Would seeing the sea part make you believe in God?

[Sava]

arguing why writing was created is like arguing the existence of god... my point is that your reason is correct, but not the sole reason... no one alive today knows why exactly writing was creating, or if it's original creators even had a single motive... we don't know, so don't bother arguing your opinions on it...

IMO, writing evolved slowly as necessity for things like keeping records of grain, agriculture, trade, and time, as well as artistic expression, law, and religion... none of these is the sole reason... you are correct, but you are wrong... anyways... I'll stop this threadjack now

[Richelieu]

"Would seeing the sea part make you believe in God?"

It won't happen. You know it, i know it, everybody knows it.

Keep living in LA-LA land. Refuse to look reality in the face. Hide behind your "God".

[Aeson]

I agree Sava. No one needs/wants 6 billion tag-a-longs, not even God.

My worship is reserved for Audrey Hepburn anyways, and the color orange.

[Sava]

Aeson...

Especially 6 billion tag alongs who throughout their history have killed and started wars in his name.

I also think that the sheep that believe in religion now would stop their lives and turn to God and say, "What now, Lord... What do you want us to do?" I don't need God to tell me what to do, or to tell me what is good and what is evil. I feel sorry for the people that believe that God defines what is good and evil.

[Sava]

Also... even if God exists, he must be a psychopath... can you imagine living for all eternity without anyone else to talk to? Have you seen the movie "Sphere"? An emotional being requires contact with other emotional beings. How sane would a God be if he were all alone? Being sentient carries with it it's own pitfalls. Isolation is probably the worst thing for a sentient being.

[Aeson]

That's why God invented online forums. I bet he's a wicked troll.

[Robert]

Alexander's Horse: So, when did you put your brain in a jar Cyber and join the ranks of the brainwashed?

always those inteligent remarks
If you are THAT inteligent compared to me, why don't you know that this kind of arguments are as childish as a 6 year old child?

Well its not just the atheists - about 95% of christians disagree with fundamentalist interpretations of the bible, probably just like 95% of muslims reject muslim extremist interpretations of the koran.

You just made up those numbers yourself?

Sava: Lay off of him AH, you can't blame someone who's been brainwashed since birth.

Fortunately you aren't

Lemmy: But unfortunately there are plenty of other facts which can't be disproven by arguments.

I've learned so far that for every argument there is a counter-argument. And indeed, for the evidence I just posted is counter-evidence, but believe me, there will be (found) counter-counter evidence for that as well.

people believe something, and back it up by 'evidence'.
Most of the time this evidence (from both evolutionists and creationists) come from the same place as the numbers Alexander's Horse just made up.

As long as we're talking about stuff that happened while we were not watching or we'll never be able to look at (evolution/ creation) we'll just find the evidence we want to find.

For that reason I hope that scientists will stop wasting their time and money on worthless research on the age of bones, the distance of stars and all that.

Why don't they find a way to cure cancer / aids, to stop food starvation in Africa.

The oldest rocks which have been found so far (on the Earth) date to about 3.8 to 3.9 billion years ago (by several radiometric dating methods).

Here are 6 counter arguments, it's only a matter of time for you to find counter-counter arguments.

1. ALL dating methods (including ones that point to thousands, not billions of years, are based on assumptions—beliefs, no matter how reasonable-sounding, that you can’t prove, but must accept by faith. For example:

Assuming how much of a particular chemical was originally present;
Assuming that there has been no leaching by water of the chemicals in or out of the rock;
Assuming that radioactive decay rates have stayed the same for billions of years, and more.
2. Radiometric ‘dating’ labs do not measure age—they measure amounts of chemicals, then from this they infer age, based on the underlying assumptions.

3. When the assumptions are tested by measuring rocks of known age—e.g. recent lava flows—they often fail miserably.8

4. Objects of the same age, tested by different methods, have been shown to give ‘dates’ varying by a factor of a thousand.9

5. Does modern radiometric dating prove billions of years? See why the answer is a definite NO!
The Mythology of Modern Dating Methods
John Woodmorappe

A masterful demonstration of the fallacy of radioactive dating assumptions and techniques with citations of almost 500 articles by evolutionists. A solid refutation of the belief that radiometric dating proves the Earth is old.

MORE INFO / PURCHASE ONLINE

The fact that there is some consistency to radiometric dates is explained in part by the tendency to publish only data consistent with the ‘evolutionary age’ already ‘established’ by fossils. Most radioactive dating laboratories prefer you to tell them what age you expect. It is hard to see why this would be necessary if these were ‘absolute’ methods. The entire geological ‘millions of years’ system was largely in place, based on the philosophical assumptions of men like Charles Lyell and James Hutton, before radioactivity was even discovered. Where a radioactive date contradicts the ‘system’, it is invariably discarded.

6. If a ‘radiometric’ date and a ‘fossil’ (evolutionary) date conflict, the radiometric date is always discarded.

There are many other solid reasons for not accepting fallible man-made methods, such as radioactive ‘dating’, as an authority in opposition to the clear testimony of God’s infallible Word

CS

[Robert]

Ranskaldan: (though I suspect that the first nine points are equally ludicrous.)

you suspect too much.

It's simply impossible to find all the skeletons no matter how hard you look because:
1) most bones decay, and it's because minerals drip into them and solidify (iirc) that a minority of them are preserved. In fact, even when fossils are found, they are frequently just one toe bone or one fragment of the skull, full skeletons are rarely well preserved.
2) Unless you plan to start digging on every piece of desert, rainforest, taiga, tundra, continental shelf, and city, it's impossible to even find 0.1% of the bones that are preserved.

first: you made up those arguments yourself. You don't care about scientific research or anything, but you just type what pops up in the top of your head.

1. Nobody claimed that all bones would be found.
2. you missed the point that the author used the claim of evolutoinists that they found bones from millions of years old, and that thus for that reason bones from 100000 years old must be able to be found easily.
3. you miss the point about that not that much bones were found compared to the 40 billion people that must have been buried during the stone age.
4. you miss the point that most of these bodies obviously not would be buried in desert, rainforest, taiga and tundra, but just next to the place they lived. and the fact that you include 'city' shows even more that you made up this argument yourself, since EVERY city on this world has been a place were much digging has happened.

You made up the 0.1% yourself as well.
Do you have any clue about how much 40 billion is?

0.1% of 40.000.000.000 will still be 40.000.000!
But again, that 0.1% number was just made up by yourself as well.

The number of plants that are actually suitable for breeding into crops is extremely tiny. Most edible staples we have today are cereals - wheat, barley, millet and rice. Most of these were concentrated into Eurasia, and even so, agriculture arose in only a few sporadic areas, mostly in Eurasia. North China, India, Europe, and Africa did not invent agriculture by themselves. In other places in the world, agriculture was never discovered until European arrival, simply because there aren't any plants around to plant.

I think you competely missed the point of the argument.
You just rephrase what was rebutted by the argument.

Thus there's nothing extraordinary with people staying hunter-gatherer for the last 100,000 years, much of which was during the Ice Age anyway.

Much? The ice age is believed to be about 20000 years ago........ That's not 'most of it' but just a small part.

Self made evidence again?

There are plenty of examples of history being kept back. Medieval Europe held science back for 1000 years - China did it for even longer.

We're not talking about holding back science, we talk about not recording any phrase of history for 100.000 years. Medieval Europa didn't held science back for 1000 years. Much has be developped during those 1000 years. Of course things are being developped faster now.

But compared to the 100.000 years of the stone age.....

Besides, even if something is invented, there must be an economic base to propagate it. Steam engines were invented by the Ancient Greeks, but their industrial base and metallurgical skills were not developed enough for it to be widely used and start an Industrial Revolution. In the same way, hunting and gathering societies would have found little time, energy, or use for frivolous skills like writing. Writing was only invented as a necessity for keeping accounts of grain - something only an agricultural nation would need to do.

Only to record history?
No economic base is needed for that.

[Jack the Bodiless]

CyberShy:

The difference between "evolutionist explanations" and "creationist explanations" are that ours are accurate, whereas all creationist ones are false.

That isn't arrogant: it's just the way it is.

For instance, there is no doubt that the Earth's magnetic field keeps reversing (we can see the results in alternating layers of magnetized rocks). Plate tectonics is not in doubt (we can measure the movements of the continents). The near-constancy of universal forces over time is not in doubt (we can see them at work in the light from distant galaxies millions of light-years distant).

Most of these are actually acknowledged in the articles you've posted. But creationists, desperate to cling to a disproved fantasy, simply lie about the reliability of the data. For instance, the existence of an external source for comets (e.g. the Oort Cloud ) is obvious, simply by calculating the orbits of comets and noting that they are dropping into the Solar System from outside it. To claim that "So far, none of these assumptions has been substantiated either by observations or realistic calculations" is an outright lie, pure and simple.

And so it goes...

2. Radiometric ‘dating’ labs do not measure age—they measure amounts of chemicals, then from this they infer age, based on the underlying assumptions.

3. When the assumptions are tested by measuring rocks of known age—e.g. recent lava flows—they often fail miserably.8

4. Objects of the same age, tested by different methods, have been shown to give ‘dates’ varying by a factor of a thousand.9

5. Does modern radiometric dating prove billions of years? See why the answer is a definite NO!
The Mythology of Modern Dating Methods
John Woodmorappe

What's measured are the chemicals sealed into impermeable crystals. Radiometric dates are wrong only in cases where contamination with material not sealed into the crystals has occurred, or where the concentration is too low to be measured (i.e. the sample is younger than the minimum age for reliable use of that particular method: this is obvious from the near-zero result).

Incidentally, did you know that "John Woodmorappe" has a split personality, and also publishes strongly anti-creationist material under the name "Jan Peczkis"? He is literally insane.

6. If a ‘radiometric’ date and a ‘fossil’ (evolutionary) date conflict, the radiometric date is always discarded.

False. Radiometric dates are discarded if they fail an isochron test (a test for contaminants), or the date lies outside the usable range of the method being used (not enough of the parent left to measure, or not enough of the decay product to measure).

[Alex]

"Would seeing the sea part make you believe in God?"

No. It would make me think that Hollywood went too far.

[Jack the Bodiless]

2. you missed the point that the author used the claim of evolutoinists that they found bones from millions of years old, and that thus for that reason bones from 100000 years old must be able to be found easily.

Not many bones from ANY time period will be found. The author doesn't have a "point".

The facts are simple: we DO have many skeletons from the Stone Age, but not as many as we would like. If the YEC's were right, there should be NO remains from this period.

Their brains are melting from the strain of trying to deny the very, very obvious. They're just babbling now.

As for the rise of civilization:

There have been numerous Ice Ages. Modern humans evolved during the last one, and began to develop civilizations when it ended (possibly before, but any coastal civilizations would have been submerged by sea-level rise when the ice melted). Naturally, written history only goes back as far as civilization does. And, naturally, myth-makers would have placed "creation" shortly before their own written histories began.

There is nothing mysterious about that.

[Alexander's Horse]

*The sea parts*

Horse: "You're sh*tting me"

*sea closes*

Horse: "nah, come on, do it again, I bet you can't do it again."

[Richelieu]

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse
*The sea parts*

Horse: "You're sh*tting me"

*sea closes*

Horse: "nah, come on, do it again, I bet you can't do it again."

[Alex]

Alexnm: "Hey, did I see the sea parting?"

AH: "I think so, but it won't happen again"

*The sea parts again and we hear a sound that looks like "na-na-na-na-na-na"*

Alexnm: "AH, give me that bottle. I need another drink"

AH: "Ok, but stop this na-na-na thing".

HIC!

[Alexander's Horse]

*sea parts again*

Horse: "okay, best of three."

*sea closes*

Horse: "can you make it open and close slowly, then open and close again really fast like, or just shimmer in the middle for a bit so you don't know if its opening or closing?"

Horse: "How about making one side higher than the other or some musical effects?"

Horse: "Before you do it can I phone a friend?"

Horse: "How about lottery numbers, can you do numbers? Got any other tricks?"