Evolution
-
The validity of the Bible is base on a bunch of assumptions. 1) Our decentants did not lie about its origin. 2) While it was passed on thoughout time no one changed, mis-interpreted, added or removed text from it. (I believe there is a clause in the Bible that states you to Hell if you do this but that does not remove the modification from circulation.)
Yep. And these assumptions haven't been objectively proven wrong though they've been criticized and attacked for hundreds of years. The radiation dating methods have produced conflicting dates, making them much, much, much less reliable. In fact, the normal approach of dating one item appears to be 1) take a bunch of measurements, and 2) pick the one they like the most (i.e. fits best with their other assumptions about it). Check these links. http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/382.asp http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/feedback/negative6-26-2000.asp http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/1141.asp http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/docs/v13n1_volcano.asp
-
If you take a look at current scientists, most of them see problems with evolution in their specific fields examples please. The problem is that when they get together, they all see that evolution just doesn't work. examples please. i know it fits your POV to think that there is a huge amount of FUD among evolutionary/biological scientists. but i believe you're wrong. like using mutations which Darwin didn't do, or punctuated equilibrium Darwin wasn't 100% correct, BFD. but, he took us a long way in the right direction. The final 'theory' people will settle on will be the one found in the Bible because it's the right one (and it works the best). ok. -c ------------------------------ Smaller Animals Software, Inc. http://www.smalleranimals.com
Try this page for some quotes, etc. http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/20hist12.htm
-
Ok. Then why do you beleive scientists or anybody today? i don't. i only believe myself. and what i've seen from science makes a thousand times more sense than what i've seen from the bible. but, everybody's entitled to their own viewpoint (at least in the US, you are). Oh brother... You honestly think that the documentary evidence for those is of the same quality as what we were talking about? yep. Some 'species' of dogs are no longer capable of interbreeding which dogs are these? -c ------------------------------ Smaller Animals Software, Inc. http://www.smalleranimals.com
Hmmm... Dangerous thinking. At the time you become omniscient and still think the same thing, let me know. John
-
You're talking about our conscience, an understanding that there is more to life than doing what we want regardless of others. From your POV, God may as *well* not exist because your reality of God is to every person whatever they want it to be. What you're saying is not far removed from who God is, but in the absence of any communication from Him, I would continue to maintain that it all ends up coming down to what seems right to the individual, which means either God is confused, or every concept of God is right because it's just a label we give to our humanity and has nothing real behind it. Christian As I learn the innermost secrets of the around me, they reward me in many ways to keep quiet. Men with pierced ears are better prepared for marriage. They've experienced pain and bought Jewellery.
I'm not going to argue with you about the existance of God. No one can prove or disprove it, in the same way I can't prove or disprove the existance of a breed of three legged camel that lives in Peru. At least with my interpreation of what God is can be proved to exist. No one can argue against that.
:cool: -=:suss:=-
David Wulff dwulff@battleaxesoftware.com
-
This is a three part question 1/ Dinosaurs. Nothing to explain, largely because I don't know why God made them, or why they died out. The Bible is silent on this matter, and I don't really see it as overly important, although I do not deny it is interesting. 2/ Primates. If you mean human ancestors, then I'm sorry, but half a human skull and half a pig jaw do not constitute proof of a link between man and apes. If we're so close to apes, why do we use rats and pigs to do medical tests ? 3/ Prehistoric species. Are you contending that because many species have existed and died out, that others have 'sprung up' to take their place spontaneously or out of lesser animals that existed already ? Christian As I learn the innermost secrets of the around me, they reward me in many ways to keep quiet. Men with pierced ears are better prepared for marriage. They've experienced pain and bought Jewellery.
2/ Primates. If you mean human ancestors, then I'm sorry, but half a human skull and half a pig jaw do not constitute proof of a link between man and apes. If we're so close to apes, why do we use rats and pigs to do medical tests ? At least 98% of human DNA is identical to that of chimpanzees. I don't think this is a mere coincidence. We've all heard that a million monkeys on a million keyboards would eventually come up with the entire works of Shakespeare - thanks to the Internet, we now know this isn't true...
-
Try this page for some quotes, etc. http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/20hist12.htm
the author of the page spells out his agenda in the first paragraph. there's no need to read any further. and yet i did... basically it tries to make the same point over and over. here's a summary for those of you who don't want to read: scientists don't have all the answers to all of the sub-questions of evolution yet, so the whole thing must be wrong. wishful thinking, but that's not how the science or even everyday life works. in the real world, you make an assumption, run with it until you find a problem, fix the problem, move on. and even if current evolutionary theory is wrong, even if it's completely wrong, that wouldn't prove that god sat down and flicked the whole universe into existence, then set it up to fool humans (and humans only!) into thinking otherwise. evolution and creationism are not opposite sides of the same coin; one does not disprove the other. but, creationism, as that page states it, is anti-science, anti-knowledge, anti-learning and anti-intellectual. frankly, it's depressing. but, anti-science is exactly how it has to be for someone who truly believes in god. once you suppose the existence of an omniscient, all powerful uber-being that works in ways we can't identify or understand, you've basically thrown your hands up and shouted "we'll never know anything!" sometimes he causes things to happen, sometimes he doesn't but we can't tell anyway because there are no unambiguous signs. at that point, you simply can't ask any more questions, because the only answer to any possible question is "god did it". you can't know otherwise. you can't say "well he did this, but not this - i did that myself". no, the only possible answer is "god did it". you can't prove otherwise. dog got run over? god did it. you got married? god did it. the sun came out again today? god did it. too many cars on the road? god did it. i have a computer? god did it. it runs windows? god did it. it crashes from time to time? god did it. once you suppose a god that can do anything without us knowing any differently, you can't answer any differently than "god did it" to any question. that page and the entire creationist position is impossible to argue against. not because it's right, but because it's based on assumptions that themselves are completely impossible to disprove: god exists and can do anything he wants and we can't say for sure what he did or didn't do. the assumptions encompass everything that happen or could happen, ever, under any circumstances
-
While we are on the flood topic, could you explain how two of each species re-populated the earth considering there is scientific proof that repeated inbreeding causes health problems and deformations?
Sure. God created everything during the first week and saw that "everything was very good". A normal understanding of that would include genetics. In other words, there weren't any genetic mistakes, yet. After Adam and Eve sinned, death came into the world, and things started decaying. The world slowly changed, bad mutations occurred, etc. So, initially, inbreeding wasn't a problem (in fact that is seen in the early parts of the Old Testament history), but several hundred years after the flood, God prohibitted it for the health of the Israelites. (By that time, the collective genetic mistakes could cause problems with inbreeding.) Today, we have had a more time to collect these genetic mistakes. As a result, we've extended the 'inbreeding' concept out to first cousins as a norm. The way things work, we'll have to extend that relationship barrier out a little farther unless we find a way to correct the mistakes. John
-
the author of the page spells out his agenda in the first paragraph. there's no need to read any further. and yet i did... basically it tries to make the same point over and over. here's a summary for those of you who don't want to read: scientists don't have all the answers to all of the sub-questions of evolution yet, so the whole thing must be wrong. wishful thinking, but that's not how the science or even everyday life works. in the real world, you make an assumption, run with it until you find a problem, fix the problem, move on. and even if current evolutionary theory is wrong, even if it's completely wrong, that wouldn't prove that god sat down and flicked the whole universe into existence, then set it up to fool humans (and humans only!) into thinking otherwise. evolution and creationism are not opposite sides of the same coin; one does not disprove the other. but, creationism, as that page states it, is anti-science, anti-knowledge, anti-learning and anti-intellectual. frankly, it's depressing. but, anti-science is exactly how it has to be for someone who truly believes in god. once you suppose the existence of an omniscient, all powerful uber-being that works in ways we can't identify or understand, you've basically thrown your hands up and shouted "we'll never know anything!" sometimes he causes things to happen, sometimes he doesn't but we can't tell anyway because there are no unambiguous signs. at that point, you simply can't ask any more questions, because the only answer to any possible question is "god did it". you can't know otherwise. you can't say "well he did this, but not this - i did that myself". no, the only possible answer is "god did it". you can't prove otherwise. dog got run over? god did it. you got married? god did it. the sun came out again today? god did it. too many cars on the road? god did it. i have a computer? god did it. it runs windows? god did it. it crashes from time to time? god did it. once you suppose a god that can do anything without us knowing any differently, you can't answer any differently than "god did it" to any question. that page and the entire creationist position is impossible to argue against. not because it's right, but because it's based on assumptions that themselves are completely impossible to disprove: god exists and can do anything he wants and we can't say for sure what he did or didn't do. the assumptions encompass everything that happen or could happen, ever, under any circumstances
You asked for evidence about my statements that most scientists were unconvinced about evolution. That's what I put in the post you responded to. It was not an attempt to provide evidence for Creation and I never stated that it was. here's a summary for those of you who don't want to read: scientists don't have all the answers to all of the sub-questions of evolution yet, so the whole thing must be wrong. Not quite. The problem in question is not a "sub-question" it is whether evolution could have happened at all. Big difference. Yes, the page concludes other things, but I gave you a reference for some evidence you asked for. evolution and creationism are not opposite sides of the same coin; one does not disprove the other. True, and I didn't try to state otherwise. but, anti-science is exactly how it has to be for someone who truly believes in god That's a rather vicious and unfounded attack. Sure, there are some people like that, but how many people believe in evolution without being able to say why? Visit www.answersingenesis.org read some replies to the questions you already have and to see that there are intelligent scientists who believe in God. BTW, how do you explain Galileo, Isaac Newton, Michael Faraday, Lois Pasteur and other impressive scientists according to your statement? They all believe in God. In fact, it motivated them to do some of the things they did. John
-
Yep. And these assumptions haven't been objectively proven wrong though they've been criticized and attacked for hundreds of years. The radiation dating methods have produced conflicting dates, making them much, much, much less reliable. In fact, the normal approach of dating one item appears to be 1) take a bunch of measurements, and 2) pick the one they like the most (i.e. fits best with their other assumptions about it). Check these links. http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/382.asp http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/feedback/negative6-26-2000.asp http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/1141.asp http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/docs/v13n1_volcano.asp
I wasn't challenging your post. Actually, it made me realize there really isn't any way of proving how old the earth really is without taking someone else's word for it. I just thought I would re-use this logic to point out that you are assuming the validity of the Bible as much as others assume the validity of fossil dating.
-
You asked for evidence about my statements that most scientists were unconvinced about evolution. That's what I put in the post you responded to. It was not an attempt to provide evidence for Creation and I never stated that it was. here's a summary for those of you who don't want to read: scientists don't have all the answers to all of the sub-questions of evolution yet, so the whole thing must be wrong. Not quite. The problem in question is not a "sub-question" it is whether evolution could have happened at all. Big difference. Yes, the page concludes other things, but I gave you a reference for some evidence you asked for. evolution and creationism are not opposite sides of the same coin; one does not disprove the other. True, and I didn't try to state otherwise. but, anti-science is exactly how it has to be for someone who truly believes in god That's a rather vicious and unfounded attack. Sure, there are some people like that, but how many people believe in evolution without being able to say why? Visit www.answersingenesis.org read some replies to the questions you already have and to see that there are intelligent scientists who believe in God. BTW, how do you explain Galileo, Isaac Newton, Michael Faraday, Lois Pasteur and other impressive scientists according to your statement? They all believe in God. In fact, it motivated them to do some of the things they did. John
Yes, the page concludes other things, but I gave you a reference for some evidence you asked for. i don't consider that page to be evidence. it's as from from objective as you can get. you might as well ask a palestinian if jews are nice people. That's a rather vicious and unfounded attack. the rest of my post provides the logical foundation. i'll summarize : if god can do anything and we can't tell, there's no point in trying to explain anything. "god did it" covers everything. furthermore, as soon as a believer uses "god did it" as a reason, a non-believer has no choice but to abandon the conversation; logic cannot overcome true faith in the mind of a believer. you can't prove it, you can't disprove it. end of discussion. there are intelligent scientists who believe in God i'm sure they had to reconcile their discoveries with their beliefs, in cases where what they found disagreed with what the bible said. how they did that, i can't say. -c ------------------------------ Smaller Animals Software, Inc. http://www.smalleranimals.com
-
I'm not going to argue with you about the existance of God. No one can prove or disprove it, in the same way I can't prove or disprove the existance of a breed of three legged camel that lives in Peru. At least with my interpreation of what God is can be proved to exist. No one can argue against that.
:cool: -=:suss:=-
David Wulff dwulff@battleaxesoftware.com
Accepting that it's probably a pointless argument and that you don't want to pursue it, I'll just make the point that a/ My interpretation of what God is can be easily proven through the physical evidence I claim He offers, and b/ Your interpretation is one of many that works on absence of proof and has veracity only to those who already believe it. Nevertheless, it's unlikely to be an issue on which we can agree, so it's probably not worth taking further. Christian As I learn the innermost secrets of the around me, they reward me in many ways to keep quiet. Men with pierced ears are better prepared for marriage. They've experienced pain and bought Jewellery.
-
Yes, the page concludes other things, but I gave you a reference for some evidence you asked for. i don't consider that page to be evidence. it's as from from objective as you can get. you might as well ask a palestinian if jews are nice people. That's a rather vicious and unfounded attack. the rest of my post provides the logical foundation. i'll summarize : if god can do anything and we can't tell, there's no point in trying to explain anything. "god did it" covers everything. furthermore, as soon as a believer uses "god did it" as a reason, a non-believer has no choice but to abandon the conversation; logic cannot overcome true faith in the mind of a believer. you can't prove it, you can't disprove it. end of discussion. there are intelligent scientists who believe in God i'm sure they had to reconcile their discoveries with their beliefs, in cases where what they found disagreed with what the bible said. how they did that, i can't say. -c ------------------------------ Smaller Animals Software, Inc. http://www.smalleranimals.com
i don't consider that page to be evidence. it's as from from objective as you can get. you might as well ask a palestinian if jews are nice people. How are quotes from evolutionist scientists stating that they have serious problems with evolution not evidence that those scientists exist? :confused: if god can do anything and we can't tell, there's no point in trying to explain anything. "god did it" covers everything. furthermore, as soon as a believer uses "god did it" as a reason, a non-believer has no choice but to abandon the conversation; logic cannot overcome true faith in the mind of a believer. you can't prove it, you can't disprove it. end of discussion. I don't mean to be rude, but do you even understand what your saying? Discussing the evidence and deciding which model is better supported by it is something that every Christian I personally know has absolutely no problem with. We do not blanketly state that God did it when we don't know the answer. If we did, then how do you explain the fact that there are Christian scientists in the first place? How would you explain that scientific study took off in a time when a huge percentage of the people believed in God? People have used your argument in genuine debates before, but the majority of people have given up on it because -- it simply isn't true. (Yeah, some ignorant people refuse to listen to what you say, but that's not who we're talking about here.) Again, you're stating an argument that has little to no basis in fact. The people trying to honestly discuss creation vs. evolution don't simply state that "God did it" for every objection the evolutionists have. If that were the case, no evolutionists would have switched to creationism and there have been many. i'm sure they had to reconcile their discoveries with their beliefs, in cases where what they found disagreed with what the bible said. how they did that, i can't say. It was rather easy, since more evidence supports Creation than it does evolution. Pick some evidence and I'll see if I can show you. In fact, if you are right, you could take every evidence-related article off the www.answersingenesis.org and show why it has factual problems. Go ahead. John
-
i don't consider that page to be evidence. it's as from from objective as you can get. you might as well ask a palestinian if jews are nice people. How are quotes from evolutionist scientists stating that they have serious problems with evolution not evidence that those scientists exist? :confused: if god can do anything and we can't tell, there's no point in trying to explain anything. "god did it" covers everything. furthermore, as soon as a believer uses "god did it" as a reason, a non-believer has no choice but to abandon the conversation; logic cannot overcome true faith in the mind of a believer. you can't prove it, you can't disprove it. end of discussion. I don't mean to be rude, but do you even understand what your saying? Discussing the evidence and deciding which model is better supported by it is something that every Christian I personally know has absolutely no problem with. We do not blanketly state that God did it when we don't know the answer. If we did, then how do you explain the fact that there are Christian scientists in the first place? How would you explain that scientific study took off in a time when a huge percentage of the people believed in God? People have used your argument in genuine debates before, but the majority of people have given up on it because -- it simply isn't true. (Yeah, some ignorant people refuse to listen to what you say, but that's not who we're talking about here.) Again, you're stating an argument that has little to no basis in fact. The people trying to honestly discuss creation vs. evolution don't simply state that "God did it" for every objection the evolutionists have. If that were the case, no evolutionists would have switched to creationism and there have been many. i'm sure they had to reconcile their discoveries with their beliefs, in cases where what they found disagreed with what the bible said. how they did that, i can't say. It was rather easy, since more evidence supports Creation than it does evolution. Pick some evidence and I'll see if I can show you. In fact, if you are right, you could take every evidence-related article off the www.answersingenesis.org and show why it has factual problems. Go ahead. John
from: http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/3791.asp IN SUMMARY
- The universe (including time itself) can be shown to have had a beginning.
- It is unreasonable to believe something could begin to exist without a cause.
- The universe therefore requires a cause, just as Genesis 1:1 and Romans 1:20 teach.
- God, as creator of time, is outside of time. Since therefore He has no beginning in time, He has always existed, so doesn’t need a cause.
point 4 plays the all-powerful god card, neatly trumping point 2. it is impossible to argue with logic like this. http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/3987.asp The fossil record, rather than showing change from one kind to another, shows stasis — things remaining the same. You only have to look at the so-called Cambrian sea and you’ll find jellyfish, starfish, snails, sea urchins, brachiopods, clams and sponges — things you’ll find in the seas today, essentially unchanged after supposedly 500 million years or more. Unchanged? Just because some critters haven't changed doesn't mean other things haven't: dinosaurs, 50 foot sharks, 10 foot lemurs, trilobites, etc.. any room for the argument that a sponge is an adaptable and well-suited creature for its environment? didn't think so. same page: Take, for example, the mammals, which are supposed to be a monophyletic group (descended from a common ancestor). The neo-Darwinian model requires that every one of the groups has descended from a single, unidentified, small land mammal. Huge numbers of intermediate species in the direct line of transition would have had to exist, but the fossil record fails to reveal any of them. so what, people haven't finished digging, have they? (forgot the page) There is nothing about the information in DNA or in proteins which is self-constructing. and you said we didn't fully understand DNA yet. sheesh - you must be modest. http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/3801.asp The burgeoning field of molecular biology continues to reveal unimagined complexity in the biochemistry of cells. It would be foolish indeed to pronounce anything as ‘junk’. Like the ‘vestigial organs’ idea, it seems that evolutionary ideas about the molecular machines in cells feed on lack of knowledge. oh, you mean we haven't discovered e
-
from: http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/3791.asp IN SUMMARY
- The universe (including time itself) can be shown to have had a beginning.
- It is unreasonable to believe something could begin to exist without a cause.
- The universe therefore requires a cause, just as Genesis 1:1 and Romans 1:20 teach.
- God, as creator of time, is outside of time. Since therefore He has no beginning in time, He has always existed, so doesn’t need a cause.
point 4 plays the all-powerful god card, neatly trumping point 2. it is impossible to argue with logic like this. http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/3987.asp The fossil record, rather than showing change from one kind to another, shows stasis — things remaining the same. You only have to look at the so-called Cambrian sea and you’ll find jellyfish, starfish, snails, sea urchins, brachiopods, clams and sponges — things you’ll find in the seas today, essentially unchanged after supposedly 500 million years or more. Unchanged? Just because some critters haven't changed doesn't mean other things haven't: dinosaurs, 50 foot sharks, 10 foot lemurs, trilobites, etc.. any room for the argument that a sponge is an adaptable and well-suited creature for its environment? didn't think so. same page: Take, for example, the mammals, which are supposed to be a monophyletic group (descended from a common ancestor). The neo-Darwinian model requires that every one of the groups has descended from a single, unidentified, small land mammal. Huge numbers of intermediate species in the direct line of transition would have had to exist, but the fossil record fails to reveal any of them. so what, people haven't finished digging, have they? (forgot the page) There is nothing about the information in DNA or in proteins which is self-constructing. and you said we didn't fully understand DNA yet. sheesh - you must be modest. http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/3801.asp The burgeoning field of molecular biology continues to reveal unimagined complexity in the biochemistry of cells. It would be foolish indeed to pronounce anything as ‘junk’. Like the ‘vestigial organs’ idea, it seems that evolutionary ideas about the molecular machines in cells feed on lack of knowledge. oh, you mean we haven't discovered e
-
the author of the page spells out his agenda in the first paragraph. there's no need to read any further. and yet i did... basically it tries to make the same point over and over. here's a summary for those of you who don't want to read: scientists don't have all the answers to all of the sub-questions of evolution yet, so the whole thing must be wrong. wishful thinking, but that's not how the science or even everyday life works. in the real world, you make an assumption, run with it until you find a problem, fix the problem, move on. and even if current evolutionary theory is wrong, even if it's completely wrong, that wouldn't prove that god sat down and flicked the whole universe into existence, then set it up to fool humans (and humans only!) into thinking otherwise. evolution and creationism are not opposite sides of the same coin; one does not disprove the other. but, creationism, as that page states it, is anti-science, anti-knowledge, anti-learning and anti-intellectual. frankly, it's depressing. but, anti-science is exactly how it has to be for someone who truly believes in god. once you suppose the existence of an omniscient, all powerful uber-being that works in ways we can't identify or understand, you've basically thrown your hands up and shouted "we'll never know anything!" sometimes he causes things to happen, sometimes he doesn't but we can't tell anyway because there are no unambiguous signs. at that point, you simply can't ask any more questions, because the only answer to any possible question is "god did it". you can't know otherwise. you can't say "well he did this, but not this - i did that myself". no, the only possible answer is "god did it". you can't prove otherwise. dog got run over? god did it. you got married? god did it. the sun came out again today? god did it. too many cars on the road? god did it. i have a computer? god did it. it runs windows? god did it. it crashes from time to time? god did it. once you suppose a god that can do anything without us knowing any differently, you can't answer any differently than "god did it" to any question. that page and the entire creationist position is impossible to argue against. not because it's right, but because it's based on assumptions that themselves are completely impossible to disprove: god exists and can do anything he wants and we can't say for sure what he did or didn't do. the assumptions encompass everything that happen or could happen, ever, under any circumstances
dog got run over? god did it. Wrong, wrong, wrong Chris. If I have learnt anything from the religious zealots around me it is this. All good things - God did it. All bad things - Man or anyone but god did it. lovely twist to make your own interpretation of the world fit to all situations. Michael Martin Pegasystems Pty Ltd Australia martm@pegasystems.com +61 413-004-018 "Don't belong. Never join. Think for yourself. Peace" - Victor Stone
-
Yes, the page concludes other things, but I gave you a reference for some evidence you asked for. i don't consider that page to be evidence. it's as from from objective as you can get. you might as well ask a palestinian if jews are nice people. That's a rather vicious and unfounded attack. the rest of my post provides the logical foundation. i'll summarize : if god can do anything and we can't tell, there's no point in trying to explain anything. "god did it" covers everything. furthermore, as soon as a believer uses "god did it" as a reason, a non-believer has no choice but to abandon the conversation; logic cannot overcome true faith in the mind of a believer. you can't prove it, you can't disprove it. end of discussion. there are intelligent scientists who believe in God i'm sure they had to reconcile their discoveries with their beliefs, in cases where what they found disagreed with what the bible said. how they did that, i can't say. -c ------------------------------ Smaller Animals Software, Inc. http://www.smalleranimals.com
Also in the times that some of those scientists lived they would have been subjected to religious tests as to their right to live. Burn him at the stake - If he lifes he is a witch/devil/whatever and must be killed. If he dies, well he was a good Christian boy. Throw him in the lake - If he floats he is a witch/devil/whatever and must be killed. If he drowns, well he was a good Christian boy. Racks/pillories/Catholic priests fucking little boys up the arse. Jeez I'm glad we were all beoing looked after by God and his religious zealots. X| Michael Martin Pegasystems Pty Ltd Australia martm@pegasystems.com +61 413-004-018 "Don't belong. Never join. Think for yourself. Peace" - Victor Stone
-
Fossil dating is based on a bunch of assumptions. 1) The amount of radioactive material originally in the item. How do they know that? 2) The rate of decay for whatever they're measuring has never changed. How do they know that? Have they been measuring it during the time in question until now? Nope. 3) Nothing altered the item between the time they are measuring from until now. How do they know that, were they there watching it the whole time? Those sorts of assumptions "hold up" all the fossil dating methods. I'm not going to base any important beliefs on that. Straight math is good, but it needs good information to be useful. John
Yeah, but I don't think even you could fuck up enough to cionfuse 7,000 and 70,000,000. Though maybe if God said so you would. Michael Martin Pegasystems Pty Ltd Australia martm@pegasystems.com +61 413-004-018 "Don't belong. Never join. Think for yourself. Peace" - Victor Stone
-
Yep. And these assumptions haven't been objectively proven wrong though they've been criticized and attacked for hundreds of years. The radiation dating methods have produced conflicting dates, making them much, much, much less reliable. In fact, the normal approach of dating one item appears to be 1) take a bunch of measurements, and 2) pick the one they like the most (i.e. fits best with their other assumptions about it). Check these links. http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/382.asp http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/feedback/negative6-26-2000.asp http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/1141.asp http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/docs/v13n1_volcano.asp
Yep. And these assumptions haven't been objectively proven wrong though they've been criticized and attacked for hundreds of years. Please, give me the name of your dealer, I want on. Your like the monkey crapping in your hand and throwing it at people. Objective what. Prove to me that the Bible existed prior to Nostradamus, as I think he must have wrote sme of the esoteric dribble. Don't go to the Dead Sea Scrolls or any of that other shit. My Great great great grandfather wrote all that crap for a joke. Got a Christian scientist friend to carbon date it to approximations he put in the Bible and then said "This is all true, and you non-believers can't prove other wise cause I'm blind to logic.". How can you say our scientific dating is bullshit while your flight of fancy Jesus based shit is fact. Oh it's in the book. Hang on a minute, way back in the Bible times only the Rich/Royalty/Priest types got to learn to read and write. The plebs just got told what happened. Decent education across the board only happened in the last hundred years or so. The victors write history the facts be damned. That's what has happened with the Bible and all the Popey exclusive twats over the years. Michael Martin Pegasystems Pty Ltd Australia martm@pegasystems.com +61 413-004-018 "Don't belong. Never join. Think for yourself. Peace" - Victor Stone
-
Um. You're ignoring the evidence that I gave and focusing on my conclusion. Why? so if people write something down, it must be real - people wouldn't lie or make up stories to scare their children into not doing stupid stuff. Ok. Then why do you beleive scientists or anybody today? There are ways to determine whether something was intended to be a myth or not. what about griffons, harpies, centaurs, minotaurs, medusas, sea monsters, succubii, incubii, vampires, big foots, abominable snowmen, werewolves, toothfaries and chupacabras ? did noah have two of those on his raft too? why did god only pick on land animals? (or did he kill everything in the sea, too?) Oh brother... You honestly think that the documentary evidence for those is of the same quality as what we were talking about? *shakes his head sadly* species: (1) : a category of biological classification ranking immediately below the genus or subgenus, comprising related organisms or populations potentially capable of interbreeding Yeah, that's the technical definition, but it isn't always used that way. I was just trying to be clear. Some 'species' of dogs are no longer capable of interbreeding, but that's due to genetic mistakes not whether they were part of the original 'kind'. John
Yeah I do. People from ancient times writing down stupid shit in another language. Sounds like the Bible to me. Michael Martin Pegasystems Pty Ltd Australia martm@pegasystems.com +61 413-004-018 "Don't belong. Never join. Think for yourself. Peace" - Victor Stone
-
Hmmm... It doesn't take faith to think evolution might explain where we came from. There's plenty of evidence to support evolution. If that's the case, where's the missing link? Where's the evidence that the media would so happily show to the world? Why hasn't anyone proved evolution if there's "plenty of evidence"? The fact is that evolution hasn't found anything truly useful in supporting itself, but there is plenty of evidence that evolutionary ideas are false. Mt. St. Helens erupted and produced the same rock layers in a few days that evolutionists use to date fossils in the 'millions of years' range. Genetic research is rapidly increasing the perceived gap between apes and humans, not shrinking it. Everything previously thought to be "missing link's" have been shown to be hoaxes or misinterpretations of the evidence. Evidence for creation in the meantime has been growing. All you gotta do is look around to see its effects. All you gotta do is look around to see the effects that sin has had on God's creation. Since I obviously can't answer every question, take a look at www.answersingenesis.org and other similar sites. Sure, you might run into something that's not right, but you'll find a whole lot that _is_ right. John
Oh for fuck sake. The Bible and God haven't been proven in anyway yet. If religion is so just and confident in itself why does it recruit when children are but a few weeks old. Why don't they have the confidence to allow people to grow up understand and debate and then decide for themselves. Because only a few brain-dead would hang around churches and religion. Michael Martin Pegasystems Pty Ltd Australia martm@pegasystems.com +61 413-004-018 "Don't belong. Never join. Think for yourself. Peace" - Victor Stone
