‹ First  < 4 5 6 7 8 >  Last ›
 
   
 

Evolution takes a beating, live coast to coast!

 
paleotn
 
Avatar
 
 
paleotn
Total Posts:  38
Joined  31-05-2005
 
 
 
12 August 2005 05:32
 
[quote author=“guest”]When you ignore a wacko you run the risk of him molesting your children or poisoning their minds. It is best to treat such people as one would a dangerous snake. Be cautious at all times about what they say and what they do. Eventually, you will be able to rob them of their poison. Perhaps you can then keep Champion as your pet i.e after you tame him.

Personaly, I’d like to see him/her/it as lion food.  Here kitty, kitty, kitty.  Dindin time!  :wink:

 
ShieldAxe
 
Avatar
 
 
ShieldAxe
Total Posts:  224
Joined  28-04-2005
 
 
 
12 August 2005 06:29
 

[quote author=“TheChampion”]Hey wow, come to find out, carbon dating is not reliable beyond 5000 years. Ho ho ho….what a crock. There are arguments that it “could be” reliable up to 40,000 years.

Hmmm, now what was that…? “A day to the Lord is as 10,000 years. Let’s see, 6 days to create the universe. Hmmm, ok, I’ll GIVE ya another 20,000 years.

[we’re covered either way, all cool, but, I’ll stick with the experts who say 5000 years. we cool?] grin

No you’re completely wrong.  Its been verified countless times to correlate with other dating techniques and the anomolies have logical explanations.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/c14dats.htm
http://www.religioustolerance.org/c14datc.htm

Please educate yourself.  You are spreading lies.

 
ShieldAxe
 
Avatar
 
 
ShieldAxe
Total Posts:  224
Joined  28-04-2005
 
 
 
12 August 2005 07:09
 

[quote author=“TheChampion”]Carbon dating is unreliable beyond 5000 years. That is a fact, a certified “fact.” There is tons of data supporting this conclusion.

Get used to it, it’s a brave new world and conservatives can finally meet the challenge from liberals. Case in point, that false and misleading NARAL ad about Supreme Court nominee John Roberts. It was pulled. Wouldn’t have happened 20 years ago. Tis a drop in the bucket. But now we’re going for bigger and better things, like Evolution, Carbon dating, prayer in public schools, etc.

It’s going to be a conservative country, whether you like or not, so do me a favor, LIKE IT. wink (LOL)

I just asked you to stop spreading lies.  Stop getting your information on science from the religious right.  It’s tainted.  They are trying to make the bible seem more accurate. That way they can feel that heaven is real and they can be comforted.  They are not interested in truth.  It’s unethical to spread disinformation.  I believe you think yourself ethical so start acting that way.

 
ShieldAxe
 
Avatar
 
 
ShieldAxe
Total Posts:  224
Joined  28-04-2005
 
 
 
12 August 2005 08:31
 

[quote author=“TheChampion”]  [quote author=“ShieldAxe”]
I just asked you to stop spreading lies.  Stop getting your information on science from the religious right.  It’s tainted.  They are trying to make the bible seem more accurate. That way they can feel that heaven is real and they can be comforted.  They are not interested in truth.  It’s unethical to spread disinformation.  I believe you think yourself ethical so start acting that way.

Oh, and the info from the scientific community is not tainted?

No, its vetted and peer reviewed.  Rarely is there tainted data that gets published but, when there is, it’s exposed and discredited.
[quote author=“TheChampion”] 
These folks, whose moral authority is built upon moral values “decided” by governments and not by God? Are they bound to the truth?

Yes, science is the search for truth.  Morals are something different.  Don’t be silly; religious people are no more moral than non religious.
[quote author=“TheChampion”]
What happens if evidence or testing results produce data that would set elements of the scientific community back to square one (and give validity to the bible…). Think that will work its way onto the front pages of scientific journals?

Yes.

[quote author=“TheChampion”]
The question is, who do you trust? Do you trust people with suspect moral values, or do you trust people who believe their maker has commanded them never to lie?

I trust a community of scientists.
[quote author=“TheChampion”]
What profit would it be for a Christian to perpetuate lies or half truths? Why would they continue to be beholden to a farce?

So they can feel comfortable that god watches over them and they will have a paradise in the after life.  That is the motivation.  Pretty obvious.  They lie to themselves to allay their fears.
[quote author=“TheChampion”]
Makes no sense. However, I can see members of the scientific community trying to suppress evidence or data, or supplying half truths. After all, their income is riding on certain conclusions, if you know what I mean.

Right but they could easily get the same income if something else were the truth.  Just study that other thing that is the truth.
[quote author=“TheChampion”]

Nah ShieldAxe, all things considered, carbon dating cannot be a lynchpin of support for so called claims of evolution.

No it isn’t the lynchpin.  There’s tons of other evidence to support it.  Educate yourself!


[quote author=“TheChampion”]

Now, I do not want to sound sarcastic here, but I have to tell you ShieldAxe, I watched the History Channel last night. Have you caught that show, Apes to Man. I have to tell you, it made me laugh out loud a few times, honestly. What a crock! There were so many holes in the connecting of the dots. This whole evolution theory is ridiculous. The show was more about the preaching of a philosophy, rather than an educational discipline.
(as you can see, I’m taking no prisoners here today…)

Your letting emotion cloud your thought processes.  I beseech you, open your mind.  The truth is not that scary.

 
ShieldAxe
 
Avatar
 
 
ShieldAxe
Total Posts:  224
Joined  28-04-2005
 
 
 
12 August 2005 10:41
 

[quote author=“TheChampion”]  ShieldAxe, we have scientists on your side


most
[quote author=“TheChampion”]
and scientists on my side.

a handful

[quote author=“TheChampion”]
I think the scientists on your side would be more apt to have an agenda.


But you don’t have a logical reason for thinking that.  You are thinking emotionally because they have found so many things that disprove the bible.
[quote author=“TheChampion”]
The scientists on my side, if they could prove the bible has flaws, they’s surely shout it from the mountaintop.


They would never even try to do that. It’s against the faith to do that.  ‘Scientists’ on your side look for information or fabricate information to ‘prove’ their agenda.  They are 100% biased.  That’s not even science.  They want to bolster their faith so they feel better.  It’s emotional not logical.
[quote author=“TheChampion”]

Incidently, have you noticed that the folks on your side are “usually” lacking the es spirit de corps. While the folks on my side are “usually” pretty content, satisfied, and have an inner peace that shines through. Of course, there are exceptions to the rule. But think about it.

  Silly, unfounded opinion.

[quote author=“TheChampion”]
Who knows, maybe someday, thee ole ShieldAxe will be on our side, going against the tide, operating on faith, having a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. Who knows….stranger things have happened.

Maybe you will see the light someday.  You don’t need to lie to yourself.  Be honest with yourself; open your mind.  Faith is unhealthy, it hides the truth.  You can be happy without your religion.

 
ShieldAxe
 
Avatar
 
 
ShieldAxe
Total Posts:  224
Joined  28-04-2005
 
 
 
12 August 2005 10:44
 

[quote author=“TheChimpian”]Hmm, this little bit needs clarification:

[quote author=“TheChampion”]ShieldAxe, scientists are on your side. I think the scientists on your side would be more apt to have an agenda, which is to educate others on the objective truth. The “scientists” (really meaning biased no-evidence base preachers) on my side, if they can prove the bible has flaws, but of course they won’t!  It’d require giving up on happy fairy tales, and really putting some thought into what it is that goes on in the REAL World, not the bible comic book.

Incidently, have you noticed that the folks on my side “usually” presume offally on what other people are like? The folks are my side are always content, satisfied, and have an inner drive to impose their whimsical standards on others. Of course, there are exceptions to the rule. But think about it, we are a cult which imposes standards unjustly on others.  People can be perfectly happy whenever they wish, but I tend to force seeing it in terms of it only being cultists who are happy.

Who knows, maybe someday, thee ole ShieldAxe will be on our side, flowing along with our tide of delusion, operating on faith, supporting priests who molests children, having a personal relationships with minors, and Jesus Christ. Who knows….stranger things have happened.

Chimp, it’s better if you don’t put your modified champ post in a champ quote block.  I almost skipped it thinking it was really his post.

 
Iisbliss
 
Avatar
 
 
Iisbliss
Total Posts:  1182
Joined  22-12-2004
 
 
 
12 August 2005 10:46
 

Welcome back Axe = )

 
dfhusky
 
Avatar
 
 
dfhusky
Total Posts:  296
Joined  05-07-2005
 
 
 
16 August 2005 13:11
 

Hi Champ,

I’ve been following this thread for a while now and I have a question for you.  Do you accept that the speed of light is an accurrate measurment?  If so, then how do you explain that most stars started shining about 10 billion years ago?  The light we see from most of them took hundreds of millions of years or more to reach us.  If this is all true, then even your generous reading of God’s handywork is completey loony.  If you don’t accept it as fact, how do you explain that our tv’s, telelphones, satellites, cell phones, radios, and nuclear weapons work?  They all depend on accurate measurements of the light and electromagnetic waves in order to be “designed.”  I look forward to your reasoned and well thought-out response to this paradox.

 
 
ShieldAxe
 
Avatar
 
 
ShieldAxe
Total Posts:  224
Joined  28-04-2005
 
 
 
16 August 2005 13:39
 

[quote author=“dfhusky”]Hi Champ,

I’ve been following this thread for a while now and I have a question for you.  Do you accept that the speed of light is an accurrate measurment?  If so, then how do you explain that most stars started shining about 10 billion years ago?  The light we see from most of them took hundreds of millions of years or more to reach us.  If this is all true, then even your generous reading of God’s handywork is completey loony.  If you don’t accept it as fact, how do you explain that our tv’s, telelphones, satellites, cell phones, radios, and nuclear weapons work?  They all depend on accurate measurements of the light and electromagnetic waves in order to be “designed.”  I look forward to your reasoned and well thought-out response to this paradox.

Stars are just tiny lights in the sky that move around the earth.  LOL

 
paleotn
 
Avatar
 
 
paleotn
Total Posts:  38
Joined  31-05-2005
 
 
 
17 August 2005 05:18
 

[quote author=“ShieldAxe”]
Stars are just tiny lights in the sky that move around the earth.  LOL

A flat earth, no less.  OK, who’s for throwing Da Champ of the edge of the flat earth?!!  ME!!  ME!!!  ME!!!  LOL

Not sure why Champs having such a hissy fit about carbon dating.  I’ve not had time to keep up with this thread.  Guess he’s simply grasping at straws again to support his weak faith in that tin horn god of his.  Nevertheless, the validity of carbon dating beyond 10K years has absolutely no impact on the valildity of evolutionary theory.  It is but one of many methods used to date once living artifacts.  In fact, even at best carbon dating is only good for less than a blink of an eye from a geological perspective. 

You see, Champ, in science, knowledge is based upon cooberating evidence of varioius kinds.  The more evidence from different sources, the more a particular idea is accepted as valid.  Evolutionary theory is based upon literally mountains of verified, peer reviewed data from many scientific diciplines.  If one small piece of that vast pile of supporting data is deemed less reliable than previously thought, the structure of evolution is still supported by the rest of that vast mountain of supporting evidence. 

But then again, explaining things to you, Champ, in logical ways is like explaining evolution to a fence post.  I just get frustrated and the fence post is still a fence post. 

By the way, Champ, got a quick explination for Jesus’ cursing innocent fig trees?  One of those scriptures I wanted you to defend weeks and weeks ago that you’ve carefully ignored.

 
Iisbliss
 
Avatar
 
 
Iisbliss
Total Posts:  1182
Joined  22-12-2004
 
 
 
17 August 2005 07:54
 

It seems recent advances in scientific theory now have the speed of light as a variable.

Makes sense, since sound travels at different speeds depending on the density of the medium, and I travel at different speeds depending on the density of the traffic, and since waves are particles, and particles are waves, somewhere in the quantum world, (which seems a pretty cool chaotic place so far) I can buy this.

I never did like red shift anyway, for some reason that theory just never sat well with me.

 
dfhusky
 
Avatar
 
 
dfhusky
Total Posts:  296
Joined  05-07-2005
 
 
 
17 August 2005 09:01
 

Yes, it is variable depending upon the medium it is traveling through.  But space is a vacuum and as I understand it, the speed of light through a vacuum is constant.  Therefore, the light that we see from stars as expressed by light years as an accurate measurement, still in no way gets close to a literal biblical interpretation of the age of the universe or the earth for that matter.

 
 
Iisbliss
 
Avatar
 
 
Iisbliss
Total Posts:  1182
Joined  22-12-2004
 
 
 
31 August 2005 12:40
 

where is this poll Champ?

you sure it wasnt 80% said they believed in God?

 
Iisbliss
 
Avatar
 
 
Iisbliss
Total Posts:  1182
Joined  22-12-2004
 
 
 
31 August 2005 19:50
 

here is the Newsweek poll

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9023420/site/newsweek/#survey

The question was Do you believe God created the universe?

61% believe god created the universe, but no idea if they are muslim, jewish, wiccan, christian, deists, ect.

28% said no

11% very honest people said they didnt know.

To compare their Hillary Clinton poll, should she run for president, broke out almost even for and against although they are very clear to announce these polls are in no way scientific.

Here is a link to another survey they did on religion. The numbers you got apparently were from this poll that was run on Beliefnet, which would explain why 80% said they believed in god, what is amazing is that 20% of beliefnet said they didn’t.  Newsweek ran th e same poll and compares their numbers to Beliefnet.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9014628/site/newsweek/#survey

Beliefnet itself is kind of an interesting organization

http://www.beliefnet.com

Beliefnet, Inc. is a privately held company funded by employees, individual investors and Blue Chip Venture Company.

Now just what profit is there in Belief that a blue chip venture capital company would support?

 
Iisbliss
 
Avatar
 
 
Iisbliss
Total Posts:  1182
Joined  22-12-2004
 
 
 
01 September 2005 08:47
 

I think your Psychiatrist has enough to deal with = )

 
‹ First  < 4 5 6 7 8 >  Last ›