Adam...? - Page 3

I like the fallen angel theory. I believe in evolution, but it does not give us a complete explination. Take the fallen angel theory and mix it with evolution and you might be closer to the truth.

I was wrong about animals and religion. My dog is religious. He thinks I'm God and serves me well.

We have a hairless cat. We bought a sweater for him so that he will stay warm when its cold, but he refuses to wear it.

"I was wrong about animals and religion. My dog is religious. He thinks I'm God and serves me well."



"We have a hairless cat. We bought a sweater for him so that he will stay warm when its cold, but he refuses to wear it."

See, animals are just nudists.

If they could take it off and put it on themselves easily they might do so, as many don't mind sweaters at all. But there is little more claustrophobic and frustrating then having something forcibly and helplessly stuck on you against your will.

lefty, you are the captain oc cynics when religion comes to view yet what an optimist on the Glory of man.

What? Care to explain yourself, for I'm not too sure of what you are talking about.

quote:

---

http://www.captaincynic.com/thread.php3/frmid=21-u-thrdid=37336

---

Just read this one just a general perception based on the general point of view you give in your post.

That is a thread about hypothetically viewing the future.

I still don't know what your point is, please feel free to clarify in words rather than links.

I have noticed trends in your posts, religion is like a matador's red flag being waved before the bull. Generally this comes as "why accept some storybook tale as the turth".
Or "If no one has seen GOD, why do you think he exist?"
By the same token I could say " no one has ever seen an atom, why do you believe they exist"? Because technology claims it to be so & and can be mathematically proven. Having studied science I found it is not nearly as cut & dried as they would have you believe. but it is rather a silly discussion isn't it. You believe what ever you may believe just as I do.

Sir Arthur Keith, a noted British evolutionist, had this to say: "Evolution is unproved and unprovable; we believe it only because the alternative is the belief in God and creation, and that is unthinkable!"

So now don't go claiming that evolution is an open minded belief. Evolution is a safe haven for those who are so afraid of God that they must conjure up another solution in spite of the complete lack of evidence.

To me evolution appears by far to be the most logical. Yes, something as complicated as life can't be simple, but look at it from the wider perpective.
As is known to some, with the big bang and creation of particles, naturally particles combined together to form different particles and so on. what is so unbelievable about this fact? what is so unprovable about a couple of atoms joining to gather to form a tiny organisim made up of 2 or 3 atoms?

There is no logic in evolution, just scandal. They cannot prove that the world is 32 billion years (or whatever it is they claim now). They use defective testing methods or they leave out tests just to "prove" their point. Science is supposed to be the search of truth but evolutionists start with the answer "evolution is real" and then they make evidence to prove their answer. This is not science it's a joke.

well if you would have followed some other line of argument it would have been plausible, but what do you mean by deffective testing methods? I mean hey, those methods are used for a lot more than determining how old the earth is, including for autopsy and God knows what.
Hmmm, ok on second thoughts I 'd like to know how they test. If the method includes checking the wear and tear of rocks etc, then perhaps that is not 100 percent sure, as the amount of wear and tear does not have to be constant

Carbon 14 dating gives very inaccurate results.

"When the blood of a seal freshly killed at McMurdo Sound in the Antarctic was tested by Carbon-14, it showed the seal had died 1,300 years ago."
Antarctic Journal, Vol.6 - (1971) p.211
1300 years is too great a margin of error to take seriously.

The hair on a mammoth was found to be 26,000 years old while the peat in which the mammoth was preserved was measured by the same Carbon 14 technique and found to be only 5,600 years old."
Dr. D. Rosevear - Creation Science - p.92

"The troubles of the radiocarbon dating method are undeniably deep and serious ... It should be no surprise, then, that fully half of the dates are rejected. The wonder is, surely, that the remaining half come to be accepted."
R. E. Lee - Radiocarbon, Ages in Error: (1981) - as quoted in The Answers Book p.75

"Scientists determine when fossils were formed by finding out the age of the rocks in which they lie." S. Welles: Fossils - World Book Encyclopedia Vol.7 (1978) p. 364
"Palaeontology (the study of fossils) is important in the study of geology. The age of the rocks may be determined by the fossils found in them." S. Welles: Palaeontology - World Book Encyclopedia Vol.15 (1978) p. 85
In other words the fossils are dated by the rocks and the rocks are dated by the fossils. Just ciruclar reasoning not evidence.

Also, the problem that arises with carbon-14 dating is that we would have to assume that the rate of the decay of carbon-14 has remained consistant throughout the years. The change of evironment surrounding the fossils alters the decay rate.