Christian Gamer Alliance, Tribe of Judah
and Christian Computer Game Reveiws Forums
|
The Faithful Knights of Christ > Best Topics > Something that is going to make me stronger |
|
|
Page 1 2 |
<< Prev Topic | Next Topic >> |
| Author |
Comment
|
|||
|
RshScks
Private First Class (8/23/00 6:16 pm) Reply |
Something that is going to make me stronger Well I just moved up to school, and I have 4 classes that I completelydo not agree with, but have to take them to get rid of my requirements. The 4 classes I am taking that I do not agree with are Princables of animal biology, geology, anthropology, and World History. So far in each one of those classes they have told me about evolution, and how it has been proven. It is really hard for me to sit there and listen to them talk about it, while I get sick to my stomach listening to it. I think this will just strengthen my beliefs, and make me a better person. Well that is what I wanted to tell you. |
|||
F1rehawk 
General (8/23/00 8:01 pm) Reply |
Re: Something that is going to make me stronger
I agree rshchks(iknow thats probably spelled wrong). You will definetely become stronger. What better way to fight against the enemy than by knowing his tactics. The more you learn about evolution, the more you'll be able to explain to people why its wrong.
|
|||
spaceman spiff 
Sergeant (8/23/00 8:36 pm) Reply |
Re: Something that is going to make me stronger I'm in a Christian school, and last year we learned about evolution, but the only reason we learned about it was to disprove it and point out the wrong stuff in it.
|
|||
MRhan0 
 (8/23/00 11:39 pm) Reply |
Re: Something that is going to make me stronger Remember that you can listen to what someone says even though you know it is wrong. Listening to them is not wrong. And, as Firehawk said, it helps to know about things like evolution in order to disprove it if you feel it is wrong.
|
|||
|
sir callandDE
Civilian (8/24/00 1:42 am) Reply |
Not meaning to start a fight but I find it hard to belive you cant accept evolution as far as I can see it is clear. I have no doubts they are not 100 percent but to dispute just seems silly to me, so I would really like to understand your position on this? I dont mean to start a fight but id at least like to know where you are coming from so I can better formulate an opinion? Sir Calland{DE} Draconian Empire ULGD Council Rep Guardian of the Empire |
|||
Hyperchild aka Jayme
 (8/24/00 1:51 am) Reply |
Re: Not meaning to start a fight but 1. If humans came from apes, why do we still have apes? 2. The world hasn't been around long enough for evolution to be true. 3. The Bible disproves evolution because it gives no evidence of it. Unless you count God making everything from thin air...then, maybe I'll consider that evolving...in a sense. heh. 4. The only evolution that I've ever seen is the kind the Zerg do in StarCraft. How about you? 5. The thing is, if evolution were TRUE, then something would have evolved by now (since the beginning of the Evolution Theory), but has anything evolved? No. I do, however, believe that we change over time due to our surroundings, but not that we change completely (physically and everything). I mean, it's the "the strong shall survive" thing about adaptation and all that. A species will ADAPT, but it will NOT evolve into another spocies. Get me? (oh yay another debate another debate!) WE RIDE!!! Visit my poetry website: 
|
|||
WildFlames
 (8/24/00 2:10 am) Reply |
Good OnesGood OnesGood Ones HyperChild, I'll add some more.
We don't want to pound ya Sir Calland, just give you some food for thought! Eat well... 
|
|||
|
spaceman spiff
Sergeant (8/24/00 2:25 am) Reply |
Re: Good Ones Yeah. I like the one where people adapt. I mean, before the tower of babel fell, everyone probably looked like what middle eastern people do today. But when it fell, everyone dispersed throughout the world. Then they adapted. People in Africa, they turned black to help them. The people in Asia and Japan, their eyes turned more, uh, flat, I guess you would call it, so they could deal with the sun better. 
|
|||
Reject 
 (8/24/00 9:09 am) Reply |
Re: Good Ones I have a long report on way evolution is wrong(its too long too post, and doesn't post correctly anyways) but it will explain why evolution won't work,(time problem, how everytihng is too complex, too ordered, and things like that). If ya want it, send me and E-mail, VvRejectvV@aol.com, and you can find my ICQ# on the Members part of our site. Also, Personally, I can not see how anyone could believe in Evolution, because everything around me is too complex and too ordered to be just an accident.
|
|||
czubin 
Private First Class (8/24/00 1:52 pm) Reply |
evolution it can be some useful information you can find out why your great grand father was a monkey. ------------------------------------------------------- |
|||
|
Simryd
Private First Class (8/24/00 5:14 pm) Reply |
Didn't think I'd forget this one, did ya? ;) First off, evolution is a theory. It is a theory based on inductive logic. Secondly, science does not concern itself with faith. That isn't it's job. It's like asking a baseball player to type accounting reports. So, don't immediately dismiss something because it's not based on faith. God gave us the tools of analysis and reason. They must be there for something. Perhaps we have them in order to complement faith in our search for understanding about how the world works. Also, Charles Darwin was not an atheist. In fact, he believed in God. He believed in the Bible. He would likely find it disturbing that many non-Christians have chosen to use his work as "evidence" to discredit the Bible. Now, on to the questions... 1. If humans came from apes, why do we still have apes? Your understanding of evolution is clearly a little crude. Humanity did not come from apes. Nor did apes come from apes. We both came from a common ancestor. Apes more closely resemble that original ancestor, because they had fewer environmental stressors inducing them to evolve. 2. The world hasn't been around long enough for evolution to be true. *chuckles* well, I realize the futility of an effort to convince you of this, but here's the news flash: The earth isn't 6000 years old, according to science. Instead, it's roughly 4 billion years old. Now, keep in mind that the Bible isn't inherently discredited by asserting that the Earth is 4 billion years old. Ever hear of evolutionary creationism? There is a HUGE number of Christians out there who believe that the six days of creation are "metaphorical" days, such that they are the six "eons" of creation instead of the six 24-hour, circadian days we know now. Who says such is impossible? With God, all things are possible. Didn't he stop the sun in the sky once in the Old Testament? 3. The Bible disproves evolution because it gives no evidence of it. Unless you count God making everything from thin air...then, maybe I'll consider that evolving...in a sense. heh. Does the Bible give evidence of quantum mechanics? Calculus? Principles of aerodynamics? Enthalpy? Plate Tectonics? Physics? Chemistry? Of course not, silly! ;) Does that make them "disproven," as you would assert? I think not. 4. The only evolution that I've ever seen is the kind the Zerg do in StarCraft. How about you? (see response to #5) 5. The thing is, if evolution were TRUE, then something would have evolved by now (since the beginning of the Evolution Theory), but has anything evolved? No. I hate to burst your bubble, but we have witnessed species evolve. Back when Mt. St. Helens erupted, there was a species of fish which swam in nearby streams. The intensity of the ashes, the pyroclastic flow, etc... this changed the environment so significantly as to kill off millions of animals, but there was one species of fish which changed slightly in its genetic make up, so as to adapt to the altered environment. Also, all you have to do is look at humankind over the last 200 years. We've evolved in our physical make up. In the U.S., we're now *significantly* taller, on average, than we used to be. This has been due to better nutrition, and better health care (hint: that's a change in environment). All you have to do is look at the average height of doorways from 200+ year old buildings to discover this out. Or, in my case, you can just look at the previous 5 generations. My great-great grandfather was about 5'4". I'm 6'3", and every generation in between gets successively taller. Cool huh? (HyperChild) "A species will ADAPT, but it will NOT evolve into another spocies. Get me?" I do get you. When you look within any single generation, the adaptations are small. However, when you add generation-after-generation... up to hundreds of thousands of years, those small adaptations add up fast! Just as our minds struggle to contemplate God, so do they struggle to contemplate the vastness of time and space. 4 billion years is a LOOOOOONG time. I hope that helps you all understand it a little better. -Sim Edited by SirNukes at: 8/24/00 6:39:56 pm |
|||
|
Simryd
Private First Class (8/24/00 5:31 pm) Reply |
and to Wild Flames
(WF) "If everything evolved, than where are the supposed transitional forms?"
It takes a very rare and specific combination of environmental elements to come together to produce fossilization. So, if all the minute variants between some ancestor and humanity lived during times when this combination of elements never came together to produce a fossil, we will *never* have a record of it. This is why evolution will never be a scientific "law" per se. It is forever confined to the status of "theory," since it concerns the past, where our evidence is confined to what's still here. If you believe in the Bible, what will you do with the creation story? You do what millions of other Christians have done. You reconcile the two. Even if you say that evolution is 100% accurate, it doesn't automatically discredit the Bible. The creation story in Genesis never mentions hours. It only mentions days. Who's to say a day is, was, and always shall be 24 hours? God stopped the sun in the sky in the Old Testament, and who's to say he won't do the same tomorrow? In fact, doesn't it seem overly-scientific, and arrogant, and spitting in the face of God to say that we can "know" that a day was always exactly 24 hours? We can't "know" that the Earth is 4 billion years, and we ALSO can't "know" that a day was always 24 hours. Get my point? Oh, also on that point, a day ISN'T always 24 hours. Every couple of years or so, scientists have to throw in a couple of extra seconds into the clock, because the rate at which the earth is spinning is actually changing! Cool, huh? If everythig was an accident than where did the accident come from? Why do people misunderstand evolution so much? Evolution doesn't pretend to have an answer to this. The ONLY thing evolution deals with is a process of change. The presence (or lack thereof) of some supernatural deity is a wholly separate issue. If you could only learn to loosen the literal chokehold you have on the Bible, you might not fall victim to the same mistake the European Christians did when they labeled Galileo a blasphemer. Oops! Don't they look stupid now? hehe. Keep on searching. -Sim |
|||
|
Simryd
Private First Class (8/24/00 5:44 pm) Reply |
Total OT (Off Topic) question The Tower of Babel... which book was that in? I was wanting to read over that story a couple weeks ago. |
|||
|
SirNukes
General (8/24/00 6:38 pm) Reply |
Re: Total OT (Off Topic) question I will simply give scientific evidence for a young Earth with this post. This is taken from www.drdino.com. ____________________________________________ The general theory of evolution is based on several faulty assumptions. (Note: It is important to understand by this statement that we are not disputing simple variations that some call "microevolution," whose micro-changes are often observed but never lead to a fundamentally different kind of plant or animal.) The following assumptions of evolutionary theory are easy to prove false: 1. the universe is billions of years old, 2. life spontaneously arose from nonliving minerals, 3. mutations create or improve a species, 4. natural selection has creative power. In this section we will deal with the first of these assumptions. The others will be dealt with elsewhere. If, in fact, it could be demonstrated that the universe is not billions of years old, all other arguments about evolution become meaningless and unnecessary. In children’s fairy tales, we are told: frog + magic spell (usually a kiss) = prince In modern "science" textbooks we are told: frog + time = prince The same basic fairy tale (evolution) is being promoted in textbooks today, but the new magic potion cited is time. When the theory of evolution is discussed, time is the panacea for all the thousands of problems that arise. In nearly all discussions and debates about evolution that I have held at universities and colleges, I ask the evolutionists how certain things could have evolved by chance. Their answer is nearly always "Given enough time..." Time is the evolutionists’ god. Time is able to accomplish anything the evolutionists can propose. Time can easily turn a frog into a prince. Time can create matter from nothing and life from matter. According to evolutionists, time can create order from chaos. But let’s remove time from the above equation. There would be the following three results: 1. Evolution becomes obviously impossible. 2. Evolutionists will scream like a baby whose pacifier has been pulled out because they know that if time is removed, their religion (evolution is religion, not science) is silly. 3. Creation becomes the only reasonable alternative explanation for the existence of this complex universe. Let’s imagine we are exploring an old gold mine, and we find a Casio Databank watch half buried in the mud on the floor of the mine. Suppose also that the correct time and date are displayed on the watch and it is still running smoothly. Then imagine that I tell you the watch has been there for over one thousand years. "That’s impossible!" you say. "That watch could not have been there for a thousand years, and I can prove it!" "How can you prove I’m wrong?" I say. "Well, for one thing, this mine was just dug 150 years ago," you say. "Okay," I admit, "you’re right about the thousand years being too much, but the watch has been here for 150 years at least!" "No!" you say. "Casio didn’t make the Databank watch until twelve years ago." "All right," I say. "The watch was dropped here twelve years ago then." "Impossible!" you say. "The batteries only last five years on that watch, and it’s still running. That proves it has been here less than five years." While we still can’t prove exactly when the watch was left there, you have logically limited the date to five years at the most. You have effectively proven that my initial statement about the watch being 1000 years old is wrong. The larger numbers prove nothing in this debate. Even if I were to radiometric-date the mud or the plastic in the watch to try to prove that it is thousands of years old, my data would be meaningless. The same logic can be applied to finding the age of the earth. If several factors limit the age of the earth to a few thousand years, the earth cannot be older than a few thousand years! Even if a few indicators seem to show a greater age for the earth, it takes only ONE fact to prove the earth is young. The Bible teaches that: God created the universe approximately 6000 years ago, ex nihilo (out of nothing) in six literal, twenty-four hour days. Then, approximately 4400 years ago, the earth was destroyed by a worldwide Flood. This devastating, year-long Flood was responsible for the sediment layers being deposited (the water was going and returning, Gen. 8:3-5). As the mountains rose and the ocean basins sank after the Flood (Psalm 104:5-8, Gen. 8:1), the waters rushed off the rising mountains into the new ocean basins. This rapid-erosion through still-soft, unprotected sediments formed the topography we still see today, in places like the Grand Canyon. The uniformitarian assumption—that today’s slow erosion rates that take place through solid rock are the same as has always been—is faulty logic, and ignores catastrophes like the Flood. (2 Pet. 3:3-8 says that the scoffers are "willingly ignorant" of the Flood.) Listed below are some of the factors from various branches of science that limit the age of the universe (including earth) to within the last few thousand years. Though it cannot be scientifically proven exactly when the universe was created, its age can be shown to not be billions of years old. Each of the following evidences of a young earth is described in great detail in the books referenced below. Source number and page number are given for the following statements (at the bottom of this page): Evidence from Space The shrinking sun limits the earth-sun relationship to less than "billions of years." The sun is losing both mass and diameter. Changing the mass would upset the fine gravitational balance that keeps the earth at just the right distance for life to survive. (1, p. 169; 2, p. 30; 4, pp. 56-63; 5, p. 26; 6, p. 43;) The 0.5 inch layer of cosmic dust on the moon indicates the moon has not been accumulating dust for billions of years. (2, p. 26; 3, p. 22; 4, p. 15; 6, p. 35; 7; 9, p. 25) *Insufficient evidence to be positive (almost all estimates before the lunar landing anticipated great quantities of dust.) "I get a picture therefore, of the first spaceship, picking out a nice, level place for landing purposes, coming in slowly downward tail-first, and sinking majestically out of sight." -- Isaac Asimov, Science Digest, January, 1959, p 36 Lyttleton felt that the X-rays and UV light striking exposed moon rocks "could, during the age of the moon be sufficient to form a layer over it several miles deep." -- Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society of London, vol. 115, pp. 585-604 The existence of short-period comets indicates the universe is less than billions of years old. (2, p. 31; 3, p. 27; 4, p. 35; 6, p. 37; 7) Fossil meteorites are very rare in layers other than the top layers of the earth. This indicates that the layers were not exposed for millions of years as is currently being taught in school textbooks. (4, p. 26) The moon is receding a few inches each year. Billions of years ago the moon would have been so close that the tides would have been much higher, eroding away the continents. (3, p. 25; 6, p. 43; 7) The moon contains considerable quantities of U-236 and Th-230, both short-lived isotopes that would have been long gone if the moon were billions of years old. (8, p. 177; see also 4, p. 51, for information on rock "flow") The existence of great quantities of space dust, which by the Pointing-Robertson effect would have been vacuumed out of our solar system in a few thousand years, indicates the solar system is young. (3, p. 29; 6, p.44) At the rate many star clusters are expanding, they could not have been traveling for billions of years. (3, p. 29; 4, pp. 30 and 59; 6, p. 44) Saturn’s rings are still unstable, indicating they are not billions of years old. (4, p. 45) Jupiter and Saturn are cooling off rather rapidly. They are losing heat twice as fast as they gain it from the sun. They cannot be billions of years old. (5, p. 26; 4, p. 43; Jupiter’s moon, Io, is losing matter to Jupiter. It cannot be billions of years old. (4, p. 3) Among other factors to consider is that all the ancient astronomers from 2000 years ago recorded that Sirius was a red star—today it is a white dwarf star. Since today’s textbooks in astronomy state that one hundred thousand years are required for a star to "evolve" from a red giant to a white dwarf, obviously this view needs to be restudied. Evidence from Earth The decaying magnetic field limits earth’s age to less than billions. (1, p. 157; 2, p. 27; 3, p. 20; 5, p. 23; 6, p. 42; 9, p. 25; 10, p. 38) The volume of lava on earth divided by its rate of efflux gives a number of only a few million years, not billions. I believe that during the Flood, while "the fountains of the deep were broken up," most of the earth’s lava was deposited rapidly. (1, p. 156) Dividing the amount of various minerals in the ocean by their influx rate indicates only a few thousand years of accumulation. (1, p. 153; 5, p. 24; 6, p. 42) The amount of Helium 4 in the atmosphere, divided by the formation rate on earth, gives only 175,000 years. (God may have created the earth with some helium which would reduce the age more.) (1, p. 151; 6, p. 42; 9, p. 25) The erosion rate of the continents is such that they would erode to sea level in less than 14,000,000 years, destroying all old fossils. (2, p. 31; 6, p 38; American Science Vol 56 p 356-374) Topsoil formation rates indicate only a few thousand years of formation. (6, p. 38) Niagara Falls’ erosion rate (four to five feet per year) indicates an age of less than 10,000 years. Don’t forget Noah’s Flood could have eroded half of the seven-mile-long Niagara River gorge in a few hours as the flood waters raced through the soft sediments.) (6, p. 39; 7) The rock encasing oil deposits could not withstand the pressure for more than a few thousand years. (2, p. 32; 3, p. 24; 5, p. 24; 6, p. 37; 7) The size of the Mississippi River delta, divided by the rate mud is being deposited, gives an age of less than 30,000 years. (The Flood in Noah’s day could have washed out 80% of the mud there in a few hours or days, so 4400 years is a reasonable age for the delta.) (3, p. 23; 6, p. 38; 7) The slowing spin of the earth limits its age to less than the "billions of years" called for by the theory of evolution. (3, p. 25; 7) A relatively small amount of sediment is now on the ocean floor, indicating only a few thousand years of accumulation. This embarrassing fact is one of the reasons why the continental drift theory is vehemently defended by those who worship evolution. (1, p. 155; 6, p. 28; 7) The largest stalactites and flowstone formations in the world could have easily formed in about 4400 years. (5, p. 27; 6, p. 39; 7) The Sahara desert is expanding. It easily could have been formed in a few thousand years. See any earth science textbook. The oceans are getting saltier. If they were billions of years old, they would be much saltier than they are now. (7; 9, p. 26; 10, p. 37) Ice cores at the south pole and Greenland have a maximum depth of 10-14,000 feet. The aircraft that crash-landed in Greenland in 1942 and excavated in 1990 were under 263 feet of ice after only 48 years. This indicates all of the ice could have accumulated in 4400 years. (7) Evidence from Biology The current population of earth (5.5 billion souls) could easily be generated from eight people (survivors of the Flood) in less than 4000 years. (1, p. 167; 3, p. 27; 6, p. 41; 7) The oldest living coral reef is less than 4200 years old. (6, p. 39; 7) The oldest living tree in the world is about 4300 years old. (6, p. 40; 7) Another factor to consider: The genetic load in man is increasing. Geneticists have cataloged nearly 1300 genetic disorders in the human race. It is certainly reasonable to believe that the human race was created perfect from the hand of the Creator but has been going downhill as a result of our disobedience to the laws established by the Creator and the increased radiation from the sun. The Bible teaches that we live in a sin-cursed world as a result of Adam’s sin. Evidence from History The oldest known historical records are less than 6000 years old. (1, p. 160) Many ancient cultures have stories of an original creation in the recent past and a worldwide Flood. Nearly 300 of these Flood legends are now known. Biblical dates add up to about 6000 years. The following Bible verses tell when "the beginning" was: • In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. (Gen. 1:1) • Moses because of the hardness of your hearts permitted you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so. (Mt. 19:8) • But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. (Mk. 10:6) • In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God. (Jn. 1:1) • That which was from the beginning, which we have seen with our eyes and our hands have handled, of the Word of life. (1 Jn. 1:1) • He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. (1 Jn. 3:8) • For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time. (Mt. 24:21) • Ye are of your father the devil.... He was a murderer from the beginning. (Jn. 8:44) • That the blood of all the prophets, which was shed from the foundation of the world, may be required of this generation; from the blood of Abel. (Lk. 11:50, 51) • And, Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth. (Heb. 1:10) • For in six days the Lord made heaven and the earth, the sea, and all that in them is. (Ex. 20:11) • Since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation. (2 Pet. 3:4) • The works were finished from the foundation of the world. For God did rest the seventh day from all his works. (Heb. 4:3, 4) • For in those days shall be affliction, such as was not from the beginning of the creation which God created to this time. (Mk. 13:19) • Have ye not known? have ye not heard? hath it not been told you from the beginning? Have ye not understood from the foundations of the earth? (Is. 40:21) • Who hath wrought and done it, calling the generations from the beginning? I the Lord am he. (Is. 41:4) • Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female? (Mt. 19:4) • For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made. (Ro. 1:20) Those who believe the earth is billions of years old will typically try to discredit one or two of these evidences and then mistakenly think that they have successfully proven the entire list wrong. This is not logical, of course. Each evidence stands independently: it only takes one to prove the earth is young. The burden of proof is on the evolutionists if they expect all taxpayers to fund the teaching of their religion in the school system. Many who believe in evolution are great at "straining at a gnat, and swallowing a camel" (Mt. 23:24). Evolutionists love to assume uniformitarian processes. Many of the preceding evidences follow the same logic evolutionists use all the time in dealing with carbon dating, strata formation, genetic drift, etc. It is interesting to read the ramblings of nay-sayers like Scott, Matson, Babinski, etc. as they try to answer theses evidences for a young universe. See how many times they use words like: we believe, perhaps, could have, there is some reason to believe, etc. Evolutionists may need billions of years to make people believe a rock can turn into a rocket scientist, but that time just isn’t available. Sources 1 Morris, Henry M. Scientific Creationism. El Cajon, Calif.: Master Books, April 1985. 2 McLean, G. S.; McLean, Larry; Oakland, Roger. The Bible Key to Understanding the Early Earth. Oklahoma City, Okla.: Southwest Radio Church, 1987. 3 Huse, Scott M. The Collapse of Evolution. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Book House, 1983. 4 Ackerman, Paul D. It’s a Young World After All. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Book House, 1986. 5 Blick, Edward F. A Scientific Analysis of Genesis. Oklahoma City, Okla.: Hearthstone Publ. Ltd., 1991. 6 Petersen, Dennis R. Unlocking the Mysteries of Creation. South Lake Tahoe, Calif.: Christian Equippers International, 1987. 7 Hovind, Kent E. Creation Seminar, Parts 1-7 (most items referenced onscreen—available from Creation Science Evangelism, 29 Cummings Road, Pensacola, Fla. 32503). 8 Wysong, R. L. The Creation-Evolution Controversy. Midland, Mich.: Inquiry Press, 1976. 9 Baker, Sylvia. Bone of Contention. Creation Science Foundation Ltd., Sunnybank, Queensland 4109 Australia: 1990. 10 Moore, John N. Questions and Answers on Creation-Evolution. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Book House, 1977. 11. Brown, Walt. In the Beginning--available from CSE ($17.50)
|
|||
|
Reject
(8/24/00 7:04 pm) Reply |
Re: Total OT (Off Topic) question Good post Nukes, I was just getting on to post some of the Time problems that would occur, but I see you've clearly handled it :)
|
|||
Master Xefinacer 
 (8/24/00 11:08 pm) Reply |
Re: Total OT (Off Topic) question Wow! Cool long post Nukes!
|
|||
|
sir callandDE
Civilian (8/25/00 12:27 am) Reply |
ok ok im not going to even try to dispute that the earth is billions of years old as well no one can really say for sure, but I will dispute the argument that it is merely thousand or so old, the reality is that they have done fossils checks and have determined that the earth goes back at least a hundred thousand years they really cant go any further but that is at least known. The biggest thing that bugs me is to say it has tobe true because the bible say so? Why is this are we to blidnly accept, and if we do how can we how many time has the bible been rewritten, and how close is it really to the original. How many times has it been changed to serve the purpose of others? Sir Calland{DE} Knight of the Draconian Empire ULGD Council Rep |
|||
|
SirNukes
General (8/25/00 12:46 am) Reply |
Re: ok Well, these next 2 posts I make will be to inform you as to the extreme innacuracy of carbon dating. Enjoy! This comes from www.angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs/. My next post will have an article that goes in depth about a single test of carbon dating. __________________________________ Many people are under the false impression that carbon dating proves that dinosaurs lived millions of years ago. But carbon dating is not used to date dinosaurs. The reason? - At Oakridge National Laboratory , Scientists dated dinosaur bones using the Carbon dating method. The age they came back with was only a few thousand years old. This date did not fit the preconceived notion that dinosaurs lived millions of years ago. So what did they do? They threw the results out. And kept their theory that dinosaurs lived "millions of years ago" instead. This is common practice. They then use potassium argon, or other methods, and date the fossils again. They sometimes do this as many as 16 times, using a different dating method each time. The results can be as much as 150 million years different from each other! - how’s that for an "exact" science? They then pick the date they like best, based upon their preconceived notion of how old their theory says the fossil should be (based upon the Geologic column). So why is it that if the date doesn't fit the theory, they change the facts? Unbiased science changes the theory to support the facts. They should not change the facts to fit the theory. Carbon dating is a good dating tool. But it is far from an exact Science. It is accurate back to a few thousand years, but carbon dating is not accurate past this. Thirty thousand years is about the limit. However, this does not mean that the earth is 30 thousand years old. It is much younger than that. (1) Because of the earth’s declining magnetic field, more radiation (which forms C14) is allowed into the earth’s atmosphere. The man who invented Carbon dating knew that atmospheric carbon would reach equilibrium in 30,000 years. He assumed that the earth was millions of years old, and that it was already at equilibrium. However each time they test it, they find more c14 in the atmosphere, and have realized that we are only 1/3 the way to equilibrium. (1) - What does this mean? It means that based on c14 formation, the earth has to be 1/3 of 30,000 years, or less than 10,000 years old! (1) Carbon dating is based on the assumption that the amount of C14 in the atmosphere has always been the same. But there is more carbon in the atmosphere now than there was 4 thousand years ago. (1) Since carbon dating measures the amount of carbon still in a fossil, then the date given is not accurate. Carbon dating makes an animal living 4 thousand years ago (when there was less atmospheric carbon) appear to have lived thousands of years before it actually did. What was the original amount of Carbon in the atmosphere? To know if carbon dating is accurate, we would have to know how much carbon was in the atmosphere in the beginning, and also how long it has been increasing, or decreasing. Since no one was there, no one knows for sure. It's like trying to figure out how long a candle has been burning, without knowing the rate at which it burns, or its original size. Carbon dating is frequently an embarrassment to Scientists. Living penguins have been carbon dated and the results said that they had died 8,000 years ago! This is just one of many inaccurate dates given by Carbon dating. Living mollusk shells have been dated using the carbon 14 method, only to find that the method gave it a date as having been dead for 23,000 years!(3) The body of a seal that had been dead for 30 years was carbon dated, and the results stated that the seal had died 4,600 years ago! ( 4) What about a freshly killed seal? Well, they dated one of those too, the results stated that the seal had died 1,300 years ago. (5) Antarctic seawater has a low level of C14. Consequently organisms living there dated by C14 give ages much older than their true age. A lake Bonney seal known to have died only a few weeks before was carbon dated. The results stated that the seal had died between 515 and 715 years ago. (6) Shells from living snails were dated using the Carbon 14 method. The results stated that the snails had died 27,000 years ago. (7) One part of the Vollosovitch mammoth carbon dated at 29,500 years old. Another part of the same mammoth carbon dated at 44,000 years old (8) One part of a frozen baby mammoth (nicknamed Dima) was C14 dated at 40,000 years. Another part of the same mammoth was Carbon 14 dated at 26,000 years. And the "wood immediately around the carcass" was carbon dated at 9-10,000 years old! (8) - Did it take 14,000 years for this mammoth to slowly die? - No of course not. The Carbon dating was wrong. The lower leg of the Fairbanks creek mammoth had a radiocarbon date of 15,380 (RCY), while its skin and flesh were radiocarbon dated at 21,300 (9) There are many many more examples that I will add later. But the ones above give you a general idea. There are other methods of dating. They too, give varied results. Potassium-argon dating The potassium-argon method was used to date volcanic material in this next example. "Scientists got dates of 164 million and 3 billion years for two Hawaiian lava flows. But these lava flows happened only about 200 years ago in 1800 and 1801.(10) Carbon dating references: 1) From a video Lecture by Dr. Kent Hovind 2) 3) Science vol. 141 1963 pg. 634-637 4)"The Illustrated Origins Answer Book" by Paul S. Taylor 5)Antarctic Journal vol. 6 Sept-Oct 1971 pg. 211 6)Antarctic Journal, Washington 7)Science vol. 224 1984 pg. 58-61) 8) Troy L. Pewe: "Quaternary Stratigraphic nomenclature in unglaciated Central Alaska" Geological survey professional paper #862 US GOV printing office 1975, pg. 30. 9)"In the beginning" Walt Brown 10)"Dry bones and other fossils" by Dr. Gary Parker
|
|||
|
SirNukes
General (8/25/00 1:08 am) Reply |
Re: ok Ok, I posted the article, but it didn't look to well (didn't fit into this thin forum column) so I deleated it and I'm just gonna give you the link. It's a quick load, and not to long of a read, so go ahead and open the link. www.creationism.org/articles/swenson1.htm I know half of you skip links, but, if you respond to me, I'm gonna assume that you looked at that article. So there! 
|
|||
|
czubin
Private First Class (8/25/00 3:04 pm) Reply |
huh? how do you can write this much it taked me an hour to read it all and your next artical don't fit here tell me your secret |
|||
|
RshScks
Private First Class (8/26/00 1:04 am) Reply |
Sir CallandDE What you call Blindly accepting, I like to call true faith. I accept it cause it makes the most sense to me, and I have a feeling in my heart I can not explain to someone. I do not fear death, for I know that when I die I will go to a place far better than here. I know all about evolution and its teachings. That is why it pains me to hear them over and over. That so many people need proof for something, when there are many things that no one can ever prove. An example of things that can not be proved are emotions. A question for you Sir CallandDE, do you love something in your life? If you do please prove to me that you love it, and how you know this is love. |
|||
| Page 1 2 |
<< Prev Topic |
Next Topic >>
|
 Topic Commands Click to receive email notification of replies  Click to stop receiving email notification of replies |
|
- The Faithful Knights of Christ - Best Topics - Christian Gamer -
Powered By ezboard® Ver. 7.32
Copyright ©1999-2007 ezboard, Inc.