40% of Americans-earth 10K years old

[Lonestar_logic]

you just called the bible a scientifically accurate book. the same book that talks about Moses parting the red sea and jesus walking on water. all of which are scientifically impossible. you cant pick and choose random passages out of a book and claim that as scientifically accurate while ignoring everything else. lets also talk about how jesus was resurrected, how about how he turned water into wine.

biblical translations can mean whatever they want to whomever they want. people have been doing it for thousands of years.

educate yourself on the laws of nature. i guess they really do grown them big and dumb in Tex-ASS!

Florida State oceanographer Doron Nof set out to investigate whether the parting of the Red Sea is "plausible from a physical point of view." Using a common phenomenon called wind set-down effect, he found that "a northwesterly wind of 20 m/s blowing for 10-14 h is sufficient to cause a sea level drop of about 2.5m." Such a drop in sea level, Nof speculates, might have exposed an underwater ridge, which the Israelites crossed as if it were dry land. Although the event is plausible, Nof estimated that the likelihood of such a storm occurring in that particular place and time of year is less than once every 2,400 years.

While scientists agree that wind set-down effect could have caused the Red Sea to part as described in the Bible, most biblical scholars and archeologists insist that the Israelites' crossing did not take place at the Red Sea at all. The original Hebrew (yam suph), they contend, should be translated as Sea of Reeds, not Red Sea. So where's the Sea of Reeds? It depends whom you ask. In the somewhat specious History Channel documentary Exodus Decoded, Simcha Jacobovici (aka the Naked Archaeologist) places the Israelites' crossing in the Bitter Lakes, a reedy marshland north of the Gulf of Suez that was subsumed during the construction of the Suez Canal. For his part, Walking the Bible author Bruce Feiler concludes that the Sea of Reeds is Lake Timsah, located halfway between Port Said and Suez. But The Miracles of Exodus author Humphreys argues that while the translation of "the Red Sea" may be incorrect, the Sea of Reeds nevertheless refers to the Red Sea, concluding that "there can be little doubt that the Red Sea crossing was made possible by wind setdown at the head of the Gulf of Aqaba."

Scientific explanations for the parting of the Red Sea, the 10 plagues, and the burning bush. - By Michael Lukas - Slate Magazine

You're free to believe whatever you choose, as I am. Fact: there are statements in the Bible that are scientifially accurate.

Fact: Secular history supports the Bible. (The Antiquities of the Jews by famous historian Flavius Josephus )

Fact: Archeologist findings support the history of events recorded in the Bible.

Yep there ar scientifically accurate statements in the bible. so and so beget so and so who beget so and so, etc.

And the wedding guests were the first Kool Aid drinkers?

Your concession is duly noted.

 

[Gadawg73]

Rejection of fact is not just a religous thing.
Liberals reject financial facts all the time.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Rejection of fact is not just a religous thing.
Liberals reject financial facts all the time.

And the fact is, no one knows how old the earth is nor do they know how old humankind is.

 

[Gadawg73]

Rejection of fact is not just a religous thing.
Liberals reject financial facts all the time.

And the fact is, no one knows how old the earth is nor do they know how old humankind is.

We do know that the earth is older than 6000 years from sendiment real evidence and that humans were not just dropped here as man and wife 6000 years ago.
That is fact. Myths about Adam and Eve are not fact.

 

[Truthmatters]

The right has to deny all sorts of sceince to hang onto their failed ideas.

Get some new ideas that are not proven failures and you wont have to deny science, deny court documents, deny the benifit of higher education, deny the definition of words and deny history.


New ideas guys

 

[Gadawg73]

Lonestar, letme appealto your reason and common sense:
Which does the available science and literature point to as THE BEST EVIDENCE:
A man and a woman, Adam and Eve, were sent here by God 6000 years ago and that started ther human race.
Or:
The scientific evidence that man did evolve over many thousands of years.
Which is the best evidence we have? And why?

 

[Truthmatters]

This is how religion harms our country.

It causes people to believe in myths created thousands of years ago and to deny cold hard facts to continuing to adhere to these myths.

I dont care if you believe just dont try to make the world and all the facts bend arround your beliefs.

Face cold hard facts and embrace the spiritual lessons of your religion instead of trying to insist its REALITY in every word.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Rejection of fact is not just a religous thing.
Liberals reject financial facts all the time.

And the fact is, no one knows how old the earth is nor do they know how old humankind is.

We do know that the earth is older than 6000 years from sendiment real evidence and that humans were not just dropped here as man and wife 6000 years ago.
That is fact. Myths about Adam and Eve are not fact.

It's a fact according to who? You?

It has already been shown that dating methods are not accurate. And you nor I know how or when man was created. You can no more disprove the creation of man according to the Bible than I can prove it. Furthermore you cannot prove the evolutionists theories about when man was created either.

It is better to trust in the LORD than to put confidence in man.
Psalm 118:8

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Lonestar, letme appealto your reason and common sense:
Which does the available science and literature point to as THE BEST EVIDENCE:
A man and a woman, Adam and Eve, were sent here by God 6000 years ago and that started ther human race.
Or:
The scientific evidence that man did evolve over many thousands of years.
Which is the best evidence we have? And why?

You have no evidence, only theories about disoveries that were found. There is no scientific law or demonstrable process that can account for non-living objects coming to life. There is no known scientific law that would allow one kind of creature to turn naturally into a completely different kind. Thousands of fossils and fossil fragments of apes and humans have now been found and they don't show a steady progression from apes to humans at all.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

This is how religion harms our country.

It causes people to believe in myths created thousands of years ago and to deny cold hard facts to continuing to adhere to these myths.

I dont care if you believe just dont try to make the world and all the facts bend arround your beliefs.

Face cold hard facts and embrace the spiritual lessons of your religion instead of trying to insist its REALITY in every word.

Tell me how does believing in a diety harm the country, specifically. Keep in mind that this nation was founded on Judeo-Christian values and has not only thrived but surpassed many nations that are hundreds if not thousands of years older.

 

[Gadawg73]

Lonestar, letme appealto your reason and common sense:
Which does the available science and literature point to as THE BEST EVIDENCE:
A man and a woman, Adam and Eve, were sent here by God 6000 years ago and that started ther human race.
Or:
The scientific evidence that man did evolve over many thousands of years.
Which is the best evidence we have? And why?

You have no evidence, only theories about disoveries that were found. There is no scientific law or demonstrable process that can account for non-living objects coming to life. There is no known scientific law that would allow one kind of creature to turn naturally into a completely different kind. Thousands of fossils and fossil fragments of apes and humans have now been found and they don't show a steady progression from apes to humans at all.

You run from questions like a monkey on fire.
You refuse to debate. Your mind is made up.
Which is it?
The Adam and Eve story or the evolution thesis?
Which? And why?

 

[edthecynic]

And the fact is, no one knows how old the earth is nor do they know how old humankind is.

We do know that the earth is older than 6000 years from sendiment real evidence and that humans were not just dropped here as man and wife 6000 years ago.
That is fact. Myths about Adam and Eve are not fact.

It's a fact according to who? You?

It has already been shown that dating methods are not accurate. And you nor I know how or when man was created. You can no more disprove the creation of man according to the Bible than I can prove it. Furthermore you cannot prove the evolutionists theories about when man was created either.

It is better to trust in the LORD than to put confidence in man.
Psalm 118:8

No it hasn't!!!! You simply pontificated that because any single dating method does not have a range of accuracy that is INFINITE they are not accurate within ANY range.

That's like saying that a bathroom scale that a 150 lb person weighs himself on is not accurate within its range of accuracy because its dial can't accurately show the difference between a one gram weight and a 2 gram weight even though there are other scales that can accurately measure grains as well as grams. Of course the scales that can measure a gram accurately are not accurate by your "logic" because they can't measure tons.

And biblical creation itself has been scientifically disproved by the First Law of Thermodynamics.

 

[Gadawg73]

Tell us what you believe Lonestar.
How did we get here?

 

[edthecynic]

Lonestar, letme appealto your reason and common sense:
Which does the available science and literature point to as THE BEST EVIDENCE:
A man and a woman, Adam and Eve, were sent here by God 6000 years ago and that started ther human race.
Or:
The scientific evidence that man did evolve over many thousands of years.
Which is the best evidence we have? And why?

You have no evidence, only theories about disoveries that were found. There is no scientific law or demonstrable process that can account for non-living objects coming to life. There is no known scientific law that would allow one kind of creature to turn naturally into a completely different kind. Thousands of fossils and fossil fragments of apes and humans have now been found and they don't show a steady progression from apes to humans at all.

Again you confirm your complete ignorance of science. Nowhere does evolution say apes turned into humans!!! It says apes and humans have a common ancestor!!!
You are completely brainwashed!

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Lonestar, letme appealto your reason and common sense:
Which does the available science and literature point to as THE BEST EVIDENCE:
A man and a woman, Adam and Eve, were sent here by God 6000 years ago and that started ther human race.
Or:
The scientific evidence that man did evolve over many thousands of years.
Which is the best evidence we have? And why?

You have no evidence, only theories about disoveries that were found. There is no scientific law or demonstrable process that can account for non-living objects coming to life. There is no known scientific law that would allow one kind of creature to turn naturally into a completely different kind. Thousands of fossils and fossil fragments of apes and humans have now been found and they don't show a steady progression from apes to humans at all.

You run from questions like a monkey on fire.
You refuse to debate. Your mind is made up.
Which is it?
The Adam and Eve story or the evolution thesis?
Which? And why?

I run from nothing or no one, especially the likes of you. I answered your dopey question when I quoted Psalm 118:8.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

We do know that the earth is older than 6000 years from sendiment real evidence and that humans were not just dropped here as man and wife 6000 years ago.
That is fact. Myths about Adam and Eve are not fact.

It's a fact according to who? You?

It has already been shown that dating methods are not accurate. And you nor I know how or when man was created. You can no more disprove the creation of man according to the Bible than I can prove it. Furthermore you cannot prove the evolutionists theories about when man was created either.

It is better to trust in the LORD than to put confidence in man.
Psalm 118:8

No it hasn't!!!! You simply pontificated that because any single dating method does not have a range of accuracy that is INFINITE they are not accurate within ANY range.

That's like saying that a bathroom scale that a 150 lb person weighs himself on is not accurate within its range of accuracy because its dial can't accurately show the difference between a one gram weight and a 2 gram weight even though there are other scales that can accurately measure grains as well as grams. Of course the scales that can measure a gram accurately are not accurate by your "logic" because they can't measure tons.

And biblical creation itself has been scientifically disproved by the First Law of Thermodynamics.

Sure it has.

Tell me how can you disprove the Biiblical account of creation when you don't know how it was done.

 

[Truthmatters]

because it is completely unrealisitic

 

[Gadawg73]

You have no evidence, only theories about disoveries that were found. There is no scientific law or demonstrable process that can account for non-living objects coming to life. There is no known scientific law that would allow one kind of creature to turn naturally into a completely different kind. Thousands of fossils and fossil fragments of apes and humans have now been found and they don't show a steady progression from apes to humans at all.

You run from questions like a monkey on fire.
You refuse to debate. Your mind is made up.
Which is it?
The Adam and Eve story or the evolution thesis?
Which? And why?

I run from nothing or no one, especially the likes of you. I answered your dopey question when I quoted Psalm 118:8.

Lonestar, why is that you want us to respect, and I do, your positions in debate yet when someone offers another perspective and opinion other than yours you call it "dopey" and other derogatory names?
If your faith is so strong they why do you have to rely on gutter remarks to others to attempt to make your points? I played a lot of ball and it is a definite sign of giving up when my opponents started the trash talk.

Other than the Bible, what other proof do you offer?
Is the Bible scientific proof of any kind? Specifically, Psalm 118:8?

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Tell us what you believe Lonestar.
How did we get here?

My beliefs aren't relevant, what is relevant is what can be proven. And neither creationist nor evolutionist can prove their claims.

 

[Truthmatters]

The creation myth has no basis in science.

Neither does the easter bunny