I'll take that field trip! Please!

(June 12, 2013 at 11:58 pm)Drich Wrote: I just disagree with how 'science' has identified it and how it currently represents the fossil record.

You can disagree with the scientific method all you want, it still brought you antibiotics, your car, your fridge, your heating system, proper medical care and a lot of other nice things I'm sure you don't disagree with at all.

(June 12, 2013 at 11:04 pm)Drich Wrote: Again, because you say so??? Or because someone who you believe to be smarter than you says so?? (Hint: I am looking for your source not your feelings on the matter)

Because there is absolutely no evidence to the contrary.

Theists are so funny in the head.



Then again, for some theists even seeing and touching it is not enough. It has to be invisible for them to believe it is real. If fossils were invisible, one can bet his ass theists would believe in them.

(June 12, 2013 at 11:40 pm)Godschild Wrote: How can you possibly know when a volcano erupted, you can't date rock and carbon dating is not accurate past 50,000 years.

You are very wrong, I don't think you have actually researched this at all. There is this a thing called the Cretaceous–Paleogene boundary, it is a layer of sediement with strange concentrations of elements and other stuff in it like iridium. It is thought that this is the result of the asteroid that killed the dinosaurs. The ash cloud and the molten hot rock that fell down the ground after formed a layer. The same concept of looking for layers can be applied when looking for when volcanos erupted.

As for carbon dating, it is all about isotopes and half lives which you probably don't understand. It is very accurate, scientists wouldn't be using it if it wasn't. Even if it wasn't accurate WITHIN 50,000, thats a relatively short time in relation to hundreds of millions of years so it wouldn't matter.

(June 13, 2013 at 12:07 am)orogenicman Wrote: It was a simple question. You appear to be infatuated with one book. I just wasn't sure if you realized that there are millions of books.

What other book Speaks of the God of the bible? Is that not what we are talking about? If there is only one book that speaks of the God of the bible then why go on a fools errand looking at 35 million other books?

Or did the topic change, and you just did not make anyone else aware?

Quote: I'm a published professional geologist, and have offered to take you on a field trip to show you why you are wrong.

Published as in writting correct? Then why must you show me anything? why can't you write the reason you feel that i am wrong?

Quote: Ignore my offer if you must, but don't come here making claims you cannot support and expect to be taken seriously.

So your denying the fact that over 75% of the fossile remains on display at the smithsonian are reproductions? That the majority of the displayed skeletons (including the one of the dipicted stegosaurus) are primarialy comprised of reproduction parts.
Here is where they buy them:
http://www.americandinosaurfossilsexchange.com/
http://www.fossilreproductions.com/

Here is what one looks at the Fernbank Meseum in atlanta
http://science.howstuffworks.com/environ...eplica.htm

Maybe the reason a 'published geologist' is so confused about this is because these things are not rocks.. Maybe if you were a published paleontologist you would know what you were talking about... Until then I think it wise to not go on a field trip with someone who does not know the difference between a resin mock up and actual fossilized remains.

But, as you pointed out that is only my 'uneducated' opinion.

I myself have not published anything but I have inspired a paper currently being researched on this very subject. Here is a link:
http://atheistforums.org/thread-14190.html

I don't get what you are trying to say. Is just that the dinosaur exhibits in the smithsonian are not 100% made of actual fossilised bone? Or that this is somehow evidence that dinosaurs are made up?

(June 13, 2013 at 5:16 am)littleendian Wrote:

(June 12, 2013 at 11:58 pm)Drich Wrote: I just disagree with how 'science' has identified it and how it currently represents the fossil record.

You can disagree with the scientific method all you want, it still brought you antibiotics, your car, your fridge, your heating system, proper medical care and a lot of other nice things I'm sure you don't disagree with at all.

Straw man arguement. I did not say I disagree with the scientific method. I clearly said I do not agree with how science repersents the fossil record.

Meaning I do not agree with the general conseneus that the scientific community that holds to. The Scientific method has nothing to do with the this specific interpertation of data.

---

(June 13, 2013 at 5:18 am)Maelstrom Wrote: Because there is absolutely no evidence to the contrary.

But there is. God offers absolute proof for all who A/S/K as out lined in Luke 11.

Quote:Theists are so funny in the head.
Then again, for some theists even seeing and touching it is not enough. It has to be invisible for them to believe it is real. If fossils were invisible, one can bet his ass theists would believe in them.

I believe in fossils.

(June 13, 2013 at 8:45 am)Drich Wrote: But there is. God offers absolute proof for all who A/S/K as out lined in Luke 11.

No, that is not absolute proof of anything except a gullible mind willing to believe a fairy tale rather than apply reason in a world of reality. You can A/S/K (bullshit) all you want, but all you have done is convinced yourself of something that cannot be demonstrably proven to anyone. People convince themselves of things that are not real all the time, and they end up at the psychiatric ward. That is where you obviously belong.

(June 13, 2013 at 8:43 am)Rationalman Wrote: I don't get what you are trying to say. Is just that the dinosaur exhibits in the smithsonian are not 100% made of actual fossilised bone? Or that this is somehow evidence that dinosaurs are made up?

I am saying the pictures you guys are using as proof of dinosaurs are artist renditions of what is actually found.

Truth be known most of the bone remains are peiced together. Like Dig A in Africa will yield an upper body of Dinosaur X, and Dig B in North America will turn up the lower half of Dinosaur Xa (Meaning a close relitive because the bones look like the would lign up, but another variable like the ablity to date a given fossile puts it in a different time period. Which is one of the resaons I do not agree with time stamp placed on the fossil record.) So these two halves are reproduced my sculptors and various experts (because even in the best situations the bones are cracked and or splintered and can not be completely seperated from the substraight, or some bones are out right missing, and someone simply fills in the gaps.) Then the reproductions are made into molds and Craftsmen put the various peices together on wire frames and the are placed in museums where (appearently) Some "published Geologists" and the general atheist public mistake these resin copies as being once living momuments that God could not have ever existed.
To which I ask why? Even if the time frame 'science' wants to use is correct. The bible does not age itself.

(June 13, 2013 at 8:45 am)Drich Wrote: Then the reproductions are made into molds and Craftsmen put the various peices together on wire frames and the are placed in museums where (appearently) Some "published Geologists" and the general atheist public mistake these resin copies as being once living momuments that God could not have ever existed.
To which I ask why? Even if the time frame 'science' wants to use is correct. The bible does not age itself.

Idiotic. They are living monuments to -their own- existence. You have a problem with this because it represents the ways that god could not have ever existed - to you.

Project less.

(The bible "ages" itself left right and center btw)