If death is meaningless, why is there a commandment against killing?
Did you know there is more scientific evidence of a young earth than an earth that is billions of years?
As a matter of fact I do believe in the existence of unicorns. I can’t prove their existence, but in a universe of which less that 1% has been discovered and investigated, who is to say there isn’t another life supporting planet inhabited by nothing but unicorns?
wasn’t it Einstein who said “Imagination is more powerful than knowledge”?
Because that reduces the numbers of believers, and producing as many people as possible who believe, and eliminating those who don’t is the only real purpose of Christianity. As Christians often point out when defending the death penalty, that Commandment actually means “thou shalt not murder”, not “thou shalt not kill”. So, in Christian terms, it’s just fine to massacre people in a war, or execute people you don’t like ( gays and Jews, for example ). Especially unbelievers, since they aren’t Christian and are therefore Evil.
If you succeed, make sure you eat his heart to gain his power.
Two things
There is NOT a commandment against killing. There is a commandment against committing murder.
Second, I don’t know why there is a commandment against committing murder. Why is there a commandment against eating pork and shellfish?
Present such, if you please.
Cite?
Nonsense. There is ZERO evidence for a young Earth. None at all. And plenty for an old one.
Me. First, that wouldn’t work, ecologically. And second, it would just be an alien creature that happened to look like a mythological creature.
If he did, no doubt it’ a misquote or taken out of context. The believers love to lie about Einstein; he complained about it while still alive.
And even if he said it, it doesn’t make it true.
So I get to be an atheistic god ? Cool.
That would have been a great addition to Klingon theology, come to think about it, given that they already say they killed their gods. Something like this :
Picard : “What do the Klingon’s think about gods ?”
Worf : “We had some in ancient times. We found them troublesome, so we killed them and ate their hearts.”
I like how you avoided my question altogether… but for the sake of your amusement, not all people are susceptible to hypnotic suggestion, and you can’t hypnotize people and make them do whatever you want because if one’s will is strong enough their mind will automatically make the right choice based off their own moral standards. For instance, if you try to hypnotize a girl and get her to take off her clothes, and she wasn’t willing to do that in the first place, it’s highly unlikely she will do as requested.
The answer to your question about being a chicken… if someone hypnotized one into thinking they were a chicken, first that person would have to know what a chicken was. second, assuming they knew what a chicken was, the one hypnotized would in fact believe without doubt that he was a chicken, although the one who hypnotized would know without doubt that it was just someone fooled into being a chicken.
I see where you’re trying to take this… you’re going to say Christians have been “hypnotized” into believing in God… but even if we have been, we would first have to have an understanding of who God is, and still even then, if we didn’t find the idea of God a plausible and acceptable belief, our own willpower wouldn’t allow us to be “hypnotized” to believe in God.
If he does, I’d quibble and say a better word is “indoctrinated”.
(all information taken from this article at Dripping Springs)
(numbers with a ^ indicate the number to the power of)
POPULATION STATISTICS
One of the strongest arguments for a young Earth comes from the field of population kinetics. Without going into full detail here in the short space available, the argument from population statistics may be stated as follows. Using the formula
Pn = 2/(C-1) (Cn-x+1) (Cx - 1)
it is possible to compute the world population (Pn = world population after n generations; n = number of generations; x = life span in terms of generations; 2C = number of children per family). If evolutionary figures were entered into this formula, with man having lived on the Earth only one million years (some evolutionists suggest that man, in one form or another, has been on the Earth 2-3 million years), there would be an Earth population of 1 x 10^5000! That number is a 1 followed by 5,000 zeroes. But the Universe (at an estimated size of 20 billion light years in diameter) would hold only 1 x 10^100 people. Using creationist figures, however, the current world population would be approximately 4.34 billion people. Evolutionary figures thus would imply an Earth population 10^4900 times greater than would fit into the entire Universe! The question is—which of the two figures is almost exactly on target, and which could not possibly be correct? [NOTE: This discussion is highly abbreviated. For additional documentation, see: Lammerts, 1971, pp. 198-205; Wysong, 1976, pp. 168-169; Morris and Morris, 1996, pp. 317-320.]
DECAY OF THE EARTH’S MAGNETIC FIELD
There are three important force fields associated with planet Earth—gravitational, electric, and magnetic. The magnetic field is due to the huge electric current, billions of amperes worth, circulating in the core of the Earth. It now is known that the Earth’s magnetic field is decaying faster than any other worldwide geophysical phenomenon. Knowledgeable scientists do not debate the fact of the rapid decrease in the Earth’s magnetic field. A comprehensive government report estimated, in fact, that the magnetic field would be gone by the year A.D. 3991.
Using complex mathematical equations to try to calculate backwards (employing a known value for the half-life decay rate of the field) presents a very serious problem in relation to the time needed by evolutionists. The problem is that going backward for more than just a few thousand years produces an impossibly large value in the magnetic field, and of the electrically generated heat stored in the Earth’s core. In fact, Thomas G. Barnes, late professor emeritus of physics at the University of Texas at El Paso, calculated the upper limit of this time span to be 10,000 years. Going back any further than this, Barnes concluded, would cause the field to be at such huge values that the Earth could not sustain itself and would rupture and crack. According to the facts associated with the magnetic field, the upper limit for the age of the Earth is 10,000 years (see: Wysong, 1976, p. 161; Barnes, n.d.; Barnes, 1973; Barnes, 1981; Slusher, 1975).
HYDROGEN IN THE UNIVERSE
Hydrogen constantly is being converted into helium throughout the Universe. Significantly, however, hydrogen cannot be produced in any significant quantity through the conversion of other elements. If the Universe were vastly old, there should now be little hydrogen left in it—since hydrogen constantly is being converted into helium, and since this conversion is a one-way process.
Sir Fred Hoyle, the eminent British astronomer/cosmologist, has noted, however, that “the universe consists almost entirely of hydrogen.” Dr. Hoyle, therefore, was driven to conclude: “How comes it then that the universe consists almost entirely of hydrogen? If matter was infinitely old, this would be quite impossible. So we can see that the universe being what it is, the creation issue simply cannot be dodged” (1960, p. 125, emp. added).
Because of the evidence from the hydrogen in the Universe, Dr. Hoyle developed his “continuous-creation” hypothesis. Even agnostic Bertrand Russell recognized the force of this kind of evidence (which indicated a contingent Universe), and admitted the implication was that matter could not be infinitely old because the Cosmos would had to have had a beginning (1931, p. 122). The conclusion—since the Universe consists chiefly of hydrogen, and since there is no evidence of any kind of current hydrogen genesis—is that the concentration of hydrogen speaks eloquently of a young Universe.
Hypnotism has nothing to do with willpower. And you don’t need to know anything about God to believe in him, because he’s a fantasy.
And you were the one who brought up mind control, with your line about God showing up and “you knew without any doubt that it was God”. Mind control or self delusion are the only possible ways that could happen.
Was that a hoax, or a hypothesis that didn’t pan out? And didn’t the self-correcting function of science take care of that?
Of course it matters. And it matters how long ago, too. If only a handful of researchers put forward false evidence that before long was disregarded, then the damage to the credibility of evolution science is minimal. What big, important, yet fraudulent, findings are currently being regarded as evidence in support of evolution?
Answer : The creationists are lying about how population growth works. In reality, our population grew until it reached our ability to support it, and stayed there. Our population grew again when we could feed more people. I’m reminded of this Straight Dope Column. The difference is, Cecil was joking.
More nonsense. It’s well known now that the magnetic field grows and weakens, and reverses itself, and occasionally vanishes over geological time.
No; all that proves is that the universe isn’t infinitely old. It took billions of years to convert hydrogen into the heavier elements we, and Earth are made of. So, in fact, the amount of hydrogen in the universe is evidence for a billions of years old universe. And Hoyle’s Continuous Creation theory is long discredited ( unfortunately ).
Once again, as the religious always do, you have proven yourself utterly wrong.
Cite please.
It’s a pretty weak argument really. Given that during most of humanity’s existence we’ve been at the mercy of disease (no antibiotics, no surgery, no germ theory) predators, the weather, and had a massively high infant mortality rate, the math for humans having been here for more than 5000 years holds up fine.
For population ? That column alone is more than necessary; it’s just pointing out the obvious. As for magnetic field reversals, there’s a Wiki article here. And one of the age of the universe here.
You clearly have no idea what you are talking about. This isn’t obscure, hard to find information. You appear to be the sort of person who lives in a creationist bubble of falsehoods, carefully insulated from actual knowledge.
Considering we’re humans and the fact we’re at the top of the food chain… I hardly find fly population and human population comparable. Humans have the greatest will to live of all creatures and go through any means necessary for their own survival. Look at the incredible advancement in society over our recorded history, even more so look at the incredible advancements in the past 100, 50, even 10 years. Had humans lived 1-3 million years ago, certainly we would be a much more advanced.
I’m surprised you find wikipedia a credible source. Most people don’t. I, not being a scientist, do not have the knowledge to find the inconsistencies that could be in this article, but there are many inconsistencies in evolution.
I’m sure if I presented this article to an educated Creationist they would find many inconsistencies, just as they have done in times past.
As with the age of the universe, beside the fact I was talking about a young Earth and not a young universe, there was absolutely NO mention of hydrogen in that article.
I admit I am not a scientist. Like some of you have said “at least I’m being honest about it”. I have sources to information, and honestly, before I consider the opinion of someone who “doesn’t know” the origins of the universe I will believe the opinion of someone who does.
There is no proof. None.
PLEASE do not insult our intelligence like this. On the “old earth” side, there is the fossil record, the knowm and proven decay rate of elements such as Carbon 14, the geological record, all sorts of things that all point to an earth (and therefore a universe) that is far far older than the “young earthers” claim. The young earth people have NO evidence whatsoever. This board is for fighting ignorance, not for spreading it.