- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- So Jesus is alive
So Jesus is aliveFollow
PS
Learn to break the swear filter, ****!
Like that is important, lol
On the other hand.... any follower (or former follower) of satan shouldn't even have to.
Interesting facts about Christianity that people refuse to believe:
Most biblical books were >written< BEFORE Jesus was born
Most prophecies contained in the bible were >written< before they came to pass
(See the book of Daniel and the rise of alexander the great, prophecied approximately 4 to 500 years before it happened)
Science is a derivative of christian beliefs.
Scientists attempt to disprove God and cannot, all "dating" technologies (ie: carbon dating and so forth) are inherently flawed, carbon dating in particular because the carbon in the atmosphere affects the carbon dating itself.
There is no proof that the world is millions of years old, most scientist will tell you that the ice caps only prove 1 ice age which according to the bible occured after the flood during noahs time.
Did you know there is a HUMAN skeleton bone that proves that man used to be around 10 feet tall?
There is proof that the flood did actually happen.
Most doctors will tell you that there is indeed a God; many medical miracles happen out of the blue when the doctors have given up all hope.
Healing by prayer has been witnessed by medical personnel. They cannot explain away the results
Christmas was invented by the Catholics of the time to prevent pagans from celebrating Yule. It had nothing to do with christianity until it became a tradition to use that time to say thanks and remember all that Jesus sacrificed for us.
Catholisicm and Christianity are 2 different things (most people get them confused. they believe differently)
There is prophecy in the bible about the present time and the rise of the european nation as well as the rise and fall of Iraq.
Where the Mosque stands in Jerusalem is where the original 2 temples of solomon were built and the remains are there to this day.
There has also been scientific proof that dinosaurs did in fact live with man up until the flood.
Darwinisim was one attempt to disprove that God exsists, in no way, shape or form was there even proof of evolution, just adaptation to enviroment.
It is also proven that you cannot add or remove DNA cells from genetic make up so there is only one monkey on the planet that humans could have ever evolved from if there was proof. The "human-monkey" remains found that proved "evolution" were quickly swept under the carpet media wise because the DNA cells were different.
It is even more impossible for people to have evvolved from "primordial ooze" as the requisites for the perfect symbiosis to produce a living organism out of a temperate piece of sludge are so reliant on luck that it is easier to believe that God made us. Example: You have ooze on a pond that is temperate (room temperature or there abouts); you would need a bolt of lightning, an earthquake and multiple bits of genetic fabric to land in the ooze and all this must happen all at once then you would also need a volatile occurance to continue like a volcanic eruption over a period of time, to even consider making a cell. Our brains alone can contain millions and millions of cells, it's highly unlikely that people were evolved in this fashion. To carry on that thought consider the diversity of lifeforms, genetic DNA coding, the fact that humans are reasoning beings and you are looking at trillions of years to even come close to being where we are now. Then you have to figure in the time it took for plant life to evolve and wonder how it would have been possible for reasoning beings to evolve from a plant. It boggles the mind.
Also too take in the consideration that Humans from the beginning of creation have been extremely violent beings, as dinosaurs were thought to be. Do you think we would have evolved this far?
Now that I have your brains thinking, please flame away. I am sure that someone is going to refute everything and everything or come up with a snappy comeback like STFU.... lol. ;)
Most biblical books were >written< BEFORE Jesus was born
Most prophecies contained in the bible were >written< before they came to pass
(See the book of Daniel and the rise of alexander the great, prophecied approximately 4 to 500 years before it happened)
Science is a derivative of christian beliefs.
Scientists attempt to disprove God and cannot, all "dating" technologies (ie: carbon dating and so forth) are inherently flawed, carbon dating in particular because the carbon in the atmosphere affects the carbon dating itself.
There is no proof that the world is millions of years old, most scientist will tell you that the ice caps only prove 1 ice age which according to the bible occured after the flood during noahs time.
Did you know there is a HUMAN skeleton bone that proves that man used to be around 10 feet tall?
There is proof that the flood did actually happen.
Most doctors will tell you that there is indeed a God; many medical miracles happen out of the blue when the doctors have given up all hope.
Healing by prayer has been witnessed by medical personnel. They cannot explain away the results
Christmas was invented by the Catholics of the time to prevent pagans from celebrating Yule. It had nothing to do with christianity until it became a tradition to use that time to say thanks and remember all that Jesus sacrificed for us.
Catholisicm and Christianity are 2 different things (most people get them confused. they believe differently)
There is prophecy in the bible about the present time and the rise of the european nation as well as the rise and fall of Iraq.
Where the Mosque stands in Jerusalem is where the original 2 temples of solomon were built and the remains are there to this day.
There has also been scientific proof that dinosaurs did in fact live with man up until the flood.
Darwinisim was one attempt to disprove that God exsists, in no way, shape or form was there even proof of evolution, just adaptation to enviroment.
It is also proven that you cannot add or remove DNA cells from genetic make up so there is only one monkey on the planet that humans could have ever evolved from if there was proof. The "human-monkey" remains found that proved "evolution" were quickly swept under the carpet media wise because the DNA cells were different.
It is even more impossible for people to have evvolved from "primordial ooze" as the requisites for the perfect symbiosis to produce a living organism out of a temperate piece of sludge are so reliant on luck that it is easier to believe that God made us. Example: You have ooze on a pond that is temperate (room temperature or there abouts); you would need a bolt of lightning, an earthquake and multiple bits of genetic fabric to land in the ooze and all this must happen all at once then you would also need a volatile occurance to continue like a volcanic eruption over a period of time, to even consider making a cell. Our brains alone can contain millions and millions of cells, it's highly unlikely that people were evolved in this fashion. To carry on that thought consider the diversity of lifeforms, genetic DNA coding, the fact that humans are reasoning beings and you are looking at trillions of years to even come close to being where we are now. Then you have to figure in the time it took for plant life to evolve and wonder how it would have been possible for reasoning beings to evolve from a plant. It boggles the mind.
Also too take in the consideration that Humans from the beginning of creation have been extremely violent beings, as dinosaurs were thought to be. Do you think we would have evolved this far?
Now that I have your brains thinking, please flame away. I am sure that someone is going to refute everything and everything or come up with a snappy comeback like STFU.... lol. ;)
Scientists attempt to disprove God and cannot, all "dating" technologies (ie: carbon dating and so forth) are inherently flawed, carbon dating in particular because the carbon in the atmosphere affects the carbon dating itself.
Did you know there is a HUMAN skeleton bone that proves that man used to be around 10 feet tall?
Forbidden Land by Robert Lyman. Where most of these come from. Most are cases of fiction, such as the one shown in 1856 where field labourers unearthed a giant. The rest are cases of genetic anomalies, not where all men were 10 feet tall.
There is proof that the flood did actually happen.
Actually their isn't. There is proof however that the story of the Flood was nothing more than a derivative of other Mesopotamian flood stories that grew up from a culture living on flood plains. Such as the epic of Atrahasis and the story of Ziusudra.
Most doctors will tell you that there is indeed a God; many medical miracles happen out of the blue when the doctors have given up all hope.
Healing by prayer has been witnessed by medical personnel. They cannot explain away the results
The original survey was done in 2005 and asked for belief in god. At no time was their a question of miracles or medical miracles, neither were any of the doctors quoted that their belief in god came from medical miracles. In fact the figure that 76% of doctors believe in god was actually LOWER than the national average (83%), this difference is attributed to doctors having a more clinical science based background.
Christmas was invented by the Catholics of the time to prevent pagans from celebrating Yule. It had nothing to do with christianity until it became a tradition to use that time to say thanks and remember all that Jesus sacrificed for us.
True, Pope Gregory I told Saint Mellitus that converting the pagans would go easier if they incorporated existing holidays into the christian liturgical calendar.
Catholisicm and Christianity are 2 different things (most people get them confused. they believe differently)
Not really. Differences are definitely their however they are not enough to constitute different religions. Rather just difference of sect in a religion. Important difference.
There is prophecy in the bible about the present time and the rise of the european nation as well as the rise and fall of Iraq.
You ever hear of Clever Hans? Sometimes we attribute the cause of things to what we want to attribute it to when in reality it is something else less magical and much more anthropological, deal with it.
Where the Mosque stands in Jerusalem is where the original 2 temples of solomon were built and the remains are there to this day.
The temple mount is their. Doesnt prove the divinity of Christ or the bible. If it did then other religious texts/traditions which had other historical references such as Islam would have just as much clout.
There has also been scientific proof that dinosaurs did in fact live with man up until the flood.
I've covered this one before. K/AR dating uses the radioactive decay of potassium to argon in volcanic materials to date materials found in and around volcanic rock. Christians literalists always jump on the whole "K/AR has given dates of dinosaurs in human times!!!!" however they fail to notice that this claim is due to the fact taht when new layers of lava go over old layers it reheats and gives a new date based on the new flow. If you are gonna use the science at least try to understand it and not just latch onto the parts that serve your self interest, that is so gbaji~esque
Darwinisim was one attempt to disprove that God exsists, in no way, shape or form was there even proof of evolution, just adaptation to enviroment.
The theory when applied to the archaelogical record of man, horses, dogs, cats and almost every other mammal as well as reptiles and even insects though does provide evidence that adaptation to the environment over time can cause divergence in species and the rise of new ones.
It is also proven that you cannot add or remove DNA cells from genetic make up so there is only one monkey on the planet that humans could have ever evolved from if there was proof. The "human-monkey" remains found that proved "evolution" were quickly swept under the carpet media wise because the DNA cells were different.
First cells are bioloicial foundations of life. DNA are the basic building block and are actually smaller than cells, so your statement is fallacious since DNA is actually contained in the cells and not vice a versa. If you meant the nucleobases of dna (A,C,G,T) well there are in fact a number of DNA modifying enzymes which can be used to cut and isolate portions of DNA whether for study or to insert it into other dna lines. So I have no clue where you were going with on that one.
In the end you are running off multiple misperceptions and distorting truths and facts to make your argument on so many points that it is laughable. So yeah, STFU ****.
EDIT - I cant believe I missed this: The "human-monkey" remains found that proved "evolution" were quickly swept under the carpet media wise because the DNA cells were different.
Do you even know what a Fossil is? Apparently not! Fossils are the mineralized or otherwise preserved remains or traces (such as footprints) of animals, plants, and other organisms. Mineralized, so of course the DNA is gone you ignorant ****. So your claim yet again shows a complete and utter lack of understanding of the basic concept of fossilization.
Edited, Jan 21st 2007 2:31pm by bodhisattva
Edited, Jan 21st 2007 2:32pm by bodhisattva
Edited, Jan 22nd 2007 3:55am by bodhisattva
Wikipedia wrote:
The need for calibration
A raw BP date cannot be used directly as a calendar date, because the level of atmospheric 14C has not been strictly constant during the span of time that can be radiocarbon dated. The level is affected by variations in the cosmic ray intensity which is affected by variations caused by solar storms. In addition there are substantial reservoirs of carbon in organic matter, the ocean, ocean sediments (see methane hydrate), and sedimentary rocks. Changing climate can sometimes disrupt the carbon flow between these reservoirs and the atmosphere. The level has also been affected by human activities—it was almost doubled for a short period due to atomic bomb tests in the 1950s and 1960s and has been reduced by the release of large amounts of CO2 from ancient organic sources where 14C is not present—the fossil fuels used in industry and transportation, known as the Suess effect.
Calibration methods
The raw radiocarbon dates, in BP years, are therefore calibrated to give calendar dates. Standard calibration curves are available, based on comparison of radiocarbon dates of samples that can be independently dated by other methods such as examination of tree growth rings (dendrochronology), ice cores, deep ocean sediment cores, lake sediment varves, coral samples, and speleothems (cave deposits).
The calibration curves can vary significantly from a straight line, so comparison of uncalibrated radiocarbon dates (e.g., plotting them on a graph or subtracting dates to give elapsed time) is likely to give misleading results. There are also significant plateaus in the curves, such as the one from 11,000 to 10,000 radiocarbon years BP, which is believed to be associated with changing ocean circulation during the Younger Dryas period. The accuracy of radiocarbon dating is lower for samples originating from such plateau periods. It has been noted that the plateau itself can be used as a time marker when it appears in a time series.
A raw BP date cannot be used directly as a calendar date, because the level of atmospheric 14C has not been strictly constant during the span of time that can be radiocarbon dated. The level is affected by variations in the cosmic ray intensity which is affected by variations caused by solar storms. In addition there are substantial reservoirs of carbon in organic matter, the ocean, ocean sediments (see methane hydrate), and sedimentary rocks. Changing climate can sometimes disrupt the carbon flow between these reservoirs and the atmosphere. The level has also been affected by human activities—it was almost doubled for a short period due to atomic bomb tests in the 1950s and 1960s and has been reduced by the release of large amounts of CO2 from ancient organic sources where 14C is not present—the fossil fuels used in industry and transportation, known as the Suess effect.
Calibration methods
The raw radiocarbon dates, in BP years, are therefore calibrated to give calendar dates. Standard calibration curves are available, based on comparison of radiocarbon dates of samples that can be independently dated by other methods such as examination of tree growth rings (dendrochronology), ice cores, deep ocean sediment cores, lake sediment varves, coral samples, and speleothems (cave deposits).
The calibration curves can vary significantly from a straight line, so comparison of uncalibrated radiocarbon dates (e.g., plotting them on a graph or subtracting dates to give elapsed time) is likely to give misleading results. There are also significant plateaus in the curves, such as the one from 11,000 to 10,000 radiocarbon years BP, which is believed to be associated with changing ocean circulation during the Younger Dryas period. The accuracy of radiocarbon dating is lower for samples originating from such plateau periods. It has been noted that the plateau itself can be used as a time marker when it appears in a time series.
Did you know there is a HUMAN skeleton bone that proves that man used to be around 10 feet tall?
Forbidden Land by Robert Lyman. Where most of these come from. Most are cases of fiction, such as the one shown in 1856 where field labourers unearthed a giant. The rest are cases of genetic anomalies, not where all men were 10 feet tall.
There is proof that the flood did actually happen.
Actually their isn't. There is proof however that the story of the Flood was nothing more than a derivative of other Mesopotamian flood stories that grew up from a culture living on flood plains. Such as the epic of Atrahasis and the story of Ziusudra.
Most doctors will tell you that there is indeed a God; many medical miracles happen out of the blue when the doctors have given up all hope.
Healing by prayer has been witnessed by medical personnel. They cannot explain away the results
The original survey was done in 2005 and asked for belief in god. At no time was their a question of miracles or medical miracles, neither were any of the doctors quoted that their belief in god came from medical miracles. In fact the figure that 76% of doctors believe in god was actually LOWER than the national average (83%), this difference is attributed to doctors having a more clinical science based background.
Christmas was invented by the Catholics of the time to prevent pagans from celebrating Yule. It had nothing to do with christianity until it became a tradition to use that time to say thanks and remember all that Jesus sacrificed for us.
True, Pope Gregory I told Saint Mellitus that converting the pagans would go easier if they incorporated existing holidays into the christian liturgical calendar.
Catholisicm and Christianity are 2 different things (most people get them confused. they believe differently)
Not really. Differences are definitely their however they are not enough to constitute different religions. Rather just difference of sect in a religion. Important difference.
There is prophecy in the bible about the present time and the rise of the european nation as well as the rise and fall of Iraq.
You ever hear of Clever Hans? Sometimes we attribute the cause of things to what we want to attribute it to when in reality it is something else less magical and much more anthropological, deal with it.
Where the Mosque stands in Jerusalem is where the original 2 temples of solomon were built and the remains are there to this day.
The temple mount is their. Doesnt prove the divinity of Christ or the bible. If it did then other religious texts/traditions which had other historical references such as Islam would have just as much clout.
There has also been scientific proof that dinosaurs did in fact live with man up until the flood.
I've covered this one before. K/AR dating uses the radioactive decay of potassium to argon in volcanic materials to date materials found in and around volcanic rock. Christians literalists always jump on the whole "K/AR has given dates of dinosaurs in human times!!!!" however they fail to notice that this claim is due to the fact taht when new layers of lava go over old layers it reheats and gives a new date based on the new flow. If you are gonna use the science at least try to understand it and not just latch onto the parts that serve your self interest, that is so gbaji~esque
Darwinisim was one attempt to disprove that God exsists, in no way, shape or form was there even proof of evolution, just adaptation to enviroment.
The theory when applied to the archaelogical record of man, horses, dogs, cats and almost every other mammal as well as reptiles and even insects though does provide evidence that adaptation to the environment over time can cause divergence in species and the rise of new ones.
It is also proven that you cannot add or remove DNA cells from genetic make up so there is only one monkey on the planet that humans could have ever evolved from if there was proof. The "human-monkey" remains found that proved "evolution" were quickly swept under the carpet media wise because the DNA cells were different.
First cells are bioloicial foundations of life. DNA are the basic building block and are actually smaller than cells, so your statement is fallacious since DNA is actually contained in the cells and not vice a versa. If you meant the nucleobases of dna (A,C,G,T) well there are in fact a number of DNA modifying enzymes which can be used to cut and isolate portions of DNA whether for study or to insert it into other dna lines. So I have no clue where you were going with on that one.
In the end you are running off multiple misperceptions and distorting truths and facts to make your argument on so many points that it is laughable. So yeah, STFU ****.
EDIT - I cant believe I missed this: The "human-monkey" remains found that proved "evolution" were quickly swept under the carpet media wise because the DNA cells were different.
Do you even know what a Fossil is? Apparently not! Fossils are the mineralized or otherwise preserved remains or traces (such as footprints) of animals, plants, and other organisms. Mineralized, so of course the DNA is gone you ignorant ****. So your claim yet again shows a complete and utter lack of understanding of the basic concept of fossilization.
Edited, Jan 21st 2007 2:31pm by bodhisattva
Edited, Jan 21st 2007 2:32pm by bodhisattva
Edited, Jan 22nd 2007 3:55am by bodhisattva
Bode - 100 Holy Paladin - Lightbringer
bodhisattva wrote:
Scientists attempt to disprove God and cannot, all "dating" technologies (ie: carbon dating and so forth) are inherently flawed, carbon dating in particular because the carbon in the atmosphere affects the carbon dating itself.
Did you know there is a HUMAN skeleton bone that proves that man used to be around 10 feet tall?
Forbidden Land by Robert Lyman. Where most of these come from. Most are cases of fiction, such as the one shown in 1856 where field labourers unearthed a giant. The rest are cases of genetic anomalies, not where all men were 10 feet tall.
There is proof that the flood did actually happen.
Actually their isnt. Their is proof however that the story of the Flood was nothing more than a derivative of other Mesopotamian flood stories that grew up from a culture living on flood plains. Such as the epic of Atrahasis and the story of Ziusudra.
Most doctors will tell you that there is indeed a God; many medical miracles happen out of the blue when the doctors have given up all hope.
Healing by prayer has been witnessed by medical personnel. They cannot explain away the results
The original survey was done in 2005 and asked for belief in god. At no time was their a question of miracles or medical miracles, neither were any of the doctors quoted that their belief in god came from medical miracles. In fact the 76% of doctors that believe in god were actually LOWER than the national average of people who believe in god (83%), this difference is attributed to a more clinical science based background.
Christmas was invented by the Catholics of the time to prevent pagans from celebrating Yule. It had nothing to do with christianity until it became a tradition to use that time to say thanks and remember all that Jesus sacrificed for us.
True, Pope Gregory I told Saint Mellitus that converting the pagans would go easier if they incorporating existing holidays into the christian liturgical calendar.
Catholisicm and Christianity are 2 different things (most people get them confused. they believe differently)
Not really. Differences are definitely their however they are not enough to constitute different religions. Rather just difference of sect in a religion. Important difference.
There is prophecy in the bible about the present time and the rise of the european nation as well as the rise and fall of Iraq.
You ever hear of Clever Hans? Sometimes we attribute the cause of things to what we want to attribute it to when in reality it is something else less magical and much more anthropological, deal with it.
Where the Mosque stands in Jerusalem is where the original 2 temples of solomon were built and the remains are there to this day.
The temple mount is their. Doesnt prove the divinity of Christ or the bible. If it did then other religious texts/traditions which had other historical references such as Islam would have just as much clout.
There has also been scientific proof that dinosaurs did in fact live with man up until the flood.
I've covered this one before. K/AR dating uses the radioactive decay of potassium to argon in volcanic materials to date materials found in and around volcanic rock. Christians literalists always jump on the whole "K/AR has given dates of dinosaurs in human times!!!!" however they fail to notice that this claim is due to the fact taht when new layers of lava go over old layers it reheats and gives a new date based on the new flow. If you are gonna use the science at least try to understand it and not just latch onto the parts that serve your self interest, that is so gbaji~esque
Darwinisim was one attempt to disprove that God exsists, in no way, shape or form was there even proof of evolution, just adaptation to enviroment.
The theory when applied to the archaelogical record of man, horses, dogs, cats and almost every other mammal as well as reptiles and even insects though does provide evidence that adaptation to the environment over time can cause divergence in species and the rise of new ones.
It is also proven that you cannot add or remove DNA cells from genetic make up so there is only one monkey on the planet that humans could have ever evolved from if there was proof. The "human-monkey" remains found that proved "evolution" were quickly swept under the carpet media wise because the DNA cells were different.
First cells are bioloicial foundations of life. DNA are the basic building block and are actually smaller than cells, so your statement is fallacious since DNA is actually contained in the cells and not vice a versa. If you meant the nucleobases of dna (A,C,G,T) well there are in fact a number of DNA modifying enzymes which can be used to cut and isolate portions of DNA whether for study or to insert it into other dna lines. So I have no clue where you were going with on that one.
In the end you are running off multiple misperceptions and distorting truths and facts to make your argument on so many points that it is laughable. So yeah, STFU ****.
EDIT - I cant believe I missed this: The "human-monkey" remains found that proved "evolution" were quickly swept under the carpet media wise because the DNA cells were different.
Do you even know what a Fossil is? Apparently not! Fossils are the mineralized or otherwise preserved remains or traces (such as footprints) of animals, plants, and other organisms. Mineralized, so of course the DNA is gone you ignorant ****. So your claim yet again shows a complete and utter lack of understanding of the basic concept of fossilization.
[sm]Edited, Jan 21st 2007 2:31pm by bodhisattva
Edited, Jan 21st 2007 2:32pm by bodhisattva
Wikipedia wrote:
The need for calibration
A raw BP date cannot be used directly as a calendar date, because the level of atmospheric 14C has not been strictly constant during the span of time that can be radiocarbon dated. The level is affected by variations in the cosmic ray intensity which is affected by variations caused by solar storms. In addition there are substantial reservoirs of carbon in organic matter, the ocean, ocean sediments (see methane hydrate), and sedimentary rocks. Changing climate can sometimes disrupt the carbon flow between these reservoirs and the atmosphere. The level has also been affected by human activities—it was almost doubled for a short period due to atomic bomb tests in the 1950s and 1960s and has been reduced by the release of large amounts of CO2 from ancient organic sources where 14C is not present—the fossil fuels used in industry and transportation, known as the Suess effect.
Calibration methods
The raw radiocarbon dates, in BP years, are therefore calibrated to give calendar dates. Standard calibration curves are available, based on comparison of radiocarbon dates of samples that can be independently dated by other methods such as examination of tree growth rings (dendrochronology), ice cores, deep ocean sediment cores, lake sediment varves, coral samples, and speleothems (cave deposits).
The calibration curves can vary significantly from a straight line, so comparison of uncalibrated radiocarbon dates (e.g., plotting them on a graph or subtracting dates to give elapsed time) is likely to give misleading results. There are also significant plateaus in the curves, such as the one from 11,000 to 10,000 radiocarbon years BP, which is believed to be associated with changing ocean circulation during the Younger Dryas period. The accuracy of radiocarbon dating is lower for samples originating from such plateau periods. It has been noted that the plateau itself can be used as a time marker when it appears in a time series.
A raw BP date cannot be used directly as a calendar date, because the level of atmospheric 14C has not been strictly constant during the span of time that can be radiocarbon dated. The level is affected by variations in the cosmic ray intensity which is affected by variations caused by solar storms. In addition there are substantial reservoirs of carbon in organic matter, the ocean, ocean sediments (see methane hydrate), and sedimentary rocks. Changing climate can sometimes disrupt the carbon flow between these reservoirs and the atmosphere. The level has also been affected by human activities—it was almost doubled for a short period due to atomic bomb tests in the 1950s and 1960s and has been reduced by the release of large amounts of CO2 from ancient organic sources where 14C is not present—the fossil fuels used in industry and transportation, known as the Suess effect.
Calibration methods
The raw radiocarbon dates, in BP years, are therefore calibrated to give calendar dates. Standard calibration curves are available, based on comparison of radiocarbon dates of samples that can be independently dated by other methods such as examination of tree growth rings (dendrochronology), ice cores, deep ocean sediment cores, lake sediment varves, coral samples, and speleothems (cave deposits).
The calibration curves can vary significantly from a straight line, so comparison of uncalibrated radiocarbon dates (e.g., plotting them on a graph or subtracting dates to give elapsed time) is likely to give misleading results. There are also significant plateaus in the curves, such as the one from 11,000 to 10,000 radiocarbon years BP, which is believed to be associated with changing ocean circulation during the Younger Dryas period. The accuracy of radiocarbon dating is lower for samples originating from such plateau periods. It has been noted that the plateau itself can be used as a time marker when it appears in a time series.
Did you know there is a HUMAN skeleton bone that proves that man used to be around 10 feet tall?
Forbidden Land by Robert Lyman. Where most of these come from. Most are cases of fiction, such as the one shown in 1856 where field labourers unearthed a giant. The rest are cases of genetic anomalies, not where all men were 10 feet tall.
There is proof that the flood did actually happen.
Actually their isnt. Their is proof however that the story of the Flood was nothing more than a derivative of other Mesopotamian flood stories that grew up from a culture living on flood plains. Such as the epic of Atrahasis and the story of Ziusudra.
Most doctors will tell you that there is indeed a God; many medical miracles happen out of the blue when the doctors have given up all hope.
Healing by prayer has been witnessed by medical personnel. They cannot explain away the results
The original survey was done in 2005 and asked for belief in god. At no time was their a question of miracles or medical miracles, neither were any of the doctors quoted that their belief in god came from medical miracles. In fact the 76% of doctors that believe in god were actually LOWER than the national average of people who believe in god (83%), this difference is attributed to a more clinical science based background.
Christmas was invented by the Catholics of the time to prevent pagans from celebrating Yule. It had nothing to do with christianity until it became a tradition to use that time to say thanks and remember all that Jesus sacrificed for us.
True, Pope Gregory I told Saint Mellitus that converting the pagans would go easier if they incorporating existing holidays into the christian liturgical calendar.
Catholisicm and Christianity are 2 different things (most people get them confused. they believe differently)
Not really. Differences are definitely their however they are not enough to constitute different religions. Rather just difference of sect in a religion. Important difference.
There is prophecy in the bible about the present time and the rise of the european nation as well as the rise and fall of Iraq.
You ever hear of Clever Hans? Sometimes we attribute the cause of things to what we want to attribute it to when in reality it is something else less magical and much more anthropological, deal with it.
Where the Mosque stands in Jerusalem is where the original 2 temples of solomon were built and the remains are there to this day.
The temple mount is their. Doesnt prove the divinity of Christ or the bible. If it did then other religious texts/traditions which had other historical references such as Islam would have just as much clout.
There has also been scientific proof that dinosaurs did in fact live with man up until the flood.
I've covered this one before. K/AR dating uses the radioactive decay of potassium to argon in volcanic materials to date materials found in and around volcanic rock. Christians literalists always jump on the whole "K/AR has given dates of dinosaurs in human times!!!!" however they fail to notice that this claim is due to the fact taht when new layers of lava go over old layers it reheats and gives a new date based on the new flow. If you are gonna use the science at least try to understand it and not just latch onto the parts that serve your self interest, that is so gbaji~esque
Darwinisim was one attempt to disprove that God exsists, in no way, shape or form was there even proof of evolution, just adaptation to enviroment.
The theory when applied to the archaelogical record of man, horses, dogs, cats and almost every other mammal as well as reptiles and even insects though does provide evidence that adaptation to the environment over time can cause divergence in species and the rise of new ones.
It is also proven that you cannot add or remove DNA cells from genetic make up so there is only one monkey on the planet that humans could have ever evolved from if there was proof. The "human-monkey" remains found that proved "evolution" were quickly swept under the carpet media wise because the DNA cells were different.
First cells are bioloicial foundations of life. DNA are the basic building block and are actually smaller than cells, so your statement is fallacious since DNA is actually contained in the cells and not vice a versa. If you meant the nucleobases of dna (A,C,G,T) well there are in fact a number of DNA modifying enzymes which can be used to cut and isolate portions of DNA whether for study or to insert it into other dna lines. So I have no clue where you were going with on that one.
In the end you are running off multiple misperceptions and distorting truths and facts to make your argument on so many points that it is laughable. So yeah, STFU ****.
EDIT - I cant believe I missed this: The "human-monkey" remains found that proved "evolution" were quickly swept under the carpet media wise because the DNA cells were different.
Do you even know what a Fossil is? Apparently not! Fossils are the mineralized or otherwise preserved remains or traces (such as footprints) of animals, plants, and other organisms. Mineralized, so of course the DNA is gone you ignorant ****. So your claim yet again shows a complete and utter lack of understanding of the basic concept of fossilization.
[sm]Edited, Jan 21st 2007 2:31pm by bodhisattva
Edited, Jan 21st 2007 2:32pm by bodhisattva
You spelled "there" wrong
Woah woah woah, I wrote all that and even I didnt read it all.
Nice catch Kelvy!
Nice catch Kelvy!
Bode - 100 Holy Paladin - Lightbringer
Quote:
EDIT - I cant believe I missed this: The "human-monkey" remains found that proved "evolution" were quickly swept under the carpet media wise because the DNA cells were different.
Do you even know what a Fossil is? Apparently not! Fossils are the mineralized or otherwise preserved remains or traces (such as footprints) of animals, plants, and other organisms. Mineralized, so of course the DNA is gone you ignorant ****. So your claim yet again shows a complete and utter lack of understanding of the basic concept of fossilization.
Do you even know what a Fossil is? Apparently not! Fossils are the mineralized or otherwise preserved remains or traces (such as footprints) of animals, plants, and other organisms. Mineralized, so of course the DNA is gone you ignorant ****. So your claim yet again shows a complete and utter lack of understanding of the basic concept of fossilization.
LOL, I know perfectly well what a fossil is, and did I say fossil? No I did not I said remains, in which case there was DNA present. Would you like me to quote a dictionary definition of the difference in the two words? You seem like an intelligent person, atleast up until you degenerated into name calling with useful words such as "****" (Ooooooo good one there, who scraped the back of your throat to come up with that one? =P).
Secondly, you claim is also false about fossilization, there have been fossils found with living matter still present inside of bones. Fossilization does not occur over a long period of time, it occurs at most length within a few years, and more likely with in a few days. Usually from a massive earth disaster that causes extreme movement of water and earth or as we layman like to use the term: flooding. Else how would you explain away fossil like creatures found in the top layers of the earth strata?
Quote:
Remarkable Conditions of Fossil Preservation
One of the best evidences that strata were accumulated very rapidly, rather than at Schuchert's postulated average rate of about one foot in every two thousand years, comes from a consideration of fossils. Dunbar and Rodgers considered Schuchert's average rate of deposition and said:
Internal evidence in the strata, however, belies these estimates [of the average rate of deposition]. In the coal measures of Nova Scotia, for example, the stumps and trunks of many trees, are preserved standing upright as they grew, clearly having been buried before they had time to fall or rot away. Here sediment certainly accumulated to a depth of many feet within a few years. In other formations where articulated skeletons of large animals are preserved, the sediment must have covered them within a few days at the most. Abundant fossil shells likewise indicate rapid burial, for if shells are long exposed on the sea floor they suffer abrasion or corrosion and are overgrown by sessile organisms or perforated by boring animals. At the rate of deposition postulated by Schuchert, 1,000 years, more or less, would have been required to bury a shell 5 inches in diameter. With very local exceptions fossil shells show no evidence of such long exposure. Evidently then, either our estimates of geologic time are grossly exaggerated, or else most of the elapsed time is not represented in any given section by sedimentary deposits.5
On the Paluxy River near Glen Rose, Texas, this author found a stratum three feet in thickness composed primarily of closed fossil clams numbering in the millions. The stratum is peculiar for two reasons. First, clams do not live solidly packed together in a layer three feet thick. They naturally inhabit a sandy or rocky environment, each clam at some distance from another. Second, clam shells are rarely found in whole, closed condition, but broken apart at the hinge. On the seashore each valve (half of the clam's shell) is usually found separate from the other valve. The reason is that the hinging ligament is on the outside of the shell and tends to open the two valves. Only the muscles of the clam can keep the valves closed. When the clam dies, the muscles relax and the shell opens due to the outside hinging ligament.
How was this clam layer formed? The best explanation seems to be that the clams were washed into their present location and buried alive. If the clams had died prior to burial, the shells would have been open rather than tightly closed. The clams must have been transported because they could not have lived amassed in the layer in which they are found. Turbulent and flowing water seems to be the only mechanism which could rapidly transport and deposit heavy objects like clams. Some catastrophe like the Flood seems to be a most reasonable explanation.
In the clam layer a few small clods of adobe were found. These contained a remarkable number of fossilized worms. One five inch clod on one face had about two dozen three-inch worms. The detail of each worm fossil was remarkably clear. Worms have no hard body parts and are not common as fossils. The preservation of soft parts not only requires rapid burial but also rapid changing to rock to keep the worm structure from decaying.
Below the layer of fossil clams and clods with worms was silty limestone which contained large numbers of dinosaur footprints. The brontosaur which walked on four feet and weighed more than thirty tons left tracks thirty-eight inches in diameter and several inches deep. The "bird-like" three-toed bipedal dinosaur tracks each about fifteen inches in length were present. These were made by some carnivorous dinosaur. Also found with the dinosaur tracks were footprints which appeared to be human.6 Many brontosaur tracks had the impression of several stubby toes preserved. The three-toed dinosaur tracks often showed claw impressions. Several different types of tracks actually had raindrop impacts on the surface in and around the tracks.
The remarkably well preserved condition of these tracks required very rapid burial after the impressions were made in mud. If these tracks had been long exposed before being covered by sediment, they would have been badly obliterated and pitted with raindrop impressions, and would show cracks on the surface due to drying. Since tracks are found on several different Stratigraphic horizons, conditions of rapid burial must have been repeated. Simplicity would suggest that the layer of fossil clams and the different layers of dinosaur tracks be attributed to the same catastrophe.
Many examples of remarkable fossil preservation are common in the geological literature. Fossil amphibians, reptiles and mammals have been found articulated, indicating that the muscles and ligaments which hold the back bone, rib cage and limbs were present at the time of burial. Inside of the rib cages of some dinosaurs round gizzard stones have been found indicating that even the internal organs were intact at the time of burial. Predators or decay would have destroyed these fossils if sediment did not cover them very rapidly.
Many types of fish have been found in the Cleveland shale of northern Ohio. Byron C. Nelson comments:
Sharks five feet long are so interred that they are pressed flat from the top to bottom to the thickness of a quarter of an inch. The way they are buried points clearly to the fact that they were trying to swim in water laden with sediment, which finally settled too thickly about them for them to move, and so held them fast in their natural swimming position until weighing heavily upon them from above, it flattened them out.7
The preservation of sharks is significant since they are cartilaginous, having no bony structure except teeth. Normally the cartilage decays with the flesh.
David Starr Jordan reported a remarkable stratum composed of fish similar to a modern herring near the town of Lompoc in Santa Barbara County, California.8 The fish fossils which are six to eight inches long are concentrated in a horizon which averages five fish per square foot. Since the stratum covers four square miles Jor-'aan estimated that more than a billion fish occur in the single horizon. This fossil bed is a testimony of rapid and catastrophic burial.
One of the best evidences that strata were accumulated very rapidly, rather than at Schuchert's postulated average rate of about one foot in every two thousand years, comes from a consideration of fossils. Dunbar and Rodgers considered Schuchert's average rate of deposition and said:
Internal evidence in the strata, however, belies these estimates [of the average rate of deposition]. In the coal measures of Nova Scotia, for example, the stumps and trunks of many trees, are preserved standing upright as they grew, clearly having been buried before they had time to fall or rot away. Here sediment certainly accumulated to a depth of many feet within a few years. In other formations where articulated skeletons of large animals are preserved, the sediment must have covered them within a few days at the most. Abundant fossil shells likewise indicate rapid burial, for if shells are long exposed on the sea floor they suffer abrasion or corrosion and are overgrown by sessile organisms or perforated by boring animals. At the rate of deposition postulated by Schuchert, 1,000 years, more or less, would have been required to bury a shell 5 inches in diameter. With very local exceptions fossil shells show no evidence of such long exposure. Evidently then, either our estimates of geologic time are grossly exaggerated, or else most of the elapsed time is not represented in any given section by sedimentary deposits.5
On the Paluxy River near Glen Rose, Texas, this author found a stratum three feet in thickness composed primarily of closed fossil clams numbering in the millions. The stratum is peculiar for two reasons. First, clams do not live solidly packed together in a layer three feet thick. They naturally inhabit a sandy or rocky environment, each clam at some distance from another. Second, clam shells are rarely found in whole, closed condition, but broken apart at the hinge. On the seashore each valve (half of the clam's shell) is usually found separate from the other valve. The reason is that the hinging ligament is on the outside of the shell and tends to open the two valves. Only the muscles of the clam can keep the valves closed. When the clam dies, the muscles relax and the shell opens due to the outside hinging ligament.
How was this clam layer formed? The best explanation seems to be that the clams were washed into their present location and buried alive. If the clams had died prior to burial, the shells would have been open rather than tightly closed. The clams must have been transported because they could not have lived amassed in the layer in which they are found. Turbulent and flowing water seems to be the only mechanism which could rapidly transport and deposit heavy objects like clams. Some catastrophe like the Flood seems to be a most reasonable explanation.
In the clam layer a few small clods of adobe were found. These contained a remarkable number of fossilized worms. One five inch clod on one face had about two dozen three-inch worms. The detail of each worm fossil was remarkably clear. Worms have no hard body parts and are not common as fossils. The preservation of soft parts not only requires rapid burial but also rapid changing to rock to keep the worm structure from decaying.
Below the layer of fossil clams and clods with worms was silty limestone which contained large numbers of dinosaur footprints. The brontosaur which walked on four feet and weighed more than thirty tons left tracks thirty-eight inches in diameter and several inches deep. The "bird-like" three-toed bipedal dinosaur tracks each about fifteen inches in length were present. These were made by some carnivorous dinosaur. Also found with the dinosaur tracks were footprints which appeared to be human.6 Many brontosaur tracks had the impression of several stubby toes preserved. The three-toed dinosaur tracks often showed claw impressions. Several different types of tracks actually had raindrop impacts on the surface in and around the tracks.
The remarkably well preserved condition of these tracks required very rapid burial after the impressions were made in mud. If these tracks had been long exposed before being covered by sediment, they would have been badly obliterated and pitted with raindrop impressions, and would show cracks on the surface due to drying. Since tracks are found on several different Stratigraphic horizons, conditions of rapid burial must have been repeated. Simplicity would suggest that the layer of fossil clams and the different layers of dinosaur tracks be attributed to the same catastrophe.
Many examples of remarkable fossil preservation are common in the geological literature. Fossil amphibians, reptiles and mammals have been found articulated, indicating that the muscles and ligaments which hold the back bone, rib cage and limbs were present at the time of burial. Inside of the rib cages of some dinosaurs round gizzard stones have been found indicating that even the internal organs were intact at the time of burial. Predators or decay would have destroyed these fossils if sediment did not cover them very rapidly.
Many types of fish have been found in the Cleveland shale of northern Ohio. Byron C. Nelson comments:
Sharks five feet long are so interred that they are pressed flat from the top to bottom to the thickness of a quarter of an inch. The way they are buried points clearly to the fact that they were trying to swim in water laden with sediment, which finally settled too thickly about them for them to move, and so held them fast in their natural swimming position until weighing heavily upon them from above, it flattened them out.7
The preservation of sharks is significant since they are cartilaginous, having no bony structure except teeth. Normally the cartilage decays with the flesh.
David Starr Jordan reported a remarkable stratum composed of fish similar to a modern herring near the town of Lompoc in Santa Barbara County, California.8 The fish fossils which are six to eight inches long are concentrated in a horizon which averages five fish per square foot. Since the stratum covers four square miles Jor-'aan estimated that more than a billion fish occur in the single horizon. This fossil bed is a testimony of rapid and catastrophic burial.
Quote:
There is proof that the flood did actually happen.
Actually their isnt. Their is proof however that the story of the Flood was nothing more than a derivative of other Mesopotamian flood stories that grew up from a culture living on flood plains. Such as the epic of Atrahasis and the story of Ziusudra.
Actually their isnt. Their is proof however that the story of the Flood was nothing more than a derivative of other Mesopotamian flood stories that grew up from a culture living on flood plains. Such as the epic of Atrahasis and the story of Ziusudra.
Quote:
The earth's layered rocks yield many evidences that natural processes once acted with much greater intensity than at the present time. In many cases the deposition of the sedimentary rocks and their structures required enormous quantities of moving water. The extremely widespread strata often composed of coarse material seem to have required flood conditions to accumulate. Fossils generally testify of rapid, catastrophic burial. Several types of stratification require a catastrophic mechanism of sedimentation. Many major classes of sedimentary rocks are not known to be forming today and therefore imply circumstances of deposition different from those at present. Simplicity would suggest that the various evidences of Catastrophism be explained by a single flood catastrophe. Thus, the Stratigraphic record with its contained fossils instead of showing the evolutionary development of life and the gradual deposition of sediments over millions of years, actually bears testimony of the Flood.
Quote:
Scientists attempt to disprove God and cannot, all "dating" technologies (ie: carbon dating and so forth) are inherently flawed, carbon dating in particular because the carbon in the atmosphere affects the carbon dating itself.
Wikipedia wrote:
The need for calibration
A raw BP date cannot be used directly as a calendar date, because the level of atmospheric 14C has not been strictly constant during the span of time that can be radiocarbon dated. The level is affected by variations in the cosmic ray intensity which is affected by variations caused by solar storms. In addition there are substantial reservoirs of carbon in organic matter, the ocean, ocean sediments (see methane hydrate), and sedimentary rocks. Changing climate can sometimes disrupt the carbon flow between these reservoirs and the atmosphere. The level has also been affected by human activities—it was almost doubled for a short period due to atomic bomb tests in the 1950s and 1960s and has been reduced by the release of large amounts of CO2 from ancient organic sources where 14C is not present—the fossil fuels used in industry and transportation, known as the Suess effect.
Calibration methods
The raw radiocarbon dates, in BP years, are therefore calibrated to give calendar dates. Standard calibration curves are available, based on comparison of radiocarbon dates of samples that can be independently dated by other methods such as examination of tree growth rings (dendrochronology), ice cores, deep ocean sediment cores, lake sediment varves, coral samples, and speleothems (cave deposits).
The calibration curves can vary significantly from a straight line, so comparison of uncalibrated radiocarbon dates (e.g., plotting them on a graph or subtracting dates to give elapsed time) is likely to give misleading results. There are also significant plateaus in the curves, such as the one from 11,000 to 10,000 radiocarbon years BP, which is believed to be associated with changing ocean circulation during the Younger Dryas period. The accuracy of radiocarbon dating is lower for samples originating from such plateau periods. It has been noted that the plateau itself can be used as a time marker when it appears in a time series.
Wikipedia wrote:
The need for calibration
A raw BP date cannot be used directly as a calendar date, because the level of atmospheric 14C has not been strictly constant during the span of time that can be radiocarbon dated. The level is affected by variations in the cosmic ray intensity which is affected by variations caused by solar storms. In addition there are substantial reservoirs of carbon in organic matter, the ocean, ocean sediments (see methane hydrate), and sedimentary rocks. Changing climate can sometimes disrupt the carbon flow between these reservoirs and the atmosphere. The level has also been affected by human activities—it was almost doubled for a short period due to atomic bomb tests in the 1950s and 1960s and has been reduced by the release of large amounts of CO2 from ancient organic sources where 14C is not present—the fossil fuels used in industry and transportation, known as the Suess effect.
Calibration methods
The raw radiocarbon dates, in BP years, are therefore calibrated to give calendar dates. Standard calibration curves are available, based on comparison of radiocarbon dates of samples that can be independently dated by other methods such as examination of tree growth rings (dendrochronology), ice cores, deep ocean sediment cores, lake sediment varves, coral samples, and speleothems (cave deposits).
The calibration curves can vary significantly from a straight line, so comparison of uncalibrated radiocarbon dates (e.g., plotting them on a graph or subtracting dates to give elapsed time) is likely to give misleading results. There are also significant plateaus in the curves, such as the one from 11,000 to 10,000 radiocarbon years BP, which is believed to be associated with changing ocean circulation during the Younger Dryas period. The accuracy of radiocarbon dating is lower for samples originating from such plateau periods. It has been noted that the plateau itself can be used as a time marker when it appears in a time series.
Quote:
Whenever the worldview of evolution is questioned, this topic always comes up. Let me first explain how carbon dating works and then show you the assumptions it is based on. Radiation from the sun strikes the atmosphere of the earth all day long. This energy converts about 21 pounds of nitrogen into radioactive carbon 14. This radioactive carbon 14 slowly decays back into normal, stable nitrogen. Extensive laboratory testing has shown that about half of the C-14 molecules will decay in 5730 years. This is called the half-life. After another 5730 years half of the remaining C-14 will decay leaving only ¼ of the original C-14. It goes from ½ to ¼ to 1/8, etc. In theory it would never totally disappear, but after about 5 half lives the difference is not measurable with any degree of accuracy. This is why most people say carbon dating is only good for objects less than 40,000 years old. Nothing on earth carbon dates in the millions of years, because the scope of carbon dating only extends a few thousand years. Willard Libby invented the carbon dating technique in the early 1950's. The amount of carbon 14 in the atmosphere today (about .0000765%), is assumed there would be the same amount found in living plants or animals since the plants breath CO2 and animals eat plants. Carbon 14 is the radio-active version of carbon.
Since sunlight causes the formation of C-14 in the atmosphere, and normal radioactive decay takes it out, there must be a point where the formation rate and the decay rate equalizes. This is called the point of equilibrium. Let me illustrate: If you were trying to fill a barrel with water but there were holes drilled up the side of the barrel, as you filled the barrel it would begin leaking out the holes. At some point you would be putting it in and it would be leaking out at the same rate. You will not be able to fill the barrel past this point of equilibrium. In the same way the C-14 is being formed and decaying simultaneously. A freshly created earth would require about 30,000 years for the amount of C-14 in the atmosphere to reach this point of equilibrium because it would leak out as it is being filled. Tests indicate that the earth has still not reached equilibrium. There is more C-14 in the atmosphere now than there was 40 years ago. This would prove the earth is not yet 30,000 years old! This also means that plants and animals that lived in the past had less C-14 in them than do plants and animals today. Just this one fact totally upsets data obtained by C-14 dating.
The carbon in the atmosphere normally combines with oxygen to make carbon dioxide (CO2). Plants breathe CO2 and make it part of their tissue. Animals eat the plants and make it part of their tissues. A very small percentage of the carbon plants take in is radioactive C-14. When a plant or animal dies it stops taking in air and food so it should not be able to get any new C-14. The C-14 in the plant or animal will begin to decay back to normal nitrogen. The older an object is, the less carbon-14 it contains. One gram of carbon from living plant material causes a Geiger counter to click 16 times per minute as the C-14 decays. A sample that causes 8 clicks per minute would be 5,730 years old (the sample has gone through one half life), and so on. (See chart on page 46 about C-14). Although this technique looks good at first, carbon-14 dating rests on two simple assumptions. They are, obviously, assuming the amount of carbon-14 in the atmosphere has always been constant, and its rate of decay has always been constant. Neither of these assumptions is provable or reasonable.
An illustration may help: Imagine you found a candle burning in a room, and you wanted to determine how long it was burning before you found it. You could measure the present height of the candle (say, seven inches) and the rate of burn (say, an inch per hour). In order to find the length of time since the candle was lit we would be forced to make some assumptions. We would, obviously, have to assume that the candle has always burned at the same rate, and assumes an initial height of the candle.
The answer changes based on the assumptions. Similarly, scientists do not know that the carbon-14 decay rate has been constant. They do not know that the amount of carbon-14 in the atmosphere is constant. Present testing shows the amount of C-14 in the atmosphere has been increasing since it was first measured in the 1950's. This may be tied in to the declining strength of the magnetic field.
Since sunlight causes the formation of C-14 in the atmosphere, and normal radioactive decay takes it out, there must be a point where the formation rate and the decay rate equalizes. This is called the point of equilibrium. Let me illustrate: If you were trying to fill a barrel with water but there were holes drilled up the side of the barrel, as you filled the barrel it would begin leaking out the holes. At some point you would be putting it in and it would be leaking out at the same rate. You will not be able to fill the barrel past this point of equilibrium. In the same way the C-14 is being formed and decaying simultaneously. A freshly created earth would require about 30,000 years for the amount of C-14 in the atmosphere to reach this point of equilibrium because it would leak out as it is being filled. Tests indicate that the earth has still not reached equilibrium. There is more C-14 in the atmosphere now than there was 40 years ago. This would prove the earth is not yet 30,000 years old! This also means that plants and animals that lived in the past had less C-14 in them than do plants and animals today. Just this one fact totally upsets data obtained by C-14 dating.
The carbon in the atmosphere normally combines with oxygen to make carbon dioxide (CO2). Plants breathe CO2 and make it part of their tissue. Animals eat the plants and make it part of their tissues. A very small percentage of the carbon plants take in is radioactive C-14. When a plant or animal dies it stops taking in air and food so it should not be able to get any new C-14. The C-14 in the plant or animal will begin to decay back to normal nitrogen. The older an object is, the less carbon-14 it contains. One gram of carbon from living plant material causes a Geiger counter to click 16 times per minute as the C-14 decays. A sample that causes 8 clicks per minute would be 5,730 years old (the sample has gone through one half life), and so on. (See chart on page 46 about C-14). Although this technique looks good at first, carbon-14 dating rests on two simple assumptions. They are, obviously, assuming the amount of carbon-14 in the atmosphere has always been constant, and its rate of decay has always been constant. Neither of these assumptions is provable or reasonable.
An illustration may help: Imagine you found a candle burning in a room, and you wanted to determine how long it was burning before you found it. You could measure the present height of the candle (say, seven inches) and the rate of burn (say, an inch per hour). In order to find the length of time since the candle was lit we would be forced to make some assumptions. We would, obviously, have to assume that the candle has always burned at the same rate, and assumes an initial height of the candle.
The answer changes based on the assumptions. Similarly, scientists do not know that the carbon-14 decay rate has been constant. They do not know that the amount of carbon-14 in the atmosphere is constant. Present testing shows the amount of C-14 in the atmosphere has been increasing since it was first measured in the 1950's. This may be tied in to the declining strength of the magnetic field.
Edited, Jan 22nd 2007 12:04am by Laeinea
Edited, Jan 22nd 2007 12:05am by Laeinea
I've voting we sub-default anyone who quotes three screenfuls of text no one cares about without contributing anything original.
bodhisattva wrote:
Quote:
Did you know there is a HUMAN skeleton bone that proves that man used to be around 10 feet tall?[/b]
Forbidden Land by Robert Lyman. Where most of these come from. Most are cases of fiction, such as the one shown in 1856 where field labourers unearthed a giant. The rest are cases of genetic anomalies, not where all men were 10 feet tall.
Forbidden Land by Robert Lyman. Where most of these come from. Most are cases of fiction, such as the one shown in 1856 where field labourers unearthed a giant. The rest are cases of genetic anomalies, not where all men were 10 feet tall.
I did write that wrong, that is not what I meant to say so you are correct. I did however get my point across that there has been genetic anomalies present through out history to back up the biblical claim of human genetics being tampered with by the nephilim even thousands of years ago. (Did you really believe cloning, stem cell "research" and so forth was a new idea?)
Quote:
Most doctors will tell you that there is indeed a God; many medical miracles happen out of the blue when the doctors have given up all hope.
Healing by prayer has been witnessed by medical personnel. They cannot explain away the results
The original survey was done in 2005 and asked for belief in god. At no time was their a question of miracles or medical miracles, neither were any of the doctors quoted that their belief in god came from medical miracles. In fact the figure that 76% of doctors believe in god was actually LOWER than the national average (83%), this difference is attributed to doctors having a more clinical science based background.
Healing by prayer has been witnessed by medical personnel. They cannot explain away the results
The original survey was done in 2005 and asked for belief in god. At no time was their a question of miracles or medical miracles, neither were any of the doctors quoted that their belief in god came from medical miracles. In fact the figure that 76% of doctors believe in god was actually LOWER than the national average (83%), this difference is attributed to doctors having a more clinical science based background.
I did not say all, I said most. The ones I have run into, and there have been many, all do believe either in a higher power or God.
Quote:
Catholisicm and Christianity are 2 different things (most people get them confused. they believe differently)
Not really. Differences are definitely their however they are not enough to constitute different religions. Rather just difference of sect in a religion. Important difference.
Not really. Differences are definitely their however they are not enough to constitute different religions. Rather just difference of sect in a religion. Important difference.
Have you ever seen catholics and christians debate the theology of the bible? It's quite entertaining.
Quote:
There is prophecy in the bible about the present time and the rise of the european nation as well as the rise and fall of Iraq.
You ever hear of Clever Hans? Sometimes we attribute the cause of things to what we want to attribute it to when in reality it is something else less magical and much more anthropological, deal with it.
You ever hear of Clever Hans? Sometimes we attribute the cause of things to what we want to attribute it to when in reality it is something else less magical and much more anthropological, deal with it.
Yes I have I attribute most of nostradamus's writings as a "clever hans". Biblically speaking however the prophecy's of Daniel are quite specific and refer across our historical time-line. They are also without fail 100% correct, even to this day. Deal with it.
Quote:
Where the Mosque stands in Jerusalem is where the original 2 temples of solomon were built and the remains are there to this day.
The temple mount is their. Doesnt prove the divinity of Christ or the bible. If it did then other religious texts/traditions which had other historical references such as Islam would have just as much clout.
Perhaps you are unknowledgeable about the signifigance of the temple mount, it actually plays a part in modern prophetic. Read on it. Also, the muslim factions do play a signifigant role in biblical prophecy, they do have just as much clout as the Jewish and Christians do. The muslim Quran (Koran) is very similar to the bible, with one major difference, the koran is subject to and is often changed in conflicting ways. The biblical changes that have occured have been done mainly by people who think it isn't politically correct or don't agree with the truth's that lie within.
Quote:
Darwinisim was one attempt to disprove that God exsists, in no way, shape or form was there even proof of evolution, just adaptation to enviroment.
The theory when applied to the archaelogical record of man, horses, dogs, cats and almost every other mammal as well as reptiles and even insects though does provide evidence that adaptation to the environment over time can cause divergence in species and the rise of new ones.
The theory when applied to the archaelogical record of man, horses, dogs, cats and almost every other mammal as well as reptiles and even insects though does provide evidence that adaptation to the environment over time can cause divergence in species and the rise of new ones.
Not rise of new species, there is not one iota of proof that a fish can grow feathers and become a bird so to speak, different varieties of the same species yes, which is nothing more than adaptation. Evolution requires one species transforming into another, ie) monkey into a human. Impossible.
Quote:
It is also proven that you cannot add or remove DNA cells from genetic make up so there is only one monkey on the planet that humans could have ever evolved from if there was proof. The "human-monkey" remains found that proved "evolution" were quickly swept under the carpet media wise because the DNA cells were different.
First cells are bioloicial foundations of life. DNA are the basic building block and are actually smaller than cells, so your statement is fallacious since DNA is actually contained in the cells and not vice a versa. If you meant the nucleobases of dna (A,C,G,T) well there are in fact a number of DNA modifying enzymes which can be used to cut and isolate portions of DNA whether for study or to insert it into other dna lines. So I have no clue where you were going with on that one.
First cells are bioloicial foundations of life. DNA are the basic building block and are actually smaller than cells, so your statement is fallacious since DNA is actually contained in the cells and not vice a versa. If you meant the nucleobases of dna (A,C,G,T) well there are in fact a number of DNA modifying enzymes which can be used to cut and isolate portions of DNA whether for study or to insert it into other dna lines. So I have no clue where you were going with on that one.
Actually I used the wrong words, thats what I get for typing at 5 am with no sleep, lol, I meant choromosomes. A human carries 23 chromosomes, a monkey carries 24. An article:
Quote:
A new report in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences suggests that the common value of >98% similarity of DNA between chimp and humans is incorrect.2 Roy Britten, author of the study, puts the figure at about 95% when insertions and deletions are included. Importantly, there is much more to these studies than people realize.
The >98.5% similarity has been misleading because it depends on what is being compared. There are a number of significant differences that are difficult to quantify. A review by Gagneux and Varki4 described a list of genetic differences between humans and the great apes. The differences include ‘cytogenetic differences, differences in the type and number of repetitive genomic DNA and transposable elements, abundance and distribution of endogenous retroviruses, the presence and extent of allelic polymorphisms, specific gene inactivation events, gene sequence differences, gene duplications, single nucleotide polymorphisms, gene expression differences, and messenger RNA splicing variations.’4
Specific examples of these differences include:
Humans have 23 pairs of chromosomes while chimpanzees have 24. Evolutionary scientists believe that one of the human chromosomes has been formed through the fusion of two small chromosomes in the chimp instead of an intrinsic difference resulting from a separate creation.
At the end of each chromosome is a string of repeating DNA sequences called a telomere. Chimpanzees and other apes have about 23 kilobases (a kilobase is 1,000 base pairs of DNA) of repeats. Humans are unique among primates with much shorter telomeres only 10 kilobases long.7
While 18 pairs of chromosomes are ‘virtually identical’, chromosomes 4, 9 and 12 show evidence of being ‘remodeled.’5 In other words, the genes and markers on these chromosomes are not in the same order in the human and chimpanzee. Instead of ‘being remodeled’ as the evolutionists suggest, these could, logically, also be intrinsic differences because of a separate creation.
The Y chromosome in particular is of a different size and has many markers that do not line up between the human and chimpanzee.1
Scientists have prepared a human-chimpanzee comparative clone map of chromosome 21 in particular. They observed ‘large, non-random regions of difference between the two genomes.’ They found a number of regions that ‘might correspond to insertions that are specific to the human lineage.’3
These types of differences are not generally included in calculations of percent DNA similarity.
The >98.5% similarity has been misleading because it depends on what is being compared. There are a number of significant differences that are difficult to quantify. A review by Gagneux and Varki4 described a list of genetic differences between humans and the great apes. The differences include ‘cytogenetic differences, differences in the type and number of repetitive genomic DNA and transposable elements, abundance and distribution of endogenous retroviruses, the presence and extent of allelic polymorphisms, specific gene inactivation events, gene sequence differences, gene duplications, single nucleotide polymorphisms, gene expression differences, and messenger RNA splicing variations.’4
Specific examples of these differences include:
Humans have 23 pairs of chromosomes while chimpanzees have 24. Evolutionary scientists believe that one of the human chromosomes has been formed through the fusion of two small chromosomes in the chimp instead of an intrinsic difference resulting from a separate creation.
At the end of each chromosome is a string of repeating DNA sequences called a telomere. Chimpanzees and other apes have about 23 kilobases (a kilobase is 1,000 base pairs of DNA) of repeats. Humans are unique among primates with much shorter telomeres only 10 kilobases long.7
While 18 pairs of chromosomes are ‘virtually identical’, chromosomes 4, 9 and 12 show evidence of being ‘remodeled.’5 In other words, the genes and markers on these chromosomes are not in the same order in the human and chimpanzee. Instead of ‘being remodeled’ as the evolutionists suggest, these could, logically, also be intrinsic differences because of a separate creation.
The Y chromosome in particular is of a different size and has many markers that do not line up between the human and chimpanzee.1
Scientists have prepared a human-chimpanzee comparative clone map of chromosome 21 in particular. They observed ‘large, non-random regions of difference between the two genomes.’ They found a number of regions that ‘might correspond to insertions that are specific to the human lineage.’3
These types of differences are not generally included in calculations of percent DNA similarity.
In the end you are running off multiple misperceptions and distorting truths and facts to make your argument on so many points that it is laughable. So yeah, STFU ****.
I don't think I will ;) It's much too entertaining to see you strain to come up with an original insult.
Quote:
There has also been scientific proof that dinosaurs did in fact live with man up until the flood.
I've covered this one before. K/AR dating uses the radioactive decay of potassium to argon in volcanic materials to date materials found in and around volcanic rock. Christians literalists always jump on the whole "K/AR has given dates of dinosaurs in human times!!!!" however they fail to notice that this claim is due to the fact taht when new layers of lava go over old layers it reheats and gives a new date based on the new flow. If you are gonna use the science at least try to understand it and not just latch onto the parts that serve your self interest, that is so gbaji~esque
I've covered this one before. K/AR dating uses the radioactive decay of potassium to argon in volcanic materials to date materials found in and around volcanic rock. Christians literalists always jump on the whole "K/AR has given dates of dinosaurs in human times!!!!" however they fail to notice that this claim is due to the fact taht when new layers of lava go over old layers it reheats and gives a new date based on the new flow. If you are gonna use the science at least try to understand it and not just latch onto the parts that serve your self interest, that is so gbaji~esque
Quote:
One criticism of the creation models is the lack of a natural model which duplicates the processes happening during this alleged flood. However, in 1980, the explosion of Mt. St. Helen's in Washington provided just such a model. When Mt. St. Helen's exploded an estimated 18 billion cubic feet of rock, ash, dirt, steam, and melted snow flowed down the side of the mountain at estimated speeds at 90 mph. This, and subsequent ash flows, laid down as much as 600 feet of sediment on the north face of the mountain slope. In essence, a massive flood event was modeled for the scientific community.
The sediments laid down during the violent mud and ash flows were not a homogenized mixture but rather a series of finely layered horizontal strata. They look quite similar to the horizontal layers of rock which can be observed in road cuts as you travel our interstate highways. These types of horizontal bands of rock strata are often assumed to indicate millions of years of earth history, but Mt. St. Helen's has provided geologists with a scale model of how this same type of horizontal strata could be laid down rapidly by flowing water. Subsequent to the Mt. St. Helen's explosion, a new river canyon was formed in one day (March 19, 1982) as backed up water broke through the newly deposited sediment. This canyon is 100 feet deep and looks amazingly like a 1/40th scale model of the Grand Canyon. Had no one been present to see this area form, we might assume that the small stream presently located at the bottom of the canyon had cut the canyon over millions of years. This is the story of most of us have been taught about the Colorado river and the Grand Canyon. Many geologists are now coming to acknowledge that just as the Toutle River canyon at Mt. St. Helen's formed rapidly , the Grand Canyon was also formed over a short period of time by a massive flow of water.
The sediments laid down during the violent mud and ash flows were not a homogenized mixture but rather a series of finely layered horizontal strata. They look quite similar to the horizontal layers of rock which can be observed in road cuts as you travel our interstate highways. These types of horizontal bands of rock strata are often assumed to indicate millions of years of earth history, but Mt. St. Helen's has provided geologists with a scale model of how this same type of horizontal strata could be laid down rapidly by flowing water. Subsequent to the Mt. St. Helen's explosion, a new river canyon was formed in one day (March 19, 1982) as backed up water broke through the newly deposited sediment. This canyon is 100 feet deep and looks amazingly like a 1/40th scale model of the Grand Canyon. Had no one been present to see this area form, we might assume that the small stream presently located at the bottom of the canyon had cut the canyon over millions of years. This is the story of most of us have been taught about the Colorado river and the Grand Canyon. Many geologists are now coming to acknowledge that just as the Toutle River canyon at Mt. St. Helen's formed rapidly , the Grand Canyon was also formed over a short period of time by a massive flow of water.
If your claim was completely accurate then there would not be fossils at all, they would have melted or been disfigured with every layer of lava flow that occured over the last few thousand years. However what does occur is erosion, and reforming of landscapes. The lava does not melt the layers beneath it, it leaves a new layer of rock, glass (depending on the area) and silt behind. The layers can actually be seen in large pieces of lava formed glass and also in rock formations near active volcanic sites.
Edited, Jan 22nd 2007 4:31am by Laeinea
Ow, my eyes! Stop with the colours already!
Heavens to Betsy.
Laeinea, how about a few links to source materials and you try to add a little self-created content rather than quoting page after page of whatever site you're cribbing from?
Laeinea, how about a few links to source materials and you try to add a little self-created content rather than quoting page after page of whatever site you're cribbing from?
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Too bad you didn't actually read the articles. Most of what I posted came from answersingenesis.org. Yes it's a creationist website 
, but atleast there it's a reliable source of info unlike wikipedia.
As to the reference of originality, who has posted something original? Besides I doubt you'd ever want to see my study notes anyhow LOL. Much easier to post reference texts.
, but atleast there it's a reliable source of info unlike wikipedia. As to the reference of originality, who has posted something original? Besides I doubt you'd ever want to see my study notes anyhow LOL. Much easier to post reference texts.
I find Christianity so cute. So... human. It's so very human, in fact, that it's almost hard to believe it deals with God.
Take Genesis. God creates the world, and it all looks very nice. And yet, He doesn't put humans on it straight away. I guess the Earth wasn't designed for humans, but for animals, since we were safely in the Garden of Eden. Still, we ***** up, and get relegated to Earth. Fine, no big deal. We kinda ruined it for the animals, but if anyone's to blame it's surely God: A week's work, and He had another Earth, just like ours, for the animals to be safe. Instead He decides to be lazy, which is fine, but He can't then act all surprised when we ***** up the place.
So He does all this, in all his wisdom and glory. But of course, God is still yound and somewhat immature, so He feels he has to brag about it. So He's like "Yo, Moses, wanna know how the whole world came to be?" and Moses is like "Sure, but gimme five minutes cos I gotta take a quick leak" and "God is like "fine, I'll just chisel away some rules in the meantime", and God takes a chisel and some marble, and He chisels away.
When Moses stopped pissing, God tells him:
- So this is how it goes: On the first day, I created the Earth and the Heavens.
- Nice.
- In the dark!! I did it all in the dark... But it wasn't great for my eyes, so then I created the light, on the second day.
- Cool. This is going to take a while, isn't it?
- Yes Moses, it is.
- Ok, any chance you could chisel it down, and just let me know when you're done?
But God is not that kind of guy, so he continued blabbing away at poor Moses, who had to remember everything, and then write it down. It's safe to assume that not everything is true, since God is an unverified source, and being a teenager, He was probably just bragging.
Then, after he told his story, young God gets pissed off with some homos and blasts them away. Then he sends some locusts on the Egyptians, and asks some guy to sacrifice his son, only to say "NOT!" just in time. What a joker!
And then, like all good men, God has a son. That obviously chills him out, big time. He goes from vengeful, angry, homophobic teenager, to a much nicer and much more relaxed adult. It happens to a lot of men, and it's not very surprising. As you get a child, you start to put things in perspective a bit more. You feel slightly sorry for nuking a couple of towns just because some inhabitants were part-time ************* And because you're getting old, you send your son to do the dirty work for you. Not only that, but you decide that having dudes with names as long as sentenses, and that live for 1000 years is not all that great. So you cut down the life expectancy by some 950 years. Harsh, but necessary, I guess.
New God, it must be said, is pretty withdrawn. In the Old Testament it's "God said this" and "God said that", but He must have realised that running the world requires a spokesperson, what with all the misinterpretation and libels and stuff. And so God never speaks another word again. Slightly extreme, but that's the kind of guy God is.
Christianity is kinda cool too, since it show what people really thought at the time.
Take the Virgin Mary. She's a hugely symbolic figure in Christianity, and yet, she's never said a word either. There isn't a "Virgin Mary" philosophy. No speeches, no catchphrases, no "what would the Virgin Mary do?". All we know about her is that she had was a virgin, and that she had a child.
Sucks for Jospeph, to be honest. I can't help but think he was slightly supsicious when he learnt his wife was pregnant. Especially since Jesus was blue-eyed and blonde in a land of Arabs. And I don't think he got any any after Jesus was born either.
Seriously though, she was a "married virgin". The two most important virtues for a woman at the time: dedication to the husband, and sexual abstinence. And of course, no chit-chat. Even if you are the mother of the Son of God, but not His wife. And of course, she was not allowed to call herself a Godess. That tells all you need to know about inheritance rights at the time.
So you have God, the dude who created everything, his Son, who become spokesman for God laid the foundations for monotheist religion for the next 2000 years, and the virgin, who was, well, a virgin. And, err, that's it.
But that's not the Trinity, of course. The Trinity comprises of the Holy Ghost. And it makes sense. Without the Holy Ghost, it would just be two slightly macho blokes. Throw in a ghost in there, and it's suddenly a whole lot more mystical.
The Holy Ghost, however, does not have much of a philosophy either. He doesn't have a book about him. He didn't really die, or get born. We know he's "holy", which is just as well I guess. And yes, he talks to people sometimes, in whispers. A bit like an unofficial source. The ancient version of "a friend of God who asked to remain anonymous told this reporter that..." Still, you can't help but feel he's a bit of a filler.
Anyway, all of this makes perfect sense.
What is strange is that since the year 33, God, Jesus and the Holy Ghost have stopped giving official statements. No marble scripture, no guest appearances, except sometimes on a piece of toast, and not a single word. That's still 1973 years without any sign of life.
My guess is that God and Jesus have died. Well, we know Jesus died, nailed by some Sicilian peasant while his dad was watching. It's quite likely that God died too. I think he got pissed off by the whole "crucifying his Son" bit. He condemened mankind for all eternity just cos one dude ate an apple. So i'm guessing the homocide of his Son didn't go down too well. We already were given the Original Sin, so it's likely he ran out of punishment. He used his Wild Card too early, basically.
So, i'm guessing he became an alcoholic, out of sadness and despair at these stupid ungrateful people He creaed. He probably had liver complications due to esxcessive drinking, and most likely died of a heart failure. That's why He never told the Popes, or the priests about the Earth not being flat. That's why he didn't tell them about the Universe either, and how we are just a dot lost somehwere in this giant soup. That's why he didn't stop the Inquisition, or the Crusades, or the pedophile priests.
And that's why some of you people still believe that man and the dinosaurs existed together, that the earth is a few thousand years old, and that the Bible is a true story. There's no one up there to tell you otherwise...
Take Genesis. God creates the world, and it all looks very nice. And yet, He doesn't put humans on it straight away. I guess the Earth wasn't designed for humans, but for animals, since we were safely in the Garden of Eden. Still, we ***** up, and get relegated to Earth. Fine, no big deal. We kinda ruined it for the animals, but if anyone's to blame it's surely God: A week's work, and He had another Earth, just like ours, for the animals to be safe. Instead He decides to be lazy, which is fine, but He can't then act all surprised when we ***** up the place.
So He does all this, in all his wisdom and glory. But of course, God is still yound and somewhat immature, so He feels he has to brag about it. So He's like "Yo, Moses, wanna know how the whole world came to be?" and Moses is like "Sure, but gimme five minutes cos I gotta take a quick leak" and "God is like "fine, I'll just chisel away some rules in the meantime", and God takes a chisel and some marble, and He chisels away.
When Moses stopped pissing, God tells him:
- So this is how it goes: On the first day, I created the Earth and the Heavens.
- Nice.
- In the dark!! I did it all in the dark... But it wasn't great for my eyes, so then I created the light, on the second day.
- Cool. This is going to take a while, isn't it?
- Yes Moses, it is.
- Ok, any chance you could chisel it down, and just let me know when you're done?
But God is not that kind of guy, so he continued blabbing away at poor Moses, who had to remember everything, and then write it down. It's safe to assume that not everything is true, since God is an unverified source, and being a teenager, He was probably just bragging.
Then, after he told his story, young God gets pissed off with some homos and blasts them away. Then he sends some locusts on the Egyptians, and asks some guy to sacrifice his son, only to say "NOT!" just in time. What a joker!
And then, like all good men, God has a son. That obviously chills him out, big time. He goes from vengeful, angry, homophobic teenager, to a much nicer and much more relaxed adult. It happens to a lot of men, and it's not very surprising. As you get a child, you start to put things in perspective a bit more. You feel slightly sorry for nuking a couple of towns just because some inhabitants were part-time ************* And because you're getting old, you send your son to do the dirty work for you. Not only that, but you decide that having dudes with names as long as sentenses, and that live for 1000 years is not all that great. So you cut down the life expectancy by some 950 years. Harsh, but necessary, I guess.
New God, it must be said, is pretty withdrawn. In the Old Testament it's "God said this" and "God said that", but He must have realised that running the world requires a spokesperson, what with all the misinterpretation and libels and stuff. And so God never speaks another word again. Slightly extreme, but that's the kind of guy God is.
Christianity is kinda cool too, since it show what people really thought at the time.
Take the Virgin Mary. She's a hugely symbolic figure in Christianity, and yet, she's never said a word either. There isn't a "Virgin Mary" philosophy. No speeches, no catchphrases, no "what would the Virgin Mary do?". All we know about her is that she had was a virgin, and that she had a child.
Sucks for Jospeph, to be honest. I can't help but think he was slightly supsicious when he learnt his wife was pregnant. Especially since Jesus was blue-eyed and blonde in a land of Arabs. And I don't think he got any any after Jesus was born either.
Seriously though, she was a "married virgin". The two most important virtues for a woman at the time: dedication to the husband, and sexual abstinence. And of course, no chit-chat. Even if you are the mother of the Son of God, but not His wife. And of course, she was not allowed to call herself a Godess. That tells all you need to know about inheritance rights at the time.
So you have God, the dude who created everything, his Son, who become spokesman for God laid the foundations for monotheist religion for the next 2000 years, and the virgin, who was, well, a virgin. And, err, that's it.
But that's not the Trinity, of course. The Trinity comprises of the Holy Ghost. And it makes sense. Without the Holy Ghost, it would just be two slightly macho blokes. Throw in a ghost in there, and it's suddenly a whole lot more mystical.
The Holy Ghost, however, does not have much of a philosophy either. He doesn't have a book about him. He didn't really die, or get born. We know he's "holy", which is just as well I guess. And yes, he talks to people sometimes, in whispers. A bit like an unofficial source. The ancient version of "a friend of God who asked to remain anonymous told this reporter that..." Still, you can't help but feel he's a bit of a filler.
Anyway, all of this makes perfect sense.
What is strange is that since the year 33, God, Jesus and the Holy Ghost have stopped giving official statements. No marble scripture, no guest appearances, except sometimes on a piece of toast, and not a single word. That's still 1973 years without any sign of life.
My guess is that God and Jesus have died. Well, we know Jesus died, nailed by some Sicilian peasant while his dad was watching. It's quite likely that God died too. I think he got pissed off by the whole "crucifying his Son" bit. He condemened mankind for all eternity just cos one dude ate an apple. So i'm guessing the homocide of his Son didn't go down too well. We already were given the Original Sin, so it's likely he ran out of punishment. He used his Wild Card too early, basically.
So, i'm guessing he became an alcoholic, out of sadness and despair at these stupid ungrateful people He creaed. He probably had liver complications due to esxcessive drinking, and most likely died of a heart failure. That's why He never told the Popes, or the priests about the Earth not being flat. That's why he didn't tell them about the Universe either, and how we are just a dot lost somehwere in this giant soup. That's why he didn't stop the Inquisition, or the Crusades, or the pedophile priests.
And that's why some of you people still believe that man and the dinosaurs existed together, that the earth is a few thousand years old, and that the Bible is a true story. There's no one up there to tell you otherwise...
Mistress Laeinea wrote:
Yes it's a creationist website , but atleast there it's a reliable source of info unlike wikipedia.
, but atleast there it's a reliable source of info unlike wikipedia.Not to mention completely biased.
What's bred in the bone will not out of the flesh.
Mistress Laeinea wrote:
Quote:
EDIT - I cant believe I missed this: The "human-monkey" remains found that proved "evolution" were quickly swept under the carpet media wise because the DNA cells were different.
Do you even know what a Fossil is? Apparently not! Fossils are the mineralized or otherwise preserved remains or traces (such as footprints) of animals, plants, and other organisms. Mineralized, so of course the DNA is gone you ignorant ****. So your claim yet again shows a complete and utter lack of understanding of the basic concept of fossilization.
Do you even know what a Fossil is? Apparently not! Fossils are the mineralized or otherwise preserved remains or traces (such as footprints) of animals, plants, and other organisms. Mineralized, so of course the DNA is gone you ignorant ****. So your claim yet again shows a complete and utter lack of understanding of the basic concept of fossilization.
[Darkblue]LOL, I know perfectly well what a fossil is, and did I say fossil? No I did not I said remains, in which case there was DNA present.
I could and probably will at some point, point out all the fallacies in your other posts. I think the most important part is to start at the beginning. Your Human-Monkey 'remains' go from 2.5 million years ago to 120+k year ago. The thing is that organic remains don't last that long, even bones. Which is why it is all based off the FOSSIL record because it is the mineralized deposits in the absent space left by bones that have long since gone away.
Which is why you don't have geneticists doing DNA samples of **** Habilis to find out if it was an actual precursor of man or a different branch entirely. So it doesn't matter if you say remains or fossils because in the end they can be only fossils.
Face it, your understanding of both Genetics and Archaeology is less than horrible. Your source is a very biased and ignorant creationist website that misinterprets science and fact and relies on its readers own ignorances (of which you seem to show many) to pass it off as the truth. So yeah, once again, stfu.
Edited, Jan 22nd 2007 1:52pm by bodhisattva
Bode - 100 Holy Paladin - Lightbringer
bodhisattva wrote:
Face it, your understanding of both Genetics and Archaeology is less than horrible.
Don't make her get her study notes out, Bhodi.
What's bred in the bone will not out of the flesh.
Mistress Laeinea wrote:
Too bad you didn't actually read the articles. Most of what I posted came from answersingenesis.org.
Bhodi can put you through the wringer far better than I. I'm just asking where the giant blocks of colored text came from.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Jophiel wrote:
Bhodi can put you through the wringer far better than I. I'm just asking where the giant blocks of colored text came from.
drdino.com
You might enjoy clicking the "random testimony" links on the left. You get such gems as:
Bless You for Your Work wrote:
This is sensational. Finally, to have the answers to counter alledged evolution science (fairy tale).
Thank You Again for Sticking Up for My Beliefs wrote:
First, thank you. I am a biology student at Central Washington University and am regularly persecuted for denying the so-called "mass of evidence" supporting evolution.
I mean, honestly, people.
Nevermind, that didn't work as intended.
Edited, Jan 22nd 2007 8:06am by Barkingturtle
Edited, Jan 22nd 2007 8:06am by Barkingturtle
Barkingturtle wrote:
Nevermind, that didn't work as intended.
Atomicflea wrote:
Barkingturtle wrote:
Nevermind, that didn't work as intended.
My link was broken, and unfixable. Proof enough in my mind that there is either no God or he hates me and/or orangutan orgies.
Here's some tig ol bitties for ya.
Flea, I must thank you. Drdino.com is an awesome site!
I especially liked:
I'm glad evidence supports the belief of a young Earth. And to think those dirty Chinese and Egyptians claim to have a 7000 year old civilisation! Ha!
and:
I'm still trying to figure out what the conclusion is, since it's not exactly obvious on the first read.
Thank God for websites like that. There is no science, no evidence, no facts, and yet somehow it's all true! Why? Because it's written!
As always, I don't make conclusion, but leave the conclusion up to you!
I especially liked:
Quote:
Creationists already have the Truth; the earth was created roughly 6,000 years ago1. Evolutionists wish to construct their own truth; the earth formed slowly over billions of years. Both of these are subject to the same scientific method. When we observe the outpourings of data rendered from the science, we can see that the evidence greatly supports the idea of a young-earth (6,000 years old).
I'm glad evidence supports the belief of a young Earth. And to think those dirty Chinese and Egyptians claim to have a 7000 year old civilisation! Ha!
and:
Quote:
An Englishman by the name of William Paley wrote nearly two centuries ago in his book, titled Natural Theology, that design requires a Master Designer. If someone found a pocket watch, he said, lying on the ground, he would reach the conclusion that it had been designed by a watchmaker. The order and design of the natural world, Paley reasoned, also points to the existence of an omnipotent Creator Designer.
As always, we don't make the conclusion, but leave the conclusion up to you!
As always, we don't make the conclusion, but leave the conclusion up to you!
I'm still trying to figure out what the conclusion is, since it's not exactly obvious on the first read.
Thank God for websites like that. There is no science, no evidence, no facts, and yet somehow it's all true! Why? Because it's written!
As always, I don't make conclusion, but leave the conclusion up to you!
Take that, doubting Thomases!
So if I found awatch and thought it was complex enough that it had to be designed by a human and then decided that humans were so complex that they only could have been designed by God, wouldn't it stand to follow that any God complex enough to design pocketwatch-building humans had to have been designed by an even greater deity?
Or do we just arbitrarily end the false equivalency argument there because it's no longer convenient to the point?
Or do we just arbitrarily end the false equivalency argument there because it's no longer convenient to the point?
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Recent Visitors: 242
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (242)
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- So Jesus is alive
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC