Dinosaurs and the Bible

[Stang]

Originally posted by Kev367th
Don't know what was scarier, his BS, or the fact people were cheering and applauding him.

Definately the cheering and applauding.

[Stang]

LOL HBO was running a marathon of "Da Ali G Show" to support Cohen's "Borat" and in one of the round table discussions Ali had Kent Hovind on there.   zomg he was ****ing with him something awful.  The last straw was Ali accused Hovind of taking a crap before the show backstage and not flushing.  Hovind was beside himself ahaha.

[Major Biggles]

Originally posted by Stang
LOL HBO was running a marathon of "Da Ali G Show" to support Cohen's "Borat" and in one of the round table discussions Ali had Kent Hovind on there.   zomg he was ****ing with him something awful.  The last straw was Ali accused Hovind of taking a crap before the show backstage and not flushing.  Hovind was beside himself ahaha.

man, i loved that show. i wish he'd do a new series. haven't seen ali G here for 3 years

[Neubob]

Originally posted by Kev367th
OK if the Earth / universe is only 6000 odd years long explain this -

How is it possible to see stars that are millions/billions of light years away?
Their light wouldn't have even reached us.

Don't know what was scarier, his BS, or the fact people were cheering and applauding him.

That's an easy one. The stars are actually much closer, and light actually travels much faster than 300,000 Kilometers per second. All of our experiments and data-gathering has yielded erroneous results because it is god, once again, testing our faith.

You'd think that an all-knowing, all-powerful being would have something better to do with his time than continually trick a bunch of barely-cognizant insects living on a dustball. I've come up with three potential explanations for his behavior:

1.)   He's very childish
2.)   He's really lacking in the creativity department
3.)   The bible thumpers are both very childish and lacking in the creativity department

[DREDIOCK]

Originally posted by bozon
I watched one of the other episodes where he talks about big-bang theory and creation of the universe. The man either doesn't understand physics at all or simply ignore it and lies to the crowd. The mess he made out cosmology and astrophysics was hillarious.

 

If you pay close attention to the first one. He actually makes the claim to have taught physics.

Couple of my own problems with his comments.

He keeps mentioning how this scientist or that are saying somethign they"beleive to be true" Because they couldnt have actually known them to be true for factr because they werent actually there"

Well in pointing out his so called "facts" isnt he also simply saying he is only saying what  he "beleives to be true" for the same exact reasons?

Second point. IF Noah Did as he claims in  "Only taking one two af the same KIND of animal" he himself must then admit to the evolutionary proccess in order to have acheived all the different species and sub species of animal in the world today

[Major Biggles]

Originally posted by DREDIOCK
Second point. IF Noah Did as he claims in  "Only taking one two af the same KIND of animal" he himself must then admit to the evolutionary proccess in order to have acheived all the different species and sub species of animal in the world today

yup, the guy is a total fool.

i do believe in god and all actually, but the whole creation story, like much of the bible is probably a metaphor. people who take it literally are pretty stupid. what always had me thinking philosophically was the big bang (i'm a scientist really, and i totally believe in the big bang and all of the theories of astrophysics)

what always makes me think is the origins of the universe. the big bang was a minute explosion, but so energetic that it created the universe...

E = MC2 here... take all the mass in the universe, multiply it by the speed of light squared, and that gives you the amount of energy that is contained in just the matter of the universe. add to that number all of the other types of energy going on

that's a pretty much INFINITE amount of energy, all originating from an explosion infinitely small...

kind of mind boggling actually... i don't think any aetheist scientist can explain that one...

[Viking]

Nor can we explain gravity, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

[stantond]

There is some uncertainty in the scientific dating process.  Unfortunately, science can be corrupted as much as religion.  I think a lot of people want to substitute science for some mythological religion with all the brances of science making one or another lesser god where people can go for answers and expect 'true knowledge'.

Unfortunately, science was created by humans (which some can say the same of religion) and is intertwined with money and politics (again some can say the same of religion).  So, do we believe science or religion?  

I think part of the answer is how you were brought up and how much you know about science.  Newton, who was a closet alchemist, was more of a true scientist in his belief and trust in science.  You have to trust in science, or it doesn't make any sense.  By that I mean some things you must take on faith.  A faith in science.

Science is continually trying to answer questions about the cosmos, our past, who we are, where we came from, how we can be saved... all questions that religion typically answers.  And science, as a discipline, is distorted in the process and made to be something it is not.  

The belief that man came from apes based on the theory of evolution is not conclusive and is a misuse of science. Offering the rhetoric of evolution is the goal of science, but making it appear conclusive is not.  We believe there are other planets like ours in the cosmos because we exist.  There is no evidence.  Similarly, we have not found a human being before a certain time based on carbon14 dating so we say they didn't exist.  Where is the consistency in that thinking?  

Some can argue that all that happened before mankind became 'sentient' is not described in the bible and that modern humans are the result of god.  Dinosaurs, like many other things, aren't mentioned because they are not relevent.  However, I think ministers and defenders of the bible who think the earth is 11,000 years old are mistaken and maybe need more faith in science.


Regards,

Malta

[Stang]

Originally posted by stantond
We believe there are other planets like our in the cosmos because we exist.  There is no evidence.  

Yet.  The more we look, the more we find.  It's very difficult to spot an Earth sized planet around a distant star.  We HAVE found rocky planets though.  If memory serves me correct they are also much larger than the earth, but there is proof that terrestrial planets exist beyond the solar system.

[stantond]

The cosmos is fascinating, and we are really sophisticated (and getting better) about examining it.  While there is a 'probablity' of life bearing planets in distant solar systems (based on the fact there are so many), we aren't quite sophisticated enough to know if they have life or even liquid water.  If we could just find a planet with liquid water, or a substantial amount of water (in any form), certainly a probe to the planet would be launched.  So far, the earth is unique.  

Astronomers and related scientists tend to police themselves pretty well.  Rubbish isn't well received and publishing statements without sufficient evidence that isn't repeatable is rubbish.  It would be really cool if another planet existed that we could say had liquid water!  


Regards,

Malta

[Booz]

Originally posted by stantond
There is some uncertainty in the scientific dating process.  

 not really, multiple methods come up with the same results

Unfortunately, science was created by humans (which some can say the same of religion) and is intertwined with money and politics (again some can say the same of religion).  So, do we believe science or religion?  

 Science is a process of gather evidence, form hypothesis, test, publish, verify, modify, test, etc... It's conclusions are based only on evidence and are repeatable by anyone with the requisite skills & knowledge.  If it's not repeatable, then it's discarded or reworked (cold fusion) and is therfore self correcting eventually (Piltdown man). Science works.

Science is continually trying to answer questions about the cosmos, our past, who we are, where we came from, how we can be saved... all questions that religion typically answers.

 Mankind has tried to answer those questions with 10,000 different, inconsistent, unverifiable stories. The one you're told is the one you believe. btw science has nothing to say about how you can be saved, no data, untestable, no science.

And science, as a discipline, is distorted in the process and made to be something it is not.

 
 Science is only distorted by those whose fables are destroyed by reality

The belief that man came from apes based on the theory of evolution is not conclusive and is a misuse of science.

 You are still an ape

[Masherbrum]

Originally posted by stantond
There is some uncertainty in the scientific dating process.  We believe there are other planets like our in the cosmos because we exist.  There is no evidence.  Similarly, we have not found a human being before a certain time based on carbon14 dating so we say they didn't exist.  Where is the consistency in that thinking?  

Ok, use my Banded Ironstone.   It is a Metamorphosed Sedimentary Rock that is from a formation that existed in the Pre-Cambrian Era (3.6 Million Years Ago).   No Carbon-14 dating needed.   I have also heard the "carbon dating" thing from the same friend.  

Pangea didn't exist either.   But explain to me how the Andes, Sierra Madre Oriental (Mexico on the Eastern side), Appalachians (Alabama to Newfoundland), Anti-Alas Range in Morocco, and the English "Highlands" all comprise of the same Rock types (Basalt and Andesite)?    

Geology is one of the more accurate "Sciences" out there.  I'm sorry but the Earth of 4 million years ago, has left a bunch of clues as to what happened.    No carbon dating method is needed.

[stantond]

While I agree geology is a science and reasonably accurate, the dates and timelines are based on Carbon 14 dating as outlined in:

http://www.gpc.edu/~pgore/geology/geo102/radio.htm

Any kind of radioactive decay is based on probablity.  Any probability based event is not 100% certain,  hence the name.  That doesn't mean it is unrealistic, but it is uncertain.


Regards,

Malta

[bozon]

Originally posted by stantond
There is some uncertainty in the scientific dating process.  Unfortunately, science can be corrupted as much as religion.  I think a lot of people want to substitute science for some mythological religion with all the brances of science making one or another lesser god where people can go for answers and expect 'true knowledge'.
 

Actually no. One of my professors defined exact science very well (freely translated):
"exact science is a field of study where you can tell exactly by how much you are wrong".

The problem is with people no understanding what uncertainty is. Lets say I'm measuring my height. I'm 2 m tall, but is that exact? so I use a better measuring tape that has cm units on it and find I'm 1.83. I can use better and better methods to improve the measurement but I'll never be exact, there is some uncertainty.

If I use a cm measuring tape and get 1.83 m, I'm pretty certain that I'm not 2m even if my hand was shaking a little, I didn't hold the tape completely straight and my eye sight is not great so I can confuse near by markings. Exact science will attempt to quantify these errors and will ALWAYS give an error estimate to any measurement. These uncertainty estimates can be given a statistical meaning of "confidence level".

This is also why science attempt different methods of measuring the same things. If the results disagree by much more than their uncertainties it means that at least one of the methods if faulty and both need re-checking. When several methods agree within their uncertainties, we can have great confidence in the result.

Any kind of radioactive decay is based on probablity. Any probability based event is not 100% certain, hence the name. That doesn't mean it is unrealistic, but it is uncertain.

Again this is faulty interpretation of "uncertainty". Probability also has a variance, so you can tell not only what will happen on the expected average but also what is the probability to get a result far from the average. This probability drops as the statistical sample gets bigger. When you deal with atoms, you are dealing with a sample of typically 10 to the power of 23 atoms per gram. Even if the rate of decay is small (very very small compared with the time length of measurement) such a huge sample gives such a small statistical error that it can be neglected compared to other sources of errors like weighting or decay counter efficiency or other things.

[bozon]

Originally posted by Kev367th
OK if the Earth / universe is only 6000 odd years long explain this -

How is it possible to see stars that are millions/billions of light years away?
Their light wouldn't have even reached us.

Maybe he's a fan of the cosmological inflation theory?