<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> For example: Tigers seem to be going out of existance. There are only a few thousand left in the wild. Suppose they do go out of existence and are eventually forgotten about. Suppose, in a few thousand years or so, scientists dig up a Tiger fossil and study it. They would realize that this creature is a big cat of some sort but not a Lion. Using the same logic, they may suggest that the Lion evolved from the Tiger. [/b][/quote] should we also assume that they dont find any LION bones and date them to precisely the same period as the tiger?
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> Truthfully, billions of years wouldn't even be enough to support this very slow process...but that is a point for another time. [/b][/quote] I agree, it's still nonsense to say that the earth is only a few thousand years old on sooooo many levels. Yom can be interpreted (rightfully so) to mean an indefinite (long, not nessecarily 1000 years possibly much longer) period of time. If you notice in Genesis it says "...and there was the beginning & then end, the Xth day" (roughly paraphrasing) for days one through six. So, to me, it's saying this time period started here, God did all these things in this time period and then it ended. Notice that the 7th "day" is the only day that it doesn't use the beginning and ending markers it only says God rested... I believe we're still in the seventh day which started when God was done creating & continues until now which would also confirm the creation "days" are very long periods of time (I can explain why further if you want). I'm just saying you don't have to reject indisputable scientific fact to be a believer (for the record I don't believe we evolved from primates either, like you I believe we were created only thousands of years ago during the sixth day) "test all things..." and the truth will set you free in that you'll find that there is no conflict between the bible (which we know is true) & established facts that we know are true. Why would there be if they're both right?
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> So what, our population comes down to an exponential with a base of two? Is this what you're saying? And you say the evolutionary theory is nonsense? Come on. It may have holes in it, but I'll put that down to human ignorance and the fact we haven't had enough time to find out every single last fact about it. That's why it's called a theory. The Adam & Eve theory is one gigantic black hole of the ridiculous. [/b][/quote] It's the names "Adam and Eve" that are throwing you off. It's conjures up thoughts of little kids in Sunday school and no adult who claims he's educated wants to say that he's adopting a Sunday School theory. HOWEVER....merely substitute "Adam and Eve" for "one man and one woman" and you will soon realize that this is the only thing that makes sense. Why? Because like I have already stated humans can only be generated by humans. This is the only thing that has been proven by science. Therefore saying that humans are descended from FISHES etc..., after what we've observed and tested in science is the real.... "one gigantic black hole of the ridiculous.". It's the blind leading the blind. The Sly One has Spoken!! [/b][/quote] If there was just one man and one woman at first (those Adam and Eve), then how didi black people develop (or white people if those two were black)?. Where did the indians and chinese come from? Wouldn't it be more logical to assume that people have been born around the world and there has never been just two human? Now if you think that man has changed during these years from white to black because of nature (black skin can take sun better so it is better to hot places), that is very plausible. If this is not your opinion of how it happened, then I'd like to hear your version. Now if a man has been able to change his colour because of natural development (evolution), then you are not too far from ape developing to a human. Even these days ape's and human's DNA is 98% the same, their differences are very small. As the archeologists have shown, earlier apes and men have been even closer to each other.
there is no god. life on earth was created in complete irrelevance to the big bang, but We are the result of an alien "stellar winnebago" waste dump on Earth. i'm sure in good time, man will return the favor to another planet which we will soil and in a few more million years, life will appear there too. maybe we can wage interplanetary wars and prolong the destruction outside of our own World.
The most well known and most absolute dating technique , Carbon-14 dating , has a half-life of about 5,730 years . This means it can only date with accuraccy to that point and is absolutely useless beyond 50-70,000 years. Whooops ! MORAL : NO ONE knows of anything older than this and the accuracy beyond it's half life is considerably varied as has been proven by multiple tests on the same matter with different results. Science ... Gotta love it.
Oh ... let me add to this that scientists can not even prove they have figured out accurately it's rate of decay beyond a few thousand years , only that the most accurate dating method is not that accurate beyond recorded history BUT it's a fact ! Nonetheless!!! :wub: :YeahRight:
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> The most well known and most absolute dating technique , Carbon-14 dating , has a half-life of about 5,730 years . This means it can only date with accuraccy to that point and is absolutely useless beyond 50-70,000 years. Whooops ! MORAL : NO ONE knows of anything older than this and the accuracy beyond it's half life is considerably varied as has been proven by multiple tests on the same matter with different results. Science ... Gotta love it. [/b][/quote] You mean something physical on earth that can be dated with Carbon-14 correct? In that case you're probably correct (don't know exact numbers) but knowing the speed of light and the distance between stars, planets & other galaxies we can very safely conclude that the universe is on the order of billions of years old & we can then make ballpark estimations of the age of our galaxy, the sun, the earth etc. which puts the numbers for the latter waaaay beyond the 20,000 years mark. This is just a rough example but it's not hard to see the point.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> You mean something physical on earth that can be dated with Carbon-14 correct? In that case you're probably correct (don't know exact numbers) but knowing the speed of light and the distance between stars, planets & other galaxies we can very safely conclude that the universe is on the order of billions of years old & we can then make ballpark estimations of the age of our galaxy, the sun, the earth etc. which puts the numbers for the latter waaaay beyond the 20,000 years mark. This is just a rough example but it's not hard to see the point. [/b][/quote] The age of the universe has no baring on the age of the sun or the earth. :huh: Even if the universe were billions of years old as you suggest, the Solar system could be much younger and the Earth younger still. No one knows for sure how far away the furthest stars that are visible to the naked eye are from Earth. For all we know every visible star could be within 20-30 thousand light years away. Who are you to say otherwise?
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> The most well known and most absolute dating technique , Carbon-14 dating , has a half-life of about 5,730 years . This means it can only date with accuraccy to that point and is absolutely useless beyond 50-70,000 years. Whooops !  MORAL : NO ONE knows of anything older than this and the accuracy beyond it's half life is considerably varied as has been proven by multiple tests on the same matter with different results. Science ... Gotta love it. [/b][/quote] You mean something physical on earth that can be dated with Carbon-14 correct? In that case you're probably correct (don't know exact numbers) but knowing the speed of light and the distance between stars, planets & other galaxies we can very safely conclude that the universe is on the order of billions of years old & we can then make ballpark estimations of the age of our galaxy, the sun, the earth etc. which puts the numbers for the latter waaaay beyond the 20,000 years mark. This is just a rough example but it's not hard to see the point. [/b][/quote] Only if you believe the "Big Bang" theory and think the earth is the center of the universe Further you cannot account for decelration from the initial bang where the velocity of "particles" if you will, traveled at many thousands of times their currently decelerating speed :bonker: Much the way a bullet leaves a gun at high velocity which instantly begins to decelrate many many multiples of it's original velocity until it stops completely , point being the distance it first travels is much greater than that towards it's end in the same time frame. :gavel: :blink:
If there was just one man and one woman at first (those Adam and Eve), then how didi black people develop (or white people if those two were black)?. Where did the indians and chinese come from? Wouldn't it be more logical to assume that people have been born around the world and there has never been just two human? Now if you think that man has changed during these years from white to black because of nature (black skin can take sun better so it is better to hot places), that is very plausible. If this is not your opinion of how it happened, then I'd like to hear your version. Now if a man has been able to change his colour because of natural development (evolution), then you are not too far from ape developing to a human. Even these days ape's and human's DNA is 98% the same, their differences are very small. As the archeologists have shown, earlier apes and men have been even closer to each other. [/quote] Are you saying that the first humans were white, and that blacks evolved from them? Brace yourself because this thread may be around for a long while.
Are you saying that the first humans were white, and that blacks evolved from them? Brace yourself because this thread may be around for a long while. [/quote] :stick: No I did not say that. I only said that if there were two people first (like Sly suggested), they have had to be either white or black and the others have had to develop from them. Or is there another chance if it comes down to just two human beings? What I believe (and I think most scientists believe too) is that human has developed slowly and in many places. There have been tribes of ape-men (the men that were before the man of today). Because of the nature, they developed (evolution) to their recent form because like that they could survive better in the world. The humans that stayed in warm areas probably became black because black pigment can take sun better while the ones who lived in north had lighter skin colours.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> The most well known and most absolute dating technique , Carbon-14 dating , has a half-life of about 5,730 years . This means it can only date with accuraccy to that point and is absolutely useless beyond 50-70,000 years. Whooops ! MORAL : NO ONE knows of anything older than this and the accuracy beyond it's half life is considerably varied as has been proven by multiple tests on the same matter with different results. Science ... Gotta love it. [/b][/quote] You mean something physical on earth that can be dated with Carbon-14 correct? In that case you're probably correct (don't know exact numbers) but knowing the speed of light and the distance between stars, planets & other galaxies we can very safely conclude that the universe is on the order of billions of years old & we can then make ballpark estimations of the age of our galaxy, the sun, the earth etc. which puts the numbers for the latter waaaay beyond the 20,000 years mark. This is just a rough example but it's not hard to see the point. [/b][/quote] Only if you believ the "Big Bang" theory and think the earth is the center of the universe Further you cannot account for decelration from the initial bang where the velocity of "particles" is you will traveled at many thousands of times their currently decelerating speed :bonker: :blink: [/b][/quote] :wacko: What does that have to do with matter of fact calculations using the speed of light to estimate the age of visible stars, galaxies, heck even quasars, and thus our universe?
:stick: No I did not say that. I only said that if there were two people first (like Sly suggested), they have had to be either white or black and the others have had to develop from them. Or is there another chance if it comes down to just two human beings? What I believe (and I think most scientists believe too) is that human has developed slowly and in many places. There have been tribes of ape-men (the men that were before the man of today). Because of the nature, they developed (evolution) to their recent form because like that they could survive better in the world. The humans that stayed in warm areas probably became black because black pigment can take sun better while the ones who lived in north had lighter skin colours. [/quote] I'm joking with you, Ugo.
oh :( ntome: [/quote] I guess there is no way that you could have known, but you could have geven me the benefit of the doubt!
science can give us a very close estimate of how old things are (using carbon-14 dating-which is only good for things with carbon in them, ie organic, or uranium 234 (and other forms of uranium and other elements) have longer half lives, uranium 234 for instance has a half life of 248,000 years, samarium 147 has a half life of 106 billion years :shaneUD12Oscar: ) though times maybe be off be several thousand years, in the grand scheme thats a VERY small percentage its alot better method and accurate than using genealogies to determine the earths age, or better yet trying to interpret a word (yom in this case) where it could be ANYTHING!
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> science can give us a very close estimate of how old things are (using carbon-14 dating-which is only good for things with carbon in them, ie organic, or uranium 234 (and other forms of uranium and other elements) have longer half lives, uranium 234 for instance has a half life of 248,000 years, samarium 147 has a half life of 106 billion years :shaneUD12Oscar: ) though times maybe be off be several thousand years, in the grand scheme thats a VERY small percentage its alot better method and accurate than using genealogies to determine the earths age, or better yet trying to interpret a word (yom in this case) where it could be ANYTHING! [/b][/quote] I agree with you that science can give us a very close estimate and it is BECAUSE of science that I believe that the Earth is young. It depends of course on your aplication of science.... The Sly One has Spoken!!
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> science can give us a very close estimate of how old things are (using carbon-14 dating-which is only good for things with carbon in them, ie organic, or uranium 234 (and other forms of uranium and other elements) have longer half lives, uranium 234 for instance has a half life of 248,000 years, samarium 147 has a half life of 106 billion years :shaneUD12Oscar: ) though times maybe be off be several thousand years, in the grand scheme thats a VERY small percentage its alot better method and accurate than using genealogies to determine the earths age, or better yet trying to interpret a word (yom in this case) where it could be ANYTHING! [/b][/quote] I agree with you that science can give us a very close estimate and it is BECAUSE of science that I believe that the Earth is young. It depends of course on your aplication of science.... The Sly One has Spoken!! [/b][/quote] science tells us the earth is like 4 and a half BILLION years old i guess thats young, depends on your perspective
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> science tells us the earth is like 4 and a half BILLION years old i guess thats young, depends on your perspective [/b][/quote] Nope. Science doesn't tell us that. Some scientists have told us that basing their THEORIES on a bunch of inconsistent and unproven dating techniques and false ASSumptions. Simple science such as looking at the rate of erosion of sediment into the oceans, the earth's magnetic field, the distance of the moon from the earth and how it is gradually moving away, the level of dust on the moon and an entire host of other things shows that the Earth cannot possibly be BILLIONS of years old. You must realize that the concept of EVOLUTION was only invented because men were trying to explain the existence of life without a creator. However the inventor of the theory, Darwin, rejected it himself because he realized that it didn't work. Following this, the concept of an OLD EARTH was only invented in order to support the porous concept of evolution....and based upon this premise many scientists are TRYING to find ways to prove this theory while conveniently forgetting proven empirical evidence that supports the contrary. In the end of the day, evolution or not, it would take a CREATOR to create life (even the most primitive form) in the first place. So one way or another we have to reconclie to the fact that there is a creator...old earth or not. The Sly One has Spoken!!
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> science tells us the earth is like 4 and a half BILLION years old i guess thats young, depends on your perspective [/b][/quote] Nope. Science doesn't tell us that. Some scientists have told us that basing their THEORIES on a bunch of inconsistent and unproven dating techniques and false ASSumptions. Simple science such as looking at the rate of erosion of sediment into the oceans, the earth's magnetic field, the distance of the moon from the earth and how it is gradually moving away, the level of dust on the moon and an entire host of other things shows that the Earth cannot possibly be BILLIONS of years old. You must realize that the concept of EVOLUTION was only invented because men were trying to explain the existence of life without a creator. However the inventor of the theory, Darwin, rejected it himself because he realized that it didn't work. Following this, the concept of an OLD EARTH was only invented in order to support the porous concept of evolution....and based upon this premise many scientists are TRYING to find ways to prove this theory while conveniently forgetting proven empirical evidence that supports the contrary. In the end of the day, evolution or not, it would take a CREATOR to create life (even the most primitive form) in the first place. So one way or another we have to reconclie to the fact that there is a creator...old earth or not. The Sly One has Spoken!! [/b][/quote] :YeahRight: and scientists dont use SCIENCE?? and i have never seen ANY study that refers to what you just did as an aging technique for the earth you are using some fucked up pseudoscience bordering on a couple guys in masks doing dances around a bonfire while reading the bones id like to see what scientists (since they are the ones who practice science) have determined the earths age by saying what youve just told me and why would it take a creator to create life?? because you say so?? and going back to your original problem, that something cannot come out of nothing, where the fuck did God come from then??
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> :YeahRight: and scientists dont use SCIENCE?? and i have never seen ANY study that refers to what you just did as an aging technique for the earth you are using some fucked up pseudoscience bordering on a couple guys in masks doing dances around a bonfire while reading the bones id like to see what scientists (since they are the ones who practice science) have determined the earths age by saying what youve just told me and why would it take a creator to create life?? because you say so?? and going back to your original problem, that something cannot come out of nothing, where the fuck did God come from then?? [/b][/quote] :huh: You haven't been paying attention. :stick: God didn't come from anywhere, he ("it" if you prefer) was ALWAYS there. If the universe was ALWAYS THERE....there wouldn't be the need for a creator. But we KNOW that it wasn't always there simply because it is changing, expanding etc. It started, so something (one) must have started it. God didn't start, the concept of him is that he doesn't change and is a constant. There had/has to be at least ONE constant in existence because there could never have been nothing. Is any of this staying between your ears? :wacko: Why would it take a creator to create life? You actually answered that in your question. It takes a creator to create!! Life is so complex and is based on so many intelligent processes that only a complete fool would suggest that it happened merely by chance. It requires a creator, plain and simple. The Sly One has Spoken!!
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> :YeahRight: and scientists dont use SCIENCE?? and i have never seen ANY study that refers to what you just did as an aging technique for the earth you are using some fucked up pseudoscience bordering on a couple guys in masks doing dances around a bonfire while reading the bones id like to see what scientists (since they are the ones who practice science) have determined the earths age by saying what youve just told me and why would it take a creator to create life?? because you say so?? and going back to your original problem, that something cannot come out of nothing, where the fuck did God come from then?? [/b][/quote] :huh: You haven't been paying attention. :stick: God didn't come from anywhere, he ("it" if you prefer) was ALWAYS there. If the universe was ALWAYS THERE....there wouldn't be the need for a creator. But we KNOW that it wasn't always there simply because it is changing, expanding etc. It started, so something (one) must have started it. God didn't start, the concept of him is that he doesn't change and is a constant. There had/has to be at least ONE constant in existence because there could never have been nothing. Is any of this staying between your ears? :wacko: Why would it take a creator to create life? You actually answered that in your question. It takes a creator to create!! Life is so complex and is based on so many intelligent processes that only a complete fool would suggest that it happened merely by chance. It requires a creator, plain and simple. [/b][/quote] sure, so God was just there, thats it, just floating around for eons then he suddenly has the urge to make life, rrriiiggghhhhttt how come you never hear of god in ancient ancient cultures then?
You did...he/she/it was simply called different names. All Gods are One, and all that rot. Christianity also appropriated many pagan holidays and called them something else, like Easter, All Saints Day and Christmas. That's the easiest way to convert people, is to take something they are used to celebrating already, and renaming it. -M
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> You did...he/she/it was simply called different names. All Gods are One, and all that rot. Christianity also appropriated many pagan holidays and called them something else, like Easter, All Saints Day and Christmas. That's the easiest way to convert people, is to take something they are used to celebrating already, and renaming it. -M [/b][/quote] wtf? greeks didnt believe in one God, they had a whole system of gods many other cultures as well, would you say that its all the same thing even though their main scriptures, writings etc are different from "gods word" the bible
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> You did...he/she/it was simply called different names. All Gods are One, and all that rot. Christianity also appropriated many pagan holidays and called them something else, like Easter, All Saints Day and Christmas. That's the easiest way to convert people, is to take something they are used to celebrating already, and renaming it. -M [/b][/quote] wtf? greeks didnt believe in one God, they had a whole system of gods many other cultures as well, would you say that its all the same thing even though their main scriptures, writings etc are different from "gods word" the bible [/b][/quote] :huh: I didn't say I agreed with it...yes, there were myriad 'Gods', but have you not heard that all Gods are but one God? -M
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> you are using some f*#ked up pseudoscience... [/b][/quote] That's basically what I was saying & that's my disagreement with Sly. All of the young earth creation "science" is easily disprovable & is downright dishonest & most importantly UNECCESSARY. The answers are all there you just have to dig a little deeper.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> You did...he/she/it was simply called different names. All Gods are One, and all that rot. Christianity also appropriated many pagan holidays and called them something else, like Easter, All Saints Day and Christmas. That's the easiest way to convert people, is to take something they are used to celebrating already, and renaming it. -M [/b][/quote] wtf? greeks didnt believe in one God, they had a whole system of gods many other cultures as well, would you say that its all the same thing even though their main scriptures, writings etc are different from "gods word" the bible [/b][/quote] :huh: I didn't say I agreed with it...yes, there were myriad 'Gods', but have you not heard that all Gods are but one God? -M [/b][/quote] apparently not never in any class, whether it be history or mythology class have i ever heard that
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> you are using some f*#ked up pseudoscience... [/b][/quote] That's basically what I was saying & that's my disagreement with Sly. All of the young earth creation "science" is easily disprovable & is downright dishonest & most importantly UNECCESSARY. The answers are all there you just have to dig a little deeper. [/b][/quote] sly is a fanatic, takes the bibles word as literal, not translateable which i mean, is stupid to begin with because, lets say it IS gods word (we're assuming god is real), the bible is only mans interpretation of the word, man wrote it, theres bound to be some inaccuracies, things that dont make sense, etc etc
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> you are using some f*#ked up pseudoscience... [/b][/quote] That's basically what I was saying & that's my disagreement with Sly. All of the young earth creation "science" is easily disprovable & is downright dishonest & most importantly UNECCESSARY. The answers are all there you just have to dig a little deeper. [/b][/quote] sly is a fanatic, takes the bibles word as literal, not translateable which i mean, is stupid to begin with because, lets say it IS gods word (we're assuming god is real), the bible is only mans interpretation of the word, man wrote it, theres bound to be some inaccuracies, things that dont make sense, etc etc [/b][/quote] That's a simplistic way to look at it... IMO it's ok to take the bible literally (but I'm a bible believing Christian) you just have to take it literally in the language it was written in. Most of the inaccuracies & misunderstandings come from the translation to other languages.
