23 Dec 11
1 edit
Originally posted by RJHindsJust as no belief in the "Great Spirit"/"God" is required, so too with evolution. I think Voidspirit (I could be wrong with the posters name here), has pointed out that no belief is required ,(not how he worded it, but you get the gist), in evolution. It is a fact as far as I'm concerned. The only reason it is termed a "theory" just means that they are working on the finer details. But the basic concept is there, immutable and unchanging despite any one's beliefs on the matter.
Modern medical advances have nothing to do with the theory of evolution.
😏
P.S. Doctors and researchers can do their jobs just fine without believing
in it.
I just dont see how you cant fit your ideas in with science.
I try to take the good from everything ,(christianity included), and leave the rest behind.
The truth is going to be a mix of science and religion. Despite scientists who will disagree with. But perhaps "religion" is the wrong word here,as their are so many negative connotations with that word.
Despite this, whether you want to call it "spirituality" or religion, you cannot deny things like carbon isotope dating, (for one). It may not be completely accurate, and does not claim to be so, but there is no denying that scientists have found relics that are way off any 6000yr old theory. Way off.
You see, when I became aware of this (carbon dating), then I quickly researched it ,(not in depth but enough to get the gist), I realized that we must work our religious findings with the clear evidence that is all around us. The truth can be found, narrowed down, but if you cling to your YEC theories then you are really just sticking your head in the sand, and saying that it is satans work, or whatever other nonsense you come up with, wont change the FACT that this IS the way the world is.
Deal with it, get your head out of the sand
23 Dec 11
Originally posted by karoly aczelYou apparently did not notice the assuming they did. And you must know by
Just as no belief in the "Great Spirit"/"God" is required, so too with evolution. I think Voidspirit (I could be wrong with the posters name here), has pointed out that no belief is required ,(not how he worded it, but you get the gist), in evolution. It is a fact as far as I'm concerned. The only reason it is termed a "theory" just means that they are ...[text shortened]... ACT that this IS the way the world is.
Deal with it, get your head out of the sand
now that to ASSUME makes an ASS out of U and ME. 😏
23 Dec 11
Originally posted by karoly aczelKaroly - by being Hindu l do not think you are anything like Dasa.
I would be the other one that would fall into the "hindu" category.
As you can see from our posts, other than a general agreement on our source information, there is very little we have in common.
Dasa is genuine, I believe,(not to say that I could be falling into the biggest shamster/ "uber trolls" little game here-I am still open to that possi ...[text shortened]... ng like "child molestation" or anything that is clearly wrong.)
i have not seen a post from you in the hundreds l have read that would be considered anything like the crap that Dasa spouts.
23 Dec 11
Originally posted by nook7Dasa claims he is not Hindu and Hinduism is a false religion. You apparently
Karoly - by being Hindu l do not think you are anything like Dasa.
i have not seen a post from you in the hundreds l have read that would be considered anything like the crap that Dasa spouts.
missed that post.
23 Dec 11
1 edit
Originally posted by RJHindsAssume thats it going to be between 45000 to 55000 years. Ok Even at the lowest reading , it no way can be construed with anything remotely near the year 6000bc, (or whenever).
You apparently did not notice the assuming they did. And you must know by
now that to ASSUME makes an ASS out of U and ME. 😏
THEY HAVE FOUND HUMAN BONES IN AUSTRALIA THAT HAVE BEEN CARBON DATED AS BEING 200 000+ years old. This is undeniable fact. Even though they dont know the exact dates , they know that aborigonal australians walked the Earth 200 000 yrs ago (+/_10 000yrs) , making them way older than scripture , by any stretch.
So these people were here way before god was supposed to have made the world. . This is fact.And at this point you have to take sides or at least have sort of stance on this agenda
There would be a complete clash of opinions it would seem here, for opinions they are very irreconcilable.
I hope they dont start on this "it's only a theory" re: evolution, even I have gone out of my to condense a few points of etiquette , I'h hoping for a "next level" answer 😀
23 Dec 11
Originally posted by karoly aczelI'm afraid I'm going to have to argue with your inarguable facts there Karoly!
Assume thats it going to be between 45000 to 55000 years. Ok Even at the lowest reading , it no way can be construed with anything remotely near the year 6000bc, (or whenever).
THEY HAVE FOUND HUMAN BONES IN AUSTRALIA THAT HAVE BEEN CARBON DATED AS BEING 200 000+ years old. This is undeniable fact. Even though they dont know the exact dates , they kno ...[text shortened]... out of my to condense a few points of etiquette , I'h hoping for a "next level" answer 😀
To the best of my knowledge the oldest human fossils from Australia are those known as LM3 from the Lake Mungo collection. I don't think LM3 has been subjected to C14 dating (which in any case only goes back about 60,000 yrs), but a suite of other techniques (ESR, U-Th and luminescence) have been applied along with stratigraphic comparison with other Lake Mungo fossils which have been radiocarbon dated, and the generally accepted age is about 40,000 years. Upper estimates approach 60,000 years, but these rely only on the U-Th of tooth enamel, and this is subject to a certain amount of argument.
Actually I'm pretty sure there aren't any human fossils from anywhere in the world that are dated as early as 200,000 kya.
That said, it is absolutely beyond reasonable doubt that human fossils pre-date the creation of the earth according to the young-earth hypothesis espoused by RJH. The only positions of argument as I see it would be that (a) all of the dating techniques are so flawed as to be nonsensical (a position of gross ignorance), or (b) god deliberately created the world with the intention of giving the illusion of much greater age.
23 Dec 11
Originally posted by avalanchethecatThnx for the correction there. I have mixed stories and got one set of "facts" nixed with another in my head. Anyway, as you say , 60 000yrs. And they say 6000yrs. Way off.
I'm afraid I'm going to have to argue with your inarguable facts there Karoly!
To the best of my knowledge the oldest human fossils from Australia are those known as LM3 from the Lake Mungo collection. I don't think LM3 has been subjected to C14 dating (which in any case only goes back about 60,000 yrs), but a suite of other techniques (ESR, U-Th ...[text shortened]... liberately created the world with the intention of giving the illusion of much greater age.
It is call a carbon isotope is in not? Then they measure the half life and all that ...I was just wondering if that was the correct term
23 Dec 11
Originally posted by karoly aczelCarbon 14 or C14 is a radioactive isotope of carbon (or C). The dating technique is usually called C14 or radiocarbon dating. Or just carbon dating.
Thnx for the correction there. I have mixed stories and got one set of "facts" nixed with another in my head. Anyway, as you say , 60 000yrs. And they say 6000yrs. Way off.
It is call a carbon isotope is in not? Then they measure the half life and all that ...I was just wondering if that was the correct term
Yeah, it takes a special sort of stubborn to believe that young earth nonsense.
23 Dec 11
Originally posted by nook7I do not--repeat do not---share any of the views of Dasa. The only thing common between us is being theists and Hindus. As every poster here knows, Dasa calls Vedanta as the true religion and the present version of Hinduism ( which actually dates from the triumph of Adya Shankarachary in reestablishing a refurbished Hinduism and finishing off Buddhism and Jainism from Medieval India i.e. about 1400 years ago ) as a false religion.
l said worse than bile. Not bile. More like imitation watered down substance less diet bile.
Someone who spams garbage like Dasa adnauseum that not only insults logic but almost everyone on the planet bar his tiny group of nutcase farktard friends does not deserve the attempts that people have gone to debate and reason with.
Dasa is either an uber troll ...[text shortened]... f posters on this site that l show complete contempt for. l doubt you would ever be one of them.
Yes, one more common factor is the reverence for the Vedas and Upanishads. But I state that Dasa's interpretation of the thoughts in the Vedas/Upanishads is cranky and fanatic. It does great disservice to these books.
