Wow, and christians wonder why they get a bad name....

[PowerSwede]

Ironic how a christian society allows such freedoms.

Oh i'm sure if you and the likes of you had your way it wouldn't be, thankfully you have no say.

[PowerSwede]

All the dopler theory says it the stars are moving away from the center point, which is believed to be from the big bang. But since nobody knows anything about what exisited at the moment it started, what the universe was before then, and what it will be, there are huge holes in science. Here is the best question, if the universe is expanding, what exactly is it expanding into ?


Have a link to that bird, would like to see more intel.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

There's a lot of information.

[AntonToo]

And why is it after all of the topics about this people still attempt to disprove religious beliefs based on a lack of scientific evidence?

Wow you people are in the stone age.

ANYONE KNOW WTF CARBON DATING IS???
It's acurate up to about 50,000 years.

How about geology? anyone ever hear of that?
Earth cannot be 6000 years old end of story.

And again:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

There's no lack of Scientific evidence my friend. You want to have blind faith and not look at occular evidence, thats fine, but if you want answers you might want to pay attention.

[AntonToo]

Slam dunk!

Yep you guys insulting your own intelligence - def. Slam dunk baby.

[DanMc]

Wow you people are in the stone age.

ANYONE KNOW WTF CARBON DATING IS???

It's acurate up to about 50,000 years.

How about geology? anyone ever hear of that?

Earth cannot be 6000 years old end of story.

So among those tings you and others have found actual proof that man and beast came up from a once single cell organism?

Before I get banned again... take care time to step out my way..

[AntonToo]

So among those tings you and others have found actual proof that man and beast came up from a once single cell organism?

Before I get banned again... take care time to step out my way..

Banned for what? you can't have a healthy discource?

Again: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

What does that look like? THAT looks like science, creationist's writing are highschool papers in comparison.

There is MORE, MUCH more evidence for evolution, compared to NO evidence for creationism, which is in contradiction with evolution. 6000 years thing is jsut very plain rediculouos.

[secondsight]

There is MORE, MUCH more evidence for evolution, compared to NO evidence for creationism, which is in contradiction with evolution. 6000 years thing is jsut very plain rediculouos.

This is too funny. They really go you and others feeding from their hand. And you believe it without question ... you totally bought into it, hook line and sinker.

[enjoyincubus]

You misunderstand me. It makes people think that your average christian is a creationist, which is ridiculous. Now be a good little christian and go jerk off to some porn like your message under your name suggests.

ill get right on that:-)

while im away be sure to go back to grade school and pay attention next time your teacher reads the book about the rabbit who was tolerant of other people's beliefs.:-)

[Cogar]

Mass of the universe? Awesome, why don't you tell us what the mass of the universe is.

All of this is highly theoritical reality is any of these things could be. when you talk about things so far outside of certainty anything goes, just gotta present it with some sophistication.

AGAIN - back to creationism.

Now you are making it clear that you do not know this subject matter. (An interesting concept in a thread that claims Christians do not know what they are talking about.)

The oscillating universe or Big Crunch models require gravitational pull between the various bodies in the universe. Astrophysicists estimate the amount of mass (suns, planets, etc.) in the universe is a few percent of that required to create enough gravitational pull to slow down, stop, and reverse the expansion of the universe.

[Cogar]

Liberalism is truely a mental disorder.

Slam dunk!

Slam dunk? Quoting Michael Savage is a slam dunk?

[PowerSwede]

This is too funny. They really go you and others feeding from their hand. And you believe it without question ... you totally bought into it, hook line and sinker.

No, after critical review i conclude that what holds evidence is more probable than what doesn't hold evidence at all.

Naturally you can't be bothered actually reading it but if you did you would probably end up with more questions than answers as it would contradict the unprobable story you have been taught to believe and offer proof that even you can understand.

[secondsight]

Wow you people are in the stone age.

ANYONE KNOW WTF CARBON DATING IS???
It's acurate up to about 50,000 years.

How about geology? anyone ever hear of that?
Earth cannot be 6000 years old end of story.

If you were truely honest with yourself you would admit that even though the technique of carbon dating looks promising it does rests on two assumptions. One it assumes the amount of carbon-14 in the atmosphere has always been constant and secondly its rate of decay has always been constant. Sorry but neither of these assumptions is provable or reasonable. These are the facts. You shouldn't blindly follow everything a scientist tells you. Learn to be skeptical and question.

A test in “Science” (vol. 141, page 636, August 16, 1963) showed the shell from a living mollusk to be dead for 3,000 years! Tests of Hawaiian lava flows known to be less than 200 years old have been dated up to 3 billion years old!
Yeah real reliable.

[playa hata]

Liberalism is truely a mental disorder.

You ripped that from mike savage didnt you?

[Mismeasure]

If you were truely honest with yourself you would admit that even though the technique of carbon dating looks promising it does rests on two assumptions. One it assumes the amount of carbon-14 in the atmosphere has always been constant and secondly its rate of decay has always been constant. Sorry but neither of these assumptions is provable or reasonable. These are the facts. You shouldn't blindly follow everything a scientist tells you. Learn to be skeptical and question.

A test in “Science” (vol. 141, page 636, August 16, 1963) showed the shell from a living mollusk to be dead for 3,000 years! Tests of Hawaiian lava flows known to be less than 200 years old have been dated up to 3 billion years old!
Yeah real reliable.

No one uses carbon-14 dating when dealing with volcanic or other inorganic material. Potassium-argon dating is used for volcanic rocks.
Radiocarbon dating (or carbon-14) is based on an unstable isotope of carbon that living animals and plants incorporate into their cells. As long as the animal is living the ratio of carbon-14 (the unstable isotope), to carbon-12 is the same as the ratio in the atmosphere. Once the animal dies carbon-14 decays to carbon-12 at a constant rate. Knowing this one can estimate the amount of time the organism has been dead.
There are natural circumstances that can affect dating accuracy (like fire) but carbon-14 dating has been proven very effective.

[user4165146510]

Evolution is not based on chance.

This is very important because creationists like to make statistics based on the assumption that evolution is only chance, and of course get very low probabilities. Of course evolution is not based on chance, otherwise it would be as probable as a man walking from one side of a beach to another by randomly moving his legs. Richard Dawkins said, "evolution is the non-random survival of randomly varying individuals".

The basic mechanisms of evolution are : natural selection, sexual selection, genetic drift (which all decrease genetic variation), mutations, recombination, gene flow (which all increase genetic variation). Creationism, on the other hand, posits a god, which would have been created by chance. This seems much less probable then a human being (which is, contrarily to gods, a finite creature) coming together by chance, and even less probable then human beings coming together by the gradual process of evolution applied on a period of millions of years.

[AntonToo]

This is too funny. They really go you and others feeding from their hand. And you believe it without question ... you totally bought into it, hook line and sinker.

ok, you got something you want to dispute from the link provided mr.Unbought?

Oh thats right, you really have no time to really look into the technicalities of the issue. Don't feel bad, such is the case for most of us.

So when questions of biology come up why don't you make like the reasonable citizen you are and listen to the strikingly owerwhelming majority of respected people in the scientific community that spend their life studying the anals of biology instead of your church's priest eh?

For those that have seriously took time and explored the issue, Literal creationism is a JOKE.

[AntonToo]

There is NOTHING I would love more then for this extremism to be expressed in these "meusiums" and efforts to modify school corriculum, it finally brings mainstream, serious debate to this issue. People don't care what you pray to in the comfort of your home, but once you start feeding that sht to their kids, things start happening rather quick.

These counter scientific efforts will bring nothing less of a public humiliation to christianity and undermine further it's credebility mark my words. There are no recorded wins for religion vs science and there is not going to be any this time around. It's halarious how religion just fails to learn that taking positions coutrary to science is putting them in VERY compromising positions.

[onehotdancer72]

here's a little something funny i heard once about christians and their "as-long-as-I-go-to-church-every-sunday-i-can-****-off-the-rest-of-the-week-and-still-go-to-heaven" attitude....

....if going to church makes you a christian, does going to the garage make you a car????

Lol...ahhh ain't that a grand statement?

[Diesel66]

Evolution is not based on chance.

evolution has a lot of chance built into it. Marsupials thrive in Australia but were not successful in the rest of the world. They only exist in large numbers because the ocean rose breaking the landbridge between Asia and the islands.

[atx1975]

here's a little something funny i heard once about christians and their "as-long-as-I-go-to-church-every-sunday-i-can-****-off-the-rest-of-the-week-and-still-go-to-heaven" attitude....

....if going to church makes you a christian, does going to the garage make you a car????

Lol...ahhh ain't that a grand statement?

Going to church doesnt make you a christian, believing Christ is the Son of God and that He died for our sins makes you a "chrisitian" or believing in christ. Everyone always generalizes, if someone kills twenty people and then says they are a christian does that make them a christian? According to their actions then no. Being a christian is about faith and trying to live a good and spiritual life. Not about wording and what church they go to. if there is anything any intelligent person should know you dont judge the religion by the people who follow it. People always falter and people always go to church to make themselves feel better. Doesnt mean they are going to Heaven because they "claim" to be christian.

[AntonToo]

Marsupials thrive in Australia but were not successful in the rest of the world. They only exist in large numbers because the ocean rose breaking the landbridge between Asia and the islands.

Exactly, were is the "chance"? everything is cause and effect.

[secondsight]

Going to church doesnt make you a christian, believing Christ is the Son of God and that He died for our sins makes you a "chrisitian" or believing in christ. Everyone always generalizes, if someone kills twenty people and then says they are a christian does that make them a christian? According to their actions then no. Being a christian is about faith and trying to live a good and spiritual life. Not about wording and what church they go to. if there is anything any intelligent person should know you dont judge the religion by the people who follow it. People always falter and people always go to church to make themselves feel better. Doesnt mean they are going to Heaven because they "claim" to be christian.

You hit the nail on the head here. President Bill Clinton was a Christian, he went to church on Sunday, but his behavior Monday thru Saturday would say otherwise. Does this make christainity wrong? No. People in general are driven by their flesh desires. Again people are trapped and held in bondage. Once you believe in Jesus and put your faith in him, then you are free.

[Diesel66]

Exactly, were is the "chance"? everything is cause and effect.

The water level increasing, RANDOM CHANCE, saved the marsupialsFrom competing with the modern mammels. The fact they exist still is based on pure chance.

[secondsight]

Exactly, were is the "chance"? everything is cause and effect.

The cause is God. The effect well just take a nice walk through the country side and enjoy what God created.

[AntonToo]

The cause is God. The effect well just take a nice walk through the country side and enjoy what God created.

Go walk in the country side.

[AntonToo]

The water level increasing, RANDOM CHANCE

Are you saying that water level increase was not caused by something????? It just magically rose you propose?

[mockba]

If you were truely honest with yourself you would admit that even though the technique of carbon dating looks promising it does rests on two assumptions. One it assumes the amount of carbon-14 in the atmosphere has always been constant and secondly its rate of decay has always been constant. Sorry but neither of these assumptions is provable or reasonable. These are the facts. You shouldn't blindly follow everything a scientist tells you. Learn to be skeptical and question.

Actually that is pretty scientifically poor...

You obviously don't understand carbon dating because you said one of the asumptions of it was that "its rate of decay has always been constant". In fact this is definately wrong.

Radioactive decay used in carbon dating is an exponential decay so the equation looks something like: N = Ae^-kt, the number of carbon-14 atoms left N is a function of the time the sample has been decaying. By differentiating, dN/dt = -kAe^-kt, and so the rate of decay, dN/dt, is not a contant because this value varies as t does.

By using the concept of half life, a concept which would be meaningless if the rate of decay was constant, we can determine how long the carbon in the specimen has been left. Maybe you should also be one to "be skeptical and question".

If you still believe the Earth is 6000 years old then I have some phenomenon you might like to think about if you still don't find carbon dating credible (how can anyone find something they don't understand credible?):

The Hubble constant. From lots of astronomical data plotting a galaxy's distance from us as a function of their recessional velocity based on redshift measurements, you can find the gradient to be the reciprocal of the approximate age of the universe... the gradient gives you how many meters you must go to be travelling one metre per second away from the Earth, on average, or m m^-1 s^-1. The inverse is measures in seconds, and has been found to be around 13.7bn years.

Within experimental accuracy this truly invalidates the theory that the Earth is 6000 years old by a MAJOR amount.

[Mismeasure]

Actually that is pretty scientifically poor...

You obviously don't understand carbon dating because you said one of the asumptions of it was that "its rate of decay has always been constant". In fact this is definately wrong.

Radioactive decay used in carbon dating is an exponential decay so the equation looks something like: N = Ae^-kt, the number of carbon-14 atoms left N is a function of the time the sample has been decaying. By differentiating, dN/dt = -kAe^-kt, and so the rate of decay, dN/dt, is not a contant because this value varies as t does.

By using the concept of half life, a concept which would be meaningless if the rate of decay was constant, we can determine how long the carbon in the specimen has been left. Maybe you should also be one to "be skeptical and question".

If you still believe the Earth is 6000 years old then I have some phenomenon you might like to think about if you still don't find carbon dating credible (how can anyone find something they don't understand credible?):

The Hubble constant. From lots of astronomical data plotting a galaxy's distance from us as a function of their recessional velocity based on redshift measurements, you can find the gradient to be the reciprocal of the approximate age of the universe... the gradient gives you how many meters you must go to be travelling one metre per second away from the Earth, on average, or m m^-1 s^-1. The inverse is measures in seconds, and has been found to be around 13.7bn years.

Within experimental accuracy this truly invalidates the theory that the Earth is 6000 years old by a MAJOR amount.

I’m not quite sure I understand what you are getting at, but the ratio of carbon-14 to cabon-12 would have to remain constant in order for carbon dating to be possible.

Disregard this comment misread your post, sorry.

[Loader]

I’m not quite sure I understand what you are getting at, but the ratio of carbon-14 to cabon-12 would have to remain constant in order for carbon dating to be possible.

No it wouldn't. He just told you that it decays exponentially. Funny that you admit that you don't understand him yet still try to counter his arguments that you don't understand.

[Cogar]

No it wouldn't. He just told you that it decays exponentially. Funny that you admit that you don't understand him yet still try to counter his arguments that you don't understand.

IMO, you should take your own advice and offer criticisms on a technical subject only when you understand the subject. The C14 decays to C12 exponentially. That is the reason they measure it in terms of half-life. However, the initial C14/C12 ratio must be known so the percentage of C14 that decays to C12 can be calculated. Unfortunately, that ratio varies since the percentage of C14 formed in our atmosphere has varied over the centuries, and that affects the absorption of C14 by living organisms, affecting their C14/C12 ratio.

Edit: correct grammar.