Good News Christians!

[660griz]

"it may have built nests in order to prove it's worth."

MAY have built nest.

It was entertainment disguised as science. Which is a similar charge to what you guys throw at faith.

Yep. Exactly the same. Scientist study current reptiles. They find bones, age the bones, put the bones together to make the skeleton of an animal. Study the skeleton and make assumptions based on knowledge of muscle and skeletal make ups that we know about currently and then say, believe us or you will be tortured by fire for eternity.

On that subject, why in the world does every single nature show have to discuss how the critter reproduces? Just strange and somewhat disconcerting.

I think the keyword here is nature. That should explain it.

 

[JB0704]

I think the keyword here is nature. That should explain it.

Right. But, I think folks get that critters reproduce. Making up an entire backstory about how a female dino meets "the one" is a little awkward. Particualrly since every single dang nature show has the same stuff, almost as if it's part of what they learn in "how to make a nature show" school.

Seriously, in this particular episode, the lady dino looked like a disney female critter.......strange, man.

Science ended when they discussed height, time frame, etc. And entertainment began when they showed the dino eating parasites off a sleeping dinos belly right before going to a mountain and building a nest of sticks and mud in order to attact another dino.

 

[JB0704]

MAY have built nest.

.....as they show the critter, and several others, building a nest.

 

[JB0704]

Yep. Exactly the same. Scientist study current reptiles. They find bones, age the bones, put the bones together to make the skeleton of an animal. Study the skeleton and make assumptions based on knowledge of muscle and skeletal make ups that we know about currently and then say, believe us or you will be tortured by fire for eternity.

No, they blur the lines between entertainment and fact in order to sell something. In this case, advertisement in between odd sequences of animated dinos mating.

 

[ambush80]

You know, there's still a debate on how much hunting T Rex did or whether or not it mostly scavenged. Is it worthwhile to try to figure these thing out? In my opinion, yes. Is it worthwhile to say "well, we'll NEVER know for sure so we should just stop asking (leave it at the foot of the cross)? In my opinion, no.

 

[JB0704]

You know, there's still a debate on how much hunting T Rex did or whether or not it mostly scavenged. Is it worthwhile to try to figure these thing out? In my opinion, yes. Is it worthwhile to say "well, we'll NEVER know for sure so we should just stop asking (leave it at the foot of the cross)? In my opinion, no.

Oh.....I thought it was setteled on him being a scavenger? The evidence is pretty strong in that direction.

Is it worthwile to try and figure it out? Absolutely? Is it absolutely ridiculous to speculate about these things and make female dinos look "female" while creating a stupid backstory about the lonely dino seeking dino? Absolutely.

Can we at least admit that there is an entertainment aspect to this stuff which has less to do with science and more to do with viewership?

And.......seriously, the dang mating critters is getting old.

 

[ambush80]

No, they blur the lines between entertainment and fact in order to sell something. In this case, advertisement in between odd sequences of animated dinos mating.

Remember when they used to show dinosaurs walking around dragging their tails? They even had the replicas dragging their tails around in the museums. Should they not have showed that because they didn't know for sure how they held their tails? Should they not have fixed them to show how they carried their tails aloft? Is there research to indicate that they carried their tails aloft? How good is it? Does it make a strong case? Will we ever know for sure?

 

[JB0704]

Remember when they used to show dinosaurs walking around dragging their tails? They even had the replicas dragging their tails around in the museums. Should they not have showed that because they didn't know for sure how they held their tails? Should they not have fixed them to show how they carried their tails aloft? Is there research to indicate that they carried their tails aloft? How good is it? Does it make a strong case? Will we ever know for sure?

At the time I'm thinking best evidence indicated that was the position of the tail. But, they knew they had tails.

If you had seen what I am talking about, I am almost certain we would be on the same page here. There was no evidence presented for 90% of the things animated. Most ridiculous being the nests build out of mounded dirt and sticks sticking straight up.

 

[bullethead]

One person may observe what anther person is unable to observe. Timing, location, attention span, bias, acuteness of faculties, distractions and so on... might limit one's powers of observation. Not that mine are better or more correct, my statement is simply an example.

I fully agree. I have no problem using the observations of others, especially when they are able to accurately report their findings,test and re-test and still have repeatable outcomes and are also willing to report any changes along the way.
They can prove their claim.

 

[ambush80]

Oh.....I thought it was setteled on him being a scavenger? The evidence is pretty strong in that direction.

It is for the most part but there are hold outs that don't like mighty T Rex shown as a scavenger. That's how it happens. There will always be hold outs that want to cling to old ways for sentimental reasons.

Is it worthwile to try and figure it out? Absolutely? Is it absolutely ridiculous to speculate about these things and make female dinos look "female" while creating a stupid backstory about the lonely dino seeking dino? Absolutely.

Can we at least admit that there is an entertainment aspect to this stuff which has less to do with science and more to do with viewership?

And.......seriously, the dang mating critters is getting old.

If it's on TV it's for entertainment. Is it wrong to speculate on how dinos might have done this or that? I defend their right to take the evidence and present their theories in the same way that I defend their rights to color the dinos skin in ways that are based on GOOD inferences.

Scientists never claim "this is EXACTY how it happens". They know better than to do that by using the very same scientific method. That's the beauty of the scientific method. It allows for self correction.

 

[WaltL1]

Right. But, I think folks get that critters reproduce. Making up an entire backstory about how a female dino meets "the one" is a little awkward. Particualrly since every single dang nature show has the same stuff, almost as if it's part of what they learn in "how to make a nature show" school.

Seriously, in this particular episode, the lady dino looked like a disney female critter.......strange, man.

Science ended when they discussed height, time frame, etc. And entertainment began when they showed the dino eating parasites off a sleeping dinos belly right before going to a mountain and building a nest of sticks and mud in order to attact another dino.

Making up an entire backstory about how a female dino meets "the one"

the lady dino looked like a disney female critter

If you take a subject that we really couldn't know for sure about and "humanize" it, its a much easier sell.
Just like........ well you kmow

 

[bullethead]

I fish with a fella who is a way better fisherman than I am. This dude "observes" things that are completely hidden to me. Always catches more/bigger fish than I do fishing the same spot, same bait, everything.

Could be a patience thing, experience thing, any number of variables that are keeping me from seeing the things he sees.

He is able to use his skill to get observable results.
It is much better than saying I am a good fisherman and unable to produce any fish. While I doubt he is one boast on and on about his talents, he can obviously back up what you claim about him. You could video him outfishing everyone on regular occasions. Both you and he can back up the claim.
That is why it is more believable and credible than most claims.

 

[ambush80]

At the time I'm thinking best evidence indicated that was the position of the tail. But, they knew they had tails.

From what I understand, they just assumed that the tails drug on the ground. It kind of fit with the lumbering depictions of them in the current media forms. Who would have thought then that they might have been so athletic; MIGHT HAVE BEEN. The scientists back then would have been able to come to the same conclusions about tail position. They knew enough about physiology. They just hadn't thought to ask the question.

If you had seen what I am talking about, I am almost certain we would be on the same page here. There was no evidence presented for 90% of the things animated. Most ridiculous being the nests build out of mounded dirt and sticks sticking straight up.

In the Chattanooga children's museum there's a replica of duck billed dinosaur skull. The skull had a great big hollow crest connected to the air canal. They made a replica of the hollow "tube" out of PVC and attached a bellows to it. When you operate the bellows it produces a "Whoooonk!!!" sound like a giant goose. Do they know for certain that the creature used that structoure to make that noise? Is it wrong for them to present that display?

 

[ambush80]

If you take a subject that we really couldn't know for sure about and "humanize" it, its a much easier sell.
Just like........ well you kmow

There's some basis for their depictions. It's probably based on the relative looks of modern birds and reptiles.

 

[JB0704]

If it's on TV it's for entertainment. Is it wrong to speculate on how dinos might have done this or that? I defend their right to take the evidence and present their theories in the same way that I defend their rights to color the dinos skin in ways that are based on GOOD inferences.

You and I would both defend their rights in this area. Heck, I would even defend their right to get on there and say things they know are wrong......freedom means everybody gots to be free or nobody is. The viewer is ultimately responsible for buying the product, and, if it's just a bunch of junk, then the market should sort it out.

"Good inferences?" I seriously wish I could remember the show to post the link.......I absolutely believe we would all agree it was total garbage.

And, that's my point ^^^^. Assumptions, stretches, and appealing to emotion are typical of people, and not limited to religious descriptions. I am very thankful people a lot smarter than me like scientific exploration. But, I also assign a similar amount of skepticism to the thoughts presented that I would a sermon where I know the preacher is going in directions that involve his imagination. A good example is a sermon I once heard that discussed the possibilities of what Jesus wrote in the sand......

 

[bullethead]

To follow up this post.....I was watching something about dinosaurs this weekend on one of the dinosaur channels. The entire episode, while trying to educate the audience on dinosaurs, was entirely lacking in any scientific evidence beyond the size/shape of the dinos.

Seriously.....it went through this extensive discussion on how this one particular dino found mates. Down to saying "it may have built nests in order to prove it's worth." One assumption after the other, including a demo on what the mate-finding nest would ahve looked like, and what the calls sounded like. Nothing but speculation. It was entertainment disguised as science. Which is a similar charge to what you guys throw at faith.

On that subject, why in the world does every single nature show have to discuss how the critter reproduces? Just strange and somewhat disconcerting.

But....there WERE dinosaurs. We have the dinosaurs. They are trying to figure out how they lived their lives.
It is much better than describing a dinosaur and having no bones at all. The beauty of that study is that they will continue to observe specimens and report the findings. If they find one dead in a nest then they can lean more towards that theory.
Honestly isn't that better than claiming invisible dinosaurs still exist?

 

[JB0704]

There's some basis for their depictions. It's probably based on the relative looks of modern birds and reptiles.

The female dino had disney "girl critter" eyes. See the female lions in Lion King for an example.

This does not happen with any modern creature other than humans.

 

[JB0704]

But....there WERE dinosaurs. We have the dinosaurs. They are trying to figure out how they lived their lives.

Yes, there were dinos. But, they weren't trying to figure out how the dinos lived their lives. It was an exercise in imagination based in zero scientific fact. Perhaps there were nests........how does that relate to 10 male dinos sitting on a ridge yelping to the valley from behind their "nest" while the lovely lady dinos slowly walk their direction.....with an expression that could only be described as a smile.

Honestly isn't that better than claiming invisible dinosaurs still exist?

Better? Maybe, but no more useful.

 

[WaltL1]

There's some basis for their depictions. It's probably based on the relative looks of modern birds and reptiles.

Sure there are differences in some male and female animals.
But strictly going off of JB's descriptions (I didn't see the show) it sounds like they added some personality traits (finding "the one") and depicting the female as a Disney character like way, that would make the person relate and therefor be more "acceptable" to a subject that is mostly based off of best guesses.

 

[JB0704]

..... it sounds like they added some personality traits (finding "the one") and depicting the female as a Disney character like way, that would make the person relate and therefor be more "acceptable" to a subject that is mostly based off of best guesses.

There was a lengthy discussion as to how in nature, the female chooses her mate, and the animation kind-a played into the whole male tryin to impress stand-offish female description.

While, in general, this may be true......what I ahve witnessed in nature seems a little more like the female being victimized by the situation. Anybody who has ever watched ducks during mating season knows what I'm talking about.