|
|
Post by brontozaurus on Aug 11, 2011 8:31:19 GMT
Everyone seems to think that Styracosaurus is Triceratops.  any ceratopsid is triceratops. And so every ceratopsid is a juvenile Torosaurus. |
|
bfler
Junior Member
Posts: 97
|
Post by bfler on Aug 11, 2011 13:55:31 GMT
any ceratopsid is triceratops. And so every ceratopsid is a juvenile Torosaurus. If we believe Horner (2010) then Yes. If we believe Farke (2011) then No. |
|
|
|
Post by bowheadwhale on Sept 30, 2011 19:29:02 GMT
What misconception frustrates me? It's simple: the WAR BETWEEN CREATIONNISTS AND EVOLUTIONNISTS.
Hasn't anyone noticed it's the EXACT SAME THING? Those who say they are opposite simply never understood the Bible corrctly. Let me explain, please.
If you read the Genesis of the Bible and compare it with the story of evolution, you will notice that both are very alike. See for yourself:
Bible: In the beginning, God created the Universe.
Evolution: In the beginning, there was a Big Bang.
Bible: God then created the earth, the sky and the sea.
Evolution: The planets and the stars, like our sun, were formed and our Earth developped with oceans and an atmosphere.
Bible:God then created the fish in the sea, the birds in the sky and critters that crawled on the land.
Evolution: Life started in the sea and a fish crawled on the shore, which afterwards became the amphibians, the reptiles, the mammals and the birds.
Bible: God created Man. Man and Woman were created in God's image.
Evolution: Mankind evolved and became the most intelligent being on earth.
Now, see what I mean? Basically, Creation and Evolution are the same. What created the war between science and religion is, basically, the MISUNDERSTANDING OF THE BIBLE. For example, many creationnists think animals were created in a second, in their actual form. But nowhere in the Bible is said that creation was done in a day; the Genesis clearly describes a long procedure. The iddle-age belief that the Earth was 100 000 years old was simply miscalculated on a serious lack of knowledge; nowhere in the Bible we read that our planet is only 100 000 years old! In fact, the Book doesn't even mention any number!!! So, Creationnists who go at war against Evolutionnists THINK they understand the Bible, but they don't! They only defend a very old misunderstanding of the Book.
As you can see, I'm not an Atheist. I'm a believer in God. But I also see that religions never understood life and the true meaning of our existence: they simply took themselves as gods themselves. I think the true meaning of life is very simple: USE OUR INTELLIGENCE TO UNDERSTAND OTHERS TO BE MORE COMPASSIONNATE. We have to fight against our thurst of power to start to know the true meaning of sympathy. Don't you agree?
|
|
|
|
Post by mmfrankford on Sept 30, 2011 20:02:53 GMT
If there was a like function Bowheadwhale, I would give it. My feelings and beliefs are like yours and the absolute black and white mentality about evolution is frustrating.
|
|
|
|
Post by Himmapaan on Sept 30, 2011 20:10:32 GMT
USE OUR INTELLIGENCE TO UNDERSTAND OTHERS TO BE MORE COMPASSIONNATE. Hear, hear.  |
|
|
|
Post by Horridus on Sept 30, 2011 20:18:45 GMT
I'm an atheist and, to prevent an endless flame war  , I largely agree with the sentiment. In other words, we should all get along. But 'creation' and 'evolution' are not the same... *runs* |
|
|
|
Post by arioch on Sept 30, 2011 22:16:06 GMT
I dont think there´s such a war between creationists and "evolutionists". They should take seriously each other arguments in such scenario to begin with, but creationists just aren´t a threat for the scientific community more than people who firmly believes in elves, Vulkans or werewolves . They´re just laughing stock. I don´t know if this is different in America , where you are supposed to treat this people with deference and what scientists say is just "one version" of the truth. Also, I know lots of religious people who don´t reject evolution or "darwinism" , so yes, deep faith and common sense its not uncompatible at all. |
|
|
|
Post by simon on Sept 30, 2011 23:36:17 GMT
*SNIP* Also, I know lots of religious people who don´t reject evolution or "darwinism" , so yes, deep faith and common sense its not uncompatible at all. I agree with this statement but would only delete "common sense" and replace it with "scientific learning." The way you have it now can be taken as condescending. bowheadwhale: I also agree with the basic thrust of your post - particularly the last part. |
|
|
|
Post by arioch on Oct 1, 2011 0:45:35 GMT
Condescending towards who? people who plainly rejects and constantly tries to debunk scientific research just because it doesn´t fit their religious beliefs? Isn´t that even more condescending towards those who dedicate their whole life to science?
|
|
|
|
Post by simon on Oct 1, 2011 2:29:57 GMT
Condescending towards who? people who plainly rejects and constantly tries to debunk scientific research just because it doesn´t fit their religious beliefs? Isn´t that even more condescending towards those who dedicate their whole life to science? *Sigh* I'm not going to continue this off-topic meander. People often have trouble seeing how they come across. |
|
|
|
Post by shiro45 on Oct 2, 2011 6:40:49 GMT
A lot of these funny/annoying/INFURIATING misunderstandings are pretty out there, but it sounds like it's mostly just ignorance and/or disinterest.
I actually ran into a creationist in the early 90's who said that she thought the devil had created the dinosaur fossils and put them in the ground to "lead people astray"... Even as a Christian, I was profoundly offended and embarrassed. I was practically struck dumb... How do you respond to that magnitude of willful stupidity?
As far as the creationist/evolutionist thing, that topic is bound to come up in a thread titled "Funny/Annoying Misunderstanding" on a blog about dinosaurs. I only get frustrated by being in the middle. To my atheist friends, I'm just a closet "creationist", and on the other side, well, let's just say that feathered theropods and believing that birds are modern dinosaurs are subjects that just aren't discussed around most of my family...
Just remember folks: it's the love of dinosaurs that binds us! ;-p
|
|
|
|
Post by simon on Oct 2, 2011 7:01:58 GMT
A lot of these funny/annoying/INFURIATING misunderstandings are pretty out there, but it sounds like it's mostly just ignorance and/or disinterest. I actually ran into a creationist in the early 90's who said that she thought the devil had created the dinosaur fossils and put them in the ground to "lead people astray"... Even as a Christian, I was profoundly offended and embarrassed. I was practically struck dumb... How do you respond to that magnitude of willful stupidity? As far as the creationist/evolutionist thing, that topic is bound to come up in a thread titled "Funny/Annoying Misunderstanding" on a blog about dinosaurs. I only get frustrated by being in the middle. To my atheist friends, I'm just a closet "creationist", and on the other side, well, let's just say that feathered theropods and believing that birds are modern dinosaurs are subjects that just aren't discussed around most of my family... Just remember folks: it's the love of dinosaurs that binds us! ;-p *AMEN* to all you wrote.  |
|
|
|
Post by paleofreak on Oct 2, 2011 12:13:25 GMT
Bible: In the beginning, God created the Universe. Evolution: In the beginning, there was a Big Bang. Evolution is a biological process; it's not about cosmology or the origins of the Universe. Perhaps you mean "Science". Creationists talk about Evolution as if it were the whole science. Wrong... Yes, but by means of natural processes and laws, without the need of a supernatural guidance or intervention. It's quite different way. An example: a) I went to London by plane. b) I went to London on a flying fire-breathing dragon Am I saying the same thing because in both sentences I went to London? Of course not. Nope. Both science and religion explain our origins, but the difference between those explanations are huge. The Bible says it was done in six days ;D It says it clearly. You may want to believe that's an allegory, you may have a different interpretation, but the Bible say "days", and if you ask people to read the Bible, they'd also read "days". |
|
|
|
Post by pylraster on Oct 12, 2011 17:31:24 GMT
Not exactly very recent, but still annoying:
"Spinosaurus and T.Rex as bitter rivals in dioramas, paintings, etc"
|
|
|
|
Post by bowheadwhale on Oct 22, 2011 18:37:36 GMT
Bible: In the beginning, God created the Universe. Evolution: In the beginning, there was a Big Bang. Evolution is a biological process; it's not about cosmology or the origins of the Universe. Perhaps you mean "Science". Creationists talk about Evolution as if it were the whole science. Wrong... Yes, but by means of natural processes and laws, without the need of a supernatural guidance or intervention. It's quite different way. An example: a) I went to London by plane. b) I went to London on a flying fire-breathing dragon Am I saying the same thing because in both sentences I went to London? Of course not. Nope. Both science and religion explain our origins, but the difference between those explanations are huge. The Bible says it was done in six days ;D It says it clearly. You may want to believe that's an allegory, you may have a different interpretation, but the Bible say "days", and if you ask people to read the Bible, they'd also read "days". That is exactly what I am saying. And yes, days are an allegory. If you say it's not, well, you think like a fundamentalist. Let me give you an example. One day, Jesus said "on the left, will be the billygoats; on the right, will be the sheep". By this allegory, Jesus simply meaned that the evil will be in hell, while the good will be in heaven. But in medieval times, they simply thought billygoats were animals of the devil, and they drew the devil with a goat's head. Billygoats were also persecuted, being savagely slaughtered. If you tell me those people were right to do it, with the reason that "Jesus talked about billygoats", well, you don't show much subtility. Symbols DO exist, man! And if I talk about "dark moments", it won't mean I talk about the night time! See what I mean? Please be more subtile! |
|
|
|
Post by paleofreak on Oct 22, 2011 21:51:33 GMT
That is exactly what I am saying. And yes, days are an allegory. If you say it's not, well, you think like a fundamentalist. No, I think like an atheist. Some religions now take some parts of the Bible as allegory, and some other parts as not allegory. It's a matter of interpretation. Same text, different interpretations varying between religions and over time. Yes, he clearly meaned that ;D Of course I don't think those people were right. I think they were doing stupid things. If you want to be subtle, dont say that creation and evolution is exactly the same thing. That's not subtle at all. It's blunt and wrong. |
|
|
|
Post by Seijun on Oct 22, 2011 22:38:49 GMT
I read a good article recently that question whether a "day" in genesis actually means a 24 hour period. It cited other instances in the bible where a "day" was used to describe periods in time which were actually much longer than a day. Such as, the lifespan of your average blade of grass, or the ruling period of a king. We must also remember that the bible has been rewritten or copied many times since the original texts were conceived. It is my understanding that our modern day bible is, at its roots, actually a chimera of various texts of different languages and ages (feel free to correct me if I am mistaken). The genesis we have today might be very different from the original genesis. Maybe the original didn't mention days at all! I don't know. The bible is hundreds of years old, I'm sure some of it has changed in all that time. But I agree with bowhead that one of the most annoying misunderstandings I have experienced as a christian is the belief that there are these two incompatible sects, the "creationists" and the "evolutionists", and that the "creationists' are all a bunch of anti-evolution, anti-science, and anti-old-earth kooks. I can't speak for everyone, but I have no problem with science or evolution. None of it conflicts with my interpretation of the bible or my subsequent religious beliefs Likewise, why can't an "evolutionist" believe in an afterlife or the possibility that some sort of divine ("alien" if you wish) being or race had a hand in the creation of the universe? There is no evidence of course, but I like to hope or IMAGINE that there might be things out there that are simply beyond what human science is able to detect. I don't like the term "creationist" OR "evolutionist", and loath to be called either because of how society in general interprets those two terms. I would prefer to be called a crevolutionist, if I could choose. Please no one butcher me for any of that. *hugs a dinosaur* SEE? I LIKE DINOSAURS! |
|
weaver
Full Member
Icon by the great Djinni!
Posts: 156
|
Post by weaver on Oct 23, 2011 2:12:43 GMT
When I get together with my horse-riding friends and they talk about 'eohippus'. I can't stand it. I really can't. Then, when one of my artsy-friends decided to do a 'evolution of the horse' painting she did it without research and titled the little Hyracotherium as 'Eohippus'.
I have told my friends many times, that no, it is not a 'dawn horse' but like many synonyms it has somehow continued being used. I think it's just because it's more romantic than 'hyrax-like beast'.
|
|
|
|
Post by Seijun on Oct 23, 2011 2:28:21 GMT
I thought Hyracotherium, Eohippus, and Dawn Horse were all synonyms?
|
|
weaver
Full Member
Icon by the great Djinni!
Posts: 156
|
Post by weaver on Oct 23, 2011 4:50:55 GMT
Seijun: I was confused about that too for a good long while until I began looking for information at my old library. From what I know, Hyracotherium is the 'senior' synonym as it was first described by Owen (I think from teeth and a bit of skull) in 1841. Then Marsh found a full skeleton about 30 years later and called it eohippus. However it was discovered that the fossils were most likely of the same genus so, Hyracotherium became the 'official-genus' as it was described earlier. I'll have to refind my sources but that's what I know and what I'm sticking to. XD I like keeping it as Hyracotherium because it really is sort of just becoming a horse but is still more Palaeothere-like that horse-like. I just really dislike when my horse-friends tend to think, 'Oh it's just a dog-sized horse with lots of toes' when it isn't. It is a palaeothere with the potential to become a horse-like creature someday.
|
|
, I largely agree with the sentiment. In other words, we should all get along. But 'creation' and 'evolution' are not the same... *runs*
