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

[davmat787]

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.

Do you accept science as your savior and the one true son of knowledge?

After awhile all the asshole atheists and asshole creationists start to sound alike.

 

[Thebobo]

Do you accept science as your savior and the one true son of knowledge?

After awhile all the asshole atheists and asshole creationists start to sound alike.

Maybe for you but one is right and the other is wrong.

 

[Retro Rob]

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.

It seems your conflating religion with dogmatic fundamentalism (i, e creationism)...that's a mistake.

Like I said, they think they have truth already. I think you're too much in a hurry to misattribute their motives -- they're not choosing willful ignorance...no one does that.

They probably truly believe they have truth already. You'd be better served by understanding why that is.

Theists often say atheists are willfully ignoring the reality of God. I also don't believe that's true.

 

[stormkroe]

But those conclusions have come from the same principles that the other conclusions came from. You either accept the process and the answers it gives you or you don't. No exceptions.

If you're making exceptions it means you don't really accept the scientific method.

I'll just pop in here with the absolute statement that absolute statements are the tool of the unsure. Not accepting the 'answers' in NO way shows mistrust of the scientific method. That statement is a wonderful display of paradox, as the scientific method routinely gives us conflicting answers. Did man descend from apes? Or did man and apes descend from a common, ape-like ancestor? Both have huge support but both can't be right.
You sound like a pastor that I argued age of the universe with, where he eventually said 'your position goes against Pauline doctrine'.
My answer was 'no, it goes against your interpretation if Pauline doctrine'.
Don't bang the drum so loud, even IF you know the song.

 

[davmat787]

Maybe for you but one is right and the other is wrong.

That one is right and one wrong is of no import and not germane to my point. After many years of reading comments authored by the extreme of both sides they often sound like the same noise.

Besides, if I ever read any part of the bible, it sure as hell won't be the gospels Constantine and his cohorts saw beneficial to Rome to include.

What they left out I think would be both more interesting and informative.

Anyway you could also be just as wrong as creationists, the truth ain't binary to the two. We could be experiencing existence, consciousness and time as the result of a computer simulation for example.

Contemplating the alternatives is more rewarding than another weekly creationism bash thread. Creationism should have one dedicated thread like the new police abuse one.

 

[ivwshane]

He thinks it's wrong when people fabricate evidence to fit their beliefs. Somehow he thinks that's different than willfully ignoring evidence that doesn't fit his beliefs.

Lol!

I think the issue here is that Rob is heavily invested in his faith. He feels that god or something saved his life, to deny that he would have to deny his life saving transformation.

Religion is good for people like him who are unable to cope with life's challenges by looking inward and instead rely on putting the responsibility of helping him on a non existent higher power and he does this because he lacks self esteem and deep down doesn't think he can change himself or that he is worthy of change.

Now there is nothing wrong with that, any way some one is able to better themselves and move on from a hardship is okay in my book. The problem arises when rob receives information that questions his beliefs. He is forced to rationalize his illogical beliefs or, and I would hope this is what happens, he will understand the limitations of religion and accept that it helped him through his hard times but it was really his desire to help himself that allowed him to move on and that he can be religious and he can accept science even if it questions his beliefs.

Sadly, everyone of his posts have been denial and illogical rationalizations. He will continue to be tormented internally and there is a possibility that he could relapse into his former self.

Good luck!

 

[justoh]

Lol!

I think the issue here is that Rob is heavily invested in his faith. He feels that god or something saved his life, to deny that he would have to deny his life saving transformation.

Religion is good for people like him who are unable to cope with life's challenges by looking inward and instead rely on putting the responsibility of helping him on a non existent higher power and he does this because he lacks self esteem and deep down doesn't think he can change himself or that he is worthy of change.

Now there is nothing wrong with that, any way some one is able to better themselves and move on from a hardship is okay in my book. The problem arises when rob receives information that questions his beliefs. He is forced to rationalize his illogical beliefs or, and I would hope this is what happens, he will understand the limitations of religion and accept that it helped him through his hard times but it was really his desire to help himself that allowed him to move on and that he can be religious and he can accept science even if it questions his beliefs.

Sadly, everyone of his posts have been denial and illogical rationalizations. He will continue to be tormented internally and there is a possibility that he could relapse into his former self.

Good luck!

Well, heavily invested in his religion, and also very thick, and a huge racist. Other stuff you mention is a little speculative.

 

[ivwshane]

Well, heavily invested in his religion, and also very thick, and a huge racist. Other stuff you mention is a little speculative.

No, it's based on info he has given from previous posts. I don't think he's racist (I believe he is black), but his warped views are based on the investment of his religious beliefs.

 

[justoh]

No, it's based on info he has given from previous posts. I don't think he's racist (I believe he is black), but his warped views are based on the investment of his religious beliefs.

Oh. Well if he's black then i agree that he couldn't be racist. Didn't know that. I guess it makes sense. He does have a black avatar, after all. That also explains why he's so thick.

Seems like you got that backwards though. His "warped views" aren't based upon an investment in religion. His "views" and investment in religion are the result of having never learned how to think.

 

[davmat787]

No, it's based on info he has given from previous posts. I don't think he's racist (I believe he is black), but his warped views are based on the investment of his religious beliefs.

Black people can be racist too, just like every other human. Besides, we all still have some tribalism in us from when it was required for evolutionary purposes. Acknowledging some tribalism is still in us makes all sorts of human traits, good and bad, a little more understandable and thus forgiving, which will hopefully allow us to move on from petty shit like racism.

 

[fskimospy]

I'll just pop in here with the absolute statement that absolute statements are the tool of the unsure. Not accepting the 'answers' in NO way shows mistrust of the scientific method. That statement is a wonderful display of paradox, as the scientific method routinely gives us conflicting answers. Did man descend from apes? Or did man and apes descend from a common, ape-like ancestor? Both have huge support but both can't be right.
You sound like a pastor that I argued age of the universe with, where he eventually said 'your position goes against Pauline doctrine'.
My answer was 'no, it goes against your interpretation if Pauline doctrine'.
Don't bang the drum so loud, even IF you know the song.

Of course it shows mistrust of the scientific method. That's the whole point.

 

[realibrad]

It seems your conflating religion with dogmatic fundamentalism (i, e creationism)...that's a mistake.

Like I said, they think they have truth already. I think you're too much in a hurry to misattribute their motives -- they're not choosing willful ignorance...no one does that.

They probably truly believe they have truth already. You'd be better served by understanding why that is.

Theists often say atheists are willfully ignoring the reality of God. I also don't believe that's true.

Oh I don't doubt they believe they have truth. The issue comes in when they are presented with an idea that is in conflict with their myth, they dismiss it as false, if for no other reason that it is not their myth. So when science said that the earth moved around the sun, religious people tried to stop the idea from spreading.

People do not have to explicitly hide from reality. For the majority of the world, thinking that the earth could move around the sun was of little importance. It did not really effect their lives directly. In fact, the idea would help further science that would make peoples better off. The church on the other had saw it as an evil idea. We know the idea is fact, and thus not evil, so the question is why would they back then? I have no doubt that some saw it as an attack on the establishment, but I also believe that most saw it as an evil lie.

So I look at the actions and outcomes, and see that its likely the fact that people filtered new information through their current beliefs, beliefs that had always brought comfort. Anything that brought their beliefs into question was a possible attack, and thus they were slanted to dismiss it as evil lies.

 

[Retro Rob]

Oh I don't doubt they believe they have truth. The issue comes in when they are presented with an idea that is in conflict with their myth, they dismiss it as false, if for no other reason that it is not their myth. So when science said that the earth moved around the sun, religious people tried to stop the idea from spreading

lol

I'd say people simply stopped blindly following science and questioned it.

Promises about cancer being cured in the 50s-60s have not come to pass, and for decades scientists were reluctant to accept the idea of continental drift...he pesky method sure supported anti-drift views. Thanks to their commitment to "simplicity", they held false views. Likewise, people love the "simplicity" of the origin of species, and if this is the driving reason for maintaining evolutionary views, that would be relegated to the dustbin of history right along with anti-drifters.

Oh, and the most famous is the Appendix being a "junk organ" phased out by evolution only to be surprised that it has a very important function.

They only "myth" is that only science can always give us the best answers.

Just image how Newton would have reacted if you told him people would one day fly at 30,000 feet, and 300+ Mph. He probably would have you jailed for believing such "myths", which are now normal realities.

The only reason why you're calling it a "myth" is because you don't have personal experience with whatever we believe. History has shown that "myths" (particularly in science), become realities that we can't "live without" eventually.

Just a matter of time, I guess.

 

[JD50]

lol

I'd say people simply stopped blindly following science and questioned it.

Promises about cancer being cured in the 50s-60s have not come to pass, and for decades scientists were reluctant to accept the idea of continental drift...he pesky method sure supported anti-drift views. Thanks to their commitment to "simplicity", they held false views. Likewise, people love the "simplicity" of the origin of species, and if this is the driving reason for maintaining evolutionary views, that would be relegated to the dustbin of history right along with anti-drifters.

Oh, and the most famous is the Appendix being a "junk organ" phased out by evolution only to be surprised that it has a very important function.

They only "myth" is that only science can always give us the best answers.

Just image how Newton would have reacted if you told him people would one day fly at 30,000 feet, and 300+ Mph. He probably would have you jailed for believing such "myths", which are now normal realities.

The only reason why you're calling it a "myth" is because you don't have personal experience with whatever we believe. History has shown that "myths" (particularly in science), become realities that we can't "live without" eventually.

Just a matter of time, I guess.

So... how did we dispel these so called "scientific myths"? Did we look in a 2000 year old book for answers?

That is not "questioning science", that is exactly how science works.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

lol

I'd say people simply stopped blindly following science and questioned it.

Promises about cancer being cured in the 50s-60s have not come to pass, and for decades scientists were reluctant to accept the idea of continental drift...he pesky method sure supported anti-drift views. Thanks to their commitment to "simplicity", they held false views. Likewise, people love the "simplicity" of the origin of species, and if this is the driving reason for maintaining evolutionary views, that would be relegated to the dustbin of history right along with anti-drifters.

Oh, and the most famous is the Appendix being a "junk organ" phased out by evolution only to be surprised that it has a very important function.

They only "myth" is that only science can always give us the best answers.

Just image how Newton would have reacted if you told him people would one day fly at 30,000 feet, and 300+ Mph. He probably would have you jailed for believing such "myths", which are now normal realities.

The only reason why you're calling it a "myth" is because you don't have personal experience with whatever we believe. History has shown that "myths" (particularly in science), become realities that we can't "live without" eventually.

Just a matter of time, I guess.

What you're saying is true, to a certain extent, but it ignores a critical piece of information; as new evidence became available that showed the flaws in scientific theories, they were updated to reflect the new data or scrapped altogether when demonstrated to be false. When does that happen with religious texts? You point to these ridiculous scientific myths that were debunked - people not believing in Continental drift or misunderstanding the function of the appendix - as though they're evidence that science can't be trusted; after all, scientists have made mistakes. But your own OP is quoting a guy who believes in Noah's flood because a 5,000 year old religious text mentions it, never mind that science has repeatedly debunked the myth of a global deluge. Which is better, updating your beliefs about reality as new evidence is uncovered or stubbornly clinging to ideas that are proven falsehoods because a book told you to? No one is ever going to know the absolute truth of everything, but searching for new ways of thinking is a lot nobler than saying "meh, this here ancient text tells me everything I'll ever need to know, no need for all that thinky stuff."

 

[Retro Rob]

What you're saying is true, to a certain extent, but it ignores a critical piece of information; as new evidence became available that showed the flaws in scientific theories, they were updated to reflect the new data or scrapped altogether when demonstrated to be false. When does that happen with religious texts? You point to these ridiculous scientific myths that were debunked - people not believing in Continental drift or misunderstanding the function of the appendix - as though they're evidence that science can't be trusted;

I'm not saying science "can't be trusted", I'm saying that it can be questioned, and I don't need science to question science -- I can simply take a level of skepticism by virtue of the slew of wrong beliefs throughout history which were either seen as fact, or "near fact".

Since science polices itself very well, and theories are always allegedly open to question and proven wrong, then you should be more careful about what you call a myth because we've yet to uncover evidence for it, or find a way to do that something once held as mythical.

Sure, science is self-correcting, which is why I like it, but I'm not taking the Eskimospy view of "accepting the answers...no exceptions", because those answers could be plain wrong, and many have been.

 

[realibrad]

lol

I'd say people simply stopped blindly following science and questioned it.

Promises about cancer being cured in the 50s-60s have not come to pass, and for decades scientists were reluctant to accept the idea of continental drift...he pesky method sure supported anti-drift views. Thanks to their commitment to "simplicity", they held false views. Likewise, people love the "simplicity" of the origin of species, and if this is the driving reason for maintaining evolutionary views, that would be relegated to the dustbin of history right along with anti-drifters.

Oh, and the most famous is the Appendix being a "junk organ" phased out by evolution only to be surprised that it has a very important function.

They only "myth" is that only science can always give us the best answers.

Just image how Newton would have reacted if you told him people would one day fly at 30,000 feet, and 300+ Mph. He probably would have you jailed for believing such "myths", which are now normal realities.

The only reason why you're calling it a "myth" is because you don't have personal experience with whatever we believe. History has shown that "myths" (particularly in science), become realities that we can't "live without" eventually.

Just a matter of time, I guess.

Well, if you contention is that science should be questioned, then we agree. The thing is though that is a fundamental part of science. You observe, guess, test, and then look at the data. Science also knows that many of its models are wrong, and tries to figure out where so it can improve them. Science is ever growing, while religion still holds to its "truths". Other religions split, but if they were based on the ultimate truth, there would not be a need for this.

As for when science is wrong, you must understand why it was wrong. People drive both science and religion, and thus both will be changed by them. So when people say things like cancer will be cured soon, or this organ is useless, they are not doing so with facts, they are speculating. The great thing about science is that you can see when that is happening and do something about it.

Science understand that today what it assumes could be wrong tomorrow. This is why science calls things theory, just in case its wrong. We know there is gravity, but its still just a theory, because the science is still growing.

As for the word myth, I'm using its literal meaning.

Myth - a story that was told in an ancient culture to explain a practice, belief, or natural occurrence

I understand the confusion because most people now use the word to mean - n idea or story that is believed by many people but that is not true.

I believe that both science and religion should be questioned. The problem is that the latter is almost never questioned, because that would be blasphemy.

 

[fskimospy]

I'm not saying science "can't be trusted", I'm saying that it can be questioned, and I don't need science to question science -- I can simply take a level of skepticism by virtue of the slew of wrong beliefs throughout history which were either seen as fact, or "near fact".

Sure, science is self-correcting, which is why I like it, but I'm not taking the Eskimospy view of "accepting the answers...no exceptions", because those answers could be plain wrong, and many have been.

You still don't seem to understand what I said there. Accepting the answers doesn't mean you can't question them, you just accept them as the best explanation we have. You choose to selectively believe this, so you don't accept science.

 

[K1052]

Promises about cancer being cured in the 50s-60s have not come to pass, and for decades scientists were reluctant to accept the idea of continental drift...he pesky method sure supported anti-drift views. Thanks to their commitment to "simplicity", they held false views. Likewise, people love the "simplicity" of the origin of species, and if this is the driving reason for maintaining evolutionary views, that would be relegated to the dustbin of history right along with anti-drifters.

Have cancer survival rates improved dramatically since the 50s? Once evidence was presented was plate tectonics rejected? Has the inquiry into all kinds of possible evolutionary mechanisms and influences itself evolved since Darwin published Origin?

Your apparent demand that science must progress in straight lines from point A to B with no mistakes, errors, or other influence of inherent human weakness makes little sense. Being able to correct/refine ideas and theories in light of new evidence is not a drawback, it is a benefit that ensures the overall trend is progress. This is not questioning science....this is doing science.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

I'm not saying science "can't be trusted", I'm saying that it can be questioned, and I don't need science to question science -- I can simply take a level of skepticism by virtue of the slew of wrong beliefs throughout history which were either seen as fact, or "near fact".

Sure, science is self-correcting, which is why I like it, but I'm not taking the Eskimospy view of "accepting the answers...no exceptions", because those answers could be plain wrong, and many have been.

Well of course you can question science; you can question anything. Science has a nice built-in complaint form; if you see something that strikes you as false, you can craft your own hypothesis, do experiments, gather data and use it to support your position. If your evidence and hypothesis prove more compelling than others, your view will be accepted. But that's slightly different than "I don't want to believe in evolution so I choose not to; after all, science has been wrong about other things before." That's just a cop-out excuse to pick and choose what you want to believe. That's no more logical than being opposed to all Catholics because some priests were abusing altar boys.

 

[Retro Rob]

Well of course you can question science; you can question anything. Science has a nice built-in complaint form; if you see something that strikes you as false, you can craft your own hypothesis, do experiments, gather data and use it to support your position. If your evidence and hypothesis prove more compelling than others, your view will be accepted. But that's slightly different than "I don't want to believe in evolution so I choose not to; after all, science has been wrong about other things before." That's just a cop-out excuse to pick and choose what you want to believe. That's no more logical than being opposed to all Catholics because some priests were abusing altar boys.

Agree.

 

[JD50]

You still don't seem to understand what I said there. Accepting the answers doesn't mean you can't question them, you just accept them as the best explanation we have. You choose to selectively believe this, so you don't accept science.

I think this is the point that he's missing.

 

[JD50]

Agree.

How can you agree with him when your basis for disagreeing with science is your religion? He just said that's not a valid reason to disagree with science.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

I'll just pop in here with the absolute statement that absolute statements are the tool of the unsure. Not accepting the 'answers' in NO way shows mistrust of the scientific method. That statement is a wonderful display of paradox, as the scientific method routinely gives us conflicting answers. Did man descend from apes? Or did man and apes descend from a common, ape-like ancestor? Both have huge support but both can't be right.

Show me the "huge support" that "both have."

You sound like a pastor that I argued age of the universe with, where he eventually said 'your position goes against Pauline doctrine'.
My answer was 'no, it goes against your interpretation if Pauline doctrine'.
Don't bang the drum so loud, even IF you know the song.

You seem to be deaf.

 

[Retro Rob]

Well, if you contention is that science should be questioned, then we agree. The thing is though that is a fundamental part of science. You observe, guess, test, and then look at the data. Science also knows that many of its models are wrong, and tries to figure out where so it can improve them. Science is ever growing, while religion still holds to its "truths". Other religions split, but if they were based on the ultimate truth, there would not be a need for this.

Cannot disagree here, good points.

As for when science is wrong, you must understand why it was wrong. People drive both science and religion, and thus both will be changed by them.

Of course, and that's the point, really, and people are colored by prejudice (as you well know with religious history) and other biases.

Not saying that science has this problem to the extent religion did, but I do understand that its hard to be objective, particularly if you happen to be one who gave strong and unwavering support for [insert theory here].

So when people say things like cancer will be cured soon, or this organ is useless, they are not doing so with facts, they are speculating.

Agree, and this is a fair point.

The great thing about science is that you can see when that is happening and do something about it.

Agree.

Science understand that today what it assumes could be wrong tomorrow. This is why science calls things theory, just in case its wrong. We know there is gravity, but its still just a theory, because the science is still growing.

..but I don't need science to understand that if I walk off the ledge of a building, I will fall down to the ground.

As for the word myth, I'm using its literal meaning.

Myth - a story that was told in an ancient culture to explain a practice, belief, or natural occurrence

Under this definition, anything can qualify as a myth.

I understand the confusion because most people now use the word to mean - n idea or story that is believed by many people but that is not true.

I've read this before myself.

I believe that both science and religion should be questioned. The problem is that the latter is almost never questioned, because that would be blasphemy.

Well, with religion, things in holy books can be questioned, but not disproved per se'. So people end up simply deciding if that is something reasonable to believe, or if they're holy book has the credibility needed to trust what it says.

For example, if there is a God (as I believe him to be) would it be impossible for him/it to part a body of water? There is something the creator of the Universe cannot do?

That's just me, though.