Add Chris Jones to the list of pro athletes that think the earth is flat

[starkvegasdawg]

Per his twitter earlier this afternoon. Is this like a new fad amongst pros now?

[msstate7]

Pretty sad

[R2Dawg]

What did he say?

[msstate7]

I'm pretty confused by this belief. Do they think satellite pics from space are fakes?

[Commercecomet24]

Wow there are just no words

[starkvegasdawg]

What did he say?

Just had an emoji of the earth and then added is flat. Over 450 replies and some were his defending the stance. Most were from KC fans who didn't care what he thought as long as he kept getting sacks.

[ckDOG]

The responses these folks have to basic observations is astounding. For example, ask them why do you see a different set of stars when you travel to the Southern Hemisphere. Their response is that stars are actually quite close to earth and we are simply moving under a different set of stars after traveling a couple thousand miles. But somehow that explanation counts for north south travel and not east west.

I honestly don't know if these folks are truly this dumb or secretly get off on irritating the piss out of people with basic reasoning skills.

[BeardoMSU]

As bad as the flat earth'ers are, the young eath'ers outnumber them by quite a bit, and are equally stupid.

[1bigdawg]

Honestly, it is an embarrassing failure of our educational system, including our great university.

[msstate7]

As bad as the flat earth'ers are, the young eath'ers outnumber them by quite a bit, and are equally stupid.

If you are a creationist like myself, you believe God created a mature man (Adam). I also believe God created a mature universe with a mature Earth in that universe. Did God create Earth 6000 or so years ago? I have no idea bc "With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day." (2 Peter 3:8). If believing God created us makes me "stupid", so be it

[BeardoMSU]

If you are a creationist like myself, you believe God created a mature man (Adam). I also believe God created a mature universe with a mature Earth in that universe. Did God create Earth 6000 or so years ago? I have no idea bc "With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day." (2 Peter 3:8). If believing God created us makes me "stupid", so be it

That's a lot of projecting, 7. I never said you were stupid for being a Christian, so don't put words in my mouth. I said it's stupid to think the Earth is "6000" years old, given the mountain of scientific evidence we have pointing to the contrary. That is literally the exact same argument everyone is using against CJ and his Bronze Age nonsense. Being religious isn't a get-out-of-jail-free-card for rational competence.

[IMAREBL2 AND A DAWG]

If you are a creationist like myself, you believe God created a mature man (Adam). I also believe God created a mature universe with a mature Earth in that universe. Did God create Earth 6000 or so years ago? I have no idea bc "With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day." (2 Peter 3:8). If believing God created us makes me "stupid", so be it

https://images.app.goo.gl/h7dsnfKbQNRFzEuY8

[mstatefan91]

It's like some of you dumbasses don't know when you are being trolled.

[Dawg2003]

If you are a creationist like myself, you believe God created a mature man (Adam). I also believe God created a mature universe with a mature Earth in that universe. Did God create Earth 6000 or so years ago? I have no idea bc "With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day." (2 Peter 3:8). If believing God created us makes me "stupid", so be it

I mean, there's a certain amount of rational thought you have to suspend to believe in any religion. In order to believe creationism, you have to completely reject science. I honestly never knew creationists existed until I went to graduate school and met some. Of course, you also have to completely reject science and twist your mind into a pretzel to believe in God, so most people are irrational about something. Just don't become an anti-vaxxer because they are public nuisances.

[99jc]

I mean, there's a certain amount of rational thought you have to suspend to believe in any religion. In order to believe creationism, you have to completely reject science. I honestly never knew creationists existed until I went to graduate school and met some. Of course, you also have to completely reject science and twist your mind into a pretzel to believe in God, so most people are irrational about something. Just don't become an anti-vaxxer because they are public nuisances.

Damn are you an idiot or what no wonder this generation is so 17'd up. I'm not a creationist by any means but if you can ignore or think the complexity of just our solar system or the brain didn't have an intelligent designer far beyond our puny exsistance there is no hope and you deserve your ignorance.

[Dawg2003]

Damn are you an idiot or what no wonder this generation is so 17'd up. I'm not a creationist by any means but if you can ignore or think the complexity of just our solar system or the brain didn't have an intelligent designer far beyond our puny exsistance there is no hope and you deserve your ignorance.

Goodness, I obviously hit a nerve. You seem to feel really strongly about your beliefs. What evidence do you have of an intelligent designer? I've read the arguments for an intelligent designer and wasn't convinced. Maybe I'm missing something.

[MrKotter]

Goodness, I obviously hit a nerve. You seem to feel really strongly about your beliefs. What evidence do you have of an intelligent designer? I've read the arguments for an intelligent designer and wasn't convinced. Maybe I'm missing something.

You?re missing a lot. If you?ve gotten this far in life and are still this stupid then there is nothing anyone on this board can do for you. You?re a lost cause. I don?t agree with 99 much but do that you millennials are 17?d in the head. Lazy and flat out stupid

[hobiedawg]

I've read the arguments for an intelligent designer and wasn't convinced. Maybe I'm missing something.

If you are really interested, try some books by Hugh Ross, an astro-physicist.

[Dawg2003]

You?re missing a lot. If you?ve gotten this far in life and are still this stupid then there is nothing anyone on this board can do for you. You?re a lost cause. I don?t agree with 99 much but do that you millennials are 17?d in the head. Lazy and flat out stupid

Well, at least I figured out how to change my settings, so I have an apostrophe instead of a question mark in my text.

[Dawg2003]

If you are really interested, try some books by Hugh Ross, an astro-physicist.


Will do. Thanks for the suggestion.

[BrunswickDawg]

Damn are you an idiot or what no wonder this generation is so 17'd up. I'm not a creationist by any means but if you can ignore or think the complexity of just our solar system or the brain didn't have an intelligent designer far beyond our puny exsistance there is no hope and you deserve your ignorance.

Isn't it a basic tennent of almost all religions that you have to have faith in something you can not see, can not be explained, can't be proven by science, and is omnipotent? That it is Faith that God exists despite the rational idea that he shouldn't or doesn't, that taking that leap of Faith and trusting what can not be seen begins the path to salvation, and that it is that Faith that should guide you? Because I'm pretty sure that was the jist of a whole lot sermons I've sat thru. Therefore the OP's statement about suspending rational thought is accurate?

[Lord McBuckethead]

If you are a creationist like myself, you believe God created a mature man (Adam). I also believe God created a mature universe with a mature Earth in that universe. Did God create Earth 6000 or so years ago? I have no idea bc "With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day." (2 Peter 3:8). If believing God created us makes me "stupid", so be it

Sounds like a bunch of hoops you are trying to jump through. Maybe God created the earth and universe 5 billion years ago. Maybe the men who wrote the story, 5000 years was as big of a number that they knew?

[Lord McBuckethead]

Isn't it a basic tennent of almost all religions that you have to have faith in something you can not see, can not be explained, can't be proven by science, and is omnipotent? That it is Faith that God exists despite the rational idea that he shouldn't or doesn't, that taking that leap of Faith and trusting what can not be seen begins the path to salvation, and that it is that Faith that should guide you? Because I'm pretty sure that was the jist of a whole lot sermons I've sat thru. Therefore the OP's statement about suspending rational thought is accurate?

Sounds like a convenient requirement.

[msstate7]

Sounds like a bunch of hoops you are trying to jump through. Maybe God created the earth and universe 5 billion years ago. Maybe the men who wrote the story, 5000 years was as big of a number that they knew?

I know what Jesus has done for me in my personal life. I won't get bogged down in arguments over how old the earth or the like bc I don't know nor care. Jesus is real and He saved me.

[Jack Lambert]

I'm pretty confused by this belief. Do they think satellite pics from space are fakes?

They think there is a bubble over the sky. My cousin is one and we all have a good time at his expense at family reunions. When I listen to him I think of that Jim Carrey Movie.

[BeardoMSU]

I know what Jesus has done for me in my personal life. I won't get bogged down in arguments over how old the earth or the like bc I don't know nor care. Jesus is real and He saved me.

Thats all fine, 7...but you did take offense to my young earth comment, as if believing the universe is 6000 years old is a requisite for Christian faith. Young earth creationists actually make up a minority of the overall faith, btw. And the recommendation of Hugh Ross as a writer on intelligent design is a great one, especially since he, as a Christian, fiercely challenges the young earth peddlers like Ken Hamm et. al.

[Jack Lambert]

I know what Jesus has done for me in my personal life. I won't get bogged down in arguments over how old the earth or the like bc I don't know nor care. Jesus is real and He saved me.

I agree totally with you. Here is one way of looking at it. God created every thing but it developed after he created it. Then the question comes up about Adam and Eve how could it when they were here. Then the next question should how long were they in the Garden? They were not completely mortals yet. They could have been there billions of years. I am not saying I believe this I am just saying god is god and he can do what he want to how he wants to.

[msstate7]

Thats all fine, 7...but you did take offense to my young earth comment, as if believing the universe is 6000 years old is a requisite for Christian faith. Young earth creationists actually make up a minority of the overall faith, btw. And the recommendation of Hugh Ross as a writer on intelligent design is a great one, especially since he, as a Christian, fiercely challenges the young earth peddlers like Ken Hamm et. al.

It was late and I thought you were taking a shot at my faith. I apologize

[BeardoMSU]

It was late and I thought you were taking a shot at my faith. I apologize

It's all good, man.

[Dawg2003]

They think there is a bubble over the sky. My cousin is one and we all have a good time at his expense at family reunions. When I listen to him I think of that Jim Carrey Movie.

OMG, really? I had no idea. I thought it was all trolling.

[Pennywise]

Per his twitter earlier this afternoon. Is this like a new fad amongst pros now?

Is there a succinct podcast or article that can explain these flat earthers' beliefs and explanations on why they actually think the earth is flat in the face of science and facts and stuff?

[Really Clark?]

Isn't it a basic tennent of almost all religions that you have to have faith in something you can not see, can not be explained, can't be proven by science, and is omnipotent? That it is Faith that God exists despite the rational idea that he shouldn't or doesn't, that taking that leap of Faith and trusting what can not be seen begins the path to salvation, and that it is that Faith that should guide you? Because I'm pretty sure that was the jist of a whole lot sermons I've sat thru. Therefore the OP's statement about suspending rational thought is accurate?

Yes but the same is true with aspects of science. Whether it?s evolution, the complexity and stored information in cells (that still can?t be solved and Darwin didn?t even know how to address properly) or how the universe is created (the Big Bang theory was developed by a catholic priest and believed it was part of creation by God)...there are many aspects that scientists believe to happen but can?t prove and theories being changed constantly that debunks previously held ?truths? in science. What is also interesting is scientist themselves are nearly evenly split for the last century between those who do not believe in some sort of higher power vs those who do. Less than the general public but more than most people would believe and some are being more vocal that their studies the deeper they go point to intelligent design. Even those who believe in both and merging theories. It is an interesting debate from scientific side but it?s the philosophical debate and arrogance that drives the divide and tempers

[StateDawg44]

Pennywise isn't lurking anymore ha

[smootness]

I mean, there's a certain amount of rational thought you have to suspend to believe in any religion. In order to believe creationism, you have to completely reject science. I honestly never knew creationists existed until I went to graduate school and met some. Of course, you also have to completely reject science and twist your mind into a pretzel to believe in God, so most people are irrational about something. Just don't become an anti-vaxxer because they are public nuisances.

I think thoughts along this line are disheartening, to be honest. There is no need to reject science to believe in God, and I think this line of thinking has led to unnecessary conflict because people on both sides have bought into it.

Let's assume a purely materialistic worldview and look at the origin of all things. Everything that you see resulted from a single cell, or at the very least all living things resulted from a common ancestor, common descent, all that. I understand that belief, because things do adapt, microevolution is observable in nature, closer looks at DNA and all these things can point to that. That is totally fine. So you wind everything back to its beginning through purely rational, scientific thought. Still, at the end of that (or the beginning), you have the question of, how? How did something come from nothing? What is life, and how is it here? Where did thought come from? How did the whole process begin?

And at the end of that, you either say, 'It just is' or you say 'Something outside our plane of existence started it.' And I would argue that neither of those is an intellectual, scientific thought. Both of those are beliefs based not in evidence but in a belief. There is no evidence that there is nothing beyond our plane of existence, just as there is no evidence that there is. Both require faith. The other option is to say, 'I don't know, I don't believe anything that is not proven by science,' but I would argue that is the laziest, most morally bankrupt of the three options.

[smootness]

Damn are you an idiot or what no wonder this generation is so 17'd up. I'm not a creationist by any means but if you can ignore or think the complexity of just our solar system or the brain didn't have an intelligent designer far beyond our puny exsistance there is no hope and you deserve your ignorance.

You should be ashamed of yourself. There's no reason to insult.

[PassInterference]

Y?all all being trolled.

[smootness]

Isn't it a basic tennent of almost all religions that you have to have faith in something you can not see, can not be explained, can't be proven by science, and is omnipotent? That it is Faith that God exists despite the rational idea that he shouldn't or doesn't, that taking that leap of Faith and trusting what can not be seen begins the path to salvation, and that it is that Faith that should guide you? Because I'm pretty sure that was the jist of a whole lot sermons I've sat thru. Therefore the OP's statement about suspending rational thought is accurate?

I would argue that any formation of an all-encompassing worldview requires a leap of faith. In fact, it's not really an argument, it's just truth. But yes, absolutely there is a leap required, at some point you decide to dive in or get out. I don't believe that means you suspend rational thought. It's not that a person of faith in a religion or a god looks at truth and says, 'That isn't true.' It's that they view Scripture as ultimate truth, and a current scientific understanding of things is immaterial to that truth. After all, it was science that at one point said the earth was flat. We are constantly gaining a greater understanding of our surroundings; that is a process that has been taking place for thousands of years and will continue to for thousands more. Our current understanding is not an endpoint, it is but one mark on the timeline.

[Really Clark?]

I mean, there's a certain amount of rational thought you have to suspend to believe in any religion. In order to believe creationism, you have to completely reject science. I honestly never knew creationists existed until I went to graduate school and met some. Of course, you also have to completely reject science and twist your mind into a pretzel to believe in God, so most people are irrational about something. Just don't become an anti-vaxxer because they are public nuisances.

That?s not true. There are scientific theories that are still debated because there is a point of suspending what you consider logic or rational thought to make the theory believable. There are many scientists, top Noble Prize winning scientists, top academic scientist that believe in God, a higher power, intelligent design and/or creation as well. You will find that your thinking is what is more prevalent to pressure young students into a Weinberg totalitarian view of doing ANYTHING (which does not have to be based in truth or science) to weaken the hold of religion. It?s a false and dangerous viewpoint and proven wrong by many many scientists over the centuries who are pure scientists and also believe in God or a higher power and/or creation.

[Dawg2003]

And at the end of that, you either say, 'It just is' or you say 'Something outside our plane of existence started it.' And I would argue that neither of those is an intellectual, scientific thought. Both of those are beliefs based not in evidence but in a belief. There is no evidence that there is nothing beyond our plane of existence, just as there is no evidence that there is. Both require faith. The other option is to say, 'I don't know, I don't believe anything that is not proven by science,' but I would argue that is the laziest, most morally bankrupt of the three options.

I hear what you're saying, but I don't think that believing in science is lazy or morally bankrupt. Science actually differs from religion because science doesn't claim to know it all. It's always open to discovery.

We make fun of the flat earthers, but how is that different than believing a virgin gave birth to God? It's not. It's just as silly sounding.

[Commercecomet24]

I would argue that any formation of an all-encompassing worldview requires a leap of faith. In fact, it's not really an argument, it's just truth. But yes, absolutely there is a leap required, at some point you decide to dive in or get out. I don't believe that means you suspend rational thought. It's not that a person of faith in a religion or a god looks at truth and says, 'That isn't true.' It's that they view Scripture as ultimate truth, and a current scientific understanding of things is immaterial to that truth. After all, it was science that at one point said the earth was flat. We are constantly gaining a greater understanding of our surroundings; that is a process that has been taking place for thousands of years and will continue to for thousands more. Our current understanding is not an endpoint, it is but one mark on the timeline.

Very well said.

[TrapGame]

https://youtu.be/PtZ8q-NFzrU

I love conspiracy theories. This is a good one. The CIA classified a book in 1965. It has been released via FOIA and it's heavily redacted. Interesting stuff.

[Dawg2003]

That?s not true. There are scientific theories that are still debated because there is a point of suspending what you consider logic or rational thought to make the theory believable. There are many scientists, top Noble Prize winning scientists, top academic scientist that believe in God, a higher power, intelligent design and/or creation as well. You will find that your thinking is what is more prevalent to pressure young students into a Weinberg totalitarian view of doing ANYTHING (which does not have to be based in truth or science) to weaken the hold of religion. It?s a false and dangerous viewpoint and proven wrong by many many scientists over the centuries who are pure scientists and also believe in God or a higher power and/or creation.


I actually am not against religion and think that secular humanism has failed. I don't think that science has all the answers, but I also know that rational thought must be suspended to believe many religious tenets.

[smootness]

I hear what you're saying, but I don't think that believing in science is lazy or morally bankrupt. Science actually differs from religion because science doesn't claim to know it all. It's always open to discovery.

We make fun of the flat earthers, but how is that different than believing a virgin gave birth to God? It's not. It's just as silly sounding.

I'm not going to tell you that some of my beliefs don't sound crazy. I get that, and I'm ok with it. Someone who doesn't believe in the supernatural will always look at the virgin birth or the resurrection or miracles and say it's silly and stupid. And I'm fine with that because I do believe in a supernatural God who can do all things. Frankly, it is silly-sounding to me to say that we are all simply here because once there was a cell and it started to mutate. A person is free to believe that, and I can't disprove it, but it sounds silly to me.

I'm not saying it's lazy or morally bankrupt to 'believe' in science. My point is that it isn't science vs. religion. I believe in a supernatural God who created all things...so I believe that the things that science observes and tries to figure out were all created by that God. I don't think that if science answers something, it means God doesn't. My belief is that God exists outside our plane of existence (on the account of the fact that he created it), and that all that we can see, touch, and observe is inside that plane of existence. It is akin to being part of a Rube Goldberg machine; you can look back and observe that the final ball was hit by some mechanism, then look further back and see that the mechanism was hit by another ball, etc. What you can't ever see by observation is how the Rube Goldberg machine came to be in the first place. So science provides us very valuable things, and I am all for it. What I don't think it can answer is how we came to be, and it certainly can't answer why. Which is why those with a materialistic worldview say, 'It just is.' Because science can't say more than that. But science isn't what is saying, 'It just is.' The worldview a person has will always inform their assumptions taken from those observations.

So when I say it is lazy and morally bankrupt, I'm not talking about those with a materialistic worldview. They have at least taken observations and formed a belief. What I think is lazy and morally bankrupt is the lack of attempt at all to develop a worldview. That is agnosticism, saying, 'I don't know and I don't care to look any further or come to a belief.' That is not belief in science, that is a lack of caring for any of it at all.

So I don't believe there is such a thing as 'belief in science.' I think what people mean when they say that is either a materialistic worldview or the belief that science (which is really just observation) can lead to an answer on all things. The first is fine, the second is simply untrue.

[Really Clark?]

I actually am not against religion and think that secular humanism has failed. I don't think that science has all the answers, but I also know that rational thought must be suspended to believe many religious tenets.

I know but the same is true for leaps in science as well. We still can’t find evidence of evolution into the extremely complex cells that is being explored and new discoveries made even today. From a simple cell to one that is so complex that it makes supercomputers seem like an Abacus calculator. That’s a suspension in rational thought. Now I’m not talking about natural selection, mutations, small changes in a species, etc. But the process in which a simple cell organism evolved into a very complex cell with history written into the DNA, that is difficult belief without suspension of rational thought.

[smootness]

I think the DNA similarities among species and the fossil record are fascinating, and I don't have a succinct, easy answer on them. But I do think the science behind common descent presents at least as many tough questions as it claims to answer.

[fccee1]

In order to believe creationism, you have to completely reject science.

You should read or listen to a book by Lee Strobel A Case for a Creator. It is kind of a dry read but I found it interesting. Have read a couple of is other books too.

[Lord McBuckethead]

I agree totally with you. Here is one way of looking at it. God created every thing but it developed after he created it. Then the question comes up about Adam and Eve how could it when they were here. Then the next question should how long were they in the Garden? They were not completely mortals yet. They could have been there billions of years. I am not saying I believe this I am just saying god is god and he can do what he want to how he wants to.

To me, almost all of the stories of the Bible are parables, designed to teach us something in a manner that people who couldn't read could understand.

1. To me, Adam and Eve just a story. Didn't happen. If it did, it was 200k years ago and no one would remember the story.

2. Noah.... the world didn't flood, but maybe a small part did. 2 animals? nope, didn't happen.

3. Mosses, probably did happen for the most part.

4. Virgin Birth, maybe but a young girl gets pregnant out of wedlock and her betrothed still decides to marry her..... seems like there is a convenience to this story.

5. Resurrection, sure why not.

Most of the stories are BS. Only there to teach the dumb and illiterate something.

What I do believe, God and Jesus are great. Men have too much faith in a book and stories written by men. The only things that matter are, Jesus is the way to the Lord and be your neighbors keeper. We should be doing everything we can for our neighbors. Not locking them in cages. Not turning them away. Hell there are poeple in our communities that we all treat as they are less than. I say skip Sunday church and help out your neighbor that needs it. Put that 10% to work in your own community, first.

[Lord McBuckethead]

Flat earthers are dumb as bricks. Take a little bit of time, buy a weather balloon and send up a go pro to the upper atmosphere. You can see the damn earth is a sphere.
If you cannot believe this, then well shame on you.
How does the sunset work? How does the sunrise work? How do seasons work? What about the GD moon and its shadow, the earths shadow looking back from the moon? I mean shit. The world is damn pretty much spherical in shape. There is no question.

[smootness]

Flat earthers are dumb as bricks. Take a little bit of time, buy a weather balloon and send up a go pro to the upper atmosphere. You can see the damn earth is a sphere.
If you cannot believe this, then well shame on you.
How does the sunset work? How does the sunrise work? How do seasons work? What about the GD moon and its shadow, the earths shadow looking back from the moon? I mean shit. The world is damn pretty much spherical in shape. There is no question.

I think we can all agree those who believe the earth is flat are 100% mistaken.

[Dawg2003]

You should read or listen to a book by Lee Strobel A Case for a Creator. It is kind of a dry read but I found it interesting. Have read a couple of is other books too.

I read that book and found it completely unconvincing. He never offered any counter arguments to his beliefs. He states a belief and then goes looking for someone/something to back it up. I've read all of his books and think most of them are bad. The only one that halfway convinced me was "The Case for Easter." He actually did bring up some legitimate arguments in that one. I bet he's made a fortune off of all those books though because people are desperate to believe in something. I don't blame them though because it's really depressing to think I won't see my parents again after they die. I'm willing to try to believe a lot of foolish stuff to avoid facing that reality.

[Ari Gold]

Who gives a shit.. it’s dumb to think the world is flat but who cares .
After C.J. signs his big deal and if he gives back a couple million back to the football program we can put a plaque up that says Chris “flat world” Jones for all I care.

[oompa]

Is there a succinct podcast or article that can explain these flat earthers' beliefs and explanations on why they actually think the earth is flat in the face of science and facts and stuff?

It's just over 90 minutes, but you should watch the documentary "Behind the Curve". It's on Netflix. It's hilarious. One thing you learn is that there is no reason to even argue with flat earthers. It's useless.

The best part of the film is when a group of them come up with a couple of experiments to scientifically prove that the earth is flat and end up proving the exact opposite.

[timotheus]

If the bible weren't true the palestine and Israel wouldn't be fighting. If it's all flat then where is the edge at? Just kidding.

[smootness]

I read that book and found it completely unconvincing. He never offered any counter arguments to his beliefs. He states a belief and then goes looking for someone/something to back it up. I've read all of his books and think most of them are bad. The only one that halfway convinced me was "The Case for Easter." He actually did bring up some legitimate arguments in that one. I bet he's made a fortune off of all those books though because people are desperate to believe in something. I don't blame them though because it's really depressing to think I won't see my parents again after they die. I'm willing to try to believe a lot of foolish stuff to avoid facing that reality.

I like The Case for Christ and what I've read of The Case for a Creator, but you're right that what he's doing is more Christian apologetics than unbiased investigation. My issue with that is that according to him, his own search was unbiased, and he investigated both claims from Christians, or at least theists, and claims from atheists, and found the former more convincing. His own search occurred in the late 70s and early 80s, but then he wrote his first book in 1998 and only used arguments from Christians. I find the book useful, but it's not going to alone convince many skeptics. I wish he had done a thorough reconstruction of his own actual search.

[PMDawg]

I mean, there's a certain amount of rational thought you have to suspend to believe in any religion. In order to believe creationism, you have to completely reject science. I honestly never knew creationists existed until I went to graduate school and met some. Of course, you also have to completely reject science and twist your mind into a pretzel to believe in God, so most people are irrational about something. Just don't become an anti-vaxxer because they are public nuisances.

You and Beardo just spout lies like they're truth. you repeat stuff you've heard repeated without putting any thought into it at all. It's a long debate that I'm not about to get into right now, but it is far from cut and dry from either standpoint.

As a scientific member of the aerospace industry, I find it astounding that people can write off creationism as "non-scientific". Everything we learned in physics, thermodynamics, and many of the other basic sciences teaches you that something can't come from nothing and that chaos comes from order, not the other way around. Yet people push that all aside without even the briefest thought. I have yet to come across ANYTHING that made itself, without having a designer first think it up, draw it (or otherwise describe it) and then have someone manufacture it. Down to the simplest thing - like a paperclip. Yet I'm to believe that the most complex things that have ever existed did just that? It doesn't make scientific sense to me. The more I learn about the universe, the more order I see and the more I'm convinced that it all had to be designed and built. Our greatest creations as humans are nothing but hollow attempts to copy the original Designer. The human body is a marvel that contains the blueprints for pumps, pipes, electricity, computers, the internet/networks, valves, fulcrums, ball joints, socket joints, and on and on.

I have a genius level IQ, advanced degrees, and work for THE premier science and aerospace organization on earth. And I can tell you that, scientifically speaking, it's not the slam dunk that you and Beardo want to imagine. The only people who are really closing off rational thought are those who completely dismiss the other side. To me, a lot of today's "science" is just another form of religion. A lot of unintelligent people reassure themselves regarding their intelligence by saying things like "I believe in Science!" or "Scientific consensus!", when in reality, they have an elementary level (at best) of scientific understanding.

[PMDawg]

Thats all fine, 7...but you did take offense to my young earth comment, as if believing the universe is 6000 years old is a requisite for Christian faith. Young earth creationists actually make up a minority of the overall faith, btw. And the recommendation of Hugh Ross as a writer on intelligent design is a great one, especially since he, as a Christian, fiercely challenges the young earth peddlers like Ken Hamm et. al.

Hugh Ross is a scientific bafoon who lies, exaggerates, and demonstrates a, let's say "poor" to be nice, level of basic scientific understanding to try to tie the Bible together with today's "science".

[BeardoMSU]

You and Beardo just spout lies like they're truth. you repeat stuff you've heard repeated without putting any thought into it at all. It's a long debate that I'm not about to get into right now, but it is far from cut and dry from either standpoint.

As a scientific member of the aerospace industry, I find it astounding that people can write off creationism as "non-scientific". Everything we learned in physics, thermodynamics, and many of the other basic sciences teaches you that something can't come from nothing and that chaos comes from order, not the other way around. Yet people push that all aside without even the briefest thought. I have yet to come across ANYTHING that made itself, without having a designer first think it up, draw it (or otherwise describe it) and then have someone manufacture it. Down to the simplest thing - like a paperclip. Yet I'm to believe that the most complex things that have ever existed did just that? It doesn't make scientific sense to me. The more I learn about the universe, the more order I see and the more I'm convinced that it all had to be designed and built. Our greatest creations as humans are nothing but hollow attempts to copy the original Designer. The human body is a marvel that contains the blueprints for pumps, pipes, electricity, computers, the internet/networks, valves, fulcrums, ball joints, socket joints, and on and on.

I have a genius level IQ, advanced degrees, and work for THE premier science and aerospace organization on earth. And I can tell you that, scientifically speaking, it's not the slam dunk that you and Beardo want to imagine. The only people who are really closing off rational thought are those who completely dismiss the other side. To me, a lot of today's "science" is just another form of religion. A lot of unintelligent people reassure themselves regarding their intelligence by saying things like "I believe in Science!" or "Scientific consensus!", when in reality, they have an elementary level (at best) of scientific understanding.

I just said the earth wasn't 6000 years old bro. Sorry your genius level IQ was so triggered by that.

[BeardoMSU]

Hugh Ross is a scientific bafoon who lies, exaggerates, and demonstrates a, let's say "poor" to be nice, level of basic scientific understanding to try to tie the Bible together with today's "science".

Ok, Ken.

[PMDawg]

I'm not going to tell you that some of my beliefs don't sound crazy. I get that, and I'm ok with it. Someone who doesn't believe in the supernatural will always look at the virgin birth or the resurrection or miracles and say it's silly and stupid. And I'm fine with that because I do believe in a supernatural God who can do all things. Frankly, it is silly-sounding to me to say that we are all simply here because once there was a cell and it started to mutate. A person is free to believe that, and I can't disprove it, but it sounds silly to me.

I'm not saying it's lazy or morally bankrupt to 'believe' in science. My point is that it isn't science vs. religion. I believe in a supernatural God who created all things...so I believe that the things that science observes and tries to figure out were all created by that God. I don't think that if science answers something, it means God doesn't. My belief is that God exists outside our plane of existence (on the account of the fact that he created it), and that all that we can see, touch, and observe is inside that plane of existence. It is akin to being part of a Rube Goldberg machine; you can look back and observe that the final ball was hit by some mechanism, then look further back and see that the mechanism was hit by another ball, etc. What you can't ever see by observation is how the Rube Goldberg machine came to be in the first place. So science provides us very valuable things, and I am all for it. What I don't think it can answer is how we came to be, and it certainly can't answer why. Which is why those with a materialistic worldview say, 'It just is.' Because science can't say more than that. But science isn't what is saying, 'It just is.' The worldview a person has will always inform their assumptions taken from those observations.

So when I say it is lazy and morally bankrupt, I'm not talking about those with a materialistic worldview. They have at least taken observations and formed a belief. What I think is lazy and morally bankrupt is the lack of attempt at all to develop a worldview. That is agnosticism, saying, 'I don't know and I don't care to look any further or come to a belief.' That is not belief in science, that is a lack of caring for any of it at all.

So I don't believe there is such a thing as 'belief in science.' I think what people mean when they say that is either a materialistic worldview or the belief that science (which is really just observation) can lead to an answer on all things. The first is fine, the second is simply untrue.

Exactly. Science is from God, he created it. The two are not mutually exclusive. When we learn about science, we are learning how God did things. Not how things could happen without a God. The fact is, we're just not smart enough to know exactly how to tie the two together - and we never will be. We will never know everything, and that's true whether you believe in God or not.

[Dawg2003]

I like The Case for Christ and what I've read of The Case for a Creator, but you're right that what he's doing is more Christian apologetics than unbiased investigation. My issue with that is that according to him, his own search was unbiased, and he investigated both claims from Christians, or at least theists, and claims from atheists, and found the former more convincing. His own search occurred in the late 70s and early 80s, but then he wrote his first book in 1998 and only used arguments from Christians. I find the book useful, but it's not going to alone convince many skeptics. I wish he had done a thorough reconstruction of his own actual search.

The Case for the Creator did bring up some interesting points, but you're right. It was more of an apologetics book than an actual investigation. I actually talked online with the guy who wrote "God's Crime Scene," and he sent me a free copy of his book. I haven't finished it yet, but he's brought up a lot of good points that have made me think. I think I'll always be skeptical but still out there searching.

[PMDawg]

Ok, Ken.

Cool comebacks, "bro".

[Political Hack]

After reading this board for a few years I'm pretty sure the earth is square.

[Lord McBuckethead]

Well I didn't want to get into a theological discussion today, but flat earthers man...... they are almost the worst. Antivaxers take the cake.

[BeardoMSU]

Cool comebacks, "bro".

Do you always get this triggered by people having completely civil conversations?

[Political Hack]

Just because we don't understand how science and religion worked together to form the earth doesn't mean it didn't happen. Personally I think God has a much better science department than us.

[PMDawg]

I just said the earth wasn't 6000 years old bro. Sorry your genius level IQ was so triggered by that.

What "triggers" me is complete dismissal of opposing points of view with sweeping generalizations. "Someone doesn't agree with me? Well they're (stupid/lazy/racist/bigoted/ect.)". No. There are good and intelligent people on both sides of virtually every debate. There is solid evidence on both sides of this debate. I freely admit that, based on our current scientific abilities, the universe appears extremely old. However, there is plenty of scientific evidence that it's young too. I cannot reconcile the two, and I know I never will in this life. But my faith allows me to understand that there is a reconciliation out there. Whether that means the earth is old or young is immaterial, my faith is in the only one who knows how they reconcile. My faith certainly isn't in man or our current version of science - both have been littered with failures throughout our 6,500 years of recorded history.

[Dawg2003]

Well I didn't want to get into a theological discussion today, but flat earthers man...... they are almost the worst. Antivaxers take the cake.

Flat earthers aren't bothering anyone. Now, anti-vaxxers, they harm others.

[BeardoMSU]

What "triggers" me is complete dismissal of opposing points of view with sweeping generalizations. "Someone doesn't agree with me? Well they're (stupid/lazy/racist/bigoted/ect.)". No. There are good and intelligent people on both sides of virtually every debate. There is solid evidence on both sides of this debate. I freely admit that, based on our current scientific abilities, the universe appears extremely old. However, there is plenty of scientific evidence that it's young too. I cannot reconcile the two, and I know I never will in this life. But my faith allows me to understand that there is a reconciliation out there. Whether that means the earth is old or young is immaterial, my faith is in the only one who knows how they reconcile. My faith certainly isn't in man or our current version of science - both have been littered with failures throughout our 6,500 years of recorded history.

Again, as I told 7, just because I said thinking the earth is 6k years old is stupid, DOES NOT MEAN your faith is being attacked as a Christian. Plenty of Christians agree with me. If you're in Ken Hamm's boat, congrats I guess, but that IS NOT mainstream Christian thought. I guess you're assuming the people that disagree with you on this are either not Christian or Christian "enough".

Also, the OP of this thread was about making fun of flat earthers as "stupid"....so it's odd, you feel you've got to come in here and pull rank on people. The anti vaxxers are also taking lumps.

Btw, how am I a liar? Why is Ross a liar? And what is "new science"?
And as a scientist that studies the Earth, I'm interested in what evidence you're referring to that points to the earth being young.

[TrapGame]

Flat earthers aren't bothering anyone. Now, anti-vaxxers, they harm others.

I'm gonna have to agree with this.

[Pennywise]

It's just over 90 minutes, but you should watch the documentary "Behind the Curve". It's on Netflix. It's hilarious. One thing you learn is that there is no reason to even argue with flat earthers. It's useless.

The best part of the film is when a group of them come up with a couple of experiments to scientifically prove that the earth is flat and end up proving the exact opposite.

Found it. Looks interesting....


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gnsm81gjo1E

[PMDawg]

Again, as I told 7, just because I said thinking the earth is 6k years old is stupid, DOES NOT MEAN your faith is being attacked as a Christian. Plenty of Christians agree with me. If you're in Ken Hamm's boat, congrats I guess, but that IS NOT mainstream Christian thought. I guess you're assuming the people that disagree with you on this are either not Christian or Christian "enough".

Also, the OP of this thread was about making fun of flat earthers as "stupid"....so it's odd, you feel you've got to come in here and pull rank on people. The anti vaxxers are also taking lumps.

Btw, how am I a liar? Why is Ross a liar? And what is "new science"?
And as a scientist that studies the Earth, I'm interested in what evidence you're referring to that points to the earth being young.

Don't project on me. You don't know me or anything about me. Not sure why you keep bringing up Ken Hamm, but ok I guess? I couldn't care less what you think is mainstream, but there you go making huge generalizations again.

So you believe it's not insulting to call what someone believes stupid, as long as you say "but you're not stupid"? Basically saying - only your thoughts are stupid, not you. Ok - so kind of like saying, "hey, no offense, but - ".

I started this out by saying I'm not getting into this huge debate, and I meant it. Your mind is already made up anyway. I just came in this thread to read, I didn't insult anyone or their beliefs. You did.

I'm exiting this conversation with one last thought. The purpose of the Bible is to tell you who God is and why you should trust Him. The climax is Jesus, who is the only way to have a relationship with the God you've learned about. So, to me, either it's all true, or none of it is. If parts of it are a lie, then why should I trust the Gospel? How do I know which parts I should trust? Boy that's a gamble. So I just choose to believe the parts I understand, or that fit with my world view? Nope - I'd rather throw it in the trash than try that. So I believe it all. EVEN THE PARTS THAT MAKE NO SENSE TO ME PERSONALLY OR SCIENTIFICALLY. If I'm wrong in that, so be it. As I said - there is a reconciliation somewhere. It's not my job to understand it all. I have faith in the Author, and that's all that matters. I can "suffer" through people making fun of me for that if need be. There's no point to being "accepted" anyway. If I was wrong, I'm sure God won't hold it against me for trusting Him over man. If that's not "mainstream", I'm okay with not being mainstream.

You are right about one thing though - I probably didn't handle this well. I tend to get mad when I feel like my intelligence is being questioned. For that, I apologize.

[smootness]

The Case for the Creator did bring up some interesting points, but you're right. It was more of an apologetics book than an actual investigation. I actually talked online with the guy who wrote "God's Crime Scene," and he sent me a free copy of his book. I haven't finished it yet, but he's brought up a lot of good points that have made me think. I think I'll always be skeptical but still out there searching.

I respect you for that searching. Believe me, faith is not always easy. I have had plenty of doubts about various things through the years, and the digging and searching has always resulted in a stronger faith. That does not happen for everyone, but I believe Scripture has real power and that reading it produces faith to those whose eyes have been opened. I would recommend that you keep searching. Believe me, I will continue to dig on questions that I have that don't make sense to me, all the while maintaining faith that ultimately, those questions will lead me back to truth, which I believe is the God of the Bible and Jesus Christ.

I understand your skepticism, I really do. But again, keep searching. If those with the materialistic worldview are correct, then well, who really cares all that much about what conclusions anyone comes to. But, if we who have faith in Christ are correct, then the conclusion at the end is of ultimate consequence. So keep searching. I believe that Christ alone can save, and it may not mean that much to you, but I will be in prayer for you, that you find that truth as well, because I want desperately for you to find salvation.

[gravedigger]

Per his twitter earlier this afternoon. Is this like a new fad amongst pros now?

Ok....so lets assume for a minute it is flat......

HOW THICK IS THE EARTH?

And another question......do they have any examples of other planets that are flat?

[Commercecomet24]

I respect you for that searching. Believe me, faith is not always easy. I have had plenty of doubts about various things through the years, and the digging and searching has always resulted in a stronger faith. That does not happen for everyone, but I believe Scripture has real power and that reading it produces faith to those whose eyes have been opened. I would recommend that you keep searching. Believe me, I will continue to dig on questions that I have that don't make sense to me, all the while maintaining faith that ultimately, those questions will lead me back to truth, which I believe is the God of the Bible and Jesus Christ.

I understand your skepticism, I really do. But again, keep searching. If those with the materialistic worldview are correct, then well, who really cares all that much about what conclusions anyone comes to. But, if we who have faith in Christ are correct, then the conclusion at the end is of ultimate consequence. So keep searching. I believe that Christ alone can save, and it may not mean that much to you, but I will be in prayer for you, that you find that truth as well, because I want desperately for you to find salvation.

Great stuff, Smoot!

[Dawg2003]

I respect you for that searching. Believe me, faith is not always easy. I have had plenty of doubts about various things through the years, and the digging and searching has always resulted in a stronger faith. That does not happen for everyone, but I believe Scripture has real power and that reading it produces faith to those whose eyes have been opened. I would recommend that you keep searching. Believe me, I will continue to dig on questions that I have that don't make sense to me, all the while maintaining faith that ultimately, those questions will lead me back to truth, which I believe is the God of the Bible and Jesus Christ.

I understand your skepticism, I really do. But again, keep searching. If those with the materialistic worldview are correct, then well, who really cares all that much about what conclusions anyone comes to. But, if we who have faith in Christ are correct, then the conclusion at the end is of ultimate consequence. So keep searching. I believe that Christ alone can save, and it may not mean that much to you, but I will be in prayer for you, that you find that truth as well, because I want desperately for you to find salvation.

Thanks man. That's really nice of you to say.

[msu15]

I respect you for that searching. Believe me, faith is not always easy. I have had plenty of doubts about various things through the years, and the digging and searching has always resulted in a stronger faith. That does not happen for everyone, but I believe Scripture has real power and that reading it produces faith to those whose eyes have been opened. I would recommend that you keep searching. Believe me, I will continue to dig on questions that I have that don't make sense to me, all the while maintaining faith that ultimately, those questions will lead me back to truth, which I believe is the God of the Bible and Jesus Christ.

I understand your skepticism, I really do. But again, keep searching. If those with the materialistic worldview are correct, then well, who really cares all that much about what conclusions anyone comes to. But, if we who have faith in Christ are correct, then the conclusion at the end is of ultimate consequence. So keep searching. I believe that Christ alone can save, and it may not mean that much to you, but I will be in prayer for you, that you find that truth as well, because I want desperately for you to find salvation.

Man....this post alone should be in a hall of fame thread on this board. This is some great stuff here.

[Shooter McGavin]

Everything we learned in physics, thermodynamics, and many of the other basic sciences teaches you that something can't come from nothing and that chaos comes from order, not the other way around.

This 100%. Order to disorder not the other way around. I'm supposed to believe that existence as we know it originated when disorder organized into order for the one time in history. Then never did it again. Sorry not buying it.

That being said, I see the age of the universe as one of the irrefutable facts of our lifetimes. It is much older than 6000 years. Do I still believe there was a Creator...yes but I don't believe God created the universe in 6 days as we understand them. He is God. He can do whatever. Time means nothing. Like the verse says a day is like 1000 years. Not a day is literally 1000 years.

Like you said, there will be a reconciliation of all the questions we have one day. We will not come close to understanding everything in our lifetimes.

Oh and to the original point, flat earthers, along with anti vaxxers and people who believe in horoscopes, are among the dumbest people on this planet.

[Shooter McGavin]

I agree it seems like a small thing, but kids look up to these people. We have enough problems with education in this country as it is. We do not need any further obstacles like athletes saying patently false statements about irrefutable scientific facts.

[tireddawg]

I respect you for that searching. Believe me, faith is not always easy. I have had plenty of doubts about various things through the years, and the digging and searching has always resulted in a stronger faith. That does not happen for everyone, but I believe Scripture has real power and that reading it produces faith to those whose eyes have been opened. I would recommend that you keep searching. Believe me, I will continue to dig on questions that I have that don't make sense to me, all the while maintaining faith that ultimately, those questions will lead me back to truth, which I believe is the God of the Bible and Jesus Christ.

I understand your skepticism, I really do. But again, keep searching. If those with the materialistic worldview are correct, then well, who really cares all that much about what conclusions anyone comes to. But, if we who have faith in Christ are correct, then the conclusion at the end is of ultimate consequence. So keep searching. I believe that Christ alone can save, and it may not mean that much to you, but I will be in prayer for you, that you find that truth as well, because I want desperately for you to find salvation.

Greatest set of words ever typed on this board. RESPECT

[Cloak]

There is solid evidence on both sides of this debate. I freely admit that, based on our current scientific abilities, the universe appears extremely old. However, there is plenty of scientific evidence that it's young too.

By young, do you mean 6,000 years old? I'm not trying to be a smartass, just not very educated on the subject. I know the science behind the old argument, what's the science behind the young argument?

[dawgs]

Goodness, I obviously hit a nerve. You seem to feel really strongly about your beliefs. What evidence do you have of an intelligent designer? I've read the arguments for an intelligent designer and wasn't convinced. Maybe I'm missing something.


Nah, not missing a thing by everything I've learned in all my years.

[dawgs]

You?re missing a lot. If you?ve gotten this far in life and are still this stupid then there is nothing anyone on this board can do for you. You?re a lost cause. I don?t agree with 99 much but do that you millennials are 17?d in the head. Lazy and flat out stupid

So by not suspending logic and not taking a leap of faith that an old man in the sky designed all of us is being "lazy and stupid"? The entire concept of faith is suspending logic at some point. If you believe in god and religion, great for you, but you have can't call someone "lazy and stupid" for not taking the same leap of faith.

Do you think Muslims are "lazy and stupid" because they were raised to believe in the wrong religion? Jews? Buddhists? Hindus? Mormons? What makes their beliefs "lazy and stupid" but yours totally the result of high level intelligence and a strong work ethic?

[Percho]

I read that book and found it completely unconvincing. He never offered any counter arguments to his beliefs. He states a belief and then goes looking for someone/something to back it up. I've read all of his books and think most of them are bad. The only one that halfway convinced me was "The Case for Easter." He actually did bring up some legitimate arguments in that one. I bet he's made a fortune off of all those books though because people are desperate to believe in something. I don't blame them though because it's really depressing to think I won't see my parents again after they die. I'm willing to try to believe a lot of foolish stuff to avoid facing that reality.

Boy, are you going to be:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2TnkJ8_BmSI

[Bothrops]

I seen the world..in the full earth...and it is out there.

[Dawg-gone-dawgs]

Per his twitter earlier this afternoon. Is this like a new fad amongst pros now?

It blows my mind that there are people that actually believe this....

[Bubb Rubb]

I mean, there's a certain amount of rational thought you have to suspend to believe in any religion. In order to believe creationism, you have to completely reject science. I honestly never knew creationists existed until I went to graduate school and met some. Of course, you also have to completely reject science and twist your mind into a pretzel to believe in God, so most people are irrational about something. Just don't become an anti-vaxxer because they are public nuisances.

This is a whole load of horseshit.

Moreover, the whole, "you're wrong, because SCIENCE" thing is stupid and played out. I love how in the span of 30 minutes I can hear the same politician or the same commentator claim that man-made global warning is settled science, then claim that biological science of birthed gender is not real and people can choose their gender, then claim that religion is a crock, because SCIENCE, then ignore the anatomical science of an unborn baby and call it "a clump of cells."

In other words, people like to use science to support an argument, and then ignore it when it disproves an argument. I suspect you're one of those people.

[R2Dawg]

That's a lot of projecting, 7. I never said you were stupid for being a Christian, so don't put words in my mouth. I said it's stupid to think the Earth is "6000" years old, given the mountain of scientific evidence we have pointing to the contrary. That is literally the exact same argument everyone is using against CJ and his Bronze Age nonsense. Being religious isn't a get-out-of-jail-free-card for rational competence.

Boy too much to unpack in all this but I'll be brief on each.

First, two main Biblical beliefs about earth age. One is it is millions of years old as day in OT Genesis is interpreted as a long period of time. Most Christians believe in the other view of Biblical historical documents - proven if you pull all world history and Biblical geneology together the earth is around 6000 years old. That is not stupid to believe that which is what you said. Flat earth has science and the earth being young has history. Young earth does not go against science either. Carbon dating has been proven unreliable. Living mollusks have dated thousands of years old and many more studies. Carbon dating uses extrapolation of unknown data. Big errors in other places too.


As far as rational competence so for those that don't believe in God, can anyone explain for nothing times nothing equals everything? That is what those that believe evolution believe. It takes more faith to be a non believer than it does a Christian. Science and Christianity are not at odds, they are perfectly aligned.

[Turfdawg67]

Per his twitter earlier this afternoon. Is this like a new fad amongst pros now?

Who gives a sh*t. Why do you simple minded imbeciles worry about this stuff. We'll all be dead and gone one day, fact! And it won't matter one iota if you thought we went to the moon, the Yeti was real or if the freakin world is flat. GD!

[dawgs]

This is a whole load of horseshit.

Moreover, the whole, "you're wrong, because SCIENCE" thing is stupid and played out. I love how in the span of 30 minutes I can hear the same politician or the same commentator claim that man-made global warning is settled science, then claim that biological science of birthed gender is not real and people can choose their gender, then claim that religion is a crock, because SCIENCE, then ignore the anatomical science of an unborn baby and call it "a clump of cells."

In other words, people like to use science to support an argument, and then ignore it when it disproves an argument. I suspect you're one of those people.

I think the whole trans thing is that sometimes the brain and the physical body don't sync up. What you pee out of may not be the same what your brain is wired. I don't think that's an ridiculous notion.

[dawgs]

Boy too much to unpack in all this but I'll be brief on each.

First, two main Biblical beliefs about earth age. One is it is millions of years old as day in OT Genesis is interpreted as a long period of time. Most Christians believe in the other view of Biblical historical documents - proven if you pull all world history and Biblical geneology together the earth is around 6000 years old. That is not stupid to believe that which is what you said. Flat earth has science and the earth being young has history. Young earth does not go against science either. Carbon dating has been proven unreliable. Living mollusks have dated thousands of years old and many more studies. Carbon dating uses extrapolation of unknown data. Big errors in other places too.


As far as rational competence so for those that don't believe in God, can anyone explain for nothing times nothing equals everything? That is what those that believe evolution believe. It takes more faith to be a non believer than it does a Christian. Science and Christianity are not at odds, they are perfectly aligned.

I don't rule out some kinda force, energy, spirit, whatever, something that's out there that created the universe and what's even outside the universe that we are expanding into. But that's not the same thing as believing any one religion is the one that got god right, which is what anyone who claims to be religious believes. Everyone believes they are the right religion and the others are the wrong religion with no more evidence than the book they were told to believe when they were kids. As far as where the universe came from, obviously there was some kinda force. Whether that was god in the concept that religion tends to view god that caused the Big Bang or there's some scientific explanation we still haven't figured out that we just call "god", who knows, but I'm plenty fine assuming none of humanity's various religions have gotten it right about whatever god is out there pulling the strings. Just be kind to others and treat them how you want to be treated and it'll all work out in the end.

[Bubb Rubb]

I think the whole trans thing is that sometimes the brain and the physical body don't sync up. What you pee out of may not be the same what your brain is wired. I don't think that's an ridiculous notion.

That you don?t think it?s a ridiculous notion is a ridiculous notion. If the brain and the physical body aren?t syncing up about something as fundamental as that, it?s because of conscious decision making and not some faulty wiring.

There are some legitimately transgendered people in this world...I?m not going to deny that. But the volume is extremely minuscule. Otherwise, like the kid in kindergarten cop said, ?boys have a penis, and girls have a ******.? SCIENCE! Being gay is one thing, but saying you identify as a woman when you are clearly a dude is pretty much a textbook example of mental illness.

But the whole point of my post was that if you will ignore obvious science to debate this point, don?t come back later and cite science to make an argument for something else.

[Jarius]

I have been in the part of this world where the stories from the Bible took place for a good while. If you can come over here and deal with these people and still believe that they have ever had any clue as to who the true God is (or if there really is a God), then more power to you. Most of these idiots can't walk and chew bubble gum at the same time. Maybe they were a lot smarter 5 thousand years ago. Do you guys know what the average IQ was back then? I mean the things they used to do and believe in are ridiculous. I don't know what the truth is, but I'm equally confident that no one over here has ever had a clue either. That does not mean that there aren't some really good things to live by in multiple religions. I tend to think that people of devout religion have seen drastic improvements in their life because most religions are full of really good teachings that are great to live by in general (minus the nutjobs that want to blow people up or massacre people in the name of religion). If you follow actually the teachings of Christianity, you're generally going to be a pretty good dude and be a nice person. Your life is going to improve. That's awesome. I don't think it proves anything else. Maybe I'm wrong. I think if I go to hell for not believing something that can't be proven and happened thousands of years ago then that's not really fair.

anyway.......

As for the Chris Jones flat earth......I don't care. Hope he continues to do well and makes a boatload of money.

[PCHSDawg]

Just an observation I've made is the same scientists that don't believe in a Creator have no problem believing in something they can't detect and is purely theoretical they call dark matter and dark energy. They have to have it to make the math work for their theories. Personally I think people are hardwired to believe in something, whether it's science, religion or their politics.

[starkvegasdawg]

Who gives a sh*t. Why do you simple minded imbeciles worry about this stuff. We'll all be dead and gone one day, fact! And it won't matter one iota if you thought we went to the moon, the Yeti was real or if the freakin world is flat. GD!
I hope by now you've gotten all that sand out of your ******. Must have been awfully uncomfortable.

[preachermatt83]

That's a lot of projecting, 7. I never said you were stupid for being a Christian, so don't put words in my mouth. I said it's stupid to think the Earth is "6000" years old, given the mountain of scientific evidence we have pointing to the contrary. That is literally the exact same argument everyone is using against CJ and his Bronze Age nonsense. Being religious isn't a get-out-of-jail-free-card for rational competence.

It?s possible to be a creationist and still be rational. I think far too many Christians try to put God in a box. Research the Gap Theory. It is a wonderful theory of creation, followed by re-creation. It takes into account ?old earth?. Basically we just simply believe that ?in the beginning? and ?on the first day? are two separate events.

[BeardoMSU]

Young earth does not go against science either. Carbon dating has been proven unreliable. Living mollusks have dated thousands of years old and many more studies. Carbon dating uses extrapolation of unknown data. Big errors in other places too.


You couldn't be more wrong here, in literally every statement.

1. Carbon Dating....does it have limitations? Sure, almost all chemical analyses do, but C14 dating has improved dramatically in it's precision over the last 50 years. The calibrations have been finessed and are constantly checked and rechecked against standards. Many of the dates generated in its early days have been corrected.

2. Not sure why you'd even bring this up in a discussion about the Earth's age. It may come as a surprise to you, but C14 is not used to date the really really old materials from millions of years ago, i.e., fossils, volcanic eruptions, stratigraphy, etc.; different methods are used for that, such as Potassium-Argon, Lead Isotopes, Uranium Isotopes. The reason for this is because C14 dating has an age threshold of ca. 50-60 thousand years, and this limitation is pretty essential to our understanding of how Carbon 14 decays and it's ratio with C13.

3. What is this "proof" you speak of?

4. "Carbon dating uses extrapolation of unknown data"....what are you talking about here? C14 dating as a method and concept is actually pretty straight forward, and the "data" are certainly not "unknown".

5a. "Living mollusks have been dated to thousands of years old and many more studies"....ok, wth are you talking about here? Yeah, there are mollusks living today that, when their growth bands are counted, show that they've been alive for thousands of years....What does that have to do with C14 or the age of the Earth?

5b. There is a species of mollusk called Exogyra costata that went extinct at the end of the Cretaceous Period (60 million years ago), and you can find it's remains in abundance on and around MSU's campus, if you're so inclined (check the bluffs out by the disc golf course...can literally pick them up off the ground).

[Jack Lambert]

After reading this board for a few years I'm pretty sure the earth is square.

It's egg shape.:)

[Jack Lambert]

To me, almost all of the stories of the Bible are parables, designed to teach us something in a manner that people who couldn't read could understand.

1. To me, Adam and Eve just a story. Didn't happen. If it did, it was 200k years ago and no one would remember the story.

2. Noah.... the world didn't flood, but maybe a small part did. 2 animals? nope, didn't happen.

3. Mosses, probably did happen for the most part.

4. Virgin Birth, maybe but a young girl gets pregnant out of wedlock and her betrothed still decides to marry her..... seems like there is a convenience to this story.

5. Resurrection, sure why not.

Most of the stories are BS. Only there to teach the dumb and illiterate something.

What I do believe, God and Jesus are great. Men have too much faith in a book and stories written by men. The only things that matter are, Jesus is the way to the Lord and be your neighbors keeper. We should be doing everything we can for our neighbors. Not locking them in cages. Not turning them away. Hell there are poeple in our communities that we all treat as they are less than. I say skip Sunday church and help out your neighbor that needs it. Put that 10% to work in your own community, first.

I do agree the bible is taken to literally. Somehow hell is a real place. Many bible scholars agree that hell is a metaphor for "being out of present of god". The feeling is so bad it's like being in a burning lake.

[gravedigger]

Who gives a sh*t. Why do you simple minded imbeciles worry about this stuff. We'll all be dead and gone one day, fact! And it won't matter one iota if you thought we went to the moon, the Yeti was real or if the freakin world is flat. GD!

And THAT, sir, is why we have been friends since the he dawn of time.

Bra..fckin....vo

[gravedigger]

What "triggers" me is complete dismissal of opposing points of view with sweeping generalizations. "Someone doesn't agree with me? Well they're (stupid/lazy/racist/bigoted/ect.)". No. There are good and intelligent people on both sides of virtually every debate. There is solid evidence on both sides of this debate. I freely admit that, based on our current scientific abilities, the universe appears extremely old. However, there is plenty of scientific evidence that it's young too. I cannot reconcile the two, and I know I never will in this life. But my faith allows me to understand that there is a reconciliation out there. Whether that means the earth is old or young is immaterial, my faith is in the only one who knows how they reconcile. My faith certainly isn't in man or our current version of science - both have been littered with failures throughout our 6,500 years of recorded history.

Beardo is not your adversary in this. His position is that Christians are not all fundamentalist/biblical literalists and I see your point too.

Probably my oldest friend on this board pointed out to me years ago whenI was laughing about Scientology and it?s assertions about exploding volcanos, that my faith?s miracles was no less irrational. And he was absolutely correct. It probably shaped my belief from that moment forward.

Man?s INABILITY to understand or prove something is no indication of its impossibility.

[BeardoMSU]

I do agree the bible is taken to literally. Somehow hell is a real place. Many bible scholars agree that hell is a metaphor for "being out of present of god". The feeling is so bad it's like being in a burning lake.
Lol, very true.

[gravedigger]

I have been in the part of this world where the stories from the Bible took place for a good while. If you can come over here and deal with these people and still believe that they have ever had any clue as to who the true God is (or if there really is a God), then more power to you. Most of these idiots can't walk and chew bubble gum at the same time. Maybe they were a lot smarter 5 thousand years ago. Do you guys know what the average IQ was back then? I mean the things they used to do and believe in are ridiculous. I don't know what the truth is, but I'm equally confident that no one over here has ever had a clue either. That does not mean that there aren't some really good things to live by in multiple religions. I tend to think that people of devout religion have seen drastic improvements in their life because most religions are full of really good teachings that are great to live by in general (minus the nutjobs that want to blow people up or massacre people in the name of religion). If you follow actually the teachings of Christianity, you're generally going to be a pretty good dude and be a nice person. Your life is going to improve. That's awesome. I don't think it proves anything else. Maybe I'm wrong. I think if I go to hell for not believing something that can't be proven and happened thousands of years ago then that's not really fair.

anyway.......

As for the Chris Jones flat earth......I don't care. Hope he continues to do well and makes a boatload of money.

So...quick question. What does THAT part of the world indicate regarding someone understanding science or bein in touch with a higher power?

[Jarius]

That part of the world is where all of this started and originated (the Bible is the reason most people on here believe in creationism I would guess). A bunch of people in a time period that believed in a whole bunch of nonsense in other areas all of a sudden got the creator of the universe correct? Ok. If you believe that then fine. I am not here to judge. I simply do not. You guys may be correct. The only thing I truly know is that I am not smart enough to figure it out.

[Anonymous]

It's an odd thing that we as southern protestants tend to cling to. The entirety of our faith actually becomes stronger when you stop clinging to subjective views of what is "right" and take Genesis for what it is, a collection of beliefs that Jews held at the time of it's writing. It's why we see two different creation stories in Genesis 1 & 2, because they were literally giving the two more prominent theories/beliefs at the time of writing. Which dates to the Mesopotamian ideas that the Earth is flat with water both above and beneath it.

[gravedigger]

That part of the world is where all of this started and originated (the Bible is the reason most people on here believe in creationism I would guess). A bunch of people in a time period that believed in a whole bunch of nonsense in other areas all of a sudden got the creator of the universe correct? Ok. If you believe that then fine. I am not here to judge. I simply do not. You guys may be correct. The only thing I truly know is that I am not smart enough to figure it out.

I spent a bit of time there although it was in Saudi Arabia. I didn?t get the impression they were lacking in intelligence or more susceptible to falsehood. My perception could be inaccurate.

Given our choice of President, I?d say the rest of the world could call into question our part off the world as well. But it wouldn?t be an accurate way of assessing anything.

[Turfdawg67]

Beardo is not your adversary in this. His position is that Christians are not all fundamentalist/biblical literalists and I see your point too.

Probably my oldest friend on this board pointed out to me years ago whenI was laughing about Scientology and it?s assertions about exploding volcanos, that my faith?s miracles was no less irrational. And he was absolutely correct. It probably shaped my belief from that moment forward.

Man?s INABILITY to understand or prove something is no indication of its impossibility.

You use your tongue prettier than a twenty dollar whore.

[Jarius]

I spent a bit of time there although it was in Saudi Arabia. I didn?t get the impression they were lacking in intelligence or more susceptible to falsehood. My perception could be inaccurate.

Given our choice of President, I?d say the rest of the world could call into question our part off the world as well. But it wouldn?t be an accurate way of assessing anything.

The average IQ of Americans is about 10 points higher than many countries in the Middle East. They have been fighting and killing over religion in the Middle East since the beginning of known history. A large % of people live in poverty in many of these countries. All of that aside, the intelligence of man in general during that time period was much lower than it is now (which was my real point). They believed a bunch of things back then that would get you committed to an insane asylum today, yet many people believe (and fight wars over) religious beliefs that started during that time period. I just don't get it, but maybe I'm not supposed to.

However, I was (and will be again) one of the ones responsible for voting our current president in office so maybe I am not qualified to have this conversation with you. Have a good one!

[Cooterpoot]

I love to gather and argue information related to life from a sports message board where people can?t even spell our players? names correctly. Where we tell kids they suck and coaches they?re idiots. Where we use aliases so people won?t know what idiots we really are.

Cooterpootians 3:16

[BeardoMSU]

It's an odd thing that we as southern protestants tend to cling to. The entirety of our faith actually becomes stronger when you stop clinging to subjective views of what is "right" and take Genesis for what it is, a collection of beliefs that Jews held at the time of it's writing. It's why we see two different creation stories in Genesis 1 & 2, because they were literally giving the two more prominent theories/beliefs at the time of writing. Which dates to the Mesopotamian ideas that the Earth is flat with water both above and beneath it.

Great points. To me, it's why the Biblical "literalists" 1) get so much push back from fellow Christians and non-Christians, and 2) draw the ire of people who just want to hate on Christianity, in general (which declaring the Earth is 6k years old, despite very basic [& non controversial] science and overwhelming evidence to the contrary, obviously makes an easy target).

Arguing for things that aren't even explicitly stated in the Bible as being absolutely central to your understanding of the faith, and having a "it's all true ,or none of it's true" (as one poster has stated), is what makes discussing these issues so frustrating. What does the age of the Earth have at all to do with the teachings or philosophy of Christ? (**whispers**...nothing....)

[R2Dawg]

I don't rule out some kinda force, energy, spirit, whatever, something that's out there that created the universe and what's even outside the universe that we are expanding into. But that's not the same thing as believing any one religion is the one that got god right, which is what anyone who claims to be religious believes. Everyone believes they are the right religion and the others are the wrong religion with no more evidence than the book they were told to believe when they were kids. As far as where the universe came from, obviously there was some kinda force. Whether that was god in the concept that religion tends to view god that caused the Big Bang or there's some scientific explanation we still haven't figured out that we just call "god", who knows, but I'm plenty fine assuming none of humanity's various religions have gotten it right about whatever god is out there pulling the strings. Just be kind to others and treat them how you want to be treated and it'll all work out in the end.

You are correct to a degree but that is where you have to really look at the details of religion. The Koran was written around 800AD and repeats much of the Bible origins with some changes however the Bibilical original manuscripts are the oldest writing of any religion. Look at the prophecies of the Bible that have been proven and it will blow your mind. Look up Daniel 24 9-10 prophecy if you want a glimpse. There is not one contradiction in the Bible either even though men recorded it guided by God over thousands of years. Pretty amazing. Look at Isreal (God's chosen people). Humanity tried to destroy them for 2000 years (Hitler) and then they found themselves back in the land God promised 6000 years ago just as God said.

There is one major difference in Biblical Christianity and every other religion. Every other religion has a list of things you must do or not do to be right before God. Biblical Christianity requires nothing, salvation is the free gift of God - God's grace. The Bible answers every question of origin, our problems and our redemption.


I don't understand all about God, no one does but He does tell us what we need to know in His Word - Bible. It would be worth everyone's best interest to seek out the truth of God before that time. I would encourage you all to read it for yourself and don't let bad philosophy from the world turn you away. God sent His son Jesus to take on the sins of mankind so we could have faith in Him and be seen as righteous before a Holy God.

[R2Dawg]

I do agree the bible is taken to literally. Somehow hell is a real place. Many bible scholars agree that hell is a metaphor for "being out of present of god". The feeling is so bad it's like being in a burning lake.

The penalty for sin against a Holy God is death which happened in the Garden of Eden in Genesis when Adam and Eve disobeyed God. They ate from the tree of knowledge of good and evil and this is where evil entered the world. God created man to have a free will and he chose to defy God. That penalty is death. That death is a physical death and a spiritual death. Adam and Eve were thrown out of the Garden immediately and separated from God. Death would come to all humanity after that. Death is real - one out of one persons die. Being separated from God is also real. Anyone who does not accept Jesus to cover their sin, will be eternally separated from God. Now some don't think that is a problem, but that separation is not a pleasant separation, it is torture in a burning hot eternal flame. The New Testament tells about a man who went to hell and begged for just a drop of water on his tongue. The Bible describes in great detail the torture that will happen because of rejecting God - that is our choice. Some would love for hell to be a metaphor but it isn't according to God. This is not my opinion, this is what the Bible says.

[R2Dawg]

Great points. To me, it's why the Biblical "literalists" 1) get so much push back from fellow Christians and non-Christians, and 2) draw the ire of people who just want to hate on Christianity, in general (which declaring the Earth is 6k years old, despite very basic [& non controversial] science and overwhelming evidence to the contrary, obviously makes an easy target).

Arguing for things that aren't even explicitly stated in the Bible as being absolutely central to your understanding of the faith, and having a "it's all true ,or none of it's true" (as one poster has stated), is what makes discussing these issues so frustrating. What does the age of the Earth have at all to do with the teachings or philosophy of Christ? (**whispers**...nothing....)

We can all debate a lot of controversial things in the Bible - Christians probably disagree on as much as anyone but how old the earth is doesn't really matter in the grand scheme of things. We all have less than 120 years to figure out what we are going to believe (most have much less time than that). Every breath we take is a step closer to seeing God. Bible says that all will see God, but not all will be found redeemed from their sin.


Romans 1:20 says For since the creation of the world, God's invisible qualities, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made so that people are without excuse.

Creation is one of the most complex and incredible things, everything works together to sustain life. The earths physical features, a little closer to sun and we burn up, further we freeze. It has taken humanity all of history just to understand a small piece of creation our world, our bodies. Folks a greater power exists outside of us. That power has shown Himself as the God of the Bible. Might want to ask the question, what if I am wrong about my belief??? What if I (R2Dawg) is wrong? Well I have lived a good life. If anyone who doesn't believe is wrong then your heaven is right now (100 year vapor) and eternity of hell waits. If I am right then eternity with God in heaven (a new earth without sin, evil, pain, suffering, etc. forever.


Big gamble folks, it is worth the time to search this out. Great thing is, your life will be better here on earth too. Find a good Christian church or friends and start reading a Bible to get the answers for yourself. It is all there if you seek, you will find. May you all find God in this life.

[R2Dawg]

You couldn't be more wrong here, in literally every statement.

1. Carbon Dating....does it have limitations? Sure, almost all chemical analyses do, but C14 dating has improved dramatically in it's precision over the last 50 years. The calibrations have been finessed and are constantly checked and rechecked against standards. Many of the dates generated in its early days have been corrected.

2. Not sure why you'd even bring this up in a discussion about the Earth's age. It may come as a surprise to you, but C14 is not used to date the really really old materials from millions of years ago, i.e., fossils, volcanic eruptions, stratigraphy, etc.; different methods are used for that, such as Potassium-Argon, Lead Isotopes, Uranium Isotopes. The reason for this is because C14 dating has an age threshold of ca. 50-60 thousand years, and this limitation is pretty essential to our understanding of how Carbon 14 decays and it's ratio with C13.

3. What is this "proof" you speak of?

4. "Carbon dating uses extrapolation of unknown data"....what are you talking about here? C14 dating as a method and concept is actually pretty straight forward, and the "data" are certainly not "unknown".

5a. "Living mollusks have been dated to thousands of years old and many more studies"....ok, wth are you talking about here? Yeah, there are mollusks living today that, when their growth bands are counted, show that they've been alive for thousands of years....What does that have to do with C14 or the age of the Earth?

5b. There is a species of mollusk called Exogyra costata that went extinct at the end of the Cretaceous Period (60 million years ago), and you can find it's remains in abundance on and around MSU's campus, if you're so inclined (check the bluffs out by the disc golf course...can literally pick them up off the ground).


Since all your points contain C14, I'll try and explain what I said/meant. In the end, you need to study the evidence of God, Bible, etc. for yourself. I can't convince you of any truth until you discover it for yourself. Now back to your counter points.

C14 dating is about the only science we have to date something but it is not accurate past 25-30,000 years. It was only invented in 1947, by Willard Libby. C14 is measures the % of unstable carbon 14 isotopes in once living objects. The half life of C14 is only 5730 years so in 5 half lives (29,000 years) very little C14 remains. Here are a few examples of known C14 dating discrepancies: Since C14 has only been around for 70 years, the rates over thousands of years is assumed constant which in real science is not really science at all when you extrapolate that far.

Mollushs living test dated at 2300 years old (dead) yet they were alive?, Mortar from an English castle known less than 800 years old tested at 7370 years old, Fresh seal skins dated 1300 years old. There is more but moving on.

There are several factors that can alter C14 decay rates such as volcanic activity, burning, solar activity, cosmic radiation, meteors, Point is if conditions on earth were different in the past, then C14 dating is not reliable beyond about 5000 years.

I am not an expert on C14 dating but the above came from scientific research on the subject from books I have. I did graduate in engineering from Mississippi State University, one of the best engineering schools in the country. You can chose to believe or not. When science is done right, it aligns perfectly with the Bible because God created science too.

From math nothing times anything = nothing so evolution can't be true. So what is true? I believe God's Word has all the truth necessary. Creation and big bang theory just don't mix either. Two rocks hit together and create a higher order and then non living matter into living matter. Where is the energy source?? If that is how it happened, it came from God. This is the second law of thermodynamics, chaos is the normal direction not order and it takes an external energy to bring order from chaos. Does your car get naturally cleaner or dirtier? To get clean we must put energy into it.

Another question about big bang, who created the rocks? Can anyone answer these questions on evolution? They can't because there is only one answer that makes sense - God, Creator, Sustainer.

[BeardoMSU]

Since all your points contain C14, I'll try and explain what I said/meant. In the end, you need to study the evidence of God, Bible, etc. for yourself. I can't convince you of any truth until you discover it for yourself. Now back to your counter points.

C14 dating is about the only science we have to date something but it is not accurate past 25-30,000 years. It was only invented in 1947, by Willard Libby. C14 is measures the % of unstable carbon 14 isotopes in once living objects. The half life of C14 is only 5730 years so in 5 half lives (29,000 years) very little C14 remains. Here are a few examples of known C14 dating discrepancies: Since C14 has only been around for 70 years, the rates over thousands of years is assumed constant which in real science is not really science at all when you extrapolate that far.

Several things:

For one, C14 is definitely not the only scientific dating method we have; as I mentioned before, we have numerous other absolute chemical dating methods, as well as some other absolute methods that rely on rhythmic layering such as dendrochronology and and ice/snow-fall cores.

Second, you are correct in your research regarding Libby and the half-life, but again, as I said, precision has increased substantially, and, as is the nature of science, incorrect dates have been corrected and new dates are continuously checked against current calibrations. The nature of science is that it is in a constant state of self-policing. That's really a great thing.

Third, your statement of "the rates over thousands of years is assumed" is simply not true. I mentioned in my previous post that C14 calibrations are "checked and rechecked against standards"....well, one of those standards derives from dendrochonology (i.e., analysis of tree ring growth). Trees, as part of their physiology, like mollusks and other sequential growers, absorb distinct chemical signatures within each annual ring as they age. Based on these signatures, geochemists are able to correct for fluctuations of carbon (and other variations) in the Earth's atmosphere and adjust the curve accordingly.


Mollushs living test dated at 2300 years old (dead) yet they were alive?, Mortar from an English castle known less than 800 years old tested at 7370 years old, Fresh seal skins dated 1300 years old. There is more but moving on.

I'd like to see where you're getting this info from. I find these type of critical errors extremely dubious, not to mention convenient for this discussion. It's easy, with all chemical analyses, to really **** up your samples, via contamination of all sorts (easy, and sadly, expensive...these things aren't cheap). So I'm suspicious of 1) how these "samples" were collected, 2) where they were collected from, and what is the history of the area/location, 3) how the samples were handled after recovery (this is extremely important), 4)what laboratory conducted the analysis, what mass-spectrometer was used, how was it calibrated, who was the technician, when was the last time it was serviced, etc. etc.

You may think I'm being petty, but I assure you, all of these are important questions.


There are several factors that can alter C14 decay rates such as volcanic activity, burning, solar activity, cosmic radiation, meteors, Point is if conditions on earth were different in the past, then C14 dating is not reliable beyond about 5000 years.

This is very true. However, as I pointed out earlier, C14 calibrations are constantly adjusted to reflect these changes in the atmosphere.


I am not an expert on C14 dating

Well...I am.

[R2Dawg]

Several things:

For one, C14 is definitely not the only scientific dating method we have; as I mentioned before, we have numerous other absolute chemical dating methods, as well as some other absolute methods that rely on rhythmic layering such as dendrochronology and and ice/snow-fall cores.

Second, you are correct in your research regarding Libby and the half-life, but again, as I said, precision has increased substantially, and, as is the nature of science, incorrect dates have been corrected and new dates are continuously checked against current calibrations. The nature of science is that it is in a constant state of self-policing. That's really a great thing.

Third, your statement of "the rates over thousands of years is assumed" is simply not true. I mentioned in my previous post that C14 calibrations are "checked and rechecked against standards"....well, one of those standards derives from dendrochonology (i.e., analysis of tree ring growth). Trees, as part of their physiology, like mollusks and other sequential growers, absorb distinct chemical signatures within each annual ring as they age. Based on these signatures, geochemists are able to correct for fluctuations of carbon (and other variations) in the Earth's atmosphere and adjust the curve accordingly.



I'd like to see where you're getting this info from. I find these type of critical errors extremely dubious, not to mention convenient for this discussion. It's easy, with all chemical analyses, to really **** up your samples, via contamination of all sorts (easy, and sadly, expensive...these things aren't cheap). So I'm suspicious of 1) how these "samples" were collected, 2) where they were collected from, and what is the history of the area/location, 3) how the samples were handled after recovery (this is extremely important), 4)what laboratory conducted the analysis, what mass-spectrometer was used, how was it calibrated, who was the technician, when was the last time it was serviced, etc. etc.

You may think I'm being petty, but I assure you, all of these are important questions.



This is very true. However, as I pointed out earlier, C14 calibrations are constantly adjusted to reflect these changes in the atmosphere.



Well...I am.


OK, glad I'm talking to the expert. Got a few questions. How are calibrations adjusted from data that can affect C14 dating when there is no data from thousands of years ago? Since it was only created in 1947 then corrections can only have been made since then, all other previous results prior to then have assumptions. The logic just doesn't add up.

The questions you bring up about what lab, technician, etc. points to a form of human error? So if there is human error then the method can't be all that accurate. Human performance analysis has shown humans have on average 5 errors per hour so any human test is well, flawed.

I said in a previous post that Christians disagree on details of Creation, how long, young earth, old earth. I happen to believe in young earth and there are reasons, not C14 reasons but decided to chase that rabbit trial anyway. This is just a sidebar debate, the real debate is the rest of my post. Where did we come from? Who created us? Why are we here? Where do we go after we die? My thoughts on some of it are in other posts. Thanks for the engaging conversation.

[Bdawg]

I respect you for that searching. Believe me, faith is not always easy. I have had plenty of doubts about various things through the years, and the digging and searching has always resulted in a stronger faith. That does not happen for everyone, but I believe Scripture has real power and that reading it produces faith to those whose eyes have been opened. I would recommend that you keep searching. Believe me, I will continue to dig on questions that I have that don't make sense to me, all the while maintaining faith that ultimately, those questions will lead me back to truth, which I believe is the God of the Bible and Jesus Christ.

I understand your skepticism, I really do. But again, keep searching. If those with the materialistic worldview are correct, then well, who really cares all that much about what conclusions anyone comes to. But, if we who have faith in Christ are correct, then the conclusion at the end is of ultimate consequence. So keep searching. I believe that Christ alone can save, and it may not mean that much to you, but I will be in prayer for you, that you find that truth as well, because I want desperately for you to find salvation.

This man gets it and I totally agree. I to will always be praying for the lost( as we Christians call it). I was about to post something similiar in regards to when we die. To the unbelievers, what do you think happens when we die? As a Christian, I believe Jesus died for my sins (everyone's for that matter) and that by believing in him I will be saved from my sins and live with Him in heaven for eternity. But if I choose not to believe, my eternity will be spent in hell.- So my first questions leads me to my second question for the unbeliever. What if I am a right and you are wrong? Because what I believe in has consequences. So my prayer to the unbelievers is keep an open mind to the Christian faith and hopefully the truth that we believe in will find you. Because like I said, what if Christians are right and the others are not.

[BeardoMSU]

OK, glad I'm talking to the expert. Got a few questions. How are calibrations adjusted from data that can affect C14 dating when there is no data from thousands of years ago? Since it was only created in 1947 then corrections can only have been made since then, all other previous results prior to then have assumptions. The logic just doesn't add up.

Lol...I'm not THE expert, but I am AN expert....but I'm flattered.

Let me try to understand your contention here....so you're saying that since C14 dating has only been around since '47, we don't have "data" on how the carbon 14 isotope behaves? And how that relationship matters in regard to organic material post-death? And how both are reflected via the ratio of C14 and C13 in the biosphere and atmosphere?

Because addressing all of this would require a fairly lengthly response....

Don't get me wrong...I'm happy to do it, but it does require some pretty essential understandings of organic chemistry, isotope decay, and what that means regarding the archaeological (and to some extents, the paleontological) record.



The questions you bring up about what lab, technician, etc. points to a form of human error? So if there is human error then the method can't be all that accurate. Human performance analysis has shown humans have on average 5 errors per hour so any human test is well, flawed.

Of course human error is a part of this discussion; and an important one; and a ubiquitous one to scientific research. Published papers dealing with these topics are explicit in their methods, theory, rational for choice, etc. By "explicit", I mean they know it's of utmost importance to clarify how rigorously careful their sample-prep, analysis, data-extrapolation, etc. was throughout the whole process. As I mentioned before, chemical analysis, like C14, is expensive, so people want to get it right.

But, regarding the "example" experiments/studies you mentioned....I want to see these studies, their data, how they ran their experiments, Etc. I want to see it all. Because there is a lot of pseudo-science out there...and this arena is one of the main battlefields....


Thanks for the engaging conversation.

Of course, man, and right back at ya.

[TUSK]

GD, flat earth, chris jones, dumbasses, etc....

this type thread makes me appreciate being a white trash, non votin' redneck with too many guns, too little religion, and a hottub....

carry on.

[Jarius]

This man gets it and I totally agree. I to will always be praying for the lost( as we Christians call it). I was about to post something similiar in regards to when we die. To the unbelievers, what do you think happens when we die? As a Christian, I believe Jesus died for my sins (everyone's for that matter) and that by believing in him I will be saved from my sins and live with Him in heaven for eternity. But if I choose not to believe, my eternity will be spent in hell.- So my first questions leads me to my second question for the unbeliever. What if I am a right and you are wrong? Because what I believe in has consequences. So my prayer to the unbelievers is keep an open mind to the Christian faith and hopefully the truth that we believe in will find you. Because like I said, what if Christians are right and the others are not.

Well what if you are wrong and Islamists are right? Buddhists? Insert any other religion....There are millions of other people on this earth that feel just as strongly about their religion being right and yours being wrong. They all have stories of how their religion changed their life for the better and are close to God as well. What are you going to do if you are wrong and they are right? I do not know what I am going to do. I would imagine I will tell God that I was religious growing up and I did not really feel any closer/ less closer to a higher being during that time and I did not trust the theories and stories from thousands of years ago when human beings were savages. If he sends me to hell for that then I guess I will go to hell thinking God is pretty unreasonable.

[Bdawg]

Well what if you are wrong and Islamists are right? Buddhists? Insert any other religion....There are millions of other people on this earth that feel just as strongly about their religion being right and yours being wrong. They all have stories of how their religion changed their life for the better and are close to God as well. What are you going to do if you are wrong and they are right? I do not know what I am going to do. I would imagine I will tell God that I was religious growing up and I did not really feel any closer/ less closer to a higher being during that time and I did not trust the theories and stories from thousands of years ago when human beings were savages. If he sends me to hell for that then I guess I will go to hell thinking God is pretty unreasonable.

I guess if I am wrong I will have had a nice life here on earth and that will be it. Now I will admit I'm not sure what eternity holds for those other religions you mentioned. But if I am right I will be spending eternity in paradise while others will be in agony in hell. And eternity is a very very long time. I will also add that it would be hard to believe in some these religions that promote violence and killing in the name of their religion. I find it hard to put much faith in a religion like that. My God is a loving God, but He also puts the ball in our court to believe in Him or not. So the choice is one we all must make for ourself. Good luck and God bless in your choices my friend.

[R2Dawg]

Lol...I'm not THE expert, but I am AN expert....but I'm flattered.

Let me try to understand your contention here....so you're saying that since C14 dating has only been around since '47, we don't have "data" on how the carbon 14 isotope behaves? And how that relationship matters in regard to organic material post-death? And how both are reflected via the ratio of C14 and C13 in the biosphere and atmosphere?

Because addressing all of this would require a fairly lengthly response....

Don't get me wrong...I'm happy to do it, but it does require some pretty essential understandings of organic chemistry, isotope decay, and what that means regarding the archaeological (and to some extents, the paleontological) record.



Of course human error is a part of this discussion; and an important one; and a ubiquitous one to scientific research. Published papers dealing with these topics are explicit in their methods, theory, rational for choice, etc. By "explicit", I mean they know it's of utmost importance to clarify how rigorously careful their sample-prep, analysis, data-extrapolation, etc. was throughout the whole process. As I mentioned before, chemical analysis, like C14, is expensive, so people want to get it right.

But, regarding the "example" experiments/studies you mentioned....I want to see these studies, their data, how they ran their experiments, Etc. I want to see it all. Because there is a lot of pseudo-science out there...and this arena is one of the main battlefields.... Agree.


Of course, man, and right back at ya.



No need to, I'm not a chemist but I've seen enough science in other areas to know how much error gets repeated. Not to attack your field; that statement applies to the field I work as well. I see it every day. There are lots of papers and procedures produced as science that are not. There are experts out there that do not put full stock into C14 dating after 6000 or so years.


You missed the point I think. I didn't say science doesn't know how it behaves today in 2019 but there is no data over long periods of time documented in different environments which can affect C14 half life. There is not giga file of environment data from 500BC. Does that help? Also to a previous point as the half life continues to reduce the accuracy (also due to different factors from several thousands years ago) the potential error adds up. Just like uncertainty analysis on any data installed in complex calculations, the error gets amplified exponentially.

Again at the end of the day, maybe the old earth interpretation of the Bible is correct but what I have studied, the literal interpretation is the most accepted by Bible scholars smarter than me in that area and I happen to believe that based on what I have read as well. Everything I read in the Bible is total truth and I've found nothing to convince me otherwise. The Bible has also not contradicted anything in science. God created the universe and all in it; He is the creator of science and the laws of physics so I'll leave that up to God to explain to us one day.

I sure hope you and others will have that opportunity down the road. May God be with you.

[R2Dawg]

GD, flat earth, chris jones, dumbasses, etc....

this type thread makes me appreciate being a white trash, non votin' redneck with too many guns, too little religion, and a hottub....

carry on.

For your entertainment and enlightenment. The trailers in AL can't get these channels so good ole internet delivers. Ha, I can say that I live in AL.

Back to the religion of Paul Finebaum Saban worship channel.

[Political Hack]

If there is no God, everyone comes out equal in the end.

If there is a God, only the believers will be rewarded.

So, if you're smart, you'll find your faith. It's the only way to win.

[SheltonChoked]

Since all your points contain C14, I'll try and explain what I said/meant. In the end, you need to study the evidence of God, Bible, etc. for yourself. I can't convince you of any truth until you discover it for yourself. Now back to your counter points.

C14 dating is about the only science we have to date something but it is not accurate past 25-30,000 years. It was only invented in 1947, by Willard Libby. C14 is measures the % of unstable carbon 14 isotopes in once living objects. The half life of C14 is only 5730 years so in 5 half lives (29,000 years) very little C14 remains. Here are a few examples of known C14 dating discrepancies: Since C14 has only been around for 70 years, the rates over thousands of years is assumed constant which in real science is not really science at all when you extrapolate that far.

Mollushs living test dated at 2300 years old (dead) yet they were alive?, Mortar from an English castle known less than 800 years old tested at 7370 years old, Fresh seal skins dated 1300 years old. There is more but moving on.

There are several factors that can alter C14 decay rates such as volcanic activity, burning, solar activity, cosmic radiation, meteors, Point is if conditions on earth were different in the past, then C14 dating is not reliable beyond about 5000 years.

I am not an expert on C14 dating but the above came from scientific research on the subject from books I have. I did graduate in engineering from Mississippi State University, one of the best engineering schools in the country. You can chose to believe or not. When science is done right, it aligns perfectly with the Bible because God created science too.

From math nothing times anything = nothing so evolution can't be true. So what is true? I believe God's Word has all the truth necessary. Creation and big bang theory just don't mix either. Two rocks hit together and create a higher order and then non living matter into living matter. Where is the energy source?? If that is how it happened, it came from God. This is the second law of thermodynamics, chaos is the normal direction not order and it takes an external energy to bring order from chaos. Does your car get naturally cleaner or dirtier? To get clean we must put energy into it.

Another question about big bang, who created the rocks? Can anyone answer these questions on evolution? They can't because there is only one answer that makes sense - God, Creator, Sustainer.

God gave you a brain. And he gave us the ability to learn and develop. We have science, and it is not anti-religion.

But it seems that some of you think Religion should be Anti Science...

I don't think you understand radioactive decay.... That's how Nuclear energy works. People have a very good understanding of that...

And Carbon -14 "was not invented 70 years ago"

If the creation story is true, and not a allegory, it has to be old earth creation.

Where did the big bang come from ? Why is there anything at all? Who "Created" God. That's really the same question.

Because I say, God Created the Big Bang. and the one before that. But that's just Faith. And since our current understanding of Space-Time started a the Big Bang, there was no "before".

The Bible is an allegory. And you don't have to get very far into it to realize that. There was not sun, moon or starts until day 4. Somehow a "day" after there were fruit tress and a plants.... That need sunlight...

Also in Genesis 2:4-7 says God created man " before there was a shrub or plant or herb" ..... Genesis 1 says man was created on day 6 and plants on day 3....

Unless, you think God lies....

Also, There are lots of Contradictions in the Bible. Some Minor, Some Major...

1 Chron. 21:5 vs. 2 Sam. 24:9
2 Chron. 36:9 vs. 2 Kings 24:8
Acts 9,11,15,18:22,21 vs. Galatians 1:18,2:1

Is Matthew or Luke right in Jesus Genealogy? Names and Generations are different...

Is Matthew 12:30 and Luke 11:23 right? "He who is not with Me is against Me"

Or is it Luke 9:50 / Mark 9:40? "For he who is not against us is for us"

How many people were at the Tomb? 2,3,3+?

Where are the "Pillars of the earth"? Ps 93:1, Ps 96:10, 1 Sam 2:8, Job 9:6

And the Giant Sea Monsters?

[Hot Rock]

.... So, to me, either it's all true, or none of it is. If parts of it are a lie, then why should I trust the Gospel? So I believe it all. ... I have faith in the Author. ...trusting Him over man....


My problem with those statements is the Bible was written by man and certainly not by one author. Then rewritten by man and translated by man and left out lots of other books that "they" thought were irrelevant. Much of Bible was written years after it happened as well. Is every word divinely inspired? That is possible. If that is your faith, I will not say you are stupid. Many believe that way, I don't.

To me, the Bible is of man not God, written of men telling what they understood about God and what happened. No man can fully grasp everything they see, much less put it in written form for all others to comprehend. That's one reason I think it's great we have several accounts of the Gospel from differing perspectives. What parts do I believe? The part where my life has been touched. That part is real and my personal experiences are real and no one can take those from me in any discussion. You can't understand my experiences and I not yours.

The rest, I take with a grain of salt. I truly believe we are put here on this earth to develop our spirits and you can't get that from any book, even if it is the Bible. If so, we would have just read it in the Heavens and never been human. The Bible is a tool that can be used but I do not believe it has to be an absolute for me to believe there is a God.