the age of the earth

[magnifier661]

Leave my uncle's banana out of this.

Just wait until I design my thesis on how we evolved from trees. It's gonna be a laugh! Didn't realize how easy it would be to alter a few things here, then a few there. Maybe this is why it's called "The evolutionary tree"?

 

[3RA1N1AC]

i actually dont really like bananas

 

[magnifier661]

i actually dont really like bananas

Because you have been perfectly evolved! You don't need mother's milk anymore! Is that why we call you "brainiac"?

 

[SlyPokerDog]

Because you have been perfectly evolved! You don't need mother's milk anymore! Is that why we call you "brainiac"?

If you're getting milk out of a banana that's not a banana you're sucking.

And it sure isn't milk.

 

[magnifier661]

If you're getting milk out of a banana that's not a banana you're sucking.

And it sure isn't milk.

You just painted a bad picture in my head! Thanks a lot!

 

[SlyPokerDog]

You just painted a bad picture in my head! Thanks a lot!

 

[ABM]

If you're getting milk out of a banana that's not a banana you're sucking.

And it sure isn't milk.

I'm becoming increasingly concerned for you, Sly. This comment certainly wasn't main-stream.

 

[3RA1N1AC]

maybe its a texture thing, because i enjoy banana flavored runts, or "gods perfect runt" as i like to call them

 

[crowTrobot]

LOL really?!?!?!

yes really. read the whole article, or this -
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/piltdown.html

the find was disputed as a genuine hominoid almost immediately and there was never at any point anything close to agreement in the scientific community that it was genuine. the majority of scientists thought it was a hoax or at best an accidental placement of ape and man parts decades before 1953. 1953 is just when it was published as a proven hoax, removing any lingering doubt anyone might have had.

from the TO article:
"In the period 1930-1950 Piltdown man was increasingly marginalized and by 1950 was, by and large, simply ignored"

 

[magnifier661]

yes really. read the whole article, or this -
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/piltdown.html

the find was disputed as a genuine hominoid almost immediately and there was never at any point anything close to agreement in the scientific community that it was genuine. the majority of scientists thought it was a hoax or at best an accidental placement of ape and man parts decades before 1953. 1953 is just when it was published as a proven hoax, removing any lingering doubt anyone might have had.

from the TO article:
"In the period 1930-1950 Piltdown man was increasingly marginalized and by 1950 was, by and large, simply ignored"

1912-1930 was accepted no?

 

[TripTango]

yes really. read the whole article, or this -
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/piltdown.html

the find was disputed as a genuine hominoid almost immediately and there was never at any point anything close to agreement in the scientific community that it was genuine. the majority of scientists thought it was a hoax or at best an accidental placement of ape and man parts decades before 1953. 1953 is just when it was published as a proven hoax, removing any lingering doubt anyone might have had.

from the TO article:
"In the period 1930-1950 Piltdown man was increasingly marginalized and by 1950 was, by and large, simply ignored"

Stop it! You're interrupting the holy circlejerk!

 

[magnifier661]

The funny thing about you evolutionists; are you could have just posted this and be done with it. Unfortunately, you need a creationist to dig it up for you. I will toss you a bone. Impelling evidence; but I still have skepticism.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html

This pretty much sums up the evidence to support macro evolution. You should study up on this and you will have a better case; then just tossing out the "Dogma" from atheist.org

 

[3RA1N1AC]

so if god is immortal and everlasting, dont you think it is kinda silly that he only made the earth 6000 years ago? what was he doing before that? making other earths?

was there always a god? do we really look like him?

 

[magnifier661]

so if god is immortal and everlasting, dont you think it is kinda silly that he only made the earth 6000 years ago? what was he doing before that? making other earths?

was there always a god? do we really look like him?

I don't think the world is 6,000 years old. I just like fucking with the atheists. I agree with Craig that the universe was 17 billion years old. I also am open to evolution.

And I'm also open to other universes too. If he can make this universe; then why not make zillion others? But I am convinced that there is a God without a doubt and the atheists can't prove I'm wrong. Atheists can't even prove atheism exists.

 

[TripTango]

The funny thing about you evolutionists; are you could have just posted this and be done with it. Unfortunately, you need a creationist to dig it up for you. I will toss you a bone. Impelling evidence; but I still have skepticism.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html

This pretty much sums up the evidence to support macro evolution. You should study up on this and you will have a better case; then just tossing out the "Dogma" from atheist.org

On the contrary -- it seems to me that YOU should be studying up on it! And fwiw, I'd never even heard of atheist.org.

 

[TripTango]

But I am convinced that there is a God without a doubt and the atheists can't prove I'm wrong.

Hang on -- are you retracting your "open mind" statement from before?

 

[magnifier661]

On the contrary -- it seems to me that YOU should be studying up on it! And fwiw, I'd never even heard of atheist.org.

LMAO! that was a joke silly! And why do I need to study it? I have been reading it very intensively. Evolutionists could have easily tossed out this link and it would silent the thread for at least a couple weeks. So much reading and evidence to shift through. I have only just begun buddy!

 

[magnifier661]

Hang on -- are you retracting your "open mind" statement from before?

Oh I am open minded; which is why I am reading through this study I just tossed your way. But evolution doesn't disprove God; FYI. Also, evolution doesn't disprove the universe. In fact, evolution only proves nothing. It's just evidence and like the "Bible" you take it in, study it, and make up your own mind.

 

[TripTango]

LMAO! that was a joke silly! And why do I need to study it? I have been reading it very intensively. Evolutionists could have easily tossed out this link and it would silent the thread for at least a couple weeks. So much reading and evidence to shift through. I have only just begun buddy!

Silent? That I do NOT believe!

 

[magnifier661]

And you're gonna love my "How we evolved from fruit theory!"

 

[TripTango]

Oh I am open minded; which is why I am reading through this study I just tossed your way. But evolution doesn't disprove God; FYI. Also, evolution doesn't disprove the universe. In fact, evolution only proves nothing. It's just evidence and like the "Bible" you take it in, study it, and make up your own mind.

Wasn't the topic of this thread "the age of the earth"? You are so easily distracted!

 

[TripTango]

And you're gonna love my "How we evolved from fruit theory!"

I bet you could even get it published on Wikipedia!

 

[magnifier661]

Silent? That I do NOT believe!

Anyone that wants to debate at a level playing field must read up on what the other group believes in. If I take "evolution" as some mockery; then I've already lost the battle. This is why I laugh at many atheists. They don't take the Bible seriously; so they don't even know the angle to come at Christians. Instead they call our book the non-fictional classic of some mass murderer.

So why would Creationists or to go even further "Christians" take your doctrine seriously? What's your answer?

 

[ABM]

I bet you could even get it published on Wikipedia!

...or, better yet, Bleacher Report.

 

[magnifier661]

Wasn't the topic of this thread "the age of the earth"? You are so easily distracted!

I did try to stay on topic, but somehow it morphed into evolution again. I don't know who did it; but I will defend points regardless where the OPs intention. So if someone said evolution is bullshit on the political threads; you wouldn't be compelled to defend it?

 

[Eastoff]

Why you think it's a joke? I mean how could it not be possible for the banana tree to grow our missing link? We are talking about trees that can live hundreds of years. Ample time to genetically mutate a missing link!

It makes sense if all life evolved from one original virrii/bacteria like thing, that dna would be generally similar. If it was all created, why is it all from GATC proteins? Science has shown it's possible to make it from 6 instead of 4. So shouldn't god have used the other 2 for the various things since he was creating all at the same time?

 

[TripTango]

Anyone that wants to debate at a level playing field must read up on what the other group believes in. If I take "evolution" as some mockery; then I've already lost the battle. This is why I laugh at many atheists. They don't take the Bible seriously; so they don't even know the angle to come at Christians. Instead they call our book the non-fictional classic of some mass murderer.

So why would Creationists or to go even further "Christians" take your doctrine seriously? What's your answer?

I call straw man! Who are these "many atheists"? Either cite them directly, or stop generalizing -- I hope you'll agree that I'm pretty familiar with and respectful of the Bible, even if I don't believe it to describe objective fact.

As for your question, what doctrine are you talking about? I don't have a doctrine. Evolution is not doctrine. The great thing about science is that it is BUILT upon things being wrong, and corrected. Religions deal with doctrines -- eternal truths that are not up for debate or revision. This is a key difference.

 

[Pokemanzdood]

The funny thing about you evolutionists; are you could have just posted this and be done with it. Unfortunately, you need a creationist to dig it up for you. I will toss you a bone. Impelling evidence; but I still have skepticism.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html

This pretty much sums up the evidence to support macro evolution. You should study up on this and you will have a better case; then just tossing out the "Dogma" from atheist.org

Since we're tossing bones out, I've got one for creationist types. The first vertebrates more or less show up fully formed in the fossil record.

 

[ABM]

I hope you'll agree that I'm pretty familiar with and respectful of the Bible, even if I don't believe it to describe objective fact.

Then, you're no doubt solidly aware that the Bible, itself, doesn't describe many its contents as objective fact. Conversely, it beckons us to Faith.

 

[magnifier661]

It makes sense if all life evolved from one original virrii/bacteria like thing, that dna would be generally similar. If it was all created, why is it all from GATC proteins? Science has shown it's possible to make it from 6 instead of 4. So shouldn't god have used the other 2 for the various things since he was creating all at the same time?

Or if life had 1 creator. Let me ask you a question...

Break apart a computer, radio, TV, and clock and tell me if you see things in common. All proof that even though they are relativily different; they all come from a very similar technology. And; millions of years from now; if somehow these components were dug up; it would prove that it came from one creator.