*What's life about*

[Dpyle]

405 your provided definition of verbal plenary inspiration has me very discouraged now.

It basically says that the bible in its "original languages" is the direct and true words of God? How ever how many people do you know that still practice their faith in the original languages? I certainly don't have time to learn Hebrew, and beyond that I don't have time to learn what is know as Hebrew today and then cross reference to see what may have changed over the years, as languages evolve and change over time.

Never the less this thread has inspired and intrigued me. As a man that has always followed science and questioned religion at every turn, I downloaded a free version of the bible last night. Now I approach this with an open mind and open heart, and have decided , after disputing the bible with countless scientific articles time and time again, it is now time that I sat down and read the other side of the argument.

So keep in touch as I'm sure there will be many questions flowing your direction.

[--->>405<<---]

Well, I can't learn if there are no answers. So back to the drawing board for me! -- believe me, I wish I had what you have, which is belief. I just can't justify it. Everyone speaks of good and evil, well... I don't think I should believe in anything that won't give me reasons why. That is not "good" in my world.

We don't even know if any holy book is exactly as it was originally written. Corruption didn't just show up recently, it's always been around.

faith my brother! pretty much the only requirement..

ponder this:
with God u can pray and ask Him for things and He will answer you. most of the time it is not the way u imagined, but an answer nonetheless.

ill give u a short testimony: back in 2009 i was getting out of teen challenge (Teen Challenge USA :: Home). when i went in i was not a christian, i was an alcoholic and i could not stop drinking. i had been praying out of desperation and teen challenge was my answer. it took faith on my part. think about it now i was a non-christian going into a christian rehab solely with the idea (im gonna find out what this GOD is about).

i left my job (150,000+/year) and all the responsibilities with my wife who was a waitress. my credit was shot. everything was shot. i got out in 2009 and rented a house and started trying to rebuild (well, build it was never really built well) my credit. i finally got it where it was possible to maybe consider buying a house.

we prayed and asked the Lord to help us get a home and find a home and be able to finance a home. my income would carry the loan but my credit was very borderline and newly established. the very first house we went to look at we liked a lot. we used the GPS to take us to find this house and it took us on a wild goose chase down roads we shouldnt have been going down. it took us a whole exit (on the interstate) past the exit we shouldve been taking (i figd this out later) and led us right up to the country jail i landed in in 2005 due to a horrible time in my life. the GPS pulled us right in front of the jail and then had us get back on the interstate and from there led us straight to the house (my house i have now). it was as if God was showing me the 2 choices i had ahead of me and reminding me where i had been and was showing me where i was going now with Him.

well the house was in a short sale and we were trying to deal with the guy but he wanted to be a butt head so we had to wait until if got foreclosed on and put back onto the market before we could have the option to try to buy it. as u probably know this is not a quick process.

time dragged on and we started getting itchy feet and started looking again. well every house we looked at sucked! one time we used the same GPS and it took us to the right road and the freaking house just was not there. the address was like 545 and there was a mailbox that had 535 and a mailbox that was 555 but in between there was no 545, not a house, not a driveway NOTHING! we searched and searched and searched for that damn house! finally we gave up and were on the way home when we rounded a corner and to our amazement saw a billboard that had 2 words on it, and only 2 words: GOT FAITH?

needless to say we took the hint and stopped looking. long story short we got that house which i now live in. and we got a very good deal on it!

my point is God was with us and he guided us and he shows us stuff sometimes subtly and sometimes obviously..

He will do the same for anyone who seeks Him with a sincere heart. this is all He wants. it is a simple thing u have to do, but the complexity lies within ur willingness to choose to do it.

[--->>405<<---]

405 your provided definition of verbal plenary inspiration has me very discouraged now.

It basically says that the bible in its "original languages" is the direct and true words of God? How ever how many people do you know that still practice their faith in the original languages? I certainly don't have time to learn Hebrew, and beyond that I don't have time to learn what is know as Hebrew today and then cross reference to see what may have changed over the years, as languages evolve and change over time.

Never the less this thread has inspired and intrigued me. As a man that has always followed science and questioned religion at every turn, I downloaded a free version of the bible last night. Now I approach this with an open mind and open heart, and have decided , after disputing the bible with countless scientific articles time and time again, it is now time that I sat down and read the other side of the argument.

So keep in touch as I'm sure there will be many questions flowing your direction.

awesome dude! thank u for posting this here i will pray for you

i would like to say do not be discouraged by verbal plenary inspiration, there are many trustworthy godly men who have dedicated their lives to researching and studying the bible in its original so that u dont have to!

new american standard version is what i use. it is very close to the original.
New American Standard Bible (NASB) - Version Information - BibleGateway.com

[--->>405<<---]

ice cores:

paul h. Seely has written a rebuttal to creationist’s ice sheet and ice core interpretations in the december 2003 perspectives on science and christian faith, a journal put out by american scientific affiliation.

[ed. Note: Seely is an ostensibly evangelical theologian whose main hobby for decades seems to have been to argue that the bible contains scientific errors, and is thus much beloved by anti-christians—see

is the raqiya‘ (‘firmament’) a solid dome? Equivocal language in the cosmology of genesis 1 and the old testament: A response to paul h. Seely
is the ’erets (earth) flat? Equivocal language in the geography of genesis 1 and the old testament: A response to paul h. Seely
seely’s response to above and refutation of that the asa has been for decades the leading american organization promoting theistic evolutionary compromise.]

he primarily challenges my reinterpretation of the 110,000 claimed annual layers in the gisp2 ice core from the top of the greenland ice sheet to the depth of 2,800 metres and defends the extensive timeframe, claiming independent corroboration by multiple methods. I will show that these methods are not independent and open to significant reinterpretation. The root of the problem is the uncritical acceptance of the uniformitarian paradigm.
A question of starting assumptions

in my articles on ice cores, i reinterpreted the annual layers in the middle and lower portions of the gisp2 core as subannual layers, based on a flood–ice age model, incorporating warm oceans, cooling continents and high levels of atmospheric particulates from volcanic activity.1,2,3 thus, my starting assumptions assume significant climate instability post-flood and rapid accumulation of snow and ice. In this scenario, annual ice layers would be on the order of metres.

On the other hand, uniformitarians start with an assumption of great age, generally stable conditions and milankovitch orbital cycles to create ice ages. As a result, uniformitarians are looking for very thin annual layers on the order of centimetres and even millimetres near the bottom of the ice sheet.

The resulting difference in age-interpretation is a result of the starting paradigm; the data is the same and does not speak for itself. What we believe colours what we see.
Dating methods are not independent

seely superficially analyzes the main methods of counting annual layers.4 he concludes that my reinterpretation is invalid because the timescale has been corroborated by up to three independent annual measuring methods that agree with volcanic acidity spikes and deep-sea cores:

‘the first 110,000 annual layers of snow in that ice core (gisp2) have been visually counted and corroborated by two to three different and independent methods as well as by correlation with volcanic eruptions and other datable events.’5

however, contrary to what seely believes, neither the annual layer counting methods nor the external correlation methods are independent, they are all tied to the same starting assumptions of deep time. The 110,000 annual layers are based on the assumptions that the greenland ice sheet has been in equilibrium for several million years and that ice ages oscillate between glacials and interglacials with a period of 100,000 years based on the astronomical theory of the ice age (the milankovitch mechanism). Equilibrium means that the annual snowfall and height of the ice sheet have remained nearly constant for several million years. All late ‘cenozoic’ climatic data sets, including deep-sea cores, must (according to the reigning paradigm) follow this assumed mechanism, which has innumerable problems.6,7,8,9,10

the deep-sea core timescale, based on the astronomical theory of the ice age, provides the timescale for ice cores by dating such events as the younger dryas and the stage 5e interglacial in the broad-scale oxygen isotope ratios in ice cores. Then glacial flow models are tuned to this scale, assuming equilibrium of the ice sheets. The flow model then provides the first guess for the annual layer counting. Seely is aware of this bias, but denies it operates in the counting of annual layers:

‘contrary to oard, the expected annual thickness of the layers down the core does not determine what uniformitarian scientists conclude with these latter methods. The truth is exactly the opposite: Lls counting is used to correct the initial estimated thickness of the annual layers.’11

lls (laser light scattering) is a method for counting dust bands by passing a laser beam through the ice. Seely is technically correct, but generally incorrect. He must have misinterpreted my statements because such constraints on annual layer thickness do determine the general annual layer thickness within certain limits. I have used the term first guess or estimated annual layer thickness in my articles on the subject:

‘based on their expected annual thickness [from flow models], uniformitarian scientists take enough measurements to resolve what they believe are annual cycles.’12

in other words, the counted annual layers can deviate a little from the first guess, but the first guess constrains the limits of variability. It is like numerical analysis in which a first guess is required to begin and then successive computer iterations change the first guess somewhat to arrive at hopefully the correct answer. For instance, if the first guess concludes that the annual layer thickness at the 2,500-metre depth is around 1 centimetre, annual layer counting will not allow an annual layer thickness of 5 centimetres, let alone about 3 metres as in the creationist model. The variability in the measured parameters and the impact of non-periodic events provide adequate scope to find a preferred fit to the data.

In contrast, in a creationist model, the annual layers in the middle and lower portion of the gisp2 ice core would be subannual layers due to sub-storm, storm or other cycles of weather lasting anywhere from days to months.

To demonstrate that the astronomical theory biases all data sets and that annual layer counts can be adjusted to come close to expectations, all one has to do is read how the count of ‘annual’ layers below 2,300 metres was changed in the gisp2 core. Based on the deep-sea core chronology applied to the vostok antarctica ice core, meese noted that their timescale for gisp2 was off by 25,000 years at 2,800 metres depth:

‘they predicted the age of the ice at 2800 m to be about 110,000 years, 25,000 years older than had been originally counted on the basis of visual stratigraphy [meese et al., 1994].’13

the senior author then went back to the laboratory to ‘recheck’ the visible stratigraphy or dust layers. She discovered that by using a 1-mm wide laser beam in the lls method instead of an 8-mm wide beam, 25,000 more annual layers of dust were ‘discovered’ between 2,300 and 2,800 metres! One must be especially careful when evolutionary/uniformitarian scientists claim ‘agreement’ between two or more ‘independent’ dating methods and/or data sets.
Depth hoar from storms

in regard to each annual layer counting method, much could be written to show that seely misunderstands the methods. Furthermore, he only partially understands the climatic differences between the uniformitarian model and the creationist ice age model.9,10,14,15 i will only briefly discuss the annual layer methods, a more detailed treatment will be provided in a future monograph.16

seely states that surface hoar frost forms only during the summer due to sunshine and fog. However, surface hoar frost is only a minor player in the annual layer method; depth hoar is the main marker.17 depth hoar develops when a large, vertical temperature gradient causes vapour to sublime, diffuse and crystallize in a layer.18 this occurs just below the surface, mainly during the summer. However, it has been observed from snow pits that many depth-hoar/wind slab couplets can form each summer.19,20,21,22 alley and colleagues measured about 15 alternating depth-hoar/finer-grained wind crusts per year in snow pits at the top of the greenland ice sheet.23,24 these layers were observed to have formed by individual storms.24 although considered rare today, winter depth hoar can also form, but it is normally thin and discontinuous.23,25,26 storms can cause depth hoar layers if the temperature gradient is sufficient during the changes between warm and cold sectors of storms. These depth hoar complexes, as they are called, can usually be counted as annual layers in the top portion of the gisp2 core. It is more likely that a subannual depth hoar layer formed by a storm would be counted as an annual signal, if the snowfall were significantly higher in the past, as in the creation/flood model for the middle and lower portions of the ice core.4,16
subannual dust layers

seely claims that dust variations are primarily seasonal, so that every dust band, whether counted visually or by lls, are evidence for annual layers. Such dust bands are mainly responsible for the counting of annual layers from around 12,000 years to 110,000 years and even older in the uniformitarian timescale of the gisp2 ice core. Although dust bands are generally annual today, this does not mean they were annual in the past. The period between 12,000 and 110,000 years would correspond to the ice agega very dusty period with a unique climate. In the compressed creation/flood model with much thicker annual layers during the ice age, the dust represents an extremely dusty atmosphere, especially near glacial maximum and during deglaciation. Storms would be very dirty and multiple bands of dust could be deposited on the ice sheet by several mechanisms, such as by dry deposition between storms or during showery periods in one storm. In a high snowfall model, such as the creation/flood model, one can find oscillations in dust at almost any frequency, which is demonstrated when meese and colleagues found 25,000 more annual dust layers using a finer analysis!

Alley admits that subannual events can be produced during one year in all the annual layer methods, storms being one of the mechanisms:

‘fundamentally, in counting any annual marker, we must ask whether it is absolutely unequivocal, or whether non-annual events could mimic or obscure a year. For the visible strata (and, we believe, for any other annual indicator at accumulation rates representative of central greenland), it is almost certain that variability exists at the sub-seasonal or storm level, at the annual level and for various longer periodicities (2-year, sunspot, etc). We certainly must entertain the possibility of misidentifying the deposit of a large storm or a snow dune as an entire year or missing a weak indication of a summer and thus picking a 2-year interval as 1 year.’ 27

other misinterpretations

i could go on and on, but will briefly mention a few other misinterpretations in seely’s article. Seely states that volcanic spikes in acidity can be used to check the dating from deep in the ice cores. There are numerous problems relating volcanic acidity spikes as marker horizons. Volcanic history is known accurately to only 200 years!28 a few large eruptions are known beyond 200 years, but with all the other acidity spikes, it is difficult to match the eruption with an acidity spike in the ice core. It is very difficult to pin a precise date on an acidity peak beyond 2,000 years ago.29,30,31,32,33

seely seems to think that the formation of nitric acid that is picked up by the ecm (electric conductivity method) shows well-behaved seasonal oscillations with a summer maximum. This is only generally true today and the past would be different. Seely assumes that only nitric acid is significant; however ecm also picks up other acids including sulfuric acid.

There are quite a few unknowns and variables associated with atmospheric acidity generation, transport, deposition and locking in the ice.34 there are many sources for sulfuric and nitric acids, which can vary with time and complicate the seasonal cycle. For instance, the nitrogen cycle in the atmosphere is highly complex with a number of variables affecting the nitrate and nitric acid generation that can end up in the ice:

‘the atmospheric nitrogen cycle is highly complex and there is a wide range of factors that can affect the nitrate level in polar ice.’35

wolff corroborates:

‘however, the [nitrate] data are not easy to interpret and we do not have an adequate knowledge of even the present-day sources of nitrate in polar snow, nor of the deposition processes that control the concentrations seen.’36

furthermore, acidity can rarely be applied to the glacial portion of the greenland ice cores because the significant quantity of dust neutralizes the acid, except in short, dust-free sections.
Uniformitarian assumptions

if one starts with the uniformitarian paradigm, it is easy to see how the various methods appear to be corroborating. However, when one steps back and questions the unspoken starting assumptions and allows the parameters to vary by the full range available, completely different consistent results can be obtained. This shows the importance of where we start. The bible claims to be a reliable historical record and this history from the very beginning was attested to by christ and the apostles. Thus, it is a logical starting position from which to create our worldview. On the other hand, belief in deep time may be internally reinforcing, but has no external reference point. Either must be accepted by faith, only one will be right.

It is unfortunate that seely and others in the american scientific affiliation accept man’s fallible, continually changing stories about the past rather than god’s clear word.
Acknowledgments

i thank ashby camp for informing me about seely’s article and dr larry vardiman of the institute for creation research for sending me a copy of the seely article and for reviewing this article.

[--->>405<<---]

Very very deep Marcus!
I'm loving the thought pattern that's for sure.
The way you write about the earth in your first paragraph and all the variables that make it what it is make me instantly think of bacteria.
Bacteria laying dormant until the correct environment is found and all the variables are in place for the bacteria to spring to life and cultivate.

Maybe we as a planet/race are a bacterial culture and as you said we're not to close not to far away from the sun to let us thrive.

The way the human race is growing and raping natural resources also is similar to that of a bacterial colony.

Just a thought

Im in bed sick so I'm on my phone but I couldn't resist answering this when I saw it.

The is a hypothesis called The Rare Earth hypothesis that states for a planet like ours to exist, certain criteria must be met. Now if you consider the billions and billions of stars out there, and the multiply that figure again for planets, its not hard to believe that sooner or later, the law of averages kicks in and certain things occur for things like an "earth" to occur. Its nothing more than the law of averages. If you take all the factors that makes our planet possible, measured against all the stars in our galaxy, probability of exact earth like planets in our galaxy is around 1 million of them.

There's a reason that animals like humans and other mammals are known as complex organisms. Science can't explain everything for instace, Science still isn't sure at what point did birds develop the ability to fly. What prompted them? Why did the dinosaurs die out 65 million years ago when they'd survived previous mass extinctions? How did small mammals, snakes, sharks and crocodiles survive when all the dinosaurs died out, except the ones that became birds?

marcus i gotta say that article above was excellent! i have to note here how differently i viewed the information given in that article than the 2 guys here i quoted. one equates humanity to bacteria and the other sees the uniqueness of our planet as a mathematical certainty due to the billions of other potential planets.

u know what i see? GOD! i see a GOD so perfect he set this planet up so that it would be able to support our existence. every single event that has to be perfect. i see this as a pointer to the Lord. what a scientist sees as a math problem i see as an attempt to get us to see how uniquely everything was arranged just for us. all the other "mathematical possibilities" are reminders to us of how special we are.

romans 1:20

20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

[Dpyle]

405 does the bible happen to explain what happened to the cultures that were developed in areas such as the Mayans, native Americans, and others who had no prophet to bring them the word of God?

We're these people merely placed on earth to be sentenced to hell?

Were their religions a product of divine inspiration and thus securing them a place in heaven?

If they were placed on earth with no knowledge of a savior, and then resultantly condemned to hell that would blow free will totally out the window.

[< <Samson> >]

A religious "juicer" is still one if the best oxymorons I have heard of yet.

Carry on

[Hazard]

Regarding carbon dating...... I did some research while shitting after work enjoy that visual and I found this...... Carbon dating is rather accurate up to 50,000 years. Which is 44,000 years older than the bible.....

"Carbon dating is flawed, inaccurate, and unreliable after 50,000 years. We can check the accuracy of carbon dating by calibrating it with the tree ring data mentioned earlier. Only on rare occasion does the discrepancy ever extend beyond 5% within the first several millennia. Because of the ability to synchronize this technique with the long established dating method of counting tree rings, we can confirm the reasonable accurateness of carbon dating. However, it is true that carbon dating isn't reliable after 50,000 years. For this very reason, no sensible person uses carbon on objects believed to be that old. Due to the small mass of carbon left in an object after ten half-lives, about 0.1% of the original amount, a tiny error in the quantity measured can throw the determined age of the object way off. For example, consider a rock with 100.000 grams of Carbon-14. After one half-life, about 5000 years, it will only have 50.000 grams remaining. If we measure only 49.999 grams due to human error or slight variation in the decay, we're off by 0.001 grams, yielding a difference of one month in age. This variation should not be of any appreciable consequence. After 50,000 years, the rock will have approximately 0.100 grams of Carbon-14 remaining. If the same circumstances cause us to be off by the exact same amount of 0.001 grams, we will measure the sample as having 0.099 grams, which will put us off the mark by about 100 years! This is why we need to use slowly decaying elements to measure older objects. Carbon is simply the standard for measuring modern objects since it decays faster, thus yielding a smaller margin of error on these samples."

[Hazard]

Marcus..... I havnt forgotten - I had a long day in NYC today that just felt like it was never going to end. I'm gunna shower, eat, and when I lay down for bed I'll have a look.

[Hazard]

Haz, Flagg, TGF, Horse, pann, JWP806 or anyone else who knows the answers...........

There is a lot of evidence and facts what show the bible to have many flaws, this is without doubt due to reading this thread a lone and it does make you ask the question if the bible has so many flaws then maybe the whole thing is fiction who know is anyone else guess but taking the bible out of it and looking at the earth/universe situation whats been debating over the last few days science does have a lot of answers but when I was reading some of Haz's links I did start researching and after a bit came to something what did make me question the science part. Not sure if this is correct or not after all ive read it on the internet and not well educated like most on here regarding the science part but ask a couple of question. I will be copying and pasting some stuff because its better in there words than mine but here goes.

Science shows the earth is so old and the bible states something different we have got this straight you can't argue with facts and data but in the whole of the universe as far as we can see or explore anyway how do you explain that the earth is so perfect. The Earth's size and corresponding gravity holds a thin layer of mostly nitrogen and oxygen gases, only extending about 50 miles above the Earth's surface. If Earth were smaller, an atmosphere would be impossible, like the planet Mercury. If Earth were larger, its atmosphere would contain free hydrogen, like Jupiter. Earth is the only known planet equipped with an atmosphere of the right mixture of gases to sustain plant, animal and human life. The Earth is located the right distance from the sun. Consider the temperature swings we encounter, roughly -30 degrees to +120 degrees. If the Earth were any further away from the sun, we would all freeze. Any closer and we would burn up. Even a fractional variance in the Earth's position to the sun would make life on Earth impossible. The Earth remains this perfect distance from the sun while it rotates around the sun at a speed of nearly 67,000 mph. It is also rotating on its axis, allowing the entire surface of the Earth to be properly warmed and cooled every day. And our moon is the perfect size and distance from the Earth for its gravitational pull. The moon creates important ocean tides and movement so ocean waters do not stagnate, and yet our massive oceans are restrained from spilling over across the continents.

Another one I struggle with is the Universe it began with one enormaous explosion of energy and light which is known as the big bang this was the singular start to everything that exists: the beginning of the universe, the start of space, and even the initial start of time itself.

Astrophysicist Robert Jastrow, a self-described agnostic, stated, The seed of everything that has happened in the Universe was planted in that first instant; every star, every planet and every living creature in the Universe came into being as a result of events that were set in motion in the moment of the cosmic explosion...The Universe flashed into being, and we cannot find out what caused that to happen. Steven Weinberg, a Nobel laureate in Physics, said at the moment of this explosion, "the universe was about a hundred thousands million degrees Centigrade...and the universe was filled with light."

The universe has not always existed. It had a start...what caused that? Scientists have no explanation for the sudden explosion of light and matter.

Another few what seems hard to explain are

Water...colorless, odorless and without taste, and yet no living thing can survive without it. Plants, animals and human beings consist mostly of water (about two-thirds of the human body is water). You'll see why the characteristics of water are uniquely suited to life: It has an unusually high boiling point and freezing point. Water allows us to live in an environment of fluctuating temperature changes, while keeping our bodies a steady 98.6 degrees.Water is a universal solvent. This property of water means that various chemicals, minerals and nutrients can be carried throughout our bodies and into the smallest blood vessels. Water is also chemically neutral. Without affecting the makeup of the substances it carries, water enables food, medicines and minerals to be absorbed and used by the body. Water has a unique surface tension. Water in plants can therefore flow upward against gravity, bringing life-giving water and nutrients to the top of even the tallest trees. Water freezes from the top down and floats, so fish can live in the winter. Ninety-seven percent of the Earth's water is in the oceans. But on our Earth, there is a system designed which removes salt from the water and then distributes that water throughout the globe. Evaporation takes the ocean waters, leaving the salt, and forms clouds which are easily moved by the wind to disperse water over the land, for vegetation, animals and people. It is a system of purification and supply that sustains life on this planet, a system of recycled and reused water.

The human brain...simultaneously processes an amazing amount of information. Your brain takes in all the colors and objects you see, the temperature around you, the pressure of your feet against the floor, the sounds around you, the dryness of your mouth, even the texture of your keyboard. Your brain holds and processes all your emotions, thoughts and memories. At the same time your brain keeps track of the ongoing functions of your body like your breathing pattern, eyelid movement, hunger and movement of the muscles in your hands.

The human brain processes more than a million messages a second.7 Your brain weighs the importance of all this data, filtering out the relatively unimportant. This screening function is what allows you to focus and operate effectively in your world. The brain functions differently than other organs. There is an intelligence to it, the ability to reason, to produce feelings, to dream and plan, to take action, and relate to other people.

The eye...can distinguish among seven million colors. It has automatic focusing and handles an astounding 1.5 million messages -- simultaneously.8 Evolution focuses on mutations and changes from and within existing organisms. Yet evolution alone does not fully explain the initial source of the eye or the brain -- the start of living organisms from nonliving matter.

If we can explain so much what puts doubt in our minds what the bible preachers than why cant we explain the above??

Thought, opinions or facts welcome

Nice post!

I may not address everything here - I wanted to put my answer in bold but I can't on my phone.

I know things seem "perfect" but I really don't think it was unbelievable. I mean..... Think about it like this: what if life is only as common and these things lining up. What if life happened on every planet that had optimal water and oxygen levels?

Our planet is NOT unique! There are other earth like planets..... We've found them. The problem is we can't go there to see if life is there as well. If that life is intelligent on some level then evolution would surely have created some big differences between our two worlds.

Regarding the moon...... If I'm not mistaken...... It was originally part of the earth. I do t know the whole event off the too of my head but during earths early years - it was hit and what broke off was the moon. Amongst the earth rubble was other space rocks and dust which all collected and over time gravity had shaped it into a ball like the rest of the rocky planets.

The human body is complex for sure. We really are amazing animals...... The brain is just so fascinating as well. These things that we take for granted today were not just given to us over night. Our eyes at relocated where they are, ears also, all because of evolution. Our brains have varied in size over the years..... It hasn't always been this awesome - thank your ancestors..... Humans needed to figure out how to deal with big cats, mammoths, and a way more hostile environment - its their struggle that gives us our brains. Evolution happened..... And it's a beautiful thing in its own right!

Think about how humans will evolve from this point forward. We use our brains so much...... Eventually will they start getting bigger? As a result our heads will grow to accommodate them. Also..... We have relatively no need for our pinky toes..... Say good bye to that

Lastly...... We had no idea what our appendix was for but now we're thinking it allowed our ancestors to eat and digest raw meat. Since our layer ancestors started cooking their meat with fire - the need for such an organ went to the curb. In the future - we may not even have an appendix. Currently it's only causing us problem lol! I actually almost had to have a cat scan this week because they thought I had appendicitis. Turns out - the glands around my appendix were swollen from having a bad case of the liquid shits...... Have fun with that visual too hahaha!

~Haz~

[marcus300]

405, Thanks for the article regarding ice cores, from my understanding there are many ways to reads the data from ice cores and from your article even if we take inconsideration the misidentifying years by 2 to 1 it still shows the earth being here well before the bible states?


What about the information Haz produces regarding carbon dating and its not reliable after 50,000yrs but is up to this time? again kind of knocks the bible statement off the shelve?


The facts are showing to be in favour of the science regarding the age of the earth from my understanding so if this is 100% this shows the bible not to be accurate which could cast doubt on other areas of the book. Also Haz mentions we do have other planets what are exactly like earth we just cant get to them yet so earth isn't that much of a one off when you look at the whole thing again which dampens my thoughts regarding we are unique and if we are how did that come about.



Ok facts are facts and it does look more logical whats been said regarding earth, carbon dating and ice cores but what about humans, the brain and the eye how the hell did these evolve or even start. Can anyone explain how man first started on the earth?


From doing some research on the questions ive asked above the evolutionists side of things believe that four billion years ago particles on earth clanged together randomly to form proteins and DNA molecules, and that from that 'particle-clang' process, single-cell life forms grew in the primordial soup of early earth to become humans. Now this sounds extreme to me is this even possible? so I went deeper and found out the problem with the theory of evolution and the particle-clang theory is that it is mathematically fraught, and in terms of evolutionary scales the total of earth's existence, four billion years, is not a very long time. Many believe there has not been enough time for the random clanging of particles to create life, never mind enough to form the human eye, or a finger nail, or fifty million animal, insect, and plant species that exist or have existed on earth. So this seems to be out of the window......so I moved on


I came across another theory, called 'intelligent design'. it says that a superior intelligence created life on earth, but the followers of intelligent design don't agree with the Christians' six thousand-year time frame; they side with the evolutionists in believing life on earth is hundreds of millions of years old. (The oldest documented fossils of living animals are 540 million years old). This one had me thinking a lot....intelligent design by who and how? Some say it was God that designed life on earth, and others say they don't know who designed intelligent life, except that it must have been a civilization that is older and superior to ours. Some believe that aliens placed us here as an experiment, and while no one can disprove the idea, there isn't any evidence for it either. The problem with the theory of aliens from another star system is they would also be living on an earth-like planet that sustains life that is in this universe, and that planet may not be any older than ours. So there is every chance that aliens from another system would be not be any further forward than we are.


Again what is unexplainable is that modern man (Cro-magnon man), suddenly appeared in the fossil record thirty-to-forty thousand years ago. There is no fossil record of us having evolved from any other beings or animals, and there is no record of us having been here on earth before thirty thousand years ago. Modern man is not linked via DNA to the Neanderthals, whatsoever. So the fossil mystery gives rise to a speculation. The question is what form of intelligence (if any) dropped us off here thirty thousand years ago. The time frame throw the bible out from what Genesis states which with all the evidence around seems true but how do we account for man being on earth???



There is further theories which I will copy and paste which do seem far out but again when we speak about god this is also far out so take in inconsideration:


a trans-dimensional theory that says we weren't exactly dropped off; but that we walked in from another dimension. We know from watching the Morph sensation that I have written about extensively on my sites StuartWilde.com & StuartWildeBlog.com that this world is not always solid.

When the Morph appears strongly in a room, it seems as if there are fast-moving striations that move across your vision with many vortexes and swirls in it. You can put your hand up in it and your hand will dematerialize. It sounds extraordinary but we have seen that phenomena more than a thousand times. I've also seen humans completely dematerialize in front of my eyes and not reappear for ten minutes or more. I've done it myself with others watching.


One night, I was out in a garden teaching a mate of mine from Montreal how to dematerialize, when a golden ring of light formed on the lawn. It appeared from nowhere. There was no obvious source to the light or any beam shining down from above. It was just there. So I told my mate to walk out and stand in the ring of gold, and he did that and 'blip' he was gone. He came back into view a while later, but when he was gone, he was totally out of sight. I could clearly see the distant trees through the area where he had been standing.

The other dimensions I write about, that Paul Dirac postulated (1930) exist as antiparticle worlds, seem to our perception to be placed at arm's length at 90° degrees to us. They are not out in space a million miles away. So if a human can dematerialize and walk out of here, then it might also be possible, that at some point in ancient history, humans walked into this 3-D world from another more rarefied dimension close at hand, the walk-in theory might be possible.

The problem with all the other theories of origins of man is that they look at the earth and humans as solid. Once you realize that the planet's solidity is an illusion and that it also exists in a non-solid trans-dimensional form, then it is perfectly feasible that a human could walk out of a multi-dimensional, non-solid, hyperspace into the 3-D earth plane and become solid flesh and blood once he or she got here.

Then particle-clang looks silly as the origins of our humanity and all of life on earth could well have begun in an eternal, twenty-six dimensional hyperspace that might have existed for trillions upon trillions of eons, before this universe came into being, just 13.8 billions years ago. Humans could be very old, much older than the universe. It is also very possible that our Universe is just one of hundreds of thousands, maybe millions of universes, that various human species have evolved in over timeframes that are so astronomical in length, they boggle the mind. © Stuart Wilde 2009

Here below is a P.S. about the origins of man that I saw in the Mirror World as a vision.


The Origins of Man in the Mirror World-Aluna
Stuart Wilde

The mystical shamans of South America call the Mirror World, the aluna. In the aluna, there is a record of the origins of man on earth. In there, it is shown that man walked in naked from another dimension, but he was initially a bit of an automaton, unable to cope. It was as if his brain was not as yet activated to deal with a world of three dimensions and gravity, so he initially lay down on the ground and fell asleep.

While he slept, a being came to him from another world, and it placed six psilocybin mushrooms on his chest, three down one side and three down the other. When the man woke, he found the mushrooms and being hungry, he ate them. Awhile later, the mushroom's affect took hold of him, and his brain that had been previously dormant, clicked into action, and the man rose and stumbled off to find others, who had also walked into this three dimensional plane on exactly the same day. I would presume women got here in the same way, at the same time as the men.

What is fascinating is that the anthropologist and ethno-botanist Terrance McKenna, who wrote Food of the Gods, knew about the mushroom activation of human consciousness theory, but he did not consider the Fourth Alternative I have suggested, the walk-in theory discussed above.

He also believed humans evolved from a primitive state akin to automatons, but he did not say where those primitive beings came from, but he did suggest that they then took the mushrooms, and so they developed the self-aware conscious that we know today.
I have no idea how we will ever prove the walk-in theory, because by its very nature it left no trace of what happened, but as creationism and evolutionism are open to question, it might be an idea to consider the possibility of walk-ins.

A sophisticated form of the intelligent design theory might be right in the end, as it doesn't preclude walk-ins, and when dealing with other dimensions in hyper-space, one isn't constrained by the tightness of a few billion years, that particle-clang theory asks us to believe in.

I reckon we walked in here just as the animals and the insects did, and that life is trillions-upon-trillions of eons older than our rather new universe.(The Force by Stuart Wilde published by Hay House)



Thoughts???? explanations ??

[Flagg]

ice cores:


he primarily challenges my reinterpretation of the 110,000 claimed annual layers in the gisp2 ice core from the top of the greenland ice sheet to the depth of 2,800 metres and defends the extensive timeframe, claiming independent corroboration by multiple methods. I will show that these methods are not independent and open to significant reinterpretation. The root of the problem is the uncritical acceptance of the uniformitarian paradigm.
A question of starting assumptions

in my articles on ice cores, i reinterpreted the annual layers in the middle and lower portions of the gisp2 core as subannual layers, based on a flood–ice age model, incorporating warm oceans, cooling continents and high levels of atmospheric particulates from volcanic activity.1,2,3 thus, my starting assumptions assume significant climate instability post-flood and rapid accumulation of snow and ice. In this scenario, annual ice layers would be on the order of metres.

On the other hand, uniformitarians start with an assumption of great age, generally stable conditions and milankovitch orbital cycles to create ice ages. As a result, uniformitarians are looking for very thin annual layers on the order of centimetres and even millimetres near the bottom of the ice sheet.

The resulting difference in age-interpretation is a result of the starting paradigm; the data is the same and does not speak for itself. What we believe colours what we see.
Dating methods are not independent

seely superficially analyzes the main methods of counting annual layers.4 he concludes that my reinterpretation is invalid because the timescale has been corroborated by up to three independent annual measuring methods that agree with volcanic acidity spikes and deep-sea cores:

‘the first 110,000 annual layers of snow in that ice core (gisp2) have been visually counted and corroborated by two to three different and independent methods as well as by correlation with volcanic eruptions and other datable events.’5

however, contrary to what seely believes, neither the annual layer counting methods nor the external correlation methods are independent, they are all tied to the same starting assumptions of deep time. The 110,000 annual layers are based on the assumptions that the greenland ice sheet has been in equilibrium for several million years and that ice ages oscillate between glacials and interglacials with a period of 100,000 years based on the astronomical theory of the ice age (the milankovitch mechanism). Equilibrium means that the annual snowfall and height of the ice sheet have remained nearly constant for several million years. All late ‘cenozoic’ climatic data sets, including deep-sea cores, must (according to the reigning paradigm) follow this assumed mechanism, which has innumerable problems.6,7,8,9,10

the deep-sea core timescale, based on the astronomical theory of the ice age, provides the timescale for ice cores by dating such events as the younger dryas and the stage 5e interglacial in the broad-scale oxygen isotope ratios in ice cores. Then glacial flow models are tuned to this scale, assuming equilibrium of the ice sheets. The flow model then provides the first guess for the annual layer counting. Seely is aware of this bias, but denies it operates in the counting of annual layers:

‘contrary to oard, the expected annual thickness of the layers down the core does not determine what uniformitarian scientists conclude with these latter methods. The truth is exactly the opposite: Lls counting is used to correct the initial estimated thickness of the annual layers.’11

lls (laser light scattering) is a method for counting dust bands by passing a laser beam through the ice. Seely is technically correct, but generally incorrect. He must have misinterpreted my statements because such constraints on annual layer thickness do determine the general annual layer thickness within certain limits. I have used the term first guess or estimated annual layer thickness in my articles on the subject:

‘based on their expected annual thickness [from flow models], uniformitarian scientists take enough measurements to resolve what they believe are annual cycles.’12

in other words, the counted annual layers can deviate a little from the first guess, but the first guess constrains the limits of variability. It is like numerical analysis in which a first guess is required to begin and then successive computer iterations change the first guess somewhat to arrive at hopefully the correct answer. For instance, if the first guess concludes that the annual layer thickness at the 2,500-metre depth is around 1 centimetre, annual layer counting will not allow an annual layer thickness of 5 centimetres, let alone about 3 metres as in the creationist model. The variability in the measured parameters and the impact of non-periodic events provide adequate scope to find a preferred fit to the data.

In contrast, in a creationist model, the annual layers in the middle and lower portion of the gisp2 ice core would be subannual layers due to sub-storm, storm or other cycles of weather lasting anywhere from days to months.

To demonstrate that the astronomical theory biases all data sets and that annual layer counts can be adjusted to come close to expectations, all one has to do is read how the count of ‘annual’ layers below 2,300 metres was changed in the gisp2 core. Based on the deep-sea core chronology applied to the vostok antarctica ice core, meese noted that their timescale for gisp2 was off by 25,000 years at 2,800 metres depth:

‘they predicted the age of the ice at 2800 m to be about 110,000 years, 25,000 years older than had been originally counted on the basis of visual stratigraphy [meese et al., 1994].’13

the senior author then went back to the laboratory to ‘recheck’ the visible stratigraphy or dust layers. She discovered that by using a 1-mm wide laser beam in the lls method instead of an 8-mm wide beam, 25,000 more annual layers of dust were ‘discovered’ between 2,300 and 2,800 metres! One must be especially careful when evolutionary/uniformitarian scientists claim ‘agreement’ between two or more ‘independent’ dating methods and/or data sets.
Depth hoar from storms

in regard to each annual layer counting method, much could be written to show that seely misunderstands the methods. Furthermore, he only partially understands the climatic differences between the uniformitarian model and the creationist ice age model.9,10,14,15 i will only briefly discuss the annual layer methods, a more detailed treatment will be provided in a future monograph.16

seely states that surface hoar frost forms only during the summer due to sunshine and fog. However, surface hoar frost is only a minor player in the annual layer method; depth hoar is the main marker.17 depth hoar develops when a large, vertical temperature gradient causes vapour to sublime, diffuse and crystallize in a layer.18 this occurs just below the surface, mainly during the summer. However, it has been observed from snow pits that many depth-hoar/wind slab couplets can form each summer.19,20,21,22 alley and colleagues measured about 15 alternating depth-hoar/finer-grained wind crusts per year in snow pits at the top of the greenland ice sheet.23,24 these layers were observed to have formed by individual storms.24 although considered rare today, winter depth hoar can also form, but it is normally thin and discontinuous.23,25,26 storms can cause depth hoar layers if the temperature gradient is sufficient during the changes between warm and cold sectors of storms. These depth hoar complexes, as they are called, can usually be counted as annual layers in the top portion of the gisp2 core. It is more likely that a subannual depth hoar layer formed by a storm would be counted as an annual signal, if the snowfall were significantly higher in the past, as in the creation/flood model for the middle and lower portions of the ice core.4,16
subannual dust layers

seely claims that dust variations are primarily seasonal, so that every dust band, whether counted visually or by lls, are evidence for annual layers. Such dust bands are mainly responsible for the counting of annual layers from around 12,000 years to 110,000 years and even older in the uniformitarian timescale of the gisp2 ice core. Although dust bands are generally annual today, this does not mean they were annual in the past. The period between 12,000 and 110,000 years would correspond to the ice agega very dusty period with a unique climate. In the compressed creation/flood model with much thicker annual layers during the ice age, the dust represents an extremely dusty atmosphere, especially near glacial maximum and during deglaciation. Storms would be very dirty and multiple bands of dust could be deposited on the ice sheet by several mechanisms, such as by dry deposition between storms or during showery periods in one storm. In a high snowfall model, such as the creation/flood model, one can find oscillations in dust at almost any frequency, which is demonstrated when meese and colleagues found 25,000 more annual dust layers using a finer analysis!

Alley admits that subannual events can be produced during one year in all the annual layer methods, storms being one of the mechanisms:

‘fundamentally, in counting any annual marker, we must ask whether it is absolutely unequivocal, or whether non-annual events could mimic or obscure a year. For the visible strata (and, we believe, for any other annual indicator at accumulation rates representative of central greenland), it is almost certain that variability exists at the sub-seasonal or storm level, at the annual level and for various longer periodicities (2-year, sunspot, etc). We certainly must entertain the possibility of misidentifying the deposit of a large storm or a snow dune as an entire year or missing a weak indication of a summer and thus picking a 2-year interval as 1 year.’ 27

other misinterpretations

i could go on and on, but will briefly mention a few other misinterpretations in seely’s article. Seely states that volcanic spikes in acidity can be used to check the dating from deep in the ice cores. There are numerous problems relating volcanic acidity spikes as marker horizons. Volcanic history is known accurately to only 200 years!28 a few large eruptions are known beyond 200 years, but with all the other acidity spikes, it is difficult to match the eruption with an acidity spike in the ice core. It is very difficult to pin a precise date on an acidity peak beyond 2,000 years ago.29,30,31,32,33

seely seems to think that the formation of nitric acid that is picked up by the ecm (electric conductivity method) shows well-behaved seasonal oscillations with a summer maximum. This is only generally true today and the past would be different. Seely assumes that only nitric acid is significant; however ecm also picks up other acids including sulfuric acid.

There are quite a few unknowns and variables associated with atmospheric acidity generation, transport, deposition and locking in the ice.34 there are many sources for sulfuric and nitric acids, which can vary with time and complicate the seasonal cycle. For instance, the nitrogen cycle in the atmosphere is highly complex with a number of variables affecting the nitrate and nitric acid generation that can end up in the ice:

‘the atmospheric nitrogen cycle is highly complex and there is a wide range of factors that can affect the nitrate level in polar ice.’35

wolff corroborates:

‘however, the [nitrate] data are not easy to interpret and we do not have an adequate knowledge of even the present-day sources of nitrate in polar snow, nor of the deposition processes that control the concentrations seen.’36

furthermore, acidity can rarely be applied to the glacial portion of the greenland ice cores because the significant quantity of dust neutralizes the acid, except in short, dust-free sections.
Uniformitarian assumptions

if one starts with the uniformitarian paradigm, it is easy to see how the various methods appear to be corroborating. However, when one steps back and questions the unspoken starting assumptions and allows the parameters to vary by the full range available, completely different consistent results can be obtained. This shows the importance of where we start. The bible claims to be a reliable historical record and this history from the very beginning was attested to by christ and the apostles. Thus, it is a logical starting position from which to create our worldview. On the other hand, belief in deep time may be internally reinforcing, but has no external reference point. Either must be accepted by faith, only one will be right.

It is unfortunate that seely and others in the american scientific affiliation accept man’s fallible, continually changing stories about the past rather than god’s clear word.
Acknowledgments

i thank ashby camp for informing me about seely’s article and dr larry vardiman of the institute for creation research for sending me a copy of the seely article and for reviewing this article.

Paul H. Seely is NOT a Scientist, how can you simply say "because this guy says Icecores are not true", he must be right?

This is the guy that refers to Evolution as "Evilution".

I can't really debate further. How you can say Ice core layers are not conclusive simply blows my mind.

The root of the problem is the uncritical acceptance of the uniformitarian paradigm. - is what this guy said. I mean what does that even mean? It sounds like him trying to sound like a Scientist to be honest.

I mean damn, the last ice age ended 15,000 years ago. The Milankovitch Cycle itself works on the basis of 90,000 years of extreme cold, followed by 10-15 thousand years of relative warmth. We are in that period of relative warmth now. It's what afforded neanderthal man the opportunity to leap forward like he did. Those ice age cycles are the direct result of the formation of the Himalayans mountains and the polar ice caps.

Take continental shift. You do know that land moves, right? It moves at about the same speed as our finger nails grow. Once upon a time all the land masses were combined into a super continent known as Pangea, about 250 million years ago. It's things like this that have direct influence on climate. The Himalayan mountains formed when India collided into the Eurasian plate. Australia is slowly heading towards Russia. I mean we KNOW the continents are moving now, its why Earthquakes happen. I mean the Earth didn't look that much different in terms of continental placement 10,000 years ago, but we know the plates are moving. I mean why would God do that? You only have to look at South America and Africa to see they were clearly joined together at some point.

I just dont know how people can still say the planet is less than 10,000 years old where there is an ABUNDANCE of information which flat shows that to be false.

[Flagg]

This video shows Continental Shift.



It also shows what the Earth will look like in about 100 million years time.

[marcus300]

Paul H. Seely is NOT a Scientist, how can you simply say "because this guy says Icecores are not true", he must be right?

This is the guy that refers to Evolution as "Evilution".

I can't really debate further. How you can say Ice core layers are not conclusive simply blows my mind.

The root of the problem is the uncritical acceptance of the uniformitarian paradigm. - is what this guy said. I mean what does that even mean? It sounds like him trying to sound like a Scientist to be honest.

I mean damn, the last ice age ended 15,000 years ago. The Milankovitch Cycle itself works on the basis of 90,000 years of extreme cold, followed by 10-15 thousand years of relative warmth. We are in that period of relative warmth now. It's what afforded neanderthal man the opportunity to leap forward like he did. Those ice age cycles are the direct result of the formation of the Himalayans mountains and the polar ice caps.

Take continental shift. You do know that land moves, right? It moves at about the same speed as our finger nails grow. Once upon a time all the land masses were combined into a super continent known as Pangea, about 250 million years ago. It's things like this that have direct influence on climate. The Himalayan mountains formed when India collided into the Eurasian plate. Australia is slowly heading towards Russia. I mean we KNOW the continents are moving now, its why Earthquakes happen. I mean the Earth didn't look that much different in terms of continental placement 10,000 years ago, but why we know the plates are moving. I mean why would God do that? You only have to look at South America and Africa to see they were clearly joined together at some point.

I just dont know how people can still say the planet is less than 10,000 years old where there is an ABUNDANCE of information which flat shows that to be false.

Makes sense Flagg thanks, from all the research ive done over the last couple of days on ice cores it more or less 100% data and even if it was out by a few thousand yrs its still shows the bible to be out on that one.

When you are feeling better because I know your ill have a look at my post 371 and what are your thoughts on the other areas like man kind because the earth's age debate seems over to be honest you cant argue with logic and fact. Thanks

[--->>405<<---]

i will say this: it amazes me the extent to which human beings will go to attempt to convince themselves there is no God! unbelievable...

405, Thanks for the article regarding ice cores, from my understanding there are many ways to reads the data from ice cores and from your article even if we take inconsideration the misidentifying years by 2 to 1 it still shows the earth being here well before the bible states?

from what i can tell all of science that has inaccurately and with error thus far attempted to calculate the age of the earth have had to use "assumptions" in order for their "theories" to work. we can even go back to the big bang and theory of evolution and see assumptions were made there. herein lies the problem. all of the assumptions made by man have been wrong.

marcus now you yourself are trying to ascribe an assumption to the ice cores in an attempt to discredit the bible. stating the scientists couldve misidentified the years by 2 to 1. i ask you, where do u come up with this figure? from the article i read and produced for u it looks like a heck of a lot more than that. furthermore the fact that scientific calculations made by assumptions has been shown to have error should IMO increase the scrutiny in which we evaluate these "assumptions" in the future. it seems as though u simply want to arbitrarily assign a value of 50% to how "correct" these scientists are with estimating (and that is all that it is) the amount of time for these ice cores to form.

let me ask yall this question: exactly how many chances does man get to try to prove God wrong, which is not going to happen by the way.. and how many times are we as a race going to be manipulated into thinking "ok this is gonna be the one!" ?? i will speculate itll go on as long as we are able to question the existence of God and do u know why???? because human beings in their sinful state cannot admit to themselves they have a higher being they must be accountable to.

people are willing to believe they can dematerialize and trip on mushrooms to activate their brains ability to accept a 3rd dimension and all that ridiculous stuff so they dont have to be accountable to God..

the more i read and study this thing the more obvious it becomes to me what the problem is, and man's feeble attempts to disprove the existence of God get weaker and weaker.. its as if they are saying: " ok this time we got him! alright but this time! ok, well this time we really can prove it!"

cmon man..

What about the information Haz produces regarding carbon dating and its not reliable after 50,000yrs but is up to this time? again kind of knocks the bible statement off the shelve?

no it does not. i dont think haz is an authority on carbon dating and also even if he were my article i produced already has shown the error in carbon dating to be the same as the ice cores and the big bang: assumptions. science has no choice but to assume for the starting point of all their incorrect theories and u know the old saying about what happens when we assume right?

but again u sure do seem willing to side with man and science. why is that? scientific method for estimating the age of things based on the loss of carbon over time has been shown to be flawed, we are gonna have to have something else more reliable and i say it will not be provided and u know why? because the earth is as old as The Creator says it is..

The facts are showing to be in favour of the science regarding the age of the earth from my understanding so if this is 100% this shows the bible not to be accurate which could cast doubt on other areas of the book. Also Haz mentions we do have other planets what are exactly like earth we just cant get to them yet so earth isn't that much of a one off when you look at the whole thing again which dampens my thoughts regarding we are unique and if we are how did that come about.

Facts??? i have yet to see one fact other than the fact that scientists are wrong more often than they are right!

Ok facts are facts and it does look more logical whats been said regarding earth, carbon dating and ice cores but what about humans, the brain and the eye how the hell did these evolve or even start. Can anyone explain how man first started on the earth?

Genesis chapter 1

im not going to even get into the absurdities mentioned further down the page regarding aliens, alternate dimensions, and hallucinogenic mushrooms.

[Flagg]

I wont convince anyone to not follow God, im fully aware of how the Good Book has changed people for the better, and for the record I actually believe Jesus Christ existed.

I simply cannot fathum people that claim that the earth is only 10,000 years old.

The question of whether God exists, whatever vision a person holds him in, is one thing.

The question of how old the Earth is, is simply not up for debate. It is much older than 10,000 years. Human beings have been around for longer than 10,000 years. Carbon dating, Radioactive Isotopes, icecores, evolution, continenatal shift, dinosaur fossils....these all show how old the Earth is. I can say no more. Even oil proves how old the earth is.

[Flagg]

Makes sense Flagg thanks, from all the research ive done over the last couple of days on ice cores it more or less 100% data and even if it was out by a few thousand yrs its still shows the bible to be out on that one.

When you are feeling better because I know your ill have a look at my post 371 and what are your thoughts on the other areas like man kind because the earth's age debate seems over to be honest you cant argue with logic and fact. Thanks

Haha, will do mate im just about to head into work in a bit, my illness has reduced to an annoying wheezy cough now

Hopefully I can have a bit more of closer look at some of that stuff you put up over the weekend.

You have a inquisitive mind Marcus. That's a good thing.

[marcus300]

i will say this: it amazes me the extent to which human beings will go to attempt to convince themselves there is no God! unbelievable...


from what i can tell all of science that has inaccurately and with error thus far attempted to calculate the age of the earth have had to use "assumptions" in order for their "theories" to work. we can even go back to the big bang and theory of evolution and see assumptions were made there. herein lies the problem. all of the assumptions made by man have been wrong.

marcus now you yourself are trying to ascribe an assumption to the ice cores in an attempt to discredit the bible. stating the scientists couldve misidentified the years by 2 to 1. i ask you, where do u come up with this figure? from the article i read and produced for u it looks like a heck of a lot more than that. furthermore the fact that scientific calculations made by assumptions has been shown to have error should IMO increase the scrutiny in which we evaluate these "assumptions" in the future. it seems as though u simply want to arbitrarily assign a value of 50% to how "correct" these scientists are with estimating (and that is all that it is) the amount of time for these ice cores to form.

let me ask yall this question: exactly how many chances does man get to try to prove God wrong, which is not going to happen by the way.. and how many times are we as a race going to be manipulated into thinking "ok this is gonna be the one!" ?? i will speculate itll go on as long as we are able to question the existence of God and do u know why???? because human beings in their sinful state cannot admit to themselves they have a higher being they must be accountable to.

people are willing to believe they can dematerialize and trip on mushrooms to activate their brains ability to accept a 3rd dimension and all that ridiculous stuff so they dont have to be accountable to God..

the more i read and study this thing the more obvious it becomes to me what the problem is, and man's feeble attempts to disprove the existence of God get weaker and weaker.. its as if they are saying: " ok this time we got him! alright but this time! ok, well this time we really can prove it!"

cmon man..



no it does not. i dont think haz is an authority on carbon dating and also even if he were my article i produced already has shown the error in carbon dating to be the same as the ice cores and the big bang: assumptions. science has no choice but to assume for the starting point of all their incorrect theories and u know the old saying about what happens when we assume right?

but again u sure do seem willing to side with man and science. why is that? scientific method for estimating the age of things based on the loss of carbon over time has been shown to be flawed, we are gonna have to have something else more reliable and i say it will not be provided and u know why? because the earth is as old as The Creator says it is..


Facts??? i have yet to see one fact other than the fact that scientists are wrong more often than they are right!



Genesis chapter 1

im not going to even get into the absurdities mentioned further down the page regarding aliens, alternate dimensions, and hallucinogenic mushrooms.

It amazes me how much of a close ridged mind you have and wont look and take in the facts and evidence around you what's been posted. Once you get questioned you go all defensive but all I am doing 405 is asking questions and getting answers from the guys from the science side, all you do to be fair is quote bible quotes which Ive told you mean nothing to me, its a book. I've tried to read the quotes but they just don't seem right to me and kind of fairy-tale like but I am still open to the god just the bible is getting more lame more I look into it.

I have a open mind on the matter which ive told you many times, I am not here to take the piss out of the bible or your faith far from it because if you took your blinkers off and actually read some of my posts you will see I am asking questions regarding the brain, eyes and how man kind came to land on earth so I am still asking questions for the science guys to show me something what I can work with otherwise how these happen and I would look in favour of the supreme being. There is no doubt in my mind now that the bible stating that the earth is 10,000 yrs old is not true, i'm not saying god is all made up all I am saying with what ive read over the last few pages the evidence is so much what the bible states but again I am not saying there is no god because I am still asking about man kind.

If the bible is wrong with how old the earth is why can't it be wrong with the other claims? that's what I am asking now. I understand your closed mind to aliens because that does seem very stupid but is it really that much of a daft claim than what the bible states?? nope its not so you shouldn't totally disregarded it, again there is no evidence of this so I am with you that it does seem daft and stupid but where is yours what I keep on asking for, no bible quotes show me something?? ive asked you many times to tell me how did you get into this state of mind because I am open to try it but you just talk about being strong willed and having discipline to stop the lifestyle you was going down.

[marcus300]

I wont convince anyone to not follow God, im fully aware of how the Good Book has changed people for the better, and for the record I actually believe Jesus Christ existed.

I simply cannot fathum people that claim that the earth is only 10,000 years old.

The question of whether God exists, whatever vision a person holds him in, is one thing.

The question of how old the Earth is, is simply not up for debate. It is much older than 10,000 years. Human beings have been around for longer than 10,000 years. Carbon dating, Radioactive Isotopes, icecores, evolution, continenatal shift, dinosaur fossils....these all show how old the Earth is. I can say no more. Even oil proves how old the earth is.

I am fully with you on this from reading what you and haz post there is no question that earth is older than what the bible states, thanks for keeping with this thread flagg.

Haha, will do mate im just about to head into work in a bit, my illness has reduced to an annoying wheezy cough now

Hopefully I can have a bit more of closer look at some of that stuff you put up over the weekend.

You have a inquisitive mind Marcus. That's a good thing.

Now that we know earth being older we can move onto more questions what I have and thanks for taking the time to look over them. Lets see where we end up with these lol

[Hazard]

Last reply on carbon dating.....

If you understand half life's when it comes to hormones whats hard to understand about carbon dating?

Carbon has a half life..... Fact. You take the carbon weight and figure out its life cycle o half lives...... The ONLY reason why it's unreliable AfTER 50k years is because the unit of measure is so small. Up to 50k years - its extremely accurate. I don't see how it's debatable really..... That's like saying you have been taking test a d got a blood test to see if u were good for pct - you read the results and then claim the blood test isn't accurate. It's the same difference.

Regarding tryin to prove "god" wrong..... He'd have to be real to prove him wrong. I
Guess you could say im trying proving your idea of god wrong. Even then..... That's not what I'm out to do. Also..... To make the assumption that I just don't wanna face the fact that we are going to be accountable is like me telling you that you don't wanna face the fact that there is no god and you're holding onto the idea of him for comfort. It's not a fair assumption.

If I meet god when I die I'll have a lot of questions for him and if he can't see past my questioning as a human being than I'll see flagg in hell where hitler will be waiting with kits of growth hormone for us lol

[panntastic]

Ok to me this has gotten to deep for my comprehension and I am trying to follow and understand.
I'm not sure if this has been asked I this thread but do any of our religious members believe in extra terrestrial life?

[--->>405<<---]

[QUOTE=marcus300;6492861]

It amazes me how much of a close ridged mind you have and wont look and take in the facts and evidence around you what's been posted. Once you get questioned you go all defensive but all I am doing 405 is asking questions and getting answers from the guys from the science side, all you do to be fair is quote bible quotes which Ive told you mean nothing to me, its a book. I've tried to read the quotes but they just don't seem right to me and kind of fairy-tale like but I am still open to the god just the bible is getting more lame more I look into it.

i disagree that i wont look at and take in facts, what i posted about assumptions made by scientists proves i did indeed take in so called facts and evidence. u say i get "all defensive" and i say youre reading too much into what i am posting. sure there is a bit of emotion involved with me because after all were talking about my faith here. all yall are talking about is ideas and theories generated by men. u have nothing invested into science other than some time, therefore u can maintain an emotionless position.

the fact that someone can speak with no emotion about science and there is a bit of emotion involved with faith means nothing. my feelings about God are in the realm of comparable to feelings you would have for a family member or child. would u not get emotional when discussing certain things about members of ur family with strangers? dont try to use my emotion as a platform to call into question my credibility or the validity of what im saying. that is a BS tactic.

all scientific data ive seen uses assumptions to start their process going. these assumptions can be incorrect. currently i am looking into continental shift and fossilization. as far as im concerned these are the only 2 scientific things mentioned above by flagg that deserve further attention. carbon dating, ice cores, the big bang and evolution have all had holes punched in them and doubt cast. if u disagree i would like to see why? i have not seen any evidence that is unequivocal.

I have a open mind on the matter which ive told you many times, I am not here to take the piss out of the bible or your faith far from it because if you took your blinkers off and actually read some of my posts you will see I am asking questions regarding the brain, eyes and how man kind came to land on earth so I am still asking questions for the science guys to show me something what I can work with otherwise how these happen and I would look in favour of the supreme being. There is no doubt in my mind now that the bible stating that the earth is 10,000 yrs old is not true, i'm not saying god is all made up all I am saying with what ive read over the last few pages the evidence is so much what the bible states but again I am not saying there is no god because I am still asking about man kind.

i see that you are thinking and that is good. some of what i posted above was not directed at you but moreso the authors of the things u posted (aliens, hallucinogens, etc..). u do seem quick to rule out the bible and disregard the doubt i cast on carbon dating, polar ice cores, and evolution.. ?? why is that? the evidence is not conclusive in light of the incorrect assumptions that science has made???

If the bible is wrong with how old the earth is why can't it be wrong with the other claims? that's what I am asking now. I understand your closed mind to aliens because that does seem very stupid but is it really that much of a daft claim than what the bible states?? nope its not so you shouldn't totally disregarded it, again there is no evidence of this so I am with you that it does seem daft and stupid but where is yours what I keep on asking for, no bible quotes show me something?? ive asked you many times to tell me how did you get into this state of mind because I am open to try it but you just talk about being strong willed and having discipline to stop the lifestyle you was going down.

if the bible has just one error in it, the whole rest of it is compromised. God has zero room for error, but science has unlimited chances. the difference being, science is often wrong and God never is.

i have answered you every time regarding how i came to faith. u fail to accept what i say to be the reason. u have scientific glasses on and only see what u can touch and prove. this is not how things work with God. until u become able to take those scientific glasses off, it will never make sense to u. the same applies to scripture.

i was the same way as u before i became a christian. one key ingredient that separates me from you is the eyes of my heart have been opened by God to see what is right in front of me that i never saw before. the same thing is right in front of you, but u cant see it because ur heart is not prepared to see it.

if you are looking for proof that is concrete and measurable, similar to that of science u will probably never find it. this is why i posted the scripture i posted before which i will post again one more time even though u say it means nothing to you, it explains perfectly the same thing i am trying to explain to you: God uses faith to save us and science is a stumbling block for us. people who cant get over science and have to have things proven to them do NOT find God using these methods. science is man made wisdom.

id like those of u reading this to think about this scripture in terms of this exact debate/conversation we're having here. this whole conversation exists due to attempting to remedy science (man made wisdom) and the bible. in this scripture below God is saying this will not be the case that He Himself made it so, but to the contrary He uses what science considers foolish (the bible) to save us.. think about that!

i cant put it any clearer or simpler. IMO it merits contemplation.

1 corinthians 1:21
"For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe."

[marcus300]

405, I am not trying to discredit your faith I am asking questions and one of those question was how old the earth was, you still believe its 10,000 yrs old after what haz and flagg have posted that's fine, I don't because of the evidence provided that's my choice, this doesn't mean I don't believe in god but it does tell me that the bible isn't telling the truth which put further doubts in my mind, but I have other questions what haven't been answered like man kind, the eye and brain but I am without doubt the earth is a lot older than what the bible states. Like Haz stated carbon dating is very accurate up to 50,000 yrs, I don't want to try and convince you that's your choice but I got answers to the age of the earth. Moving on to the other areas may well stop my way of thinking at present which will be fine because I am open minded.

The quote you posted, in all honesty ive read it 5 times and still have no idea what it means and could mean different things to different people

[--->>405<<---]

[QUOTE=Hazard;6492910]

Last reply on carbon dating.....

If you understand half life's when it comes to hormones whats hard to understand about carbon dating?

u say this as if i am not understanding what carbon dating is. i understand what it is. stuff has carbon in it and loses carbon at a certain rate per "X" amount of time. scientists then can determine something's age by how much carbon is present. the problem comes in where they estimate atmospheric conditions and other things..

Doesn’t Carbon-14 Dating Disprove the Bible? - Answers in Genesis
i already posted this one time, i suppose u didnt read it?? well here it is again. check it out.

Regarding tryin to prove "god" wrong..... He'd have to be real to prove him wrong. I
Guess you could say im trying proving your idea of god wrong. Even then..... That's not what I'm out to do. Also..... To make the assumption that I just don't wanna face the fact that we are going to be accountable is like me telling you that you don't wanna face the fact that there is no god and you're holding onto the idea of him for comfort. It's not a fair assumption.

haha.. i suppose He would have to be real before he could be wrong.

If I meet god when I die I'll have a lot of questions for him and if he can't see past my questioning as a human being than I'll see flagg in hell where hitler will be waiting with kits of growth hormone for us lol

ok.. it does seem funny now .. i can tell u one thing: u wont see flagg in hell or anyone else for that matter. isolation is one of the many things that happen there and from what ive read the isolation comes from the focus one has on the pain and internal torment. you could be in a place full of people but not notice a single one because your individual suffering is so consuming.

[Hazard]

In response to isolation..... That kinda sucks lol. Can I bring shrooms with me? Lol

[RaginCajun]

what about life as being from intelligent design?

i know that is one of the up and coming things nowadays, and it kind of goes against the evolutionary approach.

just thought i throw another topic to talk/discuss views on

[HORSE]

Assuming that God did guide and direct every word of scripture, it still leaves the matter of who collected all the individual writing's of the time that claimed to be divinely inspired??
How did they determine there validity??
Did they read each and every work presented that claimed divine influence??
How then did they decided which ones where to be canonized to form the bible and which one's where to be denounced or just plain forgotten??
Was it decided by a vote amongst men/Bishops??

I understand that the word of God is infallible but how are we to put that kind of faith in the fallible men that where tasked with putting together the scripture that makes up the bible??


thanx horse. do u really want me to answer these questions above or would u prefer to do so?

I'd like to hear your's and any other members thought's on the subject....

[HORSE]

In response to isolation..... That kinda sucks lol. Can I bring shrooms with me? Lol

Perhaps through yoga you can learn to stimulate your Pineal gland into producing DMT for all eternity....

[--->>405<<---]

Potential for Rapid Continental Shift that also Coincides with the Great Flood

Continental Drift:
CONTINENTAL DRIFT - Have Earth's continents drifted? • ChristianAnswers.Net

Catastrophic Plate Tectonics:
Catastrophic Plate Tectonics - The physics behind the Genesis Flood

[marcus300]

Potential for Rapid Continental Shift that also Coincides with the Great Flood

Continental Drift:
CONTINENTAL DRIFT - Have Earth's continents drifted? • ChristianAnswers.Net

Catastrophic Plate Tectonics:
Catastrophic Plate Tectonics - The physics behind the Genesis Flood

Thanks 405 will have a read of these now

[Hazard]

Really lol

[Flagg]

When the Paleozoic, Mesozoic, and all but the latest Cenozoic portions of geologic history are compressed into the span of a year in the catastrophic plate tectonics framework, uplift naturally takes place afterward and, especially from a uniformitarian perspective, appears sudden and simultaneous.

These articles were fairly interesting till I read stuff like this. Is the Catastrophic Plate Tectonic theory REALLY suggesting those 3 time periods happened in one year? ONE YEAR?

I'm glad that it's at least achknowledged that plate tectonics occur, but what is being suggested is simply not possible. If Pangea broke up as fast and quick as stated, there would be MEGA earthquakes and MEGA tsunami's occuring everywhere. You are talking about millions and millions of tons of rock moving around at speeds of what I can only think of as hundreds of miles per hour. The noise and devastation made when India smashed into the Eurasian place would have caused a world wide extinction as huge volcanoes would have occurred. But no one happened to notice this? We've seen what happens when a large vehicle hits something solid like a building...imagine the carnage when something the size of India collided with Europe. And how did man survive all this? An asteroid, 10 km in diameter was capable of wiping nearly all life 65 million years ago, imagine the carnage of something the size of india hitting another large continent at high speed.

Think of Pangea like....a giant cracker. If you pull at it very, very gradually, not applying too much force, it will break up in more cohesive units. What happens to the cracker if you just rip it apart, simply to save time?

I don't want this to turn into "science vs creation" cause I dont want any bad blood to occur, but I just cant accept this stuff. Even with a science spin on it, there are just some things in those articles that are flat out impossible.

It's almost like science is feared and seen as nothing but magic, and a great threat to what the Bible teaches. I mean another question to ask is, if it's all wrong, then why are geoligists, ecologists, evolutionists, physicists, and just about every scientist there is, are allowed to share these great lies to the world? Where is the gain in it, if it's all false? Science is a good thing. If people cant believe that, look at the Middle East and places like Egypt and see where their lack of technology, science and abundance of zeal has got them.

[Flagg]

Okay, my last question to you about age, 405.

The Bible claims that the Earth and Universe is 10,000 years old.

Look up at the sky at night and you will see stars. Millions of stars. Some are thousands, most are MILLIONS of light years away.

I assume you accept the speed of light cannot be broken, something that most of us would probably agree on. Cause travelling at the speed of light it would take, 30,000 light years to get from one end of the Galaxy to the other. And then what about the other galaxies beyond ours?

Everything in space moves. The moon move's around the earth, the planets move around the sun, and the sun is in perpetual motion because of the galactic core. Even galaxies are in motion.

So if there are stars, even other galaxies out there, that are MILLIONS OF LIGHT YEARS away, then how have they got there in less than 10,000 years from the moment the spark of creation begun?

[GirlyGymRat]

I would like for 405 to respond also.

My studies indicated that time as we know it today (24 hours a day) is not measured the same way during Old Testament. A day was longer then.

[--->>405<<---]

Okay, my last question to you about age, 405.

The Bible claims that the Earth and Universe is 10,000 years old.

Look up at the sky at night and you will see stars. Millions of stars. Some are thousands, most are MILLIONS of light years away.

I assume you accept the speed of light cannot be broken, something that most of us would probably agree on. Cause travelling at the speed of light it would take, 30,000 light years to get from one end of the Galaxy to the other. And then what about the other galaxies beyond ours?

Everything in space moves. The moon move's around the earth, the planets move around the sun, and the sun is in perpetual motion because of the galactic core. Even galaxies are in motion.

So if there are stars, even other galaxies out there, that are MILLIONS OF LIGHT YEARS away, then how have they got there in less than 10,000 years from the moment the spark of creation begun?

well this appears to be a very interesting answer/theory! i have to say i appreciate u guys in that i have learned more in the past few days about science and the earth/space/scientific methods than i have probably in the rest of my life LOL.. i have also spent more time in the Word than i have recently and needed to so thanks..

"Gravitational Time Dilation"
Young Universe, Old Stars? How can light get to us from stars which are millions of light-years away in a universe which the Bible indicates is only thousands of years old? • ChristianAnswers.Net

[Hazard]

Omg lol

[Dpyle]

well this appears to be a very interesting answer/theory! i have to say i appreciate u guys in that i have learned more in the past few days about science and the earth/space/scientific methods than i have probably in the rest of my life LOL.. i have also spent more time in the Word than i have recently and needed to so thanks..

"Gravitational Time Dilation"
Young Universe, Old Stars? How can light get to us from stars which are millions of light-years away in a universe which the Bible indicates is only thousands of years old? âEUR¢ ChristianAnswers.Net

I can see this theory as plausible, but I'm surprised that you went with it 405. In a previous thread debating this same topic. I offered the argument of "who is to say that a day in the life of God is the same as the day we see" to which you countered with a passage from Genesis about the 7 day creation "there was morning and there was evening. the first day"

Have you now changed a bit from that original literal interpretation?

[BG]

A religious "juicer" is still one if the best oxymorons I have heard of yet.

Carry on

What do you mean by that ? No body's perfect, the God knows that. We are the people he's looking to save....the lost. He ransomed his son for us, even knowing we were going to still sin afterwards. I juice, sin all the time, but since giving myself to him he blesses me no matter what. You dont have be clean or live a "normal" life to be religious. All you have to have is faith in your Creator and Savior.

[Dpyle]

Omg lol

Did you read the whole thing Haz?

[BG]

All you people have no idea what being religious or having faith is all about....thats the problem.