My understanding is that dinosaurs existed millions of years ago,the proof being fossils and carbon dating. However a colleague of mine who is a born again christian has come up with two explanations. Carbon dating is a lie, dinosaurs are not as old as we think they are, they were on the ark with all the other animals but have since died out. The other is that all the fossils are fake and dinosaurs never existed, its just a lie to try and prove evolution. The first explaination was given about a year ago, the second this week. This is just nonsense to, make things up just to fit in with the bible
I would be inclined to smile benignly and allow him to have his delusions. Its not as if he is majorly hurting any one.
Having said that, it does sound somewhat like a conspiracy theory. They are all out to get me !! LOL
If he is happy in his fantasy world who are we to challenge him ;D
(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcontroversy.wearscience.com%2Fimgproduct%2Fdevil.jpg&hash=9b692f2f79edcf3de0f98c25d942c8e8f4bc328d)
http://controversy.wearscience.com/design/devil/
Quote from: Happy with no god on July 28, 2011, 04:00:56 PM
My understanding is that dinosaurs existed millions of years ago,the proof being fossils and carbon dating. However a colleague of mine who is a born again christian has come up with two explanations. Carbon dating is a lie, dinosaurs are not as old as we think they are, they were on the ark with all the other animals but have since died out. The other is that all the fossils are fake and dinosaurs never existed, its just a lie to try and prove evolution. The first explaination was given about a year ago, the second this week. This is just nonsense to, make things up just to fit in with the bible
Well for starters Carbon dating is not a lie, but you can't use it effectively much beyond 45,000 years and that's pushing it. It's reasonable duration is 35,000 years. The first fossils of anything are about 3,500,000,000 years old. The first multicellular fossils start turning up about 600,000,000 years ago.
Your colleague needs to understand something about geology before he starts pontificating about fossils not existing. The most common fossils are shelled sea creatures as they preserve well and are already buried when the die. The science of stratigraphy studies how different geological layers are laid down. It was originally partly based on where different types of fossils are found in sediments. Fossils dating back 600 million years have been used since the 1,700s to understand which layers came above which. The layers are formed in eras and those eras are named as the fossil types change. The Jurassic is a time period defined by the types of fossils found in it, it's not just some arbitrary abstract time period. So one of the corner stones of geology are fossils. If it were not for geology we wouldn't know where to look for oil. So if it were not for fossils your colleague wouldn't be able to fill up his car.
You might wish to show your friend this thread http://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/index.php?topic=7486.0 it's just a tiny, tiny fragment of what is available and has been studied for centuries.
Get him to join here and we'll put him straight ;D
Well hi dinosaur. Nice of you to introduce yourself. Can I just call you Dino for short?
As is the problem with most religious people. They are convinced they have the conclusion, and the facts must fit it or be false. Of course this is backwards from any reasonable way of looking at things. Simply point out that he should evaluate the facts and come to his own conclusion. Whether or not he follows through is irrelevant. In hindsight, it is always better to utter "I told you so" rather than "I wish I would've said something."
Quote from: Evilbeagle on July 28, 2011, 04:28:49 PM
I would be inclined to smile benignly and allow him to have his delusions. Its not as if he is majorly hurting any one.
I can't agree. He is at the least a part of a culture which is trying to push this drivel into schools and spread it. That's evil.
Dinosaurs on the ark? Really...? :-\
Quote from: Sweetdeath on July 30, 2011, 07:22:39 AM
Dinosaurs on the ark? Really...? :-\
No, they didn't have watches.
(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fgath.files.wordpress.com%2F2009%2F10%2Fnoahs-ark-and-the-dinosaurs1.jpg%3Fw%3D377&hash=2e07bbad0563b9f3c6aa7c21a9b7a0c4cffd154c)
Haha! Oh, that is hilarious. I need that on a shirt. :D
I wonder why radiocarbon is always brought up when, as Tank pointed out, no dinosaur bones are dating using that method...maybe they aren't aware of the other isotopes...hmmm
You know, someone told me the great flood happened because that's how fossils ended up spread all over the earth. *facepalm*
Quote from: Evilbeagle on July 28, 2011, 04:28:49 PM
I would be inclined to smile benignly and allow him to have his delusions. Its not as if he is majorly hurting any one.
Having said that, it does sound somewhat like a conspiracy theory. They are all out to get me !! LOL
If he is happy in his fantasy world who are we to challenge him ;D
I do not attack religious delusions unprovoked. If he brings it up, it is fair to debate. They cannot state their side and expect everyone to not give their point of view. If I was anti-vaccine (I'm not) and someone called me on it, I don't think people would fault that person for doing so. Religion is not sacred.
(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm1.static.flickr.com%2F128%2F414998399_4b1b06b1b8.jpg&hash=f7116abe0d8e8ffd622ed6277789e489ae9c4f78)
Yes, it really can get this silly. This is not faith, it's rank insanity.
Ohmyfreakinggosh! Is that from a real book?? *dies laughing*
Hey oooooohhhhh
The problem with trying to debate Young Earth Creationists with scientific evidence is that their beliefs are borne entirely of religious conviction, and have nothing to do with science, nor even pseudo-science.
Quote from: Ragnar on August 18, 2011, 12:00:11 AM
The problem with trying to debate Young Earth Creationists with scientific evidence is that their beliefs are borne entirely of religious conviction, and have nothing to do with science, nor even pseudo-science.
The ultimate piece of YEC stupidity is that they are not defending the word of god but an Irish Bishop!!
What problems do you see with the YEC view?
Quote from: Black36 on August 18, 2011, 01:45:42 AM
What problems do you see with the YEC view?
There is no proof for it and proof against it...in short, it's unscientific and just based on religious dogma. We've covered the topic fairly extensively if you want to browse around the creationism/Intelligent Design area of the forum.
This is a good one to start with: http://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/index.php?topic=4390.0 The formatting got a bit messed up when the forum moved but I think it is still easy enough to read even with the few strange characters scattered through it.
Quote from: Whitney on August 18, 2011, 02:44:31 AM
There is no proof for it and proof against it...in short, it's unscientific and just based on religious dogma.
So? You may be right, but these points have NOTHING to do with whether it's true or not. What problems do you have with it, personally?
Quote from: Black36 on August 18, 2011, 02:52:37 AM
Quote from: Whitney on August 18, 2011, 02:44:31 AM
There is no proof for it and proof against it...in short, it's unscientific and just based on religious dogma.
So? You may be right, but these points have NOTHING to do with whether it's true or not. What problems do you have with it, personally?
Can't speak for Whitney, but my problem with it is the indoctrination of children into it. They teach that shit as fact. FACT. Not stories. Not maybe. Not coulda. Flat fact.
If you can't understand what's wrong with that, I can't help you to.
Quote from: Ihateyoumike on August 18, 2011, 04:44:39 AM
Quote from: Black36 on August 18, 2011, 02:52:37 AM
Quote from: Whitney on August 18, 2011, 02:44:31 AM
There is no proof for it and proof against it...in short, it's unscientific and just based on religious dogma.
So? You may be right, but these points have NOTHING to do with whether it's true or not. What problems do you have with it, personally?
Can't speak for Whitney, but my problem with it is the indoctrination of children into it. They teach that shit as fact. FACT. Not stories. Not maybe. Not coulda. Flat fact.
If you can't understand what's wrong with that, I can't help you to.
Shouldn't the same apply to the teaching of evolution, OEC, oscillating universe models, big bang models, etc?
Quote from: Black36 on August 18, 2011, 02:52:37 AM
Quote from: Whitney on August 18, 2011, 02:44:31 AM
There is no proof for it and proof against it...in short, it's unscientific and just based on religious dogma.
So? You may be right, but these points have NOTHING to do with whether it's true or not. What problems do you have with it, personally?
Um...proof against it has everything to do with if it is true or not. I wouldn't have any problems with it if it were true, I'd just have to re-evaluate my beliefs.
Calm down.
Quote from: Whitney on August 18, 2011, 01:59:33 PM
Quote from: Black36 on August 18, 2011, 02:52:37 AM
Quote from: Whitney on August 18, 2011, 02:44:31 AM
There is no proof for it and proof against it...in short, it's unscientific and just based on religious dogma.
So? You may be right, but these points have NOTHING to do with whether it's true or not. What problems do you have with it, personally?
Um...proof against it has everything to do with if it is true or not. I wouldn't have any problems with it if it were true, I'd just have to re-evaluate my beliefs.
Calm down.
What proof have you come across which is against it?
Quote from: Black36 on August 18, 2011, 02:10:48 PM
What proof have you come across which is against it?
I already provided you with a link to read. I can't force you to read it but won't be taking my time to re-write what has already been posted elsewhere on this forum.
Think i'm not going to delve any further into this conversation, or any other with Black36, until I see him start adding his ideas and insight to topics instead of merely asking questions and answering questions with questions. I've seen that style of "debate" used before a few times on here and usually they end up banned.
Alarms are ringing.
Look guys, I am not asking anything which is inappropriate. I am interested in finding out why people believe what they believe. If any of you have questions for me, fine, I will do my best to answer, but in my own words. I will not simply post other's rhetoric, or lengthy articles and blogs from the Internet. Thats not how i would handle a conversation in person, so I will not do yhat here either. I would also think that you guys would not want me to just cut and paste either.
FYI - on another thread someone asked me for some of my backround and what I believe. I then posted answer to both. I did not think that I needed to reiterate what I offered there.
It is inappropriate to ask why someone doesn't accept an idea, you get an answer (that it's not based on science and that there is evidence against it) then demand that they write in their own words exactly why it is not based on science when they already linked to an article which explained why.
If this were a real life situation I'd tell you that you need to educate yourself and suggest a site or two to look at online (or perhaps let them borrow a book if I happen to know them well enough to expect it back) it just like I am here. People are wrong on the internet quite frequently and I don't waste my time writing individual responses to every single one of them. I've looked into YEC claims but it is very seldom that YECs have done much looking into the science (except for when they twist it to fit their fantasy).
Quote from: Whitney on August 18, 2011, 05:23:28 PM
It is inappropriate to ask why someone doesn't accept an idea, you get an answer (that it's not based on science and that there is evidence against it) then demand that they write in their own words exactly why it is not based on science when they already linked to an article which explained why.
If this were a real life situation I'd tell you that you need to educate yourself and suggest a site or two to look at online (or perhaps let them borrow a book if I happen to know them well enough to expect it back) it just like I am here. People are wrong on the internet quite frequently and I don't waste my time writing individual responses to every single one of them. I've looked into YEC claims but it is very seldom that YECs have done much looking into the science (except for when they twist it to fit their fantasy).
I'm not the average YEC.
Quote from: Happy with no god on July 28, 2011, 04:00:56 PM
The other is that all the fossils are fake and dinosaurs never existed, its just a lie to try and prove evolution.
Thats what my parents taught and I believed until sometime well after I became an adult. It seems staggering to think I could have graduated from high school without ever having such a crazy world view challenged except that I attended Christian schools and was even home schooled one year.
I had been taught that scientists were either being tricked by Satan or lying. Scientists didn't want to admit there was a God because that would have forced them to deal with the sin in their lives and apparently scientists had a lot of sins.
The worst sin most scientists were guilty of was the sin of pride and arrogance. This apparently was something they learned in their Universities. They were taught they didn't need God because they were so smart and the whole fossil record was to trick others into believing the evolution lie so no one would believe in God.
At least thats the story as best I can remember. I was taught that at a pretty young age and it wasn't the kind of thing you dare ask too many questions about if you knew what was good for you.
It's also weird but I believed all Christians knew that and believed the same thing.
Hello Happy with no god,
just wanted to chime in on the whole carbon dating issue. Darwin was very interested in geology and studied the works of Lyell. Geology was trendy in the early 1800's. People went around places and found fossils. When marine fossils were found in the high alps, geology became super trendy! Apart from guessing how these clams got up (and in) the mountain, people wondered how long these fossils were there. Lord Kelvin figured the earth was about 20million years old, based on the idea that sun was burning and had enough fuel to last that long. As geology became more sophistated, and the geologic eras were defined (jurassic, cenozioc etc) people had absolutley no idea how old anything was. So the 6,000 year guess of the biblers was just as valid as the 20million of Lord Kelvin.
Only in the last 100 years or so have we figured out that some elements fall apart in a way that can be measured. (we call it half life) Its a wonderful piece of luck that different elements fall apart at different rates so that we can use carbon (good to about 6,000 years) potassium, uranium, etc. So by using the method of looking at different elements 'falling apart' we can measure from the thousands, to the billions of years. This method is real and proven (through dendrochronology).
Now, for someone to say that carbon dating is not real drives me nuts. When I went to grade school, plate tectonics was still only a 'theory', but the radiometric dating 'proved' the theory. To say that radiometric dating is not real somehow is like saying that a piece of paper is not 8" wide because I don't trust (understand) the ruler. If someone wants to not try and not understand, that is up to them, but they cannot then make causative arguments based on not understanding!
Of course not understanding the ruler is at the same time both the central problem and the central defense of the creationist. Not understanding the idea of 'half-life' dating makes it easy to ignore the evidence. More troubling, holding up this ignorance and using it as a shield makes ignorance a virtue. We cannot stand by and say "their ignorance hurts no one" even if really it doesn't. The ignorance should wound you deeply. Their ignorance becomes your (and our) ignorance. That not every american can explain carbon dating in a few sentences is a failure of humanity. The people who failed to defend Copernicus or Galileo were weak and lazy! We are at the yawning precipice of a new dark age, and we must stand up for the truths of science.
Jose AR
We absolutely must fight anyone who doubts radiocarbon dating. We must read and understand about it so that we have a solid understanding. To accept it without understanding it is bad form; we just need to understand it at a 'popular science' level. But we have to stand up and defend our evidence, our proof. You don't argue with the person you argue with the idea.
QuoteWe are at the yawning precipice of a new dark age, and we must stand up for the truths of science.
Too bloody true. It's terrifying.
Quote from: Happy with no god on July 28, 2011, 04:00:56 PM
My understanding is that dinosaurs existed millions of years ago,the proof being fossils and carbon dating. However a colleague of mine who is a born again christian has come up with two explanations. Carbon dating is a lie, dinosaurs are not as old as we think they are, they were on the ark with all the other animals but have since died out. The other is that all the fossils are fake and dinosaurs never existed, its just a lie to try and prove evolution. The first explaination was given about a year ago, the second this week. This is just nonsense to, make things up just to fit in with the bible
That is giving too much credit to the scientists. Why would they even want to falsify fossils and carbon dating technology? Just to piss on religion while its back is turned?
I think I speak for the vast majority of the scientific community when I say that we DO indeed have better things to do.
This book Quaternery Dating Methods (http://books.google.co.uk/books/about/Quaternary_dating_methods.html?hl=de&id=SjMFpgVK56gC&redir_esc=y) is a very good academic text. It covers all kinds of dating methods, including radiocarbon, dendrochronology and how they synchronise and calibrate each other.
Quote from: Tank on July 30, 2011, 07:35:50 AM
Quote from: Sweetdeath on July 30, 2011, 07:22:39 AM
Dinosaurs on the ark? Really...? :-\
No, they didn't have watches.
(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fgath.files.wordpress.com%2F2009%2F10%2Fnoahs-ark-and-the-dinosaurs1.jpg%3Fw%3D377&hash=2e07bbad0563b9f3c6aa7c21a9b7a0c4cffd154c)
I love this. So would this upset my theiest friends if I posted this on facebook. LOL
I love that dinosaur picture. XD
My dad seriously thinks unicorns existed, but they died off. I was nodding along with that until he mentioned the gov hiding their existence the public. *facepalm*