• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Dinosaurs and DRAGONS!!

Eos of the Eons

Mad Scientist
Eos of the Eons
Joined
Jul 23, 2003
Messages
13,749
We wander across to the bookshop, which, far from being another biblical epic, is done up like a medieval castle, framed with heraldic shields and filled with images of dragons - dragons, you see, being what dinosaurs became. It is full of books with titles such as Infallible Proofs, The Lie, The Great Dinosaur Mystery Solved and even a DVD entitled Arguments Creationists Should Not Use. As we finish the tour, Ham tells us about the museum's website, AnswersInGenesis.org. They are expecting 300,000 visitors a year. "You've not seen anything yet," he says with a smile.
Click to expand...

http://www.guardian.co.uk:80/g2/story/0,,1946323,00.html

The aussie creator figured Australia wasn't ready for this, so it's been built in the USA instead. Have fun guys!! I guess if god IS real, then so are dragons.
 
Dr Adequate said:
I can't find their list of arguments that creationists should use. I looked. Can anyone find them?
Click to expand...

There is only one that they should use - but you will not find it on the AiG website. Somehow they keep overlooking this one - simple, direct, honest, and irrefutable - the 'oops we were really really wrong and don't know how we can apologize enough' argument.
 
Dr Adequate said:
I can't find their list of arguments that creationists should use. I looked. Can anyone find them?
Click to expand...

They sort of nested them in with the stuff you should not use. For example:

“Evolution is just a theory.”
What people usually mean when they say this is “Evolution is not proven fact, so it should not be promoted dogmatically.” Therefore people should say that! The problem with using the word “theory” in this case is that scientists use it to mean a well-substantiated explanation of data. This includes well-known theories such as Einstein’s Theory of Relativity and Newton’s Theory of Gravity, as well as lesser-known ones such as the Debye–Hückel Theory of electrolyte solutions. It would be better to say that particles-to-people evolution is an unsubstantiated hypothesis or conjecture.
Click to expand...

But the truth is I think fishbob hit the nail on the head. This is just dressing up the same old dead horse with a new costume.
 
Okay, everybody's with me on the idea that the "dragons" in world cultures are probably artifacts of pre-scientific societies finding dinosaur fossils, right? So, dragons are dinosaurs (at least the same way Bigfoot is a guy in a suit). Is there a way for me to agree with the creationists on that point and only that one?
 
Loss Leader said:
Okay, everybody's with me on the idea that the "dragons" in world cultures are probably artifacts of pre-scientific societies finding dinosaur fossils, right?
Click to expand...

I'm with you -- that's what I've thought for a long time, although it's just a guess. I'm sure an expert on dragon history will be able to correct us if we're wrong.

As an anecdote, I just got a book for my daughter about dragons and it describes different dragon myths around the world (some breathe fire, others ice, some are helpful/protectors, others harmful) -- which just reinforced my hypothesis: if different cultures created dragon myths independently, they were probably based on some real artifact, like dinosaur fossils.
 
Nuhhh uhhh, those T-Rexes sprouted wings and the ability to breathe fire! Cuz the gods/god deemed it so.

I think they are poking fun at evolutionists? Saying that if we could possibly have evolved from the same ancestor as a monkey (or in their words-a monkey TURNED INTO a human), then dinos evolved (turned) into fire breathing flying dragons?

Just goes to show they don't care to know a darn thing about reality, or about what scientists really observed. Afterall, the article says the primative human fossils that scientists claim are our hominid ancestors are actually just diseased regular humans they've actually seen forms of on our very own streets.

ugh.
 
Last edited:
Eos of the Eons said:
Just goes to show they don't care to know a darn thing about reality, or about what scientists really observed.
Click to expand...

No, it doesn't. It shows that they are biased toward interpreting data according to their model of the universe. If "They" truly didn't care about reality or scientific observation, the article we are discussing would either not exist, or would not say what it does.
 
Eos of the Eons said:
Nuhhh uhhh, those T-Rexes sprouted wings and the ability to breathe fire! Cuz the gods/god deemed it so.

I think they are poking fun at evolutionists? Saying that if we could possibly have evolved from the same ancestor as a monkey (or in their words-a monkey TURNED INTO a human),
Click to expand...

But if you cloned such an ancestor what would it be classed as?
 
from here

For a long time, creationists claimed that the dust layer on the moon was too thin if dust had truly been falling on it for billions of years. They based this claim on early estimates—by evolutionists—of the influx of moon dust
Click to expand...

Why are biologists makeing predictions about the thickness of lunar dust? Why not astrogeologists and the like?

Note that discrediting this myth doesn’t mean that the events of Joshua 10 didn’t happen. Features in the account support its reliability—for example, that the moon was also slowed down. This was not necessary to prolong the day, but this would be observed from Earth’s reference frame if God had accomplished this miracle by slowing Earth’s rotation
Click to expand...

HAHAHA
 
Beady said:
No, it doesn't. It shows that they are biased toward interpreting data according to their model of the universe. If "They" truly didn't care about reality or scientific observation, the article we are discussing would either not exist, or would not say what it does.
Click to expand...

Aargh. I just read that, and Eos is right. They don't care about facts, they only care about promoting their crazy views. Getting their asses handed to them in a debate doesn't help this, so they try to restrain their followers from using some of the more obviously nonsensical arguments.
 
Eos of the Eons said:
http://www.guardian.co.uk:80/g2/story/0,,1946323,00.html

The aussie creator figured Australia wasn't ready for this, so it's been built in the USA instead.
Click to expand...
But is the USA ready for this?
We pass the site where one day an animatronic Adam will squat beside the Tree. With this commitment to authenticity, I find myself asking what they are doing about the fig leaf. Marsh considers this gravely and replies: "He is appropriately positioned, so he can be modest. There will be a lamb or something there next to him.
Click to expand...
 
Beady said:
No, it doesn't. It shows that they are biased toward interpreting data according to their model of the universe. If "They" truly didn't care about reality or scientific observation, the article we are discussing would either not exist, or would not say what it does.
Click to expand...

Biased yes, don't care about reality either. One of the fundy quotes of the year says something like "it's not true, so I'm not going to learn it". Biased against learning what is really taught by evolution keeps them from caring what the reality about what evolution really is about.

For example, evolutionists do NOT teach that monkeys turned into humans. THAT is what creationists SAY that evolutionists believe in order to make them look like blithering idiots. If creationists cared about what evolutionists REALLY said, in reality, then they wouldn't use such strawmen and bury their heads in the sand to get away from that reality.

If it was simply bias, then why don't they bother to learn what evolution is and stop lying about scientists.

If we must, I'll start on Veith, and his pack of lies that he brought to my own town with the support of the "discovery" institute.

What I don't understand is beady's continued issue with semantics in order to simply defend creationist worldviews.
 
Loss Leader said:
Okay, everybody's with me on the idea that the "dragons" in world cultures are probably artifacts of pre-scientific societies finding dinosaur fossils, right? So, dragons are dinosaurs (at least the same way Bigfoot is a guy in a suit). Is there a way for me to agree with the creationists on that point and only that one?
Click to expand...

I don't think so. I'm more of the mind that dragons are an amalgam of traditional predators that humans (and maybe other primates) are hardwired to fear: snakes and birds.

It's why there are people with phobias of snakes and birds but not guns.

I think I first read about this theory from E.O. Wilson?
 
“No new species have been produced.”

This is not true—new species have been observed to form. In fact, rapid speciation is an important part of the creation model. But this speciation is within the “kind,” and involves no new genetic information.
Click to expand...
None at all? How does it work, then?

Fascinating. I want to see the kind tree for bacteria.

~~ Paul
 
Mojo said:
But is the USA ready for this?
Click to expand...
We pass the site where one day an animatronic Adam will squat beside the Tree. With this commitment to authenticity, I find myself asking what they are doing about the fig leaf. Marsh considers this gravely and replies: "He is appropriately positioned, so he can be modest. There will be a lamb or something there next to him.
Click to expand...
WTH is Adam doing squatting naked behind a tree with a sheep? :jaw-dropp
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom