In a world without God...

[orogenicman]

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?"

Hypothetically, it can. But then, that would imply that your god is a sadistic, genocidal sociopath, one who is not omnipotent, nor omniscient, not immortal, not loving, not caring, nor even very intelligent. I mean, I ask you, who in their right mind puts an entertainment center right next to a sewer? The fact is that religion exists because man never got over the emotional need for an angry alpha male to control his life.

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.

Hogwash. Curiosity is an eager desire to know; inquisitiveness. The term can also be used to denote the behavior itself being caused by the emotion of curiosity. As this emotion represents a thirst for knowledge, curiosity is a major driving force behind scientific research and other disciplines of human study.

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.

Oh my god! You apparently see Delvian vipers behind every rock. You should seek a mental health professional ASAP, because, damn. Are you sure you want to stick with that bullshit response?

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.

Erm, what? You say that you question the idea of an all merciful god and then tell us that he is merciful? Do you read any of this shit before you post it?

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

Then you know nothing of the human intellect and what drives people to do what they do.

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.

Yes I have. I have also been in some of the warehouses of the National Museum where they store artifacts and fossils as well as many other natural history items. When a fossil is submitted to the National museum, it is stored for safekeeping and, upon written request by relevant professionals, that fossil can be examined in its entirety for comparison with other fossils, or used for specific scientific studies. These fossils have a very high scientific value and are almost never placed on public display. But since the public wants to see dioramas containing various famous fossils, reproductions are created and placed on display for public viewing. You can call them whatever you choose to call them, but there is nothing fake about them. They are anatomically correct. And Drich, I advise you to take a comparative anatomy course sometime. It might open up your eyes as to how we understand and know how these fossils go together, what is missing and what is not, and even more importantly, how to reproduce the missing segments.

Yes, many are composites of more than one animal, but so fucking what? Forensic anthropologists create composites skulls from partials in order that they can identify an individual victims of a crime. And they do this with a high degree of success. It is a valid way of creating facsimiles of the actual specimen. And Drich, no one is fooling anyone on this point. Everyone knows that they are models. They aren't hiding the fact. Why do you have a problem with this?

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.

So what? At least you admit that they existed, right?

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

For the same reason I know that the incomplete humpback whale skeleton I worked to complete in the late 1980s at the Louisville Science Center was accurate. Comparative anatomy, and forensic analyses. If you believe that the stegosaurus is not accurately portrayed, I encourage you to write a paper on the subject and get it published in a peer reviewed scientific publication. I wish you good luck in that endeavor.

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.

I have no idea what that last sentence means, but so what? What do you expect them to do?

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

With all due respect, I'm not the one infatuated with a single book over 35 million others to the point where my entire life is based on it.

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.

See, this is where I am supposed to apologize for having a well-rounded education and a lifetime of scientific/field experience. Perhaps it is you who should apologize for NOT having such an education while making claims that you cannot substantiate due to lack of said education and experience.

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.)

No guns allowed. Sorry, that is not negotiable. You can bring your cahones, that is, assuming that you have a pair.

Whether I go or do not go my position does not change.

I don't expect you to. But if you do come, hold that thought...

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.

Oh, I completely concur that the Bible is not nor should it be used as a science book. As for whether or not our little field trip will change anything, hold that thought...

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.

Then you have nothing to lose (and perhaps something to gain).

---

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.

No one was trying to use dinosaurs to disprove the existence of god. Their point was about evolution, not about the existence of your sky daddy.

-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.

What arguments of mine do you believe you have dissembled? Drich, the Journal of Invertebrate Paleontology is not a "self publication", but I smile at the compliment.