This is a nice video made by cdk007 demonstrating how wrong young earth creationists are when they claim the earth is 6000 years old. Imagine being this wrong and still having to pretend you are right. Imagine having to defend the claim the pyramids were built yesterday or that the empire state building is as tall as a human hair is wide. How humiliating. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZnFOmqvYmTY Also check out cdk007's other videos. he does a great job at kicking the crap out of infantile bollocks.
Hehe. I liked this one by cdk007: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T79uaP_Kx6E Once I saw a better movie, it takes things that were found in the "bible code" and then finds exactly the same things in the dostoevsky's novel crime and punishment.
The religious get around this by saying that a day to God is a lot longer to us. So it's actually pretty easy for them. Of course that's the latest excuse. Before non-believers pointed out these absurdities they wouldn't have even given it any thought. You're welcome.
The trouble with that excuse is it inevatibly results in them admitting that the earth isn't 6000 years after all, and they are just using the wrong words.
It's amazing to me that there are people in 2009 who seriously claim that the earth is 6000 years old. It's just flat out amazing.
I'm not quite sure about your statistics. But the US education system is obviously not working very well. I think it's important that we look at the system from a progressive perspective and really think about the changes that may be necessary to improve our system. It's certainly not going to be a popular thing - but I think Obama was right to bring up the idea of having school be year around (with multiple shorter vacations rather than the one long summer vacation) ... Not that I think that on it's own will solve our educational problems. Definitely not. But we need to look around and see what works and then spread those concepts to more schools around the country.
We have been going the progressive route with the public school system since the 60's, hasn't it proven itself yet? Maybe having high expectations for the kids and the kids having parents that actually took responsibility for their children and the shrinks would get out of the way? maybe, just maybe?? I guess that is why homeschooling is becoming so popular.
I am an atheist and a non believer in god's creation but that doesn't mean Science explains everything. Because Science is just something created by the human beings and we do not everything ! Cos our brain can only think within a certain boundary. The vision, touch, and all the other senses are something relevant to living things. So my question is "What could be the chances of the evolution taking care in such a way that eyes were formed to see what's around !"
Who says it does? If science thought it could explain everything it would stop. But it doesn't stop, it tirelessly continues improving your quality of life and prolonging it. You sound like a creationist who hasn't heard a single argument against his position. Are you another lying christian pretending to be an "atheist"? read up then get back to us....
It's hard to believe that the world is 6000 years old. It sounds like a parable that was to be helpful for bible readers to understand God's works and you know how old english sounds, majestic and grand. A day could be a thousand years in man's time.
LoL First off am an Hindu. And I do not believe in God, so am pretty sure about me being an atheist. What I'd beg to differ is neither theist nor scientific concepts satisfy to answer many of the questions what you and I have. Why would anyone not out of the box and see that there is other possible stuffs too !
But which one is going to provide the correct answer once an answer is found? The religious approach to finding answers is to make something up, the scientific approach is to find, via invenstigation, the truth. A religious "answer" will never satisfy to answer any questions because the answer is just made up. How satisfied can you be if you know what you are being told, like that the world is 6000 years old, is complete bollocks which someone has just made up? I don't know what that means.
First of all, I am not going to say the earth is 6000 years old, however it is younger than people would like to think. I am a prospector and I travel into gold mines. At the back of one such mine, I found a palm sized black opal as shiny as can be. I wanted it and tried to break a piece off with my hammer. To my amazement my hammer sunk into the opal. It was wet and not hard. This particular part of the mine was the end of a shaft and water was dripping from the rocks down over the opalized area. This gold mine was about 100 years old at the time. In another 100 years I would be willing to bet, that it would be dry and hard. My second observation is that common man has not had the time to collect data to make even a remotely accurate calculation as to how old the earth is. Remember, in school they taught Columbus discovered America, only to find out later that the Vikings were here before. Most people that is as far as they know. However, Egyptians were in America long before, which is evident of their ability to acquire South American Coca (Cocaine) which was used in the embalming process of mummys. It is found no where else int he world. My point is that people say they did not have a sea worthy craft to make it all the way across. What if it was not as far as it is today? The earth is constantly moving and reshaping. There are mysteries such as the Grand Canyon. But because people cannot come up with a good explanation, they invent theories. Some Men do not want to accept there is no God, so they try to rationalize. They take something like Carbon dating and add their own man made chart, and stretch it out for millions of years. Why? because the theory ( and it is a theory, mind you ) of evolution needs millions of years to work, because there is no missing link. Every so called missing link: Lucy, Nehanderthaw man, ect were all proven to be hoax's, yet books in the classroom still teach them as facts. Why? to discredit the Man was created by God. Bottom line is it does not matter how old the earth is, but you better know if there is a God or not. That is a journey and question to be asked by each and every person. Sweeping it under the rug, and trying to pretend is not going to change fact.
you are kinda confused, man. you need to learn a few things if you want to engage in a serious discussion. Obviously one doesn't need to have a clue in geology to be a gold prospector.
By people you mean scientists? Experts who are very skilled in thier feild? Now we have that established, what is your specialised field? oh..... That wasn't opal then. Well we don't need to collect "data" over prolonged periods of time so long as we have multiple dating methods which are known to work and which verify the validity of each other. The only "mystery" exists in the heads of young earth creationists who have to try and crowbar in the obvious fact that the grand canyon was carved by a river over millions of years to fit with their unsupported assertion that the world is 6000 years old. Do you have any idea how carbon and radiometric dating works? what am i talking about, of course you don't. The "missing link" wouldn't exist because that isn't how evolution works. The term has only ever been used in popularist writing to convey the idea to the ill educated masses that between species there would be incrimental changes. As for the "theory" of evolution, i suggest you look up what a "theory" is in science. I would explain it to you, but iv frankly grown tired of having to explain this simple fact to the illeducated over and over again. But heres a link. So now you are just making shit up? In what way were australopithecus and "nehanderthaw" man proven hoaxes? The bottom line is you want to ignore all of the evidence, scientific, validated, tested and scrutinised evidence suggesting the world is around 5 billion years old because you once hit something you thought was opel with a hammer and it was soft. I mean really, are you listening to yourself?
Catastrophism has gotten a bad rap over the past couple hundred years. That said, it has experienced a resurgence, including supporting evidence in the past couple of decades. Examples include the discovery of large impact craters, super-volcanoes, flood events, etc. There have also been extremely anomolous discoveries like 70 million-year-old soft tissue. Frankly, it is as hard to believe the preservation of T. Rex blood cells and connective tissue for 70 million years as it is to believe a 6000 year old earth. I'll punt and conclude that we don't know anywhere near as much as we think we do.
Which has been my point in every one of these discussions. There is no "conclusive" evidence to suggest either theory is right or wrong.