Dinosaurs.

[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.

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!

[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.