Dinosaurs Weren't in the Bible...They Never Even Existed.

[Statler Waldorf]

Well I would say there are degrees of how provable something is, I mean some things are certain, or so close it's impossible to tell them apart, and some aren't proved at all, and there are things in between. Like we can say dinosaurs existed with greater certainty than that the moon is made of cheese.

I would agree with you, but induction deals with degrees of probability, when I use the word proof I am usually referring to deduction. A person couldn’t formulate a sound deductive argument for the existence of dinosaurs, and yet many of these same people ask for one concerning the existence of God.

You're playing Min's fool again, Stat.

I can only work with what he gives me.

---

From the above source:

Believe it or not, we've actually found T. rex poop. We know it's T. rex poop because of its size (no one else who lived at that place, at the time, was big enough to make such a thing) and because it was made by a meat-eating dinosaur (it has pieces of bone inside). Some poop found with Sue had acid-etched duckbill bones mixed in. Because these bones are preserved, we know that it had a short and rapid digestive system. In contrast, bones eaten by a crocodile are completely dissolved within the digestive tract before excretion. This tells us that a T. rex digestive system worked more like a bird's than a crocodile's.


And,

---

---

To find out what meant turning not to the bones of T. rex but to the remains of an animal eaten by one, a Triceratops. These animals were hefty herbivores, ten tonnes of muscle with a characteristic armoured head. And when scientists began to uncover bones baring huge tooth marks, they knew Triceratops had been T. rex food. So Horner turned to a plaster cast of part of a Triceratops, the sacrum, fused vertebrae littered with nearly sixty frenzied T. rex tooth marks. Baring such terrible scars this enormous bone had been held up as conclusive proof of T. rex as a predator. Horner wanted to reanalyse the specimen, to see if there was anything previous researchers had missed, and they had. It was not the size or the shape of the bite marks they’d overlooked, it was where they were. The sacrum is a well protected part of a Triceratops skeleton. It’s the reinforced bone at the base of the spine, enclosed by the heavy muscle of the legs and the belly. The bite marks were on the underside of this concealed bone. The one part of a Triceratops body impossible for a T. rex to get to if its meal was still alive and kicking.

---

Again, this would have been post fall.

Haha, I am arguing exactly how atheists argue, so if you think it’s dumb then….LOL

No sir. You aren't making any meaningful arguments. You are simply being an ass.

Exactly the point...try debating an atheist on the existence of God sometime.

I can't "prove" that you exist either, but I'd be naive to argue from ignorance that you don't.

That you would, but arguing against the existence of God however is even more absurd than arguing against my existence.

... and the provision of that proof is where?????

The impossibility of the contrary, without God you wouldn’t even be able to argue against His existence because the very concept of proof quietly assumes that God exists.

Well sort of, I have faith in the scientific process that would have ripped apart the hypothesis if it wasn't viable. It hasn't been, unless your smart enough to provide some proof that "god did it"

What kind of argument is this? Scientific facts are not established by majority opinion; many scientists that don’t even believe in God reject abiogenesis. It’s actually a theory that’s on the decline.

[quote
No, your just an arsehole. [/quote]

What are you texting these responses or something? I believe you mean “you’re”, but anyways, “sticks and stones Love, sticks and stones.”

No one has observed an electron but you are perfectly happy to use a computer to show the world your a dick. Nobody has to "observe" the process, they observed different stages of the process with different fossils. They had an idea how it happened, they produced... oh wait I already told you how sciencey stuff all works... but you are numbfuck skull.

Fossilization is a process; electrons are physical objects so your comparison is faulty. Direct observation does not have to be only sight either. We can conduct experiments in the present and repeat them to infer the existence of electrons even though we do not know what they look like. You cannot conduct an experiment that demonstrates fossilization occurs over long periods of time like you assert it does.
Sorry, science is based on direct observation and repeatability; your little fossil stories have neither.

More numbfuckery, at what point would you stop saying "just a coincidence"? Never?... yeah thought so.

Remember I am arguing like a skeptic, I can’t tell you how many times I have heard “given enough time the impossible not only becomes possible but probable” from atheists defending their atheism. So if it frustrates you maybe now you know how I feel.

I think they might have missed the bit in your scientist training that evidence can be more than just direct observation. I would suggest you write a VERY angry letter to wherever you went that they missed teaching you such a basic concept. You are piss poor example of how good their education is, please let us know where you went so that we can avoid such a pathetic institution.

Not all scientists behave scientifically all the time is all you are proving. Empirical science is based upon direct observation and repeatability, any entry level biology student or teacher can tell you that. I am a bit shocked you didn’t know that considering you seem to have a pretty high opinion of your scientific knowledge. Asserting that some un-observed process created all of these fossils numerous times in the past is not scientific though, it’s storytelling.

Please tell me that you have enough brain power to be able to breath without mechanical assistance because you don't seem to be demonstrating enough in this thread.

If you are going to try and insult my intelligence it may help to at least spell correctly while doing so, it’s breathe, not breath. You never answered my question, are we still talking about dinosaurs?

ummmm... I don't think you know the meaning of "un-refuted"

Really? You provided a sound logical syllogism to refute me? I must have missed it, please point me to it so I can examine its soundness. Thanks.

ummmm... if you are for real and you are employed as a scientist you better hope they never find out about you being on here making such stupid comments.

Please address my actual point; your own little definition of scientific inquiry proved that believing in fossilization is not scientific. Unless you can point me to experiments that demonstrate it happens in nature over long periods of time. We have several creationists employed here, along with Buddhists, atheists, and agnostics. The US Government is an equal opportunity employer.

No, you have your proof they are, your just ignoring it and doing the equivalent of "lalalalalalala".

I guess I will just ask for that syllogism again since you keep asserting it exists. So where is it?

Stat is a scientist-a christian scientist. That is as far as his understanding of biology, taxonomy, and natural history goes. If it ain't in his silly old book, it ain't real: Which, of course, sets him up for a real Cartesian wallop.

Nope, I am a Reformed Christian, not a Christian Scientist. I am a Christian who happens to work as a scientist, but that’s different than being a Christian Scientist.

I've been looking at a lot of your answer, you simply say "it isn't true" to about anything that is presented to you. In fact that's your core argument "nothing is true"

That’s what skeptics do my friend.

How long do you think you can push the same argument over and over?

Until someone can actually refute it, which will be awhile.

Once again, tell us what is true. Show us your explanation then.

Wait, show what is true?

---

For the teachers and the museums, it turned out they are right most of the time. There is a trigonometry and it works as they've said. There is a P-51 Mustang plane, the Air and Space Museum didn't lie to me. It also turned out that the map I was shown in class was right, there is a place call the USA and an other called Canada. Even though from here in Europe you cannot see them, so you are tempted to believe they do not exist. The number 10 actually comes out after the number 9, just like they said it would! And look, they even taught me writing, that's how you and I communicate. So according to you I should turn my back on society and all of the information it passed down onto me. Sure, but for what? Tell me what should replace all of those things society has given me? I understand you have rejected it but why should I? Convince me a bit and I'll follow you.

---

Well whether or not Museums are usually right or not is irrelevant. Appealing to what they say is not a rational way to prove anything, that was my point.

So, I'd love to read your dissertation, the one in which you lay out the TRUTH the societies of the entire world seems to have failed noticing. After all you have been so dismissive of everything else it must be because they are all untrue. Now is the time when I sit and learn from you, but I can't learn from silence.

Now I am starting to think you missed the point of all this, I personally believe dinosaurs existed, but I don’t wave the flag of skepticism like many others on here do. So I was pointing out, that if people were consistent in their skepticism they would not believe in dinosaurs either.

Except that you "proved" no such point. You picked a terrible cross to bleed and die on because the existence of dinosaurs is well demonstrated, the difference between fossils and rocks well understood. There is no discord, there is no doubt. This is why your constant appeals to your version of logic are plainly retarded. While science is mostly built upon induction, it works. Further, the problem of induction has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not these fossils were bone, because no induction is required. That's just chemistry, anatomy, geology, it's cut and dry. Induction comes in when we determine that they were once alive. What would the logical argument to the contrary be (how else could these things be explained)? See how pointless this is? The inductive "leap" if you will, is that all things with bones were once alive (nothing specifically to do with dinosaurs at all). If you want to argue that, be my guest. It's not exactly equivalent to god claims, or the act of being skeptical about such claims. So just stop.

You can assert all you want but you have two options...

You can either back up your assertion that science has “demonstrated” fossils to be what they say they are by providing observation of the fossilization process.

Or you can “prove” dinosaurs existed by providing a sound logical syllogism that does so. I will wait patiently for you to do either one...

I disputed that long ago, like his claim to be a government scientist, yet he was posting on "guvment" time. The man is a talking head, nothing more.

You don’t know when I work and when I don’t, as I pointed out to you then my computer at work doesn’t even allow me to visit sites like this. This seems to be a point you like to just ignore.

You have no point, because you were denying obvious evidence to support dinosaurs.

All I have seen have been a few appeals to a process that has never been observed to even take place. You call that obvious? It’s storytelling.

Relentlessly claiming "but where is the proof?" every time somebody showed you a skeleton, was NOT the same as what atheists do to theists (unless you actually think we deny OBVIOUS PROOF of god - is that what you think?), it was just an exercise in absurdness.

It’s not what I think, it’s what I know you guys do.

But you can prove dinosaurs existed.

Oh really? Where is your sound logical syllogism that does so? The word proof actually has meaning you know.

---

What I saw re-reading the entire thread for some sense:


SummerQueen: Here is an hilariously badly done paper on dinosaurs
denialism.

SW: You are not skeptical the same way with god than with dinosaurs.

All: Well there is proof for dinosaurs

SW: NO

All: there are fossils

SW: NO

All: there are research published

SW: NO

All: There are museums

SW: NO

All: There is science

SW: NO

All: there is what teachers have told you

SW: NO

All: there is what you can learn in unversity

SW: NO

and so forth... Anyone can replace the rest of the dialogue with a one
simple Unix command:

yes "no"

I'm a bit disappointed myself. I was expecting demonstrations, an argument besides an systematic denial of everything. It's a bit of a tease with nothing in the end.

---

Do you even know what the word proof means? Sound syllogisms buddy, sound syllogisms. You are right, this has been a bit of a disappointment, but only because I am dealing with people that don’t know the difference between deduction and induction.

But I must thank you for this thread, because when I was sick of it some nights ago the telling of it allowed me to make my favorite Skeptic and your dear fellow Christian Ryft laugh rich and full, and there's nothing I like better than seeing my boys laugh.

I would be interested to see the misrepresentation of my argument you fed Ryft, he understands logic enough to understand what I am doing with this exercise. That’s kind of ironic though, I told a few of my colleagues about the exercise and they were a bit shocked at how little lay persons actually know about how science and logic relate and work.