| |
| Author |
Message |
Do you think space aliens really exist?
| Definitely. Every ten years I have those strange circle marks in my corn field. |
| [ 1 ] 5% |
| |
| Halo has convinced me they exist |
| [ 0 ] 0% |
| |
| Maybe |
| [ 9 ] 50% |
| |
| You'd really have to be really stupid to believe they do |
| [ 8 ] 44% |
| |
Total Votes : 18 |
|
| sickofpalantirs |
 Posted: Fri Dec 15, 2006 8:48 am |
|
|
|
Joined: 23 Mar 2006
Posts: 7750
Location: somwhere, over the rainbow way up high. There's a land that I heard of once in a lullaby.
|
exactly God can defend himself quite fine.
Anyway, Lossechange since you seem to like reading biased books and going to biased websites why don’t you take a look at the other side of the story. read The case for Christ and The Case for a Creator, both by Lee Strobel.
H13 leave now you are just making this worse.
Oh one last thing, Darwin himself in his own book said that unless many fossil links were found his theory was worthless (OK maybe lucy is a monkey human, or could just be a human who had problems, the elephant man, the monkey lady etc. as examples). Also he didn’t observe macro-evolution and start thinking about it he observed micro-evolution in the beaks or birds.
<Post heavily edited to remove inflammatory comments and a non-sequitur. Let’s work hard to keep this thread cool and collected. This is two strikes against this thread. If the conversation devolves into name calling and inflammatory statements again, I will talk to Cobra about dealing with the offending parties and this thread will be locked permanently. -Merrick_Hale>
sorry though I posted it would probably need it. essentially i said i am going to leave this conversation I believe. so... I guess it is time to put what I said into practice |
Last edited by sickofpalantirs on Fri Dec 15, 2006 12:59 pm; edited 1 time in total Sop's haves/ top wants
(mm)"SoP: you will always be the Official CC Spammer in my heart"
"DáinIronfoot"
Spammers really are amazing creatures. You can learn all there is to know about their ways in a month. And yet, after a hundred years, they can still surprise you.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
| TheHobbit13 |
| Posted: Fri Dec 15, 2006 10:57 am |
|
|
|
Joined: 27 Jul 2006
Posts: 1303
Location: minnesota
|
Quote: H13 leave now you are just making this worse.
i out of here
I think  |
| If you like LOTR then maybe you would like redemption ccg PM me for more info |
|
| Back to top |
|
| Loosechange911 |
| Posted: Fri Dec 15, 2006 11:19 am |
|
|
|
Joined: 14 Oct 2006
Posts: 29
Location:
|
I have read a few books in argument for god as well as several counter-acting this argument. I then formed my own conclusions. The problem with religious books in this case is that the author (usually, not always) already "knows" the fundamental truths of the universe and bases the book of these assumed premises.
I have yet to see rational proof in a god. I do not see faith as rational because it’s not a valid cognitive procedure. But you see, my mind is not as closed as I’m sure it comes off. I do not deny the possibility of a god existing. I just don’t believe in a god because I honestly see no reason to. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| ingold55 |
| Posted: Fri Dec 15, 2006 12:27 pm |
|
|
|
Joined: 10 Oct 2005
Posts: 1199
Location: Out on the front line
|
there is something Billy Gram said:
"You can not see God." God doesn’t want us to go on sight. that isn’t faith. He wants us to go blindly into the relationship with Him.
to add to this, there is so little proof for evolution, it is a faith issue as well. The only way we get the "facts" for evolution is from evolutionist who try to "prove" their theories. that is how "radiometric dating" (carbon dating i believe is what it is called) became so ineffective.
From what i have read, to get things into 1,000,000... the computor almost randomly places in numbers. it is only effective for the past couple of thousand years, because we can actually date back that far. past 7,000 it becomes in accurate.
they found some coal, and the machine dated it back to 1,000,000 years ago (approximatly) but the coal was really only a 800-1,000 (approximatly). |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Loosechange911 |
| Posted: Fri Dec 15, 2006 3:52 pm |
|
|
|
Joined: 14 Oct 2006
Posts: 29
Location:
|
Billy Gram was also assuming god exists. Please proof this premise before you work it into an argument.
As a high school student, I have no experience with radio-active dating. But I will say that I trust the top scientists in the world who scoff at the claim of earth’s age being 6000 years old.
I’m quite sure that our most sophisticated radio-active dating instruments do NOT have more than a 99.99% error. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Merrick_Hale |
| Posted: Fri Dec 15, 2006 4:52 pm |
|
|
|
Joined: 13 Apr 2006
Posts: 445
Location: Austin, Texas
|
| You’d be surprised at the assumptions that are made when doing things such as radio-carbon dating. As I said in the other thread, if the assumptions are wrong to begin with, your output will be wrong as well. I’m not saying that all Carbon-14 dating is wrong, there is just a large number of assumptions that are made at the beginning of the process that aren’t necessarily correct. |
Aaron Rhinehart
Rider of Rohan (retired)
DAgent #417 (retired)
This Incognito is a smooth operator - Lem0nhead |
|
| Back to top |
|
| La_Sin_Grail |
| Posted: Fri Dec 15, 2006 6:43 pm |
|
|
|
Joined: 14 Aug 2005
Posts: 806
Location: Maryland
|
Loosechange911 wrote: Billy Gram was also assuming god exists. Please proof this premise before you work it into an argument.
As a high school student, I have no experience with radio-active dating. But I will say that I trust the top scientists in the world who scoff at the claim of earth’s age being 6000 years old.
I’m quite sure that our most sophisticated radio-active dating instruments do NOT have more than a 99.99% error.
Finally, somebody who agrees with me.
I too believe that God MAY exist, I just think that IF he does, he does not have any impact upon our daily lives.
As for little proof of evolution.... 1) Logic says natural selection happens (if you don’t believe this, then I’ll scoff.) 2) Reason says that if natural selection can happen, so can evolution (I’m not in the business of alienating people so I won’t scoff at this), and I’m pretty sure it did.
How DO they know how old the coal is? I’m sure nobody in the Dark Ages said "Oh I know in 800 years, somebody is going to invent carbon dating, so I’m going to place a date on the original existance of this coal so they know it’ll be wrong." I mean.... comon. How do you really know how old the coal is? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| ingold55 |
| Posted: Fri Dec 15, 2006 7:06 pm |
|
|
|
Joined: 10 Oct 2005
Posts: 1199
Location: Out on the front line
|
Upon your own logic then L_S_G man can not date coal based upon Carbon dating, becuase we ourselves are making guesses, which makes Carbon Dating inacurate.
Did you know almost all the top scientist in history, (Isaac Newton, [and other scientist of the time] Albert einstein, Thomas Jefferson, Bengimin Franklin) were Christians. they were working on proving God, and his existance.
Natural selection:
you can not tell me natural selection says who will live (strong) and who will die. (week)
It is hilarious! i know some week people, who survive, and i know some "strong" people who haven’t.
Billy Gram assumus God, just like man assumes evolution. there is no valid proof of evolution, but on the other hand there is no valid proof of God. (except all of creation! can a world evolve from 1 molacule in space? and can that molacule make more molacules? no. then you ask the question, where did the molacule come from?) however, God doesn’t need proof to be God. Evolution needs proof to exist. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| La_Sin_Grail |
| Posted: Fri Dec 15, 2006 10:30 pm |
|
|
|
Joined: 14 Aug 2005
Posts: 806
Location: Maryland
|
ingold55 wrote: Upon your own logic then L_S_G man can not date coal based upon Carbon dating, becuase we ourselves are making guesses, which makes Carbon Dating inacurate.
I don’t follow your logic here.... um... what I’m saying is that the carbon dating process is basically extrapolation- they can measure the decay of carbon of objects with known dates and project the amount of carbon for specific time frames. Granted, because it’s extrapolation, it’s not 100% accurate... but it will easily tell millions from thousands.
Basically, it works like this. Carbon is found in every organic organism. It decays naturally. What scientists do is they measure the amount of a particular isotope of carbon in a substance to see how much it has decayed. Because they can’t confirm exact dates of very old objects, they cannot guarantee their exact accuracy. However, by charting the data on objects they do know, they can create an approximation of a line fitting the data and fit older things to that. With not overly much data past a few hundred years, this could not accurately tell very old objects (many millions of yrs.) from just old ones (less millions of years). This is on a sliding scale of increasing potential error- predicting a thousand years will have less error than a million. However, this difference is not significant enough to warrant a mistake of thousands versus millions, just to make a ballpark (15-20 thousand yrs instead of exact).
The top scientists in history tried to prove God and they all failed. Thanks for making my point for me
Natural selection is that those with beneficial genetic traits will survive more frequently than those without them, creating a stronger animal. This DOES NOT apply to people, but does to every other organism in the animal world. People have killed this concept amongst ourselves because even stupid people have kids.
Let me put it this way- in a pack of wolves, the alpha male and female are the only ones who can mate. They are the alpha based on mental or physical superiority. Therefore, the next generation of wolves was from only the most intelligent and powerful wolves, so they are stronger as well.
As for caribou, the sick are eaten frequently. Therefore those less susceptable to disease are more likely to survive. Hence stronger caribou.
Do I need to go on? I can if you need more examples, but I’m pretty sure you get the point.
As for no proff of evolution, explain a vestigial structure!! God doesn’t waste, does he? Then he wouldn’t have put a tailbone or appendix in a person.
God does not need proof to be god. If there was a god, he wouldn’t need to prove it. He doesn’t have to prove that god IS god, just that there is one. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| ingold55 |
| Posted: Sat Dec 16, 2006 12:37 am |
|
|
|
Joined: 10 Oct 2005
Posts: 1199
Location: Out on the front line
|
Did they all fail? can you prove it? i can. here is how they failed and why they failed.
1) God can not be proven. he doesn’t want they group that has to have proof of something to believe. He wants hard core Christians. though there is proof for God’s existance. i just haven’t done research on it completely.
your logic is that we can’t know how old coal is based upon. "How do we know how old coal is?" (your words) then we can’t know based upon carbon dating, because certain things will have more carbon in them than others.
not because they are older, but because of how they are preserved and what they are in. say a fossil was only 100 years old, but was in a group of highly over filled substances of carbon 14. that fossil would get alot of carbon, making it inacurate for the machins to read.
hmmm. lets say you have the alpha male, but the alpha male is annoyed with a mouse, because the mouse escapes his grip. (according to survival of the fittest) the wolf would have to die because he isn’t able to catch the mouse.
He doesn’t have to prove there is one. we as humans are so stupid we think there isn’t one. he has proven himself. have you looked out side? did you see the grass? did you see the trees? did you see people? are you telling me we all evolved?!!!!?
um. that is not proven yet, just as God "isn’t proven".
haven’t done annatimy yet, so i wouldn’t know that they are useless. but then i have to say they probably are useful at some time. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
All times are UTC - 4
|
Page 24 of 33 [329 Posts] |
Goto page: Previous 1, 2, 3, ..., 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, ..., 31, 32, 33 Next |
|
|
Forum index » General Discussion » Members' Lounge
