jump to last post 1-10 of 10 discussions (35 posts)

What do you think about people who don't believe that dinosaurs once existed?

  1. CWanamaker profile image99
    CWanamakerposted 4 years ago

    What do you think about people who don't believe that dinosaurs once existed?

  2. profile image0
    JThomp42posted 4 years ago

    What do you think of people who believe they do not exist?

    1. gmwilliams profile image85
      gmwilliamsposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      They need to return to school and become educated or they will be LEFT BEHIND so to speak. Sadly, there are people STILL like that!  Oh, dear, so unbelievable in the 21st century, there are still medieval thinking people!

  3. gmwilliams profile image85
    gmwilliamsposted 4 years ago

    There are some people who live in a quite delusional and myopic world based upon their so-called Biblical tenet.  Yes, Virginia, there are still some people who strongly believe that the world is 6,000 years old.  Yes, these people live in Fantasyland. 

    However, intelligent and educated people know that the world is billions of years old.  Yes, there was evolution of the species.  Of course, dinosaurs existed eons ago. Only an unaware, uneducated person would surmise and think otherwise.   Then, there was a climactic change which resulted in dinosaurs becoming extinct.   

    Those who do not believe that dinosaurs existed are going by the way of them and the infamous dodo bird.  Such backward people are very few and far between.  There is a lesson in this, either one become aware, educated, intelligent, and unbiased or he/she will have mentally stagnant ideologies and will enventually mentally atrophy and become a metaphorical dinosaur.......

    1. profile image0
      JThomp42posted 4 years agoin reply to this

      It seems to me that if someone doesn't agree with your ideology, then they are ignorant uneducated people. Not saying I disagree with you, but you do not have to be so rude. They're are millions of people out there smarter than you. Believe that??

    2. gmwilliams profile image85
      gmwilliamsposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Well if a person does not believe that dinosaurs existed, he/she must live under a rock or be so abysmally uneducated and ignorant.  What else could he/she be?  Really now!

    3. ChristinS profile image96
      ChristinSposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      The existence of dinosaur fossils is not ideology, it is a proven fact - they exist. Those who deny their existence are willfully choosing ignorance over education - that's not being mean, it's stating a fact. "ignorant" does not mean "stupid"

    4. profile image0
      JThomp42posted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Blah, blah, blah Christin. gm's comment was very condescending and egotistical. Just as yours are most of the time.

    5. gmwilliams profile image85
      gmwilliamsposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      JT, the comment I made was not condescending. It is THE TRUTH.  Anyone in this day and age who do not believe that dinosaurs exist is ignorant. Every reasonably educated person, including children, know that dinosaurs have existed for decades now.

    6. SidKemp profile image95
      SidKempposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      GM, I encourage you to reflect on the tone of your words. The truth can be stated in condescending ways. Also, evidence is that belief in evolution is decreasing as our school systems fail. We can encourage learning through a generous spirit.

    7. profile image0
      JThomp42posted 4 years agoin reply to this

      However, intelligent and educated people know that the world is billions of years old. 'CONDESCENDING!"
      I'm not saying I disagree with what you said, it is how you said it. So many put themselves on an 'I'm more educated" pedestal. There is a nicer

    8. SidKemp profile image95
      SidKempposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      JThomp, I agree with you. But ALL CAPS reads as condescending, too. :-) We can all sound condescending or judgmental when someone doesn't get our point. And the moment we do, I think we become part of the problem. I invite all of us to more civility.

  4. connorj profile image77
    connorjposted 4 years ago

    I believe that they should examine the evidence before they draw their conclusion. There is "no bones" about this wisdom...

    1. gmwilliams profile image85
      gmwilliamsposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Great answer.  There are some people who do not live in the real, scientific world but base their knowledge upon antiquated and atavistic biblical concepts.

  5. Imogen French profile image85
    Imogen Frenchposted 4 years ago

    https://usercontent1.hubstatic.com/7095024_f260.jpg

    Personally, I can't understand that level of ignorance. Are people really that naive in this day and age? Haven't they seen the fossils - or do they think they were invented as some kind of crazy hoax?

    1. gmwilliams profile image85
      gmwilliamsposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Imogene, you have taken the words out of my mouth. Some people are indeed THAT ignorant and delusional to the multillionth degree. They are the ones who believe in creationism..They are adherents of the philosophy that the world is 6000 years old.

    2. Imogen French profile image85
      Imogen Frenchposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      I would like to add that I do respect each and every person's beliefs. I was simply expressing my own point of view here. I would not presume to call anybody "ignorant", we each have our own stance based on our exposure to ideology and education.

    3. SidKemp profile image95
      SidKempposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Imogen, I am confused and have a question. I can't make sense of both your answer and your comment. If you don't say a person is ignorance, how can you say that they have a "level of ignorance"?

    4. Imogen French profile image85
      Imogen Frenchposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Sid, by saying that people have a level of ignorance I meant that they are ignorant of the facts, as in uneducated. I did not mean that they were "ignorant" in the rude sense of the word, as in stupid.

    5. SidKemp profile image95
      SidKempposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Thanks Imogen. That is a perspective I can understand and one I respect deeply.

  6. SidKemp profile image95
    SidKempposted 4 years ago

    I think they are mis-stating the real issue. The issue is not "dinosaurs or no dinosaurs." The issue is not even "creation or evolution." The real issue is: What type of truth does this person find valid, and what is the source of that truth.

    Every view of life, including each sect of each religion and many variations on science, and other views, such as agnosticism and atheism, all of these have a framework that defines truth and the way to get there.

    All people in these frameworks can coexist peacefully and with mutual respect if we so choose. It is simply a matter of honoring each person's choice of how to define, and how to seek, truth.

    It can be hard to honor the truth in someone who does not honor the truths of others. But both Christian and scientific teachings call us to do this. Christian teachings call us to love our enemy and know that God is the judge. Scientific teachings teach us that the very basis of science is individual and communal effort, and no one is obligated to participate.

    So, let us agree to respectfully honor the many types of truth in the world.

    1. Imogen French profile image85
      Imogen Frenchposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      I agree, Sid. We all have our own differing frame of reference, and should respect all viewpoints.

    2. SidKemp profile image95
      SidKempposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Thanks, Imogen. One way of doing this is to see each religion, and also science, not as truth or as a story, but as a language in which truth can be revealed and stories told.

    3. Imogen French profile image85
      Imogen Frenchposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Sid, I think you have added the voice of reason to this discussion. If more people thought like you we would have much more tolerance in our society.

    4. SidKemp profile image95
      SidKempposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Thanks, Imogen. I just started following you, and hope you will return the favor. I think we have a lot to learn from one another.

    5. lone77star profile image84
      lone77starposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      There is so much love in what you say, Sid. Beautiful.

      Each "truth" is a relative truth, until we get to the heart of Truth which is love.

      Gautama Siddhartha knew this. So did Yehoshua of Nazareth.

    6. SidKemp profile image95
      SidKempposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Yes, Lonestar, and so did Albert Einstein. It is time to realize that religions and science are all frameworks for understanding. People using each can dwell in loving respect for one another, and all seek truth.

  7. ParadigmEnacted profile image74
    ParadigmEnactedposted 4 years ago

    They willfully ignore evidence, believe what they want to believe, and probably can't be reasoned with. So I say laugh at them.

    1. gmwilliams profile image85
      gmwilliamsposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Don't laugh at them, feel very very sorry for them.  They just refuse to learn and don't know any better.  However, if they have children, I feel sorry for such children to grow up in such a bereft home.  Think of the Duggars.....hmmm.....

  8. jlpark profile image86
    jlparkposted 4 years ago

    I find them confusing.  That we can provide physical proof of such a being existing and they still deny that they existed is....beyond me, really.  Does it mean I need to call them things that are less than complimentary? No.

    Why do I find them confusing? Often these people are people of faith (regardless of which faith). So, to deny the existence of something that one can physically touch, see, smell etc yet profess loudly the existence of something we cannot see, touch etc (and then often calling people names who deny the existence of this thing we have no physical proof of).

    Is this every person of faith - OF COURSE NOT.  I've even come across an interesting way to combine both the existence of both dinosaurs and God (and therefore, the 6000yrs that certain religions believe the world has been around (rather than the millions)) - by including the dinosaurs in the education around Creation etc. Whilst it is not what I know, nor what I was taught, or what the science provides as the evidence - I think it's at least a creative way to solve the issue.

    But again, do I think anything about people who don't believe in the previous existence of dinosaurs - I have better things to do with my time than worry too much about them really.

  9. lone77star profile image84
    lone77starposted 4 years ago

    It's funny.

    But each person is at their own stage of development. Give them the space and time they need to grow. If an infant stumbles, you don't stop loving them and giving them more chances to learn to walk.

    And in all humility, we each do not know Truth... yet. But some of us are getting closer. And the closer I get, the more Truth seems to be Love and to have nothing to do with the details of physical reality -- like dinosaurs, evolution, colliding galaxies and the like.

    Even the 9/11 Truth movement can learn from Love. They may have found relative "truths" about what actually happened on that day, but only love will heal the wounds and solve the problems behind what happened.

    If someone doesn't want to believe in dinosaurs, let them. They're not ready for the fun of the Jurassic or Triassic. If someone doesn't want to believe that galaxies colliding proves an old universe, let them. You don't solve evil by resisting it. Turning the other cheek is an act of love. If they're not ready for the knowledge you have, simply move on to someone who is. And hope and pray that you are wise enough to receive the wisdom that someone else has to offer.

    1. SidKemp profile image95
      SidKempposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      A very good point. Most philosophers agree that science, as a process, can never declare anything true. And there are many standards of truth: scientific, forensic, historical, religious, spiritual. A favorite: that which is loving is true.

  10. Mitch Alan profile image81
    Mitch Alanposted 4 years ago

    I have never heard anyone claim that dinosaurs didn't exist. I have heard (and made) the claim that they are not from Billions of years ago. A young earth model of the earth does not deny the existence of dinosaurs, it simply puts them in the context of that young earth and does it with scientific and theological integrity. Science and faith are not at opposite ends of the spectrum, only bad science and faith are. Science and faith go hand in hand when treated properly.

    1. SidKemp profile image95
      SidKempposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Mitch, you've made a good point that people who hold to the Young Earth theory recognize the existence of dinosaurs. But I can't agree with you that Young Earth is a scientific theory - it simply does not explain the facts, as any sound theory must.

    2. Mitch Alan profile image81
      Mitch Alanposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Young earth MODEL. Not theory. Just as the evolutionary model is not truly a theory, as it can not be falsified. If you lay the models side by side and compare what we know to be fact, and not merely conjecture, the evolutionary model falls apart.

 
working