Richard Dawkins & Smash of Dinosaur / Human Footprints

a reply to: Krazysh0t

And before that good 'ol Santa was actually a Siberian reindeer herder who would crawl into a yurt / hut through the smoke hole (coming down the chimney), and deliver....hallucinogenic fungi...i kid you not.

This is where the entire Santa Claus myth originates..the mushrooms were fly agaric , which of course are bright red and white...just like Santa's clothes.

They were the original gifts, and they made you fly very high indeed (to the spirit realm of course).

a reply to: MysterX

True, the idea of gift giving and climbing down the chimney comes from ancient Scandinavian Pagan rituals. Even the costume is derived from that tradition. Mostly the name is from Saint Nicholas.

Sicne they're now finding dinosaurs, at least many of them, actually had feathers, it ruins the idea somewhat ancients saw living breathing dinosaurs--yet depicted them as reptiles. They're saying the dinosaurs which walked had feathers. They say chickens are genetically related. In fact, they say the 'feathers' on dinosaurs were more like the downy on little chicks. They were not like modern feathers.

Example:
news.nationalgeographic.com - Siberian Discovery Suggests Almost All Dinosaurs Were Feathered...
www.smithsonianmag.com - Scientists Discover a Gigantic Feathered Tyrannosaur...

NOTE: In the above link it's a distant (125million yo) ancestor of T-Rex which had proto-feathers. It's not yet PROOF T-rex was feathered, but it's a fair argument to make. MAYBE it would look like this:

So again, find me dragons paintings/reliefs/etc with feathers. That of course doesn't prove anything, but it has more weight to me.

I agree with the logic which says if dinosaurs were alive 1000 to 5000 years ago then we'd have remains of them. Given there needs to be a large population to support them and dinosaurs are big, I doubt they'd remain hidden. We should have samples dating 1000-5000 years ago. Moreso, we should have numerous fossils dating from 5000 to 65 million years ago. The fact we do not find fossils in that time period is conclusively against any living dinosaurs in recent times. No way to deny it!

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Knowing is having no doubt....Your statement is a complicated way of saying I believe this because I don't have any other choice.

originally posted by: MysterX
a reply to: Krazysh0t

And before that good 'ol Santa was actually a Siberian reindeer herder who would crawl into a yurt / hut through the smoke hole (coming down the chimney), and deliver....hallucinogenic fungi...i kid you not.

This is where the entire Santa Claus myth originates..the mushrooms were fly agaric , which of course are bright red and white...just like Santa's clothes.

They were the original gifts, and they made you fly very high indeed (to the spirit realm of course).

Very interesting, thank you for that. The mystical experiences that are documented during a controlled mushroom trip are worth a read. Johns Hopkins is finding that it can literally cure depression with one use if you're in the proper setting Hopkins and Shrooms.

originally posted by: jonnywhite

So again, find me dragons paintings/reliefs/etc with feathers.

The Chinese Dragon and Mesoamerican (Aztec, etc) dragons come to mind. They're almost always depicted as feathered dragons:

Chinese Dragon

Quetzalcoatl was known as the feathered dragon in mesoamerica:

Quetzalcoatl

It is a wonder how they knew this before we did, perhaps they observed these creatures

originally posted by: bitsforbytes
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Knowing is having no doubt....Your statement is a complicated way of saying I believe this because I don't have any other choice.

Wouldn't that be the best way to deduce the correct answer? Reduce the possibilities for all other options to 0% or near 0% leaving only the correct answer?

originally posted by: Krazysh0t


Wouldn't that be the best way to deduce the correct answer? Reduce the possibilities for all other options to 0% or near 0% leaving only the correct answer?

Depends on how biased one is...Sometimes one might try harder to eliminate the less comfortable solutions...

A2D

a reply to: Agree2Disagree

That's where intellectual integrity comes it. If you start by not favoring any one solution over another, or try not to, then it becomes a lot easier to let go if the evidence doesn't hold up.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Ah, integrity...that thing we so desperately desire but rarely have...

Integrity...Coming from the Latin, “to remain untouched, or intact.”...Yet so many of our scientific disciplines lack what would be considered "integrity"...our theories...our "facts" if you will....are ever-changing.... accounting for new information almost daily....

But...perhaps one is more comfortable with another definition?

(My point being, integrity is not as prevalent in humans as its counterpart...)


A2D

a reply to: Agree2Disagree

I can only account for myself. I, personally, have very high integrity standards for my evidence. I can only encourage others to share similar thoughts, but it is up to them to be loose or not. Though, I've always had an inane desire to learn all sides of an argument. That's why I joined ATS in the first place. To find the other side of an argument for a conspiracy theory I liked.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

But you would agree that humans have a tendency to be more rigid when it comes to evidence contrary to their previously and/or currently held beliefs? It is more difficult to accept something that makes you second guess everything you believe, yes?

A2D

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: cooperton

The other side of the argument? What is that? Last I checked there are more than two sides to the evolution debate. There is evolution and then there is the creation accounts of EVERY OTHER religion in the world. And THEN there are any other accounts a human wants to dream up that you or I haven't thought about.

I certainly DO know the Christian account, and even the YEC account. I did use to be Catholic and I know how to read the bible literally to understand the YEC account. But those aren't the only other options and I don't feel like I should have to learn every possible alternative out there to evolution when none of them stack up in the evidence department to evolution.

Being open minded isn't about considering all possibilities absolutely equally. It means to consider all possibilities and discard the ones that are lacking in evidence. Your YEC account is just impossible from literally every scientific possibility. Like literally all of science would have to be wrong in order to believe that account. So until you can disprove all of science with valid evidence I'm not going to entertain that idea outside of fantasy.

I know this may come as a shock but the vast majority of Christians don't believe the creation story is fact. They believe it's allegory. The young earth folks are just the most sensational and say the most ridiculous news worthy things.

Why would that come as a shock? I'm well aware of what the majority of Christians believe. I know that YEC belief is only a fraction of what the total population believes.

Yeah im a Christian and please dont lump me in with YEC dip#s .

originally posted by: Isurrender73
Never mind

Smartest thing you said :lol

Reminds me of a saying.

Better to keep quiet and be thought a fool than open your mouth and remove all doubt!



:

a reply to: Agree2Disagree

Of course. It's called confirmation bias. I spend most of my time on ATS pointing out when people are adhering too strictly to their confirmation biases. Part of my strict intellectual integrity standards is to be able to recognize your confirmation biases and constantly put them to the test with counter evidence, but when you collect your counter evidence since you are recognizing that you are biased to this idea, you search out evidence presented by the opposite side of the argument or go straight to the original source.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

If confirmation bias is considered more prevalent than integrity in humans as a species...why are peer reviewed papers more often than not reviewed by peers with the same biases? Should this not make us question the entire process?

What if I lack the knowledge required to truly understand a document published in Journal of Human Genetics that has some truly remarkable, but questionable, findings? What do you do?

What is the default for belief? What is the default for belief when other individuals make their own opinions known? How easily can humans be deceived?

If there are 3 geneticists who find the information to be true, and 3 who find the information to be falsified....what do I believe?

In short, why do you believe the things you believe? Not just "because the evidence"...because someone has to explain what that evidence actually IS...what it means...what it represents....and you would have to believe them....



A2D

originally posted by: Agree2Disagree
a reply to: Krazysh0t


If there are 3 geneticists who find the information to be true, and 3 who find the information to be falsified....what do I believe?

There is no need to "Believe". Science allows us to say that we don't know and that we can wait for more evidence or studies to make a decision. When it comes to science, what we "Believe" doesn't matter.

a reply to: anton74

Ah, but...
How often does the egotistical, testosterone-driven man state, "I don't know". It's in mankind's nature to avoid admitting ignorance...Even in some cultures it is considered taboo to say the words "I don't know".

When it comes to deciphering what is fact and what was formed based on confirmation bias...what you believe DOES matter...

A2D

originally posted by: Agree2Disagree
a reply to: anton74

Ah, but...
How often does the egotistical, testosterone-driven man state, "I don't know". It's in mankind's nature to avoid admitting ignorance...Even in some cultures it is considered taboo to say the words "I don't know".

You can say the same thing about the creation side of the argument. Either the science backs up your argument or it does not.

originally posted by: Agree2Disagree
a reply to: anton74
When it comes to deciphering what is fact and what was formed based on confirmation bias...what you believe DOES matter...

No, it doesn't. You sit down and take a closer look at the data and determine if there are any errors. Its o.k. to ask questions and get some clarification. Look for confirmation bias and conduct more research if need.

originally posted by: Agree2Disagree
a reply to: Krazysh0t

If confirmation bias is considered more prevalent than integrity in humans as a species...why are peer reviewed papers more often than not reviewed by peers with the same biases? Should this not make us question the entire process?

That's not true at all. Peer reviewed papers are open for anyone to review, and most people don't have the same biases. They may all accept certain givens based on preceding evidence new studies are built on, but you need to have a certain start point established. You shouldn't have to prove every part of a theory every time you want to present a paper that changes a small part of it.

What if I lack the knowledge required to truly understand a document published in Journal of Human Genetics that has some truly remarkable, but questionable, findings? What do you do?

School sounds like a good start. Go find someone to teach you the skill sets needed to understand the information properly. Ignorance is not a valid rebuttal for disbelief.

What is the default for belief? What is the default for belief when other individuals make their own opinions known? How easily can humans be deceived?

This depends on the individual. I'd like to say that the default belief is skepticism, but that isn't true mostly. Most people's default belief is based on their biases.

If there are 3 geneticists who find the information to be true, and 3 who find the information to be falsified....what do I believe?

How about looking at the evidence yourself?

In short, why do you believe the things you believe? Not just "because the evidence"...because someone has to explain what that evidence actually IS...what it means...what it represents....and you would have to believe them....

A2D

No, I can look at the evidence myself and come to my own conclusions. That is how science works.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

School sounds like a good start.

I'm sure you realize there are things that prohibit someone from being schooled in every matter of science...one such thing being funding...There are reasons higher education costs money....

No, I can look at the evidence myself and come to my own conclusions. That is how science works.

So...have you carbon dated fossils? ...Have you examined DNA structures?.... Have you examined the cosmic microwave background radiation?... After having studied them, did you then proceed to, as you put it, form your "own conclusions"?...

Please tell me you examined the evidence in a lab and not on the internet....

A2D