Do you wish there were more science polls, debates, forums, etc. that did not involve religion?

Posted by: SNP1

  • Yes

  • No

81% 17 votes
19% 4 votes
  • True science involves a religious perspective. Science is not a bunch of Atheists coming up ridiculous unprovable theories that are taken as truth by a society who take things without questioning.

  • Atheist belive that one random day random explosions took place as religion believes a God made the world

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
abyteofbrain says2014-04-07T13:14:36.4326504-05:00
Science and religion are inseparable, under my definition of religion, which is "one's beliefs about who man is, and who god is."
SNP1 says2014-04-07T13:19:11.5755903-05:00
That is why you should never use personal definitions. You should always use dictionary definitions. Religion- "the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods"
TheOncomingStorm says2014-04-07T13:55:58.3929603-05:00
I wholeheartedly agree with SNP1 about not making up definitions.
Haroush says2014-04-07T13:58:31.0826314-05:00
Let's keep in mind that definition snip put up isn't the only official definition of religion.
SNP1 says2014-04-07T14:00:28.4150912-05:00
True, but it is a commonly used definition for religion.
Haroush says2014-04-07T14:14:07.1149597-05:00
Yes it is. Though this is because the most common form of religion is that.Definition which you mentioned.
Haroush says2014-04-07T14:15:07.8551286-05:00
BTW, I am not saying you said anything wrong just adding on that's all.
SNP1 says2014-04-07T14:34:24.3860111-05:00
Jrrjacques: No, science has nothing to do with religion or atheism, it is SECULAR. Bettabreeder: Science shows the Big Bang theory to be true, atheists just accept the evidence.
Haroush says2014-04-07T15:05:06.8027525-05:00
When Snip talks about these religious polls, he isn't necessarily talking about ALL religious polls. I think he is more so talking about the religious polls dealing with social issues. As it seems to me that these types of polls have become overly obnoxious.
SNP1 says2014-04-07T15:08:42.0906677-05:00
I am more-so talking about the polls about science that connect to religion. Evolution vs creation, Big Bang vs God, etc. There is so much more to science to discuss.
Comrade_Silly_Otter says2014-04-07T15:10:58.2886056-05:00
Science is amazing, it will light the path to godhood for humanity. Technology is our future.
Haroush says2014-04-07T15:15:34.3829677-05:00
Well I do think that is an important topic snip. Though, overall there should be more scientific polls. For example, it would be interesting if people did more polls on the scientific study of humans.
Haroush says2014-04-07T15:16:27.4975159-05:00
I meant the human body and brain...
Comrade_Silly_Otter says2014-04-07T15:17:54.4248932-05:00
Genetics will be am amazing technology to master, we can eradicate genetic disease and give ourselves boosts to intelligence. We could create a generation of geniuses if things go well.
Haroush says2014-04-07T15:43:21.5434323-05:00
Not only that Comrade, but we'd have a better understanding of how the brain works. As of right now, we still don't know much about the brain. This being said, if we knew more about how the brain works would understand so much more about how it functions and communicates with the body.
jrrjacques says2014-04-09T13:38:34.0953189-05:00
Now that you supporters of Evolutionism have stopped scratching each others ego, allow me to show the error in your brain washed beliefs. I am normally a polite and well-mannered person. BUT! When it comes to Evolutionism My politeness and respect for the theory itself disappear entirely. This is not the first argument I have had about this and instead of retyping my longest debate in the comments I will paste it. Enjoy! :)
jrrjacques says2014-04-09T13:46:00.7524702-05:00
You say we have seen mutations over time. That I agree with. But what I do not agree with is the extent of those mutations on which the theory (religion) of evolution proposes. First of all before I go too deep I wish to say that the U.S. Government in the 1950s put out a reward of $500,000 for anyone who can give them true, unaltered facts that support Evolution. No one has collected that reward as of yet and it is doubtful anyone will. Now to the argument... I will start with a fairy tale. Once upon a time, there was a princess and a frog. The frog wanted to become a prince so he asked the princess to kiss him to turn him into one. She did so and instantly he was a tall, handsome human male. You will agree with me that this is absurd and that this could never happen scientifically. But what happens if we add "millions and millions of years" and many generations. Now suddenly it is possible for a frog to turn into a human. Or this is according to the many different analogues in the Evolutionism bible. I beg to differ. In the DNA strands there are amino acids and amino acid counts. Did you know according to research done by evolutionist scientists in the 80s and 90s that they discovered that if the number count increased even by the smallest margin that the creature will die? (Thus proving Evolution unlikely. (Also when they found this out, they instantly stopped research)) And the tobacco plant has the highest count? (Meaning according to Evolution, some people have already evolved farther than others, really, just take time to smell some people and you'll see what I mean) According to Evolutionism, everything came from an amoeba, now this amoeba has the lowest amino # of any other biological creature. Now (however unlikely) how did life "evolve" past this point. Question. How does "The Big Bang THEORY (Emphasis on Theory)" nothing to do with Evolutionism. According to Evolutionism it is because of the "Big Bang Theory" that evolution happens. According to Evolutionism, 20 Billion years the universe was empty then it all compacted together and spun really fast and exploded. 6 billion years ago the earth cooled into a rocky surface. There was no oxygen, but the rocks absorbed it. It then rained on the rocks for millions of years and out of it came an organic soup made of complex chemicals. Then out of this soup came an ameba that somehow was made out of a random selection of amino acids. It then EVOLVED into what we see today. First of all, your honor, I would like to point out to the court that THEORY means unproven or unobservable or untestable. Second, this is how The Big Bang is deeply connected with (in fact was created by) Evolutionism. And Mr. Lordgrae you show me the math to this THEORY and I'll show you the error in it. Mr. Retroman000 did you know you can have multiple species but still be in the same KIND, yes that's it K-I-N-D. I'm so proud you can say that. Maybe you should look at your THEORY and see that if we find fossils of dinosaurs and birds and mammals then we should also find the creature that came between them, or as they are otherwise known, the "missing link" (no not the character from Legend of Zelda (though it would fit in perfectly)). We have never found a missing link because they don't exist. Unless you are suggesting that these animals stayed the same for millions of years then made a drastic change in the next generation. Side fact, did you know the trilobite still lives in the Baltic Sea? Hmm... If it isn't extinct yet then why is it in the "Geologic Column"? You show a "fact" that supposedly supports Evolutionism, and I’ll show you the fraud underneath it. Have a nice day gentlemen and gentle ladies. I must admit when I read your reply it made me laugh. You are a great comedian. ""THEORY means unproven or unobservable or untestable."" "Theory: A supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained" Exactly a supposition that has no fact. Ever hear of something that is quite known in the scientific world as "The Scientific Method" The definition of "The Scientific Method" in http://dictionary.Reference.Com/browse/scientific+method?S=t Scientific Method, noun: a method of research in which a problem is identified, relevant data are gathered, a hypothesis is formulated from these data, and the hypothesis is empirically tested "a method of research in which a problem is identified..." The problem was that the Evolution Theory (For that is what it is called) could not explain how this evolutionary process started. So the took a few things, distorted the truth to fit their theory then called it "The Big Bang" Ooooo. Wow. More like the Big Flop. "Relevant data are gathered..." There are no relevant data. Show me solid, undistorted fact. Please I beg you too. "And the hypothesis in empirically tested." You cannot test the Big Bang, not even on a miniature scale. Now without the Big Bang how does Evolution work I have read books written by the World's leading Evolutionist scientists have written. They have said in one way or another that if they don't have enough time that there theory is the world's biggest and childish theory ever in the history. In order for Evolution to have that time they need the Big Bang. Now to another aspect of Evolutionism. How do you or anyone else know that the Earth or even the Universe is billions and billions of years? Don't say Carbon Dating, Potassium-Argon Dating, the "Geologic Column", or Radiometric Dating, or the Red Shift. Because they have been proven by Evolutionists and Creationists that they don't work. If you don't have time you have a fairy tale. About Trilobites, they are a nuisance to Baltic sea fishermen, and have been captured and transported to many Creationist museums. The reason why you've never heard about them is because the Smithsonian is very active in keeping it out of media and out of Evolution museums. I suppose you have never been to a large Creationist museum? If you did go, there is a high chance that you would see a trilobite. Go to the Creationist museum "Dinosaur Land" in Pensecola (I hope that is how you spell it) Florida whenever you get the chance. Before I go I want to ask you a question. Is your profile picture of a man dressed a woman, or a woman trying to appear like a man?
jrrjacques says2014-04-09T13:47:02.7008644-05:00
Also here is how the Big Bang is related; 20 billion (sanctamonious tone) years ago the Earth cooled down after it formed from the Big Bang. 6 billion years ago terrential rains poured over the rocks of the Earth. About 4 billion years ago, with the combination of rock minerals and rain there formed a primordial soup, and from this soup boys and girls came the very first existance of life. Oooh. Wow. That is one amazing fairy tail. Now may I ask a question teacher? When do we study real science? Now tell me, how is the Big Bang not related with evolution? How is it not one of the main principals of Evolution? About radiometric dating. Yes, I agree Carbon-14 decays at a constant rate in our time. But in order to use it one must make some serious assumptions. 1. That the amount of C-14 in the atmosphere (just in case you didn't know, an animal has the same number of C-14 as is in the atmosphere) has always stay the same. Which it hasn't as we have found from air pockets in amber. 2. That the decay rate has been constant. C-14 decays at different rates in different atmospheres. It is like this analogy. You walk into a room and you see a candle burning. I ask you how long has it been burning? You can find out how tall it is, and how much of it burns an hour, but you can tell how long it has been burning unless you make the two assumption on how tall you think it was when it started and that it has been burning at a constant rate. There are many times since the 1930s that radiometric dating has been proven wrong. Look it up, and not on biased Evolution sources like National Geographic, Smithsonian, Scientific America, and other such organizations. As for my sources? Www.Drdino.Org and www.Answersingenesis.Org. You didn't answer my last question. I hope you enjoyed your Christmas? After all it is a Christian holiday. Now enough of these niceties, and to what we were speaking of before Christmas. I apologize for not making myself clear (do to my being in a hurry), Mr. Retroman000. I tried to condense my thought into one sentence. I will rephrase more plainly. You wish me to read entire resources, and then pick and choose certain aspects of it to debate with. This way I would be literally quarrelling the article and not you. Which is what this website is about, isn’t it? Another option I have is to debate with it sentence for sentence, which would take to much of my much needed time for important things in life, and would undoubtedly annoy the Dickens out of other readers. Another alternative is to agree with you fully, not question any of your sources, and thus I would become like the many people who have been indoctrinated with the beliefs of your religion. A last choice, is that you bring out the main points and bring forth your “evidence” and I will retaliate showing the plain error in it, show my data, and then possibly your mind, that has been saturated with the world’s most dangerous doctrine, just maybe you will see as it were “the light.” When I say “half the truth” I mean exactly that. Evolution takes some common day sights, looks at some basic fact, and then adjust it greatly to fit their theory (whereas one is suppose to take the theory and adjust it to the facts). Example, I suppose you have heard of Homo Erectus, AKA the Nebraska Man? During the mid 1900s Evolutionists were running out of “evidence” because they were being proven to be false and distorted. They went digging in Nebraska and found a humanoid skeleton with a bent back. For the next 40 years they preached that this Homo Erectus was a chimpanzee slowly coming up from a bent back to a straight back, and it had big eyebrow bones, big jaw, and a big nose. Then a doctor got a close look at it and said that this wasn’t a chimp slowly coming up it was an old man with arthritis who was slowly coming down. Also did you know that your eyebrow bone, jaw, and nose never stop growing? Let me emphasis this for you the skeleton was a man who had lived to a very great age, and thus had arthritis, protruding eyebrows, big jaw, and a large nose. The Evolutionists KNEW this when they found it. Now it has been proven false and it is STIL being put inside text books, STILL being used as evidence for evolution, STILL being used by “science” channels, and STILL fooling people as it did then. This isn’t the only example. I could write a book on every single account in which data was altered KNOWINGLY by Evolutionists to fit their dieing theory. In fact, there have been books written on these accounts. There have been videos and television lectures done on talk shows on this. You speak of my resources being biased. As far as I know (and trust me I have been researching and debating on this subject for nearly five years) there has been no true, devout Christian Creationist scientist that has slightly or dramatically altered facts to fit our beliefs. Whereas yours is still desperately trying to fit puzzle pieces by trying to cut them into shape. In other words Creationists look at the unbiased statistics and form their hypothesis to fit the facts, and it fits perfectly. Evolutionists do their tests, look at the unbiased statistics, then pick and choose which could be altered to fit their religion. In 1970 an article was published telling how dates were selected in carbon dating, “If the date supports our theory we put it in the main text. If it is not entirely contradicting, it is put as a foot-note. If it doesn’t support our theory at all it is dropped and we test again.” What kind of “science” is this? If looking at data and adjusting your theory to fit the fact is biased; then how biased is it to start an experiment with the fixed idea that no matter what data is gathered you will FORCE it to fit your theory? Also the only unbiased resources are plain, original statistics, and that is what I look at. I don’t just read, copy and paste, then change it slightly to fit my wording. I look at the statistics, look at the many different theories, correlate which theories fit the statistics best or perfectly, analyze in detail looking for some mistake, then adopt it as the most likely. I was completely open minded when doing this with an unbiased opinion. I soon eliminated Evolution and its branch of the Big Bang due to the untrustworthiness of it “scientists” and ridiculous hypothesizes and assumptions. Also I can’t believe you use Wikipedia! Don’t you remember about 4 ½ bya (sorry I meant just years) ago how someone added a sentence to the file of Queen Elizabeth II? They wrote, “Queen Elizabeth is a Hippie.” It was all over the news for about three days. Anyone can edit anything on there as long as you have an account, and unless it is something obvious no one is going to notice. Everyone will continue on and take the additive to be fact. No one should ever trust Wikipedia, and I have heard this said by Evolutionists, schools, informational writing contests, and creationists. I don’t trust Creationist profiles on Wikipedia. “…literal mountains of evidence…” Please show me this “evidence” every Evolutionist I have talked with whether in person or a person online they rarely ever give this “evidence”, and when they do it is very weak and is easily dealt with solid fact. So I ask the question. Who resources are more reliable? Hmm? (You said, “ A theory is the highest form of scientific verification a hypothesis can attain.” If that is so then why is Creation also called a theory if it is supposed to be pure religion? Why is it up there with the Theory of Relativity? Also the Evolution Theory began to called so by those who supported it which was in the minority until 2000.) “…it was a little less than 14 bya, not 20.” Is this really necessary to point out that I didn’t say it exactly according to your view of the Big Bang? I have read in multiple textbooks since I have had science class that it varies anywhere from 6 to 50 billion years. Many Evolutionists have their own idea on it. Does this show how desperate you are to keep the debate going, by attempting to change the subject? Tut, tut, tut, naughty boy. Alright, time for some “legitimate, well based evidence.” Prepare to be blown away. It will come as a storm and that hits your frail twig house that has been set on a foundation of silver sand. Evolution will be as a stormtrooper to Master Yoda, a Cardassian to species 8472, a goblin to Gandalf, 1+1=500 billion to E=MCsquared, A panzer 1 to a M1 A2 Abram, Benedict Arnold to George Washington, and fairy tales to science laws. How evidence fits with my beliefs. I suppose you have heard of our Flood? You know the one that reconfigured the world? How the world was covered by the big blue wet thing? First of all, what would do we find constantly in the ground? Fossils. What are fossils? Dead things. How many do we find? Millions. Now put it all together and what do we have (no not bibbidy bobbity boo)? Millions of dead things underground. Now what would you expect to find buried after a world wide flood? I think the answer is millions of dead things underground. Now in what order would you find some of them to be in? Evolutionists remember the order by using the acronym FARM: Fish, Amphibians, Reptiles, and Mammals (with birds with or above mammals). Do you know why they are in this order? You may say because this is the way they evolved, from primitive trilobites to the Homo Sapien Sapien (or Wise Wise Man). I am sorry to break the news to you, but that is false. Don’t worry you’re not the first to realize this. Here is why. When the Flood occurred who do you think were t he first ones to be buried? The sea plants, the mollusk, and the fish. The amphibians tried to swim but soon found themselves either in to swift a current or water to deep to swim up (thus sunk quickly to the bottom to be fossilized). So was the same fate for those that were unable to find floating debris to sit before they were exhausted and also drowned. Then reptiles being denser than mammals and fowl sank to the bottom on top of the already covered amphibians. Drowned mammals being not as dense as reptiles, floated around awhile before sinking atop the covered reptiles. The birds flew until they ran out of gas then plummeted into the water covered earth and sank with those few remaining mammals and on top of the mammals already buried. And even then one rarely finds them in this order. Another side fact; did you know a trilobite has the most complicated and best eye ever studied? If most of the creatures that “evolved” after it are suppose to be more complex and better than their predecessor, then why didn’t they keep this very useful aspect if it would have given them advantages to survival? Did you know moving water sorts dirt and rocks into automatic predictable layers? To test that, it just a simple experiment. Get a jar, fill it 1/3 of the way with dirt, fill the rest with water, seal the jar, shake the jar for a while, set it down, then watch. You will see that it will separate into layers. This is what happened during the flood. This is why we have distinct Geologic layers with smooth seams. This is why there are thousands of petrified trees running through a half dozen layers that are suppose to be 100 of millions of years in age difference. This is why we have coal and oil. This is why we have mountains and trenches and valleys and plate tectonics. This is why the oldest trees re only about 4,000 years old. This is why the biggest dessert in the world is only about 4,000 years old. This is why recorded history only goes back as far as a little under 4,000 years. This is why we find plants in Antarctica. This is why we find the same fossils all over the world. This why there are over 250 surviving world wide flood legends all across the globe that have not had any contact with Christianity. This is why the Romans, Greeks, Chinese, Mesopotamians, Native Americans, Africans, Mongolians, South Americans, and all other civilizations over 1,000 years old have hundreds upon hundreds of written encounters with dinosaurs (the modernized name for dragons). This is why in cave painting there are dinosaurs painted with the elk, mammoths, lion, tigers, and bears (Oh my!). This is why there are thousands upon thousands of sighting of sea dinosaurs and land dinosaurs since 1900. This is why the world population curve comes down to about eight people about 4,000 years ago. This is why the migration of humans seems to come from a central point around Turkey. This is why human life spans are becoming smaller. This is why humans are becoming smaller and shorter. Shall I go on? I have written 260 words of “This is why.” There is a lot more. But if I did, I would annoy the Dickens out of you. This is just proof for the flood I could go astronomical and biological evidence that confirms everything in our Bible. The Bible is perfect. It never contradicts itself and always supports what it says itself, even though it was written by over 50 people in a period from about 3500 BC to almost 100 AD. The only mistakes one possibly could find are regular typos in the revised editions of the Bible (which I advise no one to trust fully). Have I not said thrice so far why the Big Bang is one of the main principals or are you not even reading? Or are you doing selective reading and only paying attention to certain supposed mistakes like “…14 bya not 20”? I will repeat again what I have thus far stated. “According to Evolutionism, 20 Billion years [14 bya for your benefit] the universe was empty then it all compacted together and spun really fast and exploded. 6 billion years ago the earth cooled into a rocky surface. There was no oxygen, but the rocks absorbed it. It then rained on the rocks for millions of years and out of it came an organic soup made of complex chemicals. Then out of this soup came an ameba that somehow was made out of a random selection of amino acids. It then EVOLVED into what we see today.” Now without the Big Bang what do we have? “6 billion years ago the earth cooled into a rocky surface. There was no oxygen, but the rocks absorbed it. It then rained on the rocks for millions of years and out of it came an organic soup made of complex chemicals. Then out of this soup came an ameba that somehow was made out of a random selection of amino acids. It then EVOLVED into what we see today.” If Evolution only had the latter part, people would ask how do you know? Where did the Earth come from? Why did the Earth cool down, and from what? In fact before the Big Bang this is what evolution had, “…out of this [primordial] soup came an ameba that somehow was made out of a random selection of amino acids. It then EVOLVED into what we see today.” People didn’t believe this as much because the Evolutionists had no explanation for how this soup got there. So evolutionists to deal with these questions that endangered their beliefs, came up with The Big Bang Theory. Now we add, “According to Evolutionism, 20 Billion years [14 bya for your benefit] the universe was empty then it all compacted together and spun really fast and exploded. 6 billion years ago the earth cooled into a rocky surface. There was no oxygen, but the rocks absorbed it. It then rained on the rocks for millions of years and out of it came an organic soup made of complex chemicals.” Now do you see the connection? Without the Big Bang the primordial could never happen. Without this soup the ameba could never “EVOLVE”. Without this ameba everything could not evolve from it. When the Big Bang is proven false, Evolution will begin to crumble for one of its foundations have been removed. Hey! I think I see a little glow in your head. Could it be that another thin layer made of stubbornness and Evolutionism is beginning to peel away, and the true light of thinking is finally starting to think for itself? (Different aspects of our world? Yes. No relation at all? No. What you said is like the following statements. The two events of God creating everything and the Flood destroying the world are two different aspects with no relation (God created universe in general. Big Bang created the universe in general. “Flood reconfigured the world” is specific. “Evolution made all life” is specific). The beginning of a battle, and the end of a battle, two different views or aspects of the same thing but still very much related. The overall view of a car, and how the gas gets to the engine; two different aspects but still the same thing.) You have made it clear to me that you believe that the Big Bang Theory created everything. This is good, for I now know exactly how to contend with you on this subject. This is according to your group of Evolutionists view. In the beginning there was absolutely nothing. Not even the laws of time and space. Then suddenly matter and universal laws popped out of nowhere like Jack-in-the-Box and all the matter clumped into a fast spinning dot smaller than the period at the end of this sentence (that is one crowded dot). It spun so fast that it gained enough energy to separate itself or explode or expand however you wish to say it. Galaxies and solar systems formed by the collision of rock, water, and all of the other elements. They began revolving and rotating around the center point of which they came. This is what you believe about the Big Bang. Now already there is one plain unbreakable law that the Big Bang has tried to bypass. That is The Law of the Conservation of Matter which states that matter can never be created nor destroyed. If matter can never be CREATED then how did The Big Bang occur? What set it off? Also did you know space and time must be in existence simultaneously or else neither can exist without the other. You CANNOT have them as separate elements. You CANNOT have time come into being first then space or visa versa. It is IMPOSSIBLE. Have you heard of the Law of the Conservation of Angular Momentum? I doubt it since it seems insignificant in our argument. But really this simple law brings the Big Bang Theory to its knees as it were. Here is an excerpt from a previous argument that demonstrates this law perfectly. “You take some kids in fourth grade to a merry-go-round. You place them on it and then bring out the high school football (or handball I believe it’s called in England) [I was debating an Englishman] team to spin the merry-go-round. We start off in Phase 1; the players begin to spin it clockwise and the kids are yelling, “Go faster, faster!” As they approach 30 miles an hour (sorry I don’t know how to convert that into metric) the kids enter Phase 2; they become quiet and silently concentrate on holding on for dear life. Their speed is now about 60 mph as the players spin them faster and the kids enter Phase 3; they begin to yell again, but this time it is, “Slow down!. Please slow down!” Then comes Phase 4, the last one. They have now reached about 100 mph, and the kids begin to fly off the merry-go-round, and continue flying until they encounter resistance (like a street lamp or a tree). You will notice that as they fly off the contraption that is rotating clockwise that they themselves are also rotating clockwise. This is called the Law of the Conservation of Angular Momentum. In a frictionless environment (which is what the Big Bang was in) the pieces of the original object must ROTATE AND REVOLVE the same direction as the swirling dot of which it came. So this means that ‘the direction they are rotating in is irrelevant’ is an irrelevant statement in itself for it denies a proven physics law.” I will clarify, EVERYTHING should be ROTATING AND REVOLVING the same way if The Big Bang Theory is true. Some of Jupiter’s moons are spinning in the wrong direction. If you search you will find there is even a whole galaxy spinning backwards. How does the mighty and all knowing personage of your grand wisdom in Evolutionism explain this!? It is good to know that you know that the atmosphere has been different in the past. I thought I was in contention with incompetence again. Oh, please forgive for assuming that you, you the man that knows all the answers was incompetent. So now, oh great one, how do you find “the levels of C-14 in the atmosphere at the time”? I believe I know already but I will wait for you to explain that. Now as for, “`”That the decay rate has been constant. C-14 decays at different rates in different atmospheres.”`” No, no it doesn't.” Yes, Yes it does. You either had forgotten your great wisdom, oh wisest of all Evolutionists, or you misunderstood. I hope it is the latter. Allow me to enlighten you. It all depends on the amount of UV radiation that is striking these C-14 atoms (I suppose you know C-14 is nitrogen after it has been hit by UV light?) Before the Flood no one had any exposure to UV light (for further explanation look up Dr. Kent Hovind’s Seminar “The Hovind Theory” and listen closely with an open mind. If I did type it down in its entirety it would be well over 100,000 characters.) So as a result C-14 did not decay very fast if at all. However after the Flood things were different. Now there was this sudden onslaught of UV light (which is why humans have been getting smaller and our life spans shorter). C-14 begins to decay quicker. Here is an excerpt from one of my previous debates. “Radiometric dating, I suppose you know, is the measurement of the half life of Carbon-14. Now before Evolutionists can date the bones, they first look to see what the bones belonged to, and where it appears on the Geologic Column. They then make some faulty assumptions. 1. They assume that they animal was breathing the exact air we are breathing today. (dinosaurs lived in a very different atmosphere before the Creationist flood) [I suppose from what you have said that some Evolutionists have finally realized that the atmosphere in the past was different] 2. They assume the decay has been constant (in order for this to be true, they need to know how much was in it when it died). When trying to date something this way it is like this analogy. You walk into room and see a candle burning. I ask you when was it lit? You take some measurements on its height and find it is 10 centimeters tall. I ask you again, when was it lit? You still don’t know and you take more measurements. You find that it is burning 1 centimeter an hour. I ask again, when was the candle lit? In order to know you need to make the assumptions on how tall it was before it was lit, and has the rate of burning been constant. You don’t know so you guess. Here are a few examples on its unreliability in chronological order. 1949-The lower leg of a mammoth was 15,000 years old and the skin 21,000. 1963-A living mollusk was dated to be 2,300 years old. 1970-An article was published telling how dates were selected, “If the date supports our theory we put it in the main text. If it is not entirely contradicting, it is put as a foot-note. If it doesn’t support our theory at all it is dropped and we test again.” 1971-A freshly killed seal was dated at 1,300 years old. 1984-The shells from living snails were dated at 27,000 years old. 1985-11 human skeletons that were suppose to be the earliest remains of North American humans that were thought to be about a quarter of a million years old were dated at 5,000 years old or less. 1992-Two Colorado Creek mammoths were found side by side, one was 22,000 years old, the other was 16,000. 1996-At Berkley University, the Evolutionist Karl Swisher was reevaluating one of the Homo Erectus bones. It was thought that it was 250,000 years old, but Mr. Swisher was startled and confused to find that the dates he was receiving ranged anywhere from 53,000-27,000. I might add that that is a 96% percent error. When using this method on an object of known date it never works. But when using it on an object of unknown age it is assumed to be correct. This is not commonsense science. This is an act of desperation on the part of the Evolutionists scientists to try and trick unsuspecting bystanders. With this evidence, it is apparent that Radiometric dating is far from accurate. I have many more examples, but I believe I have made my point.” I would also like to add that as C-14 is decaying in the atmosphere it is being replenished at a slower rate. Eventually the atmosphere will reach equilibrium. Such as, when you have a barrel full of water and you poke a hole in it. The water starts spewing out, and at the same moment you start refilling it with a water hose. Now the rate at which the barrel is emptying is faster than the rate you are filling it. Eventually you will reach a stage in which you are filling just as fast as it is emptying, thus you have the equilibrium. This is the case of our atmosphere today. The atmosphere should have reached equilibrium within 80,000 years. It has yet to reach that point. In fact according studies for the past 30 odd years in 2003 there was 28-30% more C-14 in the air than in 1983. How could this be if the world is suppose to be billions of year old? Unless, it isn’t! As I said before, “…I believe I have made my point.” As for it used be a website started and maintained by Dr. Kent Hovind and family. It was discontinued by the federal government due to him being sent to civilian’s prison for almost 20 years. The IRS said he was tax evading which is untrue and a completely different debate so don’t bring it up because this is about Evolutionism Vs. Creation not federal conspiracies and the financial status of one man. There are no websites out there that are unbiased, as I said it is the statistics that are unbiased. I have just typed 3,372 words in answer to your 444 words. I believe I have made my side of our argument clear, and I await your hopefully sensible reply. If you do not reply on these particular subjects mentioned above within the next 45 days it will be considered that I have won this argument against you. I have noticed Mr. Lordgrae has dropped out of the argument I do not know whether he has accepted defeat by way of stubborn silence or he is unable to reply. The latter I doubt because he has been on quite often since his last reply, and he denied an invitation to debate with me. Thank you for answering my question that appears at the end of my posts, I was just curious. Another question, though, out of inquisitiveness, is this man that is made to look like a woman, in actuality a picture of yourself?
stanleymilgram1959 says2014-04-09T13:49:05.9424444-05:00
Jrrjaques Are you defending your thesis? Cause we can't give you input. LOL
jrrjacques says2014-04-09T13:49:08.5164774-05:00
Some of these statements concerning my opponents you will not understand just stay with them.
jrrjacques says2014-04-09T13:49:33.3727108-05:00
Some of these statements concerning my opponents you will not understand just stay with them.
Haroush says2014-04-09T18:29:35.3160568-05:00
Wow! Jrr, that was a great debate you did... I didn't know about the reasoning behind the fossil lineup.. I'll say this.. It seems you may know more than I.
jrrjacques says2014-04-10T13:50:09.1806120-05:00
Mr. Stanleymilgram1959 I am confused by your comment would you kindly clarify?
ESocialBookworm says2014-04-10T14:42:22.8506995-05:00
@jrrjacques His account got closed.
Haroush says2014-04-11T08:40:29.8103859-05:00
I wonder why? Oh well..
jrrjacques says2014-04-26T11:31:16.7192690-05:00
MrStanely even sent me a friend request before closing it. Curious sequence of events. But I shan't lose much needed rest over it.

Freebase Icon   Portions of this page are reproduced from or are modifications based on work created and shared by Google and used according to terms described in the Creative Commons 3.0 Attribution License.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.