By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General - Dinosaurs co-existed with man.

Kasz216 on 29 September 2010
rocketpig said:

Numonex's threads seem completely sane compared to this one, which means it's past my bed time.

Even the ones where all religions were created by the Maltese Knights and the one where the President of Iran is a good guy?



Around the Network
Kasz216 on 29 September 2010
Lafiel said:

@ numonex )

Well, I mostly agree with you, but science of course can't "create the world", science can explain the physical aspects and principles that were/are active in the creation of the world as we know it, but it can't explain why there was enough matter (more than anti-matter) to begin with and why the 4 fundamental interactions (electromagnetism, strong interaction, weak interaction and gravitation) are correlated in such an optimal way for the universe to form as it is now (which essentially is the reason for us being alive).

And in my opinion the bible was written to give people hope and a reason to live through dark times.. that's not very essential to us in the western world anymore, but I think there is no reason to mock that, although I agree that it's hard not to mock the people that think every line in that book is the ultimate truth and can't be doubted.

Btw, some scientists try to reactive dinosaur DNA, which lies dormant in todays birds.. I guess within a century or so they might find enough parts to actually recreate a "dinosaur-like" being, although such an act would be morally highly questionable.

I don't see why.

I don't get why people are so against "Genetic engineering."

I mean, the eugenics craze gave it a bad name, but that was because they didn't know shit about genetics.

Bringing back the dinosaurs so kids could see them?  What's so bad about that.

Hell what's so bad about genetically engineering festuses?

I mean, tell me someone who has a recessive taysachs gene wouldn't be better off having their child genetically engineered rather then getting taysachs.  Getting rid of all those genetic diseases and mental retardation.

Why are people against that?

Espiecally athests!  It just feels like Atheists holding on to the "not messing with gods work" angle.

But hell, doesn't medicine already do that? 



theprof00 on 29 September 2010

I don't understand the creationists.

How do you explain for the millions of skeletons buried at varying levels of ground that, scientifically, take millions of years to sink? How do you account for fossil fuels? It's really a wonder how these religious theories make it past the drawing board.



Lafiel on 29 September 2010
Kasz216 said:

I don't see why.

I don't get why people are so against "Genetic engineering."

I mean, the eugenics craze gave it a bad name, but that was because they didn't know shit about genetics.

Bringing back the dinosaurs so kids could see them?  What's so bad about that.

Hell what's so bad about genetically engineering festuses?

I mean, tell me someone who has a recessive taysachs gene wouldn't be better off having their child genetically engineered rather then getting taysachs.  Getting rid of all those genetic diseases and mental retardation.

Why are people against that?

Espiecally athests!  It just feels like Atheists holding on to the "not messing with gods work" angle.

But hell, doesn't medicine already do that? 

About that example in particular it would probably be a result of much much much trial and error, meaning that hundreds of thousends or millions of young "birds" would be needed to test out which combination of genes actually creates sth. that is able to live - and as I said it wouldn't be a dinosaur, it would be a "dinosaur-esque" being, which is created from dinosaur DNA segments (and bird DNA segments to fill the holes), but not from a real dinosaur genome

I'm aware that humans do horrible things to mice/rats, rabbits, apes and so on for testing medicine (etc) anyway, but bringing back "dinosaurs" isn't really all that vital to us.

I think that's also the main concern about medical use of genetic engineering, for testing would probably have to mostly be done with humans/human ova, which is a moral problem even if you are not religious, no?



theprof00 on 29 September 2010
Kasz216 said:
Lafiel said:

@ numonex )

Well, I mostly agree with you, but science of course can't "create the world", science can explain the physical aspects and principles that were/are active in the creation of the world as we know it, but it can't explain why there was enough matter (more than anti-matter) to begin with and why the 4 fundamental interactions (electromagnetism, strong interaction, weak interaction and gravitation) are correlated in such an optimal way for the universe to form as it is now (which essentially is the reason for us being alive).

And in my opinion the bible was written to give people hope and a reason to live through dark times.. that's not very essential to us in the western world anymore, but I think there is no reason to mock that, although I agree that it's hard not to mock the people that think every line in that book is the ultimate truth and can't be doubted.

Btw, some scientists try to reactive dinosaur DNA, which lies dormant in todays birds.. I guess within a century or so they might find enough parts to actually recreate a "dinosaur-like" being, although such an act would be morally highly questionable.

I don't see why.

I don't get why people are so against "Genetic engineering."

I mean, the eugenics craze gave it a bad name, but that was because they didn't know shit about genetics.

Bringing back the dinosaurs so kids could see them?  What's so bad about that.

Hell what's so bad about genetically engineering festuses?

I mean, tell me someone who has a recessive taysachs gene wouldn't be better off having their child genetically engineered rather then getting taysachs.  Getting rid of all those genetic diseases and mental retardation.

Why are people against that?

Espiecally athests!  It just feels like Atheists holding on to the "not messing with gods work" angle.

But hell, doesn't medicine already do that? 

I'm against genetic alteration simply because we don't have the correct systems in place to control it.

Honestly though, I trust the atheists. Trust in the people who always make sure to look at all sides of the coin, not just the one they are forced to look at.



Around the Network
Lafiel on 29 September 2010
theprof00 said:

I don't understand the creationists.

How do you explain for the millions of skeletons buried at varying levels of ground that, scientifically, take millions of years to sink? How do you account for fossil fuels? It's really a wonder how these religious theories make it past the drawing board.

well, the whole field of geology (which I am studying) makes no sense without evolution (it would either mean, that the evidence of past geology is totally wrong although todays geology behaves exactly like what we concluded was past geology - or that past geology happened within just some thousends of years, meaning, that the earth was changing like craaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaazyyyyyyyyyyy and nobody wrote about it lol), so creationists are probably my personal nemesis ;)



Kasz216 on 29 September 2010
theprof00 said:
Kasz216 said:
Lafiel said:

@ numonex )

Well, I mostly agree with you, but science of course can't "create the world", science can explain the physical aspects and principles that were/are active in the creation of the world as we know it, but it can't explain why there was enough matter (more than anti-matter) to begin with and why the 4 fundamental interactions (electromagnetism, strong interaction, weak interaction and gravitation) are correlated in such an optimal way for the universe to form as it is now (which essentially is the reason for us being alive).

And in my opinion the bible was written to give people hope and a reason to live through dark times.. that's not very essential to us in the western world anymore, but I think there is no reason to mock that, although I agree that it's hard not to mock the people that think every line in that book is the ultimate truth and can't be doubted.

Btw, some scientists try to reactive dinosaur DNA, which lies dormant in todays birds.. I guess within a century or so they might find enough parts to actually recreate a "dinosaur-like" being, although such an act would be morally highly questionable.

I don't see why.

I don't get why people are so against "Genetic engineering."

I mean, the eugenics craze gave it a bad name, but that was because they didn't know shit about genetics.

Bringing back the dinosaurs so kids could see them?  What's so bad about that.

Hell what's so bad about genetically engineering festuses?

I mean, tell me someone who has a recessive taysachs gene wouldn't be better off having their child genetically engineered rather then getting taysachs.  Getting rid of all those genetic diseases and mental retardation.

Why are people against that?

Espiecally athests!  It just feels like Atheists holding on to the "not messing with gods work" angle.

But hell, doesn't medicine already do that? 

I'm against genetic alteration simply because we don't have the correct systems in place to control it.

Honestly though, I trust the atheists. Trust in the people who always make sure to look at all sides of the coin, not just the one they are forced to look at.

To control what?  And what systems don't we have in place or couldn't put in place?



zarx on 29 September 2010

sorry this was debunked, the supposed "flesh" was just bacterial bio-films that have formed in the microscopic cavities that formed by the cells during fossilisation, a mistake that has been made before.

http://bacteriality.com/2008/08/26/dino/

 The other videos from what I have seen are full of incorrect statements and bad science, sorry.



@TheVoxelman on twitter

Check out my hype threads: Cyberpunk, and The Witcher 3!

theprof00 on 29 September 2010
Kasz216 said:
theprof00 said:

I'm against genetic alteration simply because we don't have the correct systems in place to control it.

Honestly though, I trust the atheists. Trust in the people who always make sure to look at all sides of the coin, not just the one they are forced to look at.

To control what?  And what systems don't we have in place or couldn't put in place?

To quote some smart guy "He who controls the fountain of life controls the world"

I just don't think we have the proper restraints in place. I can see it quickly spiraling out of control. Mostly in a military aspect....

but I can also see it tear humanity in two when it gets to the point where a race of super babies are starting to be created by the super rich. I'm not thrilled about inventing new ways to divide us.

However, I would be all for disease and disorder treatment, but who's to say that they wouldn't go further? Especially when money is involved.

I know I sound like a nut, but given the way the market works, it's hard to say it wouldn't happen. Just look at how our food is made.



Kasz216 on 29 September 2010
Lafiel said:
Kasz216 said:

I don't see why.

I don't get why people are so against "Genetic engineering."

I mean, the eugenics craze gave it a bad name, but that was because they didn't know shit about genetics.

Bringing back the dinosaurs so kids could see them?  What's so bad about that.

Hell what's so bad about genetically engineering festuses?

I mean, tell me someone who has a recessive taysachs gene wouldn't be better off having their child genetically engineered rather then getting taysachs.  Getting rid of all those genetic diseases and mental retardation.

Why are people against that?

Espiecally athests!  It just feels like Atheists holding on to the "not messing with gods work" angle.

But hell, doesn't medicine already do that? 

About that example in particular it would probably be a result of much much much trial and error, meaning that hundreds of thousends or millions of young "birds" would be needed to test out which combination of genes actually creates sth. that is able to live - and as I said it wouldn't be a dinosaur, it would be a "dinosaur-esque" being, which is created from dinosaur DNA segments (and bird DNA segments to fill the holes), but not from a real dinosaur genome

I'm aware that humans do horrible things to mice/rats, rabbits, apes and so on for testing medicine (etc) anyway, but bringing back "dinosaurs" isn't really all that vital to us.

I think that's also the main concern about medical use of genetic engineering, for testing would probably have to mostly be done with humans/human ova, which is a moral problem even if you are not religious, no?

Thousands and millions seems a bit high if you ask me.  Like 99% of cloning deaths and problems occur before animals come to term.  It's pretty much all non-pregnancy.

I mean we've already cloned near extinct animals and even a few extinct ones.

Eating animals isn't vital either.  Yet we do that. 

You don't think there isn't stuff we could learn from dinosaur like beings?

Also, we do actually have some dinosaur soft tissue.