Netflix Documentary (s)

I am an avid Netflix Documentary watcher, and I saw one lastnight called Religulious by Bill Maher. I know religion is a touchy subject, but hoyl smokes, does this ever bring some light to a very taboo topic. I recommend watching it.

Has anyone seen any other good ones? Street Thief is another really good one!

BringingTheRain's picture
BringingTheRain
Offline
Joined: 1/5/10
Meatball's picture
Meatball
Offline
Joined: 3/8/12

  Put your faith in man or God,  I choose God, I already seen what man can do, and there is nothing good in us, we think we are gods, we want to be gods, but we cannot even go home and be a proper father or husband, we are filled with hate and lust, anger and fear
   Now we can still do good things and try to be good to each other, but when a scientist proclaim to be gods and try to create life, then we are in trouble.

Plainsman's picture
Plainsman
Offline
AMATEUR
Joined: 6/19/03

I think he brings up the snake, because a lot of Christians actually believe in a talking snake.

That's a shame.  To bad they don't have better theologians to teach them what is actually said.   It must be tough defending your faith when you really don't know what it says.  I'm not going to demean them though, because it's all a learning process.  I have to separate my scientific world from my Christian world.  It's easy to do because after 36 years experience you understand actually how little we know.  I guess the only time you know it all is the day you get out of college.

Meatball's picture
Meatball
Offline
Joined: 3/8/12

  By the way bringingrain, tell me how did seashells end up on top of a mountain, sharkteeth found on the plains, or explain the grand canyon, or the sediment of the mississippi delta.
   And this is my favorite one, please explain why is there so many dinosaur fossils, and explain what does it take to make a fossil.
   Multi, please make your answers short this time, so we might actually read them.

multi-species-angler's picture
multi-species-angler
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 4/26/09

Meatball Said:
  By the way bringingrain, tell me how did seashells end up on top of a mountain, sharkteeth found on the plains, or explain the grand canyon, or the sediment of the mississippi delta.
   And this is my favorite one, please explain why is there so many dinosaur fossils, and explain what does it take to make a fossil.
   Multi, please make your answers short this time, so we might actually read them.

Meatball, your so far behind on current knowledge of geology and the general workings of our universe, and Tim doesn't have a CRAYOLA setting for text to better help you understand.  but I'll try.

first you need to study how mountains are formed, because there was no great flood, there is not enough water in existence on planet earth to cover the globe high enough to place fossilized fish and marine life at the top of Mt. everest.  And yes there is fossilized marine life at the top of virtually every mountain on earth  but our mountains weren't always mountains. talk to some of our local oilfield workers and they'll tell you about some seashells they've drudged up on test wells from 20,000 feet underground.

meatball, most mountains are formed from 2 plates of the earths crust pushing against eachother and forcing upward, sometimes this begins at the bottom of the ocean, thus forcing dead & fossilized marine life up out of the water to later be found at its resting place atop the mountain.

Now since you're too lazy to read and get your earth history from clergy members anyway, I wont continue with the elementary explanations of river deltas and the grand canyon.

multi-species-angler's picture
multi-species-angler
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 4/26/09

Plainsman Said:

there will always be that guy with the 2nd shooter theories, the ancient alien theories, and the "we never landed on the moon" theories

And we know the age of the earth theory????    Not trying to make fun of you.  I was just wondering if you noticed how easily that would fit in also.

No, the age of the earth theory makes sense, but until we build a time machine and travel back 4.5 billion years to prove it beyond a shadow of a doubt it still fits in the "generally accepted theory" category.  you might as well not believe in the theory of gravity while your at it.

Meatball's picture
Meatball
Offline
Joined: 3/8/12

  I agree  with mountain forming after the great flood.
Tell us how a fossil is formed and why it doesnt decay.
explain the fossil human footprints right beside dino footprints on a dry creekbed in Texas.

multi-species-angler's picture
multi-species-angler
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 4/26/09

Hey meatball, since you don't like reading, I found the grand canyon explanation for you.

multi-species-angler's picture
multi-species-angler
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 4/26/09

Meatball Said:

  I agree  with mountain forming after the great flood.
Tell us how a fossil is formed and why it doesnt decay.
explain the fossil human footprints right beside dino footprints on a dry creekbed in Texas.

Oh the mountains formed after the "great flood"...you're just too far gone meatball. but I'll keep trying.  fossils do not "decay" like dead tissue & bone does, because under just the right circumstances the dead animals imprint and tissues are replaced with minerals. (you know them as rocks)...ah heck, you know what meatball...you win, god loves you, jesus saves and you are in the almighty's thoughts every day. peace be with you. 

Meatball's picture
Meatball
Offline
Joined: 3/8/12

I love it. If you dont agree with them, they mock your faith and call you an idiot.
You are right about the fossils, but you need pressure, pressure from what, being buried so it doesnt decay. how does so many dinos ended up fossils. One extreme event. You call it natural selection, I call it a flood.
  You put some youtube video on to explain it, made by some man.
It takes more faith to believe in man then God.

Multi, I didnt take you as a faith burden man.

buckmaster81's picture
buckmaster81
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 2/9/03

MSA what are your thoughts on time bending? (This is a serious question.)

Hunt Hard and NEVER GIVE UP

multi-species-angler's picture
multi-species-angler
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 4/26/09

Meatball Said:
I love it. If you dont agree with them, they mock your faith and call you an idiot.
You are right about the fossils, but you need pressure, pressure from what, being buried so it doesnt decay. how does so many dinos ended up fossils. One extreme event. You call it natural selection, I call it a flood.
  You put some youtube video on to explain it, made by some man.
It takes more faith to believe in man then God.

Multi, I didnt take you as a faith burden man.

I'm probably wasting my type but why not...The "dinos" as you refer to them are just a small group of life forms that existed on this planet in earths timeline between a few hundred million to 65 million years ago.  There has been life on this planet according to earths fossil record for approx 3 billion years.  dinosaurs did not all get fossilized on the same day, we do however see a line in earths geology at 65 million years down that completely surrounds our planet and below that line we find a multitude of fossils, above that line is virtually lifeless, not completely devoid of fossils but almost, and in that line is a thin layer of iridium blanketing the earth.  now we know that iridium is found in great concentrations in meteorites, telling us that a large meteor struck the planet 65 million years ago near the Yukatan penninsula.  we know the general location because of the density of the iridium layer is greatest in that area.  this layer is also known as the KT boundary.

meat, you know this isn't like some kind of secret information hidden in a guarded library deep within an underground military base, I think if you're curious enough you can look this stuff up and discover for yourself.

multi-species-angler's picture
multi-species-angler
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 4/26/09

buckmaster81 Said:
MSA what are your thoughts on time bending? (This is a serious question.)

hurts my head, but yes I believe in changes and bending of our concept of time and time itself, just don't fully understand it yet.  when GPS satellites were first put into orbit, the internal clocks that were set into sync here on earth began to slow down after time in orbit at thousands of miles per hour around the earth, A mechanism had to be added to the clocks to counter this effect of traveling at high speeds through space.

Time is a tricky word to define as now we are starting to understand it as being one and the same with space.

Some pretty awesome discoveries taking place in the years to come with fermilab, the large hadron collider, etc.  I'm lucky to be alive in this era.

Plainsman's picture
Plainsman
Offline
AMATEUR
Joined: 6/19/03

MSA dinosaurs are a good example of where we may have to rethink the age of the dinosaur.  Are you familiar with the dinosaur discovered in Montana a few years ago.  It still had red blood cells and soft tissue.  It has been reported by the Smithsonian.  To date they have not started wrestling with the big question.   That question comes about because red blood cells only last a few thousand years.  Just when we thought we had all the answers about dinosaurs.   This should set an example for us scientists not to be to arrogant.

It was big news indeed last year when Schweitzer announced she had discovered blood vessels and structures that looked like whole cells inside that T. rex bone—the first observation of its kind. The finding amazed colleagues, who had never imagined that even a trace of still-soft dinosaur tissue could survive. After all, as any textbook will tell you, when an animal dies, soft tissues such as blood vessels, muscle and skin decay and disappear over time, while hard tissues like bone may gradually acquire minerals from the environment and become fossils. Schweitzer, one of the first scientists to use the tools of modern cell biology to study dinosaurs, has upended the conventional wisdom by showing that some rock-hard fossils tens of millions of years old may have remnants of soft tissues hidden away in their interiors. “The reason it hasn’t been discovered before is no right-thinking paleontologist would do what Mary did with her specimens. We don’t go to all this effort to dig this stuff out of the ground to then destroy it in acid,” says dinosaur paleontologist Thomas Holtz Jr., of the University of Maryland. “It’s great science.” The observations could shed new light on how dinosaurs evolved and how their muscles and blood vessels worked. And the new findings might help settle a long-running debate about whether dinosaurs were warmblooded, coldblooded—or both.
 

Read more: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/dinosaur.html#ixzz1pxBUcDLr

Jarudy's picture
Jarudy
Offline
Joined: 2/5/11

gst Said:

Jarudy Said:

Main Entry: the·ol·o·gy 

Pronunciation: \thē-ˈä-lə-jē\

Function: noun

1 : the study of religious faith, practice, and experience; especially :the study of God and of God's relation to the world

And since ignorants think science is "religious"

Main Entry: 1re·li·gious 

Pronunciation: \ri-ˈli-jəs\

Function: adjective

1 : relating to or manifesting faithful devotion to an acknowledged ultimate reality or deity

 

I have no devotion to an "ultimate reality or deity". I look at observable facts and use logic.  What makes your religion better than any other one? Nothing, hardly any religions are based on fact, just on faith. No logical person can claim know "reality" or pretend to, which is why any religion or faith or the sloppy big bang theory is frankly ignorant. I never said or made claims about you or others being stupid. Look at repeatable, credible sources for your "beliefs", not a second hand account bible, koran, story, etc. Men wrote the bible, Koran and the big bang theory. None listed are correct in terms provable fact. So keep fighting for your mutual imaginary friend(s) while I take peace knowing when I die I die; I wont be stuck in the prison known as heaven or hell. "The only thing better than eternal paradise is eternal rest." -Hannibal

 

So you are saying people with a strong faith that beleive in something more than a test tube and a petrie dish are " frankly ignorant"?

The arrogance of self believed itellect.

You aren;t fishmhan under a different name are you?

As a physician in training, I always find it interesting that in the origin of life, people chose the faith approach. Those same people may end up in the hospital one day expecting the most modern treatment by the same scientists talking and hypothesizing (with sequential testing, etc) about the origin of life. We apply the same scientific approaches to medicine as any evolution or beginning of life. You choose: the modern, up-to-date scientific approach or the bleeding/ancient vuhdoo approach.

(fishmhan who? Im newish here)

Jarudy's picture
Jarudy
Offline
Joined: 2/5/11

Meatball Said:
I love it. If you dont agree with them, they mock your faith and call you an idiot.
You are right about the fossils, but you need pressure, pressure from what, being buried so it doesnt decay. how does so many dinos ended up fossils. One extreme event. You call it natural selection, I call it a flood.
  You put some youtube video on to explain it, made by some man.
It takes more faith to believe in man then God.

Multi, I didnt take you as a faith burden man.

Simple lesson in natural selection/evolution:
http://www.gocomics.com/doonesbury/2006/07/02

buckmaster81's picture
buckmaster81
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 2/9/03

multi-species-angler Said:

buckmaster81 Said:
MSA what are your thoughts on time bending? (This is a serious question.)

hurts my head, but yes I believe in changes and bending of our concept of time and time itself, just don't fully understand it yet.  when GPS satellites were first put into orbit, the internal clocks that were set into sync here on earth began to slow down after time in orbit at thousands of miles per hour around the earth, A mechanism had to be added to the clocks to counter this effect of traveling at high speeds through space.

Time is a tricky word to define as now we are starting to understand it as being one and the same with space.

Some pretty awesome discoveries taking place in the years to come with fermilab, the large hadron collider, etc.  I'm lucky to be alive in this era.

I agree very interesting and exciting stuff! I am also curious if time bending acceleration and so forth could have an effect on carbon half lives, radioactive decay and so on. For example is our solar sytem static? No. Has the rate of speed been constant? I don't know. Would speed changes have effects we have yet to realize? Very possible.

Hunt Hard and NEVER GIVE UP

Jarudy's picture
Jarudy
Offline
Joined: 2/5/11

Plainsman Said:
MSA dinosaurs are a good example of where we may have to rethink the age of the dinosaur.  Are you familiar with the dinosaur discovered in Montana a few years ago.  It still had red blood cells and soft tissue.  It has been reported by the Smithsonian.  To date they have not started wrestling with the big question.   That question comes about because red blood cells only last a few thousand years.  Just when we thought we had all the answers about dinosaurs.   This should set an example for us scientists not to be to arrogant.

It was big news indeed last year when Schweitzer announced she had discovered blood vessels and structures that looked like whole cells inside that T. rex bone—the first observation of its kind. The finding amazed colleagues, who had never imagined that even a trace of still-soft dinosaur tissue could survive. After all, as any textbook will tell you, when an animal dies, soft tissues such as blood vessels, muscle and skin decay and disappear over time, while hard tissues like bone may gradually acquire minerals from the environment and become fossils. Schweitzer, one of the first scientists to use the tools of modern cell biology to study dinosaurs, has upended the conventional wisdom by showing that some rock-hard fossils tens of millions of years old may have remnants of soft tissues hidden away in their interiors. “The reason it hasn’t been discovered before is no right-thinking paleontologist would do what Mary did with her specimens. We don’t go to all this effort to dig this stuff out of the ground to then destroy it in acid,” says dinosaur paleontologist Thomas Holtz Jr., of the University of Maryland. “It’s great science.” The observations could shed new light on how dinosaurs evolved and how their muscles and blood vessels worked. And the new findings might help settle a long-running debate about whether dinosaurs were warmblooded, coldblooded—or both.
 

Read more: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/dinosaur.html#ixzz1pxBUcDLr

The point of science is that it changes and evolves over time. A real "scientist" goes with the flow per se because nothing is "set in stone" in science, why do you people keep saying this? If n=1, aka this study is unique, other experiments will try to repeat this or find another case and go from there.

Capt Ahab's picture
Capt Ahab
Offline
Joined: 6/14/11

There are is a really good documentary on netflix by Stephen Hawking that discusses this very topic. It covers the stuff that MSA was talking about.

buckmaster81 Said:
MSA what are your thoughts on time bending? (This is a serious question.)

I have a bad feeling that whenever a lesbian looks at me they think “That’s why I’m not a heterosexual”. -George Costanza

I was in the pool! I was in the pool! You don’t understand! There was shrinkage!   -George Costanza

You know if you take everything I’ve ever done in my entire life and condense it down into one day, it looks decent. -George Costanza

Don’t insult me, my friend. Remember who you’re talking to. No one’s a bigger idiot than me. -George Costanza

Plainsman's picture
Plainsman
Offline
AMATEUR
Joined: 6/19/03

I forgot to add this paragraph from Schweitzer.  Now the question is: do red blood cells last millions of years longer than all scientists say they will, or are dinosours not as old as science has told us they are.  Something has to give.    Notice they say it doesn't fit in the evolutionary timeline.  Things all of a sudden fell out of sync.

 

Expected or not, the end result has opened a chasm of questions. Scientists are questioning how this soft protein material can be so fresh when it was discovered in “70 million year old bones.” Maybe the question they should be asking is: “Are we sure these bones are so old, given that they contain such fresh proteins and elastic soft tissue?” In the conclusion of their report, Schweitzer and her colleagues noted: “However, we demonstrate the retention of pliable soft-tissue blood vessels with contents that are capable of being liberated from the bone matrix, while still retaining their flexibility, resilience, original hollow nature, and three-dimensionality.... This T. rex also contains flexible and fibrillar bone matrices that retain elasticity” (307:1955). This scientific evidence does not hold up under evolutionary timelines.

multi-species-angler's picture
multi-species-angler
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 4/26/09

Plainsman Said:
MSA dinosaurs are a good example of where we may have to rethink the age of the dinosaur.  Are you familiar with the dinosaur discovered in Montana a few years ago.  It still had red blood cells and soft tissue.  It has been reported by the Smithsonian.  To date they have not started wrestling with the big question.   That question comes about because red blood cells only last a few thousand years.  Just when we thought we had all the answers about dinosaurs.   This should set an example for us scientists not to be to arrogant.

It was big news indeed last year when Schweitzer announced she had discovered blood vessels and structures that looked like whole cells inside that T. rex bone—the first observation of its kind. The finding amazed colleagues, who had never imagined that even a trace of still-soft dinosaur tissue could survive. After all, as any textbook will tell you, when an animal dies, soft tissues such as blood vessels, muscle and skin decay and disappear over time, while hard tissues like bone may gradually acquire minerals from the environment and become fossils. Schweitzer, one of the first scientists to use the tools of modern cell biology to study dinosaurs, has upended the conventional wisdom by showing that some rock-hard fossils tens of millions of years old may have remnants of soft tissues hidden away in their interiors. “The reason it hasn’t been discovered before is no right-thinking paleontologist would do what Mary did with her specimens. We don’t go to all this effort to dig this stuff out of the ground to then destroy it in acid,” says dinosaur paleontologist Thomas Holtz Jr., of the University of Maryland. “It’s great science.” The observations could shed new light on how dinosaurs evolved and how their muscles and blood vessels worked. And the new findings might help settle a long-running debate about whether dinosaurs were warmblooded, coldblooded—or both.
 

Read more: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/dinosaur.html#ixzz1pxBUcDLr

This all depends on your definition of a "dino-saur". if your definition is in the literal terms of simply a big ass lizard, well then I can get you some big ass lizard blood cells.

I was referring to not just the "big ass lizards" but all the species of life that most of which went extinct in a short period of time 65 million years ago.

 agree very interesting and exciting stuff! I am also curious if time bending acceleration and so forth could have an effect on carbon half lives, radioactive decay and so on. For example is our solar sytem static? No. Has the rate of speed been constant? I don't know. Would speed changes have effects we have yet to realize? Very possible.

now of course one can sit and shoot theories full of holes with other theories, and yes, until we fully and completely understand space time and how it is affected by speed, matter, and gravity, and how those effects may if at all affect radioactive decay, we just have to go with the current theories that hold the most water.  what contradicts your ideas of bent time possibly affecting our current radioactive decay and dating methods is that moon rocks, earth rocks, uranium, and meteorites within our solar system date the same to 4.5 billion years old.  all of these objects have experienced drasticly different speeds, orbits, and velocity changes through spacetime over the last 4.5 billion years, so it seems so far "time bending" and time changes and differences caused by gravitational changes, anomalies, and high speed travel through space have not affected radioactive decay. and no, nothing in space, especially our solar system is "static" 

multi-species-angler's picture
multi-species-angler
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 4/26/09

Plainsman, how did the face of the virgin mary appear on that toast?  we can ask questions like this all day long and if you want me to answer them, I can do my best.  the fact of the matter is that tens of thousands of "dinosaur" bones and animal fossils fit properly into earths timeline according to where in the layers of the geologic timeline they were found and to when those fossils were dated.  you found the one or two fossils that were found and had one or two people scratching their heads and are trying to use that pebble to try and bring down the mountains of eveidence we have collected so far.

again, more ancient alien theories that seem convincing with the right audience and the right presentation, but just don't hold water when compared to the rest.

buckmaster81's picture
buckmaster81
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 2/9/03

multi-species-angler Said:

Plainsman Said:
MSA dinosaurs are a good example of where we may have to rethink the age of the dinosaur.  Are you familiar with the dinosaur discovered in Montana a few years ago.  It still had red blood cells and soft tissue.  It has been reported by the Smithsonian.  To date they have not started wrestling with the big question.   That question comes about because red blood cells only last a few thousand years.  Just when we thought we had all the answers about dinosaurs.   This should set an example for us scientists not to be to arrogant.

It was big news indeed last year when Schweitzer announced she had discovered blood vessels and structures that looked like whole cells inside that T. rex bone—the first observation of its kind. The finding amazed colleagues, who had never imagined that even a trace of still-soft dinosaur tissue could survive. After all, as any textbook will tell you, when an animal dies, soft tissues such as blood vessels, muscle and skin decay and disappear over time, while hard tissues like bone may gradually acquire minerals from the environment and become fossils. Schweitzer, one of the first scientists to use the tools of modern cell biology to study dinosaurs, has upended the conventional wisdom by showing that some rock-hard fossils tens of millions of years old may have remnants of soft tissues hidden away in their interiors. “The reason it hasn’t been discovered before is no right-thinking paleontologist would do what Mary did with her specimens. We don’t go to all this effort to dig this stuff out of the ground to then destroy it in acid,” says dinosaur paleontologist Thomas Holtz Jr., of the University of Maryland. “It’s great science.” The observations could shed new light on how dinosaurs evolved and how their muscles and blood vessels worked. And the new findings might help settle a long-running debate about whether dinosaurs were warmblooded, coldblooded—or both.
 

Read more: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/dinosaur.html#ixzz1pxBUcDLr

This all depends on your definition of a "dino-saur". if your definition is in the literal terms of simply a big ass lizard, well then I can get you some big ass lizard blood cells.

I was referring to not just the "big ass lizards" but all the species of life that most of which went extinct in a short period of time 65 million years ago.

 agree very interesting and exciting stuff! I am also curious if time bending acceleration and so forth could have an effect on carbon half lives, radioactive decay and so on. For example is our solar sytem static? No. Has the rate of speed been constant? I don't know. Would speed changes have effects we have yet to realize? Very possible.

now of course one can sit and shoot theories full of holes with other theories, and yes, until we fully and completely understand space time and how it is affected by speed, matter, and gravity, and how those effects may if at all affect radioactive decay, we just have to go with the current theories that hold the most water.  what contradicts your ideas of bent time possibly affecting our current radioactive decay and dating methods is that moon rocks, earth rocks, uranium, and meteorites within our solar system date the same to 4.5 billion years old.  all of these objects have experienced drasticly different speeds, orbits, and velocity changes through spacetime over the last 4.5 billion years, so it seems so far "time bending" and time changes and differences caused by gravitational changes, anomalies, and high speed travel through space have not affected radioactive decay. and no, nothing in space, especially our solar system is "static" 

Wouldn't everything in our solar sytem/ galaxy be traveling at the same speed through the abyss there by affecting all things equally causing similar findings?

Maybe I should right a paper!! lol

Hunt Hard and NEVER GIVE UP

multi-species-angler's picture
multi-species-angler
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 4/26/09

Wouldn't everything in our solar sytem/ galaxy be traveling at the same speed through the abyss there by affecting all things equally causing similar findings?

Maybe I should right a paper!! lol

 

No, everything travels at different speeds according to different bodies.  for example our moon travels at a different speed than the earth, so a clock identical to one on earth would track time slower or faster just as the same clock placed on an asteroid or the sun or a comet.  Even on the whole of the "abyss" as you call it, objects are expanding away from eachother at different rates and speeds.

even if this did have an effect on radioactive decay, it wouldn't be great enough to shift the data by a billion years, and probably not even a thousand. 

And if your last statement was true, then its affect on dating techniques and radioactive decay wouldn't matter because it would be constant and all the data from the different methods would still read the same equal results.

Plainsman's picture
Plainsman
Offline
AMATEUR
Joined: 6/19/03

MSA my only point is we should not be to full of ourselves (me included) because the taste of crow may not be good.

I don't think T Rex is just a big lizard.  They found blood in one of those now also. 

I am not familiar with the age determination of rocks etc.  My only knowledge of age estimations are based on speed of light and light years of stars etc from earth.  New theories are arising there also.   We all know that the speed of light is 186,000 miles per second.  We use that in our range finders to determine distance in our closed system.  However, when we try that in space we are estimating from round trip which may include things that change the speed of light.  For years we didn't  think gravity could affect light, but now we find black holes in space with such tremendous gravitational pull that all light is sucked into them.  Shoot laser directly away or towards them and all of a sudden light may travel 10,000 miles per second one direction, and 10,000,000 miles per second the other direction.  For me there are to many questions to start giving people defining answers.  Leaders always question while the crowd follows, often blindly.
multi-species-angler's picture
multi-species-angler
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 4/26/09

Plainsman Said:
MSA my only point is we should not be to full of ourselves (me included) because the taste of crow may not be good.

I don't think T Rex is just a big lizard.  They found blood in one of those now also. 

I am not familiar with the age determination of rocks etc.  My only knowledge of age estimations are based on speed of light and light years of stars etc from earth.  New theories are arising there also.   We all know that the speed of light is 186,000 miles per second.  We use that in our range finders to determine distance in our closed system.  However, when we try that in space we are estimating from round trip which may include things that change the speed of light.  For years we didn't  think gravity could affect light, but now we find black holes in space with such tremendous gravitational pull that all light is sucked into them.  Shoot laser directly away or towards them and all of a sudden light may travel 10,000 miles per second one direction, and 10,000,000 miles per second the other direction.  For me there are to many questions to start giving people defining answers.  Leaders always question while the crowd follows, often blindly.

Age "determination" (as you put it) of rocks correlates with the other "determinations" allowing scientists to hypothesize that our earth is 4.5 bilion years old.  It's not like we dated 2 or 3 items and one of the results said 4.5 billion years, this has been done thousands of times, dozens of ways with thousands of samples by hundreds if not thousands of scientists.

I understand we are always making new discoveries in science, yes I know einsteins theory of relativity wasn't proven until well after he died, and we couldn't prove that planets outside our solar system exited until the late 90s.  My point through all this is, just because science doesn't have all the answers doesn't mean we have to make up imaginary friends to fill the voids and unanswered questions.

gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09

Jarudy Said:

gst Said:

Jarudy Said:

Main Entry: the·ol·o·gy 

Pronunciation: \thē-ˈä-lə-jē\

Function: noun

1 : the study of religious faith, practice, and experience; especially :the study of God and of God's relation to the world

And since ignorants think science is "religious"

Main Entry: 1re·li·gious 

Pronunciation: \ri-ˈli-jəs\

Function: adjective

1 : relating to or manifesting faithful devotion to an acknowledged ultimate reality or deity

 

I have no devotion to an "ultimate reality or deity". I look at observable facts and use logic.  What makes your religion better than any other one? Nothing, hardly any religions are based on fact, just on faith. No logical person can claim know "reality" or pretend to, which is why any religion or faith or the sloppy big bang theory is frankly ignorant. I never said or made claims about you or others being stupid. Look at repeatable, credible sources for your "beliefs", not a second hand account bible, koran, story, etc. Men wrote the bible, Koran and the big bang theory. None listed are correct in terms provable fact. So keep fighting for your mutual imaginary friend(s) while I take peace knowing when I die I die; I wont be stuck in the prison known as heaven or hell. "The only thing better than eternal paradise is eternal rest." -Hannibal

 

So you are saying people with a strong faith that beleive in something more than a test tube and a petrie dish are " frankly ignorant"?

The arrogance of self believed itellect.

You aren;t fishmhan under a different name are you?

As a physician in training, I always find it interesting that in the origin of life, people chose the faith approach. Those same people may end up in the hospital one day expecting the most modern treatment by the same scientists talking and hypothesizing (with sequential testing, etc) about the origin of life. We apply the same scientific approaches to medicine as any evolution or beginning of life. You choose: the modern, up-to-date scientific approach or the bleeding/ancient vuhdoo approach.

(fishmhan who? Im newish here)

Jarudy, if indeed I do end up in a hospital with my life in the balance of the skilled physicians that have developed the tools previous generations did not have thu invovative thinking and the experimenting with new practices, I will depnd on their skills and the faith I have that because of these skills I will be in better health when I leave. If not I can ask myself if I have lived my life in a manner that is consitant with my faith and if I can honestly answer yes, I will have a two fold contentment. First that I have lived my life by example rather than by preaching ( one reason I am not a particularrily religious person as there are too many people in religion that forget this) and two, that my soul which I beleive is as important a makeup of our body as the blood in our veins will continue as part of a greater experience I as a mere human can not fully comprenhend or understand.

Even though I readily admit I do not fully understand what awaits after my death, my faith allows me to beleive it is something greater than I could ever imagine. If that allows one to live their life in a better manner, that faith in and of it's self, proven of not is a good thing.

Understand that and you begin to understand the value of faith.

Understand the value of faith and you begin to understand the value of religion used for the purpose of creating and fostering fatih( rather than the perpetuity of the religion itself.) 
 
At least that is the "theory" I am goiing to acceopt until someone can absolutely prove it wrong.

So why the angst over someone having this type faith?

gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09
Jarudy Said:

Plainsman Said:
MSA dinosaurs are a good example of where we may have to rethink the age of the dinosaur.  Are you familiar with the dinosaur discovered in Montana a few years ago.  It still had red blood cells and soft tissue.  It has been reported by the Smithsonian.  To date they have not started wrestling with the big question.   That question comes about because red blood cells only last a few thousand years.  Just when we thought we had all the answers about dinosaurs.   This should set an example for us scientists not to be to arrogant.

It was big news indeed last year when Schweitzer announced she had discovered blood vessels and structures that looked like whole cells inside that T. rex bone—the first observation of its kind. The finding amazed colleagues, who had never imagined that even a trace of still-soft dinosaur tissue could survive. After all, as any textbook will tell you, when an animal dies, soft tissues such as blood vessels, muscle and skin decay and disappear over time, while hard tissues like bone may gradually acquire minerals from the environment and become fossils. Schweitzer, one of the first scientists to use the tools of modern cell biology to study dinosaurs, has upended the conventional wisdom by showing that some rock-hard fossils tens of millions of years old may have remnants of soft tissues hidden away in their interiors. “The reason it hasn’t been discovered before is no right-thinking paleontologist would do what Mary did with her specimens. We don’t go to all this effort to dig this stuff out of the ground to then destroy it in acid,” says dinosaur paleontologist Thomas Holtz Jr., of the University of Maryland. “It’s great science.” The observations could shed new light on how dinosaurs evolved and how their muscles and blood vessels worked. And the new findings might help settle a long-running debate about whether dinosaurs were warmblooded, coldblooded—or both.
 

Read more: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/dinosaur.html#ixzz1pxBUcDLr

The point of science is that it changes and evolves over time. A real "scientist" goes with the flow per se because nothing is "set in stone" in science, why do you people keep saying this? If n=1, aka this study is unique, other experiments will try to repeat this or find another case and go from there.

So then if someone walked into a lab that could actually turn water into wine are you suggesting scinece would go with the flow and accept his teaching? Whatt you are saying is science has "faith" in what they can touch, feel, smell, see, rationally deduce ect...at any one given time, this changes based upon what one can touch, feel, smeel, see ect.. atany given time.

The difference as I see it from what you have written is it seems those in science are simply a little more unsure of what it is they put their faith in as there is nothing constant!

gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09

multi-species-angler Said:
Plainsman, how did the face of the virgin mary appear on that toast?  we can ask questions like this all day long and if you want me to answer them, I can do my best.  the fact of the matter is that tens of thousands of "dinosaur" bones and animal fossils fit properly into earths timeline according to where in the layers of the geologic timeline they were found and to when those fossils were dated.  you found the one or two fossils that were found and had one or two people scratching their heads and are trying to use that pebble to try and bring down the mountains of eveidence we have collected so far.

again, more ancient alien theories that seem convincing with the right audience and the right presentation, but just don't hold water when compared to the rest.

multi, you are sharp enough you should not have to ask this.

Faith.

Someones faith may perhaps allow them to see the face of the Virgin Mary on their toast, while someone else may simply see a odd shaped browning of toast.

If you wish to be so arroant to completely dismiss the faith that grants this, are you really any better than the religious hardliners that claim THEY are soley right?

What you seem to be forgetting is even these "mountains of evidence you have collected so far" are built on a "theory" that you admitted has not been proven or disproven as to how life began to exist.

If you take comfort in your science as you lay breathing your last breath knowing that you will simply turn into a peice of the premordial soup that will eventually evolve some sigle celled being that hundreds of  billionsof years from now may have opposing digits allowing them to properly pick their nose, hey great, but why feel the need to dismiss the faith of those that belive there is perhaps something more?

Could it be that perhaps somewhere in the back of your analytical mind there exists a flicker of wonder and you are not as sure in your own absolute  faith in science as you wish and the only way you can justify your science based beleifs it is to constantly deminish and dismiss any other faith contrary to what your test tubes and petries dishes tell you? 

 Hey live your life in science, it really is an amazing field that has contributed untold benefits to our life here on earth. But when it comes to the possibilities that exist after my heart stops beating, I choose to palce my "faith" that there exists something so great your analytical fact based science can not only not "prove" it, but can not even comprehend it. 

 And if I my faith causes me to beleive I must live my life in a better manner to experiece this, what's the down side? I mean if there truly is nothing as you suggest after our existance of living breathing flesh ends, there will also exist no disappointment either.

So I will have simply been a better person during the blink in time I existed.

And therein lies the value of faith.

Jarudy's picture
Jarudy
Offline
Joined: 2/5/11

gst Said:

Jarudy Said:

Plainsman Said:
MSA dinosaurs are a good example of where we may have to rethink the age of the dinosaur.  Are you familiar with the dinosaur discovered in Montana a few years ago.  It still had red blood cells and soft tissue.  It has been reported by the Smithsonian.  To date they have not started wrestling with the big question.   That question comes about because red blood cells only last a few thousand years.  Just when we thought we had all the answers about dinosaurs.   This should set an example for us scientists not to be to arrogant.

It was big news indeed last year when Schweitzer announced she had discovered blood vessels and structures that looked like whole cells inside that T. rex bone—the first observation of its kind. The finding amazed colleagues, who had never imagined that even a trace of still-soft dinosaur tissue could survive. After all, as any textbook will tell you, when an animal dies, soft tissues such as blood vessels, muscle and skin decay and disappear over time, while hard tissues like bone may gradually acquire minerals from the environment and become fossils. Schweitzer, one of the first scientists to use the tools of modern cell biology to study dinosaurs, has upended the conventional wisdom by showing that some rock-hard fossils tens of millions of years old may have remnants of soft tissues hidden away in their interiors. “The reason it hasn’t been discovered before is no right-thinking paleontologist would do what Mary did with her specimens. We don’t go to all this effort to dig this stuff out of the ground to then destroy it in acid,” says dinosaur paleontologist Thomas Holtz Jr., of the University of Maryland. “It’s great science.” The observations could shed new light on how dinosaurs evolved and how their muscles and blood vessels worked. And the new findings might help settle a long-running debate about whether dinosaurs were warmblooded, coldblooded—or both.
 

Read more: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/dinosaur.html#ixzz1pxBUcDLr

The point of science is that it changes and evolves over time. A real "scientist" goes with the flow per se because nothing is "set in stone" in science, why do you people keep saying this? If n=1, aka this study is unique, other experiments will try to repeat this or find another case and go from there.

So then if someone walked into a lab that could actually turn water into wine are you suggesting scinece would go with the flow and accept his teaching? Whatt you are saying is science has "faith" in what they can touch, feel, smell, see, rationally deduce ect...at any one given time, this changes based upon what one can touch, feel, smeel, see ect.. atany given time.

The difference as I see it from what you have written is it seems those in science are simply a little more unsure of what it is they put their faith in as there is nothing constant!

In advanced organic lab, we have in fact made wine which, if one wanted, could start with distilled water among other things, yes. The mechanism of action is clear (with isolatable intermediates) and easily understood.
Faith defined as absolute trust in someone or something is a definite no in the science world. Unsure? Heck yes, no one person can pretend to know the answer to everything, so why would you assume your religion and faith is correct?

Pages