Creationist Explains How Humans Could Have Hunted The Tyrannosaurus Rex

[CaptainHaplo]

The guy is PH.D. - but not in theology. His education is in kinesiology.
While this does make him qualified to discuss in some ways to discuss the possibility of evolution, it does not qualify him as a theologian.

He is entitled to his belief, however inaccurate others may see it.

Seems to me to simply be a "lets hate on creationists thread" - as so aptly demonstrated by andyjwest:

Originally Posted by AndyJWest

I suspect the same technique would work with creationists.

Yes andy - I suspect it would - just as it would for any other group that you could trap in a canyon and drop rocks on their head.

This kind of hatefulness has begun to run rampant in GT, and it is sad to see. I wonder - what kind of a storm would it have created if it had been some other religion that had come up with such a claim?

[Cybermat47]

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

This kind of hatefulness has begun to run rampant in GT, and it is sad to see.

Amen to that

Ok, here's the deal. I'll apologise for mocking creationists when they stop insulting the intelligence of the rest of us with their nonsensical arguments.

[Sailor Steve]

Here's another deal: Why not go mock them in their own forums rather that waste space here? I will cheerfully debate them here if they want, but dragging someone else's ideas here just to mock is cheap, low and petty.

[Lord_magerius]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

Here's another deal: Why not go mock them in their own forums rather that waste space here? I will cheerfully debate them here if they want, but dragging someone else's ideas here just to mock is cheap, low and petty.

This, most definitely this.

[Cybermat47]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

Here's another deal: Why not go mock them in their own forums rather that waste space here? I will cheerfully debate them here if they want, but dragging someone else's ideas here just to mock is cheap, low and petty.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

Here's another deal: Why not go mock them in their own forums rather that waste space here? I will cheerfully debate them here if they want, but dragging someone else's ideas here just to mock is cheap, low and petty.

We also should never have dragged Northkorea's claim to have found dragon eggs in their mountains and to have spotted unicorns in their forests here, because just to mock was cheap, low and petty. We better mock their news in a forum about Northkorean news.

[HunterICX]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

Here's another deal: Why not go mock them in their own forums rather that waste space here? I will cheerfully debate them here if they want, but dragging someone else's ideas here just to mock is cheap, low and petty.

and

Originally Posted by Captain Haplo

This kind of hatefulness has begun to run rampant in GT, and it is sad to see. I wonder - what kind of a storm would it have created if it had been some other religion that had come up with such a claim?

I've seen enough Muslim/Islam ideas&actions bashing on these forums too, just a reminder.

HunterICX

[Hottentot]

Originally Posted by HunterICX

I've seen enough Muslim/Islam ideas&actions bashing on these forums too, just a reminder.

And lately the best result they have had has been a huge wave of yawning and sinking into oblivion.

[HunterICX]

Originally Posted by Hottentot

And lately the best result they have had has been a huge wave of yawning and sinking into oblivion.

That's mostly laughing and making fun of the OP and it are usually the same suspects over and over again and those are usually the more *cough* serious *cough* topics. But when a Iranian Imam say earthquakes are caused by women wearing bikinis it's all for good laughs right? Then I don't hear anyone say to take their mockery and cheap shots somewhere else or think it is sad to see a religion is trashed in this manner.

HunterICX

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by HunterICX

I've seen enough Muslim/Islam ideas&actions bashing on these forums too, just a reminder.

Of course. All kinds of bashing goes on here. Even threads like this one serve a purpose of sorts. I was speaking directly to people who have nothing more to add than "These people are all morons!" That kind of post serves no purpose at all.

If someone is making these claims here, fine. Show them they're wrong and why. Just saying "You're an ignoramus!" serves no purpose at all, especially when the claim wasn't even made here, but imported from another website.

On the other hand the people turning the "herding dinosaurs" claim into a joke about the best way to do said hunting are indeed serving a purpose. Humor is always a good thing.

[CaptainHaplo]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

Of course. All kinds of bashing goes on here. Even threads like this one serve a purpose of sorts. I was speaking directly to people who have nothing more to add than "These people are all morons!" That kind of post serves no purpose at all.

If someone is making these claims here, fine. Show them they're wrong and why. Just saying "You're an ignoramus!" serves no purpose at all, especially when the claim wasn't even made here, but imported from another website.

On the other hand the people turning the "herding dinosaurs" claim into a joke about the best way to do said hunting are indeed serving a purpose. Humor is always a good thing.

Right on, Steve!

"Bashing" one person's opinion does happen. Its when one person has a view, and suddenly that one idiotic view is used to bash an entire group - who may or may not agree with the original idiot - is where I start having issues.

It's like saying Kim Jong Un is a fat idiot. OK, maybe he is - but that doesn't mean that every North Korean is a fat idiot. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is a real idiot too - but that doesn't make every Iranian one. Barbara Boxer and Sarah Palin are considered moronic by some people, but that doesn't mean that every person that agrees with some things they say are all morons either.

The whole "I suspect the same technique would work on creationists" is lumping anyone who says they believe in "creationism" (whether in 7 days or 7 billion years) as worthy of being killed. That kind of thing simply does not belong here at Subsim.com - like it or not.

People here don't have to agree with someone, or a group of people. But the rules are clear - they do need to be generally respectful - and grouping folks together and talking about a way to kill them because they hold some specific belief or common view - does not qualify.

[Sammi79]

@NeonSamurai,

Your post is informative, thank you. I think we have somewhat crossed wires however, as far as I can tell our views are not so different. Bear with me and I'll try to explain the problems I have with your definitions of proof, facts, theories, and atheism. I think you likewise have missed my points and I urge you to take apart and show me the fallacy in any statement I have made.

First of all, the dictionary definitions are not inclusive - the word can mean any or all of the definitions, or it can mean one exclusively. Therefore - I have no problem being called an atheist, as defined as one who refuses to believe in god(s). I do not claim to know they do or do not exist, and as such I am also agnostic. It is possible to be an agnostic theist, in my experience Muslims are more open to this idea than Christians - the knowledge that whatever you think you know [about god(s)] you might be wrong, though you may still believe that it is more likely that god(s) exist. I just happen to think it more likely that they don't.

Now if I break it down logically, to explain the burden of proof in more detail (it is neither scientific nor legal, it is a burden that you give yourself every time you make a claim of truth or statement of fact, it is part of the rules concerning logic, reason and rhetoric as defined in classical education.

Consider a debate between a (1)theist and an (2)atheist like myself.

(1) states that a god exists as either truth or fact, then to fulfill his burden of proof offers arguments a,b,c

(2) makes no counter claim, but points out the flaws in (1)s arguments a,b,c

What is the result of this debate?

(2) although having offered no counter claim, has shown all of (1)s arguments to be flawed. Crucially (2) has no reason to change position, nor offer any arguments against (1)s claim.

(1) has been shown to have no case (without the arguments the claim has no support), and must either offer more arguments, retract his claim, or change his position. (If he is playing fair of course)

I hope that is clearer now - If I disagree with your claim that does not mean I have made or must make a counter claim. If I can show good reason why the arguments your claim stands upon are fallacious, and you cannot offer any non fallacious arguments then I have no reason to take your claim seriously until you can, and neither does anyone else.

Ok, now onto the facts and Theories. A fact is true as far as we know. Facts are like tiny binary pieces, 0 or 1. On their own they do not mean a great deal. This is where the (Scientific) theories come in. A scientific theory explains a whole bundle of facts in a way that is falsifiable, in the same way the facts are falsifiable. A theory is much greater than the sum of its facts. Just to be clear - falsifiable is what you mean when you say what science does is disprove things. In order for facts or theories to be accepted as true or proven, they must logically be open to tests that could disprove them. This is exactly why the hypothesis of gods and afterlives are irrelevant, they are not open in this way, so without making any claims of my own, I will not accept them until they are, and neither should anyone else. At least if they care about the truth.

If I may add another point about the probabilities you mentioned. Simply because there is no proof either way does not mean the probability must remain 50/50, and I will give you an example: Imagine a jar full of marbles, and you do not know how many. Far from being unable to define how many in any way, there are a great many numerical values you can discount immediately. There are more than 2. There are less than 1000. Of these facts you can be absolutely certain, even if you never count the marbles one by one by removing them from the jar.

Finally the word atheist. As well as the dictionary definitions we should not ignore the root - 'without theism' As a negative it is slightly nonsensical in itself, as we do not need negatives for all the other things that cannot be disproven - like an Afairyist, an Aunicornist, etc. However if one is needed to distinguish between believers and un/non/disbelievers then I am fine with that label.

I will reiterate, disbelief is dissimilar to belief. disbelief is not belief in the negative - that would be the same as belief. As an agnostic you do not believe either way, does that mean you are certain of the negative in both or either?

regards,
Sam.

[vienna]

Per se. And I can prove you're wrong here.

Hmm...have you any proof or evidence...

<O>

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by vienna

Hmm...have you any proof or evidence...

Of course, or I wouldn't have said it. On the other hand, since I'm so much smarter than you, you'll just have to take my word for it.