Saying something is 1200 to 3500 years old is pretty reliable. Saying something is four an a half billion years old has a larger margin for error. And since those ceramic items were man made, that figure should be far more accurate. And I think it's funny how you have problem with that small number, but believe the larger number is nailed down. There are three considerations to think about when dating an object, and time can effect the outcome. Yet you embrace the greater number that puts the accuracy into question That only reveals to me how you will support the science that agrees with your belief system. Even when that science is much more diffuclt to prove.
*Picks one's self up off the floor after laughing so hard I fell off my chair*
FF gives you ONE unfulfilled prophecy and you have to fill in the blanks yourself so it 'fits' to a fulfilled prophecy.
Read your own post and then realise how open you have left yourself. 'YOU BELIEVE' that part of the story to be fulfilled. So a prophecy in the bible says that a person will be 'buried with his farthers' yet he dies a violent death and is burried in foreign lands and it is FF who takes it out of context?
You have absolutely no evidence that it was fulfilled completely, further more it he died in a completely different way and in another land. Unfulfilled prophecy No.1, gods word is infallable, Bible is not inspired by god, there is no god.
Numpty, you assume way to much. Just because it does not give the full record does not mean it was unfulfilled, no matter how hard you want it to be. I just believe it was because I know the Bible always gives the honest answer, and if the Bible wanted to be dishonest, they could of just filled that part in.
And Numpty, your the one taking it out of context, because it did not say he died a violent death. It states, he died in prison. And God told him he was going to be taken prisioner so he knew that was coming. That was part of the prophecy. Did you not read that part of the Scripture?
And the Bible tells us the Jews would return to Israel near the end of time, but it does not reveal what would motivate them to return. The Bible often tells us just what is needed.
Numpty, you assume way to much. Just because it does not give the full record does not mean it was unfulfilled,
I just believe it was because I know the Bible always gives the honest answer,
And Numpty, your the one taking it out of context, because it did not say he died a violent death. It states, he died in prison.
And the Bible tells us the Jews would return to Israel near the end of time, but it does not reveal what would motivate them to return.
So you can interpret the rest for your own purpose. YOU fit the stories of the Bible to suit the way in which YOU want it to be told. YOU ASSUME too much.
Go back and look at your posts, there is a theme in them that is strikingly blatent. Everything you say is I BELIEVE this I BELIEVE that, making the most outragous leaps of FAITH I have ever read. Fire breathing Dinosaurs, Aliens living amoung us, talking snakes and you ask all us athiests to prove your man in the sky does not exsist. My good man I think first you should prove three of the above. I try and sit my beliefs in reality not in fantasy.
Sabz makes some absolutely fanastic points far more eloquently and researched than I could possibly hope to, yet you don't even seem to be able to comprehend a simple scientific process, test, retest, test again and if it falls flat on any of the tests, discard it. That is not failure in a theory, it is called testing it. As a wise man once said 'Only a Sith deals in absolutes' you deal in absolutes with no evidence to back them up.
Just had a though about a 10,000 year old Earth and the fossil records. Before I go any further do we agree that the further down fossils are the older they are, irrespective of if they are 10,000 years old or 4.5 billion?
nor does it mean it was fullfilled.
your faith is not sufficient evidence for me or anyone else.
yes it also states he would be barried with his father, but apparently that didn't happen.
duh, the prophecy motivated the Brits to give them that land, and they returned to escape persecution.
If the British were so happy to have the Jews return to Israel, why did the Jews blow up the King David Hotel killing 80 British officers. Why did the British ram the ship the Exodus filled with hundreds of Jewish men, women and children? What part of the prophecy was that suppose to fulfill?
I think the real question is, if the Brittish didn't want the jews to go to israel why did they create the Balfour declaration?
The Balfour declaration was payment to Dr. Chaim Weizmann. Weizmann was a chemist who had developed a process to synthesize acetone via fermentation. Acetone is required for the production of cordite, a powerful propellant explove needed to fire ammunition without generating tell-tale smoke. Germany had cornered supplies of calcium acetate, a major source of acetone. Other pre-war processer in Britain were inadequate to meet the increased demand in World War I, and a shortage of cordite would have severely hampered Britain's war effort. Lloyd-George, then Minister for Munitions, was grateful to Weizmann and so supported his Zionist aspirations. During the first meeting between Weizmann and Balfour in 1906, Balfour asked what payment Weizmann would accept for use of his process and was told, "There is only one thing I want: A national home for my people." Balfour asked Weizmann why Palestine-and Palestine alone-should be the Zionist homeland. "Anything else would be idolatry", Weizmann protested, adding: "Mr. Balfour, supposing I was to offer you Paris instead of London, would you take it?" "But Dr. Weizmann", Balfour retorted, "we have London", to which Weizmann rejoined, "That is true, but we had Jerusalem when London was a marsh."
So you see, giving the Jews a homeland was not a British idea, nor was it delievered anytime soon. 42 years after the meeting between Weizmann and Balfour, the Jews finally received their homeland, and only after they blew up the Kind David motel killing 80 British officers.
actually there were 2 balfour declarations both unrelated to eachother. And yes giving the jews palestine could have only been a brittish idea considering palestine was owned by the brittish at the time. you might want to re-check your history bub.
The British may of controled Palastine, but it was Dr. Weizmann's idea to ask for it as payment for his process, not the other way around. bub.
I am amaze how you are unable to comprehend a fairly simple statement, please re-read what i said:
"Fatal_Freedoms: Your fantastical creatures only match the description of dinosaurs to the extent that a medieval dragon matches the description of a kamodo dragon."
I am clearly implying that kamodo dragons ARE unlike mythical european dragons in the same manner that the behemoth is unlike any dinosaur.
precisely my point, the behemoth is unlike any creature that ever lived.
You made the claim that they can breathe fire, the burden of proof lies on you. Also a bombadier beetle does not breathe fire they expel an acrid, volatile secretion from their end, many creatures expel a secretion yet i am unaware of any creature that could breathe fire.
I claim no such thing, i've said there is no animal that can breathe fire, and that is true unless you can provide any evidence to a fire breathing animal.
List of transitional fossils: Information and Much More from Answers.com
"Since all species are supposed to be in transition due to natural selection, the very term "transitional fossil" is essentially a misconception. But the fossils listed represent significant steps in the evolution of major features in various vertebrate lines, and therefore fit the common usage of the phrase."
your misusage of such terms "proof", "evidence", and "fact" is appalling! :eek:
it is quite possible for something to be both fact and theory according to the defintion, also proof and evidence are NOT synonyms.
and a book about monsters and a jewish carpentar with magic powers isn't a fantasy novel?
no, you claiming that you know the purpose of those "unused" cavities in animals skulls is the faith.
...and your hypothesis is correct?
did you not see the pictures i showed you? They clearly showed a circular earth with an arched "ceiling" and yet it was still flat!
circular knowledge??? I have never seen such circular logic as that displayed by christians, here i will give you an example:
-------------------------------------
Q: why do you believe in god?
A: because the bible says there is a god!
Q: why do you believe the bible?
A: because the bible is inspired by god!
Q: how do you know that?
A: Because the bible says so...
--------------------------------------------
you see, what he believes is also the reason why he believes, such logic is called circular logic, and also happens to be a logical fallacy!
who said that? I don't believe the universe was created, but it always existed!
god?
:wtf:, what the *** are you talking about!!??? Do you actually know what evolution is? Statements like these lead me to believe that you don't know anything about evolution. Evolution is a theory that explains how life has diversified into different species, it has ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with the beginning of life.
or always existed
Could you tell me what book Thor said we should seek him with all our heart mind and soul? Or is that something you just made up? LOL
You still have no empirical proof of evolution, you only claim that you will have the proof at some point in the future. Have you ever noticed that when any argument starts going down hill for someone the very first thing that is done is to try and semantically alter their position or redefine what has been submitted?
And to conclude that evolution does not have to have an empirical chain that requires all of its links to hold the chain of evidence together is somewhat amusing. As you suggested, "Do you really know just what position that you are taking?" There is no empirical evidence ANYWHERE ALONG THE LINE that was provided, only hypothetical speculations of HOW SOMETHING MIGHT have happened as theorized, nowhere is it reproducible or observable in nature. Yet it is you that keeps claiming to have an unbroken empirical link of science.
Do you KNOW the difference between mircoevolution and the species jumping ability suggested in the theory of macroevolution?
As I said , to hold onto any proof of empirical evidence you must rob it from within the bounds of mircobiology and mircoevolution, which still remains encased inside the walls of biogenesis.
Now you are altering your position to claim that you do not need evidence supporting the gestation of lineage in support of your entire theory, that you have empirically proven that evolution must be correct because someone has an "idea" that all creatures were self generated and that proof is found from current time and is reproducible and observed in nature NOW.
As I said please present the evidence of species breach, or even the empirical evidence that man has evolved within his own species.
All you have is a few fossil remains, that are "hypothetically" suggested to be an earlier stage of man's evolution. Yet the only difference found is musculoskeletal in nature. You can not "empirically" prove the exact time line in which the remains was found, you can not empirically prove that which was found is not a simple example of isolation induced inbreeding resulting in birthdefects of mutation of "normal" humans.
You can only "hypothetically" suggest that the theorized methodology of radiometric dating is accurate, because C14 dating is only valid to its projected half-life, you can not prove it to be such, only suggest that it is truth. Yet you want to call this empirical proof of evolution?
What makes this theory any more valid than MONOPHYLETIC theory? The only thing that makes it more valid is the bigotry, because its not the proof. In fact, I would suggest that the theory of evolution is founded upon the position of "RACISM". Evolution must present the different races of man as "examples" of different branches of man's development along the evolutionary time line. In doing this IT must present each race as unique to the other, with no commonality evident and provide such suggested "empirical" evidence as different levels of intellectual ability. It must present one race as the superior. Now just which race do think is implied as being "SUPERIOR"? The bigotry, semantical politics, and unprovability of this theory indeed shows that it is based more upon science fiction and "imagination" than upon valid scientific methodology. RD
Just where is the example of the komodo having the ability to breath fire? Or be the largest creature ever to be upon the earth?
Have you ever noticed that when any argument starts going down hill for someone the very first thing that is done is to try and semantically alter their position or redefine what has been submitted?
only hypothetical speculations of HOW SOMETHING MIGHT have happened as theorized,
nowhere is it reproducible or observable in nature.
Yet it is you that keeps claiming to have an unbroken empirical link of science. Do you KNOW the difference between mircoevolution and the species jumping ability suggested in the theory of macroevolution? As I said , to hold onto any proof of empirical evidence you must rob it from within the bounds of mircobiology and mircoevolution, which still remains encased inside the walls of biogenesis.
Now you are altering your position to claim that you do not need evidence supporting the gestation of lineage in support of your entire theory, that you have empirically proven that evolution must be correct because someone has an "idea" that all creatures were self generated and that proof is found from current time and is reproducible and observed in nature NOW.
As I said please present the evidence of species breach,
or even the empirical evidence that man has evolved within his own species.
You can not "empirically" prove the exact time line in which the remains was found,
you can not empirically prove that which was found is not a simple example of isolation induced inbreeding resulting in birthdefects of mutation of "normal" humans.
You can only "hypothetically" suggest that the theorized methodology of radiometric dating is accurate, because C14 dating is only valid to its projected half-life, you can not prove it to be such, only suggest that it is truth.
Yet you want to call this empirical proof of evolution? What makes this theory any more valid than MONOPHYLETIC theory? The only thing that makes it more valid is the bigotry, because its not the proof. In fact, I would suggest that the theory of evolution is founded upon the position of "RACISM".
Evolution must present the different races of man as "examples" of different branches of man's development along the evolutionary time line.
In doing this IT must present each race as unique to the other, with no commonality evident and provide such suggested "empirical" evidence as different levels of intellectual ability. It must present one race as the superior. Now just which race do think is implied as being "SUPERIOR"? The bigotry,
Do you recall if they ever went through with that request?????
:dunno:
Yes, they went through with the request after the Jews blew up the King David motel 42 years latter, which killed 80 British officers. I don't think the British were in to much of a hurry to see those Bible prophecies fulfilled.
You must have faith in the one true father, Thor. You will only find eveidence for him if you seek him with your heart and accept him as your lord. Just because you don't believe in him doesn't make him any less real. But if you don't believe in him you shall spend all of eternity in the otherworld in Hel's domain and she shall makith you her servants of torture and deception and then at the end of time you shall fight in the final battle of ragnorac, but it is up to you to decide which side you're on, and let me tell you Thor doesn't lose!
