Science Must Destroy Religion

ATHIM · June 17, 2012

Hmm, really? I'm an antagonist because god hasn't chosen to reveal himself to me?? I thought it was our jobs to find god, not the other way around. Get your religious stories straight please.

God chooses you not the other way around sorry you have been mislead and shame on you for being invisible.

"If science about creation is correct BY DEFINITION there should be life on not some, BUT EVERY PLANET. It might not be like the life on earth but it should be life none the less as random factors would have propogated life on ALL planets not just the earth."

- How in the world did you come to this conclusion, for that to happen, every planet would have to be suitable for life, and that CLEARLY isn't the case.

Just because its not suitable for earthly life its, by definition according to its age, according to evolutionists, suitable for whatever life that particular planet could produce. I came to that conclusion because it follows in line with Darwinism and the other misguided poppycock fools spout. Every planet should contain some form of life or is the earth special for some reason. Explain that to me!

Lol! "the devil your father", Thats too hilarious. Do you douse your computer with holy water after reading such "blasphemy

Is it too hilarious? In simple terms you are with God or with the devil, what side are you on then if you are not on Gods? As far as the Holy water goes I can handle the fluff you dish out!

Edited June 17, 2012 by ATHIM

cris · June 17, 2012

Not since our biblical earth is only X 1000's (6-12,000) years old. And said fossils can be millions of years.

Can't have your cake and eat it too. At least not in god's eyes.

Ok....but what I said is, in His perfection He would create everything,

including the fossils that appear to an anthropologist to be older than

6000 years.....thats good cake

blugrass60 · June 17, 2012

Idk where to start, so I'll just jump in head first. I believe in God. But it may not be your God, or someone elses for that matter. I don't really know. I would say it's the Christian God, it is, but it's also everyones' God. He/She/It is there for everyone.. even people who don't believe in the concept of a god. I mean, there are many, many deities and Gods worshipped by humanity so it's hard to really pick which one.. or which interpretation of one to follow. So many choices.. And with so many choices, are they all wrong? Is only one 'right?' Are any of them right? Are they all right? If you mistakenly pick one that is only slightly 'wrong' does that mean you shall suffer an eternity of fire and brimstone? What an unpleasant way to spend a life, pondering questions that don't have concrete answers and possibly living in fear.. Sure, faith is the glue that binds people to their religious beliefs but faith requires faith..

I have never understood why an omnipotent entity would require less advanced beings to worship it, and while the generally accepted concept of a supreme being is of an entity that is omnipotent, it is still a being an entity of some sort.. so I'll be honest I don't understand worship in general. Not in the definition of the word, but the concept sort of eludes me. To me, it says that God will love you more and not punish you if you do this more, or in a way that is better than the method of worship others use. Especially those that don't worship or are not a chosen people. That means that it is possible for one person or a group of people to be superior and more favored over some or all the others? Right? I don't understand that. That doesn't sound very divine to me. No, that sounds more.. Human.

To me, the 'science' approach is the most logical.. but stated like that it just sounds kind of cut and dry. And even incomplete in some places. Yes, we know more than our ancestors. We know more about nearly everything than people 150 years ago.. but we can't know everything. Either it's physically impossible, circumstantially impossibe, etc. There will always be mysteries of the multiverse that elude us. As time passes hopefully humanity will learn more and grow, evolve..

I've said earlier, I believe in God. That is a choice, even though my environment has been an influence. But organized religion, just doesn't really sit well with me. I don't think it's all bad, but it is not meant for everyone.. Maybe I'm more spiritual then? There are as many approaches to that as there are people; we all have different opinions and takes on whatever the Truth or the pathway is. To me my proof that God exists, where ever and in whatever form that is, is seen in the night's sky amongst other places. When I look and see the stars visible in our arm of the milky way, I like to think that whatever started the process of the creation and formation of every single one of those stars, planets, nebulae, heck just the mathematics required for that scale of creation, is surely above and beyond us.. It's almost like divine artwork to me. Seriously, the formula for the long term creation and the anatomy of a star itself is staggering. Yes, I take the belief that it did not happen by sheer chance.. as we understand it of course. But with the possibility of there being someone/ thing behind all of that, why do we humans insist on humanising something so grand? There are other members, who I agree with on a lot of things, that would say control and manipulation. To me that's probably right. But, some stories, even fabrications must have a grain of truth somewhere right?

To conclude my rambling, I don't know that science must destroy religion. Religion can't really destroy science, despite what some may believe. But, well, we are still very young in the grand scheme of things.. why not try to live and let live, learn, and grow together and see what time, facts based upon research, and ultimately finding our own ways shows us? We may be surprised by the things we learn. Peace.

sportfisher · June 17, 2012

Not since our biblical earth is only X 1000's (6-12,000) years old. And said fossils can be millions of years.

Can't have your cake and eat it too. At least not in god's eyes.

carbon dating is flawed and inaccurate. "millions and billions" of years is all part of a made up theory.

Markinsa · June 17, 2012

Not since our biblical earth is only X 1000's (6-12,000) years old. And said fossils can be millions of years.

Can't have your cake and eat it too. At least not in god's eyes.

Then how do you explain polystrate fossils? Carbon-14 dating isn't as accurate as you think. It assumes all conditions are the same now as they were then.

-

umbertino · June 17, 2012

NEODinar, you are an antagonist, just because God has not chosen to reveal Himself to you. If science about creation is correct BY DEFINITION there should be life on not some, BUT EVERY PLANET. It might not be like the life on earth but it should be life none the less as random factors would have propogated life on ALL planets not just the earth. Science regarding a Godless creation is a lie of the devil your father.

It's just common sense to think that there's life on many other planets, solar systems , galaxies in the Infinite Universe.....

It makes zero sense to believe ( arrogantly) it exists only on Planet Earth.

Edited June 17, 2012 by umbertino

Markinsa · June 17, 2012

It's just common sense to think that there's life on many other planets, solar systems , galaxies in the Infinite Universe.....

It makes zero sense to believe ( arrogantly) it exists only on Planet Earth.

If you take the many variables necessary to have life on this planet, it makes very good sense to believe it is virtually impossible for life to exist on another planet.

-

NEODinar · June 17, 2012

May I provide a counter quote written 1200 years ago from a Indian monk: Some foolish men declare that Creator made the world. The doctrine that the world was created is ill-advised, and should be rejected. If god created the world, where was he before creation? If you say he was transcendent then, and needed no support, where is he now? No single being had the skill to make the world - for how can an immaterial god create that which is material? How could god have made the world without any raw material? If you say he made this first, and then the world, you are face with an endless regression. If you declare that the raw material arose naturally you fall into another fallacy, for the whole universe might thus have been its own creator, and have risen equally naturally. If god created the world by an act of will, without any raw material, then it is just his will made nothing else and who will believe this silly stuff? If he is ever perfect, and complete, how could the will to create have arisen in him? If, on the other hand, he is not perfect, he could no more create the universe than a potter could. If he is formless, actionless, and all-embracing, how could he have created the world? Such a soul, devoid of all modality, would have no desire to create anything. If you say that he created to no purpose, because it was his nature to do so then god is pointless. If he created in some kind of sport, it was the sport of a foolish child, leading to trouble. If he created out of love for living things and need of them he made the world; why did he not make creation wholly blissful, free from misfortune? Thus the doctrine that the world was created by god makes no sense at all. Neo...I admire the fact that you had the short and curlies to post this, and with only a -4 (as of my posting) you may consider youself lucky at going relatively unscathed. Most likely because you didn't provide any commentary after your post. I for one do not think mankind is yet ready to unshackle itself from religion, what would take it's place? The fear of the rod (hell) or at least being absent of God's love for enernity does seem to hold many believers in check.

Lol! yeah, I'm surprised I'm neutral. Well, I don't think some will ever be able to deprogram the brainwashing they have received. Having said that a lot of people are finally starting to see through the nonsense and are starting to care whether what they believe is actually true. This is evidenced by atheism and agnosticism becoming one of if not the highest growing group in the country. Studies have shown that by 2040, if the rate of growth continues more than half the country will finally be relieved of these myths. I truly believe our evolution and future survival depends on eradicating this credulous magical type of thinking. It serves no purpose except to make people subservient through fear and manipulation.

God is beyond time and He made the world, just as a master craftsman makes his first work. You can’t date what is created by the eternal One. Sorry. No matter if the earth is the center of the earth or not, the cross of Christ covers the created universe. Your heart is the center of the universe get to know who made it feel the accountability and guilt for your sins. God has done enough with the earth don’t you think, billions of people are enough to keep to account, we can even keep ourselves in order. My God is the Father of galaxies and of every soul given breath to see its glory with physical eyes as you were. He/she/it. You can’t do enough homework to find God thatbigoneguy. You just don’t know Him. The god in your heart, don’t quite know who that is, its not the real One, its the god you fashioned in your own image the image of fallen human nature as man did from the beginning. Having knowledge of God but turning in the wickedness of their heart to the creation rather than the creator. You will be judged by your conscience and your heart and they will sell you short because you are a sinner.

There is zero evidence to support any of the claims you made here. You are basically paraphrasing scripture and stating your unproven opinions based on your credulous beliefs. Your personal beliefs and opinions are hard to debate my friend seeing as they aren't even close to being factual accurate.

Hehe....could God be so perfect, that part of his perfection would be that he would eventually decide to create....And in his perfection, decide to create everything, including the fossils that are dug up, and in digging them up, cause people to ask questions, having free will, and not have faith in Him? Just askin <img src='http://dinarvets.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/default/wink.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />

Sure thats possible, but beyond laughable when thinking about it logically. This proposition, given what we know of the natural world is on par with believing you have a family of green aliens living in your garage playing poker. That's how preposterous that idea is. Just saying

Hmm, really? I'm an antagonist because god hasn't chosen to reveal himself to me?? I thought it was our jobs to find god, not the other way around. Get your religious stories straight please. God chooses you not the other way around sorry you have been mislead and shame on you for being invisible. "If science about creation is correct BY DEFINITION there should be life on not some, BUT EVERY PLANET. It might not be like the life on earth but it should be life none the less as random factors would have propogated life on ALL planets not just the earth." - How in the world did you come to this conclusion, for that to happen, every planet would have to be suitable for life, and that CLEARLY isn't the case. Just because its not suitable for earthly life its, by definition according to its age, according to evolutionists, suitable for whatever life that particular planet could produce. I came to that conclusion because it follows in line with Darwinism and the other misguided poppycock fools spout. Every planet should contain some form of life or is the earth special for some reason. Explain that to me! Lol! "the devil your father", Thats too hilarious. Do you douse your computer with holy water after reading such "blasphemy Is it too hilarious? In simple terms you are with God or with the devil, what side are you on then if you are not on Gods? As far as the Holy water goes I can handle the fluff you dish out!

"God chooses you not the other way around sorry you have been mislead and shame on you for being invisible."

- Huh? Ok, so if it's god's responsibility to present himself and he is the one who chooses his believers then why does he burn those he doesn't choose? Think hard about that one for a minute. You could attempt to make the claim that "oh well you have to make yourself seen so he can choose you", Ok I'll even grant you that illogical premise for arguments sake, but what about those who have absolutely no idea what christianity is? How would an indigenous tribesman who has never heard of christianity be expected to make himself "seen" to a deity he has absolutely no frame of reference for??

"Just because its not suitable for earthly life its, by definition according to its age, according to evolutionists, suitable for whatever life that particular planet could produce. I came to that conclusion because it follows in line with Darwinism and the other misguided poppycock fools spout. Every planet should contain some form of life or is the earth special for some reason. Explain that to me!"

- If I understand you correctly, what your saying is that since a planet is really old it must have life? Umm, that's not how it works. Many conditions need to be met in order for their to be life, and the planets that we have been able to explore have shown conditions that aren't suitable for life AS WE KNOW IT. I believe there are billions of other life inhabited planets, this is pretty much a mathematical certainty given the scope of the universe and cosmic time. You do realize how vast the universe is right? So claiming that we are somehow "special" because there is life on earth is silly imo. Here's an analogy,,, say you're confined in an empty apartment , you can claim that there is no life outside of the apartment simply because there is no one in the next room, but what you can't see is what is outside of the apartment. Outside of the apartment there is a vast city and beyond that an entire country etc. But you are only limited to your little apartment. This is an example of our earthly perspective and the extremely limited vision we all have outside of our galaxy.

"Is it too hilarious? In simple terms you are with God or with the devil, what side are you on then if you are not on Gods? As far as the Holy water goes I can handle the fluff you dish out"!

- LOL! I'm on neither side. Asking me this is like asking who do you side with, winnie the pooh or snow white? Neither are real to me so it's impossible to take sides when neither exist. Understand??

Black Swan · June 17, 2012

Since Copernicus, humanity’s conception of its place in the universe has steadily diminished from the biblical teaching that we are the center of the universe to one in which we are but a miniscule speck in space and time. Once we have telescopes with which to peer into the night skies, our view of the universe grew from originally that of a single star system and it’s planets to a galaxy of a hundred billion stars and on a visible universe of 100 billion galaxies. And that was not the end of it. As we have seen, since the time I was born in the 1980s we have found good reason to think that our visible universe is but a drop of water in an ocean of galaxies lying beyond our light horizon, perhaps a hundred orders of magnitude larger, that all resulted from the same big bang. Furthermore, this universe may be just one of countless others just as big.

While a god might still preside over all this, it becomes incredible to believe that he, she or it put his, her or its favorite creatures on this tiny planet and left the rest of this vast multiverse inaccessible to them.

To quote my favorite author, JRR Tolkien from the Hobbit: You are a very fine person. Mr. Baggins, and I’m very fond of you, but you’re only quite a little fellow in a wide world, after all.

NEODinar · June 17, 2012

carbon dating is flawed and inaccurate. "millions and billions" of years is all part of a made up theory.

Flawed, hmm, well the majority of the respected scientific community would highly disagree with that claim. So Carbon dating is wrong, but somehow a bronze aged book written by primitive shepherds got it right? Ok then

Then how do you explain <a href='http://creation.com/polystrate-fossils-evidence-for-a-young-earth' class='bbc_url' title='External link' rel='nofollow external'>polystrate fossils</a>? <a href='http://contenderministries.org/evolution/carbon14.php' class='bbc_url' title='External link' rel='nofollow external'>Carbon-14 dating</a> isn't as accurate as you think. It assumes all conditions are the same now as they were then. -

"'Polystrate' fossils invalidate the dating of strata" [false]

In the 1986 book It's a Young World After All, Paul Ackerman described a whale fossil found in Lompoc, California. He described the whale as being oriented vertically and passing through several layers of strata—a “polystrate” fossil. Paleontologists date fossils by the strata they are found in. If the whale were found to cross layers, it would mean that strata could not be dated, and paleontologists would be wrong about the dates of all their fossils. But Ackerman's description was wrong, and a creationist who visited the site agrees.

Creationist Andrew Snelling visited the site and admitted that the whale lies entirely within one layer of strata that was oriented diagonally. Geologic forces had upended the strata. However, some anti-evolutionists continue to repeat this story, reinforcing the idea that strata are always horizontal.

Anti-evolutionists also claim that some fossil trees pass through different layers, when, in fact, the trees were buried by river floods bearing large amounts of coarse sediment that covered the trees while they stood upright. In other somewhat similar circumstances where the trees are in sediments that are more fine-grained, the tops of the trees are missing because the fine sediment took a long time to settle, allowing decay of the exposed upper portions.

If you take the many variables necessary to have life on this planet, it makes very good sense to believe it is virtually impossible for life to exist on another planet. -

I must disagree Markinsa. Do you have any idea how vast the universe is? Yes there are numerous conditions that must be met in order for life to evolve but one thing believers always forget to account for is the vastness of time and space. Taking that into consideration it is simply ludicrous and to reiterate umbertino, arrogant to suggest we are the only ones in this infinitely vast universe. Please check out the drake equation. It's pretty much a mathematical certainty that we are not alone in the universe.

ATHIM · June 17, 2012

It's just common sense to think that there's life on many other planets, solar systems , galaxies in the Infinite Universe.....

It makes zero sense to believe ( arrogantly) it exists only on Planet Earth.

Please read what I said above Neo. I agree with you in that, if life is a random occurrence there should be life on not only other, but ALL planets. According to millions, billions of years of existence there should be life, if life can exist, on every planet, but not only on every planet but also in space as well, why cant life exist in open space I mean if we are going to go with the were not special line lets take it to the max and the truth of that beleif system. LIFE EVERWHERE ON ALL PLANETS IN ALL PLACES IN ALL DIMENSIONS SEEN AND UNSEEN.

Arrogance has nothing to do with thinking we are alone, bottom line is, it really doesn’t matter if we are alone or not, there is one God above all so the word you are looking for is really HUMILITY not arrogance. But if you believed in God you would be just like us a Christian, but you are not because you don’t believe as we do. And if I lived in the darkness of arrogance like those who do not believe in God but rather choose the wisdom of man as a substitute I would consider the Cross foolishness, which the cross IS to those that are perishing, but to the wise, the Cross is the power of God to proclaim sonship over all creation to those who live by faith in faith. And the witness of God coming into my life is more real than the influence of humanistic crud that has filled those who are perishing and will finally see the truth with the spiritual eyes that death will give them.

thatoneguy · June 17, 2012

Ok....but what I said is, in His perfection He would create everything,

including the fossils that appear to an anthropologist to be older than

6000 years.....thats good cake

You mean kinda like I'm 37 going on 137?

Or maybe day six rolled around and god said, "l'll put these old bones that I dug up from some other planet out to throw everybody for a loop." Righteous.

A biblical year can't be determined as decisively longer than an actual year, per ANY calender that a society has held.

So I'll stick with reality. Cheers.

carbon dating is flawed and inaccurate. "millions and billions" of years is all part of a made up theory.

Ok. U got me. Some dates may be off by a few million years.

MILLION years.

Then how do you explain polystrate fossils? Carbon-14 dating isn't as accurate as you think. It assumes all conditions are the same now as they were then.

-

You are exactly right.

We EVOLVE. With the earth.

There are ZERO constants in this world. Physically.

Everything is matter. It is constantly changing.

The only constant that I think I've ever known is love... It makes you LOOPY! LOL.

If you take the many variables necessary to have life on this planet, it makes very good sense to believe it is virtually impossible for life to exist on another planet.

-

With 80-100 billion galaxies in OUR observable universe, odds are we shouldn't be so pompous to think that we're alone.

Markinsa · June 17, 2012

Flawed, hmm, well the majority of the respected scientific community would highly disagree with that claim. So Carbon dating is wrong, but somehow a bronze aged book written by primitive shepherds got it right? Ok then

THE PROBLEMS WITH CARBON-14 DATING

Carbon-14 dating is the standard method used by scientists to determine the age of certain fossilized remains. As scientists will often claim something to be millions or billions of years old (ages that do not conform to the Biblical account of the age of the earth), Christians are often left wondering about the accuracy of the carbon-14 method. The truth is, carbon-14 dating (or radiocarbon dating, as it’s also called) is not a precise dating method in many cases, due to faulty assumptions and other limitations on this method.

Carbon has a weight of twelve atomic mass units (AMU’s), and is the building block of all organic matter (plants and animals). A small percentage of carbon atoms have an atomic weight of 14 AMU’s. This is carbon-14. Carbon-14 is an unstable, radioactive isotope of carbon 12. As with any radioactive isotope, carbon-14 decays over time. The half-life of carbon 14 is approximate 5,730 years. That means if you took one pound of 100 percent carbon-14, in 5,730 years, you would only have half a pound left.

Carbon-14 is created in the upper atmosphere as nitrogen atoms are bombarded by cosmic radiation. For every one trillion carbon-12 atoms, you will find one carbon-14 atoms. The carbon-14 that results from the reaction caused by cosmic radiation quickly changes to carbon dioxide, just like normal carbon-12 would. Plants utilize, or “breath in” carbon dioxide, then ultimately release oxygen for animals to inhale. The carbon-14 dioxide is utilized by plants in the same way normal carbon dioxide is. This carbon-14 dioxide then ends up in humans and other animals as it moves up the food chain.

There is then a ratio of carbon-14 to carbon-12 in the bodies of plants, humans, and other animals that can fluctuate, but will be fixed at the time of death. After death, the carbon-14 would begin to decay at the rate stated above. In 1948, Dr. W.F. Libby introduced the carbon-14 dating method at the University of Chicago. The premise behind the method is to determine the ratio of carbon-14 left in organic matter, and by doing so, estimate how long ago death occurred by running the ratio backwards. The accuracy of this method, however, relies on several faulty assumptions.

First, for carbon-14 dating to be accurate, one must assume the rate of decay of carbon-14 has remained constant over the years. However, evidence indicates that the opposite is true. Experiments have been performed using the radioactive isotopes of uranium-238 and iron-57, and have shown that rates can and do vary. In fact, changing the environments surrounding the samples can alter decay rates.

The second faulty assumption is that the rate of carbon-14 formation has remained constant over the years. There are a few reasons to believe this assumption is erroneous. The industrial revolution greatly increased the amount of carbon-12 released into the atmosphere through the burning of coal. Also, the atomic bomb testing around 1950 caused a rise in neutrons, which increased carbon-14 concentrations. The great flood which Noah and family survived would have uprooted and/or buried entire forests. This would decrease the release of carbon-12 to the atmosphere through the decay of vegetation.

Third, for carbon-14 dating to be accurate, the concentrations of carbon-14 and carbon-12 must have remained constant in the atmosphere. In addition to the reasons mentioned in the previous paragraph, the flood provides another evidence that this is a faulty assumption. During the flood, subterranean water chambers that were under great pressure would have been breached. This would have resulted in an enormous amount of carbon-12 being released into the oceans and atmosphere. The effect would be not unlike opening a can of soda and having the carbon dioxide fizzing out. The water in these subterranean chambers would not have contained carbon-14, as the water was shielded from cosmic radiation. This would have upset the ratio of carbon-14 to carbon-12.

To make carbon-14 dating work, Dr. Libby also assumed that the amount of carbon-14 being presently produced had equaled the amount of carbon-12 – he assumed that they had reached a balance. The formation of carbon-14 increases with time, and at the time of creation was probably at or near zero. Since carbon-14 is radioactive, it begins to decay immediately as it’s formed. If you start with no carbon-14 in the atmosphere, it would take over 50,000 years for the amount being produced to reach equilibrium with the amount decaying. One of the reasons we know that the earth is less than 50,000 years old is because of the biblical record. Another reason we can know this is because the amount of carbon-14 in the atmosphere is only 78% what it would be if the earth were old.

Finally, Dr. Libby and the evolutionist crowd have assumed that all plant and animal life utilize carbon-14 equally as they do carbon-12. To be grammatically crass, this ain’t necessarily so. Live mollusks off the Hawaiian coast have had their shells dated with the carbon-14 method. These test showed that the shells died 2000 years ago! This news came as quite a shock to the mollusks that had been using those shells until just recently.

We’ve listed five faulty assumptions here that have caused overestimates of age using the carbon-14 method. The list of non-compliant dates from this method is endless. Most evolutionists today would conclude that carbon-14 dating is – at best – reliable for only the last 3000 to 3500 years. There is another reason that carbon-14 dating has yielded questionable results – human bias.

If you’ve ever been part of a medical study, you’re probably familiar with the terms “blind study” and “double-blind study”. In a blind study, using carbon-14 dating for example, a person would send in a few quality control samples along with the actual sample to the laboratory. The laboratory analyst should not know which sample is the one of interest. In this way, the analyst could not introduce bias into the dating of the actual sample. In a double-blind study (using an experimental drug study as an example), some patients will be given the experimental drug, while others will be given a placebo (a harmless sugar pill). Neither the patients nor the doctors while know who gets what. This provides an added layer of protection against bias.

Radiocarbon dates that do not fit a desired theory are often excluded by alleging cross-contamination of the sample. In this manner, an evolutionist can present a sample for analysis, and tell the laboratory that he assumes the sample to be somewhere between 50,000 years old and 100,000 years old. Dates that do not conform to this estimate are thrown out. Repeated testing of the sample may show nine tests that indicate an age of 5000 to 10,000 years old, and one test that shows an age of 65,000 years old. The nine results showing ages that do not conform to the pre-supposed theory are excluded. This is bad science, and it is practiced all the time to fit with the evolutionary model.

The Shroud of Turin, claimed to be the burial cloth of Christ, was supposedly dated by a blind test. Actually, the control specimens were so dissimilar that the technicians at the three laboratories making the measurements could easily tell which specimen was from the Shroud. This would be like taking a piece of wood and two marbles and submitting them to the lab with the instructions that “one of these is from an ancient ponderosa pine, guess which.” The test would have been blind if the specimens had been reduced to carbon powder before they were given to the testing laboratories. Humans are naturally biased. We tend to see what we want to see, and explain away unwanted data.

Perhaps the best description of the problem in attempting to use the Carbon-14 dating method is to be found in the words of Dr. Robert Lee. In 1981, he wrote an article for the Anthropological Journal of Canada, in which stated:

"T

he troubles of the radiocarbon dating method are undeniably deep and serious. Despite 35 years of technological refinement and better understanding, the underlying assumptions have been strongly challenged, and warnings are out that radiocarbon may soon find itself in a crisis situation. Continuing use of the method depends on a fix-it-as-we-go approach, allowing for contamination here, fractionation there, and calibration whenever possible. It should be no surprise then, that fully half of the dates are rejected. The wonder is, surely, that the remaining half has come to be accepted…. No matter how useful it is, though, the radiocarbon method is still not capable of yielding accurate and reliable results. There are gross discrepancies, the chronology is uneven and relative, and the accepted dates are actually the selected dates.”

The accuracy of carbon-14 dating relies on faulty assumptions, and is subject to human bias. At best, radiocarbon dating is only accurate for the past few thousand years. As we’ve seen though, even relatively youthful samples are often dated incorrectly. The Biblical record gives us an indication of an earth that is relatively young. The most reliable use of radiocarbon dating supports that position. This method of dating, overall, tends to be as faulty and ill conceived as the evolutionary model that is was designed to support.

---

but somehow a bronze aged book written by primitive shepherds got it right? Ok then

God created the Universe and everything in it with a spoken word, you think its impossible for him to create a human record of who HE is?

-

sportfisher · June 17, 2012

Ok. U got me. Some dates may be off by a few million years.

MILLION years.

that right, like when something is claimed to be 3 million years old but is really only 3 thousand years old.

thanks for confirming your error and the fabricated claims of evolution.

NEODinar · June 17, 2012

Please read what I said above Neo. I agree with you in that, if life is a random occurrence there should be life on not only other, but ALL planets. According to millions, billions of years of existence there should be life, if life can exist, on every planet, but not only on every planet but also in space as well, why cant life exist in open space I mean if we are going to go with the were not special line lets take it to the max and the truth of that beleif system. LIFE EVERWHERE ON ALL PLANETS IN ALL PLACES IN ALL DIMENSIONS SEEN AND UNSEEN. Arrogance has nothing to do with thinking we are alone, bottom line is, it really doesn’t matter if we are alone or not, there is one God above all so the word you are looking for is really HUMILITY not arrogance. But if you believed in God you would be just like us a Christian, but you are not because you don’t believe as we do. And if I lived in the darkness of arrogance like those who do not believe in God but rather choose the wisdom of man as a substitute I would consider the Cross foolishness, which the cross IS to those that are perishing, but to the wise, the Cross is the power of God to proclaim sonship over all creation to those who live by faith in faith. And the witness of God coming into my life is more real than the influence of humanistic crud that has filled those who are perishing and will finally see the truth with the spiritual eyes that death will give them.

Ok, do you have any scientific evidence to support your claim that every planet in the known universe MUST contain life?? You know besides, "well, the planets are old therefore they must have life". Sorry that argument doesn't hold water. We have looked at mars, we have been to the moon and guess what? NO LIFE. There is arguable evidence that life may have existed at one point on mars, but no evidence that suggests theres life there today. If you want to believe life is in every iota of space that's fine, but there's no evidence to support it. Just another one of your opinions that can't be backed up.

Lol! Simply having the idea that there is one god, your god, and that all the other countless gods are wrong, and that your god blesses certain people, bestows special gifts and answers only certain people's prayers is the antithesis of arrogance. On the other hand, claiming that I don't know if there's a god is the opposite of arrogance and is the basis of humility. I'm not claiming I know it all, you are. I'm admitting there are things unknown to me, this is the definition of humility my friend. You are claiming without a shred of evidence that you are special and have a divine deity who's got your back. Believers have the nerve to think a god blessed them when they get a christmas bonus on their paycheck, meanwhile there are millions of innocent children starving as if a believers monetary gain is a higher priority than a starving child. Please, thats arrogance to the fullest.

thatoneguy · June 17, 2012

that right, like when something is claimed to be 3 million years old but is really only 3 thousand years old.

thanks for confirming your error and the fabricated claims of evolution.

Now play nice, Sport. Don't put words in my mouth. Or text in my text. :blink:

Common sense will tell you that X-1000's of years is impossible.

But maybe I'm not dealing with common sense here.

Sure wish god would've mentioned other planets.

Or not banned Galileo's scope cos it would (and did) shake the foundation of the church.

Oh well, as is life. It's never easy standing by what you believe in, until its proven.

There is far more literature out there defending my interpretations than creationism.

I know, I know. The bible is the biggest selling book, blah, blah. But, how many arguments can it PROVE? Zero.

I mean, Egyptian temples have outlasted biblical stuff. U know why, cos it's just stuff.

You would think that when it comes to the King of kings, that someone woulda thought to put back a hairbrush, one of those shirt dress thingy's, a plank from the cross, SOMETHING! But nothing.

Edited June 17, 2012 by thatoneguy

NEODinar · June 17, 2012

<a href='http://contenderministries.org/evolution/carbon14.php' class='bbc_url' title='External link' rel='nofollow external'>THE PROBLEMS WITH CARBON-14 DATING </a> Carbon-14 dating is the standard method used by scientists to determine the age of certain fossilized remains. As scientists will often claim something to be millions or billions of years old (ages that do not conform to the Biblical account of the age of the earth), Christians are often left wondering about the accuracy of the carbon-14 method. The truth is, carbon-14 dating (or radiocarbon dating, as it’s also called) is not a precise dating method in many cases, due to faulty assumptions and other limitations on this method. <img src="http://contenderministries.org/evolution/Atom.gif" />Carbon has a weight of twelve atomic mass units (AMU’s), and is the building block of all organic matter (plants and animals). A small percentage of carbon atoms have an atomic weight of 14 AMU’s. This is carbon-14. Carbon-14 is an unstable, radioactive isotope of carbon 12. As with any radioactive isotope, carbon-14 decays over time. The half-life of carbon 14 is approximate 5,730 years. That means if you took one pound of 100 percent carbon-14, in 5,730 years, you would only have half a pound left. Carbon-14 is created in the upper atmosphere as nitrogen atoms are bombarded by cosmic radiation. For every one trillion carbon-12 atoms, you will find one carbon-14 atoms. The carbon-14 that results from the reaction caused by cosmic radiation quickly changes to carbon dioxide, just like normal carbon-12 would. Plants utilize, or “breath in” carbon dioxide, then ultimately release oxygen for animals to inhale. The carbon-14 dioxide is utilized by plants in the same way normal carbon dioxide is. This carbon-14 dioxide then ends up in humans and other animals as it moves up the food chain. There is then a ratio of carbon-14 to carbon-12 in the bodies of plants, humans, and other animals that can fluctuate, but will be fixed at the time of death. After death, the carbon-14 would begin to decay at the rate stated above. In 1948, Dr. W.F. Libby introduced the carbon-14 dating method at the University of Chicago. The premise behind the method is to determine the ratio of carbon-14 left in organic matter, and by doing so, estimate how long ago death occurred by running the ratio backwards. The accuracy of this method, however, relies on several faulty assumptions. First, for carbon-14 dating to be accurate, one must assume the rate of decay of carbon-14 has remained constant over the years. However, evidence indicates that the opposite is true. Experiments have been performed using the radioactive isotopes of uranium-238 and iron-57, and have shown that rates can and do vary. In fact, changing the environments surrounding the samples can alter decay rates. The second faulty assumption is that the rate of carbon-14 formation has remained constant over the years. There are a few reasons to believe this assumption is erroneous. The industrial revolution greatly increased the amount of carbon-12 released into the atmosphere through the burning of coal. Also, the atomic bomb testing around 1950 caused a rise in neutrons, which increased carbon-14 concentrations. The great flood which Noah and family survived would have uprooted and/or buried entire forests. This would decrease the release of carbon-12 to the atmosphere through the decay of vegetation. Third, for carbon-14 dating to be accurate, the concentrations of carbon-14 and carbon-12 must have remained constant in the atmosphere. In addition to the reasons mentioned in the previous paragraph, the flood provides another evidence that this is a faulty assumption. During the flood, subterranean water chambers that were under great pressure would have been breached. This would have resulted in an enormous amount of carbon-12 being released into the oceans and atmosphere. The effect would be not unlike opening a can of soda and having the carbon dioxide fizzing out. The water in these subterranean chambers would not have contained carbon-14, as the water was shielded from cosmic radiation. This would have upset the ratio of carbon-14 to carbon-12. To make carbon-14 dating work, Dr. Libby also assumed that the amount of carbon-14 being presently produced had equaled the amount of carbon-12 – he assumed that they had reached a balance. The formation of carbon-14 increases with time, and at the time of creation was probably at or near zero. Since carbon-14 is radioactive, it begins to decay immediately as it’s formed. If you start with no carbon-14 in the atmosphere, it would take over 50,000 years for the amount being produced to reach equilibrium with the amount decaying. One of the reasons we know that the earth is less than 50,000 years old is because of the biblical record. Another reason we can know this is because the amount of carbon-14 in the atmosphere is only 78% what it would be if the earth were old. Finally, Dr. Libby and the evolutionist crowd have assumed that all plant and animal life utilize carbon-14 equally as they do carbon-12. To be grammatically crass, this ain’t necessarily so. Live mollusks off the Hawaiian coast have had their shells dated with the carbon-14 method. These test showed that the shells died 2000 years ago! This news came as quite a shock to the mollusks that had been using those shells until just recently. We’ve listed five faulty assumptions here that have caused overestimates of age using the carbon-14 method. The list of non-compliant dates from this method is endless. Most evolutionists today would conclude that carbon-14 dating is – at best – reliable for only the last 3000 to 3500 years. There is another reason that carbon-14 dating has yielded questionable results – human bias. If you’ve ever been part of a medical study, you’re probably familiar with the terms “blind study” and “double-blind study”. In a blind study, using carbon-14 dating for example, a person would send in a few quality control samples along with the actual sample to the laboratory. The laboratory analyst should not know which sample is the one of interest. In this way, the analyst could not introduce bias into the dating of the actual sample. In a double-blind study (using an experimental drug study as an example), some patients will be given the experimental drug, while others will be given a placebo (a harmless sugar pill). Neither the patients nor the doctors while know who gets what. This provides an added layer of protection against bias. Radiocarbon dates that do not fit a desired theory are often excluded by alleging cross-contamination of the sample. In this manner, an evolutionist can present a sample for analysis, and tell the laboratory that he assumes the sample to be somewhere between 50,000 years old and 100,000 years old. Dates that do not conform to this estimate are thrown out. Repeated testing of the sample may show nine tests that indicate an age of 5000 to 10,000 years old, and one test that shows an age of 65,000 years old. The nine results showing ages that do not conform to the pre-supposed theory are excluded. This is bad science, and it is practiced all the time to fit with the evolutionary model. The Shroud of Turin, claimed to be the burial cloth of Christ, was supposedly dated by a blind test. Actually, the control specimens were so dissimilar that the technicians at the three laboratories making the measurements could easily tell which specimen was from the Shroud. This would be like taking a piece of wood and two marbles and submitting them to the lab with the instructions that “one of these is from an ancient ponderosa pine, guess which.” The test would have been blind if the specimens had been reduced to carbon powder before they were given to the testing laboratories. Humans are naturally biased. We tend to see what we want to see, and explain away unwanted data. Perhaps the best description of the problem in attempting to use the Carbon-14 dating method is to be found in the words of Dr. Robert Lee. In 1981, he wrote an article for the Anthropological Journal of Canada, in which stated: <blockquote>"The troubles of the radiocarbon dating method are undeniably deep and serious. Despite 35 years of technological refinement and better understanding, the underlying assumptions have been strongly challenged, and warnings are out that radiocarbon may soon find itself in a crisis situation. Continuing use of the method depends on a fix-it-as-we-go approach, allowing for contamination here, fractionation there, and calibration whenever possible. It should be no surprise then, that fully half of the dates are rejected. The wonder is, surely, that the remaining half has come to be accepted…. No matter how useful it is, though, the radiocarbon method is still not capable of yielding accurate and reliable results. There are gross discrepancies, the chronology is uneven and relative, and the accepted dates are actually the selected dates.” </blockquote><img src="http://contenderministries.org/evolution/evolution.gif" />The accuracy of carbon-14 dating relies on faulty assumptions, and is subject to human bias. At best, radiocarbon dating is only accurate for the past few thousand years. As we’ve seen though, even relatively youthful samples are often dated incorrectly. The Biblical record gives us an indication of an earth that is relatively young. The most reliable use of radiocarbon dating supports that position. This method of dating, overall, tends to be as faulty and ill conceived as the evolutionary model that is was designed to support. --- God created the Universe and everything in it with a spoken word, you think its impossible for him to create a human record of who HE is? <img src="http://dinarvets.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/default/laugh.gif" /> -

- Hmmmm, well the OVERWHELMING majority of respected scientists and experts in the field of carbon dating would completely disagree with you. I can't speak for those creationist "scientists" however.

"God created the Universe and everything in it with a spoken word, you think its impossible for him to create a human record of who HE is"?

- LOL! and this is more credible to you than carbon dating? Um Ok, and dinosaur fossils were placed there to test your faith too right?? Alright there friend.

Black Swan · June 17, 2012

Science has flown man to the moon

While religion has flown man into buildings

thatoneguy · June 17, 2012

Good point, Swan.

But that's a WHOLE different beast to tackle entirely.

I guess my point is, well, lol.

Maybe not on this thread.

K. F--- it. Manipulation. On any level. Take a weakness and capitalize.

Arright, enough of that.

Edited June 17, 2012 by thatoneguy

Markinsa · June 18, 2012

- Hmmmm, well the OVERWHELMING majority of respected scientists and experts in the field of carbon dating would completely disagree with you. I can't speak for those creationist "scientists" however.

"God created the Universe and everything in it with a spoken word, you think its impossible for him to create a human record of who HE is"?

- LOL! and this is more credible to you than carbon dating? Um Ok, and dinosaur fossils were placed there to test your faith too right?? Alright there friend.

Haha!!! Overwhelming?? You go ahead and let these scientists convince you of something they have never observed themselves. You readily admit that you don't know everything, but you can't admit the Christian worldview is possibly the correct one? God doesn't expect us to believe based on blind faith. He has given us evidence to prove to us he's real. If you refuse to accept that, that is your pride speaking. God hates the proud. Jesus fulfilled 44 prophesies that were predicted 1000 to 400 years before his birth. The truth and fulfillments of these prophesies are proof of a Divinely Inspired work.

There is ample evidence to suggest that Man and Dinasaurs coexisted, and that the earth is not millions of years old but much younger. You're staking your soul on evidence that some non-believer is trying to feed you. Christians are persistant in speaking about Jesus Christ, because we know the fate of those who choose not to believe. I'll repeat, Eternity is a long time to be wrong.

=====

Dinosaurs in the Temple; The Angkor Wat Stegosaur; the Bi-Pedal Dinosaur and Giant Creature at Umm El-Kanatir and Others

Posted by Chris ParkerApr 09 20093Share

by Chris Parker

Photo: Umm El-Kanatir art from 400 to 700 A.D.

In wonder we were viewing our Cambodian Stegosaur

When some guy with a monocle burst through the back door

He took out a pen with indelible ink

Said if anyone moves your precious stego’s extinct

We advanced on him slowly, couldn’t believe he would do-it

But then he took his pen and drew a red line clear through it

Alas, poor Stegosaurus, we knew him well

You looked like a dinosaur but now no one can tell

Before making his escape at the back of the residence

He said; Man and dinosaur didn’t coexist, so I’m destroying the evidence

We’ve put together a selection of ancient dinosaur depictions which have in common the fact that they all appear on or within a religious “temple” or cathedral. Currently, one of the most well-known of these depictions is the alleged stegosaurus depiction at the Ta Prohm Temple near Angkor Wat in Cambodia.

This stegosaurus depiction (or so it seems to be) has been debunked in the mind of skeptics by the fairly simple measure of drawing a line through the depiction’s most prominent feature—the armor plating along it’s back.

One can make up their own mind about the depiction as we review it again below. Our section on Dinosaurs in History and Art is extensive enough that we can now categorize the artifacts in a number of different groupings. Although the Cambodian stegosaur may well be the most famous depiction in the world currently, we could argue that there are even more compelling dinosaur depictions at other temple, synagogue or cathedral sites, some of which we review here..

Bi-Pedal Dinosaur and Giant Creature Attack Horse

Umm El-Kanatir

Jewish Synagogue 400-700 A.D.

Excavated in 2007

Source:Dinosaursandman.com

Um el Kanatir (Umm el-Kanater) is an ancient Roman town on the Golan Heights, now an archeological site being developed into an Archaeological Park. The meaning of the name is “mother of the arches”.

The site is named for the water source, a spring that pours from the face of a cliff into three basins carved of stone in antiquity. Each of the basins was surmounted by a Roman monumental arch of cut basalt. It is assumed that the niches between the arches originally held pagan images of the spirit of the waters.

Two of the arches are now in ruins, but one survives intact. They, and the village site, continued to be used into the modern period not as a town but by small numbers of local farmers and shepherds living amid and atop the ruins of the ancient town, sometimes in homes constructed out of ancient blocks of building stone reconstructed into farm houses.

…It is believed that the income generated by the linen industry enabled the villagers to construct the very large sixth-century synagogue. Interestingly, the synagogue appears to have been built on the site of a more modest, fifth century synagogue. The large synagogue was destroyed the catastrophic Golan earthquake of 749.

The building was 18 meters (60 feet) long by 13 meters (43 feet) wide and calculated to have been 12 meters (40 feet) high, making it one of the largest ancient synagogues in the region.

Neither the synagogue nor the town were rebuilt after the earthquake of 749. The synagogue was first identified by Laurence Oliphant and Gottlieb Schumacher in 1884. The surviving elements of the ancient synagogue.

Photo:Umm El-Kanatir art from 400 to 700 A.D. Comparison with Cryolophosaurus and Dilophosaurus, two crested theropod dinosaurs.

Theropod dinosaurs were bi-pedal animals with two much smaller arms which they held close to their chests. They were fiercesome meat eaters like which included tyrannosaurus and giganotosaurus.

The creature depicted joining the fray here is clearly a bi-pedal dinosaur with a distinctive head crest, a terrible aspect, and two huge thighs. The tail can be discerned by those at the site if not from the photos. This depiction also shows that the dinosaur has three toes and a hind claw, just like tyrannosaurus.

The head crest on a theropod dinosaur is somewhat unusual but there are a number of known theropods with a crest, including Cryolophosaurus, meaning “cold crest lizard”). Cryolophosaurus was a large theropod dinosaur, with a bizarre crest on its head that looked like a Spanish comb.

Cryolophosaurus was excavated from Antarctica’s Early Jurassic Hanson Formation (former the upper Falla Formation) by paleontologist Dr. William Hammer in 1991…Wikipedia

Another theropod with a head crest is Dilophosaurus. Both Cryolophosaurus and Dilophosaurus are both shown here in comparison to the dinosaur depictions at Umm El-Kanatir. This depiction may not be of either of these theropod dinosaurs but it clearly is a depiction of a theropod with a distinctive crest.

The “horse” is being directly attacked by a very large creature, possibly a reptile; possibly a feline.

Ceratopsian Dinosaur Depiction at Muktinath Temple

Site of 108 ‘Dragon Headed” Fountains

The Muktinath Temple was consecrated in 1815 A.D by Queen Subarna Prabha, the wife of Rana Bahadur Shah. This temple is built in a Tibetan pagoda style and contains huge brass idols of Lord Vishnu, Shiva, Brahma and Kali. The local name for Muktinath is Chumig Gyatsa….Source: Pilgrimage Tours

On a wall of the temple are 108 “dragon headed” fountains which pilgrims seek out to “cleanse” themselves. Actually, the heads are variously described as; dragons or bulls.

At least one of the heads, as seen here on the left in this photo, is not a dragon or a bull, but instead is an excellent likeness of a ceratopsian dinosaur.

The temple was “consecrated in 1815”. The 108 fountains has been a pilgrimage site for many number of years. Ceratopsian dinosaurs were not really understood in their present form until the late 1800’s to the early 1900’s, some years after the temple was consecrated. In 1887, a pair of ceratopsian horns were identified as horns of an extinct bison.

When was the ceratopsian depiction created? If in or around 1815, how was such an accurate depiction of a ceratopsian dinosaur created more than 60 years prior to the accurate depiction of these dinosaurs by science—unless someone had actually seen one alive?

Click Here for Larger Photos and the Rest of the Article

See Also: Evidence of Sophisticated, Ancient, Unknown Culture in Italy Near Caria

RodandStaff · June 18, 2012

I'll let Young Albert answer this....

Black Swan · June 18, 2012

I'll let Young Albert answer this....

Cute Rod..I'll give you that but here is what Mr. Mc2 really said about God: I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it. (Albert Einstein, 1954)

And in Genesis 1:3 it says: And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness.

so if you read this verbatim, then light existed before darkness, right? Just trying some mental jujitsu on you mate? :wub:

powerpager · June 18, 2012

Religion will destroyscience !!!

Markinsa · June 18, 2012

Dinosaur and Man Interaction several articles from 1800 to early 1900's.

-

RodandStaff · June 18, 2012

Science... True science... cannot have preconceived assumptions. Unlike Arthur Keith who in speaking of evolution stated... "We believe it because the only alternative is special creation, and that is unthinkable." That is not a true scientist... that is only someone trying to disprove a concept he does not understand or want to believe. Yes there are many varying viewpoints... but our test's are not perfected yet when a group of students can kill a snail and unbeknownst to the professor have him test the "ancient snail" only to have him determine through carbon dating the snail was 10,000,000 years old! (I guess they forgot to tell the snail).

There are some very brilliant scientist, and deep thinkers who also happen to believe we are not here by accident... C.S. Lewis said "I came into the Kingdom of God kicking and screaming" because he most certainly did not believe until he really studied and researched the subject with an open mind. Another scientist that I know personally is David Van Koevering. Scientist, writer, inventor, teacher... his life's work has touched the world over with some of his over 630 patents (He helped present the Moog Synthesizer and solely introduced the Mini Moog). He astounds me the teaching on his knowledge of Light/Sound/Matter. He travels the world and conducts many experiments that prove his theories. He also happens to be a believer... not unlike C.S. Lewis, he had to be convinced first.

I'm no scientist... but if your into that kind of thing... check him out... some of the things he has to say may actually fascinate you... I know it has me. Let me warn you though... be prepared to have your thinking stretched a bit... no matter what you believe... he has that effect on most anyone. He doesn't blow smoke... he backs up what he says with sound scientific information. This is just for ya'll's consideration... take it or leave it, it's up to you. Have a good one ya'll!

David's biography- http://www.davidvank...ing.com/bio.htm

Short message on Sound/Light/Matter-

David's Website home page- http://www.davidvank....com/index.html

Edited June 18, 2012 by RodandStaff

CRYPTO REWARDS!

Science Must Destroy Religion

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

NEODinar

eaglefan

Unitedrich

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Recently Browsing 0 members

Testing the Rocker Badge!

Live Exchange Rate

Important Information