NationStates Jolt Archive

The first time I heard this absurd statement was during the first day of my 9th grade biology class, and I laughed out loud, thinking it was a joke. Sadly, it turns out that many people do believe such a ridiculous notion. They also tend to be the people who think that the universe magically came about from nothing, and life came about from a chemical reaction. How many people on these forums believe that we came from organisms as simple as common bacteria?

They also tend to be the people who think that the universe magically came about from nothing
Just out of curiosity, do you think the universe magically came into existance by the will of a magical being in the sky?

At one point, unicellular organisms were the only form of life in the universe, scientific fact.

Just out of curiosity, do you think the universe magically came into existance by the will of a magical being in the sky?

The universe came into existence because God made it. However, he did not employ magic to do it, nor is he "magical."

At one point, unicellular organisms were the only form of life in the universe, scientific fact.

No, it's not a scientific fact any more than the "fact" that the Earth is over a billion years old or that dinosaurs existed.

lol

Ah jeez. Somebody's actually contesting whether or not the dinosaurs existed?

...I'm speechless. I am without speech.

You'll not win your race war if you persist with your wilful ignorance you know.

Ah jeez. Somebody's actually contesting whether or not the dinosaurs existed?

...I'm speechless. I am without speech.

good job you're typing then

No, it's not a scientific fact any more than the "fact" that the Earth is over a billion years old or that dinosaurs existed.

What is the difference between a 'scientific fact', a '"fact"' and a fact?

The universe came into existence because God made it. However, he did not employ magic to do it, nor is he "magical."
We'll see about that, won't we?

mag·ic (māj'ĭk) Pronunciation Key
n.
The art that purports to control or forecast natural events, effects, or forces by invoking the supernatural.

adj.
Of, relating to, or invoking the supernatural: "stubborn unlaid ghost/That breaks his magic chains at curfew time" (John Milton).
Possessing distinctive qualities that produce unaccountable or baffling effects.

magic

adjective
1. possessing or using or characteristic of or appropriate to supernatural powers; "charming incantations"; "magic signs that protect against adverse influence"; "a magical spell"; "'tis now the very witching time of night"- Shakespeare; "wizard wands"; "wizardly powers" [syn: charming]

noun
1. any art that invokes supernatural powers
2. an illusory feat; considered magical by naive observers [syn: magic trick]

I'd consider God to be supernatural, wouldn't you? Magic. If the universe magically came into existance as you falsely claim, there is no need to add a magical being to explain it. It only complicates things more.

No, it's not a scientific fact any more than the "fact" that the Earth is over a billion years old or that dinosaurs existed.
*sirens and warning klaxons go off*
Fundie troll alert! Fundie troll alert!

What is the difference between a 'scientific fact', a '"fact"' and a fact?

One's not real. The other is not not unreal.

we didnt come from single cell organisms RECENTLY....

we didnt come from single cell organisms RECENTLY....

We did, however, come from single celled entities pretty darn recently.

Ah jeez. Somebody's actually contesting whether or not the dinosaurs existed?

...I'm speechless. I am without speech.

There were primordial creatures which existed, whose skeletons were found by archaeologists, that we typically consider "dinosaurs." However, they could have lived no more than 6,000 years ago, as that was when the Earth was created by God. They certainly did not inhabit the Earth millions of years ago.

However, they could have lived no more than 6,000 years ago, as that was when the Earth was created by God.

6,009 years ago, surely, or is there some reason why they couldn't have existed in the first 9 years after the Earth was created?

Ok, this is kind of off topic...Or maybe it isn't considering it regards trolls :confused:

But is MTAE still around. I kinda got busy about two months ago and haven't been on at all. I was actually very surprised to find my nation still here. But anyway, I've looked for a little bit and I haven't seen posts of his anywhere in the last few days or maybe I missed them.

There were primordial creatures which existed, whose skeletons were found by archaeologists, that we typically consider "dinosaurs." However, they could have lived no more than 6,000 years ago, as that was when the Earth was created by God. They certainly did not inhabit the Earth millions of years ago.

Jesus Christ. Why even bother replying?

Just because you don't like or understand something doesn't mean it isn't true*.

*Meaning the best model we have for the observed phenomena at the present time, not True with a capital T. But a scientist will come along and clear that up in the next 14 pages, I'm sure. I'm but a lowly engineer.

We'll see about that, won't we?

mag·ic (māj'ĭk) Pronunciation Key
n.
The art that purports to control or forecast natural events, effects, or forces by invoking the supernatural.

adj.
Of, relating to, or invoking the supernatural: "stubborn unlaid ghost/That breaks his magic chains at curfew time" (John Milton).
Possessing distinctive qualities that produce unaccountable or baffling effects.

magic

adjective
1. possessing or using or characteristic of or appropriate to supernatural powers; "charming incantations"; "magic signs that protect against adverse influence"; "a magical spell"; "'tis now the very witching time of night"- Shakespeare; "wizard wands"; "wizardly powers" [syn: charming]

noun
1. any art that invokes supernatural powers
2. an illusory feat; considered magical by naive observers [syn: magic trick]

I'd consider God to be supernatural, wouldn't you? Magic. If the universe magically came into existance as you falsely claim, there is no need to add a magical being to explain it. It only complicates things more.


*sirens and warning klaxons go off*
Fundie troll alert! Fundie troll alert!

im thinking that its only MAGIC when people do it. when its "god" or any other supernatural being doing it its a miracle or ..... well i dont know how you classify creatiing a universe but its not magic.

I'm but a lowly engineer.

In that case, go build some more bridges: their sure are a load of homeless trolls wandering around these days.

Do I hide in corner or get pop corn.... or even better get LG?

In that case, go build some more bridges: their sure are a load of homeless trolls wandering around these days.

I do not see any hard scientific proof to support your assertions; most of what we call science is really based on shoddy reasoning, faulty assumptions, misinterpreted data, and faulty logic. Nonetheless, they want to indoctrinate our children with such clap-trap. You are not helping their position by refusing to debate but instead resorting to puerile insults.

Ok, this is kind of off topic...Or maybe it isn't considering it regards trolls :confused:

But is MTAE still around. I kinda got busy about two months ago and haven't been on at all. I was actually very surprised to find my nation still here. But anyway, I've looked for a little bit and I haven't seen posts of his anywhere in the last few days or maybe I missed them.

deated.

he was given a 2 week vacation and came back with a puppet to whine about it.

Ok, this is kind of off topic...Or maybe it isn't considering it regards trolls :confused:

But is MTAE still around. I kinda got busy about two months ago and haven't been on at all. I was actually very surprised to find my nation still here. But anyway, I've looked for a little bit and I haven't seen posts of his anywhere in the last few days or maybe I missed them.
He got LOLBANT. :D

im thinking that its only MAGIC when people do it. when its "god" or any other supernatural being doing it its a miracle or ..... well i dont know how you classify creatiing a universe but its not magic.

'Supernatural' would seem to be the best term: whereas magic involves a breaking of natural laws*, the supernatural operates beyond them.


* and the cosmos not having been created yet there are no natural laws to break.

deated.

he was given a 2 week vacation and came back with a puppet to whine about it.

sweet, he was kinda getting on my nerves.

Gawd created the unicellular organisms, which eventually turned into the rest of us and us! :D

In that case, go build some more bridges: their sure are a load of homeless trolls wandering around these days.

A computer engineer, too. Perfect for building bridges for internet trolls.

But we love them really. If we didn't have threads saying "We didn't evolve from Monkeys!", "Abortion is Murder!", "Homosexual Marriage will be the Downfall of Western Society!" and "Torture is A-OK!" the board would die.

Sigh, I'd be a rubbish troll. I just can't get the feeling in the thread titles. Or the typographical errors.

I do not see any hard scientific proof to support your assertions...

Exactly what have I asserted in this thread? Prior to this post I have asked two questions, claimed that we came from single celled entities (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zygote), and commented on homelessness. Do you want scientific data on human reproduction or on sleeping rough?

'Supernatural' would seem to be the best term: whereas magic involves a breaking of natural laws*, the supernatural operates beyond them.


* and the cosmos not having been created yet there are no natural laws to break.

there must be some fancy theological term for the process that god used to bring something from nothingness.

we are created from the mind of god.

Ok, this is kind of off topic...Or maybe it isn't considering it regards trolls :confused:

But is MTAE still around. I kinda got busy about two months ago and haven't been on at all. I was actually very surprised to find my nation still here. But anyway, I've looked for a little bit and I haven't seen posts of his anywhere in the last few days or maybe I missed them.

Banned. At least this guy's kinda funny.

The first time I heard this absurd statement was during the first day of my 9th grade biology class, and I laughed out loud, thinking it was a joke. Sadly, it turns out that many people do believe such a ridiculous notion. They also tend to be the people who think that the universe magically came about from nothing, and life came about from a chemical reaction. How many people on these forums believe that we came from organisms as simple as common bacteria?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/abiogenesis
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_life

Read up, then start looking at the sources cited for the articles for more information.

There were primordial creatures which existed, whose skeletons were found by archaeologists, that we typically consider "dinosaurs." However, they could have lived no more than 6,000 years ago, as that was when the Earth was created by God. They certainly did not inhabit the Earth millions of years ago.

The preponderance of evidence is against you

there must be some fancy theological term for the process that god used to bring something from nothingness.

we are created from the mind of god.

Things like before and after, and, something and nothing, are artifacts of the way we view the universe. They have nothing to do with reality.

The Universe just is. There wasn't anything before. Not even nothingness.

I can't explain this properly however, because my brain thoughts don't come out into mouth words very well.

There were primordial creatures which existed, whose skeletons were found by archaeologists, that we typically consider "dinosaurs." However, they could have lived no more than 6,000 years ago, as that was when the Earth was created by God. They certainly did not inhabit the Earth millions of years ago.

I love how someone using the internet can claim this nonsense. The science and technology that let you post your conjectures is the same science and technology which refutes them :p

I thought the thread was about unicellular orgasims.....

I thought the thread was about unicellular orgasims.....

:eek:

I thought the thread was about unicellular orgasims.....

There is no "I" in orgasm ;)

I love how someone using the internet can claim this nonsense. The science and technology that let you post your conjectures is the same science and technology which refutes them :p

We should ban people with these thoughts from science.

No civilization for you!

There is no "I" in orgasm ;)

Well then, you're just not trying hard enough.

I love how someone using the internet can claim this nonsense. The science and technology that let you post your conjectures is the same science and technology which refutes them :p

Actually, no. The technology behind electronics, computers and networking (and all of the technology required to actually manufacture these things), plus all of the software and protocols that let these devices communicate and be operated by non-expert humans, is almost entirely unrelated to, for instance, evolutionary biology.
Biology is much more complicated ;)

We should ban people with these thoughts from science.

No civilization for you!

I suppose he (and we all know this new guy's a he) could believe that his car starting every morning is a miracle. Then pray he doesn't run out of gas :eek:

Of course we didn't evolve from goddamn unicycles.

Well then, you're just not trying hard enough.

Actually, orgasm is the most transcendant experience I've ever had. All sense of "self" is suspended. And darn it, I thought that line was a shoe-in for sigging :(

Actually, no. The technology behind electronics, computers and networking (and all of the technology required to actually manufacture these things), plus all of the software and protocols that let these devices communicate and be operated by non-expert humans, is almost entirely unrelated to, for instance, evolutionary biology.
Biology is much more complicated ;)

I Dont know I guess our implemented forms so far sure but the theoretical possibilities and some of the forfront of things like quantum computing use theories on the bleeding edge so far.

I suppose he (and we all know this new guy's a he) could believe that his car starting every morning is a miracle. Then pray he doesn't run out of gas :eek:

There's a difference between mechanical processes whose functioning we can physically see and biological processes which we have not witnessed. We blindly put our faith in scientists who are flawed and make ridiculous claims, which people accept after having them constantly repeating. When Darwin first proposed evolution, he was first scoffed at by the scientific community. However, they were soon brainwashed or corrupted into compliance.

there must be some fancy theological term for the process that god used to bring something from nothingness.

"poof"?

we are created from the mind of god.

Wouldn't it be a great cosmic joke that, instead of being born from the mind of god, we're instead like...from the ass of god? All of humanity being a result of one too many god burittos? Omnipotent, Omnicient, Omniflatulant *nods*

We should ban people with these thoughts from science.

No civilization for you!

There are various forms of science which we can safely put our faith in -- these have to do with readily observable phenomena. However, once you claim we randomly evolved from an organism which first existed over a billion years ago, you've got to be pulling all these "facts" out of your ass. No one was alive billions of years ago to know this.

There's a difference between mechanical processes whose functioning we can physically see and biological processes which we have not witnessed.

No, not really. Seeing doesn't make it real, and what is real is real regardless of whether or not it was witnessed.

When Darwin first proposed evolution, he was first scoffed at by the scientific community.

So was Galileo. Shockingly, science has progressed in the 150 years since Origin of the Species, and we don't really need Darwin to prove himself for us by his lonesome anymore.

There's a difference between mechanical processes whose functioning we can physically see and biological processes which we have not witnessed. We blindly put our faith in scientists who are flawed and make ridiculous claims, which people accept after having them constantly repeating. When Darwin first proposed evolution, he was first scoffed at by the scientific community. However, they were soon brainwashed or corrupted into compliance.

People at the far edge of theory ... specially theory that is not popular to people with a particular belief system often get mocked ... until it is shown that they at least were on the right track

There are various forms of science which we can safely put our faith in -- these have to do with readily observable phenomena. However, once you claim we randomly evolved from an organism which first existed over a billion years ago, you've got to be pulling all these "facts" out of your ass. No one was alive billions of years ago to know this.

nobody was around to witness god's supposed creation of the universe either. Why do you believe in that?

There are various forms of science which we can safely put our faith in -- these have to do with readily observable phenomena. However, once you claim we randomly evolved from an organism which first existed over a billion years ago, you've got to be pulling all these "facts" out of your ass. No one was alive billions of years ago to know this.

You must think an electron is roughly the size of a pea :rolleyes:

No one was alive billions of years ago to know this.
http://memepedia.info/images/f/f8/Igiveup.jpg

There are various forms of science which we can safely put our faith in -- these have to do with readily observable phenomena. However, once you claim we randomly evolved from an organism which first existed over a billion years ago, you've got to be pulling all these "facts" out of your ass. No one was alive billions of years ago to know this.

What does that matter ? observation of the macro scale world makes absolutely no difference to existence

A tree falls in the woods and no one is there to see it ... the person coming into the woods later that day can see that something must have happened to the tree and figure out what happened even if no one was there to observe it.

"poof"?



Wouldn't it be a great cosmic joke that, instead of being born from the mind of god, we're instead like...from the ass of god? All of humanity being a result of one too many god burittos? Omnipotent, Omnicient, Omniflatulant *nods*

lol

it would explain so much

If I could have everyone's attention if for just a second, here...


I got to the bottom of Page 1 of this thread, and hit the reply button. Maybe something changed since "Dinosaurs don't exist and the earth is only 6000 years old", but I doubt the troll has resituated himself.


That's right, I said it - he's a troll. Blatant, horrible - not even very skilled at it. He's taking recycled topics which have been debunked and can only stand up in the most arrogant sects of the world.

Here's a question, mods - no, in fact, a question to everyone: why are we listening? We have better trolls to deal with. This run-down piece of nothing is seriously not worth our time, considering his arguments have already been dealt with by the entire friggin' field of science.

Starting a petition to let this thread die and to raise enough funds to send this horrid excuse for a fake back to troll school. All who agree don't post on this guys threads anymore.

Of course humans come from unicellular organisms.

Namely, sperm. In fact it could be said that we come from come.

Unless of course you believe come is a myth too. If you've yet to hit puberty I can sorta understand that.

I suppose he (and we all know this new guy's a he) could believe that his car starting every morning is a miracle. Then pray he doesn't run out of gas :eek:

As the excellent creation scientists at the elite Bob Jesus University in Alabama have proved, the Otto Cycle is no more than an Darwinism-Evilutionist myth that tempts good religious folk to stray from the godly truth of the bible.

The power from four stroke engines comes from angels that eat the gasoline (or petrol if you wish to use the satanic european word) and then push the cylinders up and down. And the 'exhaust gasses' are a byproduct of this process.

Obviously, since you can't prove this wrong, it must be right.

If we all were fanatics as you, we would still be cavemen. Thank "god" for people who thinks.

There were primordial creatures which existed, whose skeletons were found by archaeologists, that we typically consider "dinosaurs." However, they could have lived no more than 6,000 years ago, as that was when the Earth was created by God. They certainly did not inhabit the Earth millions of years ago.

Jesus Christ, you don't even know the difference between an archaeologist and a palaeontologist.

I Dont know I guess our implemented forms so far sure but the theoretical possibilities and some of the forfront of things like quantum computing use theories on the bleeding edge so far.

Well, a single cell is incredibly complicated. We don't fully understand how that works perfectly yet, and when you lump a load of them together - the human brain, for instance - the processes just get... Well, currently they're incomprehensible. Even more incomprehensible. At least we understand how computers work, because we make them. Biology has to work out how already-made, incredibly complicated and finely tuned, infintessimally tiny things work.

Still, life's had something like four billion years to get jolly confusing. We've only been building electronic computers for sixty years or so and already most people think they work by magic ;)

Actually, no. The technology behind electronics, computers and networking (and all of the technology required to actually manufacture these things), plus all of the software and protocols that let these devices communicate and be operated by non-expert humans, is almost entirely unrelated to, for instance, evolutionary biology.
Biology is much more complicated ;)

Actually, most modern electronic systems are made using evolutionary algorithms.

I do not see any hard scientific proof to support your assertions; most of what we call science is really based on shoddy reasoning, faulty assumptions, misinterpreted data, and faulty logic. Nonetheless, they want to indoctrinate our children with such clap-trap.

Wow... Substitute the word 'science' for 'religion' and you get, word-for-word, my opinion on religion as a whole :p

Well, a single cell is incredibly complicated. We don't fully understand how that works perfectly yet, and when you lump a load of them together - the human brain, for instance - the processes just get... Well, currently they're incomprehensible. Even more incomprehensible. At least we understand how computers work, because we make them. Biology has to work out how already-made, incredibly complicated and finely tuned, infintessimally tiny things work.

Still, life's had something like four billion years to get jolly confusing. We've only been building electronic computers for sixty years or so and already most people think they work by magic ;)

I agree like I said though the limits of technology and biology may be fairly similar in the long run

You are right we are making and pushing the "edge" with technology as we go while playing catchup with biology but that does not mean that the far limits when we get there will be dissimilar.

Actually, most modern electronic systems are made using evolutionary algorithms.

You sure?
I know they've tried some of them out (the famous one being the circuit where a big chunk wasn't connected to the rest of it, but if it were removed the thing stopped working) and they created very efficient designs (that, sadly, nobody understood why they worked), but I didn't think they were used for anything practical yet?

If I could have everyone's attention if for just a second, here...


I got to the bottom of Page 1 of this thread, and hit the reply button. Maybe something changed since "Dinosaurs don't exist and the earth is only 6000 years old", but I doubt the troll has resituated himself.


That's right, I said it - he's a troll. Blatant, horrible - not even very skilled at it. He's taking recycled topics which have been debunked and can only stand up in the most arrogant sects of the world.

Here's a question, mods - no, in fact, a question to everyone: why are we listening? We have better trolls to deal with. This run-down piece of nothing is seriously not worth our time, considering his arguments have already been dealt with by the entire friggin' field of science.

Starting a petition to let this thread die and to raise enough funds to send this horrid excuse for a fake back to troll school. All who agree don't post on this guys threads anymore.

its been a boring day at nsg. we needed a bit of trolling to liven things up. sure he sucks but at least there is some posting going on.

hahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahaha!
there is nothing more to say.

You sure?
I know they've tried some of them out (the famous one being the circuit where a big chunk wasn't connected to the rest of it, but if it were removed the thing stopped working) and they created very efficient designs (that, sadly, nobody understood why they worked), but I didn't think they were used for anything practical yet?

I might be wrong. I'm pretty sure they're being used.

I might be wrong. I'm pretty sure they're being used.

I have taken some EE and CE courses for the most part those sorts of systems ARE being attempted ... (biggest field is "learning" computers) but so far not practical

Interesting work

Wish I understood more.

I have taken some EE and CE courses for the most part those sorts of systems ARE being attempted ... (biggest field is "learning" computers) but so far not piratical

Well, raiding the high seas is a bad thing...

I'm sorry, that typo was just too good not to mention.

The first time I heard this absurd statement was during the first day of my 9th grade biology class, and I laughed out loud, thinking it was a joke. Sadly, it turns out that many people do believe such a ridiculous notion. They also tend to be the people who think that the universe magically came about from nothing, and life came about from a chemical reaction. How many people on these forums believe that we came from organisms as simple as common bacteria?

(Yawn)

Go play with your Jesus doll.

Well, raiding the high seas is a bad thing...

I'm sorry, that typo was just too good not to mention.

:) yeah word auto correct ...

its been a boring day at nsg. we needed a bit of trolling to liven things up. sure he sucks but at least there is some posting going on.

Why do interesting threads turn up at 2am when I really should be going to bed?

I might be wrong. I'm pretty sure they're being used.

Well, if they're not now they doubtless will be in the future, but most of the stuff in everyday use to make the internet work wasn't designed that way. So Far As I Know, at any rate.

YAY

another person who wants hard proof about evolution!

You know we have human fossils over 6000 years old right?
hell the earliest written language/symbols are 9000 years old!

About evolution your absolutely right. It was god (wonder where he came from?) you created the earth when he took a dump. That's why under the water and crass its brown. The milky way? well that's down to dirty thoughts and no girlfriend.

go fundie go.
You CAN convert us heavens to the light. keep on trying!

Most technology somehow relys on evolution.
Take your car.
It's powered by gas, right?
That gas was made from oil, which was made from dead plants staying under pressure for millions of years(got something for you already), which(the plants) evolved from single celled organisms.
So, don't believe in evolution? No car for you!

This is vapid. The best example of evidence of progression from unicellular life that I can think of is Mitochondria. I am going to give my rusty recount of what I know.

You find them in most cells (in both unicellular and multi cellular organisms), they are responsible for protien production. However, inside mitochonriae you will find DNA as well as the DNA found in the cell nucleus. There is no reason for the mitochondria to have genetic material, and it is never used there. The theory is that mitochondriae were once unicellular orginisms of their own, and through a long term symbiotic relationship with other unicellular organisms came to be included in future cells as a whole.

Or something. :confused:

This is vapid. The best example of evidence of progression from unicellular life that I can think of is Mitochondria. I am going to give my rusty recount of what I know.

You find them in most cells (in both unicellular and multi cellular organisms), they are responsible for protien production. However, inside mitochonriae you will find DNA as well as the DNA found in the cell nucleus. There is no reason for the mitochondria to have genetic material, and it is never used there. The theory is that mitochondriae were once unicellular orginisms of their own, and through a long term symbiotic relationship with other unicellular organisms came to be included in future cells as a whole.

Or something. :confused:

That'e the correct theory.

The same applies with the photosynthetic organelles of plants.

You sure?
I know they've tried some of them out (the famous one being the circuit where a big chunk wasn't connected to the rest of it, but if it were removed the thing stopped working) and they created very efficient designs (that, sadly, nobody understood why they worked), but I didn't think they were used for anything practical yet?


He could be talking about self conditioning neural nets. I was involved with a project using them periphally about ten years ago. They do indeed 'learn' from mistakes, but they don't have anything to do with evolution however.

The first time I heard this absurd statement was during the first day of my 9th grade biology class, and I laughed out loud, thinking it was a joke. Sadly, it turns out that many people do believe such a ridiculous notion. They also tend to be the people who think that the universe magically came about from nothing, and life came about from a chemical reaction. How many people on these forums believe that we came from organisms as simple as common bacteria?

Why is it hard to believe a species might have originated in a unicellular earlier-form... when we each arrive on this planet as the direct result of one 'single-cell' getting jiggy with another?

Also... Single-cell versus breathing-life-into-mud... which sounds more ridiculous?

Also... Single-cell versus breathing-life-into-mud... which sounds more ridiculous?

Well both really.

But there is evidence for one, and not for the other.

Evolution is as widely scientifically accepted as gravity. If you would like to argue against that, be my guest. There's really nothing to say here. You just claim that the argument is absurd. It isn't, certainly not any more absurd than the idea of God creating everything.

Also, technically, a Zygoat (or however that's spelled) is at one point unicellular, so yes, we all came from unicellular organisms.

This is vapid. The best example of evidence of progression from unicellular life that I can think of is Mitochondria. I am going to give my rusty recount of what I know.

You find them in most cells (in both unicellular and multi cellular organisms), they are responsible for protien production. However, inside mitochonriae you will find DNA as well as the DNA found in the cell nucleus. There is no reason for the mitochondria to have genetic material, and it is never used there. The theory is that mitochondriae were once unicellular orginisms of their own, and through a long term symbiotic relationship with other unicellular organisms came to be included in future cells as a whole.

Or something. :confused:

The ribosomes are 70s, unlike the ribosomes in other eukaryotic cells which are 80s. I think that's it.

Anyway, it millitates for your point.

Possibly, but since that in no way affects the spiritual nature of mankind or the creation of the universe by God I don't see why it really matters.

Frankly, I'm pretty damn impressed that a compressed ball of superdense matter could produce the complexity of life and the universe we see today from a collection of ground rules, some subatomic particles, and a hell of a lot of energy.

The first time I heard this absurd statement was during the first day of my 9th grade biology class, and I laughed out loud, thinking it was a joke. Sadly, it turns out that many people do believe such a ridiculous notion. They also tend to be the people who think that the universe magically came about from nothing, and life came about from a chemical reaction. How many people on these forums believe that we came from organisms as simple as common bacteria?

Heh. The first sentence of this was so unintentionally silly that I laughed out loud. You didn't understand biology before you'd ever studied it at all, and you're using this as evidence that people who have studied it know less about the subject than your uneducated 14-year-old self? That's hysterical.

No, it's not a scientific fact any more than the "fact" that the Earth is over a billion years old or that dinosaurs existed.

Well, at least your statement is accurate. Those three things are indeed equally factual. :)

There were primordial creatures which existed, whose skeletons were found by archaeologists, that we typically consider "dinosaurs." However, they could have lived no more than 6,000 years ago, as that was when the Earth was created by God. They certainly did not inhabit the Earth millions of years ago.

you are an idiot. i would refrain from saying this normally because i believe in mods and their collective wrath. but honestly my statement is fact. there is no way you can make such a claim without being cursed with the most diabibolical(yes i use that word intentionally) stupidity. i am an archaeologist. please make sure you know the meaning of a science before you use it in your ramblings.

That gas was made from oil, which was made from dead plants staying under pressure for millions of years(got something for you already), which(the plants) evolved from single celled organisms.

Ironically, almost all crude oil comes from unicellular organisms, algae and zooplankton.

Frankly, I'm pretty damn impressed that a compressed ball of superdense matter could produce the complexity of life and the universe we see today from a collection of ground rules, some subatomic particles, and a hell of a lot of energy.

Because it wasn't matter. And it wasn't superdense. That wouldn't apply.

Because it wasn't matter. And it wasn't superdense. That wouldn't apply.

Sorry, a tremendously dense ball of energy that exploded and gradually formed subatomic particles and matter in the 300,000 years following the explosion.

Ironically, almost all crude oil comes from unicellular organisms, algae and zooplankton.

Close enough.

Close enough.

What I mean is that many of those unicellular organisms that formed oil would later evolve in to the larger sea plants and algae we see today.

This is vapid. The best example of evidence of progression from unicellular life that I can think of is Mitochondria. I am going to give my rusty recount of what I know.

You find them in most cells (in both unicellular and multi cellular organisms), they are responsible for protien production.

Pretty close.. mitochondria are responsible for energy production.. as are chloroplasts are in plants.

Interesting thing is that mitochondria reproduce asexually same as bacteria.

So the DNA in your mitochondria should be identical to your mothers. (barring mutations, or replication errors etc)

And has nothing to do with your fathers DNA at all.

Sorry, a tremendously dense ball of energy that exploded and gradually formed subatomic particles and matter in the 300,000 years following the explosion.

It's actually interesting to speculate about. One would suppose that a sufficient density of energy would create its own event horizion. Maybe we are all living in a black hole.

The first time I heard this absurd statement was during the first day of my 9th grade biology class, and I laughed out loud, thinking it was a joke. Sadly, it turns out that many people do believe such a ridiculous notion. They also tend to be the people who think that the universe magically came about from nothing, and life came about from a chemical reaction. How many people on these forums believe that we came from organisms as simple as common bacteria?

There were primordial creatures which existed, whose skeletons were found by archaeologists, that we typically consider "dinosaurs." However, they could have lived no more than 6,000 years ago, as that was when the Earth was created by God. They certainly did not inhabit the Earth millions of years ago.
You make me cry. :(

It's actually interesting to speculate about. One would suppose that a sufficient density of energy would create its own event horizion. Maybe we are all living in a black hole.

Now that would be interesting. It would have some oddly fascinating religious and metaphysical overtones, to say the least.

Now that would be interesting. It would have some oddly fascinating religious and metaphysical overtones, to say the least.

I don't really keep up on cosmology, being an engineer and all, but yes it would. It does raise the possibility of the infinite.

You know we have human fossils over 6000 years old right?
hell the earliest written language/symbols are 9000 years old!

No, they're not, even though some scientists claim they are. They have scant proof to back up their assertions -- the artifacts do not have a time and date written on them, and nobody was alive over 6,000 years ago to remember the alleged creation of the documents, much less to vouch for the fossils.

They have scant proof to back up their assertions -- the artifacts do not have a time and date written on them, and nobody was alive over 6,000 years ago to remember the alleged creation of the documents, much less to vouch for the fossils.

Why this spurious claim again about no-one being alive over 6,000 years ago? Do you not mean that no-one was alive over 6,009 years ago? If not, then explain why nobody lived on the Earth for those nine years.

I do not see any hard scientific proof to support your assertions; most of what we call science is really based on shoddy reasoning, faulty assumptions, misinterpreted data, and faulty logic. Nonetheless, they want to indoctrinate our children with such clap-trap. You are not helping their position by refusing to debate but instead resorting to puerile insults.
There's a difference between mechanical processes whose functioning we can physically see and biological processes which we have not witnessed. We blindly put our faith in scientists who are flawed and make ridiculous claims, which people accept after having them constantly repeating. When Darwin first proposed evolution, he was first scoffed at by the scientific community. However, they were soon brainwashed or corrupted into compliance.
Wow... Substitute the word 'science' for 'religion' and you get, word-for-word, my opinion on religion as a whole :p

These 3 go together quite well I think.

No, they're not, even though some scientists claim they are. They have scant proof to back up their assertions -- the artifacts do not have a time and date written on them, and nobody was alive over 6,000 years ago to remember the alleged creation of the documents, much less to vouch for the fossils.

Once again, where's your proof that your opinions are correct? We could sit around and argue all day about who has more credibility, but in the end the others have more proof and you are not going win without providing any of your own.

Once again, where's your proof that your opinions are correct? We could sit around and argue all day about who has more credibility, but in the end the others have more proof and you are not going win without providing any of your own.

God has more credibility than Darwin. The Bible has more credibility than On the Origin of the Species. I cite the Bible as my source, as it was written by the omniscient hand of God.

God has more credibility than Darwin. The Bible has more credibility than On the Origin of the Species. I cite the Bible as my source, as it was written by the omniscient hand of God.

Well since you say so, I believe you.

Well since you say so, I believe you.

No need to place your faith in me; instead, you should believe in the truth of the Bible.

God has more credibility than Darwin. The Bible has more credibility than On the Origin of the Species. I cite the Bible as my source, as it was written by the omniscient hand of God.

You're trying to prove the existence of your god by saying that a book written by it says that it exists? Also I would say Darwin is more credible because we know for sure that he existed.

God has more credibility than Darwin. The Bible has more credibility than On the Origin of the Species. I cite the Bible as my source, as it was written by the omniscient hand of God.

And what about those nine years? You do seem to be avoiding this question somewhat.

And what about those nine years? You do seem to be avoiding this question somewhat.

Is there really that much of a difference between 6,009 and 6,000? It's the same thing. I wouldn't say 1,000,000,500 when saying 1 billion would suffice. The same rounding logic applies to this.

No, they're not, even though some scientists claim they are. They have scant proof to back up their assertions -- the artifacts do not have a time and date written on them, and nobody was alive over 6,000 years ago to remember the alleged creation of the documents, much less to vouch for the fossils.

I was alive back then. Even longer. In fact I was born about 12,000 yrs. ago.

So I deny your claim.

It is sad to see how a human can be so blinded by a friggin book... :sniper: :sniper: :mad: :mad: :upyours: :upyours: :headbang: :headbang: :gundge: :gundge:

I was alive back then. Even longer. In fact I was born about 12,000 yrs. ago.

So I deny your claim.

I can't see any way of disproving you without using that devilish science, so I'll be you. :D

Is there really that much of a difference between 6,009 and 6,000? It's the same thing. I wouldn't say 1,000,000,500 when saying 1 billion would suffice. The same rounding logic applies to this.

So when you say 'there weren't any dinosaurs or people living prior to 6,000 years ago' you actually mean 'there were dinosaurs or people living prior to 6,000 years ago'?


____________

Anyhoo, more germanely, are you an Ussherite or a Lightfooter?

No need to place your faith in me; instead, you should believe in the truth of the Bible.No no, I believe because YOU illunimated these truths to me. You are my Prophet, and guide to truth.

I can't see any way of disproving you without using that devilish science, so I'll be you. :D

We could cut him open and count the rings.

However, it should be borne in mind that the Creator may made him with several thousand apparent growth rings already inside of him.

So when you say 'there weren't any dinosaurs or people living prior to 6,000 years ago' you actually mean 'there were dinosaurs or people living prior to 6,000 years ago'?

From where did you get your 6,009 figure? I'm afraid I cannot find such a specific reference in my Bible.

THe earth and all its inhabitants etc. were created by the Flying Spaghetti Monster, LEARN THE FACTS PEOPLE, LEARN THE FACTS!!!!!!!!!!!11!!111!!!

No no, I believe because YOU illunimated these truths to me. You are my Prophet, and guide to truth.

Now this is a tactic I haven't seen used before. A step up from the over-used 'Your ideas interest me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter' ploy.

Now this is a tactic I haven't seen used before. A step up from the over-used 'Your ideas interest me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter' ploy.

Unfortunately, such sarcasm is blindingly obvious; such aloof cynicism is frequently employed by atheists who wish to ridicule the moral and religious. I'm afraid that I cannot allow it to work, however; I will not respond to his trite ploy.

From where did you get your 6,009 figure? I'm afraid I cannot find such a specific reference in my Bible.

You obviously haven't been studying the text with sufficient mathematical alacrity. The necessary information is all there. Knowledge of this figure c comes from the hermeneutics of Archbishop Ussher.

Creation occured at 4004BC.

4004 + 2006 - 1 (because there was no year zero) = 6009.

It comes from the hermeneutics of Archbishop Ussher. Creation fixed at 4004BC.

I use the more general and widely known 6,000 figure; if you are an astute studier of the Bible, you may employ a more specific figure, but I do not feel it is necessary to be so exact.

I'm afraid that I cannot allow it to work, however; I will not respond to his trite ploy.

'His' trite ploy was actually one undertaken by a 'FEMALE'. Just like it says in big block letters under her handle. I will refrain from further comment on this matter and what conclusions we may draw.

i'd just like to point out, i are teh ultimate prophet. i say be nice to everyone.. skin colour has no relevance, nor does any culure yer born into. if yer non-violent/non-viscious then t'is alla good. any shit going on and you get metaphorically bumfucked. o_0

anyone care to disagree?

'His' trite ploy was actually one undertaken by a 'FEMALE'. Just like it says in big block letters under her handle. I will refrain from further comment on this matter and what conclusions we may draw.

It is possible to lie about your gender, especially on the internet, and people are statistically more likely to be men on these forums.

It is possible to lie about your gender, especially on the internet, and people are statistically more likely to be men on these forums.

So, you're basically calling us all a bunch of liars here on the basis of some statistics?

Unfortunately, such sarcasm is blindingly obvious; such aloof cynicism is frequently employed by atheists who wish to ridicule the moral and religious.

yeah, this sounds about right.

yeah, this sounds about right.

Jackassery is found on all sides, I'm afraid.

So, you're basically calling us all a bunch of liars here on the basis of some statistics?

At least he has statistics that to show that we might be a bunch of liars this time.

The first time I heard this absurd statement was during the first day of my 9th grade biology class, and I laughed out loud, thinking it was a joke. Sadly, it turns out that many people do believe such a ridiculous notion. They also tend to be the people who think that the universe magically came about from nothing, and life came about from a chemical reaction. How many people on these forums believe that we came from organisms as simple as common bacteria?

Was it that, or was it the magical being in the sky who came out of nothingness and made the universe? there's this little book that not many people have heard about it's called the Origin of Species by an unknown proffessor known as Charles Darwin.

Jackassery is found on all sides, I'm afraid.

true, but I reserve my jackassery for those who come out swinging first.

true, but I reserve my jackassery for those who come out swinging first.

I avoid it altogether. It doesn't do anything but lower you to the insulter's level.

I avoid it altogether. It doesn't do anything but lower you to the insulter's level.

this assumes I have anything particularly against being a jackass.

Now this is a tactic I haven't seen used before. A step up from the over-used 'Your ideas interest me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter' ploy. shush
Unfortunately, such sarcasm is blindingly obvious; such aloof cynicism is frequently employed by atheists who wish to ridicule the moral and religious. I'm afraid that I cannot allow it to work, however; I will not respond to his trite ploy.damn.

but wait - now I'm immoral? how did that happen?

this assumes I have anything particularly against being a jackass.

Touche. :)

It is possible to lie about your gender, especially on the internet, and people are statistically more likely to be men on these forums.

yeah BWO - don'tcha know that there are no women on teh interwebs?!

I avoid it altogether. It doesn't do anything but lower you to the insulter's level.

Sometimes it takes an being an arse to make an arse understand why it's an arse (I'm not referring to any specific people, OP included).

First rule of internet trolling: Try to respond to everything with an increasing level of idiocy. Second rule of internet trolling: if it's not possible to respond to something with such an increase of idiocy, ignore it.

-words-

If the world was made 6,009 years ago, why would the shape of the continents suggest a larger continent which split due to continental drift longer than 6,000 years ago? Did God just decide to make the continents that way for a laugh?
Why would we be able to observe celestial objects further than 6,009 light years away? Did God make the universe much longer ago, then just wait around for a while before making Earth? Not according to the Bible! He made the stars after the earth.
Why would the fossils of dinosaurs all be found in the same place? Wouldn't we see them on the same layers of sediment as human fossils? Why are the only "references" to dinosaurs in the Bible vague descriptions of rarely-seen monsters that have been spuriously interpreted? Why, for instance, are donkeys and lambs spoken about more than velociraptors and archaeopteryx? Why do no pictures of these dinosaurs exist?

If the world was made 6,009 years ago, why would the shape of the continents suggest a larger continent which split due to continental drift longer than 6,000 years ago? Did God just decide to make the continents that way for a laugh?
Why would we be able to observe celestial objects further than 6,009 light years away? Did God make the universe much longer ago, then just wait around for a while before making Earth? Not according to the Bible! He made the stars after the earth.
Why would the fossils of dinosaurs all be found in the same place? Wouldn't we see them on the same layers of sediment as human fossils? Why are the only "references" to dinosaurs in the Bible vague descriptions of rarely-seen monsters that have been spuriously interpreted? Why, for instance, are donkeys and lambs spoken about more than velociraptors and archaeopteryx? Why do no pictures of these dinosaurs exist?


God wanted it that way.

Duh.

I do not see any hard scientific proof to support your assertions; most of what we call science is really based on shoddy reasoning, faulty assumptions, misinterpreted data, and faulty logic. Nonetheless, they want to indoctrinate our children with such clap-trap. You are not helping their position by refusing to debate but instead resorting to puerile insults.

Instead you trust a single volume and call that truth, rather than the millions of books that contradict it and provide proof which is not, as you claim, shoddy.

Sad.

The universe came into existence because God made it. However, he did not employ magic to do it, nor is he "magical."

Refusing to admit it's magical thinking doesn't make it not magical thinking.

God has more credibility than Darwin. The Bible has more credibility than On the Origin of the Species. I cite the Bible as my source, as it was written by the omniscient hand of God.

Interesting. Every Biblical scholar I've ever talked to seemed to believe that the Bible was written by people. At exactly what point did God descend from a mountaintop and hand someone a complete first edition of the Bible, out of curiosity? Or, rather, at which several hundred points did God descend from a mountaintop and hand someone every contradictory version of the Bible? That must have kept God pretty busy for a while.

Interesting. Every Biblical scholar I've ever talked to seemed to believe that the Bible was written by people.
I think its funny that you listened to the fact men wrote the Bible, but not HOW those men wrote the Bible. Inspired men wrote the Bible. Inspired meaning "God breathed." God used these men to write down what he wanted them to say. Not that he came down and wispered the words in thier ears. If a God can create the world, He, surely, has the power to have men write what he wants them to.

I find it also interesting that very few people have refernced darwin, who first began this evolution idea. Even in his own research there were examples that he originally tried to use to support his idea that ended up proving it false. He researched the size of parrot's beaks. As the rain decreased the birds with thin beaks, unable to crack open the hard dry seeds to eat, died off (survival of the fittest). Unfortunately, once the rain came back the next year, the average returned to the way things were prior to the unnaturally dry season. Thus showing his theory false.

I think its funny that you listened to the fact men wrote the Bible, but not HOW those men wrote the Bible. Inspired men wrote the Bible. Inspired meaning "God breathed." God used these men to write down what he wanted them to say. Not that he came down and wispered the words in thier ears. If a God can create the world, He, surely, has the power to have men write what he wants them to.

Personally, I think it's funny that you forget how many versions of the Bible exist, how much politicking has historically gone into choosing which texts should be considered doctrine and which omitted and ignored, and how many people claim that their personal version of the text is the only "right" one. One man's word of the Lord is another man's heresy. So did God inspire all of them, or just the ones you personally prefer?

I find it also interesting that very few people have refernced darwin, who first began this evolution idea. Even in his own research there were examples that he originally tried to use to support his idea that ended up proving it false. He researched the size of parrot's beaks. As the rain decreased the birds with thin beaks, unable to crack open the hard dry seeds to eat, died off (survival of the fittest). Unfortunately, once the rain came back the next year, the average returned to the way things were prior to the unnaturally dry season. Thus showing his theory false.

More accurately, showing one example being shown to be inaccurate. However, there's thousands of well supported examples of evolution, ranging from Darwin's finches, to new species of fruitflies in labs to fossils of proto-bird dinosaurs.

God did not inspire them all. On most occasions, God inspired a book and someone thought he was being inspired and decided to add to it. So in reallity there is only one version of the Bible and many versions of people trying to add to it (Koran, Book of Mormon, etc.)

The first time I heard this absurd statement was during the first day of my 9th grade biology class, and I laughed out loud, thinking it was a joke. Sadly, it turns out that many people do believe such a ridiculous notion. They also tend to be the people who think that the universe magically came about from nothing, and life came about from a chemical reaction. How many people on these forums believe that we came from organisms as simple as common bacteria?

LOL - I'm sure no one here believes anything as silly as that!

Where r u going to school? I am really surprised that they r teaching 9th graders something as crazy as that! They really should make sure that teachers r more qualified before they put them in schools. I can sympathize. Once, a teacher said we all had to read some disgusting book called Hairy Potter, or something like that. Very nasty book - full of things like blasfamey, drugs, sex, demon summoning, and all those things. It even had child molestation in it. Afterwards I always suspected that my teacher was a child molester. I don't know if they caught him with any childs but he was definitely a satanist!!!

YAY JESUS

I find it also interesting that very few people have refernced darwin, who first began this evolution idea. Even in his own research there were examples that he originally tried to use to support his idea that ended up proving it false. He researched the size of parrot's beaks. As the rain decreased the birds with thin beaks, unable to crack open the hard dry seeds to eat, died off (survival of the fittest). Unfortunately, once the rain came back the next year, the average returned to the way things were prior to the unnaturally dry season. Thus showing his theory false.

Let me get this straight. You explain that an environmental pressure occurred which increased the prevalence of the fat-beaked phenotype. You explain that when this environmental pressure ceased to exist, the phenotypic ratios of fat- and thin-beaked birds returned to where they were before the pressure occurred. And you conclude from this that natural selection doesn't occur? Perhaps I misunderstood your example, but this makes very little sense indeed.

(Of course, the way you phrased this, it sounds like it took place over the course of a single generation, which I'll assume you recognize is a nonsensically short timeframe. I'm guessing you misspoke.)

I find it also interesting that very few people have refernced darwin, who first began this evolution idea. Even in his own research there were examples that he originally tried to use to support his idea that ended up proving it false. He researched the size of parrot's beaks. As the rain decreased the birds with thin beaks, unable to crack open the hard dry seeds to eat, died off (survival of the fittest). Unfortunately, once the rain came back the next year, the average returned to the way things were prior to the unnaturally dry season. Thus showing his theory false.

You fail. I give you an Z---- for biology. If there was a lower grade I could think of, it would be yours.

I suggest you stop cluttering up any form of education because you clearly have no desire to think or learn.

God did not inspire them all. On most occasions, God inspired a book and someone thought he was being inspired and decided to add to it. So in reallity there is only one version of the Bible and many versions of people trying to add to it (Koran, Book of Mormon, etc.)

No, no. I was just talking about the Bible, not other holy books. Which of the many, many, many versions of the Bible did God inspire? Which Church councils to decide which bits to include and which to leave out were approved by God, and which were not?

More accurately, showing one example being shown to be inaccurate. However, there's thousands of well supported examples of evolution, ranging from Darwin's finches, to new species of fruitflies in labs to fossils of proto-bird dinosaurs.

Could the 'proto-bird dinosaurs' not just be an animal God created that is now extinct. Also, with these fruitflies, they were simply genetic mutations of already known species of fruitflies. Legs on its head instead of antennae is hardly a step forward in the evolutionary process. these effects were also temporary (meaning only that generation), as were the experiment with the birds beaks.

Could the 'proto-bird dinosaurs' not just be an animal God created that is now extinct. Also, with these fruitflies, they were simply genetic mutations of already known species of fruitflies. Legs on its head instead of antennae is hardly a step forward in the evolutionary process. these effects were also temporary (meaning only that generation), as were the experiment with the birds beaks.

I know I'll regret this.....

but why would god create an animal to become extinct?

Also, with these fruitflies, they were simply genetic mutations of already known species of fruitflies. Legs on its head instead of antennae is hardly a step forward in the evolutionary process. these effects were also temporary (meaning only that generation), as were the experiment with the birds beaks.

No. You are wrong. Those mutations continue to persist in subsequent generations. If you deny this, there is absolutely nothing anyone can do to correct your utter failure to either (A) understand or (B) acknowledge the findings of the past 150 years of biological research.

Which of the many, many, many versions of the Bible...

Give me an example of more than one version of the Bible. Also, why don't you question the validity of other 'holy' books? If they were, indeed, inspired by God as well, wouldn't they also be in question? Why aren't you asking whether or not the koran is true?

Refusing to admit it's magical thinking doesn't make it not magical thinking.

And just because it's magical thinking doesn't mean it's untrue. Ironically, magical thinking has a lot more in common with science than religion...it's free-form causal reasoning based upon interpretation of given evidence.

In fact, without magical thinking there likely would be no science.

No. You are wrong. Those mutations continue to persist in subsequent generations.

Could you please give me either a link or a book title to support this fact? I am not here to argue a point regardless of any proof. I, like all of us, just want to know what is true and what I can actually put my faith in. If you prove me wrong I will admit that I am, but I need proof and credentials first.

Give me an example of more than one version of the Bible. Also, why don't you question the validity of other 'holy' books? If they were, indeed, inspired by God as well, wouldn't they also be in question? Why aren't you asking whether or not the koran is true?
...

WTF.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_American_Standard_Bible
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_James_Bible
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Standard_Version
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_News_Translation

etc, etc...

Could the 'proto-bird dinosaurs' not just be an animal God created that is now extinct. Also, with these fruitflies, they were simply genetic mutations of already known species of fruitflies. Legs on its head instead of antennae is hardly a step forward in the evolutionary process. these effects were also temporary (meaning only that generation), as were the experiment with the birds beaks.

Dinosaurs could be animals God created that are now extinct, yes, if you happen to believe that God creates things. Of course, that doesn't change the fact that his method of creation involved evolution, or that modern-day avians are descended from therapod dinosaurs.

What the heck do you think evolution is besides changes in allele frequency among "already known" species? Did you think only species you haven't heard of were allowed to evolve? :confused:

There is no such thing as a "step forward" in the evolutionary process. Evolution has no goal or direction.

Only that generation? Where on earth did you come up with this? Fruit flies are popular experiment subjects specifically because they breed frequently and quickly, so one can view results over many generations.

Those would be different translations of the Bible. They are, basically, a group of linguists taking the original manuscripts in the original languages and translating them into something you and I could understand. The original Greek Bible wouldn't do those who cant read greek very much benefit, would it? They all stem from the same roots.

Give me an example of more than one version of the Bible. Also, why don't you question the validity of other 'holy' books? If they were, indeed, inspired by God as well, wouldn't they also be in question? Why aren't you asking whether or not the koran is true?

The bible has more than one version of the bible. Probably that's why


2Abraham was the father of Isaac,
Isaac the father of Jacob,
Jacob the father of Judah and his brothers,
3Judah the father of Perez and Zerah, whose mother was Tamar,
Perez the father of Hezron,
Hezron the father of Ram,
4Ram the father of Amminadab,
Amminadab the father of Nahshon,
Nahshon the father of Salmon,
5Salmon the father of Boaz, whose mother was Rahab,
Boaz the father of Obed, whose mother was Ruth,
Obed the father of Jesse,
6and Jesse the father of King David.
David was the father of Solomon, whose mother had been Uriah's wife,
7Solomon the father of Rehoboam,
Rehoboam the father of Abijah,
Abijah the father of Asa,
8Asa the father of Jehoshaphat,
Jehoshaphat the father of Jehoram,
Jehoram the father of Uzziah,
9Uzziah the father of Jotham,
Jotham the father of Ahaz,
Ahaz the father of Hezekiah,
10Hezekiah the father of Manasseh,
Manasseh the father of Amon,
Amon the father of Josiah,
11and Josiah the father of Jeconiah[a] and his brothers at the time of the exile to Babylon.
12After the exile to Babylon:
Jeconiah was the father of Shealtiel,
Shealtiel the father of Zerubbabel,
13Zerubbabel the father of Abiud,
Abiud the father of Eliakim,
Eliakim the father of Azor,
14Azor the father of Zadok,
Zadok the father of Akim,
Akim the father of Eliud,
15Eliud the father of Eleazar,
Eleazar the father of Matthan,
Matthan the father of Jacob,
16and Jacob the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.

23Now Jesus himself was about thirty years old when he began his ministry. He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph,
the son of Heli, 24the son of Matthat,
the son of Levi, the son of Melki,
the son of Jannai, the son of Joseph,
25the son of Mattathias, the son of Amos,
the son of Nahum, the son of Esli,
the son of Naggai, 26the son of Maath,
the son of Mattathias, the son of Semein,
the son of Josech, the son of Joda,
27the son of Joanan, the son of Rhesa,
the son of Zerubbabel, the son of Shealtiel,
the son of Neri, 28the son of Melki,
the son of Addi, the son of Cosam,
the son of Elmadam, the son of Er,
29the son of Joshua, the son of Eliezer,
the son of Jorim, the son of Matthat,
the son of Levi, 30the son of Simeon,
the son of Judah, the son of Joseph,
the son of Jonam, the son of Eliakim,
31the son of Melea, the son of Menna,
the son of Mattatha, the son of Nathan,
the son of David, 32the son of Jesse,
the son of Obed, the son of Boaz,
the son of Salmon,[a] the son of Nahshon,
33the son of Amminadab, the son of Ram,[b]
the son of Hezron, the son of Perez,
the son of Judah, 34the son of Jacob,
the son of Isaac, the son of Abraham,
the son of Terah, the son of Nahor,
35the son of Serug, the son of Reu,
the son of Peleg, the son of Eber,
the son of Shelah, 36the son of Cainan,
the son of Arphaxad, the son of Shem,
the son of Noah, the son of Lamech,
37the son of Methuselah, the son of Enoch,
the son of Jared, the son of Mahalalel,
the son of Kenan, 38the son of Enosh,
the son of Seth, the son of Adam,
the son of God.

The bible has more than one version of the bible. Probably that's why

It's important to note, however, that each of the Gospels had a different theological purpose and that they were written over an extended period of time.

And just because it's magical thinking doesn't mean it's untrue. Ironically, magical thinking has a lot more in common with science than religion...it's free-form causal reasoning based upon interpretation of given evidence.

In fact, without magical thinking there likely would be no science.

Now that I agree with. When Newton recognized that the same force that causes an apple to fall from a tree is the same force that causes the moon to orbit the earth, it was completely unprovable experimentally.(It was however ameanable to disproof later on).

But your point is well taken that the "scientific method" is not as clean as some people would like. (Millikan springs to mind).

The bible has more than one version of the bible. Probably that's why

Since when is multiple accounts of the same events considered a bad thing? Wouldn't it be further proof that those things are true?

There were primordial creatures which existed, whose skeletons were found by archaeologists, that we typically consider "dinosaurs." However, they could have lived no more than 6,000 years ago, as that was when the Earth was created by God. They certainly did not inhabit the Earth millions of years ago.



Look, can you do me a favor? If you ever die and get sent to heaven PLEASE DO NOT TELL HIM ABOUT ME! I don't want to spend eternity jammed into some place with you. On the off chance that I deserve heaven, and he forgot about me, why, it's just possible that I might get away with going to hell, where i won't ever have to listen to your inane babble again :)

Give me an example of more than one version of the Bible. Also, why don't you question the validity of other 'holy' books? If they were, indeed, inspired by God as well, wouldn't they also be in question? Why aren't you asking whether or not the koran is true?

*blinks*

Did you seriously just question the fact that multiple versions of the Bible exist? I am...flabbergasted. Why don't you try reading these ever-so-helpful links?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_Canon

As for why I haven't bothered questioning the infallibility of other holy books, that would be because no one on this thread is claiming that hundreds of years of research are wrong because the Qu'ran said so. You're welcome to believe that God is perfect and omniscient and infallible, but believing that not only all the human writers of the Bible but all the human compilers and human editors and human printers and human church councils and human politicians and human translators and so on and so forth involved in deciding what each of the versions of the Bible concocted over the last 2000 years or so will include are as infallible as God seems manifestly absurd.

It's important to note, however, that each of the Gospels had a different theological purpose and that they were written over an extended period of time.

I understand that. But it obviously cannot be inerrant either. Nor can you explain away those differences by claiming that it is just metaphor or mistranslation.

Could you please give me either a link or a book title to support this fact? I am not here to argue a point regardless of any proof. I, like all of us, just want to know what is true and what I can actually put my faith in. If you prove me wrong I will admit that I am, but I need proof and credentials first.

Well, I've done some experiments myself, in biology classes, but:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Hunt_Morgan
http://www.genomenewsnetwork.org/resources/timeline/1910_Morgan.php

In fact, you could do this yourself. It's real easy, and only takes a few weeks.

If you really do "just want to know what is true," maybe you should be a little more accepting of the enormous scientific consensus regarding evolution (thousands of published papers, all with great documentation and peer review to back them up), and a little more skeptical of religious explanations (the only real "proof" that the Bible is the inerrant word of a supreme being is that it says so).

...

WTF.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_American_Standard_Bible
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_James_Bible
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Standard_Version
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_News_Translation

etc, etc...

IN ADDITION there is more than one version of genesis contained in the old testament, IN THE SAME BIBLE. There are several cases of this, especially in the new testament, where the writers evidently had too much wine and way too much politics before attempting to write their version of events. Kind of liek today, actually.:rolleyes:

Since when is multiple accounts of the same events considered a bad thing? Wouldn't it be further proof that those things are true?

Only if those multiple accounts don't disagree on events and facts of major importance. (The implication being that the multiple accounts in the Bible don't)

Since when is multiple accounts of the same events considered a bad thing? Wouldn't it be further proof that those things are true?

If they were multiple accounts of the same thing, that would be good. But they are multiple accounts of different things, and that is bad.

I understand that. But it obviously cannot be inerrant either. Nor can you explain away those differences by claiming that it is just metaphor or mistranslation.

Oh, of course. I don't think the Bible's text ever claims it to be inerrant; I know it says not to add or remove from it, but not that it's perfect.

Well, you had a group of people writing in different languages for different audiences over a period of several decades; I would be astounded if there weren't those kinds of differences.

(the only real "proof" that the Bible is the inerrant word of a supreme being is that it says so).
where does it say that? People always claimit but I haven't ever seen it actually quoted. I think this is part of the whole "infallable" dogma, God is infallable therefore the bible is infallable etc etc

I'm surprised no one mentioned that scientist use carbon dating to find out how old artifacts are.

http://www.howstuffworks.com/carbon-14.htm

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

*blinks*You're welcome to believe that God is perfect and omniscient and infallible, but believing that not only all the human writers of the Bible but all the human compilers and human editors and human printers and human church councils and human politicians and human translators and so on and so forth involved in deciding what each of the versions of the Bible concocted over the last 2000 years or so will include are as infallible as God seems manifestly absurd.

Thats why it all has to be accepted by faith. I choose the Bible and a divine all knowing God as truth and controller of the universe and you choose to pretend he is not there. Like it was put earlier, just because you say that 'magic' isn't there doesn't make that 'magic' cease to exist.

carbon dating is not mentioned in the bible and therefore is not godly. If it aten't godly, it aten't infalable. At least I think this is the way the argument goes...

Thats why it all has to be accepted by faith. I choose the Bible and a divine all knowing God as truth and controller of the universe and you choose to pretend he is not there. Like it was put earlier, just because you say that 'magic' isn't there doesn't make that 'magic' cease to exist.

And just because you believe that a myth is actually real doesn't mean you are any more correct than the greeks. Only that you have faith.

carbon dating is not mentioned in the bible and therefore is not godly. If it aten't godly, it aten't infalable. At least I think this is the way the argument goes...

Neither are a lot of things, including Biblical literalism and the 6000 BC creation.

The universe came into existence because God made it. However, he did not employ magic to do it, nor is he "magical."

Ok he used supernatural powers then, which is pretty much the same as magic.

Thats why it all has to be accepted by faith. I choose the Bible and a divine all knowing God as truth and controller of the universe and you choose to pretend he is not there. Like it was put earlier, just because you say that 'magic' isn't there doesn't make that 'magic' cease to exist.
These statements don't make any sense. If it's a matter of faith, unbelievers are not 'pretending' he's not there...
Just because you say it's there doesn't mean it is.

Thats why it all has to be accepted by faith. I choose the Bible and a divine all knowing God as truth and controller of the universe and you choose to pretend he is not there. Like it was put earlier, just because you say that 'magic' isn't there doesn't make that 'magic' cease to exist.

Your phrasing is all wrong. We posit a universe consistent with observation and experiment, which gives us very little, if any, reason to posit a divine all knowing God as truth and controller. You choose to put one in there despite the fact that current understanding of the universe doesn't require, or even strongly suggest one. Just because you say "magic" is there, doesn't mean it is.

And just because you believe that a myth is actually real doesn't mean you are any more correct than the greeks. Only that you have faith.

Of course, the point of a myth isn't that it's meant to be literally taken as truth; the ideas or beliefs conveyed through they mythical story are, but the story itself may or may not be based on factual events. Hell, the point of the myth isn't even the story but the values contained in it; the actual story itself is meant to make the teachings accessible, entertaining, and memorable.

It's also important to note that "myth" is not a pejorative term. The academic definition of "myth" is as far removed from the common definition as the common definition of "theory" is from the definition of a scientific theory.

Thats why it all has to be accepted by faith. I choose the Bible and a divine all knowing God as truth and controller of the universe and you choose to pretend he is not there. Like it was put earlier, just because you say that 'magic' isn't there doesn't make that 'magic' cease to exist.

Yes, but you still haven't told me which Bible you choose. Which ones are divinely inspired, and which ones aren't?

(And, incidentally, I love your assumption that recognizing that the humans involved in producing Bibles are ordinary, fallible humans means one must be an athiest.)

Oh, of course. I don't think the Bible's text ever claims it to be inerrant; I know it says not to add or remove from it, but not that it's perfect.

Well, you had a group of people writing in different languages for different audiences over a period of several decades; I would be astounded if there weren't those kinds of differences.

All I'm saying is that it cannot be the be all and end all of science. Sure, science sometimes contradicts the bible. But it also contradicts itself, so the argument that 'it contradicts the bible' really holds no weight.

I actually have no problem with religious people per se. They have touched the numinous, and I have not. That's fine.

I just feel that recently my lack of belief is under attack in the US. And I don't appreiciate being told I am self-righteous because I don't have jesus.

Your phrasing is all wrong. We posit a universe consistent with observation and experiment, which gives us very little, if any, reason to posit a divine all knowing God as truth and controller. You choose to put one in there despite the fact that current understanding of the universe doesn't require, or even strongly suggest one. Just because you say "magic" is there, doesn't mean it is.

The universe says nothing about the necessity or lack of necessity of God. All it says is that it exists, has certain properties, and that it has developed according to certain rules that have existed since its origin in the Big Bang. Any spiritual conclusions drawn from this have nothing to do with science and represent the personal religious beliefs of the person advancing them.

I actually have no problem with religious people per se. They have touched the numinous, and I have not. That's fine.

I just feel that recently my lack of belief is under attack in the US. And I don't appreiciate being told I am self-righteous because I don't have jesus.

QFT

carbon dating is not mentioned in the bible and therefore is not godly. If it aten't godly, it aten't infalable. At least I think this is the way the argument goes...

lol, I don't think anyone ever claims Carbon Dating was infallible, but it does gives us an insight of how old some of these artifacts are.

But don't you understand that faith as you suggest is just a cop-out? You're analysing the facts and finding that you CAN'T accept what you want to believe- so you have faith fill the gap! I could say the sun goes round the earth- I accept this because of my faith. If the facts have no relevence, we and YOU have no way of knowing which of the rainbow multitude of faiths is correct. Faith in the context you give degrades it. There is virtue in believing what makes you happy sometimes, but allowing it to become the basis of your life is intellectual suicide.

All I'm saying is that it cannot be the be all and end all of science. Sure, science sometimes contradicts the bible. But it also contradicts itself, so the argument that 'it contradicts the bible' really holds no weight.

Well, of course. But then again, the stuff that it contradicts in a non-literal interpretation are things that have nothing to do with the nature of God or spiritual beliefs. The actual religious material does not conflict with science if properly interpreted.

I just feel that recently my lack of belief is under attack in the US. And I don't appreiciate being told I am self-righteous because I don't have jesus.

Not much you can do about that, I'm afraid. There will always be people who want to feel better than you, and they're going to use whatever they have to do so. It's a prideful (sinful?) power-trip and nothing more.

The universe says nothing about the necessity or lack of necessity of God. All it says is that it exists, has certain properties, and that it has developed according to certain rules that have existed since its origin in the Big Bang. Any spiritual conclusions drawn from this have nothing to do with science and represent the personal religious beliefs of the person advancing them.

I'm not saying science necessarily excludes the possibility of a supreme being, I'm just saying it gives absolutely no reasons to posit one. The point I was after was that his phrasing suggested atheists were making a bigger leap of faith than believers, when in fact the most pro-theistic possibility would be that it's a crapshoot, and equal amounts of faith are leapt on both sides.

How many people on these forums believe that we came from organisms as simple as common bacteria?

Life has to start soemwhere. Humans weren't just born out of nothing. The evolution of life starts off at the smallest level, as spores. Then Nature begins to filter out the deadends and the survivors manage to evolve into higher species. So yes, I think we do.

I'm not saying science necessarily excludes the possibility of a supreme being, I'm just saying it gives absolutely no reasons to posit one. The point I was after was that his phrasing suggested atheists were making a bigger leap of faith than believers, when in fact the most pro-theistic possibility would be that it's a crapshoot, and equal amounts of faith are leapt on both sides.

It really doesn't give reasons either way...it's merely an investigative tool like anything else. Really, it does come down to a 50-50 guess; obviously, you might be able to rule out some particular interpretations on either side but it will ultimately require a leap of faith to some degree to truly commit to one belief or another.

I'm proud to be agnostic, I guess. It's comfortable doubt.

his phrasing suggested atheists were making a bigger leap of faith than believers, when in fact the most pro-theistic possibility would be that it's a crapshoot, and equal amounts of faith are leapt on both sides.

Well said!

It really doesn't give reasons either way...it's merely an investigative tool like anything else. Really, it does come down to a 50-50 guess; obviously, you might be able to rule out some particular interpretations on either side but it will ultimately require a leap of faith to some degree to truly commit to one belief or another.

Proud to be agnostic, I guess?

I think we're agreeing, just in slightly different words.

[/thread hijack]

I'm not saying science necessarily excludes the possibility of a supreme being, I'm just saying it gives absolutely no reasons to posit one. The point I was after was that his phrasing suggested atheists were making a bigger leap of faith than believers, when in fact the most pro-theistic possibility would be that it's a crapshoot, and equal amounts of faith are leapt on both sides.

Yah. Basically atheists take no position on the unknowable until further evidence is provided.

Theists do the opposite.

Of course, the point of a myth isn't that it's meant to be literally taken as truth; the ideas or beliefs conveyed through they mythical story are, but the story itself may or may not be based on factual events. Hell, the point of the myth isn't even the story but the values contained in it; the actual story itself is meant to make the teachings accessible, entertaining, and memorable.

It's also important to note that "myth" is not a pejorative term. The academic definition of "myth" is as far removed from the common definition as the common definition of "theory" is from the definition of a scientific theory.


You trying to teach me to suck eggs sonny?:p
I need to "friend" you. We can have good conversations. I must point out that the greeks and romans believed their mythology. Or rather they believed in their gods and the stories abou the gods described who they were so you knew who to ask for help or blame in times of trouble. I like the way you described "myth".
Well, the Romans weren't sure so they worshipped everything that moved and a few things taht didn't just in case...
Their mythology was a living mythos, as I suppose CHristianity is today among Christians... And only died when society found something more...valueable to its existance and functioning.

You know, the problem with the internet I find, is that ther eis just never room enough to actually express an idea and so some asshat always thinks he knows more than you and wants to show what a fool you are. Teaching classes is so much easier lol!

I think we're agreeing, just in slightly different words.

[/thread hijack]

That's the problem with this whole mess...it's impossible to know exactly what's defined as what and what we mean when we say it.

Not to mention it's 3:30 in the morning here.

That's the problem with this whole mess...it's impossible to know exactly what's defined as what and what we mean when we say it.

Not to mention it's 3:30 in the morning here.

Ditto, though I'm still adjusting to the 3-hr time difference. That's why I'm not asleep right now, even though I really ought to be.

Not much you can do about that, I'm afraid. There will always be people who want to feel better than you, and they're going to use whatever they have to do so. It's a prideful (sinful?) power-trip and nothing more.

No. I realize that. I even recognize that it is a noisey minority. I just wish their fellow co-religionists would clamp down on them a bit.

No. I realize that. I even recognize that it is a noisey minority. I just wish their fellow co-religionists would clamp down on them a bit.

I wish it was just a small noisy minority...unfortunately, recent polls of the American population suggest that it's a significant minority...like in the 40% neighborhood IIRC. And they're trying to push their BS into the schools...I fear for the future.

The universe came into existence because God made it. However, he did not employ magic to do it, nor is he "magical."

Were you there to see it? Even that this is thaught to you ever since you were a kid, it doesn't mean you should believe it blindly or not to question it.

We did, however, come from single celled entities pretty darn recently.

Yes. In fact, I would go out on a limb to say that each of us began our existence as a one-celled organism. ;)

Do I hide in corner or get pop corn.... or even better get LG?

I'm here. And I brought muffins. :)

Stars. Stars. Stars. Lots of stars. Galaxies. Nebulas. Lots of happy glowing stars. A hundred billion or more per galaxy. Billions of galaxies. Some of them billions of light years away.

One of the nearest is the Andromeda Galaxy. It is 2.5 million light years away. It is visible to the naked eye on a dark night in a reasonably rural area(low light pollution). It is there. Just look up. There's no refuting that it's there. It's a galaxy. It's 2.5 million light year away. That's it. That's fact. By looking at that galaxy, you are looking at an object THAT EXISTED 2.5 MILLION YEARS AGO!!! My god, how the blue bloody fuck can you refute fucking stars! I mean, come on! They're fucking STARS!

SN 1987A was a supernova that took place in 1987. It was the death... the DEATH of a star 168,000 light years away. Did you get that? The star ENDED 168,000 years ago! One would have to be nearly beaten to death with a fucking cast-iron frying pan to even begin to reach the level of brain damage necessary to pretend that we're seeing a star whose Death throes and the resulting electromagnetic maelstrom were brought into existence 162,000 light years from the smoking remains of the actual star just so it's demise would reach us in 1987. Who could worship a god that's so deceptive? How could you believe anything else He does?

I don't think that we came from unicellular organisms, I know we did.

Stars. Stars. Stars. Lots of stars. Galaxies. Nebulas. Lots of happy glowing stars. A hundred billion or more per galaxy. Billions of galaxies. Some of them billions of light years away.

One of the nearest is the Andromeda Galaxy. It is 2.5 million light years away. It is visible to the naked eye on a dark night in a reasonably rural area(low light pollution). It is there. Just look up. There's no refuting that it's there. It's a galaxy. It's 2.5 million light year away. That's it. That's fact. By looking at that galaxy, you are looking at an object THAT EXISTED 2.5 MILLION YEARS AGO!!! My god, how the blue bloody fuck can you refute fucking stars! I mean, come on! They're fucking STARS!

SN 1987A was a supernova that took place in 1987. It was the death... the DEATH of a star 168,000 light years away. Did you get that? The star ENDED 168,000 years ago! One would have to be nearly beaten to death with a fucking cast-iron frying pan to even begin to reach the level of brain damage necessary to pretend that we're seeing a star whose Death throes and the resulting electromagnetic maelstrom were brought into existence 162,000 light years from the smoking remains of the actual star just so it's demise would reach us in 1987. Who could worship a god that's so deceptive? How could you believe anything else He does?
O.o

Are you drunk?

I am from Gods good soil and in his likeness.
If any of you wish to believe you are related to nuckle draging apes so be it!
The rest that believe you are from a lesser form of pond life, ha ha ha.

O.o

Are you drunk?

SHould I be?

O.o

Are you drunk?
I was last night, so much so i tried to get on NS and couldn't i could barely see the monitor then fell asleep, i couldn't even spell good, well it was worse than normal. :/

SHould I be?

I don't know. I figured it was worth a shot. Mostly I'm trying to distract you from that cast iron frying pan. It scares me.

I don't know. I figured it was worth a shot. Mostly I'm trying to distract you from that cast iron frying pan. It scares me.

Have a muffin. :) *hands you a muffin*

O.o

Are you drunk?

This is just LG without the manic facade. Behind that mask of jollity and mud there is one of the better posters on NSG. I fear the day when the facade finally crumbles and he starts debating seriously...

EDIT: Oh, and LOL at the OP, that really made my day.

Have a muffin. :) *hands you a muffin*

Why thank you....

This is just LG without the manic facade. Behind that mask of jollity and mud there is one of the better posters on NSG. I fear the day when the facade finally crumbles and he starts debating seriously...


Yes. I know. I give LG major props for it to. One of my favorite posters ever.

There were primordial creatures which existed, whose skeletons were found by archaeologists, that we typically consider "dinosaurs." However, they could have lived no more than 6,000 years ago, as that was when the Earth was created by God. They certainly did not inhabit the Earth millions of years ago.

Don't you think that they've taken tests to see when they lived or do you think that they just came up with a big number without any proof?

Don't you think that they've taken tests to see when they lived or do you think that they just came up with a big number without any proof?

You know attempting to shatter a creationist's worldview is cruel and unusual punishment,right? :p

There were primordial creatures which existed, whose skeletons were found by archaeologists, that we typically consider "dinosaurs." However, they could have lived no more than 6,000 years ago, as that was when the Earth was created by God. They certainly did not inhabit the Earth millions of years ago.

The Earth is about 5 billion years old. Where did you hear that it was only 6,000 years old?

And link the source, and no religious websites.

There were primordial creatures which existed, whose skeletons were found by archaeologists, that we typically consider "dinosaurs." However, they could have lived no more than 6,000 years ago, as that was when the Earth was created by God. They certainly did not inhabit the Earth millions of years ago.

You should check this site!
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-youngearth.html

The Earth is about 5 billion years old. Where did you hear that it was only 6,000 years old?

And link the source, and no religious websites.
That's like asking someone to give evidence for evolution without websites that use science. :p

That's like asking someone to give evidence for evolution without websites that use science. :p

:D

That's like asking someone to give evidence for evolution without websites that use science. :p

Isn't that more or less what the OP was doing?

Isn't that more or less what the OP was doing?

i don't know i black out trying to get my head around it

Ironically, almost all crude oil comes from unicellular organisms, algae and zooplankton.

proof!
show us a video of this happening!
If no one was present to see it, and its not in the bible it can't be true.

so there

Isn't that more or less what the OP was doing?
:confused: If anything, the OP is evidence against evolution. :p

No, they're not, even though some scientists claim they are. They have scant proof to back up their assertions -- the artifacts do not have a time and date written on them, and nobody was alive over 6,000 years ago to remember the alleged creation of the documents, much less to vouch for the fossils.

carbon dating?

and if you do argue about that, how do you know the world was'nt created 100 years ago?

Is there really that much of a difference between 6,009 and 6,000? It's the same thing. I wouldn't say 1,000,000,500 when saying 1 billion would suffice. The same rounding logic applies to this.

so what 6000 years ago being just suddenly popped into existence?

Did we come from mud?

The first time I heard this absurd statement was during my first day of religion class in a Catholic elementary school, and I laughed out loud, thinking it was a joke. Sadly, it turns out that many people do believe such a ridiculous notion. They also tend to be the people who think that a Creator magically came about from nothing, and all life came about in six days. How many people on these forums believe that we came from mud?

Did we come from mud?

The first time I heard this absurd statement was during my first day of religion class in a Catholic elementary school, and I laughed out loud, thinking it was a joke. Sadly, it turns out that many people do believe such a ridiculous notion. They also tend to be the people who think that a Creator magically came about from nothing, and all life came about in six days. How many people on these forums believe that we came from mud?

LG does.

Unfortunately, such sarcasm is blindingly obvious; such aloof cynicism is frequently employed by atheists who wish to ridicule the moral and religious. I'm afraid that I cannot allow it to work, however; I will not respond to his trite ploy.

but this is your response, so are you not letting it work?:p

Did we come from mud?

The first time I heard this absurd statement was during my first day of religion class in a Catholic elementary school, and I laughed out loud, thinking it was a joke. Sadly, it turns out that many people do believe such a ridiculous notion. They also tend to be the people who think that a Creator magically came about from nothing, and all life came about in six days. How many people on these forums believe that we came from mud?

You win!

The first time I heard this absurd statement was during the first day of my 9th grade biology class, and I laughed out loud, thinking it was a joke. Sadly, it turns out that many people do believe such a ridiculous notion. They also tend to be the people who think that the universe magically came about from nothing, and life came about from a chemical reaction. How many people on these forums believe that we came from organisms as simple as common bacteria?

I think the mere fact that it tool till 9th grade for you to hear that there is a scientific theory out there providing a rational explanation aobut the evolvution of life says more than enough about your general education and knowledge.

If you want to discuss a topic, I suggest researching it first.

Just out of curiosity, do you think the universe magically came into existance by the will of a magical being in the sky?

Nope not a magical being. The Supreme Being. The Almighty God.

Don't you think that they've taken tests to see when they lived or do you think that they just came up with a big number without any proof?

Indeed, they've employed such unreliable tests as radiocarbon dating. These tests are designed to severely skew the data.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/carbon_dating.asp

Stuff about stars.

How do we know that the stars are actually that far away? Did we take an inter-galactic ruler to measure the distance? No, we assumed based upon faulty reasoning. Those stars are not more than 6,000 years old.

Nope not a magical being. The Supreme Being. The Almighty God.

That's a yes then?

How do we know that the stars are actually that far away? Did we take an inter-galactic ruler to measure the distance? No, we assumed based upon faulty reasoning. Those stars are not more than 6,000 years old.
Oh, of course, we should take the word of some random person on the internet because their unsubstantiated opinion is obviously more valid than "faulty" scientific reasoning.

How do we know that the stars are actually that far away? Did we take an inter-galactic ruler to measure the distance? No, we assumed based upon faulty reasoning. Those stars are not more than 6,000 years old.

According to the holy church of the FSM, the universe is 13 000 years old. Prove it wrong.

How do we know that the stars are actually that far away? Did we take an inter-galactic ruler to measure the distance? No, we assumed based upon faulty reasoning. Those stars are not more than 6,000 years old.

Prove they're 6,000 years old.

Did we come from mud?

The first time I heard this absurd statement was during my first day of religion class in a Catholic elementary school, and I laughed out loud, thinking it was a joke. Sadly, it turns out that many people do believe such a ridiculous notion. They also tend to be the people who think that a Creator magically came about from nothing, and all life came about in six days. How many people on these forums believe that we came from mud?

Well done, Meridiani. Well done.

Nope not a magical being. The Supreme Being. The Almighty God.

Magical: "having seemingly supernatural qualities or powers"

God: "a being or object believed to have more than natural attributes and powers and to require human worship"

I realize you feel the need to be contrary, but if you're gonna use the english language, you may as well use it in such a way as not to pointlessly make an arse of yourself.

How do we know that the stars are actually that far away? Did we take an inter-galactic ruler to measure the distance? No, we assumed based upon faulty reasoning. Those stars are not more than 6,000 years old.

And you know this how?

Oh, yeah, cause it's written in the bible.

Can I ask you, You don't believe in Dinosaurs. Where did their fossils come from?

Do you believe in 'the great flood' and Noahs ark?

Do you seriously believe that Noah built a boat big enough to carry 2 of every kind of animal on this planet and enough food to keep them alive for 40 days and 40 nights, and that this small family was able to round up these animals in time, from every part of the globe in time to save them from the flood?

I mean honestly. and you have the nerve to call 'evolution' a joke?

People like the opening poster make me despair for humanity. Ideally, ignoramuses like this should be locked in sensory deprivation cages for eternity. They'd be just as separated from reality as they are now.

Can I ask you, You don't believe in Dinosaurs. Where did their fossils come from?

Dinosaurs did exist, only they existed within the past 6,000 years; they did not inhabit our planet millions of years ago.

Do you believe in 'the great flood' and Noahs ark?

If it says it in the Bible, it must be true. Yes, I believe it.

The first time I heard this absurd statement was during the first day of my 9th grade biology class, and I laughed out loud, thinking it was a joke. Sadly, it turns out that many people do believe such a ridiculous notion. They also tend to be the people who think that the universe magically came about from nothing, and life came about from a chemical reaction. How many people on these forums believe that we came from organisms as simple as common bacteria?

You think you have a ego, a soul, right? You certainly like to believe in the existance of a self, an all individual and seperated nature of being, devidet from the surrounding environment, right? But you fail to explain it, even though your so sure, right. And now you get lost in all that talk about unicelluler organisms so forth!?

Please explain to me, what you meen by come from, but first, in order to make the road clear, tell me about your individual existance: What is it that YOU do, that now one els does, that makes you a individual?
When we get that cleared, then we can get on and maybe get to talk about the unicellularities, as you like to understand:)

Dinosaurs did exist, only they existed within the past 6,000 years; they did not inhabit our planet millions of years ago.



If it says it in the Bible, it must be true. Yes, I believe it.

So, how would you explain the fact that dinosaur fossils are found in certain rather deep geographical layers, and that the fossils of mammals cannot be foud in the same layers, but much higher?
If humans coexsisted with dinosaurs, why can't their remains be found in the same layers?

While the Noah story is most likely a myth, in the same mode as Gilgamesh, the Flood has been adopted as a historical theory. Robert Ballard has discovered numerous villages in the Black Sea, at approx. 300 ft. The remains include multiple village sites, as well as submerged river valleys, etc.

So, while it has yet to be proven as the legendary "Flood," many historians and archeaologists are beginning to believe that the Black Sea is the local for the Gilgamesh/Noah story.

Yes, life began with single cell organisms.

I've always wondered what it would be like to meet my great-great^n grandfather, a small mammal ferret like creature that eats reptile eggs. Would I have to call him gramps?

While the Noah story is most likely a myth, in the same mode as Gilgamesh, the Flood has been adopted as a historical theory. Robert Ballard has discovered numerous villages in the Black Sea, at approx. 300 ft. The remains include multiple village sites, as well as submerged river valleys, etc.

So, while it has yet to be proven as the legendary "Flood," many historians and archeaologists are beginning to believe that the Black Sea is the local for the Gilgamesh/Noah story.

Another theory I read was that the myth has it's origins at the end of the last ice age. The melting of glaciers and inland ice on the poles caused massive flodding and storms in many parts of the world for a few decades.

RuleCaucasia makes me laugh. :)

Yeah, I'm certainly not saying the Noah story happened. However, there is a growing consensus that a flood of great magnitude certainly happened around 7000-6000 BCE. It supposedly broke the Indo-European language group up. But I am certainly no linguist nor archaeologist.

RuleCaucasia makes me laugh. :)

I can't shake of the feeling that we're dealing with a reincarnation of Jesussaves :D

If humans coexsisted with dinosaurs, why can't their remains be found in the same layers?

Earthquakes and the like tend to move bones around, and it is likely that humans and dinosaurs lived in distinct geological areas. Another theory is that God experimented with dinosaurs, but opted to annihilate them instead, favoring humans over them. The dinosaurs failed to live up to God's expectations and he killed them.

Earthquakes and the like tend to move bones around, and it is likely that humans and dinosaurs lived in distinct geological areas. Another theory is that God experimented with dinosaurs, but opted to annihilate them instead, favoring humans over them. The dinosaurs failed to live up to God's expectations and he killed them.

Hehehehe...

...cute...

I can't shake of the feeling that we're dealing with a reincarnation of Jesussaves :D

Oooh, and just in time for christmas. This should keep things lively.

Another theory is that God experimented with dinosaurs, but opted to annihilate them instead, favoring humans over them. The dinosaurs failed to live up to God's expectations and he killed them.

Why would God need to "experiment?" How could they fail to live up to his "expectations?" God's all-knowing and all-seeing. He transcends time.

But maybe the God you worship is not. Maybe you worship some sort of demon. That would coincide with the fact that you're a white supremacist.