Print

[Heet]

Al Gore created it just before he invented the internet.

[Wargen]

QUOTE (jujupinto85 @ Mar 12 2003, 05:34 PM)

Well, im discussing some things in my theology class, and one of the topic is Where is the universe, the world, come from? like how was it created and the such (how did we become into excitence?) any side, point of view, religion, beliefe, is of course, welcome thanks

You can always ask Billy Graham, he'll be glad to help you

[Rollo]

QUOTE

p.s. We already had this conversation, and my head is still hurting from it last month, although it was a good one.

This is a hard one not to get caught up in!  I remember one time M3Del started a topic about Howard Stern of all things and it somehow turned into this debate!

[XxxTHEILLONExxX]

dna does tell the age unless the discovery channel likes to lie which i believe not so i will stick with what i heard adam and eve were not the first humans

[Rollo]

QUOTE

dna does tell the age unless the discovery channel likes to lie which i believe not so i will stick with what i heard adam and eve were not the first humans

Actually it tells lineage........what the Discovery Channel did was trace the DNA patterns back to what they believe is the oldest human skeleton found to date.  (there is that "oldest" term again)
That date is then determined using fossil record. and carbon 14 dating and all that shit.
Just how that is supposed to disprove Adam and Eve, i'm not sure.
Consider this:  what happens tomorrow when someone digs up the new oldest human to date?..............rewrite the science book.

[gainpresence]

QUOTE (Rollo @ Mar 12 2003, 09:22 PM)

QUOTE dna does tell the age unless the discovery channel likes to lie which i believe not so i will stick with what i heard adam and eve were not the first humans Actually it tells lineage........what the Discovery Channel did was trace the DNA patterns back to what they believe is the oldest human skeleton found to date.  (there is that "oldest" term again) That date is then determined using fossil record. and carbon 14 dating and all that shit. Just how that is supposed to disprove Adam and Eve, i'm not sure. Consider this:  what happens tomorrow when someone digs up the new oldest human to date?..............rewrite the science book.

Carbon dating is innaccurate, someone got a rock formed by Mt. Saint Helen's most recent explosion, it was dated as being tens of thousands of years old. And there was a fossilized mining hat dated at several thousand years (the owner remembers when he dropped it).

[Rollo]

QUOTE

Carbon dating is innaccurate, someone got a rock formed by Mt. Saint Helen's most recent explosion, it was dated as being tens of thousands of years old. And there was a fossilized mining hat dated at several thousand years (the owner remembers when he dropped it).

Yet we put our trust in man...........Man that will lie, cheat, and steal his way all up in yo ass!
How can it be so easy to wholeheartedly believe what man says without knowing or understanding it just like you and me.

[sith]

QUOTE (gainpresence @ Mar 13 2003, 04:25 AM)

Carbon dating is innaccurate, someone got a rock formed by Mt. Saint Helen's most recent explosion, it was dated as being tens of thousands of years old. And there was a fossilized mining hat dated at several thousand years (the owner remembers when he dropped it).

i normally agree with u gain.. but this is just dumb.. firstly carbon dating is only for living and or recently dead organics, it is the comparison of c12 to c14 which is at a perfect ratio while things are alive.. we know that it takes x amount of time for c14 to become c12 and therefor by examining the new ratio, we can find, quite acuratly(within hours in the first month, days after that) the time of death...

what i think u are refering to i beleive is ratioactive dating for rocks.. which is even more acurate.. some rocks have been dated at the mid-oceanic ridge and then again at thousands of km away, and it matches with a few Months of the time it would have taken for the rock to travel that far on the contental plates..half-life never varies, i minor in geology, but this is learned on day one..

AND as for the mining hat.. do u have any idea how long a fossil(carbon fossil, not a mold) takes to form?? or he is dating a mold, which really has nothing to do with the hat... and the st. helens rock, either never nappened or is a date of the rock that was not liquified, mabye from the cone blast??

anyway.. hah

as for my insights on the universe, "a brief history of time" is very close to what i beleive, however the first chapter of "the age of spiritual machines" by Ray Kurzwell is a better summation of the hawking theory and also fills the small gaps with other accepted thoughts..

.sith.

[sinhowang]

I'm not saying not to turn against the bible, but I believe in the big bang theory just because some things in the bible are off.  Ok, let's start with where GOD destroyed everyone on the Earth except for Noah and his wife and two of each animals.  Then that means everyone is cross-breed, and that everyone has to be one race either it is white, black, asian, or ...  So as you can see, there are many races in the world.

[gainpresence]

QUOTE (sinhowang @ Mar 12 2003, 10:56 PM)

I'm not saying not to turn against the bible, but I believe in the big bang theory just because some things in the bible are off.  Ok, let's start with where GOD destroyed everyone on the Earth except for Noah and his wife and two of each animals.  Then that means everyone is cross-breed, and that everyone has to be one race either it is white, black, asian, or ...  So as you can see, there are many races in the world.

http://www.answersin...g/docs/3811.asp

[penguinofdoom564]

I believe the whole Quantum Theory shit about how we're all in the Multi-Verse thing and all that jazz.......it's confusing though, look it up!

[Mage]

There is an easy answer to this: everyone is wrong!
You cannot know the truth yet...hell it's possible for you to NEVER know.
Faith != knowledge btw, so you can't use the line "I believe in God, therefore the bible has to be right."
No one can prove this...it's just something you guys will argue about over and over and over and over again.

[gainpresence]

Problems with the Gap Theory
http://www.christian...y-problems.html

[jasonmvt]

QUOTE

I also recommend this book "Starlight and Time" by Dr. Russell Humphreys http://www.icr.org/s...ghtandtime.html

this is not an attack towards you or anything else you have stated, but I just wanted to point out this post that you had made earlier.

The problem I have with a book like this is that not ONE recognized expert in the field of relativity or the cosmos will support the 'science' presented in this book.  The theories illustrated are easily proven wrong by 'believers' and 'non-believers' alike.  As a matter of fact, the last I had heard about this book was that even most expert Christian physicists would not go on record as supporting this becuase of the inaccuracies themselves and the damage it would do to the 'young earth' philosophy in the eyes of more 'mainstream' science.  If someone wishes to utilize the tools of mainstream science to provide religious backing, they had better get the science straight before attempting to apply it to God.  

For an amusing fiction read, perhaps.  For a more realistic approach, I'll look elsewhere.

[gainpresence]

Well, science does get disproven quite often, most of his theorys have held, though.

The underlying concepts behind Creationism (as found in the Bible) have never been disproven. That is the main advantage Evolutionism has over it, everything about evolution can change as it is disproven (happens a lot), but nothing about Creationism (unless it is an extra man-made theory) can change (or God's a liar and the Bible is null and viod).

But these fun little changeable/updatable theorys are nice and interesting as well.

BTW, Starlight and Time is just a chapter in an unfinished book, I'm sure he'll (Dr. Humphreys) address any inaccuracies found in the BIG book!