Dinosaurs.

[The Atheist]

A case is being put that dinosaurs were on the Ark of Noah.

I think.

If it isn't a joke, then this needs discussion, and I've put it here, because although it's biblical, the evidence isn't:


I affirm that they WERE on the ark. However, this is not the place for this discussion.

So, let's have that discussion.

(If it is a joke, it obviously won't be serious enough and will Die The Death of Boring Threads!)

[Niamh]

Dinosaurs predate the Ark. Please see link

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0152183/quotes


“You believe the world's 12 thousand years old? "That's right." Okay I got one word to ask you, a one word question, ready? "Uh huh." Dinosaurs. You know the world's 12 thousand years old and dinosaurs existed, they existed in that time, you'd think it would have been mentioned in the ****ing Bible at some point. "And lo Jesus and the disciples walked to Nazareth. But the trail was blocked by a giant brontosaurus...with a splinter in his paw. And O the disciples did run a shriekin': 'What a big ****ing lizard, Lord!' But Jesus was unafraid and he took the splinter from the brontosaurus's paw and the big lizard became his friend.”

[BienvenuJDC]

If we are going to have this discussion, I would like to have some set parameters to the focus of the discussion. The main question being:

How does the evidence of dinosaurs existence fit into the Biblical time line?

[Niamh]

It doesnt. The Biblical time line is only a few thousand years old. The Dinosaurs existed during the Jurassic and Triassic periods of the mesozoic Era circa 200 million years ago. The Biblical time line is set post-pleitocene which roughly ended with the last ice age 10000 years ago.

[BienvenuJDC]

It doesnt. The Biblical time line is only a few thousand years old. The Dinosaurs existed during the Jurassic and Triassic periods of the mesozoic Era circa 200 million years ago. The Biblical time line is set post-pleitocene which roughly ended with the last ice age 10000 years ago.


If those are going to be the defined parameters, then I have no interest in a discussion based on theory that I find to be erroneous.

[DanielBenoit]

If those are going to be the defined parameters, then I have no interest in a discussion based on theory that I find to be erroneous.

Then don't join, simple as that :D

It's kind of weird how these are always the defined parameters to the discussion.

But what kind of parameters would you like Bien? Ones that fit your belief system?

[Niamh]

If those are going to be the defined parameters, then I have no interest in a discussion based on theory that I find to be erroneous.

And how do you find geological and Paleontological evidence erroneous?

[The Atheist]

If we are going to have this discussion, I would like to have some set parameters to the focus of the discussion.

Great idea.

The parameters will be known facts.


The main question being:

How does the evidence of dinosaurs existence fit into the Biblical time line?

That's very easy with a factual approach, as summed up by Niamh - dinosaurs are millions of years older than humans and there is an enormous wealth of factual literature available throughout every library and university in the world to show that this is the case.

From geology to paleontology to physics to mathematics, it is demonstrable that dinsosaurs lived immensely long before humans.

As long as the bible refers to dinosaurs metaphorically, there is no problem at all.

If the bible is produced as any kind of evidence that humans and dinosaurs coexisted, then the bible or its interpretation is simply incorrect, because dinosaurs aren't compatible with the bible.

The more liberal religions in the world - i.e. almost all of them - accept these facts and treat the bible as allegorical in terms of timeline.

Would you argue that all science is wrong and the earth is only millennia old?

[DanielBenoit]

How in any logical universe can humans co-exist with dinosaurs? It is only because the dinosaurs died out that mammals were given room to dominate.

Question: How did Noah prevent the T-Rex from eating the little yummy sheep?

[Katy North]

The ark discussion is kind of pointless if there is no fundamentalist willing to engage in verbal banter.

If we're just talking about dinosaurs in general though, I must say, I quite like ankylosaurus. He has to be the best dinosaur ever.

http://www.blogcurioso.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/ankylosaurus_3.jpg

Proof that the best offense is an excellent defense. ^

[BienvenuJDC]

That's very easy with a factual approach, as summed up by Niamh - dinosaurs are millions of years older than humans and there is an enormous wealth of factual literature available throughout every library and university in the world to show that this is the case.



Just because certain theories are widely accepted in certain groups, it does not mean that they are facts. Many scientists believe that the dating methods are grossly inaccurate. I will not discuss a topic where you get to set all the rules in order to make sure that your conclusions are the only ones that are possible.

Good day!!

[Niamh]

how are they grossly inaccurate? you cant make a statement like that and not give a reason for why you believe it.

I cant for the life of me figure out what is so insulting about me posting dates, eras etc as evidance that they arent connected. :confused: you posed a question, i answered.

[DanielBenoit]

Just because certain theories are widely accepted in certain groups, it does not mean that they are facts.

Agreed! There goes the Judeo-Christian God all together :D


Many scientists believe that the dating methods are grossly inaccurate.

Which ones? *takes out notepad*


I will not discuss a topic where you get to set all the rules in order to make sure that your conclusions are the only ones that are possible.


What do you want the "rules" to be? Shall we just assume the postulation that the earth is 6,000 years old and that God created Adam and Eve in the garden?

[JuniperWoolf]

I think that the more interesting subject here is psychological. This notion that the earth is only what, eight thousand years old? It's not just held by a small fringe group, there are even a bunch of people in my obscure little town that believe it. How the hell do they do that? How are they able to solidly believe something that has such a huge amount of evidence to the contrairy? And for what reason? Why do they insist on such an illogical assertion? Don't they know that it makes them look willfully ignorant? They even get mad when you question them (*cough*Bien*cough*). It's pretty strange.

[Katy North]

It's called fundamentalism. Many people who are deeply religious believe the Bible over scientists. While Musicology seems to be enjoying the argument for the sake of the argument, it seems that this is a deeply personal choice for Bien. I'm no moderator, but I'd suggest we not continue this thread, which seems to have been made purely for the sake of mocking Bien's beliefs.

Unless we want to talk about the ankylosaurus again. Whom I affirm is awesome. :D

http://thomas.thomlex.com/dinosaurs/ankylosaurus.jpg

[The Comedian]

It's called fundamentalism. Many people who are deeply religious believe the Bible over scientists. While Musicology seems to be enjoying the argument for the sake of the argument, it seems that this is a deeply personal choice for Bien. I'm no moderator, but I'd suggest we not continue this thread, which seems to have been made purely for the sake of mocking Bien's beliefs.

Now this is wisdom.

[JuniperWoolf]

I'm no moderator, but I'd suggest we not continue this thread, which seems to have been made purely for the sake of mocking Bien's beliefs.

I still don't really get it (why go to such lengths to take the bible literally? The book is more effective as a parable) but you're right. The desire to just shake him or tie him to a chair and force him to watch a documentory on pre-history (Clockwork-Orange style) is definately strong, but if fourty-plus years of life on this earth hasn't done anything to sway his convictions then it's best to just leave it be.

Also, ankylosaurus is the coolest land dinosaur but kronosaurus is the coolest water dinosaur:
http://cbullitt.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/kronosaurus.jpg

[OrphanPip]

Bien objects to the use of carbon dating, which isn't actually used for dating dinosaur fossils. We have multiple radiometric dating methods, which each are accurate at different time frames based on their rate of degredation, that are more effective for dating something that old.

However, if we ignore radiometric dating entirely, we can make use of the simplest form of relative dating, which is rock strata. Dinosaur fossils are invariably found in lower strata than human bones. This is a clear indication that dinosaur fossils are older than humans since humans are never found in the same or lower strata (or anywhere near the same strata).

[The Comedian]

.However, if we ignore radiometric dating entirely, we can make use of the simplest form of relative dating, which is rock strata. Dinosaur fossils are invariably found in lower strata than human bones. This is a clear indication that dinosaur fossils are older than humans since humans are never found in the same or lower strata (or anywhere near the same strata).

Holy crap -- that is so simple.

EDIT: the two sciences that I've always enjoyed the most are botany and geology. This thread, though far from its intention, is getting me all geared up to read/learn some geology. Any good recommendations for an eager psudo-scientist?

[*Classic*Charm*]

Holy crap -- that is so simple.

EDIT: the two sciences that I've always enjoyed the most are botany and geology. This thread, though far from its intention, is getting me all geared up to read/learn some geology. Any good recommendations for an eager psudo-scientist?

An actual textbook! It's the only non-biased approach, and in my science-snob opinion, the only thing from which pseudo-scientists should learn. :D

[OrphanPip]

I'm not too much of a geology expert.

A great book for the layman on evolution is Dawkins' Ancestor's Tale. I know you might be balking at the mention of Richard Dawkins, but this is one of his actual science books and not a tirade against religion. It's a wonderful track of the evolution of life starting with the beginnings of human sedentary lifestyle going all the way back to bacteria. Dawkins may occasionally overwhelm the layman with detail, but his writing is clear and engaging.

Edit: It's also, unlike many popular science books, well cited with an extensive bibliography and written by an acknowledged world class evolutionary biologist.

[Katy North]

:rant:

As atheists (or at least non-fundamentalists) we are, in society as a whole, a minority. I feel a lot of frustration when fundamentalists as a group come up to me trying to indoctrinate me to Christianity. However, the other side of the coin is that, if atheists are in the majority (as they are on this website), fundamentalists probably feel a mixture of annoyance/anger when we offhandedly reject their beliefs.

Every person has different beliefs that should be respected. We should not try and convert people or be the aggressors in arguments for atheism... this is what many non-christian were trying to escape when they converted from Christianity in the first place. We should assert ourselves, and be proud of what we are, but one cannot convert a person to atheism, atheism is merely a realization of many truths that eventually outweigh that of religion.

Bien has many valid points in many discussions. We should respect him as a human, even if we do not agree with his fundamentalism. When I was young, I was pointed at and called names in school. Let's not be reduced to the same on this forum.

I'm sure I've been guilty sometimes too,:blush: because it's hard for me to turn down a discussion of evolution. But as I raise my son, I want him to be an atheist, but I want him to be a good person who does not feel bitter towards people of other religions, and who does not feel the need to pound his fist on Darwin's books every time someone brings up a fundamentalist topic, unless it's in a context that would limit his rights as a human being.

Sorry if that sounded kinda preachy. I really like this forum; and I feel that there are many like-minded people here. I really hope we can keep discussing these things, because it's fun and an intellectual exercise, not just to lambaste other people's opinions.

*Gets down from soap-box*

[JuniperWoolf]

An actual textbook! It's the only non-biased approach, and in my science-snob opinion, the only thing from which pseudo-scientists should learn. :D

Yeah, we've got quite a few science majors here eh? There's me (forestry & science psychology), you (animal sciences, right?), TheDave (envoronmental sciences if I'm not mistaken) and Pip (microbiology I think, from McGill!! *admiring tone*). Maybe more?

[*Classic*Charm*]

Yeah, we've got quite a few science majors here eh? There's me (forestry & science psychology), you (animal sciences, right?), TheDave (envoronmental sciences if I'm not mistaken) and Pip (microbiology I think, from McGill!! *admiring tone*). Maybe more?

You know it! Animal biology, to be specific. Virgil's background is in science as well.

But really, that opinion comes from having an anti-theist father who thinks that the work of Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens is real science and all the proof the world needs that there is no god. He thinks he believes in science when what he reads is not real science. If people want to learn about science, they should be reading textbooks and science journals, not people's opinions and interpretations of science.

[JuniperWoolf]

Yeah, but the problem there is that textbooks are so goddamn expensive. A science layman isn't going to want to spend $100 on one book.

[*Classic*Charm*]

Yeah, but the problem there is that textbooks are so goddamn expensive. A science layman isn't going to want to spend $100 on one book.

I know. :( At least a reference book though! As long as you're not being told what to learn, you know what I mean? There are just some things that I don't believe can be thoroughly understood if they're in any way attempted to be put into "layman's terms", such as genetics for example, since Richard Dawkins likes to talk about that. If you try to simplify it, you're going to have a lot of misinterpretation. And I think that's more harmful than not learning anything at all.

[OrphanPip]

It's also difficult to understand journals and textbooks without some sort of substantial education in science already. Even sophomore science majors aren't expected to fully grasp primary source material from journals. These articles usually assume an audience with a minimum of a bachelor's degree in a related field.

Haha, also Dawkins' Selfish Gene isn't that bad of a book, and I do think he's a reliable source for the layman. His other books aren't worth reading really though. Stephen Jay Gould wrote popular science books too, that doesn't keep punctuated equilibrium from being taught in biology classrooms.

The Journal Nature also includes reviews and relatively layman articles in each issue along with the research publications. A very good source.

I'd rather someone with a curiosity in science be reading Scientific American than something published by a fringe group with its own private press.

[JuniperWoolf]

Yeah, I've argued with a lot of "atheists" who I'm pretty sure have never taken an evolutionary biology course in their lives. They just absorb The God Delusion and think they know what they're talking about. That's not a good way to go about making decisions, especially if you're then going to fly around the internet bashing christians with your regurgitated "knowledge."

*edit* I honestly think that the reason why I take so much issue with it simply because it's very annoying.

[OrphanPip]

Dawkins' main problem is inserting his philosophy into the books, which is what he is best know for. That is the primary reason why I think the books where he isn't philosophizing are his best.

[*Classic*Charm*]

Yeah, I've argued with a lot of "atheists" who I'm pretty sure have never taken an evolutionary biology course in their lives. They just absorb The God Delusion and think they know what they're talking about. That's not a good way to go about making decisions, especially if you're then going to fly around the internet bashing christians with your regurgitated "knowledge."

*edit* I honestly think that I take so much issue with it simply because it's very annoying.

That's more what I mean. People's interest in "science" is solely to disprove a superior being. Which is the worst reason EVER to study science.


It's also difficult to understand journals and textbooks without some sort of substantial education in science already. Even sophomore science majors aren't expected to fully grasp primary source material from journals. These articles usually assume an audience with a minimum of a bachelor's degree in a related field.

Haha, also Dawkins' Selfish Gene isn't that bad of a book, and I do think he's a reliable source for the layman. His other books aren't worth reading really though. Stephen Jay Gould wrote popular science books too, that doesn't keep punctuated equilibrium from being taught in biology classrooms.

The Journal Nature also includes reviews and relatively layman articles in each issue along with the research publications. A very good source.

I'd rather someone with a curiosity in science be reading Scientific American than something published by a fringe group with its own private press.

See my comment to Juniper, Pip. That's more what I mean. You're completely right- people with no science background could never understand more journal publications. Again, my disapproval comes more from people wanting to understand science so they can spout their "proof" that there's no god. I lost my mind when I came home for the weekend and my father told me that I should read Dawkins' The Greatest Show on Earth because it talks about genetics. Thanks Dad, but I'll learn about genetics from the actual geneticists in a context that is actually applicable. The Skeptical Inquirer is not a reliable source of scientific information. He also second-hand quotes Darwin. See where my irritation comes from?

[OrphanPip]

Oddly enough, my basic genetics text book was written by David Suzuki of CBC television fame. I had no idea he was a population geneticist, I thought he was an environmental scientist. Apparently he also taught genetics at UBC.

[*Classic*Charm*]

Oddly enough, my basic genetics text book was written by David Suzuki of CBC television fame. I had no idea he was a population geneticist, I thought he was an environmental scientist. Apparently he also taught genetics at UBC.

Haha that's pretty awesome. My first genetics prof bred Newfoundland dogs. Brilliant woman, but such a crazy dog lady hahaha.

[OrphanPip]

Haha that's pretty awesome. My first genetics prof bred Newfoundland dogs. Brilliant woman, but such a crazy dog lady hahaha.

If you think that's crazy, I had more than a few awkwardly long one on ones with the chair of my department. Who apparently only has two loves in life, curling and breeding corn snakes. He once went on at length about the proper way to kill mice. I have to admit though, after seeing him in action, if anyone could be considered an expert mouse murderer it was this guy.

Edit: Most memorable thing he ever said to me, "you wouldn't believe the amount of blood you can get out of a rabbit." He was talking about harvesting antibodies for experiments.

Edit2: Another memorable one for me was my entomology prof, who was absolutely indignant that it isn't considered unethical to test pesticides on insects.

[*Classic*Charm*]

If you think that's crazy, I had more than a few awkwardly long one on ones with the chair of my department. Who apparently only has two loves in life, curling and breeding corn snakes. He once went on at length about the proper way to kill mice. I have to admit though, after seeing him in action, if anyone could be considered an expert mouse murderer it was this guy.

Edit: Most memorable thing he ever said to me, "you wouldn't believe the amount of blood you can get out of a rabbit." He was talking about harvesting antibodies for experiments.

Edit2: Another memorable one for me was my entomology prof, who was absolutely indignant that it isn't considered unethical to test pesticides on insects.

Hahaha I had my farm animal repro prof tell us that it's hard for him to get it up now that he's getting on in years...the point was relative to bulls somehow or another

[The Atheist]

I think that the more interesting subject here is psychological. This notion that the earth is only what, eight thousand years old? It's not just held by a small fringe group, there are even a bunch of people in my obscure little town that believe it. How the hell do they do that? How are they able to solidly believe something that has such a huge amount of evidence to the contrairy?

Desire trumps evidence every time.

Some people need a sky-daddy who is genuinely omnipotent, and you can't get more omnipotent than one which can change the rules of phsyics at will.


Unless we want to talk about the ankylosaurus again. Whom I affirm is awesome. :D

Correct!


Bien objects to the use of carbon dating, which isn't actually used for dating dinosaur fossils. We have multiple radiometric dating methods, which each are accurate at different time frames based on their rate of degredation, that are more effective for dating something that old.

However, if we ignore radiometric dating entirely, we can make use of the simplest form of relative dating, which is rock strata. Dinosaur fossils are invariably found in lower strata than human bones. This is a clear indication that dinosaur fossils are older than humans since humans are never found in the same or lower strata (or anywhere near the same strata).

There are so many proofs of the age of earth that I can't see any point in debating the issue. Ignoring it all takes a special kind of wilful ignorance that no evidence will ever change.


Virgil's background is in science as well.

Isn't he an engineer rather than scientist?

I'm sure he'll be along shortly to tell us!

:D

[Gladys]

Just because certain theories are widely accepted in certain groups, it does not mean that they are facts. Many scientists believe that the dating methods are grossly inaccurate. I will not discuss a topic where you get to set all the rules in order to make sure that your conclusions are the only ones that are possible.

So much of scientific debate, whether with creationists or global warming dissenters, does indeed strive 'to set all the rules' ensuring the orthodox conclusion. Bien, I thoroughly agree with you.

How about more integrity from science spokesmen! Let them list clearly the many weaknesses in their arguments rather than an endless liturgy of self-congratulatory orthodoxy. No wonder science lacks credibility in the community.

Let's have less manifestations of the infallible priesthood of science. Science is less about facts than about patterns and indications in a sea of uncertainty. Man, even if scientist, should be fittingly humble no matter how loudly the fundamentalist rants and raves.


Yours sincerely,
An engineer and evolutionist

[Scheherazade]

On a personal note, I would like to add that I am quite disappointed with the obvious lack of respect and understanding shown in this thread by especially some who consider themselves "open-minded".

Since this thread does not serve its original purpose, it will now be closed.