rational thinkin & the universe

[mks]

Are you lot mental, the world is around 5,000 years old, FACT, God put every thing that exists today together in 7 days, FACT and he watches you every time you masturbate and does NOT approve , FACT. Science is Satans ploy.

Imagine going through your life actually believing the above, Fucking Hell.

not to derail but
http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin/ik ... =5004;st=0

Dinosaurs fossils were planted by Satan to throw us on the wrong track, and away from the Lord. "Dinosaurs" never roamed the earth, and they never breathed. They only exist in the fossil state. Do not let Satan lead you away from the unaissailable truth the the Bible, which is God's unfaillible word.

Genesis 15:9
"So the LORD said to him, "Bring me a heifer, a goat and a ram, each three years old, along with a dove and a young pigeon."

I believe in dinosaurs. I really do. Dinosaurs existed FACT. I also believe Noah had dinosaurs on the ARC. I believe humans and dinosaurs existed together.

That right there already contradicts your position on the Earth being only 6000 years old.

[knell]

If you love science snypa then why do you ignore it:

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

[hifi]

i like how this is turning out. also the friend who believes in a higher entity was backing up christianity and also has stated that he isn't religious. i'm not trying to say what was written in the bible is fake i'm jus' sayin that I don't believe all of it. there was probably a man named jesus who had done good deeds throughout his country sort of like a philosopher but i don't believe he was a "supernatural" being er someshi

oh btw i believe he is some sort of half alien half human er someshi

[karmacazee]

I like the theory that the universe in unscalable, and that if you were to travel out far enough, way past the edge of all matter and just kept going, you would lose all sense of space and time - it would become meaningless. You keep going and the entire universe just becomes a tiny atomic speck, and because you're so far out and space time has become meaningless, it IS an atomic speck, and therefore the building blocks for yet another universe, and so on....

Kind of like the Mandelbrot zoom, but in reverse.

[Pedro Sánchez]

This could be a contender for 'troll thread of the month'.

[LACE]

whole lotta lol up in hurr

[snypadub]

If you love science snypa then why do you ignore it:

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

Here's what they don't teach you in science classes about radiocarbon dating:

For radio carbon dating to work, the scientists using the technology must make several assumptions.

First they must assume that the carbon isotopes have been in the rock since the rock's inception.
They can't know this for a fact as they where not there to measure the levels of carbon in the rock at its inception.

Before I continue I think it is important to make clear something else. When Scientists date stuff older than the realm of archaeology,

the best and most plausible method is to look at the geological column and its index fossils.

They date the rocks by the index fossils they date the index fossils by the rocks. And Christians get accused of circular reasoning!!!


They also assume, in order to date anything, that the sample they are dating had the same percentage of C14 as the atmosphere did (0.0000765%). They take a measurement of C14 levels in the sample then compare to the levels in the atmosphere. As the carbon is decaying it will be less than the levels in the atmosphere. They then use C14's half life of 5730 years to work out the age of that sample. The assumption that the sample has the same levels of radiocarbon (C14) as the atmosphere is too big an assumption to ignore and therefore, renders radiocarbon dating a little obsolete.

You guys who throw carbon dating at us as a, "proof" for the bible being wrong but, also fail to take into account that, because of C14 decay rate it is impossible to find any of it left in samples over a supposed 250,000 years.

The guys who invented radiocarbon dating realised that, for it to work the earth's atmosphere needed to have reached equilibrium (the same amount of carbon is decaying as is entering into the atmosphere) and began to calculate how long it would take a brand new planet earth to reach equilibrium. The answer is 300,000 plus or minus one or two.

They ignored this conclusion and assumed the atmosphere was already at equilibrium because, in their opinion, the earth was millions of years old.

In 2005 Scientists discovered that 30-40% more C14 is entering our atmosphere than is decaying or, in other words, there is no equilibrium.

Question: Why haven't the experts put two and two together and concluded that, because there is no equilibrium in our atmosphere the earth MUST be less than 300,000 years old?


As the earth has not reached equilibrium yet, it is impossible to know how much carbon was in the atmosphere 5000 years ago (let alone millions) and, therefore, impossible to know how much C14 was in the samples they are trying to date.

Here are some examples of studies conducted:

1971, they measured a freshly killed seal as being 1300 years old.

1984: Shells from living snails were carbon dated as being 27,000 years old.
Scienc Vol. 224, 1984 p. 58-61


In 2005 Professor Reiner Protsch Von Zieten had to resign from the oxford university panel
for claiming that Neanderthal skulls found in the 1930's where carbon dated to 21,300 years.
They made him resign because the oxford fellows dated them at 3,300 years old. What is important here isn't that the Oxford guys were right and Von Zieten was wrong. The important element is that both used the same testing methods and produced different results.

This happens all the time in carbon dating. 20% of all the carbon dating experiments ever carried out contradict the predictions scientists made about the age of the object.
It isn't unheard of that scientists will literally disregard information that juxtaposes their assumptions.

I could go on about Carbon dating all day but I shant, I want a spliff.

That right there already contradicts your position on the Earth being only 6000 years old.

Why does it? As I have shown above, carbon dating is flawed and the way they date fossils is entirely circular reasoning.

There is lots of evidence to suggest that we lived with dinosaurs.

[Forum]

If you love science snypa then why do you ignore it:

There is lots of evidence to suggest that we lived with dinosaurs.

The Flintstones isn't reliable evidence

[bRRRz]

If you love science snypa then why do you ignore it:

There is lots of evidence to suggest that we lived with dinosaurs.

The Flintstones isn't reliable evidence

[wizeguy]

If you love science snypa then why do you ignore it:

There is lots of evidence to suggest that we lived with dinosaurs.

The Flintstones isn't reliable evidence

yes it is! it's the only evidence!

[snypadub]

There is lots of evidence to suggest that we lived with dinosaurs.

The Flintstones isn't reliable evidence

Well you're just the funniest person I have come across.

Human history is abundant with descriptions of huge reptile type creatures living amongst us.
For one example (of 1000's) look no further than saint George.

[test_recordings]

If you love science snypa then why do you ignore it:

There is lots of evidence to suggest that we lived with dinosaurs.

The Flintstones isn't reliable evidence

Well you're just the funniest person I have come across.

Human history is abundant with descriptions of huge reptile type creatures living amongst us.
For one example (of 1000's) look no further than saint George.

Crocodiles and sharks are pretty much dinosaurs, they haven't changed much, if at all, in many millions of years... Both can be pretty big, too.

[Pedro Sánchez]

If you love science snypa then why do you ignore it:

There is lots of evidence to suggest that we lived with dinosaurs.

The Flintstones isn't reliable evidence

Well you're just the funniest person I have come across.

Human history is abundant with descriptions of huge reptile type creatures living amongst us.
For one example (of 1000's) look no further than saint George.

Yes, you are deffo troll.

[DRTY]

Also, get some sleep.

[bright maroon]

Yoy guys might want to check out the PBS series Empires....

specifically the one about the Kingdom of David and the plight of the Isrealites...

Historically speaking - Jesus was part of a renegade group of jews
who didn't agree with the "temples" desire to negotiate with the romans..
and they went around assasinating their own clergy...
..not necessarily Jesus..but the group he was associated with..

<iframe src="/forum/video.php?url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MVzl_eQjIAE&list=SL&feature=sh_e_se" frameborder="0" style="overflow:hidden; height:auto; max-width:540px"></iframe>

After that, be sure to see the one about the Medicic and how they infiltrated the church
and used the money to build some of the most beautiful and amazing stuff ever...
-fascinating series..

<iframe src="/forum/video.php?url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9FFDJK8jmms&feature=sh_e_top&list=SL" frameborder="0" style="overflow:hidden; height:auto; max-width:540px"></iframe>

[bright maroon]

I was getting ready to say....

take it all with a grain of salt

and then I had to ask myself where I got that phraze from..

cum grano salis

[tuckerlinen]

[Forum]

[borrowed]

If you love science snypa then why do you ignore it:

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

Here's what they don't teach you in science classes about radiocarbon dating:

For radio carbon dating to work, the scientists using the technology must make several assumptions.

First they must assume that the carbon isotopes have been in the rock since the rock's inception.
They can't know this for a fact as they where not there to measure the levels of carbon in the rock at its inception.

Before I continue I think it is important to make clear something else. When Scientists date stuff older than the realm of archaeology,

the best and most plausible method is to look at the geological column and its index fossils.

They date the rocks by the index fossils they date the index fossils by the rocks. And Christians get accused of circular reasoning!!!


They also assume, in order to date anything, that the sample they are dating had the same percentage of C14 as the atmosphere did (0.0000765%). They take a measurement of C14 levels in the sample then compare to the levels in the atmosphere. As the carbon is decaying it will be less than the levels in the atmosphere. They then use C14's half life of 5730 years to work out the age of that sample. The assumption that the sample has the same levels of radiocarbon (C14) as the atmosphere is too big an assumption to ignore and therefore, renders radiocarbon dating a little obsolete.

You guys who throw carbon dating at us as a, "proof" for the bible being wrong but, also fail to take into account that, because of C14 decay rate it is impossible to find any of it left in samples over a supposed 250,000 years.

The guys who invented radiocarbon dating realised that, for it to work the earth's atmosphere needed to have reached equilibrium (the same amount of carbon is decaying as is entering into the atmosphere) and began to calculate how long it would take a brand new planet earth to reach equilibrium. The answer is 300,000 plus or minus one or two.

They ignored this conclusion and assumed the atmosphere was already at equilibrium because, in their opinion, the earth was millions of years old.

In 2005 Scientists discovered that 30-40% more C14 is entering our atmosphere than is decaying or, in other words, there is no equilibrium.

Question: Why haven't the experts put two and two together and concluded that, because there is no equilibrium in our atmosphere the earth MUST be less than 300,000 years old?


As the earth has not reached equilibrium yet, it is impossible to know how much carbon was in the atmosphere 5000 years ago (let alone millions) and, therefore, impossible to know how much C14 was in the samples they are trying to date.

Here are some examples of studies conducted:

1971, they measured a freshly killed seal as being 1300 years old.

1984: Shells from living snails were carbon dated as being 27,000 years old.
Scienc Vol. 224, 1984 p. 58-61


In 2005 Professor Reiner Protsch Von Zieten had to resign from the oxford university panel
for claiming that Neanderthal skulls found in the 1930's where carbon dated to 21,300 years.
They made him resign because the oxford fellows dated them at 3,300 years old. What is important here isn't that the Oxford guys were right and Von Zieten was wrong. The important element is that both used the same testing methods and produced different results.

This happens all the time in carbon dating. 20% of all the carbon dating experiments ever carried out contradict the predictions scientists made about the age of the object.
It isn't unheard of that scientists will literally disregard information that juxtaposes their assumptions.

I could go on about Carbon dating all day but I shant, I want a spliff.

That right there already contradicts your position on the Earth being only 6000 years old.

Why does it? As I have shown above, carbon dating is flawed and the way they date fossils is entirely circular reasoning.

There is lots of evidence to suggest that we lived with dinosaurs.

I think ill side with "scientists" and their "assumptions" than the guy who does wall of texts arguing with himself on a music forum

[magma]

*By single author I mean Gods word told through these people.

Why would God choose a particular species on a tiny planet in the middle of nowhere to send his message to? If we're part of an evolved system, then we're no more significant than a whale or a flea - why pick on us to saddle us with a crapload of guilt and illogical rules? Is He really so interested in human homosexuality that he'd devise ingenious methods to deliver the message of sin, but not give a damn about all the homosexuality that goes on in the rest of the natural world? Are we supposed to kill murderers or forgive them?

I believe the human brain has a natural urge to believe. There's a huge kick to be got from feeling like you're part of something higher or that someone else can take responsibility for ones existence. I imagine it comes from the need to feel positive about society, the difference that made Homo Sapiens group into as larger tribes as they could, whereas other hominids stuck to family groups like most animals. We have an in built urge to believe in a force stronger than an individual can muster and our body rewards us for having them with the most wondrous feelings in the brain - whether they're gained from listening to Mass In D Minor whilst reading Exodus or Anti War Dub whilst on pills with a crowd of strangers, our brain craves those sorts of experiences. Unspoken bonding with the rest of creation, brotherhood of Man; all for one, one for all... it's how humans operate. It's what made us best.

To the mind of a man 2000 years ago who'd never had the chance to read Origin of Species or live through the century of evidence gathering since it, it can be easy to mistake those euphoric mental experiences for religious ones. People that need to find a quick way to band everyone together (i.e. the displaced peoples that needed to band together to form one people - eventually Jews) can either knowingly or ignorantly impose their own uninformed opinion on everyone else... tell it strongly (promise hell, fire and brimstone for people that don't tow the line and eternal paradise for those that do) and they'll band together and defeat the common enemy - the victory and survival of the tribe is taken as a sign from God that they're doing the right thing and the monotheistic religion becomes accepted. Everyone else is a barbarian, or at the very least a wretched soul worthy of pity. Members of the religion get to feel an absolute sense of inclusion in a tribe with no borders and more members than you could picture at one time... the ultimate human bonding experience.

In reality, I can't see any terribly good reason to even bring up the existence of a creator other than some people have suggested it in the past. Yes, thinking about one can give us astounding mental experiences and tweak our brains in ways that give us immense insight into our own personality, faults and strengths - but we've seen in the last century that this can also be as easily achieved through taking drugs (especially ecstasy and LSD), going through psychotherapy, having a near death experience or meditation with no regard for a higher power. The common link is human brains, not God.