Sea monster's remains found on Arctic island

[AreaCode707]

Originally posted by: Number1

Originally posted by: HotChic

Originally posted by: Number1

Originally posted by: altonb1

Originally posted by: Drekce

Originally posted by: LtPage1

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
Is this a thread about a new fossil discovery or was it started as an excuse to bash religion?

OP = Troll

wtf? No way, it wasn't until idiots started posting that this turned into anything antagonistic.

We've been finding prehistoric fossils for centuries. This is just a rare one. You can keep on denying scientific fact all you want, I couldn't care less- this "changes" absolutely nothing.

Neat find, though. Anyone remember that X-Files episode?

Now that is funny. If you have to bash creationists in order to solidify your beliefs, go ahead, it won't change my mind. I just ask that you don't resort to lies in the process.

What does this fossil prove? I believe the dinosaurs existed, and I believe there may very well be "dinosaurs" alive on the earth today. I think Plesiosaurs or a close relative still exist today; I think that they are the creature more commponly referred to as the Loch Ness Monster.

I also believe that man and dinosaurs coexisted, and lastly, I don't believe the earth is billions of years old--I believe it is only thousands of years.
Overall, though, the fossil that has been found does nothing to support or contradict any of my beliefs.

Quote from the article: "The 150-million-year-old remains of the 10-metre-long ocean-going predator were found in August."

Respectfully, how do you reconcile your beliefs with this fact? The scientists did not make this up.

Depends on how accurate you think their dating methods are. *shrug* Everything in science eventually goes through revision.

I have a reasonable faith that the current dating process is fairly accurate, given the state of technology today. Even if the scientists where off by 50%, that would still mean 75 million years.

Yep. Some Christians just don't have faith in the dating methods. Most Christians believe dinosaurs existed (I haven't heard the "put there to test us" theory from anybody current day, though that was something Tennyson pondered) but fossil evidence doesn't phase them because their faith in the accuracy of the dating system is so low.

 

[miniMUNCH]

Originally posted by: hungfarover
fundamentalist retards @ my college used to try to tell me that god put the dinosaur bones there to "test our faith"

i'm not making this up

This sort of thing is what happens when idiots try to interpret the Bible.

 

[IHateMyJob2004]

Wait till the ice caps are finished melting in 50 years (scientificlly, this is the projection) ... I'm sure alot of strange things will be ungraved.

 

[daveymark]

Originally posted by: LtPage1

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
Is this a thread about a new fossil discovery or was it started as an excuse to bash religion?

OP = Troll

wtf? No way, it wasn't until idiots started posting that this turned into anything antagonistic.

We've been finding prehistoric fossils for centuries. This is just a rare one. You can keep on denying scientific fact all you want, I couldn't care less- this "changes" absolutely nothing.

Neat find, though. Anyone remember that X-Files episode?

Thinly veiled attempt at trolling, nice try though

 

[Perknose]

Originally posted by: YOyoYOhowsDAjello
"I wonder what creationists have to say about this?"



How does this change anything?

Well, it doesn't, but it's always good for a laugh to hear their obtuse ignorance:

1. Carbon dating is inaccurate. Ohhhhkayyyyy, suppose carbon dating is, oh, 99% inaccurate. Let me repeat that, 99% inaccurate. That would make that fossil, at it's youngest, just one and one half million years old, or, still one million, four hunder and ninety-six thousand years older than many creationists believe the earth to be.

2.) Evolution is just a theory. Well, so is gravity. Yet, somehow, you don't see many anti-scientific theory bible humper types walking off of tall buildings, serene in the ignorance of their "faith".

And on and on and on, like shooting Jesus fish in a barrel. :disgust:

 

[uhohs]

reconcile what? the Bible states that there was time on earth before humans, just doesn't say how long. one can interpret/assume it as a short period or a incredibly long one.

It points to man being around thousands of years, not the earth itself.

 

[Perknose]

Originally posted by: IHateMyJob2004
Wait till the ice caps are finished melting in 50 years (scientificlly, this is the projection) ... I'm sure alot of strange things will be ungraved*.

Yup, Jimmy Hoffa, your gf's lost virginity, mankind's collective sanity, the formula for Classic Coke . . .














*Not a word. At least, in English.

 

[chambersc]

Originally posted by: hungfarover
fundamentalist retards @ my college used to try to tell me that god put the dinosaur bones there to "test our faith"

i'm not making this up

that's why faith and reason are mutually exclusive.

 

[altonb1]

Originally posted by: Number1

Originally posted by: altonb1

What does this fossil prove? I believe the dinosaurs existed, and I believe there may very well be "dinosaurs" alive on the earth today. I think Plesiosaurs or a close relative still exist today; I think that they are the creature more commponly referred to as the Loch Ness Monster.

I also believe that man and dinosaurs coexisted, and lastly, I don't believe the earth is billions of years old--I believe it is only thousands of years.
Overall, though, the fossil that has been found does nothing to support or contradict any of my beliefs.

Quote from the article: "The 150-million-year-old remains of the 10-metre-long ocean-going predator were found in August."

Respectfully, how do you reconcile your beliefs with this fact? The scientists did not make this up.

I don't reconcile my beliefs with that "fact" because you can't PROVE that the method of dating the fossil is accurate. How can you say something is 150 million years old? It still comes down to how credible our current system of "dating" things can be. When it comes to things like estimating time of death at a crime scene, body temperature, etc is pretty accurate. However, the older something gets, the harder it will be to accurately estimate the age. Based on my beliefs of the age of the Earth, I think the carbon dating methods are hopelessly flawed.

Not to take this thread off the current topic, but I will use Global Warming as another example. How can we claim Global Warming if we haven't been keeping track of temperatures very long. I was always taught that the Earth had 2 Ice Age periods in it's history. Assuming this is true, how do we know the warming temps of the last decade or two is a result of fossil fuels, CFCs, etc? Wouldn't it be just as plausible to think that the Earth has not yet reached it's NATURAL temperature and that it is a natural progression on it's way back from the last Ice Age?

My point is that we have no guarantees as to which is right, or even closer to the truth. At this time, all we have are theories.

 

[CarlKillerMiller]

That thing was placed by god to test our faith.

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
Is this a thread about a new fossil discovery or was it started as an excuse to bash religion?

OP = Troll

The latter.

 

[RelaxTheMind]

there was a point in time that people thought the world was flat and everything revolved around the earth... given technology back then "belief" ridiculed people who thought different or "scientifically"...

Bascially thats my point. If I had to choose between using "faith" or "science" before I opened a cardboard box labled "BOMB INSIDE"... I think I would choose an innacurate x-ray machine.

 

[IAteYourMother]

Originally posted by: RelaxTheMind
there was a point in time that people thought the world was flat and everything revolved around the earth... given technology back then "belief" ridiculed people who thought different or "scientifically"...

Bascially thats my point. If I had to choose between using "faith" or "science" before I opened a cardboard box labled "BOMB INSIDE"... I think I would choose an innacurate x-ray machine.

right, because that's totally a great analogy :roll:

 

[Number1]

Originally posted by: altonb1

Originally posted by: Number1

Originally posted by: altonb1

What does this fossil prove? I believe the dinosaurs existed, and I believe there may very well be "dinosaurs" alive on the earth today. I think Plesiosaurs or a close relative still exist today; I think that they are the creature more commponly referred to as the Loch Ness Monster.

I also believe that man and dinosaurs coexisted, and lastly, I don't believe the earth is billions of years old--I believe it is only thousands of years.
Overall, though, the fossil that has been found does nothing to support or contradict any of my beliefs.

Quote from the article: "The 150-million-year-old remains of the 10-metre-long ocean-going predator were found in August."

Respectfully, how do you reconcile your beliefs with this fact? The scientists did not make this up.

I don't reconcile my beliefs with that "fact" because you can't PROVE that the method of dating the fossil is accurate. How can you say something is 150 million years old? It still comes down to how credible our current system of "dating" things can be. When it comes to things like estimating time of death at a crime scene, body temperature, etc is pretty accurate. However, the older something gets, the harder it will be to accurately estimate the age. Based on my beliefs of the age of the Earth, I think the carbon dating methods are hopelessly flawed.

Not to take this thread off the current topic, but I will use Global Warming as another example. How can we claim Global Warming if we haven't been keeping track of temperatures very long. I was always taught that the Earth had 2 Ice Age periods in it's history. Assuming this is true, how do we know the warming temps of the last decade or two is a result of fossil fuels, CFCs, etc? Wouldn't it be just as plausible to think that the Earth has not yet reached it's NATURAL temperature and that it is a natural progression on it's way back from the last Ice Age?

My point is that we have no guarantees as to which is right, or even closer to the truth. At this time, all we have are theories.

I think the only reason you don't believe in carbon dating is because it contradict your religious beliefs. I am sure you believe in electricity, yet we only have theories developed by scientists to explain it.

 

[masterxfob]

we're all going to burn in hell, so stop blabbering y'all.

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: altonb1

Originally posted by: Number1

Originally posted by: altonb1

What does this fossil prove? I believe the dinosaurs existed, and I believe there may very well be "dinosaurs" alive on the earth today. I think Plesiosaurs or a close relative still exist today; I think that they are the creature more commponly referred to as the Loch Ness Monster.

I also believe that man and dinosaurs coexisted, and lastly, I don't believe the earth is billions of years old--I believe it is only thousands of years.
Overall, though, the fossil that has been found does nothing to support or contradict any of my beliefs.

Quote from the article: "The 150-million-year-old remains of the 10-metre-long ocean-going predator were found in August."

Respectfully, how do you reconcile your beliefs with this fact? The scientists did not make this up.

I don't reconcile my beliefs with that "fact" because you can't PROVE that the method of dating the fossil is accurate. How can you say something is 150 million years old? It still comes down to how credible our current system of "dating" things can be. When it comes to things like estimating time of death at a crime scene, body temperature, etc is pretty accurate. However, the older something gets, the harder it will be to accurately estimate the age. Based on my beliefs of the age of the Earth, I think the carbon dating methods are hopelessly flawed.

Not to take this thread off the current topic, but I will use Global Warming as another example. How can we claim Global Warming if we haven't been keeping track of temperatures very long. I was always taught that the Earth had 2 Ice Age periods in it's history. Assuming this is true, how do we know the warming temps of the last decade or two is a result of fossil fuels, CFCs, etc? Wouldn't it be just as plausible to think that the Earth has not yet reached it's NATURAL temperature and that it is a natural progression on it's way back from the last Ice Age?

My point is that we have no guarantees as to which is right, or even closer to the truth. At this time, all we have are theories.

Yes, because carbon dating that is scientifically proven, is fact, is replicatable, and has solid foundation in everything we know is trumped by a book written by men, for the control over other men, for more power.

Sorry, but faith is faith, fact is fact. Faith is not fact. The Bible is faith. Carbon dating is fact.

You can go ahead and have faith that men aren't corrupt and don't want to control you through the Bible. I'll have fact that nobody gains anything by accurately determining the age of fossiles.

 

[chambersc]

Originally posted by: Number1

Originally posted by: altonb1

Originally posted by: Number1

Originally posted by: altonb1

What does this fossil prove? I believe the dinosaurs existed, and I believe there may very well be "dinosaurs" alive on the earth today. I think Plesiosaurs or a close relative still exist today; I think that they are the creature more commponly referred to as the Loch Ness Monster.

I also believe that man and dinosaurs coexisted, and lastly, I don't believe the earth is billions of years old--I believe it is only thousands of years.
Overall, though, the fossil that has been found does nothing to support or contradict any of my beliefs.

Quote from the article: "The 150-million-year-old remains of the 10-metre-long ocean-going predator were found in August."

Respectfully, how do you reconcile your beliefs with this fact? The scientists did not make this up.

I don't reconcile my beliefs with that "fact" because you can't PROVE that the method of dating the fossil is accurate. How can you say something is 150 million years old? It still comes down to how credible our current system of "dating" things can be. When it comes to things like estimating time of death at a crime scene, body temperature, etc is pretty accurate. However, the older something gets, the harder it will be to accurately estimate the age. Based on my beliefs of the age of the Earth, I think the carbon dating methods are hopelessly flawed.

Not to take this thread off the current topic, but I will use Global Warming as another example. How can we claim Global Warming if we haven't been keeping track of temperatures very long. I was always taught that the Earth had 2 Ice Age periods in it's history. Assuming this is true, how do we know the warming temps of the last decade or two is a result of fossil fuels, CFCs, etc? Wouldn't it be just as plausible to think that the Earth has not yet reached it's NATURAL temperature and that it is a natural progression on it's way back from the last Ice Age?

My point is that we have no guarantees as to which is right, or even closer to the truth. At this time, all we have are theories.

I think the only reason you don't believe in carbon dating is because it contradict your religious beliefs. I am sure you believe in electricity, yet we only have theories developed by scientists to explain it.

There is no room for reason in faith. You might as well stop now.


Oh, by the way, to the "religious moderates" or people who think the bible is simply symbolic...

Deuteronomy 13:1
"Whatever I am now commanding you, you must keep and observe,add nothing to it, taking nothing away."

 

[mercanucaribe]

Originally posted by: destrekor

Originally posted by: Number1

Originally posted by: altonb1

Originally posted by: Drekce

Originally posted by: LtPage1

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
Is this a thread about a new fossil discovery or was it started as an excuse to bash religion?

OP = Troll

wtf? No way, it wasn't until idiots started posting that this turned into anything antagonistic.

We've been finding prehistoric fossils for centuries. This is just a rare one. You can keep on denying scientific fact all you want, I couldn't care less- this "changes" absolutely nothing.

Neat find, though. Anyone remember that X-Files episode?

Now that is funny. If you have to bash creationists in order to solidify your beliefs, go ahead, it won't change my mind. I just ask that you don't resort to lies in the process.

What does this fossil prove? I believe the dinosaurs existed, and I believe there may very well be "dinosaurs" alive on the earth today. I think Plesiosaurs or a close relative still exist today; I think that they are the creature more commponly referred to as the Loch Ness Monster.

I also believe that man and dinosaurs coexisted, and lastly, I don't believe the earth is billions of years old--I believe it is only thousands of years.
Overall, though, the fossil that has been found does nothing to support or contradict any of my beliefs.

Quote from the article: "The 150-million-year-old remains of the 10-metre-long ocean-going predator were found in August."

Respectfully, how do you reconcile your beliefs with this fact? The scientists did not make this up.

exactly.. the fundamentalists will say our earth is merely a few thousand years old, and when challenged with fossil evidence of things that scientists dated back millions of years.. a fundamentalist will say carbon dating is flawed, and probably add another 'god made it that way' type of line or something.
hell if i know.. but carbon dating is not flawed. but you can't get that into the mind of a fundamentalist.. they are some of the worst breed alive, as they won't ever let someone challenge them.. they are right, no matter what... and they can't learn through debate because they'll block everything out.
its useless to argue with a fundamentalist.

Carbon dating does not work on fossils because there is no organic matter left. Other isotopes are used.

Creationists, please go take a look at some geologic formations like folded rock and layers upon layers of strata with vastly different fossils overlaid on top of one another.

 

[themusgrat]

Carbon dating is recognized by everyone to be innaccurate. It is good for general numbers (where have you seen 164,539,643 yeats?????? Nope, a nice rounded off 150 million) That is because you have to assume many things about the earth that may or may not be true in order to use it.

LegendKiller, carbon dating is not "fact." You don't know how it works obviously. Of course it is replicable, but like I said, it assumes soooo much. Yet another mindless drivel about Christian "fundamentalists" that has no basis.

Also, faith and reason are not mutually exclusive, but faith would take precedence over reason. Really, there would be no point to faith unless it surpassed reason and logic. We would all be little computers. Think before you post please.

Now that this is P&N, it's cool to see fossils like that, I still think the Loch Ness monster might exist, it would be cool to find something like that.

 

[mercanucaribe]

Originally posted by: themusgrat
Carbon dating is recognized by everyone to be innaccurate. It is good for general numbers (where have you seen 164,539,643 yeats?????? Nope, a nice rounded off 150 million) That is because you have to assume many things about the earth that may or may not be true in order to use it.

LegendKiller, carbon dating is not "fact." You don't know how it works obviously. Of course it is replicable, but like I said, it assumes soooo much. Yet another mindless drivel about Christian "fundamentalists" that has no basis.

Also, faith and reason are not mutually exclusive, but faith would take precedence over reason. Really, there would be no point to faith unless it surpassed reason and logic. We would all be little computers. Think before you post please.

Now that this is P&N, it's cool to see fossils like that, I still think the Loch Ness monster might exist, it would be cool to find something like that.

If you knew what you were talking about, you'd know that the limit of C 14 dating is 60000 years. Of course you don't so you assume that carbon 14 dating is used for a 150 million year old fossil, which is impossible.

 

[themusgrat]

Originally posted by: mercanucaribe

Creationists, please go take a look at some geologic formations like folded rock and layers upon layers of strata with vastly different fossils overlaid on top of one another.

And evolutionists go look at the many places where that order is out of place, or sometimes, it is completely in reverse. All significant evolutionists stopped using that as proof of evolution, it is merely a nice and fluffy argument now. That said, I do believe in evolution, in that we are evolving, just not that one day, a Prime Mover decided to implode a super dense thingy which spurned out a completely logical universe with orderly galaxies and solar systems, with unseeable and unexplainable laws that apply everywhere, then somehow, life came from nowhere, decided to grow a brain gills fins etc., then decided that swimming was boring, so grew some legs, then it hopped out on land, liked the noises its vocal cords made, decided that the slumping of the back was bad for posture, and here we are today.

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: themusgrat
Carbon dating is recognized by everyone to be innaccurate. It is good for general numbers (where have you seen 164,539,643 yeats?????? Nope, a nice rounded off 150 million) That is because you have to assume many things about the earth that may or may not be true in order to use it.

LegendKiller, carbon dating is not "fact." You don't know how it works obviously. Of course it is replicable, but like I said, it assumes soooo much. Yet another mindless drivel about Christian "fundamentalists" that has no basis.

Also, faith and reason are not mutually exclusive, but faith would take precedence over reason. Really, there would be no point to faith unless it surpassed reason and logic. We would all be little computers. Think before you post please.

Now that this is P&N, it's cool to see fossils like that, I still think the Loch Ness monster might exist, it would be cool to find something like that.

What does it assume? What we can observe and what we know about half-life?

Yeah, a book written by men is so much better of a yardstick. Because obviously they knew so much about the planet and science that they thought everything revolved around them and that fire and brimstone, not methane deposits from underground pockets released by geological activity caused Soddam and Gamorrah to burn.

Seriously, you guys trust a bunch of people who had no idea about anything to tell you the guide to everything in life because you *THINK* they were inspired by God. Tell me, if God created me and I believe in God and he has given me the power to think and be myself, then what gives the Bible more credence than me? Aren't my words then inspired by God?

God gave us carbon dating and science, what makes that less valid than a book?

Then, people say that men are corrupt and inherently sinners. So, if men wrote the Bible, didn't they sin while writing it?

Do scientists sin when they date stuff? Who has more to gain from lying, those that want to increase their influence, or those who just want to study God's creation?

No, faith and reason don't have to be mutually exclusive. However, zealous men have steered the feeble minded that way.

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller
Yes, because carbon dating that is scientifically proven, is fact, is replicatable, and has solid foundation in everything we know...

Just to play devil's advocate, just because results are replicable does not make them accurate. A flaw in the underlying assumptions can cause inaccurate results that are easily repeatable.

Scientifically proven only within certain parameters. Unless someone has watched and tested an artifact for 150 million years one cannot validate that carbon dating is accurate in that timespan. The most that we can say about it is that, in the limited range of our ability to test it, the method of carbon dating has been sufficiently accurate.

As for the foundation in all we know, so was luminiferous ether.

To borrow a phrase from Stephen J. Gould. "In science, 'fact' can only mean 'confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withold provisional assent.'"

As for my personal belief, I believe that carbon dating is accurate, at least, that it is sufficiently accurate that I will give it my provisional assent. As far as faith, I believe that Christ is the only begotten son of God, but I do not believe that Genesis is literal.

ZV

 

[RapidSnail]

I'd like to post several short questions of my own that have honestly intrigued me about the theory of evolution.

Why isn't evolution occuring today?

What about irreducible complexity?

What about probability?

 

[themusgrat]

Originally posted by: mercanucaribe


If you knew what you were talking about, you'd know that the limit of C 14 dating is 60000 years. Of course you don't so you assume that carbon 14 dating is used for a 150 million year old fossil, which is impossible.

I know just enough about it to know that carbon dating is not "fact"