“The ugly and the stupid have the best of it in this world. They can sit at their ease and gape at the play. If they know nothing of victory, they are at least spared the knowledge of defeat.”
Many have chosen to believe there is no God because they cant see Him. And the Bible is manmade vain imagination. O foolish ones who profess to be wise do you not know the very quintessential element of life that sustains your mortal body is AIR which you cannot see but DESPERATELY DEPEND on it. Jesus is the CREATOR and SUSTAINER of ALL things. Seek the truth before u speak. It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings is to search out a matter.(Prov 25:2)
Thought only the Lord could create DNA out of nothing?
In one of the biggest breakthroughs in recent history, scientists have created a synthetic genome that can self-replicate. Led by Craig Venter of the J. Craig Venter Institute, the team of scientists combined two existing techniques to transplant synthetic DNA into a bacteria. First they chemically synthesized a bacterial genome, then they used well-known nuclear transfer techniques (used in IVF) to transplant the genome into a bacteria.
Many think Christians are fools, but question is, what have you done to disprove the Bible? The Bible is the true Word of God because only God can declare the end before it happens. Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure. (Isaiah 46:10) God's Word is evident in the news. The validity of Gods word hangs on the prophetic word of God. Thats how we KNOW we serve the True God!
But as the days of Noah were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. (Matt 24:37) The finding of Noahs Ark is a warning sign of God imminent judgment and mankind final 7yrs in this dispensation. Jesus is COMING very soon! Believe now and be saved from coming judgment or wait for this sign (Rapture, millions of Christians mysteriously disappears). Are you not remotely curious to why so many terrible things are happening? Floods, volcanoes, earthquakes, oil drilling disaster, etc.?
Light travels (at least today) 671 million miles per hour - in a vacuum. Mass (gravity) can bend it. To go the length of Earth's equator it takes 134 ms.
To go from the Moon to Earth it takes:1.3 s.
To go from Sun to Earth (1 AU) it takes: 8.3 min.
To go one parsec 3.26 years.
To go from Alpha Centauri to Earth 4.4 years.
And across the Milky Way100,000 years.
From the Andromeda Galaxy to Earth 2.5 million years.
Question: Is our math that wrong, or is the Earth older than believed?
Bible doesnt say 2 of every "species" was on the ark. It says 2 of every "sort" /"kind" (hebrew word: miyn). What is a miyn? Genesis defines as any family of animals that can interbreed or "reproduce after their kind". Species are individual branches of a "kind". For example 100's of dog species are all from one canine "kind". Futurplanet's numbers are inflated. Also, it is likely that all "kinds" on the ark were quite young. weighed & ate less yet had the most reproductive potential.
So you're say that after the flood all these kinds managed to speciate at an accelerated rate after the flood? Sorry, speciation doesn't work that fast. Also, we know by the fossil record what species already existed during the time of ancient man so you'd figure they'd all be collected. Certain species live in certain areas too like penguins for example. A young penguin would be an adult by the time it got to Noah since it comes from the south pole. The ark is just a story.
@maggotballs 3K yrs ago, ther was just the wolf&wild dog which produced all dogs of today-quite rapid. Fossils are not a record of time, rather of an event where the animal/plant was rapidly burried in water and sediments then sorted by the well known process of liquefaction which also sorted vast and uniform strata layers. Uniformitarians mistake this as time. Its realy global evidence of lots of water&sediments, mixd w/ flora&fawna which were sorted by liquefaction in one event.
The term "wild dog" is very broad and can include African hunting dogs, jackals, coyotes and foxes. Despite what you think about layers of strata being indicators of time periods, they are. Flora and and Fauna that existed in given time periods are predominately found in strata of the same age. For example you would find a Eocene fossil in a layer of Cretaceous strata. We know what time period they existed so we know the corresponding layer.
@maggotballs point is, many species came from very few very rapidly. You find similar "stuff" in similar layers, because they are roughly the same size, shape and density. Liquefaction will sort everything in this way, no matter how mixed up you start out with. So I wouldn't necessarily expect to see dino's next to mice, for example, although water lensing could trap big and small together.
You're not going to get that many different species from 2 based canines like the bible indicates with Noah's Ark. That's simply not enough genetic diversity to propagate an entire species alone. If fossils were sorted out by size, shape and density and not by the time period in which the animals existed then why don't we see large prehistoric mammals like Indricotherium and large dinosaurs in the same layer? Sorry, It just doesn't work.
@maggotballs The historical record disagrees with you, and not just in the case of dogs. As for sorting, all we have to go off of is mineral fossils. We don't know the density of the overall animal with un-mineralized bone, nor of the flesh and organs.Also, some animals would survive the harsh conditions longer than others.. so on average, animal types would have died in groups at different times. Lensing would have prevented perfect sorting.
What part disagrees with me? It's safe to say that something like a Velociraptor or almost any Dromaeosaur would considerably less dense since they were smaller and even had hollow bones like birds. Also, a human and a Velociraptor would have about the same survival rate in a biblical flood so there should be at least one instance where humans would be fossilized with a dinosaur or just any any animals from different time periods mixed in the same layer of stratum.
@maggotballs I guess just read up on the history of genes and breading of all domesicated animals. Is shows that many species can be rapidly produced.
The amount of area that has been uncovered for fossils is tiny compared to the whole globe. there may be a point in time where a human is found next to the "wrong" animal. It is a little early to declare this will never be observed when way less than 1% of the data have been uncovered.
Science has been digging in the ground since major fossil finds in the pits in South Africa, while other men were looking for diamonds and gold. Ancient evidence of human (and pre-human) settlements have been found - with incredible detail and not a single bit of physical evidence that dinosaurs were there with them.
There would be zero reason for science to hide such a thing if it was found. Unlike this carnival joke supposedly found on Mount Ararat.
@DarwinsFriend Don't agree w/ less than 1%? ...ok....So how much of earth's surface do you say has been uncovered by scientists and inspected for fossils in the 'right' layers?
@nnlmt28 Science doesn't do the "right layers" thing. Science doesn't care where the layers are - right or wrong.
Only religion puts labels and their Creator connotations on such exploring. Just like this Noah's Ark "discovery." Self-fulfilling prophecy. These expeditions always find Noah's Ark. Nobody ever comes home empty-handed. Amazing.
On the issue of actual scientists hiding 'man with dinosaur' evidence, it could happen - but what advantage would be gained? Let logic be your guide.
Well, it look like DarwinsFriend covered one of my points here. The problem with you're comparison is the environments of domesticated animals vs. wild animals. In the wild animals have to worry about predation, control of territory and tons of variables domesticated animals don't have to worry about since we take care of them. Domesticated animals live much longer because of this which means they can breed longer and faster an the young would be cared for by us as well.
I'm not sure if you entertaining the idea of a young earth or not but if you are you would also see a single layer of stratum with animals from different time periods that we know are millions of years apart like hominids and dinosaurs. Obviously that's not the case. Also, a flood would have wiped out every ecosystem on the planet and leave massive salt deposits in the soil making it near impossible for plantlife to grow.
@maggotballs As stated, liquefaction sorts objects (including sediment particles) by size, shape, and density...So I don't expect to find human and dino fossils together. Liquefaction would not give a single layer w/ all fossils mixed in the same layer. It will produce multiple layers with objects sorted at various points within.
There were plenty of dinosaurs that were the size a an average human and plenty that were smaller. By your theory of size, shape and density, if we did exist with dinosaurs at one point, then we should find dinosaurs near our size and smaller fossilized in the same layer of strata or even in a layer above us. Of course, none of this is found in nature because your theory simply isn't the case.
@maggotballs There are many vast/thick layers of salt deposit round the world, on both continents and ocean floors. Golf of Mexico and Mediterranean Sea floors are 1000's of ft thick w/ NaCl. Much of the thick salt layers on continents are covered by by 100's to 1000's of feet of other layers of sediment....so plantlife above is isolated from the salt.
Your right, but their not on the top soil.If they were on the top soil it would prevent plantlife from growing. If there's a large enough layer of top soil on top of these salt deposits then some plantlife can survive provided it's roots are somewhat shallow. It would take 1000's of years for sediment to be naturally deposited on top of these salt deposits so all plantlife could thrive and I don't think Noah was carrying topsoil and germinated seeds of the plants of the world with him
@maggotballs as flood water escaped from the deep and depressurized, salt was precipicated, creating the huge salt layers. as the flood progressed many sediment layers covered the salt. Fine silts and top soils would be the last to rest on the sediments. This can be observed in any soil/sediment liquefaction demo. As flood waters drained off continents into newly formed ocean basins of today, the plants and seeds floating on top would be deposited in the top layers of silt and soil...
"As Flood water escaped from the deep" I'm really not sure what you're saying here unless you're suggest the flood water originated underground, which also doesn't work. Another problem is it would take more than roughly 4000 years to replenish every ecosystem in the world without human intervention on a massive scale and there were only 8 after the flood. Most plantlife wouldn't be able to survive being uprooted and floating on saltwater for a year too.
@maggotballs (cont.) unique conditions after the flood like warm oceans and raised continents lead to increased precipitation on continents. This fresh water precipitation would have rapidly washed salt from the soil. Just like it does in my back yard where I use salt as a cheap ground sterilizer. Only works for a few months and I'm in the southwest were we don't get much rain.
What sort of unique conditions do you think occurred? It would take something pretty monumental to heat all the oceans of the world exponentially. Plantlife is still going to be wiped out courtesy of the flood and there's no mention of plants and seeds being collected on the ark so you're still left with a barren planet. No plants to support herbivores so they wouldn't survive. Not to mention every time a predator ate one he'd be dooming a species to extinction.
@maggotballs you'll need to read the work of Walt Brown, author of the hydroplate theory to see just how monumental the flood actually was. One of the main assumtions is that the flood waters came from under a globe enwrapping supercontinent. This is what the Bible describes as the " fountains of the deep". Walts' observations point to a global flood that was much more than just a bunch of rain. I'm sure you'll disagree, however you might find it interesting.
I'm familiar with the theory. Another creationist I debated brought it up a couple of times. The areas he suggest were the :fountains" were the mid ocean ridges though which are obvious areas of seafloor spreading. That and whatever water that would come out of ocean vents would be superheated and loaded with hydrogen sulfide which is very toxic and if introduce in large quantities could make a large body of water acidic.
@maggotballs I recommend studying the theory indepth on your own. Not sure what the other guy said, but (w/ respect) you seem to be misunderstanding the theory. The flood waters did not come up through ocean vents now observed in the mid ocean ridges. Hydrogen sulfide now observed in the mid ocean vents is a slow residual after effect of the flood. (cont.)
DarwinFriend's comment is below if you looking for what he said that I agreed with about fossil pits and so on. I've heard several creationist mention mid ocean ridges and vents as a source of flood water and I wasn't sure if you were supporting it. Hydrogen sulfide is the result of thermal or volcanic activity so I don't see how it would be an after affect of a flood.
@maggotballs Again indepth study is required (unfortunately) to truely be familiar with and understand this after effect. Dr. Brown's website explains "after effects" of the flood much better (w/ graphics etc.) than I can in this format.
It sounds like an interesting theory but if it can be debunked by natural science then it doesn't work. Sorry, Noah's ark alone has enough problems with being believable without the flood. Like I said, there's too much that doesn't make sense and what doesn't make sense can't be answered with "god did it" without proving scientifically that "god" exists.
@maggotballs When you read the hydroplate theory, you'll find that Dr. Brown is very much against using "God did it" miracles as crutch for a scientific theory. He is very rigorous in his critique of his own theory as well as other creationist theorys that do try to throw in miracles to support. You'll find he defines his assumtions up front and then reasons (using only established physics) from cause to effect....no miracles added. I think you'd find it refreshing.
@maggotballs The mid ocean ridges are more readily explained as the result of bending of an elasict foundation which resulted in upward buckling of the mantle. Since rock is weak in tension the bending resulted in many cracks along the ridge. Because the shape of the foundation was spherical, the tension cracks occured in two distinct directions (both nort-south & east-west). (cont.)
Part of their characteristic can be explain by that but they are areas of seafloor spreading none the less. We can even measure the rate (roughly 1.5 cm. a year) at which they spread because the seafloor is magnetically stripe. New sections of seafloor have a reversed polarity from the previously formed section of seafloor. At that rate it makes sense since 200 million years ago Africa and South America where connected and they're roughly 2500 km. apart.
@maggotballs As hydroplate theory explains, the slow "spreading" seen to day is the result of a large mass shift of earth's core toward the Atlantic and away from the Pacific. This i why a large majority of earthquates result in an overall shift towards the western Pacific trench region. (cont.)
Earthquakes, tsunamis and volcanic activity have always been centered around the Pacific since our continents have been at their present position. It's called the "ring of fire" for a reason. The mid pacific ridge spreads an pushes against all the other plates it's near which is the reason there's a lot of activity there.
@maggotballs The more you comment, the more it is clear you have not read or do not understand the hydroplate theory. I think your familiarity with Dr. Brown's work is only based on what you've heard other tell you. Again, I'd highly recommend giving it a close look.
@maggotballs This is what gives the ridge its unique 'alligator scale' crack appearance. The cracks are clearly open tension cracks, however, seafloor spreading demands that they be compression cracks. Seafloor spreading also suffers from poor definition of forces that produce the spreading. Terms such as "mantle convection currents" are vague and have never been observed in a solid - only conjecure. (cont.)
Convection makes practical sense though. The further magma moves toward the core of earth the hotter it gets which would make it rise then as it cools down by lower crust it would sink again. Convection is a testable theory and plenty of models have been made to demonstrate it. Plate Tectonics is a viable theory and has withstood plenty of skepticism.
@maggotballs The viscosity of the rock involved is several orders of magnitude above the "water in a boiling pot" example that is so often given as a demostratable example of convection. No one has ever tested, much less confirmed, the ability of rock to convect at these densities and pressures. What's more, getting a geologist to define the forces involved in an engineering sense is usually a fruitless endevor. The skepticism for PT theory is well founded.
@maggotballs - platetectonic theory's need for seafloor spreading and convection currents has lead many to hypothesize that the mantle is less than a solid or a viscoelastic material. However sound waves passing through the mantle give no reason to conclude it is anything other than solid.
@nnlmt28 I've got one more question for you: what was the relative density of the flood water? And do you know the effect of saltwater on freshwater fish and vice versa?
@SilverHydroxide Thora is the Dutch spelling (I'm Dutch). I studied Latin, so I know that the ae can be an e, but still. But now you're trying to tell me that the mythological stories weren't derived from ancient civilizations? Have you studied other civilizations and local religions? Do you know why the bible states that the son died on the cross, was dead for 3 days and was ressurected? Have you heard of the constellation Crux? Do you know how the sun (son) moves around the 21st of december?
@thyztwizta Crux, Orion Belt, there are so many so-called explanations for that. But most likely, it was a planetary alignment. 21st December? There was no specific date for Christ's birth. The date was just invented by Catholic bishops.
@thyztwizta Oh, so "Thora" is the Dutch spelling. Sorry, I was not aware of that. Anyway, romanization of Hebrew is tricky.
Their "stories" were the events that happened around the Mediterranean from their own point of view. They have references about the other civilizations that they encounter. Archaeological evidence that matches biblical passages exist, I'm sure you're not aware of that.
@SilverHydroxide As for the Council of Nicaea was not a Roman organisation. It was a gathering ordered by Constantine. In the Council of Nicaea, "the Church had taken her first great step to define doctrine more precisely in response to a challenge from a heretical theology".
@thyztwizta You said it, "ordered by Constantine." Constantine was a Roman Emperor. He was the first to adopt Christianity because of it's influence and used it for conquest. This was the beginning of CATHOLICISM, not Christianity.
@SilverHydroxide I know that's catholicism. I don't think I ever said it was the beginning of either religion.
And I am aware that there's archaeologicial evidence that matches biblical passages. Why do you assume I don't? But just because it matches doesn't mean it happened. A wooden structure doesn't make an ark.
@thyztwizta It's because you mentioned that the modern bible was made up by the Council of Nicaea.
It's because you dismiss all of the biblical passages as mythical stories. Some stories, like the Garden of Eden and Noah's Ark, are symbolic. They don't imply things in a literal sense. Some writings are actual events. Some are literary. Some are records of written laws. It is a diverse group of texts, not just one book.
@SilverHydroxide And who decides whether or not a passage is factual or mythological? A "normal" tsunami, which we can confirm archeologically, can become a happening of mythological proportions, such as a worldwide flood.
@thyztwizta flood waters of the great deep would've been mineral rich & full of sediments, so, much denser than the life-bearing preflood seas which would have tended to "float" above the flood waters. Many fish (salmon) tolerate both fresh&salt @the same time. After the flood, natural selection (micro evolution) would have reduced the number of fish to only those which could survive best in either fresh or salt. Many are now inbread &too genetically shallow to go back.
@thyztwizta The bible invented by the Council of Nicea? Wow, it's funny how you think that you know a lot about bible history than others when you obviously can't get your facts right.
@knightscum07 Where in my post did you find that I said the bible was "invented" by the council of Nicaea (notice the 2 a's?)? The modern bible was constructed and agreed upon by the council of nicaea. The bible itself is a collection of stories, the old testament is the old Jewish bible or Thora. All the stories themselves are old mythological stories from numerous civilizations, mainly the Egyptians. Please, get your own facts right.
@thyztwizta The "ae" in Latin can be anglicized as "e". So it's not strange to see "Nicea" instead of "Nicaea".
The "old testament" is not just the Torah (not Thora as you spelled it). Other texts are also included, written by prophets (Hebrew religious-political leaders). The stories that you claim to be mythological is actually a great source of insights of history of events that the Hebrews witnessed. The Council of Nicea is a Roman organization that adopted the Hebrew Christianity.
There's just no way we can argue with creationists. While we are more then willing to accept proof if they come up with it, that there is a god, they are just way to stubborn and dismiss any proof that they're all wrong in accepting the so-called facts stated in their story book.
@thyztwizta Ok. Prove these "so-called facts" of the bible wrong then. Remember though, possibilities are NOT facts. Science is full of possibilities about earth's creation, dinosaurs existence, etc., but lack the facts to back up their ideas or theories. Their aging systems are flawed throughout as well.
@bjobes3 I never said that scientists claim they know the facts. We just don't know. If we knew, there wouldn't be science.
We don't have to prove the so-called facts of the bible wrong. If I claimed to know there was a cup of tea in orbit around our moon, it's not up to you to prove me wrong, it's up to me to prove I'm right.
If you knew where the stories in your bible came from, you wouldn't be so sure anymore.
This is obviously a great hoax. Besides if they believe in carbon dating they cant believe in the bible. Carbon dating proves the existence of dinosaurs and proves the earth is older than what is written in the bible. They have to choose between their fraud and their religion...
@crazyological Do any of you who believe that the earth is millions of years old, as confirmed through carbon dating, even understand how carbon dating works? Carbon dating is such a flawed system that scientists have often confirmed animals that had been dead for one week or less to be dead for thousands of years. This happens all the time using this system, yet scientists just decide to use what supports their claim, and has little chance of being disproven.
@bjobes3 Nope, it's more like BILLIONS. You also seem to forget that we can measure how far things are away because we know how fast light travels. Carbon dating is only one way to measure. Radiometric measurement is far better at telling the age of older things. SOME evidence is far better than NONE.
@Rushtrdamus Once again, there is ZERO evidence of any kind to actually prove the scientific dating systems are correct. They use the information they have to determine such, though they do not have any source of reference to the actual time periods in which they claim something existed. Your idea of earth's age is based the logic that earth was created at or around the same time as those stars. Once again though, that is something we will never ever know, but science will try to say we do.
@bjobes3 And yet, you believe a book written by men(who weren't around then) who say exactly how long it took to create the heavens and earth???? hahahahahahaha This is why people think you're nuts, you aren't consistant, at all.
Rudshterdamus, it took me all of 20 seconds to run a search and get a nice list of 10 discoveries. You might try spending some time doing this if you REALLY want to know the truth. Try and prove the bible wrong and you will instead believe. If you don't accept scientific evidence then I will offer you something else. My neighbor was miraculously healed last year from a wheat allergy that was life threatening when we prayed for her in the Name of Jesus. God loves you too!
@BobKeeler EVERYONE, notice that BOB didn't reply directly to me, and offered no evidence even though he said he found them. Why would he change the way he replys to others? I've done thew research BOB and find very little evidence and no scientific evidence. Nice try, Bob.
I'm sorry I don't know the proper way to reply "to you" should I not delete what initially pops up in the reply box? Ok I respect your opinion. I just do believe that if something is in the bible it is true. It proves itself.
@BobKeeler Instead, I searched for the evidence proving there is a Flying Spaghetti monster, and believe it or not: it took me less than 20 seconds and the list of hits was close to infinite.
And praying for your neighbor is no proof once again. Just because YOU can't tell why she became better, doesn't mean it was miraculous. Can you proof that she would've been worse off without the prayer?
She had been suffering for years... the week before we prayed for her I saw it with my own eyes.. She was staying with my family. It is hard to know what has wheat in it. One day we ate some Thai meatballs and when she touched one to her lip it swelled up and she lost her voice, she ran out. She kept a shot with her in case a reaction caused her heart to stop. We prayed for her. cont....
The next day she ate something my wife had cooked and when we asked ny wife what it was she brought ourt some powder she had used. At that point I wondered could she have been healed? The next week she began sampling different things and it was true she had been instantly healed by Jesus. Her doctor wouldn't believe it. Her family, her church... but they had to when they saw it with their own eyes. God loves us and cares what we are feeling!
The thing is, we, as scientists gather data, combine them, and come up with a conclusion. The conclusion is not binding, as for more data will become available, perhaps prompting us to change our views.
Creationists and religious folks think they already have the conclusion, thus looking for anything that supports their conclusion. If more data becomes available, they make slight alterations in the data to make sure it fits with their conclusion.
Despite all the geological evidence we have for the age of the earth being roughly 4.6 billion years old there are other ways of determining that our planet is roughly that old. If we're able to see the light from stars that a billions of light years away then that means our planet has been here for billions of years since it took that light that long to get here.
@maggotballs Not to get into that theory too much, but the light from stars could have already made here when earth was created, meaning the stars have been around for long, long time.
@bjobes3 So, let me get this straight: you actually tell us that stars could've been around for a long, long time, but at the same time you believe what the bible says, claiming that god created the stars in the same 6 day period he created the earth?
@thyztwizta That was exactly my point. Science goes against the bible in terms of earth's existence, unless of course it fits their cause. In this case, they believe the stars were created at the same time as the earth, yet the big bang theory suggest much of the universe was created prior to the earth due to the expansion theory.
@bjobes3 Really? Science has no cause. We're here to try and explain things. That's why we gather data, form a theory and test this theory against newly found evidence.
What you just explained is the typical creationists way of handling data.
Not really. The light from those stars have to travel such vast distances that it takes millions if not billions of years to reach our planet. We don't see where they are in the sky but where the were millions or billions of years ago. If the earth was younger than a million years then we simply wouldn't see them since the light hadn't reached us yet and the speed of light is at it's fastest in the vacuum of space.
@BobKeeler Hahahahahahahahahaha Sorry dude, but I can't help but laugh. Humans have an amazing ability to build up a tollerance to things they are allergic to. My wife used to be allergic to strawberries, now. she can eat them just fine because over a long time, she touched, tasted and exposed herself to the CHEMICAL that she was allergic to. NOT A MIRACLE.
@thyztwizta It is nery simple, please read the story above.. sick for years, sick the day we prayed, not sick the next day... miraculous. I know it is hard to believe. It was hard for her husband. He was freaked out because he guarded her life. But after a few days he broke down and accepted it. God Bless You!
@BobKeeler That is a miracle! The sad thing is, people like rushtradmus could witness a miracle first hand, such as a blind person all of the sudden can see for the first time in their life, yet his explanation/rationalization would be that the person had just never opened their eyes prior to that event.
@bjobes3 Pefect example: The miracle on the Hudson. Sully was called a hero for saving the lives of the people on the plane. NOT ONCE did I hear anyone talk about the one person on the plane whom Sully was actually TRYING to save, HIMSELF. Sully didn't push a child from in front of a bus and sacrifice himself, he saved his own ass and the rest of the people happened to be there.
@Rushtrdamus I haven't followed the pilot's actual detailed account of the event, but I bet you everyone on that plane believed in God at that moment, even if they didn't when they got on that plane.
@bjobes3 Yeah, cause god just fucks with people by shoving birds into jet engines. How about NOT threatening thier lives in the first place?
Why is it that churchies always give god credit for surviving a disaster, but not blame him for the disaster in the first place??? Wouldn't he be responsible for both?
Haha, and now all of a sudden they turn to carbon dating to determine the age of the wooden thingy? If so, what is wrong with our tests showing that dinosaurs are millions of years old?
I think that if you looked at the common view of the flood.. it was a cataclysmic atmosphere changer. The bible says that prior to the flood it had never rained.. Use of carbon dating relies on an assumption that rates have not changed, that the atmosphere has been stable. It is therefore possible that carbon dating would be only accurate for the time after the flood. Anything predating the flood would be off.
There's not enough evidence to support a global flood and I don't think you know enough about radiometric dating to really make an informed opinion on it. Just because something contradicts biblical doctrine doesn't mean it wrong.
@BobKeeler "If you looked at the common view of the flood" All you're doing is quoting an old book. Just because it says so in your book, doesn't mean it REALLY HAPPENED!
And carbon dating does not rely on the assumption that rates have not changed. We all know the atmosphere is never stable. Once again, you're still using your book as a guideline. Talking about assumption....
@thyztwizta And yes, carbon dating is used on the belief that rates do not change, based on the assumption that carbon rates would max out around 30,000 years. Since many scientists believe that the world is millions of years old, that leaves them to assume that the rates have already maxed out and thus will not ever change again.
Radiometric dating is actually very accurate. If we know the method by which a certain isotope decays and the rate at which it decays through that method then it's definitely measurable. Radiometric dating can also be cross-referenced with other dating methods such as dendrochronology and ice core dating. Generally, if there are errors in the readings then you can usually chalk them up to human error or contaminated samples.
I refuse to prove I exist, says god, because proof denies faith and without faith I am nothing. But the babel fish is a dead give away, isn't it? Oh. I hadn't thought of that says god ... and promptly disappears in a puff of logic.
And........If the Flood of Noah covered the Earth and all the mountains, would not the Antarctic continent have been consumed by the same waters?
And if these waters did cover the ice would that ice have not been destroyed also? How is it that core samples of ice have been dated back to 740,000 years ago? I mean these things are as accurate as tree rings.
I hope this is the real ark. the Turkey Govt. is helping protect the site. So many have claimed that the bible is false because of the story of the ark. the story is basic in explaining man's sin, Gods' displeasure with it, and Gods' salvation in Jesus. countless discoveries are made which prove the historic truth of the bible. Countless historians have made claims that this and that is not true, only to eat their words later.
@BobKeeler hi bob i think you will find there has been a lot more proof that the bible is a work of fiction that fact.....as for the ark story thats a very nise way of putting it... the story is basic in explaining man's sin, Gods' displeasure with it."....but it sure does not xplain how it has ANY truth common sense and the bible make very uneasy friends.
@BobKeeler > "Countless historians have made claims that this and that is not true, only to eat their words later."
* spit my coffee on my keyboard - laughing at this ignorance.
"This, that and the other thing" is a phrase used by really simplistic individuals that don't want to be bothered with researching detail / evidence / a.k.a. facts.
Grandmothers use this phraseology when they are flustered by their grand-kid's computer skills - quite hilarious, actually.
@BobKeeler Please name the countless discoveries. Give me 10 REAL discoveries that prove the historic truth nof the bible. Show me where the apostles are buried? Show me the tomb Jesus was first layed to rest? You can't, cause even the apostles gave conflicting accounts. Sorry pal, bullshit.
These people are hoaxers and moviemakers. Its already been proven that they sent locals up the mountain a few years ago and planted all the wood there. And this isnt the first time they have "found" Noahs Ark. The other two times they "found" it were both proven to be hoaxes... do a little research people, its not hard...
@cgregory67 thats a really clever retort, "he was typing fast and added an extra E in a word, what an idiot!" you saying this only exemplifies your an idiot with no social life.
@longstockings666 Interesting how you speak about yourself in third person "he was typing" Must be the 666 personality speaking at the end of your user name, lol... freak.
@cgregory67 what is interesting is that you believe yourself to be intellegent while you argue with people on youtube --- which is a complete contradiction. But its not your fault, arguing with people online is probably the only human interaction you have so you do it as much as possible. I'll keep this discussion going, wouldnt want you to get lonely now... what els should we argue about? I'll start it off: God doesnt exist....1 2 3 GO!
@cgregory67 Wow, you sure destroyed his arguement. Are you a spelling teacher, if not, how sad that SPELLING, is your rebuttal.
Now, if you're done deflecting, prove that god exists. Unless you want to act like the other dipshit, BJOB3 and ask for evidence of that which doesn't exist? Prove DRAGONS don't exist. Prove HARRY POTTER doesn't exist.
Either act like you are aware of reality or please shut up and go away.
@Rushtrdamus I am happy to partake but when regressive behavior persists with name calling like dipshit, ignorant, retard, etc. the discussion is over. When convinced I am not dealing with adolescent minds and mature attitudes open to analyze and speak scientifically on research, history, and data I would be happy to debate.
@cgregory67 BULLSHIT, you bang your head against the wall and hope that God gets you through another tough question. I never called you a retard, that would insult retards, at least they can't help it. Your problem is a weak mind. You think in a line, and if that line isn't straight towards god, heehaw heehaw. You become an ass.
@Rushtrdamus You've contradicted everything you're defending about about science and theories throughout this forum. Just like a scientist though, you support what works/fits your ideas. Keep up the good work.
@bjobes3 Science doesn't need to prove anything to you, YOU need to dis-prove the accepted science. Believing in something that can't even be a theory is insane at best. Do you believe in viruses? Bacteria? Atoms? Stars?
THAT'S the crazy thing, someone has to ask if you do. You've bought into the bible bullshit so much that you deny reality.
@Rushtrdamus I don't deny reality at all. With that being said, I don't deny our creator either. I believe it is 100% more logical to believe that all things were created by a greater being in existence prior to all creation, than it is to believe that all things were created out of nothing. The one FACT we DO know from science is... it takes life to create life. Why would the creation of the universe be any different, or vise-versa with life on earth? Who's the one really denying reality?
It's also hard to say "as far a we know" since it can't be proven scientifically that such a being exists. At this point it's just speculation since there's no evidence of such a being. I'd personally rather look for a scientific answer that's testable and doesn't rely on the supernatural.
@maggotballs I agree with you 100%. Just a little FYI, I don't have an issue with scientific discoveries supported by facts. However, I DO have a problem with scientific assumptions that claim a discovery as a fact, when the evidence only supports a mere possibility. God can't be proven, but can't be disproven either. That is where faith comes in to play. My faith is strong, and it is continuously strengthened by the undeniable perfection of life itself.
It's cool that you're open to scientific discoveries and theories. Science and religion always seem to be opposing one another but I think it's important to remain objective to evidence. I don't think anyone trying to prove the non-existence of "god though. Trying to prove a negative seems a little redundant. By that same logic, no one can prove Odin, Zeus or Vishnu don't exist. It makes more sense to prove something does exist. That's just my take on it.
@maggotballs Agreed. Keeping an open mind to all possibilities can only increase one's knowledge and understanding of another's point of view. Forming a conclusion after you have the all the facts definitely results in a more acceptable opinion. That advice is probably something our U.S. attorney general should take into consideration.
That advice should be sound advice for anybody. Everything should be questioned especially this latest Noah's Ark business. This claim has been made countless times and all of them are inconclusive. This latest one was actually examined 3 years earlier I believe and the dating results were vastly different. It's highly improbable that the Noah's Ark story was a true story anyway but rather a moral homily of sorts.
@bjobes3 HTF can you agree with someone 100% and then argue with them????
Your faith is so strong that you find easy to ignore reality, THAT is insane. UNDENIABLE PERFECTION??? WTF? Ever hear of Cancer? Downs syndrome? Sarah Palin? Life isn't and never has been perfect. Even to say such a thing highighlights your ignorance.
@Rushtrdamus Life, humans specifically, are perfect. Cancer is not human life, but rather a disease. If you can't determine the difference, then you may want to go back to school, or at least finish it. Human life being perfect is the fact that we are unable to be artificially recreated by anyone or anything, other than God himself. Scientific cloning experiments, successful or not, is the direct result of the DNA from another life, creating a new life via artificial production.
@bjobes3 DEFINE artificial? Cloning, art. Insem., invetro. Fert. and even cloning from a single parent is possible because scientists ignored dipshits like you claiming that man cannot do what god does. My wife and I created 3 girls, and god wasn't in the room. LOL
@Rushtrdamus Artificial - not real, created, manufactured, etc. Like I said previously, scientists can only recreate life through artificial PRODUCTION, or rather process. You stated several examples above. Guess what, you and your wife created life, which is none other than, a LIFE creating a LIFE.
@Rushtrdamus Well rush, this degenerative conversation with you has been fun, but I must hang it up now. I can hardly see my cpu screen through the fog caused by all the hot air you've been blowing on here. You take it easy and continue to believe in anything other than religion without factual proof. Just to let you know, I will continue to PRAY for you and others like you. GOD BLESS YOU!!!
@bjobes3 That's right, bow out before you look even more like an ass. Do you find it odd that multiple people on this post think you're nuttier than squirrel shit? Even the other churchies won't go as far as you denying ALL the evience supporting evo. Wierd that even your supporters would question your IQ. I will continue to be thankful not to have to waste my sundays.
@bjobes3 Bullshit. You can't have both. It takes certain chemicals to create life, NOT a god. CHEMICALS and MINERALS make up all life. I know I'm not the first to use logic to bash in your mental skull, but what or who created god, IF HE were to exist? I know you can't answer, as you can't even prove that ONE supernatural being exists. LOL
@Rushtrdamus I'm not talking about the general "make up" of life, but the actual creation of life is produced by life before it. It is a PROVEN fact of science. You are the scientific genius you carry yourself as, right? Now, go ahead and throw some more profanities at me and others. The more you comment, the more meaningless your opinion of religion and science becomes.
@bjobes3 Just so I;m clear, you're now claiming that earth has always had life on it? BULLSHIT! scientists still theorize that life evolved from chemical reactions with minerals as the building blocks. NOBODY believes life has always been on earth, not even religious fanatics.
@bjobes3 Ok, I'll try. Blah blah God exists blah blah can't prove he doesn't blah blah evolution bad blah blah ALL atheists are idiots blah blah ALL life is perfect blah blah ALL the facts. That pretty much covers the exstent of your blathering. Try reading a book besides the bible for a change.
@Rushtrdamus I appreciate how you demonstrated for everyone on here exactly how you read what you want to read, as opposed to what is actually written. By any chance, did you help write the new healthcare bill?
Two more weeks and still nothing? This fish is starting to stink.
DarwinsFriend 1 year ago
So how's the latest "expedition" coming? When are we going to see some more of those "amazing discoveries" by our little Chinese folk?
DarwinsFriend 1 year ago
“The ugly and the stupid have the best of it in this world. They can sit at their ease and gape at the play. If they know nothing of victory, they are at least spared the knowledge of defeat.”
Oscar Wilde
DarwinsFriend 1 year ago
Many have chosen to believe there is no God because they cant see Him. And the Bible is manmade vain imagination. O foolish ones who profess to be wise do you not know the very quintessential element of life that sustains your mortal body is AIR which you cannot see but DESPERATELY DEPEND on it. Jesus is the CREATOR and SUSTAINER of ALL things. Seek the truth before u speak. It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings is to search out a matter.(Prov 25:2)
Time4u2Believe 1 year ago
@Time4u2Believe
Your comparison doesn't really work. The presence of air is scientifically testable and explainable. The presence of "god" is not.
maggotballs 1 year ago 2
Thought only the Lord could create DNA out of nothing?
In one of the biggest breakthroughs in recent history, scientists have created a synthetic genome that can self-replicate. Led by Craig Venter of the J. Craig Venter Institute, the team of scientists combined two existing techniques to transplant synthetic DNA into a bacteria. First they chemically synthesized a bacterial genome, then they used well-known nuclear transfer techniques (used in IVF) to transplant the genome into a bacteria.
DarwinsFriend 1 year ago
Many think Christians are fools, but question is, what have you done to disprove the Bible? The Bible is the true Word of God because only God can declare the end before it happens. Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure. (Isaiah 46:10) God's Word is evident in the news. The validity of Gods word hangs on the prophetic word of God. Thats how we KNOW we serve the True God!
Time4u2Believe 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
But as the days of Noah were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. (Matt 24:37) The finding of Noahs Ark is a warning sign of God imminent judgment and mankind final 7yrs in this dispensation. Jesus is COMING very soon! Believe now and be saved from coming judgment or wait for this sign (Rapture, millions of Christians mysteriously disappears). Are you not remotely curious to why so many terrible things are happening? Floods, volcanoes, earthquakes, oil drilling disaster, etc.?
Time4u2Believe 1 year ago
@Time4u2Believe , you ask 'What have you done to disprove the bible?'
Snakes don't talk. Bible disproven. Next?
dhildemann 1 year ago
Light travels (at least today) 671 million miles per hour - in a vacuum. Mass (gravity) can bend it. To go the length of Earth's equator it takes 134 ms.
To go from the Moon to Earth it takes:1.3 s.
To go from Sun to Earth (1 AU) it takes: 8.3 min.
To go one parsec 3.26 years.
To go from Alpha Centauri to Earth 4.4 years.
And across the Milky Way100,000 years.
From the Andromeda Galaxy to Earth 2.5 million years.
Question: Is our math that wrong, or is the Earth older than believed?
DarwinsFriend 1 year ago
Does light travel at a slower speed now than it did when the Lord created it?
DarwinsFriend 1 year ago
Bible doesnt say 2 of every "species" was on the ark. It says 2 of every "sort" /"kind" (hebrew word: miyn). What is a miyn? Genesis defines as any family of animals that can interbreed or "reproduce after their kind". Species are individual branches of a "kind". For example 100's of dog species are all from one canine "kind". Futurplanet's numbers are inflated. Also, it is likely that all "kinds" on the ark were quite young. weighed & ate less yet had the most reproductive potential.
nnlmt28 1 year ago
@nnlmt28
So you're say that after the flood all these kinds managed to speciate at an accelerated rate after the flood? Sorry, speciation doesn't work that fast. Also, we know by the fossil record what species already existed during the time of ancient man so you'd figure they'd all be collected. Certain species live in certain areas too like penguins for example. A young penguin would be an adult by the time it got to Noah since it comes from the south pole. The ark is just a story.
maggotballs 1 year ago 2
@maggotballs 3K yrs ago, ther was just the wolf&wild dog which produced all dogs of today-quite rapid. Fossils are not a record of time, rather of an event where the animal/plant was rapidly burried in water and sediments then sorted by the well known process of liquefaction which also sorted vast and uniform strata layers. Uniformitarians mistake this as time. Its realy global evidence of lots of water&sediments, mixd w/ flora&fawna which were sorted by liquefaction in one event.
nnlmt28 1 year ago
@nnlmt28
The term "wild dog" is very broad and can include African hunting dogs, jackals, coyotes and foxes. Despite what you think about layers of strata being indicators of time periods, they are. Flora and and Fauna that existed in given time periods are predominately found in strata of the same age. For example you would find a Eocene fossil in a layer of Cretaceous strata. We know what time period they existed so we know the corresponding layer.
maggotballs 1 year ago
@maggotballs point is, many species came from very few very rapidly. You find similar "stuff" in similar layers, because they are roughly the same size, shape and density. Liquefaction will sort everything in this way, no matter how mixed up you start out with. So I wouldn't necessarily expect to see dino's next to mice, for example, although water lensing could trap big and small together.
nnlmt28 1 year ago
@nnlmt28
You're not going to get that many different species from 2 based canines like the bible indicates with Noah's Ark. That's simply not enough genetic diversity to propagate an entire species alone. If fossils were sorted out by size, shape and density and not by the time period in which the animals existed then why don't we see large prehistoric mammals like Indricotherium and large dinosaurs in the same layer? Sorry, It just doesn't work.
maggotballs 1 year ago
@maggotballs The historical record disagrees with you, and not just in the case of dogs. As for sorting, all we have to go off of is mineral fossils. We don't know the density of the overall animal with un-mineralized bone, nor of the flesh and organs.Also, some animals would survive the harsh conditions longer than others.. so on average, animal types would have died in groups at different times. Lensing would have prevented perfect sorting.
nnlmt28 1 year ago
@nnlmt28
What part disagrees with me? It's safe to say that something like a Velociraptor or almost any Dromaeosaur would considerably less dense since they were smaller and even had hollow bones like birds. Also, a human and a Velociraptor would have about the same survival rate in a biblical flood so there should be at least one instance where humans would be fossilized with a dinosaur or just any any animals from different time periods mixed in the same layer of stratum.
maggotballs 1 year ago
@maggotballs I guess just read up on the history of genes and breading of all domesicated animals. Is shows that many species can be rapidly produced.
The amount of area that has been uncovered for fossils is tiny compared to the whole globe. there may be a point in time where a human is found next to the "wrong" animal. It is a little early to declare this will never be observed when way less than 1% of the data have been uncovered.
nnlmt28 1 year ago
@nnlmt28 You've got to be kidding.
Science has been digging in the ground since major fossil finds in the pits in South Africa, while other men were looking for diamonds and gold. Ancient evidence of human (and pre-human) settlements have been found - with incredible detail and not a single bit of physical evidence that dinosaurs were there with them.
There would be zero reason for science to hide such a thing if it was found. Unlike this carnival joke supposedly found on Mount Ararat.
DarwinsFriend 1 year ago
@DarwinsFriend Don't agree w/ less than 1%? ...ok....So how much of earth's surface do you say has been uncovered by scientists and inspected for fossils in the 'right' layers?
nnlmt28 1 year ago
@nnlmt28 Science doesn't do the "right layers" thing. Science doesn't care where the layers are - right or wrong.
Only religion puts labels and their Creator connotations on such exploring. Just like this Noah's Ark "discovery." Self-fulfilling prophecy. These expeditions always find Noah's Ark. Nobody ever comes home empty-handed. Amazing.
On the issue of actual scientists hiding 'man with dinosaur' evidence, it could happen - but what advantage would be gained? Let logic be your guide.
DarwinsFriend 1 year ago
@nnlmt28
Well, it look like DarwinsFriend covered one of my points here. The problem with you're comparison is the environments of domesticated animals vs. wild animals. In the wild animals have to worry about predation, control of territory and tons of variables domesticated animals don't have to worry about since we take care of them. Domesticated animals live much longer because of this which means they can breed longer and faster an the young would be cared for by us as well.
maggotballs 1 year ago
@nnlmt28
I'm not sure if you entertaining the idea of a young earth or not but if you are you would also see a single layer of stratum with animals from different time periods that we know are millions of years apart like hominids and dinosaurs. Obviously that's not the case. Also, a flood would have wiped out every ecosystem on the planet and leave massive salt deposits in the soil making it near impossible for plantlife to grow.
maggotballs 1 year ago 3
@maggotballs Now don't be bringing logic into this discussion. (lol)
DarwinsFriend 1 year ago
@DarwinsFriend
I know. I keep forgetting creationists are logic proof.
maggotballs 1 year ago 5
@maggotballs As stated, liquefaction sorts objects (including sediment particles) by size, shape, and density...So I don't expect to find human and dino fossils together. Liquefaction would not give a single layer w/ all fossils mixed in the same layer. It will produce multiple layers with objects sorted at various points within.
nnlmt28 1 year ago
@nnlmt28
There were plenty of dinosaurs that were the size a an average human and plenty that were smaller. By your theory of size, shape and density, if we did exist with dinosaurs at one point, then we should find dinosaurs near our size and smaller fossilized in the same layer of strata or even in a layer above us. Of course, none of this is found in nature because your theory simply isn't the case.
maggotballs 1 year ago
@maggotballs There are many vast/thick layers of salt deposit round the world, on both continents and ocean floors. Golf of Mexico and Mediterranean Sea floors are 1000's of ft thick w/ NaCl. Much of the thick salt layers on continents are covered by by 100's to 1000's of feet of other layers of sediment....so plantlife above is isolated from the salt.
nnlmt28 1 year ago
@nnlmt28
Your right, but their not on the top soil.If they were on the top soil it would prevent plantlife from growing. If there's a large enough layer of top soil on top of these salt deposits then some plantlife can survive provided it's roots are somewhat shallow. It would take 1000's of years for sediment to be naturally deposited on top of these salt deposits so all plantlife could thrive and I don't think Noah was carrying topsoil and germinated seeds of the plants of the world with him
maggotballs 1 year ago
@maggotballs as flood water escaped from the deep and depressurized, salt was precipicated, creating the huge salt layers. as the flood progressed many sediment layers covered the salt. Fine silts and top soils would be the last to rest on the sediments. This can be observed in any soil/sediment liquefaction demo. As flood waters drained off continents into newly formed ocean basins of today, the plants and seeds floating on top would be deposited in the top layers of silt and soil...
nnlmt28 1 year ago
@nnlmt28
"As Flood water escaped from the deep" I'm really not sure what you're saying here unless you're suggest the flood water originated underground, which also doesn't work. Another problem is it would take more than roughly 4000 years to replenish every ecosystem in the world without human intervention on a massive scale and there were only 8 after the flood. Most plantlife wouldn't be able to survive being uprooted and floating on saltwater for a year too.
maggotballs 1 year ago
@maggotballs (cont.) unique conditions after the flood like warm oceans and raised continents lead to increased precipitation on continents. This fresh water precipitation would have rapidly washed salt from the soil. Just like it does in my back yard where I use salt as a cheap ground sterilizer. Only works for a few months and I'm in the southwest were we don't get much rain.
nnlmt28 1 year ago
@nnlmt28
What sort of unique conditions do you think occurred? It would take something pretty monumental to heat all the oceans of the world exponentially. Plantlife is still going to be wiped out courtesy of the flood and there's no mention of plants and seeds being collected on the ark so you're still left with a barren planet. No plants to support herbivores so they wouldn't survive. Not to mention every time a predator ate one he'd be dooming a species to extinction.
maggotballs 1 year ago
@maggotballs you'll need to read the work of Walt Brown, author of the hydroplate theory to see just how monumental the flood actually was. One of the main assumtions is that the flood waters came from under a globe enwrapping supercontinent. This is what the Bible describes as the " fountains of the deep". Walts' observations point to a global flood that was much more than just a bunch of rain. I'm sure you'll disagree, however you might find it interesting.
nnlmt28 1 year ago
@nnlmt28
I'm familiar with the theory. Another creationist I debated brought it up a couple of times. The areas he suggest were the :fountains" were the mid ocean ridges though which are obvious areas of seafloor spreading. That and whatever water that would come out of ocean vents would be superheated and loaded with hydrogen sulfide which is very toxic and if introduce in large quantities could make a large body of water acidic.
maggotballs 1 year ago
@maggotballs I recommend studying the theory indepth on your own. Not sure what the other guy said, but (w/ respect) you seem to be misunderstanding the theory. The flood waters did not come up through ocean vents now observed in the mid ocean ridges. Hydrogen sulfide now observed in the mid ocean vents is a slow residual after effect of the flood. (cont.)
nnlmt28 1 year ago
@nnlmt28
DarwinFriend's comment is below if you looking for what he said that I agreed with about fossil pits and so on. I've heard several creationist mention mid ocean ridges and vents as a source of flood water and I wasn't sure if you were supporting it. Hydrogen sulfide is the result of thermal or volcanic activity so I don't see how it would be an after affect of a flood.
maggotballs 1 year ago
@maggotballs Again indepth study is required (unfortunately) to truely be familiar with and understand this after effect. Dr. Brown's website explains "after effects" of the flood much better (w/ graphics etc.) than I can in this format.
nnlmt28 1 year ago
@nnlmt28
It sounds like an interesting theory but if it can be debunked by natural science then it doesn't work. Sorry, Noah's ark alone has enough problems with being believable without the flood. Like I said, there's too much that doesn't make sense and what doesn't make sense can't be answered with "god did it" without proving scientifically that "god" exists.
maggotballs 1 year ago
@maggotballs When you read the hydroplate theory, you'll find that Dr. Brown is very much against using "God did it" miracles as crutch for a scientific theory. He is very rigorous in his critique of his own theory as well as other creationist theorys that do try to throw in miracles to support. You'll find he defines his assumtions up front and then reasons (using only established physics) from cause to effect....no miracles added. I think you'd find it refreshing.
nnlmt28 1 year ago
@maggotballs The mid ocean ridges are more readily explained as the result of bending of an elasict foundation which resulted in upward buckling of the mantle. Since rock is weak in tension the bending resulted in many cracks along the ridge. Because the shape of the foundation was spherical, the tension cracks occured in two distinct directions (both nort-south & east-west). (cont.)
nnlmt28 1 year ago
@nnlmt28
Part of their characteristic can be explain by that but they are areas of seafloor spreading none the less. We can even measure the rate (roughly 1.5 cm. a year) at which they spread because the seafloor is magnetically stripe. New sections of seafloor have a reversed polarity from the previously formed section of seafloor. At that rate it makes sense since 200 million years ago Africa and South America where connected and they're roughly 2500 km. apart.
maggotballs 1 year ago
@maggotballs As hydroplate theory explains, the slow "spreading" seen to day is the result of a large mass shift of earth's core toward the Atlantic and away from the Pacific. This i why a large majority of earthquates result in an overall shift towards the western Pacific trench region. (cont.)
nnlmt28 1 year ago
@nnlmt28
Earthquakes, tsunamis and volcanic activity have always been centered around the Pacific since our continents have been at their present position. It's called the "ring of fire" for a reason. The mid pacific ridge spreads an pushes against all the other plates it's near which is the reason there's a lot of activity there.
maggotballs 1 year ago
@maggotballs The more you comment, the more it is clear you have not read or do not understand the hydroplate theory. I think your familiarity with Dr. Brown's work is only based on what you've heard other tell you. Again, I'd highly recommend giving it a close look.
nnlmt28 1 year ago
@maggotballs This is what gives the ridge its unique 'alligator scale' crack appearance. The cracks are clearly open tension cracks, however, seafloor spreading demands that they be compression cracks. Seafloor spreading also suffers from poor definition of forces that produce the spreading. Terms such as "mantle convection currents" are vague and have never been observed in a solid - only conjecure. (cont.)
nnlmt28 1 year ago
@nnlmt28
Convection makes practical sense though. The further magma moves toward the core of earth the hotter it gets which would make it rise then as it cools down by lower crust it would sink again. Convection is a testable theory and plenty of models have been made to demonstrate it. Plate Tectonics is a viable theory and has withstood plenty of skepticism.
maggotballs 1 year ago
@maggotballs The viscosity of the rock involved is several orders of magnitude above the "water in a boiling pot" example that is so often given as a demostratable example of convection. No one has ever tested, much less confirmed, the ability of rock to convect at these densities and pressures. What's more, getting a geologist to define the forces involved in an engineering sense is usually a fruitless endevor. The skepticism for PT theory is well founded.
nnlmt28 1 year ago
@maggotballs - platetectonic theory's need for seafloor spreading and convection currents has lead many to hypothesize that the mantle is less than a solid or a viscoelastic material. However sound waves passing through the mantle give no reason to conclude it is anything other than solid.
nnlmt28 1 year ago
@nnlmt28 I've got one more question for you: what was the relative density of the flood water? And do you know the effect of saltwater on freshwater fish and vice versa?
thyztwizta 1 year ago
@thyztwizta Looks like you really need to know more about what you are trying to criticize. Remember, "little knowledge is dangerous." :)
SilverHydroxide 1 year ago
@SilverHydroxide Thora is the Dutch spelling (I'm Dutch). I studied Latin, so I know that the ae can be an e, but still. But now you're trying to tell me that the mythological stories weren't derived from ancient civilizations? Have you studied other civilizations and local religions? Do you know why the bible states that the son died on the cross, was dead for 3 days and was ressurected? Have you heard of the constellation Crux? Do you know how the sun (son) moves around the 21st of december?
thyztwizta 1 year ago
@thyztwizta Crux, Orion Belt, there are so many so-called explanations for that. But most likely, it was a planetary alignment. 21st December? There was no specific date for Christ's birth. The date was just invented by Catholic bishops.
SilverHydroxide 1 year ago
@thyztwizta Oh, so "Thora" is the Dutch spelling. Sorry, I was not aware of that. Anyway, romanization of Hebrew is tricky.
Their "stories" were the events that happened around the Mediterranean from their own point of view. They have references about the other civilizations that they encounter. Archaeological evidence that matches biblical passages exist, I'm sure you're not aware of that.
SilverHydroxide 1 year ago
@SilverHydroxide As for the Council of Nicaea was not a Roman organisation. It was a gathering ordered by Constantine. In the Council of Nicaea, "the Church had taken her first great step to define doctrine more precisely in response to a challenge from a heretical theology".
thyztwizta 1 year ago
@thyztwizta You said it, "ordered by Constantine." Constantine was a Roman Emperor. He was the first to adopt Christianity because of it's influence and used it for conquest. This was the beginning of CATHOLICISM, not Christianity.
SilverHydroxide 1 year ago
@SilverHydroxide I know that's catholicism. I don't think I ever said it was the beginning of either religion.
And I am aware that there's archaeologicial evidence that matches biblical passages. Why do you assume I don't? But just because it matches doesn't mean it happened. A wooden structure doesn't make an ark.
thyztwizta 1 year ago
@thyztwizta It's because you mentioned that the modern bible was made up by the Council of Nicaea.
It's because you dismiss all of the biblical passages as mythical stories. Some stories, like the Garden of Eden and Noah's Ark, are symbolic. They don't imply things in a literal sense. Some writings are actual events. Some are literary. Some are records of written laws. It is a diverse group of texts, not just one book.
SilverHydroxide 1 year ago
@SilverHydroxide And who decides whether or not a passage is factual or mythological? A "normal" tsunami, which we can confirm archeologically, can become a happening of mythological proportions, such as a worldwide flood.
thyztwizta 1 year ago
@thyztwizta flood waters of the great deep would've been mineral rich & full of sediments, so, much denser than the life-bearing preflood seas which would have tended to "float" above the flood waters. Many fish (salmon) tolerate both fresh&salt @the same time. After the flood, natural selection (micro evolution) would have reduced the number of fish to only those which could survive best in either fresh or salt. Many are now inbread &too genetically shallow to go back.
nnlmt28 1 year ago
Comment removed
Futureplanet 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Has anyone ever considered the weight of a water column 29,035 high?
One cubic foot weighs 62.42796 pounds.
Core samples of the mud at the bottom of the world's oceans reflect this massive compression by the shear weight of the water.
Would not the evidence of nearly 5-1/2 miles of water show itself in the geological strata around the globe?
I mean, lets be real here: 1,812,595.82 pounds per square foot of pressure is going to leave its mark, no? I know they're just facts - but WTF?!
DarwinsFriend 1 year ago 7
Do any of you actually know how your bible was written? And how your so-called facts came together?
Look up the First Council of Nicaea.
The bible was a result of a debate by prejudiced religious folks. Ofcourse they will present the outcome as facts.
thyztwizta 1 year ago
@thyztwizta The bible invented by the Council of Nicea? Wow, it's funny how you think that you know a lot about bible history than others when you obviously can't get your facts right.
knightscum07 1 year ago
@knightscum07 Where in my post did you find that I said the bible was "invented" by the council of Nicaea (notice the 2 a's?)? The modern bible was constructed and agreed upon by the council of nicaea. The bible itself is a collection of stories, the old testament is the old Jewish bible or Thora. All the stories themselves are old mythological stories from numerous civilizations, mainly the Egyptians. Please, get your own facts right.
thyztwizta 1 year ago
@thyztwizta The "ae" in Latin can be anglicized as "e". So it's not strange to see "Nicea" instead of "Nicaea".
The "old testament" is not just the Torah (not Thora as you spelled it). Other texts are also included, written by prophets (Hebrew religious-political leaders). The stories that you claim to be mythological is actually a great source of insights of history of events that the Hebrews witnessed. The Council of Nicea is a Roman organization that adopted the Hebrew Christianity.
SilverHydroxide 1 year ago
There's just no way we can argue with creationists. While we are more then willing to accept proof if they come up with it, that there is a god, they are just way to stubborn and dismiss any proof that they're all wrong in accepting the so-called facts stated in their story book.
thyztwizta 1 year ago
@thyztwizta Ok. Prove these "so-called facts" of the bible wrong then. Remember though, possibilities are NOT facts. Science is full of possibilities about earth's creation, dinosaurs existence, etc., but lack the facts to back up their ideas or theories. Their aging systems are flawed throughout as well.
bjobes3 1 year ago
@bjobes3 I never said that scientists claim they know the facts. We just don't know. If we knew, there wouldn't be science.
We don't have to prove the so-called facts of the bible wrong. If I claimed to know there was a cup of tea in orbit around our moon, it's not up to you to prove me wrong, it's up to me to prove I'm right.
If you knew where the stories in your bible came from, you wouldn't be so sure anymore.
thyztwizta 1 year ago
Honestly, this is just a hoax, no matter how much you wish to believe.
raisin212k 1 year ago
Comment removed
raisin212k 1 year ago
This is obviously a great hoax. Besides if they believe in carbon dating they cant believe in the bible. Carbon dating proves the existence of dinosaurs and proves the earth is older than what is written in the bible. They have to choose between their fraud and their religion...
crazyological 1 year ago 2
@crazyological Outstanding statement. Thank you for your logic.
DarwinsFriend 1 year ago
@crazyological Do any of you who believe that the earth is millions of years old, as confirmed through carbon dating, even understand how carbon dating works? Carbon dating is such a flawed system that scientists have often confirmed animals that had been dead for one week or less to be dead for thousands of years. This happens all the time using this system, yet scientists just decide to use what supports their claim, and has little chance of being disproven.
bjobes3 1 year ago
@bjobes3 Nope, it's more like BILLIONS. You also seem to forget that we can measure how far things are away because we know how fast light travels. Carbon dating is only one way to measure. Radiometric measurement is far better at telling the age of older things. SOME evidence is far better than NONE.
Rushtrdamus 1 year ago
@Rushtrdamus Once again, there is ZERO evidence of any kind to actually prove the scientific dating systems are correct. They use the information they have to determine such, though they do not have any source of reference to the actual time periods in which they claim something existed. Your idea of earth's age is based the logic that earth was created at or around the same time as those stars. Once again though, that is something we will never ever know, but science will try to say we do.
bjobes3 1 year ago
@bjobes3 And yet, you believe a book written by men(who weren't around then) who say exactly how long it took to create the heavens and earth???? hahahahahahaha This is why people think you're nuts, you aren't consistant, at all.
Rushtrdamus 1 year ago
Rudshterdamus, it took me all of 20 seconds to run a search and get a nice list of 10 discoveries. You might try spending some time doing this if you REALLY want to know the truth. Try and prove the bible wrong and you will instead believe. If you don't accept scientific evidence then I will offer you something else. My neighbor was miraculously healed last year from a wheat allergy that was life threatening when we prayed for her in the Name of Jesus. God loves you too!
BobKeeler 1 year ago
@BobKeeler Read the bible, especially the OT and chances are, you might come out an atheist.
lizazoon 1 year ago
@BobKeeler EVERYONE, notice that BOB didn't reply directly to me, and offered no evidence even though he said he found them. Why would he change the way he replys to others? I've done thew research BOB and find very little evidence and no scientific evidence. Nice try, Bob.
Rushtrdamus 1 year ago
I'm sorry I don't know the proper way to reply "to you" should I not delete what initially pops up in the reply box? Ok I respect your opinion. I just do believe that if something is in the bible it is true. It proves itself.
God bless you!
BobKeeler 1 year ago
@BobKeeler Instead, I searched for the evidence proving there is a Flying Spaghetti monster, and believe it or not: it took me less than 20 seconds and the list of hits was close to infinite.
And praying for your neighbor is no proof once again. Just because YOU can't tell why she became better, doesn't mean it was miraculous. Can you proof that she would've been worse off without the prayer?
thyztwizta 1 year ago
She had been suffering for years... the week before we prayed for her I saw it with my own eyes.. She was staying with my family. It is hard to know what has wheat in it. One day we ate some Thai meatballs and when she touched one to her lip it swelled up and she lost her voice, she ran out. She kept a shot with her in case a reaction caused her heart to stop. We prayed for her. cont....
BobKeeler 1 year ago
@BobKeeler Suffereing? From a wheat allergy? Thank goodness I'm not allerfgic to falafel.(sarc) That might be suffering. WTF? are you serious?
I knew christians have a persecution complex, but damn.
Rushtrdamus 1 year ago
The next day she ate something my wife had cooked and when we asked ny wife what it was she brought ourt some powder she had used. At that point I wondered could she have been healed? The next week she began sampling different things and it was true she had been instantly healed by Jesus. Her doctor wouldn't believe it. Her family, her church... but they had to when they saw it with their own eyes. God loves us and cares what we are feeling!
BobKeeler 1 year ago
@BobKeeler I'm sorry, that's still no proof.
The thing is, we, as scientists gather data, combine them, and come up with a conclusion. The conclusion is not binding, as for more data will become available, perhaps prompting us to change our views.
Creationists and religious folks think they already have the conclusion, thus looking for anything that supports their conclusion. If more data becomes available, they make slight alterations in the data to make sure it fits with their conclusion.
thyztwizta 1 year ago
@thyztwizta That sounds a lot like the pot calling the kettle black.
bjobes3 1 year ago
@bjobes3
Despite all the geological evidence we have for the age of the earth being roughly 4.6 billion years old there are other ways of determining that our planet is roughly that old. If we're able to see the light from stars that a billions of light years away then that means our planet has been here for billions of years since it took that light that long to get here.
maggotballs 1 year ago
@maggotballs Not to get into that theory too much, but the light from stars could have already made here when earth was created, meaning the stars have been around for long, long time.
bjobes3 1 year ago
@bjobes3 So, let me get this straight: you actually tell us that stars could've been around for a long, long time, but at the same time you believe what the bible says, claiming that god created the stars in the same 6 day period he created the earth?
thyztwizta 1 year ago
@thyztwizta That was exactly my point. Science goes against the bible in terms of earth's existence, unless of course it fits their cause. In this case, they believe the stars were created at the same time as the earth, yet the big bang theory suggest much of the universe was created prior to the earth due to the expansion theory.
bjobes3 1 year ago
@bjobes3 Really? Science has no cause. We're here to try and explain things. That's why we gather data, form a theory and test this theory against newly found evidence.
What you just explained is the typical creationists way of handling data.
thyztwizta 1 year ago
@bjobes3
Not really. The light from those stars have to travel such vast distances that it takes millions if not billions of years to reach our planet. We don't see where they are in the sky but where the were millions or billions of years ago. If the earth was younger than a million years then we simply wouldn't see them since the light hadn't reached us yet and the speed of light is at it's fastest in the vacuum of space.
maggotballs 1 year ago
@bjobes3 Explain why.
thyztwizta 1 year ago
@BobKeeler Hahahahahahahahahaha Sorry dude, but I can't help but laugh. Humans have an amazing ability to build up a tollerance to things they are allergic to. My wife used to be allergic to strawberries, now. she can eat them just fine because over a long time, she touched, tasted and exposed herself to the CHEMICAL that she was allergic to. NOT A MIRACLE.
Rushtrdamus 1 year ago
@thyztwizta It is nery simple, please read the story above.. sick for years, sick the day we prayed, not sick the next day... miraculous. I know it is hard to believe. It was hard for her husband. He was freaked out because he guarded her life. But after a few days he broke down and accepted it. God Bless You!
BobKeeler 1 year ago
@BobKeeler I've read your story. And once again: can you proof she would've been worse off without the praying?
thyztwizta 1 year ago
@thyztwizta Ok dear thanks for your time...have a great day!
BobKeeler 1 year ago
@BobKeeler That is a miracle! The sad thing is, people like rushtradmus could witness a miracle first hand, such as a blind person all of the sudden can see for the first time in their life, yet his explanation/rationalization would be that the person had just never opened their eyes prior to that event.
bjobes3 1 year ago
@bjobes3 Pefect example: The miracle on the Hudson. Sully was called a hero for saving the lives of the people on the plane. NOT ONCE did I hear anyone talk about the one person on the plane whom Sully was actually TRYING to save, HIMSELF. Sully didn't push a child from in front of a bus and sacrifice himself, he saved his own ass and the rest of the people happened to be there.
Rushtrdamus 1 year ago
@Rushtrdamus I haven't followed the pilot's actual detailed account of the event, but I bet you everyone on that plane believed in God at that moment, even if they didn't when they got on that plane.
bjobes3 1 year ago
@bjobes3 Yeah, cause god just fucks with people by shoving birds into jet engines. How about NOT threatening thier lives in the first place?
Why is it that churchies always give god credit for surviving a disaster, but not blame him for the disaster in the first place??? Wouldn't he be responsible for both?
Rushtrdamus 1 year ago
@BornWhiteSupremacy Damn, sorry, I don't do racist pig very well. Say hi to your dads for me.
Rushtrdamus 1 year ago
@BornWhiteSupremacy You must be looking for the dipshit churchies, look for the posts that make no sense at all, and you've got them.
Seig Heil, bitch.
Rushtrdamus 1 year ago
Haha, and now all of a sudden they turn to carbon dating to determine the age of the wooden thingy? If so, what is wrong with our tests showing that dinosaurs are millions of years old?
thyztwizta 1 year ago
I think that if you looked at the common view of the flood.. it was a cataclysmic atmosphere changer. The bible says that prior to the flood it had never rained.. Use of carbon dating relies on an assumption that rates have not changed, that the atmosphere has been stable. It is therefore possible that carbon dating would be only accurate for the time after the flood. Anything predating the flood would be off.
BobKeeler 1 year ago
@BobKeeler The flood is nonsense, even the majority of your bible colleges don`t teach a general flood.
lizazoon 1 year ago
@BobKeeler DUDE! It doesn't work that way.
Please do not have children, for all of us. WTF?
Rushtrdamus 1 year ago
@BobKeeler
There's not enough evidence to support a global flood and I don't think you know enough about radiometric dating to really make an informed opinion on it. Just because something contradicts biblical doctrine doesn't mean it wrong.
maggotballs 1 year ago
@BobKeeler "If you looked at the common view of the flood" All you're doing is quoting an old book. Just because it says so in your book, doesn't mean it REALLY HAPPENED!
And carbon dating does not rely on the assumption that rates have not changed. We all know the atmosphere is never stable. Once again, you're still using your book as a guideline. Talking about assumption....
thyztwizta 1 year ago
@thyztwizta And yes, carbon dating is used on the belief that rates do not change, based on the assumption that carbon rates would max out around 30,000 years. Since many scientists believe that the world is millions of years old, that leaves them to assume that the rates have already maxed out and thus will not ever change again.
bjobes3 1 year ago
@bjobes3
Radiometric dating is actually very accurate. If we know the method by which a certain isotope decays and the rate at which it decays through that method then it's definitely measurable. Radiometric dating can also be cross-referenced with other dating methods such as dendrochronology and ice core dating. Generally, if there are errors in the readings then you can usually chalk them up to human error or contaminated samples.
maggotballs 1 year ago
I refuse to prove I exist, says god, because proof denies faith and without faith I am nothing. But the babel fish is a dead give away, isn't it? Oh. I hadn't thought of that says god ... and promptly disappears in a puff of logic.
TuneInTurnonWakeup 1 year ago
DarwinsFriend / This has been flagged as spam
(somebody is really being childish)
DarwinsFriend 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
And........If the Flood of Noah covered the Earth and all the mountains, would not the Antarctic continent have been consumed by the same waters?
And if these waters did cover the ice would that ice have not been destroyed also? How is it that core samples of ice have been dated back to 740,000 years ago? I mean these things are as accurate as tree rings.
How could that be?
DarwinsFriend 1 year ago 9
I hope this is the real ark. the Turkey Govt. is helping protect the site. So many have claimed that the bible is false because of the story of the ark. the story is basic in explaining man's sin, Gods' displeasure with it, and Gods' salvation in Jesus. countless discoveries are made which prove the historic truth of the bible. Countless historians have made claims that this and that is not true, only to eat their words later.
BobKeeler 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@BobKeeler hi bob i think you will find there has been a lot more proof that the bible is a work of fiction that fact.....as for the ark story thats a very nise way of putting it... the story is basic in explaining man's sin, Gods' displeasure with it."....but it sure does not xplain how it has ANY truth common sense and the bible make very uneasy friends.
number6z 1 year ago
@BobKeeler > "Countless historians have made claims that this and that is not true, only to eat their words later."
* spit my coffee on my keyboard - laughing at this ignorance.
"This, that and the other thing" is a phrase used by really simplistic individuals that don't want to be bothered with researching detail / evidence / a.k.a. facts.
Grandmothers use this phraseology when they are flustered by their grand-kid's computer skills - quite hilarious, actually.
DarwinsFriend 1 year ago 4
@BobKeeler Please name the countless discoveries. Give me 10 REAL discoveries that prove the historic truth nof the bible. Show me where the apostles are buried? Show me the tomb Jesus was first layed to rest? You can't, cause even the apostles gave conflicting accounts. Sorry pal, bullshit.
Rushtrdamus 1 year ago
These people are hoaxers and moviemakers. Its already been proven that they sent locals up the mountain a few years ago and planted all the wood there. And this isnt the first time they have "found" Noahs Ark. The other two times they "found" it were both proven to be hoaxes... do a little research people, its not hard...
longstockings666 1 year ago
@longstockings666 can you please cite the resources indicating the past hoaxes by this group, thanks in advance.
cgregory67 1 year ago
@cgregory67 no, i dont have to convience you. --- find it yourself
longstockings666 1 year ago
@longstockings666 what does "convience" mean, convince, convenience? Didn't think you had anything intelligent to add except mindless trolling.
cgregory67 1 year ago
@cgregory67 thats a really clever retort, "he was typing fast and added an extra E in a word, what an idiot!" you saying this only exemplifies your an idiot with no social life.
longstockings666 1 year ago
@longstockings666 Interesting how you speak about yourself in third person "he was typing" Must be the 666 personality speaking at the end of your user name, lol... freak.
cgregory67 1 year ago
@cgregory67 what is interesting is that you believe yourself to be intellegent while you argue with people on youtube --- which is a complete contradiction. But its not your fault, arguing with people online is probably the only human interaction you have so you do it as much as possible. I'll keep this discussion going, wouldnt want you to get lonely now... what els should we argue about? I'll start it off: God doesnt exist....1 2 3 GO!
longstockings666 1 year ago
@longstockings666 intelligent enough to know how to spell the word, lmao "intellegent". Hahaha
cgregory67 1 year ago
@cgregory67 Wow, you sure destroyed his arguement. Are you a spelling teacher, if not, how sad that SPELLING, is your rebuttal.
Now, if you're done deflecting, prove that god exists. Unless you want to act like the other dipshit, BJOB3 and ask for evidence of that which doesn't exist? Prove DRAGONS don't exist. Prove HARRY POTTER doesn't exist.
Either act like you are aware of reality or please shut up and go away.
Rushtrdamus 1 year ago
@Rushtrdamus I am happy to partake but when regressive behavior persists with name calling like dipshit, ignorant, retard, etc. the discussion is over. When convinced I am not dealing with adolescent minds and mature attitudes open to analyze and speak scientifically on research, history, and data I would be happy to debate.
cgregory67 1 year ago
@cgregory67 BULLSHIT, you bang your head against the wall and hope that God gets you through another tough question. I never called you a retard, that would insult retards, at least they can't help it. Your problem is a weak mind. You think in a line, and if that line isn't straight towards god, heehaw heehaw. You become an ass.
Rushtrdamus 1 year ago
@Rushtrdamus You've contradicted everything you're defending about about science and theories throughout this forum. Just like a scientist though, you support what works/fits your ideas. Keep up the good work.
bjobes3 1 year ago 5
@bjobes3 Science doesn't need to prove anything to you, YOU need to dis-prove the accepted science. Believing in something that can't even be a theory is insane at best. Do you believe in viruses? Bacteria? Atoms? Stars?
THAT'S the crazy thing, someone has to ask if you do. You've bought into the bible bullshit so much that you deny reality.
Rushtrdamus 1 year ago
@Rushtrdamus I don't deny reality at all. With that being said, I don't deny our creator either. I believe it is 100% more logical to believe that all things were created by a greater being in existence prior to all creation, than it is to believe that all things were created out of nothing. The one FACT we DO know from science is... it takes life to create life. Why would the creation of the universe be any different, or vise-versa with life on earth? Who's the one really denying reality?
bjobes3 1 year ago
@bjobes3
The problem with saying "it takes life to create life" is it leave us with the question.... what created the "creator/ god"?
maggotballs 1 year ago
@maggotballs As far as we know, God is infinite. If he was created, then his creation came from life before him.
bjobes3 1 year ago
@bjobes3
It's also hard to say "as far a we know" since it can't be proven scientifically that such a being exists. At this point it's just speculation since there's no evidence of such a being. I'd personally rather look for a scientific answer that's testable and doesn't rely on the supernatural.
maggotballs 1 year ago
@maggotballs I agree with you 100%. Just a little FYI, I don't have an issue with scientific discoveries supported by facts. However, I DO have a problem with scientific assumptions that claim a discovery as a fact, when the evidence only supports a mere possibility. God can't be proven, but can't be disproven either. That is where faith comes in to play. My faith is strong, and it is continuously strengthened by the undeniable perfection of life itself.
bjobes3 1 year ago
@bjobes3
It's cool that you're open to scientific discoveries and theories. Science and religion always seem to be opposing one another but I think it's important to remain objective to evidence. I don't think anyone trying to prove the non-existence of "god though. Trying to prove a negative seems a little redundant. By that same logic, no one can prove Odin, Zeus or Vishnu don't exist. It makes more sense to prove something does exist. That's just my take on it.
maggotballs 1 year ago
@maggotballs Agreed. Keeping an open mind to all possibilities can only increase one's knowledge and understanding of another's point of view. Forming a conclusion after you have the all the facts definitely results in a more acceptable opinion. That advice is probably something our U.S. attorney general should take into consideration.
bjobes3 1 year ago
@bjobes3
That advice should be sound advice for anybody. Everything should be questioned especially this latest Noah's Ark business. This claim has been made countless times and all of them are inconclusive. This latest one was actually examined 3 years earlier I believe and the dating results were vastly different. It's highly improbable that the Noah's Ark story was a true story anyway but rather a moral homily of sorts.
maggotballs 1 year ago
@maggotballs Noah`s Ark is infantilism. Period.
lizazoon 1 year ago
@lizazoon
Yeah, pretty much.
maggotballs 1 year ago
@bjobes3 HTF can you agree with someone 100% and then argue with them????
Your faith is so strong that you find easy to ignore reality, THAT is insane. UNDENIABLE PERFECTION??? WTF? Ever hear of Cancer? Downs syndrome? Sarah Palin? Life isn't and never has been perfect. Even to say such a thing highighlights your ignorance.
Rushtrdamus 1 year ago
@Rushtrdamus Life, humans specifically, are perfect. Cancer is not human life, but rather a disease. If you can't determine the difference, then you may want to go back to school, or at least finish it. Human life being perfect is the fact that we are unable to be artificially recreated by anyone or anything, other than God himself. Scientific cloning experiments, successful or not, is the direct result of the DNA from another life, creating a new life via artificial production.
bjobes3 1 year ago
@bjobes3 DEFINE artificial? Cloning, art. Insem., invetro. Fert. and even cloning from a single parent is possible because scientists ignored dipshits like you claiming that man cannot do what god does. My wife and I created 3 girls, and god wasn't in the room. LOL
Rushtrdamus 1 year ago
@Rushtrdamus Artificial - not real, created, manufactured, etc. Like I said previously, scientists can only recreate life through artificial PRODUCTION, or rather process. You stated several examples above. Guess what, you and your wife created life, which is none other than, a LIFE creating a LIFE.
bjobes3 1 year ago
@Rushtrdamus I know you can obviously read, but I'm starting to believe you can't comprehend.
bjobes3 1 year ago
@bjobes3 Dude, you have no clue what the word comprehend really means.
Rushtrdamus 1 year ago
@bjobes3 Wow, GOD can be infinate, yet evolution has to have something to start it????? Can you eat without help?
AS FAR AS WE KNOW???? Glad you hammered me with that solid proof?
Rushtrdamus 1 year ago
@Rushtrdamus Well rush, this degenerative conversation with you has been fun, but I must hang it up now. I can hardly see my cpu screen through the fog caused by all the hot air you've been blowing on here. You take it easy and continue to believe in anything other than religion without factual proof. Just to let you know, I will continue to PRAY for you and others like you. GOD BLESS YOU!!!
The last word is yours...
bjobes3 1 year ago
@bjobes3 That's right, bow out before you look even more like an ass. Do you find it odd that multiple people on this post think you're nuttier than squirrel shit? Even the other churchies won't go as far as you denying ALL the evience supporting evo. Wierd that even your supporters would question your IQ. I will continue to be thankful not to have to waste my sundays.
Rushtrdamus 1 year ago
@bjobes3 Bullshit. You can't have both. It takes certain chemicals to create life, NOT a god. CHEMICALS and MINERALS make up all life. I know I'm not the first to use logic to bash in your mental skull, but what or who created god, IF HE were to exist? I know you can't answer, as you can't even prove that ONE supernatural being exists. LOL
Rushtrdamus 1 year ago
@Rushtrdamus I'm not talking about the general "make up" of life, but the actual creation of life is produced by life before it. It is a PROVEN fact of science. You are the scientific genius you carry yourself as, right? Now, go ahead and throw some more profanities at me and others. The more you comment, the more meaningless your opinion of religion and science becomes.
bjobes3 1 year ago
@bjobes3 Just so I;m clear, you're now claiming that earth has always had life on it? BULLSHIT! scientists still theorize that life evolved from chemical reactions with minerals as the building blocks. NOBODY believes life has always been on earth, not even religious fanatics.
Rushtrdamus 1 year ago
@Rushtrdamus Wrong again! Try reading people's post for what they are, not what you want them to be. Good try though.
bjobes3 1 year ago
@bjobes3 Ok, I'll try. Blah blah God exists blah blah can't prove he doesn't blah blah evolution bad blah blah ALL atheists are idiots blah blah ALL life is perfect blah blah ALL the facts. That pretty much covers the exstent of your blathering. Try reading a book besides the bible for a change.
Rushtrdamus 1 year ago
@Rushtrdamus I appreciate how you demonstrated for everyone on here exactly how you read what you want to read, as opposed to what is actually written. By any chance, did you help write the new healthcare bill?
bjobes3 1 year ago
@Rushtrdamus BTW, keyword is THEORIZE. Theory is nothing more than a guess based on evidence of a possibility, not fact.
bjobes3 1 year ago