Are you blind, Chistians

[W210]

well you could do the calculations yourself, from 2 (noahs ark) x 0.5 (supposed growth rate), and the numbers would be true.

that may be part of the prolem, there were 6 people on the ark not 2

If something worked they didn't fix it. Thats why there are still tribes people who still use bow and arrow to hunt and straw huts to live in. Also humans showed up half a million years ago, not a million. And if you look at the link that i posted it shows discoveries made 500,000 years ago that we know of

Most of those cultures that are like that today do it to kind of rebel, in a way to keep their history alive. And how would we know anything from 500,000 years ago, that was before written language right?

 

[Glockmatic]

500,000 years ago homo sapiens (us) began to appear. They know its from 500,000 because they have found tools during archaeological digs. Just look it up, tired of typing this stuff

 

[TecK NeeX]

I really can't believe some people still hold the belief that Earth and Mankind are only 6-10 thousands years old

 

[marc]

W210 are you serious ? At first I thought you tried to trick and provoke Glockmatic to have some fun.. but I begin to doubt.

Look, humans brains were smaller thousands of years ago. Because of certain inventions (fire, wheel, arrow, ...) they were able to survive better. They became able to eat meat and store more meat than before. Through fats and proteins their brains grew bigger (no, not in 100 years, but thousands !!!!) Evolution has a lot to do with "luck" and "chance". Yes its true.
I didnt believe it myself. But look, if you dont have 0 $, its hard to make 1$. But if you already own 1$, its easy to make 2$ out of it.
Same with technology. if you dont have to worry about your next lunch, you have time to develop something else.

 

[TecK NeeX]

Plz leave the religion of Evolution out of this

 

[W210]

500,000 years ago homo sapiens (us) began to appear. They know its from 500,000 because they have found tools during archaeological digs. Just look it up, tired of typing this stuff

And let me guess we know this through the same dating process that tells us dinosaurs lived 65 million years ago and live snails are 12,000 years old.

 

[W210]

I really can't believe some people still hold the belief that Earth and Mankind are only 6-10 thousands years old

I cant believe that people believe everything they are spoonfed on the discovery channel, regardless that there is absolutely no proof.

 

[Glockmatic]

And let me guess we know this through the same dating process that tells us dinosaurs lived 65 million years ago and live snails are 12,000 years old.

Did you not read my other posts? YOU CANNOT CARBON DATE MATERIAL OVER 40,000 YEARS OLD. Carbon dating requires living tissue, dinosaur bones have none because minerals have taken place of the bones. Snails have 12,000 year old shells because snail shells are made of sand/minerals and not living tissue.

 

[W210]

W210 are you serious ? At first I thought you tried to trick and provoke Glockmatic to have some fun.. but I begin to doubt.

Look, humans brains were smaller thousands of years ago. Because of certain inventions (fire, wheel, arrow, ...) they were able to survive better. They became able to eat meat and store more meat than before. Through fats and proteins their brains grew bigger (no, not in 100 years, but thousands !!!!) Evolution has a lot to do with "luck" and "chance". Yes its true.
I didnt believe it myself. But look, if you dont have 0 $, its hard to make 1$. But if you already own 1$, its easy to make 2$ out of it.
Same with technology. if you dont have to worry about your next lunch, you have time to develop something else.

Now this is ridiculous.

So if we dig up a small person then he's real old because his skull isnt very big. I hope no one ever digs up sam cassels bones a few thousand years from now who knows what they'll say. There is way too much variations in size and shape of human skulls to ever determine this.


And more important than luck and chance, evolution depends alot on a wild imagination and blind faith, not to mention going against scientific laws.

 

[marc]

Are you kidding? I dont think you need to post in this thread anymore, because YOU, a Christian zealot, ARE blind, my dear friend.

I never said people who believe are stupid, because of their belief. I dont judge them.
You sir, are an idiot though. You just deny scientific facts and come up with wild fantasies. Next you say muslims eat children.

Go educate yourself. Dont just come up with random theories that dont have any basis.
Go into any library near you and R E A D a book yourself. Also, look out for an author who has actually studied and worked on the subjects.

I just cannot believe your blatant hypocrisy. You deny any facts and claim people are spoonfed with lies and fantasy stories by discovery channel and any other scientist. Yet you just copy paste some fanatics' theories... w00t

 

[W210]

Are you kidding? I dont think you need to post in this thread anymore, because YOU, a Christian zealot, ARE blind, my dear friend.

I never said people who believe are stupid, because of their belief. I dont judge them.

Wow I guess I hit a nerve. I didnt say you thought anyone was stupid, were you reading this thread?? And you dont judge people, but you call them zealot's and blind??? confused

You sir, are an idiot though. You just deny scientific facts and come up with wild fantasies. Next you say muslims eat children.

What scientific facts am I ignoring??? I would love to hear this. But I do come up with wild fantasies the other other day I imagined myself evolving from a jellyfish, it makes sense when you look in the mirror, its easy to see the resemblence.

Go educate yourself. Dont just come up with random theories that dont have any basis.
Go into any library near you and R E A D a book yourself. Also, look out for an author who has actually studied and worked on the subjects.

Actually Im college educated and rarely come up with theories with no basis.

I just cannot believe your blatant hypocrisy. You deny any facts and claim people are spoonfed with lies and fantasy stories by discovery channel and any other scientist. Yet you just copy paste some fanatics' theories... w00t

How am I being a hypocrite?? I think ive been pretty consistant. And I dont deny any facts. I deny evidence as being fact. There is evidence supporting creationism but I would imagine you would deny that. But dont worry Im not going to go off on a wild tangent and call you names or anything because I wouldnt do that to a dear friend. And creationism is no more a fanatics theory than evolution.
So if you have anything for real to add be my guest...w00t

 

[W210]

Did you not read my other posts? YOU CANNOT CARBON DATE MATERIAL OVER 40,000 YEARS OLD. Carbon dating requires living tissue, dinosaur bones have none because minerals have taken place of the bones. Snails have 12,000 year old shells because snail shells are made of sand/minerals and not living tissue.

Carbon dating requires once living tissues. And using the other dating methods such as potassium, uranium, thorium and rubidium, require alot of human assumptions thus, we have here astounding evidence of the marvelous unreliability of radiodating techniques. Rock known to be less than 300 years old is variously dated between 50 million and 14.5 billion years of age! That is a 14-billion year error in dating! Yet such radiodating techniques continue to be used in order to prove long ages of earth’s existence. A chimpanzee typing numbers at random could do as well.



And snails shells are made of calcium-carbonate that they make themselves.

 

[Glockmatic]

Carbon dating requires once living tissues. And using the other dating methods such as potassium, uranium, thorium and rubidium, require alot of human assumptions thus, we have here astounding evidence of the marvelous unreliability of radiodating techniques. Rock known to be less than 300 years old is variously dated between 50 million and 14.5 billion years of age! That is a 14-billion year error in dating! Yet such radiodating techniques continue to be used in order to prove long ages of earth’s existence. A chimpanzee typing numbers at random could do as well.

What rock do you speak of that is 300 years old? Volcanic rock? Read up on how that is formed. 17 different independant researchers dated meteorites and have dated the universe to be around 4.5 billion, there is nothing older than that so i don't know how you got the number of 14.5 billion years

And snails shells are made of calcium-carbonate that they make themselves.

The springs, from which the snails came, were fed by carbonate aquifers. As this water percolated through the enclosing carbonates, it dissolved limestone and dolomite hundreds of millions of years old. The dissolution of limestone and dolomite introduced considerable quantities of "dead carbon" into the groundwater. As a result, the groundwater which fed the spring and in which the snails lived was significantly deficient in carbon-14 relative to what is found in the atmosphere. When the snails made their shells, they incorporated an excess amount of "dead carbon," relative to modern atmosphere, into their shells, which resulted in the excessively old apparent date. (Riggs, A. C., 1984. Major carbon-14 deficiency in modern snail shells from southern Nevada springs. Science 224: 58-61.)

 

[Jokerman]

What scientific facts am I ignoring? But I do come up with wild fantasies the other other day I imagined myself evolving from a jellyfish, it makes sense when you look in the mirror, its easy to see the resemblence.

Well, in this post alone you’re ignoring the scientific fact that you and the jellyfish are made from the same organic compounds, your cells are very similar, and you share a lot of the same genes. Instead, you focus on mere appearances as your standard of determining what’s true or not. Gee, I wonder where you got that viewpoint from? I suspect from the same place I got my wild fantasy from.

My wild fantasy involves me imagining that I was created in the image of the Invisible Man, aka God.

 

[W210]

What rock do you speak of that is 300 years old? Volcanic rock? Read up on how that is formed. 17 different independant researchers dated meteorites and have dated the universe to be around 4.5 billion, there is nothing older than that so i don't know how you got the number of 14.5 billion years

Yea the rock was from a recent lava flow in hawaii, and it is known to be just over 200 years old. And the 14.5 billion years is the number the dating process gave. I posted it to show the inconsistencies, and unrelieability of the dating methods that we use. Time life even reported on it.

Same with the snails, I dont doubt that the info you provided is true, but how do we know that the other things that we date havent been tainted as well, we only knew about the snails becase it was happening here and now. Our dating methods require alot of assumptions about the environment of the sample for the past several thousand years.

 

[W210]

Well, in this post alone you’re ignoring the scientific fact that you and the jellyfish are made from the same organic compounds, your cells are very similar, and you share a lot of the same genes. Instead, you focus on mere appearances as your standard of determining what’s true or not. Gee, I wonder where you got that viewpoint from? I suspect from the same place I got my wild fantasy from.

My wild fantasy involves me imagining that I was created in the image of the Invisible Man, aka God.

Well that is pretty funny when the genes are brought up I must admit. I am not ignoring anything. Evolutionist claim that human and chimpanzee genes are like 98% the same, which to me is funny, because the genes you inherit from your mother and father are at a maximum 93 percent similar. And also the homoglobin that is often used to support the close relation to chimps is also very similar to that of slime molds which doesnt prove anything to me.

So using evolutioist logic, a cloud is 98% water, a jellyfish is 98% water and a watermelon is 98% water. Did all these evolve from the same thing, I dont think so that 2% makes a heck of a difference.


And I bring up appearence only to address the common sense of those who posess it.

 

[Glockmatic]

Yea the rock was from a recent lava flow in hawaii, and it is known to be just over 200 years old. And the 14.5 billion years is the number the dating process gave. I posted it to show the inconsistencies, and unrelieability of the dating methods that we use. Time life even reported on it.

if you didn't know, magma (aka liquified rock under the earths crust) is billions of years old, and when it comes out of a volcano it doesn't become a NEW thing, it hardens and becomes rocks. It doesn't change its age somehow. Give me a link where a scientist (A REAL SCIENTIST) aged a rock to be 14 billion.

Well that is pretty funny when the genes are brought up I must admit. I am not ignoring anything. Evolutionist claim that human and chimpanzee genes are like 98% the same, which to me is funny, because the genes you inherit from your mother and father are at a maximum 93 percent similar. And also the homoglobin that is often used to support the close relation to chimps is also very similar to that of slime molds which doesnt prove anything to me.

So using evolutioist logic, a cloud is 98% water, a jellyfish is 98% water and a watermelon is 98% water. Did all these evolve from the same thing, I dont think so that 2% makes a heck of a difference.


And I bring up appearence only to address the common sense of those who posess it.

you know nothing about evolution

 

[Glockmatic]

Same with the snails, I dont doubt that the info you provided is true, but how do we know that the other things that we date havent been tainted as well, we only knew about the snails becase it was happening here and now. Our dating methods require alot of assumptions about the environment of the sample for the past several thousand years.

"Major Carbon-14 Deficiency in Modern Snail Shells from Southern Nevada Springs", in Science, April 6, 1984, Vol. 224, No. 4644, pp. 58-61.

That is where creationists get the 27,000 year old number, but they only pick out the excerpts that prove their "carbon dating is unreliable" theory. The thing they don't do is READ THE WHOLE ARTICLE. It clearly states why it's 27,000 years old, but of course you don't believe in science, so it must be fake/wrong

 

[W210]

if you didn't know, magma (aka liquified rock under the earths crust) is billions of years old, and when it comes out of a volcano it doesn't become a NEW thing, it hardens and becomes rocks. It doesn't change its age somehow. Give me a link where a scientist (A REAL SCIENTIST) aged a rock to be 14 billion.

But if Im not mistaken, the aging comes from it is exposed to certain
chemicals, Ill look it up.

you know nothing about evolution

Neither do the scientists that attempt to explain somthing, they have no proof ever existed.

 

[W210]

"Major Carbon-14 Deficiency in Modern Snail Shells from Southern Nevada Springs", in Science, April 6, 1984, Vol. 224, No. 4644, pp. 58-61.

That is where creationists get the 27,000 year old number, but they only pick out the excerpts that prove their "carbon dating is unreliable" theory. The thing they don't do is READ THE WHOLE ARTICLE. It clearly states why it's 27,000 years old, but of course you don't believe in science, so it must be fake/wrong

This is not the only example of this dating being unreliable. Look up how it is actually done. Dating the same sample can yeild thousands of years, and even more, in time varience. Scientist choose which date to keep based on their preconcieved assuptions.