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.
This ↑ one =
some idiot rolling around on the floor speaking in tongues may be all the evidence you need to prove Christianity.
Now that's just pure evil. Trees are extremely useful.
[color=F3F768]you don't even flinch when hearing about how God/Jehovahslaughtered all the babies of Egypt in Exodus and[color=F3F768]ordered the elimination ofentire ethnic groups in "Joshua" including women, children, and[color=F3F768]trees!
Originally posted by charles1952
reply to post by anthonygillespie2012
That was a pretty vigorous attack, all right. And it met with a lot of approval, I can see the stars and flags.
Tell me, what is the purpose of your post. Is it to persuade Christians they are believing in a false religion? If so, then Christianity's defenders can come out for a discussion.
Is it to tell Christians as individuals that they are stupid?
Is it to tell Christians that they should be as kind, polite, gentle, loving, and thoughtful as you are?
When I know the answer, it will be easier to know how to respond.
Originally posted by charles1952
reply to post by anthonygillespie2012
That was a pretty vigorous attack, all right. And it met with a lot of approval, I can see the stars and flags.
Tell me, what is the purpose of your post. Is it to persuade Christians they are believing in a false religion? If so, then Christianity's defenders can come out for a discussion.
Is it to tell Christians as individuals that they are stupid?
Is it to tell Christians that they should be as kind, polite, gentle, loving, and thoughtful as you are?
When I know the answer, it will be easier to know how to respond.
Originally posted by ItsEvolutionBaby
You will proudly admit to voting for which ever political party your church tells you to.
Usually ultra right-wingers.
Originally posted by HeFrippedMeOff
nowhere in scripture have I found as to how long Adam and Eve remained in the garden as perfect creations. Therefore, the age of the Earth could very well be much older than a mere 6000 years as some Christians may propose but I am not one of those proponents.
And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died.
Originally posted by SaturnFX
Originally posted by HeFrippedMeOff
nowhere in scripture have I found as to how long Adam and Eve remained in the garden as perfect creations. Therefore, the age of the Earth could very well be much older than a mere 6000 years as some Christians may propose but I am not one of those proponents.
I won't even start at the mountain of absolute and near baffling ignorance of the science you are bringing to light. just too much, and I am of the opinion that with soo much information on this website alone, much less the whole net..you are specifically choosing to remain completely ignorant of actual science and understanding.
your choice
So, will just put a hammer to this one part of yours..the book your cherish so much, and how you fail at even understanding that
Gen 5:5
And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died.
he was 930 years...day to night, etc...not 4 billion years old...he was 930.
the only way to debate that is to deny the bible, and if you do that...well, then everything you wrote crumbles..so, yes..if you follow the biblically stated lineage...the world is around 6000 years old. just deal with that and don't pretend any of your beliefs may have some scientific merit..
and don't try to bs your way out of it either...its trash..you either go with narnia or science...don't try to straddle your legs for the benefit of those not in the know..just makes you either a liar, or ignorant of your own religion.
Originally posted by HeFrippedMeOff
930 years from the day he began to die, from the day he was cast out of the garden.
6000 years as from the moment when man fell into sin.
Nothing about the scripture you provide necessitates a 6000 year old earth, only 6000 years of mankind since we fell into sin.
Truly, we don't know but the fact that the possibility exists means that "science" can't disprove the bible in this case. Is that why you sound so angry?edit on 9-2-2012 by HeFrippedMeOff because: addition
Originally posted by SaturnFX
Originally posted by HeFrippedMeOff
930 years from the day he began to die, from the day he was cast out of the garden.
6000 years as from the moment when man fell into sin.
Nothing about the scripture you provide necessitates a 6000 year old earth, only 6000 years of mankind since we fell into sin.
Truly, we don't know but the fact that the possibility exists means that "science" can't disprove the bible in this case. Is that why you sound so angry?edit on 9-2-2012 by HeFrippedMeOff because: addition
Was he alive in the garden? yes or no binary question
If yes, then he was alive, as stated in Gen 5:5, then he lived for 930 years
If no, then many errors pop up about breathing life into the mud and muck, etc...and the passage of how he -lived- is incorrect
you are making stuff up where it doesn't make sense, and in turn, going fully against what the words say because it doesnt suit your understandings.
Science disproving what part of the bible in specific btw?
Originally posted by HeFrippedMeOff
by the way carbon dating really is only accurate up to about 10k years.
There are about two dozen decay pairs used for dating. Uranium 235 decay to lead has a half-life of 713 million years, so it is well suited to dating the universe. other isotope pairs cover intermediate time periods between the spans for carbon 14 and uranium.
Originally posted by SaturnFX
Originally posted by HeFrippedMeOff
by the way carbon dating really is only accurate up to about 10k years.
Hense why they don't use carbon 14 dating for discussions about things over 10k years (given the nitrogen halflife is about 5700ish years)
but radiometric dating is quite accurate.
consider this
There are about two dozen decay pairs used for dating. Uranium 235 decay to lead has a half-life of 713 million years, so it is well suited to dating the universe. other isotope pairs cover intermediate time periods between the spans for carbon 14 and uranium.
You are saying the C14 tests (the beginning half to test for relatively young things..for instance ancient ruins and such) doesn't work, therefore the rest of the tests, used for progressively longer timeframes, also don't work..but give no reason
Stop listening to your preacher that denies you objectivity and skepticism...dig for yourself..toss out the websites that will give you a 1/24th of a truth and say that is the full truth.
humor thread my butt..this is a valid topic. thread should be moved..but ok, not gonna comment anymore unless it is moved.
Biblescience.org reads:The validity of radiometric dating depends upon the three listed assumptions being correct. The decay rate being a constant is probably true but the other two are questionable (what was the parent/daughter ratio when the object being tested was "created"; and the assumption that there has been no loss or addition of the parent or daughter component throughout its history). Scientists, of course, try to correct for these flaws through techniques such as carefully choosing the samples, dating multiple samples, etc. However, there are many cited cases of inconsistent dating results where the obtained date was very different from the expected date based on the position of the rock in the geologic column (see Woodmorappe, "Studies in Flood Geology", where over 300 major inconsistencies are documented), and results where lava flow rocks of a known recent age were dated to millions of years old (such as at Grand Canyon, as documented by ICR scientists). There is also the issue of "selective publication", where the reported dates will always tend to be those that fall into the "already known to be approximately correct" range, while other samples giving the "wrong date" "must be bad".
Creationists have also advanced theories which may explain why rock samples appear to have old ages, and question the validity of the "isochron" dating procedure, which uses multiple samples. The bottom line is that radiometric dating procedures don't provide the consistent absolute dating method we would like to have.