A plan for a better debate with 1inChrist...

[1inChrist]

A whole bunch of your life is based on "materialistic science", including the computer you are using to post here. What would you call someone who denied the value materialistic science while using the products of that science?

I'm talking about materialistic science when it's used as philosophy.

 

[Ratman_tf]

If this is true why aren't modern lizards and reptiles considered dinosaurs?

http://www.paleontology.esmartstudent.com/dinosaurs.html

 

[Operaider]

Originally posted by 1inChrist
Anyone who doesn't believe materialistic science is ignorant?

Actually I'd say the ignorance comes more from an apparent lack of very basic scientific knowledge. This is not a "I see it one way, you see it a different way" type of debate. This a debate about things that can and have been proven time and time again. It is basic knowledge.

I question what you mean by "materialistic science". Science is materialistic. It deals with set law and principles. It has time tested ways of proving theories. The fact that you used the term "believe" shows that you don't know what you are talking about. Science is not a belief system. Wanting things to be a certain way does not effect the way things are and beliefs do not come into play. Just because the Pope Urban VIII didn't believe Galileo when he wrote that the Earth was not the center of the universe, that didn't stop it from rotating around the sun.

 

[1inChrist]

http://www.paleontology.esmartstudent.com/dinosaurs.html

Are you insulting my intelligence by directing me to a children's website about dinosaurs?

 

[Operaider]

Well Jambo, you gotta start some where.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Are you insulting my intelligence by directing me to a children's website about dinosaurs?

He probably figured it's about as much as you can handle at this moment. I will agree that you are quite childish.

 

[materia3]

Geni wrote

But the chinese dragon had legs as well if anything the drake is more simuar to the chiness dragon than the snakes.

Smallish legs with a snakelike body. Not that there is any relevance to discerning the origin of these myths or legends, but snakes diverged from lizards, not vice versa so that there are actually families of lizards still alive with extremely small, almost useless or vestigial legs and there are even legless lizards. So it is not so far fetched that these myths incorporate this. In fact boas and pythons, among the the largest but among the more primitive snakes also have vestigial rear feet reduced to "spurs" around their anal openings. Keen observation of living forms by myth and legend progenitors obviously contributed.

http://www.lhs.berkeley.edu/Biolab/wlhleglesslizard.html

http://www.uga.edu/srel/legless_lizard.htm

http://www.embl-heidelberg.de/~uetz/families/Pygopodidae.html

Here is a taxonomic list of living (smallish) Australian lizards popularly referred to as "dragons:"

http://www.kingsnake.com/oz/habitsa/listsa.htm

then ...1inChrist asks:

...... why aren't modern lizards and reptiles considered dinosaurs?

The term dinosaur is a relatively modern name which translates to "terrible lizard" and was coined by one of the great fossil hunters of the 19th century:

....................In 1841, Sir Richard Owen, a British anatomist and paleontologist, set aside a handful of colossal reptiles that lived during the Mesozoic Era, some 225 to 65 million years ago, to be crowned Dinosauria. With such a long history, dinosaur paleontology probably ranks as one of the most venerable of sciences

from:

http://www.worldandischool.com/public/1992/March/school-resource20445.asp


The term dinosaur has fallen into common slang for any fossil reptile, even chicken sized ones, which were really not so terrible.

Owens' monstrous terrible lizards had rear leg articulations with their hip bones which were more like that of birds than other lizards so even not so terrible small fossilized forms with bird hip rear leg articulations (which enabled them to stand and run around on their hind legs) were called dinosaurs as well. Modern lizards don't have this condition.

So not all reptiles are/were dinosaurs but all dinosaurs were reptiles.

 

[Tricky]

I'm talking about materialistic science when it's used as philosophy.

Science is pretty much neutral on philosophy. The only time science becomes involved in philosophical questions is when a certain philosophy starts to make statements about how the universe works. For example, Buddhist might say, "you have lived several lives", and science would say, "all evidence shows only one life."

Or perhaps as some religions postulated, the world is carried on the back of a large turtle. Science would say "show me the turtle".

But if you want to say, "God want's us to be good", then science has absolutely nothing to say about this, since it does not make any statement about how the world works. But if you want to say, "God said we weren't being good, so He destroyed the entire world with a great flood", science will say, "show me a layer of flood sediments that covers the entire Earth."

 

[RamblingOnwards]

I'm talking about materialistic science when it's used as philosophy.

Then you do accept that evolution occured. Because there is absolutely no philosophy in the fact that all evidence supports the theory of evolution (theory in the scientific sense -

A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=theory

not the colloquial)

 

[Ratman_tf]

Are you insulting my intelligence by directing me to a children's website about dinosaurs?

No. I think children show much more knowledge about this subject than you have so far.

 

[Mojo]

Are you insulting my intelligence by directing me to a children's website about dinosaurs?

You mean the sites you've linked to in this thread Aren't "children's sites"?

Good heavens! To quote the famous Eccles, "we learn something new every day!"

 

[geni]

Have you accepted Christ as your Savior from the eternal Hellfire?

Tricky. More accepted christ a a general savior.

So you are saying all dinosaur-like dragon myth come after the finding of dinosaur fossils?

To all intents and purposes yes. You can proabaly find a species of dinosaur that looks a bit like the dragons that really were belived in but most didn't.

 

[Dr Adequate]

Anyone who doesn't believe materialistic science is ignorant?

I think you've missed the point. Someone who DOESN'T KNOW any science is indeed IGNORANT of science. BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT IGNORANT MEANS. IT MEANS HAVING NO KNOWLEGE. You are ignorant of science. This is nothing to be ashamed of: we are all born in this condition. Some of us did something about it. You were happy to stay ignorant. Fine. But you then go and post up publically the waffle, drivel and BS about science that's wandered into your head as though it were science, and this makes you a fool, and worse than a fool. You are publicly passing off What Some Bloke Told You In A Pub as though it were true. You are lying to us, not through a deliberate intention to deceive, but by default, through laziness. You are too darn idle to find out the truth for yourself, so we, it seems are obliged to provide it for you. If you want to know about science, you could go and look yourself in a textbook on science, or an encyclopaedia. You want to know how rocks are dated, and how it is known for certain that the methods work. THEN READ A BLEEDIN' TEXTBOOK ON GEOLOGY. You will be able to find one in a magical place called a LIBRARY. Unless... oh, you're American, aren't you? Still, there must be somewhere in your great and free republic where you could find a geology textbook. GO READ ONE. Don't just stand around here displaying how very, very, very, yes, IGNORANT you are in such matters.

 

[Meaty Curtains]

Dinosaurs

You have paved your way into the black depths of HELL with yor false Christian thoughts.
http://internet.ocii.com/~dpwozney/dinosaur.htm

 

[Operaider]

You will be able to find one in a magical place called a LIBRARY. Unless... oh, you're American, aren't you? Still, there must be somewhere in your great and free republic where you could find a geology textbook.

We have libraries in America. They're where old people go to rent old movies for free, and where homeless people go to use the restroom.

 

[materia3]

They also have libraries outside of America. Granted, not everywhere but in many places.

 

[Tricky]

Tricky. More accepted christ as a general savior.

Thanks, but I'll have to decline. Being Christ will not fit into my schetule. Even if you could guarantee I would be "more accepted".

 

[Ashles]

Hi, just a quick question from me.

Why are we talking about dragons and dating techniques when the original question (remember that? I mean we've all grown up, had kids of our own and retired in the meantime but cast your mind back...) was about...

Fossils in the same rock strata? Why don't dinosaurs or humans appear in the same ones?

1inChrist, you do like to answer completely different points, but any chance of an answer on this?
Or do you not have any arguments on this because your ignorant creationist websites don't have any arguments on this?

Try thnking for yourself on this issue. Go on, have a go...

(I suspect I know what you're only argument against this will be, but have a shot anyway).

So, once again for the youngsters in the crowd who weren't born when the question was asked...

Why do dinosaur fossils and human fossils not appear in the same rock strata?

 

[Kitty Chan]

Ashles

Too funny


I wont answer yet, will wait for 1in

Even though Im a dreaded christian, my jury is out on the specifics of our lovely earth back in the day.

 

[MRC_Hans]

The basic question in the evolution/creation debate is really this:

Are we allowed to believe what our observations tell us and what we can logically deduce from that? Or did God create a confusing, illogical world, full of false tracks?

1inChrist claims that logic is the work of Satan, so I assume his answer to the first question is no.

This leads to the conclusion that God is lying to us, by having created a world that looks like it is half a billion years old and by littering it with false traces of life-forms that never existed, or existed at other times than it seems.

Hans