The bible is not fairy tales. They would have disproved it thousands of years ago if it was.the Romans were just as smart as people today. They even had mechanical computers . We got ahead technically when transistors were made but theres nothing new under the sun. LED lights were idiscovered in the 1800's
LOL sorry about the spelling was I posting from my phone while walking. Probably not the safest activity and not so good for spelling and sentence structure.
@XchristianHeathen Hey man i'm a christian I believe in god, and to me it's not a fairy tale. With that being said I would like to say you are a good person and thank you for having the respect of others beliefs that you choose not to attack which i see so many people do, maybe one day you'll come to christ but who knows.
@thekingVA I was a christian when I was younger, but after years of searching for evidence for my beliefs I came up empty. I respect christians who deserve respect. When I was a believer I did not get self righteous with people, and say it was my way or the highway. When I have a debate about the young earth view held by many christians I get upset because that view is in opposition to a mountain of evidence that says otherwise. I used to say I believe the word of god, I trust it.
@thekingVA (part 2) If my faith was in opposition to scientific evidence I did not put forth the notion of a world wide conspiracy by scientists. I would say I understand what the evidence appears to say, and all I can say is I have faith in the word of god. I did not try to re write that science to agree with the bible. I don't understand this new line of thought to debate Christ and go in the scientific realm. My faith was in Jesus, not scientific evidence. They are not the same.
I am an atheist because no evidnece has been provided to believe there is a god. That's it. I don't say there is no god, just that no is no rational reason to believe there is. I don't believe in the devil either, he is just as big a fairy tale as god. A Bronze age manuscript full of superstitious nonsense proves nothing, but how imaginative and ignorant Bronze age people were. I choose rational reality over biblical fairy tales.
Atheism is not a religion especially not pagan (though their celebrations kick ass compared to church). We're not satinist either. You know the not a religion thing?(if your not going to belive in#1 why belive in#2? {though it's all#2}). Are your fellow supporters muslums? Our numbers are growing. (Thanks to the thing in your hand, NO NOT THAT! The computer, iPod whatever, not that nasty little thing!)
Best remedy for religiosity, education. Polls taken for the last 80 yrs have all correlated belief in imaginary friends with level of education; the more education, the less likely you still hold onto ancient bullshit..
Dawkins, you're just another athiest that is spreading your own Pagan religion. You're no better than the devil you serve trying to keep people from God. You're only supporters are other athiests, and thank God, until the end times, your numbers are few!
One Young-Earth Creationist says to another "Which is closer - the Moon or Mexico"? The other points at the Moon and replies "The Moon - Duh! You can't see Mexico from here".
To all the atheist another point for example if u take marbles that have the numbers 1 to 1,000,000 and u put them in a basket.And u close ur eyes and someone says pick the number 6 from the basket.My friend what is the chance u will pick the number 6 from the basket..Its 1/1000,000 ratio.So to say that everything in this complex universe is the work of a chance,that is just irrational and illogical thinking.The reality is that there is God and he is the one pulling everything,believe it or not
Reason why I believe in God and why atheists like R Dawkins are wrong: 1) Science and logic cannot explain everything. 2) What are we as humans compared with nature or the size of the universe, we are nothing compared with nature. Thanks for reading my message.
I am a devolutionist which means I believe in reverse evolution. Believe it or not, there is more scientific evidence in favor of devolution than evolution. Sadly, devolution occurs 1 billion times faster than evolution and the process is predicted to begin in 2012. I hope to see ya'll in the forests of Africa, hopping from one tree to another, and soon.
evolutionists are just atheists. they keep claiming they have all this "evidence". They have nothing. I live in a Universe that was created thousands of years ago. Creationists have much more evidence than any evolutionist will ever have. All we can do is pray for evolutionists because their little "theory" seems to be growing weaker by the day!
@hopperd9ifY AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAH you are a reatarded fuck
there are plenty religious people that say evolution is true. wanna know why? because being a fucking retarded like you is eally bad for your image. have you even read what the evolution theory (theory is the scientific sense not in the other way that you fucktards think it is) ? no you jsut heard to the priest that raped you you dont know what it says
bible is not evidence its a fairytale book, that is very very very immoral an
@hopperd9ify d inconsistent all across it, i dont think you have even read the fairy tale book you defend, you are a dumbfuck that does not know about the shit he defends and does not know about the truth hes against. also you like science whe its good for you but then reject this? dude go die, creatinism is nto science because it does nto repesct the natural laws and they dont have any fucking evidence of anything.
@hopperd9ify You're only displaying your ignorance of observed facts here... Parroting your pastor will not help. You've chosen ignorance over knowledge, nothing to be proud of.
@roxfoot - Your explanation that god altered the stars, physics, wave theory and gravity to "make it look old" is ignorant. Why would your god do that?
So Satan could have written the Bible that explains alot of inconsistencies. Why would the world look like it has evolved over millions of years if it hasn't? That makes no sense even for God and why believe on faith alone? That really makes no kind of sense at all.
even if the earth appears millions of years old ,it proves nothing ,GOD could have made it look old ,Adam was made as a man not a baby ,but then ,the first accounts of man ,does fit perfectly with the Bible ,oxford ""cave""" critter dawkins will reap his reward
@roxfoot Occam's Razor, perhaps? Also, where's the proof? Why don't you stick with the bible and accept the evidence, instead of construing some giant excuse like that?
Perhaps what is "wrong" with them is they have different facts which you blatantly ignore (because you don't want God to exist) and overwhelming evidence that refutes your so-called "facts" and demonstrates conclusively that the earth is very young. Carbon 14 in diamonds and coal and soft tissue and red blood cells in dinosaur bones for instance. Moron.
@SACK0FWINE I never said that you cant know anything. I said that you cant know anything for certain w/out God.
And yes my evidence is the universe. The universe being in existence proves God. You dont look at a painting and question if it had a painter. You dont look at a building and questing if it had a builder. So why do people question a creator of the universe? The universe is self existing proof of God because if God didnt exist then there wouldnt be a universe. Matter cant create itself
@lunchbox420wb Analogizing man-made objects such as paintings and buildings to the universe is utterly fallacious. Matter can't create itself...can God create himself? Oh, he always existed, right? Just like paintings and buildings always existed. To posit God as the source does not solve the problem; it compounds it infinitely.
@Serraphas3 Yes God has always existed and he is not made of matter.
"To posit God as the source does not solve the problem; it compounds it infinitely."
I dont understand. What problem is trying to be solved? God is the source of this universe. If you dont think so then would you like to explain how matter or energy can create itself from nothing?
@Serraphas3 Whoever said God Yahweh was created? Who created the Man, to make all those "man made objects?" The god you worship... "NOTHING" and it's apostles, the big bang, abiogenesis, and Evilution?
@ironman197268 The creationist argument that everything must have a source/origin contradicts with their belief in a sourceless God, and is therefore self-defeating. How this does not create intellectual conflict in your mind boggles mine.
@Serraphas3 The Holy Bible says nothing about God Yahweh having a source for his existence, If it did then he wouldn't be God. His existence along with ours is a mystery in itself, that NO human mind can figure out, or comprehend. There is no contradiction in any of that. The only contradiction is in yours and sciences belief in a big bang that made all the order and complexity that we can observe on the Earth and in the universe, without having any intelligence to back it.
@lunchbox420wb And yet God always existed. No he doesn't require a creator.
Man I'm getting tired of Creationists and their double standards. How do you know that the universe hasn't always existed?
We know the universe exists
We don't know if god exists.
Wouldn't it make more sense for something that we do know exists to have always existed, then to come up with a supernatural explanation that can't be verified because science only deals with natural phenomena?
@SACK0FWINE Well then, NOTHING must have always existed, and it created everything... Intelligence, instinct, DNA, Betelgeuse being soooo much larger than our sun, and so on..
How does "Nothing" come up with the most unimaginable and complex CODE, that holds together all the Life in the world that we know of?
@ironman197268 Well, I didn't suggest that nothing created everything. I suggested that the universe had always existed. But even if I did, you would still have to explain how God got here. Wouldn't God be more complex than all of The DNA strands combined? Why doesn't God require a creator?
@SACK0FWINE Well then what else could you suggest if you don't believe in God? I can't explain the existence of God Yahweh, because I don't know, and nobody does, or ever will.
Now let's say I explained to you how God came to be. Then you would start asking me where did his creator came from right? All this is under the assumption that God Yahweh was created. Look up the definition of the word Eternal, and that will tell you why God does not require a creator.
@ironman197268 Yes, I would keep asking for the creator's creator's creator's creator's creator and so. It's called infinite regression. Well can you prove that God is eternal?
@SACK0FWINE You need to watch how you use the word "prove" in a spiritual context, because proof only exist in mathematics. By definition Eternity has no beginning, and Infinity does, so your infinite regression comment is out of context.
@ironman197268 No, infinite regression isn't used out of context if every creator would require a creator. I realize that eternal means that something has no beginning. No, proof doesn't only exist in mathematics. 100% proof only exists in mathematics. (such as, There is no even prime number greater than 2, we can prove that 100%) We can prove that sodium will react explosively with water but not 100%.
Leaving that aside, I still want you to provide evidence that God is eternal.
@SACK0FWINE Oh, I've got you all out of sorts now!!
No, infinite regression isn't used out of context if every creator would require a creator. I realize that eternal means that something has no beginning, OK if you believe and understand that, why are you asking me if I can explain to you the origins of God Yahweh?
@ironman197268 Let me explain. I understand that by definition, something that is eternal must have no beginning and no end. And I'm assuming that God exists . Can you provide a demonstration that justifies the claim that he is eternal? I don't want the explanation for his origin. (because he is supposedly eternal right.)
I just want some type of empirical evidence that God is eternal. That's all
@SACK0FWINE Yes I know the universe hasnt always existed. The big bang doesnt claim the universe has always existed. The big bang claims the universe is 15-20 billion years old. If the universe has always existed then it would be infinity. Also science has proved the universe hasnt always existed because space is expanding. If space is expanding then it must of had a beginning. Not one legit scientist believes the universe has always existed. So if it had a beginning then where did it come from?
@lunchbox420wb Well, let's suppose that it's unknown. Does that automatically mean that God did it? And you still haven't answered my question of where did God come from.
If I put a gallon of water in a vacuum the water would never be more or less than I put in for infinity. So unless water comes from the space contained inside the vacuum to begin with. The amount of water on earth will never change for infinity....
Richard Dawkins is right. Religion is a stranglehold that is very difficult to get out of. It was a painfully long journey to fully leave behind the Christian faith that has been hammered into my head since childhood, which is why I can completely understand why half of Americans are so unwilling to accept scientific fact for what it is, if it goes against what has been drilled into their skulls for so long.
Dawkins is right about the "the devil will try to lead you away" kind of thinking. In fact, that kind of thinking is exactly what it admonishes against. It's a paradoxical paradigm. :P
@ironman197268 First of all, your comment is childish. What are you, some sort of FBI profiler? Get real! Second, Professor Dawkins is explaining the commonly understood scientific position on the age of the Earth and evolution by natural selection. These are not his discoveries - they are the discoveries of certain individuals and a much broader community of extremely intelligent and hard-working people. Who the fuck are you?
@Tapiol27 No FBI profiler here, just a very observant person. Richard Dawkins isn't explaining anything, he's just telling, with absolutely no evidence. YECs are well aware of the difference between the numbers 10,000 and 4,600,000,000. His little analogy about the distance between san fran and NY is just a pathetic attempt to make us look stupid, and people like you jump all over it. Who the fuck am I? A hard working person as well, and there's no discoveries that support an Earth age that big.
@ironman197268 YECs don't need help from Dawkins or anyone else to look stupid. You are stupid! You may well be a hard-working person, but observant? No. How can you be when you go through life with your head up your ass. The evidence for the true age of the Earth is abundant and definitive: geology, radiometric dating, cosmology. And even if you want to dispute these, we can directly date the Earth to older than 11,000 years through dendrochronology - that's tree rings to you.
@Tapol2007 Well I can already tell you're a very insecure person because of your ignorant belief in me being stupid, and going through life with my head up my ass. If I was stupid by definition, I would not be able to operate a computer, and properly communicate back and forth with other youtube users like you. I look at both sides of the Earth age and compare the two, and 4.6 billion years is insane. Lets start with the tree rings. Why does carbon dated ages or trees, not match tree ring ages?
@ironman197268 What sort of mind is it that when faced with evidence from every single discipline in science pointing to an ancient universe and Earth, in which gradual change over time is the key to life, you still object and do so with blatant falsehoods. Provide evidence that cardon dating of trees is inconsistent with dendrochronology. Don't run away now and hide. Prove to me you're not stupid. I want a reference: name of article, journal, author, etc. You've made a claim. Support it. (CONT)
@ironman197268 And don't refer to morons like Kent Hovind or Ray Comfort. They don't have the academic credentials to make definitive claims about matters of science.
Harold S. Gladwin, "Dendrochronology, Radiocarbon and Bristlecones," Anthropological Journal of Canada, Vol. 14, No. 4, 1976 pp. 2-7
You getting nervous now? I'm sure when you read this you're going to just say something like, Oh that's not what that's talking about, or Harold Gladwin's work has been refuted some many times over, and so on. Is that close?
@ironman197268 That's so funny. You seem to be so thrilled with having a reference it's as if you think that simply coming up with one, at least one, you've won an argument or proved a point. Add to that your effort to pre-empt my criticism of your reference by predicting my objections smacks of genuine uncertainty about how reliable your reference is. I doubt if you've ever taken part in real academic debate. The rules don't allow you to preclude the objections of your opponent. (CONT)
@Tapiola2007 Everything you've asked me for I've givin, and in return you give me your little..."Oh, their claims are outdated!!" What references do you have that PROVE... their clams are outdated?
@ironman197268 Your argument stands or falls on the strength of your sources - sorry, that should be source (singular) as you only have the one. Frankly, I was expecting you to roll out Gladwin - a Creationist apologist who, yes, has long be discredited and, more importantly, is not followed at all in dating methods. There are serious doubts if he even wrote the suspicious article you cite. So, we're back to where we began: tree ring dating methods directly date the Earth to 10,000+ years.
@Tapiola2007 "Your argument stands or falls on the strength of your sources - sorry, that should be source (singular) as you only have the one."
Really, How bout this one?
Herbert C. Sorenson, "Bristlecone Pines and Tree-Ring Dating: A Critique," Creation Research Society Quarterly, Vol. 13, June 1976 p. 5...
I'm glad you think it's funny because I have only "one" reference (now two) for my claim, cause that is observable evidence of another claim of mine...You are an insecure person!
@ironman197268 Don't make me laugh, the Creation Research Society Quarterly! The Royal Society or the American Academy wouldn't recognise this ludicrous journal. You might as well tell us all about cosmology by citing Astrologers Monthly or perhaps a lesson in chemistry with excerpts from the Yearbook of Alchemy. If you're going to take part in a proper discussion of academic issues, you need to start with credible sources. I know it. You know it. The boys and girls reading this know it. (CONT)
Fundamentals of Tree-Ring Research, 2010, University of Arizona Press; Fritz H. Schweingruber,
Tree Rings and Environment: Dendroecology, 1996, Swiss Federal Institute for Forest, Snow and Landscape Research; Michael G.L. Baillie, Tree-Ring Dating and Archaeology, 1982, The University of Chicago Press; Marvin A. Stokes and Terah L. Smiley, An Introduction to Tree-Ring Dating, 1968, University of Chicago Press...(CONT)
@ironman197268 Hillam, J, Dendrochronology: guidelines on producing and interpreting dendrochronological dates, 1998, Ancient Monuments Laboratory, Conservation and Technology, English Heritage, London; Morgan, R.A., The selection and sampling of timber from archaeological sites for identification and tree-ring analysis, 1975, Journal of Archaeological Science; Stahle et al, Tree-ring dating baldcypress and potential for millennia-long chronologies in the Southeast. American Antiquity, 1985
@ironman197268 Hari and Arovaara, 1988, Detecting CO2 induced enhancement in radial increment of trees. Evidence from the northern timber line. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research; Fritts, H.C., and Swetnam, T.W. 1989. Dendroecology: A tool for evaluating variations in past and present forest environments. Advances in Ecological Research 19; Schulman, E. 1958. Bristlecone pine, oldest known living thing. National Geographic Magazine 113(3); (CONT)
@Tapiola2007 You talk about those tree ring counting people like they're slaves, and someone held a gun to their head and forced them to go out in the field and count tree rings. And, you sound like an educated yuppie cry baby when you do it. Did any of your loser dendrochronologists compare all those rings they counted to C14 dates? Of course not, cause that would make them look like the big fat LIARS that they are. (CONT)
@Tapiola2007 You can keep on posting your liar references until the next big bang happens, but you'll still be wrong. We most certainly are not back to where we began, because your sources are LIARS and they wont subject their judgments to statistical tests. Why is that I wonder? I love how you say tree rings date the Earth to be 10,000+ years old, OK, what about the other 4,599,990,000 years that you and all those other losers like Dickard Dawkins wishes were real? (CONT)
@ironman197268 Want more? I can post references all day. My point? My point is you know jack shit about dendrochronology and tree-ring dating. You also fail when it comes to academic discourse. The real research has been done by tens, hundreds or thousands of hard-working scholars who go out into the field and do the physical work of understanding our world. They make this knowledge available to the rest of us and you would cheapen it by citing the Creation Research Society Quarterly. For shame!
@Tapiola2007 Man I love debating and destroying clowns like you!! So what do you think about all those B type stars that are supposed to be BILLIONS of years old, but lack the amount of helium needed for that to be true, and the Big Bang as well? Man there's Soooo much evidence to support a young Earth and universe it's just silly. What sucks for people like you is, you have to make up excuses for why it's Not evidence, and then get destroyed by people like me, that it is...Buwaaahahahaaaaaa!!!
@ironman197268 This is the point of the discussion where you reveal the true depth of your delusion. Believing in god and having faith is one thing. It may not be my view of life but I can get by just fine knowing other people make that choice. What really bends me out of shape is when the faithful overstep the boundary of theology and begin to make statements about science because of the claims of their religions. There's a lot to deal with here: (CONT)
@ironman197268 B type stars. What on earth are you jabbering about? As with dendrochronology, if you make an outrageous claim, you're going to have to back it up with evidence. Who told you that pathetic factoid? Your pastor? A fellow believer? I bet it wasn't a university professor or from the pages of Nature. You play the silly game of having the conclusions all worked out in advance and then pounce on any possible anomaly or uncertainty to imply that because science might be wrong or (CONT)
@ironman197268 doesn't have an answer it must be god. The Big Bang is the basis of our understanding of the universe. It's not an idea somebody just invented one day. It's observable. The galaxies are all moving away from one another, and at an exponential rate. We're fortunate we live in a time when we can still observe the galaxies and measure the background radiation. As with all serious science, the evidence shows that the Big Bang did happen, not that it didn't. Only Creation myths do that!
@ironman197268 There is no evidence for a young Earth. Every argument you have made and attempted to back up has been shown to be wrong, not by me calling you a liar, or calling your sources liars - I did that when I was a child in the playground. As a mature adult, I prefer to look at the evidence and make a considered decision. You should try it. Our species is lucky to have such capacity. As for the true age of the universe, if you recall our earliest encounters, I said I didn't need (CONT)
@ironman197268 4.6 billion years to prove that the Biblical dating of the Earth was wrong. 10,000+ would be enough and dendrochronology was the most direct and observable way to do that. For the exact date of the Earth we need to consider radiometric dating and also material collected from space, e.g. meteorites. However, here's the thing, you will reject everything I say and I will reject everything you say (probably) but why? I don't mean because we have different world views but on what (CONT
@ironman197268 grounds. Have you really tried to understand cosmology, geology, biology? Do you really understand how the scientific process works? Do you realise that the majority of scientists aren't nearly as much interested in the results of their research as in methodology involved and does it reveal a truth about the natural world. If the true age of the Earth is not 4.6 billion years, I would want to know what it really is. I don't care about the number, only the truth. This is what
@Tapiola2007 You will reject everything I say because I speak the TRUTH, and I will reject everything you say because you are a LIAR!! And everything you believe to be true, is a big LIE!! I understand cosmology, geology, and biology (The real ones) just fine. Those tree ring dates are "Made Up!!" dates, to create CONFLICT with a world wide global flood, and that's it... If they were real, those leading dendrochronologists would subject their judgements to statistical tests, but they don't.
@ironman197268 you need to consider. You do care that the Earth is less than 10,000 years old and have absolutely no interest in testing whether or not that may or may not be true. You have all the answers worked out before you've even investigated the question. I'm done with this discussion now but I would say this, take a moment to ask yourself an honest question: have I really investigated the claims made by science or do I rely on the word of people like my pastor? Think for yourself!
@Tapiola2007 Why wont those TREE RING COUNTING FOOLS that you worship, subject their judgments to statistical tests? You didn't answer that one DILL WEED!!! I answer all your pathetic questions, and you answer Zero, of mine. What do you think about rocks that absorb nitrogen, but aren't dripping with it, like a wet sponge, because the absorption hasn't been happening for millions of years?
@ironman197268 What a hypocrite you are! It was only a few days ago you were citing Gladwin and his research as a source for arguing against an old Earth but anyone who has a contrary view in dendrochronology is a "tree ring counting fool". There's only one fool here and it's you. Fact is you know nothing. You're quoting the warped ideas of your pastor and other believers who also know nothing. You live in a sad little delusional world!
@Tapiola2007 If I know NOTHING, how did I know about Gladwin DING DONG? YOU are just another DREAMER, that WISHES what you believe is right, and the Bible is wrong. You are living in a DREAM world cause you haven't refuted my claims, along with refutes against your claims.
@ironman197268 You found the Gladwin reference by hunting for it on Google or maybe one of your fellow delusionalists told you to cite Gladwin if ever challenged about dendrochronology. You haven't read the Gladwin research or any of the other evidence on tree ring dating. You're merely hunting for sources to rebut any real evidence that's put your way. Same goes for stars, Big Bang, evolution, etc. I strongly doubt you've ever studied any of these subjects. You reject as a matter of principle!
@Tapiola207 "You found the Gladwin reference by hunting for it on Google or maybe one of your fellow delusionalists told you to cite Gladwin if ever challenged about dendrochronology."
Muwaahahahahaaa!! YOU, are the delusionist!! Now I know you WISH that's the way I found that reference along with the Seronsen reference, that you failed to mention, but it actually came from what I like to call my "Secret Weapon" against Dreamers like you, who WISH the Earth really was 4.6 billion years old...
@ironman197268 So you believe in a great flood? Tell me about this flood. Is this the flood that carved out the Grand Canyon? If the Earth is so young, did dinosaurs find a place on the Ark or were they wiped out by the flood. Are the measurements for the ark found in the Bible the correct measurements applied by Noah using Bronze Age shipbuilding technology? You have a handle of facts so answer these questions for me...
@Tapiola2007 I don't just believe in a Global flood, I KNOW there was a global flood, and it's real history. Yes It most certainly carved out the Grand Canyon. The Grand Canyon is just a Gigantic breach, in a Gigantic dam. Otherwise, how did the Colorado river use to flow uphill? Oh that's not how it happened, OK... how did the Canyon walls uplift on both sides of the river, through Millions of years of erosion?
@ironman197268 So the Grand Canyon couldn't have resulted from any process other than a Flood? On Mars there is a place called Valles Marinares (Mariner Valley). Mariner Valley makes the Grand Canyon look like nothing more than a whole in the ground. Whereas the GC is a few hundred kms in length, MV is thousands of kms. If natural geological processes are not capable of making spectacular phenomena such as the GC, how did MV happen? A second even bigger Flood on Mars perhaps?
@Tapiola2007 The Grand Canyon certainly could have resulted from another process...God Yahweh's creation. But, since there was a global flood, and the Grand Canyon is here now, and a river runs through it by entering it and exiting it, then the Grand Canyon must have somehow formed. Now your Grand Canyon on Mars, that's either the way it was made, or that magic asteroid flying through space making planets and killing dinosaurs, put it there. If Mars was ever flooded, it would be an iceball now!!
@ironman197268 What is your evidence for a Flood creating the GC? All geologists agree on how it formed so where do you get your superior knowledge from? Are you now a geologist as well as a marine engineer? You ignored the question of Mariner Valley. You have no idea about planet formation or geological processes on this planet or any other in our solar system. When presented with concrete evidence of real geology and natural processes, you run and hide behind the Bible. Pretty sad, really!
@Tapiola2007 Well there's what's called a little grand canyon where Mt. St. Helens erupted, that was formed from a small local flood. That's about as good as I can do without you accusing me of circular reasoning because, I believe a flood made the canyon, you don't believe in the flood, or that it making the canyon. Now I can give evidence as to why it didn't form over millions of years. Mariner Valley? Oh yes I did, I called it the grand canyon on Mars, go read the comments again.
@ironman197268 I repeat, are you a geologist or do you have any references for professional geologists who claim the Grand Canyon was formed less than 5,000 years ago by flood waters? Your personal opinion on the matter or info you found on Google don't cut it. As with every single point we've discussed, I'm prepared to support my argument with professional, expert research. You seem only capable of giving a poorly constructed opinion. You did not address the Mariner Valley question.
Dinosaurs found a place on the Ark all right, and they are still on Earth today, they're called Reptiles. They just don't live as long, and grow up to be as big as they use to be.
You speak of Noah's technology being, not so good. How do you know what kind of technology Noah had? You believe that day and age to be the era that all those Lying science books tells you. Noah was 500+ years old when he started building the Ark, How smart, and innovated do you think a Man could be at that age?
@ironman197268 Which dinosaurs did Noah round up and put on the Ark? Any T-Rexs? Why aren't human and dinosaur fossils ever found together? Human fossils are regularly found with modern animal remains as well as more ancient species such as mammoths or mastadons. However, according to you and the Creation Museum, humans and dinosaurs coexisted, so surely they would be found together - at least once.
@Tapiola2007 Let's say you're an archaeologist, or just anybody that did nothing in you life but go out digging for dinosaurs, and one day you found a human, and a dinosaur skeleton side by side. Now there's NO doubt about this find, it's a human and a T-Rex, all the tests are official, and it's a fact!!
Who all would you tell about this find? Would you tell some big time Creationists about it and take them to the site, and show them?
@ironman197268 Why haven't professional archeologists (or amateurs) found human remains with dinosaurs fossils? Professionals record/archive their finds. If such a find happened, we'd know about it. And before you scream conspiracy, such a find would make the person in question extremely famous (professionally and publicly) and possibly wealthy. There is no incentive to conceal such a discovery. This find has never happened because 60 million years separate the demise or dinos and our evolution.
@Tapiola2007 I asked if YOU would tell anybody if you found a dinosaur and human fossil or skeleton together. Now there may very well be No bones or fossils of the two ever found together but, that does not mean they never coexisted. Just look at all those scientists that worship evilution. Why haven't they found any of your great ancestor skeletons called Hominids? Would you really take fame and potential wealth that would embarrass and humiliate you in the greatest of ways for your discovery?
@ironman197268 Oh dear, you seem to be falling apart. OK, if I found dino fossils and human remains in the same rocks, I would tell somebody. I'd document the find (photos, videos, extensive notes) and notify all major natural history museums. Satisfied? You say just because dino and human fossils haven't been found together doesn't mean they won't. Doh! 60 million years say that won't ever happen. Read the works of paleantologists and learn about fossils and their true history.
@Tapiola2007 Oh dear, I'm not falling apart at all, I've just got you backed into a corner you can't get out of without admitting the truth. There's no way you would tell anybody because everybody you would tell knows you believe in an old Earth and 65 million year old dinosaurs, and humans and dinos never coexisted. If you told national history museums, they would think you went crazy!! Then they would go to the site and destroy it, or say, That's not a Human, that's just a...?
@ironman197268 You don't know what a hominid is, do you. Come on, be honest. You use the terms but you're a little bit shaky on what is actually under discussion. I supsect this is true for all the issues we've covered. Every good natural history museum you visit will have a display of some sort with the fossilised remains of our ancestors. A beautiful history of our gradual evolution from a common ancestor we share with our cousins the chimps, bonobos, gorillas and orang-u-tans. (CONT)
@Tapiola2007 I know exactly what Evilution wishes a hominid is. It's the Uncle Daddy Monkey Man that gave birth to you and all your cousin ancestors, the chimps, bonobos, gorillas and orang-u-tans.
Now I know you stand behind what you believe, in a very Passionate way so... Surely you've went to all these museums you speak of, and took some pictures of these hominid fossils and other transitional fossils as well to show all the world that objects to what you believe to be a fact Right?
@ironman197268 And if the fossils weren't enough, modern genetic conclusively prove our kinship and heredity with all living things. You avoided answering the question about marsupials. I'll restate it like this: if marsupials were on the Ark (a) how did they get there from Australia? (b) how did they migrate from the Ark to Australia? (c) why is there no evidence of a marsupial migration from Ararat to Australia? (d) why did all marsupials all decide to go to the most difficult place of all?
@Tapiola2007 You've now denied my addressing Mariner Valley TWICE!! For the THIRD time, I called it... "the Grand Canyon on Mars" in a comment a couple pages back. No I'm not a geologist, and I don't have to be in order to compare phony evidence to real evidence. The fact is there are not enough years for any of the fairy tales you believe in to happen. My info on the Grand canyon does not come from Google, even though it can be found there. It comes from my "Secret Weapon"
@ironman197268 You have referred to your "Secret Weapon" on two occasions now. You're going to have to reveal your source if you want ot be taken seriously. I'm done presenting the evidence to you. I've pointed you in the direction of numerous sources that are all separately verifiable as reliable and, more importantly, easily refutable with counter evidence. Give me one concrete piece of evidence that proves a young Earth. However, you choose to ignore the real world for a supernatural fantasy!
@Tapiola2007 Why should I reveal my secret weapon to you? So you can start whining and lying about how it's been refuted in the past!! Your sources that you've givin me are a bunch of lying bias atheist evilutionints, that would not tell the world if they found a dinosaur and human skeleton together.
Be careful how you use the word "prove" in a scientific context. Proof, only exists in mathematics, and I can't give you proof of a young Earth. I'll send you an article that"s good evidence.
@Tapiola2007 Hey it's OK man, you just didn't know who you getting ready to get destroyed by when you said, "first of all, your comment is childish" You see, NOBODY can beat me in a debate. That's because I defend the TRUTH!! Just ask a lawyer and they will tell you it's easier to defend an innocent client, than it is to defend a guilty one. So what did you think about that article on erosion? Let me guess...Brian Thomas isn't qualified to write, ICR isn't a peer reviewed web site...
@ironman197268 I wasn't conceding the debate, dummy. It's come to the point where I've spent enough valuable time attempting to spread a little education to a clearly ignorant individual and concluded that you're satisfied living your life with your head firmly planted up your ass. Citing articles from the Institute for Creation Research as evidence for a young Earth is further evidence of your educational failings.
@Tapiola2007 Oh yes you were, otherwise you would not have posted that totally meaningless comment. How am I able to to read your comments and reply to them, when I'm living my life with my head planted firmly up my ass? I can tell you're a very insecure person because of all your pathetic attempts to insult my intelligence. So my ICR articles are basically crap? You asked me for young Earth evidence, what else can I do, build a time machine?
@ironman197268 Your response to the multiple references I sent you concerning dendrochronology and other matters of established science was that they're all liars. As a rational person, I have to conclude that I'm dealing with a delusional idiot. If you honestly believe the entire scientific is lying and possibly involved in some sort of conspiracy, all I can do is pity you. I didn't comment on the ICR article in detail because I already know it's garbage - the title alone tells me that.
@Tapiola2007 What a pathetic LOSER you've proved yourself to BE!!! Your Dendrochronology is just a bunch of Crap Talk!! You never answered the C14 ages compared to tree ring Science fiction ages, that you WISH were true!! You didn't comment on that ICR article because you can't. You cannot argue with reality, and EROSION is as real as it gets, and again is your WORST nightmare.
@ironman197268 Why are your so-called scientific claims to be believed and all the references I've made available to you are "crap talk" and "lies"? Why is that? Your position is certainly the extreme minority position when it comes to academic literature and teaching and yet it is meant to be authoritative over all science curricula around the world. Mmm, let me guess, because you're a religious nutcase who would believe any old rubbish so long as it affirmed the fairy tales you live life by!
@Tapiola2007 Cause it's the truth. Now how about that Erosion? You wanted good young Earth evidence and I delivered. Erosion is as observable as it gets, and if it's been happening for millions of years there wouldn't be any continents today. And there certainly wouldn't be any 65 million year old dinosaur bones found if that magical "UPLIFT" is the answer, cause they would have decayed, and eroded away as well. So what do you think about that religious old rubbish fairy tale?
"Erosion is as observable as it gets, and if it's been happening for millions of years there wouldn't be any continents today"
Ever heard of tectonic plates?
"And there certainly wouldn't be any 65 million year old dinosaur bones found if that magical "UPLIFT" is the answer, cause they would have decayed, and eroded away as well"
May I suggest you Google "fossils" to see how idiotic your statement is.
@ironman197268 HA! Maybe you should do a little reading into plate tectonics, Kent Hovind Jr. The continents are always in flux and dynamic, they're not just big, unmovable rocks as you make it seem.
@ironman197268 I didn't say you did not..I said that is what you make it seem like they ARE. And by global flood you mean Noah's flood, I'm assuming. I said what I did because you obviously don't understand plate tectonics and how land rises, such as mountains, from it. That is something that is always taking place. And you are basically stating that they are stagnant rocks by saying there would be no continents because of erosion - land is always rising and eroding simultaneously.
@MrBpigz Wow, 2 comments into a debate and you've already contradicted yourself and lied. I guess you didn't read through any of mine and Tapiolas debate, and if you did you obviously don't understand erosion verses science fiction uplift, and you're completely stubborn!! The fairy tale uplift you believe in would have slowly exposed dinosaur bones and fossils over millions of years, while erosion and decay was simultaneously taking them away.
@ironman197268 Sigh.. even if you had a good point in whatever geological argument you were having, you'd have to ascribe to the idea that the earth was poofed into existance billions of years after the universe was made. Science and religion dont mix, you'll have to choose between logic and fairytales at some point.
@seblasian You just wrote the biggest Assumption I think I've ever heard. Science and religion don't mix? 4,600,000,000 years is religious Science. And it's science that believes the Earth was "poofed" into existence Billions of years after the universe was made. By the way...What made the universe, and how did the Apostle Paul know about Quantum Theory over 2000 years ago? Check out Hebrews 11:3.
@ironman197268 "And it's science that believes the Earth was "poofed" into existence Billions of years after the universe was made" lol, no it doesnt, what are you talking about?
Then again I probably shouldnt be asking scientific questions to a person who uses a phrase like "science believes..".
@ironman197268 No scientific thought says the Earth 'poofed'. The Earth is understood to have come about by accretion. As far as 4.6B years...it's not religious. That number can rise or fall based on evidence. It's not written in stone. No one knows at this time how the universe, or multiverse, was formed...the search goes on. The comment about Paul is too stupid to address...I will let that fall on stony ground.
@solusdiver Please don't try to give me your science fiction definition of the word 'POOFED'. Accretion? Yeah sure, that's even more realistic than EVILution. Man I love laughing my abbs off at all the ridiculous fairy tales people like you come up with. 4.6 billion years is as "Religious" as it gets, and you can give up all that "Crap Talk" about how it's not written in stone until the next accretion happens.
"3By faith we understand that the universe was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things that are visible."
You are using post-rationalisation to determine that he's speaking about Quantum theory.
Particles come from nothing -> Paul said something about stuff made from invisible stuff -> Insert God -> He must have been talking about Quantum theory because... (repeat)
I'v seen better attempts at post-rationalisation from Nostradamus believers
@ironman197268 So, first we were popped into existence by a click of god's fingers, and now we fuck like animals to create more people, some of them dead on arrival. What twisted shit is this?
Your beliefs are senseless and dangerous. I bet you use that crap to justify any amount of bigotry in your every day life. Repugnant.
@solusdiver You're calling me dumb and you don't even know what troll means. You made a comment to me and I commented back, that's called debating, not trolling.
@ironman197268 Uh, I didn't contradict myself at all? The land is constantly changing - I don't understand what you're not grasping. YOU obviously don't understand plate tectonics, faulting, and other geographical FACTS that cause the underlying earth to be exposed over time, also by natural erosion, while the rise of material, albeit slowly, from the upper mantle creates "rise." Same thing with soil, which also erodes and builds up, usually in an unbalanced fashion.
@Tapiola2007 I love how you didn't comment on the ICR article I sent you, and I know why you didn't. Because Erosion and Beryllium 10 are the old Earths WORST nightmare!! And check out bestvalues comment a couple of comments down for some more good Young Earth evidence.
Now if your thinking that ICR is my "secret weapon", you're just wrong like you always are!! It's called, In The Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood, by Dr. Walt Brown.
@ironman197268 Hah, hah, that's so funny. Your self confessed "Secret Weapon" in the debate about the true age of the Earth is the book "In The Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood, Dr. Walt Brown." Has the book been reviewed by any leading science journal? Oh, and who exactly are the publishers? More evidence that you really don't care at all for the facts, just bogus arguments to prop up your deranged view of reality.
@Tapiola2007 Now I've avoided 2 of your questions..NO, that's just your 2nd lie. Now I did answer your question, with a question, so delete that one.
Now Your claim of Marsupials in Australia before the flood is a massive assumption!! How do you know the Earth was like this before the flood? The marsupials traveled towards the land that is now Australia after leaving the Ark. Water levels are rising because of Flood Ice melting over 100s of years, and marsupials got trapped on an island.
@ironman197268 I didn't actually say Noah's technology wasn't so good - I merely stated the technology he had available at that time. Shipbuilding in Noah's day would have relied entirely on wood. Given the proportions of the Ark, a boat of its size would have collapsed under its own weight, let alone withstood storms and seas for 40 days and 40 nights. It would never have sailed. How do you know he had superior shipbuilding knowledge? The Bible says he's was farmer of some sort.
@Tapiola2007 There's lots of things about Noah's Ark that we just don't know, because The Bible doesn't say. All we know is the dimensions, materials, an 18-22" vent across the length of it's top, a door in the side and 3 levels. As far as the small detailed architecture in its construction, who knows? A 45' tall structure made totally of wood collapsing under it's own weight I disagree with, I'll get to the length later. There's plenty of wood structures that tall, that stand up just fine.
@ironman197268 We're not talking about "wood structures", we're talking about a boat. Frankly, it's irrelevant whether you agree or not. Shipbuilders are all in agreement this vessel would collapse under its own weight and would never last on the open water. This is just one practical impossibility making this fairy tale so ludicrous that it's incredible anyone takes it literally. How did Noah collect all the species? How did those species and his family repopulate the planet? Etc...
@Tapiola2007 We're not talking about "wood structures", Really? That comment is completely backwards cause the Ark was made of wood, and most certainly was not a boat, ship or anything meant to sail. It was just a box built to float. Any shipbuilder, or construction worker that thinks a wooden structure only 45' tall would collapse under it's own weight is either ignorant of that kind of architecture and engineering, or they're like you and believe the Ark of Noah to be a fairy tale.
@ironman197268 Don't prove your ignorance with every comment you make. There's a huge difference between free-standing wood structures and wooden vessels meant for water - boats! Experts have done the calculations based on the dimensions given in the Bible and its evident that the Ark could not last five minutes on water. I can give references to these expert opinions if you like. Are you a marine engineer? Your opinion means nothing on the technical possibility of this laughable project.
@Tapiola2007 "Don't prove your ignorance with every comment you make."
Don't try to flatter yourself with an ignorant comment like that!!
The Bible says that all the animals that were going to be on the Ark came to Noah in Genesis 6:20. Yes marsupials were on the Ark, but if evilution is true, why are they only found in Australia? Did your experts have the same knowledge, blueprints, and materials that Noah did? It's impossible for them to make such calculations.
I actually thought that "young earth creationists" were the youth arm of the creationist movement.
diffnature 3 days ago
The bible is not fairy tales. They would have disproved it thousands of years ago if it was.the Romans were just as smart as people today. They even had mechanical computers . We got ahead technically when transistors were made but theres nothing new under the sun. LED lights were idiscovered in the 1800's
TrollsFromHell 3 days ago
LOL sorry about the spelling was I posting from my phone while walking. Probably not the safest activity and not so good for spelling and sentence structure.
XchristianHeathen 1 week ago
@XchristianHeathen Hey man i'm a christian I believe in god, and to me it's not a fairy tale. With that being said I would like to say you are a good person and thank you for having the respect of others beliefs that you choose not to attack which i see so many people do, maybe one day you'll come to christ but who knows.
thekingVA 1 week ago
@thekingVA I was a christian when I was younger, but after years of searching for evidence for my beliefs I came up empty. I respect christians who deserve respect. When I was a believer I did not get self righteous with people, and say it was my way or the highway. When I have a debate about the young earth view held by many christians I get upset because that view is in opposition to a mountain of evidence that says otherwise. I used to say I believe the word of god, I trust it.
XchristianHeathen 1 week ago
@thekingVA (part 2) If my faith was in opposition to scientific evidence I did not put forth the notion of a world wide conspiracy by scientists. I would say I understand what the evidence appears to say, and all I can say is I have faith in the word of god. I did not try to re write that science to agree with the bible. I don't understand this new line of thought to debate Christ and go in the scientific realm. My faith was in Jesus, not scientific evidence. They are not the same.
XchristianHeathen 1 week ago
@XchristianHeathen uhhh what does any of that have to do with what I said? I was just thanking you for not bashing my religion
thekingVA 1 week ago
@thekingVA Well you said I hope you come to Christ, and I wanted you to know I have been there, and normally I am a total shit to people like you.
XchristianHeathen 1 week ago
I am an atheist because no evidnece has been provided to believe there is a god. That's it. I don't say there is no god, just that no is no rational reason to believe there is. I don't believe in the devil either, he is just as big a fairy tale as god. A Bronze age manuscript full of superstitious nonsense proves nothing, but how imaginative and ignorant Bronze age people were. I choose rational reality over biblical fairy tales.
XchristianHeathen 1 week ago
@lovingthetruth.
Atheism is not a religion especially not pagan (though their celebrations kick ass compared to church). We're not satinist either. You know the not a religion thing?(if your not going to belive in#1 why belive in#2? {though it's all#2}). Are your fellow supporters muslums? Our numbers are growing. (Thanks to the thing in your hand, NO NOT THAT! The computer, iPod whatever, not that nasty little thing!)
Bramak17 1 week ago
Best remedy for religiosity, education. Polls taken for the last 80 yrs have all correlated belief in imaginary friends with level of education; the more education, the less likely you still hold onto ancient bullshit..
saxmanchiro 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Dawkins, you're just another athiest that is spreading your own Pagan religion. You're no better than the devil you serve trying to keep people from God. You're only supporters are other athiests, and thank God, until the end times, your numbers are few!
lovingthetruth7 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
lovingthetruth7 2 weeks ago
dawkins for president!
nikolathereal 2 weeks ago 4
Some rabbis believe that God created worlds and then God destroyed them so you can say that the world is 4.6 billion years old.
mark51397 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
One Young-Earth Creationist says to another "Which is closer - the Moon or Mexico"? The other points at the Moon and replies "The Moon - Duh! You can't see Mexico from here".
csmcmillion 4 weeks ago
piddly genesis, i agree.
NICH0LASM 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
To all the atheist another point for example if u take marbles that have the numbers 1 to 1,000,000 and u put them in a basket.And u close ur eyes and someone says pick the number 6 from the basket.My friend what is the chance u will pick the number 6 from the basket..Its 1/1000,000 ratio.So to say that everything in this complex universe is the work of a chance,that is just irrational and illogical thinking.The reality is that there is God and he is the one pulling everything,believe it or not
ChangingTheScript 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Reason why I believe in God and why atheists like R Dawkins are wrong: 1) Science and logic cannot explain everything. 2) What are we as humans compared with nature or the size of the universe, we are nothing compared with nature. Thanks for reading my message.
megaman7552 1 month ago
I am a devolutionist which means I believe in reverse evolution. Believe it or not, there is more scientific evidence in favor of devolution than evolution. Sadly, devolution occurs 1 billion times faster than evolution and the process is predicted to begin in 2012. I hope to see ya'll in the forests of Africa, hopping from one tree to another, and soon.
eltopus4747 1 month ago
love this guy.
xKuroKittyx 1 month ago in playlist Athiest
evolutionists are just atheists. they keep claiming they have all this "evidence". They have nothing. I live in a Universe that was created thousands of years ago. Creationists have much more evidence than any evolutionist will ever have. All we can do is pray for evolutionists because their little "theory" seems to be growing weaker by the day!
hopperd9ify 1 month ago
@hopperd9ify Only creationists use the term 'evolutionist'. The word does not actually exist.
PointlessSteel 1 month ago 3
@hopperd9ifY AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAH you are a reatarded fuck
there are plenty religious people that say evolution is true. wanna know why? because being a fucking retarded like you is eally bad for your image. have you even read what the evolution theory (theory is the scientific sense not in the other way that you fucktards think it is) ? no you jsut heard to the priest that raped you you dont know what it says
bible is not evidence its a fairytale book, that is very very very immoral an
ComAntNeLib 1 month ago
@hopperd9ify d inconsistent all across it, i dont think you have even read the fairy tale book you defend, you are a dumbfuck that does not know about the shit he defends and does not know about the truth hes against. also you like science whe its good for you but then reject this? dude go die, creatinism is nto science because it does nto repesct the natural laws and they dont have any fucking evidence of anything.
ComAntNeLib 1 month ago
@hopperd9ify please tell me you're trolling...
electricmaster23 1 month ago
@hopperd9ify You're only displaying your ignorance of observed facts here... Parroting your pastor will not help. You've chosen ignorance over knowledge, nothing to be proud of.
Acrimonator 1 month ago
@hopperd9ify see this recent article:
"Australia's hybrid shark reveals evolution in action"
goo (DOT) gl/c7yZw
(replace (DOT) with . because youtube blocks links)
epicprogrammer 3 weeks ago
@mcdinkity - lazy, not even trying. 0/10
SafetyKap 1 month ago
@roxfoot - Your explanation that god altered the stars, physics, wave theory and gravity to "make it look old" is ignorant. Why would your god do that?
SafetyKap 1 month ago
So Satan could have written the Bible that explains alot of inconsistencies. Why would the world look like it has evolved over millions of years if it hasn't? That makes no sense even for God and why believe on faith alone? That really makes no kind of sense at all.
Bramak17 1 month ago
even if the earth appears millions of years old ,it proves nothing ,GOD could have made it look old ,Adam was made as a man not a baby ,but then ,the first accounts of man ,does fit perfectly with the Bible ,oxford ""cave""" critter dawkins will reap his reward
roxfoot 1 month ago
@roxfoot Occam's Razor, perhaps? Also, where's the proof? Why don't you stick with the bible and accept the evidence, instead of construing some giant excuse like that?
PointlessSteel 1 month ago
fuck u athiest scum the world is 1000 year old and jesus made it read da bible morons
mcdinkity 2 months ago
@mcdinkity Obvious troll is obvious.
Nekhet 2 months ago 7
@mcdinkity Are You serious ?
christianity clams jesus lived more than 2,000 years ago.
tranquility4all 1 month ago
@mcdinkity hahaha, either Troll detected, or you must be FUCKING crazy xD I think ur just trollin though... atleast i hope so for your sake
hyuga098 1 month ago
@hyuga098 could be both a troll and fucking crazy I seen that happen a time or 2.
1overthehillsfaraway 1 month ago
@mcdinkity not sure if retard or just troll :D
MrDavetheman 1 month ago
@mcdinkity wasn't it 6,000 years old? :rofl: now it's even younger O:o!!! :nooo:
freiheitsalv 1 month ago
@mcdinkity You obviousely didn't even read it, moron...
Acrimonator 1 month ago
Perhaps what is "wrong" with them is they have different facts which you blatantly ignore (because you don't want God to exist) and overwhelming evidence that refutes your so-called "facts" and demonstrates conclusively that the earth is very young. Carbon 14 in diamonds and coal and soft tissue and red blood cells in dinosaur bones for instance. Moron.
bestvalue 2 months ago
Hey Richard....
In the beginning, GOD created the heaven and the Earth
lunchbox420wb 2 months ago
@lunchbox420wb evidence?
SACK0FWINE 2 months ago
@SACK0FWINE my evidence is w/out God you cant know anything for certain. W/out God you wouldn't be here to argue against him.
lunchbox420wb 2 months ago
@lunchbox420wb Well my next question is...Do you have evidence that we can't know anything without god and that we wouldn't be here without him?
SACK0FWINE 2 months ago
@SACK0FWINE I never said that you cant know anything. I said that you cant know anything for certain w/out God.
And yes my evidence is the universe. The universe being in existence proves God. You dont look at a painting and question if it had a painter. You dont look at a building and questing if it had a builder. So why do people question a creator of the universe? The universe is self existing proof of God because if God didnt exist then there wouldnt be a universe. Matter cant create itself
lunchbox420wb 2 months ago
@lunchbox420wb Analogizing man-made objects such as paintings and buildings to the universe is utterly fallacious. Matter can't create itself...can God create himself? Oh, he always existed, right? Just like paintings and buildings always existed. To posit God as the source does not solve the problem; it compounds it infinitely.
Serraphas3 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Serraphas3 Yes God has always existed and he is not made of matter.
"To posit God as the source does not solve the problem; it compounds it infinitely."
I dont understand. What problem is trying to be solved? God is the source of this universe. If you dont think so then would you like to explain how matter or energy can create itself from nothing?
lunchbox420wb 2 months ago
@Serraphas3 Whoever said God Yahweh was created? Who created the Man, to make all those "man made objects?" The god you worship... "NOTHING" and it's apostles, the big bang, abiogenesis, and Evilution?
ironman197268 2 months ago
@ironman197268 The creationist argument that everything must have a source/origin contradicts with their belief in a sourceless God, and is therefore self-defeating. How this does not create intellectual conflict in your mind boggles mine.
Serraphas3 2 months ago
@Serraphas3 The Holy Bible says nothing about God Yahweh having a source for his existence, If it did then he wouldn't be God. His existence along with ours is a mystery in itself, that NO human mind can figure out, or comprehend. There is no contradiction in any of that. The only contradiction is in yours and sciences belief in a big bang that made all the order and complexity that we can observe on the Earth and in the universe, without having any intelligence to back it.
ironman197268 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@lunchbox420wb
"I said that you cant know anything for certain w/out God."
Hmmm yet alot of what you know from the bible you kniow for certain is PROVEN WRONG!
"If God didnt exist then there wouldnt be a universe"
WOW basless claim yet again.
The universe proves ralph the magic pixie is real, or the tooth fairy!
"Matter cant create itself"
It didnt need too!
gorilla199uncensored 2 months ago
@lunchbox420wb And yet God always existed. No he doesn't require a creator.
Man I'm getting tired of Creationists and their double standards. How do you know that the universe hasn't always existed?
We know the universe exists
We don't know if god exists.
Wouldn't it make more sense for something that we do know exists to have always existed, then to come up with a supernatural explanation that can't be verified because science only deals with natural phenomena?
SACK0FWINE 2 months ago
@SACK0FWINE Well then, NOTHING must have always existed, and it created everything... Intelligence, instinct, DNA, Betelgeuse being soooo much larger than our sun, and so on..
How does "Nothing" come up with the most unimaginable and complex CODE, that holds together all the Life in the world that we know of?
ironman197268 2 months ago
@ironman197268 Well, I didn't suggest that nothing created everything. I suggested that the universe had always existed. But even if I did, you would still have to explain how God got here. Wouldn't God be more complex than all of The DNA strands combined? Why doesn't God require a creator?
SACK0FWINE 2 months ago
@SACK0FWINE Well then what else could you suggest if you don't believe in God? I can't explain the existence of God Yahweh, because I don't know, and nobody does, or ever will.
Now let's say I explained to you how God came to be. Then you would start asking me where did his creator came from right? All this is under the assumption that God Yahweh was created. Look up the definition of the word Eternal, and that will tell you why God does not require a creator.
ironman197268 2 months ago
@ironman197268 Yes, I would keep asking for the creator's creator's creator's creator's creator and so. It's called infinite regression. Well can you prove that God is eternal?
SACK0FWINE 2 months ago
@SACK0FWINE You need to watch how you use the word "prove" in a spiritual context, because proof only exist in mathematics. By definition Eternity has no beginning, and Infinity does, so your infinite regression comment is out of context.
ironman197268 2 months ago
@ironman197268 No, infinite regression isn't used out of context if every creator would require a creator. I realize that eternal means that something has no beginning. No, proof doesn't only exist in mathematics. 100% proof only exists in mathematics. (such as, There is no even prime number greater than 2, we can prove that 100%) We can prove that sodium will react explosively with water but not 100%.
Leaving that aside, I still want you to provide evidence that God is eternal.
SACK0FWINE 2 months ago
@SACK0FWINE Oh, I've got you all out of sorts now!!
No, infinite regression isn't used out of context if every creator would require a creator. I realize that eternal means that something has no beginning, OK if you believe and understand that, why are you asking me if I can explain to you the origins of God Yahweh?
ironman197268 2 months ago
@ironman197268 Let me explain. I understand that by definition, something that is eternal must have no beginning and no end. And I'm assuming that God exists . Can you provide a demonstration that justifies the claim that he is eternal? I don't want the explanation for his origin. (because he is supposedly eternal right.)
I just want some type of empirical evidence that God is eternal. That's all
SACK0FWINE 2 months ago
@SACK0FWINE Yes I know the universe hasnt always existed. The big bang doesnt claim the universe has always existed. The big bang claims the universe is 15-20 billion years old. If the universe has always existed then it would be infinity. Also science has proved the universe hasnt always existed because space is expanding. If space is expanding then it must of had a beginning. Not one legit scientist believes the universe has always existed. So if it had a beginning then where did it come from?
lunchbox420wb 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@lunchbox420wb Well, let's suppose that it's unknown. Does that automatically mean that God did it? And you still haven't answered my question of where did God come from.
SACK0FWINE 2 months ago
If I put a gallon of water in a vacuum the water would never be more or less than I put in for infinity. So unless water comes from the space contained inside the vacuum to begin with. The amount of water on earth will never change for infinity....
bridgetroll9 2 months ago
Dawkins is full of himself. His comments are more about himself than anything else.
Entropy56 2 months ago
Richard Dawkins is right. Religion is a stranglehold that is very difficult to get out of. It was a painfully long journey to fully leave behind the Christian faith that has been hammered into my head since childhood, which is why I can completely understand why half of Americans are so unwilling to accept scientific fact for what it is, if it goes against what has been drilled into their skulls for so long.
carlsm95 2 months ago
Dawkins is right about the "the devil will try to lead you away" kind of thinking. In fact, that kind of thinking is exactly what it admonishes against. It's a paradoxical paradigm. :P
Azakhiel 2 months ago
Notice how Dickard is "Blinking" so much? That means he's LYING!!!
ironman197268 2 months ago
@ironman197268 First of all, your comment is childish. What are you, some sort of FBI profiler? Get real! Second, Professor Dawkins is explaining the commonly understood scientific position on the age of the Earth and evolution by natural selection. These are not his discoveries - they are the discoveries of certain individuals and a much broader community of extremely intelligent and hard-working people. Who the fuck are you?
Tapiola2007 2 months ago
@Tapiol27 No FBI profiler here, just a very observant person. Richard Dawkins isn't explaining anything, he's just telling, with absolutely no evidence. YECs are well aware of the difference between the numbers 10,000 and 4,600,000,000. His little analogy about the distance between san fran and NY is just a pathetic attempt to make us look stupid, and people like you jump all over it. Who the fuck am I? A hard working person as well, and there's no discoveries that support an Earth age that big.
ironman197268 2 months ago
@ironman197268 YECs don't need help from Dawkins or anyone else to look stupid. You are stupid! You may well be a hard-working person, but observant? No. How can you be when you go through life with your head up your ass. The evidence for the true age of the Earth is abundant and definitive: geology, radiometric dating, cosmology. And even if you want to dispute these, we can directly date the Earth to older than 11,000 years through dendrochronology - that's tree rings to you.
Tapiola2007 2 months ago
@Tapol2007 Well I can already tell you're a very insecure person because of your ignorant belief in me being stupid, and going through life with my head up my ass. If I was stupid by definition, I would not be able to operate a computer, and properly communicate back and forth with other youtube users like you. I look at both sides of the Earth age and compare the two, and 4.6 billion years is insane. Lets start with the tree rings. Why does carbon dated ages or trees, not match tree ring ages?
ironman197268 2 months ago
@ironman197268 What sort of mind is it that when faced with evidence from every single discipline in science pointing to an ancient universe and Earth, in which gradual change over time is the key to life, you still object and do so with blatant falsehoods. Provide evidence that cardon dating of trees is inconsistent with dendrochronology. Don't run away now and hide. Prove to me you're not stupid. I want a reference: name of article, journal, author, etc. You've made a claim. Support it. (CONT)
Tapiola2007 2 months ago
@Tapiola2007 Why did you not just give me the evidence against my claim, instead of asking me for references?
ironman197268 2 months ago
@ironman197268 And don't refer to morons like Kent Hovind or Ray Comfort. They don't have the academic credentials to make definitive claims about matters of science.
Tapiola2007 2 months ago
@Tapiola2007 You got it!!
Harold S. Gladwin, "Dendrochronology, Radiocarbon and Bristlecones," Anthropological Journal of Canada, Vol. 14, No. 4, 1976 pp. 2-7
You getting nervous now? I'm sure when you read this you're going to just say something like, Oh that's not what that's talking about, or Harold Gladwin's work has been refuted some many times over, and so on. Is that close?
ironman197268 2 months ago
@ironman197268 That's so funny. You seem to be so thrilled with having a reference it's as if you think that simply coming up with one, at least one, you've won an argument or proved a point. Add to that your effort to pre-empt my criticism of your reference by predicting my objections smacks of genuine uncertainty about how reliable your reference is. I doubt if you've ever taken part in real academic debate. The rules don't allow you to preclude the objections of your opponent. (CONT)
Tapiola2007 2 months ago
@Tapiola2007 Everything you've asked me for I've givin, and in return you give me your little..."Oh, their claims are outdated!!" What references do you have that PROVE... their clams are outdated?
ironman197268 2 months ago
@ironman197268 Your argument stands or falls on the strength of your sources - sorry, that should be source (singular) as you only have the one. Frankly, I was expecting you to roll out Gladwin - a Creationist apologist who, yes, has long be discredited and, more importantly, is not followed at all in dating methods. There are serious doubts if he even wrote the suspicious article you cite. So, we're back to where we began: tree ring dating methods directly date the Earth to 10,000+ years.
Tapiola2007 2 months ago
@Tapiola2007 "Your argument stands or falls on the strength of your sources - sorry, that should be source (singular) as you only have the one."
Really, How bout this one?
Herbert C. Sorenson, "Bristlecone Pines and Tree-Ring Dating: A Critique," Creation Research Society Quarterly, Vol. 13, June 1976 p. 5...
I'm glad you think it's funny because I have only "one" reference (now two) for my claim, cause that is observable evidence of another claim of mine...You are an insecure person!
ironman197268 2 months ago
@ironman197268 Don't make me laugh, the Creation Research Society Quarterly! The Royal Society or the American Academy wouldn't recognise this ludicrous journal. You might as well tell us all about cosmology by citing Astrologers Monthly or perhaps a lesson in chemistry with excerpts from the Yearbook of Alchemy. If you're going to take part in a proper discussion of academic issues, you need to start with credible sources. I know it. You know it. The boys and girls reading this know it. (CONT)
Tapiola2007 2 months ago
@ironman197268 Some real references: James H. Speer
Fundamentals of Tree-Ring Research, 2010, University of Arizona Press; Fritz H. Schweingruber,
Tree Rings and Environment: Dendroecology, 1996, Swiss Federal Institute for Forest, Snow and Landscape Research; Michael G.L. Baillie, Tree-Ring Dating and Archaeology, 1982, The University of Chicago Press; Marvin A. Stokes and Terah L. Smiley, An Introduction to Tree-Ring Dating, 1968, University of Chicago Press...(CONT)
Tapiola2007 2 months ago
@ironman197268 Hillam, J, Dendrochronology: guidelines on producing and interpreting dendrochronological dates, 1998, Ancient Monuments Laboratory, Conservation and Technology, English Heritage, London; Morgan, R.A., The selection and sampling of timber from archaeological sites for identification and tree-ring analysis, 1975, Journal of Archaeological Science; Stahle et al, Tree-ring dating baldcypress and potential for millennia-long chronologies in the Southeast. American Antiquity, 1985
Tapiola2007 2 months ago
@ironman197268 Hari and Arovaara, 1988, Detecting CO2 induced enhancement in radial increment of trees. Evidence from the northern timber line. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research; Fritts, H.C., and Swetnam, T.W. 1989. Dendroecology: A tool for evaluating variations in past and present forest environments. Advances in Ecological Research 19; Schulman, E. 1958. Bristlecone pine, oldest known living thing. National Geographic Magazine 113(3); (CONT)
Tapiola2007 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Tapiola2007 You talk about those tree ring counting people like they're slaves, and someone held a gun to their head and forced them to go out in the field and count tree rings. And, you sound like an educated yuppie cry baby when you do it. Did any of your loser dendrochronologists compare all those rings they counted to C14 dates? Of course not, cause that would make them look like the big fat LIARS that they are. (CONT)
ironman197268 2 months ago
@Tapiola2007 You can keep on posting your liar references until the next big bang happens, but you'll still be wrong. We most certainly are not back to where we began, because your sources are LIARS and they wont subject their judgments to statistical tests. Why is that I wonder? I love how you say tree rings date the Earth to be 10,000+ years old, OK, what about the other 4,599,990,000 years that you and all those other losers like Dickard Dawkins wishes were real? (CONT)
ironman197268 2 months ago
@ironman197268 Want more? I can post references all day. My point? My point is you know jack shit about dendrochronology and tree-ring dating. You also fail when it comes to academic discourse. The real research has been done by tens, hundreds or thousands of hard-working scholars who go out into the field and do the physical work of understanding our world. They make this knowledge available to the rest of us and you would cheapen it by citing the Creation Research Society Quarterly. For shame!
Tapiola2007 2 months ago
Comment removed
ironman197268 2 months ago
Comment removed
ironman197268 2 months ago
@Tapiola2007 Man I love debating and destroying clowns like you!! So what do you think about all those B type stars that are supposed to be BILLIONS of years old, but lack the amount of helium needed for that to be true, and the Big Bang as well? Man there's Soooo much evidence to support a young Earth and universe it's just silly. What sucks for people like you is, you have to make up excuses for why it's Not evidence, and then get destroyed by people like me, that it is...Buwaaahahahaaaaaa!!!
ironman197268 2 months ago
@ironman197268 This is the point of the discussion where you reveal the true depth of your delusion. Believing in god and having faith is one thing. It may not be my view of life but I can get by just fine knowing other people make that choice. What really bends me out of shape is when the faithful overstep the boundary of theology and begin to make statements about science because of the claims of their religions. There's a lot to deal with here: (CONT)
Tapiola2007 2 months ago
@ironman197268 B type stars. What on earth are you jabbering about? As with dendrochronology, if you make an outrageous claim, you're going to have to back it up with evidence. Who told you that pathetic factoid? Your pastor? A fellow believer? I bet it wasn't a university professor or from the pages of Nature. You play the silly game of having the conclusions all worked out in advance and then pounce on any possible anomaly or uncertainty to imply that because science might be wrong or (CONT)
Tapiola2007 2 months ago
@ironman197268 doesn't have an answer it must be god. The Big Bang is the basis of our understanding of the universe. It's not an idea somebody just invented one day. It's observable. The galaxies are all moving away from one another, and at an exponential rate. We're fortunate we live in a time when we can still observe the galaxies and measure the background radiation. As with all serious science, the evidence shows that the Big Bang did happen, not that it didn't. Only Creation myths do that!
Tapiola2007 2 months ago
@ironman197268 There is no evidence for a young Earth. Every argument you have made and attempted to back up has been shown to be wrong, not by me calling you a liar, or calling your sources liars - I did that when I was a child in the playground. As a mature adult, I prefer to look at the evidence and make a considered decision. You should try it. Our species is lucky to have such capacity. As for the true age of the universe, if you recall our earliest encounters, I said I didn't need (CONT)
Tapiola2007 2 months ago
@ironman197268 4.6 billion years to prove that the Biblical dating of the Earth was wrong. 10,000+ would be enough and dendrochronology was the most direct and observable way to do that. For the exact date of the Earth we need to consider radiometric dating and also material collected from space, e.g. meteorites. However, here's the thing, you will reject everything I say and I will reject everything you say (probably) but why? I don't mean because we have different world views but on what (CONT
Tapiola2007 2 months ago
@Tapiola2007 Stop Whining!!
ironman197268 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ironman197268 Fuck you you ignorant asshole!
Tapiola2007 2 months ago
@ironman197268 grounds. Have you really tried to understand cosmology, geology, biology? Do you really understand how the scientific process works? Do you realise that the majority of scientists aren't nearly as much interested in the results of their research as in methodology involved and does it reveal a truth about the natural world. If the true age of the Earth is not 4.6 billion years, I would want to know what it really is. I don't care about the number, only the truth. This is what
Tapiola2007 2 months ago
@Tapiola2007 You will reject everything I say because I speak the TRUTH, and I will reject everything you say because you are a LIAR!! And everything you believe to be true, is a big LIE!! I understand cosmology, geology, and biology (The real ones) just fine. Those tree ring dates are "Made Up!!" dates, to create CONFLICT with a world wide global flood, and that's it... If they were real, those leading dendrochronologists would subject their judgements to statistical tests, but they don't.
ironman197268 2 months ago
@ironman197268 you need to consider. You do care that the Earth is less than 10,000 years old and have absolutely no interest in testing whether or not that may or may not be true. You have all the answers worked out before you've even investigated the question. I'm done with this discussion now but I would say this, take a moment to ask yourself an honest question: have I really investigated the claims made by science or do I rely on the word of people like my pastor? Think for yourself!
Tapiola2007 2 months ago
@Tapiola2007 Why wont those TREE RING COUNTING FOOLS that you worship, subject their judgments to statistical tests? You didn't answer that one DILL WEED!!! I answer all your pathetic questions, and you answer Zero, of mine. What do you think about rocks that absorb nitrogen, but aren't dripping with it, like a wet sponge, because the absorption hasn't been happening for millions of years?
ironman197268 2 months ago
@ironman197268 What a hypocrite you are! It was only a few days ago you were citing Gladwin and his research as a source for arguing against an old Earth but anyone who has a contrary view in dendrochronology is a "tree ring counting fool". There's only one fool here and it's you. Fact is you know nothing. You're quoting the warped ideas of your pastor and other believers who also know nothing. You live in a sad little delusional world!
Tapiola2007 2 months ago
@Tapiola2007 If I know NOTHING, how did I know about Gladwin DING DONG? YOU are just another DREAMER, that WISHES what you believe is right, and the Bible is wrong. You are living in a DREAM world cause you haven't refuted my claims, along with refutes against your claims.
ironman197268 2 months ago
@ironman197268 You found the Gladwin reference by hunting for it on Google or maybe one of your fellow delusionalists told you to cite Gladwin if ever challenged about dendrochronology. You haven't read the Gladwin research or any of the other evidence on tree ring dating. You're merely hunting for sources to rebut any real evidence that's put your way. Same goes for stars, Big Bang, evolution, etc. I strongly doubt you've ever studied any of these subjects. You reject as a matter of principle!
Tapiola2007 2 months ago
@Tapiola207 "You found the Gladwin reference by hunting for it on Google or maybe one of your fellow delusionalists told you to cite Gladwin if ever challenged about dendrochronology."
Muwaahahahahaaa!! YOU, are the delusionist!! Now I know you WISH that's the way I found that reference along with the Seronsen reference, that you failed to mention, but it actually came from what I like to call my "Secret Weapon" against Dreamers like you, who WISH the Earth really was 4.6 billion years old...
ironman197268 2 months ago
@ironman197268 So you believe in a great flood? Tell me about this flood. Is this the flood that carved out the Grand Canyon? If the Earth is so young, did dinosaurs find a place on the Ark or were they wiped out by the flood. Are the measurements for the ark found in the Bible the correct measurements applied by Noah using Bronze Age shipbuilding technology? You have a handle of facts so answer these questions for me...
Tapiola2007 2 months ago
@Tapiola2007 I don't just believe in a Global flood, I KNOW there was a global flood, and it's real history. Yes It most certainly carved out the Grand Canyon. The Grand Canyon is just a Gigantic breach, in a Gigantic dam. Otherwise, how did the Colorado river use to flow uphill? Oh that's not how it happened, OK... how did the Canyon walls uplift on both sides of the river, through Millions of years of erosion?
ironman197268 2 months ago
@ironman197268 So the Grand Canyon couldn't have resulted from any process other than a Flood? On Mars there is a place called Valles Marinares (Mariner Valley). Mariner Valley makes the Grand Canyon look like nothing more than a whole in the ground. Whereas the GC is a few hundred kms in length, MV is thousands of kms. If natural geological processes are not capable of making spectacular phenomena such as the GC, how did MV happen? A second even bigger Flood on Mars perhaps?
Tapiola2007 2 months ago
@Tapiola2007 The Grand Canyon certainly could have resulted from another process...God Yahweh's creation. But, since there was a global flood, and the Grand Canyon is here now, and a river runs through it by entering it and exiting it, then the Grand Canyon must have somehow formed. Now your Grand Canyon on Mars, that's either the way it was made, or that magic asteroid flying through space making planets and killing dinosaurs, put it there. If Mars was ever flooded, it would be an iceball now!!
ironman197268 2 months ago
@ironman197268 What is your evidence for a Flood creating the GC? All geologists agree on how it formed so where do you get your superior knowledge from? Are you now a geologist as well as a marine engineer? You ignored the question of Mariner Valley. You have no idea about planet formation or geological processes on this planet or any other in our solar system. When presented with concrete evidence of real geology and natural processes, you run and hide behind the Bible. Pretty sad, really!
Tapiola2007 2 months ago
@Tapiola2007 Well there's what's called a little grand canyon where Mt. St. Helens erupted, that was formed from a small local flood. That's about as good as I can do without you accusing me of circular reasoning because, I believe a flood made the canyon, you don't believe in the flood, or that it making the canyon. Now I can give evidence as to why it didn't form over millions of years. Mariner Valley? Oh yes I did, I called it the grand canyon on Mars, go read the comments again.
ironman197268 2 months ago
@ironman197268 I repeat, are you a geologist or do you have any references for professional geologists who claim the Grand Canyon was formed less than 5,000 years ago by flood waters? Your personal opinion on the matter or info you found on Google don't cut it. As with every single point we've discussed, I'm prepared to support my argument with professional, expert research. You seem only capable of giving a poorly constructed opinion. You did not address the Mariner Valley question.
Tapiola2007 2 months ago
Dinosaurs found a place on the Ark all right, and they are still on Earth today, they're called Reptiles. They just don't live as long, and grow up to be as big as they use to be.
You speak of Noah's technology being, not so good. How do you know what kind of technology Noah had? You believe that day and age to be the era that all those Lying science books tells you. Noah was 500+ years old when he started building the Ark, How smart, and innovated do you think a Man could be at that age?
ironman197268 2 months ago
@ironman197268 Which dinosaurs did Noah round up and put on the Ark? Any T-Rexs? Why aren't human and dinosaur fossils ever found together? Human fossils are regularly found with modern animal remains as well as more ancient species such as mammoths or mastadons. However, according to you and the Creation Museum, humans and dinosaurs coexisted, so surely they would be found together - at least once.
Tapiola2007 2 months ago
@Tapiola2007 Let's say you're an archaeologist, or just anybody that did nothing in you life but go out digging for dinosaurs, and one day you found a human, and a dinosaur skeleton side by side. Now there's NO doubt about this find, it's a human and a T-Rex, all the tests are official, and it's a fact!!
Who all would you tell about this find? Would you tell some big time Creationists about it and take them to the site, and show them?
ironman197268 2 months ago
@ironman197268 Why haven't professional archeologists (or amateurs) found human remains with dinosaurs fossils? Professionals record/archive their finds. If such a find happened, we'd know about it. And before you scream conspiracy, such a find would make the person in question extremely famous (professionally and publicly) and possibly wealthy. There is no incentive to conceal such a discovery. This find has never happened because 60 million years separate the demise or dinos and our evolution.
Tapiola2007 2 months ago
@Tapiola2007 I asked if YOU would tell anybody if you found a dinosaur and human fossil or skeleton together. Now there may very well be No bones or fossils of the two ever found together but, that does not mean they never coexisted. Just look at all those scientists that worship evilution. Why haven't they found any of your great ancestor skeletons called Hominids? Would you really take fame and potential wealth that would embarrass and humiliate you in the greatest of ways for your discovery?
ironman197268 2 months ago
@ironman197268 Oh dear, you seem to be falling apart. OK, if I found dino fossils and human remains in the same rocks, I would tell somebody. I'd document the find (photos, videos, extensive notes) and notify all major natural history museums. Satisfied? You say just because dino and human fossils haven't been found together doesn't mean they won't. Doh! 60 million years say that won't ever happen. Read the works of paleantologists and learn about fossils and their true history.
Tapiola2007 2 months ago
@Tapiola2007 Oh dear, I'm not falling apart at all, I've just got you backed into a corner you can't get out of without admitting the truth. There's no way you would tell anybody because everybody you would tell knows you believe in an old Earth and 65 million year old dinosaurs, and humans and dinos never coexisted. If you told national history museums, they would think you went crazy!! Then they would go to the site and destroy it, or say, That's not a Human, that's just a...?
ironman197268 2 months ago
@ironman197268 You don't know what a hominid is, do you. Come on, be honest. You use the terms but you're a little bit shaky on what is actually under discussion. I supsect this is true for all the issues we've covered. Every good natural history museum you visit will have a display of some sort with the fossilised remains of our ancestors. A beautiful history of our gradual evolution from a common ancestor we share with our cousins the chimps, bonobos, gorillas and orang-u-tans. (CONT)
Tapiola2007 2 months ago
@Tapiola2007 I know exactly what Evilution wishes a hominid is. It's the Uncle Daddy Monkey Man that gave birth to you and all your cousin ancestors, the chimps, bonobos, gorillas and orang-u-tans.
Now I know you stand behind what you believe, in a very Passionate way so... Surely you've went to all these museums you speak of, and took some pictures of these hominid fossils and other transitional fossils as well to show all the world that objects to what you believe to be a fact Right?
ironman197268 2 months ago
@ironman197268 And if the fossils weren't enough, modern genetic conclusively prove our kinship and heredity with all living things. You avoided answering the question about marsupials. I'll restate it like this: if marsupials were on the Ark (a) how did they get there from Australia? (b) how did they migrate from the Ark to Australia? (c) why is there no evidence of a marsupial migration from Ararat to Australia? (d) why did all marsupials all decide to go to the most difficult place of all?
Tapiola2007 2 months ago
@Tapiola2007 You've now denied my addressing Mariner Valley TWICE!! For the THIRD time, I called it... "the Grand Canyon on Mars" in a comment a couple pages back. No I'm not a geologist, and I don't have to be in order to compare phony evidence to real evidence. The fact is there are not enough years for any of the fairy tales you believe in to happen. My info on the Grand canyon does not come from Google, even though it can be found there. It comes from my "Secret Weapon"
ironman197268 2 months ago
@ironman197268 You have referred to your "Secret Weapon" on two occasions now. You're going to have to reveal your source if you want ot be taken seriously. I'm done presenting the evidence to you. I've pointed you in the direction of numerous sources that are all separately verifiable as reliable and, more importantly, easily refutable with counter evidence. Give me one concrete piece of evidence that proves a young Earth. However, you choose to ignore the real world for a supernatural fantasy!
Tapiola2007 2 months ago
@Tapiola2007 Why should I reveal my secret weapon to you? So you can start whining and lying about how it's been refuted in the past!! Your sources that you've givin me are a bunch of lying bias atheist evilutionints, that would not tell the world if they found a dinosaur and human skeleton together.
Be careful how you use the word "prove" in a scientific context. Proof, only exists in mathematics, and I can't give you proof of a young Earth. I'll send you an article that"s good evidence.
ironman197268 2 months ago
@ironman197268 You're a moron. Sorry, but that's all there is left to say.
Tapiola2007 2 months ago 4
@Tapiola2007 Hey it's OK man, you just didn't know who you getting ready to get destroyed by when you said, "first of all, your comment is childish" You see, NOBODY can beat me in a debate. That's because I defend the TRUTH!! Just ask a lawyer and they will tell you it's easier to defend an innocent client, than it is to defend a guilty one. So what did you think about that article on erosion? Let me guess...Brian Thomas isn't qualified to write, ICR isn't a peer reviewed web site...
ironman197268 2 months ago
@ironman197268 I wasn't conceding the debate, dummy. It's come to the point where I've spent enough valuable time attempting to spread a little education to a clearly ignorant individual and concluded that you're satisfied living your life with your head firmly planted up your ass. Citing articles from the Institute for Creation Research as evidence for a young Earth is further evidence of your educational failings.
Tapiola2007 2 months ago
@Tapiola2007 Oh yes you were, otherwise you would not have posted that totally meaningless comment. How am I able to to read your comments and reply to them, when I'm living my life with my head planted firmly up my ass? I can tell you're a very insecure person because of all your pathetic attempts to insult my intelligence. So my ICR articles are basically crap? You asked me for young Earth evidence, what else can I do, build a time machine?
ironman197268 2 months ago
@ironman197268 Your response to the multiple references I sent you concerning dendrochronology and other matters of established science was that they're all liars. As a rational person, I have to conclude that I'm dealing with a delusional idiot. If you honestly believe the entire scientific is lying and possibly involved in some sort of conspiracy, all I can do is pity you. I didn't comment on the ICR article in detail because I already know it's garbage - the title alone tells me that.
Tapiola2007 2 months ago
@Tapiola2007 What a pathetic LOSER you've proved yourself to BE!!! Your Dendrochronology is just a bunch of Crap Talk!! You never answered the C14 ages compared to tree ring Science fiction ages, that you WISH were true!! You didn't comment on that ICR article because you can't. You cannot argue with reality, and EROSION is as real as it gets, and again is your WORST nightmare.
ironman197268 2 months ago
@ironman197268 Why are your so-called scientific claims to be believed and all the references I've made available to you are "crap talk" and "lies"? Why is that? Your position is certainly the extreme minority position when it comes to academic literature and teaching and yet it is meant to be authoritative over all science curricula around the world. Mmm, let me guess, because you're a religious nutcase who would believe any old rubbish so long as it affirmed the fairy tales you live life by!
Tapiola2007 2 months ago
@Tapiola2007 Cause it's the truth. Now how about that Erosion? You wanted good young Earth evidence and I delivered. Erosion is as observable as it gets, and if it's been happening for millions of years there wouldn't be any continents today. And there certainly wouldn't be any 65 million year old dinosaur bones found if that magical "UPLIFT" is the answer, cause they would have decayed, and eroded away as well. So what do you think about that religious old rubbish fairy tale?
ironman197268 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ironman197268
"Erosion is as observable as it gets, and if it's been happening for millions of years there wouldn't be any continents today"
Ever heard of tectonic plates?
"And there certainly wouldn't be any 65 million year old dinosaur bones found if that magical "UPLIFT" is the answer, cause they would have decayed, and eroded away as well"
May I suggest you Google "fossils" to see how idiotic your statement is.
Pigdowndog 2 months ago
@ironman197268 HA! Maybe you should do a little reading into plate tectonics, Kent Hovind Jr. The continents are always in flux and dynamic, they're not just big, unmovable rocks as you make it seem.
MrBpigz 2 months ago
@MrBpigz How do I make it seem that they are not big unmovable rocks, when I believe it's those rocks that were moved from a global flood?
ironman197268 2 months ago
@ironman197268 I didn't say you did not..I said that is what you make it seem like they ARE. And by global flood you mean Noah's flood, I'm assuming. I said what I did because you obviously don't understand plate tectonics and how land rises, such as mountains, from it. That is something that is always taking place. And you are basically stating that they are stagnant rocks by saying there would be no continents because of erosion - land is always rising and eroding simultaneously.
MrBpigz 2 months ago
@MrBpigz Wow, 2 comments into a debate and you've already contradicted yourself and lied. I guess you didn't read through any of mine and Tapiolas debate, and if you did you obviously don't understand erosion verses science fiction uplift, and you're completely stubborn!! The fairy tale uplift you believe in would have slowly exposed dinosaur bones and fossils over millions of years, while erosion and decay was simultaneously taking them away.
ironman197268 2 months ago
@ironman197268 Sigh.. even if you had a good point in whatever geological argument you were having, you'd have to ascribe to the idea that the earth was poofed into existance billions of years after the universe was made. Science and religion dont mix, you'll have to choose between logic and fairytales at some point.
seblasian 2 months ago
@seblasian You just wrote the biggest Assumption I think I've ever heard. Science and religion don't mix? 4,600,000,000 years is religious Science. And it's science that believes the Earth was "poofed" into existence Billions of years after the universe was made. By the way...What made the universe, and how did the Apostle Paul know about Quantum Theory over 2000 years ago? Check out Hebrews 11:3.
ironman197268 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ironman197268 "And it's science that believes the Earth was "poofed" into existence Billions of years after the universe was made" lol, no it doesnt, what are you talking about?
Then again I probably shouldnt be asking scientific questions to a person who uses a phrase like "science believes..".
seblasian 2 months ago
@ironman197268 No scientific thought says the Earth 'poofed'. The Earth is understood to have come about by accretion. As far as 4.6B years...it's not religious. That number can rise or fall based on evidence. It's not written in stone. No one knows at this time how the universe, or multiverse, was formed...the search goes on. The comment about Paul is too stupid to address...I will let that fall on stony ground.
solusdiver 2 months ago
@solusdiver Please don't try to give me your science fiction definition of the word 'POOFED'. Accretion? Yeah sure, that's even more realistic than EVILution. Man I love laughing my abbs off at all the ridiculous fairy tales people like you come up with. 4.6 billion years is as "Religious" as it gets, and you can give up all that "Crap Talk" about how it's not written in stone until the next accretion happens.
ironman197268 2 months ago
@ironman197268 "The comment about Paul is too stupid to address...I will let that fall on stony ground"
You made a Massive TYPO!! You meant to say...I will let that fall on COWARDLY ground. Now please explain the stupidity in the comment about Paul.
ironman197268 2 months ago
@ironman197268
"3By faith we understand that the universe was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things that are visible."
You are using post-rationalisation to determine that he's speaking about Quantum theory.
Particles come from nothing -> Paul said something about stuff made from invisible stuff -> Insert God -> He must have been talking about Quantum theory because... (repeat)
I'v seen better attempts at post-rationalisation from Nostradamus believers
TheJamesvanzyl 2 months ago
@TheJamesvanzyl I rank Nostradamus up there with Harold Camping. Now try Ecclesiastes 1:7, the recirculation of water.
ironman197268 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ironman197268 So, first we were popped into existence by a click of god's fingers, and now we fuck like animals to create more people, some of them dead on arrival. What twisted shit is this?
Your beliefs are senseless and dangerous. I bet you use that crap to justify any amount of bigotry in your every day life. Repugnant.
MrRationalgaze 1 month ago
@ironman197268 Two considerations: 1. You are a troll and will say anything for a reaction. 2. You are the dumbest son of a bitch on YouTube.
I go with the latter, but either way you aren't worth the effort so Anathema, Maranatha.
solusdiver 2 months ago
@solusdiver You're calling me dumb and you don't even know what troll means. You made a comment to me and I commented back, that's called debating, not trolling.
So 2nd Thessalonians 1:6-9 to you.
ironman197268 2 months ago
@ironman197268 He didn't. You are an utter fool.
MrRationalgaze 1 month ago
@ironman197268 Uh, I didn't contradict myself at all? The land is constantly changing - I don't understand what you're not grasping. YOU obviously don't understand plate tectonics, faulting, and other geographical FACTS that cause the underlying earth to be exposed over time, also by natural erosion, while the rise of material, albeit slowly, from the upper mantle creates "rise." Same thing with soil, which also erodes and builds up, usually in an unbalanced fashion.
MrBpigz 2 months ago
@MrBpigz Have you read that article yet?
ironman197268 2 months ago
@ironman197268 Not yet. I will later.
MrBpigz 2 months ago
@MrBpigz Check it Man, it's Goood stuff!!
ironman197268 2 months ago
@Tapiola2007 I love how you didn't comment on the ICR article I sent you, and I know why you didn't. Because Erosion and Beryllium 10 are the old Earths WORST nightmare!! And check out bestvalues comment a couple of comments down for some more good Young Earth evidence.
Now if your thinking that ICR is my "secret weapon", you're just wrong like you always are!! It's called, In The Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood, by Dr. Walt Brown.
ironman197268 2 months ago
@ironman197268 Hah, hah, that's so funny. Your self confessed "Secret Weapon" in the debate about the true age of the Earth is the book "In The Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood, Dr. Walt Brown." Has the book been reviewed by any leading science journal? Oh, and who exactly are the publishers? More evidence that you really don't care at all for the facts, just bogus arguments to prop up your deranged view of reality.
Tapiola2007 2 months ago
@Tapiola2007 Now I've avoided 2 of your questions..NO, that's just your 2nd lie. Now I did answer your question, with a question, so delete that one.
Now Your claim of Marsupials in Australia before the flood is a massive assumption!! How do you know the Earth was like this before the flood? The marsupials traveled towards the land that is now Australia after leaving the Ark. Water levels are rising because of Flood Ice melting over 100s of years, and marsupials got trapped on an island.
ironman197268 2 months ago
@ironman197268 I didn't actually say Noah's technology wasn't so good - I merely stated the technology he had available at that time. Shipbuilding in Noah's day would have relied entirely on wood. Given the proportions of the Ark, a boat of its size would have collapsed under its own weight, let alone withstood storms and seas for 40 days and 40 nights. It would never have sailed. How do you know he had superior shipbuilding knowledge? The Bible says he's was farmer of some sort.
Tapiola2007 2 months ago
@Tapiola2007 There's lots of things about Noah's Ark that we just don't know, because The Bible doesn't say. All we know is the dimensions, materials, an 18-22" vent across the length of it's top, a door in the side and 3 levels. As far as the small detailed architecture in its construction, who knows? A 45' tall structure made totally of wood collapsing under it's own weight I disagree with, I'll get to the length later. There's plenty of wood structures that tall, that stand up just fine.
ironman197268 2 months ago
@ironman197268 We're not talking about "wood structures", we're talking about a boat. Frankly, it's irrelevant whether you agree or not. Shipbuilders are all in agreement this vessel would collapse under its own weight and would never last on the open water. This is just one practical impossibility making this fairy tale so ludicrous that it's incredible anyone takes it literally. How did Noah collect all the species? How did those species and his family repopulate the planet? Etc...
Tapiola2007 2 months ago
@Tapiola2007 We're not talking about "wood structures", Really? That comment is completely backwards cause the Ark was made of wood, and most certainly was not a boat, ship or anything meant to sail. It was just a box built to float. Any shipbuilder, or construction worker that thinks a wooden structure only 45' tall would collapse under it's own weight is either ignorant of that kind of architecture and engineering, or they're like you and believe the Ark of Noah to be a fairy tale.
ironman197268 2 months ago
@ironman197268 Don't prove your ignorance with every comment you make. There's a huge difference between free-standing wood structures and wooden vessels meant for water - boats! Experts have done the calculations based on the dimensions given in the Bible and its evident that the Ark could not last five minutes on water. I can give references to these expert opinions if you like. Are you a marine engineer? Your opinion means nothing on the technical possibility of this laughable project.
Tapiola2007 2 months ago
@Tapiola2007 "Don't prove your ignorance with every comment you make."
Don't try to flatter yourself with an ignorant comment like that!!
The Bible says that all the animals that were going to be on the Ark came to Noah in Genesis 6:20. Yes marsupials were on the Ark, but if evilution is true, why are they only found in Australia? Did your experts have the same knowledge, blueprints, and materials that Noah did? It's impossible for them to make such calculations.
ironman197268 2 months ago
@Tapiola2007 Noah didn't collect any species. There were only "kinds" on the Ark, and all 16,000 of them came to him.
"How did those species and his family repo