# Science Over Faith?



## BOOM WHOMP (Aug 13, 2009)

i never really start threads on this forum but i figured i could stir up the pot. I grew up in jesuit schools all my life and i had many biology teachers that supported the big bang theory over the creation story which was always confusing because i also had theology classes with priests that belived the creation story. i find now in my young adulthood that i belive in the big bang theory based on evolution and basically darwinism as a whole. I would like to hear some other peoples thoughts on the subject. I realize it's a touchy subject but its just a question.


----------



## Illegal Smile (Aug 13, 2009)

What's the question? A lot of scientists are religious. The great majority of doctors believe in an afterlife. The two are not mutually exclusive. The young and angry with their axes to grind often think they are, but as in so many areas they are wrong. Only people who get their world view from Dan Brown believe science and religion are at war.


----------



## fish601 (Aug 13, 2009)

maybe god created the big bang


----------



## BOOM WHOMP (Aug 13, 2009)

Illegal Smile said:


> What's the question? A lot of scientists are religious. The great majority of doctors believe in an afterlife. The two are not mutually exclusive. The young and angry with their axes to grind often think they are, but as in so many areas they are wrong. Only people who get their world view from Dan Brown believe science and religion are at war.


 the question is big bag theory or creation story.


----------



## fish601 (Aug 13, 2009)

http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/index.html


----------



## Nocturn3 (Aug 14, 2009)

BOOM WHOMP said:


> the question is big bag theory or creation story.


Logic>bullshit.


----------



## TeaTreeOil (Aug 14, 2009)

It was like, 14 billion years ago(rounded), who really cares? It's ancient history.

Pretty much all religions promote the notion of life after death. Because idiots will believe they'll be rewarded for something(faith, for instance) after they're dead. Then the notion of hell came along, and that was just brilliant. Now you no longer need a reward for something, you have the fear of eternal damnation for a finite amount of 'evil doings'. Logical? No. Just? Definitely not. Compelling if you have the education of a nitwit? Apparently.

Statistics show "stupid people" are most religious, that's just a fact. I don't mean to insult anyone. I really don't care what fantasies you believe. Just keep the dogma away from me.


----------



## fried at 420 (Aug 14, 2009)

fish601 said:


> maybe god created the big bang


 lol
if god was real and not an all knowing diety that the christian faith made up to keep people in line and not 2 break rules


----------



## user6079 (Aug 14, 2009)

science is a kind of faith. have you ever seen a black hole? what makes you so sure they exist? because the scientists said so, a lot like priests say so and people believe them. they may have math, but to most people complex math is so far out that it might as well be like insisting god works in mysterious ways. most religion is just bad attempts at science, but instead of dividing theory from fact anytime they can't figure something out they fill in the blanks with a god. why is electricity not magic? because we can explain how it works? does that really disqualify it from being magic? untill you somehow evolve into omnipotence you have no choice but to believe what someone tells you,whom you choose to believe is faith.


----------



## GratefulDance (Aug 15, 2009)

I see science as a religion on its own.


----------



## Illegal Smile (Aug 16, 2009)

BOOM WHOMP said:


> the question is big bag theory or creation story.


In the first place there is no relationship between the big bang and creationism, the latter being about life on earth and the former about the formation of the universe. Arguing about science vs religion misses the point. It's like arguing logic vs emotion, both are a part of human nature.


----------



## Operation 420 (Aug 17, 2009)

Nocturn3 said:


> Logic>bullshit.


Logic keeps people thinking inside the box.


----------



## Illegal Smile (Aug 17, 2009)

Operation 420 said:


> Logic keeps people thinking inside the box.


Wrong. Logic is not the box. Logic is the thought.


----------



## sempre verde (Aug 17, 2009)

Of course I had to throw something out too. this is too good.

Is it ok to use the big bang on my clones cause I really want to maximize my yield. And I ve been looking for creationist grow guides everywhere and cant find 'em anywhere. You see I thought growing pot would be the ultimate in psychoticly wasting my time but NOOOOO it had to be rewarding and fun and I learned alot and met alot of people like me soooo Ive been looking for another way to waste my consciouncess. And I found it ...................
how did we get here????? uh......uh........
BIg Bang? or uh some dude that looks like forest gump did it? 

ok enough. Im with tee tree oil. These questions are a waste of your life and mind. 

But let me play and ask "What is the value of knowing the origin of life? I mean what could you possible learn to make your life different today?

To quote a tibetian buddhist concept. 
"Nothing originates from itself" there is only inter-dependant origination. 

ps I hope adding that question didnt fuck up your thread.


----------



## BOOM WHOMP (Aug 18, 2009)

sempre verde said:


> Of course I had to throw something out too. this is too good.
> 
> Is it ok to use the big bang on my clones cause I really want to maximize my yield. And I ve been looking for creationist grow guides everywhere and cant find 'em anywhere. You see I thought growing pot would be the ultimate in psychoticly wasting my time but NOOOOO it had to be rewarding and fun and I learned alot and met alot of people like me soooo Ive been looking for another way to waste my consciouncess. And I found it ...................
> how did we get here????? uh......uh........
> ...


no worries man, all in good fun. Was bored and wanted to see people get intense about things nobody knows and I think it was a success. be well.


----------



## Green Cross (Aug 18, 2009)

user6079 said:


> science is a kind of faith. have you ever seen a black hole? what makes you so sure they exist? because the scientists said so, a lot like priests say so and people believe them. they may have math, but to most people complex math is so far out that it might as well be like insisting god works in mysterious ways. most religion is just bad attempts at science, but instead of dividing theory from fact anytime they can't figure something out they fill in the blanks with a god. why is electricity not magic? because we can explain how it works? does that really disqualify it from being magic? untill you somehow evolve into omnipotence you have no choice but to believe what someone tells you,whom you choose to believe is faith.


If science had more answers maybe I could put more faith in it.


----------



## BoXofStankay (Aug 18, 2009)

I think the big bang theory is more or less correct. Then aliens [that WE now look like] came and spliced their DNA with a chimp, or some type of monkey. Thus the missing link. And we mistook these aliens technology for Magic and Glory and mysterious almighty powers. Like if the anchient egypt people saw us today, they'd probably think we were gods.

Just my .02. Theres a LOT more to this, but i dont want to bore you. But its what ive come to believe so far...and yes, I do thnk they are linked to the 2012 mystery.


----------



## CrackerJax (Aug 24, 2009)

BOOM WHOMP said:


> i never really start threads on this forum but i figured i could stir up the pot. I grew up in jesuit schools all my life and i had many biology teachers that supported the big bang theory over the creation story which was always confusing because i also had theology classes with priests that belived the creation story. i find now in my young adulthood that i belive in the big bang theory based on evolution and basically darwinism as a whole. I would like to hear some other peoples thoughts on the subject. I realize it's a touchy subject but its just a question.


The Jesuits and Lutherans and a few others are skeptical of the myths in the Bible and would rather they not be there at all. These sects are quite aware that the stories make no sense and only harm the kernel of the version of the Bible they find solace in. 

But like an onion....there are many layers of Christianity..... they have no unified truth.


----------



## fish601 (Aug 24, 2009)

CrackerJax said:


> The Jesuits and Lutherans and a few others are skeptical of the myths in the Bible and would rather they not be there at all. These sects are quite aware that the stories make no sense and only harm the kernel of the version of the Bible they find solace in.
> 
> But like an onion....there are many layers of Christianity..... they have no unified truth.


you call them myths i call them God showing he is the true god able to controll the universe that he created


----------



## CrackerJax (Aug 24, 2009)

Calling an antique book filled with allegorical and conflicting stories and messages the word of G*D is naive at best...... brainwashing at worst.


----------



## fish601 (Aug 24, 2009)

CrackerJax said:


> Calling an antique book filled with allegorical and conflicting stories and messages the word of G*D is naive at best...... brainwashing at worst.


prove the bible wrong i am willing to change beliefs


----------



## CrackerJax (Aug 24, 2009)

I already have many times.... I'm not in the habit of chewing my cabbage twice..... enjoy your myth....you obviously need it.


----------



## Mr.KushMan (Aug 24, 2009)

You people are fucking dumb. Science is recreatable, can be done over and over again, in suitable conditions. Its based on deductive reasoning and modeling, the atoms has never really been seen, but its shapes size, everything can be deduced using universally accepted tool of measurement. If you really wanted to you could go and get all the proof you needed, and actually see the why. Its not like somebody says something and science is like, " yeah, ok." Sometimes thousands of scientists try to disprove it, but can't. Do you know how many atomic models there were before thy landed on the current one, like fuck me with a history book. 

Where as Religion is written once and then is unchangeable. Unless you change the religion. Then there is the fact that you change the action of your life path, based on the fact there is an afterlife, god, or some kind of reward. 

Check out What the bleep do we know?

Peace


----------



## fish601 (Aug 24, 2009)

CrackerJax said:


> I already have many times.... I'm not in the habit of chewing my cabbage twice..... enjoy your myth....you obviously need it.


 
seriously give me your most convincing evidence i will take the one thing and research it. If your right your right if not then i will keep looking for evidence to prove christianity/god is fake.


----------



## CrackerJax (Aug 24, 2009)

Just drift back and take your pick....they are all valid


----------



## wyteboi (Aug 25, 2009)

BOOM WHOMP said:


> i never really start threads on this forum but i figured i could stir up the pot. I grew up in jesuit schools all my life and i had many biology teachers that supported the big bang theory over the creation story which was always confusing because i also had theology classes with priests that belived the creation story. i find now in my young adulthood that i belive in the big bang theory based on evolution and basically darwinism as a whole. I would like to hear some other peoples thoughts on the subject. I realize it's a touchy subject but its just a question.


I *HAVE to *go with faith on this one! my grandmommy, grandpa, and mama died telling me to never lose faith ....so i just cant.... no matter what science brings (which contradicts myself on the 9/11 thing, but hey i will be first to admit it) I believe that whatever YOU believe in is FINE. 
just had to drop in on this one.


----------



## CrackerJax (Aug 25, 2009)

I can dig that Wyte.... keepin it real for the fond memories. Understandable. i get the sense that you don't believe it word for word, or am I wrong?


Here's a tip for the religious of heart. If your religion flies in the face of accepted scientific doctrine...... psst...it isn't the science that is in error. Make the adjustment and keep your comfort, and recognize it for what it truly is.... a comfort.


----------



## fish601 (Aug 25, 2009)

CrackerJax said:


> I can dig that Wyte.... keepin it real for the fond memories. Understandable. i get the sense that you don't believe it word for word, or am I wrong?
> 
> 
> Here's a tip for the religious of heart. If your religion flies in the face of accepted scientific doctrine...... psst...it isn't the science that is in error. Make the adjustment and keep your comfort, and recognize it for what it truly is.... a comfort.


its a good thing the bible and science agree


----------



## CrackerJax (Aug 25, 2009)

Yah, sure they do.... keep dreamin


----------



## fish601 (Aug 25, 2009)

show where they disagree


----------



## fish601 (Aug 25, 2009)

craker do you look forward to the future, have hopes and goals?


----------



## CrackerJax (Aug 25, 2009)

Absolutely I have goals, but I don't count on the future...one day at a time...with appreciation at the end of every one.


----------



## Mr.KushMan (Aug 25, 2009)

They disagree with almost absolute correspondence. They bible tells of creation, of the earth and human beings, Adam and Eve folklore, dinosaurs lived on the earth at the same time as people, all kinds of psychotic fucking stories, and the promise of a spirit, or something similar and an afterlife, that may or may not be in your best interest. 

But yeah they are fucking in complete discordance. Please just rationalize, this is something I have read just recently. People used to think the Earth was flat, and people that said, 'the Earth was round', were thought of a crazy people, then science was able to prove that the earth was indeed round. Then there is the soul which is the equivalent of the flat-earth-consciousness, then science was able to tell us why we are like we are. Ok, Understand. The 'soul' is simple a biological trick that we play on ourselves.

Peace


----------



## fish601 (Aug 25, 2009)

poor guy


----------



## CrackerJax (Aug 25, 2009)

His eyes are wide open....


----------



## NCBF (Aug 26, 2009)

fish601 said:


> poor guy



So, in this Bible, it encourages to judge one another of there beliefs???? As by saying, "poor guy", do you imply he is going to hell??
Is being judgmental a sin?? If it isn't it should be added to the list. But wait, if you confess your sins to a preacher, you get to start all over again??


----------



## Sure Shot (Aug 26, 2009)

Better not get into a wreck before confession or your hellbound, right?


----------



## CrackerJax (Aug 26, 2009)

Anyone remember Limbo? Where all the unbaptized babies go!  Holey Moley, that one always cracks me up.... Hang on, I gotta fire up some hash here. 

Whew... okay....Limbo.... boy the afterlife sure is compartmentalized  I hope they hand out maps or something.


----------



## fish601 (Aug 26, 2009)

Roman catholic.... about to offend some people but i do not believe roman catholics are christian. if a roman catholic believes in the official roman catholic teaching on salvation, then they are not a christian, the official roman catholic position is contrary to scripture!


----------



## jfgordon1 (Aug 26, 2009)

CrackerJax said:


> Anyone remember Limbo? Where all the unbaptized babies go!  Holey Moley, that one always cracks me up.... Hang on, I gotta fire up some hash here.
> 
> Whew... okay....Limbo.... boy the afterlife sure is compartmentalized  I hope they hand out maps or something.


That's just one of many things that crack me up about religion.. always get a good chuckle when i pass those giant crosses in peoples yard.


----------



## CrackerJax (Aug 26, 2009)

fish601 said:


> Roman catholic.... about to offend some people but i do not believe roman catholics are christian. if a roman catholic believes in the official roman catholic teaching on salvation, then they are not a christian, the official roman catholic position is contrary to scripture!


Take your time and think that one through again. There's a giant gaping hole of logic in there. Take a look....



jfgordon1 said:


> That's just one of many things that crack me up about religion.. always get a good chuckle when i pass those giant crosses in peoples yard.


There was a movie quite awhile ago starring Peter O'Toole and he's a bit of a nut, but very wealthy so...eccentric. At some point in the movie.... hah! i just remembered the name... RULING CLASS. So at some point he has a HUGE cross installed in the main parlor room. He thought he was Jesus and when he got stressed he would throw himself up there...... over the top stuff!  check it out....


----------



## fish601 (Aug 27, 2009)

CrackerJax said:


> Take your time and think that one through again. There's a giant gaping hole of logic in there. Take a look.......


 
i looked and everything looks good to me


----------



## Sure Shot (Aug 27, 2009)

fish601 said:


> i looked and everything looks good to me


Christians and Catholics alike, originate from Jews.
Judaism originated from a bunch of people proclaiming that their god was the strongest and every body else will die if they don't believe it!!
They even wrote it down!!!
They said that god was an entity leading them through life and telling them their future and protecting them.
Now if only this same entity could show up for say 5 mins.
Maybe push a couple buttons on his little experiment we call Earth.
The entire world would overwhelmingly be unified in faith.


Only then.........., would I "believe".


----------



## Anonymiss1969 (Aug 27, 2009)

fish601 said:


> prove the bible wrong i am willing to change beliefs


You only say this because it can't be disproven because the bible was written by a few pricks that are too old to "remember" accurately. I think you are extremely naive to look at a fantastic story (a story is *ALL* the bible is) and believe it just because a bunch of other idiots believe it.

Do you really think people lived to be 900 years old? You are not willing to change beliefs because they are so deeply hard wired into your brain that you are not willing to look at basic facts and _scientific proof, _such as the earth being millions (or is it billions? for any geologists out there), which contradicts the bible.


----------



## jfgordon1 (Aug 27, 2009)

CrackerJax said:


> There was a movie quite awhile ago starring Peter O'Toole and he's a bit of a nut, but very wealthy so...eccentric. At some point in the movie.... hah! i just remembered the name... RULING CLASS. So at some point he has a HUGE cross installed in the main parlor room. He thought he was Jesus and when he got stressed he would throw himself up there...... over the top stuff!  check it out....


haa is it a comedy ?


----------



## Anonymiss1969 (Aug 27, 2009)

fish601 said:


> Roman catholic.... about to offend some people but i do not believe roman catholics are christian. if a roman catholic believes in the official roman catholic teaching on salvation, then they are not a christian, the official roman catholic position is contrary to scripture!


Maybe you should educate yourself on the history of the religion called Christianity...

Christianity in Europe was first split into two groups: 1) ROMAN CATHOLIC, 2)Orthodox. Every other popular Christian religion (Baptist, Lutheran, Anglican, Protestant, etc.) CAME FROM ROMAN CATHOLIC. Whatever religion it is that you are a part of was developed in Europe between the dark ages and the Renaissance... Isn't that kind of strange, seeing as it is a religion that is supposed to be thousands of years old AND a religion that you are claiming "isn't Christian" is most likely the form of Christianity that yours is most likely a revision of?

Quit listening only to "facts" that you want to hear and start looking at both sides of the argument.


----------



## hanimmal (Aug 27, 2009)

They pretty much covered a lot of the inconstant parts of the differs of the christians vs catholic thing.

But as far as the science goes it is hard to tell what you believe in.


It is hard because you may believe that there could be evolution, or that god popped Adam out all in one shot. You could believe that there were dinosaurs in eden, or you could just look at that as a story. 

You could believe in hell, or you could chose not to.

But the problem all comes down to if you chose to believe what you want in the bible and not take it verbatum it is selective reasoning. If you believe that it is the 'word of god' you should not be able to place what you believe to be true in it because it all has to be true. But that runs into the issue of it having so many variations between all the bibles out there, so which is the word of god? For the most original you need to go to the latin, which means the catholic church which you said are not christians. 

So if you are going to chose to believe in the bible as being fact, you already have disregarded it as such, by not following it verbatum.

But that as it is, there is still room for god in the real world. 

Just not the bible so much.

So not knowing what you believe or not, a place where science and the bible conflict...

Someone being dead for a few days and coming back to life. There are fish, algae, ect that go into a hybernation and are for all intensive purposes dead. But not people. Maybe jesus was in a coma, but the bible explicitly says that he was dead. So that is a major science/bible conflict.


----------



## fish601 (Aug 27, 2009)

Anonymiss1969 said:


> Do you really think people lived to be 900 years old? You are not willing to change beliefs because they are so deeply hard wired into your brain that you are not willing to look at basic facts and _scientific proof, _such as the earth being millions (or is it billions? for any geologists out there), which contradicts the bible.


 
why would the bible make stuff up about how old people were? 
i was atheist before i became a christian so the whole wired into my brain stuff is silly.
*i am really asking someone to give me some solid scientific proof really i am asking please i would love to go back to atheism its so much simpler*


----------



## fish601 (Aug 27, 2009)

hanimmal said:


> Someone being dead for a few days and coming back to life. There are fish, algae, ect that go into a hybernation and are for all intensive purposes dead. But not people. Maybe jesus was in a coma, but the bible explicitly says that he was dead. So that is a major science/bible conflict.


that makes sence untill you realize that God who creaded people can if he wanted to bring people back to life.


----------



## fish601 (Aug 27, 2009)

Anonymiss1969 said:


> Maybe you should educate yourself on the history of the religion called Christianity...
> 
> Christianity in Europe was first split into two groups: 1) ROMAN CATHOLIC, 2)Orthodox. Every other popular Christian religion (Baptist, Lutheran, Anglican, Protestant, etc.) CAME FROM ROMAN CATHOLIC. Whatever religion it is that you are a part of was developed in Europe between the dark ages and the Renaissance... Isn't that kind of strange, seeing as it is a religion that is supposed to be thousands of years old AND a religion that you are claiming "isn't Christian" is most likely the form of Christianity that yours is most likely a revision of?
> 
> Quit listening only to "facts" that you want to hear and start looking at both sides of the argument.


 
I am willing to listen to "facts" that is why i am talking about it.

i have researched catholics a pretty good amount enuf to know that they Do not believe what the bible teaches.


----------



## fish601 (Aug 27, 2009)

Sure Shot said:


> Christians and Catholics alike, originate from Jews.
> Judaism originated from a bunch of people proclaiming that their god was the strongest and every body else will die if they don't believe it!!
> They even wrote it down!!!
> They said that god was an entity leading them through life and telling them their future and protecting them.
> ...


 
your knowledge is amazing 

sorry god didnt do it the way you wanted


----------



## Anonymiss1969 (Aug 27, 2009)

fish601 said:


> why would the bible make stuff up about how old people were?
> i was atheist before i became a christian so the whole wired into my brain stuff is silly.
> *i am really asking someone to give me some solid scientific proof really i am asking please i would love to go back to atheism its so much simpler*


Are you fucking serious? The Bible doesn't make up anything. It's not some magical tome that filled its own pages. Humans wrote it. _Humans_ made up stuff about how old people were, not the Bible. Humans pride themselves on creativity and it seems to me that the Bible was a piece (or many pieces put together into the Old and New Testament) of creative writing that you are now tricked into believing.


----------



## fish601 (Aug 27, 2009)

Anonymiss1969 said:


> Are you fucking serious? The Bible doesn't make up anything. It's not some magical tome that filled its own pages. Humans wrote it. _Humans_ made up stuff about how old people were, not the Bible. Humans pride themselves on creativity and it seems to me that the Bible was a piece (or many pieces put together into the Old and New Testament) of creative writing that you are now tricked into believing.


 
very convincing  anyone else wana give it a try?


----------



## Anonymiss1969 (Aug 28, 2009)

fish601 said:


> very convincing  anyone else wana give it a try?


I wasn't trying to disprove anything in that post. Just showing how stupid you are.


----------



## hanimmal (Aug 28, 2009)

> that makes sence untill you realize that God who creaded people can if he wanted to bring people back to life.


That is why there is nothing that will ever be proof enough to a true believer. No matter what you will say prove it to me, but when something that goes against all natural laws and therefore proven to be wrong, the gods will card is pulled.

It superceeds all logic and reason, and that is why religion stands the test of time, because it doesn't have to be proven, it is believed.

Here is another for you:

It is scientifically impossible to have a body of a lion with several serpents heads attached and eagle wings on them.


----------



## CrackerJax (Aug 28, 2009)

fish601 said:


> Roman catholic.... about to offend some people but i do not believe roman catholics are christian. if a roman catholic believes in the official roman catholic teaching on salvation, then they are not a christian, the official roman catholic position is contrary to scripture!


Didn't catch the flaw? When the Bible was put together, which church put it together and actually wrote and edited it? Which church?


----------



## Brazko (Aug 28, 2009)

You guys are Getting PunK'D....


----------



## CrackerJax (Aug 28, 2009)

He thinks the ones who edited and compiled the book he worships with *aren't* Christians. 

Fruit of the poisonous tree? That would make Fish...... Adam? 

Great.... Fish has gone ahead and screwed mankind all over again......


----------



## Stoney McFried (Aug 28, 2009)

I think fish is really just trolling.It's not our job to disprove your faith to you...you have to PROVE it to us, since you believe so staunchly in it.And you can't use the Bible to prove the Bible.And....GO!


----------



## Farmer Pat (Aug 28, 2009)

it all depends on how far down the rabbit hole you wish to travel


----------



## CrackerJax (Aug 28, 2009)

Using logic of believers is pointless...... they can't recognize it.


----------



## Sure Shot (Aug 28, 2009)

Feckit....... All dogs *do* go to heaven!!


----------



## CrackerJax (Aug 28, 2009)

Dogs *are* heaven. Some folks just can't recognize it when they see it...


----------



## wiseguy316 (Aug 28, 2009)

what's god's take on growing illegal drugs? and for the holy rollers next time the collection basket comes around put a top cola in? that's right they only want your money not your herbs. religion is a cult and no different than a gang


----------



## CrackerJax (Aug 28, 2009)

Well to be fair to religion, the STATE says it's illegal and only for the last 80 years or so. Before that weed was perfectly available without rebuke from society. It's a societal issue, more than a religious issue. pretty sure all those folks back then were trippin on Halo's...it's the only way to explain the craziness of the Bible.


----------



## wiseguy316 (Aug 28, 2009)

I know they speak of fine herbs in it. You can believe anything as long as you give them your money. That is what makes a good member of the church. lmfao


----------



## jfgordon1 (Aug 28, 2009)

CrackerJax said:


> Dogs *are* heaven. Some folks just can't recognize it when they see it...


well, I can't prove that's not true. so it MUST be true


----------



## CrackerJax (Aug 28, 2009)

jfgordon1 said:


> well, I can't prove that's not true. so it MUST be true



What's dog spelled backwards?  No one can tell me that's a coincidence.


----------



## Green Cross (Aug 28, 2009)

jfgordon1 said:


> well, I can't prove that's not true. so it MUST be true


Miracles have been recorded throughout history

Medical miracles, and putting ones faith in science is a relatively new phenomenon


----------



## Green Cross (Aug 28, 2009)

CrackerJax said:


> What's dog spelled backwards?  No one can tell me that's a coincidence.


Since you know it all  Is there a soul or spirit, and if there is more than just the physical, what happens to the soul after physical death?


----------



## wiseguy316 (Aug 28, 2009)

IMO... ones spirit and soul are contained and controlled by the brain, after death the soul and spirit are dead also


----------



## Green Cross (Aug 28, 2009)

Well then you must fear death more than someone who has faith in an afterlife

Where did the intellect - in humans -originate? Science can't answer me this lol


----------



## wiseguy316 (Aug 28, 2009)

what's to fear , when that time comes the game is over.


----------



## Green Cross (Aug 28, 2009)

wiseguy316 said:


> what's to fear , when that time comes the game is over.


Your days are numbered. I believe mine haven't even started


----------



## wiseguy316 (Aug 28, 2009)

intellect in humans comes from trial and error


----------



## wiseguy316 (Aug 28, 2009)

I just noticed your in the bible belt...lol


----------



## Mr. Binx (Aug 28, 2009)

Science can be perceived as a religion, but I wouldn't confuse it with christianity


----------



## wiseguy316 (Aug 28, 2009)

God said, let there was light, and there was. No the sun came up.


----------



## CrackerJax (Aug 28, 2009)

There's no soul in evidence beyond ppl talking about having one so..... I can't answer the unknown. see? I don't know it all.  Kind of why I don't follow religious doctrine....they don't either, but fill in the gaps anyway, lacking any evidence what so ever. Wishing is all it is, but very necessary if you want to control a population.


----------



## Sure Shot (Aug 28, 2009)

Green Cross said:


> Miracles have been recorded throughout history
> 
> Medical miracles, and putting ones faith in science is a relatively new phenomenon


*What are these miracles you speak of??*


AN infinitesimal knowledge base, readily accessible world wide is _the_ relatively new phenomenon. This has opened more peoples minds to the true dynamics of religion.
For instance N. Koreans worship their leader as GOD. In fact,
"Juche is the only religion North Korean people can have."
What happened to GOD sending an angel down to destroy them?
Because we all remember what GOD did to Egyptians....


The death of of the first born by the angel of death was directed against the gods of Egypt whom the Egyptians worshiped! The Egyptians believed that these gods protected men and animals.
this was an offense to God who is the only God! The very choice of each family died as proof that no god of Egypt had power to stand against the God of the Hebrews. 
God proved Himself greater than the gods of Egypt.No god or man can withstand His power!

My GOD is bigger then your god


----------



## wiseguy316 (Aug 28, 2009)

I think he is busy praying for me. Pray for my clones while your at it.


----------



## fish601 (Aug 28, 2009)

CrackerJax said:


> Didn't catch the flaw? When the Bible was put together, which church put it together and actually wrote and edited it? Which church?


you are so far off in this subject its really not worth talkn about


----------



## CrackerJax (Aug 28, 2009)

I'm right on target and that's what's bothering you. Your only source is the Bible... and the ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH put it together. Now you say THEY are wrong and not the Christians? They INVENTED the Christian Bible!


----------



## Anonymiss1969 (Aug 28, 2009)

Green Cross said:


> Well then you must fear death more than someone who has faith in an afterlife
> 
> Where did the intellect - in humans -originate? Science can't answer me this lol


Why does someone who doesn't believe in god have to fear death? I have no belief in god and no fear of death. I take comfort in the fact that when I do die, it will be nothing but blank, other than the long dream I will have when my brain fires every chemical it can in order to lighten my suffering.

People practice christianity because they are afraid of god and of going to hell. There would be no need to worship god if you weren't afraid of going to hell now would there?


----------



## Anonymiss1969 (Aug 28, 2009)

CrackerJax said:


> I'm right on target and that's what's bothering you. Your only source is the Bible... and the ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH put it together. Now you say THEY are wrong and not the Christians? They INVENTED the Christian Bible!


Fish is just an ignorant fanatic that knows nothing more about religion than what he's been told.

It's kinda like the people that are totally against marijuana because they grew up being told that it was bad for them. They don't know any better.
*pats fish on the head* I forgive you for being ignorant. It's not your fault.


----------



## CrackerJax (Aug 28, 2009)

Anonymiss.... Green has it backwards. It's the fear of death which drives *religion*, not atheism.


----------



## g00sEgg (Aug 28, 2009)

Anonymiss1969 said:


> Fish is just an ignorant fanatic that knows nothing more about religion than what he's been told.
> 
> It's kinda like the people that are totally against marijuana because they grew up being told that it was bad for them. They don't know any better.
> *pats fish on the head* I forgive you for being ignorant. It's not your fault.


I concur. On all these threads...Fish is always there to stir things up...then he ask's people to prove things...and when they do he basically just ignores it. There's no getting through to these people. But in the end...it doesn't even matter.


----------



## Stoney McFried (Aug 28, 2009)

I always find a good fart sends them running.Look out.I had chili.


----------



## CrackerJax (Aug 28, 2009)

No, I don't post for Fish's sake. I post for all the ppl who read these threads, but don't comment. They deserve to hear a bit of sanity.


----------



## IndicaFatnHeavy (Aug 28, 2009)

my personal opinion is that there is no god... people are scared to die, and need to feel that relief in knowing that they can live for ever...

my opinion.. and i know its gunna start a hate spam.. so go away, hate


----------



## fish601 (Aug 28, 2009)

CrackerJax said:


> I'm right on target and that's what's bothering you. Your only source is the Bible... and the ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH put it together. Now you say THEY are wrong and not the Christians? They INVENTED the Christian Bible!


 
just because you say it doesnt make it true


----------



## fish601 (Aug 28, 2009)

Anonymiss1969 said:


> Fish is just an ignorant fanatic that knows nothing more about religion than what he's been told.
> 
> It's kinda like the people that are totally against marijuana because they grew up being told that it was bad for them. They don't know any better.
> *pats fish on the head* I forgive you for being ignorant. It's not your fault.


only what i have been told? we all know what we know because we have been told. we wasnt born with the knowledge.
I have researched it, you dont know my story.


----------



## fish601 (Aug 28, 2009)

g00sEgg said:


> I concur. On all these threads...Fish is always there to stir things up...then he ask's people to prove things...and when they do he basically just ignores it. There's no getting through to these people. But in the end...it doesn't even matter.


 
i only want to know if christianity is real
and i cant talk to christians sure they will say its real but all anyone says is its not, but never giving evidence.


----------



## Green Cross (Aug 28, 2009)

fish601 said:


> i only want to know if christianity is real
> and i cant talk to christians sure they will say its real but all anyone says is its not, but never giving evidence.


You would probably argue the theory of evolution is real, because you have "faith" that it is real, right? LOL Prove that it's real and I'll believe we're all here by accident.

And don't forget to explain living fossils that haven't evolved for millions of years


----------



## Sure Shot (Aug 28, 2009)

fish601 said:


> i only want to know if christianity is real
> and i cant talk to christians sure they will say its real but all anyone says is its not, but never giving evidence.


How come N. Korea has not suffered the ten plagues?
Does not the complete absence of God, prove the complete absence of God?


----------



## fish601 (Aug 28, 2009)

Sure Shot said:


> How come N. Korea has not suffered the ten plagues?
> Does not the complete absence of God, prove the complete absence of God?


why do you think god is suppost to do something to n korea?


----------



## mipbar (Aug 28, 2009)

"Science over Faith?"

"Facts over Fiction!"


----------



## Green Cross (Aug 28, 2009)

mipbar said:


> "Science over Faith?"
> 
> "Facts over Fiction!"


Well than why do only 38% of scientists NOT believe in God?


----------



## Anonymiss1969 (Aug 28, 2009)

fish601 said:


> only what i have been told? we all know what we know because we have been told. we wasnt born with the knowledge.
> I have researched it, you dont know my story.


Apparently you "wasn't born" with, nor have you acquired, "the knowledge". We don't "know because we have been told". Any good school will have you experimenting and learning _by doing_, not by just reading a text book.

I don't know that weed gets me high because I was told it gets me high. I know it gets me high because I have experienced it. If you told me that weed didn't get me high I would disagree because I have experienced it and I *know* that it does.

You don't *know *that "god exists" because you have not experienced god. You've only been told by an out dated book and other misinformed individuals that god exists.

Anyway... Keep on posting your ignorant views so I can keep making you look like a fool and you can pretend like I'm not.


----------



## Anonymiss1969 (Aug 28, 2009)

Green Cross said:


> Well than why do only 38% of scientists NOT believe in God?


Well, is that 38% of the scientists that study our origins, or just all scientists? Many people are taught to believe in a God before they ever decide they want to be a scientist.

I was once told by a geology teacher that science and christianity can co-exist and when I asked why there are rocks millions of years old (which conflicts with the word of the bible because, apparently, the earth isn't close to being that old) he answered, "God put them here to amuse us." What a cop out, IMO.


----------



## Sure Shot (Aug 28, 2009)

fish601 said:


> why do you think god is suppost to do something to n korea?


I guess the Koreans are not important like the Hebrews, my bad.


----------



## Anonymiss1969 (Aug 28, 2009)

fish601 said:


> why do you think god is suppost to do something to n korea?


Because they are unbelievers and must be stricken down! Right? God doesn't like people that worship other gods. The Egyptians got fucked over, according to that story book christianity is based on, so whats up with the lack of punishment by god in a time when the religious fanatics could use it to convert others after seeing the horrible plagues that one will be afflicted with?


----------



## Anonymiss1969 (Aug 28, 2009)

fish601 said:


> i only want to know if christianity is real
> and i cant talk to christians sure they will say its real but all anyone says is its not, but never giving evidence.


No one needs to disprove anything that has never been proven in the first place.

You couldn't go to the press and say, "I can fly! If you don't believe me, then disprove me," which is what you're saying when you want others to disprove christianity.


----------



## PadawanBater (Aug 28, 2009)

Anonymiss1969 said:


> I was once told by a geology teacher that science and christianity can co-exist and when I asked why there are rocks millions of years old (which conflicts with the word of the bible because, apparently, the earth isn't close to being that old) he answered, "God put them here to amuse us." What a cop out, IMO.


...and that's when I would have walked out of that 'science' classroom...

Religion is so clearly a bunch of false promises, maybe I shouldn't be believing in mankind as much as I do if 85% of the rest of the population believes in magic..


----------



## Anonymiss1969 (Aug 28, 2009)

PadawanBater said:


> ...and that's when I would have walked out of that 'science' classroom...
> 
> Religion is so clearly a bunch of false promises, maybe I shouldn't be believing in mankind as much as I do if 85% of the rest of the population believes in magic..


It was more of a "one on one" convo we were having... I don't know if he was serious or not, though, because he changed grades as I did from 6th to 10th so I had him every year and he was also always telling me that the earth was flat so I would try to disprove him.

Cool guy. He may be one of those foolish people like fish, though.


----------



## Brazko (Aug 28, 2009)

Anonymiss1969 said:


> You don't *know *that "god exists" because you have not experienced god. .


I'm Sorry, but, You don't *Know* this..


----------



## Anonymiss1969 (Aug 28, 2009)

Brazko said:


> I'm Sorry, but, You don't *Know* this..


Just as I explained with the "I can fly" post, you'll have to *prove* that you've experienced a god before I have to disprove it.

Did you know I can become invisible at will and read your thoughts? Disprove me and I'll agree with you that I can't.
Doesn't that sound kinda dumb? That's the kind of logic your using to back your beliefs.


----------



## Brazko (Aug 28, 2009)

Anonymiss1969 said:


> Just as I explained with the "I can fly" post, you'll have to *prove* that you've experienced a god before I have to disprove it.
> 
> Did you know I can become invisible at will and read your thoughts? Disprove me and I'll agree with you that I can't.
> Doesn't that sound kinda dumb? That's the kind of logic your using to back your beliefs.


 
No, I'll keep it simple for You,

You don't *Know* 

and I'll prove you can't read my thoughts,

What will my next post be, I'll give you 24hrs, clocks Ticking


----------



## PadawanBater (Aug 28, 2009)

Brazko said:


> No, I'll keep it simple for You,
> 
> You don't *Know*
> 
> ...


 
Brazko, will you at least acknowledge the point being made? 

- you state your religion is true, even the definition of truth, that it is fact... the burden of proof is on you. There isn't anything proving any religion one way or the other. Atheists sit in the default position, that is disbelief. Until you show me something proving your religion or your God exists, there is no need for anyone to disprove it, as that's an illogical task. It would be like you asking me to pick the blue object out of a group of red ones... 

Do you understand the atheists position?

Is it up to us to disprove unicorns, fairies, wizards...ect? I havn't been everywhere in the universe, so who knows if they're out there? How can I say they do not exist if I havn't been everywhere there is to be? Same standard of evidence goes for any god. You're the one making the claim, I'm not out there starting off by saying "God does not exist", you're saying "God does exist", what I'm saying is "prove it" - the burden of proof lies with you my friend.


----------



## Anonymiss1969 (Aug 28, 2009)

Brazko said:


> No, I'll keep it simple for You,
> 
> You don't *Know*
> 
> ...


_Of course_ I can't read your mind over the internet. Duh. _Everyone knows that_. You have yet to disprove that I can become invisible or that I can read thoughts.

Edit: Apparently Brazko doesn't understand that I'm trying to sound as stupid as every other person who uses this logic (ie people who argue for religion). Its obvious that I can't read thoughts or turn invisible, just like its obvious that there is no god.


----------



## PadawanBater (Aug 28, 2009)

Anonymiss1969 said:


> _Of course_ I can't read your mind over the internet. Duh. _Everyone knows that_. You have yet to disprove that I can become invisible or that I can read thoughts.
> 
> Edit: Apparently Brazko doesn't understand that I'm trying to sound as stupid as every other person who uses this logic (ie people who argue for religion). Its obvious that I can't read thoughts or turn invisible, just like its obvious that there is no god.


 
Good analogy.

Brazko, do you see where we are coming from? Why the reasoning you used doesn't make sense? 

If you don't understand it, let us know. I don't understand a lot of shit, there's nothing wrong with that. This isn't a 'holier than thou' kind of situation, it's one guy.. two guys with A1969, seriously trying to explain these ideas.

Your point was that atheists do not *know* if God exists for sure, there for it's illogical for any atheist to say "God does not exist" - something I pretty much agree with, and is why I walk the agnostic atheist line. My position is "I havn't seen anything to conclusively say that God, let alone any of the God's mankind has come up with over the past few thousand years, exists. So based on that, I can conclude that any real, tangible, intervening kind of God (the kind ALL the scriptures in every religious document talks about) does *not* exist, as there has never been any kind of intervention by said God, ever, not once. 


What evidence do you have to support your religion, Brazko? Why don't we start with that first?


----------



## IndicaFatnHeavy (Aug 28, 2009)

im atheist, but my mom is very spiritual and religious..... the only times ive ever thought ive connected with god/ even dead relatives was when i was on psychedelic drugs... acid and shrooms.


----------



## Brazko (Aug 28, 2009)

Anonymiss1969 said:


> _Of course_ I can't read your mind over the internet. Duh. _Everyone knows that_. You have yet to disprove that I can become invisible or that I can read thoughts.
> 
> Edit: Apparently Brazko doesn't understand that I'm trying to sound as stupid as every other person who uses this logic (ie people who argue for religion). Its obvious that I can't read thoughts or turn invisible, just like its obvious that there is no god.


Apparently Huh, ..Wrong!!

Here's the answer; I don't Know what my next post would be, the answer for you was, You don't know...Instead you decided to dig your hole deeper, when the answer if not obvious, was staring you all the time right in your Face. But you chose to reason out what the answer was, logically for it to make sense to you within the limitations of your thought process.... You chose this path, I simply said that You don't Know, but you was b'littled by your own arrogance to prove me one way or, the other, when there was nothing to prove except admitting the one thing you are so proud of, You don't *Know*

This is Why (ie people like you/christians alike) are cut from the same Clothe...

And there is no need for You to prove you're Will of iinvisibilty, I can make you disappear at will, Vamoose son of a B'

nothing personal, it just sounded good 

Vamoose



PadawanBater said:


> Brazko, will you at least acknowledge the point being made?
> 
> - you state your religion is true, even the definition of truth, that it is fact... the burden of proof is on you. There isn't anything proving any religion one way or the other. Atheists sit in the default position, that is disbelief. Until you show me something proving your religion or your God exists, there is no need for anyone to disprove it, as that's an illogical task. It would be like you asking me to pick the blue object out of a group of red ones...
> 
> ...


To acknowledge the point being made would be faulty, because the statement was faulty, although I Understand..

My religion is not one of personal belonging, but part of my being, Part of who I AM, just like my buddha nature, Pagan Nature, Rhasta nature, My Atheist nature(b/c I don't know 4 fact, but doesn't mean I AM not a witness) ad infinitum with every thing this Universe has Made me..

I stated somewhere, of course, that Chirst is the Truth and the Way, NOt the only Way...Show me where his words are to be faulty, un True.... Son of the Father Truuuuuuuuue

The burden of proof is On me to prove to you something that I don't believe, however, you choose to disbelieve in it...
So instead of accepting that all Christians, or people from any faith that speak of a God, don't infer Him to be some Sky God sitting above eating nachos in front of his Magnificent 10galaxy wide Solar reduction T.V. Set, that we have to prove what you wish to disprove, instead of seeking the answer as to why, so many don't believe in this Deity, but yet say God is Real.....

Everything that is needed to prove God is Real, have already been presented to you, in Science/ Religions around the World, it is up to you to put away your Childish ways

I don't claim unicorns, wizards, Godzilla, fairies, Santa Claus and what not, In a unspoken general sense of what we read in books and see in movies...But they do have their place in some reality, just not the one you wish them proven to be, and yes, You are right who know's somewhere out there maybe, I don't know...

So I can only be a lighthouse to show you the Way, if you want Proof, follow the Light, and when you get there you decide the existence of a God or NOt, it is not my Burden to bare, 

Nighty Night Gurls/Fellas


----------



## Brazko (Aug 28, 2009)

PadawanBater said:


> Good analogy.
> 
> Brazko, do you see where we are coming from? Why the reasoning you used doesn't make sense?
> 
> ...


Sorry I was typing a response, and No that was not a good Analogy, A good shake and Wiggle, but Not a Good Analogy

and I have NO evidence to Support Your Belief

Goodnight, Catch You on the flip side


----------



## Anonymiss1969 (Aug 28, 2009)

Brazko said:


> ...but you *was* b'littled by your own arrogance to prove me one way or....


I really can't take your posts seriously when you use "was" instead of "were". You kind of discredit yourself.



Brazko said:


> Sorry I was typing a response, and No that was not a good Analogy, A good shake and Wiggle, but Not a Good Analogy
> 
> and I have NO evidence to Support Your Belief
> 
> Goodnight, Catch You on the flip side


What the fuck does shake and wiggle mean?


----------



## PadawanBater (Aug 28, 2009)

Brazko said:


> Sorry I was typing a response, and No that was not a good Analogy, A good shake and Wiggle, but Not a Good Analogy
> 
> and I have NO evidence to Support Your Belief
> 
> Goodnight, Catch You on the flip side


 
You have no evidence to support my 'disbelief'? - well, ok, that isn't what I asked for.

I don't 'disbelieve' in anything.. that really doesn't make much sense to me.. how would one 'disbelieve' in something? You make it seem like I'm believing the absense of something with no proof because, well... I already believe it does not exist, how would I provide evidence or proof of something _not_ existing? Show you an empty box and say "see, I told you that thing doesn't exist!"... rofl!

I assumed you were a Christian, from reading through a few pages of the thread, maybe that was wrong, correct me if it was. From that, what I was saying was that there is absolutely no way for the biblical God, the Christian God, Jesus Christ, etc.. to have existed the way Christianity and the bible lays it out.


----------



## Brazko (Aug 29, 2009)

Anonymiss1969 said:


> I really can't take your posts seriously when you use "was" instead of "were". You kind of discredit yourself.
> 
> 
> 
> What the fuck does shake and wiggle mean?


 
You lost KomPreHintion by me use of Was R Were Improperly, OK, I'm Discredited



Main Entry: *1shake*
Pronunciation: \_&#712;_sh&#257;k\
Function: _verb_
Inflected Form(s): *shook* \_&#712;_sh_u&#775;_k\; *shak·en* \_&#712;_sh&#257;-k&#601;n\; *shak·ing*
Etymology: Middle English, from Old English _sceacan;_ akin to Old Norse _skaka_ to shake
Date: before 12th century
_intransitive verb_ *1* *:* to move irregularly to and fro
*2* *:* to vibrate especially as the result of a blow or shock
*3* *:* to tremble as a result of physical or emotional disturbance <_shook_ with fear>
*4* *:* to experience a state of instability *:* totter
*5* *:* to briskly move something to and fro or up and down especially in order to mix
*6* *:* to clasp hands





Main Entry: *1wig·gle*
Pronunciation: \_&#712;_wi-g&#601;l\
Function: _verb_
Inflected Form(s): *wig·gled*; *wig·gling* \-g(&#601li&#331;\
Etymology: Middle English _wiglen,_ from or akin to Middle Dutch or Middle Low German _wiggelen_ to totter; akin to Old English _wegan_ to move  more at way
Date: 13th century
_intransitive verb_ *1* *:* to move to and fro with quick jerky or shaking motions *:* jiggle
*2* *:* to proceed with or as if with twisting and turning movements *:* wriggle_transitive verb_ *:* to cause to wiggle

Yu Pic



PadawanBater said:


> You have no evidence to support my 'disbelief'? - well, ok, that isn't what I asked for.
> 
> I don't 'disbelieve' in anything.. that really doesn't make much sense to me.. how would one 'disbelieve' in something? You make it seem like I'm believing the absense of something with no proof because, well... I already believe it does not exist, how would I provide evidence or proof of something _not_ existing? Show you an empty box and say "see, I told you that thing doesn't exist!"... rofl!
> 
> I assumed you were a Christian, from reading through a few pages of the thread, maybe that was wrong, correct me if it was. From that, what I was saying was that there is absolutely no way for the biblical God, the Christian God, Jesus Christ, etc.. to have existed the way Christianity and the bible lays it out.


Ok, if that is what you Believe....that sits well with me Too.... Same Clothe, different Dye

NO assumptions, I'm a Christian


----------



## zorkan (Aug 29, 2009)

PadawanBater said:


> My position is "I havn't seen anything to conclusively say that God, let alone any of the God's mankind has come up with over the past few thousand years, exists. So based on that, I can conclude that any real, tangible, intervening kind of God (the kind ALL the scriptures in every religious document talks about) does *not* exist, as there has never been any kind of intervention by said God, ever, not once.


 
Look at a tree


----------



## hanimmal (Aug 29, 2009)

> Well then you must fear death more than someone who has faith in an afterlife
> 
> Where did the intellect - in humans -originate? Science can't answer me this lol


Not at all. I actually take comfort in the reality of our world. Energy cannot be destroyed only changed. When I die my body is going to decompose and become apart of whatever feeds off of it, plants, animals , whatever. And eventually when the sun blows up or our solar system is ripped apart by colliding with another, we will all become part of that. So in reality we will always be a part of eachother and everything. There is room for God, just not the bibles definition of it.



> You would probably argue the theory of evolution is real, because you have "faith" that it is real, right? LOL Prove that it's real and I'll believe we're all here by accident.
> 
> And don't forget to explain living fossils that haven't evolved for millions of years


Gravity is a theory too by the way. 

Evolution does not mean that the species _has_ to change. Or else there would not be but a few different types of animals. The reason that you find living fossils is that they have survived the test of time. If a species dies out it is because it could not, but the family members that have evolved may have.

There is evolution everywhere. You can look at plants, animals, bugs, everything really and see it if you decide not to box yourself in. 

The DNA of almost all animals is about 98% the same. The basic building blocks for everything is there, it is just how the pieces are used to define how we develop. 



> Well than why do only 38% of scientists NOT believe in God?


According to christian sites you are wrong.

"About one out of every three scientists in the United States professed believing in God, a recent survey found." http://www.christianpost.com/article/20090716/survey-one-third-of-scientists-believe-in-god/index.html 

But that being said, not believing in god is not the same as not believing the Bible.


The natural state is not believing in the bible. We are not born thinking about verses and the ten comandments. It is taught to us. If we were born in a different part of the world, something else would have been used to teach us religion. Aetheism is not a belief. It is just the natural state. People have to be convinced that there is something else like christianity. 

Just like History. There may not have actually been an Abe Lincoln. Because I have never seen him. If I didn't read about him in books, see his pic on money, watch movies, ect I would never have even thought of him. But at least with him there are many things that back up the story other than people just telling us that angels whispered it to them.


----------



## guitarabuser (Aug 29, 2009)

BOOM WHOMP said:


> I would like to hear some other peoples thoughts on the subject. I realize it's a touchy subject but its just a question.


Check out "Genesis and the Big Bang". Written by Gerald Schroeder, an MIT physicist. The gist of it is that Big Bang and Creation are one and the same. The universe was "created" with the big bang. Timelines match up to the six days in the Bible when relativity is accounted for. 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sicqKbFhcq8http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sicqKbFhcq8


----------



## CrackerJax (Aug 29, 2009)

Religious folks have fallen into a sand trap of being continually discredited over and over again. This does not help your cause to try and use science to prove a myth.

Any science which indicates a flaw in the Bible is NOT GOOD SCIENCE. (evolution,age of the earth,etc.)

Any science which indicates a strength in the Bible is GOOD SCIENCE.

That's not the way it works in the real world of attaining truth. You can't run the equations backwards and remain a forward thinking person or group.

The more religion tries to use science to validate their myth...the more ridiculous they appear to the rest of us.


P.S. As for Gerald Schroeder, I can see why MIT kicked him to the curb after 7 years. No tenure there, just leave.


----------



## Anonymiss1969 (Aug 29, 2009)

zorkan said:


> Look at a tree


If by this post you mean that a tree is proof of god because of its complexities, you are a sad, lazy person. Because you don't know how it formed in the beginning, you instantly say that it was the work of god? Why not explore and find a legitimate reason instead of settling with a ridiculous one?


----------



## fish601 (Aug 29, 2009)

tell him why a tree is here


----------



## Green Cross (Aug 29, 2009)

fish601 said:


> tell him why a tree is here


Can science create a tree? no 

Science has created "the bomb" though

Science worship is funny


----------



## Anonymiss1969 (Aug 29, 2009)

Well, the tree fairy and the mammal fairy (fairies that are in charge of trees and mammals) got together and said, "Hey, why don't we make creatures that can help eachother. They can convert gases for eachother so they can survive and never have to worry about running out of the gas they require."

That's how it happened.

Doesn't that sound almost as ridiculous as a being who was bored and just decided to create a planet with a trees?

The point is I don't know _why _trees are here, but I'm not stupid enough to give up on looking for the answer and believe an illogical story.


----------



## Anonymiss1969 (Aug 29, 2009)

Green Cross said:


> Can science create a tree? no
> 
> Science has created "the bomb" though
> 
> Science worship is funny


Give it a few years, maybe decades. We're already able to manipulate genes (e.g. tomatoes that are spliced with arctic fish in order to cause the tomatoes to survive extreme cold) so I'm pretty sure its only a matter of time before "science creates a tree".

Edit: I would agree that it would be funny to worship science, but I don't think I've ever heard of anyone sacrificing animals or people for the sake of contemporary science, nor have I heard songs about how great science is from anyone that isn't trying to teach a child to enjoy it in a kindergarden class.


----------



## PadawanBater (Aug 29, 2009)

zorkan said:


> Look at a tree


 
That's not even worth replying to with a real answer, someone who would post that question doesn't want to know how trees got here.


----------



## Green Cross (Aug 29, 2009)

PadawanBater said:


> That's not even worth replying to with a real answer, someone who would post that question doesn't want to know how trees got here.


If you can't see the complexity of life on every level maybe you need to look closer. 

Science has never created anything as simple or beautiful as a tree, and the science crowd thinks all this happened by accident? 

that's like trying to prove the empire state building went up by accident.


----------



## PadawanBater (Aug 29, 2009)

Green Cross said:


> Can science create a tree? no
> 
> Science has created "the bomb" though
> 
> Science worship is funny


 
Go look up 'biological engineering'. That's exactly what those scientists do, create new structures and manipulate existing forms of life. 

We've created entirely new species of trees and plants, the modern banana for example is a direct result of scientific intervention. Go check how a wild banana looks and come back and tell me we can't change nature. Not to mention agriculture.. which not even modern science is a part of because it was established thousands of years ago as a useful farming technique... 

The logic you're using is this "complexity requires a designer" - you (zorkan... fuck it, I guess I will respond to it after all...) believe a tree is complex right? That's why it must have been designed. Well... what about God? Isn't your God supposed to be the MOST complex thing existence, I mean he'd have to be right? If he's got all the powers you've attributed to him.. So why is it the tree, a relatively simple organism in biological terms would require a designer, but then God, clearly much more complex than any tree, wouldn't? 

If you're going to use the argument, you have to use it to the end, you can't just get to God and then suddenly the logic changes and God is above the rule.. no, it doesn't work that way.


----------



## PadawanBater (Aug 29, 2009)

Green Cross said:


> If you can't see the complexity of life on every level maybe you need to look closer.
> 
> Science has never created anything as simple or beautiful as a tree, and the science crowd thinks all this happened by accident?
> 
> that's like trying to prove the empire state building went up by accident.


 
GC, give me an example of something that is so clearly designed and why it could not possibly come from any other natural, normal means?

Make it two if you don't mind.


----------



## Anonymiss1969 (Aug 29, 2009)

Green Cross said:


> If you can't see the complexity of life on every level maybe you need to look closer.
> 
> Science has never created anything as simple or beautiful as a tree, and the science crowd thinks all this happened by accident?
> 
> that's like trying to prove the empire state building went up by accident.


So your saying that because we aren't scientifically advanced enough to create a tree, science is discredited? That's like saying that if I can't create something like the art work of the Sistine Chapel, then none of my work can be considered art.

An "accident" is a human made notion. It didn't happen "by accident". The way you perceive scientists theories is them being accidents.


----------



## zorkan (Aug 29, 2009)

PadawanBater said:


> The logic you're using is this "complexity requires a designer" - you (zorkan... fuck it, I guess I will respond to it after all...) believe a tree is complex right? That's why it must have been designed. Well... what about God? Isn't your God supposed to be the MOST complex thing existence, I mean he'd have to be right? If he's got all the powers you've attributed to him.. So why is it the tree, a relatively simple organism in biological terms would require a designer, but then God, clearly much more complex than any tree, wouldn't?
> 
> If you're going to use the argument, you have to use it to the end, you can't just get to God and then suddenly the logic changes and God is above the rule.. no, it doesn't work that way.


He is called god for a reason.

you find it easier to believe in big bang than you do a god?


----------



## PadawanBater (Aug 29, 2009)

zorkan said:


> He is called god for a reason.
> 
> you find it easier to believe in big bang than you do a god?


 
Well yeah, there's evidence to support the big bang theory, there's stuff I can actually look at and say "yeah, this data points in this direction, then that data points in the next direction" it's measurable, testable, observable... I don't have anything like that to support any religion. 

How do you explain the redshift in galaxies without having had all the matter we currently occupy be in the same place at once? 

Why do the galaxies farther away move faster?

Why does the estimated age of things seem to line up pretty well with the estimated age of the rest of the universe? We don't see planets that are older than the big bang, we don't see planets older than their parent stars because stars form first, then planets.. there is seriously so much evidence to support the big bang, I'm talking decades and decades of insanely smart people observing and measuring to get these results, results that have changed the course of humanity.


----------



## CrackerJax (Aug 29, 2009)

There is no proof of any trees authorship. It does not by default fall to a Bible G*D. that's third grade thinking. Maybe fourth grade.

Simple and as beautiful as a tree huh? How about a planet which is set up completely on violence mayhem and chaos. Look at the whole picture and see the "beauty" which is our cannibalistic planet. 

Blood and guts everywhere...hardly a "tree" like atmosphere. Hardly a G*D worth worshiping either. If indeed a "personal" G*D made this planet..... IT hates us.


----------



## Sure Shot (Aug 29, 2009)

Ya, like Thou Shall Not Kill....
WTF?
When you get hungry what do you do?
KILL!!!!


----------



## fish601 (Aug 29, 2009)

I see what your saying zorkan, He has trouble believing in god because who made god..
but seems to think whatever made the gases that created the big bang isnt as hard to understand

about redshift if you really wanted to know why not use google.. do you think we can explain it any better than scientist?


----------



## fish601 (Aug 29, 2009)

CrackerJax said:


> There is no proof of any trees authorship. It does not by default fall to a Bible G*D. that's third grade thinking. Maybe fourth grade.
> 
> Simple and as beautiful as a tree huh? How about a planet which is set up completely on violence mayhem and chaos. Look at the whole picture and see the "beauty" which is our cannibalistic planet.
> 
> Blood and guts everywhere...hardly a "tree" like atmosphere. Hardly a G*D worth worshiping either. If indeed a "personal" G*D made this planet..... IT hates us.


 
there was no need for a tree to creat itself


----------



## fish601 (Aug 29, 2009)

Sure Shot said:


> Ya, like Thou Shall Not Kill....
> WTF?
> When you get hungry what do you do?
> KILL!!!!


 
I just cook some food


----------



## fish601 (Aug 29, 2009)

Anonymiss1969 said:


> So your saying that because we aren't scientifically advanced enough to create a tree, science is discredited? That's like saying that if I can't create something like the art work of the Sistine Chapel, then none of my work can be considered art.
> 
> An "accident" is a human made notion. It didn't happen "by accident". The way you perceive scientists theories is them being accidents.


maybe he's trying to say that tree took a designer to make it just like you making art


----------



## dontexist21 (Aug 29, 2009)

fish601 said:


> I just cook some food


So meat magically appears in your fridge.


----------



## Green Cross (Aug 29, 2009)

Wasn't it science that polluted out drinking water and caused global warming, and now the science crowd wants us to believe science is the answer to those problems, not the problem? 

The Bible says we are to be good stewards of the land, but I guess the science crowd was too busy making money, to read...


----------



## Sure Shot (Aug 29, 2009)

fish601 said:


> I just cook some food


Cooking is murder!


----------



## PadawanBater (Aug 29, 2009)

> I see what your saying zorkan, He has trouble believing in god because who made god..
> but seems to think whatever made the gases that created the big bang isnt as hard to understand
> about redshift if you really wanted to know why not use google.. do you think we can explain it any better than scientist?


fish.. listen to me on this one;

-you are making the claim some kind of a personal God exists

-I am asking you for evidence to support your idea (default position to any belief)

-you fail to present any such evidence every time I ask you for some

There is nothing wrong with me saying "I don't know where the gases that started the big bang came from" because I'm not claiming I do. You *ARE* claiming you know how everything started, I'm asking you how God started, you again, fail to present any kind of evidence and just say something like "he always was" or "he always has been" or some other equally as useless excuse for an answer. Therefor you *ARE* required to show proof of it. The bottom line is that you simply cannot handle the unknown and insert God into what ever science hasn't conclusively determined yet. It is as clear as day to anyone reading this thread.

...and I said;



> *How do you* explain the redshift in galaxies without having had all the matter we currently occupy be in the same place at once?


 
...meaning, how do YOU explain the redshift in galaxies, not how does GOOGLE explain it. I know the answer, I know why galaxies move faster the farther away they are and why the light changes spectrum accordingly... I wanted to hear your personal explination for it. So do you have one?



> there was no need for a tree to creat itself


...but apparently there was for God..


----------



## PadawanBater (Aug 29, 2009)

Green Cross said:


> Wasn't it science that polluted out drinking water and caused global warming, and now the science crowd wants us to believe science is the answer to those problems, not the problem?
> 
> The Bible says we are to be good stewards of the land, but I guess the science crowd was too busy making money, to read...


 
I could count the number of atheist CEO's of huge corporations responsible for polluting the environment on one hand GC, you'd probably need a pretty long list for the Christian ones. (not to mention the other believers)

point, set, match


----------



## dontexist21 (Aug 29, 2009)

Green Cross said:


> Wasn't it science that polluted out drinking water and caused global warming, and now the science crowd wants us to believe science is the answer to those problems, not the problem?
> 
> The Bible says we are to be good stewards of the land, but I guess the science crowd was too busy making money, to read...


Yeah Science is evil, I love this argument, since its so easy to refute and shows that you are in a corner. Since science did not give you the computer you are sitting right now, extend your life, provide so you have cheap food to eat. What is God going to do, tell me what diseases God has cured for us. Science did not drop the atomic bomb, humans did. Why don't you move somewhere without science and start praying for all the hardships in life to go away see how far that takes you. I am going to go work in my lab and work on medicine to to fight cancer and aids, lets see who is doing more for humanity.


----------



## CrackerJax (Aug 29, 2009)

Sure Shot said:


> Ya, like Thou Shall Not Kill....
> WTF?
> When you get hungry what do you do?
> KILL!!!!


This commandment is often misinterpreted. This is JEWISH law, not Christian. The inference is *Thou shalt not kill another member of your own tribe*. Everyone else was fair game.


----------



## fish601 (Aug 29, 2009)

PadawanBater said:


> -I am asking you for evidence to support your idea (default position to any belief)
> 
> -you fail to present any such evidence every time I ask you for some
> 
> There is nothing wrong with me saying "I don't know where the gases that started the big bang came from" because I'm not claiming I do. You *ARE* claiming you know how everything started, I'm asking you how God started, you again, fail to present any kind of evidence and just say something like "he always was" or "he always has been" or some other equally as useless excuse for an answer. Therefor you *ARE* required to show proof of it. The bottom line is that you simply cannot handle the unknown and insert God into what ever science hasn't conclusively determined yet. It is as clear as day to anyone reading this thread.


as far as i know God hasnt told anyone how he came to be so I can say I dont know that answer and christians do not claim to to know how everything started.


There is lots of evidence *I *see it all around.
I can not make god come down and show himself to you. even if he did you would make up something and believe that lie.

redshift ok so galaxies move faster the farther away they are and do we disagree on this? He stretches out the heavens like a canopy, and spreads them out like a tent to live in. [FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]*Isaiah 40 *_Read This Chapter_[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]*40:22*tell me where i am suppost to disagree with you and i will give it a shotWill you read this and tell me if it makes sence http://creation.com/bye-bye-big-bang

[/FONT]


----------



## klassenkid (Aug 29, 2009)

PadawanBater said:


> Well yeah, there's evidence to support the big bang theory, there's stuff I can actually look at and say "yeah, this data points in this direction, then that data points in the next direction" it's measurable, testable, observable... I don't have anything like that to support any religion.
> 
> How do you explain the redshift in galaxies without having had all the matter we currently occupy be in the same place at once?
> 
> ...


Im no believer in each but I KNOW that there is enough proof to close the big bang theory. First did you know the theory is that the dot spun real fast and blew into all the galaxies and planets. Doesnt that mean if they were spinning one way then blew apart that scientifically they should all be spinning the same way in rotation? why are some spinning clockwise and others spinning counter?



PadawanBater said:


> I could count the number of atheist CEO's of huge corporations responsible for polluting the environment on one hand GC, you'd probably need a pretty long list for the Christian ones. (not to mention the other believers)
> 
> point, set, match


 NOW now, dont just call every person who SAYS he believes and trusts in god a "CHRISTIAN", then George bush is a "CHRISTIAN". Its what we call a good stable look for buisness.



Mr.KushMan said:


> They disagree with almost absolute correspondence. They bible tells of creation, of the earth and human beings, Adam and Eve folklore, dinosaurs lived on the earth at the same time as people, all kinds of psychotic fucking stories, and the promise of a spirit, or something similar and an afterlife, that may or may not be in your best interest.
> 
> But yeah they are fucking in complete discordance. Please just rationalize, this is something I have read just recently. People used to think the Earth was flat, and people that said, 'the Earth was round', were thought of a crazy people, then science was able to prove that the earth was indeed round. Then there is the soul which is the equivalent of the flat-earth-consciousness, then science was able to tell us why we are like we are. Ok, Understand. The 'soul' is simple a biological trick that we play on ourselves.
> 
> Peace


First off the dinosoars actually did live with us. There is lots to back this up you just have to read. 
Did you know that they have found human foot prints along side dinosaurs mummified in the layers of ground. There is so much old artifacts that point to there being "dinosaurs" but original name is Dragon in the 1300's and before. Knights would slay them for the honour. The kids fairytale is based off the partial truth. Even to this day we have dinosaurs, its called alligators and crocodiles and lizards ( reptiles).

The world being flat and science proving it wrong has nothing to do with this whole arguement. That was never a theory in the bible but just people. Yes science has helped us with so many mysterys of the world.


----------



## fish601 (Aug 29, 2009)

CrackerJax said:


> This commandment is often misinterpreted. This is JEWISH law, not Christian. The inference is *Thou shalt not kill another member of your own tribe*. Everyone else was fair game.


 
the *Hebrew* words &#1500;&#1488; &#1514;&#1512;&#1510;&#1495; are translated as "thou shalt not kill" or "thou shalt not murder" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ten_Commandments
the 10 commandments were originally given to the *Hebrew* people through Moses but ment for everyone


----------



## dontexist21 (Aug 29, 2009)

klassenkid said:


> Im no believer in each but I KNOW that there is enough proof to close the big bang theory. First did you know the theory is that the dot spun real fast and blew into all the galaxies and planets. Doesnt that mean if they were spinning one way then blew apart that scientifically they should all be spinning the same way in rotation? why are some spinning clockwise and others spinning counter?
> 
> NOW now, dont just call every person who SAYS he believes and trusts in god a "CHRISTIAN", then George bush is a "CHRISTIAN". Its what we call a good stable look for buisness.
> 
> ...


What evidence is there to back that up, show me one credible piece of evidence that shows this. Don't use the foot prints next to the dinosaur thing, that has already been proven that those were not human foot prints. The dinosaur and human fossils which have been found have been dated no where near each other. When people first found dinosaur fossils they first thought they were dragon bones, thats where the connection comes from. 
Please understand your facts before you use them.


----------



## klassenkid (Aug 29, 2009)

Anonymiss1969 said:


> You only say this because it can't be disproven because the bible was written by a few pricks that are too old to "remember" accurately. I think you are extremely naive to look at a fantastic story (a story is *ALL* the bible is) and believe it just because a bunch of other idiots believe it.
> 
> Do you really think people lived to be 900 years old? You are not willing to change beliefs because they are so deeply hard wired into your brain that you are not willing to look at basic facts and _scientific proof, _such as the earth being millions (or is it billions? for any geologists out there), which contradicts the bible.


 They actually recently uncovered a temple that was the exact description of a hebrew temple god told the people to build. And when i mean exact i mean exact, the bible took to a whole fuckin page to describe it, and just for you none bible readers thats a lot of words. 
Also if you look at the heritage of almost every country there is a tale about the ARK but with a different character and his family. But always animals and a large flood. Plus there has been many scrpitures other than the bible talking about the thousands of witnesses to Jesus.
They say there is more evidence to Jesus's exsitence than Shakespeare. Its not his exsitence that most think is false but if he really was the son of god.


Now for the age of humans.

YES 900 years does seem far fetched. but you have to realize back in the day people had much more oxygen. Everything grew bigger. We have found human fossils dated back 5000 years ago that were 13 feet tall. Its scientist who talk about the Huge shark that used to be "Megladon". Did you know REPTILES NEVER STOP GROWING? crazy eh, hmmm if reptiles never stop growing that means if they got really old theyd get HUGE. OMG ITS A DINOSAUR!!


----------



## klassenkid (Aug 29, 2009)

dontexist21 said:


> What evidence is there to back that up, show me one credible piece of evidence that shows this. Don't use the foot prints next to the dinosaur thing, that has already been proven that those were not human foot prints. The dinosaur and human fossils which have been found have been dated no where near each other. When people first found dinosaur fossils they first thought they were dragon bones, thats where the connection comes from.
> Please understand your facts before you use them.


 Im sorry but where did all this info popup that proved carbon dating wrong?


----------



## dontexist21 (Aug 29, 2009)

klassenkid said:


> They actually recently uncovered a temple that was the exact description of a hebrew temple god told the people to build. And when i mean exact i mean exact, the bible took to a whole fuckin page to describe it, and just for you none bible readers thats a lot of words.
> Also if you look at the heritage of almost every country there is a tale about the ARK but with a different character and his family. But always animals and a large flood. Plus there has been many scrpitures other than the bible talking about the thousands of witnesses to Jesus.
> They say there is more evidence to Jesus's exsitence than Shakespeare. Its not his exsitence that most think is false but if he really was the son of god.
> 
> ...


So many holes in your argument, I come from Africa there is no mention of a ARC anywhere in my ancient tales. The reason that a story like that is so prevalent is because Christianity has been so wide spread. Scriptures from what age, were they also written by people who were Jews, Christians, or Muslims. If so then that means nothing. Tell me about a Native American tribe with such a story. Where did you hear that there was more oxygen. Show me proof of that. If there was more oxygen does not mean that things would grow bigger. Humans require require proper nutrition to grow bigger. Humans have actually grown taller over time, not shrunk, since we are in a time of the most abundant amount of food. Of Reptiles do not stop growing but that does not mean that they will become dinosaurs that would mean that we would have a bunch of giant reptiles roaming around the size of buildings. Once a reptiles reaches a certain age they might not stop growing but they grow at a extremely slow rate. Not nearly as fast enough for them to reach the size of buildings. Studies of dinosaur fossils have shown they grew at a rate that allowed them to reach their average size. Then their growth slowed down when they reach their mature sizes.


----------



## dontexist21 (Aug 29, 2009)

klassenkid said:


> Im sorry but where did all this info popup that proved carbon dating wrong?


All of that information is being flooded in my creationist, the Scientific community widely accepts carbon dating. Also different isotopes are actually used for objects older then 70,000 years old. The isotopes which are used can date as far back as .7 to 48 billion years. And the use of other isotope dating methods support the data that is gathered from carbon dating. Do you even understand what carbon dating is?


----------



## fish601 (Aug 29, 2009)

dontexist21 said:


> All of that information is being flooded in my creationist, the Scientific community widely accepts carbon dating. Also different isotopes are actually used for objects older then 70,000 years old. The isotopes which are used can date as far back as .7 to 48 billion years. And the use of other isotope dating methods support the data that is gathered from carbon dating. Do you even understand what carbon dating is?


 
they can not know for sure how old something is.


----------



## klassenkid (Aug 29, 2009)

dontexist21 said:


> All of that information is being flooded in my creationist, the Scientific community widely accepts carbon dating. Also different isotopes are actually used for objects older then 70,000 years old. The isotopes which are used can date as far back as .7 to 48 billion years. And the use of other isotope dating methods support the data that is gathered from carbon dating. Do you even understand what carbon dating is?


did you know carbon dating only is accurate up to 50 000 years, after that all carbon is gone. How come have they found things to be 48 billions years old? thats not possible.


----------



## dontexist21 (Aug 29, 2009)

fish601 said:


> they can not know for sure how old something is.


That is why it is called a scientific estimate, they have tools and experiments to show that the method works. There are variables that account for more or less decay but they account for it. They also use multiple isotopes to back up the data. And you can run test and the results will usually be +/- 5% in accuracy. And when you are talking about millions and billions of years that is a good estimate. This is not estimates built on faith but on data and test, unlike the bible. Tell me where do you get this information that they cannot know. Do you even know how carbon dating works? Sounds like you don't, please understand the scientific process before you attack it.


----------



## dontexist21 (Aug 29, 2009)

klassenkid said:


> did you know carbon dating only is accurate up to 50 000 years, after that all carbon is gone. How come have they found things to be 48 billions years old? thats not possible.


They use other isotopes such as lead, uranium, potassium, and other isotopes. Most things might be made of carbon but they contain many other atoms. I stated this before, you are really showing your ignorance of these simple scientific methods.


----------



## klassenkid (Aug 29, 2009)

dontexist21 said:


> So many holes in your argument, I come from Africa there is no mention of a ARC anywhere in my ancient tales. The reason that a story like that is so prevalent is because Christianity has been so wide spread. Scriptures from what age, were they also written by people who were Jews, Christians, or Muslims. If so then that means nothing. Tell me about a Native American tribe with such a story. Where did you hear that there was more oxygen. Show me proof of that. If there was more oxygen does not mean that things would grow bigger. Humans require require proper nutrition to grow bigger. Humans have actually grown taller over time, not shrunk, since we are in a time of the most abundant amount of food. Of Reptiles do not stop growing but that does not mean that they will become dinosaurs that would mean that we would have a bunch of giant reptiles roaming around the size of buildings. Once a reptiles reaches a certain age they might not stop growing but they grow at a extremely slow rate. Not nearly as fast enough for them to reach the size of buildings. Studies of dinosaur fossils have shown they grew at a rate that allowed them to reach their average size. Then their growth slowed down when they reach their mature sizes.


sorry there are lots of holes in my info, i wrote it so fast.

Alright first off my proof for oxygen being abundant in the past is that there first off wasnt pollution like now, but the big stinger for you is the "t-rex" fossils for example have nostrils the size of a mature horse. Now that is impossible!! WAIT!! Unless the atmosphere has more oxygen. You ask how oxygen could make things grow bigger! Did you know oxygen chambers help you heal dramatically by making the cells multiply at an incredible rate which would prove the theory of something growing from a zygote become steroid zygote and have capabilities of much more. The Collosal shark is proof of that. (pic on bottom)

You are right about the food as part of the equation. The whole thing of people growing bigger now is because were on a wave line not a linear graph of growth. There was middle where oxygen was less AND food was less. Just like how there is also a wave length of global warming and cooling.

And i actually have read of a native american one that is on those lines, you just cant find literature on them as much because they never wrote before we got here. Just cave markings, so ill let you win that one because i cant find the info on it.


----------



## klassenkid (Aug 29, 2009)

dontexist21 said:


> They use other isotopes such as lead, uranium, potassium, and other isotopes. Most things might be made of carbon but they contain many other atoms. I stated this before, you are really showing your ignorance of these simple scientific methods.


no im not, your just to blind to realize you have to look at both sides of the picture. Only proven fact of age is CARBON! 50000 years than its inaccurate to tell other than the layer of ground its in. PERIOD. Please give me a link to your bullshit


----------



## dontexist21 (Aug 29, 2009)

klassenkid said:


> no im not, your just to blind to realize you have to look at both sides of the picture. Only proven fact of age is CARBON! 50000 years than its inaccurate to tell other than the layer of ground its in. PERIOD. Please give me a link to your bullshit


They do NOT just use carbon to date fossils they use other isotopes which can date back to 48 BILLION years. Creatures are not only made of carbon. Again I look at the facts, and scientist have conducted multiple test which give data which is in +/- 5% accuracy consistently. And you again show your ignorance about isotope dating methods. What other side is there when the data is reproduced again and again. Under different people studying it. So your saying all the a majority worlds scientist are wrong when they have conducted hrs and hrs of test. I read the results from multiple journals, 80% of my academic college life was spent in a science class or in a lab conducting experiments, I don't just take things on faith. I question everything and believe in the thing that gives me the most clear and consistent results. All you are doing is ignoring this data again and again.


----------



## dontexist21 (Aug 29, 2009)

klassenkid said:


> sorry there are lots of holes in my info, i wrote it so fast.
> 
> Alright first off my proof for oxygen being abundant in the past is that there first off wasnt pollution like now, but the big stinger for you is the "t-rex" fossils for example have nostrils the size of a mature horse. Now that is impossible!! WAIT!! Unless the atmosphere has more oxygen. You ask how oxygen could make things grow bigger! Did you know oxygen chambers help you heal dramatically by making the cells multiply at an incredible rate which would prove the theory of something growing from a zygote become steroid zygote and have capabilities of much more. The Collosal shark is proof of that. (pic on bottom)
> 
> ...


That still does not take into account that isotope dating shows that fossils of both dinosaurs and humans are no where near each other. They do not just use carbon they use other isotopes.


----------



## CrackerJax (Aug 29, 2009)

fish601 said:


> the *Hebrew* words &#1500;&#1488; &#1514;&#1512;&#1510;&#1495; are translated as "thou shalt not kill" or "thou shalt not murder" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ten_Commandments
> the 10 commandments were originally given to the *Hebrew* people through Moses but ment for everyone


The 10 Commandments were not meant for everybody. they were hijacked by the Christian church. The old Testament was for jews ONLY. PERIOD.

THOU SHALT NOT KILL was meant only for the tribe, no one else got that consideration, and if you read your Bible well....you will see that they used this interpretation on their enemies over and over again.

The only thing that has changed is the interpretation, which is incorrect but useful to the church for power and money gathering.


----------



## PadawanBater (Aug 29, 2009)

klassenkid said:


> no im not, your just to blind to realize you have to look at both sides of the picture. Only proven fact of age is CARBON! 50000 years than its inaccurate to tell other than the layer of ground its in. PERIOD. Please give me a link to your bullshit


Radiometric dating;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiometric_dating

Now shut the fuck up about the dating methods used klass. They're accurate, if they weren't the scientists would be the FIRST motherfuckers to throw them out and start over with accurate measurements.

This is one of the ugliest aspects of this entire 'debate' - if you could even call it that - the fact the opponent does not accept KNOWN, UNDERSTOOD, PROVEN, ACCURATE methods that are used to determine our conclusions. 

Enough is seriously enough with that bullshit. OK, you don't accept it, go get educated on the subject by someone with some basic understanding on it.

If you post something saying the methods being used to date every fucking thing we've ever dated, ever are wrong, then tell me why they're wrong. Don't just say carbon is the only element we use to date shit, that is the stupidest thing I've ever heard, check that link I posted, potassium-argon dating, uranium-lead dating... what do you say about that? Pwned.


And wouldn't you know it!! Somebody must have missed the other thread!! I seriously LOL'd at that shit! Here wait, lemee go get it!

I posted this;



> You wanna know what I've heard?
> 
> Cuz I've been asking the same questions up and down the internet...
> 
> ...


...lmfao, and look what klass came back with!



> First off the dinosoars actually did live with us. There is lots to back this up you just have to read.
> Did you know that they have found human foot prints along side dinosaurs mummified in the layers of ground. There is so much old artifacts that point to there being "dinosaurs" but original name is Dragon in the 1300's and before. Knights would slay them for the honour. The kids fairytale is based off the partial truth. Even to this day we have dinosaurs, its called alligators and crocodiles and lizards ( reptiles).


Priceless!


----------



## CrackerJax (Aug 29, 2009)

What's the average IQ again?  lawdy....


----------



## dontexist21 (Aug 29, 2009)

You just don't put out a scientific process in the scientific community without it being test over and over and over and over again. When someone comes around and shows me data which can replicated consistently that shows me its wrong I will think other wise. Thats how the scientific process works, always questioning and understanding the data. My brother who is in 7th grade understands this more then some people.


----------



## fish601 (Aug 29, 2009)

dontexist21 said:


> You just don't put out a scientific process in the scientific community without it being test over and over and over and over again. When someone comes around and shows me data which can replicated consistently that shows me its wrong I will think other wise. Thats how the scientific process works, always questioning and understanding the data. My brother who is in 7th grade understands this more then some people.


 
they can produce the same result each time but that doesnt make them accurate just consistant


----------



## dontexist21 (Aug 29, 2009)

Fish I can not argue with someone that clearly does not understand any thing about science, and uses faith to refute it. You enjoy your belief that has no basis except for a book that was written a few thousand years ago. I will enjoy understanding and questioning things around me. Accepting what gives me the most consistent and accurate data. They test the technique against known items, so I am sure that they are accurate, if you do not believe that, tell me why. Just saying something is wrong without giving a reason is a very weak argument, and rarely stands up in a argument. Creationism has its place in theology next the Greek, Native America, African and other traditions. They are all just as valid and provide the same amount of evidence as creationism, none. Evolution can stay as a science since it has data which can be tested and provides accurate and consistent results and questioned. Till someone provides me and 99% of the scientific community with a alternative that meet those requirements I will still believe in it and it will thankfully be taught in any rational Science class.

Good Day
PS 

+Rep for Cracker and Padawan


----------



## fish601 (Aug 29, 2009)

sure they can date known items.. not much has changed since then.


----------



## PadawanBater (Aug 30, 2009)

fish601 said:


> sure they can date known items.. not much has changed since then.


Who keeps telling you we can't date older objects?

Why don't you acknowledge the links and sources I've posted that verify we can infact date things much older than 50,000 years with pretty decent accuracy?

This is a huge flaw in your reasoning fish, there is nothing wrong with the dating methods. 

If you believed they were accurate, what would that do to your belief in God?


----------



## CrackerJax (Aug 30, 2009)

Paddy, it takes someone with the ability to be objective to understand the concept. Fish is out of his element the second objectivity is required....he doesn't have any. 

His mind is shut. He is the perfect target audience for a religion myth. 

Like a kid three days after Halloween, even though it's obvious that the candy isn't the best choice any longer, he can't stop eating it up.


----------



## klassenkid (Aug 30, 2009)

First im going to change my words, when i say scientist i mean the general scientist. When i say evolution scientist I mean the 27% who are still pushers of evolution and who are against the bible and just want to prove it wrong and will brain wash many morrons to believe them. Thats right i said pushers, not believers because there are so many holes in evolution that it cant be looked at as truly serious anymore.

Micro evolution is a fact

Macro evolution is impossible because of the simple laws of science.



PadawanBater said:


> Who keeps telling you we can't date older objects?
> 
> Why don't you acknowledge the links and sources I've posted that verify we can infact date things much older than 50,000 years with pretty decent accuracy?
> 
> ...


You are showing a low IQ, first who uses the Wikipedia as a source, I could make it say that Because Bush likes it up the ass as the definition for uranium- lead dating.

STOP SAYING THE DATINGS ARE FACTS, no one truly knows how old things are. its there best way of getting consistent number. Scientists are the ones who decided on the amount of years to put on for each reading. They love answers so they can make a chart so everything is filled with no blanks. They assume millions and billions because they believe in evolution which in that theory requires billions of years for it to be true. You will never truly know the age of what your are experimenting on untill you have something that you know for sure is that age and then you may starting looking at other fossils that have that "consistency".

Do you know why i say carbon dating is the only accurate reading of age. Because its the only one the doesnt require also layers of ground to be a factor in its age for consistency. I say this because in the artic (where i live) Geologists undcovered a world war 2 plane that had emergency landed. But with how many layers that were inbetween it and the surface would have indicated it to be a couple thousands years old.

Ill soon find the article on it 


dontexist21 said:


> Fish I can not argue with someone that clearly does not understand any thing about science, and uses faith to refute it. You enjoy your belief that has no basis except for a book that was written a few thousand years ago. I will enjoy understanding and questioning things around me. Accepting what gives me the most consistent and accurate data. They test the technique against known items, so I am sure that they are accurate, if you do not believe that, tell me why. Just saying something is wrong without giving a reason is a very weak argument, and rarely stands up in a argument. Creationism has its place in theology next the Greek, Native America, African and other traditions. They are all just as valid and provide the same amount of evidence as creationism, none. Evolution can stay as a science since it has data which can be tested and provides accurate and consistent results and questioned. Till someone provides me and 99% of the scientific community with a alternative that meet those requirements I will still believe in it and it will thankfully be taught in any rational Science class.
> 
> Good Day
> PS
> ...


cough idiot. yeah you stick to the few facts of evolution no one can truly proof you wrong on because we cant go millions of years back to prove wrong. I CALL THAT A RELIGION!!

There has been so many things that evolution scientists quickly jumped the gun on and put in the text books before truly being facts but were called FACTS over and over again. Remember how they said all mamals look the exact same when first in the embreo, it was proven wrong.

same as many things i have mentioned that you have ignored, you have just stuck with what hasnt been proven wrong and called me an idiot for questioning it. Whos the closed minded person?

Im not saying that dating methods are false, im just saying they are still estimates and are accurate just to their other estimates.



PadawanBater said:


> Radiometric dating;
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiometric_dating
> 
> ...


Im confused, yeah sorry i missed your thread but how does that make the theory of dinosaurs and humans walking together false? Why is there cave drawing with dinosaurs on them, they drew what they seen.


----------



## fish601 (Aug 30, 2009)

PadawanBater said:


> If you believed they were accurate, what would that do to your belief in God?


it wouldnt change a thing. i told you i do not care how old the earth is. I just know the dating methods do not work


----------



## Nocturn3 (Aug 30, 2009)

fish601 said:


> I just know the dating methods do not work


You didn't even know _how_ they worked until yesterday, but you know for a fact that they don't work? No, you _believe_ they don't work, because it is contrary to scripture.

Do you honestly think that your new-found knowledge of dating methods makes you more of an authority than the people who work in the field? You know more than all the professors at various labs and universities around the world?


----------



## klassenkid (Aug 30, 2009)

Nocturn3 said:


> You didn't even know _how_ they worked until yesterday, but you know for a fact that they don't work? No, you _believe_ they don't work, because it is contrary to scripture.
> 
> Do you honestly think that your new-found knowledge of dating methods makes you more of an authority than the people who work in the field? You know more than all the professors at various labs and universities around the world?


then stop replying about him if he's absurd and irrational.

I want you macro evolution religiousness to take a good look at my statements and see how anti-god scientist have bloomed all these false facts in our heads. But are just a piece of the puzzle and with it make a whole picture and claim it to be a fact. 

Example.

lets say you are the kid and the evolution scientist is the older brother.

The kid goes for the last banana, but then the brother sees this and decides he wants it. So he goes up to his little brother and tells him a story

Big brother " you see those little black dots in a circle in the banana core? Well did you know that a banana is just a spider that dies on a tree and gets covered with mold and then at age the last layer hardens to create the skin?"

kid " shit i dont want it"

The banana is the world and the worlds mysteries are the creation of that banana


----------



## Nocturn3 (Aug 30, 2009)

klassenkid said:


> then stop replying about him if he's absurd and irrational.
> 
> I want you macro evolution religiousness to take a good look at my statements and see how anti-god scientist have bloomed all these false facts in our heads. But are just a piece of the puzzle and with it make a whole picture and claim it to be a fact.
> 
> ...


I never said he was absurd and irrational. You, on the other hand, clearly are.

At least fish occasionally asks the right questions, even if he refuses to absorb the answers.


----------



## dontexist21 (Aug 30, 2009)

klassenkid said:


> First im going to change my words, when i say scientist i mean the general scientist. When i say evolution scientist I mean the 27% who are still pushers of evolution and who are against the bible and just want to prove it wrong and will brain wash many morrons to believe them. Thats right i said pushers, not believers because there are so many holes in evolution that it cant be looked at as truly serious anymore.
> 
> Micro evolution is a fact
> 
> ...


Of course we cannot go back millions of years but at least we have test to support it. Tell me WHY the dating methods do not work. Science is not a religion since we have data to back everything up, and when someone brings up a theory that can challenge it, it will be challenged. Religion has NO DATA, AND CANNOT BE QUESTIONED OR PROVEN WRONG. Where did you get you 27% from, 99.9% of world scientist believe in evolution (http://nihrecord.od.nih.gov/newsletters/2006/07_28_2006/story03.htm 
Here is the paragraph which states my numbers 

Dr. Brian Alters is an international leader in education and the author of the best-selling book Defending Evolution in the Classroom. He holds dual appointments with McGill University in Montreal and Harvard University. He is also founder and director of the Evolution Education Research Center at McGill.

"Overall, the nation has a big problem," said Alters. "Approximately half of the U.S. population thinks evolution does (or did) not occur. *While 99.9 percent of scientists accept evolution*, 40 to 50 percent of college students do not accept evolution and believe it to be 'just' a theory," he reported.

So where did you get that 27%. Again *Other isotopes such as lead and potassium are used, which can date back 45 BILLION. Tell me why the theory of half lives of isotopes and their use in dating is wrong, THEN you can make a credible argument. Just because you say something is wrong does not make it wrong till you can BACK IT UP.* Plenty of scientist study and use these techniques and they have more credibility then you have. Dating methods are only thing that scientist to use explain evolution, it can also be explain use genetic recombination. Just because a plane lands below a certain level can be explain with other factors. Such as the place where the plane landed might have not have been as solid at that time. Or maybe I am wrong. But your statement of the plane does not provide a clear connection to disproving dating methods especially isotope dating methods. Stating that their estimates are wrong just because they can only compare them to other estimates means that those dating methods to be wrong in some way means the theory of isotope half lives is wrong. Can you explain to me why that theory would be wrong?


----------



## klassenkid (Aug 30, 2009)

wow i shouldnt even open my mouth, your very close minded. There is no point in even me talking. 

AGAIN you say just evolution. dontexit get out of this debate if you think there's just black and white.

Here let me clear up your statment, its 99.99999% who believe in some sort evolution, meaning micro, which is things like what Darwin witnessed with finches.

There are maybe now less then 27% who believe in macro, which is the evolving of one species to another.

Do you want the end story of macro evolution that makes the big bang false? Its genetically impossible for the genes to create a new complete structure on its own. For example like a fish creating legs. You can only just create more or less of what they already have which is called a mutation and doesnt normally follow through to the offspring. for example and extra leg or finger. Lets say somehow the genes did create legs for a fish, WHY?? Suddenly the fish just decided it liked what land looked like and said hey lets make some legs! So what each generation of the specie was like okay first ill make a stubbie, and each generation after will continue on that. Yeah thats likely. But right they make it sound more reasonable but saying it happened over billions of years because no one can prove that wrong. Darwin came up with the so called macro evolution when all he witnessed was micro evolution (which is absolutely true) and he had no idea about our technology that has conjured up the info that no DNA can just mutate a whole new peice into itself. NOT POSSIBLE.

The case is not if macro evolution is true but to start on the drawing board again. Which a lot of scientist have done, the many that havnt are there for the money to sucker everyone else into the lie and making themsleves rich with support money to find the fucking missing chimp.


----------



## Nocturn3 (Aug 30, 2009)

klassenkid said:


> wow i shouldnt even open my mouth, your very close minded. There is no point in even me talking.


Finally, something we can agree on.


----------



## klassenkid (Aug 30, 2009)

Hmmm I think this is like win 5 for anti evolutionist. I have brought up so many different peices to the puzzel. Proven there was more oxygen back in the day and yet all you guys stick to is the fucking istopes. How bout I let you win that one and we move on  I really want your answers for my other statements you guys have continously ignored.


----------



## klassenkid (Aug 30, 2009)

Good job Nucturn, you have passed the ignorant scientist club. If you cant be right, ya insult


----------



## doobnVA (Aug 30, 2009)

fish601 said:


> prove the bible wrong i am willing to change beliefs



If you're willing to change beliefs, you don't have faith... you have hope.

So you're just following the bible until something better comes along?

"I believe in God, but I might be wrong", is that it?

If so, LOL! Your beliefs are about as rigid as putty, eh?


----------



## dontexist21 (Aug 30, 2009)

Where did you get your 27% I would like to know. I just stated that I believe in what has the most evidence, since God can not be proven or dis proven it is very hard for me to believe in it. What other theories are out there that can explain this, if someone gave me an alternative that had data to back it up I would listen. You have not given me a alternative with data and test.


----------



## doobnVA (Aug 30, 2009)

Here's an alternate theory:

Aliens.

We're an experiment. There is life on other planets, but we'll never find it because the aliens won't let us. Technologies "discovered" by humans were really just passed down to us by the aliens, and all the religious texts and artifacts were put here by aliens to throw us off so we wouldn't figure out where we really came from.

Missing link? Easy peasy... we can't find it because it doesn't exist. Aliens abducted some early hominids and created a hybrid species of themselves, leaving no evidence of an evolutionary transition to homo sapiens.

Discuss.


----------



## dontexist21 (Aug 30, 2009)

klassenkid said:


> Hmmm I think this is like win 5 for anti evolutionist. I have brought up so many different peices to the puzzel. Proven there was more oxygen back in the day and yet all you guys stick to is the fucking istopes. How bout I let you win that one and we move on  I really want your answers for my other statements you guys have continously ignored.


There was more oxygen, but that was during the Jurassic age, during the age of the dinosaurs. Yet that is not a complete explanation of why they grew bigger. It could also be because there was more vegetation, or that the oceans were higher which changed the climate. There are so many theories out there. But 900 years ago dinosaurs did not exist. Can you give me a credible source on this 13 ft man, I would like to see it and the test the did on it. A neutral site preferably. Isotopes half life is the way that is used to date things yet you still refuse to state WHY you think its wrong, and on the theory of half life of isotopes is wrong. If you state that the dating method is wrong you must state why half life of isotopes is wrong. Maybe it is because you do not understand it, and have no understanding of basic science. Yes we stick to it since it is a proven theory that has been tested. If you can give me information to disprove it I will listen.


----------



## what... huh? (Aug 30, 2009)

doobnVA said:


> Here's an alternate theory:
> 
> Aliens.
> 
> ...



That pretty much covers Mormonism AND Scientology.


----------



## klassenkid (Aug 30, 2009)

dontexist21 said:


> There was more oxygen, but that was during the Jurassic age, during the age of the dinosaurs. Yet that is not a complete explanation of why they grew bigger. It could also be because there was more vegetation, or that the oceans were higher which changed the climate. There are so many theories out there. But 900 years ago dinosaurs did not exist. Can you give me a credible source on this 13 ft man, I would like to see it and the test the did on it. A neutral site preferably. Isotopes half life is the way that is used to date things yet you still refuse to state WHY you think its wrong, and on the theory of half life of isotopes is wrong. If you state that the dating method is wrong you must state why half life of isotopes is wrong. Maybe it is because you do not understand it, and have no understanding of basic science. Yes we stick to it since it is a proven theory that has been tested. If you can give me information to disprove it I will listen.


Ill try to find all my references, might take a while because I learned most of it on a lecture a while back. Now im scarred to say his name because he is the Macro evolutionist most hated enemy but "Kent Hoven" does a few true facts in their that take apart the whole Isotope science. It is really religiousy just to warn you so yeah please dont take all of his other bullshit and assume it all is. 

Oh and if you want to know my side of this whole debate? Lets just role a blunt and enjoy the ride of life and not care of what our origin is . ( not spend money into false propaganda)


----------



## fish601 (Aug 30, 2009)

doobnVA said:


> If you're willing to change beliefs, you don't have faith... you have hope.
> 
> So you're just following the bible until something better comes along?
> 
> ...


faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God's command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible.


----------



## dontexist21 (Aug 30, 2009)

klassenkid said:


> Ill try to find all my references, might take a while because I learned most of it on a lecture a while back. Now im scarred to say his name because he is the Macro evolutionist most hated enemy but "Kent Hoven" does a few true facts in their that take apart the whole Isotope science. It is really religiousy just to warn you so yeah please dont take all of his other bullshit and assume it all is.
> 
> Oh and if you want to know my side of this whole debate? Lets just role a blunt and enjoy the ride of life and not care of what our origin is . ( not spend money into false propaganda)


Haha good stuff, I am going to look it up. I join you on that blunt.


----------



## fish601 (Aug 30, 2009)

dontexist21 said:


> Humans require require proper nutrition to grow bigger. Humans have actually grown taller over time, not shrunk, since we are in a time of the most abundant amount of food. .


 
I dont know if this is true or not and really dont care i just rememberd u all talking about it


----------



## what... huh? (Aug 30, 2009)

Not true.

That display is a "model" they made based on a letter from someone who "heard" that they found "legs" which measured 47" (even IF you chose to believe the rumor, the LEGS are not a femur). Where are these bones? Nobody knows...

[youtube]IkJqKOb0ZhY[/youtube]


----------



## CrackerJax (Aug 30, 2009)

The Bible and religion are a non scientific entity. They don't belong in the same category with science.

Science is testable, religion is not.

The more religion tries to be scientific, the more ridiculous it appears........and desperate.

People will eventually move beyond needing a superstition to get through life. The numbers of clear headed folks is growing, and if the apocalyptic religious zealots don't get us all killed first, man will eventually make it to the next level of enlightenment.


----------



## jfgordon1 (Aug 30, 2009)

I wonder what religion will come after Christianity? or if it's the last one. ( along with islam, hindu, ect.)


----------



## CrackerJax (Aug 30, 2009)

Hopefully this will be the last wave of myths for mankind. It's about time we move up a notch on our perceptions. It's time we face realities which make us uncomfortable. 

Let go of the blanket Linus.....let go.


----------



## jfgordon1 (Aug 30, 2009)

CrackerJax said:


> Hopefully this will be the last wave of myths for mankind. It's about time we move up a notch on our perceptions. It's time we face realities which make us uncomfortable.
> 
> Let go of the blanket Linus.....let go.


I hope so too. Hopefully my generation will get there head of there ass and not continue the religious teachers to their children *crosses fingers*


----------



## CrackerJax (Aug 30, 2009)

Not in our lifetime I'm afraid. Unless something major and earth shaking occurs. Religion, both Islam and Christianity are WORKING on making their prophecies of doom come true. Both have an "Armageddon" prophecy, although quite different from each other, both WANT to see an apocalypse take place. This is the MAIN reason why the Middle East is NOT allowed to become a place of peace. It would ruin the prophecies. No, that place must remain agitated for the HOPE of destruction by a personal made up myth.... We're so advanced.


----------



## fish601 (Aug 30, 2009)

_here is more from that page_


_In White County, Tennessee, an "ancient fortification" contained skeletons of gigantic stature averaging at least 7 feet in length. _
_Giant skeletons were found in the mid-1800s near Rutland and Rodman, New York. _
_J.N. DeHart, M.D. found vertebrae "larger than those of the present type" in Wisconsin mounds in 1876. _
_W.H.R. Lykins uncovered skull bones "of great size and thickness" in mounds of Kansas City area in 1877. _
_George W. Hill, M.D., dug out a skeleton "of unusual size" in a mound of Ashland County, Ohio. _
_In 1879, a nine-foot, eight-inch skeleton was excavated from a mound near Brewersville, Indiana (Indianapolis News, Nov 10, 1975)._
_A six foot, six inch skeleton was found in a Utah mound. This was at least a foot taller than the average Indian height in the area, and these natives- what few there were of them -were not mound builders._
_A skeleton which is reported to have been "of enormous dimensions" was found in a clay coffin, with a sandstone slab containing hieroglyphics, during mound explorations by a Dr Everhart near Zanesville, Ohio.(American Antiquarian, v3, 1880, pg61)_
_Ten skeletons "of both sexes and of gigantic size" were taken from a mound at Warren, Minnesota, 1883. (St. Paul Pioneer Press, May 23, 1883)_
_A skeleton 7 feet 6 inches long was found in a massive stone structure that was likened to a temple chamber within a mound in Kanawha County, West Virginia, in 1884. (American Antiquarian, v6, 1884 133f. _
_Cyrus Thomas, Report on Mound Explorations of the Bureau of Ethnology, 12th Annual Report, Smithsonian Bureau of Ethnology, 1890-91)._
_A large mound near Gasterville, Pennsylvania, contained a vault in which was found a skeleton measuring 7 feet 2 inches. Inscriptions were carved on the vault. (American Antiquarian, v7, 1885, 52f)._
_In 1885, miners discovered the mummified remains of woman measuring 6 feet 8 inches tall holding an infant. The mummies were found in a cave behind a wall of rock in the Yosemite Valley._
_In Minnesota, 1888, were discovered remains of seven skeletons 7 to 8 feet tall. (St. Paul Pioneer Press, June 29, 188._
_A mound near Toledo, Ohio, held 20 skeletons, seated and facing east with jaws and teeth "twice as large as those of present day people," and besides each was a large bowl with "curiously wrought hieroglyphic figures." (Chicago Record, Oct. 24, 1895; cited by Ron G. Dobbins, NEARA Journal, v13, fall 197._
_The skeleton of a huge man was uncovered at the Beckley farm, Lake Koronis, Minnesota; while at Moose Island and Pine City, bones of other giants came to light. (St. Paul Globe, Aug. 12, 1896)._
_In 1911, several red-haired mummies ranging from 6 and a half feet to 8 feet tall were discovered in a cave in Lovelock, Nevada. _
_In February and June of 1931, large skeletons were found in the Humboldt lake bed near Lovelock, Nevada. The first of these two skeletons found measured 8 1/2 feet tall and appeared to have been wrapped in a gum-covered fabric similar to the Egyptian manner. The second skeleton was almost 10 feet long. (Review - Miner, June 19, 1931) _
_A 7 ft 7 inch skeleton was reported to have been found on the Friedman ranch, near Lovelock, Nevada, in 1939.(Review - Miner, Sept. 29, 1939)._
_In 1965, a skeleton measuring 8 feet 9 inches was found buried under a rock ledge along the Holly Creek in east-central Kentucky._


----------



## CrackerJax (Aug 30, 2009)

Fish you are one naive dude....... super naive.


----------



## doobnVA (Aug 31, 2009)

Looks about the right size for Gigantopithecus. An ape femur bears a striking resemblance to a human femur.


----------



## CrackerJax (Aug 31, 2009)

C'mon doob....you don't actually believe a creationist would use an ape as a substitute for human fossils......  Sacrilege!!!


----------



## Nocturn3 (Aug 31, 2009)

klassenkid said:


> Good job Nucturn, you have passed the ignorant scientist club. If you cant be right, ya insult


I can be right and insulting at the same time. 

I find it laughable that you are even trying to debate this stuff, since your lack of scientific knowledge is astounding. Your ignorance of dating methods, theories on dinosaurs, assumption that more O2 will make superhuman giants, and above all else, your belief in the arguments of Kent Hovind, prove that you have no idea what you are actually arguing. I doubt that you understood what his lecture was even about, other than the fact that he was claiming that his version of "science" would validate your beliefs, and he seemed to know what he was talking about.

What you fail to acknowledge is that he is a complete fraud, and consistently uses arguments that have been proven false. Even other "creationist scientists" dislike him, and view him as damaging to their cause.

It seems to me that you just want science to be wrong about something, in the mistaken belief that it will automatically make you right.


----------



## doobnVA (Aug 31, 2009)

CrackerJax said:


> C'mon doob....you don't actually believe a creationist would use an ape as a substitute for human fossils......  Sacrilege!!!



I think a creationist would do whatever is necessary to keep up the charade. I'm also pretty sure most creationists aren't going to rely on any scientific methods of identifying the specimen, and their followers aren't going to question it anyway, so what's the point?

We're talking about (mostly) the same kind of people who think the face of Jesus on a pancake is a "miracle", rather than an amusing coincidence. 

There's never been any real science in creationism, so why start now?


----------



## guitarabuser (Aug 31, 2009)

CrackerJax said:


> Not in our lifetime I'm afraid. Unless something major and earth shaking occurs. Religion, both Islam and Christianity are WORKING on making their prophecies of doom come true. Both have an "Armageddon" prophecy, although quite different from each other, both WANT to see an apocalypse take place. This is the MAIN reason why the Middle East is NOT allowed to become a place of peace. It would ruin the prophecies. No, that place must remain agitated for the HOPE of destruction by a personal made up myth.... We're so advanced.


I am in awe of you. You are truly an educated idiot. Since I believe in balance in the universe, I now understand how right-wing extremist zealots can exist in the first place. 
While they are quick with the axe to lop off the heads of the heretics, you are running for the knife to cut out the hearts of the believers.
By the way, your intolerant view of religion was prophesized too. That must make you a tool of God. Or maybe just a tool.


----------



## CrackerJax (Aug 31, 2009)

Nice post. Come back when you actually think of something.


----------



## jfgordon1 (Aug 31, 2009)

guitarabuser said:


> I am in awe of you. You are truly an educated idiot. Since I believe in balance in the universe, I now understand how right-wing extremist zealots can exist in the first place.
> While they are quick with the axe to lop off the heads of the heretics, you are running for the knife to cut out the hearts of the believers.
> By the way, your intolerant view of religion was prophesized too. That must make you a tool of God. Or maybe just a tool.





CrackerJax said:


> Nice post. Come back when you actually think of something.


Don't try to play it off, Cracker... he burnt yah... you just can't take the heat


----------



## Anonymiss1969 (Aug 31, 2009)

guitarabuser said:


> I am in awe of you. You are truly an educated idiot. Since I believe in balance in the universe, I now understand how right-wing extremist zealots can exist in the first place.
> While they are quick with the axe to lop off the heads of the heretics, you are running for the knife to cut out the hearts of the believers.
> By the way, your intolerant view of religion was prophesized too. That must make you a tool of God. Or maybe just a tool.


Anything that is "prophesized" is likely to happen _eventually_ because the way they prophesize is they come up with some ambiguous idea that is feasible. Then, when it happens people go fuckin ape shit.

Here's one: Someone will come back with a post and try to argue this point. 



jfgordon1 said:


> Don't try to play it off, Cracker... he burnt yah... you just can't take the heat


He didn't burn anyone. He posted an attack that was all opinion and no concrete ideas. Just a feign swing to try to sound smart and discredit Cracker.


----------



## Sure Shot (Aug 31, 2009)

jfgordon1 said:


> Don't try to play it off, Cracker... he burnt yah... you just can't take the heat


That was nothing but a pathetic personal attack with no real basis or insight.


----------



## CrackerJax (Aug 31, 2009)

It's okay..... 

Christians.... for the burn!!! How touching and....... christian like.


----------



## Green Cross (Aug 31, 2009)

*Science is lacking *

*The gaps are huge*




_Palaeochiropteryx tupaiodon_ one of the oldest (by evolutionary reckoning) fossil bats. It was found in the Messel oil shale pit near Darmstadt, Germany, and is dated between 48 and 54 million years old. It clearly had fully developed wings, and its inner ear had the same construction as those of modern bats, showing that it had full sonar equipment (see chapter 9 for more details of this exquisitely designed system). 

_Teaching about Evolution _avoids discussing the vast gulf between non-living matter and the first living cell, single-celled and multicelled creatures, and invertebrates and vertebrates. The gaps between these groups should be enough to show that molecules-to-man evolution is without foundation. 

There are many other examples of different organisms appearing abruptly and fully formed in the fossil record. For example, the first bats, pterosaurs, and birds were fully fledged flyers. The photograph to the right shows that bats have always been bats.6 

Turtles are a well designed and specialized group of reptiles, with a distinctive shell protecting the bodys vital organs. 

However, evolutionists admit Intermediates between turtles and cotylosaurs, the primitive reptiles from which [evolutionists believe] turtles probably sprang, are entirely lacking. They cant plead an incomplete fossil record because turtles leave more and better fossil remains than do other vertebrates.7 The oldest known sea turtle was a fully formed turtle, not at all transitional. It had a fully developed system for excreting salt, without which a marine reptile would quickly dehydrate. This is shown by skull cavities which would have held large salt-excreting glands around the eyes.8 
All 32 mammal orders appear abruptly and fully formed in the fossil record. The evolutionist paleontologist George Gaylord Simpson wrote in 1944: 
The earliest and most primitive members of every order already have the basic ordinal characters, and in no case is an approximately continuous series from one order to another known. In most cases the break is so sharp and the gap so large that the origin of the order is speculative and much disputed.10 ​There is little to overturn that today.11 
*Excuses*

Like most evolutionary propaganda, _Teaching about Evolution_ makes assertions that there are many transitional forms, and gives a few examples. A box on page 15 contains the gleeful article by the evolutionist (and atheist) E.O. Wilson, Discovery of a Missing Link. He claimed to have studied nearly exact intermediates between solitary wasps and the highly social modern ants. But another atheistic evolutionist, W.B. Provine, says that Wilsons assertions are explicitly denied by the text  . Wilsons comments are misleading at best.12 
_Teaching about Evolution_ emphasizes _Archaeopteryx_ and an alleged land mammal-to-whale transition series, so they are covered in chapters 4 and 5 of this book. _Teaching about Evolution _also makes the following excuse on page 57: 
Some changes in populations might occur too rapidly to leave many transitional fossils. Also, many organisms were very unlikely to leave fossils because of their habitats or because they had no body parts that could easily be fossilized. ​Darwin also excused the lack of transitional fossils by the extreme imperfection of the fossil record. But as we have seen, even organisms that leave excellent fossils, like turtles, are lacking in intermediates. Michael Denton points out that 97.7 percent of living orders of land vertebrates are represented as fossils and 79.1 percent of living families of land vertebrates87.8 percent if birds are excluded, as they are less likely to become fossilized.13





 Artists impression of a living horseshoe bat.9 

Its true that fossilization requires specific conditions. Normally, when a fish dies, it floats to the top and rots and is eaten by scavengers. Even if some parts reach the bottom, the scavengers take care of them. Scuba divers dont find the sea floor covered with dead animals being slowly fossilized. The same applies to land animals. Millions of buffaloes (bison) were killed in North America last century, but there are very few fossils. 
In nature, a well-preserved fossil generally requires rapid burial (so scavengers dont obliterate the carcass), and cementing agents to harden the fossil quickly. _Teaching about Evolution _has some good photos of a fossil fish with well-preserved features (p. 3) and a jellyfish (p. 36). Such fossils certainly could not have formed graduallyhow long do dead jellyfish normally retain their features? If you wanted to form such fossils, the best way might be to dump a load of concrete on top of the creature! Only catastrophic conditions can explain most fossilsfor example, a global flood and its aftermath of widespread regional catastrophism. 
_Teaching about Evolution_ goes on to assert after the previous quote: 
However, in many cases, such as between primitive fish and amphibians, amphibians and reptiles, reptiles and mammals, and reptiles and birds, there are excellent transitional fossils.​But _Teaching about Evolution_ provides no evidence for this! We can briefly examine some of the usual evolutionary claims below (for reptile-to-bird, see the next chapter on birds): 

_Fish to amphibian:_ Some evolutionists believe that amphibians evolved from a Rhipidistian fish, something like the coelacanth. It was believed that they used their fleshy, lobed fins for walking on the sea-floor before emerging on the land. This speculation seemed impossible to disprove, since according to evolutionary/long-age interpretations of the fossil record, the last coelacanth lived about 70 million years ago. But a living coelacanth (_Latimeria chalumnae_) was discovered in 1938. And it was found that the fins were not used for walking but for deft maneuvering when swimming. Its soft parts were also totally fish-like, not transitional. It also has some unique featuresit gives birth to live young after about a years gestation, it has a small second tail to help its swimming, and a gland that detects electrical signals.14 The earliest amphibian, _Ichthyostega_ (mentioned on p. 39 of _Teaching about Evolution_), is hardly transitional, but has fully formed legs and shoulder and pelvic girdles, while there is no trace of these in the Rhipidistians.
_Amphibian to reptile:_ _Seymouria_ is a commonly touted intermediate between amphibians and reptiles. But this creature is dated (by evolutionary dating methods) at 280 million years ago, about 30 million years _younger_ than the earliest true reptiles _Hylonomus_ and _Paleothyris_. That is, reptiles are allegedly millions of years older than their alleged ancestors! Also, there is no good reason for thinking it was not completely amphibian in its reproduction. The jump from amphibian to reptile eggs requires the development of a number of new structures and a change in biochemistrysee the section below on soft part changes.
_Reptile to mammal:_ The mammal-like reptiles are commonly asserted to be transitional. But according to a specialist on these creatures: Each species of mammal-like reptile that has been found appears suddenly in the fossil record and is not preceded by the species that is directly ancestral to it. It disappears some time later, equally abruptly, without leaving a directly descended species.15​Evolutionists believe that the earbones of mammals evolved from some jawbones of reptiles. But Patterson recognized that there was no clear-cut connection between the jawbones of mammal-like reptiles and the earbones of mammals. In fact, evolutionists have argued about which bones relate to which.16
*The function of possible intermediates*

The inability to imagine functional intermediates is a real problem. If a bat or bird evolved from a land animal, the transitional forms would have forelimbs that were neither good legs nor good wings. So how would such things be selected? The fragile long limbs of hypothetical halfway stages of bats and pterosaurs would seem more like a hindrance than a help. 
*Soft part changes*

Of course, the soft parts of many creatures would also have needed to change drastically, and there is little chance of preserving them in the fossil record. For example, the development of the amniotic egg would have required many different innovations, including: 

The shell.
The two new membranesthe amnion and allantois.
Excretion of water-insoluble uric acid rather than urea (urea would poison the embryo).
Albumen together with a special acid to yield its water.
Yolk for food.
A change in the genital system allowing the fertilization of the egg before the shell hardens.17
Another example is the mammalsthey have many soft-part differences from reptiles, for example: 

Mammals have a different circulatory system, including red blood cells without nuclei, a heart with four chambers instead of three and one aorta instead of two, and a fundamentally different system of blood supply to the eye.
Mammals produce milk, to feed their young.
Mammalian skin has two extra layers, hair and sweat glands.
Mammals have a diaphragm, a fibrous, muscular partition between the thorax and abdomen, which is vital for breathing. Reptiles breathe in a different way.
Mammals keep their body temperature constant (warm-bloodedness), requiring a complex temperature control mechanism.
The mammalian ear has the complex organ of Corti, absent from all reptile ears.18
Mammalian kidneys have a very high ultrafiltration rate of the blood. This means the heart must be able to produce the required high blood pressure. Mammalian kidneys excrete urea instead of uric acid, which requires different chemistry. They are also finely regulated to maintain constant levels of substances in the blood, which requires a complex endocrine system.19
*References and notes*


C.R. Darwin, _Origin of Species_, 6th edition, 1872 (London: John Murray, 1902), p. 413.
C. Patterson, letter to Luther D. Sunderland, 10 April 1979, as published in_ Darwins Enigma_ (Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 4th ed. 198, p. 89. Patterson later tried to backtrack somewhat from this clear statement, apparently alarmed that creationists would utilize this truth.
S.J. Gould, in _Evolution Now: A Century After Darwin_, ed. John Maynard Smith, (New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., 1982), p. 140. _Teaching about Evolution _pages 5657 publishes a complaint by Gould about creationists quoting him about the rarity of transitional forms. He accuses creationists of representing him as denying evolution itself. This complaint is unjustified. Creationists make it very clear that he is a staunch evolutionist the whole point is that he is a hostile witness.
S.J. Gould, The Ediacaran Experiment, _Natural History_ *93*(2):1423, Feb. 1984.
L. Sunderland, ref. 2, p. 4748.
Photograph and information courtesy of Dr Joachim Scheven of the Lebendige Vorwelt Museum in Germany.
Reptiles, _Encyclopedia Britannica_ *26*:704705, 15th ed., 1992.
Ren Hirayama, Oldest Known Sea Turtle, _Nature_ *392*(667:705708, 16 April 1998; comment by Henry Gee, p. 651, same issue.
Courtesy of Steve Cardno, 1998.
G.G. Simpson, _Tempo and Mode in Evolution_ (NY: Columbia University Press, 1944), p. 105106.
A useful book on the fossil record is D.T. Gish, _Evolution: The Fossils STILL Say NO!_ (El Cahon, CA: Institute for Creation Research, 1995).
_Teaching about Evolution and the Nature of Science, _A Review by Dr Will B. Provine. Available from <fp.bio.utk.edu/darwin/NAS_guidebook/provine_1.html>, 18 February 1999.
M. Denton, _Evolution, a Theory in Crisis_ (Chevy Chase, MD: Adler & Adler, 1985), p. 190.
M. Denton, footnote 13, p. 157, 178180; see also W. Roush, Living Fossil Is Dethroned, _Science_ *277*(5331):1436, 5 September 1997, and No Stinking Fish in My Tail, _Discover,_ March 1985, p. 40.
T.S. Kemp, The Reptiles that Became Mammals, _New Scientist_ *92*:583, 4 March 1982.
C. Patterson, Morphological Characters and Homology; in K.A. Joysey and A.E. Friday (eds.), _Problems of Phylogenetic Reconstruction_, Proceedings of an International Symposium held in Cambridge, The Systematics Association Special Volume 21 (Academic Press, 1982), 2174.
M. Denton, footnote 13, p. 218219.
D. Dewar, _The Transformist Illusion_, 2nd edition, (Ghent, NY: Sophia Perennis et Universalis, 1995), p. 223232.
T.S. Kemp, _Mammal-like Reptiles and the Origin of Mammals_ (New York: Academic Press, 1982), p. 309310.


----------



## fish601 (Aug 31, 2009)

Another discovery of a calcified human's footprint has been made in Turkmenia. Its age leads us all the way back to 150 million years, to the Mesozoic period, and ultimately to the time of dinosaurs. Can it be possible that humans inhabited this planet along with such monstrous creatures? Yes

In 1961, two Russian scientists Okladnikov and Rogozhin discovered a large variety of tools in Siberia not far away from a town named Gorno-Altaisk located by the river Utalinka. They concluded that their finds date back to 1,5-2 million years. Another Russian scientist Molchanov discovered absolutely identical tools on the river Lena near a village Urlak. Radiocarbon dating analyses of these finds has clearly identified a precise date: almost 2 million years.


----------



## Anonymiss1969 (Aug 31, 2009)

fish601 said:


> Another discovery of a calcified human's footprint has been made in Turkmenia. Its age leads us all the way back to 150 million years, to the Mesozoic period, and ultimately to the time of dinosaurs. Can it be possible that humans inhabited this planet along with such monstrous creatures? Yes
> 
> In 1961, two Russian scientists Okladnikov and Rogozhin discovered a large variety of tools in Siberia not far away from a town named Gorno-Altaisk located by the river Utalinka. They concluded that their finds date back to 1,5-2 million years. Another Russian scientist Molchanov discovered absolutely identical tools on the river Lena near a village Urlak. Radiocarbon dating analyses of these finds has clearly identified a precise date: almost 2 million years.


I must have missed a previous post that makes this relevant. Whats this supposed to prove?

According to the bible, isn't earth supposed to be really fucking young? Like younger than a million years old?


----------



## fish601 (Aug 31, 2009)

as far as i know the bible doesnt say how old the earth is... that is why i do not care what scientist come up with.. i just know the dating methods suck


----------



## Nocturn3 (Aug 31, 2009)

fish601 said:


> as far as i know the bible doesnt say how old the earth is... that is why i do not care what scientist come up with.. i just know the dating methods suck


You don't know shit about dating methods, as you've proven repeatedly in recent days. You just want to believe they suck, because the things they help prove are at odds with your fairy tales.


----------



## fish601 (Aug 31, 2009)

Nocturn3 said:


> You don't know shit about dating methods, as you've proven repeatedly in recent days. You just want to believe they suck, because the things they help prove are at odds with your fairy tales.


did you not read my post above yours?

let me say it again.. the bible does not say how old the earth is. If it were 999 billion years old that would be fine with me. Dating methods do not work.


----------



## jfgordon1 (Aug 31, 2009)

Anonymiss1969 said:


> He didn't burn anyone. He posted an attack that was all opinion and no concrete ideas. Just a feign swing to try to sound smart and discredit Cracker.


lol i know dude... i was just joking around.


----------



## Nocturn3 (Aug 31, 2009)

fish601 said:


> Dating methods do not work.


Based on what reasoning?


----------



## fish601 (Aug 31, 2009)

DISSENTERS EJECTED, R. L. Mauger, East Carolina Univ., "In general, dates in the 'correct ball park' are assumed to be correct and are published, but those in disagreement with other data are seldom published nor or the discrepancies fully explained.", Contributions To Geology, Vol.15 (1): 17 
DIFFERENT AGES FROM ONE ROCK, Joan C. Engels, "It is now well known that K-Ar ages obtained from different minerals in a single rock may be strikingly discordant." Journal of Geology,Vol.79, p.609 
RECENT LAVA @ 22M, C.S.Nobel & J.J.Naughton, Hawaiian Inst. of Geophysics, "The radiogenic argon and helium contents of three basalts erupted into the deep ocean from an active volcano (Kilauea) have been measured. Ages calculated from these measurements increase with sample depth up to 22 million years for lavas deduced to be recent. ...these lavas are very young, probably less than 200 years old. The samples, in fact, may be very recent...", Science, Vol.162, p.265 
PRECISION DATING? ROGER LEWIN, Ed. Research News, Science, â&#8364;&#339;The calculated age was quickly refined to be 2.61 Â± 0.26 million years, which, to anthropologist unfamiliar with the procedures of radiometric dating, has a ring of comforting precision about it. ...41 separate age determinations... which varied between 223 million and 0.91 million years ...after the first determination they never again obtained 2.61 from their experiments.â&#8364; BONES OF CONTENTION, p.194 
ARBITRARY, A. HAYATSU, Dept. of Geophysics, U. of Western Ont., "In conventional interpretation of K-Ar age data, it is common to discard ages which are substantially too high or too low compared with the rest of the group or with other available data such as the geological time scale. The discrepancies between the rejected and the accepted are arbitrarily attributed to excess or loss of argon." Canadian Journal Of Earth Science, 16:974. 
"THE IMPERFECT ART OF ESTIMATING GEOLOGICAL TIME" BATES MCKEE, U. of Washington, â&#8364;&#339;If the laboratory results contradict the field evidence, the geologist assumes that there is something wrong with the machine date. To put it another way, â&#8364;&#732;goodâ&#8364;&#8482; dates are those that agree with the field data. ...the geologist has more faith in the fossil evidence than in a machine date, and this reflects some of the uncertainties of radiometric determinations and the interpretation of results.â&#8364; CASCADIA, The Geological Evolution Of The Pacific Northwest, p.25, 27 
"C14 AGES IN ERROR", ROBERT E. LEE, "The troubles of the radiocarbon dating method are undeniably deep and serious. Despite 35 years of technological refinement and better under-standing, the underlying assumptions have been strongly challenged.... It should be no surprise, then, that fully half of the dates are rejected. The wonder is, surely, that the remaining half come out to be accepted. There are gross discrepancies, the chronology is uneven and relative, and the accepted dates are actually selected dates." Anthropological Journal of Canada, Vol. 19, no. 3, 1981, p.9 
FUNDAMENTAL ASSUMPTION, Report on C14 Conference (145 International Scientists), Science, Vol. 150, p. 1490. "Throughout the conference emphasis was placed on the fact that laboratories do not measure ages, they measure sample activities. The connection between activity and age is made through a set of assumptions. ...one of the main assumptions of C14 dating is that the atmospheric radiocarbon level has held steady over the age-range to which the method applies." C14 INCREASING ! H. E. Suess, UCLA, "Symposium Organized By International Atomic Energy Authority, ...presented the latest determinations...as adduced from the current activity of dendrochronologically dated growth rings of the Californian bristle cone pine. ...The carbon14 concentration increases rather steadily during this time. These results confirm the change in carbon14 concentration.... and indicate that the concentration increases..." Science, Vol.157, p.726


----------



## jfgordon1 (Aug 31, 2009)

I want to know how to live to be 900. Can't Imagine what I would see...


----------



## CrackerJax (Aug 31, 2009)

Gaps in evolution.... now that is a SHOCKER!!!! Never mind that all of the KNOWN fossil records SUPPORT evolution and NOT creationism.

How can there be gaps in the fossil record which are relatively rare in relative proportion to the age of the earth and all that has passed before? 

The Bible and religion are not scientific in the least and you guys CONSTANTLY make the mistake of trying to use it to reinforce the myth.

Of course you don't have much else to go on do you..... Every decade the Religious grow a bit more desperate to stay in the closet of denial as truly verifiable evidence of evolution ROLLS up against them.... 

In the end.....you will all let it go as it becomes truly an untenable position. As with all tenants of the Christian religion, there is no true anchor but a floating buoy bobbing in the tidal forces of a modern world.


----------



## Nocturn3 (Aug 31, 2009)

Fish, as i've already pointed out to you, proper dating involves a shitload of tests of different types. Each test has it's limitations, and some are problematic when used on certain sample types, but when you put them all together, the overall result is highly accurate. 

As with anything else in life, there is the potential for human error, faulty equipment and sample contamination, but these situations are the exeption, rather than the rule.

If they were that flawed, they wouldn't be used. You only learned how they date rocks yesterday. You don't understand this stuff well enough to claim anything about it, and the fact that you keep trying says that you are just blindly pushing the agenda you have been programmed with.


----------



## jfgordon1 (Aug 31, 2009)

kind of off subject (yet on subject). My EX-gf's family is really religious... sitting with them while we watched The exorcism of Emily Rose was creepy. You should have seen the look in their eyes. It was like they were literally seeing the Devil inside of the girl. Their eyes getting all watery and everything... 

yada yada yada... i said "peace" to that family !


----------



## fish601 (Aug 31, 2009)

Nocturn3 said:


> If they were that flawed, they wouldn't be used. .


 dating methods are the only thing they have to go with


----------



## Nocturn3 (Aug 31, 2009)

fish601 said:


> dating methods are the only thing they have to go with


There are other dating methods than radiometric. Or are you saying that EVERY dating method is wrong, and that we have no way of dating any object that will give true results?

Not that there's anything wrong with radiometric dating, but the earlier stuff worked pretty well. Look up incremental dating for an example, as well as various forms of chemical dating and material-specific methods.


----------



## CrackerJax (Aug 31, 2009)

jfgordon1 said:


> kind of off subject (yet on subject). My EX-gf's family is really religious... sitting with them while we watched The exorcism of Emily Rose was creepy. You should have seen the look in their eyes. It was like they were literally seeing the Devil inside of the girl. Their eyes getting all watery and everything...
> 
> yada yada yada... i said "peace" to that family !



Which made you more scared? The movie or the family watching it....


----------



## hanimmal (Aug 31, 2009)

> Do you want the end story of macro evolution that makes the big bang false? Its genetically impossible for the genes to create a new complete structure on its own. For example like a fish creating legs. You can only just create more or less of what they already have which is called a mutation and doesnt normally follow through to the offspring. for example and extra leg or finger. Lets say somehow the genes did create legs for a fish, WHY?? Suddenly the fish just decided it liked what land looked like and said hey lets make some legs! So what each generation of the specie was like okay first ill make a stubbie, and each generation after will continue on that. Yeah thats likely. But right they make it sound more reasonable but saying it happened over billions of years because no one can prove that wrong. Darwin came up with the so called macro evolution when all he witnessed was micro evolution (which is absolutely true) and he had no idea about our technology that has conjured up the info that no DNA can just mutate a whole new peice into itself. NOT POSSIBLE.


The lack of how the world has changed has hurt your argument.

Those fish that grow legs, are not just BOOM legs.

As the earth crust moved towards the surface of the ocean those fish had fins. As plants started to stretch and break the surface of the water, they started to slowly develop a tactic of pushing the branches out of the way with their fins. So then those muscles start to develop. Over hundreds of thousands of years small mutations (your micro evolution I guess) favor those fish living near the surface to have longer and more usable fin/legs. 

Now for some guesswork: As the land came closer and closer to the surface of the water, the Oxigen levels increased so the lungfish started to develop their system very gradually. Eventually leading them to be able to go onto the breaking land to evade predators and new feeding grounds. Eventually those legs that were developing worked into fully working legs and you eventually end up with lizards.

You also said something about T-Rex nostrils being only the size of horses. You forget about their mouths?

This is why religion needs to end.

Everything that doesn't fit into the bible of choice gets tossed aside as wrong, without anyother thought being applied to it.

The bible is not the statis quo. We are not born believing in the bible. It is pushed onto most of us at a very young age and we are told that it is evil to question it because it will lead to us going to hell. That is just wrong, and if we allow it to dominate our thinking then we will stop to progress as a species. 




> By the way, your intolerant view of religion was prophesized too.


It was prophesized? Maybe because the ones making it all up knew that eventually it would be found to be fraudulent. This was a hedge on their bet.


----------



## fish601 (Aug 31, 2009)

hanimmal said:


> Everything that doesn't fit into the bible of choice gets tossed aside as wrong, without anyother thought being applied to it.
> .


 
I am trying to be open about everything that doesnt fit into the bible. but when you talk of evolution (ape to man) and the flawed dating methods, i see why some christian and non christian people throw it aside. There is no proof.


----------



## hanimmal (Aug 31, 2009)

> It was found in the Messel oil shale pit near Darmstadt, Germany, and is &#8216;dated&#8217; between 48 and 54 million years old. It clearly had fully developed wings, and its inner ear had the same construction as those of modern bats, showing that it had full sonar equipment (see chapter 9 for more details of this exquisitely designed system).


So where is it being said by real scientists that it could not be from evolution? Just because there is not a fossil remain before this does not prove that it was not there. Many animals have had different forms of sonar, why is this proof that it would not be able to be able to be evolution?



> There are many other examples of different organisms appearing abruptly and fully formed in the fossil record. For example, the first bats, pterosaurs, and birds were fully fledged flyers. The photograph to the right shows that bats have always been bats.6


Again those 'fully formed fossil records" are not the proof that they did not evolve. 



> Turtles are a well designed and specialized group of reptiles, with a distinctive shell protecting the body&#8217;s vital organs.
> 
> However, evolutionists admit &#8216;Intermediates between turtles and cotylosaurs, the primitive reptiles from which [evolutionists believe] turtles probably sprang, are entirely lacking.&#8217; They can&#8217;t plead an incomplete fossil record because &#8216;turtles leave more and better fossil remains than do other vertebrates.&#8217;7 The &#8216;oldest known sea turtle&#8217; was a fully formed turtle, not at all transitional. It had a fully developed system for excreting salt, without which a marine reptile would quickly dehydrate. This is shown by skull cavities which would have held large salt-excreting glands around the eyes.8
> All 32 mammal orders appear abruptly and fully formed in the fossil record. The evolutionist paleontologist George Gaylord Simpson wrote in 1944: The earliest and most primitive members of every order already have the basic ordinal characters, and in no case is an approximately continuous series from one order to another known. In most cases the break is so sharp and the gap so large that the origin of the order is speculative and much disputed.10 ​There is little to overturn that today.11


Yeah because there is no evidence, so everything is speculative and open to debate on how it evolved. It does not prove that God created it out of his will. 


There is many ways to show how something _could_ be wrong. It just means that there is not enough proof to say yes that can be a theory. You need proof to make it a theory. 

There is not enough proof to say that god is not possible. But there is plenty to show that the bible was written by man and changed throughout the last 1700 years by man. That is enough to call it a work of fiction.

Someone tried to point to a excavation that prooved the bible. But where is the tower of Babal? That should have been the largest building ever created by man if it was enough to have god damn it and put men down and create all the languages. So you would think that somepart of it would remain and be very easy to spot, since it would have to be larger than anything that is created today. Because God has not struck down the sears tower.


----------



## Nocturn3 (Aug 31, 2009)

fish601 said:


> I am trying to be open about everything that doesnt fit into the bible. but when you talk of evolution (ape to man) and the flawed dating methods, i see why some christian and non christian people throw it aside. There is no proof.


What are your views on human chromosome 2? I'd say that's a strong ape to man link myself.


----------



## hanimmal (Aug 31, 2009)

> I am trying to be open about everything that doesnt fit into the bible. but when you talk of evolution (ape to man) and the flawed dating methods, i see why some christian and non christian people throw it aside. There is no proof.


But there is a lot of information showing this. The fact that in the jungle the fossils remains decompose too fast to have a good fossil record does not mean there is not anything showing it. Looking at the DNA you can trace the evolution.

Look at how our eyes are set, the birthing, feeding, emotions, and so much more. Those are things that will point you to it. But to believe that some can change with evolution and we are somehow special and cannot possibly have evolved from a distant ancestor is extremely biased.

People just want to believe that we are somehow more special than everything else on the planet. But we are still animals. We just are the first to put the parts of the brain and certain traits to make us the most intelligent and observant on the planet.


----------



## hanimmal (Aug 31, 2009)

> flawed dating methods


You realize that you cannot possible measure anything?

It is true. You take a tape measurer and cut a two inch piece of paper. It is not exactly two inches. As you go down to the micro level there will be parts that are more or less than the two inches. And you cannot possible measure it because everytime you go down further it will still be off. 

It is the same with dating. There is no exact measurement as you go. You know how old you are, but as you follow your birth to the second, micro second, ect your time will get off, you can at best get a range. 

And the further and further back you go in time, the larger those micro measurements get. Until people try to say that it is now unreliable, but when you look at it in context, it is plenty reliable.


----------



## fish601 (Aug 31, 2009)

Nocturn3 said:


> What are your views on human chromosome 2? I'd say that's a strong ape to man link myself.


it doesnt demonstrate common ancestry it assumes it.


----------



## CrackerJax (Aug 31, 2009)

The burden of proof lies at the feet of the Bible, not science. science has an amzing amount of proof. 

The Bible has literally none.

Why are we even discussing this?


----------



## fish601 (Aug 31, 2009)

hanimmal said:


> You realize that you cannot possible measure anything?
> 
> It is true. You take a tape measurer and cut a two inch piece of paper. It is not exactly two inches. As you go down to the micro level there will be parts that are more or less than the two inches. And you cannot possible measure it because everytime you go down further it will still be off.
> 
> ...


when we use a tape measure we know the starting point and ending point.
dating methods only know the ending point.

[FONT=Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Sans-serif,sans-serif][SIZE=-1]*3. RADIOMETRIC DATING:* This process attempts to place an accurate date on the age of rocks by measuring the decay of radioactive minerals trapped within. Scientists first examine the relative ratios of various minerals in the host rock. Three basic assumptions are made when dating a piece of rock; [/SIZE][/FONT]​
[FONT=Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Sans-serif,sans-serif][SIZE=-1]A. the rock contained no &#8220;radioactive &#8220;daughter-product&#8221; atoms in the beginning, only parent atoms.[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Sans-serif,sans-serif][SIZE=-1]B. since the moment of its creation no parent or daughter atoms were either added to or taken from the sample rock.[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Sans-serif,sans-serif][SIZE=-1]C. the rate of decay has always remained constant (uniform decay). [/SIZE][/FONT]​
[FONT=Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Sans-serif,sans-serif][SIZE=-1]These assumptions cannot be proven with any degree of accuracy. To make a scientific claim, one must be able to reproduce results. What do you think? In your experience, can an algebraic equation with three unknown variables yield a predictable, verifiable result?[/SIZE][/FONT]​


----------



## fish601 (Aug 31, 2009)

CrackerJax said:


> The burden of proof lies at the feet of the Bible, not science. science has an amzing amount of proof.
> 
> The Bible has literally none.
> 
> Why are we even discussing this?


 
why are you discussing this?

besides evolution (ape to man) i dont think anything else we have talked about contradicts the bible
i have said this before, i do not have a problem with how old the earth is i just do not believe scientist are even close to guessing the right age, it has nothing to do with the bible.

true science deals with facts -- observable, testable, reproducible under controlled conditions. The origin of things is not observable, not testable, not reproducible.


----------



## CrackerJax (Aug 31, 2009)

No problems other than evolution?.... just a tiny discrepancy huh. There isn't ANY scientific information in the Bible. Why would you think diminishing science gets you any closer to....anything. The Bible still falls in upon itself...it is self defeating.


----------



## jfgordon1 (Aug 31, 2009)

CrackerJax said:


> Which made you more scared? The movie or the family watching it....


lmao... the family without a doubt. I was at a loss for sure.


----------



## PadawanBater (Aug 31, 2009)

fish601 said:


> why are you discussing this?
> 
> besides evolution (ape to man) i dont think anything else we have talked about contradicts the bible
> i have said this before, i do not have a problem with how old the earth is i just do not believe scientist are even close to guessing the right age, it has nothing to do with the bible.
> ...


 
fish, let me get this straight, according to you...

-we can't date anything past 50,000 years because every dating method is based on assumptions, except carbon dating

*Except there have been at least two different people, other than myself, who have linked you to actual scientific sites where they explain EXACTLY, IN DETAIL how the methods are used. We've explained to you that if the dating methods were not accurate, the scientists would be the first ones to discard them and start over with accurate measurements, that is how you know it's true science, they're not interested in what they want to be true, they are interested in WHAT IS true. *

*If you fail to realize this and change your beliefs/arguments accordingly, all that is going to happen is you will continue to lose credibility in this discussion. I've seriously had enough of it man, it's not bias coming from an atheist, it's not a conspiracy, it's not because I want to discredit God or the bible... it's because the goddamn methods are true, they ARE ACCURATE, they work. You not accepting that doesn't change a thing. I can't stress enough how much I want to emphasize this to you. Please man seriously, for your own good, go read up a little bit more on the dating methods. If you come back and STILL believe they are faulty, it's then your responsibility to tell me why, not just say "they're wrong because this paper says so and these creationists think so.."*

-humans were once giants because of the high oxygen level in the atmosphere

*...but didn't you just say;*




> true science deals with facts -- observable, testable, reproducible under controlled conditions. The origin of things is not observable, not testable, not reproducible.




*I'd like to know how you observed, tested, or reproduced the early atmospheric conditions of Earth. Well, not really because of course, you didn't... But you felt this argument was valid... Why is that?... wait wait, let ME tell YOU why it WAS a valid argument, maybe then you'll see how science does NOT only deal with what we can directly observe, test, or reproduce. *

*How many murderers do you know about who were convicted because they were caught in the act of murder? I'd say not very many... Most of them get caught on the shit they leave behind, we call this evidence, the field of study that figures this stuff out is called Forensic Science, imagine that! Evolutionary Biologists do the exact same things in science. They look for evidence of something to support their idea, they're not out there trying to manipulate the evidence to support their idea, those people get caught, there are plenty of good examples as you probably already know about as your team loves exploiting the few bad apples as the legitimate scientists... *

*So, you either support state sponsored murder via lethal injection (if they're lucky) without any substantial proof or evidence to convict the guy, the only exception being a murderer who was actually caught in the act...*

*or, you must abandon this notion that 'real science' ONLY deals with directly observable, testable, reproduceable data.*

-humans walked with dinosaurs

*I don't really know what else I can say about this one man, if you're walking around believing this in the 21st century, you are seriously taking every single oz of your 8lb brain for granted. *

*Can I ask you an honest question fish? *

*-Is this an idea you would support in public in a group of your own peers? A group of people who you know and who know you? People whose opinions would actually matter to you?*

-human genome 2 is not significant in tracing common ancestors between modern apes and modern homo sapiens

*By FAR one of the strongest pieces of evidence that supports the theory of evolution, specifically that modern homo sapiens share a common ancestor with other modern apes. If you believe it's not significant, there is no question you don't understand it.*




> You also said something about T-Rex nostrils being only the size of horses. You forget about their mouths?


 
FTW! I LOL'D at that, +rep Hannimal


----------



## hanimmal (Sep 1, 2009)

> when we use a tape measure we know the starting point and ending point.
> dating methods only know the ending point.


 You still do not accurately know the starting or ending point when you measure with a tape. You can only get an estimate. Those two inches that you think you measured will turn out to not be exactly two inches. That is the point. As you move to a more micro scale the measurement becomes off, no matter what. It is like the number Pi. It doesn't end you can continue to follow it as it becomes smaller and smaller, but in reality it is just a range that we end up using.

Same with dating techniques. Or all science, it is not 100%, ever. Nothing is. It is just an accurate range. 

Take your birth, depending on who you are asking, when you say your birthday there will be some debate on it accuracy. Are you considering the earliest possible moment of conception where the sperm was injected or when the sperm entered into the egg, or when you started to breach, or when the doctor smacked you on the ass and said now to the nurse? That can be a pretty long range when considering what tops 30 years old. 

Lets try the math.

Say you are 30 years old and there is a 9 month range of when you were born. So with 360 months (30 years) and a nine month range we would have a 2.5% range on your time of birth (9 divided by 360).

So when there is a range of 2.5% in 100 million years it would be 2.5 million years of a range. So you may be able to see how accurate it is using the range of your birth.


----------



## mexiblunt (Sep 1, 2009)

PrincessTurdstool said:


> LOL pretty much what he said.
> 
> The question of science over faith is an easy one...
> 
> ...


Word!! And if the faithfull by chance did have a question... this place might not have the answers seeked.


----------



## CrackerJax (Sep 1, 2009)

yes, but the drive to convert unbelievers overwhelms them. The reason for this has already been mentioned.... they don't TRULY believe. 

The arguing over science and evolution is nothing more than a recruitment tool.


----------



## jfgordon1 (Sep 1, 2009)

CrackerJax said:


> yes, but the drive to convert unbelievers overwhelms them. The reason for this has already been mentioned.... *they don't TRULY believe. *
> 
> The arguing over science and evolution is nothing more than a recruitment tool.


I've thought this too. I've been around "christians" my entire life... if they truly believed that they would burn in hell for eternity if they sinned, they wouldn't do what they do. hypocrisy at its finest.


----------



## PadawanBater (Sep 1, 2009)

This is a good one..

If religious people actually believed it... why don't they drive around without a seatbelt on?

lol, can't remember where that's from, but that's a good point eh?


----------



## fish601 (Sep 1, 2009)

CrackerJax said:


> No problems other than evolution?.... just a tiny discrepancy huh. There isn't ANY scientific information in the Bible. Why would you think diminishing science gets you any closer to....anything. The Bible still falls in upon itself...it is self defeating.


when you say there isnt ANY scientific information in the bible you read the bible right?

[FONT=Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Sans-serif,sans-serif][SIZE=-1][/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Sans-serif,sans-serif][SIZE=-1]*Genesis 1:1,3* (written 3,450 years ago): "In the beginning God created the Heaven and the earth . . . And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters." [/SIZE][/FONT]​
[FONT=Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Sans-serif,sans-serif][SIZE=-1][/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Sans-serif,sans-serif][SIZE=-1]Science expresses the universe in five terms: time, space, matter, power and motion. "In the beginning (time) God created (power) the Heaven (space) and the earth (matter) . . . And the Spirit of God moved (motion) upon the face of the waters."[/SIZE][/FONT]​
[FONT=Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Sans-serif,sans-serif][SIZE=-1]
[/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Sans-serif,sans-serif][SIZE=-1]*Genesis 2:1* (after creation): "Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them." [/SIZE][/FONT]​
[FONT=Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Sans-serif,sans-serif][SIZE=-1][/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Sans-serif,sans-serif][SIZE=-1]The Hebrew word used here is the past definite tense for the verb "finished," indicating an action completed in the past, never again to occur. The creation was "finished" -- once and for all. That is what the First Law of Thermodynamics says. It states that neither matter nor energy can be either created or destroyed. There is no "creation" ongoing today. It is "finished" exactly as the Bible states.[/SIZE][/FONT]​
[FONT=Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Sans-serif,sans-serif][SIZE=-1]
[/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Sans-serif,sans-serif][SIZE=-1]*Genesis 3:15*: "And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her seed; it shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel." [/SIZE][/FONT]​
[FONT=Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Sans-serif,sans-serif][SIZE=-1][/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Sans-serif,sans-serif][SIZE=-1]This verse reveals that a female possesses the "seed of life." This was not the common knowledge until a few centuries ago. It was widely believed that the male only possessed the "seed of life" and that the woman was nothing more than a glorified incubator.[/SIZE][/FONT]​
[FONT=Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Sans-serif,sans-serif][SIZE=-1]
[/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Sans-serif,sans-serif][SIZE=-1]*Genesis 17:12*: "And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every man child in your generations, he that is born in the house, or bought with money of any stranger, which is not of thy seed." [/SIZE][/FONT]​
[FONT=Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Sans-serif,sans-serif][SIZE=-1][/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Sans-serif,sans-serif][SIZE=-1]Why was circumcision to be carried out on the eighth day? Medical science has discovered that the eighth day is the only day in the entire life of the newborn that the blood clotting element prothrombin is above 100%.[/SIZE][/FONT]​
[FONT=Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Sans-serif,sans-serif][SIZE=-1]
[/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Sans-serif,sans-serif][SIZE=-1]*Leviticus 17:11* (written 3000 years ago): "For the life of the flesh is in the blood." [/SIZE][/FONT]​
[FONT=Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Sans-serif,sans-serif][SIZE=-1][/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Sans-serif,sans-serif][SIZE=-1]The Scriptures declare that blood is the source of life. Up until 120 years ago, sick people were "bled", and many died because of the practice. We now know that blood is the source of life. If you lose your blood, you will lose your life.
[/SIZE][/FONT]​
[FONT=Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Sans-serif,sans-serif][SIZE=-1][/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Sans-serif,sans-serif][SIZE=-1]*Leviticus 15:13* (written 3000 years ago): "And when he that has an issue is cleansed of his issue; then he shall number to himself seven days for his cleansing, and wash his clothes, and bathe his flesh in running water, and shall be clean." [/SIZE][/FONT]​
[FONT=Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Sans-serif,sans-serif][SIZE=-1][/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Sans-serif,sans-serif][SIZE=-1]The Bible said that when dealing with disease, hands should be washed under _running water. _Up until 100 years ago doctors washed their hands in a basin of still water, resulting in the death of multitudes. We now know that doctors must wash their hands under running water. The Encyclopedia Britannica documents that in 1845, a young doctor in Vienna named Dr. Ignaz Semmelweis was horrified at the terrible death rate of women who were dying after giving birth in hospitals. As many as 30% of those giving birth died. The Doctor noted that doctors would examine the bodies of those who had died, then, without washing their hands, go straight to the next wards and examine expectant mothers. This was their normal practice, because the presence of microscopic diseases was unknown. Doctor Semmelweis insisted that doctors wash their hands before examinations, and the death rate immediately dropped down to 2%.[/SIZE][/FONT]​
[FONT=Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Sans-serif,sans-serif][SIZE=-1]
[/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Sans-serif,sans-serif][SIZE=-1]*Job 26:7* (written 3500 years ago): "He stretches out the north over the empty place, and hangs the earth upon nothing." [/SIZE][/FONT]​
[FONT=Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Sans-serif,sans-serif][SIZE=-1][/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Sans-serif,sans-serif][SIZE=-1]Less than 200 years ago, through the advent of massive telescopes, science learned about the great empty space in the north. Also the Bible claimed that the earth freely floated in space, but science then thought that the earth sat on a large animal. We now know that the earth has a free float in space. [/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Sans-serif,sans-serif][SIZE=-1][/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Sans-serif,sans-serif][SIZE=-1](The first scientist having this understanding would appear to be Copernicus around 1500. _Examples of Scientific Accuracy in the Bible By David Pyles)_ [/SIZE][/FONT]​
[FONT=Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Sans-serif,sans-serif][SIZE=-1]
[/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Sans-serif,sans-serif][SIZE=-1]*Job 28:25 *To establish a weight for the wind, And apportion the waters by measure. [/SIZE][/FONT]​
[FONT=Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Sans-serif,sans-serif][SIZE=-1][/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Sans-serif,sans-serif][SIZE=-1]The fact that air has _weight_ was proven scientifically only about 300 years ago. The relative weights of air and water are needed for the efficient functioning of the worlds hydrologic cycle, which in turn sustains life on the earth. [/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Sans-serif,sans-serif][SIZE=-1]
[/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Sans-serif,sans-serif][SIZE=-1]*Job 38:12, 14*, (written 3500 years ago) God Himself says: "Have you commanded the morning since your days; and caused the dayspring to know his place; that it might take hold of the ends of the earth, that the wicked might be shaken out of it? It [the earth] is turned as clay to the seal; and they stand as a garment." [/SIZE][/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Sans-serif,sans-serif][SIZE=-1][/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Sans-serif,sans-serif][SIZE=-1]Modern science has come to understand that the earth's rotation on its axis is responsible for the sun's rising and setting. The picture here is of a vessel of clay being turned or rotated upon the potter's wheel -- an accurate analogy of the earth's rotation.[/SIZE][/FONT]​
[FONT=Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Sans-serif,sans-serif][SIZE=-1]
[/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Sans-serif,sans-serif][SIZE=-1]*Job 38:16* speaks of springs in the sea. It is now known that there are indeed such springs on the ocean floor. [/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Sans-serif,sans-serif][SIZE=-1][/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Sans-serif,sans-serif][SIZE=-1] The earliest literature indicating an understanding of hydrological cycle was apparently around the third or fourth century BC. However, the essential details of this cycle were all revealed in the Bible well before this time. This may be seen from the following texts: [/SIZE][/FONT]​
[FONT=Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Sans-serif,sans-serif][SIZE=-1][/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Sans-serif,sans-serif][SIZE=-1]The wind goeth toward the south, and turneth about unto the north; it whirleth about continually, and the wind returneth again according to his circuits. All the rivers run into the sea; yet the sea is not full; unto the place from whence the rivers come, thither they return again. - Eccl 1:6,7 [/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Sans-serif,sans-serif][SIZE=-1][/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Sans-serif,sans-serif][SIZE=-1]For he maketh small the drops of water: they pour down rain according to the vapour thereof: which the clouds do drop and distil upon man abundantly. - Job 36:27,28 [/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Sans-serif,sans-serif][SIZE=-1][/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Sans-serif,sans-serif][SIZE=-1]It is he that buildeth his stories in the heaven, and hath founded his troop in the earth; he that calleth for the waters of the sea, and poureth them out upon the face of the earth: The LORD is his name. - Amos 9:6 (Examples of Scientific Accuracy in the Bible By David Pyles)
[/SIZE][/FONT]​
[FONT=Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Sans-serif,sans-serif][SIZE=-1][/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Sans-serif,sans-serif][SIZE=-1]*Job 38:19* (written 3500 years ago). "Where is the way where light dwells?" [/SIZE][/FONT]​
[FONT=Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Sans-serif,sans-serif][SIZE=-1][/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Sans-serif,sans-serif][SIZE=-1]Modern man has only just discovered that light (electromagnetic radiation) has a "way," involving motion traveling at 186,000 miles per second.[/SIZE][/FONT]​
[FONT=Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Sans-serif,sans-serif][SIZE=-1]
[/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Sans-serif,sans-serif][SIZE=-1]*Job 38:22* (written 3,500 years ago). God says: "Have you entered into the treasures of the snow?" [/SIZE][/FONT]​
[FONT=Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Sans-serif,sans-serif][SIZE=-1][/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Sans-serif,sans-serif][SIZE=-1]It wasn't until the advent of the microscope that man discovered that each and every single snowflake is uniquely a symmetrical "treasure."[/SIZE][/FONT]​
[FONT=Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Sans-serif,sans-serif][SIZE=-1]
[/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Sans-serif,sans-serif][SIZE=-1]*Job 38:35* (written 3,500 years ago. God Himself speaking): "Can you send lightnings, that they may go and say unto you, Here we are?" [/SIZE][/FONT]​
[FONT=Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Sans-serif,sans-serif][SIZE=-1][/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Sans-serif,sans-serif][SIZE=-1]The Bible here is saying a scientifically ludicrous statement -- that light can be sent, and then manifest itself in speech. But did you know that radio waves move at the speed of light? This is why you can have instantaneous wireless communication with someone on the other side of the earth. Science didn' t discover this until 1864 when "the British scientist James Clerk Maxwell suggested that electricity and light waves were two forms of the same thing" (_Modern Century Illustrated Encyclopedia, Vol. 12)._[/SIZE][/FONT]​
[FONT=Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Sans-serif,sans-serif][SIZE=-1]
[/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Sans-serif,sans-serif][SIZE=-1]*Psalm 8:8*: "And the fish of the sea, and whatsoever passes through the paths of the seas." [/SIZE][/FONT]​
[FONT=Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Sans-serif,sans-serif][SIZE=-1][/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Sans-serif,sans-serif][SIZE=-1]What does the Bible mean by "paths" of the seas? The sea is just a huge mass of water, how then could it have "paths?" Man discovered the existence of ocean currents in the 1850's, but the Bible declared the science of oceanography 2,800 years ago. Matthew Maury (1806- 1873) is considered to be the father of oceanography. He was bedridden during a serious illness and asked his son to read a portion of the Bible to him. While listening, he noticed the expression "paths of the sea." Upon his recovery, Maury took God at His word and went looking for these paths. His book on oceanography is still considered a basic text on the subject and is still used in universities.[/SIZE][/FONT]​
[FONT=Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Sans-serif,sans-serif][SIZE=-1]
[/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Sans-serif,sans-serif][SIZE=-1]*Psalm 19:4-6*: "In them has He set a tabernacle for the sun, which is as a bridegroom coming out of his chamber, and rejoices as a strong man to run a race. His [the sun's] going forth is from the end of the heaven, and his circuit unto the ends of it: and there is nothing hid from the heat thereof." [/SIZE][/FONT]​
[FONT=Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Sans-serif,sans-serif][SIZE=-1][/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Sans-serif,sans-serif][SIZE=-1]Bible critics have scoffed at these verses, saying that they teach that the sun revolves around the earth. Science told them that the sun was stationary. Then they discovered that the sun is in fact moving through space at approximately 600,000 miles per hour. It is traveling through the heavens and has a "circuit" just as the Bible says. It is estimated that its circuit is so large, it would take 200 million years to complete one orbit.
[/SIZE][/FONT]​
[FONT=Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Sans-serif,sans-serif][SIZE=-1][/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Sans-serif,sans-serif][SIZE=-1]*Ecclesiastes 1:6* The wind goes toward the south, And turns around to the north; The wind whirls about continually, And comes again on its circuit. [/SIZE][/FONT]​
[FONT=Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Sans-serif,sans-serif][SIZE=-1][/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Sans-serif,sans-serif][SIZE=-1]The Bible describes the circulation of the atmosphere.[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Sans-serif,sans-serif][SIZE=-1][/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Sans-serif,sans-serif][SIZE=-1] The Bible includes some principles of fluid dynamics.
[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Sans-serif,sans-serif][SIZE=-1][/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Sans-serif,sans-serif][SIZE=-1]*Jonah 2:6* (written 2,800 years ago): "I went down to the bottoms of the mountains; the earth with her bars was about me for ever: yet have you brought up my life from corruption, O LORD my God." [/SIZE][/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Sans-serif,sans-serif][SIZE=-1][/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Sans-serif,sans-serif][SIZE=-1]When Jonah was in the depths of the ocean, he spoke of going down to the "bottoms of the mountains." Only in recent years has man discovered that there are mountains on the ocean floor. The greatest ocean depth has been sounded in the Challenger Deep of the Mariana's Trench, a distance of 35,798 feet below sea level. Mount Everest is 29,035 feet high.[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Sans-serif,sans-serif][SIZE=-1][/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Sans-serif,sans-serif][SIZE=-1](Genesis 10:25 speaks of one _Peleg_ whose name means division. The text then explains that he was so named because _in his days the earth was divided_. It is now commonly believed that all continents of the earth were once combined into a single continent called _Pangaea_. This belief is based upon the fact that present continents appear somewhat as pieces out of a puzzle. There are also other evidences, including several geological similarities on matching continental edges. {_Examples of Scientific Accuracy in the Bible By David Pyles}_) 
[/SIZE][/FONT]​
[FONT=Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Sans-serif,sans-serif][SIZE=-1][/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Sans-serif,sans-serif][SIZE=-1]*Amos 9:6* (written 2,800 years ago): "He . . . calls for the waters of the sea, and pours them out upon the face of the earth; the Lord is His name." [/SIZE][/FONT]​
[FONT=Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Sans-serif,sans-serif][SIZE=-1][/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Sans-serif,sans-serif][SIZE=-1]The Mississippi River dumps over six million gallons of water per second into the Gulf of Mexico. Where does all that water go? That's just one of thousands of rivers. The answer lies in the hydrologic cycle, something that was not fully accepted until the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, 2500 years after the Bible said that God _takes the waters of the sea, and pours them upon the face of the earth.
_[/SIZE][/FONT]​
[FONT=Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Sans-serif,sans-serif][SIZE=-1][/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Sans-serif,sans-serif][SIZE=-1]*Jeremiah 33:22* (written 2500 years ago): "As the host of heaven cannot be numbered, neither the sand of the sea measured." [/SIZE][/FONT]​
[FONT=Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Sans-serif,sans-serif][SIZE=-1][/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Sans-serif,sans-serif][SIZE=-1]The Bible claimed that there are billions of stars ("host of heaven" is the biblical term for the stars). When it made this statement, no one knew how vast the numbers of stars were as only about 1,100 were observable. Now we know that there are _billions of stars, and that they cannot be numbered._[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Sans-serif,sans-serif][SIZE=-1][/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Sans-serif,sans-serif][SIZE=-1]_(_The Bible asserts that the stars are innumerable (Gen 15:5, Gen 17:7, Heb 11:12). This does not necessarily mean that we are incapable of mathematically expressing their number. It means that no human has the ability to count them individually so as to achieve their sum. It is claimed that there are 100 billion stars in our galaxy alone. If stars were counted around the clock at one star per second, then it would take over 3000 years just to count these. Add to this the fact that there are as many as 100 billion galaxies. However, there were many scholars prior to Galileo who believed that the stars could be counted, and several attempts were made to do so. Many of these counts arrived at around 1000 stars. _Examples of Scientific Accuracy in the Bible By David Pyles_).
[/SIZE][/FONT]​
[FONT=Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Sans-serif,sans-serif][SIZE=-1][/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Sans-serif,sans-serif][SIZE=-1]*Isaiah 40:12* (written 2,800 years ago): "Who has measured the waters in the hollow of His hand . . ." [/SIZE][/FONT]​
[FONT=Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Sans-serif,sans-serif][SIZE=-1][/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Sans-serif,sans-serif][SIZE=-1]We are told that God has measured the waters and set a proper amount of water on the earth. Modern science has proved that the quantity of water on earth is just enough for our needs. If the sea became three meters deeper, the water would absorb all the carbon dioxide and nitrogen, and no creature could live any longer.[/SIZE][/FONT]​
[FONT=Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Sans-serif,sans-serif][SIZE=-1][/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Sans-serif,sans-serif][SIZE=-1]*Isaiah 40:22* (written 2800 years ago): "It is he that sits upon the circle of the earth." [/SIZE][/FONT]​
[FONT=Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Sans-serif,sans-serif][SIZE=-1][/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Sans-serif,sans-serif][SIZE=-1]The Bible informs us here that the earth is round. At a time when science believed that the earth was flat, it was the Scriptures that inspired Christopher Columbus to sail around the world. He wrote: "It was the Lord who put it into my mind. I could feel His hand upon me . . . there is no question the inspiration was from the Holy Spirit because He comforted me with rays of marvelous illumination from the Holy Scriptures . . ." (From his diary, in reference to his discovery of "the New World").[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Sans-serif,sans-serif][SIZE=-1][/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Sans-serif,sans-serif][SIZE=-1](Other statements in the Bible also indicate that God revealed this truth long ago. For example, David said that God has removed our transgression from us as far as the east is from the west (Ps 103:12). On a spherical surface, east and west are infinitely separated in the sense that one can travel indefinitely in either direction without ever attaining the other. However, Solomon described the wind as blowing in circuits, first towards the south and then turning toward the north. North and south are not infinitely separated as east and west, because a southward traveler on a spherical surface will be heading north after crossing the south pole. _Examples of Scientific Accuracy in the Bible By David Pyles _) 
[/SIZE][/FONT]​
[FONT=Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Sans-serif,sans-serif][SIZE=-1][/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Sans-serif,sans-serif][SIZE=-1]*Isaiah 40:22* (written 2,800 years ago): "It is He that . . . stretches out the heavens as a curtain, and spreads them out as a tent to dwell in." [/SIZE][/FONT]​
[FONT=Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Sans-serif,sans-serif][SIZE=-1][/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Sans-serif,sans-serif][SIZE=-1]Scientists are beginning to understand that the universe is expanding, or stretching out. At least seven times in Scripture we are clearly told that God _stretches out the heavens like a curtain._[/SIZE][/FONT]​
[FONT=Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Sans-serif,sans-serif][SIZE=-1]
[/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Sans-serif,sans-serif][SIZE=-1]*Hebrews 1:10,11* (written 2000 years ago): ". . . And, You, Lord, in the beginning have laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of your hands: They shall perish; but you remain; and they all shall wax old as does a garment." [/SIZE][/FONT]​
[FONT=Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Sans-serif,sans-serif][SIZE=-1][/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Sans-serif,sans-serif][SIZE=-1]The Bible tells us that the earth is wearing out. This is what the Second Law of Thermodynamics states. This wasn't discovered by science until comparatively recently. [/SIZE][/FONT]​
[FONT=Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Sans-serif,sans-serif][SIZE=-1]
[/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Sans-serif,sans-serif][SIZE=-1]*Hebrews 11:3* (written 2000 years ago): "Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear." [/SIZE][/FONT]​
[FONT=Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Sans-serif,sans-serif][SIZE=-1][/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Sans-serif,sans-serif][SIZE=-1]The Bible claims that all creation is made of invisible material. Science then was ignorant of the subject. We now know that the entire creation is made of invisible elements called "atoms."[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Sans-serif,sans-serif][SIZE=-1] [/SIZE][/FONT]​
[FONT=Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Sans-serif,sans-serif][SIZE=-1][/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Sans-serif,sans-serif][SIZE=-1]*The Dinosaur *(There is reasonable evidence that the scriptures speak of dinosaurs. As should be expected, this evidence comes from Genesis, the book of origins, and from the book of Job, generally believed to be the oldest book in the Bible. [/SIZE][/FONT]​
[FONT=Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Sans-serif,sans-serif][SIZE=-1][/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Sans-serif,sans-serif][SIZE=-1]First, Gn 1:21 speaks of God creating _whales_ on the fifth day of creation. The Hebrew word translated here as _whales_ is generally translated dragons. It is translated as monsters once, whale(s) twice, serpent(s) thrice, and dragon(s) 21 times. [/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Sans-serif,sans-serif][SIZE=-1][/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Sans-serif,sans-serif][SIZE=-1]Second, Job's statements concerning the _behemoth_ (Job 40:15-24) might be referring to dinosaurs. Its tail is compared to a cedar tree. Its strength, and apparently its bulk, is in its loins. It is said to be the chief of the ways of God, and is described as having the ability to drink up a river. No modern animal meets this description in all points. [/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Sans-serif,sans-serif][SIZE=-1][/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Sans-serif,sans-serif][SIZE=-1]Third, Job's description of the _leviathin_ (Job 41) very much resembles a dinosaur. Some would dismiss this description as fictitious because the leviathin is described as breathing fire; however, some creation scientists believe this could have happened. The creature would merely need glands to produce a chemical which would combust when exposed to air. The bombardier beetle does in fact have this ability. The fact that nearly every major culture of the world has traditions about such dragons lends yet further credibility to the possibility of their existence in the past. _Examples of Scientific Accuracy in the Bible By David Pyles)_[/SIZE][/FONT]​
[FONT=Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Sans-serif,sans-serif][SIZE=-1][/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Sans-serif,sans-serif][SIZE=-1]Why did the dinosaur disappear? This is something that has modern science mystified, but the Bible may have the answer (written 3500 years ago. God Himself is speaking): [/SIZE][/FONT]​
[FONT=Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Sans-serif,sans-serif][SIZE=-1][/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Sans-serif,sans-serif][SIZE=-1]"Behold now behemoth, which I made with thee; he eats grass as an ox. Lo now, his strength is in his loins, and his force is in the navel of his belly. He moves his tail like a cedar: the sinews of his stones are wrapped together. His bones are as strong pieces of brass; his bones are like bars of iron. He is the chief of the ways of God: he that made him can make his sword to approach unto him. Surely the mountains bring him forth food, where all the beasts of the field play. He lies under the shady trees, in the covert of the reed, and fens. The shady trees cover him with their shadow; the willows of the brook compass him about. Behold, he drinks up a river, and hastens not: he trusts that he can draw up Jordan into his mouth. He takes it with his eyes: his nose pierces through snares. (Job 40:15-24).[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Sans-serif,sans-serif][SIZE=-1][/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Sans-serif,sans-serif][SIZE=-1]This was the Largest of all creatures He made.
It was plant-eating (herbivorous).
It had its strength in its hips.
Its tail was like a large tree (a cedar).
It had very strong bones.
Its habitat was among the trees.
Drank massive amounts of water.
His nose pierced through snares. [/SIZE][/FONT]​
[FONT=Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Sans-serif,sans-serif][SIZE=-1][/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Sans-serif,sans-serif][SIZE=-1]Then Scripture says, " . . . He that made him can make his sword approach to him." In other words, God caused this, the largest of all the creatures He had made, to become extinct. [/SIZE][/FONT]​


----------



## fish601 (Sep 1, 2009)

jfgordon1 said:


> I've thought this too. I've been around "christians" my entire life... if they truly believed that they would burn in hell for eternity if they sinned, they wouldn't do what they do. hypocrisy at its finest.


lol thats not even a good guess

WE all sin, every last one of us.


----------



## fish601 (Sep 1, 2009)

PadawanBater said:


> * scientific sites where they explain EXACTLY, IN DETAIL how the methods are used. *


can you tell me whats up with this


Three basic assumptions are made when dating a piece of rock; 

[FONT=Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Sans-serif,sans-serif]A. the rock contained no radioactive daughter-product atoms in the beginning, only parent atoms.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Sans-serif,sans-serif][SIZE=-1]B. since the moment of its creation no parent or daughter atoms were either added to or taken from the sample rock.[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Sans-serif,sans-serif][SIZE=-1]C. the rate of decay has always remained constant (uniform decay). [/SIZE][/FONT]​


----------



## Stoney McFried (Sep 1, 2009)

Since we're defending statements from the bible now, would you care to defend these?And don't say...oh...that was old testament, this is new, because, quite frankly, it's all the same religion.New testament just wants to represent him as a kind and gentle god because it nets more followers.


_"No wickedness comes anywhere near the wickedness of a woman.....Sin began with a woman and thanks to her we all must die" (Ecclesiasticus 25:19,24).

"A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I don't permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner"
(I Timothy 2:11-14).

"The birth of a daughter is a loss" (Ecclesiasticus 22:3).

"Keep a headstrong daughter under firm control, or she will abuse any indulgence she receives. Keep a strict watch on her shameless eye, do not be surprised if she disgraces you" (Ecclesiasticus 26:10-11).

"As in all the congregations of the saints, women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission as the law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church." (I Corinthians 14:34-35)

"When a woman has her regular flow of blood, the impurity of her monthly period will last seven days, and anyone who touches her will be unclean till evening. Anything she lies on during her period will be unclean, and anything she sits on will be unclean. Whoever touches her bed must wash his clothes and bathe with water, and he will be unclean till evening. Whoever touches anything she sits on must wash his clothes and bathe with water, and he will be unclean till evening. Whether it is the bed or anything she was sitting on, when anyone touches it, he will be unclean till evening" (Lev. 15:19-23).

"If a man takes a wife and, after lying with her, dislikes her saying, 'I married this woman, but when I approached her, I did not find proof of her virginity,' and no proof of the girl's virginity can be found, she shall be brought to the door of her father's house and there the men of the town shall stone her to death. She has done a disgraceful thing in Israel by being promiscuous while still in her father's house. You must purge the evil from among you." (Deuteronomy 22:13-21)

"A bad wife brings humiliation, downcast looks, and a wounded heart. Slack of hand and weak of knee is the man whose wife fails to make him happy. Woman is the origin of sin, and it is through her that we all die. Do not leave a leaky cistern to drip or allow a bad wife to say what she likes. If she does not accept your control, divorce her and send her away" (Ecclesiasticus 25:25).

"Now I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is GodA man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man. For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. For this reason, and because of the angels, the woman ought to have a sign of authority on her head" (I Corinthians 11:3-10).


And these are just a few.Since you want to present the Bible itself as irrefutable evidence of a higher power,please exaplin why, even if such a power exists, anyone would want to worship his evil ass.

Furthermore,exaplain to me why wiccans, buddhists, jews,hindu's, etc, are NOT pushing for their views on creation to be taught...just evangelical Christian control freaks.Thanks._


fish601 said:


> when you say there isnt ANY scientific information in the bible you read the bible right?
> 
> [FONT=Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Sans-serif,sans-serif][SIZE=-1]*Genesis 1:1,3* (written 3,450 years ago): "In the beginning God created the Heaven and the earth . . . And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters." [/SIZE][/FONT]​
> 
> ...


----------



## fish601 (Sep 1, 2009)

Stoney McFried said:


> Since we're defending statements from the bible now, would you care to defend these?And don't say...oh...that was old testament, this is new, because, quite frankly, it's all the same religion.New testament just wants to represent him as a kind and gentle god because it nets more followers.
> 
> 
> _"No wickedness comes anywhere near the wickedness of a woman.....Sin began with a woman and thanks to her we all must die" (Ecclesiasticus 25:19,24)._
> ...


 
i dont see anything wrong with those verses


----------



## Stoney McFried (Sep 1, 2009)

Ah.So you're a misogynist, too.


fish601 said:


> i dont see anything wrong with those verses


----------



## PadawanBater (Sep 1, 2009)

fish601 said:


> can you tell me whats up with this
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
Absolutely!

Though I suspect you just read that off some creationist website, figured it was true not knowing what any of it meant thinking it sounded good, then came here and posted it as evidence against the accuracy of the dating methods.

So first, before I respond to it, I want you to tell me why you believe these are assumptions being made? *In your own words, please.*


----------



## fish601 (Sep 1, 2009)

because scientist said it is, not a christian webpage
now just because they say its so doesnt meant it is true, take evolution for example


----------



## Stoney McFried (Sep 1, 2009)

And just because you say creationism is true doesn't make it so,either.See...the difference is...science doesn't tell you something is so and then offer no real proof of it.Science is constantly questioning, thinking, trying to disprove a theory....eliminating all possibilities until the core is reached.All hypothesis' that cannot hold up to scrutiny are discarded. Religion, however, tells you something is, and then if you question it, you're a "blasphemer".Because religion,creationism cannot hold up under scientific scrutiny.Believe what you like.Just keep your pseudo science out of the education system.


fish601 said:


> because scientist said it is, not a christian webpage
> now just because they say its so doesnt meant it is true, take evolution for example


----------



## PadawanBater (Sep 1, 2009)

fish601 said:


> because scientist said it is, not a christian webpage
> now just because they say its so doesnt meant it is true, take evolution for example


 
You believe they are assumptions because scientists said it is... then in the very same post you said "just because they say its so doesnt mean its true"... ... ..... ......

Are you listening to yourself?


----------



## Sure Shot (Sep 1, 2009)

Just think if this was a few hundred years ago.
Fish would have snitched all of us out for putting doubt into his mind.
Then we would all be hanging from stakes for our BLASPHEMY!!!
This was the churches science = If you were innocent GOD would protect you from being murdered! WTF???


----------



## fish601 (Sep 1, 2009)

PadawanBater said:


> You believe they are assumptions because scientists said it is... then in the very same post you said "just because they say its so doesnt mean its true"... ... ..... ......
> 
> Are you listening to yourself?


yes, you see i am puting my faith in god not scientist


----------



## fish601 (Sep 1, 2009)

Sure Shot said:


> Just think if this was a few hundred years ago.
> Fish would have snitched all of us out for putting doubt into his mind.
> Then we would all be hanging from stakes for our BLASPHEMY!!!
> This was the churches science = If you were innocent GOD would protect you from being murdered! WTF???


did someone really think that?


----------



## jfgordon1 (Sep 1, 2009)

fish601 said:


> yes, you see i am puting my faith in god no scientist


You mean the one that man wrote about? Ah, ok . What ever helps you sleep at night.


----------



## CrackerJax (Sep 1, 2009)

fish601 said:


> yes, you see i am puting my faith in god not scientist


You are putting your faith in the Bible G*D you mean....there's a difference. Without the Bible, you have nothing. One problem, the Bible is completely flawed and non verifiable. 

It is not the word of G*D because it SAYS it is..... lawdy. Understand? You can't verify a theory with ONE source! Understand? One source....the Bible through the Roman Catholic Church. Everything about Christianity comes form that one wellspring. It's a hatchet job of the truth.

If I write a book about something....anonymously....but at the end of the book tell you that this is the absolute truth and no deviations from this are true....would you believe it? Would you worship my story? 

Understand? Holey moley.....pass the guacamole.


----------



## fish601 (Sep 1, 2009)

jfgordon1 said:


> You mean the one that man wrote about? Ah, ok . What ever helps you sleep at night.


 
this one has been available for all.
many people have attacked the bible and it still has not been proven false not once. there are alot of claims that make you wonder but for a book that is really sixtysix books written on three continents, in three different languages, over a period of 1500 years, by 40 authors the Bible remains one unified book from beginning to end without contradiction. when i first started to take christianity seriously i hit the books hard trying to find a contradiction and well look i am a christian because of the evidence


----------



## fish601 (Sep 1, 2009)

CrackerJax said:


> One problem, the Bible is completely flawed and non verifiable.
> 
> It is not the word of G*D because it SAYS it is..... lawdy. Understand? You can't verify a theory with ONE source! Understand? One source....the Bible through the Roman Catholic Church. Everything about Christianity comes form that one wellspring. It's a hatchet job of the truth.
> 
> .


completely falwed haha easy to say



about the Roman Catholic Church it was not an organization in the first couple hundred years of the Christian Church.


----------



## CrackerJax (Sep 1, 2009)

fish601 said:


> completely *falwed* haha easy to say
> 
> 
> 
> about the Roman Catholic Church it was not an organization in the first couple hundred years of the Christian Church.


but not to spell 

Yes, it is easy to say Fish. Deflect all you want but that post is on target and accurate. You cannot face it. Understand?


----------



## Sure Shot (Sep 1, 2009)

fish601 said:


> did someone really think that?


Ever heard of Trial By Ordeal..
I suggest you really take a look at world history.
Most of the worst of history is derived from religious beliefs.


----------



## zorkan (Sep 1, 2009)

CrackerJax said:


> but not to spell
> 
> Yes, it is easy to say Fish. Deflect all you want but that post is on target and accurate. You cannot face it. Understand?


Good Point Dude 
 that away to prove him wrong


----------



## CrackerJax (Sep 1, 2009)

He's been shown a few pages back this circular argument with the Bible.....you are just coming in late. he knows EXACTLY what I'm talking about. K?


----------



## hanimmal (Sep 2, 2009)

> when you say there isnt ANY scientific information in the bible you read the bible right?


This should be fun.



> [FONT=Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Sans-serif,sans-serif][SIZE=-1]*Genesis 1:1,3* (written 3,450 years ago): "In the beginning God created the Heaven and the earth . . . And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters." [/SIZE][/FONT]​
> 
> [FONT=Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Sans-serif,sans-serif][SIZE=-1]Science expresses the universe in five terms: time, space, matter, power and motion. "In the beginning (time) God created (power) the Heaven (space) and the earth (matter) . . . And the Spirit of God moved (motion) upon the face of the waters."[/SIZE][/FONT]​


 Some word play that's fine. Lets see what else we have here...
[FONT=Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Sans-serif,sans-serif][SIZE=-1]
[/SIZE][/FONT]


> [FONT=Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Sans-serif,sans-serif][SIZE=-1]*Genesis 2:1* (after creation): "Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them." [/SIZE][/FONT]
> 
> [FONT=Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Sans-serif,sans-serif][SIZE=-1]The Hebrew word used here is the past definite tense for the verb "finished," indicating an action completed in the past, never again to occur. The creation was "finished" -- once and for all. That is what the First Law of Thermodynamics says. It states that neither matter nor energy can be either created or destroyed. There is no "creation" ongoing today. It is "finished" exactly as the Bible states.[/SIZE][/FONT]​


 Where are you getting matter from? 
"Energy can neither be created nor destroyed. It can only change forms.In any process in an isolated system, the total energy remains the same." 


Can someone with some science backround clearify this please.

​ ​


> [FONT=Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Sans-serif,sans-serif][SIZE=-1]*Genesis 3:15*: "And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her seed; it shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel." [/SIZE][/FONT]​
> 
> [FONT=Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Sans-serif,sans-serif][SIZE=-1]This verse reveals that a female possesses the "seed of life." This was not the common knowledge until a few centuries ago. It was widely believed that the male only possessed the "seed of life" and that the woman was nothing more than a glorified incubator.[/SIZE][/FONT]​


 There were feminist religions that did not believe that. Also lots of pagen ones too. The fact that the bible was written by man with all sorts of things to indoctrinate them into christianity. You ever wonder what the easter bunny is about? 

[FONT=Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Sans-serif,sans-serif][SIZE=-1]
[/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Sans-serif,sans-serif][SIZE=-1]


> * Genesis 17:12*: "And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every man child in your generations, he that is born in the house, or bought with money of any stranger, which is not of thy seed."





> [/SIZE][/FONT]





> [FONT=Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Sans-serif,sans-serif][SIZE=-1]Why was circumcision to be carried out on the eighth day? Medical science has discovered that the eighth day is the only day in the entire life of the newborn that the blood clotting element prothrombin is above 100%. ​




[/SIZE][/FONT]​
[FONT=Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Sans-serif,sans-serif][SIZE=-1]The fact that the Jews had been doing it for several centuries before the bible was written doesn't factor into to them figuring it out before the text was written? I mean trial and error is easy enough. How many people do you think fell and got a deep cut and bled to death in history before this was written? 

[/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Sans-serif,sans-serif][SIZE=-1]


> *Leviticus 17:11* (written 3000 years ago): "For the life of the flesh is in the blood."





> [/SIZE][/FONT]





> [FONT=Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Sans-serif,sans-serif][SIZE=-1]The Scriptures declare that blood is the source of life. Up until 120 years ago, sick people were "bled", and many died because of the practice. We now know that blood is the source of life. If you lose your blood, you will lose your life. ​



[/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Sans-serif,sans-serif][SIZE=-1]How many people do you think fell and got a deep cut and bled to death in history before this was written? [/SIZE][/FONT]​


> [FONT=Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Sans-serif,sans-serif][SIZE=-1]*Leviticus 15:13* (written 3000 years ago): "And when he that has an issue is cleansed of his issue; then he shall number to himself seven days for his cleansing, and wash his clothes, and bathe his flesh in running water, and shall be clean." [/SIZE][/FONT]





> [FONT=Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Sans-serif,sans-serif][SIZE=-1]The Bible said that when dealing with disease, hands should be washed under _running water. _Up until 100 years ago doctors washed their hands in a basin of still water, resulting in the death of multitudes. We now know that doctors must wash their hands under running water. The Encyclopedia Britannica documents that in 1845, a young doctor in Vienna named Dr. Ignaz Semmelweis was horrified at the terrible death rate of women who were dying after giving birth in hospitals. As many as 30% of those giving birth died. The Doctor noted that doctors would examine the bodies of those who had died, then, without washing their hands, go straight to the next wards and examine expectant mothers. This was their normal practice, because the presence of microscopic diseases was unknown. Doctor Semmelweis insisted that doctors wash their hands before examinations, and the death rate immediately dropped down to 2%. [/SIZE][/FONT]​



​
If you are dying, I don't think sitting in your shower for 7 days is going to make you better. 

But back in the day there was a lot of diseases due to uncleanliness. It makes sense that they learned to clean themselves to not get sick. And if you have ever swam in a swamp or small lake, you will know that they stink like muck. It is not hard to tell that you are not clean afterwards.


> [FONT=Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Sans-serif,sans-serif][SIZE=-1]
> [/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Sans-serif,sans-serif][SIZE=-1]*Job 26:7* (written 3500 years ago): "He stretches out the north over the empty place, and hangs the earth upon nothing." [/SIZE][/FONT]​
> 
> [FONT=Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Sans-serif,sans-serif][SIZE=-1]Less than 200 years ago, through the advent of massive telescopes, science learned about the great empty space in the north. Also the Bible claimed that the earth freely floated in space, but science then thought that the earth sat on a large animal. We now know that the earth has a free float in space. [/SIZE][/FONT]
> [FONT=Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Sans-serif,sans-serif][SIZE=-1](The first scientist having this understanding would appear to be Copernicus around 1500. _Examples of Scientific Accuracy in the Bible By David Pyles)_[/SIZE][/FONT]​


North is a matter of perception. So in Australia that would be meaningless. So lets just stick with the northern part of the globe, because that is where the bible was made. So if you look to the north it seems empty. You don't think that the stargazer religions had noticed this? Again indocrination of pagan religions would easliy account for this. Just like Egyptians used the stars to map out the pyramids, people for some reason think that we are more observant now than we were back a few thousand years.

We were just as intelligent, it was just that we did not have as much information to build off of.
[FONT=Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Sans-serif,sans-serif][SIZE=-1]
[/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Sans-serif,sans-serif][SIZE=-1]


> *Job 28:25 *To establish a weight for the wind, And apportion the waters by measure.





> [/SIZE][/FONT]





> [FONT=Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Sans-serif,sans-serif][SIZE=-1]The fact that air has _weight_ was proven scientifically only about 300 years ago. The relative weights of air and water are needed for the efficient functioning of the worlds hydrologic cycle, which in turn sustains life on the earth.



[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Sans-serif,sans-serif][SIZE=-1]Huh?

[/SIZE][/FONT]


> [FONT=Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Sans-serif,sans-serif][SIZE=-1]*Job 38:12, 14*, (written 3500 years ago) God Himself says: "Have you commanded the morning since your days; and caused the dayspring to know his place; that it might take hold of the ends of the earth, that the wicked might be shaken out of it? It [the earth] is turned as clay to the seal; and they stand as a garment." [/SIZE][/FONT]
> 
> [FONT=Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Sans-serif,sans-serif][SIZE=-1]Modern science has come to understand that the earth's rotation on its axis is responsible for the sun's rising and setting. The picture here is of a vessel of clay being turned or rotated upon the potter's wheel -- an accurate analogy of the earth's rotation.[/SIZE][/FONT]​


 How do you know it is not talking about turning the earth upside down like how you would put a seal on a clay pot with the opening pointed down (like pouring it out) to dump all the wicked doers out? 
[FONT=Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Sans-serif,sans-serif][SIZE=-1]
[/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Sans-serif,sans-serif][SIZE=-1]


> *Job 38:16* speaks of springs in the sea. It is now known that there are indeed such springs on the ocean floor.





> [/SIZE][/FONT]
> [FONT=Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Sans-serif,sans-serif][SIZE=-1] The earliest literature indicating an understanding of hydrological cycle was apparently around the third or fourth century BC. However, the essential details of this cycle were all revealed in the Bible well before this time. This may be seen from the following texts: [/SIZE][/FONT]





> [FONT=Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Sans-serif,sans-serif][SIZE=-1]The wind goeth toward the south, and turneth about unto the north; it whirleth about continually, and the wind returneth again according to his circuits. All the rivers run into the sea; yet the sea is not full; unto the place from whence the rivers come, thither they return again. - Eccl 1:6,7 [/SIZE][/FONT]
> [FONT=Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Sans-serif,sans-serif][SIZE=-1]For he maketh small the drops of water: they pour down rain according to the vapour thereof: which the clouds do drop and distil upon man abundantly. - Job 36:27,28 [/SIZE][/FONT]
> [FONT=Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Sans-serif,sans-serif][SIZE=-1]It is he that buildeth his stories in the heaven, and hath founded his troop in the earth; he that calleth for the waters of the sea, and poureth them out upon the face of the earth: The LORD is his name. - Amos 9:6 (Examples of Scientific Accuracy in the Bible By David Pyles) ​



[/SIZE][/FONT]​
[FONT=Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Sans-serif,sans-serif][SIZE=-1]Again Pagans worshiped all this first. But I guess you are arguing about the bible having some fact based reason in it. So maybe I shouldn't be so hard on it. But the fact remains this does not mean that it is some revelation about the bible being anything but a collection of dogma and bits from different religions that held up at the time ( if they couldn't convince the people, because the provable things that was known at the time, they would not have worked as a religion) mixed in with some new dogma to help control people and move the society forward, because at the core religion is a political government.


[/SIZE][/FONT]


> [FONT=Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Sans-serif,sans-serif][SIZE=-1]*Job 38:19* (written 3500 years ago). "Where is the way where light dwells?" [/SIZE][/FONT]​
> 
> [FONT=Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Sans-serif,sans-serif][SIZE=-1]Modern man has only just discovered that light (electromagnetic radiation) has a "way," involving motion traveling at 186,000 miles per second.[/SIZE][/FONT]​


 So a question is proof?

[FONT=Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Sans-serif,sans-serif][SIZE=-1]
[/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Sans-serif,sans-serif][SIZE=-1]


> *Job 38:22* (written 3,500 years ago). God says: "Have you entered into the treasures of the snow?"





> [/SIZE][/FONT]





> [FONT=Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Sans-serif,sans-serif][SIZE=-1]It wasn't until the advent of the microscope that man discovered that each and every single snowflake is uniquely a symmetrical "treasure." ​



[/SIZE][/FONT]​
[FONT=Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Sans-serif,sans-serif][SIZE=-1]Really? You don't think that is a large leap of faith? Coins are treasures too. Infact nothing on our planet is identical.

[/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Sans-serif,sans-serif][SIZE=-1]


> *Job 38:35* (written 3,500 years ago. God Himself speaking): "Can you send lightnings, that they may go and say unto you, Here we are?"





> [/SIZE][/FONT]





> [FONT=Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Sans-serif,sans-serif][SIZE=-1]The Bible here is saying a scientifically ludicrous statement -- that light can be sent, and then manifest itself in speech. But did you know that radio waves move at the speed of light? This is why you can have instantaneous wireless communication with someone on the other side of the earth. Science didn' t discover this until 1864 when "the British scientist James Clerk Maxwell suggested that electricity and light waves were two forms of the same thing" (_Modern Century Illustrated Encyclopedia, Vol. 12). _​



[/SIZE][/FONT]​
[FONT=Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Sans-serif,sans-serif][SIZE=-1]Huge leap of faith that that is what was meant. The Egyptian god Set was around much longer and controlled lightning. And at night with only fire, moon and stars to see, it was dark. So Lightning was a powerful tool to build gods on, the power of the light the lines they make the clouds that flash the lights, and the booming noises would all be powerful reminders of a gods power. 


[/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Sans-serif,sans-serif][SIZE=-1]


> * Psalm 8:8*: "And the fish of the sea, and whatsoever passes through the paths of the seas."





> [/SIZE][/FONT]





> [FONT=Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Sans-serif,sans-serif][SIZE=-1]What does the Bible mean by "paths" of the seas? The sea is just a huge mass of water, how then could it have "paths?" Man discovered the existence of ocean currents in the 1850's, but the Bible declared the science of oceanography 2,800 years ago. Matthew Maury (1806- 1873) is considered to be the father of oceanography. He was bedridden during a serious illness and asked his son to read a portion of the Bible to him. While listening, he noticed the expression "paths of the sea." Upon his recovery, Maury took God at His word and went looking for these paths. His book on oceanography is still considered a basic text on the subject and is still used in universities. ​




[/SIZE][/FONT]​
[FONT=Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Sans-serif,sans-serif][SIZE=-1]You know there are many paths in the seas of the mediterranean?







[/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Sans-serif,sans-serif][SIZE=-1]


> * Psalm 19:4-6*: "In them has He set a tabernacle for the sun, which is as a bridegroom coming out of his chamber, and rejoices as a strong man to run a race. His [the sun's] going forth is from the end of the heaven, and his circuit unto the ends of it: and there is nothing hid from the heat thereof."





> [/SIZE][/FONT]





> [FONT=Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Sans-serif,sans-serif][SIZE=-1]Bible critics have scoffed at these verses, saying that they teach that the sun revolves around the earth. Science told them that the sun was stationary. Then they discovered that the sun is in fact moving through space at approximately 600,000 miles per hour. It is traveling through the heavens and has a "circuit" just as the Bible says. It is estimated that its circuit is so large, it would take 200 million years to complete one orbit. ​




[/SIZE][/FONT]​
[FONT=Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Sans-serif,sans-serif][SIZE=-1]Um you do know everything in space is moving right? I don't really think that it is necessarily a circuit, unless you mean around the black hole in the middle of the milky way. All that aside can we agree it is crazy to think that the sun has a chamber? 
[/SIZE][/FONT]


> [FONT=Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Sans-serif,sans-serif][SIZE=-1]*Ecclesiastes 1:6* The wind goes toward the south, And turns around to the north; The wind whirls about continually, And comes again on its circuit. [/SIZE][/FONT]​
> 
> [FONT=Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Sans-serif,sans-serif][SIZE=-1]The Bible describes the circulation of the atmosphere.[/SIZE][/FONT]
> [FONT=Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Sans-serif,sans-serif][SIZE=-1] The Bible includes some principles of fluid dynamics.[/SIZE][/FONT]




I see nothing about fluid dynamics in this verse, but again ancient pagans had wind gods well before the bible.


> *Jonah 2:6* (written 2,800 years ago): "I went down to the bottoms of the mountains; the earth with her bars was about me for ever: yet have you brought up my life from corruption, O LORD my God." ​
> 
> [FONT=Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Sans-serif,sans-serif]
> [FONT=Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Sans-serif,sans-serif][SIZE=-1]When Jonah was in the depths of the ocean, he spoke of going down to the "bottoms of the mountains." Only in recent years has man discovered that there are mountains on the ocean floor. The greatest ocean depth has been sounded in the Challenger Deep of the Mariana's Trench, a distance of 35,798 feet below sea level. Mount Everest is 29,035 feet high.[/SIZE][/FONT]
> ...


So by saying that he was at the bottom of a mountain, it means that he was at the bottom of the ocean? 
[/FONT]


> [FONT=Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Sans-serif,sans-serif][SIZE=-1]*Amos 9:6* (written 2,800 years ago): "He . . . calls for the waters of the sea, and pours them out upon the face of the earth; the Lord is His name." [/SIZE][/FONT]​
> 
> [FONT=Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Sans-serif,sans-serif][SIZE=-1]The Mississippi River dumps over six million gallons of water per second into the Gulf of Mexico. Where does all that water go? That's just one of thousands of rivers. The answer lies in the hydrologic cycle, something that was not fully accepted until the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, 2500 years after the Bible said that God _takes the waters of the sea, and pours them upon the face of the earth._[/SIZE][/FONT]​


Maybe this was a explanation for tidal waves. Or rain? There were a lot of those throughout mans history that would need to be accounted for in anything that was trying to explain everything under one book.
​


> [FONT=Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Sans-serif,sans-serif][SIZE=-1]*Jeremiah 33:22* (written 2500 years ago): "As the host of heaven cannot be numbered, neither the sand of the sea measured." [/SIZE][/FONT]​
> 
> [FONT=Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Sans-serif,sans-serif][SIZE=-1]The Bible claimed that there are billions of stars ("host of heaven" is the biblical term for the stars). When it made this statement, no one knew how vast the numbers of stars were as only about 1,100 were observable. Now we know that there are _billions of stars, and that they cannot be numbered._[/SIZE][/FONT]
> [FONT=Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Sans-serif,sans-serif][SIZE=-1]_(_The Bible asserts that the stars are innumerable (Gen 15:5, Gen 17:7, Heb 11:12). This does not necessarily mean that we are incapable of mathematically expressing their number. It means that no human has the ability to count them individually so as to achieve their sum. It is claimed that there are 100 billion stars in our galaxy alone. If stars were counted around the clock at one star per second, then it would take over 3000 years just to count these. Add to this the fact that there are as many as 100 billion galaxies. However, there were many scholars prior to Galileo who believed that the stars could be counted, and several attempts were made to do so. Many of these counts arrived at around 1000 stars. _Examples of Scientific Accuracy in the Bible By David Pyles_).[/SIZE][/FONT]​


Haven't you ever sat there and tried to count the stars? Again as old humans had very little to do at night and still had the same brain power we do today, they must have tried to count the stars to make sense of things. We forget how powerful boredom is. Stars were a major part of almost every early religion. And that needed again to be explained.


> [FONT=Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Sans-serif,sans-serif][SIZE=-1]*Isaiah 40:12* (written 2,800 years ago): "Who has measured the waters in the hollow of His hand . . ." [/SIZE][/FONT]​
> 
> [FONT=Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Sans-serif,sans-serif][SIZE=-1]We are told that God has measured the waters and set a proper amount of water on the earth. Modern science has proved that the quantity of water on earth is just enough for our needs. If the sea became three meters deeper, the water would absorb all the carbon dioxide and nitrogen, and no creature could live any longer.[/SIZE][/FONT]​


This sounds like BS. I need to have you point to some evidence of this because it really seems like garbage science. Any link would be helpful.


> [FONT=Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Sans-serif,sans-serif][SIZE=-1]*Isaiah 40:22* (written 2800 years ago): "It is he that sits upon the circle of the earth." [/SIZE][/FONT]​
> 
> [FONT=Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Sans-serif,sans-serif][SIZE=-1]The Bible informs us here that the earth is round. At a time when science believed that the earth was flat, it was the Scriptures that inspired Christopher Columbus to sail around the world. He wrote: "It was the Lord who put it into my mind. I could feel His hand upon me . . . there is no question the inspiration was from the Holy Spirit because He comforted me with rays of marvelous illumination from the Holy Scriptures . . ." (From his diary, in reference to his discovery of "the New World").[/SIZE][/FONT]
> [FONT=Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Sans-serif,sans-serif][SIZE=-1](Other statements in the Bible also indicate that God revealed this truth long ago. For example, David said that God has removed our transgression from us as far as the east is from the west (Ps 103:12). On a spherical surface, east and west are infinitely separated in the sense that one can travel indefinitely in either direction without ever attaining the other. However, Solomon described the wind as blowing in circuits, first towards the south and then turning toward the north. North and south are not infinitely separated as east and west, because a southward traveler on a spherical surface will be heading north after crossing the south pole. _Examples of Scientific Accuracy in the Bible By David Pyles _) [/SIZE][/FONT]​


 The person said that 'science' believed this, but it was really the people that did. 

And there is some things that point to Columbus may have already had knowledge that the earth was round and America was here. Remember that there were plenty of travelers that had been here before him. 

Add to that the church killed people that would claim that the earth was round, or the sun did not move around the earth, it is funny how now they claim it to be proof that the bible is still relevant.


> [FONT=Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Sans-serif,sans-serif][SIZE=-1]*Isaiah 40:22* (written 2,800 years ago): "It is He that . . . stretches out the heavens as a curtain, and spreads them out as a tent to dwell in." [/SIZE][/FONT]​
> 
> [FONT=Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Sans-serif,sans-serif][SIZE=-1]Scientists are beginning to understand that the universe is expanding, or stretching out. At least seven times in Scripture we are clearly told that God _stretches out the heavens like a curtain._[/SIZE][/FONT]​


I wonder which religion this was taken from.


> [FONT=Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Sans-serif,sans-serif][SIZE=-1]
> [/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Sans-serif,sans-serif][SIZE=-1]*Hebrews 1:10,11* (written 2000 years ago): ". . . And, You, Lord, in the beginning have laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of your hands: They shall perish; but you remain; and they all shall wax old as does a garment." [/SIZE][/FONT]​
> 
> [FONT=Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Sans-serif,sans-serif][SIZE=-1]The Bible tells us that the earth is wearing out. This is what the Second Law of Thermodynamics states. This wasn't discovered by science until comparatively recently. [/SIZE][/FONT]​


 Not true, almost every religion has an endgame.
[FONT=Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Sans-serif,sans-serif][SIZE=-1]
[/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Sans-serif,sans-serif][SIZE=-1]


> *Hebrews 11:3* (written 2000 years ago): "Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear."





> [/SIZE][/FONT]





> [FONT=Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Sans-serif,sans-serif][SIZE=-1]The Bible claims that all creation is made of invisible material. Science then was ignorant of the subject. We now know that the entire creation is made of invisible elements called "atoms."[/SIZE][/FONT]​



Cool so here I can give the bible a point. Tiny miniscule objects make up everything, I wouldn't call them words of god, but what is in a word?​


> [FONT=Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Sans-serif,sans-serif][SIZE=-1]*The Dinosaur *(There is reasonable evidence that the scriptures speak of dinosaurs. As should be expected, this evidence comes from Genesis, the book of origins, and from the book of Job, generally believed to be the oldest book in the Bible. [/SIZE][/FONT]​
> 
> [FONT=Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Sans-serif,sans-serif][SIZE=-1]First, Gn 1:21 speaks of God creating _whales_ on the fifth day of creation. The Hebrew word translated here as _whales_ is generally translated dragons. It is translated as monsters once, whale(s) twice, serpent(s) thrice, and dragon(s) 21 times. [/SIZE][/FONT]
> [FONT=Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Sans-serif,sans-serif][SIZE=-1]Second, Job's statements concerning the _behemoth_ (Job 40:15-24) might be referring to dinosaurs. Its tail is compared to a cedar tree. Its strength, and apparently its bulk, is in its loins. It is said to be the chief of the ways of God, and is described as having the ability to drink up a river. No modern animal meets this description in all points. [/SIZE][/FONT]
> ...


Never said a large cedar. Could just be a very strong tail that swings.

So Elephant would still fit. Also maybe a rhino, or hippo. As far as the breathing fire thing, it is not going to happen, imagine if you had those glands your dude is talking about and you got hit hard in the face. You would blow up. Evolution would not favor that too well. But lets go out on a limb and call it a mammoth? There were giant mammals throughout mans early history, but not dinosaurs. 




> Then Scripture says, " . . . He that made him can make his sword approach to him." In other words, God caused this, the largest of all the creatures He had made, to become extinct.


Except it doesn't say that.




> this one has been available for all.
> many people have attacked the bible and it still has not been proven false not once. there are alot of claims that make you wonder but for a book that is really sixtysix books written on three continents, in three different languages, over a period of 1500 years, by 40 authors the Bible remains one unified book from beginning to end without contradiction. when i first started to take christianity seriously i hit the books hard trying to find a contradiction and well look i am a christian because of the evidence


http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jim_meritt/bible-contradictions.html#beasts_or_man



> *Who is the father of Joseph?*
> 
> MAT 1:16 And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.
> LUK 3:23 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli.





> *Which first--beasts or man?*
> 
> GEN 1:25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
> GEN 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
> ...





> *How many stalls and horsemen?*
> 
> 1KI 4:26 And Solomon had forty thousand stalls of horses for his chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen.
> 2CH 9:25 And Solomon had four thousand stalls for horses and chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen; whom he bestowed in the chariot cities, and with the king at Jerusalem.


I know God may not have human spellcheck back then.



> *Is it folly to be wise or not?*
> 
> PRO 4:7 Wisdom is the principal thing; therefore get wisdom: and with all thy getting get understanding.
> ECC 1:18 For in much wisdom is much grief: and he that increaseth knowledge increaseth sorrow.
> 1CO 1:19: "For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent."


I think the wisdom contradiction is a good one to leave this on.​


----------



## CrackerJax (Sep 2, 2009)

And there it is...... the Bible proving itself.


----------



## jfgordon1 (Sep 2, 2009)

Edit: Congrats on getting over 10,000 posts, Cracker ! That's a shit ton !


----------



## Stoney McFried (Sep 2, 2009)

jfgordon1 said:


> Edit: Congrats on getting over 10,000 posts, Cracker ! That's a shit ton !


----------



## jfgordon1 (Sep 2, 2009)

Stoney McFried said:


>


Thank you... Thank you... Thank you


----------



## Stoney McFried (Sep 2, 2009)

Of course, now you've incurred the horrible wrath of Jesusaurus Rex.
 
http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Jesusaurus_Rex


jfgordon1 said:


> Thank you... Thank you... Thank you


----------



## Stoney McFried (Sep 2, 2009)

OMg, if you click some of the links, there is stuff that made me roll....here's an excerpt from original jesus...
* Jesus' Demise*

*Subliminal warning: Hidden meaning or influence may follow.*
Yeah, Jesus got pwned by the Roman governor Herpatitis. Died for your sins and all that fun stuff. His last words are commonly said to be, "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do." and "Hey, I can see my house from here..." visitor.]] A heretical sect believes that Jesus actually died by slipping in the tub. They are known as Baathists, and are frequently warred against by true Christians. They can be identified by the use of a small gold or silver showerhead around their necks instead of a cross; and rather than crossing themselves, they wave their arms in circles as if losing their balance, while repeating "whoa whoa whoa".


----------



## CrackerJax (Sep 2, 2009)

well done....funny stuff and a nice visual JFG....


----------



## jfgordon1 (Sep 2, 2009)

Thanks Cracker 

and HILARIOUS yet SCARY dinosaur Stoney haha


----------



## Stoney McFried (Sep 2, 2009)

Don't forget Zombie Jesus.Now THAT's scary.
 
Zombie Jesus is notoriously hard to put down.








 
ZOMBIE JESUS LIVES





K, I'm off to soak in the tub.





jfgordon1 said:


> Thanks Cracker
> 
> and HILARIOUS yet SCARY dinosaur Stoney haha


----------



## hanimmal (Sep 2, 2009)

I like my Jesus with dreads.


----------



## jfgordon1 (Sep 2, 2009)

^ lol good posts guys

However.. i prefer alien jesus







[youtube]Gq01UYiMyHg[/youtube]

^ watch/listen... i think it's hilarious. Gota love the bob and tom show


----------



## CrackerJax (Sep 2, 2009)

I am sooo picking up this game for Christmas!! Amen!


----------



## Brazko (Sep 2, 2009)

Hey, When did they Release this, I know I'm picking up A 360 now!!




CrackerJax said:


> I am sooo picking up this game for Christmas!! Amen!


----------



## g00sEgg (Sep 6, 2009)

I like to imagine my jesus in a tuxedo t-shirt! So it says he's serious...but he likes to party at the same time...cuz i like to party so I like my Jesus to party!

haha


----------



## CrackerJax (Sep 6, 2009)

Oh, Jesus might make a great party guest.... 

Dudes, we're running out of wine..... "Hey Jesus"!!

Of course on the flip side, he might suddenly freak out and declare the party corrupt and bring down the party temple on top of you..... 

However, if you aren't Jewish......Jesus would be a no show.


----------



## fish601 (Sep 6, 2009)

CrackerJax said:


> However, if you aren't Jewish......Jesus would be a no show.


 
finish reading the book


----------



## Sure Shot (Sep 6, 2009)

fish601 said:


> finish reading the book


Put down the book!
Pick up another one.
"Chariots of the Gods"


----------



## CrackerJax (Sep 6, 2009)

Let's just stick with the NEW Testament when speaking of Christianity. The Old testament is a stolen ideology, unless you are Jewish.

I've read the book....there in lies the problem. It's a book of contradictions and primitive boogedy boo gibberish.

My sis goes to Bible study every weekend. She has for 12 years now....

So one day I asked her if she has ever read it the whole way through chapter by chapter...story by story. Read it like a real book... Nope. That's not the way to read it she tells me.... 

I can read most any book within 3 or 4 days. My sis is still working on ONE book 12 years later.

There is something wrong with a book which isn't offered as a whole but talked about in tiny unconnected bits........ it's non-sense....at least in the modern world. I'm sure it made more sense to the primitives. Oops... no they said it was silly too.


----------



## fish601 (Sep 6, 2009)

CrackerJax said:


> Let's just stick with the NEW Testament when speaking of Christianity. The Old testament is a stolen ideology, unless you are Jewish.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


did you read the part about them being grafted in?

i know alot of christians that havent read the bible ,which is strange.. they dont even know what it teaches they just know what the preacher teaches  and believe me some preachers do not teach what the bible teaches


----------



## CrackerJax (Sep 6, 2009)

The reason ppl don't read the Bible is because it is mostly unintelligible.

It's the largest published book by volume, and the least read. It's an empty vassel of comfort slipped into a drawer as a talisman against misfortune... still a very superstitious ppl we are.


----------



## fish601 (Sep 6, 2009)

CrackerJax said:


> The reason ppl don't read the Bible is because it is mostly unintelligible.
> .


oh so thats your problem.. maybe try reading it a few times or ask your sister


----------



## CrackerJax (Sep 6, 2009)

You are obviously NOT reading my posts. I have told you on NUMEROUS occasions that I have read the Bible......completely.....


----------



## fish601 (Sep 6, 2009)

question is can you understand it thats why i sugested you read it a few more times..... i dont doubt that you have read it


----------



## CrackerJax (Sep 6, 2009)

No one can understand it FISH....my entire point. Ever wonder why when you go to church that the bible isn't simply read out loud in context? 

The usual sermon has a few bits and pieces from all over the Bible and then placed into a "new" context followed by a 20 minute speech about a modern day homily. 
Pastor: reads verses
Pastor: Now how is this applicable in our lives today? I was talking to mrs. fgijuh and as I ..... blah blah blah.
Pastor: let us pray....

That's how it goes in almost every church every weekend. 

No one is actually reading the Bible, least of all the Priests and Pastors.


----------



## fish601 (Sep 6, 2009)

i guess some people need to know how the bible applies to life


----------



## Sure Shot (Sep 6, 2009)

I think some people just need a "blanky"


----------



## CrackerJax (Sep 6, 2009)

Yes, ever notice how Linus from Peanuts was the religious one (had a blanket constantly)..... Schultz had a sense of humor.....


----------



## jfgordon1 (Sep 6, 2009)

CrackerJax said:


> Yes, ever notice how Linus from Peanuts was the religious one (had a blanket constantly)..... Schultz had a sense of humor.....


Huh, learn something new everyday.


----------



## kappainf (Sep 6, 2009)

I have a feeling this thread will spin in circles forever. After reading most of the pages, it amazes me the length anti-christians will go to argue christianity.


----------



## PadawanBater (Sep 6, 2009)

kappainf said:


> I have a feeling this thread will spin in circles forever. After reading most of the pages, it amazes me the length anti-christians will go to argue christianity.


 
lmao

what in the hell is an "anti-christian"??


----------



## Sure Shot (Sep 6, 2009)

PadawanBater said:


> lmao
> 
> what in the hell is an "anti-christian"??


Everybody else.


----------



## hanimmal (Sep 6, 2009)

> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *PadawanBater*
> _lmao
> 
> ...


lol true, but may as well say everything else.


----------



## CrackerJax (Sep 7, 2009)

kappainf said:


> I have a feeling this thread will spin in circles forever. After reading most of the pages, it amazes me the length anti-christians will go to argue christianity.


And vice versa ...... no one would argue against it if it wasn't tossed in our paths constantly. A better question may be why Christians insist others think like them..... it's an insecure religion.


----------



## fish601 (Sep 7, 2009)

CrackerJax said:


> And vice versa ...... no one would argue against it if it wasn't tossed in our paths constantly. A better question may be why Christians insist others think like them..... it's an insecure religion.


sounds like your sister has been hounding you


----------



## CrackerJax (Sep 7, 2009)

No, she avoids the subject.....she knows better


----------



## fish601 (Sep 7, 2009)

you have a pretty good understanding of religion in general but your understanding on christian religion is off and for good reason there are not many bible believing christians anymore.. well not in my area and from what i see on tv whew them guys are wack.. money hungry wackos 

i just cant figure out why you hate christianity so much, what do you think of Judaism?


----------



## CrackerJax (Sep 7, 2009)

No one can follow the Bible and not get arrested. 

Ppl can only follow bits and pieces..... this alone should tell you something is wrong with the Bible. It is not infallible. It is NOT the word. 

People during the Spanish Inquisition were actually FOLLOWING the letter of the Bible. They were TRUE believers..... look at what society thinks of that period.


----------



## jfgordon1 (Sep 7, 2009)

CrackerJax said:


> People during the Spanish Inquisition were actually FOLLOWING the letter of the Bible. They were TRUE believers..... look at what society thinks of that period.


That's exactly why i think every believer is a fraud. They don't truly believe...

EDIT ^


----------



## doobnVA (Sep 7, 2009)

CrackerJax said:


> No one can follow the Bible and not get arrested.
> 
> Ppl can only follow bits and pieces..... this alone should tell you something is wrong with the Bible. It is not infallible. It is NOT the word.
> 
> People during the Spanish Inquisition were actually FOLLOWING the letter of the Bible. They were TRUE believers..... look at what society thinks of that period.



I'm glad there's at least one thing we can agree on.


----------



## CrackerJax (Sep 7, 2009)

Oh you'd be surprised what we might agree upon. I have very liberal ideas and concepts..... but when dealing with other ppl's money (the citizens who actually work for it day in and day out), I demand a certain fiscal responsibility.

I want to help ppl..... The govt. USED to hold that same belief.....now they just help themselves and point fingers.


----------



## fish601 (Sep 7, 2009)

CrackerJax said:


> No one can follow the Bible and not get arrested.
> 
> Ppl can only follow bits and pieces..... this alone should tell you something is wrong with the Bible. It is not infallible. It is NOT the word.
> 
> People during the Spanish Inquisition were actually FOLLOWING the letter of the Bible. They were TRUE believers..... look at what society thinks of that period.


 
just to name a few

*1Jo 4:7* - Show Context Dear friends, let us *love* *one* another, for *love* comes from God. Every*one* who *love*s has been born of God and knows God. 
*Joh 13:34* - Show Context "A new command I give you: *Love* *one* another. As I have *love*d you, so you must *love* *one* another. 
*Joh 13:35* - Show Context By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you *love* *one* another." 

*Ro 13:9* - Show Context The commandments, "Do not commit adultery," "Do not murder," "Do not steal," "Do not covet," and whatever other commandment there may be, are summed up in this *one* rule: "*Love* your neighbor as yourself." 
Let no debt remain outstanding, except the continuing debt to *love* *one* another, for he who *love*s his fellowman has fulfilled the law. 
*Ro 12:10* - Show Context Be devoted to *one* another in brotherly *love*. Honor *one* another above yourselves.


----------



## CrackerJax (Sep 7, 2009)

Bits and pieces....bits and pieces.... keep proving my points...


----------



## fish601 (Sep 7, 2009)

its ok, i have been wrong a few times also


----------



## Sure Shot (Sep 7, 2009)

fish601 said:


> just to name a few



All you did was strengthen his arguement.


----------



## fish601 (Sep 7, 2009)

lol, it means he doesnt know what he is talking about, he said he has read the bible but i cant tell it.
its pretty obvious to anyone (well almost anyone) that love is a major part of the bible


----------



## PadawanBater (Sep 7, 2009)

fish601 said:


> lol, it means he doesnt know what he is talking about, he said he has read the bible but i cant tell it.
> its pretty obvious to anyone (well almost anyone) that love is a major part of the bible


 
fish, the point being made is that yeah sure... while there are infact good parts of the bible... there's a lot of shitty parts too. You guys like to dismiss all the bad stuff and say "oh well that was the OT, the NT is what applies to today.." - always giving some excuse... excuse after excuse for everything to make up for the faults of this impossible belief. If Christianity was the absolutel truth we should all live by, don't you think it would be a little easier to believe?

And why the hell do you give one sentence replies.. how old are you man? Is this a complete waste of my time?


----------



## just for the magic (Sep 8, 2009)

i believe the book of genesis is more a case of "to cut a long story short". We are only now just scraping the surface of the "big bang theory" I would think when the biblical authors penned there story, an explosion of even the smallest kind would be hard to grasp, let alone one on the scale of universe creating size


----------



## CrackerJax (Sep 8, 2009)

Notice how when FISH is faced with an uncomfortable truth he deflects away.

You are disingenuous FISH......... you are a hypocrite.


----------



## Green Cross (Sep 8, 2009)

CrackerJax said:


> Notice how when FISH is faced with an uncomfortable truth he deflects away.
> 
> You are disingenuous FISH......... you are a hypocrite.


I'd like to pick up this debate 

I read as far back as "there aree lots of shitting parts... (in the bible) whatever that means. 

Can we all agree that the 10 commandments are beneficial to living ones life in an honest and upright way, and if not how do you filter right from wrong? In other words do you have a moral compass, or is right and wrong simply a matter of opinion?


----------



## Green Cross (Sep 8, 2009)

just for the magic said:


> i believe the book of genesis is more a case of "to cut a long story short". We are only now just scraping the surface of the "big bang theory" I would think when the biblical authors penned there story, an explosion of even the smallest kind would be hard to grasp, let alone one on the scale of universe creating size


I'm also happy to answer this question: 

Genesis describes the creation of this earth age (the current one), and Man's relationship with God - nothing more - but why would God (if you believe in a God) have a hard time grasping anything, assuming the Bible is the inspired word of God.


----------



## Green Cross (Sep 8, 2009)

Green Cross said:


> I'm also happy to answer this question:
> 
> Genesis describes the creation of this earth age (the current one), and Man's relationship with God - nothing more - but why would God (if you believe in a God) have a hard time grasping anything, assuming the Bible is the inspired word of God.


Did I stump my Liberal friends, with the 10 commandments? Google it, if you're unfamiliar with them, and if we could please keep the questions and answers to a paragraph or 2...


----------



## CrackerJax (Sep 8, 2009)

Green Cross said:


> I'd like to pick up this debate
> 
> I read as far back as "there aree lots of shitting parts... (in the bible) whatever that means.
> 
> Can we all agree that the 10 commandments are beneficial to living ones life in an honest and upright way, and if not how do you filter right from wrong? In other words do you have a moral compass, or is right and wrong simply a matter of opinion?



A few problems with that. 

1.) That is the Jewish faith, not the Christian. OLD testament is a hijacked testament. The simple answer for this of course is that Christians are really rebel Jews. Jesus tried to bring about a NEW G*D to the JEWS. No one else was included by the way....only JEWS. That is why he was killed....like any other rabble rouser. 

2.) The ten Commandments are hardly original thought. One doesn't need the ENTIRE Bible to follow 10 old ideas.

3.) No one actually pays attention to most of the Commandments. They are broken all the time, and are ESPECIALLY broken in the OLD testament as well as the new.

There are better ways to control people.


----------



## just for the magic (Sep 8, 2009)

Green Cross said:


> I'm also happy to answer this question:
> 
> Genesis describes the creation of this earth age (the current one), and Man's relationship with God - nothing more - but why would God (if you believe in a God) have a hard time grasping anything, assuming the Bible is the inspired word of God.


I don't believe in anything that a human may claim to be an authority on. You are all so far up yourselves. So sure, so vain. So self centered.........except when things are at there worst. Then u shine and you will be called sons and daughters of God


----------



## Green Cross (Sep 8, 2009)

CrackerJax said:


> A few problems with that.
> 
> 1.) That is the Jewish faith, not the Christian. OLD testament is a hijacked testament. The simple answer for this of course is that Christians are really rebel Jews. Jesus tried to bring about a NEW G*D to the JEWS. No one else was included by the way....only JEWS. That is why he was killed....like any other rabble rouser.
> 
> ...


I'm already losing patience when you can't even stay on point. 

The question was are the 10 commandments a good moral compass, and if not what is? 

1. Off topic, and an insult to Jews and Christians. 

FYI Jesus was crucified by the Romans, because he posed a political threat to the Sanhedrin. 

2. Debating where the commandments originated. Also off topic 

3. Pointing out the obvious - human nature is sinful. How do you admit this and at the same time argue that Science can save us. 

The question was are the 10 commandments a good moral compass, and if not what is?


----------



## CrackerJax (Sep 8, 2009)

Well, you need to start a new religion then.... Call it "THE TEN"!

See how far that goes....... ppl like stories and that's what the Bible gives them......stories. The problem is the authors did not mean to be writing anything that they thought would be interpreted as TRUE history.... they were STORIES.....

True history was written by scribes, not anonymous non scribes. The whole problem starts when the church insists that the stories are TRUE, and then go about amassing unbelievable wealth by controlling entire societies with those stories.

Gypsies are in true AWE of the Church..... the ultimate hucksters.

You act like the ten commandments are original...they are not.


----------



## doobnVA (Sep 8, 2009)

Green Cross said:


> I'm also happy to answer this question:
> 
> He didn't ask a question. He made a statement.
> 
> Genesis describes the creation of this earth age (the current one), and Man's relationship with God - nothing more - but why would God (if you believe in a God) have a hard time grasping anything, assuming the Bible is the inspired word of God.


Who said god would have a hard time grasping anything? The statement referred to the authors of the bible, and it was a statement, not a question.


----------



## Green Cross (Sep 8, 2009)

CrackerJax said:


> Well, you need to start a new religion then.... Call it "THE TEN"!
> 
> See how far that goes....... ppl like stories and that's what the Bible gives them......stories. The problem is the authors did not mean to be writing anything that they thought would be interpreted as TRUE history.... they were STORIES.....
> 
> ...


I'd rather have a debate with my intellectual equal, because this is plain boring. 

Why so you have so much anger, and so much contempt for God fearing people?

You sound a lot like me, before my conversion.


----------



## CrackerJax (Sep 8, 2009)

No anger involved..... just objectivity.

Try it some time..... everything I wrote except for the Gypsies is true..... very very true.


----------



## Green Cross (Sep 8, 2009)

CrackerJax said:


> No anger involved..... just objectivity.
> 
> Try it some time..... everything I wrote except for the Gypsies is true..... very very true.


No, you continuously call out believers, and I'm calling you out. Racism or bigotry against anyone because of race or religion is a good thing in your eyes?

It would be no different than if I were to call out gays each day and question thier beliefs, no?


----------



## CrackerJax (Sep 8, 2009)

I call out the religion, not the believers. That last part is voluntary (sort of, indoctrination starts early) and up to you. 

I call out the DECEPTION.....I call out the FALSEHOOD. If you truly take off the blinders and REALLY look at Christianity or Islam, you will see that it CANNOT be true, the way they say it is. The way millions through the ages have DIED over something made up is APPALLING to me.... it should be to you too.


----------



## mexiblunt (Sep 8, 2009)

My great-great grandparents were european Gypsies! I always thought thats was pretty cool. They remind me of modern day hippies kinda like I've felt I am.


----------



## Green Cross (Sep 8, 2009)

mexiblunt said:


> My great-great grandparents were european Gypsies! I always thought thats was pretty cool. They remind me of modern day hippies kinda like I've felt I am.


That's cool I used to be a hippie, but I think I'm more of a revolutionary now. Maybe we'll see a return to the hippie days now that the government is ignoring the people again. 

"it's better to burn out than fade away" 
[youtube]cMs3PCDM8Eg[/youtube]


----------



## CrackerJax (Sep 8, 2009)

Did you see what happened to Madonna last week?  Kind of talked up the Gypsies at a concert, and the audience started booing her..... oops.


----------



## wm2009 (Sep 8, 2009)

Green Cross said:


> Can we all agree that the 10 commandments are beneficial to living ones life in an honest and upright way, and if not how do you filter right from wrong? In other words do you have a moral compass, or is right and wrong simply a matter of opinion?


Religion is a tool to control masses, just like the law is.
once you remove the ideo of god from your mind you will notice that there is NO right and wrong at all. it''s all chaotic that's it. Anyone says it's own opinion based on it's own experience, sound good ? 

Oh in the future I wish the law to be removed also


----------



## CrackerJax (Sep 8, 2009)

How about ONE mantra..... just ONE..... no conflict....no interpretation......


Become.... THE ONE...

Enter into THE ONE....


*Treat those around you as you wish to be treated*.

It's in the TEN GC, so that should please you.
It's concept did not originate from the TEN, so that pleases me.


Middle ground perhaps? No mumbo jumbo...just that one sentence....up on every billboard, every chalkboard, every workplace.... THE ONE


----------



## mexiblunt (Sep 8, 2009)

Green Cross said:


> That's cool I used to be a hippie, but I think I'm more of a revolutionary now. Maybe we'll see a return to the hippie days now that the government is ignoring the people again.
> 
> "it's better to burn out than fade away"
> [youtube]cMs3PCDM8Eg[/youtube]


Funny you post old Neil.  He grew up just down the road from me.. for real. I really don't know much at all about the gypsies. My heritage isn't really well known for my family. I've asked my grandparents a bit but even they seem vague. I should have asked my great-grand-mother but she died last year at 104. She was born in Canada but I know her parents were not. The closest I get is they were Prussian is that the right word?


----------



## wm2009 (Sep 8, 2009)

CrackerJax said:


> How about ONE mantra..... just ONE..... no conflict....no interpretation......
> 
> 
> Become.... THE ONE...
> ...


No thanks, as for now I don't want to hear anything about Dharma and Super-Uranus and such gay things
I think anyone should live alone in the chaos, and if he gets crazy at least he tried


----------



## CrackerJax (Sep 8, 2009)

So u don't live by that principle..... thanks for sharing!


----------



## fish601 (Sep 8, 2009)

PadawanBater said:


> fish, the point being made is that yeah sure... while there are infact good parts of the bible... there's a lot of shitty parts too. You guys like to dismiss all the bad stuff and say "oh well that was the OT, the NT is what applies to today.." - always giving some excuse... excuse after excuse for everything to make up for the faults of this impossible belief. If Christianity was the absolutel truth we should all live by, don't you think it would be a little easier to believe?
> 
> And why the hell do you give one sentence replies.. how old are you man? Is this a complete waste of my time?


I dont know of any shitty parts, why make an excuse? who you been talking to lol

one sentence replies because you are dead set believing evolution if fact 100% true when its not. you are dead set on believing dating methods are accurate when they are not.

You are completley wrong about the bible

I know there is alot of truth in science you just fail to realize they are people who make mistakes


----------



## CrackerJax (Sep 8, 2009)

It's not a spiritual problem, it's a psychological problem. The two become one. Fish can never let it go.


----------



## hanimmal (Sep 9, 2009)

> one sentence replies because you are dead set believing evolution if fact 100% true when its not. you are dead set on believing dating methods are accurate when they are not.


My question to you fish, very simple, what is your understanding of accurate with some real world examples. I am not being patronizing here, I just think this is a good jumping off point for us.


----------



## fish601 (Sep 9, 2009)

hanimmal said:


> My question to you fish, very simple, what is your understanding of accurate with some real world examples. I am not being patronizing here, I just think this is a good jumping off point for us.


 
there is no way they can tell what earth was like 1million years ago all the dating methods assume that everything was the way it is now


----------



## Sure Shot (Sep 9, 2009)

Religulous folks assume following a book will give them eternity!


----------



## Anonymiss1969 (Sep 9, 2009)

fish601 said:


> there is no way they can tell what earth was like 1million years ago all the dating methods assume that everything was the way it is now


You totally dodged the question asked by Hannimal.


----------



## PadawanBater (Sep 9, 2009)

fish601 said:


> there is no way they can tell what earth was like 1million years ago all the dating methods assume that everything was the way it is now


 
You're either completely misinformed or blatantly lying.


----------



## hanimmal (Sep 9, 2009)

> > Quote:
> > Originally Posted by *hanimmal*
> > _My question to you fish, very simple, what is your understanding of accurate with some real world examples. I am not being patronizing here, I just think this is a good jumping off point for us._
> 
> ...


No I get that you don't think that dating methods work, I am asking what you feel is a real world example of accuracy.


----------



## fish601 (Sep 9, 2009)

PadawanBater said:


> You're either completely misinformed or blatantly lying.


 
inform me i am willing to learn...

my first thought is how can they know what happen 1 million years ago? they can only guess from that guess they form a belief.. but inform me


----------



## hanimmal (Sep 9, 2009)

> inform me i am willing to learn...
> 
> my first thought is how can they know what happen 1 million years ago? they can only guess from that guess they form a belief.. but inform me


I am trying to, but I want to put it into context that you already understand, which is why I am asking for a real world example of what you deem accurate.


----------



## Nocturn3 (Sep 9, 2009)

fish601 said:


> they can only guess from that guess they form a belief.


You are describing your own thought processes there, not those of a scientist or logical thinker.




hanimmal said:


> I want to put it into context that you already understand,


Good luck with that.


----------



## fish601 (Sep 9, 2009)

hanimmal said:


> I am trying to, but I want to put it into context that you already understand, which is why I am asking for a real world example of what you deem accurate.


 
i dont know what happend at your house last night,, how can scientist know what happend 1 million years ago


----------



## Nocturn3 (Sep 9, 2009)

fish601 said:


> i dont know what happend at your house last night


Police and judges aren't present at every murder that happens. How do they manage to arrest and prosecute murderers?


----------



## hanimmal (Sep 9, 2009)

> i dont know what happend at your house last night,, how can scientist know what happend 1 million years ago


Ok so maybe I am wording my question of what you think accuracy is, no problem. 

What time did you wake up today? 

Do you have an alarm, if so what moment was it set for?

Do you deem that an accurate look into time?

Because if you do, I would be able to dispute it, what second what that alarm set? When did you consiously wake up? What moment did you stand out of bed? When did you fist open your eyes.

And if you can get the exact second, what is the millisecond? If you can figure that out we can continue to move down to smaller and smaller increments in time so that you never have the actual time.

Now lets say you have to the second the time you 'woke'

So that is 1 second range in 1 day. So that means 1 divided by 86,400 (seconds in a day) so that is : .00011.

If you put that out 20 billion years it is a range of: 2.2 million years. So there is accuracy in these models, but the range seems so big due to the enormous span of time we are discussing.


----------



## fish601 (Sep 9, 2009)

hanimmal said:


> Ok so maybe I am wording my question of what you think accuracy is, no problem.
> 
> What time did you wake up today?
> 
> ...


 
they might be close but who knows? they have nothing to go by


----------



## hanimmal (Sep 9, 2009)

> they might be close but who knows? they have nothing to go by


See the other thread. It is the timeline of the breakdown. Close is the best we can do, again because the closer you get to the point, it no longer really matters. Because of the asymptotes it never actually touches.

First they look at object '1' and find two points that allow them to find its 'rates', then they look at another and look at those 'rates', and that is what they go by. Multiple points with multiple things that are changing and that is what gives the final numbers with the best possible accuracy.



> Han.... ur a slow learner....


lmao you kidding me! I am trying to learn how this all works as I go! But seriously this is helping me to understand calculus better so I am stoked about figuring this out. It really is neat how applicable it is.


----------



## CrackerJax (Sep 9, 2009)

slow learner when it comes to human nature.....he's just trolling.


----------



## just for the magic (Sep 10, 2009)

doobnVA said:


> Who said god would have a hard time grasping anything? The statement referred to the authors of the bible, and it was a statement, not a question.


Wisdom I see. refreshing.


----------



## Stoney McFried (Sep 15, 2009)

Hey, nice how you didn't credit your source in either post.http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/evolfact.htm


zorkan said:


> "Approximately 15 billion years ago, life began..."
> "No, it was more like 7 billion years ago..."
> "Uh, well, the earth probably began about..."
> "The strata may show..."
> ...


----------



## zorkan (Sep 15, 2009)

Stoney McFried said:


> Hey, nice how you didn't credit your source in either post.http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/evolfact.htm


 
they took the words out my mo0uth


----------



## Stoney McFried (Sep 15, 2009)

Spam from uncredited source.I'll follow you and call you out in each thread.http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/evolfact.htm


zorkan said:


> "Approximately 15 billion years ago, life began..."
> "No, it was more like 7 billion years ago..."
> "Uh, well, the earth probably began about..."
> "The strata may show..."
> ...


----------



## Stoney McFried (Sep 15, 2009)

Uh huh.


zorkan said:


> they took the words out my mo0uth


----------



## fish601 (Sep 15, 2009)

zorkan said:


> "Approximately 15 billion years ago, life began..."
> "No, it was more like 7 billion years ago..."
> "Uh, well, the earth probably began about..."
> "The strata may show..."
> ...


 
i guess you finally realized the truth


----------



## krustofskie (Sep 15, 2009)

Fish, you can't handle the truth. Which is why you would rather believe a religion with no evidence than a quite sound theory with a shit load of evidence.


----------



## CrackerJax (Sep 15, 2009)

But the book says its true.... it must be... it says it...


----------



## fish601 (Sep 16, 2009)

krustofskie said:


> Fish, you can't handle the truth. Which is why you would rather believe a religion with no evidence than a quite sound theory with a shit load of evidence.


 
1 word: *prophecy*


----------



## Sure Shot (Sep 16, 2009)

Reminds me of an Ostrich putting his head in the ground!


----------



## Sure Shot (Sep 16, 2009)

Wow, you really are just a troll, Fish. 
Unsubscribed


----------



## krustofskie (Sep 16, 2009)

fish601 said:


> 1 word: *prophecy*


prophecy _Noun_
_pl_ *-cies* 
*1*. a prediction 
*2*.*a*. a message revealing God's will * b*. the act of uttering such a message 

*3*. the function or activity of a prophet

and where in that word is your evidence. Oh sorry there isn't any.


----------

