Random - ''Religious'' topic (not bike related)

[jimjam]

Suppose it's hardly worth debating but here's a link for you to look at which would say historical evidence is very much in favour of the bible we have.
http://www.allabouttruth.org/origin-of-the-bible.htm

What?? You see you've just done what 99% of christians Ive ever met has done that is completely ignore someones point and go off on your own tangent which is totally irrelevant to the original point.


Remarkably, there is widespread evidence for absolute reliability.

What a suprise. They are sort of ignoring the fact that these copies of the bible they speak of while over 1000 years old were written 1000 years after the death of jesus?. In the 1000 years in before that things changed funnily enough. Some manuscripts date from the second or third century, well thats not suprising as thats exactly what I said too.

The link you provided is the most vague wafflesome piece of crap Ive read since the last pamphlet I got handed in the street.

I'd like to hear what you actually think on the subject. Not the a-typical church line.


Tell you what .....

the main problem people have is that they have yet to meet someone who lives completely for god/the bible.

There's a guy Angus Buchan from South Africa coming to N.Ireland next June. Go and listen to him then let me know what you think. He may shed a different light on things.

I watch the god channel for s***s and giggles all the time so Ive seen plenty of evangelical preachers giving it dixie. My favourite programme was of a big fat bearded man "healing" people. He healed the ass off everyone who came near him until a woman walked up to him. "What ails you sister" said the fat man. "Ive stopped menstruating" replied the woman. What seemed like ten minutes of deathly silence ensued. Eventually the preacher caught himself on and began praying for god to " replenish the barren desert, and make rivers flow so that the land which was once barren could be fertile again".

I dont honestly know if it did the trick or not...didnt see any rivers though.

[beechill_banty]

I watch the god channel for s***s and giggles all the time so Ive seen plenty of evangelical preachers giving it dixie. My favourite programme was of a big fat bearded man "healing" people. He healed the ass off everyone who came near him until a woman walked up to him. "What ails you sister" said the fat man. "Ive stopped menstruating" replied the woman. What seemed like ten minutes of deathly silence ensued. Eventually the preacher caught himself on and began praying for god to " replenish the barren desert, and make rivers flow so that the land which was once barren could be fertile again".

I dont honestly know if it did the trick or not...didnt see any rivers though.

Bit of a leap here, but while on the subject on reproduction, why do people known as Christians (- aka broadly protestant types) disagree with the Roman Catholic (they aren't Christians it seems :rolleyes: ) view on the virgin birth of Jesus? Just wondering really.

[Tiff]

Yay - I made this

Another point - Ninja, funny you mention the anthropic principle - a couple of pages before hand I had made the exact same post and typed out an exerpt from ''A brief history of time''

The anthropic principle to me explains everything needed to understand how we are here. Yes the earth is amazingly complicated but if you try for a very LONG time you will eventually meet the set requirements for complicated life


Also - people who belive in God have positive mental additide usually and when things go well they thank God, when things go wrong they say God is telling them something

There is no logic in that argument therefore you cannot argue against it, arguing against relgion is like trying to fight with a shadow.

Or if I told you that there is an invisible butterly on my shoulder - who the hell can argue with me - there is an invisible butterfly on my shoulder and i see him and he tells me what to do

[chris_the_sham]

I'm going to go see Oolon Colluphid speak soon

[keith]

The bible can not be considered to be an accurate or even truthful account.

according to the bible Jesus was born in bethlehem, followed by Herod's massacre of the innocent. When the gospels were written (long after jesus' death) nobody knew where jesus was born. But an old testament prophecy (micah 5:2) had led the jews to expect the messiah to be born in bethlehem. In the light of this John's gospel specifically remarks that 'his followers were surprised that he was not born in bethlehem.'

Matthew and luke handle the problem differently, but each deciding that he must have been born there. But they both get him there by differing routes. Matthew had mary in bethlehem all along, moving to nazareth only long after the birth, on return from egypt after escaping herod. Luke acknowledges that mary and joseph lived in nazareth before the birth, but says that when Cyrenius was govenor of syria, Caesar augustus decreed a census for taxation purposes and everyone had to go to his own city (Joseph was of the line of david so they had to go to bethlehem). This is all a little strange, David (if he existed) lived 1000yrs before Joseph and so Im not sure why the romans would care fabout this for taxation purposes. Luke also mentions events that can be coroborated now. There was a census by Cyrenius, but only a local one but this happened in AD 6 long after herods death. But Luke does fulfil the old testament prophecy.

Also Matthew traces Josephs descent from King David via 28 intermediate generations while luke does it in 41 and there is almost no overlap in those 2 lists. And lets not forget if it was a virgin birth surely joseph's descent is largely irrrelevant.

The above is taken from the God Delusion by Richard Dawkins and I recommend it. You might have expected more cohesion in the bible regarding what isnt a small occaision in Jesus' life and if the bible is true which part is it? After 18yrs of dogma there is still light on the other side.

[chris_the_sham]

there is an invisible butterfly on my shoulder and i see him and he tells me what to do

strait jacket time

[ruthh]

Also - people who belive in God have positive mental additide usually and when things go well they thank God, when things go wrong they say God is telling them something
As a Christian, yes if things are going well in my life I will thank him for blessing me. I know that God has an overall plan for my life, and although I may not understand the reasoning behind why something goes 'wrong,' it has only gone wrong in my eyes not Gods!

During my time on earth I will probably never understand why some things happen, but I have faith and believe in Gods plan for my life - there are certain experiences in my life where I couldn't understand why God was making things tough for me, however now looking back I can see the reason for it, other things I may never understand why they happened until I die.

[marko]

download this slayer song 'disciple' it has all you need to know about God.

[Rick B]

What?? You see you've just done what 99% of christians Ive ever met has done that is completely ignore someones point and go off on your own tangent which is totally irrelevant to the original point.



What a suprise. They are sort of ignoring the fact that these copies of the bible they speak of while over 1000 years old were written 1000 years after the death of jesus?. In the 1000 years in before that things changed funnily enough. Some manuscripts date from the second or third century, well thats not suprising as thats exactly what I said too.

The link you provided is the most vague wafflesome piece of crap Ive read since the last pamphlet I got handed in the street.

I'd like to hear what you actually think on the subject. Not the a-typical church line.



I watch the god channel for s***s and giggles all the time so Ive seen plenty of evangelical preachers giving it dixie. My favourite programme was of a big fat bearded man "healing" people. He healed the ass off everyone who came near him until a woman walked up to him. "What ails you sister" said the fat man. "Ive stopped menstruating" replied the woman. What seemed like ten minutes of deathly silence ensued. Eventually the preacher caught himself on and began praying for god to " replenish the barren desert, and make rivers flow so that the land which was once barren could be fertile again".

I dont honestly know if it did the trick or not...didnt see any rivers though.

Yes the God channel is full of rubbish. Angus Buchan is NOTHING like those guys.

Sorry if that link was not up your standards. I did not realise it was not anything to do with your post which was undermining the validity of the scriptures. :confused:

Have a nice day all.:cool:

[keith]

I always get annoyed by the suggestion that when we achieve it is through the grace of God but when we fail it is a fault within ourselves.

[chris_the_sham]

there is only one god

http://tn3-1.deviantart.com/fs8/300W/i/2006/165/e/2/homer_simpson_on_a_chair_by_HamJava.jpg

Quote: Crilly 11th Oct 2007

[graeme]

Christ On A Bike

[TrixR4kidz]

What is your proof that they have been covered by ice for the last 10-15000 years?


Are you being serious???


If you are, i'll see your What is your proof that they have been covered by ice for the last 10-15000 years? and raise you a what is your proof that they haven't been covered in ice for the last 10-15000 years? and if you so much as mention the words faith, bible, god or jesus i'll set my lions on ya.

[chris_the_sham]

im so tempted to get blocked and watch the god channel. can you phone in to it?

[jimjam]

Yes the God channel is full of rubbish. Angus Buchan is NOTHING like those guys.

Sorry if that link was not up your standards. I did not realise it was not anything to do with your post which was undermining the validity of the scriptures. :confused:

Have a nice day all.:cool:

My post was not undermining the validity of scriptures, it was explaining the history of a book. Christians always use the "roman historic accounts" arguement when someone questions the existence of the biblical jesus in anyway. Its hypocritical if I cant refer to the same sources to point out changes in christianity and the bible. Personally I think you've read something that you didnt know which questions something you believe and you dont like it so you accuse me of trying to undermine scriptures. Im not undermining them, history undermines them.
The very people who established your faith did enough to undermine the scriptures by cherry picking what they liked and didnt like and persecuting those who didnt agree with them, I dont have to do anything other than point out the truth.

The bible was written by men. Fact. Agree or not?


im so tempted to get blocked and watch the god channel. can you phone in to it?
Dont think you can phone in. Watch it anyway though.

[chris_the_sham]

Once upon a time in the Kingdom of Heaven , God went missing for six
days.
Eventually, Gabriel the archangel found him, resting on the seventh day.

He inquired of God, "Where have you been?"
God sighed a deep sigh of satisfaction and proudly pointed downwards
through the clouds, "Look Gabriel, look what I've made."

Archangel Gabriel looked puzzled and said, "What is it?" "It's a
planet", replied God, "and I've put LIFE on it.
I'm going to call it Earth and it's going to be a great place of
balance".

"Balance?" inquired Gabriel, still confused.
God explained, pointing to different parts of Earth.
"For example, Northern Europe will be a place of great opportunity and wealth while Southern Europe is going to be poor; the Middle East over there will be a hot spot."

"Over there I've placed a continent of white people and over there is a
continent of black people".

God continued, pointing to different countries.
And over there, I call this place America . North America will be rich
and powerful and cold, while South America will be poor, and hot and
friendly.

And the little spot in the middle is Central America which is a hot
spot.

Can you see the balance?"

"Yes" said the Archangel, impressed by Gods work, then he pointed to a
small country in Northern Europe , "What's that one?"

"Ah" said God. "That's Ulster, the most glorious place on Earth.
There are beautiful snow capped mountains, untouched rivers, streams and lochs of exquisite, timeless beauty.
The people make a drink called Whiskey which means "The Water of Life".
The people are good looking, intelligent and humorous and they're going
to be found travelling the world. They'll be extremely sociable,
hardworking and high-achieving, and they will be known throughout the
world as warriors, engineers, inventors and pioneers.


Gabriel gasped in wonder and admiration but then said: "You said there
will be BALANCE!"

God replied wisely, "Wait until you see the shower of b**tards I'm
putting in the city!"

[Jonnyc]

Are you being serious???


If you are, i'll see your What is your proof that they have been covered by ice for the last 10-15000 years? and raise you a what is your proof that they haven't been covered in ice for the last 10-15000 years? and if you so much as mention the words faith, bible, god or jesus i'll set my lions on ya.


Yes I am being serious, I have tried at every turn to keep this thread based on fact. The other guys have been sensible enough to put forward their evidence, so can you do the same, so we can debate it.

[Jonnyc]

Tiff/Ninja

Are either of the anthropic principles based in fact? To be honest I am having trouble understanding them, so if you could convert them into layman's terms it would be great.

[Jonnyc]

Excellent question. Even though I'm pretty happy with my (logical) beliefs relating to life, universe and everything, the thing that I feel we are beyond understanding is what was before our universe. Was there anything, time, space, energy? Was there another universe before ours? Does the process of universe creation, destruction and re-birth continue ad infinitum? Is our universe mearly number X of an infinite number that have existed, or will exist, or even exist right now. Our biggest difficulty in understanding these questions is the fact that we can only see time as a linear concept, and the fact that we can only see "our" universe.

There's no doubt that our universe was created, but the question we will never be able to answer is what started it all, a supernatural being, or just a simple inevitable event?

Does that mean Conor that you accept the chance that there could be a creator?

Be clear I am not asking the question do you believe in one, only do you accept there could be one.

[blur lt]

Mods, please lock this keek.

[chris_the_sham]

lets go on a BIG FACT HUNT

wikipedia is a crock of crap

ice cores go back at least 15,000 years (google vostok ice core)

this may add or remove from peoples arguments

[jimjam]

Mods, please lock this keek.

As opposed to all those great threads you start that every one contributes to :confused: ?

[marko]

Mods, please lock this keek.

for once i agree with Pete, this is utter tripe.

[Jonnyc]

See one of my posts above about carbon 14 decay. That's the thing about radioactive decay. It is random, but predictable. And indeed "when you weren't in the room" the material was decaying faster. It'sExponential decay (Wiki again) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exponential_decay).

Can you explain to me the "half life" element of these methods.

I am struggling to understand the connection between half life and exponential decay;

For instance for carbon dating one of the principles used is that carbon decays to half it's matter in around 5300 years, hence it's half life is said to be 5300 years.

In my simple understanding you need to know how much of the element was present at the start and the finish to know how old something is. Knowing the finish is easy because you can measure it, but how do you know the start?

[chris_the_sham]

right simple chemistry.

the half life of something is the time taken to get to half its weight if you like. hence half the molecular weight in 5300 yrs is a half life of 5300 years

find me a wall and i can batter my head against it

[blur lt]

Jonny, wise up ffs.

[Jonnyc]

lets go on a BIG FACT HUNT

wikipedia is a crock of crap

ice cores go back at least 15,000 years (google vostok ice core)

this may add or remove from peoples arguments

Again the age of these cores are esitmated on the assumption that the ice layers are forming at the same rate and are caused by the same outside elements.

All very good for theorising, but not proven facts.

I hope everyone appreciates that I am not trying to rubbish all the science people are throwing out on this thread, I am only trying to uncover the fact that what many people based their factual beliefs on are at this point in time only assumptions and theories.

I have never once said I could prove the existence of God or that none of these scientific theories or assumptions will be proven in the future.

I am quite a curious person, so when in the past these things have come up I have had a habit of looking into them in greater detail. In these big points I have always found the same case, that proof doesn't exist, only speculation.

[chris_the_sham]

Again the age of these cores are esitmated on the assumption that the ice layers are forming at the same rate and are caused by the same outside elements.

yes... when its fecking cold!!!


I am only trying to uncover the fact that what many people based their factual beliefs on are at this point in time only assumptions and theories.

you believe what you want.

personally i'm the biggest fan of keeping it to yourself. whatever you believe in. not of pushing it on others.

[Jonnyc]

yes... when its fecking cold!!!



you believe what you want.

personally i'm the biggest fan of keeping it to yourself. whatever you believe in. not of pushing it on others.

I agree with you and therefore at no point through this have I pushed anything on anybody. I have answered questions honestly about my beliefs when they have been asked. And only sought to uncover the facts around what "science" has been put forward.

[chris_the_sham]

you mean Science. I'm out. Apparently answering something in this thread with science isn't good enough and gets questioned, however, answering it with 'God' or 'faith' means it must be true.

[graeme]

Not really followed this.

However just looked at your ambassadors fc thing.

Do you think that this type of missionary work is forcing christianity on people?

[Jonnyc]

Not really followed this.

However just looked at your ambassadors fc thing.

Do you think that this type of missionary work is forcing christianity on people?

A.F.C. go under the logo of "doing football differently".

The aim of the club is to play and promote football the way it was meant to be played as a fun, team sport. We do this in prisons, schools, community projects, countries with poor football facilities, etc.

In the local Mid Ulster League 4 that our team plays in we aim to do things like respect the ref, respect the opponents, bring positive points on and off the pitch. Our players receive fines and suspensions if they bring the game into disripute by arguing with ref, bad tackles, bad attitude, etc. If you want to read more about the team and gauge the reception we have got from other teams in the league go to http://www.midulsterfootballleague.co.uk/ and check it out.

IFA and PNSI have both partnered with us to host cross community and multi-cultural events, and last week we had first contact with Crewe Alexandra who want to set up coaching things in Ireland with us. None of these are "Christianity" based and have only to do with our good promotion of football.

The overall aim is driven by the organisations Christian purpose of being a positive influence on football. And while we are happy to tell people why we do what we do, we don't force it on anyone.

We make no secret of what the team is about or what it's code of conduct is based on (I should point out that anyone is free to join from any walk of life or religion and we have non-Christians and Catholics on our team) We leave it for people to decide for themselves the value of what we believe.

As long as we are "doing football differently" we are happy.

[Jonnyc]

damn that f o o t b a l l filter

[Ninja2]

Tiff/Ninja

Are either of the anthropic principles based in fact? To be honest I am having trouble understanding them, so if you could convert them into layman's terms it would be great.

Boy, I missed a lot of posts...

Firstly, the carbon dating thing. Your example of the candle in the room is actually quite nice. As an engineer, I see that determining the original length of the candle is actually very easy. All you need to do is:

1) Measure the diameter of the candle
2) Measure the volume of melted wax present
3) Find the ratio of melted / vaporised wax using burn data
4) Using the burn ratio, calculate the volume of unburnt wax that would result in the measured melted wax
5) Use the diameter to figure out the height that this volume would take

and voila! You have it!

Hopefully you can see that this example is relatively straightforward. Given combustion chemsitry you can also calculate the burn rate of the particular wax blend in air, and calculate the flame temperature . Meaning that from a burning candle, you can calculate the original time, time it has been burning and original size.

Carbon dating take the same thing to a more complex degree. I would say at this point that I am waaaayyyyy beyond my working knowledge (Im an engineer, currently mostly working in optimisation and fluid mechanics) so I can only be vague here. But the carbon dating exponential decay thing means that if you know the quantity now, and you know the half life, you can know the quantity at any time in the past. Then, if you know the original quantity, you can tell the age.

As far as I am aware, half life is relatively insensitive to external factors (in terms of temperature and pressure etc) and so these changes shouldn't affect the accuracy too much. Even so, any half decent model should take any variable factors into account *if* they affect the results.

Again, the anthropic principle is beyond my scope of knowledge. But to put it in laymans terms, there is the example in the brief history of time. A rich person will typically live in a rich area, and will therefore be surrounded by rich people. They will therefore usually observe only rich people (unless they leave their area). They might ask, "Why are we surrounded by rich people?" and its because that region has all the features that attract rich people. So it is with us as well developed intelligent beings. We see a structured, well developed solar system because it is the only region that we could have developed in. Badly explained I know, but forgive me, I'm tired and have been talking myself into corners about static, dynamic and total pressures all day.

Is there any proof for it? I don't honestly know. I certainly wouldn't imagine we could prove the existence of a multiverse. I think its more of a hypothesis to try to explain the low probability versus large time resulted in us being here. Hope that makes some sense.

Tiff - missed your post on the principle first time round. So much stuff in here!

[mprules]

sorry to drag this conversation back a bit however Re: Half life, My understanding of the process is that to work out the half life of carbon 14 (the radioactive isotope of carbon) firstly you measure the amount present in a living sample of a substance lets use wood for example, next find a piece of wood that we know the age of but is dead.

The egyptians are good for this as there are good historical time lines so we know how old the wood is , so we measure the amount of C-14 in that then by comparing the two values you can work out the half life of the carbon and use that as well as the current amount of carbon in a sample to work out the age.

edit Ninja beat me too that comment

[van donk III]

http://i147.photobucket.com/albums/r309/van_donk_III/arthur_brown_313x470.jpg

lets not forget the ever popular Arthur Brown.:-)

[TrixR4kidz]

Yes I am being serious, I have tried at every turn to keep this thread based on fact. The other guys have been sensible enough to put forward their evidence, so can you do the same, so we can debate it.

I must admit I find it hard to be too serious about all this. It becomes more difficult when you talk about bible and fact in the same breath. If you are really curious about the history of our planet, I suggest you investigate these matters. You may discover a few things. Some will support you beliefs others will question them. Meaningful enlightenment of any kind cannot be gained by asking someone else.

Others have provided links on various scientific subjects. Some of which are pretty difficult to comprehend, i'll agree. But if we don't understand something (and the principles behind it) fully, it's hard to rubbish it convincingly. Similar logical thinking and scientific methods provide power, transportation, medicine, etc yet no-one questions these.





I joined this debate late and I'll be leaving it early.
Can I borrow that brick wall when you done Sham?

[graeme]

lol at jonny and the filter

How much are you paid then Mr Jonny poof? ;-)

Your cycle through Africa sounds interesting, think Ewan McGregor and Charley Boormans book the long way down is out today and it starts on TV at the end of the month, may interest you.

[ohno mojo]

I'm not aware of any changes made to the bible. Could someone please clarify what they mean by changes? Do you mean the modern translations like New Century version etc.. or like chunks added/removed?:confused:

1st page was omitted it read-

This book is dedicated to my wife as my greatest work of fiction

[keith]

Rick B do you not think that the bible may have been significantly altered through the various translations and intervening millenia, possibly guided by ulterior motives. The church during the middle ages especially were more than happy to do anything to suit their own needs.

I although I don't have hard evidence I would be confident that passages that didn't fit into current church dogma would have been misplaced.

And even then you are still left with glaring inconsistencies that are in the versions that we have today.

[Jonnyc]

Does anyone know if we have beaten the plane on a treadmill thread yet?

[kenny]

It was spread out over a couple of threads I think.

One or two discussing it.

Another when SteveB came up with his experiment, which quickly descended into the previous threads. Again Steve coming up with big ideas, but never fulfilling them ;) . So you'll have to combine all of them.

Obviously it takes off. If you can't see that you have no idea how an aircraft works.

270 posts in the main thread, so this one has beaten it. (http://www.mtbrider.com/mtbr/showthread.php?t=4458&highlight=plane+treadmill) But count up all mentions and I reckon it's still ahead.

[Jonnyc]

Bet it never had a poll voting on whether or not it should be closed though.

I must say well done to all of those who have contributed to this thread in a sensible way. There is obviously a range of world views as big as the topic we have been discussing, but everyone for the most part has played the game.

I personally have found it the most interesting thread I have read in any forum in a long long time!

[Ninja2]

I agree Jonny - it's refreshing to have a bit of debate where the particiants don't get uber-defensive and it all degenrates into name calling.

Jolly good old chap!

[Speedfreak]

I personally have found it the most interesting thread I have read in any forum in a long long time!

Hahaha, you're funny! :p

Maybe it's because I'm just too young to really care about this sort of stuff yet, but I really have no interest. I gave a couple of points to what I thought was the meaning of the quote at the start, but this is too much!! lol.

Some of the stuff you guys are talking about on here.....feckin hell!!!! :rolleyes:

[Conor]

Does that mean Conor that you accept the chance that there could be a creator?

Be clear I am not asking the question do you believe in one, only do you accept there could be one.

Yes, I am open to that option. But that's as far as it goes as there is no current way to show me that there is one! And I'm going to believe what a pile old scrolls say.

[kenny]

It's the people that voted to close down this thread on the poll that worry me. There's nothing wrong with with people expressing opinions, and most in this thread have been put forward with some form of reasoned arguement.
What's their reason for wanting to close this?

[andyh]

you mean Science. I'm out. Apparently answering something in this thread with science isn't good enough and gets questioned, however, answering it with 'God' or 'faith' means it must be true.

lol

first you flame the thread and then you act all insulted.

WTF ?

[andyh]

It's the people that voted to close down this thread on the poll that worry me. There's nothing wrong with with people expressing opinions, and most in this thread have been put forward with some form of reasoned arguement.
What's their reason for wanting to close this?

Yeah they can do some self moderation, by not clicking the link.

[chris_the_sham]

lol

first you flame the thread and then you act all insulted.

WTF ?

flame? all i did was put in a few scientific points. and im not insulted. just stating what looks like fact

[andyh]

flame? all i did was put in a few scientific points. and im not insulted. just stating what looks like fact

interesting scientific points you were making on page 9

seems to me like no-one is allowed to challenge what you say or the Sham pram gets emptied

[chris_the_sham]

interesting scientific points you were making on page 9

seems to me like no-one is allowed to challenge what you say or the Sham pram gets emptied

is it pick-on-me day or something? good job i'm not really worried

[Tiff]

Tp be fair, I agree with sham, on his comment that science theories get shot down while ''i have faith'' is not.

And im trying to see the reason for the sham angled abuse -- hang in there santa!! :p

[Tiff]

Tiff/Ninja

Are either of the anthropic principles based in fact? To be honest I am having trouble understanding them, so if you could convert them into layman's terms it would be great.

Johnny thats the beauty of it, it makes perfect sense the first time I ever read it. It already is in laymans terms.

I dont need to find any links or do any experients, just think about it for a sec ok.

Heres the situation, in order to make a world with complicated organisims you need to get I donno 6 numbers in the national lottery. (This is just an example) Bascially anything with a very small chance of happening is similar to the liklihood of randomly allowing complex organisms to grow. Much slimmer than winning the lottery.

Now, how do you make this happen - simple, you enter ALOT of lottery tickets and you just keep entering, no matter how long it takes. Eventually you will get those 6 numbers.

No science needed just a bit of common sense.

If somehting has a very remote chance of happening but you give it enough chances it will occur.

Yes the chance is very very very small, but the time is very very very large, so eventually it will happen.

Thats the princple in laymans terms, and how its written, it doesnt come any simplier

[baz]

By a happy coincidence, check out 'Today's featured article' on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page)

Well worth a read.

[AndyB]

Thanks Andy, so useful info there.

Did your contact say how much more than 5000BC it was? 5005BC or 100,000BC?
5474BC, that's not the oldest saple they have, that's how long they have a continuous record for bog oak in ireland
A.

[AndyB]

I'm prety sure ice core data goes back around 400,000 years
A.

[thetrailbuilder]

how old is the earth according to the bible?

[Tiff]

how old is the earth according to the bible?

Just checked a couple of sites - they belive the earth to be around 5-7 thousand years old

While evolutionists belive the age to be around 4.5 billion

[Tiff]

Adam lived 6000 years ago according to this site (http://www.users.bigpond.com/rdoolan/earthsage.html)

[marko]

how much would the earth cost to buy off god? i have come into some money

[marko]

5-7 thousand years old

those idiots not looked at soil and rock samples? maybe they should consult science and the true age of the earth, morons.

[chris_the_sham]

http://file035b.bebo.com/6/large/2007/10/12/19/2426814940a5804864099l.jpg

[keith]

Lets not forget that a perfectly satisfactory religious arguement for the state of the earth (and its supposed age) is that 'God made it that way'. I guess God is just messing with us for poops and giggles.

I have heard this arguement before but surprisingly the counter i made about everything being created yesturday didnt hold much water. Some people can be very short sighted when they want to be.

[andyh]

is it pick-on-me day or something? good job i'm not really worried

no it's not that was Tuesday ;)

[enthused]

If you think the answer to the question is God then you haven't thought about the question hard enough.

Once you get back to God being the answer all you have are another set of questions relating to the origin of God himself and so on, ad infinitum - who made God? Who made the person who made God? God is not an answer - it's an admission that basically you don't want to think any further about the question...

The only real problem I have with faith is that it prevents reasonable debate. People are welcome to choose what they believe - but I don't know why religion is seen as some sort of 'Top Trump' when debate arises.

Science doesn't profess to have all the answers, but at least it strives to understand, whereas the 'God' answer is basically a suggestion that we should stop trying to find answers i.e. if we don't know the answer that's because God designed it that way - that's the equivalent of qualifying your argument with 'just because - OK'.

[jimjam]

Your just undermining the scriptures.

[baz]

You're just stirring!

[jimjam]

Aye. Anyway what do you expect, I missed the last dry day of the year over a thumb. Of course Im gonna be miserable.

[marko]

this topic not locked yet?

mods?

[timH]

this topic not locked yet?

mods?

If you're not interested, don't click on the topic.