>be faceless void >mfw I have no face
@the FsM, the Bible says God created the world, while pastafarianism says the FSM created the world. Ergo, the FSM is unbiblical, and therefore wrong. No, this isn't scientific. No, you cannot scientifically disprove FSM OR christianity.
@rai, dragons are dinosaurs. There are numerous dragon fossils in the world.
@will My point was that changes in shape, size, colour etc. don't mean something has evolved. E.g. Peppered moth, over 9000 fruit fly experiments).
I am fine with natural selection. I am against the theory that species can become new species.
What will said about carbon radiation being minor is correct.
Will, the evidence so called is insufficient to prove that the world is millions of years old. As you say, it 'suggests' that the world may be that old. It may also be 6000 years old.
If God exists, then He is highly relevant. Is not an omnipotent omniscient being rather important in the general scheme of things?
Why would God explain germ theory? He promoted and commanded cleanliness in the Bible, but knowing germ theory doesn't really help one with religious things, which is what the Bible is about. While the Bible is scientifically accurate in everything science related, it is not a scientific textbook.
1) Unbiblical =/= wrong.
Incorrect. However, as I said, I was referring to religious matters; I was attempting to show you that you cannot ask me to disprove FSM when you cannot disprove Christianity. In addition, that thread of discussion is totally offtopic.
2) So your saying that dinosaurs survived to a few years after 0 AD? And still managed to leave fossils? And no recorded encounters except that part from the Infancy Gospel of Matthew? Shit, just shit.
Sure. There's reason to believe plesiosaurs are still alive, or were until very recently. I don't know about the ones from 0 AD leaving fossils; it may be possible in some circumstances for them to leave a fossil in that time, but they may not have. I don't know why you continue to persevere with this Infancy Gospel of Matthew nonsesnse; even at the time it was translated it was doubted to be authentic. It certainly doesn't agree with the rest of the Bible. And there are recorded instances of dragons from many cultures until fairly recently, both in mythology and in recorded accounts of events. Marco Polo talked of the emperor keeping dragons for ceremonies.
3) Changes like that can totally add up to species separation. Since it's late today, tomorrow I'll find an article or something that discusses 2 species (almost identical, more identical than breeds of dogs) of snapping shrimps that got separated by moving tectonic plates and now end up giving the finger to each other instead of mating.
k.
4) No. He was referring to how carbon-14 was NOT poisonous, and how little you proably know about the topic.
Please read more carefully. Will was saying that K_A was incorrect to say that carbon 14 radiation could cause poisoning. I agreed with him. The reason carbon 14 radiation is not poisonous is because it emits very little ionized radioactive material. In the event of a nuclear explosion or nuclear fallout, huge amounts of ionized radioactive material is released. Carbon14 decay and indeed, any other element's decay is generally not enough to cause damage or poisoning. Some elements are capable of it, such as caesium, and will cause great damage to you if you get hold of any. While carbon 14 does release radioactive material, it is in small amounts such as one generally receives from background radiation. You are also resorting to ad hominem, a practice looked down on in this forum. I've taken one course which covered nuclear science, had a basic education of nuclear science at school, and done a little reading into the subject myself. So not only was it ad hominem, it was ill-informed ad hominem.
5) So if there are shitloads of evidence "suggesting" that the world is millions years old and a (questionable) book saying that it is 6000 years old, we should follow the book. Very nice. No. At least give us some evidence.
I didn't say that. Now you're using strawman arguments. Firstly, there is not enough evidence to PROVE that the world is millions of years old. There is a certain amount of evidence that suggests that it is indeed a possibility. There is also evidence to suggest that the world is 6000 years old. However, that evidence is generally looked down on by the scientific community because it doesn't fit their worldview.
@Cecil: This is NOT spam. Do NOT delete this post.
No, it isn't spam, but it doesn't use well formulated arguments, doesn't follow proper debating/SD procedure, and uses logical fallacies.
@will My point was that changes in shape, size, colour etc. don't mean something has evolved. E.g. Peppered moth, over 9000 fruit fly experiments).
I am fine with natural selection. I am against the theory that species can become new species.
What will said about carbon radiation being minor is correct.
Will, the evidence so called is insufficient to prove that the world is millions of years old. As you say, it 'suggests' that the world may be that old. It may also be 6000 years old.
If God exists, then He is highly relevant. Is not an omnipotent omniscient being rather important in the general scheme of things?
I am also fine with natural selection and sexual selection (Darwin's other, lesser known theory which he actually preferred to natural selection), and I do have some nagging doubts about parts of evolution itself. However, the thing you appear to disagree with is speciation, which definitely does occur. (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciation)See, looking at that article it basically says back in the past speciation occured. As in, back during the last ice age. This is the same sort of thing as "man descended from chimps". There is no evidence, just suggestions that it may be so. Now, there may be some fish in close proximity to each other that don't mate that look similar. This doesn't automatically mean they had a common ancestor, or that one evolved from the other.
As for your point about geology, Carbon-14 dating is not the only kind of radiometric dating, but is useful in dating of organic material due to its
relative abundance there and the fact it's the longest lived isotope found in organic material (afaik). Other radioactive isotopes decay much more slowly, making them useful in determining the age of rocks or other types of inorganic material. Rocks have been found on Earth which are approximately 4 billion years old. (
http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/geotime/age.html) While the Earth may not be 4 billion years old, the chances of it being 6,000 years old are much slimmer based on the empirical evidence available to us.
SO THERE IS A CHANCE? HA! No but seriously, I want something closer to proof of one or the other. I doubt the 6000 years thing will ever be proved (but I believe that for religious reasons; I think God intentionally doesn't have signs in the sky saying I AM HERE or obvious markers that the world is 6000 years old because then it defeats the purpose of faith. However, I think that there are certainly signs pointing towards the world being 6000 years old. ANYWAY) but I also doubt the 4 billion years thing will be proved.
What has "God" ever done for you personally? What evidence have you seen, first hand, that he is omnipotent or omniscient? As far as I know, he's never done a bloody thing in my lifetime or in living memory - all events can be explained comfortably by human action, weather systems, and tectonic activity, for example. What has he done? Is he asleep? Is he dead? Has he got fed up with the universe and gone to some other plane of existence? So long as he appears to do nothing (if he exists) then I'm not too bothered about his relevance.
He gave me happiness. Even if He doesn't exist, my belief in Him has given me that. If He DOES exist, then He personally has given me it. Either way, I'm both thankful and happy. I am content with the life He's given me, the circumstances I am in, the work I have, the family I have, the friends I have, etc. The evidence I have seen is the world in general, and life in general (I don't believe in evolution. Life didn't just appear. God made life, so he's at the very least EXTREMELY powerful.) and the Bible. Also, there are many unexplainable things in the world which the Bible can explain and you can't. Can you explain the Phillipino healers? How about the lack of blood and pain during a Thaipusam ceremony? Ever heard of Ze Arigo? His healings have been videod. He uses a rusty knife to diagnose people. I could go on with more, but I'll leave you with that for now
Red classic.
"In short, their absurdities are so extreme that it is painful even to quote them."