Dinosaurs and the creatures of the like & the Age of the Earth

[Mortality]

So, to the topic, what do you believe of it.

For me, I believe that the Dinosaurs and all those creatures did truly exist. I also believe the Earth is 4.5 Billion years old.

So, I would like your opinions.

[A Fistful Of Dollars]

I don't really think you can say you don't believe in what all of Science has come to a consensus on...

[basics]

" I don't really think you can say you don't believe in what all of Science has come to a consensus on... "

A Fistful Of Dollars,

It's funny that the Bible does not contradict science any more than science contradicts the Bible. The problem lies in man not seeing what the Bible quite clearly illuminates in Genesis. It's people like Dawking and Dawkins who make a great beef about it and because they have a certain scientific noteriety the world sits up and takes in all that they say as if they were gods. This is what the Bible refers to as the first great deception, the second at the coming of the false christ.

[Epicurean]

It's funny that the Bible does not contradict science any more than science contradicts the Bible. The problem lies in man not seeing what the Bible quite clearly illuminates in Genesis. It's people like Dawking and Dawkins who make a great beef about it and because they have a certain scientific noteriety the world sits up and takes in all that they say as if they were gods. This is what the Bible refers to as the first great deception, the second at the coming of the false christ.

A scientific approach does not involve taking a book as absolute truth. Each and every time an observation or scientific discovery contradicts any religious book, any rational person will discard the book as false in that particular area.

[Gordon Freynman]

It's funny that the Bible does not contradict science any more than science contradicts the Bible.

A book that tells you to believe in something for no reason other than faith doesn't contradict science?

And literally every field of science contradicts the Bible, especially the interpretations of the Young Earth Creationist. I can't imagine what parallel universe you came from where what you said would make any sense.

[Manco]

I don't believe it, I just accept the scientific consensus on it, regardless of what that consensus is.

[The Dude]

I don't believe it, I just accept the scientific consensus on it, regardless of what that consensus is.

By necessity that is a belief. You either belief or you know. You don't know what science tells you is true. You take their word for it, which is to say: you believe that what they say isn't said to deceive you. You trust that their method is valid, which is to say: you believe that the method used produces the results claimed.

You don't -know- these things. You would only know them if you'd have tested both the scientific method and the validity of its word on multiple occassions and had found that your initial beliefs turned out to be well placed.

There is nothing in between the two.

To answer the OP: I believe that science has produced the most accurate available picture of our history, but I also believe that it may not yet entirely correspond to the factual state of affairs as they were.

[Manco]

Belief =/= belief (something we just had an entire thread about)

The OP (in my mind, I don't know for certain whether that was his intention) asked for belief in a narrow sense: do you regardless of conclusive data er even in contradiction to available data, hold to a certain position?
My statement, while technically espousing a belief that there's an authority who does have conclusive data, does eliminate the "in contradiction to available data" clause as that would be anathema to the scientific method and implies that the conclusion can easily be changed by new data.

[Diamat]

But wait...didn't God put the dinosaur bones on Earth so as to test our faith?

[Gordon Freynman]

Dinosaurs existed and the age of the Earth is roughly 4.5 billion years old (give or take a hundred million years or so), the wealth of evidence for both these makes them basically indisputable facts.

[The Despondent Mind]

How can one not believe in Dinosaurs ?

[Col. Tartleton]

There are still dinosaurs now. They're called birds. I eat them regularly.

I take the age of the earth for granted, but I know there were dinosaurs, I've seen the rocks.

[godol shmok]

My grandfather took me into the mountains to collect Ammonits. It's impressive when you stand close in front of a cliff and there are little tiny fossils in the sediments.

[Ancient Aliens]

My grandfather took me into the mountains to collect Ammonits. It's impressive when you stand close in front of a cliff and there are little tiny fossils in the sediments.

How do you know that Jesus didn't put that ammonite there?

[godol shmok]

How do you know that Jesus didn't put that ammonite there?

I guess I grew up with other books, so the question did not come up, e.g. books about animals.

Ammonites are a now extinct species of animals living in salt water. The place you can find them in this case are Mesozoic limestone sediments about 1000 m over today sea-level that come to surface in the mid of pine tree forests. I mean it would be a lot of work to place tiny fossils in massive limestone sediments that have a depth of hundreds of meters, not to speak of the not existing magic energy to do the work.

[Tyler_the_Great]

I mean it would be a lot of work to place tiny fossils in massive limestone sediments that have a depth of hundreds of meters,

Like say a great flood that covered the entire earth?

[Col. Tartleton]

The Young Earth Hypothesis would be more reasonable if they were not trying to mesh it with the biblical account.

If they're like "We were just trying to devils advocate the accepted version and we found some potentially contrary stuff and we've come up with a much much shorter time span" I'd be like "ooh cutting edge! yeah!"

But they're like "The bible says X happened and using our degrees we've come up with a list of possibilities as to what God was describing..."

I wouldn't be surprised if some of the biblical claims were originally meant to be scientific by the standards of the time. The Great Flood is well evidenced by the fact there are aquatic fossils all over the land. Not that it actually happened that way, but if that was their conclusion that's pretty wise. Likewise their claims about dragons and giants and monsters if based on actual skeletons rather than purely folklore are not far from reality. The Quetzalcoatlus is a dragon or a Roc or a Thunderbird or whatever you want to call it, It's as big as a giraffe and it flew around. Tylosaurus more than qualifies as "The Mother ing Leviathan" etc. If Amphicoelias fragillimus is legitimate there's a pretty goddamn big Sauropod which would probably suffice for any sort of beast you can imagine.

[Bregil]

So, to the topic, what do you believe of it.

For me, I believe that the Dinosaurs and all those creatures did truly exist. I also believe the Earth is 4.5 Billion years old.

So, I would like your opinions.

I too believe that dinosaurs walked the Earth. There is plenty of evidence that supports their past existance (indeed reports from some isolated areas imply that some still may exist in remote corners of the world.) What I don't believe is that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old. This number has been steadily increasing since the introduction of the theory. (Don't believe me? Go look at an old science textbook from 20 years ago.) If anyone would care to bring any evidence supporting such an age for this planet to my attention, I am more than willing to examine it with an open mind. That said, I have yet to encounter anything convincing up to this point.

I don't really think you can say you don't believe in what all of Science has come to a consensus on...

Ok, I think we have now reached a critical issue. Science is a method, not a group or position. This is a fallacy often promoted when controversial topics are debated most commonly in the Creation vs. Evolution debate. To be honest, the scientific community as a whole has not reached a consensus on the topic but has managed to present the appearance of a unified front by silencing critics.

If you want a specific example, take a look at Guillermo Gonzalez. He was a professor of Astronomy and Physics at Iowa State University who's work was widely recognized in his field. After he co-authored a book presenting evidence that supported the theory of Intelligent Design, he was publicly targeted by 3 fellow professors, all of whom vocal atheists. Professor Gonzalez, by the way, did NOT teach intelligent design in the classroom. Coincidentally, he was one of only 3 professors that was denied tenure out of the 66 who were eligible. Now the fact that about 96%, of those who were eligible, received tenure implies that the tenure process at ISU is basically a formality. The fact that he was denied tenure, in spite of his recognition in the scientific community, is puzzling.

To those who claim that it is a debate between Science on one hand and Religion on the other, I humbly submit that it is in fact a debate between two opposing religious views with science caught in the middle. To be fair, both views encompass a wide variety of theories, some at odds with each other but they generally fall into two camps. On one hand, you have the crowd supporting the Evolutionary Theory. Over the years there have been a plethora of "discoveries" that purport to support it. In almost every case, further examination has revealed that the claims were either based on premature conclusions or worse fabricated evidence. On the other hand, you have the theory of Intelligent Design. Proponents of this theory include some of the so called fathers of Modern Science including Roger Bacon, Nicolaus Copernicus, Johannes Kepler, Louis Pasteur, and Isaac Newton as well as many more. Their work provided the foundation of the Scientific Method and yet the very theory that they espoused is now claimed to be unscientific?

The real point of contention is the ramifications of the theories. If Evolution is correct then there is no accountability. When we die, that's it, end of story. Humans are merely slightly more advanced animals and have no special value. On the other hand if we were created by God, then there are eternal consequences for our actions and humans are a unique race, made in the image of God, and have great individual value as a result.

To answer the OP: I believe that science has produced the most accurate available picture of our history, but I also believe that it may not yet entirely correspond to the factual state of affairs as they were.

Again, science has actually produced numerous different pictures of our history. Some of which are in direct opposition to each other.

Dinosaurs existed and the age of the Earth is roughly 4.5 billion years old (give or take a hundred million years or so), the wealth of evidence for both these makes them basically indisputable facts.

I hear lots of people talking about the "mountain of evidence" but I have yet to see it. Would you kindly provide some examples?

There are still dinosaurs now. They're called birds. I eat them regularly.

I take the age of the earth for granted, but I know there were dinosaurs, I've seen the rocks.

This is one of those theories that requires the ever elusive "missing links" and doesn't really stand up to closer examination. How would a cold-blooded dinosaur with solid bones with no feathers or wings turn into a warm-blooded bird with hollow bones and highly specialized feathers? Remember, according to the the Theory of Evolution, this is going to occur through minor changes over prolonged periods of time. What will be the catalyst that causes the bones to become hollow or the specialized feathers to grow? There are simply too many changes that would need to occur virtually simultaneously in order to have a successful transformation.

[Heinz Guderian]

I too believe that dinosaurs walked the Earth. There is plenty of evidence that supports their past existance (indeed reports from some isolated areas imply that some still may exist in remote corners of the world.) What I don't believe is that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old. This number has been steadily increasing since the introduction of the theory. (Don't believe me? Go look at an old science textbook from 20 years ago.) If anyone would care to bring any evidence supporting such an age for this planet to my attention, I am more than willing to examine it with an open mind. That said, I have yet to encounter anything convincing up to this point.

with the current information (be that scientific or otherwise), how old do you believe the Earth to be?

[Bregil]

with the current information (be that scientific or otherwise), how old do you believe the Earth to be?

I personally believe it to be in the 6-10,000 year range though it might be up to 15,000. From what I've seen of the various rates of erosion, a time span much beyond 20,000 years seems implausible.