nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW
13,254
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 23:
Line 23: + + + + + + + +
User talk:CarolineMilton (view source)
Revision as of 05:53, February 12, 2008
, 05:53, February 12, 2008→What you saw: You keep ignoring a crucial point, and your worldview is affecting your interpretation of the evidence
::::::Actually [[young earth creationist]]s have a rather radically... [[Dinosaur#Dinosaur-like_creatures_in_history_and_modern_sightings|different]] way of seeing things. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 23:21, 11 February 2008 (EST)
::::::Actually [[young earth creationist]]s have a rather radically... [[Dinosaur#Dinosaur-like_creatures_in_history_and_modern_sightings|different]] way of seeing things. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 23:21, 11 February 2008 (EST)
::::::: Yes, if I'd gone to the bother, I could have found what the name of Allah looked like in Arabic script, but to recognise that in a cloud formation I'd probably have to be very familiar with it, not just have had a quick look at it, depending, of course, on how clear it was.
::::::: "''Where are it's front legs/arms?''": Too small to be worth including. As you point out, it's not a detailed picture, and small front limbs would be insignificant detail.
::::::: "''where is its other back leg''": Behind (from the point of view of the observer) the tail. Yes, in a detailed picture you'd expect to see at least the edge of the other leg, but in a simple picture like this, that would be just insignificant detail.
::::::: "''That's why it's like an ink blot.''" Ink blots are not intended to be recognised but lacking detail. So it's not like an ink blot at all.
::::::: "''Sure it may be that the cave dweller who drew it intended that it be recognised.''": ''May'' be? Most cave paintings are of recognisable objects. I don't know of too many abstract paintings by cave dwellers.
::::::: "''...it is a meaningless squiggle that only wishful thinking can transform into a recognisable creature/plant/object''": I've pointed out the error of this twice already, but you keep ignoring it. That it was representing a dinosaur was the view of the discoverer who, like you, didn't believe that men could ever have seen a dinosaur, so it was ''not'' "wishful thinking".
::::::: "''But I couldn't for a moment take such an explanation seriously. Good grief Philip, dinosaurs have been extinct for millions of years.''": Now you are letting your worldview affect your interpretation of the evidence. That they have been extinct for millions of years is merely an aspect of the atheistic origins myth, and is contradicted by quite a bit of evidence, of which this cave painting is just one minor example.
::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:53, 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)