Religion. The evolution, creation and everything in between megathread

[ThaFleastyler]

I don't know if this has been posted or not, but hey - made me laugh and thought it would be fitting for this thread.

[video]aj1KGZSFmfs[/video]

Ultimate LOL - +rep! How have i not seen that clip before - its freakin hilarious!

[Zarathrustra]

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.

That isn't exactly what I said.

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.

It was a deceleration of the age of the universe by the church at one point in time.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Aeons-Search-Beginning-Martin-Gorst/dp/1841151181 << read that some time, it's quite good.

[KiLL3r]

Here's some ying for your yang.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Earth_creationism

yep christianity cant even agree when the earth was "supposedly" made by god. The bible always has been short on facts thou :sunnies:

[Brendan_Chipp]

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.

[Brendan_Chipp]

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.

[Zarathrustra]

Ok, let's backstep a little -

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.

For christs sake, read my posts.  Bishop James Ussher calculated this date from the scriptures, and it was widely accepted for a time, even printed in some versions the bible.

He was wrong, obviously.

[Brendan_Chipp]

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.

[Brendan_Chipp]

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:

[(BHP)Clyock]

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:

Have a look here at the 6000 years old reasoning http://www.missiontoamerica.com/genesis/six-thousand-years.html

This is a very common theory amongst mainstream Bible led religion I am surprised you know nothing of it considering your age and experience.

Just Google "Earth 6000 years old" and there are plenty of sites to chose from, this is just the first in the list.

1,120,000 search results.

[(BHP)Clyock]

If the universe was created by a supreme being, then that supreme being wouldn't be subject to Causality, thus doesn't need to come from anything.

Same question could be asked about the Big Bang, where did that come from?

The answer is the same.

Okay... If you apply the law of causality to the creation of a supreme being (God) at the time of its formation its opposite would also come into being (Devil), equal and opposite forces.

Isn't the big bang supposed to be cylicle(?) once the universe expands as far as it can it then collapses back on itself to start the process anew.

Anyone considered that the universe is the supreme being?:spock:

[cobra]

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.

I think, and this is just my belief and my opinion, but they were jokes and so he was trying to bring happiness into the world - thank you simon

The thing you will find is some people dont view Jesus as sacred as he is not real

I am changing the joke a little (originally hippies) but

What's orange and looks good on Christians?

Fire.

(maybe it should be what's yellow, lions)

[TuataraDude]

Leave me alone, I have a flight test tomorrow.

You're not that air force pilot that had a little incident the other day are you?

Anyone considered that the universe is the supreme being?

The Force is the supreme being.
:finger: :newangel:

[Arnifix]

Isn't the big bang supposed to be cylicle(?) once the universe expands as far as it can it then collapses back on itself to start the process anew.

Cyclical and that is one theory. I can't remember whether it is currently the most likely one or not, new evidence keeps popping up left right and center.

[Tiwaking!]

I'm just trying to get a handle on what you think this 4004BC figure means.

It was a mistake

They were meant to put 404 on the pages since they wouldnt load on the web-browsers of the time

[Arnifix]

Why don't you? You're the one who bought it up.

Perhaps he could bring it to you on a silver platter?

Cake is good. Having some nice cake and ice cream now.

With some cake...

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.

Why not? People take the piss out of religion all day, every day. The two threads hosted here are mostly taking the piss.

I'm just trying to get a handle on what you think this 4004BC figure means.

If you're gonna comment in OT on religion, it'd be a good idea to read the two threads on religion. Though it is highly comical that you, like most Christians, assume your interpretation of the bible is correct and all other interpretations are wrong.

They were meant to put 404 on the pages since they wouldnt load on the web-browsers of the time

You make me giggle like a school girl.

[(BHP)Clyock]

The Force is the supreme being.
:finger: :newangel:

Isn't the force made up of tiny creatures called Moreaclittians?:chuckle:

[TuataraDude]

Cyclical and that is one theory. I can't remember whether it is currently the most likely one or not, new evidence keeps popping up left right and center.

Can you picture it? God watching the universe collapse on itself and then inflate again? He's going "Oh shit, not again. How can I change it this time? Should I leave the dinosaurs out this time? The idea of them evolving into intelligent life sure didn't work out that previous time. Should I limit the intelligence of humans? What, even more? No. Maybe make them more intelligent? No that didn't work out either. Oh Me, what to do"

[(BHP)Clyock]

Cyclical

Thanks it was late and I couldn't be bothered swapping pages to use my dictionary.

[TuataraDude]

Isn't the force made up of tiny creatures called Moreaclittians?:chuckle:

Their collective forms the supreme being. A lot like the Borg, only on a smaller, yet larger scale :laff:

[private_hell]

yes but unlike the borg they dont assimilate

[(BHP)Clyock]

OMG amoeba run the universe.:eek:

How funny to use OMG in that context.

[Arnifix]

Thanks it was late and I couldn't be bothered swapping pages to use my dictionary.

Lol, Firefox 2 dude. It ensures my spelling is squeaky clean.

[TofuEater]

Live and let live is that exact opposite of what the christians are doing. they are practising live/beleive what we believe, all alternatives must be blocked.

That's not what appears to be happening here though. From what i can see Brendan and Fleastyler are openly Christian and they aren't ramming their opinions down anyone's throat.  

On the contrary they are suffering a level of intolerance that's unwarranted imo. They are defending their faith and no one should expect any less of them, nor abuse them because of it.

Take the "new world view", just because some whackjob reckoned that the World began in 4004BC doesn't make it orthodox Christian thinking - otherwise it would be being preached in churches every Sunday.

There are plenty of non-Christian morons who have some pretty stupid world views, does that mean that all non-Christians have to justify them? I don't think so. So why should we demand the same in return?

[Black Heart]

ok the christians I'm talking about are in that link. they obviously wield some political power in the US.

I certainly don't see anyone defending thier stance.

I don't see any related attacks on flea or brendan.

I was highlighting the fact that ignorant morons have won a battle. And that is offensive.

[(BHP)Clyock]

That's not what appears to be happening here though. From what i can see Brendan and Fleastyler are openly Christian and they aren't ramming their opinions down anyone's throat.  

On the contrary they are suffering a level of intolerance that's unwarranted imo. They are defending their faith and no one should expect any less of them, nor abuse them because of it.

Nobody is abusing them over their defence of their faiths, Flea got upset over comments Cobra made in regards to pedophilia and rightly so. Cobra has since apologised and they seemed to have moved on.
The Chipster is taking flak over his percieved condescending attitude towards anyone he thinks is younger than him and his dissmisiveness of their arguements on that basis.

Take the "new world view", just because some whackjob reckoned that the World began in 4004BC doesn't make it orthodox Christian thinking - otherwise it would be being preached in churches every Sunday.

Not a "whackjob" but many, not all and not a few, christians who adhere to the idea of total creationism are quite happy to believe the world is only 6000 years old due to it being made by God. If this is true then it doesn't have to be any older than 6000 years.

There are plenty of non-Christian morons who have some pretty stupid world views, does that mean that all non-Christians have to justify them? I don't think so. So why should we demand the same in return?

Maybe it's due to the secular world, happy to accept science for itself, need to see quantfiable evidence in all things and thereby expect it of religion aswell.

Just a thought.