What is Digg?Sponsored by Guitar Center
When Heavy-handed Hints Fail--Guitar Center Wishlist Posters view!
guitarcenter.com - Cool personalized designs send a friendly reminder that a new Stratocaster would rock, thanks.
122 Comments
- ironhide, on 04/29/2009, -0/+44" The 'Lost World scenario' of humans and dinosaurs existing at the same time, still belongs firmly in the realms of pure fantasy"
Damn, so no raptor-riding Jesus. - Agalychnis, on 04/29/2009, -0/+24So, one or more species of dinosaur (besides the feathery ones...) may have survived in a small population up until 64.5 million years ago instead of 65 million years ago. Scientifically this is actually interesting as hell, but it isn't any "OMG! Dinosaurs might still be alive somewhere!!!11!" sort of finding.
- schnikies79, on 04/29/2009, -2/+25Could it be that you are talking out of your ass?
I'll believe that. - inactive, on 04/29/2009, -2/+24I'm glad you don't want to believe that, because you'd have to be ***** insane to not think that the Earth is billions of years old. *****, even the most hardcore Creationist can't argue with the basic premise that the Earth itself is billions of years old - that's a very easily demonstrated fact.
- Bloodwine, on 04/29/2009, -5/+25The devil planted dinosaur bones to test our faith! TRUE STORY!
- cjharty, on 04/29/2009, -2/+21Fantasy, or fundamental Christianity.
- inactive, on 04/29/2009, -1/+18Same thing.
- anexanhume, on 04/29/2009, -0/+15Have you checked your back yard? Seriously, go look.
- Agalychnis, on 04/29/2009, -0/+15There is nothing in this article to support your statement.
- inactive, on 04/29/2009, -0/+14Uhh.. the.. uhh.. tiny imperfections.. in the skin on your hand.. ahh, the.. direction of the hairs.
That's.. THAT's chaos theory. - Petmc, on 04/29/2009, -1/+15Where is Jeff Goldblum when you need him?
- mattsull, on 04/29/2009, -0/+14Buried. Look up scientific theory then come back
- Harabeck, on 04/29/2009, -1/+14What agenda? That's the problem with these kinds of conspiracy theories, the motives behind them never actually make any sense.
- Mnementh2230, on 04/29/2009, -0/+13Kelly, you obviously didn't understand the article. Here's a relevant bit:
"dinosaurs may have survived in a remote area of what is now New Mexico and Colorado for up to half a million years"
So instead of almost all the dinosaurs dying out 65 million years ago, a few extras survived up to 64.5 million years ago. It's interesting, but it's no refutation of the standard dating practices. Radiometric dating works - it has a solid foundation in theory and has been tested in multiple ways by using samples of known age. We know its limitations, and we only use it where it is useful (i.e. not using it where the reservoir effect will mess up the data).
Get your facts straight and quit lying - I do believe your bible has a rule or two about bearing false witness. - Bloodwine, on 04/29/2009, -2/+15it is a theory, although the term "theory" in scientific terms is different than saying, "I have a theory as to why my ***** is hurting this morning"
- presidentraygun, on 04/28/2009, -1/+13Man these "Land of the Lost" tie-ins are incredible.
- Mnementh2230, on 04/29/2009, -1/+13Could it be that you have no idea of the mountains of verifiable, objective evidences for an old earth?
Could it be that you're a scientific illiterate?
Could it be that you haven't got a clue what you're talking about?
Naw... - areber04, on 04/29/2009, -1/+12Actually hardcore creationists will argue until they are blue in the face that the earth is ~4000 years old. Your facts are of no consequence to them.
- inactive, on 04/29/2009, -5/+16And here we go.....Normal people Vs. bible-thumpers.
- inactive, on 04/29/2009, -0/+11Please tell me you flunked out of high school. That's the only excuse I can possibly think of for not knowing what a scientific theory is.
- Jimbozu, on 04/29/2009, -0/+11@Bdog2g2
You mean fantasy? - inactive, on 04/29/2009, -4/+14If you take the time to look into Scientology, everything will be explained.
/s - Mnementh2230, on 04/30/2009, -0/+9"Cause I read "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.""
And you assume it's correct based on no objective evidence at all. How arrogant. You accept faith over objective reality which clearly shows the Bible is not infallible. - hiimkardinal, on 04/29/2009, -0/+9As a studying geologist, who intends to delve into paleontology, who also happens to have a fundamentalist southern-baptist born again christian for a roommate, I can, with 100% certainty, tell you that there are indeed people who will remonstrate with you all night long over the age of the earth. In fact when you mention a number which exceeds 6000 by so much as a year they get this snide, "yeah right," look in their eyes which signals then and there that your efforts will be useless and everything said will be lost to faith.
My personal favorite response is, "Yeah, but come on, how do they really KNOW that rock is 3.8 billion years old?" Apparently grasping the idea that radiometric dating's margin of error (~2-2.5 million years for Ur/Pb) means the rock is still 3 billion years old no matter what is entirely lost on these people.
It's like repeatedly bashing your head into a brick wall trying to talk to them about these things really. - Harabeck, on 04/29/2009, -1/+10No, the article clearly says that there could be other explanations and that this is not conclusive. Old-Earth, evolution, and big bang theories are all based on evidence. The ideas came from observations, not by thinking up then answer and then looking for evidence which is EXACTLY what fundamentalist creationist crazies do.
If you really think about it, it makes no sense that evolution and the other theories were made up. Why would people risk their reputations (and lives for older theories) by making them up? The answer is they believed it was the truth and sought to further our knowledge of the world. Which is the opposite of people like you who would halt all advancement by simply saying God did it all. - inactive, on 04/29/2009, -0/+8Yeah, I acknowledge that there are idiots out there who disagree, but for *****'s sake, it's fundamental. It's basic. There's absolutely zero guesswork here. I mean, saying evolution isn't real is pretty damn crazy, but not nearly as crazy as saying that the Earth isn't billions of years old, because it's so incredibly easy to show that it is.
- stix213, on 04/29/2009, -1/+9Ohh no!!!! Who told you about my Dino age adjusting agenda?!!! Who talked!!!!! Yeah everyone knows that the dinosaur bones can't be more than about 5,000 years old, cause god hadn't created earth before that of course, but do you know how much money these stupid dinosaur bone are raking in for me after I tricked everyone into thinking they were over 65 millions years old??!!!!! One little lie about their age has turned these worthless 5,000 year old bones into virtual dinosaur GOLD!!!
Hey, I won't mess with your business, so don't F with mine! Keep my agenda a secret will ya?
It has taken decades of to create all the false scientific papers and to pay off other scientists and museum heads. And do you have any idea how hard it was to trick everyone that radio carbon dating was real???? Plus, you have no idea how many man hours went into manufacturing that giant fake crater down in the Yucatan. Many of my slaves died making it.
We are very powerful, and we will stop at nothing to protect our dino bones business. If you don't want anything bad to happen to your family, I would suggest you shut your trap and let everyone believe the 65 million year lie! - stix213, on 04/29/2009, -0/+8LOL
I was mocking you, so I didn't expect YOU to find it funny. - designerutah, on 04/29/2009, -0/+8areber04: true, they will argue, but it's like arguing with your 10 year old about politics. The ideas are simple, the knowledge is missing, and the understanding of how things work is... not really there.
- Induane, on 04/29/2009, -0/+8Thats obviously the Great Valley. Ask Littlefoot.
- designerutah, on 04/29/2009, -0/+8Believers never find it funny to be mocked, especially when all they have to fall back on:
1. because the Bible says so
2. because I feel it in my heart
3. because the Universe is too complex not to have been created by intelligent design
4. because my pastor/priest says so
5. because I just KNOW it!
None of which helps them get around how intricately interwoven the scientific evidence is, how various disciplines end up supporting current theories of how the Earth formed, evolution of creatures including dinosaurs, and how many things would all need to be vastly incorrect to make the theories wrong in any really sold way.
PS: My God is omni-dimensional, omni-chronlogical, omni-universal as well as being everything omni that the Christian's claim... but she's also smoking hot and loves to strip dance in Vegas because she created arousal and finds it exciting to help men prepare for procreation. - stix213, on 04/30/2009, -0/+7Don't bother with him Mnementh2230
Trying to have a real discussion with people who believe in the supernatural, based solely on the "faith" they were taught to have as a youngster (when they were so critical as to what they believed as to also believe in Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy) is a fools errand.
God is to adults as Santa is to a 6 year old, only there isn't a 5th grader to spoil it for them. - RudeTurnip, on 04/29/2009, -0/+7500,000 years is a blink of the eye in geological terms. It's nice to know, but nothing spectacular.
- Mnementh2230, on 04/30/2009, -0/+7"There is no absolute way of knowing either the age of the earth or how long anything has been on it"
False. There are various methods to determine the age of the earth, and your inability to do a simple google search to learn them is rather silly. - ApokalypseNow, on 04/30/2009, -0/+7PO Halos? What, this ***** again?
Every single one of Gentry's halos has been found along a cleavage surface in a mineral called biotite. These cleavage surfaces constitute porosity into which hydrous fluids carrying radon gas can move. Given that every single Po-halo-bearing rock that Gentry has produced is from a uranium-rich region, it should come as no surprise that elements and evidence from the uranium decay chain are present in those rocks. Even Donald B. DeYoung, author of several creationist books, admits that polonium halos are always found near uranium halos. Find us a halo that did not occur along a crack and was not near any uranium halos if you want Gentry's hypothesis to stand up to any scrutiny.
Also, contrary to Gentry's claims to the contrary, his work has been refuted numerous times - here's a small sampling of refutations, in handy MLA format:
Ellenberger, C.L. 1986. "Absolute Dating," unanswered surrebuttal to Gentry, Physics Today. March 1986. pp. 152, 156
Osmon, P., 1986, "Gentry’s pleochroic halos: Creation/Evolution," Newsletter, Feser, Karl D., Editor, v. 6, no. 1, Concord College, Athens, West Virginia
Schadewald, R., 1987. "Gentry’s tiny mystery, Creation/Evolution" Newsletter, Fezer, Karl D, Editor, v. 4, no. 2 & 3. Concord College. Athens. West Virginia, p 20.
Wakefield, J. R., 1987-88, "Gentry’s Tiny Mystery - unsupported by geology," Creation/Evolution, v. 22, p. 13-33.
Moazed, Cyrus; Richard M. Spector; Richard F. Ward, 1973, Polonium Radiohalos: An Alternate Interpretation, Science, Vol. 180, pp. 1272-1274.
Odom, L.A., and Rink, W.J., 1989, "Giant Radiation-Induced Color Halos in Quartz: Solution to a Riddle," Science, v. 246, pp. 107-109.
York, D., 1979, Pleochroic Halos and Geochronology, EOS, v. 60, no. 33, pp. 617-618, Aug. 14, 1979 (publication of the American Geophysical Union).
Henderson, G. H., A quantitative study of pleochroic halos, V, The genesis of halos, Proc. Roy. Soc. , A, 173, 250-264, 1939.
Henderson, G. H., and F. W. Sparks, A quantitative study of pleochroic halos, IV, New types of halos, Proc. Roy. Soc., A, 173, 238-249, 1939.
Geology of Gentry's "Tiny Mystery", J. Richard Wakefield, Journal of Geological Education, May 1988. - Mnementh2230, on 04/30/2009, -0/+6stix213 - I'm having fun with him, really. He's a mentally unstable paranoid, and while I doubt I'll be able to make him see his delusions for what they are, it is a fun exercise in logic to continually confound his flailing attempts at logical debate.
In general, I agree with you, and I don't bother with most of them, but Crazed is... well... just too much fun to poke. :) - inactive, on 04/29/2009, -2/+8Gimme dat old time religion! On second thought, go ahead and keep it. I'm good, thanks.
- designerutah, on 04/29/2009, -0/+6http://www.skepticfriends.org/forum/showquestion.a ...
http://www.skepticfriends.org/forum/showquestion.a ...
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/po-halos/violences ...
Need more? - Mnementh2230, on 04/30/2009, -1/+7Chip in the hand? You're CRAAAAZY!
- Disgod, on 04/30/2009, -0/+6Would it be wrong to stoke Crazed's paranoia? Start telling him that they're really after him. It could be fun.
- ApokalypseNow, on 04/30/2009, -0/+6@Disgod
It might be wrong, but it sounds like too much fun to pass up. - MattB123, on 04/29/2009, -0/+6Or from Kansas.
- hiimkardinal, on 04/29/2009, -0/+6The problem is they apply the same logic to the bible and interpret science books, despite there being an actual empirical base, without fully understanding that the goal of science is not to disprove god, but to further our understanding of the world around us through testing what we can sense. When you believe that what you can sense is the product of divine creation empirical fact means very little.
- inactive, on 04/29/2009, -0/+6He's too busy watching you poop.
- Mnementh2230, on 04/30/2009, -0/+5Again, CrazedLeper, your inability to do a quick google search to see how preposterous your arguments are is rather silly.
You only see what you want to see, and what you want to see is a conspiracy that validates your intellectual lazyness and dishonesty. - Mnementh2230, on 04/30/2009, -0/+5Ah-HAH! Apokalypse strikes again with actual EVIDENCE to back up his claims. Have you got anything of the sort, my dear Crazy?
- Bdog2g2, on 04/29/2009, -1/+6@Wynodiver
Not quite. One's more plausible. - PixelMagic, on 04/29/2009, -0/+5And now here I am uhhh...uhhhh, talking to myself. That's--That's dangerous.
- hiimkardinal, on 04/29/2009, -2/+7What do atheists have to do with this? Paleontology has absolutely nothing to do with religion. The only way it is tied to religion is because people who are religious keep provoking them. It's kind of like going up to a snake and poking it with a stick, then wondering why all snakes are so mean and out to get you after you get bit.
- skintigh, on 04/29/2009, -0/+5The pictures you've seen all your life of dinosaurs are wrong. Many, like the velociraptor, were covered in feathers and not scales. If you look at the skeletons birds and dinosaurs share a lot of features.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 124 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is