Dinosaurs or God? Which is more real?

[Samantha Rinne]

Mister Pasta Monster, remember what I said about straw mans (ahem, straw people)? Well, it's true.

I'm not a creationist. Nor do I reject all science to believe that if you believe strongly enough in Jesus you can defy gravity (go to an edge of a cliff, and test that).

I do however have skepticism about bones being passed around worth millions of dollars especially when real art, when real gems are not worth that much.

But I still watch dinosaur movies, without even loudly snarking about how fake they look.

I'm a college grad with a BS History (usually history is a BA, but I took horticulture as a minor before switching to religion, because I hated Organic Chemistry). I also got several years of community college.

I also got an education that encouraged QUESTIONING ideas. Many of you clearly didn't, because you read it in high school textbooks. Yes, well high school textbooks also teach a number of things youve ignored in order to believe in a godless universe. Things about actual rate of decay for real bones (which typically turn to mush or dust, not perfect fossils) things about how matter behaves, things about biology or chemistry that imply constant evolution not just in terms of biological change but also the chemical changes of bone and metal (including that bodies explode rather rapidly and become a disgusting mass rather quickly, making real fossils rare and more so the more time passes), things that "we now know" to be false but haven't actually been disproven. Yeah I kinda do know science? I also kinda question some of it.

I believe in Lamarck's idea of how plants and animals develop over Darwin (not quite, but I do tend to think evolution is according to need rather than competition), for instance.

Do I have a doctorate in Paleontology? No. But I do think this is a BS degree. Not to be confused with a Bachelor Science degree.

Credentials are given value by people who consider blindly accepting what they read in formal-looking books to be knowledge. It takes more research to find alternate opinions, especially those suppressed by time and intent.

 

[sooda]

Mister Pasta Monster, remember what I said about straw mans? Well, it's true.

I'm not a creationist. Nor do I reject all science to believe that if you believe strongly enough in Jesus you can defy gravity (go to an edge of a cliff, and test that).

I do however have skepticism about bones being passed around worth millions of dollars especially when real art, when real gems are not worth that much.

But I still watch dinosaur movies, without even loudly snarking about how fake they look.

Oh God.. Have you ever set foot in a natural history museum?

 

[Darkforbid]

Mister Pasta Monster, remember what I said about straw mans? Well, it's true.

I'm not a creationist. Nor do I reject all science to believe that if you believe strongly enough in Jesus you can defy gravity (go to an edge of a cliff, and test that).

I do however have skepticism about bones being passed around worth millions of dollars especially when real art, when real gems are not worth that much.

But I still watch dinosaur movies, without even loudly snarking about how fake they look.

Extremely rare thing have always had high value, just like a gold nugget can be worth many times is gold weight value

 

[Audie]

I often wonder if people like you actually think or just regurgitate what other people tell you, until it's fixed in your mind.

The ability to do critical thinking is the ability to challenge even your own past teachings if somehow the don't match up. This means that if a high school text says it, this doesn't automatically make the high school text book true. A biology text book said "We used to believe in spontaneous generation but (after the findings of people like Pasteur) we now know that no life force exists." Okay, two quick points. Pasteur's findings only disprove spontaneous generation - not "life force" and claiming to "know" something now is conceited - by showing that a sterilized broth will no longer produce bacteria (except that it will rot given enough time, implying heat-resistant bacteria, but one thing thar won't happen is flies spontaneously generating inside a closed glads container). Two, Pasteur actually found life generating under certain circumstances (I think mainly compost) but suppressed many of these results to defeat his rival Beauchamp and have a scientific monopoly. He also did so because he was a religious fanatic and believed only God can create life. It's all mentioned in The Dream And Lie of Louis Pasteur. Where it's not mentioned? Your high school science textbook. Hmmm, I wonder why that is? Maybe because if people started getting all the facts about their science leaders they might no longer consider them infallible?

The Dream & Lie of Louis Pasteur by R. B. Pearson

Look carefully at the bones I gave you. And do me a favor and question what some book told you in favor of deciding for yourself. Whatever that is, it's still better than a high school textbook because it comes honestly from you.

-----------------

Person with dark hair, I actually have trouble with mixing up lizards and reptiles. But yes, the bone model of a gator or croc is probably much more related. In any case they are both closer in bone structure than they are to birds. So I think the finer points could stand to be revised (understanding of the diff btwn lizards and reptiles better) while keeping the probably not birds part intact.

I have black hair
I dont get confused because of it.

Lizards are reptiles. There is no "difference",
Its like saying "difference between poodles and dogs".

But we made a bit of progress. You accepted it
that you get confused.
And you accepted it that crocodiles are closer to
dinos than "iguanas" are.
Cool. Very few creationists can ever accept they
made any mistakes.

You half way spoiled it with a step back, making the
contention that lizards and crocodiles are closer to eachother
in bone structure than thry are to birds.

First, we were not talking birds and crocs, but
birds and othrr dinosaurs, which in fact the
Ornithischian dinosaurs are much more
similar in bone structure to birds, than
to any lizard.

This is the sort of thing one LEARNS, not just
watch a vid and believe. It is learned through
longvhard hours of le ture, lab and study!

I learned the names and arrangement of every bone
muscle and nerve in cat, pigeon, turtle, salamander,
fish, shark and lamprey!! (Those last have no bones)

We looked at fossil mammals, amphibians, reptiles
and I could then have icentified very bone in any
skull you gave me.

So plz, dont present that people who are familiar with
the sunject just believe what unknown authors say.

Some here like myself will happily offer a hand up,
and explain or give references to ease your confusion.

You would have to be willing though, I wont argue.

As I said though, good move, agreeing that you
got the iguana thing wrong.

Let me know if you'd like one more mistake pointed out.
Then another.
Longest journey starts with a single step! ;D

Lots of dinosaurs had feathers, btw. You know that,
right?

 

[HonestJoe]

The thing is, these fossils are made of bones, but the oldest of these are only 2.8 million years old, not 66 million.

https://www.scienceabc.com/humans/skeleton-mystery-dont-bones-decay-decompose.html

That's referring to the oldest hominid bones, not the oldest bones overall. But we can trust all your other assertions, right?

 

[sooda]

Dinosaur - Wikipedia

"Dinosaurs
Temporal range: Late Triassic–Present, 233.23 – 0 Mya (Range includes birds (Aves))"

In case people did not know biologists today tend to classify based upon cladistics. There is less confusions with the concept. The basic rule is that a population cannot evolve out of its heritage. Or to put it in biblical terms there is no "change of kind". Birds did not evolve "from dinosaurs" birds are dinosaurs.

Dinosaurs laid lots of eggs.. They must have been prolific.

 

[sooda]

It was found to be a hoax by other paleontologists.

"Archaeopteryx lithographica: The Ultimate Fraud"

Basically, about four "examples" of Archeopteryx were found, and each time it resembled the bones of another dinosaur. And there were no feather impressions which should be the case if the thing that fell in the mud had feathers.

Personally, I could technically agree that dinosaurs exist (mainly that they're cool) or dismiss them as nonsense (that it's a giant con game is somehow also cool) with about equal amounts of interest.

But I generally draw the line and say NO WAY, when people start to tell me "dinosaurs are birds". Not only do 100% of them look completely dorky switching scaled creatures to feathered ones, but even a basic examination of dinosaurs reveals reptilian anatomy.
Reptiles have cervical, dorsal, sacral, and caudal vertebrate. So do dinosaurs. Birds do not even have the same bone anatomy!

Dinosaurs if they lived, died out. What it means to die out, is that their genes hit a dead end and something killed them off. Birds and mammals grew out of OTHER evolutions. The nearest relative of a dinosaur is clearly an iguana. Not a parakeet.

They didn't die out at all. The larger species disappeared.

• Iguanas lay eggs even when they are not fertile. In fact, females will lay about 20 to 70 eggs per year once they reach sexual maturity. When 65 days have passed after mating, the female iguana will deposit pale, cream-colored eggs into burrows that she constructs.

Reference:
www.crittercontrol.com/services/iguana/do-iguanas-lay-eggs
https://www.crittercontrol.com/services/iguana/do-iguanas-lay-eggs

 

[Darkforbid]

Dinosaurs laid lots of eggs.. They must have been prolific.

They were, but also I suspect suffered massive high mortality rates while young

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I'm not a creationist.

Okay. So what do you believe?

I do however have skepticism about bones being passed around worth millions of dollars especially when real art, when real gems are not worth that much.

To my knowledge real gems of art, in fact are worth millions of dollars.
So why does it bother you that millions of year old fossils can go for a lot of money?

I also got an education that encouraged QUESTIONING ideas. Many of you clearly didn't, because you read it in high school textbooks

Actually, my education didn't just encourage questioning, it also encouraged questioning correctly. You know like, with evidence and such.

Yes, well high school textbooks also teach a number of things youve ignored in order to believe in a godless universe. Things about actual rate of decay for real bones (which typically turn to mush or dust, not perfect fossils) things about how matter behaves, things about biology or chemistry that imply constant evolution not just in terms of biological change but also the chemical changes of bone and metal (including that bodies explode rather rapidly and become a disgusting mass rather quickly, making real fossils rare and more so the more time passes), things that "we now know" to be false but haven't actually been disproven. Yeah I kinda do know science? I also kinda question some of it.

I have no idea what you are talking about.
The fossilisation process is pretty well understood. Don't know what else to tell you.

I believe in Lamarck's idea of how plants and animals develop over Darwin (not quite, but I do tend to think evolution is according to need rather than competition), for instance.

Well, you're wrong about that then.

Credentials are given value by people who consider blindly accepting what they read in formal-looking books to be knowledge. It takes more research to find alternate opinions, especially those suppressed by time and intent.

Degrees are given to people who demonstrate having mastered the material of the field. You don't need to believe it. You just need to demonstrate that you master and comprehend the material and the consensus of the field out there. If you think it's wrong, you are completely free to role up your sleeves and get to work to turn the field on its head.

In fact, it's about every scientist's dream to accomplish such a feat. That's the kind of stuff that wins nobel prizes.

 

[sooda]

Mister Pasta Monster, remember what I said about straw mans (ahem, straw people)? Well, it's true.

I'm not a creationist. Nor do I reject all science to believe that if you believe strongly enough in Jesus you can defy gravity (go to an edge of a cliff, and test that).

I do however have skepticism about bones being passed around worth millions of dollars especially when real art, when real gems are not worth that much.

But I still watch dinosaur movies, without even loudly snarking about how fake they look.

I'm a college grad with a BS History (usually history is a BA, but I took horticulture as a minor before switching to religion, because I hated Organic Chemistry). I also got several years of community college.

I also got an education that encouraged QUESTIONING ideas. Many of you clearly didn't, because you read it in high school textbooks. Yes, well high school textbooks also teach a number of things youve ignored in order to believe in a godless universe. Things about actual rate of decay for real bones (which typically turn to mush or dust, not perfect fossils) things about how matter behaves, things about biology or chemistry that imply constant evolution not just in terms of biological change but also the chemical changes of bone and metal (including that bodies explode rather rapidly and become a disgusting mass rather quickly, making real fossils rare and more so the more time passes), things that "we now know" to be false but haven't actually been disproven. Yeah I kinda do know science? I also kinda question some of it.

I believe in Lamarck's idea of how plants and animals develop over Darwin (not quite, but I do tend to think evolution is according to need rather than competition), for instance.

Do I have a doctorate in Paleontology? No. But I do think this is a BS degree. Not to be confused with a Bachelor Science degree.

Credentials are given value by people who consider blindly accepting what they read in formal-looking books to be knowledge. It takes more research to find alternate opinions, especially those suppressed by time and intent.

Why are you referencing animated cartoons?

 

[Samantha Rinne]

Also, @Samantha Rinne
I'm sorry you're missing your cat

Don't worry. I'll avenge it.

(You can tell which state of grief I'm at. Btw, I also have a different grief model: denial, depression, anger, withdrawal, and apathy. I don't think acceptance should be a stage, since these are things you get past)

Get a big Main Maine Coon and have a watch cat.

God made the cat,
And saw that she was good.

Omg, that cat is bigger than you! So adorascary!

 

[Samael_Khan]

Your poll is a trick question. Nothing is more real than God. Everything else is illusion compared to Him.

He created this universe and are as thoughts emanating from His infinite mind. The Word of God upholding or making exist everything that is real.

I would say that I am more real than God.

"I think therefore I am"

 

[Heyo]

"Fossils are real" is a completely stupid statement. What does it mean to be real? Unless you can answer this question, I'm not convinced you can tell me anything.

I think you have a concept of what is real or at least what is not real as you state that fossils are not real in your OP.
My definition of real may differ a bit to your's but I think we can work out one we agree upon and that makes you rethink your opinion about fossils as "not real".
For me a thing is real when it can be measured, when it has properties that can be independently verified, when it is part of the physical world aka reality. (I also have a definition of existence that includes things not real. E.g. laws exist but are not real.)
Real also has a second meaning that is more relevant to our case and that is that a "real thing" is that what it says on the label. The vast majority of fossils presented in museums are as old as they say and they are assembled to the best knowledge of the scientists.

Btw: fossils don't have to be expensive. You can get an amonite for under $5.00 on ebay or your local gem shop. And they are more intricate than any artist could make them for that price.

 

[Samantha Rinne]

Okay. So what do you believe?

To my knowledge real gems of art, in fact are worth millions of dollars.
So why does it bother you that millions of year old fossils can go for a lot of money?

Actually, my education didn't just encourage questioning, it also encouraged questioning correctly. You know like, with evidence and such.

I have no idea what you are talking about.
The fossilisation process is pretty well understood. Don't know what else to tell you.

Pretty well understood, is code for "I haven't looked up why it couldn't happen." Why bones with no preservatives and no coffin should dissolved during the putrefaction process. In four weeks, in open air or even in most soil (especially moist soil) will skeletonize.

Know the Time That a Corpse Takes to Decompose

Generally, it could take about a year for the body to decompose into a skeleton in ordinary soil and eight to twelve years to decompose a skeleton.

Eight to twelve years. Let's say that again. Eight to twelve years. With no preservatives or coffin. Oh sure some is extremely lucky and it lasts up to a few million. But not that many, that lucky (hundreds of fossils, each hundreds of millions of years old).
But but, trapped in ice? Yeah... if ice melts, we get moisture which breaks matter down faster than that ordinary soil. But but trapped in mud or tar! Surely that willl... Yes, let's talk about World War I and trench warfare, and how dead bodies trapped together in the mud created parasites that even affected the living with necrotic skin and such (source: They Shall Not Grow Old, a documentary on conditions during trench warfare).

And now let's talk about value. Let's see, a pretty and rare gem that probably started a war in Africa (read about blood diamonds), or a pile of dubious bones in the mud. Gem or bones in the mud? I'm pretty sure what my choice is. I'll take the rock that's shiny over the rock that's shaped like a bone. Any day. Scam, scam, scam. But come to think of it, now synthetic gems can be made, so you're getting suckered there too. Buy gem jewelry on Amazon instead, it's cheaper.

I can get a cute piece of jewelry for $12. Why should I care have many carats it has? Anyone who does is not going to get this gift because they equate cost with value.

:rolls_eyes:

Actually, degrees are given to two major classes of people. Good little sheep that obey without questioning their overlords, and people who actually get a critical thinking education.

I'm not going to ask which one you are, because this is evident.

I'm gonna ask which one you want to stay. You can either continue to believe that the degree is anything besides a piece of paper, or you can start doing your own research.

Epistemology - Epistemology is the study of our method of acquiring knowledge. It answers the question, "How do we know?" It encompasses the nature of concepts, the constructing of concepts, the validity of the senses, logical reasoning, as well as thoughts, ideas, memories, emotions, and all things mental. It is concerned with how our minds are related to reality, and whether these relationships are valid or invalid.

The most important lessons you will ever learn is not the root of 12 (2√3 btw), nor about the Heat Death of the Universe (interesting btw), but rather how to question what you're taught and not just intellectual knowledge but emotional knowledge too (as some people wind up being so into studying that they find themselves isolated). When it comes down to it, education is meant to serve you, not the other way around.

Let's have an example of how education can betray you.

Anyone who has been in math since the 1990s or so (not even gonna talk Common Core) is told to remember:

Parentheses, Exponents
Multiplication, Division
Addition, Subtraction

Okay then, you're an elementary school teacher, or maybe you're bookkeeping and have to average income for some reason. Or maybe you're trying to do point averages for Dancing With The Stars.

You write down six numbers, and then write on the page:

35 + 46 + 53 + 84 + 95 + 99 / 6

then you realize division must be done first under order of operations. So, you divide 99/6 and then add. You get an average of 329.5 to whatever you're checking over.

Congratulations! Now, you're fired.

You see yet how taking what you've been taught literally is just as dangerous as taking the Bible literally?

Bottom line, The Land Before Time is a fun escape. But one should indeed suspend disbelief, at least if you're going to pay actual MONEY for fossils. If not, then I don't suppose I care what you're gonna believe. My concerns are mainly:

1. You try to force me to believe what you believe.
2. You either try to get me to spend money, or make stupid economic decisions yourself (I can't stand seeing people waste money)

 

[Samantha Rinne]

I would say that I am more real than God.

"I think therefore I am"

Let's all worship Israel!

After all, he says he's more real than God. That never went wrong.

 

[Samael_Khan]

Let's all worship Israel!

After all, he says he's more real than God. That never went wrong.

Oh that would go SO wrong!

I would persecute everybody who is a fan of mumble rap and the Kardashians.

....

Or would that go right? Hmmmm......

Maybe i should make the complete collection of HP Lovecrafts works my Holy Scriptures...

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Oh that would go SO wrong!

I would persecute everybody who is a fan of mumble rap and the Kardashians.

....

Or would that go right? Hmmmm......

Maybe i should make the complete collection of HP Lovecrafts works my Holy Scriptures...

I would have thought persecution was an inherent characteristic of Kardashian fandom.

Having never read Lovecraft, I just started on his collected works. I haven't gotten far, but have enjoyed my opening venture. The writing is quite good and what I have read so far is tinged with subtle similarity to the poetry of Emily Dickinson.

 

[Samael_Khan]

I would have thought persecution was an inherent characteristic of Kardashian fandom.

Having never read Lovecraft, I just started on his collected works. I haven't gotten far, but have enjoyed my opening venture. The writing is quite good and what I have read so far is tinged with subtle similarity to the poetry of Emily Dickinson.

Kardashian fandom is the worst...

Its awesome that you are reading Lovecrafts works. It is pretty influential to modern horror. Steven King and Neil Gaiman are influenced by him quite a bit.
I like how different his work is. It creates a sense of unnease because it appeals to our fear of helplessness.

I have never read Emily Dickinson but if you say it is similar then I must do that.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Kardashian fandom is the worst...

Its awesome that you are reading Lovecrafts works. It is pretty influential to modern horror. Steven King and Neil Gaiman are influenced by him quite a bit.
I like how different his work is. It creates a sense of unnease because it appeals to our fear of helplessness.

I have never read Emily Dickinson but if you say it is similar then I must do that.

I have read the first three stories in the compilation I have and there is a similarity in the tone to some of Dickinson's more melancholy poems about death. They always plucked a deep emotional chord with me and I got that same sensation with the Lovecraft stories.

A colleague who is a fan of Lovecraft mentioned the very same points that you made. Even mentioned the exact same authors. It may be that sense of unease that I am feeling that reminds me of the Dickinson works.

 

[Samael_Khan]

I have read the first three stories in the compilation I have and there is a similarity in the tone to some of Dickinson's more melancholy poems about death. They always plucked a deep emotional chord with me and I got that same sensation with the Lovecraft stories.

A colleague who is a fan of Lovecraft mentioned the very same points that you made. Even mentioned the exact same authors. It may be that sense of unease that I am feeling that reminds me of the Dickinson works.

Which stories have you read so far?

HP Lovecraft once said that the one thing that humans fear more than anything else is helplessness i think. Or maybe he was referring to the unknown. I can read other horror books and not be phased by them for the most part. But for some reason I cant read HP Lovecraft stories at night because the unnerving feeling they evoke makes me paranoid about the unknown. It seems to me like his work disturbs a primal fear inside me. His work isnt the most scary on the surface. But the psychological effect of the narrative stirs our paranoia about the shadows we see and our superstitions. And I think the fact that insanity is central to his narratives makes us link his stories to a psychological problem we know exists but dont actually understand and it makes his narratives that more believable and horrifying, because it might happen to us.

He is the father of Cosmic Horror and this is what that genre is all about: helplessness. We are subject to a higher being or force's will and we cant do anything about it. I personally think that that is how religions started because we feared helplessness and appealling to a higher power gives us a sense of control in our lives.

Lovecraft himself was influenced by Edgar Allan Poe and Dickenson sounds a lot like Poe as well.