5/10/2005: Dinosaur tracks
 

http://cellar.org/2005/dinotracks.jpg

A recent earth sci pic of the day, sent along by xoB, these are dinosaur tracks. The EPOD caption:

The photo above showing dinosaur footprints on a limestone slab was taken in the Fumanya Coal Mine, near the city of Berga (Catalogna) in northern Spain. This large surface layer of Maestrichtian (upper Cretaceous) lacustrine limestone was exposed during mining activity. Fumanya Mine is located in the southern Pyrenees Mountains. The numerous alignments of rounded traces which can be observed here are tracks of dinosaur footprints. Given the size and the general shape of their footprints, these animals were probably sauropods -- large plant eating dinosaurs. Note also the superb network of small- scale offset faults that crosscut the structural surface.

I've got no sense of the scale of this thing from the picture. Those look like a house cat's tracks to me.

now remember everybody, these were put here by THE ALMIGHTY LORD to test our faith.

glatt - picture is taken from above, probably a shopper, the area shot is about 20m wide.

I'm an idiot. I didn't see the scale in the corner.

Erm, I'm pretty sure they were put there by big lizards. Your newfound acceptance of the concept of God is heartening, though. Rough around the edges, but it's a start.

What a great picture!! Of course, dinosaurs are one of my favorite things. :love: I would love to see this in real life.

Sandra

Spain awaits, Madam. :biggrinba

All we need now is for one of the dragon prints to have a human footprint in it and we'll be done.

There was a "creation archeologist" who was caught chiseling toe prints into some dinosaur tracks to make them look more like human footprints back in the 80s.

Any way to point me in a direction to cite that? I'd heard about the footprint in a footprint thing, but I never really looked into it.

i'm sure it is true, there are idiots abundant in every religion and philosophy. and that guy deserved to catch a chisel between the eyes.

but seriously, don't you get tired of dogging people who hold faith in a higher power than themselves? it goes in spurts around here. nothing for awhile, and then several threads will careen off into christian bashing. quite often people who call themselves christians deserve to be slapped around for being stupid - but i don't see how that justifies ridicule of those that choose to follow Christ's teachings.

i'm not very good analogies but here goes: TW is an engineer who has liberal leanings. I disagree with TW on damn near everything. Should I then feel justified in ridiculing all liberal, or all engineers as stupid arrogant jackasses who...? or can i just realize that TW is one person who makes his own choices and it would be unfair to judge all by the actions of one?

edit: reread my post and thought i should clarify. TW - i do not think you are stupid. arrogant, sure. jackass, maybe. it was just an awkward analogy. ;)

"People who try to put young-Earth creationism into public schools" doesn't have much to do with "people who hold faith in a higher power than themselves". Personally, I only have an issue with people who try to enforce something they call christianity on everyone else. If gays were running around trying to force everyone to marry someone of the same sex, I'd have the same problem with them. Or if the wiccans were trying to put Goddess stories into history books. Or if Jews were trying to ban non-kosher foods.

This one time, at wiccan camp...

As a literal creationist, I don't think Creationist views should be in public school at all.

Nor should Evolution as origin of man.

At the school-age level, no origin of man need be discussed at all.

It is not up to our schools to indoctrinate our children in ANY religion, humanist or otherwise.



And the tracks you refer to that were faked are the paluxy tracks.

Evolution isn't religion, humanist or otherwise. Nor is the presence of dinosaurs.

-mike

at the risk of permanently derailing this thread with the ongoing cellarite obsession with creationism vs. evolution...

OC - i think it is important to teach what is known and believed about origins in the schools.

-evolution as it is understood should be taught - as the theory that it is. be clear about what is fact, and what is currently unproven.
-creationism shouldn't be taught in the schools. i believe in a Creator. the creator you believe in may not be the same as mine.

---what i absolutely do not support is the method of teaching evolution that my beloved :rar: teacher (who was also one of my wrestling coaches) used. "ok, class. raise your hand if you believe in a god. keep your hands up if you believe that you he created the world. ok. now keep your hands up if you believe that you were created in his image... *surveys the room* well, those of you with your hands in their should understand that you are the very definition of stupidity."

- it is possible to teach evolution and acknowledge that there are other ideas out there. it is for the parents to teach their children creationism if they so choose. it is not for a teacher to ridicule a student who believes in a creator. it is not for a teacher to misrepresent what is fact and theory in evolution.

At one point, the "theory" that the earth revolved around the sun was advanced because there was some pretty decent evidence to back it up. The church was convinced that the earth was the center of the universe. The church fucked up and, 300-400 years later, finally came to terms with it.

There is a boatload more evidence to support the idea that man evolved from a lower species and that the universe is ±13B years old than there is to support the 6-day version and your stubborn reluctance to acknowledge that is nothing short of baffling. Much of what Jesus taught was "dumbed down" into parables and metaphors so that the people could understand - without a loss in clarity or meaning. Yet, the story of Genesis - a story without witnesses - which isn't even a doctrinal matter - and you treat each word as though they were tax form instructions.

Doesn't that also mean that only 144,000 people get to go to heaven?

Literalism cannot be applied to the Bible.

Thanks

Evolution as pertaining to origins *is* most assuredly a religion. See the thread in Philosophy to continue that argument.

not to nitpick, but that isn't in the Bible. 144,000 does refer to the Jews who will become followers of Christ post second-coming. these 144,000 will spend the coming years gathering as much of the Jewish nation to Christ as they can. there is no mention of how many people can go to heaven in the Bible.

there are some christian denominations that have gotten some bizarre ideas that THEY are the 144,000. (LDS, 7thday adventists, etc.)

some people have even been known to take fragments of Biblical teachings out of context. shocking, i know.

Where do you want them to learn about evolution, OC? On the street? The internet? I don't think it's a topic that one can reasonably hold off until college.

We disagree. It is obviously a hot topic amongst religious debates. It is clearly related to subject matter that most religions teach. It is absolutely controversial. However, I don't think it's 'a religion'.

Wiccans (silly bastards) are a religion, I suppose. And if one wants to treat the 'earth mother' as a 'religion' I *****suppose***** that might make sense.

"evolution" is NOT a religion. It's like saying that 'baptism' is a religion. Baptism is a practice within Christianity. Christianity is a religion.

Evolution is NOT a religion.

-mike

Lately it's mostly been me. Why? Few reasons:
More stuff about a new party back in Australia that tried to make abortion and creationism election issues. The whole Kansas 're-defining science' shit. Some groups pushing the creationist thing over here. mrnoodle.

I said it in the above thread, I don't give a fuck what people believe but I'm sick to the teeth of them trying to thrust their wacky fucking views on everyone else. I mean just look at OnyxCougar 2 posts above trying to claim that a scientific theory is religion for fucks sake. These people and this battle are in danger of becoming the defining cultural struggle of the 21st century, the rational verses the religious. it's not about love thy neighbour it's about trying to stop thy neighbour marrying his same-sex partner or forcing my religion down the throats of thy neighbour's son in public-funded schools or stopping thy neighbour having an abortion. As far as I and many others are concerned there is no more place for this shit in politics than there is sharia law or any other religious code.

While your teacher might've gone a little far lookout why in hell should time be given in a classroom to anything other than scientific theory?. Should the class on the solar system be prefaced with - 'this is only a scientific theory, some people think the earth is a disk that sits on the back of four elephants that in turn stand on a gigantic turtle swimming though space'? Why not? Comes from the teachers of another fucking huge religion.

Jag, i didn't say creationism should be taught in school. i stated that teachers should teach fact as fact and theory as theory. too many teachers don't know or don't acknowledge that even evolution proponents know that there are holes in it - holes that they hope to fill with future discovery. so unless it is proven - evolution is a theory with parts of it that are hard fact. teach it as such. and don't ridicule students who have been entrusted to you that see in those holes support for their belief system, be it creationist or otherwise.

as far as the christian bashing thing... you're going to do whatever you want but i, for one, would appreciate if you would limit your bashing to those that step up and do something stupid rather than just blasting - in general terms- all those who follow Christ. it just gets old

there are holes. There are holes in physics too but I don't see the value in teaching that either. It's the best, most complete and most empirically supported scientific theory. That is what should be taught, nothing more, nothing less. All science is theory outside laws, students should understand that implicitly.

as for the bashing, as a rule I do, this was just a once-off vent.

Then there was no reason for Jesus to exist, no saving grace, and absolutely no reason for Christianity or Judaism either.


Or you're wrong.

Please see E v C debate in Philosophy Forum.

The following is from an excellent Scientific American article:

So when scienists call it the "theory" of evolution, it doesn't mean it's based on guesses and conjecture... it it based on real evidence, experimentation, and observation over a long period of time.

Suggesting that evolution is a religion is just silly, unless you're using the "to pursue with zeal" definition of the word. Evolution is the explanation that fits the observable facts completely, without exception. If any evidence is ever brought to light which contradicts evolution, science will adjust or discard the theory as appropriate. In contrast, most religions are full of ambiguities, contradictory statements, and outright disprovable notions... yet these are dismissed with empty excuses such as "God works in mysterious ways."

It is an important distinction that science will always take ALL evidence into account to reach conclusions, and alter those conclusions if new evidence gives them reason to; whereas religion holds tight to all beliefs, no matter now many facts may completely contradict them.

In every science class I ever took, the first day of class covered the scientific method. Even my 5 year old kindergarten girl has learned about the scientific method. Why would you stop and say "this is just a theory" for the theory of evolution but not for every other theory? As jaguar said, everything in science is a theory except for a few basic laws. Does the teacher need to start each class saying "everything I'm going to teach today is just a theory?"

Not at all. People need a model to live by. Fictional or not is the question, not whether it was needed at one point or another.

It's just that some people eventually evolve cognitively to the point of being able to realize that and to differentiate.

We've had this discussion on the EvC thread. A religion as defined is a set of beliefs that cannot be proven. Therefore the origins portion of the evolutionary theory is a relgion.

I noticed the inference that if you're religious you can't be rational. That's simply not true.

I want it noted here that I don't want to stop gay marriage. I don't want to throw ANY religion (including humanism) down any child's throat in school. I don't want to stop your neighbor having an abortion. Those are all things (marriage and abortion) I firmly believe the persons in question should choose, and have the right to do.

I agree. 100%

Why do you have to talk about origins at all? Literal Creationists (generally) are not against science. Not at all. Repeatable, observable science SHOULD be taught to every school age child. Speculation and guesswork and exegesis should NOT.

If you give time to humanism, it's only fair and right that you give time to christianity, wicca, hinduism, buddhism, and other creation stories. Otherwise leave them ALL out. Including evolutionary origins.

That is patently untrue and I defer you to the scientists at AiG who are just as qualified as the secular scientists, and hold a completely different viewpoint.

http://www.answersingenesis.org

And I don't want to rehash this all here. It's been done to death. I stand by the EvC thread, and if you want to rejoin that old argument there, have at it.

(However, your post DOES confirm the notion that even though scientists call it a theory, they put it forth and believe it is a fact. All the people who posted here and said "it's just a theory" should take note. They don't posit it as a theory, they posit it as a fact. I have a problem with that.)

Think again.

If Genesis is not literal truth, then the bible can't be trusted, sin happened before Adam and Eve, and therefore, when Jesus referred to Genesis, he was quoting an allgorial story, meaning you can't trust him either, and if he is NOT who he says was, then God isn't who he said HE was, and there is no point to three of the world's major religions.

Radiometric dating is inaccurate. The CREATOR of radiometric dating even says it is wildly inaccurate.

The Geological column does not exist anywhere but textbooks.

Scientists date layers of rock by fossils found there and date fossils by layers of rock they are found in. ??

There are evidences of a young earth that scientists can't disprove.

It all hinges on what your starting bias is.....

You're playing semantics. Prove is a very strong word. Look at mathamatics, just because 1+1 = 2 seems logical enough doesn't mean you've proven it. You cannot, ever 'prove' evolutionary theory in relation to the development humans, not in a way that would satisfy the likes of you. We have an ever-more-complete fossil tree with ever fewer gaps showing the gradual development of hundreds of species, including humans. This is part of the emperical evidence that makes evolutionary theory in the descent of humans a theory, not religion. It's based on analysis of the evidence, if a better theory is developed tomorrow so be it, science will accept it. There is however, no evidence that will convince people like you to change their minds. That is why evolutionary development of humans and other species is not religion. And creationism is. It's also why one should be taught in schools, along side other theories like the big bang, particle physics, quantum mechanics etc. It is put forward as fact because it is the best theory, if the theory changed, what is put forward would change. It would still be put forward as fact. Why do you find that so hard to accept?

Also: Answers in Genisis is full of shit. It's not linked to by one reputable scientific site, not just because it isn't scientific but because it tends to quote scientists and papers out of context to help makes its points. It's not run by qualified scientists but by a creationists out to prove an agenda by fudging the truth and building straw men.

Exactly, except for the whole no point thing. Religion serves a purpose, the same purpose as law. Social control.

Cite please. And considering the evolution of technology since RCD was developed make sure he's talking about the new gear.

I'm sure we can tie this in with RCD above.

RCD, again...

Cite please and remember that you can't disprove anything, you can only show a lack of evidence.

And it helps to be biased towards reality, wouldn't you think?

No I'm not. Read the EvC thread again.

You mean, with proof? No. You can't prove it to satisfy the likes of me. Because it is unprovable. You have no evidence, only conjecture, unsubstatiated claims and incomplete fragments of fossils that in some cases (Lucy) the bones were found miles away from each other.

Is any of that proof? Not to me, and it shouldn't be for you, either.

Wrong again. We have known evidence of faked fossils, we have incomplete skeletons with bones found miles from each other, slapped together and called "proof". We have Haegel's drawing, still used in textbooks today, which were proven to be fraudulent, and for which he was censured for.

There have been fakes and frauds on both sides of this argument, no one is above independant verification. The FACT is that evolutionary origins CANNOT be proven, in the way the scientific method states it must be proven to be fact. You can guess, you can try to piece together the way you think it may have happened, but it cannot be proven. There is no silver bullet piece of evidence, jag, there just ISN'T.

At the Scopes trial, it went completely the opposite of the way it was depicted in "Inherit the Wind" Read the court transcripts. I did.

They say that, but it's not true. It's been proven scientifically that layers of rock like what has been observed all over the world and supposedly taken millions of years can be laid down in 20. It's been proven that mutations occur much faster than originally thought, it doesn't take millions of years. It's also been proven over and over again that species cannot mutate the way they would have had to do it the way evolution says they did, because WHOLE systems would have had to mutate at the same time for the creature to live, and that isn't how geneticists say it works.

That's right, because there IS no evidence. Show me the money.

If you can't prove it, it's a belief. A set of unprovable beliefs is a relgion.

also a theory, not provable in the slightest

Because it's ALREADY BEEN PROVEN WRONG and HAS NOT BEEN CHANGED.

oh bullshit it's not scientific.

obviously you have not seriously looked at the site. in fact it has MANY scientific speakers and debate it quotes in FULL and still manages to prove evolution has gaping holes in it.

they have degrees from major universities from all over the world in astrophysics, geology, astronomy, paleontology, just about every -ology you can think of. What exactly makes them not qualified?

Yes, they are out to prove evolution is full of crap. And they have the ssame credentials secular scientists do.

Scientists who come out with the fact they are creationist are blacklisted, and in fact, there are reports that they are not allowed to even publish if it does not fall in line with evolutionist theory. Many times, grants are withheld if a scientist comes out as Creationist. No wonder nothing is linked off of other sites, but jag, that doesn't make it less correct.

If I was the most evolutionary thinker in the world, and I'm not linked by another site with different views, does that mean I'm wrong? Of course not. That's a dumb criteria.

You're not thinking.

OC, why do you keep having this argument in THIS thread? why don;t you take it over to that Evolution vs. Creationism thread we had a while back?

I agree, organized relgion does serve that purpose. But someone with half a brain that thinks even remotely linearly cannot believe the bible is made up and still believe in Jesus' part in it as being real.

RCD articles:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs...bon_dating.asp

semi-technical (and a non AiG website): http://trueorigin.org/dating.asp

technical (PDF): http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home...4n2_Crinum.pdf

Links to lots more RMD sites, most AiG, some offsite links, from many sources and different scientists.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home...faq/dating.asp

Absolutely agree!

*I* have already suggested it like 4 times and they aren't moving it to that thread. Why point *me* out? Why not ask Jag and TS and everyone else?

actually, i think it was 5. and i thought you'd pick up on the sarcasm. guess you're too fired up right now about The Lord. That's okay. it happens. zeal seems to obscure many senses including humor. ;)

ARRRRGHHHH!!!!!!!!

Ok, I've held out for as long as I can. Look, my evangelical conservative creds run as deep as anybody here, but pushing intelligent design into the science curriculum is wrong.

wrong, wrong, wrong.

Can I say it any plainer? This is why - the real question at stake here is Theism vs. Naturalism, and that's not a question for a science class, it's a question for a philosophy class. Science is a methodology for accumulating and correllating natural data; of course it starts with a presumption of naturalism. It has to! To say that science should present non-natural conclusions is like saying that 2+2=Orange. It's not that Orange is untrue, it's just that it's an inappropriate answer to the question.

Intelligent design is a schema for answering the why question - the scientific process answers the how question. So here's the compromise. Take creationism out of the science curriculum, but let the discussion of theism, and it's twin Intelligent Design, take place in the philosophy curriculum. It belongs there.

-sm

I wish they would start offering philosophy in high school. You'd end up with a lot fewer college students having their minds blown by Descartes.

Er. No. It hasen't. Maybe is crazy-topsy-turvy creationist world is has but here in reality, the modern scientific community, it hasn't. The conspiricy talk to amusing too. You've just stated some fairly amusing stuff, I challenege you to back up one of those claims with a paper published in a reputable scientific journal. Not some wacky creationist one but a real scientific paper supporting one of those points that has been perr reviewed and published.

Lets have a closer look at AiG then shall we? Why not look at the top? Persident Ken Ham, who, according to his bio:
Impressive! An undergrad degree from a second rate uni! Ken's writings demonstrate perfectly the kind of logical silliness the AiG is based on and OnyxCougar is so ready to accept without question:
Like this gem:
Sounds convincing if you don't have a clue what you're talking about.
Sadly Diluvial models of coal formation are inconsistent with a wide variety of observations, and can be dismissed as untenable. Criticisms of autochthonous models made by AiG and other creationists are based largely on factual errors, misleading statements, and failure to consider all data. Moreover, since there exists strong evidence for many autochthonous coals in the geologic record, and since peats in the modern world accumulate at rates less than or equal to about 5mm/yr (Diemont and Supardi 1987), the presence of numerous thick autochthonous coals is good evidence that the earth is older than YECs typically allow."

This is typical of AiG arguments, fudge a bit there, ignore something when it doesn't fit and claim that all of science is an evil conspiricy to keep you down. I could go on for pages but why bother? It's not needed, nothing will move those that cling to their silly misconceptions and lies and everyone else thinks they're worrying at worst and hilarious at best.

No, I don't mind if people think I'm full of shit, but I have valid, solid reasons for my beliefs, not because I was indoctrinated in them, but because I looked and reserched lots of different points of views and made a personal decision on what's right for me.

Then people who are severely closed minded for whatever reason think that because I fall under one huge umbrella of a label that I'm an extremist fundie and call me intolerant, irrational and basically imply I'm a freaking idiot.

I'm tired of all the Christian bashing. I'm *not* stupid because I believe in Jesus' saving grace. I'm *not* intolerant of other people's rights and opinions. I'm *not* irrational.

Dammit!

I AGREE!!! and take the evolutionary origins out too!!!

Hmm...what about:

I suppose all of them are from second rate unis too?

and so on...

Of course, all of these people are obviously fucking idiots from second rate universities.

*rolls her eyes*

Thought this was relevant here:
There is one other strange thing about the evolutionists’ charge that creation scientists are not real scientists doing real research. That is the fact that all these creation scientists obtained their PhDs under the tutelage of evolutionists, in some cases quite prominent evolutionists. So by labeling creationists as non-scientists the evolutionists are actually attacking the scientific and teaching competencies of their fellow evolutionists!

ohh I'm impressed, a long list of names!
easier than a rebuttal.

i randomly picked a name. Dr Kurt Wise. For reference I he was the first I picked, totally at random. Well lookey here, he got is 'doctorate' from Bryan, a college that 'puts christ above all'. Well well. There was Dr Harold Coffin, at the presdigious and well known 'Southwestern Adventist University'. Hmmm. Theme emerging here. Dr James A. Huggins, Union University - A Southern Baptist University that seems to have gone under to boot. I tried a few others, the only information was more and more copies of this oh-so-impressive list. For none could I actually find their dissertation paper. Tried the ATHENS system for accessing papers, nothing. I didn't bother checking out the plain old medical doctors which you amusingly seem to think is the same. Or the plastic surgeons. Or dentists. Despite it being common knowledge that plastic surgeons are all experts in palaeontology and geology.

A list of doctors and doctorates doesn't make you any more wrong, it just doesn't mean you're quite as alone. Anyone that's attented a major university knows they all have a fair share of kooks and oddities, I associate with a fair few people particularly from Cambridge and some of the strange characters they know of.... The point is that this list doesn't make any difference. Creationism has no scientific basis and the arguments against evolution either rely of falicies or on gaps on the fossil record.

oh boy...you just keep banging on. An article from Dr Terry Morton, who got is masters from Trinity Evangelical Divinity School! Talking about Ken Ham! Who doesn't understand geology! peer-reviewed! Impressive. By who?

Also worth noting two of the guys I checked out converted long after they had their PH.Ds. I could find no evidence that any had obtained a PH.D in areas relevent to that gorgeous oxymoron, 'creationist science'.

At any rate, I'm out, too much work over the next few days to waste this much time waxing lyrical about the silliness of of this debate. I hope I've at least demonstrated to some that despite the pretty website and big words sites like AiG are as scientific as they are objective.

Someone doesn't know how science works...

and this:

OK, so the ones from the "better" universities are kooks, and the ones from "less than top rate" univerisities are well...less just say they aren't qualified.

Riiiiiiight.

No. There are literally millions of PH.Ds globally, a list like this is meaningless. If they believe this crap they're no doubt kooks of one sort or another. It's just amusing that so many come from funny little religious indoctrination centres masquerading as unis.

UT, I'd like to apologize for sending you that picture. :haha:

There are dinosaur tracks on the University of Texas, Austin's campus, near the natural history museum. You can go stand in them.

If we dont teach science, and by that I mean evolution, we are risking our economic future.

It is those last 10 words that sum up the situation here. Faced with a controversial topic, you have chosen what is right for you and your beliefs and your value system.

You are also wrong about carbon dating and other methods that clearly put human bones thousands and thousands of years before the Bible says man came to be. You can say that these methods are inaccurate, clearly you have made another personal decision on the matter.

-mike

I don't know whether to be impressed by or fearful of OC's single minded devotion to this topic.

And her ability to cut and paste.

Bruce - I started it, if anyone is to blame, it's me. The cutting and pasting is impressive but it's a poor substitute for knowing what you're talking about. The conspirital tone is the real giveaway 'the evil atheitest scientific journals are keeping us down!', what a fucking joke. The kind of journals he's talking about are if anything, the paragon of understanding and fairness.

I've got a friend that works doing x-ray crystallography at a research lab attached to Cambridge, they usually publish in smaller more topic-specific journals but one paper was important enough to be submitted to Nature. It got rejected, along with the 99% of papers submitted to Nature each month. 2 months later they got a letter from Nature and a full apology for overlooking it, the paper was published the following month. They are always on the lookout for sensational new work, if it was, it'd be published.

To suggest these institutions are involved in some kind of vast conspiricy to keep all this 'scientific' evidence of 'intelligent design' (for not-very-intelligent people) down is frankly, beyond the pale. If the paper is coming to non-scientific conclusions (therefore...GOD MADE THE EARTH IN 6 DAYS!) or is clearly pushing an agenda of course it's going to be rejected, such rubbish falls well outside what the conclusion should contain. This is commonplace from papers for all sorts of lobbies, from mobile phone safety to GM.