Did God put dinosaur fossils on Earth to confuse scientists?

[BikerBabe 0]

Quote

Religion and science are mutually exclusive. Religion can not explain the laws of nature, and the only reason the stories were there in the first place is because Man needs stories, and that was the best they had at the time. On the same note, science can not explain spirituality or philosophy, and it was never meant to.

It's the people think both are one and the same who are the idiots.

Everyone looks at this from one side, but how about the other?

I don't believe religion and science are mutually exclusive.

I believe in God. I am also a "scientist" (I think that way, i was taught that way, and i "believe" in science, heh).

I wasn't given the ability for rational thought just to not use it. Unfortunately, many "religious" people seem to forget this and just throw their brains away when they find religion.

Science is how we learn and discover more about god and his "creation", if you want to call it that. That's what i believe. Apparently, that makes me an idiot.

You are correct. Religion doesn't explain the laws of nature. But I think science reveals more and more about the nature of god.

And please, don't confuse "religion" with "spirituality". If anything is mutually exclusive here...it's those two things! lol

Never meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup!

[JackC 0]

Quote

I don't believe religion and science are mutually exclusive.

I believe in God. I am also a "scientist"

The only way you can get away with that is if you don't apply the scientific method to theism and vice versa.

If you do, either theism comes to a grinding halt or science does. Ergo, science and religion are mutually exclusive.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Well?

I don't think you are an idiot.

But I'm not voting on this one - even though I think dinosaur bones are real and put there by dead dinosaurs I don't think that theory relates to your level of intelligence or competence.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

The core problem is that when you invoke the supernatural to sidestep the evidence you postulate something untestable in science.

Actually the introduce of supernatural, like everything else, should be based on evidence as well. So any talks about the invocations are premature until it is proven with evidence that a) That "supernatural" invoked does exist; b) He is able to sidestep the evidence.

Until a) and b) is done, any claim like this is groundless. It's not even Occam razor, just basic logic.

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

I don't believe religion and science are mutually exclusive.

But they are.
Probably you're mixing your beliefs and religion.
Whether your beliefs and science are mutually exclusive - it depends on what you believe in.
But Christian religion and science in current stage are - because they object evolution, genetics, radiocarbon method...

Quote

Science is how we learn and discover more about god and his "creation", if you want to call it that. That's what i believe.

The biggest difference is that science is about evidence, not about beliefs. In religion if you believe in the only True God Christ, and I believe in the only True God Moffo, there is no way to test who is right. Obviously we cannot be both right, as there cannot be two Only True Gods. But none of us could prove their position with evidence, and therefore it is stuck forever.

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[billvon 3,132]

>But Christian religion and science in current stage are - because
>they object evolution, genetics, radiocarbon method...

That's changing pretty rapidly. Even the catholic church, which is pretty slow to change, acknowledges evolution and modern genetics nowadays. (Or more to the point claims that evolution does not contradict church teaching.)

>The biggest difference is that science is about evidence, not about beliefs.

Right. And one of the biggest mistakes people make is trying to mix the two.

[SpeedRacer 1]

Quote

Quote

I don't believe religion and science are mutually exclusive.

I believe in God. I am also a "scientist"

The only way you can get away with that is if you don't apply the scientific method to theism and vice versa.

If you do, either theism comes to a grinding halt or science does. Ergo, science and religion are mutually exclusive.

you don't apply the scientific method to science or vice versa. why would you??

Science and religion look at two different parts of the reality that we experience.

We experience an objective, quantifiable, outside reality and a non-quantifiable inner experience as conscious beings.

The fact that force = mass times acceleration, or that a hemoglobin molecule can bind up to four O2 molecules is outwardly demonstrated in objective terms.

As human beings, we also notice & live with things that are non-objective, such as the fact that you love your children, or feel the thrill of jumping out of airplanes, or the difference in feeling you get listening to the music of Pink Floyd versus the feeling you get listening to the music of Britney Spears.


well, gotta get back to cloning now.

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[willard 0]

A little study in anthropology shows that religion was a way for humans to explain things they didn't understand. Since they didn't have science as we know it they rationalized that there must be all-powerful beings who cause such things as thunder and fire. Why are those rocks in a circle? Because I put them there. Why were those rocks in the streambed before I moved them? I don't know....must have been God.
Or the spaghetti monster.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

Or the spaghetti monster.

A little study in anthropology shows it couldn't possibly be the spaghetti monster. But believe whatever you want

[kallend 2,182]

Quote

Quote

Or the spaghetti monster.

A little study in anthropology shows it couldn't possibly be the spaghetti monster. But believe whatever you want

Who are you to say what the FSM can or cannot do?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[unformed 0]

Quote

Quote

Or the spaghetti monster.

A little study in anthropology shows it couldn't possibly be the spaghetti monster. But believe whatever you want

The FSM put anthropology there to confuse chefs.

This ad space for sale.

[willard 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Or the spaghetti monster.

A little study in anthropology shows it couldn't possibly be the spaghetti monster. But believe whatever you want

The FSM put anthropology there to confuse chefs.

But who (or what) created the chefs? Or the FSM? Is FSM a product of the Big Bang? Or, since it's pasta, the Big Splat? And what kind of sauce is on FSM? I am so confused! And hungry!

[JackC 0]

Quote

you don't apply the scientific method to science or vice versa. why would you??

Actually, I do apply the scientific method to science on account of it being my job.

I try to apply the same rigerous thinking to any line of thought because science is the best method I know of to find out if that line is bullshit or not. Theism included.

Quote

As human beings, we also notice & live with things that are non-objective, such as the fact that you love your children, or feel the thrill of jumping out of airplanes, or the difference in feeling you get listening to the music of Pink Floyd versus the feeling you get listening to the music of Britney Spears.

All of the things you mentioned are rooted in the real, natural, physical world where science can (and does) get it's hands on them. God quite famously, ain't. But that's not too much of a problem because we've got his followers and their scribblings to go on. Science (or more properly, rationalism) can have a poke about in there to see what falls out. Why shouldn't it?

Quote

well, gotta get back to cloning now.

And what right have you got to play God?

[jakee 1,611]

Quote

But who (or what) created the chefs? Or the FSM? Is FSM a product of the Big Bang? Or, since it's pasta, the Big Splat? And what kind of sauce is on FSM? I am so confused! And hungry!

The FSM created everything.

Now as for the sauces, here is my theory (though it may be rather controversial).

The FSM is not actually made of pasta, rather, the creation of pasta is merely the reflection of the metaphysical knowledge of the nature of the FSM which is deeply engrained in every human psyche. The enjoyment of pasta based dishes is one way in which we can all attempt to connect with and understand the FSM. As the foremost exponents of the pasta makers art it should be recognised that the Italians are His chosen people.

May you be blessed by His Noodly Appendage.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[kallend 2,182]

Quote

Quote

But who (or what) created the chefs? Or the FSM? Is FSM a product of the Big Bang? Or, since it's pasta, the Big Splat? And what kind of sauce is on FSM? I am so confused! And hungry!

The FSM created everything.

Now as for the sauces, here is my theory (though it may be rather controversial).

The FSM is not actually made of pasta, rather, the creation of pasta is merely the reflection of the metaphysical knowledge of the nature FSM which is deeply engrained in every human psyche. The enjoyment of pasta based dishes is one way in which we can all attempt to connect with and understand the FSM. As the foremost exponents of the pasta makers art it should be recognised that the Italians are His chosen people.

May you be blessed by His Noodly Appendage.

Pasta-making is just a neurovirus that uses humans as a host. The virus is passed from chef to chef.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[willard 0]

Quote

May you be blessed by His Noodly Appendage.

That FSM better keep his noodly appendage to himself.

[SpeedRacer 1]

Quote

A little study in anthropology shows that religion was a way for humans to explain things they didn't understand. Since they didn't have science as we know it they rationalized that there must be all-powerful beings who cause such things as thunder and fire. Why are those rocks in a circle? Because I put them there. Why were those rocks in the streambed before I moved them? I don't know....must have been God.
Or the spaghetti monster.

Nope.

Religion is for explaining internal realities and experiences, not as a substitute for science.

When ancient people taught their children to, for example, heat flint under a fire before making arrowheads, they did so for outwardly demonstrable, objective, and practical reasons, and not because "God said we must do this!"

Ancient people were not as simple as you think. INtelligent people of that time, as now, understood the difference between where you apply spiritual knowledge and where you apply physical knowledge.

The idea that one type of knowledge is superior and the other is inferior is for people, on EITHER side of the religion-issue, who are trying to sell some bullshit.

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[SpeedRacer 1]

and for those of you that think that Christians are at war with science: Why is it that when I was in college & I did a report on New England Geology, one of the best experts was a Catholic Priest teaching geology at UMBC? talking about Cambrian rock strata & so forth.

Obviously there are some Christians who have absolutely no problem with science.

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[willard 0]

Quote

Quote

A little study in anthropology shows that religion was a way for humans to explain things they didn't understand. Since they didn't have science as we know it they rationalized that there must be all-powerful beings who cause such things as thunder and fire. Why are those rocks in a circle? Because I put them there. Why were those rocks in the streambed before I moved them? I don't know....must have been God.
Or the spaghetti monster.

Nope.

Religion is for explaining internal realities and experiences, not as a substitute for science.

When ancient people taught their children to, for example, heat flint under a fire before making arrowheads, they did so for outwardly demonstrable, objective, and practical reasons, and not because "God said we must do this!"

Ancient people were not as simple as you think. INtelligent people of that time, as now, understood the difference between where you apply spiritual knowledge and where you apply physical knowledge.

The idea that one type of knowledge is superior and the other is inferior is for people, on EITHER side of the religion-issue, who are trying to sell some bullshit.

We are talking of two different things. Ancient people did have methods of doing tasks that they discovered and passed on to their offspring without knowing how or why those methods worked better than other methods. Most of these discoveries were purely accidental. We can be reasonably sure that some were the result of intentional and deliberate experimentation.
I'm not saying religion was founded as a substitute for science. To the ancient peoples it was their science.They didn't know what caused lightning and thunder so they assumed it was caused by a very powerful and angry person in the sky...a god. These gods were just as real to them as electricity is to us.
But hey, what do I know. I'm just going on what I learned in an anthro class.

[dorbie 0]

Quote

We are talking of two different things. Ancient people did have methods of doing tasks that they discovered and passed on to their offspring without knowing how or why those methods worked better than other methods. Most of these discoveries were purely accidental. We can be reasonably sure that some were the result of intentional and deliberate experimentation.
I'm not saying religion was founded as a substitute for science. To the ancient peoples it was their science.They didn't know what caused lightning and thunder so they assumed it was caused by a very powerful and angry person in the sky...a god. These gods were just as real to them as electricity is to us.
But hey, what do I know. I'm just going on what I learned in an anthro class.

There's a reason attempts are made to elevate other methods to some kind of equivalence with science and not the other way around. Science does enjoy a unique special status as the useful bag of tricks that helps us make sense of things. You can go stand in the corner and argue this, but it's just too bad for the dissenters, they're wrong and science will continue to be science and they'll continue to be confounded irrespective of opinions to the contrary.

Science and the scientific method has accreted over years, and has been described formally by philosophers like Popper. It is not anything like traditional superstitions, it is the antithesis of superstition. Ask a hard skeptical scientist not an anthropology teacher (ideally they are not mutually exclusive descriptions) if you genuinely want to know why.

Basically, with rare exceptions humans are crap at this "making sense of the world" stuff, we fool ourselves, we lie, we cheat, we subconsciously bias evidence and conclusions. Science gives us the framework to collectively be less crap at this, nothing else comes close in utility and of course many people who claim to be doing science or flaunt the trappings of science are not, some are flagrantly dishonest, others are just idiots without the right training or aptitude.

[philh 0]

"We experience an objective, quantifiable, outside reality and a non-quantifiable inner experience as conscious beings. "

This is really just a god of the gaps argument. We still dont know a lot about consciousness, why we have the emotions we have. But we are learning more all the time. We certainly do know why we feel a thrill for jumping out of planes. Its our fight or flight response kicking in pupming up the adrenaline. But why do some skydive and others not?
The answer has been sugested that skydivers ( and our hang glisding/snowbaording etc etc cousins) have lower levels of monoamine oxydase this is an enzyme whcih breaks down doapmine in the brain. the less we have of this the more easily doapmine flows and so seek out thrilling stimulation. This has been further linked to a gene called the d4 dopamine receptor. Thrll seekers may be more likely to have this gene than those that play golf.
Whether these exaplantions will become consensus remains to be seen, but this so called non objective world is becoming more objective all the time. Science is coming up with answers as to why we feel the things we do. Religion has never answered anything.religion is just superstition and whenever its silly ideas are shown to be wrong it tries to remanifest itself to aid its own survivial. But we are better off being like a good trader, who spots a mistake recognises it, cuts their losses and moves on; rather than a bad trader who holds on to a bad idea no matter what perhaps because they have too much invested in it to let go.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

I've heard questions and statements like this before.

I've always thought they were just stupid; both from a scientific and religious perspective.

If you believe in science, then the answer is clearly no.

If you believe in religion, then to admit dinosaurs ever existed opens up such a can of worms you pretty much either have to stop believing or you have to start grasping at the straws of "creation science". Once you start doing that, haven't you already admitted that on some level, you don't actually believe?

As well it fucks up their short earth joke theory, as 10k years can't imagine 65M years.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

That has to be the best description of I have ever heard!! Can I get an amen brother

Hoo boy, I totally agree. And I better mention it's a quote from Satan/John Milton's soliloquy (delivered by Al Pacino) in Devil's Advocate.

Plagiarist.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

So here we are having to seek forgiveness for our impurity through Jesus.

So Jesus is a Capitalist monopolistic fuck then.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

If you believe in science, then the answer is clearly no.
If you believe in religion, then to admit dinosaurs ever existed opens up such a can of worms you pretty much either have to stop believing or you have to start grasping at the straws of "creation science".

There is the difference between science and religion. You do not have to believe in science - there is factual evidence which you can look on.
But there is no factual evidence in religion.

Both are theories, just that religion claims to be factual, science admits there are some holes and is eluctant to use the word, "proof."

Science begs you to disprove them, religion dares you to. This is why I find science so great and religion so repulsive.