Ilocano
buuuurrrrrrppppp.......
+341|6658

nickb64 wrote:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/article … -the-bible

Please do not flame me for this, but I think this makes sense.


Also:  http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-ans … /dinosaurs
I like this part:

"Evolutionists claim that dinosaurs evolved over millions of years. They imagine that one kind of animal slowly changed over long periods of time to become a different kind of animal. For instance, they believe that amphibians changed into reptiles (including dinosaurs) by this gradual process. This would mean, of course, that there would have been millions of creatures during that time that would be “in between,” as amphibians evolved into reptiles. Evidence of these “transitional forms,” as they are called, should be abundant. However, many fossil experts admit that not one unquestionable transitional form between any group of creatures and another has been found anywhere. If dinosaurs evolved from amphibians, there should be, for example, fossil evidence of animals that are part dinosaur and part something else. However, there is no proof of this anywhere. In fact, if you go into any museum you will see fossils of dinosaurs that are 100% dinosaur, not something in between. There are no 25%, 50%, 75%, or even 99% dinosaurs—they are all 100% dinosaur!"
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|6592|132 and Bush

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

DBBrinson1 wrote:

If true (God I hope so <-hehe) -it kinda invalidates relegion.
Eh, you're underestimating the adaptability of religion.
That is why most of the ancient word is considered allegorical and it has been rewritten (1st covenant/2nd covenant etc...). Although there are still a few literalist among us.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Ioan92
Member
+337|5714

Ilocano wrote:

"Evolutionists claim that dinosaurs evolved over millions of years. They imagine that one kind of animal slowly changed over long periods of time to become a different kind of animal. For instance, they believe that amphibians changed into reptiles (including dinosaurs) by this gradual process. This would mean, of course, that there would have been millions of creatures during that time that would be “in between,” as amphibians evolved into reptiles. Evidence of these “transitional forms,” as they are called, should be abundant. However, many fossil experts admit that not one unquestionable transitional form between any group of creatures and another has been found anywhere. If dinosaurs evolved from amphibians, there should be, for example, fossil evidence of animals that are part dinosaur and part something else. However, there is no proof of this anywhere. In fact, if you go into any museum you will see fossils of dinosaurs that are 100% dinosaur, not something in between. There are no 25%, 50%, 75%, or even 99% dinosaurs—they are all 100% dinosaur!"
Because its one species evolving itself, not a dinosaur combining with a whale. Hence the 100%, just in a different form.

Religion; the door is there -> GTFO for the well being of mankind.
AussieReaper
( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
+5,761|6144|what

nickb64 wrote:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/article … -the-bible

Please do not flame me for this, but I think this makes sense.


Also:  http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-ans … /dinosaurs
hahaha oh wow.
https://i.imgur.com/maVpUMN.png
Zefar
Member
+116|6640|Sweden

Bell wrote:

You seem to think christianity and creationism are one in the same.
Well um they ARE, look it up.

Bible does not support but rather creation. Creationism people believe in God, Noahs ark and all the other fairy tales in the bible.

It's not just a coincidence for that.

There are christians who accept evolution and those people are ok, creationism people who refuse evolution because bible said so are not.
BVC
Member
+325|6687

nickb64 wrote:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/article … -the-bible

Please do not flame me for this, but I think this makes sense.


Also:  http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-ans … /dinosaurs
I started reading, noticed a few minor factual errors(lies?) along the way, but the bells started ringing when I got to this bit:

...
According to evolutionists, the dinosaurs “ruled the Earth” for 140 million years, dying out about 65 million years ago. However, scientists do not dig up anything labeled with those ages. They only uncover dead dinosaurs (i.e., their bones), and their bones do not have labels attached telling how old they are.
...


If I refuse to label something, that does not mean it it is not of a certain age, merely that it does not have a label.  In fact, I can falsify labels if I wish, and this will not change.  And that completely ignores the fact that someone would have had to have been around to label the bones once the dinosaurs had died...

Carbon dating is the label which the author of that site choses to ignore.

Last edited by Pubic (2009-05-19 16:22:50)

Bell
Frosties > Cornflakes
+362|6540|UK

Zefar wrote:

Bell wrote:

You seem to think christianity and creationism are one in the same.
Well um they ARE, look it up.
Yer arse.  Creationism can arrise from christianity, it isnt a nescesary component of the theology (if it was, then there is a good 60 or so books in the canon that could be ommited, and forget that jesus dude, it should be adamanity or something).  Genesis is way to generic to pin down, and from what I understand, the purpose of the bible is not to explain how, but why.  We dedicate whole textbooks to the ''simple'' cell, and people are on teh internets whining about this shite? 

Which is why I think it is a complete red herring and those who attempt to play the evolution vs creation game (be it theist, or atheist) are the ones who are getting in the way of progress rather than the position it's self.
13rin
Member
+977|6470

Bell wrote:

Zefar wrote:

Bell wrote:

You seem to think christianity and creationism are one in the same.
Well um they ARE, look it up.
Yer arse.  Creationism can arrise from christianity, it isnt a nescesary component of the theology (if it was, then there is a good 60 or so books in the canon that could be ommited, and forget that jesus dude, it should be adamanity or something).  Genesis is way to generic to pin down, and from what I understand, the purpose of the bible is not to explain how, but why.  We dedicate whole textbooks to the ''simple'' cell, and people are on teh internets whining about this shite? 

Which is why I think it is a complete red herring and those who attempt to play the evolution vs creation game (be it theist, or atheist) are the ones who are getting in the way of progress rather than the position it's self.
So then do we take the bible figuratively or literally?  Or can you pick and choose as it fits your argument?  What type of progress is made?
Whining?  Who's the one defending teh internets about this 'shite'?

Last edited by DBBrinson1 (2009-05-19 16:30:02)

I stood in line for four hours. They better give me a Wal-Mart gift card, or something.  - Rodney Booker, Job Fair attendee.
Bell
Frosties > Cornflakes
+362|6540|UK

DBBrinson1 wrote:

Bell wrote:

Zefar wrote:

Well um they ARE, look it up.
Yer arse.  Creationism can arrise from christianity, it isnt a nescesary component of the theology (if it was, then there is a good 60 or so books in the canon that could be ommited, and forget that jesus dude, it should be adamanity or something).  Genesis is way to generic to pin down, and from what I understand, the purpose of the bible is not to explain how, but why.  We dedicate whole textbooks to the ''simple'' cell, and people are on teh internets whining about this shite? 

Which is why I think it is a complete red herring and those who attempt to play the evolution vs creation game (be it theist, or atheist) are the ones who are getting in the way of progress rather than the position it's self.
So then do we take the bible figuratively or literally?  Or can you pick and choose as it fits your argument?  What type of progress is made?
Theres a difference between defending something and pointing out the flaws in someones offense.  You take the bible however you want, none of it ''fits'' my argument, am not making one.

DBBrinson1 wrote:

Whining?  Who's the one defending teh internets about this 'shite'?
That doesnt even make sense genius .  If your trying to say what I think you mean, then I point you to my first sentence in this reply.  Am all for ripping religion, but for legit reasons.

This, is pish.
nickb64
formerly from OC (it's EXACTLY like on tv)[truth]
+77|5602|Greatest Nation on Earth(USA)

Pubic wrote:

nickb64 wrote:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/article … -the-bible

Please do not flame me for this, but I think this makes sense.


Also:  http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-ans … /dinosaurs
I started reading, noticed a few minor factual errors(lies?) along the way, but the bells started ringing when I got to this bit:

...
According to evolutionists, the dinosaurs “ruled the Earth” for 140 million years, dying out about 65 million years ago. However, scientists do not dig up anything labeled with those ages. They only uncover dead dinosaurs (i.e., their bones), and their bones do not have labels attached telling how old they are.
...


If I refuse to label something, that does not mean it it is not of a certain age, merely that it does not have a label.  In fact, I can falsify labels if I wish, and this will not change.  And that completely ignores the fact that someone would have had to have been around to label the bones once the dinosaurs had died...

Carbon dating is the label which the author of that site choses to ignore.
How can we be sure carbon dating is accurate???

Do you know for a fact that science cannot be disproved in any way, Scientific "fact" changes all the time, how can we be sure we are correct, we are all human and make mistakes.
xBlackPantherx
Grow up, or die
+142|6334|California
Allow me list my favorite parts (lies) from our dear nick64's post and you'll see why christianity at least is a joke (at the very least when it comes to accepting facts) and I'll dispute every part:

However, scientists do not dig up anything labeled with those ages. They only uncover dead dinosaurs (i.e., their bones), and their bones do not have labels attached telling how old they are. The idea of millions of years of evolution is just the evolutionists’ story about the past. No scientist was there to see the dinosaurs live through this supposed dinosaur age. In fact, there is no proof whatsoever that the world and its fossil layers are millions of years old.
It's called carbondating. Every living thing contains(ed) carbon and, since matter can not be created or destroyed, that carbon still exists in the bones of dinosaurs.

This would mean, of course, that there would have been millions of creatures during that time that would be “in between,” as amphibians evolved into reptiles. Evidence of these “transitional forms,” as they are called, should be abundant. However, many fossil experts admit that not one unquestionable transitional form between any group of creatures and another has been found anywhere.
Actually, there is. The first that comes off of my head is the armored fish. Nice try.
Evolutionists declare that no man ever lived alongside dinosaurs. The Bible, however, makes it plain that dinosaurs and people must have lived together. Actually, as we will soon see, there is a lot of evidence for this.
The Bible teaches (in Genesis 1:29–30) that the original animals (and the first humans) were commanded to be vegetarian. There were no meat eaters in the original creation. Furthermore, there was no death. It was an unblemished world, with Adam and Eve and animals (including dinosaurs) living in perfect harmony, eating only plants.

Sadly, it did not stay this way for very long. Adam rebelled against his Creator, bringing sin into the world (Genesis 3:1–7; Romans 5:12). Because of this rebellion, Adam, and thus all of his descendants (you and me), gave up the right to live with a Holy (sinless) and just God. God therefore judged sin with death.

The Bible plainly teaches from Genesis to Revelation that there was no death of animals or humans before Adam sinned. (Consider just a few of the many passages, such as: Romans 5:12; Genesis 2:17; Genesis 1:29–30; Romans 8:20–22; Acts 3:21; Hebrews 9:22; 1 Corinthians 15; Revelation 21:1–4; Revelation 22:3.) This means there could not have been any animal fossils (and no dinosaur bones) before sin.
What proof? Text from the Bible is your attempt at disputing hard fact? Give me a break.

Every proof of what this joke of a website includes builds upon what it, itself, has said with "proof" from the Bible.
Ilocano
buuuurrrrrrppppp.......
+341|6658

Ioan92 wrote:

Because its one species evolving itself, not a dinosaur combining with a whale. Hence the 100%, just in a different form.

Religion; the door is there -> GTFO for the well being of mankind.
OK, so where is the fossil that the Mammoth evolved from?

Soft tissue preserved for 68 million years?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7285683/

https://msnbcmedia3.msn.com/j/msnbc/Components/Photos/050324/050324_trex_softtissue_hlg10a.hlarge.jpg
Tissue fragments from a Tyrannosaurus rex femur are shown at left, when it is flexible and resilient and when stretched (arrow) returns to its original shape. The middle photo shows the bone after it is air dried. The photo at right shows regions of bone showing fibrous character, not normally seen in fossil bone.
krazed
Admiral of the Bathtub
+619|6771|Great Brown North

nickb64 wrote:

How can we be sure carbon dating is accurate???
because they cross test in multiple other ways to check it?

nickb64 wrote:

Do you know for a fact that science cannot be disproved in any way


nickb64 wrote:

Scientific "fact" changes all the time
which is why it's science and not a faith, when errors are discovered they're investigated and fixed. these things change as we learn new information

nickb64 wrote:

how can we be sure we are correct, we are all human and make mistakes.
which is why everything is so rigorously tested and examined by more than just one team of people




it will come down to creationists plugging their ears and yelling LALALALALA CAN'T HEAR YOU LALALALA GODDIDIT LALALALA YOU CAN'T PROVE ANYTHING LALALALALA


which is why i do my very best to ignore them

Last edited by krazed (2009-05-19 17:28:04)

Ilocano
buuuurrrrrrppppp.......
+341|6658

Carbon-14 dating is only accurate to less that 100,000 years.
Ajax_the_Great1
Dropped on request
+206|6638
This thread is full of tolerance...
Ilocano
buuuurrrrrrppppp.......
+341|6658

Ajax_the_Great1 wrote:

This thread is full of tolerance...
  And here we thought the Bible thumpers were the intolerants...
nukchebi0
Пушкин, наше всё
+387|6315|New Haven, CT

Ioan92 wrote:

I say we vote a law to execute a ban on religion and life prison if you break the rule. This is getting ridiculous.
I say we vote in a law preventing narrow-minded people who can't tolerate the beliefs of others, nor seem to recognize the existence of natural rights, from expressing their opinions.

Also, as a note, this doesn't invalidate intelligent design at all, as intelligent design basically says God controlled evolution. In that case, the fossil is merely more evidence of the process occurring, rather than an invalidation of the overarching theory.

Last edited by nukchebi0 (2009-05-19 18:06:59)

jsnipy
...
+3,276|6514|...

I never understood how there are two sides to this argument.

If I find a cake and do tests and studies to reveal it is made from flour, butter, eggs, and sugar and I also find that it was baked in an oven for 4 billion years, does this mean no one created it? "Religion" is not only the organized hippocrates and liars of the world.

I think its too convenient and very naive to think you have it all figured out a young age; noone does (rather noone should)

Last edited by jsnipy (2009-05-19 18:23:20)

DesertFox-
The very model of a modern major general
+794|6676|United States of America

jsnipy wrote:

"Religion" is not only the organized hippocrates and liars of the world.
Just to say, I lol'd at "organized hippocrates"

OT: So-called religious people who continue to act as though the Bible is fact need to get with the program. That was thought at a time when science and religion were thought to be nearly one entity, but they're not really closely related as all and one cannot be used to explain the other. Most religious folk are smart enough to know intelligent design and creationism are rubbish, but the only ones who get airtime on news outlets are the idiots who don't know so.
jsnipy
...
+3,276|6514|...

DesertFox- wrote:

jsnipy wrote:

"Religion" is not only the organized hippocrates and liars of the world.
Just to say, I lol'd at "organized hippocrates"
lol i throw up in a paragraph and let my spelll check do whatever

But you know what i meant
xstax981
Community Modder
+93|6667
religion and evolution are not mutually exclusive
xBlackPantherx
Grow up, or die
+142|6334|California

Ilocano wrote:

Ioan92 wrote:

Because its one species evolving itself, not a dinosaur combining with a whale. Hence the 100%, just in a different form.

Religion; the door is there -> GTFO for the well being of mankind.
OK, so where is the fossil that the Mammoth evolved from?

Soft tissue preserved for 68 million years?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7285683/

http://msnbcmedia3.msn.com/j/msnbc/Comp … hlarge.jpg
Tissue fragments from a Tyrannosaurus rex femur are shown at left, when it is flexible and resilient and when stretched (arrow) returns to its original shape. The middle photo shows the bone after it is air dried. The photo at right shows regions of bone showing fibrous character, not normally seen in fossil bone.
Classical science bashing. What you obviously don't get is the processes by which science and scientists derive certain things. Which is something I recommend you and any other dumbass looks into before stating something stupid. Something like this wasn't necessarily preserved as soft tissue for 68 million years, although as proven at the time of discovery, in a case like this the mammoth was completely frozen over and sealed off from everything that could decompose it/destroy its tissue. But they also have bone marrow from a dinosaur fossil bone (forget what species) that was completely dried out obviously, but when some liquid was added the tissue became resilient again.

Ilocano wrote:

Carbon-14 dating is only accurate to less that 100,000 years.
According to what exactly? Say you are right, and carbon dating can only get within a 10,000,000 (as an example). Let me repeat that, Ten Million years. Hell, 20 million, or 30 million. You can't even fathom that amount of time. That still gives the estimation of 68 million years a minimum of 37.6 million years before christianity says the world was created (with a 30 million year leadway for error). And the accuracy is most certainly better than an error of 30 million years.

Last edited by xBlackPantherx (2009-05-19 19:34:12)

nukchebi0
Пушкин, наше всё
+387|6315|New Haven, CT

xBlackPantherx wrote:

According to what exactly? Say you are right, and carbon dating can only get within a 10,000,000 (as an example). Let me repeat that, Ten Million years. Hell, 20 million, or 30 million. You can't even fathom that amount of time. That still gives the estimation of 68 million years a minimum of 37.6 million years before christianity says the world was created (with a 30 million year leadway for error). And the accuracy is most certainly better than an error of 30 million years.
This makes no sense. You should revise it and clarify.

Also, as a note, look here to learn about carbon dating.

Last edited by nukchebi0 (2009-05-19 19:39:57)

13rin
Member
+977|6470

Bell wrote:

DBBrinson1 wrote:

Bell wrote:


Yer arse.  Creationism can arrise from christianity, it isnt a nescesary component of the theology (if it was, then there is a good 60 or so books in the canon that could be ommited, and forget that jesus dude, it should be adamanity or something).  Genesis is way to generic to pin down, and from what I understand, the purpose of the bible is not to explain how, but why.  We dedicate whole textbooks to the ''simple'' cell, and people are on teh internets whining about this shite? 

Which is why I think it is a complete red herring and those who attempt to play the evolution vs creation game (be it theist, or atheist) are the ones who are getting in the way of progress rather than the position it's self.
So then do we take the bible figuratively or literally?  Or can you pick and choose as it fits your argument?  What type of progress is made?
Theres a difference between defending something and pointing out the flaws in someones offense.  You take the bible however you want, none of it ''fits'' my argument, am not making one.

DBBrinson1 wrote:

Whining?  Who's the one defending teh internets about this 'shite'?
That doesnt even make sense genius .  If your trying to say what I think you mean, then I point you to my first sentence in this reply.  Am all for ripping religion, but for legit reasons.

This, is pish.
K! Thanks for stopping bye then!
I stood in line for four hours. They better give me a Wal-Mart gift card, or something.  - Rodney Booker, Job Fair attendee.
xBlackPantherx
Grow up, or die
+142|6334|California

nukchebi0 wrote:

xBlackPantherx wrote:

According to what exactly? Say you are right, and carbon dating can only get within a 10,000,000 (as an example). Let me repeat that, Ten Million years. Hell, 20 million, or 30 million. You can't even fathom that amount of time. That still gives the estimation of 68 million years a minimum of 37.6 million years before christianity says the world was created (with a 30 million year leadway for error). And the accuracy is most certainly better than an error of 30 million years.
This makes no sense. You should revise it and clarify.

Also, as a note, look here to learn about carbon dating.
Makes perfect sense haha. I'll try to strip it down.

According to him, carbon dating isn't accurate after 100,000 years. As an example I said that even if carbon dating had an error range of 30 million years, which is an extreme amount and far beyond actuality, that the estimation of the 68 million year old mammoth in his post would still be a minimum of 37.6 million years before the time that Christianity says the world was created

[68 Mil - 30 Mil Granted Error - Time that Christianity Says the World Was Created (6,000 years ago [4,000 BC]) = ~37.6 Million years before 4,000 BC]

So, even in an extreme case of severe inaccuracy with carbon dating, it still has a date for that mammoth that far exceeds Christianity's time of creation.

EDIT: I guess I should say a date that far preceeds Christianity's time of creation.

Last edited by xBlackPantherx (2009-05-19 20:49:50)

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2024 Jeff Minard