Cool! Let's have a birthday party for earth. That's a real milestone.

There is nothing more dangerous in the world than idiots with power. Oh well, at least he isn't a U.S. Senator, that would be worse.

Where did she Get the Hair color for that Ridiculous Dew of hers ------ A Joke Shop?

All she needs to complete her ensemble is a Big Red Nose (I suspect she is already wearing the shoes)!

Where did she Get the Hair color for that Ridiculous Dew of hers

It's the same color as Boehner's skin.

oompa-loompa, by Marie Claire

Barry Goldwater must be spinning ... wait, he was cremated.

It's at least that.

Barry Goldwater must be spinning ... wait, he was cremated.

And republicans continue to make ashes of themselves to this day.

Dinosaurs?

Dinosaurs?

The Flintstones explained everything.

Why are all these dummies righties?

It just seems so unfair.

I love all the credit these creasionist give God.

"So, how did all this come to be?"

"God snapped his fingers and POOF everything was here."

"So he's fucking Doug Henning? The almighty, creator of everything, knower of all is just a fucking illusionist in your pea sized mind? Huh? Not sure how much respect that shows............"

No results found for "democrats for creationism".

Shouldn't her exuberant endorsement for nuclear waste disposal in her State be the most glaring example of her stupidity?

It isn't her fault you have to really reach down to the bowels of absolute insanity to formulate an argument for why toxic material is an "asset" for Arizona.

We should just dump that shit off the bow of a frigate along the Somali coastline for free like the Europeans.

Why are all these dummies righties?

It just seems so unfair.

Sincerely,
Joe Biden

Six thousand years is about the time span of civilization as we know it, which is what the genealogies in the OT used to come up with that figure also suggest. The OT never dates the earth. But even the text of Genesis gives plenty of room for billions of years of geological time prior to civilization.

And interesting study is this one

The Six Thousand Year Barrier
An Essay on Hindu Astrology

Hahahaha, how can someone be so ignorant?

The earth is only 5876 years old, jesus christ, get it straight.

Of course this lady has more basis in fact for her stuipidty then the 'Global Warmers' do, now THERE are some seriously laughable idiots.

'Global Warmers'

The 97 percent of climatologists?

Running a world based on Judaism is like looking through your asshole as you're walking around the street.

6,000 years old WTF? Really? That is some stupid shit.

Yep, that's exactly what I had drummed into my head for a few years. You see, when sin entered the world, Satan took dominion over the earth. He caused the the leaves to fall, the weeds to grow, he made his lizards, he made fossils and oil and death. Satan altered geology to fit his needs.

Suuuuuurrrrreee.

Shouldn't her exuberant endorsement for nuclear waste disposal in her State be the most glaring example of her stupidity?

She was talking about Uranium, of all things, and comes out with 6000 years?

...the earth "has been here 6,000 years"...

This shoots the hell out of the History Channel's "ancient aliens" episodes.

Somehow this, like some claim about the Earth, never gets old...

If we can't figure out or agree why the Giants lost Sunday's football game when discussed the following Monday morning, I am supposed to believe either creationists or "scientists" about eons ago?
I'll pass.

By the way, when the Cowboys lose the reason is beyond discussion. They suck.

Another stupid Republican? And this is news?

We continue to elect leaders who are made of money and therefore gain social intellectual status but clearly shows how uneducated and rational we are in America.

Being in Arizonia I am going to have fun with this one.

I personally can't understand how some on here claim the earth is 4 billion years old and the universe is 13 billion. Doesn't all the material that currently exist in the universe exist at the same time.

In addition scientist claim that the moon is older than the earth but scientist also claim at one point that the earth and moon collided. These two claims just don't go together.

Maybe Zatoichi will leave his global warming pool long enough to explain this one to me.

Buzkiller, Zat can't explain why he wakes up and his bed sheets are wet.

Buzkiller

I personally can't understand how some on here claim the earth is 4 billion years old and the universe is 13 billion.

The earth is made up of the left over residue of a star that exploded long ago. The earth and everything and everyone on it is made up of star stuff. The sun is at least a second generation star being formed from gas clouds from other exploding stars.

Doesn't all the material that currently exist in the universe exist at the same time.

In different forms, yes, but the forms and functions change over time. Every atom in your body was someplace else at another time. But just like all the people that ever lived don't exist at the same time, their matter is distibuted in other ways.

In addition scientist claim that the moon is older than the earth but scientist also claim at one point that the earth and moon collided. These two claims just don't go together.

You've got your claims a little distorted. The surface of the moon is older than the Earth because the Earth has weather that changes the surface through erosion and wind. The moon has none of those things, so the surface is the same as it was billions of years ago. Science doesn't say the moon crashed into the Earth--science says a large body about the size of Mars came from deep space and smashed into the Earth and formed the moon.

#31 | Posted by buzkiller at 2009-07-09 04:33 AM | Reply | Flag

Buzzy, we are the big bang reformed, the orginal incident is the genisis of us all.

If you want an awnsers, look to laws of thermodynamics.

The First Law;

Energy can neither be created nor destroyed. It can only change forms.

In any process, the total energy of the universe remains the same.

For a thermodynamic cycle the net heat supplied to the system equals the net work done by the system

The Second Law;

Entropy

The second law of thermodynamics (the entropy law or law of entropy) was formulated in the middle of the last century by Clausius and Thomson following Carnot's earlier observation that, like the fall or flow of a stream that turns a mill wheel, it is the "fall" or flow of heat from higher to lower temperatures that motivates a steam engine. The key insight was that the world is inherently active, and that whenever an energy distribution is out of equilibrium a potential or thermodynamic "force" (the gradient of a potential) exists that the world acts spontaneously to dissipate or minimize.

All real-world change or dynamics is seen to follow, or be motivated, by this law. So whereas the first law expresses that which remains the same, or is time-symmetric, in all real-world processes the second law expresses that which changes and motivates the change, the fundamental time-asymmetry, in all real-world process.

The Third Law;

The laws of thermodynamics are absolute physical laws - everything in the observable universe is subject to them. Like time or gravity, nothing in the universe is exempt from these laws. In its simplest form, the Third Law of Thermodynamics relates the entropy (randomness) of matter to its absolute temperature.

The Third Law of Thermodynamics refers to a state known as "absolute zero." This is the bottom point on the Kelvin temperature scale

All other 'laws' are based around the force exerted by these three.

In nature, uranium atoms exist as uranium-238 (99.284%), uranium-235 (0.711%),[2] and a very small amount of uranium-234 (0.0058%). Uranium decays slowly by emitting an alpha particle. The half-life of uranium-238 is about 4.47 billion years and that of uranium-235 is 704 million years,[3] making them useful in dating the age of the Earth (see uranium-thorium dating, uranium-lead dating and uranium-uranium dating).

"..........Mommy...Mommy....ar
e there any real people left that believe in the Flat Earth Theory........"

".........yes darling there are......you simply can't imagine how persistant ignorance can be "

The First Law;

Energy can neither be created nor destroyed. It can only change forms.

In any process, the total energy of the universe remains the same.
......#35 | Posted by r_zeitgeist

......energy used for light can never be recovered.......

......therefore the universe will eventually cool down and die out.......

Being in Arizonia I am going to have fun with this one.

#30 | Posted by JustinPhx at 2009-07-09 04:16 AM | Reply

Why? Is planet Arizonia actually only 6,000 years old?

We continue to elect leaders who are made of money and therefore gain social intellectual status but clearly shows how uneducated and rational we are in America.

#29 | Posted by moneywar at 2009-07-09 04:02 AM | Reply |

It always blows me away that someone with that type of belief system can become a state senator. If she's among the best and brightest (or most cunning) , what does it say about her constituents? Seems like too big a percentage of your countrymen have a tenuous hold on reality.

It always blows me away that someone with that type of belief system can become a state senator. If she's among the best and brightest (or most cunning) , what does it say about her constituents? Seems like too big a percentage of your countrymen have a tenuous hold on reality.

#53 | Posted by panchovilla

Garbage in, garbage out.

Seems like too big a percentage of your countrymen have a tenuous hold on reality.
#53 | Posted by panchovilla

Garbage in, garbage out.
#54 | Posted by Zarathustra

Or, crazily enough, this single issue didn't make or break her constituents' votes. Question: if Obama was a creationist but held every other political and personal belief constant, would you have still voted for him?

My guess is that this woman's constituents really didn't give a crap what her personal beliefs were concerning the age of the earth. Odd that y'all do...

"Six thousand years is about the time span of civilization as we know it, which is what the genealogies in the OT used to come up with that figure also suggest"

Complete rubbish!! There is a significant historical record of aboriginal activities of Australia that can be traced for 60,000 years. Including the world's oldest active religion(Rainbow Serpent at 7,000 years old). Included in this history are paintings of animals that went extinct 20,000 to 40,000 years ago. This civilization was roughly unchanged until the 1900's and european settlers/criminals arrival.

Just because the book you believe in only allows for 6,000yrs based on there genealogy (which has major discrepancies for Jesus), doen't correlate to the time-span of civilization.

LM

......energy used for light can never be recovered.......

......therefore the universe will eventually cool down and die out.......
#51 | Posted by skizziks

that's only because of the expansion of the universe. total energy will remain the same.

#51 | Posted by skizziks

#57 | Posted by Hagbard_Celine

You guys should try and keep up.
The expansion of the universe is accelerating.

"""Or, crazily enough, this single issue didn't make or break her constituents' votes. Question: if Obama was a creationist but held every other political and personal belief constant, would you have still voted for him?"""

CAn't vote, but theoretically? NO FUCKING WAY. Quite simply, if someone can hold on to that ridiculous belief in this day and age, there is no possible way our values and approach to life could be compatible.

I would say that the analogy you present is impossible: it would be intellectually impossible for someone to believe in the 6000 y.o. fairytale and still have a rational approach to other issues. You would have to be lying about one of the two.

"""My guess is that this woman's constituents really didn't give a crap what her personal beliefs were concerning the age of the earth. Odd that y'all do..."""

My guess is that many of her constituents found out about that particular belief when they saw this video.

scientist also claim at one point that the earth and moon collided. These two claims just don't go together.

#31 | Posted by buzkiller

The moon was formed when another object (scientist think was about the size of mars) slammed into the young earth and tore it to smithereens. Pieces of the earth and the projectile coelesced to form the current earth and moon.

"Six thousand years is about the time span of civilization as we know it, which is what the genealogies in the OT used to come up with that figure also suggest"

I have heard Corky use this talking point before. It must be a new strategy to try and make the Xtians Myth not look so stupid. There is another flaw with this new talking point in addition to the fact that the record of human activities is way longer than 6,000 years. The Xtians tried to follow their bible genealogy back to Adam and Eve to pinpoint the beginning of time. Bishop James Ussher is one who started this apparently. He tried to take genealogical tables, average life spans and other historic events and work his way back to the day of creation. He set it in 1650 as Oct. 23, 4004 BC.Adam was created on day 6. So unless your days were billions of years long back then your talking point is still bunk Corky.

Wiki calls this crazy town logic YOUNG EARTH creationism

Young Earth creationism (YEC) is the religious belief that the Heavens, Earth, and life on Earth were created by direct acts of God during a short period, sometime between 6,000 and 10,000 years ago. Its adherents are those Christians and Jews who believe that God created the Earth in six 24-hour days, taking the Hebrew text of Genesis as a literal account. Some adherents believe that existing evidence in the natural world today supports a strict interpretation of scriptural creation as historical fact.

You guys should try and keep up.
The expansion of the universe is accelerating.
#58 | Posted by Zatoichi

"It seems that the solution to the puzzle of acceleration involves the universe beyond our cosmic horizon. No mysterious dark energy is required."
ScienceDaily (Mar. 27, 2005)

I don't understand how this makes me wrong in what I said, but thanks for the link. And I knew about the acceleration, and the initial hyperinflation (thats the term, right?). I just didn't know that the explanation for the acceleration was currently being attributed to what's going on beyond the cosmic horizon rathern than to dark energy.

And yeah, I do need to keep up. 2005?

Six thousand years is about the time span of civilization as we know it, which is what the genealogies in the OT used to come up with that figure also suggest.
#17 | Posted by Corky

........more like about 35 thousand years ........

A bird-bone flute unearthed in a German cave was carved some 35,000 years ago and is the oldest handcrafted musical instrument yet discovered, archaeologists say, offering the latest evidence that early modern humans in Europe had established a complex and creative culture.

A team led by University of Tuebingen archaeologist Nicholas Conard assembled the flute from 12 pieces of griffon vulture bone scattered in a small plot of the Hohle Fels cave in southern Germany.

that's only because of the expansion of the universe. total energy will remain the same.
......#57 | Posted by Hagbard_Celine

......wrong........

.....energy used to make light is lost and cannot be recovered.........

then there is the troubling Arizona Gazette article of
April 5th, 1909

The headline is supposed to read "Arizona Senator 6000 Years Old"

.....energy used to make light is lost and cannot be recovered.........

#65 | Posted by skizziks

Not sure why you think that....got any lonks to support your "theory"? Are you referring to the photos that travel away and can't be "recovered" or the the energy that is used to create a photo?

Neither is "lost". Just because YOU can't recover it doesn't mean it is "lost".

That total sum of energy used to create a photo never leaves the Universe.

"lonks?" hmmm maybe a link might be better.

This article is posted as a means to blast Christianity in favor of evolution.
58 posts, and it appears every single person (including the article poster) has missed the point.

vice chairman of the committee, argued in favor of mining by saying that the earth "has been here 6,000 years, long before anybody had environmental laws, and somehow it hasn't been done away with.

The argument being made by the State Senator had nothing to do with evolution. Even if the earth was 1Million years old, the point he was making would still be valid!

Is everybody so dense? Even still, a headline is posted because a State Senator had the gall to have a creationist viewpoint??? My gosh people, get real! As if someone isn't qualified to hold office with such a terrible view.

I don't know about y'all, but I don't care what the herd mentality is here. I still tend to think we weren't some primodial goo 5 billion years ago and a bang occured and slowly it developed into life. Four million years and thousands of mutations later the primate family evolved into a homosapien.

Which takes more faith???

What's this 6,000 years rubbish I'm only aware that the earth has been here 56 years and 6 days.

"I'm only aware that the earth has been here 56 years and 6 days."

Posted by Gimme_a_Scotch at 2009-07-10 08:53 PM

After Alzheimer's it becomes hours, even minutes.

Is everybody so dense? Even still, a headline is posted because a State Senator had the gall to have a creationist viewpoint??? My gosh people, get real! As if someone isn't qualified to hold office with such a terrible view.

I'd like to believe that the people who are in charge of this nation don't willingly make themselves dumber than they already are by subscribing to a bunch of untenable nonsense.

Which takes more faith???

#59 | Posted by L_RContrarian at 2009-07-10 08:45 PM | Reply | Flag:

You confuse faith with science. You confuse reality with imagination.

But out of curiousity---how old do you think the Earth is---how long has man been on the Earth---and do you think man was popped into existence by a god, just as you see man today?

bufbob, recall we spoke in another religion blog? I think you have a good idea what I believe.

and do you think man was popped into existence by a god

Compared to the alternative, it's a no-brainer. But in all seriousness, yes, I have such faith.

Maybe we can save a few back and forth's here. I subscribe to the view that carbon dating has proven to be very inaccurate. In reverse testing, I don't recall exactly what it was (I can probably look it up), but some known very recent object was carbon tested and the tests showed it was like 1Million years old.

I subscribe to the view that carbon dating has proven to be very inaccurate.

You subscribe to the view... any reason, or did a friend-of-a-friend tell you that it was?

"carbon dating has proven to be very inaccurate"

Somebody is still failing 2nd grade science.
This is akin to using transistors to claim quantum mechanics is bogus; Worthy of public ridicule as a form of entertainment.

This is akin to using transistors to claim quantum mechanics is bogus...

Love it!

both of you know 100% otherwise; instead of simple mockery, can you state it in more than your opinion?

It appears a lot of people here have faith. It takes a lot more faith to believe we came from a primodial ooze.

L RContrarian

I talk with lots of people--if I ask a question I've asked before, it won't take much time to answer again.

Carbon dating has been proven to be very accurate. There have been many improvements of the method the last thirty years.

Carbon dating is accurate up to 60,000 years, and other methods are used beyond that. The only people disputing that are people not qualified to speak on the subject.

If you really want to say that the order of the universe implies that a "creator" made it, then you have the same problem accounting for the existence of a creator. It's just a cop-out for people who find more comfort looking into a book and putting the earth on the back of a turtle than looking into a telescope and putting the earth within an ancient and majestic cosmos.

Nevermind the fact that this so-called "creator" neither provides any evidence of its own existence nor permits any test of hypotheses regarding its nature.

Nevermind the fact that every creationist argument is ultimately an argument from ignorance, treating a shrinking gap in our knowledge as evidence of something sacrosanct. Ignorance proves nothing.

What you want to believe is your choice. If you feel like sharing it, though, be prepared to be ridiculed if your beliefs are as ridiculous as this senator's.

#66 -
give me a break. your gonna compare physics to a man-made process called carbon dating?

"It takes a lot more faith to believe we came from a primodial(sic) ooze."

It takes an IQ above 30 for starters.

for your extremely biased information, a web search of 'carbon dating fact or fiction gets tons of hits'.

How many hits will 'quantum physics fact or fiction get?'

Just proves your 'bias' that there is no alternative to anything that may contradict evolution!

#71 | Posted by L_RContrarian at 2009-07-10 10:26 PM | Reply | Flag: failed kindergarten quantum mechanics

#72 -
ok, i'll give you 32 for that.

Just proves your 'bias' that there is no alternative to anything that may contradict evolution!

There are plenty of alternatives. None of them happen to be consistent with observations.

#73 | Posted by L_RContrarian at 2009-07-10 10:29 PM | Reply | Flag: Won't do well in the future.

#69 - bufbob
The only people disputing that are people not qualified to speak on the subject

ah, that's where the bias takes over.

"None of them happen to be consistent with observations."

Since when did that matter to 98% of the population?

#70 - zombie
whatever you rant says, it still takes much more faith to belive we were ooze

L Contrarian-
Google "spherical earth fact or fiction", "Richard Gere, gerbils and anus", and "Roswell aliens" while you're at it.

You'll get tons of "hits", which is a statistical analysis of relative truthiness.

#76 - zombie
what 'other alternatives' are there to the creation of life?

Contrarian-

That's the problem we have as a coherent nation: The bias of those who know what the fuck they are talking about annoying the common man with their verifiable facts and numbers and other such crap.

#81 - you understand my point, even if I wasn't 100% technically correct in the way I stated it.

The person automatically rejected carbon dating, as if there is not a person in the world that rejects it.
A lie indeed.

" your(sic) gonna compare physics to a man-made process called carbon dating?"

Posted by L_RContrarian at 2009-07-10 10:26 PM

Flag: Failed pre-kindergarten physics

Advice: Avoid long term investments; You're fertilizer.

#66 -
give me a break. your gonna compare physics to a man-made process called carbon dating?

#71 | Posted by L_RContrarian at 2009-07-10 10:26 PM | Reply | Flag:

Holy fuck

give me a break. your gonna compare physics to a man-made process called carbon dating?

They are one and the same. Unless you believe that god has been up there tweaking the dials for decay constants or secretly tossing in a little extra carbon-14 while nobody was looking... carbon dating is an application of physics, and physics is most definitely a man-made approach to understanding the universe. After all, they are Einstein's field equations and the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, not the "Abraham-Isaac-Ishmael Metric" or some such nonsense.

As an aside, LR - carbon-14 dating is great for dating organic matter from recent history, but fairly useless on geological time scales. For that, other radiometric dating methods are used. Uranium-lead and potassium-argon dating come to mind. When fossils (those dastardly things stuck here by satan) are dated, they're not using C-14.

#83 - betelg
who know what the f**k they are talking about

and isn't that subjecive as well?

what 'other alternatives' are there to the creation of life?

Um... the evolution of life? Otherwise, why are we arguing?

bufbob -
do you know anything about genetics? Do you know what a viable population is?

So do you conclude if it's incestuous, it won't work?

I'll admit I'm not aware of your point on genetics.

Contrarian-
Do you have any idea what carbon dating entails?

It's applied physics and chemistry, and reliable to within a certain range. (Given that your ideology and faith will allow you to see it)

zombie, you stated there were others, didn't you? if not, forget it.

#91 - betelg
contrary to what you think, i'll take a look. I just knew people a lot more knowledgeable than me disclaim carbon dating.

I'm leaving this thread. I'm not a masochist or a sadist, so there's really not much in it for me.

#87 - zombie.

Even without knowing much about c.d., I know you cannot say carbon dating = physics. That's absurd.

I don't believe anyone has made the point that their beliefs are any more objective than mine. They all allay back to an assumption: creation vs evolution.

zombie, you stated there were others, didn't you? if not, forget it.

Oh, yeah, other alternatives to evolution is what I'm talking about.

I was thinking Abrahamic creationism, Australian aboriginal creationism, Norse creationism, Hindu creationism, Pastafarian creationism, etc...

If you're not going to pay attention to observations, what makes "let there be light" any more plausible than the universe being dreamed into existence by the gods?

#96 | Posted by L_RContrarian at 2009-07-10 10:47 PM | Reply | Flag: HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Even without knowing much about c.d., I know you cannot say carbon dating = physics. That's absurd.

It's an application of physics, as I said. If there is something wrong with carbon dating, then there is something wrong with the technique (which would be huge news, so please do share) or there is something wrong with the underlying physics (which would also be huge news).

further, if you all know more about science, which I gladly admit, nothing said here disproves creationism. I am not 'the spokesperson' for christianity. Many brilliant scientists are creationists. No, I cannot argue these points well, I apologize to your Science buffs, but you would have to concede my point.

#97 - zombie

for the purpose of the discussion we're having, I don't think it's relevant the 'brand' of creationism.

#98 -
no problem. i'm gonna look at a fact vs fiction site

nothing said here disproves creationism

Nothing said here disproves my claim that there are Klingons in orbit around Uranus, hiding from our satellites with a cloaking device...

for the purpose of the discussion we're having, I don't think it's relevant the 'brand' of creationism.

Why not? When you take into account the observations that have been made, it is equally sound when compared to Abrahamic creationism.

#85 - zatoich
i haven't degraded anyone here. you just proved your minimal intelligence. And this after flagging pre-k physics failed on me!

It is believed by many Christians that God created the heavens and the earth and all of us in 6 days.

That a day equals 1,000 years.

So I ask if a day for the Lord can be 1,000 why can't it be 1 billion years?

It is amazing though how much a non-believer has to believe in order not to believe.

#104 - Is any of this relative with the carbon dating discussion?

#105 | Posted by L_RContrarian at 2009-07-10 10:57 PM | Reply | Flag: Idiots like this make the DR more entertaining tan CSI Miami.

I've been an evolution type of guy since I was a knee-high lad but when you honestly think about it's the here and now that counts so shaddyup and Lets start mining that uranium it ain't gonna mine itself

So do you conclude if it's incestuous, it won't work?

Of course it will work---but do you know why brother and sister aren't allowed to marry? It is because their offspring would be mentally and physically handicapped, and the more you inbreed, then the worse the deformations get. Eventually, the population dies.

It is not viable.

There are not enough genes in one individual to make a viable population.

than

i found probably what you already know - - The C-14 test that failed to date properly on the Villarreal test on the Shroud of Turin back in Nov 08.

#108 - zatoich - you may as well leave as you don't contribute anything to the current civil conversation.

#112 | Posted by L_RContrarian at 2009-07-10 11:06 PM | Reply | Flag: Didn't do well on the Physics GRE.

#109 - way off topic. hopefully you're not talking about depleted uranium and the atrocities involved.

So I ask if a day for the Lord can be 1,000 why can't it be 1 billion years?

So if god says buttfucking is an abomination, why can't it be something he'd rather not have you do, but doesn't really care about? Or did Dobson not OK that one yet?

I love it when believers selectively interpret scripture...

"you may as well leave"

Go fuck yourself, shit-for-brains.

#110 - bufbob - hopefully you ask honestly... You probably know the OT story of the Tower of Babel and why God separated man throughout the earth with different languages, and most likely nationalities.

Seniority: 2504

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Moron.

#104 - Is any of this relative with the carbon dating discussion?

I'm waiting for you to produce some evidence that C14 dating (or any of the other radiometric dating methods) is inaccurate, and I figured I'd give you another question to evade while you went to dig up that "proof" I'm waiting on.

I did know about the results of incestuous. I know you'd call the answer a copout, but certainly God could intervene in order to start the human race.

So I ask if a day for the Lord can be 1,000 why can't it be 1 billion years?

#106 | Posted by MURPHY at 2009-07-10 10:58 PM | Reply | Flag:

Because it says a thousand years for one reason.

But if a day was a billion years to God, then in gods eyes, we were created about half a second ago, and if the rapture comes soon, the whole of humanity would be about 2 seconds in gods eyes--hardly worth the effort of creating a universe for all that isn't it? Especially when all humanity used the universe for was to look at the pretty lights. What happens to the universe after the rapture?

It is amazing though how much a believer has to believe in order to believe.

#106 | Posted by MURPHY at 2009-07-10 10:58 PM | Reply | Flag:

#117 - ok, we'll ignore you, village idiot.

bufbob, did you have a comment on c.d. (#112)

So, just to reiterate...

Why is Abrahamic creationism more plausible than any other form of creationism?

#120 - I can only do one thing at a time. I did post something, and I'm answering other questions and attacks.

It is amazing though how much a believer has to believe in order to believe.

Yeah, a lot of work to stick your head in the sand and ignore the evidence right in front of you.

That's one of the many reasons why I had enough.

thanks murph, glad to get some reinforcements

#125 - define Abrhamamic creation.
Abraham was a father of many nations, but he had a father as wel.

#127 - what's your story. why would you turn from the faith?

#109 - way off topic. hopefully you're not talking about depleted uranium and the atrocities involved.

Are you kidding me the story is about a hearing about mining uranium, the 6000 years comment distracts from the important thing. Or are you pissed cause I'm an evolution type of guy?

#116 - zombie

1000 years is 1 day to the Lord. Why not 1Million?

I can't and don't need to speak for God's "Whys".
You or me would propose we can question an infinite God about his essence?

This is what you posted, LR: "The C-14 test that failed to date properly on the Villarreal test on the Shroud of Turin back in Nov 08."

The shroud was dated in the '80's by several labs, all of which placed it in the 13th or 14th century. I don't know if this was you "debunking" of C-14 dating or not... it just failed to produce the result you hoped for.

#131 - gimme
No, sorry dude. What was the point again?

#133 - "the result I hoped for"?

I was on a website that dealt with the test. Where do you get I voted, ascribed my opinion or "hope".

You're sounding defensive.

You or me would propose we can question an infinite God about his essence?

Sell me on the existence of that infinite god first... then we'll talk.

As for "Abrahamic creationism" I was just being inclusive and concise - Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are practically identical to one another, that all trace their lineage back to Abraham. I'm referring to their creation myths, which are also quite similar.

The Heading Was 'Shroud of Turin, Fact or Fiction'

#136-zombie
Just so I know what I'm up against, if i do a good enough selling job on God, you'll accept the Shroud of Turin results?

You're sounding defensive.

Impatient is more like it. Where is your "debunking" of C14 dating? For as much as you've talked about it, I haven't seen anything up there makes a case against it.

#118 - zombie- you accept the Tower of Babel for races and languages?

Just so I know what I'm up against, if i do a good enough selling job on God, you'll accept the Shroud of Turin results?

The main point is there is dissenting opinion out there. Again, there are many brilliant scientists that are christians, and a number who became a christian after studying science.

#142- zombie
God isn't a sales pitch, nor a contest to win in an argument. From your statement, it appears your premise If I can believe in god, I can believe anything wouldn't allow it anyways.

It's a personal conviction.

#142 - shroud results
the conclusion raises serious questions about c-14.

"
God isn't a sales pitch, nor a contest to win in an argument."

#144 | Posted by shit-forbrains at 2009-07-10 11:39 PM

Nope.

Gawd is a myth for pathetically stupid people.

zombie, it appears to me, if you saw that carbon dating is fallible, then you would be more open to other things.

T]he age-dating process failed to recognize one of the first rules of analytical chemistry that any sample taken for characterization of an area or population must necessarily be representative of the whole. The part must be representative of the whole. Our analyses of the three thread samples taken from the Raes and C-14 sampling corner showed that this was not the case.

If you want to make sure your sample was truly representative, you'd have to take out pieces of the cloth that the Vatican wouldn't want you to touch. It was a corner or nothing. Lignin decomposition, by the way, is far less reliable than C14 decay.

The people on that website also haven't read many of those peer-reviewed journals that they selectively cite. Othewise they would know that wonder at an image is far from proof that the image is one of Jesus or that their arguments from ignorance can prove that the shroud is several hundred years older than the period that it has been dated to. The image is mysterious. So is the Mona Lisa's smile. Hardly proof of anything.

zombie, it appears to me, if you saw that carbon dating is fallible, then you would be more open to other things.

Like...? Any measurement or laboratory technique has a margin of error and is subject to human error. That makes them "fallible" in a sense but certainly not unreliable.

I'll believe potentially inaccurate empirical information over a load of entirely unproven myth.

#110 - bufbob - hopefully you ask honestly... You probably know the OT story of the Tower of Babel and why God separated man throughout the earth with different languages, and most likely nationalities.

#118 | Posted by L_RContrarian at 2009-07-10 11:11 PM | Reply | Flag

I do ask honestly. I am interested in how you can logically put this together. You seem to be answering honestly, and I will treat your answers with respect since you are making an effort.

The Tower of Babel.

This story is from a much older religion, and the original story makes far more sense. The original story is in Enuma Elish---an ancient religion practiced for thousands of years. Enuma Elish is the first bible. Let's discuss the Tower of Babel.

First--race is not mentioned in the Tower story---god wasn't concerned with race---he was concerned with language--communication.

Second--why should god care about people who were trying to build a tower to reach heaven? But he was concerned---concerned enough to come down from heaven himself and take personal charge and make a decison as to what should be done.

But the answer has been misunderstood for centuries for some reason. God didn't change anyones language--he confounded their language. The bible makes it clear, that god moved them all over the Earth.

Genesis:

11:7 Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another's speech.
11:8 So the LORD scattered them abroad from thence upon the face of all the earth: and they left off to build the city.

He didn't make the Tower builders start speaking different languages---he separated them and took them to places that didn't speak their language---that way--they could not complete the task that God was so concerned about.

But why would god be concerned about humans building a tower whose top would reach heaven--especially when they were out on a plain, and not building on top of one of the nearby mountains?

Genesis
11:2 And it came to pass, as they journeyed from the east, that they found a plain in the land of Shinar; and they dwelt there.

But God was concerned--very concerned--why would God be concerned? Let Him tell you.

Genesis
11:6 And the LORD said, Behold, the people is one, and they have all one language; and this they begin to do: and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do.

God was afraid that we would have the same power as He had---nothing will be restrained from them. This is the same reason humans were kicked out of the Garden of Eden.

Genesis
3:22 And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:

God says we would be just like them---notice the plural. Genesis is taken from Enuma Elish--there were many Gods

But still, it doesn't say why God was concerned. The obvious answer is that he was afraid they would succeed. The reason he was afraid they would succeed is that they had alerady built such a Tower for the Gods, and God knew they had a good chance of doing it again---but not if the key people were spread all over the planet in places no one would understand what they were talking aobut.

The main point is there is dissenting opinion out there.

#118 - zombie- you accept the Tower of Babel for races and languages?

Of course not. Why would I? The bible (nor any other scripture) provides no rational explanation for much of anything, let alone issues like that. I would be just as much of a fool to think that the Aesir saw it fit to curse the Skraelings by turning their skin dark and making them not speak Norse. Take your pick of myths, but I'll take a rational argument born out by empirical evidence over superstition any day.

Scientifically speaking, "races" are a bit of a myth in and of themselves, but that's another conversation for another day. Suffice it to say that natural selection, migration/interbreeding (or the lack thereof), and random processes can account for the variation that is observed in human populations. Variation in language is also well studied, and it doesn't support the babel myth either (as if anything could).

Hahaha,
We Arizonans are used to this kind of thing from our elected officials,read our history of house and senate.We depend on a decent governor to reign them in.(thanks for deserting us Napolitano).We've had our share of goofy governors,too.Jan Brewer is doing ok against my former prejudices.
to the point,there are large deposits south of Grand Canyon Nat'l Park that people have been wanting to mine for years.And we have the miners already here,displaced from the ups and downs of the copper industry.
I think its about jobs.

not that I'm happy with the destruction of the enviroment involved with Arizona miners,but there were jobs.We have high tech machining and silicon chip technology(which is in the shit hole now)tourism(shit hole too)and mining.

If there is a god I'm sure he wants us to eat

That's the problem with Believers. Their god can do anything except stand up to logic.