Other stuff
The Earth is older than 6000 years
Hi, I'm a woolly mammoth. Me and my kind were mooping around on Earth for about 1.5 million years, my ancestors originally came from Africa but over 6 million years or so we spread out quite a bit. It was pretty cold up north and the poor mammoths that weren't as woolly died out and soon we were all woolly. We died out completely around 10000 years ago, we know this because you guys haven't found any of my kind younger than that.
The creationists claim I died out in a giant flood which wiped the Earth clean of all life (apart from what Noah could fit on his boat). These guys claim I was around for about 2000 years, after some guy created the Earth 6000 years ago.
So when did I really live?
Well according to my digital watch synced with the atomic clocks in Germany I was born on the 17th of October 36000 years ago. Oh dear, for that time I must have been floating around in nothing, because apparently there wasn't an Earth or anything else. Well I can tell you first hand that was pretty wrong, I was definitely mooping around somewhere above the frozen North Sea 36000 years ago (we had GPS too).
We know I'm telling the truth (well I might be exaggerating a little bit about the digital watches and GPS) because you can date me from my carbon-14 atoms.
Normally all life on Earth is made up of carbon-12 and carbon-13. But a certain percent is carbon-14, this percentage is the same in all life on Earth. It happens like this:
Cosmic rays are constantly hitting the Earth from space. In fact every day a person is hit about 8000 times a minute by cosmic rays as you can tell they usually don't do a lot. But sometimes a cosmic ray neutron will hit an atom of nitrogen in the atmosphere, actually a nitrogen-14 atom (7 protons, 7 neutrons). As the neutron smashes into the atom it knocks a proton away (a hydrogen atom) and adds itself to what was the nitrogen-14 atom, this is an atom with 6 protons and 8 neutrons - which is a carbon-14 atom.
Through photosynthesis plants suck up CO2, which includes carbon-14 atoms. This is how these atoms find their way into all life on Earth. A certain percent of the plant will be made from carbon-14 atoms, if an animal eats the plant a certain percent of his body will also be made from carbon-14 and if somebody else eats him he'll have that percentage of carbon-14. These carbon-14 atoms make up 0.0000000001% of all carbon on Earth.
The cool thing about carbon-14 though is it's unstable, it's radioactive. It has a half-life of about 5730 years. So if we've got some carbon-14 atoms, within 5730 years half of them would of decayed through the process called radioactive decay they'll turn back into a nitrogen-14 atoms, we can use these atoms to date things to about 60000 years - the amount of time it takes for most of the atoms to decay completely. That's how we work it out, we work out the number and type of atoms I'm made out of.
This is how scientists can work out roughly how old I am, it's called radiocarbon dating, it's not accurate enough to days, or even years, but it's accurate to within a few hundred years. So they can work out and tell that I'm not lying when I say I'm 36000 years old.
So why do you creationists call me a liar?
16th May 2006 21:14:03, 583 words, 45135 views
63 comments
Comment from: Hjalle [Visitor]
Have you written this yourself paul? If so, totally awesome! If not, totally awesome!
17th May 2006 @ 17:00
Comment from: Big Bang Is A Myth [Visitor] · http://www.thedailycreationism.blogspot.com/
you might want to have a look at my blog http://www.thedailycreationism.blogspot.com/ and see some interesting articles on C14 dating.
20th June 2006 @ 22:09
Comment from: Agnostic=/= Agony [Visitor]
*sighs* I read your Daily Creationism Blog Spot, and now I am depressed and upset. You're right, creationism is not proven and can never be proved. Too bad you don't know the definition of a theory, because then you'd know that NO theory can EVER be proven.
Here's some things to chew.
1. the oldest playable instrument is a 9000 year old flute from China. Wouldn't that be ironic to play Christian music on it?
2. civilizations figured out written language just about the time of the world flood, so we kinda have records of millions of people being around in that time frame.
3. we are all of the inbred family of Noah.
4. a group of Christian scientist tried REALLY REALLY hard to prove that there was some discredibility to C-14 dating (an org. known as RATE), failed miserably, and were disbanned. Looks like it's worthwhile afterall.
Christianity is great, but leave it where it belongs. You're not a scientist just as much as I'm not a Christian. Love Jesus because you love Him. He's perfectly fine with good ol' faith from what I've heard.
Here's some things to chew.
1. the oldest playable instrument is a 9000 year old flute from China. Wouldn't that be ironic to play Christian music on it?
2. civilizations figured out written language just about the time of the world flood, so we kinda have records of millions of people being around in that time frame.
3. we are all of the inbred family of Noah.
4. a group of Christian scientist tried REALLY REALLY hard to prove that there was some discredibility to C-14 dating (an org. known as RATE), failed miserably, and were disbanned. Looks like it's worthwhile afterall.
Christianity is great, but leave it where it belongs. You're not a scientist just as much as I'm not a Christian. Love Jesus because you love Him. He's perfectly fine with good ol' faith from what I've heard.
28th February 2007 @ 03:00
Comment from: christopher james Halligan [Visitor]
(carbon-14)"It has a half-life of about 5730 years."
"it's not accurate enough to days, or even years, but it's accurate to within a few hundred years."
AND JUST HOW WAS ALL THIS PROVEN IF NO ONE LIVES THAT LONG?
"it's not accurate enough to days, or even years, but it's accurate to within a few hundred years."
AND JUST HOW WAS ALL THIS PROVEN IF NO ONE LIVES THAT LONG?
27th April 2007 @ 13:37
Comment from: Tony [Visitor]
I laughed for quite awhile. That was genius. I came to happen upon this blog & blog entry after googling woolly mammoths. I don;t have much to say except that it was an interesting read.
12th July 2007 @ 21:24
Comment from: Carlos [Visitor]
I don't know a lot about C14 dating, but if it comes from altered Nitrogen isotopes that have been affected by radiation, would they not have to accumulate? and if they have to accumulate, would a created Earth and its inhabitants have fewer in the beginning? So, comparing the current inhabitants would result in the previous inhabitants seeming very very old. Is this a possibility?
5th September 2007 @ 16:06
Comment from: Danica [Visitor] · http://dumb!!!
Everyone of you are just plain stupied!!!!Dumb People!!!!
24th September 2007 @ 20:01
Comment from: born2live [Visitor]
Hey guys.
one thing that is scientific proven that is the book Koran. u will find text about the earth and how it was created it makes alot of sense. it will answer all science questions. the Holy Bible, and other books from hinduism and sikhism does not prove any scientific text.
check it out yourself
i hope it helps.
one thing that is scientific proven that is the book Koran. u will find text about the earth and how it was created it makes alot of sense. it will answer all science questions. the Holy Bible, and other books from hinduism and sikhism does not prove any scientific text.
check it out yourself
i hope it helps.
4th October 2007 @ 20:56
Comment from: AtomBoy [Visitor] · http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=37.143761,-116.041546&spn=0.097427,0.160847&t=k&om=1
Do you "Creationism" folk believe in the atom? Or are theses big holes in the ground God fingers holes for bowling?
http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=37.143761,-116.041546&spn=0.097427,0.160847&t=k&om=1
We "people" must know something about protons neutrons electrons.
http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=37.143761,-116.041546&spn=0.097427,0.160847&t=k&om=1
We "people" must know something about protons neutrons electrons.
18th October 2007 @ 20:09
Comment from: Luke [Visitor]
I'm too lazy to do it myself, you could write an article where you invent the Christian Science of 'Intelligent Descent'. It should go a bit like " There is no such thing as gravity: God _pushes_ you down".
19th October 2007 @ 18:02
Comment from: editor [Visitor] · http://theleftedge.blogspot.com
Hey...this is the bush era;....you are not _allowed to think, or to be rational.
Thinking; logic; they are not cool. Science is not cool. Nor is reading.
Lets celebrate stupidity!
Thinking; logic; they are not cool. Science is not cool. Nor is reading.
Lets celebrate stupidity!
20th October 2007 @ 01:58
Comment from: MICHAEL GREEN [Visitor]
Believe it or not I once was a fundalmentalist christian NOW Iam a born-again atheist (although I do practice a form of Buddhism). Great site! The creationists have to be stopped or we will fall into another dark ages.
20th October 2007 @ 04:26
Comment from: daniel [Visitor]
@ christopher james Halligan
i'm really sadned and offended by your comment. "how does anyone know this if it outdates men?" there is only two ways to see this. one is that you are truly ignorant. not only ignorant but stupid. the other one, much worse, is that you are not convinced by your question. you are pretending to be dumb, and you are setting up fallacious traps so that the less educated folks that visit this site cant get past their rural minds. unfortunatly i lean to the second as it is very common in creationism, which you wouldn't expect considering religion claims to condemn lying and deceiving. i guess higher purposes are at stake. higher than the thruth. that makes me sick.
i'm really sadned and offended by your comment. "how does anyone know this if it outdates men?" there is only two ways to see this. one is that you are truly ignorant. not only ignorant but stupid. the other one, much worse, is that you are not convinced by your question. you are pretending to be dumb, and you are setting up fallacious traps so that the less educated folks that visit this site cant get past their rural minds. unfortunatly i lean to the second as it is very common in creationism, which you wouldn't expect considering religion claims to condemn lying and deceiving. i guess higher purposes are at stake. higher than the thruth. that makes me sick.
20th October 2007 @ 09:31
Comment from: Brad [Visitor]
That was a great way of explaining C14 dating... Based on the comments on your blog, this might explain some statements:
Top Ten Signs that You are a Christian #3
- While modern science, history, geology, biology, and physics have failed to convince you otherwise, some idiot rolling around on the floor speaking in "tongues" may be all the evidence you need to "prove" Christianity.
Top Ten Signs that You are a Christian #3
- While modern science, history, geology, biology, and physics have failed to convince you otherwise, some idiot rolling around on the floor speaking in "tongues" may be all the evidence you need to "prove" Christianity.
20th October 2007 @ 12:55
Comment from: God [Visitor]
Son,
Don't be a pansy.
Followers,
Don't be stupid pansies. I gave you brains, try using them. You think the human condition hasn't changed since Biblical times? Use the brains I gave you, I made them pretty powerful.
The rest of you,
Carry on, nice work.
Don't be a pansy.
Followers,
Don't be stupid pansies. I gave you brains, try using them. You think the human condition hasn't changed since Biblical times? Use the brains I gave you, I made them pretty powerful.
The rest of you,
Carry on, nice work.
20th October 2007 @ 13:08
Comment from: Zero [Visitor]
Wow, folks. We have people here posting as the great JC and the big guy in the sky. Real mature, and excessively blasphemous to boot.
Just more evidence that some people have evolved a little and others haven't.
Just more evidence that some people have evolved a little and others haven't.
20th October 2007 @ 17:27
Comment from: reader [Visitor]
It amazes me that reationists run on ABSOLUTE BLIND FAITH. People 2000+- years ago wrote it in a book. That makes it undeniably true? Don't let blind, ignorant faith get in the way of humanity's greatest gift from God: reason. SCIENCE: it works, bitches.
20th October 2007 @ 20:37
Comment from: Me [Visitor]
The question is, how do you know the bible wasn't written as a big collaborative fiction book?
21st October 2007 @ 00:17
Comment from: Law [Visitor]
its only blasphemous if you believe in it... which I'm guessing God and JC dont!
Does the US really have a creationist problem?? I find it amazing that people can be so narrow minded.
Does the US really have a creationist problem?? I find it amazing that people can be so narrow minded.
21st October 2007 @ 01:08
Comment from: Jim [Visitor]
Why do you even try to make your point? You can't convince these people who, because they don't understand how something happened, ASSume that a magical being said "abra cadabra" and it just happened! Which is really less probable?
21st October 2007 @ 01:22
Comment from: Kmuzu [Visitor] · http://www.darndem.com
Allow me to make this very simple. Creationist don't care about the age of the Earth, nor how Noah got a frickin' mammoth on the ark, neither is this about how screwed up the flouder is. Creationism is the new racism. These retards have got their panties in a bunch because they have to face that their past ancestor was black. Adam and Eve were black, Abraham was black, Joseph was black, Jesus was black. Not only would this cost a lot of money redoing all the paintings, it would stop the silly notion of race hate. And if there is no race hate, then there are going to be a lot of broke preachers and politicians.
21st October 2007 @ 04:00
Comment from: bri [Visitor]
Evolutionary dating methods are rife with circular reasoning. The grand hypothesis is untenable and illogical. Just as we peer into the vast cosmos and realize how much thought we knew about the cosmos was speculation and how very little about the cosmos we can even grasp at this time, the grand fabric of speculation regarding evolutionary past is futile. People who think they know about millions of years in the past are creating fables as they pat each other on the back to flatter each other for knowing actually very little.
21st October 2007 @ 07:18
Comment from: Thomas Rickarby [Visitor]
You make a lot of assertions Bri, but I disagree that merely because something happened a long time in the past makes it unknowable, because there is cause and effect.
Another interesting aside is that your argument also makes it impossible to know whether God created the world, since that too happened a long time ago.
Another interesting aside is that your argument also makes it impossible to know whether God created the world, since that too happened a long time ago.
21st October 2007 @ 12:22
Comment from: Chris [Visitor]
I know this seems out of place and slightly absurd, but let people (evolutionists and creationists) believe whatever the hell they want to, because in no way will us being evolutionists with evidence change the opinions of the creationists, and likewise for creationists trying to turn evolutionists. Basically I am saying that no one here is going to really change anyone's views and opinions (however wrong they may be is irrelevant). I am an evolutionist, and my girlfriend is creationist, so what does this mean? It means that her views really do not affect or offend me that much. To all of the evolutionists reading this, don't worry, evolutionists will still be making scientific breakthroughs, but hating creationists is only lowering ourselves further.
21st October 2007 @ 14:05
Comment from: Peter [Visitor]
Chris, Law, and others who wonder why bother educating fundies or others;
First of all, most Christian churches in America have no problem with evolution. Read: http://www.emporia.edu/biosci/schrock/docs/Eagle-25.pdf
There are many other studies like this one if you bother looking.
The fundamentalist christians are the ones with the problem. If you show any single part of the Bible to be non-literal then you've placed into question all of it. They cannot stand to think that the Bible might be a metaphor or written by many, many authors. Inaccuracies, contradictions, complete fabrications? Can't happen. Hence the intransigence regarding the preponderance of scientific evidence and the majority of scientists voicing their support for evolution.
Second, it's just one of several issues that fundies push which has an effect on our schools and public policy. Teachers are afraid to mention evolution because some parents might complain to administration/school board. I'm a middle school science teacher and have witnessed this first hand. This anti-science bias is not good for the advancement of our culture or our world. In addition to evolution, there is the current attack regarding stem cell research. The benefits that are expected to follow the breakthroughs from stem cell research will rival the eradication of polio and organ transplants. The problem for our country is that stem cell research and its benefits will happen somewhere in the world, just not here, placing the U.S. behind other nations in medical research.
Third, there are many Christians out there who suspect that literalism is wrong and that everything makes much more sense if the Bible is taken as a metaphor. If someone comes along with an article which nudges them toward the more rational and scientific, all the better. I was one of these many years ago who finally gave up my literal interpretation of the Bible. It sure made life easier. So it happens that people change their attitudes, and I certainly think that it's worth trying.
First of all, most Christian churches in America have no problem with evolution. Read: http://www.emporia.edu/biosci/schrock/docs/Eagle-25.pdf
There are many other studies like this one if you bother looking.
The fundamentalist christians are the ones with the problem. If you show any single part of the Bible to be non-literal then you've placed into question all of it. They cannot stand to think that the Bible might be a metaphor or written by many, many authors. Inaccuracies, contradictions, complete fabrications? Can't happen. Hence the intransigence regarding the preponderance of scientific evidence and the majority of scientists voicing their support for evolution.
Second, it's just one of several issues that fundies push which has an effect on our schools and public policy. Teachers are afraid to mention evolution because some parents might complain to administration/school board. I'm a middle school science teacher and have witnessed this first hand. This anti-science bias is not good for the advancement of our culture or our world. In addition to evolution, there is the current attack regarding stem cell research. The benefits that are expected to follow the breakthroughs from stem cell research will rival the eradication of polio and organ transplants. The problem for our country is that stem cell research and its benefits will happen somewhere in the world, just not here, placing the U.S. behind other nations in medical research.
Third, there are many Christians out there who suspect that literalism is wrong and that everything makes much more sense if the Bible is taken as a metaphor. If someone comes along with an article which nudges them toward the more rational and scientific, all the better. I was one of these many years ago who finally gave up my literal interpretation of the Bible. It sure made life easier. So it happens that people change their attitudes, and I certainly think that it's worth trying.
22nd October 2007 @ 00:16
Comment from: Dan [Visitor]
"Evolutionary dating methods are rife with circular reasoning."
Using observation to verify the findings of a scientific theory is a lot different than reading a different part of a book to tell you if the szme book is accurate.
Using observation to verify the findings of a scientific theory is a lot different than reading a different part of a book to tell you if the szme book is accurate.
22nd October 2007 @ 03:13
Comment from: Hugh [Visitor] · http://huge116.stumbleupon.com/
Well if the mamoth's testimony wasn't good enough, there is always the researchers who have duplicated the kind of random mutation necessary for evolution, in the lab.
22nd October 2007 @ 14:18
Comment from: Bri [Visitor]
I think the grammar police need to keep in mind that a woolly mammoth is writing this article. We should be impressed that it is writing anything at all.
22nd October 2007 @ 14:53
Comment from: Ed Smith, Palm Springs, Ca [Visitor] · http://none
Science: Take physical proof of something & search for an explanation or conclusion.
Christianity: Take the "explanation" or conclusion (the Bible) & search (so far in vain) for some sort of proof to validate it.
Christianity: Take the "explanation" or conclusion (the Bible) & search (so far in vain) for some sort of proof to validate it.
25th October 2007 @ 02:36
Comment from: Ed Smith, Palm Springs, Ca [Visitor] · http://none
Science: Take physical proof of something & search for an explanation or conclusion.
Christianity: Take the "explanation" or conclusion (the Bible) & search (so far in vain) for some sort of proof to validate it.
25th October 2007 @ 02:38
Comment from: Mike [Visitor]
In the bibical account of creationism, there is an observer of God creating the world. How can this be if God was alone? If Adam and Eve had kids, their kids must have had sex with each other! If God knows all, then he knew what would happen with the tree and fruit. If God did not know this before he created them, then God is not "perfect", and does not know everything. The whole concept of creationism was written before scientific reasoning was common. It was an attempt to explain something that early civilizations had no other explanation for.
26th October 2007 @ 04:35
Comment from: Ron [Visitor]
For Mike. There were observers, according to the Bible. Millions of "spirits", called angels.
Apply the scientific method to this revelation!
Will someone please spell check this for me.
Apply the scientific method to this revelation!
Will someone please spell check this for me.
26th October 2007 @ 16:23
Comment from: bipolar2 [Visitor]
** How the invisible hand kills off "designer gods" **
Methodologically, whenever so-called "sacred" writings make claims about the natural world, they are subject to exactly the same forces of refutation as any other empirical claim. There is no "executive privilege" for God.
There are no longer any naive arguers from design. All of them died before 1901.
Since then they've all been liars.
>> The "Invisible Hand" writes its own script.
Complex systems can and do arise from simple events, including random events.
The first adequate theoretical "reduction" of earth-bound empirical complexity to simplicity comes (I think) from the Scottish economic philosopher, Adam Smith in Wealth of Nations (1776).
Smith's famous unintended "invisible hand", which is microeconomic capitalism, arises from simple economic exchanges in a market of fair competition among vendors. The market is an emergent (abstract) complex entity which arises from a sum-over of simple exchanges.
There is no need for a 'god of economics' to design the market -- under specified mechanisms of exchange, it forms itself.
>> Speciation by descent, not by essence.
Darwin solved a supposedly insuperable empirical puzzle for a very wide (not universal) set of events in the history of life: how do complex life forms arise from simpler ones.
He knew exactly what he had done and what deep ingratitude he would receive. In 1844, when Darwin put his mature ideas in writing with instructions to his wife that they be published should he die, natural theology was still intellectually respectable. By 1850, the fossil record and Lyell's concept of deep time had prepared an acute mind like Tennyson's to abandon Nature" as solace - - "Nature red in tooth and claw." ("In Memoriam." LVI 1850.)
Darwin knew how maligned, even shunned he would be by Society — he was after all a bona fide “gentleman” quite aware of the perks of his class and the esteem earned by his vast and thoroughly "respectable" empirical research.
Forced to "come out" in 1858, Darwin did not refer to his view with the already suspect term "evolution" but as "descent with modification." What was so radical, so disturbing to his contemporaries? His mechanism for descent with modification which Darwin called "natural selection".
What makes natural selection so uncomfortable? In operation, it has no goal and achieves no purpose. Speciation is a random trial-and-error process dependent upon differential reproductive success -- in a determinate ecological setting. (Darwin proposed no account of the origin of life . . . as the title of his great work makes clear -- On the origin of species.)
>> The god of ID is a nothing . . . a zero
Life in its multitudinous complex forms requires no spiritual force, no élan vital, no teleological principle, no purpose, no design.
A designer for evolution is as superfluous as a designer for economics. And for exactly the same reason.
bipolar2
copyright asserted 2007
Methodologically, whenever so-called "sacred" writings make claims about the natural world, they are subject to exactly the same forces of refutation as any other empirical claim. There is no "executive privilege" for God.
There are no longer any naive arguers from design. All of them died before 1901.
Since then they've all been liars.
>> The "Invisible Hand" writes its own script.
Complex systems can and do arise from simple events, including random events.
The first adequate theoretical "reduction" of earth-bound empirical complexity to simplicity comes (I think) from the Scottish economic philosopher, Adam Smith in Wealth of Nations (1776).
Smith's famous unintended "invisible hand", which is microeconomic capitalism, arises from simple economic exchanges in a market of fair competition among vendors. The market is an emergent (abstract) complex entity which arises from a sum-over of simple exchanges.
There is no need for a 'god of economics' to design the market -- under specified mechanisms of exchange, it forms itself.
>> Speciation by descent, not by essence.
Darwin solved a supposedly insuperable empirical puzzle for a very wide (not universal) set of events in the history of life: how do complex life forms arise from simpler ones.
He knew exactly what he had done and what deep ingratitude he would receive. In 1844, when Darwin put his mature ideas in writing with instructions to his wife that they be published should he die, natural theology was still intellectually respectable. By 1850, the fossil record and Lyell's concept of deep time had prepared an acute mind like Tennyson's to abandon Nature" as solace - - "Nature red in tooth and claw." ("In Memoriam." LVI 1850.)
Darwin knew how maligned, even shunned he would be by Society — he was after all a bona fide “gentleman” quite aware of the perks of his class and the esteem earned by his vast and thoroughly "respectable" empirical research.
Forced to "come out" in 1858, Darwin did not refer to his view with the already suspect term "evolution" but as "descent with modification." What was so radical, so disturbing to his contemporaries? His mechanism for descent with modification which Darwin called "natural selection".
What makes natural selection so uncomfortable? In operation, it has no goal and achieves no purpose. Speciation is a random trial-and-error process dependent upon differential reproductive success -- in a determinate ecological setting. (Darwin proposed no account of the origin of life . . . as the title of his great work makes clear -- On the origin of species.)
>> The god of ID is a nothing . . . a zero
Life in its multitudinous complex forms requires no spiritual force, no élan vital, no teleological principle, no purpose, no design.
A designer for evolution is as superfluous as a designer for economics. And for exactly the same reason.
bipolar2
copyright asserted 2007
27th October 2007 @ 19:42
Comment from: Jaime Rodriguez [Visitor]
I find it hilarious that Christians like to throw around buzz words like "Circular logic" and "Circular Reasoning" when in fact it is they who prove the bible and Christianity by using the bible as proof. Please try and keep faith separate from reasoning and science. Use your own brains . Stop blindly following what other people tell you to believe. Do you really want to be responsible for passing on these myths as truths? Should you not take it upon yourself to find the truth instead of regurgitation rhetoric from scripture? Observe the world around you and ask yourself critical questions about your world. Do your own perception of reality coincide with your dogma?
27th October 2007 @ 21:34
Comment from: Real Grammar [Visitor]
There is such a thing as style, Grammar Police, much as there is such a thing as nitpicking.
Lets all remember that scientific theories are founded on a rigorous process of observing, questioning, experimenting, and analyzing. Religion is founded on extremely personal and powerful feelings of belief and faith. While they are not antithetical to each other, it becomes difficult to use one to describe the other. With that in mind, give both science and faith their fair due. It does us no good for one to demean the other.
Lets all remember that scientific theories are founded on a rigorous process of observing, questioning, experimenting, and analyzing. Religion is founded on extremely personal and powerful feelings of belief and faith. While they are not antithetical to each other, it becomes difficult to use one to describe the other. With that in mind, give both science and faith their fair due. It does us no good for one to demean the other.
28th October 2007 @ 00:27
Comment from: nicesocks [Visitor]
after reading this blog -and most of the following posts- i realize how much i love humanity.
not only is there an argument on god vs. evolution (sorry creationists, you lost that one) but there are further arguments on grammar and style. let's not forget the racial and political points brought up. brilliant, absolutely brilliant.
you all do realize we could take this to other levels, right? the bush administration spends more than enough money in iraq everyday, money that could be used to build schools and hire teachers so that our kids aren't left behind.
but then there's a new problem; what exactly are teachers teaching the next generation?
obviously not evolution, grammar, history or politics. if that were the case, these debates wouldn't ever come about.
welcome to the internet, friends.
i'm going outside, might as well enjoy this world before the apocalypse sets in.
not only is there an argument on god vs. evolution (sorry creationists, you lost that one) but there are further arguments on grammar and style. let's not forget the racial and political points brought up. brilliant, absolutely brilliant.
you all do realize we could take this to other levels, right? the bush administration spends more than enough money in iraq everyday, money that could be used to build schools and hire teachers so that our kids aren't left behind.
but then there's a new problem; what exactly are teachers teaching the next generation?
obviously not evolution, grammar, history or politics. if that were the case, these debates wouldn't ever come about.
welcome to the internet, friends.
i'm going outside, might as well enjoy this world before the apocalypse sets in.
28th October 2007 @ 18:14
Comment from: Scott [Visitor]
Creationists are able to read the bible, and deduce that science is a bunch of bunk... great.
If science is crap... please go back home to your candle-lit room, with your abacus, and read your bible while cursing those of us that think that the world is round.
Oh... stop watching TV! Those cell phones??? They are the work of the devil!
Seriously... grow the F* up.
People used to be stoned for claiming that there were stars... it was blasphemy to imagine that the Earth might rotate around the sun... in 100 years, the inhabitants of this planet are going to look back on you all the same way we all look back on the cannibalistic natives and laugh.
If science is crap... please go back home to your candle-lit room, with your abacus, and read your bible while cursing those of us that think that the world is round.
Oh... stop watching TV! Those cell phones??? They are the work of the devil!
Seriously... grow the F* up.
People used to be stoned for claiming that there were stars... it was blasphemy to imagine that the Earth might rotate around the sun... in 100 years, the inhabitants of this planet are going to look back on you all the same way we all look back on the cannibalistic natives and laugh.
29th October 2007 @ 01:17
Comment from: cole [Visitor]
"carbon-14)"It has a half-life of about 5730 years."
"it's not accurate enough to days, or even years, but it's accurate to within a few hundred years."
AND JUST HOW WAS ALL THIS PROVEN IF NO ONE LIVES THAT LONG?"
Determining the half-life of radioactive isotopes doesn't require that the entire half-life is observed, just a small fraction of it. Thanks to dimensional analysis scientists can determine an entire half-life after observing a small fraction of it.
"it's not accurate enough to days, or even years, but it's accurate to within a few hundred years."
AND JUST HOW WAS ALL THIS PROVEN IF NO ONE LIVES THAT LONG?"
Determining the half-life of radioactive isotopes doesn't require that the entire half-life is observed, just a small fraction of it. Thanks to dimensional analysis scientists can determine an entire half-life after observing a small fraction of it.
30th October 2007 @ 23:46
Comment from: shannonxj [Visitor] · http://shannonxj.blogspot.com/
another discussion between the bible and science. .:sigh:.
7th November 2007 @ 04:30
Comment from: Evelutionary Creationism [Visitor]
I am a Christian and a huge supporter of science (I am going to major in Ecology after high school.) With my knowledge of science and my deep Christian background, I am able to use my own brain to interpret the Bible sensibly. A day to God could have lasted millions of years. God could have guided the growth of the earth through evolution. My favorite quote of all time is "God is a scientist, not a magician" [Einstien].
7th November 2007 @ 23:45
Comment from: EdRoberts [Visitor]
No where does the Bible declare how old the earth is! It was just some dumb-ass who came up with that theory - and the precepts of man, the Bible DOES warn about.
8th November 2007 @ 18:30
Comment from: KarL [Visitor]
religion segregates the world and only leads to xenophobia, discrimination, and hate
11th November 2007 @ 03:31
Comment from: Forrest [Visitor] · http://blog.forrestcroce.com/
I'mwondering how a mammoth managed to type this, without fingers or even opposable thumbs ... but otherwise its' a good post.
11th November 2007 @ 05:46
Comment from: duffy [Visitor]
As near as I can figure, God himself must not believe in a supreme being. Well - if he doesn't - why should I?
11th November 2007 @ 06:08
Comment from: Mike [Visitor]
I don't know whether I should be proud to be part of the scientifically-inclined, or ashamed to be a human...
Either way, I'm baffled at how a living organism with a powerful brain and the somewhat unique power to think logically can believe something so incredibly stupid.
"Mind-boggling is not the right word, but it's the first word to come to mind."
Either way, I'm baffled at how a living organism with a powerful brain and the somewhat unique power to think logically can believe something so incredibly stupid.
"Mind-boggling is not the right word, but it's the first word to come to mind."
12th November 2007 @ 04:24
Comment from: Bracey [Visitor]
Hi I'm not religious in the slightest, but i've always wondered then how everything started?
I know people spout the big bang theory but what started that? What started nature, what started the spark to spark everything into life? The universe everything?
I often think we might all be God, and just have no idea that no one else actually matters or is matter for that matter. Hah
I know people spout the big bang theory but what started that? What started nature, what started the spark to spark everything into life? The universe everything?
I often think we might all be God, and just have no idea that no one else actually matters or is matter for that matter. Hah
13th November 2007 @ 10:19
Comment from: Ian [Visitor]
Bracey, that's no real answer, it's just moving the goalposts. You could just as easily have written, "I know people spout about God but what started that?" The answer usually given is, "God just Is." Which is no different from "The Universe just Is." At some point, something must exist, with no explanation. Science says its nature, theists say it's God. Intelligent Designers invalidate their own point, because if something is so complex it couldn't exist without a designer, then the designer must also be complex enough to have had a designer, and so on with the designer's designer, etc. Philosophically, it approaches Zen, either there is something that exists with no explanation, or there is an infinity of creators, and physicists keep folding in an infinity of dimensions and universes, until religion becomes science becomes philosophy.
13th November 2007 @ 17:59
Comment from: Tim [Visitor]
Just to confirm that I've gathered all of this correctly:
Christians believe that both earth and man were created by God. Woman was created through magic using a rib from that man. Then this woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat a piece of fruit from a forbidden tree that gave her great knowledge. Much after that, the son of God was born of a virgin and killed to grant us the forgiveness that we need because rib-woman ate that apple and God was pissed. Following his death, the son of God was resurrected and brought to an eternal paradise in the sky. Now, this zombie's flesh is eaten in a Paganistic ritual of cannibalism and worship.
Does that about sum it up?
Attempting to use science to justify this would be like trying to use crayons to perform brain surgery. Quite simply, science doesn't possess the right tools for the job. Consequently, by current, logical reasoning standards, absolutely none of this makes sense.
The only real question that remains is: which is the greatest fiction ever told – the Bible or Harry Potter?
Christians believe that both earth and man were created by God. Woman was created through magic using a rib from that man. Then this woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat a piece of fruit from a forbidden tree that gave her great knowledge. Much after that, the son of God was born of a virgin and killed to grant us the forgiveness that we need because rib-woman ate that apple and God was pissed. Following his death, the son of God was resurrected and brought to an eternal paradise in the sky. Now, this zombie's flesh is eaten in a Paganistic ritual of cannibalism and worship.
Does that about sum it up?
Attempting to use science to justify this would be like trying to use crayons to perform brain surgery. Quite simply, science doesn't possess the right tools for the job. Consequently, by current, logical reasoning standards, absolutely none of this makes sense.
The only real question that remains is: which is the greatest fiction ever told – the Bible or Harry Potter?
13th November 2007 @ 18:26
Comment from: SupaWils [Visitor]
Fuck me! And I've been thinking we are all an experiment conducted by an advanced super-race of aliens from the planet Zap!
14th November 2007 @ 00:35
Comment from: cqx186 [Visitor]
SupaWils
Oh so your a scientologist.
You know what my seventh grade English teacher told us about punctuation. "You should have learned this already, so I'm not going to go over it." This is also the attitude I received from my 8th, 9th, 10th, and 11th English teachers. It's no wonder the average person is lost when it comes to using proper punctuation. Yeah public school sytems!
May creationists wallow in their own stupidity. Just keep it out of my life.
Oh so your a scientologist.
You know what my seventh grade English teacher told us about punctuation. "You should have learned this already, so I'm not going to go over it." This is also the attitude I received from my 8th, 9th, 10th, and 11th English teachers. It's no wonder the average person is lost when it comes to using proper punctuation. Yeah public school sytems!
May creationists wallow in their own stupidity. Just keep it out of my life.
14th November 2007 @ 03:09
Comment from: Tolo [Visitor]
If anybody ever wants to hear or read something really scary, look for a statistician with background in theology/creationism. Beats the pants off of characters from a King or Koontz(sp?) novel any day. :-)
btw, Jesus Christ looks like me.
btw, Jesus Christ looks like me.
14th November 2007 @ 15:55
Comment from: don [Visitor]
I am God and I am imagining you all.
OR
You who is reading this is God and you are imagining us all.
OR
You who is reading this is God and you are imagining us all.
16th November 2007 @ 04:37
Comment from: Mike [Visitor]
I really think that everybody knows gods don't exist. We fear death, just as every mammal does. We have the ability to think, so early man asked what is it like to be dead? Since we can't fathom "nothingness" we invented an afterlife. My mother is dying of cancer, and is not expected to live more than a few weeks. She is a devout Catholic, yet she is STILL afraid of dying. I think if she truly believed, then she should see it as no more stressful that a typical move to a new apartment. We invented God in our image to satisfy an urge that there has to be something more than the obvious. Why are religous people still afraid to die? If you're sitting in a plane that is out of control flying at 800 mph toward the earth, wouldn't a true believer hardly look up from his magazine? What's death to him? It should be nothing. Deep down I think we are all atheists, and we just can't face it, so we create a god.
16th November 2007 @ 05:19
Comment from: Bracey [Visitor]
Hi me again, yeah look I do understand that the question of "what started it all" cannot be answered. But that kinda was the underlying of my question, people who mock devote religious ppl, really have no right to do so as their science beliefs are pretty much on par with religious beliefs. Just opinion.
Everyone knows the bible is bs, obviously years gone by it will of been believed whole heartedy but now I feel it is more just a way to satisfy children's natural questioning.
Like ive said before I'm not religious, hell im not even christened/baptised, but the one really really weird thing I had as a 3 year old child was an imaginary friend called Bub, who my mother says when I came downstairs one night when i could sleep, seeing a massive winged horned demon on Tv i screamed look mam theres Bub.
Everyone knows the bible is bs, obviously years gone by it will of been believed whole heartedy but now I feel it is more just a way to satisfy children's natural questioning.
Like ive said before I'm not religious, hell im not even christened/baptised, but the one really really weird thing I had as a 3 year old child was an imaginary friend called Bub, who my mother says when I came downstairs one night when i could sleep, seeing a massive winged horned demon on Tv i screamed look mam theres Bub.
16th November 2007 @ 13:50
Comment from: J. Anthony Carter [Visitor]
Here we go. Alright, you creationists actually believe that because the bible says something that it's (verbatim) true. Try this on for size. You have a member of homo sapiens from about, oh let's say, 100 BC. Now God comes up to him and says "You need to write My Bible". Man did write the Bible, no? Now God is telling this man how his entire Universe (only consisting of, at that time, the Sun, Moon, Earth (which is flat) and a lot of stars) began. This being is, of course, well versed in Physics, Mathematics, Geology, Geography, Astronomy...you get the picture. God is telling him how to write down how He created the Earth and Everything. Does He start with the Big Bang and Plank time, no he simplifies it to stop all the questions that'll teach this being a lot more than he needs to know. Above and beyond the fact that this being's ability to comprehend even a trifle of the truth would turn his life, brain and reality to mush. So we get "And on the first day God created light". Well, if God wants to call the millions of years it took to have matter cool down enough to form atoms and the millions of years it took for matter to coalesce into the first stars, and the millions of years it took for those stars to burn hydrogen into helium and on and on till we actually got atoms complex enough to be the building blocks of life. You know, carbon, oxygen, iron, etc. And the millions of years it took for this to happen over and over so there would be enough of these atoms to create rocks and minerals and water. Now all we have to do is wait millions of years for these atoms to collide in the right combination to create life and the millions of years for this life to evolve to the point where it can start to think and develop tools. NOW we're ready to talk to it about it's Universe. Oops, sorry...a little side-tracked. If God wants to call all this 7 days...Hey! it's His story...GET THE HINT?
20th November 2007 @ 08:25
Comment from: godwin [Visitor]
nicesocks: You know who else liked to start off-topic arguments in threads? Hitler.
25th November 2007 @ 13:13
Comment from: steven jordan [Visitor]
lol well, if some morons wish to believe in a written theology of the, belief system of man. man was a murderous being and needed laws and then invented god to govern the laws ! thre earth is 4.5 billion years old im' an archaeologist .fission track dating and and lumonesence dating is very presise! what fool believes in god just because he's scared of death! carbon 12 and 14 are very accurate now a days, and its because, most creationist twist facts and sceptics dont really know the science, or values on comparison of radioactive decay and how we can accurately equate the values that are known facts not myths from a bible that man created him self.
1st February 2008 @ 22:42
Comment from: Digital [Visitor]
Great post, well put together.
Idiot posters, on both sides.
Acting like a closeminded jackass makes you just as bad as what you're arguing against
Idiot posters, on both sides.
Acting like a closeminded jackass makes you just as bad as what you're arguing against
7th February 2008 @ 21:21
Comment from: Bracey [Visitor]
-------------
I know people spout the big bang theory but what started that? What started nature, what started the spark to spark everything into life? The universe everything?
-------------
There is a lot of research on that, interesting stuff. However, at this time we don't know, and it is alright not to know.
That statement is what many miss. It IS okay not to know, what is not okay is to jump to a convenient conclusion because the evidence needed isn't currently avalible.
1000 years ago, we didn't know much of what we know now, and (thankfully) not everyone just gave it up as 'well god did it' and we kept learning. Now more and more is explained.
In time, we might have the answers, and some we may never have... but never should we jump to an illogical conclusion for the sake of simplicity.
I know people spout the big bang theory but what started that? What started nature, what started the spark to spark everything into life? The universe everything?
-------------
There is a lot of research on that, interesting stuff. However, at this time we don't know, and it is alright not to know.
That statement is what many miss. It IS okay not to know, what is not okay is to jump to a convenient conclusion because the evidence needed isn't currently avalible.
1000 years ago, we didn't know much of what we know now, and (thankfully) not everyone just gave it up as 'well god did it' and we kept learning. Now more and more is explained.
In time, we might have the answers, and some we may never have... but never should we jump to an illogical conclusion for the sake of simplicity.
7th February 2008 @ 22:01
Comment from: steven [Visitor]
the logical conclusion is that nature /evolution is the reason in all things ten years ago cars were not as evolved as they are now, with more and more advancements. we are products of our "MODERN INVIORNMENTS"flowers have split into sub ordered species many times in our recordable history, and also mammals have adaptions that give us sugestions even in dinosaurian evolution bone cellular and anatomy in modern birds are now showing us that they are closely related! the idea that we did not evolve and were created is nonsense clearly! neanderthalensis was practicing idol worship, tool making carved reliefs and had motor skills we cannot reproduce today! if we were created the facts being dug/excavated and found as proof, where is you tiny little proofs other than written words of faith. history will never co-inside with religion because simply it does'nt add up. you can defend it till you are blue in the face. belief system is ok, but you cannot defy facts! signed the archaeologist again!!!!!
6th March 2008 @ 01:15