bfler
Junior Member
Posts: 97
|
Post by bfler on Jul 16, 2011 13:08:02 GMT
Most people I come across think that all dinosaurs coexisted with each other and cant seem to grasp the concept that tyrannosaurus is actually closer in time to us than to something like a stegosaurus. Yeah I made the mistake of trying to explain the human timeline and the prehistoric to a room of creationists.  Take it from someone who knows, walk away as quickly as possible... Reminds me somehow of a study I recently saw, which stated that 3/4 of all citizen of the US don't believe in Darwin and his theory of evolution. |
|
|
|
Post by copper on Jul 16, 2011 13:39:49 GMT
Reminds me somehow of a study I recently saw, which stated that 3/4 of all citizen of the US don't believe in Darwin and his theory of evolution. that makes me cry. |
|
|
|
Post by paleofreak on Jul 16, 2011 15:57:51 GMT
Reminds me somehow of a study I recently saw, which stated that 3/4 of all citizen of the US don't believe in Darwin and his theory of evolution. To 'believe in Darwin' is a strange concept for me. Darwin was a discoverer and a scientist. We use to say 'He believes in God' or 'I don't believe in ghosts', or 'I believe in fate'... But we don't usually say 'I believe in Einstein' or 'I believe in Pasteur'. |
|
|
|
Post by copper on Jul 16, 2011 16:01:23 GMT
Reminds me somehow of a study I recently saw, which stated that 3/4 of all citizen of the US don't believe in Darwin and his theory of evolution. To 'believe in Darwin' is a strange concept for me. Darwin was a scientist. We use to say 'He believes in God' or 'I don't believe in ghosts', or 'I believe in fate'... But we don't usually say 'I believe in Einstein' or 'I believe in Pasteur'. "which stated that 3/4 of all citizen of the US don't believe in Darwin's theory of evolution." |
|
|
|
Post by paleofreak on Jul 16, 2011 16:09:09 GMT
"which stated that 3/4 of all citizen of the US don't believe in Darwin's theory of evolution." This is also a bad question. Scientific theories are not for 'believing' in them. They are for studying them, using them for explaining things, working with them, testing them. Also, Darwin's theory of evolution was formulated 150 years ago. The current evolutionary theory is different in many aspects, and it's much more scientifically advanced. People with some scientific knowledge often have problems answering this kind of questions. 'Do you believe in Darwin's theory'?' Ouch!  |
|
|
|
Post by sid on Jul 16, 2011 18:31:56 GMT
Let's see... Mmh, i'd say the most annoying/irritating misunderstandings regarding dinosaurs are: 1) "dinosaurs were stupid, dim-witted animals, or at least they were as intelligent as the most stupid bird today" - apart from the fact that "intelligence" is a very relative term, what i hate the most about this statement is that basically overlooks that, hey, dinosaurs are the most, if not the best-adapted land tetrapods ever lived... I mean, if they popped up 225 million of years ago and they are still alive today, it means something IMHO  2) "We can desume how dinosaurs behaved, thought, lived simply looking at their modern descendants (birds) and relatives (crocs)" - bullnuts! Yes, some behavior patterns were more than probably similar (brooding, nesting, courtship and maybe some other stuff) but i think it's preposterous to imagine EVERY dinosaur behaving just like a croc or a sparrow; the reality is that we'll never be sure 100% of what they were really thinking  3) The EXTREME faith some people have for bio-mechanic studies about dinosaur locomotion and range of movements... Sigh, just when they will look at the dinosaurs as REAL animals (which are more than often capable of very impressive feats which are not identifiable by just looking at their skeletons)? 4) Visible fenestrae in dinosaur restorations. VISIBLE FENESTRAE. AAARGH!!!  |
|
|
|
Post by mihnea on Jul 19, 2011 19:24:25 GMT
:(Most annoying things for me: 1)If someone in my school says ''I won't attend religion classes.I'm catholic not orthodox.''people treat him normally. If some of my colleagues and I say''We won't attend religion classes.We are atheists.''we get the strange looks...  2)We learnt a few months ago in history class the definition of christianity''A religion of Iudaic origins which consists of forgiving the original sin*** by hanging Jesus on the crucifix and by his rebirth'' ***which means men and women existed before any other creature----------->which means that if you believe in T-Rex & Ice-Age any tiny winnie little bit you contradict the definition------------->which means you do not believe the definiton and thus are not christian.If I tell that to people I get more bizzare looks!!!!! 3)Can you give me some examples of animals? Cows,dogs,sheep etc. And what are spiders in your opinion? Insects!!!( ) And crocodiles? Reptiles!!! Not animals? No! Dogs,cats,sheep,elephants...Those are animals! And dinosaurs? They are simply extinct! |
|
|
|
Post by ikessauro on Jul 19, 2011 19:39:37 GMT
:(Most annoying things for me: 1)If someone in my school says ''I won't attend religion classes.I'm catholic not orthodox.''people treat him normally. If some of my colleagues and I say''We won't attend religion classes.We are atheists.''we get the strange looks... 2)We learnt a few months ago in history class the definition of christianity''A religion of Iudaic origins which consists of forgiving the original sin*** by hanging Jesus on the crucifix and by his rebirth'' ***which means men and women existed before any other creature----------->which means that if you believe in T-Rex & Ice-Age any tiny winnie little bit you contradict the definition------------->which means you do not believe the definiton and thus are not christian.If I tell that to people I get more bizzare looks!!!!! 3)Can you give me some examples of animals? Cows,dogs,sheep etc. And what are spiders in your opinion? Insects!!!( ) And crocodiles? Reptiles!!! Not animals? No! Dogs,cats,sheep,elephants...Those are animals! And dinosaurs? They are simply extinct! Been there, done that!  I hate the abomination of people against atheists. |
|
|
|
Post by sbell on Jul 19, 2011 20:19:34 GMT
:(Most annoying things for me: 1)If someone in my school says ''I won't attend religion classes.I'm catholic not orthodox.''people treat him normally. If some of my colleagues and I say''We won't attend religion classes.We are atheists.''we get the strange looks... 2)We learnt a few months ago in history class the definition of christianity''A religion of Iudaic origins which consists of forgiving the original sin*** by hanging Jesus on the crucifix and by his rebirth'' ***which means men and women existed before any other creature----------->which means that if you believe in T-Rex & Ice-Age any tiny winnie little bit you contradict the definition------------->which means you do not believe the definiton and thus are not christian.If I tell that to people I get more bizzare looks!!!!! 3)Can you give me some examples of animals? Cows,dogs,sheep etc. And what are spiders in your opinion? Insects!!!( ) And crocodiles? Reptiles!!! Not animals? No! Dogs,cats,sheep,elephants...Those are animals! And dinosaurs? They are simply extinct! Been there, done that! I hate the abomination of people against atheists. Most people, for some reason, assume that Atheists are Satanists. Like we would believe in an evil god over a good god, when we have no need for either. |
|
|
|
Post by Horridus on Jul 19, 2011 20:21:07 GMT
I'm an atheist, and I'll say that you shouldn't subscribe to the view that Richard Dawkins is too belligerent and embarasses us. Reading The God Delusion made me far more confident in expressing my atheism. Regarding this: 3)Can you give me some examples of animals? Cows,dogs,sheep etc. And what are spiders in your opinion? Insects!!!( ) And crocodiles? Reptiles!!! Not animals? No! Dogs,cats,sheep,elephants...Those are animals! And dinosaurs? They are simply extinct! It's about common terms. A surprising amount of people only use the word 'animal' to refer to mammals, rather than Animalia as a whole. And good luck telling people who aren't into palaeontology/zoology that dinosaurs aren't extinct...I've been there! ;D |
|
|
|
Post by zopteryx on Jul 19, 2011 20:37:12 GMT
In addition to what's already been said, I hate having to explain that: 1. Dimetrodon, Pterosaurs, & marine reptiles aren't dinosaurs 2. Mammals did not first evolve after dinosaurs died out 3. And the dinosaurs weren't just wiped from the face of the Earth in the blink of an eye I also dislike having to explain what an elasmosaur/plesiosaur is by saying it's a Loch Ness Monster.  |
|
|
|
Post by Horridus on Jul 19, 2011 20:38:01 GMT
I also dislike having to explain what an elasmosaur/plesiosaur is by saying it's a Loch Ness Monster. Especially as Nessie doesn't exist! |
|
|
|
Post by Griffin on Jul 19, 2011 22:21:37 GMT
An older man who volunteers at the zoo I work at asked me ....
volunteer man: Did you know that one of the animals here existed with dinosaurs?
Me: yeah the horseshoe crab
him: hmmm well no thats not the one I was thinking about
Me: oh right the alligators
him: no not that one either...
me: which one?
him: The tapir!
me: um well....no not with dinosaurs maybe later...
him: nope! Tapirs were walking around with dinosaurs! its true I know its tough to believe
Me:......sigh
|
|
|
|
Post by tanystropheus on Jul 20, 2011 4:39:31 GMT
I'm an atheist, and I'll say that you shouldn't subscribe to the view that Richard Dawkins is too belligerent and embarasses us. Reading The God Delusion made me far more confident in expressing my atheism. Although I'm a theist, a mystic and a perennial philosopher, I believe Robert Wright provides a more level-headed worldview than Richard Dawkins. Dawkins is effective in his critique of fundamentalists and religious laymen, but not really all that persuasive (in his arguments) against the higher-order religious thinkers of society, IMO. |
|
|
|
Post by mmfrankford on Jul 20, 2011 10:25:54 GMT
Tapirs? Huh, who knew? ;D |
|
|
|
Post by Himmapaan on Jul 20, 2011 13:57:34 GMT
I'm an atheist, and I'll say that you shouldn't subscribe to the view that Richard Dawkins is too belligerent and embarasses us. Reading The God Delusion made me far more confident in expressing my atheism. ...I believe Robert Wright provides a more level-headed worldview than Richard Dawkins. Dawkins is effective in his critique of fundamentalists and religious laymen, but not really all that persuasive (in his arguments) against the higher-order religious thinkers of society, IMO. I'm inclined to agree. 3) The EXTREME faith some people have for bio-mechanic studies about dinosaur locomotion and range of movements... Sigh, just when they will look at the dinosaurs as REAL animals (which are more than often capable of very impressive feats which are not identifiable by just looking at their skeletons)? The reverse can also be true. There can be too much enthusiasm in endowing dinosaurs with greater ferocity, intelligence, aerobic dexterity, or sheer awesomeness than they might have possessed. They were indeed animals, and as such were as capable or limited as any other animal in varying degrees. |
|
|
|
Post by Horridus on Jul 20, 2011 15:37:47 GMT
I'm an atheist, and I'll say that you shouldn't subscribe to the view that Richard Dawkins is too belligerent and embarasses us. Reading The God Delusion made me far more confident in expressing my atheism. Although I'm a theist, a mystic and a perennial philosopher, I believe Robert Wright provides a more level-headed worldview than Richard Dawkins. Dawkins is effective in his critique of fundamentalists and religious laymen, but not really all that persuasive (in his arguments) against the higher-order religious thinkers of society, IMO. Obviously, as an atheist who rejects mysticism I don't agree. But I have no desire to argue about it, as that could go on forever and derail the thread! |
|
|
|
Post by simon on Jul 20, 2011 15:52:02 GMT
My father did not express a belief, seeing religion as a form of superstition (growing up as an intellectual in pre-WW2 Europe that lost its faith following the slaughter in WW1 I guess that's not surprising. Whether this spiritual dearth had anything to do with what happened between 1939 - 1945 is a discussion for another website.)
As for me, I am a believer, but I also see this whole topic as a private matter between me and my Maker. This was my father's view as well, and he never discussed politics or religion.
As an aside, from a secular historical standpoint, I also believe that the history of nations is clear that a unifying belief (whether Christian, Jewish, Buddhist, etc) is THE key glue that holds a society together. Plato, who did not believe in the Greek gods, made clear in The Republic that a common religious faith (though not necessarily shared by the 'enlightened ruling class') was necessary to keep order among the masses.
Societies that lose this glue find that their moral fibre gradually withers away, and they collapse and are eventually consumed or taken over by, to quote Theodore Roosevelt, "some more virile power."
Like it or not, this is a historical pattern going back to the beginning of recorded history, and will be repeated in today's leading nations as well - the only question being WHEN, not IF.
|
|
|
|
Post by dyscrasia on Jul 20, 2011 16:08:43 GMT
...Societies that lose this glue find that their moral fibre gradually withers away, and they collapse and are eventually consumed or taken over ... The country right above our country comes to mind |
|
|
|
Post by sbell on Jul 20, 2011 16:19:21 GMT
...Societies that lose this glue find that their moral fibre gradually withers away, and they collapse and are eventually consumed or taken over ... The country right above our country comes to mind It's a huge leap to believe that superstition (or religion) are the sole arbiters of morality. But hey, how about those people that think the Flintstones is accurate? I knew of some teachers that thought this. |
|
Take it from someone who knows, walk away as quickly as possible...
