Author Topic: Atheism/Agnosticism in the Philippines  (Read 79885 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline aHobbit

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • DVD Guru
  • ****
  • Posts: 1,256
  • Think HARDER - HOLLOW Heads! No FO0Ls Please!
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Atheism/Agnosticism in the Philippines
« Reply #150 on: Oct 17, 2009 at 02:03 AM »

I will be straightforward. I am a geologist and I'm not too familiar with the geology of the Grand Canyon because that is not my field of study. Other than that, I cannot give you my thoughts on those so-called geologic inconsistencies because they are way too vague. You did not even say what particular aspects of the Grand Canyon geology are mysterious and contradicting. And then you have the guts to come up with a "verdict" when the evidence was not even clearly presented?

Yes, during the early days of evolutionary geology, those two principles were the backbone of this emerging science. But that is sooooo 1800's! Science has drastically evolved since the days of Darwin. Modern paleontologists do not solely rely on those principles. The discovery of radioactivity opened the doors for absolute dating methods, which have been utilized by paleontologists. Developments in molecular biology has also allowed scientists to observe evolution at a microscopic scale, and more importantly in the scale of human lifetime.

I will not even comment on your global flood statement.



I can give you specifics if you want  :)

... and you are right, the more science unfolds so many mysteries ... as more fossils are discovered ... as science become more sophisticated ... and reasoning improved ... would you believe, the more the Big bang and Evolution became harder to believe? ... because by these time, those old assumptions where geology based their early conclusions and devices, and those old assumptions where BigBang/Evolution based their conclusions ... are little by little collapsing
Anti PDVD Malware (STUP1Ds & F0OLs)

Offline allanmandy

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • PinoyDVD Legend
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,497
  • Mathematical!
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Atheism/Agnosticism in the Philippines
« Reply #151 on: Oct 17, 2009 at 02:48 AM »
I can give you specifics if you want  :)

Yes, please post them here.



and those old assumptions where BigBang/Evolution based their conclusions ... are little by little collapsing

Or rather they are taking in new forms, branching and evolving into sounder ideas.



Offline indie boi

  • Kapitan
  • Trade Count: (+31)
  • PinoyDVD Legend
  • *****
  • Posts: 6,807
  • Twitter: @indieboi
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Atheism/Agnosticism in the Philippines
« Reply #152 on: Oct 17, 2009 at 02:50 AM »
Still waiting for that answer, aHobbit...

Offline Clondalkin

  • Trade Count: (+46)
  • PinoyDVD Legend
  • *****
  • Posts: 5,142
  • Tea the gift of life...
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Atheism/Agnosticism in the Philippines
« Reply #153 on: Oct 17, 2009 at 06:33 AM »
The hominid Ardi was discovered in Ethiopia recently which could indicate that apes evolved from man.  

The idea of the Big Bang was formulated based on the increasing knowledge of the expanding universe acquired in the last century or so through advancements in astronomy and cosmology.  It is the "beginning-of-time model" that best explains CMBR that was discovered in the 60s.   It is plausible to think that something huge and still expanding started from something very small and dense, with no reference to magic.

What's mind-boggling if I try to associate Intelligent Design with Godly Creation is, based on the belief that we are created in the image and likeness of Him, why start with a cell?


« Last Edit: Oct 17, 2009 at 07:18 AM by Clondalkin »

Offline tigkal

  • Trade Count: (+15)
  • Collector
  • **
  • Posts: 373
  • 9 going 10
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 24
Re: Atheism/Agnosticism in the Philippines
« Reply #154 on: Oct 17, 2009 at 08:25 AM »
97 of our DNA is the same as the chimp.If you look at it, a 3 percent difference is only needed for the chimp to become a man.. For me, I believe that someone tweaked the genes of an ape-man, to produce man. That is why the missing link cannot still be found,Some DNA from our creators were introduced to produce man. In fact it was written in the bible, we were made in their image.. which means some DNA from them were introduced. Based on available data, this is the most logical, for me.

Offline aHobbit

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • DVD Guru
  • ****
  • Posts: 1,256
  • Think HARDER - HOLLOW Heads! No FO0Ls Please!
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Atheism/Agnosticism in the Philippines
« Reply #155 on: Oct 17, 2009 at 10:31 AM »

Or rather they are taking in new forms, branching and evolving into sounder ideas.




On the contrary sir ... please see the greatest hoax of evolution ... the archeopterix, my post today 01:21 am ... made use of new developed devices and can validate forgeries in the evidences ... yeah, and I admit I have to be corrected that these evidences were categorized as science ... only they are HOAX!


Big Bang?

.   “Observations only recently made possible by improvements in astronomical instrumentation have put theoretical models of the Universe [the big bang] under intense pressure. The standard ideas of the 1980s about the shape and history of the Universe have now been abandoned—and cosmologists are now taking seriously the possibility that the Universe is pervaded by some sort of vacuum energy, whose origin is not at all understood.” Peter Coles, “The End of the Old Model Universe,” Nature, Vol. 393, 25 June 1998, p. 741.


“Astronomy, rather cosmology, is in trouble. It is, for the most part, beside itself. It has departed from the scientific method and its principles, and drifted into the bizarre; it has raised imaginative invention to an art form; and has shown a ready willingness to surrender or ignore fundamental laws, such as the second law of thermodynamics and the maximum speed of light, all for the apparent rationale of saving the status quo. Perhaps no ‘science’ is receiving more self-criticism, chest-beating, and self-doubt; none other seems so lost and misdirected; trapped in debilitating dogma.” Roy C. Martin Jr., Astronomy on Trial: A Devastating and Complete Repudiation of the Big Bang Fiasco (New York: University Press of America, 1999), p. xv.





What's mind-boggling if I try to associate Intelligent Design with Godly Creation is, ... why start with a cell?


exactly the subsequent line of reasoning ... which is the reason why the BigBang/Evolution thingie will try to evade to go the previous stage prior to the first cell ... because it is indeed inescapable logic ... from science point of view, and from philosophical point of view!


97 of our DNA is the same as the chimp.If you look at it, a 3 percent difference is only needed for the chimp to become a man.. For me, I believe that someone tweaked the genes of an ape-man, to produce man. That is why the missing link cannot still be found,Some DNA from our creators were introduced to produce man. In fact it was written in the bible, we were made in their image.. which means some DNA from them were introduced. Based on available data, this is the most logical, for me.

Yup ... and in the logical and scientific reasoning ... creation is closer an explanation to the accumulation of new discoveries and technological devices than the proposals of bigBang & Evolution from which many so called "atheist" stand.
« Last Edit: Oct 17, 2009 at 12:39 PM by aHobbit »
Anti PDVD Malware (STUP1Ds & F0OLs)

Offline indie boi

  • Kapitan
  • Trade Count: (+31)
  • PinoyDVD Legend
  • *****
  • Posts: 6,807
  • Twitter: @indieboi
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Atheism/Agnosticism in the Philippines
« Reply #156 on: Oct 17, 2009 at 11:00 AM »
Since you seem to be avoiding answering my question. I'll just assume that you believe in creation.

Can you explain, in your own, admittedly, unique grasp of logic and language, how Creation theory incorporates all of the "accumulation of new discoveries and technological devices" that we've been reading and being published in scholarly journals?

Offline indie boi

  • Kapitan
  • Trade Count: (+31)
  • PinoyDVD Legend
  • *****
  • Posts: 6,807
  • Twitter: @indieboi
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Atheism/Agnosticism in the Philippines
« Reply #157 on: Oct 17, 2009 at 11:56 AM »
I think if I remember right, the most baffling to the evolutionist is that when they saw human fossils side by side a creature believed to be million of years before man existed! How is that?

Let's run with this awe-inspiring proof of creation.

Let's suppose that Man was placed here on earth fully formed, without having undergone evolution. And the so-called proof is the "human fossils side by side a creature believed to million of years before man existed!". This, as you imply, would mean man had existed alongside dinosaurs, right?

Now can you tell me why the bible failed to mention dinosaurs? They're big-ass creatures, undeniable in their sheer size and enormity. You'd think a creature as huge as that would at least be mentioned in the bible even one teensy-weensy bit. Oh, and please don't tell me the serpent in the garden of Eden could be a dinosaur since it's a reptile, because that's just as preposterous as saying man co-existed with the T-rex.

Offline aHobbit

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • DVD Guru
  • ****
  • Posts: 1,256
  • Think HARDER - HOLLOW Heads! No FO0Ls Please!
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Atheism/Agnosticism in the Philippines
« Reply #158 on: Oct 17, 2009 at 12:15 PM »
Let's run with this awe-inspiring proof of creation.

Let's suppose that Man was placed here on earth fully formed, without having undergone evolution. And the so-called proof is the "human fossils side by side a creature believed to million of years before man existed!". This, as you imply, would mean man had existed alongside dinosaurs, right?

Now can you tell me why the bible failed to mention dinosaurs? They're big-ass creatures, undeniable in their sheer size and enormity. You'd think a creature as huge as that would at least be mentioned in the bible even one teensy-weensy bit. Oh, and please don't tell me the serpent in the garden of Eden could be a dinosaur since it's a reptile, because that's just as preposterous as saying man co-existed with the T-rex.


Actually I don't even need to go the Bible to prove otherwise your statement ... anyways, here are my replies, with personal compliment  ;)

(1) even if the bible recorded that, you will not believe biblical creation!
(2) the very proofs of evolutionist is not self-supporting
(3) the methodologies of evolutionist is questionable
(4) planets have not been mentioned in creation - inspite of being much larger than dinosaurs
(5) not writing about dinosaur does not impact on the credibility of the Bible, in comparison with the consistent inconsistencies with Evolutions

And yes, I will be branded to have sweeping statements again ... but will post here my basis, mahaba lang talaga ... so a little patience lang po. Sir, can you PM what site to store picture so I can present them here in the thread?

Anti PDVD Malware (STUP1Ds & F0OLs)

Offline aHobbit

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • DVD Guru
  • ****
  • Posts: 1,256
  • Think HARDER - HOLLOW Heads! No FO0Ls Please!
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Atheism/Agnosticism in the Philippines
« Reply #159 on: Oct 17, 2009 at 12:18 PM »
An evolutionist 70M year-old fish fossils found - but were caught existing in Indian Ocean!

70,000,000-Year-Old Fish? Thought to have been extinct for 70,000,000 years, the coelacanth (SEE-la-kanth) was first caught in 1938, deep in the Indian Ocean, northwest of Madagascar. Rewards were then offered for coelacanths, so hundreds were caught and sold. In 1998, they were also found off the coast of Indonesia.c How could two groups of coelacanths, separated by 6,000 miles, survive for 70,000,000 years but leave no fossils?

Before coelacanths were caught, evolutionists incorrectly believed that the coelacanth had lungs, a large brain, and four bottom fins about to evolve into legs.d Evolutionists reasoned that the coelacanth, or a similar fish, crawled out of a shallow sea and filled its lungs with air, becoming the first four-legged land animal. Millions of students have been incorrectly taught that this fish was the ancestor of all amphibians, reptiles, dinosaurs, birds, and mammals, including people. (Was your ancestor a fish?)

J. L. B. Smith, a well-known fish expert from South Africa, studied the first two captured coelacanths, nicknamed the coelacanth “Old Fourlegs” and wrote a book by that title in 1956. When dissected, did they have lungs and a large brain? Not at all.e Furthermore, in 1987, a German team filmed six coelacanths in their natural habitat. They were not crawling on all fours.

Before living coelacanths were found in 1938, evolutionists dated any rock containing a coelacanth fossil as at least 70,000,000 years old. It was an index fossil. Today, evolutionists frequently express amazement that coelacanth fossils look so much like captured coelacanths—despite more than 70,000,000 years of evolution.g If that age is correct, billions of coelacanths would have lived and died. Some should have been fossilized in younger rock and should be displayed in museums. Their absence implies that coelacanths have not lived for 70,000,000 years.
« Last Edit: Oct 17, 2009 at 12:20 PM by aHobbit »
Anti PDVD Malware (STUP1Ds & F0OLs)

Offline aHobbit

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • DVD Guru
  • ****
  • Posts: 1,256
  • Think HARDER - HOLLOW Heads! No FO0Ls Please!
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Atheism/Agnosticism in the Philippines
« Reply #160 on: Oct 17, 2009 at 12:22 PM »
a 240M years trilobite fossils side by side with human foot print fossils

Humanlike Footprints with Trilobite. In 1968, 43 miles northwest of Delta, Utah, William J. Meister found this and other apparent human shoe prints inside a 2-inch-thick slab of rock. Also in that slab were obvious trilobite fossils, one of which was squashed under the “heel.” The 10-inch-long shoe print is at the left, and its rock mold is to its right. According to evolutionists, trilobites became extinct 240 million years before humans evolved. Notice how the back of the heel is worn, just as most of our shoes wear today. The heel was indented in the rock about an eighth of an inch deeper than the sole. Others have since made similar discoveries at this location, although this is the only fossil where a trilobite was inside an apparent shoe print.
Anti PDVD Malware (STUP1Ds & F0OLs)

Offline indie boi

  • Kapitan
  • Trade Count: (+31)
  • PinoyDVD Legend
  • *****
  • Posts: 6,807
  • Twitter: @indieboi
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Atheism/Agnosticism in the Philippines
« Reply #161 on: Oct 17, 2009 at 12:42 PM »
(4) planets have not been mentioned in creation - inspite of being much larger than dinosaurs

So having said that, do planets exist? It wasn't mentioned in the bible, right?

You see, you've already reinforced the argument AGAINST using the bible as the basis for scientific thought.

To cite Fr. George Coyne of the Vatican Observatory once again -- the bible is a book of faith. It is not a book on science. The bible was written way before the coming of the scientific age. It is PREPOSTEROUS to base scientific thought on a book that obviously was never written to include any of these things. That came from a priest already, a man of faith who knows the difference between his religion and his science.

And regarding Evolution. You are looking at it from an extremely linear point of view -- A became B became C. That is a totally flawed view of how evolution happens. Even my five year old knows about evolution and he never gets confused about why apes live alongside humans.

The example you cite of a trilobite fossil is intriguing because I'm also into this kind of stuff, but to base your entire belief in this and throw away a perfectly sound theory is as crazy sounding as humans just spontaneously appearing on Earth fully formed and carrying a whole set of skills and experience to actually start writing the book of Genesis.
« Last Edit: Oct 17, 2009 at 12:43 PM by indie boi »

Offline Verbl Kint

  • Trade Count: (+18)
  • PinoyDVD Legend
  • *****
  • Posts: 4,018
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 265
Re: Atheism/Agnosticism in the Philippines
« Reply #162 on: Oct 17, 2009 at 12:50 PM »
So what if a trilobite, coelacanth, etc, have thrived even up to this day? If I were to see an archaeopteryx perch on my window sill, I should start to believe in biblical creation?


Actually I don't even need to go the Bible to prove otherwise your statement ... anyways, here are my replies, with personal compliment  ;)

(2) the very proofs of evolutionist is not self-supporting

There are no such thing as Evolutionists. You make it sound like it's a cult or ideology that you need to prescribe to because it is scientific fact. There is such a thing as Creationists.  

(3) the methodologies of evolutionist is questionable

And the inherent knowledge of biblical authors who lived a few millenia ago are not? This belief is horribly archaic, even the 21st century Vatican believes that exegesis takes precedence over a literal interpretation.  

What difference does the Old Testament have over say, Gilgamesh?

(4) planets have not been mentioned in creation - inspite of being much larger than dinosaurs
(5) not writing about dinosaur does not impact on the credibility of the Bible, in comparison with the consistent inconsistencies with Evolutions

The bible, being primarily religious text and pseudo-historical sagas, are riddled with inconsistencies, just like other epics throughout history.  

Offline sardaukar

  • Kagawad
  • Trade Count: (+12)
  • DVD Guru
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,775
  • Don't Panic!
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Atheism/Agnosticism in the Philippines
« Reply #163 on: Oct 17, 2009 at 12:57 PM »
@aHobbit

Would you mind if we pin down your beliefs?

How old do you believe the earth is? Just a range would be fine.

How long do you believe man has been on this earth? Again a range would be fine.

Do you believe that animals that are no longer alive were alive at one time in the past? Like dinosaurs and mammoths.

Do you believe that all animals alive (and no longer alive if you believe in them) were all created by God individually? That is, a horse and a donkey, a tiger and a lion, a dog and a wolf were all created seperately.

Do you believe in Noah's Ark and the flood or was that merely an allegory? And if you believe in it did it kill everything on earth except those who were on the ark (except water dwellers of course)?

I think you've answered this but I'd like to clarify. Do you believe in the Adam and Eve story? That God created man and then Eve from his ribs. And then that they were expelled from Eden after eating the fruit and then populated the earth. Or was that merely an allegory?


It would really help to know where you are coming from.

Offline aHobbit

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • DVD Guru
  • ****
  • Posts: 1,256
  • Think HARDER - HOLLOW Heads! No FO0Ls Please!
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Atheism/Agnosticism in the Philippines
« Reply #164 on: Oct 17, 2009 at 12:59 PM »

Can you explain, in your own, admittedly, unique grasp of logic and language, how Creation theory incorporates all of the "accumulation of new discoveries and technological devices" that we've been reading and being published in scholarly journals?



The proofs are voluminous … but will try just one classic example … proving Evolutionist/BigBang somehow more dubious and … creation somehow more credible … through geology (sir allanmandy – can give you more sa email na lang dami kasi eh; sir indie boi – as requested)

Techniques That Argue for an Old Earth Are Either Illogical or Based on Unreasonable Assumptions.

A Note of Caution: To date an event or thing that preceded written records, one must assume that the dating clock has operated at a known rate, that the clock’s initial setting is known, and that the clock has not been disturbed. These three assumptions are almost always unstated, overlooked, or invalid.

Corals and Caves
Estimated old ages for the Earth are frequently based on “clocks” that today are ticking at extremely slow rates. For example, coral growth rates were thought to have always been very slow, implying that some coral reefs must be hundreds of thousands of years old. More accurate measurements of these rates under favorable growth conditions now show that no known coral formation need be older than 3,400 years. A similar comment can be made for growth rates of stalactites and stalagmites in caves.

Radiometric Dating: Contradictions and Key Assumption
The public has been greatly misled concerning the consistency and trustworthiness of radiometric dating techniques (such as the potassium-argon method, the rubidium-strontium method, and the uranium-thorium-lead method). For example, geologists hardly ever subject their radiometric age measurements to “blind tests.” In science, such tests are a standard procedure for overcoming experimenter bias. Many published radiometric dates can be checked by comparisons with the evolution-based ages for fossils that sometimes lie above or below radiometrically dated rock. In more than 400 of these published checks (about half of those sampled), the radiometrically determined ages were at least one geologic age in error—indicating major errors in methodology and understanding. One wonders how many other dating checks were not even published because they, too, were in error.

A major assumption underlying all radioactive dating techniques is that decay rates, which have been essentially constant over the past 100 years, have also been constant over the past 4,600,000,000 years. This is a huge and critical assumption that few have questioned. Several lines of evidence show that radioactive decay rates were once much faster than they are today. A case can be made that earth’s radioisotopes quickly formed and that most decayed at the beginning of a global flood.

Index Fossils
In the early 1800s, some observers in Western Europe noticed that certain fossils are usually preserved in sedimentary rock layers that, when traced laterally, typically lie above somewhat similar fossils. Decades later, after the theory of evolution was proposed, many concluded that the lower organism must have evolved before the upper organism. These early geologists did not realize that a hydrodynamic mechanism, liquefaction, helped sort organisms in that order during the flood.  Geologic ages were then associated with each of these “index fossils.” Those ages were extended to other animals and plants buried in the same layer as the index fossil. For example, a coelacanth fossil, an index fossil, dates its layer at 70,000,000 to 400,000,000 years old. Today, geologic formations are almost always dated by their fossil content—which, as stated above, assumes evolution. Yet, evolution is supposedly shown by the sequence of fossils. Because this reasoning is circular, many discoveries, such as living coelacanths, were unexpected.  

Geologic Column
Practically nowhere on Earth can one find the so-called “geologic column.”aMost “geologic periods” are missing at most continental locations. Only 15–20% of Earth’s land surface has even one-third of these periods in the correct order.b Even within the Grand Canyon, 150 million years of this imaginary column are missing. Using the assumed geologic column to date fossils and rocks is fallacious.

Old DNA, Bacteria, and Proteins?
DNA. When an animal or plant dies, its DNA begins decomposing. Before 1990, almost no one believed that DNA could last 10,000 years.This limit was based on measuring DNA disintegration rates in well-preserved specimens of known age such as Egyptian mummies. DNA has now been reported in supposedly 17-million-year-old magnolia leaves and 11-to-425-million-year-old salt crystals. Dozens of plants and animals have left their DNA in sediments claimed to be 30,000–400,000 years old. DNA fragments are also said to be in alleged 80-million-year-old dinosaur bones buried in a coal bedf and in the scales of a 200-million-year-old fossilized fish. DNA is frequently reported in insects and plants encased in amber, both assumed to be 25–120 million years old

These discoveries have forced evolutionists to reexamine the 10,000-year limit. They now claim that DNA can be preserved longer if conditions are dryer, colder, and freer of oxygen, bacteria, and background radiation. However, measured disintegration rates of DNA, under these more ideal conditions, do not support this claim.

Bacteria. Even living bacterial spores have been recovered, cultured, and identified in intestines of bees preserved in supposedly 25–40-million-year-old amber. The same bacteria, Bacillus, have been found alive in rocks allegedly 250 million and 650 million years old. Italian scientists have recovered 78 different types of dormant, but living, bacteria in two meteorites that are presumed to be 4.5 billion years old. Anyone who accepts such old ages for these rocks must also accept that some bacteria are practically immortal—an obviously absurd conclusion. (Because these “old” bacteria and the various DNA specimens closely match those of today, little evolution has occurred.)

Proteins. Evolutionists face similar contradictions with proteins, soft tissue, and blood compounds preserved in dinosaur bones. As with DNA, these remains should not last 70–150 million years, as is claimed for those bones.  All this should discredit these old ages.

Parallel Layers
Because no worldwide or even continental unconformity exists in earth’s sedimentary layers, those layers must have been deposited rapidly. (Anunconformity represents a time break of unknown duration—for example, an erosional surface between two adjacent strata.) Parallel layers (calledconformities) imply continuous, relatively rapid deposition. Because unconformities are simply local phenomena, one can trace continuous paths, which sometimes move horizontally, from the bottom to the top of the stratigraphic record that avoid these time breaks. The sedimentary layers along those paths must have been deposited rapidly and continuously as a unit

Frequently, two adjacent and parallel sedimentary layers contain such different index fossils that evolutionists conclude they were deposited hundreds of millions of years apart. However, because the adjacent layers are conformable, they must have been deposited without interruption or erosion. Often, in sequences showing no sign of disturbance, the layer considered older by evolutionists is on top! Evolutionary dating rules are self-contradictory.
« Last Edit: Oct 17, 2009 at 01:01 PM by aHobbit »
Anti PDVD Malware (STUP1Ds & F0OLs)

Offline aHobbit

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • DVD Guru
  • ****
  • Posts: 1,256
  • Think HARDER - HOLLOW Heads! No FO0Ls Please!
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Atheism/Agnosticism in the Philippines
« Reply #165 on: Oct 17, 2009 at 01:12 PM »
Most Scientific Dating Techniques Indicate That the Earth, Solar System, and Universe Are Young.

For the last 150 years, the age of the Earth, as assumed by evolutionists, has been doubling at roughly a rate of once every 15 years. In fact, since 1900 this age has multiplied by a factor of 100!

Evolution requires an old Earth, an old solar system, and an old universe. Nearly all informed evolutionists will admit that without billions of years their theory is dead. Yet, hiding the “origins question” behind a vast veil of time makes the unsolvable problems of evolution difficult for scientists to see and laymen to imagine. Our media and textbooks have implied for over a century that these almost unimaginable ages are correct. Rarely do people examine the shaky assumptions and growing body of contrary evidence. Therefore, most people today almost instinctively believe that the Earth and universe are billions of years old. Sometimes, these people are disturbed, at least initially, when they see the evidence.

Actually, most dating techniques indicate that the Earth and solar system are young —possibly less than 10,000 years old.  Here are some of these points of evidence.

Helium
One product of radioactive decay within rocks is helium, a light gas. This helium enters the atmosphere at a much faster rate than helium escapes the atmosphere. (Large amounts of helium should not escape into outer space, even when considering helium’s low atomic weight.)  Radioactive decay of only uranium and thorium would produce all the atmosphere’s helium in only 40,000 years.  Therefore, the atmosphere appears to be young.a

Lead and Helium Diffusion
Lead diffuses (or leaks) from zircon crystals at known rates that increase with temperature. Because these crystals are found at different depths in the Earth, those at greater depths and temperatures should have less lead. If the Earth’s crust is just a fraction of the age claimed by evolutionists, measurable differences in the lead content of zircons should exist in the top 4,000 meters. Instead, no measurable difference is found.a
Similar conclusions are reached based on the helium content in these same zircon crystals.b Because helium escapes so rapidly and so much helium is still in zircons, they (and the Earth’s crust) must be less than 10,000 years old.c Furthermore, the radioactive decay that produced all that helium must have happened quite rapidly, because the helium is trapped in youngzircons.

Excess Fluid Pressure
Abnormally high oil, gas, and water pressures exist within relatively permeable rock.a If these fluids had been trapped more than 10,000 to 100,000 years ago, leakage would have dropped these pressures far below what they are today. This oil, gas, and water must have been trapped suddenly and recently.b

River Sediments
More than 27 billion tons of river sediments enter the oceans each year. Probably the rate of sediment transport was much greater in the past as the looser topsoil was removed and as erosion smoothed out Earth’s terrain. Even if erosion has been constant, the sediments now on the ocean floor would have accumulated in only 30 million years. No process has been proposed which can remove 27 billion tons of ocean sediments each year.  So, the oceans cannot be hundreds of millions of years old.a

Shallow Meteorites
Meteorites are steadily falling onto Earth. This rate was probably much greater in the past, because planets have swept from the solar system much of the original meteoritic material. Therefore, experts have expressed surprise that meteorites are almost always found in young sediments, very near Earth’s surface.a Even meteoritic particles in ocean sediments are concentrated in the topmost layers.b If Earth’s sediments, which average about a mile in thickness on the continents, were deposited over hundreds of millions of years, as evolutionists believe, we would expect to find many deeply buried iron meteorites. Because this is not the case, the sediments were probably deposited rapidly, followed by “geologically recent” meteorite impacts. Also, because no meteorites are found directly above the basement rocks on which these sediments rest, these basement rocks were not exposed to meteoritic bombardment for any great length of time.
Similar observations can be made concerning ancient rock slides. Rock slides are frequently found on Earth’s surface, but are generally absent from supposedly old rock.c

Moon Recession
As tidal friction gradually slows Earth’s spin, the laws of physics require the Moon to recede from Earth. (Edmond Halley first detected this recession in 1695.) Even if the Moon began orbiting near Earth’s surface, the Moon should have moved to its present distance from Earth in billions of years less time than the 4.5-billion-year age evolutionists assume for the Earth and Moon. So, the Earth-Moon system must be much younger than most evolutionists assume.

Supernova Remnants
In galaxies similar to our Milky Way Galaxy, a star will explode violently every 26 years or so.a These explosions, called supernovas, produce gas and dust that expand outward thousands of miles per second. With radio telescopes, these remnants in our galaxy should be visible for a million years. However, only about 7,000 years’ worth of supernova debris are seen.b  So, the Milky Way looks young.
Anti PDVD Malware (STUP1Ds & F0OLs)

Offline aHobbit

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • DVD Guru
  • ****
  • Posts: 1,256
  • Think HARDER - HOLLOW Heads! No FO0Ls Please!
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Atheism/Agnosticism in the Philippines
« Reply #166 on: Oct 17, 2009 at 01:26 PM »
@aHobbit

Would you mind if we pin down your beliefs?
- you dont have to do this - isn't it clear enough? However, I dont want to prove creation through religious stuff - let's make it scientific and logical!

How old do you believe the earth is? Just a range would be fine.
- AM sorry not to give you an estimate of the earth's age. However, in my guess work following biblical time lines, humans will not be more than 7000 years

How long do you believe man has been on this earth? Again a range would be fine.
- answered above

Do you believe that animals that are no longer alive were alive at one time in the past? Like dinosaurs and mammoths.
- yes, it is proven - so this is not a matter of belief! - Science I would say!

Do you believe that all animals alive (and no longer alive if you believe in them) were all created by God individually? That is, a horse and a donkey, a tiger and a lion, a dog and a wolf were all created seperately.
- of course!

Do you believe in Noah's Ark and the flood or was that merely an allegory? And if you believe in it did it kill everything on earth except those who were on the ark (except water dwellers of course)?
- want to see some Noah's ark footage?  ;) ; Based on science findings (evidences of fossils), most probably - but whether it is all, I have not read scientific evidence to that effect. However, analyzing biblical account, it says yes! I believe the account without thinking  ;D

I think you've answered this but I'd like to clarify. Do you believe in the Adam and Eve story? That God created man and then Eve from his ribs. And then that they were expelled from Eden after eating the fruit and then populated the earth. Or was that merely an allegory?
- if it is a matter of belief, Yes, Adam & Eve is true - Eve composition is based on Adam's rib (not ribs  ;) ), and they were removed from the paradise, and populated the earth.

It would really help to know where you are coming from.

« Last Edit: Oct 17, 2009 at 01:28 PM by aHobbit »
Anti PDVD Malware (STUP1Ds & F0OLs)

Offline aHobbit

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • DVD Guru
  • ****
  • Posts: 1,256
  • Think HARDER - HOLLOW Heads! No FO0Ls Please!
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Atheism/Agnosticism in the Philippines
« Reply #167 on: Oct 17, 2009 at 01:59 PM »

So what if a trilobite, coelacanth, etc, have thrived even up to this day? If I were to see an archaeopteryx perch on my window sill, I should start to believe in biblical creation?


Nothing  :D ... I know even if you, or atheists who have not checked the foundation of their evolutionistic stand, are awash with so many evidences pointing to the Biblical creation, you will not believe it!  ;D



There are no such thing as Evolutionists. You make it sound like it's a cult or ideology that you need to prescribe to because it is scientific fact. There is such a thing as Creationists.  



I have not read your declaration in my readings ... I read books of evolutionists!



And the inherent knowledge of biblical authors who lived a few millenia ago are not? This belief is horribly archaic, even the 21st century Vatican believes that exegesis takes precedence over a literal interpretation.  

Sorry ... am not an agent of vatican ... and I dont subscribe to their dogmas ... That's why some of them do not believe in Biblical creation ... probably some of them also do not believe in the existense of Jesus ... what do you think of their purgatory? ... crusades? ... inquisitions? ... sorry for being OT here ... How can you identify a tree ... by its fruits!  ;)



What difference does the Old Testament have over say, Gilgamesh?


I have not digged on Gilgamesh ... but will post once I had the time to check on him  ;)



The bible, being primarily religious text and pseudo-historical sagas, are riddled with inconsistencies, just like other epics throughout history.  


Oh really? Have you read it cover to cover? ... I did! ... perhaps you can give one pronounced inconsistency for the benefit of the reading public so they can assess your assertion ... Of course, I will answer if it is within my reading history ... Though I am sure also that even if the bible is proven consistent, more consistent than your evolution, you will not believe in it and rather believe in evolution!


« Last Edit: Oct 17, 2009 at 02:12 PM by aHobbit »
Anti PDVD Malware (STUP1Ds & F0OLs)

Offline indie boi

  • Kapitan
  • Trade Count: (+31)
  • PinoyDVD Legend
  • *****
  • Posts: 6,807
  • Twitter: @indieboi
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Atheism/Agnosticism in the Philippines
« Reply #168 on: Oct 17, 2009 at 02:34 PM »
Nothing  :D ... I know even if you, or atheists who have not checked the foundation of their evolutionistic stand, are awash with so many evidences pointing to the Biblical creation, you will not believe it!  ;D

Frankly, this is a copout. It's not a valid argument at all.

Offline aHobbit

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • DVD Guru
  • ****
  • Posts: 1,256
  • Think HARDER - HOLLOW Heads! No FO0Ls Please!
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Atheism/Agnosticism in the Philippines
« Reply #169 on: Oct 17, 2009 at 02:36 PM »
So having said that, do planets exist? It wasn't mentioned in the bible, right?

You see, you've already reinforced the argument AGAINST using the bible as the basis for scientific thought.



Sir Indie Boi ... you missed the point ... Did I use the bible to prove creation? The Bible is not science - it is a manuscript ...

A MANUSCRIPT THAT PLAINLY DECLARED THE BEGINNING - AS IN FOR SURE, WITHOUT ANY DOUBT CAST.


The more appropriate statement is that science agree with the Bible ... more than it agreed with evolution ...  

Or the Biblical account can be proven by Science, but evolution can not be proven by science!

Or the biblical account can be supported by philosophical reasoning but Evolution can not!



To cite Fr. George Coyne of the Vatican Observatory once again -- the bible is a book of faith. It is not a book on science. The bible was written way before the coming of the scientific age. It is PREPOSTEROUS to base scientific thought on a book that obviously was never written to include any of these things. That came from a priest already, a man of faith who knows the difference between his religion and his science.


I will not question his "faith"  ::) ... yeah ... I suddenly remember the inquisition for those earth flatters!   :D



And regarding Evolution. You are looking at it from an extremely linear point of view -- A became B became C. That is a totally flawed view of how evolution happens. Even my five year old knows about evolution and he never gets confused about why apes live alongside humans.


Did I? I beg your pardon ... I think the true evolutionists held that ... though somehow, they have to flip-flop!


The example you cite of a trilobite fossil is intriguing because I'm also into this kind of stuff, but to base your entire belief in this and throw away a perfectly sound theory is as crazy sounding as humans just spontaneously appearing on Earth fully formed and carrying a whole set of skills and experience to actually start writing the book of Genesis.


Since when Evolution and BigBang became sound theory? ... it is just a theory to be declared sound! Oh I get it. Yes it just sounds. No evidences ... oh sorry with believable evidences ... for so many years ... until proven a hoax!

And isn't it discomforting ... we have a God who can inform a writer how the earth was created in a more believable manner ... than those who have no God at all and made an artistic imagination?

Sorry ... OT again ... now lets go back to Science!

Science ... taking its trend of making the foundation of evolution thinner (my dating system) as evidences and more accurate technology is presented ... will wipe out to oblivion Evolution & Big bang theory ...  8)



« Last Edit: Oct 18, 2009 at 11:06 PM by aHobbit »
Anti PDVD Malware (STUP1Ds & F0OLs)

Offline indie boi

  • Kapitan
  • Trade Count: (+31)
  • PinoyDVD Legend
  • *****
  • Posts: 6,807
  • Twitter: @indieboi
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Atheism/Agnosticism in the Philippines
« Reply #170 on: Oct 17, 2009 at 02:43 PM »

Science ... taking its trend of making the foundation of evolution thinner (my dating system) as evidences and more accurate technology is presented ... will wipe out to oblivion Evolution & Big bang theory ...  8)


Wait, the dating system you presented here actually came from you?

Offline ralfy

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • DVD Guru
  • ****
  • Posts: 1,309
  • I am the Mountie!
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0

Offline Verbl Kint

  • Trade Count: (+18)
  • PinoyDVD Legend
  • *****
  • Posts: 4,018
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 265
Re: Atheism/Agnosticism in the Philippines
« Reply #172 on: Oct 18, 2009 at 12:20 AM »
It might be better to just give the links. For example,

http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/AstroPhysicalSciences32.html

http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/AstroPhysicalSciences23.html

Wiki entry:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walt_Brown_(creationist)



Walt Brown? A guy who founded his own ministry and who's expertise is not related to an earth science?

A hack who does not have any compelling scientific studies as proof of his creation "science"?

This is not proof.  This is more of a lampoon than anything else.  Please cite a true scientist.

Offline barrister

  • Trade Count: (+7)
  • PinoyDVD Legend
  • *****
  • Posts: 5,028
  • cessante ratione legis, cessat ipsa lex
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Atheism/Agnosticism in the Philippines
« Reply #173 on: Oct 18, 2009 at 12:58 AM »
I'm a creationist, but in this case I have to agree with sir Verbl Kint.

The Center for Scientific Creation is a religious ministry headed by Walt Brown, a YEC (Young Earth Creationist).

YEC is a pseudoscientific religious belief that God created the Earth in six 24-hour days, and that the earth is only 6,000 to 10,000 years old.

YECs claim that the lack of support for a Young Earth theory in professional science journals or among professional science organizations is due to discrimination and censorship.  However, the overwhelming scientific consensus is that YEC claims have no scientific basis.
« Last Edit: Oct 18, 2009 at 01:47 AM by barrister »

Offline aHobbit

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • DVD Guru
  • ****
  • Posts: 1,256
  • Think HARDER - HOLLOW Heads! No FO0Ls Please!
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Atheism/Agnosticism in the Philippines
« Reply #174 on: Oct 18, 2009 at 10:51 PM »
Walt Brown? A guy who founded his own ministry and who's expertise is not related to an earth science?

A hack who does not have any compelling scientific studies as proof of his creation "science"?

This is not proof.  This is more of a lampoon than anything else.  Please cite a true scientist.


That's why I did not quote Walt  ;) ... in fairness, I guess the guy is not proving creation through science ... what he does is try to take evidences that events in the bible took place ... so photos here, there, and everywhere ... and whether the photos are genuine as presented, I can not comment because I have no way to investigate its validity ... but since we want to be scientific here ... walt's works are irrelevant!



Wait, the dating system you presented here actually came from you?

 ;D

Yup ... kidding that if I calculate the DECAY in all the RADIO(TV)ACTIVE assumptions of evolutionists from the corrections it is getting from more recent archeological evidences, present life forms, and technological advances in tooling ... then I can calculate when all evolutionist false ASSUMPTIONS will be wiped out  ;D ... my dating technique  8)


It might be better to just give the links. For example,

http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/AstroPhysicalSciences32.html

http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/AstroPhysicalSciences23.html



Too many to digest ... One have to read many of them ... and be technical in each - too cumbersome actually ... some of them, am already familiar with since I was in HS, 32 years ago  :) ... it is better to get more understandable portion ... overall, a very in-depth articulation

It is also interesting to note in the maker of this site ... that he refuses to take religious evidences ... just stick to scientific findings to prove either evolution or creation ...




« Last Edit: Oct 18, 2009 at 11:17 PM by aHobbit »
Anti PDVD Malware (STUP1Ds & F0OLs)

Offline Klaus Weasley

  • Trade Count: (+16)
  • PinoyDVD Legend
  • *****
  • Posts: 8,702
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 512
Re: Atheism/Agnosticism in the Philippines
« Reply #175 on: Oct 19, 2009 at 12:38 AM »

It is also interesting to note in the maker of this site ... that he refuses to take religious evidences ... just stick to scientific findings to prove either evolution or creation ...


Because religion and science should not mix. Only stupid people do that. The Bible is NOT a historical or a scientific document. Teaching creationism as if it's a science is totally idiotic. It's okay to believe in evolution and be religious because a.) there is such a thing as "theistic evolution" which is simply "evolution is how God did it" which is the position of the Catholic Church and mainline Protestants and any religious person with a brain and b.) religion and science are two seperate entities.

Offline indie boi

  • Kapitan
  • Trade Count: (+31)
  • PinoyDVD Legend
  • *****
  • Posts: 6,807
  • Twitter: @indieboi
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Atheism/Agnosticism in the Philippines
« Reply #176 on: Oct 19, 2009 at 07:29 AM »
Ahobbit, I am getting this vibe that you are a Christian Scientist.

Offline aHobbit

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • DVD Guru
  • ****
  • Posts: 1,256
  • Think HARDER - HOLLOW Heads! No FO0Ls Please!
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Atheism/Agnosticism in the Philippines
« Reply #177 on: Oct 19, 2009 at 09:15 AM »
Because religion and science should not mix. Only stupid people do that. The Bible is NOT a historical or a scientific document. ... b.) religion and science are two seperate entities

Religion & science should not mix? Well, generally, this is correct ... however, will it be more palatable for us who believe in both science and religion ... that those two should not contradict each other? ... if your religion contradict science, then I think it is time to think harder!

and sorry about this ... is it not more ST*PID to believe in two contradicting beliefs ... ONE's RELIGION and SCIENCE?

The Bible contains historical events!


Teaching creationism as if it's a science is totally idiotic. It's okay to believe in evolution and be religious because a.) there is such a thing as "theistic evolution" which is simply "evolution is how God did it" which is the position of the Catholic Church and mainline Protestants and any religious person with a brain ...

Creationism is not science ... in the same way evolution is not a science ... what is science in both cases is when you gathered scientific evidences and performed scientific models to present either side ... So following your logic that says that teaching creationism as science is IDIOTIC ... then it follows that TEACHING EVOLUTION AS SCIENCE IS ALSO IDIOTIC ... in fact, MORE IDIOTIC than teaching creationism as science!



It's okay to believe in evolution and be religious because a.) there is such a thing as "theistic evolution" which is simply "evolution is how God did it" which is the position of the Catholic Church and mainline Protestants and any religious person with a brain and b.) religion and science are two seperate entities.

You should look deeper that being shallow how you take the original evolutionists ... theistic evolution is just an EVOLUTION in the belief of EVOLUTION theory ... for the simple reason that there are lots of inescapable false assumption built into the EVOLUTION theory ...

So some evolution believers has to water down some of its false assumption ... and as I said, as more evidences and proofs surface to strengthen biblical presentation of the beginning of life ... am afraid, the ultimate belief in evolution will suddenly become CREATIONIST EVOLUTION!  ;D


So again ... let us make some dating again  ;D  ;D ... the biblical presentation of the beginning of life has been unaltered even from the original manuscript of the bible (except of course for some verb tense, or exact words use to depict meaning in both aramaic and greek languages ... then translated to general english) in 1611 ... and has come into heavy attacks in 1800 due to a very limited scientific findings, experimentations, and articulation when the evolution theory came ...

But looking at the evolution theory ... it has to undergo continuous massive rewriting (and probably flip flopping) ... and try to evolve the belief in EVOLUTION as scientific findings, experimentations, and articulation became even more sophisticated ... perhaps they should issue complete list of ERRATUM in their previous publication so as to put the public informed (which I doubt they will do) ... talk about conspiracy of crooked scientists, blinded atheists and baseless evolutionist!


@Verbl Kint ... Sir, did not find reference of Gilgamesh in the Bible I am using ... though some references in the Internet ... did not care to dig anymore ... but I hope you can post what about Gilgamesh with this atheism and agnosticism discussion ... thanks

« Last Edit: Oct 19, 2009 at 09:56 AM by aHobbit »
Anti PDVD Malware (STUP1Ds & F0OLs)

Offline aHobbit

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • DVD Guru
  • ****
  • Posts: 1,256
  • Think HARDER - HOLLOW Heads! No FO0Ls Please!
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Atheism/Agnosticism in the Philippines
« Reply #178 on: Oct 19, 2009 at 09:29 AM »

It is possible to be consistent  ... whether belief whether is logical with all presented documentation ... whether ones science or ones personally-held belief about God and its corresponding basis.

Evolution theory is just like the book The Da Vinci Code that played on human reasoning ... having started with all unproven assumptions, made some conclusion which were interpreted by the reading/watching public as credible ... but looking back at the very foundation (premise or ground) of its case - it is hollow and will not stand on its own! ... an artistic product of one's idle imagination ... I am not surprised (an idle mind is satan's favorite workplace  ;D )
« Last Edit: Oct 19, 2009 at 10:00 AM by aHobbit »
Anti PDVD Malware (STUP1Ds & F0OLs)

Offline indie boi

  • Kapitan
  • Trade Count: (+31)
  • PinoyDVD Legend
  • *****
  • Posts: 6,807
  • Twitter: @indieboi
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Atheism/Agnosticism in the Philippines
« Reply #179 on: Oct 19, 2009 at 09:40 AM »
I don't think you got what I meant. :)