|
|
Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - Brendan_Chipp
1
« on: April 04, 2007, 11:02:18 pm »
Bishop James Ussher calculated this date from the scriptures . . . He was wrong, obviously. Of course he was wrong. Nowhere in scripture is the age of the universe/earth stated, nor can this be calculated working backwards through the geneologies or whatever. You would not believe the arguments I've had with those who differ.  :cussing:
2
« on: April 04, 2007, 10:58:15 pm »
It was a deceleration of the age of the universe by the church at one point in time. I think you mean declaration. Not sure what decelerating has to do with your context there. I think it's safe to say much of what the "Church" prattles on about, is just that, pure nonsense that belongs in the trash. When was this so called declaration made? Sounds like something the Catholic Church did back in the centuries past. Here's hoping we've moved a long way forward since those times.
3
« on: April 04, 2007, 10:52:29 pm »
yep christianity cant even agree when the earth was "supposedly" made by god. lol, there's nothing wrong with differences of opinion and understanding. I believe in an old earth, an earth that is possibly billions of years old. I believe this because of what is known through science. There's no conflict in an old earth and my beliefs, infact just the opposite. 
4
« on: April 04, 2007, 10:50:17 pm »
That isn't exactly what I said. Ok, let's backstep a little - Yeah, 6000 years is a widely accepted figure, working back from who begate who at what age and what not. Old versions of the King James Bilble actually had the date printed in the margin of genesis - 4004BC from memory . . . Ok, tell us exactly what did you mean? Are you saying that this "4004BC" figure (whereever this is) says that the Bible teaches the universe/earth is 6,000 years old? I'm just trying to get a handle on what you think this 4004BC figure means.
5
« on: April 04, 2007, 10:43:10 pm »
Umm, because I'm already aware of it? But do you know what you're aware of? It seems not. It's laughable that you think your 4004 BC number somehow is a declaration of the age of the universe/earth according to scripture.
6
« on: April 04, 2007, 10:40:27 pm »
I'm not sure what you're trying to accomplish by mocking and being disrespectful to a religious figure such as Jesus Christ. There's no need for it.
7
« on: April 04, 2007, 10:26:54 pm »
4004 BC - just read what i said, and look into it. Why don't you? You're the one who bought it up. I couldn't give a fuck if the bible stated in black and white that the universe was going to be 6000 years old today. - Unless there was cake. Cake is good. Having some nice cake and ice cream now.
8
« on: April 04, 2007, 10:19:17 pm »
9
« on: April 04, 2007, 10:15:41 pm »
A lot of events can be dated though, by records of geological, and cosmological events documented in the bible (don't ask me for specific examples, i cbf finding them.) For this, we have Science to thank.
And a lot of old versions of the King James Bible did have 4004 printed in the margin. And this has to do with the age of the universe/earth how? I'll repeat - nowhere in Genesis (or any other book of the old and new testaments) does it state the age of the universe/earth. I guess you're hoping that the Bible says the earth is 6,000 yrs old. Good luck with that.
10
« on: April 04, 2007, 10:09:39 pm »
Young Earth creationism is a religious doctrine which teaches that the Earth and life on Earth were created by a direct action of God relatively recently (about 6,000 years ago). It is held by those Christians who believe that the Hebrew text of Genesis can only mean a literal six (24-Hour) day account of creation, that evidence for a strictly factual interpretation of the text is present in the world today, and that scientific evidence does not support Darwinian evolution or geological uniformitarianism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young_Earth_creationism
to sum it up its a religious doctrine designed purely to make science sound wrong, which we all know it isnt. If you can show me where it says the universe/earth is 6,000 yrs old, according to those Hebrew texts, be my guest. You won't find it because it's not there. There is no conflict between science and spirituality so far as the age of the universe/earth. Like I said, there's lots of wacky doctorines out there in the land of Christendom. I just might make a few changes to that above wikipedia link.
11
« on: April 04, 2007, 10:03:13 pm »
i know what he means but hes comparing faith (non religous) with faith (religous) As I've already stated, faith is faith, and it's just a lack of understanding that folks have invented "religious faith" and "non religious faith". Faith is just a noun folks. It simply demonstrates "confidence or trust in a person or thing". ( source) I now await the barrage of abuse and condemnation. Flameproof undies on.
12
« on: April 04, 2007, 09:56:24 pm »
Yeah, 6000 years is a widely accepted figure, working back from who begate who at what age and what not. Old versions of the King James Bilble actually had the date printed in the margin of genesis - 4004BC from memory - Which means the world should have ended in 1996.
/me waits to be corrected or abused :rolleyes: There's no mention of the age of the earth or the universe in either Testament, period. The universe could be billions of our earth years old. The earth could be around the same age too. Noone really knows.
13
« on: April 04, 2007, 08:06:48 pm »
lol sorry i been away for a while BUT THATS PLAIN RETARDED! :laff: School's out for today hey? :fart:
14
« on: April 04, 2007, 08:04:58 pm »
Was on the news a while ago. Well if it's on the news it must be true. :rasb:
15
« on: April 04, 2007, 08:01:53 pm »
However I'm not praying to a supernatural deity that the cables don't break. I bet you'd start praying to something if those cables snapped, and you've got 60 floors to hit bottom. There be no athiests in a falling elevator. I'm just hoping that the engineer who designed the elevator and the company that manufactured it did a good enough job. Aye, hope is a good thing.
16
« on: April 04, 2007, 06:50:16 pm »
A) christian people beleive noahs flood caused it, quickly some few thousand years ago. Where did you hear that? I've never heard of the Grand Canyon being formed by a flood in the time of Noah. There's a lot of wacky ideas out there in the world of Christedom.
17
« on: April 04, 2007, 06:46:29 pm »
I was meaning specifically with regard to their "beliefs". So someone may well come to the understanding that the Grand Canyon was carved by millions of years of erosion, but it doesn't necessarily follow that they will give up their belief in God. Not sure how the formation of the Grand Canyon is connected to a belief in God. Live and let live - if more people practised that we would find that a lot of the world's problems would go away. Well, that's my belief anyway.  Aye, I'd go along with that. :sunnies:
18
« on: April 04, 2007, 04:23:36 pm »
. . . In light of your "slightly crazy", I don't think there is anyone in the world who ISN'T slightly crazy It's not a requirement, but it sure helps. :silly:
19
« on: April 04, 2007, 04:20:25 pm »
. . . read somewhere that free thinking is the work of the devil I read somewhere that Ricky Martin was straight. :chuckle: . . . and the whole "the universe is only 6000 years old thing" I never figured out where some folks got that 6,000yr old age of the earth idea from. It's certianly not mentioned anywhere in either Testaments. :sly: edit - i still stick with my believing in god is a crazy thing - not lock up crazy, just slightly crazy Seal said it best, "we're never gonna survive, unless, we get a little crazy". We listen to Seal. He's got a face only his mumma could love and he's married to a hot supermodel. All hail Seal. :bounce:
20
« on: April 04, 2007, 11:44:04 am »
. . . it might not be sentient life - but at some stage I do not think it is a unreasonable assumption to think Mars might have supported bacteria. I'd agree with that assumption.
21
« on: April 04, 2007, 11:35:07 am »
God and Religion are irrelevant to science. Umm, I never said they're not. :disappoin
22
« on: April 04, 2007, 11:28:34 am »
LOL.
That wasn't me. Oh sorry about that. You're all starting to look alike. :chuckle:
23
« on: April 04, 2007, 11:23:35 am »
I accept possibilities as possibilities personally, for reasons already covered. I accept the possibility of the existance of the entity we refer to as God. I accept the possibility of a universe teeming with life. I accept the possibility that our universe could have multiple dimensions or there could be multiple universes. It's all possible. I see lots of closed minds around here, pretending to be otherwise, protecting self interests and positions. It's the way it's always been and it's just human nature afterall. Someone told me what you think and what you believe will never change what is, and what is is, no matter what you believe or think.
24
« on: April 04, 2007, 11:07:12 am »
Did you just paraphrase Ozzy Osbourne? Is nothing sacred to you? Ozzy, lol, no I don't think so. Not sure where I've heard that phaseolgy from. Just something I picked up I guess.
25
« on: April 04, 2007, 11:04:41 am »
For the last time. Stop quoting a SINGLE dictionary definition and implying that it is THE definition for a word. That's jus ignant. I am simply quoting a definition from an online dictionary. I even posted a link to all the other defs too, just so noone would whine.
|
|
|
