Hacker News Reader

Comment by sweettea | Hacker News Reader

As a young earth creationist myself, this is awesome! The explanation that it somehow got buried in the ocean so deep in mud that it escaped rot, bacterial decay, and normal ocean-floor scavenging is particularly unbelievable to me in this case. It seems far simpler an explanation that the dinosaur was buried by a massive flood that suddenly buried it under high pressure, thus causing quick fossilization. But, nevertheless, it's an impressive display of the power of quick fossilization, and I'm thrilled to know more about it.

View on HN

You must be kidding, the tissue escaped normal bacterial decay because it was away from normal conditions. And contrary to what the title indicates, what was discovered was fossilized remains (i.e., rock), not the original tissue of the monster.

Are your beliefs faith based or based on something else? Honestly curious.

> It seems far simpler an explanation that the dinosaur was buried by a massive flood

When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like it was caused by a giant flood.

Honestly, as far as explanations go for why you'd find a land animal so far out to sea, getting caught in a flood is not a bad thesis. Consider what must have happened to an immense number of fauna when glacial lake Missoula blew, for example! But the fact that this is the only one of its type found so far in the area does not speak for a large one. Something as simple as dying while fording a river is another possibility.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Missoula

Why is that more believable? I mean the quorum of scientists are typically a good guide for someone not a specialist themselves.

I am just glad you are not trying to tell me that the earth is flat.

Well, but then I do ...

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org

Can you imagine anything that I could say or explain that might convince you otherwise?

Can you of yours? I agree with your beliefs I am guessing, but still this battle over who alone holds the authority of correctness is itself distressing.

It is difficult to imagine. A large part of it would have to be evidence of a elaborate conspiracy, and if I began to ever uncover such a thing I'd probably start by questioning my sanity. Imagine how difficult it would be for someone to try to convince you that not only did the Holocaust not happen, but neither did all of WWII- as a biologist I'd say YEC would be about as equally difficult to convince me of.

> It is difficult to imagine. A large part of it would have to be evidence of a elaborate conspiracy, and if I began to ever uncover such a thing I'd probably start by questioning my sanity.

Heh, you aren't the only one. I used to wonder how it could possibly happen that so many theists would be wrong about all these miracles and stuff.

I, and every other atheist I've encountered, would be happy to be proven wrong with reliable evidence. Something like the book Contact's (spoilers) message in the digits of pi, perhaps.

"Evidence is Satan's doing" means no amount of evidence can ever change your mind.

You immediately jumped to asserting your correctness, as if this is the only possible axis around which anything can rotate. I know you believe and your belief system has a definition of what counts and does not that is designed by the circumstances of its inception to make the assertion of any other symbol sets to analyze the world as invalid and undeserving of consideration. But I am not arguing about this, but rather the Right to Power derived from the nature of this argumentation is itself a tiresome way to engage about the world and what there is to find in it.

I'm quite comfortable with the scientific method's track record of discovery and utility, thanks.

Would you please stop? If you want to argue about Satan and the scientific method, I'm sure other internet forums would be happy to host that.

A belief too, or in your words a way of thinking about things that makes you comfortable.

That's no rebuttal.

I, unfortunately, have had the entirely opposite experience. All the atheists I've talked with discount any evidence brought forward by scientists, or articles I have read in journals. The ones I have met are closed-minded.

I'm an atheist that would love to read a journal article describing the discovery of evidence for the existence of God. Do you have a source?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com