[__ Science __ ] “Dog Door” Discovered on Mars?

[Paul E. Michael]

Ham thinks that the space team views this as a possible sign of intelligent life. In fact, the space team believes no such thing, so Ham is erecting a straw man.

IOW, you did not read the article, and so, hypocritically, you are erecting a strawman by saying, "Ham thinks that the space team views this as a possible sign of intelligent life." Which is why (despite the fact that I had just got done requesting you to directly quote him to try to substantiate your charge) you don't, because you can't, quote Ham's words so as to substantiate that false accusation of yours. You have, and love to spew, so much hate for Ken Ham and AIG that it is nothing to you to sit there and shamelessly lie about them, and about their article, which you did not even read.

 

[T. E. Smith]

IOW, you did not read the article, and so, hypocritically, you are erecting a strawman by saying, "Ham thinks that the space team views this as a possible sign of intelligent life." Which is why (despite the fact that I had just got done requesting you to directly quote him to try to substantiate your charge) you don't, because you can't, quote Ham's words so as to substantiate that false accusation of yours. You have, and love to spew, so much hate for Ken Ham and AIG that it is nothing to you to sit there and shamelessly lie about them, and about their article, which you did not even read.

It's obvious that this is what Ham thinks. Of course I read the article. If you don't think this is what Ham means, then maybe you didn't read the article.
By the way I have read AiG's full Answers book set so I have a good understanding of what they actually teach.

 

[Paul E. Michael]

Yep. I wrote: ""Dog door" is just a humorous name scientists gave to a feature that is quite natural, but offers some insights into the geology of Mars. Sometimes science humor misleads people as it seems to have misled AIG here."

I'm not saying that they intentionally misrepresented what the scientists wrote about it. My initial impression was that they didn't understand the report. I suppose it's possible that they did, but I don't really see a point in them having done that. I still think they just didn't understand it.

Like I said, you suffer from faulty perception, as you showcase here, once again. You just didn't understand AIG's article.

"I'm not saying that they intentionally misrepresented what the scientists wrote about."

Don't try to hide behind your subterfuge of bringing up a question of intentionality which no one asked. Are you saying that AIG misrepresented, period, what the authors wrote in their space.com article? Did, according to you, AIG misrepresent, in their article, what is written in the space.com article? Yes or No?

 

[T. E. Smith]

Like I said, you suffer from faulty perception, as you showcase here, once again. You just didn't understand AIG's article.

"I'm not saying that they intentionally misrepresented what the scientists wrote about."

Don't try to hide behind your subterfuge of bringing up a question of intentionality which no one asked. Are you saying that AIG misrepresented, period, what the authors wrote in their space.com article? Did, according to you, AIG misrepresent, in their article, what is written in the space.com article? Yes or No?

you're being ridiculous. Of course intentionality matters. If AiG was straight-up *lying* to press a point, that would be a big deal.

 

[Paul E. Michael]

It's obvious that this is what Ham thinks.

That you say this obviates, once again, that either you did not read Ken Ham's article, and are lying about it, or you read it, and are lying about it. That's the dilemma into which you've put yourself, all motivated out of your penchant for spewing your hate for Ken Ham and AIG.

Of course I read the article.

Then you are shamelessly lying about what Ken Ham wrote in it.

If you don't think this is what Ham means, then maybe you didn't read the article.

Demonstrate that Ham means what you are falsely accusing him of meaning in his article. As you and I both know, you cannot. You are persistently stonewalling against my simple request for you to quote his exact words in which, according to you, he is claiming "that the space team views this as a possible sign of intelligent life". As you and I both know, you have not found, and cannot find anything that he wrote in this article that has even a shred of a chance of being construed as Ham claiming "that the space team views this as a possible sign of intelligent life".

By the way I have read AiG's full Answers book set so I have a good understanding of what they actually teach.

1. That is irrelevant, and I do not take your word for it, anyway.
2. From all the posts I've seen of yours, it does not appear that you have much of any understanding of anything about which you have chimed in. I'm not saying you have no understanding of anything...it's just that, if you do, none of it comes though in your posts.

 

[Paul E. Michael]

you're being ridiculous. Of course intentionality matters. If AiG was straight-up *lying* to press a point, that would be a big deal.

Then why did you claim that intentionality does not matter?

 

[Barbarian]

Did, according to you, AIG misrepresent, in their article, what is written in the space.com article? Yes or No?

The title of the post was misleading, yes. But as I said, I believe that they merely misunderstood the report.

 

[Paul E. Michael]

The title of the post was misleading, yes.

No it wasn't.

But as I said, I believe that they merely misunderstood the report.

As I said, you either misunderstood (if you, in some sense, read) Ken Ham's article, or have been deliberately misrepresenting it.

 

[daninthelionsden]

I would call that normal for them.

Honestly agnostics and atheism offer no hope .

Roddenberry ,gene type ,ww2 navy pilot ,and humanist created trek and if you look at eugenics ,star trek is warning against that in a few stories .the tos has the navy influence as well.

Not to have conflicts or be dark when he was alive .ds9 was green light but he was dead when it was airing ,he wouldn't like the darker ,internal conflict style it had


Unrealistic,but given it was in the early space age era ,it fit and gave a meaning and good feel.

Modern sci Fi has nothing close save Stargate sg1,sga.

Given recent wars and events I can see why some hope for that

One of my favorite Star Trek episodes was when Kirk and friends visited a planet of sun worshippers then later finding out they were Son worshippers. Also found out Spock's hand sign is an actual Jewish hand symbol for none other than basically "Live long and prosper" with a hidden God twist.

 

[T. E. Smith]

I'm done talking to you Paul. You've accused me of lying multiple times and have been very aggressive in your posts. That's not the way to get a response.