erez87
Lord of Random
I think they date the sediment and from that draw the dinosaur age. After doing that a lot they can use the dinosaurs to calibrate sediment.
Ask an atheist (the second coming)
- Thread starter Ziggy Stardust
- Start date
civ2
Emperor
- Joined
- Nov 17, 2004
- Messages
- 1,650
I don't think that the TREES would reflect an event of only ONE year long, especially which hardly even affected them.
The story of the Flood ends up with a bird bringing a LEAF from a tree - thus the TREES were unaffected by it.
Meaning, your "evidence" is pointless, cause it can't reflect the situation.
As of the cataclysm itself, like day/night thingy.
You say that it meant that the Earth stopped spinning.
But:
1. If the event was miraculous (and definitely it must've been, cause you don't get GLOBE-sized floods NATURALLY), then there was no problem for it to be "suspended" as part of that miracle.
2. Your premise is based on the Earth WE know.
But the Moon, for example, also doesn't have "Earth-light day and night" change, even though it still spins.
Just it's done through different conditions - always being turned the same side towards Earth.
Who said, you can't do similarly with the Earth towards Sun???
Oh, and if you imply that it would cause huge waves and other cataclysms - well, HELLO!
WHAT are we actually talking about if NOT THAT?!
Anyways, you can stick to your "evidence" - I'll stick to mine.
As long as it doesn't hurt anyone - I'm fine with it.
The story of the Flood ends up with a bird bringing a LEAF from a tree - thus the TREES were unaffected by it.
Meaning, your "evidence" is pointless, cause it can't reflect the situation.
As of the cataclysm itself, like day/night thingy.
You say that it meant that the Earth stopped spinning.
But:
1. If the event was miraculous (and definitely it must've been, cause you don't get GLOBE-sized floods NATURALLY), then there was no problem for it to be "suspended" as part of that miracle.
2. Your premise is based on the Earth WE know.
But the Moon, for example, also doesn't have "Earth-light day and night" change, even though it still spins.
Just it's done through different conditions - always being turned the same side towards Earth.
Who said, you can't do similarly with the Earth towards Sun???
Oh, and if you imply that it would cause huge waves and other cataclysms - well, HELLO!
WHAT are we actually talking about if NOT THAT?!
Anyways, you can stick to your "evidence" - I'll stick to mine.
As long as it doesn't hurt anyone - I'm fine with it.
Ziggy Stardust
Absolutely Sane
Back to some real questions.
1. We're in a discussion board, which serves the purpose of exchanging ideas. Before I came here, I only discussed these issues with Catholic Christians. While posting here I have found wildly different ideas from all kinds of flavours of Christians, Buddhists and Muslims. Drawing the conclusion that the perceived differences between all of us are smaller than we'd like to think.
2. I am not infallible. I need to test and adjust my world view according to new information and insights. The only way to do this is to throw them out there and have others comment on them. Again, when I just started posting here, my ideas with regard to atheism and theism were quite different. For instance I didn't know the concept of the "God Alone Is" God. Really freaky and interesting way to look at God. Which I have PunkBass to thank for in this thread.
3. Proselyting doubt. Too many people are too sure of themselves so they don't allow consideration of new ideas, before judging them. It's great to go along in an idea until you get to the point where the idea fails to deliver.
In other words, by engaging in discussion I lose nothing (ok, I lose time, but I'm here to kill that anyway) and probably gain nothing. Still, those odds are good enough for me
Many, many good reasons.
1. We're in a discussion board, which serves the purpose of exchanging ideas. Before I came here, I only discussed these issues with Catholic Christians. While posting here I have found wildly different ideas from all kinds of flavours of Christians, Buddhists and Muslims. Drawing the conclusion that the perceived differences between all of us are smaller than we'd like to think.
2. I am not infallible. I need to test and adjust my world view according to new information and insights. The only way to do this is to throw them out there and have others comment on them. Again, when I just started posting here, my ideas with regard to atheism and theism were quite different. For instance I didn't know the concept of the "God Alone Is" God. Really freaky and interesting way to look at God. Which I have PunkBass to thank for in this thread.
3. Proselyting doubt. Too many people are too sure of themselves so they don't allow consideration of new ideas, before judging them. It's great to go along in an idea until you get to the point where the idea fails to deliver.
All a real atheist needs is no believe in God. No other qualifications are needed
I'd want to know what makes him think that. If it turns out he's drunk, on drugs or mentally challenged, I can still dismiss him. If it's very ignorant, I can try to reason. If it's wilful ignorance, I can still dismiss him.
In other words, by engaging in discussion I lose nothing (ok, I lose time, but I'm here to kill that anyway) and probably gain nothing. Still, those odds are good enough for me
Well, first there'd have to be some organic carbon in it, and be an actual bone. I think you should check out the difference between a 'fossil' and a 'bone'. There's a reason why we have a lot of mammoth bones and why we have a lot of dinosaur fossils.
I don't think that the TREES would reflect an event of only ONE year long, especially which hardly even affected them.
The story of the Flood ends up with a bird bringing a LEAF from a tree - thus the TREES were unaffected by it.
Meaning, your "evidence" is pointless, cause it can't reflect the situation.
As of the cataclysm itself, like day/night thingy.
You say that it meant that the Earth stopped spinning.
But:
1. If the event was miraculous (and definitely it must've been, cause you don't get GLOBE-sized floods NATURALLY), then there was no problem for it to be "suspended" as part of that miracle.
2. Your premise is based on the Earth WE know.
But the Moon, for example, also doesn't have "Earth-light day and night" change, even though it still spins.
Just it's done through different conditions - always being turned the same side towards Earth.
Who said, you can't do similarly with the Earth towards Sun???
Oh, and if you imply that it would cause huge waves and other cataclysms - well, HELLO!
WHAT are we actually talking about if NOT THAT?!
Anyways, you can stick to your "evidence" - I'll stick to mine.
As long as it doesn't hurt anyone - I'm fine with it.
Have you read the gospels of the Flying Spaghetti Monster? At least the FSM claims that all its miracles were covered up so that we wouldn't know. Your Bible makes no such claims.
Which is the more likely to be true, HMMM?
Smellincoffee
Trekkie At Large
Out of curiosity, any atheists and nonreligious readers here going to church for whatever reason this Christmas season? (Thinking of that recent news article about atheists bringing their kids to church for Christmas..)
I am, but I rather like the crowd (and atmosphere) at the local Episcopal church, so I show up there fairly regularly. Good music.
I am, but I rather like the crowd (and atmosphere) at the local Episcopal church, so I show up there fairly regularly. Good music.
Ziggy Stardust
Absolutely Sane
Nope. The Dutch churches aren't as lively as the ones I saw in the States. If they had been I would likely have visited just for that.
I just attended a memorial for a loved one. The sermon was longer than the eulogies. Unfortunately, the sermon was by a YECer who believed my loved one had a 'deathbed conversion'.
Firstly, can people please help us cure aging, like proactively? Because I'm tired of funerals for loved ones. And secondly, the sermon was very unsatisfying. It provided zero comfort to the non-believers, and was only focused on the believers. I almost felt like it was rude, we hired a pastor to help us with the memorial, but he had nothing to say for the non-believers. We have to generate our own closure, which there is very little of. The 'good news' is that he's no longer in pain? The 'good news' is that Christians think he's in Heaven? Please: it's a goddamn tragedy he was in pain, death is a piss-poor 'solution' to suffering.
Firstly, can people please help us cure aging, like proactively? Because I'm tired of funerals for loved ones. And secondly, the sermon was very unsatisfying. It provided zero comfort to the non-believers, and was only focused on the believers. I almost felt like it was rude, we hired a pastor to help us with the memorial, but he had nothing to say for the non-believers. We have to generate our own closure, which there is very little of. The 'good news' is that he's no longer in pain? The 'good news' is that Christians think he's in Heaven? Please: it's a goddamn tragedy he was in pain, death is a piss-poor 'solution' to suffering.
Ajidica
High Quality Person
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2006
- Messages
- 22,204
Yep. My family always goes to Christmas Eve mass and then have egg salad for dinner.
Plus we get to play the "Which choir kid will faint?" game. There is one each year.
I doubt i will be going to church, although i used to be interested due to the 7th century AD Byzantine architecture.
But most priests here are appalling, and i want nothing to do with them. Seems like everyone who is an utter failure becomes a priest...
But most priests here are appalling, and i want nothing to do with them. Seems like everyone who is an utter failure becomes a priest...
plarq
Crazy forever
Well, curing patients is not pastor's job.
warpus
In pork I trust
If he can predict exactly what you are going to do, then you have no free will in doing what you want. If you think of your actions as a tree (kind of like a tree of possible chess moves) then you'd be confined to one particular path along the tree. If you had free will you'd be able to pick a different path.
timtofly
One Day
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2009
- Messages
- 9,445
So there have never been any dinosaur bones found that are not fossilized?
warpus
In pork I trust
Fossilization preserves bones. No other process can do that, IIRC.
erez87
Lord of Random
No. But left overs of organic materials have been found. Not bone thou...
I'm not aware of any, but I suppose it's possible - just supremely unlikely. You'd need an organism to die in such a way that the body is sealed away in an anoxic ph neutral environment that doesn't undergo any geomorphological processes for 65,000 millenia. Nowhere on earth fits this... even the driest places on earth don't stay that way for more than a few million years.
Within our own lineage we find that the last common ancestor with chimps and bonobos is already beyond the fossilization horizon, and that's 1/10 the amount of time since the dinosaurs died out. It's not until we get into more recent ancestors (100kya) that we see bones that are either not fossilized or partially fossilized.
I'm hoping this helps answer your question... though part of me suspects that you're leading up to something
Spoiler :
timtofly
One Day
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2009
- Messages
- 9,445
Is this not an assumption? Why does it have to be 65,000 years old? That is my question. You have seemed to conclude that no dinosaurs can be younger than that. Why?
My next point, to not leave you hanging, is the hypothetical I asked. What if a bone like that existed? Would it be dismissed as an abnormality and why?
Please don't say the mountain of evidence, I have already heard that answer. IMO it is conveniently hiding the....
Maniacal
the green Napoleon
65,000 millenia is 65,000,000 years. While I think it would be incredibly awesome and amazing and probably wet myself a little bit if we found even part of a dinosaur (or other creature or plant) in such a perfectly preserved condition, the chance is so incredibly small I just don't see it ever happening 
If we did find one, I don't know why it would be dismissed unless it is never properly recorded, tested, dated etc. So unless you're suggesting species which have been extinct for 65 MILLION years lived 10,000 years ago I don't know what your point is.
If we did find one, I don't know why it would be dismissed unless it is never properly recorded, tested, dated etc. So unless you're suggesting species which have been extinct for 65 MILLION years lived 10,000 years ago I don't know what your point is.
