By Stephanie Gallman, CNN
(CNN) – Ask Dylan Thompson to name his career highlights, and fans might expect to hear about one of his big moments as South Carolina's backup quarterback - like the time he led the Gamecocks to victory over rival Clemson, or when he threw the game-winning touchdown with 11 seconds left in the Outback Bowl.
But while Thompson said he's proud of his team’s accomplishments as well as his own, nothing really compares to what happened to him off the field his freshman year.
“Being saved and dedicating my life to Christ is actually the greatest thing that’s ever happened to me,” Thompson said.
His desire to spread the Gospel and share his faith propelled Thompson and his mentor, Jack Easterby, to come up with The Bible Out Loud project, an online initiative aimed at getting Christians to memorize and recite Scripture.
After the 27-17 victory over Clemson last November, Thompson felt he was receiving far too much attention. Not that it was undeserved: he threw for 310 yards and three touchdowns.
But Thompson says the number of touchdowns he scores pales in comparison to what’s really important.
“We need to get the attention back on Jesus,” he said.
The rules for The Bible Out Loud project are simple: Participants memorize one to five verses from the New International Version of the Bible and record themselves reciting it. Then they upload their video to YouTube and copy and paste the link to the project's web site.
Thompson said it's something people can do regardless of their denomination, social status or income, and it puts the focus back where he says it should be, on God’s word.
He recognizes that his status on the football field gives him a “tremendous opportunity to share” his testimony and lead others down the path to faith.
Easterby, who is the executive director of The Greatest Champion Foundation, agrees.
We are hoping to "rally the troops" using well-known athletes’ influence, said Easterby, whose organization, according to its website, uses "the platform of athletics" to "communicate the message of Christ.”
The promotional video for Bible Out Loud features several South Carolina athletes, but they're not named in an effort to keep the focus on Scripture. But diehard Gamecock fans will recognize them, and college fans will likely recognize running back Marcus Lattimore, who suffered a season-ending injury that brought everyone in Williams-Brice Stadium to their feet back in October.
Thompson said he’s even talked South Carolina head football coach Steve Spurrier into reading a verse for the project.
“He told me he was proud of me for doing it,” Thompson said.
Easterby understands there is often skepticism when it comes to religion, but he stresses the project involves no money and is pure in its intentions. He said Christians often face persecution when spreading their message, but so far backlash to the Bible Out Loud project has been minimal.
“A lot less than I had anticipated,” he laughs.
Most of the responses have been positive, and the project's goal of having an entire video Bible online by the end of the year is well on its way to being completed. Less than three weeks in, Easterby said more than 1,000 of the 31,000-plus verses have already been submitted.
There's been no shortage of variety, either, which is what Thompson said he’d hoped for. Among the videos posted online: a couple standing outside next to a lake reciting Proverbs 12:2-3; schoolchildren in uniform reciting 2 Timothy 2:15; and a boy wearing his football jersey reciting Acts 16:31.
The influx of submissions has let Easterby, who views each video before posting it to the site, be more selective.
“The Bible is meant to be read joyfully,” he said. Easterby has been in contact with submitters who aren’t speaking clearly or loudly enough on the video, asking them to resubmit.
The task of going over the videos with a watchful eye is challenging, but he said he wouldn’t want it any other way.
“It’s been unbelievable,” Easterby said. “Flat out amazing.”
New International Version (NIV)
Jesus Is Tested in the Wilderness
4 Then Jesus was led by the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted[a] by the devil. 2 After fasting forty days and forty nights, he was hungry. 3 The tempter came to him and said, “If you are the Son of God, tell these stones to become bread.”
4 Jesus answered, “It is written: ‘Man shall not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God.’[b]”
5 Then the devil took him to the holy city and had him stand on the highest point of the temple. 6 “If you are the Son of God,” he said, “throw yourself down. For it is written:
“‘He will command his angels concerning you,
and they will lift you up in their hands,
so that you will not strike your foot against a stone.’[c]”
7 Jesus answered him, “It is also written: ‘Do not put the Lord your God to the test.’[d]”
8 Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their splendor. 9 “All this I will give you,” he said, “if you will bow down and worship me.”
10 Jesus said to him, “Away from me, Satan! For it is written: ‘Worship the Lord your God, and serve him only.’[e]”
11 Then the devil left him, and angels came and attended him.
What did Zeus have to say on the matter? Odin? Rah the Sun God? Allah? Lord Ganesh? Tamonten? Apollo? Shiva Lord of Dance? Thor? Isis?
1) God is satisfied with his works – Gen 1:31
God is dissatisfied with his works. – Gen 6:6
2) God dwells in chosen temples – 2 Chron 7:12,16
God dwells not in temples – Acts 7:48
3) God dwells in light – Tim 6:16
God dwells in darkness – 1 Kings 8:12/ Ps 18:11/ Ps 97:2
4) God is seen and heard – Ex 33:23/ Ex 33:11/ Gen 3:9,10/ Gen 32:30/ Is 6:1/ Ex 24:9-11
God is invisible and cannot be heard – John 1:18/ John 5:37/ Ex 33:20/ 1 Tim 6:16
5) God is tired and rests – Ex 31:17
God is never tired and never rests – Is 40:28
Jesus is creator of the universe right? So this story makes absolutely no sense.
"“All this I will give you,” he said, “if you will bow down and worship me.” [said "Satan"]
- How is that any different from:
"You will have an eternal life of bliss if you bow down and worship me and only ME." [said "God"]
ya he also regretted making man, that was in book of Genesis, so apparently we are somewhat made in His image because He seems to have a personality of sorts.
God's contradictory nature makes his existence an impossibility.
Live4you was destroying your uranium dating methods on the pages below, im going to check out the rebuttal instead of listening to nonsense and garbage.
Run away rigo! Run away.
"He seems to have a personality of sorts."
Too bad it is sociopathic and psychotic in nature
If Lie4It had such earth shattering proof that our current dating procedures were wrong, the scientific world would be recalibrating lots of data and theories. Instead, to your chagrin, they ignore you *because* Lie4It is wrong and they have better things to do than waste time constantly showing you and Lie4It over and over again *why* you're wrong. This would be unlike many posters here who constantly argue the same things with Lie4It over and over because they don't have better things to do.
on the 9th of AV , gregorian calendar, israel sent 10 spies out to view the promised land. they brought back a bad report and despised what they saw. This date ended up being cursed
Nebuchadnezzar destroyed the temple on the 9th of AV
600 years later rome destroyed the temple on the 9th of AV
Jews were kicked out of england on the 9th of AV 1290
Jews kicked out of spain ln the 9th of AV 1492
WW1 started on the 9th of AV
Hitlers proclomation to kill the jews was on the 9th of AV
the last two years that there were 4 consecutive blood moons in a row, were 1949 and 1967, Israel reinstated and the 6 years war, and the next is in 2014- 15 4 consecutive blood moons, one on the passover, and this same year is a sabbatical year. the blood moon is associated with the return of Christ. this is the last time that will happen this century.
You nut cases really love looking for omens and quackery. Let's throw in that curse number 13. Why not that 666?
Oh that 9-11 on 9/11 ... there I found another omen for the tin foil hat movement.
Rigo, are you dale from yesterday? The blood moon stuff is exactly the same in both of rigo and dale's posts...
Akira, it's the same tripe, word for word. Gotta be the same poe.
Thought so, midwest rail.
@rigo..... "Live4you was destroying your uranium dating methods on the pages below"
Please explain how that would prove the existence of god??................ insert here another lame "god did it"??
I see a lot of blah blah blah... quoted from a book of mythology, but no scientific evidence to support the existence of god.
Is there anything better than taking a fetus and smashing it on the ground? Oh yeah, participating in communism.
Yawn. Obvious troll is obvious. And also rather boring.
You spelled "communion" wrong.
Psalm 137:9 – "Happy shall he be, that takes and dashes your little ones against the stones."
Seems like killing "little ones" is something the christian book of rules teaches as a joyous event.
RatLib you still upset?
Jesus loves abortions. As do I. As do I.
Don’t suppose that I came to do away with the Law and the Prophets. I did not come to do away with them, but to give them their full meaning. Heaven and earth may disappear. But I promise you that not even a period or comma will ever disappear from the Law. Everything written in it must happen.
If you reject even the least important command in the Law and teach others to do the same, you will be the least important person in the kingdom of heaven. But if you obey and teach others its commands, you will have an important place in the kingdom. You must obey God’s commands better than the Pharisees and the teachers of the Law obey them. If you don’t, I promise you that you will never get into the kingdom of heaven.
(Mat. 5:17-20 CEV)
Creepy and weird.
Good points! Glad to see you rejoin the discussion.
BTW – I'm heading out for today
Please do not sacrifice anything on set anything on fire.
Christians are Zealot Morons,
When people saw what the holy spirit did to the first Christians, they didn’t think they were creepy and weird, they thought they were drunk.
On the day of Pentecost all the Lord’s followers were together in one place. Suddenly there was a noise from heaven like the sound of a mighty wind! It filled the house where they were meeting. Then they saw what looked like fiery tongues moving in all directions, and a tongue came and settled on each person there. The Holy Spirit took control of everyone, and they began speaking whatever languages the Spirit let them speak.
Many religious Jews from every country in the world were living in Jerusalem. And when they heard this noise, a crowd gathered. But they were surprised, because they were hearing everything in their own languages. They were excited and amazed, and said:
Don’t all these who are speaking come from Galilee? Then why do we hear them speaking our very own languages? Some of us are from Parthia, Media, and Elam. Others are from Mesopotamia, Judea, Cappadocia, Pontus, Asia, Phrygia, Pamphylia, Egypt, parts of Libya near Cyrene, Rome, Crete, and Arabia. Some of us were born Jews, and others of us have chosen to be Jews. Yet we all hear them using our own languages to tell the wonderful things God has done.
Everyone was excited and confused. Some of them even kept asking each other, “What does all this mean?”
Others made fun of the Lord’s followers and said, “They are drunk.”
(Act 2:1-13 CEV)
The Christian god has the same traits as an abusive partner:
• you have to fear him to receive his love
• you are unworthy of his love
• you are nothing without him
• if you do not love him he will hurt you
• he doesn't want to punish you – it's really your fault
• he threatens you if he thinks you might break things off
• at all times he needs to know where you are, what you're doing and thinking so he can control your thoughts and behavior
• doesn't want you to get an education because you'll realize you don't need him anymore and break up
• worst of all, you have to bring him beer and a sammich
"If you reject even the least important command in the Law and teach others to do the same, you will be the least important person in the kingdom of heaven."
So when do the stonings begin Mr. Brown?
I don’t see God as an abusive partner, more like a loving father.
King James Version (KJV)
1 There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.
2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.
3 For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:
4 That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.
5 For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit.
6 For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace.
7 Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.
8 So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God.
9 But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.
10 And if Christ be in you, the body is dead because of sin; but the Spirit is life because of righteousness.
11 But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you.
12 Therefore, brethren, we are debtors, not to the flesh, to live after the flesh.
13 For if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die: but if ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live.
14 For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.
15 For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father.
16 The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:
Blessed are the Cheesemakers,
I would rather be the least important person in the kingdom of heaven, than the most important person anywhere else.
I'd rather have a real friend than an imaginary one.
Good evening, Robert. To be least in the kingdom of heaven, as I understand Christian theology, is to have the least need for God. So the first is last. Is that what you want?
A man that hath friends must shew himself friendly: and there is a friend that sticketh closer than a brother.
Tom, Tom, the Other One,
I’m obviously not a theologian and I hadn’t ever heard that one. I meant it more as I wouldn’t be concerned with my position or rank as long as I made it in.
So the last shall be first, and the first last: for many be called, but few chosen.
" I would rather be the least important person the kingdom of heaven, than the most important person anywhere else."
Some folks are just happy with slavery
@Robert; please provide scientific evidence that your god exists. .......... just a hint, quotes from the bible prove NOTHING.
Tim Tebow is the greatest!!
nice cheap shot! you must know him or have talked to him obviously.
I do know him. He is that terrible quarterback that won't even be in the league next year. The only reason people like him is because he is a zealot christard.
We do not want him, maybe Buffalo. but thats it.
I would love to continue this splendid conversation of ours but I have to resume beating off to old holocaust footage. Acuna matata!!
Oh no, you reported me? I'm so scared. Why not ask your almighty god to smite me? After all, I am mocking him pretty hard. Maybe if your god wasn't the biggest faqqot of all time he would have the guts to defend himself and his idiot believers.
nice name bro that is no accident.
Jesus didnt' come down off the cross when people mocked Him, or when the devil tempted Him he didnt fall, our kingdom is a spiritual kingdom, other wise your cowardly remarks would bother us. demons tear at a persons mind just like you are trying to do.
" demons tear at a persons mind just like you are trying to do."
==Please describe a demon.
capitol lettors are the work of the demon spirit.
Here are the premises that I base my conclusion upon for the Biblical God / Jesus.
Natural Origins or Supernatural Origins?
__ a) Matter, energy and time exist. Where did they come from? There are currently not naturalistic explanation
that only has supporting evidence for this issue.
__ b) Life exist. Where did it come from? There are currently not naturalistic explanation that only has
supporting evidence for this issue.
Therefore, this implies some supernatural being or event is necessary.
Which supernatural being or event answers the above issue?
__ a) Multiple religions address the creation of life, but only three begin with the creation of matter, energy
__ b) Given the Biblical account that begins with the creation of matter, energy and time,
__ c) Given no other religions (other than the Abrahamic branches) begins with the creation of matter, energy and
Therefore, only the Abrahamic religions answer both of the basic issues.
Did the Judaism God Do It?
__ a) Given accurate transmission of the Jewish Bible,
__ b) Given the fulfillment of foretold specific prophecies (incl: Eze 37) in the Jewish Bible
Therefore, the God of the Jews is a viable contender.
Did the Islamic God Do It?
__ a) Given inaccurate transmission of the Koran Bible,
__ b) Given the factual inaccuracies (i.e. members of the Trinity)
__ c) Given the lack of specific prophecies in the Koran
Therefore, the God of the Muslims is not a viable contender.
Did the Christian God Do It?
__ a) Given accurate transmission of the Christian Bible (i.e. Jewish / OT and NT),
__ b) Given the fulfillment of foretold specific prophecies (incl: Eze 37, Rev 13) in the Christian Bible
Therefore, the God of the Christian is a viable contender. Since it includes the Jewish beliefs as well, it is
the better answer.
Shouldn't you be knocking on doors and handing out creepy fliers?
Here are the conclusions from Chad... his famous five (with my additions, taken from his other diatribes)
1. The origin of the universe
2. The fine tuning of the universe for the building blocks of life
3. The origin of life on earth
4. Punctuated Equilibrium:
5. most importantly, a personal relationship.
6. the world is full of people with mistaken belief systems
7. where in the world are you getting this erroneous information from?
Yay for Chad.
@Answer : Here are the conclusions from Chad
Again, if THIS is your example of "proper discourse", then no, I cannot engage in such. When Chad wants to engage in a debate with me, then I'll address his points. Since they are his points, you obviously cannot defend them.
Here's another post that I gave a week ago.
EVOLUTION IS MATHEMATICALLY IMPOSSIBLE
Okay, we've discussed 1) The Case for Christianity, and 2) Dino Soft Tissue for some time now, so lets move on to a new topic. But first, lets get some key definitions in place before we start.
1) Species: According to evolution, a specie is a kind of life that can reproduce its own kind.
2) Transitional specie: According to evolution, a specie that is between two other species (i.e. A evolved into B, which evolved into C – so B is a transitional specie). Since, evolution holds that all species are capable of evolving, this means that all species, except the initial specie, are transitional species. For this discussion, I'll presume specie and transitional specie as the same.
3) Speciation event: According to evolution, this is the process whereby a single species becomes two distinct species. It usually occurs over a period of time, but may be a cataclysmic event also.
4) Law of Averages: a statistical principle that shows a more or less predictable ratio between the number of random trials of an event and its occurrences.
5) Current number of identified species: approximately 1.9 million species. Some scientists predict this number may go as high as 50 million species eventually.
Speciation events are presumed to be a random occurrence via the trial of producing offspring. When given sufficient time, two different species will have the same number of speciation events, albeit not necessarily at the same time. Applying this concept allows us to utilize mathematical concepts to determine the number of species that have lived on the earth over its history.
The number 2 raised by a power will double the number X times. For example, 2^1 = 2, 2^2 = 4, 2^3 = 8, and 2^4 = 16. So, if we know the number of speciation events that occurred over evolution's history, we could calculate the number of species that have lived on the earth. Unfortunately, no evolutionist has ever ventured a guess at the number of speciation events between a modern specie and the first specie. However, Richard Dawkins has ventured an estimate on the number of speciation events that occurred to develop the modern eye. He postulated a number between 1,000 and 100,000 speciation events to develop the modern eye.
For the sake of this discussion, I'll presume that there were 1,003 speciation events to develop the modern eye. This would mean that there should be one centillion (i.e. 1E303) transitional species. Not all species can leave fossil evidence, but if we presume that only a millionth of them would we would still have 1E297 transitional specie fossils.
Since the upper limit of identified species is estimated to be 50 million (i.e. 50E6), then it becomes obvious that evolution is mathematically impossible since evolution predicts almost 1 centillion species in the development of the eye alone!
The verbal diarrhea from you and Chad are the same. You have nothing to proper discourse on.
@Live4him, let's have an adult conversation about creationism, and the notion of talking snakes. Nothing invigorates the mind like intelligent discourse concerning snakes that talk.
@Answer : You have nothing to proper discourse on.
Lets review your posts:
February 2, 2013 at 4:19 pm http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD031.html
February 2, 2013 at 4:21 pm You grab a page .. everyone grabs a page.
February 2, 2013 at 4:34 pm Go to the site.. I wouldn't bother to cut and paste the whole stuff. It's a long refute.
February 2, 2013 at 4:52 pm Ya they lost – a complete s-p-a-n-k-i-n-g. The I-D-iots are reeling from it.
February 2, 2013 at 4:58 pm Ya unlike you – I'm not a pathetic creationist.
February 2, 2013 at 5:11 pm The verbal diarrhea from you and Chad are the same. You have nothing to proper discourse on.
If THIS is your example of "proper discourse", then no, I cannot engage in such.
==Once again your diatribe is the same take from the original IRC.org
The Mathematical Impossibility Of Evolution
by Henry Morris, Ph.D.
Go find more stuff on that irc.org. Do go on.
Maybe you'll find something you can understand for real.
@Answer : http://www.icr.org/article/493/
WOW! You don't even bother to READ what you post. The claim is the same, but the arguments are entirely different.
Educate me on talking snakes, please. Belief in creationism = belief in talking snakes.
Wow you don't bother to think. It's your given.
You want to do the dentist to mechanic routine today?
Hey buckshank, I hand out three personal testimony business cards with an invitation to my church a day , on the back it says
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 4 In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind. 5 The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome[a] it.
6 There was a man sent from God whose name was John. 7 He came as a witness to testify concerning that light, so that through him all might believe. 8 He himself was not the light; he came only as a witness to the light.
9 The true light that gives light to everyone was coming into the world. 10 He was in the world, and though the world was made through him, the world did not recognize him. 11 He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him. 12 Yet to all who did receive him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God— 13 children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband’s will, but born of God.
14 The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.
the reason I do this, is because the Holy Spirit reveals Himself, and I am thankful that I received such a literal blessing. Everything is God's. We love you .
Zero empirical evidence for:
– God of Israel
– Miracle Baby Jeebus
"We’ve already seen that a Creator God, like the Christian Trinity, cannot be the ultimate necessary being, because for God to be real, the ultimate necessary being would have to be an all-encompassing reality that included both God and non-God. But besides that, Pastor Feinstein kindly supplies us with another disqualification: the Christian God is dogmatically asserted to be a person. God cannot possess that attribute unless the fundamental nature of reality itself is such that it permits a consistent distinction between that which is a person, and that which is not. Otherwise, the propositions “God is a person” and “God is not a person” are both statements that are equally meaningless and untrue. Once again, the nature of the Christian God makes Him contingent on the precondition of a greater, self-consistent universe." – Deacon Duncan
"the reason I do this, is because the Holy Spirit reveals Himself, and I am thankful that I received such a literal blessing. Everything is God's. We love you "
–Ya we love you only if you're one of us. Remember only through jeebus.. certainly not that moham dude.
snake and dragon icons all over the globe in many cultures.
Everytime one of those church vans crash on the highway and everyone dies I get a little happier. Any thoughts, Answer? Let's discuss the talking snake, shall we?
My sock puppet against yours I guess? lol
I'll start the snake sock puppet routine.
~slither slither hiss hiss~
"Hiss .. hi's why me? Whhys me? I's onnnly tallked to th'ees preetty girl."
Liver, your "proof" fails to prove anything.
Why are all religious people so creepy and weird?
because your butt is nice
plus its to cool kill just a fetus
Quantum mechanics argues against genetically identical organisms. Genes contain complete information on human life. They define the wave-functions and, I have the best reasons to believe, those can't be identical:
1. Something Stephen Jay Gould said (I'm sure you know what it is)
2. Something I found on http://www.godandscience.org
3. Infinite regress is impossible
4. The God of Israel
5. And a few more things I'll think up in a little while after I've napped.
Got enuff yaws, girly guise?
♫ We've only just begun . . . ♫
Is it 212 – 230 MYA
In 1967, Richard Leakey found some archeological human artifacts and fossils. It was impossible to directly date the findings. Yet, wanting to get an approximate date, he sent in some random samples from a layer of sediment, which is now called the KBS Tuff. The results of this random sample produced dates ranging from 212 – 230 MYA. This age was notoriously far outside the current theory of human evolution. As such, the experts claimed the following:
From these results it was clear that an extraneous argon age discrepancy was present..."
F. J. Fitch and J. A. Miller, "Radioisotope Age Determination of Lake Rudolf Artifact Site." Nature 226 (18 April 1970): 226
Or is it 2.6 MYA
This analysis began the debacle of attempting to date the KBS Tuff to fit the theory of evolution. They next selected numerous non-random samples (more than 300). They subjected the samples to four different tests, excluding the so-called outliers (i.e. massaging the data). Each of these tests, while claiming independence, claimed to be validated by each other. They all came up with an approximate date of 2.6 MYA for the KBS Tuff, even though some of the samples were from a different sediment layer (dated to be 3.18 MYA), the dates for that sediment layer gave a estimated date of the KBS Tuff a date of approximately 2.6 MYA. After all this was done, the targeted layer containing the human fossils and artifacts had an estimated date of 2.9 MYA.
In 1972, much to the embarrassment of the scientific community supporting evolution, Richard Leakey announced the find of a modern looking human skull. KNM-ER 1470 was found below the KBS Tuff. This fossil was much too developed to fit the theory of evolution with an estimated age of 2.9 MYA. A mad scramble to re-date the tuff commenced.
No, it is 1.6 MYA
Again, massaging the results, they announced new results showing a date for the KBS Tuff to be 1.6 MYA. Next, there was a mad scramble to "validate" the previous dating attempts were flawed. This time, instead of revising it down from approximately 215 MYA to 2.9 MYA, the evolutionists only had to adjust it by one million years. This brought the final date of skull 1470 to 1.9 MYA.
As the results came in during the next 10 years, the community of evolutionary scientists debated this issue. Those wanting to keep the theory intact argued for the lower date, while others (most notably Richard Leakey) wanted to keep the original date of 2.6 MYA. One of the critical factors in the debate centered on additional fossil evidence (pigs). The fossils of the pigs indicated the younger date. In the end, the community of evolutionary scientists elected to arbitrarily chose the lower "results", which gave a estimated age for skull 1470 at 1.9 MYA.
Radiometric dating is calibrated based upon the fossils found nearby, which is then used to date the fossils themselves.
if this is true .............that last statement........................
The KBS Tuff is an ash layer in the Koobi Fora Formation east of Lake Turkana in northern Kenya. It is significant because hominid fossils and artifacts were found in and under it, so its age gives a minimum age of the fossils. Various attempts to date it have yielded a wide range of different results, from 0.52 to 220 million years. The dating of the KBS Tuff exposes the fallacies of radiometric dating. "Good" dates are chosen to accord with accepted dates of fossils, while anomalous dates may not be reported at all. And in practice, it is impossible to be sure one has selected uncontaminated samples.
Lubenow, Marvin L. 1995. The pigs took it all. Creation 17(3) (June): 36-38. http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v17/i3/pigs.asp
You grab a page .. everyone grabs a page.
Just go to http://www.talkorigins.org/ – to dampen these maggot creationists.
@Answer : ==Refuted==
You haven't posted any facts that I haven't already posted, so you cannot claim to have refuted it.
@Answer : You grab a page .. everyone grabs a page.
That's right, grab a post and don't both to think about it. It yields the "right" answer – even if it doesn't make any logical sense.
@rigo : if this is true .............that last statement........................
Go back to page two. At the top of the page is another of my posts. At the bottom of that page is a quote from a geologist confirming this fact.
Go to the site..
I wouldn't bother to cut and paste the whole stuff. It's a long refute.
You maggots love to cut and paste whole reams of your bs word for word and just plaster them around.
Creationist LOST at the Dover Trial FOREVER !!!
Can not teach CREATION at all in public schools as FACT.
Take it up with the courts BLA BLA BLA !
New STEM science standards for 2013 make ears for transplant from stem cells
Can't you read EVOLUTION IN A TEST TUBE Jan. 30 2013
3-D structure of the evolved enzyme (an RNA ligase), using 10 overlaid snapshots. In the top region, the overlays show the range of bending and folding flexibility in the amino acid chain that forms the molecule. The two gray balls are zinc ions. (University of Minnesota)
University of Minnesota researchers unveil first artificial enzyme created by evolution in a test tube
@Answer : I wouldn't bother to cut and paste the whole stuff. It's a long refute.
Why bother? If all you can do is regurgitate what others have written, you won't be able to refute my rebuttal. So it is a waste of time – you'll just claim I didn't understand, distorted the meaning, etc.
Answer : You maggots love to cut and paste whole reams of your bs word for word and just plaster them around.
What do you have against my cutting-n-pasting of my own material? I can engage in discourse on everything that I post. Unlike you.
keep it up!
You are the cut-n-paste master. But I rarely understand why you do so. Do you?
Ya they lost – a complete s-p-a-n-k-i-n-g.
The I-D-iots are reeling from it. They thought they could just push they're junk onto the public square and have the public square a.s.s.e.s.s the merit of their 'science'.
How brain-dead they are. Science doesn't care for the general public's a.s.s.e.s.s.ment of how science performs it's research and what science finally draws up conclusions onto. Science does what science does because people who have the passion to just learn about the world go out and test and keep on repeating the test to validate the understandings they we teach our next generations.
Science isn't a free for all for joe blow beer drinker. Science needs you to be educated, then you have to get into the field and learn it.
live 4 him.............have you been down this road before?
@Answer : Science needs you to be educated, then you have to get into the field and learn it.
You can say THAT again. It's impossible to get an honest intellectual conversation going on this forum. All you see the evolutionists do is to complain, cite other sites, and mock their opponents. Its sad this lack of critical reasoning skills. No analtical ability at all!
Back to popcorn
Ya unlike you – I'm not a pathetic creationist. Your kind never have a proper discourse.. you insist that every corner of reality draws upon your delusional god. The more science and technology proceeds onwards – the less relevant you creationists can spin your bs.
Your god is ever receding into oblivion. Hurray for science!
@rigo – have you been down this road before?
Oh yeah! It's the SOP for evolutionists. Complain about Christians depending upon others to do their thinking for them, while doing the same themselves. Brag about the lack of education in Christians, while being afraid to engage with a knowledgeable Christian. Evolutionist making up fake credentials, but refusing to display their analytical abilities. I started "down this road" in 1999 – and it hasn't changed a bit.
I'll also post my "case for Christ" for you if your interested. It will drive the evolutionists CRAZY.
Why don't you just try more of John 3:16?
You I-D-iots got nothing else anyways.
@Answer : Your kind never have a proper discourse
February 2, 2013 at 4:58 pm Ya unlike you – I'm not a pathetic creationist.
Let's see your garbage track ... hmm.
Creationists sites cut and paste. Oh that's so proper. Write something original I-D-iot.
@Answer : Creationists sites cut and paste.
Since some of my material is on a webpage that I put together 10 years ago, and I'm a creationist, then you are right that I'm copying from another site. However, it IS my own material, so what's your complaint?
i have been soaking up the entertainment Live4Him I really hope they try to argue about the " ash" stuff this interests me but i havent logged onto the evolution rebuttal site. because if they bring it out i just want to hear the response to whatever they say, it seems pretty monumental in all honesty.
@rigo : I really hope they try to argue about the " ash" stuff
They won't. They don't understand it, so they can't.
@rigo : it seems pretty monumental in all honesty
It is, but it is also old news. They sweep it under the rug and bring out "new" findings to take the focus away.
“I’m going to tell you what happened to me last night, but first I want you to presuppose that there is intelligent life elsewhere in the universe, and that some of that intelligent life is hovering in a cloaked ship above the atmosphere at this very moment, and also it is desperately in love with me.” – Russell Glasser
When Jesus saw the crowds, he went up on the side of a mountain and sat down. Jesus' disciples gathered around him, and he taught them: God blesses those people who depend only on him. They belong to the kingdom of heaven! God blesses those people who grieve. They will find comfort! God blesses those people who are humble. The earth will belong to them! God blesses those people who want to obey him more than to eat or drink. They will be given what they want! God blesses those people who are merciful. They will be treated with mercy! God blesses those people whose hearts are pure. They will see him! God blesses those people who make peace. They will be called his children! God blesses those people who are treated badly for doing right. They belong to the kingdom of heaven. God will bless you when people insult you, mistreat you, and tell all kinds of evil lies about you because of me. Be happy and excited! You will have a great reward in heaven. People did these same things to the prophets who lived long ago. (Mat. 5:1-12 CEV)
Bonjour, Robert. Can anyone depend entirely on Jesus? Even the lilies of the field are incredibly resourceful death machines that fight for survival generation after generation without knowing Jesus.
TT has a wicked idol in front of his bwain.
lol could use a bwain
God blesses those people who depend only on him.
yeah, if you call "making them crazy as a shithouse rat" a blessing.
Crazy no, spiritual blessings, yes.
Praise the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ for the spiritual blessings that Christ has brought us from heaven! Before the world was created, God had Christ choose us to live with him and to be his holy and innocent and loving people. God was kind and decided that Christ would choose us to be God’s own adopted children. God was very kind to us because of the Son he dearly loves, and so we should praise God.
Christ sacrificed his life’s blood to set us free, which means that our sins are now forgiven. Christ did this because God was so kind to us. God has great wisdom and understanding, and by what Christ has done, God has shown us his own mysterious ways. Then when the time is right, God will do all that he has planned, and Christ will bring together everything in heaven and on earth.
God always does what he plans, and that’s why he appointed Christ to choose us. He did this so that we Jews would bring honor to him and be the first ones to have hope because of him. Christ also brought you the truth, which is the good news about how you can be saved. You put your faith in Christ and were given the promised Holy Spirit to show that you belong to God. The Spirit also makes us sure that we will be given what God has stored up for his people. Then we will be set free, and God will be honored and praised.
(Eph. 1:3-14 CEV)
@BobbyB: Crazy yes, spiritual blessings, no. Your god does not exist.
You have no evidence that a god exists, just mythology..... nothing more.
When Does Human Life Begin?
There is a tremendous consensus in the scientific community about when life begins. This is hardly controversial. If the claim were made that life was discovered on another planet, for example, there are well-defined criteria to which we could refer to conclusively determine whether the claim was accurate. How do scientists distinguish between life and non-life?
A scientific textbook called "Basics of Biology" gives five characteristics of living things; these five criteria are found in all modern elementary scientific textbooks:
1. Living things are highly organized.
2. All living things have an ability to acquire materials and energy.
3. All living things have an ability to respond to their environment.
4. All living things have an ability to reproduce.
5. All living things have an ability to adapt.
According to this elementary definition of life, life begins at fertilization, when a sperm unites with an oocyte. From this moment, the being is highly organized, has the ability to acquire materials and energy, has the ability to respond to his or her environment, has the ability to adapt, and has the ability to reproduce (the cells divide, then divide again, etc., and barring pathology and pending reproductive maturity has the potential to reproduce other members of the species). Non-living things do not do these things. Even before the mother is aware that she is pregnant, a distinct, unique life has begun his or her existence inside her.
Furthermore, that life is unquestionably human. A human being is a member of the species h omo sapiens. Human beings are products of conception, which is when a human male sperm unites with a human female oocyte (egg). When humans procreate, they don't make non-humans like slugs, monkeys, cactuses, bacteria, or any such thing. Emperically-verifiable proof is as close as your nearest abortion clinic: send a sample of an aborted fetus to a laboratory and have them test the DNA to see if its human or not. Genetically, a new human being comes into existence from the earliest moment of conception.
Chad, if you read any basics on biology (and understand it) you will know that eggs and sperm are already life prior to the fertilization event. But let's get back to why you think that human life should be endowed with the same rights at all stages of development.
Would Chad feel the need to self-flagellate if he has a wet dream??
TT's in da game and wantin' to make up rules. Too late for him.
So your home school fourth grade textbook says that, does it?
And also, genetically, at death, life ceases and there is therefore no "being" to go anywhere such as hell or heaven.
Nice argument against the existence of an eternal soul, Chad.
Conversely, if there is an eternal soul, and god is all-conscious, then the destiny of that soul is already determined by the all-knowledge of god, and there is no reason for the life to actually exist since the soul will end up where it was always destined to go from before the foundations of the earth. Abortion carries ZERO consequence to the soul.
yes, well.. according the catholic church – which is the inventor and ultimate authority on xianity... life begins at birth.
cha cha chaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
Will you guys let me win one sometime?
"eggs and sperm are already life prior to the fertilization event."
=>unequivocally, NO. that is not the case.
Individual sperm/egg cells are only alive in the same sense that any other human cell is "alive". They do not meet the criteria of Human Life.
Making that claim ignores the fundamental difference between a sperm and an egg prior to fertilization, and the zygote which results through fertilization. The difference is genetic. Sperm and egg cells in themselves are not complete. If left alone they will die after a few days, never developing into anything other than what they are. The sperm shares the genetic code of the man, the egg shares the genetic code of the woman. It is only in combination, when the 23 chromosomes from the father join the 23 chromosomes from the mother, through fertilization, that a new, biologically distinct human beings comes into existence. This one fertilized cell, in fact, contains all the information necessary for a lifetime of human growth.
So let's look at the moment of conception.
Is it organized? Depends on your definition of organized.
Is it able to gather materials and energy? I haven't seen a fetus chop any wood, so I'd say that's a no on the materials. Can it gather energy on its own? Not really, all the energy and sustenance is being provided by the mother.
Does it respond to its environment? Yes, but to a limited extent.
Can it reproduce? Not at this time, no.
Can it adapt? Not in the sense that a person can adapt to the environment by putting on or removing clothing. It is at the mercy of the environment.
"Abortion carries ZERO consequence to the soul."
=>very true of the murdered child
most assuredly NOT true for the murderer.
You are being silly, Chad. Probably deliberately so. Most human cells, including eggs and sperm (those with with an X-chromosome ) have complete information in them. It's even technically feasible to generate a human from the information in a somatic cell.
egg and sperm are different genetically
The newly conceived human zygote represents the first stage in the development of a genetically unique organism.
nice try.. but, no.. again..
@Tom, Tom, the Other One –
Chad likes to created his own definitions for words and terms. He seems to believe that if he repeats them enough times and asserts them emphatically ("unequivocally, NO. that is not the case....sperm/egg cells...do not meet the criteria of Human Life.") they somehow become meaningful.
The law does not call it "murder" so your use of that word is an example of you lying.
The language does not call a fetus an "unborn child" so your use of that word is an example of you lying.
Do you realize, Chad, that you can't make any points without redefining the terms in a way that will connote sympathy for your interpretation. It's incredibly dishonest and a sh!tty tactic, but what we've all come to expect from you in each and every post. You're a champ!
Sorry, Chad. You fail on the basics of biology. I had held out hopes that you weren't being serious.
That the zygote is "genetically unique" is irrelevant unless there is some magical "soul" added at that same moment. And if your argument relies upon completely unproven magic that is completely invisible and undetectable, then who cares about the scientific explanation of the process?
Okay, Chad, so the zygote is genetically unique. So what? As has already been pointed out, it does not meet all the qualification of life in that it cannot perform all the tasks associated with life. So, what exactly is your argument? Why can't you articulate it for us cogently?
Hello Really-O? You have to wonder at this: "...a genetically unique organism." Is Chad about to go on about human cloning? Would a clone be human life? Have a soul? Stay tuned...
@Tom, Tom, the Other One – regarding cloning.
Interesting point. My uncle is an identical twin; does that mean either he or his brother is "human life" and the other is a zombie?
"Despite many claims to the contrary, life does not begin at conception: It is an unbroken chain that stretches back nearly to the origin of the Earth, 4.6 billion years ago. >Nor does human life begin at conception: It is an unbroken chain dating back to the origin of our species, hundreds of thousands of years ago. Every human sperm and egg is, beyond the shadow of a doubt, alive. They are not human beings, of course. However, it could be argued that neither is a fertilized egg.
"Billions & Billions: Thoughts on Life and Death at the Brink of the Millennium"
Please don't put Carl Sagan on me. Anything but that! I tell you what. I won't bring up Stephen Jay Gould or the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin Theorem if you'll let me win this one.
Of course we tried to keep our Chad away from religious nonsense but we failed. Despite our efforts to teach him reason and logic, Chad became obsessed with the christian apologetics web sites. We tried ridicule but the more we tried the more he got hooked. So Chad comes on this blog every day to get ridiculed, it is his high, I have lost my son, almost like I should have aborted the little pr-ick.
"I will neither give a deadly drug to anybody if asked for it, nor will I make a suggestion to this effect. Similarly, I will not give to a woman an abortive remedy." - Hippocrates, 400 B.C., Greece
you are a respectable modernized fetus.
Oh great – obviously Chad expects the rest of us to have our heads stuck in the ass of some ~2500-year-old hippo.
ahahahahahhaha moby schtick is funny.
@Really-O? : This is a constant rate of decay.
How do you measure this constant rate of decay when we've had accurate measurement of less than 10 years (according to some on this forum) or less than 100 years (my position)? To have a constant rate of decay would mean that exactly 1/2 of the U235 isotopes decay in exactly 710,000,000 years. But, this isn't how radioactivity works. Instead, we measure how many decay in a given amount of time and presume that this rate is constant and will yield a decay rate of 710,000,000 years. Since scientific experiments rarely last 10 years, it is almost a certainty that there is nothing constant about it.
ya they are cherry pickers and if you go to Mt. St. helens and grab a handful of metamorphic rock, and have it dated there are dates thats say 50 million years old, and its only 50 years old.
Why did you abandon the thread where this discussion was taking place and start a new one? Obfuscation?
Where and how would one find a "50 year old" metamorphic rock on Mount St. Helens? Oh, that's right...it would be impossible. I guess you're simply talking out of a hole other than your mouth.
As to the Mt. St. Helens lie, the young earth creationist who did this scam sent his samples to a laboratory that clearly stated that their equipment cannot accurately measure samples less than two million years old. All of the measured ages but one fall well under the stated limit of accuracy, so the method applied to them is obviously inapplicable. Since he misused the measurement technique, he should expect inaccurate results, but the fault is his, not the technique's. Experimental error is a possible explanation for the older date.
Also, his's samples were not homogeneous, as he himself admitted. Any xenocrysts in the samples would make the samples appear older (because the xenocrysts themselves would be old). A K-Ar analysis of impure fractions of the sample, as his were, is meaningless.
@Chard Tophu : As to the Mt. St. Helens lie, the young earth creationist who did this scam sent his samples to a laboratory that clearly stated that their equipment cannot accurately measure samples less than two million years old.
So, there is no way to calibrate radiometric dating. Calibration requires a KNOWN value (i.e. distance, time, etc.), which radiometric dating lacks.
Your god and your jeebus never existed.
@Tom, Tom, the Other One : Did you notice that when people find radiometric dating faulty in some setting they are generally honest enough to investigate why this is so, publish and enter into debate over it – all in an effort to arrive at the truth?
There are two themes that I've noticed: 1) Honest scientific inquiry (like you mentioned) and 2) Scientific revolutions.
In his book 'The Structure of Scientific Revolutions', Thomas Kuhn addresses the process of a scientific revolution. These are the stages that he discusses.
1) Universal acceptance
2) Near universal acceptance: , with a few skeptics with evidence that falsifies the theory.
3) Emerging evidence: More evidence is found causing greater upheaval.
4) Alternative theories: New theories are suggested to replace the original theory
5) Coalescence: The community begins to coalesce around a new theory
If you followed the history of the "age of the earth" issue, you should have noticed it followed this trend. First, they held a very long history, then Ussher, Kelvin, etc added evidence, finally agreeing upon radiometric dating. However, now this theory is starting to crack.
Evolutionist NEED to have a long history for evolution to occur. Otherwise, we should be seeing evolution occur even today, which we don't. But, the cracks in evolution are showing too. This issue and the Dino Soft Tissue issue are both evidence that has started this theory's demise.
hey where did you get your training live 4 him?
, the strongest positions in my opinion have to do with observable evidences for rapid geologic processes of all kinds. Rapid rock formation, rapid deposition of sedimentary layering with fine lamina, cross bedded sandstones as evidence of rapidly deposition of sedimentary layers. Rapid decay of the earth's magnetic field. Rapid growth of forests, evidences that they are young, as well as the rapid growth of population evidences that the earth is young, or at least the time since humans were created. Rapid petrification, rapid erosion and depositinal processes There are many more, this is just a smattering.
there are many forms of accelleration of radioactive decay rates! there was a group of scientists on the website that posted a bunch of various results from different dinosaurs that dated at 20-40 thousand years old.
@rigo : hey where did you get your training live 4 him?
Various places. University, Seminary, and my own studies (over 100 books on the topic).
Sorry, but I gotta go!
Mary, that is simply not true; you never went to college.
Remember, I know who you are; why lie? Just post without lying about your background...you do fine without the gratuitous embellishment of your education.
Live4Him- "Evolutionist NEED to have a long history for evolution to occur."
And young-earth creationists a priori want a young-earth in order to support their conservative interpretation of the Bible on creation. Honest scientific inquiry is not a dog fight. People should look for the truth but avoid having an unreasonable attachment to some point of view.
@ tom tom,,, ya this has to be true. no doubt about it.
And there he goes. Found some good stuff on why the U-Pb method works, but I'll be damned if I'm going to cut and paste them. The info is out there, you just have to be willing to look further than your nose. Sorry it took so long for me to respond, was fascinated by the stuff I was learning about.
@ Domacles, are you single? how old are you?
@Live4Him – regarding "Dino Soft Tissue"
"[Mary] Schweitzer’s research has been hijacked by “young earth” creationists, who insist that dinosaur soft tissue couldn’t possibly survive millions of years. They claim her discoveries support their belief, based on their interpretation of Genesis, that the earth is only a few thousand years old. Of course, it’s not unusual for a paleontologist to differ with creationists. But when creationists misrepresent Schweitzer’s data, she takes it personally."
im just kidding i was joking about another post from dale or somebody who called you sweetheart.
come on reallyo , they didnt hijack anything. it is just something worth thinking about. who cares about her data, its what they found, supposedly 60 million years old. besides, the evolution community had a problem with her find too the thought it was a hoax and error. its just a bunch of healthy criticism
"who cares about her data" – Well, I guess young earth creationists obviously don't care about data.
"the evolution community had a problem with her find too the thought it was a hoax and error" – Do you have a source supporting that statement?
@Akira : Mary, that is simply not true; you never went to college.
Do we have to do this again? I've offered to treat you to a meal anytime you want to come to Charlotte. I'm not this Mary. So, either put up or shut up.
@Tom, Tom, the Other One : And young-earth creationists a priori want a young-earth in order to support their conservative interpretation of the Bible on creation.
Not always. Before I went to seminary, my view was old-earth. But, then I learned opposing facts which prevented old-earth possibilities.
@Damocles – And there he goes.
And now I'm back, like I promised.
@Really-O? : Schweitzer’s research has been hijacked by “young earth” creationists
Just like Galileo "hijacked" the discovery of the telescope. You don't hijack evidence. It either support or falsifies. And in the case of soft tissue, it falsified the millions of years ago premise. Even Mary Schweitzer acknowledges this evidence is contrary to their understanding of evolution.
@Really-O? : Do you have a source supporting that statement?
There are plenty of web articles that advance the claim that her findings are a biological contamination.
When you thought the earth was old, why did you think that? List some of the evidence you used to consider accurate that supports an old earth and then what you found to discredit those items of evidence.
For Creationist .
" And in the case of soft tissue, it falsified the millions of years ago premise. Even Mary Schweitzer acknowledges this evidence is contrary to their understanding of evolution."
"There are plenty of web articles that advance the claim that her findings are a biological contamination."
Do you have reference supporting those statements? Since we're discussing science, scientific publications would be preferable (as opposed to apologetic sources).
@Moby Schtick : When you thought the earth was old, why did you think that? List some of the evidence you used to consider accurate that supports an old earth and then what you found to discredit those items of evidence.
I was taught that the earth was billions of years old and too naive to question that teaching. Subsequently, I found numerous issues with the teaching, including the lack of calibration for long-term radiometric dating and dino soft tissue. One of the key issues that bothered me was a very obvious issue: When evolutionists give a date for a fossil, they give a date and a subsequent range. With my statistical background, I realized something was missing: the confidence range. For example:
222 MYA ±20 doesn't mean anything. Statisticians desire a 95% confidence level before it is considered plausible. Is this result based upon a CI of 95% or 5%? We don't know.
222 MYA ±250 CI: 95% does yield a meaningful statistical result, but not a real world result.
Everything that I read for these radiometric dates almost always gave a range, but never a CI. This is a red flag for any statistician.
@Really-O? : You need to learn how to goggle.
@Live4Him – regarding young earth creationists hijacking Schweitzer’s research.
Used in this way, hijacking implies taking good data and corrupting it in order to use it to dishonestly support another position (young earth creationism). I'm starting to get the idea you're more like Chad than I assumed in the beginning of our interaction.
@Live4Him – "You need to learn how to goggle."
Just as I thought. You don't have a single authoritative source supporting your assertions. How did you get through university...or is that a fabrication too?
@Really-O? : hijacking implies taking good data and corrupting it in order to use it to dishonestly support another position
You cannot "dishonestly support another position" if the evidence doesn't. Even Schweitzer acknowledged that it was contrary to what was understood about evolution.
Yet this seemed impossible, according to the prevailing understanding. "Everyone knows how soft tissues degrade," Schweitzer says. "If you take a blood sample and you stick it on a shelf, you have nothing recognizable in about a week. So why would there be anything left in dinosaurs?"
Really-O? : You don't have a single authoritative source supporting your assertions.
I know how to use google. Finding such a source was easy. Will National Geographic work for you?
Hendrik Poinar is an expert in fossil proteins and DNA at McMaster University in Ontario, Canada.
Like others in the field, he had questioned whether Schweitzer's 2005 report made a sufficiently strong case that the preserved tissues came from a T. rex and were not the result of more recent contamination.
@Live4Him -"Even Schweitzer acknowledged that it was contrary to what was understood about evolution."
-From the article you sourced:
"It's a matter of faith among scientists that soft tissue can survive at most for a few tens of thousands of years, not the 65 million since T. rex walked what's now the Hell Creek Formation in Montana. But Schweitzer tends to ignore such dogma." -There is no acknowledgement that her finding is contrary to what was understood about evolution. This discovery has nothing to do with evolution – this is paleontology research.
National Geographic is a popular publication, not a scholarly publication (you never learned that during your years at university?); however, Hendrik Poinar is a serious researcher so his concerns regarding Schweitzer research deserve serious consideration...that's how science works. Repeating Schweitzer's findings is a necessity.
Your use of Schweitzer's dinosaur soft tissue research as support for your loony young earth creationist ideas is simply an argument from ignorance – "gee, somebody found soft tissue someplace we though it shouldn't be, therefore all evidence from paleontology is specious" (You neglect to mention that Schweitzer used a new methodology for extracting the soft tissue). That's just illogical. That's closer to paranoid conspiracy theory than any kind of science.
I gave you a shot, but, like Chad (heck, even Chad knows young earth creationism is nutty), you're so far out on the fringe there's no point engaging you.
The leading hypothesis for the origin of life on our planet (thermal vent hypothesis):
(note it doesn't involve "gawd dun it wiff spelz")
You did not answer my question. Of course you "were taught" that the earth is old. I want to know what evidence you considered to be particularly important for the old-earth-theory you once held.
What EVIDENCE did you consider good for old-earth that you no longer consider good?
Please answer the question this time.
I finally had the time to read the National Geographic article you used as a reference and see that you just another dishonest little fundie loon who misrepresents the words and works of good scientists. Here's the full bit from Poinar:
'Like others in the field, he had questioned whether Schweitzer's 2005 report made a sufficiently strong case that the preserved tissues came from a T. rex and were not the result of more recent contamination.
The new studies have him more convinced.
"I'd have to say, I'm more optimistic about it than I was previously," Poinar said. "Now the burden of proof is on the skeptics."'
People like you and Chad don't fool anyone, not even yourselves.
A&A's are such copy cats. They be law and rule luvers. Show me a 300,00 year old woeman that luved yaws. Fossilrific?
Minor leagues are boring.
But college baseball is cool.
@Damocles : It's cool, wasn't aware of your week time limit.
Nothing is stopping you from starting your own thread on the topic you desire to discuss. I'm here and responding, but you're still complaining about me not responding.
No, no, I'm good, I'd hate for you to have to rush out somewhere mid-topic and have to come back 6 days later with something new.
@Damocles : No, no, I'm good, I'd hate for you to have to rush out somewhere
Ahhh... So you're one of those who cavils their opponent. Got it.
It's a fairly big deal if you are going to break off in the middle of a topic. Why post if there is no response?
@Damocles : It's a fairly big deal if you are going to break off in the middle of a topic. Why post if there is no response?
Do you think the world revolves around you? If not, why do you think MY time revolves around you? We're just two people who have some free time and desire to discuss this topic. So, if something is important to you, check MY schedule to verify that I've got the time to spend. I suspect that what is motivating you is that you don't like some of the facts that I've posted. However, I'll be glad to discuss any of them with anyone on the forum.
Given the lack of stimulating discourse, I'm going to drop out for now. Now, there have been some good posts, but most have been petty complaints (including yours). That said, I'll check back between 60-90 minutes. If you wnat to compile your thoughts / objections before then, I'll address them when I return. Sound reasonable to you?
BTW – These types of complaints are the reason I usually post when I'm leaving the forum. I'm not ignoring anyone or any given topic, but it is just that my time is limited. I'd like to spend more time here, but ... obligations are calling.
So I kind of gave you the benefit of the doubt for a half-second and looked back on page 2 to see if your complaint had any merit. What I saw was at least one person telling you how the U-Pb method was calibrated and from you.... nothing.
I also find it rather amusing that you try to say I think the world revolves aroubd me, yet I need to check with you to get your schedule. Anyway, you go ahead and take your 60-90 min break, or 6 day break, whatever you need, I don't want you to get all tuckered out.
@Damocles – So I kind of gave you the benefit of the doubt for a half-second
I can say the same of you. I gave you an opportunity and you just kept on belly-aching. But now I know your true self.
@Science : Uranium–lead (U–Pb) dating is one of the oldest and most refined of the radiometric dating schemes
You still haven't addressed how it is calibrated. Without calibration, it is useless.
I meant to say the results are useless.
Peace got to evolve peace 00000.00000000000001 are your numbers go figure
Got to run mc =^2
Einstein letter, set for auction, shows scientist challenging idea of God, being 'chosen'
By Jessica Ravitz, CNN
Decades before atheist scientist and author Richard Dawkins called God a "delusion," one world-renowned physicist – Albert Einstein – was weighing in on faith matters with his own strong words.
“The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honorable, but still primitive legends,” Einstein wrote in German in a 1954 letter that will be auctioned on eBay later this month. "No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this.”
Perpetual Motion Machine!!!
Now I can't see the previos page because you posted yet another video that you previously posted.
Thanks for nothing.
Why don't you get a real computer? You seem to be quite hamstrung by your current method of connection.
Yeah, I got one for Christmas; they sent the wrong one.
Have to get the credit before I purchase another one.
Trust me, I can't wait! ;)
The CNN Belief Blog covers the faith angles of the day's biggest stories, from breaking news to politics to entertainment, fostering a global conversation about the role of religion and belief in readers' lives. It's edited by CNN's Daniel Burke with contributions from Eric Marrapodi and CNN's worldwide news gathering team.