Is God real post your thoughts!

[dpattle]

"And there was evening and there was morning-the first day." Genesis 1:5

 

 

 

http://www.eadshome.com/Day.htm

 

 

 

One thing from that for those Christians out there that believe in the bible:

 

Exodus 20: 8-11:

 

"Remember the Sabbath day by keeping it holy. Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the LORD your God. On it you shall not do any work, neither you, nor your son or daughter, nor your manservant or maidservant, nor your animals, nor the alien within your gates. For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.

 

It's interesting for those who don't know, this is part of the 10 commandments. :

[Lenticular_J]

Can you please explain these points further? I do not understand them. And I think you miss-understood me on that last point.

 

What don't you understand? Tell me and I'll try to explain. I prefer using witty one-liners, though. And if I misunderstood you, okay. We'll just cruise past that part.

[Zierro]

1. We can not prove the existence of God, therefore we should operate under the assumption that he/she/it does not exist but we can remain open to the idea, that if the evidence comes in to support the existence of God, we should believe in him/her/it. We can not disprove God. We can not disprove anything. I can not disprove that manbearpig is not real, and neither can you.

 

 

 

Wait... So since we had no way of learning that the earth was round back in the past, then that suggested that there was a 99.9% chance of it being flat at the time being? I don't think those figures will change just because there is more evidence. There is always the same probability that a god can exist throughout time - more evidence just means that we can make more accurate guesses.

[pureprayer]

The sun's diameter is shrinking at the rate of five feet per hour. At this rate, life could not have existed on the earth 100,000 years ago.

 

:-w

[mmmcannibalism]

want to cite a source pure prayer?

 

 

 

I was reading through wikiquote.com einstein stuff and I am amazed. I officially found how to define what I believe. To paraphrase to the best of my abilities, Einstein believed that the pursuit of truth and pursuing an explanation for the universe was the true discovery of god. Just read through his quotes on wikiquote there is some amazing stuff in there.

[pureprayer]

Its "common" knowledge.

[warri0r45]

The sun's diameter is shrinking at the rate of five feet per hour. At this rate, life could not have existed on the earth 100,000 years ago.

 

:-w

 

 

 

Not even close to accurate.

 

 

 

http://www.asa3.org/aSA/PSCF/1986/PSCF9-86VanTill.html

 

 

 

In recent years, advocates of the young earth hypothesis have assembled numerous lists of "scientific evidences" for their recent creation scenario. In this paper we critically evaluate the scientific adequacy of one such evidential claim of "creation-science," viz., that the sun's diameter has been shrinking in such a manner as to preclude the credibility of the standard multibillion-year chronology for terrestrial history. Within the professional scientific community, a preliminary report which suggested a long-term and rapid shrinkage of the sun presented a puzzle for solar astronomers. Consequently, additional studies were made and the credibility of the original data was re-evaluated. The result is that secular shrinkage has not been substantiated, but an 80-year oscillatory behavior was discovered. Within the "creation-science" community, however, the response to the original report has been remarkably different. The suggestion of rapid long-term shrinkage was uncritically accepted, the evidence and conclusions drawn from subsequent studies were generally dismissed, and extrapolations of the presumed rapid solar shrinkage have been performed without restraint. Isolated from the corrective of continuing professional investigation and evaluation, the "creation-science" community continues to employ this unwarranted extrapolation of a discredited report as a scientific evidence" for a young earth. The credibility of the Christian witness to a scientifically knowledgeable world is thereby clouded.

 

 

 

This is exactly the kind of tactic creationists use to come up with the figures you quoted - holding onto the conclusions of isolated preliminary studies, ignoring contradictory evidence and avoiding critical analysis. That's not a scientific approach, it's a scientifically illiterate approach and feeds on the ignorance of the faithful who are taught to believe in creationism.

[pureprayer]

IF, as evolutionists claim, the earth is billions of years old, and mankind has evolved from a lower and simpler form of life, then why has mankind gone from writing upon stones to laser printers in just the past 3,500 years?

 

 

 

If evolution is true, then it took man billions of years to learn all these kindergarten lessons. And ironically, man has only learned these lessons in the past couple hundred years. You've got to be kidding me! Don't tell me that it took mankind BILLIONS of years to learn to wash his hands to prevent disease!

 

 

 

[mmmcannibalism]

Its "common" knowledge.

 

 

 

if its so common give me a good source

 

 

 

besides, nothing involving universal phenomena is common knowledge except what gravity is e=mc^2 and some other no duh stuff (ie a galaxy is big)

 

 

 

edit--

 

 

 

IF, as evolutionists claim, the earth is billions of years old, and mankind has evolved from a lower and simpler form of life, then why has mankind gone from writing upon stones to laser printers in just the past 3,500 years?

 

 

 

If evolution is true, then it took man billions of years to learn all these kindergarten lessons. And ironically, man has only learned these lessons in the past couple hundred years. You've got to be kidding me! Don't tell me that it took mankind BILLIONS of years to learn to wash his hands to prevent disease!

 

 

 

technological advancement is an exponential curve, once a species reaches the point of (my label) tech 2 technology they begin an exponential technology curve while having an irreconcilably altered evolution curve. Your mistaking evolution and technology they are entirely different.

[tryto]

The sun's diameter is shrinking at the rate of five feet per hour. At this rate, life could not have existed on the earth 100,000 years ago.

 

:-w

 

 

 

Not even close to accurate.

 

 

 

http://www.asa3.org/aSA/PSCF/1986/PSCF9-86VanTill.html

 

 

 

In recent years, advocates of the young earth hypothesis have assembled numerous lists of "scientific evidences" for their recent creation scenario. In this paper we critically evaluate the scientific adequacy of one such evidential claim of "creation-science," viz., that the sun's diameter has been shrinking in such a manner as to preclude the credibility of the standard multibillion-year chronology for terrestrial history. Within the professional scientific community, a preliminary report which suggested a long-term and rapid shrinkage of the sun presented a puzzle for solar astronomers. Consequently, additional studies were made and the credibility of the original data was re-evaluated. The result is that secular shrinkage has not been substantiated, but an 80-year oscillatory behavior was discovered. Within the "creation-science" community, however, the response to the original report has been remarkably different. The suggestion of rapid long-term shrinkage was uncritically accepted, the evidence and conclusions drawn from subsequent studies were generally dismissed, and extrapolations of the presumed rapid solar shrinkage have been performed without restraint. Isolated from the corrective of continuing professional investigation and evaluation, the "creation-science" community continues to employ this unwarranted extrapolation of a discredited report as a scientific evidence" for a young earth. The credibility of the Christian witness to a scientifically knowledgeable world is thereby clouded.

 

 

 

This is exactly the kind of tactic creationists use to come up with the figures you quoted - holding onto the conclusions of isolated preliminary studies, ignoring contradictory evidence and avoiding critical analysis. That's not a scientific approach, it's a scientifically illiterate approach and feeds on the ignorance of the faithful who are taught to believe in creationism.

 

 

 

 

 

Further information on this "argument" can be found on Talk Origins.

 

 

Akridge (1980) is also the primary source for the other line of argument, claiming that the shrinking of the sun has been measured. He bases this claim entirely on the results of Eddy & Boornazian (1979). Remarkably enough, it nevertheless appears as if he hasn't even read their paper he does not refer directly to it, but only to a popularization (Lubkin 1980, see ref in Akridge 1980). It is also interesting to note that Akridge implies that E&B observed 400 years of shrinking, whereas the title of the E&B paper is 'Secular decrease in the solar diameter, 1863-1953', with only a 90-year period. Despite these (and other) obvious flaws, Akridge's claim has nevertheless become standard creationist fare, repeated in numerous creationist publications, from Brown (1995) to Molén (1991).

 

 

 

Strahler (1987) reviews the data available at the time of Akridge's writing, and contrasts it with Akridge's (1980) presentation. He notes that

 

 

 

1. Eddy & Boornazian (1979) themselves do not interpret their result as evidence of an ongoing change. Their interpretation of their own data is dismissed out of hand by Akridge (1980).

 

2. Other measurements, not showing any significant shrinking, were available in 1980, but were completely ignored by Akridge (1980).

 

3. Subsequent measurements, published between 1980 and 1987, do not support Akridge's claim.

 

 

 

The issue of the solar diameter has become of some interest recently, with the arrival of precise helioseismological data. Eddington's (1920) argument against gravitational contraction, from the frequency stability of variable stars, applies with a vengeance to helioseismology, which is much more precise. Helioseismology is so precise today, that comparison between theoretical calculations and measurements require a better knowledge of the solar radius than is currently available. Furthermore, as the sun is not a solid body, it does not have a well-defined surface at which to measure the radius (Castellani & Degl'Innocenti & Fiorentini 1998). The difference between different definitions amounts to a century's worth of Akridge-shrinking, making it plausible that the apparent shrinking reported by Eddy & Boornazian (1979) might well be due to systematic errors when comparing data taken over long periods of time by different observers using different instruments and, quite possibly, different definitions.

 

 

 

A recent measurement of the solar diameter is that of Brown & Christensen-Dalsgaard (1998). From data taken over the period 1981-1988, they report a radius of 695,508 ± 26 km, with no evidence of change over time. The issue of surface definition is discussed at some length, leading to the conclusion that their definition is about 500 km smaller than that used in most previous estimates. Even over such a short period of time, their time series is sufficient to exclude an ongoing shrinking at the Akridge rate of five feet per hour, albeit at a modest statistical confidence level. I extracted the data from figure 2 in Brown & Christensen-Dalsgaard (1998) and did some line fitting, finding that the best fit to the data is a slight, statistically insignificant, growth of the diameter of the sun. No support whatsoever for shrinkage.

 

 

 

For a slightly longer time base, I'll use the value from Allen (1973), cited by both Brown & Christensen-Dalsgaard (1998) and Castellani & Degl'Innocenti & Fiorentini (1998) as the standard reference value before the 1990s. Working from Brown & Christensen-Dalsgaard (1998), I have re-calculated both their measurement, and that of Allen (1973) to what I believe is the same surface definition, obtaining a value for the angular diameter of the sun of 1919.31 ± 0.19 arcseconds in 1973, and 1919.359 ± 0.018 arcseconds on average 1981-1988. Akridge's alleged shrinkage corresponds to about 0.25 arcseconds over the same length of time, no trace of which is visible. It appears that the sun has stopped shrinking.

 

 

 

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-sol ... c430357875

 

 

 

IF, as evolutionists claim, the earth is billions of years old, and mankind has evolved from a lower and simpler form of life, then why has mankind gone from writing upon stones to laser printers in just the past 3,500 years?

 

 

 

If evolution is true, then it took man billions of years to learn all these kindergarten lessons. And ironically, man has only learned these lessons in the past couple hundred years. You've got to be kidding me! Don't tell me that it took mankind BILLIONS of years to learn to wash his hands to prevent disease!

 

 

 

 

 

Pfft. Modern Humans only evolved around 160,000 years ago the last discovery I checked, while evidence of any form of culture is a mere 50,000 years, according to National Geographic. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news ... 6_omo.html

 

 

 

As well, over this time, several ice ages and devastating environmental effects could and did occur.

[pureprayer]

Common knowledge is what "everybody knows", usually with reference to the community in which the term is used.

 

 

 

The spin rate of the earth is slowing .00002 second per year. If the earth were the billions of years old that the evolutionists say it is, the centrifugal force would have notably deformed the earth.

[tryto]

Common knowledge is what "everybody knows", usually with reference to the community in which the term is used.

 

 

 

The spin rate of the earth is slowing .00002 second per year. If the earth were the billions of years old that the evolutionists say it is, the centrifugal force would have notably deformed the earth.

 

 

 

Hmm. Maybe I'll just keep pasting from talk.origins.

 

 

 

The earth's rotation is slowing at a rate of about 0.005 seconds per year per year. This extrapolates to the earth having a fourteen-hour day 4.6 billion years ago, which is entirely possible.

 

 

 

The rate at which the earth is slowing today is higher than average because the present rate of spin is in resonance with the back-and-forth movement of the oceans.

 

 

 

Fossil rugose corals preserve daily and yearly growth patterns and show that the day was about 22 hours long 370 million years ago, in rough agreement with the 22.7 hours predicted from a constant rate of slowing (Scrutton 1964; Wells 1963).

[mmmcannibalism]

your really good at quoting "sources" out of thin air arent you pure prayer? give me some decent documentation for everything your saying, or im not going to put any stock in it

[pureprayer]

"applied all the laws of probability studies to the possibility of a single cell coming into existence by chance. He considered in the same way a single protein molecule, and even a single gene. His discoveries are revolutionary. He computed a world in which the entire crust of the earth - all the oceans, all the atoms, and the whole crust were available. He then had these amino acids bind at a rate one and one-half trillion times faster than they do in nature. In computing the possibilities, he found that to provide a single protein molecule by chance combination would take 10, to the 262nd power, years." (That is, the number 1 followed by 262 zeros.) "To get a single cell - the single smallest living cell known to mankind - which is called the mycroplasm hominis H39, would take 10, to the 119,841st power, years. That means that if you took thin pieces of paper and wrote 1 and then wrote zeros after (it), you would fill up the entire known universe with paper before you could ever even write that number. That is how many years it would take to make one living cell, smaller than any human cell!"

 

Looked at talk.origins couldn't find anything.

[mmmcannibalism]

have to go to bed soon, ill pick apart that quote when I get the chance (my apologies for the delay)

 

 

 

but first thing I noticed

 

 

 

10^119841 would not fill up the entire universe, thats a 1 and 119841 zeros, lets say my 0 takes up a square foot, that is only 119841 square feet wouldnt even cover the earth.

[pureprayer]

Ok think of it this way. If im one of the average obese Christians. What would you say to make me atheist?

[warri0r45]

your really good at quoting "sources" out of thin air arent you pure prayer? give me some decent documentation for everything your saying, or im not going to put any stock in it

 

 

 

Agreed. He also seems to like ignoring criticism and moving right on to the next bout of scientific illiteracy.

 

 

 

I'd just like to add that the source I cited is a great case study into the methods of creationism and how they come up with "evidence" for their claims (despite some typos in the article). It's also written by a Christian.

 

 

 

"applied all the laws of probability studies to the possibility of a single cell coming into existence by chance. He considered in the same way a single protein molecule, and even a single gene. His discoveries are revolutionary. He computed a world in which the entire crust of the earth - all the oceans, all the atoms, and the whole crust were available. He then had these amino acids bind at a rate one and one-half trillion times faster than they do in nature. In computing the possibilities, he found that to provide a single protein molecule by chance combination would take 10, to the 262nd power, years." (That is, the number 1 followed by 262 zeros.) "To get a single cell - the single smallest living cell known to mankind - which is called the mycroplasm hominis H39, would take 10, to the 119,841st power, years. That means that if you took thin pieces of paper and wrote 1 and then wrote zeros after (it), you would fill up the entire known universe with paper before you could ever even write that number. That is how many years it would take to make one living cell, smaller than any human cell!"

 

 

 

Yet more nonsense. The first problem is that abiogenesis doesn't propose the formation of larger modern day proteins in one evolutionary step (if I can assume for a minute what on earth the article means by "protein") - a more likely scenario would be the formation of short oligonucleotites or oligopeptides which have the ability to reproduce themselves. The second and even more ridiculous problem is that abiogenesis doesn't propose the formation of Mycoplasma in one single step. Like any other bacterial genus, Mycoplasma is modern and has been developing gradually for billions of years, not in one single step. The final flaw is that this kind of analysis assumes the necessity of one protein or one full bacterial species to form life from non-life. If you consider the formation of small autocatalytic, reproductive molecular systems, none of the probabilities you outlined are even remotely applicable to relevant theoretical models. In other words, if you actually listen to what biologists suggest when they talk about abiogenesis, your numbers mean nothing.

 

 

 

What you quoted is anything but revolutionary. It's full of flaws an undergraduate biology student can pick out.

[tryto]

"applied all the laws of probability studies to the possibility of a single cell coming into existence by chance. He considered in the same way a single protein molecule, and even a single gene. His discoveries are revolutionary. He computed a world in which the entire crust of the earth - all the oceans, all the atoms, and the whole crust were available. He then had these amino acids bind at a rate one and one-half trillion times faster than they do in nature. In computing the possibilities, he found that to provide a single protein molecule by chance combination would take 10, to the 262nd power, years." (That is, the number 1 followed by 262 zeros.) "To get a single cell - the single smallest living cell known to mankind - which is called the mycroplasm hominis H39, would take 10, to the 119,841st power, years. That means that if you took thin pieces of paper and wrote 1 and then wrote zeros after (it), you would fill up the entire known universe with paper before you could ever even write that number. That is how many years it would take to make one living cell, smaller than any human cell!"

 

 

 

You are calculating this assuming that it is based on chance, while biochemistry is obviously not chance.

 

 

 

" It occurs as the result of chemical mechanisms operating in accord with the laws of chemistrythe unaided, unguided, but lawlike invisible hand of the chemical interactions internal to the system. Ignorance, sometimes willful ignorance, of the organizing power of natural mechanisms operating in accord with laws of nature, is an old creationist failing."

 

 

 

You are assuming that there is only one possible form of cell, while in reality there are uncountable numbers of living molecules. You are ignoring that a huge amount of these "dice rolls" would be happening simultaneously, and assumes that the smallest molecule is also the simplest possible. In reality, there could literally be millions or billions of dice rolls occuring at once (the earth is a big place, and amino acids are tiny), and they have billions of years to work with.This is a farce.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Just post all your Hovind arguments or wherever you are pasting these from all at once.

[mmmcannibalism]

Ok think of it this way. If im one of the average obese Christians. What would you say to make me atheist?

 

 

 

obese? also, I wouldnt because im not an atheist. Im agnostic and follow Einstein's belief in pursuing the truth as the path to god, whether or not god exists doesnt matter because at least if there isnt im learning and hopefully benefiting human kind.

[pureprayer]

Ok think of it this way. If im one of the average obese Christians. What would you say to make me atheist?

 

 

 

obese? also, I wouldnt because im not an atheist. Im agnostic and follow Einstein's belief in pursuing the truth as the path to god, whether or not god exists doesnt matter because at least if there isnt im learning and hopefully benefiting human kind.

 

I have no clue why I put obese

[pureprayer]

That is when one animal (we'll use animals in this case) creates a whole new species right? Well wouldn't there have to be another of the new species to be able to reproduce and produce offspring.

 

 

 

Also pretend im a stubborn christian and try to make me an atheist.

[warri0r45]

That is when one animal (we'll use animals in this case) creates a whole new species right? Well wouldn't there have to be another of the new species to be able to reproduce and produce offspring.

 

 

 

Also pretend im a stubborn christian and try to make me an atheist.

 

 

 

Again, not even close to accurate. Why not google it? The answer is 5 seconds away and you could avoid looking like you have no idea what you're talking about.

 

 

 

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/e ... ated.shtml

 

 

 

Aside from that, I don't agree with roccodog at all. Punctuated equilibrium in no way answers how society has gone from hunter-gatherer beginnings to developing modern day technology. It's like invoking archeology to try and explain what you did last thursday.

 

 

 

I'd say modern advancement is mostly due to a formal system of writing and documentation which both open up a much better possibility for education. Not just writing on cave walls or things like that, I'm talking about a formal system of documentation like the Egyptians had on papyrus. In that way we can easily build on ideas rather than having most of them die off with the people who hold them. With writing and documentation we've been able to come up with and refine neat little ideas like the scientific method. Given a few thousand years, science has been able to come up with the theoretical underpinning of every amazing technology we have.

[pureprayer]

That is when one animal (we'll use animals in this case) creates a whole new species right? Well wouldn't there have to be another of the new species to be able to reproduce and produce offspring.

 

 

 

Also pretend im a stubborn christian and try to make me an atheist.

 

 

 

Again, not even close to accurate. Why not google it? The answer is 5 seconds away and you could avoid looking like you have no idea what you're talking about.

 

Googled it but I only checked one source. Not the right one.

[I_am_Geed]

I personally believe God is real

 

 

 

though im not happy with him at the moment, I believe everything we do is for a reason

[lobsta]

That is when one animal (we'll use animals in this case) creates a whole new species right? Well wouldn't there have to be another of the new species to be able to reproduce and produce offspring.

 

 

Absoultely not! Evolution occurs by process of accumulation over a period of time. With this in mind, a new species will not be created within one generation but over many.