| THEORIES WITH PROBLEMS - IS INFINITY REAL? -> Infinite disproves evolution | Start A New Topic | CLOSED |
| Post Info | TOPIC: Infinite disproves evolution |
| Posted By: ZX9 Posted On: Mar 24, 2009 Views: 2755 | Infinite disproves evolution If infinite is real how in the world is life randomly going to be created? If anything is infinite then there are surely no boundaries on the universe;Something else is infinite. Therefore probability is changed. How could life be created, even micro organisms? Besides how could the complexities of even a cell be created? Even then, how was there a beginning? If infinite is real it must work backwards and forwards; We are in the middle of infinite in time. Therefore somehting has to be infinite bot ways, from beginning to end. This is EXACTLY what Christianity (and some other religions) describes! God=infinite=explanation. How could the "Big Bang" and "Big Crush" begin it's cycle? Did the water cycle just start because people (atheists) didn't have an explanation? No! Everything has a beginning-but one thing must start. God. Christianity explains everything. Besides your carbon dating process is completely incorrect! It's been proven! A living clam once came up 300 years old! If something 10,000 years old is measured, and the difference between the real date and cd date increases, it would be millions or billions of years old! If cd is incorrect, your dates are incorrect, your theories are incorrect, your information is then completely flawed. I, therefore, an 11 year old, can thoroughly conclude infinite IS real. |
| Posted By: Biswajit Posted On: Mar 24, 2009 Views: 2750 | RE: RE: Infinite disproves evolution The calcification of your position in life at this tender age is a function of church-god propaganda. I will pray that you believe in Darwin (you will learn about him in 7th grade) |
| Posted By: Keith Mayes Posted On: Mar 26, 2009 Views: 2744 | RE: RE: Infinite disproves evolution It's amazing the stuff that people come out with. "A living clam once came up 300 years old!" What a load of crap! It just isn´t possible to carbon date any living thing. |
| Posted By: searching for the truth Posted On: Mar 28, 2009 Views: 2738 | RE: RE: Infinite disproves evolution How sad this post on infinite disproves evolution? Poorly written, illogical, dogmatic. Why is it that evangical Christians mis-educate their children in desperate attempts to support their own religious theories? Even the Catholic Church now fully embraces evolutionary theory. They believe that God used Evolution to produce man. |
| Posted By: Fred Posted On: Mar 28, 2009 Views: 2736 | RE: Infinite disproves evolution I can agree with a few things, but it needs WAY more proof, and it is all thought up. |
| Posted By: ZX9 Posted On: Mar 28, 2009 Views: 2735 | RE: Infinite disproves evolution Ironic, you will PRAY I believe in Darwin! The funny thing is all you can say is I'm an ill-educated 11-year old! Sure, you can say I'm illogical, but you think it through. Where did the cycle begin. You, and other evolutionists, will NEVER be able to answer that. Besides, I typed it up in 1 minute, it was poorly written. |
| Posted By: Julian Smith Posted On: Mar 28, 2009 Views: 2732 | RE: RE: Infinite disproves evolution The internet is full of people asserting complex theories based on very little evidence. The whole superstructure of science is based upon observation and testing. It is difficult to convey the amazing effort that goes into proving or disproving the rigour and reliability of the results. Of course there may be surprises but generally the immediate world is well known. As an English person brought up as a Catholic I have difficulty with the American Christian and Muslim proccupation with Evolution. Of course a primitive literal reading of scripture will say nothing about evolution or a whole host of other things that exist today. These things didn't exist when the holy books were written. Since the original impulse that created these scripts a whole legion of interpretators have sprung up pounncing that this and that is true or forbidden or mandatory. If you look at the actions and words of these interpreters you will find that they do not always act in accord with the spirit of the original prophets or that of Jesus - they are often forbidding, arrogant, comcerned with wealth and power and control. Furthermore the original scriptures sometimes controdict themselves saying one thing and then another. They are also translations from the original, error can creep in there also. To make sense of religion you have to concentrate on the spirit of the words, not get bogged down in literalism or fundumentalism. After all if God does exist he give us eyes, ears and a brain. Books are not the only source of relevation, there is the natural world, the universe, you cannot have a contradiction between scripture and reality. If one appears then there must be a fault in religous interpretation or science. Only science is different it can be tested in the real world, it works or it doesn't. I'm sure the "holy" men would like to have magical powers but they don't, their belief systems bring no tangible benefits. The whole world uses science when it wants something done, sickness to be cured and although it's not perfect so far it's the best we have. |
| Posted By: Keith Mayes Posted On: Mar 29, 2009 Views: 2729 | RE: RE: Infinite disproves evolution ZX9 "Where did the cycle begin." (sic) What cycle? We are talking about evolution and that is not cyclical. You talk nonsense. |
| Posted By: ZX9 Posted On: Mar 29, 2009 Views: 2725 | RE: Infinite disproves evolution The universe' cycle is, last time I checked, not nonsense. I speak of the cycle of the Big Bang(and/or universe expansion) and the Big Crush, constantly repeating over billions of years. Where did that cycle begin? is the question;essentially:what began everything? |
| Posted By: ZX9 Posted On: Mar 29, 2009 Views: 2718 | RE: Infinite disproves evolution Also, look at my post on "infinite density" Keith(and any other insulting people(not you Keith, thanks for not being an idiot, mostly...) who put me aside, judging knowledge by age. Perhaps this will let you get the other side of my point. |
| Posted By: ZX9 Posted On: Mar 29, 2009 Views: 2716 | RE: Infinite disproves evolution Forgive me I continouisly see things to add: I know who Darwin is. How stupid do you think I am? If I had not known, I would be deaf. Today, it is impossible not to know who Darwin is. I feel bad for those stupid enough to not know Darwin is in the 7th grade. At the same time I feel bad for all those whom are decieved by Darwin. How the heck are cells, DNA, anything so complex going to form randomly?LOL, it continous to amaze me. People can be very smart, but they believe things with zip proof, and it makes no sense. Long story short: Evolution was an idea Darwin had. He considered it probable and looked for proof. He found none. Other (atheist) scientists followed him and thought they found stuff. This continued, until everything was based on that foundation. Now scientist base everything, every theory, every thought, every stupid television show, on it. Today there are few who are against it, many unsure, and many positive. It amazes me that, like searching for the truth said, even many Catholics embrace this. If one of you could explain, in-depth, how the first micro-organisms randomly formed, I might even consider it. Then again, I would find a flaw. Never will you convince me. You're probably laughing your heads off right now, thinking this is one crazy 11-year old, we'll convince him with some good posts... I promise you, until Keith gets bored or annoyed with me I'll keep on (don't worry I won't be as repetitive as Ridler). Finally, searching for the truth, your name does not fit you. You merely go along with everyone else. What have you contributed but the fact that I am illogical and dogmatic? Lol! No offense, but I haven't seen do more than come up with critisizms. |
| Posted By: ZX9 Posted On: Mar 29, 2009 Views: 2715 | RE: Infinite disproves evolution Keith, fine, but there are other examples of cd being incorrect! I dare you to look it up!I did! Here's some proof from some article: "Used to estimate the age of ancient artifacts and human and animal remains, radiocarbon dating is regarded by many as one of the miracles of modern science. Some, however, have serious doubts about the credibility of this technique. Radiocarbon dating works by comparing the amount of normal carbon that is found in a sample with the amount of radioactive carbon. Both carbon and radioactive carbon are found in every living organism. While carbon is quite prevalent in these organisms, radioactive carbon is present only in tiny amounts. Some contend that the relative ratios of carbon and radioactive carbon that are found on the earth have remained constant over time and that, using known rates of decay; we can estimate age on the basis of changes in this ratio in a particular artifact or remains. Radioactive carbon is absorbed by living organisms throughout their entire life. When the organism dies that absorption stops and the radioactive carbon begins to break down. Because this break down occurs at a known rate it is theoretically possible to compare the amount of regular carbon and the amount of radioactive carbon and estimate just how long an organism has been dead. Although the theory of radiocarbon dating is interesting, there are several inherent problems with the process. The first of these problems is the fact that the original ratio of carbon and radioactive carbon is unknown. The second problem is that the possibility of contamination of the sample over time is quite high. The older the sample the higher the probability of contamination, in fact! What this means is that using carbon dating to date very old samples is really quite impractical given our current level of knowledge and technological capabilities. While carbon dating continues to be considered by many as a viable way of obtaining authoritative dates for a wide range of artifacts and remains, there is much room for error in the process. Even the use of accelerator mass spectrometry to analyze the relative levels of carbon and radioactive carbon has resulted in flawed determinations. It is not uncommon for different laboratories to determine quite different ages for the same artifact! While some of this deviation could possibly be explained by contamination or erred methodology in the labs themselves, it is apparent that the problems with carbon dating are much more complex than that. Very simply put, too many things are unknown to allow the carbon dating process to be as accurate as many proclaim it to be. Factors as diverse as changes in the earths magnetic field and changes in the amount of carbon available to organisms in times past could translate into perceivable differences in the carbon ratios in artifacts and remains from ancient times. Even changes in the atmosphere itself could impact this carbon ratio. We know that changes such as these have occurred over time. They are still occurring today in fact. The fact that carbon and radioactive carbon are independently formed means that their ratios to one another could have changed substantially from ancient times to today. To base our knowledge on the age of the earth and its various constituents on information gleaned from a technique that depends on carbon and radioactive carbon ratios is very simply unrealistic." from essortment.com http://www.essortment.com/hobbies/carbondatingac_szhq.htm |
| Posted By: Keith Mayes Posted On: Mar 30, 2009 Views: 2713 | RE: Infinite disproves evolution I don´t know why you made that long post about carbon dating. Yes, we all know it´s not an exact science, it´s just another tool in the box to be used alongside other methods such as: historical records, tree ring patterns, soil strata, other finds, etc, etc. None of this has any bearing on evolution. If you want to believe that God created man as he is today, and all the animals and plants, that´s your choice, but its pretty dumb. We can all see how the planet has evolved over millions of years and can study the fossil records of species that no longer survive, and those that have evolved. If you want to ignore the evidence that is up to you,but you are sticking your head in the sand. |
| Posted By: ZX9 Posted On: Mar 30, 2009 Views: 2709 | RE: Infinite disproves evolution Your reply is why I made that post. If you would like to stick your head in the sand and not realize that practically everything is based on carbon dating, fine. Surely you realize that it is, and you won't admit it. "It's another tool in the box": name some other tools, lol! You say "We can all see how the planet has evolved over millions of years and can study the fossil records of species that no longer survive, and those that have evolved": What evidence! I give you evidence! Where's yours? Besides, if you don't use carbon dating for something, you base on the rocks--another inaccurate science! This is based on the layer it is in, or carbon dating. Then to find the layer, you either look at the rocks (this can end up inn circular reasoning between scientists), or again carbon dating. Both are wrong. Therefore your dating for what evolutionary stage something is in is flawed! You no longer have evidence for what evolved into what. You have nothing because you yourself admitted cd was inaccurate and I explained the inaccuracies of the other route. Another thing, there is proof on my side too. Every single (I have kept track)documentary on fossils, it says there must have been a big flood "in the region". Ha Ha. I wonder what that could mean?: The flood. That is some easy evidence. I dare you to watch some stupid show like Jurassic Fight Club or something and IT WILL SAY A FLOOD OCCURED! I would seriously bet you ten bucks, or more. It is pathetic, the ignorance of those, I'm sure, very smart people uncovering the fossils. To ignore evidence in front of their face, they do a good job of "sticking their head in the sand". Keith, seriously, where's your proof? You say "We can all see" how things evolved. Lol. Sure. What links things together? Give me ONE example of a chain of evolution(this dino to this to this etc.), and you'll have proof, some. You speak as if 20 people were sitting with you assuring you what you say is correct. Where do you get this genius from? My point is you reply to my long posts with a simple Everyone knows your wrong! and leave it. You know, you haven't answered my other prepositions on this subject either. |
| Posted By: ZX9 Posted On: Mar 30, 2009 Views: 2708 | RE: Infinite disproves evolution Ok before you critisize me on this, it was all the documentaries I've watched, sorry. |
| Pages [ 1 2 3 ] Next Page -> |