The flood

[Bereanz]

You're right, wrote my post before seeing your second post. :sorry1:

No problem bro.

 

[dallas1125]

John Morris , The Young Earth

by considering the simple mathematics of population statistics. "…Suppose man has been around for one million years, as evolutionists teach. If present rates are typical there should be about 10 to the power 8600 people alive today! That's 10 with 8600 zeros following it. This number is obviously absurd, and no evolutionist would claim it to be accurate." To illustrate how outrageous this large number is, consider the number of seconds that have ticked off the clock since the beginning of time on the evolutionist's timescale. Today, evolutionists estimate the age of the universe from 12 to 15 billion years old, but for the sake of example let's say it's 30 billion years old. The number of seconds in 30 billion years is less than 10 to the 18th power

Evolution Does Not Add Up

WISE UP PEOPLE, SERIOUSLY, WISE UP!!

Thank you, that is all I wanted!

 

[outhouse]

LOL let me introduce you to a term called pseudoscience

what this means is you have a joke and its not science in any sense.

Ivan Panin - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Ivan Nikolayevitsh Panin (12 December 1855 – 30 October 1942) was a Russian emigrant to the United States who achieved fame for claiming to have discovered numeric patterns in the text of the Hebrew and Greek Bible and for his published work based on his subsequent research.

 

[Bereanz]

Is that proof? there are far more non biblical writers that made far more impressive mathematical texts, look up dantes inferno. and even tho the topic is religion, dante's work is a satire to the time that he lives in, he did not want it to be percieved as fact

Mr Panin’s discovery, as astounding as any discovery that could be made, is one of God’s solvents for the final crisis. It is the deathblow of all disintegrating criticism,

not, alas, that critics will be convinced, for the foundations of their doubt lie far deeper than intellect, and where confirmed belief is confuted, it merely shifts its ground; nevertheless it remains for all who appeal to the intellect, a response from the intellect, in the mercy of God who meets every soul on its own grounds. The destructive analyzer of scripture stands revealed as an infant analyst in the grasp of a complexity of which he never dreamed. Verbal inspiration is here mathematically proved, past all cavil. The Scripture disclosed itself as a parchment which, when held up to the light, reveals the autograph of its Maker; a script that bears exactly that imprint of a miraculous arithmetic which is borne by the snowflakes falling in a flawless mathematical pattern, or by the perfect convolutions of a shell. To Dr. Panin’s critics I would say, “Do you challenge his figures? If so, where are they wrong? If not, his inferences are indisputable. You can not argue with mathematics

The enumeration examples supplied in this thread barely touches the surface of the numerics Panin brought to light in the structure of this one portion. He challenged any man to write one paragraph of 300 words intelligently and produce the same phenomena of like designs, and complete it in six months. Any man who can do it will prove himself a wonder. No man has offered

Moving on....YAWWWWWWWWWWWWN STRETCH, nighty night children.

 

[Bereanz]

LOL let me introduce you to a term called pseudoscience

what this means is you have a joke and its not science in any sense.

Ivan Panin - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Ivan Nikolayevitsh Panin (12 December 1855 – 30 October 1942) was a Russian emigrant to the United States who achieved fame for claiming to have discovered numeric patterns in the text of the Hebrew and Greek Bible and for his published work based on his subsequent research.

What this means is that science has a subjective interpretaion/definition depending on how you rolled out of bed in the morning.

This is my definition of science:


“Science is governed by accepted laws and rules that require a strict, definite, exact, systematic study of rigidly particular, accurately verified observations of true and indisputable facts.

Precise application of facts gained through legitimate, correct, honest, researching, recording and experimentation leads to the legitimate or actual state of a matter that must be measured in strict adherence to fundamental principles and mathematical certainties in order to be definitively, distinctly and honourably quantified as something known to exist in reality by actual experience or observation before it can be something known to be the precise, correct and upright truth, truth impervious to any and all reasonable doubt.”

At the very heart and soul of the word “Science” is TRUTH.


Whats yours??????

 

[micrurus]

John Morris , The Young Earth

by considering the simple mathematics of population statistics. "…Suppose man has been around for one million years, as evolutionists teach. If present rates are typical there should be about 10 to the power 8600 people alive today! That's 10 with 8600 zeros following it. This number is obviously absurd, and no evolutionist would claim it to be accurate." To illustrate how outrageous this large number is, consider the number of seconds that have ticked off the clock since the beginning of time on the evolutionist's timescale. Today, evolutionists estimate the age of the universe from 12 to 15 billion years old, but for the sake of example let's say it's 30 billion years old. The number of seconds in 30 billion years is less than 10 to the 18th power

Evolution Does Not Add Up

WISE UP PEOPLE, SERIOUSLY, WISE UP!!

that is not a mathematical model, that is nothing more than a mathematical lie and i wil prove it to you.

now for starters, i am going to use the moment in human history when the human population had its fastest increase. this is when our global population went from 3 billion to 6 billion in 20 years. so our population would double every 20 years. now il be generous and we will say that the human population started off with 10000 ( witch is a ridiculausly large amount.)
1000000/20=50000 so our population doubles 500000 times
so it would be 10000X50000^2=2.5^13
ten to thepower of 13 is what i get with this ridiculausly generous calculation.
when I am as generous and ignorant as I can be, your calculation is still of by a factor of 10^8547 and that is alot.

now, the correct maths that you use to calculate a population; Y=a.x^b
a being the starting population, b being the doubling rate and x being 1 time unit.
with this calculation you would not even come close to any number over 10 billion.

further, you need to take into consideration, the maximum amount of a population that a certain area can support. no more people can live on an area than that that area can provide food for. if there are to many people more people will die and again there are fewer people.

you also need to take in consideration that thinking a population would constantly grow is ignorant. the global population was about stable diuring the time of the greaks and the romans and it even decreased in the midevil times.

finaly: I DARE YOU to ask that person what mathematical model he used to calculate that. because i can assure you, Every REAL mathematician on this planet alive today would recognise him as a fraud, and a person that DELIBERATLY DECIEVES PEOPLE.

EDIT
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
this and onley this is science,if you have another method, CALL IT SOMETHING ELSE

 

[micrurus]

Moving on....YAWWWWWWWWWWWWN STRETCH, nighty night children.

either you feel threatend by the areguements and do not wish to continue or you are just being insulive for the purpose of being insultive.

EDIT

do you even know dantes inferno? you biblical text is of the mathematical level of John Morris compared to dante.

 

[micrurus]

If you don't mind me saying so, In my opinion this post looks like the ramblings of total and complete certifiable lock me up and throw away the key blithering idiot. However if your under the age of nine, I may retract that to, "it's been nice talking to you sonny."

this coming from a person who believes that there could be 10^8600 people in a million years

 

[Bereanz]

this coming from a person who believes that there could be 10^8600 people in a million years

This coming from the man/boy who thinks the human race started off with "say... oh... let me think.... oh yeah.... 10,000 people" and called it " a rediculously large amount/Im being genereous"!! If that's science mate you can have it.

 

[micrurus]

This coming from the man/boy who thinks the human race started off with "say... oh... let me think.... oh yeah.... 10,000 people" and called " a rediculously large amount/Im being genereous"!! If that's science mate you can have it.

i said it was a rediculausly large amount. but ur right il take 2 and start a million years ago. you know i get 5 billion then? thats not accurate at all now is it?

I give up this discussion, its going noware

 

[Bereanz]

i sauid it was a rediculausly large amount. but ur right il take 2 and start a million years ago. you know i get 5 billion then? thats not accurate at all now is it?

I give up this discussion, its going noware

Were was it exactly you where hoping it would go? This was never a discussion between you and I, it was you arguing with me and not very pleasantly I might add. I don't argue. People who argue are those still trying to convince themselves they are right. I know what I believe is right. That's the big difference between you and other people in your precarious poistion. Im sure all of you scientists would agree that Richard Dawkin is a Scientist and yet a Double Decker Bus campaign he was behind in Britain had this slogan

"there is probably no God so stop worrying and enjoy your life"

To any one with a clear mind, it's nothing short of very bad advertising agency copy lingo not to mention an exceedingly deceptive and manipluative way to speak. Keep your eyes open to this type of discourse, it happens all the time in Evolutionary/"Scientific" circles.

If your quite happy to trust your eternal future on a "scientific" "probably" and other terms he uses like "temporary scientific uncertainties" and " it's almost mathematically certain aliens exist (HAWKING)" then that's your choice, but in my opinion it's a very deluded naive and dare I say it, insane, position to take.

One more thing before I go, and this is for anyone who may be reading this thread.... what would be more insane than allowing an athiest to preach to you or teach you from the Bible?

I cant wait to read all your witty responses to that question... NOT!

 

[David M]

The scientific devises or method used to measure the age of the universe have not been proven to be reliable, on the contrary.

The Library of the Louvre in Paris there are three and half miles of obsolete science books, repeat three and half miles.

In 1861 the FrenchAcademy of Science published a brochure of fifty-one “scientific facts” which supposedly contradicted the bible. These where used by the atheists of that day in ridiculing Christians. Sound familiar? Today, all fifty –one of those “facts” are unacceptable to modern scientists. In other words they have been proven to be false/wrong/lies.

For some unknown and unacceptable reason, atheist so called "science" and "scientists" have been afforded the luxury of getting away with quoting lies as fact for centuries and mores the pity the un-evolved human conscious believes these funny little men in white coats. Why? Is it because they hold a clip board, a test tube and a Bunsen burner, have unlimited access to taxpayers funds to search for and not find things that we intelligent people know don’t exist and use meaningless terms like hypothesis and theories and then teach these “theories”/lies to our children wrapped up and presented to them as FACT?. Yes!

Careful with your so called Logic there you wouldn't want to be perceived as a bunch of idiots with a reputation for not getting anything right. Ooops, too late!

This claim is apparently plagiarised from W. A. Criswell's The Bible for Today's World (Zondervan, 1965), page 17.

As a rebuttal someone posted a response from the French Academy of Science about this list which was:

"We did not find in the tables of the Reports of the Academy of Science in 1861 the existence of such a list. Nothing makes it possible to affirm that this list existed."

Re: Can anyone read French?

Going to show us any more "Facts" and "evidence"?

 

[Bereanz]

This claim is apparently plagiarised from W. A. Criswell's The Bible for Today's World (Zondervan, 1965), page 17.

As a rebuttal someone posted a response from the French Academy of Science about this list which was:



Re: Can anyone read French?

Going to show us any more "Facts" and "evidence"?

Perhaps you'd like to start by supplying some factual evidence that you're a Christian

 

[David M]

Perhaps you'd like to start by supplying some factual evidence that you're a Christian

At least I can adhere to "Thou shalt not bear false witness" and "Thou shalt not steal" (which is what plagiarism falls under).

 

[Bereanz]

At least I can adhere to "Thou shalt not bear false witness" and "Thou shalt not steal" (which is what plagiarism falls under).

Since you haven't offered any proof to show you are a Christian, and from every post you have made it's clear you aren't which makes you a hypocrite and also baring false witness and plagurising/blaspheming the name of Christ. A little bit more Evil than posting some words from a book, which incidently are not from the book you are falsely accusing me of getting it from, which means you are baring false witness against me, which is libelous;. That said, it was remiss of me not clearly state that a particular passages in one of my earlier posts in this thread was taken from another source, I have gone back and ammended that a part, I cut and pasted that part form a book I am currently in the process of writing, where the credit to the author was given elsewhere. I appologise for this heineoulsy wicked oversite.

You think you're very clever, but in my opinion, you're just very nasty.

 

[David M]

Since you haven't offered any proof to show you are a Christian, and from every post you have made it's clear you aren't which makes you a hypocrite and also baring false witness and plagurising/blaspheming the name of Christ.

You have offered no proof that you are a christian.

Where have I posted anything that shows I am not a christian? All my posts show is that I am neither an inerrantist nor a literalist. There are a lot of christians in the world who are not literalists.

I have not plagiarised and I have not blasphemed, you have certainly done the former.

A little bit more Evil than posting some words from a book, which incidently are not from the book you are falsely accusing me of getting it from,

Yes they are from that book. Either you copy and pasted them from someone else (which is plagiarism) or from the book (which is also plagiarism), either way you stole someone elses work and represented it as your own.

which means you are baring false witness against me, which is libelous;.

Truth is the absolute defence against charges of libel, so I feel safe.

That said, it was remiss of me not clearly state that a particular passages in one of my earlier posts in this thread was taken from another source,

And equally remiss of you not to provide the source of your claim about the french academy of science.

You think you're very clever, but in my opinion, you're just very nasty.

I know I am clever enough to use google to check out obviously unattributed copy/paste posts.

If you didn't plagiarise this claim you should be able to provide some of those 51 facts (because I can't find them using google and they were not listed in that original book).

Nasty, telling the truth is Nasty? From the person who is throwing around accusations of blasphemy and libel?

 

[RedOne77]

One more thing before I go, and this is for anyone who may be reading this thread.... what would be more insane than allowing an athiest to preach to you or teach you from the Bible?

I cant wait to read all your witty responses to that question... NOT!

I can just feel the Christian love flowing from you.

It has been my experience that many atheists know the Bible better than a lot of Christians, as many atheists used to be Christians and fell away from the faith after studying and analyzing the Christian faith and broader aspects of theology and philosophy.

Interestingly, many of the professors in seminary that teach inspired young preachers do not believe in Christianity and many don't believe in God. So if you've heard a few pastors preach before, you may have been indirectly taught by an atheist. The world is a very strange place to live in I think.

 

[Bereanz]

I can just feel the Christian love flowing from you.

Praise the Lord.

 

[Bereanz]

You have offered no proof that you are a christian.


I have not plagiarised and I have not blasphemed, you have certainly done the former.



Yes they are from that book. Either you copy and pasted them from someone else (which is plagiarism) or from the book (which is also plagiarism), either way you stole someone elses work and represented it as your own.



Truth is the absolute defence against charges of libel, so I feel safe.



And equally remiss of you not to provide the source of your claim about the french academy of science.


I know I am clever enough to use google to check out obviously unattributed copy/paste posts.

If you didn't plagiarise this claim you should be able to provide some of those 51 facts (because I can't find them using google and they were not listed in that original book).

Nasty, telling the truth is Nasty? From the person who is throwing around accusations of blasphemy and libel?

Christianty is not Theistic Evolution, which is why, in my opinion you and I are at enmity with each other and in my opinion equates you referring to yourself as a Christian as blasphemy not to mention hypocrisy. You can bang on all you like about plagurism, I've ammended the oversight. If that's the way you want to "debate" then it's proof of your nastyness. In my opinion.

Regarding the 51 facts, your post claims the brochure mentioning the 51 facts was not found, but it doesnt actually explain how and where they looked for it, or if in actural fact they even bothered to look. This is a common internet disinformation smoke screen tactic, common also in the whole evolution movement. Christians who claim "happily" to have been duped into a belief in evolution are no different to Christians who where duped into believing in the power of so called ancient religious relics in the past. Both are equally foolish.

Eventually sane Christians, like those who realised a piece of wood on sale for 1 and 6 pence may not have been the actual cross of Christ, will realise that the fossil remains prove a world wide deluge instead of the other way around. The theory of evoluion stands or falls on the evidence of fossil remains, which is why the theory has yet to evolve out of the primordial ooze from whence it came, why? Because there is no fossil EVIDENCE for evolution.

More on this later

 

[darkendless]

John Morris , The Young Earth

by considering the simple mathematics of population statistics. "…Suppose man has been around for one million years, as evolutionists teach. If present rates are typical there should be about 10 to the power 8600 people alive today! That's 10 with 8600 zeros following it. This number is obviously absurd, and no evolutionist would claim it to be accurate." To illustrate how outrageous this large number is, consider the number of seconds that have ticked off the clock since the beginning of time on the evolutionist's timescale. Today, evolutionists estimate the age of the universe from 12 to 15 billion years old, but for the sake of example let's say it's 30 billion years old. The number of seconds in 30 billion years is less than 10 to the 18th power

Evolution Does Not Add Up

WISE UP PEOPLE, SERIOUSLY, WISE UP!!

You're funny.

I'd love to know what you think of Noah's flood.