Reply With Quote
You crack me up.
So are you saying if I go to a website that talks about Abe Lincolin'sYou just don't get it. cutting and posting from that site is NOT proof of anything.
.
assassination and paste my findings in here its not proof it happened?
I guess I better not post anything from NASA's website its all lies also.
Oh, and congrats on your new job.
See you at the GTG on Saturday!!
wtf?Oh, and congrats on your new job.
I'd be more worried if you gave me points.
how is it that you have a problem with NASA's website but you believe hack jobs that splice together bits and pieces of 9-11 explosive device footage on youtube?
NASA 1
mouse 0
I have read this whole topic and my scores show:
Phenomanul 6
Blake 4
BacktoBasics 4
z0sa 5
phyzik 4
The Power Hour. 3
mouse 0
Joe Chalupa 1
Since the earth's magnetic field is decaying at an exponential rate, its strength would have been unrealistically high 25,000 years ago. Thus, Earth is less than 25,000 years old.
The size of the Mississippi River delta divided by the sediment ac ulation rate gives an age of less than 30,000 years.
The largest stalac es and flowstones could have formed in about 4400 years.
The oldest coral reef is about 4200 years old .
The oldest tree in the world is 4300 years old .
The oldest historical records go back less than 6000 years .
The existence of short period comets means that the universe is less than 10,000 years old. Comets and meteoroids only last from 10,000-15,000 years before they are blown apart by the solar wind.
There are no fossil meteorites in the geologic record. If the latter were laid down over billions of years we would expect to find at least a few fossil meteorites in the geologic strata. Therefore, the geologic record was deposited rapidly.
The volume of lava on earth divided by its rate of efflux yields only a few million years. The earth is not billions of years old.
If we divide the amount of various minerals in the ocean by their influx rate we get only a few thousand years of ac ulation. Therefore, the earth is young.
Modern textbooks, in effect, tell us that FROGS+TIME = PRINCE.
Evolution is merely a theory.
Evolution is a religion, not part of science.
Those who believe the earth is billions of years old will typically try to discredit one of the above arguments and then mistakenly think that they have successfully proven the entire list wrong.
If the universe is not billions of years old, then we need not bother with the other arguments supporting evolution.
I really don't give a rats ass if this is a copy and paste will one of you Darwin worshipers address some of these issues? Can Blake put down his Troll zapper for 5 minutes and answer the post?
I have read this whole topic and my scores show:
Phenomanul 6
Blake -4
BacktoBasics 4
z0sa 5
phyzik 4
The Power Hour. 10
mouse 10
Joe Chalupa 3
Lurkers 20
Do I really look 4 Billion years old? Even a million sounds bad, you guys are not helping my low self esteem.
4 Billion years, I thought it was 5 Billion, anyone have a youtube link that shows the real date?
What I don't get is why God would wait 4 Billion years just to listen to........
Yeah... it's measureble because we know it to be a constant that can't be exceeded... except somehow we also have to admit to the fact that this velocity was once breached...
Look honestly, pin-pointing the exact age of the Universe is less important to me than acknowledging that it was driven by an Intelligent, Purposeful, Creator... whether Earth is 100,000 years old, 4.6 billion years old or whether or not the Universe is 13 billion years old is less consequential to me than admitting that the Universe was created with our creation in mind -- completely against the notion in the Copernican Principle that suggests that the probability of finding other life bearing (sentient producing) planets is high since the universe is vast...
What good is that tidbit of knowledge (the universe's age) if we take the "Why", and the "Who" out of the equation??? Earlier I was alluding to the physical constants that govern our universe (such as strong and weak forces, the speed of light, the energy density ratio, Plank's constant, the gravitational constant etc...) Do you realize just how finely tuned those constants are??? Most people are rarely confronted by that question... or its implications...
Take the strong force for example... if it were any stronger by even a billionth of a percent, hydrogen would not have been the big bang's most abundant product (discounting dark matter)... without gaseous hydrogen stars would not have formed... and without stars, heavier elements would not have been produced... For that matter, the carbon/oxygen ratio produced by stars is a perfect match with the requirements of life... that ratio would dramatically increase to 30,000:1 for that very same change to the strong force, instead of the 8:1 ratio we observe today. And if the strong force were any weaker atoms would not have coalesced to begin with...
Fact is, there are way too many factors that point to the notion that the Universe, Earth and life are beyond uniqueness... If the configuration of our universe produced by the Big Bang had resulted from chance alone the odds would have been highly stacked against creating the exact mix of physical constants that would be conducive to the existence of life. Any other configuration of those constants (about 15 major constants and 15 minor constants) would have produced a detrimental impact towards the creation and sustainability of life. And yet our exact mix is what was produced by the Big Bang... This odds-defying combination is more than mere coincidence and a reason why many astronomers are the first to tell you that the universe had to be created...
Unfortunately, people would rather listen to the likes of Carl Sagan or Richard Dawkins, in order to boost their own disbelief rather than to accept what is plainly obvious... at least to most other astronomers and physicists... Or they would rather buy into the multiverse notion before admitting that the Universe was intricately designed... even though proof for such a theory (multiverse) is not even testable...
BTW sorry that I couldn't answer your reply in a timely manner... I had surgery yesterday...
Last edited by Phenomanul; 05-30-2009 at 07:13 PM.
You make a good point but the truth is as long as the non believers can say the earth is more than 10,000 years old it makes the Bible out to be all lies.
But they go a step further they say the earth is 4 Billion years old so no matter what you say it makes no sense on why a creator would wait so long to create man and thus they will always have scoreboard on you.
It's like you trying to tell me how to build a truck and my great grandfather was Henry Ford you will always be beneath me on that subject.
Bottom-line the atheist have their bases covered.
Let them have their fun in the Sun we can laugh at them later on Judgment day.
so in your opinion, is the purposeful "Creator" the same God of the Bible? and if so, is that Bible truly the word of God?
so in your opinion, is the purposeful "Creator" the same God of the Bible? and if so, is that Bible truly the word of God?
Did I stumble upon a broken record...??? Don't change the crux of the argument...
I'm simply expounding on the improbable odds that the universe required to produce life. Intelligent minds have found more than enough intertwined perfection in Creation to attribute such findings to mere coincidence alone... Others here would rather suggest that belief in a Grand Designer is beyond reproof, and cannot stem from intellectual logic...
Learned men and women, do in fact, believe in GOD despite all the naysayers who would wish to convince the world that only dumb, ignorant, people are capable of such beliefs... That agenda of theirs unfortunately, has been bought by the masses...
Isis, Amun-Ra-Osiris, and Horus all ruled the planet for over 5,000 years.
Why are they not worshipped now?
Because they are fake? mythologies? For over 5,000 years, they ruled humanity.
Think about that when you talk about your god. Things change, religions change. It's all man-made.
Not knowing how the universe started =/= proof that there MUST be a creator. And if it was, doesn't the creator need a creator and so on?
MiamiHeat is in trouble now, Manny in da house!
Last edited by rolled up $20; 06-02-2009 at 01:15 AM.
the dude is Money
Last edited by rolled up $20; 06-02-2009 at 01:14 AM.
Did I ask such a difficult question? Do I really need to open a new thread to ask:
"in your opinion, is the purposeful "Creator" the same God of the Bible? and if so, is that Bible truly the word of God?"
No... not difficult at all...
I simply refuse to answer it based on our previous exchanges... You enjoy insulting others who don't share your perspective - I get it... and you've never conceded an argument if and when others point out that you've constructed an incomplete/inaccurate/irrelevant or biased argument. By now you should know that conceding an argument and conceding the discussion are not the same thing.
So if I recognize a futile pattern when I see one.... why waste my time indulging your insincere requests?
Besides, my escatological beliefs were never the focal point of my argument; so why bring them up?? No need to open up another thread...
I didn't state it quite that way Manny.... I don't validate my belief in GOD with anything remotely close to 'scientific' proof... I've stated that much on several occasions; specifically that my own belief in GOD has come on terms of faith alone...
What I did point out as mind-blowing, was an oft' overlooked concept about the very nature of our universe... One which stands out because it seems that the physical properties which govern our Universe are honed specifically so that life could exist. The physical constants are so finitely tuned... that one must at least accept the notion that the emergence of life was made possible only because they are configured the way they are... Infintessimal changes to several of these constants would have resulted in a Universe void of atoms, stars, and ultimately life...
But you're right... that observation alone doesn't prove that GOD created the Universe... Logically, however, it does challenge the notion that chaotic probability alone was behind it all... In fact, the staggering odds involved has basically forced outspoken atheist astronomers and physicists to place their unwavering faith on finding proof for the existence of a multiverse or validation for other theories along those lines...
Lastly, every time I enter these discussions it's been to dissuade the notion that only "uneducated ignoramus" believe in GOD. Many prominent thinkers, both in our past and the present, hold deeply religious views at their core.
Ultimately, I'm also compeled to point out that Science has not settled the GOD question... no matter what anyone says to the contrary. You'd be surprised to know how many people think that Science has answered the "GOD question"... not realizing of course, that the tool is grossly mismatched for the task.
Last edited by Phenomanul; 06-01-2009 at 11:10 PM.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
