;)
Posted by: ip address at May 4, 2003 03:55 AM"ldude. scientists dont believe dinos are reptiles. they believe they belong to a family most similar to birds!"
The bird theory is one of many theories on where dinosaurs came from. It's not the only one. Reptiles like had mentioned was another theory.
They get these theories because of the bone make up and shape compared with modern birds and reptiles. Some prehistoric animals resemble birds more and others resemble reptiles more.
It all depends on which species they are talking about. The particular show you may have caught probably revolved around some that resembled birds more than they did reptiles, therefore they explained the bird theory.
"they dont claim 'this is how it might have happened,' but rather- 'this is how it happened.' "
The same can be said for sunday morning gospel shows or church mass....
Never once have I heard a preacher or priest say "this is what the bible said happened, but it's not 100% proven"
The show you watched had an educational purpose for those who follow the evolution side.....just like pasters and priests depict the bible as fact for the religious side...
"many scientists totally throw out the notion that they looked like giant lizards."
I've also seen scientists attempt to disprove and throw out the bird theory....like I said above...there are many different theories on where dinosaurs came from.
As for science being close to religion, that is true, but not true in the context I was refering to.
Science plays a big part in religion, but there are thousands of different kinds of science (a lot try to prove religion true, and a lot show otherwise...it all depends on the field). I was refering mainly to archiologicial science, which is always attempting to disprove anything religious.
dude. scientists dont believe dinos are reptiles. they believe they belong to a family most similar to birds! my point is, they claim facts most of the time...they dont claim 'this is how it might have happened,' but rather- 'this is how it happened.' as for dinos looks- what i meant was the skin mainly. many scientists totally throw out the notion that they looked like giant lizards. if they cant even know for sure what their skin looked like, its impossible to say how they mated, and what actions took place before, during, and after mating as discovery and many others claim to know for sure. im sure they dont use the words 'for sure,' but the way they present it...its presented as fact not supposition. as for religion...i just read a large article about the scientific evidence for the healing power of prayer (parade magazine also did a piece on this recently.) science and religion are very closely related. id definitely consider myself to be in the creationist camp, which is very popular in the U.S. (not so much in the UK and other parts of europe.) i have read a number of very convincing articles and books on the relationship between science and religion, so id have to disagree that they dont mix well. my wrist is killing me from typing somuch lately, so im shutting the hell up now!
Posted by: Joshua Taj Bozeman at April 9, 2003 08:03 AMWow....lots of spelling mistakes in that one. I shouldn't type things 2 minutes after I wake up...
Posted by: HOODLUMinc at April 9, 2003 07:57 AM"You will notice they claim 100% fact with these shows. The much touted walking with dinosaurs series on Discovery showed dinosaurs in the act of mating, which is a huge leap on logic."
I watch those shows from time to time and never had they claimed it was all 100% fact (but never did they say otherwise either), but what they did do was constantly refer to it as the "thoery" of evolution. (that word alone shows it's not necessairly true, but just a thoery so...)
"No one can even say for sure that dinosaurs looked anything like we portray them to look like...and we surely don't have any clue what they looked like when they mated!"
Sure they can. By collecting bones, scientists can re-create the shape of the dinosaur. It's not magic, it's a form of forensic science. As for re-creating the way they mate, basically all reptiles do things in a certain way...regardless of size or shape. They can just re-create mateing patterns through actions of similar existing reptiles. Basically they were the same millions of years ago (taking into account you believe in the thoery of evolution) as they do today.
"Discovery touts all of their info. as pure fact, no speculation, just plain science that is clearly proven beyond a doubt (that's not even science's job!) Anyhow...they also show series on religion many times, and they ALWAYS, and I mean ALWAYS take a skeptical approach."
Well, a scientists job is to gather as much information as possible and form a thesis. This thesis can further be proves or remain thoery. Considering the fact that they constantly refer to it as the "thoery" of evolution means they are "not" presenting it as 100% fact, so in turn, they base shows on all the research and work archaeologists have discovered over the years.
As for the religion shows having a sceptical approach, you have to understand that they Discovery show is a prodominately scientific channel, and religion and science don't usually mix...hence the skepticism...
After watching one of those preacher shows in the morning, I don't expect him to talk about exolution either....
Posted by: HOODLUMinc at April 9, 2003 07:50 AM
The Very Liberal Discovery Channel
You guys hear this? The Discovery Civilization Channel has changed its name to Discovery TImes. That's right, the very liberal Discovery Channel has joined teams with the most liberal (and dishonest) newspaper in the country. If that's not scary, I don't know what is.
I mentioned they're very liberal. Here's one reason I say this. Ever watch The Science Channel (formerly called Discovery Science?) Well, they frequently show "Science" programs about the earth and its origins and man's origins (they have entire blocks on certain days devoted to evolution.) You will notice they claim 100% fact with these shows. The much touted walking with dinosaurs series on Discovery showed dinosaurs in the act of mating, which is a huge leap on logic. No one can even say for sure that dinosaurs looked anything like we portray them to look like...and we surely don't have any clue what they looked like when they mated! Discovery touts all of their info. as pure fact, no speculation, just plain science that is clearly proven beyond a doubt (that's not even science's job!) Anyhow...they also show series on religion many times, and they ALWAYS, and I mean ALWAYS take a skeptical approach.
For example:
They might have a program on God, and they will describe it as a show where they try to find the real reason behind whatever they're investigating. It cannot be God, they usually claim, so science has to try to explain it.
You'll see another program on weak evolutionary arguments or even aliens visiting earth, and they rarely EVER take a skeptical view. The network that airs small segments from the Skeptical Inquirer Magazine has 100% certainty when it comes to things that leave out God...and when it comes to anything related to religion, 99 times out of a 100, the program is geared toward proving the theory (God) wrong, and to show that there is no God. I find their selective skepticism rather funny.
I'm not sure why I posted about this...but, they have annoyed me for a long time with their reporting mentality. They refuse to look at both sides of the argument, and they have always been very liberal in their programming. Science and a particular ideaology don't go together too well! I just think it's scary, because clearly it will get even worse now that they have joined with the NY Times! Maybe they can show programs where one week the reporter will say one thing, then the next, they will take a complete turn around and report the exact opposite (like the NY Times has done since the start of the war!)
By the way, speaking of the hilarious Iraqi Information Minister, check out this story. This guy is a riot!
Posted by Josh at April 9, 2003 04:17 AM