the age of the earth

[crowTrobot]

I tend to believe and think its healthy for our life to have purpose.

we are debating what is true, not what is healthy to believe.

 

[MadeFromDust]

i'm not placing faith in anything. when it comes to the origin of the universe agnosticism is the only valid intellectual position. if something can't be known it can't be know. there is nothing wrong with admitting you don't know something and not fooling yourself into thinking you do.

So have does that mean you're no longer an atheist and are now agnostic? You're placing faith in what astronomers and scientists think they know by looking through their telescopes, because I doubt you actually gone out and looked at the evidence for yourself. And my point is you can know the Creator, there are billions that do.

what does that have to do with jesus specifically?

Glad you asked, Jesus is God made flesh who came to atone for the sins of the world.

i don't know if it's actually genetic or learned, but belief in god certainly can be beneficial emotionally for some people. there's no reason to expect it not to be popular or common.

But I just find it funny that evolution would program virtually the entire human race throughout to seek something out that's not there. We are wired to worship God.

as long as you're placing any emphasis on demographics of belief having any relation to truth you should note that the world is at least 67% non-christian.

Point is every society in the history of the world believes in God or a higher power. And they have every right to.

 

[magnifier661]

we are debating what is true, not what is healthy to believe.

Actually this is still a free open forum; so opinions still can be made. We talked about philosophy on the other thread and look where it took us? There is nothing wrong with objectively talking about what makes me feel like something sounds unhealthy to the mind.

 

[crowTrobot]

Actually this is still a free open forum; so opinions still can be made. We talked about philosophy on the other thread and look where it took us? There is nothing wrong with objectively talking about what makes me feel like something sounds unhealthy to the mind.

it's cool if you want to change topics, but obviously denny was talking about what is true, not what is healthy to believe.

 

[crowTrobot]

So have does that mean you're no longer an atheist and are now agnostic?

i'm both.

 

[magnifier661]

it's cool if you want to change topics, but obviously denny was talking about what is true, not what is healthy to believe.

How is keeping on the topic that the meaning of life, based on the theory life will just fade away into nothing not on topic. It's one thing to think something as minimal as our life is to the grand scheme of things; but to realize that all existence will cease to exist is absolutely another.

 

[magnifier661]

i'm both.

That's not logical. An agnostic doesn't know therefor he doesn't believe. The atheist knows god doesn't exist. They are two separately different things.

 

[SlyPokerDog]

Wow, you guys are up and at it early this morning.

 

[magnifier661]

Lol sly! Well I'm up because we are getting ready for church.

 

[crowTrobot]

That's not logical. An agnostic doesn't know therefor he doesn't believe. The atheist knows god doesn't exist. They are two separately different things.

an atheist by definition is someone who does not believe in god - not someone who claims to "know" god does not exist. atheism is a statement about lack of belief, not a claim to knowledge.

an agnostic by definition is someone who doesn't believe knowledge of something is possible.

someone can be both, particularly when it comes to the origin of the universe.

 

[Denny Crane]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic_atheism

That would describe my view.

 

[3RA1N1AC]

Only James Brown's clone would have enough soul to make it to heaven.

 

[magnifier661]

an atheist by definition is someone who does not believe in god - not someone who claims to "know" god does not exist. atheism is a statement about lack of belief, not a claim to knowledge.

an agnostic by definition is someone who doesn't believe knowledge of something is possible.

someone can be both, particularly when it comes to the origin of the universe.

Ahhhhhh okay thanks for the clarification. Okay that seems very logical then.

 

[Pokemanzdood]

Dude that's a lot of reading material. I will need some time to read all the material, so give me time to respond please. I will promise that I read all of it though and make comments on each article. I just may agree with them too. I just can't say one way or another. Fair?

Take all the time you want, and again don't feel obligated to read it all. I'm a science major and a lot of it makes my head hurt hahaha, just way technical stuff.

 

[magnifier661]

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/dinosaur.html

I thought that this is impossible? The radioactivity of the Carbon has a shelf life; regardless of conditions of at most 50,000 years. Can someone explain this to me and how you can preserve "Red Blood Cells" without life to combat Carbon 14 degradation?

 

[magnifier661]

Take all the time you want, and again don't feel obligated to read it all. I'm a science major and a lot of it makes my head hurt hahaha, just way technical stuff.

I'm still reviewing your studies; but I have some conflicting issues here. I do understand the common mutations; but wouldn't that be a "micro-evolution" finding? Because again; there are the same characteristics and genetic mutations; but these "mutations" are possible without symbiotic transformations.

What I mean is the eye would require thousands of mutations having to happen in genetic sequence; for let's say "A lizard" to transform into an "Eagle Eye". I think those are the records I'm really searching for. Things that must require the other in sequence; and mutating simultaneously.

But there is still a lot of reading, and some incredibly hard "scientific vocabulary" I have to sift through to get any conclusion.

 

[MadeFromDust]

MAGS, this is funny

[video=youtube;1BxpDzXNI-4]

 

[magnifier661]

MAGS, this is funny

[video=youtube;1BxpDzXNI-4]

LOL!

 

[magnifier661]

Hey OdenRoyLMA2; check this out:

In an article entitled Stalin’s ape-man Superwarriors Creation Ministries International declares:

“Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin wanted to rebuild the Red Army, in the mid-1920s, with Planet-of-the-Apes-style troops by crossing humans with apes. This was according to a report in The Scotsman newspaper on 20 December 2005.

The report claimed that Stalin ordered Russia’s top animal-breeding scientist, Ilya Ivanov, to use his skills to produce a super warrior. Stalin is said to have told Ivanov, ‘I want a new invincible human being, insensitive to pain, resistant and indifferent about the quality of food they eat.’2 In 1926, the Politburo in Moscow passed this request to build a ‘living war machine’ on to the Academy of Sciences, who engaged Ivanov and sent him to West Africa with many thousands of dollars to conduct experiments in impregnating chimpanzees by artificial insemination. In the USSR, a centre was set up in Georgia, Stalin’s birthplace, for the ‘apes’ to be raised.

Ivanov’s experiments in Africa were a total failure. Further experiments in Georgia to use monkey sperm in human volunteers also failed. Ivanov was now in disgrace. For his expensive failure, he was sentenced to five years’ jail, commuted to five years’ exile in Kazakhstan, where he died in 1932, aged 61.[44]

Silly scientists, tricks are for kids!

 

[MadeFromDust]

Hey OdenRoyLMA2; check this out:



Silly scientists, tricks are for kids!

You mean it didn't work??? Nooo....lol

 

[magnifier661]

This is for SlyPokerDog

"Archeoraptor ((photo)). Archeoraptor was heavily promoted by National Geographic Society and Nature magazine as a “feathered dinosaur” and was claimed to be an intermediate evolutionary link between a reptile and a bird. However, it has been shown to be an intentional fraud where two fossils were placed together giving the appearance of a bird’s body and a dinosaur’s head.

Today most scientific organizations continue to ignore evidence of creation, placing fraudulent information in TV “documentaries” and in publications to support their evolutionistic religion, even many years after these items have been proven scientifically false. This is particularly true of National Geographic and Nature magazines whose agenda is to promote evolution and “Mother Earth.” However, their initial premise, that there is no God, is wrong. They believe there is no God, even though all evidence is to the contrary. All of the evidence in the universe, including all the laws of science, prove that there is an Almighty God who created the heavens, the earth, and humankind."

"Archaeoraptor" is the generic name informally assigned in 1999 to a fossil from China in an article published in National Geographic magazine. The magazine claimed that the fossil was a "missing link" between birds and terrestrial theropod dinosaurs. Even prior to this publication there had been severe doubts about the fossil's authenticity. It led to a scandal when evidence demonstrated it to be a forgery through further scientific study. The forgery was constructed from rearranged pieces of real fossils from different species. Zhou et al. found that the head and upper body actually belong to a specimen of the primitive fossil bird Yanornis.[1] A 2002 study found that the tail belongs to a small winged dromaeosaur, Microraptor, named in 2000.[2] The legs and feet belong to an as yet unknown animal.[3][4]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piltdown_Man

The Piltdown Man was a hoax in which bone fragments were presented as the fossilised remains of a previously unknown early human. These fragments consisted of parts of a skull and jawbone, said to have been collected in 1912 from a gravel pit at Piltdown, East Sussex, England. The Latin name Eoanthropus dawsoni ("Dawson's dawn-man", after the collector Charles Dawson) was given to the specimen. The significance of the specimen remained the subject of controversy until it was exposed in 1953 as a forgery, consisting of the lower jawbone of an orangutan that had been deliberately combined with the skull of a fully developed modern human.
The Piltdown hoax is perhaps the most famous paleontological hoax ever. It has been prominent for two reasons: the attention paid to the issue of human evolution, and the length of time (more than 40 years) that elapsed from its discovery to its full exposure as a forgery.

 

[magnifier661]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polystrate_fossil

A Polystrate fossil is a fossil of a single organism (such as a tree trunk) that extends through more than one geological stratum.[1] Entire "fossil forests" of such upright fossil tree trunks and stumps have been found worldwide, i.e. in the Eastern United States, Eastern Canada, England, France, Germany, and Australia, typically associated with coal-bearing strata.[2] Within Carboniferous coal-bearing strata, it is also very common to find what are called Stigmaria (root stocks) within the same stratum. Stigmaria are completely absent in post-Carboniferous strata, which contain either coal, polystrate trees, or both. The word polystrate is not a standard geological term. This term is typically only found in creationist publications.[1][3]

So tell me how this tree grew for 100,000,000 years? That's a freaken old ass tree!

 

[crowTrobot]

"Archeoraptor ((photo)). Archeoraptor was heavily promoted by National Geographic Society and Nature magazine as a “feathered dinosaur” and was claimed to be an intermediate evolutionary link between a reptile and a bird. However, it has been shown to be an intentional fraud where two fossils were placed together giving the appearance of a bird’s body and a dinosaur’s head.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feathered_dinosaurs

"more than twenty genera of dinosaurs, mostly theropods, have been discovered to have been feathered"

Today most scientific organizations continue to ignore evidence of creation, placing fraudulent information in TV “documentaries” and in publications to support their evolutionistic religion, even many years after these items have been proven scientifically false. This is particularly true of National Geographic and Nature magazines whose agenda is to promote evolution and “Mother Earth.” However, their initial premise, that there is no God, is wrong. They believe there is no God, even though all evidence is to the contrary. All of the evidence in the universe, including all the laws of science, prove that there is an Almighty God who created the heavens, the earth, and humankind."

you're like going off the deep end or something. for about the 8th time:

evolution does not refute god, only a literal interpretation of genesis.

half of christians in the USA believe in evolution. your dichotomy is false.

40% of scientists are theists. science is not an anti-god conspiracy.

 

[magnifier661]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feathered_dinosaurs

"more than twenty genera of dinosaurs, mostly theropods, have been discovered to have been feathered"




you're like going off the deep end or something. for about the 8th time:

evolution does not refute god, only a literal interpretation of genesis.

half of christians in the USA believe in evolution. your dichotomy is false.

40% of scientists are theists. science is not an anti-god conspiracy.

Nope just pointing out that there are holes in the system. Also, that even paleontologists will falsify information. Am I wrong?

 

[crowTrobot]

Nope just pointing out that there are holes in the system.

no when you say scientific organizations ignore evidence for creation and promote false evidence you are overtly claiming a conspiracy.

Also, that even paleontologists will falsify information. Am I wrong?

there are a few bad apples in any profession.

 

[magnifier661]

no when you say scientific organizations ignore evidence for creation and promote false evidence you are overtly claiming a conspiracy.

Now you are putting words in my mouth. Where did I say it's a conspiracy?

there are a few bad apples in any profession.

Cool, glad you agree. Now we can move on.

 

[MadeFromDust]

half of christians in the USA believe in evolution. your dichotomy is false.

If they weren't forced to learn the evolutionary lie in public schools what do you think that number would be? I think they should present both theories, flaws and all, and let the students decide for themselves what they want to believe, instead of passing off Darwinism as factual truth.

 

[crowTrobot]

Now you are putting words in my mouth. Where did I say it's a conspiracy?

many scientific organizations ignore evidence and promote false evidence! but there's no conspiracy.

covert atheist comedian.

Cool, glad you agree.

glad you agree that a few hoaxes perpetrated by a few bad apples don't reflect on the integrity of the scientific community in any way.

 

[crowTrobot]

If they weren't forced to learn the evolutionary lie in public schools what do you think that number would be?

most people that gain a detailed understanding of evolution do so in college, not public grade or high schools.

I think they should present both theories, flaws and all, and let the students decide for themselves what they want to believe, instead of passing off Darwinism as factual truth.

conspiracy!!!!!!

 

[Denny Crane]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lost_Chapter_of_the_Acts_of_the_Apostles