Re: What happens when you die?
Posted: Sat Jul 12, 2014 10:11 pm
Well I guess I'd know that I've been sent to hellcrusto wrote:I wonder if I'll have a mortgage in the next life...
The online community for classic games and hardware
Well I guess I'd know that I've been sent to hellcrusto wrote:I wonder if I'll have a mortgage in the next life...
I appologise for over simplifying it as it is a complex process but it still can't be used to date fossils. See below.r0jaws wrote:Actually, I am going to counter these points because Tbh I think it is important to challenge the pseudo-science being touted here...
If you follow the link I provided, it takes the "analogy" of the hourglass and shows it as a gross over-simplification. I also take issue with the link you have provided quoting mrayton as the author. I agree with him in that we should all be critical thinkers, but that is it. His main argument against radiometric dating is based around the fact that he doesn't understand it fully, and the closest he can come to understanding it is to come up with an hourglass "analogy".
He also makes the mistake, pounced upon by theists as some sort of trump card, that we can't know exact ages, and these results can span millions of years. Considering that the universe is Billions of years old in itself, the brackets are actually quite small, and are of use in trying to determine a chronology on a large scale. However, no matter what the results are, they still show that the universe is older than 6000 years, by an enormous magnitude.
Why are conditions bad for creating some fossils but not others? Normal fossils are formed under the same conditions as the missing links which your suggesting have been destroyed?r0jaws wrote:I agree that the fossil record is incomplete, but that is not surprising at all considering the conditions required to create a fossil, and also the fact that we live on a geologically and meterologically dynamic planet which regularly smashes, grinds, weathers and melts it's rocks.
That doesn't mean that fossils should be discounted as evidence supporting evolution. They are part of the puzzle, used alongside cladistic and molecular sequencing to support the theory.
used on their own, it would be very difficult to say that evolution is a fact, but supported with other evidence it becomes overwhelmingly compelling.
I would also ask you, considering that you say that fossilisation can occur so quickly, and that God created everything 6000 years ago, where are the fossils of modern creatures to prove that? I would love to see a fossil of a dog turn up on the jurrassic coast of scarborough. i'll be up there at the end of the month on holiday, I'll have a look for you.
That was 2 examples but there are more. Fair enough about the scientific lab tested proof that god created everything. That I admit I don't have. There is historical evidence which lends support to creation and the Bible though.r0jaws wrote:I'm sorry but the highlighted part here made me laugh out loud. You take 2 examples of two dishonest men who were disproved and disgraced by the scientific community and suggest that somehow the outright fabrications of the "story" of creation is somehow more noble? I would suggest that theists, creationists, make up far more stuff than any other section of humanity.
What scientific evidence has any creationist ever put forward that suggests that evolution is wrong, that all creatures were magic'd into existence by god in their current form 6000 years ago. which papers and studies have been released? have they been tested scientifically?
As I said before due to the origins of the catholic faith its unfair to use them or anything they do/say against born again Christians.r0jaws wrote:Let's ask a Catholic priest about ignoring moral standards shall we?
Also I should mention the terms for Germs, Smallpox, Malaria etc would not have been in use at that time even though the diseases may have been around.r0jaws wrote:And why only those two instances of possible infection, why not a warning about malaria? Or tuberculosis, or small pox?
Funny you should mention whales. They have these two sets of pelvis and leg bones which is used as evidence of the being land dwellers in the past. However these are not pelvis and leg bones but are used during reproduction. Without them there would be no baby whales.r0jaws wrote:ie whales and dolphins have an excellent fossil record because of the conditions in which they live, and their size, makes them ideal fossilisation candidates.
Im not saying it's easy to belive but easier (in my opinion, your mileage may vary) to believe than evolution which has too many problems. Some more below.r0jaws wrote:It's certainly a lot more worthy than the idea of God pulling everything out of a giant hat.
And this is the sensible religious response that I can respect.markopoloman wrote:Evolution is part of God's plan. I'm Christian and believe in Evolution.
Nobody knows what happens when you die and it can't be proven as its a one way trip! Saying there's no afterlife because it's my opinion and my opinion is fact! Therefore my opinion is more valid than others, this applies to any and every subject I or anyone else's makes you look an utter utter utter utter wally!! Not to mention totally disrespectful to other people!!Sokurah wrote:Easy.
If you've been good you'll either go to heaven or simply just enter nothingness.
If you've been bad you'll either go to hell or be turned into a C64, which is infinitely worse.
...so heaven and hell kinda exists.
Seriously though, "nothing", everything will turn black and stop. NO afterlife, no nothing. If you believe anything else you're as diluted as me around pretty girls.
No, it's a terrible book and the authors either misunderstand the science of radiometric dating or wilfully misrepresent it. If the only version of evolution you know is the strawman version of it erected by creationists, of course you're going to think it's a ridiculous theory that nobody in their right mind could believe. Who wouldn't?Shinobi wrote:A great book on the flaws of dating methods is "Radioisotopes and the age of the earth" (edited by Larry Vardiman, Andrew Snelling, Eugene F. Chaffin. Published by Institute for Creation Research; December 2000)
Whilst I don't agree with Confused's view on this subject, I think having a proper dig at him for his beliefs are a little ott there. I really don't like talking Religion on here as there is always a danger of having a real effect on someone - and if taken the wrong way, could cause a forum member to feel uncomfortable being here. He has his views and it is highly unlikely to change them, I have my views and am unlikely to change them unless something new can be 100% proved - but at least I am open to that. Also, being an Orthodox Christian, I don't view myself as a Bible Christian like a Born Again would - r0jaws, you may view the content as fairy stories, I do not, although I am sensible enough to realise the content is not exact and has been translated loads of times, but that doesn't mean those things (in the New Testament) didn't happen.r0jaws wrote:@Confused, rather than argue every point with you again, I suggest you read Antiriad2097's post carefully.
You are obviously an entrenched anti-evolutionist and would rather believe a book of fairy stories with no evidence whatsoever than a working theory which has at least some evidence, and the hard work and serious research of thousands of scientists.
Your arguments are weak, and ill researched and it is a real shame that you are likely to die believing this childish rubbish. What is worse, however, is that you are likely to infect others with this wilful ignorance.
I must admit I don't really have that great a understanding on evolution I have some friends who do and they say that any of 'Richard Dawkins' or 'Alice Roberts' books are the ones to go for.. As they expand on Charles Darwin's Origin of Species as the Evolution theory which is constantly changing with greater scientific breakthroughs.. And that plenty of Scientist's are Creationists..Matt_B wrote:No, it's a terrible book and the authors either misunderstand the science of radiometric dating or wilfully misrepresent it. If the only version of evolution you know is the strawman version of it erected by creationists, of course you're going to think it's a ridiculous theory that nobody in their right mind could believe. Who wouldn't?Shinobi wrote:A great book on the flaws of dating methods is "Radioisotopes and the age of the earth" (edited by Larry Vardiman, Andrew Snelling, Eugene F. Chaffin. Published by Institute for Creation Research; December 2000)
what a vile post.that you are likely to die believing this childish rubbish. What is worse, however, is that you are likely to infect others with this wilful ignorance.
I've never read anything by Roberts, but most of Dawkins's books are a pretty good read. If you're looking for ones specifically about evolution, try The Ancestor's Tale or The Greatest Show on Earth.Shinobi wrote:I must admit I don't really have that great a understanding on evolution I have some friends who do and they say that any of 'Richard Dawkins' or 'Alice Roberts' books are the ones to go for.. As they expand on Charles Darwin's Origin of Species as the Evolution theory which is constantly changing with greater scientific breakthroughs.. And that plenty of Scientist's are Creationists..
Er... no. Evolution most likely started with very simple organisms that were little more than strands of DNA. You're fast-forwarding billions of years before you get beyond single-celled organisms. And we definitely evolved from creatures that would have resembled monkeys; our most recent common ancestor with dolphins would have resembled a shrew.Couple of questions Evolution in basic terms life started in a pond sea creatures got beached on the land and grew arms and legs and we evolved from either Monkeys or Dolphins.. In Alice Roberts Greatest Human Journey she said we never evolved from Neanderthal Man and share no DNA with them?
Not really, unless you want to revert to being a bunch of embryonic cells between re-generations. We're not exactly talking Dr Who here.Also somebody said earlier in this thread everything dies but Turritopsis dohrnii jellyfish is immortal.. I asked a friend about this and he said when it's sick or old, it can revert to the polyp stage, through trans-differentiation, which alters the differentiated state of the cells and transforms them into new types of cells. If we evolved from Sea Creatures or all life evolved from the sea couldn't science harness this to make us live longer?
The atmosphere on the moon is negligible, so no. We couldn't live there at all.My Art Teacher reckons that we could live on the Moon and we wouldn't age as the moon atmosphere is different.. Same friend said this is basically bull as there was originally water on the moon and chemical compounds that could suggest life exists or once existed on Mars maybe just microbes.. But nothing could survive on Mars now and recommends a guy called Carl Sangen.. Do you think other planets could have held life, or do hold life?
I'm glad you disapprove.HalcyonDaze00 wrote:what a vile post.that you are likely to die believing this childish rubbish. What is worse, however, is that you are likely to infect others with this wilful ignorance.
as long as people are not advocating blowing up others etc, surely they can believe in what they want.