Evolution - Yes it DID bloody well happen!

[Frencheneesz]

Whatsupimadumbass:

"SO THE EARTH IS 40 BILLION YEARS OLD....Thats my theory... "

"WHOS RIGHT? WHOS WRONG? BOTH ARE THEORIES, THERES NOT ENOUGH EVIDENCE TO SAY EARTH IS REALLY 5 BILLION YEARS OLD... "

I'm sorry, your sarcastic ideas are not theories. Theories are ideas that have SUBSTANTIAL supporting evidence. Hundreds of complementary tests are SUBSTANTIAL evidence. Your Idea has no evidence, and hardly qualifies as a hypothesis.

When you can come up with a radiometric dating of 15 billion years more than 5 times, you will become famous. So far, I only forsee locked rooms with very soft walls for you.

 

[whatsupyall]

Originally posted by Frencheneesz
Whatsupall:
You did. As I recall, you said:

"IF BACTERIA DONT HAVE INTELLIGENCE, HOW THEN DOES IT DO ITS PURPOSE? "

I may apply this to chairs by asking: "If chairs don't have intelligence, how then does it "do" its purpose?

Whats your answer to that?

Your strange. I can understand if you compare biological existence to technolopgical existence, for their purpose is likely. BUT WHY DO YOU COMPARE A CHAIR TO A BACTERIA? BOTH HAVE PURPOSE, BUT THEIR ROLE AND FUNCTIONS ARE FAR FROM BEING LIKELY....SO YOUR STRANGE FRENCHY..YOUR PUTTING WORDS IN MY MOUTH..THERE ARE INTELLIGENT THINGS WITH PURPOSE, AND THERE ARE ALSO NON INTELLIGENT THINGS WITH PURPOSE, YOU ARE MAKING A POINTLESS ANALOGY....

Originally posted by Frencheneesz

"Last time I checked isnt it the sun that give's us light during the day? "

Why the hell does the sun need to have a purpose to give us light? It is purely coincidence.

HAHAHAHA, LUCK? COINCIDENCE? SUPER DUPER LUCK? CHANCE? RANDOM CHANCE? LOL, NO COMMENT HERE....HAVE YOU BEEN OUT LATELY? HAVE YOU SEEN DISCOVERY CHANNEL LATELY? HAVE YOU SEEN THE COMPLEXITY OF NATURE LATELY? HAVE YOU SEEN THE DESIGN AND "PURPOSE" OF INSECTS, ANIMALS, BIRDS, AND NATURE LATELY? LOL, A PERFECT COINCIDENCE? I DONT WANT TO COMMENT ON THIS....YOUR DONE...IF U WANT, I CAN CLARIFY THIS MORE FOR YOU.

I HAVE PROOF IT IS DESIGN AND PURPOSE, WHAT IS MY PROOF? BECAUSE LIFE IN GENERAL WOULD NEVER HAVE EXISTED IF ITS NOT BECAUSE OF SUN, THE PURPOSE OF THE SUN IS TO GIVE LIGHT, WHICH GIVES US LIFE, ARE YOU ARGUING AGAINST THIS?

Originally posted by Frencheneesz

Hmm, no. The do adapt, yet if you look back into your own definition of intelligence, nowhere does it say "the ability to adapt".

Actually, bacteria cannot do that. Bacteria "adapt" by reproducing. The good forms survive while the bad forms die, its simple evolution.


Are you trying to say that something that moves is intelligent? Wind moves, is it intelligent? I think not.

Prove that movement and adaptation has anything to do with intelligence.

NOW YOUR TAKING THINGS OUT OF CONTEXT, I DIDNT SAY ONLY IN MOTION, I SAID THINGS THAT ARE IN MOTION, WITH PURPOSE, BUT BECAUSE YOUR BRAIN NEEDS MORE HELP TO DEFINE LIFE AND INTELLIGENCE...THEN HERE IT IS...INTELLIGENCE IS WHAT GIVES MOTION, PURPOSE, THAT WHICH IS EXPIRABLE AND MORTAL, IF YOU PULL APART WILL NOT FUNCTION AS A WHOLE. SOMETHING THAT IS "PROGRAMMABLE", SUCH AS A COMPUTER IS AN EXAMPLE OF INTELLIGENCE, JUST AS CELLS ARE PROGRAMABLE BY ADAPTATION; THE DNA OF ONE MAN DOESNT HAVE THE SAME FORM AND MOVEMENT FROM ANOTHER MAN, BECAUSE THE INTELLIGENCE OF THE CELL HAS BEEN RE-PROGRAMMED, HANDED DOWN TRAITS...THE DNA CAN BE FORMED IN THE COURSE OF TIME, ADAPTATION, THATS WHAT THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION IS ALL ABOUT..

AGAIN, THATS WHAT "LIFE" AND "INTELLIGENCE" IS DEFINED..GOT IT?

 

[whatsupyall]

FRENCHENEEZ THE RETARD...

Originally posted by Frencheneesz
Whatsupimadumbass:

I'm sorry, your sarcastic ideas are not theories. Theories are ideas that have SUBSTANTIAL supporting evidence. Hundreds of complementary tests are SUBSTANTIAL evidence.

HUNDREDS OF "COMPLIMENTARY TESTS" ARE SUBSTANCIAL EVIDENCE? MILLIONS HAVE TESTED GOD AND WAS CONVERTED AND CONVINCED HE EXIST. IS THEIR "COMPLIMENTARY TESTS" THEN SUBSTANCIAL EVIDENCE? IF SO YOU ARE RIGHT, THERE IS MUCH MORE SUBSTANCIAL EVIDENCE FOR THE EXISTENCE OF GOD THAN FOR THE BIG BANG THEORY....

Originally posted by Frencheneesz

Your Idea has no evidence, and hardly qualifies as a hypothesis.

When you can come up with a radiometric dating of 15 billion years more than 5 times, you will become famous. So far, I only forsee locked rooms with very soft walls for you.

MY THEORY HAS AS MUCH EVIDENCE AS THE BIG BANG THEORY WHICH TOOK PLACE 15 BILLION YEARS AGO, A FACT.....YOU WANT TO GIVE ME "PHYSICAL" EVIDENCE OF THE BIG BANG THEORY? THEN DO IT, ILL BEE WAITING (LOL, DONT BANG YOUR HEAD AGAINST THE WALL, THAT'S THE SMALL BANG THEORY)..

AS I WAS SAYING, RADIOMETRIC IS LAME, THEY NEED TO DO MORE THAN 1000,000,000,000,000,000,0000,000,000,00,00,0000,000,000,00,000,00,00,0000,000,000,00,000,00,000,00,0,00000,00,00,000 TIMES BEFORE THEY CAN SAY THE EARTH IS INDEED 5 BILLION YEARS OLD, UNTIL THEN, THAT IS JUST A THEORY AND A GOOD SPECULATION....

THE FACT IS THEY NEED TO DO THE TEST OF EVERY SQUARE INCH OF THE SOIL IN PLANET EARTH IN ORDER TO CONFIRM ITS AGE.....THEY CANNOT JUST TEST FEW SPOTS AND THEN APPLY THAT TO THE REST OF THE WORLD....

 

[Frencheneesz]

Whatsupall:

You are the stupidest, most idiotic person I have ever thought I was talking to. I have blocked you.

 

[whatsupyall]

Im stupid? Look whos talking..

 

[Raithere]

whatsup:

Have you ever tended an anger management class? You should consider it.
I would also suggest diversity training.

~Raithere

 

[Xelios]

"YOU WANT TO GIVE ME "PHYSICAL" EVIDENCE OF THE BIG BANG THEORY? THEN DO IT, ILL BEE WAITING (LOL, DONT BANG YOUR HEAD AGAINST THE WALL, THAT'S THE SMALL BANG THEORY).. "

Sure, here is the evidence you want:

http://pegasus.astro.umass.edu/a100/handouts/threek.html

There's more, but I'd be surprised if you even looked through this much without going into denial again.

"AS I WAS SAYING, RADIOMETRIC IS LAME, THEY NEED TO DO MORE THAN 1000,000,000,000,000,000,0000,000,000,00,00,0000,0
00,000,00,000,00,00,0000,000,000,00,000,00,000,00,
0,00000,00,00,000 TIMES BEFORE THEY CAN SAY THE EARTH IS INDEED 5 BILLION YEARS OLD,"

You are a complete idiot MM. They have done radiometric tests on thousands of different completely independant samples from hundreds of places on Earth and the moon. They've done at least 10 tests on each sample, thats tens of thousands of seperate independant tests, and EVERY SINGLE TEST GIVES THE SAME ANSWER, that the Earth is 4.6 billion years old. And I'm sorry, but you are an idiot to believe otherwise.

It is now a PROVEN FACT that the Earth is NOT 15 billion years old. Whether you like it or not won't change this. You may as well believe the sun revolves around the Earth and sits on a huge concrete pillar in space if you believe the Earth is 15 billion years old.

"THE FACT IS THEY NEED TO DO THE TEST OF EVERY SQUARE INCH OF THE SOIL IN PLANET EARTH IN ORDER TO CONFIRM ITS AGE.....THEY CANNOT JUST TEST FEW SPOTS AND THEN APPLY THAT TO THE REST OF THE WORLD...."

No they wouldn't have to test every square inch of the Earth, why the hell would they have to do that? Give me one good reason why they need to do this.

"FRENCHENEEZ THE RETARD... "

No MM, you're the retard.

 

[whatsupyall]

Originally posted by Xelios

Sure, here is the evidence you want:

http://pegasus.astro.umass.edu/a100/handouts/threek.html

I checked it already, I can provide just as much evidence for God and even more......

Originally posted by Xelios

You are a complete idiot MM. They have done radiometric tests on thousands of different completely independant samples from hundreds of places on Earth and the moon. They've done at least 10 tests on each sample, thats tens of thousands of seperate independant tests, and EVERY SINGLE TEST GIVES THE SAME ANSWER, that the Earth is 4.6 billion years old. And I'm sorry, but you are an idiot to believe otherwise.

HUNDREDS OF PLACES? THE LAST TIME I CHECKED,THERE ARE HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF ACRES ON PLANET EARTH RIGHT? AND SO THEY HAVE FOUND THE OLDEST SOIL AROUND, THEN ASSUME THAT THE REST OF THE HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF OTHER ACRES OF SOIL DATES BACK THE SAME AGE...
YOU ARE RIGHT, FOR THOSE TESTED THEY DID DATE BACK 5 BILLION YEARS OLD, THATS A FACT. BUT EARTH, AS A WHOLE, CANNOT BE PROVEN AS THAT OLD, BECAUSE THEN YOU HAVE TO TEST EVERY SQUARE INCH OF THE SOIL..
WHEN THE BIG BANG TOOOK PLACE 15 BILLION YEARS AGO, I SAID THE EARTH IS 15 BILLION YEARS OLD, THEN YOU DISAGREED BECAUSE THE EARTH WASNT FULLY DEVELOP YET, TTHUS ONLY PARTS OF THE EARTH EXISTED, THEREFORE YOU PREFER NOT TO CALL IT EARTH YET..
NOW, YOU HAVE TESTED SMALL PART OF THE ENTIRE PLANET EARTH, WHY THEN DO YOU APPLY YOUR FINDINGS TO THE REST OF THE HUNDREEDS OF THOUSANDS OF ACRES THAT IS UNTESTED?
SO THE CONCLUSION IS, THE FOUND SOILS ARE 5 BILLION YEARS OLD, BUT EARTH IS NOT 5 BILLION YEARS OLD. YOU WANT TO PROVE IT TO ME IT IS?
TEST EVERY SQUARE INCH OF THGE SOIL, EVEN UNDERNEATH THE SEA, THEN I WILL BELIEVE EARTH IS 5 BILLION YEARS OLD, THEN I CAN SAY IT IS A FACT..
UNTIL THEN, SHUT YOUR HO-LE, THAT IS JUST ANOTHER THEORY....

Originally posted by Xelios

It is now a PROVEN FACT that the Earth is NOT 15 billion years old. Whether you like it or not won't change this. You may as well believe the sun revolves around the Earth and sits on a huge concrete pillar in space if you believe the Earth is 15 billion years old.

PROVEN FACT? YES AND TOOTHFAIRY IS PROVEN FACT AS WELL, BOTH DOESNT HAVE ENOUGH EVIDENCE BUT IS JUST ANOTHER SPECULATION AND BELIEF WHICH REQUIRES FAITH...

Originally posted by Xelios

"FRENCHENEEZ THE RETARD... "

AND YOU TOO....

 

[seesaw]

I checked it already, I can provide just as much evidence for God and even more......

What kind of evidence is there for god?

 

[Jan Ardena]

Originally posted by Frencheneesz
I suppose If he was viceroy, he would need people, MAYBE. But then the question comes along: "Where did those people he is viceroy over COME from?"

Did you not read the whole post;

Gen. 1v26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness:

Also, you might realize there is the possibility of an inaccurate translation. They might have meant he rule the lands, not implying that there were also people.

…..and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

Hmmmmm……….I doubt it.

Love

Jan Ardena.

 

[inspector]

Someone in an earlier post mentioned the big bang. Let us not confuse evolution with the big bang. These are two entirely separate fallacies. The big bang is essentially the claim that the universe came into existence spontaneously in the distant past. I assume that you acknowledge the big bang. If I am wrong, please let me know. Nevertheless, how would you explain the cause of this sudden initial "bang"? You cannot and no one can. Does any scientist know the physical properties of existence before the universe began? No. Can something bring itself into existence if it does not already exist? No. The universe began and it had a cause. How did it begin and why? No explanations can be offered with any evidence to explain the conditions before the big bang. Yet, people, scientists and atheists included, merely accept that an unknown, unexplainable cause brought the universe into existence. Isn't this faith? Where is the proof?

Many believe that the big bang is evidence of an omnipotent creator. But, of course, since you presuppose that there is absolutely no evidence for God, then no evidence presented to you can be validated as supernatural evidence. You are required to interpret any evidence in harmony with your naturalist, non-God system of thought. for the sake of argument, if we were to assume the big bang theory, why isn't it an evidence for supernatural intervention since it is an unexplainable event that defies known naturalistic principles?

How is order in the universe excellent evidence that a Creator does not exist? Are you saying that the randomness of the big bang and the resultant chance formation of the universe produced this order that you say is excellent evidence that there is no God? Is that logical to say that order came out of disorder and then claim it as "excellent evidence" that atheism is true?

Of course, you could maintain that the order in the universe could be the result of the natural properties inherent in the universe. But, I could also claim that the order of the universes is due to God who gave those natural properties to the universe. Both explanations are possible. If they both are, then an ordered universe cannot be exclusively claimed as excellent evidence for atheism. If you did claim it for atheistic support, then I could likewise claim that the ordered universe is excellent evidence for God's existence.

If you say that my theory is not valid, then why is not valid? My position can explain the universe's order quite well without suggesting that order came from non-order. If you say it isn't valid because there is no God, then you beg the question. If you say it isn't valid because there is no evidence for God, you again beg the question. If you say it isn't valid because there is not sufficient evidence for God, then we would need to discuss what would constitute sufficient evidence for you and then proceed to see if your criteria are reasonable and your methodology of examination is objective.

><>

 

[Tyler]

inspector I'm at school so I can't go too much into this right now. But let me point out a few seriously poor flaws in your arguement.

"How is order in the universe excellent evidence that a Creator does not exist? Are you saying that the randomness of the big bang and the resultant chance formation of the universe produced this order that you say is excellent evidence that there is no God? Is that logical to say that order came out of disorder and then claim it as "excellent evidence" that atheism is true?"

1) It isn't evidence of no god. There is no way to prove god does not exist. I don't believe anyone here has said otherwise.
2) THe burden of proof, you must understand, is not on atheism - it's on theism. Allow me to explain. I claim a giant purple squid-rhino hybrid created man kind and the earth. Do you believe me? No? Why not? There is as much proof that my squid-rhino did everything then god did? And there's no way to disprove it? So why is my claim an illogical one? When you claim supernatural, you have the burden in a logical system of proving it. I don't have the burden of disproving it. Until you prove it, it is an illogical statement.


"Does any scientist know the physical properties of existence before the universe began? No. Can something bring itself into existence if it does not already exist? No. The universe began and it had a cause. How did it begin and why? No explanations can be offered with any evidence to explain the conditions before the big bang. Yet, people, scientists and atheists included, merely accept that an unknown, unexplainable cause brought the universe into existence. Isn't this faith? Where is the proof?"

You have just reversed one of the greatest leaps forward man ever took. We once explained everything we didn't understand by saynig "God did it". From the rain and fire to the earth itself we once simply said "god". Eventually man became intelligent enough to utter these words; "simply because I do not know the answer, does not mean the answer is god". I cannot say the Big Bang is definetly the way the Universe started. I do not know. So I say these words - I do not know how the universe started. Does this mean god did it? No. It means we don't know. A thousand years ago we didn't know why we can't float in the air and Europeans didn't really have a clue that North and South America existed - didn't mean God held us down to the ground and as far as I know didn't stop North and South America from existing.


"Of course, you could maintain that the order in the universe could be the result of the natural properties inherent in the universe. But, I could also claim that the order of the universes is due to God who gave those natural properties to the universe. Both explanations are possible. If they both are, then an ordered universe cannot be exclusively claimed as excellent evidence for atheism. If you did claim it for atheistic support, then I could likewise claim that the ordered universe is excellent evidence for God's existence."

No, you couldn't. To do so would contradict a nearly thousand year old tool of logic. I assume you both (a) know what logic is and (b) wish to follow it. I may be wrong on either account. But there is a rule known as Occam's Razor which basically states you cannot add an unnecessary entity to a statement. Like my purple squid-rhino, God is unnecessary to the statement. You have added an entity which cannot be proven where said entity is not needed - breaking a rule of logic. As Xev once said "A little Occam here, a little Occam there...."

 

[Xelios]

"AND SO THEY HAVE FOUND THE OLDEST SOIL AROUND, THEN ASSUME THAT THE REST OF THE HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF OTHER ACRES OF SOIL DATES BACK THE SAME AGE... "

Lets look at what you just said here idiot. If they found the oldest soil on Earth, that should mean the Earth is that old right? What the hell would finding soil younger than that prove? Of course the other soil will date back to the same age, what you think soil just falls down from space? Maybe 0.1% of the Earth's visible soil comes from space, and even that is a huge overestimation. I suggest you rethink what you're saying, you're digging yourself into a stupid-pit.

"I checked it already, I can provide just as much evidence for God and even more......"

How so?

"YOU ARE RIGHT, FOR THOSE TESTED THEY DID DATE BACK 5 BILLION YEARS OLD, THATS A FACT. BUT EARTH, AS A WHOLE, CANNOT BE PROVEN AS THAT OLD, BECAUSE THEN YOU HAVE TO TEST EVERY SQUARE INCH OF THE SOIL..


Why? Why would the soil in Asia be older than the soil in North America? You give me a reason why we should have to do this.

"WHEN THE BIG BANG TOOOK PLACE 15 BILLION YEARS AGO, I SAID THE EARTH IS 15 BILLION YEARS OLD, THEN YOU DISAGREED BECAUSE THE EARTH WASNT FULLY DEVELOP YET, TTHUS ONLY PARTS OF THE EARTH EXISTED, THEREFORE YOU PREFER NOT TO CALL IT EARTH YET.. "

Exactly. Earth did not yet exist. Unless you call a bunch of hydrogen gas inside a star Earth. You're grasping at straws here MM, better to just admit you were wrong.


"WHY THEN DO YOU APPLY YOUR FINDINGS TO THE REST OF THE HUNDREEDS OF THOUSANDS OF ACRES THAT IS UNTESTED?"

Because there's no need to. The Earth formed all at once, it didn't form in little bits, a handful of soil here, then 10,000 years later another handful appears over there. Sorry, that's not how planets form. Now unless you have evidence to suggest otherwise there's no reason to test all the soil on Earth. We have already tested rock samples from every continent on Earth and even hundreds of feet underground, we know what we're talking about.. you don't.

"UNTIL THEN, SHUT YOUR HO-LE, THAT IS JUST ANOTHER THEORY.... "

The fact that you are too stupid to comprehend it doesn't mean it's just a theory. Go grow a brain MM.

"PROVEN FACT? YES AND TOOTHFAIRY IS PROVEN FACT AS WELL, BOTH DOESNT HAVE ENOUGH EVIDENCE BUT IS JUST ANOTHER SPECULATION AND BELIEF WHICH REQUIRES FAITH... "

No the tooth fairy is not a proven fact, but the Earth's age is. The Earth's age has enough evidence to warrent it being a fact, you just don't want to accept that.

I'm done with you. I simply cannot believe idiots like you still exist. Ignored.

 

[inspector]

"inspector I'm at school so I can't go too much into this right now...............But there is a rule known as Occam's Razor which basically states you cannot add an unnecessary entity to a statement. Like my purple squid-rhino, God is unnecessary to the statement. You have added an entity which cannot be proven where said entity is not needed - breaking a rule of logic."
--------------------------------------------------

Well, Tyler, it is a good thing that you are still currently in school, because you have much to learn, especially regarding basic logic. You said yourself, "I cannot say the Big Bang is definetly the way the Universe started. I do not know. So I say these words - I do not know how the universe started." Well, you are in good company because nobody knows how the universe was formed and, therefore, it is open to different interpretations. However, your claim of Occam's Razor is an unnecessary insertion in itself. For example, if we do not know how the universe was formed, is it possible that a supernatural cause could be responsible? If you say no, you are being illogical and prostituting your intellect to satisfy your presuppositions, since you have already stated that you do not know how the universe was formed. Therefore, the inclusion of God into the equation IS valid and holds equal weight (if not more) to any other naturalistic explanations. Pay attention in class while you are there at school. ;-)

><>

 

[(Q)]

Inspector

For example, if we do not know how the universe was formed, is it possible that a supernatural cause could be responsible?

No, science has but one faith - and that is it ALWAYS rules out the supernatural.

 

[inspector]

"No, science has but one faith - and that is it ALWAYS rules out the supernatural."
-----------------------

Perhaps, this is why science cannot explain all things?

><>

 

[Raithere]

Originally posted by (Q)
No, science has but one faith - and that is it ALWAYS rules out the supernatural.

Entirely incorrect, if there were evidence for the supernatural then science would have to accept it.
There is simply no evidence of the supernatural. It has nothing to do with faith.

~Raithere

 

[whatsupyall]

Originally posted by Xelios


Lets look at what you just said here idiot. If they found the oldest soil on Earth, that should mean the Earth is that old right? What the hell would finding soil younger than that prove? Of course the other soil will date back to the same age, what you think soil just falls down from space? Maybe 0.1% of the Earth's visible soil comes from space, and even that is a huge overestimation. I suggest you rethink what you're saying, you're digging yourself into a stupid-pit.

HEY XELIOS, HOW CAN U SAY THEY FOUND THE OLDEST SOIL BY HAVEING FEW TESTS? HOW DO YOU KNOW THE SOIL UNDERWATER ISNT 15 BILLION YEARS OLD? THEY ONLY TESTED FEW SPOTS...YOU CANNOT TEST FEW SPOTS THEN ASSUME THE REST OF THE ENTIRE ACRES ARE THE SAME AGE, STUPID...YOUR THE STUPID ONE...

Originally posted by Xelios

Why? Why would the soil in Asia be older than the soil in North America? You give me a reason why we should have to do this.

DID YOU TEST IT? DID YOU TEST THE SOIL ON MY BACKYARD? DID YOU TEST THE SOIL UNDERWATER? HOW WOULD YOU KNOW ITS NOT OLDER THAN 5 BILLION YEARS, BECAUSE YOU SAID SO? I WANT EVIDENCE, TEST IT THEN I WILL BELIEVE THAT ITS NOT OLDER, UNTIL THEN YOUR JUST SPECULATING...YOUR BELIEF IN SCIENCE ISNT EVIDENCE, IT IS JUST ANOTHER BLIND FAITH....YOUR DELUSIONAL...

Originally posted by Xelios

Exactly. Earth did not yet exist. Unless you call a bunch of hydrogen gas inside a star Earth. You're grasping at straws here MM, better to just admit you were wrong.

YES ACCORDING TO YOU, EARTH DIDNT EXIST, ONLY PARTS OF IT DID...THEREFORE EARTH IS NOT 5 BILLION YEARS OLD, BECAUSE ONLY FEW PARTS OF IT ARE TESTED TO BE 5 BILLION YEARS...THE REST ISNT TESTED, THEREFORE THE TESTED SOIL ONLY APPLIES FOR ITSELF, NOT FOR THE ENTIRE EARTH...YOUR JUST ASSUMING, GUESSING, AND SPECULATING THAT IT IS...YOU INDEED HAVE FAITH...

Originally posted by Xelios

Because there's no need to. The Earth formed all at once, it didn't form in little bits, a handful of soil here, then 10,000 years later another handful appears over there. Sorry, that's not how planets form. Now unless you have evidence to suggest otherwise there's no reason to test all the soil on Earth. We have already tested rock samples from every continent on Earth and even hundreds of feet underground, we know what we're talking about.. you don't.

YOU SAID EARTH FORMED ALL AT ONCE, A SOIL APPEARED HERE AND THERE, THEN A HANDFULL 10,000 YEARS LATER...WHY DID IT STOP? SO THE BIG BANG TOOK PLACE, AND WHEN IT BECAME "PERFECTED", THEN THE SOIL STOPS APPEARING?
YOU CALL THIS THEORY FACT? ISNT THIS FAITH? YOU CANNOT GIVE ME EVIDENCE OF YOUR THEORY, THUS IT IS JUST FAITH....
FEW TEST? HAVE THEY TESTED 1,000 MILES UNDERWATER? HUNDREDS OF TEST DOESNT APPLY TO HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF ACRES IN THIS EARTH,IF YOU HAVENT TESTED THEM, THEN YOUR JUST GUESSING WHAT THEIR AGE IS...YOUR SPECULATING AND ASSUMING, AND THAT IS NOT EVIDENCE...YOU HAVE NO EVIDENCE EARTH IS 5 BILLION YEARS OLD, YOU JUST HAVE STRONG FAITH IN SCIENCE...

Originally posted by Xelios

No the tooth fairy is not a proven fact, but the Earth's age is. The Earth's age has enough evidence to warrent it being a fact, you just don't want to accept that.

I'm done with you. I simply cannot believe idiots like you still exist. Ignored.

ONCE AGAIN THE FEW SPOTS TESTED OF THEIR AGE APPLIES TO ITSELF, THATS EVIDENCE....AND THE REST OF THE SOIL THAT IS "UNTESTED" IS JUST A SPECULATION AND GUESS, YOUR JUST ASSUMING THAT IT IS THE SAME AGE FROM THE TESTED SOIL..."FAITH" ISNT EVIDENCE.....THERE IS NO PROOF EARTH IS 5 BILLION YEARS OLD...AND BECAUSE YOU INSIST THAT IT IS A FACT, THEN MIGHT AS WELL HAVE FAITH IN ATHEISM, TOOTHFAIRIES, AND GIANT PURPLE SQUID MONKEY, ALL OF OF WHICH HAVE NO EVIDENCE AT ALL....

YOUR DONE WITH ME? ITS MORE LIKE YOUR DONE WITH YOURSELF...YOU CANT HANDLE THE TRUTH...SO YOU GO ON WHINING WITH YOUR EARS CLOSED...YOUR DELUDED AND BRAINWASHED....

 

[inspector]

"...........if there were evidence for the supernatural then science would have to accept it."
--------------------------------

Evidence supporting the existence of the Christian God does not have to meet the criteria of science to be considered valid evidence. There are things that exist even today that cannot be quantified, tested in a lab, or put in a jar. Therefore, all knowledge cannot be ascertained by scientific scrutiny.

><>

 

[(Q)]

Inspector

Perhaps, this is why science cannot explain all things?

And that is exactly the answer I was attempting to glean from you.

You, and most other theists, are under the delusion that science has peaked. In other words, you are under the impression there is nothing more we can learn, that science will never explain anything evermore.

Science is still in its infancy, my friend. We have only scratched the surface of the knowledge which is waiting to be uncovered. There is still much to be done.

Religion, on the other hand, has attempted to answer all questions with one deft blow of contradiction after another. And hey, there's no need to question these contradictions because in order to believe in religion, one must only have faith ! There's no need to think rationally, no need to offer reason or use logic - just turn off the brain and apply faith when necessary.