Beemaster's International Beekeeping Forum
MEMBER & GUEST INTERACTION SECTION => DARK SIDE OF THE MOON => Topic started by: Jerrymac on July 19, 2007, 04:25:22 pm
-
From the coffee house Beemaster writes;
I fully agree that there was a FLOOD that covered the Planet, but I think it happened LONG BEFORE walking creatures inhabited Earth. If we are indeed the Ancestors of Martians and not those of Apes, I'd feel a bit better
I always find it amazing how many say something like that or that the first life was brought in by astroids or comets. But there is never a follow up. WHERE DID THAT LIFE COME FROM?
Were Martians evolved from Martian monkeys? Does it not put us in the same unexplained evolutionary event?
-
I really don't think WHERE Martians come from is the issue, whether created by God or Evolved from lesser species, I'm sure if they were as advance and intellegent as many people assumed (of course we are imagining that a planet which died off a million years ago had intellegent life) but that aside - I'll bet they had their own version of a Bible or other religious book to live by, maybe several.
Again, I think of the Bible as one of man's owners/operators manuals. I equally believe all creatures have two things in common:
1) The search for a LEADER among themselves - everyone needs to fall into a position behind a charismatic leader. All group creatures need a leader in order to function and pack mentality develops.
2) Those social minded creatures (one with conscious thought process) will eventually seeks a creator, they realise that they may need a deity to believe in. To many people it is a nature urge to seek a higher power, to others having a God or Lord to look to takes the pressure of being the real decision makers.
More on this later, just had to say MORE THAN ANYTHING - if God is timeless, then what is a few million years here and there in an extraordinary Universe.
-
Perhaps I wasn't clear in my quest here. It always seems that just saying, "life on Earth came from somewhere else" settles the whole "where life came from" issue. Perhaps it does for some, but for me I would like to know...... if life "here" came from "there" then where did life "there" come from. Then I would have to wonder if the intelligent life "there" thought it came from somewhere else. If the Earth wasn't the ideal place for life to start and evolve then what planet would be?
What about those of us that are lone wolves? We need no leaders.
(http://www.longdog.karoo.net/smilies/bow_kneelsuckers.gif)
-
It is an interesting question indeed. In the movie Contact, Jody Foster's character zipped through a worm-hole generating to meet a being posed as her father, they were talking about the fact that BLUEPRINTS were sent via radioway, we built the machine (hoping it wasn't some DOOMSDAY WEAPON) the man said "This is the way they choose to communicate, it's the way they like to do it, they have been doing it this way for billions of years.
The interesting thing in THAT STATEMENT is that A MACHINE designed BILLIONS OF YEARS AGO sent a message in hope other-life would receive the message - BUT, they knew it would because the process has worked for billions of years. I think the question should really be "when did" INTELLEGENT HUMANS like life " First appear in the Universe and where and when - I just have come to the conclusion that there is NO ITELLEGENT LIFE somewhere in our ancestory - which part of the Universe it originated from is only a guess.
I finally believe that weither man has been here 200 years or 5 thousand, or EONS, When the fastest you can measure is in LIGHT YEARS, you already have doomed us with finding other life, surely there must be a way though, and who's to say creating a ship 2 million years ago wasn't a possibility. Well most religious folk wouldn't buy a speck of that, but many of the stories of the Bible are told in PArable, so that they appear relative to people no matter WHEN the will read it.
Jerry, would it be so bad if we indeed didn't come from this Earth, I think it would be optomistically the greats ego booster you'd have to build a space program. Now we are going to the Moon with lighter materials that they will FILL with MOON DUST to make them safe to transport HUMANS through the radiation belt between Earth and Mars. We've sent lots of probles, but people would have died from radiation exposure on those missions.
So we build a vessel capable to lift off the moon, fly to Mars - which takes 90 days to get to once there you need to wait 9 more months for the planets to realign so RETURN is possible. Then another 90 days in space. That is rigorous espiration if I've ever heare one - image bbeing away from Earth 270 days minimal, without any help except the wonderful people who bring you Nasa :)
P.S. The reason they will build a double hulled vessel filled with moon dust as a protectant is because we cannot lauch anything (that will safely protect the crew) from Earth a Mars worthy vehicle could be lead protected BUT it would be too heavy to launch into space - remember it is going to a living habatat with humans for 3/4s of a year.
So, after the Shuttle stops, which it is finishing it's SPACE STATION BUILDING PROJECT - people have lived on the International Space Station continious manned for many years. The last Shuttle mission is do corrective work on Hummble, then the Space Shuttle program is complete and remaining Shuttle return modeules - most people call the craft the atronauts return home in IS the Shuttle - it is NOT, it is a PART of the huttle - it is called the ORBITOR, the Shuttle fitted with the External Fuel Tank and solid rocket boosters make up the rest of the Shuttle.
Nope, we can't get to Mars and back in under 9 months - Jerry we'll never see who our real parents are, but I think they'll have to come check-on us, cause WE are not getting to them to soon - lol.
-
Jerry, would it be so bad if we indeed didn't come from this Earth,...
No it wouldn't be bad but I have to wonder why some feel the need to believe we came from way out there some where. IF we were sent here from somewhere else I would have to ask,
1) why we were sent.
2) how were we sent.
You were saying all that other stuff would have taken billions of years. Just how old is the universe? I have heard estimates around just 11 to 20 billion years old. And the age of the earth is 4.5 to 5 billion years old. So we could hazard a guess that it would take another world about 4 billion years to reach the capabilities we have right now. How many more years before we/they can even break out of our solar system? How many before we/they could make it to the next solar system? How many before we/they can get clear of our galaxy and journey to the next closest galaxy? And how many years will that journey take? So is 20 billion years even enough time for some other intelligent life from a galaxy far far away to seed the universe?
-
jerrymac, if you need no leader, you may be a leader. sometimes one has no choice in the matter. if you choose not to follow, chances are, people will end up following you :-D
the story of creation is a bit like the story of the flood. all cultures have a creations story of some kind. it is only "enlightened" people who try to explain away the easiest expansion.
as for where we came from....if you accept the idea of a creation, then the idea of a biblical creation is as good as any. the bible has some advantages....even though there are provisions for a hell for those who are bad, we do not need to worry that we are an experiment, or organ farm, for some alien species. :evil:
-
Not sure from where, but they were in Europe many time ago.
"The morning of the 27th of July of 2007, in the first weeks of the new
excavation season of the Sierra de Atapuerca, has been crucial for this scientific debate. The Atapuerca research team has just found a human premolar in the TE9 level of the Sima del Elefante site. This tooth represents the oldest human fossil remain of occidental Europe. Now we finally have the anatomical evidence of the hominins that fabricated those tools more than one million years ago."
http://www.atapuerca.org/ (http://www.atapuerca.org/)
English version in "enter".
-
oh people...haven't you seen the stargates?
:-P
-
We can see that these people were not antediluvians.
So, they have been hunting in Spain, France, Germany, England and China without flood during 1.300.000 years.
If the Indians from Peru had a legend about the flood too, and the Indians are in America 30.000 years ago, the flood legend was originated when the humans lived together and spoke only one idiom. (Ole, what have I said? :-D)
-
I think you all are forgetting - if we are speaking of NOAH'S FLOOD, it could have been one of many catosprophoc flood out of hundreds of thousands of equally devastating floods thousands of year earlier and many floods for millions of years - LONG AFTER EARLIER CIVILIZATIONS died from a previous flood.
Closest we see are Tsunamis which are so devastating. FACT: Number one DEATH TO HUMANS from "WEATHER EVENTS" is MUDSLIDES - people are trapped alive by caved-in hillsides and mountains and floods, and imagine how many whole civilizations could have dealt with Hurricanes, Tornados, drought and famine. We see a lot of it in the news each night - but it hardly addresses that sad issue of todays hunger in the world. I can only image for a million years, how many others died a similar flooded death? No one knows how many plagues traveled the Earth, maybe a million plagues wiped out a million civilizations.
Equality is important, I think we are doing pretty good today as a species, I hope we are around a long time and still evolving mentally - we do have neat toys today - weither you are a couch potato or a soldier, you have some neat weapons when you enter war. Of course the virtual soldier (couch potato) can stuff his face with food and gun down a dozen men, I doubt the solider has that luxury.
So I think I hear you have a 1in72 chance of dying in a mudslide or flood waters event. That is pretty amazing, you cannot compare that to the great records of AIR passenger safety.
I think man will kill himself off some day in the distant future, unless as promided Jesus returns to separate us all out VERY quickly. Like a stepthen King book - Bam!, you are gone. Scary choices if you are not living a good life - I just do my best, have faith and always look at things on the sunnier side. The Americans here are vast for affluent to poverty incomes, all ages and demographics - we are a melting pot of the real poor, misfortunate, comfortable, luxurious and wealth.
We have members handicapped and handicapable, people doing amazing things without help from others - hurting in every muscle the next day, but 60 pounds richer in honey for doing it :)
We really are lucky to get the opinions from talented beekeepers, long time backyard beekeepers, the folks wwho never get more than two hives, and the most important to the future of beekeeping, the new beekeeper or member JUST learning about this fascinating and challenging hobby.
Lots of new members in 6 months, many have migrated to our VOICE CHAT ventrilo live voice chatroom - every mid evening Eastern time you can find up to eight people from around the globe talking - two new members in two days too!
Why just TYPE bees (never stop that and keep those photos coming) but also come into voice chat, it is a small program, just over a meg - uses little resources and allows you and your mic to talk live to all our other members.
I'm just waiting for our 8 member limit to reach about 80% full all the time, going to move up to 20 members alowed at once. That is something your kind contributions to Beemaster.com will purchase for the benefit of the dozens of Ventrilo Members, and allowing THAT MUCH MORE ROOM for YOU to join us!!
Sorry for the shameless plug - lol. I got got off in a tangent. My reply in one sentence though, how many civilizations over a million years have seen planetary flood? I imagine early along, you were little more than a tribe, near fresh water and hunting to survive - communal life with structure. And it remained that way often for 5 thousand years, then a world wide flood (even a catostrophic localized flood that killed entire civilizations of villages out, would be worthy of adding - so I believe Earth has seen MANY CATOSTROPHIC FLOODS, with Noah's the most notable (finally one survived out of all the previous flooded civiizations had few remains. There I finally finished - lol. Peace to all.
-
The combination of methane, nitrogen and an electrical charge has shown that organic compounds can be made. You came from the combination of some elements and a charged particle.
Sincerely,
Brendhan
-
For at least some 200 years science has tried to creat LIFE in a test tube. Creating basic amino acids is just getting a set of Tinkertoys, not a living creature. They still have to be put together and then sparked into something that fulfills the defination of living.
Life is either simple to create, which we cannot seem to do, or an all but impossible accident. It either exists across the galaxy, or it is very rare. We KNOW it exists here. But we suspect, or maybe hope, it exists elsewhere.
How, and where, it started is the basic answer to the above problem. If it is easy, or rare, it is HERE. If we find life elsewhere then it is easy, if we are alone it is rare. If the life we find is like the life here then we all sprang from the same process and if we find enough samples we will know the start point. Simple.
Man needs an answer. He has always wanted answers to his questions, and if he cannot see a clear one he makes one up that fits.
Many years ago I saw a story about how life here was a result of a spacecraft dumping its waste tanks after a visit.
-
if life "here" came from "there" then where did life "there" come from.
God made this earth and the people on it. He also made many other worlds and the humans on those planets as well.
We all came from God's presence and are here (or there on the other worlds) as a final test, to gain the experience of having a body, and to see if we can choose right (obey commandments, etc) with our free agency.
http://mormon.org/mormonorg/eng/exhibit#Jennifer_Where_did_I_come_from
http://mormon.org/mormonorg/eng/exhibit#Jan_purpose_of_my_life
There's no conspiracy theory, except Satan is real and he doesn't want us to return to God, since he cannot. Satan would rather not have us know he's real.
I guess that's my $0.02 :)
UtahBees
-
He also made many other worlds and the humans on those planets as well.
More humans over there?. Had not He enought with us? :-D
God made this earth and the people on it
At this point we have some in common. :)
-
well put utahbees.
-
Faith is believing in the unproven, unknown, but noone knows for sure, at least not in this world. I'm not saying I do or I don't, just the facts maam, but I like to keep an open mind, but not too open, are your brains will fall out. :roll:
-
I have ignored this one for awhile it seems.
You do know if you believe in the Bible then you know there isn't anyone on other planets.
"God gave His only begotten son....." to us here on earth. Right?
-
You do know if you believe in the Bible then you know there isn't anyone on other planets.
"God gave His only begotten son....." to us here on earth. Right?
There are many things that I don't understand, and I'm sure others feel the same. I'm comforted to know that I have a purpose here, and that I only should worry about my own salvation (and be a good parent,etc, etc). I figure I'll find out that answer for sure when I die. But for now, I only have faith that the Only Begotten is the only Savior for all of God's children - even those not on this Earth.
Happy New Year!
-
Hey Jerry, are you from this planet? :-D Is the Bible the real deal? There are those that will fight you on this topic, will try and make you believe what they believe, or what they believe they know to be true.
Sincerely, JP
-
I have ignored this one for awhile it seems.
You do know if you believe in the Bible then you know there isn't anyone on other planets.
"God gave His only begotten son....." to us here on earth. Right?
Well here it comes don't shoot me. I feel that we are just one creation out of many. There might not be beings out there that look just like humans on earth but there is other living organisms out in the universe. We have not even discovered all creatures on earth not to mention what lies ahead in space. Only 500 years ago the world belived it was flat, who knows what else we are going to learn in the near future.
-
I have ignored this one for awhile it seems.
You do know if you believe in the Bible then you know there isn't anyone on other planets.
"God gave His only begotten son....." to us here on earth. Right?
Well here it comes don't shoot me. I feel that we are just one creation out of many. There might not be beings out there that look just like humans on earth but there is other living organisms out in the universe. We have not even discovered all creatures on earth not to mention what lies ahead in space. Only 500 years ago the world belived it was flat, who knows what else we are going to learn in the near future.
Even this world has had many dispensations. Dispensation=period of life, specificly human life. When all is said and done many of the "human" fossils that have been found are from some of those earlier dispensations. Just like this isn't only rock in space to have human like or intelligent occupants nor will we be the last.
One thing I do know, because I've seen it, is the spirit world. No, I didn't have to die to do it--although I've been close, some of those times I was wide awake and functional. When we die we retain our shape and intelligence but enter a different dimension without bodies and slightly different rules.
-
Douglas Adams was right The meaning of life is 42. You just don't know what the right question is.
Sincerely,
Brendhan
-
Now how many people here do you think will have no clue where that came from?
-
you can't believe the BIBLE as GOD'S WORD and only believe part of it. without the whole of it your foundation crumbles. it is written a house divided shall not stand. if you believed there would be no need for this discussion!
-
i know, i know :-) great books, radio series, game, and movie :-)
-
I am a staunch believer in the veracity of the Holy Scriptures (fulfilled prophecy itself confirms the supernatural source of the Bible) a Bible student,Church historian as well as Bible teacher. I also believe there are other worlds with other races of humanity who did not fall the way our world did (see Job 1:6). Nowhere does the Bible say that this planet is the only one with life on it. That we are alone in the universe is another Dark Ages leftover of the same kind that said the universe revolves around the earth (Capernicus proved otherwise and was persecuted) and that God is a three-headed triune being (no offense,Trinitarians, just telling the truth here. The Trinity doctrine did not exist until the 4th century).
I know one other thing also. We did not "evolve" from rocks. The science of genetics and the laws of probability have forced many Darwinists to throw the theory of evolution and origin of species out the window. However, I know there will always be diehards. How many of you knew that the Bible says the earth is round,thousands of years before Columbus sailed to prove it, in Isaiah 40:22? Yes, it was the "science" of the day that said the earth was flat.
How many more "flat earth" scientific theorists are still out there?
-
check this out. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth_Society
-
Yes, it was the "science" of the day that said the earth was flat
Who did say that the earth was a flat?
From columbus wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Columbus#Funding_campaign)
"Following Washington Irving's 1828 biography of Columbus, Americans commonly believed Columbus had difficulty obtaining support for his plan because Europeans thought the Earth was flat.[9] In fact, the primitive maritime navigation of the time relied on the stars and the curvature of the spherical Earth. The European knowledge of the diameter of the Earth had improved since the Renaissance which started a few decades previously, and this knowledge had spread between sailors and navigators[10]. This had been the general opinion of ancient Greek science, and continued as the second opinion (for example of Bede in The Reckoning of Time). In fact the Earth had generally been believed to be spherical since the 4th century BCE by most scholars and almost all navigators[citation needed], and Eratosthenes had measured the diameter of the Earth with good precision in the second century BC[11]. Columbus put forth (incorrect) arguments based on a significantly smaller diameter for the Earth, claiming that Asia could be easily reached by sailing west across the Atlantic. Most scholars accepted Ptolemy's correct assessment that the terrestrial landmass (for Europeans of the time, comprising Eurasia and Africa) occupied 180 degrees of the terrestrial sphere, and correctly dismissed Columbus's claim that the Earth was much smaller, and that Asia was only a few thousand nautical miles to the west of Europe. Columbus' error was put down to his lack of experience in navigation at sea[12]."
-
>>>>>>In fact the Earth had generally been believed to be spherical since the 4th century BCE by most scholars and almost all navigators[citation needed],<<<<<<
It might help to remember that Wickipedia is simply made up of articles submitted by people who may or may not have any academic qualifications. And even then academia itself cannot agree in many areas. I am not sure how anyone can accept the sentence above, which is the main point, without any primary source citation. It even admits to having no evidence for the claim (maybe they should have cited Isaiah 40 :) ). And if the sentence is true, then that flies in the face of what has been commonly known and taught for centuries. But my main point here is that regardless of words to the contrary the idea of a flat earth is not biblical, and never was. Many professed Christians claim to accept the Bible, but truth be known very few actually do,and accept tradition over the Bible.
-
PDMaddox
Do you really believe that nobody thought the earth was flat until the 1890s? Do you really believe that the acceptance of this crackpot theory (which BTW the article does not include any of the Bible verses that this crackpot supposedly based his theory on) by a very small sect represents biblical teachings?
I would suggest a closer and more scrutinizing reaing of these sources.For example, the paragraph posted by abejaruco says the following:
>>This had been the general opinion of ancient Greek science, and continued as the second opinion <<<<
What was the "first opinion"? Were there any "scientists" who touted and believed the "first opinion"? Of course there was, otherwise the statement is meaningless. Just as there are scientists who believe in special design ( the new "second opinion"). However,those who disagree with the hypothesis do not accpet those scientists as true scientists because they do not agree. As a religious researcher, I have come to examine all things very closely, knowing that clever and misleading words and concepts are a dime a dozen.
Looking things upon wickipedia is fast and easy, but there is no guarantee of truth there. But hey, to each his own.
-
>PDMaddox
pdmattox
>Do you really believe that nobody thought the earth was flat until the 1890s?
>However, I know there will always be diehards. How many of you knew that the Bible says the earth is round,thousands of years before Columbus sailed to prove it, in Isaiah 40:22? Yes, it was the "science" of the day that said the earth was flat.
How many more "flat earth" scientific theorists are still out there?
NO, I just was pointing out that there is a body of people (you know die hards) that think the world is flat even after it was proven to be wrong. Agreeing with you on the die hard thingy.
>Looking things upon wickipedia is fast and easy, but there is no guarantee of truth there.
Remember Hopeful, all history has been written by the winner. Is that always the truth or the truth as written? Just like all info you come across, be it spoken or written.
-
Dallas
Please accept my apologies for getting your username wrong.I have been equating it with the old Atlanta Braves pitcher.
>>>>Remember Hopeful, all history has been written by the winner. Is that always the truth or the truth as written? Just like all info you come across, be it spoken or written.<<<<
Very true. That is why it can take years of research to find the real story on historical matters. Just following the links on Wickepdia,I found that its own statements were contradicted by Wickepedia itself! All we can go by are primary source documents,if they have not been altered. I spent over two years researching the history of the Trinity doctrine alone. Unfortunately, Rome was not kind to dissenting opinions as they appeared in historical documents,and destroyed many of those documents.
As Mulder and Scully used to say on The X Files,"The truth is out there".
We just need to work very hard and put in countless hours to find it. Most are content to accept whatever professor Superduck tells them. Or whatever their church pastor tells them.
-
http://www.bede.org.uk/flatearth.htm
So what was Columbus's mistake? The disagreement between him and his critics was over the size of the world -
-
http://www.bede.org.uk/flatearth.htm
So what was Columbus's mistake? The disagreement between him and his critics was over the size of the world -
They didn't think there was another large land mass to the west.
-
So, how old is the world?
VIRTUAL BOOK (http://www.bne.es/BDH/libros/libro.htm?id=5)
Just to post a curious Bible. Page (or clik) 5 and going on.
-
How old is the world? Well, the year I was born the world was "1 Billion years old." Now I am told it is about "4 billion years old".
Great Scott! I am 3 billion years old! :lol:
I imagine at this rate I may make it to my 6 billionth birthday some day! :-D
-
Great Scott! I am 3 billion years old!
Oh!, you are longer-lived than Methuselah (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methuselah).
-
It would seem! I know people think Methuselah lived a long time, but he was a mere embryo compared to those of us in the 21st century. ;)
-
The other day I read this thing about snowflakes http://www.its.caltech.edu/~atomic/snowcrystals/alike/alike.htm and how two can not be identical no matter how many have fallen throughout the history of the world. I'm thinking that must bee a whole lot of snowflakes. I can imagine billions falling in just one good snowstorm.
Then yesterday I was watching this UFO stuff on one of those science channels. While most scientist don't think Aliens have visited earth, they mostly believe there could be intelligent life out there some where. Their reasoning is because there are so many billions of galaxies with many billions of stars each. Surely there is another out there with an Earth like planet around..... and this connection with snow flakes crossed my mind. Perhaps there are so many variables for life to take hold and survive and evolve long enough to develop intelligence that it is like the snowflake. No two are alike so no two can have intelligent life.
And I have watched a lot of those shows that talk about earth and the life there on. Is seems that it is a wonder that we are even here. So many things had to be exactly right.
Now as far as life just suddenly appearing out of some quagmire.... why doesn't it happen today?
And as far as life evolving, like from monkey to man, why hasn't it been an on going thing and why isn't it still happening today? Why isn't some newly evolved man walking out of the jungle today? Why didn't he do it yesterday, and why not again tomorrow?
One more thing. It is said that the dinos were wiped out 63 million years ago and the only animals that survived that ice age were probably small creatures. Now I wonder how many different evolutionary changes it would have taken to go from one of those creatures to the humans we have today. Would one million changes get it done? Or would it take many more than that?
-
That is exactly why the "age of the earth" keeps getting older and older. For the evolutionists, unaccountable and unprovable time is their only ally, except maybe a liberal interpretation of the "fossil record". The more complicated we find the simplest systems to be (remember when Darwin spoke of "simple cells"? Well, we now know a "simple cell" is as complicated as an F18 fighter jet) the more time must be added to the evolutionary equasion. As the odds of evolution by chance at the genolevel become more and more astronomically improbable, the only answer is to add more and more millions of years to give it a chance. Let's look at it this way. For a healthy cell to mutate into another healthier cell at the genetic level by chance, the odds are about the same as throwing a pile of lumber into the air and having it land in the form of a house, complete with stairs and kitchen cabinets.
If someone wants to believe this I am fine with it. But to me it would take far more faith than believing in a creator who designed it and put it into motion. That is, many people regard macro-evolution as a religion, not a science. True science can be replicated under controlled conditions. That is the definition of science. Macro-evolution (of the Darwinistic variety) cannot be and has never been replicated at all by anyone in any setting. Therefore it is in a permanent state of theorum. On the other hand, the strata levels as seen through out the world can indeed be replicated under controlled conditions in a lab by means of a simulated cataclysmic event; a flood. It was replicated on a larger level by the Mount Saint Helens eruption and consequent erosion, and trees found standing up right through several layers of newly formed "strata".
Anyone interested in learning more about this can PM me their address and I'll send a series of DVDs that cover everything from the age of the earth to the origin of man to the latest in genetics research.
-
ever notice evolution and revolution are pretty much the same word. maybe because they keep taking in circles also know as cyclic reasoning i think. there is only one source for truth imo
-
Carbon dating is not accurate. It is based on the assumption that certain materials (ie carbon & urainium) leach out of objects at a set rate. Therefore, if there's less carbon in a item the older it has to be. The trouble is there are too many unaccounted for variables for such a system to be accurate. Personally, if we insist on applying a year of origin on the age of the Universe I think we should be talking Trillions, not billions.
-
I agree with your first part about carbon dating. If carbon dating has been proven innaccurate, then why use it at all? If I gave you a computer that gave you three different answers to every question, would you use it? Of course not. The truth is radio carbon dating is not accurate past about a 500 year limit. And what they do not tell you is the lab that does the testing always asks how old you fell the object is before they "test" it.
In the case of the Kennewick Man several years ago three tests were done and the dating ranged from 3000 to 9000 years. Of course they chose the 9000 year date because it was the closest to what they had hoped it would be. How impressed are we by a test that is up to 300% inaccurate?
Brian, If you knew how corrupt the scientific community was and how much of it is based on grant monies and politics, you would pay little attention to their supposed "facts". When I lived in Oregon and read the Oregonian newspaper, they had a "Science" page every Thursday. Now, during a 1 year period in 1999 they printed three different articles on how "planets were formed". Each of these had completely incompatible theories:
-PLanets are formed by space dust collecting into a ball.
-PLanets are formed by liquid collecting into a ball (this theory is actually biblical. Shhh, don't tell them)
-Planets are formed by galactic "Sponges" that collect matter and eventually became shaped like a ball.
Each of these articles were worded as though they were proven facts. Just as the article about the "feathered fossil" that other scientists had identified as not feathers, but scales. Regardless, the "feather" theory, which was held by only two Oregon State Students, who saw the fossil through a glass case at a shopping mall, won out and within a year there was a picture of the "feathered flying reptile", which resembled a rat with "glider" wings, published in a children's dinosaur book. Now, this illustrated "flying rat" had a tail. Yet, in the article, the OSU two students made the comment that the fossil did not have a tail, but that they had hoped it had. BUt here is the kicker. The Oregonian printed the article with two photos of this fossil: one regular and one "close up". But even a cursory look revealed that it was in fact two completely different fossils, with the "feathers" pointing opposite directions! And the "feathers" on one fossil were smooth and bent at the top while the "feathers" on the other one were ridged and straight. Two photos of two completely different fossils being represented as two pictures of the same fossil!
There is so much more. But I think the point has been made.
-
Carbon dating is not accurate. It is based on the assumption that certain materials (ie carbon & urainium) leach out of objects at a set rate. Therefore, if there's less carbon in a item the older it has to be. The trouble is there are too many unaccounted for variables for such a system to be accurate. Personally, if we insist on applying a year of origin on the age of the Universe I think we should be talking Trillions, not billions.
Brian,
You're mixing apples and oranges here. There's carbon dating, which measures C-14, and is used to measure once-living things, and radiometric dating, which is based on the radioactive decay of certain elements (e.g., uranium into lead). Because of the half-life of C-14, carbon dating cannot be used on anything much older than around 30,000 years, because there's no detectable C-14 left. It's radiometric dating that is used on rocks, and gives dates in the millions and billions of years. Both dating methods rely on certain assumptions and are subject to interpretation.
That is exactly why the "age of the earth" keeps getting older and older. For the evolutionists, unaccountable and unprovable time is their only ally, except maybe a liberal interpretation of the "fossil record". The more complicated we find the simplest systems to be (remember when Darwin spoke of "simple cells"? Well, we now know a "simple cell" is as complicated as an F18 fighter jet) the more time must be added to the evolutionary equasion.
But the irony is, more time doesn't help! Mathematically, more time is LESS favorable. Think of it this way: we know that in a casino the odds favor the house. If I go for a weekend, there's a chance I could get lucky and come home a winner. But if I go to the casino night after night, month after month, the odds will catch up to me and I'll be bankrupt. Likewise, with evolution dependent on random mutations, the chances of bad mutations far outweigh the chances of a "good" mutation. Bad mutations will accumulate at a rate much, much faster than any good mutations. It's all a downhill ride...
-
Very true, Indypartridge. The truth is that even with Billions and I suppose trillions of years the odds do not change, ever. It is still throwing a load of lumber into the air and hoping it falls into a little house. These same odds apply each time the mutation is attempted. BUt genetically, the problem is that a mutation is an upset in the makeup and reading of the DNA, the "blueprints" that tell each and every cell what it is going to be. It is like this. The dna for example says:
"the dog ate his food, the dog ate his food, the dog ate his food"
This represents an understandable set of directions for the creation of certain cells. If we move even a single letter,or bar, the dna does not reassemble and read in a way that makes sense, since all the "letters" then slide down to the next position and disrupts the entire chain. Let us remove only the "d" and see what it now says.
"the oga teh isf oodt, heo gat ehi sfo odth, eog ate his foo dthe"
This is of course only an illustration. But this is exactly what happens in a genetic mutation. And these affect the other systems as well. How ironic that it is science itself that has destroyed the evolutionistic model! You can't have life without dna and you cannot have dna without dna to tell the dna what kind of dna to be. In other words, DNA cannot evolve, only break down. And since DNA cannot evolve then life form which depend on DNA cannot evolve. Various traits within the existing DNA can express itself differently, such as putting a lzard in a cave and within three or four generations, they have white skin and no eyes. Take the same lizard oiut of the cave and within a few generations will have opigment and eyes again.These were simply expressions that were "shut off" and others "turned on" without an evolution of the genotype of any kind in the Darwinian sense of changing into another kind. It all points to a creator who gave the blueprint to begin with. BUt the Bible confirms this when it says "each brought forth fruit after its kind". This applies to the scientific principle that species of different "kinds" do not produce amalgamated offspring that can reproduce. BTW, my late father in law, Willard Centerwall was a top genetics science pioneer and was a Christian. He developed the Bengal cat through genetic manipulation and selective cross breeding. So this info comes straight from the top.
Genetics are the evolutionists worst nightmare and the creationsists dream. :)
But if you hold to the religion of evolution I do not mean to upset you or dis your faith, so please do mot get angry with me. I just wanted to point these things out and show that some of us Christians did not "check our brains at the door" of our churches. We have sound and intelligent reasons for our faith. God said to love Him with all our hearts and all our MINDS.
Now, how many will accept this?
-
I read something a while ago that reminded me that no one answered my question. :'(
Any takers?
It is said that the dinos were wiped out 63 million years ago and the only animals that survived that ice age were probably small creatures. Now I wonder how many different evolutionary changes it would have taken to go from one of those creatures to the humans we have today. Would one million changes get it done? Or would it take many more than that?
-
the current system of dating fossils etc. doesn't work as it is supposed to. ask how they know how old a fossil is and they tell you "from the layer of the earths crust it was found in". well how do you know how old that layer is? and it's " by the fossils we found in it". duh! that's not science! there are absolutely NO transition fossils, the fossil layer starts suddenly and by the way there is evidence from cave drawings and fossilized footprints that man and dinosaurs lived at the same time. can you tell me why science STILL calls it the THEORY of evolution if it's a proven fact but refers to GOD'S law of creation? the basic law of thermodynamics dictates that things go from a higher state of being and break down to a lower form not the other way around.
-
the current system of dating fossils etc. doesn't work as it is supposed to. ask how they know how old a fossil is and they tell you "from the layer of the earths crust it was found in". well how do you know how old that layer is? and it's " by the fossils we found in it". duh! that's not science! there are absolutely NO transition fossils, the fossil layer starts suddenly and by the way there is evidence from cave drawings and fossilized footprints that man and dinosaurs lived at the same time. can you tell me why science STILL calls it the THEORY of evolution if it's a proven fact but refers to GOD'S law of creation? the basic law of thermodynamics dictates that things go from a higher state of being and break down to a lower form not the other way around.
I will be simple here. This is why children in today's school system turn out the way they do.
Sincerely,
Brendhan
-
jerrymac, i don't think anyone can really answer your question. the theory of evolution has changed over time. when i was young and they began to teach it in school, they taught us that over the course of millions of years we developed from a cell in the slime, to aquatic animals, through ape, to man. now we are being told that we developed after the dinosaurs died which gave mammals a chance to thrive and man to develope...still through ape?? maybe?
i agree with mark about this; many hours are spent teaching this theory to children, and excluding all other discussion. you will never hear creation discussed in class even when a student brings it up. the teacher will hide behind the "separation" crap, and kill the questions. the best you might get is a bit of a conversation about alien colonization, and the teacher will eventually end it by getting back to the "facts".....this years facts.....
-
I read something a while ago that reminded me that no one answered my question. :'(
Any takers?
It is said that the dinos were wiped out 63 million years ago and the only animals that survived that ice age were probably small creatures. Now I wonder how many different evolutionary changes it would have taken to go from one of those creatures to the humans we have today. Would one million changes get it done? Or would it take many more than that?
Jerrymac,
This is a great question. One I am not qualified to answer. Not even close. But it made me think. What degree of change becomes evolutionary? I mean hair color is it evolutionary?
The Innuit tend to be short and stocky to adapt to the cold enviroment they have lived in for so long.
What about the facial charecteristics between someone who is asian, african, or caucassian?
If we had several dozen generations born and live in space. Would they appear different to adapt to the enviroment?
Sincerely,
Brendhan
-
You guys don't want to play huh?
I was thinking some one would say that it would take several million evolutionary changes to get from what ever small mammal survived 63 million years ago to the humans today.
Now think about this. If it took just one million changes that would have to be an evolutionary change every 63 years. How have we changed in the last 7,000 years? (about the time since Adam.)
-
play? sure ..... seems to me were all on the same side though. what i have learned is that all mutations are produced when some part of the DNA STRING is missing. when bred back to the "normal" the mutation hides genetically or disappears and the DNA string is restored to the normal. most bred for traits in living thing that man "selectively breeds" are recessive and the animal or plant would NOT survive in nature. hybrids cannot reproduce their own type. you can change the way the dog looks but it will never mutate or EVOLVE into a horse.
-
survivor traits would explain the differences in people around the world. those people with the traits that made it easier to survive in certain environments would pass those traits on. eventually, they would be the dominant traits. we also know that our bodies can adapt to different environments even in one life time. the better ones ability to survive, the longer they live, the more they breed, the sooner their stock takes over.
-
The THEORY of evolution - from goo to you by way of the zoo , has proven itself to be an evolving theory . The truth is resolutely steadfast . As He said " you will know the truth and the truth will set you free " . So , if the truth sets you free , what would anything less than the truth do but make you a prisoner ? Truth is absolute and not relative . It is the worthy perogitive of the CREATOR . And the evidence of creation is plainly there for all to see . Take a look around , think it over , and then call on Him to reveal the truth to you . Come on , what have you got to lose ? " Ask and you will receive . Seek and you will find . Knock and the door will be opened to you . "
---Burl-- a former atheist
-
The THEORY of evolution - from goo to you by way of the zoo , has proven itself to be an evolving theory . The truth is resolutely steadfast . As He said " you will know the truth and the truth will set you free " . So , if the truth sets you free , what would anything less than the truth do but make you a prisoner ? Truth is absolute and not relative . It is the worthy perogitive of the CREATOR . And the evidence of creation is plainly there for all to see . Take a look around , think it over , and then call on Him to reveal the truth to you . Come on , what have you got to lose ? " Ask and you will receive . Seek and you will find . Knock and the door will be opened to you . "
---Burl-- a former atheist
Spoken like a man who's died and lived to tell about it. When you tell people that they communicate telepathically and by projecting pictures on the other side they look at you like you're crazy. But believe me, nothing explains things so exactly as a mental image projected from one being to another--it tells everything.
-
You guys don't want to play huh?
I was thinking some one would say that it would take several million evolutionary changes to get from what ever small mammal survived 63 million years ago to the humans today.
Now think about this. If it took just one million changes that would have to be an evolutionary change every 63 years. How have we changed in the last 7,000 years? (about the time since Adam.)
The "rate" that evolution happens can create all kinds of controversy when you look at it logically.
One recent study claims that human evolution is happening much faster now than in the past.
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2007-12/uou-ahe120607.php
"If the rate at which new genes evolve in Africans was extrapolated back to 6 million years ago when humans and chimpanzees diverged, the genetic difference between modern chimps and humans would be 160 times greater than it really is. So the evolution rate of Africans represents a recent speedup in evolution."
Now I don't see the conclusion following the facts. If the genetic difference between chimps and humans should be "160 time greater" based on their measured rate of change, it seems to me that it would be equally (if not more) likely that the assumption of "6 million years" is in serious error.
It's also interesting to note that if human evolution IS happening faster, then Nobel prize winner James Watson was absolutely correct in his reasoning and comments he made last fall which caused him to be labeled a racist. He was reported to have said "there is no firm reason to anticipate that the intellectual capacities of peoples geographically separated in their evolution should prove to have evolved identically.", which was taken to be a racist slam against Africans. Even after he attempted to clarify his position:
"we do not yet adequately understand the way in which the different environments in the world have selected over time the genes which determine our capacity to do different things,... the overwhelming desire of society today is to assume that equal powers of reason are a universal heritage of humanity... it may well be. But simply wanting this to be the case is not enough. This is not science. To question this is not to give in to racism. This is not a discussion about superiority or inferiority, it is about seeking to understand differences."
Science dares not challenge Political Correctness. In the end, he was painted as a doddering old fool and forced into retirement.
-
In the beginning... well I will be honest, I Don't Have Any Idea. There was a time when I was smarter and believed the scientists and sidewalk preachers and ministers and books and professors and professers and... now I am quite ignorant about such things.
I only know that I feel something beyond myself, I now say that all the talk and speculation is keeping us from really seeing what seems to be profound beyond any words or Knowing
-
Nobel prize winner James Watson
I thought he got a bum wrap.
-
i thought he made a perfectly valid observation and expressed a valid opinion.
god help those who challenge the "consensus".
-
Matter is complex, because the world is not a laboratory under control. When you say a word, it can be "the word" and you have a war there or here.
This "way of life" called "state of nature" where men discover their differences was treated since a philosophical pov By Hobbes (Homo homini lupus or "war of all against all") before that scientifical pov by the Nobel prize. The result is always the same :fishhit:
Edit: I am re-reading me :?, and I´m thinking now that the Hobbes writtings are more elaborated than the scientifical one. Because Hobbes explained the superation of the state of nature and the scientifical wants to explain the state of nature, with the problem that humans are very sensible and come back to primitive stages because we are 97% geneticaly like primates.
-
>>>>>with the problem that humans are very sensible and come back to primitive stages because we are 97% geneticaly like primates. <<<<
Is this the extent of the "scientific" rationale? Abe, How much like other animals are we? If I feel like eating a steak, is that because I am 96% like a tiger? If an ape attacks another ape and eats its brains, is that because it is 95% like a cannibal? The truth is that there is no proof of the scientific religion in terms of the evolutional theories. None of the theories are observed, except for that which is already built into the genotype (dna).
Spontaneous generation has never been observed.
Macro-evolution has never been observed.
"Primordial ooze" becoming a complex living form (even as simple as an ameoba, which is as complex as a fighter jet) has never been observed.
If one were to be as skeptical of these "scientific" theories as they are of the BIble and God's prophets, they would realize how preposterous these ideas are.
-
My steemed Hopeful, I don´t doubt we are divine criatures, and, humans are brothers. I don´t deny universal health care to the 4 millions of inmigrants that came to Spain the last 5 years.
But I was speaking about the most natural human side. Humans, like hens, or ants, or monkeys, can be racists, or classist, or like you prefer call it. I was thinking on Hutus and Tutsis, or ... the example you prefer. Education is one point...the rest is the 97% that we have in common with the primates. If you say that there are races cleverer than others...perhaps is real, (not sure -did the old egyptians lose the intelligence in the way to ours days), but I´m sure that not every body is ready to listen that "he" is superior.
preposterous
By the way, very rich vocabulary. Good latin. ;)
-
>>>>>By the way, very rich vocabulary. Good latin. <<<<
Actually, my studies are more in Koine Greek and Hebrew. But I'll take any compliments where I can get them. ;) The latin influence, if any, must be a leftover from my Roman Catholic days. ;)
>>>>>not sure -did the old egyptians lose the intelligence in the way to ours days...<<<<
The ancient Egyptians were very intelligent people, as were the other races. I do not believe humans are one iota more intelligent than the day they were created. If anything, current events are proving that we are losing our humanity and are becoming more like animals , or worse, than at any time in history, with the possible exception of the antedeluvian people. But as God's spirit is denied by humanity, they will become more violent, more greedy, more sensual and less civilized. Then again, if a child is raised under the auspices of evolutionary fables, then why should they think themselves anything but animals? And this being the case, why not act like the animals they are taught that they are?
The behavior of those who truly submit to God (not to be confused with those who merely profess a religion) is much higher than the most intelligent animals. But the behavior of much of the world that rejects God has fallen below that of animals, and can sometimes make animals look downright altruistic. :'(
Sad but true.....
-
Hopeful,
Have you been to the Creation Museum in Northern Kentucky?
Jim
-
No, Jimmyo, I have not been to any creation museum, neither in Kentucky nor in Texas. For me, it is books, articles, essays and lectures. I compare the theories, evidences and conclusions of all sides and then come to my own conclusions based on actual facts and real, not trumped-up, evidence.
-
have you read Fingerprints of The Gods? i just read it again. it's pretty interesting. my eyes cross a bit at the mathematical calculations.
-
Belief in God(s) is by definition an act of faith. It requires no real proof or tangible evidence. Stating that the Judeo Christian bible is proof is on par with saying a comic book is proof of the easter bunny.
I am not ridiculing faith or belief. Even I believe in God. However saying because it is in the bible it must be true is short sighted.
The earth is not the center of the universe. We orbit the sun. Yet that made Gallieo a heretic.
The formula for pi is 3.14... not 3. Yet if the bible states it is 3 (I Kings 7:23). Maybe God was just a little off.
Life was discovered on mars, not humonoid life but microscopic life. It shows that there may be life elsewhere in the universe.
The issue is when science contradicts something people hold with a great deal of passion and not always with sound reasoning.
The universe and earth were not created in seven days. Adam and Eve were not the first humans. So what?
Life evolved over millions of years. Does that negate the act of faith? Not in my opinion. However stating that humans haven't evolved and have always had the same level of intelligence is short sighted and close minded. Especially in light of the scientific evidence.
Calling evolution a theory doesn't mean the whole item is up for grabs. It means that certain very specific details aren't agreed upon. Discussion on evolution isn't just on human changes through eons but also microbial life, plant life, amphibian life and countless other forms.
Evolution through natural selection can already be seen. Not all humans are the same. We have different races. And changes in countless life forms continue to occur.
The evidence exists that humans and chimpanzees shared a common ancestor. Faith in God doesn't change that fact. As to the exact dates in time periods as to when and how certain changes took place you are open to discuss. Denying it's existence in total is a fool's errand.
Evolution occurs that is a fact. Some of the mechanisms of evolution are still theory.
The Theory of Evolution isn't spelled out like some specific math formula. It involves thousands of different facts brought into a line evidence. As an electrician I always like that idea behind AC and DC theory. It doesn't mean electricity doesn't work, or that we have to guess about your electric bill. Ohms law is part of electrical theory but it only looks at certain aspects of electricity. Faraday's law of induction covers a different aspect of electrical theory. And then there is Faraday's laws of electrolysis.
Things like hertz, resistance, conductance can still be debated on very specific levels especially when it pertains to certain materials or combination of materials. It doesn't mean that that hertz, resistance and conductance don't exist. But trying to apply a simple set of math formulas to biology doesn't mesh. This where people get confused. They expect that simple items can be placed into the complexity of biology. It is also the failing of the scientific community to put into an understandable English the workings of evolution. The scientific community needs to dumb down certain complex issue so the non scientific community understand them better. That doesn't mean the scientific community's facts are wrong. It just means they need speak plain English outside the halls of higher learning. Darwin's The Origin of the Species is a good book to read but it is not required reading in schools. And only 459 pages. Stephen Hawking's A brief History of Time was also designed to put the Big Bang Theory into simpler terms touting only one math formula in the book because he knew it would turn off common readers if the book was loaded with complicated math formulas. A shortcoming of the reader not the author. The author catered to the masses. And the book was a best seller but it is not required reading in school.
Jerrymac asked if we came from mars where did that life come from. What if there was life on Mars and it seeded life on Earth. So what? It doesn't really change anything. Your still here.
There is nothing wrong with questioning science or god. But people need to ask better questions and God needs to provide better answers.
And maybe someday all of you will all be touched by the noodley appendage of his holiness The Flying Spaghetti Monster.
Sincerely,
Brendhan
-
Life was discovered on mars, not humonoid life but microscopic life. It shows that there may be life elsewhere in the universe.
When was life discovered on Mars?
-
one small point. you can not in one sentence call evolution a theory, and then in the next call it a fact. if it were a fact, it would cease to be a theory.
if Christians were to study the bible in the original languages, they would find that some of the ideas they hold dear are not actually written. also, much of the Protestant teaching are still based on the teachings of the Catholic church. you do not even need to do a careful study of Catholic dogma to see that some of it is in direct contradiction to the bible. it is unpopular but true that the bible allows for multiple creations. it actually syncs very nicely with much of the mythology of other cultures. multiple creations, multiple destructions, each culture having their 'Adam and Eve'.
the bible is two stories. it is the story of the Jews, and it is the story of salvation through Christ. it is quite possible that it is one story among many. however, it is also important to remember that a shared belief system is a corner stone of any society. the Mayans were probably destroyed more by the failure of their gods, than whatever natural disasters occurred. the need for faith seems to be engineered into our psyche. to think we have evolved beyond the need, is to invite chaos.
-
Gravity is a fact. We feel it every day. The Theory of Gravity, why and how it works, is only a theory. We don't know why it works, but have a good guess that hasn't been proven wrong.
We have lots of facts. That monkeys and humans share the same ancestor is not a fact. It is a theory. There are lots of guesses how that happened. The facts are that there have been skulls and bones found. What they were is theory and only ever will be theory. And theories on theories on theories are only as stable as the foundational theory.
Unless you have that time machine that you haven't told anybody about. Beleive what you want, but as a human it is easier to have faith in something that you think you can see.
BTW, I did an index search on the Bible and it doesn't mention PI. Or pie. It does have pomegranites and olives, but I don't think that would make good pie. Just the dimensions of a really big impressive bowl (now that would be a big pie!! :) mmmmm...), described in a measurement that is typically approximate, since it is usually measured using an average body part(arm, elbow to finger). But the Bible is really close, considering the approximations....
rick
-
Life was discovered on mars, not humonoid life but microscopic life. It shows that there may be life elsewhere in the universe.
When was life discovered on Mars?
No I think that this is the closest that they got. They *think* based on different *scenarios* that it may be a *possibility* . :-P Too many science journals read that way.
http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/marslife.html
-
But that wasn't found on Mars, it was found here on earth. Wonder how they figure it is a piece of Mars? Where would one have gotten another piece of Mars to compare it to?
-
Life was discovered on mars, not humonoid life but microscopic life. It shows that there may be life elsewhere in the universe.
When was life discovered on Mars?
http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/marslife.html (http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/marslife.html)
Sincerely,
Brendhan
-
one small point. you can not in one sentence call evolution a theory, and then in the next call it a fact. if it were a fact, it would cease to be a theory.
No that is not true. That is the problem. People think that facts and theories are incompatible. In fact it takes fats to make theories.
if Christians were to study the bible in the original languages, they would find that some of the ideas they hold dear are not actually written. also, much of the Protestant teaching are still based on the teachings of the Catholic church. you do not even need to do a careful study of Catholic dogma to see that some of it is in direct contradiction to the bible. it is unpopular but true that the bible allows for multiple creations. it actually syncs very nicely with much of the mythology of other cultures. multiple creations, multiple destructions, each culture having their 'Adam and Eve'.
Or Adam and Lilith(Adam's First wife)Book of Isaiah 34:14
the bible is two stories. it is the story of the Jews, and it is the story of salvation through Christ. it is quite possible that it is one story among many. however, it is also important to remember that a shared belief system is a corner stone of any society. the Mayans were probably destroyed more by the failure of their gods, than whatever natural disasters occurred. the need for faith seems to be engineered into our psyche. to think we have evolved beyond the need, is to invite chaos.
I am not disregarding humans need for faith and their search for answers. The problem is when they are so passionate about their faith they use it to preclude reason. Faith is fine. Fanatic is obscene.
Sincerely,
Brendhan
-
Gravity is a fact. We feel it every day. The Theory of Gravity, why and how it works, is only a theory. We don't know why it works, but have a good guess that hasn't been proven wrong.
I had this discussion with someone else. There are different aspects of Gravity.
Newtons Law of Universal Gravitation. Which is what many people refer to. The problem was it didn't account well for the orbit of the planet Mercury.
Einstein solved that later with General Relativity the E=mc^2 that people are familiar with. Newton's law requires that gravity be a constant. Einstein only requires relative relationship. There are other theories of gravity that deal with Dark Matter and a few that try to deal with the breakdown at a quantum level.
We have lots of facts. That monkeys and humans share the same ancestor is not a fact. It is a theory.
Sorry it is a fact.The exact year of the split can be debated.
http://www.theallineed.com/biology/06012903.htm (http://www.theallineed.com/biology/06012903.htm)
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/88/20/9051.pdf (http://www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/88/20/9051.pdf)
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-qa.html (http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-qa.html)
There are lots of guesses how that happened. The facts are that there have been skulls and bones found. What they were is theory and only ever will be theory. And theories on theories on theories are only as stable as the foundational theory.
Not quite. It is a lot more than skull and bones.
Unless you have that time machine that you haven't told anybody about. Beleive what you want, but as a human it is easier to have faith in something that you think you can see.
Faith is designed to provide answers when you don't have all the facts.
BTW, I did an index search on the Bible and it doesn't mention PI. Or pie. It does have pomegranites and olives, but I don't think that would make good pie. Just the dimensions of a really big impressive bowl (now that would be a big pie!! :) mmmmm...), described in a measurement that is typically approximate, since it is usually measured using an average body part(arm, elbow to finger). But the Bible is really close, considering the approximations....
rick
It mentions
He made the Sea of cast metal, circular in shape, measuring ten cubits from rim to rim and five cubits high. It took a line of thirty cubits to measure around it. Below the rim, gourds encircled it - ten to a cubit. The gourds were cast in two rows in one piece with the Sea.
The ratio of the circumference to the diameter is 30:10 cubits.
That would be 3.
There are plenty of religious websites that will say how much a cubit is and attempt to dispute this but the simple fact is The bible makes pi = 3. Which it doesn't.
Maybe the next time kid answers 2+2=5 we will say it's okay because he was close.
Sincerely,
Brendhan
-
When was life discovered on Mars?
http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/marslife.html (http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/marslife.html)
I already replied to this once. This was on Earth not Mars. The article is littered with maybes, perhapses, and possiblies. I would need more before convicting someone of a crime.
believed to be from Mars
which may be microfossils of
thought to be from Mars
But let me break it down a bit. Twelve pieces of rocks believed to be from the same meteorite, even though the one with the "possible" bug is 3.2 billion years older than the other eleven. :? No mention of any "primitive bacteria" in the other rocks. But one.... just one.... was found to have "Gas bubbles" that must have been trapped inside of it 1.3 billion years ago that "have a composition which matches the current martian atmosphere as measured by the Viking Landers"
Pick a rock up from the surface of mars and find absolutely positively couldn't be anything else but..... and then I will buy it.
-
It mentions
He made the Sea of cast metal, circular in shape, measuring ten cubits from rim to rim and five cubits high. It took a line of thirty cubits to measure around it. Below the rim, gourds encircled it - ten to a cubit. The gourds were cast in two rows in one piece with the Sea.
The ratio of the circumference to the diameter is 30:10 cubits.
That would be 3.
There are plenty of religious websites that will say how much a cubit is and attempt to dispute this but the simple fact is The bible makes pi = 3. Which it doesn't.
Maybe the next time kid answers 2+2=5 we will say it's okay because he was close.
Sincerely,
Brendhan
Ah, but perhaps the simple fact is that you're reading it in English and not Hebrew!
Hebrew, like Greek, is alphanumeric, where letters are often used to represent numerical values.
In Hebrew, the common word to describe circumference is qav, however, in 1 Kings 7:23, the unusual spelling qaveh is used. Whereas qav has a numeric value of 106, the additional letters yield a value of 111, giving an adjustment ratio of 111/106. Multiple this ratio times the written value of 30 cubits and you get 31.41509433962 cubits, which would then yield a value of pi=3.141509433962, accurate to 4 decimal places, and about 15 times more accurate than the value of 22/7, which we used in school as a handy approximation before the days of calculators.
-
Life was discovered on mars, not humonoid life but microscopic life. It shows that there may be life elsewhere in the universe.
When was life discovered on Mars?
http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/marslife.html (http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/marslife.html)
Sincerely,
Brendhan
This wasn't the first time NASA made headlines with dubious science. But, hey, they wanted funding for their Mars missions, so why not garner some big time headlines about "Life on Mars!" ?
Unfortunately, some these links require a subscription, but the titles tell the story:
NASA's claims win few converts
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v384/n6604/index.html
"Many leading researchers who study meteorites and ancient life have weighed the evidence and found it unconvincing."
Death Knell for Martian Life
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg15220610.200-death-knell-for-martian-life.html
"Luann Becker and her colleagues at the University of California, San Diego, report that the PAHs found in the meteorite could be contaminants from the Antarctic ice. Becker used a mass spectrometer to analyse the PAHs in several samples of Antarctic ice, including some from the site where the meteorite was found. All the PAHs that McKay's team found in the Martian meteorite were discovered in their ice samples. The PAHs also turned up in other meteorites collected in Antarctica, including several that did not originate from Mars."
J.Kerridge (UC San Diego) provided a counter-argument to the proposal from D. McKay et al. that ALH84001 contains evidence of ancient biogenic activity on Mars. Kerridge noted that every line of evidence presented by McKay to support the biological hypothesis can also be explained by inorganic processes.
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19980236014_1998372641.pdf
"Now, however, as the details of NASA's study begin to sink in, scepticism is mounting."
"Last year, researchers led by Jim Papike, a meteor specialist at the University of New Mexico, began examining samples of iron-sulphide mineral that had been deposited in fractures in the rock. They measured the ratio of two sulphur isotopes in these samples. But instead of finding a ratio consistent with a fingerprint for life, they found the opposite: isotope ratios consistent with nonbiological processes."
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg15120430.200-did-martians-land-in-antarctica.html
-
Brendhan said,>>>> "It is alot more than skull and bones"<<<<<.
I agree, it is also about grant money, defending atheism, higher criticism and pride. DNA evidence shows that it is not possible for man and ape to be related, regardless of how similar they may look (and act) in some aspects. That 3% difference in DNA may as well be 90%. When speaking of DNA, a miss is as good a mile.
>>>>"Theories are based on facts"<<<<<
To some degree. But in the case of evolution, it is more about being based on a biased interpretation of facts (and trumped up facts, like doctored skeletons and false carbon dating results), and not on the facts themselves. I showed an illustration of this a couple of pages back where a person walks into a room filled with toys and cartoon posters. Some may believe this proves it is a child's room. BUt in reality, it was my boss's wife's office at a shop I worked at several years ago. However, Bible prophecy proves as much as anything that there is a God and that this God interacts with people. Judeo/Christianity is the only belief system wherein prophecy comes true. Yes, it takes faith, because it is written that "without faith, man cannot please God". God has asked for faith as symbol of our love for Him. And without faith that there is a loving and personal God, why would anyone seek to please Him?
Brendhan, just because people are "debating" when ape and man split, and accept macro-evolution o as factdoes not prove that ape and man ever split or were related. It is a theory based on many other theories, and genetics disproves all of it.
KathyP wrote:
<<<<<The BIble is two stories, one about the Jews and the other about salvation through Christ.<<<<
I respectfully disagree. The Bible from beginning to end is about God's will for and relationship to His creatures, including Jews, Hinus, Muslims and Christians and the plan of salvation for all people. I believe true Christianity is simply the BIble understood correctly.Remember, that much of the book of Genesis took place many years prior to the existence of the Jews. Abraham was not a Jew and neither was Noah, Adam, Enoch or anyone prior to Jacob. The ministry of Jesus was illustrated to the Jews in the sanctuary service and in the many types of the Old Testament. Some Jews got it, even back then, but most did not.
You made some awesome comments about how the Roman Church and many Christians who claim to believe the Bible do in fact hold beliefs that are counter to the Bible. I say "Amen" to that. The Trinity, Sunday worship, infant baptism, purgatory are all extra-biblical doctrines invented by Rome and held by many Protestants. Rome did indeed claim to formulate these doctrines on her own authority and not on the Bible. The question is, "Does the church of Rome have authority to write doctrine on its authority? If so, then the Crusades and the Spanish Inquisition were "righteous and good".
-
Hopeful; You're starting to sound like a Latter Day Saint.
-
then the Crusades and the Spanish Inquisition were "righteous and good".
So, were not "righteous and good" (mutatis mutandis :evil:) the Crusades and the Spanish Inquisition?
It´s easy to criticise the hard old times actions from our modern point of view.
As you can see actually, all the empires have to be care with the black propaganda made by the envious countries.
-
Actually, Brian, the Mormons hold to several of those doctrines I listed. Seems they have finally grown tired of the cult label themselves. Truth be told, I am doctrinally somewhere between a messianic Jew and a Seventh-day Adventist, and there are thousands who share the same beliefs, but are not a denomination. I believe the Bible and study its message outside of traditional influence. Having said that, I do believe that the 1st and early 2nd century views are applicable , since they at least knew directly what their predessessors taught and how they defined their terms. The church's sense of self-authority really did not begin until the latter 2nd century. By the 4th century, it was unbearable. There was a lot of politics involved by then, and those holding to the original Christian/messianic religion (Waldnses, Albigenses, etc.) eventually went into hiding in the mountains, away from ecclesiastical oppression.
>>>>>So, were not "righteous and good" (mutatis mutandis) the Crusades and the Spanish Inquisition?
It´s easy to criticise the hard old times actions from our modern point of view.<<<<
God preserved His people and His oracles by war sometimes, but the Roman Church was imperialistic and ruthless and felt, as Islam did, that "conversion by threat of death" was a legitimate means of proslytizing. Jesus taught liberty and conversion by love, grace, tolerance and truth. Maybe Jesus had a "modern" point of view?
-
God preserved His people and His oracles by war sometimes
Yes, the Bible is plenty of unjust wars, where Egyptians are always the "eggs" that crash against the "stone" (Jews). :roll:
but the Roman Church was imperialistic and ruthless and felt, as Islam did, that "conversion by threat of death" was a legitimate means of proslytizing
Going out from the dark times = when Roman Empire was invaded by Barbarians, men have a mentality that we can´t understand. (What will think people in the future when they study the money your country has spent fighting the communism, or the Iraq bankruptcy? Any of them will say that was necesary because somebody had to do the work, and other people will say that it was an unjust interference in foreing affairs, where any few businessmen would earn any billions.
You speak about the Roman Church, but it was a general behavior. Islam, Calvinist (Calvine the pyromaniac :-X) Proselitize was not necessary when citizens were servants -quius regio, eius religio-
Freedom conquest, and our modern point of view, was a long way till we found the top: "among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness". Yes, that´s a treasure.
Maybe Jesus had a "modern" point of view?
Dios es Amor, now and always. :)
-
Just my two cents, the Roman catholic church has their own set of rules, rituals, that are man made, to benefit the catholic church. Heck, they even have their own version of the bible. To me, too much greed (money and power) and man made rituals (sit down, stand up, kneel, ok) is the recipe for a religion. God does not like religion. My God as Abe says is love, now and always. I definitely think Jesus was a modern thinker, He was practical and His message was always an unselfish one, He put others first, walked the walk and talked the talk. Regardless of what denomination someone claims to be, Jesus would be a good model to follow if you want favor with people and God. We should be judged by our walk not our associations to any particular sect. I don't care what you profess to be, show me by your actions that you care and love those like you would have them love you and we are both walking down the same path, and we are truly brothers and sisters. I am non-denominational, because I am with and for all. God is the God of all, there are no peoples more important or less important in God's eye, if they walk in love. Jesus's message in a nutshell was that love is the way, nuff said.
...JP
-
Awesome post, JP. I would add that God is love, but is also an actual person who can literally love us and guide us.
-
Awesome post, JP. I would add that God is love, but is also an actual person who can literally love us and guide us.
The bible says that when we accept God in our hearts that we receive the holy spirit that guides us.
...JP
-
Well, I am a Mormon and believe a little differently than the mainstream Mormon. A visit to the otherside (provided you return or were contactedby a resident) quickly teaches that the most important qestion that will be used asked the judgement is "How have your treated your fellow man?" That's why is have the tag line about life being a school on my posts.
If I could boil any religious doctrine down to 4 letters it would be LOVE, as in love one another.
BTW, Websters defines a Religious Sect as a group of people who adhere to a gospel doctrine. By the definition being a Mormon is equal to being Catholic, Hindu, Islam, Shinto, any of the Protestent groups or any other organized religion. It has been the Catholics with the aid of other denominations that have tried to turn the word Sect into a bad connotation. If you don't like, or are afraid of it, make fun or ridicule it. Definately not Jesus's teaching.
Jesus is the Universal man, for all times and all creeds.
-
Life is a school. What have you learned?
I think I will have to repeat, a year at least. ;)
-
Yes, Brian, it is interesting that in the book of Acts, the Christian church of that day was called a sect, a cult. They were not ashamed of this. I am not either. For me, it is the Bible and the Bible only. Jesus prayed to His Father "Sanctify them by your truth, your word is truth". I feel that if a religion is not making loving and caring people who hunger for righteousness and are becoming more like Jesus, then that truth is being wasted. Either that, or they do not have the truth. Debate does not change hearts, the presence of God and the realization of His love does.
I have yet to hear of a person whose wretched and painful life was changed 100% for the better by science or anything worldly.
-
While wonderful in it sentiment, none of this shows that evolution is false.
I think we do a disservice to god when he gives us the proof and we reject because we can't get past what's in the bible.
Sincerely,
Brendhan
-
While wonderful in it sentiment, none of this shows that evolution is false.
I think we do a disservice to god when he gives us the proof and we reject because we can't get past what's in the bible.
Sincerely,
Brendhan
Let's just say for argument sake that there is no bible or theory of evolution. If we walk in love, we all win.
...JP
-
While wonderful in it sentiment, none of this shows that evolution is false.
I think we do a disservice to god when he gives us the proof and we reject because we can't get past what's in the bible.
Sincerely,
Brendhan
Let's just say for argument sake that there is no bible or theory of evolution. If we walk in love, we all win.
...JP
And that complete evades the original question Jerrymac asked. Sorry but mental enlightenment should not be put off by religious sentiment.
Sincerely,
Brendhan
-
While wonderful in it sentiment, none of this shows that evolution is false.
I think we do a disservice to god when he gives us the proof and we reject because we can't get past what's in the bible.
Sincerely,
Brendhan
Let's just say for argument sake that there is no bible or theory of evolution. If we walk in love, we all win.
...JP
And that complete evades the original question Jerrymac asked. Sorry but mental enlightenment should not be put off by religious sentiment.
Sincerely,
Brendhan
Evading what? Just going with the flow of this 7 page post.
...JP
-
And the discussion thread went from origin of life to messiah teachings.
Since it has been shown that the earth is not the center of the universe and that is is more than 10,000 years old. Just look at a piece of marble that is several million years old. The amount of time heat and pressure it takes to turn coal into a diamond doesn't happen in the earth overnight. The half life of radioactive substances isn't in question. The methods used to date items isn't in question. The percentage of accuracy may not be as precise as others would like it. But there is no doubt that if something is over a million years old that it is off by 990,000 years old.
Until religious people realize that their faith isn't compromised by science they will continue to fight the truth tooth and nail.
But maybe we should all go back to believing the earth is the center of the universe. Because religion is never wrong.
At least science is willing to look at the evidence.
Sincerely,
Brendhan
-
And the discussion thread went from origin of life to messiah teachings.
Since it has been shown that the earth is not the center of the universe and that is is more than 10,000 years old. Just look at a piece of marble that is several million years old. The amount of time heat and pressure it takes to turn coal into a diamond doesn't happen in the earth overnight. The half life of radioactive substances isn't in question. The methods used to date items isn't in question. The percentage of accuracy may not be as precise as others would like it. But there is no doubt that if something is over a million years old that it is off by 990,000 years old.
Until religious people realize that their faith isn't compromised by science they will continue to fight the truth tooth and nail.
But maybe we should all go back to believing the earth is the center of the universe. Because religion is never wrong.
At least science is willing to look at the evidence.
Sincerely,
Brendhan
Hey Brendhan, I try and look at everything, and its in our nature that we must try and prove everything, but some things just can't be proven, but accepted, perhaps with a grain of salt. Never tried looking at a piece of marble that was over a million yrs old. Does it look odd? Or just like any other marble?
...JP
-
The general age on marble is several hundred million years old. Depending on where it is quarried from the age differences can vary over a hundred million years. In some cases fossils are found in marble.
http://www.mineralszone.com/stones/marble.html (http://www.mineralszone.com/stones/marble.html)
http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/ocoee/ (http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/ocoee/)
http://www.ugs.state.ut.us/teacher/tc/tc0198.htm (http://www.ugs.state.ut.us/teacher/tc/tc0198.htm)
Sincerely,
Brendhan
-
The general age on marble is several hundred million years old. Depending on where it is quarried from the age differences can vary over a hundred million years. In some cases fossils are found in marble.
http://www.mineralszone.com/stones/marble.html (http://www.mineralszone.com/stones/marble.html)
http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/ocoee/ (http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/ocoee/)
http://www.ugs.state.ut.us/teacher/tc/tc0198.htm (http://www.ugs.state.ut.us/teacher/tc/tc0198.htm)
Sincerely,
Brendhan
Cool sites Dude.
...JP
-
Brendhan,
My rejection of the macro-evolution model has nothing to do with the Bible. In fact, some believe that the Bible leaves room for evolution. I reject it because it is false science, and has never been reproduced or observed. I rejected evolution long before I ever became a Christian. As I mentioned earlier, genetics has disproven evolution conclusively. It may take while for the rest of "science" to catch up to this. But those at the highest levels already admit it. My own father in-law,the late Dr. Willard Centerwall, was a top genetics scientist and this was his conclusion as well. Evolutionists always make the false claim that evolution is only resisted on religious grounds. But that is another red-herring. The truth is, evolution is held onto on (quasi) religious grounds, and is every bit as much faith-based as creationism. Go back a few pages and look at some of the reasoning. Or perhaps if you can find some proof that macro-evolution has ever been actually observed or reproduced, please submit it for my perusal.
I personally feel that even Darwin would have given up by now. :)
-
The bottom line, Brendhan, is that when someone in the government or at a college tells you that a piece of marble is 1 million years old, you believe them and do not question. How is that any different from the fundamentalist Christian who asks his pastor and believes without question? When some says that a diamond takes millions of years to develop, you believe them in spite of the fact that it has never been observed, but only theorized. When someone says that stalactites take many thousands of years to form you believe that as well, and take it as fact. The truth is that we have stalactites ten feet long that hang from public water pipes that are only 50 years old. I had a piece of actual rock with a tire track it taken from a lake that was dug out only 35 years ago, people have found 100 year old hammers imbedded in coal that was dated to be over a million years old ( that's an old hammer!), there are footprints of humans found along side dinosaur tracks in Texas, which National Geographic refused to look at when offered a tour.The Icca stones in Peru, which are only a few hundred years old, have fully developed and fleshed dinosaurs drawn on them.
We are fully willing to look at the evidence,Brendhan, but we are also fully willing to question it and ask the finders "How far was the apeman's head found from the apeman's leg? And wait to hear the answer, which in some cases would "5 miles".
-
http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience/20080315/sc_livescience/grannysayslifeevolvedbetweenthemicasheets
Granny Says Life Evolved Between the Mica Sheets
Theories and Hypotheses
Why do I call my idea a 'Hypothesis'? People use words in many ways, but one of the strengths of science is that it tries to use words in precisely defined ways. Theories are much stronger than Hypotheses. A Hypothesis is a starting point in the scientific method, while a Theory is the result of much research and testing. Once there were also scientific Laws, but now we know that even Newton's Laws are not totally correct. Therefore, newer scientists such as Charles Darwin call their well-tested ideas 'Theories' instead of 'Laws'. My idea is only a Hypothesis, ready for testing, by me and hopefully by many others in the scientific community.
-
gotta go with hopeful on this. even if you completely removed religion and biblical beliefs from the equation, you still could not prove evolution. in fact, the evidence supports multiple creations rather than evolution. i am not sold on that either, but it makes more sense.
-
Brendhan,
My rejection of the macro-evolution model has nothing to do with the Bible. In fact, some believe that the Bible leaves room for evolution. I reject it because it is false science, and has never been reproduced or observed.
That statement in it's entirety is flase and shows you have not done any real research.
I rejected evolution long before I ever became a Christian. As I mentioned earlier, genetics has disproven evolution conclusively. It may take while for the rest of "science" to catch up to this. But those at the highest levels already admit it. My own father in-law,the late Dr. Willard Centerwall, was a top genetics scientist and this was his conclusion as well. Evolutionists always make the false claim that evolution is only resisted on religious grounds. But that is another red-herring. The truth is, evolution is held onto on (quasi) religious grounds, and is every bit as much faith-based as creationism. Go back a few pages and look at some of the reasoning. Or perhaps if you can find some proof that macro-evolution has ever been actually observed or reproduced, please submit it for my perusal.
I personally feel that even Darwin would have given up by now. :)
No reputable scientist with any peer reviewed documentation has come out with any research that disputes the fundamentals of evolution.
If creationism had any foundation the Dover case would have not had the blow out it did against creationism. You can disguise creationism any way you want. It doesn't stand up to the science and it doesn't stand up in court.
The bottom line, Brendhan, is that when someone in the government or at a college tells you that a piece of marble is 1 million years old, you believe them and do not question. How is that any different from the fundamentalist Christian who asks his pastor and believes without question?
Because when I ask them to back it up with proof and show me how the came up with their answers they will show me and none of it is based on faith.
When some says that a diamond takes millions of years to develop, you believe them in spite of the fact that it has never been observed, but only theorized.
Wrong again. The very science that discovered how diamonds are formed is used to create artificial diamonds.
http://www.wisegeek.com/what-are-artificial-diamonds.htm (http://www.wisegeek.com/what-are-artificial-diamonds.htm)
http://www.popsci.com/beers/article/2006-05/flawless-man-made-diamonds (http://www.popsci.com/beers/article/2006-05/flawless-man-made-diamonds)
http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/Features/Columns/?article=BNArtificialDiamonds (http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/Features/Columns/?article=BNArtificialDiamonds)
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/02/040226070311.htm (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/02/040226070311.htm)
http://www.gemsutra.com/diamonds.html (http://www.gemsutra.com/diamonds.html)
http://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/diamonds/composition.html (http://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/diamonds/composition.html)
When someone says that stalactites take many thousands of years to form you believe that as well, and take it as fact. The truth is that we have stalactites ten feet long that hang from public water pipes that are only 50 years old.
Yes, and the mineral composition and density is very different.
http://www.wisegeek.com/what-are-stalactites.htm (http://www.wisegeek.com/what-are-stalactites.htm)
Stalactites formed from water pipes are generally limestone, in caves they are calcium.
I had a piece of actual rock with a tire track it taken from a lake that was dug out only 35 years ago, people have found 100 year old hammers imbedded in coal that was dated to be over a million years old ( that's an old hammer!)
Sorry your hammer is not proof of creationism.
http://paleo.cc/paluxy/hammer.htm (http://paleo.cc/paluxy/hammer.htm)
Chances are your tire track has a better story than what you are assuming.
, there are footprints of humans found along side dinosaur tracks in Texas,
which National Geographic refused to look at when offered a tour
Again completely false
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC101.html (http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC101.html)
http://paleo.cc/paluxy/color.htm (http://paleo.cc/paluxy/color.htm)
.The Icca stones in Peru, which are only a few hundred years old, have fully developed and fleshed dinosaurs drawn on them.
A complete hoax.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH710_1.html (http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH710_1.html)
We are fully willing to look at the evidence,Brendhan, but we are also fully willing to question it and ask the finders "How far was the apeman's head found from the apeman's leg? And wait to hear the answer, which in some cases would "5 miles".
Good here is proof of macro evolution. The issue is this is not some simple one sentence answer. You have to actually think.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/ (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/)
I have just completely dissected all the points you made that you thought had any merit. My biggest issue is that this dribble is trying to infect itself into our school systems. Just because you are not a geologist (nor am I). Does not mean the scientist are correct. But at least I am looking at the research.
The ideas you perpetuate are not only wrong they are dangerous. They elude to the idea that if it isn't clearly spelled out by God it simply cannot be.
Not all the answers are in the bible. I am sure sure penicillin was somewhere in the Book of Romans.... oh wait it wasn't.
I don't think I will change your mind. But I don't think it is correct for you to spout off unsubstantiated ideas and conjecture.
The idea behind Creationism (aka Intelligent Design) has been time and time again shown to be filled with falsehoods and a religious agenda. Not only by the
scientific community but by the courts.
I said on page four of this thread:
I will be simple here. This is why children in today's school system turn out the way they do.
It has been shown in this thread that there is a definite threat to the current education system.
Jerrymac, I don't know if the seeds of life on Earth came from Mars. But I know they didn't come Adam and Eve.
Sincerely,
Brendhan
-
http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience/20080315/sc_livescience/grannysayslifeevolvedbetweenthemicasheets
Granny Says Life Evolved Between the Mica Sheets
Theories and Hypotheses
Why do I call my idea a 'Hypothesis'? People use words in many ways, but one of the strengths of science is that it tries to use words in precisely defined ways. Theories are much stronger than Hypotheses. A Hypothesis is a starting point in the scientific method, while a Theory is the result of much research and testing. Once there were also scientific Laws, but now we know that even Newton's Laws are not totally correct. Therefore, newer scientists such as Charles Darwin call their well-tested ideas 'Theories' instead of 'Laws'. My idea is only a Hypothesis, ready for testing, by me and hopefully by many others in the scientific community.
In my house life was created between the flannel sheets.
The answer to the questions disputed here comes to us after death, or for those lucky enough to survive it, that creationism is the final word. Man in his limited world (he exists in only 4 of the many demensions) has too narrow a few to see or dicover the truth. Those who insist upon scientific proof of everything will never have faith because faith is belief in truthes unseen. And Believe me, having seen the "other side" there is a lot living man has not seen.
-
Brendhan,
Once again (and for the last time, and then the last word can be yours), You accept the explanations of what these people say. I cannot prove how deeply you investigated their claims or if you have at all. As far as I know all you did was go to a website and copy, paste and say, "See? Here is proof". I personally know people who were evolution professors in universities who have since exposed the problems involved. I tried to get my older sons (who are evolutionist atheists) to watch a seminar given on cd by one of these ex-evolutionists and they said they were not interested. So your claims of open-minded evolutionists must stop at yourself, if that is even true.
Question- Have you studied the prophecies of Daniel2 and then tested the fulfilment against history? Would you be willing to? PLease do not answer here. That is a question for your own heart.
BUt nevertheless, I notice that while you kindly corrected us for discussing religious themes on a thread about the origin of species, you yourself want to talk about the age of rocks, which has absolutely nothing to do with the evolution of species. You seem to hold a contempt for the Bible and for Christians. You say that evolution theories are compatible with genetics science. Are you saying that the genetics pioneer and scientist that I personally knew was wrong, and that you know better? Its a big world and there are many explanations for things, Brendhan. Which of the three theories for planet formation that were presented three months apart is the correct one? They all claim to be based on "science" and they all claim to be the truth and teh others wrong- based on facts.. Science, so-called, has more contraditions within itself than the BIble ever thought to have.
Brian wrote,
>>>>The answer to the questions disputed here comes to us after death, or for those lucky enough to survive it, that creationism is the final word. Man in his limited world (he exists in only 4 of the many demensions) has too narrow a few to see or dicover the truth. Those who insist upon scientific proof of everything will never have faith because faith is belief in truthes unseen. And Believe me, having seen the "other side" there is a lot living man has not seen.<<<<
I have seen it too, Brian. There is a world completely unknown to "science", and that they in their arrogance refuse to admit exists. Man is puny and insignificant. We are dust and insects in the greater scope of things. BUt God loves us. The One who controls everything but our minds and hearts loves us puny and insignificant creatures. You see, I know God, he heals broken bodies, broken lives and broken souls. If He used evolution and I am wrong, then so be it. BUt I have investigated the foundations upon which that theory was guilt and it comes to nothing. It cannot be seen, proven, or observed. God, while invisible to the human eye, transcends our lives and manifests Himself to those who want to truly know HIm.
Hopeful out....
-
I believe in all truths, scientific or otherwise. It's just that to much of what is pronounced scientific proof is poorly applied science. Nobody who hasn't seen or visited the otherside for themselves will or can believe what is there and how extremely limited out life on this planet, in this plane, truely is. And That's the truth. My definition of an Athiest is a person who has never had the opportunity to die and live to tell about it. Simply because if they die, and live to tell about it, they can no longer be an athiest, ain't no way.
-
I have been shown the numer of god, and the number of evil. Divided good by evil and got 3.141509433962
the actual number of pi