Don't tell me there's any proof for creationism.

real life wrote:

TheCorrectResponse wrote:
So you also believe that there were spacemen and UFOs living along side people and dinos?

This is why it's hard to take you seriously. You're continually producing strawmen.

Ha, it's so funny to see YOU complaining about strawmen. Smile

0 Replies

Real,
You know I taught logic (boolean algebra) for seveal years and we somehow managed to get by without the terms strawman, yadda yadda ad absurdum, etc. and all the other such terms that are so common here.
Its a wonder my students learned anything.

Gee what could that be in Cambodia. Wellllll....since the asian mythologies are full of dragon myths how about that. Or did they just take those myths from all the fire breathing dinosaurs that lived then?

So since I answered your question here is one for you. How do I not the brilliant mind that you are make the distinction that the pictures contain dinosaurs but can disregard the spacemen/UFOs? What basis do I use when you are not around to ask?

Still waiting on the other thread for your demonstration of how thermodynamics disproves evolution...

0 Replies

Actually it took me three minutes to look in the Book the mythic image and not only find it was a serpent but its name: the serpent Vasuki which vishnu had the gods use to stir the cosmic ocean. Still waiting on your response to my question.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Natural selection is not a 'force' in any real sense of the word.

Yep, notice the little ' ' that I put around the word.

0 Replies

theMadJW wrote:

You said ""science proposes a natural 'force' directing evolution"- just THINK about that! You step out of your car as its slowly moving- what will be directing it into the proper lane? What will direct it to stop at the CrossWalk, etc.?

I have no idea what you're getting at here. What does this have to do with anything we're talking about?

Quote:

Using the example of the elaborate cellullar networks, NOTHING shows "random" 'selection'- there ARE no disorganized groups of cells mixed in with the networked; they are ALL networked to co-ordinate in various TECNICAL ways for a common function. This "Natural Selection" truly IS Natural- since God (whomever He really is) is the one that "directed" them.

I am not arguing FOR a "random" selection, I'm explaining to you that selection ISN'T random. Are you dense as well as a liar? God is SUPER-natural, that is not what I'm arguing at all.

Quote:

Try being truthful with yourself, for a change!

I am not the one lying and misstating.

You lied when you said that the Theory of Evolution by means of Natural Selection was equalivant to 'blind chance'. It is not. SIMPLE FACT.

Retract that statement or your bible says you'll burn in hell.

0 Replies

Quote:

And when it doesn't occur, there's deafening silence.

Why do better adapted species sometimes not survive?

here are two more of your inventions. you've invented a natural selection that hasn't happened. name one.

you've invented a better adapted species that hasn't survived. name one species that was better adapted and didn't survive. it's your invention, surely you can think of one example.

if you can't, you can't, but i wish you'd stop inventing things you can't name one single example of, and acting like it's our job to do it for you.

0 Replies

TheCorrectResponse wrote:

Real,

Gee what could that be in Cambodia. Wellllll....since the asian mythologies are full of dragon myths how about that....

Actually it took me three minutes to look in the Book the mythic image and not only find it was a serpent but its name: the serpent Vasuki which vishnu had the gods use to stir the cosmic ocean.

OK, so do you think that ALL of the carvings on that temple (which appear to be various common animals) are mythical characters, or just that one (since it JUST CAN'T be a dinosaur)?

0 Replies

real life wrote:

OK, so do you think that ALL of the carvings on that temple (which appear to be various common animals) are mythical characters, or just that one (since it JUST CAN'T be a dinosaur)?

Why should yours be the only two choices? Why couldn't there be any number of mythical and real figures in that temple?

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

real life wrote:
OK, so do you think that ALL of the carvings on that temple (which appear to be various common animals) are mythical characters, or just that one (since it JUST CAN'T be a dinosaur)?

Why should yours be the only two choices? Why couldn't there be any number of mythical and real figures in that temple?

Thomas:

I think that is RL's point - as "any number" would be included in "ALL".

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

real life wrote:
OK, so do you think that ALL of the carvings on that temple (which appear to be various common animals) are mythical characters, or just that one (since it JUST CAN'T be a dinosaur)?

Why should yours be the only two choices? Why couldn't there be any number of mythical and real figures in that temple?

Because TCR was implying that I selectively interpreted images and I want to see if he does the same.

0 Replies

screw the prime directive

Quote:

(since it JUST CAN'T be a dinosaur)?

he's right, you know. it could be a dinosaur with a time machine.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Thomas wrote:
Why should yours be the only two choices? Why couldn't there be any number of mythical and real figures in that temple?

Because TCR was implying that I selectively interpreted images and I want to see if he does the same.

I can't follow your logic. Just because you want to to see if TCR selectively interprets images, why should that wipe out the possibility that there be any number of mythical and real figures in the Angkor temple?

0 Replies

Real:
Actually in gunga's post I referenced two seminal books out of many that contain intepretations of the symbology of the temple. In the above post I even NAMED the thing for you. It is a common symbol of the mythology of asia.

Interestingly you didn't answer one of my questions over several forums. I have even given up getting a real reply defending ANY of the nonsense you put out but you don't even have the courage to tell me how you come to your conclusions.

SO for the umteenth time. HOW DO I DETERMINE THAT THE DINOS ARE DEPICTIONS OF REAL CREATURES AROUND AT THAT TIME BUT AT THE SAME TIME CAN DISREGARD SPACEMEN AND UFOs which are present in the same types of cave paintings and sculptures around the world?

IF ENGLISH IS NOT YOUR NATIVE LANGUAGE TELL ME WHAT IT IS AND I'LL HAVE THIS TRANSLATED FOR YOU!!!

And were are still all waiting patiently, again over several topics and forums where you show how evolution is disproven by the laws of thermodynamics.

0 Replies

TheCorrectResponse wrote:

Real:
Actually in gunga's post I referenced two seminal books out of many that contain intepretations of the symbology of the temple. In the above post I even NAMED the thing for you. It is a common symbol of the mythology of asia.

Circular reasoning.

Why is it a myth?

'because it can't be what it appears to be'

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Circular reasoning.

Why is it a myth?

'because it can't be what it appears to be'

No, the reasoning is more like: "there are many interpretation of what this art shows; yours is only one of them; the others interpret them as something else. There is no compelling reason that your interpretation is more likely correct than theirs.

0 Replies

So in other word you still won't answer my questions.

Its funny you know more about science than people trained in science you know more about anthropology than people training in anthropology, yet you won't tell anyone HOW you know what you know.

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

real life wrote:
Circular reasoning.

Why is it a myth?

'because it can't be what it appears to be'

No, the reasoning is more like: "there are many interpretation of what this art shows; yours is only one of them; the others interpret them as something else. There is no compelling reason that your interpretation is more likely correct than theirs.

Is that what you think he said?

No, what he said was 'this is x' , not 'this could be many possible things, including what you have proposed'.

You should read his answer more carefully before you say I've responded incorrectly.

0 Replies

TheCorrectResponse wrote:

Its funny you know more about science than people trained in science you know more about anthropology than people training in anthropology

Strawman

0 Replies

Should I also believe vishnu was there, his image is all over the temple? Vishnu is a myth because he couldn't very well be god of the universe? Yea right.

0 Replies

And you still won't answer my questions!

P.S. You need to refamiliarize yourself with the definition of a strawman.

0 Replies

Don't tell me there's any proof for creationism.

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know