Grabthaw the Hammerslayer 4 Report post Posted April 25, 2008 We know so little and I find it amusing how people will cling to this knife edge of knowledge with closed minds that I usually equate with ignorance. Oh the irony... I also don't understand the intolerance shown toward people of faith. Again another irony that demonstrates ignorance more than enlightenment. I don't consider that it is enlightened to cling to the notion that a 2,000 year old book that was written by men, translated and adapted to suit various purposes is the word of God. Ditto coming up with bad science and excuses at every turn to explain massive holes in, for example the creation debate. Fossils? God put them there. C14? oh its wrong, etc I liked Ash's posts. They create reasonable doubt, and point out how little we really know. Scientifically wrong and biased articles? The only reasonable doubt they cause me is to the IQ levels of their believers. ....but I have to say the some of the responses in this 15 page thread really have me questioning the kindness of your soul (oh excuse me I should say conscience ) The contempt for the other point of view is frightening to me. So now you are trying to guilt us From all of the pro-creation material written I have seen an equal if not greater contempt for scientific wisdom and fact. Twisting scientific arguments or just saying they are wrong. The contempt for science really frightens me. I accept that science is imperfect too as, again it is undertaken by humans with emotions, egos ad their own beliefs. However over a period of time there is sufficient scientific agreement based upon knowledge, observation and fact that certain scientific truths are accepted. I use Occam's razor principal in many situations: e.g. the simplest explanation is probably the right one. If you apply that to the world you see around you, what is more likely to be correct? That it was create 6,000 years ago or is, in fact many billions of years old? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Grabthaw the Hammerslayer 4 Report post Posted April 25, 2008 Fictitious 'Ape Men'Author: James Perloff Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Schumikonen 2 Report post Posted April 25, 2008 (Animated conversation between Bradley & Schumikonen)Schumikonen : God blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah Bradley : I agree. (End of convo) it sounds like a great conversation to me, you just said what it could happen with us but this is actually what's happening on the other side (Scientist speaking about his argument on evolution...or whatever he want to talk about science) Scientist : We have evidence of blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah science believers : we agree. Scientist : Based on that evidence we conclude that blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah science believers : we agree. (then thoses science believer spread the new findinds, they talk about like the word of God and one day??????) Scientist : We found new evidence that contradict everything that was said in our previous meeting science believers : That's science in work let's go to spread the "new findings" Scientist : We found new evidence that contradict everything that was said in our previous meeting science believers : That's science in work let's go to spread the "new findings" Scientist : We found new evidence that contradict everything that was said in our previous meeting science believers : That's science in work let's go to spread the "new findings" Scientist : We found new evidence that contradict everything that was said in our previous meeting science believers : That's science in work let's go to spread the "new findings" Scientist : We found new evidence that contradict everything that was said in our previous meeting science believers : That's science in work let's go to spread the "new findings" Scientist : We found new evidence that contradict everything that was said in our previous meeting science believers : That's science in work let's go to spread the "new findings" Scientist : We found new evidence that contradict everything that was said in our previous meeting science believers : That's science in work let's go to spread the "new findings" Scientist : We found new evidence that contradict everything that was said in our previous meeting science believers : That's science in work let's go to spread the "new findings" Scientist : We found new evidence that contradict everything that was said in our previous meeting science believers : That's science in work let's go to spread the "new findings" Scientist : We found new evidence that contradict everything that was said in our previous meeting science believers : That's science in work let's go to spread the "new findings" Scientist : We found new evidence that contradict everything that was said in our previous meeting science believers : That's science in work let's go to spread the "new findings" Scientist : We found new evidence that contradict everything that was said in our previous meeting science believers : That's science in work let's go to spread the "new findings" Scientist : We found new evidence that contradict everything that was said in our previous meeting science believers : That's science in work let's go to spread the "new findings" Scientist : We found new evidence that contradict everything that was said in our previous meeting science believers : That's science in work let's go to spread the "new findings" Scientist : We found new evidence that contradict everything that was said in our previous meeting science believers : That's science in work let's go to spread the "new findings" Scientist : We found new evidence that contradict everything that was said in our previous meeting science believers : That's science in work let's go to spread the "new findings" Scientist : We found new evidence that contradict everything that was said in our previous meeting science believers : That's science in work let's go to spread the "new findings" Scientist : We found new evidence that contradict everything that was said in our previous meeting science believers : That's science in work let's go to spread the "new findings" (no end for this of convo) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Quiet One 15 Report post Posted April 25, 2008 Awww, Schumikonen...you were doing so well... Too bad. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Schumikonen 2 Report post Posted April 25, 2008 I don't consider that it is enlightened to cling to the notion that a 2,000 year old book that was written by men, translated and adapted to suit various purposes is the word of God. Ditto coming up with bad science and excuses at every turn to explain massive holes in, for example the creation debate. Fossils? God put them there. C14? oh its wrong, etc The is not 2,000 years old, most of the books in the bible are older than that, only New Testament books are younger than that. When you say written by men, what do you really mean? Would you beleive it if it was written by a horse? When you say translate what do you really mean? should we learn the original language to read without translation (cause we have it in the originals languages) for example Jews still have thoses books from the old testament and there is no conflict with the translation. Holes? Massive holes? Do you mean like thoses in evolution? I think you know about holes, believing in evolution and defending evolution has necesarily to be ok with having holes, massive that you are not able to explain, nobody in this world can expalin them but you stick to them because you have heard about the "evidence" or maybe I am wrong, maybe the is no massive holes in evolution, maybe you fully understand it and is not a theory anymore, maybe you didn't read about the new surprise about the "first animal on earth" do you now that by having this finding now scientist will have to change the order in evolution chain, do you know that is called chain because of all the holes that has on it, do you know............................................................................ ...................................No, you don't know. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Schumikonen 2 Report post Posted April 25, 2008 Awww, Schumikonen...you were doing so well...Too bad. We need to have fun, I believe that God have a good sense of humor (a lot better than mine) don't get me wrong when you see an answer like that one I am just having fun, no giving a bad answer to anyone, like happened a few pages behind one of my answer what supose to be a joke a is was taken the wrong way. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pumpdoc 2 Report post Posted April 25, 2008 This thread is so over baked, nothing is left to say peeps, just let it die a quick death eh? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ash1 0 Report post Posted April 25, 2008 We know so little and I find it amusing how people will cling to this knife edge of knowledge with closed minds that I usually equate with ignorance. I also don't understand the intolerance shown toward people of faith. Again another irony that demonstrates ignorance more than enlightenment. I liked Ash's posts. They create reasonable doubt, and point out how little we really know. You guys are so sure we are wrong. It would make me laugh if it wasn't so sad. A lot of you guys are OK in my books whatever you want to believe, but I have to say the some of the responses in this 15 page thread really have me questioning the kindness of your soul (oh excuse me I should say conscience ) The contempt for the other point of view is frightening to me. Name calling, insults hurled. I've had my eyes opened by a few of you. I am proud of the faith argument. Belittling and name calling were left out of that side of the debate. YHR, you make me so proud. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Quiet One 15 Report post Posted April 25, 2008 We need to have fun, I believe that God have a good sense of humor (a lot better than mine) don't get me wrong when you see an answer like that one I am just having fun, no giving a bad answer to anyone, like happened a few pages behind one of my answer what supose to be a joke a is was taken the wrong way. Sorry, mine was a joke, too I tend to use emoticons less often lately, and that sometimes makes it difficult to tell whether I am joking or not (I am joking, usually...I'm a clown what can I do?) @Bruce: I disagree. Most of us are treating each other with utmost respect, despite the sensitiveness of the subject (our usual patented TF1 Sarcasm System (TR) aside). There are some great posts from both sides. Heated debate is not the same as flaming war. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ash1 0 Report post Posted April 25, 2008 Before this thread comes to an end ... I want to point out to you why evolutionists believe what they believe! (Cut and paste) So why do so many believe in it? What is the real reason? The explosion in scientific exploration is revealing more about our universe than we've ever known. And with the evidence clearly "telling out the glory of God" (Psalm 19:1), we ought to be more certain than any of our forebears about the infinite power and wisdom of the Creator. Science has uncovered whole wondrous worlds in nature that previous generations never knew existed. The more we see of creation, the more it reveals the order and the wisdom and the goodness of the One who designed it all and spoke it into existence. But at the same time science is learning all of this, scientific theory is becoming increasingly atheistic. Incredibly, as the power, sophistication, and harmony of the universe come more and more to light, many modern scientists try all the more desperately to explain away the notion of a divine Creator who rules the universe. Why? Why do they suppose such an ordered, systematic creation is the result of mere chance? Scripture has the answer. Romans one informs us that unbelievers will devise systems of thought to suppress the truth about God from their consciences. For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools (Romans 1:18-22). When men and women refuse God, they become enslaved to sin, enveloped in darkness, entrapped by futility. Forsaking God, they forsake truth, light, and eternal life. And so evolutionary atheism is nothing more than a product of their futile speculation, a weak attempt to deafen the din of an accusing conscience. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
YHR 0 Report post Posted April 25, 2008 Oh the irony...I don't consider that it is enlightened to cling to the notion that a 2,000 year old book that was written by men, translated and adapted to suit various purposes is the word of God. Ditto coming up with bad science and excuses at every turn to explain massive holes in, for example the creation debate. Fossils? God put them there. C14? oh its wrong, etc Scientifically wrong and biased articles? The only reasonable doubt they cause me is to the IQ levels of their believers. So now you are trying to guilt us From all of the pro-creation material written I have seen an equal if not greater contempt for scientific wisdom and fact. Twisting scientific arguments or just saying they are wrong. The contempt for science really frightens me. I accept that science is imperfect too as, again it is undertaken by humans with emotions, egos ad their own beliefs. However over a period of time there is sufficient scientific agreement based upon knowledge, observation and fact that certain scientific truths are accepted. I use Occam's razor principal in many situations: e.g. the simplest explanation is probably the right one. If you apply that to the world you see around you, what is more likely to be correct? That it was create 6,000 years ago or is, in fact many billions of years old? C-14 Carbon dating has limitations and is based on assumptions. Ash pointed this out. Surely you understand that consequence of measurement with flawed instruments. I'll give you an H2S monitor and send you in a room full of sour toxic gas. Now, do you want to know if that monitor is calibrated correctly and will measure the atmosphere correctly, or are you OK with me saying it will most likely work? Your life will depend on it. There is no room for "probably" in my eyes. I love my wife, kids and enjoy my life. I won't accept probably. There is too much at risk. So when dealing with an eternal soul, do you want to bet the farm on sound plausible science???????, I think all a person has to do is question the theory of advanced measurement and uncover the assumptions made in all the science to make the following point. Science may be built on sound plausiblity but it is not always as exact as it is portrayed. Go ahead and make up your own mind, but do it with the full knowledge of the theories and the assumptions made and fully realize what your stake is. You imply I am stupid and belong in a flock because I exercise caution on the great unknown. Talk about irony. I am not trying to shame anyone. These are observations I have made in reading this thread. If the shoe fits, wear it. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pumpdoc 2 Report post Posted April 25, 2008 Sorry, mine was a joke, too I tend to use emoticons less often lately, and that sometimes makes it difficult to tell whether I am joking or not (I am joking, usually...I'm a clown what can I do?) @Bruce: I disagree. Most of us are treating each other with utmost respect, despite the sensitiveness of the subject (our usual patented TF1 Sarcasm System (TR) aside). There are some great posts from both sides. Heated debate is not the same as flaming war. You misunderstood, I meant that this thread is so repetitive now, whatever....................... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
elgo 1 Report post Posted April 25, 2008 At last!I found time to finish reading all the posts! I gotta say you managed a very good discussion!Yep,even with Graham involved in it! Btw I love reading and watching funny/useless/weird etc documentaries/articles.Got an email with this video: It's not exactly on topic,but hey,this is TF1,what did you expect? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Schumikonen 2 Report post Posted April 25, 2008 Sorry, mine was a joke, too I tend to use emoticons less often lately, and that sometimes makes it difficult to tell whether I am joking or not (I am joking, usually...I'm a clown what can I do?) @Bruce: I disagree. Most of us are treating each other with utmost respect, despite the sensitiveness of the subject (our usual patented TF1 Sarcasm System (TR) aside). There are some great posts from both sides. Heated debate is not the same as flaming war. I guess that have been my problem too. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
LabradoRacer 2 Report post Posted April 25, 2008 it sounds like a great conversation to me, you just said what it could happen with us but this is actually what's happening on the other side(Scientist speaking about his argument on evolution...or whatever he want to talk about science) Scientist : We have evidence of blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah science believers : we agree. Scientist : Based on that evidence we conclude that blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah science believers : we agree. (then thoses science believer spread the new findinds, they talk about like the word of God and one day??????) Scientist : We found new evidence that contradict everything that was said in our previous meeting science believers : That's science in work let's go to spread the "new findings" Scientist : We found new evidence that contradict everything that was said in our previous meeting science believers : That's science in work let's go to spread the "new findings" Scientist : We found new evidence that contradict everything that was said in our previous meeting science believers : That's science in work let's go to spread the "new findings" Scientist : We found new evidence that contradict everything that was said in our previous meeting science believers : That's science in work let's go to spread the "new findings" Scientist : We found new evidence that contradict everything that was said in our previous meeting science believers : That's science in work let's go to spread the "new findings" Scientist : We found new evidence that contradict everything that was said in our previous meeting science believers : That's science in work let's go to spread the "new findings" Scientist : We found new evidence that contradict everything that was said in our previous meeting science believers : That's science in work let's go to spread the "new findings" Scientist : We found new evidence that contradict everything that was said in our previous meeting science believers : That's science in work let's go to spread the "new findings" Scientist : We found new evidence that contradict everything that was said in our previous meeting science believers : That's science in work let's go to spread the "new findings" Scientist : We found new evidence that contradict everything that was said in our previous meeting science believers : That's science in work let's go to spread the "new findings" Scientist : We found new evidence that contradict everything that was said in our previous meeting science believers : That's science in work let's go to spread the "new findings" Scientist : We found new evidence that contradict everything that was said in our previous meeting science believers : That's science in work let's go to spread the "new findings" Scientist : We found new evidence that contradict everything that was said in our previous meeting science believers : That's science in work let's go to spread the "new findings" Scientist : We found new evidence that contradict everything that was said in our previous meeting science believers : That's science in work let's go to spread the "new findings" Scientist : We found new evidence that contradict everything that was said in our previous meeting science believers : That's science in work let's go to spread the "new findings" Scientist : We found new evidence that contradict everything that was said in our previous meeting science believers : That's science in work let's go to spread the "new findings" Scientist : We found new evidence that contradict everything that was said in our previous meeting science believers : That's science in work let's go to spread the "new findings" Scientist : We found new evidence that contradict everything that was said in our previous meeting science believers : That's science in work let's go to spread the "new findings" (no end for this of convo) You're a good sport, I'll grant you that! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BradSpeedMan 6 Report post Posted April 25, 2008 We know so little and I find it amusing how people will cling to this knife edge of knowledge with closed minds that I usually equate with ignorance. I also don't understand the intolerance shown toward people of faith. Again another irony that demonstrates ignorance more than enlightenment. I liked Ash's posts. They create reasonable doubt, and point out how little we really know. You guys are so sure we are wrong. It would make me laugh if it wasn't so sad. A lot of you guys are OK in my books whatever you want to believe, but I have to say the some of the responses in this 15 page thread really have me questioning the kindness of your soul (oh excuse me I should say conscience ) The contempt for the other point of view is frightening to me. Name calling, insults hurled. I've had my eyes opened by a few of you. I am proud of the faith argument. Belittling and name calling were left out of that side of the debate. You always have a way of putting things so....eloquently, as if it's poetry... you may or may not have made friends here, but thats besides the point. It may mean little to you, but I love reading your post. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BradSpeedMan 6 Report post Posted April 25, 2008 At last!I found time to finish reading all the posts! I gotta say you managed a very good discussion!Yep,even with Graham involved in it! Btw I love reading and watching funny/useless/weird etc documentaries/articles.Got an email with this video: It's not exactly on topic,but hey,this is TF1,what did you expect? Are you questioning our faith dear elgo.... there's alot of wrong facts concerning these zeit movies, and nr 1 of them is that Jesus was never born on the 25th December... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
elgo 1 Report post Posted April 25, 2008 Yeah I know!Obviously I don't believe a single word of what they say,but I like watching this kind of things for fun.I didn't leave it clear Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AleHop 0 Report post Posted April 25, 2008 I think Bruce should close this thread before it turns into something bad. I it is very good as it is now and Bruce should protect it! Close it, please! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
YHR 0 Report post Posted April 25, 2008 You always have a way of putting things so....eloquently, as if it's poetry...you may or may not have made friends here, but thats besides the point. It may mean little to you, but I love reading your post. Thank you. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Schumikonen 2 Report post Posted April 25, 2008 I think Bruce should close this thread before it turns into something bad.I it is very good as it is now and Bruce should protect it! Close it, please! I don't know what do you mean Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Grabthaw the Hammerslayer 4 Report post Posted April 25, 2008 C-14 Carbon dating has limitations and is based on assumptions. All testing has limitations, but that does not invalidate it as a tool. The decay of a radioactive isotope is predictable and measureable and within a number of half-lives of C14 it is accurate. It is only when the number of measurable C14 atoms approaches natural background levels that it becomes more unreliable. But as limit is > 30,000 years before present, anything younger than that is reasonably accurate. Oh, and by the way imho: The Bible has limitations and is based upon assumptions. Ash pointed this out. Surely you understand that consequence of measurement with flawed instruments. Yes I do, only it is not flawed - this is a sweeping generalisation and funnily enough the root of this argument only applies at the upper end of its use (e.g. towards the 30,000 b.p.) which is 26,000 years older than the supposed date that the earth was created according to the creationists. So when dealing with an eternal soul, do you want to bet the farm on sound plausible science??????? No, as my belief in my sprituality does not depend on science, nor does it on any organised religion. What I am objecting too is the pseudo-science which is spouted by creationists as proof that God must exist. Go ahead and make up your own mind, but do it with the full knowledge of the theories and the assumptions made and fully realize what your stake is. My stake? Thing is with my beliefs I have nothing at stake. It is only if I believe the hell-fire and damnation crowd that I am going to get my buns toasted for eternity (which I don't) You imply I am stupid and belong in a flock because I exercise caution on the great unknown. Talk about irony. I did not imply you were stupid, I said that I questioned the IQ of anyone who believed that article and its pseudo science and errors. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Grabthaw the Hammerslayer 4 Report post Posted April 25, 2008 The is not 2,000 years old, most of the books in the bible are older than that, only New Testament books are younger than that. It was a rough date - they are *old*.... When you say written by men, what do you really mean? Would you beleive it if it was written by a horse? No that's not quite what I meant. My point was that the text has been fiddled with. Its the meaning that it important - we've already discussed this and think we agree that it is the meaning that matters. When you say translate what do you really mean? should we learn the original language to read without translation (cause we have it in the originals languages) for example Jews still have thoses books from the old testament and there is no conflict with the translation. Yes, but most people are working from texts that have been translated/interpreted, changing their meaning. Holes? Massive holes? Do you mean like thoses in evolution? Yes there are gaps, BUT what I struggle with creation-wise is where excuses are made which defy common-sense. e.g. the fossil debate. Science and religion are not mutually exclusive - what is wrong with believing, for example the God created the Universe - but that he also created dinosaurs and maybe, just maybe that the earth is a bit older than 6,000 years? do you know...............................................................................................................No, you don't know. I know! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AleHop 0 Report post Posted April 25, 2008 I don't know what do you mean This thread is long and good enough for each one to have a conclusion. Everybody should made an agreement and then close the thread for good. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Quiet One 15 Report post Posted April 25, 2008 No Chance of Life by ChanceThis article is one of many found within Mr. Malone's excellent book, Search for the Truth. Debunking the Cult of Unreason by the Quiet One (brain not included) Ok, I dont have much time, and, unlike our friend here, I don't want to copy paste one of the gazillions of articles from far more knowledgeable people who can easily disprove this. Besides, it would need some scientific explanations...and scientific explanations are too long and boring for many people. Mostly when the reply will be something like "no, it was God". So, armed with just my general knowledge (it has the Bradspeedman seal of approval) and my fragile memory I will try to reply to some of these "objections". Of course, I cheated. I read Ash's nonorignial post before coming here all arrogant and saying that I would try to reply to it. Anyways, I am amazed at how many basic errors I can find, even without the help of other resources (books, articles or even the wikipedia). Anyways, let's start: In the 1700's many scientists believed that life spontaneously generated from non-living matter (such as raw meat or sewage). In the 1800's, using careful experimentation, Louis Pasteur proved this concept wrong and verified that life only comes from previously existing life. Ironically, many scientists have once again returned to the belief that life came from non-life. . . in spite of the fact that there is no experimental evidence to show how that could have happened. The reason this unsupported belief has returned is that science has been defined as to eliminate the consideration of the only other alternative-the creation of life by an intelligent designer. Well...this is just such a gross oversimplification that it is impossible to attack or defend. Pasteur proved that life comes from previous existing life? Yes. Do we think now that life comes from non living things? No, we still agree with Pasteur. But wait! Then life existed always? No, and you know that's not what Pasteur meant. Life evolved from a previous non-living state. Life. Not just living things. Life itself evolved from a group of inorganic molecules to pre organic ones, then they started to collaborate, and finally, to replicate themselves...and then, only then, something akin to life started. It took billions of years. Randoms successes? Nope. Following both the laws of probability and some strict laws of science (not every atom can combine with any other atom.) Since life has started, it slowly evolved onto other beings, but starting from previous beings. That is the (again oversimplified) theory of the evolution of life. Saying that living things come from living or non living matter does not deny the theory, because the theory never said what this guy is saying. Even the simplest living cell is an incredibly complex machine. It must be capable of detecting malfunctions, repairing itself, and making copies of itself. Man has never succeeded in building a machine capable of these same functions. Really? This guy never used a computer. Anyways, what does it prove? Is man the measure of what is possible and what is not? Anything a man cannot do MUST be made by god? Is that the whole heart of the reasoning? (As you will notice, yes). Well, that's a total fallacy. Like proving that a line is not straight would mean the same as proving that it is a circle. Read again and again the previous phrase, for there lies the heart of most "proofs" that god did anything in this (and other) article. Yet most scientists accept the belief that life arose from non-life (in spite of the evidence clearly indicating that it did not and could not happen). This incredible belief is as absurd as finding a complex chemical manufacturing facility on Mars and assuming that it built itself. Why not? Cells build themselves and they *are* complex chemical manufacturing facilities. He is confusing "created" with "evolved" and using them interchangeably. Mr.Malone, what a naughty boy! Maybe you are an evolutionist after all? One classic experiment which is used to support the belief that life "built itself" is an experiment by Stanley Miller in 1953. In this experiment sparks were discharged into an apparatus which was circulating common gases. These gases reacted to form various organic products which were collected and analyzed. The experiment succeeded in producing only a few of the 20 amino acids required by itself. Furthermore, the dozens of major problems with this experiment as an explanation for the formation of life are seldom reported. That experiment (which fascinated me as a kid) was a brilliant idea. The concept was that, given the components of the early days of earth's atmosphere (I don't remember the exact gases, and I won't look for them even if it is easy to find articles about it) including, I think, ammonia, methane, and sparks (instead of the lightnings) could trigger the beggining of life. That is, that life was inevitable or at least highly probable with the conditions of the earth plus energy plus the laws of chemistry and phisics. Only the ignorants were disappointed that no creature crept out of the glass globe. After only a short time of electrical discharges, the glass turned a rather unpleasant brownish color. That color signalled the presence of complex organic mollecules. Life was not created nor was the idea. Like I said, life took billions of years of slow evolution. They only showed how easily was to turn simple mollecules into complex mollecular ones. Afterwards, it was determined that the proportions were wrong. But the experiment5 itself was not invalidated, for even changing the proportions you would have neded up having complex organic mollecules (try it! we tried it at our high school! A bunch of 15 year old kids! AND IT WORKS MALONE YOU DORK!). So, not every single aminoacid was created? Oh no! And no Adam and Eve came out...not even a single SeaMonkey! Yep, then god must have made it brownish. For instance, our early atmosphere was assumed to have no oxygen because this would stop amino acid formation. However, with no oxygen, there would be no ozone shield. With no ozone shield, life would also be impossible. Furthermore, oxidized rocks throughout the geologic record indicate that oxygen has always been present. Boy, you missed your biology classes, right? Oh, and your chemistry and physics too? Early earth had no atmosphere like the actual. There was little or no oxygen (you got that one at least right). Who said that with no ozone shield life would also have been impossible? One of the prophets? Water is a huge UV shield. And...yup, you guessed it, life started in the oceans. The oceans were rich in anaerobic (i.e. non-oxygen based) organisms. And yes, billions died because of the UV rays that bathed the early earth, destroying organisms, but also giving a huge increase in energy and mutations. Some organisms started to liberate oxygen, which slowly accumulated in the atmosphere. Voila, it was slowly becoming more habitable for aerobic (oxygen-based) organisms. As for the rocks, yes, they show that oxygen was always present *inside the rocks*. Take iron. You don't find shiny iron in the mines. You find an ugly substance which is actually a combination of iron and oxygen atoms. That's why metals are placed in fire (I dont know the english name). To burn the oxygen and leave only the metal atoms. That is something you learn in 6th degree of primary school. And the prehistoric man already knew it. Malone, you need to update your info, you missed everything since the stone age! The post is already too long and a couple of points could not be replied yet. But I will try and reply ti them if you want to. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
