You have no earthly idea how radio carbon dating works, so don't over-simplify. The "cold" is actually the name given to a family of viruses that are usually killed much faster by your body's immune system (not the grace of God) than can be easily studied in a short time. What's the point in "curing" something that your body can cope with in 3-4 days?
BTW, it's not ONE billion years old, its about 4 Billion.
I understand the misguided beliefs behind a fallacious argument that the earth is less than 3 orders of magnitude old. It's based on the idea that the Judean calendar is correct up until 32 generations (IIRC). There isn't a single shred of evidence that this is true. Does this preclude God? No.
One last thing: kindly re-read your posts before you hit that post button. If your reader needs to re-read what you wrote more than once in order for you to be understood means that you've got to clean up your post.
Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.
now the fact that ur body can cope with the cold doesnt impress u? everything inside of us and on us seems to work perfectly and in tune with one another. the human makeup is an awesome system. you would rather believe that it just somehow came about or that it was laid out by a Creator. Intelligent Design is just that. our heart beats with out us telling it to, that baffles my mind by itself. I would rather believe in Creation instead of Big Bang theory, evolution, or any other sort of "theory" and based on Creation we are on a 6000 yr or so planet.
Quote:
now the fact that ur body can cope with the cold doesnt impress u? everything inside of us and on us seems to work perfectly and in tune with one another. the human makeup is an awesome system. you would rather believe that it just somehow came about or that it was laid out by a Creator. Intelligent Design is just that. our heart beats with out us telling it to, that baffles my mind by itself. I would rather believe in Creation instead of Big Bang theory, evolution, or any other sort of "theory" and based on Creation we are on a 6000 yr or so planet.
most of what you just posted was about evolution... this is not the topic of the post... tell us where exactly in the Bible it is quoted that the Earth is that old?
Zduece4: I am curious... you know that there have been alot of creatures on this Earth in its history, right? You know if the Earth is 6000 years old none of these creatures could have existed? Do you believe in the existence of all of the creatures that lived before man? These include everything from trilobites to mammoths and most were extinct long before we showed up.
Also, we have written civilizations that have existed longer than 6K years. We have mummified humans that are that old... what about the Homo sapiens that lived before that? Are their remains fake? I am not talking about other "cavemen", I am talking our species, which has been around long before written word.
It has nothing to do with C14 dating, you do not have to bother when history has been written down. It is simply common sense. Why do you think an old Earth threatens the Bible or belief in God? It doesn't because it is all interpretation.
Once again, there is no proof, Biblical or other, that suggests a "young" Earth.
People who believe in the 6000 year old Earth scenerio do so based on the generations named from Adam to Jesus, the problem is that they leave out the fact that Mankind was the final creation, many came before Man. Even then they have no idea how long or sort lived these early humans were or any concept of when they came on the scene. Using strictly Biblical evedence it can be shown that Earth is much older than the generations of Adam would suggest.
The Great Biblical Scolar and Church "Father" St. Athanasius said that God used "Created Evolution" in about 230AD and still people refuse to believe. His argument was simple. God cretaed the "Seeds of Life", he did not create things as we see them today.
Example.. You are a potter, you have an idea for a vase.. You in fact just created the Vase in your mind didn't you? Or, you form the vase from clay, and now you have a vase, it is created, but it's not finished is it? Noo, it has to be fired before it can be a finished product.
Point being that Creation is a process, it takes an unknown amount of time. Anyone who says it took X amount of time is either mis-lead, lying, or simply cannot see the whole picture. On top of that, they are ignoring every reputable Biblical scolar since the councel of Nicea.
Pure ignorance really. Please people, if you are going to say you believe in the Bible, please read it.
PAX
Zduece4 wrote:now the fact that ur body can cope with the cold doesnt impress u? everything inside of us and on us seems to work perfectly and in tune with one another. the human makeup is an awesome system. you would rather believe that it just somehow came about or that it was laid out by a Creator. Intelligent Design is just that. our heart beats with out us telling it to, that baffles my mind by itself. I would rather believe in Creation instead of Big Bang theory, evolution, or any other sort of "theory" and based on Creation we are on a 6000 yr or so planet.
I believe God created us too - but that doesn't mean that science is wrong. Nothing in science disproves God either. When you hear scientist speak, or perhaps other people speaking about science, you need to learn to separate scientific fact from theory. Real science can coexist with Christianity(and probably most other religions too). Who knows what a "day"(assuming "day" is even a good translation) is to God? Who says the "big bang" isn't how God chose to create everything?
The Bible isn't so specific to this point. Maybe that is on purpose as well. After all, even if God had went into more specific detail on this(and other topics such as physics) - we're only now for the first time at a point in history - where people(not all people either) are even capable of understanding these things. I could see why these things wouldn't be included in a book given by God to primitive man.
I've never heard of this "part throttle" before. Does it just bolt on?
Hahahaha wrote:Pure ignorance really. Please people, if you are going to say you believe in the Bible, please read it.
Amen.
I've never heard of this "part throttle" before. Does it just bolt on?
Quote:
I believe God created us too - but that doesn't mean that science is wrong. Nothing in science disproves God either. When you hear scientist speak, or perhaps other people speaking about science, you need to learn to separate scientific fact from theory. Real science can coexist with Christianity(and probably most other religions too). Who knows what a "day"(assuming "day" is even a good translation) is to God? Who says the "big bang" isn't how God chose to create everything?
The Bible isn't so specific to this point. Maybe that is on purpose as well. After all, even if God had went into more specific detail on this(and other topics such as physics) - we're only now for the first time at a point in history - where people(not all people either) are even capable of understanding these things. I could see why these things wouldn't be included in a book given by God to primitive man.
I couldn't agree more... people take what the Bible says WAAAYYY too literally sometimes. The thing was written in the first century AD for goodness sakes!
i never said it was EXACTLY 6000 yrs old. i said 6000 or so, im leavin an area open. i could see 10,000 but not billions. and i know the Bible isnt clear but mose people base it on where we are now and the birth of Christ and history before that.
thats it? that's the only reason you believe that the Earth is that old? Did you look at all the stuff we posted... doesn't it strike you as odd that ALL of the evidence on this planet points to a really old Earth?
Zduece4 wrote:i never said it was EXACTLY 6000 yrs old. i said 6000 or so, im leavin an area open. i could see 10,000 but not billions. and i know the Bible isnt clear but mose people base it on where we are now and the birth of Christ and history before that.
But... these same people are also using literal translation(which is kinda near impossible to do right on a book re-traslated through several languages) to calculate that relative age. Suppose for example that "day 2" was roughly 1.3 billion years on its own - that kinda throws that calulation off a bit I'd say.
I've never heard of this "part throttle" before. Does it just bolt on?
I still like the post about star light being seen and it's distance from earth...we know how far away the stars are (within a certain margin of error of course), and we know how fast light travels.
Ok here's the proof...http://www.howstuffworks.com/question94.htm
http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/archive/releases/1997/1997/33/astrofile/
with those two articles you can see that we're talking AT LEAST 25000 years of existance, and that's just what we can see right now with our technology.
our galaxy is 90,000 years wide. so figure that into the equasion, and that's the light you see right now, 2000years ago they saw the same light, and even before that time.
the bible is a book, it contains history, from several persons viewpoints. it's not going to be pure fact, because people from that time didn't know how things worked in the way we do now.
Once again I would like to correct the conception that the Biblke has been "Translated through several languages" it has not. Each "authorized" translation is direct from the closest available source. For some that is original transcripts and for other books the oldest available transcript is used. IE: original in Hebrew, old translation from Hebrew, new translation also from Hebrew, not from an old translation. Original is Greek, was translated to French, want English? Translate the English from the original Greek, not from the French translation. Whatever Bible you find (provided it's at least reputable) is translated from the oldest available source. It is NOT re-translated. This idea has got to go, it is very misleading.
That said, no version assigns a timeline to God's creation, to do so is folly at best and egotistical at worst.
PAX
No, but again, even if you go from the oldest written version, there will be translation errors. For someone that takes the bloody thing literally, there's going to be problems. See also: Red Dwarf, where Rimmer tells about is parents being Seventh Day Adventist Hop-ists, where a mistranslation rendered it "Faith, Hop, and Charity"
If we're going back to the original debate or evo. vs. creat., it's boils down toeither everything came from somethosething and was created, or all that is, was and will be, but constantly changing forms. Pick your poison because neither can be proven.
Still, i will take my origional stance in this: The earth and everything right now is FAR too @!#$ up to be only 10,000 years old. The only way i can see that happening is if god(s) do exist, but they are more of the malevolent, or at best, the "loki" type gods, and not the benevolent-type.
Goodbye Callisto & Skađi, Hello Ishara:
2022 Kia Stinger GT2 AWD
The only thing every single person from every single walk of life on earth can truly say
they have in common is that their country is run by a bunch of fargin iceholes.
Zduece4 wrote:now the fact that ur body can cope with the cold doesnt impress u?
You mean the fact that we use clothes to adapt ourselves to the environment when it is not conducive to our survival in nakedness? Sure, that does impress me. It's evolved behaviour. If you mean with A cold or viral infection: Again remarkable evolution, resistant forms of life live, those that can't, don't.
Quote:
everything inside of us and on us seems to work perfectly and in tune with one another.
You've never had an upset stomach, have ya? That's when things go out of tune. Cancer, ALS, Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, Huntington's... again... that's small misfiring of synapses causing larger problems. Our bodies are only as good as they are when they renew themselves.
Quote:
the human makeup is an awesome system. you would rather believe that it just somehow came about or that it was laid out by a Creator.
First: The human body is remarkable no doubt. It's even more remarkable that human constructions have similar mirrors in similarly evolved multi-cellular organisms.
Second: I'd rather rely on available information that agrees with other correlated empirical evidence. It's a cause-effect thing. If you seriously believe the idea of a 6000 year old earth, I sincerely hope you never have to deal with a criminal investigation, or really anything that has to deal with evidence... because you're sadly unprepared to deal with scientific laws, theories and principles that allow you to grasp what is actually happening in the world around you.
Quote:
Intelligent Design is just that.
Intelligent Design is the same thing as the wholesale rejection of scientific principles, mainly, that you prove your theory through experiment. C-14 carbon dating is only challenged by Christian "Science." The only idea that approximates ID while accepting real scientific principles is the original Big Bang theory, it explains roughly how the universe was created, but it did NOT preclude the existence of God.
Quote:
our heart beats with out us telling it to, that baffles my mind by itself.
You have no idea about how the heart works. You don't CONSCIOUSLY tell your heart to beat, but without your brain, your autonomic system wouldn't be able to regulate and co-ordinate your breathing and heartbeat.
That doesn't baffle the mind, this has been known for about 130 years. Welcome to the 19th century.
Quote:
I would rather believe in Creation instead of Big Bang theory, evolution, or any other sort of "theory" and based on Creation we are on a 6000 yr or so planet.
Creationism has no basis other than in the metaphor of Genesis. There is no empirical proof of the process through observation, and it cannot be tested through experiment.
Big Bang has basis in observation, and in an expanding universe.
Evolution, as well, is based out of empirical evidence (if you ever read Origin of Species, this would be plainly evident).
Look, before you start spouting off about things you do not know about, kindly acquaint yourself with at least the barest workings of the
Scientific process. Once you're done with that, learn a bit about the principles you're trying to discount.
And then, learn about whitespace, capitalization, and spelling. If you're going to try to counter what I or others have to say, don't disregard the mechanics of the printed English language.
Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.
GAM: I wouldn't waste your time... most of these people are painfully naive to the workings of science, whether it be their bodies or the Universe. They simply do not want to think any other way. To do so it "scandalous" to God or something. I don't get it.
You know he will not address your points if he bothers to respond at all. He'll simply state some other random observation on how complex life is or how he wasn't descended rrom a monkey. lol
I don't think it's at all fair to say the Intelligent design theory ignors scientific priciple, it is in fact heralded by scientific minds trying to correlate evolution to religious belief. They acknowledge evolution but do think it's random. They take logical steps through that evolution and have determined (in their minds that certain things do not make sense without some sort of plan.
They often use the doorstop to Mousetrap model. In Natural selection a doorstop could not evolve into a mousetrap simply because multiple mutations would have to occur both spontaneously and simultaneously. The doorstop could mutate to include a spring for example but natural selection would kill that step off because the spring has not purpose without the latch and the extra energy required to produce the spring would ensure that that mutation was weaker than its competition.
They will then point to a sperm cell saying that it has like a gear-box to drive the tail for swimming action. The tail is useless without the gearbox and the gearbox is useless without the tail.
At least they are trying to be somewhat logical about it. Much of what I have heard from that community makes sense to me.
I look at it like this.. We are observers on a planet. We can see very little of the universe from here, like looking through a cracked open door, we can only see one small slice of the room inside. Our perspective limits or perception and then we go around pretending that our observations constitute all there is know about the room.
Let's face it.. We know jack. Knowing what you know and knowing what you don't know, that is true wisedom. I am wise enough to know that we as a whole know almost nothing.
PAX
Thanks for quoting Socrates, now i have Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure going through my head.
From what I see, ID just says that someone planned all of this. Refer to my initial argument about how screwed up we ar and timeframes, and Benevolent vs. Malevolent deity. Or, go to Carlin: "If this is the best God can do--I am not impressed."
Still, it's a step forward, But i think the biggest issue with the americas is that they take religion far to seriously. Ever notice how this stuf doesn't seem to travel too far outside of America--except to places run by religious fanatics?
I see issue with that.
But, then again, what do I know, i'm just a human, nothing more than talking meat.
Goodbye Callisto & Skađi, Hello Ishara:
2022 Kia Stinger GT2 AWD
The only thing every single person from every single walk of life on earth can truly say
they have in common is that their country is run by a bunch of fargin iceholes.
GAM (The Kilted One) wrote:Intelligent Design is the same thing as the wholesale rejection of scientific principles
It is no such thing. Hahahaha said it pretty well though. Granted, some "Intelligent Design" advocates aren't intelligent enough to leave science in and their crazy fundumentalism out - but you can't judge the whole group that way.
I've never heard of this "part throttle" before. Does it just bolt on?
[quote=Keeper of the Light™]Still, it's a step forward, But i think the biggest issue with the americas is that they take religion far to seriously. Ever notice how this stuf doesn't seem to travel too far outside of America--except to places run by religious fanatics?
I see issue with that.
^^ agreed
with the exception of the middle eastern countries that are more religious than the US, how many religious problems do you see??
Not many in South America of Africa or Austraila, at least that I have heard of. It seems to me religion divides people more than it brings them together, which is an oxymoron in and of itself
After all these posts those people who say they believe the Earth is around 10,000 years old have yet to give any reasonable answer as to why they believe so, and no I will not count "It says so in the Bible" or "Science confuses me" as acceptable reasons.
in a nutshell, if u have even some basic education on history and biology, you know there is no way the earth is only 10000 yrs old.
religion/fundamentalism fuels ignorance. well at least IMO. of course, there's alot of past events that back this up.
(dark ages - catholic church battling scientific reasoning/middle eastern countries/etc..)
Orlandomon wrote:religion/fundamentalism fuels ignorance. well at least IMO. of course, there's alot of past events that back this up.
(dark ages - catholic church battling scientific reasoning/middle eastern countries/etc..)
Well I'd say that human nature itself fuels ignorance - Religion just happens to be one spark - but its hardly the only or biggest spark. C'mon its really not that hard to find people with ignorant views not even partially based on any religion. In fact its not even any harder.
And as far as the whole 6000 - 10,000 years old thing - well the funny thing is that no religion I know of says this and yet many of "the faithful" still believe it - nonetheless this is not a belief from any religion. As such you can't blame Christianity for this belief, but you can/should (more appropriately) blame good old fashioned genuine crack-pots for this.
I've never heard of this "part throttle" before. Does it just bolt on?
Hahahaha: Creationism and ID are pretty much written off as junk science by most of the scientific community, as interesting but not credible. I know of a bunch of engineers and science types that have a strong belief in God, but don't let it infiltrate into their work. Observation is observation.
SPITfire: I only went further because I found the Lex Luthor pic.
Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.
I'd like to see just how ID is "junk Science" they use scientific principles in their arguments. Could it be that people in the community just don't want to look at it? Kind of like in Physics string theory rules all even though there is not one single scrap of scientific evidence that it is correct? Even though they have not one single testible model? Could it be that String Theory is just wrong and yet 80% of the theoretical physics being done is related to string theory. Could it be just like that? See they don't stray from String Theory because they have been working on it for about 28 years.. Could it be that Natural selection is so entrenched that they just don't want to look at other possibilities?
Answer me this.. How is it that two seperate and yet dependent mutations could occur in a creature one at a time? Natural selection would render the intermediate stage dead.
ID does not deny evolution in any way, they only deny random mutation. Neither camp can truely prove if the mutations are random or not and considering the evidence will never be there for either then why is ID not just as plausible?
PAX
