In a world without God...

[Drich]

Yes, we are all aware that you are being dishonest by trying to spin a yarn that makes atheists appear to say or believe something other than what they actually say or believe. Regardless, the fact is that you ask the question of what a world without god looks like. The only answer to that question is that it looks exactly like the world we have.

So your saying in my own thread I am not to ask a follow up?
As in:
"Why cant a world with God look exactly like the one we have?"

This is a perfect example of you misinterpreting what I am saying. ALL intellectual endeavors endears curiosity, amazement, wonder, etc, but is also a result of human curiosity, amazement, wonder, etc. If we were not as curious about our world as we are, no discoveries would ever have been made, and we'd still be living in trees.

Curiosity is not an emotion. Curiosity can induce emotions. Emotion is defines as: a conscious mental reaction (as anger or fear) subjectively experienced as strong feeling usually directed toward a specific object and typically accompanied by physiological and behavioral changes in the body

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/emotion.

Again curiosity can lead to an emotional response but is not one in of itself.

Einstein once said:

"The true sign of intelligence is not knowledge but imagination."

Red Herring. For this has nothing to do with envoking emotion to sell a very specific world view.

And to that I would say that not going is the cowardly way out of your predicament, since if you actually went to the "holy land" and saw the barbarous behavior that is taking place there, you too might question the existence of a merciful god.

I question the Idea of an all mercify God simply because the bible never makes that Claim. Matter of fact the bible say the oppsite, for everyone except those who seek attonement for their sins.
For those who seek attonement they will find infinate mercy, for those who do no will have Hell to pay.

The fact of the matter is that geology is and always will be a "hands on" scientific discipline. You can understand the law of superposition without actually going into the field, but studying it in a laboratory or a classroom, or reading about it on the internet cannot convey the sheer wonder that the law even works like it does when you see it first hand. Perhaps you have such a hard time with this concept because you've always gotten your "knowledge" by other means, i.e., second and third hand. And because of that, you cannot truly appreciate the intellectual and emotional impact of first hand discovery. You have my sympathy.

Again i call into question any "Intelectual disipline" that requires emotion as it primary driver to legitmacy.

That, of course, is a lie. You are undoubtedly twisting what they told you. They are not fakes. They are reproductions of real fossils.

Have you ever been to the Smithsonian in DC? After you get past the impressive displays they have a windowed office (either mocked up or real) where they have an example of a fractured and splintered bone, and an artist/sculptor literally makes what he thinks it would look like out of clay. from there a mold is made and an example is either poured from plaster or fiberglass. A copy of a Copy in any honest person's language is a fake.

A reproduction, a model, not a fake.

You do know we do not have a complete single source stegasaurus right? Every complete example comes from anywhere between 30 to 80 different seperate dig sites. and even then there are only a hand full of examples on the planet.

How do we know they put the pieces together right? How do we know these animals were not "Kit bashed" from 30 different animals? We don't it's ALL FAITH to say this is what a stegasarus looks like. There is even more faith involved to say the fake one they have at the smithsonian is a true repersentation of what one looks like.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stegosaurus

But if it is real dinosaurs you want, I invite you to go to the Museum of the Rockies where they have real dinosaurs skeletons on display. And if it is real fossils you want, come to Kentucky and I can show you all the real fossils in-situ that you can stomach.

What they have on display are trays of actual bones, and fake/reproductions of standing models compiled of hand made peices cast from several different skeletons. Just like everyone else.
http://www.museumoftherockies.org/LinkCl...06&mid=562
They compare this collection with the one in DC. Meaning it is possiable as good.

If I thought for a minute that that was your intention, there would be no argument from me. It is clear that that is not your intention. Try again.

Maybe your so use to being lead around by your emotions to discern truth, you can not recognise truth anymore.

The fact that you believe you are rattling foundations by making a Mr. Obvious statement without fully grasping what you are actually saying, that's just sad.

We are the only two talking about dinosaurs anymore. That says the smart people want more information before the foolishly follow the same old standard arguement into the ground. Even if your 'education' will not allow you to think outside the box it has placed you in does not mean all the other members of this site agree with you.

Wow, that simply takes my breath away. How old are you, again? Look, if that is the kind of sophomoric thing you are concerned about, bring a friend. Bring as many friends as you like. The more the merrier. Jeez, dude, not everyone has the desire to see what is inside your pants. I am certainly not one of them. Time to grow up, don't you think?

Tell you what, If the Lord lightens my load and provides the funds i will take you up on your offer. I will be bringing a 2 friends and my wife (Mr Smith and Mr Wesson.)

Whether I go or do not go my position does not change. For the bible does not date itself. Meaning there is no born on date so the Earth does not have to be 5K years old. So, you can show me something with a trillion year old born on date and it changes nothing.

---

There are several examples of whole intact peices (80 to 85% of the skeletal structure accounted for) in various museums around the world, but everything there at the Smithsonian in DC at the time of my visit was contructed from a compliation of different examples or different dig sites. Most of that stuff are in underground vaults. They rotated different examples in their display cases. Outside of private collections real dino remains are never displayed like that.

I did not say that I said there were only a few Complete examples of dinosaurs period. Nothing like the stegasaurus in the picture.

Cool. So you believe dinosaurs were real. So what's the problem?

I dont have one.

---

Wait... So because paleontologists look at a stegosaurus skeleton with, lets say a missing rear left leg, and compare it with a different stegosaurus with a missing front right leg, they can't put the two together to get an idea of what the animal probably looked like???

The first one they put together was compiled out of 80 different skeletons. The most complete version of a stegasaurus was compiled out of 30 different skeletons. You cant tell me that if someone gave you 80 piles of incomplete bones (Not whole bones, but splinted and fragmented bones) you can come up with an accurate picture of what that animal(s) looked like. Oh and BTW the model we use today that tells us what one of these things looks like was first put together 140 years ago [that was the one made from 80 different digs/skeletons.] Every since then we have been using that model to peice meal random bones together to copy the first incarnation of this animal. Now it only takes 30 skeletons to make this animal's skeleton.

You're right there aren't a lot of examples of complete fossilized dinos (it's hard to last, entirely complete for tens or hundreds of millions of years), but there are a lot of partial examples. Scientists can identify what dinosaur it was based on comparing skeletal structure, and put the various pieces together, forming a complete picture.

all they can do is identify indivisual bones based on the compliation of existing models. Some of the models are close to 200 years old. So if the guy who put the first model together got it completely wrong, then everything based on that model is wrong. It takes the discovery of a nearly complete skeleton before any mistake is changed. And, if the mistake makes a drastic change a new species or sub species is discovered!

The Smithsonian has a basement used for storage, but mainly to work on the pieces going up to the exhibits. It also has an attic, but that's mainly offices. The majority of its collections reside in an off-site facility, not the basement. It's a big building, but not that big. They have specimen collections of almost every genus and species, both skeletal specimens as well as those stored in jars with preservatives (which are highly flammable, it would be a public health hazard to have them stored at the museum, light a match, museum goes BOOM!). That's a ton of animals. Then you get into the rock collections... Too much for the building on the Mall.

---

So, given my responses, Drich, let's summarize the reasons you refuse to take a field geology excursion with me, and possibly others:

1) 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

2) Butt rape by some creepy rock guy.

Are there any other reasons anyone here can think of why he would not want to see real fossils in the field, in-situ? Any at all?

Drich. Are you ready to reveal the REAL reason why you are afraid to take a field trip to learn something about geology first hand?

Dont forget the primary reason. It will do nothing to change my world view. The bible does not Say the Earth has to be XXXX years old. people/religions do.

---

But you would think If an "Omni -Max" God says do X then your obligated to do X.

You keep sidestepping this question asked by others, and I will ask it again:

If God asks you to kill someone, will you kill that person or will you accept burning in hell for disobeying Him?

You do not understand the answer given.

If 'god' tell you to do something that the bible says do not do it then it is not God telling you to do it.

Meaning you can not have a senerio where God tell you to kill someone, when the bible says do not do it.

Your next question should be: "What if God and the bible said kill someone?"

---

But you would think If an "Omni -Max" God says do X then your obligated to do X.. It's not that God can't, He simply won't until you bend that knee and do as you are told.

I don't know why you don't have a problem with the bolded part
If I was a believer I would.

I know you would, that is why your not a believer.

The reason I do not have a problem with this is because I have been broken by life and by my pride. I have done things my way and have done things God's way, and what I found is that I'm 1000 times happier as a slave/servant of God than I was doing things my way. I'm more sucessful, and far better at life when God goes before me and open all of my doors.

---

Man's paradigm of morality is religion based on axiomatic reasoning, not subject to objective proof, personified as God, omnipotent throughout time and space. According to this paradigm, Man need not strive to obtain knowledge from any source other than religion for all is given by God; submission to his God will make all known which man needs in his life, and the rest on a "need to know basis" will be revealed to him in the after world. This is a lazy system for man need not strive to find truth, but it is handed down from above: All things are known to God and all man needs to do is apply and follow these laws which are made known by individual revelation from God to man.

ugh!

For someone who has yielded his abilty to learn and think to God I've had some pretty strong arguements that have all but stopped the dinosaur arguement as proof of their being no God.

-or-

Maybe as it is as you said, because i have yield my thought and critical thinking to God, it is God who is able to use me to take apart your arguements.

Eitherway your assessment is an empty appeal to proablity (another logical fallacy) which is making me wonder if your publication is a self publication.