warri0r45

Cool poems Issy. :D Theres something so refreshing about reading poetry, I can't quite put my finger on it. :-k Again, well done! :D :P

That's not the callenge as the overwhelming majority of the scientific community knows evolution to be true. Science is not a belief. You can give it a shot or just not post at all, why even post if you have nothing on topic to contribute? @ FuBai, yes, I know you have an interest in the philosophy of science, that is not what this topic is about.

Over recent times, I have encountered a select few of you who believe in a young earth (i.e. that the earth is somewhere in the order of 6000 years old) and that evolution is total garbage. It disturbs me because it seems these are the only scientific theories which fundamentalists (for the most part) don't agree with. Why? Well obviously it's because they think that these claims refute the account of genesis entirely. I have an interest in science and the truths that it can uncover in the world today to make us a more knowlegable race and this is basically the motivation for the challenge I am about to propose. This is a direct extract of mine from another topic: This challenge stands for anyone. As a disclaimer I must make clear that I have nothing against any organised religion or the morality and stories they teach. The only thing I dislike about some religions are the overhwlming minority of fanaticals or fundamentalists whose opinions on thier chosen scripture go againt solid, honest science. Edit: This is not an attempt to 'convert' you or change your opinion or chosen belief in religion x in any way shape or form; this is scientifically motivated. People who accept the challenge should be those that believe that real, unbiased scientists have evidence and reasoning for earth being 6000 or so years old and evolution being fabricated nonsense. Rules for the challenge: 1) No useless, off topic flames; this is not a debate about the existance of a god/s. 2) If any site you provide in response to the challenge has any religous connotation or motivation, it does not qualify. 3) Any complaints about this topic aren't welcome here, this is not a complaint forum. 4) Any source which is not clear on the qualifications of the author or references will be questioned. As a conclusion for this post, the intention of this topic is to show those that may be fundamentalists (if they want to listen and contribute sensibly) that, if my presumptions are correct, no qualified scientists would certify that evolution is wrong and the earth is around 6000 years old and have credible evidence to back it up. It is also to show that the ultimate consensus in the scientific community is that evolution is sound and logical as are the techniques which claim that the earth is around 4.5 billion years old.

Totally agree with you there assassin. Defender, from what we have been discussing today, you would have to be the most ignorant, naieve, narrow minded individual I have ever met on these forums. And you wonder why this is so? Mate, open your mind, what the bible says is not th entirety of existance and scientists aren't wrong or evil (99% of the time :wink: ). Seriously, I'm trying to help you here as a last effort, don't just come to blind conclusions, try and form logical arguments on a source other than the bible or people will cut you down in flames and think your nuts, whether you see it or not.

I do not find anything wrong with incest. I do find it wrong for two closely related people to attempt to create a child, as statistically the chances for a disorder are high, but I really don't see anything morally wrong with incest. So it's weird, we get that, just because our society has taught us to think it's weird doesn't mean it's morally wrong in any way, shape, or form. And the fact that you don't even have enough evidence to convince yourself shows that you're point is weak beyond comparison. Omg dude, you believe in incest but you won't get it down with me? Is it cuz i'm white? I can change.. ! Okay, here you go, I took the time to fill out a order form to put you in the mental institution program. It helps you cope with reality. Enjoy. ~Defender~ Are you 11 years old? Grow up and learn how to function as a proper human being. Seriously, I am yet to see an argument from you that is strong or based on any logical reasoning in any way. Prove me wrong.

The idea that love being the greatest commandment doesn't come from the 10 Commandments, it's from the New Testament. Well ya learn something new every day. :P

After all this and you still haven't read them. Shame. And how would you know that? If my knowlege is so lacking, educate me on what you think i need to know.

I'm not a science nut. I'm not even an atheist. Still I think you're one of the most ignorant posters on this thread, you're rejecting evidence. What's evidence? An apple is red. This was seen by 6 billion people, everybody can see it's red. That's evidence. The world war II did happen. 500 million old people remember fighting in it even if you weren't alive. They all have no reason to lie. There's video tapes, there's photographs. That's evidence. The world was created in about 4.57 billion years. Read about it. That page has been edited by scholars with over 30 years of experience. Edit it if you feel like you're right. Negative, Evidence on Mans Best Guesses. Is a apple red? Yes 6 billion can agree. Did World War 2 happen? Yes, 6 billion can agree. Is the world billions of years old? Uhh.. a few dozen peeps can agree.. ~Defender~ If you call tens of thousands of world leading geologists, physicists and mathematians a few dozen then you really do have your head in the sand. Man's best guess is a culmination of years of work and thousands of minds put together for the same goal. If you don't accept any part of what they have to say, I'm sure they will be big boys about it, not care in the slightest and just get on with the job. You are forgetting that science is the best way to explain the universe we live in. You can thank scientific revelations for the fact that you're not living like a caveman so please, try not to bite the hand that feeds.

Sure. And as for this part... I didn't say you were trying to disprove the Christian religion. So I guess you can quit saying that (or I guess you already did, since it was the last time). Ok, now I see what you are saying. :P Obviously the ten commandments could rule over everyone if the Christian account is true. What I suppose I should have said was that 'not everyone uses the ten commandments as thier difinative list of moral values.'

Firstly, I would appreciate it if you could quote the specifi piece of writing which you though came across as me knowing little about Christianity. Secondly, and I'll say this one last time, I'm not trying to disprove the Christian religion on this topic or any related topics. When I argue about Christianity, chances are it will be me rebutting people who make claims that evolution is false and the earth is not billions of years old. I do this using science, not religion.

Of course you're entitled to your opinion. But it's useless if you don't have any knowledge to back your opinion up. Think of how ridiculous it would sound if I posted on a thread about the beginning of the Universe and my theory on how it began if I wasn't even familiar with current scientific theory. I have some knowlege on Christianity although it may not be as much as most Christians, that's precisely why I don't argue that christianity is wrong. That's why I argue that some of the comments that christains make (for example evolution is false and the earth is not billions of years old) are wrong by using something I know more about; science. And believe me, I also find it rediculous that the few fundamentalists here post on the fallacies of evolution and the techniques used to date the earth's age when they basically know next to nothing on the issue or find a site which is religously motivated and say to themselves 'this suits my argument perfectly.' I have nothing against religion, just some of the claims some religions followers make. I don't blame the religion for them making these claims either, I blame the people for flat out rejecting what some would argue is a special gift from God (science) to seek out the truth. And just for the record, I didn't pretend to know the commandments I listed were correct, that's why I invited anyonewith a better knowlege on the issue than me to correct them.

The fact that you don't like science or the way it is performed has no bearing on the techniques (such as radiometric dating) that scientists have used to calculate the earths age at approximately 4.5 billion years old. I could provide you with some sources if you'd like.

Double negative FTL. The ten commandments don't rule over everyone whether you like it or not. So sorry, thread stays open. I don't think you should be allowed to post on any thread regarding Christianity or the Bible anymore. You haven't even read the Ten Commandments... So I don't know the ten commandments off by heart and you have the right to say I shouldn't post on threads about Christianity or the Bible? Mate, I am entitled to my opinion just as much as the next guy and don't think you should be telling me where I can and cannot post.

Double negative FTL. The ten commandments don't rule over everyone whether you like it or not. So sorry, thread stays open.

The problem there is not everyone today believes in Christianity. Perhaps if there was some sort of spiritual revelation, there would be a off shoot bunch of skeptics years after the event as well. In other words, I think there could be no 'god given' absolutes unless god himself changes the very way we think. No, those are pretty much universal moral rules. The Ten Commandments would be one of those "documents" (or whatever, tablets) that contains the closest things to absolute morals that we can get. Sure, it's probably the closest thing, but the minority of the worlds population live thier lives by those 10 commandments. It's the best we have, but it's hardly universal. I'm not saying that everyone around the world follows the Ten Commandments, but that they follow basic moral rules, some of which are similiar or even nearly identical to the Ten Commandments. They may not follow some of the God related stuff, but the whole "love thy neighbor" and "thou shalt not kill" stuff is generally agreed upon throughout the world. How about (don't know the exact wording) 'thou shalt not take the lords name in vain' or 'thou shalt not worship any other god but me' Now as for the latter of the two, the majority of the worlds population ignore it. Feel free to correct my wording of these commandments.

I denie they a man believes he can determine hold old the earth is. What is their to proove him right? Particals in the air? right... ~Defender~ The decay of radioactive material and mathematical equations. Besides that, you didn't even respond properly to my previous post. Why can't you provide me an unbiased, purely scietific source that states that the earth is 6000 or so years old? The answer is you simply can not because everyone who claims this is motivated by thier religion. Not to mention they go against 99% of all scientific thinking. The challenge still stands and the more you avoid it, the more I will doubt your sanity as you, hypocritically, base you claims on guesses at best. Science and Religion are such different trains of thought and ways to reveal truth that they should not even be compared. If you keep asking for proof of absolutely every facit of life then there would be nothing left to discover would there? You would be on the same level as god and if I'm not mistaken, that's not possible.

The problem there is not everyone today believes in Christianity. Perhaps if there was some sort of spiritual revelation, there would be a off shoot bunch of skeptics years after the event as well. In other words, I think there could be no 'god given' absolutes unless god himself changes the very way we think. No, those are pretty much universal moral rules. The Ten Commandments would be one of those "documents" (or whatever, tablets) that contains the closest things to absolute morals that we can get. Sure, it's probably the closest thing, but the minority of the worlds population live thier lives by those 10 commandments. It's the best we have, but it's hardly universal.

Your views and concerns about the validity of science is misplaced. It's not guesswork, theres is absolutely no faith in science. My most recent post before this one applies to you too, read it.

How could we actually even discover one? Perhaps one person would say 'yes! Thats definately one!' Where as another would say 'are you crazy?' Case in point: any possible absolute moral we 'discover' would have to be either incredibly blatant and obvious, which begs the question why didn't we discover it a long time ago? Or it would have to be handed down through an obvious spiritual encounter which no one could fake or twist as a conspiracy theory. Wouldn't the commandments being given to Moses count as something like that, where he was given tablets of what are apparently absolute moral rules? The problem there is not everyone today believes in Christianity. Perhaps if there was some sort of spiritual revelation, there would be a off shoot bunch of skeptics years after the event as well. In other words, I think there could be no 'god given' absolutes unless god himself changes the very way we think.

Dunno how secure that source is, but I've heard it before aswell. Just something for you rain forest freaks. I think the reason rain forests get so much attention is all the cute and cuddly animals in there, well, the more cute and cuddly animal than slimy fishes and plankton anyhow. Just saying water pollution is more important than rain forests in the end. Is this in reference to climate change? Because the prolem with cutting down forests is not necessarily the lost oxygen production, but the lost carbon dioxide consumption. Sorry if I was totally off track there.

I like medievil architecture and gothic (the more evil looking the better :twisted: ). I also like the effect of copper tarnishing in CO2 to form that cyan colour copper (II) carbonate (CuCO3, chem nerd FTW). I'll see if I can dig up some pictures later. I also like all the modern buildings going on around the world today, incredible stuff.

How could we actually even discover one? Perhaps one person would say 'yes! Thats definately one!' Where as another would say 'are you crazy?' Case in point: any possible absolute moral we 'discover' would have to be either incredibly blatant and obvious, which begs the question why didn't we discover it a long time ago? Or it would have to be handed down through an obvious spiritual encounter which no one could fake or twist as a conspiracy theory.

Earth rock layers don't form at a constant rate. The earth is constantly changing and versatile. Radiometric dating is the key tool used to date the earth and many rocks dated by using it have been found mathematically to be billions of years old. It uses the decay of small amounts of radioactive materials (which is incredibly predictable) into more stable daughter isotopes. It's been proven time and time again that the earth is not 6000 years old. In fact, here's a challenge for you. Find me a source which has no religous connotations whatsoever that claims the earth is 6000 years old and the techniques used to come to such a conclusion. Just don't rack your brains on it because I can assure you the overwhelming majority of all sources you find (if not all) will have a religous motivation and only seek to critique valid science because they have no basis for thier own claims. This challenge stands for anyone. /\This is directed at you now, str0wez and defender/\. Radiometric dating. Look it up, you can't possibly disregard it unless you disregard matematics and the theory of radioactive decay. You, my friend are being fed false information from creationists that accuses scientists of being unsure or fabricating evidence. Again, radiometric dating, look it up on a source that dosen't include a religous agenda. & @ Satenza, I totally agree with the first half of your above post. The fact that parents and authoritarian church leaders can warp kids minds like that truly makes me sick. I don't mind what they believe. But if what they believe is false and every one in the real world tells them that they are obviously mistaken, they develop a thick skin and lose the ability to show empathy or think in a different mindset.

Firstly, literary schollars added up all of the 'begats' and the years people lived right down to adam and eve and calculated the world is around 6000 or so years old; some others came up with 10,000 or so. So if you take the bible literally, the going theory is that the universe is 6000 or so years old. Secondly, there is plenty of evidense and sensibility in the evolutionary theory, I'll provide you some sources through PM if you'd like. It gives it down to when he created Adam and Eve. Not to when he created the universe. Again the literal meaning of Genesis can be taken literally without being disputed. I would very well like some PM's proving that we evolved from single cell organisms. Creating the universe and creating Adam and Eve were, what, like 5 days apart? Insignificant when compared to 6000 years. I'll privide some sources via PM tomorrow. Just be sure to have an objective, open mind before you pass a hesitant judgement. As for the bold comment, what exactly do you mean by that? I'm not entirely sure of what you are trying to say there.

White Pride groups are nut cases. Imagine the likelyhood of an assasination fueled solely on the colour of Obama's skin. :uhh: I'll lose a lot of faith in humanity if that day ever comes, which I certainly hope it does not.