a Real Truthseeker

Please spare me any insults / trolling. I'm just interested to know your reasons

Does anyone have experience of the benefits or otherwise of beveling with wood flooring?

Some types have micro-bevelling which looks as if it will get full of dirt?

Suppose a Christian astronomer was going to visit your church. What questions would you like him to address?

Suppose a Christian astronomer was going to visit your church. What questions would you like him to address?

I am planning a trip to Egypt, and this company has given a good quote, but I'd like to make sure they are ok and sound. Anyone used them?

I am a Christian and I am interested to know why people do not believe the Bible.

With specific reasons if you have them, rather than just 'it's rubbish'.

Thanks.

It is very tiresome to see (presumably atheists) come up with the old canard that atheism is not a religion.

Perhaps folk should try looking in a dictionary. Miriam Webster includes this as a definition:

: a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith

Clearly Dawkins is religious in this sense of the word.

Besides, the fact that atheists hang around in the religion section of YA like a pack of dogs, speaks for itself :)

Quite a common question on YA.

For those that inclination and five minutes to read an article, there is a superb answer here:

http://creation.com/science-existence-of-god

For example, read some articles from here

http://creation.com/science-questions-and-answers

And discover why creation is an entirely reasonable worldview - based on observed evidence - but with a different set of assumptions to Dawkins.

People start to spout nonsense.

moon is receding from the earth at about an inch each year. This puts an upper limit on the earth/moon system far less than 4.5 billion years.

This is a fact - the recession of the moon is measurable.

We can do the math and it puts an upper limit on the age of the moon and earth.

http://creation.com/the-moons-recession-and-age

Curious that people will claim that black is white when you challenge their dearly held religious beliefs about cosmic evolution.

Cue the inane insults...

It is curious that most people accept assurances that the earth is old, despite the fact that most dating methods suggest the earth is young.

These methods range across many different scientific disciplines.

The existence of short lived comets (they would not exist if the galaxy was old. The Oort cloud was invented to explain them, but has no observational support whatsoever.)

The recession of the moon. The moon is receding from the earth at about an inch each year. This puts an upper limit on the earth/moon system far less than 4.5 billion years.

The earth's magnetic field is decreasing, and has been measured for a hundred years of so. Extrapolating backwards puts a low upper limit on the age of life on earth. Life cannot survive in very high magnetic field.

Not enough salt in the sea. We can measure the inflow and outflow of salt. If the oceans had started with no salt they would have reached their current salinity in a short time.

The same method applies to dozens of other minerals too, not just salt.

Too much helium in rocks. Helium, being very light, escapes from rocks, yet is found in rocks alleged to be very ancient.

Too little helium in the upper atmosphere. This as pointed out in Nature as long ago as 1957.

Coal and diamonds contain carbon 14. Carbon 14 decays to immeasurable amounts in about 50000 years. Yet all coal and some diamonds (all alleged to be ancient) have been found to contain carbon 14.

And there are many others: Saturn’s rings defy old age explanations; There are different types of stars, and according to evolutionary theory there are the wrong number of the different types; Mercury is the densest planet and according to evolutionary theory should not be where it is; Mercury has a magnetic field, contrary to evolutionary predictions; the sun has far too little angular momentum for old-age evolutionary theories.

Dinosaur bones, alleged to be millions of years old, have been found containing red blood cells – hardly 65 million years old! (this has been documented by secular scientists – see National Geographic for example).

Much evidence for age is clearly faulty, and often involves radiometric dating. Rock from Mt St Helens volcano was dated as millions of years old when it is known to be just decades.

Of course all dating methods rely on observations in the present and assumptions about the past. If there was one method indicating youth for every method indicating great age, then it would be reasonable to doubt the young earth methods. But there are 10 (or more) methods indicating youth for every method suggesting great age. One wonders why scientists not only ignore the majority of evidence, but actively suppress it.

It is curious that most people accept assurances that the earth is old, despite the fact that most dating methods suggest the earth is young.

Even going so far as to get questions removed from YA for spurious violation reasons!

These methods range across many different scientific disciplines.

The existence of short lived comets (they would not exist if the galaxy was old. The Oort cloud was invented to explain them, but has no observational support whatsoever.)

The recession of the moon. The moon is receding from the earth at about an inch each year. This puts an upper limit on the earth/moon system far less than 4.5 billion years.

The earth's magnetic field is decreasing, and has been measured for a hundred years of so. Extrapolating backwards puts a low upper limit on the age of life on earth. Life cannot survive in very high magnetic field.

Not enough salt in the sea. We can measure the inflow and outflow of salt. If the oceans had started with no salt they would have reached their current salinity in a short time.

The same method applies to dozens of other minerals too, not just salt.

Too much helium in rocks. Helium, being very light, escapes from rocks, yet is found in rocks alleged to be very ancient.

Too little helium in the upper atmosphere. This as pointed out in Nature as long ago as 1957.

Coal and diamonds contain carbon 14. Carbon 14 decays to immeasurable amounts in about 50000 years. Yet all coal and some diamonds (all alleged to be ancient) have been found to contain carbon 14.

And there are many others: Saturn’s rings defy old age explanations; There are different types of stars, and according to evolutionary theory there are the wrong number of the different types; Mercury is the densest planet and according to evolutionary theory should not be where it is; Mercury has a magnetic field, contrary to evolutionary predictions; the sun has far too little angular momentum for old-age evolutionary theories.

Dinosaur bones, alleged to be millions of years old, have been found containing red blood cells – hardly 65 million years old! (this has been documented by secular scientists – see National Geographic for example).

Much evidence for age is clearly faulty, and often involves radiometric dating. Rock from Mt St Helens volcano was dated as millions of years old when it is known to be just decades.

Of course all dating methods rely on observations in the present and assumptions about the past. If there was one method indicating youth for every method indicating great age, then it would be reasonable to doubt the young earth methods. But there are 10 (or more) methods indicating youth for every method suggesting great age. One wonders why scientists not only ignore the majority of evidence, but actively suppress it.

Arch-atheist Richard Dawkins recently supported a campaign saying "There's probably no God. So stop worrying and enjoy your life"

Doesn't seem that he's very sure of his faith?

Is it rational to bet your life on a 'probably'?

And is this exhortation not rather foolish anyway, given that surveys have shown that believers tend to worry less and enjoy life more than unbelievers anyway!

If I was a rational atheist (I guess some exist) then I think I would be more worried now!

According to sedimentologosts the average height reduction for all the continents of the world is about 60 mm per 1,000 years.

In other words, a height of 150 kilometres (93 miles) of continent would have eroded in 2.5 billion years. If erosion had been going on for billions of years, no continents would remain on Earth.

So how come evolutionists can claim that rocks are billions of years old?

Associated Press reported that Villagers in central China dug up a ton of dinosaur bones and boiled them in soup or ground them into powder for traditional medicine, believing they were from flying dragons and had healing powers.

http://www.physorg.com/news102762937.html

The bones were clearly not fossiled, and noone is denying they are dino bones, so can they really be 65 million years old?

Or is it more likely that dinos have been around recently? After all, Chinese culture is full of dragon folklore.

Is it a great way to get proper (e.g. Microsoft) products? Or is it too good to be true?

I'm about to buy a new PC and wondering about it. This is how the website describes it:

OEM means Original Equipment Manufacturer. In general it is 100% fully functional software. But it lacks manuals, promo-discs and bulk-boxes.

We offer the software for downloads only. It means that you do not receive a fancy package and a printed manual that actually aggregate the largest part of the retail price. And one more advantage of OEM Software is that you don't need to wait for delivery. You can download and install you software at once after paying for it.

I wonder why so many people are so confused about the difference between Natural Selection and Evolution?

NS is an observed fact as everyone agrees. Examples are Darwin's finches, lions/tigers (which despite being different species, can interbreed and are the same 'kind').

E (goo-to-you) is the hypothesis that animals can change into different kinds of animals by means of natural selection working on genetic mutations.

These alleged mutations need to have added vast amounts of genetic information. However no such genetic mutation has ever been observed. Mutations are information neutral or lossy.

'But E is too slow to see' protest the Eists. Well then it's not observable and not worthy of being even called a theory. In any case, time is the enemy - mutations are resulting in the degradation of the gene pool - that is observable.

Many evolutionists (deliberately?) mislead people by calling NS evolution and then claiming E is proved.

You don't find Creationists being so sloppy :)

The whole world is covered in sedimentary rock, laid down by water, containing billions of dead creatures. The fossils were clearly buried quickly since they were not eaten and have not rotted.

If the land mass on earth were smoothed out then the earth would be covered by water to a depth of 1.7 miles, so there is ample water to cover the earth!

There are flood stories form dozens of nations all over the world, with many commonalities, all recalling this very real event.

Yet people claim there is no evidence for a global flood!

http://www.creationontheweb.com/images/pdfs/cabook...