I really NEED to say this.
- Locked due to inactivity on Aug 4, '16 4:22pm
Thread Topic: I really NEED to say this.
-
@unexpected What are these "facts." Go on, I could use a laugh.
-
^I'm with SKW up there. Please do enlighten us with these 'facts'.
-
The bible is the word of God because the bible says so.
We know this because The word of God is true.
And like I said before, the bible is the word of God.
Duh, it all makes sense. -
*smiles*alright, only if you really want to be laughing at yourself. really, I was almost convinced by evolution too- it seems like they have ALL the facts. but actually? after a trip to the Creation Museum this summer, I realized that they're missing a lot, and infering a lot of what they don't know- missing out on major things.
a)carbon dating. this supposedly tells us how old the world is, right? well, actually, something the evolution supporting scientists didn't notice or forgot to tell us is that the speed of carbon dating is changing, and actually, the world is a WHOLE lot younger than it is said to be- as in thousands, not millions or billions of years.
b)natural selection. Natural selection IS NOT evolution, and people can get that mistaken. For example, look at all the different races of humans. Black, white, and shades in between, eye colors, hair color...you get the picture. But that was from natural selection- not evolution. Living in different spaces and marrying the people who they were close to(aka natural selection) over time developed certain characteristic like skin color. Notice that none of us have had baby monkies recently, and no monkies have had baby humans, as far as I am aware, in the past...ever.
c) need I go on? Alright. I will. Dinasours. Yeah, they exist- in fact, there are some even recorded in the bible, about monsters and sea creatures, things like that- and we just so happen to have found bones for skeletons of dinasours. yup, same exact things.
Anyways, I told you it was found in the Bible, over 2000 years ago, as this is in the Old Testament.
Job chapter 40 verse 15, and Job chapter 41 both talk about two different creatures that match up with dinasours almost exactly. One is called "Leviathan" and the other "Behemoth".
For more info on that research, check out: [no urls]
Leviathan means sea monster, and Behemoth means a huge or monstrous creature.
If you read the passages carefully, you'll see that they match up to dinasaurs.
Hope this helps you realize some things. There's a lot more, that's way over my head, too. -
sorry. ecclesia dot org dash truth dash dinosaurs dot html
-
excuse me, can you actually tell me what carbon dating is? I honestly believe that if you actually knew what you were talking about, you would understand why saying that it's "speeding up" sounds like an incredibly misinformed load of bull crap.
Secondly, I live in the same state as the creationist museum. I find that fact very embarrassing. Look up interviews with the "scientists" who started it. They openly admit that they'll ignore evidence because it contradicts religion. That is no grounds on which to build an educational facility.(And I use the term educational lightly)
What the hell does marrying people who you're close to have anything to do with natural selection? Look up the fucking definition of natural selection. It's not, "I choose to mate with this person." It's "This trait means I'll survive longer".
And the idea of having baby monkeys isn't even related to natural selection. That is misquoting evolution. And once again, you are incredibly misinformed. You're honestly trying to tell us that humans and monkeys are parallel. That we were the exact same gene type and that all it'll take is a change like skin color to make us identical. That is a horribly gross over exaggeration and a pathetic place to start an opposition.
As for quoting Job, I've already pointed out the flaws in using the bible as a reference. But even such, I did my research on the Leviathan and the Behemoth.
There wasn't very much of a description for either , and the description for the behemoth sounded like an elephant or water buffalo. Not a dinosaur.
Honestly, people like you make me sick. -
And your website is a Christian forum site. Nice source kiddo.
-
Of course, barberbob. You don't need to get snippy. I know it sounds really complicated, but really we learn about it in 9th grade biology, and it's not as intense as it sounds- though it does make a world of difference.
And I totally hear what you're saying- but you know what? I used to almost be convinced of evolution too. Until I got BOTH sides of the arguement. So the fact that you're not willing to hear both sides just because you don't understand carbon dating is really frustrating, actually.
Anyways, I'll address your "water buffalo/elephant" first. aka the dinasaur. (btw, that site just has more info than me, it's not where I got my info. I got my info from the Bible.)
Like I said, read carefully. Isaiah 40:17 says "Its tail sways like a cedar; the sinews of its thighs are close-knit."
Both a water buffalo and elephants, and hippos and whatever other creature that this sounds like, has a short tail. And that is why I said read carefully. There tail is short and thin, especially compared to a cedar. And what has a tail like a cedar that matches the rest of the description? A dinasour. Any more Qs?
As for carbon dating, as you don't understand it. Again, I do know what I am saying. I'm not just going to read some poster and be like, "Oh! Okay! I'll go spout this off to someone next chance I get and sound so smart." No matter what you'd like to think, I'm not like that. I investigate both sides of the matter, search for the truth. If someone challenges me, I don't back down- I go get more research.
So, carbon dating. If you look it up, this is the given definition. "1.The determination of the age of an organic object from the relative proportions of the carbon isotopes carbon-12 and carbon-14 that it contains. The ratio between them changes as radioactive carbon-14 decays and is not replaced by exchange with the atmosphere."
as I said before. It shows carbon seeping out as something decays, and apparently it never fully dissappears, as it only keeps dividing itself. The speed of that, though, changes, and that's what the scientists forgot to mention or didn't realize. The speed has changed on carbon dating on objects, and if it did, it would put us right on track as to where the Bible's 'timeline' says we should be- not millions and billions of years old. -
No offense unexpected, but I would seriously like to see you win an argument against Bob. I dont think ANYONE has ever done that, he is one of the most respected people on this site.
-
It's all good, Skyler. I'm sure he is respected, and has earned that respect. But I'm called Unexpected for a reason. Expect the unexpected - one of my favorite phrases, because it's so true. I'm not saying that I'm going to 'win' or 'lose', or anything along those lines. Because that's not why I'm saying what I say. And likely? Neither of us will actually win or lose. because unless bob becomes convinced or can't top it off, we're at a draw. and that's how most debates end.
but that's the thing about it. We all have the choice to believe and the choice not to believe. It's whatever you choose. -
>Used to go to a Christian School.
>College level Biology by 9th grade.
>And you're telling me to get both sides of the story.
Are you fucking serious? -.-
I feel like I'm talking to a brick. You literally just restated exactly what you just said. Half of it you have still yet to actually explain.
I wasn't asking you what Carbon Dating is. I know what it is. I was asking you if you actually knew what you were misusing in your argument. Carbon decay does not change pace. We have it's speed of decay measured. Carbon reaches it's half life at 5,730 years. At that time, half of the total carbon 14 in the material has decayed. So if you consider all the carbon 14 in the material at the start to be a whole, or 1. Then in 5,730 it will be at 1/2. In another 5,730 years the total amount left over will have decayed. So one half of one half would be, 1/4. If you study a fossil and see that 1/4 of the total carbon 14 is left, then you can estimate with reasonable efficiency that the object in question is 11,460 years old. The pace does not change.
Whilst most philosophers are puzzled by "tale of cedar" part. A widely accepted idea for this would be the look and shape of cedar. The bristles.
As I've said before, the bible isn't a source either. A book written by 2,000 year old sheep herders is not a source. It is an article of faith. There is nothing factually provable in it, nor are there any viable sources. In the eyes of science and the scientific community, the bible is a fairy tale. A cute story.
I'd also like to point out something about your post that really pissed me off. Most of it was hollow. You spent more than half of your post not answering my question. Most of it was spent telling me I'm wrong and that I don't know what I'm talking about, without you ever actually explaining anything. The bit that you did explain was poorly researched at that. Your argument was a strawman. Fluff text. And I would appreciate it if you'd stick to the cold hard facts and quit boosting your ego. -
Really guys? C'mon, let's not disrespect Hunter any further.
-
you're right, bro. I'm sorry.
-
yeah, and HOW was I supposed to know this? I'm not psychic. And I sort of feel like I'm talking to a brick, the only difference is one that is calling me names.
Hikaru- in no way am I disrespecting Hunter. you all remember him, and evidently fondly. This isn't about Hunter anymore.
Back you you, barberbob.
a) you seriously just said, "I wasn't asking you what Carbon Dating is." um, yeah, you did. in your earlier post, you said:
"excuse me, can you actually tell me what carbon dating is?" all of your words are recorded.
even if you were asking it to test my knowledge, I did answer the question correctly. It wasn't fluff talk- it was my explanations of why I'm going about explaining this the way I am. In no way am I "boosting my own ego" or not sticking to "hard facts". I would also like to mention that it is the THEORY of evolution, NOT the FACT of evolution. So, if you'd please, then. Stick to your own advice.
And work on your own arguemnt, not mine. If you keep dissing another, it only shows that you don't know what else to say.
If you're going to say the Bible isn't proof- prove it. I can show you things in there that are extremely true, lined up with different event, things that have been proved true. But most people either turn their head as they don't want to hear or don't know.
Back to evolution. Please, don't even try to use the Christian school excuse. As I've done the opposite- been in public school all my life. While you had Biblical scriptures as homework, I had teachers attempting to stuff evolution down my skull. So, obviously I know what evolution is.
If you'll notice, you just told me everything I already knew about carbon dating AND COUNTERED in my last post. I said in my previous post, "The speed of that, though, changes, and that's what the scientists forgot to mention or didn't realize. "
If that's what you'd like to think about my post, go ahead. But you can't know that though, as you can't hear the emotion in my voice when I speak. And if it sounded hollow, good. Because that means I'm stating solid facts like a debate is supposed to be.
I'm trying to stay respectful to you when I reply- half your article is blaming me of being an extreme idiot and dissing me. I'd appriciate it if you could cut it. -
Unexpected. The fight is over. This is disrespecting him.
This thread is locked, therefore no new posts can be made.
