Dinosaur Debate 2
So. Three years after the original and rarely-referenced Great Dinosaur Debate, what shows up in my mailbox?
| From: “User12″
To: <Nathan Shumate> Subject: No such thing as dinosaurs Date sent: Sun, 15 Apr 2001 06:44:59 +0100 Your page is convoluted… perhaps even deliberately. IMO there have never been dinosaurs. There has only ever been a cablistic movement to introduce anti-biblical propoganda in the form of popular science. There is no proof or evidence of dinosaurs anywhere. Every fossil discovery is suspect. Every claim potentially bogus, every classification almost whimsical. Iguanadon? Pah! Bunkum. If I have come to the wrong place forgive me. If not I dare you to havea public debate with me on this subject. |
| From: Nathan Shumate
To: user12 Subject: Re: No such thing as dinosaurs Date sent: Sun, 15 Apr 2001 08:55:40 -0600 A public debate is tempting, except for the attitude you so clearly present in your e-mail. If every possible bit of evidence to support the existence of dinosaurs is characterized a priori as “suspect,” “potentially bogus,” or “almost whimsical,” then what evidence could I possibly present? And if I told you of fossils I’ve found myself, you would either characterize me as a “dupe,” or as part of the vast anti-Biblical conspiracy, and discount me entirely. Anything I could show you, you would dismiss instantly as “faked” — whereas I somehow suspect that you would treat the Bible itself as unassailable and not open to the same charges and suspicions as any pro-dinosaur evidence. I’m sure it must be comforting to have entrenched one’s self in an intractable position and no longer have occasion to weigh evidence and examine one’s beliefs. But I see no need to have a trial when the verdict has already been declared. Respectfully, Nathan Shumate |
| From: “User12″
To: Nathan Shumate Subject: Re: No such thing as dinosaurs Date sent: Mon, 16 Apr 2001 03:52:20 +0100 You show some wisdom to decline my offer.
. If every possible bit of evidence to support the existence > of dinosaurs is characterized a priori as “suspect,” “potentially > bogus,” or “almost whimsical,” then what evidence could I possibly > present?> You may attempt to present some unassailable evidence - the kind of evidence that has persuaded a cogent individual in touch with all his faculties such as yourself..If you are convinced that dinosaurs existed then I give credit where it is due. Something must have convinced you. I have do not preclude that the Bible is kosher. Indeed I believe that it has been adulterated - mis-translated etc., to the point of being less than reliable with regards to little details like antidiluvian species and even anthropology.. I would go so far as to say that it is a shame that we exist in this era. It would be nice to read an unabridged Bible.- if such a thing ever existed. Instead we have to use logical conjecture to decipher it. Perhaps the real truth of our common past is an infinitely more interesting reflection of the current status quo. |
| From: Nathan Shumate
To: user12 Subject: Re: No such thing as dinosaurs Date sent: Sun, 15 Apr 2001 21:17:02 -0600
> You.show some wisdom to decline my offer. > > If every possible bit of evidence to support the existence of > > dinosaurs is characterized a priori as “suspect,” “potentially > > bogus,” or “almost whimsical,” then what evidence could I possibly > > present?> > You may attempt to present some unassailable evidence - the kind of > evidence that has persuaded a cogent individual in touch with all his > faculties such as yourself..If you are convinced that dinosaurs > existed then I give credit where it is due. Something must have > convinced you. Indeed — simple weight of credible testimony. To believe that dinosaurs did not exist, I must assume duplicity on the part of a staggering number of people, impuning their characters by the bald assertion that, despite a complete lack of documentary evidence, they were ardent antichrists involved in an organized conspiracy spanning almost two hundred years. Is it possible that dinosaurs did not exist? Infinitesmally, yes. However, to make said possibility plausible I must find so many ways to discount the weight of evidence that my thought processes would resemble a Rube Goldberg invention. I assign the existence of dinosaurs to the same category as I do your own existence — Occam’s Razor slices mightily in its favor. I am refreshed that you admit to an adulterated Bible, as that is the position I hold — that inspired and not-so-inspired texts have been transmitted through and “improved” by so many intermediate hands that the ultimate divine origin of any concept is sometimes very questionable. I also feel that any inspired work should be trusted to any extent only on those matters on which it purposes to instruct. I see nowhere that God intended the Bible to be a manual for the physical sciences, and that as long as one is willing to concede that the whole amalgam is not 100% literal, one should be willing to weigh any Biblical pronouncements against evidence of a more immediate and well-correlated nature. Yours, Nathan Shumate |
| From: “User12″
To: Nathan Shumate Subject: Re: No such thing as dinosaurs Date sent: Tue, 17 Apr 2001 05:30:06 +0100 In response to my request for some evidence of the existence of dinosaurs you wrote:
> Indeed — simple weight of credible testimony. To believe > that dinosaurs did not exist, I must assume duplicity on the part > of a staggering number of people, impuning their characters by the > bald assertion that, despite a complete lack of documentary > evidence, they were ardent antichrists involved in an organized > conspiracy spanning almost two hundred years. > Is it possible that dinosaurs did not exist? Infinitesmally, yes. > However, to make said possibility plausible I must find so many > ways to discount the weight of evidence that my thought processes > would resemble a Rube Goldberg invention. I assign the existence of > dinosaurs to the same category as I do your own existence – > Occam’s Razor slices mightily in its favor. > I am refreshed that you admit to an adulterated Bible, as that is > the position I hold — that inspired and not-so-inspired texts have > been transmitted through and “improved” by so many intermediate > hands that the ultimate divine origin of any concept is sometimes > very questionable. I also feel that any inspired work should be > trusted to any extent only on those matters on which it purposes to > instruct. I see nowhere that God intended the Bible to be a manual > for the physical sciences, and that as long as one is willing to > concede that the whole amalgam is not 100% literal, one should be > willing to weigh any Biblical pronouncements against evidence of a > more immediate and well-correlated nature. I understand that to ask for unassailable evidence from you is unfair and tantamount to asking for blood from a stone. I wish to point out that the act of belief is deliberate. That is, a person must first want to believe a thing before they do believe it. Along with the ablity for people to tell lies - this has given rise to the concept of denial. People can choose to believe, or to ignore, to lie or to tell the truth and to admit or to deny. Because of these facts it is necessary for us to discern - to judge, to weigh up evidence in order to come to a conclusion. This being said I urge you to produce for me the evidence that swayed your opinion in one direction - to believe that dinosaurs existed. IMHO the fact that there is a 200 year-old theory claiming that oversized dug-up bones belonged to an extinct species of oddly proportioned bird-lizards, who lived 150 million years ago and became extinct 65 million years ago - only goes to show just how guliable society is. For at least 150 of those years scientific gossip.would be extremely facile for propogation amongst the docile masses. Without a reason not to do so - people believe what they hear from others in authority. The claim that the original discoveries of dinosauria were fraudulent in one way or another gives a reason for people now to disbelieve. It will only take a few authoritative statements in say the movies or on cable documentary channels to convince the public that dinosaurs did not exist. So now, I require some good evidence from you. Something that surpasses my expectations, that renders my opinions useless and gives me a reason to decide that dinosaurs existed. If you cannot do this then I will dismiss you as.just another fool. There are many in the world so don’t take this as an insult. Finally I just want to add that I only discount the validity of the translation of the Bible, knowing only too well that those in positions of power in this world, strive to keep the truth away from the innocent. The Bible IMO is as close to the truth as the average man will come at this time. It is just a matter of using personal observation and common sense to get the rest. |
| From: Nathan Shumate
To: user12 Subject: Re: No such thing as dinosaurs Date sent: Tue, 17 Apr 2001 06:52:48 -0600
> I understand that to ask for unassailable evidence from you is unfair and tantamount to asking for blood from a stone. > I wish to point out that the act of belief is deliberate. Of course it is, but that does not discount the role of evidence in forming that belief. If I believe that the sun will come up this morning, it is not an irrational or prerational “need to believe;” it is simply an interpretation of available data into a cogent belief. The sun has come up every other morning; I have every reason that it will again tomorrow, and no reason to believe that it won’t.
> That is, a person must first want to believe a thing before > they do believe it. Along with the ablity for people to tell lies - > this has given rise to the concept of denial. People can choose to > believe, or to ignore, to lie or to tell the truth and to admit or > to deny. I disagree with the strength of this sentence. A person need not first want to believe, but simply be willing to believe — i.e., not first be devoted to disbelief. I have no emotional investment many of the things I believe on a day- to-day basis; I’m simply willing to accept the evidence around me and form a working conclusion from that evidence. I’m always willing to believe differently, but the new conclusion has to be able to explain the evidence better than the old one.
> Because of these facts it is necessary for us to discern - > to judge, to weigh up evidence in order to come to a conclusion. > This being said I urge you to produce for me the evidence that > swayed your opinion in one direction - to believe that dinosaurs > existed. > IMHO the fact that there is a 200 year-old theory claiming that > oversized dug-up bones belonged to an extinct species of oddly > proportioned bird-lizards, who lived 150 million years ago and > became extinct 65 million years ago - only goes to show just how > guliable society is. You’re confusing two separate issues here — the mere existence of dinosaurs, as evidenced by fossil remains, and the more complex construction of theory as to their timeframe and environment. The former should be easy; go to your library and find a book with plenty of photos of dinosaur bones, preferably in situ. Better yet, arrange a trip for yourself to someplace like Vernal, Utah, where bones are still displayed in situ. Looking at this evidence, there are two conclusions which can be drawn: Either these things are what they appear to be, or they are not. If they are deceptive, one must posit (despite any evidence) that there is a monolithic conspiracy abroad, and that every single person who has ever found a dinosaur bone is either an unwitting dupe, or a willing participant in such a scheme. In the absence of evidence supporting such a conspiracy, I see no reason to believe it.
>For at least 150 of those years scientific gossip.would be extremely facile.for propogation amongst the docile masses. Without a reason not to do so - people believe what they hear from others in authority. All of which is true, and none of which actually negates the expertise of those “in authority” in this case.
> The claim that the original discoveries of dinosauria were > fraudulent in one way or another gives a reason for people now to > disbelieve. It will only take a few authoritative statements in say > the movies or on cable documentary channels to convince the public > that dinosaurs did not exist. As you yourself point out, the ease of the public’s convincing by cable documentaries is irrelevant.
> So now, I require some good evidence from you. Something > that surpasses my expectations, that renders my opinions useless and > gives me a reason to decide that dinosaurs existed. If you cannot do > this then I will dismiss you as.just another fool. There are many in > the world so don’t take this as an insult. ,/tt> I certainly shall take that as an insult, sir. My intelligence will not be defined by my ability to convince another soul; that would reflect more upon you than upon me. A fool is not one who cannot teach, but one who cannot learn. I have given you a simple avenue of evidence; to reject it, you must go in with an a priori assumption of duplicity and conspiracy which makes all evidence suspect. If you cannot see the problem with this stance, I don’t know that I can explain it to you.
> Finally I just want to add that I only discount the > validity of the translation of the Bible, knowing only too well that > those in positions of power in this world, strive to keep the truth > away from the innocent. The Bible IMO is as close to the truth as > the average man will come at this time. It is just a matter of using > personal observation and common sense to get the rest. And here again, I disagree. The Bible is a record of other people’s contact with the divine; it can at best be a pointer for me to do so, but it is not a substitute for me doing so. I believe in a God who is just as present as he ever was, who gives wisdom liberally to any who lack it. God Himself is the closest any average person can come to truth, and those who do not avail themselves of Him have only themselves to blame. My faith is in God; my use for the Bible is only insomuch as it gets me beyond itself to Him. Nathan |
| From: “User12″
To: Nathan Shumate Subject: Re: No such thing as dinosaurs Date sent: Tue, 17 Apr 2001 16:59:07 +0100 Sorry, but your transmission is breaking up. I really cannot make sense of much of what you say because it is garbled with strange characters and missing letters. What e-mail program do you use? I have never seen this type of data loss before. It’s a good thing my messages are still intact. Would you be so kind as to send the message again please. From what I did manage to read, I noticed that you didn’t really grasp what I said, or truly attempt to address it. You should not disagree with me for the sake of disagreeing. If I give a person a really good reason to believe that the sun will not come up tomorrow they still don’t have to believe me. It is not an automatic response because the event has yet to happen. They cannot instantly know that I am right or wrong - they can only choose to believe me or choose to dismiss what I have said. I choose to dismiss what you say about dinosaurs because it is not good enough to convince me - you don’t give me a choice. If I wanted to live a licentious lifestyle with all the benefits that entails, but without guilt, I could easily choose to believe modern scientific conjecture because it would offer me the choice to dismiss the bible as mere mythology. I could feel comfortable knowing that almost everyone else shares the same reality. I could take it for granted and live however I pleased - in the belief that there is no god. I do not believe this because I do not want to. This is why primarily, I reject modern conjecture about oversized bones found in the ground. On a purely scientific level I dismiss the notion that dinosaurs existed in the ways that palaeontologists are so eager to suggest because the theory of evolution which is a central tenet of palaeontology - is hilarious. It has to be the most flawed notion that has ever existed. Now I know that I have made it clear where I stand. What I want from you is to do the same. Make it clear to me where you stand on the subject and why. Don’t just oppose me, or hope that being pedantic will convince me of your prowess and knowledge. I am a simple person. I require simple answers. Tell me why you jump to use the word “conspiracy.”, when I have not. Tell me why you are so afraid of this word, why you cannot accept that it exists. To start a conspiracy only two people are needed. The fact that it may have worked is not incredible. It is supposed to work. Besides there are different kinds of conspiracies. Pertinent to this conversation are conspiracies of silence for example - where like minded parties act without a brief. It is not difficult for one unscrupulous party to determine the intentions of another from even a simple statement. The theory of evolution clearly advertises its intentions as does the dinosaur phenomenon. I noticed your mauling of a less articulate person on your site. I was not impressed by it. This is why I would like to have a proper debate with you. One where you do not have licence to be diplomatic. Show me what you are made of. Tell me comprehensively what exactly makes Nathan believe that dinosaurs existed. (if you still do) |
| From: “Nathan Shumate”
To: “User12″ Date: 04/17/01 10:45:29 Subject: Re: No such thing as dinosaurs
> Sorry, but your transmission is breaking up. > > I really cannot make sense of much of what you say because it is > garbled > with strange characters and missing letters. What e-mail program do > you use? > I have never seen this type of data loss before. It’s a good thing my > messages are still intact. Would you be so kind as to send the > message again > please. I apologize for any garbling. The program I use at home is Pegasus; what I’m using now is a web-based program. I won’t be able to resend the former message until I get home.
> From what I did manage to read, I noticed that you didn’t really > grasp what > I said, or truly attempt to address it. You should not disagree with > me for > the sake of disagreeing. I am NOT disagreeing with you for the sake of disagreeing with you, I
> If I give a person a really good reason to believe that the sun will > not > come up tomorrow they still don’t have to believe me. It is not an > automatic > response because the event has yet to happen. They cannot instantly > know > that I am right or wrong - they can only choose to believe me or > choose to > dismiss what I have said. You fail to look beneath the surface in this issue. There is a
> I choose to dismiss what you say about dinosaurs because it is not > good > enough to convince me - you don’t give me a choice. That is your choice, and this declaration verifies what I said in my
> If I wanted to live a licentious lifestyle with all the benefits that > entails, but without guilt, I could easily choose to believe modern > scientific conjecture because it would offer me the choice to dismiss > the > bible as mere mythology. I could feel comfortable knowing that almost > everyone else shares the same reality. I could take it for granted > and live > however I pleased - in the belief that there is no god. > > I do not believe this because I do not want to. > > This is why primarily, I reject modern conjecture about oversized > bones > found in the ground. In other words, your rejection of the existence of dinosaurs has
> On a purely scientific level I dismiss the notion that dinosaurs > existed in > the ways that palaeontologists are so eager to suggest because the > theory of > evolution which is a central tenet of palaeontology - is hilarious. > It has > to > be the most flawed notion that has ever existed. Argument by declarative fiat is scarcely convincing.
> Now I know that I have made it clear where I stand. What I want from > you is > to do the same. Make it clear to me where you stand on the subject > and why. > Don’t just oppose me, or hope that being pedantic will convince me of > your > prowess and knowledge. I am a simple person. I require simple > answers. Apparently, oversimple. Your answers so far have amounted to “I choose I’m really unsure where your objection here is. I have answered your
> Tell me why you jump to use the word “conspiracy.”, when I have not. > Tell me > why you are so afraid of this word, why you cannot accept that it > exists. To > start a conspiracy only two people are needed. The fact that it may > have > worked is not incredible. It is supposed to work. 1) For a great number of people to work together (as would have to be 2) You impute fear to my use of the word. I have expressed none. 3) Why can I not accept the existence of such a conspiracy? I’m
> Besides there are different kinds of conspiracies. Pertinent to this > conversation are conspiracies of silence for example - where like > minded > parties act without a brief. It is not difficult for one unscrupulous > party > to determine the intentions of another from even a simple statement. > The > theory of evolution clearly advertises its intentions as does the > dinosaur > phenomenon. I’m sorry, I don’t understand what you’re getting at here.
> I noticed your mauling of a less articulate person on your site. I > was not > impressed by it. This is why I would like to have a proper debate > with you. > One where you do not have licence to be diplomatic. What subject, exactly, would you intend to debate? The veracity of fossil evidence? The premise of biological evolution? The evils of humanism? You seem unclear as to what case you’re trying to present.> Show me what you are made of. > > Tell me comprehensively what exactly makes Nathan believe that > dinosaurs > existed. (if you still do) |
| From: “User12″
To: Nathan Shumate Subject: Re: No such thing as dinosaurs Date sent: Tue, 17 Apr 2001 23:27:43 +0100
> I apologize for any garbling. The program I use at home is Pegasus; > what I’m using now is a web-based program. I won’t be able to resend > the former message until I get home. > > > From what I did manage to read, I noticed that you didn’t really > > grasp what > > I said, or truly attempt to address it. You should not disagree with > > me for > > the sake of disagreeing. > > I am NOT disagreeing with you for the sake of disagreeing with you, I > am disagreeing with you because I think you are wrong. Considering your later comments about my objectives, what exactly do you
> > If I give a person a really good reason to believe that the sun will > > not > > come up tomorrow they still don’t have to believe me. It is not an > > automatic > > response because the event has yet to happen. They cannot instantly > > know > > that I am right or wrong - they can only choose to believe me or > > choose to > > dismiss what I have said. > > You fail to look beneath the surface in this issue. There is a > _reason_ behind any choice of belief. I have outlined to you why I > believe what I do: Because the evidence makes that belief most > reasonable. There is just as much evidence to say that 12 foot giants walked the earth
Wew are not speaking about “a person” in the hypothetical; > you asked me about my belief processes. I cannot answer for other > people, nor do I intend to. If you want to debate why some other > person believes a proposition, you will have to take it up with that > person. This is going off the subject. I am talking only to you.
> > I choose to dismiss what you say about dinosaurs because it is not > > good > > enough to convince me - you don’t give me a choice. > > That is your choice, and this declaration verifies what I said in my > previous post: That my inability to convince anyone of the existence > of dinosaurs, or any other proposition, is at least as much dependent > on the hearer as the speaker. No. You are wrong here. I don’t believe that you yourself believe your own
> > If I wanted to live a licentious lifestyle with all the benefits that > > entails, but without guilt, I could easily choose to believe modern > > scientific conjecture because it would offer me the choice to dismiss > > the > > bible as mere mythology. I could feel comfortable knowing that almost > > everyone else shares the same reality. I could take it for granted > > and live > > however I pleased - in the belief that there is no god. > > > > I do not believe this because I do not want to. > > > > This is why primarily, I reject modern conjecture about oversized > > bones > > found in the ground. > > In other words, your rejection of the existence of dinosaurs has > nothing to do with the dinosaurs themselves, but on your willingness to > accept what you see as philosophical/moral/ethical positions which you > see as being linked. Have I got it? No. In response to your rebuttal of my assertion that beliefs are
> > On a purely scientific level I dismiss the notion that dinosaurs > > existed in > > the ways that palaeontologists are so eager to suggest because the > > theory of > > evolution which is a central tenet of palaeontology - is hilarious. > > It has > > to > > be the most flawed notion that has ever existed. > > Argument by declarative fiat is scarcely convincing. Speak for yourself. I am presenting an established fact here… not an
> > Now I know that I have made it clear where I stand. What I want from > > you is > > to do the same. Make it clear to me where you stand on the subject > > and why. > > Don’t just oppose me, or hope that being pedantic will convince me of > > your > > prowess and knowledge. I am a simple person. I require simple > > answers. > > Apparently, oversimple. Your answers so far have amounted to “I choose > not to believe just cuz.” Would you wish me to dilute my own answers > to that point? I have pointed you in the direction of the weight of > evidence (your local library), and I have outlined the reasons for my > belief, indeed, for anything I believe: Because I see that explanation > as the most plausible of those available. This is a classic symptom found in anyone struggling in a debate - to resort
> I’m really unsure where your objection here is. I have answered your > questions to the best of my ability. Which ability? I am still waiting for something substacial.
> > Tell me why you jump to use the word “conspiracy.”, when I have not. > > Tell me > > why you are so afraid of this word, why you cannot accept that it > > exists. To > > start a conspiracy only two people are needed. The fact that it may > > have > > worked is not incredible. It is supposed to work. > > 1) For a great number of people to work together (as would have to be > the case in a fraud of this magnitude) without broadcasting their plans > of fraud, it would necessarily be a conspiracy. Not per se. Like I said, like minds think alike. Also I’d wager that the
> 2) You impute fear to my use of the word. I have expressed none. I use the word fear because you are so quick to jump to the notion of a
> 3) Why can I not accept the existence of such a conspiracy? I’m > getting rather tired of repeating myself, so I hope this last time will > suffice: To assume, without evidence, the planned duplicity of so many > thousands of people in such a far-reaching charade for almost two > centuries is simply ungainly. If I have no reason to suppose that such > a conspiracy exists, why should I accept it? If you accept that God exists (as you said in a previous message), then I Is it not true that the medieval Catholic Church in Europe restricted the Are you not aware of the many attempts to pervert, surpress and withhold the Is it so implausible that a few atheist scholars in the 19th Century could Perhaps Nathan you need to visit that library of yours again.
> > Besides there are different kinds of conspiracies. Pertinent to this > > conversation are conspiracies of silence for example - where like > > minded > > parties act without a brief. It is not difficult for one unscrupulous > > party > > to determine the intentions of another from even a simple statement. > > The > > theory of evolution clearly advertises its intentions as does the > > dinosaur > > phenomenon. > > I’m sorry, I don’t understand what you’re getting at here. If, I am a bigot for example and I want a member of a community I dislike to The theory of evolution is clearly contrary to the teachings in the Bible.
> > I noticed your mauling of a less articulate person on your site. I > > was not > > impressed by it. This is why I would like to have a proper debate > > with you. > > One where you do not have licence to be diplomatic. > > What subject, exactly, would you intend to debate? The veracity of > fossil evidence? The premise of biological evolution? The evils of > humanism? You seem unclear as to what case you’re trying to present. I am not trying to present any case. I am trying to make you present one so
> > Show me what you are made of. > > > > Tell me comprehensively what exactly makes Nathan believe that > > dinosaurs > > existed. (if you still do) > > “If” I still do? Why, do you entertain the notion that you have > presented some watertight case which would shake that belief? Because someone as intelligent and “well read” as you should by now believe
> I see no need to retype for you every book on paleantology from the > local library, especially as you have shown that your objection to > dinosaur existence rests on a) a rejection of philosophies which you > see as being supported by their existence, Sorry. I cannot accept your definition of the basis of my objection. You
and b) a rejection of the > premise of organic evolution; particularly lacking is any reasoned > refutation of the actual physical fossil evidence. I am quite sure that anyone reading this message is fully aware of the
Given that you > apparently reject said physical evidence for reasons unrelated to the > evidence itself, The so-called evidence may be evidence of something else entirely.
I can see no point in presenting further relevant > evidence for it to be rejected for irrelevant reasonings. Any relevant evidence you produce is welcomed. So far I haven’t seen any. |
| From: “Nathan Shumate”
To: “User12″ Date: 04/17/01 16:54:44 Subject: Re: No such thing as dinosaurs
> > > From what I did manage to read, I noticed that you didn’t really > > > grasp what > > > I said, or truly attempt to address it. You should not disagree > with > > > me for > > > the sake of disagreeing. > > > > I am NOT disagreeing with you for the sake of disagreeing with you, > I > > am disagreeing with you because I think you are wrong. > > > > Considering your later comments about my objectives, what exactly do > you > think am I wrong about? I think you are wrong to conclude that there were no such things as
> > > If I give a person a really good reason to believe that the sun > will > > > not > > > come up tomorrow they still don’t have to believe me. It is not > an > > > automatic > > > response because the event has yet to happen. They cannot > instantly > > > know > > > that I am right or wrong - they can only choose to believe me or > > > choose to > > > dismiss what I have said. > > > > You fail to look beneath the surface in this issue. There is a > > _reason_ behind any choice of belief. I have outlined to you why I > > believe what I do: Because the evidence makes that belief most > > reasonable. > > There is just as much evidence to say that 12 foot giants walked the > earth > and died at exactly the same time or that there were huge chickens. > What > makes you believe that “terrible lizards” ever existed? Did you > actually see > one? There have never been bones found of 12-foot chickens. There have been
> Wew are not speaking about “a person” in the hypothetical; > > you asked me about my belief processes. I cannot answer for other > > people, nor do I intend to. If you want to debate why some other > > person believes a proposition, you will have to take it up with > that > > person. > > This is going off the subject. I am talking only to you. Exactly. You were going off the subject (you can still see, above, the
> > > I choose to dismiss what you say about dinosaurs because it is > not > > > good > > > enough to convince me - you don’t give me a choice. > > > > That is your choice, and this declaration verifies what I said in > my > > previous post: That my inability to convince anyone of the > existence > > of dinosaurs, or any other proposition, is at least as much > dependent > > on the hearer as the speaker. > > No. You are wrong here. I don’t believe that you yourself believe > your own > proposition. You sound at least to me like you are just going through > the > motions with a standard response to anyone who attacks this fragile > shambles. There is absolutely no conviction in your statements. Excuse me a moment: BWAH HA HA HA HAH!!! There, I’m much better now. Anything else your crystal ball tells you
> > > If I wanted to live a licentious lifestyle with all the benefits > that > > > entails, but without guilt, I could easily choose to believe > modern > > > scientific conjecture because it would offer me the choice to > dismiss > > > the > > > bible as mere mythology. I could feel comfortable knowing that > almost > > > everyone else shares the same reality. I could take it for > granted > > > and live > > > however I pleased - in the belief that there is no god. > > > > > > I do not believe this because I do not want to. > > > > > > This is why primarily, I reject modern conjecture about oversized > > > bones > > > found in the ground. > > > > In other words, your rejection of the existence of dinosaurs has > > nothing to do with the dinosaurs themselves, but on your > willingness to > > accept what you see as philosophical/moral/ethical positions which > you > > see as being linked. Have I got it? > > No. In response to your rebuttal of my assertion that beliefs are > deliberate I have given you an example. You use the phrase “the > dinosaurs” > interchangeably in a debate about their existence. This deliberate > act is > more evidence of my point. You have decided to champion the notion > that > dinosaurs existed - that they are a fact, regardless of formidable > arguments > against you - or at least regardless of the probability that they > never > existed at all. What formidable arguments? You have presented none, nor have you By the way, this was a skillful redirection of my examination of your
> > > On a purely scientific level I dismiss the notion that dinosaurs > > > existed in > > > the ways that palaeontologists are so eager to suggest because > the > > > theory of > > > evolution which is a central tenet of palaeontology - is > hilarious. > > > It has > > > to > > > be the most flawed notion that has ever existed. > > > > Argument by declarative fiat is scarcely convincing. > > Speak for yourself. I am presenting an established fact here… not > an > argument. The THEORY of evolution IS hopelessly flawed. In what way? This is not an “established” fact in any scientific
> > > Now I know that I have made it clear where I stand. What I want > from > > > you is > > > to do the same. Make it clear to me where you stand on the > subject > > > and why. > > > Don’t just oppose me, or hope that being pedantic will convince > me of > > > your > > > prowess and knowledge. I am a simple person. I require simple > > > answers. > > > > Apparently, oversimple. Your answers so far have amounted to “I > choose > > not to believe just cuz.” Would you wish me to dilute my own > answers > > to that point? I have pointed you in the direction of the weight > of > > evidence (your local library), and I have outlined the reasons for > my > > belief, indeed, for anything I believe: Because I see that > explanation > > as the most plausible of those available. > > This is a classic symptom found in anyone struggling in a debate - to > resort > to misrepresentation of the opponent’s comments in the hope that it > goes > ignored and/or taken for granted. If you have to revise what I have > said > please have the decency to quote me. It was this kind of thing I > noticed on > your Website that disgusted me. > For the record your own answers are evasive. Telling me to go to my > local > library does not convince me that you have been to yours. I want you > Nathan > to educate me in your own words with your own examples… so that I > can have > faith that you believe what YOU are saying. Ah, I see. The fact that I have told you that I believe something is Would you have me type in, verbatim, voluminous texts? Attach
> > I’m really unsure where your objection here is. I have answered > your > > questions to the best of my ability. > > Which ability? I am still waiting for something substacial. If you give me your ZIP code, I’m sure I’ll be able to find you a
> > > Tell me why you jump to use the word “conspiracy.”, when I have > not. > > > Tell me > > > why you are so afraid of this word, why you cannot accept that it > > > exists. To > > > start a conspiracy only two people are needed. The fact that it > may > > > have > > > worked is not incredible. It is supposed to work. > > > > 1) For a great number of people to work together (as would have to > be > > the case in a fraud of this magnitude) without broadcasting their > plans > > of fraud, it would necessarily be a conspiracy. > > Not per se. Like I said, like minds think alike. Also I’d wager that > the > percentage of dino hunters in the world is sufficiently small to > maintain a > world-wide conspiracy in any event. Wouldn’t you? It would have to encompass: 1) All field workers. Hundreds of people are involved in 2) All museum staff involved in paleantology. Again, this is hundreds Extrapolate backwards for two hundred years, and you have several
> > 2) You impute fear to my use of the word. I have expressed none. > > I use the word fear because you are so quick to jump to the notion of > a > conspiracy when looking for something incredible as an excuse for > your > convictions. It seems as though you are anxious to eliminate this > notion… > perhaps because it is the truth. Or perhaps because it is annoying bunkum. One good hypothesis deserves
> > 3) Why can I not accept the existence of such a conspiracy? I’m > > getting rather tired of repeating myself, so I hope this last time > will > > suffice: To assume, without evidence, the planned duplicity of so > many > > thousands of people in such a far-reaching charade for almost two > > centuries is simply ungainly. If I have no reason to suppose that > such > > a conspiracy exists, why should I accept it? > > If you accept that God exists (as you said in a previous message), > then I > assume that you accept the existence of Satan. If this is so am I > wrong to > assume that you believe it is Satan’s goal to pull the wool over the > eyes of > the masses? Let suppose that this is all true, regardless of your > beliefs. > If God communicated to us through the Bible then surely Satan can > communicate to us in a similar fashion. His instruments would have to > be > deception. It would trickle down through society in much the same way > as the > Christian ethos has done. You can label it in anyway you want, but > for the > purposes of this argument I will label one aspect of this phenomenon > as > popular science - erroneous theories designed to discredit God and > the > Bible, that are taken for granted. To discredit the most widely > distributed > text in man’s history would require by default an inveterate global > conspiracy. > > Is it not true that the medieval Catholic Church in Europe restricted > the > distribution of the Bible to the masses by first having it translated > into > inaccessible Latin, and then later by decree? > > Are you not aware of the many attempts to pervert, surpress and > withhold the > information contained in this sacred text throughout history? > > Is it so implausible that a few atheist scholars in the 19th Century > could > devise plans to discredit the validity of the biblical historical > record > (once the book had been popularised due to advances in printing > techniques > and translations into native tongues) by publishing convincing but > falsely > invalidating scientific data? > > Perhaps Nathan you need to visit that library of yours again. Oh, please. Satan was doing quite well in driving people to sin long If this is the best objection you have to the existence of dinosaurs,
> > > Besides there are different kinds of conspiracies. Pertinent to > this > > > conversation are conspiracies of silence for example - where like > > > minded > > > parties act without a brief. It is not difficult for one > unscrupulous > > > party > > > to determine the intentions of another from even a simple > statement. > > > The > > > theory of evolution clearly advertises its intentions as does the > > > dinosaur > > > phenomenon. > > > > I’m sorry, I don’t understand what you’re getting at here. > > If, I am a bigot for example and I want a member of a community I > dislike to > be hanged, I can just choose to ignore all the evidence and vote > guilty on a > jury composed of a majority with my prejudice. This is a form of > conspiracy. > We would all be complicit in condemning an innocent man, without > actually communicating. Does this in any way remind you of your own stance regarding fossil
> The theory of evolution is clearly contrary to the teachings in the > Bible. > Anyone who wishes to destroy the credibility of this sacred text will > likely > embrace the theory of evolution. No comments need be passed, no > instructions > given… a silent world-wide conspiracy. No, the theory of evolution is clearly contrary to a particular reading
> > > I noticed your mauling of a less articulate person on your site. > I > > > was not > > > impressed by it. This is why I would like to have a proper debate > > > with you. > > > One where you do not have licence to be diplomatic. > > > > What subject, exactly, would you intend to debate? The veracity of > > fossil evidence? The premise of biological evolution? The evils > of > > humanism? You seem unclear as to what case you’re trying to > present. > > I am not trying to present any case. I am trying to make you present > one so > I can tear it apart. You are doing a good job of evasion thus far. The case for dinosaur existence is well-established without my
> > > Show me what you are made of. > > > > > > Tell me comprehensively what exactly makes Nathan believe that > > > dinosaurs > > > existed. (if you still do) > > > > “If” I still do? Why, do you entertain the notion that you have > > presented some watertight case which would shake that belief? > > Because someone as intelligent and “well read” as you should by now > believe > that dinosaurs did not exist - IMO. Your beliefs certainly do show a certain irrational streak, I’ll admit.
> > I see no need to retype for you every book on paleantology from the > > local library, especially as you have shown that your objection to > > dinosaur existence rests on a) a rejection of philosophies which > you > > see as being supported by their existence, > > Sorry. I cannot accept your definition of the basis of my objection. > You > must learn how not to distort the facts. I do not accept that > dinosaurs > exist and there are no philosophies supported by things that do not > exist. [Yawn]
> and b) a rejection of the > > premise of organic evolution; particularly lacking is any reasoned > > refutation of the actual physical fossil evidence. > > I am quite sure that anyone reading this message is fully aware of > the > refutations against the theory of evolution. I am taking this for > granted. ,/tt> I have heard objections to said theory; I have yet to see one which I
> Given that you > > apparently reject said physical evidence for reasons unrelated to > the > > evidence itself, > > The so-called evidence may be evidence of something else entirely. > > I can see no point in presenting further relevant > > evidence for it to be rejected for irrelevant reasonings. > > Any relevant evidence you produce is welcomed. So far I haven’t seen > any. > To be honest I doubt that there is any so I expect you to find every > excuse > to attempt to disengage from this debate. I beg you to try to prove > me > wrong. You are the one who initiated this conversation; should it not behoove Nathan |
| From: “User12″
To: Nathan Shumate Subject: Re: No such thing as dinosaurs Date sent: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 08:04:00 +0100
> > > > From what I did manage to read, I noticed that you didn’t really > > > > grasp what > > > > I said, or truly attempt to address it. You should not disagree > > with > > > > me for > > > > the sake of disagreeing. > > > > > > I am NOT disagreeing with you for the sake of disagreeing with you, > > I > > > am disagreeing with you because I think you are wrong. > > > > > > > Considering your later comments about my objectives, what [exactly] do > > you > > think am I wrong about? > > I think you are wrong to conclude that there were no such things as > dinosaurs. (That was the topic on which you approached me, way back > when, remember?) Here is my original message: QUOTE: Your page is convoluted… perhaps even deliberately. IMO there have never been dinosaurs. There has only ever been a cabalistic movement to introduce anti-biblical There is no proof or evidence of dinosaurs anywhere. Every fossil discovery So should I accept that I am right about the cabalistic movement, the
> > > > If I give a person a really good reason to believe that the sun > > will > > > > not > > > > come up tomorrow they still don’t have to believe me. It is not > > an > > > > automatic > > > > response because the event has yet to happen. They cannot > > instantly > > > > know > > > > that I am right or wrong - they can only choose to believe me or > > > > choose to > > > > dismiss what I have said. > > > > > > You fail to look beneath the surface in this issue. There is a > > > _reason_ behind any choice of belief. I have outlined to you why I > > > believe what I do: Because the evidence makes that belief most > > > reasonable. > > > > There is just as much evidence to say that 12 foot giants walked the > > earth > > and died at exactly the same time or that there were huge chickens. > > What > > makes you believe that “terrible lizards” ever existed? Did you > > actually see > > one? > > There have never been bones found of 12-foot chickens. There have been > plentiful bones found of reptilian animals with upright hip structures, > which came in a variety of sizes. These bones could belong to other creatures. Their classification could be
> > Wew are not speaking about “a person” in the hypothetical; > > > you asked me about my belief processes. I cannot answer for other > > > people, nor do I intend to. If you want to debate why some other > > > person believes a proposition, you will have to take it up with > > that > > > person. > > > > This is going off the subject. I am talking only to you. > > Exactly. You were going off the subject (you can still see, above, the > paragraph to which I was replying). I’m glad you realise that. > This response is puerile. Don’t let me control your emotions. It makes you weak.> > > > I choose to dismiss what you say about dinosaurs because it is > > not > > > > good > > > > enough to convince me - you don’t give me a choice. > > > > > > That is your choice, and this declaration verifies what I said in > > my > > > previous post: That my inability to convince anyone of the > > existence > > > of dinosaurs, or any other proposition, is at least as much > > dependent > > > on the hearer as the speaker. > > > > No. You are wrong here. I don’t believe that you yourself believe > > your own > > proposition. You sound at least to me like you are just going through > > the > > motions with a standard response to anyone who attacks this fragile > > shambles. There is absolutely no conviction in your statements. > > Excuse me a moment: > > BWAH HA HA HA HAH!!! > > There, I’m much better now. Anything else your crystal ball tells you > about my “true beliefs”? I’m sorry, but this is just getting sillier > than words can express. |
| From: Nathan Shumate
To: user12@3167a.fsnet.co.uk Subject: Re: No such thing as dinosaurs Date sent: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 06:45:24 -0600 Dear sir/madam/whatever, This has become ridiculous in the extreme. I will admit you have However, rather than actually present your case, you have insisted The only affront here, friend, is to think that I have nothing better to Please alert me when the supposed existence of automobiles Nathan |
| From: “User12″
To: Nathan Shumate Subject: Re: No such thing as dinosaurs Date sent: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 15:17:39 +0100
> I want to you watch you play in traffic. This is the most hilarious sentence I have ever read. It will look great as |
Doesn’t it just, though?
Folks, where do people like this come from? Is this the state of rational thought these days? He’s unable to present a case (his “voluminous arguments” stayed off-stage the entire time), unable to do simple library research, unable to keep from committing just about every one of the local fallacies (click here to see the most common — it’s like having a scorecard, I tell you), unable to decide what issue exactly he’s debating… and to top it off, he thinks he’s achieved some kind of victory. Sure, I suppose, if your goal were to be so obtuse and inane to make communication a virtual impossibility…
By the way, I tried the same search engine query he mentions above, “Dinosaurs never existed.” I tried it on Google, Alta Vista, Excite, Hotbot, Yahoo!, and DMOZ. Yes, the phrase does come up, mostly on pages of people ridiculing those from whom they’ve heard the idea. I could find exactly three — exactly three — pages which decried the existence of dinosaurs. One was David Wozney’s (referenced in the first Great Dinosaur Debate); the second makes Wozney’s look positively convincing by comparison, and the third I’m not so sure is serious — it almost looks like a poorly-executed spoof. (There is a fourth, referenced in Wozney’s e-mails, which didn’t show up under this search.) So much for the “hundreds of thousands” of supporting web pages.
I suppose, though, that I can draw some small comfort from this. Judging from “User’s” address, it’s reasonable to assume he’s a Brit. Which means at least it’s not just America that’s trundling its children through a hopelessly inadequate educational system.
