How do fundies explain fossils? nt

n.t.

"Goddidit. I believe it and that's all there is to it."

That was easy.

Seriously.

and the son of another, told me that his father believed that fossils were created and scattered around by God in order to test people's faith.

A wonderful guy & a great friend. He has been retired for many years now.

to what the evil scientists were finding under the ground. Another take on that was the claim the devil put them there to fool the faithful.

Insert fingers into ears and sing, "La La La La...". Then run away to their bubble.

I have heard that one.

ultimate in rationalizations and delusional thinking... and they vote. And the latter is most concerning.

just react in a programmed manner. Case in point... there was an article I read quite awhile ago about a PhD candidate in paleontology... yet, he was also a fundy and thought the world was created about 5,000 years ago by god. How one can handle such diametrically opposed thoughts is more than a little dysfunctional to me.

Satan put them there to lead us astray, and God let him do it to test our faith and allow us free...:rofl:...I'm sorry, I couldn't even get through that with a straight face. There is no comedy like what crazy people actually say out loud.

for the bones to turn to fossils, of course.

Dinosaurs walked among humans as little as two thousand years ago.

Carbon dating is flawed.

It's an evil plot.

Yadda yadda yadda.

Don't you know anything??!!?? :dunce:

or is it the time course? Its easy to say fossils don't take 10 million years to form and the fact that there are fossils doesn't prove or disprove how the earth was formed or how species came to be - although they certainly indicate things become extinct.

extinct animals, such as dinosaurs.

Just not accurate after 10,000 years...

Now radiometric dating in general can be accurate much further back, but carbon isotopes are short term, geologically speaking.

It's one of those "sort of right" things fundies use in completely the wrong manner (or "context" to use one of their favorite and likewise misused words), much like second law of thermodynamics etc (that big fiery ball in the sky is a clue the earth is not a closed system).

For example, down at Glen Rose, Texas, there are dinosaur tracks on the Paluxy River, for which a state park exists. Nearby is a Creo "museum" with altered dino tracks (which they vandalized from the river), altered and claimed to be human tracks intermingled with the dino tracks.

Science tells me that I don't understand the nature of God quite as well as I should. Obviously I'm dealing with a being that isn't constrained by time, space, or even the very laws of nature he created. Then I read one of my Bibles and guess what? Yeah, it tells me I don't understand God as well as I should. It flatly states at one point that His ways aren't ours. Gee, that makes it all even more difficult.

Of course, I could be arrogant and try to stuff God into a box and deny the data that science clearly presents. That would be dumb and the world already has met it's quota of dumb. The body of knowledge that is known as science is subject to change as the data reveals itself, that doesn't mean the scientific method is a failure. The body of knowledge that is called Christendom, likewise, isn't a thing that is easily or perfectly understood no matter what some people claim. I have never met someone who claims to know it all that ever really did.

One is based on careful observation and controlled investigation. The other is based on how certain people have felt about unverifiable phenomena and ideas.

One has a carefully instituted method for revisions, so that we can always expand our knowledge and make it better. Revisions in the other body bring about heresies, schisms, wars and retribution.

One can be used to educate the next generation and give them the tools necessary to expand the body of knowledge. The other often encourages people to abandon such pursuits.

One explains thoroughly why certain conclusions exist. The other often starts with conclusions and fails to show why they are necessary.

Most importantly, though, while one is a body of knowledge, the other is a body of supposition, superstition, fable, and folklore which cannot be remotely verified and has been given undue respect.

and there are quite a few scientists who take that to be evidence that there may be one. They tend to be smart enough to realize that if they have not ruled it out, then it may be real.

a few of my favorites regarding science and religion:

"All religions, arts and sciences are branches of the same tree."
Albert Einstein

“Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge of Truth and Knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the gods.”
Albert Einstein

"There is for me powerful evidence that there is something going on behind it all....It seems as though somebody has fine-tuned nature’s numbers to make the Universe....The impression of design is overwhelming".
Paul Davies

There isn't a scientist worth his or her salt on this planet that would take a glaring lack of evidence as evidence of something else. Science just doesn't work that way, and it never has. Further, scientists tend to be smart enough to realize that not EVERYTHING has to be scientifically ruled out. No one has scientifically ruled out the possibility I may suddenly turn into a butterfly under the right conditions, but I think we can both agree on the remoteness of that possibility.

Two other thoughts for you:

The argument from design is old, tired, and repeatedly debunked. Read something on that argument aside from apologist writings, and you will see that clearly.

Albert Einstein has been notoriously difficult to categorize on the theism spectrum. Many of his out of context quotes have been used by both sides of the divide, and some quotes have simply been made up wholesale. Including a quote from him doesn't help anyone's case, especially in light of the fact that his quotes are so often used in fallacious arguments from authority.

How many scientists do you know that believe the lack of evidence for Santa Claus is evidence for Santa Claus?

that there is actually much MORE evidence for the existence of Santa Claus than there is for the existence of any deity anyone had ever worshipped, but in spite of that, it is entirely rational to be certain that no such being exists. Nevertheless, some people tend to respect agnostics about God as possessing some noble wisdom and integrity of thought (and some agnostics seem to regard themselves that way) , while they would regard serious agnostics about Santa Claus (at least any older than about 10) as looney.

off of the actions of real people, and therefore can trace where the elements of said myth comes from. most myth has some basis from reality, and got blown to a mythical size.

when you know that the reasons for believing in something were all bullshit to begin with, you can rationally dismiss the existence of that something without having to "prove" that it doesn't exist. Of course, even that wouldn't stop the Santa Claus believers from saying that you can't prove that someone other than Santa ate all those millions of plates of cookies.

--imm

n/t

the exact thoughts I was trying to find a way to express.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-answers/topic/fossils

I didn't peruse much of this, because AiG usually makes my head hurt. If I recall, they say that all the fossils were laid down in the flood from Genesis.

to decieve us into believing in evilution.

She told me that she believed dinosaurs weren't real because they weren't in the Bible.

I asked her, well, what about cars and electricity?

Seriously. I think my brain bled a bit, then I felt really really bad for her.

Unicorns (KJV)

dinosaurs existed contemporaneously with early humans and went extinct "like so many other species have". Because apparently dinosaurs were all the same species, with no more difference between a pterodactyl and a T-rex than there is between a Chihuahua and a Great Dane. Yeah...told you it was dumb.

They never latched onto the whole "they were killed in the flood", thing, though. I remember my parochial-school principal (and 6th grade religion class teacher) telling us with all seriousness that the leviathan mentioned in Job was a dinosaur..."probably a plesiosaur, just like the Loch Ness Monster". Sadly, I couldn't make this shit up if I tried.

Same man also told a class full of sixth-graders that you could stick a twig in dirt, then carbon date both ends of the stick, and get results THOuSANDS OF YEARS APART!!!11!ELEVENTY!

*sigh* I really don't want my nephew to start attending this school in August...

That dies a long time ago, like millions of years, and gets burried by some stuff, which later turns to rocks and some dude with a PHD making less than 35k a year finds it in a dessert, which I then pay $12.50 at a museum to see it.

Thank God I'm not a fundie.

You see, 'Ol Beelzebub used his devilish powers to place dino bones deep in the ground in order confuse us and make us doubt Jeebus, because he knew that one day way, way in the future that we'd dig them up and reach the conclusion that the bible was phony. And he was right!


:) - Proving once again that as a writer, Yahweh is a doofus. And that his storyline was poorly written and does not hold up to scrutiny!!!


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CcTrUviSFek&feature=related">Discovering Religion - (Part 4) Dinosaur Extinction, Noah's Ark, And The Flood