Is recorded history really only from a certain point in time? or can we trace it back to the first humans? watch the video of a full chart of history that is available to buy.
Getting 4.6 billion years in just over 25 feet and managing to to exclude Evolution. That must have taken some real poetic licence...
"For a very very very long time, nothing happened. Then the world was suddenly populated by all manner of creatures and nothing happened before that point. Honest."
I can imagine ignoring the vast majority of 4.6 billion years would take some serious forcing.
Or are they going with the whole, "Genesis is completely literal. The world is only 6000 years old, despite proof it is considerably older, and everything was made in 7 days."?
the person doing it probably did not even know of the idea of evolution, so we can hardly say that he did it intentionally missing out billions of years. He would have simply produced an ancestral trail the way we do today.
what other way can you measure it other than birth certificates and accepted history? plough evolution into it? that is a bit unfair in letting history and reason speak for itself. The Jews were very up on genealogies and keeping records, this is why a history would be easy to produce like this.
That's the thing though. We find fossils in the earth that can be carbon dated back hundreds of thousands of years. Millions of years. We burn fuel formed from the decayed matter of creatures living millions of years ago. Everyone knows this and to question it is ignorance. So these fossils that show the slow but sure transformation from one being to another sharing similar genetic code and features. These are just coincidence? It's simply coincidence that human and chimp DNA share similar A-G, C-T bonds that match up with one another?
And in all honesty, how can someone go through life without knowing what evolution is? It's a blatant part of life and it's visible everywhere. To 'not even know' of evolution would be to close your eyes and ears to the world.
Really? That's the extent of this reply. No excuse that all fossils are fake, that the earth is 6000 years old or that, once more, evolution is a lie.
Just, 'To not question your own belief is to be ignorant.'?
I've questioned Evolution, where did it get me to? Oh yeah, there's irrefutable *proof* that Evolution is true. As for the creationist's side to the concept. Flaw after flaw after flaw.
Still amused when I asked you questions that you can't answer you simply don't post my question so people think you one. Which you will likely do with this as well.
you claim there is irrefutable proof for evolution, but how can you know for sure when so much of it is relative. the clause comes in 'science has progressed' and they add an extra billion years on to the age of the earth.
How can you definately say you have irrefutable proof, when they make 'progress' in evolutionary science and change their mind?
What say you on the case of the Haeckel fraud? (http://theevolutionhoax.blogspot.co.uk/2011/11/another-modern-evolutionary-hoax.html) doubtlessly while this was (and still is) in the text books, it is irrefutable because the textbooks call it fact? even though it was fake before it was first published in the book. This is a prime example of relative proof that beggers the question, how can you ever know?
See, this is what grates on me. People who believe something ludicrous are willing to overlook the obvious truth right in front of them. You have one piece of evidence that you will reuse in every argument because scientists made a mistake and haven't finished removing it. As I stated in a previous comment which was clearly too difficult to respond to that you chose not to post it, the Haeckel is one piece of evidence. Yes? Well I simply respond, Scientists made a mistake; and this mistake hasn't been corrected 100% yet. (Though I have never been taught through school or college of this Heackel's theory. Why? Because it was wrong) I'd expect at this point that those who believe in religion would be used to this concept. No the world isn't 6000 years old. No the human race didn't come from 2 people. No, a book written by humans doesn't contain all the answers. People get things wrong.
So, if evolution is false. Please tell me why this is wrong. After all, you can only make a judgement on proof. Why can we trace the genes between humans and chimps so closely? Why can we match up the DNA between species, or why is it we can see fossils that, over millions of years, advance further towards another. Slowly forming similar features and eventually turning into the creature we know today?
Or, if those are too easy. Will you choose to actually respond to the question I have given 3 times before. Every time of which you have simply chosen to not post my response. Humans, over the last several hundred years, have shown signs of evolution themselves. Most significantly in a village high up on a mountain where their blood cells have actually adapted to hold more oxygen. So they can breathe better. What? Did these people live great lives so deserved it? Or did God *finally* decide to intervene and help some people with a better standard of living? Seems a little unfair just to affect one village and ignore everyone else after all. OR, they evolved. Seems to make a lot more sense...
So please, tell me. Are those facts actually just lies? Or are you going to admit that your concept has a major flaw in it? It's wrong.
Jack Crewe said on 29Sep2012 "We find fossils in the earth that can be carbon dated back hundreds of thousands of years. Millions of years. We burn fuel formed from the decayed matter of creatures living millions of years ago. Everyone knows this and to question it is ignorance." It is ignorance to assert that carbon dating is effective beyond 70 thousand years.
Carbon dating is only accurate up to 70,000 years. Yes, though it still has baring past that. Though if we are to only assume that the carbon dating works for 70,000 years. That's still 64,000 years past the esteemed bible's 'creation date' of the earth. Not to mention, there's more than one way to find the age of something. Sediment levels into the earth, fossil's found to be around that time and only that time, living examples such as the tree structure recently found that has been growing for nearly 14,000 years. Again, 8000 years more than the bible claims.
Getting 4.6 billion years in just over 25 feet and managing to to exclude Evolution. That must have taken some real poetic licence...
ReplyDelete"For a very very very long time, nothing happened. Then the world was suddenly populated by all manner of creatures and nothing happened before that point. Honest."
I think it was just as simple as, they did not start off with that idea then force it into the traceable history.
DeleteForced it you say?
DeleteI can imagine ignoring the vast majority of 4.6 billion years would take some serious forcing.
Or are they going with the whole, "Genesis is completely literal. The world is only 6000 years old, despite proof it is considerably older, and everything was made in 7 days."?
Either way, forced really is the word here.
the person doing it probably did not even know of the idea of evolution, so we can hardly say that he did it intentionally missing out billions of years. He would have simply produced an ancestral trail the way we do today.
DeleteCorrection, if he'd done it the way we do today. He'd have done it correctly.
Deletewhat other way can you measure it other than birth certificates and accepted history? plough evolution into it? that is a bit unfair in letting history and reason speak for itself. The Jews were very up on genealogies and keeping records, this is why a history would be easy to produce like this.
DeleteThat's the thing though. We find fossils in the earth that can be carbon dated back hundreds of thousands of years. Millions of years. We burn fuel formed from the decayed matter of creatures living millions of years ago. Everyone knows this and to question it is ignorance. So these fossils that show the slow but sure transformation from one being to another sharing similar genetic code and features. These are just coincidence? It's simply coincidence that human and chimp DNA share similar A-G, C-T bonds that match up with one another?
DeleteAnd in all honesty, how can someone go through life without knowing what evolution is? It's a blatant part of life and it's visible everywhere. To 'not even know' of evolution would be to close your eyes and ears to the world.
you say "Everyone knows this and to question it is ignorance."
DeleteTo not question your own belief is to be ignorant.
Really? That's the extent of this reply. No excuse that all fossils are fake, that the earth is 6000 years old or that, once more, evolution is a lie.
DeleteJust, 'To not question your own belief is to be ignorant.'?
I've questioned Evolution, where did it get me to? Oh yeah, there's irrefutable *proof* that Evolution is true. As for the creationist's side to the concept. Flaw after flaw after flaw.
Still amused when I asked you questions that you can't answer you simply don't post my question so people think you one. Which you will likely do with this as well.
Hi Jack.
DeleteNobody here said that fossils were fake.
you claim there is irrefutable proof for evolution, but how can you know for sure when so much of it is relative. the clause comes in 'science has progressed' and they add an extra billion years on to the age of the earth.
How can you definately say you have irrefutable proof, when they make 'progress' in evolutionary science and change their mind?
What say you on the case of the Haeckel fraud?
(http://theevolutionhoax.blogspot.co.uk/2011/11/another-modern-evolutionary-hoax.html)
doubtlessly while this was (and still is) in the text books, it is irrefutable because the textbooks call it fact? even though it was fake before it was first published in the book. This is a prime example of relative proof that beggers the question, how can you ever know?
here is a summary of what i mean from a quote by John Lennon:
Deletehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=dD_4K2Zgtbw
See, this is what grates on me. People who believe something ludicrous are willing to overlook the obvious truth right in front of them. You have one piece of evidence that you will reuse in every argument because scientists made a mistake and haven't finished removing it.
DeleteAs I stated in a previous comment which was clearly too difficult to respond to that you chose not to post it, the Haeckel is one piece of evidence. Yes? Well I simply respond, Scientists made a mistake; and this mistake hasn't been corrected 100% yet. (Though I have never been taught through school or college of this Heackel's theory. Why? Because it was wrong) I'd expect at this point that those who believe in religion would be used to this concept. No the world isn't 6000 years old. No the human race didn't come from 2 people. No, a book written by humans doesn't contain all the answers. People get things wrong.
So, if evolution is false. Please tell me why this is wrong. After all, you can only make a judgement on proof. Why can we trace the genes between humans and chimps so closely? Why can we match up the DNA between species, or why is it we can see fossils that, over millions of years, advance further towards another. Slowly forming similar features and eventually turning into the creature we know today?
Or, if those are too easy. Will you choose to actually respond to the question I have given 3 times before. Every time of which you have simply chosen to not post my response. Humans, over the last several hundred years, have shown signs of evolution themselves. Most significantly in a village high up on a mountain where their blood cells have actually adapted to hold more oxygen. So they can breathe better. What? Did these people live great lives so deserved it? Or did God *finally* decide to intervene and help some people with a better standard of living? Seems a little unfair just to affect one village and ignore everyone else after all. OR, they evolved. Seems to make a lot more sense...
So please, tell me. Are those facts actually just lies? Or are you going to admit that your concept has a major flaw in it? It's wrong.
Jack Crewe said on 29Sep2012 "We find fossils in the earth that can be carbon dated back hundreds of thousands of years. Millions of years. We burn fuel formed from the decayed matter of creatures living millions of years ago. Everyone knows this and to question it is ignorance." It is ignorance to assert that carbon dating is effective beyond 70 thousand years.
ReplyDeleteCarbon dating is only accurate up to 70,000 years. Yes, though it still has baring past that. Though if we are to only assume that the carbon dating works for 70,000 years. That's still 64,000 years past the esteemed bible's 'creation date' of the earth. Not to mention, there's more than one way to find the age of something. Sediment levels into the earth, fossil's found to be around that time and only that time, living examples such as the tree structure recently found that has been growing for nearly 14,000 years. Again, 8000 years more than the bible claims.
Delete