User talk:CarolineMilton
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Philip J. Rayment (talk | contribs) at 20:03, February 11, 2008. It may differ significantly from current revision.
Welcome!
Hello, CarolineMilton, and welcome to Conservapedia!
We're glad you are here to edit. We ask that you read our Editor's Guide before you edit.
At the right are some useful links for you. You can include these links on your user page by putting "{{Useful links}}" on the page. Any questions--ask!
Thanks for reading, CarolineMilton!
- Philip J. Rayment 21:00, 10 December 2007 (EST)
What you saw
Did you see a dinosaur or a cave painting? Philip J. Rayment 00:59, 6 February 2008 (EST)
- Philip, I might have known that you would be the first to respond.
- Dinosaur you say? Is that what that is? Then again, it's like those ink blot tests. People tend to see what they want to see, don't they? --CarolineMilton 23:53, 7 February 2008 (EST)
- It's not like an ink blot test, and the scientist who found it most definitely did not see what he wanted to see, as he didn't believe in dinosaurs and men living together, yet recognised it as a dinosaur[1]. Rather, people tend to excuse and dismiss what they don't want to believe. Philip J. Rayment 00:49, 8 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? --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. Philip J. Rayment 20:41, 10 February 2008 (EST)
Is it a...kangaroo? :P ~BCSTalk2ME 20:48, 10 February 2008 (EST)
BTW...Dinosoars are non-existent! They went extinct a few thousand years ago! :P ~BCSTalk2ME 20:48, 10 February 2008 (EST)
- A kangaroo's not all that bad a suggestion, but I'd reject it for several reasons:
- A kangaroo has very large feet, which do not show here.
- A kangaroo does put its tail on the ground for support, but does not have it both on the ground for support and at the same time turned up as shown in this picture.
- The painting was done in North America.
- What makes you think dinosaurs went extinct a few thousand years ago?
- Philip J. Rayment 21:53, 10 February 2008 (EST)
- Alright...*Reword*: Most dinosaurs went extinct a few thousand years ago! :P ~BCSTalk2ME 10:14, 11 February 2008 (EST)
- I'm not sure what your point is. In the context of whether or not the painting could be of a dinosaur, your original comment could be read as saying that it couldn't be a dinosaur because they weren't around. You now seem to be admitting that at least some dinosaurs were around more recently, which would negate that reason for thinking that the painting couldn't be of a dinosaur. In any case, I don't believe that we have good information on exactly when each type went extinct, but there in good information on at least some types being around much more recently than a few thousand years ago. Philip J. Rayment 15:03, 11 February 2008 (EST)
- Alright...*Reword*: Most dinosaurs went extinct a few thousand years ago! :P ~BCSTalk2ME 10:14, 11 February 2008 (EST)
Careful
Conservapedia Commandment #7 can be a doozy. But a few non-controversial contributions show you're not just here to chat. Feebasfactor 20:43, 10 February 2008 (EST)