(09-26-2013 02:32 PM)ODUalum78 Wrote:  C'mon guys.

Take the theology elsewhere.

I don't know if you can really discuss JMU to CUSA in any other framework

(09-26-2013 02:35 PM)shiftyeagle Wrote:  

(09-26-2013 02:33 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(09-26-2013 02:29 PM)EagNBran Wrote:  

(09-26-2013 02:20 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(09-26-2013 02:15 PM)EagNBran Wrote:  If God can make a mature Adam, what stops Him from making a mature earth?

Prove he made Adam and I'll consider it...science has hard evidence in carbon dating and radiometric dating.

It's based on faith. And I'm saying that I could answer that question with my faith.

(09-26-2013 02:22 PM)JMUSkinsfan Wrote:  What am I supposed to argue? If you don't believe in science, nothing I say is going to convince you. I'm not wasting my time on it. If you wanted to understand scientific principles and discoveries you would look into it on your own and give it some credence, but clearly you refuse to do that.

Science/Research > a book that was written 300 years after the events of said book and been manipulated over past 1,800 yards by hundreds of influencers.

Never Mind. Not sure why i'm even saying anything

I've looked into science. I'm wanting to know if you have a different reason that I should believe science on these points. I have some points of science I completely believe. I'm not against science. I'm just against people defining stuff as definite fact and denying that it could be wrong, especially when it has VERY little evidence to support it.

And because I know it's coming, no that's not the same as religion. Religion is based on having faith. We admit that. Big Bang theorists can use this motion too, and I'll gladly let you hold to that. The Big Bang Theory is as much based on faith as is Christianity if not more. But it's far from a fact.

I'm not trying to come off as a hateful religious bigot. If I have, then I apologize sincerely. I just don't like when my religion gets attacked out of the blue with zero proof supporting their side. I'm just looking for proof.

I'll always choose what can be proven, over what someone believes.

Good for you. Thanks for your opinion that no one cares about.

Wow...what an epic rebuttal.

(09-26-2013 02:29 PM)HolyCityDuke Wrote:  

(09-26-2013 02:25 PM)PirateMarv Wrote:  

(09-26-2013 02:23 PM)mturn017 Wrote:  

(09-26-2013 02:15 PM)EagNBran Wrote:  

(09-26-2013 02:04 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  It's called carbon dating...the earth is 4.54 billion years old.

If God can make a mature Adam, what stops Him from making a mature earth?

OK fair enough, so the universe isn't really old it just looks old? Well guess what, it also looks like it started from a single point.

That point being God.

I can see truth in the positions held by both sides.

That point being God? NO, it's the flying spaghetti monster! Don't you know anything?!?!

No I don't. I will now bow to your knowledge.

Alright. If anyone wants to continue this discussion, you can shoot me a pm and I'd love to. But let's turn this back toward JMU and C-USA for those that do not wish to partake.


Personally, I think there's a lot of smoke on the JMU board, but no where else. And usually that means you're trying to light your own fire.

Really? Moved the whole thread huh?

(09-26-2013 02:32 PM)ODUalum78 Wrote:  C'mon guys.

Take the theology elsewhere.

Welcome to what happened on the Sun Belt board every time we talked about expansion.

(09-26-2013 02:37 PM)mturn017 Wrote:  Really? Moved the whole thread huh?

It's a church conspiracy to keep JMU out of CUSA...the popes in on it I hear.

(09-26-2013 02:12 PM)BleedsGreen33 Wrote:  I think we are getting punked. All these FCS schools coming in is just going to make it easier for the P5 to kick us back down to FCS. Just another team that won't be able to compete week in and week out on this level. Well that is until this conference is full of FCS schools.

This! Stop adding $#@%ing FCS schools. You are making it easier for the P5 to draw that line in the sand.

Maybe we're losing FIU and replacing them with JMU. FIU gave up on athletics?

Since this thread is already shot, and should be retitled, I'll add my 2 cents worth.

With all due respect, labelling religious people as "nuts" "moron", "worse kind of species" "southern, inbred, evangelical knuckle draggers" and "extremists" is hardly a good use of logic either. (Argumentum ad Hominem).

Maybe this should be in another thread, but as it is, I would offer the following logical proof for God's existence:

P1: If the human mind can obtain meaningful knowledge, then God exists, since God is the precondition of human knowledge.
P2: The human mind can obtain knowledge.
Conclusion: God exists.

Not sure what position the atheists hold here, but assuming that they believe in strict materialism, how do you avoid genetic and epistemological determinism?

I would also suggest that science cannot prove anything to be objectively true (that should open up a cool discussion).

(09-26-2013 02:04 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(09-26-2013 01:54 PM)EagNBran Wrote:  

(09-26-2013 01:38 PM)jmu@uva Wrote:  

(09-26-2013 01:34 PM)EagNBran Wrote:  

(09-26-2013 12:09 PM)jmu@uva Wrote:  Oh, I forgot...you're from a texas school, not an institution of higher learning. Call me when you guys stop teaching in your "science classes" that the earth was created in 6 days...

You tell me when you get actual proof as well. The "science" you attest to has no proof either.

But if you really believe that matter can come from nothing (which goes against one law of science), you keep believing it. Until then, your institute of higher learning can keep teaching evolution and Big Bang. But I'd love, before you bash others beliefs, that you come back and shoot me a message with your actual proof. I have a feeling there won't be any.

OMG. Wow. Just wow. If you believe the earth was created in 6 days...we have nothing to discuss...you're not even a moron, you're a worse kind of species...you a southern, inbred, evangelical knuckle dragger that has no business walking among the rest of us. Go live with the other extremists in a cave somewhere.

(09-26-2013 01:41 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(09-26-2013 01:34 PM)EagNBran Wrote:  

(09-26-2013 12:09 PM)jmu@uva Wrote:  Oh, I forgot...you're from a texas school, not an institution of higher learning. Call me when you guys stop teaching in your "science classes" that the earth was created in 6 days...

You tell me when you get actual proof as well. The "science" you attest to has no proof either.

But if you really believe that matter can come from nothing (which goes against one law of science), you keep believing it. Until then, your institute of higher learning can keep teaching evolution and Big Bang. But I'd love, before you bash others beliefs, that you come back and shoot me a message with your actual proof. I have a feeling there won't be any.

oh, a religious nut! This should be good! Tell us more...

Give me your proof. Your ad hominem arguments just make you look like the immature person here. Quite frankly, it takes a lot more faith to believe that the universe came from nothing then some stuff came from somewhere(no explanation as to where), was about the size of a period on this page, then spun fast enough and exploded into the universe we have now. And that doesn't even go into the other half of the Big Bang Theory where a closed universe, such as the one we live in, not only expands, but contracts. Heads up ladies and gentlemen! We don't have to worry about global warming. We need to worry about global squishing!

It's called carbon dating...the earth is 4.54 billion years old.

Comical. Do you really believe that carbon dating can extend millions--much less billions--of years? There simply is not enough C-14 after 40-50,000 years to accurately measure. And even then, there are many variables that can affect an accurate reading, and any variation from virtually absolute uniformitarianism makes it completely worthless long before that.

you came in at closing time...funs over.

(09-26-2013 02:43 PM)Lee Moses Wrote:  

(09-26-2013 02:04 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(09-26-2013 01:54 PM)EagNBran Wrote:  

(09-26-2013 01:38 PM)jmu@uva Wrote:  

(09-26-2013 01:34 PM)EagNBran Wrote:  You tell me when you get actual proof as well. The "science" you attest to has no proof either.

But if you really believe that matter can come from nothing (which goes against one law of science), you keep believing it. Until then, your institute of higher learning can keep teaching evolution and Big Bang. But I'd love, before you bash others beliefs, that you come back and shoot me a message with your actual proof. I have a feeling there won't be any.

OMG. Wow. Just wow. If you believe the earth was created in 6 days...we have nothing to discuss...you're not even a moron, you're a worse kind of species...you a southern, inbred, evangelical knuckle dragger that has no business walking among the rest of us. Go live with the other extremists in a cave somewhere.

(09-26-2013 01:41 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(09-26-2013 01:34 PM)EagNBran Wrote:  You tell me when you get actual proof as well. The "science" you attest to has no proof either.

But if you really believe that matter can come from nothing (which goes against one law of science), you keep believing it. Until then, your institute of higher learning can keep teaching evolution and Big Bang. But I'd love, before you bash others beliefs, that you come back and shoot me a message with your actual proof. I have a feeling there won't be any.

oh, a religious nut! This should be good! Tell us more...

Give me your proof. Your ad hominem arguments just make you look like the immature person here. Quite frankly, it takes a lot more faith to believe that the universe came from nothing then some stuff came from somewhere(no explanation as to where), was about the size of a period on this page, then spun fast enough and exploded into the universe we have now. And that doesn't even go into the other half of the Big Bang Theory where a closed universe, such as the one we live in, not only expands, but contracts. Heads up ladies and gentlemen! We don't have to worry about global warming. We need to worry about global squishing!

It's called carbon dating...the earth is 4.54 billion years old.

Comical. Do you really believe that carbon dating can extend millions--much less billions--of years? There simply is not enough C-14 after 40-50,000 years to accurately measure. And even then, there are many variables that can affect an accurate reading, and any variation from virtually absolute uniformitarianism makes it completely worthless long before that.

(09-26-2013 02:43 PM)Lee Moses Wrote:  

(09-26-2013 02:04 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  It's called carbon dating...the earth is 4.54 billion years old.

Comical. Do you really believe that carbon dating can extend millions--much less billions--of years? There simply is not enough C-14 after 40-50,000 years to accurately measure. And even then, there are many variables that can affect an accurate reading, and any variation from virtually absolute uniformitarianism makes it completely worthless long before that.

This is why radiometric dating is used.

(09-26-2013 02:49 PM)OrangeCrush22 Wrote:  

(09-26-2013 02:43 PM)Lee Moses Wrote:  

(09-26-2013 02:04 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  It's called carbon dating...the earth is 4.54 billion years old.

Comical. Do you really believe that carbon dating can extend millions--much less billions--of years? There simply is not enough C-14 after 40-50,000 years to accurately measure. And even then, there are many variables that can affect an accurate reading, and any variation from virtually absolute uniformitarianism makes it completely worthless long before that.

This is why radiometric dating is used.

Is radiometric dating any better than Christian Singles?

How in the world did this thread go way off topic?

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk 2

(09-26-2013 03:32 PM)paintedblue Wrote:  

(09-26-2013 02:49 PM)OrangeCrush22 Wrote:  

(09-26-2013 02:43 PM)Lee Moses Wrote:  

(09-26-2013 02:04 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  It's called carbon dating...the earth is 4.54 billion years old.

Comical. Do you really believe that carbon dating can extend millions--much less billions--of years? There simply is not enough C-14 after 40-50,000 years to accurately measure. And even then, there are many variables that can affect an accurate reading, and any variation from virtually absolute uniformitarianism makes it completely worthless long before that.

This is why radiometric dating is used.

Is radiometric dating any better than Christian Singles?

FTW

This just a sample of where this message board will be heading if JMU joins C-USA.

http://hamptonroads.com/2013/09/reports-...r-be-false

DirtyDukes may want to seek shelter.

That changed rapidly over a day.


EDIT: Fixed the title for accuracy.