Evidence for God

page: 23
6
<< 20  21  22   >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 25 2008 @ 08:59 AM
link   
If you read tale about last days and resurrection of Jesus from all gospels, you get many tales that differs from each other in many important parts. So which one is right? Jesus's body good have been stolen, who knows? And people telling wild stories and gossips at purpose or innocently many decades before anything was written down. Good material and situation for hoaxies. People love to belive.

There is less than 200 years from golden plates and Book of Mormon. Are they genuine, several wittnesses have seen them. So mormons are right and all other christians are wrong?

Jews, christians and muslims belive in same god. Who is right?

Only thing that holy history of religions and pile of holy books proves is mankinds incredible capasity to delusions.




posted on Mar, 25 2008 @ 11:03 PM
link   
To me, the bible isn't evidence of god. Its just a giant game of chinese whispers. For example:

It all started when some slightly crazy Jewish carpenter, born to a mother who cheated on her husband, walked through a largish puddle, and gave a tramp a bit of bread and fish out of kindness. This story was told by some people to their friends, and passed on to more friends, each time being embellished with more fancy details to make it more interesting. After a few weeks of being told, added to, and retold, the story was getting quite big. After a few years, it became Jesus, Son of God (well... he said he was...), born through Immaculate Conception (not really, Mary just couldn't tell Joseph the truth, so blamed God), walked on water (stepped over puddle), and one day he fed 500 people, with just a few loafs of bread, and a couple of fish!!! Eventually, all these hugely embellished stories about the crazy Jewish carpenter get put together into the New Testament, and added to the Old Testament to create the first ever action/fantasy book.

A few questions for you all. If there is a creator, that created all that we see around us, then who created the creator?? He/she/it couldn't create themselves, that would be impossible. And there can be no "he/she/it has always been there".

Secondly, if someone was to come up to you and say "I am God, prove me wrong!", would you be inclined to believe them, or would you try to prove them wrong. What if they were God, but they weren't what you expected from him?

Thirdly, why Christianity? What's wrong with the other religions?

I personally follow the cult/religion of the flying spaghetti monster. I know its silly, and implausible, but then again, aren't all religions? I could claim the fact that there is pasta on shop shelves as proof of my deity, and claim to have been touched by his noodly appendage, and you would ridicule me. Yet somehow, we're expected to believe your deity exists due to a book.



posted on Mar, 26 2008 @ 03:49 AM
link   


um...not really.
see, the embarrassing problem here is your attitude which is both insulting and betraying of your ignorance


naturally you would think that the problem lies on my side of the court, that always happens when you start losing in something and cannot come back. but im not the one with the problem. your lack of knowledge and logic is the problem here, you sitll believe that life can spontaneously generate on its own when that has been proven wrong a long time ago. apparently you didnt understand my coomputer anology.



not so much. can you point out to me how human breasts and the human prostate were clearly designed when both are cancer timebombs?

really, shouldnt we all be dying from these? can by the way i already gave you the cure/prevention for cancer. and I understand once something gets so bad you cant go back. but if you take Vitamin B17 ona regular basis, you will never get cancer of any kind. because if you didnt know, cancer cells develope a protein coating called beta-glucosidase which is the only molecule in nature that can breakdown V-B17 (breaking cyanide from the rest of teh molecule). breakdown of this molecule results in intake of cyanide and death of the cell.



now, if a bunch of scientists set up an experiment that proved life arises on its own within certain circumstances that were found all over the earth prior to the existence of life, we'd have proof that life can arise on its own


yeah, if that ever happened... it has never happened. and they still cannot generate life under these conditions. life begets life. this is still something you have yet to prove and or provide evidence for, any evolutionist and or scientist has yet to prove this or provide evidence.
yeah the conditions might support early stages of life but you still cant get it started from non-living material. all you can say is "life must have arose from non-living matter".



it may stave off and prevent some cancer, but it will not prevent a man from developing prostate cancer. any man that live long enough will develop it, that's a given.

and where are you getting this information from? any man or woman who takes care of themselves, eats healthy, and exercises is very unlikely to develope any kind of cancer. cancer is an uncontrollable growth of mutated cells. cancer is a vitamin deficiency disease.



...scurvy isn't a disease, it's a vitamin c deficiency. of course vitamin c is the only treatment.
common colds still cannot be cured, even through vitamins. they may be treated and the symptoms may go down, but the viral infection is still there


ah you helped my prove me point. how about many of our so called diseases are actually vitamin/mineral deficiencies. vitamin C> scurvy Calcium>cramps Zinc>warts etc... but the FDA says that only a drug can cure a disease... read the book you see on the infomercials (natural cures they dont want you to know about, and the treasure) all of these provide scientific evidence that show that drugs is not the solution to the cause. drugs are the solution to the symptom, rethink that anology I gave you before.
BeriBeri is a vitamin B deficiency, Pellagra>Vitamin B, Rickets>Vitamin D, Cancer>B17.
and not all people take aspirin for headaches, they take all sorts of other things that are still not fixing the problem. they fix the symptom not the cause. again, rethink that anology I gave you.



...actually, we do something that's much better (which god should have thought up himself if he's so gosh darn smart).
crop rotation.
farmers let a few fields every season grow legumes or other plants that enrich the soil with nutrients instead of sucking them out.


uhm actually we dont do that, we used to but hormones work a lot better and a lot faster. crop became really popular during the industrial revolution. now they used to grow fields and let them die allowing the nutrients from the plants to sink back into the soil. and that does work, but not as good as resting the land.
recent studies have shown that there are high levels of estrogen in food. you cant really use anything else because you would see physical effects. estrogen just makes it look like the rest of the world has problems, uhm no.



...no, it's because of stuff we put INTO it.

yeah, preservatives (which are bad for you) and they took out three things that are good for the human body. Vitamin E, Lecithin and the Omega 3 fatty acids. all of these keep the heart strong and the circulation system working right.
again, love of money=root of all evil. bible says.



...lead cannot be found in vitamins
lead can be found near a vitamin
but not inside of it...
unless you're talking about a multivitamin, which simply contains many vitamins
but i don't think you have anything to back this claim up anyway

uhm check out www.google.com
search for articles on lead found in vitamins, there are many of them
here are some links.



vitamins are chemicals
and it isn't evolutionary scientists that are telling this to us, it's medical science.
it's a fact that the human body is a big ol bag of chemicals. just like everything else is...


true but when you trick the medical field into thinking our chemical complex is the result of chance (an accident) then you have people testing out different chemicals to throw in there to take care of symptoms that dont fix the cause. vitamins and minerals are chemicals but they are designed for the body. they are designed to keep the body working correctly and to keep it healthy. actually its more so that the body is designed to utilize these chemicals in this way.



honestly, it actually never says anything about videos in the bible

uhm look up "lust", pornos cause people to lust and to sin in their hearts. looks like you need to do a little more reading.


hell, it doesn't even say having sex with a lot of women is wrong for men to do, so long as each of those women is either his wife or concubine (abraham)

well even if that were the law (notice you spoke of a time before the 10 commandments were given) pornos are often times not husband(s) and wife(s) and the purpose for them is for an unGodly reason.

more to follow...



posted on Mar, 26 2008 @ 09:26 AM
link   
methman, it seems you've posted a reply, but i cannot see it for some odd reason, i hope this post allows me to view it.



edit to add: oh, there it is


Originally posted by Methuselah
naturally you would think that the problem lies on my side of the court, that always happens when you start losing in something and cannot come back.


...i'm not really losing in this discussion



but im not the one with the problem. your lack of knowledge and logic is the problem here, you sitll believe that life can spontaneously generate on its own when that has been proven wrong a long time ago.


no, the concept that life can spontaneously form under the right conditions is far from disproven



apparently you didnt understand my coomputer anology.


....no, i did. sadly, you didn't understand my refutation of the analogy.
your analogy doesn't take into account that you're comparing two widely different things
computers are made of non-organic parts that cannot form on their own
humans are made of organic parts that can arise through natural processes



really, shouldnt we all be dying from these? can by the way i already gave you the cure/prevention for cancer.


...um...i said that they happen a lot. breast and prostate cancer are the most common forms for a reason, the tissue is prone to becoming cancerous because of its composition.

and you didn't give me anything to prove that vitamin b17 does anything.
you made an extraordinary claim, so where's the extraordinary evidence?



and I understand once something gets so bad you cant go back. but if you take Vitamin B17 ona regular basis, you will never get cancer of any kind.


again, proof. you're just making an unsubstantiated statement.



because if you didnt know, cancer cells develope a protein coating called beta-glucosidase which is the only molecule in nature that can breakdown V-B17 (breaking cyanide from the rest of teh molecule). breakdown of this molecule results in intake of cyanide and death of the cell.


...again, you need something to back these claims up. i can't take your word for it on a cure for cancer.





yeah, if that ever happened... it has never happened. and they still cannot generate life under these conditions. life begets life. this is still something you have yet to prove and or provide evidence for, any evolutionist and or scientist has yet to prove this or provide evidence.


they've shown a theoretical framework, but it's kind of hard to set up conditions under which life arose...and it's kind of hard to have the same timeframe to work with ie hundreds of millions of years.



yeah the conditions might support early stages of life but you still cant get it started from non-living material. all you can say is "life must have arose from non-living matter".


...we can. we haven't, but we can
we can get life to arise from organic molecules, rudimentary proteins and whatnot




and where are you getting this information from? any man or woman who takes care of themselves, eats healthy, and exercises is very unlikely to develope any kind of cancer. cancer is an uncontrollable growth of mutated cells. cancer is a vitamin deficiency disease.


...can you prove that it is?
again, you're the one that's making claims that go contradictory to evidence supported medical science, you need to provide quite a huge amount of evidence.



ah you helped my prove me point. how about many of our so called diseases are actually vitamin/mineral deficiencies. vitamin C> scurvy


...very few of our diseases are vitamin deficiencies. i didn't help you prove anything
all you did was knock down a strawman



Calcium>cramps


evidence?



Zinc>warts etc...


evidence?



but the FDA says that only a drug can cure a disease...


...a vitamin deficiency isn't a disease. again, you betray your ignorance.




read the book you see on the infomercials (natural cures they dont want you to know about, and the treasure) all of these provide scientific evidence that show that drugs is not the solution to the cause. drugs are the solution to the symptom, rethink that anology I gave you before.


...if there is evidence, it would be in scientific papers. in fact, if things were so simple, the scientific community would be jumping for joy that they've found miracle cures for everything with only simple vitamins.
you wouldn't need to go to an infomercial book for the evidence, there would be double blind clinical studies on the matter.



BeriBeri is a vitamin B deficiency, Pellagra>Vitamin B, Rickets>Vitamin D, Cancer>B17.


again, evidence evidence evidence evidence.



and not all people take aspirin for headaches, they take all sorts of other things that are still not fixing the problem. they fix the symptom not the cause. again, rethink that anology I gave you.


the analogy you gave me was just as bad as your spelling of analogy.

and aspirin and ibuprofen do fix the cause of the problem...




uhm actually we dont do that, we used to but hormones work a lot better and a lot faster. crop became really popular during the industrial revolution. now they used to grow fields and let them die allowing the nutrients from the plants to sink back into the soil. and that does work, but not as good as resting the land.


actually, many still use the whole "crop rotation" thing
and you forgot the rise of fertilizers. fertilizers work better than leaving land fallow
crop rotation works better than leaving the land fallow
in fact, a hell of a lot of things work better than that.......why aren't they mentioned in the bible?




recent studies have shown that there are high levels of estrogen in food. you cant really use anything else because you would see physical effects. estrogen just makes it look like the rest of the world has problems, uhm no.


...recent studies have shown that you haven't provided any evidence for a single claim you've made



yeah, preservatives (which are bad for you)


again, evidence!
you've made so many wild and ridiculous claims that require evidence, yet not a single one.



and they took out three things that are good for the human body. Vitamin E, Lecithin and the Omega 3 fatty acids. all of these keep the heart strong and the circulation system working right.


can you show me that they take these things out of all bread?
and can you show me that any of these things are good for the heart?



again, love of money=root of all evil. bible says.


the bible also says that bats are birds...
so the bible says a lot of things...
and wouldn't god be the root of all evil, seeing that he's the root of all things?



uhm check out www.google.com
search for articles on lead found in vitamins, there are many of them
here are some links.


oh lordy lordy lord
if it's so easy to find, it's your duty t provide it



true but when you trick the medical field into thinking our chemical complex is the result of chance (an accident) then you have people testing out different chemicals to throw in there to take care of symptoms that dont fix the cause.


..um...your logic not only doesn't add up, it's non existent.
and honestly, there are some diseases that we cannot treat the cause of as of now. while proper treatments are developed, they create life extending treatments that deal with the symptoms




vitamins and minerals are chemicals but they are designed for the body.


really? we have mass quantities of iron on this planet JUST for the human body?
who knew?



they are designed to keep the body working correctly and to keep it healthy. actually its more so that the body is designed to utilize these chemicals in this way.


this is a statement that not only have you failed to provide evidence for, but you CANNOT provide evidence for.



uhm look up "lust", pornos cause people to lust and to sin in their hearts. looks like you need to do a little more reading.


lots of things cause lust in people. some people are driven to lust by iphones (not joking)...
and "sin" is a very subjective word that is entirely removed from morality...





well even if that were the law (notice you spoke of a time before the 10 commandments were given) pornos are often times not husband(s) and wife(s) and the purpose for them is for an unGodly reason.


the ten commandments aren't even a good set of morals as it equates women to property...
wait, which version of the ten commandments?
hell, the list leaves out one of the worst crimes, rape...



more to follow...


i hope this "more" include evidence for your ridiculous claims

[edit on 3/26/08 by madnessinmysoul]

[edit on 3/26/08 by madnessinmysoul]



posted on Mar, 26 2008 @ 01:25 PM
link   
im gonna say this one more time and maybe it will make sense of many things "the love of money is the root of all evil" says the bible, which is very true, if you love money you cause problems for a lot of other people. i will be refering to this quote from the bible because it makes sense of a lot of things.



...i'm not really losing in this discussion

then come back and support your evidence with some hardcore evidence. you have showed me nothing. if I make a claim you demand hard evidence all you do is make claims and then pronounce my ignorance in the subject for disputing them. yes dude, you are losing because I provide evidence and I will provide even more evidence in this post. you have done nothing but make claims.



no, the concept that life can spontaneously form under the right conditions is far from disproven

oh ok so theyve done it already? they have made life in the lab? no they they have not. either you are ignorant or you are lying. ignorance can be fixed tho, lets hope its not something else.



humans are made of organic parts that can arise through natural processes

processes like what? natural selection? too bad its not a creative force. it doesnt make anything new, it selects from what is already there. divergent/micro evolution is a result of natural selection, changing from a reptile to a bird over millions of years takes leap of faith and a fall in logic.
even charles darwin in his book "the origin of species" explained in how the evolution of the eye is just unthinkable (impossible). and thats the human eye. trilobytes have an even more complex eye than we do and it was one of the first creatures to evolve? its an index fossil for one of the lowest layers.
organisms do not evolve from single celled organisms into everything we see today over millions of years. you have no evidence to support this and all the evidence you do have has been proven wrong.


they've shown a theoretical framework, but it's kind of hard to set up conditions under which life arose...and it's kind of hard to have the same timeframe to work with ie hundreds of millions of years.

the earth isnt even millions of years old. our magnetic field limits the age of the earth to less than 25,000 years old. the earth has lost 6% of its magnetic strength over that past 150 years. and of course if you throw millions of years in there that fixes everything? uhm no, you have to have millions of years or else your theory look even more dumb.



...we can. we haven't, but we can

oh that makes a lot of sense. how do you know you can if you havent yet? thats like me saying I can fly like superman... I havent but I can.




we can get life to arise from organic molecules, rudimentary proteins and whatnot

evidence? from what materials? what experiment are you refering to?
and getting the buliding blocks for life does not give you life. it gives you the material for life. now put all these things in the right order (btw which is thousands of things that have to be in precise order). I can get a bunch of wood together, doesnt mean I can build a house, I gotta have the right pieces, right sizes, etc...



and aspirin and ibuprofen do fix the cause of the problem...

have you ever read the warning labels? you will see what I am talking about.



actually, many still use the whole "crop rotation" thing
and you forgot the rise of fertilizers. fertilizers work better than leaving land fallow
crop rotation works better than leaving the land fallow

uhm, have you ever researched on what happens with the fertilizers and hormones and all the other chemicals they pump into the ground, yeah they may be good for the plants growth, but it gets passed onto human beings and animals which is the bad part. this stuff is learned in high school in biology class (ecosystems). and in order to survive in todays world, farmers have to use whatever they can to keep their income.



you've made so many wild and ridiculous claims that require evidence, yet not a single one.

hah wow, you dont research too many things on your own do you? all you gotta do is read the back of most food boxes and even google a few things. preservatives are bad for the human body, thats why some food companies are trying to find ways to get them out of foods. because they are bad for the human body and are being forced out of foods because people finally caught on.

hereis a link on othehr reasons why white flour is bad for you (white flour is how they make white bread (duh)).
im sure you can google each of the items I gave you and find that they are good for the heart and circulation system, you just want to know how I know they removed it from bread... linky
most sites wont publish this sort of information because they would rather you buy drugs than bake your own bread.
oh and what does wikisay about vitamin deficiency? this page includes some cancers? wonder why they only say some cancers... probably because they want people to believe that all cancers are different when they are not. different locations in the body but the same issue.



oh lordy lordy lord
if it's so easy to find, it's your duty t provide it

fine I will, doesnt mean you are gonna believe it.
wiki link for nutrition proves many of the things I have same before.
lead in vitamins:
link 1
link 2

you mentioned before lead being found near vitamins? of course its near the vitamin, its in the same dag-on pill! ignorance isnt bliss


oh and here is how Vitamin b17 works
VB17

and for the rest of the vitamin deficiencies you can just google those yourself, im sure over half of them appear on wiki (good source) I already showed you half, must I go on to prove you even more wrong? havent you had enough?

and recent studies hide a lot of things because all they care about is money.

more to follow...



posted on Mar, 26 2008 @ 01:47 PM
link   


..um...your logic not only doesn't add up, it's non existent.
and honestly, there are some diseases that we cannot treat the cause of as of now. while proper treatments are developed, they create life extending treatments that deal with the symptoms


uhm duh! I was using your logic.

we cant fix the cause? thats the biggest bunch of BS I have ever heard of. and here is why...



...if there is evidence, it would be in scientific papers. in fact, if things were so simple, the scientific community would be jumping for joy that they've found miracle cures for everything with only simple vitamins.
you wouldn't need to go to an infomercial book for the evidence, there would be double blind clinical studies on the matter.


oh so far from the truth... drug comapnies to not make money when you are well...
love of money = root of all evil... remember?
thats why they take those things out of bread, thats why they put bad things in the food and the vitamins. thats why conventional therapy is being pushed aside because it actually fixes the cause.
you still dont see the big picture here. people who love money do what they can to keep their money even at the cost of other peoples suffering.



the ten commandments aren't even a good set of morals as it equates women to property...
wait, which version of the ten commandments?
hell, the list leaves out one of the worst crimes, rape...


dude can you not read and comprehend? rape is a an act of adultery... first of all its premarital sex, second its caused by lust, and third its shedding innocent blood. and often times it results in murder... wow didnt think the bible covered that? read it again...
the 10 commandments are an awesome set of rules, yes hard to follow but the results are even more ridiculously great.
and the whole women = property.... uhm no... read again. Genesis says man and woman shall be one flesh... Colossions 3:19 says "wives submit yourselves unto your husbands, as this is fit in the Lord" this is not a contradiction this is simply placing responsability upon the husband. you cannot have two one one throne, you can only have one. so what this is saying is if it comes down to it, the wife is to submit to the husband and the husband is to take responsability for what happens. and I Peter 3 explains it in further detail. you need to work on you comprehension skills.



really? we have mass quantities of iron on this planet JUST for the human body?
who knew?


yeah apparently you decided to miss the part where I said "moreso our bodies are designed to utilize these substances to keep our bodies healthy"

I suggest you read II Peter 3 and comprehend what it means.



There is less than 200 years from golden plates and Book of Mormon. Are they genuine, several wittnesses have seen them. So mormons are right and all other christians are wrong?


Wow, Gospel Principles, The book of Mormon and the additional so-called books of the bible (ie book of moses, book of abraham, etc) directly contradict the bible. newer does not always mean better or more accurate.


[edit on 26-3-2008 by Methuselah]



posted on Mar, 26 2008 @ 07:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Methuselah
then come back and support your evidence with some hardcore evidence. you have showed me nothing.


...you've yet to ask me for evidence. if you have a desire, ask me.
i'm not going to read your mind on something.



if I make a claim you demand hard evidence all you do is make claims and then pronounce my ignorance in the subject for disputing them. yes dude, you are losing because I provide evidence and I will provide even more evidence in this post. you have done nothing but make claims.


i think this is the first post where you've provided a link.



oh ok so theyve done it already? they have made life in the lab? no they they have not. either you are ignorant or you are lying. ignorance can be fixed tho, lets hope its not something else.


again with the strawmen

i said that the claim wasn't disproven, not that life had already been created in a lab.




processes like what? natural selection? too bad its not a creative force.


...there's no need for a "creative force"
a creative force implies something intelligent. all you need is more data.



it doesnt make anything new, it selects from what is already there.


yes, it selects from mutations that are already there. the mutations are the new information to select form.



divergent/micro evolution is a result of natural selection, changing from a reptile to a bird over millions of years takes leap of faith and a fall in logic.


...ok
you're parroting the misconception that dinosaurs were reptiles.
many of them had feathers. the velociraptor being one
archeoptryx (whose name i probably butchered) being another.
and you don't really need a leap of faith or a fall in logic. additions to information make it quite easy



even charles darwin in his book "the origin of species" explained in how the evolution of the eye is just unthinkable (impossible). and thats the human eye.


no, he didn't. again you're parroting a misconception. here's what you're referring to


To suppose that the eye [...] could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree.

origin of species, 1859

now, read the next few sentences.


When it was first said that the sun stood still and the world turned round, the common sense of mankind declared the doctrine false; but the old saying of Vox populi, vox Dei, as every philosopher knows, cannot be trusted in science. Reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist, each grade being useful to its possessor, as is certainly the case; if further, the eye ever varies and the variations be inherited, as is likewise certainly the case and if such variations should be useful to any animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, should not be considered as subversive of the theory.

origin of species, 1859



trilobytes have an even more complex eye than we do and it was one of the first creatures to evolve? its an index fossil for one of the lowest layers.


...now you're equivocating modern trilobytes with archaic ones.
they may be similar, but they're different
sharks have been around for ages, but there are still evolutionary changes to them.



organisms do not evolve from single celled organisms into everything we see today over millions of years. you have no evidence to support this and all the evidence you do have has been proven wrong.


...really?
do you know who the first people to point this out would be?
the scientists. it's their job to expose when they're wrong
who debunked piltdown man? scientists, the same ones who found it to be a huge leap in their theories...
so, if evolution was wrong, we'd get it from the scientists

how about this, get some schooling on the subject of evolution.
then tell me that all the evidence i have has been proven wrong

en.wikipedia.org...
www.gnome.org...
www.pbs.org...
evolution.berkeley.edu...
www.ucmp.berkeley.edu...

or you could demonstrate to me a piece of scientific literature that is considered to be scientifically sound by the scientific community and debunk it.



the earth isnt even millions of years old. our magnetic field limits the age of the earth to less than 25,000 years old. the earth has lost 6% of its magnetic strength over that past 150 years. and of course if you throw millions of years in there that fixes everything? uhm no, you have to have millions of years or else your theory look even more dumb.


alright, this is a very, very silly creationist concept.

but i'll just go ahead and quote talkorigins on the subject



2. Decay of the Earth's magnetic field

The young-Earth argument: the dipole component of the magnetic field has decreased slightly over the time that it has been measured. Assuming the generally accepted "dynamo theory" for the existence of the Earth's magnetic field is wrong, the mechanism might instead be an initially created field which has been losing strength ever since the creation event. An exponential fit (assuming a half-life of 1400 years on 130 years' worth of measurements) yields an impossibly high magnetic field even 8000 years ago, therefore the Earth must be young. The main proponent of this argument was Thomas Barnes.

There are several things wrong with this "dating" mechanism. It's hard to just list them all. The primary four are:

1. While there is no complete model to the geodynamo (certain key properties of the core are unknown), there are reasonable starts and there are no good reasons for rejecting such an entity out of hand. If it is possible for energy to be added to the field, then the extrapolation is useless.

2. There is overwhelming evidence that the magnetic field has reversed itself, rendering any unidirectional extrapolation on total energy useless. Even some young-Earthers admit to that these days -- e.g., Humphreys (1988).

3. Much of the energy in the field is almost certainly not even visible external to the core. This means that the extrapolation rests on the assumption that fluctuations in the observable portion of the field accurately represent fluctuations in its total energy.
4. Barnes' extrapolation completely ignores the nondipole component of the field. Even if we grant that it is permissible to ignore portions of the field that are internal to the core, Barnes' extrapolation also ignores portions of the field which are visible and instead rests on extrapolation of a theoretical entity.

That last part is more important than it may sound. The Earth's magnetic field is often split in two components when measured. The "dipole" component is the part which approximates a theoretically perfect field around a single magnet, and the "nondipole" components are the ("messy") remainder. A study in the 1960s showed that the decrease in the dipole component since the turn of the century had been nearly completely compensated by an increase in the strength of the nondipole components of the field. (In other words, the measurements show that the field has been diverging from the shape that would be expected of a theoretical ideal magnet, more than the amount of energy has actually been changing.) Barnes' extrapolation therefore does not really rest on the change in energy of the field.

For information, see Dalrymple (1984, pp. 106-108) or Strahler (1987, pp. 150-155) .

www.talkorigins.org...

by the way, radiometric dating is a far, far more accurate method.




oh that makes a lot of sense. how do you know you can if you havent yet? thats like me saying I can fly like superman... I havent but I can.


theories make predictions
that's how we knew we'd find a discrepancy between the DNA of humans and that of other apes.
that's how we knew we'd find certain tetrapod fossils
we used a theory to make a prediction that came true.



evidence? from what materials? what experiment are you refering to?


well, i'm referring to several experiments being conducted. i don't feel like getting myself to do the legwork at the moment, but the materials would be proteins and proto-rna



and getting the buliding blocks for life does not give you life. it gives you the material for life. now put all these things in the right order (btw which is thousands of things that have to be in precise order). I can get a bunch of wood together, doesnt mean I can build a house, I gotta have the right pieces, right sizes, etc...


and a ridiculously high number of chances were given for these things to arise, and they're far less complicated than a house and don't require "thousands" of parts.

now, here's something i told you


and aspirin and ibuprofen do fix the cause of the problem...


and here is your reply


have you ever read the warning labels? you will see what I am talking about.


you didn't address the function of aspirin or ibuprofen
they treat the cause of headaches, that's how they work.
the symptom is pain
the cause of the pain is relieved at the same time as the symptom.
sure, sometimes pills have adverse side effects, but they put things in warning labels for legal reasons. if something occurred in 1 out of 1 million people, they'd still put it there to cover themselves

out of room, will post tomorrow to deal with the rest.



posted on Mar, 27 2008 @ 06:26 AM
link   
lol ok man whatever you say, lets review... shall we?



i said that the claim wasn't disproven, not that life had already been created in a lab.

you actually said "...we can. we haven't, but we can" and this makes no sense at all. how do you know we can if we havent? doing it would actually prove that we can. you fail to see that your own logic is a failure.



yes, it selects from mutations that are already there. the mutations are the new information to select form.

i cant believe you just made that contrdicting statement. mutations arent new information, it is either A. a loss of information B. a scrambling of existing information C. a copying of existing information
none of these make anything new, adaptation is something that is already available it just has to rearrange information. mutations never make anything new, and are almost always 100% non-beneficial.



you're parroting the misconception that dinosaurs were reptiles.

well lets look at the definition of Dinosaur - means "terrible lizard"
last I checked, lizards are reptiles and yes your archeoptryx has been debunked already many times many places on the internet. and the velociraptor? hah why didnt they show that in Jurassic Park? scales do not count as feathers, just because they are made from the same protein doesnt make them the same. hairs to not count as feathers either.
you should porbably do some independant research on reptiles and their growth to find out how we got dinosaurs (formerly known as dragons) in the first place.



no, he didn't. again you're parroting a misconception.


uhm are you sure you understood those two references he gave? you might want to re-read those two and understand what he said. first of all he said it was absurd to even think that the eye evolved form natural selection, then he goes on to say that even the theory itself of how it could have happened is more of the imagination and not really a good theory.
man we really need to work on your comprehension skills.



sharks have been around for ages, but there are still evolutionary changes to them.

yeah and guess what, the trilobytes are still trilobytes and shark and still sharks... this only proves what the bible says... "they will bring forth after their kind". you blow me away with you logic. so this proves that "all plants and animals throughout all space and times are related to each other"?



posted on Mar, 27 2008 @ 09:49 AM
link   
ok, continuing my last post, don't worry, i'll reply to everything you've said.


here's something i said


actually, many still use the whole "crop rotation" thing
and you forgot the rise of fertilizers. fertilizers work better than leaving land fallow
crop rotation works better than leaving the land fallow


to which you replied with something that doesn't even address how crop rotation is superior to leaving land fallow, the system your deity supposedly devised.


Originally posted by Methuselah
uhm, have you ever researched on what happens with the fertilizers and hormones and all the other chemicals they pump into the ground, yeah they may be good for the plants growth, but it gets passed onto human beings and animals which is the bad part.


...how does putting ammonia and urea into soil negatively impact my health?
those are two of the most common fertilizers...in fact, fertilizers in general have absolutely no adverse impact on health
and hormones?
which hormones? how do they negatively impact my health?



this stuff is learned in high school in biology class (ecosystems). and in order to survive in todays world, farmers have to use whatever they can to keep their income.


...this doesn't establish your post as fact.




hah wow, you dont research too many things on your own do you?


i actually do, i just tend to steer clear of things that are unscientific and i don't expect to have to do so when someone else is making a claim in a discussion.
it's your burden to do the research and provide it here.



all you gotta do is read the back of most food boxes and even google a few things.


...i actually do read the back of food boxes



preservatives are bad for the human body, thats why some food companies are trying to find ways to get them out of foods. because they are bad for the human body and are being forced out of foods because people finally caught on.


ok, give me evidence for it



hereis a link on othehr reasons why white flour is bad for you (white flour is how they make white bread (duh)).


...you never specified which type of bread is bad for you. you simply said "bread"
never white bread.
you're changing your argument now.

now, to reference one article from the source you provided

How does alloxan cause diabetes? According to Dr. Hari Sharma's Freedom from Disease(snip)


that's all i need...
it's not scientific literature. it 's a book. it's an attempt to make money....not legit science.



im sure you can google each of the items I gave you and find that they are good for the heart and circulation system,


i'd rather not have to go through the trouble, i'm doing enough having to respond to 2 1/2 posts.



you just want to know how I know they removed it from bread... linky
most sites wont publish this sort of information because they would rather you buy drugs than bake your own bread.


...you know, you can buy whole wheat bread...it's not that hard...it's available at every single supermarket in america.

again with the source lacking proper citation. sure, for some small claims it does actually make a reference...but it doesn't show anything about it's biggest claims, like how eating white bread causes cancer.



oh and what does wikisay about vitamin deficiency? this page includes some cancers?


...it never says anywhere that cancer is linked to vitamin deficiency, it says that it can be linked to nutrition problems.
you're actively skewing a fact

in fact, it's under the subpoint of malnutrition, not vitamin deficiency...
and here's the direct quote



Developed countries “tended to have cancers linked to affluence or a "Western lifestyle" – cancers of the colon, rectum, breast and prostate – that can be caused by obesity, lack of exercise, diet and age


odd that it doesn't say "vitamin deficiency" anywhere in that...



wonder why they only say some cancers... probably because they want people to believe that all cancers are different when they are not. different locations in the body but the same issue.


...now you're demonstrating a complete misunderstanding of cancer. different causes. skin cancer is a completely different issue than lung cancer



fine I will, doesnt mean you are gonna believe it.
wiki link for nutrition proves many of the things I have same before.


...ok, but can you directly point out what proves what?
you're throwing a 9600+ word article at me and telling me that it proves your statements. i don't need all that info, only what proves what you said.



lead in vitamins:
link 1


...lead was found in 1 multivitamin...
1
so it's "lead in vitamin"

Most worrisome, according to ConsumerLab.com president Dr. Tod Cooperman, is that one product, The Vitamin Shoppe Multivitamins Especially for Women, was contaminated with lead.




link 2


this is a rehash of the MSN article.



you mentioned before lead being found near vitamins? of course its near the vitamin, its in the same dag-on pill! ignorance isnt bliss



...ok, now you're actively misconstruing my statements. i was asking if you were talking about a vitamin or a multivitamin pill, i'll even provide the quote

originally posted by me:


...lead cannot be found in vitamins
lead can be found near a vitamin
but not inside of it...
unless you're talking about a multivitamin, which simply contains many vitamins
but i don't think you have anything to back this claim up anyway




oh and here is how Vitamin b17 works
VB17


again, no academic references and it starts out entirely unscientifically.


If you believe in God the logic of how B17 kills cancer will be easy to accept and understand when you realise that God has given our bodies a natural defense against cancer which is determined by the food or junk we eat in our diet.


...logic stands alone. something is either logically valid or it isn't, regardless of what someone's stance on religion is....
it does, however, say that it doesn't matter if you believe in god or not in the next paragraph

however, i must point out, i checked the references page and not a single academic paper is there, not a single piece of real science. no double blind trials, nadda, zip, nothing.

it does, however, provide me with 8 books i can buy
who was it that said money is the root of all evil?



and for the rest of the vitamin deficiencies you can just google those yourself,


again, not my burden. you have to back up your own claim with your own evidence.



im sure over half of them appear on wiki (good source)




I already showed you half, must I go on to prove you even more wrong? havent you had enough?


wow, the arrogance is seething from this tiny bit...
you've yet to prove anything so far except that you buy into alarmism by making a case of 1 multivitamin containing lead into all of them, that you accept ideas without science when they tell you that the science is conspiring against you, and that you don't really look for references.



and recent studies hide a lot of things because all they care about is money.


...what would a university professor who doesn't get paid by the pharma industry care about money?
why isn't there any independent research to back up any of the claims you're making?

anyway, time to reply to the next post



posted on Mar, 27 2008 @ 10:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by Methuselah
uhm duh! I was using your logic.


...no, you weren't. you seem to not even grasp the concept of logical validity.



we cant fix the cause? thats the biggest bunch of BS I have ever heard of. and here is why...


...there are cases where we've yet to fix the cause. we've never cured a virus, for example.



oh so far from the truth... drug comapnies to not make money when you are well...


...drug companies aren't what i was talking about, i was talking about academia.



love of money = root of all evil... remember?


...genocide?
i'm quite sure genocides aren't caused by money
just wanted to point out the big, gaping hole in that idea.



thats why they take those things out of bread, thats why they put bad things in the food and the vitamins. thats why conventional therapy is being pushed aside because it actually fixes the cause.


conventional therapy can cure a virus?
wow, please, show me how



you still dont see the big picture here. people who love money do what they can to keep their money even at the cost of other peoples suffering.


...again, you don't see the picture at all here. there are many, many sources outside of the control of people who "love money" that could easily refute any idea that's established if it was obviously false.




dude can you not read and comprehend? rape is a an act of adultery... first of all its premarital sex, second its caused by lust, and third its shedding innocent blood. and often times it results in murder... wow didnt think the bible covered that? read it again...


what if you rape your wife? that sure as hell isn't adultery, and it's actually one of the more common forms of rape.
and nothing in the 10 commandments mentions lust...
and nothing in the 10 commandments mentions the shedding of innocent blood...
and rape doesn't result in murder, people who are raped are sometimes murdered.

way to skew the facts




the 10 commandments are an awesome set of rules, yes hard to follow but the results are even more ridiculously great.


um...



and the whole women = property.... uhm no... read again. Genesis says man and woman shall be one flesh...


...but the 10 commandments places a woman in the same category as a donkey with regards to things not to covet.



Colossions 3:19 says "wives submit yourselves unto your husbands, as this is fit in the Lord" this is not a contradiction this is simply placing responsability upon the husband. you cannot have two one one throne, you can only have one. so what this is saying is if it comes down to it, the wife is to submit to the husband and the husband is to take responsability for what happens. and I Peter 3 explains it in further detail. you need to work on you comprehension skills.


and i think you need to work on your manners...
and your common decency....and your sexism
a relationship isn't a situation where one person takes responsibility and the other is submissive...in fact, i'm going to ignore this point as i could fill out the rest of the 6000 characters i have left just to argue it. if we want to talk about your demeaning of women, we can do it in another thread...




yeah apparently you decided to miss the part where I said "moreso our bodies are designed to utilize these substances to keep our bodies healthy"


...there's far more iron on this planet than a population of 6.7 billion people needs...



I suggest you read II Peter 3 and comprehend what it means.


...sorry, no. i've read that drivel too many times. the bible, yes, most of it is drivel written by ignorant people in the bronze and iron ages.

on to the next thing...



posted on Mar, 27 2008 @ 10:24 AM
link   
reply to post by Methuselah
 


you know, you could have been polite and let me respond to the rest of your stuff before giving me even more to respond to...


Originally posted by Methuselah
lol ok man whatever you say, lets review... shall we?


see? that's a thing you need, politeness.



you actually said "...we can. we haven't, but we can" and this makes no sense at all. how do you know we can if we havent? doing it would actually prove that we can. you fail to see that your own logic is a failure.


...and you're ignoring where i explained that point.

let me repeat what i said

theories make predictions
that's how we knew we'd find a discrepancy between the DNA of humans and that of other apes.
that's how we knew we'd find certain tetrapod fossils
we used a theory to make a prediction that came true.

the point being that the prediction of the theory is that we can do that in a lab...so far the predictions of our theory have yet to be disproven.




i cant believe you just made that contrdicting statement. mutations arent new information, it is either A. a loss of information B. a scrambling of existing information C. a copying of existing information
none of these make anything new, adaptation is something that is already available it just has to rearrange information. mutations never make anything new, and are almost always 100% non-beneficial.


oh really?
www.nmsr.org...
the nylon bug is an example of a mutation that provided new information and was 100% beneficial.
it can eat nylon now, that's a benefit for it because it doesn't have to compete with anything for a food source.

www.gate.net...

here's more information on mutation that entirely refutes what you just said...





you're parroting the misconception that dinosaurs were reptiles.

well lets look at the definition of Dinosaur - means "terrible lizard" last I checked, lizards are reptiles


...semantics.
a lable doesn't define what something is.



and yes your archeoptryx has been debunked already many times many places on the internet.


...really?
your beloved wiki seems to disagree
en.wikipedia.org...



and the velociraptor? hah why didnt they show that in Jurassic Park?


...because jurassic park was a very inaccurate movie



scales do not count as feathers, just because they are made from the same protein doesnt make them the same. hairs to not count as feathers either.


...um...i'm talking feathers. like on a bird. not hairs.
again from wiki, since it's very easy
en.wikipedia.org...




you should porbably do some independant research on reptiles and their growth to find out how we got dinosaurs (formerly known as dragons) in the first place.


again...misconceptions.



uhm are you sure you understood those two references he gave? you might want to re-read those two and understand what he said. first of all he said it was absurd to even think that the eye evolved form natural selection, then he goes on to say that even the theory itself of how it could have happened is more of the imagination and not really a good theory.
man we really need to work on your comprehension skills.


...no, you need to work on your comprehension skills. and your politeness.

he goes on to say that many, many theories that are true have seemed impossible, like heliocentrism.

then he goes on to demonstrate how it would be shown through science...


Reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist, each grade being useful to its possessor, as is certainly the case; if further, the eye ever varies and the variations be inherited, as is likewise certainly the case and if such variations should be useful to any animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, should not be considered as subversive of the theory.

origin of species, 1859

hmm...
seems like you're wrong.



yeah and guess what, the trilobytes are still trilobytes and shark and still sharks... this only proves what the bible says... "they will bring forth after their kind".


...sharks are numerous species
and actually...trilobites are extinct.
where the hell are you getting information that a trilobite is alive, let alone that one has a complex eye?
you're 100% wrong.

en.wikipedia.org...

Trilobites are extinct arthropods that form the class Trilobita




you blow me away with you logic. so this proves that "all plants and animals throughout all space and times are related to each other"?



posted on Mar, 27 2008 @ 01:28 PM
link   
well dude, I apologize for my lack of politeness I just cant see from your point of view.
there are two interpretations of everything we see (ie Creationist view and Evolutionist view) I see things one way and you see things another. you think that science has proven all these things, while I think we have dirty scientists and media that protect the evolution theory with all that they can. kinda hard to catch on when you have the people in charge going bad.

anyway, most people dont want to believe in what they cannot see as well as what is very unthinkable but most likely true. im gonna leave this thread alone because its probably never gonna end, you arent going to convince me because of this huge theory I have worked up about evolution tied in with FDA and drug companies not telling us about cures we should know about and how they put bad things in drugs/multivitamins also tied in with the NWO and how thats gonna take place which is also tied in with a couple conspiracies such as 9/11, oklahoma city bombing, TWA flight 800 which also ties in with philosphies of many sorts, which also ties in with with great number of things that all tie back into this evolution theory which greatly influences peoples philosphy.

all of this makes perfect sense to me and its also something the bible predicts which makes to even more believable.

im not going to waste my time anymore.... but since you are an atheist, let me ask you this.... you dont believe in God right? i assume your answer is yes, you do not.
now i know that you dont know everything, neither do I. but lets just assume you knew half of everything.... is it possble that God exists in the other half you dont know?
is it possible that he allows these things to happen for a reason? a reason beyond your understanding? and even tho there is a chance that evolution could have taken place, does it necessarily mean that it did?

i dont think you fully understand what you believe in and why you believe in it. I know that sounds harsh but i see it to be true.

... anyway, im out. hope you think about what I said and I hope you get saved sometime soon. you have the faith, just faith in what i see as the wrong thing.


Later

[edit on 27-3-2008 by Methuselah]

[edit on 27-3-2008 by Methuselah]

[edit on 28-3-2008 by Methuselah]



posted on Mar, 28 2008 @ 02:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by babloyi

Originally posted by Ersatz
There is no (that is none, zero, zilch) evidence that Jesus ever existed.
He was not a liar or madman or God, he just did not happen.
Jesus is a fairy tale, he is imaginary.

He was a sun god like Horus, Tammuz, Mithras. Nazareth did not exist in the 1st century AD – the area was a burial ground of rock-cut tombs.
Following a star would lead you in circles.
Jesus was only given the status of "divine" after the Council of Nicea in325 ad.

What hystorical evidence are you talking about?


I love arguing against myself!

There is plenty of evidence that Jesus existed, mostly in the form of writing. Sure, it may be biased, being that it's all in favour of him existing and being a really important guy, and the fact that it's collected together in a book that many people believe to be fictitious, but it's still evidence. A group of people won't spontaneously come up with an idea to create the character of Jesus, the true, successful Messiah, just for the heck of it.

People have been using stars as a method of navigation for thousands of years. Why do you think it's called the North Star?


There is also plenty of written stories about another savior who was said to come to save the universe from a terrible evil. He was born from a fallen "angel" so to speak. He has lead enough of the planet to follow his teachings that according to u.s. statistics it is now a recognized religion. This man was named Luke Skywalker!!!!! i wonder if in 3000 years people will consider the books of starwars religious????



edit: just a personal comment here. Science has never killed anyone who diddn't believe in evolution.. can the same be said about creationism????? Only tyrrants force beliefs on people. But hey what do i know? maybe science is so dirty and evil that it diobolicly lets people believe whatever they want... thats the worst kind of evil!!!!

[edit on 28-3-2008 by Ogre14t]

[edit on 28-3-2008 by Ogre14t]



posted on Mar, 28 2008 @ 03:51 PM
link   
UFOs are evidence of our creators(God). Also, the evidence that the Loch Ness monster dinosaur exists while humans are partly made of primate DNA and blood proove that we were created and did not evolve from scratch.



posted on Mar, 28 2008 @ 04:15 PM
link   



".God."


Put a label on anything

Imagination

First look and observe the room that you are in
Have that image memorized
Close eyelids
Can you see the room you are in with eyelids closed?





top topics
 
6
<< 20  21  22   >>

log in

join