User talk:CarolineMilton

Useful links

• How to edit a wiki
• CP Commandments
• CP Guidelines
• Style Manual
• Editing Etiquette
• How to create and maintain high-quality articles
• Conservapedia's Original Source Project
• Report Problems
• List of Templates

Welcome!

Hello, CarolineMilton, and welcome to Conservapedia!

We're glad you are here to edit. We ask that you read our Editor's Guide before you edit.

At the right are some useful links for you. You can include these links on your user page by putting "{{Useful links}}" on the page. Any questions--ask!

Thanks for reading, CarolineMilton!

Philip J. Rayment 21:00, 10 December 2007 (EST)

What you saw

Did you see a dinosaur or a cave painting? Philip J. Rayment 00:59, 6 February 2008 (EST)

Philip, I might have known that you would be the first to respond.

Dinosaur you say? Is that what that is? Then again, it's like those ink blot tests. People tend to see what they want to see, don't they? --CarolineMilton 23:53, 7 February 2008 (EST)

Or it could be that the image was named dino art... --David R^talk 00:17, 8 February 2008 (EST)

It's not like an ink blot test, and the scientist who found it most definitely did not see what he wanted to see, as he didn't believe in dinosaurs and men living together, yet recognised it as a dinosaur[1]. Rather, people tend to excuse and dismiss what they don't want to believe. Philip J. Rayment 00:49, 8 February 2008 (EST)

I see. And did you see Allah's name written in arabic script in the clouds when you watched the YouTube clip linked above? --CarolineMilton 18:19, 10 February 2008 (EST)

I was unable to carry out that test, as I wouldn't know what Allah's name written in Arabic script looks like. But that's irrelevant. You are comparing three different things here: 1) something designed to be ambiguous (the ink blots); 2) something that normally occurs naturally combined with the ability of people to "see" recognisable shapes (the clouds); and 3) something designed to be recognisable (the cave painting). That people "see" recognisable shapes in things that are not designed to be recognised has no bearing on whether something designed to be recognised is being correctly recognised. If you want to suggest something else that it could be and explain why your suggestion is better than the dinosaur explanation, feel free. But your only attempt at directly addressing the dinosaur explanation was that people see what they want to, which I refuted (in this specific case) by pointing out that it was recognised as a dinosaur by someone who didn't want it to be a dinosaur. Therefore, you've offered no effective rebuttal of the claim at all. Philip J. Rayment 20:41, 10 February 2008 (EST)