warri0r45

God never told anyone that he created anything brand new like carbon dating assumes. Therefore its got nothing to do with deceiving, your just taking a word totally out of context. If anything we're (the scientist) deceiving ourself's by assuming something is meant to be like it is when really its totally different. What do you mean here? What are we assuming which is not the case? If you'd like a good clear resource on radiometric dating, I just found this one myself. I found it useful to clear up a misunderstanding I had myself. No I meant more along the lines that its got nothing to do with God deceiving anyone if we perceive something to be a certain way when it really isn't. That's why I threw in the comment about the Scientist. Though I won't go any further down this "dead end". Let me interpret this. Feel free to correct. We (scientists) percieve the earth to be billions of years old when in reality it's not (more like 6000). Thus, god actually isn't decieving us, the scientists are rather decieving themselves through thier assumptions. Assumptions such as the tried and tested constant decay rate of radioisotopes. So constant they determine and measure them via mathematical equations. Assumptions such as this decay rate not being affected via outside sources to any significant degree. Assumptions such as the daughter element amount being known from the formation of the rock. Quite a safe assumption for techniques where the decay daughter element is a gas and thus freed from molten rock and only captured at the point of rock cooling, when the dating 'clock' starts. Furthermore, Isochron dating does not require the amount of daughter isotope in initial rock formation to be known. Are all of these things not the case? If not, why not.

I'm with you basically. I could be optimistic and avoid thinking about the reality of the situations or likewise be a pessemist and avoid thinking about the reality of the situations. For instance, going by how much we've advanced in medicine over the past 100 years and the increased rate by which we are advancing now due to better methods, I wouldn't be at all surprised if we will find a cure to diseases such as HIV and cancer in my lifetime.

(1) There's a gaping difference betwen something believed to be fact and something substantiated as fact through evidence.

(1) Correct! Science is limited to nature and does not have a say in supernatural ideas as they are not testable or observable. But let me just substitute 'Christianity' with the idea of god or supernature. The ideas some people who consider themselves Christians hold, such as a 6000 year old earth, the literal interpretation of creation and the falsity or shaky nature of evolution, have been falsified.

God never told anyone that he created anything brand new like carbon dating assumes. Therefore its got nothing to do with deceiving, your just taking a word totally out of context. If anything we're (the scientist) deceiving ourself's by assuming something is meant to be like it is when really its totally different. What do you mean here? What are we assuming which is not the case? If you'd like a good clear resource on radiometric dating, I just found this one myself. I found it useful to clear up a misunderstanding I had myself.

I can't say I'm sympathetic of such people. I think some people would know Muslim extremists don't share the views of mainstream Islam yet many people still wrongly think or have misgivings about Islam and Muslim people in light of terrorism in the name of the religion. The idea that Muslim groups denounce such acts is great, but I haven't seen any such denouncements myself for any acts of terrorism (from my best memory at the moment). It's either the fault of those in high places in the Muslim community or the media. The point I'm getting at here is that if I were the head of said religion or the proceedings of said religion in my country, I'd make every effort to make every noise I could to the media. Every incling of misrepresentation of the religion, I'd come down on those misrepresenting it like a ton of bricks.

I like the firearm shop robber. What an idiot. :lol:

Goodbye Tonight by Sunk Loto Cookie for whoever has heard this song.

Some great picks. I love the songs 'Across The Night' and 'After All These Years' by Silverchair. Daniel Johns has such a good voice (although I can't speak for Silverchair's newest album; I've only heard 2 songs from it and already I'm not that fond of where they are going with thier style). And @ Lateralus, awesome pick for long night alone - 3 Libras is perfect.

Just a intresting thought here.. its amazing that when its religion vs non-religious, its always the agnostic or athiests who would defend themselfs with evolution theories. Amazing they would point and try to use their own logic vs Christanity when their own self defense is not even pure fact yet. I suggest attacking evolution, but then they would just probably scamper and run behind a new theory. ~Defender~ Defender, evolutionary theory will never become evolutionary fact; the theory is an explanation of the facts at out disposal. A theory is necessary as an explanatory tool otherwise science would be a useless book of facts with no way to interpret them. Theories in the context of science are not guesses or conjecture. Analogy - Gravity is a fact, the theories regarding this fact interpret and explain it. Likewise, evolution is a fact, the theory of evolution is an essential tool to encorporate masses of evidence, tests, observations, facts and hypotheses, etc, so we can actually form a workable model of reality and explain the natural phenomenon of evolution. I suggest you study up on why we have theories in science, what a scientific theory is and why they never become facts.

Only their religeons made them to, To die for Christianity was free will eg islam, they are commanded to kill ANYONE who will not convert to muslim. Lucky us they are now quite weak in their faith huh (no pun intended) If God makes descissions he cannot be an event. However, if the Big Bang happened what came before it? Some will say the big crunch. But where did that come from? in the end we edn up with either infinite regress or ... nothingness... But where did that come from? There is a difference between Christianity and other religeons. In many religeons we find multiple man-like charachters, the gods. In almost every relieon we find they promote common human thoughts. In Islam and christianity we find a strict set of rules but here comes the big seperator from all other religeons. All religeons except christianity, man is trying to get to God. In christianity God is trying to get to man. Also, this topic is on the bible so what did you expect? :| #1 as I said before, Luke writes more about women than any other writer of the time. #2 I admit, there may have been a mistake in the translation or writing of the book, this would say that one word so far is a mistake and it happens to be closely related with the right word, what more could you want? #3 If I said "Everything an evolutionist atheist or agnostic says on this topic is going to be a lie" would you believe me? (3) If you were agnostic you would either Not be sure about evolution Not try so desperatly to win this argument because you would win either way What getting bored and going away because people like you keep comming with the same arguments all the time? Yeah I think so too... Of course, however there are even evolutionists with the base that God does not exist that sided with creationism. (1) The thermodynamics argument is one of the oldest misconceptions out there. I can't believe that you still like using it. Source. Earth is not a closed system. (2) You're assuming there is some sort of plan into which organisms will evolve. Another misconception. There is no plan; only a selective pressure that works on previously inherited genes by choosing small, gradual changes in a gene pool. So, an organ is not a development of evolution; it's an outcome. (3) I think it's by time you realised that atheism, agnosticism and theism have absolutely nothing to do with evolutionary theory. People from all of these groups can see the evidence for evolution and accept it; it's not belief system or world view dependant. I'll say it again: On page 35, at the very beginning of this little fruitless discussion, I outlined evidence. If you actually read what I posted or opened the links, you'd see I posted two lines of evidence with examples in the form of youtube videos of biologist Ken Miller. You're lying again. There is evidence for evolution; it's not a matter of faith. If anyone accepts evolution on faith I suggest they do some research and simply stop being a moron.

You've really got me thinking here, Zonorhc. You could make the case that social values take hold where ideology once did and what we see today is a mild version of eugenics. Yet, as my little understanding goes, there were a few more extremes in achieving thier ideologies than there are in achieving todays social values. In past times, (feel free to correct me here), there were anything from forced sterilization techniques, birth control, ideological pushes for favouring and glorifying 'good genes' where as today, it seems to be a mere social preference for strength and prowess where instead of denying human rights to the 'bad genes' they are merely neglected.

I'm not sure why. But since this topic was on The Bible, i wanted to stick within the context. Yes, i know that evolution is not caused by chance. Hence the argument from design states that it is caused by an intelligent designer. "In other words, all physical laws and the order of nature and life were designed and ordered by God, the intellgent designer. " Thanks for the response, So can you not accept that natural selection can create complexity or do you just personally prefer an intelligent agent?

Rollboy, some of your arguments for god seem great. I was wondering if could enlighten me on something that I often wonder. There are arguments for god, yet why do people like concluding the christian god; a very specific and documented deity? On your argument from design, you've fallen into the common trap of misdefining an evolutionary process as chance. Mutations are random chance yet natural selection is anything but; nature demands change by forcing selective pressure on a population's gene pool. Such a fallacy is either down to ignorance or intellectual dishonesty. Would you agree?

I've heard of stuff like that happening; I think you probably slept on it funny i.e. your dream was trying to tell you to sleep straight. :lol:

Your posts are getting more and more rediculous. 1) You seem to like pointing out the flaws in carbon dating. Why not do the same for methods that are actually used to date rocks at billions of years old, such as the uranium-lead dating method. Carbon dating is unreliable at dating objects over 60,000 years old due to a shorter half life of the C-14 isotope. 2) Most of your arguments for a young earth are all strikingly similar to those I've seen on creationist websites. Reference your sources please. Oh and "Dr. Larry Vardiman of Christian Heritage College and the Institute for Creation Research." Yes, a great unbiased gentleman there, no doubt. I'm not even going to bother unless you cite the sources for your young earth and anti-evolution arguments. 3) Are you saying that only 93% of your DNA comes from your mother and father? If so, where does the other 7% come from? Methinks missing 7% of a genome would be rather fatal. Sorry if I misrepresented you here. 4) Helium, chemical symbol He, atomic number 2, is a totally inert and thus non-flammable noble gas. You are mistaking it for hydrogen. 5) I'm not religous. If you refuse to recognise or have not yet recognised that the overwhelming majority of the scientific community rejects creationism and favours evolution and an old earth of around 4.5 billion years, you are either delusional or ignorant. Source. Source 2. I already outlined some of the basics in this respect in my own words towards the top of page 35 but I don't think you even adressed any of it. Check source 2 below in the evidence section for a pretty good overview of what I covered. 6) My sources? Sure. Here's a start for now: Basic overview/ideas. More basic info including lines of evidence. An expansive source of documentation on the creation/evolution 'controversy' also adresses creationsit claims.

Actually, dating rock layers is only a way of relative dating. Plugging isotope ratios into a mathematical equation gives us an absolute date via radiometric dating. Actually, although neither claim a reason for existance, that dosen't mean an atheist or someone who accepts evolution can't find a reason themselves. Actually, science has proven that the earth and the universe are not young. Radiometric dating and collaborating upwards of 30 independant dating methods all suggest that the earth and the universe are in the order of billions of years old. Actually, not everyone sais we came from monkeys. The majority of the human race chooses to disagree because of religous reasons. The theory of evolution and the fossil evidence and genetic homologies between humans and chimpanzees suggest we have a common evolutionary ancestor. Actually, you need 20 different amino acids to make protiens required for life. A single protien itself may not require all 20 amino acids. Actually, it dosen't. The scientific community recognises creationism as a pseudoscience. The latter comment is not true of the nature of science. If a creationism paper is submitted to peer review, it's rejection is based on whether the claims it makes are truthful, coherent, novel, and/or scientific. Creation claims are largely none of these things. Actually, evidence is not manufactured to fit the theory of evolution. There is no reason to do so yet there is for creationism. If the theory of evolution is demonstrably shown to be wrong, science will adjust accordingly and I will personally be happy that the scientific process has worked. Whenever you say anything that I understand to be wrong, I'm simply going to pull you up on it. I encourage anyone to show where I go wrong while referencing something that isn't biased. I also encourage anyone to doubt and be skeptical of what I say; ask any scientist if you like. I'm interested in being truthful, I couldn't care less if I get proven wrong. The thing is if I do this and need to reference everything, I'll be here forever and I doubt jonavolaii will ever budge even if sufficient referencing is provided.

I'm hearing a whole lot of rhetoric which I've heard before. Don't you guys ever come up with anything new or interesting? Let me just put this out there - There have been intermediates found. There are many radiometric dating methods all of which colaborate to form a reliable age for rocks being dated. Yes, the 2nd law is very proven, you are just misinterpreting it. As I understand, it only applies in a closed system, which the earth is not. We get masses of energy on a constant basis from the sun. You yourself mentioned photosynthesis which is only possible due to an outside energy source. Irreducable complexity has been debunked for a number of supposedly irreducably complex systems. If there is a selective pressure at each step, evolution is possible and organisms don't somehow know what to evolve half an eye or half an organ. Edit: I was just reading a little about amino acid chirality and found this. WTF? Amino acids from space? Are these people on crack or does this actually have any truth to it? :lol: Well, if this is true, amino acids are found in meteorites and are naturally more inclined for a left chirality due to laws of physics. I'll definately need to research this issue in particular more. Edit again: I've gotta say I was ignorant of the idea of amino acids being found in meteorites. :shock: Interesting. Looks like this source gives an explanation for left-handed amino acids.

Tool - Any song. (Ok, I'm biased :P They are fun, though)

Actually, you should tell that to the people that write school books, If you believe everything evolution books tell you is true then think again, all fossils found that apparently indicate a 'missing link' are either fabrikated or mismatched. Australopithicus - Extinct ape Skull XI, Nellie - Half of a skullcap with 3/4 of the skull made of clay Peking man - Campfire with remains from monkeys (probably food) and humans, the discoverer of these 'forgot' to admit that... (1) Here you go, a list of fundamental PROVEN facts about the universe that contredict evolution. If you doubt or question these basic facts, you should give up trying to contradict me right now... [hide=2nd Law of Thermodynamics]Entrapy increases as order decreases completely wiping the very concept of evolution away[/hide][hide=Mathematical probablility]Phisically any action with a chance of 1 against (10 to the power of 40000) Is impossible. The chances that a singel enzyme would by accident come together is 1 against (10 to the power of 3000000)[/hide][hide=Ireducable complexity]Even singel cellular organisms have ireducable complexity. Like the mouse trap, If any one piece is missing, the cel will not function properly.This combined with natural selection removes the possibility of an organism slowly evolving[/hide][hide=Information]Information itsself is not a material entity, If you erase a hard drive it weighs the same. Information is therefore proof that the universe is not mereley material as evolution claims.[/hide][hide=Pealeentological proof (The fossil record)]It is proven that although layers stack upon themselves they do this at different rates and shift all the time, there are only a handfull of places where evolutions tables actually work. Human remains have been found below Dinosaurs remains, in fact in a number of cases a mould was made with the footprints of a dinosaur and a man where one stepped in the others footprints.[/hide]I am used to quoting myself as many people use the same arguments over and over again so unless you have a new one, please don't start using old ones here. If you claim to be open minded and have read the above, you should already be convinced that evolution is not true, If you still believe it is, you cannot claim to be open minded. If you have specific questions or doubt evolution, go ahead and pm me (I will report spam and hate messages). (2) And still, no-one has even tryed to give evidence for evolution... Do you still think you even have it? (1) These are not fundamental proven facts. I even recognise the exact wording from around the internet somewhere on the Irreducable complexity and the Information ones. 2nd law: Click. Mathematical probability: See my response to this in my above post. Irreducable complexity: Information: Evolution is a theory about the origin of species. It's not an atheistic materialistic dogma and does not state that the universe is purely material. No science states the universe is purely material; it just adopts a naturalistic methodology to get tangible results among other reasons. Paleontology: From what I understand, you're not entirely incorrect here. Geologists are careful at determining which sedimentary rocks are acceptable as models to get a chronologically true fossil series. (2) Perhaps you missed or skipped my previous post.

Defender, Weak atheism is the position of having a lack of belief in a god or gods. Strong atheism is the position of believing that there is no god or gods. All atheists are weak atheists yet some add to that position by actively believeing that there is no god. Agnosticism is a position of claiming no knowlege that a god or gods can exist. Agnostics can still lack belief in a god or gods and thus be weak atheists. When you or anyone else throws out the blanket statement that all atheists believe that there is no god, it's like me saying all christians are biblical literalists. It's a misrepresentation of the whole group. Read me. [*:26yyj7ie]Lack of belief in God is not beleiving there is a God is believing there is no God [*:26yyj7ie]Sadly Neo-Gnostisism has taken over the church, if it had not all christians WOULD be biblical literalists. [*:26yyj7ie]Gnostisism is a belief that you need to do something to get into heaven aÃÆââ¬Å¡Ãâ÷theÃÆââ¬Å¡Ãâ÷ist (ÃÆââ¬Å¾ÃâÃ

Evolution has plenty of proof. Though there are unexplained parts to the idea, it is almost certain that this is how organisms evolved. I don't think that this takes away from what God did. I believe that he guided evolution to create humans. I guess that you would say I am one of those "intelligent design" people. Evolution and Christianity don't contradict. In fact, even the Pope has accepted evolution as God's way of creating life. Genesis 1 In the begginning God created the heavens and the earth If you believe God guided evolution then you also believe that God is not all powerful. This means you cannot believe the bible. (1) and there is NO evidence for evolution. Also they changed the name of darwins book because the title alone was embarrissing for the theory It used to be 'the origin of species through natural selection' but (2) it has been proven that natural selection works against evolution thats why 'scientists' changed the name (1) Yes there is. (2) No it hasn't. When you get your ideas regarding evolution, do you get them from a science source or a religious source? (1) If you believe there is proof in evolution please enlighten me and every evolutionist on the planet. The only proof evolution has is more people voting for it, if it had not been for manufactured evidence that is still being shown in schools today they would have been kicked when they first showed they're faces. (2)Yes it has, why else would 'scientists' have changed the name? (3)My sources are purly scientific, in fact some of my proofs againts evolution come from evolutionists that agree the only reason they believe in it is because they do not want to tolerate a God Heres one of the sources from evolutionists: Phisically any action with a chance of 1 against (10 to the power of 40000) Is impossible. The chances that a singel enzyme would by accident come together is 1 against (10 to the power of 3000000) *Evolutionist ads(as if its a good thing): Isn't it great what evolution has overcome?* (1) Fossil record: - The fossil record and discovery of new extinct species fit evolutionary predictions and tests of common ancerstry or related linages. For example, finding intermediates in a proposed whale evolutionary series is good, but not enough. Tests are often done to confirm predictions of what morphological changes are required for feasable evolutionary relationships. - General trends and patterns suggest older life, found in deeper sedimentary rock layers, was simple and the more complex forms of life, including humans and associated primates, only appear in peripheral layers of sedimentary rock. This observation fits evolutionary theory and has been further supported by radiometric dating which is further supported still by the simple principal of relative dating (deeper = older). Homologies: - On a basic level, homologies are related features common to either specific clades in a phylogeny or all known life. The similarity of things like the genetic code, energy currency, biochemical proceses such as photosynthesis and respiration, cell membranes, the 20 or so common amino acids out of a possible hundreds, common carbohydrates, etc, all at least allow for evolution to be a great explanation for this similarity. - To test homology and link life forms in a proposed evolutionary relationship, pridictions are made as to what homologies or common features are necessary or should be unique to the life forms in question. - Vestigal structures give markers to relate particular organisms. - A genetic test for the relation of extant species based on homologies can be done. For example, similar genetic sequences and markers on chromosomes between two suggested evolutionary relatives supports the prediction of relation. Evidence by example: - We don't only look to dig stuff up or to find similarities which suggest evolution, it's also tested in lab conditions in genetic studies and observed in nature. - Initially, the manipulation of genetics by us via artificial selection suggested that natural selection is at least possible, and it is. - Through observing varying degrees of evolutionary change, we at least know for certain it is possible and has happened to an extent. Observed speciation. - Testing evolution through various means and under various degrees of control is an important excercise too. Simple example. I'm sure there's other stuff at a much higher level of understanding than mine which you could research. I suggest asking any biologist if there is evidence for evolution if you don't want to take my word for it. (2) Let me get this straight, do you think that natural selection has been disproven or abandoned? If so I'm going to need a source because that's flat out wrong. It's still the main mechanism for directed action on mutations. (3) I'd love to see a link to these sources please. Your reasoning with this example is faulty too. No one that I've heard suggests that all of the required amino acids of a functioning enzyme would spontaneously assemble. You're talking about abiogenesis here, not evolutionary theory.

1) Woke up at 5:45 and my bed felt like a frikkin womb 2) Reluctantly got up, had a quick shower 3) Watched TV while eating breakfast untill 6:45 4) Dad drove me to uni, which is in the city, where he works (convenient, I know :wink: ) 5) Went to first lecture, thermodynamics, 8:00 to 8:50 6) Went to second lecture, cell and molecular biology (learning about chromosomes, yay), 9:00 to 9:50 7) Walked 500 meters or so into the city where I bought 2 sausege and egg mcmuffins from macdonalds, ate them, got onto the bus 8) Around a 40 min bus ride to my stop, which is about 300 meters or so from my house (again, convenient :) ) 9) Got to my house, my dog was happy to see me as dogs are, put all my s*** down, turned on the TV, computer etc, opened up curtains to let all of the beutiful Queensland sunshine in. 10) Fed a pet barramundi a goldfish (it's about 10cm long at the moment but they get huge; it will eventually outgrow the tank it's in). 11) Got on the computer while farting around with my guitar. 12) Posted here.

Defender, Weak atheism is the position of having a lack of belief in a god or gods. Strong atheism is the position of believing that there is no god or gods. All atheists are weak atheists yet some add to that position by actively believeing that there is no god. Agnosticism is a position of claiming no knowlege that a god or gods can exist. Agnostics can still lack belief in a god or gods and thus be weak atheists. When you or anyone else throws out the blanket statement that all atheists believe that there is no god, it's like me saying all christians are biblical literalists. It's a misrepresentation of the whole group. Read me.

Evolution has plenty of proof. Though there are unexplained parts to the idea, it is almost certain that this is how organisms evolved. I don't think that this takes away from what God did. I believe that he guided evolution to create humans. I guess that you would say I am one of those "intelligent design" people. Evolution and Christianity don't contradict. In fact, even the Pope has accepted evolution as God's way of creating life. Genesis 1 In the begginning God created the heavens and the earth If you believe God guided evolution then you also believe that God is not all powerful. This means you cannot believe the bible. (1) and there is NO evidence for evolution. Also they changed the name of darwins book because the title alone was embarrissing for the theory It used to be 'the origin of species through natural selection' but (2) it has been proven that natural selection works against evolution thats why 'scientists' changed the name (1) Yes there is. (2) No it hasn't. When you get your ideas regarding evolution, do you get them from a science source or a religious source?