|
|
Post by bucketfoot on Jul 20, 2009 21:06:46 GMT
Yeah - I'm going back on my view of this one. Want him again for my new and exploding prehistoric mammal collection. If you've got a spare, let's talk.  |
|
|
|
Post by tetonbabydoll on Jul 20, 2009 21:24:59 GMT
They are fairly easy to come by in several places, and not too expensive. Want me to root around and get you a couple of links??
|
|
|
|
Post by bucketfoot on Jul 20, 2009 21:37:02 GMT
They are fairly easy to come by in several places, and not too expensive. Want me to root around and get you a couple of links?? Yes Teton - that would be AWESOME!!! Thanks!!!!! |
|
|
|
Post by tetonbabydoll on Jul 20, 2009 21:52:15 GMT
Apparently, I will now have to eat my words. Not more than a month ago this guy was everywhere, now, not so much. I tried Bay State replicas, Happy Hen Toys, H & H Winner's Circle, The Big Zoo, The Dino Farm...all gone. Dino farm HAD it for 3.99, but now is out of stock. Haven't tried L & P yet, as they are usually the most expensive. I also don't know if Dan's store has them.
|
|
|
|
Post by tetonbabydoll on Jul 20, 2009 21:55:53 GMT
Nope, not at Link and Pin either. It is like the ONLY WS mammal not still around....they were there, not too long ago...dang.
However, Dan's Dinos does list it in the inventory, I don't know if it is in stock, but I would ask him.
|
|
|
|
Post by [][][]cordylus[][][] on Jul 20, 2009 23:34:34 GMT
I have one with tags bucketfoot.
|
|
|
|
Post by Radman on Jul 21, 2009 0:04:45 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by bucketfoot on Jul 21, 2009 0:53:25 GMT
Thanks! I was already watching it!! ;D |
|
|
|
Post by webdragon on Jul 21, 2009 3:28:46 GMT
I've got access to mint with tags ones as well bucketfoot, in addition to almost all of the other WS mammals. Let me know if you're interested!
|
|
|
|
Post by Tyrant King on Jul 22, 2009 0:08:57 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Pangolinmoth on Jul 22, 2009 0:21:52 GMT
Does buying prehistorics from creationists make it wrong? |
|
|
|
Post by Dan on Jul 22, 2009 1:06:11 GMT
Not if the prehistorics were "intelligently designed".  |
|
|
|
Post by bucketfoot on Jul 22, 2009 1:25:31 GMT
It doesn't make it 'wrong' or 'right'. It just has to do with the logical consistency of your beliefs (ie would you support them by buying a Bully Deinotherium from them if one was available? - I know the answer to that question, believe me! In any event, I don't have time to waste to see if they are 'young earth' creationists (ie. loons), or not. And I will not bookmark their store. |
|
|
|
Post by kuni on Jul 22, 2009 1:33:09 GMT
The old earth creationists typically still deny evolution, so, still loons Bad prices too |
|
|
|
Post by bucketfoot on Jul 22, 2009 5:24:51 GMT
The old earth creationists typically still deny evolution, so, still loons Bad prices too Well, I don't know exactly who you're talking about ... the Catholic Church has no problem with evolution....but I will agree with you that the most vocal minority on the subject are the 'go-it-alone-doctrine' 'evangelicals'.... "Old-earth creationists deny evolution?" Sounds contradictory to me. If you acknowledge that the earth is 5 Billion years old, and the Universe 20 Billion (the number keeps getting bigger the farther we are able to see with our various telescopes) then you are implicitly acknowledging that everything has evolved with time since then. If some people believe that a 'Grand Watchmaker' had to get the whole system running, that doesn't mean that they 'don't believe in evolution'. Don't make the mistake of being closed-minded like some of the extreme evangelical nuts on this topic. Remember, Prof. Dawkins is every inch the a@@holish equivalent of his most ignorant adversaries. An intelligent person does not take a 'give-no-ground' position when there is obviously room for debate. If you say there is no God like Dawkins does - I simply ask you to prove it. If he can't, yet persists in being the a@@hole that he is, then there's not much difference between him and Jimmy Swaggart (at least if you've seen him on 'South Park' ;D ;D ;D In other words - both the 'young earth creationists' and the Prof. Dawkins types are total unmitigated A@@holes because each of them is trying to pontificate on a subject that each of them knows NOTHING about. Science and religion are not contradictory; they are different disciplines of human learning and philosophy. Both complement the human experience in some good, some bad ways, but they address different aspects and different questions about that experience. Those who fail to see this (to me at least) obvious point are missing the boat completely. What you have just read are THE MOST INTELLIGENT points that you are ever likely to read on this topic. And they're MINE ALL MINE (to quote Daffy Duck). ;D (Not that they haven't independently occurred to others, of course). *Gets off soapbox* |
|
|
|
Post by kikimalou on Jul 22, 2009 6:04:54 GMT
The old earth creationists typically still deny evolution, so, still loons Bad prices too Well, I don't know exactly who you're talking about ... the Catholic Church has no problem with evolution....but I will agree with you that the most vocal minority on the subject are the 'go-it-alone-doctrine' 'evangelicals'.... "Old-earth creationists deny evolution?" Sounds contradictory to me. If you acknowledge that the earth is 5 Billion years old, and the Universe 20 Billion (the number keeps getting bigger the farther we are able to see with our various telescopes) then you are implicitly acknowledging that everything has evolved with time since then. If some people believe that a 'Grand Watchmaker' had to get the whole system running, that doesn't mean that they 'don't believe in evolution'. Don't make the mistake of being closed-minded like some of the extreme evangelical nuts on this topic. Remember, Prof. Dawkins is every inch the a@@holish equivalent of his most ignorant adversaries. An intelligent person does not take a 'give-no-ground' position when there is obviously room for debate. If you say there is no God like Dawkins does - I simply ask you to prove it. If he can't, yet persists in being the a@@hole that he is, then there's not much difference between him and Jimmy Swaggart (at least if you've seen him on 'South Park' ;D ;D ;D In other words - both the 'young earth creationists' and the Prof. Dawkins types are total unmitigated A@@holes because each of them is trying to pontificate on a subject that each of them knows NOTHING about. Science and religion are not contradictory; they are different disciplines of human learning and philosophy. Both complement the human experience in some good, some bad ways, but they address different aspects and different questions about that experience. Those who fail to see this (to me at least) obvious point are missing the boat completely. What you have just read are THE MOST INTELLIGENT points that you are ever likely to read on this topic. And they're MINE ALL MINE (to quote Daffy Duck). ;D (Not that they haven't independently occurred to others, of course). *Gets off soapbox* One thing is sure, you never disappoint me Bucketfoot. ;D  In science, I think, a new fact means there is an older fact before. On that subject there is no older fact. The new scientific fact is still "God exist", and I agree with you, we need some proofs... |
|
|
|
Post by blackdanter on Jul 22, 2009 11:21:39 GMT
I don't have any problem with buying from creationists, that's where I got my Arsinoitherium from anyhoo.  |
|
|
|
Post by kuni on Jul 22, 2009 15:06:45 GMT
Ah no, bucket, there (even though it sounds screwy) are "old earth creationists" who are fine with geology....but still don't like evolution. I knew a number of them growing up.
And yes, a deistic position that postules an original prime mover with no intereference later, that's not something most folks would argue against.
While I won't deny Prof. Dawkin's acerbic wit, he actually doesn't have the hardline stance on "no God" that you imagine, his view is one of "show me the *scientific* evidence and I'll be happy to believe, but I see no compelling evidence for a deity".
So no, I don't agree with your comparison of YE creationism vs. Dawkins, bucketfoot, but that's because you used a strawman for Dawkins.
|
|
|
|
Post by bucketfoot on Jul 22, 2009 16:40:35 GMT
Ah no, bucket, there (even though it sounds screwy) are "old earth creationists" who are fine with geology....but still don't like evolution. I knew a number of them growing up. And yes, a deistic position that postules an original prime mover with no intereference later, that's not something most folks would argue against. While I won't deny Prof. Dawkin's acerbic wit, he actually doesn't have the hardline stance on "no God" that you imagine, his view is one of "show me the *scientific* evidence and I'll be happy to believe, but I see no compelling evidence for a deity". So no, I don't agree with your comparison of YE creationism vs. Dawkins, bucketfoot, but that's because you used a strawman for Dawkins. Dawkins knows about as much about philosophy, (which is where I would group religion with some qualifications), as the young earth creationists know about evolution. Each is discounting the other view completely using his own criteria - which do not apply to the other discipline. (Which makes sense because Dawkins is a militant atheist and the young earth creationist and unyielding Bible literalists.) Hence my previous comments about both of them tilting at windmills (or straw men) stand. ;D If either group ran the country we'd be in a dictatorship that allowed no opposition to its views. Hence my comment about both of them being A@@holes is valid. I lived in a communist country that enforced teaching atheism and persecuted religion - I know of what I speak. Hence my previous comments about both of them tilting at windmills stand. ;D P.S. Dawkins is so insufferingly arrogant that he actually helps the young earth creationists to woo less educated people to their side, in my view. |
|
|
|
Post by bucketfoot on Jul 22, 2009 17:12:53 GMT
One thing is sure, you never disappoint me Bucketfoot. ;D In science, I think, a new fact means there is an older fact before. On that subject there is no older fact. The new scientific fact is still "God exist", and I agree with you, we need some proofs... Hmmmm .. is that a French attempt at sarcasm - or just confusing communication? Don't know how to take your compliment, you see. ;D If you mean that I do not disappoint you because my well-reasoned and informed arguments are a pleasure to read, then I say 'you're welcome'.  There is no need for a "scientific" proof of God because God is in the realm of Faith and Philosophy. That's the point I was trying to make. Dawkins makes as much sense as the YE creationists who pontificate on science (which they know nothing about). To Dawkins, science IS his 'god', and he discounts all other human disciplines that can't be measured by the scientific method. This should not be a debate about science vs. faith because there can be no common criteria for evaluating both. Hence such a debate is futile and counterproductive. Both militant atheists like Dawkins and YE creationist know-nothings are equally wrong in what they are arguing. |
|
![[][][]cordylus[][][] Avatar](http://files.sharenator.com/Troll_Face_U_MAD_RE_wrestling_1-s407x405-126802.jpg)
