How To Look At Produce

Nutrition
81

[quote]thirstygirl wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
HouseOfAtlas wrote:
Let’s get back on topic here:

Organic foods have more vitamins/minerals and less nitrates in them than conventionally grown foods. I and others have posted this from studies done in other threads about the difference between organic and conventional.

Besides, organic tastes better than conventional.

I have no doubt that organic has health benefits over conventionally grown foods. It’s a question of degree and whether an individual finds it worthwhile to pay the extra cost

It’s definitely worthwhile for apples, the taste difference is amazing.

[/quote]

Yeah, I agree from the times I’ve had them. Organic frutis and veggies also have significantly higher antioxidants than regular ones usually do.

82

The scientific definition of theory is always based on evidence?As used in science, a theory is an explanation or model based on observation, experimentation, and reasoning(not evidence), especially one that has been tested and confirmed as a general principle helping to explain and predict natural phenomena.

Where on earth did you get this information from?I find it hard to believe a cell floating in the water and apes both started evolution.They claim cells floating around in the water,which,by the way,has no evidence,is what created evolution.How can we have apes before cells were floating in water,if thats what started evolution?Thats like saying animals were around before the earth was created.Us evolving from apes is just a theory.

             [quote]thirstygirl wrote:

Cthulhu wrote:
By the way,how am I setting up a false conflict between the big bang and evolution?Exactly,there was evolution many years later.Some say that a cell floating along in the water happened,some say we evolved from apes.Like I said earlier,there are many scientists who don’t believe the big bang happened either,and have good scientific opinions and theories to answer these questions.That is why it is called “The big bang theory.”

thirstygirl wrote:
Plus, I KNOW better than to engage with this argument BUT IT PAINS ME that Cthulu is setting up a false conflict between the big bang and evolution.

No scientists are arguing that humans evolving from apes created the universe. The big bang created the universe and manymanymany years later there was evolution. And manymanymany years later there were humanoids. Sheesh.

Going to beat my head against the wall until it stops hurting now.

Um you don’t actually know the scientific definition of a theory do you? It is a line of reasoning which is supported by evidence however, being scientists, they don’t assume that they won’t change the theory as differing evidence comes along. I can say we got created from pixie dust but I cannot then claim that this is a scientific theory.

AND AGAIN you are confusing timeframes and trying to claim that we cannot have both cells in water and apes. The initial steps of evolution have to occur for the later steps to happen. THERE IS NO CONFLICT UNLESS YOU DON’T BELIEVE IN TIME.

Which you might not, I really wouldn’t care to hazard a guess at this point.

Walking away from the carwreck of logic at this point.[/quote]

83

Sure you can say what you want about creationists,but isn’t that why people didn’t want to teach evolution is schools,because it’s based on theory?Well,isn’t all of science just a theory? brainwashed?I’m not the one who belive we evolved from a bunch of monkies.

                  [quote]Massif wrote:

Cthulhu,

Thanks for that inspiring response. I appreciate it.

You’re getting busted on because you are looking 0.01% of the evidence and giving it a greater weight in an arguement than the remaining 99.99%. You are also copping shit because you are taking creationists seriously. You do understand that creationists and the like are mentally retarded and not taken seriously by anyone except themselves, don’t you?

You come off sounding like a brainwashed child. Too bad, because I actually like organic fruit and vege. I think that is what this thread was about it, wasn’t it?[/quote]

84

Oh, you have got to be kidding me. The Sumerians, Akkadians, Babylonians, Assyrians, Chaldeans, and to some degree the Hittites, Phoenicians and Persians all lived in the area of Mesoptamia. There are artificacts left over from their civilization. Some of it is WRITING that is 4,000 years old.

Agriculture and the domestication of animals began roughly 12,000 years ago, I believe.

So, yes-there is no credibility among these Chrisitan scientists because of their claims. Not because of relgious but because the boldy ignore evidence and artificats from people who were alive before the contend the earth existed.

GO TO COLLEGE. GO TO HIGH SCHOOOL. None of this is theory like the theory of evoluation.

[quote]Cthulhu wrote:
There are christian scientists who believe the earth is about six(maybe more)thosuand years old.
But I guess their statements and opinions too erodes credibility?

There is still MUCH to learn about this world and universe.To say the world is 4.5 billion years old would be ignorant because we still have much to learn.Next year we could find some kind of evidence that says the world is eight billion years old,or 8 thousand years old.This world is like a painting in progress.
I’m curious,where are these studies or evidence that says there were races more sophistocated?

jsbrook wrote:
I challenge you to find one scientist who has graduated from an actual university that believes the earth is four thousand years old and has been able to publish in a journal. You will not be able to do it. There is two much of evidence of living, speaking, human beings-not discernable from usin any real way-who were living in sophistocated civilizations before that time. I’m not gonna argue with you about it anymore. But if you cling to your statement it erodes credibility on any position you take on any other possible issue.

Cthulhu wrote:
Yes,and I was simply stating my opinion.Not all logic.Like I said,there are plenty of scientists and creationsists that believe the earth is less than 4.5 billion years old.

jsbrook wrote:
You said, ‘I believe the earth is 4,000 yrs old’ against all logic and 99.9999999% of the evidence out there.

Cthulhu wrote:
I never said I had a study showing that the earth was young.I said there is enough evidence showing that the earth is younger.For example,creationists say that the earth’s magnetic field is not only a good navigational aid and a shield from space particles, it is powerful evidence against evolution and billions of years. The clear decay pattern shows the earth could not be older than about 10,000 years.

jsbrook wrote:
There is no study that shows the earth is 4000 years old. Show it to me. Post it here.

Cthulhu wrote:
First of all,I never said I was a chirstian.Second of all,they have “evidence” saying it’s less than 4.4 billon years old.Third of all,I said that was my opinion.I neevr said that it was a fact the earth was four thousand years old. This is just another study saying the same old thing.Next year they’ll probably have some study showing us it’s five billion years old.I gues the big bang happened and we evolved from apes at the same time?

Flop Hat wrote:
You must be right the earth is four to six thousand years old. It’s all of the astronomers, geologist, paleontologist, physicist, and biologist that are wrong. It’s not about what you belive, it’s about having proof. Once again you are entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts. Scientist have this stuff called “evedince” that backs up their claim of a 4.5 billion year old earth.

There is no proof of a young earth except for some knuckle head who counted the number of “begats” to back to Adam in the old testament. Hummm… the entire body of scientific knowlege Vs young earth cristian couting begats. You must attend an awful school system.

http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/geotime/age.html

And here is the real history of the necronomicon. sorry champ.

http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mnecromicon.html

Cthulhu wrote:
Haha! really?I don’t know what school you go to but I never learned that it was 4.55 billion years old.

I was watching the news a few days ago and they said it was three billion years old.

[/quote]

85

[quote]Cthulhu wrote:

Where on earth did you get this information from?I find it hard to believe a cell floating in the water and apes both started evolution.They claim cells floating around in the water,which,by the way,has no evidence,is what created evolution.How can we have apes before cells were floating in water,if thats what started evolution?Thats like saying animals were around before the earth was created.Us evolving from apes is just a theory.

[/quote]

Noooooooo that is what you are claiming. I am saying there is NO ISSUE with life coming from a random occurance, out of which evolved apes, out of which we evolved.

Here I will draw you a simple diagram:

Big Bang → random cell creation → lots of forms of life including apes → humans.

and I want you to try imagine the arrows represent the Magic Power Of Time. ok?

86

Mesopotamian civilization:

Ancient Egyptian Civilization

“The earliest known examples of writing in Egypt have been dated to 3,400 BC. The latest dated inscription in hieroglyphs was made on the gate post of a temple at Philae in 396 AD.”
(they are in museums; go take a look)
For your information, B.C. (or B.C.E.) counts backwards. This is the year 2006 A.D. I have met a few people, however, who believe that it is the year 1190. They have a very interesting scientific theory on it. But for the sake of argument, let’s assume that it is 2006. 3,400 BC means that this was 3,400 years prior to year ‘O’. 3400 + 2006 = 5,406. So, the writings from this civilization date back 5,406 years. But go right on believing that the earth is 4000 yrs old. Be my guest.

The Pleistocene Period was a time of hunting and gathering, experimenting with tools, and traveling in the direction of edible plants and animals. The ability to adapt to changing environments and resources was their most important survival mechanism. Evidence has shown that approximately 10,000 years ago, agriculture was being practiced. Archaeologists suggest that plant domestication began because of rising populations and changes in exploitation of local resources. Human consumption and being constantly in contact with plants then gradually brought about plant domestication. Because of agriculture’s ability to provide a stable and large quantity of produce, population densities then grew even more

There is cave art that is well older than 6000 years old.

The evidence that the earth is older than 6000 yrs as these Christian so-called ‘scientists’ would tell it is mindboggling

87

I already know that the Sumerians, Akkadians, Babylonians, Assyrians, Chaldeans, Hittites, Phoenicians and Persians all lived in the area of Mesoptamia and have artifacts four thousand years old.But isn’t what we’re talking about is a world older than six thosuand years old?

Agriculture and the domestication of animals began roughly 12,000 years ago,you believe?Is that actually a fact or is this your opinion? All you could show me was artifacts that are 4,000 years old.Ok.Do you have any that are older than 6,000 years? Yes,evolution is theory.But before you make your unfounded assupmtions,I never said what you were saying was theory.Very well,there is evidence that shows the earth has been around for more than four thousand years.I respect that.But just because I believe the world isn’t 4.5. billion years old doesn’t mean anything.Thats my personal opinion.I’m not saying that this “evidence” that was found isn’t real.I’m sure it is.Take a chill pill.

                     [quote]jsbrook wrote:

Oh, you have got to be kidding me. The Sumerians, Akkadians, Babylonians, Assyrians, Chaldeans, and to some degree the Hittites, Phoenicians and Persians all lived in the area of Mesoptamia. There are artificacts left over from their civilization. Some of it is WRITING that is 4,000 years old.

Agriculture and the domestication of animals began roughly 12,000 years ago, I believe.

So, yes-there is no credibility among these Chrisitan scientists because of their claims. Not because of relgious but because the boldy ignore evidence and artificats from people who were alive before the contend the earth existed.

GO TO COLLEGE. GO TO HIGH SCHOOOL. None of this is theory like the theory of evoluation.

Cthulhu wrote:
There are christian scientists who believe the earth is about six(maybe more)thosuand years old.
But I guess their statements and opinions too erodes credibility?

There is still MUCH to learn about this world and universe.To say the world is 4.5 billion years old would be ignorant because we still have much to learn.Next year we could find some kind of evidence that says the world is eight billion years old,or 8 thousand years old.This world is like a painting in progress.
I’m curious,where are these studies or evidence that says there were races more sophistocated?

jsbrook wrote:
I challenge you to find one scientist who has graduated from an actual university that believes the earth is four thousand years old and has been able to publish in a journal. You will not be able to do it. There is two much of evidence of living, speaking, human beings-not discernable from usin any real way-who were living in sophistocated civilizations before that time. I’m not gonna argue with you about it anymore. But if you cling to your statement it erodes credibility on any position you take on any other possible issue.

Cthulhu wrote:
Yes,and I was simply stating my opinion.Not all logic.Like I said,there are plenty of scientists and creationsists that believe the earth is less than 4.5 billion years old.

jsbrook wrote:
You said, ‘I believe the earth is 4,000 yrs old’ against all logic and 99.9999999% of the evidence out there.

Cthulhu wrote:
I never said I had a study showing that the earth was young.I said there is enough evidence showing that the earth is younger.For example,creationists say that the earth’s magnetic field is not only a good navigational aid and a shield from space particles, it is powerful evidence against evolution and billions of years. The clear decay pattern shows the earth could not be older than about 10,000 years.

jsbrook wrote:
There is no study that shows the earth is 4000 years old. Show it to me. Post it here.

Cthulhu wrote:
First of all,I never said I was a chirstian.Second of all,they have “evidence” saying it’s less than 4.4 billon years old.Third of all,I said that was my opinion.I neevr said that it was a fact the earth was four thousand years old. This is just another study saying the same old thing.Next year they’ll probably have some study showing us it’s five billion years old.I gues the big bang happened and we evolved from apes at the same time?

Flop Hat wrote:
You must be right the earth is four to six thousand years old. It’s all of the astronomers, geologist, paleontologist, physicist, and biologist that are wrong. It’s not about what you belive, it’s about having proof. Once again you are entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts. Scientist have this stuff called “evedince” that backs up their claim of a 4.5 billion year old earth.

There is no proof of a young earth except for some knuckle head who counted the number of “begats” to back to Adam in the old testament. Hummm… the entire body of scientific knowlege Vs young earth cristian couting begats. You must attend an awful school system.

http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/geotime/age.html

And here is the real history of the necronomicon. sorry champ.

http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mnecromicon.html

Cthulhu wrote:
Haha! really?I don’t know what school you go to but I never learned that it was 4.55 billion years old.

I was watching the news a few days ago and they said it was three billion years old.

[/quote]

88

…and this is all theory.
Something has to come from something.
Science can’t even tell us what created the rocks before the big bang.

[quote]thirstygirl wrote:
Cthulhu wrote:

Where on earth did you get this information from?I find it hard to believe a cell floating in the water and apes both started evolution.They claim cells floating around in the water,which,by the way,has no evidence,is what created evolution.How can we have apes before cells were floating in water,if thats what started evolution?Thats like saying animals were around before the earth was created.Us evolving from apes is just a theory.

Noooooooo that is what you are claiming. I am saying there is NO ISSUE with life coming from a random occurance, out of which evolved apes, out of which we evolved.

Here I will draw you a simple diagram:

Big Bang → random cell creation → lots of forms of life including apes → humans.

and I want you to try imagine the arrows represent the Magic Power Of Time. ok?[/quote]

89

Some very interesting information.I never said what you were saying is’nt true,all I was doing is simply stating my opinion.So you think the bible is wrong?

[quote]jsbrook wrote:
Mesopotamian civilization:

Ancient Egyptian Civilization

“The earliest known examples of writing in Egypt have been dated to 3,400 BC. The latest dated inscription in hieroglyphs was made on the gate post of a temple at Philae in 396 AD.”
(they are in museums; go take a look)
For your information, B.C. (or B.C.E.) counts backwards. This is the year 2006 A.D. I have met a few people, however, who believe that it is the year 1190. They have a very interesting scientific theory on it. But for the sake of argument, let’s assume that it is 2006. 3,400 BC means that this was 3,400 years prior to year ‘O’. 3400 + 2006 = 5,406. So, the writings from this civilization date back 5,406 years. But go right on believing that the earth is 4000 yrs old. Be my guest.

The Pleistocene Period was a time of hunting and gathering, experimenting with tools, and traveling in the direction of edible plants and animals. The ability to adapt to changing environments and resources was their most important survival mechanism. Evidence has shown that approximately 10,000 years ago, agriculture was being practiced. Archaeologists suggest that plant domestication began because of rising populations and changes in exploitation of local resources. Human consumption and being constantly in contact with plants then gradually brought about plant domestication. Because of agriculture’s ability to provide a stable and large quantity of produce, population densities then grew even more

There is cave art that is well older than 6000 years old.

The evidence that the earth is older than 6000 yrs as these Christian so-called ‘scientists’ would tell it is mindboggling
[/quote]

90

[quote]Cthulhu wrote:
Sure you can say what you want about creationists,but isn’t that why people didn’t want to teach evolution is schools,because it’s based on theory?[/quote]

No. People don’t want to teach evolution in schools because it disagrees with the bible. It is much easier to look at the bible and say “It’s in the bible, so it must be true”, rather than using your own head to figure things out.

[quote]Cthulhu wrote:
Well,isn’t all of science just a theory? [/quote]

There are laws and there are theories. Science has testable theories; creationism doesn’t. Did you know that the latest creationist theory holds that there is no such thing as gravity? There is a “holy force” that pushes everything downwards.

[quote]Cthulhu wrote:
brainwashed?I’m not the one who belive we evolved from a bunch of monkies.[/quote]

I don’t believe that you have evolved that far :slight_smile:

Firstly, how does that make me brainwashed?

Secondly, why is that hard for you to believe? Does it offend your ego that you aren’t special and created by God? For a religion that preaches humility, this attitude is astoundingly arrogant.

91

My personal opinion of the Bible is irrelevent. But the bible need not be in conflict with the actual evidence of human existence and colonization staring us in the face. The bible is best interepreted as utilizing a different time frame than we do. A biblical day is not 24 hrs. Many HIGHLY reknowned relgious figures and leaders agree with this. But I disagree with any interpreation of the bible that says the earth is 6,000 years old. It’s clearly wrong.

Anyhow, your belief that the earth is 4,000 years old is wrong even by this constrained biblical standard. The Bible is both the New and the Old Testament. And the Jewish faith as the bible shows it is well older than 4,000 years. It might even be older than 6,000 years. But don’t quote me on the last.

[quote]Cthulhu wrote:

Some very interesting information.I never said what you were saying is’nt true,all I was doing is simply stating my opinion.So you think the bible is wrong?

jsbrook wrote:
Mesopotamian civilization:

Ancient Egyptian Civilization

“The earliest known examples of writing in Egypt have been dated to 3,400 BC. The latest dated inscription in hieroglyphs was made on the gate post of a temple at Philae in 396 AD.”
(they are in museums; go take a look)
For your information, B.C. (or B.C.E.) counts backwards. This is the year 2006 A.D. I have met a few people, however, who believe that it is the year 1190. They have a very interesting scientific theory on it. But for the sake of argument, let’s assume that it is 2006. 3,400 BC means that this was 3,400 years prior to year ‘O’. 3400 + 2006 = 5,406. So, the writings from this civilization date back 5,406 years. But go right on believing that the earth is 4000 yrs old. Be my guest.

The Pleistocene Period was a time of hunting and gathering, experimenting with tools, and traveling in the direction of edible plants and animals. The ability to adapt to changing environments and resources was their most important survival mechanism. Evidence has shown that approximately 10,000 years ago, agriculture was being practiced. Archaeologists suggest that plant domestication began because of rising populations and changes in exploitation of local resources. Human consumption and being constantly in contact with plants then gradually brought about plant domestication. Because of agriculture’s ability to provide a stable and large quantity of produce, population densities then grew even more

There is cave art that is well older than 6000 years old.

The evidence that the earth is older than 6000 yrs as these Christian so-called ‘scientists’ would tell it is mindboggling

[/quote]

92

The rock. One. Nothing else can either. But religious theology is not consistent with the big bang. Assume God created the rock if you want to. That was hig first step and the big bang the impetus for the rest of creation.

[quote]Cthulhu wrote:
…and this is all theory.
Something has to come from something.
Science can’t even tell us what created the rocks before the big bang.

thirstygirl wrote:
Cthulhu wrote:

Where on earth did you get this information from?I find it hard to believe a cell floating in the water and apes both started evolution.They claim cells floating around in the water,which,by the way,has no evidence,is what created evolution.How can we have apes before cells were floating in water,if thats what started evolution?Thats like saying animals were around before the earth was created.Us evolving from apes is just a theory.

Noooooooo that is what you are claiming. I am saying there is NO ISSUE with life coming from a random occurance, out of which evolved apes, out of which we evolved.

Here I will draw you a simple diagram:

Big Bang → random cell creation → lots of forms of life including apes → humans.

and I want you to try imagine the arrows represent the Magic Power Of Time. ok?

[/quote]

93

There are aritfiacts that are older than 4,000 years old. There are articles that are older than 6,000 years old. There is plenty of factual evidence that the Agricultural Revolution started around 12,000 years ago. There are tools that are dated well before this, before the dawn of agriculture and the domestication of animals. No one at all disputes the veracity of the dating with the exception of those Chrisitan
‘Scientists’ I suppose. The information is there. I’m not going to provide it all for you. But you should look into it if you want to educate yourself. And I really think you need to.

Finally, I don’t know why you are now relegating this to an argument about the earth being 6,000 years old when you NOW say that you are aware of these civilizations from which there written artificats in existence older than 4,000 years. But BEFORE, you said you believe the earth is 4,000 years old.

[quote]Cthulhu wrote:
I already know that the Sumerians, Akkadians, Babylonians, Assyrians, Chaldeans, Hittites, Phoenicians and Persians all lived in the area of Mesoptamia and have artifacts four thousand years old.But isn’t what we’re talking about is a world older than six thosuand years old?

Agriculture and the domestication of animals began roughly 12,000 years ago,you believe?Is that actually a fact or is this your opinion? All you could show me was artifacts that are 4,000 years old.Ok.Do you have any that are older than 6,000 years? Yes,evolution is theory.But before you make your unfounded assupmtions,I never said what you were saying was theory.Very well,there is evidence that shows the earth has been around for more than four thousand years.I respect that.But just because I believe the world isn’t 4.5. billion years old doesn’t mean anything.Thats my personal opinion.I’m not saying that this “evidence” that was found isn’t real.I’m sure it is.Take a chill pill.

                     jsbrook wrote:

Oh, you have got to be kidding me. The Sumerians, Akkadians, Babylonians, Assyrians, Chaldeans, and to some degree the Hittites, Phoenicians and Persians all lived in the area of Mesoptamia. There are artificacts left over from their civilization. Some of it is WRITING that is 4,000 years old.

Agriculture and the domestication of animals began roughly 12,000 years ago, I believe.

So, yes-there is no credibility among these Chrisitan scientists because of their claims. Not because of relgious but because the boldy ignore evidence and artificats from people who were alive before the contend the earth existed.

GO TO COLLEGE. GO TO HIGH SCHOOOL. None of this is theory like the theory of evoluation.

Cthulhu wrote:
There are christian scientists who believe the earth is about six(maybe more)thosuand years old.
But I guess their statements and opinions too erodes credibility?

There is still MUCH to learn about this world and universe.To say the world is 4.5 billion years old would be ignorant because we still have much to learn.Next year we could find some kind of evidence that says the world is eight billion years old,or 8 thousand years old.This world is like a painting in progress.
I’m curious,where are these studies or evidence that says there were races more sophistocated?

jsbrook wrote:
I challenge you to find one scientist who has graduated from an actual university that believes the earth is four thousand years old and has been able to publish in a journal. You will not be able to do it. There is two much of evidence of living, speaking, human beings-not discernable from usin any real way-who were living in sophistocated civilizations before that time. I’m not gonna argue with you about it anymore. But if you cling to your statement it erodes credibility on any position you take on any other possible issue.

Cthulhu wrote:
Yes,and I was simply stating my opinion.Not all logic.Like I said,there are plenty of scientists and creationsists that believe the earth is less than 4.5 billion years old.

jsbrook wrote:
You said, ‘I believe the earth is 4,000 yrs old’ against all logic and 99.9999999% of the evidence out there.

Cthulhu wrote:
I never said I had a study showing that the earth was young.I said there is enough evidence showing that the earth is younger.For example,creationists say that the earth’s magnetic field is not only a good navigational aid and a shield from space particles, it is powerful evidence against evolution and billions of years. The clear decay pattern shows the earth could not be older than about 10,000 years.

jsbrook wrote:
There is no study that shows the earth is 4000 years old. Show it to me. Post it here.

Cthulhu wrote:
First of all,I never said I was a chirstian.Second of all,they have “evidence” saying it’s less than 4.4 billon years old.Third of all,I said that was my opinion.I neevr said that it was a fact the earth was four thousand years old. This is just another study saying the same old thing.Next year they’ll probably have some study showing us it’s five billion years old.I gues the big bang happened and we evolved from apes at the same time?

Flop Hat wrote:
You must be right the earth is four to six thousand years old. It’s all of the astronomers, geologist, paleontologist, physicist, and biologist that are wrong. It’s not about what you belive, it’s about having proof. Once again you are entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts. Scientist have this stuff called “evedince” that backs up their claim of a 4.5 billion year old earth.

There is no proof of a young earth except for some knuckle head who counted the number of “begats” to back to Adam in the old testament. Hummm… the entire body of scientific knowlege Vs young earth cristian couting begats. You must attend an awful school system.

http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/geotime/age.html

And here is the real history of the necronomicon. sorry champ.

http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mnecromicon.html

Cthulhu wrote:
Haha! really?I don’t know what school you go to but I never learned that it was 4.55 billion years old.

I was watching the news a few days ago and they said it was three billion years old.

[/quote]

94

[quote]Cthulhu wrote:
Take a chill pill.

[/quote]

Sorry. But it’s hard to take a chill pill in the face of such wilfull blindness. I feel I owe a duty to my teachers to inform, even minimally. For they would be horrified.

95

From what I’ve read, the bible says the earth has been around for about six thousand years.I never said I was a christian,I just study the bible,as well as the other side of things.But the bible does have a lot to do with it you see.I believe the earth to be around 4-6 thousand years old.You say it isn’t.So you’re giving me all this information.And for anyone who studies history,the bible is history,trying to study both theories is very important.I said I believe the earth to be somewhat young.Doesn’t mean I’m right.I study evolution,as well as the bible.And from my personal opinion,I don’t believe we evolved from apes.

              [quote]jsbrook wrote:

My personal opinion of the Bible is irrelevent. But the bible need not be in conflict with the actual evidence of human existence and colonization staring us in the face. The bible is best interepreted as utilizing a different time frame than we do. A biblical day is not 24 hrs. Many HIGHLY reknowned relgious figures and leaders agree with this. But I disagree with any interpreation of the bible that says the earth is 6,000 years old. It’s clearly wrong.

Anyhow, your belief that the earth is 4,000 years old is wrong even by this constrained biblical standard. The Bible is both the New and the Old Testament. And the Jewish faith as the bible shows it is well older than 4,000 years. It might even be older than 6,000 years. But don’t quote me on the last.

Cthulhu wrote:

Some very interesting information.I never said what you were saying is’nt true,all I was doing is simply stating my opinion.So you think the bible is wrong?

jsbrook wrote:
Mesopotamian civilization:

Ancient Egyptian Civilization

“The earliest known examples of writing in Egypt have been dated to 3,400 BC. The latest dated inscription in hieroglyphs was made on the gate post of a temple at Philae in 396 AD.”
(they are in museums; go take a look)
For your information, B.C. (or B.C.E.) counts backwards. This is the year 2006 A.D. I have met a few people, however, who believe that it is the year 1190. They have a very interesting scientific theory on it. But for the sake of argument, let’s assume that it is 2006. 3,400 BC means that this was 3,400 years prior to year ‘O’. 3400 + 2006 = 5,406. So, the writings from this civilization date back 5,406 years. But go right on believing that the earth is 4000 yrs old. Be my guest.

The Pleistocene Period was a time of hunting and gathering, experimenting with tools, and traveling in the direction of edible plants and animals. The ability to adapt to changing environments and resources was their most important survival mechanism. Evidence has shown that approximately 10,000 years ago, agriculture was being practiced. Archaeologists suggest that plant domestication began because of rising populations and changes in exploitation of local resources. Human consumption and being constantly in contact with plants then gradually brought about plant domestication. Because of agriculture’s ability to provide a stable and large quantity of produce, population densities then grew even more

There is cave art that is well older than 6000 years old.

The evidence that the earth is older than 6000 yrs as these Christian so-called ‘scientists’ would tell it is mindboggling

[/quote]

96

But you see,it’s not like that.Religion can’t be based on assumptions. People can’t just “assume” that God created a rock and the big bang happened.If you’re saying there is no god,but to assume God created the rock that created the big bang,but there is no bible,that would be crazy and contradicting.There is no “assume”.Either something made the rock that created this universal chain-reaction,or it never happened.I just find it hard to believe that one day a rock just came along from pure nothingness,and created a cosmic chain reaction.Thats like saying ford didn’t make your truck;that it just came out of thin air.I thnik I have a reason to believe what I believe when it sounds like scientists got a bunch of five year olds to write about evolution.

  [quote]jsbrook wrote:

The rock. One. Nothing else can either. But religious theology is not consistent with the big bang. Assume God created the rock if you want to. That was hig first step and the big bang the impetus for the rest of creation.

Cthulhu wrote:
…and this is all theory.
Something has to come from something.
Science can’t even tell us what created the rocks before the big bang.

thirstygirl wrote:
Cthulhu wrote:

Where on earth did you get this information from?I find it hard to believe a cell floating in the water and apes both started evolution.They claim cells floating around in the water,which,by the way,has no evidence,is what created evolution.How can we have apes before cells were floating in water,if thats what started evolution?Thats like saying animals were around before the earth was created.Us evolving from apes is just a theory.

Noooooooo that is what you are claiming. I am saying there is NO ISSUE with life coming from a random occurance, out of which evolved apes, out of which we evolved.

Here I will draw you a simple diagram:

Big Bang → random cell creation → lots of forms of life including apes → humans.

and I want you to try imagine the arrows represent the Magic Power Of Time. ok?

[/quote]

97

[quote]jsbrook wrote:
Cthulhu wrote:
Take a chill pill.

Sorry. But it’s hard to take a chill pill in the face of such wilfull blindness. I feel I owe a duty to my teachers to inform, even minimally. For they would be horrified.[/quote]

I have now decided that this has to be an enormous joke because no one could be this wilfully blind and to have such issues with basic reading comprehension. Not to mention the constant changing of position and then denying that he has said things - WHICH ARE IN THE QUOTED PART OF HIS OWN COMMENT.

Plus no reputable biblical scholars in any of the main churches still hold that the Bible is the literal truth… The ignorance of the enormous pool of reputable biblical scholarship alone is enough to exhaust me.

98

[quote]jsbrook wrote:
But if you cling to your statement it erodes credibility on any position you take on any other possible issue.
[/quote]

No, not really. Again, thats ad hominem. Its like saying Paul Check’s ideas are all kinda crazy because he has a few ones that are Way out there.

You just have to take Everything with a bit of scepticisim/grain of salt.

99

I never changed my opinion.We were talking about two topics:Evolution and the facts.Some of the evidence that was brought forth by jsbrook is very interesting and I do believe much of it(thankyou jesbrook).However,I do not believe the big bang happened.Just because I don’t believe that this cosmic chain reaction happened,you ,and many others,start trying to disprove my theory,which I have not fully stated.And you call me ignorant? I think you need an ego check. That is complete 100% B.S.
So you know all of the bible scholars in the world to make such an unfounded staement?There are many bible scholars that I’ve talked to who believe the bible is 100% true.How can you say it’s not 100% true?The bible is interpreted in so many different ways no one knows what 100% of the bible means.Why do you think there are so many different religions?Please,for the love of whatever you believe in,get a history check.You don’t know anything about biblical history.You’re saying all Christians or anyone who believes in God ,or studies the history of him or satan, are lairs,ignorant,egotists by calling me ignorant for not believing in “Rocks that come out of thin air theory”.That is my personal opinion,and some chauvinist forcing their opinions in my face isn’t going to work.
Go read the bible before you make a fool of yourself.

[quote]thirstygirl wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
Cthulhu wrote:
Take a chill pill.

Sorry. But it’s hard to take a chill pill in the face of such wilfull blindness. I feel I owe a duty to my teachers to inform, even minimally. For they would be horrified.

I have now decided that this has to be an enormous joke because no one could be this wilfully blind and to have such issues with basic reading comprehension. Not to mention the constant changing of position and then denying that he has said things - WHICH ARE IN THE QUOTED PART OF HIS OWN COMMENT.

Plus no reputable biblical scholars in any of the main churches still hold that the Bible is the literal truth… The ignorance of the enormous pool of reputable biblical scholarship alone is enough to exhaust me.

[/quote]

100

The Big Bang theory is wrong(my opinion) because the cosmological red shift is due to the Compton effect rather than the Doppler effect.Do you even know what the cause of the red shift was?There are many problems with the Big Bang Theory have not been solved at all.

[quote]thirstygirl wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
Cthulhu wrote:
Take a chill pill.

Sorry. But it’s hard to take a chill pill in the face of such wilfull blindness. I feel I owe a duty to my teachers to inform, even minimally. For they would be horrified.

I have now decided that this has to be an enormous joke because no one could be this wilfully blind and to have such issues with basic reading comprehension. Not to mention the constant changing of position and then denying that he has said things - WHICH ARE IN THE QUOTED PART OF HIS OWN COMMENT.

Plus no reputable biblical scholars in any of the main churches still hold that the Bible is the literal truth… The ignorance of the enormous pool of reputable biblical scholarship alone is enough to exhaust me.

[/quote]