Which conclusions are you speaking of?

How is this contrary to Evolutionist theory? This is well known amongst evolutionists.

Well....while those who debunk the entire 'theory' of evolution are at it they can also discount carbon dating .... geology and every other science and rely solely on fantasy.

What amuses is their use of BITS OF science to debunk the rest of it.

Selective belief....selective understanding.

Good try.

 

 

You pick.  Pick any conclusion you want, I will wager that debunking it on the internet is a few simple mouse clicks away.

 

Extensive debunking of carbon dating--and, for that matter, all dating based on radioactive half-life--has already been done.  You can go your local forensics body farm and carbon-date bones from human beings alive 30 days ago--and discover they've been dead for the last 15,000 years.   A few years ago, there was a canyon in Texas that formed literally overnight (well okay, it might have been daytime part of the time...).  The reason we know is because people remember it not being there before...and then the floods receded, and there it was.   Had no one been there before, the "experts" would have been claiming it formed over the course of millions of years.

All this to say, you have to support your claims, too.  You are taking a lot of presumptions to be axiomatic, and in so doing, you are just as guilty as the creationists you are discrediting.   And just as a disclaimer, I am undecided when it comes to either creationism or evolutionism.

Why either or?...quite a few people believe in both.

SivCorp; all you seem to want to do is trash evolution, as if that would somehow prove god exists to the rest of us … it cannot … it wouldn’t. Most seem to know that evolution has absolutely nothing to do with god … but the real intelligential are not so gullible as to try and combine the two. As intelligent as you like to appear, I will form my views from published and peer reviewed ‘experts’ with a reputation for the truth … not a notoriety who pops up on a ridiculous post like this one … and claims to know the real truth. There is a Nobel Prize awaiting you if this is true … but you will never get there by ‘publishing’ on rags like this (thread) for sure.

Is there some reason why ‘splitting’ cannot occur … oh never mind … I agree with Hawkins who stated in HIS book “The Blind Watchmaker”, phyletic gradualism is just a ‘straw dog’ for the interrupted equilibrium advocates? You seem to be confusing values and facts. Ramble on till you un-ruffle your own feathers then … seems like you are going to anyway.

My point ... this is not the place for it ... this is an open forum and none of us has the authority to say just stop so I can be heard. If you want to discuss god on pretext  alone ... well I guess that is what you have been doing, but I suggest you start a religious post 'All about god ... and nothing else” ... I am sure I won't be visiting ... just because. You have made it quite clear that you are not of a 'religion', that you have had your 'experiences' and that nobody else could understand without such an experience ... and then you commence to talk about these phenomena to the un-‘experienced’ nonbelievers and you expect ... what???

You are talking to atheists (me anyway) and I (we) don’t believe in the existence of god … is there any wonder why all your ‘just becauses’ are seemingly falling on deaf ears. I don’t know how to have a discussion just about god particularly when one side takes him for granted and the other side doesn’t believe there is something there to discuss in the first place??? David, there is nothing sincere in a discussion where you get to just state god is real … and we have to argue from there … you must prove god is real and a statement to the fact is not enough. There are no tradeoffs here … there is no starting point. In a very surreal sense, I suppose we are all ‘sincere’ scholars and seekers of truth, but atheism is but one natural unforced outcome of that search. We are not all teachers or writers or engineers or theologians, though, so we may not have done as much research on this as say Sam Harris does when he writes a book.

Sam Harris: Science can answer moral questions

 

Archaeopteryx



What about Linux.... i mean, what about the penguins... it is a bird but it don't fly... well, it fly in water but not in the air !!!

Or the Moa ( extint due to men ) who was a wingless bird...

Ostrich are other bird who don't fly...

On the other hand, bat are good flying mammal... Fish like hatchetfishes of the Amazon can fly... The Ommastrephidae are flying squid... a max of 50 meter jet propelled fly !!!!

Point is that you take for a fact that flying and bird are related... the few example show that not all bird fly and that not only bird can fly !!!



Shorter lifespans !!! Well, some number...

- Neolithic : 20 yo
- Bronze Age and Iron Age : 26 yo
- Classical Greece and classical Rome : 28 yo
- Medieval Islamic Caliphate : 35 yo
- 1200-1300 A.D.: 43 yo
- 1300-1400 A.D.: 24 yo (due to the impact of the Black Death)
- 1400-1500 A.D.: 48 yo
- 1500-1550 A.D.: 50 yo
- Current world average : 67.2 yo

As for cancer, it is somehow funny... a cancer cell is a cell who don't die... yes, they are immortal... they duplicate but have mutated in a way that mechanism for kill the cell don't work anymore...

About humanity being 6000 years old...

In 6400 BC ( 8412 yo )the Halaf culture was created in Lebanon, Israel and Palestine, Syria, Anatolia, and Northern Mesopotamia ... before this, in 9000 BC ( 11012 yo ), the first city ( 2000-3000 people ) called Jericho was created... The oldest settement, 10700 BC ( 12712 yo ) was found near Aleppo, including two temple...

If humanity is only 6000 year old, it mean that it is alien who have build these settlement, these city or these first big culture... or maybe it was ape like in the film "planet of the ape" ???

If you wish to write some BS, best to make some research first... if you have say that humanity was only 15000 year old, it will have be better because there was not real civilization in these time... well, 15000 is not good enough because of some painting ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lascaux ) who are +-17k yo...

Some reading : http://www.biblicalnonsense.com/chapter8.html

This one works for me and was exactly one button away. Do you really feel every number needs to be referenced???

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aboriginals_of_Australia

Everything in Christianity is based on Jewish folklore and culture (or against it) ... or did they mystically plop a gaggle of Christians into their midst prepackaged with … the rest of the story...?

So it is ... carbon dating is next then ... are we having fun yet, hahaha.

Well said ... I never thought of taking a silly 'serious'  approach???

Ah.... Chariots of the Gods..... the SCIENCE [fiction] answer to GOD.

So THAT'S what this thread is all about.....

I certainly am.... I'm too impatient to wait for others to create the fun so here we go.

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c007.html

Nice, you are all paying attention after all

 

I dropped that crazy number on you to see if you all where reading everything... Good show

Personally, I don't see an exact age that can be calculated, but I do think that humanity is not the millions of years old that some scientist claim.

 

I'll address the individual issues you all bring up in a bit.  Probably later tonight.

Well I guess it time to unleash the awesome power and knowledge of the Canadian Rock Band

The all knowing, all seeing "Bare Naked Ladies"

 

Personally, I like this one better, hahaha

Ancient Aliens Season 1 Episode 2(FULL)

I think humanity is claiming to be ~200,000 years old … and claims to be 'modern' for `50,000 years or so ... in its present evolutionary form. I don't know where millions of years comes into the actual picture so what can I say?I read that already ... a real trip through science, huh? There is some truth in there, but it is not obvious or intended.

 

 

as write on http://www.biblicalnonsense.com/chapter4.html :

An often-used logical fallacy is ad hoc reasoning, or an explanation offered after the fact. It’s a common apologetic practice to fall back on an alternative solution once the foundation of the original position has crumbled. For example, a Christian might state, “There’s great evidence that the earth is only a few thousand years old.” Once someone exposes the error in such a blatantly false statement with the overwhelming counterevidence, the Christian might then say, “God made it look that way to mislead those who rely on their own opinions rather than having faith in his word.” The speaker has totally dropped the original indefensible claim and substituted it with an alternative explanation, one that only makes sense after the fact. In other words, the speaker is justifying the problem with an invented solution in order to protect his position.

 

The only chariot that i know is from Thor... you know, the friendly naked grey alien with big black eye from Stargate SG1... hey, i think that there is a mod for Soase with these god's chariot... and it is well know that US have kill God at Roswell...