Was this scientist fired for finding a "4000 year-old" dinosaur fossil?

[Exophase]

Well, you cannot make that claim without bringing some evidence, and this Documentary Hypothesis was supposedly some good evidence.

I posted what I did to directly refute your earlier claim that since a different term for God is used in chapter 2, that means there is a different author.

How do you account for the same word being used throughout the Genesis account, then? Then does that mean that there is only ONE author?

This hypothesis fails on its own merit.

I have no idea what you're trying to say. I asked, why is God only referred to as YHWH starting with Genesis 2:4.. and you counter that some other word for creation is used throughout Genesis so therefore it all must have been written by the same person? Huh?

 

[zinfamous]

List 200 that do. The burden falls upon the one who claims the positive, you just said 200 accepted, now name em.


Dumbass.

How did you get to be so fucking dumb?

 

[zinfamous]

I have no idea what you're trying to say. I asked, why is God only referred to as YHWH starting with Genesis 2:4.. and you counter that some other word for creation is used throughout Genesis so therefore it all must have been written by the same person? Huh?

He's only 3 classes into his current Bible Study this year. That's why he keeps rehashing the same account, the same 3 questions-as-responses to all other questions.

That will be answered in the 4th class.

 

[Retro Rob]

I have no idea what you're trying to say.

I will try to explain what I mean.

I asked, why is God only referred to as YHWH starting with Genesis 2:4..

No, you didn't. You said, and I quote:

there are so many things that suggest two different creation myths written by two different authors....even using a different name for God.

You suggested that because different "names for God" (which are titles, not "names") are used, that indicated a different author.

I countered by detailing that POV, and showed how flawed and self-contradictory that viewpoint it.

and you counter that some other word for creation is used throughout Genesis so therefore it all must have been written by the same person? Huh?

I wanted to point out how false it is to say that just because he used YHWH here, and not "there", that denotes a different author.

 

[Retro Rob]

He's only 3 classes into his current Bible Study this year. That's why he keeps rehashing the same account, the same 3 questions-as-responses to all other questions.

That will be answered in the 4th class.

So, I take it that you've never attended a class, ever, about anything?

 

[alzan]

So, I take it that you've never attended a class, ever, about anything?

lulz

 

[MongGrel]

How did you get to be so fucking dumb?

This.

+1

 

[soccerballtux]

Look it is bad enough that scientists who study possible extraterrestrial life from meteorites, physics that is not conforming to popular science, rediscovers of Lamarckism mechanics interacting with Darwinism in biology, or metaphysics are trashed as it is. We do not need to consider some Creationist who wants to put his ignorance on the world just because his psychological deficiencies want to fuck around with science. There are far more deserving souls who we can note withstand contempt and disdain.

again with the circular reasoning.

 

[RandomWords]

I agree with the people at the very beginning of this post - I totally skipped over the 200 other posts and assume they are all on the debate of creationism or evolution.

Why is that? What if he found one that was indeed 4000 years old? Should he suppress that work because it doesn't conform to accepted facts? Wouldn't it make more sense to look at his work and results and see if his results are accurate and reproducible?

Completely agree. He makes a scientific conclusion, which can be verified as true, or proven wrong. Just because it doesn't conform to accepted facts, then I guess that means his conclusion can be out-of-handedly dismissed. To me, it sounds like he was fired because of his conclusions...but since he was only temporary, they have a full-proof defense, in my opinion.

Am I saying creationism is true - no - but could a dinosaur have survived up to 5000 years ago - maybe. I wasn't around - there's not much documentation around that time period. Do I think his findings need to be checked? Yes I do. Do I think his results should be seriously considered instead of outright written off? - yes I do - you know what kind of break through that would be if some dinosaurs continued to live up to 5000 or even 10000 or 100000 or even 1 Mil years ago! Sure - they were suppose to all go extinct on the path to evolution - but what if they didn't but never became as populated before - and then humans just wiped them out the rest of the way later on? We did that with many species that were barely hanging on - and even some of those that were thriving.

 

[zinfamous]

So, I take it that you've never attended a class, ever, about anything?

well, I can only interpret this response as your admission that you are coming into this half-cocked, just waiting for the answer to be revealed to you in the next class?

:hmm:

 

[WHAMPOM]

This whole discussion is absurd. There are no "4000 year old fossil" bones, 4000 year old actual bones, yes. Fossilization takes a much longer time then that as in hundreds of thousands of years.

 

[IronWing]

This whole discussion is absurd. There are no "4000 year old fossil" bones, 4000 year old actual bones, yes. Fossilization takes a much longer time then that as in hundreds of thousands of years.

It depends on the environment of deposition. During construction of the Olmstead Dam on the Ohio River petrified wood was found that was determined to date from the late Pleistocene. In copper mine leach, cow bones have been replaced by turquoise in less than fifty years. While a mine is an artificial setting, a similar exposure of ore and subsequent weathering and production of leachate can occur as a result of natural processes such as landslides and fault movement.

 

[Pulsar]

Posting in a Rob thread. I see the circular arguments, baseless claims, twisting of quotes and intellectual dishonesty on his part has already started. Carry on.

 

[Retro Rob]

well, I can only interpret this response as your admission that you are coming into this half-cocked, just waiting for the answer to be revealed to you in the next class?

:hmm:

Again, have you ever taken a class on something?

 

[Paul98]

I have no idea what you're trying to say. I asked, why is God only referred to as YHWH starting with Genesis 2:4.. and you counter that some other word for creation is used throughout Genesis so therefore it all must have been written by the same person? Huh?

Obviously every word must be different, if they use any of the same words it can't be the same. That's some good science and reasoning right there LOL

Obviously if groups of people use different words for some things. Then you are reading something and the word usage and tone changes such that it sounds like how one group would write then another. It's clearly the same author.

 

[smackababy]

It's been awhile and Rob has still avoided answering the question I posed twice in this thread concerning literally context of certain statements. Go figure...


I suppose it is hard to admit that is makes no sense to accept the literal "Jesus is the son of God" but to reject the literal "It is okay to beat your wife".

 

[zinfamous]

Again, have you ever taken a class on something?

there are a lot of questions posed to you about the issues you have raised in this thread, which you have ignored for the last week.

...why should I first answer this non-sequitor of yours? What would this even achieve in your "battle of logic"? I assure you, my answer will not help you.

 

[Retro Rob]

there are a lot of questions posed to you about the issues you have raised in this thread, which you have ignored for the last week.

Well, YOU didn't ask those questions....I'm speaking directly with you. However, I know you've taken classes. In fact, as a geneticist, its unavoidable.

There's nothing wrong with taking classes, period. I don't know why you're trying to denigrate Bible classes when you've likely taken science classes in college.

...why should I first answer this non-sequitor of yours?

I didn't bring up classes, sir...you did.

What would this even achieve in your "battle of logic"? I assure you, my answer will not help you.

Then why not simply answer the question?

 

[werepossum]

It's been awhile and Rob has still avoided answering the question I posed twice in this thread concerning literally context of certain statements. Go figure...


I suppose it is hard to admit that is makes no sense to accept the literal "Jesus is the son of God" but to reject the literal "It is okay to beat your wife".

Trust me, it makes sense if one has a wife.

 

[zinfamous]

There is absolutely nothing wrong with taking classes. Thing is, the taking of a class, wasn't the point of my comment.

It's the equivalent of a college kid walking out of his intro to economics history class on the first day and trying to drop knowledge on the causes and consequences of the Great Depression, after the lecturer gave an interesting and stirring presentation on the events leading up to Black Friday. Of course, the student hasn't really explored beyond that, hasn't even gotten to the meat of the depression, but is already trying to claim expertise.

It's silly.

Regardless, taking a class isn't really enough. You're limited by the presenter's perspective if you choose not to engage in other material; and only until you get to the point that you want to turn this knowledge into a masters or PhD thesis, would you ever be able to claim some manner of tangible expertise on the subject.

It was a layered message conveyed in that simple statement that I made. Not something meant for discussion or worthy of meaningful retort. You have trouble focusing, though, and addressing the actual points made by others that address your topic.

 

[Retro Rob]

There is absolutely nothing wrong with taking classes. Thing is, the taking of a class, wasn't the point of my comment.

Well it seemed like it was. Point taken.

It's the equivalent of a college kid walking out of his intro to economics history class on the first day and trying to drop knowledge on the causes and consequences of the Great Depression, after the lecturer gave an interesting and stirring presentation on the events leading up to Black Friday. Of course, the student hasn't really explored beyond that, hasn't even gotten to the meat of the depression, but is already trying to claim expertise.

Actually, this is a strawman. I never claimed expertise in anything...I gave my reason on why I though Exophase was wrong by showing how the Documentary Hypothesis (which focuses on the same things he contends is evidence of dual-authorship) is inherently flawed.

If I "claimed" expertise in anything, show me where, sir.