PDA

View Full Version : How does Religeon explain the Dinosaurs?


Ghost In The 'Lac
05-23-2006, 09:04 AM
Where was God when the Dinosaurs were roaming Earth for millions of years? They didnt know about Dinosaurs when the Bible was written, so when it talks about Adam & Eve and God creating the world, they forgot to mention the part about life before humans.

This goes for Islam and other religeons, if God was passing his word onto Moses or Muhammed or any othere prophet, WHY did the let them know about the Earths REAL history ?

Dirty Knowledge
05-23-2006, 09:44 AM
Because the earth's real history doesnt date back as far as you've heard it does.

Alcryt
05-23-2006, 10:01 AM
They probably dont believe in dinosaurs or something.
Like how they dont believe in evolution.

Ghost In The 'Lac
05-23-2006, 10:30 AM
Because the earth's real history doesnt date back as far as you've heard it does.

what are u talking about dinosaurs are FACT. you cannot pretend they never existed.

abasi
05-23-2006, 11:57 AM
actually i think that it does
the world is way older than 4000

Frontal Lobotomy
05-23-2006, 12:08 PM
Dinosaurs fuck up the whole idea of creationist theory, I may have to bring it up next time the God freaks knock on my door

froth
05-23-2006, 12:10 PM
its because creation myths are allegory, created by the poets and shamans who had experienced transcendent states of being and in turn created stories that reflect their experience in a way that gives meaning to members of a society

froth
05-23-2006, 12:12 PM
the story of adam and eve is not literal, however if you cannot derive meaning from it you need time alone for inner reflection or to read more mythologies of other cultures to see the unifying themes of human religion and myth

White_Mouse
05-23-2006, 12:23 PM
i disagree, as a christian myself we are taught to have faith in God as the creater of all. and if you look in the bible (specially in Job) their's ALOT of references to "dinasaur" like creatures (leviathon etc.)
Also if we say the earth is millions of years old becasue of the rock formations. . . here's some food for thought . . . if there was a Giant flood (Noah) than couldn't eh same formations occur?
i'm out.

froth
05-23-2006, 12:33 PM
all i am saying is that i view the adam and eve story as one of millions of allegorical tales in human myth and religion. are you aware that there are american indians with a story about the snake giving fruit to the first humans? are you aware that the biblical flood story is, in kind words, borrowed from the epic of gilgamesh? until you are able to open mindedly expose yourself to other societies myths and religions, you will never be able to accurately understand the common experiences of humankind.

denaturat
05-23-2006, 12:33 PM
the story of adam and eve is not literal, however if you cannot derive meaning from it you need time alone for inner reflection or to read more mythologies of other cultures to see the unifying themes of human religion and myth

mythologies mislead. they are often stuff of imagination and not reason.

froth
05-23-2006, 12:36 PM
what you are speaking of is folklore; the function of mythology in human society is to give meaning and coherence to human existence; while a story of Shiva or Zeus or a power animal may to you feel like imagination or poor literature, rest assured it was very dear to someone else

denaturat
05-23-2006, 01:07 PM
what you are speaking of is folklore; the function of mythology in human society is to give meaning and coherence to human existence; while a story of Shiva or Zeus or a power animal may to you feel like imagination or poor literature, rest assured it was very dear to someone else

it may be dear to people, but still false.

froth
05-23-2006, 01:16 PM
you lack the ability to think relativistically; it was real to them; did you know that in the 1800s when indians were asked to sell their land that they didnt understand the concept of owning land? it made no sense to them. and they lived happily; i ask you, do you feel they lacked reason?

every human being in order to be healthy in mind not only needs reason, but also some mythology or spirituality to tie themselves to the wonder of creation and the transcendant; now some people come to this through reason or science, that the perfection of nature is beyond accident; others through an ecstatic experience with the transcendant, others through faith or through ritual. To view any of these as somehow less than what you find works for you is to think yourself superior to others; and my dear boy, i assure you you are not.

denaturat
05-23-2006, 01:22 PM
you lack the ability to think relativistically; it was real to them; did you know that in the 1800s when indians were asked to sell their land that they didnt understand the concept of owning land? it made no sense to them. and they lived happily; i ask you, do you feel they lacked reason?

every human being in order to be healthy in mind not only needs reason, but also some mythology or spirituality to tie themselves to the wonder of creation and the transcendant; now some people come to this through reason or science, that the perfection of nature is beyond accident; others through an ecstatic experience with the transcendant, others through faith or through ritual. To view any of these as somehow less than what you find works for you is to think yourself superior to others; and my dear boy, i assure you you are not.

reason got people of "dark ages," out of chaos and disease and ignorance. yes, I think reason is superior to mythology. mythology does not advance society or create progress.

froth
05-23-2006, 01:27 PM
except of course in nearly every society and civilization that has ever existed on the face of the earth; did you know that in the last 500 years or so that the usa is the only country that was not given its original borders through a war? yes, reason is really in the drivers seat these days, and we can clearly see all the good its doing:lmao:

denaturat
05-23-2006, 01:34 PM
except of course in nearly every society and civilization that has ever existed on the face of the earth; did you know that in the last 500 years or so that the usa is the only country that was not given its original borders through a war? yes, reason is really in the drivers seat these days, and we can clearly see all the good its doing:lmao:

1. please explain what you are trying to say about US. I'm not following.

2. I never said that reason is the drives all these days. I am also not saying that that which is not religious or mythological is by default reasonable.

froth
05-23-2006, 01:44 PM
the point is that modern societies are created by war and by abandoing spirituality we have lost all reason; do you think we are living in a society guided by reason? no, we are not, because without a pertinent mythology that speaks to a global worldview, we have lost what reason we did have, and now serve only to destroy nature and each other, with no discernible concept of reality except that based on mistranslations and literal interpretations of one or two religious texts and of course humanism, which crushes the soul by equating the mystery and wonder of life to no big whoop

denaturat
05-23-2006, 01:48 PM
not true that humanism "crushes the soul." in fact that path is both intellectually and psychologically rewarding. furthermore, I do not suggest that our contemporary world is guided by reason. I wish that was the case.

froth
05-23-2006, 01:55 PM
well, thats the beauty of it all, i can agree to disagree with you because i recognize your value and see myself in you; good talking with you

denaturat
05-23-2006, 02:01 PM
well, thats the beauty of it all, i can agree to disagree with you because i recognize your value and see myself in you; good talking with you

likewise

Frontal Lobotomy
05-23-2006, 02:05 PM
Nice posts, fellas

TeknicelStylez
05-23-2006, 02:31 PM
reason got people of "dark ages," out of chaos and disease and ignorance. yes, I think reason is superior to mythology. mythology does not advance society or create progress.

So when exactly did we make this great civilization transition? When we pillaged, murdered, and took the land from thousands of natives? When we kidnapped, beat, killed, and enslaved millions of Africans. Killed off most of our natural enviroments and replaced them with pointless steel and concrete structures? I'm still waiting to see exactly whats so damn civil about civilization honestly...

denaturat
05-23-2006, 03:52 PM
So when exactly did we make this great civilization transition? When we pillaged, murdered, and took the land from thousands of natives? When we kidnapped, beat, killed, and enslaved millions of Africans. Killed off most of our natural enviroments and replaced them with pointless steel and concrete structures? I'm still waiting to see exactly whats so damn civil about civilization honestly...

again....I was not comenting on all elements of contemporary society.

TeknicelStylez
05-23-2006, 06:53 PM
Well the elements of contemporary society is irrelevant to the point I was trying to get across. The point I was trying to get across is how are we and when exactly did we become 'civilized'? What do you believe makes us more 'civilized' than archaic people?

What makes us better?

denaturat
05-23-2006, 07:41 PM
I never made any comments about civilizations... and never said "we" were more civilised than archaic people. I simply stated that use of reason leads to progress, and that religion is static and does not have the same effect.

Visionz
05-23-2006, 07:44 PM
Please define progress.

denaturat
05-23-2006, 07:47 PM
democracy, learning, human rights and freedoms, tolerance, medicine, engineering, architecture, art and culture, and so on. I think it is obvious.

Visionz
05-23-2006, 07:52 PM
how is that progress in terms of human existence? Who do you think lived a more fulfilling life? The family with both mom and dad working 40 hrs a week to feed their two kids or a native american who lived at one with the earth? .......btw there's a debate waitin for you in the fuck the police thread. all respect due. peace

TeknicelStylez
05-23-2006, 07:54 PM
democracy, .....

learning, we obviously lack wisdom

human rights, Is there human rights in Africa, or inner cities of America, 3rd world countries etc?

freedoms, I'm not feeling very free lately, and I certainly wasn't feeling to free in a prison cell or in an inner city ghetto 1 bed room apartment

tolerance, Cmon now... do we tolerate Muslims? Hispanic Immigrants? Impovershed Black People? Impovershed People in General? Native Americans?

medicine, ....

engineering, Irrigation Canals, Light Systems, Astrological Technology, Tools

architecture, The Pyramids

art and culture, Art was non existant back than? People didn't paint on walls, they didn't have a vast array of beliefs and customs based on their cultures? Create sculptures?

If anything I can say we're lacking in most of those categories nowadays

denaturat
05-23-2006, 08:01 PM
democracy, .....

learning, we obviously lack wisdom

human rights, Is there human rights in Africa, or inner cities of America, 3rd world countries etc?

freedoms, I'm not feeling very free lately, and I certainly wasn't feeling to free in a prison cell or in an inner city ghetto 1 bed room apartment

tolerance, Cmon now... do we tolerate Muslims? Hispanic Immigrants? Impovershed Black People? Impovershed People in General? Native Americans?

medicine, ....

engineering, Irrigation Canals, Light Systems, Astrological Technology, Tools

architecture, The Pyramids

art and culture, Art was non existant back than? People didn't paint on walls, they didn't have a vast array of beliefs and customs based on their cultures? Create sculptures?

If anything I can say we're lacking in most of those categories nowadays

man...again, I get your point, but you are putting words in my mouth. I was defining progress and argued progress comes from use of reason. I never said anything about contemporaty western society being guided entirely by reason and being wholly progressive. Whether that is the case it is dabatable, but I did not make any claims in relation to that. Know what I mean?

Ghost In The 'Lac
05-23-2006, 08:24 PM
err what the hell you not talking about topic, this has nothing to do with the formation of the USA or War or any of the other things you were talking about.

BAck to the matter in hand - why didnt God mention anything about the Earths real history either thru Jesus Christ or his pther propehts so they could teach people? Instead we get a false history or "myth" of the Earth which discards all of its very long evolution.

denaturat
05-23-2006, 08:27 PM
err what the hell you not talking about topic, this has nothing to do with the formation of the USA or War or any of the other things you were talking about.

BAck to the matter in hand - why didnt God mention anything about the Earths real history either thru Jesus Christ or his pther propehts so they could teach people? Instead we get a false history or "myth" of the Earth which discards all of its very long evolution.

because creation in the bible is ficion and therefore inconsistent with empirical evidence

Visionz
05-23-2006, 09:09 PM
or because God realized humans must only recieve truth in small increments otherwise our heads explode and the meek die

TeknicelStylez
05-23-2006, 09:16 PM
man...again, I get your point, but you are putting words in my mouth. I was defining progress and argued progress comes from use of reason. I never said anything about contemporaty western society being guided entirely by reason and being wholly progressive. Whether that is the case it is dabatable, but I did not make any claims in relation to that. Know what I mean?

and I was saying that we made no progress

GENERAL WISE
05-23-2006, 09:45 PM
How does Religion explain human ethnocentricity?

Machete
05-23-2006, 09:58 PM
or because God realized humans must only recieve truth in small increments otherwise our heads explode and the meek die
Truth is subjective; rendering this theory useless.

denaturat
05-23-2006, 10:13 PM
Truth is subjective; rendering this theory useless.

if i kick a side of a house, I will stub my toe. if you kick the side of the house, same will happen to you. is this subjective? just because some answers are more difficult to reach it does not mean that truth is subjective. on the other hand what we think to be true may be subjective.

denaturat
05-23-2006, 10:15 PM
and I was saying that we made no progress

fair enough. as long as you do not think I said something that I didn't say then we cool:cool:

Visionz
05-23-2006, 10:25 PM
Truth is subjective; rendering this theory useless. No, our perception of what truth is, that's subjective. But truth is truth is truth. Think about what I said and then picture peoples reaction to the theory of evolution 700 years ago. Mothafucka wouldn't have been ready. DaVinci knew it. That's why he wrote upside down, backwards and in latin. Not that he has anything to do w/ evolution but he understood the concept which was the basis of my original statement.

Machete
05-23-2006, 10:33 PM
No, our perception of what truth is, that's subjective.
Definitely feeling where you are coming from. But the whole perception thing has me perplexed. What other perception can any of us speak from. Aint getting loud or being a smartass, but how and why are you one of the ones that know anything other than what we perceive?

But truth is truth is truth. Think about what I said and then picture peoples reaction to the theory of evolution 700 years ago. Mothafucka wouldn't have been ready. DaVinci knew it.
Funny how this ties in to my above statement or question. So I am gathering only a select few are predisposed to the 'truth'?

peace all. check back in 24 hours.

froth
05-23-2006, 10:48 PM
democracy, learning, human rights and freedoms, tolerance, medicine, engineering, architecture, art and culture, and so on. I think it is obvious.

all due respect, but you fail to gather that all of these have been present before in past cultures; what i think you are feeling is an urge, ok, to get somewhere you know is right, ok, but which you have never learned actually existed:list: ; its not a goal so much as a rebirth

denaturat
05-23-2006, 10:54 PM
yes, cultures that have been exploring the faculty of reason, such as ancient greece, renaissance italy, islam during the middle ages or ancient china...and other cultures I did not study or know about...but again I hope you not implying I am making assertions about contemporary society and rejecting everything else, because I am not, and I never said that

Visionz
05-23-2006, 11:01 PM
why are you one of the ones that know anything other than what we perceive?
first, it's a good question, so definetly no offense taken homie, but I should let you know I've tripped ALOT of acid back in my younger days. So when you completely skewer those perceptions, even if for a little while, your perception changes from there on out. I think through my personal journies, I've come closer to the Essence and have been provided with a lot of insight and intuition because of it. I don't think its something that only a select few can obtain or anything you just have to really want to find it.



So I am gathering only a select few are predisposed to the 'truth'?I don't think everyone is ready to accept it and that some find it quicker than others but none are incapable of grasping it. Most truths, afterall, are laid upon very basic foundations. Complexity is really not good for the most part yet we live in a world that embraces it.

froth
05-23-2006, 11:01 PM
err what the hell you not talking about topic, this has nothing to do with the formation of the USA or War or any of the other things you were talking about.

BAck to the matter in hand - why didnt God mention anything about the Earths real history either thru Jesus Christ or his pther propehts so they could teach people? Instead we get a false history or "myth" of the Earth which discards all of its very long evolution.

peace dude, to answer your question, ok its not just dinosaurs but huge insects, extinct plants, and all kind of life forms that existed before us; the reason its not addresed specifically is because religious myth and religion in general is designed to tie human beings into a positive manner of existense for their own specific society and culture; you might have a story or two that deals with the other, but since dinosaurs werent living (i got a degree in this so just listen for a second), it wasnt pertinent or in other words, important to survival or being a well adjusted positive member of society. At best, its a curiosity. AND in those days, nothing was written if not to be pertinent or important to the present. It is only now we have these perversions...the internal anticipatory dialogue...meaning we dont live in the moment......... nothing i say is relevatory; the mystics have said the same thing more eloquently than myself for centuries

froth
05-23-2006, 11:05 PM
wow i had some typos but you should still be able to get me

denaturat
05-23-2006, 11:05 PM
first, it's a good question, so definetly no offense taken homie, but I should let you know I've tripped ALOT of acid back in my younger days. So when you completely skewer those perceptions, even if for a little while, your perception changes from there on out. I think through my personal journies, I've come closer to the Essence and have been provided with a lot of insight and intuition because of it. I don't think its something that only a select few can obtain or anything you just have to really want to find it.



I don't think everyone is ready to accept it and that some find it quicker than others but none are incapable of grasping it. Most truths, afterall, are laid upon very basic foundations. Complexity is really not good for the most part yet we live in a world that embraces it.

but how do you know that that which you discovered through altering your senses is not merely a skewed perception rather than truth? how do you know that it was the truth? did it "feel" like truth? how do you know that it wasn't just a psychological phenomenon?

froth
05-23-2006, 11:12 PM
but how do you know that that which you discovered through altering your senses is not merely a skewed perception rather than truth? how do you know that it was the truth? did it "feel" like truth? how do you know that it wasn't just a psychological phenomenon?

this is a fair statement and it gives me an opportunity to address you in the manner you wish to be adressed, ie that of a scientist. as science has progressed to quantum physics, ideas such as schroedingers cat have revealed to physicists the idea that not only in nature does there exist a yes or no but also a maybe. you can research this independently but i am still moved by joseph campbell's idea, the emininent comparative cultural scholar, that science and myth are not two dispirate elements; recent developments in science have pushed us to the edge of what was previously considered 'metaphysics'. In short, at long last, we can glipse the two sides of this argument finally meeting....

But who will be more prepared?;D

denaturat
05-23-2006, 11:15 PM
I never claimed that maybe is not a possible answer. it is a matter of probability and is still within the realm of reason.

froth
05-23-2006, 11:17 PM
maybe is not a reasonable answer

WTF?
05-23-2006, 11:17 PM
Dinosaurs got killed by a comet I don't know if it's true.

froth
05-23-2006, 11:18 PM
hahahaaaaa

WTF?
05-23-2006, 11:19 PM
That's what they say right?

http://shopping.discovery.com/product-56504.html?jzid=40588004-13-0

froth
05-23-2006, 11:22 PM
was that the question? how dinosaurs died?

denaturat
05-23-2006, 11:24 PM
maybe is not a reasonable answer


maybe is an answer where certain factors are unknown...in such circumstance it is reasonable

Visionz
05-23-2006, 11:25 PM
It's not what you see or anything like that. I get visuals of course but it's not like I come down later thinkin what I saw was real but it alters the outlook from there on out. Basically, is reality truth because it happens more consistently? When you dream, what makes that world any less real than the one you're currently experiencing? And how many total dimensions are there really? If there was perhaps a 7th or 8th demension, it would be so fundamentally different from our own that it could exist all around us and yet we'd never percieve it. The only things that really applies is the engery. Learn how to tap into the energy all around you and you realize the truth. It's a complicated system that doesn't have to be complicated at all if you know how to use it...........





I gotta get some sleep so I'll have to continue this conversation tommorrow. peace till then- and btw man, build w/ me in that fuck the police thread. There's interesting convesation waiting to be had in there. peace

WTF?
05-23-2006, 11:25 PM
Then you explain it froth....

froth
05-23-2006, 11:28 PM
maybe is an answer where certain factors are unknown...in such circumstance it is reasonable

ahhh, the unknown. and what serves the purpose of explaining this?;D

denaturat
05-23-2006, 11:31 PM
you are not explaining, you are just considering the probability

WTF?
05-23-2006, 11:36 PM
http://www.wutang-corp.com/forum/images/smilies/gaynezz.gif on thecorpse.

froth
05-23-2006, 11:36 PM
in the case of the unknown, human religion and mythology becomes the science. and that 'science' is variable according to what is needed by a specific society, thus, in hunting cultures we have a preoccupation with animals. and likewise, in farming cultures we originally have the idea of the mother godess or earth. to deny that these concepts served integral purposes on early humans is ignorance. but still, the enlightened individual looks at our pathetic culture and ponders...where are our myths? and who will bring them to us?

GENERAL WISE
05-23-2006, 11:37 PM
Damn, yall always digressing. Threads usually never get any concrete answers because posters have to dive into a discussion about (i.e) what a discussion is or an what an answer is or what a truth is.

froth
05-23-2006, 11:39 PM
wow, perhaps you could shed some light on the topic, general whatever your name is, or are you here not to build, but destroy? i will accept an apology for your ignorance if, like i suspect, you have nothing to add to the matter but jibber jabber...

WTF?
05-23-2006, 11:40 PM
hand in mouth @ avatar? lmao sick.

http://perso.wanadoo.fr/dinosaurus.by.bigyoyo/DINOSAURUS_fichiers/image002.jpg

http://www.puzzlehouse.com/images/webpage/dinosaurs2.jpg

denaturat
05-23-2006, 11:44 PM
in the case of the unknown, human religion and mythology becomes the science. and that 'science' is variable according to what is needed by a specific society, thus, in hunting cultures we have a preoccupation with animals. and likewise, in farming cultures we originally have the idea of the mother godess or earth. to deny that these concepts served integral purposes on early humans is ignorance. but still, the enlightened individual looks at our pathetic culture and ponders...where are our myths? and who will bring them to us?

if the train always arrives at 3:30, I can say that it will likely arrive at 3:30, although I cannot say that with certainty since other factors come into play that can delay it. So if the train does not come at three thirty, given my past experiences with trains I can say that maybe it is delayed because someone took too long to get on board, or maybe there was a technical difficulty. I do not need a myth explaining to me that earth opened up and swallowed the train or that winged creatures have led it to hell. that would be absurd.

so the same goes for the creation...to bring this back on track. the people who wrote the bible were not being rational and resorted to myths about adam and eve. given that back then there was no other evidence of origins of the earth, they had to make such an imaginative leap. now new evidence points to evolution and that is the most rathinal conclusion at this point. the most likely of the ones available. bible is absolete and that myth of creation is now useless since it does not take into account avaible evidence.

froth
05-23-2006, 11:46 PM
ill change it if you can explain to me why you care

froth
05-23-2006, 11:47 PM
i meant that to the previous post

froth
05-23-2006, 11:48 PM
as to the latter, it is a shame that subatmic particles do not participate in a small minded train scenario...

denaturat
05-23-2006, 11:50 PM
as to the latter, it is a shame that subatmic particles do not participate in a small minded train scenario...

explain

Ghost In The 'Lac
05-24-2006, 12:45 PM
peace dude, to answer your question, ok its not just dinosaurs but huge insects, extinct plants, and all kind of life forms that existed before us; the reason its not addresed specifically is because religious myth and religion in general is designed to tie human beings into a positive manner of existense for their own specific society and culture; you might have a story or two that deals with the other, but since dinosaurs werent living (i got a degree in this so just listen for a second), it wasnt pertinent or in other words, important to survival or being a well adjusted positive member of society. At best, its a curiosity. AND in those days, nothing was written if not to be pertinent or important to the present. It is only now we have these perversions...the internal anticipatory dialogue...meaning we dont live in the moment......... nothing i say is relevatory; the mystics have said the same thing more eloquently than myself for centuries

A curiosity? So it was only need-to-know basis? Or because dinosaur remains had not been found yet? The Earths existence had been for around 65,000,000 years before "the son of God" appeared - what was God up to in that time? Refining the "living being" creation process thru dinosaurs - or was he taking a nap. God has never been proclaimed as something which gives knowledge to people, but why give them a false time frame of the Earths history - that would put the Bibles integrity in doubt 2,000 years later, when man learned more.

I dont know who "the mystics" are you talk about, but you contradict yourself, first you say God only intends for us to live to whats important to the present, then you say that in reality we dont live in the moment? Dude make up your mind.

froth
05-24-2006, 12:55 PM
A curiosity? So it was only need-to-know basis? Or because dinosaur remains had not been found yet? The Earths existence had been for around 65,000,000 years before "the son of God" appeared - what was God up to in that time? Refining the "living being" creation process thru dinosaurs - or was he taking a nap. God has never been proclaimed as something which gives knowledge to people, but why give them a false time frame of the Earths history - that would put the Bibles integrity in doubt 2,000 years later, when man learned more.

I dont know who "the mystics" are you talk about, but you contradict yourself, first you say God only intends for us to live to whats important to the present, then you say that in reality we dont live in the moment? Dude make up your mind.

We are supposed to live in the moment but dont. The reason we dont is because we almost constantly talk to ourselves. This is what is called the 'internal dialogue'. This concept is present in dozens of religions and worldviews. That was for your last paragraph.

Second, I am not restricting myself to talking about the bible, but since it seems thats what you want to talk about, ok.

Your 'need to know' idea is more or less spot on. People use religions and mythology as a way to deal with their specific environment. Since no dinosaurs were walking around, they had no religious stories of dinosaurs. They likewise had no stories of giant insects, extinct flora, etc. Even if the bible was divinely inspired, whatever you want to believe, why would god have any reason to mention dinosaurs?

Oh, and by the mystics I mean the holy men, shaman, monks, preistesses, mages and on and on of the history of mankind. Read much?

froth
05-24-2006, 12:59 PM
Oh and to add, any mention of fictional creatures, like those found in Relevations, are allegory. Carry on.

abasi
05-24-2006, 03:43 PM
how old do christians think that the earth is

froth
05-24-2006, 03:49 PM
Well, the great part about mythology is that it constantly evolves. Christians used to think it was a few thousand years old. As science has blown that idea out of the water, you have basically two schools of thought. One, the idiotic: that Satan deliberately planted fossils to disprove the bible. Very few people believe this. The second most widely accepted view is that the creation story is allegory. This is what Rza alludes to in the statement "A day to god is 1000 years". No educated Christian can deny the earth is millions of years old, so they were forced to integrate this truth into their worldview. And the only way to do so was to look at something previously considered literal, the creation myth of the bible, as allegory.

WU-KILLAH
05-24-2006, 03:52 PM
Religion ≠ Science

Religion isn't suposed to explain shit on dinosaurs, that's scientists/historians's job.
It's not suposed to answer to when ? where ? how ? etc
but to why ?

That's the way I see it.

froth
05-24-2006, 03:56 PM
i think they enhance each other, you just have to be willing to change your ideas in the face of discovery, and some people arent; but eventually they will change because they will be required to in order to function in society (mentally and physically)

when some american indian cultures became more sedentary and began farming rather than being a hunting based culture, their mythology adapted, it changed in significant ways, from the role of the shaman, to their rituals, and on and on;science and mythology always eventually work themselves out; we are in a time right now where science and technology are moving so rapidly that some of our mythology is failing us, but eventually we will have a new mythology/religion

My First Timbs
05-24-2006, 05:56 PM
peace to all.

most modrn religions accept the fact that dinos existed on the earth and that they did not live at the same time as man

there are indeed a few religious sects that believe that dinos never existed

im just coming into this thread so forgive me but i noticed someone earlier mentioned how the bible eludes to "leviathans"..

ive studied this immensely and actually the Bible's mentioning of leviathans has nothing to do with what we consider a "dinosaur".. its actually a bastardization of a concept of the word that we would currently call a "bull" or "cow".

WARPATH
05-24-2006, 06:17 PM
in regards to religion dinos are irrelevant, just my opinion on the subject. I don't believe half the shit in the books anymore because of discoveries that are being found but never being shed to light.

It's my belief, that to a certain extent- the government contains any leakage of knowledge that would go against the theory that life started in africa with monkeys being our evolution counter-part. But I would need a whole thread for that topic to explain why.

Timbs I have some info that you might find interesting, but you probably wouldn't believe it if I told you.

ShaDynasty
05-24-2006, 06:22 PM
Where was God when the Dinosaurs were roaming Earth for millions of years? They didnt know about Dinosaurs when the Bible was written, so when it talks about Adam & Eve and God creating the world, they forgot to mention the part about life before humans.

This goes for Islam and other religeons, if God was passing his word onto Moses or Muhammed or any othere prophet, WHY did the let them know about the Earths REAL history ?
because all religion is just rules on how to live your life
it has no factual truth

WARPATH
05-24-2006, 06:26 PM
because all religion is just rules on how to live your life
it has no factual truth

not true, many religions promote a healthy living lifestyle, and are based off of historical events. Just because you haven't seen doesn't mean it didn't happen. It's like disney world, I know it's there but I never been there. Or like George Washington, I've never seen an actual picture of him, just an artists drawing, but I know he was a real person.

froth
05-24-2006, 06:36 PM
timbs, charging soldier, nice

My First Timbs
05-24-2006, 08:33 PM
in regards to religion dinos are irrelevant, just my opinion on the subject. I don't believe half the shit in the books anymore because of discoveries that are being found but never being shed to light.

It's my belief, that to a certain extent- the government contains any leakage of knowledge that would go against the theory that life started in africa with monkeys being our evolution counter-part. But I would need a whole thread for that topic to explain why.

Timbs I have some info that you might find interesting, but you probably wouldn't believe it if I told you.

im very open minded (as long as reason and rational thought is in play) so lets hear it

denaturat
05-24-2006, 10:31 PM
I find it surprising that people are shown empirical evidence and are introduced to logical theories, yet many still tend to cling to the irrational and question that which is reasonable whenever it appears to be irreconcilable with the fantastic. that is to say, many still recoil from sound evidence and embrace fiction instead.

My First Timbs
05-24-2006, 10:46 PM
I find it surprising that people are shown empirical evidence and are introduced to logical theories, yet many still tend to cling to the irrational and question that which is reasonable whenever it appears to be irreconcilable with the fantastic. that is to say, many still recoil from sound evidence and embrace fiction instead.

i dedicated a whole chapter to that in my book

its a defense mechanism

i coined it as "the religious trap"

in addition, the fundamental mechanism of "beliefs" is built upon an evolutionary successful ability to disregard what reason would tell u. This mechanism is very beneficial for a creature to have who lives in a cold indifferent world, however, we are no longer living truly at the will of nature... we are no longer in an evolutionary setting where such a mechanism is supremely beneficial, yet our brains still operate and cling to this crude mechanism of "beliefs".

its real complicated.

denaturat
05-24-2006, 11:11 PM
i'd love to read your book some time. I've always thought there must be a strong connection between most of the things we do (mechanically that is, without the use of reason) and evolution.

but in my current situation, there is barely enough time for thinking let alone reading. nevertheless, i hope to pick it up some time, since as I said, you book talks about things I always thought are important to consider.

Visionz
05-24-2006, 11:18 PM
lol at beliefs being crude mechanisms.......yet men of pure reason are still caught in their own mental trappings and still can not see it.

denaturat
05-24-2006, 11:28 PM
of course human intellectual capacity is finite, but there comes great satisfaction from understanding through reason, even if it is the understanding of the most seemingly trivial thing.

but it is better to acknowledge that something is beyond understanding, that it cannot be reasonably explained, then it is to arbitrarily assign to the inexplicable one out virtually infinite number of possible explanations - an arbitrary explanation that is not supported by sound evidence.

My First Timbs
05-24-2006, 11:35 PM
of course human intellectual capacity is finite, but there comes great satisfaction from understanding through reason, even if it is the understanding of the most seemingly trivial thing.

but it is better to acknowledge that something is beyond understanding, that it cannot be reasonably explained, then it is to arbitrarily assign to the inexplicable one out virtually infinite number of possible explanations - an arbitrary explanation that is not supported by sound evidence.

here is the crux

there is a certain amount of "low level anxiety" that comes with "not knowing" something. Religion and claims regrding the alleged unknown alleviate that uncomfortable anxiety

the skepdtic, agnostic, atheist and open minded individual learns over time to live with (and like very much) this feeling of anxiety of "not knowing" everything or not having an answer to everything.

this is why on average the atheist, agnostic, skepdic or open minded rational individual has a sincere affinity toward empiracle evidence and knowledge, because one realizes that everything is not known and the more one knows, the better their decision making skills become ..(this is a self reinforcing cycle)

Visionz
05-24-2006, 11:41 PM
an arbitrary explanation that is not supported by sound evidence. Dingding, ding. This is true. But the pure reasoning mind will tell itself that everything can be explained if only you can gather enough knowledge. But in this process you are programmed to reject anything that has no "sound evidence" and can not be absolutely proven. And in this process, the Grand Creator, God the Most High, becomes an ancient myth that we foolishly cling to. God is very real whether the evidence supports Her or not.

denaturat
05-24-2006, 11:49 PM
Dingding, ding. This is true. But the pure reasoning mind will tell itself that everything can be explained if only you can gather enough knowledge. But in this process you are programmed to reject anything that has no "sound evidence" and can not be absolutely proven. And in this process, the Grand Creator, God the Most High, becomes an ancient myth that we foolishly cling to. God is very real whether the evidence supports Her or not.

but how do you know that he does? well, if he came down from heaven in the form of man and raised the dead and performed miracles, I would say that this is pretty good evidence. the bible is supppsed to be the evidence. but given the inconsistencies and contradictions, I would say it's not good evidence at all. furthermore, given the fact that god no longer performs miracles, answers prayers, heals the sick, and in fact allows poor to suffer and the wicked to be rewarded, I would say that there is more evidence to the contrary, that there is no benevolent god.

god has been invented. there is no evidence for his existence.

froth
05-25-2006, 12:10 AM
dude, the world is the evidence; people like you think you know everything, but you dont know shit; you dont know why anything exists; you might be able to describe what something does with science but you dont know why; and you sit and feel smug with yourself bc you think other people arent as smart as you; just cause someone shoved a bible down your throat when you were a kid doesnt mean shit; you dont know fucking shit about the religions of the world, all you know is you dont believe in jesus. if youre going to make believe youre a scientist then you have a lot of fucking reading to do before you throw the history of the world down the toilet bc youre an egomaniac.

froth
05-25-2006, 12:12 AM
tell me something you DO know about life, not something you DONT believe. tell me one thing you fucking do know

froth
05-25-2006, 12:19 AM
youre stuck on the bible as if thats the whole of world religion; you criticize everything but youre too smug with yourself to read it, or to try anything that might change your rigid mind; then you sit on the fucking cpu all day in the knowledge section of a wu tang website and act like you know about GOD? kid, get over yourself. you can describe and measure with science; you can observe; you can say what something is; but you cant say why. one day youll get it, maybe when youre dying

Visionz
05-25-2006, 12:19 AM
there is no evidence for his existence.This is exactly my point of the post that you quoted. First, I'm not saying that the Bible should be taken literally. Second, the Bible isn't the only religous text out there, so there a lot of amassed knowledge on the workings of God that you're ignoring by focusing on the Bible alone. In my own mind I'm referring to the Quran when I say this.


The problem with focusing on the Bible as a lone source, is that it has gone thru many translations from widely varying languages and the actuall books that are in the Bible have been under the say so of the established Church for nearly 2000 years. Of course, they used this to their advantage. They steered the masses into believing that salvation could only come through the Church and that it was through the church that your relationship with God is established, and hence all their power established. The estoteric knowledge that taught of a personal relationship with God was frowned upon and for the most part, lost forever. The estoteric spirit, however, has not been completely abandoned in the hearts and souls of human. My relationship with God is both amazing and personal.


As for your reasonings, miracles do happen, prayers are answered, and the sick are healed. and it is the rich who allow the poor to suffer. There reign is a temporary one. But the soul is eternal. Just like God. He's not an invention. She is very real.

froth
05-25-2006, 12:20 AM
dont waste your time man, its pointless; his whole gimmick is just sitting around waiting for his chance to post that he doesnt believe in god; well dento whatever, we get it; we gotcha; we understand your position, its very clear. even us non atheists can understand it. we understand that you dont have a relationship with god; we understand you cant see a purpose in life; we understand that you have never had a religious experience; good for you:lmao:

denaturat
05-25-2006, 12:24 AM
dude, the world is the evidence; people like you think you know everything, but you dont know shit; you dont know why anything exists; you might be able to describe what something does with science but you dont know why; and you sit and feel smug with yourself bc you think other people arent as smart as you; just cause someone shoved a bible down your throat when you were a kid doesnt mean shit; you dont know fucking shit about the religions of the world, all you know is you dont believe in jesus. if youre going to make believe youre a scientist then you have a lot of fucking reading to do before you throw the history of the world down the toilet bc youre an egomaniac.

first of all, even though you're typing, I can tell you are getting angry. this is because you are clearly unable to aarticulate your position.

second, why do you assume I know everything, why do you call me an egomeniac, say I feel smug and don't know anything about religions of the world. Do I say anything like that about you, despite my disagreement with you? I disagree with many people here, but we learn from each other, and do not use labels. that is a mature approach. \

just so you know, my method it to question and challange everything but in so far as my knowledge goes, I am humble, as I know I know very little and have a lot to learn.

froth
05-25-2006, 12:26 AM
well you said it best when you said you have a lot to learn

Visionz
05-25-2006, 12:26 AM
dont waste your time man, its pointless

oh I know. It usually is but I still like engaging in the dialogue. I know where you're comin from though. may peace be with you.

froth
05-25-2006, 12:28 AM
well, have fun with that

denaturat
05-25-2006, 12:29 AM
This is exactly my point of the post that you quoted. First, I'm not saying that the Bible should be taken literally. Second, the Bible isn't the only religous text out there, so there a lot of amassed knowledge on the workings of God that you're ignoring by focusing on the Bible alone. In my own mind I'm referring to the Quran when I say this.


The problem with focusing on the Bible as a lone source, is that it has gone thru many translations from widely varying languages and the actuall books that are in the Bible have been under the say so of the established Church for nearly 2000 years. Of course, they used this to their advantage. They steered the masses into believing that salvation could only come through the Church and that it was through the church that your relationship with God is established, and hence all their power established. The estoteric knowledge that taught of a personal relationship with God was frowned upon and for the most part, lost forever. The estoteric spirit, however, has not been completely abandoned in the hearts and souls of human. My relationship with God is both amazing and personal.


As for your reasonings, miracles do happen, prayers are answered, and the sick are healed. and it is the rich who allow the poor to suffer. There reign is a temporary one. But the soul is eternal. Just like God. He's not an invention. She is very real.

i think you and I have deeply entrenched views on the existence of God. I say, so long as our intentions in life are to be moral persons, our differences can be set aside. I think this is more important.

TeknicelStylez
05-25-2006, 12:32 AM
I feel sorry for rich people.

I honestly think they are the ones suffering.

Visionz
05-25-2006, 12:39 AM
i think you and I have deeply entrenched views on the existence of God. I say, so long as our intentions in life are to be moral persons, our differences can be set aside. I think this is more important. true, but I'm just saying don't let that purely logical mind fool you homie. Just like I wouldn't let religion tell me that evolution isn't real, nawmean. God is real, just don't let it be too late before you find out. peace







and btw.......Is love real?

denaturat
05-25-2006, 12:46 AM
true, but I'm just saying don't let that purely logical mind fool you homie. Just like I wouldn't let religion tell me that evolution isn't real, nawmean. God is real, just don't let it be too late before you find out. peace







and btw.......Is love real?


I think love is real. Anyhow, should hit the sack, long day tommorrow. Nice talkin to you Eric Unseen.

Visionz
05-25-2006, 12:52 AM
What proof do you have that love exist?

denaturat
05-25-2006, 12:52 AM
lol....I drive 500 kilometers every weekend just to see my girl

TeknicelStylez
05-25-2006, 12:53 AM
Good example

You argue dinosaurs, we argue love

Visionz
05-25-2006, 12:55 AM
So you know love exist by what you are willing to do for it?

froth
05-25-2006, 12:56 AM
lol....I drive 500 kilometers every weekend just to see my girl

thats not love, in and of itself. this is good though. what is love?:learning:

denaturat
05-25-2006, 12:58 AM
love to me is something that goes beyond self interest. when I do something that concerns the interests of other people it is love, whether platonic love or romantic love (which is a mix of platonic love with plain old lust)

TeknicelStylez
05-25-2006, 12:59 AM
love http://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/JPG/pron.jpg (https://secure.reference.com/premium/login.html?rd=2&u=http%3A%2F%2Fdictionary.reference.com%2Fsearch%3 Fq%3Dlove) ( P ) Pronunciation Key (http://dictionary.reference.com/help/ahd4/pronkey.html) (lhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/ubreve.gifv)
n.
A deep, tender, ineffable feeling of affection and solicitude toward a person, such as that arising from kinship, recognition of attractive qualities, or a sense of underlying oneness.
A feeling of intense desire and attraction toward a person with whom one is disposed to make a pair; the emotion of sex and romance.

Sexual passion.
Sexual intercourse.
A love affair.
An intense emotional attachment, as for a pet or treasured object.
A person who is the object of deep or intense affection or attraction; beloved. Often used as a term of endearment.
An expression of one's affection: Send him my love.

A strong predilection or enthusiasm: a love of language.
The object of such an enthusiasm: The outdoors is her greatest love.
Love Mythology. Eros or Cupid.
often Love Christianity. Charity.
Sports. A zero score in tennis.
v. loved, lov·ing, loves
v. tr.
To have a deep, tender, ineffable feeling of affection and solicitude toward (a person): We love our parents. I love my friends.
To have a feeling of intense desire and attraction toward (a person).
To have an intense emotional attachment to: loves his house.

To embrace or caress.
To have sexual intercourse with.
To like or desire enthusiastically: loves swimming.
Theology. To have charity for.
To thrive on; need: The cactus loves hot, dry air.
v. intr. To experience deep affection or intense desire for another.
Idioms:
for love Out of compassion; with no thought for a reward: She volunteers at the hospital for love. for love or money Under any circumstances. Usually used in negative sentences: I would not do that for love or money. for the love of For the sake of; in consideration for: did it all for the love of praise. in love
Deeply or passionately enamored: a young couple in love.
Highly or immoderately fond: in love with Japanese painting; in love with the sound of her own voice.no love lost No affection; animosity: There's no love lost between them.

TeknicelStylez
05-25-2006, 01:00 AM
love to me is something that goes beyond self interest. when I do something that concerns the interests of other people it is love, whether platonic love or romantic love (which is a mix of platonic love with plain old lust)
What causes love? What makes you love somebody, and what triggers loving emotions?

denaturat
05-25-2006, 01:06 AM
well, it is a good question, i would have to think about it. but I think there is a distinction between different kinds of love. me loving parents or friends is different from loving my girl.

Visionz
05-25-2006, 01:22 AM
ok, but can you prove it. What proof do you have that love exists?

denaturat
05-25-2006, 01:25 AM
actually I would be more inclined to say that I can prove I feel love and that others feel love

froth
05-25-2006, 01:25 AM
well, get your test tube out

denaturat
05-25-2006, 01:26 AM
I feel love because I do the things normally associated with love, and the word love is just a sign used to designate a set of human behaviours

Visionz
05-25-2006, 01:27 AM
actually I would be more inclined to say that I can prove I feel love and that others feel love And this is different from God how?

denaturat
05-25-2006, 01:32 AM
I see your argument, but we can also be critical about our feelings. I can say that what I think is a feeling of love, is not actually love, it is lust or crush or for example. likewise I can say that it seems like I feel god, yet it is not really god I feel but something else, for example I am actually ingaging imagination and not really experiencing a higher being. I am assuming that that is what you are driving at , that is that you can feel god just as you feel love. if that is the case, i never felt god, and if I ever did, i would be very critical of that feeling.

Visionz
05-25-2006, 01:37 AM
Yet you're not critical of the feeling of love when you have it are you? Why would you be so critical of something that felt Godly? Why not just be in the moment?

denaturat
05-25-2006, 01:43 AM
well, I am critical of the feeling of love. What I thought was love turned out to be somethin else. But I never experienced something that felt godly.

denaturat
05-25-2006, 01:45 AM
gotta go for real. peace, we'll continue.

Jesus Christ
05-25-2006, 02:15 AM
Relgion explains dino like this.

God made the earth in 6 days. On the 7th day he rested, and smoked a blunt, dranks some barley and hops, and ate some shrooms in the garden of eden. Then he started trippin and made up all types of wicked shit to fuck with adam and eve to chase them around. After he came down from his high he relized what he did and destroyed the dinos with a meteor.

My First Timbs
05-25-2006, 03:17 PM
gentlemen.....

love is not a big deal, nor is it something unexplainable handed down by god

what we define as "love" is a fully quantifiable evolutionary adaptation

refined over time to be of supremely great benefit to many creatures but primarily primates (and to a lesser extent, some other mammals)

Again, im not trying to shamelessly plug myself, but i have a whole chapter on love and what exactly love is in ACalltoSanity.

In a nutshell, there are basically 2 different types of love. There is the "love" that an infant has for its parental figure and vice versa and then there is also romantic or passionate love.

The first type of love is normally not brought up in debates. Lets focus on romatic and passionate love.

what we define as the feelings of romatic and passionate love (and what the religionists desperately arugues to be an abstract unquantifiable trait handed down by an unseen force) is really quite simple from an evolutionary point of view.

romantic and passionate love are basically broken down into 3 "foci" (as they are called)

focus 1 = lust... lust is an evolutionary adaptation designed and refined over time to get a creature in the mode of "looking for a potential mate" (based on sexual selection and cultural norms)..this "phase" is the fastest but also the most frequent in primates.

focus 2 = romance.. the romantic phase of love is an evolutionary adaptation designed to keep a mating pair bonded during courtship and thus ensuring that mating is successful (the romantic phase of love is characterized by an increased production of the hormone serotonin). This is the reason why the romantic phase is usually most enjoyable and sought after. The romantic phase is an evolutionary adaptation designed to make an indivisual want to focus all of their "mating energy" on one individual at a time......

focus 3 = attachment.. the attachment phase of love is the final stage evolutionarily designed and refined to ensure that if mating is successful, the resultant filial generation will get the best possible upbringing by having more than one parental figure and a sharing of resources.. this stage is critical in higher primates that have small number of young that take an enormous time to reach sexual maturity (like us !)

love is not an inexplicable emotion.. its an evolved response just like everything and can be explained satisfactorily with reasoning (and has been for many many years in the biological and evolutionary fields)

timbs

Aqueous Moon
05-26-2006, 06:51 AM
Personally, I don't trust the Dinosaur theories.

There have been proven cases of forgery in archeology.

Especially concerning Dinosaur bones, because it's big business.

It just doesn't fit, imo.

Aqueous Moon
05-26-2006, 06:56 AM
hahaha...I was thinking about a thread I created about this dino thing a while back, it got hated on....big time!

Damn...I tried to link it, but it didn't work. Oh well, here's some stuff I posted in that thread.


Motivation
"Dinosaur" bones sell for a lot of money at auctions. It is a profitable business. There is pressure on academics to publish papers. There is pressure on museums to produce displays. There is pressure on movie producers and the media to make money. The media loves to hype alleged dinosaurs finds. Much is to be gained by converting a bland non-dinosaur discovery, of a bone of modern origin, into an impressive dinosaur find, and letting artists' interpretations and imaginations take the spotlight, rather than the basic boring real find. There are people who desire and crave prestige and attention. There is the bandwagon effect. And then there are people pursuing political and religious agendas. During the nineteenth century a new world view of evolution was being pursued by then influential people such as Darwin and Marx. During this era of thought the first dinosaur discoveries were made. Were these discoveries "made" to try to make up for inadequacies in the fossil record for the theory of evolution

Size and Lifestyle Paradox

Dinosaurs and the Expanding Earth (http://www.dinox.freeserve.co.uk/english/paradox.htm) discusses the paradox between the dinosaurs' size and lifestyle.

"The dinosaurs' large size has presented palaeontologists with an interesting paradox. Calculations of the structural dynamic stresses within the bones of the largest dinosaurs indicate that they were too large to move fast without injuring themselves. Contrary to this view is the fact that detailed bio-mechanical reconstructions indicate that they were agile, active creatures."

"Depending on the arguments used, a particular dinosaur can be reconstructed in two ways, slow and lumbering, or fast and agile, with both sides of the argument appearing equally valid."

Dinosaurs and the Expanding Earth (http://www.dinox.freeserve.co.uk/english/strucdin.htm) also discusses the structural dynamics of dinosaurs.

"One method of finding out more about Dinosaurs is to study their structural dynamics. This method considers the loads and forces acting on the structure of their skeleton as they moved. The Dinosaurs' structural dynamics indicates that the loads acting on their skeletons where much greater than that of present day animals. In some causes, because of the Dinosaurs' large size, calculations indicate that the bones of the largest Dinosaurs were likely to buckle and crack under their own immense weight. These calculations were responsible for promoting the idea that the Dinosaurs must have moved very slowly to prevent sudden shocks to their skeleton." "This idea of slow moving animals does not agree with the bio-mechanical analysis of dinosaurs, which indicate that the Dinosaurs where agile, active creatures. This is the paradox between the Dinosaurs size and lifestyle."

Peace

My First Timbs
05-26-2006, 09:42 AM
the dinosaur conspiracy theories i take as an insult to my intelligence, career, education, experience and to science as a whole.

there is no conspiracy nor is there any gap in the fossil record that would warrant dinos to be made up.
this claim doesnt even make sense
furthermore, if dinos never existed or alleged findings were somehow made mor efanciful, we as scientists would be the first ones to let the public know! science is a self regulating discipline that relies heavily on other disciplines.. if one branch is lacking, then other ares would be directly affected.

these claims are not even taken seriously in the scientific community

My First Timbs
05-26-2006, 09:45 AM
Personally, I don't trust the Dinosaur theories.

There have been proven cases of forgery in archeology.

Especially concerning Dinosaur bones, because it's big business.

It just doesn't fit, imo.

within any discipline and situation, there will invariably be small instances of dishonesty.. do u not trust other areas of life because of this as well?

the evidence speaks for itself

denaturat
05-26-2006, 09:54 AM
hahaha...I was thinking about a thread I created about this dino thing a while back, it got hated on....big time!

Damn...I tried to link it, but it didn't work. Oh well, here's some stuff I posted in that thread.


Motivation
"Dinosaur" bones sell for a lot of money at auctions. It is a profitable business. There is pressure on academics to publish papers. There is pressure on museums to produce displays. There is pressure on movie producers and the media to make money. The media loves to hype alleged dinosaurs finds. Much is to be gained by converting a bland non-dinosaur discovery, of a bone of modern origin, into an impressive dinosaur find, and letting artists' interpretations and imaginations take the spotlight, rather than the basic boring real find. There are people who desire and crave prestige and attention. There is the bandwagon effect. And then there are people pursuing political and religious agendas. During the nineteenth century a new world view of evolution was being pursued by then influential people such as Darwin and Marx. During this era of thought the first dinosaur discoveries were made. Were these discoveries "made" to try to make up for inadequacies in the fossil record for the theory of evolution

Size and Lifestyle Paradox

Dinosaurs and the Expanding Earth (http://www.dinox.freeserve.co.uk/english/paradox.htm) discusses the paradox between the dinosaurs' size and lifestyle.

"The dinosaurs' large size has presented palaeontologists with an interesting paradox. Calculations of the structural dynamic stresses within the bones of the largest dinosaurs indicate that they were too large to move fast without injuring themselves. Contrary to this view is the fact that detailed bio-mechanical reconstructions indicate that they were agile, active creatures."

"Depending on the arguments used, a particular dinosaur can be reconstructed in two ways, slow and lumbering, or fast and agile, with both sides of the argument appearing equally valid."

Dinosaurs and the Expanding Earth (http://www.dinox.freeserve.co.uk/english/strucdin.htm) also discusses the structural dynamics of dinosaurs.

"One method of finding out more about Dinosaurs is to study their structural dynamics. This method considers the loads and forces acting on the structure of their skeleton as they moved. The Dinosaurs' structural dynamics indicates that the loads acting on their skeletons where much greater than that of present day animals. In some causes, because of the Dinosaurs' large size, calculations indicate that the bones of the largest Dinosaurs were likely to buckle and crack under their own immense weight. These calculations were responsible for promoting the idea that the Dinosaurs must have moved very slowly to prevent sudden shocks to their skeleton." "This idea of slow moving animals does not agree with the bio-mechanical analysis of dinosaurs, which indicate that the Dinosaurs where agile, active creatures. This is the paradox between the Dinosaurs size and lifestyle."

Peace

this an indictment of the scientific community. you imply that they are all frauds who have no integrity and would lie just to make a buck. however, keep in mind that academics are not so rich. furthermore, museums do not make a profit - there is no incentive to lie for profit then.

finally pradoxes do not disprove the existence of dinos. there may be facts that are currently unknown but when discovered or understood will adress the paradoxes. I am sure that 100 years ago learned people thought there were many paradoxes about the way the human body finctioned. does that mean that we did not exist back then?

Aqueous Moon
05-26-2006, 12:06 PM
within any discipline and situation, there will invariably be small instances of dishonesty.. do u not trust other areas of life because of this as well?

the evidence speaks for itself

I certainly do question everything in life, that is worth questioning.

And, I wouldn't take the dinosaur thing as a personal attack on science or anything.

I think it is a healthy skepticism, and one that is not soo far fetched.

Aqueous Moon
05-26-2006, 12:11 PM
the dinosaur conspiracy theories i take as an insult to my intelligence, career, education, experience and to science as a whole.

there is no conspiracy nor is there any gap in the fossil record that would warrant dinos to be made up.
this claim doesnt even make sense
furthermore, if dinos never existed or alleged findings were somehow made mor efanciful, we as scientists would be the first ones to let the public know! science is a self regulating discipline that relies heavily on other disciplines.. if one branch is lacking, then other ares would be directly affected.

these claims are not even taken seriously in the scientific community

And that is what makes me wonder - it's the fact that the scientific community doesn't take it seriously....

Self regulating may not be such a good thing, it could lead to circular resoning and tunnel vision. Also, being that dinosaur exsistance theories greatly support the theory of evolution........I can see why most people automatically except it as truth.

Aqueous Moon
05-26-2006, 12:14 PM
this an indictment of the scientific community. you imply that they are all frauds who have no integrity and would lie just to make a buck. however, keep in mind that academics are not so rich. furthermore, museums do not make a profit - there is no incentive to lie for profit then.

finally pradoxes do not disprove the existence of dinos. there may be facts that are currently unknown but when discovered or understood will adress the paradoxes. I am sure that 100 years ago learned people thought there were many paradoxes about the way the human body finctioned. does that mean that we did not exist back then?

I don't think the scientific community is exempt from being led astray or even fooled.

They have certainly been known in the past to support political agendas and have not always had the best interests of the people at heart.

WARPATH
05-26-2006, 12:21 PM
I agree with Aqueous on this subject, Fossil hunting is a big buisness, exspecially around here. There are always things being found in the badlands, and fossil hunters jack em' before real paleontologists can study them.

Furthmore, I may believe in conspiracy to hide the truth about orgins of man, but even you guys can't deny that the U.S. government:

A- controls our public schools curriclum

B- Gathers intelligence on it's own people as a way of "national secruity"

C- Has not alway been completely honest with it's citzens.

Four hundred years ago scientists believed a bunch of bullshit that found isn't true today, one hundred years ago science believed even more shit that isn't seen as truth today, and in another 500 years people will look back at us and realize how stupid we were.(i'm refering to a published scientific community with european orgins leading up to world wide reconized/publicized ideas taught today that is reconized as "truth." Possibly there are people in the world that have true knowledge in regards to dinosaurs, but opt to keep it to themselves for whatever reasons.)

Koolish
05-27-2006, 12:57 PM
we just debate on the internet forever and get nowhere. you'll get your answers when you die.

My First Timbs
05-29-2006, 05:45 PM
this is what has to be understood

healthy skepticism is indeed a valuable trait to possess and is always welcomed in science (most scientists do what they do becaus ethey truly love it and always had a healthy dose of skepticism and wanted to understand why things are the way they are)

however, skepticism that is not based on any rational base other than a myriad of questions that would easily be answered satisfactorily if one understood the intracies of the field and thd discoveries is never welcomed.

Aqueous Moon
05-29-2006, 06:55 PM
http://www.bible.ca/tracks/archaeoraptor-fraud-piltdown-bird.htm
^^^ Creationists have some very interesting objections to the dino theories.


http://members.aol.com/gjrum/fakefossil.htm
^^^interesting article that expands on the fraud in the scientific community. And National Geographic's admission of mis informative materials - "piltdown bird".

http://www.clarku.edu/~piltdown/map_expose/featur_piltskull_delibfake.html
^^^details how fossils are fabricated - in specific response to the "piltdown man".

http://www.chilit.org/Klapper%201.htm
^^^a more personal account of the discovery of fossil fraud.

I think it's important for us to be aware that we don't have to endorse any kind of "scientific" theory or ideology.

The essence of science is the ability to provide answers. We don't need more questions.

There is a threat of being labeled as stupid or ignorant when we question the acclaimed scientific community....and, I don't think it's right.

So, to the thread starter - I would say that it is also a high probality that dinos never exsisted in the first place.

Or, at least not in the manner that we have been taught.

My First Timbs
05-29-2006, 07:01 PM
all of the creationists "theories" have been debunked, addressed or found to not be valid..


believe me , i mean no offense but only those that dont stay up to date with sicentific discovery or fully understand the discipline subscribe to these accounts.

Koolish
05-29-2006, 07:09 PM
^ are you talking about evolution and the big bang?

or logical fallacies in the idea of religion?

My First Timbs
05-29-2006, 07:11 PM
im talking about the creationist claims that would erroneously lead one to believe that dinos never existed.

normally its the YEC that propose this (the young earth creationists)

all of the claims to date are erroneous or merely questions that have either

a) have yet to be answered but yet do not mean that dinos never existed

b) questions that are easily answered by those in the field but may appear to be unanswerable to those not in the field

My First Timbs
05-29-2006, 07:13 PM
its actually quite frustating as a scientist who has spnt years of concentrated study and field work on a particular subject and then to have someone or a group with no comparable knowledge or expertise to propose that the fruits of concentrated study or field work were somehow erroneous.

i mean no offense to anyone on the forum.. im talking about the creationist movement on the whole

Aqueous Moon
05-29-2006, 07:54 PM
its actually quite frustating as a scientist who has spnt years of concentrated study and field work on a particular subject and then to have someone or a group with no comparable knowledge or expertise to propose that the fruits of concentrated study or field work were somehow erroneous.

i mean no offense to anyone on the forum.. im talking about the creationist movement on the whole

As a black man I'm sure you are aware of European dominance in society. Are you under the impression that the scientific community is untouchable??

I have taken no offense and I mean none myself.

I just have to wonder....why? After years of scientifically endorsed inferiority of "negroes" would a black man be surprised or frustrated with the skepticism towards so-called science?

And, I appreciate your years of study. As a matter of fact, Iam proud of your determination and drive considering the circumstances.

What I don't appreciate is the almost masonic inference of scientific knowledge when it is questioned.

And, this is a pervasive aspect of Amerikkkan culture....professional circles become exclusive "clubs" and they are not allowed access by the "common man" unless of course, he has the right kinda degree and the proper rhetoric. Otherwise he is shunned.

Something must be done about this.

My First Timbs
05-29-2006, 08:25 PM
peace

i for one know that science is indeed fallible.. this fallability ironically is one of science's greatest attributes.. anything and evrything has the possibility to be false..however it can only be shown to be false if the counter aruments presented have merit

this is where my issue comes in.

the claims that dinos never existed has no scientific merit!

feel me on this.

as i said earlier the best attibute 2 sciencis the concept of falsifiability (meaning having the potential to be false), however if something is indeed false, it is only replaced or amended by newer improved science or scientific claims! not groundless claims that have no merit! (such as the claim that dinos never existed on this planet) that is a groundless claim.

there is no evidence that would lead one to rationally conclude that dinos never existed.. all that we have are mountains and boatloads of evidence (physical, molecular, genetic and phylogenetic) that they did indeed exist.

to show that all of this is faulty would require a whole lot more than a few questions put forth by thse not in the indoctrinated into the respective fields... questions are not enuff

And, this is a pervasive aspect of Amerikkkan culture....professional circles become exclusive "clubs" and they are not allowed access by the "common man" unless of course, he has the right kinda degree and the proper rhetoric. Otherwise he is shunned.

Something must be done about this.

regarding this, i am not saying (nor does science on the whole) that u must have a degree or the right "education" to bring forth anything valid in the sciences (truth be told, most scientists who have made many notable discoveries and contributions had no degree or less than a masters degree).. BUT however.. (and here is whats most important)

scientific claims and/or counter claims are never to be judged purely on the dgree or education of the presenter.. what actually takes precedence in the scientific method is the merit/value the claim has and how it can be substantiated and verified...

alleged claims that dinos never existed do not possess this most crucial aspect of the scientific process!...questions are not enuff

the argument that dinos never existed is the same mechanism and reasoning that many still hold that the earth is still flat (see the flat earth society)

this group whole heartedly believes that there are enuff questions that would lead one to believe that it is more probable to believe the earth is flat and not round as science dictates.. this viewpoint is irrational and not worthy of merit (scientific merit via a truth value) simply because questins are not enuff to establish a claim! one must bring forth a mountain of evidence or sufficiently valid verifiable evidence that overturns the verifiable evidence that that dictates the earth is flat!

so is the case with any claim that dinos never existed

questions are not enuff


in addition.. anyone can question anything.. i could right now start a group called GDE (gravity doesnt exist) and seriously doubt and question that gravity doesnt exist.. i could come up with a claim (via a lack of evidence/question) that purports that science has a hidden agenda to state that gravity is true and exists.. however, the proof will always be in the pudding... there are carloads of evidence that dictate that gravity does exist in our universe..

it would require more than a few questions on my groups part to make seriously considereing whether gravity exists, worthy of merit or even anyone's time!

questions are not enuff

Aqueous Moon
05-29-2006, 08:40 PM
However....it's not a lack of evidence that makes me doubt the exsistance of dinos.

It is the essential fradulent evidence that is cause for doubt.

Visionz
05-29-2006, 08:42 PM
two pennies----the ability or inability to prove that something exist does not stop something from existing. We, until recently, could not prove that DNA existed even though it has been at work all along. Just like God exist even though we can't prove it. Some day the science will catch up. But I see no point in waiting for it to happen.

My First Timbs
05-29-2006, 08:48 PM
However....it's not a lack of evidence that makes me doubt the exsistance of dinos.

It is the essential fradulent evidence that is cause for doubt.

just like im saying

cause for doubt isnt enuff!

i could find cause to doubt any and everything on this planet, however.. to have a valid stance i must have a positive claim or evidential base that would give credence to my claim caused by the alleged "cause for doubt"

Aqueous Moon
05-29-2006, 09:16 PM
cause for doubt is just what it is.

scientist use the same cause for doubt when they propagate their evolution theories!

unfortunately, there is no measuring stick to gage the amount of hypothosized eveidence it takes to make a theory become truth.

I say unfortunately, because I feel that the dino theories cast a shadow on science in general and in the process causes more confusion then clarity.

I do subscribe to the scientific method....however, I become increasingly skeptic when fraud and lies are involved.

Big Risk
05-29-2006, 10:01 PM
the same reason why they dont talk about fucking giraffs and aligators wtf, that time period isnt relivent to the shit going on in the bible, thats why they didnt talk about it.

My First Timbs
05-29-2006, 10:48 PM
scientists dont use cause for doubt regarding evolution. thats not true at all

i myself and am evolutionist

My First Timbs
05-30-2006, 08:55 AM
name one instance where an alleged "cause for doubt" was used as a proof or evidential base for biological evolution.

evolution is as sound as a discipline as they come.

Aqueous Moon
05-30-2006, 01:08 PM
Didn't say they use cause for doubt as proof or evidential basis.
I said they use cause for doubt when they propagate the evolution theory.

What I mean is they have already sold a large portion of the public on the idea of evolution, even while it remains a theory.

We know that there are scientific facts about the progression of human biology and micro organisms involved in the theory of evolution.

The cause for doubt I was referring to regarding the scientists is the peculiar way they are allowed to interpret evolution according to their various hypothesis.

And, since evolution applies to animals as well as humans....it leaves a lot to be theorized about. So, there is a good reason to keep evolution a "theory".
It's so scientist can sell their interpretations to the public while always being able to change them according to whatever new discovery is either 'found' or.........fabricated, unfortunately.

Aqueous Moon
05-30-2006, 01:20 PM
Also, it should be recognized that the evolution theory is highly political.

Not only that, but there is also a source of funding and prestige involved with most scientific discoveries.

Which would serve as motivation for corruption....and it's hard to say just how far the rabbit hole goes.

denaturat
05-30-2006, 01:51 PM
Also, it should be recognized that the evolution theory is highly political.

Not only that, but there is also a source of funding and prestige involved with most scientific discoveries.

Which would serve as motivation for corruption....and it's hard to say just how far the rabbit hole goes.

why do you say that the theory of evolution is political?

My First Timbs
05-30-2006, 01:55 PM
Didn't say they use cause for doubt as proof or evidential basis.
I said they use cause for doubt when they propagate the evolution theory.

What I mean is they have already sold a large portion of the public on the idea of evolution, even while it remains a theory.

We know that there are scientific facts about the progression of human biology and micro organisms involved in the theory of evolution.

The cause for doubt I was referring to regarding the scientists is the peculiar way they are allowed to interpret evolution according to their various hypothesis.

And, since evolution applies to animals as well as humans....it leaves a lot to be theorized about. So, there is a good reason to keep evolution a "theory".
It's so scientist can sell their interpretations to the public while always being able to change them according to whatever new discovery is either 'found' or.........fabricated, unfortunately.


peace aqueous
now we come to the crux of my frustration and insult. I am the "they" you are referring to!
i still dont know what u mean when u state that a cause for doubt is used to spread evolution. evolution has nothing but evidence working for it. and as for your statement that it is being taught and spread and meanwhile it is just a theory, u are sadly uninformed on the purpose and definition of a scientific theory.

something is only a scientific theory if it has evidence for it and can be proved and tested for. evolution is indeed a theory but that doesnt mean BY A LONGSHOT that anything is still unproven! this is the major misconception that the public has about theories and one of the cruxes of frustration in the science community. How does one partake in a meaningful dialogue/discussion regarding the validity of scientific concepts, precepts and theories when the basic fundamental language is not understood by the majority of the public!!??

u state that "we know that there are scientific facts about progression of human bio and micro organisms"...but once again.. u neglect the evidence for macro evolution and speciation that is seen, studied and demonstrated every single day by scientists in the field!
scientists dont interpret evolutionary findings willy nilly to support their ideas and hypothesis! thats not how it works..... the evidence speaks for itself and dictates how a hypothesis is to be amended! this is the beauty and glory of the scientific process! scientists are not dogmatic and do not have any emotional attachment to their thoughts or hypothesis.. the evidence dictates what to believe..

as of 30 May 2006, that evidence overwhelmingly without a question still shows that dinosaurs did once exist and their genetic lineage continues on to this day and that biological evolution is the vehicle which provided the earth with genetic diversity and the abundance of life.
until some new evidence comes in to somehow upset these two facts, we are obligated to "ride with em" ..anything else would be irrational and counter current purely due to emotional and dogmatic hidden agendas.

some of the discontent toward science in general is purely due to an ignorance of how exactly the scientific process works!
and by the way.. humans are animals....
we are eukaryotic, warm blooded, vertebrates (chordata).. mammals (class mammalia) Primates (sapien)

evolution applies to life in general (not just animals)
speaking of such, there are beautiful documented cases of botanical evolution via speciation.. but its a mystery why many dont argue that plants dont evolve and that scientists have a "hidden agenda" to falsify plant biology and evolution.....

My First Timbs
05-30-2006, 02:06 PM
Also, it should be recognized that the evolution theory is highly political.

Not only that, but there is also a source of funding and prestige involved with most scientific discoveries.

Which would serve as motivation for corruption....and it's hard to say just how far the rabbit hole goes.

misconception # 2
scientists dont do what they do for fame and money and prestige.. thats not how it works and occurs in reality.. this is a myth carried on by the public. in fact, truth be told, most scientists could care less about money and many dont earn that much (comparted to what they could be doing with their knowledge and expertise) in another field such as healthcare and medicine.
corruption rears its ugly head in every facet of life, why is scientific discovery and evolution being unfairly and (improperly via fallacy) singled out?
the reason is due to a poplular emotional sentiment that runs counter current to scientific discovery and progress. it is honestly a taught and reinforced deleterious mental state that thrives on propaganda and the feeling of conspiracy.

denaturat
05-30-2006, 02:15 PM
Too many unsubstantiated consipracy theories floating around on this forum. To demonstrate the errors in the theory of evolution, you have to at least make an argument and attack the premises on which the theory rests. Instead, people advance counter claims which themselves are not supported by sound reasoning. There is no method, no solid foundation and no logic to these conspiracy thoeories. Not to mention that the claims are poorly articulated and often incoherent.

My First Timbs
05-30-2006, 02:30 PM
indeed.

in addition i am actually ashamed of myself and conduct in this thread.. i am ashamed because i should know better.


science and in particular evolution (my field) and paleontology are sincerely sound disciplines with evidence for them up the wazoo.. they dont even need to be defended ! I am ashamed that I was actually trying to defend something that needs no proactive defense! (something every science student learns early on in their career)
all of the evidence is in our court.. its up to whatever "new kid on the block" (whatever new idealogy, concept or claim) to step up to the rational plate, provide some meaty evidence for their validity, or stop wasting everyone's time.
Evolution and anything regarding biological history seems to strike a cord with many ppl simply because it involves things that affect the nature of our existence to the core! This is why counter claims are a dime a dozen but invariably never pan out to have any merit. The nature of these types of scientific discovery are also the reason why most counter claims and conspiracy theories are proposed by those with hidden agendas (meaning dogmatic agendas).. as opposed to a rational agenda of purely trying 2 obtain truth.
Dr. Timbs

Aqueous Moon
05-30-2006, 02:43 PM
why do you say that the theory of evolution is political?

For instance - if a presidential canidate decides to rally behind evolution he would be penalized in popularity amongst the gen populace who subscribe to intelligent design.

If he is not an advocate of evolution then he is penalized by those who are evolutionists.

There is currently a debate about which one should be taught in public schools or if both theories should be taught in public school.

Not to mention the lobbyists and various corporations and religions who have vested interests in their particular theory.

This is a political issue as well as an issue that is scientific in nature.

My First Timbs
05-30-2006, 02:51 PM
that doesnt mean that evolution is political !!!!!!!!!

that simply means that any and everything can be USED as a political tool! u are confusing 2 different concepts! Whether something is used in political debate has no nbearing on the truth or validity of the science!

if i was running for president, lets say i love videogames...by ur reasoning, videogames are now "political" because there invariably will be ppl who love metal gear solid and those who love mario bros..and those who say that videogames dont exist

thats nonsensical and doesnt mean videogames are political !

there would be no hidden agenda on my part! its a conspiracy theory u are proposing.

lets slow down for a sec..


even if somehow evolution was "political" (which it isnt), what we see troday would make no sense! creeationism and ID and antievolution sentiment is what has a stronghold on America.. not evolution and science!

Aqueous Moon
05-30-2006, 02:53 PM
but, that's not the point.

A person's stand on evolution does hold a lot of weight in the politcal arena.

The importance of this theory is such that it can not be compared to video games or other frivolous aspect of society.

denaturat
05-30-2006, 02:55 PM
There is a fundamental disconnect when attempting a dialogue with conspiracy theorists. I structure my theories by examining evidence, and if the evidence is sound, I seek out further evidence until it leads to a logical conclusion. Where there is a gap in evidence I identify assumptions and assign probability to the theory. Consipracy theorists do not follow the same method. Thus any debate with them is like trying to figure out who scored in a game of tennis without the net or boundaries.

My First Timbs
05-30-2006, 02:58 PM
but, that's not the point.

A person's stand on evolution does hold a lot of weight in the politcal arena.

The importance of this theory is such that it can not be compared to video games or other frivolous aspect of society.

its a direct correlation!! but now u shy away from it when u see how absurd your statement was!!

evoltuion is no more political than my hypothetical example involving videogames.. evolution has nothing to do with politics...... certain ppl feel certain way about evolution, but there sentiment and feelings have no bearing on the actual data and results determined by qualified scientists.

its like everyone wants to have a say so regarding aspects of the scientific discplines without the actually doing the footwork!

Aqueous Moon
05-30-2006, 03:00 PM
I'm not promoting conspiracy theory.

I'm simply saying that huge displays of fraud have been discovered and multiple times, in fact.

This aspect of science has been fooled and has mislead the public before.

Corruption is a major problem as late as 1999.....

My First Timbs
05-30-2006, 03:02 PM
the fraud u speak of is so miniscule and occurs invariably in any facet of life.

does that mean evolution is faulty? and that dinos dont exist?

u are proposing a conspiracy theory.... u read about a few cases of ALLEGEd fraud, and then came to a conclusion that evolution and dinosaurs probably never existed.. thats a conspiracy theory.

denaturat
05-30-2006, 03:02 PM
I'm not promoting conspiracy theory.

I'm simply saying that huge displays of fraud have been discovered and multiple times, in fact.

This aspect of science has been fooled and has mislead the public before.

Corruption is a major problem as late as 1999.....

evidence?

by the way, did you every read a book on evolution? did you ever study it? - high school does not count

Aqueous Moon
05-30-2006, 03:03 PM
its a direct correlation!! but now u shy away from it when u see how absurd your statement was!!

evoltuion is no more political than my hypothetical example involving videogames.. evolution has nothing to do with politics...... certain ppl feel certain way about evolution, but there sentiment and feelings have no bearing on the actual data and results determined by qualified scientists.

its liek everyone wants to have a say so in the scientific discplines without the footwork!

I don't think it's absurd at all.

I have observed the politcs behind evolution vs. creation.

What's absurd about that?

My First Timbs
05-30-2006, 03:04 PM
by the way, did you every read a book on evolution? did you ever study it? - high school does not count

if one confuses the definition of a scientific theory with a mere assumption or unproven claim.. then its obvious

and im not trying to be insulting here.

but evolution is a complicated discipline.. one needs to have a firm grasp of biology, organic chem, molecular biology, and genetics to get a full grasp of tyhe mechanics of evolution and how it works and the nature of its evidences.

most who doubt evolution merely doubt the fossil record (this is the easiest to understand in the shortest amount of time with only a cursory knowledge),, however few doubt the molecular and genetic evidence because it requires a lot more prerequisite knowledge.

thats the nature of the beast of conspiracy.

Aqueous Moon
05-30-2006, 03:08 PM
the fraud u speak of is so miniscule and occurs invariably in any facet of life.

does that mean evolution is faulty? and that dinos dont exist?

u are proposing a conspiracy theory.... u read about a few cases of ALLEGEd fraud, and then came to a conclusion that evolution and dinosaurs probably never existed.. thats a conspiracy theory.

That's the problem with fraud and science.

if scientists can be fooled and led astray by fakes, what am I to think?

Aqueous Moon
05-30-2006, 03:12 PM
evidence?

by the way, did you every read a book on evolution? did you ever study it? - high school does not count

I posted some links a page or so back.

and, I have done general research on evolution. No, Iam surely not a expert.

I do subscribe to micro evolution but have doubts about mass/macro evolution.

Let me also say that it wasn't my intention to debate weather or not evolution is what it is or how it works.

I was merely providing the thread starter with an alternative view about dinosaurs.

Aqueous Moon
05-30-2006, 03:17 PM
http://www.bible.ca/tracks/archaeoraptor-fraud-piltdown-bird.htm
^^^ Creationists have some very interesting objections to the dino theories.


http://members.aol.com/gjrum/fakefossil.htm
^^^interesting article that expands on the fraud in the scientific community. And National Geographic's admission of mis informative materials - "piltdown bird".

http://www.clarku.edu/~piltdown/map_expose/featur_piltskull_delibfake.html
^^^details how fossils are fabricated - in specific response to the "piltdown man".

http://www.chilit.org/Klapper%201.htm
^^^a more personal account of the discovery of fossil fraud.

I think it's important for us to be aware that we don't have to endorse any kind of "scientific" theory or ideology.

The essence of science is the ability to provide answers. We don't need more questions.

There is a threat of being labeled as stupid or ignorant when we question the acclaimed scientific community....and, I don't think it's right.

So, to the thread starter - I would say that it is also a high probality that dinos never exsisted in the first place.

Or, at least not in the manner that we have been taught.

Here's the links.

denaturat
05-30-2006, 03:31 PM
Here's the links.

The first two articles are about a person who is not really a scientists and who tried to advance a theory which was found unsound. So? Certainly other serious evolutionists would also disagree with this theory. This does not support your assertions about the theory of evolution.

I will read the other article later...

Aqueous Moon
05-30-2006, 03:58 PM
what are you talking about??

you asked for evidence of corruption and fraud.

the first two links describe the scientifcally endorsed fake fossils that were displayed in National Geographic.

the second one talks about probally the most well known case of fossil fraud, piltdown man.

http://internet.ocii.com/~dpwozney/dinosaur.htm#Introduction#Introduction
^^^ another interesting perepctive.

My First Timbs
05-30-2006, 04:41 PM
what u neglect to mention is that piltdown man was discovered to be a fraud not by any conspiracy theorist, not by any creationist, but by another good old scientist/evolutionist that had better dating techniques and more experience in the hominid field!

science only begets more better science.

science isnt perfect!! all claims against science for some reason begin with a silent assumption that science and scientists think that everything is perfect!

as i said earlier, one case of fraud amongst a myriad of verifiable evidence is a grain of sand on a beach.

there are a wholke series of other hominids verified to have existed.

every discipline contains fraud.. u cling to this so deeply buts that the sad truth! every discipline will have fraud.. no more no less.. this means in no way that the discipline is faulty!

one still has to prove somehow that macro evolution doesnt exist or that dinos never existed.. im still waiting for this to occur cause when it doesm i will be out of a job and so will th emajority of the healthcare fields because believe it or not, all of medicine is built upon a framework of evolutionary biology.

in a nutshell, i just find it so amazing how one can cling to a case of fraud and then come to an un substantiated conclusion that an entire discipline is faulty...

and one more thing... macro evolution is alive and well with verifiable evidence and documented instances (within our lifetime!!)

My First Timbs
05-30-2006, 04:57 PM
it doesnt matter if there are 100 cases of fossil fraud!

that fraud is STILL insufficient to everturn the evidence for evolution and that dinosaurs existed! (yes, there is that much evidence!)

as i said earlier, u neglect to mention the genetic, molecular, phylogenetic and bioinformatic evidence that irrefutably backs up micro and macroevolution

a case(s) of some phony fossils is so miniscule in the scheme of science and evolution that its not even funny.

Aqueous Moon
05-30-2006, 07:50 PM
what u neglect to mention is that piltdown man was discovered to be a fraud not by any conspiracy theorist, not by any creationist, but by another good old scientist/evolutionist that had better dating techniques and more experience in the hominid field!

science only begets more better science.

science isnt perfect!! all claims against science for some reason begin with a silent assumption that science and scientists think that everything is perfect!

as i said earlier, one case of fraud amongst a myriad of verifiable evidence is a grain of sand on a beach.

there are a wholke series of other hominids verified to have existed.

every discipline contains fraud.. u cling to this so deeply buts that the sad truth! every discipline will have fraud.. no more no less.. this means in no way that the discipline is faulty!

one still has to prove somehow that macro evolution doesnt exist or that dinos never existed.. im still waiting for this to occur cause when it doesm i will be out of a job and so will th emajority of the healthcare fields because believe it or not, all of medicine is built upon a framework of evolutionary biology.

in a nutshell, i just find it so amazing how one can cling to a case of fraud and then come to an un substantiated conclusion that an entire discipline is faulty...

and one more thing... macro evolution is alive and well with verifiable evidence and documented instances (within our lifetime!!)

In 1999 scientist had advanced dating techniques and experience, yet they still had to admit that they endorsed National Geographic's misinformation about feathered dinosaurs which was based on fake fossils.

And, in the piltdown man case - it took about 40 years for the fraud to be discovered and denounced!
It is no wonder that another scientist discovered this huge blunder that had been propagted in the field of paleontology. There are not alot of bone experts amongst the gen populace.

Science should be perfect. In the sense that it is based on disciplines that compile data where there is research and controlled experiments, and peer review. There should certainly be no excuses for scientific fraud!

The discipline could be quite sound in it's mechanics but can also be corrupted to the extent that unethical behaviour and human error is involved.

Aqueous Moon
05-30-2006, 08:00 PM
it doesnt matter if there are 100 cases of fossil fraud!

that fraud is STILL insufficient to everturn the evidence for evolution and that dinosaurs existed! (yes, there is that much evidence!)

as i said earlier, u neglect to mention the genetic, molecular, phylogenetic and bioinformatic evidence that irrefutably backs up micro and macroevolution

a case(s) of some phony fossils is so miniscule in the scheme of science and evolution that its not even funny.

I don't know enough about the gentic, molecular....etc. to discuss that.

I will have to concede to your theories about that.

However, I do remain unconvinced that fraud in the scientifc community is small and inconsequential.

Lies also beget more lies and cover-ups beget more cover-ups.

My First Timbs
05-30-2006, 09:06 PM
peace

ur beliefthat science is to be and shopuld be pefect will always lead u down a slippery slope open to conspiracy theories.. science isnt a religion.. it never claims perfection.. its all trial and error and trying to understand ur errors and reproduce your results... it has nothing to do with perfection

i think we found the root of the problem.... u believe science should be perfect

Aqueous Moon
05-30-2006, 09:45 PM
peace

ur beliefthat science is to be and shopuld be pefect will always lead u down a slippery slope open to conspiracy theories.. science isnt a religion.. it never claims perfection.. its all trial and error and trying to understand ur errors and reproduce your results... it has nothing to do with perfection

i think we found the root of the problem.... u believe science should be perfect

Peace timbs

What's the point of science, if not to be precise?

Is science based on facts and proof. Or, is it based on mistakes and assumptions?

When you do research...are you not required to keep perfect records?

Aren't you required to keep experiments controlled perfectly, in order to bring about the best results and compilation of data? Wouldn't this produce the most accurate basis to rest scientific discoveries on?

My First Timbs
05-30-2006, 10:07 PM
ahhh u sneakily now switched ur words!!

there is a big difference in science and logic between "perfection" and "precision"

do not confuse 2 totally different things !

precision is obtained via strict observance of methods and minimization of variables (in research of course, outside factors must be accounted for and minimized as much as possible)

however, even tho the actual "procedures" of science are to be done as strict and controlled as possible, it doesnt mean that errors or unexpected results are not part of the ball game!

most scientific discovery is happened upon by chance during a controlled test to demonstrate something else entirely different!

science never claims perfection, but since it requires controlled environments to yield reproducible verifiable results, its our best effort as a species to determine ways to explain the world we live in

Aqueous Moon
05-30-2006, 10:12 PM
In 1999 scientist had advanced dating techniques and experience, yet they still had to admit that they endorsed National Geographic's misinformation about feathered dinosaurs which was based on fake fossils.

And, in the piltdown man case - it took about 40 years for the fraud to be discovered and denounced!
It is no wonder that another scientist discovered this huge blunder that had been propagted in the field of paleontology. There are not alot of bone experts amongst the gen populace.


Science should be perfect. In the sense that it is based on disciplines that compile data where there is research and controlled experiments, and peer review. There should certainly be no excuses for scientific fraud!

The discipline could be quite sound in it's mechanics but can also be corrupted to the extent that unethical behaviour and human error is involved.

Peace Timbs.

I didn't intend to switch words, on you. I apologize.

But, I thought I was being clear that I was referring to the perfection of Scientific methods....like the ones I mentioned above and in my last post.

That's why I went on to elaborate what I meant when I said "in the sense that...."

Aqueous Moon
05-30-2006, 10:25 PM
ahhh u sneakily now switched ur words!!

there is a big difference in science and logic between "perfection" and "precision"

do not confuse 2 totally different things !

precision is obtained via strict observance of methods and minimization of variables (in research of course, outside factors must be accounted for and minimized as much as possible)

however, even tho the actual "procedures" of science are to be done as strict and controlled as possible, it doesnt mean that errors or unexpected results are not part of the ball game!

most scientific discovery is happened upon during a controlled test to demonstrate something else entirely different!

science never claims perfection, but since it requires controlled environments to yield reproducible verifiable results, its our best effort as a species to determine ways to explain the world we live in

Point well taken

Perfection is a personal demand.

My First Timbs
05-30-2006, 10:52 PM
we all wish that we did have some mechanism of "perfection" to understand the world we live in (this is why some of us cling to religion and claims of the unknown..to somehow fill the uneasy void of a missing "perfection")

zeppelin2k
05-31-2006, 03:31 PM
whats religeon?

rubyspirit
06-01-2006, 06:05 PM
What do you want God to say about the dinosaurs? Every single animal isn't mentioned in the Holy Bible. Rhinos are dinosaurs. The super large ones either became extinct, or died out with Noah's flood.

froth
06-02-2006, 01:22 AM
anyone who doesnt belive dinosaurs existed is either retarded or crazy

eVoL
06-02-2006, 02:34 AM
if you put a functioning Rolex watch in a box, close it
and let the box sit there for millions of years

what will the watch evolve to be? ;/

don't tell me the answer is adaptful "evolution"