At least bring common sense to the table
Opinion of a non believer
Published on November 5, 2011 By BoobzTwo In Religion

Actual History is chockfull of the rise and fall of religions for millennia … many Ages. And they all have the following in common. Whenever they became week enough to lose control of the majority of the sheeple, they are replaced with a new Messiah and a new message just as the Christians have done with the ‘old Jewish’ religion when that too lost its strangle hold on the world of Man due to its barbarism as perceived by man in a new Age. Anyone who lives in a future time views almost everything from previous times to be barbaric (except for those that thrive in barbarism) and in this Christianity is no exception. It is my belief that the purpose of religion has always been nothing but a methodology to control the masses. The Bible (OT and NT) are replete with plagiarisms from the actual real world of the past. The NT is in itself a plagiarism from much of the OT. The stories of the Bible are impossible in the real world in which we all exist. I agree that many names and places were real, but this is just another plagiarism from the actual history of man. If you can place your hand on a Bible and swear that the Earth is what ~12,000 years old, then you are a fool. If you deny the evidence of science and technology, then you are doubly a fool. If you deny the evidence of early man or prehistoric man and can find no logic or truth in evolution you are a damned fool. And if you are so foolish as to allow the leadership of some rascals who lived thousands of years ago during the ‘glorious’ days when all this stuff was concocted … to control virtually every aspect of your life today, you are doomed. But all you have to do is ‘have faith’ and ignore your own perceptions of reality … and all will be yours, just bring your pocket book and come often … because we have castles and churches and armies to build to prove they are right, yea right. The all-powerful all-knowing one God would never vanquish the devil (certainly within reason for the all-powerful mindful of His sheep) because He would be destroying Himself … as there can be no light without the dark? What better ploy could man devise than to make the light and the dark impervious to the perceptions of man, the sheeple? The complete history of the universe and that insignificant little planet Earth with its complete compliment of well ‘everything’ … all described between the covers of a book written thousands of years ago by smart (-ass) people with nothing benign in mind whatsoever who championed a flat Earth for a thousand years for naught than to promote the new religion of the Age of Pisces … the two fish. It took man and a simple invention called a telescope to start the downward spiral of Religion (Christianity this time) and it cannot be stopped.


Comments (Page 10)
12 PagesFirst 8 9 10 11 12 
on Dec 13, 2012

 

 

GirlFriendTess
The age of the Earth is 4.54 ± 0.05 billion years (4.54 × 109 years ± 1%). This age is based on evidence from radiometric age dating of meteorite material and is consistent with the ages of the oldest-known terrestrial and lunar samples. What do you offer to this discussion besides it just cannot be true?

lulapilgrim
I offer the work of two scientists. Guy Berthault, a member of the French Academy of Sciences who around 1988 proved beyond little doubt that Charles Lyell's theory of the geologic column (i.e. that layers of sediment were formed over millions of years) is false. Geological Society of France, 1993, and Julien Lan and Guy Berthault, "Experiments of Stratification of heterogeneous sand mistures, " CEN Technical Journal 8 (1):3750, 1994; Guy Berthault, "Experiments on laminations of sediments," CEN Technical Journal 3:2529, 1988.



And another scientist, Dr. Robert Gentry, has shown by evidence of Polonium halos that the Earth had to be created instantaneously, otherwise Polonium 216, with a half life of 3 minutes, could not exist.

GirlFriendTess
French young Earth creationist Guy Berthault claims to have discovered sedimentation properties that dispute several stratigraphic and relative dating principles used by modern field geologists through numerous laboratory studies. Berthault's knowledge of the sedimentology literature and stratigraphic field methods are decades or even centuries out of date (just as with Wells). Because of his lack of knowledge (honesty), Berthault's experiments often involved "reinventing the wheel". When compared with Berthault, YEC Steve Austin (1994, chapter 2 only) has a better understanding of these fundamental principles. And now knowing that Julien Y. Lan is also a YEC and close friend of YEC Guy Berthault; so what would you expect them to say when they profess up front that GOD is the ultimate authority on everything, give this nonsense a brake please. Besides as usual, you are after Darwin and now his friends like Charles Lyell who was born in 1791 for goodness sake. Berthault's "Stratigraphy" was simply his rediscovering what geologists already knew and have moved beyond. This is not an appealing subject for me, are you sure you want to go here?

I should have known better …

You may say that Berthault's experiments and studies on sedimentology are decades out of date, and that he lacks knowledge and honesty, but it isn't true. Those at the conference demonstrated with empirical data that such geological time is not available for Evolution." Perhaps you would like to attempt to refute his work at the website listed below.

Berthault's work together with Robert Gentry's blows a big hole in Darwin Evolution.   

 

Pope Benedict XVI’s Call for Both Sides to be Heard

The 150th anniversary of Darwin’s "Origin of the Species" in November 2009 will be the occasion for a unique conference at Pope Pius V University in Rome presenting a scientific refutation of evolution theory. According to Russian sedimentologist Alexander Lalamov, “Everything contained in Darwin’s Origin of Species depends upon rocks forming slowly over enormous periods of time. The November conference demonstrates with empirical data that such geological time is not available for evolution.” Recently returned from a ground-breaking geological conference in Kazan, sedimentologist Guy Berthault will present the findings of several sedimentological studies conducted and published in Russia. In one of these, the age of the rock formation surveyed was found to be 0.01% of the age attributed to it by the geological time-scale—instead of an age of 10 million years, the actual age was no more than 10 thousand years. “Contrary to the conventional wisdom,” Lalamov observed, “these rocks formed quickly, and the fossils they contain must be relatively young. This finding contradicts the evolutionary interpretation of the fossil record.” www.sedimentology.fr

According to US biophysicist Dr. Dean Kenyon, “Biological macroevolution collapses without the twin pillars of the geological time-scale and the fossil record as currently interpreted. Few scientists would contest this statement. This is why the upcoming conference concentrates on geology and paleontology. Recent research in these two disciplines adds powerful support to the already formidable case against teaching Darwinian macroevolution as if it were proven fact.”

Participating scientists include:

--Guy Berthault, a renowned sedimentologist from France and experimenter in fundamental physics and sedimentology, member of the French Geological Society and the Association of Sedimentologists.

--Maciej Giertych, a population geneticist from Kornik, Poland, who holds advanced degrees in genetics, forestry and tree physiology.

--Thomas Seiler, a physicist from Germany with a Ph.D. in physics from the University of Munich

--Jean de Pontcharra, a physicist in France and director of the renowned research group CEA-LETI (Commissariat à l'Energie Atomique, Laboratoire d'Electronique et de Technologie de l'Informatique).

--Josef Holzschuh, a geophysicist from Australia with a Ph.D. in geophysics from the University of Western Australia.



 

on Dec 13, 2012

lulapilgrim
Reply #135  lulapilgrim
Not playing this game of yours Lula. You seem to think all you have to do say something and that makes it true. I am not smart enough to get on a stage with any real scientist … and you are scientifically illiterate. That means you research ONLY people who already agree with you and that makes them truth tellers too … just like you. The vast majority of the scientific community and academia supports evolutionary theory as the only explanation that can fully account for observations in the fields of biology, paleontology, molecular biology, genetics, anthropology, and others. One 1987 estimate found that "700 scientists [0.15% just in US]... (out of a total of 480,000 U.S. earth and life scientists [99.85%]) ... give credence to creation-science". An expert in the evolution-creationism controversy, professor and author Brian Alters, states that "99.9 percent of scientists accept evolution".  A 1991 Gallup poll of Americans found that ~5% of scientists (including those with training outside biology) identified themselves as creationists. More than half do not believe in a biblical creation so you are really on thin ice here. I think you are insane to go with them there odds but the really good ‘scientists’ are YEC’s and I would expect no less from you. This is why you have so few to choose from and you are stuck with their argument being unable to speak for yourself. It is also why most have little credibility in the scientific community, why they cannot get their papers published (no support) and are useful only to creationists because they are the only ones who believe everything they want to without proof.  

on Dec 13, 2012

lulapilgrim
Reply #136 lulapilgrim
Just like you, your ridiculous church has a hard on for Darwinian evolution too imagine that. Still opposed to Galileoian evolution too I see huh. The TWO vehicles that flaunted reality in the face of the church and they never forgive or forgive. Well the earth is not flat and has no pillars, no elephant and no sky dome, besides we are the center of nothing, a dust mote in the real universe. Radiometric dating works just fine but can be abused or neglectfully errored.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiometric_dating

Radiometric Dating is Flawed!! Really?? How Old IS the Earth?   http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&NR=1&v=iGDrq8rikJc

on Dec 13, 2012

 

 

GirlFriendTess
The vast majority of the scientific community and academia supports evolutionary theory as the only explanation that can fully account for observations in the fields of biology, paleontology, molecular biology, genetics, anthropology, and others. One 1987 estimate found that "700 scientists [0.15% just in US]... (out of a total of 480,000 U.S. earth and life scientists [99.85%]) ... give credence to creation-science".

I know. I know that many of the fields of Science are controlled by Atheistic and Secular Humanists and run the show. I know that and have admitted it all along. The problem for them is they aren't getting anywhere proving ET a fact, but claim it is across academia and for public consumption. That's dishonest.

What you don't understand though is that these pro-evolution scientists refuse to allow the 700 scientists any recognition of their work when they are the ones making headway and ET is collapsing under the scientific weight of their findings.

GirlFriendTess
This is why you have so few to choose from and you are stuck with their argument

I could care less how many there are to choose from. I prefer one scientist discovering scientific facts than 100 imagining pseudo science and masquerading that as fact.  Just as in medicine. I'd prefer one good doctor telling me the truth than 100 telling me what they imagine is going on as though it was fact.

Anyway, their scientific work is empirically solid and has not ever been refuted by any evolutionist scientists. That's because solid science can't be refuted...it's truth. Don't you think Gentry's rock solid (pun intended) work on Polonium halos would be refuted by your camp if they could? Of course.

GirlFriendTess
It is also why most have little credibility in the scientific community, why they cannot get their papers published (no support) and are useful only to creationists because they are the only ones who believe everything they want to without proof.

Let's be honest. You know the deal by now. Evolutionist scientists i.e. the scientific establishment control these fields of science..they have the majority and they run the show, make the rules and decide who gets support and who doesn't.

And let's be honest again. By now these evolutionist scientists know the gig is up as far as proving ET. It never occurred and it will never occur and they know it. There is no proof and when something is discovered like that soft blood tissue in the T-Rex, well, the findings which actually disprove ET, have to be twisted and bent to make Evolution time work.

As far as evolution science, it's all but dead but not allowed to die as it has become a worldview upon which all kinds of "isms" have developed, such as I mentioned earlier. Too much rides on ET for the truth to let be known so they continue the lie (to people like you it doesn't matter much to me), but selling it to unwary school children makes me sick.

 

on Dec 14, 2012

You are not qualified to even discuss this Lula and you will it seems never stop using this archaic church terminology. The decisions are made among the eggheads and all we are allowed are opinions. 10,000 to 1 though says you are clueless and just being argumentative. When you argue against something you don't believe possible in the first place (a non-squinter) in your 6k world ... is stupid … just pointless arguments. And no that is not how science works, how could anything besides the bible work that way. Lula you are not talking about a little lie which cannot be maintained long, but evolutionary theory … not a chance. So now we are responsible for ET too huh, hahaha. I tell you what, you let me write a critique of what I think the RCC is all about and automatically apply it to you ... would it mean anything to you, I think not. Well that is what you are trying to do to me. You (a nonbeliever) expect to be able to tell me what science is and why it is bad and why it cannot work, etc. ... and you actually appear to think I am supposed to see the light because of your ramblings, get a life. Except your magic book, can you explain how anything works because if science doesn’t, nothing does. Until you prove the age of the earth, there is not much else to discuss IMO.

 

on Dec 14, 2012

Transitional fossils are a dime a dozen unless you do not believe in evolution from the get-go because the bible says differently somehow. Here is another clip from Ken Miller (a catholic) on Whale Evolution and Intelligent Design if you will. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whale_evolution

Whale Evolution and Intelligent Design   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q9a-lFn4hqY

on Dec 15, 2012

lulapilgrim
Reply #139 lulapilgrim
Lula this is the crux of the matter; you believe in a god and I do not. That should be the end of this here and we should be able to coexist, but we never will because you won’t have any of that nonsense will you? I believe you have and will continue to willfully lie, cheat and steal in the name of god as you see fit for your own selfish reasons.  I know that I wouldn’t do any of those things unless a dire threat warranted it and there were no other options. I don’t know how to cheat in math, in science, in (my) education, on my experiences or my understanding and cannot find a reason why I should want to. I have no agenda, I just want to learn as much as I can while I still can … and I don’t care what you believe because your opinions (and that’s all they are to me) have no influence in my life at all, more power to you. You cannot make a constructive argument because you don’t know enough of anything besides the bible to make it intelligible. You cannot tell me the age of the earth scientifically because you do not know how to (without begots). And it seems that your most competent ‘scientists’ don’t know how to either, a measly 6,000 years … ask yourself why. You do not appear to have the desire to actually learn anything yourself, to make your own arguments, to make your own mind up, to educate yourself, to question anything RCC, to question one word in the bible or to question one word from creation ‘scientists’ because god kept all these people 100% prim and proper for 6,000 years … not one mistake or error … just like in genesis … not one mistake or error right? You need a different hobby Lula because you aren’t very good with this one. The reason you have to have faith to believe what you profess to believe is because you do not have anything else or anything intelligent to offer in support, just magic, a child’s imaginary magic at best. You refuse to talk person to person with me because you don’t know how to do that either. You cannot remove the offensive wording you always use because all your hate mail uses it and you are not smart enough to remove it … you have no other ammo. And you institutionalize me and hold me personally responsible for every humanists, atheists, secularists, Marxists, communists, socialists, deviants, criminals, democrats, freethinkers, abortionists,  etc. (or any of the others you like) spoken words, actions or activities you can think of or make up … all my fault. You are as phony as a three dollar bill and I am tired of your nonsense, your pointless and unwarranted attacks, your personal prejudice, your personal hypocrisy, your abrasiveness, your personal bigotry, your complete lack of compassion for anyone else, your complete lack of belief in anything provable, your absolutely closed mind and all your pitiful and pointless excuses and appeasements. I graduated grade school many moons ago and I do not like you dragging me back to those immature days so you can pretend the world is 6,000 years old. You ask too much of me … let me know when you are willing to compromise on anything … but I won’t hold my breath. 6,000 years old my ass!

on Dec 15, 2012

" That should be the end of this here"

 

Then why do you keep going?

on Dec 16, 2012

Everything YEC's believe in requires magic or the supernatural. I would say they live in a magical universe much different than any real natural universe ... like the one I live in. People like Jythier and Lula are just fooling themselves simply because they only offer magical explanations and only accept magical reasoning, but they will not accept any proof or evidence as the explanation for anything, end of story (for them). Most go to the extreme of not even looking at the real sciences or their explanations of how science works preferring to let their unscientific church clergy explain it to them ... they don't even look at the actual arguments being made by the scientific community because (they don't care to) they only believe magic. My guess is that they are overwhelmed because they KNOW the amount of evidence we have that explains the universe and how almost everything in it works naturally and that scares them to death. So they burry their heads in the sand and pretend we are the clueless ones ... but it is they who believers in a first century world view with all their infallible insights, the mechanisms of reality and their heavy emphasis on how nothing actually works at all without magic. Not my cup of tea to be sure.

10 - The Scientific Method Made Easy   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zcavPAFiG14

PS – I do this Jythier because the truth is important and NOT what one believes or wants it to be, it is what actually took place and all you offer is unfounded and improvable magic which defies everything we know about the natural world and what being human means.

PSS - I don't care if you look at the video because there is no reasonable reason why you cannot ... you just don't want to.

 

on Dec 16, 2012

So, perhaps you should talk about the truth.

For example, the Big Bang Theory is not an origins argument.  It is the theory that explains how the observable universe acts currently.  Evolutionary theory is a theory explaining how genetic changes take place in the observable universe.  The problem is that instead of maintaining this, people take those theories and throw them back in time, making many assumptions about the past in order to create an alternate history. 

on Dec 16, 2012

Jythier
For example, the Big Bang Theory is not an origins argument. It is the theory that explains how the observable universe acts currently. Evolutionary theory is a theory explaining how genetic changes take place in the observable universe. The problem is that instead of maintaining this, people [what people] take those theories and throw them back in time, making many assumptions about the past in order to create an alternate history.
I agree with the first two sentences but not the last. In the hopes that you want to discuss this, I would ask a few questions. What makes you think that what you described as ‘science’ is valid, where did you read this often enough to quote it? Did you attend any scientific engagements (open to public) … to be able to make any kind of personal observation? Have you read one paper or book that actually goes to the trouble of explaining how something works … anything? These things do not need to be taken on faith or belief because they all come with instruction and support data located in any but the catholic encyclopedia of course which is right up there with ‘answers in genesis’, no partiality there???.

Unlike christians we do not rely on the oldest thing we can find because scientifically that is always the point at which we know the least about it. We take what little we know and build a case around that untill we know more and more. If you have (or acquire) an education in almost anything besides the bible and scripture, well our information is public knowledge and available to anyone capable of reading it. If you know the basics there is no reason for you to have to take anyone else’s word or opinion because you will be able to figure things out all by yourself. But that is the problem … you don’t read their actual arguments or their actual explanations preferring instead to pass judgment based solely on arguments made by people whose sole purpose is to refute the natural world in its entire spender … anything pro scientific at all? The reason we are at odds is because you do not read any of our readily available material even though it is there for the simple cost of just looking … seems a bit much for christians though … guess some things will never be known … at least by me.

You have stated that there are “good and bad sciences” and that you like the foreword looking kind not the backward looking kind (concept confuses me from the get-go). Can I assume that you have read enough about the good kind to understand it enough to be able to make a judgment call of your own. What sciences were they, the good ones I mean … you never specify … you just say stuff??? There are thousands of sciences and subsets (specialties) to choose from so this should be a simple request for you … shouldn’t it???

PS - Don't mind discussing things as long as that is what we do.

on Dec 16, 2012

I'm not a scientist.  I don't really care that much about science.  I'm an accountant, or a programmer, or something like that.  But there are scientists who disagree with the scientists you agree with.  I agree with them.  Answers in Genesis, for one.  See, they are able to look at those research papers, understand them, and find where the problems are and point them out, because they have been trained in those scientific fields.  I can only tell you what they said.

on Dec 16, 2012

Jythier
I'm not a scientist (me either so what?). I don't really care that much about science(I do so what?). I'm an accountant, or a programmer, or something like that (how about an accountant that does programming). But there are scientists who disagree with the scientists you agree with. (There are always people in all aspects of life that oppose the status quo and that is why we vote on such things, religious matters, governmental matters, scientific matters or any matters that affect a substantial portion of the population??? Just as there are christians that disagree with one another we in the real sciences experience the same dilemma as does every other organization. Of the earth sciences in just the US, we have ~480,000 scientists of which ~700 differ from the consensus. Sounds like a lot but consider the %’s. 99.85% of them supports evolutionary theory and 0.15% (your guys) support some vestige of creationism. On the world scale I think it is 99.99% for evolutionary theory and 0.01% for creationism. I like my odds much better and when you consider the motives of your chosen scientists (creationists almost to a person) it is easy to see why they are rebuked.) I agree with them (and the reason is obvious). Answers in Genesis, for one. (maybe you could relate the evils of evolutionary theory as stated there?) See, they are able to look at those research papers, understand them (if they understood them like the other 99.99% do there would be no appreciable disagreement), and find where the problems are and point them out, because they have been trained in those scientific fields (yea but trained with what purpose in mind (all creationists)). I can only tell you what they said. (Thank you for being honest)
I don’t want to fight with anyone, not even you. I have given up on Lula because she is just a mirror of the RCC (in her mind) and questions nothing unless she doesn’t believe it. But you don’t give me much to work with when you oppose everything I say and usually without any personal conviction or knowledge. It is super frustrating when I tell you how something you don’t know anything about works and you turn right around and tell me (not explain) that I am wrong because you found someone else who says so. I can no longer deal with the generic term christian because if only tells me one thing about them … that they believe in a controlling and interfering god and nothing more. Same for me as an atheist, I don’t believe in any god and that says only one thing about me … I don’t believe in god and nothing more. More can be gleaned about christians in general because they have the same instruction manual. I don’t have a manual and am forced (by choice) to figure things out for myself as best I can after all I had to live with myself.

on Dec 30, 2012

lulapilgrim
Participating scientists include: --Guy Berthault, a renowned sedimentologist from France and experimenter in fundamental physics and sedimentology, member of the French Geological Society and the Association of Sedimentologists. --Maciej Giertych, a population geneticist from Kornik, Poland, who holds advanced degrees in genetics, forestry and tree physiology. --Thomas Seiler, a physicist from Germany with a Ph.D. in physics from the University of Munich. --Jean de Pontcharra, a physicist in France and director of the renowned research group CEA-LETI (Commissariat à l'Energie Atomique, Laboratoire d'Electronique et de Technologie de l'Informatique). --Josef Holzschuh, a geophysicist from Australia with a Ph.D. in geophysics from the University of Western Australia.
Lula, which of the 480,000 US earth scientists (these are just from the US) would you like me to quote to rebuff? Maybe a better question would be why I should respond at all because I can produce hundreds for every one of the few you can copy and paste from?

PS – Don’t you know of any American apologists 'scientists'?

 

on Dec 31, 2012

 

lulapilgrim
According to Russian sedimentologist Alexander Lalamov, “Everything contained in Darwin’s Origin of Species depends upon rocks forming slowly over enormous periods of time. The November conference demonstrates with empirical data that such geological time is not available for evolution.” Recently returned from a ground-breaking geological conference in Kazan, sedimentologist Guy Berthault will present the findings of several sedimentological studies conducted and published in Russia. In one of these, the age of the rock formation surveyed was found to be 0.01% of the age attributed to it by the geological time-scale—instead of an age of 10 million years, the actual age was no more than 10 thousand years. “Contrary to the conventional wisdom,” Lalamov observed, “these rocks formed quickly, and the fossils they contain must be relatively young. This finding contradicts the evolutionary interpretation of the fossil record.” www.sedimentology.fr

lulapilgrim
According to US biophysicist Dr. Dean Kenyon, “Biological macroevolution collapses without the twin pillars of the geological time-scale and the fossil record as currently interpreted. Few scientists would contest this statement. This is why the upcoming conference concentrates on geology and paleontology. Recent research in these two disciplines adds powerful support to the already formidable case against teaching Darwinian macroevolution as if it were proven fact.”

Participating scientists include:
--Guy Berthault, a renowned sedimentologist from France and experimenter in fundamental physics and sedimentology, member of the French Geological Society and the Association of Sedimentologists.--Maciej Giertych, a population geneticist from Kornik, Poland, who holds advanced degrees in genetics, forestry and tree physiology. --Thomas Seiler, a physicist from Germany with a Ph.D. in physics from the University of Munich--Jean de Pontcharra, a physicist in France and director of the renowned research group CEA-LETI (Commissariat à l'Energie Atomique, Laboratoire d'Electronique et de Technologie de l'Informatique). --Josef Holzschuh, a geophysicist from Australia with a Ph.D. in geophysics from the University of Western Australia.

GirlFriendTess
Lula, which of the 480,000 US earth scientists (these are just from the US) would you like me to quote to rebuff?

TRUTH. Scientific TRUTH. Truth is constant and must exclude error. Truth is universal and if a thing is true, it is to be accepted as true,  no matter who discovers or says it.

Try, if you want, but not one of these 480,000 U.S.  earth scientists or any other scientists from anywhere in the whole wide world can produce scientific truth (actual empirical data) that Darwin or Stellar Evolution has ever occurred, is occurring or could ever occur.  All of their arguments in support of it have been shown to be untenable.

That is because Science itself, specifically the modern fields of Geology, Paleontology and Molecular Genetics, have provided a formidable case against the billions of years required for Stellar and Darwin Evolution to have occurred. No amount of time can save Darwin or natural macroEovlution, as the fossil record shows no evidence whatsoever of evolutionary descent and naturalistic macroevolution cannot occur because DNA is designed to allow only change/variety within kind to occur.

Science has shown all who are willing to KNOW truth that humankind did not ever, nor, in any way, shape or form, could have ever evolved from ape-kind or from a common ancestor.

It is from this standpoint that we can rightly claim that Evolution Theory stands exposed as both the worst mistake and the most enduring myth of modern times. 

 

12 PagesFirst 8 9 10 11 12