303
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 28:
Line 28: + + +
no edit summary
::::Thanks for maligning scientists who's views you disagree with, by using quote marks to subtly questioning whether they really are scientists. How about a bit of respect?
::::Thanks for maligning scientists who's views you disagree with, by using quote marks to subtly questioning whether they really are scientists. How about a bit of respect?
::::You appear to have missed my point about the rabbits. If rabbits were found in carboniferous sediments, I suspect that geologists would reclassify it to not be carboniferous, thereby denying that rabbits ''were'' found in carboniferous sediments. Besides, the creation model wouldn't predict rabbits there either. As for the giants, how many were there? Not everything has a preserved example, particularly if the population was small. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 12:15, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
::::You appear to have missed my point about the rabbits. If rabbits were found in carboniferous sediments, I suspect that geologists would reclassify it to not be carboniferous, thereby denying that rabbits ''were'' found in carboniferous sediments. Besides, the creation model wouldn't predict rabbits there either. As for the giants, how many were there? Not everything has a preserved example, particularly if the population was small. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 12:15, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
:::::I'm familure with the flood "models". There is absolutely no ''a priori'' reason why they would rule out a rabbit in the Carboniferous. In answer to your question, the Carboniferous strata can be dated absolutely according to radioactive dating, so it would be perfectly possible to find a rabbit in them if the flood occured. With regards to giants, if you believe that all fossilised animals were living at a single time, then that makes fossilisation relatively common, so the absence of any gigantic human being is a significant problem. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 12:27, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
:::::The difference between scientists and creation "scientists" (I give respect where it is due, nowhere else) is that if there are no preserved examples, ''real'' scientists won't take it on faith that the species existed. Example. In Herodotus, the Greek historian notes a bunch of giant & cyclops species. Should we also assume that those were just a small sample size, explaining the lack of evidence, and classify it as scientific fact that these cyclops species existed, or should we take Herodotus for what he was: a guy who liked to invent myths?-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 12:21, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
:::::The difference between scientists and creation "scientists" (I give respect where it is due, nowhere else) is that if there are no preserved examples, ''real'' scientists won't take it on faith that the species existed. Example. In Herodotus, the Greek historian notes a bunch of giant & cyclops species. Should we also assume that those were just a small sample size, explaining the lack of evidence, and classify it as scientific fact that these cyclops species existed, or should we take Herodotus for what he was: a guy who liked to invent myths?-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 12:21, 23 March 2007 (EDT)