nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW
13,254
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 39:
Line 39: + + + + + + + + +
User talk:CarolineMilton (view source)
Revision as of 02:18, February 13, 2008
, 02:18, February 13, 2008→What you saw: Seeing Allah's name, evidence for dinos.
:::::::: Now we come to your world view: "the atheistic origins myth"? "quite a lot of evidence"? I am intrigued. What do you find to be the most compelling piece of evidence supportive of the co-existence of man and dinosaur? --[[User:CarolineMilton|CarolineMilton]] 18:23, 12 February 2008 (EST)
:::::::: Now we come to your world view: "the atheistic origins myth"? "quite a lot of evidence"? I am intrigued. What do you find to be the most compelling piece of evidence supportive of the co-existence of man and dinosaur? --[[User:CarolineMilton|CarolineMilton]] 18:23, 12 February 2008 (EST)
::::::::: The problem with trying to recognise text that I'm not familiar with is that I don't know how much variation it can legitimately have before it. Using English as an example, just look at the different forms of the lower case letters "a" and "g" in different fonts. Then there's things like serifs. If you weren't familiar with roman characters, would your recognise a serif version of "I" as the same as a sans-serif version?
::::::::: The Allah script you pointed me to[http://www.trekearth.com/gallery/Middle_East/Turkey/photo387386.htm] and the one at the beginning of the second video both show a something with triple-U shape, except that the first two 'U's are only joined at the top, not along their length; what might be a serif on the right-hand vertical stroke, a separate vertical stroke to the right with a serif, and a character very similar to a Roman "w" above. So what am I looking for? All that, or just the main character? The one at the start of the video has another couple of shapes also, and the main shape has an extra stroke with a loop either attached or just detached to the left stroke of the main character.
::::::::: I don't think ''any'' of the items in the second video had all that. However, some did have a shape similar to the "triple-U", although I didn't note any that had the left-most 'U's only joined at the top. Some items appeared to only have a double-u, whilst in some I couldn't see anything resembling the name at all. The first video claimed that Allah's name appeared in the "button right corner". I took this to mean the "bottom-right corner". I couldn't see anything resembling Allah's name there. There was a ''very'' indistinct resemblance to Allah's name right across the bottom of the screen, i.e. the entire ocean.
::::::::: But all of these were shapes which are easily explainable as naturally-occurring. None were so clear as to indicate that they must have had some intelligent design, such as by Allah. This is unlike the cave painting which was clearly ''not'' naturally occurring.
::::::::: "''The fact that the discoverer claims to see a dinosaur is neither here nor there.''": It is quite relevant when you are claiming that people see what they want to see, and as the discoverer (and it's not really relevant that he was the discoverer) saw something that he ''didn't'' want to see, it refutes your point.
::::::::: "''If the drawing had been discovered by Erich von Däniken (remember him?) he would have claimed it as a picture of an alien visitor. Would you then see it as an alien?''": But that argument is just trying to support your point that people see what they want to see, which I have already refuted in this case. Further, how could anyone legitimately say that it looks like an alien visitor when nobody has seen an alien visitor to compare it to? I do remember von Däniken, by the way.
::::::::: "''However, because the picture is so thoroughly lacking in detail it is just not feasible to claim it as in any way significantly supportive of a theory that man and dinosaur co-existed.''": I disagree. It is sufficiently clear that it can be used as supporting evidence. What I would agree with is that this bit of evidence ''by itself'' would not conclusively show that men and dinosaurs lived together. But it is ''supporting'' evidence.
::::::::: "''What do you find to be the most compelling piece of evidence supportive of the co-existence of man and dinosaur?''": The evidence that ''I'' find to be most compelling is the biblical account, which (a) has no room whatsoever for creatures becoming extinct before man, and which (b) appears to describe a dinosaur in Job 40 or 41 (I forget which at the moment). However, I don't expect that ''you'' would find that compelling. Further evidence is provided by ''many'' historic accounts of creatures with descriptions matching dinosaurs. Some were described in considerable detail. Often they went by the name "dragon" (the word "dinosaur" was only coined in 1841). See also pictorial evidence [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/133/ here], [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/199/ here], and [http://www.bible.ca/tracks/tracks-cambodia.htm here].
::::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:18, 12 February 2008 (EST)
Is it a...kangaroo? :P [[User:BethanyS|~BCS]]<sup>[[User talk:BethanyS|Talk2'''ME''']]</sup> 20:48, 10 February 2008 (EST)
Is it a...kangaroo? :P [[User:BethanyS|~BCS]]<sup>[[User talk:BethanyS|Talk2'''ME''']]</sup> 20:48, 10 February 2008 (EST)