Why waste the time?

Originally posted by Coletti

But I'm not keen on the egg theory. Eggs weren't mentioned - so I'd expect the infant dinos were more likely.

You're leading me on a wild goose chase. First you submit eggs as a sound theory. When I challenge it, you retract and say they were more likely infants than eggs.

I submit that my refutations to the egg theory are exacerbated in the infant theory.

It's barely conceivable to me that a man could swipe a tyrannosaurus egg. It is beyond believability that he could apprehend even a single hatched pair of them, much less a hatched pair of each sort of dinosaur, while simultaneously being the same sort of person who can avoid deadly mishaps for over 900 years.

Originally posted by no1marauder
I never know with you guys, but are you REALLY NOT JOKING? You actually BELIEVE the Noah story of a world wide flood that destroyed all life on Earth (except water animals and the "two by two" that went on the ark) REALLY HAPPENED? If so, the next time you say ANYTHING regarding science, I will greet it with a LMAO.

And here I am attempting to carry on a reasonable debate about it. I'm trying to convince a grown man that people don't live to be 900 years old, or if any do, they certainly aren't the sort that go around catching live dinosaurs.

Maybe RWillis is right.

Originally posted by Coletti
[b]Gathering them -- Two of each sort, remember, and God can't simply inspire the eggs to walk to the ark, so the Ark Crew would have to have gathered them manually.

That shouldn't be a problem.

Incubating them -- How? Sunlight? Surrogate mothers such as lions?

I'm sure it was plenty warm in the ark. I was certainly crowded. And ...[text shortened]... e color of Napoleon's socks or wondering what Jesus favorite food was when he was growing up.
[/b]

Please -- PLEASE -- tell me that you are not serious. I mean, you don't
seriously believe that dinosaurs were on the ark and all, even if you believe
that the flood really happened.

Please tell me that your little exposition was just fantasy and not representative
of your genuine beliefs.

Please.

Nemesio

Originally posted by Coletti
The ark was so large, that God had to close the door after everyone boarded.

Would somebody be so kind as to forgive my laziness and calculate the dimensions of the ark in modern units of length and volume?

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
units of length

Was the Flood the beginning of the practice of parametrising trajectories by ark length so commonly used in physics?

😛

EDIT In retrospect, that was really pradtful of me.

Originally posted by Nemesio
Please -- PLEASE -- tell me that you are not serious. I mean, you don't
seriously believe that dinosaurs were on the ark and all, even if you believe
that the flood really happened.

Please tell me that your little exposition was just ...[text shortened]... not representative
of your genuine beliefs.

Please.

Nemesio

I can offer this short anecdote for perspecitve. A pair of rhinocerous was recently transported to my local zoo and an article in the zoo's newsletter described the transportation process, which highlighted numerous logistical challenges. The article was based on this journal from the zookeeper: http://www.followtherhinos.com/traveljournal.php?entry=37

Entries from October 6 through 8 refer to a handful of the logistical challenges of transporting a single pair of one species.

Imagine scaling this process to the simultaneous transportation of every species on earth, including dinosaurs, with no modern technology, by a handful of untrained people, in a single vessel, for a journey of over a year.

Originally posted by rwingett
I don't understand why so many intelligent people waste their time arguing with creationists about evolution. They simply aren't worth the effort. Its counterproductive to even give creationists a springboard to vomit forth their antiquated views in. They should simply be ignored. Or publicly ridiculed if they must be addressed at all. People don't spend ...[text shortened]... should either be ignored or have scorn heaped upon them. They are not worthy of serious debate.

True, but tell it to the school boards.
Ignoring something doesn't make it go away.

Originally posted by Coletti
That's easy. Dino eggs! They don't take up any room at all. 😀

They also make a nice omelette in a pinch.

Originally posted by RBHILL
There is no such thing as wasting time if you are giving God the Glory.


There is time wasted in doing the sin you are trapped in.

That's right Rob. You know you it's evil touch yourself there.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Has the Vatican changed its stance from the 1950 papal encyclical Humani Generis which was quite critical of evolutionary theory? In it, Pope XII wrote:

Some imprudently and indiscreetly hold that evolution, which has not been fully proved even in the domain of natural sciences, explains the origin of all this, and audaciously supp ...[text shortened]... "pantheistic" are fighting words for doctrinally conservative Catholics, aren't they Ivanhoe?

Read the passage again - Humani Generis is not critical of evolutionary theory per se, but of those people who apply tenets of evolutionary theory to events and processes outside the natural world. The name Herbert Spencer springs to mind.

Originally posted by rwingett
[b]I don't understand why so many intelligent people waste their time arguing with creationists about evolution. They simply aren't worth the effort. Its counterproductive to even give creationists a springboard to vomit forth their antiquated views in. They should simply be ignored. Or publicly ridiculed if they must be addressed at all. People don't spend ...[text shortened]... ous consideration? Their views are no more worthy of debate than either of the other two groups. [b]

At College (in Australia, this is the two years before Uni) I did geology. My geology teacher was an SDA and a creationist. I was a straight 'A' student until I did geology. For some reason I refused to accept that all fossils were the creation of a Great Flood. I received a C & a D for the unit. I had to argue with this creationist and argue against creationism at the school board (who until then was unaware of 'creationism'😉. After complaining to the Education Department my essays were re-examined (as were my fellow students), the essays were upgraded to 'A' and the teacher was sacked.

I have to argue against creationism because otherwise creationist's underhand, sneaky anti-science approach slimes its way into Government schools and teaches children crap.

Originally posted by rwingett
I don't understand why so many intelligent people waste their time arguing with creationists about evolution. They simply aren't worth the effort. Its counterproductive to even give creationists a springboard to vomit forth their antiquated views in. They should simply be ignored. Or publicly ridiculed if they must be addressed at all. People don't spend ...[text shortened]... us consideration? Their views are no more worthy of debate than either of the other two groups.

so, the thing where you beleive there is no evidence for or against is more interesting than the one where evidence actually exists for?...

Originally posted by genius
so, the thing where you beleive there is no evidence for or against is more interesting than the one where evidence actually exists for?...

The existence of a god is a rich topic for debate. There is much room for personal opinion.

Arguing about the efficacy of evolution is like arguing about whether 1 + 1 = 2. Both are well established facts. Any opinion to the contrary is simply irrelevant.

Originally posted by rwingett
The existence of a god is a rich topic for debate. There is much room for personal opinion.

Arguing about the efficacy of evolution is like arguing about whether 1 + 1 = 2. Both are well established facts. Any opinion to the contrary is simply irrelevant.

maths is fact, yes. evolution, however, is like quarks. it's an explanation for something that isn't, and indeed cannot be, observed.

it's not fact.

and being an "established fact" is certainly no argument for anything!

Originally posted by genius
maths is fact, yes. evolution, however, is like quarks. it's an explanation for something that isn't, and indeed cannot be, observed.

it's not fact.

and being an "established fact" is certainly no argument for anything!

Evolution is as close to being an established fact as is possible.