http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=41977

This is my reply email.

I'm writing in regards to your Dec. 17th article "Why I Belive in Creation". There are numerous points of contention I would like to raise.

First, as regards no evolutionist calling into your radio program. I think it far more likely that no evolutionist listens to your program. Especially if it is specifically a creationist radio show, but even if it is simply a Christian one. Thus that point is at best inconclusive, most likely moot.

"The primary reason I believe, of course, is because the Bible tells me so. That's good enough for me, because I haven't found the Bible to be wrong about anything else. "

I take it you are ignorant of the discoveries unearthed in the tomb of Ramses II? Archaeologists discovered the body of his eldest son, buried with him. An autopsy revealed that the cause of death was not a God sent plague, unless an omnipotent being struck down the first born of Egypt with a hammer. The cause of death was massive blunt trauma to the back of the skull. Thus, the Bible has been proven wrong at least once.

"The evolutionists insist the dinosaurs lived millions and millions of years ago and became extinct long before man walked the planet.

I don't believe that for a minute. I don't believe there is a shred of scientific evidence to suggest it. I am 100 percent certain man and dinosaurs walked the earth at the same time. In fact, I'm not at all sure dinosaurs are even extinct! "

There are so many problems with these four sentences, I am uncertain where to begin. First, I should ask where the dinosaurs alive today are? People have claimed to see pteradactyls, but people also claim to see UFO's. Do you believe every time someone claims to have seen the Virgin Mary in a piece of toast? Have you never heard of carbon dating? The fossils of dinosaurs we have found are millions of years old. This is an empirical fact. And considering the Biblical age of the earth is somewhere in the realm of 6000 years, I am unable to see how there facts can be reconcilible.

Dragons are not the only creatures of myth. Where are the centaurs? Titans? Simply because things are written about does not mean they exist. You see, there is a type of literature known as fiction. Furthermore, breathing fire is at best chemically and biologically highly improbable.

"And what about the not-so-unusual sightings of contemporary sea monsters? Some of them have actually been captured. "

Exactly which sea monsters have been discovered? Giant squid? No one denies that they exist. I fail to see how this relates to your point, beyond a supply of irrelevant information you attempt to pass off as support for your arguement. And frankly, wouldn't such a proof of lore simply make the lack of contemporary evidence for dinosaurs more obvious?

"Evolutionists have put the cart before the horse. They start out with a theory, then ignore all the facts that contradict the theory. Any observation that might call into question their assumptions is discounted, ridiculed and covered up. That's not science. "

Pardon the language, but this is utter bullshit. If there were a single, solid piece of evidence that directly contradicted evolution the theory would have to be scrapped or at least severly re-worked. This is how science works. Science is a search for truth about the world, not a dedicated conspiracy to prove the Bible wrong.

I find it uttely contemptable that you accuse evolutionists of the very same faults of creationists. If a critique of a theory is ridiculed it is because the critique has no basis in reality, much like your article. Darwin developed the theory after studying what he found in his journey. He did not set out on the Beagle with the purpose of discovering proof for evolution. Unlike creationism, which believes it allready has the truth, handed out by a 2000 year old manuscript.



"How could all the thousands of historical records of dragons and behemoths throughout mankind's time on earth be ignored? Let's admit it. At least some of these observations and records indicate dinosaurs were walking the earth fairly recently – if not still walking it today.

If I'm right about that – which I am – then the whole evolutionary house of cards comes tumbling down.

This is the evidence about which the evolutionists dare not speak."

Once again, simply because a creature is part of mythic lore does not mean that it exists. There are many accounts of Jotuns in Norse mythology. Why have we unearthed no 5 meter tall skeletons? Myths and legends in no way, whatsoever, count as empirical evidence. Yet you would claim the as such.



People like you are the reason creationists are not taken seriously. You will say anything, no matter how absurd, or contraditcory of fact to support what you want to believe. That is not science, it doesn't even make sense. It simply makes you a foolish, misguided blowhard actively working against the discovery of truth.

Stephen Dabundo

Doubt you will get a responce like you said "the Bible says so" is proof enough for them.

"Have you never heard of carbon dating? The fossils of dinosaurs we have found are millions of years old. This is an empirical fact."

I agree with everything you said except the implication these three sentences create. It sounds as if you meant carbon dating is what showed the age of the dino bones; other isotopes were used to date them, along with our dating of the various strati of sediments; carbon deteriorates too fast for us to date anything over 15000 years old accurately, but it can provide useful estimates up to about 50000 years back.

quote:Originally posted by Optimus Prime:

"Have you never heard of carbon dating? The fossils of dinosaurs we have found are millions of years old. This is an empirical fact."

I agree with everything you said except the implication these three sentences create. It sounds as if you meant carbon dating is what showed the age of the dino bones; other isotopes were used to date them, along with our dating of the various strati of sediments; carbon deteriorates too fast for us to date anything over 15000 years old accurately, but it can provide useful estimates up to about 50000 years back.



I havent read anymore than exerpts from this... just wondering if anyone has read this (especially someone that might actually know whether it is true or false) and what they thought.

J. Woodmorappe, The Mythology of Modern Dating Methods

[QUOTE]Originally posted by SurahAhriman:

I take it you are ignorant of the discoveries unearthed in the tomb of Ramses II? Archaeologists discovered the body of his eldest son, buried with him. An autopsy revealed that the cause of death was not a God sent plague, unless an omnipotent being struck down the first born of Egypt with a hammer. The cause of death was massive blunt trauma to the back of the skull. Thus, the Bible has been proven wrong at least once.

This is not a flame, i am just wondering what makes you think that this is the same Pharaoh that the Bible was refering to. And also, if Ramses II is the king that the Bible refers to, how do we know that this son really was the first-born

The fossils of dinosaurs we have found are millions of years old. This is an empirical fact.

The only empirical fact in your statement is that we have fossils. The "dating" of millions of years is based on the interpretation of the facts (fossils/strata level that they were found/radiometric isotopes) and this interpretation is based on the bias that the Bible is wrong.

Creationists start from a different bias, that the Bible is God's Word.

The way i understand it, radiometric dating (the dating part, not the radiometric part) is really based on the idea that the geologic strata is the key and that they were laid down over millions of years. But there has been times when "100's of thousands of years" of strata layers laid down in a few weeks (Mount st. helens)(atleast, so i've heard... i didnt see it for myself and i didnt read about it). If this is true, then maybe the rock layers laid down over long periods of time is wrong, and then maybe the radiometric dating should be looked at with scrutiny.... as a matter of fact, it has been...

from Answers Book page 81

The isotope concentrations can be measured very accurately, but isotopes concentrations are not dates. To derive ages from such measurements, unprovable assumptions have to be made such as:

1. The starting conditions are known (for example, that there was no daughter isotope present at the start, or that we know how much was there).

2. Decay rates have always been constant.

3. Systems were closed or isolated so that no parent or daughter isotopes were lost or added.



Furthermore, breathing fire is at best chemically and biologically highly improbable.

I'm not saying that this is the case, just an idea, but lets assume for a minute that fire breathing dragons did exist. The possibility that the mechanism for breathing fire is not so far fetched... maybe something like the bombader (sp?) beetle. Like i said, just a thought.

If there were a single, solid piece of evidence that directly contradicted evolution the theory would have to be scrapped or at least severly re-worked. This is how science works. Science is a search for truth about the world, not a dedicated conspiracy to prove the Bible wrong.

Evolution is not a science searching for the truth. It is a belief that gives people the justification of doing their own thing (being a god unto ones self)... "if we are nothing more than animals, then there really is no 'right' or 'wrong', and therefore, no punishment after death."

quote:Originally posted by xtreem5150ahm:

[This is not a flame, i am just wondering what makes you think that this is the same Pharaoh that the Bible was refering to. And also, if Ramses II is the king that the Bible refers to, how do we know that this son really was the first-born



The names on the tombs say that he is the first born, he might only be the first one Ramses knew about.

quote:

I'm not saying that this is the case, just an idea, but lets assume for a minute that fire breathing dragons did exist. The possibility that the mechanism for breathing fire is not so far fetched... maybe something like the bombader (sp?) beetle. Like i said, just a thought.



there is gas inside mamals that burns, all that is needed is a way to light it.

Regarding what xtreem5150ahm says about dating using strata; Dating fossils by analyzing the strata they are found in is a perfectly scientific procedure without any bias. Theories about evolution, geological strata and many other theories are based on a simple principle: the world has worked the same way in the past that we can observe it working today. This means that observations we make about the world today can be be used to interpret things we find in the geological record.

For example: We can observe a river depositing sediment in a lake. We can look at the colors of the sediments; in the summer there is a thick layer of light sediments deposited, in the winter there is a thin layer of dark sediments deposited. If we watch for a few years we see the same thing happening every year. If we take core sampling of the lake bottom sediments we can observe that the lower layers get progressively thinner as they are compressed. We can observe that after many years of being compressed the lower layers are no longer really sediments, the particles have started binding together becoming sedimentary rock. This rock has a very distinctive look to it, and has physical properties that allow it to be identified anywhere. Early in the 1900's geologists made this very observation and english and german geologists set about several decades of analyzing and counting strata. Every thing was documented, landforms were analyzed, distictive strata patterns were noted all to make sure that no strata was counted twice. When all was tallied they had a number. A large number, much larger then the 20000 years that the bible stated as the age of the earth.

Did these geologists set out to disprove the bible? No. They were just scientists who made an observation, formulated a theory and applied it to the world around them. There was no bias invloved, and it's not as if they were co-operating to create false information (they were english and german, in the early 1900's, think about it). Anyone with the training and education could go out and duplicate what they did. Now exactly what part of this whole process is so unreasonable that it should be discarded as completely wrong just because it contradicts what the bible says?

The Bible says the universe was created on October 22nd 4004 BC at 9:30am, just over six thousand years ago. Some people even defend that age today.

Well...

Chemically speaking, other then ignition, there is most certainly NOTHING impossible about breathing fire.

Alchol would be perfect.

Some sort of fermentation stomach that naturally contains yeast or something perhaps?

I mean, our guts are naturally the home of millions of bacteria, and we can pump out small amounts of flamable hydrocarbons just as a byproduct of our digestive process.

Now if the organism in question say, developed such an adaptaion through natural selection, it would probably become quite effective.

The only really problem, of course, would be the ignition mechanism. I suppose it may be that certain organic compounds might react when mixed or something, in a way that appears similar to combustion, but thats just speculation.

However, as for decay rates not being constant... eek. Thats really getting speculative.

I mean, I've heard creationists try to explain away the whole starlight thing by making assertions of "c decay" (ie, that the speed of light in a vacuum is not constant).

Thats bollocks, plain and simple.

I mean... its like they think they can change a universal constant and nothing will happen!



I mean, it isn't like that little equation, you know, e=mc^2 has anything to do with the ammount of energy that is released during nuclear fission, and more importantly, fusion. And it isn't like arbitarily increasing the speed of light by say, a factor of 1000, would cause the ammount of energy put out by the sun to say... oh, I don't know... increase by a factor of 1000000. And I'm sure that this wouldn't violate conservation of energy/mass, or threaten life on earth.



Sorry, couldn't resist. That little piece of bullshit REALLY bugs me.

Along with people with PhD's in metalurgy lecturing me on their "interesting" brand of astrophysics, or physics, or chemistry.

Particularly when it is painfully obvious that I, a 17 year old student, just finished year 11, have greater "expertise" in physics, and an equal, but unbiased grounding in basic chemistry . It's really quite sad.

But I suppose thats what happens when idiots continually plagerize from each other, photocopying lies that they don't even understand, and present it as "Clear proof that evilotion is wrong!!!!!! PRAISE GOD!".

quote:Originally posted by dearestnight_falcon:

Sorry, couldn't resist. That little piece of bullshit REALLY bugs me.

Along with people with PhD's in metalurgy lecturing me on their "interesting" brand of astrophysics, or physics, or chemistry.

Particularly when it is painfully obvious that I, a 17 year old student, just finished year 11, have greater "expertise" in physics, and an equal, but unbiased grounding in basic chemistry . It's really quite sad.



It is hard to take any creationists seriously because of stuff like that. Ocasionally one of them makes a valid point but for every one of them there are many more who quote thirty year old discredited psudo-science that never made sence.

On the existance of dragons, I'll reference you to how Intuitor dealt with the subject on their review of Rain of Fire.

"The idea of a biological system for emitting flame as a defense or attack mechanism is pretty incredible but, surprisingly, there's at least one real world example of something similar, although far less dramatic. The bombardier beetle has a defense mechanism for producing tiny explosions that blast a mixture of hot liquids in a would-be predator's face. These liquids can reach temperatures of 100 degrees C. The tiny explosions are created using a complex system for storing and eventually mixing hydroquinone and hydrogen peroxide with enzymes. However, even if we concede that a flame producing mechanism, though unlikely, is at least conceivable, there are still numerous problems with the way it's depicted.

First there's the milkshake problem. Any energy transfer out of the dragon in the form of flames must first go into the dragon in the form of food. If we assume an energy conversion efficiency of 100 %, the dragon will have to consume about 60 milkshakes in order to expel the energy contained in a gallon* (3.8 liters) of gasoline. (Yes, we know the dragon doesn't use gasoline but it's a convenient unit of measurement.)

The complex process of converting food to fire would probably not be 100 % efficient. In other words, the dragon will have to take in considerably more energy in the form of food than he expels in the form of fire. For our purposes we'll assume a 50 % efficiency of converting food energy to fire energy.

In one scene, a dragon torches an entire convoy of armored vehicles melting tires and killing almost everyone. This required an enormous outpouring of energy which easily had to exceed the energy of 100 gallons (380 liters) of gasoline. The dragon would have had to consume the food energy equivalent of 12,000 milkshakes to make this one flame throwing run. He'd have to own a chain of Dairy Queens and spend several days ahead of time slurping shakes."



"There's also the flame fallacy to contend with. A flame does not have to impinge directly on an object to heat it up. A massive flame such as those expelled by the dragons would emit very large amounts of radiant heat in every direction including backwards. The dragon itself would get burned by the flame unless it was protected by a combination of heat-resisting insulation and a cooling system. It would not only need fire resistant scales but would probably also have to sweat massive amounts to keep itself from roasting.

Firefighters are well aware of this problem. The heavy bunker coats and other attire they wear are designed to insulate them from radiant heat. In addition, they will often wet down their coats before going near a particularly hot blaze, and depend on the water spray of their hoses to keep them from getting burned.

Propane gas flames are one of the hottest blazes fire fighters can face. These can happen at propane tank filling facilities when a flexible propane hose breaks. If the gas ignites, the end of the pipe becomes a giant blow torch. Firefighters are trained to walk up to this inferno by spraying a fine water mist in front of them with a fire hose. A firefighter then shuts off the nearest gas valve while his teammates keep the water spray going. Usually, additional hoses are trained on the fire to keep the area as cool as possible. If the water supply fails the team near the propane flame can receive burns before backing away even though they're wearing protective clothing and the flame is not impinging on them.

Finally, there's the weight-watcher's problem. A dragon has to carry a large supply of fuel, heavy armor plating, thermal insulation, an extremely rugged skeletal structure, and some form of cooling system in addition to the usual stuff like lungs, intestines, kidneys, etc. She's then supposed to be able to fly using rather small bat-like wings. It's pretty unlikely.

If you're tempted to write and tell us that "according to science the bumblebee can't fly", please don't. First, scientific models have been developed which do predict that bumblebees can fly. Second, complex aerodynamics such as those used by bumblebees don't scale up very well. The prevalence of flying insects compared to the absence of flying elephants should make this fairly clear."

And Xtreem, it's a rediculous bias to say that evolution is just trying to prove Christianity wrong. Science is a search for empirical truth, and something cliamed to be right, that is blatantly wrong, would result in mocking from the academic world. If research showed tommorrow that evolution couldn't occur, the evidence would be studied, and if correct, evolutionary theory would be discarded.

quote:

Evolutionists have put the cart before the horse. They start out with a theory, then ignore all the facts that contradict the theory. Any observation that might call into question their assumptions is discounted, ridiculed and covered up. That's not science.



Yikes, i cringed when i read that. Wasn't Darwin fairly reluctant in his findings? In my "government school" he was presented as someone who didn't want to believe in evolution but felt the facts were impossible to ignore.

I think there's a serious movement in some "wings" of christian believers to dispense with science completely. At some point someone got enough people together to basically say:

"hey, this is what we believe, its 100% true, you should believe it too, and i'm not going to apologize for the truth"

This is not necissarily a bad message, but it has empowered a lot of people to completely devalue education and the scientific method.

theBishop

Hey, like what's happened in America? http://www.totse.com/bbs/frown.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/frown.gif)

quote:Originally posted by theBishop:

Wasn't Darwin fairly reluctant in his findings?

I think Darwin though that he had figured out how God did it. He got in trouble because hie esplanation was diferent than Moses's.

quote:Originally posted by MasterPython:

I think Darwin thought that he had figured out how God did it. He got in trouble because his explanation was diferent than Moses'.

Yep. Little correction. But yep.

[This message has been edited by AngrySquirrel (edited 12-20-2004).]

quote:Originally posted by MasterPython:

I think Darwin though that he had figured out how God did it. He got in trouble because hie esplanation was diferent than Moses's.

Yes.

As for the idea that evolution was an excuse to get out of believing in the Christian God.

One word - Deism.

Thats what the non-christian intelectuals generally were before athiesm really became a valid choise.

That isn't to say there weren't atheists before, but I have to admit that an absolutely secular (neither theistic nor deistic) veiw of the origin of the universe that could actually be justified is relatively recent (a few centuries.)

But this has nothing to do with a lack of consequences!

Most athiests are very moral people!

I can't stress that enough.

People, as social creatures, do not need the threat of eternal fire to behave (mostly) in a socially acceptable manner.

The idea of being ostracized from society is a pretty big deterant as it is.

Besides, since in Christianity, so much as existing in an imperfect form is said to warrent eternal torture if you don't have Jesus, and Jesus can forgive all, except for blasphemy against the holy spirit, then the deterant factor of christianity really isn't that great, if it isnt negative.

I mean... you rape, torture, and kill 200 people. Accept Jesus... BAM, forgiven.

Its all rosey.... except for those copses... they're begining to smell pretty bad.

Now, the bit just above is my opinion, I admit, so correct me if I have some idea completely out of wack, rather then giving me a taste of firey hell online. http://www.totse.com/bbs/tongue.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/tongue.gif)

quote:Originally posted by SurahAhriman:

About Dragons.

Yeah... didn't want to piss everyone off with scrolling.

Yeah... the idea of a standard dragon would be pretty impossible.

But is the idea of an alcohol spewing beasty really that far fetched?

I mean, if they had a fermentation stomach (hey, cows have several stomachs) in which yeast or something resides, and they craved carbohydrates when it was going on empty, I don't really see that as being impossible.

Reign of fire... well... yeah.

Gasoline though... its primarily Hexane, its a great source of energy, thats why we use it.

Ethanol, on the other hand, is a pansy thing, but spewing a flaming mixture of Alcohol and other stuff at prey, then having it stick to it while its still burning might do something.

Although, I seem to remember that you can pour certain flamable liquids on your hand and light them without harm... Meh.

Certainly, anything on the scale of reign of fire is nuts, but, Alchohol spewing seems sorta feasable doesnt it?

Oh, I'm certain there would be some way to do it. The problem would be getting something that would be effecient as a defense mechanism. I doubt such a thing could occur in nature. In a lab, I wish they'd make dragons.

All of which does not change the fact that there aren't any now.

They still havent found the missing link. No bigfoot thing....nothing. Another the main reason that I believe in creationisum (although not literally, more like catastophysum or something.) is that it pisses the liberal eliteists off. Its the same garbage that they teach that says that race doesn't exist. (Jared Dimond...) That can easilly be disproved.

Left Disproving http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=38847

Right Disproving http://www.amren.com/0012issue/0012issue.html

Centralist Disproving http://www.world-science.net/

If thats so easilly disproved then why should I believe the intelectuals that spit on my religion?

Btw that was all I learned in anthropopogy 101. "Race is a cultural construct" "Age, sex, and gender are cutlural constructs"...

To the person who claimed that non creationist scientists start out assuming the bible is wrong.

1) Study your history more before you make stupid statements.

A large number of scientists who have disproved creationism were Christian.

The first Christians that disproved creationism were creationists.

The, "Evolutionists are just anti bible" crap is just another lie by the claimed morally superior (thats a laugh) head creationists.

2) Your interpretation of the bible is NOT the bible. Evolution does NOT disprove the bible, only a certain interpretation. The problem is that many creationists can't get over their big ego and realize that maybe they are reading the bible wrong. Some are willing to throw out the bible before they admit they are wrong. (So much for actually reading and learning the lessons in the book they claim to follow to the letter http://www.totse.com/bbs/biggrin.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/biggrin.gif) )

Edit: Creationism is a con, one of the oldest cons in the book, and it's sad that quite a few americans have fallen for it.

[This message has been edited by Beta69 (edited 12-20-2004).]

Dragons: The problem with dragons is the damage they can do to their environment. An animal of Human intelligence (also known as a Human) has enough problem with small camp fires and smoldering cigarette, often setting their areas on fire and killing themselves. An animal that is less intelligent than humans, with flamethrower breath, would quickly destroy itself and it's food supply.

quote:Originally posted by NightVision:

They still havent found the missing link. No bigfoot thing....nothing. Another the main reason that I believe in creationisum (although not literally, more like catastophysum or something.) is that it pisses the liberal eliteists off. Its the same garbage that they teach that says that race doesn't exist. (Jared Dimond...) That can easilly be disproved.

Left Disproving http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=38847

Right Disproving http://www.amren.com/0012issue/0012issue.html

Centralist Disproving http://www.world-science.net/

If thats so easilly disproved then why should I believe the intelectuals that spit on my religion?

Btw that was all I learned in anthropopogy 101. "Race is a cultural construct" "Age, sex, and gender are cutlural constructs"...

Umm... not all people on the left are so stupid to believe that race doesn't exist, but thanks for telling me what my beliefs are, and knocking down those particular beliefs that I didn't even know I held.

Oh wait... that would be a logical fallacy, aptly named straw man.

Fucking idiot.

You think Right, Left, Centrist represents all people?

Now, thinking I could find something else in your links worth fucking over, I bothered following a few of them, only to find they were about the same irrelavent garbage.

What the FUCK does race have to do with creationism?

Oh, and Jackass, do you think Darwin, who lived over 100 years ago, thought race didn't exist?

Honestly, you're just another stupid "FUKEN LIBRALS TAKIN MY TAXES, GEET OVER HERE CLARANCE, AND FIX MY TRUK!" moronic conservative.

Oh... and nice going with Bush.

Unlike you, us over here have a REAL conservative for a leader, rather then a spendthrift ape who opens the borders to illeagals, (I bet you bitch about "wetbacks" taking your job at walmart too), fucks over you ecomomy, hands hundreds of billions of dollars to the rich, and gets you into a quagmire war, that will be the final resting place for thousands of dickheads like you, who can't get an education (even if you did want it) because of budget cuts to education anyway!

I doubt there will need to be a draft, since the lower class is being squeezed so badly, you won't have any choise but to join the army in order to survive.

Now THATS a tangent.

Learn from a master.

quote:Originally posted by MasterPython:

The Bible says the universe was created on October 22nd 4004 BC at 9:30am, just over six thousand years ago. Some people even defend that age today.

Verse please?

I think what he's referring to wasn't actually in the bible. Some bishop traced the geneology of the bible back through generations and came up with that date.

NightVision, you should've paid more attention in your anthropology class. http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif) The reason they say stuff like age, race, and gender (I don't know where you heard this about sex) do not exist is because their definitions change depending upon the culture defining them.

For instance a white person from Brazil who hops on a plane to the States can become black when they land. These definitions are CULTURAL, not SCIENTIFIC. It's not that race doesn't exist, it's that no one can say empirically what race IS.

EDIT: wait a minute, I just reread your post. How do you go from "Race is a cultural construct," to, "Race doesn't exist."? C'mon man, THINK!

[This message has been edited by Tesseract (edited 12-20-2004).]

quote:Originally posted by NightVision:

They still havent found the missing link. No bigfoot thing....nothing. Another the main reason that I believe in creationisum (although not literally, more like catastophysum or something.) is that it pisses the liberal eliteists off. Its the same garbage that they teach that says that race doesn't exist. (Jared Dimond...) That can easilly be disproved.

Left Disproving http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=38847

Right Disproving http://www.amren.com/0012issue/0012issue.html

Centralist Disproving http://www.world-science.net/

If thats so easilly disproved then why should I believe the intelectuals that spit on my religion?

Btw that was all I learned in anthropopogy 101. "Race is a cultural construct" "Age, sex, and gender are cutlural constructs"...

Hm. Whats more elitist, dipshit? Accepting everyone and working to help the less fortunate, or telling everyone that unless they believe in your invisable man in the sky, they go to hell. Oh, and you have a monopoly on moroality dispite all evidence to the contrary. Fucktard.

Looks like im allrerady pissing off the liberal intelectuals http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif) Actuially I dont't consider myself a conservitive. Mre of a blend of Libertarian and conservitive.



New research casts doubt on the widely accepted belief that humans are 99.9 percent genetically identical. That statement has been used to argue that race isn't real.

For years, mainstream scientists have said there are no real racial differences among people. Race is purely a “social construct” – in other words, it’s imaginary, some have argued.

But two new studies raise doubts about a key calculation on which this argument rests.

http://www.world-science.net/exclusives/exclusives-nfrm/040908_race.htm

RACE IS BIOLOGICAL http://www.suntimes.com/output/letters/cst-edt-vox19a.html

quote:Originally posted by madamwench:

Verse please?



Someone at Cambridge worked it out by adding up the ages of people from Adam to Jesus or something. It works fine if you believe that God created the universe in six days and dictated Genesis to Moses and all the ages are corect. Aparently if you get a Bible from that time the dates of events are writen in the margins.

So? A little doubt never hurt. I say again, no one can say empirically what race IS.

As to not get too OT, I liked your original post, SurahAhriman. Easily read, and civil too.

quote:Originally posted by NightVision:

Looks like im allrerady pissing off the liberal intelectuals http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif) Actuially I dont't consider myself a conservitive. Mre of a blend of Libertarian and conservitive.



New research casts doubt on the widely accepted belief that humans are 99.9 percent genetically identical. That statement has been used to argue that race isn't real.

For years, mainstream scientists have said there are no real racial differences among people. Race is purely a “social construct” – in other words, it’s imaginary, some have argued.

But two new studies raise doubts about a key calculation on which this argument rests.

http://www.world-science.net/exclusives/exclusives-nfrm/040908_race.htm

RACE IS BIOLOGICAL http://www.suntimes.com/output/letters/cst-edt-vox19a.html

Uh huh... liberal elitist. Right...

Funny enough, I'm a libertarian too.

Anyway... what the hell does race have to do with creationism?

And yes, race exists.

No duh its biological.

No one, not even the fabled "liberal elitists" would claim that the dude over there with dark skin is exactly the same in every way as the dude with light skin, and none of these fabled "liberal elitists" would expect two people with dark skin to have a light skinned child.

You use of the term "liberal" automatically labels you as a loudmouth ignoramous "conservative".

I use inverted commers, because I do have respect for real conservatives, as opposed to backwards idiots.

I mean, come on, you claim you believe something just to piss off "liberal elitists".

What the fuck?

/\ lol. You respect neo-cons... I was using the race argument as an analogy aginst the creationisum/evolutionisum debate.

"And yes, race exists.

No duh its biological." The professors said race was a cultural construct and most professors are very liberal.

I'd rather not have some liberals version of science shoved down my throat. They've turned it into a religion. Seperation of church and state anyone lol?

And check out vdare.com there libertarians too...

quote:Originally posted by NightVision:

/\ lol. You respect neo-cons... I was using the race argument as an analogy aginst the creationisum/evolutionisum debate.

"And yes, race exists.

No duh its biological." The professors said race was a cultural construct and most professors are very liberal.

I'd rather not have some liberals version of science shoved down my throat. They've turned it into a religion. Seperation of church and state anyone lol?

And check out vdare.com there libertarians too...

I looked at vdare. And I'm rather baffled. What the fuck are they trying to promote? Whatever it is, they're doing a shitty job of it.

Now. What the fuck is a "liberals version of science"? Thats the thing about science. It's empirical. People like you just claim otherwise because they're too cowardly to awknowledge that their beliefs have no basis in reality.



And yeah, my origianl post was alot more civil than I normally am. I figured it was more appropriate, and more apt to be actually read.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Beta69:

A large number of scientists who have disproved creationism were Christian.

The first Christians that disproved creationism were creationists.

Actually, no one has disproven special creation. Disproving it, would disprove the Bible. Disproving that would disprove God. And it has been said..even in TOTSE.. that you can neither prove that God exists (without Him revealing Himself) or disproving Him. Those first Christians that you say "disproved" creation, was a way to reconcile their belief in God with what they thought they observed.

The, "Evolutionists are just anti bible" crap is just another lie by the claimed morally superior (thats a laugh) head creationists.

Whether an evolutionist is anti-Bible or not, depends on that particular person. But particles-to-people evolution and the Bible are mutually exclusive because millions and billions of years puts death/disease/destruction before the fall of man.

2) Your interpretation of the bible is NOT the bible. Evolution does NOT disprove the bible, only a certain interpretation. The problem is that many creationists can't get over their big ego and realize that maybe they are reading the bible wrong.

Well, you help me then? Here is Gen 1:1-5 taken from the Literal Bible with Strong's numbers..

1. |7225| In the beginning |1254| created |0430| God |0853| - |8064| the heavens |0853| and |0776| the earth

2. |0776| and the earth |1961| was |8414| without form |0922| and empty, |2822| and darkness |5921| on |6440| the surface of |8415| the deep |7307| and the Spirit of |0430| God |7363| moving gently |5921| on |6440| the surface of |4325| the waters.

3. |0559| Then said |0430| God, |1961| Let be |0216| light |1961| and was |0216| light.

4. |7200| And saw |0430| God |0853| - |0216| the light |3588| that |9999| {it was} |2896| good |0914| and separated |0430| God |0996| between |0216| the light |0996| and |2882| the darkness.

5. |7121| And called |0430| God |0216| the light |3117| "day," |2822| and the darkness |7121| He called |3915| "night" |1961| and was |6153| evening, |1961| and {it} was |1242| morning, |3117| day |0259| one.

In fact, even Jesus took Genisis as literal...Matthew 19:4

4. |3588| he |1161| And |0611| answering |2036| said, |3756| not |0314| Did you read |3754| that |3588| He |4160| who created |0575| from |0746| beginning |0730| male |2532| and |2338| female |4160| made |0846| them?

Some are willing to throw out the bible before they admit they are wrong. (So much for actually reading and learning the lessons in the book they claim to follow to the letter

At best, the Christians that think the Bible is wrong, are just mistaken. But the ones that knowingly throw out the God's Word to be replaced by what man says is true, are sellouts. I met a pastor this past summer that said that he does not believe the Bible literally. I say, if the first book is wrong, then the rest of the books are wrong...but if Genesis is right, now you have a base for understanding and believing the rest of God's Word.

Edit: Creationism is a con, one of the oldest cons in the book, and it's sad that quite a few americans have fallen for it.

Particles-to-People evolution is the con. Some knowingly carry the con further, and some just suck it in... hard not to, it is propagandized just about everywhere you look.

quote:Originally posted by SurahAhriman:

And Xtreem, it's a rediculous bias to say that evolution is just trying to prove Christianity wrong. Science is a search for empirical truth, and something cliamed to be right, that is blatantly wrong, would result in mocking from the academic world. If research showed tommorrow that evolution couldn't occur, the evidence would be studied, and if correct, evolutionary theory would be discarded.

Hmmm, fossils date the rocks and rocks date the fossils. I know this is very overerly simplified but there is no mocking from the academic world with this, but it seems to me that in order to use one to date the other, we would need ABSOLUTE knowledge of the date of one or the other.

did you read my post you retard?

quote:Originally posted by MasterPython:

The Bible says the universe was created on October 22nd 4004 BC at 9:30am, just over six thousand years ago. Some people even defend that age today.



NOpe, the Bible does not say that. It was said by some Monk in the (i think) 15th century.

So much "debunking" and still no comment on my post.

quote:Originally posted by Quantized:

did you read my post you retard?



The isotope concentrations can be measured very accurately, but isotopes concentrations are not dates. To derive ages from such measurements, unprovable assumptions have to be made such as:

1. The starting conditions are known (for example, that there was no daughter isotope present at the start, or that we know how much was there).

2. Decay rates have always been constant.

3. Systems were closed or isolated so that no parent or daughter isotopes were lost or added.

Edit.. sorry, i was incomplete on this post... the same would go for sedimentation.. dont know starting conditions/ water flow being constant (year to year and thoughout the year)/.. ok # doesnt seem to fit in this example..

[This message has been edited by xtreem5150ahm (edited 12-21-2004).]

quote:Originally posted by SurahAhriman:

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=41977

This is my reply email.

I'm writing in regards to your Dec. 17th article "Why I Belive in Creation". There are numerous points of contention I would like to raise.

First, as regards no evolutionist calling into your radio program. I think it far more likely that no evolutionist listens to your program. Especially if it is specifically a creationist radio show, but even if it is simply a Christian one. Thus that point is at best inconclusive, most likely moot.

"The primary reason I believe, of course, is because the Bible tells me so. That's good enough for me, because I haven't found the Bible to be wrong about anything else. "

I take it you are ignorant of the discoveries unearthed in the tomb of Ramses II? Archaeologists discovered the body of his eldest son, buried with him. An autopsy revealed that the cause of death was not a God sent plague, unless an omnipotent being struck down the first born of Egypt with a hammer. The cause of death was massive blunt trauma to the back of the skull. Thus, the Bible has been proven wrong at least once.

"The evolutionists insist the dinosaurs lived millions and millions of years ago and became extinct long before man walked the planet.

I don't believe that for a minute. I don't believe there is a shred of scientific evidence to suggest it. I am 100 percent certain man and dinosaurs walked the earth at the same time. In fact, I'm not at all sure dinosaurs are even extinct! "

There are so many problems with these four sentences, I am uncertain where to begin. First, I should ask where the dinosaurs alive today are? People have claimed to see pteradactyls, but people also claim to see UFO's. Do you believe every time someone claims to have seen the Virgin Mary in a piece of toast? Have you never heard of carbon dating? The fossils of dinosaurs we have found are millions of years old. This is an empirical fact. And considering the Biblical age of the earth is somewhere in the realm of 6000 years, I am unable to see how there facts can be reconcilible.

Dragons are not the only creatures of myth. Where are the centaurs? Titans? Simply because things are written about does not mean they exist. You see, there is a type of literature known as fiction. Furthermore, breathing fire is at best chemically and biologically highly improbable.

"And what about the not-so-unusual sightings of contemporary sea monsters? Some of them have actually been captured. "

Exactly which sea monsters have been discovered? Giant squid? No one denies that they exist. I fail to see how this relates to your point, beyond a supply of irrelevant information you attempt to pass off as support for your arguement. And frankly, wouldn't such a proof of lore simply make the lack of contemporary evidence for dinosaurs more obvious?

"Evolutionists have put the cart before the horse. They start out with a theory, then ignore all the facts that contradict the theory. Any observation that might call into question their assumptions is discounted, ridiculed and covered up. That's not science. "

Pardon the language, but this is utter bullshit. If there were a single, solid piece of evidence that directly contradicted evolution the theory would have to be scrapped or at least severly re-worked. This is how science works. Science is a search for truth about the world, not a dedicated conspiracy to prove the Bible wrong.

I find it uttely contemptable that you accuse evolutionists of the very same faults of creationists. If a critique of a theory is ridiculed it is because the critique has no basis in reality, much like your article. Darwin developed the theory after studying what he found in his journey. He did not set out on the Beagle with the purpose of discovering proof for evolution. Unlike creationism, which believes it allready has the truth, handed out by a 2000 year old manuscript.



"How could all the thousands of historical records of dragons and behemoths throughout mankind's time on earth be ignored? Let's admit it. At least some of these observations and records indicate dinosaurs were walking the earth fairly recently – if not still walking it today.

If I'm right about that – which I am – then the whole evolutionary house of cards comes tumbling down.

This is the evidence about which the evolutionists dare not speak."

Once again, simply because a creature is part of mythic lore does not mean that it exists. There are many accounts of Jotuns in Norse mythology. Why have we unearthed no 5 meter tall skeletons? Myths and legends in no way, whatsoever, count as empirical evidence. Yet you would claim the as such.



People like you are the reason creationists are not taken seriously. You will say anything, no matter how absurd, or contraditcory of fact to support what you want to believe. That is not science, it doesn't even make sense. It simply makes you a foolish, misguided blowhard actively working against the discovery of truth.

Stephen Dabundo

You should have pointed out the fact That scientists can calculate the speed at which light from far away stars takes to reach the earth. The light from alot of them took a hell of alot more time than 6000 yrs to get here.



[This message has been edited by Nemisis (edited 12-21-2004).]

quote:Originally posted by Quantized:

So much "debunking" and still no comment on my post.



i just read your "retard" post... maybe i should read the last page first and the first page last?

Considering you also posted on the first page, yes I assumed you had read it.

[This message has been edited by Quantized (edited 12-21-2004).]

quote:Originally posted by Nemisis:

You should have pointed out the fact That scientists can calculate the speed at which light from far away stars takes to reach the earth. The light from alot of them took a hell of alot more time than 6000 yrs to get here.

[This message has been edited by Nemisis (edited 12-21-2004).]

this IS THE ONLY anti-creationist arguement that has not been answered effectively. far as im concerned, C-decay is a grasp at straws. I have read a possible answer to the problem (based on perspective), but it still fails to explain 6 day creation.

quote:Originally posted by Quantized:

Considering you also posted on the first page, yes I assumed you had read it.

[This message has been edited by Quantized (edited 12-21-2004).]



the first page was a few days ago.. i have a life outside totse... job, family, etc.

didnt have much time to spend on the computer the last few days.

Sorry, no offense was intended. Refering to my original post; What part of the entire process of using sedimentary rock to calculate a minimum age for the earth was completely wrong? That's what you're infering isn't it? That because it contradicts the bible it must be wrong. So how is it wrong?

quote:Originally posted by Quantized:

Sorry, no offense was intended. Refering to my original post; What part of the entire process of using sedimentary rock to calculate a minimum age for the earth was completely wrong? That's what you're infering isn't it? That because it contradicts the bible it must be wrong. So how is it wrong?



check out my edited post 3 or so posts back. i'll put more effort into it if this was insufficient.. but not now, almost bedtime and want to read a few more posts..

PS i didnt take offense at the "retard" comment, my step-daughters call me this all the time (and with a smile) and i take it as "badge of honor"

Sufficient? I don't see anything you've posted that even remotely refutes what I said.

This is the post i was referring to:

quote:Originally posted by xtreem5150ahm:



The isotope concentrations can be measured very accurately, but isotopes concentrations are not dates. To derive ages from such measurements, unprovable assumptions have to be made such as:

1. The starting conditions are known (for example, that there was no daughter isotope present at the start, or that we know how much was there).

2. Decay rates have always been constant.

3. Systems were closed or isolated so that no parent or daughter isotopes were lost or added.

Edit.. sorry, i was incomplete on this post... the same would go for sedimentation.. dont know starting conditions/ water flow being constant (year to year and thoughout the year)/.. ok # doesnt seem to fit in this example..

[This message has been edited by xtreem5150ahm (edited 12-21-2004).]

The water flow is not a factor, each year there is one light layer and one dark layer, the only difference that water flow has on it is the thickness of the layers. The amount of sedimentation is determined by flow but the color is determined by season.

One light/dark pairing = one year

Counting all of the strata = number larger then supposed age of earth

How do you explain this?

Xtreem:

quote:Actually, no one has disproven special creation. Disproving it, would disprove the Bible. Disproving that would disprove God. And it has been said..even in TOTSE.. that you can neither prove that God exists (without Him revealing Himself) or disproving Him. Those first Christians that you say "disproved" creation, was a way to reconcile their belief in God with what they thought they observed.

Wow, what a stupid thing to do, rest your entire faith on whether creationism is true or not. Strong atheists love you, as you make a great target, since evolution is true, you have just given them a way to disprove christianity. Congrats on helping atheists. http://www.totse.com/bbs/biggrin.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/biggrin.gif)

Did you know that the first evidence against creationism discovered by christian creationists has yet to be answered by creationists? http://www.totse.com/bbs/biggrin.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/biggrin.gif) Since I doubt you know, the first evidence against YEC was against the flood. The finding of the fossil record and geological column.

So far creationists cannot answer why the fossil record and geological column are the way they are. They try to dodge it by saying lies like "The geological column doesn't exist." or "Water can sort fossils exactly how we see in the fossil record." etc. But those are lies.



quote:particles-to-people evolution and the Bible are mutually exclusive because millions and billions of years puts death/disease/destruction before the fall of man.

Particles to people, Haha.

If you read the bible non literally that doesn't matter.



quote:Well, you help me then? Here is Gen 1:1-5 taken from the Literal Bible with Strong's numbers..

Sure thing, its all metaphor. Metaphor to explain ideas about god. Or its all BS. Heh That was simple.



quote:In fact, even Jesus took Genisis as literal...Matthew 19:4

Where does it say that?

I read,

God created the universe.

God created Male and Female.

Many non literalists believe that. I don't see anything there that says, "Genesis is literal"



quote:I say, if the first book is wrong, then the rest of the books are wrong...but if Genesis is right, now you have a base for understanding and believing the rest of God's Word.

Total bullshit. Since the books are written by multiple people, you cant throw out the collection because one book is wrong, a metaphorical genesis is still Right but not literal. You need to learn that something can still be right and metaphor at the same time. Maybe you should learn exactly how non literalists think.

Wait, nevermind, sure I like your idea, christianity is wrong, cool.



quote:Hmmm, fossils date the rocks and rocks date the fossils.

I would recommend you stop spouting pre made creationist lines and go and get a real education.

You are most likely referring to index fossils.

Index fossils are used as such,

•Rocks date the fossils, lets say fossil A

•It is discovered that fossil A is found only within a certain rock layer.

•Fossil A becomes an index fossil.

•If Fossil A is found at a future dig, it can be roughly assumed that that layer is a certain age. If questioned dating can be done to the rocks to make sure.



quote:The isotope concentrations can be measured very accurately, but isotopes concentrations are not dates. To derive ages from such measurements, unprovable assumptions have to be made such as:

1. The starting conditions are known (for example, that there was no daughter isotope present at the start, or that we know how much was there).

2. Decay rates have always been constant.

3. Systems were closed or isolated so that no parent or daughter isotopes were lost or added.

1. Bullshit. When dealing with K-Ar dating (one of the most picked on) statistically we can assume that there is no significant daughter isotope present, but it is never a solid assumption. When using K-Ar it is always possible that daughter isotopes are in a high enough concentration to mess up the date. But guess what, we can check that by using Ar-Ar dating on the sample. Something that creationists never do because they know it would put a whole in their article.

2. No reason to assume they haven't. Higher decay rates means higher radiation, nothing like a melted earth. Different decay methods agree with each other, and a change in decay rate would also effect star outputs which could be observed, and might even pop a few stars.

3. Just like number 1, only creationists seem to think that this assumption is 100% perfect. In a perfect world that would be the case, but it's not perfect, so we have ways to get around problems and double check results.



Edit: I should say that It's not your fault you thought you could trust creationist companies.

Which company do you get your info from? Particles to people and dating assumptions sounds like AiG but the index fossils sound like Dino.

[This message has been edited by Beta69 (edited 12-21-2004).]

Not to mention that virtually the entire study of cosmology dates the universe older than the Bible.



And this is getting off topic, but I'm enjoying it.

quote:Originally posted by NightVision:

/\ lol. You respect neo-cons... I was using the race argument as an analogy aginst the creationisum/evolutionisum debate.

"And yes, race exists.

No duh its biological." The professors said race was a cultural construct and most professors are very liberal.

I'd rather not have some liberals version of science shoved down my throat. They've turned it into a religion. Seperation of church and state anyone lol?

And check out vdare.com there libertarians too...

hehe... ok.. I might try and be civil now. http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)

No, I don't respect neo-cons. By backwards, I meant pushing us backwards, rather then actually being old.

I'm a great fan of the more moderate republicans, because they generally stand for responsibility, both social and fiscal.

The hijacking of the repbublican party by the Christian Right pisses me off to no end, however, they are in for a rude shock when they realize that asshole puppets they have installed don't live up to their end of the bargain.

Meh, I haven't ever been to an American University, so I'm not really in a position to comment on the professors, over here, as a stereotype, professors are just plane bastards, conservative OR liberal.

mm, sorry bout being an arsehole earlier in the thread Nightvision.

I always seem to act like a troll in this forum. http://www.totse.com/bbs/frown.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/frown.gif)

Accidentally too.

quote:Originally posted by Quantized:

The water flow is not a factor, each year there is one light layer and one dark layer, the only difference that water flow has on it is the thickness of the layers. The amount of sedimentation is determined by flow but the color is determined by season.

One light/dark pairing = one year

Counting all of the strata = number larger then supposed age of earth

How do you explain this?



I'll take a stab at this, time permitting, to night after work.

Xtreem:

quote:Actually, no one has disproven special creation. Disproving it, would disprove the Bible. Disproving that would disprove God. And it has been said..even in TOTSE.. that you can neither prove that God exists (without Him revealing Himself) or disproving Him. Those first Christians that you say "disproved" creation, was a way to reconcile their belief in God with what they thought they observed.

Wow, what a stupid thing to do, rest your entire faith on whether creationism is true or not. Strong atheists love you, as you make a great target, since evolution is true, you have just given them a way to disprove christianity. Congrats on helping atheists.

Did you know that the first evidence against creationism discovered by christian creationists has yet to be answered by creationists? Since I doubt you know, the first evidence against YEC was against the flood. The finding of the fossil record and geological column.

So far creationists cannot answer why the fossil record and geological column are the way they are. They try to dodge it by saying lies like "The geological column doesn't exist." or "Water can sort fossils exactly how we see in the fossil record." etc. But those are lies.



quote http://www.totse.com/bbs/tongue.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/tongue.gif)articles-to-people evolution and the Bible are mutually exclusive because millions and billions of years puts death/disease/destruction before the fall of man.

Particles to people, Haha.

If you read the bible non literally that doesn't matter.



quote:Well, you help me then? Here is Gen 1:1-5 taken from the Literal Bible with Strong's numbers..

Sure thing, its all metaphor. Metaphor to explain ideas about god. Or its all BS. Heh That was simple.



quote:In fact, even Jesus took Genisis as literal...Matthew 19:4

Where does it say that?

I read,

God created the universe.

God created Male and Female.

Many non literalists believe that. I don't see anything there that says, "Genesis is literal"



quote:I say, if the first book is wrong, then the rest of the books are wrong...but if Genesis is right, now you have a base for understanding and believing the rest of God's Word.

Total bullshit. Since the books are written by multiple people, you cant throw out the collection because one book is wrong, a metaphorical genesis is still Right but not literal. You need to learn that something can still be right and metaphor at the same time. Maybe you should learn exactly how non literalists think.

Wait, nevermind, sure I like your idea, christianity is wrong, cool.



quote:Hmmm, fossils date the rocks and rocks date the fossils.

I would recommend you stop spouting pre made creationist lines and go and get a real education.

You are most likely referring to index fossils.

Index fossils are used as such,

•Rocks date the fossils, lets say fossil A

•It is discovered that fossil A is found only within a certain rock layer.

•Fossil A becomes an index fossil.

•If Fossil A is found at a future dig, it can be roughly assumed that that layer is a certain age. If questioned dating can be done to the rocks to make sure.



quote:The isotope concentrations can be measured very accurately, but isotopes concentrations are not dates. To derive ages from such measurements, unprovable assumptions have to be made such as:

1. The starting conditions are known (for example, that there was no daughter isotope present at the start, or that we know how much was there).

2. Decay rates have always been constant.

3. Systems were closed or isolated so that no parent or daughter isotopes were lost or added.

1. Bullshit. When dealing with K-Ar dating (one of the most picked on) statistically we can assume that there is no significant daughter isotope present, but it is never a solid assumption. When using K-Ar it is always possible that daughter isotopes are in a high enough concentration to mess up the date. But guess what, we can check that by using Ar-Ar dating on the sample. Something that creationists never do because they know it would put a whole in their article.

2. No reason to assume they haven't. Higher decay rates means higher radiation, nothing like a melted earth. Different decay methods agree with each other, and a change in decay rate would also effect star outputs which could be observed, and might even pop a few stars.

3. Just like number 1, only creationists seem to think that this assumption is 100% perfect. In a perfect world that would be the case, but it's not perfect, so we have ways to get around problems and double check results.



Edit: I should say that It's not your fault you thought you could trust creationist companies.

Which company do you get your info from? Particles to people and dating assumptions sounds like AiG but the index fossils sound like Dino.

This too, time permitting, after work. We are putting big hours in and getting home late.

quote.. Beta69

Wow, what a stupid thing to do, rest your entire faith on whether creationism is true or not. Strong atheists love you, as you make a great target, since evolution is true, you have just given them a way to disprove christianity. Congrats on helping atheists.

My Faith rests in God. If God is true, then His Word is true. If His Word is true, then He created in 6 literal days. If He created in 6 literal days, then particles-to-people evolution is false.

You think i'm a target of atheist's? Hardly. Their real target is the God that they dont think exists.

You must think that atheists are dimwits, if you think that i just showed them the way to disprove Christianity. However, atheist should have been able to see this long before i was born.

Also, the absolute, only way that God could be disproved, is if He didnt exist. As long as He exists, it doesnt matter what nugget of info that anyone could reveal to an atheist, He can not be disproved.

Did you know that the first evidence against creationism discovered by christian creationists has yet to be answered by creationists? Since I doubt you know, the first evidence against YEC was against the flood. The finding of the fossil record and geological column.

Again, this is from looking at the facts from 2 different starting points. Starting from a "God" point of reference, fossil record and geological column fit very nicly in to a world wide flood. ... "billions of dead things, buried in rock layers, laid down by water, all over the earth."



So far creationists cannot answer why the fossil record and geological column are the way they are. They try to dodge it by saying lies like "The geological column doesn't exist." or "Water can sort fossils exactly how we see in the fossil record." etc. But those are lies.

I havent heard any creationist say that the geologic column doesnt exist. Only that it does not represent millions of years.

As to "Water can sort fossils exactly how we see in the fossil record.", please explain to me why this is a lie.

Particles to people, Haha.

If you read the bible non literally that doesn't matter.

I'm saying it this way because it leaves no doubt as to what kind of evolution i am talking about.

Reading the Bible non-literally is part of the reason for the misunderstandings and unbelief.

quote:Well, you help me then? Here is Gen 1:1-5 taken from the Literal Bible with Strong's numbers..

Sure thing, its all metaphor. Metaphor to explain ideas about god. Or its all BS. Heh That was simple.

hmmm, you sure put some effort into that. Explain why you think its metaphor or BS. Is it the word "yom" (day)? Or God? Beginning? Created? Something else perhaps?



.Matthew 19:4

Where does it say that?

I read,

God created the universe.

God created Male and Female.

Many non literalists believe that. I don't see anything there that says, "Genesis is literal"

Hmmm... one of us needs to read it again. I dont see the word universe in that verse. Lets try this again...

Matthew 19:4

4. |3588| he |1161| And |0611| answering |2036| said, |3756| not |0314| Did you read |3754| that |3588| He |4160| who created |0575| from |0746| beginning |0730| male |2532| and |2338| female |4160| made |0846| them?

Jesus did not say.. did you not read that from the beginning, God created asexual creatures that evolved into male and female secual creatures.

Total bullshit. Since the books are written by multiple people, you cant throw out the collection because one book is wrong,

the foundational book. the one that tells about our origin (God created), the reason that there is suffering and death (sin), and the reason for a Savior (sin).

a metaphorical genesis is still Right

not without a literal foundation.

something can still be right and metaphor at the same time.

This is the first correct thing that you said.

Maybe you should learn exactly how non literalists think.

Wait, nevermind, sure I like your idea, christianity is wrong, cool.

do the words sellout or brainwashed fit into what you were about to enlighten me with?

I would recommend you stop spouting pre made creationist lines and go and get a real education.

Gee, why do you think im in TOTSE? I'm getting a real edjukayshun from kids like you.

You are most likely referring to index fossils.

yes

Index fossils are used as such,

•Rocks date the fossils, lets say fossil A

•It is discovered that fossil A is found only within a certain rock layer.

•Fossil A becomes an index fossil.

•If Fossil A is found at a future dig, it can be roughly assumed that that layer is a certain age. If questioned dating can be done to the rocks to make sure.

amazing!! This is almost exactly, word for word, what my "pre made creationist lines" book said. With the exception of your last line...

"Sedimentary rocks cant be dated all by themselves (they may be essentially identical to sedimentary rocks of any age). If they have no fossils which can be dated within evolutionary framework, then we must look for other fossil-bearing layers, above and below, which can help us 'sandwich' in on a date."

The thing is, this is done by already assuming that the index fossil (or other dating method) is right. My question to you is: How many index fossils have had their index "standing" thrown out, due to new evidence?



1.

2.

3.



Fair enough, for now.

Edit: I should say that It's not your fault you thought you could trust creationist companies.

Which company do you get your info from? Particles to people and dating assumptions sounds like AiG but the index fossils sound like Dino.

mostly AiG... dont know what Dino is. But it doesnt really matter, because "company" info fits very well with taking God's Word literally.

quote:Originally posted by xtreem5150ahm:

My Faith rests in God. If God is true, then His Word is true. If His Word is true, then He created in 6 literal days. If He created in 6 literal days, then particles-to-people evolution is false.



So you are saying that God dictated Genesis to Moses? That is the only way it could be God's word.

quote:I havent heard any creationist say that the geologic column doesnt exist. Only that it does not represent millions of years.

As to "Water can sort fossils exactly how we see in the fossil record.", please explain to me why this is a lie.



Creatoinist's say that the geologic column as it is know by geologist is an illusion and does not represent a timeline but is the result of things settling out. When sedements settle out the sort themselves by size and density, all of the dead stuff should be in one or two strata if it is the result of settling.

It is not as big a bullshit story as saying that the night sky is an illusion and most of the stars do not have to exist.

quote:

mostly AiG... dont know what Dino is. But it doesnt really matter, because "company" info fits very well with taking God's Word literally.

I think He is talking about this Dr. Dino guy. There was a guy here a few months back that really liked to quote him, quote as in use the pre-made arguments on his site without understanding them.

quote:"My Faith rests in God. If God is true, then His Word is true. If His Word is true, then He created in 6 literal days. If He created in 6 literal days, then particles-to-people evolution is false."

You are again assuming that his word must be literal. But if it's not, then the bible can live with what God is supposably telling us in the earth.



quote:"You must think that atheists are dimwits, if you think that i just showed them the way to disprove Christianity. However, atheist should have been able to see this long before i was born. "

Of course they did. You are supporting them. The thing that militant atheists want the most is to be able to use science to disprove christianity, by connecting creationism with christianity you are supporting their attacks on christianity through creationism.



quote:"fossil record and geological column fit very nicly in to a world wide flood. ... "billions of dead things, buried in rock layers, laid down by water, all over the earth." "

IF the geological column and fossil record were just a giant mess you might be right, but they are not. There is an organization to them and no one has yet to explain How the flood created this organization.



quote:"I havent heard any creationist say that the geologic column doesnt exist. Only that it does not represent millions of years.

As to "Water can sort fossils exactly how we see in the fossil record.", please explain to me why this is a lie. "

If you haven't heard of DrDino (Kent Hovind) it makes sense that you have never heard that claim. One of his many crazy claims is that the geological column has never been found and is all made up (This is a rather sane claim compared to others).

Sure, the basics at least. water would sort objects based on weight and buoyancy, but that isn't seen in the fossil record. Small, light animals are buried bellow large heavy animals, modern day animals should be found in all layers, same with the supposed ancient animals, there shouldn't be fossil breaks such as the K/T boundary, footprints and nests shouldn't be found. The fossil record should be scattered and intermixed, but instead it is stepped, as if newer animals evolved from older ones.

If the water that supposably created solid rocks quickly buried the animals, then we should see a large amount of casts, empty spaces where the flesh of the animal was incased on the rock and frozen, similar to the Mt Vesuvius findings. But if there aren't a large amount of casts then animals died and their flesh rotted before they were buried by this giant flood. In that case the water should sort the individual bones by their weight and buoyancy and we would have a bunch of scattered bones and few animals bodies, just like with the whole animal, we would see ancient bones of the same density as modern bones in the same layers.



quote:"hmmm, you sure put some effort into that. Explain why you think its metaphor or BS. Is it the word "yom" (day)? Or God? Beginning? Created? Something else perhaps? "

That is really another discussion, but it appears to be metaphor because of it's wording and because the earth disagrees with its literalness, and if God created the earth then technically shouldn't you listen to it as well?



quote:"Hmmm... one of us needs to read it again. I dont see the word universe in that verse. Lets try this again... "

Your right.

It says,

God created from the begining and he created Male and Female.

No where does it support your claim that he said to take the bible literally, to read that much into that verse is to not take it literally.

Many theistic evolutionists believe that statement to be true. God created from the beginning and he guided evolution to create Male and Female.



quote:"do the words sellout or brainwashed fit into what you were about to enlighten me with?"

You call fellow christians sellouts and Brainwashed before you even learn about their views. Are you sure you aren't projecting?



quote:"If they have no fossils which can be dated within evolutionary framework, then we must look for other fossil-bearing layers, above and below, which can help us 'sandwich' in on a date." "

And that is different from the claim that rock and fossil dating is circular.



quote:"Fair enough, for now. "

So, can I assume that that means you accept my explanation of why AiG has provided you with half information and misinformation about K-Ar dating?

Why do you think they are lying to you?

quote:Originally posted by xtreem5150ahm:



NOpe, the Bible does not say that. It was said by some Monk in the (i think) 15th century.

If you take the Bible as a acurate literal record of events from the time of creation then yes it does. To say that the universe is any other age means you must think the geneologies or ages in the Bible are wrong.