Intelligent? Design

Originally posted by KellyJay
I disagree, at first our bodies were designed to live forever until we introduced sin into
our race. After that other things started occurring in our lives that were not supposed to be
there like lies, stealing, lust, envy, hate, fear and so on, all of which take a toll on our
bodies. The fact that the bodies do as well as they do under the conditions we put them
under is an amazing feat in my opinion.

That live forever myth is just that, stories in a book. It just adds to the scam of the susceptible.

Originally posted by 667joe
You do not have any evidence that originally our bodies were designed to last forever. That is merely a bronze age myth.

Well taking all the scripture as...what is the word...oh yea, the gospel. I believe it as I do
that God created it all with a purpose and design. This thread is about ID, I've submitted
that the universe itself is evidence for design and people have come up with several
reasons to say no and the best they can offer is theories, myths, guesses, and so on.

We wear down and die, from the beginning of our lives our bodies regenerate grow, take
what its given through food and drink and convert it into useful things our bodies need. All
of us have this feeling of loss when someone we know dies, if they die young we even
think its very wrong and so on. As far as I'm concern, I hate death, and feel when we do
die it is wrong no matter our ages.

We cannot have it both ways unless you want to lay it out as personal tastes about death
in my opinion. Either death is a just a part of the universal processes as any other since
we are bound to do it, or something is wrong when it occurs. I believe something is wrong
when it occurs and feel loss when someone I love passes.

Originally posted by sonhouse
That live forever myth is just that, stories in a book. It just adds to the scam of the susceptible.

Its part of the whole story like it or not.

Originally posted by KellyJay
Its part of the whole story like it or not.

The key word there is 'story'. I don't know how anyone in century 21 can believe fairy tales like people living a thousand years. It is just part of the scam to convince the susceptible how we have to cow tow to some made up god so the uppers can have a huge power base and the political power that comes with it. Prove me wrong on that one. You seriously think a god would want to have cathedrals taking decades to make is what it wants? This is all man made BS.

Originally posted by sonhouse
The key word there is 'story'. I don't know how anyone in century 21 can believe fairy tales like people living a thousand years. It is just part of the scam to convince the susceptible how we have to cow tow to some made up god so the uppers can have a huge power base and the political power that comes with it. Prove me wrong on that one. You seriously thi ...[text shortened]... would want to have cathedrals taking decades to make is what it wants? This is all man made BS.

Yes, you have a point? God creates the universe including a man and woman at that time
it is all going to be word of mouth that occurs to relate history. At the beginning of time the
light span of man wasn't what it is now ~110 years or so it was hundreds of years so the
stories were shared by the same people closest to the events for a long time.

After the flood the people on the ship had heard them several times for a long period of
time than mankind started spreading out. Life spans got much shorter, things were written
down, languages changed so the stories were corrupted. It doesn't seem like having the
same story about the same event is going to easy to see, but if most of the pieces are the
same there more than likely is something to it.

Originally posted by sonhouse
The key word there is 'story'. I don't know how anyone in century 21 can believe fairy tales like people living a thousand years. It is just part of the scam to convince the susceptible how we have to cow tow to some made up god so the uppers can have a huge power base and the political power that comes with it. Prove me wrong on that one. You seriously thi ...[text shortened]... would want to have cathedrals taking decades to make is what it wants? This is all man made BS.

You have anything that is not a story on some level?

Originally posted by KellyJay
You have anything that is not a story on some level?

In other words, you will not be dissuaded from your story no matter what evidence is provided to the contrary.

Is Newtonian gravity just a story? Is the fact Earth is a big ball just a story? You have ZERO archaeology evidence of humans living a thousand years. If there were such and we found their bones they would have been far different from modern humans and no such thing has ever been found, yet we have actual evidence of proto-humans a million years in the past.

Show me a fossil of a thousand year old human if you want to show that tale as anything but a fairy tale.

Originally posted by sonhouse
In other words, you will not be dissuaded from your story no matter what evidence is provided to the contrary.

Is Newtonian gravity just a story? Is the fact Earth is a big ball just a story? You have ZERO archaeology evidence of humans living a thousand years. If there were such and we found their bones they would have been far different from modern hu ...[text shortened]... fossil of a thousand year old human if you want to show that tale as anything but a fairy tale.

What evidence?
Gravity doesn't change anything about this discussion outside of it has be one of the many
things that have to be at just the right strength for life to be supported here under all of the
many conditions at play.
Fossils are evidence, but how much of what we say about them may or may not be true.

Originally posted by KellyJay
What evidence?
Gravity doesn't change anything about this discussion outside of it has be one of the many
things that have to be at just the right strength for life to be supported here under all of the
many conditions at play.
Fossils are evidence, but how much of what we say about them may or may not be true.

You have to think scientists know what they are talking about when they say a fossil is say 20,000 years old or a very old hominid that can't be dated by C14, there are about 10 other dating techniques that agree with each other so when they say Lucy is 3 million years old, you can be sure within some window of error that is the date. When you have proto-humans clearly with human characteristics a million years old then Neandertals say 1/3 of a mil old but very close to humans you have to see a pattern of unbroken evolution dating back millions of years.

Now that of course flies right in the face of the Egyptian/Jewish 7 day creation tale since there is no mention of proto-humans before modern humans who have been dated to 100,000 years in the past, where 100,000 years ago, if you had a time machine and could kidnap a baby from that era and bring him up in century 21, there would be almost no difference between that kid and any other human kid on the planet except for evolutionary changes, minor ones, that have definitely taken place in the last 100,000 years.

I don't see how you can view that as even a possibility if you are besotted with the 7 day plagairaised creation tale which as you well know, is only one of literally thousands of such creation tales, all of which are just stories penned by humans. Think about the probablilty spouted as to the unlikelyhood of chemicals coming together to make life from bare rocks and mud and the unlikelyhood of any one of those thousands of creation tales as being true. Your creation tale is just as likely as any of the other literally thousands of such tales to be true as to be false.

But you HAVE to firmly believe only YOUR plagairised tale is true which doesn't even allow for discussion, other than you listen to my arguments which at the end of the day have zero effect on your belief system, basically you are just humoring a poor lost soul in your mind.

Originally posted by sonhouse
You have to think scientists know what they are talking about when they say a fossil is say 20,000 years old or a very old hominid that can't be dated by C14, there are about 10 other dating techniques that agree with each other so when they say Lucy is 3 million years old, you can be sure within some window of error that is the date. When you have proto-h ...[text shortened]... ero effect on your belief system, basically you are just humoring a poor lost soul in your mind.

No I don't have to think someone knows what they are talking about when they say 20000
years old since they are looking at numbers that represent rates that are theoretical in
nature. If they are wrong there would never be a way to prove it, outside of looking at
set of numbers which also cannot be proven wrong. The father way any date is the less
likely we can validate it beyond saying according to this method which is not necessary
the right thing to do. Can they be right, YES, but if they are in error we'd never know.

So basing everything on methods that deliver dates beyond verifying with known good
dates to build and validate one's world view is precarious to say the least. If your
argument for validation is a time machine...well you produce that we can at least go check
out your dating methods, but if we had a time machine what would be the point...a little
blue box not withstanding. 🙂

I don't think the creation story in scripture is plagiarized, I would have thought if that were
true then so many other things would have been stolen as well. You'd should have been
able to find many of the same time period's medical advice built into scripture as well, but
you don't.

Life requires more than chemicals coming together, it requires the whole universe to be
setup to support life. If it reality started with people at the beginning sharing the same
stories than more than a few tales throughout the earth should share much of the same
type of facts within them. After all word of mouth over time would alter the facts of the
tales through time if each group was separated by something such of a fast break in the
languages. I'd also think if God were involved God would see to it the truth would remain
with the human race.

Originally posted by KellyJay
No I don't have to think someone knows what they are talking about when they say 20000
years old since they are looking at numbers that represent rates that are theoretical in
nature. If they are wrong there would never be a way to prove it, outside of looking at
set of numbers which also cannot be proven wrong. The father way any date is the less
likel ...[text shortened]... also think if God were involved God would see to it the truth would remain
with the human race.

The scientists who date fossils base their data on real lab work where they can take a sample and just watch it decay at a certain rate and they already have a hundred years of data of C14 so it's not a huge jump to say a piece 200 years old will have count X and a piece 100 years old will have count Y and it is on a linear scale and so you can be confident going into the past is just as accurate within certain windows of error. They don't say a fossil is 1300 years, 2 months and 4 days old. They say it is 1300 years old plus or minus 200 years or some such. They NEVER assign exact dates but measuring something at 2000 years +/_200 years or within a 5% window is reasonable and it matches what they see from various depths of Earth, if a piece is at 6 inches deep and they see it is 500 years old and they dig deeper and find another one buried 2 feet deep and the numbers come out at 2000 years or whatever, they can be fairly confident those numbers are accurate within their window of error.

They know the limitations of C14, they know for instance, it is based on how much C14 there is and if there is zero C14 like in a granite rock carbon dating is worthless so they know when they can use that date technique and when not.

The only objection you have is you believe in the 7 day creation tale and nowhere in the bible does it say mankind started 6000 years ago. They have dating techniques that agree with each other for deeper times and even tree ring data and ice core data match so you are objecting based only on whan HUMANS have said about when we arrived on the scene. For instance, there is no mention of hominids in the bible but you have to know full well they are there by the hundreds in the fossil record some dating over a million years old. You only refuse to accept those numbers because people have convinced you their analysis of the bible says 6000 years, even though the bible is most certainly wrong about the joe begat betty who begat roger who begat thor who begat billy, etc., taking all of those begats as 100% totally true when in fact it is about 99.99999999% BS. If there were people 1000 years old around and we found their bones they would have obvious differences over a dead 80 year old of today, bones change all through life.

There is not a single word in the bible saying mankind is 6000 years old, only HUMANS saying that and people falling for it hook line and sinker. No god said humanity is 6000 years old so you are simply believing the analysis of unreliable humans.

Originally posted by sonhouse
The scientists who date fossils base their data on real lab work where they can take a sample and just watch it decay at a certain rate and they already have a hundred years of data of C14 so it's not a huge jump to say a piece 200 years old will have count X and a piece 100 years old will have count Y and it is on a linear scale and so you can be confident ...[text shortened]... d said humanity is 6000 years old so you are simply believing the analysis of unreliable humans.

I'm not over concern with the dating methods for reasons I've discussed over the years. If
the earth is only a few thousand years old than all of the methods are not correctly dating
the earth even though the math could be correct in how they arrived at the numbers they
do. Since we cannot know we just put our faith in the methods than as long as we realize
that is what we are doing, so be it. Bottom line I have to say I don't know how old it is.

The creation story is another thing all together, much of the past is oral history until it is
taken and written down. After that we would run into finding the oldest copy of the stories,
and the nation that first wrote down their history may not be the oldest story, since we can
not date oral history. The oldest copies of a nation as the Jews would be harder to come
by since they didn't settle down for the longest time. The fact that they were mingled in
Egypt for a long time also would have come into play before they went off and got their
own land.

As I pointed out to you earlier with the medical advice in the OT verse what Egypt had
they were not the same even though Egypt was one of the more modern countries of
that age. Since the Jews were big on keeping track of family history, we know they did
write things down, but what was written down more than likely wasn't kept as what was
written down in Egypt.

There were and are a lot of things not mention in the Bible, the things I concern myself
with are those things that are.

Originally posted by sonhouse
The scientists who date fossils base their data on real lab work where they can take a sample and just watch it decay at a certain rate and they already have a hundred years of data of C14 so it's not a huge jump to say a piece 200 years old will have count X and a piece 100 years old will have count Y and it is on a linear scale and so you can be confident ...[text shortened]... d said humanity is 6000 years old so you are simply believing the analysis of unreliable humans.

"...so you are simply believing the analysis of unreliable humans"

No matter what we are doing this.

Originally posted by KellyJay
"...so you are simply believing the analysis of unreliable humans"

No matter what we are doing this.

That is correct, but scientists try to eliminate biases. Obviously they don't always succeed, you can see scientists who are creationists trying to bend every bit of science to prove their pre-adapted stance rather than trying to ascertain the truth. So they have to make a huge deal out of the errors in such dating techniques as C14 and such since they 'KNOW" Earth is only 6000 years old. How they can look at a place like the Grand Canyon and think that only happened a few thousand years ago is beyond me, like Hinds saying the GC came about as a result of the world wide flood but ignoring the fact that under the GC is over a mile deep layer of ancient ocean sediment.

When a scientists goes into a subject with a result already in mind, like Earth is 6000 years old and then proceed to do that by attempting to discredit working scientists they give up the right to be called scientists, instead they are into the realm of politics.

Attempting to discredit scientists with the agenda of attracting people to his cause and thus votes to try to change laws such as separation of church and state or to try to force creationism to be taught in a science classroom as if it were a science and you of course know full well it is not by any stretch of the imagination but that is what they want to foist on the developing minds of young students.

Originally posted by sonhouse
That is correct, but scientists try to eliminate biases. Obviously they don't always succeed, you can see scientists who are creationists trying to bend every bit of science to prove their pre-adapted stance rather than trying to ascertain the truth. So they have to make a huge deal out of the errors in such dating techniques as C14 and such since they 'KNO ...[text shortened]... f the imagination but that is what they want to foist on the developing minds of young students.

Do you think scientist who believe in evolution will bend every bit to back that up too?
Human nature is what it is, it doesn't change simply because of topics under discussion.