The Earth is older than 6000 years

Woolly Mammoth

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?

Baby woolley mammoth

84 comments

Comment from: Hjalle [Visitor]
Hjalle

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]
Big Bang Is A Myth

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]  
Agnostic=/= Agony

*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.

28th February 2007 @ 03:00
Comment from: christopher james Halligan [Visitor]  
christopher james Halligan

(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?

27th April 2007 @ 13:37
Comment from: Tony [Visitor]  
Tony

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]  
Carlos

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]  
Danica

Everyone of you are just plain stupied!!!!Dumb People!!!!

24th September 2007 @ 20:01
Comment from: born2live [Visitor]  
born2live

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.

4th October 2007 @ 20:56
Comment from: AtomBoy [Visitor]
AtomBoy

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.

18th October 2007 @ 20:09
Comment from: Luke [Visitor]  
Luke

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]  
editor

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!

20th October 2007 @ 01:58
Comment from: MICHAEL GREEN [Visitor]  
MICHAEL GREEN

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]  
daniel

@ 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.

20th October 2007 @ 09:31
Comment from: Jesus Christ [Visitor]  
Jesus Christ

I do not approve of this post.
JC

20th October 2007 @ 10:30
Comment from: Brad [Visitor]  
Brad

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.

20th October 2007 @ 12:55
Comment from: God [Visitor]  
God

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.

20th October 2007 @ 13:08
Comment from: Zero [Visitor]  
Zero

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.

20th October 2007 @ 17:27
Comment from: reader [Visitor]  
reader

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]  
Me

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]  
Law

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.

21st October 2007 @ 01:08
Comment from: Jim [Visitor]  
Jim

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]  
Kmuzu

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]  
bri

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]
Thomas Rickarby

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.

21st October 2007 @ 12:22
Comment from: Chris [Visitor]  
Chris

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]  
Peter

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.

22nd October 2007 @ 00:16
Comment from: Dan [Visitor]  
Dan

"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.

22nd October 2007 @ 03:13
Comment from: Hugh [Visitor]  
Hugh

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]  
Bri

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: michael [Visitor]  
michael

people came from africa rastafari

25th October 2007 @ 01:53
Ed Smith, Palm Springs, Ca

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 @ 02:36
Ed Smith, Palm Springs, Ca

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]  
Mike

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]  
Ron

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.

26th October 2007 @ 16:23
Comment from: bipolar2 [Visitor]  
bipolar2

** 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

27th October 2007 @ 19:42
Comment from: Jaime Rodriguez [Visitor]  
Jaime Rodriguez

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]  
Real Grammar

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.

28th October 2007 @ 00:27
Comment from: nicesocks [Visitor]
nicesocks

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.

28th October 2007 @ 18:14
Comment from: Scott [Visitor]  
Scott

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.

29th October 2007 @ 01:17
Comment from: cole [Visitor]
cole

"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.

30th October 2007 @ 23:46
Comment from: shannonxj [Visitor]
shannonxj

another discussion between the bible and science. .:sigh:.

7th November 2007 @ 04:30
Comment from: Evelutionary Creationism [Visitor]  
Evelutionary Creationism

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]  
EdRoberts

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]  
KarL

religion segregates the world and only leads to xenophobia, discrimination, and hate

11th November 2007 @ 03:31
Comment from: Forrest [Visitor]  
Forrest

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]  
duffy

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]  
Mike

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."

12th November 2007 @ 04:24
Comment from: Bracey [Visitor]  
Bracey

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

13th November 2007 @ 10:19
Comment from: Ian [Visitor]  
Ian

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]  
Tim

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?

13th November 2007 @ 18:26
Comment from: SupaWils [Visitor]
SupaWils

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]
cqx186

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.

14th November 2007 @ 03:09
Comment from: Tolo [Visitor]
Tolo

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.

14th November 2007 @ 15:55
Comment from: don [Visitor]
don

I am God and I am imagining you all.

OR

You who is reading this is God and you are imagining us all.

16th November 2007 @ 04:37
Comment from: Mike [Visitor]
Mike

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]
Bracey

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.

16th November 2007 @ 13:50
Comment from: J. Anthony Carter [Visitor]
J. Anthony Carter

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]
godwin

nicesocks: You know who else liked to start off-topic arguments in threads? Hitler.

25th November 2007 @ 13:13
Comment from: steven jordan [Visitor]
steven jordan
1 stars

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]
Digital
5 stars

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

7th February 2008 @ 21:21
Comment from: Bracey [Visitor]
Bracey
4 stars

-------------
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]
steven
1 stars

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
Comment from: jjon [Visitor]
jjon
5 stars

ah... i love these discussions...

5th July 2008 @ 18:55
Comment from: DaviDC [Visitor]
DaviDC

"The universe was created by an all-powerful all-knowing being who came down to us in the form of a cosmic Jewish Zombie who was his own father who can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree."

28th September 2008 @ 03:46
Comment from: God_uninstaller.EXE [Visitor]
God_uninstaller.EXE
5 stars

Think link just shoots all kind of holes in god science lol

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/gen/1.html

God creates light and separates light from darkness, and day from night, on the first day. Yet he didn't make the light producing objects (the sun and the stars) until the fourth day (1:14-19). And how could there be "the evening and the morning" on the first day if there was no sun to mark them?

1:11-13)
"Let the earth bring forth grass"
Plants are made on the third day before there was a sun to drive their photosynthetic processes (1:14-19). Notice, though, that God lets "the earth bring forth" the plants, rather than creating them directly. Maybe Genesis is not so anti-evolution after all.

lol I'd like the bible thumpers explain that!

1st November 2008 @ 19:18
Comment from: syd [Visitor]
syd

hmmm. i have no doubt in carbon dating and that its fact, but i'm still a crationist. the story says that god created the world in seven days, but whats seven days to a being whos been around for eternity? seven days to him could have been seven thousand years! if you look at it from that perspective, that a being who has no beginning or end, and whos been around for eternity, may measure his days slightly diffrent than we do, than it can be plausible.

25th November 2008 @ 02:56
Comment from: Greg F. [Visitor]
Greg F.
5 stars

"Evolutionary dating methods are rife with circular reasoning."

So the premise that amount of atoms X in a specimen which accumulate at a rate of Y means that the specimen is Z years old thanks to simple division is circular reasoning? My my... someone needs a dictionary of logical terms.

The idea that because life is "complex" (whatever that means) then it must be designed and there must be a designer because life is "complex" would be the perfect example of a circular argument. Just like the statement that we can't know everything and because we can't know everything, we can't know anything for certain...

29th November 2008 @ 05:44
Comment from: The Baldchemist [Visitor]
The Baldchemist

Just who is going to be saved?. The Jew_ The Hind,. The Muslim, The Catholic, The Sikh, The Christian, Who? Because they all believe that their choice of Religion will be the ones. So how many Gods rae there? In ancient Greece there were hundreds, long before JC and the boys. But the Romans decided to do away with the Greek Gods.
Regarding our friend who thinks the Bible is 2000 years old, well it ain't. It's around 500 years old. That is when it was first printed. Prior to that it was handed down through Aramaic, Hebrew, Greek, Roman, Russian German English on bits of hand written skins that had deteriated and been re written. Prior to that it was word of mouth transfered over 400 years post JC death.
Now I cant even give a fucking grocery list to anyone without it being changed and inyerpreted wrongly and thats only over 2 hours.
Nah, when I'm convinced that those espousing God and 6,000 years of creation are not in it for the money and other deviations. Then I will consider it. Problem is with all the brain washing we get from a very early age its hard.
Put the filthy hypocrytical houses in order.
Other than that a very merry Christmas.
PS Even that. Once a year its friendly the rest back to indifference and hate.
Where is the tolerance, forgiving, and the LUUUUUUUUVe. The Baldchemist

3rd December 2008 @ 15:04
Comment from: visiter [Visitor]
visiter
4 stars

Come to think of it, it's not the faintest bit surprising "Creationism" and "Intelligent Design" was born in the good ol' USA.

It's interesting how near identically populated are the former communist counties (where religion was banned) and democratic Europe of Creationists. Compared the US, well, we have a hell of a lot more then all of them put together.

Apparently we are a nation under god, and the influence of excessive lead poising. lucky thing china is a communist nation, huh?

15th January 2009 @ 00:03
Comment from: abby [Visitor]
abby
1 stars

your website didn't help me at all i don't even know why i was on it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

20th January 2009 @ 22:31
Comment from: You are a Scientist? [Visitor]
You are a Scientist?

I would just say to all these so called scientists who believe in evolution.

The very foundations of science proof the word of God, and not some whacked job fantasy of some racist white supremacists that wanted to justify the enslavement of the "less than human" races. That's right Darwin and the rest were bigots who wanted to ease their conscious by arguing Blacks and others are just monkeys and animals, and the more evolved white race has the right to do whatever they want to the inferior peoples of the world.

But since you cling to science here's what science says:
NEVER has a non-living thing EVER given rise to a Living Thing. It's never happened, science proofs it never happened So if you believe in science as your God give me one example of non living things giving rise to a living thing, you can't, because IT NEVER HAS HAPPENED and NEVER WILL.
While living things are made of non living materials. Life itself ONLY EVER comes from something that is already Living. Just think for a moment the implications of what this says.

Another thing science says just like God says - Each thing only brings forth after it's kind. We know This to be true and Science proofs it's true.
If God and Science are wrong about this just give me one example, experiment, anything at all that proves wrong the obvious truth that cows only have cows, chickens only have chickens, people only have people. Tell me one time EVER a chicken turned into a cow or dog or giraffe. You can't, because it NEVER has happened and NEVER will happen and no matter how many years you wait it will NEVER Happen.

Now go ignore your common sense, Science, the word of God, and everything else, and follow the ungodly, unscientific, racist religion of people who will be burning in hell for all eternity for leading the willingly ignorant astray from the truth.

What you believe is foolishness, there is nothing scientific or smart about it.
Don't claim your a scientist when you reject the very foundation that all science is built upon.

20th April 2009 @ 00:30
Comment from: [Member]
Paul
20th April 2009 @ 02:33
Comment from: steve morris [Visitor]
steve morris
5 stars

10,000 year old living trees have been found in Sweden. So to all you creationists out there, were these 10,000 year old living trees just floating around in space for 4,000 years and finally landed on earth to continue to live 6,000 additional years? Ah yes, the web site for these 10,000 year old trees:

http://www.scienceagogo.com/forum/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=27835

Happy reading.

Steve Morris
A born-again atheist (and yes, I did have an experience that convinced me there is no god).

14th June 2009 @ 22:08
Comment from: steve morris [Visitor]
steve morris
5 stars

Regarding You are a Scientist? Your command of the English language is utterly, absolutely a disgrace. But then you were most likely home schooled, so we can understand why you would be so lacking. Some examples: Your first sentence is an incomplete sentence. Now if you would have used a colon the sentence would have been acceptable, but then you probably don't know not only what a colon is but what it's used for. You state, "[t]he very foundations of science proof the word of God ...." The word is "prove," not "proof." A few words later you state "whacked job fantasy." "[W]hacked job" is a compound adjective (refer to a bonehead English book and you'll learn what a compound adjective is). There are just too many additional errors you've employed trying to state your case using the English language. Well, we'll give you one more, your very last sentence: "Don't claim your a scientist ...." It's "you're," not "your." All I can say is, if you've got kids please do not home school them. I mean, you don't want them laughed at because of what you taught them, do you? Improper use of the English language either only points to one's lack of intelligence or laziness to learn how to use the English language properly. Or maybe in your case, both.

14th June 2009 @ 22:25
Comment from: shanana willams [Visitor]
shanana willams
1 stars

i think that this website is unreligious and sort of dum so 3364 well bye see u later 323

29th September 2009 @ 13:46
Comment from: Jason Joseph [Visitor]  
Jason Joseph

It's better to lead a life where we fear God, and our children fear God, and keep ourselves away from the bad things, like smoking, drinking, sexual activities, wild behaviour, stealing, gambling, abusive languages, orgy et al. Better be human and wait upon the Lord, and his word, which has always told us the good and bad things, nothing is hidden, it's not a mask, where we have to discover, some incidents may be wrong, but God is present, Jesus is what we believe, and faith is what makes the world a better place to live in. Without the policemen, law and authority a city comes to ruins, an unimaginable disaster, and if there is God, and you have been doing things which is not as per the likings of the Supreme God, then what, why to torment oneself in hell, believe yourself and let the children who dote upon us fear and believe the one and only God and Praise God. Be Humble like the grass and you can weather great storms of life.

10th October 2009 @ 15:20
Comment from: [Member]
Paul
5 stars

Jason, that's all well and good but how does it prove a 6000 year old Earth?

11th October 2009 @ 18:06
Comment from: John Smith [Visitor]
John Smith

The rate of decay of 14C is such that half of an amount will convert back to 14N in 5,730 years (plus or minus 40 years). This is the “half-life.” So, in two half-lives, or 11,460 years, only one-quarter of that in living organisms at present, then it has a theoretical age of 11,460 years. Anything over about 50,000 years old, should theoretically have no detectable 14C left. That is why radiocarbon dating cannot give millions of years. In fact, if a sample contains 14C, it is good evidence that it is not millions of years old.

Carbon dating is a terrible basis to prove a date. You shouldn't try and use it unless you are a scientist or have studied it thoroughly.

Also, there are many things that affect carbon dating to give it an array of different dating periods... such as if it were cut off from the outside (trapped in igneous rock) and the exchange of nitrate where distilled. Make sure you research stuff completely before coming to your own conclusion, or more so believing something someone else said.

21st May 2010 @ 16:26
Comment from: To the web master [Visitor]
To the web master

I feel that is incorrect for you to refrain from posting any material that challenges the accuracy of carbon 14 dating.

This is a personal message to you, the web master.

Countless posts you have rejected. Mayhaps it is time for you to actually research these things and see for yourself.

As one who is intelligent, the most intelligent decision you could make to prove you are right is to fully research this to make your own assumption.

You must climb both sides of the fence and open your mind to both possibilities. Only than can you consider yourself to be truly right.

21st May 2010 @ 16:30
Comment from: gt [Visitor]
gt

1. the oldest playable instrument is a 9000 year old flute from China. Wouldn't that be ironic to play Christian music on it?-

Not to the majority of main stream Christians no, to disponsationalist Christians ...yes.

But banning evolutionary 'Theory' can actually be the domain of the materialist secularist or atheist.

Stalin's regime banned Darwinist Theory, now that's irony?

1st July 2011 @ 18:48
Comment from: Chris [Visitor]
Chris
5 stars

You creationists make me laugh.

How can you deny scientific principles if you are not a scientist yourself? I'm not a scientist and even I can see the proof in evolution.

Geneticists have discovered that we derived from great apes. There is absolutely no doubt about that if you have half a brain. The similarities of our DNA with apes is too close to mean anything else.

Since we can conclude our ancestors were once apes, we can make a very strong case for the ape deriving from another type of ancestor, such as a reptile or dinosaur.

Those reptiles were derived from Amphibians. Those amphibians were derived from primordial soup. That soup came from rocks. And quite obviously those rocks came from a huge explosion of nothing.

Just because there is no documentation of any of this taking place does not make it not true. Guys, these are very smart people who have done their research over hundreds of years. They all come to the same conclusion...we do in fact come from nothing.

Just because you can't technically apply the "scientific method" to something, doesn't make it not true. Evolution is a part of science and always will be.

21st July 2011 @ 06:06
Comment from: LovestoSpooge [Visitor]
LovestoSpooge
5 stars

If you believe that a religious text is literal truth you shouldn't be allowed to take advantage of all the advances that science and technology has created.

17th September 2011 @ 01:01
Comment from: Gern [Visitor]
Gern

"within 5730 years half of them would of decayed through" Would of? How about "would have".

10th November 2013 @ 23:34
Comment from: Crazy Christurd [Visitor]
Crazy Christurd

"So why do you creationists call me a liar?"

Because you aren't real and never existed.

Your fossilized remains were left on Earth by SATAN to tempt the unwary and unbelieving into not believing that man was created out of mud and women were created out of mud-man's rib bones.

Satan, I tell you! SATAN!!!

29th January 2014 @ 09:34


Form is loading...