Nicely done, Norfolk...

There is a class of creationist moron slightly higher on the intelligence scale than Waldork ( which doesn't take much, I grant) which holds that there were dinosaurs but they were all plant eaters before the "Fall."




T-Rex must have hunted some killer cabbages with those!

looks like one mega hungry rock.

Minimalist Wrote:T-Rex must have hunted some killer cabbages with those!

LOL. Class Min

(November 14, 2011 at 12:08 pm)Minimalist Wrote: Nicely done, Norfolk...

There is a class of creationist moron slightly higher on the intelligence scale than Waldork ( which doesn't take much, I grant) which holds that there were dinosaurs but they were all plant eaters before the "Fall."

T-Rex must have hunted some killer cabbages with those!

The trick is to get the cabbages while they're sleeping! You see prehistoric "cabbages" were made of red meat and coursing with blood.

Does he think Little Shop of Horrors is factual to some degree?

(October 19, 2011 at 12:34 pm)thesummerqueen Wrote: Apologies if some of you have seen this before, but Blake Smith of the Monster Talk podcast put it on Facebook yesterday and I've just got done skimming through it.

http://www.ocii.com/~dpwozney/dinosaurs.htm

This guy makes Art Bell seem sane.

(November 10, 2011 at 6:04 pm)aleialoura Wrote: No, moron.

“Sticks and stones Love, sticks and stones.”

Quote: I was saying that fossils are how we have established that dinosaurs exist, and there is astounding evidence for the existence of dinosaurs, especially in comparison with god.

No there is actual proof for God’s existence; you haven’t provided any proof for the existence of Dinosaurs.

Quote: WTF do you mean we don't have fossils of humans?

That is exactly what I mean, and we don’t. The article you cited didn’t list any fossils for Homo sapiens, but rather some actual bones and skeletons.

Quote: Not that we need them to know humans exist! Wow. Are you drunk? Please say you are.

I don’t touch the stuff, but you had to be when you asked for fossils of God, right?

(November 10, 2011 at 6:37 pm)Rhythm Wrote: I don't demand logical proof of gods existence Stat. I'm amused that there isn't any, nevertheless what I demand is evidence. So go strawman somebody who doesn't enjoy calling you on your bullshit as much as me.

So the time I had to teach you the difference between a valid and sound logical argument we weren’t actually talking about logic and the existence of God? That’s good to know because I sure thought we were.

(November 10, 2011 at 9:26 pm)tuxcomputers Wrote: If there was a single rock (or even just a couple of dozen) that just happened to look like a bone then I would agree with you that rocks that look like bones would not be evidence for dinosaurs.

However there are hundreds and thousands of fossils, these aren't just random rocks that people bring in off the street. A theory requires that it is able to make predictions, there are people that study fossils, make predictions that they should be able to dig in a certain area and find certain fossils.

Here is where I just use the atheist’s response to critics of abiogenesis, “you are not actually arguing against the occurrence of improbable events are you? Given enough time anything is possible, such as thousands of rocks ending up looking like bones.”

Quote: When they do that low and behold they do not just find random rocks that happen to look like the shapes they are trying to find. They find fossils that look exactly like they predicted.

Not all the time, they do find surprises quite often.

Quote: They do not dig in the ground and create the shapes they want to find, the fossils are structurally different than the surrounding material.

That proves that dragon-like creatures existed millions of years ago how?

Quote: If the rocks were really just random shapes that happen to look like bones then why do we find the same shapes over and over again? Why do the rocks in the same location happen to make the shape of a functional animal instead of a hodge podge?

Given enough time the statistically impossible not only becomes possible but probable.

Quote: When you take those factors into account the chances of these "rocks" being random shapes that just happen to look like bones is zero.

It’s probably about the same as life spontaneously arising from non-life, but nobody believes in that now do they? :-P

Quote: Stop asserting that fossils are just rocks that happen to look like bones, you have your evidence that they aren't and your argument falls apart.

Evidence? I didn’t see any such evidence, you just made an argument from improbability much like the ID crowd does.

(November 10, 2011 at 9:57 pm)thesummerqueen Wrote: I accept dinosaurs because there is concrete evidence that we have already discussed. I do not accept god, or any divine being, for the same reason I don't accept bigfoot, or leprechauns, or the Dagda. No one has brought up tangible, credible evidence of any of them.

Concrete evidence? You mean the fossilization process that nobody has ever actually observed happen? That sounds like storytelling, not evidence to me.

Quote: You know what would make me "believe" in god? Show me a burning bush that isn't consumed by the flame with a voice speaking out of it. Give me a river that we knew was water turned within minutes (I'll give god that long) to blood. Give me these "miracles" spoken of in the bible that DO NOT HAPPEN OUTSIDE OF IT. I need evidence. Not stories.

Even if you saw such things you’d invoke some rescue mechanism to explain it away. The Egyptians saw the River turn to blood and yet they didn’t all magically convert, this is not a matter of evidence, it’s a matter of hearts. If a person’s heart is left unregenerate all the evidence in the world cannot convince them.

Quote: So fuck you very much - you've basically called a good swathe of us dishonest simply because we DID treat your god the same way we treat dinosaurs. I don't care if you want to back-pedal and say you were just 'playing' or not.

Not dishonest, irrational, which you are. You have never observed fossilization taking place, and yet you use it as “evidence” for the existence of dragon-like creatures millions of years ago. I have no problem with this, you are entitled to your faith positions as much as the next person.
[/quote]

(November 10, 2011 at 10:29 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Might also add that a great many fossils are found in sedimentary rock. Sand arranged itself into vertebrae and femurs? Not likely.

Given enough time the impossible not only becomes possible but probable. Stop arguing against the occurrence of unlikely events, you sound like an Intelligent Design proponent.

(November 11, 2011 at 6:54 am)chadster1976 Wrote: Stat: You have really missed the point. Arguing against something that clearly exists by being obdurate makes you look a cock. Asking for evidence of something is not unreasonable, as long as you don't stick your fingers in your ears and shout "I can't hear you! You're wrong! Show me the evidence!" when someone comes back with... evidence.

Atheists do this all the time when they ask for evidence of God, so I do it here to show them how absurd it is.

Quote: At some stage, you may have to accept that people in Sunday School tell lies.

That does not make the Theology itself false.

(November 13, 2011 at 11:31 pm)tuxcomputers Wrote: Did Statler get spanked so hard he does not want to respond in this thread any more?.... man I came here wanting to take on a YEC but he don't respond.... I guess that's the MO of his type.

You should know me better than that; I think you had who was getting spanked wrong though.

(November 14, 2011 at 5:33 am)Norfolk And Chance Wrote:

---

(November 9, 2011 at 10:09 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Oh please, I clearly stated before that this was merely an exercise pointing out that if you atheists were consistent in your skepticism you would not believe in dinosaurs because there is no way to prove they ever existed.

Absolutely no reason to be skeptical that dinosaurs existed.

---

(November 10, 2011 at 4:05 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: We are not talking about the Bible, we are talking about Dinosaurs. If you are going to not believe in the Bible because of lack of direct observation then where is your direct observation of dinosaurs since you do believe in them? Fair is fair.

Quote:No usually skeptics ask for “proof” of God’s existence, which means they want a sound logical syllogism for the existence of God, I have seen no such syllogism for the existence of dinosaurs; it’s special pleading.

Quote:I made it very clear that this was an exercise; I was going to play the part of the skeptic and play the same games you guys play concerning the existence of God. I find it a bit amusing you thought I was stupid when I was acting like you always do. There still is no sound logical proof for the existence of dinosaurs, so why do you still believe in them?

Quote:Actually many secular scientists do not believe those are actual proteins because proteins cannot survive for millions of years. You are starting to sound like a young earth creationist now.

Quote:Reading comprehension is clearly not your strong point gramps.

“You and your assertions get so old, so let's play the game shall we? Can you prove dinosaurs existed?” - SW

Quote:So you didn’t know this was a game to prove a point even though I clearly stated it was? That’s funny. You still haven’t given me any “proof” that dinosaurs ever existed though

Quote: You guys totally got whipped on that one. You pointed to some rocks and asserted, “See these prove that dragon-like creatures ruled the earth millions of years ago! You see this 4th grade textbook agrees with me!” Where is the direct observation? Where are the logical syllogisms? You guys failed to live up to your own stink test and it was hilarious.

Hilarious to a complete fucking retard.

Quote:I am pretending to be a dinosaur skeptic by arguing like an atheist, if you think it is stupid then that’s pretty funny because you use the same form of argumentation against the existence of God.

There is no evidence as undeniable as a dinosaur skeleton for god. There is no comparison to an atheist not believing god and you "pretending" to not believe in dinosaurs. No comparison at all.

---

I guess we have no reason to be skeptical that mermaids exist or existed since someone put one back together huh?

(November 14, 2011 at 12:08 pm)Minimalist Wrote: Nicely done, Norfolk...

There is a class of creationist moron slightly higher on the intelligence scale than Waldork ( which doesn't take much, I grant) which holds that there were dinosaurs but they were all plant eaters before the "Fall."
T-Rex must have hunted some killer cabbages with those!

Wow, fruit bats must really eat a lot of meat, look at those sharp teeth! Maybe you shouldn’t speak of “intelligent scales” and then spew such refuse.

(November 14, 2011 at 9:54 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Even if you saw such things you’d invoke some rescue mechanism to explain it away. The Egyptians saw the River turn to blood and yet they didn’t all magically convert, this is not a matter of evidence, it’s a matter of hearts. If a person’s heart is left unregenerate all the evidence in the world cannot convince them.

Bingo.

I won't respond to the rest of the post.

Thank you for explaining your own problem so fully.

Though I do have to add my sorrow that Stat must never have taken basic biology in uni, and certainly not any evolutionary bio or paleontology classes, or he'd realize the difference between a set of enlarged canines to hold fruit, and a set of incisiform teeth for rending meat.

Thanks, Stat, now we know that you are blind in addition to batshit crazy.

Those teeth look similar as all hell, don't they? Especially the flat ones in the back for grinding vegetation which are identical to the T-Rex's back teeth which are...... oh, no they aren't!

[/quote]