It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Young Earth VS Old Earth and a Third point of view - the Creation Truth?

page: 8
4
<< 5  6  7    9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 24 2018 @ 06:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: argentus
a reply to: TzarChasm

I respectfully disagree. That's the wonderful thing about the quantum world -- it doesn't follow Newtonian physics. To measure an atomic particle, physicists can measure it's value, or its location, but not both. There mere act of observing the particle changes both of its variables. It's wonderful.


originally posted by: TzarChasm

The act of measuring meaning direct interaction of one force with another force alters its properties. So we need better tools for measuring. Again, it's not magic.

Good boy.


Freeman Dyson, known for his work in quantum electrodynamics, solid-state physics, astronomy and nuclear engineering, would approve. The 2 major points of his presentation in the video below are:

1. "statements about the past cannot in general be made in quantum mechinal language...as a general rule, knowledge about the past can only be expressed in classical terms". Lawrence Bragg, joint winner of the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1915, mentioned: "everything in the future is a wave, everything in the past is a particle".

2. "the role of the observer in QM is not to cause an abrupt reduction of the wave packet with the state of the system jumping discontinuously at the instant when it's observed. The picture of the observer interrupting the course of natural events is unnecessary and misleading. What really happens is that the quantum description of an event ceases to be meaningful as the observer changes the point of reference from before the event to after it. We don't need a human observer to make QM work, all we need is a point of reference, to seperate the past from the future, to seperate what has happened from what may happen, to seperate facts from probabilities."

Also note the point made at 22:02: "therefore no such wave function can exist". 21:23 - 23:56, keypoints at 22:05, 22:45 and 23:06:

It is generally believed that light consists of energy particles that have wave properties. To this day, however, man still cannot give a complete answer to the question propounded over three millenniums ago by the Creator of light: “Where, now, is the way by which the light distributes itself?”​—Job 38:24.

So physicists are going with the description "wave-particle duality" for now and admit to things such as this:

edit on 24-12-2018 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)




posted on Dec, 24 2018 @ 07:04 AM
link   
a reply to: cooperton

One statement does not a case make. Present your case in the language of science. If you can't do it, then you haven't made a case. There is no term in the half life derivation for the ORIGINAL mass. It's the mass at t = 1 which can be any interval in time.

If your theory were correct then there would be a myriad of samples around the globe with isotopic ratios which differed substantially for the same element. There isn't. Therefore, regardless who you quote, if you have no samples whose isotopic ratios are statistically different from the samples used today, you're dead in the water.
edit on 24-12-2018 by Phantom423 because: (no reason given)

edit on 24-12-2018 by Phantom423 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 24 2018 @ 08:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: edmc^2


Example - the decay of Uranium isotopes.

scienceline.ucsb.edu...


"A geologist can pick up a rock from a mountainside somewhere, and bring it back to the lab, and separate out the individual minerals that compose the rock. They can then look at a single mineral, and using an instrument called a mass spectrometer, they can measure the amount of parent and the amount of daughter in that mineral. The ratio of the parent to daughter then can be used to back-calculate the age of that rock."


The problem with this is that you cannot know the original ratio of the rock. There is no way to know the original uranium-lead ratio when the sample was formed. Decay rate is very well known, but without the original ratio, you're shooting in the dark.

From the article that I quoted from on page 4 about dating methods (skipping some context this time and focussing on what's important in your case specifically):

...
We must admit that the dating process isn’t quite as simple as we have described it. We mentioned that the rock has to be free from lead at the beginning. This is usually not the case; there is some lead to start with. This gives the rock what is called a built-in age, something more than zero. Also, we assumed that the uranium was tightly sealed in the rock so that nothing could get in or out. Sometimes this may be true but not always. Over long periods of time, some of the lead or the uranium might seep out into groundwater. Or more uranium or lead might get in, especially if it is a sedimentary rock. For this reason, the uranium-lead clock works best on igneous rocks.
...
Without going into detail on these problems, ... They are glad to have other radiometric methods to verify their age measurements. Two others have been developed that can often be used on the same rock.

The Potassium-Argon Clock
...
Required conditions for the potassium-argon clock to work are the same as explained above: The potassium must be free of argon when the clock is started, that is, when the mineral is formed. And the system must remain sealed for the duration, allowing no potassium or argon to escape or enter.

How well does the clock work in practice? Sometimes very well but at other times poorly. It sometimes gives ages greatly different from those of the uranium-lead clock. Usually, these are smaller; such results are attributed to loss of argon. But in other rocks, the potassium and uranium ages agree very closely.

A most newsworthy use of the potassium-argon clock was in dating a rock that was brought back from the moon by the astronauts of Apollo 15. Using a chip from this rock, scientists measured the potassium and argon and determined the age of the rock to be 3.3 billion years.

The Rubidium-Strontium Clock


... This clock is valuable for checking the ages found by other methods.
...
An outstanding success of the rubidium-strontium clock was in dating the same moon rock described above. Five different minerals in the rock were tested, and they joined in indicating an age of 3.3 billion years, the same as the potassium-argon age.*

In some cases the comparative ages obtained by these three geological clocks are in close agreement and give confidence that the ages in such cases are very likely correct.
It should be emphasized, however, that such cases show what kind of agreement is possible​—but only under ideal conditions. And conditions are usually not ideal. Far longer lists could be given of comparisons that clash with one another. [whereislogic: but that doesn't negate or take anything away from what I bolded and therefore...]

End products of radioactive decay in rocks in the earth or from the moon (in the example above) testify that some rock formations have been undisturbed for billions of years (or "rocks" if we're talking about the moon rock example again).

Footnote was:

A word of caution about the rubidium clock: The decay of rubidium is so inordinately slow that its half-life cannot be measured with accuracy by counting the beta rays from its decay. The half-life has been determined by comparing it with other long-lived elements. So in this sense, it is not a completely independent method.

Source: Scientific Dates for Prehistoric Times

Just to show why the moon rocks provide an appropiate example (not that it's the only example of "ideal conditions"):

originally posted by: edmc^2

Here's a question for Young Earthers - if the earth is literally 6000+ years old, how old is the moon then?


originally posted by: Theocracy4America
a reply to: edmc^2

The moon is the same age, take a say of course.

I assume he meant "day" instead of "say". That is per the teaching of (young earth) creationism.

Regarding something else that was said earlier:

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: edmc^2

Something tells me the geologists are correct and the mad squad religious nuts entirely wrong.

And that would be science for 100 points please Bob.

Note that the article describing and evaluating the different means of radioactive dating linked above (and on page 4) was prepared by a nuclear physicist of many years’ experience in both research and industry in the field of radioactivity. OK, not a geologist but at least he/she knows what he's talking about and capable of researching and understanding the subject, and relaying the relevant information to others. The next page, or article, focusses completely on the Radiocarbon clock. Maybe something for a later comment...
edit on 24-12-2018 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 24 2018 @ 09:15 AM
link   
a reply to: cooperton

Evidence from a natural reactor found in Gabon:




Natural Nuclear Reactor Oklo and Variation of Fundamental Constants: Computation of Neutronics of Fresh Core Yu.V.Petrov, ∗ A.I. Nazarov, M.S. Onegin, V.Yu. Petrov, and E.G. Sakhnovsky St. Petersburg Nuclear Physics Institute, Gatchina, 188 300, St. Petersburg, Russia (Dated: June 8, 2005)

Using modern methods of reactor physics we have performed full-scale calculations of the natural reactor Oklo. For reliability we have used recent version of two Monte Carlo codes: Russian code MCU REA and world wide known code MCNP (USA). Both codes produce similar results. We have constructed a computer model of the reactor Oklo zone RZ2 which takes into account all details of design and composition.

The calculations were performed for three fresh cores with different uranium contents. Multiplication factors, reactivities and neutron fluxes were calculated. We have estimated also the temperature and void effects for the fresh core. As would be expected, we have found for the fresh core a significant difference between reactor and Maxwell spectra, which was used before for averaging cross sections in the Oklo reactor. The averaged cross section of 149 62Sm and its dependence on the shift of resonance position (due to variation of fundamental constants) are significantly different from previous results.

Contrary to results of some previous papers we find no evidence for the change of the fine structure constant in the past and obtain new, most accurate limits on its variation with time: −4 · 10−17year −1 ≤ α/α ˙ ≤ 3 · 10−17 year−1 . A further improvement in the accuracy of the limits can be achieved by taking account of the core burnup. These calculations are in progress.





The age T0 of the reactor was determined from the total number of 235 92U nuclei burnt up in the past, N5b(d) , and the number of nuclei existing today, N5(T0)(here N5 is the density of 235 92U and d is the duration of the chain reaction). For such a way of determining T0 it is necessary to know the number of 239 94Pu nuclei formed as a result of neutron capture by 238 92U and decayed to 235 92U, and the fluence Ψ = Φd (Φ being the neutron flux). Another independent method consists of the determination of the amount of lead formed as a result of the decay of 235 92U, assuming that it did not occur in such a quantity in the initial deposit [29]. Both methods yield T0 = 1.81(5) · 109 years [10, 35]. Below we assume in our calculations the value of T0 = 1.8 · 109 years. The duration of the work of the reactor can be established from the amount of 239


arxiv.org...



posted on Dec, 25 2018 @ 09:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: cooperton

One statement does not a case make. Present your case in the language of science. If you can't do it, then you haven't made a case. There is no term in the half life derivation for the ORIGINAL mass. It's the mass at t = 1 which can be any interval in time.


for the love man, just admit when you're wrong. It's liberating. You are denying basic science to try to obfuscate your mistake. To determine the age of a geometric sample you need to know the original isotopic ratio/mass. Look at the half-life equation... You need initial concentrations.




originally posted by: whereislogic

Required conditions for the potassium-argon clock to work are the same as explained above: The potassium must be free of argon when the clock is started, that is, when the mineral is formed. And the system must remain sealed for the duration, allowing no potassium or argon to escape or enter.


For these reasons, especially the bolded point, the samples could be drastically younger depending on the amount of initial argon 'when the clock started'. To assume there was no initial argon is silly considering there are never any pure samples found in nature.



posted on Dec, 26 2018 @ 06:43 PM
link   
a reply to: cooperton

You're so far behind the curve that it isn't worth anyone's time to debate this. If you had read the paper on the Oklo reactor (which you didn't), you would know that the fine structure of uranium would have had to very different to produce samples that don't follow the logic of the half life equation. And if the fine structure was different, then it ain't uranium!!! How about that! What you and the idiots at the Creation Institute fail to recognize is that if uranium/lead isotopic ratios were so different in the past, that it isn't uranium and it may or may not be lead.

As per usual, a pack of wild idiots recreates the world of science to their liking - then expects everyone to acknowledge the idiocy.

The age of anything in the distant past - rocks, minerals, the Earth - whatever, may be probabilistic. But there are no assumptions without the evidence from uranium composites, zircon and other uranium containing minerals that make the case for accuracy of the current models. Until evidence is produced that the models are wrong, then that's what we work with.

You have produced zip evidence of anything. You merely make statements that because no one has sample No. 1 in hand from billions of years ago, that everything that follows has to be wrong. How stupid is that??? When was the last time one of the idiots from you-know-where even considered that uranium was formed in a super nova and not on Earth? The half life equation applies to anything that decays. When was the last time you calculated the half life of an aspirin? Did you have an original sample from a willow bark from the year 100000000 BCE?

The fact is you're embedded in mind-bending ignorance. Stick with it. Might be a new epigenetic trait.


edit on 26-12-2018 by Phantom423 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 26 2018 @ 07:14 PM
link   
It is frustrating, and annoying that people actually believe this BS! And even if the bible is true, and is the word of God (Obviously is not) I would not be jumping around with pure happiness! I would be gutted, absolutly gutted!

Why? Because I would know that God is a scoipathic, ego driven maniac, who is not bothered about killing millions of innocent people (his children)

But it's all BS anyway, but people will always believe in fairytales, or nightmares!



posted on Dec, 27 2018 @ 12:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: Jay-morris
It is frustrating, and annoying that people actually believe this BS! And even if the bible is true, and is the word of God (Obviously is not) I would not be jumping around with pure happiness! I would be gutted, absolutly gutted!

Why? Because I would know that God is a scoipathic, ego driven maniac, who is not bothered about killing millions of innocent people (his children)

But it's all BS anyway, but people will always believe in fairytales, or nightmares!


And I thought you have something to contribute to the conversation.

Just wondering though, based on current calculations, how old do you think the earth is?

Why?



posted on Dec, 27 2018 @ 12:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: Jay-morris
It is frustrating, and annoying that people actually believe this BS! And even if the bible is true, and is the word of God (Obviously is not) I would not be jumping around with pure happiness! I would be gutted, absolutly gutted!

Why? Because I would know that God is a scoipathic, ego driven maniac, who is not bothered about killing millions of innocent people (his children)

But it's all BS anyway, but people will always believe in fairytales, or nightmares!


And I thought you have something to contribute to the conversation.

Just wondering though, based on current calculations, how old do you think the earth is?

Why?


Around 4.54 billion years old. Why? Because science points to that. Or do you think an all powerful being decided to make the earth and all living things.

Please point to the evidence of that? I do not mean belief, I mean evidence!



posted on Dec, 27 2018 @ 03:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: cooperton

You're so far behind the curve that it isn't worth anyone's time to debate this. If you had read the paper on the Oklo reactor (which you didn't), you would know that the fine structure of uranium would have had to very different to produce samples that don't follow the logic of the half life equation. And if the fine structure was different, then it ain't uranium!!! How about that! What you and the idiots at the Creation Institute fail to recognize is that if uranium/lead isotopic ratios were so different in the past, that it isn't uranium and it may or may not be lead.

As per usual, a pack of wild idiots recreates the world of science to their liking - then expects everyone to acknowledge the idiocy.

The age of anything in the distant past - rocks, minerals, the Earth - whatever, may be probabilistic. But there are no assumptions without the evidence from uranium composites, zircon and other uranium containing minerals that make the case for accuracy of the current models. Until evidence is produced that the models are wrong, then that's what we work with.

You have produced zip evidence of anything. You merely make statements that because no one has sample No. 1 in hand from billions of years ago, that everything that follows has to be wrong. How stupid is that??? When was the last time one of the idiots from you-know-where even considered that uranium was formed in a super nova and not on Earth? The half life equation applies to anything that decays. When was the last time you calculated the half life of an aspirin? Did you have an original sample from a willow bark from the year 100000000 BCE?

The fact is you're embedded in mind-bending ignorance. Stick with it. Might be a new epigenetic trait.



you need initial concentration to determine 't' in the half life equation. Your paragraphs of fuming hatred will not change that fact. Your friends are embarrassed that you're still trying to warp science.


originally posted by: Jay-morris

Around 4.54 billion years old. Why? Because science points to that.


What is the empirical evidence that demonstrates a 4.54 billion year old world?

Provide actual empirical evidence, not belief.



posted on Dec, 27 2018 @ 06:40 PM
link   
a reply to: cooperton


You are beyond belief, man.



What is the empirical evidence that demonstrates a 4.54 billion year old world? Provide actual empirical evidence, not belief.




Empirical evidence is the information received by means of the senses, particularly by observation and documentation of patterns and behavior through experimentation


I said:



The age of anything in the distant past - rocks, minerals, the Earth - whatever, may be probabilistic. But there are no assumptions without the evidence from uranium composites, zircon and other uranium containing minerals that make the case for accuracy of the current models. Until evidence is produced that the models are wrong, then that's what we work with.


Half life calculations pertain to anything that decays. You don't need a sample from 1000000000000000 BCE to calculate the probability that x sample is y years old.

Refer to your friends at the Creation Institute. They're convinced that the Earth is 6,000 years old. What empirical proof do they have? Oh, I forgot. They don't need empirical evidence. They have the Bible, books written by a bunch of guys high on khat living in caves.

You don't understand the terms in the half life equation. You don't understand how it was derived. You don't understand how it's used. ты ничего не понимаешь.

Please find a post by me where I said that there was empirical evidence for the age of the Earth. I'll be waiting.............




posted on Dec, 27 2018 @ 07:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: cooperton

Half life calculations pertain to anything that decays. You don't need a sample from 1000000000000000 BCE to calculate the probability that x sample is y years old.

You don't understand the terms in the half life equation. You don't understand how it was derived. You don't understand how it's used. ты ничего не понимаешь.





Half life and final amount is known, so to solve for 't' (time) you need 'Ao', which is initial ratio/mass. It is as simple as that. But you claimed:


originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: cooperton

You are absolutely 100% wrong that you need the original ratio to calculate the age.


Which is incorrect. Because you do need the original ratio/mass to calculate the age. The half-life equation speaks for itself. The extents that you are going to try to backtrack and avoid admitting you are wrong is very alarming, and I am now realizing how much time I have wasted talking to you because you are unwilling to admit when you are wrong. I really hope you learn to humble your self. All this crap is not worth losing your humanity.
edit on 27-12-2018 by cooperton because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 27 2018 @ 09:42 PM
link   
a reply to: cooperton

Sorry, you're wrong. I understand you're a slow learner, but you might spend some time reading the links I posted as well as the mathematical derivation of the half life equation.

It's getting boring. You're stuck in the mud of Creationism with no hope of rescue. Your beliefs are like quicksand - they get saturated with lies and fraud and eventually sink to the bottom of the abyss.

You live in the fury of ignorance. End of conversation.
edit on 27-12-2018 by Phantom423 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 28 2018 @ 10:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: cooperton

Sorry, you're wrong. I understand you're a slow learner, but you might spend some time reading the links I posted as well as the mathematical derivation of the half life equation.


From the link you posted:

"The initial concentration Nk,i(0) of nuclei, which is needed for the calculations, was calculated
from the formula" your source

Therefore, you are wrong. You need the initial quantity of the sample to determine its age (t). Just admit it. It blows my mind how far you are willing to deny science to convince your self you are right.



posted on Dec, 28 2018 @ 07:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: Jay-morris

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: Jay-morris
It is frustrating, and annoying that people actually believe this BS! And even if the bible is true, and is the word of God (Obviously is not) I would not be jumping around with pure happiness! I would be gutted, absolutly gutted!

Why? Because I would know that God is a scoipathic, ego driven maniac, who is not bothered about killing millions of innocent people (his children)

But it's all BS anyway, but people will always believe in fairytales, or nightmares!


And I thought you have something to contribute to the conversation.

Just wondering though, based on current calculations, how old do you think the earth is?

Why?


Around 4.54 billion years old. Why? Because science points to that. Or do you think an all powerful being decided to make the earth and all living things.

Please point to the evidence of that? I do not mean belief, I mean evidence!


dude - check the OP.



posted on Dec, 29 2018 @ 05:49 AM
link   
a reply to: cooperton


What is the empirical evidence that demonstrates a 4.54 billion year old world? 

Provide actual empirical evidence, not belief.


I never said it was empirical evidence, but science and data points to that. It's funny thst you ask me for empirical evidence when there is zero evidence thst a God exists. All we have is a holy book that is cherry picked, and to be frank, is very brutal and has so many holes, it's laughable!

Obviously you believe in God, so where is the "empirical evidence" for a creator? At least with the age of the earth, we have data that roughly points to the age of the earth.

Where is your data/evidence



posted on Dec, 29 2018 @ 05:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: Jay-morris

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: Jay-morris
It is frustrating, and annoying that people actually believe this BS! And even if the bible is true, and is the word of God (Obviously is not) I would not be jumping around with pure happiness! I would be gutted, absolutly gutted!

Why? Because I would know that God is a scoipathic, ego driven maniac, who is not bothered about killing millions of innocent people (his children)

But it's all BS anyway, but people will always believe in fairytales, or nightmares!


And I thought you have something to contribute to the conversation.

Just wondering though, based on current calculations, how old do you think the earth is?

Why?


Around 4.54 billion years old. Why? Because science points to that. Or do you think an all powerful being decided to make the earth and all living things.

Please point to the evidence of that? I do not mean belief, I mean evidence!


dude - check the OP.



I did read it. The bible is absolute no sense written not by the word of God, but by primitive human beings, hence the reason it is rediculas!



posted on Dec, 29 2018 @ 09:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: Jay-morris

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: Jay-morris

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: Jay-morris
It is frustrating, and annoying that people actually believe this BS! And even if the bible is true, and is the word of God (Obviously is not) I would not be jumping around with pure happiness! I would be gutted, absolutly gutted!

Why? Because I would know that God is a scoipathic, ego driven maniac, who is not bothered about killing millions of innocent people (his children)

But it's all BS anyway, but people will always believe in fairytales, or nightmares!


And I thought you have something to contribute to the conversation.

Just wondering though, based on current calculations, how old do you think the earth is?

Why?


Around 4.54 billion years old. Why? Because science points to that. Or do you think an all powerful being decided to make the earth and all living things.

Please point to the evidence of that? I do not mean belief, I mean evidence!


dude - check the OP.



I did read it. The bible is absolute no sense written not by the word of God, but by primitive human beings, hence the reason it is rediculas!


ok - so let's be clear then, based on current findings, the earth is around 4.5 BYO. We agree on that.

as to this...




Or do you think an all powerful being decided to make the earth and all living things.


Sure. Why not?



posted on Dec, 30 2018 @ 04:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: Jay-morris

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: Jay-morris

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: Jay-morris
It is frustrating, and annoying that people actually believe this BS! And even if the bible is true, and is the word of God (Obviously is not) I would not be jumping around with pure happiness! I would be gutted, absolutly gutted!

Why? Because I would know that God is a scoipathic, ego driven maniac, who is not bothered about killing millions of innocent people (his children)

But it's all BS anyway, but people will always believe in fairytales, or nightmares!


And I thought you have something to contribute to the conversation.

Just wondering though, based on current calculations, how old do you think the earth is?

Why?


Around 4.54 billion years old. Why? Because science points to that. Or do you think an all powerful being decided to make the earth and all living things.

Please point to the evidence of that? I do not mean belief, I mean evidence!


dude - check the OP.



I did read it. The bible is absolute no sense written not by the word of God, but by primitive human beings, hence the reason it is rediculas!


ok - so let's be clear then, based on current findings, the earth is around 4.5 BYO. We agree on that.

as to this...




Or do you think an all powerful being decided to make the earth and all living things.


Sure. Why not?






And where is the evidence for that? Where is the evidence that a God created everything? That's right, absolutly nothing, apart from belief!

Religon is a powerful thing, and sadly, something that will not go away in my lifetime



posted on Dec, 31 2018 @ 02:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: Jay-morris

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: Jay-morris

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: Jay-morris

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: Jay-morris
It is frustrating, and annoying that people actually believe this BS! And even if the bible is true, and is the word of God (Obviously is not) I would not be jumping around with pure happiness! I would be gutted, absolutly gutted!

Why? Because I would know that God is a scoipathic, ego driven maniac, who is not bothered about killing millions of innocent people (his children)

But it's all BS anyway, but people will always believe in fairytales, or nightmares!


And I thought you have something to contribute to the conversation.

Just wondering though, based on current calculations, how old do you think the earth is?

Why?


Around 4.54 billion years old. Why? Because science points to that. Or do you think an all powerful being decided to make the earth and all living things.

Please point to the evidence of that? I do not mean belief, I mean evidence!


dude - check the OP.



I did read it. The bible is absolute no sense written not by the word of God, but by primitive human beings, hence the reason it is rediculas!


ok - so let's be clear then, based on current findings, the earth is around 4.5 BYO. We agree on that.

as to this...




Or do you think an all powerful being decided to make the earth and all living things.


Sure. Why not?






And where is the evidence for that? Where is the evidence that a God created everything? That's right, absolutly nothing, apart from belief!

Religon is a powerful thing, and sadly, something that will not go away in my lifetime


The evidence is all around you, the only problem is the way you see them.

BTW - why is there something instead of nothing?



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 5  6  7    9  10 >>

log in

join