My view on God

The problems you cite are simple cases of contamination. Contamination is inevitable in many cases, and thats why scientists use many many samples from all over the object in question. Furthermore, we DO KNOW WHAT THE ATMOSPHERE WAS LIKE THOUSANDS OF YEARS AGO. Ice core samples, as well as gasses trapped in rapidly cooling volcanic rocks have given us indisputable signatures of our airs composition over a broad span of years. So yes, we do know, and NO, C-14 does not wildly fluctuate like you want it to. I quote an article from my atmospheric science class:

"

Creationists assume, usually on the basis of a "flood" argument,

that there have been large changes in the amount of carbon dioxide in the

atmosphere during the past several thousand years. There probably have been

small fluctuations, leading to an uncertainty of plus or minus ten percent,

confirmed by dating objects of a known age. However, the evidence does not

support the creationist claim of large changes in the amount of carbon

dioxide.

The creationist argument that the ratio of C-14 to C-12 is not

constant is actually based on the assumption of a young earth

with an age of 10,000 years, and sudden changes in the amount of carbon

dioxide in the atmosphere caused by the assumed catastrophic events of

the Genesis flood. This is the motivation behind the 30,000 year figure quoted

in the creationist position.

Creationists attack all radioactive dating with the claim that radioactive

decay rates may have been different in the past. There is absolutely no valid

evidence to support this claim. It is entirely at odds with everything that

is known about nuclear physics."
 
You look at things far too simply and literally. Never once did I suggest that feathers evolved from scales. Rather, that some older velociraptor from a different area, evolved feathers with which to fly. Whereas another one developed scales. You want proof? Look in the Wikipedia link I sent you partway down the page. It talks a bit about feathered velociraptors. They were only discovered recently and I remember distinctly when I was in like 5th grade, seeing a picture of a velociraptor in an ice block, with red and brown feathers. I'll probably end up finding it later for this thread...
 
Yet another part of your science class you didn't pay close enough attention in. You have the first part correct, possibly because I already explained it to you. But what you are missing, is about the life coming to earth. Life wasn't incubated on earth, rather, when meteors-- and more importantly COMETS, were raining down on the earth, bringing rock, metals, and water (Which is what makes comets white in the sky), a small microorganism was trapped in the ice from a comet, or trapped in the rock of a meteor, it landed in the ocean, sank, thawed, and the bacteria went into the deep water where it was cool enough to survive. Millions of years later, multi-celled organisms formed and so on and so forth. THAT is how life got to earth, NOT because we evolved from a rock.

Sigh, I'm way too baked to argue the point of the earth only being 6,000 years old.. I'll do it tomorrow.
 
How is this random? We are, for once, having a legit debate without random rick rolls and russbuss trampoline videos popping up everywhere.
 
now that's not the right statement. god just can't be proven or disproven by any means.

the time scale he believes and other things associated with his belief may be frabricated, but the actual notion that there is a God could be true. just not the way he imagines it.
 
every time i bitch on evolution you give me the answer that we havent been around long enough or that it takes more time....anyone can say this, man will never be around long enough to give you a sufficient amount of evidence
 
well no one can and that's not what the debate is about right now.

YOU are trying to disprove science, and you'e failing. You simply aren't reading entire posts. you read one portion and reword it so it does not make any sense. if you would read the article people have linked you to then you might be able to construct an arguement that is better than. 'well these things take too long to happen and can't be proven'. we have said over and over again, many things have been observed and are proven, like evolution.

if you have read this far on my post you get a golden star.
 
And this, boys and girls, accurately displays the intelligence and complete lack of maturity and logic in his perspective.
 
Dangit, I wanted to jump in and start sproutin' off something about George W. Bush, evolution, gay marriage, abortion, stem cell research, the right to bear arms, and homeland security.

I'm just kidding, I have no need to talk about any of that mess. Both sides that this argument about evolution sound really smug, and pretentious. People who are "evolutionists" are just as stubborn as "creationists" I have noticed that. Both throw out of lot of technical sounding words/phrases and both don't have the mental capacity to "prove" the argument one way or another.
 
yes,

there is a huge difference between religion and religious institution, which inherently come at head with the religious ideals and begin to corrupt in order to disseminate and continue in being.

While there is nothing wrong with taking religious writings and therefore teachings and story literally, there is much potential for misunderstandings to become of this, as we can see in our world today. To really understand religion(at least in my view and in the view of the scholarly world)religious texts must be understood in the context of our time and in terms of metaphors not literal story.

 
damn didnt mean to post yet.

As for the topic of the post, i see viewing god as a actual figure as incorrect. the creation story, at least in abrahamic faiths is purposed to not to really explain how the world was created(that is a literal translation) but to explain (a.) why we are the way we are, but also(and it is not emphasized as much)to explain the beliefs that god(is in everything) Although god has become symbolized in our culture by a human figure i disagree. God is part of the spiritual world, a transcendent ultimate reality, that we cannot conceptualize. The conception of god is impossible for us to conceive. and therefore a human figure is completely off topic. The only thing we can understand is that god is within everything(a concept that is extremely strong in hinduism and can be seen in all aspects of the indian culture.)Being able to understand god and enter transcendent ultimate reality is the ultimate goal of all religions. Be it heaven, nirvana, ect.
 
What are you talking about? The only thing you've contributed to this thread is "ok" and an o rly owl.

I think the best way to look at this is from both sides. Creationists will never convince an evolutionist that the earth is 6,000 years old and an evolutionist will never convince a god fearing christian that we come from monkeys.

Creationists need to learn that we are not trying to prove that god isn't real, we are simply trying to prove that your all knowing, fish giving, flood bringing, gay hating, white fluffy god simply can't be real. The existance of THAT god, has been disproven so many times. Whether its scientists proving a flood encompassing the entire earth never came, or we really did come from monkeys, or that jesus was just a cool guy with some good ideas about friendship, love, and compassion, nothing else, I just can't wrap my head around the stubbornness of creationists.

But people believing the evolution of man are also thick headed. How can we be so positive their isn't a being at a higher level than us? We need to take into account that somehow the universe was created. And until we know if it was by pure chance or god lighting a fart to make his roommate laugh, we shouldn't completely destroy people's beliefs. Like it or not, organized religion has some good ideas; love one another, do unto others as you would have them do to you, help the needy. It's just the crazy right winged/left winged maniacs that take it too far and try to belittle people for having different beliefs

 
The flood isn't neccesarily impossible. Supposing the polar ice caps and Greenland melted, the sea levels would rise roughly 220 feet. Not enough to flood the planet certainly, but enough to greatly change the landscape. And if you happened to live in the middle east and were writing a passage for the Bible, then 220 feet suddenly swarming into your basement would certainly seem like a large flood.

However, unless doctor evil came along with a sun beam satellite to melt the ice caps at an incredible rate, the ice caps could never melt fast enough to flood the planet in 40 days, and there is NO possible way that Noah could have gotten a boy and a girl of EVERY species onto a wooden boat that he somehow built in 40? days. (I haven't read the Bible in years...)
 
i like your points but let me make some adjustments, yes if the polar ice caps melted it would raise the waters, now this is just a theory but going by what i said before about a layer of water in the atmosphere, if this water came down and rained on the earth, there would be enough water with the ice caps to have a worldwide flood.......like i say again this is just a theory

Now noah did not build the arc in 40 days. it took him a hundred years.....it rained for forty days and nights, now how he got the animals on the arc is a miracle. i think God placed a sense of direction for the animals, sorta like butterflies and how they always migrate to the same spot every year but this migration was just a one time deal
 
So I didnt read anything, but just by the title I will say this much:

This topic requires a degree of maturity not found in the man forums of NS.
 
HAHAHA LISTEN TO YOURSELF!!

Oh man. I got a good chuckle from that one... First off, there ISN'T ENOUGH WATER TO FLOOD THE PLANET Realize this, if all the water in the world was in its liquid form, not as steam, water vapor, or ice, there still wouldn't be near enough water to flood the ENTIRE planet. All the lowland certainly, and small hills would be engulfed, most of europe would be flooded, but all the foothills and mountains would still be above water.

Also, if the entire planet flooded with water, there would be so much evaporation from the sun, that the world would be covered in perpetual cloud, and the air would be so thick with water, that we wouldn't be able to breath. So Noah would be sitting on his bigass boat, literally drowning with himself and all the animals.

For comparison, imagine you just did your laundry, and because you're a hippie, you decide to hang your laundry to dry it instead of using the dryer. You hang them under a covered shelter, say, in an open greenhouse. It begins to rain hard a few hours later, after your clothes have already dried, but when you go to get them after the rain (the clothes haven't been directly rained on) they are still damp. This is because of the amount of water vapor that gets deposited in the air due to rain. If we had so much water that there was never a major body of water being heated by the sun, then the air would become too saturated with water to breath.
 
This is a large problem I see with the bible. I won't touch on any other religious text because I've never read them. But the bible is just too cryptic. I don't think people should have to interpret the "word" of god. Since the bible wasn't actually written by god, it was written by man who supposedly talked to god. You would think it would make more sense in the mind of man. You can chalk it up to people being dumb back then, not understanding science. Then again you would think that god being all knowing would realize that if he just talked to people 2000 years later (which in "god" years is supposed to be meaningless) speculation would be impossible.
 
maybe not now there isnt enough water but back then it was a whole nother world.....i also believe that water could have sprung up from underneath the earth....but like i say it is just a theory just as the big bang

I can breath fine and the earth is 71% water now so another 29% wouldnt be much of a difference so i disagree with the whole evaporation deal
 
Your 29% is irrelevant. What matters is the placement of the water. If the water was all on the surface, it would be evaporating at a much higher rate than it would as frozen in -37 degrees C at the poles, underground, or flowing around in creeks. If the water is out in the open sitting stagnant, exposed to sunlight, then, as you should have learned in like 6th grade science with the water cycle, clouds will form and rain will happen, and when it rains as hard as it would have to, constantly, the air WOULD become saturated. If the world was flooded the planet would have such incredibly extreme and unpredictable storms, that humans would have to hide in a bunker, on a mountain, to survive. There is NO way a BOAT could survive a flooded Earth, even if the Earth COULD flood.
 
oakley man your thinking is extremely flawed and honestly a little scary. You are completely disregarding modern achievements in science that can disprove many parts of the bible completely wrong. Your close mindedness is a harsh reminder that this whole planet is completely doomed, and will never rid itself of the mental disorder brought on by the 3 main religions.

Please Please Please pay more attention in science class, and think with your mind and common sense instead of referring to the bible.

It would also be very good for you to watch a modern day documentary to maybe clear up your judgement, such as "Jonathan Miller's Brief History of Disbelief." If you can't find it online i will gladly host it myself on my server for you to watch.

 
no, you stated you were born without a dick. I just simplified your point.

Humans can't create life? Did you skip 5th grade or something?
 
one more thing i wanna ask before this thread is done...what about what i said with the grand canyon and how the colorado river cant flow uphill
 
but if the start of the river is lower than the top of the canyon rim, it is impossible and there is no river delta where all the rock washed away too
 
Lol the river starts below the rim, because it goes in a valley the whole way down. The Grand Canyon is just a more spectacular point of the valley the Colorado river flows through. There is a delta too. Look on a map of the US, and you'll see this purple area just above the gulf of California. This area is a giant estuary between the Colorado river and the sea. Not all rivers have dynamic, typical deltas like the Mississippi, or the Nile.

Hm.. For more clarification on the canyon, picture a huge flat area, with a big canyon in the middle. The bottom of the canyon slopes slightly upwards towards some very large mountains. Eventually, the river leaves the canyon, but is still below the desert plain, because water stays in the lowest point.

The river gradually enters the Grand Canyon.
 
its a shame he doesn't research these things, but rather just acts like he knows stuff. now he'll respond with a statement that has no support that he might have heard on tv and forgot the all but 10 words of the arguement. wait for it.....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top