Continuation of Christianity debate.

[nunz]

C14 is not the only method used to date rock, fossils, other. Scientists use a variety of radiometric dating techniques with various elements in rock to date objects. These different techniques almost always arrive at a consensus of dates. And of course let's not forget the all the other evidence that the Earth is superold. Namely the rate of expansion of the universe, tectonic plate science, the fact that dinasour bones are found way deeper in the Earth than people fossils.

I hope it is not the same consensus as they get with C14 coz then they are using just a skewed and flawed methods as with the C14.

I believe I have just successfully debunked C14 as a valid proof for dating fossils. Either that or you have run out of ways to prove I am wrong on the C14 topic. Are you saying you are ready to admit C14 dating is not valid proof?

...Namely the rate of expansion of the universe

I believe it is indicative of the creationist theory. The rate is accelerating I believe http://physicsweb.org/articles/news/2/11/3/1, I might be wrong not being knowledgeable in this area, but if it is accelerating then the big bang theory has a few problems with it. THe age of the earth being estimated by the old theory of the expansion of the universe will also then be flawed. The earths age was estimated using the old expansion theory which used a steady expansion rate (Hubbles constant?) which means the old theories about the age of the earth need to be tossed aside and discarded. THis therefore means any theories on the age of other things in the earth based on the ageing of the earth via universal expanasion is also moot ... and that I believe throws most of the pre -exisiting age of the universe and the solar system and the earth theories right out the window. However an accelerating universe would be consistent with an ever creative God would it not? hehehehe.

...tectonic plate science,

you mean like how when the waters burst up from under the earth (genesis flood account) they potentially caused gwondana land to split and start to move around some on plates. These plates were caused by the water thrusting up via vocanic<sic> fissures under the ocean at points we now define as geological plate edges?

Proof both ways there I think.

the fact that dinasour bones are found way deeper in the Earth than people fossils. [/b]

What about dinosaur bones found near the surface of the earth (ie within six to eight feet) and humans found deeper? Does that prove my theory?

[nunz]

Okay so lets say we find a neanderthal fifteen feet in the ground. We carbon date it, it comes up 50,000 years old. Test it for accuracy, its accurate. For that general area, fifteen feet generally equals 50,000 years. That's how dating works.

We then throw the carbon dating away as it is not accurate at the 50 000 year mark C14 is unrelaible after about the 40k mark. In fact the theory is also unrelaiable as it rests on an equilibrium between decay and renewal in the atmosphere which has been prooved not to exist.
C14 is not a good dating method and even if it were is only good for out to 40k years.

[unriggable]

I have proof ... more proof than than the evolutionists do.

No, you definitely don't. Evolution is a pretty well-set theory.

Err ... no it isn't. Evolution is a recent theory while creation is the well set theory .. creation has a 4-6k year history, evolution's less than 200 years. Also evolutionary theory is continually being upgraded, debunked and altered as new facts come in. Creationism has remained pretty static for over 4-6k years. So which is the more well set theory?
You will claim creation is only a belief, but then again so is evolution. It is a theory, not a fact. The same can be said of creationism but at least lets not claim evolution has any more intellectual merits based on some nobility of heritage via age or being well set.
In fact one of the big changes in evoltion was the change from slow evolution over time to the sudden jump theory. I notice no one got particularly upset when one of the major tennents of this THEORY mascarading as facts got completely trashed and replaced.
No major changes in creation theory in 6k years. Why? Coz it has not been debunked by evolution or other theorys as being false.
Evolution is a belief or theory. It is not a fact. You need to keep that in mind

It may have errors that may be fixed in the near future, but overall it is set.

Err ... try the sudden jump theory versus slow change theory. Then try plugging all the holes in the sudden jump theory.

We know that it happened since life gets progressively simpler as we dig deeper into the ground. The only time we see surges of complexity is after we unearth a mass extinction event, like the comet that hit during the triassic (or was it cretaceous? Dont remember).

You have just made a circular argument supporting itself.
A dinosaur was not a simple life form. In fact it is potentially more complex than many reptiles today.
Insects are still insects. amoeba are still amoeba. End of story.
Any proof of that comet? Where is the rock? Where are the fragments? Creations story of the flood just as adequately, if not more adequately, accounts for that event. As for its timing, the timing is arrived at by looking at stratfication and stratification is arrived at by looking at fossils and fossils are dated by the strata they are found in. That kind of timing and dating is completely circular in argument.
what surges in complexity are we talking about?

Evolution is seen today, most easily with HIV/AIDS and polar bears. Odd combination, I know. HIV cannot be cured because it changes so much. It EVOLVES. The mutations cause the 'fresh' HIV to live on, while the older strains die out because an immunity has been built by the human body. Mutations occur often, like:


Polar bears are adapting in a different way. Since their ecosystem, the arctic, is being wiped out, they have to resort to swimming. Now they are pretty well off since they have very large paws, but the polar bears with the largest will be able to swim most efficiently and carry the smallest risk of being eaten, and thus be able to live on. Using the same basic principle of mutations described above, along with sexual reproduction (yielding varied offspring), the children will either be better off than their parents at what they do and live, or be worse off and die. Survival of the fittest in a nutshell.

That is not evolution .. that is natural selection which does not yield new species. Same species, just favouring polar bears with bigger paws.

Some things:

Big, big mistake. The idea of a theory being older DOES NOT make it more valid. In fact, the other way around should be how it works.

My polar bear example is used to show how short term adaptation works. Eventually polar bears, if taking to the sea, may develop an ability to keep the fetal ability of breathing through water. Those 'bears' (they'd look more like seals at that point) would not be mammals anymore, but rather their own subtype.

Creationism has been anything but static. The fact that the theory has evolved from 'creationism' to 'intelligent design' is nothing short of ironic. It is unprovable, therefore it is not science.

Natural selection does yield new species. A few years back a scientist was doing research on ameobas when his batch got infected with bacteria. He did something 'different' - he took the good ameobas out (they were somewhat healthy) and left the rest to die. The way bacteria work is that they flood into the target cell and eat away the organelles inside. The bacteria inside the good ameoba actually started working with the ameoba - strange, I know, but true. Eventually it came to the point where they were the same - they split at the exact same rate and the same time, the bacteria diversified within the cell, etc. Now this process took only about fifteen years, but you can see here how a new species quickly evolved (actually if you multiply it out an ameoba's lifespan is about two days before splitting so fifteen years as thousands of generations, about 82,000 years for humans today, plenty of time to diversify)

[unriggable]

Okay so lets say we find a neanderthal fifteen feet in the ground. We carbon date it, it comes up 50,000 years old. Test it for accuracy, its accurate. For that general area, fifteen feet generally equals 50,000 years. That's how dating works.

We then throw the carbon dating away as it is not accurate at the 50 000 year mark C14 is unrelaible after about the 40k mark. In fact the theory is also unrelaiable as it rests on an equilibrium between decay and renewal in the atmosphere which has been prooved not to exist.
C14 is not a good dating method and even if it were is only good for out to 40k years.

Your system of proof is really really irregular. The older something is does not make it any more probable. It is PROVEN by atmospheric study that Nitrogen can mutate into C14. And unlike you, I quoted my source, which said that C14 lasts about 60,000 years, roughly 10 half-lives. It only gets innacurate by at most 700 years, making it somewhat reliable. And I know that your thing about seals being 1000 years old is bullshit, they don't carbon test living things and they do it by mole (6.2 x 10^23 atoms) so its a percent not a definite amount.

[nunz]

Careful nunz,

The more you try to explain Christianity to these guys the more of a risk you run of having backglass use the word "magic" in many different forms. He also likes to use the phrase "red pill". He uses the word "magic" more than the Lucky Charms leprechaun!

yeah but I am not only the rational one (if you compare me to backglass) but I am also winning most of these arguments .. having just debunked apes being closer to us than pigs, polished off C14 dating and debunked the myth of the age of the universe as shown by a constantly expanding universe.

I like winning and no one has shown me a rational argument against creation that works where as I believe I have successfully debunked a lot of the evolutionist propaganda.

The really funny thing about all this is I am not sure i believe the world is only 6k years old , however the more I argue against evolution the more I am beginning to wonder. I was a convert for the taking and no one took it.
Pure modern creationism as preached by simplistic bible thumpers is just as unbelievable from a theological point of view as evolution is. However evolution is able to be debunked where as creation theory in all its historical glory is quite provable, as long as you accept the possibility of a supreme being that we Christians call God. We only have to believe one thing in faith where as evolution is a mountain of faith with few facts.

Now if a UFO spacie freeker came to me and said a super powerful race of beings came here, played with the environment, genetically made a few species and it wasn't God then I would have to delve into the metaphysical side of life (as I am alluded to be doing by backglass) and that is an unwinnable argument in almost all aspects as it does rely on faith and trust and personal experience.

However the evolution farce is far more non-sensical than spacie freeker theory and as a rational scientist I just cant swallow it. It is far too unbelievable. Unfortunately it a theory which has obtained religious cult status as it is a convenient way to avoid the possibility there is a God.

BTW - backglass and I are very similar I suspect. I brew my own beer, wine and cider. I am getting a still soon. Maybe enough alcohol poisoning will allow me to become an evolutionist

[unriggable]

I hope it is not the same consensus as they get with C14 coz then they are using just a skewed and flawed methods as with the C14.

I believe I have just successfully debunked C14 as a valid proof for dating fossils. Either that or you have run out of ways to prove I am wrong on the C14 topic. Are you saying you are ready to admit C14 dating is not valid proof?

You haven't proved or disproved anything.

I believe it is indicative of the creationist theory. The rate is accelerating I believe http://physicsweb.org/articles/news/2/11/3/1, I might be wrong not being knowledgeable in this area, but if it is accelerating then the big bang theory has a few problems with it. THe age of the earth being estimated by the old theory of the expansion of the universe will also then be flawed. The earths age was estimated using the old expansion theory which used a steady expansion rate (Hubbles constant?) which means the old theories about the age of the earth need to be tossed aside and discarded. THis therefore means any theories on the age of other things in the earth based on the ageing of the earth via universal expanasion is also moot ... and that I believe throws most of the pre -exisiting age of the universe and the solar system and the earth theories right out the window. However an accelerating universe would be consistent with an ever creative God would it not? hehehehe.

The big bang: All matter was compressed into a black hole-ish which exploded in one of two ways - either circular or hyperbolical (word?). An accelerating universe I think would confirm the circular theory. But keep in mind that you are accepting scientific arguments that support you and rejecting arguments that contradict you, I'd be a bit more consistent.

you mean like how when the waters burst up from under the earth (genesis flood account) they potentially caused gwondana land to split and start to move around some on plates. These plates were caused by the water thrusting up via vocanic<sic> fissures under the ocean at points we now define as geological plate edges?

Proof both ways there I think.

Okay tectonics are wierd. Volcanoes cause them to constantly break off and re-fuse. Humans were not around at the point of godwana. In fact, they were't in any part close to where any earth splitting happened when they emerged. They were in ethiopia (always an untouched part of the world...) several years before the last ice age swept the earth.

the fact that dinasour bones are found way deeper in the Earth than people fossils. [/b]

What about dinosaur bones found near the surface of the earth (ie within six to eight feet) and humans found deeper? Does that prove my theory?[/quote]

Not that that ever happened, ever. Show me a link.

[nunz]

Big, big mistake. The idea of a theory being older DOES NOT make it more valid. In fact, the other way around should be how it works.

So If I came up with a new theory stating the world was only ten seconds old as there is no way to proove anything existed previous to now and we are all a dream ... then that new theory should be accepted. Or how about a theory that gravity is a myth and that the earth really sucks? Should I tell newton to roll over as my theory is newer?

A theory surviving the test of time unchanged and without a successful disprooving of it DOES make it more valid than a new theory that is constantly being altered as it is debunked at various critical points (ie the slow change versus sudden jump controversy in evolution).

My polar bear example is used to show how short term adaptation works. Eventually polar bears, if taking to the sea, may develop an ability to keep the fetal ability of breathing through water. Those 'bears' (they'd look more like seals at that point) would not be mammals anymore, but rather their own subtype.

No .. again that is adaptation. There is no proof via fossil records of one species changing into another. There are big inter species gaps (claimed by evolutionists to be caused by genetic mutation ) but NO slow adaptation. You have just used adapatation to explain slow evolutionary change ... a theory even evolutionists no longer hold to. The explanation you have given is the pap and drivel school teachers doll out to children who are too young to tell them it is a load of crap and has been debunked in all serious evolutionary circles. Sorry mate .. even evolutionary scientists will agree with me on this point

Creationism has been anything but static. The fact that the theory has evolved from 'creationism' to 'intelligent design' is nothing short of ironic. It is unprovable, therefore it is not science.

Intelligent design is not creationsim. Intelligent design is a system or thoughts used to show how a creative God lets things work but is not a theory of creation, rather a system of creationist leaning proofs. Creationism is a foundation of Intelligent design but intelligent design is not creationism.

Natural selection does yield new species. A few years back a scientist was doing research on ameobas when his batch got infected with bacteria. He did something 'different' - he took the good ameobas out (they were somewhat healthy) and left the rest to die. The way bacteria work is that they flood into the target cell and eat away the organelles inside. The bacteria inside the good ameoba actually started working with the ameoba - strange, I know, but true. Eventually it came to the point where they were the same - they split at the exact same rate and the same time, the bacteria diversified within the cell, etc.

again this is not evolution or even natural selection. It is a symbiotic relation developed between two different species. The bacteria did not become part of the amoeba, the amoeba did not becaome part of the bacteria. They both remained as sperate identifyable species, with neither of them evolving to new species, but two species who had learnt to work in symbiosis. The bacteria would stil be sperate to the amoeba and the amoeba would still be seperate to the bacteria.
It is like the symbiosis between many other organisms and humans. They live in us and help us (e.g. gut flora and fauna) but they are still seperate from us. We are still human, they are still bacteria.
That is not evolution.

[nunz]

Okay so lets say we find a neanderthal fifteen feet in the ground. We carbon date it, it comes up 50,000 years old. Test it for accuracy, its accurate. For that general area, fifteen feet generally equals 50,000 years. That's how dating works.

We then throw the carbon dating away as it is not accurate at the 50 000 year mark C14 is unrelaible after about the 40k mark. In fact the theory is also unrelaiable as it rests on an equilibrium between decay and renewal in the atmosphere which has been prooved not to exist.
C14 is not a good dating method and even if it were is only good for out to 40k years.

Your system of proof is really really irregular. The older something is does not make it any more probable. It is PROVEN by atmospheric study that Nitrogen can mutate into C14. And unlike you, I quoted my source, which said that C14 lasts about 60,000 years, roughly 10 half-lives. It only gets innacurate by at most 700 years, making it somewhat reliable. And I know that your thing about seals being 1000 years old is bullshit, they don't carbon test living things and they do it by mole (6.2 x 10^23 atoms) so its a percent not a definite amount.

So its reliable to 60 000 years not 40k. So sue me. I am not a scientist, just someone who has read lots. However my theory still stands. C14 cannot be used to date old remains at millions of years old as claimed by many people who argue for evolution. You yourself just stated that.
Also all the sites state about 50 000 years so your 60000 is also wrong. Remove 3% for the difference between the libby half life and other half lifes and we get a different number again.

Also c14 dating is reliant on an equlibirum between decaying C14 and its replenishment from the environment around it, whether that be nitrogen( does that mean lead can become gold if N can become C? - where is the proof for that please?) There is no current equilibirium which would have happened if the earth had been around as long as evolutionists claim.

Last thought ... calibration of C14 dataing always relies on comparison against known good samples for claibration. How do we get the first known good samples?
Also what does the changing carbon levels, radtion levels, water vaur levels etc do the equilibrium?

The seals thing .. see the second url below. They killed the seal fresh.

Some quotes


http://www.creation-science-prophecy.com/C14c.htm
http://www.angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs/carbondating.html

[nunz]

The big bang: All matter was compressed into a black hole-ish which exploded in one of two ways - either circular or hyperbolical (word?). An accelerating universe I think would confirm the circular theory. But keep in mind that you are accepting scientific arguments that support you and rejecting arguments that contradict you, I'd be a bit more consistent.

I am using one scientifc theory to debunk another one ...and there is nothing wrong with that. I believe creation is scientifically as provable as evolution isn't. Of course I will use science to back up my arguments, however I will try to use good science to expose the flawed pseudo science that is often pushed at us.

An accelerating expansion of the universe is a new theory. When the old theory was being used to prove the big bang (that something came from nothing .. hmmm sounds like creation to me :0 ) I was fighting that as well. When the constant expansion was (erroneously) used to date the earth and the universe I disagreed with the dating methods. Now it seems my disagreement with the date of the earth (which is now shown to have been based on a flawed understanding of the universe expanding) has been proved ) valid as the foundation of 'proof' used to argue against me has been proved false. I never argued one way or another for whether the universe was expanding at a set rate or accelerating, but I did know the date of the earth given was wrong.

Using one scientific proof to show how arguments against me might be wrong is perfectly valid.
Christians are the ultimate scientists in many ways and have contributed massively to the devleopmentof modern knowledge. Science isn't just for aetheists or agnostics

[Kugelblitz22]

Using one scientific proof to show how arguments against me might be wrong is perfectly valid.

So the scientific method is the best way to learn about the world around us?

Or is the bible the best way?

Or is the scientific method the best way, when you think it's results support the bible?

[payaso]

Careful nunz,

The more you try to explain Christianity to these guys the more of a risk you run of having backglass use the word "magic" in many different forms. He also likes to use the phrase "red pill". He uses the word "magic" more than the Lucky Charms leprechaun!

I just read all of this backglass guy's quotes. Yeah, he's annoying. I also noticed he likes to correct anyone's English with whom he disagrees.

[Skittles!]

Careful nunz,

The more you try to explain Christianity to these guys the more of a risk you run of having backglass use the word "magic" in many different forms. He also likes to use the phrase "red pill". He uses the word "magic" more than the Lucky Charms leprechaun!

I just read all of this backglass guy's quotes. Yeah, he's annoying. I also noticed he likes to correct anyone's English with whom he disagrees.

He's funny, find the humour in what he types. How is he annoying?

[MeDeFe]

nunz, this might be difficult for you to grasp, but there are more dating methods than just going by C-14.

Scientists can use different chemicals for absolute dating:

* The best-known absolute dating technique is carbon-14 dating, which archaeologists prefer to use. However, the half-life of carbon-14 is only 5730 years, so the method cannot be used for materials older than about 70,000 years.
* Radiometric dating involves the use of isotope series, such as rubidium/strontium, thorium/lead, potassium/argon, argon/argon, or uranium/lead, all of which have very long half-lives, ranging from 0.7 to 48.6 billion years. Subtle differences in the relative proportions of the two isotopes can give good dates for rocks of any age.
The first radiometric dates, generated about 1920, showed that the Earth was hundreds of millions, or billions, of years old. Since then, geologists have made many tens of thousands of radiometric age determinations, and they have refined the earlier estimates. A key point is that it is no longer necessary simply to accept one chemical determination of a rock's age. Age estimates can be cross-tested by using different isotope pairs. Results from different techniques, often measured in rival labs, continually confirm each other.
Every few years, new geologic time scales are published, providing the latest dates for major time lines. Older dates may change by a few million years up and down, but younger dates are stable. For example, it has been known since the 1960s that the famous Cretaceous-Tertiary boundary, the line marking the end of the dinosaurs, was 65 million years old. Repeated recalibrations and retests, using ever more sophisticated techniques and equipment, cannot shift that date. It is accurate to within a few thousand years. With modern, extremely precise, methods, error bars are often only 1% or so.

Evolution is even observable, several people have cited examples of experiments and examples (although some sources would be nice, preferably in printed form or with a .org or .edu at the end, university websites would be highly appreciated).
A species having to adapt to new circumstances and changing in the process is commonly called "evolution". How have you debunked that? Not at all as I see it. You say that "evolutionists" have no proof and that creationism has all the proof. Yet you don't care to bring up any coherent argument against the theory of ecolution, nor do you bring up any coherent arguments for creationism, you said somewhere that "creation" is the proof that god exists. But you didn't care to explain what you mean.

Is it really so hard to imagine that gradual changes over a long enough period of time in different groups that were originally one species can lead to different species?


As for your question about why dinosaurs went extinct, I had a brief look using google and wikipedia, theories are that either one massive asteroid (Chicxulub Crater) or several smaller asteroids hit earth and threw so much dust into the atmosphere that there was a massive global cooldown and change in the climate causing the dinosaurs to die out.
Other theories include an ice age, disease or a gradual climate change.

Warm-blooded animals would have had an easier time surviving climate changes, and with the dinosaurs gone there would have been nothing to stop them from growing.

I think that's also what unriggable meant when he spoke of "surges in complexity", not complexity of individual animals, but complexity in the pattern of existing animals. A sudden change in other words. And by "sudden" I mean like 10M years.

[heavycola]

Careful nunz,

The more you try to explain Christianity to these guys the more of a risk you run of having backglass use the word "magic" in many different forms. He also likes to use the phrase "red pill". He uses the word "magic" more than the Lucky Charms leprechaun!

yeah but I am not only the rational one (if you compare me to backglass) but I am also winning most of these arguments .. having just debunked apes being closer to us than pigs, polished off C14 dating and debunked the myth of the age of the universe as shown by a constantly expanding universe.

I like winning and no one has shown me a rational argument against creation that works where as I believe I have successfully debunked a lot of the evolutionist propaganda.

The really funny thing about all this is I am not sure i believe the world is only 6k years old , however the more I argue against evolution the more I am beginning to wonder. I was a convert for the taking and no one took it.
Pure modern creationism as preached by simplistic bible thumpers is just as unbelievable from a theological point of view as evolution is. However evolution is able to be debunked where as creation theory in all its historical glory is quite provable, as long as you accept the possibility of a supreme being that we Christians call God. We only have to believe one thing in faith where as evolution is a mountain of faith with few facts.

Now if a UFO spacie freeker came to me and said a super powerful race of beings came here, played with the environment, genetically made a few species and it wasn't God then I would have to delve into the metaphysical side of life (as I am alluded to be doing by backglass) and that is an unwinnable argument in almost all aspects as it does rely on faith and trust and personal experience.

However the evolution farce is far more non-sensical than spacie freeker theory and as a rational scientist I just cant swallow it. It is far too unbelievable. Unfortunately it a theory which has obtained religious cult status as it is a convenient way to avoid the possibility there is a God.

BTW - backglass and I are very similar I suspect. I brew my own beer, wine and cider. I am getting a still soon. Maybe enough alcohol poisoning will allow me to become an evolutionist

Nunz - you are not a rational scientist. You throw things out there like, 'how about dinosaur fossils buried shallower than human fossils?' without citing anyone. You have decided evolution is false not because your 'rational scientific' faculties have sieved the evidence but because yoru religious beliefs forbid it. You state that creationism is actually more valid because it is older! You haven't debunked a single thing - you have used the usual creationist sophistry and disingenuousness to try and poke holes in evolutionary theory. That's all. And you have failed.

How about, instead of 'proving' that apes are not closer to humans than pigs, or whatever, you set out the arguments FOR creationism. NOT why evolution is wrong, but why creationism is right. And as a rational scientist you won't be referring to the bible as a source.

[unriggable]

Surges of complexity means when there are large and intricate animals, dinosaurs for example.

I am using one scientifc theory to debunk another one ...and there is nothing wrong with that. I believe creation is scientifically as provable as evolution isn't. Of course I will use science to back up my arguments, however I will try to use good science to expose the flawed pseudo science that is often pushed at us.

No you are only taking things that support your argument, and throwing everything else away. BTW Naturally I wouldn't trust a site called 'creation science' but I took a look and those guys assume people used C14 for everything.

An accelerating expansion of the universe is a new theory. When the old theory was being used to prove the big bang (that something came from nothing .. hmmm sounds like creation to me :0 ) I was fighting that as well. When the constant expansion was (erroneously) used to date the earth and the universe I disagreed with the dating methods. Now it seems my disagreement with the date of the earth (which is now shown to have been based on a flawed understanding of the universe expanding) has been proved ) valid as the foundation of 'proof' used to argue against me has been proved false. I never argued one way or another for whether the universe was expanding at a set rate or accelerating, but I did know the date of the earth given was wrong.

Using one scientific proof to show how arguments against me might be wrong is perfectly valid.
Christians are the ultimate scientists in many ways and have contributed massively to the devleopmentof modern knowledge. Science isn't just for aetheists or agnostics

You haven't proved anything BTW...you have not shown sources, you have not disproved anyhting really.

Christians are just as much scientists as anybody else.

[Backglass]

yeah but I am not only the rational one (if you compare me to backglass)

Yup thats me! Call me Mr. Irrational for not believing in myth/lore and walking off the cliff with the rest of the lemmings. I'm just crazy like that.

but I am also winning most of these arguments.

You are? I must have missed that part.

no one has shown me a rational argument against creation that works

Now thats funny. Obviously in your world, debunking hinges entirely on what you consider "rational". Not believing in gods (magical or otherwise ) renders one irrational I suspect and thus invalidates all points.

However evolution is able to be debunked where as creation theory in all its historical glory is quite provable, as long as you accept the possibility of a supreme being that we Christians call God.

And therein lies the rub.

On another note...my "pot-o-gold" theory is quite provable and immune to debunking, as long as you accept the possibility of Leprechauns.

If you don't believe however, the house of cards falls.

backglass and I are very similar I suspect. I brew my own beer, wine and cider. I am getting a still soon. Maybe enough alcohol poisoning will allow me to become an evolutionist

Woohoo Homebrew! BTW, distilling is illegal in the US (not sure where you are) so be careful...not to mention dangerous. As a law abiding right-wing christian I am sure you wouldn't do anything against the law.

And having a beer or two (or three) hasn't turned me into an evolutionist yet so I think your safe.

I just read all of this backglass guy's quotes. Yeah, he's annoying.

Only to those who believe in fairy tales.

[luns101]

Alright, you all know where I stand on the whole creation/evolution thing. Most of you know I became a Christian at 21 after examining both models of origins. I've already posted my thoughts in other threads so it's there for you to examine.

My two-part question to the skeptics here is this:

If God does exist and it can be proven without a shadow of a doubt, then what are the ramifications of that to you personally?

If God does not exist and it can be proven without a shadow of a doubt that life arose by random chance/natural processes, what are the ramifications of that to you personally?

I'm not trying to trap anybody into an argument, just be honest about what it would mean to you personally if either of those 2 things were true. I guess I can't stop someone from being sarcastic, but hopefully the truly sincere will answer.

[got tonkaed]

If God existed beyond a shadow of a doubt we would first have to determine which God in fact we were referring to and even if we came upon the understanding he was the God of Christianity, Judiasm, and Islam we would then have to determine what interpretation we were going to follow. I ulitmatly dont know barring that information how much someone would even think about changing.


If God was proven to utterly not exist, i dont think i would change at all because i dont get my ideas of morality from judeo-christianity solely and wouldnt have to get past some degree of shock before i realized i still want to try and live a life where i feel fufilled in some capacity while trying to help others.

[unriggable]

If God does exist and it can be proven without a shadow of a doubt, then what are the ramifications of that to you personally?

If God does not exist and it can be proven without a shadow of a doubt that life arose by random chance/natural processes, what are the ramifications of that to you personally?

First one - makes me uneasy to think that I cannot control my life. Also, I hate being judged.

Second one - I am feeling secure knowing I control my life. When you die, you die, there is no second life.

But in all honestly, I'm starting to think that I see the planet that way. Think about it, it sets the conditions of life and life changes in accordance to it. It's the decider. At any given point the planet can screw up and we could all die.

[unriggable]

BTW nunz an ideal specie change would be lizards to birds or lizards to mammals. That's how it hapened.

[payaso]

I just read all of this backglass guy's quotes. Yeah, he's annoying.

Only to those who believe in fairy tales.

No, you're just a judgemental old man who tries to make fun of anyone who doesn't agree with him.

[vtmarik]

Alright, you all know where I stand on the whole creation/evolution thing. Most of you know I became a Christian at 21 after examining both models of origins. I've already posted my thoughts in other threads so it's there for you to examine.

My two-part question to the skeptics here is this:

If God does exist and it can be proven without a shadow of a doubt, then what are the ramifications of that to you personally?

If God does not exist and it can be proven without a shadow of a doubt that life arose by random chance/natural processes, what are the ramifications of that to you personally?

*shrugs* To me personally, it wouldn't change my mind or the way I live at all. I live in a good and decent manner, so the question of God's existence/non-existence is moot to me.

[Backglass]

I just read all of this backglass guy's quotes. Yeah, he's annoying.

Only to those who believe in fairy tales.

No, you're just a judgemental old man who tries to make fun of anyone who doesn't agree with him.

Wow! Hit a nerve did I! You better go pray for me I guess. Give a extra $20 for me as well, the preacher-man could use some shiny new shoes! And if it makes you feel better to think of me as an old-man, go for it!

Oh..and while your weeping, kneeling and praying to your fantasies for forgiveness and guidance, you might ask for a little help with that hypocrisy. Being the good non-judgmental christian that you are of course.

(Dé la bienvenida a los foros al payaso. Me honran sus primeros dos postings estaba para mí. )

If God does exist and it can be proven without a shadow of a doubt, then what are the ramifications of that to you personally?

If God does not exist and it can be proven without a shadow of a doubt that life arose by random chance/natural processes, what are the ramifications of that to you personally?

OK. If the clouds parted and a god really DID physically show himself to the world then, of course, I would become a believer...how could I not? How could anyone not?

And if gods did exist THAT is how they would do it. None of this smoke & mirror hocus pokus. None of this unprovable "private burning bush" crap. A god would show themselves, lay down the law, and rule. THATS WHAT GODS DO. None of this "I want you to choose to love me while I kill your fellow-man at random" bullshit.

If it could be proven that gods DON'T exist beyond a shadow of a doubt, nothing would change for me personally as I already believe that now. Not to mention the fact we would have dramatically less wars, killings and pompous web postings.

[Anarchy Ninja]

does it matter if a god exsists it should only matter how u live your life, and if one or many do exsist and when you die the entity(s) is standing/floating or whateva it is that entities do, should it/they make a judgement based on whether u believed in them or whether you where a decent person? the point is, regardless of higher being(s) you just need to be a good person, thats all.

[Backglass]

does it matter if a god exsists it should only matter how u live your life, and if one or many do exsist and when you die the entity(s) is standing/floating or whateva it is that entities do, should it/they make a judgement based on whether u believed in them or whether you where a decent person? the point is, regardless of higher being(s) you just need to be a good person, thats all.

Agree 100%. Religion is unnecessary.