Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Science

Ask Dr. Robert Bakker About Dinosaurs and Merging Science and Religion 528

Posted by samzenpus
from the what's-old-is-new dept.
With his trademark hat and beard, Dr. Robert Bakker is one of the most recognized paleontologists working today. Bakker was among the advisers for the movie Jurassic Park, and the character Dr. Robert Burke in the film The Lost World: Jurassic Park is based on him. He was one of the first to put forth the idea that some dinosaurs had feathers and were warm-blooded, and is credited with initiating the ongoing "dinosaur renaissance" in paleontology. Bakker is currently the curator of paleontology for the Houston Museum of Natural Science and the Director of the Morrison Natural History Museum in Colorado. He is also a Christian minister, who contends that there is no real conflict between religion and science, citing the writings and views of Saint Augustine as a guide on melding the two. Dr. Bakker has agreed to take some time from his writing and digging in order to answer your questions. As usual, ask as many questions as you'd like, but please, one question per post.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Ask Dr. Robert Bakker About Dinosaurs and Merging Science and Religion

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 05, 2013 @01:09PM (#42799249)

    Obviously it represents an unsuccessful divergence in evolution and shows that all one footed dinosaurs died out long ago, mostly due to having only one foot. More successful species (that had more than one foot) were much more "fit" and lived far longer, thus showing a perfect example of evolution favoring those who have evoled more fully.

  • by luis_a_espinal (1810296) on Tuesday February 05, 2013 @02:23PM (#42800251) Homepage

    Religion is defined as the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, esp. a personal God or gods.

    I can quote a few religious beliefs where the idea of a superhuman controlling power is absent or not required. Feel free to find a few as a homework for your own elucidation... or not, if you are the type to be content with spewing nonsense in the hopes of sounding avant garde.

    Since there is no evidence gods exist and science is based on fact and evidence religion,

    I like how you take the science banner while at the same time relying on a argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy (quoted in bold above).

    by default, is bullshit and is therefore incompatible with religion.

    That's an invective, not an argument. The nuisance is missed to most. I'm not saying whether you are right or wrong, but any truth values on your propositions are merely coincidental, and nothing to do with your actual understanding and application of the scientific method and the construction of logically-sound arguments.

If money can't buy happiness, I guess you'll just have to rent it.

Working...