Why did God create dinosaurs

[Mr_Skeptic]

Is it science or is it scientists who don’t work like that?

It’s science that doesn’t work like that…more specifically - the scientific process.

My point is that since there are different opinions and interpretations from the scientific community in these fields of earth sciences, it means that what scientists say can’t be taken as complete truth.

I agree.

There is no such thing as “complete truth” in science, or anything even remotely resembling such a concept. There are no “final authorities” in science, either. Everything in science is falsifiable and subject to revision or being overturned in the light of new evidence. That happens all the time. Eminent scientists’ theses are not exempt from the scrutiny, either. Hoyle and the Steady State theory come to mind. There are plethora of other examples. Individuals are removed from the equation in the scientific process. Individuals’ opinions and interpretations of the data is cross-examined by peers. Data and methodology are scrutinized by peers. It boils down to what is the best explanation…what satisfies the most lines of inquiry, and without any conflicting data.

Don’t say the data proves something as fact.

I agree.

Nothing in science is “proven”, and, facts are the least important things in the hierarchy. Facts are a dime a dozen. Facts don’t explain anything.

If you interpret data one way and someone else does it another way don’t attack him personally just because he sees it differently.

I agree.

Given the same data is interpreted differently, the next step is to weed out those interpretations which don’t hold up to testing and peer review.

 

[StAnastasia]

Sounds like Noah was a very busy man during the flood!

Well, in addition to the iridium dispersal, he had to monitor the heating and filtration system for the aquaria holding all the tropical fish species, and he and his family had to manage the disposal of four or five tonnes of manure per day. It was a lot of work for eight people!

 

[StAnastasia]

IMy point is that since there are different opinions and interpretations from the scientific community in these fields of earth sciences, it means that what scientists say can’t be taken as complete truth. Which has been my point all along: tell it like it is. If the results of the data study is an approximation, say it is so. Don’t say the data proves something as fact. If you interpret data one way and someone else does it another way don’t attack him personally just because he sees it differently.

You need to read up on scientific method. Science doesn’t prove facts. Rather, science interprets facts by formulating and testing explanatory hypotheses. A sufficient body of tested hypotheses can yield an explanatory theory, such as the theory of gravitation to explain why objects fall down. or why species appear to be genetically or morphologically related.

StAnastasia

 

[Poco]

By the way, my favorite dinosaurs are Triceratops, Stegasaurus and Ankylosaurus.

We are still talking about dinosaurs here, aren’t we?

 

[StAnastasia]

By the way, my favorite dinosaurs are Triceratops, Stegasaurus and Ankylosaurus. We are still talking about dinosaurs here, aren’t we?

Yes, we are. It’s sad that all but one dinosaur clade (theropods) was drowned in Noah’s flood. It would be fun to have them around now.

 

[Poco]

I’m constantly amazed how folks, on all forums it seems, deviate from the original question and go off on some other tangent.

 

[StAnastasia]

I’m constantly amazed how folks, on all forums it seems, deviate from the original question and go off on some other tangent.

OK. God created dinosaurs to support a multi-billion dollar toy and movie industry many years later. It was basically a financial matter.

 

[DCNBILL]

OK. God created dinosaurs to support a multi-billion dollar toy and movie industry many years later. It was basically a financial matter.

And for my grand kids to annoy me with 24/7 singing of that purple monstrosity.

 

[Prieldedi]

I’m constantly amazed how folks, on all forums it seems, deviate from the original question and go off on some other tangent.

This happens in any conversation, either in forums like this or face to face. People use something different from what’s discussed to make a point or to use it as an example, and soon we all embark in that direction. I think it’s inevitable. Sometimes the original question is answered in the first few posts and new posters don’t want to repeat what has already been said.

 

[StrawberryJam]

And for my grand kids to annoy me with 24/7 singing of that purple monstrosity.

I don’t envy you. I remember being in a waiting room with a child who had one of those stuffed animals that also talked. I love you, you love me…
He pushed that button on the toy over and over and over. And, just when I thought the batteries were surely worn out at that point, the mother requested they put that show on the TV, because apparently the purple thing was on at that time. They did. That was the longest and most painful experience I can remember. I hurt far worse than the physical pain that sent me there to begin with.

 

[geoformeo]

Teadough those pics are awesome! God loves His creation, for it is good!

 

[geoformeo]

You sound a little like Luther. You can interpret data one way but you don’t accept others interpreting it another way (pun intended).

Wow, I can’t say I’ve ever been likened to Luther before. The difference here, of course, is that I am in no means out of line with the position of the Catholic Church. Nor am I in disagreement with the scientific community at large. I am a scientist. I am in the business of interpreting data.

Not a good comparison, scientists and priests. However, both ask me to believe in something that created the world in the past, at a time when no humans were around; to believe in a creator that we can’t see, that works in mysterious ways… both want me to BELIEVE. Neither can prove scientifically the creator. All they can show me are signs they say are proofs of the existence of that creator. One is called Evolution, the other is called God. One tells me Evolution happened by chance, the other tells me God has a plan in mind. One tells me we are just matter, a lot of water, nitrogen, calcium… the other tells me we are also Spirit. You don’t see one group of priests on this corner with a set of beliefs and another group at that corner with another set. They give the same message over and over. Can’t say the same about scientists.

Please, please, please. First, don’t equate evolution with God. We scientists generally don’t capitalize the word evolution unless it begins a sentence. Evolution is not some god of science. Second, evolution is a scientific theory. Your acceptance or rejection of it should be on purely scientific, not theological, grounds. Third, evolution explains how life on Earth has diversified, not why it has. Answering the why is a philosophy, not a scientific position. Dawkins et al. are being unscientific in their proclamations that evolution somehow displaces or disproves God. They are promoting their materialist philosophy, just using evolution as the springboard. Last thing I will say with regards to evolution, because I don’t know if the ban is still on or not, is look at Genesis. God makes man out of the clay of the Earth, which suggests an evolutionary process. He did not make man ex nihilo as He did the Universe, but rather used the “good” raw materials He had already made. Just something to think about.

Do all chefs cook the same way? Do all architects build the same way? Do all priests preach the same way? Do all mathematicians solve equations the same way? Do all lawyers prosecute the same way? Do all judges judge the same way? For crying out loud, to say that disagreeing scientists somehow discredits science is like saying that the nature of parenthood is inherently flawed because parents don’t agree on parenting techniques.

I’m really not sure you understand science that well. I mean that sincerely and without contempt, because you seemingly are equating inerrant divine revelation with a process that reveals natural truths and is subject to modification. Science is not religion, nor is religion science. Is there overlap? Sure. But do they contradict one another? No.

A priest that is corrupt wont change the truth about God. A corrupt scientist distorts the truth to deny God. Huge difference.

You are comparing apples and oranges again. You’re right, a corrupt priest doesn’t change the objective truth about God. But neither does a corrupt scientist change the objective truth about our physical existence that God created.

The reason I distrust many scientists is because of other scientists. I have nothing personal against them. I just find many of their conclusions wrong.

I pity you if you have no trust in people. The scientific world is not out to get you.

Do you believe what NASA said back in 1996 about a rock that came from Mars and fell in Antarctica? Huge press conference. They said it came from Mars… 26,000 years ago. Yes, NASA said it. Did it really happen that way? Do you believe NASA on this?

It certainly could have, and I there is nothing to make me distrust NASA on this. Even if it were only 26,000 years old, that is still over 4 times longer than what the YEC position can rightfully hold for an age of the Earth. I don’t know what your point is.

 

[Poco]

A thread titled “Why did God create dinosaurs” and now there is a discussion on whether or not a rock found in Australia came from Mars or not!

 

[Schn]

Many gave “disproof/evidence” of the global warming hoax and did not recieve “large amounts of attention and awards, probably including the Nobel prize.” Actually, many lost grants, tenure ect.

Did they disprove global warming itself or did they just expose a hoax which is part of a much wider body of evidence. I’d expect a disproof of global warming to attract a lot of attention, but since that we’re, oh, say, two orders of magnitudes more sure of evolution than global warming, it might not be Nobel prize worthy.

Dr. John C. Sanford
published over 80 scientific publications in peer reviewed journals
more than 30 patents

Not bad, maybe the evolution work just wasn’t one of his best ideas.

Dr. Geoffrey Simmons
merely an MD from what I can find

Fairly worthless then.

True. However, I do think they made an excellent case that “Darwinian Evolution” is highly unlikely.

What’s the difference between evolution and Darwinian Evolution? The modern synthesis of evolution still embodies most of the core ideas of Darwinian Evolution.

“And, according to one scientist’s calculations, only 364,000 years would have been needed for a camera-like eye to evolve from a light-sensitive patch.”

One scientist! Are you serious!? And as to his calculations… Did they account for errors? Or is that if every genetic change led to an improvement?

Oh, yeah. Quote mine. If you read the entire article you would see an excellent plausible theory of how the eye developed. However, seeing as it killed your thesis of irreducible complexity, I find evasion unsurprising. The figure was quoted as a ballpark estimate in support of the postulation of how the eye developed.

 

[Poco]

Schn:

Did they disprove global warming itself or did they just expose a hoax which is part of a much wider body of evidence.

Both, actually.

Please excuse me while I check out these “Theropods”. At the moment, I’m still sticking with Stegosaurus, Triceratops and Ankylosaurus!

 

[Schn]

Both, actually.

So they’re still talking about global warming and attempting to reduce CO2 emissions because of a conspiracy? Get real.

 

[redhen]

I think there is a categorical difference between pain and suffering. Pain is an advantageous evolutionary phenomenon that enables an organism to know that it is in trouble. It is actually a good thing that we experience pain (think what would happen if you couldn’t feel pain and stuck your hand in a fire). As you rightly stated, sentient beings experience pain. But suffering, on the other hand, is an experience of only conscious organisms. Animals don’t suffer, because they don’t know they’re suffering. All they know is that something is wrong with them, and they respond to their instincts accordingly. Humans recognize their persistent pain and cry, “Why
me?”

I can argue that non-human animals suffer worse, precisely because they are not rational beings. A human child is waiting for it’s parents to come home. It may be distressed because it’s temporarily without it’s parents, but it’s been told the parents will arrive soon, so it has hope. A non-human animal removed from it’s parents cannot be told it will be re-united, all it experiences is solitude and distress, with no capacity for hope. I could give more extreme examples, but this is the first thing that popped into my head.

In SAT terms, pain is to suffering what feeling good is to happiness. Does a mouse experience happiness? It may “feel good” if it is healthy, but is it happy? No, because happiness and suffering are higher-order emotions only found in conscious organisms. And dinos wouldn’t have been worried about death either, so I don’t think you can say that their experience of death is greater than ours.

I can argue that non-human animals do experience sadness and happiness, and that these can be identified, in chimps for examples, in the same way as we do for humans; facial expressions. userwww.service.emory.edu/~lparr/docs/about%20me/28_Emotion07.pdf It really should be no surprise since we are closely related.

As far as nature being “red in tooth and claw” being squared with an omnibenevolent God, I can see a number of reasons: 1) Natural selection breeds complexity and variety, culminating in conscious organisms and showing us design and beauty;

So the intricacy and beauty of evolution outweighs millions of years of pain and death?

1. gives us appreciation of what came before us, and what it took to get us here;

Yeah, I appreciate not being eaten alive. Thanks.

1. provides a process by which God is continually creating new species, while not having to create ex nihilo every time He wanted to make a new species;

Would the problem of evil not be mitigated by creating the world and everything in it in six days?

1. shows us humans, who are created in God’s image and likeness, how not to behave; what inhumane acts are like, and shows how we are part of, yet “set apart” from nature.

When people say don’t act like an animal, I take offense. Non-human animals act according to their natural instincts. They are not moral agents. It takes a human to perform some of the depraved acts that we read about every day. To quote George Carlin (cleaned up a bit);

“Now there’s a hobby for you! Having sex with a corpse! Takes a special kind of guy! Don’t you think? But it happens, it happens… More than you might think! It happens among humans! Animals don’t do that! Animals don’t have sex with their dead! A rat would do a lot of gross things! But it would not have sex with a dead rat! It wouldn’t even occur to him! Only a human being would think…! …to have sex someone who just died!”

I rest my case.

 

[StAnastasia]

BPlease excuse me while I check out these “Theropods”. At the moment, I’m still sticking with Stegosaurus, Triceratops and Ankylosaurus!

"Theropods (theropod pronounced /ˈθerəpɒd/; suborder name theropoda /θiːˈrɒpɵdə/, meaning “beast feet”) are a group of bipedal saurischian dinosaurs. Although they were primarily carnivorous, a number of theropod groups evolved herbivory, omnivory, and insectivory. Theropods first appeared during the Carnian age of the late Triassic period about 230 million years ago (Ma) and included the sole large terrestrial carnivores from the Early Jurassic until at least the close of the Cretaceous, about 65 Ma. Today, they are represented by the 9,900 living species of birds, which evolved in the Jurassic from small specialized coelurosaurian dinosaurs.

Among the features linking theropods to birds are the three-toed foot, a furcula (wishbone), air-filled bones and (in some cases) feathers and brooding of the eggs."

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theropoda

 

[Poco]

Thank you, StAnastasia!

Theropods have wishbones! Cool!

 

[Prieldedi]

Wow, I can’t say I’ve ever been likened to Luther before. The difference here, of course, is that I am in no means out of line with the position of the Catholic Church. Nor am I in disagreement with the scientific community at large. I am a scientist. I am in the business of interpreting data.

Please, please, please. First, don’t equate evolution with God. We scientists generally don’t capitalize the word evolution unless it begins a sentence. Evolution is not some god of science. Second, evolution is a scientific theory. Your acceptance or rejection of it should be on purely scientific, not theological, grounds. Third, evolution explains how life on Earth has diversified, not why it has. Answering the why is a philosophy, not a scientific position. Dawkins et al. are being unscientific in their proclamations that evolution somehow displaces or disproves God. They are promoting their materialist philosophy, just using evolution as the springboard. Last thing I will say with regards to evolution, because I don’t know if the ban is still on or not, is look at Genesis. God makes man out of the clay of the Earth, which suggests an evolutionary process. He did not make man ex nihilo as He did the Universe, but rather used the “good” raw materials He had already made. Just something to think about.

…

I’m really not sure you understand science that well. I mean that sincerely and without contempt, because you seemingly are equating inerrant divine revelation with a process that reveals natural truths and is subject to modification. Science is not religion, nor is religion science. Is there overlap? Sure. But do they contradict one another? No.

…

I pity you if you have no trust in people. The scientific world is not out to get you.

It certainly could have, and I there is nothing to make me distrust NASA on this. Even if it were only 26,000 years old, that is still over 4 times longer than what the YEC position can rightfully hold for an age of the Earth. I don’t know what your point is.

What I said is that you don’t like the interpretations other scientists present of the same data you interpret, to the extent that you even called them (the interpretations) silly. Your reply was so fast that you didn’t have time to read them, yet you say they are silly. Perhaps I should have used Henry Ford instead of Luther: “you can have a Ford car whatever color you want, as long as it is black”… “you can have the radiometric readings interpretations you want as long as they are mine.”

I’m not equating God with evolution. Others do, not me. Similarities between species are not conclusive evidence that we all come from one common ancestor. This has been said by scientists like yourself, not by theologians. My rejection of evolution is both, scientific and logical. I’m not satisfied with half answer. SOME scientists feel uncomfortable when asked “why”, even when asked “how” because they don’t have the answers, so their response is: ask a philosopher/theologian.

They are afraid to even consider the questions. These are a few of the how questions SOME evolutionists/scientists don’t like to be asked and conveniently send us to ask philosophers/theologians:

How did the last creature without eyes find out about the optic laws in order to evolve/mutate in that direction? How did it know there is a thing called Sun that emits light? How did it know that solid objects reflect light? Without this knowledge, how could the optical system appear in animals? Even if the knowledge was there, how could they obtain the changes needed? We have knowledge of flying, will we develop wings?

I understand science (please, don’t underestimate me) and I also understand scientists. I don’t question science, I question “know-all” scientists. I do trust people, I don’t trust SOME scientists or their interpretations.

About NASA: NASA says that the rock found in Antarctica has fossils of primitive life. The explanation they gave is that a meteorite crashed into Mars sending rocks to space, one of which came to Earth, was trapped by its orbit and eventually entered the Earth atmosphere and fell to the ground. The fossils mean there was life on Mars at some point in the past.

The same scientific community that accepted NASA’s explanation also mentions another meteorite crash, this one on Earth, the one that killed all the dinosaurs. Like the one in Mars, this crash sent rocks to space, and likely one of the rocks stayed in orbit until it eventually reentered the atmosphere and landed in Antarctica.

How do they know the rock came from crash A and not crash B? Furthermore, how do they know it came from out space? There are volcanoes in Antarctica, it could be very well the rock came from a nearby volcanic eruption. How NASA knows it didn’t?

My point: There you have NASA saying that this rock with remains of living creatures came from Mars in a big news conference, and then… silence! No one questioned what they said! It looks as if everybody accepted it. It could be the stupidest thing ever said, but, since it’s NASA… (they can get away with whatever they say). Where were the reasonable, common sense, scientists? Are they extinct, like the dinosaurs? Where does science stops and science fiction begins?

More questions come to my mind:

Is the name of science greater than God’s?
In what way is science diminished if the word God or creation is used when talking about science?
Why are God or creation bad words within the scientific community?
Is science holier than God? Why God’s name can’t be pronounced in her presence?
I have no problem using science and God in the same sentence. Why can’t SOME scientists do likewise?