[TheRealThing]

I believe in God, but the whole dinosaur thing kind of throws a stick into the Christian argument.

I really, really hope we get those answers and find life on another planet before I die, lol. Really want to see what people of religion come up with to make themselves feel safe.

The book of Job was written around 4000 years ago. 400 centuries before the current dino-debate was tossed back and forth. Way before man was digging up bones and pursuing archeology much less paleoarcheology. That in mind, and given the clear reference to dinosaurs I just gave you, how can you still say it throws a stick into the Christian argument? THE BIBLE HAS SEVERAL PASSAGES WRITTEN THOUSANDS OF YEARS AGO REFERENCING DINOSAURS AND GIVING ANATOMICAL AND BEHAVIORAL DISCRIPTIONS OF THEM.

[TheRealThing]

Are you saying man has been on earth for 65 million years? That's when the last dinosaurs went extinct.


Here's a link for you, though.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/paluxy/mantrack.html

Paleoarcheologists went out and dug these footprint sites up. Unlike the fantasy finds of the evolutionist that supposedly support transitory life forms in the fossil record. And are in fact, 1% actual fossil material and 99% biased conjecture. These footprints can actually be studied and photographed.

They can't really date fossils. All they can do is carbon date rock around them. Remember Krakatoa? The vocanic island that emerged from under the waves between Java and Sumatra in 1883? Hundreds of scientists were on hand in sailing crafts to observe the event so we know Krakatoa was in fact born in 1883. The volcanic rock of Krakatoa was later carbon dated, the test came back showing the rocks of Krakatoa to be 168,000 years old. Nobody knows when the dinosaurs went extinct.

[TheRealVille]

The book of Job was written around 4000 years ago. 400 centuries before the current dino-debate was tossed back and forth. Way before man was digging up bones and pursuing archeology much less paleoarcheology. That in mind, and given the clear reference to dinosaurs I just gave you, how can you still say it throws a stick into the Christian argument? THE BIBLE HAS SEVERAL PASSAGES WRITTEN THOUSANDS OF YEARS AGO REFERENCING DINOSAURS AND GIVING ANATOMICAL AND BEHAVIORAL DISCRIPTIONS OF THEM.

Man, just when I think you are one of the smartest guys on the board. All it takes is a little study on your part.

[TheRealVille]

Paleoarcheologists went out and dug these footprint sites up. Unlike the fantasy finds of the evolutionist that supposedly support transitory life forms in the fossil record. And are in fact, 1% actual fossil material and 99% biased conjecture. These footprints can actually be studied and photographed.

They can't really date fossils. All they can do is carbon date rock around them. Remember Krakatoa? The vocanic island that emerged from under the waves between Java and Sumatra in 1883? Hundreds of scientists were on hand in sailing crafts to observe the event so we know Krakatoa was in fact born in 1883. The volcanic rock of Krakatoa was later carbon dated, the test came back showing the rocks of Krakatoa to be 168,000 years old. Nobody knows when the dinosaurs went extinct.

Reference above. All it takes is a little study on your part, and not on a creation science website.

[TheRealThing]

Reference above. All it takes is a little study on your part, and not on a creation science website.

I'm willing to learn RV. Give me something in STONE. You keep ragging on the creationist websites. The vast majority of the time I cite resources from folks on your side of the argument. The first (functional) link I gave was from some scientists in Russia. Are you saying the Russians are creationists? Further, if you really think you've got the hammer on me on any one of the points I've made, pick one out and make your argument.

I don't expect the evolutionists to support findings that are contrary to their position. Therefore, just pooh-poohing everybody else's work, like so many kids on a schoolyard at recess, doesn't quite meet scientific muster in my mind.

[TheRealVille]

I'm willing to learn RV. Give me something in STONE. You keep ragging on the creationist websites. The vast majority of the time I cite resources from folks on your side of the argument. The first (functional) link I gave was from some scientists in Russia. Are you saying the Russians are creationists? Further, if you really think you've got the hammer on me on any one of the points I've made, pick one out and make your argument.

I don't expect the evolutionists to support findings that are contrary to their position. Therefore, just pooh-poohing everybody else's work, like so many kids on a schoolyard at recess, doesn't quite meet scientific muster in my mind.

I posted just one link on the man/dinosaur thing, I'm not going to argue science that has been considered proven for many years. 99% of paleontologists agree that the last dinosaurs disappeared 65 million years ago. I'm not an expert and will not argue science that has been proven with you. If you are really interested in the truth, it is out there. Look it up, this is the information age. You are more than welcome to believe all that christian science BS if you want, but don't expect the rest of the population to buy into it. Many things are proven, but you all will not listen to any scientist that disagrees with you. It's just like all of the biblical contradictions, you just explain them away with nonsense. You are more than welcome to believe all the christian BS, with faith in only a book, but don't expect the rest of the world to follow you around with the nonsense. If you won't listen to the real scientists, why would I expect you to listen to me. Everything you post comes from a creation science website, so it is obvious you don't go any further. Believe in your fairy tale all you want, it does nothing to me.

[TheRealVille]

You also might want to consider the difference in paleontologist and paleo archaeologists.

[TheRealVille]

I'm willing to learn RV. Give me something in STONE. You keep ragging on the creationist websites. The vast majority of the time I cite resources from folks on your side of the argument. The first (functional) link I gave was from some scientists in Russia. Are you saying the Russians are creationists? Further, if you really think you've got the hammer on me on any one of the points I've made, pick one out and make your argument.

I don't expect the evolutionists to support findings that are contrary to their position. Therefore, just pooh-poohing everybody else's work, like so many kids on a schoolyard at recess, doesn't quite meet scientific muster in my mind.

Actually it is from "answers in genesis", but with a report from some Russian creation journalist, that hadn't even actually visited the site. Yet, when I type in key words from your post, I get this link, as the very first one. It looks like your "expert" that reported that is the equivalent of some "weekly world news" reporter.

A 1996 Creation magazine article by Russian geophysicist Sergei Golovin, reproduced as an AIG website article, reported that the 31 January 1995 edition of the Russian newspaper Komsomolskaya Pravda stated, "Human footprints lie alongside thousands of dinosaur prints on a Turkmenian plateau."

The Turkmenistan tracks were subsequently studied and further documented by American scientists (Meyer and Lockley, 1996; Lockley and Meyer, 1997). Their expedition was sponsored by the National Geographic Society, whose November 1996 magazine featured a brief summary of the site, including two photos--one of the site from a distance, another a close-up of an individual track (Weintraub, 1996). No mention was made of human-like tracks. The scientists more detailed scientific papers on the tracks included diagrams of the trails on the main site, and photographs of some of the better specimens, most which are attributed to the ichnogenus Megalosauripus). Several of the figures from these papers are reproduced (with Spanish text) at the para Samber Mais "megalosauripus" website. Based on ammonite index fossils, the authors affirmed the late Jurassic (Oxfordian) age of the track beds, dated at approx. 155 million years (Lockley and Martin, 1997). Their paper does not indicate the total number of tracks, but recognized 34 trackways, including some of the longest dinosaur trackways known, with the three longest extending for 226, 266, and 311 meters. The authors do not mention any human-like tracks, but indicate that some of the tracks are "elongated and long heeled" and up to 70 cm in length (Meyer and Lockely, 1977). Elongate dinosaur tracks, especially metatarsal forms that were indistinct, infilled, or mud-collapsed, have been mistaken for "giant human tracks" (Kuban, 1986) in the past. However, Lockley indicates that the elongate tracks in Turkmenistan do not show metatarsal impressions, but are simply longer than wide, and not particularly human like (lockley, 2006).

http://paleo.cc/paluxy/russ.htm

[vundy33]

:popcorn:

[TheRealVille]

Paleoarcheologists went out and dug these footprint sites up. Unlike the fantasy finds of the evolutionist that supposedly support transitory life forms in the fossil record. And are in fact, 1% actual fossil material and 99% biased conjecture. These footprints can actually be studied and photographed.

They can't really date fossils. All they can do is carbon date rock around them. Remember Krakatoa? The vocanic island that emerged from under the waves between Java and Sumatra in 1883? Hundreds of scientists were on hand in sailing crafts to observe the event so we know Krakatoa was in fact born in 1883. The volcanic rock of Krakatoa was later carbon dated, the test came back showing the rocks of Krakatoa to be 168,000 years old. Nobody knows when the dinosaurs went extinct.

The 1883 explosion of Krakatoa, which killed about 40,000 people, "was equivalent to 200 megatons of TNT (840 PJ) – about 13,000 times the nuclear yield of the Little Boy bomb (13 to 16 kt) that devastated Hiroshima", and "ejected 5 cubic mile of rock and ash". The shockwave stretched around the globe. The 1883 explosion is the 5th largest in history. I don't think any boats were hanging around close, at least that had people that lived to tell about it. There are writings of people that sailed through that Straight in the 1600's and write about Krakatoa, so how was it formed in 1883?





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

[TheRealThing]

The 1883 explosion of Krakatoa, which killed about 40,000 people, "was equivalent to 200 megatons of TNT (840 PJ) – about 13,000 times the nuclear yield of the Little Boy bomb (13 to 16 kt) that devastated Hiroshima", and "ejected 5 cubic mile of rock and ash". The shockwave stretched around the globe. The 1883 explosion is the 5th largest in history. I don't think any boats were hanging around close, at least that had people that lived to tell about it. There are writings of people that sailed through that Straight in the 1600's and write about Krakatoa, so how was it formed in 1883?





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

You're going to believe what you want to believe. The point is there are credible sources out there to cite that agree with me and they're not hard to look up. The eruption at Krakatoa yielded lava rock duly observed emerging via vocanic eruption by the scientific community of the day. That lava rock from 1883 was carbon dated and 'tested' results indicated the rock was far older than the 1883 date we know to be it's true birthday. There were a lot of things at play at Krakatoa, including a caldera through which the ships you read about likely could have sailed in the 1600's. You aren't disputing the claim that new land emerged as the result of the lava flow are you? When the volcano there at Krakatoa blew it's top scientists were drawn to the area to investigate. People refer to this volcanic event simply by Krakatoa. It is widely accepted that a host of the world's scientific elite were on hand to witness birth of new land mass in the area. Granted, they missed the 'main event', but the main eruption drew them there.

The point I was emphasizing was although carbon dating materials is a reliable process, dating rock is a bit more troublesome. Continental plates are constantly delivering existing rock into the depths of our molten core to be mixed with the contents of the earth's magma and then may be again blown out of a volcanic vent in an endless cycle. Or silt laid down by some flood of epic proportion may have buried billions of dead or dying animals under tons of debris born by flood water thus forming a bone deposit of many types of dinosaurs in the same deposit. We have such deposits in the US. The real rub comes in the interpretation of the fossil record. Those who want to validate the theory of evolution see things slanted to their end. Those who accept Creation, view them in that light. All of this in mind, the carbon dated materials at Krakatoa didn't match up with the 1883 date, when they are known to have erupted as lava.

On another issue, You're denying the existence of human footprints among dino prints, from your temple of knowledge there at Paintsville. I'd rather be a bit more open minded when it comes to sources. I mean, you don't think someone who is desperate to maintain the house of cards which is the backbone of support for the theory of evolution, is going to admit to the human footprints do you? Man HAS to come later or the whole evolutionary hypothesis would be laughed to scorn. The only way evolutionists can explain the lack of transitory life forms in the fossil record and, even during the recorded history of man, is to add the 'infinite time element' to the equation. These changes happened over vast aeons they say.

The whole thing (evolution) is a fabrication from the minds of admittedly smart men of scientific renown, and they have come up with a way to insert a finger in the dike, everytime a reasonable challenge has come up against their theory. An alternative, if you will, to God's claim as Creator. Most of the time folks resort to an attmept to mock those who take God at His Word. Or offer evidence to disprove His existence by pointing out what they believe to be contradictions in the natural world, where none exist. As I have pointed out before, Java Man and Piltdown Man were exposed as frauds. Fraudulent 'finds' such as these happen because of the lack of supporting evidence, not the abundance of same. Therefore, in a bid to further their beliefs, evidence is either tampered with or fabricated out of desperation. Much other evidence that refutes the evolutionist claims are attacked as uncredible by, you guessed it, the evolutionary community. No amount of evidence would convince these folks because they WANT to take a side against the existence of our Creator. I can deal with the fact that those who take the other side of the agument don't want to accept God is real and did in fact create all you see. But, a really bad day is coming for every man who denies Him.

[TheRealVille]

Paleoarcheologists went out and dug these footprint sites up. Unlike the fantasy finds of the evolutionist that supposedly support transitory life forms in the fossil record. And are in fact, 1% actual fossil material and 99% biased conjecture. These footprints can actually be studied and photographed.

They can't really date fossils. All they can do is carbon date rock around them. Remember Krakatoa? The vocanic island that emerged from under the waves between Java and Sumatra in 1883? Hundreds of scientists were on hand in sailing crafts to observe the event so we know Krakatoa was in fact born in 1883. The volcanic rock of Krakatoa was later carbon dated, the test came back showing the rocks of Krakatoa to be 168,000 years old. Nobody knows when the dinosaurs went extinct.

Another falsehood. Scientists can carbon date anything that is carbon based, and takes in carbon, that includes any living thing, plus their bones and fossils. You can only carbon date stuff back as far as 60,000 years, because after that time the carbon is gone. Anything can be dated once they figure out what's in it, because they know the half-life(the amount of time it takes something decaying to decrease by half) of different radioactive elements. There are several other isotopes that scientist use that have a much longer half-life. They taught us about the half life of Uranium when they were putting us through the class to work the nuclear power plants, so they could explain how long it would take a certain amount of radiation we receive there to leave our body. That same half life is how they date things. Dating objects today is almost 100% exact, but that is a science that creationist will discredit. BTW, I heard that "dating the rocks around fossils" stuff when I was doing "biblical studies", and that is why your post stuck out to me just now as I re-read it. Creationist always say that scientists can only date the rocks around the fossils. It is a tell tell sign that someone is reading creationist articles. It is also a tell tell sign that so called "creation scientists" don't have a clue.

Dating a Fossil
As soon as a living organism dies, it stops taking in new carbon. The ratio of carbon-12 to carbon-14 at the moment of death is the same as every other living thing, but the carbon-14 decays and is not replaced. The carbon-14 decays with its half-life of 5,700 years, while the amount of carbon-12 remains constant in the sample. By looking at the ratio of carbon-12 to carbon-14 in the sample and comparing it to the ratio in a living organism, it is possible to determine the age of a formerly living thing fairly precisely.
A formula to calculate how old a sample is by carbon-14 dating is:
t = [ ln (Nf/No) / (-0.693) ] x t1/2
t = [ ln (Nf/No) / (-0.693) ] x t1/2
where ln is the natural logarithm, Nf/No is the percent of carbon-14 in the sample compared to the amount in living tissue, and t1/2 is the half-life of carbon-14 (5,700 years).
So, if you had a fossil that had 10 percent carbon-14 compared to a living sample, then that fossil would be:
t = [ ln (0.10) / (-0.693) ] x 5,700 years
t = [ (-2.303) / (-0.693) ] x 5,700 years
t = [ 3.323 ] x 5,700 years
t = 18,940 years old
Because the half-life of carbon-14 is 5,700 years, it is only reliable for dating objects up to about 60,000 years old. However, the principle of carbon-14 dating applies to other isotopes as well. Potassium-40 is another radioactive element naturally found in your body and has a half-life of 1.3 billion years. Other useful radioisotopes for radioactive dating include Uranium -235 (half-life = 704 million years), Uranium -238 (half-life = 4.5 billion years), Thorium-232 (half-life = 14 billion years) and Rubidium-87 (half-life = 49 billion years).
The use of various radioisotopes allows the dating of biological and geological samples with a high degree of accuracy. However, radioisotope dating may not work so well in the future. Anything that dies after the 1940s, when Nuclear bombs, nuclear reactors and open-air nuclear tests started changing things, will be harder to date precisely.

http://science.howstuffworks.com/environ...on-142.htm

[TheRealThing]

^And, for what it's worth, the reason evolutionists and creationists wind up as the major players in this debate is because it's about two belief systems. It isn't a scientific debate, though both sides use science to back their arguments. EvoutionISM and CreationISM two systems of belief. My argument is one is never going to be able to prove the evolutionist claim because what is untrue can never be proven.

[TheRealThing]

Another falsehood. Scientists can carbon date anything that is carbon based, and takes in carbon that includes any living thing, plus their bones and fossils. You can only carbon date stuff back as far as 60,000 years, because after that time the carbon is gone. But, there are several other isotopes that scientist use that have a much longer half-life. Dating objects today is almost 100% exact, but that is a science that creationist will discredit. BTW, I heard that "dating the rocks around fossils" stuff when I was doing "biblical studies", and that is why your post stuck out to me just now as I re-read it. Creationist always say that scientist can only date the rocks around the fossils. It is a tell tell sign that someone is reading creationist articles. It is also a tell tell sign that so called "creation scientists" don't have a clue.






http://science.howstuffworks.com/environ...on-142.htm

Really? The science I learned in college suggested there is nothing left of the original organisim which has been fossilized, everything that was has been replaced with rock. Actual bones and material that once made up the animal can be tested. This was the view when I took college anthropology.

[TheRealVille]

Really? The science I learned in college suggested there is nothing left of the original organisim which has been fossilized, everything that was has been replaced with rock. Actual bones and material that once made up the animal can be tested. This was the view when I took college anthropology.

The carbon 12 remains there forever, it doesn't decay. The ratio of that, compared to other isotopes that decay, knowing their half life, that are found in the fossils is how they date. The ratios are there for you to read.

[TheRealVille]

You're going to believe what you want to believe. The point is there are credible sources out there to cite that agree with me and they're not hard to look up. The eruption at Krakatoa yielded lava rock duly observed emerging via vocanic eruption by the scientific community of the day. That lava rock from 1883 was carbon dated and 'tested' results indicated the rock was far older than the 1883 date we know to be it's true birthday. There were a lot of things at play at Krakatoa, including a caldera through which the ships you read about likely could have sailed in the 1600's. You aren't disputing the claim that new land emerged as the result of the lava flow are you? When the volcano there at Krakatoa blew it's top scientists were drawn to the area to investigate. People refer to this volcanic event simply by Krakatoa. It is widely accepted that a host of the world's scientific elite were on hand to witness birth of new land mass in the area. Granted, they missed the 'main event', but the main eruption drew them there.

The point I was emphasizing was although carbon dating materials is a reliable process, dating rock is a bit more troublesome. Continental plates are constantly delivering existing rock into the depths of our molten core to be mixed with the contents of the earth's magma and then may be again blown out of a volcanic vent in an endless cycle. Or silt laid down by some flood of epic proportion may have buried billions of dead or dying animals under tons of debris born by flood water thus forming a bone deposit of many types of dinosaurs in the same deposit. We have such deposits in the US. The real rub comes in the interpretation of the fossil record. Those who want to validate the theory of evolution see things slanted to their end. Those who accept Creation, view them in that light. All of this in mind, the carbon dated materials at Krakatoa didn't match up with the 1883 date, when they are known to have erupted as lava.

On another issue, You're denying the existence of human footprints among dino prints, from your temple of knowledge there at Paintsville. I'd rather be a bit more open minded when it comes to sources. I mean, you don't think someone who is desperate to maintain the house of cards which is the backbone of support for the theory of evolution, is going to admit to the human footprints do you? Man HAS to come later or the whole evolutionary hypothesis would be laughed to scorn. The only way evolutionists can explain the lack of transitory life forms in the fossil record and, even during the recorded history of man, is to add the 'infinite time element' to the equation. These changes happened over vast aeons they say.

The whole thing (evolution) is a fabrication from the minds of admittedly smart men of scientific renown, and they have come up with a way to insert a finger in the dike, everytime a reasonable challenge has come up against their theory. An alternative, if you will, to God's claim as Creator. Most of the time folks resort to an attmept to mock those who take God at His Word. Or offer evidence to disprove His existence by pointing out what they believe to be contradictions in the natural world, where none exist. As I have pointed out before, Java Man and Piltdown Man were exposed as frauds. Fraudulent 'finds' such as these happen because of the lack of supporting evidence, not the abundance of same. Therefore, in a bid to further their beliefs, evidence is either tampered with or fabricated out of desperation. Much other evidence that refutes the evolutionist claims are attacked as uncredible by, you guessed it, the evolutionary community. No amount of evidence would convince these folks because they WANT to take a side against the existence of our Creator. I can deal with the fact that those who take the other side of the agument don't want to accept God is real and did in fact create all you see. But, a really bad day is coming for every man who denies Him.

You must be referring to the new Island that formed after the visible part of Krakatoa disintegrated, and left only a small portion of the original island intact, Anak Krakatau(child of Krakatoa). That island formed from the very same lava that was coming out of the original volcano, of course the forming rock is going to date older, it is being formed from older molten rock from the volcano. BTW, you never even posted any proof that the new island dated 168,000 years old.

2nd bold: As were the footprints findings you posted were proven wrong. The knowledge you talk about isn't just confined to Paintsville, it is out there for all to find, if they only wanted to. I will take real scientist over creation scientist any day of the week. It is a proven fact that man came around 65 million years after the dinosaurs, you just won't accept it. You would rather rely on "fool" science.

[TheRealVille]

^And, for what it's worth, the reason evolutionists and creationists wind up as the major players in this debate is because it's about two belief systems. It isn't a scientific debate, though both sides use science to back their arguments. EvoutionISM and CreationISM two systems of belief. My argument is one is never going to be able to prove the evolutionist claim because what is untrue can never be proven.

My point exactly about your belief system. A god that will never show his face, to help all his "children" keep from looking like fools, trying to prove his existence, isn't a god that I would ever believe is out there, or care about one way or the other.

[Hoot Gibson]

My point exactly about your belief system. A god that will never show his face, to help all his "children" keep from looking like fools, trying to prove his existence, isn't a god that I would ever believe is out there, or care about one way or the other.

So, has the god that you believe in shown his or her face to you - or do you have a double standard?

[TheRealThing]

You must be referring to the new Island that formed after the visible part of Krakatoa disintegrated, and left only a small portion of the original island intact, Anak Krakatau(child of Krakatoa). That island formed from the very same lava that was coming out of the original volcano, of course the forming rock is going to date older, it is being formed from older molten rock from the volcano. BTW, you never even posted any proof that the new island dated 168,000 years old.

2nd bold: As were the footprints findings you posted were proven wrong. The knowledge you talk about isn't just confined to Paintsville, it is out there for all to find, if they only wanted to. I will take real scientist over creation scientist any day of the week. It is a proven fact that man came around 65 million years after the dinosaurs, you just won't accept it. You would rather rely on "fool" science.

Not really, I prefer to look at science without bias. One cannot just dismiss the findings of true science because those findings don't support his bias. You don't have to admit evoution, global warming and the big bang have yet to be proven to stay imbedded in your bias. Nobody is arguing what a half life is RV, I prefaced my statement by endorcing carbon dating as an accurate and true scientific proceedure. The aggregate (pun intended) of my claim is, at least in this case, demonstrated perfectly by your own words which I have bolded for your viewing pleasure. You said yourself even though we know molten rock from Krakatoa is barely 100 years old it tested to be thousands of years old. The point is carbon dating lava rock is an unreliable method to determine it's age.

Too many entities have documented the footprints for the validity of their existence to be rejected out of hand. Complete with pictures and other scientifically sound findings to that end. As far as the fool thing goes consider this--
Psalm 53:1 (KJV)
1 The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God.

I'd be careful with that one. As for me, I don't need to worry about looking like a fool as long as I stick with the truth. I may get a stat or two wrong somewhere along the way, but, like they say nobody's perfect.

[TheRealVille]

So, has the god that you believe in shown his or her face to you - or do you have a double standard?

The deistic god does't have to, he doesn't ask anything of creation, if he is fact there. He doesn't have a book that he ask people to follow blindly. He doesn't threaten to burn you for acting exactly like the flawed person he made does.

[WideRight05]

The deistic god does't have to, he doesn't ask anything of creation, if he is fact there. He doesn't have a book that he ask people to follow blindly. He doesn't threaten to burn you for acting exactly like the flawed person he made does.

I take it you are referring to Christianity, and should that be the case, sadly the wrong group of people have influenced you. We are all flawed, the Bible says we are flawed and we make mistakes, and anyone that tries to act different is not saying the truth. One of my favorite Bible parts is below, written by Paul in Romans Chapter 7 starting with verse 15...

"I do not understand the things I do. I do not do what I want to do, and I do the things I hate. And if I do not want to do the hated things I do, that means I agree that the law is good. But I am not really the one who is doing these hated things; it is sin living in me that does them. Yes, I know that nothing good lives in me—I mean nothing good lives in the part of me that is earthly and sinful. I want to do the things that are good, but I do not do them. I do not do the good things I want to do, but I do the bad things I do not want to do. So if I do things I do not want to do, then I am not the one doing them. It is sin living in me that does those things. So I have learned this rule: When I want to do good, evil is there with me. In my mind, I am happy with God's law. But I see another law working in my body, which makes war against the law that my mind accepts. That other law working in my body is the law of sin, and it makes me its prisoner. What a miserable man I am! Who will save me from this body that brings me death?"

It's being saved through the blood of Jesus that saves you man....I've got all these honors and awards from school and stuff but I make soooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo many mistakes every day and I'll be the first to say it. If it weren't for Jesus I'd be totally out of it...hope you'll reconsider your view on that.

[TheRealVille]

Not really, I prefer to look at science without bias. One cannot just dismiss the findings of true science because those findings don't support his bias. You don't have to admit evoution, global warming and the big bang have yet to be proven to stay imbedded in your bias. Nobody is arguing what a half life is RV, I prefaced my statement by endorcing carbon dating as an accurate and true scientific proceedure. The aggregate (pun intended) of my claim is, at least in this case, demonstrated perfectly by your own words which I have bolded for your viewing pleasure. You said yourself even though we know molten rock from Krakatoa is barely 100 years old it tested to be thousands of years old. The point is carbon dating lava rock is an unreliable method to determine it's age.

Too many entities have documented the footprints for the validity of their existence to be rejected out of hand. Complete with pictures and other scientifically sound findings to that end. As far as the fool thing goes consider this--
Psalm 53:1 (KJV)
1 The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God.

I'd be careful with that one. As for me, I don't need to worry about looking like a fool as long as I stick with the truth. I may get a stat or two wrong somewhere along the way, but, like they say nobody's perfect.

I said nothing other than molten rock that formed the new island came from the same volcano. I don't even know anything about the "168,000" year date you proposed, you have never shown any link that points to concrete proof that it was dated at that. I looked myself for your information, but could find nothing.

[TheRealVille]

I take it you are referring to Christianity, and should that be the case, sadly the wrong group of people have influenced you. We are all flawed, the Bible says we are flawed and we make mistakes, and anyone that tries to act different is not saying the truth. One of my favorite Bible parts is below, written by Paul in Romans Chapter 7 starting with verse 15...

"I do not understand the things I do. I do not do what I want to do, and I do the things I hate. And if I do not want to do the hated things I do, that means I agree that the law is good. But I am not really the one who is doing these hated things; it is sin living in me that does them. Yes, I know that nothing good lives in me—I mean nothing good lives in the part of me that is earthly and sinful. I want to do the things that are good, but I do not do them. I do not do the good things I want to do, but I do the bad things I do not want to do. So if I do things I do not want to do, then I am not the one doing them. It is sin living in me that does those things. So I have learned this rule: When I want to do good, evil is there with me. In my mind, I am happy with God's law. But I see another law working in my body, which makes war against the law that my mind accepts. That other law working in my body is the law of sin, and it makes me its prisoner. What a miserable man I am! Who will save me from this body that brings me death?"

It's being saved through the blood of Jesus that saves you man....I've got all these honors and awards from school and stuff but I make soooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo many mistakes every day and I'll be the first to say it. If it weren't for Jesus I'd be totally out of it...hope you'll reconsider your view on that.

If you can absolutely prove anything in the bible is true, get back to me.

[TheRealThing]

I said nothing other than molten rock that formed the new island came from the same volcano. I don't even know anything about the "168,000" year date you proposed, you have never shown any link that points to concrete proof that it was dated at that. I looked myself for your information, but could find nothing.

I saw it in an article on volcanology in a doctor's office. If I'd known I would have needed to verify it someday I would have made an attempt to procure it for you.

[TheRealVille]

On another issue, You're denying the existence of human footprints among dino prints, from your temple of knowledge there at Paintsville. I'd rather be a bit more open minded when it comes to sources. I mean, you don't think someone who is desperate to maintain the house of cards which is the backbone of support for the theory of evolution, is going to admit to the human footprints do you? Man HAS to come later or the whole evolutionary hypothesis would be laughed to scorn. The only way evolutionists can explain the lack of transitory life forms in the fossil record and, even during the recorded history of man, is to add the 'infinite time element' to the equation. These changes happened over vast aeons they say.

Think about what you are saying,TRT. How does the "christian" model have to work? Who really, is the one with the house of cards they are desperate to keep from falling? You have to have dinosaur and man roaming together, or it blows your model clear out of the water. You don't think your people have to put them on earth at the time time to keep the christian theory plausible? You talk about evolutionists having to support their theory, yet your very posts mimic what creationist have been doing for years. You discredit the science community, and come up with all this fool science. You come up with obscure passages in the bible to say that man and dinosaur roam together, and in the end, that will be the death of christianity, or you will have to admit that the bible didn't really mean what you all have been saying. I would say the christian science is on it's heels, and coming up with anything to preserve their "house of cards". If christianity is to survive, there will be a time you will have to admit that some things you fight against are true. And, the bible will gradually have to be re-written to get get rid of some of the contradictions that are in there.

[Hoot Gibson]

The deistic god does't have to, he doesn't ask anything of creation, if he is fact there. He doesn't have a book that he ask people to follow blindly. He doesn't threaten to burn you for acting exactly like the flawed person he made does.

That is pretty convenient. You ridicule Christian's beliefs in God and refer to the Bible as a "fairy tale." You say that you would not believe in a god that would not appear before the world to avoid making you look like a fool. Yet you believe in a god who you claim does not need to appear before his believers to prove his or her existence. And you say that you are not applying a double standard? What evidence do you have that your deistic god exists and how do you know that the god in whom you believe is not the God of the Bible?

[vundy33]

Hoot, stop that petty crap... We're not going to start picking apart every single sentence of each other's posts.

This isn't about proof of different types of God, it's about beliefs, that's it. We won't know the truth either way until we have more evidence. Therefore, people pick sides...either you believe in a Christian/Muslim/ect. type of God, or you don't. That's what faith is...you have no proof, but you believe it's there. Some people don't believe unless they have proof, and others believe because religion has had a positive effect on their lives.

Arguing about which one is right will never get anywhere...even if we had 100% proof of evolution, I think most Christians and other religious people would still have the same faith in their God..just as if we had a documented case of God speaking to someone or something like that, non-believers would probably think that's a figment of their imagination. If we were to find other life in the universe somewhere, people of religion would try to incorporate that into their beliefs.

This is just how it is people.

[Hoot Gibson]

Hoot, stop that petty crap... We're not going to start picking apart every single sentence of each other's posts.

This isn't about proof of different types of God, it's about beliefs, that's it. We won't know the truth either way until we have more evidence. Therefore, people pick sides...either you believe in a Christian/Muslim/ect. type of God, or you don't. That's what faith is...you have no proof, but you believe it's there. Some people don't believe unless they have proof, and others believe because religion has had a positive effect on their lives.

Arguing about which one is right will never get anywhere...even if we had 100% proof of evolution, I think most Christians and other religious people would still have the same faith in their God..just as if we had a documented case of God speaking to someone or something like that, non-believers would probably think that's a figment of their imagination. If we were to find other life in the universe somewhere, people of religion would try to incorporate that into their beliefs.

This is just how it is people.

Just pointing out hypocrisy where I see it. It's funny that there were no moderators chastising RV all those times when he was ridiculing other people's religion. If you don't want to apply the rules (or lack of) equally, then I guess that this is as good a time as any to walk away and find a better use of my time. On that note, you have read my last post here.

[vundy33]

Just pointing out hypocrisy where I see it. It's funny that there were no moderators chastising RV all those times when he was ridiculing other people's religion. If you don't want to apply the rules (or lack of) equally, then I guess that this is as good a time as any to walk away and find a better use of my time. On that note, you have read my last post here.

Don't get butthurt Hoot. I'm not applying any rules, I'm keeping the discussion from turning into a flaming war between you and TRV that nearly every thread turns into. It just turns into picking each others sentences apart and gets petty, like I said. I'm not chastising you, you're feelings aren't that soft. TRV isn't being hypocritical. He's not claiming to have any proof of the God he believes in.

If I were to chastise TRV for ridiculing Christianity, I would have to ridicule you, Bob, and a few others for ridiculing Islam, and TRT for ridiculing evolution. I'm not defending any argument, all I said was to cut the petty off-topic crap. You were trying to make something out of nothing.

[TheRealThing]

Don't get butthurt Hoot. I'm not applying any rules, I'm keeping the discussion from turning into a flaming war between you and TRV that nearly every thread turns into. It just turns into picking each others sentences apart and gets petty, like I said. I'm not chastising you, you're feelings aren't that soft. TRV isn't being hypocritical. He's not claiming to have any proof of the God he believes in.

If I were to chastise TRV for ridiculing Christianity, I would have to ridicule you, Bob, and a few others for ridiculing Islam, and TRT for ridiculing evolution. I'm not defending any argument, all I said was to cut the petty off-topic crap. You were trying to make something out of nothing.

Funny thing about all that. I don't remember ridiculing evolutionISM. I said the lack of transitory life forms in the fossil record made it impossible for me to take the validity of the theory seriously. And further, the fact that it remains just a theory to this day is due to the fact that it has never been proven. Owing partly to the absence of even one transitory life form and partly because extensive fossil graveyards and coal deposits are more consistent with a global catastrophe than with slow and steady processes over millions of years. Hoot's point was well taken, the fairy tale comment was made, at any rate, expressing opinions often take us down different roads when we are giving an example to make a point during a conversation and like they say, "it takes two to tango". :biggrin: