Dinosaurs are not real :(

RomanNose · 13 Dec 2011 at 22:01

Castiel said:
Whoa there, while I agree with everything you are saying....that statement needs qualification.....

Some scientists have no faith, some scientists have no religion, some have faith, some have religion....faith and religion are not necessarily the same thing and it is a far cry from stating most scientists are not religious (which in itself is arguable) to stating most scientists have no faith......

Generally Scientist are less likely to be religious than the general public, a PRC (America) study found that around 33% of scientists believed in God, a further 18% believed in some form of universal spirit....41% didn't believe in either and 7% did not know. Contrast that to the general public where 83% believed in God, 12% in a Universal Spirit and 4% in neither.

While this poll is not entirely applicable to Europe, where religious belief is less widespread than the US, it belies the statement that MOST scientists do not have faith......

I would say that a more accurate statement would be that Scientists are less likely to be religious, significantly so.

http://pewforum.org/Science-and-Bioethics/Scientists-and-Belief.aspx

I really did not have a clue about how different it was in America, I have seen figures in Europe which make it true but unfortunately I was wrong in assuming America was similar.
Also any reason why the one Raikari quoted is so much different than yours? Maybe they used different definitions of Science etc, i.e excluded social scientists.

LeJosh · 13 Dec 2011 at 22:02

Castiel said:
I know an awful lot of religious people of varying denominations and religions.....not a single one ascribes to nonsence literalism such as described in the OP.

It is extremely disingenuous to assume that the views stated by the OP's friend are indicative of religious people as a whole.

The view of the individual never represents the masses. I wish people would remember that. Just echoing on from you if you think I'm having a dig.

I am curious as to why the OP is seeking more people who take the bible literally, though.

Castiel · 13 Dec 2011 at 22:42

RomanNose said:
I really did not have a clue about how different it was in America, I have seen figures in Europe which make it true but unfortunately I was wrong in assuming America was similar.
Also any reason why the one Raikari quoted is so much different than yours? Maybe they used different definitions of Science etc, i.e excluded social scientists.

Raikiri's study was admittedly very narrow in the way it asked the question. Pudsey addresses this to some extent and I need not repeat what he has said.

I'll repeat his link that relates specifically to the study.

The PRC study does show significant differences depending on scientific discipline and we also have to consider the social and economic background of scientists in general when drawing conclusions.

The problem we have here in Britain is that as a Nation we are historically irreligious when compared to other Nations, even within Europe and that colours our opinion somewhat as to how we percieve the spiritual makeup of the peoples of the world overall.

Overall I would accept that Scientists are less likely to be religious, however I think it is a leap to say Most have no Faith.

Fuzz · 13 Dec 2011 at 23:21

Brainwashed eejit.

That is all

voodooGT · 13 Dec 2011 at 23:29

Didn't see this picked up earlier in the thread...Carbon dating cannot be used for absolute dating of dinosaur fossils as there is almost certainly no organic matter content that remains within fossil material. A source of carbon would be required to perform the C14 / C12 dating method. Generally carbon dating is only applicable to subjects less than 10 000 yrs or perhaps in exceptional circumstances where idealised preservation environments such as ice burial etc. may extended the dating.

However radiometric dating can be used whereby the radioactive decay of a wide selcetion of isotopes present generally within igneous rock formations can be used to derive dates usually with an accuracy of 0.1-0.5million years or so. This method of dating can be augmented with the very well established methods of stratigraphic relative dating techniques. The stratigraphic sequencing of separate fossil horizons encountered within a sequence of rocks can be dated in relative terms. Where sedimentary layers are bound by igneous rock formations there can be increased confidence of absolute dates as absolute radiometric dates are applied.

Not sure if that made sense but should prompt anyone whos interested further to read up on the various techniques.

Nighty night!

Vonhelmet · 13 Dec 2011 at 23:41

Tefal said:
Interpretation.

If God exists, and the Bible is his word, then should aliens turn up, anyone who can't assimilate that into their understanding of God and the Bible is wrong. That is my point.

FoxEye · 13 Dec 2011 at 23:54

So... this is a thread for evolutionists to congratulate themselves for not believing in God I take it?

P.S. Not all religious people dis-believe the dinosaurs

As far as I know, the Biblical account of creation starts with an already existing Earth does it not... so the Earth/universe could already have been millions of years old at the beginning of Genesis.

I'd have to read it again because my memory is rubbish, but I'm sure there's room in the creation account for dinosaurs

Dis-believing them is not a mainstream theory as far as I know...

LeJosh · 14 Dec 2011 at 00:00

FoxEye said:
So... this is a thread for evolutionists to congratulate themselves for not believing in God I take it?

P.S. Not all religious people dis-believe the dinosaurs As far as I know, the Biblical account of creation starts with an already existing Earth does it not... so the Earth/universe could already have been millions of years old at the beginning of Genesis.

I'd have to read it again because my memory is rubbish, but I'm sure there's room in the creation account for dinosaurs Dis-believing them is not a mainstream theory as far as I know...

It's literalism, held by a minority of people.

To which then enables individuals to tar the entirety of religion due to this. 'Tis a shame really.

Hitman_Leon · 14 Dec 2011 at 00:46

Nitefly said:
They just have a lot of faith in their beliefs. How such people genuinely believe that Mary gave birth as a virgin is beyond me.

People will die for their beliefs. But really, they shouldn't have beliefs. They should have ideas instead. You can change your ideas.

Dogma!, how dare you, blasphemy I say!

Was it not, (man took a good idea and turned it into a belief system)

I can't be bothered to google but on the subject of religion I'm with Dogma's myriad of rather clever pokes at religious practice and doctrine.

Brookert · 14 Dec 2011 at 00:50

You don't have to use just carbon to date fossils, it can be done with many different isotopes...........

Biohazard · 14 Dec 2011 at 01:14

omg that's me convinced

Angilion · 14 Dec 2011 at 01:24

krooton said:
Aren't all religions essentially theories as well?

No.

Religions are at best a collection of non-falsifiable hypotheses.

But that's useless as a reply because anyone who says "evolution is just a theory" is so utterly ignorant of every relevant thing that you're more likely to be successful in explaining quantum theory to a passing squirrel. Not only are they utterly ignorant of what a scientific theory is, they're utterly ignorant of the fact that evolution isn't a theory anyway. It's an observation. Or, to be more precise, a multitude of observations. In layman's terms, evolution is a thing that happens. The theory of evolution is an explanation of how it happens. Two very different things.

Angilion · 14 Dec 2011 at 01:30

stoke1863 said:
[..]
anyway i asked why we have fossils of dinousaurs that have been carbondated over 30 million years old [..]

Well, you're a bit wrong too as carbon dating only works for things that were alive within the last 50,000 years or so, due to the relatively short half-life of carbon-14. After ~50,000 years, so much of it has decayed that it's no longer possible to get any degree of accuracy.

There are lots of other forms of dating that work for further back, though. But not carbon dating.

Stretch · 14 Dec 2011 at 01:33

krooton said:
Aren't all religions essentially theories as well?

It depends who you ask

Castiel · 14 Dec 2011 at 01:40

Angilion said:
Well, you're a bit wrong too as carbon dating only works for things that were alive within the last 50,000 years or so, due to the relatively short half-life of carbon-14. After ~50,000 years, so much of it has decayed that it's no longer possible to get any degree of accuracy.

There are lots of other forms of dating that work for further back, though. But not carbon dating.

Carbon dating is rarely useful outside of 10k-15k years as VoodooGT explained:

voodooGT said:
Didn't see this picked up earlier in the thread...Carbon dating cannot be used for absolute dating of dinosaur fossils as there is almost certainly no organic matter content that remains within fossil material. A source of carbon would be required to perform the C14 / C12 dating method. Generally carbon dating is only applicable to subjects less than 10 000 yrs or perhaps in exceptional circumstances where idealised preservation environments such as ice burial etc. may extended the dating.

However radiometric dating can be used whereby the radioactive decay of a wide selcetion of isotopes present generally within igneous rock formations can be used to derive dates usually with an accuracy of 0.1-0.5million years or so. This method of dating can be augmented with the very well established methods of stratigraphic relative dating techniques. The stratigraphic sequencing of separate fossil horizons encountered within a sequence of rocks can be dated in relative terms. Where sedimentary layers are bound by igneous rock formations there can be increased confidence of absolute dates as absolute radiometric dates are applied.

Not sure if that made sense but should prompt anyone whos interested further to read up on the various techniques.

Nighty night!

Angilion · 14 Dec 2011 at 01:48

I'd like to see more evidence that the limit is 10-15,000 years, as it is normally stated to be ~50,000 years by sources on all sides of the argument. Here's a selection:

http://www.c14dating.com/int.html

http://archserve.id.ucsb.edu/course...rseware/Chronology/08_Radiocarbon_Dating.html

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2011/04/01/feedback-maximum-carbon-14-date

starkill3r · 14 Dec 2011 at 02:06

There is Religion, then there is Reality, and we live in the latter, some people are lost in delusions though.

Castiel · 14 Dec 2011 at 02:07

Angilion said:
I'd like to see more evidence that the limit is 10-15,000 years, as it is normally stated to be ~50,000 years by sources on all sides of the argument. Here's a selection:

http://www.c14dating.com/int.html

http://archserve.id.ucsb.edu/course...rseware/Chronology/08_Radiocarbon_Dating.html

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2011/04/01/feedback-maximum-carbon-14-date

The 50k-65k limit is under precise and ideal environmental and preservation conditions.....the average working accuracy is under 15k years......It depends on many variables including sample condition and size, preservation, calibration, ratio and the level of accuracy required. Your links talk about some of the limitations.....the 50k limit is its practical limit in ideal conditions or when multiple samples are available and a trend is able to be estimated.

There are other, better and more accurate radiometric methods for longer geological time which can be used, such as K-Ar dating and Thorium 230 dating.

Angilion · 14 Dec 2011 at 02:16

Castiel said:
The 50k-65k limit is under precise and ideal environmental and preservation conditions.....the average working accuracy is under 15k years......It depends on many variables including sample condition, preservation, calibration and the level of accuracy required.

Thanks, that explains why the stated limits are so different.

AberystwythLAD · 14 Dec 2011 at 02:35

christianity and dinosaurs thread.

epic thread is epic!

grabs popcorn