Is this proof that dinosaurs existed with men?

[Vajradhara]

Originally Posted by Faithfulservant

Dont you think that men of science want their theories to be proved correct?? By even acknowledging that some other source besides chance created this world as we know it disproves every theory they had been claiming is fact. They are in fact trying to disprove creation theory.. and disproving there is a God or higher power that orchestrated this world into being. Do they say that? no lol they would look silly. But they are teaching evolution to my children at school so I have a right to say that I disagree with their theories.

Evolution is not Abiogenesis.

Abiogenesis is the Theory of Where Life Came From.

Evolution is the Theory of How Different Alleles Appear In A Popluation.

only formal systems have "proof", such as maths and logic. Science is an informal system and, as such, does not have proof. it has, instead, evidence. what conclusions you draw from the evidence is, it would seem, quite subjective.

you do have a right to disagree with their theories... wouldn't it be a good idea to actually know what the theory says that you are disagreeing with?

[Bandit]

Hello Vajradhara,

which is why science works on theories when you get some new evidence, you have to revisit the theory, which is either revised or scrapped altogether. this is actually a strength of the scientific process. if we didn't do it like this, we'd still be using Newtons' understanding of Gravity!

Newtons' understanding of Gravity- that is what I mean as old science. the thing is people believed it, just like some people believe man came from monkeys...(new science and there is no proof)
Old science-Babylon and building there foolish tower to heaven.
New Science- Modern Babylon building a tower to heaven through science technology and rockets.

I know science works on theories, that is all fine. It is just not for me to get all excited over the perhaps, maybe or maybe nots, but that does not mean I don't have an interest in some of it. When they go as far to say the earth is over 4.5 billion years old, I fail to see the point in that. Even if one can prove it is that old to the exact day, man cannot comprehend it.

Most of this stuff is not really even an issue for me. I want to enjoy the 70 or so years I have on earth and I see all the theories as just kind of there hanging in the balance. On the other hand I am glad that some find a deep interest in it and can dedicate there lives to it.

I think I am speaking of the Julian or Gregorian calendar. 365 days and every four years we add a day. Correct? at least that has been working out for me so far.
Is not all this within the last 2000 years?
I am not very good with math and conversions, but I do have an interest in the Jewish Calendar- Is that what they call Gods Calendar? 360 days a year?
I am not sure when the Maya calendar and all the others were established.


as for science and the bible, I do see the bible is being tested with science and by it. and some of them are in it to prove the God of Creation does not exist. -NOT just 'A god', but the God of creation in the bible.
There is a difference there.
By PROVE, I mean to influence and persuade others.
I see the author of the bible as God himself written through man. I have no interest in those kinds of debates.

I can only speak for myself. My teachers in school did not force evolution on the students and I do not know if they are doing that today. But I do not recall the God of Creation ever being taught in school.
College is a different story, but not in High School.

Calendar Conversions
http://din-timelines.com/calendar_converter.shtml

[I, Brian]

Biologists such as Richard Dawkings are certainly given the reputation of trashing religion and spirituality, and denigrating people who subscribe to such groups of ideas.

But when expressing such ideas, Richard Dawkins does not speak for science - he speaks for himself.

[Vajradhara]

Namaste Bandit,

thank you for the post.

Originally Posted by Bandit

Hello Vajradhara,

Newtons' understanding of Gravity- that is what I mean as old science. the thing is people believed it,

however, Newtons' ToG, does not nessesitate that one accept it on belief, you can toss an apple in the air and observe the same effects. Facts and theories are different things. facts are the universes data and theories are structures of ideas to explain the observed facts.

as our ability to observe increased, we discovered that Newtons Gravity Model was accurate only for large structures in the universe, molecules, you, me, planets and stars.

my point here is that belief in these observations is not required. one can observe them for oneself.

just like some people believe man came from monkeys...(new science and there is no proof)

fortunately, evolution doesn't make the claim that humans came from monkeys, so they would be right to without their assent to this idea until evidence was presented. however, humans and monkeys do have a common ancestor, which is what evolution posits, and for which we have evidence.

I know science works on theories, that is all fine. It is just not for me to get all excited over the perhaps, maybe or maybe nots, but that does not mean I don't have an interest in some of it.

by contrast, i'm pretty excited about theories... especially ones like Germ Theory, which states that it is really microscopic organisms that cause our illnesses, not possession by demons or "humors" or what have you.

When they go as far to say the earth is over 4.5 billion years old, I fail to see the point in that. Even if one can prove it is that old to the exact day, man cannot comprehend it.

why do you say that humanity cannot comprehend 4.5 billion years?

Most of this stuff is not really even an issue for me. I want to enjoy the 70 or so years I have on earth and I see all the theories as just kind of there hanging in the balance. On the other hand I am glad that some find a deep interest in it and can dedicate there lives to it.

especially those folks that are working to cure diseases and illnesses, yes?

I think I am speaking of the Julian or Gregorian calendar. 365 days and every four years we add a day. Correct? at least that has been working out for me so far.

'natch.

here's some info on the Julian and Gregorian calendars:

When Julius Caesar became pontifex maximus, the Roman calendar had been so much abused that January was falling in autumn. At this point the methods of the Egyptian calendar were borrowed for the Roman. Julius Caesar, on the advice of the astronomer Sosigenes, added 90 days to the year 46 B.C. (67 days between November and December, 23 at the end of February). This caused the spring of 45 B.C. to begin in March. To retain this position of the seasons, he changed the length of most of the months: March, May, Quintilis (later named July after Julius Caesar), and October he left as they were; he added 2 days each to January and Sextilis (later named August to honor the Emperor Augustus); February was 28 days long except that in every fourth year a day was inserted between the 23d and the 24th of the month.
In Roman computation three days in the month were used for counting the date. These three were the Kalends (1st day of the month), the Nones (the 7th day in March, May, July, and October, the 5th in the other months), and the Ides (the 15th day in March, May, July, and October, the 13th in the other months). The days were counted before, not after, the Kalends, Nones, and Ides. Thus, Jan. 10 was the fourth day before the Ides of January or the fourth day of the Ides of January, because the Romans counted inclusively. Jan. 25 was the eighth of the Kalends of February, Feb. 3 was the third of the Nones of February. Feb. 23 was the seventh of the Kalends of March and remained so when an intercalary day was inserted every fourth year between it and Feb. 24; hence in a leap year there were two days counted as the sixth of the Kalends of March. The leap year was therefore called bissextile [Lat.,=sixth twice]. There is a legend that alterations in the length of the months were made later by Augustus to flatter his own vanity, but there seems to be no foundation for this story.

The Gregorian Calendar

The Julian year is 365 days 6 hr, hence a little too long. Therefore, by the 16th cent. the accumulation of surplus time had displaced the vernal equinox to Mar. 11 from Mar. 21, the date set in the 4th cent. In 1582 Pope Gregory XIII rectified this error. He suppressed 10 days in the year 1582 and ordained that thereafter the years ending in hundreds should not be leap years unless they were divisible by 400. The year 1600 was a leap year under both systems, but 1700, 1800, and 1900 were leap years only in the unreformed calendar. The reform was accepted, immediately in most Roman Catholic countries, more gradually in Protestant countries, and in the Eastern Church the Julian calendar was retained into the 20th cent. The present generally accepted calendar is therefore called Gregorian, though it is only a slight modification of the Julian.

The reform was not accepted in England and the British colonies in America until 1752. By that date the English calendar was 11 days different from that of continental Europe. For the intervening period before the reform was introduced into the English calendar, the Gregorian style is called the New Style (N.S.), and the Julian the Old Style (O.S.). New Style years begin Jan. 1, but Old Style years began usually Mar. 25. Thus Washington's birthday, which is Feb. 22, 1732 (N.S.), was Feb. 11, 1731 (O.S.). To avoid confusion sometimes both styles are given; thus 11 Feb. 1731/22 Feb. 1732.

http://www.factmonster.com/ce6/society/A0857113.html

I am not very good with math and conversions, but I do have an interest in the Jewish Calendar- Is that what they call Gods Calendar? 360 days a year?
I am not sure when the Maya calendar and all the others were established.

you can read about the Jewish calendar here:

http://www.factmonster.com/ce6/society/A0857115.html

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards Vaj, and all!

Thank you for the post about calendars!

I learned a little about the Gregorian calendar, and Christopher Clavius who actually did the computations.

I wasn't aware of the details surrounding the Julian calendar.

As for the Aztec (or was it Mayan?) calendar, I don't know that they have any conclusive thought on when exactly it was developed, but it is said that it is very accurate.

It is intriguing to me that early civilizations were so preoccupied with astronomy and calendars. Perhaps they had little better to do? The Babylonians are also said to have a very accurate calendar, dating from very early in historic time. The Celts however, got around the leap year problem by having a series of days "out of time" at the end of the year, usually 5 or 6, or so I am told, as each month to them had only 30 days.

My two cents, FWIW.

[Bandit]

why do you say that humanity cannot comprehend 4.5 billion years?

well, because it is time and not just calculations as in 1,2,3 X3 years but TIME. Time is not a still object. That is my theory. Has anyone started a science on the infinite/finite comprehension of time? Maybe I should that , except for I dont really have the time. (jesting)

especially those folks that are working to cure diseases and illnesses, yes?

Yes, that especially. It is quite amazing they can do what they do and do it all very quickly. I am very thankful for my health and that I have not needed too many things in my life.

I also want to say thanks for the links on the calendars. I often wonder if we will find ourselves in some kind of time warp in a couple of hundred years where they will have to re evaluate the whole calendar. LOL


Hey Juantoo3!

It is intriguing to me that early civilizations were so preoccupied with astronomy and calendars.

That has always intrigued me too, all that time to study the stars. Astronomy was like one of the biggest things. Makes me wish I had a powerful telescope. I will pass on the rocket to the moon.

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by Vajradhara

Evolution is not Abiogenesis.

Abiogenesis is the Theory of Where Life Came From.

Evolution is the Theory of How Different Alleles Appear In A Popluation.

only formal systems have "proof", such as maths and logic. Science is an informal system and, as such, does not have proof. it has, instead, evidence. what conclusions you draw from the evidence is, it would seem, quite subjective.

you do have a right to disagree with their theories... wouldn't it be a good idea to actually know what the theory says that you are disagreeing with?

Science is both a process of gaining knowledge, and the organized body of knowledge gained by this process. The scientific process is the systematic acquisition of new knowledge about a system. This systematic acquisition is generally the scientific method, and the system is generally nature. Science is also the scientific knowledge that has been systematically acquired by this scientific process.

Scientific fact requires three criteria, vs. scientific theory which requires none.

1. The result must be observable
2. The result must be repeatable
3. The result must be similar each time it is repeated.

Theory is nothing more than an opinion, hence should be weighed as such.

Ironically, Mankind can comprehend 4.5 billion years ago. In fact we can comprehend 450 billion years ago. We can also comprehend 450 billion years into the future. Our problem seems to be comprehending today. Our refusal to look today square in the eye, makes us trip and stumble all over the place.

Now, concerning Man and dino living together. There is evidence to that "theory". There is also evidence that some of the dino family literally "breathed fire", hence the mythology of "fire breathing dragons". We even have creatures that "spit fire" today (by mixing different chemicals before expelling the combination at the "target", resulting in a flame and serious burn upon contact). Scripture refers to "Leviathans, Behemoths, and Timorias? (sp)", during the times of the old testament...with scales and tails as long and thick as Cedar trees.

Things that make you go Hmmmm.

v/r

Q

[Vajradhara]

Namaste Quahom,

can you explain the difference between a scientific "fact" and a scientific "theory"? please provide scientific references for your position on this issue.

[Enkidu]

Just a quick interjection -

Originally Posted by Quahom1

[Scientific] Theory is nothing more than an opinion, hence should be weighed as such.

This is a very common misconception, particularly amongst those without scientific backgrounds (this isn't meant to be an attack of any kind on you Quahom1, please forgive me if it comes across as such... the downside of a written communications media )

A scientific theory is NOT an opinion in the common sense of the word. Generally, opinions are not falsifiable, because they tend to be subjective and not well-defined from a yes/no perspective.

'Scientific Theory' is actually shorthand for:

'Proposed model that explains ALL observed phenomena to date WITHOUT exception, and is predictive i.e. experiments can be designed to test new conditions, and the outcome of these are predicted by the model'.

Even where established theories are found to be wrong, e.g. Newton's Law of Gravity, the new theory that replaces it tends to have as a subset of its conditions the original theory. In this case, Newton's Law of Gravity is a special case of General Relativity, that applies when velocities are low compared to the speed of light. I.e. in terms of the equations, at low velocity the equation approximates to F=ma et al.

This is clearly far stronger than saying that scientific theory is equivalent to 'opinion'.


As a side note, the conditions you have ascribed to 'scientific fact' are in fact preconditions and validity constraints that specify what experiments can contribute to providing evidence to support given scientific theories.

In particular, the 1st condition is stating that experiments need to deal with quantitative rather than qualitative outcomes (and probably should have observable replaced by measurable for the avoidance of doubt); the 2nd condition is specifying objectivity, and really should include the clause 'by other people'; the 3rd condition is similar to the second (i.e. a test of objectivity), but is stating that time should not be a factor, i.e. a result true now should continue to be true tomorrow.

[Quahom1]

Oops,

That is what I get for posting in the middle of the night, well after ignoring my wife's plea for me to come to bed.

You are right of course. I should have said "Hypothesis" vs "Theory", and "Law" vs "Fact". Law focuses on a singular event, wherein Theory encompasses a symultaneous and complex series of events or actions, and is observable repeatedly (by others). Hypothesis is the educated quess (opinion) yet to be proved.

"But damnit Jim, I'm an engineer, not a scientist"...(a little space humor)

v/r

Q

[Bandit]

Now, concerning Man and dino living together. There is evidence to that "theory". There is also evidence that some of the dino family literally "breathed fire", hence the mythology of "fire breathing dragons". We even have creatures that "spit fire" today (by mixing different chemicals before expelling the combination at the "target", resulting in a flame and serious burn upon contact). Scripture refers to "Leviathans, Behemoths, and Timorias? (sp)", during the times of the old testament...with scales and tails as long and thick as Cedar trees.

Dear Quahom
Do you think some of what they were seeing as for the fire was actually some kind of gas or spray that looked like smoke and when it hit something it burned whatever it touched? I find it hard to believe that any flesh animal like dragons would be able to literally ignite a fire from there mouth or nose. But I do have to wonder about what they may have been seeing was some breath that appeared to be fire but it was the target that burned and not there mouth. Like some kind of ACID. I think the cobra can do this.

Maybe they did still have dinasaurs in the bible, but they were shrinking in size and all the people ate them for dinner. A tail as thick as a Cedar tree would make a nice meal for many people.

I have a question for a scientist. Does anyone know how long (how many years) it is supposed to take for bones to become fossils?

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by Bandit

Dear Quahom
Do you think some of what they were seeing as for the fire was actually some kind of gas or spray that looked like smoke and when it hit something it burned whatever it touched? I find it hard to believe that any flesh animal like dragons would be able to literally ignite a fire from there mouth or nose. But I do have to wonder about what they may have been seeing was some breath that appeared to be fire but it was the target that burned and not there mouth. Like some kind of ACID. I think the cobra can do this.

Maybe they did still have dinasaurs in the bible, but they were shrinking in size and all the people ate them for dinner. A tail as thick as a Cedar tree would make a nice meal for many people.

I have a question for a scientist. Does anyone know how long (how many years) it is supposed to take for bones to become fossils?

Dear Bandit,

In South America there is a Beetle (I think it is called a lightning or fire Beetle), that actually "spits" two chemicals out that when mixed with eachother and the air, and in fact the result is a vapor that ignites in flames while traveling towards its intended target, and burns the "victim" badly.

Anthropologists can not explain certain dinosoar skull that have hollows within the skull. However, there is speculation that "chemicals" could have been stored in these hollows...

As far as bones and bodies "fosilising, in Seattle, Washington there is a tourist trap down on Alaskan Hwy near Pier 67, that has/had among its attractions, the body of a cowboy, killed in the desert during the late 1800s. The body was "preserved" (hair, eyes, organs, nails and all) by the conditions in the desert. This took place in less than 50 years. The "bog People" of the British Isles are estimated to be several thousand years old but are fosilized in very good condition.

Diamonds are carbon (coal), that was naturally compressed under great pressure for thousands of years, but today we can artificially make one within a few days or weeks by creating the right conditions and then multplying the intensity.

Hmmm....

v/r

Q

[Enkidu]

Originally Posted by Quahom1

Hypothesis is the educated quess (opinion) yet to be proved.

Sorry to belabour this point, but its important I think to establish a common understanding of this issue.

The reason why using the word 'opinion' is very misleading, is that technically, whilst it may be correct, common usage of 'opinion' is that of a subjective 'truth' that cannot really be proven one way or another.

'You have your opinion, I have mine' is a way of saying that you and I see reality differently, and we can't agree purely based on some logical process. Often this is because opinions are held on matters which are subjective, i.e. there is no independent reality outside of individual experiences.

Scientific hypotheses / theories are very different to this; they are always formulated in terms such that a logical process (the scientific method) can be used to either corroborate or invalidate the hypothesis / theory. Rightly or wrongly, it is assumed that there is an objective truth that exists independently of the particular scientist measuring it.

When people (e.g. creationists) attack science, they deliberately choose to play on the ambiguity of words like 'opinion'. If instead of using the word 'opinion', they were to use a phrase such as 'best available model at the present time, based on extensive peer review amongst the world-wide community of scientists, that explains all observed phenomena to date and provides predictions that may be tested in future which have the potential to invalidate the model' then two things would happen:

i. the word count of their articles would rise significantly
ii. most of their arguments would fall over

Anyhow, this is a long-winded way of saying that it may be better not to use the term 'opinion' in the context of 'scientific hypothesis' unless your intention is to deliberately mislead

[Bandit]

Originally Posted by Quahom1

Dear Bandit,

In South America there is a Beetle (I think it is called a lightning or fire Beetle), that actually "spits" two chemicals out that when mixed with eachother and the air, and in fact the result is a vapor that ignites in flames while traveling towards its intended target, and burns the "victim" badly.

Anthropologists can not explain certain dinosoar skull that have hollows within the skull. However, there is speculation that "chemicals" could have been stored in these hollows...

As far as bones and bodies "fosilising, in Seattle, Washington there is a tourist trap down on Alaskan Hwy near Pier 67, that has/had among its attractions, the body of a cowboy, killed in the desert during the late 1800s. The body was "preserved" (hair, eyes, organs, nails and all) by the conditions in the desert. This took place in less than 50 years. The "bog People" of the British Isles are estimated to be several thousand years old but are fosilized in very good condition.

Diamonds are carbon (coal), that was naturally compressed under great pressure for thousands of years, but today we can artificially make one within a few days or weeks by creating the right conditions and then multplying the intensity.

Hmmm....

v/r

Q

Hmmm, I will second that Hmmm.....
I don't want to meet up with that beetle without seeing him first.

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, all!

A quick two cents and I'll be on my way:

Originally Posted by Quahom1

Anthropologists can not explain certain dinosoar skull that have hollows within the skull.

Umm, guys, if we're trying to be more or less correct here, I think you mean archeologists. Anthropologists are involved distinctly with the social development of humanity.

As far as bones and bodies "fosilising, in Seattle, Washington there is a tourist trap down on Alaskan Hwy near Pier 67, that has/had among its attractions, the body of a cowboy, killed in the desert during the late 1800s.

Yeah, there's something like this along I-10 in Arizona or New Mexico that is advertised for miles; "Come see THE THING!" After years of curiousity, I went to see, and it was an indian girl who must have died in childbirth and was buried in the desert with her child. Now, there is a distinction to be made here as well, what is being described, both the cowboy and indian, as well as bog people, and even Otzi, the 6000 year old body found in the Alps, and in many other places, is that these are mummies, not fossils. This is important, because while mummies are on their way to becoming fossils, they are not fossils. In a true fossil, the organic elements are replaced with minerals. Dinosaur "bones" are not really bones, but inorganic minerals that have substituted for the bone as it decayed. A great example is the petrified trees in the Painted desert area East of the Grand Canyon. For a further clarification, this is why Carbon-14 dating works on mummies, but not on fossils.

We now return you to your regularly scheduled discussion...