I found it, now read it please

[saucy]

everyone is a sinner. Even Noah sinned. The first thing he did once getting off the ark was sin. Does does sin entail? having sex while not being married (including with yourself), lying, stealing, cheating on your wife, getting divorced, worshipping anything other than God, having idols, being jealous, over eating, being lazy, having too much pride and others. We've all done this. Maybe not all of them, but if we've done one, it's a sin.

Okay, okay, I have some questions for the evolutionists and scientists in this room I want them to answer if they will.

1)Scientists say the earth is 4.5 billion years old. They are also saying that man lived as far back as 3.5 million years ago. Explain how the earth's population of humans seem to support the fact that man has only existed since the time of the flood supported in the bible. To achieve the present world population within 4,500 years, only 2.4 children per family would be required and 43 years to a generation. To postulate earth's population beginning even one million year ago would require 28,600 generations producing a population of 10 to the 5000th power. Actually, not even 10 to the 100th power amount of people could be crammed into the entire known universe, certainly not the earth.

The earth's current population does not support the age of the earth, but it does support the population growth after the time of the flood. Coincidence?

2) Our shrinking sun: It is known that stars shrink over time and if the sun and earth is as old as science says it is, the sun would've made the earth too hot for life to survive even one million years ago. It knocks out the possibility of the vast expanses of time required for evolution.

3) Earth's magnetic field: An examination of the earth's magnetic field proves that earth cannot be very old, since the earth's magnetic field is losing its strength. . Scientists have done volumes of work on the depletion of the earth's magnetic field. The conclusion establishes that the earth cannot be more than 10,000 years old. Even ten thousand years ago it would've been too strong to support life! If life couldn't have lived even 10,000 years ago because of the super strength of the earth's magnetic field, then evolution has no time to occur.

4) Astronomers have discovered a gigantic collection of galaxies that they say is the biggest structure ever seen in the universe. The structure, which they call the Great Wall, is so difficult to explain that it raises new questions about the theories on the origin and structure of the universe. No one knows of a force that could have produced a structure so big in the time since the universe was formed.

5) The receding moon: Adding to the evidence for a young earth is our receding moon. Scientists now know how fast our moon is moving away from earth (about two inches per year). Working it back would mean that the moon and earth would be touching only two billion years ago, Of course, that's ridiculous. Another way to look at it is this: at the present rate and starting from a realistic distance of separation between the two if the earth is 4.5 billion years old, the moon should be out of sight by now, but it's in clear view.

Bible evidence: In 1492 A.D., Christopher Columbus proved for the first time that the world was not flat, but in fact, it was round. Does this conflict with the bible. NO. He got the idea from the bible. Isaiah 40:22 "It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth and the inhabitants thereof..." The bible wrote that the earth was indeed round before anyone believed it or proved it. It remained that way until Christopher Columbus traveled around the world and in fact, did not fall off.

Bible evidence: What about the four corners of the earth? Isn't it a science statement? The four corners of the earth were discovered in 1965 by scientists at Johns Hopkins University. If you don't know what they are, look it up, but the scripture talks about the four corners before they were discovered. Isaiah 11:12: "And he shall set up an ensign for the nations, and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth."

Revelations 7:1: "And after these things I saw four angels standing on the four corners of the earth, holding the four winds of the earth, that the wind should not blow on the earth, nor the sea, nor on any tree."

Bible evidence: The eastern Lamas said that the earth rested on the back of a frog. Some Indians thought that the earth was held up by an elephant known as Muha-pudma. Another tradition said that the elephant stood on the back of a tortoise that was swimming through the cosmic sea. But Job, a writer of the bible, stated that the earth is suspended in empty space-which we now know is factually and scientifically true. The bible is the first written account to say that the earth is not help by any mystical animal, but is indeed in outer space. The bible is also the first account, before man has proven it, to state that there were many seas separated by continents, which was found to be true.

[chico del nacho]

everyone is a sinner. Even Noah sinned. The first thing he did once getting off the ark was sin. Does does sin entail? having sex while not being married (including with yourself), lying, stealing, cheating on your wife, getting divorced, worshipping anything other than God, having idols, being jealous, over eating, being lazy, having too much pride and others. We've all done this. Maybe not all of them, but if we've done one, it's a sin.

that's only for some sects of christianity though. some of it at least.

1)Scientists say the earth is 4.5 billion years old. They are also saying that man lived as far back as 3.5 million years ago. Explain how the earth's population of humans seem to support the fact that man has only existed since the time of the flood supported in the bible. To achieve the present world population within 4,500 years, only 2.4 children per family would be required and 43 years to a generation. To postulate earth's population beginning even one million year ago would require 28,600 generations producing a population of 10 to the 5000th power. Actually, not even 10 to the 100th power amount of people could be crammed into the entire known universe, certainly not the earth.

family size and life length has changed as time has gone one, yeah? all i can really say bout that one.

i thought the moon was something that was floating by and then just got stuck in orbit around earth. besides, they've proven the moon's older than earth.

the rest of the science seems questionable to me.

Edited May 14, 2004 by chico del nacho

[saucy]

Both of your thoughts on the moon are wrong. 1) the moon was supposed to come forth after a large object struck the earth and sent matter into outer space, which got caught up in its gravitational pull. The other theory you made would make since since scientists have found minerals on the moon that aren't on earth. Then there's already two different theories on where the moon came from. It's so confusing! 2) according to scientists again, the moon was created by the earth and dating has been proven false. Scientists have dated a rock that formed after a volcanic eruption and found that the rock is over 200 million years old, but the rock wasn't more than two hundred years old. All forms of dating anything contradict each other, but you wouldn't think science would contrdict being that it's the truth. Scientists tested the same rock using different methods. The uranium-lead method gave the rock an age of 500 million years. The potassium-argon method said it was 100 million years old. The rubidium-strontium model test gave it an age of 325 million years. The rubidium-strontium isochron test gave it the years of 375 million years. The rock was only 200-years old. You can find many, many other examples of these tests proving that any kind of dating is wrong in determining the age of anything.

The rest of the science is questionable? It's science indeed, isn't it? It's not creationist bull or published from biased sources.

[chico del nacho]

The rest of the science is questionable? It's science indeed, isn't it? It's not creationist bull or published from biased sources.

true enough. science is just a bunch of best guesses anyway. i like hearing it better as "science is but an organized system of ignorance."

but for the moon, i dug up an old book of mine, where i got my information. seems they aren't sure if the moon's older or not, but it's a possibility.

[Burgundy Johnson]

you sya that science contradicts itself...must we say yet again that the bible contradicts itself far more often than science??? and that the evolution that has been PROVEN could not have happened in 2000 years? and as for the evidence of humans before the 1 AD, there is evidence of humans further back than 1700 BC!explain that...and the reason that there is no record of humans before that is that humans only started developing civilizations in the 1-2 thousand BC area, when they figured out agriculture and the domestication of animals, allowing them to focus on other things, such as developing oral languages, creating societies and such. and this is proven with science, including the neolithic era, paleolithic era, all the way up until the bronze age when humans learned the knowledge of shaping bronze, allowing them to progress even further. how do you explain the civilizations that were in existence 1-2, 3-4 thousand years BEFORE THE BIBLE WAS EVEN HEARD OF? WHEN CHRISTIANIY WAS NON EXISTENT?

Edited May 14, 2004 by Joe013

[Stellar]

Holy edit no need for the swearing please hell how much times to these things need to be debunked!? If these questions get debunked do you promis to stop bringing up questions that have already been debunked? Oh and btw, I have not seen 1 piece of evidence in your whole post.... ALso, do you really want to worship a god that puts such limits onto us and seems to be scared of people who dont do as he tells us? FFS, maybe Satan is actually the true good god if one exists, and the god you worship is evil, but since the evil one is in power, he makes himself look good?

1)

he generally accepted age for the Earth and the rest of the solar system is about 4.55 billion years (plus or minus about 1%). This value is derived from several different lines of evidence.

Unfortunately, the age cannot be computed directly from material that is solely from the Earth. There is evidence that energy from the Earth's accumulation caused the surface to be molten. Further, the processes of erosion and crustal recycling have apparently destroyed all of the earliest surface.

The oldest rocks which have been found so far (on the Earth) date to about 3.8 to 3.9 billion years ago (by several radiometric dating methods). Some of these rocks are sedimentary, and include minerals which are themselves as old as 4.1 to 4.2 billion years. Rocks of this age are relatively rare, however rocks that are at least 3.5 billion years in age have been found on North America, Greenland, Australia, Africa, and Asia.

While these values do not compute an age for the Earth, they do establish a lower limit (the Earth must be at least as old as any formation on it). This lower limit is at least concordant with the independently derived figure of 4.55 billion years for the Earth's actual age.

The most direct means for calculating the Earth's age is a Pb/Pb isochron age, derived from samples of the Earth and meteorites. This involves measurement of three isotopes of lead (Pb-206, Pb-207, and either Pb-208 or Pb-204). A plot is constructed of Pb-206/Pb-204 versus Pb-207/Pb-204.

If the solar system formed from a common pool of matter, which was uniformly distributed in terms of Pb isotope ratios, then the initial plots for all objects from that pool of matter would fall on a single point.

Over time, the amounts of Pb-206 and Pb-207 will change in some samples, as these isotopes are decay end-products of uranium decay (U-238 decays to Pb-206, and U-235 decays to Pb-207). This causes the data points to separate from each other. The higher the uranium-to-lead ratio of a rock, the more the Pb-206/Pb-204 and Pb-207/Pb-204 values will change with time.

If the source of the solar system was also uniformly distributed with respect to uranium isotope ratios, then the data points will always fall on a single line. And from the slope of the line we can compute the amount of time which has passed since the pool of matter became separated into individual objects. See the Isochron Dating FAQ or Faure (1986, chapter 18 ) for technical detail.

A young-Earther would object to all of the "assumptions" listed above. However, the test for these assumptions is the plot of the data itself. The actual underlying assumption is that, if those requirements have not been met, there is no reason for the data points to fall on a line.

The resulting plot has data points for each of five meteorites that contain varying levels of uranium, a single data point for all meteorites that do not, and one (solid circle) data point for modern terrestrial sediments.

there is excellent agreement on about 4.5 billion years, between several meteorites and by several different dating methods. Note that young-Earthers cannot accuse us of selective use of data -- the above table includes a significant fraction of all meteorites on which isotope dating has been attempted. According to Dalrymple (1991, p. 286) , less than 100 meteorites have been subjected to isotope dating, and of those about 70 yield ages with low analytical error.

Further, the oldest age determinations of individual meteorites generally give concordant ages by multiple radiometric means, or multiple tests across different samples

2) This ones simple. This assumes that the rate of shrinkage is constant. That assumption is baseless. (In fact, it is the uniformitarian assumption that creationists themselves sometimes complain about.) Other stars expand and contract cyclically. Our own sun might do the same on a small scale.

There is not even any good evidence of shrinkage. The claim is based on a single report from 1980. Other measurements, from 1980 and later, do not show any significant shrinkage. It is likely that the original report showing shrinkage contained systematic errors due to different measuring techniquies over the decades.

Just look at how people grow. They start out as babies and grow. They dont grow infinately though, and then they start to shrink actually. Looking at the latter portion of them shrinking doesnt mean that 100 years ago they were enormose.

3) The young-Earth argument: the dipole component of the magnetic field has decreased slightly over the time that it has been measured. Assuming the generally accepted "dynamo theory" for the existence of the Earth's magnetic field is wrong, the mechanism might instead be an initially created field which has been losing strength ever since the creation event. An exponential fit (assuming a half-life of 1400 years on 130 years' worth of measurements) yields an impossibly high magnetic field even 8000 years ago, therefore the Earth must be young. The main proponent of this argument was Thomas Barnes.

There are several things wrong with this "dating" mechanism. It's hard to just list them all. The primary four are:

While there is no complete model to the geodynamo (certain key properties of the core are unknown), there are reasonable starts and there are no good reasons for rejecting such an entity out of hand. If it is possible for energy to be added to the field, then the extrapolation is useless.

There is overwhelming evidence that the magnetic field has reversed itself, rendering any unidirectional extrapolation on field strength useless. Even some young-Earthers admit to that these days -- e.g., Humphreys (1988) .

Much of the energy in the field is probably locked in toroidal fields that are not even visible external to the core. This means that the extrapolation rests on the assumption that fluctuations in the observable portion of the field accurately represent fluctuations in its total energy.

Barnes' extrapolation completely ignores the nondipole component of the field. Even if we grant that it is permissible to ignore portions of the field that are internal to the core, Barnes' extrapolation also ignores portions of the field which are visible and instead rests on extrapolation of a theoretical entity.

That last part is more important than it may sound. The Earth's magnetic field is often split in two components when measured. The "dipole" component is the part which approximates a theoretically perfect field around a single magnet, and the "nondipole" components are the ("messy") remainder. A study in the 1960s showed that the decrease in the dipole component since the turn of the century had been nearly completely compensated by an increase in the strength of the nondipole components of the field. (In other words, the measurements show that the field has been diverging from the shape that would be expected of a theoretical ideal magnet, more than the amount of energy has actually been changing.) Barnes' extrapolation therefore does not really rest on the change in energy of the field.

4) No one knows of how Jesus supposedly performed miracles neither.

That does not prove God, farless the Bible. I have not heard much of the Great wall of galaxies yet so I'll leave someone else to comment on this while I'm looking it up. But so far, the only place I've heard that it proves the existance of God is some fanatical creationist websites who have no idea of what science is in the first place.

5) First of all, why is it rediculous to assume that at some point, the moon was touching the Earth? Second of all, you or whoever wrote that question has a limited comprehension. Ever heard of the fact that there are non-linear graphs? There is way too much flawed logic in this question/argument and I just dont know what kind of answer you want from me. If anything, you've just helped prove that the Earth is NOT 6000 years old. Also, how do you explain ancient cultures of 10 000 BC such as the Sumerians? Hmm?? Hmm???/

About the arguments to disregard aging:

1. Reference to a case where the given method did not work

This is perhaps the most common objection of all. Creationists point to instances where a given method produced a result that is clearly wrong, and then argue that therefore all such dates may be ignored. Such an argument fails on two counts:

First, an instance where a method fails to work does not imply that it does not ever work. The question is not whether there are "undatable" objects, but rather whether or not all objects cannot be dated by a given method. The fact that one wristwatch has failed to keep time properly cannot be used as a justification for discarding all watches.

How many creationists would see the same time on five different clocks and then feel free to ignore it? Yet, when five radiometric dating methods agree on the age of one of the Earth's oldest rock formations ( Dalrymple 1986, p. 44 ), it is dismissed without a thought.

Second, these arguments fail to address the fact that radiometric dating produces results in line with "evolutionary" expectations about 95% of the time (Dalrymple 1992, personal correspondence). The claim that the methods produce bad results essentially at random does not explain why these "bad results" are so consistently in line with mainstream science.

2. Claims that the assumptions of a method may be violated

Certain requirements are involved with all radiometric dating methods. These generally include constancy of decay rate and lack of contamination (gain or loss of parent or daughter isotope). Creationists often attack these requirements as "unjustified assumptions," though they are really neither "unjustified" nor "assumptions" in most cases.

2.1 Constancy of radioactive decay rates.

Rates of radiometric decay (the ones relevant to radiometric dating) are thought to be based on rather fundamental properties of matter, such as the probability per unit time that a certain particle can "tunnel" out of the nucleus of the atom. The nucleus is well-insulated and therefore is relatively immune to larger-scale effects such as pressure or temperature.

Significant changes to rates of radiometric decay of isotopes relevant to geological dating have never been observed under any conditions. Emery (1972) is a comprehensive survey of experimental results and theoretical limits on variation of decay rates. Note that the largest changes reported by Emery are both irrelevant (they do not involve isotopes or modes of decay used for this FAQ), and minuscule (decay rate changed by of order 1%) compared to the change needed to compress the apparent age of the Earth into the young-Earthers' timescale.

A short digression on mechanisms for radioactive decay, taken from <CK47LK.E2J@ucdavis.edu> by Steve Carlip (subsequently edited in response to Steve's request):

For the case of alpha decay, [...] the simple underlying mechanism is quantum mechanical tunneling through a potential barrier. You will find a simple explanation in any elementary quantum mechanics textbook; for example, Ohanion's Principles of Quantum Mechanics has a nice example of alpha decay on page 89. The fact that the process is probabilistic, and the exponential dependence on time, are straightforward consequences of quantum mechanics. (The time dependence is a case of "Fermi's golden rule" --- see, for example, page 292 of Ohanion.)

An exact computation of decay rates is, of course, much more complicated, since it requires a detailed understanding of the shape of the potential barrier. In principle, this is computable from quantum chromodynamics, but in practice the computation is much too complex to be done in the near future. There are, however, reliable approximations available, and in addition the shape of the potential can be measured experimentally.

For beta decay, the underlying fundamental theory is different; one begins with electroweak theory (for which Glashow, Weinberg and Salam won their Nobel prize) rather than quantum chromodynamics.

As described above, the process of radioactive decay is predicated on rather fundamental properties of matter. In order to explain old isotopic ages on a young Earth by means of accelerated decay, an increase of six to ten orders of magnitude in rates of decay would be needed (depending on whether the acceleration was spread out over the entire pre-Flood period, or accomplished entirely during the Flood).

Such a huge change in fundamental properties would have plenty of noticeable effects on processes other than radioactive decay (taken from <16381@ucdavis.ucdavis.edu> by Steve Carlip):

So there has been a lot of creative work on how to look for evidence of such changes.

A nice (technical) summary is given by Sisterna and Vucetich (1991) . Among the phenomena they look at are:

searches for changes in the radius of Mercury, the Moon, and Mars (these would change because of changes in the strength of interactions within the materials that they are formed from);

searches for long term ("secular") changes in the orbits of the Moon and the Earth --- measured by looking at such diverse phenomena as ancient solar eclipses and coral growth patterns;

ranging data for the distance from Earth to Mars, using the Viking spacecraft;

data on the orbital motion of a binary pulsar PSR 1913+16;

observations of long-lived isotopes that decay by beta decay (Re 187, K 40, Rb 87) and comparisons to isotopes that decay by different mechanisms;

the Oklo natural nuclear reactor (mentioned in another posting);

experimental searches for differences in gravitational attraction between different elements (Eotvos-type experiments);

absorption lines of quasars (fine structure and hyperfine splittings);

laboratory searches for changes in the mass difference between the K0 meson and its antiparticle.

While it is not obvious, each of these observations is sensitive to changes in the physical constants that control radioactive decay. For example, a change in the strength of weak interactions (which govern beta decay) would have different effects on the binding energy, and therefore the gravitational attraction, of different elements. Similarly, such changes in binding energy would affect orbital motion, while (more directly) changes in interaction strengths would affect the spectra we observe in distant stars.

The observations are a mixture of very sensitive laboratory tests, which do not go very far back in time but are able to detect extremely small changes, and astronomical observations, which are somewhat less precise but which look back in time. (Remember that processes we observe in a star a million light years away are telling us about physics a million years ago.) While any single observation is subject to debate about methodology, the combined results of such a large number of independent tests are hard to argue with.

The overall result is that no one has found any evidence of changes in fundamental constants, to an accuracy of about one part in 1011 per year.

To summarize: both experimental evidence and theoretical considerations preclude significant changes to rates of radioactive decay. The limits placed are somewhere between ten and twenty orders of magnitude below the changes which would be necessary to accommodate the apparent age of the Earth within the young-Earth timescale (by means of accelerated decay).

About the C. Columbus thing: Its pretty evident that you havent been paying attention at school. A circle is not a sphere. A circle is a flat 2d object, a sphere is a 3d object.

4 corners of the world? I'm gonna let someone else cover that cuz I'm right now rushing to finish typing this.

Oh and dont delude yourself, the bible is NOT the first written claim that the Earth is not held by a mythical animal and that there are large bodies of water seperating the continents.

My advice to you is to quit preaching because you only aggrivate people and show your true ignorance and your true inability to comprehend science. No offence intended, I'm just trying to help you and all the other people on this forum.

Edit 1: Oh btw, I could go the extra step and add more proof that the Earth IS billions of years old, but i'm not here to educate you and I think I've done enough already.

Edit 2: Oh... I forgot, you said you had evidence.... where is it?

Edited May 14, 2004 by Celti

[chico del nacho]

settle down stellar. it's not that big of a deal, so don't have a hissy fit.

[BurnSide]

i'm actually with Stellar on this one. I just couldn't be bothered to post all that.

[chico del nacho]

the reason i told him to settle down was because i felt small and insignificant compared to the size of his post. if i had printed it out, it probably would have destroyed tokyo.

Edited May 15, 2004 by chico del nacho

[BurnSide]

hahah.

but he does raise valid points, and pretty much killed any arguement to the contrary.

i say tokyo is worth sacrificing in times of need.

[chico del nacho]

in all honesty, i just read his opening paragraph. after scrolling for a good hour and a half i figured that it would another hour and a half just to get back to the top and to read it all, well, you can guess how long that would take.

as for the sacrifice of japan, to you i say bah. if it wasn't for japan, we'd wouldn't have crazy inventions with high-technology that nobody asked for or even wanted very much. these items are necessary.

besides, samurai and ninjas kick ass.

Edited May 15, 2004 by chico del nacho

[BurnSide]

ah, another point with no arguement! good call indeed.

[Falco Rex]

I won't bother to comment on most of your theories, since Physics isn't my strong suit, and Stellar has more than covered most of it anyway. But I do know history,and I can tell you that Columbus did not discover that the World was round because most people already knew that.This is a historical urban legend that has unfortunatly made it into the books. The Pheonicians knew you could sail around the world, they were the ones who started the flat earth legend to discourage other nations from competing for their trade routes..

Even then it was not accepted by everyone. There's some evidence the Romans landed on North America and tried to establish several colonies. And the Norse certainly weren't fooled as they settled Greenland and tried to settle Eastern Canada. Even in Columbus' day many people knew the world was round.

The reason the flat earth theory persisted was because lacking accurate latitude and longitude cartographers couldn't make a Globe shaped map. When your average person looked at a map back then and saw all the world laid out flat they thought the world was flat too. People who actually sailed knew better..

[SilverCougar]

Didn't.. didn't we just have this conversation?

[saucy]

well, Columbus didn't know that because he himself said he didn't need any maps or compasses and that he just sailed into the wind and let the ship take him where it took him. It was widely believed that the earth was indeed flat. Maybe one race of people knew it wasn't, but that wouldn't keep the rest of the world from knowing it. Besides, the book of Isaiah was written a thousand years before Christ, so it's obvious they all thought during that time, a mere three thousand years before anyone attempted the sail, that the earth was flat. You're arguing everything I've written as if they were my theories. They are not. They are scientific theories and if they are wrong as you are saying, then that only marks more points for me.

Human evolution: The only evidence we have turns up to either be hoaxs or can be explained by other means.

Nebraska Man: tooth found, later found out the tooth was that of a pig.

Colorado man: one tooth, found to be the tooth of a horse

Java man: "A perfect skull of prehistoric man" later found to be the knee bone of an elephant.

Heilderberg Man: Jaw bone found in the loose sand

Piltdown man: piece of jaw, two teeth, piece of skull of a chimp (a deliberate hoax-fooled scientists for 41 years-exposed by a dentist in 1953, possibly the creator of the hoax)

Peking man: two teeth

Neanderthal man: skeleton of a small semi-erect being (later found out to be a boy with rickets {known but kept secret for 30 years})

Ramapithecus: jaw and a few teeth discovered in India. Famous experts declared it was the perfect evidence of the creature on its way to becoming man. In the past few years, however, enough of this creature has been found to show that he was an orangutan

Orce Man: a skull cap found in Spain, declared the oldest fossil man ever discovered in Europe, but experts were able to confirm it was the skull cap of a six-month-old donkey.

Lucy: she represents for us the oldest, most complete skeleton we have of any human ancestor known to anthropologists. The find was 40% complete with fragments of the skull, rib cage, arms, pelvis, leg bones and a single knee joint. The angle of the theigh bone and the flattened surface at its knee joint end...proved she walked on two legs. This link means that it has been proven by Johnson, before he even put the skeleton together, the she had been bipedal (able to walk upright) the clue was the telling kneecap. A gathering of over 800 scientists at the University of Missouri were confronted with the issue and were able to claim that it was more human-like than chimp.

All these are proofs by scientific knowledge that all the evidence of neanderthals and the like aren't really so. If humans did evolve from apes millions of years ago, there would have been hundreds, perhaps thousands of species intermediate or transitional, between man and the apes. It is strange then, that after more than 100 years of searching for the fossils of these species, evolutionists have been able to find only a few, which are all questionable and proven to be of other species, such as donkeys.

[SilverCougar]

And there has been alot more prehistoric findings of man.

Not everything out there is going to be what you expect

[snuffypuffer]

I, seriously, think I'm gonna cry.

[Stellar]

Did you even read my post? First of all, what scientific theories did I say were wrong? As far as I know, whoever made those arguments hand picked which parts of the theory to use, and I just pointed that out in my lengthy post and corrected the argument. how is it more points for you?

Human evolution, only evidence that turns up is either a hoax or explained by other means? Are you always this ignorant? EVERYTHING IN THE BIBLE can be explained by other means. Sure, some things with evolution can be explained by other means, but other things support proof of evolution. How many times do I have to tell you to get it through your head? Sure there are frauds too, but how many more frauds have been commited on the subject of religion? Oh wait, you wouldnt know, because as far as you're concerned, christianity=perfect, honest, truthful and science=evil, dishonest, decieving.

Tell me, have you always been this ignorant? Its unbarable now. Do us a favor and just stop preaching, it'll really help prevent people getting frustrated. You have no clue about evolution, none. Scientists have been able to find some transitional fossils, and if they only found 1, it would still be more evidence than there is supporting creationism.

Oh, doesnt the bible state there were giants? Tell me.... where are the fossils? there is no fossil of a giant man! OMFG! How surprising!

Oh and let me ask you this out of curiosity... how do you know that the book of Isaiah was written a thousand years before JC? Proof please (one thats much more accurate than the big, bad, evil, faulty scientific dating process )

[saucy]

If you keep rolling your eyes like that they'll get stuck in the back of you head.

No, they haven't found transitional fossils. Not a single one for a single species. NOT ONE! NO! ZERO! ZIP! AFRAID NOT!

Basically when you call me stupid like you have and say i'm wrong and your arguing what I've posted, then that means you're going against the theories I've written. WHAT I'VE WRITTEN IS SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE! What makes what you've written any more the truth than what I wrote? It doesn't because it's all science. SCIENCE, THE SO-CALLED RESEARCH THAT'S SUPPOSE TO SAY THAT GOD DOESN'T EXIST AND WE DON'T NEED GOD ANYMORE BECAUSE OF THIS RESEARCH BUT THE DEEPER WE GET INTO THIS SCIENCE, THE MORE WE REALIZE THAT THE BIBLE IS RIGHT! HOW MANY MORE TIMES DO I HAVE TO PROVE IT TO YOU?

Am I always this ignorant? I was ignorant when I was younger for believing my teachers who taught different theories that didn't make since and always contradicted themselves. Nothing in the bible can be explained by other means. NOTHING! You or anyone else has failed to do so, but they think they have because I have been unable to prove it otherwise. Can Jesus walking on water be explained? All you have to say is that Jesus never existed. Uh, yes he did. Roman history has records of Jesus and his crucifixion. Explain that his life and death was prophecized a thousand years before his birth. All you can say is prove that it was written then. HOW ABOUT HISTORICAL RECORDS! HOW ABOUT ARCHEOLOGY. HOW ABOUT BIBLICAL RECORDS (okay, not a good source for you) HOW ABOUT THAT PART OF THE BIBLE WAS ALREADY WRITTEN BEFORE JESUS WAS BORN. THAT'S WHAT THE JEWS WERE READING AND LEARNING FROM, THE OLD TESTAMENT. EXPLAIN HIM BRINGING LAZARUS BACK FROM THE DEAD. HE WAS DEAD AND BURIED FOR MANY DAYS, BUT ROSE UPON JESUS' WORDS. It happened. Thousands were there to witness it. The disciples of Jesus were running around after Jesus rose from the dead and went into heaven and preaching the word. Don't you think the enemies of Jesus would have something to say if it didn't happen the way the disciples were writing and preaching? Would they allow lies to be preached? They murdered Jesus because they didn't believe he was God as he preached. Can modern medicine cure a man with leprosy or even the common cold? No, but Jesus did with a slight touch of his hand. People witnessed this. It's historically written and proven. Jesus was more widely written about than any other empire, king or man, but for you it's easier to believe that other historical figures. Why is that? Do you refuse to believe that something happened? You say your tired of explaining these things to me, but you continue to do so, why is that? Because you refuse to let my words go unanswered; you have to prove to yourself that they didn't happen? What about God in our world today. Miracles, angelic sightings, God speaking, sightings of the virgin Mary and Jesus. Speaking in tongues, which is speaking a language you've never known but someone else can sit there and translate it for you. How can you explain any of those? You can't, but you refuse to believe them. You would rather be tortured than admit Jesus lived. Many Christians do believe that God created the planet and left room for evolution to occur and that explains science. You wouldn't even go that far. Every time someone says the word God you probably shutter or even think the person is crazy and stupid for believing in such a character of a book.

You yourself said that they have been able to find some transitional fossils, and IF THEY ONLY FOUND ONE, it would still be more evidence than there is supporting creationism. If you look at what you said, it sounds like you yourself isn't so sure they found any transitional forms. You don't know how many they have found. They have found none. Even Charles Darwin himself, the creator of the theory of evolution says there should be the transitional forms in the crust of the earth AND THEY HAVE FOUND NONE! How can you prove evolution exists if there's no evidence. When the bible mentions giants, do they mean humans, or dinosaurs? They could mean dinosaurs. They are only refered to as giants. To the writers of the bible, a giant man could be someone that's six-feet tall. I'm a giant to many and I'm only six-feet tall. They could've been five feet tall and saw large soldiers as being giants. The bible doesn't describe what these giants are.

[SilverCougar]

we're *still* looking. We're *still* finding more and more fossils. We're *still* finding more and more human fossils.

We're not all that different from other primates. And all we've got telling us what is and isn't transitional are a mess of scientists. *EVERYTHING* is speculation, even what they say. We know nothing for sure because we ourselves (as in you and me) were not there to see. Same goes for the bible. We only take that as is because we ourselves (You and me) were not there to see.

Fossils arn't that all easy to come by either, so in time, we may just find one.

Saucy, it's great that you have faith and all.. but I'm still trying to figure out why you keep posting all these "Bible is right! Everything else is wrong!" threads.

[saucy]

Well, I do if for the reasons you yourself has said. You said, "I wasn't there, so I don't know." Okay, you got me there, but the whole point I'm trying to make for the bible is that SOMEONE was there. Thousands witnessed what was going on in the old testament and old. They saw it and the bible is only a written account of what happened. I'm not saying all science is wrong. They've made a lot of important discoveries, but for scientists to say over the last hundred years or so, that evolution has happened and to base your theories on the skull cap of a donkey, that's wrong. It's completely misleading. They have all these jaw bones and parts of skulls and even partial skeletons pictured in my biology book and teachers teach me that all the bones are of our ancestors and I beleieved it. For too many years I believed it. After I found out that most of the bones were hoaxes and can be explained by other means (how you describe the bible), like an elephants knee cap, a young donkeys skull, etc... Then I also came across eveidence that it's a genetic impossibility for animals to evolve. That's another thing no one is willing to admit, but it's true. I show you other evidences such as the human population, distance of the moon, size of the sun, the size of other galaxies and there's a lot more truth out there. Evolutionists rely their theories as their own faith. The only reason they stay in the business if the hope that one day they will find the proof that they were right all along and can shout it at everyone. It would be greatly disappointing and embarrassing for an evolutionist to spend all those years in school learning these things and get out into the world to try defend these claims, then find something that proves evolution never happened. I felt upset after finding out the truth, but now I'm happy. I'm happy because I found God and I experienced something spiritual. I felt God moving in me after accepting him. I felt exactly how the bible claims it will. It says that a person in Christ becomes new and the old has passed away. That happened once I accepted Christ. The bible also says I will find resistance and face persecution, which is true also.

I just don't understand that the majority of you haven't even read the bible and you sit there and call it fake, a fictional story and everything written in it is garbage, which isn't the case. Everything written in it can be proven historically, all the people has been proven by archeology (again, science) to have lived. If you find one set of dinosaur footprints side by side to that of a humans forever fossilized in limestone, doesn't that prove dinosaurs lived with humans? The limestone fossilized at the same time, so it's not like dinosaurs walked then millions of years later man walked the same path. Dinosaurs should've died 65 million years before man even appeared, more than long enough for the limestone to have hardened and fossilized itself. Two such examples have been found, one in Texas. I'm not sure where the other was found, possibly in the middle east, somewhere around there.

All in all, you say I don't have any proof for creation. I can't prove to you God exists, but I keep giving you scientific evidence that evolution didn't happen. You yourself cannot prove it did because you have no evidence, no fossils, no transitional species, nothing but hoaxes because evolutionists are desperate to prove to the world that they have something, but they can't seem to find anything. Over the past three or four threads on many different boards I have shown you the bible has stood up archeoloy, historically because people were there to witness it. All you can say to make the bible sound false in your own mind is to say that those people never existed. Sorry, but they did. They have more than just their written accounts, but found the written accounts of many people that didn't make it to the bible and it's recorded to have happened in Roman history. The old testament was written before Christ was born because there were jews before the time of Christ and their written text of choice was the old testament and inside were the prophecies of his life, death and ressurection. Another proof should be how the millions, maybe even billions of christians, jews and catholics have experienced the spirtual world. How many people, athiests included die in accidents, on the operating table and by other means and are revived to tell a story of being transported immediately into heaven and seeing all their dead relatives and a feeling of love and peace and seeing a beautiful world in heaven. Why would even athiests see this? They actually die, are clinically dead and come back with a story. They all have the same account of seeing heaven and their own dead relatives, many see themselves floating above their own body and can recall things nobody else can. What about all the angel sightings, sightings of the virgin Mary and Jesus, healings? I've experienced it, i've seen it, i've felt it now I live it. If you're trying not to account for your own life and what you've done by saying God doesn't exist and hiding behind your biology book instead of behind a bible, you've got the wrong book my friend.

[Ozmeister]

Saucy, your arguments, based on Biblical "evidence" are flawed and based on the testimonies of people who have had ideological, socio-religious and academic axes to grind.

Your knowledge of the fields of palaeontology, geology, archaeology, history, physics and chemistry and others is sorely lacking.....as is evident from your "details" you have given in your posts. Far more is known of the evolution of man and life in general than you even realise and the fossil evidence is far more complete than you have been led to believe. Far more is known of the physical processes which make up our planet and the universe in general than you even seem to know. Why pick up on the frauds and mistakes which have occured and claim that these are evidence for science being faulty in its premises?? You look for fault in the minutae when you completely miss the elegance of the facts as they have been uncovered and present themselves.

You seem to have come under the "spell" of so called "Creation Science" which is a highly fractious and dubious area of philosophy to begin with. Most of the so called "Creation" scientist are people who have forgotten the whole premise of the scientific method. They want to confirm their belief systems by distorting the facts as they are, to further their own little hegemonies. Because it seems to "confirm" your own deeply held beliefs, you give it the veracity which it just doesn't deserve. At best, creation science is nothing more than quackery of the most nonsensical kind. At its worst, it's a complete distortion of reality because the "facts" that it presents as "God given truth" have a very tenuous basis in any factual account of anything. Even the purported historical accuracy of the Bible is mostly based on evidence found after the fact. Any religious text can have records of events which occured in the past. But very few will be contextually accurate.

What you need to do.....and it's entirely upto you.....is to go back and learn about science. The philosophy, methodology and logical reasoning behind science. Then learn about those areas of science you have little or no understanding in at present. Then you can look at you own beliefs with a much clearer mindset than the one you presently have. Not to be rude, but it's your own ignorance which is showing across here......not the depth of knowledge you might have of the Bible. Even there, you are labouring under quite a few misconceptions.....especially about the ages of the Old Testament writings. Prior to about 700BC, there were few written religious texts of the Jews. Most of their laws and such, except for possibly the 10 Commandments (if you believe the story) were passed on orally and enforced that way. Only after the 8th Century BC were all the texts that did exist gathered into one book.....and others which were purely of an oral tradition committed to writing.

So, like I said. It's upto you as to what you avail yourself of. You can keep posting these "bible is best" threads, but you're only showing yourself up, not proving a point or making a convincing argument.

[saucy]

other than calling me ignorant, someone else proves that the bible was put together before Jesus because he wasn't born until 4 B.C. Like I said, the jews had the bible before Jesus and you just admitted it. So, that also proves they had all the written prophecies about him before his birth. Yay, it's a proud, proud day!

[Ozrosis]

. 

  If you find one set of dinosaur footprints side by side to that of a humans forever fossilized in limestone, doesn't that prove dinosaurs lived with humans?

  Dinosaurs should've died 65 million years before man even appeared, more than long enough for the limestone to have hardened and fossilized itself.  Two such examples have been found, one in Texas.  I'm not sure where the other was found, possibly in the middle east, somewhere around there. 

Then why aren't there any dinosaurs in the bible...

Dinosaurs should've died 65 million years before man even appeared, more than long enough for the limestone to have hardened and fossilized itself.  Two such examples have been found, one in Texas. 

What a surprise, it was found smack bang in the bible belt....

I don't care what anyone believes, believe what you want. I just think belief systems should be as light as a feather. I personally think God is within and not outside of yourself, as the bible suggests.

[Ozmeister]

Of course the Jews had the Old Testament before Jesus was born. The Old Testament and the Jewish Torah are one and the same. The New Testament was written after Jesus' time.....mostly between 70 and 150 years after the fact.

But saying that, and then saying they wrote SPECIFICALLY about Jesus is another thing. All the Old Testament prophets aluded to was that someone would be born that would that would be a religious and secular leader of his people, who would enstate the "Kingdom of God" on Earth, and who would perform certain actions to show that he was this person. Yes, Jesus did perform certain actions that were "prophesied"....such as entering Jerusalem on a donkey etc......but Jesus already knew of these prophecies. How do you know the whole lot was stage managed to put his own case forward. He wouldn't have been the first person do as such. Even his own cousin, John the Baptist, was believed by many to be that person prophesied. As were many others both before and after Jesus. The Jews themselves are still waiting on the coming of the prophesied "Messiah".

Do you have any real knowledge of the events and subsequent history of the times pertaining to Christianity, after Jesus' time......except for that which you have been taught and accepted as "fact", by the Church itself??. I can tell you now, there's a lot you probably don't know and won't have known because the Church has deemed it "unecessary" for you to know about it. Much of it was considered "heresy" by the Church because it was things the Church didn't want people to know about. It went against their "world view" because it argued against the legitimacy of the Church as the only purveyor of the cornerstone of the faith.

There's a lot of things which are left unsaid.....locked away and not known. You'll realise that the more you find out about things, just how much you really don't know.