Articles
   
       
       
Pics/Video
   
       
       
Shop
Search
 
 
 
 
 
Home   Articles   Pics/Video   Gear   Wake 101   Events   Community   Forums   Classifieds   Contests   Shop   Search
WAKE WORLD HOME
Email Password
Go Back   WakeWorld > Non-Wakeboarding Discussion

Share 
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old    Wes (pesos)      Join Date: Oct 2001       10-27-2012, 4:24 PM Reply   
Couple of buffoons.

27CDB6E-AE6D-11cf-96B8-444553540000" codebase="http://download.macromedia.com/pub/shockwave/cabs/flash/swflash.cab#version=10,0,0,0">

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Old    James Hosman (get_sum)      Join Date: Jun 2012       10-27-2012, 4:58 PM Reply   
Maybe you're the baboon for lack of posting ability!
Old    Wes (pesos)      Join Date: Oct 2001       10-27-2012, 5:00 PM Reply   
True, but I just copied and pasted the embed code... :-)
Old    Akadirtbikingdad (wakeboardingdad)      Join Date: Aug 2008       10-27-2012, 6:39 PM Reply   
This must have been the one you were trying to post Wes.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UErR7i2onW0

Last edited by wakeboardingdad; 10-27-2012 at 6:43 PM. Reason: This baboon can't get the embed codes to work either.
Old    Flight007 (poser007)      Join Date: Nov 2004       10-27-2012, 8:54 PM Reply   
Lol so Wes posts a youtube video from msnbc with Rachel Maddow a left wing lezbian to show fair and balanced news coverage of the campaign? LOL This is a bigger joke than the current administration and thats saying a whole lot.
Old    Wes (pesos)      Join Date: Oct 2001       10-27-2012, 8:58 PM Reply   
At least she knows that the earth is older than 6,000 years...
Old    Jeremy (wake77)      Join Date: Jan 2009       10-28-2012, 4:04 AM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by poser007 View Post
Lol so Wes posts a youtube video from msnbc with Rachel Maddow a left wing lezbian to show fair and balanced news coverage of the campaign? LOL This is a bigger joke than the current administration and thats saying a whole lot.
I guess you needed a youtube video from Fox News with Cheney's daughter a right wing lezbian to show fair and balanced news coverage of the campaign? Or maybe he could have gotten a video with Ann Coulter to pacify you.
Old    Markj (markj)      Join Date: Apr 2005       10-28-2012, 11:05 PM Reply   
Um... What about the last four years of lies from our so called president? What happened to the promises about the economy and unemployment? Don't be a hack. Quit while you're behind. Admit the president's failures and move on. I think the month of November will bring much needed relief to this country.
Old    Markj (markj)      Join Date: Apr 2005       10-28-2012, 11:12 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by pesos View Post
At least she knows that the earth is older than 6,000 years...
It takes way more faith to believe that over creation. Ever notice the further this country leans towards secularism, the worse off it becomes? See a pattern here?
Old    Jeremy (wake77)      Join Date: Jan 2009       10-29-2012, 12:02 PM Reply   
^Uh, this country was founded on secularism. Despite the contrary, the founding fathers were not all Christians.

And how does it take faith to believe the earth is older than 6,000 years old? Elementary-level science tells you that.
Old    Akadirtbikingdad (wakeboardingdad)      Join Date: Aug 2008       10-29-2012, 1:11 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by wake77 View Post
^Uh, this country was founded on secularism. Despite the contrary, the founding fathers were not all Christians.
Close enough. (from wiki)

Religion

Lambert (2003) has examined the religious affiliations and beliefs of the Founders. Of the 55 delegates to the 1787 Constitutional Convention, 49 were Protestants, and two were Roman Catholics (D. Carroll, and Fitzsimons). Among the Protestant delegates to the Constitutional Convention, 28 were Church of England (or Episcopalian, after the American Revolutionary War was won), eight were Presbyterians, seven were Congregationalists, two were Lutherans, two were Dutch Reformed, and two were Methodists.

A few prominent Founding Fathers were anti-clerical Christians, such as Thomas Jefferson[18][19][20] (who created the so-called "Jefferson Bible") and Benjamin Franklin.[21] Others (most notably Thomas Paine) were deists, or at least held beliefs very similar to those of deists.[22]

Historian Gregg L. Frazer argues that the leading Founders (Adams, Jefferson, Franklin, Wilson, Morris, Madison, Hamilton, and Washington) were neither Christians nor Deists, but rather supporters of a hybrid "theistic rationalism".[23]
Old    Jeremy (wake77)      Join Date: Jan 2009       10-29-2012, 5:14 PM Reply   
"Historian Gregg L. Frazer argues that the leading Founders (Adams, Jefferson, Franklin, Wilson, Morris, Madison, Hamilton, and Washington) were neither Christians nor Deists"

This sentence (from your post) kills your argument. How exactly does this show "close enough"?
Old    Akadirtbikingdad (wakeboardingdad)      Join Date: Aug 2008       10-29-2012, 7:31 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by wake77 View Post
"Historian Gregg L. Frazer argues that the leading Founders (Adams, Jefferson, Franklin, Wilson, Morris, Madison, Hamilton, and Washington) were neither Christians nor Deists"

This sentence (from your post) kills your argument. How exactly does this show "close enough"?
Do the math. 49 out of 55 were Christians. Even if those eight were something other than Christian, the majority of the founding fathers were. While you said "not all", it seems that we do have a super majority.
Old    Markj (markj)      Join Date: Apr 2005       10-30-2012, 12:24 AM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by wake77 View Post
^Uh, this country was founded on secularism. Despite the contrary, the founding fathers were not all Christians.

And how does it take faith to believe the earth is older than 6,000 years old? Elementary-level science tells you that.
By looking at your profile, I can see you're a student. By your comment, I see you're still at the elementary level. Keep studying. Ever heard of a bacterial flagellum? How about the intricacies of the human eyeball? Tell me how that doesn't prove creation or to the atheist- intelligent design.
Old    Wes (pesos)      Join Date: Oct 2001       10-30-2012, 12:27 AM Reply   
Uh oh Jeremy, you've got a young earther with a crush on you.
Old    Markj (markj)      Join Date: Apr 2005       10-30-2012, 12:32 AM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by wakeboardingdad View Post
Do the math. 49 out of 55 were Christians. Even if those eight were something other than Christian, the majority of the founding fathers were. While you said "not all", it seems that we do have a super majority.
Yep. That's the same people who formed our constitution that we're supposed to be living under today. The problem is that it keeps being attacked by liberals who want to distort the founding father's original intent so as to coop a free lunch for all of the "takers" of society as well as remove the term freedom from our vernacular. It's devolution. Sad.
Old    Seahawks #1 Fan Robert T (cwb4me)      Join Date: Apr 2010       10-30-2012, 4:12 AM Reply   
Liberals are............................................... ............stuck.Conservatives are.............................................st ubborn.
Old    Ron T (Laker1234)      Join Date: Mar 2010       10-30-2012, 6:15 AM Reply   
""Increasingly the Founding Fathers abandoned traditional Christian religion and became what could be called deists. Many of these converts publicly maintained their original religious affiliations,choosing to avoid the censures that prominent deists like Jefferson, Franklin, and Paine regularly received. Deists abandoned the belief in the divinity of Jesus, the trinity, any notion of predestination, the Bible as the divinely inspired word of God, and state-sponsored religion. Rather, deists believed in one God, a benevolent initiator of all events.The word of God was not to be found in the Bible, but in nature and the Creation."" Jefferson. Franklin, and Paine were recorded Deists. http://www.archives.gov/nhprc/annota...2/2002-mar.pdf
Old    Wes (pesos)      Join Date: Oct 2001       10-30-2012, 7:37 AM Reply   
Exactly. If you are going to claim the founding fathers as Christians you also have to lump in other famous Christians-in-name-only like Hitler.

The FF were far brighter than the young-earther theocratic-leaning nutjobs holding the moderate republicans hostage in the party today.
Old    Akadirtbikingdad (wakeboardingdad)      Join Date: Aug 2008       10-30-2012, 8:24 AM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by pesos View Post
Exactly. If you are going to claim the founding fathers as Christians you also have to lump in other famous Christians-in-name-only like Hitler.
Why would I do that? It is almost like saying you or I are a founding father. We are not and neither was Hitler. I mean, what am I missing here?
Old    Wes (pesos)      Join Date: Oct 2001       10-30-2012, 8:28 AM Reply   
Lol. Not saying Hitler was a FF. Saying, like most of the FF, he was a Christian in name only.
Old    Paul (psudy)      Join Date: Dec 2003       10-30-2012, 10:00 AM Reply   
Spin it to win it.
Old    Ron T (Laker1234)      Join Date: Mar 2010       10-30-2012, 10:30 AM Reply   
But Deists believe in God, so that makes them more than just "name only" Christians doesn't it?
Old    Someone Else (deltahoosier)      Join Date: Jun 2002       10-30-2012, 10:36 AM Reply   
You also have to weigh relativism of the time. The people even if they were not christian so to speak where heavily influenced by the bible since that was a primary teaching tool of the day. The bible was actually one of the first school books used in America and I would guess in Europe as well. Liberals always throw out that part of the discussion when saying the found fathers were not christian. Saying someone is not a christian today has a completely different meaning today than it did in the 1700's.
Old    Wes (pesos)      Join Date: Oct 2001       10-30-2012, 11:35 AM Reply   
Delta you are exactly right about relativism, but you have it backwards. The FF were the enlightened men of their time, and actually given the relativism you reference, the fact that they were as openly NONreligious as they were is even more striking that it would be today - not less. That being said, yes the bible had a lot to teach them. It has plenty to teach us today. It is a fascinating history of two people's struggle to understand the world, their place in it, morality, the sacred, etc.
Old    Paul (psudy)      Join Date: Dec 2003       10-30-2012, 12:00 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by pesos View Post
Lol. Not saying Hitler was a FF. Saying, like most of the FF, he was a Christian in name only.
Were do you get "most?" At best it was 14% which hardly comprises a majority. As a 1%er you should know this.
Old    Jeremy (wake77)      Join Date: Jan 2009       10-30-2012, 12:25 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by markj View Post
By looking at your profile, I can see you're a student. By your comment, I see you're still at the elementary level. Keep studying. Ever heard of a bacterial flagellum? How about the intricacies of the human eyeball? Tell me how that doesn't prove creation or to the atheist- intelligent design.
By looking at my profile, you should have realized that I just don't give a sheet enough to update it. Yes it says I am a student. I hold two bachelor's degrees (Applied Mathematics and Secondary Mathematics). It probably also describes the bindings and board I ride. Truth is, I haven't strapped on a wakeboard in almost two years (okay that is sort of a lie, I did ride for about 30 seconds this summer, behind an IO, on a 90's era Hyperlite) due to injuries. Quit trying to act as thought you know me from a stranger on the street because you "looked at my profile". And I would venture to say that there are doctoral students that have infinitely more knowledge on the subject than you or I.

Bacterial Flagellum or the intricacies of the human eyeball I see have no application to what I said. Go back and read my post, I never made a mention of evolution nor intelligent design. I am going to use my brain and make a guess that you introduced your findings because I mentioned someone's belief in the earth being 6000 years old. I don't agree with that and bacterial flagellum or intricacies of the human eyeball do absolutely NOTHING to prove I am wrong. Now if you are wanting to have a discussion of evolution vs. intelligent design then that would be the time to introduce that evidence.

Last edited by wake77; 10-30-2012 at 12:30 PM.
Old    Jeremy (wake77)      Join Date: Jan 2009       10-30-2012, 12:28 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by wakeboardingdad View Post
Do the math. 49 out of 55 were Christians. Even if those eight were something other than Christian, the majority of the founding fathers were. While you said "not all", it seems that we do have a super majority.
Didn't that sentence I mentioned after your post include the word "leading" before fore fathers? I take that to mean that they were the more influential or the main ones calling the shots. Besides wasn't this country founded on a system that protects the minority?
Old    Jo Shmoe (joeshmoe)      Join Date: Jan 2003       10-30-2012, 4:33 PM Reply   
" I hold two bachelor's degrees (Applied Mathematics and Secondary Mathematics)."
So Jeremy, you know that they cannot prove that the sum of the three angles in a triangle is 180?
Old    Johnny (johnny_defacto)      Join Date: Sep 2006       10-30-2012, 5:18 PM Reply   
wow. heavy discussions in a wakeboarding thread, but it is good to see.

I too was gullible a lot of my life and believed anything a teacher or scientist or "expert" would tell me. Then I started reading books. Mainly history, science and religion. The last 4 years I have been heavy in American History. I mainly read the writings of our founding fathers and the creation of this country, the original arugments by Thomas Paine, the constitutional congress papers and anything written by our founding fathers and forefathers (and yes, there is a difference in the two even though MSNBC and CNN will ignore that fact).

If you are a christian, you want to believe that the country was founded on Christian/Jewish values found in the bible, if you are atheist, you do not want to believe it.

Go read the words of our founders for yourself, it is blatantly obvious that this country was founded by men who were christians or believed in the wisdom of the Bible. Reading the words of our founders during the decision to fight for independence and during the constituional congress, they clearly based the constitution on a value system from the Bible and "God's natural laws.." Even the "non christians" such as Jefferson understood that "Divine Providence" (aka: the God of the Bible) was inspiring the birth of America. They believed and clearly state in the Declaration and Constitution (the former wr****en by Jefferson) that our rights are given by God and not by man and understood that if that is not at the core belief of a Nation, then the rights you think were given to you by man (aka: government) can be taken away by man.

I could go on forever, but don't take my word on any of this, I highly recommend to read anything you can get your hands on and educate yourself. I have realized the more I learn, the more there is to know and I NO LONGER take the word of anybody anymore.

America is the greatest nation in the history of the world... God Bless.
Old    Johnny (johnny_defacto)      Join Date: Sep 2006       10-30-2012, 5:21 PM Reply   
wr***en is the word w r i t t e n but apparently thinks I am trying to hide a word for breasts within another word
Old    Brett W (brettw)      Join Date: Jul 2007       10-30-2012, 5:52 PM Reply   
This thread kind of took off a different direction. Anyway, Johnny (& some others here) as far as reading anything you can get your hands on to educate yourself, I'd highly suggest reading some of Richard Dawkins's material.
Old    Wes (pesos)      Join Date: Oct 2001       10-30-2012, 5:57 PM Reply   
Or Sam Harris. The End of Faith is great and gives Islam a good spanking.
Old    Someone Else (deltahoosier)      Join Date: Jun 2002       10-31-2012, 9:29 AM Reply   
What I was referencing was Christian faith and teachings were so intertwined with society that they would look almost exactly like a christian of today even if they said they weren't. They all believed in God. If they were different types of "christian" and they were, they chose not to form a country subjecting the masses to one teaching and I think that is why you find a lot of the free mason imagery in the government. The free mason's besides being a cult like group believe in God but choose to come together despite religion to have fellowship in the workings of the world. I don't think you would find an actually atheist in the bunch and doubt you would find a evolutionist in the bunch. Actually, I don't think you can be a free mason and be an atheist. I do like Johnny's thoughts from his readings on the subject.
Old    Wes (pesos)      Join Date: Oct 2001       10-31-2012, 9:55 AM Reply   
No evolutionists eh? Wonder how that could be, given they were doing all this 20 years before Darwin was even born lol.
Old    Johnny (johnny_defacto)      Join Date: Sep 2006       10-31-2012, 11:26 AM Reply   
BrettW, yes Dawkins. I am very familiar with the man and have read just some of his material. You can never prove creation and can never prove evolution because nobody was there when it happened. You can only look at the facts, evidence and try to understand. I have read a lot of his theories ever since I started researching C-14 dating (carbon dating), I like to read both sides of the argument to form my own opinion. It is just a shame that our students are being taught that evolution is a fact, although it is just a theory that is ever changing, and not being taught of the theory of creation/intelligent design. Also that they/we are taught that C-14 dating and its results are fact, an exact science... I have learned that it is not, and is very far from fact or exact.

Anyhow, any other recent evolutionist authors that have really good books you would recommend?
Old    Jeremy (wake77)      Join Date: Jan 2009       10-31-2012, 12:36 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by deltahoosier View Post
What I was referencing was Christian faith and teachings were so intertwined with society that they would look almost exactly like a christian of today even if they said they weren't. They all believed in God. If they were different types of "christian" and they were, they chose not to form a country subjecting the masses to one teaching and I think that is why you find a lot of the free mason imagery in the government. The free mason's besides being a cult like group believe in God but choose to come together despite religion to have fellowship in the workings of the world. I don't think you would find an actually atheist in the bunch and doubt you would find a evolutionist in the bunch. Actually, I don't think you can be a free mason and be an atheist. I do like Johnny's thoughts from his readings on the subject.
Deism does not resemble Christianity other than both acknowledge a "higher being". If you recognize the "intertwining", then why not accept Muslims as a "different type of 'christian'"? It stinks of you attempting to mold history to agree with your belief system.
Old    Flight007 (poser007)      Join Date: Nov 2004       10-31-2012, 12:39 PM Reply   
Are we really going to go back down this road? I remember the heated debates we used to have a few years ago on evolution. If we're going there I'm ready for battle. Below are just a few quotes from scientists who mostly are evolutionists. Interesting indeed.

."The occurrence of any event where the chances are beyond one in ten followed by 50 zeros is an event which we can state with certainty will never happen, no matter how much time is allotted and no matter how many conceivable opportunities could exist for the event to take place" (Dr. Emile Borel, who discovered the laws of probability).

"The probability for the chance of formation of the smallest, simplest form of living organism known is 1 in 10 340,000,000. This number is 10 to the 340 millionth power! The size of this figure is truly staggering since there is only supposed to be approximately 1080 (10 to the 80th power) electrons in the whole universe!" (Professor Harold Morowitz, Biophysicist of George Mason University)

"I could prove God statistically; take the human body alone; the chance that all the functions of the individual would just happen, is a statistical monstrosity" (George Gallup, famous statistician).

"The idea of spontaneous generation of life in its present form is therefore highly improbable even to the scale of the billions of years during which pre-biotic evolution occurred" (Dr. Ilya Prigogine, Nobel Prize winner).

"The probability of life originating from accident is comparable to the probability of the unabridged dictionary resulting from an explosion in a printing shop" (Dr. Edwin Conklin, evolutionist and professor of biology at Princeton University).

"All of us who study the origin of life find that the more we look into it, the more we feel it is too complex to have evolved anywhere. We all believe as an article of faith that life evolved from dead matter on this planet. It is just that life’s complexity is so great, it is hard for us to imagine that it did" (Dr. Harold Urey, Nobel Prize winner).

"One may well find oneself beginning to doubt whether all this could conceivably be the product of an enormous lottery presided over by natural selection, blindly picking the rare winners from among numbers drawn at utter random... nevertheless although the miracle of life stands ‘explained,’ it does not strike us as any less miraculous...." (French biochemist and Nobel Prize winner, Jacques Monod, Chance and Necessity).

"A further aspect I should like to discuss is what I call the practice of infinite escape clauses. I believe we developed this practice to avoid facing the conclusion that the probability of self-reproducing state is zero. This is what we must conclude from classical quantum mechanical principles as Wigner demonstrated" (Sidney W. Fox, The Origins of Prebiological Systems and of Their Molecular Matrices).

"Evolutionary biologists have been able to pretend to know how complex biological systems originated only because they treated them as black boxes. Now that biochemists have opened the black boxes and seen what is inside, they know the Darwinian theory is just a story, not a scientific explanation" (Professor Phillip E. Johnson).

"An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going" (Dr. Francis Crick, biochemist, Nobel Prize winner, Life Itself: Its Origin and Nature , pg. 88).
Old    Jeremy (wake77)      Join Date: Jan 2009       10-31-2012, 12:58 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by johnny_defacto View Post
BrettW, yes Dawkins. I am very familiar with the man and have read just some of his material. You can never prove creation and can never prove evolution because nobody was there when it happened. You can only look at the facts, evidence and try to understand. I have read a lot of his theories ever since I started researching C-14 dating (carbon dating), I like to read both sides of the argument to form my own opinion. It is just a shame that our students are being taught that evolution is a fact, although it is just a theory that is ever changing, and not being taught of the theory of creation/intelligent design. Also that they/we are taught that C-14 dating and its results are fact, an exact science... I have learned that it is not, and is very far from fact or exact.

Anyhow, any other recent evolutionist authors that have really good books you would recommend?
Read Finding Darwin's God by Dr. Kenneth Miller.
Old    Jeremy (wake77)      Join Date: Jan 2009       10-31-2012, 1:19 PM Reply   
Flight, the probability argument for or against evolution is not valid. It's simply the odds of something happening, it cannot be used to determine whether or not something did in fact happen. Let me explain it to you in layman's terms. The odds of you winning the big prize in a state's lottery may be 1:1,000,000. This does not mean that if you play 1,000,000 times you are guaranteed to win. It also does not mean that if 1,000,000 people play that 1 is guaranteed to win. Or let's look at it another way, let's say I have a deck of 52 cards, there are 4 people playing, and I deal out five cards to each player. Now I could collect the cards, shuffle, and then deal them out again. Let's say I do this 1,000,000 times or let's say I deal them out 10^1090 times. There exists a chance that I may never deal out the exact hand to each player (as our original hand) again, so does that mean that the original hands never happened?

Here is a section written about Borel's Theorem and the attempts to use it to prove creationism:

"The most obvious flaw in this kind of argument is the absence of time. If someone is rolling dice, it matters how many rolls per minute are made. In the context of evolution, it matters how often a lifeform reproduces itself, and how often an entirely new mutation can be expected to occur. An organism that reproduces once a century under conditions of very low exposure to mutations will evolve much more slowly than an organism that reproduces once a day and has a high rate of mutations.

Borel left time out of his rule of thumb because he wanted to simplify these kinds of problems for those too innumerate to follow a more complex argument. Unfortunately, in so doing he oversimplified, and opened the door to all manner of misinterpretations. All by itself, the simple absence of time in an invocation of "Borel's Law" is sufficient to completely invalidate a creationist argument.

If a creationist invocation of "Borel's Law" does employ an adequate consideration of time and rates of change — and some do — then we must ask whether the calculation is a simple counting argument, or based on real physical and biochemical processes. If the latter, then the argument can be evaluated on its merits, without invoking Borel at all. But if it is the former, then it is virtually certain to be just another game with numbers."
Old    Brett W (brettw)      Join Date: Jul 2007       10-31-2012, 2:21 PM Reply   
Flight, aren't you one of those ppl that actually believes the earth is only around 6000 years old (for starters)? If so, you've already dismissed science as a whole, so why even bother with something like evolution? You've already turned a blind eye. No mountain of evidence will ever convince some folks contrary to what's written in the bible, so it's just not worth discussing some things with these types.
Old    Wes (pesos)      Join Date: Oct 2001       10-31-2012, 2:34 PM Reply   
Yes, Flight is a young-earther.

It's also important to point out that while Deists generally believed in some kind of higher being, it was one that is generally disinterested in and has "stepped away from" the goings-on of the universe. They rejected a personal, theistic god as well as the authority of the bible, miracles, divinity of Jesus (or anyone else), etc. (most notably seen in Jefferson's rewriting of the gospels called The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth - where he stripped out anything having to do with such things).
Old    Flight007 (poser007)      Join Date: Nov 2004       10-31-2012, 2:47 PM Reply   
Brett I have always said I believe man has been around for around that time. I never said I believe the earth is only 6000 years old. I have no idea how old the earth is and neither do you or anyone else. Dating methods assume a lot of things were the same in the past as they are now. We will never know if thats is true or not. So I do not believe dating methods are accurate because nobody was there thousands of years ago to test things. Do I believe the Bible is true? Yes I do. Do I believe the bible gives an accurate account of history? Yes I do. In fact the bible gives a very good accounting of lineage. Mathematicians have done calculations on human population given certain criteria and ruling out certain things like war plagues famine etc..... and have concluded that man has been around for about 4500 years. So if I read my bible I can go to the flood account which happened about 4500 years ago and using math can predict the bible account of the flood agrees with their math of the human population we have today. Don't you think it is interesting how with all our technology and the greatest so called minds of the past 100 years have not been able to replicate life in a laboratory yet say that it happened on it's own by chance? One thing I have learned in life is this. It's not truth people believe so much. Repetition will always rule the day. If something is repeated enough, people will take it at face value even if it is a lie. Evolution has been touted as the truth and shoved down our throats for so long, people have blindly accepted it as the truth without any real scientific proof. Evolution in and of itself (The belief that one species can actually becomes something totally different) has never ever been documented. We have never seen it nor observed it. If you want to argue that point be my guest but you won't get far.
Old    Wes (pesos)      Join Date: Oct 2001       10-31-2012, 2:54 PM Reply   
"Don't you think it is interesting how with all our technology and the greatest so called minds of the past 100 years have not been able to replicate life in a laboratory yet say that it happened on it's own by chance?"

Sigh.
Old    Flight007 (poser007)      Join Date: Nov 2004       10-31-2012, 4:09 PM Reply   
I'm confused! Was that a scientific response? because if so, that is one of the better ones I have seen for supporting evolution. Thanks for sharing Wes.
Old    Jeremy (wake77)      Join Date: Jan 2009       10-31-2012, 6:17 PM Reply   
"Mathematicians have done calculations on human population given certain criteria and ruling out certain things like war plagues famine etc..... and have concluded that man has been around for about 4500 years."

You do realize that argument is based on a paper written in 1925 and the methods used (like implying that the Earth's population doubles every 161 years) have since been disproven? Primarily because the world's population doubled between 1960 and 1999.
Old    Johnny (johnny_defacto)      Join Date: Sep 2006       11-01-2012, 11:03 AM Reply   
Both are theories and both theories have problems.

Creation has the problem that it requires faith to believe that God, or supernatural being infinitely more intelligent than all of us combined, designed and created the earth and everything in it.

Evolution has the problem that it requires faith to believe that the earth and everything in it had no design or programming, that everything happened by chance, that positive mutations happened over and over and over again even when it would require the mutations to be of no use, but passed on and on for millions of years just waiting for multiple more positive mutations to occur that would also not be used, or of any immediate value, to be passed on for millions of years until they could finally be used together for a single purpose.... then repeat this process millions of times over millions of years with every single species of plant and animal that currently exist or are extinct. Then add to this that our fossil record has arguably no transitional forms that we would expect to see, in fact, our fossil record that we are told expands hundreds of millions of years shows a "sudden appearance" of plants, insects, marine life and mammals. Finally, fossils are dated from millions to hundreds of millions of years and we are led to believe that this dating is accurate based on the science of Carbon dating. Go do some quick research on the process of C-14 dating and see what the maximum age a carbon based fossil can be dated to based on the available carbon 14 found in the specimen based on our most advanced instrument, the AMS (Accelerator Mass Spectrometer). Then research how many assumptions about the environment , the conditions surrounding the lifeform at death, and the amount of carbon available at the time the carbon life form died have to be made in order to complete the formula to get a value (age of specimen). Research carbon dating of diamonds and coal, that will make your head spin, THEN research the multiple other ways that non carbon specimen are dated and how admittedly by the science community, they are incredibly inaccurate and have too many assumptions and variables, that they are unreliable compared to CARBON DATING.

Okay, I will stop, you have a lot of reading to do.

Last edited by johnny_defacto; 11-01-2012 at 11:08 AM. Reason: commas
Old    Jeremy (wake77)      Join Date: Jan 2009       11-01-2012, 1:52 PM Reply   
^The latest figures I have seen show that carbon dating is accurate within +/- 163 yrs of 26,000 BP years.

And have they not found remains of Neanderthals? Would this not be considered a "transitional form" of a present day human beings?
Old    Brett W (brettw)      Join Date: Jul 2007       11-01-2012, 1:57 PM Reply   
Here's a little FAQ on evolution that was referred to in something else I read. It also leads to further reading for those interested.

http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-qa.html
Old    Flight007 (poser007)      Join Date: Nov 2004       11-01-2012, 9:13 PM Reply   
So you want me to read Ken Millers material? The same Ken Miller that put Heckles fake embryonic photos in his text books when he knew they were fake? That ken Miller? Yeah I think i will stay away from his writings.
Old    Johnny (johnny_defacto)      Join Date: Sep 2006       11-01-2012, 10:25 PM Reply   
Yes Jeremy, I have seen similar figures for carbon dating. My point is that the oldest a carbon based fossil can be dated to using this method is about 70,000 years. The dinosaurs that most of us are most familiar with from the Jurassic period are being sampled and given dates of 65-250 million years ago during the mesozoic period. These fossils have carbon 14 in them, consistently, and are consistently given ages right around 23,000 years old in blind tests. We are told they are tens to hundreds of millions of years old and told that we know this based on carbon dating. It's not true. The age of fossils given are based almost completely on the assumption that the earth is millions to billions of years old and that the carbon fossils are in the fossil record alongside non-carbon fossils that are in this 65-250 million year range. These non carbon fossils are dated by a few other methods and are so unreliable, labeling them "\scientific" would be disingenuous.
Old    Wes (pesos)      Join Date: Oct 2001       11-01-2012, 10:30 PM Reply   
Old    Rich (digg311)      Join Date: Sep 2007       11-01-2012, 10:33 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by poser007 View Post
One thing I have learned in life is this. It's not truth people believe so much. Repetition will always rule the day. If something is repeated enough, people will take it at face value even if it is a lie. Religion has been touted as the truth and shoved down our throats for so long, people have blindly accepted it as the truth without any real scientific proof.
How about that... Change one pivotal word, and it still makes sense. By the way, I'm not attacking your faith. Just illustrating a point.
Old    Flight007 (poser007)      Join Date: Nov 2004       11-01-2012, 11:59 PM Reply   
Rich I don't consider myself religious. Religion is man made. I consider myself a Christ follower. Jesus never claimed to be religious, in fact he criticized the religious and at times was very angry with their hypocrisy. Whenever you have this debate it really comes down to your world view and who you are going to believe. After all, since we have never seen evolution happen even though we are told over and over that we have......we have to ask ourselves some hard questions. Do i really believe that life sprang up all by itself with no intelligence starting it or guiding it? It just some how miraculously happened? If people want to believe that then I guess that is their prerogative. I happen to believe that God created it just like his word says. If there is a chair in a room I am smart enough to understand that there was someone who shaped and designed it. I don't just assume that it made itself. The same with the shirt I'm wearing or the sox on my feet. I would be a fool to think otherwise. But when it comes to the complexity of life, people seem to throw common sense out the window and cling to the impossible and not give it another thought. The Bible is accurate when it says that professing themselves to be wise they became fools. That the things of God were clearly visible to them by the things that were made. I'm paraphrasing but you get the point. Our world view shapes the way we think and live. I can read about the complexity of DNA and be the amount of genetic information that it contains and thank God for his infinite wisdom. Others can look at the same thing and some how believe that all that information some how got there by itself. Even though the greatest minds no very little about DNA in the grand scheme of the information contained in it. It boggles my mind that i am considered a knuckle dragger as Wes would call me but he thinks he is some how intellectual for thinking this came about on accident. Remember the greatest scientists of our day can't reproduce life with all the tools and resources at their disposal yet we are supposed to believe it just happened!!!!!!! With no help or intelligence guiding it. hey Jeremy and Wes....... I've got some swamp land in the everglades I'd like to give you a great deal on. i hear that if given enough time the property is going to clean itself up and build an amusement park there. You guys would be sitting on a gold mine!!!!!! Call me lets do lunch and work out the details.
Old    Rich (digg311)      Join Date: Sep 2007       11-02-2012, 12:26 AM Reply   
Not sure how it is that you think we don't see evolution happen. When I was a kid, I went to Valley Forge... did you ever go there? Have you seen the beds? They were tiny. People were shorter back then. I mean, it's a small thing... but the average height of people in this country has changed in just a couple hundred years. Our bodies adapt and evolve like crazy... to climate, to disease, you name it. Extrapolate that over hundreds and thousands of years and tiny changes are magnified exponentially. Obviously, this is sort of anecdotal... If I'm way off base scientifically, feel free to educate me. Seriously, I'm not being sarcastic.

Obviously, I'm not educated on these subjects. I'm enjoying the discussion though, and intend to keep learning. How does a young earth philosophy explain simple geography and geomorphology? There are so many examples of things that took a millennia to form.
Old    Flight007 (poser007)      Join Date: Nov 2004       11-02-2012, 9:25 AM Reply   
Rich: As I stated above I have no idea how old the earth is. I do not believe it is billions or even millions of years old though. We will never know the truth of the earths age until we get the chance to ask the one who created it. To answer your question about the geologic formations etc. Young earth creationists believe that everything was laid down in a catastrophic event. They believe the world wide flood of Noah was that event. Many people have the idea that it just rained over the whole earth for 40 days but thats really not what happened. The bible says that the earth burst forth. Water gushed up at forces that were unbelieveable. yes it rained but most of the water came from the ground. before the flood it had never rained. The atmosphere was more like a green house and that is why things grew much bigger back then. On a side note. To answer your question about the size of people. Think about it for a second. I am 5"8 one of my best friends is 6'6 I can't stand standing next to him he makes me feel short. We have people on the earth of all sizes and always have. Dark skin light skin medium skinned. God has planted DNA that has the ability to adapt within a range but it has boundaries. Of course we see variety in life it's what makes us all different. We have small dogs large dogs white ones black ones spotted ones etc... but they are all dogs and always will be. Where evolution turns to faith is exactly how you described it above. Assuming since we see genetic variety in all life that given enough time that a dog could turn into something other than a dog. We have never seen that happen ever. That is why they are always looking for the proverbial missing link which has eluded evolutionists until this very day. The funny thing is if evolution were a fact and life has been here for billions or even million of years the earth would be screaming with them but we can't find just 1. On another side note the bible speaks about giants being in the land in those days. We have actually found evidence of giant skeleton remains proving that the Bible once again is an accurate account of history.

By the way, while we are talking about DNA have you ever wondered how something 1000 times more complex then our most technologically advanced super computers was created randomly by chance? If thats not faith I don't know what is.
Old    Wes (pesos)      Join Date: Oct 2001       11-02-2012, 9:33 AM Reply   
Old    Jeremy (wake77)      Join Date: Jan 2009       11-02-2012, 12:09 PM Reply   
"Assuming since we see genetic variety in all life that given enough time that a dog could turn into something other than a dog. We have never seen that happen ever."

That's the problem though, you aren't allowing enough time. This is why the whole creationist/intelligent design idea loses it's credibility. Guys like you that are implying that if something evolved, it had to take place overnight. You are talking about a process that, in many cases, takes hundreds of thousands years. It's a non-academic argument to say that any species is "going to turn into something other than that species". That accomplishes nothing except showing that you don't understand what evolutionists are saying. It's also not practical to compare animate and inanimate objects. To compare DNA (which is easily understood by microbiologists) to a supercomputer is a apples and unicorns comparison.
Old    Flight007 (poser007)      Join Date: Nov 2004       11-02-2012, 12:26 PM Reply   
The majority of scientists will tell you that when looking at the fossil evidence creation makes more sense because we see an explosion of fossil evidence as if it happens abruptly all at once. the evidence goes against evolution over millions of years. Below I am pasting quotes from leading evolutionists that you will never see published.

"The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution."
Stephen Jay Gould (Professor of Geology and Paleontology, Harvard University), "Is a new and general theory of evolution emerging?" Paleobiology, vol. 6(1), January 1980, p. 127

"Contrary to what most scientists write, the fossil record does not support the Darwinian theory of evolution because it is this theory (there are several) which we use to interpret the fossil record. By doing so we are guilty of circular reasoning if we then say the fossil record supports this theory."

Ronald R. West, PhD (paleoecology and geology) (Assistant Professor of Paleobiology at Kansas State University), "Paleoecology and uniformitarianism". Compass, vol. 45, May 1968, p. 216

"The chance that higher life forms might have emerged in this way is comparable with the chance that 'a tornado sweeping through a junk yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein'."

Sir Fred Hoyle (English astronomer, Professor of Astronomy at Cambridge University), as quoted in "Hoyle on Evolution". Nature, vol. 294, 12 Nov. 1981, p. 105

"Echoing the criticism made of his father's habilis skulls, he added that Lucy's skull was so incomplete that most of it was 'imagination made of plaster of Paris', thus making it impossible to draw any firm conclusion about what species she belonged to."

Referring to comments made by Richard Leakey (Director of National Museums of Kenya) in The Weekend Australian, 7-8 May 1983, Magazine, p. 3

"The entire hominid collection known today would barely cover a billiard table, ... the collection is so tantalizingly incomplete, and the specimens themselves often so fragmented and inconclusive, that more can be said about what is missing than about what is present. ...but ever since Darwin's work inspired the notion that fossils linking modern man and extinct ancestor would provide the most convincing proof of human evolution, preconceptions have led evidence by the nose in the study of fossil man."

John Reader (photo-journalist and author of "Missing Links"), "Whatever happened to Zinjanthropus?" New Scientist, 26 March 1981, p. 802

"A five million-year-old piece of bone that was thought to be a collarbone of a humanlike creature is actually part of a dolphin rib, ...He [Dr. T. White] puts the incident on par with two other embarrassing [sic] faux pas by fossil hunters: Hesperopithecus, the fossil pig's tooth that was cited as evidence of very early man in North America, and Eoanthropus or 'Piltdown Man,' the jaw of an orangutan and the skull of a modern human that were claimed to be the 'earliest Englishman'.

"The problem with a lot of anthropologists is that they want so much to find a hominid that any scrap of bone becomes a hominid bone.'"

Dr. Tim White (anthropologist, University of California, Berkeley). As quoted by Ian Anderson "Hominoid collarbone exposed as dolphin's rib", in New Scientist, 28 April 1983, p. 199

"We add that it would be all too easy to object that mutations have no evolutionary effect because they are eliminated by natural selection. Lethal mutations (the worst kind) are effectively eliminated, but others persist as alleles. ...Mutants are present within every population, from bacteria to man. There can be no doubt about it. But for the evolutionist, the essential lies elsewhere: in the fact that mutations do not coincide with evolution."

Pierre-Paul Grassé (University of Paris and past-President, French Academie des Sciences) in Evolution of Living Organisms, Academic Press, New York, 1977, p. 88

"The essence of Darwinism lies in a single phrase: natural selection is the creative force of evolutionary change. No one denies that natural selection will play a negative role in eliminating the unfit. Darwinian theories require that it create the fit as well."

Stephen Jay Gould (Professor of Geology and Paleontology, Harvard University), "The return of hopeful monsters". Natural History, vol. LXXXVI(6), June-Jule 1977, p. 28
"And in man is a three-pound brain which, as far as we know, is the most complex and orderly arrangement of matter in the universe."

Dr. Isaac Asimov (biochemist; was a Professor at Boston University School of Medicine; internationally known author), "In the game of energy and thermodynamics you can't even break even.". Smithsonian Institute Journal, June 1970, p. 10

"Why do geologists and archeologists still spend their scarce money on costly radiocarbon determinations? They do so because occasional dates appear to be useful. While the method cannot be counted on to give good, unequivocal results, the number do impress people, and save them the trouble of thinking excessively. Expressed in what look like precise calendar years, figures seem somehow better ... 'Absolute' dates determined by a laboratory carry a lot of weight, and are extremely helpful in bolstering weak arguments.

"No matter how 'useful' it is, though, the radiocarbon method is still not capable of yielding accurate and reliable results. There are gross discrepancies, the chronology is uneven and relative, and the accepted dates are actually selected dates. This whole bless thing is nothing but 13th-century alchemy, and it all depends upon which funny paper you read."

Robert E. Lee, "Radiocarbon: ages in error". Anthropological Journal of Canada, vol.19(3), 1981, pp.9-29. Reprinted in the Creation Research Society Quarterly, vol. 19(2), September 1982, pp. 117-127 (quotes from pp. 123 and 125)

"The intelligent layman has long suspected circular reasoning in the use of rocks to date fossils and fossils to date rocks. The geologist has never bothered to think of a good reply, feeling that explanations are not worth the trouble as long as the work brings results. This is supposed to be hard-headed pragmatism."

J. E. O'Rourks, "Pragmatism versus materialism in stratigraphy". American Journal of Science, vol. 276, January 1976, p. 47

"Scientists who go about teaching that evolution is a fact of life are great con-men, and the story they are telling may be the greatest hoax ever. In explaining evolution, we do not have one iota of fact."

Dr. T. N. Tahmisian (Atomic Energy Commission, USA) in "The Fresno Bee", August 20, 1959. As quoted by N. J. Mitchell, Evolution and the Emperor's New Clothes, Roydon Publications, UK, 1983, title page.
Old    Jeremy (wake77)      Join Date: Jan 2009       11-02-2012, 5:03 PM Reply   
Flight, I looked through all of the quotes in your last post and something dawned on me. The most current of all of the quotes was from 1983. I am in no way an expert in the field, but I would have to assume that some new discoveries have taken place in the past 30 years. And while they don't seem to offer an explanation for evolution, they certainly do not say that they have a alternative substantive explanation.
Old    Johnny (johnny_defacto)      Join Date: Sep 2006       11-02-2012, 9:33 PM Reply   
I love this thread and the info and opinions brought to it. Thanks all for keeping it civil. Our founding fathers would sit around a fire, dinner table, or bar and speak about these exact things, science, religion and politics. It is good to see this in a wakeboarding forum.

Jeremy, neanderthals are still the same human species that we are. It is a valid point as they have some very prominent facial features and other distinctions, but they are 100% human species, believed to be the first humans.

And if I may respond to this:
"...you that are implying that if something evolved, it had to take place overnight. You are talking about a process that, in many cases, takes hundreds of thousands years."

He is talking about micro-evolution which can be seen in our recent history with humans, dogs, and a lot of other species. This is not evolution. When most refer to "evolution" they are referring to the creation of life and everything in it from a single celled non-living something...? Adaptation is built into our species DNA as well as many others. Nobody argues that. In fact, thousands of years ago, as previously stated, there were giants over 10 feet tall, and there is archeological and historical evidence for that.

To continue to your quote, the fossil record ranges up to 3.4 BILLION year ago, that is more than enough time to see multiple multiple transitions of one species into multiple others.

Honest question to everyone: What were you taught is the age of a typical tyrannosaurus rex, and what were you taught was the method to date it? Just curious as I am pretty certain we were both taught the same thing all our life.
Old    Johnny (johnny_defacto)      Join Date: Sep 2006       11-02-2012, 9:44 PM Reply   
And yes, 30 years is a long time and I am sure there have been many discoveries. I can tell you my experience in college 12 years ago, and this was just one class I took and have not taken another one since.

In 2000 I took an archeology/evolution class where we studied the skulls of chimpanzees and humans, and all the skulls in between during the millions of years of evolution to get to the homosapien. We looked at jaws, teeth, eye sockets, all the parts of the skull separately (frontal, parietals...). On Fridays we were asked to write one question each and give it to our professor, he would then look them over during the weekend and pick a few to discuss the following monday. My question was something along the lines that if we have all these transitional skulls, then why are scientists still looking for the missing links as we apparently have the skulls to prove it.

The answer was that these specimen were cast plastic, not authentic. No big deal right as we are in college and should not have the real ones. As he continued, he would go to all 7-9 skulls (can't remember anymore the exact number) and point to the small fragment of jaw, or occipital bone, or orbit bone or single tooth and say, we only have this little piece of this skull and had to create the rest of the skull to how we imagine it looks. On every skull except the chimp and human... seriously.

I got up and left that very day, dropped the class and never took another evolution class again. (now I do my own research)

Not to say that is everyones experience, or that in 10 years there has not been more information, that was just my experience and some of the above quotes reminded me of that.
Old    Flight007 (poser007)      Join Date: Nov 2004       11-02-2012, 10:25 PM Reply   
Believe me Johnny, the evidence has not gotten any better. In fact most of the photos you see in the text books are inference, meaning pictures conjured up in the mind of the artist just as you described. Interesting isn't it? Here is a quote from me....."Evolution the greatest fraud to ever come down the pike"
Old    Jeremy (wake77)      Join Date: Jan 2009       11-03-2012, 3:48 AM Reply   
^Why would someone take your word on it Flight? Are you an expert in the field? And no, reading a few books and watching a couple of documentaries doesn't make you an expert.

Johnny, that's great that you questioned your professor, but I don't think it was worthy of dropping the course. Scientists are able to create the bigger picture using only a few smaller ones in numerous fields. When the Challenger accident occurred in 1986, did they need all of the pieces of the shuttle to determine exactly what occurred? Maybe not the best analogy, but hopefully you catch my drift. And if the neanderthals are indeed the "first humans", how do you conjure they got on Earth?
Old    Jo Shmoe (joeshmoe)      Join Date: Jan 2003       11-03-2012, 8:28 AM Reply   
"Rich: As I stated above I have no idea how old the earth is. I do not believe it is billions or even millions of years old though."
so, 10, 000 years to 500,000? Will that put us in the ball park? what about all the oil in the earth that took Millions of years to make?
This is where the phrase "intellectually dishonest" comes from, otherwise intellectual individuals who believe the crap that some "religious leaders" spew.
Are you the religious authority, Flight? or who you listening to? Tom? Dick? Harry? The earth is a LOT older than 6,000 years(it doesn't take faith to believe that, thats stupidity)
Science is backed by facts! Scientist are seeking the truth, an unlike the morman leader who hid all the details of what god "told" him(great episode of southpark) in science all evidence is made public. Its not a conspiracy, the more scientist who confirm the data, just make it more plausible. Whereas in religion there are 1000's of different christian religions and everyone has their own beliefs(how they interpret the bible) There is not one religion that is going to bring everyone together and become one church or is"the" true sect(No matter what your minister says) Even the Amish are breaking into different religions!
Flight, We are in the 21st century you are several centuries behind with your beliefs(or if not yours beliefs of whoever you are listening to) When there was only one church(the one you probably don't like) where the people believed anything their priest told them! That church lasted hundreds years, then, somewhere around the 16th century the protestants, broke from the one religion and this pattern continues today, with more and new christian churches and beliefs coming into play. What do you need to be a minister? Probably just send your money in and get your certificate! The christian religion is divergent and this pattern is going to continue, so seek the Truth and speak the truth, and do not listen to someone who sent away for his certificate for $20!
Old    John Anderson (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       11-03-2012, 8:43 AM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by johnny_defacto View Post
He is talking about micro-evolution which can be seen in our recent history with humans, dogs, and a lot of other species. This is not evolution. When most refer to "evolution" they are referring to the creation of life and everything in it from a single celled non-living something...?
Who is this most? Your creationist friends? Dropping out of your college course is not exactly a great credential when it comes to giving us the facts on evolution.
Old    Johnny (johnny_defacto)      Join Date: Sep 2006       11-03-2012, 4:03 PM Reply   
Jeremy, I was well over half way through and doing well, I just could not put my heart and mind into studying any longer after that day, it was the final straw.... Looking back, if I would have stayed I probably would have done well, and would have learned a lot of new "facts" (joke), but I just could not do it anymore. I was not alone in feeling as many of us in the class were becoming more disenfranchised as the "facts" came rolling in. I was, however, alone in action as I do not know of anyone else willing to get a DNF or Incomplete on their record due to principal. Challenger analogy definately not a good one, but I do see the point you are trying to make. With the challenger, they had video to help, as well as knowing every single part on the spacecraft and they had a lot of the pieces.... as for my class, out of the 206/208 bones and 20+ teeth, they had a single tooth, or a little piece of one of the bones.... I doubt even with video evidence and vast knowledge of the shuttles appearance and function could the shuttle experts determine the cause of the explosion if they only had a 2' x 2' piece of the left wing....but we take as "fact" that science can know what an entire species will look like, even though they have never seen it, based on a little section or part of a bone.

John; I can't give you a number of "most" as I will never take a poll of all 7 billion people on this planet asking them "what does the term 'evolution' mean to you?"

I just assume when people talk about "evolution", they are talking about the origin of life and man, not adaptation or "micro-evolution" of a species, as they are not the same thing but do seem to get lumped together. That is what I was trying to convey.

As for my credentials, I have none. As I stated in my post after saying I dropped the class, I do my own research. Internet of course, books yes, friends and family members that are professors of geology, archeology and paleontology. Facts are what we are trying to get to because they lead to truth, and truth matters. It is just hard to find out exactly what those facts are, and thats all I am trying to learn.
Old    Johnny (johnny_defacto)      Join Date: Sep 2006       11-03-2012, 4:04 PM Reply   
Jo schmoe- what is the youngest age of a naturally made diamond? In other words, about how old are the diamonds that we are pulling out of the mines and putting on our wifes fingers?
Old    John Anderson (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       11-03-2012, 4:37 PM Reply   
The study of the origin of life is called abiogenesis.

edit: left out "study of the"

Last edited by fly135; 11-03-2012 at 4:40 PM.
Old    Jo Shmoe (joeshmoe)      Join Date: Jan 2003       11-03-2012, 5:36 PM Reply   
The diamonds were formed 100 miles inside the earth and some sort of volcanic activity(the type that no longer occurs)brought them to the surface which took one day.
Old    Rich (digg311)      Join Date: Sep 2007       11-03-2012, 10:01 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by poser007 View Post
Rich: As I stated above I have no idea how old the earth is. I do not believe it is billions or even millions of years old though. We will never know the truth of the earths age until we get the chance to ask the one who created it. To answer your question about the geologic formations etc. Young earth creationists believe that everything was laid down in a catastrophic event. They believe the world wide flood of Noah was that event. Many people have the idea that it just rained over the whole earth for 40 days but thats really not what happened. The bible says that the earth burst forth. Water gushed up at forces that were unbelieveable. yes it rained but most of the water came from the ground. before the flood it had never rained. The atmosphere was more like a green house and that is why things grew much bigger back then. On a side note. To answer your question about the size of people. Think about it for a second. I am 5"8 one of my best friends is 6'6 I can't stand standing next to him he makes me feel short. We have people on the earth of all sizes and always have. Dark skin light skin medium skinned. God has planted DNA that has the ability to adapt within a range but it has boundaries. Of course we see variety in life it's what makes us all different. We have small dogs large dogs white ones black ones spotted ones etc... but they are all dogs and always will be. Where evolution turns to faith is exactly how you described it above. Assuming since we see genetic variety in all life that given enough time that a dog could turn into something other than a dog. We have never seen that happen ever. That is why they are always looking for the proverbial missing link which has eluded evolutionists until this very day. The funny thing is if evolution were a fact and life has been here for billions or even million of years the earth would be screaming with them but we can't find just 1. On another side note the bible speaks about giants being in the land in those days. We have actually found evidence of giant skeleton remains proving that the Bible once again is an accurate account of history.

By the way, while we are talking about DNA have you ever wondered how something 1000 times more complex then our most technologically advanced super computers was created randomly by chance? If thats not faith I don't know what is.
Aren't you talking about speciation here? I mean, we've seen one species of animal that led to another ... hell, scientists have MADE that happen.

If you think all humans could have come from Noah and his family in just 4500 years or so, and we've adapted to include all of the countless genetic variations that we see today in that short time, I just don't get how you couldn't extrapolate that same rate of change out over a much longer timeline to see how easy it could be to eventually reach a completely different species. It feels like the same logic to me.
Old    Someone Else (deltahoosier)      Join Date: Jun 2002       11-03-2012, 10:49 PM Reply   
We have went from hard working anti-big government to lazy and live off the government in just a hundred years or 2. What makes you think we can't progress like this in 4500 years. Actually though. We had someone mention how we changed in height and size in a few hundred short years and we see different skin toned people mixing and creating different people in a short time. Not sure change are that big of a deal.
Old    Johnny (johnny_defacto)      Join Date: Sep 2006       11-04-2012, 7:44 PM Reply   
Jo schmoe: but how old are those diamonds? (age in years)
Old    Flight007 (poser007)      Join Date: Nov 2004       11-05-2012, 4:44 PM Reply   
We used to be taught actually we still are being taught by some teachers that stalagmites take thousands of years to form. We now know that they can form rapidly literally within weeks to gigantic proportions. i f a geologist did not know about Mount St helens erupting in the early 80's they would tell you that the rock formations were made hundreds of thousands or even millions of years ago. But we know they were created in just days. This is the kind of foolishness I'm talking about. We were there to witness it. If we weren't long time periods would have been given credit for the event.
Old    Jo Shmoe (joeshmoe)      Join Date: Jan 2003       11-05-2012, 7:03 PM Reply   
The diamonds are millions and millions years old, made back when the earth was a violent place.
Flight, you are not ten years old, nobody believes you when you infer that the world is less than 10,000 years old.
Old    Brett W (brettw)      Join Date: Jul 2007       11-05-2012, 7:08 PM Reply   
Flight, don't even try to infer that you know even the very basics of geology. If you think the earth is no more than 6000 years old, you either have absolutely no clue what you're talking about when it comes to geology or you've really just chosen to turn a blind eye to make your bible fit. I'm serious; if you want to throw out a few silly geological 'facts', go and really try to educate yourself on the subject 1st, and stay away from creationist sites when you do so.

Last edited by brettw; 11-05-2012 at 7:09 PM. Reason: typo
Old    Johnny (johnny_defacto)      Join Date: Sep 2006       11-05-2012, 8:19 PM Reply   
Jo: correct, they are millions+ years old. (3 billion est. by most references). A diamond is structured so tightly that it has no permeability, it does not and cannot absorb anything. not even microscopic bacteria or single elements or atoms. It cannot absorb Carbon 14 either. So why then, WHEN you can get someone with an AMS (huge "when" because both diamonds and dinosaur fossils are supposed to be millions+ years old so carbon dating will not work because both examples SHOULD BE carbon zero, meaning no carbon 14 left at all) to carbon date them, they are dated at around 55,000 years old. The amount of c14 found in the diamonds is well above the "background" amount. Granted, C-14 dating is for 'once living now dead' organisms that obtained their carbon from the atmosphere/food, but at billions or even millions of years old, a diamond should have ZERO C-14.

Also, less damning for evolution and billions of years but damaging still is the carbon dating of coal that is supposed to be a few hundred million years old.

Science is fascinating. Did you know that science once told us that the earth was flat and was the center of the universe? It was Good Science that made the correction. Good Science goes where the evidence leads you and is not afraid of the results.
Old    Barry Waste (barry)      Join Date: Apr 2002       11-05-2012, 9:41 PM Reply   
Flight-
Shake the dust from your feet and move along. It's good advice.
Old    Markj (markj)      Join Date: Apr 2005       11-05-2012, 9:51 PM Reply   
Jo and Brett, I believe you both should have used the word "imply", not infer. Elementary English guys! Carry on. I have my popcorn now. Btw, you both have some catching up to do with Flight. Have any of you read "The Case For Creation" by Lee Strobel? I challenge Wes, Brett and Jo to read it. It's a cheap fast read. In fact I'll send it to all of you free if you PM me with your addresses.
Old    Flight007 (poser007)      Join Date: Nov 2004       11-05-2012, 10:12 PM Reply   
I think it is interesting how everyone is badgering me about my belief in a young earth when all I said was I had no idea how old the earth was? i have no idea where this 6000 years came from. I am assuming it is because Wes put that number in my mouth. Oh by the way, If the radioactive element carbon-14 breaks down quickly—within a few thousand years—why do we still find it in fossils and diamonds? It’s a dilemma for evolutionists, who believe the rocks are millions of years old. Things that make ya go Hmmmmm

Reply
Share 

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 9:12 AM.

Home   Articles   Pics/Video   Gear   Wake 101   Events   Community   Forums   Classifieds   Contests   Shop   Search
Wake World Home

 

© 2012 eWake, Inc.    
Advertise    |    Contact    |    Terms of Use    |    Privacy Policy    |    Report Abuse    |    Conduct    |    About Us