Goggles or no goggles my interest in the material is 1000x that of your typical person. And without boasting (<-- a comment never taken lightly around here), my understanding of it is also well above that of your typical person.
The issue however is not how I choose to interpret what I find or read... the issue is that I try to reconcile what I have found with concepts and principles from 8 or 9 other scientific fields... something many scientists nowadays are failing to do.
Bottom line. I'm not easily swayed by misinterpreted scientific opinion that is drawn from legitimate scientific data but don't mistake that for me having developed a case of 'tunnel-visionitis'.
Besides, my spiritual belief system is completely independent from how the 'scientist in me' chooses to see the world. That is based strictly on a personal relationship with GOD.
Last edited by hegamboa; 08-18-2006 at 04:01 PM.
Not unguided.... I'm a proponent of a guided-adaptation theory.I'm sorry, I just find it funny that someone who is intent in disproving the veracity of the current evolutionary theory by saying its unguided is quoting Noah's flood as if it is a proven fact. Just curious, do you actually believe in Noah's ark?
And yes, I believe in Noah's flood.
heg, stfu dude.
Carbon dating is a farse? Right there just tells me how big a re you are.
It's silly to outright say evolution is false. Explain the existance of Erectus skeletons everywhere or Neanderthalensis. This alone is pretty solid evidence.
How about things which rapidly reproduce? You can see evolution and natural selection in bacteria. Poison them and eventually one bacterium will have a mutant gene to where the poison does nothing. The others all die and this new bacteria continues. Fast forward 15 million years and hundreds of thousands of changes have been made to the bacteria DNA. It wouldn't even be considered the same species anymore.
And humans didn't evolve from monkeys people. Monkeys and humans evolved from a COMMON ancestor. That's why there's still apes and humans. They both evolved seperately from some ape/human thing that has yet to be found.
"Explain the existance of Erectus skeletons"
These "religious" jerks believe that when their "God" created the universe a few 1000 years ago, He faked all the evidence scientists have found so the universe seems to be 14B years old, further proof of their "God" is all powerful. Their "God" is a prankster.
Incoming wall of text.
I'll offer a different view of creation and end. Science.
13.7 billion years ago the universe is created from near nothing. The big bang scatters matter in all directions. The strong and weak nuclear forces come into existance. Particles collide and reactions occur. From the most elementary particles, common elements like hydrogen and helium occur.
Particles bump into eachother in space. They randomly trade electrons and become charged. This happens over and over again. Opposite charges attract and form clumps. When this clump is several miles wide it has enough gravity to bring in more particles. Heavy elements will sink to the center of this mass. High pressure and heat start a nuclear reaction and a star is born. Fast forward several billion years. The star is dying and explodes in a supernova. The process starts over again. Scattered particles bump into eachother and slowly over millions of years clump up. A new star will be born, our sun. Farther chunks of mass form away from the sun in the same process. They are too small to start a nuclear reaction and the sun's gravity places them into orbit. There are 30-40 planets orbiting the sun.
Planets collide with eachother and become larger. The earth is a very hot planet, the entire surface is molten and will take thousands of years to cool. Heavy elements like iron sink into the center of the earth. High pressure creates a solid iron and nickel core. It is surrounded by a molten liquid core. This rapidly spinning metal creates a magnetic field that extends thouands of miles into space and protects the young earth from the deadly solar wind from our sun.
Fast forward again. The earth is cooling down. Jupiter is formed. It's massive gravity sends asteroids in the outer asteroid belt into erratic orbits. These asteroids are 15-25% water. Over millions of years they bombard the earth, very slowly creating water. Fast forward a bit. A mars sized planet is on a collision course with the earth. It hits. The energy created melts the earth's surface. The mars sized planet is in millions of pieces, orbiting the earth. It will slowly all collect into our moon. This young moon is 15 time larger in the sky and 10 times closer to the earth than today. It slowly drifts away.
The moon creation places the earth on a tilt and the moon's gravity keeps it that way. Tides are created. The moon, much closer to the earth, has a massive effect on oceans. Seas are washed into the mineral rich land, forming a primordial soup. At the bottom of the oceans under high pressure and heat, the first life forms are created. Simple DNA. Over many years this will become a bacterium. These first bacteria will slowly use photosynthesis to convert the carbon dioxide in the air into oxygen. The iron-rich ocean will absorb most of the oxygen, creating rusty clay that will settle at the bottom of the sea waiting to be found by mankind, a good proof of what happened during this stage. Eventually the air has enough oxygen to support different life forms. The oceans hold all life for years. Slowly creatures will walk on land. Reptiles and birds will come along. Dinosaurs will live and die. Continents will shift and the moon will get farther.
Somewhere the common ancestor to apes and man will reach a fork. One species will become apes, gorillas, chimps. The other path will create erectus, neanderthals, and eventually, sapiens. We have only been around for 200,000 years tops. Dinosaurs survived 160 million years. We are a tiny speck on a timeline that extends 13,700,000,000 years.
And what about the end of all life? Depending on the structure of the universe, it's grim no matter what. Either the universe keeps expanding, spreading out heat until all life ends in a big freeze, or the universe stops expanding and starts to contract, ending all life in a big crunch. If it crunches, the big bang can start over again, with a totally new universe and no proof of any other ever having existed. If it's a big freeze, then everything will end for all eternity.
Some people say it all sounds just as fictional as a creation story based in religion, but it's backed by solid facts. The laws of the universe, it's just the way things work. While I believe the science having done a lot of study in astronomy (not astrology, psuedo-science), it's all too perfect to have no creator. Why have a universe at all instead of nothing? There must be a purpose, there has to be a creator that created all these laws of physics, these atoms, life in itself. with no creator, the universe is nothing but a machine to test evolution. A simulation if you will. A big bang occurs, life evolves, it all ends, it starts over. Different every time because of the randomness of evolution.
I believe in a soul. No species is as advanced as ours. None has the thinking power of our brains. We are advanced enough to simulate life and creation on supercomputers. Is there an afterlife? When we die, are we reborn? Into a different universe? Or do we ascend into a heaven? Or is life meaningless, and when you die, it's all over. It's possible that humans are so advanced that we are our own creation, living in a real Matrix. Unfortunately, the only way to find out is to die. Only then is the question answered. What is the meaning of life? That question alone created religion. That alone drives the will to live in many people.
Smeagol, I don't think of the God we serve being constrained by man's definition of reality or any evidence we may be able to come up with. I personally don't want to put God into a box that would cause him to be viewed as limited in what he's able to do. We don't have the capacity to fully understand his power, do you agree?
Again, I'm not stating that I believe the earth is or isn't 6,000 years old, I am saying that based on arguments for a young earth, it's quite possible. No one can flat out prove the age of the earth but in order to come up with an intelligent response to the question we should educate ourselves with both sides of the arguement.
Evidence for a Young Earth:
Introduction:
Contrary to what we have been told over and over again by the evolution-believing mass media, the "scientific" establishment, and old-Earth / slow-Creationists (who don't want God to get too much glory), there are, in fact, numerous geophysical and astronomical clocks which point to a young age for the earth, solar system, and universe. In fact, these young-earth measuring rods are in the majority. But because the scientific establishment and the mass media are biased in favor of evolution, and against the Creator, and because evolution requires an old earth in order to appear plausible, the public at large is rarely informed of the mounting evidence that contradicts the old earth dogma of evolution.
In the pages that follow we discuss 22 clocks, or indicators that the Earth and Universe are young: in fact, much less than the purported 4.5 billion year age that evolution-believing "scientists" have proclaimed (over and over and over again), with the hearty approval and assistance of the agenda-driven, evolution-promoting, and Heavily Biased mass media, who speak of evolution as if it were a fact of science.
Time Clocks:
A "clock" is any geophysical or astronomical process that is changing at a constant rate. Clocks may be used to estimate how long a process has been going on for. All clocks (including radiometric ones) require the use of at least three assumptions. These are:
1. The rate of change has remained constant throughout the past.
2. The original conditions are known.
3. The process has not been altered by outside forces.
In each of these cases it is not possible to prove that the above assumptions are true. For example flooding can greatly alter sedimentation rates, and with clocks over 5,000 years old, the original conditions cannot be known with certainty. Therefore scientists must make a guess with regard to what they believe the original conditions might have been. The shorter the time involved, the more likely it is that a specific process has been constant, and unaltered by external influences.
The following clocks point to a young earth, solar system, and universe. Taken together, they suggest that the earth is quite young -- probably less than 10,000 years old.
Clock
Age Estimate
1. Receding Moon
750 m.y.a. max
2. Oil Pressure
5,000 - 10,000 years
3. The Sun
1,000,000 years max
4. The Oldest Living Thing
4,900 years max
5. Helium in the Atmosphere
1,750,000 years max
6. Short Period Comets
5,000 - 10,000 years
7. The Earth's Magnetic Field
10,000 years max
8. C-14 Dating of Dino Bones
10,000 - 50,000 years
9A. Dinosaur Blood and Ancient DNA
5,000 - 50,000 years
9B. Unfossilized Dinosaur Bones 5,000 - 50,000 years
9C. 165 Million Year Old Ligaments 5,000 - 50,000 years
10. Axel Heiberg Island
5,000 - 10,000 years
11. Carbon-14 in Atmosphere
10,000 years max
12. The Dead Sea
13,000 years max
13. Niagara Falls
5,000 - 8,800 years max
14. Historical Records
5,000 years max
15. The San Andreas Fault
5,000 - 10,000 years
16. Mitochondrial Eve
6,500 years
17. Population Growth
10,000 years max
18. Minerals in the Oceans Various (mostly young) Ages
19. Rapid Mountain Uplift Less than 10 million years
20. Carbon 14 from "Old" Sources 10,000 to 50,000 years
21. Dark Matter and Spiral Galaxies 100 - 500 million years (max)
22. Helium and lead in Zircons 6,000 years
For those interested, the following link goes into detail on each of the 22 points and more.
http://www.earthage.org/youngearthev...oung_earth.htm
Thanks for your annual pop-in into the Political forum...
If you can tell me exactly how carbon dating works without the need to google it.... you know what? Forget it. I don't need to prove anything to you. Coming in here as if you know me... please.
All I need to say is that carbon dating has limited applicability. Most people don't even realize that carbon dating only works for a limited range of years into our past. But let me guess, you didn't know that.
Explain the deformed mummies of Guanajuato México? (they have an explanation BTW due the heavy mineral deposits in the area)... we would be duped were someone to say they were a new hominid subspecies. Or how about the flat heads of the Mayas? If we knew nothing about their culture (which fortunately we do) would we assume that they were a different species as well? Or the little feet of chinese women would they too be classified as a different species if they were unearthed in the future without knowledge of their culture? The list of physiological alterations from cultural differences is large. Long necks of the tribe in Africa. The shrunken heads (and sometimes complete skeletons) created by some polynesian cultures.
Sometimes the most exotic explanation isn't always right.
Oh BTW... there are only a handful of complete skeletons of other ' ' species. Quan ies not sufficient enough to consider significant samples. Consider for example that we have found several hundred complete fossils of the same species on different continents (Africa and S. America). That amount readily allows paleontologists to proclaim with absolute certainty that the sample size was sufficiently large enough to declare it as a species.
Remember the 'Brontosaurus' debacle? Only one fossil existed, and the particular paleontologist (I can't remember who) plucked the fossilized head off of one fossilized species and put it on the body of another.
Yet somehow with regards to our human ancestors, we let this criterion slide. Little old 'Lucy' represents one of few complete fossilized nid skeletons. Several other hominid species however consist of a few thousand different bones here and there. Please.
And the Bible makes references to Giants and sons and daughters of Angel/human hybrids... but I guess you wouldn't ever factor that into any of your theories today.
Last edited by hegamboa; 08-19-2006 at 09:20 PM.
Such a feeble explanation for what 'the other side' believes I believe... laughable.
It's no wonder you can't even understand my premises.
Last edited by hegamboa; 08-19-2006 at 08:59 PM.
How old are the angel skeletons you have seen?And the Bible makes references to Giants and sons and daughters of Angel/human hybrids... but I guess you wouldn't ever factor that into any of your theories today.
Does it matter if I've dug one up or not? The point is that what we find may not always be what we would want it to be --- i.e. another supposed missing link.
So the world is only 6,000 years old? Seriously, gtfo of here with that re ed . If I want my intelligence insulted, I'll go to church.
Absolutely.Does it matter if I've dug one up or not?
OK CD... go get me some anti-matter.
Otherwise, I won't believe it exists (even though I do).
It would make a difference.
Go back and read my posts... otherwise you've insulted yourself. (Reading comprehension 101)
Yes it would, I don't deny that. I believe those Giants existed. , If Yao Ming were found 2000 years from now and all written human history was lost, would Yao's remains be declared a new species?
Last edited by hegamboa; 08-20-2006 at 12:58 AM.
hegamboa has expressed more than once his view regarding the age of the Earth.
Learn to read before trying to be a smart ass.
Furthermore, you don't need to go to Church to have your intelligence insulted. You are a full time idiot.
Well, he believes in the bible, correct? Go read up on it, see how long they give earth's history.
I am not about to research Heg's entire post history so it can apppease you.Learn to read before trying to be a smart ass.
Coming from you.Furthermore, you don't need to go to Church to have your intelligence insulted. You are a full time idiot.
I wasn't asking about giants.
The Bible quoted them (angel/human hybrids) as being giants.... that's the connection.
Did you get some anti-matter yet?
How could you tell they were angels?
There were bad giants too if I remember correctly.
And the difference here is I don't care at all about anti-matter.
You care alot about giant mutant angels.
aaaahhhh funny!!!
No, to your dismay I don't hinge my beliefs on the discovery of angel fossils... (kind of reminds me of a Simpsons episode)
The point I was making was that I don't need to have first-hand contact with something in order to believe in it -- i.e. I don't require the discovery of fossilized angelic remains, to believe that some angels crossbred with humanity -- or for that matter than angels exist. Nor do I need for you or anybody else to retreive/create anti-matter in order for me to believe that anti-matter exists. One was written down in the Torah of Jewish history, and the other is a valid scientific theory. I happen to believe them both.
Last edited by hegamboa; 08-20-2006 at 01:08 AM.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote