Dinosaurs in the bible? by midori

REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Dinosaurs in the bible?

POSTED BY: MIDORI
UPDATED: Sunday, August 21, 2005 07:07
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 9316
PAGE 2 of 2

Saturday, August 20, 2005 3:36 AM

Signym, I find your comments rather patchy with the logic.
Yes, "God done it" is empty and untestable. By that I assume you mean that it is unprovable by scientific method.
But science itself cannot be proved. No number of experiments can prove a theory, and all it takes is one to destroy a theory. Remember, Newtonian mechanics lasted for over 250 years before Einstein came along with relativity.

Hence, I conclude that science is just as empty and "untestable" as ID. If you don't think so, then I challenge you to prove that evolution is correct.

Hmm, just pondering and thinking: There is also an infinitesmally small chance that out of the clouds of random dust in space, a planet formed out of nowhere simply cause the atoms were moving at the right direction at the right time... I'd estimate the chance of that happening as 1 in 1^10^10^10^10^10.... Probably smaller than that...

But I think you see my point. Neither theory can be proven, and as ironic as it seems, evolution is also a matter of faith.

Quote:
I think that everyone who wants to promulgate "intelligent design" should swear off using all the fruits of science

In light of the above, to this comment I will reply: I'll swear off science when you do.

And SignyM, I think we'd all appreciate a civil discussion. Please keep it to the problem and not the people.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, August 20, 2005 4:04 AM

SERGEANTX

Quote:
Originally posted by Regression:
But I think you see my point. Neither theory can be proven, and as ironic as it seems, evolution is also a matter of faith.

This is one the favorite refrains of religious apologists and it's really deceptive. The arguments made to support it could be used to equate ALL convictions about the nature of reality. So we should just quit trying to figure out anything. We'll never know, it's all just a matter of faith.

If you want to define 'faith' this broadly, then you have to acknowledge that the faith people put in science is of a very different nature than the faith people use in religion. Religious faith, when compared with the proposed notion of scientific faith would properly be characterized as "blind faith". I'm not saying there's anything wrong with blind faith, or that there aren't truths to be found in that mode of thought. But they are very different ways of understanding the world. The attempts to equate them seem like a shell game to me.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, August 20, 2005 4:40 AM

HKCAVALIER

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Wow- that's what I get for asking someone to look it up for me!!! I asked a friend to google it. She said- yup- it's real- nelgecting to tell me it was in The Onion. Sheesh! Next time I'll be sure to do my own research.

Ouch! Sorry about that, but on the other hand, aren't you glad?

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, August 20, 2005 5:19 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Regression

Quote:
No number of experiments can prove a theory, and all it takes is one to destroy a theory.

Hallelujah! It's what I've been saying all along to those people who demand scientific 'proof' of global warming is true. But, back to the subject at hand, to say that b/c something can't be proved true means it can't be tested is false. There is the other test, which checks for a false result. You yourself said something can be proved 'wrong' - itself the result of a test.

So the difference between science and religion remains - religious beliefs can't be tested, while scientific theories can.

Edited to add: Regression, please explain to the 'scientists' who post here that little caveat of the impossibility of scientific positive proof. Thank You.

Nearly everything I know I learned by the grace of others.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, August 20, 2005 5:28 AM

HKCAVALIER

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
The arguments made to support it could be used to equate ALL convictions about the nature of reality. So we should just quit trying to figure out anything. We'll never know, it's all just a matter of faith.

If you want to define 'faith' this broadly, then you have to acknowledge that the faith people put in science is of a very different nature than the faith people use in religion. Religious faith, when compared with the proposed notion of scientific faith would properly be characterized as "blind faith". I'm not saying there's anything wrong with blind faith, or that there aren't truths to be found in that mode of thought. But they are very different ways of understanding the world. The attempts to equate

I think the problem arises when science becomes a belief system. Why must everything become a gorram belief system??? Belief systems are the enemy of reason; the enemy of inquiry. As an epistemology science is very practical. Science works. It allows us to create all this fascinating technology. You can't argue with that.

As soon as science becomes a belief system, however, you run into dogma and censure which is very reminiscent of religion, though religion is and always will be King of the Realm of Dogma and Censure. Our culture has embraced several theories on human evolution for purely mythological reasons. For instance, scientists have recently been able to measure the age of human bloodlines. I can't find the article now, this was maybe last year, but it showed that the oldest human line was in the aboriginal people of Australia. But the Leaky foundation carries enormous clout, and racism runs deep, so mainstream science clings to the belief that the most primitive humans were from Africa. We're still seeing documentaries coming out about "Lucie" though her status as "Eve" has been discredited (the Eve moniker is telling, ain't it?).

Then there's the theory of our prehuman ancestors going through a semi-aquatic phase which not only accounts for the "missing link" (the fossil record at the tidal line where our ancestors would have lived for perhaps a million years is notoriously bad ground for fossil making), but it also accounts for a slue of morphologies that the more popular theories can't touch, from the vestigial webbing between our fingers and toes, to the location of the uterus. But it also suggests that our tool use and culture has its origin in peaceful experimentation, rather than any demand for weapons to hunt. Even land based theorists are beginning to understand that hunting for most human societies has always been a sporadic and largely ceremonial activity that did not sustain the people who practiced it (please note that I said "most"). But none of this is flattering to our warlike, patriarchal self-concept, so mainstream science clings to the "naked ape" model popularized in the 50's.

Aside from the demonstrable efficacy of prayer (recent evidence to the contrary, notwithstanding) monotheistic religion has very little practical application. It seems to comfort some people psychologically, while oppressing and alienating many others. Shamanism and witchcraft on the other hand...

Aw, don't get me started!

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, August 20, 2005 8:03 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Hi HK,

I think the problem is not one of 'belief systems' but rather of both ego and traditional power structures.

Scientists take pride in their knowledge (hard work) and intelligence (personal traits). To some extent they have vetted their concepts, even if passively ('sounds okely-dokely to me'). When someone comes along and effectively challenges their concepts, it's a personal embarrasement (I didn't see that! I guess I'm not so smart after all).

The other issue is that science has been the province of hierarchies for centuries. There is a lot of power at stake when orthodoxy gets undermined.

Nearly everything I know I learned by the grace of others.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, August 20, 2005 8:39 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

So, to get back to ID, the creation of the universe and other knotty concepts.

To recall one issue, I'd like to point out that people who object to the universe coming out of nothing have no objection to god coming out of nothing. Similarly, those who object to the universe always-having-been have no objection to gods always-having-been. As SignyM pointed out, people demand certainty and completeness from science which is the formal process of asking questions of the unknown, then demand proof from science that they don't demand from their religions. (And the specific contradiction stating that scientific theories can't be tested and then saying they can only be proven wrong.) Beyond these specific examples, there are many logical idiocies coming from the crowd trying to supplant science with religion.

And scientific concepts come out of cultural concepts, so it's not suprising to find some congruence (let there be light and the big bang).

That people in the US should be seriously debating ID and other religious beliefs AS SCIENCE in this millenium is a phenomenon that causes me fear. And it's that backward mindset that will allow other countries to kick the US's *ss scientifically, technologically and economically in the near future.

I know that this topic has been brought up before, but if anyone wants a specific example of how fundamentalist religion can destroy a country economically and politically, look to Pakistan and its madrasses. As a result of teaching religion as THE operating priciple of the universe, Pakistan is filled with men unable to compete in the global technological job market. That is a major factor in Pakistan's poverty, and yes, their ever more fervent embracing of militant Islam.

So, yes, let's go down that path, shall we?

Nearly everything I know I learned by the grace of others.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, August 20, 2005 8:47 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

To get back to the concept of entropy, I think I've finally figured out what bothers me about it. As the law of conservation states matter (and energy) can be neither created nor destroyed. But entropy states that energy gets dispersed, and is therefore, not as, well, energetic as it used to be.

Any comments from those more up to date on the current thinking about entropy? (Yes, it has changed since I studied it.)

Nearly everything I know I learned by the grace of others.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, August 20, 2005 11:04 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Signym, I find your comments rather patchy with the logic. Yes, "God done it" is empty and untestable.

At least we agree on one thing.

Quote:
By that I assume you mean that it is unprovable by scientific method.

Rue's reply was so eloquent I'll probably just mess it up. But there is a significant difference between being "untestable" and "unproveable". "God done it" is not only unproveable it's untestable. That is the point of faith: you accept something IN ABSENCE of being able to test it.

Quote:
But science itself cannot be proved.

Ya think?

Quote:
Hmm, just pondering and thinking: There is also an infinitesmally small chance that out of the clouds of random dust in space, a planet formed out of nowhere simply cause the atoms were moving at the right direction at the right time... I'd estimate the chance of that happening as 1 in 1^10^10^10^10^10.... Probably smaller than that...

Well, since scientists have been discovering a lot of planets lately... and will probably discover more as our ability to detect small objects in space improves.. how does that square with your estimate?

Quote:
In light of the above, to this comment I will reply: I'll swear off science when you do.

I'm not the one rejecting science. But, I'll make a deal with you- I'll swear off religion if you do!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, August 20, 2005 11:31 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

HK- I find it frustrating when so-called scientists simply will not follow where the data leads- including the aquatic theory of human evolution. I can list incident after incident in science (and medicine) where wonderful insights that tied together disparate observations were rejected because they didn't match the accepted theories of the times. But eventually evidence won out, knowledge progressed, and science moved on. Maybe not as quickly as it should have, but... it moved.

Part of the problem is that science is taught as a series of "facts", not as a process. Drifting into philosphy, one of the hardest things to do is to see your very deepest assumptions and limitations. It is those assumptions and limitations that inevitably color science. I also suspect that there are some things we will NEVER understand because of our inherent limitations. Science could use big doses of humility and philosophy.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, August 20, 2005 11:59 AM

HKCAVALIER

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Part of the problem is that science is taught as a series of "facts", not as a process.

Yes! A terrible misconception. The teaching of "facts" in general is destructive to critical thought. Teach process! Teach models! Any discussion of facts should emphasize direct experience, never dogma.

Quote:
Drifting into philosphy, one of the hardest things to do is to see your very deepest assumptions and limitations.

But that is exactly what reality demands.

Quote:
Science could use big doses of humility and philosophy.

And a well-earned vacation from time to time!

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, August 20, 2005 7:29 PM

WORKEROFEVIL

The clarifyingchristianity website is about the dumbest thing I've ever read. If behemoth and leviathon are supposed to be dinosaurs why does the Biblical descriptions make them out to be animals still alive when dinosaurs clearly died millions of years before humans came along?
Of course, dinosaurs have techincally not died out. Birds being on the same branch of the evolutionary tree (so to speak) technically classifies them as dinosaurs. But even then large, fire-breathing dinos are myths. And real dinosaurs died long before people. They died at the border between the Permian and Triassic periods and mammals just started up around then. Primates hadn't even come along yet, much less humans when dinos still walked the earth.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, August 21, 2005 3:31 AM

REGRESSION

This is the third time I have tried to explain my way of thinking, and considering the above, I think this will be my last post on this topic.

Please consider my viewpoint. I am, of course, a religious Christian, and hence I believe that God is the all powerful creator of the universe.

There are two ways I can see this:
ID, and evolution.

Now ID fits in perfectly with my beliefs, I have no trouble at all with "God spoke and created the universe". He is, of course, infinitely powerful. It explains anything and everything.

Looking at current evolution theory, I find that it IS flawed, macroevolution is still to be explained, and I have rather lengthy and thick biology textbooks that support this. (Recent too.)
Yes. There is massive evidence supporting the evolution theory, but there are just niggly little things that just bother me. I absolutely love the theory, I think that the evidence weaves well with the theory. It just happens that I'm more comfortable with ID.

People, do you see what I've been trying to get at? I don't hate science, I love it in fact. Please don't say that I'm ignoring science, because I'm not. There IS a chance that science is wrong, and I'd like to take that chance, simply because my faith makes it easier.

And Signym, just on a side note:

Quote:
Well, since scientists have been discovering a lot of planets lately... and will probably discover more as our ability to detect small objects in space improves.. how does that square with your estimate?

I think you misunderstand. Heard of the thing how it is possible for all the air molecules in a room to move into the corner of the room, and everyone to suffocate? Its sort of an entropy argument. Total Entropy doesnt always decrease, but only because the laws of probability say they should. If you stared long enough at that glass of spilt milk, it JUST might unspill itself.

The probability of that happening is something like 1 in a billion billion billion (probably a few more billions) years. My example was something of the same idea.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, August 21, 2005 6:45 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Looking at current evolution theory, I find that it IS flawed, macroevolution is still to be explained, and I have rather lengthy and thick biology textbooks that support this. (Recent too.)
Yes. There is massive evidence supporting the evolution theory, but there are just niggly little things that just bother me. I absolutely love the theory, I think that the evidence weaves well with the theory. It just happens that I'm more comfortable with ID. People, do you see what I've been trying to get at?

Not really. Other than that you're more "comfortable" with ID. There is a serious miscommunication going on here.

Quote:
I don't hate science, I love it in fact. Please don't say that I'm ignoring science, because I'm not. There IS a chance that science is wrong, and I'd like to take that chance, simply because my faith makes it easier. It's just that I'm more comfortable with ID

You say you don't ignore science... but then it seems as if you say you DO ignore science, especially when it makes you uncomfortable. So I'm not really sure WHAT to derive from your post. Likely this is a matter of defintion, like "testable" and "proveable". For example, I suspect when you say you don't "ignore" you mean that you are not "ignorant of" science. When you talk about "science" you may be talking about the "a priori" assumptions behind science. Can I put some words in your mouth, and you tell if if I'm even close?

Quote:
I don't ignore science because I'm an ignoramus. I know all about various scientific hypotheses. Many of them are sound (like the theory of gravity) and the theory of evolution even seems to do a decent- not complete, but decent- job of explaining the facts. I reject science. And the reason why I reject science is because I'm uncomfortable with the relentless materialism of science, the a priori assumptions of science which state there is ONLY the physical world, and that the ONLY way to truly know something is to be able to test ideas against the physical world. The Creator is untestable in the scientific sense, and -being untestable- is relegated to non-existance in science. My a priori assumption is that there IS a Creator. Since a priori assumptions are all equal (they can neither be found logically valid or not, that's what makes them "a priori") I reject the materialistic foundation of science and choose to believe in the Creator.

Is that about right?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, August 21, 2005 7:07 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
I think you misunderstand. Heard of the thing how it is possible for all the air molecules in a room to move into the corner of the room, and everyone to suffocate? Its sort of an entropy argument. Total Entropy doesnt always decrease, but only because the laws of probability say they should. If you stared long enough at that glass of spilt milk, it JUST might unspill itself.

The probability of that happening is something like 1 in a billion billion billion (probably a few more billions) years. My example was something of the same idea.

I'm really not sure what you're trying to say. Are you trying to say that the possibility of planet formation is very small, but that in a few billion years it can and does happen, albeit rarely? (Similar to a glass of milk unspilling itself?)

Well, that was the whole point of looking for planets in the first place- to see whether the formation of planets was a common event (ie there is a mechanism that creates planets) or whether it was rare- a "thermodynamic" event caused by chance. The fact that many stars- even binaries- appear to have planets associated with them implies that there is some sort of consistent mechanism at work. Quite frankly, I'm not sure what the big deal is. You can make the argument that star formation is also a "thermodynamic" event, and yet here we are- surrounded by countless stars. Something other than "thermodynamics" is at work. It's this kind of observation that sets off the whole cycle of scientific enquiry.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

YOUR OPTIONS

SHARE THREAD

NEW POSTS TODAY

USER	POST DATE

USER

POST DATE