40% of Americans-earth 10K years old

[Lonestar_logic]

youve been doing the same thing with all these scripture quotes youve been posting as well. dont be mad when someone does the same thing to refute your argument.

No you idiot. I offered verses that shown scientific accuracy within the Bible and all were in context.

Damn you're stupid!

once again, nothing in the bible is scientifically accurate. you are willing to stretch the truth in order to support your argument about this. but you wont open your mind to the fact that many bible scholars say the earth was created 6,000 years ago as is supported by stories the bible.

Once again many things in the bible are consistant with science.

And once again I don't give a rat's ass who says how old the earth is. I'm telling you that NO ONE knows how old the earth is. Were you born stupid or have you been practicing your entire life?

 

[Common Sense]

No you idiot. I offered verses that shown scientific accuracy within the Bible and all were in context.

Damn you're stupid!

once again, nothing in the bible is scientifically accurate. you are willing to stretch the truth in order to support your argument about this. but you wont open your mind to the fact that many bible scholars say the earth was created 6,000 years ago as is supported by stories the bible.

Once again many things in the bible are consistant with science. (prove it, other than your wild claim about moses and magical 12 hour 65 mph perfectly directed wind)

you have no scientific basis for anything in the bible. you spout of nonsensical bullshit and claim that science backs up what you claim.

Carbon dating has been proven to be accurate within a 1% time frame by multiple sources. thats a scientific fact! it doesnt rely on some random story written and embellished by man a few thousand years ago.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

once again, nothing in the bible is scientifically accurate. you are willing to stretch the truth in order to support your argument about this. but you wont open your mind to the fact that many bible scholars say the earth was created 6,000 years ago as is supported by stories the bible.

Once again many things in the bible are consistant with science. (prove it, other than your wild claim about moses and magical 12 hour 65 mph perfectly directed wind)

you have no scientific basis for anything in the bible. you spout of nonsensical bullshit and claim that science backs up what you claim.

Carbon dating has been proven to be accurate within a 1% time frame by multiple sources. thats a scientific fact! it doesnt rely on some random story written and embellished by man a few thousand years ago.

Statements in the Bible are consistant with science and I've already shown that to be true. Not my fault you're too stupid to understand it.

No it hasn't and isn't and I've already shown proof of that too. It's based on assumptions, for example, they assume the rate of decay has been a constant rate for millions of years.

If you research carbon 14 dating you'll find it supports a young earth, but I doubt you would trust in that data because it doesn't fit your preconcieved notion that the earth is millions of years old.

 

[Vanquish]

[

No it hasn't and isn't and I've already shown proof of that too.

Ooooohhhh so you found it important to prove something. After you've already said you're not here to prove anything. After you asserted that your magic book is just as valid as science.

Interesting.

 

[Common Sense]

Once again many things in the bible are consistant with science. (prove it, other than your wild claim about moses and magical 12 hour 65 mph perfectly directed wind)

you have no scientific basis for anything in the bible. you spout of nonsensical bullshit and claim that science backs up what you claim.

Carbon dating has been proven to be accurate within a 1% time frame by multiple sources. thats a scientific fact! it doesnt rely on some random story written and embellished by man a few thousand years ago.

Statements in the Bible are consistant with science and I've already shown that to be true. Not my fault you're too stupid to understand it.

No it hasn't and isn't and I've already shown proof of that too. It's based on assumptions, for example, they assume the rate of decay has been a constant rate for millions of years.

If you research carbon 14 dating you'll find it supports a young earth, but I doubt you would trust in that data because it doesn't fit your preconcieved notion that the earth is millions of years old.

carbon dating supports an the old earth theory. if you actually look at the websites that try to discredit carbon dating that are all religious website. there is not one university or scientific research website that discredits carbon dating. you know cant disprove this so dont even try.

and no, you have not provided an solid scientific argument that proves anything in the bible. you try to quote science and apply it to you argument, but you fail to prove that anything in the bible in scientifically accurate.

the same way the Noah built this ark to house ever species of animal. the bible says he had about 16,000 species, well we all know that there are approx. 30 million species of animals (including plants and insects) on the planet. in order to have a boat that large it would need to be approximately 1,548,384 m long x 100 m wide (this is assuming each species get 4 square inches of space) not the 450 feet long, 75 feet wide and 45 feet deep that the bible says it is.

also for it to rain for 40 continuous days and cover the earth, it would need to raid approx. 12" per second to cover the entire surface of the earth including the mountains in 40 days. simply not possible.

there are more scientific errors bible you even care to acknowledge:

- The Holy Bible makes it clear that stars are tiny objects in sky that will fall down when Jesus comes back
- All flying insects that walk on all fours are to be detestable to you. (insects have 6 legs)
- In Genesis, the moon is referred to as a "light" ("lesser light" actually). The moon is merely a reflector of the sun's light, and produces no visible light, although it does shine in different wavelengths not perceivable to the human eye, such as the infrareds.

you fail again.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

you have no scientific basis for anything in the bible. you spout of nonsensical bullshit and claim that science backs up what you claim.

Carbon dating has been proven to be accurate within a 1% time frame by multiple sources. thats a scientific fact! it doesnt rely on some random story written and embellished by man a few thousand years ago.

Statements in the Bible are consistant with science and I've already shown that to be true. Not my fault you're too stupid to understand it.

No it hasn't and isn't and I've already shown proof of that too. It's based on assumptions, for example, they assume the rate of decay has been a constant rate for millions of years.

If you research carbon 14 dating you'll find it supports a young earth, but I doubt you would trust in that data because it doesn't fit your preconcieved notion that the earth is millions of years old.

carbon dating support an the old earth theory. if you actually look at the website that try to discredit carbon dating that are all religious website. there is not one university or scientific research website that discredits carbon dating. you know cant disprove this so dont even try.

and no, you have not provided an solid scientific argument that proves anything in the bible. you try to quote science and apply it to you argument, but you fail to prove that anything in the bible in scientifically accurate.

the same way the Noah built this ark to house ever species of animal. the bible says he had about 16,000 species, well we all know that there are approx. 30 million species of animals (including plants and insects) on the planet. in order to have a boat that large it would need to be approximately 1,548,384 m long x 100 m wide (this is assuming each species get 4 square inches of space) not the 450 feet long, 75 feet wide and 45 feet deep that the bible says it is.

also for it to rain for 40 continuous days and cover the earth, it would need to raid approx. 12" per second to cover the entire surface of the earth including the mountains in 40 days. simply not possible.

there are more scientific errors bible you even care to acknowledge:

- The Holy Bible makes it clear that stars are tiny objects in sky that will fall down when Jesus comes back
- All flying insects that walk on all fours are to be detestable to you. (insects have 6 legs)
- In Genesis, the moon is referred to as a "light" ("lesser light" actually). The moon is merely a reflector of the sun's light, and produces no visible light, although it does shine in different wavelengths not perceivable to the human eye, such as the infrareds.

you fail again.

The bible doesn't say how many animals were on the arc. Only an idiot would include species that could survive without the benefit of the ark. I doubt the 30 million species claim, it's more like 1 million.

And I've already proved that carbon dating is flawed.

 

[Common Sense]

Statements in the Bible are consistant with science and I've already shown that to be true. Not my fault you're too stupid to understand it.

No it hasn't and isn't and I've already shown proof of that too. It's based on assumptions, for example, they assume the rate of decay has been a constant rate for millions of years.

If you research carbon 14 dating you'll find it supports a young earth, but I doubt you would trust in that data because it doesn't fit your preconcieved notion that the earth is millions of years old.

carbon dating support an the old earth theory. if you actually look at the website that try to discredit carbon dating that are all religious website. there is not one university or scientific research website that discredits carbon dating. you know cant disprove this so dont even try.

and no, you have not provided an solid scientific argument that proves anything in the bible. you try to quote science and apply it to you argument, but you fail to prove that anything in the bible in scientifically accurate.

the same way the Noah built this ark to house ever species of animal. the bible says he had about 16,000 species, well we all know that there are approx. 30 million species of animals (including plants and insects) on the planet. in order to have a boat that large it would need to be approximately 1,548,384 m long x 100 m wide (this is assuming each species get 4 square inches of space) not the 450 feet long, 75 feet wide and 45 feet deep that the bible says it is.

also for it to rain for 40 continuous days and cover the earth, it would need to raid approx. 12" per second to cover the entire surface of the earth including the mountains in 40 days. simply not possible.

there are more scientific errors bible you even care to acknowledge:

- The Holy Bible makes it clear that stars are tiny objects in sky that will fall down when Jesus comes back
- All flying insects that walk on all fours are to be detestable to you. (insects have 6 legs)
- In Genesis, the moon is referred to as a "light" ("lesser light" actually). The moon is merely a reflector of the sun's light, and produces no visible light, although it does shine in different wavelengths not perceivable to the human eye, such as the infrareds.

you fail again.

The bible doesn't say how many animals were on the arc. Only an idiot would include species that could survive without the benefit of the ark. I doubt the 30 million species claim, it's more like 1 million.

And I've already proved that carbon dating is flawed.

"While it may be dangerous to extrapolate numbers like these to other places, it gives at least a high estimate of the number of species that could exist on earth - that high estimate being around 100 million species. A low estimate is 2 million."
How many species are there in the world?

and you have not disproven carbon dating, you made an argument claiming its in accurate. i have since posted proof from several different sources that prove carbon dating is accurate to within 1% currently. if you dont like the answers which then disprove the bible, its not my problem, youre just closed minded and ignorant.

 

[Common Sense]

there are also alternatives to carbon dating:

They include potassium-argon dating, that’s useful for rocks over 100,000 years old. There’s also uranium-lead dating, which has an age range of 1-4.5 million years old. It can be used for such long time spans because the half-life of uranium turning into lead is billions of years, in the order of the age of the Earth at 4.5 billion years.

Potassium-Argon Dating Methods - K-Ar and Ar-Ar Dating
About Uranium-Lead Dating


what is the scientific accuracy of the bible? since i have already shown many things in the bible to be scientifically in accurate... can you provide me with evidence showing the actual accuracy of the bible in scientific terms?

 

[Common Sense]

Statements in the Bible are consistant with science and I've already shown that to be true. Not my fault you're too stupid to understand it.

No it hasn't and isn't and I've already shown proof of that too. It's based on assumptions, for example, they assume the rate of decay has been a constant rate for millions of years.

If you research carbon 14 dating you'll find it supports a young earth, but I doubt you would trust in that data because it doesn't fit your preconcieved notion that the earth is millions of years old.

carbon dating support an the old earth theory. if you actually look at the website that try to discredit carbon dating that are all religious website. there is not one university or scientific research website that discredits carbon dating. you know cant disprove this so dont even try.

and no, you have not provided an solid scientific argument that proves anything in the bible. you try to quote science and apply it to you argument, but you fail to prove that anything in the bible in scientifically accurate.

the same way the Noah built this ark to house ever species of animal. the bible says he had about 16,000 species, well we all know that there are approx. 30 million species of animals (including plants and insects) on the planet. in order to have a boat that large it would need to be approximately 1,548,384 m long x 100 m wide (this is assuming each species get 4 square inches of space) not the 450 feet long, 75 feet wide and 45 feet deep that the bible says it is.

also for it to rain for 40 continuous days and cover the earth, it would need to raid approx. 12" per second to cover the entire surface of the earth including the mountains in 40 days. simply not possible.

there are more scientific errors bible you even care to acknowledge:

- The Holy Bible makes it clear that stars are tiny objects in sky that will fall down when Jesus comes back
- All flying insects that walk on all fours are to be detestable to you. (insects have 6 legs)
- In Genesis, the moon is referred to as a "light" ("lesser light" actually). The moon is merely a reflector of the sun's light, and produces no visible light, although it does shine in different wavelengths not perceivable to the human eye, such as the infrareds.

you fail again.

The bible doesn't say how many animals were on the arc. Only an idiot would include species that could survive without the benefit of the ark. I doubt the 30 million species claim, it's more like 1 million.

And I've already proved that carbon dating is flawed.

can you please provide a list of all the animals and plant life that would not require the benefits of the arc that were know during the time of Noah?

 

[Lonestar_logic]

carbon dating support an the old earth theory. if you actually look at the website that try to discredit carbon dating that are all religious website. there is not one university or scientific research website that discredits carbon dating. you know cant disprove this so dont even try.

and no, you have not provided an solid scientific argument that proves anything in the bible. you try to quote science and apply it to you argument, but you fail to prove that anything in the bible in scientifically accurate.

the same way the Noah built this ark to house ever species of animal. the bible says he had about 16,000 species, well we all know that there are approx. 30 million species of animals (including plants and insects) on the planet. in order to have a boat that large it would need to be approximately 1,548,384 m long x 100 m wide (this is assuming each species get 4 square inches of space) not the 450 feet long, 75 feet wide and 45 feet deep that the bible says it is.

also for it to rain for 40 continuous days and cover the earth, it would need to raid approx. 12" per second to cover the entire surface of the earth including the mountains in 40 days. simply not possible.

there are more scientific errors bible you even care to acknowledge:

- The Holy Bible makes it clear that stars are tiny objects in sky that will fall down when Jesus comes back
- All flying insects that walk on all fours are to be detestable to you. (insects have 6 legs)
- In Genesis, the moon is referred to as a "light" ("lesser light" actually). The moon is merely a reflector of the sun's light, and produces no visible light, although it does shine in different wavelengths not perceivable to the human eye, such as the infrareds.

you fail again.

The bible doesn't say how many animals were on the arc. Only an idiot would include species that could survive without the benefit of the ark. I doubt the 30 million species claim, it's more like 1 million.

And I've already proved that carbon dating is flawed.

"While it may be dangerous to extrapolate numbers like these to other places, it gives at least a high estimate of the number of species that could exist on earth - that high estimate being around 100 million species. A low estimate is 2 million."
How many species are there in the world?

and you have not disproven carbon dating, you made an argument claiming its in accurate. i have since posted proof from several different sources that prove carbon dating is accurate to within 1% currently. if you dont like the answers which then disprove the bible, its not my problem, youre just closed minded and ignorant.

From your link:

"This is a very good question, but the truth is, its very hard to know, or even estimate. Currently there are about 1.4 million species described. Yet, we're probably far from being close to the actual number of species."

So far we KNOW there's 1.4 million species. And no one can say with any degree of certainty that we will find any more.

Yes I've shown that carbon dating relies on assumptions, therefore it's not reliable nor should be considered accurate.

Hell scientist can't even come to a concensus on the shroud of Turin after years of carbon dating.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

carbon dating support an the old earth theory. if you actually look at the website that try to discredit carbon dating that are all religious website. there is not one university or scientific research website that discredits carbon dating. you know cant disprove this so dont even try.

and no, you have not provided an solid scientific argument that proves anything in the bible. you try to quote science and apply it to you argument, but you fail to prove that anything in the bible in scientifically accurate.

the same way the Noah built this ark to house ever species of animal. the bible says he had about 16,000 species, well we all know that there are approx. 30 million species of animals (including plants and insects) on the planet. in order to have a boat that large it would need to be approximately 1,548,384 m long x 100 m wide (this is assuming each species get 4 square inches of space) not the 450 feet long, 75 feet wide and 45 feet deep that the bible says it is.

also for it to rain for 40 continuous days and cover the earth, it would need to raid approx. 12" per second to cover the entire surface of the earth including the mountains in 40 days. simply not possible.

there are more scientific errors bible you even care to acknowledge:

- The Holy Bible makes it clear that stars are tiny objects in sky that will fall down when Jesus comes back
- All flying insects that walk on all fours are to be detestable to you. (insects have 6 legs)
- In Genesis, the moon is referred to as a "light" ("lesser light" actually). The moon is merely a reflector of the sun's light, and produces no visible light, although it does shine in different wavelengths not perceivable to the human eye, such as the infrareds.

you fail again.

The bible doesn't say how many animals were on the arc. Only an idiot would include species that could survive without the benefit of the ark. I doubt the 30 million species claim, it's more like 1 million.

And I've already proved that carbon dating is flawed.

can you please provide a list of all the animals and plant life that would not require the benefits of the arc that were know during the time of Noah?

According to Ernest Mayr, America's leading taxonomist, there are over 1 million species of animals in the world.
However, the vast majority of these are capable of surviving in water and would not need to be brought aboard the ark. Noah need make no provision for the 21,000 species of fish or the 1,700 tunicates (marine chordates like sea squirts) found throughout the seas of the world, or the 600 echinoderms including star fish and sea urchins, or the 107,000 mollusks such as mussels, clams and oysters, or the 10,000 coelenterates like corals and sea anemones, jelly fish and hydroids or the 5,000 species of sponges, or the 30,000 protozoans, the microscopic single-celled creatures.

In addition, some of the mammals are aquatic. For example, the whales, seals and porpoises. The amphibians need not all have been included, nor all the reptiles, such as sea turtles, and alligators. Moreover, a large number of the arthropods numbering 838,000 species, such as lobsters, shrimp, crabs and water fleas and barnacles are marine creatures. And the insect species among arthropoda are usually very small. Also, many of the 35,000 species of worms as well as many of the insects could have survived outside the Ark.

 

[Common Sense]

The bible doesn't say how many animals were on the arc. Only an idiot would include species that could survive without the benefit of the ark. I doubt the 30 million species claim, it's more like 1 million.

And I've already proved that carbon dating is flawed.

can you please provide a list of all the animals and plant life that would not require the benefits of the arc that were know during the time of Noah?

According to Ernest Mayr, America's leading taxonomist, there are over 1 million species of animals in the world.
However, the vast majority of these are capable of surviving in water and would not need to be brought aboard the ark. Noah need make no provision for the 21,000 species of fish or the 1,700 tunicates (marine chordates like sea squirts) found throughout the seas of the world, or the 600 echinoderms including star fish and sea urchins, or the 107,000 mollusks such as mussels, clams and oysters, or the 10,000 coelenterates like corals and sea anemones, jelly fish and hydroids or the 5,000 species of sponges, or the 30,000 protozoans, the microscopic single-celled creatures.

In addition, some of the mammals are aquatic. For example, the whales, seals and porpoises. The amphibians need not all have been included, nor all the reptiles, such as sea turtles, and alligators. Moreover, a large number of the arthropods numbering 838,000 species, such as lobsters, shrimp, crabs and water fleas and barnacles are marine creatures. And the insect species among arthropoda are usually very small. Also, many of the 35,000 species of worms as well as many of the insects could have survived outside the Ark.

true, but that is if the 40 days of rain didnt cause the salt content in the oceans to become diluted leading the their deaths...... but im sure no one in the bible ever referred to anything like that.

ill even go farther... in regards to the flood i simply said it would be 12" per second, and i will retract that statement. i did some simple math even you could follow.

The book of Genesis states that the flood waters rose so high that they covered the peaks of the highest mountains to a depth of twenty feet (Genesis 7:20)

lets take the highest peak of Mount Everest - 29,028 feet above sea level
assuming this height, you would need water to be approx 29,048 feet above the current sea level.

29,048 feet divided by 40 days = 7,251.2 feet per day
7,251.2 feet divided by 24 hours = 3.025 feet (or 36.3 inches) per hour
36.3 inches divided by 60 minutes = 0.605 inches per minute.

this mean that every minute of the flood would require over a half inch of uniform rainfall across the entire world. this would then have to be consistent for 40 days and 40 nights without any interruption.

(this is not the most accurate way to calculate this because it does not take into account areas below sea level no the topography of the earth, but it give us a good starting reference point.

here is another way to calculate it as well: Claim 2 - The 'Vapour Canopy'

to put this into perspective:
The wettest place in the world is the town of Mawsynram. It is located in the state of Assam, which is situated in the northeast of India. It receives approximately 11, 873 millimetres or approximately 467.4 inches of rainfall per year on an average

that would mean that in order to flood the entire earth based on the height of mount everest the entire world would need to see 745 time rain than the average rainfall in Mawsynram.

now prove that this is possible....

 

[Dr Grump]

Lonestar

When you're getting your arse kicked, it's best to retire and lick your wounds....

 

[edthecynic]

25 Large crowds were traveling with Jesus, and turning to them he said: 26 “If anyone comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters—yes, even their own life—such a person cannot be my disciple. 27 And whoever does not carry their cross and follow me cannot be my disciple.
28 “Suppose one of you wants to build a tower. Won’t you first sit down and estimate the cost to see if you have enough money to complete it? 29 For if you lay the foundation and are not able to finish it, everyone who sees it will ridicule you, 30 saying, ‘This person began to build and wasn’t able to finish.’

31 “Or suppose a king is about to go to war against another king. Won’t he first sit down and consider whether he is able with ten thousand men to oppose the one coming against him with twenty thousand? 32 If he is not able, he will send a delegation while the other is still a long way off and will ask for terms of peace. 33 In the same way, those of you who do not give up everything you have cannot be my disciples.

34 “Salt is good, but if it loses its saltiness, how can it be made salty again? 35 It is fit neither for the soil nor for the manure pile; it is thrown out.

“Whoever has ears to hear, let them hear.”

He is preparing them for the sacrifices that will be required of a disciple. He is letting them know how hard it is to follow in His footsteps. If you read about how the disciples die, you would have to agree, it was pretty hard.

Where is he telling them to "wipe out" another culture, another religion?

There was a passage in the NT that showed the Lord reaching out to "other religions": when the wise men used astrology to locate the Child Yeshua, they did so as followers of another faith. Yeshua did not demand that they follow Him. The Lord did not "kill" them because they did not convert on the discovery of the Child. They were protected and warned to flee before a jealous king.

The passage was quoted several times where he calls for SLAYING his ENEMIES before him. Obviously the astrologers allowed him to "REIGN OVER THEM" and were spared. Anyone not on their knees will be slaughtered.

And clearly in the passage you quoted the HATE comes BEFORE the SACRIFICE.

The point of my posts was to counter the claim that despite the many different authors the bible is still congruous. Obviously it is not. It is on both sides of many issues. It preaches both love and hate, a fixed, unmoving and unremoved Earth and a reeling, moving and removed Earth.

1Jo 4:8 He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love.

1Jo 4:16 And we have known and believed the love that God hath to us. God is love; and he that dwelleth in love dwelleth in God, and God in him.

1 Corinthians 13:4) Love is long-suffering and kind. Love is not jealous, it does not brag, does not get puffed up,
5) does not behave indecently, does not look for its own interests, does not become provoked. It does not keep account of the injury.
6) It does not rejoice over unrighteousness, but rejoices with the truth.
7) It bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.

Na 1:2 God is jealous, and the LORD revengeth; the LORD revengeth, and is furious; the LORD will take vengeance on his adversaries, and he reserveth wrath for his enemies.

Ex 20:5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;

Ex 34:14 For thou shalt worship no other god: for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God:

Looks like those passages sum up a "ruler" that is very patient. His subjects are encouraged to follow the laws, when they do not, the punishments become more harsh. If they do not learn by judgement day, they will receive sentence. That sentence will be served.

Looks like you lack all honesty!

 

[edthecynic]

Read the chapters in their entirety.

So by default, you can't show that anything was out of context.
Thank you!

When you take one or two verses out of an entire chapter the verses by default are out of context.

Damn you're stupid.

Damn you are dishonest. You can't show anything out of context or you would have already, and you know it.

You can't deny that your God of LOVE is a jealous God who keeps account of the injury for generations no matter how much of the verse is quoted.

Admit the truth for the first time in your life, it will set you free!!!

1 Corinthians 13:1-13

1 If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels but do not have love, I have become a sounding [piece of] brass or a clashing cymbal. 2 And if I have the gift of prophesying and am acquainted with all the sacred secrets and all knowledge, and if I have all the faith so as to transplant mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing. 3 And if I give all my belongings to feed others, and if I hand over my body, that I may boast, but do not have love, I am not profited at all.

4 Love is long-suffering and kind. Love is not jealous, it does not brag, does not get puffed up, 5 does not behave indecently, does not look for its own interests, does not become provoked. It does not keep account of the injury. 6 It does not rejoice over unrighteousness, but rejoices with the truth. 7 It bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.

8 Love never fails. But whether there are [gifts of] prophesying, they will be done away with; whether there are tongues, they will cease; whether there is knowledge, it will be done away with. 9 For we have partial knowledge and we prophesy partially; 10 but when that which is complete arrives, that which is partial will be done away with. 11 When I was a babe, I used to speak as a babe, to think as a babe, to reason as a babe; but now that I have become a man, I have done away with the [traits] of a babe. 12 For at present we see in hazy outline by means of a metal mirror, but then it will be face to face. At present I know partially, but then I shall know accurately even as I am accurately known. 13 Now, however, there remain faith, hope, love, these three; but the greatest of these is love.

Ex 20:1* ¶ And God spake all these words, saying,
2* I am the LORD thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.
3* Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
4* Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth:
5* Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;
6* And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.
7* Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain; for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.
8* Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.
9* Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work:
10 But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates:
11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

 

[edthecynic]

Hell scientist can't even come to a concensus on the shroud of Turin after years of carbon dating.

BULLSHIT!!!
The shroud of Turin was exposed as a fraud beyond redemption by a simple microscope!!!!!!

 

[Common Sense]

Hell scientist can't even come to a concensus on the shroud of Turin after years of carbon dating.

BULLSHIT!!!
The shroud of Turin was exposed as a fraud beyond redemption by a simple microscope!!!!!!

Carbon 14 dating in 1988 did not prove that the Turin Shroud was medieval. Carbon 14 dating only proved that what was tested, on average, was medieval. New studies conducted between 2001 and 2008 demonstrate that what was tested was chemically different than the rest of the cloth. Splices and the presence of dyestuff and cotton fibers suggest that the carbon 14 samples were taken from a medieval repair patch to the cloth. Furthermore, recent analysis of Lignin Decomposition Kinetics shows that the cloth is at least twice as old as the carbon 14 estimates. The results of these studies are reported in the peer-reviewed scientific journal Thermochimica Acta in a paper by the late Raymond N. Rogers, a Fellow of the Los Alamos National Laboratory, University of California (See: Volume 425 pp. 189-194) and Chemistry Today (Vol 26, Num 4, Jul/Aug 2008), “Discrepancies in the radiocarbon dating area of the Turin shroud”, Benford M.S., Marino J.G.

 

[Avatar4321]

[
Carbon dating has been proven to be accurate within a 1% time frame by multiple sources. thats a scientific fact! it doesnt rely on some random story written and embellished by man a few thousand years ago.

Carbon dating, like all radioactive dating, is flawed because it assumes that carbon decays the same rate today that it did 200 years ago, 1000 years ago, 10,000 years ago, etc.

You can't rely on those assumptions. Circumstances in nature may be very different than t hey were 500 years ago, or 1000 years ago or even longer.

You can hypothesize. You can make educated guesses. You can even rely on those. But until you can prove your assumptions, which unless you've developed time travel, you can't. You are just making guesses.

The problem with people who try to use science to attack faith is they refuse to admit the very real limits science has and it's purpose as a tool to help us understand the world around us.

They also have a tendency to ignore all evidence they don't like. Funny how that works.

as for how old the earth is? I don't know. I haven't asked God about it. He hasnt told me. Frankly it's not one of my more pressing matters with Him.

I really wish people would look at reality instead of insisting that they know everything based on their own assumptions.

 

[edthecynic]

Hell scientist can't even come to a concensus on the shroud of Turin after years of carbon dating.

BULLSHIT!!!
The shroud of Turin was exposed as a fraud beyond redemption by a simple microscope!!!!!!

Carbon 14 dating in 1988 did not prove that the Turin Shroud was medieval. Carbon 14 dating only proved that what was tested, on average, was medieval. New studies conducted between 2001 and 2008 demonstrate that what was tested was chemically different than the rest of the cloth. Splices and the presence of dyestuff and cotton fibers suggest that the carbon 14 samples were taken from a medieval repair patch to the cloth. Furthermore, recent analysis of Lignin Decomposition Kinetics shows that the cloth is at least twice as old as the carbon 14 estimates. The results of these studies are reported in the peer-reviewed scientific journal Thermochimica Acta in a paper by the late Raymond N. Rogers, a Fellow of the Los Alamos National Laboratory, University of California (See: Volume 425 pp. 189-194) and Chemistry Today (Vol 26, Num 4, Jul/Aug 2008), “Discrepancies in the radiocarbon dating area of the Turin shroud”, Benford M.S., Marino J.G.

A microscope is not used in carbon dating.

 

[Common Sense]

[
Carbon dating has been proven to be accurate within a 1% time frame by multiple sources. thats a scientific fact! it doesnt rely on some random story written and embellished by man a few thousand years ago.

Carbon dating, like all radioactive dating, is flawed because it assumes that carbon decays the same rate today that it did 200 years ago, 1000 years ago, 10,000 years ago, etc.

You can't rely on those assumptions. Circumstances in nature may be very different than t hey were 500 years ago, or 1000 years ago or even longer.

You can hypothesize. You can make educated guesses. You can even rely on those. But until you can prove your assumptions, which unless you've developed time travel, you can't. You are just making guesses.

The problem with people who try to use science to attack faith is they refuse to admit the very real limits science has and it's purpose as a tool to help us understand the world around us.

They also have a tendency to ignore all evidence they don't like. Funny how that works.

as for how old the earth is? I don't know. I haven't asked God about it. He hasnt told me. Frankly it's not one of my more pressing matters with Him.

I really wish people would look at reality instead of insisting that they know everything based on their own assumptions.

i can understand you assumption in thinking that god is responsible for everything. but more evidence points to the old earth theory than the young earth theory. can you point us to anything outside of the bible that leads people to believe that the earth is only 6,000 - 10,000 years old? i dont believe there actually is any.

there are various forms of historical dating that help to support each others. i have listed radiocarbon dating, potassium-argon dating and uranium-lead dating. while these may not be able to pin point the exact year something was created, it is reliable for giving us a range. there are also multiple scientists working on this very same problem independently and their results are similar.

can you please list the so called evidence that scientists like to ignore as well?