Liars in Genesis: "6-7k" year-old Allosaurus

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
R

Retro Rob

Diamond Member
Apr 22, 2012
8,151
108
106
Oldgamer

Oldgamer

Diamond Member
Jan 15, 2013
3,280
1
0
yea I watched that on the Maddow show. Pretty pathetic honestly, but religious people like this want so badly to believe this crap. It is easy for conmen like this to trick these people in to believing this.
 
P

PokerGuy

Lifer
Jul 2, 2005
13,650
201
101
Some seriously nutty people out there.

"hey look, dino bones. This dino must have been trying to escape the great flood".
"what makes you say that? what evidence do you have to support that theory?"
"I just know. This confirms it". ;)

Bizarre.
 
R

Retro Rob

Diamond Member
Apr 22, 2012
8,151
108
106
Oldgamer said:
yea I watched that on the Maddow show. Pretty pathetic honestly, but religious people like this want so badly to believe this crap. It is easy for conmen like this to trick these people in to believing this.
Click to expand...

You *can* believe it all you want, but when you lie and fabricate evidence to fit that belief in order to validate it, that's when it becomes dangerous.

Just because I may believe in Thor doesn't give me the leeway to then dig up old war hammers and claim that is physical evidence of Thor's existence.

To believe in creation is one thing, to dress that religious dogma up as "creation science" is a completely different thing.

Ham is a very good lia... I mean, businessman.
 
justoh

justoh

Diamond Member
Jun 11, 2013
3,686
81
91
a thread for religious people to feel proud about not being quite as stupid as other religious people?
 
JD50

JD50

Lifer
Sep 4, 2005
11,927
2,916
136
Retro Rob said:
http://www.techtimes.com/articles/7...co-existed-and-allosaurus-fossil-is-proof.htm

I don't have much to add really, but that more and more creationists are trying fabricate evidence to fit their beliefs.

Rachel Maddow explores how creationists even have a dubious video of a group of "homeschoolers" so called finding Allosaurus remains that prove dinosaurs, at least this one anyway, were on the Ark.

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-...nd-cited-as-proof-of-bible-story-268002371823

....
Click to expand...

Did I miss something or did you finally come around and change your stance on evolution, the global flood, etc...?
 
R

Retro Rob

Diamond Member
Apr 22, 2012
8,151
108
106
JD50 said:
Did I miss something or did you finally come around and change your stance on evolution, the global flood, etc...?
Click to expand...

justoh said:
a thread for religious people to feel proud about not being quite as stupid as other religious people?
Click to expand...

Actually, no to both of you.

My point was summed up in my pervious post -- you have the right to believe whatever you want, just when it comes to finding evidence (or even if there isn't any), it doesn't validate your beliefs to lie and make up evidence to pass your views off as scientific.

It's all about trying to get the Flood story and YECism into a classroom when they're purely religious beliefs.

I just have a problem with Liars in Genesis stooping to this level of dishonesty and stupidity to achieve this goal.
 
justoh

justoh

Diamond Member
Jun 11, 2013
3,686
81
91
Seems like a small offense to lie about some dinosaurs after telling children that they can be condemned to hell for thought crime by some all knowing asshole.
 
alzan

alzan

Diamond Member
May 21, 2003
3,860
2
0
justoh said:
Seems like a small offense to lie about some dinosaurs after telling children that they can be condemned to hell for thought crime by some all knowing asshole.
Click to expand...

A lie is still a lie. The lie of creationism in the classroom is indeed potentially more harmful in that it can and does both sway students toward a belief system as well as take precious time and resources away from critical thought and true learning.

Students and parents who want a comparative religion class taught are free to petition the school board or district.
 
C

coffeejunkee

Golden Member
Jul 31, 2010
1,153
0
0
So what is this evidence exactly? The msnbc video mentions it was found 'on a bed of leaves' and had 'wood from trees mixed in' (the footage of the excavations shows just rock and sand btw). I'm not a geologist or paleontologist, but is it really strange to find plant remains when digging for fossils?
 
T

TROLLERCAUST

Member
Mar 17, 2014
182
0
0
"Creation Museum"
I literally facepalmed when reading this. It's just too much to be real. What the hell people?
facepalm.gif
 
R

Retro Rob

Diamond Member
Apr 22, 2012
8,151
108
106
bradly1101 said:
In Kentucky they apparently want to keep science away from their kids. Noah's ark? Jeebus!
Click to expand...

Noah's ark isn't anti science. It's funny though, how science is treated as dogma; "if science can't explain it or verify it, I can't happen", when it actuality, there are many branches of science that don't deal with biology or geology like astronomy, cosmology, archaeology.

For science to always be self correcting, your dogma cannot exist within it.

Rejected one field of science isn't rejecting "science".
 
alzan

alzan

Diamond Member
May 21, 2003
3,860
2
0
Retro Rob said:
Noah's ark isn't anti science. It's funny though, how science is treated as dogma; "if science can't explain it or verify it, I can't happen", when it actuality, there are many branches of science that don't deal with biology or geology like astronomy, cosmology, archaeology.

For science to always be self correcting, your dogma cannot exist within it.

Rejected one field of science isn't rejecting "science".
Click to expand...

All fields of science follow the same framework, the scientific theory. To reject one field is to reject the scientific theory.
 
R

Retro Rob

Diamond Member
Apr 22, 2012
8,151
108
106
alzan said:
All fields of science follow the same framework, the scientific theory. To reject one field is to reject the scientific theory.
Click to expand...

No, it's isn't. Creationists don't reject the "framework", they reject the conclusions of or field or another; that's the bottom line.

Rejecting evolution is no more rejecting science than hating football is rejecting sports, as sports follow the same framework of competing to achieve a goal.
 
Last edited:
F

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
88,178
55,743
136
Retro Rob said:
No, it's isn't. Creationists don't reject the "framework", they reject the conclusions of or field or another; that's the bottom line.

Rejecting evolution is no more rejecting science than hating football is rejecting sports, as sports follow the same framework of competing to achieve a goal.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't agree there.

Accepting science means that you accept the scientific method as a means for understanding the world. Implicit in such a thing is that you accept the answers the scientific method gives you even if you don't like them. There is no scientific basis for rejecting the conclusions of biology in relation to evolution. If one rejects them for other reasons, they are rejecting science.
 
alzan

alzan

Diamond Member
May 21, 2003
3,860
2
0
Retro Rob said:
No, it's isn't. Creationists don't reject the "framework", they reject the conclusions of or field or another; that's the bottom line.

Rejecting evolution is no more rejecting science than hating football is rejecting sports, as sports follow the same framework of competing to achieve a goal.
Click to expand...

Possibly, though I've participated in and heard/read discussions in which creationists use the "a theory is just a guess" or some other disingenuous statement; which only shows their lack of understanding of what is meant by "scientific theory". They denigrate the framework which leads to rejecting the conclusion.

As well, some/many creationists do not understand what evolution defines; they think it speaks to abiogenesis, how life began.

It's not just evolution though; I sincerely doubt that those same creationists are comfortable with geology, astronomy, cosmology, etc. whose tested and verified data all point to an earth and universe that are far older than 6K - 7K years.
 
P

piasabird

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
17,168
60
91
Scientists are always making things up and using statistics to lie about the truth. There was a time the people running the Smithsonian were robbing the graves of native Americans to prove a theory that White men were more intelligent because their brains were further developed. This is science for you. People always twist facts and try to prove the sky is purple.
 
R

Retro Rob

Diamond Member
Apr 22, 2012
8,151
108
106
eskimospy said:
I wouldn't agree there.

Accepting science means that you accept the scientific method as a means for understanding the world. Implicit in such a thing is that you accept the answers the scientific method gives you even if you don't like them. There is no scientific basis for rejecting the conclusions of biology in relation to evolution. If one rejects them for other reasons, they are rejecting science.
Click to expand...

So are you saying that one can reject football and not reject sports altogether, but conversely one cannot reject the conclusions of one field of science without rejecting science altogether?

How would you class a person who rejects evolution but is in full acceptance of the scientific age of the earth, or the age of dino fossils?

Is he accepting or rejecting science?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom