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

[Thebobo]

I mean, who really cares (outside of science) how mountains forms?

Nope know one ever wants to know anything. I would rather sit and stare at a rock then learn about the world around me.

Wow and you are on a tech forum posting. so sad.

You're not making bombs or writing a manifesto are you? It has to be asked.

 

[TheVrolok]

Well.. this thread went exactly how I expected it to go.

 

[Retro Rob]

Nope know one ever wants to know anything. I would rather sit and stare at a rock then learn about the world around me.

Wow and you are on a tech forum posting. so sad.

You're not making bombs or writing a manifesto are you? It has to be asked.

What's so said is that you don't have the ability to grasp the point that most people will never use that information unless they're specifically working in the field or geology, or something similar, so they really don't care.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

Can someone clarify, isn't the 6-7k age based on some fossilized leaves that were found with the dinosaur? I don't support this method of dating but at least there is an interesting claim attached to this.

 

[alzan]

I agree people accept both, but I think faith and spirituality speaks more to the core of humanity than knowing how a television set works does. I mean, who really cares (outside of science) how mountains forms? But I think we have more of a natural inclination to faith and spirituality which is why I think they cross over into some many disciplines unlike pure science can.

This is my opinion, because I don't have facts to back that up, admittedly.

But I don't think there is an "either or, faith or science" as if the two cannot co-exist, so I agree.

I also think that if we're forced to choose, then science will lose out in two ways: (1), You'll have people simply abandoning science or (2), you'd have people simply "believing" in science, which would be equal to blind following to avoid being on the receiving end of harsh criticism.

Either way, I think science loses its scientists, and the self-correcting doubt and questioning which makes it work.

None of us would be very good at our occupations if we did not know of or find interest in things not of a spiritual matter. I've never looked at education and knowledge as a "If x doesn't pertain to my daily existence then I don't care about x" proposition. The wonder and splendor of the earth and universe and all things within at least in part gives me a reason to live as well as exploring the particular disciplines that describe and quantify them. I agree spirituality is to be explored as well.

My interest in astronomy and cosmology, for example, don't pertain to or help me in my daily job as a computer tech but I find the discoveries and the tested/verified information fascinating.

If we force ourselves to choose; faith, science and humanity will lose.

 

[Victorian Gray]

What's so said is that you don't have the ability to grasp the point that most people will never use that information unless they're specifically working in the field or geology, or something similar, so they really don't care.

Don't project your own lack of curiosity about 'how things work' on everyone else.

 

[fskimospy]

As for your last remark, if you insist on dichotomizing science and faith, go ahead.

If people have to choose between accepting faith or science, you're gonna lose that battle.

There is no winning or losing here, just what is. If you ignore science when it contradicts your faith you don't accept science. That's the beginning and end of it.

The true measure of whether you accept something or not is that you accept it when it tells you something you don't want to hear.

A good example would be scientific polling. There was a big stink before the 2012 election by conservatives that scientific polling was all wrong because it said Mitt Romney was doomed. This was foolish. Similarly, scientific polling says that the democrats stand a significant chance of losing the senate in the fall. I don't like that, but I know that polling aggregates are generally accurate so I accept that reality.

 

[Retro Rob]

Don't project your own lack of curiosity about 'how things work' on everyone else.

This kind of post betrays a deep lack of understanding of what I said.

People simply don't care much about things that don't affect their work or every day lives.

I am willing to bet you care little about exactly how plants use sunlight to create chemical energy. Why? You're likely not a botanist, so it doesn't affect your line of work.

 

[Retro Rob]

The true measure of whether you accept something or not is that you accept it when it tells you something you don't want to hear.

You need to apply this to the tremendous amount of atheists who simply don't like their science to be tampered with "supernatural causes".

There was a debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox (don't quite remember which one, so I'm giving you the names so that you can look it up yourself and I am paraphrasing) where Dawkins even admitted that a man turning water into wine would ruin science, or something to that affect.

That's a classic example of not liking an explanation that doesn't quite jibe with what you want to believe.

A good example would be scientific polling. There was a big stink before the 2012 election by conservatives that scientific polling was all wrong because it said Mitt Romney was doomed. This was foolish. Similarly, scientific polling says that the democrats stand a significant chance of losing the senate in the fall. I don't like that, but I know that polling aggregates are generally accurate so I accept that reality.

I'm not a political person, so I wouldn't know anything about this.

 

[fskimospy]

You need to apply this to the tremendous amount of atheists who simply don't like their science to be tampered with "supernatural causes".

There was a debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox (don't quite remember which one, so I'm giving you the names so that you can look it up yourself and I am paraphrasing) where Dawkins even admitted that a man turning water into wine would ruin science, or something to that affect.

That's a classic example of not liking an explanation that doesn't quite jibe with what you want to believe.

No it isn't. There's no evidence that any person turned water into wine. If someone could pull off some sort of miraculous transmogrification of water into wine without any causal mechanism that would indeed ruin science. That of course has never happened.

If you can show me supernatural causes for something I will most certainly reconsider my views on science. So far for the entirety of human history not one person has been able to provide proof of such a thing, so I'm not hopeful.

 

[JManInPhoenix]

You're not making bombs or writing a manifesto are you? It has to be asked.

That would be another poster here in P & N

 

[Retro Rob]

No it isn't. There's no evidence that any person turned water into wine.

That's not the point, the point is whether or not that person would ruin science -- that would be the driving force behind the acceptance or rejection of such a person.

I'm under the opinion that people would ignore, or dare I say kill a man who could perform such a feat for the sake of scientific orthodoxy (for lack of a better term).

The pain and embarrassment of having to completely call into question the centuries of scientific research, as well as sheer dogmatism in some atheistic circles, would be just too much to bear. One thing I know about people, myself included, is that change is probably the hardest thing for anyone to do.

Evolution wouldn't be disproven, but naturalism would, IMO.

 

[fskimospy]

That's not the point, the point is whether or not that person would ruin science -- that would be the driving force behind the acceptance or rejection of such a person.

I'm under the opinion that people would ignore, or dare I say kill a man who could perform such a feat for the sake of scientific orthodoxy (for lack of a better term).

The pain and embarrassment of having to completely call into question the centuries of scientific research, as well as sheer dogmatism in some atheistic circles, would be just too much to bear. One thing I know about people, myself included, is that change is probably the hardest thing for anyone to do.

Evolution wouldn't be disproven, but naturalism would, IMO.

Your speculation on what would happen if science were disproven isn't really relevant here, considering the fact that no such thing has ever occurred.

That's the beauty of science. If you were to find concrete evidence of kangaroos hopping around in the Precambrian Era that would effectively disprove evolution. Like I said, accepting science means accepting the conclusions even if it tells you unpleasant things.

Once you're in a place where you're willing to accept science that tells you unpleasant things, then we can talk.

 

[Retro Rob]

Your speculation on what would happen if science were disproven isn't really relevant here, considering the fact that no such thing has ever occurred.

Yeah, the classic appeal to ignorance -- it cannot be proven, so it didn't happen. You cannot possibly know that something like that "never happened". This isn't to say you have no good reason to think that such a thing cannot happen, but still, that doesn't mean it cannot or has not.

We're free to draw hypotheticals about things like this as these are all part of civil discussion and human imagination.

That's the beauty of science. If you were to find concrete evidence of kangaroos hopping around in the Precambrian Era that would effectively disprove evolution. Like I said, accepting science means accepting the conclusions even if it tells you unpleasant things.

I like how you slipped "concrete" in there, suggesting the subjectivity that would be involved in evaluating such evidence if it eventually (if such evidence exists) comes forth.

You do understand what's "concrete" to once scientist may not be so with another.

 

[JD50]

This kind of post betrays a deep lack of understanding of what I said.

People simply don't care much about things that don't affect their work or every day lives.

I am willing to bet you care little about exactly how plants use sunlight to create chemical energy. Why? You're likely not a botanist, so it doesn't affect your line of work.

Once again, you are projecting. I can't speak for Victorian Gray, but there are many things that I find interesting that has nothing to do with my job.

This really explains a lot about you.

 

[Retro Rob]

Once again, you are projecting. I can't speak for Victorian Gray, but there are many things that I find interesting that has nothing to do with my job.

This really explains a lot about you.

Me too, just how mountains form isn't one of them. But for him to suggest that lacking curiosity in something means being content with not knowing is extremely stupid, as you have just proven.

 

[JD50]

Me too, just how mountains form isn't one of them. But for him to suggest that lacking curiosity in something means being content with not knowing is extremely stupid, as you have just proven.

I don't even know why I try.

What are you even arguing? If you lack curiosity in something then yes, you're content not knowing. Some people don't care about things outside of their little bubble, which is fine for some. You seem to think we are like this, which is obviously just you projecting.

 

[Retro Rob]

I don't even know why I try.

What are you even arguing? If you lack curiosity in something then yes, you're content not knowing. Some people don't care about things outside of their little bubble, which is fine for some. You seem to think we are like this, which is obviously just you projecting.

Well, you said you're interested in "many things", not everything. So I can safely assume you're content with not knowing about the many other things that don't spark your curiosity

He also made a general statement about not being curious about how things work. Just because I don't care about how mountains work, doesn't mean I don't care how "things" work.

 

[JD50]

Well, you said you're interested in "many things", not everything. So I can safely assume you're content with not knowing about the many other things that don't spark your curiosity.

Obviously. But who said anything about being curious about everything? This is what you said, "People simply don't care much about things that don't affect their work or every day lives."

That is you projecting. This is getting really off topic and not worth arguing about.

 

[JD50]

He also made a general statement about not being curious about how things work. Just because I don't care about how mountains work, doesn't mean I don't care how "things" work.

Yes, he was speaking in generalities, not specifics. I'm not sure why you're arguing specifically about how mountains are formed and if we care about it.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Yet another Rob is a deliberate ignoramus thread.

 

[alkemyst]

My only addition is most that defy religion and try to speak to science don't understand the topic they are truly debating nor the history behind it.

 

[irishScott]

"Creation Museum"
I literally facepalmed when reading this. It's just too much to be real. What the hell people?

They feel threatened and find comfort in it. It'll die away over time. Think about it this way, if people are like this now, imagine how they felt 50 years ago.

 

[werepossum]

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

....

Shit, no wonder the ark crashed into a mountain. I remember a northern water snake dropping into our bass boat - not much steering going on.

 

[fskimospy]

Yeah, the classic appeal to ignorance -- it cannot be proven, so it didn't happen. You cannot possibly know that something like that "never happened". This isn't to say you have no good reason to think that such a thing cannot happen, but still, that doesn't mean it cannot or has not.

We're free to draw hypotheticals about things like this as these are all part of civil discussion and human imagination.

That's not what an appeal to ignorance is. You are correct insofar as that no one can ever say that anything 'never happened'. I don't find that to be a particularly useful distinction. There is no evidence it has ever happened.

I like how you slipped "concrete" in there, suggesting the subjectivity that would be involved in evaluating such evidence if it eventually (if such evidence exists) comes forth.

You do understand what's "concrete" to once scientist may not be so with another.

'Slipped' yet again implies some attempt to deceive. Why? Any evidence of a kangaroo in the Precambrian would indeed be evidence against evolution. Due to evidence being susceptible to errors or misclassidication, etc, before taking a piece of evidence to be a definitive refutation of a theory you of course would want to make sure it was solidly backed up.

This is all really off topic though. It all comes back to whether or not you accept the scientific method. You say you do for geology but not for biology. That means you don't accept the scientific method.