If you knew anything of science then you would know that genetics does confirm that all mankind came from one man, and one woman. Well if the scholars in rome say that then it must be true because man is never wrong, oh wait they have been wrong. Again you have provided no evidence here just you ranting, and the thing about mesopotamia, I would say that its taken from the biblical narrative. And what is your point on exodus being written before? I did know that.
And Lastly I will have to cut our chat short because I think you still need to learn how to debate, and I dont really allow that type of language in here.
i'm sorry... i didn't realise that a civilisation that saw its end a few mileniums ago adopted a story written a few centuries ago... great thinking... you deserve a nobel prize...
and of course you know more about the bible that the scholars that studie it during there all lifes...
and by the way, genetics confirm that human kind came from a group of individuals, not only a man and a women... as all the spicies on the planet, by the way...
Well I don't know the genetic report you are getting this from but look up Mitochondrial Eve, and Y-chromosomal Adam. And yes again, what scholars say isn't fact, its just their opinion. And firstly you are assuming that the mesopotamian story was first just because the current written form found is older; that doesn't prove that at all. If anything the similarites in both can be argued to say that the story of 1 man and 1 woman is true.
do you know when the first catholic colonie was found? may the memsopotaniams have made contact with them? well, i dont think so... and besides, the origin of humans isnt the only thing that catholics copied from other nations. for example: christmas, easter...
and the scolars in rome dont just give their opion, they studie the bible, in its original language (hebrew), so that they may know the erros in the translation
and cientifique adam and eve are the missing link, not a creation
Why are we talking about catholic colonie what ever that is. Heard of the dead sea scrolls? Also i agree that somethings in christmas were taken from pagan holiday, yet you are trying to switch the topic. You say adam and eve are mising links, yet thats not what genetics say, again read what I sent you before. What errors in translation? you haven't shown me any? The scholars in rome give their opinion, not fact, they can study all they want, its still their interpretation.
do some reaserch to find the transcription erors. and genetics tell us that cientific adam and eve are the ones that first carried the homo sapiens sapiens genes. so, they are the link to homo sapiens. and do you know thw gospel by judas? the gnostic texts? but well, if you think that one day some god got up and said: well, what am i going to do?
I know! I will create the earth, the solar sistem the universe...
Well number one I have heard of the so called errors and I have looked for myself and nothing. And genetics tell us that adam/eve were human, like us, humans give birth to humans, that is proved everyday. Yeah I heard of those so called gospels, but they are false, they were investigated and proved not to have been written by those who claim it was by those who brought the books together. Wow you got it, God, said his word and boom creation.
one error is about the parting of the red sea (in hebrew, the word red is almost the same that a plant wich name i don't know in english). well, the bible isn't from the begining of times, so, how did the men who wrote it knew about the creation? they adopted a mesopotanian mith! and the cientific adam and eve are not the biblical ones, that lived in the paradise and etc. and explain me how can it be that the earth is 5000 years old an the rock date from milions of years ago
Actually I've heard of that so called error, and the location is the red sea, some believe its reed sea, but the bible describes it as a sea, not a marsh or lake. Well, really there was someone at the creation event who could have told men about it, it was God. God told man, and man wrote it down. Well you say no but the bible said we came from 1 man, and 1 woman before science did. And basically the rock has been dated wrong; dating methods are not full proof.
well, the church it self says that only four angels knew god. and then he would just talk to a puny thing such as a man? of course... but if a catholic can prove that all the thing in the universe can fit in a word... and it must had been a very large word...
and with millions of rocks beeing dated every year, and with the results never beeing inferior than many thousands years... and do you believe that evolution appened in 5000 years? and our technologies only came in that time? ok...
Listen I really don't know where you are getting this stuff from, I think you need to read up on your christianity. Number two, I am not a catholic, im a christian, and God has talked to man before, it says so in the bible. And yes again read up on those dating methods, lots of unknowns, and yes they can get it wrong that many times. And lastly I do not believe in evolution, that is to say a monkey becoming a man, and yes technology could have come up in that amount of time. ok
what is the diference betwen catholics and cristians? and sedimentation could not be possible to do in 5000 years (proven without any dought) and evolution does not say that humans came from monkeys. and it makes much more sense that the whole universe came from one word... and some technologies are older than 5000 years...
well the difference is that one: they call priests father which the bible says not to do, two: they believe priests shouldn't marry, and lastly catholics pray to saints, I pray only to Jesus. Now the thing with sediments is that they could have formed quickly in a flood, that has been proven without a doubt. And also to an extent you are correct I should have said, monkey-like, or ape-like, but my point was I do not believe in that. Lastly, what technologies?
sediments could have, but floods had to be regular and massive. and separed by milions of years, because sediments need to rest and be submerged for long periodos (like thousands or milions of years) to turn into rock. and the weel, agriculture, pottery, spears, bows and other fings are dated long before 5000 years ago. so are the first civilisations and homo erectus, habilis, homo sapiens, etc. are known to have existed long before the supposed criation of the the universe...
and from where came all the water needed to that flood? and do you really believe that a male and a female of each species (bilions of species) came to a ship? and what about the american, african and australian species? not to mention the islands...
the proof cames from remains dated from thousands of years ago, that show evidence of agriculture, the knowledge of the wheel, etc. oh, right, you dont believe in hard evidence, only miths that originated from ancient civilisations... sory...
where did all that water come from? please if you didn't already know the earth is 3/4 water. You look at today's species and say they all had to have existed back then when all the dogs on earth today could have come from just one pair, and the different bears in existence came from one couple too, the same with many other species is true. And islands came into existence after the flood, and again, you are saying thousands of years, I believe in that amount, just not millions.
according to the bible, the continents became flooded, but it doesn't mention the oceans getting lower. and the tranfer of water from the oceans to the continents in the way you are talking, would have to occur when the continents took an elevator to the basement...and please, were do dinos and other species that came before fit in that story? and how did the humanity spread from the family of noa itself? so noa is my great-great-great-granfather? and pangea is a mith?
Number one the bible doesn't say the oceans got lower, and three the bible does mention dinos, yes noah is your grand father, because the bible says so, and Pangea is mentioned in the bible, you need to do some more reading.
yes, the biblie doenst say that the oceans got lower, but if yiu say that the water of the oceans came to the continents, than the level of the ocean should have to get lower, right?
and the bible talks about dinos? were? oh, right, the behemoth...and by the way, how did fossils form in so little time?
and the bible talks about a theory developed a couple hundred of years ago? noah is my grandfather and god is my father, thus noah is god's father...
Number one i don't say that the ocean's water came to the continent, i say continent because it was one then. The water underground and rain flooded the world. And yes fossills can form in little time, look up petrified trees that go through many layers of strata. You really need to understand what im saying, one noah going back is your great grand father, and im talking about biological. The bible says god is the father of everything because he created everything. So noah isnt God's father.
it is not possibel that underground water and rain would flood tha world as described. the amount of water that should be in the atmosphere would make the presion at the surface about the same that is recorded in the bottom of the oceans. and animal fossils take a lot of time to form, and also no dino interacted with a man...
well where's your proof, there is evidence that the whole world was underwater, yet scientists say at different times. And I had given you an example of a fossilized tree, that formed because it went through different layers of strata. But I'll email you a link on animals. And yes dinos did interact with man, ever heard of dragons?
yes, mithological creatures. and the huge predatory dinos and the grass eating ones could not make possivel the development of man, or do you think that small creatures like us could rule over them? and the megafauna? listen, i don't believe in that theory. let's call it even, and let us go through our own paths...
Actually if you look today you'll know how tough we "small creatures" are and how we can go up against the big ones. Man has hunted whales, dominated elephants and hippos, and more with just basic technology, and you say its just a theory? Its been well documented that history mention dragons being real, its not only a theory, but a fact. And if you wanna go on your own path its fine, but there's only one that will work, and none are even to it, that way is Jesus.
yes, hunting a t-rex or a velociraptor would be just like killing an elephant... and no dino looks like any dragon portraited... listen, i am tired of this... ok, sure, i will go to hell, but please, let us stop...
Well keep looking at dragon pictures, in particular real historical ones, and remember what we have to look at are bones, the drawings of pictures we have are interpretations of what dinosaurs may have looked like. also I didn't say that it would be the same but in reality when hunting an animal, size is not the deciding factor. I understand if you are tired, but I must say i can't stop, i have to defend my faith, its what I am supposed to do. Lastly thats not what I want for you to go to hell.
it may not be the deciding factor, but alonside with the jaw size, agility, strength, speed and some other things (and the humans are not the best example in any of them) it should be hard to kill one with a wodden spear ou one with a bone tip... and with a couple of diferent drangon interpretations and thousands if not millions of diferent dinos, i think that it seams very dificult that they have interacted. and hell was only created by Dante, a writter...
in Portugal there is a saying: Cada um puxa a brasa à sua sardinha, that means that everyone tries defend its ideas. and i get that. and i recognise that you should trie to defend your faith, and i trie to defend mine. but its not a fair fight, because the evolutionists put all the cards in the table, while the vatican still has some hidden secrets in its vaults. and this argument will only meet the end when the vatican reveals them...
Well i understand what you're saying, but again I don't believe in the vatican, Im not a catholic. I agree that they're probably hiding stuff. And yes you have a point, yet man's intelligence would be the best weapon, and if I remember right dinosaurs' intelligence wouldn't be a match, their brains are like the size of a walnut.
no not really, since man has hunted the most intelligent animals, strongest, and largest in the world: elephants, gorrilas, hippos, rhinos, wolves, whales, mammoth, etc.. Dinosaurs also go from these size ranges, and intelligence. So it is not so far feched as some people would have you believe, man is more than capable of taking down a dinosaur.
well of course it would, as would any other animal, i'm not exactly sure what type of tools man used then, but I'm sure killing a t-rex would have been more than possible.
Well number one you said before, "find a needle in a hay stack" which isnt impossible. And what expert? Just look at today and recent history, huge and dangerous animals have been hunted down with basic technology.
those guys, that spend their lives studying dinos, how are they called? oh, yes, paleontologists. and if you consider gunpownder, crossbows and things like that basic technologies... and then, none of those animals had the height of a 3 stories high bulding and jaws were a full grown adult men could fit in...
Yes dinosaurs range from that size yet not all (plus the 3 story ones were herbivores), remember there are dinosaurs the size of Blue whales, elephants, rhinos, wolves, ect.. and these animals have been known to kill men, yet man has killed them too. Certainly dinosaurs probably killed men, but men killed them too. There are legends that mention men being killed by dragons, even in the bible it mentions that a dragon could have swallowed up a person. But that doesnt mean they couldn't be killed.
let's consider that theory as correct for a few seconds but if it is true, then why doesn't any dinossaur remain been dated to match the datings of any human species? and if creationists are wright, then what were the first humans, even dating before the missing link? trials for the true humans?
All are good questions yet if you look there have been. Have you heard of t-rex dna being found, now according to paleontologists they have to be at least 65 million yrs old, yet blood on dinos? Labratory experiments state that dna can only survive for 10,000 yrs yet we are to believe they survive for at least 65 million? Also if you look in the internet many more examples of dino bones that are not fully fossilized have been recorded. And I dont understand what you mean by first humans.
there are two kinds of dna. one of them can only survive for little time, the other can last millions and millions of years, if the bone is preserved the wright way. and if adam and eve are the first humans (and they are considered to be like modern humans) then what are the pre-humans whose bones were found, like lucy or others?
The truth of the matter is that since t-rex dna has survived paleontologist believe thus it must have survived ignoring labratory tests. The simle fact is that these scientists are ignoring is that dna can not survive that long, I mean do you know how much 1 million yrs is let alone 65 million. Now the thing with lucy and others is basically they are chimps, and or ape creatures, even in evolutionary circles they're highly speculative for being "missing links"
i didn't said they were missing links, but pre-humans, prior to the hommo classification. it is possible that dna can survive that long, as i said, there are two kinds of dna, one with an expiration date very short, the other, huge. but not even the dating of dinossaur bones matches to the dating of human bone.
You keep saying that there are two types of dna, yet on most if not nearly all dinosaur bones have been found with no dna. What is more plausable; it survived for millions, or thousands? The more likely scenario is the 2nd. I'm not giving opinion, this has been studied and the results are that dna can't survive for millions of yrs. Scientists keep dna in freezers, the t-rex's dna was found in montana, not a cold place. Even when the dna was found, scientists beind the find couldn't believe it.
When something gets fossilized the process takes out the tissue and bone, I mean really think about it, millions of years for blood cells to survive, I think its a something very desperate to believe in. And yes you are correct but the cold is the best way to preserve dna. Yet still not enough for the alleged 65 million yrs.
there are no proof that the presented dna samples belong to a dino, it may be from something else, like bacteria. and if the bone was fully fossilized, dna could not be there. and mamoth bones, skin and even eyes were found in glaciares, completly preserved. and vistually it is possible that dinossaur remains could be found frozen.
well number one it was from the bone, it seems you are just trying to still graspe that the bone is 65 million years old. Although you understand I think that it is very difficult to believe that the dna is that old. Anyaways look at the news, its dino dna. Yeah its possible that dino dna could be frozen, but very unlikely with this t-rex. And even so, still hard for it to survive that long.
"The soft tissues were recovered from the thighbone of a T. rex, known as MOR 1125, that was found in a sandstone formation in Montana. The dinosaur was about 18 years old when it died." I don't think that you know the rest of the found, or you are simply trying to ignore it. the sandstone was formed during a flood, and the flank of the dinossaur was beried, preventing bacterias from devouring the soft tissue, thus preserving it. it's basic... but if you believe it was god, fine by me...
Number one I'm not questioning the way it was preservsed but what I'm questioning is that can you really expect bacteria to simply ignore the dna for 65 million yrs? Really thats kind of crazy to expect.
actually it doesn't. not even bacteria can live in vaccum, unless god provided them with astronaut' suits. and if you knew anything about decomposition, you should know that nothing can decompose unless it is in contact with the atmosphere or a reliable oxygen source, so that microorganisms could devour the soft tissues. and actually the tissue found were dated 70 millions years old.
well you are correct yet there are bacteria in the ground, and if that were the case the t-rex should have been found with more meat on it, it was of course decomposing, and nothing would stay that long nicely for 70 million yrs. A vaccum like that would not exist on earth for so long.
the fact that only a small amount of soft tissue was found only comproves mine (and every expert's) theory: The few bacterias left eat as much as they could, untill they ran out of air. and vaccum stays inside of the rocks. if you drill a hole in a rock even 300 million years old I seriosly doubt you will find air pockets. and even if dinos lived in the period you say they did, their meat would disaper, right? and by the way, how did they got extint?
I really dont think that it proves your theory portugal, I believe that the small amount of tissue that survived was due to that fact that the death of the dino was recent, not millions of yrs ago. And the way I believe that a good portion died was in Noah's flood. I mean think about it, the way most dino fossils are found most have been preserved by a flood.
yes, because soft tissue can be found in rocks that formed about 3000 years ago, and it can stay in the air fot that amount of time. and of course, every flood that happens now and that draggs bodys and animals to the bottoms of rivers, oceans or lakes are made by god and someone builds a giant ark and puts there two animals of each species...
my point is that even if the dino died 1000 years ago soft tissues could not be around here... and flooding doesn't only happen when god wants, and that he teels a guy to build an ark. it happens because nature wants. and don't say that god rules nature. and without men to contro´l the tides, and without soures an only forests to stop the water, any flood would be catastrofic.
well you are sort of right yet if a tissue is to survive its more than likely to survive for thousands rather than just millions, it is insane to believe it survived for millions thats the truth. And Im gonna say it anyways, God does control nature, and it can happen whenever he wants, hes the creator, read the bible to understand that. And yes a global flood was catastrofic.
and how does he do that? with an instruments panel? does he wake up some day and says: ok, does guys will die in a flood, those in a tornado, those will have sun so that they can go to the beach... is it like that? or does the wind form like, you know, by streams of air, flooding occurs when there is to much water, that kind of things? it is not insane. it can be proved in laboratory, with that blasfemic thing called "science". and did you know that the last pope said that evolution is right?
Again with the pope, and again I dont believe in him, and no not an instrument panel, and yes i know about streams of air, yet why does it happen that way. The things that man understands, the things that we don't have all been made by God. Read in the Gospels how christ said to the raging storm be still, that is the control I mean. And God doesn't say this person dies and such. Its like living without air, when we do that we die, as such we choose to live without God so we suffer.
it happens that way because that big yellow thing, far far away from here, called sun is very hot. and it heats up the air, and the hot air will replace the cool air and etc etc etc. so cientists are god, because they can create such things in a lab. but i get it. in fact, if we believe in god, we dont need to flee from tornados, we should go running towards them. would you believe in god if someone told you that even so, when you die, your body will be only worm food (wich is true)?
You really dont get what im saying, God made the things we understadns and the things we don't. And no scientist is God. When have scientists made planets? When have scientists made a star, or a solar system? When did scientists make a life out of nothing? Also God gave us intelligence in regards to danger, the bible says "A prudent man sees danger and takes refuge, but the simple keep going and suffer for it." Proverbs 22:3
and what god? there are religions dating before the beginning of times (according to you people)... so, what kind of moral judgment can you do on the men that believe in something since they are born, like the tribes in the amazon rain forest? the search of truth? and what truth? please, dont trie to tell everione that the true religion is the one you say it is, but the one everione believes in deep inside themselves...
It's an interesting question you ask about those living in the amazon and the answer is in the bible. "their (gentiles) consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them" Romans 2:14. Basically if they haven't heard, their conscience is what helps them, but only if they haven't heard. What's the truth you ask? Jesus said, "I am the way and the truth and the life." I've researched evolution, religions and found the bible to be the only truth.
no, their conscience in some cases counts less than anything else. imagine that you can have access to drugs, food, clothing and other things just by saying: i believe in what you believe. it looks like a good scenario to me...
and did i mention that most of the stories you think of as sacret come from babilonia? like the tale of noah and the arc... it comes from babilonic miths...
Believing just to get stuff isn't right, and the conscience would be a witness to that. Basically if you heard the gospel and reject it then you are judged. If you have never heard it, what you do in your life will decide that, and one's conscience will see what he/she deserves. God searches the hearts and minds of all. Also the thing with the babilonian story is that it just proves it may have been written first. Petrefied forests, animals destroyed in a flood which proves to me its not a myth.
no, conscience wouldn't play any major role in the acceptance of "gifts". think: would you tell your family to starve, to be cold, to don't use medication because of some belief? and petrified forests tell you what, exactly? and the animals "destroyed" in floodS don't prove the story of noah. they prove that a fenomenon that still happens today happened for millions of years and will still happen for many more...
I would decide what is right, I wouldn't ever lie about my beliefs just to get something in return. I would say that my conscience helps in that, i think you would call it principles. Petrified forests, fossilized animals all over the world tell me of a disaster that happened. Many dinos have been found who have been killed in a flood, its just paleontologists say oh a flood here a flood there without even considering the chance of it being one large flood. Thats what that proves to me.
well, if it helped my familly, i would lie my teeth out...
and have you heard about a meteor that crashed a couple million years ago? and wich the crater was found, by the way... and the possilbility of a massive flood is rejected because the fossils are dated with millions of years of diference.
Well you just said it, you would lie, lying isnt a good thing, and it most certainly goes against ones principles. And yeah I heard about the meteor, and intresting enough the dating methods that say dino bones are millions of yrs old are very much flaud. Those methods are based on assumptions that have been proven wrong. The 1980 eruption of mount st elens happened 20+ yrs ago, but the Potassium-argon dating method said it happened millions of yrs ago.
oh please... is it so wrong to lie to protect someone? the dating doesn't say the age of the eruption, but of the materials involved in it. whoever used the dating to analyse the eruption was plain and simply stupid...
Number one your example was to get stuff, I would say if they know its wrong then they're wrong. Thirdly scientists date eruptions a bunch of times and get these so called millions of years, those results are flaud, they have to test these dates with things we are sure the date of. The materials is a classic attempt to avoid the issue, we're talking about the eruption. And the last resort is sayig they're stupid, yes very scientific, it couldnt possibly be that the dating is wrong, oh no.
get stuff to help someone... like drugs, food or clothing. sory to disapoint you, but no away you can date eruptions with this methods, but with other methods. and we are talking about the eruption. I am simply telling you that its stupid to date an eruption with this methods, as you would end with the age of the materials. And dating is not wrong, it's very accurate, but only when used correctly.
Scientists have used argon to date eruptions. One at tanzania where footprints preserved in volcanic ash dated to 3 million yrs. Yet more examples exists of screw ups in the dating method. There is even a limit of how recent argon dating can go which is 100,000yrs, and after that is unreliable. Thus since im saying that the earth is 6000yrs or so old, then how would that dating method show it? It wouldnt. Lastly its a moral debate you're saying the ends justify the means, I'm saying it doesnt.
so the scientist that performed that datation should confirm it with other tests, with materials that allow the dating of older materials. and lava is one thing, vulcanic ash is another thing. and acording to you and your people, the earth has less than 5000 years.
Of course ash and lava are different, yet you said you cant date eruptions with argon. If you want another example fine, the deccan eruptions also were dated with this method which led scientists to believe that this killed off the dinos. And I dont know what you think but i just told you that I believe the earth is around 6 thousand yrs old, I dont know what other person said 5000 but i believe in 6000yrs.
i didn't said that. i only said that it should not be used to date things older than the period that it can date.and the deccan events were part of a series of events (oh, and guess what: they were dated to about the same period) that poses a rival theory to the extintion of the dinossaurs by a meteor crash. and the earth was dated by a priest that used the bible has a reference.
well lets go back to what you said, "its stupid to date an eruption with this methods" So with the argon theory you claim its stupid to date eruptions yet the deccan eruptions were dated by argon. My point is that this dating method is flaud and can give bad dates not only with eruptions but everything. I again state i believe in 6000yrs because the of events in the bible.
what was dated wasn't the lava, but the ashes. and that dating method is very accurate, but it has limitations. and the guy that said the earth is less than 5000years old was a archbishop, that used the events in that book. is name was James Ussher
Actually what I've read is that the lava was dated: heres a quote from a site, "argon and potassium isotopes in the lava deposits placed the biggest period of volcanic activity within 300,000 years of the K-T boundary" So not ash, but lava came close to the 65 millon yr mark, which shows to me how wrong this date is. Lastly James Ussher could have been the pope but I would only agree with what the bible says, not men. So I think the earth is around 6000yrs old, not 5000.
i was wrong,as i did some research my self, but it is about the same idea, as lava is diferent from magma. and i don't think that there is a table in the bible saying: in the year x the earth will be y years old, in the year a, the earth will be b years old and so on. but ussher made calculations to determinate the earth's age
Ok thanks for admitting it, so to recape, the lava from the mt st helen's eruption which happened in the 1980s was dated to 2 million yrs, so thus that dating method is off. Also I looked up ussher and he doesn't say 5000yrs, he actually goes along with 6000yrs so I would go along with that.
ok, ussher said the earth was created in 4004 b.c., i miss read. and the substance used to determine the eruption of st helen was the wrong one (as you told). so what should we do? let's trust in a story copied from a people whose origins are much older than 6000 years and admit that the universe ad it's origin in a word, and that water was were even before the universe was were and that god was in the water. is it me or this story is kind of... i don't know... stupid?
Well i didnt really get what you said here but let me try to clarify. The lava were both dated in mt st helens, and the deccan eruption. So the date in mt st helens was wrong thus showing at least to me that argon dating is very fluad. And please read the story of genesis before you go and criticize it. Firstly there was nothing in the beginning, not even water, only God. Then God spoke and made the heavens and the earth, plants, the stars and moon, animals, and man. And its not stupid.
Well number one, its just not a word, Its God's word, its from a being soo beyond us with infinate power. You think that the word in the beginning was whatever, you're wrong God's word was/is creation.
right, because criation is really well proven, its not based in fantasy neither it is an imaginative story. And the stork theory is the theory that claims babies are delivered by storks. and it can be proven because:
its proven by ornitologists that storks are real;
the aleged fetal human development presents several stages that can't be proven by sexuality;
according to the sexual reproduction theory, a sexual relation originates a human beeing, but several sexual relations haven't
Anyways, there is plenty of proof of God as many people turn a blind eye too. Number one one needs a creator for all of this, in a universe were everything had a beginning, you think it comes out of nothing? Second, so many biblical stories have been proven to be true, such as the exodus: a time where God divided the red sea, sent plagues to egypt and so on. Archaeological finds prove this, just look at my oher vids. I understand your comparison, but I would use it with evolution not God.
and i use it with evolution, not god. what i said is that my comparisson only depends on the fact of god existing.and are you familiar with the big bang theory? that theory will be proven in a lab in a few decades. and how can you prove the parting of a sea?
Prove with what the bible says should be there; chariots, horse and human bones, and a under sea land bridge. Big bang in a lab? Let me ask you a question, where did all that material from the big bang come from? Lets say some how they create a big bang, that still wouldn't prove anything. Why? Because you still have scientists pushing buttons. What they would prove is that an intelligence can create something, and what do you know, God is an intelligence who created all.
the material came from a primordial egg. and no scientist would push any buttons, because once the temperature and density of that egg would be like the one in the original big bang, the fenomenon would occur without any human control over it.
Do you hear yourself, primordial egg? Lets go with that for a sec, I'll just ask this one, where did that egg com from? And yes they would be pushing buttons. Remember, scientists say that they observe and test, yet no one has ever seen the beginning, or "the big bang" so they are doing a lab experiment based on something they never observed, so in short scientists are pushing buttons, other wise the experiment wouldn't exist.
and islands that are toght to have millions of years only have 3000 or so? and how can you fit so many events on 4500 years? and there aren't vulcanic islands? and do you think that some one in the sky came to the work of telling so many things (nowadays proven wrong by science) to four men? well, shouldn't you be looking for something more real, than to accept the things told to you by some people? shouldn't you make some use of your Reason, rather than to accept something told to you?
It is extremely likely that islands formed or broke off in such a a short period, just look at our world today, entire mountains have fallen into the oceans, read the news. And again god has talked to more than 4 people, the bible says so itself. I use to believe in evolution, but I saw reason, and that is the bible
do you know something called vulcanic islands? they also form in short periods of time, and still form nowadays... and if god talked to more than 4 people why does the vatican only allow the 4 gospels that are on the bible to be published? is judas black? and the gospel of jesus? and the gnostic texts? is the vatican so afraid that the people are let to decide their own path?
and of course that the reason is that the universe was inside a word...
Number one again, I dont believe in the vatican, two it was researched that those other so called gospels were not written by who they claimed to be, thus they were fakes. And the 4 gospels are the accounts of matthew, mark, luke and john on the life of Jesus. Lastly im not sure what you meant by the vulcanic islands, nor the universe inside a word. I can tell you is that God spoke and he created the universe.
in a meeting the vatican decided wich gospels should be put on the bible and wich should be "forgotten". even nowadays the vatican doesn't allow anyone to take a peek into it's vaults. but i will stop commenting, because you are free to believe in whatever you wish to believe. and if that makes you a better man, that is even better...
sory, i realy dont like fairytales. but you should use the internet for something else then porn. if you know so much about the bible, research the origin of genesis. or do you think it was god who wrote it? you idiot...
Not a shred of evidence to back up none of what you said. Well if you don't loke fairy tales the bible is true so quit your wining. Who wrote genesis? Man did, under the guidence of God. And wow really name calling that shows me a lot about you already.
Which version lol, if I had a nickel for every time I heard that one trying to be passed off as a so called contradiction, nice try. Well chapter one talks about the order, ex) first day, second day etc... The second chapter says formed in verse 7, it is clearly past tense. And yes man was made after plants because we read this part in verse 5 of chapter 2, and there was no man to work the ground...
Well with this I can say, what you say doesnt go. You dont even go into dept like I did with the verses, or provide another source. Just read the last comment/email I made because this is just a repeat of the previous nonsense you sent. Oh and the word then is only mentioned once, and the word after not at all in chapter 2. So where are you getting all these thens and afters from. Honest and rational? Not seeing that from you
Do you hear yourself, then and after are not required lol. Who made you the judge of that? My point was clear. In chapter 2 it talks basically of why God made the beasts, for man, even though he made them before, because God knew proir. There are no afters, or thens like there is in chapter 1 ex), Then God said, Let there be lightThen God said, Let the earth bring forth grass Then God said, Let Us make man.. It says in chap. 2, Formed every beast PAST TENSE.
This is really very cool.
sacox1077 2 years ago
If you knew anything of science then you would know that genetics does confirm that all mankind came from one man, and one woman. Well if the scholars in rome say that then it must be true because man is never wrong, oh wait they have been wrong. Again you have provided no evidence here just you ranting, and the thing about mesopotamia, I would say that its taken from the biblical narrative. And what is your point on exodus being written before? I did know that.
sam3374 2 years ago
And Lastly I will have to cut our chat short because I think you still need to learn how to debate, and I dont really allow that type of language in here.
sam3374 2 years ago
i'm sorry... i didn't realise that a civilisation that saw its end a few mileniums ago adopted a story written a few centuries ago... great thinking... you deserve a nobel prize...
and of course you know more about the bible that the scholars that studie it during there all lifes...
and by the way, genetics confirm that human kind came from a group of individuals, not only a man and a women... as all the spicies on the planet, by the way...
portugalrula 2 years ago
Well I don't know the genetic report you are getting this from but look up Mitochondrial Eve, and Y-chromosomal Adam. And yes again, what scholars say isn't fact, its just their opinion. And firstly you are assuming that the mesopotamian story was first just because the current written form found is older; that doesn't prove that at all. If anything the similarites in both can be argued to say that the story of 1 man and 1 woman is true.
sam3374 2 years ago
do you know when the first catholic colonie was found? may the memsopotaniams have made contact with them? well, i dont think so... and besides, the origin of humans isnt the only thing that catholics copied from other nations. for example: christmas, easter...
and the scolars in rome dont just give their opion, they studie the bible, in its original language (hebrew), so that they may know the erros in the translation
and cientifique adam and eve are the missing link, not a creation
portugalrula 2 years ago
Why are we talking about catholic colonie what ever that is. Heard of the dead sea scrolls? Also i agree that somethings in christmas were taken from pagan holiday, yet you are trying to switch the topic. You say adam and eve are mising links, yet thats not what genetics say, again read what I sent you before. What errors in translation? you haven't shown me any? The scholars in rome give their opinion, not fact, they can study all they want, its still their interpretation.
sam3374 2 years ago
do some reaserch to find the transcription erors. and genetics tell us that cientific adam and eve are the ones that first carried the homo sapiens sapiens genes. so, they are the link to homo sapiens. and do you know thw gospel by judas? the gnostic texts? but well, if you think that one day some god got up and said: well, what am i going to do?
I know! I will create the earth, the solar sistem the universe...
portugalrula 2 years ago
Well number one I have heard of the so called errors and I have looked for myself and nothing. And genetics tell us that adam/eve were human, like us, humans give birth to humans, that is proved everyday. Yeah I heard of those so called gospels, but they are false, they were investigated and proved not to have been written by those who claim it was by those who brought the books together. Wow you got it, God, said his word and boom creation.
sam3374 2 years ago
one error is about the parting of the red sea (in hebrew, the word red is almost the same that a plant wich name i don't know in english). well, the bible isn't from the begining of times, so, how did the men who wrote it knew about the creation? they adopted a mesopotanian mith! and the cientific adam and eve are not the biblical ones, that lived in the paradise and etc. and explain me how can it be that the earth is 5000 years old an the rock date from milions of years ago
portugalrula 2 years ago
Actually I've heard of that so called error, and the location is the red sea, some believe its reed sea, but the bible describes it as a sea, not a marsh or lake. Well, really there was someone at the creation event who could have told men about it, it was God. God told man, and man wrote it down. Well you say no but the bible said we came from 1 man, and 1 woman before science did. And basically the rock has been dated wrong; dating methods are not full proof.
sam3374 2 years ago
well, the church it self says that only four angels knew god. and then he would just talk to a puny thing such as a man? of course... but if a catholic can prove that all the thing in the universe can fit in a word... and it must had been a very large word...
and with millions of rocks beeing dated every year, and with the results never beeing inferior than many thousands years... and do you believe that evolution appened in 5000 years? and our technologies only came in that time? ok...
portugalrula 2 years ago
Listen I really don't know where you are getting this stuff from, I think you need to read up on your christianity. Number two, I am not a catholic, im a christian, and God has talked to man before, it says so in the bible. And yes again read up on those dating methods, lots of unknowns, and yes they can get it wrong that many times. And lastly I do not believe in evolution, that is to say a monkey becoming a man, and yes technology could have come up in that amount of time. ok
sam3374 2 years ago
what is the diference betwen catholics and cristians? and sedimentation could not be possible to do in 5000 years (proven without any dought) and evolution does not say that humans came from monkeys. and it makes much more sense that the whole universe came from one word... and some technologies are older than 5000 years...
portugalrula 2 years ago
well the difference is that one: they call priests father which the bible says not to do, two: they believe priests shouldn't marry, and lastly catholics pray to saints, I pray only to Jesus. Now the thing with sediments is that they could have formed quickly in a flood, that has been proven without a doubt. And also to an extent you are correct I should have said, monkey-like, or ape-like, but my point was I do not believe in that. Lastly, what technologies?
sam3374 2 years ago
sediments could have, but floods had to be regular and massive. and separed by milions of years, because sediments need to rest and be submerged for long periodos (like thousands or milions of years) to turn into rock. and the weel, agriculture, pottery, spears, bows and other fings are dated long before 5000 years ago. so are the first civilisations and homo erectus, habilis, homo sapiens, etc. are known to have existed long before the supposed criation of the the universe...
portugalrula 2 years ago
hmm massive, well ever heard of noah's flood. And really the wheel, agriculture, where's your proof of that?
sam3374 2 years ago
and from where came all the water needed to that flood? and do you really believe that a male and a female of each species (bilions of species) came to a ship? and what about the american, african and australian species? not to mention the islands...
the proof cames from remains dated from thousands of years ago, that show evidence of agriculture, the knowledge of the wheel, etc. oh, right, you dont believe in hard evidence, only miths that originated from ancient civilisations... sory...
portugalrula 2 years ago
where did all that water come from? please if you didn't already know the earth is 3/4 water. You look at today's species and say they all had to have existed back then when all the dogs on earth today could have come from just one pair, and the different bears in existence came from one couple too, the same with many other species is true. And islands came into existence after the flood, and again, you are saying thousands of years, I believe in that amount, just not millions.
sam3374 2 years ago
according to the bible, the continents became flooded, but it doesn't mention the oceans getting lower. and the tranfer of water from the oceans to the continents in the way you are talking, would have to occur when the continents took an elevator to the basement...and please, were do dinos and other species that came before fit in that story? and how did the humanity spread from the family of noa itself? so noa is my great-great-great-granfather? and pangea is a mith?
portugalrula 2 years ago
Number one the bible doesn't say the oceans got lower, and three the bible does mention dinos, yes noah is your grand father, because the bible says so, and Pangea is mentioned in the bible, you need to do some more reading.
sam3374 2 years ago
yes, the biblie doenst say that the oceans got lower, but if yiu say that the water of the oceans came to the continents, than the level of the ocean should have to get lower, right?
and the bible talks about dinos? were? oh, right, the behemoth...and by the way, how did fossils form in so little time?
and the bible talks about a theory developed a couple hundred of years ago? noah is my grandfather and god is my father, thus noah is god's father...
portugalrula 2 years ago
Number one i don't say that the ocean's water came to the continent, i say continent because it was one then. The water underground and rain flooded the world. And yes fossills can form in little time, look up petrified trees that go through many layers of strata. You really need to understand what im saying, one noah going back is your great grand father, and im talking about biological. The bible says god is the father of everything because he created everything. So noah isnt God's father.
sam3374 2 years ago
it is not possibel that underground water and rain would flood tha world as described. the amount of water that should be in the atmosphere would make the presion at the surface about the same that is recorded in the bottom of the oceans. and animal fossils take a lot of time to form, and also no dino interacted with a man...
portugalrula 2 years ago
well where's your proof, there is evidence that the whole world was underwater, yet scientists say at different times. And I had given you an example of a fossilized tree, that formed because it went through different layers of strata. But I'll email you a link on animals. And yes dinos did interact with man, ever heard of dragons?
sam3374 2 years ago
yes, mithological creatures. and the huge predatory dinos and the grass eating ones could not make possivel the development of man, or do you think that small creatures like us could rule over them? and the megafauna? listen, i don't believe in that theory. let's call it even, and let us go through our own paths...
portugalrula 2 years ago
Actually if you look today you'll know how tough we "small creatures" are and how we can go up against the big ones. Man has hunted whales, dominated elephants and hippos, and more with just basic technology, and you say its just a theory? Its been well documented that history mention dragons being real, its not only a theory, but a fact. And if you wanna go on your own path its fine, but there's only one that will work, and none are even to it, that way is Jesus.
sam3374 2 years ago
yes, hunting a t-rex or a velociraptor would be just like killing an elephant... and no dino looks like any dragon portraited... listen, i am tired of this... ok, sure, i will go to hell, but please, let us stop...
portugalrula 2 years ago
Well keep looking at dragon pictures, in particular real historical ones, and remember what we have to look at are bones, the drawings of pictures we have are interpretations of what dinosaurs may have looked like. also I didn't say that it would be the same but in reality when hunting an animal, size is not the deciding factor. I understand if you are tired, but I must say i can't stop, i have to defend my faith, its what I am supposed to do. Lastly thats not what I want for you to go to hell.
sam3374 2 years ago
it may not be the deciding factor, but alonside with the jaw size, agility, strength, speed and some other things (and the humans are not the best example in any of them) it should be hard to kill one with a wodden spear ou one with a bone tip... and with a couple of diferent drangon interpretations and thousands if not millions of diferent dinos, i think that it seams very dificult that they have interacted. and hell was only created by Dante, a writter...
portugalrula 2 years ago
in Portugal there is a saying: Cada um puxa a brasa à sua sardinha, that means that everyone tries defend its ideas. and i get that. and i recognise that you should trie to defend your faith, and i trie to defend mine. but its not a fair fight, because the evolutionists put all the cards in the table, while the vatican still has some hidden secrets in its vaults. and this argument will only meet the end when the vatican reveals them...
portugalrula 2 years ago
Well i understand what you're saying, but again I don't believe in the vatican, Im not a catholic. I agree that they're probably hiding stuff. And yes you have a point, yet man's intelligence would be the best weapon, and if I remember right dinosaurs' intelligence wouldn't be a match, their brains are like the size of a walnut.
sam3374 2 years ago
but it depends on the dino. some are considered really smart, and would be just like wolfs, and would be really hard to beat...
portugalrula 2 years ago
agreed, but my point is, not impossible.
sam3374 2 years ago
but as hard as to find a needle in a hay stack
portugalrula 2 years ago
no not really, since man has hunted the most intelligent animals, strongest, and largest in the world: elephants, gorrilas, hippos, rhinos, wolves, whales, mammoth, etc.. Dinosaurs also go from these size ranges, and intelligence. So it is not so far feched as some people would have you believe, man is more than capable of taking down a dinosaur.
sam3374 2 years ago
yes, but it would be diferent to kill a mamoth with bows and arows than to kill a t-rex with simple stone tools...
portugalrula 2 years ago
well of course it would, as would any other animal, i'm not exactly sure what type of tools man used then, but I'm sure killing a t-rex would have been more than possible.
sam3374 2 years ago
sorry, i still think it is impossible. just ask any expert.
portugalrula 2 years ago
Well number one you said before, "find a needle in a hay stack" which isnt impossible. And what expert? Just look at today and recent history, huge and dangerous animals have been hunted down with basic technology.
sam3374 2 years ago
those guys, that spend their lives studying dinos, how are they called? oh, yes, paleontologists. and if you consider gunpownder, crossbows and things like that basic technologies... and then, none of those animals had the height of a 3 stories high bulding and jaws were a full grown adult men could fit in...
portugalrula 2 years ago
Yes dinosaurs range from that size yet not all (plus the 3 story ones were herbivores), remember there are dinosaurs the size of Blue whales, elephants, rhinos, wolves, ect.. and these animals have been known to kill men, yet man has killed them too. Certainly dinosaurs probably killed men, but men killed them too. There are legends that mention men being killed by dragons, even in the bible it mentions that a dragon could have swallowed up a person. But that doesnt mean they couldn't be killed.
sam3374 2 years ago
let's consider that theory as correct for a few seconds but if it is true, then why doesn't any dinossaur remain been dated to match the datings of any human species? and if creationists are wright, then what were the first humans, even dating before the missing link? trials for the true humans?
portugalrula 2 years ago
All are good questions yet if you look there have been. Have you heard of t-rex dna being found, now according to paleontologists they have to be at least 65 million yrs old, yet blood on dinos? Labratory experiments state that dna can only survive for 10,000 yrs yet we are to believe they survive for at least 65 million? Also if you look in the internet many more examples of dino bones that are not fully fossilized have been recorded. And I dont understand what you mean by first humans.
sam3374 2 years ago
there are two kinds of dna. one of them can only survive for little time, the other can last millions and millions of years, if the bone is preserved the wright way. and if adam and eve are the first humans (and they are considered to be like modern humans) then what are the pre-humans whose bones were found, like lucy or others?
portugalrula 2 years ago
The truth of the matter is that since t-rex dna has survived paleontologist believe thus it must have survived ignoring labratory tests. The simle fact is that these scientists are ignoring is that dna can not survive that long, I mean do you know how much 1 million yrs is let alone 65 million. Now the thing with lucy and others is basically they are chimps, and or ape creatures, even in evolutionary circles they're highly speculative for being "missing links"
sam3374 2 years ago
i didn't said they were missing links, but pre-humans, prior to the hommo classification. it is possible that dna can survive that long, as i said, there are two kinds of dna, one with an expiration date very short, the other, huge. but not even the dating of dinossaur bones matches to the dating of human bone.
portugalrula 2 years ago
You keep saying that there are two types of dna, yet on most if not nearly all dinosaur bones have been found with no dna. What is more plausable; it survived for millions, or thousands? The more likely scenario is the 2nd. I'm not giving opinion, this has been studied and the results are that dna can't survive for millions of yrs. Scientists keep dna in freezers, the t-rex's dna was found in montana, not a cold place. Even when the dna was found, scientists beind the find couldn't believe it.
sam3374 2 years ago
yes, montana may not be now, but in the past... and cold isn't the only presevent of dna.
portugalrula 2 years ago
When something gets fossilized the process takes out the tissue and bone, I mean really think about it, millions of years for blood cells to survive, I think its a something very desperate to believe in. And yes you are correct but the cold is the best way to preserve dna. Yet still not enough for the alleged 65 million yrs.
sam3374 2 years ago
there are no proof that the presented dna samples belong to a dino, it may be from something else, like bacteria. and if the bone was fully fossilized, dna could not be there. and mamoth bones, skin and even eyes were found in glaciares, completly preserved. and vistually it is possible that dinossaur remains could be found frozen.
portugalrula 2 years ago
well number one it was from the bone, it seems you are just trying to still graspe that the bone is 65 million years old. Although you understand I think that it is very difficult to believe that the dna is that old. Anyaways look at the news, its dino dna. Yeah its possible that dino dna could be frozen, but very unlikely with this t-rex. And even so, still hard for it to survive that long.
sam3374 2 years ago
"The soft tissues were recovered from the thighbone of a T. rex, known as MOR 1125, that was found in a sandstone formation in Montana. The dinosaur was about 18 years old when it died." I don't think that you know the rest of the found, or you are simply trying to ignore it. the sandstone was formed during a flood, and the flank of the dinossaur was beried, preventing bacterias from devouring the soft tissue, thus preserving it. it's basic... but if you believe it was god, fine by me...
portugalrula 2 years ago
Number one I'm not questioning the way it was preservsed but what I'm questioning is that can you really expect bacteria to simply ignore the dna for 65 million yrs? Really thats kind of crazy to expect.
sam3374 2 years ago
actually it doesn't. not even bacteria can live in vaccum, unless god provided them with astronaut' suits. and if you knew anything about decomposition, you should know that nothing can decompose unless it is in contact with the atmosphere or a reliable oxygen source, so that microorganisms could devour the soft tissues. and actually the tissue found were dated 70 millions years old.
portugalrula 2 years ago
well you are correct yet there are bacteria in the ground, and if that were the case the t-rex should have been found with more meat on it, it was of course decomposing, and nothing would stay that long nicely for 70 million yrs. A vaccum like that would not exist on earth for so long.
sam3374 2 years ago
the fact that only a small amount of soft tissue was found only comproves mine (and every expert's) theory: The few bacterias left eat as much as they could, untill they ran out of air. and vaccum stays inside of the rocks. if you drill a hole in a rock even 300 million years old I seriosly doubt you will find air pockets. and even if dinos lived in the period you say they did, their meat would disaper, right? and by the way, how did they got extint?
portugalrula 2 years ago
I really dont think that it proves your theory portugal, I believe that the small amount of tissue that survived was due to that fact that the death of the dino was recent, not millions of yrs ago. And the way I believe that a good portion died was in Noah's flood. I mean think about it, the way most dino fossils are found most have been preserved by a flood.
sam3374 2 years ago
yes, because soft tissue can be found in rocks that formed about 3000 years ago, and it can stay in the air fot that amount of time. and of course, every flood that happens now and that draggs bodys and animals to the bottoms of rivers, oceans or lakes are made by god and someone builds a giant ark and puts there two animals of each species...
portugalrula 2 years ago
whats your point with this? I can believe that this t-rex dna is 3000 yrs old, but not 70 million. And what do you mean about the flood?
sam3374 2 years ago
my point is that even if the dino died 1000 years ago soft tissues could not be around here... and flooding doesn't only happen when god wants, and that he teels a guy to build an ark. it happens because nature wants. and don't say that god rules nature. and without men to contro´l the tides, and without soures an only forests to stop the water, any flood would be catastrofic.
portugalrula 2 years ago
well you are sort of right yet if a tissue is to survive its more than likely to survive for thousands rather than just millions, it is insane to believe it survived for millions thats the truth. And Im gonna say it anyways, God does control nature, and it can happen whenever he wants, hes the creator, read the bible to understand that. And yes a global flood was catastrofic.
sam3374 2 years ago
and how does he do that? with an instruments panel? does he wake up some day and says: ok, does guys will die in a flood, those in a tornado, those will have sun so that they can go to the beach... is it like that? or does the wind form like, you know, by streams of air, flooding occurs when there is to much water, that kind of things? it is not insane. it can be proved in laboratory, with that blasfemic thing called "science". and did you know that the last pope said that evolution is right?
portugalrula 2 years ago
Again with the pope, and again I dont believe in him, and no not an instrument panel, and yes i know about streams of air, yet why does it happen that way. The things that man understands, the things that we don't have all been made by God. Read in the Gospels how christ said to the raging storm be still, that is the control I mean. And God doesn't say this person dies and such. Its like living without air, when we do that we die, as such we choose to live without God so we suffer.
sam3374 2 years ago
it happens that way because that big yellow thing, far far away from here, called sun is very hot. and it heats up the air, and the hot air will replace the cool air and etc etc etc. so cientists are god, because they can create such things in a lab. but i get it. in fact, if we believe in god, we dont need to flee from tornados, we should go running towards them. would you believe in god if someone told you that even so, when you die, your body will be only worm food (wich is true)?
portugalrula 2 years ago
You really dont get what im saying, God made the things we understadns and the things we don't. And no scientist is God. When have scientists made planets? When have scientists made a star, or a solar system? When did scientists make a life out of nothing? Also God gave us intelligence in regards to danger, the bible says "A prudent man sees danger and takes refuge, but the simple keep going and suffer for it." Proverbs 22:3
sam3374 2 years ago
and what god? there are religions dating before the beginning of times (according to you people)... so, what kind of moral judgment can you do on the men that believe in something since they are born, like the tribes in the amazon rain forest? the search of truth? and what truth? please, dont trie to tell everione that the true religion is the one you say it is, but the one everione believes in deep inside themselves...
portugalrula 2 years ago
It's an interesting question you ask about those living in the amazon and the answer is in the bible. "their (gentiles) consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them" Romans 2:14. Basically if they haven't heard, their conscience is what helps them, but only if they haven't heard. What's the truth you ask? Jesus said, "I am the way and the truth and the life." I've researched evolution, religions and found the bible to be the only truth.
sam3374 2 years ago
If you truely look into finding the truth I think you will come to that same conclusion.
sam3374 2 years ago
no, their conscience in some cases counts less than anything else. imagine that you can have access to drugs, food, clothing and other things just by saying: i believe in what you believe. it looks like a good scenario to me...
and did i mention that most of the stories you think of as sacret come from babilonia? like the tale of noah and the arc... it comes from babilonic miths...
portugalrula 2 years ago
Believing just to get stuff isn't right, and the conscience would be a witness to that. Basically if you heard the gospel and reject it then you are judged. If you have never heard it, what you do in your life will decide that, and one's conscience will see what he/she deserves. God searches the hearts and minds of all. Also the thing with the babilonian story is that it just proves it may have been written first. Petrefied forests, animals destroyed in a flood which proves to me its not a myth.
sam3374 2 years ago
no, conscience wouldn't play any major role in the acceptance of "gifts". think: would you tell your family to starve, to be cold, to don't use medication because of some belief? and petrified forests tell you what, exactly? and the animals "destroyed" in floodS don't prove the story of noah. they prove that a fenomenon that still happens today happened for millions of years and will still happen for many more...
portugalrula 2 years ago
I would decide what is right, I wouldn't ever lie about my beliefs just to get something in return. I would say that my conscience helps in that, i think you would call it principles. Petrified forests, fossilized animals all over the world tell me of a disaster that happened. Many dinos have been found who have been killed in a flood, its just paleontologists say oh a flood here a flood there without even considering the chance of it being one large flood. Thats what that proves to me.
sam3374 2 years ago
well, if it helped my familly, i would lie my teeth out...
and have you heard about a meteor that crashed a couple million years ago? and wich the crater was found, by the way... and the possilbility of a massive flood is rejected because the fossils are dated with millions of years of diference.
portugalrula 2 years ago
Well you just said it, you would lie, lying isnt a good thing, and it most certainly goes against ones principles. And yeah I heard about the meteor, and intresting enough the dating methods that say dino bones are millions of yrs old are very much flaud. Those methods are based on assumptions that have been proven wrong. The 1980 eruption of mount st elens happened 20+ yrs ago, but the Potassium-argon dating method said it happened millions of yrs ago.
sam3374 2 years ago
oh please... is it so wrong to lie to protect someone? the dating doesn't say the age of the eruption, but of the materials involved in it. whoever used the dating to analyse the eruption was plain and simply stupid...
portugalrula 2 years ago
Number one your example was to get stuff, I would say if they know its wrong then they're wrong. Thirdly scientists date eruptions a bunch of times and get these so called millions of years, those results are flaud, they have to test these dates with things we are sure the date of. The materials is a classic attempt to avoid the issue, we're talking about the eruption. And the last resort is sayig they're stupid, yes very scientific, it couldnt possibly be that the dating is wrong, oh no.
sam3374 2 years ago
get stuff to help someone... like drugs, food or clothing. sory to disapoint you, but no away you can date eruptions with this methods, but with other methods. and we are talking about the eruption. I am simply telling you that its stupid to date an eruption with this methods, as you would end with the age of the materials. And dating is not wrong, it's very accurate, but only when used correctly.
portugalrula 2 years ago
Scientists have used argon to date eruptions. One at tanzania where footprints preserved in volcanic ash dated to 3 million yrs. Yet more examples exists of screw ups in the dating method. There is even a limit of how recent argon dating can go which is 100,000yrs, and after that is unreliable. Thus since im saying that the earth is 6000yrs or so old, then how would that dating method show it? It wouldnt. Lastly its a moral debate you're saying the ends justify the means, I'm saying it doesnt.
sam3374 2 years ago
so the scientist that performed that datation should confirm it with other tests, with materials that allow the dating of older materials. and lava is one thing, vulcanic ash is another thing. and acording to you and your people, the earth has less than 5000 years.
portugalrula 2 years ago
Of course ash and lava are different, yet you said you cant date eruptions with argon. If you want another example fine, the deccan eruptions also were dated with this method which led scientists to believe that this killed off the dinos. And I dont know what you think but i just told you that I believe the earth is around 6 thousand yrs old, I dont know what other person said 5000 but i believe in 6000yrs.
sam3374 2 years ago
i didn't said that. i only said that it should not be used to date things older than the period that it can date.and the deccan events were part of a series of events (oh, and guess what: they were dated to about the same period) that poses a rival theory to the extintion of the dinossaurs by a meteor crash. and the earth was dated by a priest that used the bible has a reference.
portugalrula 2 years ago
well lets go back to what you said, "its stupid to date an eruption with this methods" So with the argon theory you claim its stupid to date eruptions yet the deccan eruptions were dated by argon. My point is that this dating method is flaud and can give bad dates not only with eruptions but everything. I again state i believe in 6000yrs because the of events in the bible.
sam3374 2 years ago
what was dated wasn't the lava, but the ashes. and that dating method is very accurate, but it has limitations. and the guy that said the earth is less than 5000years old was a archbishop, that used the events in that book. is name was James Ussher
portugalrula 2 years ago
Actually what I've read is that the lava was dated: heres a quote from a site, "argon and potassium isotopes in the lava deposits placed the biggest period of volcanic activity within 300,000 years of the K-T boundary" So not ash, but lava came close to the 65 millon yr mark, which shows to me how wrong this date is. Lastly James Ussher could have been the pope but I would only agree with what the bible says, not men. So I think the earth is around 6000yrs old, not 5000.
sam3374 2 years ago
i was wrong,as i did some research my self, but it is about the same idea, as lava is diferent from magma. and i don't think that there is a table in the bible saying: in the year x the earth will be y years old, in the year a, the earth will be b years old and so on. but ussher made calculations to determinate the earth's age
portugalrula 2 years ago
Ok thanks for admitting it, so to recape, the lava from the mt st helen's eruption which happened in the 1980s was dated to 2 million yrs, so thus that dating method is off. Also I looked up ussher and he doesn't say 5000yrs, he actually goes along with 6000yrs so I would go along with that.
sam3374 2 years ago
ok, ussher said the earth was created in 4004 b.c., i miss read. and the substance used to determine the eruption of st helen was the wrong one (as you told). so what should we do? let's trust in a story copied from a people whose origins are much older than 6000 years and admit that the universe ad it's origin in a word, and that water was were even before the universe was were and that god was in the water. is it me or this story is kind of... i don't know... stupid?
portugalrula 2 years ago
Well i didnt really get what you said here but let me try to clarify. The lava were both dated in mt st helens, and the deccan eruption. So the date in mt st helens was wrong thus showing at least to me that argon dating is very fluad. And please read the story of genesis before you go and criticize it. Firstly there was nothing in the beginning, not even water, only God. Then God spoke and made the heavens and the earth, plants, the stars and moon, animals, and man. And its not stupid.
sam3374 2 years ago
of course not. the universe in a word? it's really reasonable... dude, your theory is just like the theory of the stork...
portugalrula 2 years ago
Well number one, its just not a word, Its God's word, its from a being soo beyond us with infinate power. You think that the word in the beginning was whatever, you're wrong God's word was/is creation.
sam3374 2 years ago
yes of course, of course... but still, creation vs evolution is just like stork vs sexuality...
portugalrula 2 years ago
not sure of your comparison, but i know that evolution is a like a table with no legs. No proof, based on just fantasy, an imaginative story.
sam3374 2 years ago
right, because criation is really well proven, its not based in fantasy neither it is an imaginative story. And the stork theory is the theory that claims babies are delivered by storks. and it can be proven because:
its proven by ornitologists that storks are real;
the aleged fetal human development presents several stages that can't be proven by sexuality;
according to the sexual reproduction theory, a sexual relation originates a human beeing, but several sexual relations haven't
portugalrula 2 years ago
produced any offspring;
Statistic studies in Holland has proven that both the number of storks and the nunber of births have been declining at about the same rate;
This theory can be exaustly studied by scientists, and the only assumption is that babies are distributed by storks.
Just like your theory, in wich the only assumption is that god is real...
portugalrula 2 years ago
Anyways, there is plenty of proof of God as many people turn a blind eye too. Number one one needs a creator for all of this, in a universe were everything had a beginning, you think it comes out of nothing? Second, so many biblical stories have been proven to be true, such as the exodus: a time where God divided the red sea, sent plagues to egypt and so on. Archaeological finds prove this, just look at my oher vids. I understand your comparison, but I would use it with evolution not God.
sam3374 2 years ago
and i use it with evolution, not god. what i said is that my comparisson only depends on the fact of god existing.and are you familiar with the big bang theory? that theory will be proven in a lab in a few decades. and how can you prove the parting of a sea?
portugalrula 2 years ago
Prove with what the bible says should be there; chariots, horse and human bones, and a under sea land bridge. Big bang in a lab? Let me ask you a question, where did all that material from the big bang come from? Lets say some how they create a big bang, that still wouldn't prove anything. Why? Because you still have scientists pushing buttons. What they would prove is that an intelligence can create something, and what do you know, God is an intelligence who created all.
sam3374 2 years ago
the material came from a primordial egg. and no scientist would push any buttons, because once the temperature and density of that egg would be like the one in the original big bang, the fenomenon would occur without any human control over it.
portugalrula 2 years ago
Do you hear yourself, primordial egg? Lets go with that for a sec, I'll just ask this one, where did that egg com from? And yes they would be pushing buttons. Remember, scientists say that they observe and test, yet no one has ever seen the beginning, or "the big bang" so they are doing a lab experiment based on something they never observed, so in short scientists are pushing buttons, other wise the experiment wouldn't exist.
sam3374 2 years ago
and islands that are toght to have millions of years only have 3000 or so? and how can you fit so many events on 4500 years? and there aren't vulcanic islands? and do you think that some one in the sky came to the work of telling so many things (nowadays proven wrong by science) to four men? well, shouldn't you be looking for something more real, than to accept the things told to you by some people? shouldn't you make some use of your Reason, rather than to accept something told to you?
portugalrula 2 years ago
It is extremely likely that islands formed or broke off in such a a short period, just look at our world today, entire mountains have fallen into the oceans, read the news. And again god has talked to more than 4 people, the bible says so itself. I use to believe in evolution, but I saw reason, and that is the bible
sam3374 2 years ago
do you know something called vulcanic islands? they also form in short periods of time, and still form nowadays... and if god talked to more than 4 people why does the vatican only allow the 4 gospels that are on the bible to be published? is judas black? and the gospel of jesus? and the gnostic texts? is the vatican so afraid that the people are let to decide their own path?
and of course that the reason is that the universe was inside a word...
portugalrula 2 years ago
Number one again, I dont believe in the vatican, two it was researched that those other so called gospels were not written by who they claimed to be, thus they were fakes. And the 4 gospels are the accounts of matthew, mark, luke and john on the life of Jesus. Lastly im not sure what you meant by the vulcanic islands, nor the universe inside a word. I can tell you is that God spoke and he created the universe.
sam3374 2 years ago
in a meeting the vatican decided wich gospels should be put on the bible and wich should be "forgotten". even nowadays the vatican doesn't allow anyone to take a peek into it's vaults. but i will stop commenting, because you are free to believe in whatever you wish to believe. and if that makes you a better man, that is even better...
portugalrula 2 years ago
Read John chapter 1 and genesis smart guy
sam3374 2 years ago
sory, i realy dont like fairytales. but you should use the internet for something else then porn. if you know so much about the bible, research the origin of genesis. or do you think it was god who wrote it? you idiot...
portugalrula 2 years ago
Not a shred of evidence to back up none of what you said. Well if you don't loke fairy tales the bible is true so quit your wining. Who wrote genesis? Man did, under the guidence of God. And wow really name calling that shows me a lot about you already.
sam3374 2 years ago
As I understand, the Earth was the main "creation" in the Universe:) Yepp, you guys simply haven't evolved up to the atheist level yet:)
johammbass 2 years ago
ummm were's your backing for all of these ridiculous statements of yours?
sam3374 2 years ago
LOL, the Earth was "created" before all the stars? I feel sick hearing that.
johammbass 2 years ago
In the beginning there is a word??? WTF? Are you completely retarded?
johammbass 2 years ago
Which version of Creation in the Bible do you like best?
Genesis Chapter ONE,
in which humans were created AFTER plants and animals?
Or chapter TWO, in which humans were created BEFORE plants and animals?
Chapter ONE,
in which man and woman were created at the same time?
Or chapter TWO,
in which man was created before the plants
and woman was created after all the animals?
Imaginefree69 3 years ago
Which version lol, if I had a nickel for every time I heard that one trying to be passed off as a so called contradiction, nice try. Well chapter one talks about the order, ex) first day, second day etc... The second chapter says formed in verse 7, it is clearly past tense. And yes man was made after plants because we read this part in verse 5 of chapter 2, and there was no man to work the ground...
sam3374 3 years ago
If I gad a dollar for ever honest and accurate response
to this contradiction by a christian
I still would be unable to buy a newspaper.
Lust look at where the Woman is created in each account.
After the beasts and simultaneously with Man in chapter 1,
chapter 2 says Man, then all the beasts, then Woman.
No honest, rational mind can claim these are the same story.
Imaginefree69 3 years ago
Well with this I can say, what you say doesnt go. You dont even go into dept like I did with the verses, or provide another source. Just read the last comment/email I made because this is just a repeat of the previous nonsense you sent. Oh and the word then is only mentioned once, and the word after not at all in chapter 2. So where are you getting all these thens and afters from. Honest and rational? Not seeing that from you
sam3374 3 years ago
You're just being deliberately, dishonestly obtuse.
The word "then" and "after" are not required
when a sequential narrative is being told.
man was made, god thought he needed a partner.
So god made all the beasts, and found no partner.
So god took a rib and made woman.
That's what it says.
If you require "then" and "after" to make sense of that,
your reading skills are quite inadequate.
Imaginefree69 3 years ago
Do you hear yourself, then and after are not required lol. Who made you the judge of that? My point was clear. In chapter 2 it talks basically of why God made the beasts, for man, even though he made them before, because God knew proir. There are no afters, or thens like there is in chapter 1 ex), Then God said, Let there be lightThen God said, Let the earth bring forth grass Then God said, Let Us make man.. It says in chap. 2, Formed every beast PAST TENSE.
sam3374 3 years ago
You've given such a beautiful example of delusional thinking
that I'm not going to touch it.
Just leave it as is
for all to see.
I'm quite content.
Imaginefree69 3 years ago
Thank you, and end to your delusional statements, at least from here. I hope
sam3374 3 years ago
well, you need to more something better.
praiselordgrace 3 years ago