Did Dinosaurs ever exist?

[Hydrogen42]

Scientific claims? Please elaborate.

They try to explain how the world was created.

They try to explain how humans were created.

They claim that the laws of nature can be suspended through miracles.

These are all scientific claims.

Scientific claims being claims which explain the world around us....

However, none of their claims are backed with evidence, nor do they use the scientific method.

[bassing68]

Why would they need them to talk about them? I mean the earth was created 6000 yeas ago, dinosaurs would have been alive back then.

Might wanna recheck the 6,000 figure

[mackenzie-uk]

the Dark Age was fantastic.

So were the crusades, the inquisition etc etc

[Ecnewyx]

They try to explain how the world was created.

Is there a difference between a "scientific claim" (as you interpret it) and an explanation for how the world around them works using knowledge at hand -- something for which every culture throughout history has done?

They claim that the laws of nature can be suspended through miracles.

Elaborate?

These are all scientific claims.

How can it be a scientific claim if it's not based on the scientific method? Mind = blown.

Scientific claims being claims which explain the world around us....

However, none of their claims are backed with evidence, nor do they use the scientific method.

At most it's a story about how the world works. I agree it's a problem if people take it literally, but then, I never thought it was meant to be taken literally anymore than I'd take Helios driving a chariot of fire across the sky to be literal.

I don't think that alone discredits the moral teachings (if one is to be found) behind religion, however. To borrow again from Greek mythology, while I don't believe a man in love with his image can be turned into a flower by staring at his reflection in a lake, I understand the purpose of the story is to caution against excessive and unwarranted narcissism.

[Hydrogen42]

I didn't make an argument first and then start talking, because I didn't want to argue...Does reading comprehension own you?

Religion isn't the real problem. Two people can believe in two different gods and be the best of friends. So what is the real problem? Don't just rationalize and blanket everything with an easy washed out excuse.

But to be honest with you I am not going to sit here and argue an endless and pointless debate.

You first started off by talking about religion like only good can come from it. You also asked why people go out of their way to debate religion...which I answerd for you in response to your post.

You also stated that the whole point of religion is to do good...which is very incorrect. Just look at the states ran by theocracy...to be specific Islamic theocracies.

Just look at the USA government. Although we live under this illusion of "separation between church and state", you can see how religion has a major influence on politics.

You're saying religion holds back the world...You do realize that many of the worlds greatest scientist and thinkers also believed in God, followed a belief system, or believed in a higher power.

Believing in a higher power doesn't necessarily mean you are religious...It just means you are spiritual.

And those "great" scientists which are religious, you will find that they agree with science more than they do with religion. Any respectable scientist, whether religious or not, believes in the theory of evolution....etc.

When I mean that religion is not a force for good, I am talking about fanaticism and extremism...because religion in itself is extreme.

I don't know why people think it is okay to just cherry pick the good things in religion, and disregard the bad things.

[cfreak]

brb, being religious and accepting that man and dinosaur didn't coexist at the same time.

[deathmessiah]

[Hydrogen42]

Is there a difference between a "scientific claim" (as you interpret it) and an explanation for how the world around them works using knowledge at hand -- something for which every culture throughout history has done?



Elaborate?


How can it be a scientific claim if it's not based on the scientific method? Mind = blown.



At most it's a story about how the world works. I agree it's a problem if people take it literally, but then, I never thought it was meant to be taken literally anymore than I'd take Helios driving a chariot of fire across the sky to be literal.

I don't think that alone discredits the moral teachings (if one is to be found) behind religion, however. To borrow again from Greek mythology, while I don't like a man in love with his image can be turned into a flower by staring at his reflection in a lake, I understand the purpose of the story is to caution against excessive and unwarranted narcissism.

Well science is used to explain the world around us.

If you are going to try to explain the world around us, it is scientific.

If you try to explain that the world was created by god, and that he created man from dust, it is still a scientific claim.

Scientific claims are made all the time without using the scientific method...for example theories...which are just that...theories.

[the_tripper]

people used to think the world was flat, earth was the center of the universe.

if they had found dinosaur fossils they would have worked it into the bible somewhere between god make the birdies and the animals

[Ecnewyx]

Well science is used to explain the world around us.

Go on...

If you are going to try to explain the world around us, it is scientific.

No longer agree. So when early man looked up at the sky and looked at his campfire and figured that there were millions of campfires in the sky he was being scientific?

If you try to explain that the world was created by god, and that he created man from dust, it is still a scientific claim.

Still disagree. Imprecise use of the term is imprecise, Bro.

Scientific claims are made all the time without using the scientific method...for example theories...which are just that...theories.

Distinguishing between scientific theories (which do use the scientific method) and theories as understood by the layman?

I don't think when I theorize that Zyzz is a ******* I'm making a scientific claim.

[cfreak]

I don't know why people think it is okay to just cherry pick the good things in religion, and disregard the bad things.

Why would you want to pick the bad things?

Brb, being religious and still using common sense

[Daveeee]

I may be risking my life here....but dinosaurs were actually a cover up, to prevent people from acknowledging reptilians

[Chook Legs]

We still have dinosaurs--crocodiles and monitor lizards.

I believe in the Bible. Call me dumb if you want, doesn't bother me at all (until you can explain how life began in the first place). The more I've studied, the more I see life as a miracle.

These do not belong to Dinosauria. Common ancestor but tens of millions of years worth of divergence. Like saying a cow is a type of primate.

[jakobi]

bones get rotted and decay, year after year...

the dinosaurs you see in museums are so white and new, like the human skeletan we have in bio class...

[JayZyzz]

[Chook Legs]

^^^ Cant be serious. (post about bones)

There is so much retardation in this thread it is hard to tell the difference.

[the_tripper]

Does anyone wonder why birds are born from eggs?







Or why they have reptile like feet?



/thread

[clifftime]

where the **** did you read that load of garbage from?

This

[Ecnewyx]

^^^ Cant be serious. (post about bones)

There is so much retardation in this thread it is hard to tell the difference.

I'm going to assume he meant it sarcastically, or that he mistakenly believes that every "skeleton" he sees in museums is actually the authentic skeleton and not, say, a plaster-of-paris replica.

[Hydrogen42]

Go on...

^what was the point of that...

No longer agree. So when early man looked up at the sky and looked at his campfire and figured that there were millions of campfires in the sky he was being scientific?

millions of campfires in the sky? What do you mean by this...stars?

How does observation have anything to do with claims?

Still disagree. Imprecise use of the term is imprecise, Bro.

It doesn't matter whether you disagree or not. It is considered to be a scientific claim when you try to explain the world around us.

Distinguishing between scientific theories (which do use the scientific method) and theories as understood by the layman?

I don't think when I theorize that Zyzz is a ******* I'm making a scientific claim.

Once you have proven a theory with the scientific method it isn't really a theory anymore, it is a confirmed fact.

[Ecnewyx]

millions of campfires in the sky? What do you mean by this...stars?

How does observation have anything to do with claims?

Absolutely nothing, which is my point. So when people try to come up with explanations for stars they weren't making scientific claims, they were making observations and drawing conclusions from their observations.

It doesn't matter whether you disagree or not. It is considered to be a scientific claim when you try to explain the world around us.

I disagree because by definition a scientific claim must involve the scientific method. That's what makes it scientific.

Otherwise you're (at most) making an empirical observation or claim.

Once you have proven a theory with the scientific method it isn't really a theory anymore, it is a confirmed fact.

Huh. Then why isn't it called the confirmed fact of evolution?

[Hydrogen42]

Absolutely nothing, which is my point. So when people try to come up with explanations for stars they weren't making scientific claims, they were making observations and drawing conclusions from their observations.

...In your post you did not say that the early man made claim, you just said he made an observation. I see terrible fallacies in your argument.

Huh. Then why isn't it called the confirmed fact of evolution?

Creationists call it the theory of evolution.

Biological evolutionists call it a fact. They have enough evidence to confirm it as a fact.

[celticbrah]

i got nothing againt religious people except the extremists. i just find it a bit weird that people gotta believe in the biggest tale ever to be good people. until someone proves religion with solid facts and evidence i will always be a non believer

[the_tripper]

[melkman]

where the **** did you read that load of garbage from?

http://www.blacksheepbistro.com/dinodatingpage.htm
http://www.atenizo.org/evolution-c14-kar.htm

these weren't the sources i used for class (it was a couple years ago) but they give you an idea.

[Hydrogen42]

i got nothing againt religious people except the extremists. i just find it a bit weird that people gotta believe in the biggest tale ever to be good people. until someone proves religion with solid facts and evidence i will always be a non believer

I have everything against people who base their lifes, believing in something which has never been proven to be true.

With that kind of mindset, and irrationality, who knows what they would do if they think god is telling them to kill someone.

[OmniscientCause]

how is it not possible that religion and science go hand and hand with one another? that was Galileo's stand point...just because we have recently discovered dinosaurs doesnt mean that god doesnt exist. one is not contingent on the other.

[Floridatrainer]

To post once again... I am not taking sides guys. As I can see from several negged reps I upset some of you. Let me be clear when I say I am not a devout religious follower, nor am I an atheist.

[Hydrogen42]

To post once again... I am not taking sides guys. As I can see from several negged reps I upset some of you. Let me be clear when I say I am not a devout religious follower, nor am I an atheist.

you are an atheist.

You are an agnostic atheists.

There are four types of people

Gnostic Atheist - holds a belief that it is impossible for there to be a god

Agnostic atheist - lack of belief in god due to absence of evidence....if there was evidence for a god, you would believe in god.

Gnostic Theist - absolutely certain that there is a god

Agnostic theist - says that you can not prove nor disprove a god, but still believes in one.

[celticbrah]

I have everything against people who base their lifes, believing in something which has never been proven to be true.

With that kind of mindset, and irrationality, who knows what they would do if they think god is telling them to kill someone.

these would be called extremists