Prove to me the world is 6000 years old

NickB
High Level DonorSpecial Agent
NickB's picture
Posts: 188
Joined: 2008-02-10
User is offlineOffline
Prove to me the world is 6000 years old

Science has proven through many different forms of radiocarbon dating that the world is 4.5 billion years old. In the face of all this evidence creationist persist that our earth is 6000 years old. To this day I have not seen a shred of evidence to support the assertion that the earth is 6000 years old. I do not want to sit here and argue some irrational theist about the Earths age all I want is proof that the Earth is 6000 years old. So to anybody that can prove to me that the Earth is 6000 years old I will give $6,000. When I say proof I mean irrefutable evidence that is based on logic not faith so in other words no bible quotes.

P.S. I am completely serious about this.

 

If Jesus was born today he would be institutionalized as a schizophrenic with delusions of grandeur.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13133
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
It's funny watching this

It's funny watching this fool prove himself a few smokes short of a pack. Laughing out loud

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


mind over matter
Theist
mind over matter's picture
Posts: 210
Joined: 2010-04-09
User is offlineOffline
Nice logical response,

Nice logical response, Mom.

Submitted by Atheistextremist on November 1, 2010 - 9:25pm.

 

 

mind over matter wrote:

 

B166ER's picture

HAHAHAHAHA!!!!

Submitted by B166ER on July 7, 2010 - 12:17am.

 

Dude, No-Mind Fascist Troll, of course we are not going to take you seriously, YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT THE FLINTSTONES BEING A HISTORICAL DOCUMENTARY!!!-------------------<>>>>>>>>>  NO, I am talking about real people places and events according to facts in the real world past and present and sadly for you in the future.  Having freewill means you are not being oppressed by YAHUWAH the inifinite person identified as the CREATOR of matter in space over time.   bitching about me sharing a perspective in a rational response to the insane deuche posse on this irrational response fraud of a thread ,  it is what I have come to expect from your kind. MIND OVER MATTER  is a reality you fear because you are the matter in question and the mind of the CREATOR is what you fear.  and instead of meeting my posted challenges to prove you are not just a drone minion of satans ass you you accuse me of fascism?  lol   all the fascists in history were and are atheist pricks who support abortion mass genicide, heterosexually challenged fools, and subjugation to satan. etc.....

the pittiful fact is satan wants you dead you fool. there is no joy in oblivion(the second death) as far as the fire and brimestone that is a special rsvp for non humans.

 

TROLL ?  lol    you fit the profile.  all you do is spew mutated dwarf sized ignor and rants.  living under a bridge or in a petry dish ?

you would rather preach your faith in scum to scumbag atheist,-- given enough unseen imaginary time and chance/mother bitch nature and energy.  lol

never mind the fact that there are countless living organisms alive and well and unchanged according to real science.

never mind the fact that all the evidence for your religion starts with A long long time ago in a galaxy far far away.............

nevermind the fact that you are a chump with chimp envy looking for closure in this life without accountability.

nevermind the fact that you are an expendable drone pawn for the nwo under satan. selling out your own human race for a lost cause.

 

 

 

"A Boss in Heaven is the best excuse for a boss on earth, therefore If God did exist, he would have to be abolished." Mikhail Bakunin-another drone minion of satans ass.
"The means in which you take,
dictate the ends in which you find yourself." so if you look with love you will be in love
"Fuckin' magnets, how do they work?"  very well according to their designed properties and precsion placment in our star system.

 

 

 

 

As usual completely devoid of fallacies from force and your own special ad hominem blunderbus. Anytime you are prepared to offer commentary on some actual data we'll stop thinking you are an obnoxious fuckwit. In the meantime, please use the controls on that tardis to go back to the 1500s. They need a new inquisitor in Toledo and you'd be perfect for the job of standing in a pulpit shouting abuse at braver human beings than you will ever be.

 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

ATHEISM: THE Cretard BELIEF that there was nothing and nothing happend to nothing and then nothing magically exploded for no reason, creating everything and then a bunch of everything magically  rearranged itself  for no reason what so ever into self replicating bits which turned into  chumps like you with chimp envy.

MAKES PERFECT SENSE!!!

 

look with love from above
the desire to live is the desire to live forever
you did not evolve never did and never will
True science is always provable, theoretical science never is.


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
How is your idea different,

How is your idea different, MoM?

You believe in a being created from human imagination that can only be described in terms of what it's not making a sound without the mechanism to do so. Somehow that sound created everything which then magically rearranged itself (because this non being made no sound that said to do it).

But you have proof, right? You have a book written by other imaginative humans much later, drawing from the stories of the first bunch.

Yep, scientific as all hell.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


mind over matter
Theist
mind over matter's picture
Posts: 210
Joined: 2010-04-09
User is offlineOffline
Explanation by a 13 year

skeptiform5's picture

Explanation by a 13 year old

Submitted by skeptiform5 on November 7, 2010 - 1:04am.

 

 

mind over matter wrote:

 

SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE
AGAINST EVOLUTION  is my first point

quick recap of atheist foundation 
The word 'evolution' is used in the following contexts:

          Conclusion
Darwin said, "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."
  After well over a hundred years of intense scientific research and investigation, we must conclude that no-one has shown how the human eye could have come into existence by numerous, successive slight modifications. By using Darwin's own criteria and viewing the other aspects of science that relate to evolution we can conclude that Darwin's humanist/atheist theory has broken down.  "For since the creation of the world YAHUWAH's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that HUMANS (especially humanist/atheist/pagans) are without excuse"

 

phenomena which conflict with the evolutionary idea that the universe is billions of years old  "my second point"

1. Comets disintegrate too quickly.    2. Not enough mud on the sea floor.    3. Not enough sodium in the sea.    4. Earth's magnetic field is decaying too fast.   

5. Many strata are too tightly bent.    6. Injected sandstone shortens geologic 'ages'.    7. Fossil radioactivity shortens geologic 'ages' to a few years.

8. Helium in the wrong places.    9. Not enough Stone Age skeletons.    10. Agriculture is too recent.    11. History is too short.

References

  1. Steidl, P.F., 'Planets, comets, and asteroids', Design and Origins in Astronomy, G. Mulfinger, ed., Creation Research Society Books (1983), 5093 Williamsport Drive, Norcross, GA 30092, pp. 73-106.
  2. Whipple, F.L., 'Background of modern comet theory', Nature 263 (2 September 1976), p. 15.
  3. Gordeyev, V.V. et al, 'The average chemical composition of suspensions in the world's rivers and the supply of sediments to the ocean by streams', Dockl. Akad, Nauk. SSSR 238 (1980), p. 150.
  4. Hay, W.W., et al, 'Mass/age distribution and composition of sediments on the ocean floor and the global rate of subduction', Journal of Geophysical Research, 93, No. B12 (10 December 1988), pp. 14,933-14,940.
  5. Maybeck, M., 'Concentrations des eaux fluviales en elements majeurs et apports en solution aux oceans', Rev. de Geol. Dyn. Geogr. Phys. 21 (1979), p. 215.
  6. Sayles, F.L. and Mangelsdorf, P.C., 'Cation-exchange characteristics of Amazon River suspended sediment and its reaction with seawater', Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta 41 (1979), p. 767.
  7. Austin, S.A. and Humphreys, D.R., 'The sea's missing salt: a dilemma for evolutionists', Proc. 2nd Internat. Conf. on Creationism, Vol. II, Creation Science Fellowship (1990) pp. 17-31. Address in ref. 12.
  8. Austin, S.A., 'Evolution: the oceans say no!', ICR Impact, No. 8 (October 1973). Institute for Creation Research, address in ref. 2.
  9. Merrill, R.T. and McElhinney, M.W., The Earth's Magnetic Field, Academic Press (1983), London, pp. 101-106.
  10. Humphreys, D.R., 'Reversals of the earth's magnetic field during the Genesis flood', Proc. 1st Internat. Conf. on Creationism (Aug. 1986, Pittsburgh), Creation Science Fellowship (1987) 362 Ashland Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15228, Vol. II, pp. 113-126.
  11. Coe, R.S., Prvot, M., and Camps, P., 'New evidence for extraordinary change of the geomagnetic field during a reversal', Nature 374 (20 April 1995), pp. 687-92.
  12. Humphreys, D.R., 'Physical mechanism for reversals of the earth's magnetic field during the flood', Proc. 2nd Internat. Conf. on Creationism, Vol. II, Creation Science Fellowship (1990), pp. 129-142, address in ref. 12.
  13. Austin, S.A. and Morris, J.D., 'Tight folds and clastic dikes as evidence for rapid deposition and deformation of two very thick stratigraphic sequences', Proc. 1st Internat. Conf. on Creationism, Vol. II, Creation Science Fellowship (1986), pp. 3-15, address in ref. 12.
  14. ibid, pp. 11-12.
  15. Gentry, R.V., 'Radioactive halos', Annual Review of Nuclear Science 23 (1973) pp. 347-362.
  16. Gentry, R.V. et. al., 'Radiohalos in coalified wood: new evidence relating to time of uranium introduction and coalification', Science 194 (15 October 1976) pp. 315-318.
  17. Gentry, R.V., 'Radiohalos in a Radiochronological and cosmological perspective', Science 184 (5 April 1974), pp. 62-66.
  18. Gentry, R.V., Creation's Tiny Mystery, Earth Science Associates (1986), P.O. Box 12067, Knoxville, TN 37912-0067, pp. 23-37, 51-59, 61-62.
  19. Vardiman, L., The Age of the Earth's Atmosphere: a study of the helium flux through the atmosphere, Institute for Creation Research (1990), P.O. Box 2667, El Cajon, CA 92021.
  20. Gentry, R.V. et al, 'Differential helium retention in zircons: implications for nuclear waste management', Geophys. Res. Lett. 9, (October 1982), 1129-1130. See also ref. 20, pp. 169-170.
  21. Deevey, E.S., 'The human population', Scientific American 203 (September 1960), pp. 194-204.
  22. Marshak, A., 'Exploring the mind of Ice Age man', National Geographic 147 (January 1975), pp. 64-89.
  23. Dritt, J.O., 'Man's earliest beginnings: discrepancies in the evolutionary timetable', Proc. 2nd Internat. Conf. on Creationism, Vol. I., Creation Science Fellowship (1990), pp. 73-78, address in ref. 12.

 

 

 

1. There is no reason that non-living matter can become living---->through science we know all life comes from pre existing life. and thus life cannot arise from non living matter. do you understand?  all life comes from the eternal source  known as YAHUWAH who is the inifinite person. outside of matter space and time. HE IS NOT AFFECTED BY the finite realm.

 

 

2. There have been many cases of fossilised intermediate for example the, almost fully complete evolutionary tree of the horse. The mud skipper is a brilliant example of what an intermediate between the humans aquatic and land stages (however it is not an actual direct relative of us)----------------------------------------------------->you are assuming misinformation as  fact.   you are being taught to accept authority as truth without questioning that authority.  you are basing your whole worldview on misinformation not knowledge gained through observation.  WHAT HAVE YOU DONE to prove your perspective conforms with reality. have you observed billions of years and recorded them and tested them to say you know that the universe is older than the earth? HOW can that even make sense when you are always using earth as a reference for measuring time based on observing the sky and not the earth?  fossils do not take millions of years to form and the ones you are referring to are found in mud that hardened. they are the remains of creatures that were buried rapdily during a world wide FLOOD that covered the entire surface area of the thin layer of earth. Water rained down and and the water in the ground broke free. the left over water from that world wide flood still covers 2 thirds of the world today represented by the ocean basins. the continents are actually mountains. You are free to test all things. I am not telling you something you cannot investigate.

 

 

3. It is quite easy to explain how the human eye got so complex, before I start there are fossils of creatures which don't have nearly as complex eyes as humans or many of the animals today, so my question is, if god is all knowing why didn't god create the perfect eye in the first place? Even our eyes could do with much improvement.------------------------>>>>It is easy for you to explain things that are beyond your ability to accept as lies.  you cannot prove any imaginary atheist written explanation about the human eye and how it formed over millions of unobserved years at least not with true science..  you can watch a animation or stare at drawings that preach the eye formed naturally into a organic camera lens that allows you to have sight which you take for granted because you see with your eyes wide shut. you are truly blinded by those who are also blind in the mind.  fossils only makes sense according the what presupposition you seem to place on them in your case. 

YOU DO NOT KNOW god because that is a word that originates from the word meaning  fortune and it is used by pagans. and you unknowingly refer to a person when you do not even know who you are refering to in the proper sense.  everyone is taught to say god for everything false idol. even the modern translations of the scriptures have replaced the true nAME YAHUWAH with lord /baal jesus/sun deity zeus,ra etc.. and god/fortune( as in the expression selling your soul(living being) for a fortune to to the accuser and liar, the fallen one etc...  

the word god is not a name so when you refer to the almighty you may want to investigate the difference between a name and title and the importance identity.  if your truly value your own name because it represents you with respect to who you are then you should understand that the same respect should be given to whom you are referring to as the CREATOR ALMIGHTY who is identified as YAHUWAH =HE WHO IS SELF EXISTENT.  HE IS THE TRUE INFINITE PERSON.  you need to meditate on that. 

IF you do not appreciate your eyes then wear a blind fold see if that helps your bad attitude towards the gift of your flesh and bones that support the immaterial mind you possess.

 

 

 

     The simple explanation is that the first tiny blob of living matter produced more living matter etc. and so on and so forth until you come to the jellyfish-like-creature which evolved (over millions/billions of years) into an aquatic creature with fins and tiny slits in the sides of it's head which could see almost nothing and had a very small colour sppectrum. So over time the eyes got larger, their colour spectrum got wider and so on and so forth.

And the Earth/evolution is not affected by the second law of thermodynamics because it only applies to closed systems, like the universe (which you referred to), so evolution can exist because with the suns radiation, and things, like metals forged in stars which fall to earth etc.

-------------------------->You need to read into what you are saying.  you are implying you know there was a first tiny blob!  that is an assumption that you accept as fact based on testimony from the false authority. they taught you you spew lies that  not your own.  and you also assume the this tiny blob was simple to begin with?  HOW do you know these things? lol did you use science to discover the first blob that you now preach was simple?

I strongly suggest you learn to ask why and how when people tell you  these things which are not true in the real world .  Ask them to show you their time machine  that allows them to observe the imaginary first simple blob of living matter.  Ask them to demonstrate how simple the tiny blob of living matter really is.  ask them to compare it to a computor which took humans a great deal of time and patience to form using intelligent design with purpose!

you know what a single cell looke like?  if you do then you know it is the equivelant to a city scaled down to the size too small to be seen with the naked eye.

the single cell is a closed sytem and it is still affected by the law of decay.  You do not see scientits trying to raise the dead in the same way the believe they believe that by adding all the ingredients that constitue livings organic matter into a tube they can creat life as we know it ! 

 

 

in case you didnt know , technology       is not something that forms  through random acts of chance +energy and time

your body is a tecnology that was made for you to possess.   I  challenge you to form a human body and then give it life . you know you cannot do it yet you believe a non living chaos can do it better than you. 

 

4. Since when is Darwin's theory atheistic, he believed it and he was a Christian.----------> No that is not true according the facts on Darwin and his agenda. Darwin knew exactly what he was doing was satanic at its core and for that he was not a person of faith. He also knew he was wrong. His role followed in the footsteps of the pagan worldview of humanism and sun worship. which replaced earth as the center of CREATION and then the the lie of millions of years became billions and then more recently this paved the way for the big bang all of which combine to prepare you for the comming star wars star trek agenda. which already happend in the days of NOAH as will be in these.

 

 

Anyway, many,many,many people have given almost literally mountains of evidence to prove how the theory of evolution by natural selection perfectly explains how the eye is as complex as it is.  ----------------> the true answer is 0 because all the mountains of evidence are drawings on paper.  noone use science to show your science fiction as science.  you are still speaking for the authority and not yourself.

 

 

5. They may be different (evolution and mutation) may be going in different directions but they overlap. Oh and evolution doesn't always make creatures more organised its that only the organised ones survive.-------------> does your evolution god  have a first name , would you say mother nature is evolution? that is what the atheist scientists say  when refering to evolution doing things andmaking choices as it were a person with an agenda.

 

6. That equation, 1 in 10260  would probably improve with the Earth having exquisite and vital things needed for life to exist, and it took millions/billions of years to actually happen.--------------->  again you claim to know what billions of years are based on babblings of atheists on paper.   look up the word facts and then apply them to the real world.  you are not applying facts to your assumptions of faith.  how do you know billions of years when you have only the perspective of looking at the sky ?  noone human has abolute knowledge of the speed of light nor have they yet to travel to the nearest star and back to tell us the scientific facts that they observed tested and recorded . noone  human who is alive can truly say with science that billions of years have occurred.

 

 

 And that is an explanation from a 13 year old boy Smiling  ------------------>   I admire your inspiration to engage me  with your perspective.  however you represent the the truth about how far the deception is going by indoctrination the youth to accept a  lies without question or dissent.  I hope you will learn to thinks more for yourself and truly apply reality to your perspective which is clearly faith based.  even atheists need faith , they just dont like admitting they are included in the false religions of the world.

 

look with love from above
the desire to live is the desire to live forever
you did not evolve never did and never will
True science is always provable, theoretical science never is.


mind over matter
Theist
mind over matter's picture
Posts: 210
Joined: 2010-04-09
User is offlineOffline
true science does not support lies preached by atheists

How is your idea different,

Submitted by jcgadfly on November 14, 2010 - 1:46pm.

 

How is your idea different, MoM?

You believe in a being created from human imagination that can only be described in terms of what it's not making a sound without the mechanism to do so. Somehow that sound created everything which then magically rearranged itself (because this non being made no sound that said to do it).

But you have proof, right? You have a book written by other imaginative humans much later, drawing from the stories of the first bunch.

Yep, scientific as all hell.

 

“Men become civilized not in proportion to their willingness to believe but in proportion to their readiness to doubt” - H.L. Mencken

 

 the difference is you cannot disprove the reality of YAHUWAH nor can you prove man created YAHUWAH. While I can disprove everything you claim believe.

 based on facts observed recorded and tested and repeated I have the reality to support my faith in my story of origins.

You only have ideas invented by failed rebels who preach on paper what cannot be seen tested or repeated.  I can observe everything you observe without using your satanic worldview to interpret the data.

you rely on false testimony and then you accuse me of doing the same  because my interpretation of the data is confirmed in my worldview which is older than your pagan man made ideas of origins from nothing through nothing with no purpose except that which suites your stupid analogy of matter in space over time. 

the difference is you you need to keep taking your matrix pills to prevent you from waking up to the real world of mortality and accountability to a CREATOR WITH PURPOSE who IS SELF EXISTENT AND ETERNAL and is not affected by HIS CREATION which is finite not infinite as HE IS. you and the uni - verse needed a cause. HE IS THE CAUSE the CREATED THE EFFECT. and HE sustains that universe as you breath.

HE is outside of time so HE is not affected by time. YOU ARE,  HE IS NOT !!  are you able to grasp the difference? I think not.

DOES ETERNITY HAVE A BEGINNING AND AN END? NO does the universe have a beginning and thus an end? we believe it does!  we disagree and how and why and because of testimony. NOT science!  you cannot test the bug bang evolution and billions of years nor can you test the sun worshipping man made idea that the earth rotates on an axis at bullet speed arournd the sun( again the pagan center of your false idol worship)

all you do is stare at the sky and then you turn to star trek and star wars and dream about SATANIC SUPERMAN(with the snake on his chest).

But you have proof, right? You have an atheist text book written by other imaginative humans much later, drawing from the stories of the first bunch of babylonian myths based in false idol worship.

Yep, scientific as all hell.(in case you didnt know, Hell is a metaphore for the process of destroying something with fire as the smoke acsends into oblivion.) so if you think the idea being a worthless spec that is meaningless and deserves to die is a great idea , that is your misery not mine!  Most atheists end up being pessimistic through the natural selection. that being the weak conformists like you who bow in ignorance. and then deny it out of pride.

 

 

look with love from above
the desire to live is the desire to live forever
you did not evolve never did and never will
True science is always provable, theoretical science never is.


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Second Law of ThermoDynamics

Second Law of Thermodynamics says NOTHING about mind, just requires ENERGY input to decrease entropy. Why do you MoM , keep repeating this lie about what the Second Law of Thermodynamics says?

Energy input from the Sun will allow entropy to decrease, that is an exactly in line with the second law.

Bit by bit is the only way evolution is possible, since it is vastly more probable that mutation-selection in a succession of small steps can get to a given total change than if it had to do it in one step.  Its a mathematical fact.

MoM, why do feel it necessary to lie and insult? What has that got to do with science??

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
mind over matter wrote:How

mind over matter wrote:

How is your idea different,

Submitted by jcgadfly on November 14, 2010 - 1:46pm.

 

How is your idea different, MoM?

You believe in a being created from human imagination that can only be described in terms of what it's not making a sound without the mechanism to do so. Somehow that sound created everything which then magically rearranged itself (because this non being made no sound that said to do it).

But you have proof, right? You have a book written by other imaginative humans much later, drawing from the stories of the first bunch.

Yep, scientific as all hell.

 

“Men become civilized not in proportion to their willingness to believe but in proportion to their readiness to doubt” - H.L. Mencken

 

 the difference is you cannot disprove the reality of YAHUWAH nor can you prove man created YAHUWAH. While I can disprove everything you claim believe.

 based on facts observed recorded and tested and repeated I have the reality to support my faith in my story of origins.

You only have ideas invented by failed rebels who preach on paper what cannot be seen tested or repeated.  I can observe everything you observe without using your satanic worldview to interpret the data.

you rely on false testimony and then you accuse me of doing the same  because my interpretation of the data is confirmed in my worldview which is older than your pagan man made ideas of origins from nothing through nothing with no purpose except that which suites your stupid analogy of matter in space over time. 

the difference is you you need to keep taking your matrix pills to prevent you from waking up to the real world of mortality and accountability to a CREATOR WITH PURPOSE who IS SELF EXISTENT AND ETERNAL and is not affected by HIS CREATION which is finite not infinite as HE IS. you and the uni - verse needed a cause. HE IS THE CAUSE the CREATED THE EFFECT. and HE sustains that universe as you breath.

HE is outside of time so HE is not affected by time. YOU ARE,  HE IS NOT !!  are you able to grasp the difference? I think not.

DOES ETERNITY HAVE A BEGINNING AND AN END? NO does the universe have a beginning and thus an end? we believe it does!  we disagree and how and why and because of testimony. NOT science!  you cannot test the bug bang evolution and billions of years nor can you test the sun worshipping man made idea that the earth rotates on an axis at bullet speed arournd the sun( again the pagan center of your false idol worship)

all you do is stare at the sky and then you turn to star trek and star wars and dream about SATANIC SUPERMAN(with the snake on his chest).

But you have proof, right? You have an atheist text book written by other imaginative humans much later, drawing from the stories of the first bunch of babylonian myths based in false idol worship.

Yep, scientific as all hell.(in case you didnt know, Hell is a metaphore for the process of destroying something with fire as the smoke acsends into oblivion.) so if you think the idea being a worthless spec that is meaningless and deserves to die is a great idea , that is your misery not mine!  Most atheists end up being pessimistic through the natural selection. that being the weak conformists like you who bow in ignorance. and then deny it out of pride.

 

 

Do you know/Are you NephilimFree? You guys would get along famously.

I can't prove your God isn't real or that man created him? Damn son, I thought you were going to give me something hard. Do you have proof that he existed before the myths were created? Whip out them observable, testable facts, junior!

<waiting amid chirping crickets>

No, huh? Thought so. Why should I work so hard when you do it for me?

Miserable? Me? Why? Because I don't live my life second-guessing everything I do just in case I offended a bronze age myth? If that's misery, give me more.

Just a little friendly advice - when you write of pride and humility and you use type that looks like you're screaming at the top of your lungs, it's really hard to take you seriously.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


mind over matter
Theist
mind over matter's picture
Posts: 210
Joined: 2010-04-09
User is offlineOffline
True science is always provable, theoretical science never is.

 

 

BobSpence1's picture

Second Law of ThermoDynamics

Submitted by BobSpence1 on November 14, 2010 - 2:56pm.

 

Second Law of Thermodynamics says NOTHING about mind, just requires ENERGY input to decrease entropy. Why do you MoM , keep repeating this lie about what the Second Law of Thermodynamics says?--> 

the lie is evolution  which has no foundation in reality, mother nature/evolution is a false idol that you seem to defend with pride and zeal. Material things are not eternal. Everything appears to change eventually, and chaos increases. Nothing stays as fresh as the day one buys it; clothing becomes faded, threadbare, and ultimately returns to dust.  Everything ages and wears out. Even death is a manifestation of this law. The effects of the 2nd Law are all around, touching everything in the universe.

 Creation requires a CREATOR which implies a mind! hense MIND OVER MATTER, the ability to manipulate energy with something that is immaterial another example of this is observed through the method of science, is INFORMATION. Again it implies a mind.

 

 

 

Energy input from the Sun will allow entropy to decrease, that is an exactly in line with the second law.-->

so what ? that does not prove your  pagan man made concept of sun centered evolution  bi bang billion year lies.  plants  take in sun light  converting the light to energy. This is a perfect example of a mind at work through this intelligent design found in CREATION. the plant technology is unmatched by the smartest most advanced human technology  and yet still it too is subject to the law of decay even with all the energy added to it over the plants lifespan. this is because a mind  is at work  and the character of this mind is revealed in this example.

 

 

Bit by bit is the only way evolution is possible, since it is vastly more probable that mutation-selection in a succession of small steps can get to a given total change than if it had to do it in one step.  Its a mathematical fact.---.>

BIT BY BIT you are painting yourself into a blackhole.  your first problem is that you are brainwashed to accept a false authority as truth. You have no science to back your  claim of evolution by any means . The fact remains that all the observed changes are within preset limits. What you call speciation or a new species is pure  evil.  You forget that the whole billions and millions of years is the most absurd part of that invented scam.  You must have said it a 1000 times to yourself everynight before going to sleep to hypnotize yourself into accepting such a misinformed delusion. The people who invented this lie know it is a lie yet you accept their authority.  BIT by BIT ?  your unseen takes too long time plus energy and chance and now the latest desparete theory "probable that mutation-selection in a succession of small steps can get to a given total change than if it had to do it in one step.  Its a mathematical fact." is just a bit by bit younger than the icing on the cake theory of the big bang. yeah quote me some math to prove your fundie   religion of origins for the atheists in denial. thats what that fool einstein did to try and save face for heliocentricity. just like capernicus and galileo also dumb evil liars. Darwin knew he was wrong and that is why he said it will take a lot more fossils to save his stupid satanic theory.

 

 

 

MoM, why do feel it necessary to lie and insult? What has that got to do with science??----> truly My lingo is on par with those who engage me and insult me with greater intent to denigrade me for exposing their addiction to anti-CHRIST paganism.  read the thread and see who's feelings I have hurt. Noone who cares to meet my posted challenge with facts based on common sense and honesty and true science in the present . Even you accuse me of lying thus insulting me because I  exposed you and every other fraud lover on this thread for what they are according tp their biased worldview which is not founded in science yet they hide behind science fiction to justify their  hopless rebuttals.

 

 

 

 

 

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology

Organised pressure groups, chicanery, sharp practice, and jealous histrionics abound in the "altruistic" Scientific Establishment, all geared to prevent and discredit any research and experimentation that threatens the establishment "status quo" or is against "informed opinion", especially in the area of today's three "sacred
cows" of Evolution, Relativity and Heliocentricity.

Those persons who take pleasure in ridiculing ME in the belief that “scientific evidence” is on their side should learn and remember a few things about the “scientists” who produce the “facts” they believe in.  To start with, it would be well to remember that:

 

    a.  Some 99% of scientists today repeat what they “know” from something they have read;  so, there are very few of them who have any first-hand information regarding what they are spouting.  They are effectively “Textbook Geniuses”.  They can regurgitate what they have read, but few have researched the many issues themselves. 

 

    b.  Ph.D.s all lined up in a row saying the same things does not make “science”.  It makes a mutual admiration society clubhouse where the popular vote wins, not the scientific method; and since they have long since eliminated anyone who disagrees with them, they are free to say whatever they wish, unopposed. 

here is where you and every other   atheist monkey wannabe enter the arena of dissusion that is not decreasing in entropy due to the constant wasted energy being applied to maintain the invisible wall of deluusion.This does make ME wonder if today’s “science” actually qualifies as true Science.  Actually, those who prefer fables over facts really do not care.

 

Evolutionism claims that over billions of years everything is basically developing UPWARD, becoming more orderly and complex. However, this basic law of science (2nd Law of Thermodynamics) says the opposite. The pressure is DOWNWARD, toward simplification and disorder.

you need the big bang, billions of years , abio-evolution, evolution and helios-centricity  to support your anti-CREATOR philosophy. your lie is saying these things are known through science when your knowledge is based solely on second misinformation preached as science fiction and stupid math that makes  no sense.

 

 

look with love from above
the desire to live is the desire to live forever
you did not evolve never did and never will
True science is always provable, theoretical science never is.


Anonymouse
atheist
Posts: 1687
Joined: 2008-05-04
User is offlineOffline
Why is this fellow cutting

Why is this fellow cutting and pasting from a geocentrism website  ? Some stuff from christiananswers.net as well.

Bit of a dog's breakfast, really.


mind over matter
Theist
mind over matter's picture
Posts: 210
Joined: 2010-04-09
User is offlineOffline
True science is always provable, theoretical science never is.

Submitted by jcgadfly on November 14, 2010 - 3:58pm.

 

 

mind over matter wrote:

 

How is your idea different,

Submitted by jcgadfly on November 14, 2010 - 1:46pm.

 

How is your idea different, MoM?

You believe in a being created from human imagination that can only be described in terms of what it's not making a sound without the mechanism to do so. Somehow that sound created everything which then magically rearranged itself (because this non being made no sound that said to do it).

But you have proof, right? You have a book written by other imaginative humans much later, drawing from the stories of the first bunch.

Yep, scientific as all hell.

 

“Men become civilized not in proportion to their willingness to believe but in proportion to their readiness to doubt” - H.L. Mencken

 

 the difference is you cannot disprove the reality of YAHUWAH nor can you prove man created YAHUWAH. While I can disprove everything you claim believe.

 based on facts observed recorded and tested and repeated I have the reality to support my faith in my story of origins.

You only have ideas invented by failed rebels who preach on paper what cannot be seen tested or repeated.  I can observe everything you observe without using your satanic worldview to interpret the data.

you rely on false testimony and then you accuse me of doing the same  because my interpretation of the data is confirmed in my worldview which is older than your pagan man made ideas of origins from nothing through nothing with no purpose except that which suites your stupid analogy of matter in space over time. 

the difference is you you need to keep taking your matrix pills to prevent you from waking up to the real world of mortality and accountability to a CREATOR WITH PURPOSE who IS SELF EXISTENT AND ETERNAL and is not affected by HIS CREATION which is finite not infinite as HE IS. you and the uni - verse needed a cause. HE IS THE CAUSE the CREATED THE EFFECT. and HE sustains that universe as you breath.

HE is outside of time so HE is not affected by time. YOU ARE,  HE IS NOT !!  are you able to grasp the difference? I think not.

DOES ETERNITY HAVE A BEGINNING AND AN END? NO does the universe have a beginning and thus an end? we believe it does!  we disagree and how and why and because of testimony. NOT science!  you cannot test the bug bang evolution and billions of years nor can you test the sun worshipping man made idea that the earth rotates on an axis at bullet speed arournd the sun( again the pagan center of your false idol worship)

all you do is stare at the sky and then you turn to star trek and star wars and dream about SATANIC SUPERMAN(with the snake on his chest).

But you have proof, right? You have an atheist text book written by other imaginative humans much later, drawing from the stories of the first bunch of babylonian myths based in false idol worship.

Yep, scientific as all hell.(in case you didnt know, Hell is a metaphore for the process of destroying something with fire as the smoke acsends into oblivion.) so if you think the idea being a worthless spec that is meaningless and deserves to die is a great idea , that is your misery not mine!  Most atheists end up being pessimistic through the natural selection. that being the weak conformists like you who bow in ignorance. and then deny it out of pride.

 

 

 

 

Do you know/Are you NephilimFree? You guys would get along famously.---->ARE YOU WAITING FOR NOTHING or is NOTHING WAITING FOR YOU? it sucks to be you either way!!

 

 

 

I can't prove your God isn't real or that man created him? Damn son, I thought you were going to give me something hard. Do you have proof that he existed before the myths were created? Whip out them observable, testable facts, junior!----> you want proof?  ............<waiting amid chirping crickets>

 

<waiting amid chirping crickets>

His Name appears some 7000 times in the "un-paganized" Scriptures, but the "deceitful" scribes have replaced it with "god", or "lord" in almost all of the translations .... read the preface in the Bibles you have and see what they have done!

With this said, I would like you use the four texts below to test the validity of the Names by which you call on the Eternal One and His Anointed. These texts are self-checking, that is, the Father's Name should appear WITHIN the Name of His Anointed according to text one; and the Anointed's Name should contain the Father's Name according to text two & three. And the Anointed's Name should be distinctive from all other Names given as stated in text four. So write out the Names you call our Father and His Son and see if they meet these requirements! There is no way that YaHuWaH's Name can be separated from the Name of His Anointed, for YaHuWaH's Name MUST BE WITHIN the Name of YaHuWSHuWaH. (For YaHuWaH was within YaHuWSHuWaH in all His Weightiness, Fullness and Power - bringing the world to Himself) The enunciation of one Name will verify the other Name!

1. ☛ [Shemoth/Exodus 23:20] "Behold, I send My Messenger before you, to guard you by the way, and to bring you into the place which I have prepared. 23:21 Pay attention to Him, and listen to His voice. Don’t provoke Him, for He shall not pardon your disobedience, for My Name is in Him." ....(the Name for Himself that He gave to Moshah - YaHuWaH)

2. ☛ [Yahuwchanan/John 5:43] "I have come in My Father’s Name, and you don’t receive Me. If another comes in his own name, you shall receive him." and ....

3. ☛ [Yahuwchanan/John 17:11] "O Set-apart Father, guard them by Your Name, which You have given Me, that they may be one union, even as We are."

Along with these two texts, one must keep in mind that "The Name" given to the Mashiyach is above and is distinctive from all other names - the Fathers's name is within His...as Sha'uwl states in
4. ☛ [Phillipians 2: 9-11] "Which is why YaHuWaH also highly exalted Him, and gave to Him A Name which is above every other name; in order that at the Name of YaHuWSHuWaH every knee should bow, of the ones in the heavens, and the ones on the earth, and the ones under the earth, and that every tongue should openly acknowledge: YaHuWSHuWaH the Anointed is YaHuWaH, to the esteem of Aluah the Father" (cf. YashaYahuw 45:23-24 - By Myself I have sworn, the Word has gone forth from My mouth in righteousness, and shall not return, that to Me every knee shall bow, and every tongue shall swear. They shall say of Me, 'There is righteousness and strength only within YaHuWaH!&quotEye-wink

A positive example of this "self check" is given here:

1. From the Hebrew: The Father: - YaHuWaH: The Son: - YaHuWSHuWaH (YaHuW-SHuWaH - I AM HE YaHuWaH who SAVES/DELIVERS). He came in His Father's Name - including the tetragrammaton.

2. One name combination that does not follow these texts is: Yahweh (Yahway) for the Father and Y'shua, Yahshua, or Yahusha, for the Son. The name Yahweh is not within YaHuWSHuWaH, as He did not come in that name. Therefore, something is wrong! (Though, I did come across a web site that was true to the above "tests" - They call the Father yahweh, and His Son yahwehshua. - at least they are honest to the texts!)
 


YaHuWaH
------>


heh-waw-heh-yod
 

 

this is after  your stupid rebuttal after I already said and thus proved hIS EXISTENCE beyond your false testimony which is based in pagan myths and crunchbutter.

you cannot disprove the reality of YAHUWAH nor can you prove man created YAHUWAH. While I can disprove everything you claim to believe.

 based on facts observed recorded and tested and repeated I have the reality to support my faith in my story of origins.

You only have ideas invented by failed rebels who preach on paper what cannot be seen tested or repeated.  I can observe everything you observe without using your satanic worldview to interpret the data.

you rely on false testimony and then you accuse me of doing the same  because my interpretation of the data is confirmed in my worldview which is older than your pagan man made ideas of origins from nothing through nothing with no purpose except that which suites your stupid analogy of matter in space over time. 

the difference is you you need to keep taking your matrix pills to prevent you from waking up to the real world of mortality and accountability to a CREATOR WITH PURPOSE who IS SELF EXISTENT AND ETERNAL and is not affected by HIS CREATION which is finite not infinite as HE IS. you and the uni - verse needed a cause. HE IS THE CAUSE the CREATED THE EFFECT. and HE sustains that universe as you breath.

HE is outside of time so HE is not affected by time. YOU ARE,  HE IS NOT !!  are you able to grasp the difference? I think not.

DOES ETERNITY HAVE A BEGINNING AND AN END? NO does the universe have a beginning and thus an end? we believe it does!  we disagree and how and why and because of testimony. NOT science!  you cannot test the bug bang evolution and billions of years nor can you test the sun worshipping man made idea that the earth rotates on an axis at bullet speed arournd the sun( again the pagan center of your false idol worship)

all you do is stare at the sky and then you turn to star trek and star wars and dream about SATANIC SUPERMAN(with the snake on his chest).

 

 

 

No, huh? Thought so. Why should I work so hard when you do it for me?---------->

you can't handle the proof!  Intelligent Design constitutes science because it makes testable claims.Creation is Creation Evidence for a CREATOR who is also known and identifies HIMSELF throughout our known recorded history. this same true history predate your dipshit babylonian myths and lies about the time period of what you call man made CREATOR when you know in your black heart that it is YAHUWAH who made you and IT IS HE WHO is known by HIS CHARACTER as it is revealed in  CREATION . You only have 2 options. YES OR NO .  your proof you require is not available to you just as you cannot see colors when you are color blind  nor can you see facts becaus you fail to grasp them out of ignorance not science. you stupid worldview is founded in philosophy not science. so science  is no use to your feeble ANTI YAHUWAH  claim.

 if a watch were found in a meadow, it would be wisest to assume that someone made it, not that it was a natural occurrence. He felt the appearance of design was powerful creation evidence.creation testifies to both human logic and the human spirit that there is a Creator  ,Evidence Against Evolution is Creation Evidence and thus YAHUWAH

 

 

Miserable? Me? Why? Because I don't live my life second-guessing everything I do just in case I offended a bronze age myth? If that's misery, give me more.

Just a little friendly advice - when you write of pride and humility and you use type that looks like you're screaming at the top of your lungs, it's really hard to take you seriously.

 

look with love from above
the desire to live is the desire to live forever
you did not evolve never did and never will
True science is always provable, theoretical science never is.


Anonymouse
atheist
Posts: 1687
Joined: 2008-05-04
User is offlineOffline
Just post the link. Saves

Just post the link. Saves space.

http://www.yahuwah-is.net/Files/aboutyahweh.html


mind over matter
Theist
mind over matter's picture
Posts: 210
Joined: 2010-04-09
User is offlineOffline
True science is always provable, theoretical science never is.

Why is this fellow cutting

Submitted by Anonymouse on November 14, 2010 - 9:37pm.

 

Why is this fellow cutting and pasting from a geocentrism website  ? Some stuff from christiananswers.net as well.

Bit of a dog's breakfast, really.

------------------------>

pitiful rebuttal! typical atheist monkey wannabe comment.

YOU HAVE JUST BEEN CUT AND PASTED so now you can include your self as a reference.  are you sniffing your own balls for desert? CHUMP WITH CHIMP ENVY!

SLAPNUTS like you fail soo easily.  why dont you present first hand info that meets my posted challenge? tell how you travelled back in time billions of years  before there was an earth to measure years! DUMBASS! is that too much to ask  for your 2 pesos worth of ignore and rant non musement?

How about you raise the dead ?  all the ingredients found in living organic matter are represented. you dont even have to vomit into a test tube.

perhaps you can travel to the nearest star and back toconfirm the absolute speed and distance of stars and starlight?

Better yet why dont you demonstrate a moving earth on an axis?

How about you try and crossbreed an owl with a mouse or in your case a chump with a chimp?  show us how science works in the real world.  show me recorded history that talks about the big bang, the first living cell and measured time before the creation of the earth ?

 

yeah thats right .  I accept your failure as a sign of defeat.  I win you lose and you are welcom to meet my posted challenge 

 

 

look with love from above
the desire to live is the desire to live forever
you did not evolve never did and never will
True science is always provable, theoretical science never is.


Anonymouse
atheist
Posts: 1687
Joined: 2008-05-04
User is offlineOffline
mind over matter wrote:Why

mind over matter wrote:

Why is this fellow cutting

Submitted by Anonymouse on November 14, 2010 - 9:37pm.

 

Why is this fellow cutting and pasting from a geocentrism website  ? Some stuff from christiananswers.net as well.

Bit of a dog's breakfast, really.

------------------------>

pitiful rebuttal! typical atheist monkey wannabe comment.

YOU HAVE JUST BEEN CUT AND PASTED so now you can include your self as a reference.  are you sniffing your own balls for desert? CHUMP WITH CHIMP ENVY!

SLAPNUTS like you fail soo easily.  why dont you present first hand info that meets my posted challenge? tell how you travelled back in time billions of years  before there was an earth to measure years! DUMBASS! is that too much to ask  for your 2 pesos worth of ignore and rant non musement?

How about you raise the dead ?  all the ingredients found in living organic matter are represented. you dont even have to vomit into a test tube.

perhaps you can travel to the nearest star and back toconfirm the absolute speed and distance of stars and starlight?

Better yet why dont you demonstrate a moving earth on an axis?

How about you try and crossbreed an owl with a mouse or in your case a chump with a chimp?  show us how science works in the real world.  show me recorded history that talks about the big bang, the first living cell and measured time before the creation of the earth ?

 

yeah thats right .  I accept your failure as a sign of defeat.  I win you lose and you are welcom to meet my posted challenge 

http://www.angermanagementseminar.com/

 


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Why do you keep proving my

Why do you keep proving my point for me? Give me something that wasn't made by man to prove your God exists independently of humans.

Still waiting...

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


XaosPeru
Posts: 40
Joined: 2010-11-09
User is offlineOffline
NickB wrote:Science has

NickB wrote:

Science has proven through many different forms of radiocarbon dating that the world is 4.5 billion years old. In the face of all this evidence creationist persist that our earth is 6000 years old. To this day I have not seen a shred of evidence to support the assertion that the earth is 6000 years old. I do not want to sit here and argue some irrational theist about the Earths age all I want is proof that the Earth is 6000 years old. So to anybody that can prove to me that the Earth is 6000 years old I will give $6,000. When I say proof I mean irrefutable evidence that is based on logic not faith so in other words no bible quotes.

P.S. I am completely serious about this.

 

This is not true.

First of all, science never proves anything.  It can only succeed in disproving things.

Secondly, no rock on earth has ever been dated to 4.5 billion years old.

The evidence for the idea that the earth and the solar system is 4.5 billion years old comes from the theory of how the solar system was formed ... gradual accretion, over time, due to gravity, etc.  However, this model has some problems.  It cannot account for the earth having a moon the size it does.  It cannot account for the retrograde motion of Venus and why Venus is tidally locked to the earth.  It cannot explain why Mercury still has a magnetic field after the postulated 4.5 billion years.  It cannot explain why all of Jupiter's moons have no atmosphere except Titan.  It cannot explain why Uranus and Neptune's magnetic fields do not align more closely with their axis of rotation.  It cannot explain why all of nearly all of the moon's craters are perfectly round.  I could go on and on, but I suppose you already know most of these things.  For those interested in recent discoveries, I can refer you to http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-10639789 in which they admit that the most-recent Mercury volcano is more than 2 billion years younger than was expected.

Instead I wanted to focus your attention on what is known as the Pioneer anomoly.  You can read about it online on Wikipedia or wherever else you want.  Basically the Pioneer probes are slowing down more than expected (gravity theory) and (supposedly) no one is sure why.  Some have postulated "dark matter" as the solution, but any dark matter in the solar system should also affect the other planets giving them a "Pioneer effect."

Now I say "supposedly" no one knows why, but in reality everyone should know why (or at least have a pretty good guess).  There are 5 known forces in the universe.  Gravity has been ruled out as the cause of the slowing.  It is extremely unlikely that either the strong or the weak nuclear force is slowing the craft.  This leaves electricity and magnetism as the likely culprits.  Since magnetism requires electrical current moving in a circle, that is pretty unlikely in the craft without being either A) detected or B) destroying the craft.  Accordingly a reasonable starting hypothesis is that the Pioneer craft have picked up a negative static electrical charge during their long voyage into space.  The sun is a positive anode, accordingly there would be a small attraction between the two, which could explain the Pioneer effect.

Now science is not down with this explanation, because the cornerstone of astrophysics is that electrical fields, currents, and plasma discharges are not important in space.  Only gravitational and magnetic fields are important.

Once it is accepted that electrical fields can and do play a role in space, it will require a rethinking of all the theories related to how the solar system was formed.  As such, it casts significant doubt on the premise that the earth really is 4.5 billion years old.

-----
"The church at the time of Galileo was much more faithful to reason than Galileo himself, and also took into consideration the ethical and social consequences of Galileo's doctrine. Its verdict against Galileo was rational and just, and revisionism can be legitimized solely for motives of political opportunism." -Paul Feyerabend

"Let me just anticipate that nobody to date has found a demarcation criteria according to which Darwin can be described as scientific, but this is exactly what we are looking for." -Imre Lakatos


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3945
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
XausPeru wrote:Secondly, no

XausPeru wrote:
Secondly, no rock on earth has ever been dated to 4.5 billion years old.

"They measured tiny variations in the isotopes (or species of an element that have different numbers of neutrons) of the rare earth elements neodymium and samarium in the rocks and determined that the samples were from 3.8 to 4.28 billion years old."

http://www.livescience.com/environment/080925-oldest-rocks.html

XausPeru wrote:
There are 5 known forces in the universe.  Gravity has been ruled out as the cause of the slowing.  It is extremely unlikely that either the strong or the weak nuclear force is slowing the craft.  This leaves electricity and magnetism as the likely culprits.

4. Electricity and magnetism were unified in the 1800s.

3 if you consider electromagnetism and the weak force to be unified as electroweak.

 

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


XaosPeru
Posts: 40
Joined: 2010-11-09
User is offlineOffline
As I said, no rock on earth

As I said, no rock on earth has ever been dated to that age.  Thanks for confirming that for me.  Anyway, it's irrelevant because these dates only show how long it's been since the rock solidified.  Surely before that the rock still existed, just in another form.  Even if you rewind to the postulated beginning of the universe (Big Bang Theory) then the Earth still existed ... in another form ... as a singularity... not that I believe in the Big Bang Theory, but still.

So basically scientific theory postulates that Mercury and the Earth have the same age and were formed by the same processes, and that the measurements of these rocks on Earth should give us an approximate age for Mercury, but they're surprised by recent volcanic activity on Mercury.  It doesn't fit in with the theory.

I guess I could hope that science would realize that their pet theory was falsified and try some of the competing alternatives.  Unfortunately, however, it's far more likely that a few ad hoc hypotheses will be slapped on the current one band-aid style to breathe new life into it.

In fact, I think hints of that can be found at http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18473759/ns/technology_and_science-space

'Margot and his team speculate that sulfur or some other light element got mixed with Mercury's iron core when the planet was forming and lowered its melting temperature.

"If you had such a lighter element polluting the iron, it could explain why the core has remained fluid up to the present time," Margot told SPACE.com.

"The surprise," Margot added, "is that you don't expect sulfur to condense out at the distance of Mercury from the Sun."'

 

-----
"The church at the time of Galileo was much more faithful to reason than Galileo himself, and also took into consideration the ethical and social consequences of Galileo's doctrine. Its verdict against Galileo was rational and just, and revisionism can be legitimized solely for motives of political opportunism." -Paul Feyerabend

"Let me just anticipate that nobody to date has found a demarcation criteria according to which Darwin can be described as scientific, but this is exactly what we are looking for." -Imre Lakatos


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
What you think confirms your

What you think confirms your view is still not going to get you down to a 6-10k year old earth.


cranachan
cranachan's picture
Posts: 1
Joined: 2010-11-18
User is offlineOffline
Really?

 For [Insert actual all-powerful being here] 's sake, just accept that these religion nut heads aren't going to change so let them run around worrying they may have sinned or whatever they called it. Come to thing of it they're probably not allowed on the internet anyway as according to Christians anything anyone has created either is a pile of shit because it wasn't God. Just go back to the Romans and throw a bunch of them in an arena and let lions tear them to pieces

 

(NOTE: This only applies to fundamentalist Christians, if you're a modernist or anything else I'm cool with that)

 

Personally I think something that may be God made an awesome explosion, shit flew out of it and 15 billions years later and a ton of evolution here we are, if it was God who made the Big Bang I'm ready to accept that, if not oh well...

 

Anyway, back to religion Smiling

Just let the Christians whittle away their life and whip themselves every time they do anything at all, evolution exists, Darwin was right so get over it and go back to Chruch.

Screw you guys, I'm going home!


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3945
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
XaosPeru wrote:As I said, no

XaosPeru wrote:
As I said, no rock on earth has ever been dated to that age.  Thanks for confirming that for me.

You're welcome.

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


atheistannie
atheist
atheistannie's picture
Posts: 11
Joined: 2010-11-16
User is offlineOffline
mind over matter

mind over matter wrote:

ATHEISTS LIKE TO STROKE EACH OTHERS EGO AS A FORM OF CONSOLATION

YOU  IGNORE REALITY

 

My brain is melting reading drivel from you, 'mind over matter'......

Ignore reality !?!?!?! Are you freaking serious ? You live in an imaginary world, where gods and fairy's are dangling cheese over your head and you think Atheists ignore reality?!!?

Do you have even one shred of common sense!?!?

 

"Only sheep need a shepherd" - anonymous ?

"Under Christianity neither morality nor religion has any point of contact with actuality. It offers purely imaginary causes and purely imaginary effects" - Nietzsche


XaosPeru
Posts: 40
Joined: 2010-11-09
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:What you

jcgadfly wrote:

What you think confirms your view is still not going to get you down to a 6-10k year old earth.

You completely misunderstand.  I'm trying to get you revise your opinion up to infinitely old.

-----
"The church at the time of Galileo was much more faithful to reason than Galileo himself, and also took into consideration the ethical and social consequences of Galileo's doctrine. Its verdict against Galileo was rational and just, and revisionism can be legitimized solely for motives of political opportunism." -Paul Feyerabend

"Let me just anticipate that nobody to date has found a demarcation criteria according to which Darwin can be described as scientific, but this is exactly what we are looking for." -Imre Lakatos


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
XaosPeru wrote:jcgadfly

XaosPeru wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

What you think confirms your view is still not going to get you down to a 6-10k year old earth.

You completely misunderstand.  I'm trying to get you revise your opinion up to infinitely old.

So you are a fan of a static universe?

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


anyuta34 (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
stress relievers are ways

deleted


mind over matter
Theist
mind over matter's picture
Posts: 210
Joined: 2010-04-09
User is offlineOffline
you have common non sense, chump with chimp envy!

atheistannie's picture

mind over matter

Submitted by atheistannie on November 19, 2010 - 1:23am.

 

 

mind over matter wrote:

 

ATHEISTS LIKE TO STROKE EACH OTHERS EGO AS A FORM OF CONSOLATION

YOU  IGNORE REALITY

 

 

 

My brain is melting reading drivel from you, 'mind over matter'......

Ignore reality !?!?!?! Are you freaking serious ? You live in an imaginary world, where gods and fairy's are dangling cheese over your head and you think Atheists ignore reality?!!?

Do you have even one shred of common sense!?!?

 

 

"Only sheep need a shepherd" - anonymous ?

"Under Christianity neither morality nor religion has any point of contact with actuality. It offers purely imaginary causes and purely imaginary effects" - Nietzsche

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------->

 

Science: knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method ..... the state of knowing : knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding



So we see by the above definition, that true science should be defined as facts, backed up by tests using the scientific method. So, what is the scientific method? It is defined below.
Scientific Method: principles and procedures for the systematic pursuit of knowledge involving the recognition and formulation of a problem, the collection of data through observation and experiment, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses.
Theory: Pronunciation: 'thE-&-rE, 'thi(-&ampEye-winkr-E
Function: noun
Etymology: Late Latin theoria, from Greek theOria, from theOrein
Date: 1592
The analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another : abstract thought :SPECULATION: a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena : a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation b :an unproved assumption : CONJECTURE.

definition of religion is:
Main Entry: religion
Pronunciation: ri-'li-j&n
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English religioun, from Latin religion-, religio supernatural constraint, sanction, religious practice, perhaps from religare to restrain, tie back
Date: 13th century
1 a : the state of a religious b (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
2 : a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
3 archaic : scrupulous conformity : CONSCIENTIOUSNESS
4 : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith


Another dictionary explains "religion" in these terms:
Religion: a belief in, recognition of or an awakened sense of, a higher, unseen controlling power or powers with the emotion or morality connected therewith: rites or worship: any system of such belief or worship: devoted fidelity: monastic life.
faith
Pronunciation: 'fAth
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural faiths /'fAths, sometimes 'fA[th]z/
Etymology: Middle English feith, from Old French feid, foi, from Latin fides; akin to Latin fidere to trust -- more at BIDE
Date: 13th century
1 a : allegiance to duty or a person : LOYALTY b (1) : fidelity to one's promises (2) : sincerity of intentions
2 a (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust
3 : something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially : a system of religious beliefs
You will notice that the Webster's definition of "faith" is the same as the Biblical definition. I think that we can, in simple terms, explain the faithful of a religion as those who have become an institution by their faith, which is belief in something in which there is no scientific proof. If you can't see it, and no one has ever seen it, and there is no proof that it happened then to believe it is certainly faith and when it is instituted with a group of others, it is a religion.

Evolution Is The Religion:
look at ways in which those who believe in evolution are faithful in their religious beliefs.


1. Belief in a "Big Bang," that they have no proof of.

2. Belief in life which resulted from chemical processes, of which they have no proof.
3. Belief in an old Earth, for which no convincing proof has ever been found.
4. Belief in macro-evolution without producing any transitionary forms.
5. Belief in uniformitarianism, that all environmental processes have always been the same on Earth, with no proof of that hypothesis.
First, since evolution is a religion, it should not be subsidized by the government. To me this seems like what the ACLU terms a violation to the separation of Church and State, as accorded in the Constitution. Billions of dollars of government grants are given each year for the furtherment of evolutional study.
Secondly, evolution should not be taught as a theory or fact in public schools. This is another clear violation of the constitution. I have proved that evolution is a faith, and if one looks at it clearly, it takes more faith to believe in it than other faiths do. So, lets get it out of our schools.
Thirdly, evolution is a danger to our society. It is the foundation for racism, abortion and hatred in this society. We would all do better without it.

"nothing exploded and  evolved into life as we know it. " mother nature the false creator of atheists drones who serve the fraud lovers of the world


 

 

 

look with love from above
the desire to live is the desire to live forever
you did not evolve never did and never will
True science is always provable, theoretical science never is.


mind over matter
Theist
mind over matter's picture
Posts: 210
Joined: 2010-04-09
User is offlineOffline
you just copied and pasted my post and then complained

Submitted by Anonymouse on November 14, 2010 - 10:27pm.

 

 

mind over matter wrote:

 

Why is this fellow cutting

Submitted by Anonymouse on November 14, 2010 - 9:37pm.

 

Why is this fellow cutting and pasting from a geocentrism website  ? Some stuff from christiananswers.net as well.

Bit of a dog's breakfast, really.

------------------------>

pitiful rebuttal! typical atheist monkey wannabe comment.

YOU HAVE JUST BEEN CUT AND PASTED so now you can include your self as a reference.  are you sniffing your own balls for desert? CHUMP WITH CHIMP ENVY!

SLAPNUTS like you fail soo easily.  why dont you present first hand info that meets my posted challenge? tell how you travelled back in time billions of years  before there was an earth to measure years! DUMBASS! is that too much to ask  for your 2 pesos worth of ignore and rant non musement?

How about you raise the dead ?  all the ingredients found in living organic matter are represented. you dont even have to vomit into a test tube.

perhaps you can travel to the nearest star and back toconfirm the absolute speed and distance of stars and starlight?

Better yet why dont you demonstrate a moving earth on an axis?

How about you try and crossbreed an owl with a mouse or in your case a chump with a chimp?  show us how science works in the real world.  show me recorded history that talks about the big bang, the first living cell and measured time before the creation of the earth ?

 

yeah thats right .  I accept your failure as a sign of defeat.  I win you lose and you are welcom to meet my posted challenge 

 

 

http://www.angermanagementseminar.com/     <-----  you are a chump with chimp envy

 

facts are repeatable   posting misinformation about reality is wrong

 

 

look with love from above
the desire to live is the desire to live forever
you did not evolve never did and never will
True science is always provable, theoretical science never is.


Anonymouse
atheist
Posts: 1687
Joined: 2008-05-04
User is offlineOffline
mind over matter

mind over matter wrote:
http://www.angermanagementseminar.com/     <-----  you are a chump with chimp envy

http://www.depression-guide.com/tourettes-syndrome-treatment.htm

 

 


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15645
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
totus_tuus wrote:pariahjane

totus_tuus wrote:

pariahjane wrote:
Huh.  How odd.  I would have thought that theists would have been fighting over each other to prove to you that the world is only 6000 years old.  What a shock.  LOL.

Your post would be more accurate if you changed "theists" to "fundamentalists".  Not all theists are young-earthers or even creationists.

So? Muslim, Jew, Hindu, Scientology all have their super hero claims and fantastic claims regardless of what they accept scientifically outside those fantastic claims.

What a theist and right wing theist have in common is that a "who" is required as a cause to everything. Unfortunately even for the "cant we all just get along" theists, science is pointing away from a "who" as a cause and pointing to a "what".

Accepting parts of science doesn't mean you accept all of science.

YOU have the same problem even with the new age people who go around claiming that the universe itself is a giant thinking entity. Woo is woo, no matter how it is packaged or how popular the woo is.

If you can accept that the earth is billions of years old, it should not be a stretch to accept that the universe doesn't need a magical who, any more than the earth needs a magical who.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
mind over matter wrote:facts

mind over matter wrote:

facts are repeatable   posting misinformation about reality is wrong

Quote:

 

Glad you think so - would you please give us some repeatable facts and stop posting misinformation about reality?

Thanks/

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


mind over matter
Theist
mind over matter's picture
Posts: 210
Joined: 2010-04-09
User is offlineOffline
life only comes from life = repeatable fact #1-out of infinity

Submitted by jcgadfly on December 28, 2010 - 8:37am.

 

 

mind over matter wrote:

 

facts are repeatable   posting misinformation about reality is wrong

Quote:

 

 

Glad you think so - would you please give us some repeatable facts and stop posting misinformation about reality?

Thanks/

 

------------->first for evolution to happen you need life to exist  and since you cannot use science to show how life existed befor it evolved you are a still atheist drone slapnut  

since by your stupid branwashed religion of origins there is no life to evolve in the first place. evolution is not relevant.

I do not need to invent stupid theories for idiots to hide behind. nor would I say it takes too long  to see happening in realtime. I do not need mutations and natural selection and fossils to prove a fact that supports a worldview that is a majority in the worlds population even if we people of are not on the same page as to the truth identity of the ALMIGHTY CREATOR. the fact remains that  the need for communion with our CREATOR ALMIGHTY is relevent becuase there is a issue of life and death for us all.   HE WHO IS ETERNAL /self existent ->  YAHUWAH and He manifests HIMSELF  in so many many ways beyond your atheist capacity to grasp.

since there was by your foolish beliefe no life to evolve all you have is death/nonliving matter/materials that can be found today in living matter.

I  can show through repeatable science that life only comes from life fully funtional with no need to evolve. It happens every day.

A man by the name of Louis Pasture had just finished a set of experiments that proved that micro organisms lived in the air. This was a finding that everyone was waiting for. The reason was there had been a scientific fight between two theories. One was called spontaneous generation and the other theory dictated that life comes from life. The spontaneous generation camp would quickly point out that maggots appeared from meat, that mosquitoes came from a pond or the mice would appear from warm moist soil. How could a maggot appear where there were no other maggots present? How could mold appear on bread where no mold was present? They concluded that matter contained the vital material and energy that would cause life to spontaneously generate if combined with other chemicals or conditions that were right. in 1862 we see that Louis Pasture indeed published the proofs that bacteria is in the air and that is were the "new life" comes from and effectively demolished the theory of spontaneous generation once and for all. In fact, the Law of Biogenesis, that life only comes from life, was formed in part thanks to Pasture's work. We call curing milk pasteurization in honor of Louis's work in bacteria. Pasture had once and for all killed the silly notion that life can come from matter or did he?
 

scientists of all persuasions have missed a critical issue when discussing the validity of evolution. And that is evolution has a pillar, that is a support beam to the theory as a whole, which is based on an assumption that has been disproved centuries ago. This fact is repeatable, demonstrative, and very predicable. In fact, the assumption that life only comes from life, and not inorganic matter, is given the highest level that any assumption is given in science and that is the level of a Law. If there is anything that science knows to be true it is Laws. Laws trump theory. If you take out the idea of spontaneous generation from evolution, I cannot see how the house of evolution can stand. If indeed spontaneous generation is that critical to evolution, then the Law of Bio Genesis trumps the theory of evolution.

present day, one might be mystified to see many great scientists still peddling the evolution myth which is based on a retired old idea. Not only that, we are forcing teachers to teach our kids this myth. One side says that life comes from life and this is observed 100% of the time with not one observable inconsistency, the other side being satanic dumbass monkey wannabe bitchnugget drones says life comes from inorganic matter at some time in the past, which has never been observed or duplicated in labs once ever! Yes, that means no repeatable facts of science.  I am not sure about you as you will have to make up your own immaterial mind, but I think I would place my bets on something that is right 100% of the time and not rely on something that is right 0% of the time as in your case according to your false manmade religion for drones.

So why do so called scientists claim to posses so much evidence of evolution, to the point that the establishment agrees with them?

Simply because these asshole scientists had an assumption where they then went out to find the proofs to support the assumption.

However, if your foundational assumption is wrong, the house of evidence you build on that foundation becomes very suspect. The idea that life can erupt from nonliving matter has been soundly dismissed by the strongest demonstrative methods known to science and as such, the evidence that support that assumption become very suspect. It does not matter how eloquently and skilfully the evidence is built, if the foundation is falling apart the building must be condemned. evolution cannot occur in the first place because it has no foundation in science.

This is also a repeatable fact. you are mentaly deaf dumb and blind .

 

 Science: knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method ..... the state of knowing : knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding



So we see by the above definition, that true science should be defined as facts, backed up by tests using the scientific method. So, what is the scientific method? It is defined below.

Scientific Method: principles and procedures for the systematic pursuit of knowledge involving the recognition and formulation of a problem, the collection of data through observation and experiment, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses.
Theory: Pronunciation: 'thE-&-rE, 'thi(-&ampEye-winkr-E
Function: noun
Etymology: Late Latin theoria, from Greek theOria, from theOrein
Date: 1592
The analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another : abstract thought :SPECULATION: a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena : a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation b :an unproved assumption : CONJECTURE.


 

definition of religion is:
Main Entry: religion
Pronunciation: ri-'li-j&n
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English religioun, from Latin religion-, religio supernatural constraint, sanction, religious practice, perhaps from religare to restrain, tie back
Date: 13th century
1 a : the state of a religious b (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
2 : a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
3 archaic : scrupulous conformity : CONSCIENTIOUSNESS
4 : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith <-atheists pay attention to your hypocrisy (you are just closet pagans who worships a manmade entity called mother nature) You are for pro choice which is really pro murder of unborn humans. pity no atheists were aborted through that mentality.



 

Another dictionary explains "religion" in these terms:
Religion: a belief in, recognition of or an awakened sense of, a higher, unseen controlling power or powers with the emotion or morality connected therewith: rites or worship: any system of such belief or worship: devoted fidelity: monastic life.
faith
Pronunciation: 'fAth
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural faiths /'fAths, sometimes 'fA[th]z/
Etymology: Middle English feith, from Old French feid, foi, from Latin fides; akin to Latin fidere to trust -- more at BIDE
Date: 13th century
1 a : allegiance to duty or a person : LOYALTY b (1) : fidelity to one's promises (2) : sincerity of intentions
2 a (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust
3 : something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially : a system of religious beliefs
You will notice that the Webster's definition of "faith" is the same as the Biblical definition. I think that we can, in simple terms, explain the faithful of a religion as those who have become an institution by their faith, which is belief in something in which there is no scientific proof. If you can't see it, and no one has ever seen it, and there is no proof that it happened then to believe it is certainly faith and when it is instituted with a group of others, it is a religion.

 

Evolution Is The Religion:
look at ways in which those who believe in evolution are faithful in their religious beliefs.



1. Belief in a "Big Bang," that they have no proof of.

2. Belief in life which resulted from chemical processes, of which they have no proof.

 

 

   

 

3. Belief in an old Earth, for which no convincing proof has ever been found.
4. Belief in macro-evolution without producing any transitionary forms.
5. Belief in uniformitarianism, that all environmental processes have always been the same on Earth, with no proof of that hypothesis.
First, since evolution is a religion, it should not be subsidized by the government. To me this seems like what the ACLU terms a violation to the separation of Church and State, as accorded in the Constitution. Billions of dollars of government grants are given each year for the furtherment of evolutional study.
Secondly, evolution should not be taught as a theory or fact in public schools. This is another clear violation of the constitution. I have proved that evolution is a faith, and if one looks at it clearly, it takes more faith to believe in it than other faiths do. So, lets get it out of our schools.
Thirdly, evolution is a danger to our society. It is the foundation for racism, abortion and hatred in this society. We would all do better without it.


 

look with love from above
the desire to live is the desire to live forever
you did not evolve never did and never will
True science is always provable, theoretical science never is.


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
mind over matter

mind over matter wrote:

Submitted by jcgadfly on December 28, 2010 - 8:37am.

 

 

mind over matter wrote:

 

facts are repeatable   posting misinformation about reality is wrong

Quote:

 

 

Glad you think so - would you please give us some repeatable facts and stop posting misinformation about reality?

Thanks/

 

------------->first for evolution to happen you need life to exist  and since you cannot use science to show how life existed befor it evolved you are a still atheist drone slapnut  

since by your stupid branwashed religion of origins there is no life to evolve in the first place. evolution is not relevant.

I do not need to invent stupid theories for idiots to hide behind. nor would I say it takes too long  to see happening in realtime. I do not need mutations and natural selection and fossils to prove a fact that supports a worldview that is a majority in the worlds population even if we people of are not on the same page as to the truth identity of the ALMIGHTY CREATOR. the fact remains that  the need for communion with our CREATOR ALMIGHTY is relevent becuase there is a issue of life and death for us all.   HE WHO IS ETERNAL /self existent ->  YAHUWAH and He manifests HIMSELF  in so many many ways beyond your atheist capacity to grasp.

since there was by your foolish beliefe no life to evolve all you have is death/nonliving matter/materials that can be found today in living matter.

I  can show through repeatable science that life only comes from life fully funtional with no need to evolve. It happens every day.

A man by the name of Louis Pasture had just finished a set of experiments that proved that micro organisms lived in the air. This was a finding that everyone was waiting for. The reason was there had been a scientific fight between two theories. One was called spontaneous generation and the other theory dictated that life comes from life. The spontaneous generation camp would quickly point out that maggots appeared from meat, that mosquitoes came from a pond or the mice would appear from warm moist soil. How could a maggot appear where there were no other maggots present? How could mold appear on bread where no mold was present? They concluded that matter contained the vital material and energy that would cause life to spontaneously generate if combined with other chemicals or conditions that were right. in 1862 we see that Louis Pasture indeed published the proofs that bacteria is in the air and that is were the "new life" comes from and effectively demolished the theory of spontaneous generation once and for all. In fact, the Law of Biogenesis, that life only comes from life, was formed in part thanks to Pasture's work. We call curing milk pasteurization in honor of Louis's work in bacteria. Pasture had once and for all killed the silly notion that life can come from matter or did he?
 

scientists of all persuasions have missed a critical issue when discussing the validity of evolution. And that is evolution has a pillar, that is a support beam to the theory as a whole, which is based on an assumption that has been disproved centuries ago. This fact is repeatable, demonstrative, and very predicable. In fact, the assumption that life only comes from life, and not inorganic matter, is given the highest level that any assumption is given in science and that is the level of a Law. If there is anything that science knows to be true it is Laws. Laws trump theory. If you take out the idea of spontaneous generation from evolution, I cannot see how the house of evolution can stand. If indeed spontaneous generation is that critical to evolution, then the Law of Bio Genesis trumps the theory of evolution.

present day, one might be mystified to see many great scientists still peddling the evolution myth which is based on a retired old idea. Not only that, we are forcing teachers to teach our kids this myth. One side says that life comes from life and this is observed 100% of the time with not one observable inconsistency, the other side being satanic dumbass monkey wannabe bitchnugget drones says life comes from inorganic matter at some time in the past, which has never been observed or duplicated in labs once ever! Yes, that means no repeatable facts of science.  I am not sure about you as you will have to make up your own immaterial mind, but I think I would place my bets on something that is right 100% of the time and not rely on something that is right 0% of the time as in your case according to your false manmade religion for drones.

So why do so called scientists claim to posses so much evidence of evolution, to the point that the establishment agrees with them?

Simply because these asshole scientists had an assumption where they then went out to find the proofs to support the assumption.

However, if your foundational assumption is wrong, the house of evidence you build on that foundation becomes very suspect. The idea that life can erupt from nonliving matter has been soundly dismissed by the strongest demonstrative methods known to science and as such, the evidence that support that assumption become very suspect. It does not matter how eloquently and skilfully the evidence is built, if the foundation is falling apart the building must be condemned. evolution cannot occur in the first place because it has no foundation in science.

This is also a repeatable fact. you are mentaly deaf dumb and blind .

 

 Science: knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method ..... the state of knowing : knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding



So we see by the above definition, that true science should be defined as facts, backed up by tests using the scientific method. So, what is the scientific method? It is defined below.

Scientific Method: principles and procedures for the systematic pursuit of knowledge involving the recognition and formulation of a problem, the collection of data through observation and experiment, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses.
Theory: Pronunciation: 'thE-&-rE, 'thi(-&ampEye-winkr-E
Function: noun
Etymology: Late Latin theoria, from Greek theOria, from theOrein
Date: 1592
The analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another : abstract thought :SPECULATION: a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena : a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation b :an unproved assumption : CONJECTURE.


 

definition of religion is:
Main Entry: religion
Pronunciation: ri-'li-j&n
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English religioun, from Latin religion-, religio supernatural constraint, sanction, religious practice, perhaps from religare to restrain, tie back
Date: 13th century
1 a : the state of a religious b (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
2 : a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
3 archaic : scrupulous conformity : CONSCIENTIOUSNESS
4 : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith <-atheists pay attention to your hypocrisy (you are just closet pagans who worships a manmade entity called mother nature) You are for pro choice which is really pro murder of unborn humans. pity no atheists were aborted through that mentality.



 

Another dictionary explains "religion" in these terms:
Religion: a belief in, recognition of or an awakened sense of, a higher, unseen controlling power or powers with the emotion or morality connected therewith: rites or worship: any system of such belief or worship: devoted fidelity: monastic life.
faith
Pronunciation: 'fAth
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural faiths /'fAths, sometimes 'fA[th]z/
Etymology: Middle English feith, from Old French feid, foi, from Latin fides; akin to Latin fidere to trust -- more at BIDE
Date: 13th century
1 a : allegiance to duty or a person : LOYALTY b (1) : fidelity to one's promises (2) : sincerity of intentions
2 a (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust
3 : something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially : a system of religious beliefs
You will notice that the Webster's definition of "faith" is the same as the Biblical definition. I think that we can, in simple terms, explain the faithful of a religion as those who have become an institution by their faith, which is belief in something in which there is no scientific proof. If you can't see it, and no one has ever seen it, and there is no proof that it happened then to believe it is certainly faith and when it is instituted with a group of others, it is a religion.

 

Evolution Is The Religion:
look at ways in which those who believe in evolution are faithful in their religious beliefs.



1. Belief in a "Big Bang," that they have no proof of.

2. Belief in life which resulted from chemical processes, of which they have no proof.

 

 

 

   

 

 

3. Belief in an old Earth, for which no convincing proof has ever been found.
4. Belief in macro-evolution without producing any transitionary forms.
5. Belief in uniformitarianism, that all environmental processes have always been the same on Earth, with no proof of that hypothesis.
First, since evolution is a religion, it should not be subsidized by the government. To me this seems like what the ACLU terms a violation to the separation of Church and State, as accorded in the Constitution. Billions of dollars of government grants are given each year for the furtherment of evolutional study.
Secondly, evolution should not be taught as a theory or fact in public schools. This is another clear violation of the constitution. I have proved that evolution is a faith, and if one looks at it clearly, it takes more faith to believe in it than other faiths do. So, lets get it out of our schools.
Thirdly, evolution is a danger to our society. It is the foundation for racism, abortion and hatred in this society. We would all do better without it.


 

Well, I see you still have nothing but you like using large type to express it.

Still waiting to see your evidence that what you worship has anything to do with the topic you've been discussing.

Life comes from life except for your magic godlike being? Special plead much?

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Anonymouse
atheist
Posts: 1687
Joined: 2008-05-04
User is offlineOffline
There's no need to keep

There's no need to keep cutting and pasting stuff from other sites. You can just post the links.

Here, I'll do it for you : http://www.delusionresistance.org/creation/evofaith.html  ,   http://www.faithreaders.com/article-details.php?article=14208


Anonymous2010 (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Forgive my anonymity

I just stumbled upon this thread today, Dec. 28, 2010. I see it was started roughly two years ago, I believe. The evolution vs. Creation debate will never be won I'm sure, until God reveals Himself again. I by the way believe very much in Creation, please don't let that nor my previous statement about how the debate will be won make you pass me off as a dolt.

I am neither young nor old, so I don't have years and years of wisdom as some do, but please don't pass me off as naive either. I haven't bothered to sign up for this forum as I don't wish to be consumed in a 2 year debate, however if those who are so passionately disagreeing with religion, or rather a young earth, would be so kind as to answer a few questions I would be thankful.

First, how is the sun in the sky any different than a bonfire? A bonfire burns, and burns, and burns, and once its fuel sorce is consumed the fire flickers out. Using this logic how am I supposed to believe anything other than the fact that the sun can old have been burning for a few thousand years? Thousands of years seems like a long enough time to boggle the mind, but this is the length of time humans have roamed the earth (regardless of what you believe) and therefore how long we know the sun has burned. Wouldn't billions and billions of years require such a unfathomable amount of fuel? And to contain such fuel wouldn't the sun have to be exponentially larger? Could the earth even rotate around such a massive sun or would it be drawn in? Would such a massive sun scorth the earth? Or has the sun just been like the burning bush from the Bible? A fire that burns without consuming its fuel.

Secondly, I too am confused as to the whereabouts of the missing links. Forgive me for not reading all 6 pages of this thread, I read most of the first and skimmed this last page. So I saw a wiki link proving the exsistance of the missing links... But I was also raised to cast a doubtful stare at wiki, and it's drawn images of half-fish half-reptiles. I don't understand why if these transitioning mutations where better than their counterparts then why don't we still have these in between creatures? They must have exsisted for thousands of years, why not still today? Why did pond scum evolve into giant dinosours, ice age hits, life gets rebooted, then we re-evolve into fish, birds, mammals, humans, plants, etc. Why not dinosaurs again? Or why wouldn't we have half-man half monkeys? Wouldn't they be better than regular monkeys? Why did some monkeys blitz evolve into humans and the rest decided to remain monkeys?

I ask because these few questions (among others) raise more doubts for me that the earth is anything other than what the Bible teaches us it is.

Again please don't discount my thoughts because I don't have a login or maybe botched my spelling or grammer, I always enjoyed math, not English. I am not looking to make fools of anyone, so please don't attempt to make a fool of me, I'm trying to start a logical back and forth.


mind over matter
Theist
mind over matter's picture
Posts: 210
Joined: 2010-04-09
User is offlineOffline
I see why you use gadfly as a username, it suites YOU

gad·flyplay_w2("G0004000") (gdfl)

n. 1. A persistent irritating critic; a nuisance.2. One that acts as a provocative stimulus; a goad.3. Any of various flies, especially of the family Tabanidae, that bite or annoy livestock and other animals

 

n pl -flies

1. (Life Sciences & Allied Applications / Animals) any of various large dipterous flies, esp the horsefly, that annoy livestock by sucking their blood2. a constantly irritating or harassing person 
Noun1.gadfly - a persistently annoying person       blighter, cuss, pesterer, pestnudnick, nudnik - (Yiddish) someone who is a boring pest persecutor, tormenter, tormentor - someone who torments
 
2.gadfly - any of various large flies that annoy livestock fly - two-winged insects characterized by active flight botfly - stout-bodied hairy dipterous fly whose larvae are parasites on humans and other mammals warble fly - hairy bee-like fly whose larvae produce lumpy abscesses (warbles) under the skin of cattle cleg, clegg, horse fly, horsefly - large swift fly the female of which sucks blood of various animals

Well, I see you still have nothing  of value to meet my posted challenge

Still waiting to see your evidence that what you worship (mother nature) has anything to do with science.

Life comes from life PERIOD!mind over matter wrote:

 

facts are repeatable   posting misinformation about reality is wrong

Quote:

 

 

Glad you think so - would you please give us some repeatable facts and stop posting misinformation about reality?

Thanks/

 

------------->first for evolution to happen you need life to exist  and since you cannot use science to show how life existed befor it evolved you are a still atheist drone slapnut  

since by your stupid branwashed religion of origins there is no life to evolve in the first place. evolution is not relevant.

I do not need to invent stupid theories for idiots to hide behind. nor would I say it takes too long  to see happening in realtime. I do not need mutations and natural selection and fossils to prove a fact that supports a worldview that is a majority in the worlds population even if we people of are not on the same page as to the truth identity of the ALMIGHTY CREATOR. the fact remains that  the need for communion with our CREATOR ALMIGHTY is relevent becuase there is a issue of life and death for us all.   HE WHO IS ETERNAL /self existent ->  YAHUWAH and He manifests HIMSELF  in so many many ways beyond your atheist capacity to grasp.

since there was by your foolish beliefe no life to evolve all you have is death/nonliving matter/materials that can be found today in living matter.

I  can show through repeatable science that life only comes from life fully funtional with no need to evolve. It happens every day.

A man by the name of Louis Pasture had just finished a set of experiments that proved that micro organisms lived in the air. This was a finding that everyone was waiting for. The reason was there had been a scientific fight between two theories. One was called spontaneous generation and the other theory dictated that life comes from life. The spontaneous generation camp would quickly point out that maggots appeared from meat, that mosquitoes came from a pond or the mice would appear from warm moist soil. How could a maggot appear where there were no other maggots present? How could mold appear on bread where no mold was present? They concluded that matter contained the vital material and energy that would cause life to spontaneously generate if combined with other chemicals or conditions that were right. in 1862 we see that Louis Pasture indeed published the proofs that bacteria is in the air and that is were the "new life" comes from and effectively demolished the theory of spontaneous generation once and for all. In fact, the Law of Biogenesis, that life only comes from life, was formed in part thanks to Pasture's work. We call curing milk pasteurization in honor of Louis's work in bacteria. Pasture had once and for all killed the silly notion that life can come from matter or did he?
 

scientists of all persuasions have missed a critical issue when discussing the validity of evolution. And that is evolution has a pillar, that is a support beam to the theory as a whole, which is based on an assumption that has been disproved centuries ago. This fact is repeatable, demonstrative, and very predicable. In fact, the assumption that life only comes from life, and not inorganic matter, is given the highest level that any assumption is given in science and that is the level of a Law. If there is anything that science knows to be true it is Laws. Laws trump theory. If you take out the idea of spontaneous generation from evolution, I cannot see how the house of evolution can stand. If indeed spontaneous generation is that critical to evolution, then the Law of Bio Genesis trumps the theory of evolution.

present day, one might be mystified to see many great scientists still peddling the evolution myth which is based on a retired old idea. Not only that, we are forcing teachers to teach our kids this myth. One side says that life comes from life and this is observed 100% of the time with not one observable inconsistency, the other side being satanic dumbass monkey wannabe bitchnugget drones says life comes from inorganic matter at some time in the past, which has never been observed or duplicated in labs once ever! Yes, that means no repeatable facts of science.  I am not sure about you as you will have to make up your own immaterial mind, but I think I would place my bets on something that is right 100% of the time and not rely on something that is right 0% of the time as in your case according to your false manmade religion for drones.

So why do so called scientists claim to posses so much evidence of evolution, to the point that the establishment agrees with them?

Simply because these asshole scientists had an assumption where they then went out to find the proofs to support the assumption.

However, if your foundational assumption is wrong, the house of evidence you build on that foundation becomes very suspect. The idea that life can erupt from nonliving matter has been soundly dismissed by the strongest demonstrative methods known to science and as such, the evidence that support that assumption become very suspect. It does not matter how eloquently and skilfully the evidence is built, if the foundation is falling apart the building must be condemned. evolution cannot occur in the first place because it has no foundation in science.

This is also a repeatable fact. you are mentaly deaf dumb and blind .

 

 Science: knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method ..... the state of knowing : knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding


So we see by the above definition, that true science should be defined as facts, backed up by tests using the scientific method. So, what is the scientific method? It is defined below.

Scientific Method: principles and procedures for the systematic pursuit of knowledge involving the recognition and formulation of a problem, the collection of data through observation and experiment, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses.
Theory: Pronunciation: 'thE-&-rE, 'thi(-&ampEye-winkr-E
Function: noun
Etymology: Late Latin theoria, from Greek theOria, from theOrein
Date: 1592
The analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another : abstract thought :SPECULATION: a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena : a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation b :an unproved assumption : CONJECTURE.


 

definition of religion is:
Main Entry: religion
Pronunciation: ri-'li-j&n
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English religioun, from Latin religion-, religio supernatural constraint, sanction, religious practice, perhaps from religare to restrain, tie back
Date: 13th century
1 a : the state of a religious b (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
2 : a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
3 archaic : scrupulous conformity : CONSCIENTIOUSNESS
4 : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith <-atheists pay attention to your hypocrisy (you are just closet pagans who worships a manmade entity called mother nature) You are for pro choice which is really pro murder of unborn humans. pity no atheists were aborted through that mentality.



 

Another dictionary explains "religion" in these terms:
Religion: a belief in, recognition of or an awakened sense of, a higher, unseen controlling power or powers with the emotion or morality connected therewith: rites or worship: any system of such belief or worship: devoted fidelity: monastic life.
faith
Pronunciation: 'fAth
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural faiths /'fAths, sometimes 'fA[th]z/
Etymology: Middle English feith, from Old French feid, foi, from Latin fides; akin to Latin fidere to trust -- more at BIDE
Date: 13th century
1 a : allegiance to duty or a person : LOYALTY b (1) : fidelity to one's promises (2) : sincerity of intentions
2 a (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust
3 : something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially : a system of religious beliefs
You will notice that the Webster's definition of "faith" is the same as the Biblical definition. I think that we can, in simple terms, explain the faithful of a religion as those who have become an institution by their faith, which is belief in something in which there is no scientific proof. If you can't see it, and no one has ever seen it, and there is no proof that it happened then to believe it is certainly faith and when it is instituted with a group of others, it is a religion.

 

Evolution Is The Religion:
look at ways in which those who believe in evolution are faithful in their religious beliefs.



1. Belief in a "Big Bang," that they have no proof of.

2. Belief in life which resulted from chemical processes, of which they have no proof.

 

 

 

   

 

 

3. Belief in an old Earth, for which no convincing proof has ever been found.
4. Belief in macro-evolution without producing any transitionary forms.
5. Belief in uniformitarianism, that all environmental processes have always been the same on Earth, with no proof of that hypothesis.
First, since evolution is a religion, it should not be subsidized by the government. To me this seems like what the ACLU terms a violation to the separation of Church and State, as accorded in the Constitution. Billions of dollars of government grants are given each year for the furtherment of evolutional study.
Secondly, evolution should not be taught as a theory or fact in public schools. This is another clear violation of the constitution. I have proved that evolution is a faith, and if one looks at it clearly, it takes more faith to believe in it than other faiths do. So, lets get it out of our schools.
Thirdly, evolution is a danger to our society. It is the foundation for racism, abortion and hatred in this society. We would all do better without it.


 

 

look with love from above
the desire to live is the desire to live forever
you did not evolve never did and never will
True science is always provable, theoretical science never is.


mind over matter
Theist
mind over matter's picture
Posts: 210
Joined: 2010-04-09
User is offlineOffline
you are not keeping score with your every loss/post

Submitted by Anonymouse on December 28, 2010 - 10:02pm.

 

There's no need to keep cutting and pasting stuff from other sites. You can just post the links.

->thanks but you failed to post the links properly. the first one did not work. I give you credit for effort. You will get though I have faith  in you!

while you are busy researching my facts you will consider refuting them in my posted challenge to prove all aspects of evolution (a pagan religious concept) through the scientific method ?

you are wasting your time not mine! you plan for today  while I plan for eternity.

I  will appreciate it when you repost all my links and words and share them with the rest of your cave posse'!

now run along and bring me more atheists just like you! PLEASE!

I want to expose all of you in the light of YAHUWAH!

 

look with love from above
the desire to live is the desire to live forever
you did not evolve never did and never will
True science is always provable, theoretical science never is.


Anonymouse
atheist
Posts: 1687
Joined: 2008-05-04
User is offlineOffline
mind over matter wrote:my

mind over matter wrote:
my posted challenge

Again, the "challenge" isn't yours. You just copied it from somewhere.

That means you don't even understand what you're shouting about, so trying to explain it to you would be a waste of time.

 


mind over matter
Theist
mind over matter's picture
Posts: 210
Joined: 2010-04-09
User is offlineOffline
I admire you for asking such questions , thank you

Forgive my anonymity  

Submitted by Anonymous2010 (not verified) on December 28, 2010 - 10:25pm.

 

I just stumbled upon this thread today, Dec. 28, 2010. I see it was started roughly two years ago, I believe. The evolution vs. Creation debate will never be won I'm sure, until God reveals Himself again. I by the way believe very much in Creation, please don't let that nor my previous statement about how the debate will be won make you pass me off as a dolt.

I am neither young nor old, so I don't have years and years of wisdom as some do, but please don't pass me off as naive either. I haven't bothered to sign up for this forum as I don't wish to be consumed in a 2 year debate, however if those who are so passionately disagreeing with religion, or rather a young earth, would be so kind as to answer a few questions I would be thankful.

First, how is the sun in the sky any different than a bonfire? A bonfire burns, and burns, and burns, and once its fuel sorce is consumed the fire flickers out. Using this logic how am I supposed to believe anything other than the fact that the sun can old have been burning for a few thousand years? Thousands of years seems like a long enough time to boggle the mind, but this is the length of time humans have roamed the earth (regardless of what you believe) and therefore how long we know the sun has burned. Wouldn't billions and billions of years require such a unfathomable amount of fuel? And to contain such fuel wouldn't the sun have to be exponentially larger? Could the earth even rotate around such a massive sun or would it be drawn in? Would such a massive sun scorth the earth? Or has the sun just been like the burning bush from the Bible? A fire that burns without consuming its fuel.

Secondly, I too am confused as to the whereabouts of the missing links. Forgive me for not reading all 6 pages of this thread, I read most of the first and skimmed this last page. So I saw a wiki link proving the exsistance of the missing links... But I was also raised to cast a doubtful stare at wiki, and it's drawn images of half-fish half-reptiles. I don't understand why if these transitioning mutations where better than their counterparts then why don't we still have these in between creatures? They must have exsisted for thousands of years, why not still today? Why did pond scum evolve into giant dinosours, ice age hits, life gets rebooted, then we re-evolve into fish, birds, mammals, humans, plants, etc. Why not dinosaurs again? Or why wouldn't we have half-man half monkeys? Wouldn't they be better than regular monkeys? Why did some monkeys blitz evolve into humans and the rest decided to remain monkeys?

I ask because these few questions (among others) raise more doubts for me that the earth is anything other than what the Bible teaches us it is.

Again please don't discount my thoughts because I don't have a login or maybe botched my spelling or grammer, I always enjoyed math, not English. I am not looking to make fools of anyone, so please don't attempt to make a fool of me, I'm trying to start a logical back and forth.

 

------------->first I shall say wikipedia is an atheist web site so that is why they use everything science-fiction has to offer to promot evolution period and they promote heliocentricty as well.  because they need it along with their recent big bang speculation to perpetuate their pagan dogma of origins from nothing to life as we know it without YAHUWAH.

 

the answer to why is a based in a lie they being  atheist monkey wannabe's choose to believe will set them free

 

look with love from above
the desire to live is the desire to live forever
you did not evolve never did and never will
True science is always provable, theoretical science never is.


Anonymouse
atheist
Posts: 1687
Joined: 2008-05-04
User is offlineOffline
Anonymous2010 wrote:I ask

Anonymous2010 wrote:
I ask because these few questions (among others) raise more doubts for me that the earth is anything other than what the Bible teaches us it is.

Again please don't discount my thoughts because I don't have a login or maybe botched my spelling or grammer, I always enjoyed math, not English. I am not looking to make fools of anyone, so please don't attempt to make a fool of me, I'm trying to start a logical back and forth.

Asking questions is good. Have a look at the Talkorigins FAQ for starters : http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-qa.html


mind over matter
Theist
mind over matter's picture
Posts: 210
Joined: 2010-04-09
User is offlineOffline
still avoiding the challenge as an atheist drone

Submitted by Anonymouse on December 31, 2010 - 11:41am.

 

 

mind over matter wrote:
my posted challenge

 

 

 

Again, the "challenge" isn't yours. You just copied it from somewhere. ------->YES it is , I posted it  and you repsonded and failed to meet it everytime you posted in vain babble.  post the link  for  "

  """"a challenge to prove all aspects of evolution (a pagan religious concept) through the scientific method ""

please !  I will enjoy that for sure.

 

 

 

That means you don't even understand what you're shouting about, so trying to explain it to you would be a waste of time.

-> NO actually it means you are a failed atheist  drone  who refuses to admit defeat.  The challenge is  what it is  here or there and everywhere. dumb ass! yes that is the character I see in you! a chump with chimp envy who postures in jest.

you make excuses but you give no credible response to my posted challenge . It is quite simple yet you are retreating every time with every pittiful rebuttal .

 

I accept your failure  and I thank you for exposing yourself as a fraud lover of lies. You are clearly a closet pagan in denial.

 

look with love from above
the desire to live is the desire to live forever
you did not evolve never did and never will
True science is always provable, theoretical science never is.


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Life comes from life except

Life comes from life except for your deity? Yahuwah can't be alive because he didn't come from life.

Your challenge has been defeated by your own Canaanite deity. You commit a logical fallacy if you say otherwise.

Come back with a new argument, pagan.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


mind over matter
Theist
mind over matter's picture
Posts: 210
Joined: 2010-04-09
User is offlineOffline
You have no answers

Asking questions is good. Have a look at the Talkorigins FAQ for starters : http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-qa.html

 

->that link is to a fraud lovers organization that promotes evolution while pretending to have faith in the creation story!

Discovery Institute Launches "Faith+Evolution" Website they are full of atheist shit. just like you!

chump with chimp envy

do you even know what a pawn you are in the eyes of the people who trained you?

 

look with love from above
the desire to live is the desire to live forever
you did not evolve never did and never will
True science is always provable, theoretical science never is.


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
Anonymous2010 wrote: I just

Anonymous2010 wrote:

I just stumbled upon this thread today, Dec. 28, 2010. I see it was started roughly two years ago, I believe. The evolution vs. Creation debate will never be won I'm sure, until God reveals Himself again. I by the way believe very much in Creation, please don't let that nor my previous statement about how the debate will be won make you pass me off as a dolt.

 

I'll try not to talk to you as if you were a dolt - but someone who does not take the time to learn will not earn any respect from me.  It's why I haven't responded to MOM for a long time.

 

Anonymous2010 wrote:

I am neither young nor old, so I don't have years and years of wisdom as some do, but please don't pass me off as naive either. I haven't bothered to sign up for this forum as I don't wish to be consumed in a 2 year debate, however if those who are so passionately disagreeing with religion, or rather a young earth, would be so kind as to answer a few questions I would be thankful.

 

Fine.  I'm old.  And I enjoy reading about evolution. 

 

Anonymous2010 wrote:

First, how is the sun in the sky any different than a bonfire? A bonfire burns, and burns, and burns, and once its fuel sorce is consumed the fire flickers out. Using this logic how am I supposed to believe anything other than the fact that the sun can old have been burning for a few thousand years? Thousands of years seems like a long enough time to boggle the mind, but this is the length of time humans have roamed the earth (regardless of what you believe) and therefore how long we know the sun has burned. Wouldn't billions and billions of years require such a unfathomable amount of fuel? And to contain such fuel wouldn't the sun have to be exponentially larger? Could the earth even rotate around such a massive sun or would it be drawn in? Would such a massive sun scorth the earth? Or has the sun just been like the burning bush from the Bible? A fire that burns without consuming its fuel.

 

The sun is consuming its fuel and in a few billion years, it will go out.  You say you don't like Wiki, so here is another source:  http://www.enchantedlearning.com/subjects/astronomy/sun/sun.shtml

Pick any darn link you like, they are all similar as the facts are what the facts are.

enchanted learning wrote:

Quote:

The Sun's diameter is 864,938 miles (1,391,980 km). This is almost 10 times larger than the planet Jupiter and about 109 times as big as the Earth. The volume of the Sun is 1,299,400 times bigger than the volume of the Earth; about 1,300,000 Earths could fit inside the Sun

Quote:

The Sun's mass is roughly 1.99 x 1030 kg. This is about 333,000 times the mass of the Earth. The Sun contains 99.8% of all of the mass of the Solar System.

The mass of the sun is decreasing over time, as fusion reactions convert hydrogen into helium, releasing huge amounts of energy in the process.

Quote:

Our sun is a medium-sized yellow star that is 93,026,724 miles (149,680,000 km or 1 Astronomical Unit) from the Earth.

 

I understand having a hard time getting your head around those large of numbers.  The sun is no ordinary bonfire.

 

enchanted learning wrote:

The Sun is made up of about 2 x 1030 kilograms of gas. It is composed of about 75% hydrogen and 25% helium. About 0.1% is metals (made from hydrogen via nuclear fusion). This ratio is changing over time (very slowly), as the nuclear reactions continue, converting smaller atoms into more massive ones.

 

Anonymous2010 wrote:

Secondly, I too am confused as to the whereabouts of the missing links. Forgive me for not reading all 6 pages of this thread, I read most of the first and skimmed this last page. So I saw a wiki link proving the exsistance of the missing links... But I was also raised to cast a doubtful stare at wiki, and it's drawn images of half-fish half-reptiles. I don't understand why if these transitioning mutations where better than their counterparts then why don't we still have these in between creatures? They must have exsisted for thousands of years, why not still today? Why did pond scum evolve into giant dinosours, ice age hits, life gets rebooted, then we re-evolve into fish, birds, mammals, humans, plants, etc. Why not dinosaurs again? Or why wouldn't we have half-man half monkeys? Wouldn't they be better than regular monkeys? Why did some monkeys blitz evolve into humans and the rest decided to remain monkeys?

I ask because these few questions (among others) raise more doubts for me that the earth is anything other than what the Bible teaches us it is.

Again please don't discount my thoughts because I don't have a login or maybe botched my spelling or grammer, I always enjoyed math, not English. I am not looking to make fools of anyone, so please don't attempt to make a fool of me, I'm trying to start a logical back and forth.

 

If I show you "missing links" are you just going to ask for the links between the links?  If I show you A - A' - A'' - B, are you going to ask for A''', A'''' and so on?  It would then be a waste of my time.  Instead, I will refer you to a book with plenty of photographs of progressions of fossils from ancient species to modern species.  Since the author is a working paleontologist, he knows more than I do.  I have read the book, it is not technical and is easy to comprehend without having taken a biology class.  It was available at my local public library, so if you can't afford it, you should be able to check it out for free or borrow it through interlibrary loan for free.   No excuses for not doing just a little homework.

http://www.amazon.com/Evolution-What-Fossils-Say-Matters/dp/0231139624/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1293811971&sr=8-1

What the Fossils Say and Why It Matters by Donald R. Prothero and Carl Buell

ISBN-10: 0231139624

ISBN-13: 978-0231139625

 

Fair warning: if you come back without having at least skimmed through the book, I may be rather short in any reply I bother to make.  Deliberate ignorance should be the only sin.

 

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


Anonymouse
atheist
Posts: 1687
Joined: 2008-05-04
User is offlineOffline
mind over matter

mind over matter wrote:

Asking questions is good. Have a look at the Talkorigins FAQ for starters : http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-qa.html

 

->that link is to a fraud lovers organization that promotes evolution while pretending to have faith in the creation story!

Discovery Institute Launches "Faith+Evolution" Website they are full of atheist shit. just like you!

chump with chimp envy

do you even know what a pawn you are in the eyes of the people who trained you?

 

Actually, that reaction of yours is dealt with in those very same FAQs.


mind over matter
Theist
mind over matter's picture
Posts: 210
Joined: 2010-04-09
User is offlineOffline
a gadfly seeks dead horses ass for comfort food

Submitted by jcgadfly on December 31, 2010 - 12:10pm.

 

Life comes from life except for your deity? Yahuwah can't be alive because he didn't come from life.

Your challenge has been defeated by your own Canaanite deity. You commit a logical fallacy if you say otherwise.

Come back with a new argument, pagan.

---------->wow that is pure comedy!

a downtrodden hand me down babylonian wannabe telling me about YAHUWAH!   lol

 

 YOU ARE the only logical fallacy.  You are alive and you came from life beyond you understanding of life eternal.  YAHUWAH  is self existent/ HE WHO EXISTS. HE NEEDED NO CAUSE where as you do! dumb ass or should I say dumb gadfly on a dead  horses ass? 

the canaanites  worshipped Ba'al, Moloch, Tammuz (the shepherd god), the sun god, the moon god, Astarte, Asherah and many others

Jeremiah 2:11 Hath a nation changed their gods, which are yet no gods? but my people have changed their glory for that which doth not profit.
Think about that.

 

The unfortunate bottom line is... NO! The nations have NOT changed their "gods." The same Zeus (pale-faced, blue-eyed Jesus! Remember... "Raw and Uncut! {:o) that the pagans worshipped, the same Ba'al (LORD) that the Canaanites worshipped, along with the pagan rituals of sun worship, saviors birthday worship... Mithra, Zeus/Jesus, (Christmas) Fard Muhammad (Nation of Islam's Savior's Day), Fertility worship, Easter, Astarte, Ishtar (Easter eggs and bunny rabbits) ARE (WHE-E-E-WW!!!… …"deep breath"..) the same deities that these religious organizations have been deceived by Satan to practice in these last days, separating us from YAHUWAH, the creator of heaven and earth.

If the name "YAHUWAH or Yahuwshua" offends you, you are without excuse. You are not the first, nor shall you be the last to be "offended by his namesake."

YAHUWAH OUR CREATOR

 

 

Come back with a new argument, pagan. and while you are feasting the dead horses ass think about meeting my posted challenge unless you are too pathetic to represent your atheist monkey wannabe pagan chumps at large?

look with love from above
the desire to live is the desire to live forever
you did not evolve never did and never will
True science is always provable, theoretical science never is.


Anonymouse
atheist
Posts: 1687
Joined: 2008-05-04
User is offlineOffline
mind over matter wrote:YES

mind over matter wrote:
YES it is

*sigh*

No. Simply copying a bunch of unconnected quotes you didn't write yourself, does not make them yours.

No matter how many times you re-post them.

 


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
It's OK, MoM. Really, it

It's OK, MoM. Really, it is.

I remember what it was like to have a nice safe fantasy to live in.

It can be scary to have facts intrude and break a self-deception.

Yahuwah is a special plead and destroys your argument that life cam only come from life.

I'm sorry you're still being dazzled by the magicians instead of realizing that it's all a trick.

I don't get offended by names. They also don't scare me into worship. You can't say that.

The Canaanites did worship many other gods. They include El and his son Yahuwah who married Asherah.

 

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Anonymous2010:A few points

Anonymous2010:

A few points about the Sun.

As the sun releases energy from the fusion of hydrogen into helium, there is a small reduction in mass, which is the mass-equivalent of the energy released.

BUT, there is no change in the number of electrons, and protons/neutrons.

So there is no change in the number of particles of matter in that process.

The Sun does lose matter, in the form of the 'Solar Wind', particles streaming out from it, along with, and partly driven by, the light emitted.

But the amount of matter lost is such a tiny fraction of that in the Sun, it is not going to have any significant effect over its lifetime.

About evolution, it is a purposeless process, with the details of evolutionary direction subject to many random effects. You might as well ask why doesn't the weather, the pattern of hurricanes, etc, repeat itself exactly each year.

Any group of creatures living in the same area, able and inclined to interbreed, will tend to mix any variations throughout the group, so will be unlikely to split into separate species.

Which is why such a group will normally change over time only as a group, not into a multitude of different forms.

Speciation, splitting into separate forms, distinct lines of descent, typically requires some degree of isolation between groups, such as being on separate islands, or in different deep valleys.

 

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Jean Chauvin
Theistard
Jean Chauvin's picture
Posts: 1211
Joined: 2010-11-19
User is offlineOffline
Comedy is Among Us

As I have said before, the Christians systemamized science. You guys have been brainwashed more then a pig in a kitchen.

The incompentent pagans got jealous, and paganized it (e.g. Dewey Pavlov).

Before I give you proof, you must tell me what kind of proof you are seeking. Since we have a different understanding of proof since you are a pagan who claims ignorance via glee, and I claim knowledge via glee, where do we start.

Is this proof absolute that you seek, or probable? Is absolute possible? If it is probable, by what ratio of error and truth shall be accepted upon this gift to you.

how did you come up with the proper ratio? Is the ration itself a probablity? It the ration is even probable, then what are we really talking about here? Are we just guessing?

So you see, you have a lot of work to do in order for me to answer your question. You are begging the question. Please answer my questions and isolate your definitions. Then justify your definitions in the area of probable ratio if even your definitions are true.

After all, what is truth to an atheist? Truth doesn't really exist does it?

So the issue is NOT me "proving" anything to you, but to first establish if the knowledge of anything is really possible. Then we can discuss simple things, let alone complex.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

A Rational Christian of Intelligence (rare)with a valid and sound justification for my epistemology and a logical refutation for those with logical fallacies and false worldviews upon their normative of thinking in retrospect to objective normative(s). This is only understood via the imago dei in which we all are.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Jean Chauvin wrote:As I have

Jean Chauvin wrote:

As I have said before, the Christians systemamized science. You guys have been brainwashed more then a pig in a kitchen.

The incompentent pagans got jealous, and paganized it (e.g. Dewey Pavlov).

Before I give you proof, you must tell me what kind of proof you are seeking. Since we have a different understanding of proof since you are a pagan who claims ignorance via glee, and I claim knowledge via glee, where do we start.

Is this proof absolute that you seek, or probable? Is absolute possible? If it is probable, by what ratio of error and truth shall be accepted upon this gift to you.

how did you come up with the proper ratio? Is the ration itself a probablity? It the ration is even probable, then what are we really talking about here? Are we just guessing?

So you see, you have a lot of work to do in order for me to answer your question. You are begging the question. Please answer my questions and isolate your definitions. Then justify your definitions in the area of probable ratio if even your definitions are true.

After all, what is truth to an atheist? Truth doesn't really exist does it?

So the issue is NOT me "proving" anything to you, but to first establish if the knowledge of anything is really possible. Then we can discuss simple things, let alone complex.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

By "paganized" you mean "taken in useful directions that broadened the knowledge of humanity and scared the church leaders"?

That must be why Christianity worked (and still works) so hard to suppress knowledge.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Actually it was the Arabs

Actually it was the Arabs who contributed much more to develop science, while Christianity explicitly rejected its fuller expression in the hands of Bruno and Galileo

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology