Questions for Jesus-Freak

[jesus_freak]

Universe: ~14 billion
Earth ~4.5 billion
Primitive life ~3 billion
Homo Sapiens ~250,000
BTW: Domestication of the Dog: 15,000 years ago. Domestication of wheat: 10,000 years ago.

Creation according to many Christians: 10,000 years ago.
__________________

What is the dating method that you are using to come to these conclusions?

 

[Lonewulf]

What is the dating method that you are using to come to these conclusions?

Did you click on this link?:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html

Geology is a lot more than just looking at rocks. You can tell the age of rocks, you know. So, we can tell a lot about the age just by the age of rocks; and, through the age of rocks, we can also tell the age of fossils (such as dinosaur fossils and the like). Then there's various other methods, such as this:

The most direct means for calculating the Earth's age is a Pb/Pb isochron age, derived from samples of the Earth and meteorites. This involves measurement of three isotopes of lead (Pb-206, Pb-207, and either Pb-208 or Pb-204). A plot is constructed of Pb-206/Pb-204 versus Pb-207/Pb-204.

If the solar system formed from a common pool of matter, which was uniformly distributed in terms of Pb isotope ratios, then the initial plots for all objects from that pool of matter would fall on a single point.

Over time, the amounts of Pb-206 and Pb-207 will change in some samples, as these isotopes are decay end-products of uranium decay (U-238 decays to Pb-206, and U-235 decays to Pb-207). This causes the data points to separate from each other. The higher the uranium-to-lead ratio of a rock, the more the Pb-206/Pb-204 and Pb-207/Pb-204 values will change with time.

As for the age of the universe, this might make a good "beginner's guide" for you:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_universe

Age based on WMAP

NASA's Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) project estimates the age of the universe to be:

(13.7 ± 0.2) × 10^9 years.

That is, the universe is about 13.7 billion years old,[1] with an uncertainty of 200 million years. However, this age is based on the assumption that the project's underlying model is correct; other methods of estimating the age of the universe could give different ages.

This measurement is made by using the location of the first acoustic peak in the microwave background power spectrum to determine the size of the decoupling surface (size of universe at the time of recombination). The light travel time to this surface (depending on the geometry used) yields a reliable age for the universe. Assuming the validity of the models used to determine this age, the residual accuracy yields a margin of error near one percent. [2]

This is the value currently most quoted by astronomers.

 

[Hokulele]

OK, if you would prefer a larger issue to deal with, here goes. The main reason I no longer agree with any of the branches of christianity I have had experience with, is that each one of them used the bible as justification for the inferiority of women. OT, NT, take your pick. Don't even get me started on Paul's letters. Although many ancient cultures subscribed to this view, it was rarely codified so explicitly and repeatedly. Gods and goddesses abound in other mythology. Even today, many demoninations refuse to allow women in leadership roles, and worse, if you look at early Catholic doctrine, some members of the church went so far as to declare women had no souls.

As I stated, this has mainly been my experience. I would be interested to see how some of the posters on this forum view the bias and how it is applied in their theology.

Hey JF, good to see you back. In my post quoted above, I had another bible related question. So far, only edge has responded. (Thanks edge! BTW, I hope you are doing better.) Can you please give me your thoughts on this topic?

 

[jesus_freak]

Jesusfreak, i'd like to hear your response to my question about the Neanderthals.

Men: The brains of the Neanderthals and Cro Magnons were 1600 to 1700 cubic centimeters, at least as large if not slightly larger than modern man. Neanderthals are often drawn in textbooks with primitive facial features. However, the soft parts of a face do not leave marks on the skull, so no information about the lips, nose, eyes, and ears is known about the Neanderthal. Evolutionists will draw them with ape-like features to try to support their claims, but the fact is that either chimp-like features or a human features could be placed on a Neanderthal skull. The Neanderthals were assumed to have been of stooped posture when some early skeletons of old people with arthritis were uncovered. But later, upright skeletons were also found. The Cro Magnon man was not only large brained but they averaged 6 foot 6 inches in height. So there is really no reason to think that the Neanderthals and Cro Magnons were anything other than men.

This is one theory...

 

[jesus_freak]

OK, if you would prefer a larger issue to deal with, here goes. The main reason I no longer agree with any of the branches of christianity I have had experience with, is that each one of them used the bible as justification for the inferiority of women. OT, NT, take your pick. Don't even get me started on Paul's letters. Although many ancient cultures subscribed to this view, it was rarely codified so explicitly and repeatedly. Gods and goddesses abound in other mythology. Even today, many demoninations refuse to allow women in leadership roles, and worse, if you look at early Catholic doctrine, some members of the church went so far as to declare women had no souls.

As I stated, this has mainly been my experience. I would be interested to see how some of the posters on this forum view the bias and how it is applied in their theology. Hey JF, good to see you back. In my post quoted above, I had another bible related question. So far, only edge has responded. (Thanks edge! BTW, I hope you are doing better.) Can you please give me your thoughts on this topic?

I assume you are talking about the verse in Ephesians? that says something like "wives submit to your husbands..."

 

[RandFan]

What is the dating method that you are using to come to these conclusions?

I gave you a link for the age of the earth. Did you click it?

These things are not controversial outside of religious world views. Even many religious scholars concur that the logic behind the conclusions is simply unassailable. There are too many independent sources seriously and reasonably argue against the time.

If you are serious and not just being obtuse or engaging in rhetoric then check out the link. How Old Is The Earth, And How Do We Know?

BTW, do you question the periodic table of the elements? The structure of DNA? The speed of light? It amazes me how much people take science for granted until it threatens their world view and then they become critics.

Hey, it's perfectly fine to question science. There is nothing sacrosanct about any scientific principle. That's what makes it so cool. But if you are going to question then at least understand the arguments. Simply stating that this is just another interpretation of the data is willful ignorance or dishonesty.

 

[Hokulele]

I assume you are talking about the verse in Ephesians? that says something like "wives submit to your husbands..."

Thanks for responding. I was actually referring to the fact that pretty much throughout the bible, beginning with Eve being created from Adam, they seem to have a pretty low opinion of women. Ephesians is bad, Corinthians is even worse.

"Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but [they are commanded] to be under obedience, as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church." I Cor. 14:34-35 (often used as justification for not allowing women to become priests, pastors, etc.)

Hey, I thought I said "Don't get me started with Paul."

Anyway, what do you think?

 

[RandFan]

Thanks for responding. I was actually referring to the fact that pretty much throughout the bible, beginning with Eve being created from Adam, they seem to have a pretty low opinion of women. Ephesians is bad, Corinthians is even worse.

"Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but [they are commanded] to be under obedience, as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church." I Cor. 14:34-35 (often used as justification for not allowing women to become priests, pastors, etc.)

Hey, I thought I said "Don't get me started with Paul."

What about women being unclean during menstruation?

Leviticus 15:19-30

And if a woman have an issue, and her issue in her flesh be blood, she shall be put apart seven days: and whosoever toucheth her shall be unclean until the even. And every thing that she lieth upon in her separation shall be unclean: every thing also that she sitteth upon shall be unclean. And whosoever toucheth her bed shall wash his clothes, and bathe himself in water, and be unclean until the even.

I used to think the bible was inspired. Fact is it is full of backward and unenlightened thinking. Ok, I'm willing to judge those folks by their times but how can one think that this is all the work of god? This was one of my questions that JF won't answer. Why does religion mirror the culture and beliefs of the times?

If we assume that the bible is the word of god then women are unclean simply because their bodies are shedding the uterine lining as part of their reproductive physiology? Didn't god make them that way? Here's an idea, why didn't god make humans like many other mammals where the female reabsorbs the lining rather than shed it? If god had done that he wouldn't have had to declare women "unclean"?

 

[Hokulele]

If we assume that the bible is the word of god then women are unclean simply because their bodies are shedding the uterine lining as part of their reproductive physiology? Didn't god make them that way? Here's an idea, why didn't god make humans like many other mammals where the female reabsorbs the lining rather than shed it? If god had done that he wouldn't have had to declare women "unclean"?

Hmm, this is giving me mean thoughts about what I can do to certain fundies during "that time of month". If they really start to annoy me, I can start by sitting on every piece of furniture they own.

ETA: Of course, that is only the fundies who really annoy me. So far JF and edge have been very polite to me. You guys are safe.

 

[Lonewulf]

Here's an idea, why didn't god make humans like many other mammals where the female reabsorbs the lining rather than shed it? If god had done that he wouldn't have had to declare women "unclean"?

What, God make life easy for us?

Heck no!

God wants us to suffer. Why else would me make the entrance exam into heaven so darn difficult and contrary to human nature?

 

[H3LL]

I have questions for Jesus_Freak:

Apparently in the UAE it has been stated:

... officials announced plans to remove the theory of evolution from the biology curriculum of public schools.

supported by the argument:

'The glorious Allah informs us in the Quran that he created all living beings with flawless structures in a moment by the 'Be' order. Darwinism asserts that all living beings were originated by fictitious mechanisms like mutation and natural selection. The difference between such a fictitious process, which depends absolutely on randomness, and the creation, stated by Allah in the Quran, is obvious. The theory of evolution being contrary to Islam, is also a theory disproved by the findings of modern science'

Would you support the position taken in UAE?

Do you see any difference between the reason for their position and yours?

Are you comfortable that Islam in the UAE has achieved what xians similar to yourself hope to achieve in the USA?

Are you happy to copy their example?

.

 

[Ladewig]

conventional scientific thinking says that the Neanderthals were capable of spoken language. Since you don't think that species is related to us, do you think a species with that capability could have existed?

Or are you open to the notion that the neanderthals are in fact a distant relative of ours?

[AdamAndJamie]Well there's your problem.[AdamAndJamie]

If Jesus Freak rejects conventional scientific thinking related to astronomy, cosmology, biology, geology, archeology, and botany, then why do you believe Jesus Freak will accept conventional scientific thinking related to anthropology?

 

[jesus_freak]

Thanks for responding. I was actually referring to the fact that pretty much throughout the bible, beginning with Eve being created from Adam, they seem to have a pretty low opinion of women. Ephesians is bad, Corinthians is even worse.

"Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but [they are commanded] to be under obedience, as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church." I Cor. 14:34-35 (often used as justification for not allowing women to become priests, pastors, etc.)

Hey, I thought I said "Don't get me started with Paul."

Anyway, what do you think?

Well I think (and again I don't speak for all ) Tha God has made specific roles and stated them clearly for both male and female...I think that he made males stronger and less sensitive for the most part and women more compasionate and "loving" so that we can kind of equal each other out...I don't think that He made males "better" or with more "purpose". I also don't think that women are meant to be demeaned or treated less equally...What I have gotten out of the Bible is that I am to love my wife as Christ loved the Church...so I TRY to do that and when I do she submits for the most part to me...at the same time she will definetly speak her mind if she thinks that I am not acting towards her as Christ would, and I think that leads to a very happy marriage for the most part...Sorry if this doesn't directly answer your question.

 

[Ossai]

jesus_freak
In post 324 you posted a quote with no source identified. Please identify the source.

Now for the quote.

Men: The brains of the Neanderthals and Cro Magnons were 1600 to 1700 cubic centimeters, at least as large if not slightly larger than modern man. Neanderthals are often drawn in textbooks with primitive facial features. However, the soft parts of a face do not leave marks on the skull, so no information about the lips, nose, eyes, and ears is known about the Neanderthal.

This is ignorant or dishonest and I’m betting on dishonest. The bone structure is different Neanderthals, Cro Magnons and modern humans. Take a look and see for yourself.

Ossai

 

[RandFan]

What I have gotten out of the Bible is that I am to love my wife as Christ loved the Church...so I TRY to do that and when I do she submits for the most part to me.

This is along the lines of the anachronistic view of Muslims who think it is ok to beat their wives. It makes for a happy marriage and once the wife learns to submit to the husband then everyone is happy and the beatings are unnecessary. Odd thing is many of these women will tell you that they agree.

I would not want to be submissive to any other person. Why should women have to be? Again, because of thousands of year old notions. Notions that said a woman was unclean and that it was ok to stone women to death if they were unfaithful. But JF doesn't "get" this from his ancient text. He picks out the bits and pieces that he likes.

Full disclosure: I've been verbally abusive and overbearing to my wife at times and I know that it is wrong and I'm sincerely making efforts to change my behavior. This includes talking with my wife and trying to find strategies to avoid such stupid and poor responses to some of the difficulties of my life. I don't offer any excuses but I was brought up in a very male dominant society and I think that is partly the reason. It's wrong and I know better.

The problem with ancient notions about women is that it gives many men reason to be abusive and many women think that they must endure it. All of the explanations from the clergy that a man is to rule over his wife with love isn't going to stop that. Women must first be seen as humans who are as entitled to freedom as any man. That's it.

Christians, please join us in the 21st century.

 

[jesus_freak]

Would you support the position taken in UAE?

Do you see any difference between the reason for their position and yours?

Are you comfortable that Islam in the UAE has achieved what xians similar to yourself hope to achieve in the USA?

Are you happy to copy their example?

Maybe I haven't been perfectly clear on this issue...I have no problem with evolution being taught in public schools as long as they teach FACTS and show the different sides to the theory. I do have a problem with them teaching things as FACT when indeed it is not and force feeding students this THEORY as the only way things could of happened. For some reason this idea scares a lot of scientist, probably because of the fact that as long and hard as they have been pushing evolution in America most still do not beleive in evolution. So again I have no problem if both sides are taught and the STUDENTS get to decide what they believe in.

 

[jesus_freak]

This is along the lines of the anachronistic view of Muslims who think it is ok to beat their wives. It makes for a happy marriage and once the wife learns to submit to the husband then everyone is happy and the beatings are unnecessary. Odd thing is many of these women will tell you that they agree.

I would not want to be submissive to any other person. Why should women have to be? Again, because of thousands of year old notions. Notions that said a woman was unclean and that it was ok to stone women to death if they were unfaithful. But JF doesn't "get" this from his ancient text. He picks out the bits and pieces that he likes.

Full disclosure: I've been verbally abusive and overbearing to my wife at times and I know that it is wrong and I'm sincerely making efforts to change my behavior. This includes talking with my wife and trying to find strategies to avoid such stupid and poor responses to some of the difficulties of my life. I don't offer any excuses but I was brought up in a very male dominant society and I think that is partly the reason. It's wrong and I know better.

The problem with ancient notions about women is that it gives many men reason to be abusive and many women think that they must endure it. All of the explanations from the clergy that a man is to rule over his wife with love isn't going to stop that. Women must first be seen as humans who are as entitled to freedom as any man. That's it.

Christians, please join us in the 21st century.

So what you are implying is that Christians beat their wives? I take great offense to that and would never, never lay a hand on my wife. Unlike you I was raised in a home that was based around Christ, and weird but my parents have been happily married for 30 years, and my Dad helped teach me on how to be a great Dad,husband, and most importantly Christian. I now am in the process of teaching my kids on how to teach all women with respect and dignity, and I have great confidence in saying that in 23 years my son will be saying the same things about his parents...Maybe it is you that should be joining me in the 21st century...what about "husbands love your wives as Christ loved the church" leads you to see "husbands beat your wives"?

 

[RandFan]

Maybe I haven't been perfectly clear on this issue...I have no problem with evolution being taught in public schools as long as they teach FACTS and show the different sides to the theory. I do have a problem with them teaching things as FACT when indeed it is not and force feeding students this THEORY as the only way things could of happened.

1.) To date it is the only known way for things to have happened.
2.) Evolution IS A FACT!
3.) It is accepted by many Christians and ID proponents.

For some reason this idea scares a lot of scientist, probably because of the fact that as long and hard as they have been pushing evolution in America most still do not beleive in evolution.

Define "a lot of scientists"? This is a red herring exposed so well by Project Steve.

However, at the same time the project is a genuine collection of scientists, and despite its restriction to only scientists with names like "Steve", which the organizers claim restricts the list to roughly 1% of the total population[2], it is longer and contains many more eminent scientists (and in particular biologists) than any creationist list.

So again I have no problem if both sides are taught and the STUDENTS get to decide what they believe in.

I would accept that if there was another side. There isn't. Hey, I argued the "other side" on this very forum. However, coming here to debate my position forced me to look at the evidence. It is overwhelming that evolution IS A FACT.

 

[jesus_freak]

jesus_freak
In post

324 you posted a quote with no source identified. Please identify the source.

http://www.matthewmcgee.org/creation.html
http://www.matthewmcgee.org/creation.html

 

[gypsey]

jesus_freak Quote:

So what you are implying is that Christians beat their wives? I take great offense to that and would never, never lay a hand on my wife. Unlike you I was raised in a home that was based around Christ, and weird but my parents have been happily married for 30 years, and my Dad helped teach me on how to be a great Dad,husband, and most importantly Christian. I now am in the process of teaching my kids on how to teach all women with respect and dignity, and I have great confidence in saying that in 23 years my son will be saying the same things about his parents...Maybe it is you that should be joining me in the 21st century...what about "husbands love your wives as Christ loved the church" leads you to see "husbands beat your wives"?

I'm not Randfan but I just have to comment,
it's wonderful that you had loving father who didn't beat your mother nor you ,it's always nice to hear about loving families.
since you are telling of your experience, what of the fathers who use the bible as justification to beat their wives and children? those families are not as rare as some christians would like,
does their experiance not count because you had a good father?
the families where the wives submit or else and spare the rod spoil the child is the reason for daily beatings? what of them? is that the 21st century and where we all need to join you?

gypsey