Tell us about the dinosaurs

[downbeatplumb]

Since I get a lot of emails every week, could you refresh my memory as to who you are (name or email address)? I do my best to stay on top of my email discussions and answer every question, but some can and do get missed. I'm pretty sure I've answered all the creationism emails I've been receiving, but it's possible I've dropped yours somehow.

Arcanus,

I resent the e-mail that you previously did not answer along with another a couple of days ago. Is your e-mail working?

---

This was refuted by galileo who dropped a ball and a feather off the leaning tower of piza (mmmm Piza).

I looked this up. Apparently, at least some think Galileo didn't actually perform any such experiment. Furthermore, from what I could find any such experiment was with two balls (cannon and wooden) anyway, not a ball and a feather. I would think that if one did the experiment (dropping two objects from the tower of Pisa) with a ball (say a baseball) and a feather, the ball would reach the ground first (and significantly faster). I think the wind resistance would cause the feather to reach its terminal velocity quicker than the baseball and would have a slower terminal velocity than the baseball. To properly perform the experiment, one would have to do it in a vacuum. In one of the websites I found there was a video of a hammer and a feather being dropped on the moon.

Well you got the idea.

People knew about gravity before newton and the apple was my poorly researched point.

That was correct even if almost everything else wasnt.

[Ryft]

There was no strawman in what I posted. It directly addressed a portion of your response, as I've outlined ...

No, it directly addressed what you hear "most Christians" arguing every day, which is certainly a straw man because it absolutely is different from what I argue: "Where did I ever suggest anecdotal evidence is scientific? Nowhere. Where did I ever suggest that one's anecdotal evidence should be persuasive for someone else? Again, nowhere. Where did I ever suggest that science does, or even should, rely on anecdotes as evidence of anything? Once again, nowhere."

If you want to address what "most Christians" say to you (or within earshot of you) and ignore what I actually said, go ahead. But don't pretend it has any relevance to me.

You really ought to learn to control your temper, dude.

What temper? The swearing? Good grief, what sort of anal retentive upbringing did you have that swearing is an indication of anger? In the great big world beyond your uptight notions, some people swear for emphasis, or out of frustration, etc., without any temper or anger at all. Seriously. Get out of the basement sometime and see.

So you were saying that the idea of testing for the existence of God is a non-starter? Odd. It appeared to me that you were arguing just the opposite.

Glad it finally sank in for you.

But hey, if you don't believe that one can devise a test to verify the existence of God, then our arguments aren't so far apart after all.

Oh please, dude, our arguments could not possibly get any further apart. Mine are rational, for starters.

No, sir. I submit to you that you dismiss what I post because you can't post a level headed rebuttal.

Your delusional submission is noted.

I suspect that my grasp of the Christian religion is at least as good as anyone else's ...

Yeah? Give us some reason to think that's true by answering your bolded question.

---

---

I resent the e-mail that you previously did not answer, along with another a couple of days ago. Is your e-mail working?

Yes, sir—but then so was I (working). I've been quite swamped for the last while. I respond to emails and here when I can. I've since written you back.

[orogenicman]

No, it directly addressed what you hear "most Christians" arguing every day, which is certainly a straw man because it absolutely is different from what I argue: "Where did I ever suggest anecdotal evidence is scientific? Nowhere. Where did I ever suggest that one's anecdotal evidence should be persuasive for someone else? Again, nowhere. Where did I ever suggest that science does, or even should, rely on anecdotes as evidence of anything? Once again, nowhere." If you want to address what "most Christians" say to you (or within earshot of you) and ignore what I actually said, go ahead. But don't pretend it has any relevance to me.

So what? The fact that most Christians do, in fact make such arguments every day makes it germaine to the discussion, regardless of whether or not you subscribe to such nafarious arguments. Do you really think this is all about you? If you want something done about your Christian friends making such arguments, I suggest you discuss it with them.

You really ought to learn to control your temper, dude.

What temper? The swearing? Good grief, what sort of anal retentive upbringing did you have that swearing is an indication of anger? In the great big world beyond your uptight notions, some people swear for emphasis, or out of frustration, etc., without any temper or anger at all. Seriously. Get out of the basement sometime and see.

Erm, that temper.

So you were saying that the idea of testing for the existence of God is a non-starter? Odd. It appeared to me that you were arguing just the opposite.

Glad it finally sank in for you.

But hey, if you don't believe that one can devise a test to verify the existence of God, then our arguments aren't so far apart after all.

Oh please, dude, our arguments could not possibly get any further apart. Mine are rational, for starters.

So, you will be providing us with comic relief. I'm impressed.

No, sir. I submit to you that you dismiss what I post because you can't post a level headed rebuttal.

Your delusional submission is noted.

Thanks for proving my point.

I suspect that my grasp of the Christian religion is at least as good as anyone else's ...

Yeah? Give us some reason to think that's true by answering your bolded question.

Nice re-direct attempt. Try answering the question yourself instead.