animal questions for christians

Originally posted by Proper Knob
[b]please answer the point, is the depiction fictional or is it not?

No. Whether an animal can walk upright or not can be determined by looking at it's pelvis or it's femur, you don't need to watch it walking.

Your quote was no doubt correct in 1981, we're now in the 21st century. Yet again you're reduced to providing 30+year old quotes when di ...[text shortened]... ck out Hinds Cave in Texas -

http://www.texasbeyondhistory.net/hinds/artifacts.html#peri[/b]

an outrageous statement! Hinds cave? I wonder if RJH knows about this?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
To highlight the difference between empirical and fictional science?

not really. just a question to see how you tackle one of those tricky subjects that seems not to fit in well with man being created by god.

on a separate note, if you disagree with a scientific theory it doesnt actually make the theory, fictional science or science fiction (is the term i would use) you are in fact not being empirical by dismissing it as such, which makes you seem rather hypocritical. the truth is that the theories formed about mans evolution are based upon found evidence, this would make them empirical. the truth is something can be empirical and wrong. many theories in the past have been empirical, in that they were based on observation, tested, hypothesis formed and evaluated and many years later discovered to be incorrect.

Originally posted by RJHinds
These Atheists keep lying by telling us they have mountains of evidence for evolution. However when you exclude adaption within kind, they do not even have a mole hill. 😏

It's not just atheists who accept evolution you thicko, and as for lying, that's a bit rich coming from you 'Silicon Ron'. 🙄

Originally posted by stellspalfie
not really. just a question to see how you tackle one of those tricky subjects that seems not to fit in well with man being created by god.

on a separate note, if you disagree with a scientific theory it doesnt actually make the theory, fictional science or science fiction (is the term i would use) you are in fact not being empirical by dismissing it ...[text shortened]... vation, tested, hypothesis formed and evaluated and many years later discovered to be incorrect.

you had better try something other than speculative arguments which biologists
themselves dont really fully comprehend. I could easily ask, why do we have a
conscience and your materialism has no answer. The depiction is fictional, you cannot
escape the fact, its a fictional depiction of a fictional being, regardless of whether I
accept the theory or not. My main beef is that its being promoted as empirical science,
when clearly its nothing of the sort.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
an outrageous statement! Hinds cave? I wonder if RJH knows about this?

So, Hinds Cave in Texas, how does that fit into your scheme of things?

Originally posted by Proper Knob
So, Hinds Cave in Texas, how does that fit into your scheme of things?

it doesn't, everything remains as it is, biologists, anthropologists, palaeontologists
materialists in every guise will all simply continue to read from the same cookery book
and present fictional beings under the guise of empirical science as the BBC website
has clearly demonstrated.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
it doesn't, everything remains as it is, biologists, anthropologists, palaeontologists
materialists in every guise will all simply continue to read from the same cookery book
and present fictional beings under the guise of empirical science as the BBC website
has clearly demonstrated.

Someone was there using that cave for a few thousand years, who was it?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
you had better try something other than speculative arguments which biologists
themselves dont really fully comprehend. I could easily ask, why do we have a
conscience and your materialism has no answer. The depiction is fictional, you cannot
escape the fact, its a fictional depiction of a fictional being, regardless of whether I
accept the ...[text shortened]... in beef is that its being promoted as empirical science,
when clearly its nothing of the sort.

sorry, i dont really follow what you are talking about.
did you just almost ask me a question, then decide i wouldnt be able to answer it? so didnt ask...bizarre.


the sentence is completely bonkers

"you cannot escape the fact, its a fictional depiction of a fictional being, regardless of whether I
accept the theory or not "

so you have decided something is definitely fictional, therefore if you change your mind and think its truth, it will still be wrong, because the you of now knows its wrong so therefore the future you who changes their mind is just being stupid!!!! crazy, crazy, crazy way of thinking robbie.


there are remains of various skulls and bones that some scientists have used to formulate a theory. you accept the bones exist, we all do, we've all seen them. you may think they are there for a different reason and do not point to evolution of man. some scientists do think it points to evolution, because they have used the theories behind empirical science to formulate these theories it makes them empirical, they could be wrong, it doesnt stop them from being empirical. give me some reasons why it isnt empirical.

Originally posted by stellspalfie
sorry, i dont really follow what you are talking about.
did you just almost ask me a question, then decide i wouldnt be able to answer it? so didnt ask...bizarre.


the sentence is completely bonkers

"you cannot escape the fact, its a fictional depiction of a fictional being, regardless of whether I
accept the theory or not "

so you have de wrong, it doesnt stop them from being empirical. give me some reasons why it isnt empirical.

it was a rhetorical question, i did not expect nor solicit an answer, sigh. Its fictional
depiction, why? because its made up, invented, engineered, call it what you will, shall I
produce a definition of fictional in order to verify the fact? As soon as you accept this
incontrovertible fact, you may just have recourse to term others, stupid or whatever
other piece of scorn you wish to pour upon them. Same old materialistic jive, you dont
accept their fictional depictions and you are stupid, neeeeext, trundle trundle, caravan
trundles on.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
Someone was there using that cave for a few thousand years, who was it?

RJ Hinds, he's pretty Neanderthal 🙂 Its not called the Hinds cave for nothing you know. Plus he's Texan!

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
it was a rhetorical question, i did not expect nor solicit an answer, sigh Its fictional
depiction, why? because its made up, invented, engineered, call it what you will, shall I
produce a definition of fictional in order to verify the fact? As soon as you accept this
incontrovertible fact, you may just have recourse to term others, stupid or ...[text shortened]... their fictional depictions are you are stupid, neeeeext, trundle trundle, caravan
trundles on.

what exactly are you accusing them of inventing and engineering? a
are you suggesting that they are aware that its made up and they have knowingly faked a theory? or do you think they have found all these bones and added 2 to 2 and come up with 5?

you can cobble together a definition of fictional if you wish, i hope its more accurate than your use of the word empirical.


any ideas on goosebumps yet?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
RJ Hinds, he's pretty Neanderthal 🙂 Its not called the Hinds cave for nothing you know. Plus he's Texan!

Terrible attempt at deflection. Who was using the caves Rob?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
RJ Hinds, he's pretty Neanderthal 🙂 Its not called the Hinds cave for nothing you know. Plus he's Texan!

they did find a fossilized laptop and tinfoil hats trapped in amber and simple markings scratched onto the walls that is thought to be the earliest signs of cave man trolling.

Originally posted by stellspalfie
what exactly are you accusing them of inventing and engineering? a
are you suggesting that they are aware that its made up and they have knowingly faked a theory? or do you think they have found all these bones and added 2 to 2 and come up with 5?

you can cobble together a definition of fictional if you wish, i hope its more accurate than your use of the word empirical.


any ideas on goosebumps yet?

if you go to the BBC website that i cited, you will see a physically engineered and
fictional depiction of a caveman and women. Empirical means that which can be
observed, you have not observed such a being, they have not determined that it
walked upright, they have stated that Lucy was the first upright ape, unobserved,
they have given the impression that she was something other than an ape, not true,
she was entirely simian, in fact, how much unobserved phenomena are you willing
to allow before you admit that its not based upon empirical science ( that which is
observed) but a theoretical estimation and projection based upon a purely
speculative basis? you have not observed transmutation, your theory cannot be
falsified and and fictional depictions are just that, made up or engineered, now you
can either accept this truth or not, but dont expect others to buy into your empirical
science when its nothing of the sort.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
Terrible attempt at deflection. Who was using the caves Rob?

dont know, dont care, i have proved my point, the BBC are utilising engineered images to depict fictional beings, trundle trundle.