Ok daysniper, Jesus(with lots of historical evidence that he existed) was a Jew and died for our sins and the people who believed he did became Christians. Christianity is the worlds biggest religion with about 2 billion people(1/3 the worlds population). I guess people can really trick themselves into worshiping air . I do believe that people have had religion since they started recording stuff and Judaism is one of the oldest. Dont forget that evolution is a theory and the fossil set that proves it is incomplete.
OK. Let's have a real argument here. FUN!JaMDuDe wrote:
Ok daysniper, Jesus(with lots of historical evidence that he existed) was a Jew and died for our sins and the people who believed he did became Christians. Christianity is the worlds biggest religion with about 2 billion people(1/3 the worlds population). I guess people can really trick themselves into worshiping air . I do believe that people have had religion since they started recording stuff and Judaism is one of the oldest. Dont forget that evolution is a theory and the fossil set that proves it is incomplete.
Can you truly tell me what historical evidence there is (besides the bible)?
Can you explain what "I guess people can really trick themselves into worshiping air" means? I really don't understand it.
Thanks for correcting me on the Christianity %.
You're absolutely right, Evolution is a theory, but think about all the evidence that backs it up. You're also right that the fossil record is incomplete (the record is the largest piece of evidence for evolution, but Google Galapogos Islands, finches, and Darwin and you'll see some more), but the link I posted shows that the gaps are being filled.
Everyone knows there was a guy named Jesus who did some weird things 2000 years ago, even most athiests. Do u really think our dates are based from an imaginary mans birth? Go to this site to get more of your questions answered http://christiananswers.net/jesus/home.html. "I guess people can really trick themselves into worshiping air" means that u think billions of people are worshiping some thing that isnt there. So they are talking to air when they pray and stuff.
Actually there is other historical evidence to say that Jesus did exist. He was arrested for practising Greek magic and he did say he was the son of God. There is however, no evidence of the resurection, (which is a strange thing to write on this day especially - it's Easter Monday here,) and no proof that he was ever the son of God.
He also had a brother, James, who I don't think liked that fact that his brother had many followers. He started doing the same thing, and was arrested and crucified just like his brother. This ocurrence seems to suggest that Jesus didn't die for humanity's sins, and that a resurrection hadn't shown them that Jesus was the son of God.
Chrisitians are starting to get evidence for their theories though. It's a new concept, as religeon and christianity lives within the age of answers, while us Athiests live in what is called modernity - the age of questions. Unfortunatly, most christian evidence stems from the Bible, which Athiests brush off as a work of fiction. I was thinking about what JaMDuDe wrote about te anchors having crosses on them. Pretty incredible that Noah knew about the Christian faith, the future existance of Christ and even his death by crusifiction to carve crosses in his anchors. Chiristians arn't the best at creating foolproof evidence yet I'm afraid.
I have a good friend who is very much a creationalist. He believes we all stemmed from Adam and Eve and that evoloution dosn't exist. I've had fun debating it with him, I know I'll never change his views and I don't try to, but it's interesting all the same. He believes that dinosaur bones and fossles and other things that can be carbondated are put there by God to test our faith. Interesting theory, but what evidence is there of that? I suppose it's all very easy to say "a computer works because it does" or "it's that way because a super-being made it so."
I'll close be describing one of God's 'tests' as shown in the Bible.
I'm not sure I would ever want to be a part of God's tests. I refer to a man called Job. Now, Job was an all round nice guy. He had built himself a good life, had a good and large family, successful buisiness many livestock and he was healthy. He worshipped the Lord and was a biblical Ned Flanders.
One day though, the Devil had a chat with God and said that Job was only a loyal Christian because everything went his way. God disagreed, so they made a little bet. First God took away his livestock. Job was still a good christian and believed his livestock had died because the Lord had a plan etc. Then God took away his wealth. Job was still God's little suck-up. Then on further promption, God also saw fit to KILL OFF JOB'S ENTIRE FAMILY! Job of course was upset, but still believed God to have his best interests in mind.
Lastly, God made sure Job was as sick as a dog. He had sores all over his body, was bedridden and near death. He had nothing. His friends tried to tell him that he must have done something to anger God, but Job wouldn't hear anything against his hero. But he of course began doubting at this stage while still near death. He asked why this had been done to him?
Now God finally offered somethng that wasn't a plague to Job. He talked to him and accused him of not believing that God had his best interests in mind. Job thought it fit to question the living Hell he was going through, and God scolded him!
Job though, as a plastic-willed man, never questioned God again. He eventually got well, and found himself a new family and earned all his wealth back. You can say that God 'gave them back to him' but that's also like some guy running over my Dog and then buying me a new one, it dosn't work like that.
So what was the purpose of Job's suffering again?
Oh that's right,
SO GOD COULD SETTLE A BET WITH HIS MATE!!
And people worship this guy?
More later I'm sure...
He also had a brother, James, who I don't think liked that fact that his brother had many followers. He started doing the same thing, and was arrested and crucified just like his brother. This ocurrence seems to suggest that Jesus didn't die for humanity's sins, and that a resurrection hadn't shown them that Jesus was the son of God.
Chrisitians are starting to get evidence for their theories though. It's a new concept, as religeon and christianity lives within the age of answers, while us Athiests live in what is called modernity - the age of questions. Unfortunatly, most christian evidence stems from the Bible, which Athiests brush off as a work of fiction. I was thinking about what JaMDuDe wrote about te anchors having crosses on them. Pretty incredible that Noah knew about the Christian faith, the future existance of Christ and even his death by crusifiction to carve crosses in his anchors. Chiristians arn't the best at creating foolproof evidence yet I'm afraid.
I have a good friend who is very much a creationalist. He believes we all stemmed from Adam and Eve and that evoloution dosn't exist. I've had fun debating it with him, I know I'll never change his views and I don't try to, but it's interesting all the same. He believes that dinosaur bones and fossles and other things that can be carbondated are put there by God to test our faith. Interesting theory, but what evidence is there of that? I suppose it's all very easy to say "a computer works because it does" or "it's that way because a super-being made it so."
I'll close be describing one of God's 'tests' as shown in the Bible.
I'm not sure I would ever want to be a part of God's tests. I refer to a man called Job. Now, Job was an all round nice guy. He had built himself a good life, had a good and large family, successful buisiness many livestock and he was healthy. He worshipped the Lord and was a biblical Ned Flanders.
One day though, the Devil had a chat with God and said that Job was only a loyal Christian because everything went his way. God disagreed, so they made a little bet. First God took away his livestock. Job was still a good christian and believed his livestock had died because the Lord had a plan etc. Then God took away his wealth. Job was still God's little suck-up. Then on further promption, God also saw fit to KILL OFF JOB'S ENTIRE FAMILY! Job of course was upset, but still believed God to have his best interests in mind.
Lastly, God made sure Job was as sick as a dog. He had sores all over his body, was bedridden and near death. He had nothing. His friends tried to tell him that he must have done something to anger God, but Job wouldn't hear anything against his hero. But he of course began doubting at this stage while still near death. He asked why this had been done to him?
Now God finally offered somethng that wasn't a plague to Job. He talked to him and accused him of not believing that God had his best interests in mind. Job thought it fit to question the living Hell he was going through, and God scolded him!
Job though, as a plastic-willed man, never questioned God again. He eventually got well, and found himself a new family and earned all his wealth back. You can say that God 'gave them back to him' but that's also like some guy running over my Dog and then buying me a new one, it dosn't work like that.
So what was the purpose of Job's suffering again?
Oh that's right,
SO GOD COULD SETTLE A BET WITH HIS MATE!!
And people worship this guy?
More later I'm sure...
[Blinking eyes thing]
Steam: http://steamcommunity.com/id/tzyon
Steam: http://steamcommunity.com/id/tzyon
No he was testing jobs faith, not because of a bet. I never said i had any evidence that the anchors were real, i just said that they are there. For the carbon dating heres the christian scientific explanation http://christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c007.html but you probably will say its all bias and not true.
There is very strong evidence that Jesus existed.Daysniper wrote:
The universe was formed about 11 billion years ago in the:
BIG BANG!!!
The moon was likely created when a mars size object smashed into the liqiud earth (AKA the splash theory)
The first lifevorms were either bacteria or viruses.
Life evolved from there:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12227766/site/newsweek/ (the most recent example)
Humans evolved from apes in southern Africa (or maybe Asia?) and spread across the world.
Religion developed some time later
The original religions had multiple gods (so don't use the argument "god must exist because every civilization has believed in him") to explain their natural surroundings.
Judaism came to be
Jesus (if he existed AKA- no historical evidence) was a Jew. He couldn't be Christian.
Christianity took over as the world's "biggest" (not in numbers--I believe that belongs to Buhdaism (correct me if I'm wrong, please) religion.
Christianity "evolved" into to sections: Catholicism and Protestantism.
The Protestants came to America (mostly the Puritans) looking for freedom of religion, and yet somehow, 300 someodd years later, there is a Christian on this forum (well, multiple ones) trying to convert everyone and turn them into evangelicals (if they are already Christian)
That is the timeline
PS--I apologize to all the Christians on this forum who do not try to "spread their message" quite so loudly. As in Spark, mcminty, Skruples...
Don't get me wrong JaMDuDe... I'm sure you are a very nice person, and I'm sure you would be a great friend (I have a friend who is exactly like you), just save it for Church, please.
Roman records called a man called Jesus (or Joshua, as he was properly known) was crucified for treason in 32AD (at least I think it's 32)
Can you debunk the other 14 dating techniques then?No he was testing jobs faith, not because of a bet. I never said i had any evidence that the anchors were real, i just said that they are there. For the carbon dating heres the christian scientific explanation http://christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c007.html but you probably will say its all bias and not true.
Also, can you back up these assertions, given that the MOST RELIABLE DATES ARE TAKEN FROM METEORITES?
http://www.answersincreation.org/question.htm
THE BIBLE MAKES NO CLAIM AS TO THE AGE OF THE EARTH.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
Of the methods that have been used to estimate the age of the earth, 90 percent point to an age far less than the billions of years asserted by evolutionists. A few of them follow.
Evidence for a rapid formation of geological strata, as in the biblical flood. Some of the evidences are: lack of erosion between rock layers supposedly separated in age by many millions of years; lack of disturbance of rock strata by biological activity (worms, roots, etc.); lack of soil layers; polystrate fossils (which traverse several rock layers vertically -- these could not have stood vertically for eons of time while they slowly got buried); thick layers of "rock" bent without fracturing, indicating that the rock was all soft when bent; and more. For more, see books by geologists Morris[26] and Austin.[27]
Red blood cells and hemoglobin have been found in some (unfossilized!) dinosaur bone. But these could not last more than a few thousand years -- certainly not the 65 Ma since the last dinosaurs lived, according to evolutionists.[28]
The earth's magnetic field has been decaying so fast that it looks like it is less than 10,000 years old. Rapid reversals during the flood year and fluctuations shortly after would have caused the field energy to drop even faster.[29]
Radioactive decay releases helium into the atmosphere, but not much is escaping. The total amount in the atmosphere is 1/2000th of that expected if the universe is really billions of years old. This helium originally escaped from rocks. This happens quite fast, yet so much helium is still in some rocks that it has not had time to escape -- certainly not billions of years.[30]
A supernova is an explosion of a massive star -- the explosion is so bright that it briefly outshines the rest of the galaxy. The supernova remnants (SNRs) should keep expanding for hundreds of thousands of years, according to physical equations. Yet there are no very old, widely expanded (Stage 3) SNRs, and few moderately old (Stage 1) ones in our galaxy, the Milky Way, or in its satellite galaxies, the Magellanic Clouds. This is just what we would expect for "young" galaxies that have not existed long enough for wide expansion.[31]
The moon is slowly receding for the earth at about 4 centimeters (1.5 inches) per year, and this rate would have been greater in the past. But even if the moon had started receding from being in contact with the earth, it would have taken only 1.37 billion years to reach its present distance from the earth. This gives a maximum age of the moon, not the actual age. This is far too young for evolutionists who claim the moon is 4.6 billion years old. It is also much younger than the radiometric "dates" assigned to moon rocks.[32]
Salt is entering the sea much faster than it is escaping. The sea is not nearly salty enough for this to have been happening for billions of years. Even granting generous assumptions to evolutionists, the sea could not be more than 62 Ma years old -- far younger than the billions of years believed by the evolutionists. Again, this indicates a maximum age, not the actual age.[33]
Theres evidence for it and against it.
Evidence for a rapid formation of geological strata, as in the biblical flood. Some of the evidences are: lack of erosion between rock layers supposedly separated in age by many millions of years; lack of disturbance of rock strata by biological activity (worms, roots, etc.); lack of soil layers; polystrate fossils (which traverse several rock layers vertically -- these could not have stood vertically for eons of time while they slowly got buried); thick layers of "rock" bent without fracturing, indicating that the rock was all soft when bent; and more. For more, see books by geologists Morris[26] and Austin.[27]
Red blood cells and hemoglobin have been found in some (unfossilized!) dinosaur bone. But these could not last more than a few thousand years -- certainly not the 65 Ma since the last dinosaurs lived, according to evolutionists.[28]
The earth's magnetic field has been decaying so fast that it looks like it is less than 10,000 years old. Rapid reversals during the flood year and fluctuations shortly after would have caused the field energy to drop even faster.[29]
Radioactive decay releases helium into the atmosphere, but not much is escaping. The total amount in the atmosphere is 1/2000th of that expected if the universe is really billions of years old. This helium originally escaped from rocks. This happens quite fast, yet so much helium is still in some rocks that it has not had time to escape -- certainly not billions of years.[30]
A supernova is an explosion of a massive star -- the explosion is so bright that it briefly outshines the rest of the galaxy. The supernova remnants (SNRs) should keep expanding for hundreds of thousands of years, according to physical equations. Yet there are no very old, widely expanded (Stage 3) SNRs, and few moderately old (Stage 1) ones in our galaxy, the Milky Way, or in its satellite galaxies, the Magellanic Clouds. This is just what we would expect for "young" galaxies that have not existed long enough for wide expansion.[31]
The moon is slowly receding for the earth at about 4 centimeters (1.5 inches) per year, and this rate would have been greater in the past. But even if the moon had started receding from being in contact with the earth, it would have taken only 1.37 billion years to reach its present distance from the earth. This gives a maximum age of the moon, not the actual age. This is far too young for evolutionists who claim the moon is 4.6 billion years old. It is also much younger than the radiometric "dates" assigned to moon rocks.[32]
Salt is entering the sea much faster than it is escaping. The sea is not nearly salty enough for this to have been happening for billions of years. Even granting generous assumptions to evolutionists, the sea could not be more than 62 Ma years old -- far younger than the billions of years believed by the evolutionists. Again, this indicates a maximum age, not the actual age.[33]
Theres evidence for it and against it.
Do you honestly believe everything you read on that page? Can you not understand that much of what those people say is blatantly false? For God's sake the second paragraph on that page you linked is:JaMDuDe wrote:
No he was testing jobs faith, not because of a bet. I never said i had any evidence that the anchors were real, i just said that they are there. For the carbon dating heres the christian scientific explanation http://christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c007.html but you probably will say its all bias and not true.
Anything that contradicts the bible is a threat to these people, and they're willing to do anything to reconcile the bible and science into their viewpoint. That website is not a reliable source of information!Clearly, such huge time periods cannot be fitted into the Bible without compromising what the Bible says about the goodness of God and the origin of sin, death and suffering -- the reason Jesus came into the world (See Six Days? Honestly!).
If carbon dating was really as inaccurate as that website says, I'm pretty sure the academic and scientific community would have caught on by this point and realized as much. Do scientists have anything to lose if carbon dating is not as accurate as they thought? Is their entire perception of reality riding on the validity of carbon dating? No. The same cannot be said for the answersingenesis or christiananswers websites.
[boring]They have it wrong on the site. You can date Volcanic rocks and the like, it's not just from livng things. Carbon is in everything, if you burn a match the left-over black stuff is carbon. carbon is not simply Carbon-Dioxide.
Also, they go on to say that the Genesis flood would have altered the carbon-dating process. That's including fictitious and non-fictitious evidence in the same damn sentance, and science dosn't work that way.
But no, you are right, carbon-dating and other dating methods arn't fool-proof, but they do tend to give more solid evidence then some words in an old book.
Also, they start mixing up their arguments. They say that evoloutionists believe that the moon is just over 4 billion years old, and then argue that carbon-dating puts it at around only one billion. "Ha ha, they were wrong, (but wait did I just argue that everything that exists only came about in the last 6,000 years? Oh well, hopefully people won't remember that far back.") It's fairly obvious that Christian Science and Science are two very different things.
Sorry, but I'm not an idiot, (although I can do a rather good impression.)
Okay, enough of that.
I tend to not simply base my arguments on putting up walls of disbelief. I try not to anyway.[/boring]
As for Job, yes it is accepted that God was testing Job's faith, not simply prooving a point to the Devil or settling a bet or whatever I wrote, but I think you're blind if you can't see that God was being cruel. He 'tested' Job until he cracked, and it took a lot of punishment.
Other people say that God was influenced by the Devil, and I tend to agree but if an all powerful divinity can be influenced so easily by evil, than I'm going to start being a bloody Satanist!
It is one of my own theories however, that in Christianity there is no Devil. I think that he was created by dissatisfied Christians who forced themself to refuse the fact that God wasn't the nice guy we're all supposed to believe He is. When Athiests like myself like to say to Christians things like "If God is so great why did He kill all those people in the Tsunami," or "If He's so great why is there still hunger in Africa?" A Christian brushes these remarks off with "That was the work of the Devil, not God."
It's obvious to me that this is simply another block that Christians have put up to protect themselves and their interests. I suppose you wouldn't get to be a 2000 year old faith if you wern't smart enough to do this. Who would want continual worship of a God that likes using his divine magnifying glass on all the little people to make that popping noise that's so cool when they explode? So we have Satan, and God is left with an untarnished reputation. It's like a murderer accusing his imaginary twin brother Stan of committing the murder he is charged for.
Because, of course, faith was to priests and whatnot, an income. In the pre-modernist period, the Church ruled. It was the first international corporation, and like a present corporation, it had ways of protecting it's interests. THAT'S why it's impossible to win a debate with a christian, (not for want of trying,) because they hold all the cards and have done so for 2000 years. If there is anything, like independant thought differing from the Bible, to tarnish that reputation there is a way to stop it. It's what I like most about Christianity, they're sly bastards, and yes I do think that quite a few church leaders did not believe in God and were only in it for the power and money.
My accusations arn't groundless, My Aunt, Uncle and three Cousins are born-again christians. They are in this kooky faith where they go to one of those places and throw your hands up in the air and shout 'AMEN' after the guy up front yelling at you pauses to take a drink of water. It's the stuff you see on TV, REALLY in to it with christian music and pyrotechnics - showcasing in short. The money involved in that as you can see is incredible, and it is funded by the faithful.
I spoke with the guy who runs my Aunt and Uncle's service. He has basicly set up a church all by himself. I told him it was amazing that his faith could do so much.
"Oh I don't believe," he said, "I just find happiness giving faith and hope to others."
Yeah fucken right, and the $100 you get from each of them with the collection plate and the 10% you dock off the household income has nothing to do with it does it you bastard.
So forgive me for being cynical, but I have my reasons.
Also, they go on to say that the Genesis flood would have altered the carbon-dating process. That's including fictitious and non-fictitious evidence in the same damn sentance, and science dosn't work that way.
But no, you are right, carbon-dating and other dating methods arn't fool-proof, but they do tend to give more solid evidence then some words in an old book.
Also, they start mixing up their arguments. They say that evoloutionists believe that the moon is just over 4 billion years old, and then argue that carbon-dating puts it at around only one billion. "Ha ha, they were wrong, (but wait did I just argue that everything that exists only came about in the last 6,000 years? Oh well, hopefully people won't remember that far back.") It's fairly obvious that Christian Science and Science are two very different things.
Sorry, but I'm not an idiot, (although I can do a rather good impression.)
Okay, enough of that.
I tend to not simply base my arguments on putting up walls of disbelief. I try not to anyway.[/boring]
As for Job, yes it is accepted that God was testing Job's faith, not simply prooving a point to the Devil or settling a bet or whatever I wrote, but I think you're blind if you can't see that God was being cruel. He 'tested' Job until he cracked, and it took a lot of punishment.
Other people say that God was influenced by the Devil, and I tend to agree but if an all powerful divinity can be influenced so easily by evil, than I'm going to start being a bloody Satanist!
It is one of my own theories however, that in Christianity there is no Devil. I think that he was created by dissatisfied Christians who forced themself to refuse the fact that God wasn't the nice guy we're all supposed to believe He is. When Athiests like myself like to say to Christians things like "If God is so great why did He kill all those people in the Tsunami," or "If He's so great why is there still hunger in Africa?" A Christian brushes these remarks off with "That was the work of the Devil, not God."
It's obvious to me that this is simply another block that Christians have put up to protect themselves and their interests. I suppose you wouldn't get to be a 2000 year old faith if you wern't smart enough to do this. Who would want continual worship of a God that likes using his divine magnifying glass on all the little people to make that popping noise that's so cool when they explode? So we have Satan, and God is left with an untarnished reputation. It's like a murderer accusing his imaginary twin brother Stan of committing the murder he is charged for.
Because, of course, faith was to priests and whatnot, an income. In the pre-modernist period, the Church ruled. It was the first international corporation, and like a present corporation, it had ways of protecting it's interests. THAT'S why it's impossible to win a debate with a christian, (not for want of trying,) because they hold all the cards and have done so for 2000 years. If there is anything, like independant thought differing from the Bible, to tarnish that reputation there is a way to stop it. It's what I like most about Christianity, they're sly bastards, and yes I do think that quite a few church leaders did not believe in God and were only in it for the power and money.
My accusations arn't groundless, My Aunt, Uncle and three Cousins are born-again christians. They are in this kooky faith where they go to one of those places and throw your hands up in the air and shout 'AMEN' after the guy up front yelling at you pauses to take a drink of water. It's the stuff you see on TV, REALLY in to it with christian music and pyrotechnics - showcasing in short. The money involved in that as you can see is incredible, and it is funded by the faithful.
I spoke with the guy who runs my Aunt and Uncle's service. He has basicly set up a church all by himself. I told him it was amazing that his faith could do so much.
"Oh I don't believe," he said, "I just find happiness giving faith and hope to others."
Yeah fucken right, and the $100 you get from each of them with the collection plate and the 10% you dock off the household income has nothing to do with it does it you bastard.
So forgive me for being cynical, but I have my reasons.
[Blinking eyes thing]
Steam: http://steamcommunity.com/id/tzyon
Steam: http://steamcommunity.com/id/tzyon
you almost had me gasping there. i thought you were gonna say the humans mated with horses. hey wait a minute, does that have anything to do with your username?Horseman 77 wrote:
These people knew very little about genetics, And Ya incest was common. In fact It was the horse again that came to the rescue. Mounted people could travel 12 to 26 miles with ease and this made for larger ( better ) gene pools. People " just started getting smarter once their culture adapted the horse", till then we were all liberals more than likely.
Nice copy and paste.JaMDuDe wrote:
Of the methods that have been used to estimate the age of the earth, 90 percent point to an age far less than the billions of years asserted by evolutionists. A few of them follow.
Evidence for a rapid formation of geological strata, as in the biblical flood. Some of the evidences are: lack of erosion between rock layers supposedly separated in age by many millions of years; lack of disturbance of rock strata by biological activity (worms, roots, etc.); lack of soil layers; polystrate fossils (which traverse several rock layers vertically -- these could not have stood vertically for eons of time while they slowly got buried); thick layers of "rock" bent without fracturing, indicating that the rock was all soft when bent; and more. For more, see books by geologists Morris[26] and Austin.[27]
Red blood cells and hemoglobin have been found in some (unfossilized!) dinosaur bone. But these could not last more than a few thousand years -- certainly not the 65 Ma since the last dinosaurs lived, according to evolutionists.[28]
The earth's magnetic field has been decaying so fast that it looks like it is less than 10,000 years old. Rapid reversals during the flood year and fluctuations shortly after would have caused the field energy to drop even faster.[29]
Radioactive decay releases helium into the atmosphere, but not much is escaping. The total amount in the atmosphere is 1/2000th of that expected if the universe is really billions of years old. This helium originally escaped from rocks. This happens quite fast, yet so much helium is still in some rocks that it has not had time to escape -- certainly not billions of years.[30]
A supernova is an explosion of a massive star -- the explosion is so bright that it briefly outshines the rest of the galaxy. The supernova remnants (SNRs) should keep expanding for hundreds of thousands of years, according to physical equations. Yet there are no very old, widely expanded (Stage 3) SNRs, and few moderately old (Stage 1) ones in our galaxy, the Milky Way, or in its satellite galaxies, the Magellanic Clouds. This is just what we would expect for "young" galaxies that have not existed long enough for wide expansion.[31]
The moon is slowly receding for the earth at about 4 centimeters (1.5 inches) per year, and this rate would have been greater in the past. But even if the moon had started receding from being in contact with the earth, it would have taken only 1.37 billion years to reach its present distance from the earth. This gives a maximum age of the moon, not the actual age. This is far too young for evolutionists who claim the moon is 4.6 billion years old. It is also much younger than the radiometric "dates" assigned to moon rocks.[32]
Salt is entering the sea much faster than it is escaping. The sea is not nearly salty enough for this to have been happening for billions of years. Even granting generous assumptions to evolutionists, the sea could not be more than 62 Ma years old -- far younger than the billions of years believed by the evolutionists. Again, this indicates a maximum age, not the actual age.[33]
Theres evidence for it and against it.
Salt in the sea - I've already explained this. You seem to have forgotten, though.
Moon rocks - Then give me a plausible scenario. The radiometric dating thing is a redundant argument because the surface has been pulverized many times over by rocks and stuff. Did God create the moon? Yes? Then why?
SNRs - Gravity, over such a massive object, is a very powerful force. Don't forget that. By know those SNRs would have condensed into small stars. Anyway, the MERE FACT that there ARE supernovas IS evidence that the universe is old!
Helium - Helium is an inert gas. It does not react. Inert materials tend not to bond very well with other materials and therefore is VERY difficult to find. You are criticizing something that is nowhere NEAR completion.
The magnetic field - The magnetic field DOES reverse and has done so MANY times over the last few billion years. However this, again, is evidence for an Old Earth. You also are making the most liberal of assumptions here. Very dangerous and untrue beyond all reasonable doubt. If the magnetic field did reverse at that time, then Noah would be fried (Macdonald's style). Magnetic events may be responsible for the many not-so-massive extinctions that dot Earth's history.
Red blood cells - The fact that they are UNFOSSILIZED debunks this. Wouldn't some random animal just have contaminated it, by chance, at any time? Humans, for example?
Strata - You are forgetting just how BIG the earth is. I would need to see that this is true EVERYWHERE, and clearly it is not. You are also forgetting how many other external factors influence this.
Above all, you are forgetting that scientists probably identified and countered these problems YEARS ago.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
You can say anything isnt true. Theres not point to arguing it cause after i reply youll say another thing that "proves" them all wrong. I doubt your a scientist and have studied all of these things and know them all by heart, your probably a normal person who doesnt want to admit a young earth so u use anything u can find against these things.
You explained how the sea salt was cleaned out of the ocean, they studied the rate the salt entered and escaped from the ocean, not just how much was going in.
They wouldnt put things that scientists proved wrong years ago on their site as proof.
You explained how the sea salt was cleaned out of the ocean, they studied the rate the salt entered and escaped from the ocean, not just how much was going in.
They wouldnt put things that scientists proved wrong years ago on their site as proof.
You would be suprised. You would be very suprised.JaMDuDe wrote:
You can say anything isnt true. Theres not point to arguing it cause after i reply youll say another thing that "proves" them all wrong. I doubt your a scientist and have studied all of these things and know them all by heart, your probably a normal person who doesnt want to admit a young earth so u use anything u can find against these things.
You explained how the sea salt was cleaned out of the ocean, they studied the rate the salt entered and escaped from the ocean, not just how much was going in.
They wouldnt put things that scientists proved wrong years ago on their site as proof.
Can you give me a reference to this study? I want to see that it was carried out by SCIENTISTS.
You have not answered any of my arguments.
You simply brush them off and assert your dominance.
IF I AM WRONG, SHOW ME HOW!
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
JaMDuDe, you seem to think that scientists are one entity as God is.
The thing with science is this: As Isaac Newton once said "If I have seen further, it is because I have stood on the shoulders of Giants."
Science develops with new technology and new evidence, but religeon stays the same, it HAS TO stay the same, as if it didn't it would loose all credibility, (what remains anyway.)
We all once thought the earth was flat, but open minded people can re-think things and we know that's a load of bullshit. If in the Bible it said that "God made the Earth flat, so all his creatures would not fall off," would Christians still refuse to believe the earth was round? What would happen if the Bible was wrong about this one thing? Would it mean other things were wrong?
But the Bible, or at least the versions of the Bible we're familliar with, does not refer to the World being flat, BUT it does dismiss Evoloution. Evoloution is accepted by most open minded people, there is as much evidence towards it as there is evidence that the world is round, but creationalists simply do not believe in it! Makes you think that if the Bible said the world was flat, would there still be people scared of falling off the edge? Would seeing a round planet from space be an optical illusional test of God's to test our faith?
Hard to tell isn't it.
The thing with science is this: As Isaac Newton once said "If I have seen further, it is because I have stood on the shoulders of Giants."
Science develops with new technology and new evidence, but religeon stays the same, it HAS TO stay the same, as if it didn't it would loose all credibility, (what remains anyway.)
We all once thought the earth was flat, but open minded people can re-think things and we know that's a load of bullshit. If in the Bible it said that "God made the Earth flat, so all his creatures would not fall off," would Christians still refuse to believe the earth was round? What would happen if the Bible was wrong about this one thing? Would it mean other things were wrong?
But the Bible, or at least the versions of the Bible we're familliar with, does not refer to the World being flat, BUT it does dismiss Evoloution. Evoloution is accepted by most open minded people, there is as much evidence towards it as there is evidence that the world is round, but creationalists simply do not believe in it! Makes you think that if the Bible said the world was flat, would there still be people scared of falling off the edge? Would seeing a round planet from space be an optical illusional test of God's to test our faith?
Hard to tell isn't it.
Last edited by Tyferra (2006-04-16 20:08:48)
[Blinking eyes thing]
Steam: http://steamcommunity.com/id/tzyon
Steam: http://steamcommunity.com/id/tzyon
This christian science crap is for the birds. People who take this as fact really need to elighten themselves. In the bible, it says that God took 6 days to make the universe, animals and all. Nowhere does it say how long a "day" was to god. Why would god establish a whole series of rules..physics, nature, etc. And then disregard them by just willing things into existence. It seems to me that evolutionism and the long formation of the world was gods plan........
Is the match made of wood or rock?Tyferra wrote:
[boring]They have it wrong on the site. You can date Volcanic rocks and the like, it's not just from livng things. Carbon is in everything, if you burn a match the left-over black stuff is carbon. carbon is not simply Carbon-Dioxide.
"Carbon-14 is not appropriate for rocks because it must involve organic carbon. Rocks are made of minerals that are by definition inorganic.
"With 14C, we can only calculate the age of something that was once living (contains organic carbon). Since (most) rocks were never alive, we can't use this to date a rock.
"The half life of 14C is geologically short -- 5730 years -- and is therefore not useful for materials older than about 35,000 years. That's well over 4 billion years of geologic history that we can't touch."
From:
http://serc.carleton.edu/quantskills/me … Decay.html
He didn't crack... he never wavered either. And for that, God gave him more than he had.Tyferra wrote:
He 'tested' Job until he cracked, and it took a lot of punishment.
Other people say that God was influenced by the Devil, and I tend to agree but if an all powerful divinity can be influenced so easily by evil, than I'm going to start being a bloody Satanist!
MT 4:1 Then Jesus was led by the Spirit into the desert to be tempted by the devil.Tyferra wrote:
It is one of my own theories however, that in Christianity there is no Devil. I think that he was created by dissatisfied Christians who forced themself to refuse the fact that God wasn't the nice guy we're all supposed to believe He is.
For a moment there I thought you'd be a good god. But then I found:Tyferra wrote:
When Athiests like myself like to say to Christians things like "If God is so great why did He kill all those people in the Tsunami," or "If He's so great why is there still hunger in Africa?" A Christian brushes these remarks off with "That was the work of the Devil, not God."
ISA 55:8 "For my thoughts are not your thoughts,
neither are your ways my ways,"
declares the LORD.
ISA 55:9 "As the heavens are higher than the earth,
so are my ways higher than your ways
and my thoughts than your thoughts.
Why do you insist that God has to do your will? Why do you assume that the people you talk to know the answers without reading the Bible. It's like saying 'yes evolution is real' without looking at any of the evidence... oh wait.. you do that too. You're consistent at least. And it is clearly written that God punishes those who refuse to obey Him. Jews into exile, Egyptians first born killed... etc.
If you truly sought the truth you will find it. Stop asking others and seek for yourself. It does, however, require putting down BF2 and a lot of reading.Tyferra wrote:
It's obvious to me that this is simply another block that Christians have put up to protect themselves and their interests. I suppose you wouldn't get to be a 2000 year old faith if you wern't smart enough to do this. Who would want continual worship of a God that likes using his divine magnifying glass on all the little people to make that popping noise that's so cool when they explode? So we have Satan, and God is left with an untarnished reputation. It's like a murderer accusing his imaginary twin brother Stan of committing the murder he is charged for.
Don't confuse catholism with Christianity. Catholism added the priest structure and the like. In the Bible, Christ is head of the Church and not the pope.Tyferra wrote:
Because, of course, faith was to priests and whatnot, an income. In the pre-modernist period, the Church ruled. It was the first international corporation, and like a present corporation, it had ways of protecting it's interests.
I'll tell what is 'sly', teaching evolution as fact. I've heard that Hitler sent his propagandist to the US to learn how to indoctrine their population with lies. They found the answer in our schools.Tyferra wrote:
THAT'S why it's impossible to win a debate with a christian, (not for want of trying,) because they hold all the cards and have done so for 2000 years. If there is anything, like independant thought differing from the Bible, to tarnish that reputation there is a way to stop it. It's what I like most about Christianity, they're sly bastards, and yes I do think that quite a few church leaders did not believe in God and were only in it for the power and money.
Groundless they are. Not everybody who claims to be a Christian is one. For example, read about the Pharisees and Sadducees and see how they put on a show for the people and didn't really follow Judaism.Tyferra wrote:
My accusations arn't groundless, My Aunt, Uncle and three Cousins are born-again christians. They are in this kooky faith where they go to one of those places and throw your hands up in the air and shout 'AMEN' after the guy up front yelling at you pauses to take a drink of water. It's the stuff you see on TV, REALLY in to it with christian music and pyrotechnics - showcasing in short. The money involved in that as you can see is incredible, and it is funded by the faithful.
I spoke with the guy who runs my Aunt and Uncle's service. He has basicly set up a church all by himself. I told him it was amazing that his faith could do so much.
"Oh I don't believe," he said, "I just find happiness giving faith and hope to others."
Yeah fucken right, and the $100 you get from each of them with the collection plate and the 10% you dock off the household income has nothing to do with it does it you bastard.
So forgive me for being cynical, but I have my reasons.
Ladies and Gents,
I think we can all safely ssay that this argument sunk a long time ago.
Time to quit fishing.
I think we can all safely ssay that this argument sunk a long time ago.
Time to quit fishing.
Read this.Spark wrote:
You would be suprised. You would be very suprised.JaMDuDe wrote:
You can say anything isnt true. Theres not point to arguing it cause after i reply youll say another thing that "proves" them all wrong. I doubt your a scientist and have studied all of these things and know them all by heart, your probably a normal person who doesnt want to admit a young earth so u use anything u can find against these things.
You explained how the sea salt was cleaned out of the ocean, they studied the rate the salt entered and escaped from the ocean, not just how much was going in.
They wouldnt put things that scientists proved wrong years ago on their site as proof.
Can you give me a reference to this study? I want to see that it was carried out by SCIENTISTS.
You have not answered any of my arguments.
You simply brush them off and assert your dominance.
IF I AM WRONG, SHOW ME HOW!
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB … 20MainPage
Summary: Darwin talked out of his butt.
"Darwinian evolution is plainly unavailing in this exercise or that era, since Darwinian evolution begins with self-replication, and self-replication is precisely what needs to be explained."
"If chemistry is unavailing and Darwin indisposed, what is left as a mechanism? The evolutionary biologist’s finest friend: sheer dumb luck."
"Was nature lucky? It depends on the payoff and the odds. The payoff is clear: an ancestral form of RNA capable of replication. Without that payoff, there is no life, and obviously, at some point, the payoff paid off. The question is the odds."
Carbon dating may not be accurate when looking geologic time, but other radiometric dating techniques are not constrained by the relatively short life of carbon-14. This was taken from the wikipedia page on radiometric datingwannabe_tank_whore wrote:
Is the match made of wood or rock?
"Carbon-14 is not appropriate for rocks because it must involve organic carbon. Rocks are made of minerals that are by definition inorganic.
"With 14C, we can only calculate the age of something that was once living (contains organic carbon). Since (most) rocks were never alive, we can't use this to date a rock.
"The half life of 14C is geologically short -- 5730 years -- and is therefore not useful for materials older than about 35,000 years. That's well over 4 billion years of geologic history that we can't touch."
From:
http://serc.carleton.edu/quantskills/me … Decay.html
I read some pages denouncing radiometric dating as unreliable, but suprise suprise they were all written by creationists. Besides which, even if the dating techniques are unreliable, they would have to be unreliable by a factor of a few thousand to account for a Creationist timeline. After all, any date older than 6 or 7 thousand years directly contradicts Creationist doctrine, unless of course God has just arranged for things to look older than they really are, which cannot be discounted.Uranium-lead dating is usually performed on the mineral "zircon" (ZrSiO4), though it can be used on other materials. Zircon incorporates uranium atoms into its crystalline structure as substitutes for zirconium, but strongly rejects lead. It has a very high blocking temperature, is resistant to mechanical weathering and is very chemically inert. Zircon also forms multiple crystal layers during metamorphic events, which each may record an isotopic age of the event. These can be dated by a SHRIMP ion microprobe.
One of its great advantages is that any sample provides two clocks, one based on uranium-235's decay to lead-207 with a half-life of about 700 million years, and one based on uranium-238's decay to lead-206 with a half-life of about 4.5 billion years, providing a built-in crosscheck that allows accurate determination of the age of the sample even if some of the lead has been lost.
I'm glad to see you're using reliable sources though.
What, pray, do you understand by evolution?wannabe_tank_whore wrote:
Read this.Spark wrote:
You would be suprised. You would be very suprised.JaMDuDe wrote:
You can say anything isnt true. Theres not point to arguing it cause after i reply youll say another thing that "proves" them all wrong. I doubt your a scientist and have studied all of these things and know them all by heart, your probably a normal person who doesnt want to admit a young earth so u use anything u can find against these things.
You explained how the sea salt was cleaned out of the ocean, they studied the rate the salt entered and escaped from the ocean, not just how much was going in.
They wouldnt put things that scientists proved wrong years ago on their site as proof.
Can you give me a reference to this study? I want to see that it was carried out by SCIENTISTS.
You have not answered any of my arguments.
You simply brush them off and assert your dominance.
IF I AM WRONG, SHOW ME HOW!
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB … 20MainPage
Summary: Darwin talked out of his butt.
"Darwinian evolution is plainly unavailing in this exercise or that era, since Darwinian evolution begins with self-replication, and self-replication is precisely what needs to be explained."
"If chemistry is unavailing and Darwin indisposed, what is left as a mechanism? The evolutionary biologist’s finest friend: sheer dumb luck."
"Was nature lucky? It depends on the payoff and the odds. The payoff is clear: an ancestral form of RNA capable of replication. Without that payoff, there is no life, and obviously, at some point, the payoff paid off. The question is the odds."
Do you understand the concept f natural selection?
Do you understand that most organisms are not identical? (except bacteria, which are ALMOST always identical)
Do you understand how one of those mutations could give an organism an advantage?
If evolution is not correct, why do we have so many different NEW strains of bacteria, viruses coming up?
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
Do you guys know any evidence to support your theories besides the Bible and Christian websites?
Seconded.Daysniper wrote:
Do you guys know any evidence to support your theories besides the Bible and Christian websites?
Just change 'Christian' to 'Young Earth Creationist'
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
On topic: If it is proving that it is an ark of sorts to a plausable size and has evidence that it once carryed multiple specices of animals then yes i will rethink my life but wont go to church or hail mary etc. as there will be l;ogical answers becauses we have evolved and understand more than a bunch of bias narrowminded crap published in a book of propganda writen ONLY by Men
Thankyou.XanKrieger wrote:
On topic: If it is proving that it is an ark of sorts to a plausable size and has evidence that it once carryed multiple specices of animals then yes i will rethink my life but wont go to church or hail mary etc. as there will be l;ogical answers becauses we have evolved and understand more than a bunch of bias narrowminded crap published in a book of propganda writen ONLY by Men
Back off topic.
This is a good debate here.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
Who else would u want to write the book? I doubt you would believe the bible if it was supposed to be written by God. It wasnt just normal people who wrote the bible for fun, it was written by people who devouted their entire life to God. They were lead by God on what to write.