It's possible to cross-check the dates using different elements, and they generally are a close fit. While it's conceivable, if unlikely, that some event - massive H-bomb testing by prehistoric lizard people? - would alter the levels of one isotope or another, there's no imaginable way that the isotope ratios of multiple elements would be simultaneously changed in a mutually consistent way. The only way for that to work would be if God created the world recently and made sure that every piece of matter on the planet had misleading isotope ratios.Correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't radioactive dating rely on the assumption that the number or distribution of particular radioactive isotopes throughout environments was exactly the same now as thousands years ago (or more)? Where's the evidence?
Who the hell would believe in evolution???
Started by
Guest_MichahSimmons
, Jan 09 2006 08:34 PM
1136 replies to this topic
#1026
Guest_BillDoor
Guest_BillDoor
-
- Guest
Posted 31 October 2008 - 11:10 PM
#1027
Guest_im8act
Guest_im8act
-
- Guest
Posted 01 November 2008 - 01:58 AM
I believe it. I'm Christian and I believe it. Science has proof, so it seems perfectly fine to me. Sure the Bible has a certain telling of creation and such, but think about it. It was composed at a time when the general answer to everything and anything was either "God!" or "Magic!" Some facts are sure to be false, or at least not completely correct. Besides, ancient man didn't start making really detailed accounts of event until around 4000 BC (quesstimate), so anything could have happened inbetweeen. The way I see it, God started the Big Bang, sat back and helped here and there when needed.
Edited by im8act, 01 November 2008 - 02:00 AM.
#1028
Guest_...haku...
Guest_...haku...
-
- Guest
Posted 01 November 2008 - 04:38 AM
evolution is real -.-u cant say u honestly beleeve in god hahahahand adam and evei kno we r supposed to keep it g rated on the forums but... if adam and eve existed... tht means evrybody is insest ( inbred) wich also means... redy for this?we r all insest and going to this so called HELL hahaha rely religus pple will beleeve anythingoh and also evry war in history if it wasnt started over gold it was started bcos of religionworld war 2 = jewish fault...POINTS were deducted for this post by hookshot-Please refer to the forum rules to find out why your points were deducted.
#1029
Ragamuffin
-
- Dragon's Sentinel
-
- 637 posts
Old Man Internet
Reputation: 232
Perfected
Posted 01 November 2008 - 04:16 PM
Why not? Just because you don't, doesn't mean that no one else can. Many people believe in both.evolution is real -.-u cant say u honestly beleeve in god hahahah
Well, religous beliefs and theories aside, any genealogist would tell you that we're all related in some form, even if we haven't shared the same blood for hundreds of generations. Also, 'incest' can be considered "not incest", (ie, marrying a first cousin) in one place, but only considered incest in another place if it's immediate family.and adam and evei kno we r supposed to keep it g rated on the forums but... if adam and eve existed... tht means evrybody is insest ( inbred) wich also means... redy for this?we r all insest and going to this so called HELL hahaha rely religus pple will beleeve anything
Right, no wars were ever started because of land/territory, civil rights, import/exports, or unjust laws created by dictatorsoh and also evry war in history if it wasnt started over gold it was started bcos of religion
That has got to be one of the stupidest goddamn things ever said, by anyone. Hell, even a large number of the Aryans and Neo-Nazis don't beleive that.Oh, and learn to type. Thanks.world war 2 = jewish fault...
POINTS were deducted for this post by Póg Mo ThóinPlease refer to the forum rules to find out why your points were deducted.
A state of war only serves as an excuse for domestic tyranny. -Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
#1030
Guest_Brendon93
Guest_Brendon93
-
- Guest
Posted 01 November 2008 - 11:45 PM
Actually, the Bible only mentions Cain and Abel as Adam and Eve's sons. Perhaps the rest of man was created by him to populate the earth as opposed to having four humans roam such a grand mass of land. And I don't think there is such a phrase as "evrybody is insest" Perhaps you mean everyone is born through incest. Incest isn't an adjective, t'is a verb. :)As for those last two lines, those are sheer ignorance. Sorry if that came off as baiting or flaming, but it really is. I won't disagree and say there hasn't ever been a war based on religion, but when that is the case, it's normally just an excuse to get support. The war was probably waged for other causes. So if it wasn't gold, it was probably for power, land or because of a disagreement. FYI, WWII started because of things that had nothing to do with the Jews. One of the reasons it started could be because Hitler tried to relinquish the Soviet Union as a world power, take their land from them and quash Communism. Not because everyone saw a Jew and was all "Onowayz, let's go to war because Jews are alive."evolution is real -.-u cant say u honestly beleeve in god hahahahand adam and evei kno we r supposed to keep it g rated on the forums but... if adam and eve existed... tht means evrybody is insest ( inbred) wich also means... redy for this?we r all insest and going to this so called HELL hahaha rely religus pple will beleeve anythingoh and also evry war in history if it wasnt started over gold it was started bcos of religionworld war 2 = jewish fault...
#1031
Guest_Kent Vonce
Guest_Kent Vonce
-
- Guest
Posted 03 November 2008 - 10:20 AM
Okay... Let's back up a bit. Adam and Eve did not have only three children. They had more. It just so happens that only three were mentioned. Moreover, Back then God did not outlaw incest simply because there was no point. If there were a limited populace, that would be the only rational decision. Incest would not have had any adverse effects as they do now because if Adam and Eve were the first people, then their genes would be the closest possible to perfect. They NEVER got sick. They lived will into their 900s. and such.Actually, the Bible only mentions Cain and Abel as Adam and Eve's sons. Perhaps the rest of man was created by him to populate the earth as opposed to having four humans roam such a grand mass of land. And I don't think there is such a phrase as "evrybody is insest" Perhaps you mean everyone is born through incest. Incest isn't an adjective, t'is a verb. :awesome:As for those last two lines, those are sheer ignorance. Sorry if that came off as baiting or flaming, but it really is. I won't disagree and say there hasn't ever been a war based on religion, but when that is the case, it's normally just an excuse to get support. The war was probably waged for other causes. So if it wasn't gold, it was probably for power, land or because of a disagreement. FYI, WWII started because of things that had nothing to do with the Jews. One of the reasons it started could be because Hitler tried to relinquish the Soviet Union as a world power, take their land from them and quash Communism. Not because everyone saw a Jew and was all "Onowayz, let's go to war because Jews are alive."
#1032
Guest_6SuN$Jyp)Z!.]t%G
Guest_6SuN$Jyp)Z!.]t%G
-
- Guest
Posted 03 November 2008 - 04:42 PM
a - "They had more. It just so happens that only three were mentioned." - So you're not just quoting something that is intended to prove itself, but you're making up things to go along with it? If only three were mentioned, why does that imply there were more? Does it say that? Be more specific.b - God is infallible, so there would have been no need for incest (it's a sin, you know!).c - Do not EVER talk to us about genes if you don't know how evolution works. EVER.d - Any evidence for people "never getting sick" or living to be 900 years old? Any at all? If you say "the Bible", I'm just going to put you on the pretty ignore feature I recently discovered.Okay... Let's back up a bit. Adam and Eve did not have only three children. They had more. It just so happens that only three were mentioned. Moreover, Back then God did not outlaw incest simply because there was no point. If there were a limited populace, that would be the only rational decision. Incest would not have had any adverse effects as they do now because if Adam and Eve were the first people, then their genes would be the closest possible to perfect. They NEVER got sick. They lived will into their 900s. and such.
#1033
Guest_trancebam
Guest_trancebam
-
- Guest
Posted 04 November 2008 - 03:45 AM
a - It implies that there were more because Cain had a wife, as did Seth, and their sons had wives. Those wives went unnamed, as did a majority of their children. The Bible gave the direct line of names from one important character to the next early on.b - I'm tired of hearing that argument. Incest didn't become a sin until it was necessary in order to preserve humanity.c - "Evolution" is only a theory. The mutation of genes isn't only explained by evolution.d - You seem to have the habit of deciding to ignore arguments you don't agree with rather than arguing. Close minded?a - "They had more. It just so happens that only three were mentioned." - So you're not just quoting something that is intended to prove itself, but you're making up things to go along with it? If only three were mentioned, why does that imply there were more? Does it say that? Be more specific.b - God is infallible, so there would have been no need for incest (it's a sin, you know!).c - Do not EVER talk to us about genes if you don't know how evolution works. EVER.d - Any evidence for people "never getting sick" or living to be 900 years old? Any at all? If you say "the Bible", I'm just going to put you on the pretty ignore feature I recently discovered.
#1034
Guest_darkknight014
Guest_darkknight014
-
- Guest
Posted 04 November 2008 - 04:05 AM
I'll let Nazer take that one.a - It implies that there were more because Cain had a wife, as did Seth, and their sons had wives. Those wives went unnamed, as did a majority of their children. The Bible gave the direct line of names from one important character to the next early on.
How would it become necessary for humanity's survival to outlaw procreating with a member of your family? As I see it, that only increases the population, and therefore the survival rate.b - I'm tired of hearing that argument. Incest didn't become a sin until it was necessary in order to preserve humanity.
http://notjustatheory.com/Please, read up on scientific vocabulary before you make a stupid argument like that.c - "Evolution" is only a theory. The mutation of genes isn't only explained by evolution.
He argues rather than arguing which makes him close minded? What?d - You seem to have the habit of deciding to ignore arguments you don't agree with rather than arguing. Close minded?
#1035
Guest_trancebam
Guest_trancebam
-
- Guest
Posted 04 November 2008 - 05:04 AM
Nazer can't take that. He has me on ignore, because like I replied to d, and you apparently misread, he chooses to put people on ignore rather than argue.It would decrease population in the long run due to recessive genetic defects.I'm well aware of how science decided to redefine the term theory to help itself gain popular vote.I'll let Nazer take that one.How would it become necessary for humanity's survival to outlaw procreating with a member of your family? As I see it, that only increases the population, and therefore the survival rate.http://notjustatheory.com/Please, read up on scientific vocabulary before you make a stupid argument like that.He argues rather than arguing which makes him close minded? What?
#1036
Guest_darkknight014
Guest_darkknight014
-
- Guest
Posted 04 November 2008 - 05:21 AM
It didn't redefine the word to gain the popular vote, that has always been the scientific definition of the word. I'm starting to think I should put you on my ignore list.
#1037
Guest_6SuN$Jyp)Z!.]t%G
Guest_6SuN$Jyp)Z!.]t%G
-
- Guest
Posted 04 November 2008 - 08:52 AM
He's already on mine. I'll take that quote though.I'm starting to think I should put you on my ignore list.
Right, right. So because there were more people, obviously there must have been incest. Everybody loves incest. God, too, or god might have a slightly better idea than incest (but I guess not - nobody's perf- OH WAIT). The fact that "the wives went unnamed" should unnerve you somewhat in itself. I thought your god loved all his creations, and humans especially? Were these women who apparently were forced into incest of less worth than the "important characters"?a - It implies that there were more because Cain had a wife, as did Seth, and their sons had wives. Those wives went unnamed, as did a majority of their children. The Bible gave the direct line of names from one important character to the next early on.
He's just upset I put him on my ignore-list. It had something to do with his fondness of re-defining words to fit his agenda (you know, saying there IS evidence for god's existence, but that it's not HARD evidence, plus saying that speculation is evidence too, if I'm not mistaken).We've been over this before, TB, stop using ad-ignorantium arguments, and stop redefining words, and more importantly, read up on what you discuss. A theory is not the same as a hypothesis, and it's about damned time you learned it.He argues rather than arguing which makes him close minded? What?
#1038
Guest_Kent Vonce
Guest_Kent Vonce
-
- Guest
Posted 04 November 2008 - 09:30 AM
Well if you really knew how genes worked then you would know that Only one half of the chromosomes exist in a sperm cell or egg cell. These cells have only fractions of any natural physical characteristics of the body. So if Cain or Abel Or Seth were born of Adam and Eve, it would follow that their genes would have less of these physical characteristics.That is why today incest is dangerous. Especially since there are a whole buch of diseases that are passed through genes.c - Do not EVER talk to us about genes if you don't know how evolution works. EVER.
You're assuming that ALL situations were the exact same as they were in that context. So therefore back then incest wasn't an issue. Today it is. So stop that. Just because they're not mentioned does not denote any less love. The stories and characters were chosen because there was something to teach. Cain and Abel would probably never have been mentioned had Cain not killed Abel.Right, right. So because there were more people, obviously there must have been incest. Everybody loves incest. God, too, or god might have a slightly better idea than incest (but I guess not - nobody's perf- OH WAIT). The fact that "the wives went unnamed" should unnerve you somewhat in itself. I thought your god loved all his creations, and humans especially? Were these women who apparently were forced into incest of less worth than the "important characters"?
#1039
Guest_6SuN$Jyp)Z!.]t%G
Guest_6SuN$Jyp)Z!.]t%G
-
- Guest
Posted 04 November 2008 - 03:53 PM
I trust you mean reproduction. Yes, I know how reproduction works. Do you? "Cain or Abel or Seth" would all have very identical genes, and so would every single other person given birth to by Adam and Eve. Since you think evolution is nonsense; where do you think the genetic flaws came from? Were Adam and Eve carriers of countless horrible diseases? The spitting image of "God" indeed.Well if you really knew how genes worked then you would know that Only one half of the chromosomes exist in a sperm cell or egg cell. These cells have only fractions of any natural physical characteristics of the body. So if Cain or Abel Or Seth were born of Adam and Eve, it would follow that their genes would have less of these physical characteristics.That is why today incest is dangerous. Especially since there are a whole buch of diseases that are passed through genes.
Incest wasn't an issue because EVOLUTION IS A LIE! Yes, that makes perfect sense. It's okay to mention Jesus lashing out at a fig-tree, and it's not worth mentioning the names of all the women who helped populate the world? Yeah that's setting your priorities straight, alright.You're assuming that ALL situations were the exact same as they were in that context. So therefore back then incest wasn't an issue. Today it is. So stop that. Just because they're not mentioned does not denote any less love. The stories and characters were chosen because there was something to teach. Cain and Abel would probably never have been mentioned had Cain not killed Abel.
#1040
Guest_trancebam
Guest_trancebam
-
- Guest
Posted 05 November 2008 - 06:26 AM
Yes, that has always been the scientific definition of the word. Before science defined the word "theory" that way, however, it had a different meaning. So like I said, they redefined "theory" to suit their own needs, then slapped "scientific" in front of it to give themselves credit.It didn't redefine the word to gain the popular vote, that has always been the scientific definition of the word. I'm starting to think I should put you on my ignore list.
The only way their genes would have been identical is if Adam and Eve had identical genes, which is highly doubtful.I trust you mean reproduction. Yes, I know how reproduction works. Do you? "Cain or Abel or Seth" would all have very identical genes, and so would every single other person given birth to by Adam and Eve. Since you think evolution is nonsense; where do you think the genetic flaws came from? Were Adam and Eve carriers of countless horrible diseases? The spitting image of "God" indeed.Incest wasn't an issue because EVOLUTION IS A LIE! Yes, that makes perfect sense. It's okay to mention Jesus lashing out at a fig-tree, and it's not worth mentioning the names of all the women who helped populate the world? Yeah that's setting your priorities straight, alright.
#1041
Guest_darkknight014
Guest_darkknight014
-
- Guest
Posted 05 November 2008 - 06:26 AM
Yeah, okay. Because widespread scientists are a cult, and they'll just slap the word theory onto something to call it truth, without any evidence whatsoever, right?I want to beat you with a stick.
#1042
skulhedface
-
- Member
-
- 211 posts
Serpent
Reputation: 0
Neutral
Posted 05 November 2008 - 06:08 PM
Alright, let's take an objective look at this.Did Adam have brown hair? Did Eve have red hair? If so, where did blond hair come from? Blonde hair was not a trait either person carried, therefore no children of Adam and Eve, and by proxy, descendents, would ever have blond hair, simply because the genes did not exist.You can blabber on about recessive traits, but if both parents have a recessive trait, you aren't going to get it. If both of your parents have brown eyes, it's looking highly unlikely that you'll have baby blues. So unless Adam and Eve had a rainbow of eye colors, where did colors other than the original two come from?Genetic mutation? Congratulations, that's evolution. Now, why do religious people discount this instead of attempting to incorporate it? It would at least quell a good deal of vitriol. But then again......if we're supposed to take a God on faith, why not genetic mutations over a period of millenia? If we can believe in God without the burden of proof, why discount evolution?"'What about the dinosaur bones?' 'God put them there to F*** WITH YOU!' 'But it seemed so plausible..........'"~ Bill HicksThe only way their genes would have been identical is if Adam and Eve had identical genes, which is highly doubtful.
Edited by skulhedface, 05 November 2008 - 06:11 PM.
#1043
Guest_Kent Vonce
Guest_Kent Vonce
-
- Guest
Posted 06 November 2008 - 11:22 AM
That's really CUTE!"'What about the dinosaur bones?' 'God put them there to F*** WITH YOU!' 'But it seemed so plausible..........'"~ Bill Hicks
really. The answer is: "OF COURSE NOT!" the thing is God made dinosaurs too. I don't know if you people know this but before 1822, the word DINOSAUR, NEVER existed. The english term applied to remains of gigantic animals were DRAGON. How many Dragon myths do we have? Funny... there seem to be quite a lot. It probably means something like... hmm... i don't know... like Dinosaurs cohabitated on earth with man? The Bible has words on that. Also Since none of you used the link i posted although you asked, He has sufficient proof to say that there were caveman drawings of dinosaurs. A Ceratopsian to be precise. this particular drawing gave the ceratopsian circular skin patterns... Funny since a few years later they found preserved dinosaur skin with circular patterns on it.
#1044
Guest_6SuN$Jyp)Z!.]t%G
Guest_6SuN$Jyp)Z!.]t%G
-
- Guest
Posted 06 November 2008 - 04:30 PM
I'd appreciate it if you didn't try to be condescending towards someone who is quite obviously better versed in the science involved here than you are. It really, really annoys me. Your arguments are hollow and have been discarded before. You do not show your sources. Either start to; or don't post.That's really CUTE! tongue.gif really. The answer is: "OF COURSE NOT!" the thing is God made dinosaurs too. I don't know if you people know this but before 1822, the word DINOSAUR, NEVER existed. The english term applied to remains of gigantic animals were DRAGON. How many Dragon myths do we have? Funny... there seem to be quite a lot. It probably means something like... hmm... i don't know... like Dinosaurs cohabitated on earth with man? The Bible has words on that. Also Since none of you used the link i posted although you asked, He has sufficient proof to say that there were caveman drawings of dinosaurs. A Ceratopsian to be precise. this particular drawing gave the ceratopsian circular skin patterns... Funny since a few years later they found preserved dinosaur skin with circular patterns on it.
#1045
Guest_darkknight014
Guest_darkknight014
-
- Guest
Posted 07 November 2008 - 12:33 AM
Vonce, I'm beginning to think that Kent Hovind is one of your heroes.
#1046
Guest_trancebam
Guest_trancebam
-
- Guest
Posted 07 November 2008 - 03:37 AM
Stop assuming things. I didn't say they don't have any evidence for their theories. Fact of the matter is that they redefined the term "theory", slapped "scientific" in front of it, and can now pass of theories (things that aren't known to be absolute fact) as facts.Yeah, okay. Because widespread scientists are a cult, and they'll just slap the word theory onto something to call it truth, without any evidence whatsoever, right?I want to beat you with a stick.
#1047
Guest_Copperlou
Guest_Copperlou
-
- Guest
Posted 07 November 2008 - 03:45 AM
If Adam and Eve were the start of man, then does that mean we are all brothers and sisters? If it was Adam and Eve who created people, everyone would be walking around with a deformed body from being incest.
#1048
Guest_LemotheLemon
Guest_LemotheLemon
-
- Guest
Posted 07 November 2008 - 04:32 AM
Y'goota wonder: If evolution exists why are there still primitive apes? But not cave men?POINTS were deducted for this post by M.V.PPlease refer to the forum rules to find out why your points were deducted.
#1049
Guest_darkknight014
Guest_darkknight014
-
- Guest
Posted 07 November 2008 - 04:36 AM
Nothing, absolutely nothing is absolute fact. A theory takes all of the data from the world around us and constructs a model that explains it to the best of our abilities. You know gravity? That's a theory too. The Earth moving around the sun? Theory. Elliptical orbit? Theory.You can't discredit the term because because science uses it differently than the layman. It's the best way we have to explain the world and universe around us. And the best part about theories and science? When evidence that contradicts current theories, we can change our theories to include the new evidence, unlike this stupid idea that we were created by a God, which has no evidence at all.Stop assuming things. I didn't say they don't have any evidence for their theories. Fact of the matter is that they redefined the term "theory", slapped "scientific" in front of it, and can now pass of theories (things that aren't known to be absolute fact) as facts.
Because, the apes we see today are not the same as the common ancestor we share with them. Please, learn to research things, and I'm pretty sure this has already been addressed in this topic.Y'goota wonder: If evolution exists why are there still primitive apes? But not cave men?
Edited by darkknight014, 07 November 2008 - 04:37 AM.
#1050
Guest_trancebam
Guest_trancebam
-
- Guest
Posted 07 November 2008 - 06:23 AM
Thing is, the gravitational theory has ten times as much proof (and more convincing proof) than the evolutionary theory.Nothing, absolutely nothing is absolute fact. A theory takes all of the data from the world around us and constructs a model that explains it to the best of our abilities. You know gravity? That's a theory too. The Earth moving around the sun? Theory. Elliptical orbit? Theory.You can't discredit the term because because science uses it differently than the layman. It's the best way we have to explain the world and universe around us. And the best part about theories and science? When evidence that contradicts current theories, we can change our theories to include the new evidence, unlike this stupid idea that we were created by a God, which has no evidence at all.
