nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW
13,254
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 13:
Line 13: + +
User talk:CarolineMilton (view source)
Revision as of 01:41, February 11, 2008
, 01:41, February 11, 2008→What you saw: You've not rebutted the claim.
::: I see. And did you see Allah's name written in arabic script in the clouds when you watched the YouTube clip linked above? --[[User:CarolineMilton|CarolineMilton]] 18:19, 10 February 2008 (EST)
::: I see. And did you see Allah's name written in arabic script in the clouds when you watched the YouTube clip linked above? --[[User:CarolineMilton|CarolineMilton]] 18:19, 10 February 2008 (EST)
:::: I was unable to carry out that test, as I wouldn't know what Allah's name written in Arabic script looks like. But that's irrelevant. You are comparing three different things here: 1) something ''designed'' to be ambiguous (the ink blots); 2) something that normally occurs naturally combined with the ability of people to "see" recognisable shapes (the clouds); and 3) something ''designed'' to be recognisable (the cave painting). That people "see" recognisable shapes in things that are not ''designed'' to be recognised has no bearing on whether something ''designed'' to be recognised is being correctly recognised. If you want to suggest something else that it could be and explain why your suggestion is better than the dinosaur explanation, feel free. But your only attempt at directly addressing the dinosaur explanation was that people see what they want to, which I refuted (in this specific case) by pointing out that it was recognised as a dinosaur by someone who ''didn't'' want it to be a dinosaur. Therefore, you've offered no effective rebuttal of the claim at all. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:41, 10 February 2008 (EST)