I don't claim religion. But my family is Roman Catholic and in sunday school we were taught the world is 12 thousand years old.

ahem.. dinosaurs?

What were you people taught?

The earth according to hinduism is 1,972,949,108 years old

less than 6,000 years old.

4.5 billion years

the question says... according to your religion... So I'm assuming that evolution is your religion?

the question says... according to your religion... So I'm assuming that evolution is your religion?


tumbleweed

4.5 billion years

the question says... according to your religion... So I'm assuming that evolution is your religion?


by 'evolution' I guess your referring to science in general, as there was no life to evolve for many millions of years. But I don't believe that "religion" would be the accurate term for ones belief in science, as faith plays no part in it.
Please don't mistake my lack of religious conviction for lack of interest. Belief in invisible powers controlling the destiny of man has existed in just about every recorded culture. I believe that man has a psychological need to understand his environment, but without the principles of science to guide them, our ancient ancestors were bound to come to some mistaken conclusions. Astrology, divining by organ interpretation, reincarnation are just a few concepts that ruled the hearts and minds of societies for centuries, that now seem ridicules.

hey now, lets leave solid scientific facts out of this discussion. this is religion we're talking about.

the question says... according to your religion... So I'm assuming that evolution is your religion?

No, evolution is not a religion. You're kinda smart.. sort of.. you know that.
=)



6, 000 years old? Explain something to me. DINOSAURS.

Dinosaurs... a term coined in the 19th century. What about it?

The actual creatures called Dinosaurs, also referred to as Bohemuth, Leviathan. Well sure they existed, and they died out just as it stated in Job by God that He would make them extinct. Didn't know that? Of course you didn't. But it's ok, because now you do.

Read Job 39-41.

Everything save a few were destroyed in a world altering flood. This explains quite alot such as fossils, sediments, coal seams, oil/gas, polystrate fossils. Also helps to explain why there isn't 20 billion people here on the earth today, like there certainly should be according to the age of the earth assumed by evolutionists.

Well this thread is just like all the others... twisted to be a Christianity bashing thread, so I will go somewhere else.

Dinosaurs... a term coined in the 19th century. What about it?

The actual creatures called Dinosaurs, also referred to as Bohemuth, Leviathan. Well sure they existed, and they died out just as it stated in Job by God that He would make them extinct. Didn't know that? Of course you didn't. But it's ok, because now you do.

Read Job 39-41.

Everything save a few were destroyed in a world altering flood. This explains quite alot such as fossils, sediments, coal seams, oil/gas, polystrate fossils. Also helps to explain why there isn't 20 billion people here on the earth today, like there certainly should be according to the age of the earth assumed by evolutionists.

Well this thread is just like all the others... twisted to be a Christianity bashing thread, so I will go somewhere else.


can you be that stupid? you've proven yourself inept when it comes to anything scientific far too many times and i was happy to have you stay away from the topic which you know nothing about. however, it seems you're back to making your idiotic, unfounded claims.

i don't know how your atrophied brain can somehow put together that the age of the earth= the age of humanity. it's a proven fact that homo sapien is only 200,000 years old.

if it's a proven fact, then show the facts. I'd be interested in seeing them. Thanks

if it's a proven fact, then show the facts. I'd be interested in seeing them. Thanks


The origin of modern Homo sapiens is not yet resolved. Two extreme scenarios have been proposed. According to the first, the distribution of anatomical traits in modern human populations in different regions was inherited from local populations of Homo erectus and intermediate "archaic" forms. This "Multiregional Hypothesis" states that all modern humans evolved in parallel from earlier populations in Africa, Europe and Asia, with some genetic intermixing among these regions. Support for this comes from the similarity of certain minor anatomical structures in modern human populations and preceding populations of Homo erectus in the same regions.

A different model proposes that a small, relatively isolated population of early humans evolved into modern Homo sapiens, and that this population succeeded in spreading across Africa, Europe, and Asia -- displacing and eventually replacing all other early human populations as they spread. In this scenario the variation among modern populations is a recent phenomenon. Part of the evidence to support this theory comes from molecular biology, especially studies of the diversity and mutation rate of nuclear DNA and mitochondrial DNA in living human cells.From these studies an approximate time of divergence from the common ancestor of all modern human populations can be calculated. This research has typically yielded dates around 200,000 years ago, too young for the "Multiregional Hypothesis." Molecular methods have also tended to point to an African origin for all modern humans, implying that the ancestral population of all living people migrated from Africa to other parts of the world -- thus the name of this interpretation: the "Out of Africa Hypothesis."

Whichever model (if either) is correct, the oldest fossil evidence for anatomically modern humans is about 130,000 years old in Africa, and there is evidence for modern humans in the Near East sometime before 90,000 years ago.

Dinosaurs... a term coined in the 19th century. What about it?

The actual creatures called Dinosaurs, also referred to as Bohemuth, Leviathan. Well sure they existed, and they died out just as it stated in Job by God that He would make them extinct. Didn't know that? Of course you didn't. But it's ok, because now you do.

Read Job 39-41.

Everything save a few were destroyed in a world altering flood. This explains quite alot such as fossils, sediments, coal seams, oil/gas, polystrate fossils. Also helps to explain why there isn't 20 billion people here on the earth today, like there certainly should be according to the age of the earth assumed by evolutionists.

Well this thread is just like all the others... twisted to be a Christianity bashing thread, so I will go somewhere else.



http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1999/10/991022005700.htm
The Dino bones they found here are 227 million years old. How could the world be only 6 thousand years old if we have archeological proof that things roamed this planet before we got here.
It is indisputable evidence that the world is older then 6 thousand years old.


If you take it less literally, every thread you post in will not become and anti-christian thread.

This isn't anti-christian I'm simply proving a point that the bible has historical inaccuracies. Know why dinosaurs are not described int he bible? because they didn't know they existed. THey did not know they existed because they did not understand the world as we do now.

Aren't these fossils all found in sedimentary rocks? In which case it's merely flood depositis from the Great Deluge of Noah's day.

We don't have archeological proof of something that happened before we were here because it wasn't observed. It is merely assumed based upon the presuppositions we place upon them.

We don't have archeological proof of something that happened before we were here because it wasn't observed. It is merely assumed based upon the presuppositions we place upon them.


archaeology |ˌärkēˈäləjē| (also archeology)
noun
the study of human history and prehistory through the excavation of sites and the analysis of artifacts and other physical remains.


Archaeology is proof that dinosaurs existed. We understand the earth because we study the earth instead of studying what people thought of the earth thousands of years ago.

also, Noahs ark is a fairy tale passed through history orally pre-dating the bible.

You can't base your opinions off of someone elses opinions. You have to study something more then books written hundreds (thousands) of years ago.

no my friend, the story of Noah and the ark is no fairy tale. But since you are claiming such, then please show me any backing you have for such wild claims.

no my friend, the story of Noah and the ark is no fairy tale. But since you are claiming such, then please show me any backing you have for such wild claims.

"The Flood Myth:

The Sumerian hero Gilgamesh traveled the world in search of a way to cheat death. On one of his journeys, he came across an old man, Utnapishtim, who told Gilgamesh a story from centuries past. The gods brought a flood that swallowed the earth.

The gods were angry at mankind so they sent a flood to destroy him. The god Ea, warned Utnapishtim and instructed him to build an enormous boat to save himself, his family, and "the seed of all living things." He does so, and the gods brought rain which caused the water to rise for many days. When the rains subsided, the boat landed on a mountain, and Utnapishtim set loose first a dove, then a swallow, and finally a raven, which found land. The god Ishtar, created the rainbow and placed it in the sky, as a reminder to the gods and a pledge to mankind that there would be no more floods."


The Sumerian mythology was the basis for Babylonian mythology(they both existed in what is modern day Iraq) It was adapted by the Jews during their 3 generation long captivity. Thus it's inclusion in the old testemant.

You really should give up these rants, even the Vatican has publicly endorsed evolution.

There are well over 200 flood stories throughout various cultures, however all save one (the account in Genesis) have varying amounts of silliness in them. The fact that there are so many shows that they stemmed from one real event. In which you must find out which is true. Christ spoke of Noah and the flood in the New Testament record, so then this helps to show that this is a real event.

There are well over 200 flood stories throughout various cultures, however all save one (the account in Genesis) have varying amounts of silliness in them. The fact that there are so many shows that they stemmed from one real event. In which you must find out which is true. Christ spoke of Noah and the flood in the New Testament record, so then this helps to show that this is a real event.

This just turned into the funniest thread I have ever read. I cannot believe even you are trying to argue that Noah's ark is for real.

I'll let Joe Rogan break it down for you, because he is much better at it than me.

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/cXTBuSOu2FE&hl=en"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/cXTBuSOu2FE&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

if Noah gathered 2 of every animal, how did he get 2 kangaroos? It takes longer then 40 days to sail to Australia; assuming the ark had sails and he knew the way to Australia. I guess he put them back afterwards since there aren't kangaroos anywhere but Australia.

The original flood myth has a guy saving some livestock, grain and his immediate family from a localized flood ( the Tigress and Euphrates flood quite often) sounds a bit more plausible.

simple... The earth was one continent as stated in the Bible. Any more dumb assumptions?

simple... The earth was one continent as stated in the Bible. Any more dumb assumptions?

HA HA HA!

simple... The earth was one continent as stated in the Bible. Any more dumb assumptions?

You gotta be messing with us now. You can't really believe that just a few thousand years ago, the earth had only one land mass.

How can someone believe in a multiverse and have faith that the universe started with a "big bang" and yet not believe that anything is possible?

There are well over 200 flood stories throughout various cultures, however all save one (the account in Genesis) have varying amounts of silliness in them. The fact that there are so many shows that they stemmed from one real event. In which you must find out which is true. Christ spoke of Noah and the flood in the New Testament record, so then this helps to show that this is a real event.



The fact that there are so many shows that they stemmed from one real event.

Or maybe the one event in genesis is built off of hundreds of oral accounts passed through the generations.

How can someone believe in a multiverse and have faith that the universe started with a "big bang" and yet not believe that anything is possible?


Noah's Ark has got to be the worst story in the bible. I can understand except believing that crazy shit, but c'mon Evil.

I will believe that giant pink rabbits created the known universe before I believe a 600 year old alcoholic built a giant boat and saved 2 of every animal on the planet while your "God", instead of coming down and offering us guidance & telling us what we were doing wrong. Decides to flood the whole planet and kill us all. Nevermind the fact where Black people and Native Americans came from. Or all the millions of different species of animals on the planet.

I don't have faith in a multiverse or "big bang". But maybe I just use a different definition of faith than you. The "big bang" is a FACT. But I'm not going to argue semantics with crazy christian conservatives, again.

How can someone believe in a multiverse and have faith that the universe started with a "big bang" and yet not believe that anything is possible?

Just because something is possible doesn't mean that it's probable. Even if something is probable it doesn't mean it is true. That's why you need evidence.

As an example, it's probable that you're the father of your ex gf''s baby. But 30% of paternity tests fail so the odds are only 70/30 in your favor. You need evidence to determine the truth of the matter.

idiotic. to discuss this and any creationist can read this and try to prove it wrong. science beats theology for one reason, i'll say it only once.



science runs toward the truth, religion runs away from it.




they can make any claim they please and then ask you to disprove it, it doesn't make it right. remember the burden of proof.

Science has never proven anything in the bible wrong.

Noah had a vineyard before the flood, this is why he grew a vineyard after the flood. he made juice from the grapes, however because the atmosphere was different after the flood fermentation took place, this is why he became drunk.

Science has never proven anything in the bible wrong.


"10:13 The sun stood still, and the moon stayed, Until the nation had avenged themselves of their enemies. Isn't this written in the book of Jashar? The sun stayed in the midst of the sky, and didn't hurry to go down about a whole day."

the sun dosn't revolve around the Earth

according to my religion... which is unbiased logic. then 4.5 billion years.

But that is hardly fact and humans are as ignorant today as we were when we thought the earth was flat.

"10:13 The sun stood still, and the moon stayed, Until the nation had avenged themselves of their enemies. Isn't this written in the book of Jashar? The sun stayed in the midst of the sky, and didn't hurry to go down about a whole day."

http://www.grmi.org/Richard_Riss/evidences/7longday.html


In 1940, Harry Rimmer summarized these traditions as follows:


In the ancient Chinese writings there is a legend of a long day. The Incas of Peru and the Aztecs of Mexico have a like record, and there is a Babylonian and a Persian legend of a day that was miraculously extended. Another section of China contributes an account of the day that was miraculously prolonged, in the reign of Emperor Yeo. Herodotus recounts that the priests of Egypt showed him their temple records, and that there he read a strange account of a day that was twice the natural length.
Rimmer concludes this section with a lengthy quotation from the Polynesian account of this event.

In 1950, Immanuel Velikovsky came out with his controversial book, Worlds in Collision, based on the premise that the account of the long day in Joshua is accurate, accounting for many other unsolved scientific mysteries. In support of his premise, he also refers to the ancient traditions of a long day:


In the Mexican Annals of Cuauhtitlan--the history of the empire of Culhuacan and Mexico, written in Nahua-Indian in the sixteenth century--it is related that during a cosmic catastrophe that occurred in the remote past, the night did not end for a long time. . . .
Sahagun, the Spanish savant who came to America a generation after Columbus and gathered the traditions of the aborigines, wrote that at the time of one cosmic catastrophe the sun rose only a little way over the horizon and remained there without moving; the moon also stood still.4




the sun dosn't revolve around the Earth

No shit.

according to my religion... which is unbiased logic. then 4.5 billion years.

But that is hardly fact and humans are as ignorant today as we were when we thought the earth was flat.

I like this post.

thanks, my job is done....

humans are as ignorant today as we were when we thought the earth was flat.

you guys are right; the sciences of astronomy, biology and geology are completely arbitrary and without merit. Jeez what was I think'n

In 1940, Harry Rimmer summarized these traditions [of a long day] as follows:

HA HA HA

This guy hasn't heard of inertia. If the earth were to stop (or even slow) its rotation we'd all be thrown eastwards. And then we'd all be thrown westwards when it started back up again.

Keep posting this shit. Its funny.

If there was a force strong enough to stop the earth, I don't see why this force couldn't also stop the things on the earth. You're the one accepting the premace that the earth could stop it's rotation.

Are you really that stupid? If you're in a car and that car stops suddenly then you go flying through the window. Same with us on the earth.

is yahweh powerful enough to encourage people to exaggerate a story they heard? And surely he guides the translation process: greek hebrew aramiac latin english

you guys are right; the sciences of astronomy, biology and geology are completely arbitrary and without merit. Jeez what was I think'n

D00d, the germ therey of disease is a fuckin theory for a reason--it's some guy's guess.

Your thinking of a hypothesis, a theory is backed up with experimentation and facts

I think the major take away from this thread is that everyone knows the earth older then the bible implies. It's been proven. Take the pyramids of Giza for instance. They are almost 5 thousand years old. If the Earth is 6 thousand years old then man kind would have had to have become more intelligent in 1000 years then we have since then.

Also, Pangea was hundreds of millions of years ago. Also a fact, proven by quoting experimentation and science.

actually no, there are many people that know the earth is roughly less than 6,000 years old. And no the Pyramids were built after the flood.

So the Pyramids were build between 2170 and 2140 BC.

Isaiah 19:19

http://www.vinesbranch.com/view/?pageID=9387

actually no, there are many people that know the earth is roughly less than 6,000 years old. And no the Pyramids were built after the flood.

So the Pyramids were build between 2170 and 2140 BC.

4000 - 5000 years ago. So we agree on that.

There is no geological proof of a world wide flood, the bible is not proof. You cannot quote the bible to prove the bible. That is like quoting scientology to prove scientology is legit.


Yes, I understand that many people in your church group agree the world is 6000 years old. The rest of the world.. you know those people.. the ones who look at scientific discovery and logic to make up their beliefs.. you know.. non-christians for example.. The general consensus of all people is that the world is older then 6000 weather the bible agrees or not.

The bible is just 1 source. 1 source does not make fact. Quote something else for once please.

The bible is just 1 source. 1 source does not make fact. Quote something else for once please.

Haven't you realized that's all he has and will ever have.

Haven't you realized that's all he has and will ever have.

Yeaah.. I'm just bored and argumentative this week. =)

Haven't you realized that's all he has and will ever have.

I'm getting pretty bored with circular logic based on king james bible quotes. after all. many religious historians who can read ancient greek,hebrew latin ect. have pointed out the many changes in meaning brought about in the translating process. The Vatican has also radically changed many of it's precepts in the light of overwhelming scientific evidence; evolution, astronomy, even surprisingly, extraterrestrials.

why would I need to quote or refer to anything else? The Bible is true and until you show that it isn't, then it stands as a credible reference.

But here you go...

http://www.icr.org
http://www.answersingenesis.org

These all have quite a bit of scientific information that you require outside of the Biblical reference. And they have great search engines

So you can type in something like ... Bible true?, or Noah's Flood, or Evolution true, or proof for evolution, or whatever you can think up and see what comes up as an article.

troll

http://www.baillement.com/image-ter/fetal.yawn4.gif

The Bible is true and until you show that it isn't, then it stands as a credible reference.

From my post in another thread: The bible story about Herod killing all the babies never happened. Remember that Jesus is reputed to be born after the Census of Quirinius (6AD). But Herod died 10 years earlier in 4BC. Oops.

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massacre_of_the_Innocents "Most modern biographers of Herod do not regard the massacre as an actual historical event". Yes I agree that wikipedia is a pretty lame source, but I'm keeping it on par with the sources you posted above.

Your thinking of a hypothesis, a theory is backed up with experimentation and facts

Lies

This is a quote from live science.


Though humans have shared the planet with millions of other creatures for thousands of years, we know surprisingly little about our neighbors—we don’t even know exactly how many flora and fauna call Earth home.

The National Science Foundation’s “Tree of Life” project estimates that there could be anywhere from 5 million to 100 million species on the planet, but science has only identified about 2 million.

“We’ve only touched the surface of understanding animal life,” said entomologist Brian Fisher of the California Academy of Sciences. “We’ve discovered just 10 percent of all living things on this planet.”

.................................................. .................................................. ................

And yet somehow Noah managed to discover and roundup all 2 million species [that we know of]and a mating pair to boot,and crammed them onto a big ol' wooden boat.
Thats a minimum of 4 million animals.
So how big was this boat?
According to Genesis 6:15 the Bible tells us the Ark's dimensions were at least 135 meters long (300 cubits), 22.5 meters wide (50 cubits), and 13.5 meters high (30 cubits). That's 450 feet long, 75 feet wide, and 45 feet high! It could have been larger, because several larger-sized cubits were used. But the 45-centimeter (18-inch) cubit is long enough to show the enormous size of the Ark.

That ark aint big enough to hold all those animals...i'd need a hellofa lotta 'faith' to believe that.

flu shots are required once a year BECAUSE of evolution yet people who get them still refuse to acknowledge it. fucking mind boggling

why would I need to quote or refer to anything else? The Bible is true and until you show that it isn't, then it stands as a credible reference.




Prove to me that starwars is not a credible source and I will stop believing in the force. How silly does that sound?
The onus of proof is on the person making the claim not the person who disagrees with it.

You'd think if the bible was word for word truth that there would be other scriptures that back it up, but there are not.

onus probandi, bitch. this got old along time ago. xcept and evil can sit there and 69 eachother all day long with their bogus and unsupported claims, quick dismissal of evidence, zero knowledge of any physical science, retarded prostitute logic, and bad teeth, but they still haven't done anything but regurgitate bible quotes.

this is the real world, kids. i wonder how you'd get by if you used that same type of approach to real life scenarios like you do to argue for christianity. it's indicative of your intelligence, gullibility, insecurity, and fear.

Actually I don't believe this topic is a debate but more of a survey. You believe what you believe because you were taught to believe that in school. I believe what I believe based upon my own research that I have done in order to find what I believe best represents reality and what is the truth. We can simply agree to disagree.

Prove to me that starwars is not a credible source and I will stop believing in the force. How silly does that sound?
The onus of proof is on the person making the claim not the person who disagrees with it.

You'd think if the bible was word for word truth that there would be other scriptures that back it up, but there are not.

history backs it up. The very fact that we have manuscript evidence as well as perspicuity and historical and archeological eivdence. It's you that are making the claim that such a document is false, therefore it is you that needs to present proof for such wild claims.

From my post in another thread: The bible story about Herod killing all the babies never happened. Remember that Jesus is reputed to be born after the Census of Quirinius (6AD). But Herod died 10 years earlier in 4BC. Oops.

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massacre_of_the_Innocents "Most modern biographers of Herod do not regard the massacre as an actual historical event". Yes I agree that wikipedia is a pretty lame source, but I'm keeping it on par with the sources you posted above.

here you go...

http://www.new-life.net/chrtms10.htm

Actually I don't believe this topic is a debate but more of a survey. You believe what you believe because you were taught to believe that in school. I believe what I believe based upon my own research that I have done in order to find what I believe best represents reality and what is the truth. We can simply agree to disagree.


that's quite an assumption, but then again, it's not surprise considering who it's coming from. remember, i went to a private christian high school.

history backs it up. The very fact that we have manuscript evidence as well as perspicuity and historical and archeological eivdence. It's you that are making the claim that such a document is false, therefore it is you that needs to present proof for such wild claims.

How about the bible's wild claims the world is flat.

Revelation 7:1
1 And after these things I saw four angels standing on FOUR CORNERS OF THE EARTH, holding the four winds of the earth, that the wind should not blow on the earth, nor on the sea, nor on any tree. (KJV)


Isaiah 11:12
12 And he shall set up an ensign for the nations, and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the FOUR CORNERS OF THE EARTH. (KJV)

Here are just a few of them. We all know a spherical object such as earth has no corners, from a document that claims to be the infallible undeniable divine truth the least we can expect is accuracy in this regard


We also know for a scientific fact that the earth is contantly moving, here we find another error

"He set the earth on its foundations; it can never be moved. (From the NIV Bible, Psalm 104:5)"

You can have any personal beleifs you want but don't force the notion its "truth" on others when it is clearly not

Isaiah 11:12 The Book of Isaiah describes how the Messiah, the Root of Jesse, shall regather his people from the four corners of the earth. They shall come from every extremity to be gathered into Israel.

The word for corner is the word kanaph, conveying the idea of extremity.
It is translated "borders" in Numbers 15:38. In Ezekiel 7:2 it is translated "four corners" and again in Isaiah 11:12 "four corners." Job 37:3 and 38:13 as "ends."

Also the greek translation means quadrants.

also in revelation it refers to the Angels standing on the four corners signifying the four directions... north, south, east, and west.

Hopefully that helps you out a bit.

a sphere does not have ends

The bible says the earth is round

Isaiah 40:22
He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers. He stretches out the heavens like a canopy, and spreads them out like a tent to live in.

By the way, that 4 corners means the North, East, South and West Winds.

onus probandi, bitch. this got old along time ago. xcept and evil can sit there and 69 eachother all day long with their bogus and unsupported claims, quick dismissal of evidence, zero knowledge of any physical science, retarded prostitute logic, and bad teeth, but they still haven't done anything but regurgitate bible quotes.

You say that like they are two different people

The bible says the earth is round

Isaiah 40:22
He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers. He stretches out the heavens like a canopy, and spreads them out like a tent to live in.

By the way, that 4 corners means the North, East, South and West Winds.

corners are diagonal, not vertical are horizontal.

And by even if they say it is round they still imply flatness

"take the earth by the edges and shake the wicked out of it "(Job 38:12-13)

you cant grab a sphere by the edges.. perhaps a round flat surface you might?

ALSO

"The visions of my head as I lay in bed were these: I saw, and behold, a tree in the midst of the earth; and its height was great. The tree grew and became strong, and its top reached to heaven, and it was visible to the end of the whole earth." (Daniel 4:10-11)

On a sphere like earth, the WHOLE world could never be visible from any height, even if you were on the moon. However on a flat surface as the bible implies, this scripture has significance


If you say this is only due to a mistranslation, then why would you put blind faith into a book that is so poorly translated as to suggest the world is flat?

ALSO

"The visions of my head as I lay in bed were these: I saw, and behold, a tree in the midst of the earth; and its height was great. The tree grew and became strong, and its top reached to heaven, and it was visible to the end of the whole earth." (Daniel 4:10-11)

On a sphere like earth, the WHOLE world could never be visible from any height, even if you were on the moon. However on a flat surface as the bible implies, this scripture has significance


If you say this is only due to a mistranslation, then why would you put blind faith into a book that is so poorly translated as to suggest the world is flat?

This is fucking money right here.

I just wanted to see the differing views of how old the world is. But in my travels I can now prove (like it needed proving..) that the Earth is older then 6 000 years old.

Ahem.

Sumer may very well be the first civilization in the world (although long term settlements at Jericho and Çatal Hüyük predate Sumer and examples of writing from Egypt and the Harappa, Indus valley sites may predate those from Sumer). From its beginnings as a collection of farming villages around 5000 BCE, through its conquest by Sargon of Agade around 2370 BCE and its final collapse under the Amorites around 2000 BCE, the Sumerians developed a religion and a society which influenced both their neighbors and their conquerors. Sumerian cuneiform, the earliest written language, was borrowed by the Babylonians, who also took many of their religious beliefs. In fact, traces and parallels of Sumerian myth can be found in Genesis.



between the uphrates and tigress rivers bitches. Bam. Just look it up and don't try to debate me.

flu shots are required once a year BECAUSE of evolution yet people who get them still refuse to acknowledge it. fucking mind boggling

Evolution within a species happens but its never been proven that one species can totally change into another species through evolution.

You say that like they are two different people

LOL I love this.

Evils not smart enough to be except68.

Evils not smart enough to be except68.

I agree. :sifone:

At least we agree on something.

At least we agree on something.

I'm sure we agree on alot more.

boy did this thread get off topic

http://i218.photobucket.com/albums/cc110/johnjollyjack/evolution-of-mansmall.jpg

^^ lol, that's awesome.

God creates the universe.

God sits around for 14 billion years.

God tells some backwater tribe in the desert (but no one else) the proper way to behave.

God waits a couple thousand more years.

God sends his son (who is somehow him) to be murdered by Romans in order to save humanity from a punishment he chooses to inflict.

God introduces the concept of hell at this time. Untold billions of people who have never heard the true word of God are burning eternally, and they never got a chance.

God's chosen messengers write all this stuff down about thirty to sixty years after the fact.

Two and a half centuries later, God decides it's finally time for his chosen people (well, his new chosen people, the Jews are fucked) to actually have some power. He makes Constantine convert to Christianity and forces the entire Roman empire to do the same.

God's official church is founded. The members of this church apparently get to dictate what God does and doesn't like, and they can decide all sorts of things about God that automatically become true: (see: The Council of Nicea, 315 AD).

A thousand years of wars, disease, famine, and bloody crusades, followed by a plague and the Dark Ages.

Martin Luther breaks away from the Catholic Church. Depending on who you ask, God sides with the Catholics, or God sides with the new Protestants. God Himself is strangely silent on the issue.

More fighting. Catholics and Protestants alternately get the upper hand and murder each other.

A couple more centuries pass.

God only answers some prayers, and at about the same rate for Christians as He does for Muslims, Jews, Hindus, and Pagans, apparently just to mess with our heads.

God develops an extreme fear of cameras and other recording devices, never performing actual miracles while they're around and instead relying on charlatan preachers, credulous audiences, and unreliable word of mouth to spread the news of His glory.

God decides that blind faith, of all things, is more valuable than logic, reason, compassion, or good deeds. In order to facilitate this faith, he never, ever provides any concrete evidence for his existence, because he likes watching the more skeptical humans live their lives in ignorance of the truth and burn in hell for all eternity.

^ REPPED

God creates the universe.

God sits around for 14 billion years.

God tells some backwater tribe in the desert (but no one else) the proper way to behave.

God waits a couple thousand more years.

God sends his son (who is somehow him) to be murdered by Romans in order to save humanity from a punishment he chooses to inflict.

God introduces the concept of hell at this time. Untold billions of people who have never heard the true word of God are burning eternally, and they never got a chance.

God's chosen messengers write all this stuff down about thirty to sixty years after the fact.

Two and a half centuries later, God decides it's finally time for his chosen people (well, his new chosen people, the Jews are fucked) to actually have some power. He makes Constantine convert to Christianity and forces the entire Roman empire to do the same.

God's official church is founded. The members of this church apparently get to dictate what God does and doesn't like, and they can decide all sorts of things about God that automatically become true: (see: The Council of Nicea, 315 AD).

A thousand years of wars, disease, famine, and bloody crusades, followed by a plague and the Dark Ages.

Martin Luther breaks away from the Catholic Church. Depending on who you ask, God sides with the Catholics, or God sides with the new Protestants. God Himself is strangely silent on the issue.

More fighting. Catholics and Protestants alternately get the upper hand and murder each other.

A couple more centuries pass.

God only answers some prayers, and at about the same rate for Christians as He does for Muslims, Jews, Hindus, and Pagans, apparently just to mess with our heads.

God develops an extreme fear of cameras and other recording devices, never performing actual miracles while they're around and instead relying on charlatan preachers, credulous audiences, and unreliable word of mouth to spread the news of His glory.

God decides that blind faith, of all things, is more valuable than logic, reason, compassion, or good deeds. In order to facilitate this faith, he never, ever provides any concrete evidence for his existence, because he likes watching the more skeptical humans live their lives in ignorance of the truth and burn in hell for all eternity.

It sounds so senseable when put it like that.

this thread delivers

http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v17/i1/DNA.asp

http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v17/i1/DNA.asp



LOL you just managed to prove what i've been saying about science all along. all it wants is the pursuit of the truth. religion runs away from it and hides behind verses thousands of years old.

anyway, chimps are the closest related primate to humans. nothing more, nothing less. we share a common ancestor. that's it. we are not evolved from chimps. you've managed to show how little you know, yet again.

Sciences suggests that the common value of >98% similarity of DNA between chimp and humans is incorrect.2 Roy Britten, author of the study, puts the figure at about 95% when insertions and deletions are included.



The above examples demonstrate that the conclusions of scientific investigations can be different depending on how the study is done. Humans and chimps can have 95% or >98.5% similar DNA depending on which nucleotides are counted and which are excluded



lol, you fucking doofus. they just admitted to picking and choosing to suit their needs.



To be fair, the estimates for a date of a ‘most recent common ancestor’ (MRCA) by evolutionists has this ‘recent single origin’ about 100,000-200,000 years ago, which is not recent by creationist standards. These estimates have been based on comparisons with chimpanzees and the assumption of a chimp/human common ancestor approximately 5 million years ago. In contrast, studies that have used pedigrees or generational mtDNA comparisons6, 10, 11 have yielded a much more recent MRCA—even 6,500 years!10



so let me get this straight. they don't believe in the great apes having a common ancestor with humans, but IF THEY DID, it would be 6,500 years ago? how fucking hypocritical is that. they are essentially admitting to it, just FUDGING the dates to coincide with their book.

about the author:

Dr DeWitt is also director of the Center for Creation Studies at Liberty University and an adjunct faculty member of the Institute for Creation Research in San Diego, California.

he's not even a little bit biased.

lol, this idiot was here, read my responses and bolted. probably went to brush up on more creationist science. this guy never responds to me when i call him out on something.

actually I was logged in a reading other forums such as the MMA topics. You really do not require a response, you usually take pride in talking to yourself.

I merely showed you that you and your other posters were mistaken about DNA. Biased is a matter of opinion, I'm biased towards the truth, and what you have isn't the truth.

You believe what you want to believe, not for me to decide for you.

actually I was logged in a reading other forums such as the MMA topics. You really do not require a response, you usually take pride in talking to yourself.

I merely showed you that you and your other posters were mistaken about DNA. Biased is a matter of opinion, I'm biased towards the truth, and what you have isn't the truth.

You believe what you want to believe, not for me to decide for you.


how was i mistaken about dna? that's impossible since i never made any claims. and i discredited your stupid ass article. see posts above, thanks.


actually, i'll do it for you

"The above examples demonstrate that the conclusions of scientific investigations can be different depending on how the study is done. Humans and chimps can have 95% or >98.5% similar DNA depending on which nucleotides are counted and which are excluded"


if that's not admitting that you altered the findings to fit your agenda, then im getting baptized again.

nope, I merely posted the link. I didn't wriite the article or do the study and neither did you. But nice to know that.

nope, I merely posted the link. I didn't wriite the article or do the study and neither did you. But nice to know that.


if you're bringing it up as proof in an attempt to disprove anything either read it, or understand it.

hehe


troll pwnt

How much more pwnt can this guy get.

evolution is false, you believe a silly lie and you base your whole life around it. Pretty funny actually.

Satan Pwns you daily. HA HA