i choose.....
YES, MAN!
guess becase science said so, that's what we were taught..they have their bones and everything..
Do you believe in Dinosaurs ?
- Thread starter jpappl
- Start date
i choose.....
YES, MAN!
guess becase science said so, that's what we were taught..they have their bones and everything..
That's the problem: the complaints are effectively "I can't be bothered to learn anything but it's YOUR fault for knowing something I don't".
Excuse me: which bit of "I'm now (and have been for some years) trying to get more than a basic knowledge of everything I can.
Regardless, while doing physics (and engineering) I managed to keep track of many other subjects simply out of interest..." did you miss?
You're assuming, incorrectly, that I wouldn't listen and then try to learn something about the subject.
Fail.
I'm sorry: what does that list show?
Science never claims to be perfect (in knowledge): the church does - and tries to suppress investigation while ignoring observable facts..
Okay: but dogma doesn't prevail, as shown by Galileo winning in the end.
So that displays your ignorance...
I see, you mistake my misunderstanding of the poor way you expressed yourself as ignorance of ... something... on my part.
My excuse is that dogma prevents learning and maintains ignorance.
What's your excuse?
Nope: see above.
Dogma promotes and maintains ignorance.
Science promotes and supports knowledge.
So how can you knowing about something that decries expansion of knowledge add to your judgement?
Dogma, no matter how much you know about it is still a single position.
Details of that position don't help.
Science is a range of disciplines that shows you how things ARE, not how someone wants them to be.
Last edited:
Haha, pretty funny to just admit you're ignorant on the matter, I often wonder how people can remain religious in this day and age, given how much is known about the world and it's history, and you're exhibitting how quite well in this thread. The old shut your eyes and put your fingers in your ears routine, if you're not aware of reality it can't conflict with your fantasy.
See most atheists do know a little something about dinosaurs and all sorts of everything, they pay attention to lots of little things and piece together the puzzle of reality, they start to get a "big picture" in which the concept of god simply doesn't fit, it's not that they don't want him to exist, they just come to the realisation that, based on all available evidence, it's most likely he doesn't.
Independently they all come to this conclusion because that is where the actual facts unambiguously and unyieldingly lead. Atheists are just normal people who made the mistake of paying attention to what is actually real, theists are the people who didn't bother paying attention. If heaven is real it's going to be filled with self-absorbed ignoramuses bumping into eachother and washing themselves in the grape soda fountain because they missed the huge "drinking only" sign.
See most atheists do know a little something about dinosaurs and all sorts of everything, they pay attention to lots of little things and piece together the puzzle of reality, they start to get a "big picture" in which the concept of god simply doesn't fit, it's not that they don't want him to exist, they just come to the realisation that, based on all available evidence, it's most likely he doesn't.
Independently they all come to this conclusion because that is where the actual facts unambiguously and unyieldingly lead. Atheists are just normal people who made the mistake of paying attention to what is actually real, theists are the people who didn't bother paying attention. If heaven is real it's going to be filled with self-absorbed ignoramuses bumping into eachother and washing themselves in the grape soda fountain because they missed the huge "drinking only" sign.
:roflmao:
BIG misunderstanding..seems like i need to sleep..summer vacation screwed my sleeping time.
when you said:
"choose not to look for a reason"
did you mean:
having a reason not to look,
or not bother looking for a reason?
i meant the latter.
I understand the sleep issue.
But, either way. You have chosen not to look.
Why ?
Ok, thanks.
Yes it is.
So, if it is yes, you believe or accept that we have found the bones of these creatures that died out millions of years ago and that we have been able to replicate them, at least that they existed, based on the fossil record.
Correct ?
I once dated a girl who told me dinosaur bones were planted by the devil to trick people into losing faith in God. She was dead serious. When I questioned her a bit more she got hostile. Needless to say she was hot.
Science is a range of disciplines that shows you how things ARE, not how someone wants them to be.
Great way of phrasing it Oli !!
Great way of phrasing it Oli !!
I have been there to some degree, the wrong head gets us in trouble every time.
What would you rather have ? The brainless hottie or the well thought out nottie.
Don't answer that.
Are we talking short or longer term here
by nottie..... just how nottie are we talking here
How can one "believe" in dinosaurs? They're proven to have existed. Belief implies faith in the existence of something that lacks physical evidence.
For example: I believe in the existence of multiple gods, but there is no empirical data for them. My belief is based on faith and reason.
However, I do not believe in dinosaurs, because faith is unnecessary in regards to physically demonstrative evidence, unless one means "faith in one's own senses".
It's a trick question.
It wasn't meant to be.
For you Hapsburg, I will change it to:
Do you know dinosaurs existed ?
Ok, great, then do you believe mankind evolved over 100's of thousands of years ?
this:
the way you traet dogma, others treat science.
it's that simple.
yup, i guess i do fail..if you didn't accept the term woo woo.
would sit to learn more about woo woo theories?
science claims to be the best, so did the church.
same thing, different time.
i leave room for the future to prove me wrong(or right).
galilio didn't win in the end.
science did.on the back of the church.
one day something will win on the back of science.
you can't see this coming.
don't worry..people of the church didn't see it too
i don't have an excuse, unlike you, i'm learning more of the other side to have my judgment even more balanced.
science doesn't show you how things ARE, it explains why they are so, and keeps it down to predict similar happenings.
dogma is not how someone* wants things to be..it is how things are, not much explanation.
*dogma is how god wanted things to be..which science explains in a useful logical method..god wills things in a pattern, and gives us a brain to discover the pattern, to be able to live.
but proof that science is less than dogma, is because somethings which ARE (like life), can't be explained by science. but the answer is given by dogma, and more or less an explanation enough to follow.
You mean ignorant people who have no idea what science is, what it does or how it works?
The vast majority of my posts are in Pseudoscience and Parapsychology where I spend time and effort showing the woo woos where and why they are wrong: I know and read far far more about most woo woo "theories" than the bulk of woo woos that we get here.
Any more questions?
Wrong again.
Science claims that it works and can be shown to work, and it encourages questions.
The church simply said "We're correct and you're not allowed to question it".
Galileo did win because he was shown to be correct.
Despite the church you mean: it had to surrender when the evidence was widely disseminated enough to be unstoppable.
Unlikely.
Highly unlikely.
No, you're not seeing the point.
How much do I need to learn about a "point of view" that simply says "this is correct [whatever it is that's being espoused] and you are NOT allowed to question it"?
That's a stance that sufficiently explains itself, no further investigation needed.
Keeps what down?
What similar happenings?
Incorrect:
God is a supposition.
Dogma states that whether it declares to be right IS right, regardless of any contrary observation, and prevents (actively) any investigation.
No.
Science cannot ever be less than dogma.
Unless you've given up thinking.
Science accepts that: and doesn't make authoritative announcements on them.
It merely says "we're still looking", or in some cases "that's not in our remit".
AN answer is given by dogma, not THE answer.
And dogma, being dogmatic, disallows any looking for other possibly more appropriate answers.
Are we talking short or longer term here
by nottie..... just how nottie are we talking here
To make it difficult.
Long term and she thinks dinosaurs were a trick to test your faith, LOL.
She is really, really hot, but remember she might want to have kids together one day.
is it possible he put them in the ground to employ people (give them somehting to do)?
think about it; many drop to their knees and kiss the dirt 5 times a day; might as well have them doing something productive with the time.
Is there a maybe?
objectively speaking of course
he and darwin, won! their knowledge is alive within us and the progression of knowledge; i call that a homerun!
the church murdered more alchemist, then ever supported them. (inquisitions)
YEP!
tell the pope he is alive upon carbon and then chemically describe C-12 and watch em squirm!
in a sense that is proven
because most (many many) of the beliefs all said; 'light is life'
and to this day, the scientific community cannot comprehend the energy between all mass is of or from electromagnetic energy
eg.... there is no electric potential without the 'right hand rule' in effect
and even bohr's "quantum jumps" share what energy is between each change of energy state but does the community observe the energy between mass as light?
No they don't even as planck instituted the qubit based on an f, the majority across the globe still cannot 'see the light'
funny to say the least!
in light of the fact that fossils exist, i'm having a hard time understanding why this question exists.
The Inquisitions were nothing to do with alchemists.
This thread is about dinosaurs, not your personal delusions.
Planck didn't institute the qubit.