BoobzTwo BoobzTwo

What does the word 'religion' mean to you?

▼

What does the word 'religion' mean to you?

Opinion of a non believer

from JoeUser Forums

Actual History is chockfull of the rise and fall of religions for millennia … many Ages. And they all have the following in common. Whenever they became week enough to lose control of the majority of the sheeple, they are replaced with a new Messiah and a new message just as the Christians have done with the ‘old Jewish’ religion when that too lost its strangle hold on the world of Man due to its barbarism as perceived by man in a new Age. Anyone who lives in a future time views almost everything from previous times to be barbaric (except for those that thrive in barbarism) and in this Christianity is no exception. It is my belief that the purpose of religion has always been nothing but a methodology to control the masses. The Bible (OT and NT) are replete with plagiarisms from the actual real world of the past. The NT is in itself a plagiarism from much of the OT. The stories of the Bible are impossible in the real world in which we all exist. I agree that many names and places were real, but this is just another plagiarism from the actual history of man. If you can place your hand on a Bible and swear that the Earth is what ~12,000 years old, then you are a fool. If you deny the evidence of science and technology, then you are doubly a fool. If you deny the evidence of early man or prehistoric man and can find no logic or truth in evolution you are a damned fool. And if you are so foolish as to allow the leadership of some rascals who lived thousands of years ago during the ‘glorious’ days when all this stuff was concocted … to control virtually every aspect of your life today, you are doomed. But all you have to do is ‘have faith’ and ignore your own perceptions of reality … and all will be yours, just bring your pocket book and come often … because we have castles and churches and armies to build to prove they are right, yea right. The all-powerful all-knowing one God would never vanquish the devil (certainly within reason for the all-powerful mindful of His sheep) because He would be destroying Himself … as there can be no light without the dark? What better ploy could man devise than to make the light and the dark impervious to the perceptions of man, the sheeple? The complete history of the universe and that insignificant little planet Earth with its complete compliment of well ‘everything’ … all described between the covers of a book written thousands of years ago by smart (-ass) people with nothing benign in mind whatsoever who championed a flat Earth for a thousand years for naught than to promote the new religion of the Age of Pisces … the two fish. It took man and a simple invention called a telescope to start the downward spiral of Religion (Christianity this time) and it cannot be stopped.

religion
63,745 views 180 replies
Reply #126 from JoeUser Forums Top

Is The Original New Testament Lost?   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kg-dJA3SnTA&feature=g-high-rec

This is an example of a debate as opposed to an argument. You do this by supporting your case not by telling me I do not know anything important. I am a better judge of what qualifies as ‘empirical’ evidence because I understand the term and I use the stuff all the time, what else am I supposed to use the bible, or should I make stuff up??? I am not qualified to refute anything in any science because I am not a scholar by any stretch and I have no majors in anything besides nuclear power which I suppose you don’t think works either. I cannot help it if you do not understand something there are plenty of things I don’t understand because that is just human. Besides you, I don’t know anyone who claims to know only the truth concerning the whole universe and everything in it … that is amazing because it cannot be true. I have gone out of my way to relate clips and things from other Christians but you scoff at them just as much as you do me. When you claim to have good evidence here or proof there, I say to myself: “Self, she doesn’t have one proof to justify her obsession with antiquity but she has proof galore that evolution doesn’t work anywhere, anyhow or anytime. And even though she thinks it is all just BS she wants to argue the few points other apologists think are somehow important.”  If there is some reasoning for this besides fear of discovering something important, well I sure don’t know what it is. And this attitude of yours doesn’t inspire me to get out my books and put much effort into something that you have outright rejected, what would be the point. As I said, you don’t want to discuss any of this stuff and I think it is because you cannot. If you KNOW the earth to be young then you should be able to prove it somehow without a bunch of begots, surely. You must have some figures to support a young earth right? You claim creationism is science but then you don’t like science because it doesn’t work and then you tell me that your science (as defined by you a YEC) works fine but mine (as defined by the rest of civilized society) is all screwed up??? You do not allow for conversing because you are too busy attacking everything I say like a good Christian Catholic is ordered to do.  You are supposed to defend and prove your case … not victimize the messengers of opposing beliefs none of which I participated in. You have no real patriotism to Christianity itself because you have no problem throwing other Christians under the buss (with me) if they dare to disagree with you too. You don’t see a pattern here, a bad one?

Lula you are intellectually dishonest in your blindness. I cannot discuss genesis with you by using science or evolutionary theory, so I tried to limit my argument to ~6,000 years and as I forecast, everything I stated at that point in recorded history was swept under the rug with your little comment about … “they were all sons of Noah …” According to you Noah’s line didn’t even begin until more than 1600 years later … and then they would have had to have enough children to branch around the known world which surely took another 500 magical years. Minimally you are trying to tell me that those cultures didn’t come into existence until ~2,000 BC??? But I thought we could go back 5 or 6 thousand years rather accurately. You change your argument to suit your purpose and that is disingenuous.

My Question

Quoting GirlFriendTess, reply 87
If you are going to discuss the timeframe of genesis, then I would have to discuss some of the Cultures that existed on the real earth when your ‘first two’ humans were being poofed from dirt. Like the Badari culture on the Nile (c. 4400–4000 BC), Comb Ceramic culture (also endured the 6th, 4th), Maykop culture, Yangshao culture, Merimde culture on the Nile (c. 4570–4250 BC), Predynastic Egypt, and Proto-Austronesian culture is based on the south coast of China. They combine extensive maritime technology, fishing hooks, nets and gardening. (c. 5000 BC), Samara culture, Sredny Stog culture, Lengyel culture in eastern Europe, Ubaid culture, Cycladic culture—a distinctive Neolithic culture amalgamating Anatolian and mainland Greek elements arose in the western Aegean before 4000 BC, Vinča culture (also endured the 6th, 4th, and 3rd millennia) and Yumuktepe and Gözlükule cultures in south Anatolia. But we aren’t going to go there are we? How am I supposed to even discuss genesis with you???

Your answer

Quoting lulapilgrim, reply 89
You are discussing Genesis with me. Every one of these cultures came from the descendants of the sons of Noe.

… disingenuous.

Reply #127 from JoeUser Forums Top

Quoting GirlFriendTess, reply 125
I am still waiting for your list of bad sciences!!!

For this discussion my list of bad sciences are:

1. Stellar or Cosmic Evolution--- that falsely claims that nothing ignited (big banged) into elements which over vast amount of time evolved into a completely structured universe of galaxies, stars, planets and moons orbiting in perfect balance and order.  

2. Darwin Evolution---that falsely claims that life came from non-life and that the inanimate produced the animate..that all plant, animal and human life evolved from a one-celled origin to the present state over a period of billions of years.  

3.Theistic Evolution---that God used Evolution to create the universe and everything in it.

PS. If someone tells you the emperor is well dressed, ask questions, and insist on seeing real evidence before believing it.

All I've been saying all alone is those real scientific evidences (such as DNA, polonium halos, decay of the earth's magnetic field, helium content, etc.etc.) the true Sciences provide disprove these 3 pseudo sciences. But you don't seem to understand this or even want to begin to understand it.

All people have always had a deep seated need to explain their origins. In modern times, Atheists and Agnostics adhere to Evolution because God is out of the picture to the point they've constructed Evolution into a new metaphysics, an "atheology", a worldview that's not totally godless because it replaces the God of Genesis with impersonal gods.

The atheistic belief systems of Secular and Atheistic Humanism , Nazism, Fascism, and Communism, etc. all flow from the belief in pseudoscientific foundations of Evolution.

Yes, Atheism gained the upper hand over science long ago and as a result, they reserve for themselves the exclusive right to explain the universe and all the world around us and no one is permitted to question their explanations. Any scientist who deviates from the official atheist dogmas will not be considered.

Multiplicity - Control multiple PCs using one keyboard and mouse
Reply #128 from JoeUser Forums Top

Lula I think we are well enough acquainted to stop playing games. You are going to convince me of nothing as long as you persist that the earth is young. If the earth is young then there is no such thing as science and we have proof of nothing at all … nothing at all. Obviously we both have made our choice. Your choice forces you believe without question whatever your church tells you and I cannot see this as free will because you have no input or options. I do not have anyone besides you or any organization telling me what I have to believe or not. And I can change my mind about things as I see fit as new information is made available to me. I do not go to gatherings of any kind and now that I ditched my GOP voter’s card I don’t even owe them lip service. When I read as a rule, I read for enjoyment or to brush up on something or to learn something new. I do not read anything with the intention of breaking something, only to learn … all you want to do is foolishly try to break the world I know because you have made a different one for yourself in your mind and you would force everyone else there too.

I am not trying to convince you of anything because we know that is silly for both of us. I do not know what you could possibly use to justify anything christian besides that bible of yours because that is all you have to claim a young earth or a Jesus figure. You assert you have scientists to back you up but they don’t seem to be able to tell time either. They are YEC’s versed in but intent on breaking the science they claim to know by using the exact same science we use to tell time … to prove that it doesn’t work … to tell time. You don’t beat on a pet evolutionary peeve or two and call that justifying christianity somehow … it is just a pointless attack. You cannot defend the bible without the bible so you attack anyone or anything contrary instead. You play the moral-hypocrisy card at every instance and claim divine knowledge but you don’t have any of your own and you cannot make anything in the bible work without magic. Science is science and biblical magic is gobbledygook from any scientific perspective. I don’t think you have your own opinions anymore and wonder now if you ever did. I just don’t have it in me to become a mindless slave to anything I do not need, don’t understand, cannot comprehend, is impossible to detect, verify or question and is completely impotent … AWOL … not the way to run anything IMO. But he will be back sometime after he remembers how to show himself to man again, hummm as he rains death and destruction on the world. Food for thought: If the universe wasn’t poofed into existence, then the earth couldn’t just be poofed out of it. That is a big plus for humanity and company!

Lula none of these things you listed are sciences that is why it is called modern evolutionary theory and it is instrumental in virtually all the sciences particularly the theoretical, the cutting edge. I don't think Darwin postulated that we came from nothing just the evolutionary process as he saw it with his limited capabilities and he certainly had nothing to say about astronomy either. I don't see things like this because I don't know how anyone could. I know you don't want evolution to be true but you need to be a little more specific. Your main concern IMO is to deny that we have simian roots and that is fine and something we should discuss but not as long as the earth is young IYO. DNA is all on my side and I refuse to allow you to interpret it as you see fit. It is easy to find on the net, just type in DNA and hit enter … then read. I told you the last time you brought these things up that we could discuss each and every one which I am sure is the last thing you want. But there is the matter of the age of the earth that takes precedence. If the earth is not almost 5 billion years old then it doesn’t matter what I say … and that is your opinion.

Quoting lulapilgrim, reply 127
The atheistic belief systems of Secular and Atheistic Humanism , Nazism, Fascism, and Communism, etc. all flow from the belief in pseudoscientific foundations of Evolution.
You are way out there in loony-land and desperate to go here. None of this shit has anything to do with you or me nor has it anything to do with what you or I believe in so if stupidity was not the cause for this then ignorance was. I don’t GAS about your names and labels because they are ridiculously and catholically bigoted. Is this kind of bollox the best you can do in the defense of your creator, how pitiful … don’t you see what you have become? At this point considering how low you are willing to go, the ONLY thing I will discuss with you is the age of the universe … from my point of view it is the simplest to prove mostly mathematically. Until you stop calling me names and attaching me to whatever ungodly groups you choose, I really don’t want to talk further. I think you do this for your own benefit because you are the insecure one. That is why you only argue and try to break things … because you cannot justify christianity, Catholicism, the bible or JC without magic … or you would have tried to by now with something besides the platitudes of YOUR clergy.   

Reply #129 from JoeUser Forums Top

But there is the matter of the age of the earth that takes precedence. If the earth is not almost 5 billion years old then it doesn’t matter what I say … and that is your opinion.

No it's not my opinion. It's actual facts of Science that suggest the earth is young, much much younger than 4.5 billion years old.

Here they are again for you to mull over.

 

Evolutionists claim the earth is 4.5 billion years old. Yet, There are a number of actual facts of Science that give limits for the age of the earth. One of them is the amount of radiogenic Helium in the atmosphere. It's far too little for the evolutionary belief the earth is 4.5 billions of years old. there was also a high retention of Helium which provides double proof for a young earth for if the earth were millions of years old, that helium would have totally escaped. Analysis of zircon crystals from deep in the earth revealed that almost no increase of lead escaped. This is powerful evidence of a young earth, consistent with a 6-10,000 year age. The population of the earth suggests the earth is "young". Evolutionists think humankind has been here for 1 or 2 million years. Even including wars, diseases and deaths, and only 2 children, the population would be 10 to the 2070 power in one million years. The salt and mineral content of the oceans suggest the Earth is "young". The earth's magnetic field suggests the Earth is "young". I've already mentioned trillions of polonium halos found in rock formations, granite, all over this planet. Robert Gentry has written a book and reported his findings in professional journals, but unfortunately, he's been shut out of the evolutionists science community because they realize his discoveries support a young earth and very strong evidence for Special Creation.

 

Reply #130 from JoeUser Forums Top

Quoting lulapilgrim, reply 129
Reply #129 lulapilgrim
(YEC) Requirements for a real scientist and proper expert (hahaha): Robert Gentry was influenced by a televangelist in 1959 and subsequently converted to Seventh-day Adventism and became a strict creationist (for over 50 years now). What is the guy supposed to do, be honest or maybe support god as you think you are doing. Hummm a tough one let's see, what should a real nuclear physicist and real scientist choose, the truth or magic??? Other than that, you have done nothing besides post a statement from someone(s) unknown with ‘errors and misstatements’ and with such authority as to pretend you know what you are talking about. DO YOU want to discuss one of these things or are you content with just reposting this over again and telling me how profound it is? It didn’t come from the bible so how could it be infallibly true anyway; it is after all done ‘scientifically’??? ... yada yada yada ... how old did you prove the universe was here I must have missed it? DO YOU want to discuss anything or are you content just telling me why the world cannot work without your specific brand of totalitarianism?

PS - Looking at your numbers though I vote we discuss populations and take a closer look at them numbers.

Reply #131 from JoeUser Forums Top

 

Quoting GirlFriendTess, reply 130
DO YOU want to discuss anything or are you content just telling me why the world cannot work without your specific brand of totalitarianism?

Quoting lulapilgrim, reply 127
Yes, Atheism gained the upper hand over science long ago and as a result, they reserve for themselves the exclusive right to explain the universe and all the world around us and no one is permitted to question their explanations. Any scientist who deviates from the official atheist dogmas will not be considered.

Quoting GirlFriendTess, reply 130
Requirements for a real scientist and proper expert (hahaha): Robert Gentry was influenced by a televangelist in 1959 and subsequently converted to Seventh-day Adventism and became a strict creationist (for over 50 years now). What is the guy supposed to do, be honest or maybe support god as you think you are doing. Hummm a tough one let's see, what should a real nuclear physicist and real scientist choose, the truth or magic???

So you believe that because Gentry believes in the God of Genesis he's not a real scientist! His work on Polonium-218 halos which is a short lived isotope with a half-life of only 3 minutes was absolutely brilliant and conducted in a completely scientific way, BUT since he discovered something which deviates from the official atheist dogmas and refutes Evolution, it will not be considered...even by you.

Since you are the big science talker, instead of slamming Gentry personally, I thought you'd come back with a complete refutation of his true Scientific findings. Don't waste your time, those polonium halos in the bedrocks of the entire earth are solid scientific evidence of God's instantaneous Creation.   

Quoting GirlFriendTess, reply 130
how old did you prove the universe was here I must have missed it?

No one knows how old the universe is and determination of its age is beyond the competence of natural Science because the creation of it was a unique supernatural  event at which no human was present. And honest astronomers will be candid and admit that astronomy is not strong enough to support Stellar Evolution claims.

Anyway, I made my point and you made yours.

If you want to move the discussion to the numbers of population which suggest a much, much younger age of the earth is it's OK by me however, I much rather challenge your comment about my "brand of totalitarianism"! ...but... it may be later as the Advent and Christmas season is upon us and I've much to do.

 

Reply #132 from JoeUser Forums Top

Quoting lulapilgrim, reply 131
Reply #131 lulapilgrim
Lula you are physical proof there can be no god, or at least not yours. 10^2070 people huh in a million years huh, is ample testimony of your cluelessness on several points. I gave you the opportunity to do something beyond quoting other people and pretending you know the science behind whatever they too are trying to slander ... or your own 'proofs' for that matter ... CLUELESS. I am no longer willing to participate in this sham of yours under your FUBAR belief system. You're a rock among people and you belong in the Flintstoneian world you have imagined for yourself. I have no problem giving you the benefit of the doubt on many issues because we at least are only human and we do make mistakes, but it changes nothing; you never gave me the chance because all you know how to do is to attack everything and everyone. But people like you and your insane church are not open to ANY discussion because you only know one thing … how to pretend to make the bible work with all its ‘scientific’ magic and use it as your guiding light in the face of reality. I will discuss science with you but your RCC and all it stands for is your problem and I will not fight your RCC-C (BS) period. What does poofing thing into existence have to do with our inability to tell when ithings were poofed into place? You believe the earth to be 6,000 years old (without any proof at all by your own admission) but we are sooo stupid that we cannot even look back that very small amount of time. Don’t give me this crap about how inept humans are or that we are so inferior as a species being the representatives of the planets sentience, but we get confused tying our shoes without your god (of course just yours) guiding your every step so you can explain it all to us. Lula have fun with all your Christmas stuff and take all the time you need to recharge your credulity battery pack. Please, just wait for me to seek you out for your infallible knowledge and truths … if I run into a scientific dilemma beyond the ken of our feeble human minds. But don’t hold your breath. If you want to discuss something for a change that would be nice too … but I won’t hold my breath either. Big science talker am I: I am just a believer in science (there is only one kind) and I don’t have any other resources at my disposal with which to make an argument but you are just being as foolish as always … Mrs. Bible thumper. How old did you say the universe was, I must have missed it again?

 

Reply #133 from JoeUser Forums Top

Quoting lulapilgrim, reply 129
Reply #129 lulapilgrim
Just for comparison, that number 10^2070 far exceeds the number of stars in the universe by a factor of 5*10^2047 or thereabouts. Or if you like all the sand grains on all the beaches of the world and you would be even off by more here. I would say this is more ridiculous than usual with you because you seem to like to keep your errors somewhere between a factor of a million and a billion but this far exceeds those. When you use someone else’s work, you need to be prepared to defend your argument which you never do simply because you cannot; you are too busy telling me how screwed up all non-catholics are and how faulty our science and math are (hahaha) because only YEC’s understand the real truth, real science and real math … good fucking grief. What a hole you have dug for yourself and all because you listen to other catholics (or YEC’s) and take their EVERY word as if from god … and you continue to refuse to look at anything with any other perspective or even realistically for that matter. There is absolutely NOTHING I could learn from a closed mind like this besides the things you believe on hearsay alone which are all you bring to any discussion and you cannot prove a damn thing … not one … not any of it. Assume 100 billion stars per galaxy and 100 billion galaxies (with another hundred billion galaxies thrown in just to weigh this in your favor) … that equates to 2x10^22 stars in total … catch my drift here, not likely. Without your bible in hand I hazard you would be struck deaf and dumb concerning any subject matter ... well that seems to be the case. YOU have made it absolutely clear how far a YEC is willing to go to warp reality to their will so yes I doubt anyone willing to tout the label of YEC and scientist in the same sentence or document or person, sight unseen because they are a contradiction of terms. 

Reply #134 from JoeUser Forums Top

Not sure what happened but not ready to post yet, sorry.

Reply #135 from JoeUser Forums Top

Quoting GirlFriendTess, reply 124
You don’t care I know but you don’t seem to understand how many thousands of professional scientists you insult every time you open your biblically enhanced scientific mouth. If you want to understand the basics then you look them up just like I did. After you look up the basics let me know if you are still foolish enough to go real scientist vs. ‘YEC scientist’ because I am not ashamed of my reps and can list them in their hundreds with their PhD's and scientific pedigrees.

I'm sure you can list hundreds of scientists but at the same time, do you know there are scientists who no longer support Darwinism?

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1653902/posts

Reply #136 from JoeUser Forums Top

 

 

Quoting GirlFriendTess, reply 77
The age of the Earth is 4.54 ± 0.05 billion years (4.54 × 109 years ± 1%). This age is based on evidence from radiometric age dating of meteorite material and is consistent with the ages of the oldest-known terrestrial and lunar samples. What do you offer to this discussion besides it just cannot be true?

Quoting lulapilgrim, reply 88
I offer the work of two scientists. Guy Berthault, a member of the French Academy of Sciences who around 1988 proved beyond little doubt that Charles Lyell's theory of the geologic column (i.e. that layers of sediment were formed over millions of years) is false. Geological Society of France, 1993, and Julien Lan and Guy Berthault, "Experiments of Stratification of heterogeneous sand mistures, " CEN Technical Journal 8 (1):3750, 1994; Guy Berthault, "Experiments on laminations of sediments," CEN Technical Journal 3:2529, 1988.



And another scientist, Dr. Robert Gentry, has shown by evidence of Polonium halos that the Earth had to be created instantaneously, otherwise Polonium 216, with a half life of 3 minutes, could not exist.

Quoting GirlFriendTess, reply 93
French young Earth creationist Guy Berthault claims to have discovered sedimentation properties that dispute several stratigraphic and relative dating principles used by modern field geologists through numerous laboratory studies. Berthault's knowledge of the sedimentology literature and stratigraphic field methods are decades or even centuries out of date (just as with Wells). Because of his lack of knowledge (honesty), Berthault's experiments often involved "reinventing the wheel". When compared with Berthault, YEC Steve Austin (1994, chapter 2 only) has a better understanding of these fundamental principles. And now knowing that Julien Y. Lan is also a YEC and close friend of YEC Guy Berthault; so what would you expect them to say when they profess up front that GOD is the ultimate authority on everything, give this nonsense a brake please. Besides as usual, you are after Darwin and now his friends like Charles Lyell who was born in 1791 for goodness sake. Berthault's "Stratigraphy" was simply his rediscovering what geologists already knew and have moved beyond. This is not an appealing subject for me, are you sure you want to go here?

I should have known better …

You may say that Berthault's experiments and studies on sedimentology are decades out of date, and that he lacks knowledge and honesty, but it isn't true. Those at the conference demonstrated with empirical data that such geological time is not available for Evolution." Perhaps you would like to attempt to refute his work at the website listed below.

Berthault's work together with Robert Gentry's blows a big hole in Darwin Evolution.   

 

Pope Benedict XVI’s Call for Both Sides to be Heard

The 150th anniversary of Darwin’s "Origin of the Species" in November 2009 will be the occasion for a unique conference at Pope Pius V University in Rome presenting a scientific refutation of evolution theory. According to Russian sedimentologist Alexander Lalamov, “Everything contained in Darwin’s Origin of Species depends upon rocks forming slowly over enormous periods of time. The November conference demonstrates with empirical data that such geological time is not available for evolution.” Recently returned from a ground-breaking geological conference in Kazan, sedimentologist Guy Berthault will present the findings of several sedimentological studies conducted and published in Russia. In one of these, the age of the rock formation surveyed was found to be 0.01% of the age attributed to it by the geological time-scale—instead of an age of 10 million years, the actual age was no more than 10 thousand years. “Contrary to the conventional wisdom,” Lalamov observed, “these rocks formed quickly, and the fossils they contain must be relatively young. This finding contradicts the evolutionary interpretation of the fossil record.” www.sedimentology.fr

According to US biophysicist Dr. Dean Kenyon, “Biological macroevolution collapses without the twin pillars of the geological time-scale and the fossil record as currently interpreted. Few scientists would contest this statement. This is why the upcoming conference concentrates on geology and paleontology. Recent research in these two disciplines adds powerful support to the already formidable case against teaching Darwinian macroevolution as if it were proven fact.”

Participating scientists include:

--Guy Berthault, a renowned sedimentologist from France and experimenter in fundamental physics and sedimentology, member of the French Geological Society and the Association of Sedimentologists.

--Maciej Giertych, a population geneticist from Kornik, Poland, who holds advanced degrees in genetics, forestry and tree physiology.

--Thomas Seiler, a physicist from Germany with a Ph.D. in physics from the University of Munich

--Jean de Pontcharra, a physicist in France and director of the renowned research group CEA-LETI (Commissariat à l'Energie Atomique, Laboratoire d'Electronique et de Technologie de l'Informatique).

--Josef Holzschuh, a geophysicist from Australia with a Ph.D. in geophysics from the University of Western Australia.



 

Reply #137 from JoeUser Forums Top

Quoting lulapilgrim, reply 135
Reply #135  lulapilgrim
Not playing this game of yours Lula. You seem to think all you have to do say something and that makes it true. I am not smart enough to get on a stage with any real scientist … and you are scientifically illiterate. That means you research ONLY people who already agree with you and that makes them truth tellers too … just like you. The vast majority of the scientific community and academia supports evolutionary theory as the only explanation that can fully account for observations in the fields of biology, paleontology, molecular biology, genetics, anthropology, and others. One 1987 estimate found that "700 scientists [0.15% just in US]... (out of a total of 480,000 U.S. earth and life scientists [99.85%]) ... give credence to creation-science". An expert in the evolution-creationism controversy, professor and author Brian Alters, states that "99.9 percent of scientists accept evolution".  A 1991 Gallup poll of Americans found that ~5% of scientists (including those with training outside biology) identified themselves as creationists. More than half do not believe in a biblical creation so you are really on thin ice here. I think you are insane to go with them there odds but the really good ‘scientists’ are YEC’s and I would expect no less from you. This is why you have so few to choose from and you are stuck with their argument being unable to speak for yourself. It is also why most have little credibility in the scientific community, why they cannot get their papers published (no support) and are useful only to creationists because they are the only ones who believe everything they want to without proof.  

Reply #138 from JoeUser Forums Top

Quoting lulapilgrim, reply 136
Reply #136 lulapilgrim
Just like you, your ridiculous church has a hard on for Darwinian evolution too imagine that. Still opposed to Galileoian evolution too I see huh. The TWO vehicles that flaunted reality in the face of the church and they never forgive or forgive. Well the earth is not flat and has no pillars, no elephant and no sky dome, besides we are the center of nothing, a dust mote in the real universe. Radiometric dating works just fine but can be abused or neglectfully errored.

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

Radiometric Dating is Flawed!! Really?? How Old IS the Earth?   http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&NR=1&v=iGDrq8rikJc

Reply #139 from JoeUser Forums Top

 

 

Quoting GirlFriendTess, reply 137
The vast majority of the scientific community and academia supports evolutionary theory as the only explanation that can fully account for observations in the fields of biology, paleontology, molecular biology, genetics, anthropology, and others. One 1987 estimate found that "700 scientists [0.15% just in US]... (out of a total of 480,000 U.S. earth and life scientists [99.85%]) ... give credence to creation-science".

I know. I know that many of the fields of Science are controlled by Atheistic and Secular Humanists and run the show. I know that and have admitted it all along. The problem for them is they aren't getting anywhere proving ET a fact, but claim it is across academia and for public consumption. That's dishonest.

What you don't understand though is that these pro-evolution scientists refuse to allow the 700 scientists any recognition of their work when they are the ones making headway and ET is collapsing under the scientific weight of their findings.

Quoting GirlFriendTess, reply 137
This is why you have so few to choose from and you are stuck with their argument

I could care less how many there are to choose from. I prefer one scientist discovering scientific facts than 100 imagining pseudo science and masquerading that as fact.  Just as in medicine. I'd prefer one good doctor telling me the truth than 100 telling me what they imagine is going on as though it was fact.

Anyway, their scientific work is empirically solid and has not ever been refuted by any evolutionist scientists. That's because solid science can't be refuted...it's truth. Don't you think Gentry's rock solid (pun intended) work on Polonium halos would be refuted by your camp if they could? Of course.

Quoting GirlFriendTess, reply 137
It is also why most have little credibility in the scientific community, why they cannot get their papers published (no support) and are useful only to creationists because they are the only ones who believe everything they want to without proof.

Let's be honest. You know the deal by now. Evolutionist scientists i.e. the scientific establishment control these fields of science..they have the majority and they run the show, make the rules and decide who gets support and who doesn't.

And let's be honest again. By now these evolutionist scientists know the gig is up as far as proving ET. It never occurred and it will never occur and they know it. There is no proof and when something is discovered like that soft blood tissue in the T-Rex, well, the findings which actually disprove ET, have to be twisted and bent to make Evolution time work.

As far as evolution science, it's all but dead but not allowed to die as it has become a worldview upon which all kinds of "isms" have developed, such as I mentioned earlier. Too much rides on ET for the truth to let be known so they continue the lie (to people like you it doesn't matter much to me), but selling it to unwary school children makes me sick.

 

Reply #140 from JoeUser Forums Top

You are not qualified to even discuss this Lula and you will it seems never stop using this archaic church terminology. The decisions are made among the eggheads and all we are allowed are opinions. 10,000 to 1 though says you are clueless and just being argumentative. When you argue against something you don't believe possible in the first place (a non-squinter) in your 6k world ... is stupid … just pointless arguments. And no that is not how science works, how could anything besides the bible work that way. Lula you are not talking about a little lie which cannot be maintained long, but evolutionary theory … not a chance. So now we are responsible for ET too huh, hahaha. I tell you what, you let me write a critique of what I think the RCC is all about and automatically apply it to you ... would it mean anything to you, I think not. Well that is what you are trying to do to me. You (a nonbeliever) expect to be able to tell me what science is and why it is bad and why it cannot work, etc. ... and you actually appear to think I am supposed to see the light because of your ramblings, get a life. Except your magic book, can you explain how anything works because if science doesn’t, nothing does. Until you prove the age of the earth, there is not much else to discuss IMO.

 

Reply #141 from JoeUser Forums Top

Transitional fossils are a dime a dozen unless you do not believe in evolution from the get-go because the bible says differently somehow. Here is another clip from Ken Miller (a catholic) on Whale Evolution and Intelligent Design if you will. 

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

Whale Evolution and Intelligent Design   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q9a-lFn4hqY

Reply #142 from JoeUser Forums Top

Quoting lulapilgrim, reply 139
Reply #139 lulapilgrim
Lula this is the crux of the matter; you believe in a god and I do not. That should be the end of this here and we should be able to coexist, but we never will because you won’t have any of that nonsense will you? I believe you have and will continue to willfully lie, cheat and steal in the name of god as you see fit for your own selfish reasons.  I know that I wouldn’t do any of those things unless a dire threat warranted it and there were no other options. I don’t know how to cheat in math, in science, in (my) education, on my experiences or my understanding and cannot find a reason why I should want to. I have no agenda, I just want to learn as much as I can while I still can … and I don’t care what you believe because your opinions (and that’s all they are to me) have no influence in my life at all, more power to you. You cannot make a constructive argument because you don’t know enough of anything besides the bible to make it intelligible. You cannot tell me the age of the earth scientifically because you do not know how to (without begots). And it seems that your most competent ‘scientists’ don’t know how to either, a measly 6,000 years … ask yourself why. You do not appear to have the desire to actually learn anything yourself, to make your own arguments, to make your own mind up, to educate yourself, to question anything RCC, to question one word in the bible or to question one word from creation ‘scientists’ because god kept all these people 100% prim and proper for 6,000 years … not one mistake or error … just like in genesis … not one mistake or error right? You need a different hobby Lula because you aren’t very good with this one. The reason you have to have faith to believe what you profess to believe is because you do not have anything else or anything intelligent to offer in support, just magic, a child’s imaginary magic at best. You refuse to talk person to person with me because you don’t know how to do that either. You cannot remove the offensive wording you always use because all your hate mail uses it and you are not smart enough to remove it … you have no other ammo. And you institutionalize me and hold me personally responsible for every humanists, atheists, secularists, Marxists, communists, socialists, deviants, criminals, democrats, freethinkers, abortionists,  etc. (or any of the others you like) spoken words, actions or activities you can think of or make up … all my fault. You are as phony as a three dollar bill and I am tired of your nonsense, your pointless and unwarranted attacks, your personal prejudice, your personal hypocrisy, your abrasiveness, your personal bigotry, your complete lack of compassion for anyone else, your complete lack of belief in anything provable, your absolutely closed mind and all your pitiful and pointless excuses and appeasements. I graduated grade school many moons ago and I do not like you dragging me back to those immature days so you can pretend the world is 6,000 years old. You ask too much of me … let me know when you are willing to compromise on anything … but I won’t hold my breath. 6,000 years old my ass!

Reply #143 from JoeUser Forums Top

" That should be the end of this here"

 

Then why do you keep going?

Reply #144 from JoeUser Forums Top

Everything YEC's believe in requires magic or the supernatural. I would say they live in a magical universe much different than any real natural universe ... like the one I live in. People like Jythier and Lula are just fooling themselves simply because they only offer magical explanations and only accept magical reasoning, but they will not accept any proof or evidence as the explanation for anything, end of story (for them). Most go to the extreme of not even looking at the real sciences or their explanations of how science works preferring to let their unscientific church clergy explain it to them ... they don't even look at the actual arguments being made by the scientific community because (they don't care to) they only believe magic. My guess is that they are overwhelmed because they KNOW the amount of evidence we have that explains the universe and how almost everything in it works naturally and that scares them to death. So they burry their heads in the sand and pretend we are the clueless ones ... but it is they who believers in a first century world view with all their infallible insights, the mechanisms of reality and their heavy emphasis on how nothing actually works at all without magic. Not my cup of tea to be sure.

10 - The Scientific Method Made Easy   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zcavPAFiG14

PS – I do this Jythier because the truth is important and NOT what one believes or wants it to be, it is what actually took place and all you offer is unfounded and improvable magic which defies everything we know about the natural world and what being human means.

PSS - I don't care if you look at the video because there is no reasonable reason why you cannot ... you just don't want to.

 

Reply #145 from JoeUser Forums Top

So, perhaps you should talk about the truth.

For example, the Big Bang Theory is not an origins argument.  It is the theory that explains how the observable universe acts currently.  Evolutionary theory is a theory explaining how genetic changes take place in the observable universe.  The problem is that instead of maintaining this, people take those theories and throw them back in time, making many assumptions about the past in order to create an alternate history. 

Reply #146 from JoeUser Forums Top

Quoting Jythier, reply 145
For example, the Big Bang Theory is not an origins argument. It is the theory that explains how the observable universe acts currently. Evolutionary theory is a theory explaining how genetic changes take place in the observable universe. The problem is that instead of maintaining this, people [what people] take those theories and throw them back in time, making many assumptions about the past in order to create an alternate history.
I agree with the first two sentences but not the last. In the hopes that you want to discuss this, I would ask a few questions. What makes you think that what you described as ‘science’ is valid, where did you read this often enough to quote it? Did you attend any scientific engagements (open to public) … to be able to make any kind of personal observation? Have you read one paper or book that actually goes to the trouble of explaining how something works … anything? These things do not need to be taken on faith or belief because they all come with instruction and support data located in any but the catholic encyclopedia of course which is right up there with ‘answers in genesis’, no partiality there???.

Unlike christians we do not rely on the oldest thing we can find because scientifically that is always the point at which we know the least about it. We take what little we know and build a case around that untill we know more and more. If you have (or acquire) an education in almost anything besides the bible and scripture, well our information is public knowledge and available to anyone capable of reading it. If you know the basics there is no reason for you to have to take anyone else’s word or opinion because you will be able to figure things out all by yourself. But that is the problem … you don’t read their actual arguments or their actual explanations preferring instead to pass judgment based solely on arguments made by people whose sole purpose is to refute the natural world in its entire spender … anything pro scientific at all? The reason we are at odds is because you do not read any of our readily available material even though it is there for the simple cost of just looking … seems a bit much for christians though … guess some things will never be known … at least by me.

You have stated that there are “good and bad sciences” and that you like the foreword looking kind not the backward looking kind (concept confuses me from the get-go). Can I assume that you have read enough about the good kind to understand it enough to be able to make a judgment call of your own. What sciences were they, the good ones I mean … you never specify … you just say stuff??? There are thousands of sciences and subsets (specialties) to choose from so this should be a simple request for you … shouldn’t it???

PS - Don't mind discussing things as long as that is what we do.

Reply #147 from JoeUser Forums Top

I'm not a scientist.  I don't really care that much about science.  I'm an accountant, or a programmer, or something like that.  But there are scientists who disagree with the scientists you agree with.  I agree with them.  Answers in Genesis, for one.  See, they are able to look at those research papers, understand them, and find where the problems are and point them out, because they have been trained in those scientific fields.  I can only tell you what they said.

Reply #148 from JoeUser Forums Top

Quoting Jythier, reply 147
I'm not a scientist (me either so what?). I don't really care that much about science(I do so what?). I'm an accountant, or a programmer, or something like that (how about an accountant that does programming). But there are scientists who disagree with the scientists you agree with. (There are always people in all aspects of life that oppose the status quo and that is why we vote on such things, religious matters, governmental matters, scientific matters or any matters that affect a substantial portion of the population??? Just as there are christians that disagree with one another we in the real sciences experience the same dilemma as does every other organization. Of the earth sciences in just the US, we have ~480,000 scientists of which ~700 differ from the consensus. Sounds like a lot but consider the %’s. 99.85% of them supports evolutionary theory and 0.15% (your guys) support some vestige of creationism. On the world scale I think it is 99.99% for evolutionary theory and 0.01% for creationism. I like my odds much better and when you consider the motives of your chosen scientists (creationists almost to a person) it is easy to see why they are rebuked.) I agree with them (and the reason is obvious). Answers in Genesis, for one. (maybe you could relate the evils of evolutionary theory as stated there?) See, they are able to look at those research papers, understand them (if they understood them like the other 99.99% do there would be no appreciable disagreement), and find where the problems are and point them out, because they have been trained in those scientific fields (yea but trained with what purpose in mind (all creationists)). I can only tell you what they said. (Thank you for being honest)
I don’t want to fight with anyone, not even you. I have given up on Lula because she is just a mirror of the RCC (in her mind) and questions nothing unless she doesn’t believe it. But you don’t give me much to work with when you oppose everything I say and usually without any personal conviction or knowledge. It is super frustrating when I tell you how something you don’t know anything about works and you turn right around and tell me (not explain) that I am wrong because you found someone else who says so. I can no longer deal with the generic term christian because if only tells me one thing about them … that they believe in a controlling and interfering god and nothing more. Same for me as an atheist, I don’t believe in any god and that says only one thing about me … I don’t believe in god and nothing more. More can be gleaned about christians in general because they have the same instruction manual. I don’t have a manual and am forced (by choice) to figure things out for myself as best I can after all I had to live with myself.

Reply #149 from JoeUser Forums Top

Quoting lulapilgrim, reply 136
Participating scientists include: --Guy Berthault, a renowned sedimentologist from France and experimenter in fundamental physics and sedimentology, member of the French Geological Society and the Association of Sedimentologists. --Maciej Giertych, a population geneticist from Kornik, Poland, who holds advanced degrees in genetics, forestry and tree physiology. --Thomas Seiler, a physicist from Germany with a Ph.D. in physics from the University of Munich. --Jean de Pontcharra, a physicist in France and director of the renowned research group CEA-LETI (Commissariat à l'Energie Atomique, Laboratoire d'Electronique et de Technologie de l'Informatique). --Josef Holzschuh, a geophysicist from Australia with a Ph.D. in geophysics from the University of Western Australia.
Lula, which of the 480,000 US earth scientists (these are just from the US) would you like me to quote to rebuff? Maybe a better question would be why I should respond at all because I can produce hundreds for every one of the few you can copy and paste from?

PS – Don’t you know of any American apologists 'scientists'?

 

Reply #150 from JoeUser Forums Top

 

Quoting lulapilgrim, reply 136
According to Russian sedimentologist Alexander Lalamov, “Everything contained in Darwin’s Origin of Species depends upon rocks forming slowly over enormous periods of time. The November conference demonstrates with empirical data that such geological time is not available for evolution.” Recently returned from a ground-breaking geological conference in Kazan, sedimentologist Guy Berthault will present the findings of several sedimentological studies conducted and published in Russia. In one of these, the age of the rock formation surveyed was found to be 0.01% of the age attributed to it by the geological time-scale—instead of an age of 10 million years, the actual age was no more than 10 thousand years. “Contrary to the conventional wisdom,” Lalamov observed, “these rocks formed quickly, and the fossils they contain must be relatively young. This finding contradicts the evolutionary interpretation of the fossil record.” www.sedimentology.fr

Quoting lulapilgrim, reply 136
According to US biophysicist Dr. Dean Kenyon, “Biological macroevolution collapses without the twin pillars of the geological time-scale and the fossil record as currently interpreted. Few scientists would contest this statement. This is why the upcoming conference concentrates on geology and paleontology. Recent research in these two disciplines adds powerful support to the already formidable case against teaching Darwinian macroevolution as if it were proven fact.”

Participating scientists include:
--Guy Berthault, a renowned sedimentologist from France and experimenter in fundamental physics and sedimentology, member of the French Geological Society and the Association of Sedimentologists.--Maciej Giertych, a population geneticist from Kornik, Poland, who holds advanced degrees in genetics, forestry and tree physiology. --Thomas Seiler, a physicist from Germany with a Ph.D. in physics from the University of Munich--Jean de Pontcharra, a physicist in France and director of the renowned research group CEA-LETI (Commissariat à l'Energie Atomique, Laboratoire d'Electronique et de Technologie de l'Informatique). --Josef Holzschuh, a geophysicist from Australia with a Ph.D. in geophysics from the University of Western Australia.

Quoting GirlFriendTess, reply 149
Lula, which of the 480,000 US earth scientists (these are just from the US) would you like me to quote to rebuff?

TRUTH. Scientific TRUTH. Truth is constant and must exclude error. Truth is universal and if a thing is true, it is to be accepted as true,  no matter who discovers or says it.

Try, if you want, but not one of these 480,000 U.S.  earth scientists or any other scientists from anywhere in the whole wide world can produce scientific truth (actual empirical data) that Darwin or Stellar Evolution has ever occurred, is occurring or could ever occur.  All of their arguments in support of it have been shown to be untenable.

That is because Science itself, specifically the modern fields of Geology, Paleontology and Molecular Genetics, have provided a formidable case against the billions of years required for Stellar and Darwin Evolution to have occurred. No amount of time can save Darwin or natural macroEovlution, as the fossil record shows no evidence whatsoever of evolutionary descent and naturalistic macroevolution cannot occur because DNA is designed to allow only change/variety within kind to occur.

Science has shown all who are willing to KNOW truth that humankind did not ever, nor, in any way, shape or form, could have ever evolved from ape-kind or from a common ancestor.

It is from this standpoint that we can rightly claim that Evolution Theory stands exposed as both the worst mistake and the most enduring myth of modern times.