40% of Americans-earth 10K years old

[Common Sense]

I never said the Bible was "exact truth". It is a book of growth. There are many lessons for those that would learn them.
I said as far as "creation" went that I would take the Lord's story for it over science's story. The rest of the Bible is lessons. Learn them if you will. If you want the "exact" truth, you will have to pray and ask for it (sometimes the answer is no). I believe that the parts of the Bible that relay conversations with the Lord are "fairly" accurate. It seems that any pieces of documentation from early histories support what is recorded. When it comes to the prophets, names can be the same or confused, but the lesson is what is important. It will help you become a better person.
There are holes in the history in the Bible. Some are recorded as what happened: Hebrews went to Egypt because they believed that men would help them more than the Lord would (didn't work to well, they became the Egyptians slaves) or when many of the Hebrew were taken into slavery by powerful kings in the area (because they did not obey the Lord). The Hebrews probably had one of the most accurate histories for that time period, but there were problems. What does science have from then (other that from archeology)?

so in essence you believe in creationism whether there is proof or not? and you refuse to believe in evolution because there is not enough proof?


what then is "enough proof"?

 

[Gadawg73]

I have no idea what junk science they teach in the unversities. But I do know that dating methods are flawed and shouldn't be relied on and I do know that scientist nit-pick their findings to fit their desired conclusion. It should be noted that I'm strictly speaking about the science in regards to dating methods and so-called evolution. Not all sciences are corrupt.

"I have no idea"
"But I do know"
Respectfully Lonestar, you are closed minded.

Why? Because I don't believe in the evolution of man? Or because I know that the dating methods are flawed? To paraphrase Blaise Pascal, " God either exists or he does not. If we believe in God and he exists, we will be rewarded with eternal bliss in heaven. If we believe in God and he does not exist then at worst all we have forgone is a few sinful pleasures.". By the same token if we do not believe in God and he does exist we may enjoy a few sinful pleasures, but we may face eternal damnation. If we do not believe in God and he does not exist then our sins will not be punished.

You claim that junk science is taught while claiming you do not know what kind it is.
Then you claim that you are positive that another form of science is not true.
Respectfully Lonestar, that makes you look very foolish.
Have you taken Biology 101 in college?

 

[edthecynic]

How many languages are there? How many cultures are there? That's how many versions there can be.

ok, so you agree that the bible can thus be interpreted any way the user chooses.

then why do we always heard that the word of god is unquestionable? if one has the ability to interpret the word of god any way he or she chooses, then how can the word of god be unquestionable?

This is off-topic. I will give you my opinion. The "word" of the Lord was set down by the ancients that lived in fear of the Lord. That "word" was interpreted into other languages or cultures using terms that could be understood by those. In time, those that had no fear of the Lord or hated Him manipulated the "word" to trick people (I believe evil beings actually appeared to some saying they were angels or "the way" with different versions) away from the Lord. The Lord works in mysterious ways: He can use "different" versions to teach those that learn differently (kind of like different branches of Christianity), some people would refuse to learn if you showed them how "fearful" the wrathful Lord was when giving out earned punishments or would have no respect of the might of Yeshua if only the Being of Love and Kindness was taught from the NT.
The "actual Word" of the Lord is unquestionable. That "Word" is Yeshua. That is not saying that you cannot ask questions, it is just His presentation is truth. The "written" word can be changed. The "Word" you is what you feel in your heart (the Word that comes thru prayer and meditation or contemplation is from the Holy Spirit, sent from Yeshua), and THAT "word" is unquestionalbe.
The above statement is not to be confused with the Jim Jones or Charles Manson types. It is very much about the individual relationship with the Lord and does not involve other people. If the voices are telling you to hurt someone, chances are, that is NOT the Lord.

Thank you for admitting that the bible is NOT the word of God!

Nu 25:4 And the LORD said unto Moses, Take all the heads of the people, and hang them up before the LORD against the sun, that the fierce anger of the LORD may be turned away from Israel.

1Sa 15:3 Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.

Is 13: 15 Every one that is found shall be thrust through; and every one that is joined unto them shall fall by the sword.
16 Their children also shall be dashed to pieces before their eyes; their houses shall be spoiled, and their wives ravished.

De 2:34 And we took all his cities at that time, and utterly destroyed the men, and the women, and the little ones, of every city, we left none to remain:

De 3:6 And we utterly destroyed them, as we did unto Sihon king of Heshbon, utterly destroying the men, women, and children, of every city.

Ez 9: 5 And to the others he said in mine hearing, Go ye after him through the city, and smite: let not your eye spare, neither have ye pity:
6 Slay utterly old and young, both maids, and little children, and women...

Hosea 13: 16 Samaria shall become desolate; for she hath rebelled against her God: they shall fall by the sword: their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with child shall be ripped up.

Psalms 137: 9 Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

"I have no idea"
"But I do know"
Respectfully Lonestar, you are closed minded.

Why? Because I don't believe in the evolution of man? Or because I know that the dating methods are flawed? To paraphrase Blaise Pascal, " God either exists or he does not. If we believe in God and he exists, we will be rewarded with eternal bliss in heaven. If we believe in God and he does not exist then at worst all we have forgone is a few sinful pleasures.". By the same token if we do not believe in God and he does exist we may enjoy a few sinful pleasures, but we may face eternal damnation. If we do not believe in God and he does not exist then our sins will not be punished.

You claim that junk science is taught while claiming you do not know what kind it is.
Then you claim that you are positive that another form of science is not true.
Respectfully Lonestar, that makes you look very foolish.
Have you taken Biology 101 in college?

Well there you go acting like a typical liberal.

First of all, I never claimed that junk science was being taught, I said I have no idea what junk science is being taught. If you can't see the difference then you're more stupid that I initially gave you credit for.

Secondly, I know for a fact that dating methods are flawed and I have shown as much with credible links.

And lastly, I don't need to study biology to know that one species has never turned into another species, which is what evolutionist want you to believe. They give you an example of bacteria and basically all that's happened is the bacteria mutated to adapt to certain living conditions, but at the end of the day, it's still bacteria. They say we share DNA with monkeys, well that may be so but we share 25 percent of our DNA with daffodils does that make us all 1/4 flower?

 

[Vanquish]

Why do think that your decription of what happens with bacteria is more informed than....the people who have spent years studying the science?

That's like taking your car to a make-up artist (assuming the make-up artist has no car mechanic training) and trying to get the transmission fixed. You have an opinion..but your opinion is lest trustworthy than the guy with 3 phd's and 20 years in the field.

The arrogance is shockingly enormous.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Why do think that your decription of what happens with bacteria is more informed than....the people who have spent years studying the science?
That's like taking your car to a make-up artist (assuming the make-up artist has no car mechanic training) and trying to get the transmission fixed. You have an opinion..but your opinion is lest trustworthy than the guy with 3 phd's and 20 years in the field.

The arrogance is shockingly enormous.

Because I can read and I understand the difference between evolution and adaptation. Evolutionist blur this line.

Evolution in the context of biology is defined as a change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new species.

The E.Coli bacteria example given did not change the bacteria into a new species, it remained E. Coli bacteria, albeit in mutated form. And the experiment wasn't a result of "natural selection".

The guy with 3 Phd's and 20 years in the field has a stake in convincing you his theories are correct, lest he lose his funding.

 

[Vanquish]

By your logic...no expert in any field can EVER be trusted...and laymen know more. That's one of the most retarded things I've ever heard.

Yeah, let's stop hiring people who have actual training in something...and let's hire people who know absolutely nothing about whatever the topic is.



You do know weak that is, right?

 

[Lonestar_logic]

By your logic...no expert in any field can EVER be trusted...and laymen know more. That's one of the most retarded things I've ever heard.

Yeah, let's stop hiring people who have actual training in something...and let's hire people who know absolutely nothing about whatever the topic is.



You do know weak that is, right?

If you got that from this thread, then you're dumber than you look.

 

[Vanquish]

I'm betting 99% of people would have gotten that from your post. Let me clue you in to what I'm an expert in....reading comprehension. One of the things I pay my mortgage with.

The fact that you don't like where your own words have taken you...that's your own fault.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

I'm betting 99% of people would have gotten that from your post. Let me clue you in to what I'm an expert in....reading comprehension. One of the things I pay my mortgage with.

The fact that you don't like where your own words have taken you...that's your own fault.

I pay my mortgage with cash.

 

[Vanquish]

Doubtful. You probably pay by check...which is not cash.

There you go again...interpreting things literally...and getting it wrong.

 

[xotoxi]

STONE AGE MAN

In order to know how old something is you need to have a known sample to make a comparison. Every dating system has it's flaws, therefore cannot be considered accurate.


When a “date” differs from that expected, researchers readily invent excuses for rejecting the result. The common application of such posterior reasoning shows that radiometric dating has serious problems. Woodmorappe cites hundreds of examples of excuses used to explain “bad” dates.

For example, researchers applied posterior reasoning to the dating of Australopithecus ramidus fossils.[1] Most samples of basalt closest to the fossil-bearing strata give dates of about 23 Ma (Mega annum, million years) by the argon-argon method. The authors decided that was “too old,” according to their beliefs about the place of the fossils in the evolutionary grand scheme of things. So they looked at some basalt further removed from the fossils and selected 17 of 26 samples to get an acceptable maximum age of 4.4 Ma. The other nine samples again gave much older dates but the authors decided they must be contaminated and discarded them. That is how radiometric dating works. It is very much driven by the existing long-age world view that pervades academia today.

A similar story surrounds the dating of the primate skull known as KNM-ER 1470.[2] This started with an initial 212 to 230 Ma, which, according to the fossils, was considered way off the mark (humans “weren't around then"). Various other attempts were made to date the volcanic rocks in the area. Over the years an age of 2.9 Ma was settled upon because of the agreement between several different published studies (although the studies involved selection of “good” from “bad” results, just like Australopithecus ramidus, above).

However, preconceived notions about human evolution could not cope with a skull like 1470 being “that old.” A study of pig fossils in Africa readily convinced most anthropologists that the 1470 skull was much younger. After this was widely accepted, further studies of the rocks brought the radiometric age down to about 1.9 Ma—again several studies “confirmed” this date. Such is the dating game.

Are we suggesting that evolutionists are conspiring to massage the data to get what they want? No, not generally. It is simply that all observations must fit the prevailing paradigm. The paradigm, or belief system, of molecules-to-man evolution over eons of time, is so strongly entrenched it is not questioned—it is a “fact.” So every observation must fit this paradigm. Unconsciously, the researchers, who are supposedly “objective scientists” in the eyes of the public, select the observations to fit the basic belief system.

We must remember that the past is not open to the normal processes of experimental science, that is, repeatable experiments in the present. A scientist cannot do experiments on events that happened in the past. Scientists do not measure the age of rocks, they measure isotope concentrations, and these can be measured extremely accurately. However, the “age” is calculated using assumptions about the past that cannot be proven.

We should remember God's admonition to Job, “Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth?” (Job 38:4).

Those involved with unrecorded history gather information in the present and construct stories about the past. The level of proof demanded for such stories seems to be much less than for studies in the empirical sciences, such as physics, chemistry, molecular biology, physiology, etc.

Williams, an expert in the environmental fate of radioactive elements, identified 17 flaws in the isotope dating reported in just three widely respected seminal papers that supposedly established the age of the Earth at 4.6 billion years.[3] John Woodmorappe has produced an incisive critique of these dating methods.[4] He exposes hundreds of myths that have grown up around the techniques. He shows that the few “good” dates left after the “bad” dates are filtered out could easily be explained as fortunate coincidences.


1.G. WoldeGabriel et al., “Ecological and Temporal Placement of Early Pliocene Hominids at Aramis, Ethiopia,” Nature, 1994, 371:330-333.

2.M. Lubenow, “The Pigs Took It All,” Creation, 1995, 17(3):36-38.
M. Lubenow, Bones of Contention (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1993), pp. 247-266.

3.A.R. Williams, “Long-age Isotope Dating Short on Credibility,” CEN Technical Journal, 1992, 6(1):2-5.

4.Woodmorappe, The Mythology of Modern Dating Methods.

So would your answer to the questions that you raised regarding scientific dating is "God created everything 10,000 years ago"?

Where is your proof in that? And don't cite the Bible...because that was written by men.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Doubtful. You probably pay by check...which is not cash.

There you go again...interpreting things literally...and getting it wrong.

To be perfectly honest, I pay no mortgage. I own my house and land outright.

Sarcasm escapes you. And you claim to be some sort of expert at reading comprehension!

 

[Lonestar_logic]

STONE AGE MAN

In order to know how old something is you need to have a known sample to make a comparison. Every dating system has it's flaws, therefore cannot be considered accurate.


When a “date” differs from that expected, researchers readily invent excuses for rejecting the result. The common application of such posterior reasoning shows that radiometric dating has serious problems. Woodmorappe cites hundreds of examples of excuses used to explain “bad” dates.

For example, researchers applied posterior reasoning to the dating of Australopithecus ramidus fossils.[1] Most samples of basalt closest to the fossil-bearing strata give dates of about 23 Ma (Mega annum, million years) by the argon-argon method. The authors decided that was “too old,” according to their beliefs about the place of the fossils in the evolutionary grand scheme of things. So they looked at some basalt further removed from the fossils and selected 17 of 26 samples to get an acceptable maximum age of 4.4 Ma. The other nine samples again gave much older dates but the authors decided they must be contaminated and discarded them. That is how radiometric dating works. It is very much driven by the existing long-age world view that pervades academia today.

A similar story surrounds the dating of the primate skull known as KNM-ER 1470.[2] This started with an initial 212 to 230 Ma, which, according to the fossils, was considered way off the mark (humans “weren't around then"). Various other attempts were made to date the volcanic rocks in the area. Over the years an age of 2.9 Ma was settled upon because of the agreement between several different published studies (although the studies involved selection of “good” from “bad” results, just like Australopithecus ramidus, above).

However, preconceived notions about human evolution could not cope with a skull like 1470 being “that old.” A study of pig fossils in Africa readily convinced most anthropologists that the 1470 skull was much younger. After this was widely accepted, further studies of the rocks brought the radiometric age down to about 1.9 Ma—again several studies “confirmed” this date. Such is the dating game.

Are we suggesting that evolutionists are conspiring to massage the data to get what they want? No, not generally. It is simply that all observations must fit the prevailing paradigm. The paradigm, or belief system, of molecules-to-man evolution over eons of time, is so strongly entrenched it is not questioned—it is a “fact.” So every observation must fit this paradigm. Unconsciously, the researchers, who are supposedly “objective scientists” in the eyes of the public, select the observations to fit the basic belief system.

We must remember that the past is not open to the normal processes of experimental science, that is, repeatable experiments in the present. A scientist cannot do experiments on events that happened in the past. Scientists do not measure the age of rocks, they measure isotope concentrations, and these can be measured extremely accurately. However, the “age” is calculated using assumptions about the past that cannot be proven.

We should remember God's admonition to Job, “Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth?” (Job 38:4).

Those involved with unrecorded history gather information in the present and construct stories about the past. The level of proof demanded for such stories seems to be much less than for studies in the empirical sciences, such as physics, chemistry, molecular biology, physiology, etc.

Williams, an expert in the environmental fate of radioactive elements, identified 17 flaws in the isotope dating reported in just three widely respected seminal papers that supposedly established the age of the Earth at 4.6 billion years.[3] John Woodmorappe has produced an incisive critique of these dating methods.[4] He exposes hundreds of myths that have grown up around the techniques. He shows that the few “good” dates left after the “bad” dates are filtered out could easily be explained as fortunate coincidences.


1.G. WoldeGabriel et al., “Ecological and Temporal Placement of Early Pliocene Hominids at Aramis, Ethiopia,” Nature, 1994, 371:330-333.

2.M. Lubenow, “The Pigs Took It All,” Creation, 1995, 17(3):36-38.
M. Lubenow, Bones of Contention (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1993), pp. 247-266.

3.A.R. Williams, “Long-age Isotope Dating Short on Credibility,” CEN Technical Journal, 1992, 6(1):2-5.

4.Woodmorappe, The Mythology of Modern Dating Methods.

So would your answer to the questions that you raised regarding scientific dating is "God created everything 10,000 years ago"?

Where is your proof in that? And don't cite the Bible...because that was written by men.

No, my answer is, I don't know and neither do you or anyone else.

BTW the Bible was written by men inspired by God. I come to that conclusion by knowing the Bible contains 66 books written over a vast amount of time on three continents in three different languages with authors from every station in life. This ancient text includes matters of love, hate, death, sin, marriage, civil laws, and relationships with each other as well as with God. And although these works were written independently, they show an amazing congruency.

 

[Gadawg73]

Why do think that your decription of what happens with bacteria is more informed than....the people who have spent years studying the science?
That's like taking your car to a make-up artist (assuming the make-up artist has no car mechanic training) and trying to get the transmission fixed. You have an opinion..but your opinion is lest trustworthy than the guy with 3 phd's and 20 years in the field.

The arrogance is shockingly enormous.

Because I can read and I understand the difference between evolution and adaptation. Evolutionist blur this line.

Evolution in the context of biology is defined as a change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new species.

The E.Coli bacteria example given did not change the bacteria into a new species, it remained E. Coli bacteria, albeit in mutated form. And the experiment wasn't a result of "natural selection".

The guy with 3 Phd's and 20 years in the field has a stake in convincing you his theories are correct, lest he lose his funding.

Less than 1 thousandth of one percent that test, study and teach evolution as fact receive any funding other than their teacher's salary.
You are narrow minded and believe nonsense.

 

[Vanquish]

Oh no...I understood. Just trying to teach you a lesson.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Why do think that your decription of what happens with bacteria is more informed than....the people who have spent years studying the science?
That's like taking your car to a make-up artist (assuming the make-up artist has no car mechanic training) and trying to get the transmission fixed. You have an opinion..but your opinion is lest trustworthy than the guy with 3 phd's and 20 years in the field.

The arrogance is shockingly enormous.

Because I can read and I understand the difference between evolution and adaptation. Evolutionist blur this line.

Evolution in the context of biology is defined as a change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new species.

The E.Coli bacteria example given did not change the bacteria into a new species, it remained E. Coli bacteria, albeit in mutated form. And the experiment wasn't a result of "natural selection".

The guy with 3 Phd's and 20 years in the field has a stake in convincing you his theories are correct, lest he lose his funding.

Less than 1 thousandth of one percent that test, study and teach evolution as fact receive any funding other than their teacher's salary.
You are narrow minded and believe nonsense.

You have proof of that? Or should I simply take your word for it?

Oh and can you prove the Bible is nonsense?

If being in Christian and believing in God makes one narrow-minded, then so be it.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Oh no...I understood. Just trying to teach you a lesson.

And you failed miserably.

 

[Vanquish]

You can't get blood out of a turnip.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

You can't get blood out of a turnip.

Only an idiot would think that you could get blood out of a turnip.