G
Garland
Guest
Hi guys, the reason no human bones were found with T-REX bones is the digestive system of the bad boys disolved the human bones. Ha Ha Ha . Blessings Garland
- Status
D
Dicerning
Guest
Why did God create dinosaurs?
He wanted to throw a wrench into Baptist thelogy.
He wanted to throw a wrench into Baptist thelogy.
J
John21652
Guest
Dinosaurs were just “fillers”, put here to knock down a few trees so we could have coal early in the industrial cycle. While that was going on, the microscopic little thingymajigs were deep inside the earth being squished into oil, which God knew we would need later on for our motor cars.
It all fits together beautifully…
G
geoformeo
Guest
S-Jam,
I’m flattered and humbled by your comments. It’s all very logical, though. God is reasonable, and He made man in His image and likeness–with free will and reason. We have the freedom to seek Him out, and are gifted with reason to aid us in this quest. Therefore, there should be nothing whatsoever in our reasoning that should contradict Him.
The same is true with science. God made the natural world. If that statement is true, then there is NOTHING that can be discovered within science that can contradict Him.
But it also goes both ways. Reason certainly leads to faith, for sure. But faith also leads to reason. Sometimes it’s only when you first believe that the reasons for faith are opened loud and clear for you.
Hope you have a great day. More when I get home from work tonight
D
denwiles
Guest
I don’t know but you have to admit pretty awesome… Rock On!!! I wonder if there will be Dinosaurs in Heaven? Hope so, whould be awesome…
P
Prieldedi
Guest
Thanks for your reply. I have an uncle who is a geologist and I have asked him about this topic. He has told me that dating rocks or bones is not an exact science. He’s not even sure if it gets close enough to be “somewhat exact”.I’m very sorry, but to go over each point you made here that I think needs to be discussed would take quite some time. Since you mentioned one method of dating, I thought we could go with that first.
You may find these links regarding dating methods to be enlightening.
gate.net/~rwms/AgeEarth.html
darwiniana.org/datingmethods.htm#Dating
actionbioscience.org/evolution/benton.html
I am not a fan of Ken Ham, but his theology is alive and well apparently.
Reading the beginning of your first links says: “Scientists have settled on the age of the earth of about 4.6 billion years as a result of research started almost 50 years ago.” If in fact there is a method to date rocks there would be no need to “settle” things. What would you say if you read in a report that “as a result of research started almost 50 years ago mathematicians have settled that 2 plus 2 is 4”?
The truth is that much of it is interpretation of the data. Look at Global Warming: Al Gore and his “scientists” are saying that CO2 is the cause of Global Warming. There is another group, the ones that don’t appear in the “science” channels that say the opposite, that Global Warming is the cause of more presence of CO2 in the atmosphere. Who do you believe?
To me, rock dating is a “science” that is still in its embryo stage. It’s not even infant. Of course, that’s my personal opinion, but I’m not alone. I believe to the scientists that are part of the skeptic’s group. There are many of them that disagree with the dating system, and I’m more inclined to believe them. In the end it’s a matter of belief: do you “believe” this group or do you “believe” that group?
Let me quote this from Vic Vadney, a physician:
"Modern geologists and geophysicists tell us that the age of the earth is about 4.54 billion years, and they base this on radiometric age dating of meteorite material. The say this age is consistent with the ages of the oldest known terrestrial and lunar samples. Of course, this is given to us by some really intelligent people. However, I bet they cannot tell me what they ate for supper 4.54 years ago! Jesting aside, we need to crawl down the gullet of this branch of science, just as we will do with the theory of evolution, to try to discover its assumptions, accuracy and dependability.
You may ask why I distrust science since I am a physician. I suppose I distrust it because I am a physician. Medicine is a vigorous and demanding applied science, and I have learned that a researcher’s bias can make the conclusions from his/hers research very misleading. I have learned that the financial interests of drug companies can trump the well-being of patients, and that both physicians and patients can be deprived of needed information, and even purposefully given false information for the sake of the shareholders’ bottom line. I have learned that what is true today for a condition or treatment may be passé tomorrow, and that one person’s science will be viewed as ignorance by another person’s science in just a matter of years.
No, I do not hallow the halls of science. I know that medical researchers must be blinded, that patients must be blinded, that the study must be placebo-controlled, that the subjects must be randomized, and that such a study must be confirmed by other similar studies with similar methods, or I cannot fully trust the information. I would rather see a meta-analysis of such studies before making a conclusion. Yet I know that whatever conclusion I arrive at today will still be questioned some time in the future. Science is never the final answer to anything. Its results are always partially true and partially false, but one cannot know which is true until the passage of time. We are always arriving, but never quite there, regardless of the safeguards. When I went to medical school, my professors said that at least 50% of the knowledge they taught would be proven incorrect in the future, but they just didn’t know which 50% it would be! I thought they were jesting, but they were not far wrong in retrospect.
If medical science demands so many controls, what about earth sciences? How do you blind a geologist or a geophysicist so as to nullify their bias in the research? Do they say they are unimpassioned, that they only care for the evidence, and so they need no blinding? That should tell you their bias is extreme and they don’t even realize it. How do you nullify the effect a geologist’s or geophysicist’s sponsor? Frequently both money and political interests skew conclusions. At times a societal imperative could dictate the conclusions. But these things will never produce absolute truth, but only half-truths and even purposeful lies." [The Age of the Earth]](The Age of the Earth])
That’s why I’m an skeptic.
P
Peter29
Guest
do you ever consider the bible with such skeptisism?
i hope i understand your question, people do not die of illness if a rock is incorrectly dated.
G
geoformeo
Guest
And due to embryology research that developed 30-40 years ago, the issue is “settled” that life begins at conception. Do you have a problem with that?
Of course it is interpretation of data. That’s how science works: that’s the step after “Data Collection” in the scientific method. You don’t collect data to not interpret it. Do all scientists’ interpretations agree? No. But neither do all those who interpret the Bible.
Is there a connection between carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere and global warming? Yes. Is it the only factor involved? No. Scientists follow the evidence where it leads. As more evidence pours in, sometimes those leads turn down different paths. Does that mean you distrust it? Should you give up on language because your vocabulary changes throughout your life?
Isn’t this ironic. You’re saying radiometric dating is in its embryo stage, when embryology is younger than radiometric dating! You’re reading this on a computer right now, and guess what is older than computer technology? The precision involved with radiometric dating, along with anything else in science, gets better with age.
Unlike other areas in life, most scientists do not “believe what they want to believe”, but believe what the evidence says. If someone can show me evidence that radiometric dating is inherently flawed, then I will believe it. But there isn’t any, and there hasn’t been anything to discredit it in the ~80 years that it has been used.
So no other profession outside of the earth sciences is skewed by money or political interests? I guarantee you that the medical field is more skewed by money and politics than the earth sciences. It sounds like this fellow hasn’t even taken a single geology class. I don’t care if you’re a skeptic, but at least have a reason for being a skeptic, having taken the time to analyze the evidence for yourself.
As Peter29 so rightly posed, have you ever looked at the Bible with the same skepticism? You know what, it is verified by the evidence, as well it should be if it is the true Word of God. I think you’d find the same is true if you look at radiometric dating, or evolution by natural selection, or quantum physics. They are verified by the evidence. The natural world is not some entity that somehow exists outside of God’s domain. He made it, so it does not lie.
S
StrawberryJam
Guest
I hope you have great days after great days…S-Jam,
I’m flattered and humbled by your comments. It’s all very logical, though. God is reasonable, and He made man in His image and likeness–with free will and reason. We have the freedom to seek Him out, and are gifted with reason to aid us in this quest. Therefore, there should be nothing whatsoever in our reasoning that should contradict Him.
The same is true with science. God made the natural world. If that statement is true, then there is NOTHING that can be discovered within science that can contradict Him.
But it also goes both ways. Reason certainly leads to faith, for sure. But faith also leads to reason. Sometimes it’s only when you first believe that the reasons for faith are opened loud and clear for you.
Hope you have a great day. More when I get home from work tonight
I will tell you that if you had not posted, I could have been stuck like I was posting like I have been for all this time.
I found you.
That gives me some peace now more than ever, and ironically at this point.
Please, pass it forward. If you have the time, pass it forward to another like me.
You can do it, I am evidence of it.
G
geoformeo
Guest
S-Jam,
I only wish and hope that there are others like yourself who are receptive to the notion that there are no compatibility issues between faith and science, and are willing to seek the truth.
L
Lost_Wanderer
Guest
raises hand
Umm… can I ask a question? It’s really simple so I hope you don’t mind.
Are fossils mostly bone or mostly rock?
J
Jonny87
Guest
It depends on how it formed I think, some are more bone some are more rock.
G
geoformeo
Guest
Lost Wanderer,raises hand
Umm… can I ask a question? It’s really simple so I hope you don’t mind.
Are fossils mostly bone or mostly rock?
You are free to ask of me ANY question! No need to be bashful or afraid, I love questions
.Fossils can be a variety of things, but are usually hard parts of organisms: teeth, bones, shells, body armor, and the like. There is a preservation bias for such hard parts, which is why in the fossil record fossils that predate the evolution of hard parts (i.e., prior to the Cambrian Explosion of Life in the early Cambrian Period roughly 540 million years ago) are extremely rare.
Fossils can also be indirect evidence of the existence of an organism: a track, footprint, stomach stone (gastrolith), fossilized dung (coprolite), external and internal molds of shells, casts, etc.
The process of fossilization varies from fossil to fossil. Sometimes the preservation is so good that a fossil is largely in its original state, for example, a bone that is still a bone and hasn’t been petrified or lithified (turned into rock). But this is rare. Bones are most often fossilized by the process of permineralization, whereby all of the porous space in the bone gets filled in with a mineral (usually quartz, but sometimes calcite). This makes the bone much denser, harder, and easier to preserve as it is more like a rock than anything else at this point. The bone at this stage has become lithified, though chemically it can still be shown to be the remains of life.
Does that answer your question sufficiently? Do you have any more?
P
Prieldedi
Guest
Why do you ask? If I’m skeptic about some interpretations of inexact sciences, do you want me to be skeptic about everything? Is that you point?
Anyway, the answer is no.
The question about science demanding controls is not mine. It’s a quote from Vic Vadney.
But I don’t see why there should be a double standard, a “relaxed one” if you study earth sciences and a strict one if you study other sciences. I agree with you that people do not die of illness if a rock is incorrectly dated, but I’m glad that you recognize that rocks are dated incorrectly.
Besides, shouldn’t we search for the truth in everything and not just in matters of life and death?
S
StAnastasia
Guest
Magic, just like Noah’s flood.
P
Prieldedi
Guest
I believe that life begins at conception because the Church, the Body of Christ, told me so. Science has just confirmed what God had told men for millenniums, not in the same words as today, but God taught men about the sanctity of life when still in the womb of the mother.
In the case of science I choose to believe one group of scientists over the other, one interpretation of the data over the other. With the Bible we have no options, we have to believe the Church, because the Church has the true and only valid interpretation of the Bible. Luke 10:16, “Whoever listens to you listens to me, and whoever rejects you rejects me; and he who rejects me, rejects the one who sent me.”
In a human field, science, as a Catholic I have an option “to believe” one group or the other. Not so in Church matters.
Have you heard of “figuratively speaking”?
Look and you shall find.
Again, from Vic Vadney’s page:
"The point I am trying to make is this: the field of medical laboratory science is rigorous and strict. And such demanding and exacting methodology is absolutely necessary for correct diagnosis and treatment of sick people. However, such exacting methodology makes the earth sciences fields look rather careless when it comes to the supposed age of a pyramid or the earth. Woodmorappe has retrieved and logged the numerous results of radiometric age dating of the earth. He summarizes these as follows:
…isotopic dates from the earth’s crust span a considerable range–from negative values to ones in excess of 10 billion years. The vast majority of dates, however, fall within the range of a few million years to about 2.5-billion years.
The first thing we must note is the enormous range involved here. First, some of these published values for the age of the earth are NEGATIVE numbers (which means that the earth is yet to be born). Second, some of the values are “older than the earth.” Third, the majority of these studies do not support a date of 4.5 billion years. Clearly we have major problems with shifts and trends that would indicate methodological problems with significant errors and/or outliers for the data."
Something tells me you’ll find a reason to reject this evidence. Look again at the range of the readings, it’s huge!
I’m not saying that no other profession is skewed by money or political interests. I don’t see why you have to discredit the individuals. It seems you don’t like the message, so you rather kill the messenger. What makes you think we haven’t analyzed the evidence ourselves?
There is a book (I read the spanish version, I don’t know if there is an english edition yet) by Federico Di Trocchio, titled “Las Mentiras De La Ciencia : ¿Por qué y cómo nos engañan los Científicos?” [The lies of Science: Why and how do Scientists deceive us?], Alianza Editorial, 1997, 472 pages. I also have looked elsewhere and read countless (hundreds) of articles to have a fair look at “both sides of the coin” and I found huge problems with these sciences and these scientists. The problems are there, it’s not an invention, and many reasonable scientists are the ones debunking the others. I assure you, I have taken plenty of time to look at the evidence myself. What I have found is that their findings are not verified by the evidence, not even the evolutionary evidence has been verified, but that is a topic of another thread.
P
Peter29
Guest
i only want your skepticism to be free of presumption
it seems that you have an opinion about dating and the ‘skepticism’ you show is a false way of convincing others and maybe yourself that your opinion was reached after reasonable thought and not before
perhaps
but not according to your earlier comment
R
redhen
Guest
without malice
Re: Why did God create dinosaurs
I don’t think anyone has addressed dinosaurs and theodicy on this thread yet. If God is omnibenevolent, why put untold numbers of now extinct species through so much pain and suffering, for so many millions of years.
Expected responses;
“For the greater good”. Really? What could compensate for so much pain and suffering?
“Best of all possible worlds”. Really? I can think of one way off hand how to mitigate that suffering, create the world in 6 days.
“Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth?” Excuse me for asking, but I think it’s a reasonable question.
“Dinosaurs didn’t feel pain” Descartes was wrong I’m afraid.
“The earth was created in 6 days.” Not much peer-reviewed evidence for this theory.
there’s more I’m sure, as well as other threads on this. Is the ban on discussing evolution lifted yet?
Re: Why did God create dinosaurs
I don’t think anyone has addressed dinosaurs and theodicy on this thread yet. If God is omnibenevolent, why put untold numbers of now extinct species through so much pain and suffering, for so many millions of years.
Expected responses;
“For the greater good”. Really? What could compensate for so much pain and suffering?
“Best of all possible worlds”. Really? I can think of one way off hand how to mitigate that suffering, create the world in 6 days.
“Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth?” Excuse me for asking, but I think it’s a reasonable question.
“Dinosaurs didn’t feel pain” Descartes was wrong I’m afraid.
“The earth was created in 6 days.” Not much peer-reviewed evidence for this theory.
there’s more I’m sure, as well as other threads on this. Is the ban on discussing evolution lifted yet?
S
StAnastasia
Guest
No, apparently not. It’s too great a threat to allow public discussion to the idea. That might foster an undesirable consequence, if you catch my meaning.
P
Prieldedi
Guest
How do you know my skepticism is full of presumptions? What makes you believe that my opinion was formed before, and not after, having read and investigated this subject? Is it due to your own “presumptions”?
I used to believe in everything that scientists said, in their findings, in their interpretations. I thought they were telling the truth always and telling it completely. It took me some time to know that’s not the case.
As an example, look at the Piltdown Man, the Java Man, the Neanderthal Man, the Nebraska Man: all were presented as the “scientific” proof of the missing link. The first one was a hoax and the next two are humans, the Nebraska Man was based on a single tooth of a type of pig. They found a tooth and a painter painted the rest of the look alike humanoid… and there you have your Nebraska Man! And we call this “science”? The Piltdown Man was accepted as “truth” for 40 years! The others lived as truth also for several decades. Scientists and public at large were deceived and believed in them as the missing link. All were lies. They were not “wrong interpretation” of the data, they were outright lies. Do I have to give more examples like this to explain my skepticism?
Athletes cheat and use steroids and brake home runs and salaries records, but they say they never used the thing. Traders use inside information to get ahead of the rest in Wall Street and become billionaires overnight, and they pass as “bright” and “intelligent”.
In science there is “Climate Gate” and “Himalaya Gate” out in the open in the past two months, there is an American doctor (scientist) who robbed a french doctor the discovery of the AIDS virus in the 1980s, all the xxx Men described above, plus many more hoaxes and lies too long to list them all here (and some “true misinterpretations”)… and am I supposed to believe that scientists are “little angels” that never lie and are immune to human bad behavior? Are they free of their own “presumptions”?
I’ve been taking whatever “new scientific discovery” they report in the news with a grain of salt. Those examples are part of the reason why. Now when I read that a new dinosaur species was found that lived 300 millions years ago I smile and remember what Reagan told Carter in their debates in 1980… there you go again!
- Status