if you dont follow it in its entier , your not a christian , gods word is obsolete
and you should be stoned fdor saying that


anyways , ill throw one back at the OP ,

where in the bible does the aborigenies come in to aspect ?

if the earth is 6k years old and the aborigines are 20k old where did they come from if they always been there before your god ?

[edit on 10-3-2008 by zerbot565]

double post

[edit on 10-3-2008 by zerbot565]

if the earth is 6k years old and the aborigines are 20k old where did they come from if they always been there before your god ?

where are you getting your numbers from? probably people who are either forced to agree on the numbers or evolutionists.
id like to know how the earth survived 20k years ago. the magnetic field would be stronger making this earth a magnetic heater. according to the charts and the average loss of magnetic strength, its impossible for the earth have had anything survive past 25,000 years ago.

if you know anything about electronics, the only way to reverse poles in a magnetic field you have to change the direction of whatever is doing the spinning. in short, the earths magnetic field cannot reverse itself unless the earths direction of rotation changes to the opposite direction. even scientists dont know how it would have changed direction, all they know is that it had to of or their theory would look stupid.
thats why they throw large amounts of time in there, because it makes the theory sounds feasible for some reason. since they cant prove it they just throw millions of years in there, and since they are scientists they ought to know what they are talking about and thats why no one discredits them.
only the ones who provide theories against the evolution theory get fired or discredited.

and as for Macro evolution.... still have never seen it happen... lets see it happen..... oh wait, I forgot, it takes millions of years to happen, so long no one can witness it. thats right, so that means that your theory requires something called faith. what a joke.

The general consensus among scholars for the arrival of humans in Australia is placed at 40,000 to 50,000 years ago with a possible range of up to 70,000 years ago though not as widely supported

quick snippet by searching the net for some kind of counter argument for the earth being 6k years old ,

i guess god told you how magnetics work or was it science ?

triple post


[edit on 10-3-2008 by zerbot565]

double post

[edit on 10-3-2008 by zerbot565]

well then maybe your theory is a little off. maybe you are reading things wrong. is that possible at all? of course not, you couldnt be wrong that would mean that other parts of your theory could be wrong too.

the process on which the earths magnetic field is generated is called induction. you can learn this is just about any electronics class. you have liquid metal spinning around solid metal therefore creating a magnetic field. in order to get the north and south pole to switch, the liquid metal would have to switch directions. and to do this without getting the rest of the earths moving in the same direction is impossibe, there would be so much resistance that the earth would probably destroy itself with volcanic activity earthquakes due to rapid moving of continental plates.

you cant switch the direction of the liquid without influencing the direction of the crust of the earth... it with a one of those baby toy balls that are filled with water. get the ball spinning one way... the liquid on the inside will spin and influence the spin of the plastic to spin in same direction. now try changing the direction of plastic... it will influence the direction of the liquid and eventually change it.
now if you were able to keep this ball spinning on one direction, never once wouldnt you ever see the direction of the liquid change... because it would either stop the spin of the ball altogether, or it would (at an earths scale) destroy the entire thing.
you dont have to be a rocket scientist to figure this out.

your explanation = it had to have happened because if it didnt, what I believe in would sound really stupid.

for real, just play with a few toys on your coffee table. you can learn a thing or two on physics. and look up induction... the law of induction does not support the change of the earths magnetic field (swapping magnetic poles)

Good luck!

If we allow for a pre-biotic soup with millions of amino acids, we still need to make the jump from amino acids to proteins. Forget for now that amino acids are not stable in water.

It is quite common for this step to be glossed over by evolutionists who say something like, "then some amino acids joined to make proteins."
Sounds simple enough at first glance, and for the lay person it may seem quite reasonable and logical.

However we should take an honest look at what is required to make this happen.
Half the amino acids are left handed and half are right handed. How likely is it, out of the millions of amino acids swimming in the soup, for the 20 correct left handed amino acids to somehow connect to form long chains necessary for life?

Not only do these long chains of the select 20 amino acids have to be linked together, they have to be linked in the correct order and in the exact shape for each protein.

A typical simple protein was about 100 amino acids. During the life of even the simplest cell, it will use approx 200,000 proteins. Of these 200,000 proteins, some of them are specialized, for specific tasks. These are called enzymes and it is estimated that there are about 20,000 of these.

Without these enzymes the cell, even the simplest cell cannot survive.
What are the chances of these enzymes randomly forming in the pre-biotic soup? if you had the soup? One chance in 10 to the 40,000 power. This is 1 followed by 40,000 zeros.

How can we wrap our minds around a these kind of odds?
The chance is the same as rolling dice and getting 50,000 sixes in a row. And that is for only 2,000 of the 200,000 needed for a living cell. So to get them all, roll 5,000,000 more sixes in a row!

But wait, we cant stop here. A simple cell with proteins and enzymes can not survive or reproduce without nucleotides. These are required to make the DNA & RNA.. Oh, I amost forget, this annoying little detail, Proteins cannot be assembled without first having the nucleic acids.....but wait...nucleic acidds cannot be formed without the proteins....Well, lets just not dwell on that for now.

For any of this to work though the componants of even the simplest cell need to protected from the soupy environment. It needs a membrane. Why?

Robert Shapiro, professor of chemistry at New York University and a specialist in DNA research, dispose of the chance formation of nucleotides and nucleic acids in early earth’s environment:

"Whenever two amino acids unite, a water molecule is released. Two molecules of water must be set free in assembling a nucleotide from its components, and additional water is released in combining nucleotides to form nucleic acids. Unfortunately, the formation of water in an environment that is full of it is the chemical equivalent of bringing sand to the Sahara. It is unfavorable, and requires the expenditure of energy. Such processes do not readily take place on their own. In fact, the reverse reactions are the ones that occur spontaneously. Water happily attacks large biological molecules. It pries nucleotides apart from each other, breaks sugar-to-phosphate bonds, and severs bases from sugars."

So we need a membrane. But to create or form a membrane, a mechanism needs to already exist to do this. Call it a protein synthetic apparatus , if you will. After all, something needs to assemble this membrane per the instructions contained in the DNA..

But wait, one more sticky little detail....a protein synthetic apparatus can only function if it is encased or held together by a membrane.

So to sum it up; Without the pre-biotic soup, there can be no no amino acids. Without the amino acids, randomly attaching themselves together in long chains, ther can be no proteins. Without proteins,all left handed of course and arranged in just the right order, there can be no nucleotides.

Without nucleotides, no DNA or RNA. Without DNA, no cell that reproduces itself. Without a covering membrane, no living cell.

(source for much of this can be found here: The Intelligent Universe, by Fred Hoyle, 1983, pp. 12-17.)

additional sources.:
Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, by Michael Denton, 1985, pp. 260-1, 263; Origins: A Skeptic’s Guide, pp. 112-13.

Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, pp. 234-8.

The Intelligent Universe, by Fred Hoyle, 1983, pp. 12-17.

Origins: A Skeptic’s Guide, p. 188.

Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, p. 238; Origins: A Skeptic’s Guide, pp. 134, 138.

Origins: A Skeptic’s Guide, pp. 173-4.

Ibid., p. 65.

Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, pp. 268-9.


[edit on 11-3-2008 by Sparky63] should have used spell check....

[edit on 11-3-2008 by Sparky63]

I'm sure that these odds can be reduced slightly if you take the amino acids out of the prebiotic soup and put them in clay or silica....ect.
But still an impossibility in my opinion. I would not make book on it.

Sparky, it's just BS statistics, tornado in the junkyard rubbish.

They don't call it 'Hoyle's fallacy' for nothing.

Regardless of what Dawkins or other supporters of evolution call it, i.e. "Hoyles Fallacy", the enormous complexity of what had to occur for a viable cell with the ability to reproduce should not be ignored, nor should it be reduced to a few simple steps

The odds can be debated ad naseum, I'll give you that,...but the enoumous chain of events must be explained.....or else excepted on faith...

Oh, I forgot, that word cannot be used in conjuction with scientists.

Originally posted by Sparky63
The odds can be debated ad naseum, I'll give you that,...but the enoumous chain of events must be explained.....or else excepted on faith...

Oh, I forgot, that word cannot be used in conjuction with scientists.

Well, that's cool. The answer, basically, is we don't really know. No faith required. There is no reason to think it never happened naturally, as we can see that the basic building blocks are there, and we have lots of interesting ideas.

What we don't have is a coherent explanation.

To fall back on magic is essentially a 'god of the gaps' argument, and no different than early man with magical superstitious explanations of lightning, sun, rain, earthquakes etc etc.

So. We don't know. And that's why even attempting to throw together some probability calculation is vacuous. Even when done correctly.

Anyway, back to the mighty Liverpool vs. Inter...

ABE: Torres!!!! 1-0

[edit on 11-3-2008 by melatonin]

To the rational folks in this thread, I would make a suggestion. Don't even bother using science and logic to discuss this stuff with Creationists. To quote a phrase: You can't rationalize someone out of a position they didn't rationalize themselves into.

No amount of evidence will get them to change their minds. In their view, they *must* be right and all of us must be wrong, no matter what science shows.

On the other hand, I was a Creationist many years ago, so I suppose there's always that small glimmer of hope that some of them might see the light of reality shine down upon them.

To the rational folks in this thread, I would make a suggestion. Don't even bother using science and logic to discuss this stuff with Creationists. To quote a phrase: You can't rationalize someone out of a position they didn't rationalize themselves into.

No amount of evidence will get them to change their minds. In their view, they *must* be right and all of us must be wrong, no matter what science shows.

On the other hand, I was a Creationist many years ago, so I suppose there's always that small glimmer of hope that some of them might see the light of reality shine down upon them.

well maybe if there wasnt scientific evidences like the ones shares a few posts before, maybe there wouldnt be this argument. science is run by this preconceived idea that the earth is millions of years old, was once a hot molten mass and generated life starting with single-celled organisms that evolved into what we see today. whenever these scientists look at facts, they have this preconceived idea which blinds them from learning truth. you cant automatically assume that you already know something and not expect anything different.

Sparky63's post.... very accurate, very true, very scientific and he even had references. all you guys did was say "oh we know thats not true".
how about providing some scientific evidence to back up your claim. if he is wrong.. prove it!
evolution says "we know this and we know such and such" but they dont ever say how they know. either they say they know by means of techniques that do not work (which btw most people dont know they dont work ie radiometric dating) or they just assume scientists know what they are talking about so they dont question them.
this is not science, this is called propaganda! its a bunch-a-bull!

[edit on 11-3-2008 by Methuselah]

Originally posted by Methuselah
science is run by this preconceived idea that the earth is millions of years old,

Incorrect. The idea that the earth is [est] 5 billion years old is because of scientific evidence. It was not a preconcieved conclusion.





Methuselah- how old you think the planet actually is..?

[edit on 12-3-2008 by riley]

I've always been a bit puzzled by the idea of a bunch of chemicals randomly bouncing together to form a living cell. The universe is big, and there's a lot of time in it, but that would be quite a bounce. Like putting a lot of computer components in a box and shaking it until it fell into a working computer. I don't even know how you'd calculate the odds of that.

However, I can think of at least two different scenarios that might explain how a single living cell may have manifested in the past that don't require any intervention by a mystical entity of any kind. The key is to stop thinking like an old Newtonian, where time only flows in one direction like a river, and start thinking of time as a holographic matrix, where "effect" doesn't necessarily always follow "cause." Flowing, linear time is a very old-fashioned notion that does not accurately describe reality as it is becoming understood.

Therefore, one very possible way for the first living thing to come into existence in the past is by being pushed/pulled into the past from the present/future through a large, random fluctuation in spacetime zero point. It could have essentially been swallowed up by what would be a micro wormhole or singularity, bypass normal time, and be expelled into what we would consider to be our past, although it's really only distance. If a tiny bacteria was sucked out of normal spacetime and instantaneously popped in again a billion light years away, it would have travelled a billion years into the past.

At this point, we don't know how extreme zero point fluctuations can be. We're still working on the math. Big enough to engulf a bacteria into virtuality and spit it out somewhere/sometime else? Sure, why not?

Another possible way the first living organism could have appeared in the past is if a particularly energenic consciousness (or collection of consciousnesses) formed the organism through a combination of what we generally define as imagination and psychokinesis. Because time as we perceive it is only an illusion that does not necessarily apply on a quantum level. And our minds function on that same quantum level, creating all kinds of solid, physical things out of essentially nothing.

You can call the consciousness responsible for life "God" if you'd like, but there's no need to bring mythology into the picture. The living thing could have been built in the past by a Stephen Hawking-type genius in their imagination, or in a baby's dream, or in the supermind of an alien being on a planet halfway across the universe (Saklas, perhaps). Anybody with a clear understanding of the structure and function of a cell and the ability to mentally manipulate energy/matter extratemporally -- so, anybody, basically -- could do it, or have done it, or will do it in the future. No "God" required.

Can these things be proven? Not at the moment. But neither can the notion of a directive intelligence in the form of creator god. I like to think, though, that they do offer a couple of viable, reasonable alternative theories based on known scientific principles.

It could be that Einstein was right again when he said that, "Imagination is more important than knowledge." It might be the foundation of life, consciousness, and the fundamental reality of the universe.

[edit on 12-3-2008 by Nohup]