Difference between revisions of "User talk:CarolineMilton"

Revision as of 23:23, February 12, 2008

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)

Or it could be that the image was named dino art... --David R^talk 00:17, 8 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)

I am surprised that a net savvy person such as yourself could not find out what "Allah" looks like in Arabic script. Here is a link (rather nice photo I think). See it in those clouds now? I wasn't so sure myself. Maybe that's just me.

Now, you say that I am not comparing apples with apples. I disagree. I think all three concepts you refer to are very closely related. The question in each case is: Can I see something in this picture? You can see a dinosaur in the picture on my user page. Bethany can see a kangaroo. Frankly I don't think the picture is detailed enough to make a good case for either. Where are it's front legs/arms? In fact, where is its other back leg (if indeed it is supposed to be a creature at all). That's why it's like an ink blot. Sure it may be that the cave dweller who drew it intended that it be recognised. Unfortunately however, the picture is so lacking in detail that, without more, it is a meaningless squiggle that only wishful thinking can transform into a recognisable creature/plant/object.

Personally I like the dinosaur explanation. It makes it a very interesting squiggle. But I couldn't for a moment take such an explanation seriously. Good grief Philip, dinosaurs have been extinct for millions of years. --CarolineMilton 23:06, 11 February 2008 (EST)

Actually young earth creationists have a rather radically... different way of seeing things. 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.

Philip J. Rayment 00:53, 12 February 2008 (EST)

If you need some practice in recognizing the name of Allah in various naturally occurring places just click here. I would really appreciate your view as to what is going on. Are these people deluded? Or perhaps Allah did deliberately place his name in these places. Do tell me.

Also, when I mentioned wishful thinking I wasn't referring to the discoverer, I was thinking of someone else. The fact that the discoverer claims to see a dinosaur is neither here nor there. 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?

You say I am letting my world view affect my interpretation of the evidence. Well, I guess I am. Sure it looks a bit like a dinosaur. And if man and dinosaur had been around at the same time I might be attracted to the idea. 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. You'd really need something with a bit more detail.

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? --CarolineMilton 18:23, 12 February 2008 (EST)

Is it a...kangaroo? :P ~BCS^Talk2ME 20:48, 10 February 2008 (EST)

BTW...Dinosoars are non-existent! They went extinct a few thousand years ago! :P ~BCS^Talk2ME 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 ~BCS^Talk2ME 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)

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)