Evrae

But if us working from the assumption god does not exist is bad, surely the assumption he does exist is equally bad? Anyway, I'm not sure that we are. We merely want evidence of that existence, that does not rely upon god's existence to be evidence. That would be self referencing, and logicaly dodgy. We have come to the conclusion that god does not exist, having studied the available evidence.

uraniums radioactive decay turns it into lead, its a known fact. All radioactive substances turn into something when they decay, it just so happens that in this case it is lead (but anyway this is entirely beside the point so nvm) I'm afraid you are wrong here. It is impossible for Uranium to directly decay to Lead. It decays to something, which decays to something else, and so on 15 times until you get to lead. It may seem a trivial point, but it shows something. You appear very, very cretain about things which are wrong. This is one case. Could there be others? its likely, methinks.

I believe you compare the proportions of C-12, C-14 and decay products. Eating disorders? Plants specifically not taking in C-14? Those would be chemical factors, and C-14 is chemically identical to C-12. References/source please? It is slightly vexing when you state things as fact withoutexplaining a mechanism for them. For all I know, this might be possible. Though 'washed' is a bit of a woolly term. Possibly true. But the only mechanism by which it could change would be act of god. But that doesn't really prove anything, does it? It is a test specifically for dead things. That might be for the reason that it is unreliable for living things, precisely because of how it works. You must have found this information out from somewhere, so surely that is the source. Unless it was word of mouth from some bloke at church, which isn't really a source. Now, I'm not an expert on genetics, but I imagine that the genetic differences that make us all different are relatively small, in comparison to what makes us human. Erm, no. All that shows is that the bible was around then. Some parts of the bible will be fact, but so are some parts of the latest harry potter book. Have you heard of progress. Its this thing where new information is discovered. The Oort cloud is a hypothesis, which may or may not be shown to be correct. Current telescopes are not capable of finding out. That does not mean that in the future that will not change. Some bodies have been found in roughly the predicted area. There may be more. I dont think unranium does directly turn to lead from radioactive decay. I believe that Uranium may be a product of a nuclear fission though, which is very rare in rocks. By helium do you mean an alpha particle is emitted? As has been said, helium is inert anyway. You seem very certain about things that are plain wrong. I am forced to assume you are just thick. Everything about creationism is completely unscientific in its methodology. So why would it be scientific to go for creationism? Even if creationism was right, I'm afraid to say that it would still be unscientific. Read up on the scientific method, and maybe you will see why. Haha, good point. You wont get through to him though, he is too unwilling to take on new ideas. jonavolaii - have you actually read any of the sources provided to you?

Oh, I'd pad the book of my religion out with a bunch of prophesies, that kind of rubbish. I was merely using that as an example to demonstrate my point. But this is what it comes down to: You believe that the bible is correct based upon the fact that the bible says it is correct. That is a logical falacy. Where do you get this bull from? Sources please? But this is something you have trouble doing - providing sources for your claims. Could that be because no reputable sources exist? The only thing you use as a source is the bible. Oh, so thats the next thing that the bible predicts? I imagine that before 11/9/2001 people thought that. Then afterwards, the bible suddenly turned out to have predicted it. The fact is, the bible makes very few predictions, and they are ones that can never be verified. Yep, it does depend on what you want to hear. If you are especially insecure, I can imagine that believing in some magical being protecting you would be attractive. I imagine it gives you a nice warm fuzzy feeling, like a hot water bottle. Dude, I'm writing this! Thats quite a lot more proof than there is of Jesus existence (though he did exist, there are only 2nd hand accounts. This is the original thing)

There is one possible axplanation that appears to have slipped your mind - it might just be correct. Anyway, how do you know the bible is correct, and the truth? So basically you were brought up a christian, so thats what you are. You don't appear to have explored other avenues very thoroughly. Personally, I have examined christianity, and other religions, and found them lacking. The logical flaws make them unappealing to me. If 13 billion years is young, I'd hate to see your grandparents! :P Where is this 'proof' you talk about? Give us sources, give us links - anything! It is correct that the bible has been interpreted as having predicted these events - after they have happened. I do not know of a definite prediction that has been shown to be correct. And if there was one it would have been publicised. It is much easier to say that something was a prediction after the event than before. Either he was the son of god, or those are fictional stories, devised to demonstrate a point by example. Which is more likely sounding? I am assuming that if I wrote a book saying 'I, Robert_evrae, am the son of god and rightful ruler of the world. You must give unto me all your worldly goods to ease your passage to heaven. This is the incontrovertible truth.' then you would take it to be true? If so, then I would be forced to assume you have squirrels living in your skull.

So what was it that made you decide to be the way you are? Why are you like that? The 'brainwashing' thing seems to be detracting from what I want to ask you here, but hey [garden tool]. I cannot think of ever being told something repetitively as you describe, outside church. 'Jesus is the son of god', all those biblical quotes outside churches. I can imagine that if you hear the same thing every week for 15 years or more you might be classed as being 'brainwashed'. But this is kinda beside the point. Why are you the way you are? Why did you make that choice?

This is refering to my previous comment, right? I'm afraid I'm having quite a lot of trouble making sense of your posts - please use quotes at least. Anyway... Where is this unscientific statement you refer to? It is possible that I have - If its successful you wouldnt even know it. I will tell you this though. Up until the age of 10 I went to church with my grandparents. I then decided not to, of my own accord - I did not believe any of it, even though my grandparents had tried. More recently, I have been to a church youth group regularly, until I stopped that too. That was run by creationists who most definitely tried to 'brainwash' people. Apparently our teachers at school were part of a vast conspiracy to lie to us. Now, what are your reasons for believing what you do? Have you been brainwashed, or did you make a concious, carefully thought out, decision?

Has the possibility occurred to you that you may be the one who has been brainwashed? There are always going to be rare examples of rogue scientists fabricating evidence and experiments, but it is usually for personal fame. Those who do so are generally exposed by other scientists. Which is what makes science so reliable - those bits that are dodgy get exposed pretty quickly.

Are you refering to this: [hide] [/hide] Because if you are, I was being sarcastic. I dont think god played any part in it. There seems to me to be no reason for claiming that god set the solar system in position, even if the current science can't explain it (The video didnt elaborate on that beyond saying, pretty much, science is stupid). I'm still not quite sure what all your 'it's are refering to.

Your point being? Proper sources are generally peer reviewed papers, or sources that reference them Or, if the current scientific ideas are true all those are explained. Except for the bit from your favorite story book. I'll just about grant you that that might be a plausible explanation. Though where all this water comes from is still a puzzle. But the point is that he created these amino acids very simply by this process. It would therefore follow that there might be an equally simple process for creating other amino acids.

Do you make this stuff up, or do you have sources? And I mean proper sources, not propaganda videos. Surely if the grand canyon had been all caused by one event, it would be smoother with the surrounding landscape? Even if your stuff about trapped water was true, how does it help your argument? Other than an extremely tenuous link to the bible?

Oh dear oh dear. That film almost makes you want to laugh, except it was well made. Instead it worries me. Those interviews with people, probably on a college campus? Notice how the only two people who believe in evolution were slightly odd foreign-looking guys? What a cooincidence. Explosions are destructive. The big bang was an explosion, and must have also been destructive, so it cant have happened. What rubbish. Firstly the 'big bang' is only a catchy analogy - it cant have made any sound at all. But it sums the idea up nicely. Secondly, while it may have destroyed whatever was there originally, a bit of random clumping and the laws of physics later and the present universe can be explained. Computer simulations have been run of the current scientific thinking which give end results remarkably similar to what is observed. As for that stuff about how the earth is perfect for life, and must have been made for it - what a load of rubbish. The earth is perfect for the life we see upon it because that life has adapted and arisen upon the earth. Life is adapted to the earth, not the other way around. Also, the universe is massive, containing all varieties of solar systems. Perhaps only a very few have a planet like earth in exactly the right position for the temperature to be near the triple point of water. But these are the only planets that water based life-forms are likely to arise on. Its hardly surprising that water based life-forms have arisen on a planet suitable for water based life-forms. The bits about how the planets and moons have different directions of spin and orbit wasn't covered very well either. Of course its god that did it, and made a very disordered [rooster]-up of it too. Because the reasons are currently unknown does not mean that they will never be known. Instead of instantly putting the unknown down to god, we should try to find out. And can someone please explain to me exactly how evolution contradicts the 2nd law of thermodynamics? Because the film slightly failed to mention that. Oh, and a little one sided as well, but thats to be expected. The use of biblical quotes to demonstrate a 'scientific' point was novel as well.

But is it scientists exagerating global warming? Most scientists believe it is happening, to a greater or lesser degree. Opinions are by no means uniform, and will depend on the field being studied. But for the most part it is environmentalists doing the exagerating. I'm not sure why - possibly some feel that by panicking people, change is more likely to happen. But all scientists, for the most part, do is make measurements, try to figure out what is happening and why. But global warming is happening. This probably isn't the right place for an argument about that though. So basically I'm not entirely sure that your statement is correct.

Firstly, sources generally means giving references or, even better, links. Its very hard to trust something, or see its context, without those. Secondly, whatever your views on what athiest means, those who describe themselves as athiest have differing views, which have already been described. Do all christians have the same beliefs? no. Neither do all athiests. Seeing as the majority of athiests here agree with the definitions already given, it might be wise to trust that, hmmm? Do you really think that science is about concocting evidence to show a preconcieved notion? Do you really think its about a popularity contest? If you do you are seriously deluded. I suggest you read up on the scientific method. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method I've just realised that Warrior has already responded, but I typed this out, so I'll post anyway.

You'vegot mr wondering now about how many strong athiests there are. I can only think of one route that would lead that way, and that is Marxism - it comes with the package - but thats not too big nowadays. Assassin seems to have beaten me to replying, and said all I would have, and more. So I will content myself with asking this. That is the Mandelbrot set in your sig isn't it?

Thats what I mean - you've chosen to be a baptist, but you dont know the difference from other christian denominations. So why choose baptist, not Methodist or Anglican?

yes, most of the butt-kicking being done by neds! :lol:

Your a baptist, but you dont know the exact details of what you believe? That is a little puzzling to me. Why decide to be something you dont completely understand?

Thats scarily like a bloke I used to know. Thank goodness he dropped out of school at the earliest opportunity.

These were put there by God to TEST the people of Israel in their faith of God that He would deliver them from the other countries... Ok, that part is done lol. I am a Christian, a reformed christian. We use the Heidelberg catechism in our church and the Canons of Dordt, and the Belgic confession. I'll only go into the Heidelberg Catechism though. So basically, if you don't have that faith, you arent going to believe, only a person with a believing heart will let God into his/her life... I dont feel like typing anymore atm. My problem with this is that you can replace ' a believing heart' with 'gullibility', and still keep the same meaning. Though it does seem much less flattering. Thats the problem with language - you can give the same meaning positive or negative connotations very easily.

The day of my first good barrows drop - a guthans spear. Followed on the next trip by... a guthans spear. I probably tripled my value that day :lol:

Ethanol is an alcohol! My dad makes wine from the grape vine we have in our back garden. Make sure you dont let air get in, otherwise it turns to vinegar. Use a water trap to let gas out but not in.

I'd be interested to know your source for evolution being disproved - please elaborate. It hasn't been. It's totally the opposite i.e. the overwhelming majority of the scientific community accepts it. I'm afraid to say he's either ignorant or lying. Don't take my word for it, ask a scientist. I'm confident they will reiterate my sentiments exactly. Thats what I thought too. The evolutionary principle ('survival of the fittest' if you like) is easily demonstrated. I could probably knock up a computer program to show that it works. All that then remains to be found is a method of data transferral. And I'm pretty sure that scientists discovered this thing called DNA... Yep, I think he's deluded.

You might be interested to know that a ring of life will teleport you out of the training area to Falador, with low health and your stats still drained :wall:

I'd be interested to know your source for evolution being disproved - please elaborate.