Global Flood explains Oil Deposits and Geological layers

a reply to: cooperton

www.eatliver.com...

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: cooperton

"Dinosaur bones frequently contain soft tissue, and it's been carbon-dated to less than 40,000 years old."

Really?

Source?

Read the link I provided if you're interested. It was dated by Arizona and Georgia's AMS Labs if I remember correctly.

originally posted by: Ohanka
a reply to: cooperton

Okay well maybe but there's no way to prove it, but my question was why the Young Earth Creationism movement seems mostly confined to the USA. Most of the world's Christian faithful get by just fine without the reality of the world creating a crisis of faith for them that must be corrected and "proven false".

The Catholic Church boasts the largest Christian following worldwide, and while I have many, many criticisms of them as an organisation even traditionalist members of the Church seem quite content with current scientific understanding regarding the diversity of life and origin of the universe. A Catholic priest was the one who first proposed the Big Bang theory as I recall.

What is it about some American Christians which compels them to reject select scientific facts because they contradict the scripture, and why must stories that are largely considered fable be taken completely literally, in face of overwhelming evidence against such an interpretation?

I still go to Catholic mass occasionally, but usually I go to the non-denominational church near my house. Most Catholics are great and I am still friends with a lot of my childhood friends. But the church has been infiltrated with ideas that begin to detract from us being children of the extra-dimensional Creator of the Universe and deny Christ as archetype of human existence.

And I've said this before but I want to re-iterate, I don't deny any empirical evidence. The observations of the big bang are an important part of a lot of research that I am doing now. What's phenomenal is that 'the big bang happened at every point in the universe at once'... something to ponder.

a reply to: cooperton

Where?

a reply to: cooperton

The best paintings are the ones without lines. Coloring in the lines is for children. The reason I am so vehemently against being vehemently for evolution is because it prevents true revelation of who and what we are, and our role in the universe.

Which is?

Do you feel you have the absolute say on that?

I think this is root of the adversity you face in these threads. That belief your word is incontrovertible, even when it constantly contradicts itself. Or proposes absurdity or outright false claim.

Like How Matthew and Luke never seem to agree.

Luke, who is the grandfather again? What the Heli?

Kings 2 does pretty good with history, but the further you draw back, the further you realize NOAH LIVES IN SUMERIA, which IS NEVER mentioned.

The ABSOLUTE WORD lies, it says Nimrod founded Akkad. Noah's great-grandson did not found Akkad (Accad), unless he was also the polytheistic Sargon of Akkad. Who conquered Sumerian cities throughout The Levant. He rules from this Capital.

To dictate our place in the universe, requires absolute confirmation beyond doubt, which includes reviewed evidence, and the incongruities with biblical text and what is known are at odds. Major odds. Constant odds. Nothing in the archeological record backs up an Exodus either. Says Canaanites started calling themselves Hebrews and stopped eating pigs. But never left the area they were in.

It then becomes more or less fighting to have your contradiction believed by others. Or not accepting a reality where your say isn't incontrovertible.

While I'm not saying there isn't value, the obvious (undeniable) human elements, make it not a dictation of an absolute divine narrative.

Perhaps, channeling the holy ghost godhead is more nebulous and left up to subjectivity than will be acknowledged. Like the head's in the right place but the results are inconclusive. They may have channeled some unconscious wisdom they felt as divine, but it was a collective influence in my opinion. Channeling archetypes and myths rooted FIRMLY in the current time. Basically, channeling their subjective idea of what that God would say.

You say "true revelation of who and what we are, and our role in the universe," and you draw all the wisdom from what a single man-made book says, and then says differently later. I'm simultaneously suppose to groom and not keep my hair. Seriously, Ecclesiastes tells me to groom and Leviticus tells me not too.

Absolute truth in its word is impossible.

That's why when you speak on who we are, I have to say:

I do not believe you have the answers, I have ideas too. But if you have enough naivete, and you've got conviction, then the answer is perfect for you.

a reply to: Oldcarpy2
Last page, a link to one of their other threads.

I wouldn't bother. Someone sent some samples in and they tested around 40K years old. The lab never confirmed they were dino bones but young earth creationists claimed they were.

originally posted by: Degradation33

Which is?

Do you feel you have the absolute say on that (our purpose in the cosmos)?

No but I have confirmed through my research that evolutionary theory is absolutely worthless and false. I get upset thinking there are people who stop on that belief and don't continue searching. I know I refer to the Bible a lot, that's just the most popular spiritual practice in the US, I am also trained in other theologies but that can get convoluted depending on the audience.

If people think they're meaningless mutant apes (an unavoidable conclusion if you're pragmatic about evolution) then nihilism is really the only conclusion. Some try to attribute intelligence or purpose into the equation, but evolution is inherently against the involvement of intelligence in its processes. It is a mythos that corrupts true knowledge from being conceived in the mind, and quite literally blocks intelligence from the equation of our existence

originally posted by: cooperton
I get upset thinking there are people who stop on that belief and don't continue searching.

That's a "you" problem.

If people think they're meaningless mutant apes (an unavoidable conclusion if you're pragmatic about evolution) then nihilism is really the only conclusion.

So?

Personally I see your position just as faulty as theirs. You are so caught up in your own delusion of truth that you can't see it is also kinda pointless.

How do any of your threads help anyone? The flood was real, men walked with dinosaurs and whatever else. Ok, let's say I believe you, how does that change my life?

a reply to: cooperton

People can find meaning in life without having to fall back on believing in a God. There are plenty people with their own meaning and purpose, discovered through their own journey.

To suggest that without God people are incapable of finding meaning and thus can only be nihilistic is an offense to mankind itself.

a reply to: WakeUpBeer
Even the meaning of "meaning" can have different meanings. Bet you didn't see that one coming.

Guy at the foot of a mountain yells to a guy at the top of the mountain, "How'd you get up there?"

Guy at the top replies, "I climbed up"

Guy at the bottom yells back, "Why would you do that?"

Gay at the top, "It was here and I wanted to"

Guy at the bottom ponders, "Why would someone do something so meaningless?"

But, obviously, it meant something to the guy that climbed the mountain.

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: Oldcarpy2
Last page, a link to one of their other threads.

I wouldn't bother. Someone sent some samples in and they tested around 40K years old. The lab never confirmed they were dino bones but young earth creationists claimed they were.

You assume these researchers are lying just because you don't like their results.

originally posted by: daskakik


How do any of your threads help anyone? The flood was real, men walked with dinosaurs and whatever else. Ok, let's say I believe you, how does that change my life?

You're not a material-reductionist accident that returns to eternal nothingness, this is a temporary phase where conscious souls come into being to have their eternal existence. Thats a worthwhile shift to consider

originally posted by: cooperton
You assume these researchers are lying just because you don't like their results.

No, I assume they are lying because they have an agenda and I have no way of knowing if the samples they sent in were in fact dinosaur bones.

All they did was send blind samples and then made claims, holding the results up as some kind of "scientific proof".

a reply to: cooperton

Foreward: THIS IS NOT TRYING TO CONVINCE YOU. I have a better chance of moving Jabal al-Nour. This is just for rhetorical whatnot.

No but I have confirmed through my research that evolutionary theory is absolutely worthless, and I get upset thinking there are people who stop on that belief and don't continue searching.

That's why comparative DNA analysis is awesome!

It deescalates following our cousins.

Chimp: 98.8
Neanderthal 98.7
Bonobo 98.7
Gorillas 98.4
Orangutan 97
Baboon 94
Macaques 93
Rhesus 93
Lemurs 90

You can really draw back when they split off from one-another. Hey and we've bred with one of those as a species too!

I mean, how dare I think it's freaking awesome I'm 90% lemur!



It makes me feel one with all the animals. Knowing we all draw, like the universe itself, back into a singularity of single celled organism.

I know it's going to work for you but



I think that's awesome!

If people think they're meaningless mutant apes (an unavoidable conclusion if you're pragmatic about evolution) then nihilism is really the only conclusion. Some try to attribute intelligence or purpose into the equation, but evolution is inherently against the involvement of intelligence in its processes. It is a mythos that corrupts true knowledge from being conceived in the mind

True knowledge isn't your call.

And is your version of Christianity entirely projection, or what's up with that? Nothing 'pragmatic' about that statement because it calls mythos truth while implying truth is mythos. You really can't call it mythos when scientists win The Nobel Prize in Chemistry for things like:

Directed evolution (DE) is a method used in protein engineering that mimics the process of natural selection to steer proteins or nucleic acids toward a user-defined goal

I swear you're always on about how impossible protein evolution is.

And that is defeatist, Evolution = Nihilism.

Way to just throw in the towel because many fallible things weren't true.

Being an unimportant organic creature on a meaningless ball of dirt makes the infinity of creation more amazing, IMO. That we can happen. Especially if it can happen infinite ways.

Plus I really enjoy the idea that (in this universe) I am 90% lemur. Don't you? Why not accept genome results if you get to be part lemur?

You can post this in any evolution thread and it will be appreciated.

originally posted by: cooperton
You're not a material-reductionist accident that returns to eternal nothingness, this is a temporary phase where conscious souls come into being to have their eternal existence. Thats a worthwhile shift to consider

I'm more of the idea that conscious souls, that already have their eternal existence ("eternal" perhaps being a misnomer), come here for accelerated learning.

I don't need belief in god, a global flood, toppling towers, a sacrificial lamb/jesus or even the idea of judgment and punishment to give life meaning.

originally posted by: Degradation33
a reply to: cooperton

Foreward: THIS IS NOT TRYING TO CONVINCE YOU. I have a better chance of moving Jabal al-Nour. This is just for rhetorical whatnot.

That's why comparative DNA analysis is awesome!

It deescalates following our cousins.

Chimp: 98.8

The human genome has about 150,000,000 less DNA nucleotides than chimpanzees:

human genome count

chimpanzee genome length.

This alone means they can at max be 95.8% similar, assuming all coding is identical. But the remaining is not identical.

of the remaining genome, a genetic analysis found:

"Approximately 306 Mb (9.91%) of the human sequence did not align to the chimpanzee sequence" source

This means 9.91% of the human sequence did not align with the chimpanzee genome. Add this to the fact that humans have a 4.2% smaller genome, and the max similarity can be about 86%.

Now is where we get the commonly highlighted statistic that about 98.6% of the genome is similar. It is not the entire genome that is 98.6% similar, it is merely the remaining 86% of alignable genetic sequences that are 98.6% similar. so 98.6% x 86% equals a total of about 84% of the genomes that is actually similar. Yet you never see this percentage in any headlines, you have to dig through the raw data to find it.

a reply to: cooperton
Who cares, if the percentage was closer would that mean you'd want to get freaky with a chimp?

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: cooperton
Who cares, if the percentage was closer would that mean you'd want to get freaky with a chimp?

No if the percentage was closer it would mean evolution might have a glimpse of theoretical possibility. But given a 16% gap, a DNA change of approximately 500,000,000 nucleotide monomers, there is no way that could have happened in 5,000,000 years. It would have required a mutation rate of 100 beneficial/non-detrimental mutations per year. That's case-in-point right there. The beneficial mutation rate is certainly not 100/year. There's the obvious data, right in front of you. There is not enough time for a chimp-like creature to become a human.

a reply to: cooperton
I still don't care.

Aliens from another planet under the command of Zoltan created humans.

That isn't proof of anything you preach about.