Merged Religous Debate Threads

Well first off I was not attempting to prove God did it. I was pointing out how ridiculous the general theory of evolution is.

Biochemistry is observational science, it deals with the how not the why. We know how it works, I'm saying why are they doing it?

"that's just hocus pocus"? Exactly. The whole basis for atheist/naturalist saying that ID is not scientific is that there is no observable God phenomena. Life is not observable?

I don't see your point on this part.

Oh sure the moronic Richard Dawkins arguement, Religion is responsible for killing people. No, wacko's kill people. Blaming religion is how they try to avoid taking responsibility for their actions.

Well if there was a catastrophic global flood what would we find? Billions of dead things, buried in rock layers all over the world. And what do we find in the fossil record? Billions of dead things, buried in rock layers all over the world. It's funny reading fossil finds in the news from that perspective and seeing how many times they conclude that the animal "drowned", or was "buried in a mud pit", or they only find a few parts of the animal. Why? Because they were ripped to shreads and rapidly buried in a catastrophic flood!!

as to biochemistry. if i understand you correctly, your saying that we do not know what actually causes the interaction at the atomic level? a fair assessment would be that we know how electrons and protons behave when they interact but that actual reason they behave the way they do is unknown to us? if thats the case, i cannot attest to that because i am not a physicist. however at some point, there will be a bottom line, just because we cannot comprehend that bottom line in our current intellectual evolution doesnt mean we cannot eventually learn it. again, do not make the mistake that because we dont know it, it is automatically a sign of intelligent design. the logic does not follow. imperfections in one theory is not the validation of another argument.

i honestly have no idea who richard dawkin is... everything i have written in my posts has come from own train of thought. whether you believe that or not, i could not care less. a lifetime of indoctrination into a system that tells you to do something is hardly the work of a single person. it may be strongly influenced by whack jobs, thats a fact. the system however is self propagating, it constantly produces more whack jobs who otherwise may have been productive members of society.

what massive flood do you refer too? the only ELE on this planet wiped the dinosaurs off the face of the earth. trust me, science would have been all over that had they found evidence. the recognition of an ELE other than the dinosaurs would be motivation enough for at least one person in our history to pursue its research. so unless you know something i do not, i think your off base.
and frankly i do not think you understand the mechanics behind flooding on such large scales. animals ripped apart? do you understand the shearing forces required for that happen?
 
You moron. Check out the Hawaiian-Emperor Island chain. It is at least 75 million years old. A study of the formation of the Islands confirms a uniform continental drift rate. I'll explain.

Simply put, as the Pacific Plate slowly drifts over a hot spot, the Islands are formed.

The continental drift rates correlate to 98% with the radio metric dating of the volcanic rocks.

This also correlates with the growth rates of the coral reefs, erosion of the reefs, radiometric dating of the reefs, erosion of the islands themselves, dispersal of species, and size of the islands. All these things fit together and point to an age of teh Island Chain of over 70 million years.
Wow, the adolescent name caller finally steps up. My first question is which is it 75 million years or 70 million years? What's 5 million years eh. :redface: Don't feel bad, from reading your references apparently geologists can't agree either:
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/313/5791/1281The Hawaiian-Emperor Bend: Older Than Expected - Joann M. Stock
http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/hawaii/page12.html
"Hawaiian-Emperor Chain during its 70-million-year life..."
http://www.uhh.hawaii.edu/~kenhon/GEOL205/Chain/default.htm
The oldest volcanoes yet to be consumed are just over 65 million years old

I couldn't find the raw data to support your claim that the radiometric data correlates 98% to drift rate, just the nice graph which I assume is the basis for your claim. No matter, my real point is that the rock ages are not accurate. They were based on K-Ar dating which has been proven to be useless to provide "absolute" age in volcanic rock. http://icr.org/article/438/

It's quite funny that you would take a uniformitarian position (uniform continental drift rate) with this example as your own references blatantly refutes the idea. The various references clearly indicate rate changes by the location of the "old" end, the mendocino fracture, Hawaii's remote location, etc.,etc.
To top it all off, evidence of regular reversals of the Earth's magnetic field can be seen in the volcanic rocks, on different Islands. These reversals are typically thousands of years apart. According to your gay friends at AIG and ICR, all the reversals would have to happen on the same day. The evidence in the rocks on these islands proves that is impossible, as the reversals are in different layers, spread across thousands of miles.
The only thing I found in your references regarding rock magnetism was that it supported the theory of uniform growth of island chain during the particular periods before and after the mendocino fracture due to the orientation of their magnetic fields. Neither the articles you site nor my gay friends at AIG & ICR seem to indicate that the magnetism has anything to due with specific age.

Saying any one of these fields of study is off is one thing. But saying that a half dozens different fields of science, including about a dozen different areas of study with thousands of experiments and truckloads of research, which is all in nearly perfect accord with each other, are all incorrect (and incorrect together at the exact same rate), is absurd.

Here are some sources which confirm what I've just told you:

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/313/5791/1281
http://www.mantleplumes.org/Hawaii.html
http://www.mantleplumes.org/Hawaii2.html
http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/hawaii/page07.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_Hawaiian_volcanoes
http://www.calstatela.edu/faculty/acolvil/plates.html
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1988Sci...240.1737G
http://www.evcforum.net/RefLib/RadiometricDatingEvo.html
http://www.accuracyingenesis.com/volcano.html
http://www.geocities.com/earthhistory/reef.htm
http://www.uhh.hawaii.edu/~kenhon/GEOL205/Chain/default.htm
http://www.soest.hawaii.edu/GG/HCV/haw_formation.html
http://www.lermanet.com/exit/volcanos.html#2.1.6
http://mahi.ucsd.edu/Gabi/plume.html

Now if you're a normal, rational human being you will immediately abandon any theory that the earth is less than 75 million years old. Of course, the earth is much older than that. But this is just one easily understood example.
:rolleyes:
Well if you could rationally pose an argument that would help. Wow truckloads, I think your trucks are empty. The only science releveant to age issue at hand that you've provided support for by your references is the radiometric dating which I have addressed and the growth of the coral reefs. The size of the reef is a problem from a <10k year perspective if it was grown completely the way it is. What is not clear from current testing of the reef is whether it was fully grown or that it grew on top of a debris pile. Also as the reef is on a warm volcanic bed, endo upswelling would increase the growth rate of the reef.

It's funny you would make the claim that this example is in "perfect accord". Again from your references they suggest a more reasonable age of the reef @ 140k years. How does that make sense when the Island chain is supposedly 10x older?
Also at your reference http://www.calstatela.edu/faculty/acolvil/plates.html they claim:
Pangaea started breaking up about 200 m.y. ago. The "north Atlantic" began forming about 200-165 million years ago and the "south Atlantic" about 135 million years ago. At about this time India was starting it's journey from Africa to Asia. India was about to collide with Asia about 45 million years ago.
So the little Island chain took 75 million years to form at these slow rates yet in 200 million years all of Pangea split and moved into it's current position?
And finally, apparently the whole scientific community doesn't quite agree with your "perfect accord". From your reference:
http://www.mantleplumes.org/Hawaii.html
In conclusion, Hawaii is not fully explained by any current hypothesis. It is impressive that a region of the Earth so extensively studied for so many years, by so many Earth scientists with so many techniques could remain so intransigent to full understanding. Many of the numerous features that are not yet fully understood, and the parameters of alternative hypotheses, are not currently being studied, but they offer exciting research opportunities.:redface:
 
I just wrote a long reply pointing out a number of mistakes, quote mines, omissions, and misrepresentations you made, fitch. But you never thanked me for writing to you in the first place so I'll leave it out.
 
Pangaea started breaking up about 200 m.y. ago. The "north Atlantic" began forming about 200-165 million years ago and the "south Atlantic" about 135 million years ago. At about this time India was starting it's journey from Africa to Asia. India was about to collide with Asia about 45 million years ago.
Agreed.
 
Also, LOGICALLY, if there were predators around like dinosaurs in the time of Moses, wouldn't the bible mention that? Yes I have read the passage in Job that talks of dinosaurs, but it sounds like a fire breathing dragon to me, not a dinosaur. Also, don't you think human bones would be in close proximity to dinosaur bones. The argument that the world was made 6000 years ago by God is very illogical. There are too many things that don't connect.
There is alot of observational evidence indicating man and dinosaur lived at the same time:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dinosaurs.asp
God didn't write the Bible, man did. Maybe God let evolution happen. Maybe God got the ball rolling for evolution, knowing where it would end up. If you stop thinking about what the bible says, and start thinking about things logically, then you will see evolution is quite obviously true. And even if it's not somehow, that the world was NOT created 6,000 years ago as it says in the bible.
"Man wrote the Bible" - Ah the old skeptics arguement suggesting the Bible is a work of fiction. Actually man didn't write the bible, man recorded the bible as the Bible is among many things a book of history. The Bible has he proven to be so historically accurate it's used by archaeologists all the
time.
Maybe God let evolution happen - Genesis 1:31 And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.
We see here God saying "It was very good" not it was ok or it was good enough and I'll fix it later. If he has the ability to create why would he need to evolve it? True if molecules to man evolution were true it wouldn't debunk whether God exists and created. But why concede a falsity for no logical reason. Evolution in the molecules to man sense is NOT true.
No matter how hard atheists/naturalists want to shout, scream, and ignore science to the contrary. If you look at the data from both views. The bulk of evidence suggests the earth is young.
 
I just wrote a long reply pointing out a number of mistakes, quote mines, omissions, and misrepresentations you made, fitch. But you never thanked me for writing to you in the first place so I'll leave it out.
:icon_chee:icon_chee:icon_chee
This has to the most pathetic cop out posts I've ever seen.

I understand. I accept your admission of defeat.
 
Pangaea started breaking up about 200 m.y. ago. The "north Atlantic" began forming about 200-165 million years ago and the "south Atlantic" about 135 million years ago. At about this time India was starting it's journey from Africa to Asia. India was about to collide with Asia about 45 million years ago.
Agreed. MILLIONS OF YEARS.
 
that reference shows nothing! what does it explain? it says that it is easy to walk a path of evil. really? wow, i didn't know that!
but thats not the context you are using it for. i'm going be totally honest with this and it will come off as trolling and maybe inflammatory.
the reference in the context you just used serves no purpose other than social control. plain and simple, its a fear tactic commonly used by bible thumpers to scare people into following the ways of the church and by church i really mean the ways of men, which by the way are corruptible in case you missed my previous posts.
The passage basically shows Jesus stating that few will stand faithful. Other scripture states that many will fall away in the end of times: 2Peter3:
Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts,
And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.
It's obvious you have been reading the atheist propaganda that Christianity is a form of social control by fear. It's really a pathetic notion. Suggesting Christians only believe out of fear would be laughable but not because it appears many non-Christians are buying the notion. Christians follow Christ because they believe his ways are morally correct and bring piece and happiness to your life and at the end their is the benefit of eternal life. Big name atheists are now cashing in writing books calling out religion, Dawkins & Harris primarily Christianity, Hitchens Islam. It's marketing genius but it's also pathetic bigotry and intolerance. The really sad part is that the more people buy into the notion, the more it will cause a reduction in the social programs of many churches across the country.

you said this
the truth of the passage is that you should always walk the path of good. do good things, be a kind and gentle person. follow in the ways of jesus.
what you implied is that even though we are trying to live good lives just as jesus taught, that man has somehow become our judge, rather than god. we live a good life as jesus taught. jesus was not referring to a set of antiquated social customs instilled into the bible for no purpose other than social control. MAN IS CORRUPTABLE! how many times must i say that. GOD DID NOT WRITE THE BIBLE! MAN DID!
I don't understand how I implied man is our judge, please explain. Nor do I understand your claim that Jesus was out for social control. How could you ever come to that absurd conclusion?
Men did not write the Bible. God authored the Bible, men just recorded it.

i pose a question...
are we straying from the path because we are not living good lives? or because we are not following the letter of the law from the bible?
Lack of belief in Jesus. If you truly believed in him you would read the Bible and follow his commands. Living good is merely a result thereof.
 
something else i just thought up to highlight why we should not view the use the bible as the bottom line for right and wrong.
god freed the jews from slavery. this was whole moses speech, let my people go bla bla bla.
so on that precedent, no one person should be subject to another. sort of an all men created equal style of idea. god didnt free the men of israel, he freed everyone; men, woman and child alike. by that logic, men and woman stand on equal ground when it comes to injustice from fellow humans. so why is it that women are the property of men in the bible? why was mary so afraid? why is adultery a sin besides the broken bonds of trust and deceit? the bible clearly shows that slavery, or subjection of one person to anothers will against their own is a sin. so why does the bible also propagate the subjection of woman to men? why is sex before marriage so heinous? because the womans virginity is the prize. it is mans attempt to covet, that which is not his and used the bible to achieve that end.
its another clear contradiction of logic in the bible. another reason why man is corruptible and proof that god did not write the bible.
Read Ephesians 5 carefully and pretty much all of your questions will be answered.
 
Big name atheists are now cashing in writing books calling out religion, Dawkins & Harris primarily Christianity, Hitchens Islam. It's marketing genius ... the more people buy into the notion, the more it will cause a reduction in the social programs of many churches across the country.
Yay!


More lions!

Less Christians!
 
Sorry, something in particular you care to discuss? I didn't know this an atheist only forum.

Sure! How about you address the logical boo-boo of the trinity. As i said in another thread, and not Christian was able to respond properly:


Poor me. Here I am a lost atheist who is struggling to understand the Christian doctrine with the hopes of finding God but this gosh darn triune thing makes my brain hurt. You see, I have trouble buying that there exists more than one being (triune) and yet they are one




There exists more than one being (triune) = 1.(&#8707;x)(&#8707;y)~x=y
2.asm: (&#8707;x)(y)y=x
3.(&#8707;y)~a=y (from 1)
4.~a=b (from 3)
5.(y)y=c (from 2)
6.a=c (from 5)
7.b=c (from 5)
8.a=b (from 6 and 7)
9. ~(&#8707;x)(y)y=x (from 2, 4 contradicts 8) It's false that there's exactly one being.



The problem is that there cannot be more than one and yet only one. help! I need spiritual guidance. pray for me.
 

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,234,834
Messages
55,311,001
Members
174,733
Latest member
NiTrok
Back
Top