Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Rotation Advertisements



We hope you enjoy your visit to this forum.


If you are reading this then it means you are currently browsing the forum as a guest, we don’t limit any of the content posted from guests however if you join, you will have the ability to join the discussions! We are always happy to see new faces at this forum and we would like to hear your opinion, so why not register now? It doesn’t take long and you can get posting right away.


Click here to Register!

If you are having difficulties validating your account please email us at admin@dbzf.co.uk


If you're already a member please log in to your account:

Username:   Password:
Locked Topic
In regards of scientific theories.
Topic Started: Jan 26 2016, 09:19 AM (2,976 Views)
Dankness Lava
Member Avatar
Dankness Forever

I'm backing down. I'm not knowledgeable enough on many of the things being brought up to truly debate this. You guys have your fun.
Posted Image
Member Offline View Profile Goto Top
 
+ Sandy Shore
Default Avatar


But you always state your inability to debate to the favour of your faith, and yet you always clutch to it. Ready to go through this same process the next time such a topic starts, and you weigh in with hypotheticals of how we might make the answer equal to God.

Surely that you've nothing to say in its defence only illuminates how wrong it is? Why believe something when you don't even really know what it is that you believe? When all the evidence points to the contrary?
Edited by Sandy Shore, Jan 27 2016, 12:27 AM.
Member Offline View Profile Goto Top
 
Dankness Lava
Member Avatar
Dankness Forever

Lazuli
Jan 27 2016, 12:26 AM
But you always state your inability to debate to the favour of your faith, and yet you always clutch to it. Ready to go through this same process the next time such a topic starts, and you weigh in with hypotheticals of how we might make the answer equal to God.

Surely that you've nothing to say in its defence only illuminates how wrong it is? Why believe something when you don't even really know what it is that you believe? When all the evidence points to the contrary?
Well I have personal proof that he exists but that has no weight in a debate. And it's not that I'm unsure, it's that i don't know how to get others see the same because I'm pretty ignorant on this stuff.
Posted Image
Member Offline View Profile Goto Top
 
+ Sandy Shore
Default Avatar


How do you know your personal experience was with the Abrahamic god? Of all the gods that have been known to man, isn't it a little absurd that the god you have personal proof confirming it exists just so happens to be the very same god that you had grown up being told exists?

Doesn't it say more about you than any god?
Member Offline View Profile Goto Top
 
Dankness Lava
Member Avatar
Dankness Forever

Well I ought to look more into it, but I've heard other gods are derived from Him, and believers take aspects from Him.
Posted Image
Member Offline View Profile Goto Top
 
+ Sandy Shore
Default Avatar


Funnily enough, he is the end result of attributing qualities of other existing gods in the Canaanite pantheon—most notably El Elyon—to the storm/war god Yahweh, due to the Israelite's fear of abandoning him—well, some influential Israelites, anyway—and seeking to make him their "one true god", whilst declaring all others as false.

This is why he is referred to as El, or El Shaddai when Abraham encounters him, and Yahweh when introducing himself to Elijah. It's the result of compiling different supposed encounters with different local gods, and trying to make out they were one and the same. It's also why he, and his people, were so ardent in punishing those who worship idols and other gods; why all the priests of Ba'al were slaughtered.

Other gods are derived from him? Certainly not.
Edited by Sandy Shore, Jan 27 2016, 01:30 AM.
Member Offline View Profile Goto Top
 
Dankness Lava
Member Avatar
Dankness Forever

Could you list the sources of this? I'm planning to look more into this and help would be appreciated.

Also, do you believe the being they compiled the deities into is the same one who gave them the 10 commandments?
Edited by Dankness Lava, Jan 27 2016, 02:08 AM.
Posted Image
Member Offline View Profile Goto Top
 
+ Sandy Shore
Default Avatar


I'm afraid I don't know of any book or website dealing with this specifically, though I'm sure there are, but you can find everything you're looking for on the internet.

Start with reading about Canaanite religion and the JEDP sources for the Old Testament, and I'll private message you with more specific details and quotes tomorrow. There are also a few videos I watched, with archaeological findings that would be of interest, but it was some years ago now, and it seems a quick search won't do. I'll hunt around for them tomorrow and also pass them on.
Member Offline View Profile Goto Top
 
Mihawk
Member Avatar


Well to prevent you guys from getting aneurisms every time pointer says "It's just a theory", I'll leave him with this:

Earth being the third planet in the Solar System in a theory. It's a theory that has a ton of evidence, similar to evolution. There's mathematical evidence, astronomical evidence, among others. It it possible that we're all living in the matrix and the real third planet outside of the matrix is planet Zebra? Possible, but the possibility is so remote because of the evidence we have. Your roof not falling on your head is supported by the theory that modern architecture is sound. Is it possible that your roof will fall on your head now? Sure, it's possible. Just very unlikely, similar to all the facts that we know and hold to be as true. Don't let "theory" deceive you (or should I say stop using it).

Posted Image

Member Offline View Profile Goto Top
 
+ Pointer
Member Avatar
...

Lazuli
Jan 26 2016, 10:46 PM
Carbon dating isn't a theory, it's a method. A method that has been proven to be quite accurate.


questioner
 



I read your article in regards to Dinosaurs. My comment is that scientists DO have the means of determining the exact age of dinosaur bones and fossils through carbon dating. Also, we have hundreds of of other clues in our environment and universe that tell us that the earth is millions of years old. Please do not deny facts....things we can see and touch.



some guy answers
 
There are two major problems with this statement. The first is that the secular world is “scared” to carbon date dinosaur bones or, for that matter, any other bone they suspect is millions of years old. Creationists would love for the soft dinosaur tissue that was discovered by Dr. Mary Schweitzer to have been carbon dated. But as far as I know, such has never been done.

Granted, much carbon (including C-14) would be replaced with other materials for many fossils. This is why fossils that were formerly bone are primarily rock now; this also destroys the long age assumptions in radiometric dating that parent and daughter isotopes cannot be added or removed. Regardless, doing C-14 testing may not reveal much on many fossils, but if even a trace of C-14 is found in fossils supposedly millions of years old, it is a major problem for those holding to long ages. And this brings me to the second problem.

Carbon dating only gives younger age dates—not millions of years. So, claiming that dinosaurs have been age-dated by carbon dating means that you are agreeing that dinosaurs are not millions of years old—only thousands at most!




questioner
 
Also, we have hundreds of of other clues in our environment and universe that tell us that the earth is millions of years old.


answerer
 
Such as? But on the contrary, uniformitarian dating methods, by and large, give ages of the earth far less than billions of years.1 Why are these ignored?



questioner
 



Please do not deny facts....things we can see and touch.



Quote:
 
Sadly, in today’s culture we have all been taught that things like carbon dating are “facts,” but they are merely interpretations of facts. If carbon dating is a fact, then coal layers cannot be millions of years old, and the secular “geological time scale” breaks down, as carbon-14 is readily found in coal layers that are supposed to be millions of years old!




I found this so what now? There were dinosaurs in 10000 BC ? or the Earth is 6000 years old ? :)
Edited by Pointer, Jan 27 2016, 05:37 PM.

Posted Image
Member Offline View Profile Goto Top
 
SpeedoTrunks
Default Avatar


Where is that qoute from, Ie the source?

A source i have found (from a coal mining company) suggests, rightly i might add:

Quote:
 
Coal formed millions of years ago....


From my understanding, coal has to be mined.......from deep under ground, and is formed due to intense pressure. So for it to be that deep in the ground........it would have to be very old, much like somebody previously suggesting that geological factors come into this, IE how deep in the earth this is.

Can I just ask, where is all this coming from? Like why raise this subject and overtly just ignore all answers coming in to agree with yourself a bunch of the time?
Member Offline View Profile Goto Top
 
Mihawk
Member Avatar


Lord Protector
Jan 27 2016, 05:36 PM
Lazuli
Jan 26 2016, 10:46 PM
Carbon dating isn't a theory, it's a method. A method that has been proven to be quite accurate.


questioner
 



I read your article in regards to Dinosaurs. My comment is that scientists DO have the means of determining the exact age of dinosaur bones and fossils through carbon dating. Also, we have hundreds of of other clues in our environment and universe that tell us that the earth is millions of years old. Please do not deny facts....things we can see and touch.



some guy answers
 
There are two major problems with this statement. The first is that the secular world is “scared” to carbon date dinosaur bones or, for that matter, any other bone they suspect is millions of years old. Creationists would love for the soft dinosaur tissue that was discovered by Dr. Mary Schweitzer to have been carbon dated. But as far as I know, such has never been done.

Granted, much carbon (including C-14) would be replaced with other materials for many fossils. This is why fossils that were formerly bone are primarily rock now; this also destroys the long age assumptions in radiometric dating that parent and daughter isotopes cannot be added or removed. Regardless, doing C-14 testing may not reveal much on many fossils, but if even a trace of C-14 is found in fossils supposedly millions of years old, it is a major problem for those holding to long ages. And this brings me to the second problem.

Carbon dating only gives younger age dates—not millions of years. So, claiming that dinosaurs have been age-dated by carbon dating means that you are agreeing that dinosaurs are not millions of years old—only thousands at most!




questioner
 
Also, we have hundreds of of other clues in our environment and universe that tell us that the earth is millions of years old.


answerer
 
Such as? But on the contrary, uniformitarian dating methods, by and large, give ages of the earth far less than billions of years.1 Why are these ignored?



questioner
 



Please do not deny facts....things we can see and touch.



Quote:
 
Sadly, in today’s culture we have all been taught that things like carbon dating are “facts,” but they are merely interpretations of facts. If carbon dating is a fact, then coal layers cannot be millions of years old, and the secular “geological time scale” breaks down, as carbon-14 is readily found in coal layers that are supposed to be millions of years old!




I found this so what now? There were dinosaurs in 10000 BC ? or the Earth is 6000 years old ? :)
Quote:
 
In psychology and cognitive science, confirmation bias (or confirmatory bias) is a tendency to search for or interpret information in a way that confirms one's preconceptions, leading to statistical errors.

I found this, now what?

Posted Image

Member Offline View Profile Goto Top
 
+ Pointer
Member Avatar
...

It still doesnt make carbon 14 fact , does it ?


Btw where is your points .... carbon 14 is a method which function not that accurately, Or if it is accurate then we had dinosaurs in the stone age ....which might be true since some cave paintings has stone age man riding dinosaur, or whatever the hell it was.

Quote:
 
Evolution is a fact whether you believe it's a fact or not, lol. People have theories on evolution -- i.e., to explain how it works, for example the theory of evolution by natural selection -- but evolution itself is a fact.



Funny thing is even Darwin admits there is flaws in the theory. And btw if it is fact already, then why do we still call it a theory? :blush:

If it is fact we should simply call it the law of evolution, or something like a mathematical formula (which is fckin fact in its own fields)
Edited by Pointer, Jan 27 2016, 06:28 PM.

Posted Image
Member Offline View Profile Goto Top
 
Buuberries
Member Avatar
No

we dont call evolution a theory. we call evolution by natural selection a theory.

hey the theory of gravity is just a theory. why dont you go jump off your bedroom window to find out if it's just a theory or not??
¯\(°_o)/¯
Member Offline View Profile Goto Top
 
Common2
Member Avatar


Lord Protector
Jan 27 2016, 06:23 PM
And btw if it is fact already, then why do we still call it a theory?
Oh my god I'm having an aneurism
Member Offline View Profile Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Free Forums. Reliable service with over 8 years of experience.
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · General Discussion · Next Topic »
Locked Topic

Theme Designed by McKee91