Are you an atheist? (3 Viewers)

[Bladerunner]

[quote = Galaxiom 4796] Not according to prevailing scientific knowledge. All you have read is speculation from believers who have zero evidence to support their view.

[/quote]

Well lets see here. You are saying the Hellium does and could not have become trapped in granites, radiohalos (Polonium) could not have left their signature and "fission tracks" could not have formed. thus all these road maps really do not exist. Or is it, the reason why they are form is a little too close to completely ruling out yours and other atheist speculation on how the universe was formed.

These show the earth cooled in thousands of years and not millions. Well, these happenings are positive proof vs you assumptions that the universe cam be radiodated from a meteorite. A lot of assumptions was used to get what the atheist wanted out of this one.

Rem. Man wrote the booke of the earth and universes age... God wrote the book on how he created it. Not much punkin there. Millions believe you are wrong!

ME too.

Blade

 

[Bladerunner]

That would be called finding evidence that counter acts previous statements. Here is a massive difference between lack of religion and religion blade. We actually try and prove ourselves wrong and in essence proving religion wrong just comes with the package. Religion just tries and prove science wrong with no thought to their own belief system.

there you go again changing the subject. It is ok for you to quote a mistake but not me------NO????

Blade
\

 

[Bladerunner]

I have no idea what to think on this

We decipher the rough age of the universe via a few methods. One of them being studying the way stars are born, evolve and die. White dwarf stars are a great example as they are what the sun will eventually look like (or to clarify they were once like the sun).

Some of my information was added from this website. You may learn something here blade.

http://stardate.org/astro-guide/btss/cosmology/age_of_the_universe

ALSO you never answered my main question? How do you explain fossils found to be countless years older than your religion claims the universe to be? If dating the fossils is an issue. I think we would have noticed a T-REX walking around a good couple of thousand years ago

[/quote]

Let say mother nature spit ,,,,oh,,,,out how many humans necessary to ward of extinction. Lets say for argument purposes about 5,000 humans. how many of them did we have incest. We know the rulers did. would not want to procreate with the poooor folk. How did mother nature produce a human person in mass> wow. I know you going to say I just don't understand evolution. Your right here. I really do not understand how we got where we are without incest at one time in the past,,,,that is unless nature supplied the 5,000 humans necessary ward off extinction. I might it would have to be in pretty quick order too.

You decipher their rough age of the universe via a few methods and all of them are based on a bunch of assumptions especially radio-dating methods. It would seem the even then there are secular scientist who believe the universe has always been here. Wait....Wait...it is coming..........Oh, they did not use the same assumptions. Laughable at the very least.

Blade

Oh, almost forgot.....The t-rexes.............BUT all of them have carbon -14 in them and I don't have to tell you what this means. Oh, my,,,,, 65 million vs a few thousand.

 

[Bladerunner]

I'm 6'5 / 6'6 the closest person in my family to my height was my great grandfather who was 6'4 (My Mom and dad are just under 6 foot, Before someone says I'm adopted I'm not.)

And a guy in my work is 6'9!

I wonder if this is true for the Japaneese as well. Tradition has it that the people of the islands, living off fish mainly because they had nothing to hunt on an island were smaller in nature. Now, that they have all the beef they want, wonder if they have grown.

Someone said that man could not survive mother natures turns(so-to-speak). How did the Eskimos do it. they learned to live off the land. The cave men previously had a harder time. Genetics is not all based upon mother nature.

If you mate a tall man and a tall mother, you may or may not have tall children. However, somewhere down the line you will have a very tall child. It is not evolution that I was talking about. 1. type we come from monkeys, 2... we grew a thumb to hold something, 3. we are growing to be giants because of evolution.

Doc Man,,,,, you may have a PH_D and I offer congrads on that but genetics is simply genetics. I have had a class or two myself plus a lifetime of seeing the actual changes.

 

[Bladerunner]

Blade - having worked as a chemist (the "Doc" in my name is because my Ph.D. in Chemistry was earned, not gifted), I am intimately familiar with various radioactive and other dating methods. What I am worried about is how you are using junk science articles with clearly religious bias to try to prove points that can't be proven.

Let's be clear also - I am not trying to be "holier than thou" but if you wish to talk about theory, try to understand the scientific use of that term rather than using the colloquial version. Capital-T Theories have gone through the scientific refinement method that starts with a Capital-C Conjecture as the result of someone's observation.

Evolution is a Theory that consists of many parts including but not limited to survival of the fittest, speciation driven by pressure to survive in a given environment, and survival of favorable or benign mutations. We have strong evidence for the truth of the individual elements that make up the current Theory of Evolution. Some of that evidence came from clergy. For instance, the Theory of Genetics was based on the work of the monk Gregor Mendel.

For you to attempt to downplay the Theory of Evolution and the Theory of Radioactive Dating, you have to be able to negate literally a couple of hundred years worth of hard evidence. I respectfully submit that Don Quixote would have better luck with his windmills than you will have with your sadly closed-minded attempts to evade the harsh truths of evolution and radioactive dating.

Thanks for the condescending Don Quixote jib Doc.

I too am a man of science and medicine. As you have, I have had many classes of genetics,etc. including the theory of evolution. You atheist like to talk that evolution produced everything we see in the world today including man from the very start. The very start is where we part company. As far as genetics goes, the changes thru generations are well documented. However, you have to start somewhere?

Now if you want to talk abut why you think man come from a monkey,,,no......lets go back......from that primordial ooze. we can. I think this is conjecture, not even a hypothesis. how say you?

Blade

 

[Bladerunner]

So only by having His own son (a manifestation of Himself) killed could God possibly allow gentiles into heaven?

Why did God make this rule?

Blood sacrifice. Savoring the smell of burning flesh. Eternal damnation for thos who will not worship. Punishing all women for ever for Eve's transgression. Punishing children, grandchildren, great grandchildren and great great grandchildren for the sins of their ancestors. Having children torn apart by bears because they made a joke about a man's baldness. Killing a man's family to prove to Satan that He is loved by His followers.

All these things and many more are clearly laid out in the Bible along with His plan to massacre most of the people on the planet yet again.

Your God is a madman who in today's world would be convicted of crimes against humanity.

Meanwhile His followers claim that He is the source of morality. What a joke.

Do you have a son or daughter?/// (A manifestation of yourself). Died for yours and my sins.

Blood sacrifice.......a little better that hilter, stalin, Mao, Po-pot,,,,, No man will do that himself. It is just the ones that believe and die will be reborn and the others, well, I think not. Would you want Hitler in Heaven. But of course you would.

By who's laws would he be convicted. By Man (a god unto himself)

Where did you get your morals,,,Bet it was from a church somewhere in the past. past down generations. In the beginning for atheist,,, just where did you get your morals. When man stepped out of the ocean, where did he get his morals, Like cavemen, warring,,,,,they did not believe in God. could not even speak but they could kill. A good atheist at work.

Blade

 

[Bladerunner]

If our development were directly dependent on our genes alone we would not do well in a rapidly changing environment. Hence the expression of genes is controlled by the activation and deactivation through methylation in a process known as epigenetics.

The environment experienced by a woman has a direct effect on the development of the eggs in her ovaries which carry though to the expression of genes at least as far as her grandchildren.

When times are tough we tend towards smaller children for a couple of generations and vice versa. After a couple of extremely well fed generations we can see the average size of the recent generations has grown. My sons are 6'2" and 6'4".

A considerable part of the modern obesity epidemic is driven by the life experiences of a couple of preceding generations.

Good to know for the people who are trying to lay GOD! Maybe we should ask they if the diseases humans have a hard time with are from the "the activation and deactivation through methylation in a process known as epigenetics" you spoke of.

Genetics carries a little longer than to the grandchildren.

Again, I wonder if Japan is experiencing this?

It is always someones fault. Blame it on the past. Why then do a lot of Obese stay at McDonalds then on the couch. Have you ever my 600lb life.. check it out.

Blade

 

[Bladerunner]

They first fused two cells so the mitochondria from different lines were located in a single cell.

This process is not something that occurs naturally in humans.

"Nevertheless, its occurrence in human cells is still controversial". Like everything
atheist put forth to explain our existence is Controversial between you own. Kind of like changing the goal post every year or so when something new is found. Again, is kind of like the fake global warming and all its figures.

Blade

 

[Bladerunner]

To those on the thread, I apologize for so many post but there is only me and many others that are awaiting to get their claws (lol) into me. I try to answer all questions and concerns and then some.(lol)

Blade

 

[Bladerunner]

[quote. Doc Man ]......From the Bible, let's take three fairly simple statements attributed to Jesus. First, we have to deal with a fine point. If you are a believer in Jesus as one of the Trinity, then when Jesus speaks, it is also God who is speaking, since they are one. (If you don't believe in the Trinity, this might get trickier, but let's go on.)?

[/quote]

In the Beginning, God created the Heaven and the Earth. (Genesis 1:1)
And the Earth was without form, and void; and the darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the 'Spirit of God' moved upon the face of the waters. (Genesis 1:2)
Jesus became part of the Trinity when he was resurrected and ascended to Heaven with his father.

Above is all three of them: Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me. John (14:6)
So they are still separated but united much as your son or daughter would be to you. Of course you probably don't have a spirit that can do your work for you.
You can, at anytime before your death, make a choice to go to heaven by accepting Jesus!

[quote. Doc Man ]......Jesus told Pilate: My kingdom is not of this world. But science is ENTIRELY of this world. Why would Creation Science be able to tell us anything about the kingdom of Jesus that ordinary science can't tell us?

[/quote]

Many of the creation Science people have PhDs like you do. (i.e. Johannes Kepler, who discovered the three laws of planetary motion, or James Clerk Maxwell who discovered the four fundamental equations that light and all forms of electromagnetic radiation obey.).

However, I cannot answer for them, yet have we ever seen a "red giant" star go to a "white Dwarf" the next stage of (your) evolution. I think Not. It is all Theories. Is the Universe really expanding. Theory again. Oh yeah, Galaxiom stated the "Doppler Effect" the red shift in the light spectra from distant galaxies is a theory as well. At the very minimum, it is controversial by the atheist own scientist. I think the creation science can see a little farther than you can because they have the Bible on their side. Genesis 15:5 He took him outside and said, "Look up at the sky and count the stars--if indeed you can count them." Then he said to him, "So shall your offspring be." We are just now able to approximate the stars in the sky yet, he named them all.

[quote. Doc Man ]......Jesus told his followers: Only through faith shall you come to me. This has further been interpreted in light of comments about those who seek knowledge seeking the wrong thing. In essence, if you seek God, you must have faith without the need to prove anything.?

[/quote]

Don't really know how to answer that. seems a play on words so I will play with this. If you believe in Jesus do you not have faith in his Love?

[quote. Doc Man ]......Jesus told Satan (in the desert, when Satan invited him to test God): Thou shall not test the Lord thy God. I.e. it is wrong to test because it means you have no faith. You need proof. But faith is belief without the necessity of having proof..?

[/quote]

This was first said a Messah where the children of Israel chided over water.Throughout the Bible the Hebrew people have lost faith (numerous times) and steered away from God. (i.e.. Bondage of Egypt to Exodus) only to come back to God. Man is a fickle creation. A large number of Atheist were once Christians that believed in God. For one reason or another they thurned away when they believed that God should have protected them, loved ones, children, etc. but did not. One can lose the faith and in time the belief in God. One has to be present to have the other.

[quote. Doc Man ]......Let's put those together. Creation Science attempts to use methods of measuring stuff in this world to test God (whose kingdom is in another world) so as to gain proof rather than faith. ..?

[/quote]

Can you be more specific??? but from what I have seen, Creation scientist spend their time testing the theories put forth by atheist.?

[quote. Doc Man ]......Suppose that you actually used this science to find a god and prove his existence. Would you worship this god that you just found and proved? Remember, if you can prove the existence of this god, he is clearly not smarter than Man, because you found him. However, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Joseph says "Only through faith..." So which god did you find? If you worship that god, you would be violating the commandment about putting no other gods before Me. ..?

[/quote]

I guess that would be a question for your atheist. They have to find God to disprove him. There is no other way. Don't worry, there is only one way to find him and the creation scientist know what it is. We had a atheist on another post that declared a God other than. His bad.

[quote. Doc Man ]......Which entity in the Bible would benefit from such a situation? Satan, of course, wants to deceive you and make you fall away from God's worship. So Creation Science is the work of Satan. Are you SURE you want to rely on the junk science?

[/quote]

Satan turns people away from God and will be punished in the end. So will the people who believe in him. Good Luck!

Blade

 

[Galaxiom]

The t-rexes.............BUT all of them have carbon -14 in them and I don't have to tell you what this means. Oh, my,,,,, 65 million vs a few thousand.

All T-Rex remains have been mineralised. There is no carbon in them.

Will you please stop spouting unsubstantiated rubbish.

 

[Galaxiom]

"Nevertheless, its occurrence in human cells is still controversial". Like everything
atheist put forth to explain our existence is Controversial between you own.

It is controversial only according to those who seek to discredit the research based on mDNA, usually for religious reasons. It is not controversial in main stream science.

Kind of like changing the goal post every year or so when something new is found. Again, is kind of like the fake global warming and all its figures.

Similarly with Climate Change. The supposed controversy is fabricated by very small number of scientists, mostly with ulterior motives. The evidence is unequivocally in support.

 

[Galaxiom]

The picture shows: Pillars that may commemorate the Red Sea crossing by the ancient Israelites have been discovered in recent years on both sides of the Gulf of Aqaba arm of the Red Sea. One on the Egyptian shore and another located on the Arabian side with “the legible remains of ancient paleo-Hebrew inscriptions.” Evidently the words for pharaoh, death, Egypt, King Solomon and the sacred name of God, YHWH, are all present on the second pillar.

So what? Someone erected pillars to commemorate the myth. It in no way proves that such a crossing ever happened. Wake up, seas don't just part for people to walk across.

Moreover, your statement uses weasel words, "may commemorate", "evidently".

The pillars are not even available for independent study.

 

[Galaxiom]

Well lets see here. You are saying the Hellium does and could not have become trapped in granites, radiohalos (Polonium) could not have left their signature and "fission tracks" could not have formed.

What a load of meaningless twaddle.

Granite often contains radioactive isotopes. When they decay they emit alpha particles. Alpha particles are Helium nuclei.

Rem. Man wrote the booke of the earth and universes age... God wrote the book on how he created it.

Learned men and women wrote a vast coherent body of science that is consistent at every level. Any observations that reveal inconsistencies found are investigated and the theories refined to restore consistency. It is this process of refinement that makes science so accurate.

The Bible was written by arrogant, ignorant, misogynist men who assumed that their every thought was given to them by a supernatural being. It is littered with inconsistencies that gullible fools go to great lengths try and reconcile with observed fact by inventing a plethora of ridiculous scenarios that conflict with real science.

 

[ConnorGiles]

Post 4793
10-char

He didn't comment on that piece of text in particular. I'm quite disappointed

 

[ConnorGiles]

You mean to tell me you have no problem with WIkiped.... Only science wiki is acceptable now? Oh, wow,,,, I guess I misunderstood before. Do not to use it except for science stuff. Did all you other atheist here this, Connor?

No, it is too controversial, as far as I am concerned it is out also.


Blade

I suspect you meant "hear" and even then it's wrong, I certainly did "read" it.

Wikipedia has and never will be entirely reliable due to its capability of being edited. Galaxiom is partly right, Scientific Wikipedia pages such as the one he quoted would be able to be edited but would probably be swiftly re-edited back to its correct standing.

But I maintain my view, Wikipedia will never be 100% reliable.

 

[ConnorGiles]

there you go again changing the subject. It is ok for you to quote a mistake but not me------NO????

Blade
\

I didn't change the subject, I explained the situation? Try not to confuse them Blade.

 

[ConnorGiles]

All T-Rex remains have been mineralised. There is no carbon in them.

Will you please stop spouting unsubstantiated rubbish.

I didn't even reply to his comment as I knew it was utter rubbish

Where does he get this stuff from!

 

[Frothingslosh]

I didn't even reply to his comment as I knew it was utter rubbish

Where does he get this stuff from!

Stormfront, Conservapedia, various ultra-right-wing conspiracy sites, Faux News, extreme-right pundits with agendas such as O'Reilly and Coultier, ignorant and/or disingenious "preachers" with a political agenda, things like that.

 

[Brianwarnock]

I suspect you meant "hear" and even then it's wrong, I certainly did "read" it.
.

Hey Connor I thought correcting people was wrong, or is that only when I correct you?

Brian