Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Dave Beans

Christian Fundamentalist Visits Field Museum Of National History

Recommended Posts

Sit back at enjoy...

Sit back and enjoy...Apparently Dinosaurs were really Dragons..

Whereas there's a reasonable possibility that dragons were really dinosaurs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

27.50 in is priceless,

Paraphrase..Why did no one ever think that Neanderthals were just normal people with big foreheads.. like East Europeans have different shaped heads / eyes

:lol:

btw, I thought it was a different Megan fox, :wub: but that Triceratops Skull was well worth a look

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mrZcztxRquo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

She keeps demanding, 'How do you know?'

Perhaps the answer is,

'We know, but you do not have sufficient intelligence to understand the answer.'

Frankly, I find these sort of closed mind bigots very boring.

She claims that Palaeontology is just a fairy tale, presumably basing her reasoning upon what is written in an old book (The bible)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The bible... it's like science, without any science.... it's like the old version of 'slavery for dummies'

The info she is reading is written so a 7 year old can understand it, that's why the info is skirted over... still her argument doesn't stand up, If I was 8, I'd put her straight.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, which do you trust.

Man's reasoning

OR

God's truth?

Problem is Megan, all those beardy old book writers didn't leave videos behind to convince people like me.

I too can shout 'Show me the video'.

Even the Creation Museum took a hell of a lot of man's reasoning for us to be able to build it.

Odd how creationists will accept everything in science (Plastics, TV, cars, etc.. etc. even her false teeth, glasses and hair dye) but ridicule reasoning when it contradicts a book that they know is but a tattered translation of what some desert dwellers wrote millennia ago.

What they will not accept is that the bible itself is just the reasoning of men doing the best that they could in a knowledge desert.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Having watched the whole thing (a bit tedious), I saw nothing to say she's even a Christian. No mention of God, Jesus, the Bible, Genesis etc. Where did DB get this from?

Her opening remarks on eukaryotes sound like the "why are there still monkeys" fallacy.

Sit back and enjoy...Apparently Dinosaurs were really Dragons..

together with

Whereas there's a reasonable possibility that dragons were really dinosaurs.

De gustibus nil disputandum. I doubt Time magazine is edited by creationists.

27.50 in is priceless,

Paraphrase..Why did no one ever think that Neanderthals were just normal people with big foreheads.. like East Europeans have different shaped heads / eyes

:lol:

btw, I thought it was a different Megan fox, :wub: but that Triceratops Skull was well worth a look

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mrZcztxRquo

Why would Bill Hicks expect the Bible to talk about dinosaurs? It's suggested it mentions them occasionally under several Hebrew names like behemoth, but apparently Bill thinks it's a book of zoology?

By the way I could find no reference to the supposed article in Creation magazine about dinosaur cave paintings; but her ref. to the stegosaur carving I suppose is the petroglyph in Cambodia which anyone can find on Google Earth under "Angkor dinosaur".

She keeps demanding, 'How do you know?'

Perhaps the answer is,

'We know, but you do not have sufficient intelligence to understand the answer.'

Here's a question. How do you tell a genuine person saying this, from a smartarse bullshitter saying it to conceal their ignorance?

Answer: state your case, then we'll know the difference.

Perhaps the wisest thing she said was, "It's okay not to know; it's okay to say, 'I don't know'." I think Socrates would have heartily agreed. There's such a thing as pretending to know more than you do - not a surprising temptation when your flow of grants and funding depends on it ;) Similar psychological motive as police have for getting a conviction no matter what -they want to be seen to be doing their job and earning their crust.

The bible... it's like science, without any science.... it's like the old version of 'slavery for dummies'

The info she is reading is written so a 7 year old can understand it, that's why the info is skirted over... still her argument doesn't stand up, If I was 8, I'd put her straight.

Didn't hear the Bible mentioned in 30 minutes. Not many 7 year old (Americans) would know about eukaryotic cells etc.

She keeps on bleating "Where's the video", "i want to see the video".

Bet there's loads of stuff happened thousands of year ago she believes in absolutely with no video evidence.

But other documentary evidence i.e. human eyewitnesses. No court prefers forensic reconstructions to reliable first-hand testimony.

It would be amusing if it wasn't so depressing.

Hmm... ISIS, ebola etc., and you find THIS depressing? Get a life.

Apparently gaps in the bible and the fact it's been edited with the dead sea scrolls removed isn't a problem.

The DSS include many parts of the Bible such as Isaiah, in texts virtually identical to the Masoretic ones of 1,000 years later.

So, which do you trust.

Man's reasoning

OR

God's truth?

Problem is Megan, all those beardy old book writers didn't leave videos behind to convince people like me.

I too can shout 'Show me the video'.

Even the Creation Museum took a hell of a lot of man's reasoning for us to be able to build it.

Odd how creationists will accept everything in science (Plastics, TV, cars, etc.. etc. even her false teeth, glasses and hair dye) but ridicule reasoning when it contradicts a book that they know is but a tattered translation of what some desert dwellers wrote millennia ago.

What they will not accept is that the bible itself is just the reasoning of men doing the best that they could in a knowledge desert.

Typical creationists take pains to observe the distinction noted by well-known creationist Ernst Mayr:

Evolutionary biology, in contrast with physics and chemistry, is a historical science—the evolutionist attempts to explain events and processes that have already taken place. Laws and experiments are inappropriate techniques for the explication of such events and processes. Instead one constructs a historical narrative, consisting of a tentative reconstruction of the particular scenario that led to the events one is trying to explain.

You're exaggerating the difference in 'knowledge' between antiquity and now; we're still, in Newton's words, just picking up a few pebbles on the ocean shore, and a lot of ancient knowledge, historical and even technological, has undoubtedly been lost to us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmm... ISIS, ebola etc., and you find THIS depressing? Get a life.

We're onto that sort of drivel now? Who said that I don't find those depressing as well? Get a brain.

I don't think that I've ever heard the phrase "get a life" used by anyone with anything useful to say.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No court prefers forensic reconstructions to reliable first-hand testimony.

Depends. Hollywood courts needs eye-witnesses. Actual courts prefer forensic or physical evidence (DNA, hairs, fibers, fingerprints, CCTV, phone records, cell site records etc.) precisely because eye witnesses are inherently unreliable.

What's more, first-hand testimony that is a few thousand years old, with no chain of custody, and a verified history of having been edited, altered, deleted, subject and number of errors of translation, littered with contradictions, filled with demonstrable inaccuracies, and comprised largely of sheer fantasy would certainly not be viewed as reliable by any sane person.

creationist Ernst Mayr

Creationist quote mining. What a surprise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:   206 members have voted

    1. 1. Which of the Prime Minister's options would you choose?


      • Leave with the negotiated deal
      • Remain
      • Leave with no deal

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.