Is this proof that dinosaurs existed with men?

Discussion in 'Science and the Universe' started by Faithfulservant, Jan 28, 2005.

  1. Bandit

    Bandit Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2005
    Messages:
    3,172
    Likes Received:
    0
    well, because it is time and not just calculations as in 1,2,3 X3 years but TIME. Time is not a still object. That is my theory. Has anyone started a science on the infinite/finite comprehension of time? Maybe I should that:) , except for I dont really have the time. (jesting)


    Yes, that especially. It is quite amazing they can do what they do and do it all very quickly. I am very thankful for my health and that I have not needed too many things in my life.

    I also want to say thanks for the links on the calendars. I often wonder if we will find ourselves in some kind of time warp in a couple of hundred years where they will have to re evaluate the whole calendar. LOL:)


    Hey Juantoo3!
    That has always intrigued me too, all that time to study the stars. Astronomy was like one of the biggest things. Makes me wish I had a powerful telescope. I will pass on the rocket to the moon.:)
     
  2. Quahom1

    Quahom1 What was the question?

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2003
    Messages:
    9,906
    Likes Received:
    5
    Science is both a process of gaining knowledge, and the organized body of knowledge gained by this process. The scientific process is the systematic acquisition of new knowledge about a system. This systematic acquisition is generally the scientific method, and the system is generally nature. Science is also the scientific knowledge that has been systematically acquired by this scientific process.

    Scientific fact requires three criteria, vs. scientific theory which requires none.

    1. The result must be observable
    2. The result must be repeatable
    3. The result must be similar each time it is repeated.

    Theory is nothing more than an opinion, hence should be weighed as such.

    Ironically, Mankind can comprehend 4.5 billion years ago. In fact we can comprehend 450 billion years ago. We can also comprehend 450 billion years into the future. Our problem seems to be comprehending today. Our refusal to look today square in the eye, makes us trip and stumble all over the place.

    Now, concerning Man and dino living together. There is evidence to that "theory". There is also evidence that some of the dino family literally "breathed fire", hence the mythology of "fire breathing dragons". We even have creatures that "spit fire" today (by mixing different chemicals before expelling the combination at the "target", resulting in a flame and serious burn upon contact). Scripture refers to "Leviathans, Behemoths, and Timorias? (sp)", during the times of the old testament...with scales and tails as long and thick as Cedar trees.

    Things that make you go Hmmmm.

    v/r

    Q
     
  3. Vajradhara

    Vajradhara One of Many

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2003
    Messages:
    3,786
    Likes Received:
    45
    Namaste Quahom,

    can you explain the difference between a scientific "fact" and a scientific "theory"? please provide scientific references for your position on this issue.
     
  4. Enkidu

    Enkidu Member

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2005
    Messages:
    16
    Likes Received:
    0
    Just a quick interjection -

    This is a very common misconception, particularly amongst those without scientific backgrounds (this isn't meant to be an attack of any kind on you Quahom1, please forgive me if it comes across as such... the downside of a written communications media :( )

    A scientific theory is NOT an opinion in the common sense of the word. Generally, opinions are not falsifiable, because they tend to be subjective and not well-defined from a yes/no perspective.

    'Scientific Theory' is actually shorthand for:

    'Proposed model that explains ALL observed phenomena to date WITHOUT exception, and is predictive i.e. experiments can be designed to test new conditions, and the outcome of these are predicted by the model'.

    Even where established theories are found to be wrong, e.g. Newton's Law of Gravity, the new theory that replaces it tends to have as a subset of its conditions the original theory. In this case, Newton's Law of Gravity is a special case of General Relativity, that applies when velocities are low compared to the speed of light. I.e. in terms of the equations, at low velocity the equation approximates to F=ma et al.

    This is clearly far stronger than saying that scientific theory is equivalent to 'opinion'.


    As a side note, the conditions you have ascribed to 'scientific fact' are in fact preconditions and validity constraints that specify what experiments can contribute to providing evidence to support given scientific theories.

    In particular, the 1st condition is stating that experiments need to deal with quantitative rather than qualitative outcomes (and probably should have observable replaced by measurable for the avoidance of doubt); the 2nd condition is specifying objectivity, and really should include the clause 'by other people'; the 3rd condition is similar to the second (i.e. a test of objectivity), but is stating that time should not be a factor, i.e. a result true now should continue to be true tomorrow.
     
  5. Quahom1

    Quahom1 What was the question?

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2003
    Messages:
    9,906
    Likes Received:
    5
    Oops,

    That is what I get for posting in the middle of the night, well after ignoring my wife's plea for me to come to bed.

    You are right of course. I should have said "Hypothesis" vs "Theory", and "Law" vs "Fact". Law focuses on a singular event, wherein Theory encompasses a symultaneous and complex series of events or actions, and is observable repeatedly (by others). Hypothesis is the educated quess (opinion) yet to be proved.

    "But damnit Jim, I'm an engineer, not a scientist"...(a little space humor):eek:

    v/r

    Q
     
  6. Bandit

    Bandit Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2005
    Messages:
    3,172
    Likes Received:
    0

    Dear Quahom
    Do you think some of what they were seeing as for the fire was actually some kind of gas or spray that looked like smoke and when it hit something it burned whatever it touched? I find it hard to believe that any flesh animal like dragons would be able to literally ignite a fire from there mouth or nose. But I do have to wonder about what they may have been seeing was some breath that appeared to be fire but it was the target that burned and not there mouth. Like some kind of ACID. I think the cobra can do this.

    Maybe they did still have dinasaurs in the bible, but they were shrinking in size and all the people ate them for dinner.:eek: A tail as thick as a Cedar tree would make a nice meal for many people.

    I have a question for a scientist. Does anyone know how long (how many years) it is supposed to take for bones to become fossils?
     
  7. Quahom1

    Quahom1 What was the question?

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2003
    Messages:
    9,906
    Likes Received:
    5
    Dear Bandit,

    In South America there is a Beetle (I think it is called a lightning or fire Beetle), that actually "spits" two chemicals out that when mixed with eachother and the air, and in fact the result is a vapor that ignites in flames while traveling towards its intended target, and burns the "victim" badly.

    Anthropologists can not explain certain dinosoar skull that have hollows within the skull. However, there is speculation that "chemicals" could have been stored in these hollows...

    As far as bones and bodies "fosilising, in Seattle, Washington there is a tourist trap down on Alaskan Hwy near Pier 67, that has/had among its attractions, the body of a cowboy, killed in the desert during the late 1800s. The body was "preserved" (hair, eyes, organs, nails and all) by the conditions in the desert. This took place in less than 50 years. The "bog People" of the British Isles are estimated to be several thousand years old but are fosilized in very good condition.

    Diamonds are carbon (coal), that was naturally compressed under great pressure for thousands of years, but today we can artificially make one within a few days or weeks by creating the right conditions and then multplying the intensity.

    Hmmm....

    v/r

    Q
     
  8. Enkidu

    Enkidu Member

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2005
    Messages:
    16
    Likes Received:
    0
    Sorry to belabour this point, but its important I think to establish a common understanding of this issue.

    The reason why using the word 'opinion' is very misleading, is that technically, whilst it may be correct, common usage of 'opinion' is that of a subjective 'truth' that cannot really be proven one way or another.

    'You have your opinion, I have mine' is a way of saying that you and I see reality differently, and we can't agree purely based on some logical process. Often this is because opinions are held on matters which are subjective, i.e. there is no independent reality outside of individual experiences.

    Scientific hypotheses / theories are very different to this; they are always formulated in terms such that a logical process (the scientific method) can be used to either corroborate or invalidate the hypothesis / theory. Rightly or wrongly, it is assumed that there is an objective truth that exists independently of the particular scientist measuring it.

    When people (e.g. creationists) attack science, they deliberately choose to play on the ambiguity of words like 'opinion'. If instead of using the word 'opinion', they were to use a phrase such as 'best available model at the present time, based on extensive peer review amongst the world-wide community of scientists, that explains all observed phenomena to date and provides predictions that may be tested in future which have the potential to invalidate the model' then two things would happen:

    i. the word count of their articles would rise significantly
    ii. most of their arguments would fall over

    Anyhow, this is a long-winded way of saying that it may be better not to use the term 'opinion' in the context of 'scientific hypothesis' unless your intention is to deliberately mislead :p
     
  9. Bandit

    Bandit Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2005
    Messages:
    3,172
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hmmm, I will second that Hmmm.....;)
    I don't want to meet up with that beetle without seeing him first.
     
  10. juantoo3

    juantoo3 ....whys guy.... ʎʇıɹoɥʇnɐ uoıʇsǝnb

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2004
    Messages:
    8,162
    Likes Received:
    443
    Kindest Regards, all!

    A quick two cents and I'll be on my way:
    Umm, guys, if we're trying to be more or less correct here, I think you mean archeologists. Anthropologists are involved distinctly with the social development of humanity.

    Yeah, there's something like this along I-10 in Arizona or New Mexico that is advertised for miles; "Come see THE THING!" After years of curiousity, I went to see, and it was an indian girl who must have died in childbirth and was buried in the desert with her child. Now, there is a distinction to be made here as well, what is being described, both the cowboy and indian, as well as bog people, and even Otzi, the 6000 year old body found in the Alps, and in many other places, is that these are mummies, not fossils. This is important, because while mummies are on their way to becoming fossils, they are not fossils. In a true fossil, the organic elements are replaced with minerals. Dinosaur "bones" are not really bones, but inorganic minerals that have substituted for the bone as it decayed. A great example is the petrified trees in the Painted desert area East of the Grand Canyon. For a further clarification, this is why Carbon-14 dating works on mummies, but not on fossils.

    We now return you to your regularly scheduled discussion...
     
  11. Quahom1

    Quahom1 What was the question?

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2003
    Messages:
    9,906
    Likes Received:
    5
    See! I told you guys I gotta stop staying up all night reading and writing here. I can't even remember bones from bags, let alone Anthro from Archeo...:mad:

    Seriously, I didn't mean that the preserved were fosils, merely that instead of naturally decaying at a "relatively" known rate, and disappearing, certain conditions can keep part of the original intact (sort of).

    Of course, I have met a few "fosils" in my time that should have been buried long ago...but they're like cussed energizer bunnies, they just keep going...

    v/r

    Q
     
  12. Quahom1

    Quahom1 What was the question?

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2003
    Messages:
    9,906
    Likes Received:
    5
    See! I told you guys I gotta quit stayin' up all night reading and writin' here!

    I can't even remember bones from bags, let alone Anthro from Archeo...:mad:

    Seriously, I did not mean that that bodies were fosils, merely that what we understand to be the "relatively" normal decay rate for dead tissue and organisms, can be altered by conditions, thus allow the object to retain some part of its original design or make up (sort of).

    In any event, I have met a few "fosils" from time to time that should have been buried long ago. But they're like cussed old energizer bunnies...they just keep going.

    v/r

    Q
     
  13. Vajradhara

    Vajradhara One of Many

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2003
    Messages:
    3,786
    Likes Received:
    45
    or.. perhaps... palentologist?
     

Share This Page