Prove to me the world is 6000 years old
Offline 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.
- Login to post comments
It's funny watching this fool prove himself a few smokes short of a pack.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
Nice logical response, Mom.
Submitted by Atheistextremist on November 1, 2010 - 9:25pm.
mind over matter wrote: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.
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
Explanation by a 13 year old
Submitted by skeptiform5 on November 7, 2010 - 1:04am.
mind over matter wrote: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
------------------> 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.
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.
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
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
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.
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.
Submitted by jcgadfly on November 14, 2010 - 3:58pm.
mind over matter wrote: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!"
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.
Just post the link. Saves space.
http://www.yahuwah-is.net/Files/aboutyahweh.html
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.
http://www.angermanagementseminar.com/
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
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
"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
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
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
What you think confirms your view is still not going to get you down to a 6-10k year old earth.
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
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!
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
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
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
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
deleted
mind over matter
Submitted by atheistannie on November 19, 2010 - 1:23am.
mind over matter wrote: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 misunderstandingSo 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.
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.
Submitted by Anonymouse on November 14, 2010 - 10:27pm.
mind over matter wrote: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.
http://www.depression-guide.com/tourettes-syndrome-treatment.htm
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 Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
"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
Submitted by jcgadfly on December 28, 2010 - 8:37am.
mind over matter wrote:------------->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.
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.
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
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
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.
gad·flyplay_w2("G0004000") (g
d
fl
)
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 animalsn 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 personWell, 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:
------------->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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Asking questions is good. Have a look at the Talkorigins FAQ for starters : http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-qa.html
Submitted by Anonymouse on December 31, 2010 - 11:41am.
mind over matter wrote: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.
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
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.
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.
Fine. I'm old. And I enjoy reading about evolution.
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.
I understand having a hard time getting your head around those large of numbers. The sun is no ordinary bonfire.
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.
Actually, that reaction of yours is dealt with in those very same FAQs.
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 othersJeremiah 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.
*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.
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
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
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).
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
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