LinkBack URL
About LinkBacksright it does double duty. the fossil record does not prove evolution or pangeaSomething that corroborates that is the fossil evidence
science is being used to create fairy tales because the secularists do not want to believe the Bible
right it does double duty. the fossil record does not prove evolution or pangeaSomething that corroborates that is the fossil evidence
science is being used to create fairy tales because the secularists do not want to believe the Bible
This coming from someone who interprets the Bible like a fairy tale and pretends it is a science textbook. Which is the fairy tale? The one with talking snake, magic fruit, golems of dust and flesh, giants and a magical power of command, OR the explanation of variation and natural selection corroborated by fossil and genetic studies as well as documented observations of species and repeatable experiments evolving microbes?Originally Posted by archaeologist
Mitchel... I love you man...This coming from someone who interprets the Bible like a fairy tale and pretends it is a science textbook. Which is the fairy tale? The one with talking snake, magic fruit, golems of dust and flesh, giants and a magical power of command, OR the explanation of variation and natural selection corroborated by fossil and genetic studies as well as documented observations of species and repeatable experiments evolving microbes?
In a .. friends.. sort of way.
what did sherlock holmes say about clearing away all the lies and what remains no matter how improbable is the truth? well when you clear away the lies of evolution and evolutionary science what remains is the truth of Genesis 1 and creation.The one with talking snake, magic fruit, golems of dust and flesh, giants and a magical power of command, OR the explanation of variation and natural selection corroborated by fossil and genetic studies as well as documented observations of species and repeatable experiments evolving microbes?
the tale being constructed by evolutionists is far more out there than you claim the Bible to be. not one piece of 'evidence' proclaimed by evolutionists omits other alternatives and definitively makes evolution the only way things could take place.
in fact creation is so far outside the scope of secular science that man is unable to get it right because they see the truth but attribute it to a lie.
yes, and from the evidence, we can deduct that man is related to apes, and evolution is true, no matter how "improbable" it might seem for you.
talk about quote-mining. do you evade taxes too?
this isn't even an argument, its just you trying to force your retarded ideas on other people.
you're fucking OWNED. you've dug yourself up to your nose in a shitpile of ownage.
there's MOUNTAINS upon MOUNTAINS of evidence for evolution, google "dinosaurs, evolution of (insert animal), cretaceous, carboniferous science, scientific method etc.
and don't come back until you've read ALL OF IT.
and hopefully we won't see you here for a couple of years.
also, the fossil record doesn't record thousands, but MILLIONS of fossils.
you can start here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YpJH6cLPcvI
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiological_dating
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1920gi3swe4
i'm sure you've heard of something called "radioactivity"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactivity
radioactivity can be measured with a geiger counter.
however, its not just those very heavy elements that are radioactive, all matter is radioactive, to lesser or larger degrees.
this is undeniable fact. if you fail to establish this as fact, you might as well deny that we ever invented nukes.
radiological dating works on this principle.
also, here's a list of half-lifes of various elements:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...s_by_half-life
oh and you might want to know how the scientists has found and calculated these half lifes?
put simply, they've put the element in a box, and measured how many times the geiger counter has "clicked" during a certain time period.
in some cases they've put that element in a box for 10-20 years, or even longer,
counting the clicks. and such, the radiometric dating system improves.
okay, I'm still on where the water went... because:
1. ice is LESS dense than water, and would therefore take up MORE room (notice, ice Floats in your glass of water), so thats complete bull as a storage device to decrease sea level, so ice caps and glaciers are bunked.
2. if the water went somewhere else, assuming it did not magically leave the planet, we could find it, as drowsy turtle pointed out. No matter how deep it is, we could find it. and, in a debate setting, relying on "god did it" is a horrible argument, and I respectfully suggest not saying that, as it only outlines that you have no other logical explanation.
3. Again, if the Sarahan desert was once a lake, and evaporated, where did IT go? If you want to use that argument, then where did all of THAT water go after it evasporated and ceased to be a lake? you run in to the same problem as in the flood receeding. Sorry, but that is another bunk explanation.
4. Okay, please don't try to tell me all of that water is in the Great Salt Lake, I won't even look at that response as serious.... come on, you shouldn';t expect me to believe it's going to fit in that infentesimally small portion of the planet.
you want to say that, the geography changed, and we know when this flood happened and how much time has passed, we know approximatelly how much our geography has changed since then (not enough to go with your theory). The only argument you have is The bible says it was an act of God that put those fossils there, and that evolution is a lie. I say, that just like every other nations religious stories, this is mythology used to explain things for a people of little to no education. We take these stories and treat them like they are so much better, simply because they lasted for so long without being lost to the test of time. that just shows how vindictive the ignorant are. A man, who in the name of discovery, took it upon himself to explain the way things change, without just saying "it was God" figured out a way to explain a change in species without using God. Now, the religous fanatics, like yourself Archaeologist, label him a Heretic. Darwin was a christian. He believed in God. He just didn't trust that the bible was literal. Neither do I. because if it is, you should have the divine duty of killing me now in his name, for I have sinned against the almighty, by not taking him to be my Lord. BUT, if you don't feel that way, then you too must admit that the bible is not always literal, and that parts of it must be open to be interpreted as metaphors used to teach people a more moral way of living so that we are not just a bunch of murdering thieves running around the planet slaughtering the innocent and raping everything in our sight.
The bible is either entirely Literal, or entirely Figurative. you can't pick and choose. espicially since you are such an absolutist.
be civil dejawolf
i tried. my original post contained a lot more insults.
no and no. what you call evidence is just attritbuted to evolution but does not prove evolution exists or is responsible.you're fucking OWNED. you've dug yourself up to your nose in a shitpile of ownage.
there's MOUNTAINS upon MOUNTAINS of evidence for evolution, google "dinosaurs, evolution of (insert animal), cretaceous, carboniferous science, scientific method etc.
and don't come back until you've read ALL OF IT.
stop telling me things i already know. been there, done that and this is not my first discussion with evolutionists or about evolution.
no, you seem to be assuming that ALL the water went to those things. i did not say that, but a partial amount probably did.1. ice is LESS dense than water, and would therefore take up MORE room (notice, ice Floats in your glass of water), so thats complete bull as a storage device to decrease sea level, so ice caps and glaciers are bunked
the deepest oil well, last i heard, is about 2 miles deep. the earth's size is found here:2. if the water went somewhere else, assuming it did not magically leave the planet, we could find it, as drowsy turtle pointed out. No matter how deep it is, we could find it. and, in a debate setting, relying on "god did it" is a horrible argument, and I respectfully suggest not saying that, as it only outlines that you have no other logical explanation.
http://www.lyberty.com/encyc/articles/earth.html
there is a lot of places for the water to go and not be found by man.
1. didn't say ALL of the saraha was a lake, but there is evidence fo an ancient lake.3. Again, if the Sarahan desert was once a lake, and evaporated, where did IT go? If you want to use that argument, then where did all of THAT water go after it evasporated and ceased to be a lake? you run in to the same problem as in the flood receeding. Sorry, but that is another bunk explanation
2. we have lakes and rivers dry up all the time, where did that water go?
remember we are not talking ALL of the water. some stayed behind and changed the geography.
didn't say that and people certainly have a difficult time comprehending examples and illustrations.Okay, please don't try to tell me all of that water is in the Great Salt Lake, I won't even look at that response as serious.... come on, you shouldn';t expect me to believe it's going to fit in that infentesimally small portion of the planet
you are going down the wrong road for all you have is 'evolution did it' sorry but you are not standing on the best ground for your dissent. itis only your opinion that the Bible is mythology yet you have not proven it so. you cannot refute the evidence which stands behind the Bible and supports its words.The only argument you have is The bible says it was an act of God that put those fossils there, and that evolution is a lie. I say, that just like every other nations religious stories, this is mythology used to explain things for a people of little to no education. We take these stories and treat them like they are so much better, simply because they lasted for so long without being lost to the test of time
noiw here is where you distort the truth.Now, the religous fanatics, like yourself Archaeologist, label him a Heretic. Darwin was a christian. He believed in God
1. i am not a religious fanatic. i believe in God and I believe His words. I believe in Jesus.
2. darwin was not a christian. he did not believe in God, in fact he stated such in his autobiography {yes i have read it}. Here are his words:
http://www.update.uu.se/~fbendz/library/cd_relig.htm
I cannot pretend to throw the least light on such abstruse problems. The mystery of the beginning of all things is insoluble to us; and I for one must be content to remain an Agnostic.you would be wrong on all counts.He just didn't trust that the bible was literal. Neither do I. because if it is, you should have the divine duty of killing me now in his name, for I have sinned against the almighty, by not taking him to be my Lord.
my divine duty according to Jesus is to 1. pray for you; 2. do good to you; 3. be sad when you reject Jesus and the truth.
i know of no verse that tells a believer they are to kill an unbeliever. in fact Jesus never said to do anything remotely close to that act. you are confusing laws given to israel with what believers are to do under the era of Grace.
you would be wrong again and would be misunderstanding what 'literalism' is and how it applies to the Bible. oh and just because one passage may use a metaphore deosn't mean that ALL passages use them. your literal application of metaphors and such hinder your learning what the Bible is really saying.BUT, if you don't feel that way, then you too must admit that the bible is not always literal, and that parts of it must be open to be interpreted as metaphors used to teach people a more moral way of living so that we are not just a bunch of murdering thieves running around the planet slaughtering the innocent and raping everything in our sight.
the Bible is literally true but if God used a metaphor or a parable that doesn't mean that Genesis is a metaphor. there is a lot that you are missing whenyou make your stance like you do.The bible is either entirely Literal, or entirely Figurative. you can't pick and choose. espicially since you are such an absolutist
you're in league with the devil. you worship the devil, and you should atone for your sins. god speaks through the rocks, the earth and the universe, not through the fallible word of man. and you refuse to listen. science is giving a voice to god, and gods true will, and a piece of gods memories, but you reject it.
it is impossible to prove either one is correct. it's a matter of determining which is more likely
no becuase that would be too subjective and it would change with the next great scientist.it is impossible to prove either one is correct. it's a matter of determining which is more likely
it is a choice, you either choose to side with God or you side with the devil. up to you.
what evidence? you put skulls together and say 'viola!! there is evidence for evolution' sorry does not wash. or anthropologists stumble across a toe bone on the surface and says 'see humans knuckled walked' or 'the dirt proves it is millions of years old' yet a few miles down the road the archaeological site which is 20 feet deep is only a few thousand years old and there is no complete skeleton to back up the declaration.from the evidence, we can deduct that man is related to apes, and evolution is true, no matter how "improbable" it might seem for you.
you are not following the evidence, you are constructing what you want origins to be.
I think Jesus wants you to kill me archaeologist.
Most specifically, at his feet...
An archaeologist should know that there's a little more to it than that. Do you have any specific examples of this sort of thing happening?
sorry, you left out the OTHER PARTS of the equation.
of course things look wrong if you only have 1 = 2.
but if you have 1+1 = 2, everything adds up.
we don't just dig up skulls and say "THESE AR OURE ANCESTERS O
LOLOL!!!111 one.
we also date them. and the radiometric dating shows that the ones less like us, are older, and the ones more like us are younger.
and even IF the world was only 6000 years old, and the radiometrics were first sped up, and then slowed down, the skeletons would STILL be lining up one after the other in a neat and orderly fashion, where the oldest are less like us, and the younger are more like us.
here's what we've found of lucy:
its a monkey woman from africa, about 1 meter tall.
the important part to note here, is the hipbone. there's no other mammal on earth with a hipbone like ours, made for walking upright on 2 legs.
and here we have a monkey being, with a hipbone like ours.
if it was a monkey it'd look more like this:
what does the evidence point to mr. sherlock?
tiny upright walking monkey taken by the flood?
oh and lucy isn't the only A. afarensis thats been found.
if you went to the afar region, and dug for yourself, you'd find several bones there. but my guess is that you'd rather destroy those bones, than to give them to science for study.
A.A is dated to have lived between 3.9-2.9 million years ago.
thats how inaccurate our dating methods are. we can only give a range accuracy estimate of about 1 million years. but its good enough for the purpose of proving you wrong.
like it or not, we descend from ape-like beings, and some of us apparently are more like those apelike ancestors than others.
Also, keep this in mind: Over one-hundred and fifty years ago, evolutionary theory predicted we'd find exactly this sort of animal. Australopithicus fits in perfectly with where we would expect to find an early bi-pedal ancestor of ours. In central Africa, about 3 million years ago. We never find australopihs anywhere else in the world, any later, or any earlier. We find lots of other apes in that same area too. But like dejawolf said, we only ever find them in sequence from least human-like to more human-like.
read the context: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...9;&version=31;think Jesus wants you to kill me archaeologist.
Most specifically, at his feet...
right, you lept to 'monkey women' forgetting about dwarves and other growth stunting diseases which would keep people tiny. remember Facts of life star -coleman? or the boy from 'webster'.its a monkey woman from africa, about 1 meter tall.
also lucy's 'body' was found over approx. 2 miles away from the skull's site, too far to even consider.
sorry but you all just pick and choose what you want and forget the details.
wow, 150 years, forgetting that for the past 6 to 10,000 years everything has gone accoring to the book of Genesis. then predictions mean little. remember piltdown man? sorry but your 'predictions' have no credibility as any one can mix and match and say the prediction has been fulfilled.Over one-hundred and fifty years ago,
false dated and based upon very little evidence. we do not find american remains all over the world either yet they were there . you are reaching desperately.Australopithicus fits in perfectly with where we would expect to find an early bi-pedal ancestor of ours. In central Africa, about 3 million years ago.
I get that Jesus desired the death of all those who felt he was wrong and not a true 'king of man' to be murdered... but, clearly, you are more intelligent than I, and would likewise be capable of telling me what he REALLY meant.
kind of like how you and the bible are. you take a little from here, a little from there, and say the prediction is fulfilled. You have the same fallacy in your argument, arch
i want the fossilized remains of adam and eve, dated before the dinosaurs. then genesis might have something to it. i want remains of noahs ark. i want the bones of jesus.
none of this evidence you can provide.
see, now the tables turned. you have no fossil or archeological evidence for genesis. we have tons of fossil and archeological evidence for evolution.
you lose for the 500th time.
wheres the million year old human bone? why can't we find the bones and fossils to show that man was around with the dinosaurs? why aren't there Human remains from 500,000 years ago? where are those bones? Where is the non-biblical evidence that man was here so long ago? I want to see something other than a quote from Moses' hand penned in his first book of genesis.
and actually, Dejawolf, those bones of Adam and Eve would be as old as the dinos
why would you deserve them when you dismiss the footprints found side by side?why can't we find the bones and fossils to show that man was around with the dinosaurs?
adam and eve were created after the dinosaurs, not by much so they can't be before.i want the fossilized remains of adam and eve, dated before the dinosaurs. then genesis might have something to it.
i want remains of noahs arkeven if you got them what would you do with them? you would probably dismiss them with the question 'how do i know these are the actual remains?'i want the bones of jesus
yes we do. K.A. kitchen proved that the biblical price for Joseph being sold into slavery was exactly the price of that time period.you have no fossil or archeological evidence for genesis
We have Ur, Babylon, Joseph's tomb, Egypt and many other cities andpeoples who existed at that time as recorded in the Bible.
youhave nothing but please list them. by the way, there is NO archaeological evidence for evolution and NOT one arch. discovery has disproved the Bible.we have tons of fossil and archeological evidence for evolution.
you lost.
"In view of these developments, none of the four trails at the Taylor site can today be regarded as unquestionably of human origin. The Taylor trail appears, obviously, dinosaurian, as do two prints thought to be in the Turnage trail. The Giant trail has what appears to be dinosaur prints leading toward it, and some of the Ryals tracks seem to be developing claw features, also... It would now be improper for creationists to continue to use the Paluxy data as evidence against evolution." John Morris, Institute for Creation Research[/quote]
horse:
birds:
http://media-2.web.britannica.com/eb...4-8CE18FCA.gif
as for the hypothetical proavis, WE WILL FIND IT.
whales:
http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/WhaleEvo.gif
elephants:
http://elephant.elehost.com/About_El...n/ancestry.gif
and a family photo with all the extinct relatives of the elephant
evolution of turtles:
human:
H. habilis 2.2 – 1.6mya Africa
H. erectus 1.4 – 0.2mya Africa, Eurasia (Java, China, Caucasus)
H. rudolfensis 1.9mya Kenya
H. georgicus 1.8mya Republic of Georgia
H. ergaster 1.9 – 1.4mya E. and S. Africa many 1975
H. antecessor 1.2 – 0.8mya Spain
H. cepranensis 0.9 – 0.8mya Italy
H. heidelbergensis 0.6 – 0.35mya Europe, Africa, China
H. neanderthalensis 0.35 – 0.03 mya Europe, W. Asia
H. rhodesiensis 0.3 – 0.12mya Zambia
H. sapiens sapiens 0.2 – present worldwide
H. sapiens idaltu 0.16 – 0.15mya Ethiopia
H. floresiensis 0.10 – 0.012mya Indonesia
evolution of snakes:
evolution of wolf(all our current dog species are related to the wolf):
evolution of the cat:
you want me to go on?
fuck that, here's google.
http://images.google.co.uk/images?hl...mages&aq=f&oq=
search evolution of "insert animal here"
and you'll get LISTS UPON LISTS UPON LISTS UPON LISTS of fossil evidence of evolution.
http://www.aigbusted.com/resources/cats.jpg
here's some family trees. these are not based on the fossil record, but on how similar the genes of species are:
primates:
http://www.daviddarling.info/images/...amily_tree.gif
mammals:
here's the paths of how humans spread, based on DNA testing of people:
In before "nu uh!"
All I can say is... pwned.
let me guess his response. "it's false dated. false tested. not proof of evolution."
I'd say thats a nice assortment of evidence that IMPLIES evolution over creation. and I would emphasize IMPLY over PROVES, because neither theory is PROVABLE, simply because we can't observe evolution nor creation directly, but indirectly through observing the effects. is that agreed?
and again, try to be civil, we all know he won't accept this as an end all be all evolution is right. The idea is to convince, not pwn...
here's a short evolution for dummies. timespans have been shortened for clarity:
lets say you have a bunch of plant eating animals who live in a forest,
and a bunch of predator animals living in that same forest.
the predators eats the plant eaters.
in order to survive, the plant eaters needs to escape the predators, or they get eaten, feeding the predators, who will get more kids, because they didn't die of starvation, and sooner or later, there won't be any more plant eaters left, causing the predators all to starve and die.
when both populations are stable, its called an equilibrium.
this means, none of the population sizes significantly change one way or another.
any advantage, however miniscule, will cause this equilibrium to be breached,
and both species will die out.
things like drought, and temperature change tends to change the equilibrium.
swaying the advantage to one side or the other.
if this change remains long enough, both species will die out.
so in order for there to be any life on earth, it needs to change and adapt to the violent tumultations of earth.
if a forest all of a sudden vanished because a river dried up, all of the tree-living species in that forest would all perish, if there was no evolutionary adaptations.
they would starve and thirst to death.
if they were caught by a malevolent disease, they would also all be wiped out in a single blow, causing species who depend on them for nourishment to die out as well.
so, there's why evolution is neccesary.
now for how it actually works.
it goes without saying that if a predator is faster than its prey, it will catch its prey.
it also goes without saying that if the prey is faster than the predator, the prey will survive.
it goes without saying that a larger animal is stronger than a smaller animal, and will be able to fight it off.
and small animals who work together will be able to take down a single larger animal.
animals who fly or live in the trees, will be able to avoid predators on the ground.
animals who burrow will also be able to avoid predators on the ground.
animals with a high birth rate, will give birth to a larger population, which means it doesn't matter if some of them are eaten by predators.
all of these are advantages in some way or another.
evolutions basic principle is change, variation and adaptation.
if the change is advantageous, the animal is better adapted for its environment.
if the change is disadvantageous, either of these things will happend:
1. the animal will be eaten because it can't escape from the predators.
2. the animal will starve and potentially die, because better adapted animals eats all the best food first, leaving the weaker animal to fight for the scraps.
3.the animal won't be able to get a partner, because its not sexually attractive,
and therefore wont have any offspring.
so thats the esotherics.
how does evolution work on a cellular level?
well, studies into fruit flies has revealed the body is actually segmented into major genetic body-pieces.
here's someting on origins of form:
http://www.biology.lsu.edu/heydrjay/...insofForm.html
here's just some DNA stuff.
http://www.genome.gov/10506367
cute pictures and nice charts are not evidence for evolution. they are not even credible, nor scientific. neither does a 'chart' of human movement based upon dna. it is inconclusive and leaves out too many details.
sorry it is a pretty post but no cigar.
Be specific please. Provide reasons for saying what you are saying.
Genesis isn't a credible source either. Provide another.
look with those cute pictures and charts, all you have is one or more people deciding the order, artists' conceptions and conjecture. none of it proves that evolution exists or is responsible for the different varieties.
not one evolutionist has observed these changes, what minor 'changes' you have observed you extrapolate and that is bad science. you have no basis to say that evolutioni s a fact when it is far from that reality.
lining up different bones and claiming it shows evolution does not prove it is evolution. there is no evidence or act that shows the process in action and that it actually made those changes---it is all assumed.
yet genesis has REAL evidence to support it. we have found Ur, Babel, the early nations, we have egypt, the descendents of abraham, the restoring of the nation of israel, the verification of the price for joseph, the evidence for the people joseph was first sold to and so much more.Genesis isn't a credible source either
Genesis was written by one man, and the order of genesis isn't even included in your examples. sorry, refute has failed. Try again.
those places has nothing to do with genesis. those are just places later in the bible,
they do not prove that god created man, just that humans have lived in places called that. just because joseph might have lived, doesn't mean genesis is true.
in fact there was probably thousands of josephs around that time.
i want you to provide the location of the garden of eden, and noahs ark.
proof that it rained for 40 days and 40 nights wouldn't go amiss either, although i think something like that might have happened about 16000 years ago at the end of the last ice age.
when the ice started melting the mediterranean sea borders started filling up, which would lead to a rather slow flooding of those cities.
it could have actually rained for 40 days, while the sea levels rose, and humans are known to love settling near the sea. if this is true, we should be able to find lost cities at the old sea borders of the mediterranean. this could be the giants, or wicked people talked about in the bible who drowned.
but then we'd have a natural explanation for the flood. the ice up north melted, not "god did it". which just further serves to undermine the holy word of the bible.
Noah's ark is later too. I want some evidence OTHER than the writtings of Moses. the ancient civilizations are NOT evidence in any way, quit citing them.
and all of your scripture can be treated the same as our so called "evidence". The bible is not special, it can be seen the same as our fossil record. We have a LOT of bones, you have one book. I disregard everything written in the bible simply because it all takes place centuries before the words are written.
Our science, however, is explained, and I would love to have someone with good knowledge on radiometric dating post to this.
The existance of ancient cities and civilizations prove the stories of the Bible the same way the existence of New York proves the stories of Spider-man.
not really a good analogy. it's more like the presence of those ancient civ's in the Bible are like the presence of New York in The Day After Tomorrow, based on real places with possibly fake events contained there in...
Proof that the person writing the story was on the planet and not creative enough to make a fake city.
Not an expert but I know a good article on this: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html
and, just so you can't miss it, wheres a link to a site that explains the radiometric dating, linked to Golkarian's site, thanks by the way.
actually, all those places have to do with Genesis and are found in the 10th chapter following.those places has nothing to do with genesis. those are just places later in the bible
then quit citing evolutionary scientific reports and charts etc. they are biased and written to promote one idea for a religious purpose.Noah's ark is later too. I want some evidence OTHER than the writtings of Moses. the ancient civilizations are NOT evidence in any way, quit citing them.
1. the Bible is special, not one archaeological discovery has proven it false.The bible is not special, it can be seen the same as our fossil record. We have a LOT of bones, you have one book. I disregard everything written in the bible simply because it all takes place centuries before the words are written.
2. that one book has been verified over and over by secular work not just christian.
3. false accusation made by the copenhagen school of thought (minimalists) and also by israel finkelstein william dever and other archaeologists. yet not one of them can produce any proof of their claim even phillip davies can't do it and he is a champion minimalist.
Golharian, why do you always use the same source?Not an expert but I know a good article
i have studied radiomatic dating and other systems used by secular science.
As long as you're aware that the bible is proof of nothing. It's just a book.
Paranoid, much?
Same applies to The Lord of the Rings.
Really? How so?
Can you ever disprove something that doesn't exist? You can't, for the reason that to disprove it you would have to observe it, and by observing it you prove that it exists.
You never read the sources anyone provides anyway, unless they agree with you.
O.....K....
I've read the bible, doesn't mean I know what the hell it's on about.
if you understand radiometric dating, does that mean you respect it as a way to measure the age of some material? or are you going to continue to disregard all of secular science because it disagrees with you?
Oh, and did I ever ONCE! cite a source from an evolutionary report or chart?
no, it is God's word and by taking God's word we show Him that we love Him, have faith in Him, trust Him andso on. all of which pleases Him. to you, because you do not believe, it is not proof of anything but to the rest of us it shows the truth and we stick with that as we know the source of secular science and people.As long as you're aware that the bible is proof of nothing. It's just a book.
just showing you that your dismissal argument for the Bible can be used aginst your theory as well. i dealt with a militant atheistonce who basically said i could not use any 'bible thumper' tidefend my point of view. well if that is the case thenyou cannot use any evolutionist to defend your side but must use religious sources who believe in the Bible.Paranoid, much?
you would be wrong.Same applies to The Lord of the Rings.
reproduction for one; the hybrid experiments for another. there has been no archaeological discovery that disproves the bible-- there is no smoking gun hiding out there. plus if evolutionists had found the definitive proof, we would have heard about it by now and the whole world would know and all the secularists would breathe a collective sigh of relief.Really? How so?
i think you can, aliens come to mind. vampires, werewolves, movies and t.v. show characters. and so on.Can you ever disprove something that doesn't exist?
some i do, i just do not have the time to do everyone (i am a single father who works fulltime)You never read the sources anyone provides anyway, unless they agree with you.
you won't unless you believe in Jesus and have the Holy Spirit to guide you.I've read the bible, doesn't mean I know what the hell it's on about.
i do not respect it for it has too many problems that can go wrong with it and i challenge the idea that the decline rate slows down. in the past i have been looking for libby's papers on the calculations for the decline rate yet living over seas severely limits access to certain things.if you understand radiometric dating, does that mean you respect it as a way to measure the age of some material?
plus there are just too many things that can corrupt a sample to easily for me to trust it and it is a fallible tool which can be manipulated very easily to produce desired dates to fit an agenda.
if you read the above, you will see that my opposition to secular dating methods have little to do with their disagreeing with me and the Bible. but since you brought it up, the other thing you battle is this "God does not lie" thus if the dating system produces a result that disagrees withthe Bible, then the dating system is wrong. for if God lied, then He sinned and is no longer God and we can kiss our salvation good-bye.or are you going to continue to disregard all of secular science because it disagrees with you?
That is your opinion, not a fact backed up with evidence. All that we know about it is that it is a book.
But we don't. I, for one, hate him. He's welcome to do something about it?
Why?
All the more reason not to do it. He has done nothing to deserve that pleasure.
That contradicts your whole statement then.
Remember who you are talking to.
That, or evidence which shows one way or the other. But you dismiss this as, what, god's joke or something?
Not so. I have never seen any archaeological evidence that contradicts The Lord of the Rings. Or Harry Potter. Ar almost any fictional book.
Or any other fictional book.
funny thing about people; even if they see convincing proof, they often will not make even one tiny move against their beliefs.
Can you ever disprove something that doesn't exist?Nope; you know they aren't real, but you can't prove it.
The point being you are completely ignorant.
Funny that - you only believe in the bible if you're a christian. Shocked to hear it.
Name one.
Rate as in number of atoms? Or rate as in percentage of atoms?
Living in your own world where everything works as you want it to is probably a major hinderance, too.
On the other hand, since only the radioactive material and the daughter isotopes are measured, this cannot happen.
Especially considering they have been inert underground, often for millions of years.
What next, the rabbits caused a conspiracy by turning badgers into radioisotopes to fool dating methods?
Those sneaky christian scientists, disproving their beliefs! How decidedly clever of them...
Nor do you provide either a logical arguement or any evidence for your claims.
Hey, whenever god wants a chat, I have a chair free, he's welcome to discuss whatever he likes with me.
Aha. So god wrote the bible then?
And god translated it?
In what started as a scientific arguement, it is pointless to make theistic assumptions as to the existance of god.
i don't know why it slows down, or why scientists believes it slows down, but i'll find out why, but as a start, here's a snippet i found after 5 seconds of google searching:
The radioactive half-life for a given radioisotope is a measure of the tendency of the nucleus to "decay" or "disintegrate" and as such is based purely upon that probability. The tiny nuclear size compared to the atom and the enormity of the forces which act within it make it almost totally impervious to the outside world. The half-life is independent of the physical state (solid, liquid, gas), temperature, pressure, the chemical compound in which the nucleus finds itself, and essentially any other outside influence. It is independent of the chemistry of the atomic surface, and independent of the ordinary physical factors of the outside world. The only thing which can alter the half-life is direct nuclear interaction with a particle from outside, e.g., a high energy collision in an accelerator.
this falsifies your claim that "many things will affect the rate of decay"
since, short of being bombarded by gamma radiation, there's not that many things that will cause an atomic particle to change.
Site your source, so he can't bash you for not doing that.
not going tobash or address anyone's post as in the other thread the confession of self-contradiction has done you all in.
'when life was so was evolution' sorry but that is not scientific, and you have resorted to magic and even the faith you condemn. you cannot even design your theory to be scientific nor produce one shred of scientific proof to definitively prove you are correct.
you can't even go back and duplicate the conditions for when life first started to see if evolution appears as you say--when life appears.
you are asking people to take your words 'by faith',the very faith you condemn christians for using with God and the Bible. you use the very 'magic' you condemn the christians of relying on to produce 'evolution' whatever that is now, you can't even explain it. 'it was just there'
you just blew your whole scientific superiority with that one sentence and exposed the truth about your theory--it is a lie and you have noidea what it is, youjust believe it because it is not God or creation.
i can safely depart this thread now knowing that you have lost, been exposed and nothing you can say repair the damage you have done toyourselves and your arguments.
using science is a smoke screen for you all to make yourselves feel important and in control. well you still have a decisintomake, stay with the lie or repent and turn to God.
that is all you have left now.
Using religion is a smoke screen for you to make yourself feel important and in control. Well you still have a decision to make, stay with the myth, or become educated.using science is a smoke screen for you all to make yourselves feel important and in control. well you still have a decisintomake, stay with the lie or repent and turn to God.
'Let there be light' is so much better, naturally.
I have?
Oh, you mean every time I'm sarcastic about the bible?
This I just point-blank refuse to accept. Evidence has been provided, you simply refuse to look at it.
You point being.....?
You're saying you can go back in time and talk with god at a time before he lost his voice?
Not so. I, myself, have provided several sources, and quoted evidence, on numerous occasions. You simply chose to ignore it.
Is that so? Because I was always aware of a working and proven mechanism behind evolution. But I could be wrong; after all, I only researched it, whereas you didn't need to; you just consulted a book which at no point mentions evolution.
What?
Are we talking evolution or abiogenesis?
a) Which sentance?
b) There are a number of scientific theories I don't agree with; string theory is one, for example.
If we present ourselves scientifically, you refuse to listen.
If we present ourselves from a philosophical point of view, you flaw us for not being scientific enough.
Retard.
from what i've currently read, the basic idea behind why radiological decay slows down is this:
as there's less atoms, there's less chance of hitting other atoms when an atom decays.
which means compression of a material makes it decay faster, and decompressing it, makes it decay slower. this is also why heavier materials are more likely to decay than lighter ones. the heavier elements has more neutrons in the core, which are more likely to be thrown off due to.. i don't why the atoms get rid of neutrons, and why some isotopes are stable, while others are not. i guess its got something to do with the atomic core's balance.
but anyways, the core idea is that new elements cannot be created without bombarding them with gamma radiation or higher energy particles.
you know, i almost made a big mistake making a post, and decided to go a bit more humbly at things.
but you don't even understand the meaning of humble. you sit there with your belief in the almighty all-knowing all-father in the sky, NEVER EVER second guessing your
beliefs. your holier-than-thou attitude is sickening, and maddening.
i second guess my beliefs constantly, i do my research, and when i don't know something, i'm big enough to admit it.
but you claim to know everything, and your opinions to be infallible, which just sets you up for an even greater fall when you realize just how deeply wrong you are.
if you wonder why people hate you, thats why. you're a snotty know-it-all fuckwit
who thinks he shits gold, and that the wisdom in his words is only rivalled by god.
and i don't really care if i get suspended for this. thats my opinions, and i rest by it.
It is difficult not to express oneself in very direct terms when faced with the level of self righteousness combined with profound ignorance that archaeologist has displayed on this forum in numerous posts.
We are not meant to make comments on forum management within a thread, but I feel forced to say it is regretable that posting of the type that archaeologist indulges in is permitted, but when a positive contributor like dejawolf 'cracks' he is likely the one who will be censured.
Mitchell, this is not a dig at you, but a more general dig at the forum approach to these issues.
deja, just take solace in the fact that you are not like him, and actually USE your brain and ability to reason. Archy ruffled your feathers, no need to take it this horribly. he is a cultist, and his opinions are off mark when compared to a rational, fully-functional human.
And, my personal belief on the type of person Archy appears to be, is a man with no self confidence, no intellectual merit, and no real ability to comprehend the world around him... Oh god... (irony... too... great... ... cannot... resist... making... joke...) I hope he wins a Darwin Award someday...
Sounds like someone has a need to believe that they have won. That is the behavior of a person protecting his delusions.
LOL The scientist is the one that humbles himself before the evidence of nature. If God exists and is the creator of the universe then nature is most clearly the work of God, for man had no part in the making of it. Thus logic dictates that it is the scientist that humbles himself before God if anyone does. Perhaps the writings that the relgious make so much of are the work of God and even though I do not believe it, perhaps they are just the work of con-men. But the point is that there is far less room in the evidence of nature for men to impose their delusions, manipulations and wishful thinking.
Now I believe that the Bible is the word of God in the strongest terms possible - not merely that it is inspired as many books are but that He Himself is the author using men, nations, kings and history as His writing instruments. BUT, since it is written in the words of human languages, it is not free of the taint of human corruption. People twist, and interpret these words to change their meanings in many ways and thus they quote the Bible and think it lends divine authority to their own words. At the very least it is translated by human beings from one language to the other and its meaning is shaded by the cultures of these languages and bound by the limitations of the understanding of human beings. Yes the Holy Spirit has surely had a hand in this but men are not the best tools and many have been rather wayward in being guided by the will of God.
So I am sorry but the message of God in the Bible as well as plain logic tells us that it is religion that we should be wary of and it is in science that we can best see the truth unclouded by the evil of human beings. The only caution is that science does have built in limitations and those who delude themselves into thinking that all truth is found in science are just as narrow minded and self-indulgent as the fundamentalists.
No we will no longer believe your lies.
Yes we repent of the evils of the past, especially of that done in the name of God. And thus we welcome the good news, that Christ is the only mediator between man and God. We need no high priest but Him. We need no teacher but the Holy Spirit. We will no longer look to the self-appointed spokesmen of God who in their unbelief see the opportunity for using religion as a scam for a quick buck and a bid for power.
I think we have far more than you do, for your tiny pocket god, which may look like a bright star in your dark hole, is nothing compared to the infinite Creator of the universe with all its wonders to explore, laws to discover and truths to unravel, for He is a light that shines from the horizon in all directions to show us just how small your dark hole really is.
It's rather pointless trying to discuss reality with archy, but I do admire Mitchell's efforts, despite his personal Christian beliefs.
It's a far cry from the deafening silence from Muslims when their brethren attempt to define all of scientific discoveries and knowledge with the Quran.
| « Is LIGO just observing viscosity of the vacuum? | Could reality actually be a virtual reality machine? » |
| Bookmarks |
Bookmarks |
