- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
Originally posted by XanthosNZYes. Just a pitty Satan's means of dating the fossils are a bit faulty. Else we would never have known it was he in the first place. 🙂
I wondered when someone would take the bait. So fossils are Satan's way of tricking people into believing that the Earth is 3.45 billion years old?
Originally posted by blindfaith101you can belive in all CHRIST teachings the salvation of other faiths or people in that faith may come thro. there is a story in the testerment when jesus sent out the followers of christ before his death, they came back and said to jesus lord there was a man casting out demons but was not a follower of you so we fobide him, jesus rebuked them saying whoever does the work of god i know.
1.If you belive all that CHRIST taught and said then you would know the only way that is acceptable to worship GOD.
2. What do you have to say when THE WORD OF GOD,says about what you have just have said.
3. Where is the salvation in all those other religions that you have mentioned.There is no other faith,teachings,our thought, that is compatable or acceptable to the teachings of CHRIST.
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
Originally posted by XanthosNZYou mean no use debating with people who show you what you don't want to see. If they don't know anything about science then they shouldn't stand a chance in a debate. But the fact that you don't want to debate them maybe shows how little you understand about science and what a small chance you stand in a debate. The easiest way out is to insult someone and not want to debate a matter. If you knew you were right then you would gleefully take on anybody who seems to have a different opinion.
Oh crap, I've flushed out the hardcore creationists. No use debating with them people they can't understand science.
Originally posted by dj2beckerCan you explain the process behind carbon dating? I can.
You mean no use debating with people who show you what you don't want to see. If they don't know anything about science then they shouldn't stand a chance in a debate. But the fact that you don't want to debate them maybe shows how little you understand about science and what a small chance you stand in a debate.
Have you read and comprehended how the oft quoted "evidence" that the eye is to complex to have evolved by chance is wrong? I have.
I could go on.
I have no fear to debate anyone. Care to present some evidence for your views?
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
Originally posted by XanthosNZO.K. Here's for carbon dating:
Can you explain the process behind carbon dating? I can.
Have you read and comprehended how the oft quoted "evidence" that the eye is to complex to have evolved by chance is wrong? I have.
I could go on.
I have no fear to debate anyone. Care to present some evidence for your views?
The amount of cosmic rays penetrating the earth’s atmosphere affects the amount of 14C produced and therefore dating the system. The amount of cosmic rays reaching the earth varies with the sun’s activity, and with the earth's passage through magnetic clouds as the solar system travels around the Milky Way galaxy.
The strength of the earth’s magnetic field affects the amount of cosmic rays entering the atmosphere. A stronger magnetic field deflects more cosmic rays away from the earth. Overall, the energy of the earth’s magnetic field has been decreasing, so more 14C is being produced now than in the past. This will make old things look older than they really are.
I don't have much time to go into all the other details but you can check this site:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/carbon_dating.asp
As for just a bit more evidence:
Evidence for a rapid formation of geological strata, as in the biblical flood. Some of the evidences are: lack of erosion between rock layers supposedly separated in age by many millions of years; lack of disturbance of rock strata by biological activity (worms, roots, etc.); lack of soil layers; polystrate fossils (which traverse several rock layers vertically—these could not have stood vertically for eons of time while they slowly got buried); thick layers of ‘rock’ bent without fracturing, indicating that the rock was all soft when bent; and more. For more, see books by geologists Morris and Austin.
Red blood cells and hemoglobin have been found in some (unfossilized!) dinosaur bone. But these could not last more than a few thousand years—certainly not the 65 Ma since the last dinosaurs lived, according to evolutionists.
The earth’s magnetic field has been decaying so fast that it looks like it is less than 10,000 years old. Rapid reversals during the flood year and fluctuations shortly after would have caused the field energy to drop even faster.
Radioactive decay releases helium into the atmosphere, but not much is escaping. The total amount in the atmosphere is 1/2000th of that expected if the universe is really billions of years old. This helium originally escaped from rocks. This happens quite fast, yet so much helium is still in some rocks that it has not had time to escape—certainly not billions of years.
A supernova is an explosion of a massive star—the explosion is so bright that it briefly outshines the rest of the galaxy. The supernova remnants (SNRs) should keep expanding for hundreds of thousands of years, according to physical equations. Yet there are no very old, widely expanded (Stage 3) SNRs, and few moderately old (Stage 1) ones in our galaxy, the Milky Way, or in its satellite galaxies, the Magellanic Clouds. This is just what we would expect for ‘young’ galaxies that have not existed long enough for wide expansion.
The moon is slowly receding from the earth at about 4 centimeters (1.5 inches) per year, and this rate would have been greater in the past. But even if the moon had started receding from being in contact with the earth, it would have taken only 1.37 billion years to reach its present distance from the earth. This gives a maximum age of the moon, not the actual age. This is far too young for evolutionists who claim the moon is 4.6 billion years old. It is also much younger than the radiometric ‘dates’ assigned to moon rocks.
Salt is entering the sea much faster than it is escaping. The sea is not nearly salty enough for this to have been happening for billions of years. Even granting generous assumptions to evolutionists, the sea could not be more than 62 Ma years old—far younger than the billions of years believed by the evolutionists. Again, this indicates a maximum age, not the actual age
Originally posted by dj2beckerThe site you quote is well known for misquoting people and studies. I will give one example from it's 'information' about Supernovas.
O.K. Here's for carbon dating:
The amount of cosmic rays penetrating the earth’s atmosphere affects the amount of 14C produced and therefore dating the system. The amount of cosmic rays reaching the earth varies with the sun’s activity, and with the earth's passage through magnetic clouds as the solar system travels around the Milky Way galaxy.
Th ...[text shortened]... f years believed by the evolutionists. Again, this indicates a maximum age, not the actual age
"As the evolutionist astronomers Clark and Caswell say, ‘Why have the large number of expected remnants not been detected?’ and these authors refer to ‘The mystery of the missing remnants’."
However if you find the study this quote is made from which can be found here:
http://tinyurl.com/5fl44
You will notice that the question quoted is in fact rhetorical and the end of the sentence quoted is removed. It should read "The mystery of the missing remnants is also solved" which I believe you will agree completely changes the meaning.
I could continue to copy and paste large bodies of text discrediting your point of view and expounding my own but I prefer to spend my time doing more worthwhile things. You will not be converted to my side of the argument no matter how much evidence I put forward because anything that discredits your point of view is "The work of the Devil".
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
Originally posted by XanthosNZO.K. fine. Maybe one or two misquotes. I won't say that it was done unintentionally. But we can't say for sure. Maybe you could let them know about it. They say they will gladly remove anything which is false. Surely one or two misquotes doesn't falsify everything they say. And besides the evidence I gave is very common to the creation movemnet. I could have got it from any other creation site. I know you could cut and paste large volumes of info to discredit my point of view. But that is not the point. I have given you only a few common creation arguments. Refuting these arguments is entirely a different story. Now besides the "evidence" for creation, it would be interesting for me to know what you regard as "evidence" for your point of view.
The site you quote is well known for misquoting people and studies. I will give one example from it's 'information' about Supernovas.
"As the evolutionist astronomers Clark and Caswell say, ‘Why have the large number of expected remnants not been detected?’ and these authors refer to ‘The mystery of the missing remnants’."
However if you find th ...[text shortened]... I put forward because anything that discredits your point of view is "The work of the Devil".
Originally posted by kcams
i'm really tired of every debate becoming about God and faith, i don't mind having the discussion but for a non believer it can get qite frustrating when you make valid arguements only to run into people who because of theeir faith daily have to accept contradictions and therefore can believe in a double negative, which obviously for those of us with no faith we believe in deductive reasoning.
If you're tired of debate, then why not just start up a flame instead of actualy asking questions... I'll try :
go forth and multiply.
all thought about sex is sinful, and sex not for procreation is sinful, yet our bodies reward us when we have sex in order to make the experience pleasurable, the natural instinct and desire to procreate is the same instinct that drives all other animals to procreate, it is a natural drive of the body.
why would God do this, was he just messing with people?
Sex between a man and a woman in a union blessed by God is not sinfull. I may as well say to you that God created us to like chocolate, yet when we eat too much of it, we develop heath problems. Again God's fault ?
the ambiguities in the scriptures, (this has caused wars!)
Wars have been faught in the name of religion, sure, but this has very seldom been as a result of religion, rather man's lust for power. Telling the soldiers they are fighting for God has always been a strategy employed by military leaders.
the acceptance of slavery in the bible, (can we all agree that was a bad idea?)
It promoted giving away all your possessions and serving one's fellow man, instead of worshipping riches. Ofcourse it did not flat out comdemn slavery only that one should treat your slave (or as we call them today 'servants'😉 with dignity.
I may ask you the difference between a factory worker (who would live in squallor if he quit his job), and a slave).
the fact that the Pope can renounce the use of condoms even though they would save the lives of countless thousands of people, (not an especially forgiving standpoint is it?
This comes across as slighly ignorant of the situation. People drink, party, get high... then have sex. If you assume that 99% of the population practice safe sex 99% of the time, then yes, you are only left with a lower possibility of contracting HIV. Theory however does not match practice . Areas where abstinance have been practiced have (obviously) been much more efficient in preventing HIV transmission than use of condoms.
Simply put, for people to actually have sex before marriage, that would imply that they would firstly be going against their faith. As such, why would they still choose not to use protection if it were just another breach of religion ? Makes little sense.
that the church has been wrong in the past yet still refuses to learn from the mistakes of the past and continues blindly and with an awe inspiring amount of arrogance to preach to the rest of us!
No-one is preaching to you. Ignore posts discussing religion. What, you walk into a church and complain about the same thing ?
remeber the church killed pepole for saying the world was round / then not in the centre of the solar system / then not in the centre of the universe.
Why is this pertinent today ? We are well aware that they did not follow the Bible, in fact, their actions are clearly prohibited by the very words of Jesus. If you wish, you can create your own 'church of one', kill 10 people and then we'll all prove how bad Christianity is. Not much sense in that.
my question is why are they still taken seriously?
Sheer numbers.
edit: numerous typo's
Originally posted by dj2becker
O.K. fine. Maybe one or two misquotes. I won't say that it was done unintentionally.
I won't either. It is either an intentional effort to deceive; or it is a consequence of faith-induced blindness.
But we can't say for sure. Maybe you could let them know about it. They say they will gladly remove anything which is false. Surely one or two misquotes doesn't falsify everything they say.
No, but everything they argue has been refuted, and they ignore the refutation because it contradicts their faith.
There are many faithful Christians who understand science, and have no problems with evolution. They recognize that all scientific hypotheses must be subject to testing, that theories remain subject to revision, but also that a hypothesis becomes a theory only when it has proven better for organizing existing data, as well as predicting new data, than competing hypotheses. Evolution has survived scrutiny for nearly 150 years. Creationism, and its spawn, Intelligent Design, has either failed every test, or has been framed in such a way that it cannot be tested (and is thus outside the bounds of science). Creationists base their theories on deceptive rhetoric (stories about Piltdown Man), gross distortion (the Second Law of Thermodynamics), and fraud (Paluxy River tracks).
In short, we can be as certain of evolution as we can anything in science; and we can be certain that without the theory of evolution many advances in medicine, as well as many other areas of applied science, would have been impossible.