[quote='orogenicman' pid='102265' dateline='1288325885']
[quote] Anytime you want proof of my expertise in geology, my offer to hold a day in the field to study the geology surrounding the Creationist Musem still stands. [/quote]
Yeah it is really easy to not back yourself up on here and just make these wild offers that you know are not practical. "Well I won't present any evidence on here, but if you want to fly to the moon I iwll meet you there and show you all my evidence." Give me a break. Either you have it or you don't, and I don't need to fly all the way across the country to see you are all talk and no walk.
[quote] And yet, you didn't correct him, and so left the forum with the impression that they are your claims. You did say that they were your claims. At the least, it was dishonest. [/quote]
Well because I agree with the claims, so in a way they are still my claims. You are making way too big of a deal out of this. I think everyone else on here realizes that when you call something "your beliefs" you are most likely basing it off of other people's beliefs as well. Not sure why you are having so much trouble grasping that.
[quote] There is no such thing as "super-natural". The very word itself is meaningless. If it is natural, then it fits the definition of natural. "Supernatural" doesn't fit any definition of natural. [/quote]
Unlike you, I am not a methodological naturalist, so I disagree with your assertion that there is no such thing as the super-natural. We observe events that violate natural laws quite often.
[quote] You make that statement and then claim that creationists don't lie? I rest my case.[/quote]
Assertion, if that's what you are resting your case on then you don't have much of a case now do you?
[quote] No sir, you haven't. You haven't made one mention of oopart outside of the post above,. which was a response to my previous post. I brought it up because of your lie that certain artwark on an Asian temple represents a "recent" stegosaur. That artwork, in no way, represents a stegosaur. You see what you want to see, dude. Oopart. Misplaced objects/fraud. Good God, Statler. You've truly gone fishing, dude.
[/quote]
Actually I did address OOPArt in the other thread. I will just say it again, just because something is considered as OOPArt does not mean it is invalid. Secondly, the whole idea of oopart is based completely on bad circular reasoning. The carvings in Asia have never been demonstrated to be a fraud and are strong evidence that these people knew what a Stegosaurus looked like long before the fossils were ever discovered. You can keep ignoring the evidence if you like, but I won't.
[quote] Anytime you want proof of my expertise in geology, my offer to hold a day in the field to study the geology surrounding the Creationist Musem still stands. [/quote]
Yeah it is really easy to not back yourself up on here and just make these wild offers that you know are not practical. "Well I won't present any evidence on here, but if you want to fly to the moon I iwll meet you there and show you all my evidence." Give me a break. Either you have it or you don't, and I don't need to fly all the way across the country to see you are all talk and no walk.
[quote] And yet, you didn't correct him, and so left the forum with the impression that they are your claims. You did say that they were your claims. At the least, it was dishonest. [/quote]
Well because I agree with the claims, so in a way they are still my claims. You are making way too big of a deal out of this. I think everyone else on here realizes that when you call something "your beliefs" you are most likely basing it off of other people's beliefs as well. Not sure why you are having so much trouble grasping that.
[quote] There is no such thing as "super-natural". The very word itself is meaningless. If it is natural, then it fits the definition of natural. "Supernatural" doesn't fit any definition of natural. [/quote]
Unlike you, I am not a methodological naturalist, so I disagree with your assertion that there is no such thing as the super-natural. We observe events that violate natural laws quite often.
[quote] You make that statement and then claim that creationists don't lie? I rest my case.[/quote]
Assertion, if that's what you are resting your case on then you don't have much of a case now do you?
[quote] No sir, you haven't. You haven't made one mention of oopart outside of the post above,. which was a response to my previous post. I brought it up because of your lie that certain artwark on an Asian temple represents a "recent" stegosaur. That artwork, in no way, represents a stegosaur. You see what you want to see, dude. Oopart. Misplaced objects/fraud. Good God, Statler. You've truly gone fishing, dude.
[/quote]
Actually I did address OOPArt in the other thread. I will just say it again, just because something is considered as OOPArt does not mean it is invalid. Secondly, the whole idea of oopart is based completely on bad circular reasoning. The carvings in Asia have never been demonstrated to be a fraud and are strong evidence that these people knew what a Stegosaurus looked like long before the fossils were ever discovered. You can keep ignoring the evidence if you like, but I won't.
