Creationists

[Youwerecreated]

The best evidence from the period when the Bible was written is that the Earth is flat and 6,000 years old.

Get your facts straight. Do you do like others and lump all believers with the same beliefs ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

The best evidence from the period when the Bible was written is that the Earth is flat and 6,000 years old.

Do you realize how ignorant this argument is ?

I repeat, no one knows for sure the accurate age of this planet.

No one knows for sure when life began on this planet.

Did I say it clear enough this time ? no not even your side knows the answers to these questions.

 

[HUGGY]

The best evidence from the period when the Bible was written is that the Earth is flat and 6,000 years old.

Do you realize how ignorant this argument is ?

I repeat, no one knows for sure the accurate age of this planet.

No one knows for sure when life began on this planet.

Did I say it clear enough this time ? no not even your side knows the answers to these questions.

No one knows the "accurate" age of the planet? SSOOOoooo..THAT leaves the door open that it could be 6000 years old?

No one knows when life began exactly? So Adam and Eve could be just as plausible as any possibility?

There is no "ignorant" like Christian ignorant.

 

[Youwerecreated]

The best evidence from the period when the Bible was written is that the Earth is flat and 6,000 years old.

Do you realize how ignorant this argument is ?

I repeat, no one knows for sure the accurate age of this planet.

No one knows for sure when life began on this planet.

Did I say it clear enough this time ? no not even your side knows the answers to these questions.

No one knows the "accurate" age of the planet? SSOOOoooo..THAT leaves the door open that it could be 6000 years old?

No one knows when life began exactly? So Adam and Eve could be just as plausible as any possibility?

There is no "ignorant" like Christian ignorant.

So if no one knows how long ago life started on earth or how old the earth is, any number you hang your hat on is speculation and is not a fact.

Once again your view is based on faith through speculation and your presuppositions. How is your view any more viable then the bibles account ?

 

[HUGGY]

Do you realize how ignorant this argument is ?

I repeat, no one knows for sure the accurate age of this planet.

No one knows for sure when life began on this planet.

Did I say it clear enough this time ? no not even your side knows the answers to these questions.

No one knows the "accurate" age of the planet? SSOOOoooo..THAT leaves the door open that it could be 6000 years old?

No one knows when life began exactly? So Adam and Eve could be just as plausible as any possibility?

There is no "ignorant" like Christian ignorant.

So if no one knows how long ago life started on earth or how old the earth is, any number you hang your hat on is speculation and is not a fact.

Once again your view is based on faith through speculation and your presuppositions. How is your view any more viable then the bibles account ?

So you do not accept ANY science? That is in fact proof of your willfull ignorance.

SOOOoo....Radio Carbon Dating is a lie? Or just a "theory"?

Radio Carbon Dating "Wiki"

"Radiocarbon dating (sometimes simply known as carbon dating) is a radiometric dating method that uses the naturally occurring radioisotope carbon-14 (14C) to estimate the age of carbon-bearing materials up to about 58,000 to 62,000 years.[1] Raw, i.e. uncalibrated, radiocarbon ages are usually reported in radiocarbon years "Before Present" (BP), "Present" being defined as 1950. Such raw ages can be calibrated to give calendar dates. One of the most frequent uses of radiocarbon dating is to estimate the age of organic remains from archaeological sites. When plants fix atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) into organic material during photosynthesis they incorporate a quantity of 14C that approximately matches the level of this isotope in the atmosphere (a small difference occurs because of isotope fractionation, but this is corrected after laboratory analysis[citation needed]). After plants die or they are consumed by other organisms (for example, by humans or other animals) the 14C fraction of this organic material declines at a fixed exponential rate due to the radioactive decay of 14C. Comparing the remaining 14C fraction of a sample to that expected from atmospheric 14C allows the age of the sample to be estimated.

The technique of radiocarbon dating was developed by Willard Libby and his colleagues at the University of Chicago in 1949. Emilio Segrè asserted in his autobiography that Enrico Fermi suggested the concept to Libby in a seminar at Chicago that year. Libby estimated that the steady state radioactivity concentration of exchangeable carbon-14 would be about 14 disintegrations per minute (dpm) per gram. In 1960, he was awarded the Nobel Prize in chemistry for this work. He demonstrated the accuracy of radiocarbon dating by accurately estimating the age of wood from a series of samples for which the age was known, including an ancient Egyptian royal barge of 1850 BC.[2][3]"

So if you are too stupid to "get it"....you just fall back on the most rediculous theory that exists?..the bible?

RCD can/does with some degree of reliable accuracy date materials back to nearly 60,000 years.

That is just for starters... where do you "hang your hat" on RCD? You DO know that the ocean floors "grow" along lines ...."trenches" where new mantle wells up as magma and along the continents dives back down beneath the crust in most cases and just crushes up against other continents resulting in the lifting of crust resulting in mountain ranges..You deny this? How do they know this is true? Radio Carbon Dating of the material at the bottom of the oceans.

What you do is deny all scientific fact and disengenuously lable all such fact as "theory" so you can further the lie you perpetrate and equate your fairy tale with wrongfully labled facts.

 

[Youwerecreated]

No one knows the "accurate" age of the planet? SSOOOoooo..THAT leaves the door open that it could be 6000 years old?

No one knows when life began exactly? So Adam and Eve could be just as plausible as any possibility?

There is no "ignorant" like Christian ignorant.

So if no one knows how long ago life started on earth or how old the earth is, any number you hang your hat on is speculation and is not a fact.

Once again your view is based on faith through speculation and your presuppositions. How is your view any more viable then the bibles account ?

So you do not accept ANY science? That is in fact proof of your willfull ignorance.

SOOOoo....Radio Carbon Dating is a lie? Or just a "theory"?

Radio Carbon Dating "Wiki"

"Radiocarbon dating (sometimes simply known as carbon dating) is a radiometric dating method that uses the naturally occurring radioisotope carbon-14 (14C) to estimate the age of carbon-bearing materials up to about 58,000 to 62,000 years.[1] Raw, i.e. uncalibrated, radiocarbon ages are usually reported in radiocarbon years "Before Present" (BP), "Present" being defined as 1950. Such raw ages can be calibrated to give calendar dates. One of the most frequent uses of radiocarbon dating is to estimate the age of organic remains from archaeological sites. When plants fix atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) into organic material during photosynthesis they incorporate a quantity of 14C that approximately matches the level of this isotope in the atmosphere (a small difference occurs because of isotope fractionation, but this is corrected after laboratory analysis[citation needed]). After plants die or they are consumed by other organisms (for example, by humans or other animals) the 14C fraction of this organic material declines at a fixed exponential rate due to the radioactive decay of 14C. Comparing the remaining 14C fraction of a sample to that expected from atmospheric 14C allows the age of the sample to be estimated.

The technique of radiocarbon dating was developed by Willard Libby and his colleagues at the University of Chicago in 1949. Emilio Segrè asserted in his autobiography that Enrico Fermi suggested the concept to Libby in a seminar at Chicago that year. Libby estimated that the steady state radioactivity concentration of exchangeable carbon-14 would be about 14 disintegrations per minute (dpm) per gram. In 1960, he was awarded the Nobel Prize in chemistry for this work. He demonstrated the accuracy of radiocarbon dating by accurately estimating the age of wood from a series of samples for which the age was known, including an ancient Egyptian royal barge of 1850 BC.[2][3]"

So if you are too stupid to "get it"....you just fall back on the most rediculous theory that exists?..the bible?

RCD can/does with some degree of reliable accuracy date materials back to nearly 60,000 years.

That is just for starters... where do you "hang your hat" on RCD? You DO know that the ocean floors "grow" along lines ...."trenches" where new mantle wells up as magma and along the continents dives back down beneath the crust in most cases and just crushes up against other continents resulting in the lifting of crust resulting in mountain ranges..You deny this? How do they know this is true? Radio Carbon Dating of the material at the bottom of the oceans.

What you do is deny all scientific fact and disengenuously lable all such fact as "theory" so you can further the lie you perpetrate and equate your fairy tale with wrongfully labled facts.

Dating methods are only as accurate as the presuppositions and speculation,none of us were there.

I accept legitmate science that can be verified not left to presuppositions affecting the conclusion or vivid imaginations.

 

[Montrovant]

Dating methods are only as accurate as the presuppositions and speculation,none of us were there.

I accept legitmate science that can be verified not left to presuppositions affecting the conclusion or vivid imaginations.

Do you understand that, by that logic, you cannot trust anything that didn't happen in the lifetime of someone alive today? After all, none of us were there! Even if there is some sort of written record, since none of us were there, there is no way to verify the accuracy of those records!

I'm sorry, but saying dating methods that don't involve someone being there are inherently inaccurate is just silly. Now, perhaps our dating methods ARE inaccurate; your inability to accept the reality around you as having been constant before your time is no reason to think so, however.

 

[HUGGY]

So if no one knows how long ago life started on earth or how old the earth is, any number you hang your hat on is speculation and is not a fact.

Once again your view is based on faith through speculation and your presuppositions. How is your view any more viable then the bibles account ?

So you do not accept ANY science? That is in fact proof of your willfull ignorance.

SOOOoo....Radio Carbon Dating is a lie? Or just a "theory"?

Radio Carbon Dating "Wiki"

"Radiocarbon dating (sometimes simply known as carbon dating) is a radiometric dating method that uses the naturally occurring radioisotope carbon-14 (14C) to estimate the age of carbon-bearing materials up to about 58,000 to 62,000 years.[1] Raw, i.e. uncalibrated, radiocarbon ages are usually reported in radiocarbon years "Before Present" (BP), "Present" being defined as 1950. Such raw ages can be calibrated to give calendar dates. One of the most frequent uses of radiocarbon dating is to estimate the age of organic remains from archaeological sites. When plants fix atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) into organic material during photosynthesis they incorporate a quantity of 14C that approximately matches the level of this isotope in the atmosphere (a small difference occurs because of isotope fractionation, but this is corrected after laboratory analysis[citation needed]). After plants die or they are consumed by other organisms (for example, by humans or other animals) the 14C fraction of this organic material declines at a fixed exponential rate due to the radioactive decay of 14C. Comparing the remaining 14C fraction of a sample to that expected from atmospheric 14C allows the age of the sample to be estimated.

The technique of radiocarbon dating was developed by Willard Libby and his colleagues at the University of Chicago in 1949. Emilio Segrè asserted in his autobiography that Enrico Fermi suggested the concept to Libby in a seminar at Chicago that year. Libby estimated that the steady state radioactivity concentration of exchangeable carbon-14 would be about 14 disintegrations per minute (dpm) per gram. In 1960, he was awarded the Nobel Prize in chemistry for this work. He demonstrated the accuracy of radiocarbon dating by accurately estimating the age of wood from a series of samples for which the age was known, including an ancient Egyptian royal barge of 1850 BC.[2][3]"

So if you are too stupid to "get it"....you just fall back on the most rediculous theory that exists?..the bible?

RCD can/does with some degree of reliable accuracy date materials back to nearly 60,000 years.

That is just for starters... where do you "hang your hat" on RCD? You DO know that the ocean floors "grow" along lines ...."trenches" where new mantle wells up as magma and along the continents dives back down beneath the crust in most cases and just crushes up against other continents resulting in the lifting of crust resulting in mountain ranges..You deny this? How do they know this is true? Radio Carbon Dating of the material at the bottom of the oceans.

What you do is deny all scientific fact and disengenuously lable all such fact as "theory" so you can further the lie you perpetrate and equate your fairy tale with wrongfully labled facts.

Dating methods are only as accurate as the presuppositions and speculation,none of us were there.

I accept legitmate science that can be verified not left to presuppositions affecting the conclusion or vivid imaginations.

By your crazy logic you have no business believing anything in the bible either. YOU WERE NOT THERE!!!!

You mean by "vivid imaginations"...like everything in the bibles?



What an idiot!

 

[newpolitics]

Do you realize how ignorant this argument is ?

I repeat, no one knows for sure the accurate age of this planet.

No one knows for sure when life began on this planet.

Did I say it clear enough this time ? no not even your side knows the answers to these questions.

No one knows the "accurate" age of the planet? SSOOOoooo..THAT leaves the door open that it could be 6000 years old?

No one knows when life began exactly? So Adam and Eve could be just as plausible as any possibility?

There is no "ignorant" like Christian ignorant.

So if no one knows how long ago life started on earth or how old the earth is, any number you hang your hat on is speculation and is not a fact.

Once again your view is based on faith through speculation and your presuppositions. How is your view any more viable then the bibles account ?

AAHHHHHHHHH. watching you debate makes me want to pull my hair out, of which there is a lot, mind you.

If we have faith, then it is faith in the physical universe: faith that when you combine hydrogen and oxygen, it will form H20 under the right conditions... faith that a hammer will fall to the ground everytime.... faith that there are such things as quarks and atoms and molecules and that these fundamental building blocks of our structure guide and cause everything we see around us... faith in physical reality

Sure, to the extent that we simply can not control things with our minds, this may be called faith, but it is not the same faith as believing a super-natural being supersedes all physics, chemistry, biology, astronomy, and all other natural sciences somehow. That is some serious faith that actually defies logic in the face of so much evidence that our physical reality is guided by inherent natural forces that exist everywhere all the time.

 

[HUGGY]

No one knows the "accurate" age of the planet? SSOOOoooo..THAT leaves the door open that it could be 6000 years old?

No one knows when life began exactly? So Adam and Eve could be just as plausible as any possibility?

There is no "ignorant" like Christian ignorant.

So if no one knows how long ago life started on earth or how old the earth is, any number you hang your hat on is speculation and is not a fact.

Once again your view is based on faith through speculation and your presuppositions. How is your view any more viable then the bibles account ?

AAHHHHHHHHH. watching you debate makes me want to pull my hair out, of which there is a lot, mind you.

If we have faith, then it is faith in the physical universe: faith that when you combine hydrogen and oxygen, it will form H20 under the right conditions... faith that a hammer will fall to the ground everytime.... faith that there are such things as quarks and atoms and molecules and that these fundamental building blocks of our structure guide and cause everything we see around us... faith in physical reality

Sure, to the extent that we simply can not control things with our minds, this may be called faith, but it is not the same faith as believing a super-natural being supersedes all physics, chemistry, biology, astronomy, and all other natural sciences somehow. That is some serious faith that actually defies logic in the face of so much evidence that our physical reality is guided by inherent natural forces that exist everywhere all the time.

AKA..Bat Shit Crazy.

 

[koshergrl]

Who said that natural forces don't exist?

We just believe they are orchestrated by God.

Which of course, they are.

 

[HUGGY]

Who said that natural forces don't exist?

We just believe they are orchestrated by God.

Which of course, they are.

Does it bother you that in the fantasy cartoon world in which you exist..your thought bubble is empty?

 

[Youwerecreated]

Dating methods are only as accurate as the presuppositions and speculation,none of us were there.

I accept legitmate science that can be verified not left to presuppositions affecting the conclusion or vivid imaginations.

Do you understand that, by that logic, you cannot trust anything that didn't happen in the lifetime of someone alive today? After all, none of us were there! Even if there is some sort of written record, since none of us were there, there is no way to verify the accuracy of those records!

I'm sorry, but saying dating methods that don't involve someone being there are inherently inaccurate is just silly. Now, perhaps our dating methods ARE inaccurate; your inability to accept the reality around you as having been constant before your time is no reason to think so, however.

No It's not silly, it is factually accurate to say what I said. It's not like we are determining a death that happened recently. There have been many documented cases of objects being dated by several different scientists coming up with a different age. There have been many cases different parts of the same object showed different ages. Do I need to repost it for you ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

So you do not accept ANY science? That is in fact proof of your willfull ignorance.

SOOOoo....Radio Carbon Dating is a lie? Or just a "theory"?

Radio Carbon Dating "Wiki"

"Radiocarbon dating (sometimes simply known as carbon dating) is a radiometric dating method that uses the naturally occurring radioisotope carbon-14 (14C) to estimate the age of carbon-bearing materials up to about 58,000 to 62,000 years.[1] Raw, i.e. uncalibrated, radiocarbon ages are usually reported in radiocarbon years "Before Present" (BP), "Present" being defined as 1950. Such raw ages can be calibrated to give calendar dates. One of the most frequent uses of radiocarbon dating is to estimate the age of organic remains from archaeological sites. When plants fix atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) into organic material during photosynthesis they incorporate a quantity of 14C that approximately matches the level of this isotope in the atmosphere (a small difference occurs because of isotope fractionation, but this is corrected after laboratory analysis[citation needed]). After plants die or they are consumed by other organisms (for example, by humans or other animals) the 14C fraction of this organic material declines at a fixed exponential rate due to the radioactive decay of 14C. Comparing the remaining 14C fraction of a sample to that expected from atmospheric 14C allows the age of the sample to be estimated.

The technique of radiocarbon dating was developed by Willard Libby and his colleagues at the University of Chicago in 1949. Emilio Segrè asserted in his autobiography that Enrico Fermi suggested the concept to Libby in a seminar at Chicago that year. Libby estimated that the steady state radioactivity concentration of exchangeable carbon-14 would be about 14 disintegrations per minute (dpm) per gram. In 1960, he was awarded the Nobel Prize in chemistry for this work. He demonstrated the accuracy of radiocarbon dating by accurately estimating the age of wood from a series of samples for which the age was known, including an ancient Egyptian royal barge of 1850 BC.[2][3]"

So if you are too stupid to "get it"....you just fall back on the most rediculous theory that exists?..the bible?

RCD can/does with some degree of reliable accuracy date materials back to nearly 60,000 years.

That is just for starters... where do you "hang your hat" on RCD? You DO know that the ocean floors "grow" along lines ...."trenches" where new mantle wells up as magma and along the continents dives back down beneath the crust in most cases and just crushes up against other continents resulting in the lifting of crust resulting in mountain ranges..You deny this? How do they know this is true? Radio Carbon Dating of the material at the bottom of the oceans.

What you do is deny all scientific fact and disengenuously lable all such fact as "theory" so you can further the lie you perpetrate and equate your fairy tale with wrongfully labled facts.

Dating methods are only as accurate as the presuppositions and speculation,none of us were there.

I accept legitmate science that can be verified not left to presuppositions affecting the conclusion or vivid imaginations.

By your crazy logic you have no business believing anything in the bible either. YOU WERE NOT THERE!!!!

You mean by "vivid imaginations"...like everything in the bibles?



What an idiot!

But you see I don't have a problem admitting many of my views on the bible are based in faith. Your side seems to have a problem admitting their views are based in faith not science you moron.

 

[Youwerecreated]

No one knows the "accurate" age of the planet? SSOOOoooo..THAT leaves the door open that it could be 6000 years old?

No one knows when life began exactly? So Adam and Eve could be just as plausible as any possibility?

There is no "ignorant" like Christian ignorant.

So if no one knows how long ago life started on earth or how old the earth is, any number you hang your hat on is speculation and is not a fact.

Once again your view is based on faith through speculation and your presuppositions. How is your view any more viable then the bibles account ?

AAHHHHHHHHH. watching you debate makes me want to pull my hair out, of which there is a lot, mind you.

If we have faith, then it is faith in the physical universe: faith that when you combine hydrogen and oxygen, it will form H20 under the right conditions... faith that a hammer will fall to the ground everytime.... faith that there are such things as quarks and atoms and molecules and that these fundamental building blocks of our structure guide and cause everything we see around us... faith in physical reality

Sure, to the extent that we simply can not control things with our minds, this may be called faith, but it is not the same faith as believing a super-natural being supersedes all physics, chemistry, biology, astronomy, and all other natural sciences somehow. That is some serious faith that actually defies logic in the face of so much evidence that our physical reality is guided by inherent natural forces that exist everywhere all the time.

Things you believe in science that lack evidence to support the view is based in faith. Don't have your own standard for faith ,there is no difference.

 

[Youwerecreated]

So if no one knows how long ago life started on earth or how old the earth is, any number you hang your hat on is speculation and is not a fact.

Once again your view is based on faith through speculation and your presuppositions. How is your view any more viable then the bibles account ?

AAHHHHHHHHH. watching you debate makes me want to pull my hair out, of which there is a lot, mind you.

If we have faith, then it is faith in the physical universe: faith that when you combine hydrogen and oxygen, it will form H20 under the right conditions... faith that a hammer will fall to the ground everytime.... faith that there are such things as quarks and atoms and molecules and that these fundamental building blocks of our structure guide and cause everything we see around us... faith in physical reality

Sure, to the extent that we simply can not control things with our minds, this may be called faith, but it is not the same faith as believing a super-natural being supersedes all physics, chemistry, biology, astronomy, and all other natural sciences somehow. That is some serious faith that actually defies logic in the face of so much evidence that our physical reality is guided by inherent natural forces that exist everywhere all the time.

AKA..Bat Shit Crazy.

Coming from someone who did too much drugs.

 

[HUGGY]

AAHHHHHHHHH. watching you debate makes me want to pull my hair out, of which there is a lot, mind you.

If we have faith, then it is faith in the physical universe: faith that when you combine hydrogen and oxygen, it will form H20 under the right conditions... faith that a hammer will fall to the ground everytime.... faith that there are such things as quarks and atoms and molecules and that these fundamental building blocks of our structure guide and cause everything we see around us... faith in physical reality

Sure, to the extent that we simply can not control things with our minds, this may be called faith, but it is not the same faith as believing a super-natural being supersedes all physics, chemistry, biology, astronomy, and all other natural sciences somehow. That is some serious faith that actually defies logic in the face of so much evidence that our physical reality is guided by inherent natural forces that exist everywhere all the time.

AKA..Bat Shit Crazy.

Coming from someone who did too much drugs.

No such thing if you take care of yourself at the same time.

Huggy won't be drownin in his bathtub any time soon....

 

[UltimateReality]

After all, none of us were there! Even if there is some sort of written record, since none of us were there, there is no way to verify the accuracy of those records!

So based on these statements, I am guessing you accept the written accounts of the ressurection of Christ??

 

[UltimateReality]

While we are on the subject of faith, and your side's supposed oh so much trust in experiments and "real" science, looks like Higgs is about to go the way of Zeus, i.e, becoming a myth...

"The LHC has done an impressive job of investigating and leaving in tatters the SUSY/extra-dimensional speculative universe that has dominated particle theory for much of the last thirty years, and this is likely to be one of its main legacies. These fields will undoubtedly continue to play a large role in particle theory, no matter how bad the experimental situation gets, as their advocates argue “Never, never, never give up!”"

Not Even Wrong

 

[HUGGY]

After all, none of us were there! Even if there is some sort of written record, since none of us were there, there is no way to verify the accuracy of those records!

So based on these statements, I am guessing you accept the written accounts of the ressurection of Christ??

Memo to godboy: When people are dead for over 24 hours ..they stay dead.