Young Earth Stuff

[juantoo3]

No, what you said originally implied that there was no reason to beleive the earth was 4.5 billiuon to 499 million years old. All of the sciences I listed (including plate tectonics) give a quite small range of dates (nothing like you listed). My original posts stands--come up with real science that disproves the ageline shown for the earth or the solar system or the universe by scientific means. Having offered up that no onw was here to see it led me to assume you were not aware of the age of the earth per the sciences listed.

I understand now, I must adopt your views in order to have any meaningful discussion with you. Is that not proselytising?

What you took away from what I wrote is your interjection of what you want to believe I believe...and has no basis in reality, because I said nothing of what I believe on the matter. You want a punching bag, so you invent one. I merely stepped up to fill the void to demonstrate what you were doing.

And plate tectonics has absolutely zero relevence...before Pangea, whatever the surface of the earth and the various fractured plates and associated mechanics were still in motion, and will continue to be until the Earth is no more. That has no bearing on the age of the earth. Stated another way...you grow hair. You grow hair in various places on your body. You grow more hair in some places than others, and over time the amounts of hair in different places change. Your hair also changes over time...but as long as you live you have hair.

Plate tectonics is great for solving certain puzzles about the earth...the age of the earth is not one of them.

 

[radarmark]

My reply:

Point two: if what science (in general, not some one minor point) tells us is totally bogus and only personal experience counts, then I would claim that G!d, having provided the data and the means to understand it (our minds) has lied to us and all of existence is questionable. I personally do not find that existentially, rationally, or spiritually an answer worth considering. So I will stick with the data G!d gave us (say chemistry which states that the natural occurring uranium in the earth dates it to 3-6 billion years old).

Your reponse:
Ah, so I'm not only a moron, I'm G-dless as well??? You don't know me from Adam, but you feel free to level ad-hominem defense? If that is your first line of defense, ad-hominem, I think it speaks volumes to both your character and the degree of defense you actually have available. Talk about logical fallacies...

You are the one who baited the trap, I'm here to show how fallacious your arguments are...not only yours, but the typical person ensnared by the meme of science.

And I thought I was being generous with a 100 million year margin of error...you give yourself 3 billion years. Golly, in three billion years all sorts of things can happen...like maybe the disappearance of an entire galaxy.
Point two: if what science (in general, not some one minor point) tells us is totally bogus and only personal experience counts, then I would claim that G!d, having provided the data and the means to understand it (our minds) has lied to us and all of existence is questionable. I personally do not find that existentially, rationally, or spiritually an answer worth considering. So I will stick with the data G!d gave us (say chemistry which states that the natural occurring uranium in the earth dates it to 3-6 billion years old).

Ah, so I'm not only a moron, I'm G-dless as well??? You don't know me from Adam, but you feel free to level ad-hominem defense? If that is your first line of defense, ad-hominem, I think it speaks volumes to both your character and the degree of defense you actually have available. Talk about logical fallacies...

You are the one who baited the trap, I'm here to show how fallacious your arguments are...not only yours, but the typical person ensnared by the meme of science.

And I thought I was being generous with a 100 million year margin of error...you give yourself 3 billion years. Golly, in three billion years all sorts of things can happen...like maybe the disappearance of an entire galaxy.
Point two: if what science (in general, not some one minor point) tells us is totally bogus and only personal experience counts, then I would claim that G!d, having provided the data and the means to understand it (our minds) has lied to us and all of existence is questionable. I personally do not find that existentially, rationally, or spiritually an answer worth considering. So I will stick with the data G!d gave us (say chemistry which states that the natural occurring uranium in the earth dates it to 3-6 billion years old).

Ah, so I'm not only a moron, I'm G-dless as well??? You don't know me from Adam, but you feel free to level ad-hominem defense? If that is your first line of defense, ad-hominem, I think it speaks volumes to both your character and the degree of defense you actually have available. Talk about logical fallacies...

And I thought I was being generous with a 100 million year margin of error...you give yourself 3 billion years. Golly, in three billion years all sorts of things can happen...like maybe the disappearance of an entire galaxy.

I do not see name calling in my response. I never said moron, I did (per previous post) suggest some scientific sources for daing the earth. Nor did I call you G!dless. I said that I stick with data and means to understand it that I beleive G!d gave to us (and this is clearly all I said). 'Tis not ad-homineum, from your first post it seemed that you dismissed (or at least did not understand) science and implied that personal experience ("nobody alive now was here when the earth was formed"), so my reply was that I believe in science and that the data and means of understanding of science come from G!d. You need not agree.

Now as for "ad-hominem defense", "character", and "degree of defense...available", I believe those all apply equally to you. Unless, of course, you can find those missing "moron" and "G!dless" statements you claim I made.

I still have yet to see one counter to my two claims (made so far): (1) that science (on the basis of many disciplines) shows that the earth is old (4.5 billion the current "best guess") and (2) that science uses the data and means of understanding G!d gave us to get to that conclusion.
By the way 3-6 Billion is the age based on chemistry only. Like I sate above, the general consensus is 4.5 Billion. Yes, different disciplines give slightly different ages with slightly different error bars. That's science! And your error bar was about 4 Billion ("4 and a half billion years ago" minus "499 million years ago").

Your reply:
You are the one who baited the trap, I'm here to show how fallacious your arguments are...not only yours, but the typical person ensnared by the meme of science.

My response:
I see no baited trap. I merely offered up this fthread for discussing dating of the earth or the universe. Sorry, "young earth science" is pretty much considered pseudo-science by the community of science. I am a scientist and think that way. Now I am still waiting for you to show one fallacious arguement. You use that term a lot, you do know it is usually taken to be an incorrect argument or line of reasoning that results in a misconception or unacknowledged or incorrect presumption, do you not?



Panta Rhei!

Everything Flows!

 

[juantoo3]

And your error bar was about 4 Billion ("4 and a half billion years ago" minus "499 million years ago").

I neglected to call out your misquote of me, so now you are trying to take advantage of it to use against me?

First off, I said 4 billion, 499 million...considerably higher than what you credit me with, no?

Second, it was a sacastic jab at the "certainty" those speaking *in the name of* science typically demonstrate...here being no exception.

Third, it is you who give yourself an error margin of 3 billion years!

Finally, you cannot attribute an error bar for me...I have not stated.

For the record, I "believe" the Earth was formed when it was formed...no sooner, no later...how long ago that was is not important.

 

[radarmark]

Your original:
“If only this were always true...of course, Schroedinger's cat suggests otherwise. All research is inherently biased...can't be helped, occupational hazard. Nevermind the times science has had to correct itself, and the next batch of initiates then redouble their certainty...what does one do with hard evidences that clearly contradict the party line?”—from juantoo3 post #10.

My reply:
Point three: Schrödinger’s cat has nothing to do with the bias or lack of bias in scientific experiments. The cat is not the problem, the problem is that we cannot know beforehand how a particular sub-atomic event will proceed (I am pretty converse with quantum mechanics). Let us take something really, really simple and fundamental, like the speed of light. Since Romer first measured it in 1676, it has been measured and re-measured many hundreds of times in at least a dozen entirely independent ways and (except for measurements or calculations later found to be flawed) has consistently been found to be 300,000,000 m/sec plus or minus some error. That error may or may not be bias (it can be systemic) but we now know it to within parts per billion. If research is “inherently biased” this one case disproves it unless you want to take the extreme view that we must be absolutely correct in science (100% true, 100% accurate).

Your response:
Schroedinger's cat makes the point that what can be known can only be known by observance, and by observance we interfere with what can be known. So Schroedinger's cat is extremely relevent to the discussion, in that bias is inevitable.

I never called into question the speed of light, that is your straw man.
Now I see. Schrödinger’s cat, as I said, was developoed to show how absurd the idea of the Copenhagen Interpretation was. It originally had noting to do with observation, it had to do with the (admitted) lack of common sense shown in the Copenhagen Interpretation. To wit: the universe does not depend on what we want it to be like. Specifically we cannot say what the state of a quanta is until after we measure it.

This is not the same as "observance" or "bias". While it is true that the Schrödinger’s cat paradox keeps me from observing a particular quantum event (the decay of the atom that kills the cat) and that effect can propigate into macro-world reality--that is not the same as saying all macro-world reality depends on single quantum events. My observations of the Andomeda galaxy (specifically, its relative position) in the Mt Palomar telescope has a quantum component. But if you work out the math the quantum uncertainty is something like a Planck's distance uncertainty (many many billions to one). That is significantly different than the one to one case of the cat.

Bias is an inclination to present or hold a partial perspective at the expense of (possibly more valid) alternatives. While bias may never be totally eliminated, one can strive to make it smaller than the objective uncertainties or very much smaller than the measurement or thing in question.

To wit: our bias that "the world must exist physically even at the quantum level" has a totally unmeasureable impact on our measurement of the distance to the Andromeda galaxy, but it leads to a 50:50 error in the case of Schrödinger’s cat.

Now for the bottom line: how does this bias of mine "towards the scientific meme" impact the results of the geological, chemical, astonomical, or cosmological proofs of the age of the earth or the universe? They do not.

I went on with the speed of light discussion because it disproves your point of "science correcting itself". The better the data, the better the instruments, the better the theory, the better the number. Your implication in "[n]evermind the times science has had to correct itself, and the next batch of initiates then redouble their certainty...what does one do with hard evidences that clearly contradict the party line?" is thus refuted. Yes, science corrected itself (that has nothing to do with the actual value of the spe4ed of light, we just decreased the error bars). "Initiates" take "hard evidence that clearly contradicts the party line" and "redouble their certainty" through scientific method.

Now ifyou have a specific instance of the grand claim, bring it on. My example only disprooves the claim in general with one specific counter-factual example.

Panta Rhei!

Everything Flows!

 

[radarmark]

My continuing reply:
Point four: if that (absolute truth) is what you are looking for, do not bother, except for deductive logic and arithmetic nothing is absolutely known. That is why science has to correct itself… that is the nature of scientific knowledge, the scientific methodology. The goal if science is to get a picture or model of reality that is closer and closer to actuality (I do not know of a single scientist or philosopher who believes we will ever arrive at an absolute answer). Hard evidence that “contradicts the party line” is what leads to scientific progress. The fact that the sun and not the earth was the center of the solar system led to the overthrow of Ptolemy by Copernicus. The fact that early theories of electricity and magnetism were contradicted by Faraday’s work is what led Maxwell to develop his equations. The hard evidence of Lavoisier, Dalton, Avogadro, and Brown is what led to the abandonment of continuum theory for atomic theory. The fact that the Michelson-Morley experiment contradicted Maxwell’s “aether” is what led Lorentz, Poincare, and Einstein to relativity. The “ultra-violet collapse” is what led to the development of quantum theory by Planck, Einstein, and Bohr.

Yet, the attitude you display in your responses is precisely that of "absolute truth," as in anybody who challenges the least little portion of it must be either a lunatic, a moron, G-dless, or some combination thereof.

See above, I did not state that. What I said was that science takes the data and the means of understanding that data and combine the two to compute an age of (take your choice) earth, solar system, or universe. Is it right? Heck no... it is just infinately closer to the correct value than something like "6,000 years" (the standard young earth response).

So what? What is so special about you that you feel you do not have to defend your beliefs while challenging others? That is ego- and cultural- centric and smacks of elitism and cultural superiority and imperialism.

On that basis, your response is much the same, a case of "science bashing" or "anti-science hsyteria" (I am not alleging either). This is a discussion. I am merely pointing out that there exists evidence that science (like everything else) evolves.

And science corrects itself? Yeah, right. Just try. Ever read "the Structure of Scientific Revolutions" by Thomas Kuhn? Science is rife with politics, with old orders only giving way in the most grudging manner to new orders.

Old hat, of course I have read it, how about Lakatos or Laudan or Heller? So what? The point is that the model of the universe science works on is better for having Copernicus, Newton, Einstein. That is why later I point out that some (Mach and Einstein) never do adapt.

Which is right? Newtonian Physics or Einsteinian Physics? Trick question, they are both right. Nasa, decades after Einstein, put several men on the moon with Newtonian physics. Is Einstein the be all and end all? Not likely, he's just one of the best "we" have so far...but even his thinking is merely a way of looking at things...not the only way, merely "one" way...there are many ways.

Again, nothing new, even antiquated science is useful. Like I said, it all depends on how accurate you need the results. I agree. You still are saying a lot without ever touching the core of my claim. To wit, science shows the earth, the solar system, and the universe are older than 6,000 years.

Attack science (we need it) attack Einstein (he was far from perfect), attack me. You still have not shown the "fallacy" of my reasoning in my intial post (#1) unless you think that all of this is related somehow. If so, please continue and show me how.

And if you really want to condescend to the point of earth centric reasoning (and might as well get the flat earth accusations out of the way now too), that returns to your arrogant suppositions based in the cultural elitism of your meme.

Now, now, there you go putting words in my mouth again! I do not own a card to the elitist meme (whatever the heck that is). If your comment is about (as it should be, considering where it was in you post vis a vis the quote that begins this post) the development of science, I absolutely do not understand. The suppositions provided there (pointing out that science is not about absolute truth or the historical development) do not appear to be arrogant nor elitist.

The question is can you disprove that science no longer makes the kind of claim Laplace made (he was so certain of the absolute truth of his beliefs that he had no need of G!d) or that science has progressed from the days of Roger Bacon? If not, why bring up all these objections to science? All these (apparent) biases?

Yes, Mach died unable to believe in atoms because he could not see them; yes, Einstein never did accept the quantum mechanics; and, yes, some physicists create unscientific and metaphysical systems to keep locality, time, and Einstein correct (“many-worlds” interpretations”). But note, Mach and Einstein were just mistaken. The “many-worlds”, “many-minds”, “consistent history” interpretations of quantum mechanics are, I would claim metaphysical, interpretations of the science, not the science itself.


What does this have to do with the price of tea in China?

If anything it serves to reinforce what I've said here for years.
A lot, I was pointing out that scientists as individuals or groups can and have made mistakes. That seems to be what you are asking for.
The point is with all of this verbiage, you still have failed to make your points:
1) "young earth creationism" is a valid, plausible alternative to the 4.5 billion/14.5 billion year old age estimates science makes for the earth and the universe;
2) I have called you (a) "moronic" or (b) "G!dless".
All the rest is stuff we agree on or obscuration (IMHO).
Panta Rhei!
(Everything Flows!)

 

[radarmark]

Your original:
“Since "Dinosaurs," in the modern sense as we know them today, only date to 1825 +/-, and burial goods and other artistic examples of Dinosaurs date hundreds, even thousands of years before "Dinosaurs" were known, in cultures too primitive to comprehend what it was they were looking at, it seems to me something isn't quite right.”—from juantoo3 post #12.

My reply:
Point five: if you want to buy the standard Western myopic version of fossils, you are free to. The ancient Greeks and Chinese knew full-well of the existence of fossils (see Mayor’s work or the history of the Tianyu Museum fossil collection). And, IMO, verbal histories and accounts from Native American, Australian, and Asian sources also point to the existence of fossils (or even entire frozen specimens being found). That should not be too surprising really; Solzhenitsyn talks about how his road crew in the Gulag found a frozen Mastodon and fell on it to eat the contents of its stomach and roast its flesh.

Your reponse:
Me? Myopic? That's laughable, considering the intensely myopic view you are endorsing here. Quite the contrary, I've endorsed and maintain a broad, encompassing view trying to account for as many angles as possible. Absolute truth can never be known, particularly since "truth" is such a vague and obtuse word to begin with. I find that such an encompassing view is far more conducive to interfaith communication than myopic "my way or the highway" views, particularly when one suggests that anybody who disagrees with you is G-dless.

Well, I was not the one who claimed that "Dinosaurs,"in the modern sense as we know them today, only date to 1825 +/-". I believe "myopic" is the correct term (culterally near-sighted) for one who holds this view. If you do not it does not apply to you, but to whomever or wherever you got the notion from. "Dinosaurs" (by other names to be sure) have been known from the fossils from the earliest times.

P.S.: I, again, challenge the "G!dless" label. I never said that not did I ever infer that.

Back to my peply:

Point six: the existence of extinct creatures during what we would call "The Age of Man” (last 2,000,000 years or so) should not really be so surprising as the coelacanth shows. Your perception of not “quite right” is a little culturally biased, IMHO.

Back to your reponse:

Ah! Is this a glimmer of hope, an "out clause," or trying to steal my argument to support your own?

I would also suggest that your perception is just that...your "perception." It is no more objective than mine.

I do not understand what you are saying here (I make plenty of mistakes). In your first post (at top) you say there is something not "quite right" about "primative" did not know what they were looking at. I believe they did and correctly drew pictures of mastadons, stegasauri, etc. In that since I thought your "quite right" culturally biased. If you did not mean that, I withdraw the comment.

I do not care if they physically saw, saw in dreamtime, saw via oral tradition, or looked at fossils to get their ideas. I must say any are possible, but (always the good scientist) I like Mayor's explanation that they pieced together ideas from the fossils. After all the fossils are just bones made denser, to if a Native American ran across a brontasaurus skeleton (say in the fossil national park or the petrified forest--and there are many full sets known), they would be able to reconstruct a pretty accurate image.

P.S. your perceptions and my perceptions differ for a number of reasons. You anr there, I here. I have my personal experiences, you yours. The objectivity or validity or repeatability of those perceptions are different for those reasons. Say you are an excellent gardener (I have an admittedly black thumb), then your perception of the health of a garden are much more objective than mine (you connect with more information). Big deal. I am probably more objective in my perceptions of overhead imagery (having worked in intel). What we are discussing here is (I think) our differing perceptions of science and what I wrote. I apologize for knowing what I wrote (I wrote neither "moron" or "G!dless") and that science disprooves the "young earth hypothesis" (no science that I know of gives credence to the earth being 6,000 years old--what is normally thought of as "young earth hypothesis")

Come to think of it, that may be the basis for his entire disonnect. I do not claim that Dinosaurs are not depicted in ancient art or that ancient people did not know about fossils. That was never intended to be part of the claim. The claim is about the age of (take youyr pick) the earth, the solar system, the universe.

Panta Rhei!
(Everything Flows!)

 

[juantoo3]

Point one: the point is not that anyone alive was here to see it. Rather it is that chemistry (via radioactive decay timing), geology (via plate tectonics), cosmology (via galactic modeling), and astronomy (via redshift and other observations) gives us (grown up, scientifically knowledgeable persons) a pretty definitive answer.

Besides the built in margins of error we don't fully or even marginally understand yet...such as the fact that if the various galaxies are *gaining* speed as they travel away from each other, which calls long term application of redshift into question...relying on a spread of 3 to 6 billion years, with 4.5 as a happy median is far removed from "truth" or "definitive answer."

Point two: if what science (in general, not some one minor point) tells us is totally bogus and only personal experience counts, then I would claim that G!d, having provided the data and the means to understand it (our minds) has lied to us and all of existence is questionable. I personally do not find that existentially, rationally, or spiritually an answer worth considering. So I will stick with the data G!d gave us (say chemistry which states that the natural occurring uranium in the earth dates it to 3-6 billion years old).

Here is where I find being called G-dless.

My understanding of what you write here, and I would think most any educated reader would find much the same thing, is that you believe G-d has given you the ability to understand through science...well and good...but that anybody who disagrees with your interpretation and doesn't understand has not G-d...ergo, G-dless.

And here:

Point one: the point is not that anyone alive was here to see it. Rather it is that chemistry (via radioactive decay timing), geology (via plate tectonics), cosmology (via galactic modeling), and astronomy (via redshift and other observations) gives us (grown up, scientifically knowledgeable persons) a pretty definitive answer.

is where I find being called moronic...albeit not that specific term, an educated reader can draw the inescapable inference without any difficulty. Anybody who disagrees with you *must be* not grown up and not scientifically knowledgeable.

Frankly, I have zero interest in defending Young Earth Creationism.

What challenge I have done for you is to show the lack of A: compassion, B: consideration and C: toleration of views other than your own. Hardly conducive to Interfaith discussion, no?

 

[juantoo3]

I went on with the speed of light discussion because it disproves your point of "science correcting itself". The better the data, the better the instruments, the better the theory, the better the number. Your implication in "[n]evermind the times science has had to correct itself, and the next batch of initiates then redouble their certainty...what does one do with hard evidences that clearly contradict the party line?" is thus refuted. Yes, science corrected itself (that has nothing to do with the actual value of the spe4ed of light, we just decreased the error bars). "Initiates" take "hard evidence that clearly contradicts the party line" and "redouble their certainty" through scientific method.

Now ifyou have a specific instance of the grand claim, bring it on. My example only disprooves the claim in general with one specific counter-factual example.

I should have known my choice of words would be misunderstood. Very well...

Science tends to amend things as they go along, as you put it they correct things as they get better tools and measurements.

But as for completely changing an already accepted mantra or established precedent, it is not as easy as the glib "science corrects itself all the time" would make it seem, and Kuhn points out (rightly in my opinion) that this is due to internal politics. Plate tectonics was scoffed at for decades. You pointed out the trouble Einstein had, although he had it fairly easy compared. I don't have Kuhn's book memorized, but I do recall he drew several examples. So counter-factual examples are more plentiful than you let on here.

 

[radarmark]

From your original posts:
“How could primitive peoples understand that a jumble of fossilized bones belonged to creatures they were able to accurately (at least as well as anything science today has come up with) depict such creatures in the flesh, and in some instances interacting *with humans?*" —from juantoo3 post #12.
“How big would you say the average free found fossil is? 3 inches? 6 inches? I seriously doubt the average is over 12 inches, found haphazardly lying on the ground. And from a 12 inch fossil a "primitive" peoples would "imagine" a creature they've never laid eyes on? And cover it with flesh...there are no examples of fossilized flesh on dinosaurs that I am aware of. I fairness, they might find an intact mollusk...I've found them in the lime rock spread in my yard for a driveway. They might even find a trilobyte...but I seriously doubt they would conjecture that it was a "deep" sea critter from what they found. Possibly a small fish, that could feasibly be found intact. But from a 12 inch (being exceptionally generous here) specimen of fossilized bone, a hunter-gatherer tribe could conjure up the likes of a Stegasaur or Triceratops? I suggest the odds are extremely against that. Further, even among hunters, toss them three random bones from an "unfamiliar" creature, and ask them what kind of creature they came from...I bet your answers would be all over the map. Statistically, what you said is highly unlikely. I say that politely."—from juantoo3 post #14.

From my reply:
Point seven: in your experience a 12" fragment may be rare, but the case of the full skeleton of Archaeopteryx or Thalattosaurus shows that, while it may be rare, it is not unheard of. The Chinese “Cave of White Bones” was well-known for millennia. The frozen tundra delivers up frozen extinct species to this day (see Solzhenitsyn’s “Gulag Archipelago”). Ditto for salt licks and tar pits (you don’t think Native Americans say these before their conquerors?). I am sorry, coming from a verbal culture you must understand that just one story about a “monster’s bones” would promulgate everywhere pretty rapidly.

I do not believe it took Egyptians migrating from Africa to teach the secrets of building pyramids or Red Earth people migrating from Europe to teach astronomy to “the savage natives of the Americas”. A full stegosaurus skeleton was recovered from the Blue Lick a few years ago, why could not have the “savages” done the same thing?

From your response:
Did you ever dig anything out of a tar pit, personally? Besides the fumes that would drive a sensible person away, digging in a raw tar pit is so hazardous as to be avoided at all cost. You failed to mention the occasional human remains found in tar pits by hapless individuals who failed to heed this. Looking at a modern tar pit that has had numerous engineering supports to allow safe excavation and applying that to a hunter-gatherer tribe is just so culturally myopic...this is an untenable position.

Well, you should tell that to the indigenous proples of Trinidad and Tabago, the Caucausus (admittedly oil seeps not true tar pits) and Venezuela. There are well documented extractions in their mythos (and some in the museums). Yes, you are right if you are only talking about La Brea. But you can walk up to and fool around both McKittrick and Carperteria (not as hot or noxious as La Brea). Since Yokuts and the tribal nations are extinct, I do not know if they have myths about finding stuff in them.

Salt licks are a possibility, as are coal seams and some other less hazardous geologic features. But finding "complete" examples of creatures the size of a horse and larger is simply unheard of. An archeopteryx is the size of a chicken (and it was not found "wild," both examples were excavated). And short of Inuits, Laplanders and convicts, who in their right mind goes into the tundra? I bet Solzhenitsyn did not find any dinosaurs.

Well, salt licks have yielded up complete skeletons (or at least enough to piece together). And several sites (Dinosaur Park, Petrified Forest, Mongolian desert, Tianyu, several "white bone" caves, the island of Samos, the Sahara, have yielded up very large amounts of fossils. You are free to believe that the artist renditions are depictions of actual events they saw. I believe that aboriginal peoples both could and did make sense of the "white bones", incorporated them into myths, and later depicted them in artwork.

Gee, looking at the illustrations accompanying the Epic of Gilgamesh (the Sea Serpents) or the Feathered serpents (dinosurs with cooling fins) in Mesopamerican codices of the Popul Vuh, I think they came from something very old. But then angels and giant hawks and vampires also occur in the artwork, does that mean they existed in reality? I am a natural doubter.

YOU do not believe...that's fine. You don't have to. But that is one "possible" alternative that *has* been scientifically proven, by Thor Heyerdahl.

Bogus! Noit proven, scientifcally possible, yes. All Heyerdahl showed is that he could go from South America to Oceana on a Balsa Raft and from Africa to the New World on a Papyrus raft. He does happen to have (much like van Daniken) some peripheral proofs. There is severe disagreement as to the veracity or possibility of either of these gentlemen's claims. We have absolute proof of Chinese visitation to the new world (archeological remnants)... there is no similar body of proof for Heyerdahl. Possible, yes. Thought possible because of the eurocentric culture? Much more likely.

You takes your sides and cough up your conjectures and refutations and proofs. That is what science is all about. It is not about "discovering reality".

“Primitive peoples” can be pretty sophisticated. When I lived among the Hmong we whites used to scoff at their tall tales of a Hmong kingdom and Caucasian ancestors… golly, they ended up being right on both counts.

After all your cultural superiority complex, you're gonna try to throw this one my way? Nice try. Seems to me you could have learned a tad bit more from them...like cultural sensitivity.

Gee, I am not the one claiming "primative proples" could not possible "make sense of a few bones". Or that Thor Heyerdahl is "scientifically proven". Nor did I cast aspersions on your artwork. I know it exists. Where is the proof of this "cultural superiority complex"?
The above statement? Dang, that was 40 years ago, I have grown up a lot since then. And I came to the conclusion that the Hmong were right before I left Laos (you do not have to believe that). Ditto for you "cultural sensitivity". I am not the one who originally used all those terms. Take the plank out of your eye before you point out the mote in your neighbor's.

Or is it that you think being a trained scientist who believes in the scientific method and philosophy and higher mathematics automatically makes me have a "cultural superiority complex" or lack "cultural sensitivity"? Since you really have no sense of my ethnicity or socio-economic background, I find that amusing. By that criteria Ramanujan and Bejay and Zewail were also thus lacking (one a very poor Indian, one a very poor Dine, one a very poor Arab). They would be rather surprized.

Panta Rhei!
(Everything Flows!)

 

[A Cup Of Tea]

Wow, your discussion and quoting is really confusing.

Thank you for your consideration!

How big would you say the average free found fossil is? 3 inches? 6 inches? I seriously doubt the average is over 12 inches, found haphazardly lying on the ground. And from a 12 inch fossil a "primitive" peoples would "imagine" a creature they've never laid eyes on? And cover it with flesh...there are no examples of fossilized flesh on dinosaurs that I am aware of.

I fairness, they might find an intact mollusk...I've found them in the lime rock spread in my yard for a driveway. They might even find a trilobyte...but I seriously doubt they would conjecture that it was a "deep" sea critter from what they found. Possibly a small fish, that could feasibly be found intact. But from a 12 inch (being exceptionally generous here) specimen of fossilized bone, a hunter-gatherer tribe could conjure up the likes of a Stegasaur or Triceratops? I suggest the odds are extremely against that.

Further, even among hunters, toss them three random bones from an "unfamiliar" creature, and ask them what kind of creature they came from...I bet your answers would be all over the map.

Statistically, what you said is highly unlikely. I say that politely.

I will go a step further still...the photos I showed (by the way, I referenced the sites I pulled them from only to give proper credit, frankly I only read a portion of the one site and nothing on any of the others...I was after the images, I've been familiar with them for years.) are from 4 different continents...point being, there are references to "serpents" and "dragons" around the globe in virtually every culture. I wonder if science outside of Jungian psychology ever made the connection as to why Dinosaurs hold such a strong and deep place in our psyches? My guess is that most science would find that question irrelevent...memes, you know.

I'm definitely biased since I have a hard time imagining a world created object-by-object by a creator god in this or that many days. I'm raised in the school of evolution and since you and I only speak in terms of what is most likely, you and I can come to very different conclusions.

Your point that it's hard to find big pieces: I really have no idea how rare it is, but we have found complete sets, and in my mind, it would have been more common before humans started to dig everywhere.

I respect you opinion, I don't know I'm right or that you are wrong, we just have different backgrounds and none of us can prove or disprove the other one.

 

[juantoo3]

Or is it that you think being a trained scientist who believes in the scientific method and philosophy and higher mathematics automatically makes me have a "cultural superiority complex" or lack "cultural sensitivity"? Since you really have no sense of my ethnicity or socio-economic background, I find that amusing. By that criteria Ramanujan and Bejay and Zewail were also thus lacking (one a very poor Indian, one a very poor Dine, one a very poor Arab). They would be rather surprized.

May I remind who drew this line in the sand? More important is the attitude with which it was drawn.

 

[radarmark]

Gooly, I did not realize how very sensitive you were. I meant what I said. I believe G!d gave us this marvelous universe to learn from. If someone (not necessarily you) believes that Sh! lied to us by planting fossils and false redshift data, that does not amake them G!dless. It means they have a very different interpretation of G!d and science than I. If "grown up, scientificlly knowledgeable persons" strikes you as something you do not aspire to, so be it. All it says is that science gives us a pretty definative answer as to the age of (take your choice) the earth, the solar system, the universe if we are adult about it. I did not mean either as a personal attck (which is what you took them to be), my apologies.

I am sorry I misread your "4,499,000" years.

Is the age of the earth 3 or 6 billion years? I am sorry, I did a lot of work crunching nuclear test data from the 50s and 60s. Plus or minus an order of magnitude is all the data supported. I am being really, really conservative (having looked up age of earth estimates based on a bunch of different disciplines. Is that definative? No, but then (IMHO) science never is. But it does (to a very high degree) falsify any notion of the "young earth hypothesis".

My intention in starting this thread was to offer an alternative place to discuss the "young earth hypothesis". Why? Because like "Caeser was Chirst" it is pure hokum IMO (as is obvious). An interfaith forum (IMHO) should be about faith not dogma, not defining something a true because I say it. You are free not to believe in science, that does not make you G!dless. One is free to worship Hitler for all I care. But one should use english and ideas in some kind of consistent manner.

You have posted a lesson for me. Fine, I can think about that. I guess I do sound a little (hee hee) strident and intolerant. I am about objective facts (it comes with the territory), that is why I am now focusing on the "Science and the Universe" threads. But then does an "interfaith forum" have to surrender itself to religious intolerance?

Clearly I need to ponder this over the weekend.

Panta Rhei!
(Everything Flows!)

 

[juantoo3]

The point is with all of this verbiage, you still have failed to make your points

1) "young earth creationism" is a valid, plausible alternative to the 4.5 billion/14.5 billion year old age estimates science makes for the earth and the universe;

Already addressed, not my concern

2) I have called you (a) "moronic" or (b) "G!dless".

Already addressed, apology accepted.

All the rest is stuff we agree on or obscuration (IMHO).

So, either I agree with you, or am I merely being pedantic? (IYHO)

Clearly, to me anyway, there are lines of evidence of which the dino art I presented is but a tiny fragment, that demonstrate the established precedents in *much of* science are not as accurate as those involved would like us to believe. So when someone speaking in the name of science comes across cocksure and unassailable...or else...yes, it riles me. These *errors* for lack of a better word, are perhaps not as pronounced in physics (although I do believe a great deal of what has come out of there in the last 30 years or so amounts to mathematical speculation without supporting evidence...yet), chemistry or other "hard" sciences. When it comes to biology and anthropology, science is rife with speculation often passed as fact.

 

[juantoo3]

You takes your sides and cough up your conjectures and refutations and proofs. That is what science is all about. It is not about "discovering reality".

May I quote this at a later time? Particularly the part about science being "not about 'discovering reality'?"

 

[juantoo3]

Wow, your discussion and quoting is really confusing.


I'm definitely biased since I have a hard time imagining a world created object-by-object by a creator god in this or that many days. I'm raised in the school of evolution and since you and I only speak in terms of what is most likely, you and I can come to very different conclusions.

Your point that it's hard to find big pieces: I really have no idea how rare it is, but we have found complete sets, and in my mind, it would have been more common before humans started to dig everywhere.

I respect you opinion, I don't know I'm right or that you are wrong, we just have different backgrounds and none of us can prove or disprove the other one.

Greetings Tea, thank you for the response.

Even as a Christian, I know I have an unorthodox view of the Creation story in Genesis. As time goes on I find myself more and more in agreement with the Jewish interpretation, at least as I understand it. Which is, among other things, 7 distinct points of time...not days in a week. I see the Adam and Eve / Garden story as the awakening of the human mind to rational thought, and I see an overall mythos defining the agricultural revolution. This obviously in dry, "scientific" nomenclature, where the Genesis story is imbued with much more poetry and "heart" than my bland statement provides.

I've argued my findings pertaining to evolution many times here in the past, easy enough to find with a simple search. In short, I've supplied numerous examples that don't fit neatly in the box provided.

Pertaining to finds of complete skeletons, my jury is still out...I am from Missouri on this one...I need someone to Show Me. Case in point, since the Bronto was brought up specifically...did you ever see the original King Kong in black and white? Do you recall what dino Kong fought? It was a Bronto...with a carnivores mouth. You know why? Because at the time the movie was made, 1933, there had been no Bronto head found. Trivia to some, but a fleeting glimpse at some of my scepticism of a complete Bronto being available to aboriginal peoples.

I still think hunter-gatherer societies, and on into aboriginal peoples mostly everywhere, were too busy with day to day survival to bother with digging up fossils. Now, if I can be shown definitively to be mistaken, I'll accept that. At this point all I have is hearsay and scuttlebutt. If I were to hand you three random bones from an animal you have never seen before, something beyond your wildest imagination, do you honestly think you would imagine correctly an animal you have never seen before, down to and including skin and ornamental details (horns, spikes, etc.)? I think I'm half decent with skeletal construction, but that's not a bet I would be willing to take...

"We" have found complete sets, sure, that is to say paleontologists with grant money spend months, even years, on hands and knees digging in the dirt for months on end to unearth something the size of a behemoth. What cultural benefit is there for a hunter-gatherer tribe to do the same? I see none. Even allowing for the odds of maybe one semi-complete behemoth somewhere out there occurring naturally, how does one account for the pervasiveness of the dragon/serpent stories into antiquity everywhere around the globe? It just doesn't make a great deal of sense to me.

As for right and wrong...it seems sometimes that that becomes irrelevent. We are all right, we need to be to maintain our sanity. Especially when cherished beliefs are threatened...but that hasn't been my point here.

My point, not directed at you, was about the manner and attitude with which this challenge was laid down. I've seen this before here, and it never ends well. Scapegoating an "other" in order to promote self is not proper within an interfaith context...in my opinion, it is never proper in any context. I try to allow opposing views in my life, even those in direct opposition to my own, as a matter of course. Some though, seem to take especial delight in tormenting those who disagree with them. That was something I determined to nip in the bud.

 

[IowaGuy]

May I quote this at a later time? Particularly the part about science being "not about 'discovering reality'?"

Hi Juantoo, I can't speak for Radar, and I suppose his quote would depend on one's definition of "reality".

But the idea I agree with is that science isn't about discovering "absolute truth". I have not yet met a scientist that claims to have used the scientific method to discover an "absolute truth". For example, we will never know the "true" value for Hubble's Constant, we can only get (hopefully) closer & closer to the "truth".

You say it doesn't matter how old the universe/earth is. Yet you seem to have a pretty decent grasp on much of the science that has been used to predict the earth's age. And you are a self-proclaimed Christian, so presumably you have a decent grasp on the bible. So it begs the question:

How old do you think the earth is and why? How old do you think the universe is and why?

How old do you think the artifacts are in the photos that you've posted here and why? How do you know they aren't recent "fakes" that were made with modern knowledge of dinosaurs?

Are you familiar with the "I don't have enough faith to be an atheist" book/video series? Your "it doesn't matter how old the universe is" statement reminds me of a similar argument made by that author. Just curious if you've seen that material as I think you would enjoy it.

How big would you say the average free found fossil is? 3 inches? 6 inches? I seriously doubt the average is over 12 inches, found haphazardly lying on the ground. And from a 12 inch fossil a "primitive" peoples would "imagine" a creature they've never laid eyes on? And cover it with flesh...there are no examples of fossilized flesh on dinosaurs that I am aware of.

Juantoo - have you ever seen an elephant skull or a wooly mammoth skull? Imagine what a triceratops skull (a dinosaur included in your photos of artifacts) would look like to a Native American? These could have been found without digging, in an eroding landscape they could literally be lying right on the ground or washed up on a sandbar, similar to how I've found bison skulls along streams in Iowa (which have been extinct for quite some time now). Piece together a few more bones and they would have a decent idea of what the animal would have looked like (minus the flesh details).

 

[juantoo3]

Thank you for your considered reply, IowaGuy.

...the idea I agree with is that science isn't about discovering "absolute truth". I have not yet met a scientist that claims to have used the scientific method to discover an "absolute truth". For example, we will never know the "true" value for Hubble's Constant, we can only get (hopefully) closer & closer to the "truth".

I started at this forum in 2004, and one of the most profound lessons I've learned from the time I've spent here is how much of a moving target "truth" is. I lived my life since I can remember believing "truth" equates with "real" or "reality." Turns out, I am in the minority..."truth" apparently means many things, seldom is it conflated with reality. I do still believe and hold to the definition I've lived with, and to me truth and reality are synonymous, but I've learned the hard way not to apply that to others' use of the word.

One obvious problem jumps straight to mind, those that feel the Bible or any religious text is "truth" in the sense of "reality." It can be difficult to explain without engendering accusations of heresy, but in the sense of truth as reality...religious texts are not true. They are guidebooks, morality plays, textbooks for social cohesion, and in the worst cases used to manipulate the masses by unscrupulous governments...but truth as reality they are not.

You say it doesn't matter how old the universe/earth is. Yet you seem to have a pretty decent grasp on much of the science that has been used to predict the earth's age. And you are a self-proclaimed Christian, so presumably you have a decent grasp on the bible. So it begs the question:

How old do you think the earth is and why? How old do you think the universe is and why?

Does anybody really know what time it is?

Does anybody really care?

Einstein blew Newtonian concepts of space/time away, so time is not a constant. It appears as a contant to us locally, but there is the possibility (in my mind, likelihood) that time is a lot more flexible than we wish to give credit. There are eddys and rip tides in the river of time that are largely unaccounted for. Put another way...A day to the L-rd is as a thousand years to mankind.

So the whole notion of even thinking we have a handle on time is a bit strange, when we really don't even fully grasp what time is, let alone how it behaves.

So concepts such as millions or billions of years truthfully become meaningless. They are merely arbitrary assigns on a measuring stick. Probably a good thing, considering how fast and free with time some are...what's a billion years more or less between friends, right?

So, like I wrote earlier, I believe the Earth, the Solar System, the Galaxy and the Universe were all formed when they were formed; not a moment sooner, not a moment later. The beginning happened at the beginning, and what came next came next.

How old do you think the artifacts are in the photos that you've posted here and why? How do you know they aren't recent "fakes" that were made with modern knowledge of dinosaurs?

Various dates assigned to the Ica (no misprint) stones are up to 2500 years. The Sirrush on the Ishtar gate dates to 575 BC according to Wiki. The Mexican clay figures are a bit more problematic and have to be dated by their surroundings, but I've seen dates assigned at around a thousand years ago. And the Angkor Wat Steg dates to the first half of the 12th century.

I know they are not fakes by the same reasons other archeological finds are not fakes...I trust the researching authorities to do due diligence. The Ica stones and pottery are funerary art buried with the Indians and dated by standard methods. The Mexican examples are largely the same...in fairness there are a few fakes and forgeries that need to be dealt with, but there are also confirmed and acknowledged finds. How can one refute Angkor Wat? The Steg is in the middle of a column of frescos, and clearly has not been tampered with, matching the surrounding as it should and with correct patina. How does one refute the Ishtar gate? It is one of the glories of ancient Babylon painstakingly transported to the British Museum.

Truly and in reality...these are only emblematic. We have persistent tales, mythos and folklore even in modern times. There is Ogo Pogo, Mkele Mbembe, various "Nessie" type lake- or sea-monsters, the rotting corpse found by a Japanese fishing trawler in the early 60s that looked remarkably like a Plesiosaur (some claiming it to be a whale shark, but the reality is no one can definitively say, there were no specimens of the flesh kept)...and while I agree the photos of Nessie are rightly debunked, still the legend predates photography by quite a few years and still persists.

Some of these may yet prove to be false...but the glib dismissal of all by those who desire to do so using the means of dismissal of one...in other words, prove one false and that proves they are all false...is not only unscrupulous and dishonest, it also shows a lack of understanding of the science involved. Folklore of itself is not sufficient proof, granted...yet it *can* be very strong supporting or circumstantial evidence. Many great archeological finds were based on little or no more than folklore. The poster child to prove my point is the city of Troy. Petra is another that jumps to mind.

...Are you familiar with the "I don't have enough faith to be an atheist" book/video series? Your "it doesn't matter how old the universe is" statement reminds me of a similar argument made by that author. Just curious if you've seen that material as I think you would enjoy it.

No, I haven't even heard of that, thank you. I'll take a look.

...Juantoo - have you ever seen an elephant skull or a wooly mammoth skull? Imagine what a triceratops skull (a dinosaur included in your photos of artifacts) would look like to a Native American? These could have been found without digging, in an eroding landscape they could literally be lying right on the ground or washed up on a sandbar, similar to how I've found bison skulls along streams in Iowa (which have been extinct for quite some time now). Piece together a few more bones and they would have a decent idea of what the animal would have looked like (minus the flesh details).

Actually, I have seen an elephant skull...and a mammoth skull at the LA Museum of Natural History. (Of course, the trunk is primarily if not totally muscle, hard to imagine a feature such as a trunk if one had never seen an elephant before) Here's the thing...once exposed to the elements, fossils degrade rapidly. This I learned from an archeologist. Look at how big a Triceratops skull is...imagine first it is covered presumably with a softer soil that is easily removed by the elements (which is the first contradiction, most fossils are in much harder "rock" that degrades with more difficulty) That erosion would have to take place "just right" in order to leave a window of opportunity for finding anything remotely close to a complete Tri-top skull. The reason "we" have them is because they were encased in harder stone that had to be excavated, the fossilized bone then is typically wrapped and encased for transport and then treated with a preservative to help insure the fossil remains stable. Left exposed to erosive action, fossils degrade as quickly (sometimes more so) as the rock around them. In short, finding a Tri-top skull by its lonesome out on the prairie is a romantic but not likely scenario.

BTW, Bison are not extinct. We have them right here in Payne's Prairie just south of town. I know there are various herds around the midwest and southwest. Using the same degree of caution expressed by you earlier...how do you know how old your bison skull is? What is the likelihood of it being placed there by someone?

 

[IowaGuy]

I started at this forum in 2004, and one of the most profound lessons I've learned from the time I've spent here is how much of a moving target "truth" is. I lived my life since I can remember believing "truth" equates with "real" or "reality." Turns out, I am in the minority..."truth" apparently means many things, seldom is it conflated with reality. I do still believe and hold to the definition I've lived with, and to me truth and reality are synonymous, but I've learned the hard way not to apply that to others' use of the word.

Good points about truth as a moving target. How does one know when one has discovered "truth"?

You say for you truth = real/reality. Let's consider the example of Santa Claus and a little kid. Everyone the kid trusts tells him that Santa is real. In addition to what he is told by those he trusts, he also sees evidence of Santa (missing cookies on Christmas morning, presents under the tree, sits on Santa's lap at the mall for a photo). The kid even changes his behaviours near Christmas time (naugthy or nice) since he "knows" Santa is watching him.

Is it true or false that Santa exists? For that kid, is Santa real?

One obvious problem jumps straight to mind, those that feel the Bible or any religious text is "truth" in the sense of "reality." It can be difficult to explain without engendering accusations of heresy, but in the sense of truth as reality...religious texts are not true. They are guidebooks, morality plays, textbooks for social cohesion, and in the worst cases used to manipulate the masses by unscrupulous governments...but truth as reality they are not.

To clarify, are you saying you think there are multiple correct interpretations of the bible and other religious texts? That there is no one "true" interpretation of a particular scripture? Do you think the bible and/or other religious texts were written with Divine Intervention?

If religious texts are just "guidebooks, morality plays, textbooks for social cohesion", what is the difference between the Bible and a book by Mrs. Manners?

Does anybody really know what time it is? Does anybody really care? ... So, like I wrote earlier, I believe the Earth, the Solar System, the Galaxy and the Universe were all formed when they were formed; not a moment sooner, not a moment later. The beginning happened at the beginning, and what came next came next.

You make some good points about time, it is indeed a very abstract concept once we get into the millions/billions of years. And some physicists/philosophers argue that time is just a human construct.

But why do you think the universe was "formed"? How do you know there was a beginning? How do you know the universe hasn't always existed, or goes through cycles of destruction and rebirth like Hindus believe? If you don't care about time, who cares if there was a beginning? Maybe God also has a beginning?

I know they are not fakes by the same reasons other archeological finds are not fakes...I trust the researching authorities to do due diligence.

Sounds like you trust archeologists (scientists) more than physicists (scientists) when thinking about the age of the earth and dinosaurs/humans. But both types of scientists are using the scientific method. Just like you trust archeologists to do due diligence when telling how old an artifact is, I trust physicists to do due diligence when predicting how old the earth/universe is.

How does one refute the Ishtar gate? It is one of the glories of ancient Babylon painstakingly transported to the British Museum.

This reminds me it's been too long since I've been to the British Museum (on the wrong side of the pond). I will seek out the gate next time I'm there.

Left exposed to erosive action, fossils degrade as quickly (sometimes more so) as the rock around them. In short, finding a Tri-top skull by its lonesome out on the prairie is a romantic but not likely scenario.

BTW, Bison are not extinct. We have them right here in Payne's Prairie just south of town. I know there are various herds around the midwest and southwest. Using the same degree of caution expressed by you earlier...how do you know how old your bison skull is? What is the likelihood of it being placed there by someone?

Yes, fossils and/or bones degrade quickly above ground, but they can also last for a long time IN the ground, and then be exposed in a flood, etc that causes great erosion. There would then be a couple year window for someone to find it.

I'm not exactly sure on my bison skull, but dozens are found every year just on that one river. So I don't think they are being put there (they have been locally extirpated for about 150 years now). I just threw it out as an example of old bones that can be found (skull) without someone (me) even digging for it.

Another thought I had: you say it is unlikely that "primitive peoples" would have spent time digging for fossils. You reference some artifacts from Mesoamerica, so I will use Mesoamerica as an example. The Maya and Aztecs had an amazing knowledge of architecture, engineering, and astronomy. They obviously spent incredible amounts of time studying the heavens in order to be able to build structures that aligned precisely with certain astronomical events. Yet you don't think they would have been interested in "digging up" a partially-exposed dinosaur skeleton?

 

[juantoo3]

Good points about truth as a moving target. How does one know when one has discovered "truth"?

Reality is. We all exist within reality.

Where we get *lost* for lack of a better term is our perception of that reality...your perception is going to be different from mine. Can't be helped, it's simply the way it is, we all have differing perceptions of reality. The reality that is, is objective reality. Each of our perceptions of reality are subjective, and each of our perceptions of reality are incomplete.

You say for you truth = real/reality. Let's consider the example of Santa Claus and a little kid. Everyone the kid trusts tells him that Santa is real. In addition to what he is told by those he trusts, he also sees evidence of Santa (missing cookies on Christmas morning, presents under the tree, sits on Santa's lap at the mall for a photo). The kid even changes his behaviours near Christmas time (naugthy or nice) since he "knows" Santa is watching him.

Is it true or false that Santa exists? For that kid, is Santa real?

LOL...sorry, I've had a great deal of fun here with a thread tying Santa Claus to the Pagan Wild Man tradition, which dates back into prehistory. So in some mythological sense, Santa I guess is real.

(thanks Brian!)

-also-
http://www.interfaith.org/forum/gawain-and-the-greene-knight-4672.html

In the more modern sense though, Santa is more exemplary of religion...the child wants Santa to be real, so to that child for that moment (thinking of the psychology involved) is real. It probably doesn't help that so many among western cultures spoon feed that mythos to their children, with somewhat dire consequenses later when the child learns the truth of the matter...that their parents have fooled them into believing a fairy tale. It is in good fun, but that still plants a huge seed of doubt in the child's mind.

Little different with adults who once were so enamoured and consumed by their religion, only to find the shortcomings and eventually realize the limitations...except it is usually not seen as having been in good fun, more rather it seems like being misled or duped, and as people as a whole become more disillusioned with religion there has come a mass exodus away from it.

Instead, many people now turn to some unbranded, raw form of spirituality, seeking that unseen and unknown something that they intuit.

The basis of religion has been with humanity since the dawn of reason, possibly before. It is only later that religion has become systematized and legalized and promulgated as a means of establishing cohesive social units, creating an "us" with the motive of defense against "them."

To clarify, are you saying you think there are multiple correct interpretations of the bible and other religious texts? That there is no one "true" interpretation of a particular scripture? Do you think the bible and/or other religious texts were written with Divine Intervention?

Absolutely there are multiple interpretations...I can't say each is correct, that is not my place. (Every person has to come to G-d on their own terms, every person answers to G-d only for themself) Even if you could find a perfect petrie dish of believers in lock step, they are still each going to have their own perceptions. They may well mouth the given mantra, but their individual understanding of that mantra will differ.

That's not counting all of the politics and other social forces (not least war, conquering and being conquered) that play into the matter. The Bible is only one example we are better familiar with in the West, these things are true of all of the major accepted religions, and quite a few of the minor ones.

If religious texts are just "guidebooks, morality plays, textbooks for social cohesion", what is the difference between the Bible and a book by Mrs. Manners?

Depth. Ms. Manners is fine for table graces and thank you cards. Religious texts have a good purpose at their core, teaching the benefits of love and social cohesion, and throwing in a bit of profound wisdom, courage, and self-sacrifice. So I don't mean to throw any babies out with the bathwater, there is certainly great value in religion...I just think that value is too often over-rated.

You make some good points about time, it is indeed a very abstract concept once we get into the millions/billions of years. And some physicists/philosophers argue that time is just a human construct.

But why do you think the universe was "formed"? How do you know there was a beginning? How do you know the universe hasn't always existed, or goes through cycles of destruction and rebirth like Hindus believe? If you don't care about time, who cares if there was a beginning? Maybe God also has a beginning?

Take a lump of coal, place it under intense pressure and heat for a period of time, and a diamond is "formed." Why should use of the term "formed" draw concern? It is a term appropriately used for "beginning."

I don't concern myself with cycles of rebirth, my concern is with the here and now. This life is all I am guaranteed (I'm here), anything else is speculation. I don't know there is a heaven...I hope so and try to conduct myself accordingly...but it is not a guarantee outside of my religious text.

If there is a heaven, do dogs go there? What about other animals? Again, I hope so.

Sounds like you trust archeologists (scientists) more than physicists (scientists) when thinking about the age of the earth and dinosaurs/humans. But both types of scientists are using the scientific method. Just like you trust archeologists to do due diligence when telling how old an artifact is, I trust physicists to do due diligence when predicting how old the earth/universe is.

I apologize if I gave that impression...I "trust" them if that is the appropriate term, about equally. I try to maintain a healthy skepticism on any line of research in an effort to keep things in a context. I suppose most people do, but what often happens that I try to avoid is that the person filing things away either ignores and disregards anomalies and contrary evidence in order to simplify the presentation in their minds...inappropriately wielding Occam's Razor to whittle down to the lowest common denominator. And then they tend to stand on that lowest common denominator as if some unassailable gospel "truth," when the reality is that many, many points of fact that have failed to be accounted for are not included...it is so much easier to maintain the sanity of being right by glibly dismissing countra-factual finds.

I'm not exactly sure on my bison skull, but dozens are found every year just on that one river. So I don't think they are being put there (they have been locally extirpated for about 150 years now). I just threw it out as an example of old bones that can be found (skull) without someone (me) even digging for it.

Not knowing the river or the lay of the land it's hard to say. There is a possibility you may know of a buffalo kill, where native peoples may have stampeded them off a cliff or something, a practice some tribes did about once a year or so to stock their larders. And it could also be from when the whites riding the railroads exterminated the buffalo to starve the indians into submission. Or any of a number of possibilities I can't begin to imagine.

Another thought I had: you say it is unlikely that "primitive peoples" would have spent time digging for fossils. You reference some artifacts from Mesoamerica, so I will use Mesoamerica as an example. The Maya and Aztecs had an amazing knowledge of architecture, engineering, and astronomy. They obviously spent incredible amounts of time studying the heavens in order to be able to build structures that aligned precisely with certain astronomical events. Yet you don't think they would have been interested in "digging up" a partially-exposed dinosaur skeleton?

You raise a good point. The Meso-American cultures were certainly a step or two (or more) up the socio-evolutionary ladder from a hunter-gatherer society, judging by the architecture, building of pyramids, written language, mathematics and such. They may well have had the luxury of time to do something like a dig if they had reason. I'm not familiar enough with the culture (I know some of it was extinct prior to the Spanish invasion, some of it made extinct by the Spanish invasion), and it seems to me much has been diluted, but there are still some echoes in things like the Quetzalcoatl mythos...which returns us to dragons and serpents!

 

[radarmark]

juantoo3,

It all depends on where yopu place your emphasis on value. For you it is attitude and compassion, so be it. For me it is integrity and truth. Probably the best path is somewhere inbetween the two (which is what I have consistently thought I had pointed out). For you the things I value are not important. I just do what I can to help keep the focus on what is being said (the content, not the emotion) and whether or not it is intenally consistent (integrity), externally falsifiable (my definition of non-absolute truth, you can substitute your own).

BTW, it may be more effective if you pointed out how I abused terms rather than a Potemkin polemic. What I try to do is point out how "truth" and "knowledge" and "all" are terms that are not really very condusive to communication (since none of the three can be shown to be absolute). You could have simply pointed out that "I do not want to waste valuable interfaith space on what the scientific community considers baseless pseudo-science" and "us (grown up, scientifically knowledgeable persons)" is a pretty pompus way to express the fact that I value science more than emotion and is not really condusive to communication.

Panta Rhei!
(Everything Flows!)