Posted on 12/02/2013 10:18:24 AM PST by Ha Ha Thats Very Logical
auto spell check sux.
I'm trying to understand the "LOL". Isn't trying and failing the route to ultimately succeeding?
People say they've seen space aliens, ghosts, Bigfoot, sea monsters, and even fairies. I'm not convinced that any of them exist either.
That's not all that hard to believe; a specimen with unusual pigmentation is well within the bounds of known possibility and even probability.
Also, birds are modern descendants of dinosaurs, with surprisingly little difference under the feathers.
I disagree. If that were the case, how is it different from a conclusion based on evidence?
Assuming means taking something to be true. It does not mean that something necessarily is true. There is a dictionary entry that attests to that, I believe.
The first dictionary entry I found says “something taken for granted; a supposition.” I guess the age of the dinosaurs is an assumption the same way the earth going around the sun and disease being caused by germs are assumptions. I disagreed with the original statement because, as used by anti-evolutionists, the implication is usually that it’s not based on evidence, more like a premise or postulate.
Something taken for granted might be something untrue. The left takes untrue things for granted all the time- makes assumptions that do not represent real life. A supposition- an assumption- is not a fact. The information or situation assumed may be true or may not be true.
Yes, something taken for granted may be untrue. But some things taken for granted—like my examples of the earth going around the sun or germs causing diseases—have lots of evidence supporting them. It’s why they’ve come to be taken for granted. Other assumptions might not have such evidence. It’s a common rhetorical technique to gloss over that difference, calling both things “assumptions” to make the former category seem as unsupported as the latter. It’s the same trick anti-evolutionists use with “theory” and “faith.”
The evidence of dinosaurs coexisting with man goes far beyond Before It’s News and deep into academia and into scientific research labs and institutions.
For example, here is a link to an article on the website of the Institution for Creation Research. The name of the scientific article is called “Men and Dinosaurs Coexisted.”
“The fact that dinosaur femur soft tissues have been described as “still squishy” and contain recognizable blood cells also confirms the recency of dinosaur fossil deposition. Science continues to demonstrate that dinosaurs did not predate humans, and that dinosaur kinds did not go extinct (if they all have) until after the Flood, which occurred only thousands of years ago.”
http://www.icr.org/men-dinosaurs/
You misunderstand. I wasn’t commenting on your theory. I was commenting on the source you used.
Well, at least Victoria Vetri was the real deal.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Are you drunk? BWAHAHAHHAHA!!!
BWAHHAHAHAHAHahahahahahah!!!! Your “proof” is a angelfire website? BWAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!
Why do you ask?
;’)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.