Author

Topic: Evolution is a hoax - page 163. (Read 108046 times)

hero member
Activity: 574
Merit: 500
August 31, 2017, 02:31:39 AM
if so then please tell me the purpose of your life and what are the chances you will die before fulfilling the purpose.........

Purpose of my life and your life is to reproduce.  

The chances of that happening before I die is none of your business.   Grin

You see? Its ancient fertility rites of the idol freia all that nature bs.

Evolution is nothing else but what is written in the Bible as fertility cult. Worshipping of sex and death.

You think yourself so modern. All things already was. As some saying goes - a lot have to change for things to be how they are.

There will be a restoration of roman empire soon as far as I see this all sociotechniques and manipalutions.
Vod
legendary
Activity: 3668
Merit: 3010
Licking my boob since 1970
August 31, 2017, 01:59:17 AM
if so then please tell me the purpose of your life and what are the chances you will die before fulfilling the purpose.........

Purpose of my life and your life is to reproduce. 

The chances of that happening before I die is none of your business.   Grin
member
Activity: 78
Merit: 10
August 31, 2017, 01:55:08 AM
One and a half billion Christians and Jews in the world show that there is strength in the Bible.

No one reads the bible on their own - everyone is brainwashed, usually by their parents.  That's how ignorance spreads - through families.  That's why those people whose parents were not christian will not become christian themselves.  There is no draw to the bible - no strength in it at all.

You can say anything that you want. But the fact of some kind of strength in the Bible regarding how it acts within the hearts of people is very evident around the world. WHY does it work this way? Without God, nobody knows. But it does.

You can say anything you want, but your god exists only in your fairy tale.

That's why science explains everything, while your bible explains nothing.

Cool

if so then please tell me the purpose of your life and what are the chances you will die before fulfilling the purpose.........
Vod
legendary
Activity: 3668
Merit: 3010
Licking my boob since 1970
August 31, 2017, 01:38:34 AM
darwin was a mad man .........  he failed to prove the evolution of man .......

Church has failed to prove the existence of any of the millions of gods people believe in.  And they have been brainwashing for many centuries, even murdering people who did not believe.  And yet education spread and here we are today. 

Cool
member
Activity: 78
Merit: 10
August 31, 2017, 01:31:28 AM
darwin was a mad man .........  he failed to prove the evolution of man .......
Vod
legendary
Activity: 3668
Merit: 3010
Licking my boob since 1970
August 31, 2017, 12:58:40 AM
One and a half billion Christians and Jews in the world show that there is strength in the Bible.

No one reads the bible on their own - everyone is brainwashed, usually by their parents.  That's how ignorance spreads - through families.  That's why those people whose parents were not christian will not become christian themselves.  There is no draw to the bible - no strength in it at all.

You can say anything that you want. But the fact of some kind of strength in the Bible regarding how it acts within the hearts of people is very evident around the world. WHY does it work this way? Without God, nobody knows. But it does.

You can say anything you want, but your god exists only in your fairy tale.

That's why science explains everything, while your bible explains nothing.

Cool
legendary
Activity: 3906
Merit: 1373
August 30, 2017, 10:27:11 PM

See, there is no logic to your statements. ''what was written there was so smart it could not be made by stupid homo sapiens. '' Seriously? What was so smart about the bible. I have seen movie plots far far better and more intelligent than the bible. That's your problem, cognitive dissonance. You are skeptic about everything but your retarded book.

The importance of the Bible is based on the fact that God exists. If God didn't exist, the Bible would still be important, but not nearly as much as it is.

If God didn't exist, the Bible would be important because is shows what works for best free living, for the general populace. This is shown in the historical record of the people of ancient Israel in the the Old Testament. Here is what it amounts to:

1. Moses wrote the first 5 books of the Bible. For whatever reason, the info in these books is so important in the eyes of many people, that even after 3500 years, the laws in these books are being strictly adhered to by millions. The point isn't WHY. The point is that it is working this way. The WHY might be debatable all over the place. But the fact that it is working is true.

2. The examples of what happened to the O.T. Israel people when they followed/didn't follow the laws of Moses that are written in the first 5 books, fill much of the O.T.  WHY did it work this way for Ancient Israel? Who knows?... if there isn't any God. Something in the writings of these first 5 books touches the hearts of people and nations so strongly, that the record shows us that if we obey the first 5, we have a better life. If we don't obey, we are ultimately destroyed as a nation. The examples of this are found throughout the O.T.

3. Much of the poetry in the O.T. - especially the Psalms - seem to strengthen the heart in directions of obeying what is written in the first 5 books. WHY? Perhaps nobody know... if God doesn't exist. But it works. People in churches have a better life from being strengthened by the poetry. Coincube has listed all sorts of studies that show this in his Health and Religion thread. WHY does it work? Perhaps nobody really knows. The fact is, it works.

4. One and a half billion Christians and Jews in the world show that there is strength in the Bible. If there wasn't, there wouldn't be these Bible people. WHY does it work like this? Without God, nobody knows. But it DOES work. The evidence that these people exist is available all over the world.

5. There are something like 25,000 hand-written copies of the O.T. from times before the printing press. No other book even approaches that many hand-written copies. WHY? Who knows? It might be a fluke. But there is a good chance that the O.T. touches the hearts of people so that their lives are changed by it. Again, WHY? Perhaps nobody knows... if God doesn't exist. But it is a fact.


Of course, if God exists, the whole reason for the strength of the Bible becomes a bit clearer.

You can say anything that you want. But the fact of some kind of strength in the Bible regarding how it acts within the hearts of people is very evident around the world. WHY does it work this way? Without God, nobody knows. But it does.

Cool
hero member
Activity: 1624
Merit: 645
August 30, 2017, 05:10:59 PM


It's true that some of them may not be constant after all, however some of the dating methods there are not always about a particle decaying or a constant and yet all of the dating methods show the same thing. You can even prove earth is older than what the bible suggest with goddamn tree rings, give me a break.

I have ment ALL of your silly list of great 33 is made of corruptible one place, one time mathematical constants of make belief. If you want to believe in scientology number based religion - your choice.

If you are that skeptic then there is no point in believing anything. Every piece of history that is older than a few hundred years could be fake, every witness of any event could be fake, false or wrong. Literally anything can be wrong if you have that mindset yet you very easily believe what a book tells you, how is that? How is it that you are so skeptic about things that have been studied and applied scientifically and yet believe so easily what a stupid book tells you? That's what baffles me the most, religious extremists are extremely skeptic about anything related with science yet a book that has not been verified by anything or anyone with a very very silly story is something very easy for them to believe, can you explain that to me?

Even if all the science is wrong, all of it, why would you choose to believe in that book? I just don't get it.

sorry for late answer. Wrong constant. Tree rings = Not scientific way to count years.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2jzg_QwMk0E

rings signify - a lot of rain, no rain, a lot, no rain. That could be more than 3 times a year.

The same you can do with the rest of your silly 33.

If one is realy stubborn like Kent Hovind is - he probably have the answer. I was not as stubborn to watch all his videos.

Quote
Even if all the science is wrong, all of it, why would you choose to believe in that book? I just don't get it.

For me, what was written there was so smart it could not be made by stupid homo sapiens.

See, there is no logic to your statements. ''what was written there was so smart it could not be made by stupid homo sapiens. '' Seriously? What was so smart about the bible. I have seen movie plots far far better and more intelligent than the bible. That's your problem, cognitive dissonance. You are skeptic about everything but your retarded book.
Vod
legendary
Activity: 3668
Merit: 3010
Licking my boob since 1970
August 30, 2017, 03:46:31 PM
I'm off to the Guns N Roses concert.  Smiley

I'd ask someone to explain to poor old Przemax how tree rings work, but he'll just say it's science fiction. 
member
Activity: 60
Merit: 10
August 30, 2017, 03:37:58 PM
Well I don't think that evolution is a hoax because according to darwin's theory of survival of the fittest the species which is most adaptive and resistant to environmental stresses will survive and the other will be extinct in  the course of time and this is relevant   There are many species which have been extinct from earth because they were not able to cope up with the environmental stresses or stresses brought by man and resulted in extinction.
Vod
legendary
Activity: 3668
Merit: 3010
Licking my boob since 1970
August 30, 2017, 03:21:45 PM
No it does not. Educate yourself.

I already explained it to you what is the definition of fairy tale. You seem to live in one.

Yes it does.  Smiley  Educate yourself.

How does a fairy tale create a world?
hero member
Activity: 574
Merit: 500
August 30, 2017, 03:20:23 PM
rings signify - a lot of rain, no rain, a lot, no rain. That could be more than 3 times a year.

The thickness of the ring indicates the amount of rain.  There is only one ring per year.

How does a fairy tale create a world?  

Cool

No it does not. Educate yourself.

I already explained it to you what is the definition of fairy tale. You seem to live in one.
Vod
legendary
Activity: 3668
Merit: 3010
Licking my boob since 1970
August 30, 2017, 03:17:54 PM
rings signify - a lot of rain, no rain, a lot, no rain. That could be more than 3 times a year.

The thickness of the ring indicates the amount of rain.  There is only one ring per year.

How does a fairy tale create a world? 

Cool
hero member
Activity: 574
Merit: 500
August 30, 2017, 03:09:58 PM


It's true that some of them may not be constant after all, however some of the dating methods there are not always about a particle decaying or a constant and yet all of the dating methods show the same thing. You can even prove earth is older than what the bible suggest with goddamn tree rings, give me a break.

I have ment ALL of your silly list of great 33 is made of corruptible one place, one time mathematical constants of make belief. If you want to believe in scientology number based religion - your choice.

If you are that skeptic then there is no point in believing anything. Every piece of history that is older than a few hundred years could be fake, every witness of any event could be fake, false or wrong. Literally anything can be wrong if you have that mindset yet you very easily believe what a book tells you, how is that? How is it that you are so skeptic about things that have been studied and applied scientifically and yet believe so easily what a stupid book tells you? That's what baffles me the most, religious extremists are extremely skeptic about anything related with science yet a book that has not been verified by anything or anyone with a very very silly story is something very easy for them to believe, can you explain that to me?

Even if all the science is wrong, all of it, why would you choose to believe in that book? I just don't get it.

sorry for late answer. Wrong constant. Tree rings = Not scientific way to count years.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2jzg_QwMk0E

rings signify - a lot of rain, no rain, a lot, no rain. That could be more than 3 times a year.

The same you can do with the rest of your silly 33.

If one is realy stubborn like Kent Hovind is - he probably have the answer. I was not as stubborn to watch all his videos.

Quote
Even if all the science is wrong, all of it, why would you choose to believe in that book? I just don't get it.

For me, what was written there was so smart it could not be made by stupid homo sapiens.
hero member
Activity: 1624
Merit: 645
August 30, 2017, 03:05:28 PM


It's true that some of them may not be constant after all, however some of the dating methods there are not always about a particle decaying or a constant and yet all of the dating methods show the same thing. You can even prove earth is older than what the bible suggest with goddamn tree rings, give me a break.

I have ment ALL of your silly list of great 33 is made of corruptible one place, one time mathematical constants of make belief. If you want to believe in scientology number based religion - your choice.

If you are that skeptic then there is no point in believing anything. Every piece of history that is older than a few hundred years could be fake, every witness of any event could be fake, false or wrong. Literally anything can be wrong if you have that mindset yet you very easily believe what a book tells you, how is that? How is it that you are so skeptic about things that have been studied and applied scientifically and yet believe so easily what a stupid book tells you? That's what baffles me the most, religious extremists are extremely skeptic about anything related with science yet a book that has not been verified by anything or anyone with a very very silly story is something very easy for them to believe, can you explain that to me?

Even if all the science is wrong, all of it, why would you choose to believe in that book? I just don't get it.
hero member
Activity: 574
Merit: 500
August 30, 2017, 02:55:53 PM


It's true that some of them may not be constant after all, however some of the dating methods there are not always about a particle decaying or a constant and yet all of the dating methods show the same thing. You can even prove earth is older than what the bible suggest with goddamn tree rings, give me a break.

I have ment ALL of your silly list of great 33 is made of corruptible one place, one time mathematical constants of make belief. If you want to believe in scientology number based religion - your choice.

for example tree ring folly:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2jzg_QwMk0E

wrong constant assumption.
hero member
Activity: 1624
Merit: 645
August 30, 2017, 02:35:56 PM
Hey astie you say:

Quote
the earth should be 6000 years old even though, every single piece of evidence and methods to determine that says otherwise.

Here is at least one evidence with your own silly c-14 method that its otherwise to what you say.

Quote
Diamonds are assumed to be many billions of years old and should contain no detectable carbon-14 as it would have all decayed to nitrogen-14 long ago. The same is true of coal which was supposedly deposited hundreds of millions of years ago, according to the evolutionary model. The presence of carbon-14 in these materials clearly supports the idea of a young earth as described by the Bible.

Quote
Evidence for the period of accelerated decay is found in zircon crystals. Zircon crystals in granite contain radioactive uranium-238, which decays into lead over time. As the uranium decays, helium is produced in the crystals. Helium escapes from the crystals at a known, measurable rate. If those rocks were over a billion years old, as evolutionists claim, the helium should have leaked out of the rock. The presence of lots of helium in the crystals is evidence in support of a young earth.

Your methods and evidences are based on constant, that are not sure if even constants. Yes they seem almost constant now. But how do you know if they were always constant, or where they so from begining and such.

Quote
The presence of fission tracks and radiohalos in crystals demonstrates that hundreds of millions of years worth of radioactive decay has occurred in a very short period.

Quote
Using various radiometric dating methods to measure the ages of rock samples consistently produced ages that varied greatly.

You just assume a whole lot of stuff.

Just like another assumption of a constant, assumes that the layers of stones are everywhere the same. That is a make believe imho. Erthquakes? Disasters, winds etc at different areas makes it doubtful at best.

It could be done by living organism in earth. Sedimentation of the earth, flood sedimentation and chemical reaction. A lot of stuff could happen not just a new layers of earth from somewhere out of nowhere

No wonder it all fits into one model. If you assume it all should fits it will. Corruption makes the world go round. Or somewhat similiar saying ancient like Rome itself, maybe older. While you ignore all other option, ridicule them, cut their fundings etc etc. People are easy to be manipulated.

Truth is not democracy - It does not matter how many people believe lies. Truth is truth.

C14 dating only works on once-living specimens. C14 is created from nitrogen in the atmosphere when it gets hit by cosmic rays, so there's a relatively constant amount in the air at all times. While living, a plant incorporates carbon from the atmosphere into its body, so it will have the same ratio of C14/C12 as the atmosphere. Animals get this too by eating plants. Then when they die, the C14 starts decaying and is not replenished, and that's what you measure to get the age of when they died.
https://answersingenesis.org/evidence-for-creation/six-evidences-of-young-earth/ this article says they dated diamonds to around 55,000 years, which just happens to be about 5000 years short of the oldest date for which C14 dating can be used for living things. This is because after that many generations of decay, there's so little left it's indistinguishable from background C14 or contamination. So if people are just the slightest bit sloppy in their technique, they won't be able to accurately date anything older than 55,000 years anyway.

https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/pbv3e/why_would_15_billion_year_old_zircon_crystals/?st=j6z5av4b&sh=9d0a1b48

But let's not get stuck in a few methods. Here you can find 33 different methods https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Evidence_against_a_recent_creation

Of course, all of them are wrong hehe



I have brought enough light for some poor soul to believe its possible that God have created the world. Thats enough for a believer to understand those scientific constant are all made believe constant for that whole model to function.

For the ones that does not want to believe in creation, he will believe in scientific constant even tho i bet none of you understand them. And science is not about believing in something you do not understand.

Those who want to believe in creation, can believe that your mathemical constants were not always constant. Someone does not have to only believe. Its proven that those constant had varied in scientific community in history (for example a speed of light),and are varied depending on conditions (for example a variable of a temperature in radiation) etc.

Everyone has its choice, I wanted to say its that the subject is far from settled. Only those who are ignorant can say that. I am not ignorant, therefore I say I believe in creation, although not blindly. Anything could be possible from logical point of view taking into account my incomplete, corruptible knowledge.

P.S you guys probably think I am a hyper dogmatic person. I am open to everything. But you on the other hand are 100% sure of scientifc dogmas about constants that are only on one place at one time, that you do not even understand. And you give your soul for ever damnation because you believe those are true.

That is what i call a hypocrisy Die Hard level.

It's true that some of them may not be constant after all, however some of the dating methods there are not always about a particle decaying or a constant and yet all of the dating methods show the same thing. You can even prove earth is older than what the bible suggest with goddamn tree rings, give me a break.
Vod
legendary
Activity: 3668
Merit: 3010
Licking my boob since 1970
August 30, 2017, 02:14:24 PM
I have brought enough light for some poor soul to believe its possible that God have created the world.

You have?  All I have read from you are personal beliefs.  :/

How can a fairy tale create the world?
sr. member
Activity: 313
Merit: 250
August 30, 2017, 02:11:16 PM
Whenever I hear, "If evolution is real, how come monkeys aren't having any human babies. Or something to that effect, especially by someone who is passionately against evolution, it just comes across as extremely ignorant of a subject that you're so passionately against.
hero member
Activity: 574
Merit: 500
August 30, 2017, 01:49:52 PM
Hey astie you say:

Quote
the earth should be 6000 years old even though, every single piece of evidence and methods to determine that says otherwise.

Here is at least one evidence with your own silly c-14 method that its otherwise to what you say.

Quote
Diamonds are assumed to be many billions of years old and should contain no detectable carbon-14 as it would have all decayed to nitrogen-14 long ago. The same is true of coal which was supposedly deposited hundreds of millions of years ago, according to the evolutionary model. The presence of carbon-14 in these materials clearly supports the idea of a young earth as described by the Bible.

Quote
Evidence for the period of accelerated decay is found in zircon crystals. Zircon crystals in granite contain radioactive uranium-238, which decays into lead over time. As the uranium decays, helium is produced in the crystals. Helium escapes from the crystals at a known, measurable rate. If those rocks were over a billion years old, as evolutionists claim, the helium should have leaked out of the rock. The presence of lots of helium in the crystals is evidence in support of a young earth.

Your methods and evidences are based on constant, that are not sure if even constants. Yes they seem almost constant now. But how do you know if they were always constant, or where they so from begining and such.

Quote
The presence of fission tracks and radiohalos in crystals demonstrates that hundreds of millions of years worth of radioactive decay has occurred in a very short period.

Quote
Using various radiometric dating methods to measure the ages of rock samples consistently produced ages that varied greatly.

You just assume a whole lot of stuff.

Just like another assumption of a constant, assumes that the layers of stones are everywhere the same. That is a make believe imho. Erthquakes? Disasters, winds etc at different areas makes it doubtful at best.

It could be done by living organism in earth. Sedimentation of the earth, flood sedimentation and chemical reaction. A lot of stuff could happen not just a new layers of earth from somewhere out of nowhere

No wonder it all fits into one model. If you assume it all should fits it will. Corruption makes the world go round. Or somewhat similiar saying ancient like Rome itself, maybe older. While you ignore all other option, ridicule them, cut their fundings etc etc. People are easy to be manipulated.

Truth is not democracy - It does not matter how many people believe lies. Truth is truth.

C14 dating only works on once-living specimens. C14 is created from nitrogen in the atmosphere when it gets hit by cosmic rays, so there's a relatively constant amount in the air at all times. While living, a plant incorporates carbon from the atmosphere into its body, so it will have the same ratio of C14/C12 as the atmosphere. Animals get this too by eating plants. Then when they die, the C14 starts decaying and is not replenished, and that's what you measure to get the age of when they died.
https://answersingenesis.org/evidence-for-creation/six-evidences-of-young-earth/ this article says they dated diamonds to around 55,000 years, which just happens to be about 5000 years short of the oldest date for which C14 dating can be used for living things. This is because after that many generations of decay, there's so little left it's indistinguishable from background C14 or contamination. So if people are just the slightest bit sloppy in their technique, they won't be able to accurately date anything older than 55,000 years anyway.

https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/pbv3e/why_would_15_billion_year_old_zircon_crystals/?st=j6z5av4b&sh=9d0a1b48

But let's not get stuck in a few methods. Here you can find 33 different methods https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Evidence_against_a_recent_creation

Of course, all of them are wrong hehe



I have brought enough light for some poor soul to believe its possible that God have created the world. Thats enough for a believer to understand those scientific constant are all made believe constant for that whole model to function.

For the ones that does not want to believe in creation, he will believe in scientific constant even tho i bet none of you understand them. And science is not about believing in something you do not understand.

Those who want to believe in creation, can believe that your mathemical constants were not always constant. Someone does not have to only believe. Its proven that those constant had varied in scientific community in history (for example a speed of light),and are varied depending on conditions (for example a variable of a temperature in radiation) etc.

Everyone has its choice, I wanted to say its that the subject is far from settled. Only those who are ignorant can say that. I am not ignorant, therefore I say I believe in creation, although not blindly. Anything could be possible from logical point of view taking into account my incomplete, corruptible knowledge.

P.S you guys probably think I am a hyper dogmatic person. I am open to everything. But you on the other hand are 100% sure of scientifc dogmas about constants that are only on one place at one time, that you do not even understand. And you give your soul for ever damnation because you believe those are true.

That is what i call a hypocrisy Die Hard level.
Jump to: