I know that no supernatural "God" (or "Gods") exists, just as surely as others know that one does.

Now, I really don't care if a belief in the supernatural, and the denial of mortality makes someone happy. No, that's not quite right. I care in the sense that if that person is happy with his beliefs, then I'm happy for him. Personal beliefs are just that - personal. As much as I may disagree with a person's beliefs, I won't denigrate and deride him, or vehemently try to convince him how "wrong" he is. I may not agree with someone, but I will respect them enough to let them believe as they will.

I've never received the same consideration from the religionists, though. Funny, eh?

Bah....Its not fact. Tell me where the first atom came from that made the big bang? The big bang theory is a flop.....It could NOT have happened the
way the scientists said it did: http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v20/i3/big_bang.asp



Do you now.....

http://www.carm.org/dialogues/knowsthereisnogod.htm

Evolution and God Could God have used evolution to create:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v...d_evolution.asp

Thanks for adding that partial article, buddy215 !

CGM, I think part of the problem may be that scientists use various methods to 'prove' something, for instance, how the nose and brain combine in order for us to smell things. And because science has been right so many times (although as mentioned by another member, the conclusions have been amended from time to time throughout history), many use science to reach 'logical conclusions'.

I read the info at the link re the 'big bang' theory and while I'm not saying the info is wrong, the info is based on one single thing - the belief in God. Take away the belief in God, the Faith, and we're left once again not knowing for a certainly how the earth and mankind started.

Just one wee thing re the info at the link re 'knows there is no god' ... please don't be offended, but reading the dialogue with the 'smooth talking' religious 'Matt' is kind of creepy and somehow it sounds 'staged' from beginning to end.

Did I say anything about the origin of the universe? No. I was referring to the evolution of life on this planet. But you know that, so why bring spurious arguments into the discussion? Oh, wait. I forgot. That's the only kind you have.



Yes. In the same way that you know one does.



Was there supposed to be a point to that?

More like completely fabricated.

I have yet to find a person (atheist, evolutionist) to tell me where the first atoms came from that would make this universe the ones that what collided and went boom??

1. An evolutionary scientist wouldn't have a clue where to start, since such questions are the purview of the astrophysicists and the cosmologists.

2. Unless an Atheist also happens to be an astrophysicist or a cosmologist, he wouldn't know where to begin, either.

3. I'm not going to waste any more time on a closed-minded, "Because...(it's in the bible, "God" says so, etc., etc.)" one such as yourself. You and so many like you deny facts that are right in front of your face, yet can offer nothing of validity to refute those facts.

Blind creationists get so tiresome, so fast.

Copied from Link Below
http://www.talkorigins.org/features/whales/
QUOTE:
How do you convince a creationist that a fossil is a transitional fossil? Give up? It is a trick question. You cannot do it. There is no convincing someone who has his mind made up already. But sometimes, it is even worse. Sometimes, when you point out a fossil that falls into the middle of a gap and is a superb morphological and chronological intermediate, you are met with the response: "Well, now you have two gaps where you only had one before! You are losing ground!"

One of the favorite anti-evolutionist challenges to the existence of transitional fossils is the supposed lack of transitional forms in the evolution of the whales. Duane Gish of the Institute for Creation Research (ICR) regularly trots out the "bossie-to-blowhole" transition to ridicule the idea that whales could have evolved from terrestrial, hooved ancestors.


There simply are no transitional forms in the fossil record between the marine mammals and their supposed land mammal ancestors . . . It is quite entertaining, starting with cows, pigs, or buffaloes, to attempt to visualize what the intermediates may have looked life. Starting with a cow, one could even imagine one line of descent which prematurely became extinct, due to what might be called an “udder failure” (Gish 1985: 78-9).
Of course, for many years the fossil record for the whales was quite spotty, but now there are numerous transitional forms that illustrate the pathway of whale evolution.

Recent discoveries of fossil whales provide the evidence that will convince an honest skeptic. However, evolutionary biology predicts more than just the existence of fossil ancestors with certain characteristics - it also predicts that all other biological disciplines should also reveals patterns of similarity among whales, their ancestors, and other mammals correlated with evolutionary relatedness between groups. It should be no surprise that this is what we find, and since the findings in one biological discipline, say biochemistry, is derived without reference to the findings in another, say comparative anatomy, scientists consider these different fields to provide independent evidence of the evolution of whales. As expected, these independent lines of evidence all confirm the pattern of whale evolution that we would anticipate in the fossil record.

On the contrary.....

Scientists make up junk all the time to support their claims of evolution.

What facts would you be talking about?

Lets not get out of hand and start a flame war. You seem like you hate Religious people or really the way us Christians believe.

I think its obvious a universe this advanced and the inhabitants on this planet had a creator.



Its goes something like this , what made the first atom that started the universe, what made the atom that made that atom that started the universe.

We look in the Bible and read God always was and always will be, he had no beginning and will have no end he always was.

cmg what is it that makes it so obvious to you and not to a lot of other people?



well we can all pick things from the bible and translate them to mean anything we want them to.just remember the bible was written by man and man is fallible/guillable and sometimes we believe what we want to believe as i have said in another topic it is called the theory of evolution but that theory is backed by some fact.
religion has no fact and therefore should be called the theory of religion

right or wrong?
and without quoting scripture(which has no fact)provide me evidence to the contrary

The advancedness and the fact that the universe did not come from nothing its illogical to think otherwise.

Like the atom thing and how something had to make the first atom even if evolution was to even have a chance. Since the Bible says God made the universe....

You would not look at a chair and think there was no carver...

I can't remember the specific details (dates and names) but wasn't 'intelligent design' found, in the USA Court System to be a "religous theory" and it's teachings in schools violated the constitution of the USA?

----
In Kenya, apparently an exhibit showing the the 'most complete prehistoric human being ever found' is underway - and an evangelical leader Bishop Boniface Adoyo is massively upset about the 'Turkana Boy'. This is a man who claims to speak for 35 denominations and 10 million believers - yet can't bring himself to believe the skeleton, after being tested numerous times by independant labs using different methods could possibly exceed 6,000 - 10,000 years old.

The below link has some very interesting info re dating (a tad 'dry' reading but interesting).

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html

----

The below site has some good information on it and the link leads directly to questions of why earth is so old and also a rebuttal to each scientific statement. Both sides presented.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/oldearth.htm

Sorry but it is not fact until it can be proven with 100% certainty, can be observed and retested over and over with no differeneces in the results.

Now you are the one not being scientific

-Steve

I have an open mind on this subject. Christians say the world is about 6000 yrs old.
Question.How could so many experts all be wrong in their calculation as to the age of man?
Here another link which makes for interesting reading.

http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/stories/s788032.htm

DSTM, scientists use carbon dating to date many things on the earth and off of it. While this is based on many assumptions to begin with which makes it unreliable at the start, but lets say it is 100% perfect as it is. Carbon has a half life of roughly 5,700 years (correct me if I am wrong). Which will make it accurate for roughly only 80,000 years. If you look at the Geologic Pillar made of coal from all of the different layers, carbon was found in all of them, yet it is dated as being 4 billion years old, if that was so then there would be no carbon present correct? Leaving the Earth to be roughly 80,000 years old at the most. This drasically cuts down the time that is required to have evolution occur. And while we might have been around for 6,000 years old does not mean the Earth is that young because in the Bible it says that the Earth was covered in darkness and water. So the Earth really could be 80,000 years, and I have no problem with that possibility at all.

-Steve

P.S. Will post again soon with some interesting items, time for diner.

Is this enough proof for the inaccuracy of carbon dating?

http://www.cryingvoice.com/Evolution/Radiodating.html

-Steve

edit:

Mattv, what about this evidence, you said you wanted evidence right? http://www.cryingvoice.com/Evolution/Physics.html

Good link, DSTM - thanks! And I understand your comment about 'open mind' because for me it honestly doesn't make a lick of difference how old earth and we humans are.


And as need TOS said,"The Earth really could be 80,000 years" and he would "have no problem with that possibility at all".
I've never quite understood why science and religion is often felt to be mutually exclusive of each other. Having one thing from the Bible 'disproved' would still not negate the value of the Bible to those with Faith, surely.

Off to re-read everything at the link you supplied, DSTM - but feel free to go into gales of laughter when I share that as fascinated as I am with science, there's always been an teeny part of me that mentally cringes when one's burial place/body is disturbed. Silly I know, but have never quite decided within myself where the line (years) is drawn between desecration or science - gentle hoot! (And this from a woman who has one girl who's degree is in archaeology and my sister was a Professor of archaeology - aah, the quirks of being human!).

From my research nothing in the Bible has been disproved, I've seen alot of it proved actually. While I do believe in the Bible I am open minded on this subject because if you could prove that the Bible is wrong then I'll have no choice but to believe it after I have finished looking into it as well. But I disagree if something was 100% disproved then I would have to question the Bible MaraM

-Steve

edit: Sorry JohnWho In post #519 I should have made that more clear. Yes C-14 (Carbon-14)

Carbon dating - Wikipedia


It's not just "carbon" - it's the "unstable isotope carbon-14".

MaraM, Let me put your mind at ease. It is entirely possible, in the case of the cremated remains, maybe it wasn't a burial site but the earliest known barbeque pit. Now, don't you feel better.

Thanks for the links 'need TOS'.I understand where you are coming from.Radiocarbon Dating is the most accurate way in which Scientists can guage what age of man,fossols,anything,I was led to believe.
I am not doubting the link you supplied but they are Christian Websites,are they not.
I think in all fairness,neutral Website links would be best served.
I am seeking truth not comfort.

Here are some articles from a website, one out of many, that I use often for evidence of creationism and/or disproving of evolution.

http://www.icr.org/article/3140/

http://www.icr.org/article/2902/ - (Dinosaurs)

http://www.icr.org/article/2707/ - (Wollemi Pine)



Or another site:

http://www.cryingvoice.com/Evolution/Dinos.html - (Dinosaurs)

http://www.cryingvoice.com/Evolution/fossils_missing.html -(Missing links in Evolution * I love this one*)

explain this:

http://www.gennet.org/facts/nessie.html

I hope this is enough reading to keep you busy for a while. Now don't forget to be openminded about this evidence as I have about yours again creationism.

-Steve

So what you are saying is that it is not truth? While you might think it might be better for a neutral site I disagree. While it might not hurt these are scientists too and can be counted on if they are accurate and you do some research on them you will find them very reliable. While I do see your point but others are posting sites that are not neutral and are being looked at without mention of their non-neutrality.

Not meaning to single you out. I enjoy reading your posts

-Steve

Ouuuuu, what a gross thought!

Science in all it's forms, including carbon dating (thanks for the additional link, JohnWho) only adds to the wonder of our planet.

Oh dear, when I read your words, "if something was 100% disproved then I would have to question the Bible", Steve - well, my 'oh dear' is meant most sincerely.

For so much has been learned through the years in the field of science/medicine, yet flaws in earlier findings have been proven and the results adjusted ... and could it not simply be possible that men (with all their frailities) who wrote the Bible did so during a time when little was understood in so many areas and perhaps their interpretation/recordings/understanding of things was simply the best they could be 'at that time'?

I think it was someone called Ingersoll who said, "If a man would follow today, the teachings of the Old Testament, he would be a criminal. If he would follow strictly, the teachings of the new, he would be insane." So personally, I still feel that the Bible has so many lovely teachings (and yup, I'm the one guilty of 'picking and choosing' and ignoring all the mean stuff) and whether true word for word, it doesn't take away from so many having a belief that is precious to them. Oh dear, I think I'm saying this very badly indeed. Gentle sigh.

Thanks for the links, Steve. As I said I am open minded and sitting on the fence, as they say.
I am just happy to be on this Earth at this moment in History.
I find this subject fascinating, and you have given more than enough links to keep me busy for a while.

EDIT.OOPS, should have used spell check.LOL

Thanks MaraM.

Just trying to point out that "carbon dating" is only reasonably accurate back to about 60,000 years. So we shouldn't be applying it to millions of years old dinosaurs, for example. Also, since we are only talking about a specific isotope, we shouldn't be questioning how any carbon could be older that 60k.

Just some observations.

How do you know they are millions of years old? Take a look at the links I've posted and you will have some evidence against that dating.

-Steve

I knew it. need TOS and others are not reading what I posted. Darn it. The first sentence in the link below that need TOS posted is completely false, making all the other info in that link equally misleading. See the info in the second link.
http://www.cryingvoice.com/Evolution/fossils_missing.html
One of the most important pieces of evidence against evolution is the lack of transitional species. WRONG!!

http://www.talkorigins.org/features/whales/
QUOTE: Of course, for many years the fossil record for the whales was quite spotty, but now there are numerous transitional forms that illustrate the pathway of whale evolution.

Recent discoveries of fossil whales provide the evidence that will convince an honest skeptic.

I don't know, 'John Who' You say carbon dating is reasonably accurate to about 60,000 years. How accurate is reasonably?

Steve -

the Institute for Creation Research and the Crying Voice websites, just based on their stated purposes, are not going to provide unbiased scientific evidence.

It would be like using Democratic Underground to learn about Republicans!



Sorry, but they "prove", or "disprove" absolutely nothing.

The people that use it say it may be within 30 years.

I guess if you then want to be picky,

it can be used to date objects as old as 60,030 years!

He can't.

Proof, please.



On the contrary. I really don't care what anyone believes. I simply object to people claiming to purport fact, when there is absolutely no evidence to support those claims.



Obvious to you, maybe. But what makes it so obvious? Can you provide an answer besides "Because the bible says so?"



The Titans, and the Roman and Greek Gods, may disagree with the mythology of the bible.

Could you try to answer even one question without reference to mythology?

The point I am trying to make is if carbon dating is that accurate, and all the conjecture is determining how old man is,then the carbon dating of the Mungo Man link would be considered to be accurate within 30 yrs.So to me that disproves what the Creationists say that Man is only round 6000 yrs old.Did I miss something here?

Yet it is perfectly acceptable to use sites that are coming from an evolutionary stand point? The problem is that evolution is set to a certain standard and creationism is set to another, which I do not understand. Why is it that we can compare them if we fail to set the same standards, if the sites I list are not valid then neither should ones coming from an evolutionists standpoint.

-Steve

It can. A fact that no creationist will ever admit. That's why even trying to discuss the question with them is pointless. They're too closed-minded to even consider the possibility that their extremely narrow little world-view could be widened a bit.

Mattv, I am offended by this post so much. I am not sure if I will be posting again or not. You always say that creationists are so closed minded, but never think that it might be you. I see no evidence that proves the Evolutionary THEORY as fact. Until I see it I will not believe. I find it ignorant to claim it is fact when it has not been proven.

-Steve

They are saying that at it's best, it may be within 30 years of the correct date within the last 60,000 years. So, yeah, if they date some old human-like bones as being any number of years less than 60,000, they are probably going to be close to the right time frame.

You are correct - Mungo Man would fall into the category of well over 6000 years ago. From the article -Mungo Man - Wikipedia - you can see that multiple methods of dating the remains have been used. All, it should be noted, date Mr. Mungo at over 30,000 years, which, and I'm doing this without a calculator, is well over 6,000.

That isn't proof of anything, it is merely simplistic semantic trickery.

I don't know if there is a limit to post-length on this BB or not. And it doesn't matter. Even if I took the time to show just how much crapola that whole "proof" is, you'd just deny or ignore it anyways, so it would be a pointless exercise.

I also see that the "author" of this "proof" completely ignores the Third Law of Thermodynamics. Since it would blow the rest of his hogwash out of the water.

I would agree with that.

However, what sites are specifically "Evolutionists" sites, and which sites are simply scientific sites discussing the Theory of Evolution?



I would suggest avoiding any site, on any subject, that states its purpose is to discredit another specific point of view.

Examples, please. Of the supernatural, if you will.

List it please, I'll read it and study it to my fullest.

Please do not say I'll ignore it because I take it into account. I am not to happy with the way you are acting toward me, I have my right to believe what I will, but I am not closed minded I am perfectly fine with changing my beliefes if the evidence was supplied but I have yet to see any that have persuaded me. And I could say the same for you about ignoring my evidence. I want to see your proof now. Dont be a hypocrit and ask for proof but fail to provide your own.

with respect,
Steve

I see no evidence disproving it. And as I said I do not think you will take me seriously, I might only be 16 but I am not stupid, I do plenty of research on this topic, and hate it when people doubt me.

-Steve

I read your links, buddy215 - good stuff, especially about the whales. (How I wish we could speak their language!).

Nope, you didn't 'miss anything', DSTM! I could be wrong but the problem seems to be comparing science and Faith.

For instance, if a link to a science site is added, many won't believe any information there because 'flaws' are seen in the scientific reasoning. Science is, at least to me, a 'hands-on' series of tests used to show something tangible. (Remember putting baking soda in those tiny submarines that came in cereal boxes and they went putt putt putt in the bathtub when we were little kids? My first introduction - at age 3 - of what science was).

And when links are provided where the information is based on Faith, many won't believe any information there because everything there is based on Faith - not something tangible we can see, taste, smell or touch. No physical 'proof' can be shown as there apparently isn't any - only men's words written so, so long ago.

If, even with the hiccups with carbon dating, the earth is shown to be far in excess of the approx 6,000 - 10,000 years the Bible says it has existed - it would honestly be a shame to have this as the sole reason to loose complete Faith? Perhaps simply using the Bible as a teaching tool rather than 'verbatim' would lead to less inner turmoil for some - and make people like myself feel safe from people like a President of the incredible United States who honestly felt that atheisits aren't really citizens. Eep! (But guess he's the object of another topic - gentle grin!).
- - - - -

Almost forgot ... re: "Examples, please. Of the supernatural, if you will". I know this isn't quite what you had in mind, but when some members of certain congregations 'speak in tongues' they feel this is God's words, etc and a miracle of sorts (supernatural). It's only my opinion but I think the human mind is capable of a lot, including self-delusion. After all, surely God and Jesus would have picked a language and stuck to it?

Yes, it would be folly to look for truth from those desperate to refute it. Besides, those "scientific" articles have so many holes in them that they could be used to strain spaghetti.

More spaghetti-strainers.

As I've said before though the Bible does not necesarily limit the age of the Earth to being 6,000 to 10,000 years old. It could be at the most 80,000 years old. It says in the Bible that the Earth was covered in darkness, even before God made what we call Earth today, so it is perfectaly reasonable to consider it older and be a creationist.

-Steve

Why are you so negative about it and repeat your opinion, we get the idea, but no need to make fun of them.

-Steve

I was wondering if anyone would finally stae the obvious. Even though the mythology of the bible is just that, the lessons of the bible - especially the philosophy put forth by Jesus - have much value, and are worth trying to live by.

The bible is a book that is part mythology, part history, and part philosophy. A wise student would do well to learn to separate each part from the others.