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

[Cerpin Taxt]

I don't have a problem assuming that my car keys weren't influenced by magic when I expect to find them in the same spot I put them the night before, but for reasons I really don't like to talk about I have a problem assuming the same thing about the reproduction of living organisms. But I accept the scientific method. I swear. Really, and for true.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

That's not the point, the point is whether or not that person would ruin science...

You can't "ruin science." The very idea is nonsensical, and reveals a very deep and scary ignorance of science. Science is a method that stands on the virtues of the very fruit it has borne.

-- that would be the driving force behind the acceptance or rejection of such a person.

Patently ridiculous, and more importantly transparent of your pathetic messianic fellatio.

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).

Why, of course you are.

It just couldn't be that the person you have in mind was killed for upsetting the established religious orthodoxy, now could it? No, you want us to believe he was killed because an old book says he did some magical shit and scientist couldn't stand for it.

Yeah. Right. Now, go on. Pull the other one.

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.

How, exactly, Rob? Go on, you unravel that one for us. This promises to be incredibly entertaining.

 

[JEDIYoda]

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.

your wrong..nice try......

 

[Thebobo]

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.

Years ago I was a volunteer for the National Park Service at Great Falls park in MD and on one of the back trails while panning for gold I found Layers of leaves in Sand that were in a state of early fossilization. The layer of sat on a bedrock of schist that was millions of years old.

http://pubs.usgs.gov/bul/1286/report.pdf <-- the report PDF.

.

 

[coffeejunkee]

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.

I asked the same thing, but it seems it got lost in the usual debate. Still not sure what leaves proof. There were trees in the jurrasic era as well.

You would also think that if this is solid evidence the scientific community would be very interested. I'd say it's even enough for some CNN breaking news coverage.

What amazes me is this: if scientists discover a dinosaur fossil and say it's millions of years old they must be wrong. But if christians discover a dinosaur fossil it suddenly proves Genesis is literally true.

 

[SlowSpyder]

Religious people saying stupid things at best, lies at worst. Shocking.

 

[alzan]

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.



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

I think all of us would like to see evidence of the "tremendous amount of atheists" of which you speak. Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, et al do not speak for all atheists, they speak for themselves. Science is not a "For Atheists Only" organization.

Until I hear it myself, I'll give you the benefit of doubt on this alleged quote by Dawkins; I have a feeling that you're quoting him incorrectly.

 

[realibrad]

I think all of us would like to see evidence of the "tremendous amount of atheists" of which you speak. Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, et al do not speak for all atheists, they speak for themselves. Science is not a "For Atheists Only" organization.

Until I hear it myself, I'll give you the benefit of doubt on this alleged quote by Dawkins; I have a feeling that you're quoting him incorrectly.

Dawkins says things like that a lot. The context is that if it were to happen, it would mean the rules that science has come up with are broken. He does not believe it is possible, and that if it could happen, then the rules are not really rules at all, and thus science breaks down.

So if water could be turned into wine with magic, it would break science, because there would not be any physical omnipresent rules. Magic breaks science.

 

[Retro Rob]

Dawkins says things like that a lot. The context is that if it were to happen, it would mean the rules that science has come up with are broken. He does not believe it is possible, and that if it could happen, then the rules are not really rules at all, and thus science breaks down.

So if water could be turned into wine with magic, it would break science, because there would not be any physical omnipresent rules. Magic breaks science.

That's why I mentioned the debaters. Dawkins and Lennox have had several debates and I vividly remember him [Dawkins] saying that, just don't remember the actual debate in which it was said, but I know for sure he was speaking to Lennox.

 

[alzan]

Dawkins says things like that a lot. The context is that if it were to happen, it would mean the rules that science has come up with are broken. He does not believe it is possible, and that if it could happen, then the rules are not really rules at all, and thus science breaks down.

So if water could be turned into wine with magic, it would break science, because there would not be any physical omnipresent rules. Magic breaks science.

If that's true then I'm glad he doesn't speak for all atheists. Science has been "turned on it's ear" throughout history.

I don't agree. Science concerns itself with that which is natural; an event or circumstance which falls outside the natural (supernatural) would not break science, IMO.

 

[Atreus21]

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

....

I've said this a hundred times on this forum, so I'll say it again.

I'll never understand the threat some religious people see in evolution, or in a good portion of scientific inquiry.

 

[Atreus21]

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.

I don't think thoughts alone will get you into hell.

 

[realibrad]

If that's true then I'm glad he doesn't speak for all atheists. Science has been "turned on it's ear" throughout history.

I don't agree. Science concerns itself with that which is natural; an event or circumstance which falls outside the natural (supernatural) would not break science, IMO.

The context was if magic turned water into wine, it would break science. If magic is true, then science goes out the window. This is because magic does not have rules, because its magic. Science has rules that we may or may not fully understand, but they are there. That is what was meant.

 

[realibrad]

I've said this a hundred times on this forum, so I'll say it again.

I'll never understand the threat some religious people see in evolution, or in a good portion of scientific inquiry.

Oh, that is easy to answer. Most religion says that a God created people directly, and not through Evolution. If Evolution is real, it would mean that their myth was wrong. People dont like to think of their religion as being wrong in any areas, because it opens the door for other things to be wrong, and the possibility that everything could be wrong. So better to believe everything about your religion, and if science says anything otherwise, its wrong, not the myth.

 

[Retro Rob]

I've said this a hundred times on this forum, so I'll say it again.

I'll never understand the threat some religious people see in evolution, or in a good portion of scientific inquiry.

It threatens their money and following, as creationism is profitable. Accepting evolution would threaten, more than anything, the money.

Ham was able to raise a ton of money for his "creation science"...doesn't make good business sense to back off of that.

 

[Retro Rob]

Oh, that is easy to answer. Most religion says that a God created people directly, and not through Evolution. If Evolution is real, it would mean that their myth was wrong. People dont like to think of their religion as being wrong in any areas, because it opens the door for other things to be wrong, and the possibility that everything could be wrong. So better to believe everything about your religion, and if science says anything otherwise, its wrong, not the myth.

Ever heard of theistic evolution? It doesn't disprove God's existence, nor show that he didn't use evolution since the origin of life is unknown.

Id say that theists would be just fine with combining both.

 

[realibrad]

Ever heard of theistic evolution? It doesn't disprove God's existence, nor show that he didn't use evolution since the origin of life is unknown.

Id say that theists would be just fine with combining both.

Show me a western religion that says that god created the universe, and then did nothing else. Or even a religion that said god created everything, and started life, but only at a primitive level and the rest is history.

Theistic evolution ignores the conflicts in the bible and science, and tries to mesh them where it can.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

I'm under the opinion that people would ignore, or dare I say kill a man who could [turn water into wine] for the sake of scientific orthodoxy (for lack of a better term).

Well sure; what would we do with all that wine? Now if that person could turn water into beer, they'd be worshiped as a God. Doubly so by scientists.

 

[Retro Rob]

Show me a western religion that says that god created the universe, and then did nothing else. Or even a religion that said god created everything, and started life, but only at a primitive level and the rest is history.

Theistic evolution ignores the conflicts in the bible and science, and tries to mesh them where it can.

Of course it does, and you're right. I just think this shows that people need a reason to not believe God exists.

Saying there is no evidence clearly isn't one, and doesn't disprove anything. But I know what you're saying.

 

[desy]

The problem is in taking the Bible literally vs being an Agnostic who believes in higher power.
Cause for every stupid thing the bible says, and its full of stupid ignorant things, because its the word of God it HAS to be true no matter what.
Its those conditions of face value and dogma creates all the rigidity and hatred out of organized religion vs being religious

 

[alzan]

Show me a western religion that says that god created the universe, and then did nothing else. Or even a religion that said god created everything, and started life, but only at a primitive level and the rest is history.

Theistic evolution ignores the conflicts in the bible and science, and tries to mesh them where it can.

Whatever lofty goals it has, theistic evolution does disservice to both theists and evolutionary science. A quick perusal of just the Wiki article points out some of the division among those who count themselves amongst the ranks of theistic evolutionists.

 

[realibrad]

Of course it does, and you're right. I just think this shows that people need a reason to not believe God exists.

Saying there is no evidence clearly isn't one, and doesn't disprove anything. But I know what you're saying.

If people are creating things to comfort themselves, then that is a problem. The reason we tell our children to grow up, is because they need to understand reality so they don't get hurt. It truly seems like people are looking at science as an attack on their myths because science shows things that disagree with the myths.

So, you may wonder why people believe Ham, but I suspect you already know the answer, even if you don't realize it. Its because religion makes people feel better, while science looks for truths. Sometimes, those myths don't conform to the reality we live in, so to spare themselves, they ignore science, or worse, try to counter it with thinks like Ham's Creation Museum.

 

[Retro Rob]

If people are creating things to comfort themselves, then that is a problem. The reason we tell our children to grow up, is because they need to understand reality so they don't get hurt. It truly seems like people are looking at science as an attack on their myths because science shows things that disagree with the myths.

So, you may wonder why people believe Ham, but I suspect you already know the answer, even if you don't realize it. Its because religion makes people feel better, while science looks for truths. Sometimes, those myths don't conform to the reality we live in, so to spare themselves, they ignore science, or worse, try to counter it with thinks like Ham's Creation Museum.

While I generally agree, I think you're oversimplifying it and aren't giving religious people enough credit. They're still people, posses a brain and reasoning skills the same as you do. Most scientists I would say, particularly during the rule of the Church, were both religious while finding truths. Newton is my favorite, and immediately comes to mind. You can have a reverence for God, and still help reality. I think most scientists today believe in God.

Perhaps some of Ham followers are looking for truth, and think they've found it. The comfort comes in at least believing you have truth.

 

[realibrad]

While I generally agree, I think you're oversimplifying it and aren't giving religious people enough credit. They're still people, posses a brain and reasoning skills the same as you do. Most scientists I would say, particularly during the rule of the Church, were both religious while finding truths. Newton is my favorite, and immediately comes to mind. You can have a reverence for God, and still help reality. I think most scientists today believe in God.

Perhaps some of Ham followers are looking for truth, and think they've found it. The comfort comes in at least believing you have truth.

Back in the day, when science was mostly done through the church, the world was a very different unknown place. But, when the church felt that science was leading toward things they did not agree with, they squashed it or at least attempted to. The obvious example is the sun revolving around the earth. It got people into a lot of trouble for pushing the idea that would later turn out to be fact. There are some versus in the bible that talk about the earth not moving and the sun going back into place, and that was enough for the church to declare Galileo as attacking the bible.

Now, there were reasonable people back then too, yet Galileo was placed under house arrest for the rest of his life. It was because Galileo sought truth, and the church sought to maintain the myth that everyone already knew to be truth. There cannot be mutually exclusive truths, so the people of the church punished Galileo.

Science offers something that religion does not seem to do, and that is to draw conclusions from observations. Religion seems to have conclusions that muddy the observations of the believers. When you are not allowed to observe reality, it becomes a very dangerous world.

 

[Victorian Gray]

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.

I understood what you said better than you do apparently. *You* may think that people are little more than drones with no curiosity or will to learn for the sake of learning but you're wrong. But go ahead and live that kind of empty life yourself if you wish. Your choice.