism relies on the existence of God. If you don't want to go into a subject, don't ask about it. Don't scream foul when your answered.

If you can locate any other example in this thread where I tried to "argue the existence of God" then show me. Otherwise, you accuse me wrongly.

My point in returning to this thread initially is the same as it was at first - everyone is entitled to their opinion - and there is no reason to argue (or insult) others who differ with you.

Sailor Steve

05-29-13, 08:11 PM

I dunno - why did you? Or am I wrong for doing so but your not?
I stayed out of the thread for two weeks, only coming back in to criticize someone for reviving it just to point out it had been revived. I then let it lie for another two weeks, only coming back in to criticize someone for reviving it to "prove" a point that was done more than a month earlier. Since then I've tried to stop people from repeating the same arguments over and over. Now it Neon Samurai wanted, as he said, to clarify and defend the arguments he made before, that might be different only because he was on an extended trip and unable to contribute. But he chose not to. That certainly says something.

He believes something. He can't prove it. Thus he has faith... And as for never addressing his idea regarding humans hunting T-rex, sure I did - see post #85 where I called him a moron.
Yes you did. I apologize. As for people mocking him, it's not because of his faith but because of his trying to prove it, and the way he did so.

Prior to that my posts were pointedly about how mocking those of Faith because they choose to believe does not follow the guidelines of Subsim.
We try to stay on top of it. On the other hand what either one of us may think about guidelines, only posts that actually break the rules are dealt with in a strict manner. Also, it doesn't seem that a lot of the people you think are attacking Christians are actually doing so. Some, sure, but a lot of the "attacks" look to me like people saying what they think, whether I agree or not. There's nothing wrong with that kind of debate. As I said earlier in the thread, just blindly calling a group idiots doesn't do anything for anybody. On the other hand, expressing an opinion that Christians (or anyone else) seem to willing avoid any evidence that contradicts them is a matter of personal opinion and does not constitute an attack.

I reread every post I made in here. Know when I talked about the existence of God in any way? It was in answering questions - and it happened 2x in this thread. Both times my post was in response to a question posed by someone else. In fact, the first time I did so was in response to YOU, Steve. So who was making it about the topic? You who asked, or me for answering?
Forgive me if I confused you with someone else, but more than once people have tried to divert the discussion and others like it with a comment that it all comes down to faith. "You believe this, and I believe that." This is emphatically true when talking about God, but it is just as emphatically not true when talking about science. Creationism vs Evolution is a matter of science, and bringing faith into it actually twists the discussion in ways that destroy it rather than define it. This is also true for people arguing for Evolution who stop talking about Creationism and start talking about believers. Not all Christians are Creationists, and not all Creationists are Christians. Mixing the two discussions detracts from both, no matter who does the mixing.

If you ask a question about creationism, I am not somehow forcing a discussion on the existence of God when I answer, since creationism relies on the existence of God. If you don't want to go into a subject, don't ask about it. Don't scream foul when your answered.
True, but simply saying it's a matter of belief is not an answer, it's a diversion.

If you can locate any other example in this thread where I tried to "argue the existence of God" then show me. Otherwise, you accuse me wrongly.
You may well be right. It's easy to confuse what others have said and what you have said in other situations. My point was simply to try to keep the thread from growing again. If it does start up again, fine, but it would be nice if it was a real debate, not just people trying to get the last word in.

My point in returning to this thread initially is the same as it was at first - everyone is entitled to their opinion - and there is no reason to argue (or insult) others who differ with you.
Fair enough. I just felt that it didn't need to be said again. If I'm wrong, it won't be the first time.

CaptainHaplo

05-29-13, 08:14 PM

Fair enough.

Then I think we can both consider it water under the bridge, my friend. :)

Cybermat47

05-29-13, 08:27 PM

only coming back in to criticize someone for reviving it just to point out it had been revived.

If that was because of this:

Seriously? This thread is still going? :doh:

There were actually two posts before that, and one was just Hottentot expressing his annoyance with his typical humour.

I love that guy.

Sailor Steve

05-29-13, 10:17 PM

If that was because of this:
No, it was because of the one two posts above yours.

Hottentot

05-30-13, 12:22 AM

There were actually two posts before that, and one was just Hottentot expressing his annoyance with his typical humour.

I love that guy.

GROUP HUG!!!!!!!! :sunny:

Tribesman

05-30-13, 01:59 AM

In the beginning there was the word and the word was Creationist Explains How Humans Could Have Hunted The Tyrannosaurus Rex and lo the sky filled with the roar of laughter as the outcome of the topic was well known as it is fortold.

Cybermat47

05-30-13, 02:03 AM

^^^^

:har:

Armistead

05-30-13, 06:43 AM

I can't believe this thread is still going..

Simmy

05-30-13, 08:50 AM

You may well be right. It's easy to confuse what others have said and what you have said in other situations. My point was simply to try to keep the thread from growing again. If it does start up again, fine, but it would be nice if it was a real debate, not just people trying to get the last word in.

Someone else mentioned this stuff about getting the last word in.
I wonder where that idea came from?
Getting the last word no way means your right, no way means you win. It sounds to me to just be a reply to get the last word in.
I declared this thing dead, but I guess others had different thoughts.

My last reply:
Here is the problem plain and simple:
If you believe in "creation" and think the earth is 3,000 years old, then science presents you with a big problem since it can show that the earth is hundreds of thousands if not billions of years old.

If you believe in "evolution" then you have to choose which theory within the theory you subscrribe to. Not everyone in the evolution boat believes in the same idea. It is as simple as that.
So you give me your answer and I will give you the reply of men/women who went to the same colleges and universities with the same degrees who will disagree with your belief.

So in the end, nothing changes except the misquided thought patterns of people who see things one way, their way.

Was to show that both sides had problems with this subject. No one noticed anything I posted, only that it was two weeks later and I was just trying to get the last word in, and I wasn't making an argument.

Heres what cracks me up:
"The argument for religious faith would be an insult to an ape, let alone a human being. So why is religion popular? Because it's easy to explain to idiots. Magic always is."
Pat Condell

Condell is an atheist. So to quote him as having any kind of meaning to the discussion makes him and the poster correct?
This goes on without question while I get railed on for posting after two weeks.:nope: Is there a rule about two weeks? Maybe there should be.
Now wait for at least one more post, I don't want to be the last. That might mean I win or something, and then lock this damn thing up.:yep:

Armistead

05-30-13, 09:01 AM

Getting the last word no way means your right, no way means you win.

Tell that to my wife....:O: She has no problem getting the last word in and claiming victory.

Hottentot

05-30-13, 09:20 AM

Someone else mentioned this stuff about getting the last word in.
I wonder where that idea came from?
Getting the last word no way means your right, no way means you win. It sounds to me to just be a reply to get the last word in.
I declared this thing dead, but I guess others had different thoughts.

"Declaring things dead" is doing exactly that. Not to mention doing it twice and still going on two pages later. You don't declare things dead. You simply stop posting in topic and move on. Eventually everyone else will do the same.

Try it with this post.

Sailor Steve

05-30-13, 09:20 AM

Someone else mentioned this stuff about getting the last word in.
I wonder where that idea came from?
Getting the last word no way means your right, no way means you win. It sounds to me to just be a reply to get the last word in.
You're welcome to think what you want.

I declared this thing dead
Twice. Like you have the power to declare anything at all.

No one noticed anything I posted, only that it was two weeks later and I was just trying to get the last word in, and I wasn't making an argument.
You might want to go back and check what you said at that time. The thread was just lying there for two weeks. Somebody else brought it back just to say it was still going. We gave him grief. Then it lay there for two more weeks. You posted, but made no argument at all.
?????????????????????????
This is your answer to a scientist with a Ph.D.?
Now I am happy because you have made it so clear!:huh:

Why would anyone want to tell them atoms are "only a theory" when they are a fact???????????

:har::haha: This is the best post on this whole subject...:rotfl2:

Is there a rule about two weeks? Maybe there should be.
Were you infracted for violating a rule? No, you were criticized for resurrecting a thread for no good reason.

and then lock this damn thing up.:yep:
Still giving orders?

Tribesman

05-30-13, 09:26 AM

I can't believe this thread is still going..

Belief is not required, evidence you supplied yourself proves that the continuing existance of this creation was ongoing at the time of your post.
Demonstrable facts beat belief any day, apart from holidays:03:

Armistead

05-30-13, 09:32 AM

Belief is not required, evidence you supplied yourself proves that the continuing existance of this creation was ongoing at the time of your post.
Demonstrable facts beat belief any day, apart from holidays:03:

Just because you say it, doesn't make it so. I don't have to supply evidence to myself and no one can make me.

I declare this thread dead......

Tribesman

05-30-13, 09:38 AM

Just because you say it, doesn't make it so.
Further proof that it is still going.

Armistead

05-30-13, 10:05 AM

Further proof that it is still going.

You only keep posting after me to insure I don't pass you in post count.

Jimbuna

05-30-13, 11:29 AM

Are we all done now?

Skybird

05-30-13, 11:54 AM

Are we all done now?

Wait, I'll prick a fork into my head and then will tell you.

Armistead

05-30-13, 11:59 AM

Are we all done now?

That's it Jim, get the thread all fired back up again....

August

05-30-13, 12:14 PM

Wait, I'll prick a fork into my head and then will tell you.

Pictures or it didn't happen. :DL

Jimbuna

05-30-13, 12:56 PM

Wait, I'll prick a fork into my head and then will tell you.

Then be quick about it :)

That's it Jim, get the thread all fired back up again....

Pardon?

Tribesman

05-30-13, 01:24 PM

You only keep posting after me to insure I don't pass you in post count.
Would you repeat that?

Armistead

05-30-13, 02:40 PM

Pardon?

Is that yet another question?

Armistead

05-30-13, 02:41 PM

Would you repeat that?

Just reread the post...

Jimbuna

05-30-13, 02:55 PM

Is that yet another question?

That is a well used British way of asking you to explain what you meant in the quote below.

That's it Jim, get the thread all fired back up again....

Simmy

05-30-13, 03:17 PM

Seek First to understand.
And Then to be understood!

Not trying to give any oders Steve. You wanted it to die and when I wanted the same thing, you flip flop.

I'm welcome to think what I want? Well thank you. Cause it seemsd you had a problem with everything I thought. Again, flip flop.

You might want to go back and check what you said at that time. The thread was just lying there for two weeks. Somebody else brought it back just to say it was still going. We gave him grief. Then it lay there for two more weeks. You posted, but made no argument at all.

Iceman? You gave him nothing. It was I who guestioned you. Check for yourself. And the argument was made, you simply refused to see it.

Were you infracted for violating a rule? No, you were criticized for resurrecting a thread for no good reason.

Criticized by you. The resident expert on everything anyone else posts.:nope:

I have no power to do anything, then again neither do you. You only think you do.

And you have never made any comment to anything I have posted about the original subject. Which makes me think you cherry pick as to what and to who you will begin your silly attack.

I here by declare this thread open and alive to any who want to carry on.

"Declaring things dead" is doing exactly that. Not to mention doing it twice and still going on two pages later. You don't declare things dead. You simply stop posting in topic and move on. Eventually everyone else will do the same.
Try it with this post.

Hottentot, I have decided to do just that. Lets see if you can do the same.

Tribesman

05-30-13, 03:34 PM

I here by declare this thread open and alive to any who want to carry on.

I hereby declare that good friday will be on a tuesday.

Armistead

05-30-13, 03:46 PM

That is a well used British way of asking you to explain what you meant in the quote below.

I was done, but you asked the question if I was done, causing me to respond yet again, in which you asked another question, in which I responded yet again. I feel it only polite to answer your questions.

Armistead

05-30-13, 03:49 PM

I hereby declare that good friday will be on a tuesday.

Let's stay on topic....

Tribesman

05-30-13, 06:12 PM

Let's stay on topic....
It is.
The topic was crucified and this is the resurrection.

Oberon

05-30-13, 06:26 PM

It is.
The topic was crucified and this is the resurrection.

Alien: Resurrection more like... :dead:

Hottentot

05-31-13, 12:54 AM

Hottentot, I have decided to do just that. Lets see if you can do the same.

The point of my previous post and its last line especially is thus proven: you can't. You couldn't even ignore that very post even when I specifically encouraged you to try it. But you can't. You blame the others all you want, but Steve already explained what the major difference between you and the rest is. Here:

You might want to go back and check what you said at that time. The thread was just lying there for two weeks. Somebody else brought it back just to say it was still going. We gave him grief. Then it lay there for two more weeks. You posted, but made no argument at all.

Therefore: Last Word Syndrome.

Sailor Steve

05-31-13, 01:13 AM

Not trying to give any oders Steve. You wanted it to die and when I wanted the same thing, you flip flop.
Not so. I don't care whether it dies or not. I only care when people ressurect things for no apparent reason.

I'm welcome to think what I want? Well thank you. Cause it seemsd you had a problem with everything I thought. Again, flip flop.
Well, it seems wrong. If you add something to the discussion I'll either address it or ignore it.

Iceman? You gave him nothing. It was I who guestioned you. Check for yourself. And the argument was made, you simply refused to see it.
Not Iceman, Safe-Keeper. I apologize to him for bringing him up again, but he was the one I was referring to.

Criticized by you. The resident expert on everything anyone else posts.:nope:
And Cybermat. And Platypus. And Hottentot. And Jimbuna. You just chose to respond to me.

I have no power to do anything, then again neither do you. You only think you do.
But then I'm not the one who keeps declaring the thread closed, and then demanding it be locked.

And you have never made any comment to anything I have posted about the original subject. Which makes me think you cherry pick as to what and to who you will begin your silly attack.
So I didn't do the same to Safe-Keeper, for the same reason?

I here by declare this thread open and alive to any who want to carry on.
There you go giving orders again...