First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  Next  Last
The Earth is only 6,000 years old!
636 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Andromeda
Offline
Posted 7/10/09 , edited 7/10/09

Darkphoenix3450 wrote:
The Qur'an was written about 650 years after the last books of the Bible were compiled. This is the reason for some of the apparently similar, do to the fact a lot was copied but don't feel Bad the bible did the same using other religouns as well. (fact.)


Is it more reasonable to refer the similarities between Quran, Gospel and Torah that they all were revealed by Almighty God ? Also, If you were knowledgeable about Prophet Mohammad, you would find that impossible too. One more thing: God had known that you and other people would say like that; below is the answer from Quran.

[10-37]
This Qur'an is not such as can be produced by other than Allah. on the contrary it is a confirmation of revelations that went before it, and a fuller explanation of the Book - wherein there is no doubt - from the Lord of the worlds.
[38]
Or do they say: he has forged it? Say: Then bring a chapter like this and invite whom you can besides Allah, if you are truthful.




Darkphoenix3450 wrote:
explain 250 million years ago and Pangaea?



I'm not geologist not even a geology student but what the problem with Pangaea anyway?

18663 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
36 / M / Small Wooded town...
Offline
Posted 7/11/09

Real_ZERO wrote:


Darkphoenix3450 wrote:
The Qur'an was written about 650 years after the last books of the Bible were compiled. This is the reason for some of the apparently similar, do to the fact a lot was copied but don't feel Bad the bible did the same using other religouns as well. (fact.)


Is it more reasonable to refer the similarities between Quran, Gospel and Torah that they all were revealed by Almighty God ? Also, If you were knowledgeable about Prophet Mohammad, you would find that impossible too. One more thing: God had known that you and other people would say like that; below is the answer from Quran.

[10-37]
This Qur'an is not such as can be produced by other than Allah. on the contrary it is a confirmation of revelations that went before it, and a fuller explanation of the Book - wherein there is no doubt - from the Lord of the worlds.
[38]
Or do they say: he has forged it? Say: Then bring a chapter like this and invite whom you can besides Allah, if you are truthful.




Darkphoenix3450 wrote:
explain 250 million years ago and Pangaea?



I'm not geologist not even a geology student but what the problem with Pangaea anyway?



No Its the evidence that Pangaea brings us. Pangaea is the name of all the land masses wen there all put together, like they used to be 250million years ago. Or did you not spot that are land masses are like a puzzle that been drifting apart for the last 250 million years.
636 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Andromeda
Offline
Posted 7/11/09
Continental drift probably happened, I don't see any problem with it.
Sorry, what are you trying to say?





5229 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / Mammago Garage, Y...
Offline
Posted 7/11/09 , edited 7/11/09

digs
Then why is evolution still a theory? It hasn't been proven, that's a lie.


You do realize that there are very few scientific laws, and that they are all based on theories, right? So you're basically saying that since cell theory is a lie that means things without cells are alive too, and basically means that all of biology is a lie. That also means that since atomic theory is a lie then not all matter is made of atoms, and that means almost all of chemistry and a large part of physics is a lie.

Since theories are lies then the laws based on them must be lies too, so all of science is a lie.


I know just because evidence proves fossils aren't millions of years old doesn't mean it is 6,000 years old or that it corresponds with the Biblical record. However, upon further research we find that these things do correspond with the Biblical record. This doesn't prove it, but the correspondance means that the Bible accurate in the literal description of the Creation story and we can assume that the Bible is right from the information we find.


Using that logic, I could make many incorrect assumptions about many things. I could assume that soft tissues can last longer than we originally thought, or that it's not even a T-rex bone but from another reptile that was extremely similar to it. Even though I don't have any proof that either of those are true, they correspond with my beliefs so I can assume that they are true.


And as to your conclusions, the article I posted shows how the soft tissue being present means that the fossil is only several thousand years old, tissue and blood cells cannot last more then several thousand years, and not nearly one million years.


I may be mistaken, but don't soft tissues only decay because decomposing bacteria cause them to? Or is it possible for fossilized tissue to decompose without any decomposing bacteria ever coming into contact with them? I tried Google but couldn't find anything about it.


Did you know that Evolutionists lose more debates that Creationists do? http://www.icr.org/article/811/


Did you know that the article doesn't provide any sources to prove that claim is true? They simply say "creationists always win these debates" without even take any quotes or making any references to any specific debate to support this claim. They also say that because evolutionists refuse to debate them (because they feel that creationism isn't a legit science and has no place in a scientific debate) they must be scared to debate them because they know they will lose. The author sounds like a bully on the playground who taunts kids for walking away from a fight because they must be scared to lose.

They also say that no "true" evolution has ever been witnessed during human history. I wonder how they explain new strains of the same pathogens that are immune to old medicines, or new breeds of dogs that have been made over the past few hundred years?
Scientist Moderator
digs 
48106 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M
Offline
Posted 7/11/09

Cuddlebuns wrote:


digs
Then why is evolution still a theory? It hasn't been proven, that's a lie.


You do realize that there are very few scientific laws, and that they are all based on theories, right? So you're basically saying that since cell theory is a lie that means things without cells are alive too, and basically means that all of biology is a lie. That also means that since atomic theory is a lie then not all matter is made of atoms, and that means almost all of chemistry and a large part of physics is a lie.

Since theories are lies then the laws based on them must be lies too, so all of science is a lie.


I know just because evidence proves fossils aren't millions of years old doesn't mean it is 6,000 years old or that it corresponds with the Biblical record. However, upon further research we find that these things do correspond with the Biblical record. This doesn't prove it, but the correspondance means that the Bible accurate in the literal description of the Creation story and we can assume that the Bible is right from the information we find.


Using that logic, I could make many incorrect assumptions about many things. I could assume that soft tissues can last longer than we originally thought, or that it's not even a T-rex bone but from another reptile that was extremely similar to it. Even though I don't have any proof that either of those are true, they correspond with my beliefs so I can assume that they are true.


And as to your conclusions, the article I posted shows how the soft tissue being present means that the fossil is only several thousand years old, tissue and blood cells cannot last more then several thousand years, and not nearly one million years.


I may be mistaken, but don't soft tissues only decay because decomposing bacteria cause them to? Or is it possible for fossilized tissue to decompose without any decomposing bacteria ever coming into contact with them? I tried Google but couldn't find anything about it.


Did you know that Evolutionists lose more debates that Creationists do? http://www.icr.org/article/811/


Did you know that the article doesn't provide any sources to prove that claim is true? They simply say "creationists always win these debates" without even take any quotes or making any references to any specific debate to support this claim. They also say that because evolutionists refuse to debate them (because they feel that creationism isn't a legit science and has no place in a scientific debate) they must be scared to debate them because they know they will lose. The author sounds like a bully on the playground who taunts kids for walking away from a fight because they must be scared to lose.

They also say that no "true" evolution has ever been witnessed during human history. I wonder how they explain new strains of the same pathogens that are immune to old medicines, or new breeds of dogs that have been made over the past few hundred years?


I never said a theory was a lie, but a theory isn't proven fact. Laws are based on theories, but they are no longer theories because they have been proven true. All I am saying is evolution isn't proven fact, the fine details within the theory haven't been proven either, we don't understand ambiogensisis, which is the basis for evolution and finding an understanding of how things got here. Just because something is a theory doesn't make it true, many theories in the past have been debunked and proven false.

And the soft tissues fossilized, regardless, it was rare to find soft tissue that old and even evolutionists are angry because there isn't any way it could have survived for over 60 million years. I am not too sure either, but what I do know is that with this distinct fossil they found heme (the protein). The protein would have naturally denatured well before 60 million years could pass, meaning that it must have been much much younger. The other issue is that the soft tissue wasn't fossilized. If you want, here is what the evolutionary scientists explained about this phenomenon, there is also a rebuttal of it too. http://creation.com/squirming-at-the-squishosaur

I found an article that talks about it and it cites a source, but the source is a book and not online http://www.ankerberg.com/Articles/science/SC0104W1E.htmThe article (not the posted one) does state though that even a national organization that is the mouthpiece against creationism advises scientists not to debate with creation scientists. It also shows that many well respected evolutionary scientists refuse to debate with creationists. Here is an article talking somewhat about the debates of evolution, but more importantly the academic monopoly to prevent the theory from being debated http://www.ridgenet.net/~do_while/sage/v12i10f.htm

And new strains of the same pathogen are caused when they take traits from other pathogens, that is what happened with the black plague, an experiment was also done ont hat to find if DNA or proteins was genetic material back in the 1900's. That isn't evolution and it isn't the same kind of evolution scientist say all living organisms went through to become what they are.
4945 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / France
Offline
Posted 7/11/09
Okay, then what about ancient egypt?...there are proofs that they existed more than 30,000 years old...so how can the earth be only 6,000 years old ha? and the wise craft is Witchcraft, or paganism..or which ever you chose to take..
1187 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
29 / M / Look.... im right...
Offline
Posted 7/11/09
If you believe haruhi is a god then the universe was possibly created yesterday. lol

I havent heard anyone with this kind of belief before. I can even imagine the earth being that young. Heck if you tell that to my 6 years old niece she'll tell you youre stupid. (she read dinosour books) lol. Its no use debating this, the best thing for people to believe in the truth or an estimation of the truth is to read and be unbiased in the process. Remember google is your friend. But be sure of the credibility of what your reading.
4945 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / France
Offline
Posted 7/11/09

vinsane01 wrote:

If you believe haruhi is a god then the universe was possibly created yesterday. lol

I havent heard anyone with this kind of belief before. I can even imagine the earth being that young. Heck if you tell that to my 6 years old niece she'll tell you youre stupid. (she read dinosour books) lol. Its no use debating this, the best thing for people to believe in the truth or an estimation of the truth is to read and be unbiased in the process. Remember google is your friend. But be sure of the credibility of what your reading.


Okay...Ha?...what haruhi?
4945 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / France
Offline
Posted 7/11/09
Dust is proven to be millions of years old! :P
What do you say about that ha?!
5229 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / Mammago Garage, Y...
Offline
Posted 7/11/09 , edited 7/11/09

digs

I never said a theory was a lie, but a theory isn't proven fact. Laws are based on theories, but they are no longer theories because they have been proven true. All I am saying is evolution isn't proven fact, the fine details within the theory haven't been proven either, we don't understand ambiogensisis, which is the basis for evolution and finding an understanding of how things got here. Just because something is a theory doesn't make it true, many theories in the past have been debunked and proven false.


How can scientific laws be facts if they are based on theories, which aren't facts? And why does abiogenesis have to be the start of evolution? There's nothing about evolution that says the first cell(s) weren't created.


And the soft tissues fossilized, regardless, it was rare to find soft tissue that old and even evolutionists are angry because there isn't any way it could have survived for over 60 million years. I am not too sure either, but what I do know is that with this distinct fossil they found heme (the protein). The protein would have naturally denatured well before 60 million years could pass, meaning that it must have been much much younger. The other issue is that the soft tissue wasn't fossilized. If you want, here is what the evolutionary scientists explained about this phenomenon, there is also a rebuttal of it too. http://creation.com/squirming-at-the-squishosaur


I still don't see how this proves that every single fossil ever discovered is only a few thousand years old. Wouldn't there be a lot more with soft tissues if that were the case? I only keep hearing about this single T-rex bone.


I found an article that talks about it and it cites a source, but the source is a book and not online http://www.ankerberg.com/Articles/science/SC0104W1E.htmThe article (not the posted one) does state though that even a national organization that is the mouthpiece against creationism advises scientists not to debate with creation scientists. It also shows that many well respected evolutionary scientists refuse to debate with creationists. Here is an article talking somewhat about the debates of evolution, but more importantly the academic monopoly to prevent the theory from being debated http://www.ridgenet.net/~do_while/sage/v12i10f.htm


It seems odd that the only time I hear evolution referred to as a fact is when creationists say it is not a fact. I was never taught that it was infallible, unquestionable fact, every non-creationist article that I've read about evolution never claimed it was a fact. I've always been taught that it is a theory, one that has a decent amount of evidence but is still subject to be changed or removed if enough evidence appears to refute it completely. I don't get where creationists get this idea that kids are being brainwashed into believing in evolution, not including the "extreme" evolutionists who think it should be indoctrinated.

And I still haven't seen anything that shows that creationism is a science that tries to find evidence for creation, rather than evidence against evolution. It seems like both sides are just pointing fingers at each other and saying "they're wrong."


And new strains of the same pathogen are caused when they take traits from other pathogens, that is what happened with the black plague, an experiment was also done ont hat to find if DNA or proteins was genetic material back in the 1900's. That isn't evolution and it isn't the same kind of evolution scientist say all living organisms went through to become what they are.


Evolution is the changes in the genome of a population over time. If a pathogen becomes immune to a medicine that killed off the rest of it's species and reproduces, the new population will be essentially the same but have that immunity as well. That means that the genome of the population changed and has evolved. A new species does not have to be created in order for evolution to occur.


I've been wondering, what does creationism say about the remains of other human species that have been discovered?


lalouse wrote:

Okay, then what about ancient egypt?...there are proofs that they existed more than 30,000 years old...so how can the earth be only 6,000 years old ha? and the wise craft is Witchcraft, or paganism..or which ever you chose to take..


I'm pretty sure ancient Egypt isn't that old. As far as I know, it is dated to be about 6-7000 years old.
559 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / Feminism is made...
Offline
Posted 7/11/09
Analyzing the Bible as a literary piece objectively can surface many of its inconsistencies, especially on the Creation.

Reading the Bible, specifically the first two chapters of Genesis, one would figure out that there are actually two accounts of creation. On chapter 1 of Genesis, God is a very powerful being and created humans on the sixth day. This God basically just imagines things, then say them, and voila! there it is! That's the idea of the first chapter.

The second chapter of Genesis (most likely marked by a big number two before the text that corresponds to it) talks about how humans were created on the second day before other living things and after the universe. In this chapter, God hand-crafted the humans instead of just imagining them and saying "Let there be a male figure." In other words, not only are there two Creation Theories in the Bible, there are also two Gods of considerably different, well, let's say "powers."

Another thing is that if you also look at the style of writings of the first and second chapters of Genesis, the first one would suggest an oral tale while the other suggests not only a different creation but also a written story.

The first chapter seems to be a verbal story, or possibly a song or a poem, because of it's mnemonics. Reading it carefully will show that almost everything on it aids the memory. Some of these aids are the order of creation (think, "let there be...," pops out of no where, God will say it's good), the repetitive "let there be's," the seven day creation, and the order of how things are created during those seven days.

The second chapter...well, good luck remembering it word for word.

This suggests that there are two authors of the first two chapters of the Bible but there is a very lazy editor that put them together in an indolent manner that they are incoherent with each other. Why two authors? Two different styles of writing. The first one probably doesn't even have an author. But anyway, these two were found in separate scrolls of very different dates in an excavation somewhere in the Middle East. The dates are probably on any article that pertains to the "Documentary Theory." This theory is supported by artifacts so it might just be more than a theory. (Google it for sources since I used my notes for reference)

How is this related to Earth being older than 6,000 years old? If the Creation Theory itself is not even consistent to itself and the Young Earth Theory is based on Creation Theory, it does not really make Young Earth believable. Of course, having two separate scrolls of the two Creation Theories that were pieced together as one does not help.

Then comes the empirical data that indirectly disprove the Creation and Young Earth Theory. But those were/are already/being discussed so screw those.
4945 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / France
Offline
Posted 7/11/09


Okay, then what about ancient egypt?...there are proofs that they existed more than 30,000 years old...so how can the earth be only 6,000 years old ha? and the wise craft is Witchcraft, or paganism..or which ever you chose to take..

I'm pretty sure ancient Egypt isn't that old. As far as I know, it is dated to be about 6-7000 years old.

No its not...do some research, and there are things even far more ancient than that...
5355 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
76 / M / UK
Offline
Posted 7/11/09
402 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / Gotham
Offline
Posted 7/11/09
The universe actually 3 days old. It is destroyed and created every Thursday.
1187 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
29 / M / Look.... im right...
Offline
Posted 7/11/09

lalouse wrote:


vinsane01 wrote:

If you believe haruhi is a god then the universe was possibly created yesterday. lol

I havent heard anyone with this kind of belief before. I can even imagine the earth being that young. Heck if you tell that to my 6 years old niece she'll tell you youre stupid. (she read dinosour books) lol. Its no use debating this, the best thing for people to believe in the truth or an estimation of the truth is to read and be unbiased in the process. Remember google is your friend. But be sure of the credibility of what your reading.


Okay...Ha?...what haruhi?


lol haruhi is an anime character from the anime series the melancholy of haruhi suzumiya. Watch it, its one of the most interesting animes of all time and also very funny.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.