If not STFU and take your lumps and move on...
im gonna point out inconsistencies in the bible
- Thread starter Jesuschrist
- Start date
If not STFU and take your lumps and move on...
Fuzzy_McNut
Banned
I been calling you soft randy.
You didn't prove shit except prove you don't know what the Hebrew word for day is....prove you don't know shit about the Bible and prove you believe the latest need science talks about.
talking to you about ths Bible is like a mechanic talking to a mathematician about string theory.
I would first have to explain the difference between a yovel year a sabbatical year, time, age, day, and Day means. Even weeks in the Bible doesn't mean a period of seven says. Before we can entertain a serious combo you would have to understand all these times.
Fuzzy_McNut
Banned
Edit.....
You realize....I don't have to know everything to understand and affirm my belief right.....
Science can't explain the holes in evolution but yet they believe in it. Science can't
Explain a lot of things but doesn't nonbeliever...... You can prove I don't know somethings now but that is it.. I can easily reverse it...
Until you explain why origination eve and mitochondrial Adam have such a large age disparity then your belief is then not justified......
You realize....I don't have to know everything to understand and affirm my belief right.....
Science can't explain the holes in evolution but yet they believe in it. Science can't
Explain a lot of things but doesn't nonbeliever...... You can prove I don't know somethings now but that is it.. I can easily reverse it...
Until you explain why origination eve and mitochondrial Adam have such a large age disparity then your belief is then not justified......
Fuzzy_McNut
Banned
I don't have to prove Adam existed that long ago with dinosaurs.
Until you explain how mitochondrial eve could impregnate herself then your science buckshot is just that. Just the latest shit science saying until it shoots itself in the foot like it always does
Fuzzy_McNut
Banned
Post number 81 or elsd
Fuzzy_McNut
Banned
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Y-chromosomal_Adam
Yeah thought so......I are operating under the belief that everything youngest is accurate....everything youngest is not accurate. so I don't have to prove anything around your shaky ass data
Yeah thought so......I are operating under the belief that everything youngest is accurate....everything youngest is not accurate. so I don't have to prove anything around your shaky ass data
The problem is that my argument was never on eveolution or mitochondrial Adam....
I mearly used the words you gave me....
Post #53
Then did the math based on the Bible...
Here's a list of what God created on each of the six days of creation:
Based on what you told me, and common sense, both man and dinosaurs are land animals.
So if you adjusted a thousand years, (something you insisted and I agreed to give you)...
Here is a brief summarization of your argument
According to you... Both man and dinosaurs co-existed roughly 21,000 years ago... These are your words, not mines. So the emphasis and burden is on you to proove what you all ready stated.... Note, I never gave you my opinion, nore did I even bother to offer an theory, to the matter...
I just took your words, or so called facts, and destroyed them with carbon 14 dating which shows that dinosaurs existed 63 million years ago.... roughly 61,979,000 before your claim....
Common sense would tell you that there is no way the earth could have been a water planet during that short period of time (No McNutt)... The thing about water, it doesn't vanish, the best it can do, is like Mars, vaporize and leave the planet surface, but that only occurs when the planet loses its atmosphere, again like mars..
Another thing to consider is that evaporated water actually has volume and weight, this is why there is atmospheric pressure, the more water or clouds, the more pressure..
Are you with me so far???
Reading the bible verbatim, they said that the flood covered the planet, and was as high as the tallest mountain... Tallest mountain = Mt Everest, do the math to figure out how much water it would take to cover all of the surface of the earth from water level to over 29,029 feet not doing the math but you can easily imagine that is a shit load of water...
Going back to the original fact, that water dosn't disappear, the question remains, where did that much water go???
Well lets examine the viable options....
1- It froze and turned into the polar caps... Really? How cold did it get to do that shit after 40 days, besides why is there no records of this shit when examining the permafrost core rings?
2- The water some how went back under ground... Really that is assuming that it must have came from underground... Do the math, extract that much water from underground and place that much on the surface, well the weight would cause those now hollow caves to collapse, and there would be no place for the water to go..
Besides if it was that much water under the surface, it wouldn't be that difficult to find today....
3- I evaporated, and went to the atmosphere..... Remember I said evaporated water has weight, well that much water in the atmosphere would crush us, don't believe me just make a rocket ship and travel to the surface of Venus and mail back a post card once you get there... Venus, in spite of being smaller than earth has 92 times the pressure we do, why? Because of all of the shit in the atmosphere.
4- Where did the water come from in the first place...
5- That much water would have flooded every fresh water lake, killing all the fresh water fishes, Did Noah capture two of every fresh water fish also?
6- That much water would have kill all vegetation. Did Noah collect seeds from every plant life? BTW what did the plant eating animals eat once he let them free? Shit what did the meat eating animal eat (Unicorns?)
This is why many religious nuts are trying to retro fit the story, in accords with today's understanding and claim (with out no evidence in the bible) that it was just a regional flood.... Wow!!!!! That sort of takes the starch out the story doesn't it, and makes you wonder what else they were exaggerating about..
Science would not apply to the creator.
I am not pro- science, at least not 100% even though I agree to a large degree, nor am I pro-creation, even though a lot of what we get from religious tales are water down simplified stories based in some truths.
Folks like McNut have some understanding, but have a long way to go to approaching the truth...
Science is good for understanding the physical science and parts of the universe, but that only constitutes for about 5% of the universe...
To me mathematics is a much better tool of painting the picture of the universe and god, but its limits lies in our lack of ability to comprehend complicated concepts like infinity, the really big and the really small.
Fuzzy_McNut
Banned
you have so many misconceptions about the Bible that it is epic..... Let me educate you about yom or day
I said I was going to explain it but I never got back to it
I said I was going to explain it but I never got back to it
Your science and mathematics actually proves their is a God
I never questioned the existence of a god... Its just my definition of god is different from some..
Fuzzy_McNut
Banned
Lets talk about why radioactive carbon dati
ng isn't as accurate as you claim....
Hence if it is not accurate then there is no need to prove shit
Its not 100% accurate, but rather a method used for estimation and is accurate up to a certain % but well in the range of deterring that man and dinosaurs existed million of years apart..
Plus there are other factors that are constant with them being million of years apart, some of these factors sedimentary layers and ice core samples..
Its not 100% accurate, but rather a method used for estimation and is accurate up to a certain % but well in the range of deterring that man and dinosaurs existed million of years apart..
Plus there are other factors that are constant with them being million of years apart, some of these factors sedimentary layers and ice core samples..
Fuzzy_McNut
Banned
it is very in accurate
Have a capachino and read this
Everything I have already said and more
Can we rely on radiometric dating techniques? How accurate are they? First, I'll start by referring you to an extensive article on the young earth creation science website Answers in Genesis, titled "What About Carbon Dating?" While Carbon-14 is in the title, the article talks about many forms of dating.
Admission
Are the dating techniques used in geology 100% accurate? No, they are not. (Yes, I agreed with the young earther on this one. But that doesn't mean the earth is young). I can look in my scientific journals and see apparent discrepancies in dating techniques. Some may be discrepancies…some may just need a bit further explanation. If there are possible discrepancies, how can I accept these dates as reliable? The young earth creationism believer thinks that all we are relying on is the radiometric techniques. This is like the common phrase that Christians like to use when studying the Bible, when we say, "He pulled that out of context." When considering the date of the world, and the universe, you have to consider all the evidence, not just one portion. We take the radiometric dates, along with stratigraphy (I know, dated radiometrically), the specific fossil species in a rock (I know, dated radiometrically) and come up with a date. Why do we do this? Because although not perfect, it is the best tool we have. Even looking at geology alone, it is evident from the Grand Canyon that you can't produce the rock layers using the Noah's Flood model, and you can't produce ANY chalk layers using a young earth. Stratigraphy alone implies an old earth. And, although you can come up with gross errors using radiometric dating, by and large, the millions of dates that have been accomplished lend support to their accuracy, granting, of course, a large margin of error. These "millions" of semi-accurate dates have correlated throughout the stratigraphic layers of the earth. Are they perfect...no. Are they usable for giving a rough estimate of age...yes. Can we rely on the radiometric dates alone...no, we can't. Geologists know that the dates are not perfect, that's why you will see research articles trying to determine the age of a rock, and there will be ten, twenty, or more samples that were dated. This is to get the average, or, most accurate date possible, within the margin of error that you allow. Are there scientists out there that will swear up and down that their dates are completely accurate? Sure, they exist, but are probably in the minority. Unfortunately, these are the ones that the young earth creationist will single out and attack, because of their assumptions that the techniques are perfect. Most geologists understand the dating techniques, and accept their limitations.
Article
Okay, on with the article. The author gives a very good description of Carbon-14, except the flood part. He assumes the coal beds were all laid down during the Flood, but I have already disproved that theory (read here). In his conclusion, he states "It (Carbon-14) does not give dates of millions of years." Correct, and there isn't a geologist out there who would claim Carbon-14 to establish a date of millions of years. We know the limitations of Carbon-14...of course, this doesn't prevent the author from doing a little mud-slinging at the old earth geologist! The next section is Other Radiometric Dating Methods. Yes, its true, the person using these dates must make unprovable assumptions, such as the three listed. But, the young earth creation scientist also makes unprovable assumptions, when he starts with the assumption that the earth is only 6,000 years old, which is unprovable. Okay, we are both guilty of assumptions. Let's move down the article to "Bad Dates." Yes, these are bad dates. Does that mean the earth is young...of course not. It means the geologist has to do the best he can with the tools available to date the objects. I'm not going to try to defend these bad date examples. I can't without the original articles. The creation science author is correct in calling this the "dating game." Where the young and old earth scientist differs is this...at least the old earth scientist is playing the game...we are trying to figure out this puzzle, whereas the young-earth scientist starts with the false, unprovable assumption of a 6,000 year old earth, one which flies in the face of the radiometric "dating game," and one that falls flat on its face in light of astronomical dating and stratigraphic evidence. The author uses the verse from Job, 'Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth?' (Job 38:4) to admonish the old-ager. To the author I say, "Where were you when God laid the foundations of the earth?" You were not there either! So you can't "assume" a 6,000-year-old earth, just like we can't "assume" a 13.7 billion year old universe. What we have to decide this issue is the evidence from God's creation, and not our assumptions. Job 12:8 says "speak to the earth, and it will teach thee." Secular and Christian scientists, outside of a religious framework, have examined God's creation, and it says, "I'm 13.7 billion years old."
How Long is a Day
Nowhere in the Bible does it state that the days of creation are 24-hour days. Young earth creation science advocates will argue over the correct translation of "day." The translation of "day" is irrelevant. If you are in the middle of space, what is a "day." If you are eternal, what meaning does time have? Are we going to have clocks in heaven? Wow, there goes another million years! Only human arrogance would insist on limiting God, an infinite being, to a finite 24-hour day. Before we go on...keep thinking "context." We can't only rest on radiometric dating. Keep considering the rock layers, which can't be laid down in a global flood. Keep thinking about starlight, which traveling at the speed of light, took millions of years to get here. It could not be created with the "appearance of age". Appearance of age means that the created object lies about its true age, and since God is Truth, He cannot lie. Remember, context, context, context. The next section is Testing Radiometric Dating Methods. For example, the author gives examples of lava flows that were less than 50 years old, but dated radiometrically from 270,000 to 3.5 million years old. After a short argument, the author gives another example, that of lava from the Grand Canyon, giving an error of 270 million years. This is an excellent example. Geologists say the lava in question is 1.2 million years old...in other words, they know when to ignore the radiometric dates. To us, this means be careful when dating lava! It doesn't mean "all dates are wrong." Remember, context. Coal is used next as an example. They claim no source of coal has been found that completely lacks C-14. I can buy that, after all, what is coal? It is made of carbon...given the amount of carbon in coal, I would expect to see a trace amount of carbon-14 even in samples that are millions of years old. (Beyond about 60,000 years, the C-14 becomes indistinguishable from the background radiation.) Why was supposed 230 million year old coal dated at 33,720 years? I haven't a clue. Supposedly, "accompanying checks" showed it was not due to contamination...I'd have to see the documentation. After all, to say that the lab did not contaminate the specimen proves nothing. You would have to prove it was not contaminated from the moment it was excavated. In fact, you would have to excavate it in a vacuum to be 100% sure, because once it is exposed to the atmosphere, it is exposed to more Carbon-14. In fact, I don't mind if you ignore all Carbon-14 evidence. It doesn't matter...remember context, context, context.
There are way more indicators that dinosaurs existed millions of years ago, than just only radio carbon dating... Trust me your barking up the wrong tree, almost like a guy who hangs on the the 99.9% accuracy rating in DNA testing to claim he is not the father..
That article attempts to contaminate the inconsistencies with radiometric dating and tries to mix them up with radio carbon dating... As if the reader is too dumb to know the difference between the two..
Now I see why dumb people tend to flock to the church... Perhaps they lack the intellectual capacity to sift through all the bullshit and are susceptible to bait and switch arguments..
Now I see why dumb people tend to flock to the church... Perhaps they lack the intellectual capacity to sift through all the bullshit and are susceptible to bait and switch arguments..
Fuzzy_McNut
Banned
Hebrew word for day is yom.
Yom doesn't specify time period..... Yom could simply mean a long time.
Lesson two: Day represents Jesus. Night represents satan
Lesson God didn't say how long creeping things weed hers before Adam was created.
INS have to make a entire thread for you. You are a smart ignorant dumbass man.
Might make it tomorrow as I usually son you atheist on Sundays
Yom doesn't specify time period..... Yom could simply mean a long time.
Lesson two: Day represents Jesus. Night represents satan
Lesson God didn't say how long creeping things weed hers before Adam was created.
INS have to make a entire thread for you. You are a smart ignorant dumbass man.
Might make it tomorrow as I usually son you atheist on Sundays
Your attempt at mystifying and confusion a fairly simple and strait out argument has failed. Because at the end of the day, the bible said, on day 6 man and all land animals were created...
So fuck what the Hebrew word for day is, and fuck what you say day and night represents....
Your shenanigans are so transparent, that even Stevie Wonder can see through the bullshit..
Any one who thinks man and dinosaur co-existed, is not wrapped to tight, so stop trying to convince anyone over five that shit...
Fuzzy_McNut
Banned
Day meaning yom period of time.
The division of the says are for us to better comprehends but you fail miserably.
You would have been the guy saying the earth was flat putting all your faith in what scientist of that era believed.
Have you not seen what putting your faith in western science gets
Nothing......
Keep following the latest theory science teaches you....but just remember you scientologists eastern science can disprove a lot of your shit.....
Science contradicts itself when it set out to declare thrifts as facts. So keep your white daddy thrifts and have a pop tart
Sorry I am not basing my argument on science, I am basing it on the glaring flaws of your argument... You fucked up after you lumped man and dinosaur together at around 20,000 years ago...
And any one with a 5th grade or above argument knows that just bat shit..
Fuzzy_McNut
Banned
didn't say man and dinosaur existed that long ago.
Adam was the first man. According to the latest trend in science homosapians were considered to be the first man. I beg to differ. First man was bout six thousand years ago.
If you managed to find a creeping mankind sub species then so be it
The bible said they existed during day six and you said each day is about a thousand years, so according to you and the bible they existed up to a thousand years apart which in reality is a blink of the eye...
While in reality man and dinosaurs existed 65million years apart..
Fuzzy_McNut
Banned
No the first man was Adam. According to your scientist the homosapians is.
Fuzzy_McNut
Banned
This is historically inaccurate and INS bout to disprove you. Within 60000 years man meaning sons of Adam existed with dragons.
Cant you comprehend that this information is useless, in the argument that states that man and all land animals, including dinosaurs existent in the same period of time..
This is like going to caught and being accuses of killing a man, and you tell the judge that you are innocent because the man name was Jeff.
Don't believe me, then ask yourself, was Adam a homosapian...
So you are saying that man and dragons/dinosaurs existed together...
Fuzzy_McNut
Banned
http://www.creationists.org/dinosaurs-humans-coexisted.html
Proof dinosaurs and humans coexisted how does it feel to know you inherited that lie your school system taught you...
Now this rocks the foundations of your arguement
Proof dinosaurs and humans coexisted how does it feel to know you inherited that lie your school system taught you...
Now this rocks the foundations of your arguement
Similar threads
