Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Misc Discussion Boards => Religious Debates & Threads => Topic started by: OTHstrong on January 29, 2008, 10:39:19 AM
-
I think evolution is the funniest, silliest, most far-fetched fairytale to ever be called science and I can prove it with this thread.
The challenge is this...You must present evidence that contributes to evolution directly or indirectly, but there is one stipulation. THE RULE IS THAT YOU CAN'T USE EVIDENCE THAT REQUIRE MEASURED DATES. For example- 65 million years, 4.6 billion years, this creature is prehistoric, millions and millions of years ago.
Then you might say" thats not fair because thats 99% of evolution and thats all evolution is based on" That is exactly my point
Every single measuring system for dating is 100% bogus. These systems are severely flawed and completely inaccurate; they also require a few assumptions. You can't base a theory on more theories. When you stop to think about it you will realize that evolution without these fairytale dates has nothing, zip, zero, and it doesn't belong and cannot be called science.
PS If you are emotionally disturbed about my post remember that name calling or making silly comments does not contribute to your side of the argument :) :) :)
-
..You can't base a theory on more theories. When you stop to think about it you will realize that evolution without these fairytale dates has nothing, zip, zero, and it doesn't belong and cannot be called science.
...
You absolutely can base a theory on more theories. It happens all the time.
You dismiss the dating mechanisms of geology and archaeology, and evolutionary biology. They are dismissed outright by you and you expect an answer.
Good luck!
-
Every single measuring system for dating is 100% bogus.
I challenge you to read a book, educate yourself, and the apologize for being so supremely ignorant.
Everything you see around you including the existence of your life was likely the result of technology via scientific progress. You are outright dismissing its most strongly supported hypothesis, its principles, and accusing free thinkers and scientists of being liars.
How can you suck from the teat of science and technology and be so antithetical to the progress of humanity?
-
You absolutely can base a theory on more theories. It happens all the time.
You dismiss the dating mechanisms of geology and archaeology, and evolutionary biology. They are dismissed outright by you and you expect an answer.
Good luck!
[/quote I dismiss the dating methods because they are corrupt. You think I don't know how they date things? Everybody does. What I am saying is if you carbon date something the has died a few days ago it might date back to 5000 years ago. This happens all the time, so obvious you can't count that dating method as being propper; same with potassium argon dating. If you go to a museum and ask how do you know the Dino bones are 65 million years old then they will answere and say because of the layer of rock it was found in (the geologic column )and if you ask how how old is this rock and how do you know, they will say its 65 million years old because we found it in the same layer that the Dino bones were found. This my friend is circular reasoning.
All I'm saying is if dating is questionable and thats the basis of evolution the you guys have nothing. Thats just the way it is.
-
I think evolution is the funniest, silliest, most far-fetched fairytale to ever be called science and I can prove it with this thread.
The challenge is this...You must present evidence that contributes to evolution directly or indirectly, but there is one stipulation. THE RULE IS THAT YOU CAN'T USE EVIDENCE THAT REQUIRE MEASURED DATES. For example- 65 million years, 4.6 billion years, this creature is prehistoric, millions and millions of years ago.
Then you might say" thats not fair because thats 99% of evolution and thats all evolution is based on" That is exactly my point
Every single measuring system for dating is 100% bogus. These systems are severely flawed and completely inaccurate; they also require a few assumptions. You can't base a theory on more theories. When you stop to think about it you will realize that evolution without these fairytale dates has nothing, zip, zero, and it doesn't belong and cannot be called science.
PS If you are emotionally disturbed about my post remember that name calling or making silly comments does not contribute to your side of the argument :) :) :)
we already went over this evolution of bacteria is being observed right now, that is evolution
I think that you have a problem with the theory that humans evolved from an ape like creature and not the concept of evolution
-
Hold on there, slick! What makes you think you can even begin to understand the "evidence"?!
What are your qualifications? How many years of college do you have under your belt? Degrees?
Any degrees or advanced classwork in biology or genetics?
-
we already went over this evolution of bacteria is being observed right now, that is evolution
I think that you have a problem with the theory that humans evolved from an ape like creature and not the concept of evolution
This is like presenting a case in court and the witness states her name and age and then lies about everything else. Do evolutionist lie about Micro-e, no and I agree but that is all; very irrelevent to what we are discussing here. I issued a challenged and so far nobody has responded to my challenge.
-
Hold on there, slick! What makes you think you can even begin to understand the "evidence"?!
What are your qualifications? How many years of college do you have under your belt? Degrees?
Any degrees or advanced classwork in biology or genetics?
CD82 you already know that I don't have a degree and this isn't a job interview. A degree is a positve thing, but it isn't neccessary to have to debate this subject.
I guess no welcome back from you. :-[
-
This is like presenting a case in court and the witness states her name and age and then lies about everything else. Do evolutionist lie about Micro-e, no and I agree but that is all; very irrelevent to what we are discussing here. I issued a challenged and so far nobody has responded to my challenge.
well you see you agree on the concept of evolution then, yes this concept is extended to other theories but the concept of evolution to you is sound...im not saying that we evolved from ape like creatures only that evolution does exist maybe not to the extent that it has been thought in evolutionary theory but the concept like i said and you said is sound
-
A degree isn't necessary, but university-level advanced classwork is essential.
You wouldn't walk into an advanced algebra seminar of the American Mathematical Society and offer to "debate" the participants on advanced algebra, would you?
What about a physics conference on string theory, would you walk in, grab the mic, and start issuing challenges to the physicists to debate you on string theory?
What makes you think you are any more qualified to issue "challenges" and debate the evidence in biology than in mathematics, physics, monetary economics, computer science, or any other field?
-
A degree isn't necessary, but university-level advanced classwork is essential.
You wouldn't walk into an advanced algebra seminar of the American Mathematical Society and offer to "debate" the participants on advanced algebra, would you?
What about a physics conference on string theory, would you walk in, grab the mic, and start issuing challenges to the physicists to debate you on string theory?
What makes you think you are any more qualified to issue "challenges" and debate the evidence in biology than in mathematics, physics, monetary economics, computer science, or any other field?
He has the holy bible and that's all he needs. Who needs real education?! ;D
-
I dismiss the dating methods because they are corrupt. You think I don't know how they date things? Everybody does. What I am saying is if you carbon date something the has died a few days ago it might date back to 5000 years ago. This happens all the time, so obvious you can't count that dating method as being propper; same with potassium argon dating. If you go to a museum and ask how do you know the Dino bones are 65 million years old then they will answere and say because of the layer of rock it was found in (the geologic column )and if you ask how how old is this rock and how do you know, they will say its 65 million years old because we found it in the same layer that the Dino bones were found. This my friend is circular reasoning.
All I'm saying is if dating is questionable and thats the basis of evolution the you guys have nothing. Thats just the way it is.
Radoactive dating is highly accurate. Creationists have twisted data to make it look like a fool's endeavor. Here's a website that points out just how accurate it is and how it's been perverted by creationists.
http://www.noanswersingenesis.org.au/a_radiometric_dating_resource_list.htm
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dating.html#Circularity
The above link debunks your circularity argument. Here's the prelude:
"The unfortunate part of the natural process of refinement of time scales is the appearance of circularity if people do not look at the source of the data carefully enough. Most commonly, this is characterised by oversimplified statements like:
"The fossils date the rock, and the rock dates the fossils."
Even some geologists have stated this misconception (in slightly different words) in seemingly authoritative works (e.g., Rastall, 1956), so it is persistent, even if it is categorically wrong (refer to Harper (1980), p.246-247 for a thorough debunking, although it is a rather technical explanation)."
-
I think evolution is the funniest, silliest, most far-fetched fairytale to ever be called science and I can prove it with this thread.
The challenge is this...You must present evidence that contributes to evolution directly or indirectly, but there is one stipulation. THE RULE IS THAT YOU CAN'T USE EVIDENCE THAT REQUIRE MEASURED DATES. For example- 65 million years, 4.6 billion years, this creature is prehistoric, millions and millions of years ago.
Then you might say" thats not fair because thats 99% of evolution and thats all evolution is based on" That is exactly my point
Every single measuring system for dating is 100% bogus. These systems are severely flawed and completely inaccurate; they also require a few assumptions. You can't base a theory on more theories. When you stop to think about it you will realize that evolution without these fairytale dates has nothing, zip, zero, and it doesn't belong and cannot be called science.
PS If you are emotionally disturbed about my post remember that name calling or making silly comments does not contribute to your side of the argument :) :) :)
Jesus fucking Christ, our fucking antibiotics don't work for shit anymore.
That is because bacteria have EVOLVED to tolerate our antibiotics.
If evolution wasn't fact you'd still be taking penicillin for every fucking infection you get without any worry.
Instead you'll be dealing with people dying of simple bacterial illnesses in your life time because the bacteria have EVOLVED to become immune to anti-biotics.
There's a fucking dick slap in the face of creationism in our every day lives, but morons with zero scientific knowledge feel they have the ability to claim evolution is a lie.
-
I think evolution is the funniest, silliest, most far-fetched fairytale to ever be called science and I can prove it with this thread.
The challenge is this...You must present evidence that contributes to evolution directly or indirectly, but there is one stipulation. THE RULE IS THAT YOU CAN'T USE EVIDENCE THAT REQUIRE MEASURED DATES. For example- 65 million years, 4.6 billion years, this creature is prehistoric, millions and millions of years ago.
Then you might say" thats not fair because thats 99% of evolution and thats all evolution is based on" That is exactly my point
Every single measuring system for dating is 100% bogus. These systems are severely flawed and completely inaccurate; they also require a few assumptions. You can't base a theory on more theories. When you stop to think about it you will realize that evolution without these fairytale dates has nothing, zip, zero, and it doesn't belong and cannot be called science.
PS If you are emotionally disturbed about my post remember that name calling or making silly comments does not contribute to your side of the argument :) :) :)
how about bacteria to anti biotics?
how about HIV to anti-virals?
these are clear cut examples of evolution, if not tell me the alternate
-
Jesus fucking Christ, our fucking antibiotics don't work for shit anymore.
That is because bacteria have EVOLVED to tolerate our antibiotics.
If evolution wasn't fact you'd still be taking penicillin for every fucking infection you get without any worry.
Instead you'll be dealing with people dying of simple bacterial illnesses in your life time because the bacteria have EVOLVED to become immune to anti-biotics.
There's a fucking dick slap in the face of creationism in our every day lives, but morons with zero scientific knowledge feel they have the ability to claim evolution is a lie.
ouch!!!
now, that was good, but wait, just wait, they will come up with an answer from the bible...
we can't use any anything from billions of years ago, but they can use the little book, why?
-
ouch!!!
now, that was good, but wait, just wait, they will come up with an answer from the bible...
we can't use any anything from billions of years ago, but they can use the little book, why?
it really doesnt matter what they say especially one time hard, he is uneducated and his opinion on evolution is like getting a childs.
-
I think evolution is the funniest, silliest, most far-fetched fairytale to ever be called science and I can prove it with this thread.
The challenge is this...You must present evidence that contributes to evolution directly or indirectly, but there is one stipulation. THE RULE IS THAT YOU CAN'T USE EVIDENCE THAT REQUIRE MEASURED DATES. For example- 65 million years, 4.6 billion years, this creature is prehistoric, millions and millions of years ago.
Then you might say" thats not fair because thats 99% of evolution and thats all evolution is based on" That is exactly my point
Every single measuring system for dating is 100% bogus. These systems are severely flawed and completely inaccurate; they also require a few assumptions. You can't base a theory on more theories. When you stop to think about it you will realize that evolution without these fairytale dates has nothing, zip, zero, and it doesn't belong and cannot be called science.
PS If you are emotionally disturbed about my post remember that name calling or making silly comments does not contribute to your side of the argument :) :) :)
You = a stupid person haunted by ignorance and irrational faith with no basis in rationality.
You = a moron, and this discussion = not possible because you makes false statements.
-
ouch!!!
now, that was good, but wait, just wait, they will come up with an answer from the bible...
we can't use any anything from billions of years ago, but they can use the little book, why?
I already agreed with everybody here about micro-e, that isn't an issue, but that doesn't help your evolution theory because there are limitations to micro-e.it really doesnt matter what they say especially one time hard, he is uneducated and his opinion on evolution is like getting a childs.
I said at the start of this thread that the childish remarks that you make don't contribute anything so why bother.
As you can see my stipulation has crippled your theory.
-
I already agreed with everybody here about micro-e, that isn't an issue, but that doesn't help your evolution theory because there are limitations to micro-e.I said at the start of this thread that the childish remarks that you make don't contribute anything so why bother.
As you can see my stipulation has crippled your theory.
How can you make stupid statements about radioactive dating being completely inaccurate, when the science (which you clearly don't know shit about) shows that it is accurate? You lack the knowledge to properly evaluate if its accurate or not, and you OBVIOUSLY have not read the research from all angles, you simply believed something you read on a stupid biased site.
Thus, people calling you "too dumb to argue with" ain't writing childish remarks, they are writing the truth....
-
As the great philosopher Jeff Foxworthy said, "You can't fix stupid."
-
As the great philosopher Jeff Foxworthy said, "You can't fix stupid."
What's funny: The stupid person = most often more sure about the accuracy of his/hers opinions/beliefs about reality than the smart person, because the smart person understands that a mental model of reality aint reality, and if the mental model = not very well developed, its not applicable to evaluating stuff too complex for it.
Do you seen how sure "Onetimehithard" is about the accuracy of radioactive dating without knowing anything about it exept what he read on some stupid bible site or something?
Hint. Hint. ;D
-
I already agreed with everybody here about micro-e, that isn't an issue, but that doesn't help your evolution theory because there are limitations to micro-e.I said at the start of this thread that the childish remarks that you make don't contribute anything so why bother.
As you can see my stipulation has crippled your theory.
are you insane? many micros is a macroevolution, it has been proven. we are transitional fossils
-
are you insane? many micros is a macroevolution, it has been proven. we are transitional fossils
Why do you hate the Lord Jesus Christ so much?
Don't you know that evolution is the work of the devil? You start off believing that evolution crap, next thing you know you're sliding down into a massive lake of fire where Jesus keeps all those who try to think!
Jesus died for your sins. Evolution is a sin. Stop believing in evolution!
-
What's funny: The stupid person = most often more sure about the accuracy of his/hers opinions/beliefs about reality than the smart person, because the smart person understands that a mental model of reality aint reality, and if the mental model = not very well developed, its not applicable to evaluating reality.
Do you seen how sure "Onetimehithard" is about the accuracy of radioactive dating without knowing anything about them exept what he read on some stupid bible site or something?
Hint. Hint. ;D
Take a pill or count to 10 pal, calling me stupid changes nothing. what, do you think CD82 is saying "ya he got called stupid, we're winning".
When you carbon date a dead animal you know the ratio of c-12 to c-14 found in the animal right? The ratio of c-12 to c-14 found in the atmosphere at the time of the animals death is not known and the rate at which it decays is also not known, so what do you do? fill in the blanks with magical numbers. If you make assumptions then your date isn't accurate. I'm going to sleep and tomorrow I'll tell you why the other methods are inaccurate.
Don't bother responding, everybody on getbig knows what you're going to say..............
"This guy stupid"........."He has no education".........."Tell that to a biology teacher"........."you moron"..........."evolution is science"..........blah,blah,blah.
-
Take a pill or count to 10 pal, calling me stupid changes nothing. what, do you think CD82 is saying "ya he got called stupid, we're winning".
When you carbon date a dead animal you know the ratio of c-12 to c-14 found in the animal right? The ratio of c-12 to c-14 found in the atmosphere at the time of the animals death is not known and the rate at which it decays is also not known, so what do you do? fill in the blanks with magical numbers. If you make assumptions then your date isn't accurate. I'm going to sleep and tomorrow I'll tell you why the other methods are inaccurate.
Don't bother responding, everybody on getbig knows what you're going to say..............
"This guy stupid"........."He has no education".........."Tell that to a biology teacher"........."you moron"..........."evolution is science"..........blah,blah,blah.
* Basic premise 1: You have no clue about the science behind radioactive dating.
* Basic premise 2: You do not have the skill or knowledge to evaluate and understand the science behind radioactive dating.
* Basic premise 3: Going against the studies on radioactive dating, when one has not even read them while satisfying premise 2 makes you an idiot.
* Basic premise 4: Going against the overwhelming majority of experts in this area when you satisfy basic premise 1 + 2 + 3 makes you an idiot, especially when you claim to know the truth with such conviction.
* Basic premise 5: Believing one can use "common sense" to evaluate a complex phenomena one does not have more than a surface understanding of = makes one an idiot
Argument derived from these premises: You satisfy all 5 basic premises, and you claim to know the truth with conviction although the real experts and tons of studies says you're wrong. Thus, you're a fool, and you're wrong.
-
Why do you hate the Lord Jesus Christ so much?
Don't you know that evolution is the work of the devil? You start off believing that evolution crap, next thing you know you're sliding down into a massive lake of fire where Jesus keeps all those who try to think!
Jesus died for your sins. Evolution is a sin. Stop believing in evolution!
Not huge on biblical knowledge but where does it say that evolution is a sin?
-
* Basic premise 1: You have no clue about the science behind radioactive dating.
* Basic premise 2: You do not have the skill or knowledge to evaluate and understand the science behind radioactive dating.
* Basic premise 3: Going against the studies on radioactive dating, when one has not even read them while satisfying premise 2 makes you an idiot.
* Basic premise 4: Going against the overwhelming majority of experts in this area when you satisfy basic premise 1 + 2 + 3 makes you an idiot, especially when you claim to know the truth with such conviction.
* Basic premise 5: Believing one can use "common sense" to evaluate a complex phenomena one does not have more than a surface understanding of = makes one an idiot
Argument derived from these premises: You satisfy all 5 basic premises, and you claim to know the truth with conviction although the real experts and tons of studies says you're wrong. Thus, you're a fool, and you're wrong.
blah blah blah, What have you said....giberish. If you go against the majority -makes you an idiot? You do realize that in the past the majority of experts said that the sun goes around the earth, the earth is flat, heavier things fall faster then lighter things etc. Wake up.
-
* Basic premise 4: Going against the overwhelming majority of experts in this area when you satisfy basic premise 1 + 2 + 3 makes you an idiot, especially when you claim to know the truth with such conviction.
The overwhelming majority of experts have been wrong before. Neither Science nor Truth are a democracy.
-
The overwhelming majority of experts have been wrong before. Neither Science nor Truth are a democracy.
Your best post ever!!! :)
OneTimeHard, you still haven't responded to my post.
-
Your best post ever!!! :)
Thank you!
-
The overwhelming majority of experts have been wrong before. Neither Science nor Truth are a democracy.
When the majority of experts have spent decades researching this stuff, and have tons of studies behind it, what do you think is the odds of ONE fool on Getbig with no prior knowledge, nor the intelligence to argument properly, knows the answer while the experts are wrong?
And your statement about science is horseshit. When the overwhelming majority of experts and studies supports something, the chance of it being correct is pretty high. Anomalies and exceptions occurs, but this does not change the facts that overwhelming evidence = statistically often the way to a good approximation of the truth. Add in the fact that when the opposition is an uneducated jerk with the debating power of a 12 year old, and there ain't much to it :)
blah blah blah, What have you said....giberish. If you go against the majority -makes you an idiot? You do realize that in the past the majority of experts said that the sun goes around the earth, the earth is flat, heavier things fall faster then lighter things etc. Wake up.
If you go against the majority when the majority has the knowledge and proof aquired through a systematic way of experimentation, while you have nothing, then yes. You might not believe in gravity either, even though the majority accepts the "theory" (and the majority = experts enough to understand the basic function of gravity). Go ahead and see if you are right. :D
Science is about validating hypothesis through experiments. You refer to "experts" from a time when the scientific method was NOT used. The hypothetic deductive method (or similar systems) in science was not properly and systematically used until the scientific revolution in the 1600s. You refer to "experts" as non - scientists, when we are debating something SCIENTIFIC here.
My god, did you even pass highschool? ::)
You also did not counterargument a single premise Debussey made. In a discussion, people make arguments and counter arguments. Did you not learn this in kindergarden? Thus, you do not even wish to have a proper debate. Did your priest teach you your intelligent ways of conducting yourself in a rational discussion? ;D
-
When the majority of experts have spent decades researching this stuff, and have tons of studies behind it, what do you think is the odds of ONE fool on Getbig with no prior knowledge, nor the intelligence to argument properly, knows the answer while the experts are wrong?
And your statement about science is horseshit. When the overwhelming majority of experts and studies supports something, the chance of it being correct is pretty high. Anomalies and exceptions occurs, but this does not change the facts that overwhelming evidence = statistically often the way to a good approximation of the truth. Add in the fact that when the opposition is an uneducated jerk with the debating power of a 12 year old, and there ain't much to it :)
If you go against the majority when the majority has the knowledge and proof aquired through a systematic way of experimentation, while you have nothing, then yes. You might not believe in gravity either, even though the majority accepts the "theory" (and the majority = experts enough to understand the basic function of gravity). Go ahead and see if you are right. :D
Science is about validating hypothesis through experiments. You refer to "experts" from a time when the scientific method was NOT used. The hypothetic deductive method (or similar systems) in science was not properly and systematically used until the scientific revolution in the 1600s. You refer to "experts" as non - scientists, when we are debating something SCIENTIFIC here.
My god, did you even pass highschool? ::)
You also did not counterargument a single premise Debussey made. In a discussion, people make arguments and counter arguments. Did you not learn this in kindergarden? Thus, you do not even wish to have a proper debate. Did your priest teach you your intelligent ways of conducting yourself in a rational discussion? ;D
Master, you have spoken!
All bow and kneel before the might of Debussey, the Mad Lord and Master!
-
Debussey is DA MAN!!!
OneTimeHard, for real man, you are only making a fool of yourself and making Bible-believing Christians look dumb and ignorant!
-
This challenge is now over since nobody could step up to the plate
Decker
MMC78
Columbusdude82
Toneymctones
Trapezkerl
I ETA PI
usmokepole
beatmaster
debussey DF
You said I am making a fool out of myself?.............I would say I made a fool out of every single one of you. I was outnumbered 9 to 1 and not one of you said anything intelligent. All you came up with was name calling and started making fun, which I predicted by the way.
If you guys are so smart why to you guys come on a religious board and try to ruin peoples faith. Does this turn you on? Stating your point of view is one thing, but actually telling Christians there stupid for what they believe is scooping to a low level. I feel sorry for you guys.
-
If you guys are so smart why to you guys come on a religious board and try to ruin peoples faith. Does this turn you on? Stating your point of view is one thing, but actually telling Christians there stupid for what they believe is scooping to a low level. I feel sorry for you guys.
Ah, so that's the whole point you're making... You feel threatened in your religious faith...
If your faith is threatened by postings on an Internet forum, then I pity the god who has to listen to your prayers...
-
This challenge is now over since nobody could step up to the plate
Decker
MMC78
Columbusdude82
Toneymctones
Trapezkerl
I ETA PI
usmokepole
beatmaster
debussey DF
You said I am making a fool out of myself?.............I would say I made a fool out of every single one of you. I was outnumbered 9 to 1 and not one of you said anything intelligent. All you came up with was name calling and started making fun, which I predicted by the way.
If you guys are so smart why to you guys come on a religious board and try to ruin peoples faith. Does this turn you on? Stating your point of view is one thing, but actually telling Christians there stupid for what they believe is scooping to a low level. I feel sorry for you guys.
Kneel before your god, Debussey, heretic! >:(
Serve no one but Debussey. Fear him always and make others fear him even more than you do. The Mad Lord always strikes down those who stand against it in the end. Defy the Mad Lord and die—or in death find loyalty to him, for he shall compel it. Submit to the word of the Mad Lord as uttered by his ranking clergy, since true power can only be gained through service to him. Spread the dark fear of Debussey. It is the doom of those who do not follow him to let power slip through their hands. Those who cross the Mad Lord meet their dooms earlier and more harshly than those who worship other deities.
(http://i191.photobucket.com/albums/z25/Todesfick/untitled.jpg)
-
This challenge is now over since nobody could step up to the plate
Decker
MMC78
Columbusdude82
Toneymctones
Trapezkerl
I ETA PI
usmokepole
beatmaster
debussey DF
You said I am making a fool out of myself?.............I would say I made a fool out of every single one of you. I was outnumbered 9 to 1 and not one of you said anything intelligent. All you came up with was name calling and started making fun, which I predicted by the way.
If you guys are so smart why to you guys come on a religious board and try to ruin peoples faith. Does this turn you on? Stating your point of view is one thing, but actually telling Christians there stupid for what they believe is scooping to a low level. I feel sorry for you guys.
BWHAHAHA.
gayer then heath ledger being with jesus.
-
If you guys are so smart why to you guys come on a religious board and try to ruin peoples faith. Does this turn you on? Stating your point of view is one thing, but actually telling Christians there stupid for what they believe is scooping to a low level. I feel sorry for you guys.
I can't argue evolution with someone who believes that the earth is 6000 years old. First we have to argue why you believe the earth is only 6000 years old.
I want you to prove to that this is the case. You are going against well established science the burden of proof is on you.
-
This challenge is now over since nobody could step up to the plate
Decker
MMC78
Columbusdude82
Toneymctones
Trapezkerl
I ETA PI
usmokepole
beatmaster
debussey DF
You said I am making a fool out of myself?.............I would say I made a fool out of every single one of you. I was outnumbered 9 to 1 and not one of you said anything intelligent. All you came up with was name calling and started making fun, which I predicted by the way.
If you guys are so smart why to you guys come on a religious board and try to ruin peoples faith. Does this turn you on? Stating your point of view is one thing, but actually telling Christians there stupid for what they believe is scooping to a low level. I feel sorry for you guys.
first of its "stooping" to a low level, and I have insulted no one. I come to this board to perhaps help me answer questions about my own faith, and i believe that even the non christians play a role in this. To ignore and dismiss theories without understanding them is fairly ignorant. After all an open mind is needed to believe in Jesus as well.
-
This challenge is now over since nobody could step up to the plate
Decker
MMC78
Columbusdude82
Toneymctones
Trapezkerl
I ETA PI
usmokepole
beatmaster
debussey DF
You said I am making a fool out of myself?.............I would say I made a fool out of every single one of you. I was outnumbered 9 to 1 and not one of you said anything intelligent. All you came up with was name calling and started making fun, which I predicted by the way.
If you guys are so smart why to you guys come on a religious board and try to ruin peoples faith. Does this turn you on? Stating your point of view is one thing, but actually telling Christians there stupid for what they believe is scooping to a low level. I feel sorry for you guys.
there is no answer good enough for you, any one would have not work, because it's not in your book!
and when we ask for proof of your god you also have nothing!
ok, we lost...
interesting text here! (not mine)
I am going to assume that you are an educated Christian. You have a college degree, and you have been trained to think logically and rationally about the world we live in. For example, you might be:
- An Engineer or Scientist
- A Doctor, Pharmacist or Nurse
- A Teacher
- A Manager or administrator
- A Government employee
- A Business owner
- An Account rep
- An Executive
- A Lawyer
- An Accountant
- A person working in the Financial sector or Human resources
- An Architect or Designer
- A Software developer
In other words, you are a smart person. You know how the world works, and you know how to think critically.
If you are an educated Christian, have you ever thought about using your college education to think about your faith? Your life and your career demand that you behave and act rationally. Let's apply your critical thinking skills as we discuss 10 simple questions about your religion.
Here is an example of the kind of thing I am talking about: As a Christian, you believe in the power of prayer. According to a recent poll (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=42061), 3 out of 4 doctors believe that God is performing medical miracles on earth right now. Most Christians believe that God is curing cancers, healing diseases, reversing the effects of poisons and so on.
So here is question #1: Why won't God heal amputees?
It's a simple question, isn't it? We all know that amputated legs do not spontaneously regenerate in response to prayer. Amputees get no miracles from God.
If you are an intelligent person, you have to admit that it's an interesting question On the one hand, you believe that God answers prayers and performs miracles. On the other hand, you know that God completely ignores amputees when they pray for miracles.
How do you deal with this discrepancy? As an intelligent person, you have to deal with it, because it makes no sense. In order to handle it, notice that you have to create some kind of rationalization. You have to invent an excuse on God's behalf to explain this strange fact of life. You might say, "well, God must have some kind of special plan for amputees." So you invent your excuse, whatever it is, and then you stop thinking about it because it is uncomfortable.
Here is another example. As a Christian, you believe that God cares about you and answers your prayers.
So the second question is: Why are there so many starving people in our world?
Look out at our world and notice that millions of children are dying of starvation. It really is horrific. Why would God be worried about you getting a raise, while at the same time ignoring the prayers of these desperate, innocent little children? It really doesn't make any sense, does it? Why would a loving god do this?
To explain it, you have to come up with some sort of very strange excuse for God. Like, "God wants these children to suffer and die for some divine, mysterious reason." Then you push it out of your mind because it absolutely does not fit with your view of a loving, caring God.
Third question: Why does God demand the death of so many innocent people in the Bible? Look up these verses:
- Exodus 35:2 – God demands that we kill everyone who works on the Sabbath day.
- Deuteronomy 21:18-21 – God demands that we kill disobedient teenagers.
- Leviticus 20:13 – God demands the death of homosexuals.
- Deuteronomy 22:13-21 – God demands that we kill girls who are not virgins when they marry.
And so on… There are lots of verses like these.
It doesn't make any sense, does it? Why would a loving God want us to murder our fellow human beings over such trivial matters? Just because you work on the wrong day of the week, you must die? That makes no sense, does it? In fact, if you think about it, you realize that it is insane. So you create some kind of rationalization to explain these verses.
Question #4: Why does the Bible contain so much anti-scientific nonsense? You have a college degree, so you know what I'm talking about. You know how science works. You happily use the products of science every day: your car, your cell phone, your microwave oven, your TV, your computer. These are all products of the scientific process. You know that science is incredibly important to our economy and to our lives.
But there is a problem. As an educated person you know that the Bible contains all sorts of information that is total nonsense from a scientific perspective.
- God did not create the world in 6 days 6,000 years ago like the Bible says.
- There was never a worldwide flood that covered Mt. Everest like the Bible says.
- Jonah did not live inside a fish's stomach for three days like the Bible says.
- God did not create Adam from a handful of dust like the Bible says.
These stories are all nonsense. Why would an all-knowing God write nonsense? It makes no sense, does it? So you create some type of very strange excuse to try to explain why the Bible contains total nonsense.
Question #5: Why is God such a huge proponent of slavery in the Bible? Look up these Bible verses:
- Exodus 21:20-21 – God says that it is OK to own slaves, and it is also OK to beat them.
- Colossians 3:22-24 – Slaves need to obey their masters.
- Ephesians 6:5 – Slaves need to obey their masters just as they would obey Christ.
- 1 Peter 2:18 – Slaves need to obey their masters, even if their masters are harsh .
And so on…
And why do all intelligent people abhor slavery and make it completely illegal? You have to come up with some kind of weird rationalization to explain it.
Question #6: Why do bad things happen to good people? That makes no sense. You have created an exotic excuse on God's behalf to rationalize it.
Question #7: Why didn't any of Jesus' miracles in the Bible leave behind any evidence? It's very strange, isn't it? You have created an excuse to rationalize it.
Question #8: How do we explain the fact that Jesus has never appeared to you? Jesus is all-powerful and timeless, but if you pray for Jesus to appear, nothing happens. You have to create a weird rationalization to deal with this discrepancy.
Question #9 – Why would Jesus want you to eat his body and drink his blood? It sounds totally grotesque, doesn't it? Why would al all-powerful God want you to do something that, in any other context, sounds like a disgusting, cannibalistic, satanic ritual?
And finally, Question #10 – Why do Christians get divorced at the same rate as non-Christians? Christians get married in front of God and their Christian friends, all of whom are praying to God for the marriage to succeed. And then they say, "What God has put together, let no man put asunder." God is all-powerful, so if God has put two people together that should seal the deal, right? Yet Christians get divorced at the same rate as everyone else. To explain this, you have to create some convoluted rationalization.
So, we have looked at 10 fascinating questions. In order to believe in God, you have had to create all sorts of strange rationalizations and excuses. If you are an intelligent, college-educated person, all of these excuses and rationalizations probably make you uncomfortable. If you think about it honestly, using the critical thinking skills that you learned in college, you have to admit that your answers to these questions make no sense at all.
Now, let me show you something remarkable. What if you instead assume that God is imaginary? A funny thing happens: the answers to every one of these questions make complete sense. Just look at all ten questions as an intelligent person:
1) Why won't God heal amputees? Because God is imaginary, and he doesn't answer any prayers. Every "answered prayer" is actually a coincidence. All scientific evidence supports this conclusion.
2) Why are there so many starving people in our world? Because God is imaginary, and he is therefore unable to answer their prayers.
3) Why does God demand the death of so many innocent people in the Bible? Because God is imaginary, and the Bible was written by ridiculous, ruthless men rather than any sort of loving being.
4) Why does the Bible contain so much anti-scientific nonsense? Ditto. Primitive men wrote the bible, not an all-knowing being.
5) Why is God such a huge proponent of slavery? Ditto.
6) Why do bad things happen to good people? Because God is imaginary and bad things happen at the same statistical rates to everyone.
7) Why didn't any of Jesus' miracles in the Bible leave behind any evidence? Because God is imaginary, and Jesus' miracles are myths.
8) How do we explain the fact that Jesus has never appeared to you? Because God is imaginary.
9) Why would Jesus want you to eat his body and drink his blood? Because God is imaginary, and this bizarre ritual came from a pagan religion.
10) Why do Christians get divorced at the same rate as non-Christians? Because God is imaginary.
Do you see what has happened here? When we assume that God exists, the answers to these ten questions make absolutely no sense. But if we assume that God is imaginary, our world makes complete sense.
It's interesting, isn't it? Actually, it's more than interesting – it is incredibly important.
Our world only makes sense when we understand that God is imaginary.
This is how intelligent, rational people know that God is imaginary.
When you use your brain, and when you think logically about your religious faith, you can reach only one possible conclusion: the "god" that you have heard about since you were an infant is completely imaginary. You have to willfully discard rationality, and accept hundreds of bizarre rationalizations to believe in your "god."
-
This challenge is now over since nobody could step up to the plate
Decker
MMC78
Columbusdude82
Toneymctones
Trapezkerl
I ETA PI
usmokepole
beatmaster
debussey DF
You said I am making a fool out of myself?.............I would say I made a fool out of every single one of you. I was outnumbered 9 to 1 and not one of you said anything intelligent. All you came up with was name calling and started making fun, which I predicted by the way.
If you guys are so smart why to you guys come on a religious board and try to ruin peoples faith. Does this turn you on? Stating your point of view is one thing, but actually telling Christians there stupid for what they believe is scooping to a low level. I feel sorry for you guys.
You = retarded or a gimmick account. Nobody can be this stupid.
If you can't handle rational sound objections to the obvious errors in your faith even after asking for them, then you are neither confident in your faith nor somebody capable of living in a modern society. The same applies for your lacking arguments.
Keep living in your fantasy world homo :-*
-
When the majority of experts have spent decades researching this stuff, and have tons of studies behind it, what do you think is the odds of ONE fool on Getbig with no prior knowledge, nor the intelligence to argument properly, knows the answer while the experts are wrong?
And your statement about science is horseshit. When the overwhelming majority of experts and studies supports something, the chance of it being correct is pretty high. Anomalies and exceptions occurs, but this does not change the facts that overwhelming evidence = statistically often the way to a good approximation of the truth. Add in the fact that when the opposition is an uneducated jerk with the debating power of a 12 year old, and there ain't much to it :)
If you go against the majority when the majority has the knowledge and proof aquired through a systematic way of experimentation, while you have nothing, then yes. You might not believe in gravity either, even though the majority accepts the "theory" (and the majority = experts enough to understand the basic function of gravity). Go ahead and see if you are right. :D
Debussey,
Of course the opinion of the overwhelming majority of experts matters.
Nevertheless, it is neither intelligent nor scientific to argue that all of us should accept a theory just because the overwhelming majority of experts accept it. The overwhelming majority of experts have been wrong before, and they can be and they will be wrong again.
Science is not human, but scientists and experts are fallible humans. The scientific method is not perfect, and even if it was perfect, it is conducted by fallible humans.
As for gravity, that is different. Gravity is observed, tested and accepted by all of us every day. That is by all of us and not just by the overwhelming majority of experts.
-
loco, you have remained strangely silent. Please tell us what your opinions are of Mr OneTimeHard's scientific breakthroughs.
For your convenience, I have a made a thread celebrating Mr Hard's genius and listing some of his most monumental discoveries! 8)
-
This challenge is now over since nobody could step up to the plate
Decker
MMC78
Columbusdude82
Toneymctones
Trapezkerl
I ETA PI
usmokepole
beatmaster
debussey DF
You said I am making a fool out of myself?.............I would say I made a fool out of every single one of you. I was outnumbered 9 to 1 and not one of you said anything intelligent. All you came up with was name calling and started making fun, which I predicted by the way.
If you guys are so smart why to you guys come on a religious board and try to ruin peoples faith. Does this turn you on? Stating your point of view is one thing, but actually telling Christians there stupid for what they believe is scooping to a low level. I feel sorry for you guys.
I thought I did step up to the plate. I showed you that your dismissal of radioactive dating was an error on your part.
You made a fool out of all of us? How? By reiterating your mistaken understanding of radioactive dating....is that how?
Is your purpose to learn something or make fools of your opponents?
You are not stupid b/c you are a christian.
You are stupid b/c you insulate your mind with creationist blather that has been debunked time and again.
You give Christians a bad name.
-
loco, you have remained strangely silent. Please tell us what your opinions are of Mr OneTimeHard's scientific breakthroughs.
For your convenience, I have a made a thread celebrating Mr Hard's genius and listing some of his most monumental discoveries! 8)
I've been busy at work.
My opinions of OneTimeHard is that he is a good person and a good Christian. He has been made fun of, insulted and ridiculed, yet he has not insulted anybody back and he seems to have kept his cool.
I don't believe that he is giving us Christians a bad name because he has kept a good attitude. Christianity is not about how much you know, but about how much you care.
-
I've been busy at work.
My opinions of OneTimeHard is that he is a good person and a good Christian. He has been made fun of, insulted and ridiculed, yet he has not insulted anybody back and he seems to have kept his cool.
I don't believe that he is giving us Christians a bad name because he has kept a good attitude. Christianity is not about how much you know, but about how much you care.
Nicely said loco. :)
-
Nicely said loco. :)
Thanks OzmO!
-
I've been busy at work.
My opinions of OneTimeHard is that he is a good person and a good Christian. He has been made fun of, insulted and ridiculed, yet he has not insulted anybody back and he seems to have kept his cool.
I don't believe that he is giving us Christians a bad name because he has kept a good attitude. Christianity is not about how much you know, but about how much you care.
he is ignorant and is making baseless claims. he is also basing your god on the disbelief of evolution.
-
I've been busy at work.
My opinions of OneTimeHard is that he is a good person and a good Christian. He has been made fun of, insulted and ridiculed, yet he has not insulted anybody back and he seems to have kept his cool.
I don't believe that he is giving us Christians a bad name because he has kept a good attitude. Christianity is not about how much you know, but about how much you care.
His attitude is horrible. He acts like a recalcitrant child.
His arrogance is certainly not in the Christian tradition.
-
"Either or" arguments lead to psuedo-truth.
Why can't Evolution and God exist?
Because it doesn't fit into someone's interpretation of the Bible?
-
Onetimehard asked for proof of evolutionary change above the level of species(Macroevolution), while making the point that if the earth is thousands and not millions of years old, Macroevolution could not have happened because it requires millions of years. In other words, he asked for proof that humans evolved from apelike ancestors.
Instead of the proof that he asked for, he got insults. But I don't recall him insulting anybody back.
Anyway, this is Onetimehard's debate. He can defend himself.
-
Onetimehard asked for proof of evolutionary change above the level of species(Macroevolution), while making the point that if the earth is thousands and not millions of years old, Macroevolution could not have happened because it requires millions of years. In other words, he asked for proof that humans evolved from apelike creatures.
Instead of the proof that he asked for, he got insults. But I don't recall him insulting anybody back.
Anyway, this is Onetimehard's debate. He can defend himself.
What do you think the point is with the rule about not using evidence dating?
-
Onetimehard asked for proof of evolutionary change above the level of species(Macroevolution), while making the point that if the earth is thousands and not millions of years old, Macroevolution could not have happened because it requires millions of years. In other words, he asked for proof that humans evolved from apelike ancestors.
Instead of the proof that he asked for, he got insults. But I don't recall him insulting anybody back.
Anyway, this is Onetimehard's debate. He can defend himself.
His original challenge was this:
The challenge is this...You must present evidence that contributes to evolution directly or indirectly, but there is one stipulation. THE RULE IS THAT YOU CAN'T USE EVIDENCE THAT REQUIRE MEASURED DATES.
I showed him evidence/link showing that his challenge was based on a misunderstanding of radioactive dating.
For my trouble, he calls me a 'fool.'
So forgive me if I do not jump on your Onetimehard conciliatory bandwagon.
-
Nevertheless, it is neither intelligent nor scientific to argue that all of us should accept a theory just because the overwhelming majority of experts accept it. The overwhelming majority of experts have been wrong before, and they can be and they will be wrong again.
Science is not human, but scientists and experts are fallible humans. The scientific method is not perfect, and even if it was perfect, it is conducted by fallible humans.
As for gravity, that is different. Gravity is observed, tested and accepted by all of us every day. That is by all of us and not just by the overwhelming majority of experts.
Of course, nothing is perfect.. BUT:
Your arguments does not hold for this discussion. The "experts" does not only agree, but the scientific data confirms the beliefs of the experts (lol).
The scientific method in its theoretical form = practically perfect. Many things can screw it up when applied in the real world, but when there = many many experiments in the natural sciences that leads to the conclusions of the experts, like in this case, then its pretty intelligent to assume that the conclusions = reliable.
-
I've been busy at work.
My opinions of OneTimeHard is that he is a good person and a good Christian. He has been made fun of, insulted and ridiculed, yet he has not insulted anybody back and he seems to have kept his cool.
I don't believe that he is giving us Christians a bad name because he has kept a good attitude. Christianity is not about how much you know, but about how much you care.
Dude, "onetimehithard" asked for a debate, yet acts like a little child instead of responding to solid, serious arguments from serious posters.
He ain't showing respect for anybody, and he refuses to debate when he asked for it in the first place.
He's either retarded, completely brainwashed or an idiot... And his attitude is horrendous at best.
-
loco, I asked for your opinion of Mr Hard's scientific breakthroughs, not of his person 8)
-
Dude, "onetimehithard" asked for a debate, yet acts like a little child instead of responding to solid, serious arguments from serious posters.
He ain't showing respect for anybody, and he refuses to debate when he asked for it in the first place.
He's either retarded, completely brainwashed or an idiot... And his attitude is horrendous at best.
In particular, he has shown You Master no respect. He shall be taught to fear and serve the Mad Lord; Your loyal servant and priest shall ensure it!
In the name of the Lord of Madness,
(http://i191.photobucket.com/albums/z25/Todesfick/1997912993.jpg)
-
What do you think the point is with the rule about not using evidence dating?
The point is simple. It is easy for someone to believe in evolution if the dating system is not questioned because they are trained into believing that the earth is billions of years old. When the evolutionist states this happened long ago, he shields himself from proving it because he can't go back in time . If someone doesn't believe in a point in the evolutionists argument they may still believe the earth is old. The whole foundation of evolution is based on these inaccurate dating methods. if you break that then evolution falls; such a big theory held by such a little string, very weak link. If these methods of dating are so accurate then why do they constantly contradict themselves. I don't state references because there are thousands of cases you can easily find, but if you insist I'll present over a hundred cases. Why do dinosaur bones always show up less then 60 000 years in carbon dating test; It is such an embarrassing problem, that most dating experts won't even date bones from dinosaurs, the same bones that the geologic column shows to be 65 000 000 years. One method shows 65 000 000 and another method shows 60 000 yet you don't see a problem with this.
You guys asked why I think the earth isn't old.....because there are signs all over the place that lead to young earth. The human population was less then a billion during the Amercan revolution and now we are creeping up to 7 billion. Probably less then 200 million during Jesus' day; does the population reach an equilibrium for millions of years and then start again, no. The population is on par with Biblical time not evolution time. Have you heard of leap second every few years. This means the earth is slowing down at a rate of approximately one hour every 6 years; not a problem for us, huge problem for the evolutionist. The sun gives away tremendous amounts of volume every day. You think it can lose weight for over 4 billion years, even if it could this would mean that it was obviously bigger, a bigger sun = a hot planet that wouldn't be capable of sustaining live. Just to name a few.
You speak that anyone believing in a world wide flood is crazy. You should know that they teach everybody at the elementary school level that if the poler ice in the north pole and in the south pole melted that this would cover the whole surface of the earth. We know that the north pole was liveable in the past because we find tropical animals buried under the ice, hence the ice wasn't there and if it wasn't there then where was it?
I wasn't directing anything to you OzmO.
-
I meant 1 hour every 6 000 years, sorry. :)
-
The point is simple. It is easy for someone to believe in evolution if the dating system is not questioned because they are trained into believing that the earth is billions of years old. When the evolutionist states this happened long ago, he shields himself from proving it because he can't go back in time . If someone doesn't believe in a point in the evolutionists argument they may still believe the earth is old. The whole foundation of evolution is based on these inaccurate dating methods. if you break that then evolution falls; such a big theory held by such a little string, very weak link. If these methods of dating are so accurate then why do they constantly contradict themselves. I don't state references because there are thousands of cases you can easily find, but if you insist I'll present over a hundred cases. Why do dinosaur bones always show up less then 60 000 years in carbon dating test; It is such an embarrassing problem, that most dating experts won't even date bones from dinosaurs, the same bones that the geologic column shows to be 65 000 000 years. One method shows 65 000 000 and another method shows 60 000 yet you don't see a problem with this.
You guys asked why I think the earth isn't old.....because there are signs all over the place that lead to young earth. The human population was less then a billion during the Amercan revolution and now we are creeping up to 7 billion. Probably less then 200 million during Jesus' day; does the population reach an equilibrium for millions of years and then start again, no. The population is on par with Biblical time not evolution time. Have you heard of leap second every few years. This means the earth is slowing down at a rate of approximately one hour every 6 years; not a problem for us, huge problem for the evolutionist. The sun gives away tremendous amounts of volume every day. You think it can lose weight for over 4 billion years, even if it could this would mean that it was obviously bigger, a bigger sun = a hot planet that wouldn't be capable of sustaining live. Just to name a few.
You speak that anyone believing in a world wide flood is crazy. You should know that they teach everybody at the elementary school level that if the poler ice in the north pole and in the south pole melted that this would cover the whole surface of the earth. We know that the north pole was liveable in the past because we find tropical animals buried under the ice, hence the ice wasn't there and if it wasn't there then where was it?
I wasn't directing anything to you OzmO.
Im not sure about the carbon dating as my knowledge of that is limited to what i learned in chemisty and biology but on the surface the other three seem fairly weak in arguement but i would like to research them so plz post some links. There is a man by the name of malthus that you should look up he was very interested in the growth of global populations and its causes and reasons for regression as well, the world by the way has regressed in population many times and there are some reasons that might coincide with the earth being as old as scientist believe and the population not being as high as you believe it should be
The finding tropical animals on the ice caps ive never heard of either so plz post links for me, but i think that this is somewhat contradictory in a way because if the ice caps werent there, then like you said the water would cover the entire land surface so how would the creatures have lived.
I always thought of it like this a Global flood in the time of moses could have been a flood of what moses considered the "world" which might not necissarily mean the entire world after all the world was considered flat not to long ago, do you think moses knew the world was round and just didnt pass it on to anybody.
plz post a few links
-
::)
You talk as if you knew what you're talking about.
How about getting a couple years' worth of college before you start teaching us science...
-
::)
You talk as if you knew what you're talking about.
How about getting a couple years' worth of college before you start teaching us science...
You too shall be made to kneel before the might of the Mad God!
(http://i191.photobucket.com/albums/z25/Todesfick/250px-BaneTantras.jpg)
-
; It is such an embarrassing problem, that most dating experts won't even date bones from dinosaurs, the same bones that the geologic column shows to be 65 000 000 years. One method shows 65 000 000 and another method shows 60 000 yet you don't see a problem with this.
You gotta be a troll, or one of the misinformed people I've ever known. The practical limit of carbon dating is 50,000 years. It is a short range dating mechanism, you can't date the dinosaurs with it. It is ONLY used for the recent past! To date older events, scientists use lead-uranium dating.
Have you heard of leap second every few years. This means the earth is slowing down at a rate of approximately one hour every 6 years; not a problem for us, huge problem for the evolutionist.
The leap second has NOTHING to do with the slowdown of the earth. NOTHING. It is because the axial rotation of the earth doesn't evenly divide it's orbital period.
The sun gives away tremendous amounts of volume every day. You think it can lose weight for over 4 billion years, even if it could this would mean that it was obviously bigger, a bigger sun = a hot planet that wouldn't be capable of sustaining live. Just to name a few.
I want you to explain to me IN DETAIL the duterium-helium fission cycle and the C-N-O cycle before making ANY CLAIMS as to how fission works. Please explain the rate of loss of using units in terms of joules per killogram per second.
You are beyond wrong with your scientific claims, you're so wrong, you're not even wrong
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_even_wrong
-
I'm not sure about the carbon dating as my knowledge of that is limited to what i learned in chemistry and biology but on the surface the other three seem fairly weak in argument but i would like to research them so plz post some links. There is a man by the name of malthus that you should look up he was very interested in the growth of global populations and its causes and reasons for regression as well, the world by the way has regressed in population many times and there are some reasons that might coincide with the earth being as old as scientist believe and the population not being as high as you believe it should be
The finding tropical animals on the ice caps ive never heard of either so plz post links for me, but i think that this is somewhat contradictory in a way because if the ice caps werent there, then like you said the water would cover the entire land surface so how would the creatures have lived.
I always thought of it like this a Global flood in the time of moses could have been a flood of what moses considered the "world" which might not necissarily mean the entire world after all the world was considered flat not to long ago, do you think moses knew the world was round and just didnt pass it on to anybody.
plz post a few links
Thanks for keeping this discussion civilized and yes You did not make fun or call names. 8)
I am assuming you mean Noah not Moses, but don't feel bad this is common.
If Noah was faced with a local flood then it wouldn't have rained on the earth for 40 days and 40 nights and the waters wouldn't have stayed on the earth for 150 days. Plus Noah would have just moved instead of building a big boat. What I am about to explain to you is complicated so feel free to ask questions if something doesn't make sense to you.
Chapter 1 verse 6, 7, 8.,,,,, And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament:and it was so. And god called the firmament heaven.
Heaven in this particular verse is referring to the sky and it clearly states that there was water above the sky where the ozone layer is. This canopy of water not only created more oxygen, but protected us from the chemicals of the sun(radiation) and made the whole earth tropical. With this canopy humans were able to live longer (900 years) and reptiles such as dinosaurs where able to grow to maga proportions, You see Dino skulls with tiny noses. Since it rained for forty days and forty nights then the canopies duties are no longer required, hence less oxygen less life expectancy and now we have seasons, which is why the northpole is practically inhabitable now. So no contradiction there. Since the world had the same environment throughout because of the canopy then everysingle species can pertain to the same continent, unlike today where kangaroos have to live in Australia. which means that it was easy for Noah to find all the animals. The Bible also states that the fountains of the deep were opened and water gushed out, we see signs of this under the waters( the fault lines). To sum this up...The Poler caps were once the flood waters and the flood waters were once water the was in the earth and also part of the canopy.
-
You gotta be a troll, or one of the misinformed people I've ever known. The practical limit of carbon dating is 50,000 years. It is a short range dating mechanism, you can't date the dinosaurs with it. It is ONLY used for the recent past! To date older events, scientists use lead-uranium dating.
The leap second has NOTHING to do with the slowdown of the earth. NOTHING. It is because the axial rotation of the earth doesn't evenly divide it's orbital period.
I want you to explain to me IN DETAIL the duterium-helium fission cycle and the C-N-O cycle before making ANY CLAIMS as to how fission works. Please explain the rate of loss of using units in terms of joules per killogram per second.
You are beyond wrong with your scientific claims, you're so wrong, you're not even wrong
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_even_wrong
The sad thing is that because Onetimehard has read a few pages on Answers in Genesis, he can competently argue with people with real knowledge or even professors whose specialty it is to study things such a fission. It's so funny, it's not even funny. Pathetic and sad.
-
The sad thing is that because Onetimehard has read a few pages on Answers in Genesis, he can competently argue with people with real knowledge or even professors whose specialty it is to study things such a fission. It's so funny, it's not even funny. Pathetic and sad.
I see you guys have taken a new approach on insults ;D
-
Thanks for keeping this discussion civilized and yes You did not make fun or call names. 8)
I am assuming you mean Noah not Moses, but don't feel bad this is common.
If Noah was faced with a local flood then it wouldn't have rained on the earth for 40 days and 40 nights and the waters wouldn't have stayed on the earth for 150 days. Plus Noah would have just moved instead of building a big boat. What I am about to explain to you is complicated so feel free to ask questions if something doesn't make sense to you.
Chapter 1 verse 6, 7, 8.,,,,, And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament:and it was so. And god called the firmament heaven.
Heaven in this particular verse is referring to the sky and it clearly states that there was water above the sky where the ozone layer is. This canopy of water not only created more oxygen, but protected us from the chemicals of the sun(radiation) and made the whole earth tropical. With this canopy humans were able to live longer (900 years) and reptiles such as dinosaurs where able to grow to maga proportions, You see Dino skulls with tiny noses. Since it rained for forty days and forty nights then the canopies duties are no longer required, hence less oxygen less life expectancy and now we have seasons, which is why the northpole is practically inhabitable now. So no contradiction there. Since the world had the same environment throughout because of the canopy then everysingle species can pertain to the same continent, unlike today where kangaroos have to live in Australia. which means that it was easy for Noah to find all the animals. The Bible also states that the fountains of the deep were opened and water gushed out, we see signs of this under the waters( the fault lines). To sum this up...The Poler caps were once the flood waters and the flood waters were once water the was in the earth and also part of the canopy.
Your argument on everything:
A) The Bible is the inerrant word of god
B) Everything in the Bible is infallible
C) Everything that contradicts the Bible is wrong because of B)
D) B) is correct because of A)
E) A) is correct because I say it is.
::)
-
wow, listen there was no flood (not global), yes there was one (after finding evidences/archeology = science) but it was local (like any other disaster), damn, they didn't know the earth was round, if the poler ice in the north pole and in the south pole melted, it won't cover the planet, you said it did, please explain how would the creatures and humans have lived/survived (Noah doesn't count)
I also wanna have more info's about The finding of tropical animals on the ice caps, link please!
-
wow, listen there was no flood (not global), yes there was one (after finding evidences/archeology = science) but it was local (like any other disaster), damn, they didn't know the earth was round, if the poler ice in the north pole and in the south pole melted, it won't cover the planet, you said it did, please explain how would the creatures and humans have lived/survived (Noah doesn't count)
I also wanna have more info's about The finding of tropical animals on the ice caps, link please!
It's a waste of time. The guy believes in magic, self-resurrecting godmen in loincloths...what else can you expect?
-
It's a waste of time. The guy believes in magic, self-resurrecting godmen in loincloths...what else can you expect?
we can't use anything from millions (not even 10,000) of years ago, but him, he keeps digging in his fairytale book for answers.
gimme a fucking break with Noah already, it's a fairytale, even my son know that!!!
-
we can't use anything from millions (not even 10,000) of years ago, but him, he keeps digging in his fairytale book for answers.
gimme a fucking break with Noah already, it's a fairytale, even my son know that!!!
its fucking incredible that someone would beleive this shit.
-
what i find funny is that particular animals are only find on certain continents thus they couldnt make it to the ark, they would have to cross oceans etc..
LOL... people are so desperate for something more then themselves they will actually beleive childrens stories.
-
what i find funny is that particular animals are only find on certain continents thus they couldnt make it to the ark, they would have to cross oceans etc..
LOL... people are so desperate for something more then themselves they will actually beleive childrens stories.
I already gave you an answere to that in an above post.wow, listen there was no flood (not global), yes there was one (after finding evidences/archeology = science) but it was local (like any other disaster), damn, they didn't know the earth was round, if the poler ice in the north pole and in the south pole melted, it won't cover the planet, you said it did, please explain how would the creatures and humans have lived/survived (Noah doesn't count)
I also wanna have more info's about The finding of tropical animals on the ice caps, link please!
It is easy to find sines millions of scientist agree to this. Google anything that has to do with northpole and tropical or animals frozen in northpole or anything along those lines, the most famous one was the willy-mammoth found frozen in a block of ice with algae still in its teeth. I won't give you a any links because most websites or studies showing the Northpole being once tropical refer to 55 million years ago which I obviously don't agree to. Trust me, easy to find. And yes there is enough volume in the glaciers to cover the planet.
-
what i find funny is that particular animals are only find on certain continents thus they couldnt make it to the ark, they would have to cross oceans etc..
LOL... people are so desperate for something more then themselves they will actually beleive childrens stories.
and how did he fit the dinosaurs in there, and every animals in perfect harmony, all the insects...... lolllll
Insects (Class Insecta) are a major group of arthropods and the most diverse group of animals on the Earth, with over a million described species—more than half of all known living organisms with published estimates of undescribed species as high as 30 million, thus potentially representing over 90% of the life forms on the planet. Insects may be found in nearly all environments on the planet, although only a small number of species occur in the oceans where crustaceans tend to predominate instead. There are approximately 5,000 dragonfly species, 2,000 praying mantis, 20,000 grasshopper, 170,000 butterfly and moth, 120,000 fly, 82,000 true bug, 360,000 beetle, and 110,000 bee, wasp and ant species described to date. Estimates of the total number of current species, including those not yet known to science, range from two million to fifty million, with newer studies favouring a lower figure of about six to ten million.
The study of insects (from Latin insectus, meaning "cut into sections") is called entomology, from the Greek εντομος, also meaning "cut into sections"
Insects were among the earliest terrestrial herbivores and they acted as major selection agents on plants. Plants evolved chemical defenses against this herbivory and the insects in turn evolved mechanisms to deal with plant toxins. Many insects make use of these toxins to protect themselves from their predators. And such insects advertise their toxicity using warning colours. This successful evolutionary pattern has also been utilized by mimics. Over time, this has led to complex groups of co-evolved species. Conversely, some interactions between plants and insects are beneficial (see pollination), and coevolution has led to the development of very specific mutualisms in such systems
wow, noah was good 8)
-
I won't give you a any links because most websites or studies showing the Northpole being once tropical refer to 55 million years ago which I obviously don't agree to. Trust me, easy to find. And yes there is enough volume in the glaciers to cover the planet.
they all agree about 55 million year ago you are right about that.
i know it's easy to find.
nope won't cover the highest mountains
-
what i find funny is that particular animals are only find on certain continents thus they couldnt make it to the ark, they would have to cross oceans etc..
LOL... people are so desperate for something more then themselves they will actually beleive childrens stories.
Magic Powers.... :o
-
they all agree about 55 million year ago you are right about that.
i know it's easy to find.
nope won't cover the highest mountains
They will cover the highest mountain by 15 cubits ;Dand how did he fit the dinosaurs in there, and every animals in perfect harmony, all the insects...... lolllll
Insects (Class Insecta) are a major group of arthropods and the most diverse group of animals on the Earth, with over a million described species—more than half of all known living organisms with published estimates of undescribed species as high as 30 million, thus potentially representing over 90% of the life forms on the planet. Insects may be found in nearly all environments on the planet, although only a small number of species occur in the oceans where crustaceans tend to predominate instead. There are approximately 5,000 dragonfly species, 2,000 praying mantis, 20,000 grasshopper, 170,000 butterfly and moth, 120,000 fly, 82,000 true bug, 360,000 beetle, and 110,000 bee, wasp and ant species described to date. Estimates of the total number of current species, including those not yet known to science, range from two million to fifty million, with newer studies favouring a lower figure of about six to ten million.
The study of insects (from Latin insectus, meaning "cut into sections") is called entomology, from the Greek εντομος, also meaning "cut into sections"
Insects were among the earliest terrestrial herbivores and they acted as major selection agents on plants. Plants evolved chemical defenses against this herbivory and the insects in turn evolved mechanisms to deal with plant toxins. Many insects make use of these toxins to protect themselves from their predators. And such insects advertise their toxicity using warning colours. This successful evolutionary pattern has also been utilized by mimics. Over time, this has led to complex groups of co-evolved species. Conversely, some interactions between plants and insects are beneficial (see pollination), and coevolution has led to the development of very specific mutualisms in such systems
wow, noah was good 8)
We've been through this, but here goes....The length of the ark is 450 feet, the width is 75, the height is 45 feet, thats a whopping 1.5 million cubic feet. To put this in perspective 40 thousand baby elephants can fit comfortably. Those are big numbers your using for species, I agree, but your numbers will reduce themselves significantly. Out of the the 869 000 species you motioned only 16 of them were on the ark. The Bible made it perfectly clear "of fowls after their kind, and of cattle after their kind" which means to dogs, to cows, to horses, not 50 different types of dogs. This isn't contradictory because I do believe dogs variating or as you would say micro-e. Another thing to remember is that he isn't going to bring in a 10 000 pound elephant, he will bring a baby. As for the dinosaurs they died in the flood and were buried in your fake geologic column. Perhaps a few dinosaurs would have been in the ark, but not hostel ones. And your right Noah was good, thats why God spared him.
-
You still haven't addressed my point about leap years or fission. More importantly you haven't acknowledged that carbon dating isn't used for any living organism older than 50,000 years.
Please address these pertinent scientific fundamentals regarding the age of the earth before attempting to argue evolution.
I apologize for my occasional hyperbolic statements, but I feel it is my duty as a good human being to try to teach you some principles about astronomy and some basic chemistry/physics.
-
You still haven't addressed my point about leap years or fission. More importantly you haven't acknowledged that carbon dating isn't used for any living organism older than 50,000 years.
Please address these pertinent scientific fundamentals regarding the age of the earth before attempting to argue evolution.
I apologize for my occasional hyperbolic statements, but I feel it is my duty as a good human being to try to teach you some principles about astronomy and some basic chemistry/physics.
I will discuss leap year tomarrow, I am going to sleep, and yes I agree with there being a limit to carbon-dating to 50 000 years, but If this is so then all dinosaurs being dating should show a max-out number of 50 000, but this isn't the case. Some have showed 30 000, some have shown 40 000. I am an easy target because I dropped out of university and am left with no degree, but there are people that believe what I believe in that have a degree. I don't know if yo are joking about an apology, but If you aren't , no hard feelings :)
-
lollll, are you talking about the real thing or a story?
Imagining the world without ice caps
As long as we understand that the polar ice caps are not going to melt in the foreseeable future, we can proceed to imagine what the world would be like if they did melt.
Using the ice volume to estimate the effect on sea level were all this ice melted. Melting the 29,300,000 km3 of grounded ice would produce 26,100,000 km3 of water. Note that melting of floating ice has no effect on sea level. Also, about 2,100,000 km3 of the grounded ice in Antarctica is below sea level and would be replaced by water. Thus, the net addition to the world's oceans would be about 24,000,000 km3 of water spread over the 361,000,000 km2 area of the world's oceans, giving a depth of 67 meters. The new ocean area would be slightly larger, of course, since some areas now land would be covered with water. The final result would be around 66 meters (current estimates range between 63 and 75 meters).
Obviously some areas are affected more than others. Some larger areas now underwater are the southeastern United States, part of the Amazon River basin, northern Europe, Bangladesh, parts of Siberia along the Arctic Ocean, and portions of mainland China. A large area in Australia would be below sea level, but it is not joined to the ocean and could remain dry.
Both Greenland and Antarctica, free of ice, have areas that would be below sea level. However, with the weight of this ice removed, Greenland and Antarctica would rise higher--this phenomena is called isostatic rebound. This rebound lags behind the removal of the ice (by thousands of years). Eventually, most of Greenland would probably be above sea level. However, significant portions of Antarctica would remain underwater.
or:
Antarctica is covered with ice an average of 2,133 meters (7,000 feet) thick. If all of the Antarctic ice melted, sea levels around the world would rise about 61 meters (200 feet). But the average temperature in Antarctica is -37°C, so the ice there is in no danger of melting. In fact in most parts of the continent it never gets above freezing.
At the other end of the world, the North Pole, the ice is not nearly as thick as at the South Pole. The ice floats on the Arctic Ocean. If it melted sea levels would not be affected.
There is a significant amount of ice covering Greenland, which would add another 7 meters (20 feet) to the oceans if it melted. Because Greenland is closer to the equator than Antarctica, the temperatures there are higher, so the ice is more likely to melt.
What would the Earth look like as a result? If sea level were 66 meters higher than today, the result would be as illustrated below:
-
I will discuss leap year tomarrow, I am going to sleep, and yes I agree with there being a limit to carbon-dating to 50 000 years, but If this is so then all dinosaurs being dating should show a max-out number of 50 000, but this isn't the case. Some have showed 30 000, some have shown 40 000. I am an easy target because I dropped out of university and am left with no degree, but there are people that believe what I believe in that have a degree. I don't know if yo are joking about an apology, but If you aren't , no hard feelings :)
I always preferred Aristotle's view on what an educated person is. It's someone that has sufficient knowledge of a subject that he can be intelligently critical about that field. A person that is able to intelligently criticize what an expert in a subject says is an educated person.
I am perhaps overly educated in terms of degrees, publications, patents etc, but I prefer Aristotle's definition because it places a measurable utility on "education" rather than a diploma.
-
I always preferred Aristotle's view on what an educated person is. It's someone that has sufficient knowledge of a subject that he can be intelligently critical about that field. A person that is able to intelligently criticize what an expert in a subject says is an educated person.
I am perhaps overly educated in terms of degrees, publications, patents etc, but I prefer Aristotle's definition because it places a measurable utility on "education" rather than a diploma.
very well put, many college students today see college as a means to an end for money making purposes. also professors well at least a lot of the professors ive had tend to conform to a "matter of fact" and "this is the way it is" school of teaching instead of encouraging students to continue to seek and futher understand the concepts and what is behind them.
-
We've been through this, but here goes....The length of the ark is 450 feet, the width is 75, the height is 45 feet, thats a whopping 1.5 million cubic feet. To put this in perspective 40 thousand baby elephants can fit comfortably. Those are big numbers your using for species, I agree, but your numbers will reduce themselves significantly. Out of the the 869 000 species you motioned only 16 of them were on the ark. The Bible made it perfectly clear "of fowls after their kind, and of cattle after their kind" which means to dogs, to cows, to horses, not 50 different types of dogs. This isn't contradictory because I do believe dogs variating or as you would say micro-e. Another thing to remember is that he isn't going to bring in a 10 000 pound elephant, he will bring a baby. As for the dinosaurs they died in the flood and were buried in your fake geologic column. Perhaps a few dinosaurs would have been in the ark, but not hostel ones. And your right Noah was good, thats why God spared him.
i said Noah doesn't count: this is not evidences, just fairytales that fits you!
you said we can't use: For example- 65 million years, 4.6 billion years, this creature is prehistoric, millions and millions of years ago.
If we can't use this, you can't use Noah!
so what is your answer? .......... none! why? cause you can't explain it, it doesn't make sens right, it's like if i ask you why you don't believe in the unicorn? you'll probably say it's a fairytale right.
and you want us to believe in something like that. pleeeeeeeeeeeease
-
I always preferred Aristotle's view on what an educated person is. It's someone that has sufficient knowledge of a subject that he can be intelligently critical about that field. A person that is able to intelligently criticize what an expert in a subject says is an educated person.
I am perhaps overly educated in terms of degrees, publications, patents etc, but I prefer Aristotle's definition because it places a measurable utility on "education" rather than a diploma.
what degrees do you hold? serious question, im just curious
we need more educated folk on here. ;D
-
what degrees do you hold? serious question, im just curious
we need more educated folk on here. ;D
Nothing terribly special. Was a PhD student in computer science at a very good school. I'm on leave now and probably won't return as a PhD in CS isn't really needed unless you want to become a professor. Published in some good conferences/journals and a couple patents.
I've always been a fan and avid reader of the natural sciences and if I had to do it over again, I'd study physics or astronomy. I get more enjoyment learning about new subjects outside of my job, precisely because it's not my job.
-
No reply about leap years and why they indicate a slowing earth?
I found a decent page about it so that I don't have to re-iterate the main point:
http://www.rense.com/general38/earth.htm