Do you think I could just leave this part blank and it'd be okay? We're just going to replace the whole thing with a header image anyway, right?
You are not logged in.
Why dont you do your own research instead of making me do it for you? Besides, you dont even need a link to know the atmosphere is changing, especially over "4.54 billion years". If you wish to understand more about carbon dating and creation i encourage you to read this book: http://www.answersingenesis.org/PublicS … 3,224.aspx
Here is your link on carbon dating:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/article … -the-bible.
The following links are what Wikipedia cites for its ~4.54 billion year claim: 1 2 3 These people work on the edge of human knowledge for the advancement of mankind. They are scientists. Their work is confined to the scientific method. Logic, reason, and experiment are their tools. They seek truth and understanding.
What YOU have linked me to is a website to the title of "Answers in genesis". Not only do they have a whole paragraph devoted to the great flood *actually* happening, but they link to the creation museum, plans to recreate Noah's ark, and to pages designed to indoctrinate children through fear.
What YOU have linked me to is utter trash. I'd be ashamed to have any part in it.
Ever heard of sarcasm? No need to get yourself worked up.
I don't get worked up.
The following links are what Wikipedia cites for its ~4.54 billion year claim: 1 2 3 These people work on the edge of human knowledge for the advancement of mankind. They are scientists. Their work is confined to the scientific method. Logic, reason, and experiment are their tools. They seek truth and understanding.
What YOU have linked me to is a website to the title of "Answers in genesis". Not only do they have a whole paragraph devoted to the great flood *actually* happening, but they link to the creation museum, plans to recreate Noah's ark, and to pages designed to indoctrinate children through fear.
What YOU have linked me to is utter trash. I'd be ashamed to have any part in it.
That actually is not the link i sent. Strange, I copied the link from a article on that website about carbon dating, It had nothing to do with the flood. Let me try again...
EDIT: yep the link is brocken, what a shame, it had some good points :/ Try researching it on your own. The link may just not be working on my computer, and have copied it wrong or something. That was the link on carbon dating right?
Please try to respect others beliefs, and not call it trash.
Last edited by Jaybm (Jan 8 2012 7:38:21 pm)
Try researching it on your own.
I've already linked to 3 scientific sources backing up the claim Wikipedia makes about the age of the Earth. I've done enough already.
Please try to respect others beliefs, and not call it trash.
Ideas founded in ignorance get little more from me than contempt. If you wish for them to be respected, then they must first be deemed worthy of respect.
I've already linked to 3 scientific sources backing up the claim Wikipedia makes about the age of the Earth. I've done enough already.
You need to search for things that dissprove carbon dating, not that back it up. You dont really need a link to know that the atmosphere is always changing.
Ideas founded in ignorance get little more from me than contempt. If you wish for them to be respected, then they must first be deemed worthy of respect.
I have, you just refuse to believe any of the links i have given you.
Last edited by Jaybm (Jan 8 2012 7:49:59 pm)
Nice citing Twipply. I understand what you're saying now. I read through the three cites and found them informing. I do think that the Earth could be older though. These "primordial" rocks, mineral, etc. needed to show Earth's exact age have probably been recycled by now and only younger one's remain. I think certain scientists have taken the safe guess of 4.54 billion years, where as they shouldn't have given an estimated date out to the public. This only causes uproar when a more exact date is discovered. So all I'm saying is that they should get exact facts(which is highly unlikely at the present date) instead of estimations before they open their mouths to the fragile public.
I'm no expert on the subject at all, I can just take the word of the scientific community that the results are good. While I was aware of what you said about rocks being 'recycled' leading to more of a lower limit with estimates based on them, the ~4.54 billion year figure on Wikipedia seems to have an accuracy of about 1%. I think it should be pretty accurate.
I have, you just refuse to believe any of the links i have given you.
I dismissed 'answersingenesis' because of its absurdity. I dismissed 'angelfire' because it got a simple figure about carbon dating wrong within the first few sentences.
I'll do another example from it though, as it caught my attention when I skimmed past.
Living penguins have been carbon dated and the results said that they had died 8,000 years ago! This is just one of many inaccurate dates given by Carbon dating.
Attempting to dismiss carbon dating as inaccurate by using it on something it is not meant to be used on. You can see here that it seems carbon dating is meant to be used on only once living material, not currently living material.
I should make my own religion.
Thank you eleizibeth ^
I stack my signatures rather than delete them so I don't lose them
Offline
Let's just make the wild assumption that science is correct (for lack of argument). What I can't understand is why one would say it is not only false, but that an even more illogical explanation should take its place. That really is the main problem I have with religion, reworded.
Could someone explain this to me? Are we really that ignorant? It wouldn't surprise me. *cough*
Last edited by Tako (Jan 9 2012 2:54:04 pm)
Yeah, well, you know that's just like, uh, your opinion, man.
Offline
go faster than light which isn't even possible because it doesn't make sense.
Brb, neutrinos.
Last edited by JadElClemens (Jan 9 2012 5:38:18 pm)
I hate tall signatures.
Offline
Everyone. You must convert to this religion. No buts. Just butts. Here's the rules.
HAIL TO THE CHATBOX GOD!!!!!!
Otherkin quiz is our rite of passage.
Dice Makes All Decisions.
Bronyism is not allowed.
Homosexuality is not allowed.
Anime is allowed, but looked down upon.
World ends in 2012.
Polygamy is allowed.
We have to Persecute Other Religions.
There is Heaven and Hell.
Heaven is Rad.
Hell is endless errors.
We have Sweet Bloody Hand rituals.
Holy Day: Wednesday.
We have no religious leader or Clergy.
Avacado is Middle Ground.
Jalopenos are bad, but Aren?t the worst.
Chatbox is our only God.
"Avacado is Middle Ground" is our religion's main phrase.
Anime Conventions are portals to Hell.
Sodomy is allowed.
Ponies are not the true form of our Satan.
Our religion has a Bible.
Vegetarians are ok.
The name of our religion is a secret.
Psychics are real.
We are not all of the damned.
We may not worship our God in public, build mouments or altars, or become assassins or thieves in it's name
Our Holy Land is in the Middle East.
We should not kill Jews.
The Chatbox sees sleep as a sign of weakness, but necessary.
Last edited by krubby (Jan 9 2012 8:05:42 pm)
Offline
TakoMan02 wrote:Let's just make the wild assumption that science is correct (for lack of argument). What I can't understand is why one would say it is not only false, but that an even more illogical explanation should take its place. That really is the main problem I have with religion, reworded.
Could someone explain this to me? Are we really that ignorant? It wouldn't surprise me. *cough*
I'm gonna ruin my prized 333 posts with this one, but oh well. Firstly please inform me of you definition of science before I go too far into this topic, because that may be the true culprit of this misunderstanding.
Explanations of the world around us.
Also, what do you mean by saying lack of argument?
Because I don't want to argue whether or not science is correct. If there's a doubt in your mind, whatever logic your brain can compute isn't worth my time.
If you give me a solid question written as one, I'll answer it. Give me an answer I find unsatisfactory and I'll retort it. Tell me where religion says that science is fact and I'll give you the reason (if any) why they did so. The same with an illogical explanation, and I'm not talking about the Pentateuch or such.
How did Jesus walk on water? Don't say "lol cuz god made him able 2". You may not choose to accept it, but science is always working. So is physics. Even in ancient times with Jesus; science was working.
Give me overly-detailed explanations to many of Jesus' miracles. That's the unsatisfactory part of Christianity: saying Jesus is too cool for science and physics. Saying burning bushes can talk. Saying a single man can cause a sea to split into two parts. Saying a staff can transform into a serpent.
Religion, like I said earlier, explains the nonexplainable. Not the explainable. That's why you have textbooks at school. The Bible isn't a textbook, it's a theory + moral book. The theories are, what, 2000+ years old.
Tell me where "Christianity" (our favorite punching bag here it seems) has said that certain beliefs should take the belief of "science" (everyone go look up science and analyze it if you have the time) and I will give you answers.
There is no belief in science. Think of science like fact.
Theories, no. You don't have to believe in those; like I've said more than thrice on this thread.
Last edited by Tako (Jan 17 2012 6:02:22 pm)
Yeah, well, you know that's just like, uh, your opinion, man.
Offline
Not sure if someone already said this...but in my idea, the whole idea of Christianity as a religion is stupid. If you worship Jesus, have the religion he had-Judaism.
Edit: Btw, Ratburntro44, I'm pretty sure it DOES work this way. If Jesus was that great a person, then Judaism must have SOMETHING good about it, so why make up your own religion when there's already one there completely fine?
Last edited by simonbob13 (Jan 18 2012 8:05:21 pm)
Not sure if someone already said this...but in my idea, the whole idea of Christianity as a religion is stupid. If you worship Jesus, have the religion he had-Judaism.
Edit: Btw, Ratburntro44, I'm pretty sure it DOES work this way. If Jesus was that great a person, then Judaism must have SOMETHING good about it, so why make up your own religion when there's already one there completely fine?
No, not at all. You obviously dont know much about christianity or judaism, if you did you would know they are similar but also very different
Last edited by Jaybm (Jan 18 2012 8:15:09 pm)
simonbob13 wrote:Not sure if someone already said this...but in my idea, the whole idea of Christianity as a religion is stupid. If you worship Jesus, have the religion he had-Judaism.
Edit: Btw, Ratburntro44, I'm pretty sure it DOES work this way. If Jesus was that great a person, then Judaism must have SOMETHING good about it, so why make up your own religion when there's already one there completely fine?No, not at all. You obviously dont know much about christianity or judaism, if you did you would know they are similar but also very different
That's my point exactly-they're different. The question is, why are they different? I see your point, but, correct me if I'm wrong, isn't Christianity based on someone who was Jewish?
Do you have any proof that these miracles actually happened, by any chance?
Miracles have been continuing to happen even up to today.
http://www.byfaith.co.uk/paulmiracle.htm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QdUGoFTfP7w <--- I particularly like this one
hit 'ctrl-f' and type "ask mary" for this one: http://www.born-again-christian.info/glory2.htm
I'd like to see someone explain those with today's science.
Last edited by Greenzoid2 (Jan 19 2012 12:09:15 am)
I'd like to see someone explain those with today's science.
This is kinda dumb.
1) Not a single claim is backed up by any evidence. There are no witnesses. It is worthless.
2) He's young and impressionable. Combine that, his imagination, and his parents telling him what they thought or even outright lying and you get the story presented.
3) Same as number 1. Don't you think that seven doctors would be quite interested to know why they were seemingly wrong and cause a bit of a stir? Write some papers maybe?
I didn't need science to discredit any of those, 'miracles', I just need common sense.
Last edited by Twipply (Jan 19 2012 5:53:28 am)
Jaybm wrote:simonbob13 wrote:Not sure if someone already said this...but in my idea, the whole idea of Christianity as a religion is stupid. If you worship Jesus, have the religion he had-Judaism.
Edit: Btw, Ratburntro44, I'm pretty sure it DOES work this way. If Jesus was that great a person, then Judaism must have SOMETHING good about it, so why make up your own religion when there's already one there completely fine?No, not at all. You obviously dont know much about christianity or judaism, if you did you would know they are similar but also very different
That's my point exactly-they're different. The question is, why are they different? I see your point, but, correct me if I'm wrong, isn't Christianity based on someone who was Jewish?
Jews don't believein the new testament, they dont believe jesus was any more than a prophet, rather than a messiah. Christians believe that Jesus was the messiah, Jews believe that the messiah is yet to come. Basically Jesus was jewish because technically, the savior (himself) was yet to die on the cross. Why are they different?
Why are they different?
They are different because Jews denied the fact that Jesus was the messiah.
Judaism must have SOMETHING good about it
No one said judaism was wrong
BillyP wrote:Do you have any proof that these miracles actually happened, by any chance?
Miracles have been continuing to happen even up to today.
http://www.byfaith.co.uk/paulmiracle.htm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QdUGoFTfP7w <--- I particularly like this one
hit 'ctrl-f' and type "ask mary" for this one: http://www.born-again-christian.info/glory2.htm
I'd like to see someone explain those with today's science.
I'm not one to deny Religious folk, as I'm open minded about it.
However, these 'miracles' are most of the time easily explainable.
People who nearly starve to death, get head injuries, and all that WILL hallucinate.
My friend (He's prety mental) thinks that the world was made by god, but with very tiny lego. Tell me thats not nonexplainable. But thats his theory, and beliefs, it's his religion even if it's not an official one, it's a religion to him.
Well I have arguements and such so I'm out.
Not sure if someone already said this...but in my idea, the whole idea of Christianity as a religion is stupid. If you worship Jesus, have the religion he had-Judaism.
Edit: Btw, Ratburntro44, I'm pretty sure it DOES work this way. If Jesus was that great a person, then Judaism must have SOMETHING good about it, so why make up your own religion when there's already one there completely fine?
Thanks for the edit. You proved my point for me. I would say more, but I'm afraid it may be considered flaming.
Offline
How did Jesus walk on water? Don't say "lol cuz god made him able 2". You may not choose to accept it, but science is always working. So is physics. Even in ancient times with Jesus; science was working.
Give me overly-detailed explanations to many of Jesus' miracles. That's the unsatisfactory part of Christianity: saying Jesus is too cool for science and physics. Saying burning bushes can talk. Saying a single man can cause a sea to split into two parts. Saying a staff can transform into a serpent.
Religion, like I said earlier, explains the nonexplainable. Not the explainable. That's why you have textbooks at school. The Bible isn't a textbook, it's a theory + moral book. The theories are, what, 2000+ years old.
Well, Tako, I didn't think that you would write this. I know that you are smarter than your answer.
The whole idea of God and Jesus is based upon that God is nonexplainable. You can't explain God, or the miracles in your post, by logic or science, because mankind can't explain God. God is too big, too wise and too almighty for mankind to describe him.
Based upon the idea that God (or the trinity) is the creator of this world, the creator can change his creations. That's how a christian would explain the miracles. God, or the actions of God, can't be explained by mankind.
Just came because the views were legit 1337. Well, i have nothing else to say but goodbye to this topic.
The whole idea of God and Jesus is based upon that God is nonexplainable. You can't explain God, or the miracles in your post, by logic or science, because mankind can't explain God. God is too big, too wise and too almighty for mankind to describe him.
A great friend to religion is ignorance. Without it, more and more people start to question the absurdity. Your god is supposedly above human comprehension because your church is afraid. Afraid of knowledge and education. Afraid of free thought. Afraid of losing their power and control over the masses through education, knowledge, and reason.
TheGreenTroll wrote:The whole idea of God and Jesus is based upon that God is nonexplainable. You can't explain God, or the miracles in your post, by logic or science, because mankind can't explain God. God is too big, too wise and too almighty for mankind to describe him.
A great friend to religion is ignorance. Without it, more and more people start to question the absurdity. Your god is supposedly above human comprehension because your church is afraid. Afraid of knowledge and education. Afraid of free thought. Afraid of losing their power and control over the masses through education, knowledge, and reason.
That depends on what church you go to. Yes, religion can sound absurd. No one ever said it didn't.
TheGreenTroll wrote:The whole idea of God and Jesus is based upon that God is nonexplainable. You can't explain God, or the miracles in your post, by logic or science, because mankind can't explain God. God is too big, too wise and too almighty for mankind to describe him.
A great friend to religion is ignorance. Without it, more and more people start to question the absurdity. Your god is supposedly above human comprehension because your church is afraid. Afraid of knowledge and education. Afraid of free thought. Afraid of losing their power and control over the masses through education, knowledge, and reason.
You've got many preconceived thoughts about me and my faith, Twipply.
Ignorance isn't the friend of religion, it's rather the friend to those whom are indoctrinated and can't accept other conceptions of life. You don't have to be ignorant if you have a strong faith. In my case, I've got a strong faith in God, and I consider him to be the creator and father of this world, but surely, I've never ever been ignorant against another human being because of his different conception of life. Of course, I've challenged his beliefs, as you challenge mine, but ignorant is the wrong word.
You can criticize the church how much you wish, and I agree on several points. But I don't believe in the church, neither the preaching of a random priest. The church isn't my religion, my faith isn't based upon the church. I don't go to church anymore, although I've done so for many years, but I fail to recognize the picture of the church that you describe. Don't get me wrong, I know very well that there are problems with how various religious institutions tries to market their belief as sovereign and right.
Faith and religion is the choice of an individual; today the church doesn't control people with faith, nor do they have power over them, except for the most extreme instances.
[post]
I didn't necessarily mean the church itself, even though that's the wording I happened to use. All you need to do is find something that shakes your belief in god to come up with the concept. I imagine people often like answers to their questions, so rather than upturning the whole of the scientific method each time their religion takes a beating, they just ignore it. They can do so by claiming such things don't apply to their god, that their god is beyond our mere mortal understanding, above reason, and rationality. Regardless of its origin, I imagine the idea is still the same. If you know that your god is above question, you can stop doing so, thus securing your faith in ignorance. Not everyone is going to do that, of course, but it is still going to happen far and wide.
While perhaps you aren't ignorant of other people and what they happen to believe or accept, I think the word can still easily be applied to you and potentially all religious people. It's not an automatic status you achieve by being religious, is what's you get for ignoring reason. Science, logic, reason, experiment, facts, all things that can be accepted by a rational mind. To be religious you must be ignorant of some or all of these things. A man that truly thinks is a man that does not believe in a god, gods, or most likely religion at all.
Faith and religion is the choice of an individual; today the church doesn't control people with faith, nor do they have power over them, except for the most extreme instances.
Oh, I don't know about that. Do you think there'd be as much hate towards gays in America today if the catholic church decided they were going to stop denying the rights of homosexuals? Don't you think they have the power of life and death over millions of people by denying the use of condoms? Don't you think the trend they've set over centuries often survives, being passed on through their followers?
Perhaps what you wish to believe is a personal choice, but that's not to say that some don't make the choice to listen to or be influenced by what their church says.
By the way, I hope you don't take too much offence to the comments about ignorance. I doubt anyone is above such things, myself obviously included. Maybe not often about such fundamental things as the ability to reason, but still a great many things.
[ Started around 1738713156.1181 - Generated in 0.197 seconds, 12 queries executed - Memory usage: 1.89 MiB (Peak: 2.18 MiB) ]