Thread: I will just leave this here...

Originally Posted by Euthanatos

Actually I found it to be extremely productive in forcing me to consider specifically where I fall between Theist and Atheist.

I know I hate religion and theology of all kinds in their political forms but am fascinated by their implications as to the psycho-cultural development of Mankind. I also know I don't believe that God doesn't exist (Nor do I deny his existence).

I do know that I have a few Ideas about God but that every time I try to put my finger on it disappears and every time I try to describe it I realize I am somehow wrong.

It's certainly not that I don't care. I can't stop thinking about the shit, not for the last 20 fucking years have I been able to let this obsession go. And still, I am unable to come close to defining it.

That said, if God cannot be defined, how can he be denied or disbelieved? Although I would surely agree with the denial of every written definition of God.

I would agree with most of what you said, though I can't really sympathize with what is outlined in read.

As for what is in blue, I think you should consider reading about Ignosticism.



One thing few people understand is that you can be different things towards different types of ideology. I'm a gnostic atheist when it comes to things like the christian bible, magic, wicca, other abraham based gods, other deities. I'm an agnostic atheist when it comes to definitions that are REALLY REALLY simplistic in nature about a god. One example of my agnosticism is the concept quiet a few people throw out around here in D.V. that God is "the all" though it seems since the word everything already exists, calling it "the all" is useless, or another example might be God is "the universe + 1." The sum of the parts of the universe equal something more than the universe or something like that.


As for Xaq, your video does not play, I think you were trying to make a point about "black and white" or something...but that kind of joke doesn't play when it comes to theistic or atheistic Ideals. You either agree or don't agree, which isn't the same as either agreeing that it is true or agreeing that it is false. Also, Xaq said once upon time he was a Panentheist (I think) so if you're interested in the universe + 1 philosophy, the universe is within God, go ask Xaq.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theological_noncognitivism

That one probably puts the finger on it the best (Or....rather removes all fingers LOL).

All in all, if I could label myself anything truly, It would be a Taoist and a student of Hermetic Philosophy and Principles.

And by 'Taoist' I certainly don't mean religious Taoist. I just like to read and contemplate the poetry of Lao Tzu. Although Religious Taoism has a few interesting rituals to develop one's spirituality that are worth noting.

You're certainly well versed in the many methods religous debate Sandform. I'm impressed. You furthermore can discuss the subject with a level head and intellectual critique, which is also very impressive.

What I do believe is that Godflobt (God, for lack of a better term...or THE ALL as referenced by the Kybalion) can be known but only in personal experience. One might relate one's experience to another as a guide toward another having a similar personal experience. However, even such experiences are limited aspects of that which is essentially limitless, infinate, and unquantifiable. To be consumed by the experience and deify it is essentially an 'ego trap'.

Originally Posted by Euthanatos

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theological_noncognitivism

That one probably puts the finger on it the best (Or....rather removes all fingers LOL).

All in all, if I could label myself anything truly, It would be a Taoist and a student of Hermetic Philosophy and Principles.

And by 'Taoist' I certainly don't mean religious Taoist. I just like to read and contemplate the poetry of Lao Tzu. Although Religious Taoism has a few interesting rituals to develop one's spirituality that are worth noting.

You're certainly well versed in the many methods religous debate Sandform. I'm impressed. You furthermore can discuss the subject with a level head and intellectual critique, which is also very impressive.

What I do believe is that Godflobt (God, for lack of a better term...or THE ALL as referenced by the Kybalion) can be known but only in personal experience. One might relate one's experience to another as a guide toward another having a similar personal experience. However, even such experiences are limited aspects of that which is essentially limitless, infinate, and unquantifiable. To be consumed by the experience and deify it is essentially an 'ego trap'.

I like toaism as well, some of the ideas are very interesting. I believe one of the philosophies it harbors is that things are made up of what they are, and what they aren't? For example... A cup is not just the cup, but the empty space inside of the cup as well. A concept that is intriguing to think about to say the least. Though there is some crazyness in the rest of the philosophies....

That cup thing is kind of the same as zen. Like the original type not the bullshit the west tries to put into it today.

I feel I need to ask why are you all talking about these different types of belief.
IMO you either believe in god (a god, any god or gods) or you don't. If you believe in any type of god you are theistic or religious and if you don't believe in any type of god whatsoever you are atheistic. Understanding the world and universe and the way we perceive things is not religious and it is not really belief it is something that you know.

Then of course there is agnostic which I think can fall under either.
If you believe there is a god but it can't be proved you are still theistic. (Most people who are fully following a religion, after a debate usually just conclude that "You just have to believe").
If you are uncertain as to whether there is a god and you acknowledge it can't be proved then you are atheistic. The only difference is that IF it WERE to be proved you would become theistic.

And just to throw some fuel on the fire....
IMO everything else that has been mentioned is just a way to further complicate the whole matter and those titles are for people who just can't admit that they believe in god and want to give themselves some sort of special title.

Originally Posted by Sandform

I like toaism as well, some of the ideas are very interesting. I believe one of the philosophies it harbors is that things are made up of what they are, and what they aren't? For example... A cup is not just the cup, but the empty space inside of the cup as well. A concept that is intriguing to think about to say the least. Though there is some crazyness in the rest of the philosophies....

Yeah, and I'm definitely crazy enough for it all to make sense.

Originally Posted by tommo

I feel I need to ask why are you all talking about these different types of belief.
IMO you either believe in god (a god, any god or gods) or you don't...

Then of course...


And just to throw some fuel on the fire....


IMO everything else that has been mentioned is just a way to further complicate the whole matter...

I'm not sure you're really achieving the simplification you set out to...

Understanding the world and universe and the way we perceive things is not religious and it is not really belief it is something that you know.

I would disagree. I would say it is something one DOES...

and those titles are for people who just can't admit that they believe in god and want to give themselves some sort of special title.

Egotism abounds the moment people start talking about God. Simplifying and generalizing are usually the most common forms of the ego expressing itself in this age-old debate. Seriously, if it were that damn simple people would have stopped debating it a LONG time ago.

Yeah I tried to make it really simple but then I realised it's not as simple as you do or you don't.
However what you said about if it was that simple people would have stopped debating it a long time ago, that is complete rubbish. To me it is so obvious that evolution is a fact, to other it is so obvious that ID must be true. Two people debating this could go on for centuries. (and they have as is very evident) It's a simple argument but it doesn't mean it will stop.

I don't see how simplifying something is the ego expressing itself. That just doesn't make any sense. Care to clarify/expand on that?

"The all" Problem: you cant have all with out its opposite, nothing. But you cant include nothing inside of the all. the truth is that there is two "alls". One counter acting the other. we think there is the physical universe and then there is our perceived universe, but that would be incorrect. Our "real/physical" universe is simply a perceived universe to "the other" and what our percived universe is is real to the other. Yea its a circle, duh what else would life be?

Care to clarify?
It seems to have nothing to do with what we're talking about. Mainly because it made no sense.

Originally Posted by tommo

Care to clarify?
It seems to have nothing to do with what we're talking about. Mainly because it made no sense.

it made no sence aka no point, just like a circle, that's life.

Ok, you're a troll. Ignoring.

Iminaluciddream is explaining vague abstract concepts about the behavior of the universe he isn't trolling you.

Try, www.Kybalion.org to understand what he is referring too. WHatever you do...don't go to the Summum...those fucks are just a BIT wierd. Don't say I didn't warn you.

Originally Posted by tommo

Yeah I tried to make it really simple but then I realised it's not as simple as you do or you don't.
However what you said about if it was that simple people would have stopped debating it a long time ago, that is complete rubbish. To me it is so obvious that evolution is a fact, to other it is so obvious that ID must be true. Two people debating this could go on for centuries. (and they have as is very evident) It's a simple argument but it doesn't mean it will stop.

I don't see how simplifying something is the ego expressing itself. That just doesn't make any sense. Care to clarify/expand on that?

A fact is something that has proof. Evidence and proof are not the same thing. Evolution has evidence supporting it but not cold hard proof. If it's so obvious to you then reproduce the proof supporting what you call 'fact'. That's the inherent argument you see. The burnden of proof is on the claimer. Like the burden of proof is on the prosecuting attourney in a court of law. Well...it SHOULD be anyway. When you move away from this you're approaching a witch hunt 1984.

Still, I've done the research myself and seen nothing I would count a 'proof' though I have seen lots of 'Evidence' to both sides of the argument. All-in-all argument is the function of the Ego truly. By asserting that YOUR (Identity) idea/theory/hypothesis is true. Where Pride enters the picture is when that ego refuses to accept reasonable argument against the proposed idea. Pride is a natural function of the ego. When one exaggerates this function and demands other people accept without question one's assertion without reasonable argument, burden of proof, and other practices of fair debate the Ego is inflated. It is this flaw that religion has executed (No pun intended...LOL) so many times before. Certain scientists are no less guilty of this action.

The ego is necessary to function and relate to one another. It gives us Identity. Without it we would be meaningless robots. Still, an overinflated ego infringes onthe space of other peoples ego. This is how fights and war start.

Once again, burden of proof. If you know that Evolution is a fact, show me the PROOF. I've seen teh evidence and read the arguments but I've not seen proof.

Originally Posted by tommo

Ok, you're a troll. Ignoring.

lol @ irony

The irony is that you're a troll and I didn't call you one?
Ok, troll.

Euthanatos - I'll look at that link later after I post so I'll just accept for a minute that Iminal wasn't trolling.

You say there is no 'proof' but that is where semantics come into play. I recently read an article in COSMOS (Australian science magazine) that basically outlines what I think scientists should do. Instead of saying 'theory of evolution' they should say 'law of evolution'. Why? Because it leaves the argument open to theists to say 'oh, it's just a theory'. They do this in numerous books and articles because most laymen think theory just means an idea with no proof at all. Scientists say 'theory' because in science you accept that there is no 'ultimate' proof. Because you never know when someone will find something else, destroying all other things we thought were true. In other words you keep an open mind and if something comes along disproving what you thought to be true you will acknowledge that.

Now if you have read up a lot about it as you say you will know all the evidence I could tell you already. For example there are bones and fossils of millions of years old all the way up until, well now.
I don't see how that is not evidence enough, Theists, mostly christians and catholics say god put them there to test us. That is not proof or evidence at all! It's a completely subjective idea which has no bearing.

So when you say the burden of proof is on the claimer, I know this, religious people are the ones that don't get that. They say 'prove to us that god doesn't exist'. So far they have NO proof or evidence at all.

Have you ever realised that a lot of theists trying to prove the existence of god use science? (or pseudo-science).
I speculate that this is becuase they know deep in their hearts that science is really the only way to prove something. This must mean that science is the true way.

Ok I get what you mean by the ego being abundant when we try to prove our beliefs. However I don't think that matters at all if it's true. It just provides us with a reason to keep arguing our point. But that is where, as I said before, Science is different, if we figure out that all physics, chemistry, evolution etc etc is completely wrong then we will admit it and change our 'beliefs' to fit that new finding.
If all religion was proven completely wrong, which it has been time and again, they will still hold to their beliefs. That is the ego playing too much of a role.
An example would be say, Christianity being proven wrong (I use this because it is the most known and debated religion). The atheist would boil the theist down until they are sure the theist has not a single rational argument left. Then the theist suddenly proclaims 'Oh, you just have to believe! We don't know how God works!'. What sort of an argument is that?
It's not, you can't argue with it.

Scientists and atheists have no problem with ego, it's the theists who fall into that category.

Originally Posted by tommo

The irony is that you're a troll and I didn't call you one?
Ok, troll.

lol @ insecurity

lol @ the fact that you're gonna be banned soon.

Ha ha! This made me lol.

Yeah, your ego is ALL OVER the board here. Namely because you do that very thing christians do. That very thing that Aetheist eve cartooon dissed the religio fanatics for. I said, Prove evolution and you said, Wel....I'm just going to start calling it a law so you can't argue with me anymore.

Let me make one of my favorite specific knocks on the THEORY of evolution.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_drift#cite_note-1

Read the part about Probablility and Allele frequency. What it's basically saying is that incest causes the genetic mutation that causes evolution. You've never been to Kentucky, eh?

I wasn't doing that, I was saying that it SHOULD be called the law because it has yet to be proven wrong and the word 'theory' leaves the attack open from theists which I mentioned before.

That thing has nothing to do with what you're saying because all it's saying is that when there is a large population, having a mutation isn't going to change as much as when there is a small population.
For example:
A population of 10 will be affected if one kid has a mutation because there is more chance of someone reproducing with that kid.
However in a population of 1 million, those couple of people with mutated genes aren't going to make as big of an impact. Especially because not everyone is going to reproduce.

So when we were monkeys, say, there were much less of us, allowing the mutants to have a greater effect. Now we are becoming larger in population there is less of an effect.
It's really just stating that there isn't a likelihood of us evolving further. Unless we get wiped out en masse.

In any case, it's not saying evolution is wrong lol.
It doesn't make a difference whether it happened from incest or whether we just had a couple mutants early on that reproduced and so on.

If you're saying that it can't be true because or else everyone would be retarded, that's false. I was thinking that the other day in fact, and wondering whether that could be a fault in evolution 'theory'.
However, incest doesn't result in obviously retarded people straight away. It can, but not often. It takes a few generations of reproducing to do that, usually 2 or 3. So if the first one had a mutation but it wasn't disabling then they would pass it on and then their kids would pass it on etc.

It could be anything that caused the mutation, just chance, like some people just happen to be born with 4 arms or two heads. Or the other two things I just mentioned are plausible too.
The thing is, it is obvious that it DID happen, it doesn't matter how, we have bones and fossils showing us that it happened. But of course scientists and people who like knowledge still want to know why.

Originally Posted by tommo

I wasn't doing that, I was saying that it SHOULD be called the law because it has yet to be proven wrong and the word 'theory' leaves the attack open from theists which I mentioned before.

Egotism resists criticism irrationality. While God has yet to proved...it also has yet to be disproved by science. The same holds true for the theroy of evolution.

That thing has nothing to do with what you're saying because all it's saying is that when there is a large population, having a mutation isn't going to change as much as when there is a small population.
For example:
A population of 10 will be affected if one kid has a mutation because there is more chance of someone reproducing with that kid.
However in a population of 1 million, those couple of people with mutated genes aren't going to make as big of an impact. Especially because not everyone is going to reproduce.

Right....I don't see how that isn't indicative of incest...

So when we were monkeys, say, there were much less of us, allowing the mutants to have a greater effect. Now we are becoming larger in population there is less of an effect.
It's really just stating that there isn't a likelihood of us evolving further. Unless we get wiped out en masse.

Which happens to be the exact Agenda of 'Sustainable Development' incidentally...

In any case, it's not saying evolution is wrong lol.
It doesn't make a difference whether it happened from incest or whether we just had a couple mutants early on that reproduced and so on.

Agreed.

If you're saying that it can't be true because or else everyone would be retarded, that's false. I was thinking that the other day in fact, and wondering whether that could be a fault in evolution 'theory'.
However, incest doesn't result in obviously retarded people straight away. It can, but not often. It takes a few generations of reproducing to do that, usually 2 or 3. So if the first one had a mutation but it wasn't disabling then they would pass it on and then their kids would pass it on etc.

I wonder what other mutations could be possible from incest...but I don't wonder it enough to have sex with my sister...

It could be anything that caused the mutation, just chance, like some people just happen to be born with 4 arms or two heads. Or the other two things I just mentioned are plausible too.
The thing is, it is obvious that it DID happen, it doesn't matter how, we have bones and fossils showing us that it happened. But of course scientists and people who like knowledge still want to know why.

It's just odd that it happens MORE OFTEN in smaller populations....which is EXACTLY what it says. It talks later on about preservation of those mutations but they are separate points.

However there are some points made by scientists who purport that no positive mutation can occur from mutation resulting from incest....Although I think their work was a little sketchy I'd have to go back and dig it up and reread it...it's been a while since I did my evolution research.

While I believe in certain things about the theory of evolution because it is completely OBVIOUS to me that THINGS CHANGE. I don't think that man came from Apes. I do however have a crazy creation theory that is something along the lines of having been created by Human races existing elsewhere in the universe using earth to recolonize. It's long, elaborate...and pretty delusional...but all in all plausible and not disprovable. I do however enjoy discussing it with open minded invidividuals who can offer fair criticism to the ideas I have as I purport them so that I may refine them....as I enjoy doing with all of my ideas.

It's just odd that it happens MORE OFTEN in smaller populations....which is EXACTLY what it says.

Yes it would happen more in a smaller population, I said why.
It is because more people would be having sex with their close relatives.

Egotism resists criticism irrationality. While God has yet to proved...it also has yet to be disproved by science. The same holds true for the theroy of evolution.

So what? I already said that. The Flying Spaghetti Monster has yet to be disproved as well.
I know what you're saying, it's that the evolution theory hasn't been proved or disproved and therefore it should be on the same level as god. But that's not the case. Evolution has at least some evidence. Religion has none.

Please, tell us your idea of how we got here. Sounds a lot like scientology to me but of course I can't know yet.
Oh and....
Why don't you think we came from apes? Why don't you think the fossil evidence is enough?

Actually...it is a bit like scientology....except I'm not asking you for money and promising to be able to fix all of your problems.

The existence of the flying spaghetti monster is therefore not a fact. If this doesn't make my point let me know and I'll be alittle more direct about how your metaphor relates to God & Evolution.

Actually, religion has lots of evidence. What that evidence suggests is subject to interpretation. Most fossil evidence is dubious at best. My biggest problem with the theory of evolution is the timeline. Namley dinosaurs and man existed together. There is evidence that proves this FACT. That suggests that the billions of years is rediculously exaggerated. Even Millions of years seems exaggerated and arbitrary. Carbon-14 dating has been proved to be a joke with a very huge margin of error. It notes variations in certain layers of the earth and the dating scheme is completely arbitrary for those layers so carbon dating is really just a monkey on the back of the fossil-layer circular logic bit.

While I'm not inclined to believe that the earth magickally popped into existence 6000 years ago....There is a LOT more going on here than a handful of accidents based on fortged evidence of 'stages' between ape-man evolution.

Furthermore the APE-MAN theory is directly refuted from within evolution's own logic and argument. The apes would be gone by now if we were the evolution because the superior race would not only have survived natural events beyond the capability of the apes but also commited genocide against competing races.

This is evidenced in todays culture whom, despite espousing tolerance and harmony between races, elects world leaders of the most racist varieties. Don't even get me started on the current election...I'm still formulating a variety of wacky conspiracies about the implication of this recent turn of events. Mostly the Manchurian Candidate bit which I've been pretty convinced of since early this summer when everyone told me I was crazy because I knew Obama would get elected. They also tell me I'm crazy when I'm sure he'll be assasinated to put his former Drug Czar VP into a facist dictatorship. But I digress....as if these things were entirely unrelated...Wake up.

I actually think it is a conspiracy believe it or not. Well, at least I have a gut feeling that it is. Maybe that's just because of Americas past though.

Anyway, I can see that you don't understand evolution quite so well.
There are many different types of Apes no?
We were just one kind who happened to get past the rest with mutations that were helpful to us. There were another species that got pretty far too, the Neanderthals. The rest of the apes just haven't evolved yet and probably won't considering the state of this planet.
The reason we didn't kill them ALL is because it is extremely hard. WE have only now started killing lots of species because we are fucking up the entire Earth, not killing them one by one.

At no point do any evolutionists say that dinosaur and man existed together lol. That's Christianity.

Carbon dating, I'll agree with you on that one. It is not completely reliable and there is also another type of testing like that which I can't remember what it's called but they are both a tad unreliable. But they are able to get within the thousands of year range. Some might be off but you get an average when you test multiple samples, you see. Plus how can you expect it to be precise, when you think about it getting within that range is pretty damn good, and using both those techniques together makes it more accurate and reliable.
They can't test anything past 60,000 years before now I think, because Carbon-14 is too degraded after that. Which is it's downfall, but it still is good to show that there are bones that old. This does PROVE that at least Catholicism and Christianity etc. are wrong. Because their date for the start of the world was around 6000 years. (someone worked that out with all the dates in the christian/catholic bible).

They tested radiocarbon dating by comparing their results with things like rings on trees and such which we KNOW are an indication of age that is reliable. They know anything with high carbon-14 is from when man started technology.

Actually, religion has lots of evidence. What that evidence suggests is subject to interpretation.

What are those facts? You're saying they're more reliable than sciences evidence?
They are nothing compared to the torrents of evidence evolution has. And they only have to go back a few thousand years!

The existence of the flying spaghetti monster is therefore not a fact.

What do you mean it is therefore not a fact? You didn't say anything to warrant saying that it is 'therefore not a fact'.

Also, the fossil evidence isn't as dubious as you think. It's actually quite complete. Hundreds of thousands of fossils up to billions of years old http://www.livescience.com/environme...matolites.html

I just don't get how you can not see it is true. Look at us.
Black people don't have white babies.

If we have these genes and from historical evidence of fossils/bones and pre-homosapien animals (things they used to survive) we can see that they did as well. What are the chances that it is all just coincidence?
That's the only way you can deny that we came from apes. Without ignoring the facts of course.

Originally Posted by tommo

I actually think it is a conspiracy believe it or not. Well, at least I have a gut feeling that it is. Maybe that's just because of Americas past though.

Anyway, I can see that you don't understand evolution quite so well.
There are many different types of Apes no?

But they are all that...Apes...and ALL of those apes have those same two missing gene potentials. Adding more genes is something the scientific community has neither accomplish nor witnessed ever. It is THEORY with no information on which to build a hypothesis to construct a test. Therefore there is actually NO EVIDENCE to suggest that it is even possible for this to occur (APE>Man).

We were just one kind who happened to get past the rest with mutations that were helpful to us. There were another species that got pretty far too, the Neanderthals. The rest of the apes just haven't evolved yet and probably won't considering the state of this planet.

Burden of proof is on the asserter. Refer me to the evidence of Neanderthals please. Their existence has not been proven.

The reason we didn't kill them ALL is because it is extremely hard. WE have only now started killing lots of species because we are fucking up the entire Earth, not killing them one by one.

Also not true. Extinction of species is a natural occurrence. This idea you hold that what we witness today a crime of man isn't entirely true even though our actions have made it difficult for some animals to survive. in other words...just because we're killing species of animals...doesn't mean that it hasn't happen naturally.

At no point do any evolutionists say that dinosaur and man existed together lol. That's Christianity.

You're quite right. The evidence supporting this has been suppressed by the scientific community...I wonder why.

Carbon dating, I'll agree with you on that one. It is not completely reliable and there is also another type of testing like that which I can't remember what it's called but they are both a tad unreliable. But they are able to get within the thousands of year range. Some might be off but you get an average when you test multiple samples, you see. Plus how can you expect it to be precise, when you think about it getting within that range is pretty damn good, and using both those techniques together makes it more accurate and reliable.

FOR WHAT? We have no REFERENCE point to assert that something is X years old. Furthermore the carbon dating is off by up to a HUNDRED THOUSANDS YEARS. Blind tests on modern objects reflect an insane variety of results.

They can't test anything past 60,000 years before now I think, because Carbon-14 is too degraded after that. Which is it's downfall, but it still is good to show that there are bones that old.

The science of carbon 14 dating is baseless because their is no reference point to verify it's accuracy. The test results of Carbon-14 is comletely meaningless to begin with.

This does PROVE that at least Catholicism and Christianity etc. are wrong. Because their date for the start of the world was around 6000 years. (someone worked that out with all the dates in the christian/catholic bible).

While its obvious to me that the dating scheme of the theory of evolution is complete bullshit. The same is true of the assertion of that group you reference. Complete bullshit. The only truth is that no one has a clue. Even Hawking admits this and that all we have are theories and probabilities.

They tested radiocarbon dating by comparing their results with things like rings on trees and such which we KNOW are an indication of age that is reliable. They know anything with high carbon-14 is from when man started technology.

Because their are trees that have lived and been fossilized that are billions or even just milliions of years old? No, in fact those cross strata trees are in fact that Hack Dr. Dino's best fucking piece of evidence against pointing toward a massive flood. Not to mention the amount of oil present....the many stories from various Mythologies from around the world...

What are those facts? You're saying they're more reliable than sciences evidence?

You like to fuck with my words. I didn't say creation had facts. I said it had evidence, evidence that in fact does NOT even point toward creation, merely certain events, like a massive flood.

They are nothing compared to the torrents of evidence evolution has. And they only have to go back a few thousand years!

When you sort out the forgeries and bullshit....those torrents are but a trickling creek.

What do you mean it is therefore not a fact? You didn't say anything to warrant saying that it is 'therefore not a fact'.

Sure I did. I'll say it again since you are thick enough that basic logic isn't a part of your mental functions. "Burden of proof is on the one who Asserts"

Also, the fossil evidence isn't as dubious as you think. It's actually quite complete. Hundreds of thousands of fossils up to billions of years old http://www.livescience.com/environme...matolites.html

An article which says a rock shape was form 3.4 billion years ago with not even a HINT of reference as to WHY they think that. But just because they are EXPERT SCIENTISTS we should believe them without question? Sound to me like the same thing the Catholic church has said for a few thousand years in an effort to make people ignorant and believe inane assertions about the sturcture, history and cosmology of our existence.

I just don't get how you can not see it is true. Look at us.
Black people don't have white babies.

Shows just how much you know. You've never seen a black baby. They're all white. Melination of the skin doesn't occur for a few weeks. Beyond that, the point you are trying to make, aside from my asinine joke, actually does more to discredit the theory of evolution than support it. All in all, what you state is truly indicative of nothing other than that it makes you sound a little racist to throw a meaningless racial comment into a scientific arguement.

If we have these genes and from historical evidence of fossils/bones and pre-homosapien animals (things they used to survive) we can see that they did as well. What are the chances that it is all just coincidence?

Cooincidence is a pretty loose term. But all in all....cooincidence is what leads science, and not falsely so, to theorize the millions upon millions of years necessary to have this thing which they can't even prove would take place given that amount of time or else all Humans would die in artaficial creation of a new creature from syntheisized genes of a superior quality and magnitude.

That's the only way you can deny that we came from apes. Without ignoring the facts of course.

Yeah...because Alien Humans is just such a rediculous and improbable theory...

Although a little less rediculous and improbable based on our evidence than that of evolution or the Church. I refer to the 'church' and it's interpretations of a book that is not its own becuase I think Jesus Christ would walk into the vatican and Kick over every religous construction. It wouldn't be the first time.

Because their are trees that have lived and been fossilized that are billions or even just milliions of years old? No

ACtually, yes. But that's not the point I was trying to make, it's that we know it is reliable enough because they tested it on trees and then checked the ring on them to see if their finding were right.
How can you not understand that?
They got a tree, carbon dated it, say it was 800 years old. They looked at the rings on the trees, there were 800.

They are not as wrong as you say.

As might be expected though, the same problems in dating young samples plague the accurate dating of very old samples. When the time since death gets very large, the slope of the radioactive decay curve gets very flat. This results in very large errors. For example, imagine a piece of wood from a tree that was cut down 50,000 years ago. Its normalized 14C ratio should be 0.002362. A 0.1% error in measurement (0.001362 to 0.003362) yields ages ranging between 47,082 and 54,551 years. That is an error of up to 2,918 years on the young side (which is 5.8%) and 4,551 years on the old side (which is +9.1%). Remember that the ratio of 14C to 12C is about 0.6% today. If you multiply 0.6% by 0.002, you are trying to measure the amount of 14C when it is only 0.0012% of the total sample. So, even a small amount of contamination will corrupt the results in a very significant way. That’s why 50,000 years is the generally quoted as the practical limit for 14C dating generally mentioned in the scientific literature. Anything thought to be older than 50,000 years is said to have an "infinite" carbon age.

1980s, Ferguson was able to extend this continuous sequence back to about 11,300 years

We were just one kind who happened to get past the rest with mutations that were helpful to us. There were another species that got pretty far too, the Neanderthals. The rest of the apes just haven't evolved yet and probably won't considering the state of this planet.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neanderthal
Wiki is your friend
You want proof of every fucken thing to ever be claimed?
I could sit here for years typing out how we know this and how we know that, the truth is you still wouldn't get it. Everything in science is connected and it's impossible to just state one thing as we've seen. e.g To prove to you that they know the bones and fossils are so old I had to go into radio carbon dating then to prove that that's reliable enough I had to go into tree rings. What's next? How do they know the tree rings are correct?

You're quite right. The evidence supporting this has been suppressed by the scientific community...I wonder why.

What evidence? The burden of proof lies on the claimer.

Also not true. Extinction of species is a natural occurrence. This idea you hold that what we witness today a crime of man isn't entirely true even though our actions have made it difficult for some animals to survive. in other words...just because we're killing species of animals...doesn't mean that it hasn't happen naturally.

Natural? what's natural? Us polluting the Earth is certainly natural.
Sure some types of cats die for example. But the whole friggen cat species doesn't die out!

FOR WHAT? We have no REFERENCE point to assert that something is X years old. Furthermore the carbon dating is off by up to a HUNDRED THOUSANDS YEARS. Blind tests on modern objects reflect an insane variety of results.

The science of carbon 14 dating is baseless because their is no reference point to verify it's accuracy. The test results of Carbon-14 is comletely meaningless to begin with.

Why do you bother saying this before you even replied to the bit about the trees? It's completely pointless since I provided a reference point in the next paragraph.

Because their are trees that have lived and been fossilized that are billions or even just milliions of years old? No, in fact those cross strata trees are in fact that Hack Dr. Dino's best fucking piece of evidence against pointing toward a massive flood. Not to mention the amount of oil present....the many stories from various Mythologies from around the world...

What the fuck are you talking about? Andrew Ellicott Douglass (1867-1962) nothing to do with cross strata.
Provide evidence that this points to a flood please.
How can you say the tree dating is wrong? seriously.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dendrochronology
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methuselah_(tree)
See that? Dendrochronology back to 9000 BC.

Shows just how much you know. You've never seen a black baby. They're all white. Melination of the skin doesn't occur for a few weeks. Beyond that, the point you are trying to make, aside from my asinine joke, actually does more to discredit the theory of evolution than support it. All in all, what you state is truly indicative of nothing other than that it makes you sound a little racist to throw a meaningless racial comment into a scientific arguement.

LMAO, yeh saying that black people have black babies is soooo racist.
Can you not see what I'm saying you moron? Our genes are passed to our kids! Hence why black people have black babies! How does that discredit evolution? Black babies are born white hey? Evidence please.

I'm just going to quote Wiki now, since, if you're serious you will look into the evidence of the evidence that you so clearly desire.

Yeah...because Alien Humans is just such a rediculous and improbable theory...

Ahhhh, seriously if you're not flaming your just a moron.