Home » General Discussions » Heated Discussions and Debates » How old is our planet, and the effect this question has on the Bible.
| Re: How old is our planet, and the effect this question has on the Bible. [message #375060 is a reply to message #373722] |
Thu, 05 March 2009 17:54   |
 |
cheesesoda
Messages: 6507
Registered: March 2003
Location: Jackson, Michigan
Karma: 0
|
General (5 Stars) |
|
|
Idiots... when people say that the earth is 4.5 billion years old... they don't mean that humans/life have been established for that long. Our entire planet was molten, and then it took a couple (am I right?) to start to cool down enough to where liquid water could form, and so on and so forth. Clearly, humans weren't on the earth 4.5 billion years ago.
Overall, I've never discounted the fact that a supreme being could very well have "created" the universe. The thing is, it's been said before... it's only been in the past 1000 years that we've really started to understand the world that surrounds us. Science, compared to the world's and mankind's existence, is still in its infancy. Hell, at one point it was considered that everything had a soul because everything wanted to go toward the center of the earth. Gravity... wasn't even thought of.
How does history get remembered when it wasn't recorded? It was passed down from generation to generation through stories. Add that to the simplistic understanding of physical science and you end up with stories that are told (and eventually recorded) in a manner that was understood by the people.
Oh, and don't forget that Genesis was written in song form. Now, I don't have any resources for this besides what I heard during a sermon at my parents' church. The church doesn't interpret the Bible the way they see fit, so that it fits their lives. They actually take a step back and realize that the Bible was written by more than one person, in more than one language, and written in contexts that we may not fully understand or would completely miss if we don't have an understanding of the cultures represented.
So yes, science and the Bible can go hand-in-hand quite easily. It just means you have to understand Biblical cultures before you assume that the Medieval translators actually knew what they were translating (they didn't).
whoa.
|
|
|
|
| Re: How old is our planet, and the effect this question has on the Bible. [message #375061 is a reply to message #375057] |
Thu, 05 March 2009 17:55 |
 |
Jerad2142
Messages: 3805
Registered: July 2006
Location: USA
Karma: 6
|
General (3 Stars) |
|
|
| R315r4z0r wrote on Thu, 05 March 2009 17:26 |
Energy can't be created in a way we (as humans) can conceive (at this point in time?)
Also, to the person who said "god doesn't exist in time." To us, God would be a 4th dimensional being. Being able to move through the passage of time just as we can move forward/backward, left/right, up/down in space. You can't just "not exist in time." Because then that's just another way to say you don't exist, period.
As for how Earth should be in bad shape given its age: It should be in the condition it is in now. Most of Earth's surface is renewable and can regenerate itself. Meaning much of Earth's features come back after time. Now, take into consideration all the features on Earth's surface that do show age. Take into consideration erosion and its effects on other things on the surface. Mountains, valleys, oceans, ect.
Not to mention all of the moving plates over Earth's surface and how all of Earth used to be one large continent (instead of the 7 we have currently).
My point is, Earth shows its age in many, many different ways. And it is much older than 4.5 million years.
Edit:
Also, how can it possibly make more sense for humans to just appear out of nothing and breed from two people rather than evolve from apes? Obviously, the reason behind why not all monkeys evolved into Humans is due to habitat and location. Evolution occurs as a reaction to outside environments over long extended periods of time. Not only that, but there are many different species of monkeys.. so not all of them could have evolved into one species of human...
And isn't disbelieving we evolved from apes because of how inadequate apes are from humans both against religious tolerance and completely arrogant at the same time?
|
I think one living cell magically appearing, multiplying into a multi cell organism after 4.5 billion years is just as likely as god creating a lot of cells in the form of a human....
Also I was talking about the ozone layer being in as good of shape as it is... but I was misinformed, at some point in my life one of my teachers taught our class that green house causing gases deplete the ozone layer, but now after doing a simple google search I see that fact isn't true. BUT my other half of the volcano one IS, and if you don't believe me feel free to google it, I just did, and it was the first link I clicked on...
|
|
|
|
| Re: How old is our planet, and the effect this question has on the Bible. [message #375087 is a reply to message #375010] |
Thu, 05 March 2009 21:59 |
 |
Dreganius
Messages: 780
Registered: April 2007
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Karma: 0
|
Colonel |
|
|
| RoShamBo wrote on Fri, 06 March 2009 07:12 |
| Jerad Gray wrote on Thu, 05 March 2009 19:26 |
| reborn wrote on Thu, 05 March 2009 08:31 |
| Jerad Gray wrote on Tue, 03 March 2009 16:31 |
| Spoony wrote on Mon, 02 March 2009 11:35 |
| Muad Dib15 wrote on Sun, 01 March 2009 14:53 |
Genisis 5:3-5 When Adam had lived 130 years, he had a son in his own likeness, in his own image; and he named him Seth. After Seth was born, Adam lived 800 years and had other sons and daughters. Altogether, Adam lived 930 years, and then he died. Everyone before Noah lived very long lives before they died. Take that into consideration before you say that we believe that people have only been here 6,000 years.
|
| Spoony wrote |
fobby, it's basically done by counting the number of generations in the bible. unfortunately the people who do so don't seem to mind that people attend impossibly old ages
|
|
Soooo.... anyone have a Bible on them, I'm at school and don't have one on me, someone should count up how many generations there were between Adam and Noah, Noah lived to be extremely old as well if I remember correctly, we should average Noah and Adam together and get a ROUGH estimate of how long people were actually living. Because I seriously doubt that there were only 4 or 5 people born before Noah.
|
Even if you said they was working on the idea that the average person only lived 30 years, we can work out how many generations they had it out by doing 6000/30 = 200.
So even if we said there was 200 generations, and each of them lived for 1000 years, that 200*1000 = 200,000.
Although 200,000 years is allot more then 6000 years, it's still nowhere near 4.5 billion years. Even if you said they lived 10,000 years, and only reproduced at the end of there life, then that's still only 200*10,000 = 2 million years.
Whether the bible points towards an age of 6000 years or 2 million years, it's way off 4.5 billion years. My question remains, do you shrug it off and accept that science is right, and try not to think about this, or do you simply tell yourself that science always gets it wrong, hey, it wasn't that long ago they thought the Earth was flat.
|
I refuse to believe that one set of apes evolved to have great intelligence and morals, while the vast majority of apes are still picking each other's butts.
|
Other apes are the same as they were 1000s of years ago because they don't all evolve in one great change.
Only a handful will have mutations, and some of those mutants will survive and some will not. That doesn't mean the whole ape population is now mutant. Just 1 in 10,000.
The normal apes will continue to live and reproduce exactly as they do now.
| Jerad Gray wrote on Thu, 05 March 2009 19:26 |
I think if 4.5 million years was correct our planet would have screwed itself over thousands of years ago without our help. It seems to be in too good of condition to be 4.5 million years old, so whether god is real or not, I doubt earth is 4.5 million years old 
|
Science has already proven they early has already "screwed itself over" many times already. Anything that has happened to the earth has been "fixed" through climate change and the effects that the change caused in the first place.
A good example is the many ice ages that have happened. The earth is only warmed by inferred radiation from the sun. So there has to be a surface that will absorb the radiation. We all know that black is better than white at absorbing this heat. The ice age causes a lot of snow to fall, and thus, the earth slowly cools again because it is no longer absorbing as much heat. Which restores the ice caps, which desalinize the sea and the north Atlantic current will start up again bringing heat to Europe from the equator.
|
I just want to bring this argument forward again.
Perhaps we were a mistake or something bad that happened to the Earth, and thus the whole global warming thing, along with all the other things, aren't our own fault at all, just something that happens. Maybe the Earth simply wipes the world clear of life every few millenia and starts again. This brings forth a possibility that the Earth could be untold billions of years old, so old that Science nor God's existence could begin to explain it. It could be a possibility that we will be wiped off the face of this planet, with all our technology, all our science, all our religion, everything, by the same planet that gave birth to and/or nurtured our race, depending on your belief. If this is true, then how will we ever be able to know how old the Earth is if it continues to start anew?
If God travels 'out of time', shall we say, and exists in an alternate universe or dimension, that would give a valid reason as to how he can be everywhere at once. However it would also give the question of how he could possibly create anything in our universe if he existed in an alternate? I don't think it would be possible for any being, by themselves, to jump through dimensions and universes like that. Scientifically, it's not possible. But in regards to magic and unknown, it is. The arguments put forth are simply the unknown.
I close by saying everything we're arguing on is truly unknown, and whether we have theory or evidence or not is irrelevant when we still don't know the answer. Let's put this in context of, lets say, a criminal case. You find evidence that a suspect was at the scene of a robbery. Does that mean he's instantly guilty, that it's true? No, and even when all things point to the suspect, sometimes it's still wrong. How do they know, then? The answer is simple: they don't. Just like science's estimate, they don't really know. Just like the Bible's word, we don't know if it's true. Plain and simply, it's unknown, and I don't believe either science OR religion will be able to answer that one.
So I'm gonna go visit my friends and enjoy my life while I can instead of staying up all night wondering how old the planet is.
Heresy grows from idleness!
[Updated on: Thu, 05 March 2009 21:59] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
| Re: How old is our planet, and the effect this question has on the Bible. [message #375090 is a reply to message #374999] |
Thu, 05 March 2009 22:23 |
 |
Spoony
Messages: 3915
Registered: January 2006
Karma: 0
|
General (3 Stars)
Tactics & Strategies Moderator |
|
|
| Jerad Gray wrote on Thu, 05 March 2009 13:26 |
I refuse to believe that one set of apes evolved to have great intelligence and morals, while the vast majority of apes are still picking each other's butts.
|
Our morals are no so much greater than apes; they don't kill each other or seek to restrict each others' freedoms for the specific purpose that they think they're commanded to do so by a celestial super-ape. Picking lice off your friends seems like a much more moral, civilised and useful activity.
| Jerad Gray wrote |
I think if 4.5 million years was correct our planet would have screwed itself over thousands of years ago without our help. It seems to be in too good of condition to be 4.5 million years old, so whether god is real or not, I doubt earth is 4.5 million years old
|
Billion. Note the 'b'. The world hasn't screwed itself over thousands of times? Are you aware that well over 90% of species that ever existed on this planet have gone extinct? I'm not talking about deforestation or Japanese whaling here, I'm talking about the price of evolution.
| Jerad Gray wrote |
But thats besides the point, has anyone here ever stopped to think how much more sense it would have made if NOTHING (and I mean truly nothing, like space itself (emptiness) not even to exist).
|
In fact, I'm currently stopping to think how much less sense this sentence of yours makes.
| Jerad Gray wrote |
Now, science states that matter cannot be created or destroyed, and yet we do exist, which means at SOME POINT in time matter was created. Science claims that the big bang is where all the matter in the universe was at one point in time, and prior to that... maybe the last universe that collapsed? And what about prior to that... my point is that at some point in time, this was all created, and whether it was in a compact ball of matter, or by a god, a bunch of gods, ect. , I can't tell you.
|
So far so good, especially the last four words.
| Jerad Gray wrote |
But what I can tell you, is that at some point in time, on of sciences most basic laws is WRONG.
|
You do know what science is, right? Science is our continued understanding of the world, and it develops over time... gradually, just as our understanding of morality does.
| Jerad Gray wrote |
So, basically we are existing on loaned matter, and I'd hate to be around when it comes time to return said matter
|
Now you're just babbling.
| Jerad Gray wrote |
So when it comes down to it, I'd rather have a "God" be in control of when all this matter, rather than the alternative none existence randomness that created it, because I'm sure it could just as easily take it away. If one of them was going to take it all away, I'd much rater there be some though fist...
|
You're confusing truth for comfort; it comforts you that God is in charge of everything. I must disagree. Going by the depiction of Yahweh in the Bible, I am comforted by the likelihood of his non-existence. As for when it's all going to be taken away... well, incidentally there are two imminent events on the horizon. Firstly our sun has a limited lifespan. It's probably got a few million years in it left, but it eventually will die, first becoming a red giant. Secondly the universe is expanding faster and faster (a fascinating scientific study in itself) and the Andromeda galaxy is headed directly on a collision course towards ours. Either of these events will spell doom for this planet and everything on it. Finding another planet a fucking long way away seems the only feasible way of preserving anything we know.
So, how much help do you think religion is in this matter? If God put us in this situation, surely he's either appallingly cruel or appallingly incompetent? (Of course, one could easily think the answer is "both" after reading the Bible, but that still doesn't indicate that he exists at all, let alone is responsible for creating anything.)
| Jerad Gray wrote |
Was that completely off topic? Possibly... Just Remember the scientific standards...
4.5 Billion - Estimate
|
...supported by a great deal of evidence
| Jerad Gray wrote |
Evolution - Theory
|
...supported by a STAGGERING amount of evidence (and do you know what the word 'theory' even means...?)
| Jerad Gray wrote |
Matter cannot be Created or Destroyed - Law
|
Whoah, hold on there buddy. Matter can't be created, so that proves matter was created, therefore proving God exists?
| Jerad Gray wrote |
I think one living cell magically appearing, multiplying into a multi cell organism after 4.5 billion years is just as likely as god creating a lot of cells in the form of a human....
|
How can you possibly assess the likelihood of 'god' creating something if you don't know anything about that 'god'?
See, the event you're thinking of is the wrong one. If you want to put your finger on the origin of life from a creationist viewpoint, the equivalent to the first building blocks of life (which incidentally is not a single cell, nor does the word 'magically' make any sense) is not the creation of stuff by God at all; surely it is the creation OF God. Supposedly God is powerful enough to create a planet and species to live there, he'd be far more advanced than any species we know, or anything that has ever been invented. Doesn't he count as 'life', then? So the real beginning of life isn't God creating the world; it's the creation of God, and nobody's ever come up with a convincing argument as to how, when, or why that supposedly happened.
So let's ask your question again, but replace your fallacious straw-men with more accurate events.
| Jerad Gray probably should have wrote |
I think the building blocks of organic life forming from inorganic components, which has been conclusively demonstrated in a laboratory, is just as likely as the creation of an enormously powerful entity, that we might call a 'god', capable of making planets and humans.
|
Just as likely, eh?
| Jerad Gray wrote |
If I was god, I'd be a dick and purposely create it too look like someone else did it, that way I could later punish people for fun for not taking a hint from the book I left them
|
And yet you find it comforting!
| Jerad Gray wrote |
And beings neither can LOGICALLY be, they are both EQUALLY possible.
|
See above.
Unleash the Renerageâ„¢
Renedrama [ren-i-drah-muh]
- noun
1. the inevitable criticism one receives after doing something awful
|
|
|
|
| Re: How old is our planet, and the effect this question has on the Bible. [message #375091 is a reply to message #375090] |
Thu, 05 March 2009 22:30 |
|
Jerad2142
Messages: 3805
Registered: July 2006
Location: USA
Karma: 6
|
General (3 Stars) |
|
|
Spoony wrote on Thu, 05 March 2009 22:23
Stuff from way previous post that I don't care to talk about again...
Please don't bring extreamly old posts of mine back up, I moved past that along time ago lol Stay with the current, everyone else has already picked it over.
Jerad wrote on Thu, 05 March 2009 14:25Did you know, when mt st Helen's went off, it put more greenhouse causing gases into the atmosphere then the human race has in its entire existence. Did you know that 3 equally powerful volcanoes go off each year. Now multiply that by 4.5 billion years and explain to me how we still have an ozone layer...
But thats besides the point, has anyone here ever stopped to think how much more sense it would have made if NOTHING (and I mean truly nothing, like space itself (emptiness) not even to exist). Now, science states that matter cannot be created or destroyed, and yet we do exist, which means at SOME POINT in time matter was created. Science claims that the big bang is where all the matter in the universe was at one point in time, and prior to that... maybe the last universe that collapsed? And what about prior to that... my point is that at some point in time, this was all created, and whether it was in a compact ball of matter, or by a god, a bunch of gods, ect. , I can't tell you. But what I can tell you, is that at some point in time, on of sciences most basic laws is WRONG. So, basically we are existing on loaned matter, and I'd hate to be around when it comes time to return said matter  So when it comes down to it, I'd rather have a "God" be in control of when all this matter, rather than the alternative none existence randomness that created it, because I'm sure it could just as easily take it away. If one of them was going to take it all away, I'd much rater there be some though fist...
Was that completely off topic? Possibly... Just Remember the scientific standards...
4.5 Billion - Estimate
Evolution - Theory
Matter cannot be Created or Destroyed - Law
And please be open minded
[quote title=Jerad wrote on Thu, 05 March 2009 16:03]RoShamBo wrote on Thu, 05 March 2009 14:47
The big bang actually started as a sort of "energy ball", pure energy. We already know you can convert energy into matter and the other way round.
Ah silly me, I forgot energy could be created from nothing 
I'm neither a scientist or a priest, I'm just trying to point out concepts here...[/quote]
[Updated on: Sat, 20 January 2024 13:55] by Moderator Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: How old is our planet, and the effect this question has on the Bible. [message #375094 is a reply to message #375093] |
Thu, 05 March 2009 22:33 |
|
Jerad2142
Messages: 3805
Registered: July 2006
Location: USA
Karma: 6
|
General (3 Stars) |
|
|
| Spoony wrote on Thu, 05 March 2009 22:32 |
| Jerad Gray wrote on Thu, 05 March 2009 23:30 |
Stuff from way previous post that I don't care to talk about again...
|
Another one bites the dust.
|
Or another one can't stay up to date. My Infinite time can't be spent rereading stuff I typed hours ago over and over again.
Also, humans are not perfect, so I choose not to believe everything science says, especially when it comes down to things that happened "4.5 BILLION years ago."
| Jerad Gray wrote on Thu, 05 March 2009 22:30 |
| Spoony wrote on Thu, 05 March 2009 22:23 |
Stuff from way previous post that I don't care to talk about again...
|
Please don't bring extreamly old posts of mine back up, I moved past that along time ago lol Stay with the current, everyone else has already picked it over.
| Jerad Gray wrote on Thu, 05 March 2009 14:25 |
Did you know, when mt st Helen's went off, it put more greenhouse causing gases into the atmosphere then the human race has in its entire existence. Did you know that 3 equally powerful volcanoes go off each year. Now multiply that by 4.5 billion years and explain to me how we still have an ozone layer...
But thats besides the point, has anyone here ever stopped to think how much more sense it would have made if NOTHING (and I mean truly nothing, like space itself (emptiness) not even to exist). Now, science states that matter cannot be created or destroyed, and yet we do exist, which means at SOME POINT in time matter was created. Science claims that the big bang is where all the matter in the universe was at one point in time, and prior to that... maybe the last universe that collapsed? And what about prior to that... my point is that at some point in time, this was all created, and whether it was in a compact ball of matter, or by a god, a bunch of gods, ect. , I can't tell you. But what I can tell you, is that at some point in time, on of sciences most basic laws is WRONG. So, basically we are existing on loaned matter, and I'd hate to be around when it comes time to return said matter So when it comes down to it, I'd rather have a "God" be in control of when all this matter, rather than the alternative none existence randomness that created it, because I'm sure it could just as easily take it away. If one of them was going to take it all away, I'd much rater there be some though fist...
Was that completely off topic? Possibly... Just Remember the scientific standards...
4.5 Billion - Estimate
Evolution - Theory
Matter cannot be Created or Destroyed - Law
And please be open minded
|
| Jerad Gray wrote on Thu, 05 March 2009 16:03 |
| RoShamBo wrote on Thu, 05 March 2009 14:47 |
The big bang actually started as a sort of "energy ball", pure energy. We already know you can convert energy into matter and the other way round.
|
Ah silly me, I forgot energy could be created from nothing
I'm neither a scientist or a priest, I'm just trying to point out concepts here...[/quote]
|
|
[Updated on: Thu, 05 March 2009 22:38] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
| Re: How old is our planet, and the effect this question has on the Bible. [message #375095 is a reply to message #375090] |
Thu, 05 March 2009 22:52 |
|
Jerad2142
Messages: 3805
Registered: July 2006
Location: USA
Karma: 6
|
General (3 Stars) |
|
|
Here, just for you spoony.
| Spoony wrote on Thu, 05 March 2009 22:23 |
| Jerad Gray wrote on Thu, 05 March 2009 13:26 |
I refuse to believe that one set of apes evolved to have great intelligence and morals, while the vast majority of apes are still picking each other's butts.
|
Our morals are no so much greater than apes; they don't kill each other or seek to restrict each others' freedoms for the specific purpose that they think they're commanded to do so by a celestial super-ape. Picking lice off your friends seems like a much more moral, civilised and useful activity.
|
I would never pick lice off my friends, much less eat them, my friends are quite capable of picking them off, and eating them themselves if the have the desire to.
| Spoony wrote on Thu, 05 March 2009 22:23 |
| Jerad Gray wrote |
I think if 4.5 million years was correct our planet would have screwed itself over thousands of years ago without our help. It seems to be in too good of condition to be 4.5 million years old, so whether god is real or not, I doubt earth is 4.5 million years old
|
Billion. Note the 'b'. The world hasn't screwed itself over thousands of times? Are you aware that well over 90% of species that ever existed on this planet have gone extinct? I'm not talking about deforestation or Japanese whaling here, I'm talking about the price of evolution.
|
Note that I was just thinking about something else, because in my later posts it is billion, but if you were looking ahead I'm sure you would have noticed that.
| Spoony wrote on Thu, 05 March 2009 22:23 |
| Jerad Gray wrote |
But thats besides the point, has anyone here ever stopped to think how much more sense it would have made if NOTHING (and I mean truly nothing, like space itself (emptiness) not even to exist).
|
In fact, I'm currently stopping to think how much less sense this sentence of yours makes.
|
Think about it a bit more, it might be beyond you at first.
| Spoony wrote on Thu, 05 March 2009 22:23 |
| Jerad Gray wrote |
Now, science states that matter cannot be created or destroyed, and yet we do exist, which means at SOME POINT in time matter was created. Science claims that the big bang is where all the matter in the universe was at one point in time, and prior to that... maybe the last universe that collapsed? And what about prior to that... my point is that at some point in time, this was all created, and whether it was in a compact ball of matter, or by a god, a bunch of gods, ect. , I can't tell you.
|
So far so good, especially the last four words.
|
Glad you liked them, can you tell us, Spooner the all knowing?
| Spoony wrote on Thu, 05 March 2009 22:23 |
| Jerad Gray wrote |
But what I can tell you, is that at some point in time, on of sciences most basic laws is WRONG.
|
You do know what science is, right? Science is our continued understanding of the world, and it develops over time... gradually, just as our understanding of morality does.
|
Yes Science is made by the understanding of UN PERFECT AND FAR FROM ALL KNOWING HUMANS.
| Spoony wrote on Thu, 05 March 2009 22:23 |
| Jerad Gray wrote |
So, basically we are existing on loaned matter, and I'd hate to be around when it comes time to return said matter
|
Now you're just babbling.
|
Shame...
| Spoony wrote on Thu, 05 March 2009 22:23 |
| Jerad Gray wrote |
So when it comes down to it, I'd rather have a "God" be in control of when all this matter, rather than the alternative none existence randomness that created it, because I'm sure it could just as easily take it away. If one of them was going to take it all away, I'd much rater there be some though fist...
|
You're confusing truth for comfort; it comforts you that God is in charge of everything. I must disagree. Going by the depiction of Yahweh in the Bible, I am comforted by the likelihood of his non-existence. As for when it's all going to be taken away... well, incidentally there are two imminent events on the horizon. Firstly our sun has a limited lifespan. It's probably got a few million years in it left, but it eventually will die, first becoming a red giant. Secondly the universe is expanding faster and faster (a fascinating scientific study in itself) and the Andromeda galaxy is headed directly on a collision course towards ours. Either of these events will spell doom for this planet and everything on it. Finding another planet a fucking long way away seems the only feasible way of preserving anything we know.
So, how much help do you think religion is in this matter? If God put us in this situation, surely he's either appallingly cruel or appallingly incompetent? (Of course, one could easily think the answer is "both" after reading the Bible, but that still doesn't indicate that he exists at all, let alone is responsible for creating anything.)
|
I'm not going into a belief war...
| Spoony wrote on Thu, 05 March 2009 22:23 |
| Jerad Gray wrote |
Was that completely off topic? Possibly... Just Remember the scientific standards...
4.5 Billion - Estimate
|
...supported by a great deal of evidence
|
By us all knowing humans once again.
| Spoony wrote on Thu, 05 March 2009 22:23 |
| Jerad Gray wrote |
Evolution - Theory
|
...supported by a STAGGERING amount of evidence (and do you know what the word 'theory' even means...?)
|
Yeah, go back and reread the whole thing...
| Spoony wrote on Thu, 05 March 2009 22:23 |
| Jerad Gray wrote |
Matter cannot be Created or Destroyed - Law
|
Whoah, hold on there buddy. Matter can't be created, so that proves matter was created, therefore proving God exists?
|
No it proves that a law is wrong at some point in time, you should have kept reading.
| Spoony wrote on Thu, 05 March 2009 22:23 |
| Jerad Gray wrote |
I think one living cell magically appearing, multiplying into a multi cell organism after 4.5 billion years is just as likely as god creating a lot of cells in the form of a human....
|
How can you possibly assess the likelihood of 'god' creating something if you don't know anything about that 'god'?
|
Attacking me personally now are we, thats pretty immature...
| Spoony wrote on Thu, 05 March 2009 22:23 |
See, the event you're thinking of is the wrong one. If you want to put your finger on the origin of life from a creationist viewpoint, the equivalent to the first building blocks of life (which incidentally is not a single cell, nor does the word 'magically' make any sense) is not the creation of stuff by God at all; surely it is the creation OF God. Supposedly God is powerful enough to create a planet and species to live there, he'd be far more advanced than any species we know, or anything that has ever been invented. Doesn't he count as 'life', then? So the real beginning of life isn't God creating the world; it's the creation of God, and nobody's ever come up with a convincing argument as to how, when, or why that supposedly happened.
So let's ask your question again, but replace your fallacious straw-men with more accurate events.
|
Your thinking too hard and not having nearly enough fun.
| Spoony wrote on Thu, 05 March 2009 22:23 |
| Jerad Gray probably should have wrote |
I think the building blocks of organic life forming from inorganic components, which has been conclusively demonstrated in a laboratory, is just as likely as the creation of an enormously powerful entity, that we might call a 'god', capable of making planets and humans.
|
Just as likely, eh?
|
Read more of what I've been saying please.
| Spoony wrote on Thu, 05 March 2009 22:23 |
| Jerad Gray wrote |
If I was god, I'd be a dick and purposely create it too look like someone else did it, that way I could later punish people for fun for not taking a hint from the book I left them
|
And yet you find it comforting!
|
Yep, because it'd be like me, anyways, where do I say I believe in either theory spooner?
| Spoony wrote on Thu, 05 March 2009 22:23 |
| Jerad Gray wrote |
And beings neither can LOGICALLY be, they are both EQUALLY possible.
|
See above.
|
Maybe I missed a part of this one...
Also please read previous post after this one.
[Updated on: Thu, 05 March 2009 22:52] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
| Re: How old is our planet, and the effect this question has on the Bible. [message #375097 is a reply to message #375094] |
Thu, 05 March 2009 22:56 |
|
Spoony
Messages: 3915
Registered: January 2006
Karma: 0
|
General (3 Stars)
Tactics & Strategies Moderator |
|
|
| Jerad Gray wrote on Thu, 05 March 2009 23:33 |
Or another one can't stay up to date. My Infinite time can't be spent rereading stuff I typed hours ago over and over again.
|
If you're going to admit you're extremely unqualified to take part in a debate of this kind, go ahead. I don't really understand the lack of defensiveness, though.
| Jerad Gray wrote on Thu, 05 March 2009 23:33 |
Please don't bring extreamly old posts of mine back up, I moved past that along time ago lol
|
A day is 'extreamly old'? Are we back in biblical 'metaphor' territory again? As for moving past it, you haven't admitted you were talking complete bullshit, as my post clearly demonstrates.
| Jerad Gray wrote on Thu, 05 March 2009 23:33 |
Stay with the current, everyone else has already picked it over.
|
What strange ideas you have.
What's REALLY puzzling is your repetition of these three quotes of yours:
1.
| Jerad Gray wrote on Thu, 05 March 2009 23:33 |
Also, humans are not perfect, so I choose not to believe everything science says, especially when it comes down to things that happened "4.5 BILLION years ago."
|
2.
| Jerad Gray wrote on Thu, 05 March 2009 14:25 |
Did you know, when mt st Helen's went off, it put more greenhouse causing gases into the atmosphere then the human race has in its entire existence. Did you know that 3 equally powerful volcanoes go off each year. Now multiply that by 4.5 billion years and explain to me how we still have an ozone layer...
But thats besides the point, has anyone here ever stopped to think how much more sense it would have made if NOTHING (and I mean truly nothing, like space itself (emptiness) not even to exist). Now, science states that matter cannot be created or destroyed, and yet we do exist, which means at SOME POINT in time matter was created. Science claims that the big bang is where all the matter in the universe was at one point in time, and prior to that... maybe the last universe that collapsed? And what about prior to that... my point is that at some point in time, this was all created, and whether it was in a compact ball of matter, or by a god, a bunch of gods, ect. , I can't tell you. But what I can tell you, is that at some point in time, on of sciences most basic laws is WRONG. So, basically we are existing on loaned matter, and I'd hate to be around when it comes time to return said matter So when it comes down to it, I'd rather have a "God" be in control of when all this matter, rather than the alternative none existence randomness that created it, because I'm sure it could just as easily take it away. If one of them was going to take it all away, I'd much rater there be some though fist...
Was that completely off topic? Possibly... Just Remember the scientific standards...
4.5 Billion - Estimate
Evolution - Theory
Matter cannot be Created or Destroyed - Law
And please be open minded
|
and 3.
| Jerad Gray wrote on Thu, 05 March 2009 16:03 |
| RoShamBo wrote on Thu, 05 March 2009 14:47 |
The big bang actually started as a sort of "energy ball", pure energy. We already know you can convert energy into matter and the other way round.
|
Ah silly me, I forgot energy could be created from nothing
I'm neither a scientist or a priest, I'm just trying to point out concepts here...
|
You repeat them as if you're trying to get everyone to stop ignoring them. Firstly I already picked them apart and showed you why almost everything you said was complete bullshit, and you didn't respond to that. Secondly, if you can make up ridiculous rules of debate on the fly which conveniently allow you to ignore the fact you were proven absolutely dead wrong about something, am I allowed to do the same and simply say: you're hereby excluded from the debate because you lost it, and nothing you say can appeal from that decision?
Unleash the Renerageâ„¢
Renedrama [ren-i-drah-muh]
- noun
1. the inevitable criticism one receives after doing something awful
|
|
|
|
| Re: How old is our planet, and the effect this question has on the Bible. [message #375098 is a reply to message #375097] |
Thu, 05 March 2009 22:59 |
|
Jerad2142
Messages: 3805
Registered: July 2006
Location: USA
Karma: 6
|
General (3 Stars) |
|
|
| Spoony wrote on Thu, 05 March 2009 22:56 |
| Jerad Gray wrote on Thu, 05 March 2009 23:33 |
Or another one can't stay up to date. My Infinite time can't be spent rereading stuff I typed hours ago over and over again.
|
If you're going to admit you're extremely unqualified to take part in a debate of this kind, go ahead. I don't really understand the lack of defensiveness, though.
| Jerad Gray wrote on Thu, 05 March 2009 23:33 |
Please don't bring extreamly old posts of mine back up, I moved past that along time ago lol
|
A day is 'extreamly old'? Are we back in biblical 'metaphor' territory again? As for moving past it, you haven't admitted you were talking complete bullshit, as my post clearly demonstrates.
| Jerad Gray wrote on Thu, 05 March 2009 23:33 |
Stay with the current, everyone else has already picked it over.
|
What strange ideas you have.
What's REALLY puzzling is your repetition of these three quotes of yours:
1.
| Jerad Gray wrote on Thu, 05 March 2009 23:33 |
Also, humans are not perfect, so I choose not to believe everything science says, especially when it comes down to things that happened "4.5 BILLION years ago."
|
2.
| Jerad Gray wrote on Thu, 05 March 2009 14:25 |
Did you know, when mt st Helen's went off, it put more greenhouse causing gases into the atmosphere then the human race has in its entire existence. Did you know that 3 equally powerful volcanoes go off each year. Now multiply that by 4.5 billion years and explain to me how we still have an ozone layer...
But thats besides the point, has anyone here ever stopped to think how much more sense it would have made if NOTHING (and I mean truly nothing, like space itself (emptiness) not even to exist). Now, science states that matter cannot be created or destroyed, and yet we do exist, which means at SOME POINT in time matter was created. Science claims that the big bang is where all the matter in the universe was at one point in time, and prior to that... maybe the last universe that collapsed? And what about prior to that... my point is that at some point in time, this was all created, and whether it was in a compact ball of matter, or by a god, a bunch of gods, ect. , I can't tell you. But what I can tell you, is that at some point in time, on of sciences most basic laws is WRONG. So, basically we are existing on loaned matter, and I'd hate to be around when it comes time to return said matter So when it comes down to it, I'd rather have a "God" be in control of when all this matter, rather than the alternative none existence randomness that created it, because I'm sure it could just as easily take it away. If one of them was going to take it all away, I'd much rater there be some though fist...
Was that completely off topic? Possibly... Just Remember the scientific standards...
4.5 Billion - Estimate
Evolution - Theory
Matter cannot be Created or Destroyed - Law
And please be open minded
|
and 3.
| Jerad Gray wrote on Thu, 05 March 2009 16:03 |
| RoShamBo wrote on Thu, 05 March 2009 14:47 |
The big bang actually started as a sort of "energy ball", pure energy. We already know you can convert energy into matter and the other way round.
|
Ah silly me, I forgot energy could be created from nothing
I'm neither a scientist or a priest, I'm just trying to point out concepts here...
|
You repeat them as if you're trying to get everyone to stop ignoring them. Firstly I already picked them apart and showed you why almost everything you said was complete bullshit, and you didn't respond to that. Secondly, if you can make up ridiculous rules of debate on the fly which conveniently allow you to ignore the fact you were proven absolutely dead wrong about something, am I allowed to do the same and simply say: you're hereby excluded from the debate because you lost it, and nothing you say can appeal from that decision?
|
Settle down spoony, no reason to start flipping out, its just renegade forums, what you say here will NEVER make a difference no matter what side your on.
But its good to know your extremely qualified about both of these topics, I'll make sure to look you up next time I have a report to do.
Also I consider it extremely old when its 4 of my posts ago, and we have already moved past it.
[Updated on: Thu, 05 March 2009 23:01] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
| Re: How old is our planet, and the effect this question has on the Bible. [message #375100 is a reply to message #375095] |
Thu, 05 March 2009 23:48 |
|
Spoony
Messages: 3915
Registered: January 2006
Karma: 0
|
General (3 Stars)
Tactics & Strategies Moderator |
|
|
| Jerad Gray wrote on Thu, 05 March 2009 23:52 |
I would never pick lice off my friends, much less eat them, my friends are quite capable of picking them off, and eating them themselves if the have the desire to.
|
But would you not agree that de-lousing a friend or family member is a bit higher, morally speaking, than killing someone for the sole reason of being the wrong religion? After all, you said we are so much higher, morally and intellectually speaking, than apes, and the one example you chose to support the statement was the whole 'picking' business. Two can play that game.
| Jerad Gray wrote on Thu, 05 March 2009 23:52 |
| Spoony wrote on Thu, 05 March 2009 22:23 |
| Jerad Gray wrote |
I think if 4.5 million years was correct our planet would have screwed itself over thousands of years ago without our help. It seems to be in too good of condition to be 4.5 million years old, so whether god is real or not, I doubt earth is 4.5 million years old
|
Billion. Note the 'b'. The world hasn't screwed itself over thousands of times? Are you aware that well over 90% of species that ever existed on this planet have gone extinct? I'm not talking about deforestation or Japanese whaling here, I'm talking about the price of evolution.
|
Note that I was just thinking about something else, because in my later posts it is billion, but if you were looking ahead I'm sure you would have noticed that.
|
It does very much seem as though you're overlooking the major point made in the paragraph you're quoting, namely a pretty effective rebuttal to your "I doubt the earth is that old because it's in too good a condition". Don't you think over 90% of species that have ever existed going extinct is noteworthy?
| Jerad Gray wrote on Thu, 05 March 2009 23:52 |
| Spoony wrote |
| Jerad Gray wrote |
But thats besides the point, has anyone here ever stopped to think how much more sense it would have made if NOTHING (and I mean truly nothing, like space itself (emptiness) not even to exist).
|
In fact, I'm currently stopping to think how much less sense this sentence of yours makes.
|
Think about it a bit more, it might be beyond you at first.
|
Easy tiger, no need to be condescending. I was simply pointing out that the sentence does not make linguistic sense. Maybe "think about it a bit more" is a euphemism for "add in your own words to fill in the gaps".
| Jerad Gray wrote on Thu, 05 March 2009 23:52 |
| Spoony wrote |
| Jerad Gray wrote |
Now, science states that matter cannot be created or destroyed, and yet we do exist, which means at SOME POINT in time matter was created. Science claims that the big bang is where all the matter in the universe was at one point in time, and prior to that... maybe the last universe that collapsed? And what about prior to that... my point is that at some point in time, this was all created, and whether it was in a compact ball of matter, or by a god, a bunch of gods, ect. , I can't tell you.
|
So far so good, especially the last four words.
|
Glad you liked them, can you tell us, Spooner the all knowing?
|
I think you've missed the point again; the point is the last four words could have done the job on their own.
| Jerad Gray wrote on Thu, 05 March 2009 23:52 |
Yes Science is made by the understanding of UN PERFECT AND FAR FROM ALL KNOWING HUMANS.
|
Yes, we don't know everything, which is why we are constantly trying to find out what we currently don't know, by looking at the facts and testing our theories. That's what science is, and it's a bit strange to dismiss the whole thing by pointing out it isn't finished yet.
| Jerad Gray wrote on Thu, 05 March 2009 23:52 |
| Spoony wrote |
You're confusing truth for comfort; it comforts you that God is in charge of everything. I must disagree. Going by the depiction of Yahweh in the Bible, I am comforted by the likelihood of his non-existence. As for when it's all going to be taken away... well, incidentally there are two imminent events on the horizon. Firstly our sun has a limited lifespan. It's probably got a few million years in it left, but it eventually will die, first becoming a red giant. Secondly the universe is expanding faster and faster (a fascinating scientific study in itself) and the Andromeda galaxy is headed directly on a collision course towards ours. Either of these events will spell doom for this planet and everything on it. Finding another planet a fucking long way away seems the only feasible way of preserving anything we know.
So, how much help do you think religion is in this matter? If God put us in this situation, surely he's either appallingly cruel or appallingly incompetent? (Of course, one could easily think the answer is "both" after reading the Bible, but that still doesn't indicate that he exists at all, let alone is responsible for creating anything.)
|
I'm not going into a belief war...
|
Well, I didn't particularly want to point out that the idea of a god creating everything is not comforting to me, mainly because it sheds absolutely no light whatsoever on the actual question at hand, but I did at least do you the courtesy of replying to what you said.
| Jerad Gray wrote on Thu, 05 March 2009 23:52 |
| Spoony wrote |
| Jerad Gray wrote |
Was that completely off topic? Possibly... Just Remember the scientific standards...
4.5 Billion - Estimate
|
...supported by a great deal of evidence
|
By us all knowing humans once again.
|
No serious scientist said we are "all-knowing". The fact we don't know everything yet is not in itself a dismissal of anything we think we do know.
| Jerad Gray wrote on Thu, 05 March 2009 23:52 |
| Spoony wrote |
| Jerad Gray wrote |
Matter cannot be Created or Destroyed - Law
|
Whoah, hold on there buddy. Matter can't be created, so that proves matter was created, therefore proving God exists?
|
No it proves that a law is wrong at some point in time, you should have kept reading.
|
Why do you think matter was "created" out of nothing?
| Jerad Gray wrote on Thu, 05 March 2009 23:52 |
| Spoony wrote on Thu, 05 March 2009 22:23 |
| Jerad Gray wrote |
I think one living cell magically appearing, multiplying into a multi cell organism after 4.5 billion years is just as likely as god creating a lot of cells in the form of a human....
|
How can you possibly assess the likelihood of 'god' creating something if you don't know anything about that 'god'?
|
Attacking me personally now are we, thats pretty immature...
|
No, not at all, just pointing out that you offer absolutely no details about this god you're talking about. And yet you seem to think you don't need to in order to claim it's "just as likely" as the more commonly accepted scientific explanations of the origins of life on this planet.
| Jerad Gray wrote on Thu, 05 March 2009 23:52 |
Your thinking too hard and not having nearly enough fun.
|
At the risk of sounding nearly as condescending as you do, it doesn't require a great deal of mental exertion to refute your arguments. As for not having enough fun, I do quite enjoy these debates, even when they're really easy.
| Jerad Gray wrote on Thu, 05 March 2009 23:52 |
| Spoony wrote on Thu, 05 March 2009 22:23 |
| Jerad Gray probably should have wrote |
I think the building blocks of organic life forming from inorganic components, which has been conclusively demonstrated in a laboratory, is just as likely as the creation of an enormously powerful entity, that we might call a 'god', capable of making planets and humans.
|
Just as likely, eh?
|
Read more of what I've been saying please.
|
I did read what you said; that's what allowed me to write a reply proving you were talking complete bollocks.
| Jerad Gray wrote on Thu, 05 March 2009 23:52 |
| Spoony wrote on Thu, 05 March 2009 22:23 |
| Jerad Gray wrote |
If I was god, I'd be a dick and purposely create it too look like someone else did it, that way I could later punish people for fun for not taking a hint from the book I left them
|
And yet you find it comforting!
|
Yep, because it'd be like me, anyways, where do I say I believe in either theory spooner?
|
You said they're "just as likely" as each other, and I argued otherwise.
| Jerad Gray wrote on Thu, 05 March 2009 23:52 |
| Spoony wrote on Thu, 05 March 2009 22:23 |
| Jerad Gray wrote |
And beings neither can LOGICALLY be, they are both EQUALLY possible.
|
See above.
|
Maybe I missed a part of this one...
|
Presumably yes, namely the bit where I argue that they are not equally likely at all.
| Jerad Gray wrote |
Settle down spoony, no reason to start flipping out
|
Uh, posting calm and civilised remarks in a debate counts as "flipping out" in your eyes?
| Jerad Gray wrote |
its just renegade forums
|
Yes, the heated debates section... what are you trying to achieve by pointing out such an obvious fact?
| Jerad Gray wrote |
what you say here will NEVER make a difference no matter what side your on.
|
Again, why are you saying this?
| Jerad Gray wrote |
But its good to know your extremely qualified about both of these topics, I'll make sure to look you up next time I have a report to do.
|
I didn't say that. I didn't claim to be highly knowledgeable about either the origins of the cosmos or of evolution. What I did say was that you, almost by your own admission, seem unqualified to take part in any debate at all. This has nothing to do with the big bang or evolution, and simply your bizarre statements as to which posts of yours I am allowed to respond to.
| Jerad Gray wrote |
Also I consider it extremely old when its 4 of my posts ago
|
Ah. We're back in biblical 'metaphor' time again, are we?
| Jerad Gray wrote |
and we have already moved past it.
|
Sorry, who's "we"?
Unleash the Renerageâ„¢
Renedrama [ren-i-drah-muh]
- noun
1. the inevitable criticism one receives after doing something awful
[Updated on: Thu, 05 March 2009 23:52] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
| Re: How old is our planet, and the effect this question has on the Bible. [message #375101 is a reply to message #375100] |
Fri, 06 March 2009 00:11 |
|
Dreganius
Messages: 780
Registered: April 2007
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Karma: 0
|
Colonel |
|
|
This topic is getting a little out of hand with the way you two are getting a bit off-track in some bits. I suggest we just get back on topic. Not saying that you were ignoring the topic, I know you were debating in most parts, but part of your replies were getting out of context.
I'm finding this topic very interesting and I don't really wanna waste time reading things like that. If it could be cut down, thanks.
This sorta thing I'm not really enthusiastic about reading:
Toggle Spoiler| Spoony wrote on Fri, 06 March 2009 17:48 |
| Jerad Gray wrote |
Settle down spoony, no reason to start flipping out
|
Uh, posting calm and civilised remarks in a debate counts as "flipping out" in your eyes?
| Jerad Gray wrote |
its just renegade forums
|
Yes, the heated debates section... what are you trying to achieve by pointing out such an obvious fact?
| Jerad Gray wrote |
But its good to know your extremely qualified about both of these topics, I'll make sure to look you up next time I have a report to do.
|
I didn't say that. I didn't claim to be highly knowledgeable about either the origins of the cosmos or of evolution. What I did say was that you, almost by your own admission, seem unqualified to take part in any debate at all. This has nothing to do with the big bang or evolution, and simply your bizarre statements as to which posts of yours I am allowed to respond to.
| Jerad Gray wrote |
Also I consider it extremely old when its 4 of my posts ago
|
Ah. We're back in biblical 'metaphor' time again, are we?
| Jerad Gray wrote |
and we have already moved past it.
|
Sorry, who's "we"?
|
Heresy grows from idleness!
|
|
|
|
| Re: How old is our planet, and the effect this question has on the Bible. [message #375102 is a reply to message #375100] |
Fri, 06 March 2009 00:26 |
|
Jerad2142
Messages: 3805
Registered: July 2006
Location: USA
Karma: 6
|
General (3 Stars) |
|
|
Original Quote| Spoony wrote on Thu, 05 March 2009 23:48 |
| Jerad Gray wrote on Thu, 05 March 2009 23:52 |
I would never pick lice off my friends, much less eat them, my friends are quite capable of picking them off, and eating them themselves if the have the desire to.
|
But would you not agree that de-lousing a friend or family member is a bit higher, morally speaking, than killing someone for the sole reason of being the wrong religion? After all, you said we are so much higher, morally and intellectually speaking, than apes, and the one example you chose to support the statement was the whole 'picking' business. Two can play that game.
| Jerad Gray wrote on Thu, 05 March 2009 23:52 |
| Spoony wrote on Thu, 05 March 2009 22:23 |
| Jerad Gray wrote |
I think if 4.5 million years was correct our planet would have screwed itself over thousands of years ago without our help. It seems to be in too good of condition to be 4.5 million years old, so whether god is real or not, I doubt earth is 4.5 million years old
|
Billion. Note the 'b'. The world hasn't screwed itself over thousands of times? Are you aware that well over 90% of species that ever existed on this planet have gone extinct? I'm not talking about deforestation or Japanese whaling here, I'm talking about the price of evolution.
|
Note that I was just thinking about something else, because in my later posts it is billion, but if you were looking ahead I'm sure you would have noticed that.
|
It does very much seem as though you're overlooking the major point made in the paragraph you're quoting, namely a pretty effective rebuttal to your "I doubt the earth is that old because it's in too good a condition". Don't you think over 90% of species that have ever existed going extinct is noteworthy?
| Jerad Gray wrote on Thu, 05 March 2009 23:52 |
| Spoony wrote |
| Jerad Gray wrote |
But thats besides the point, has anyone here ever stopped to think how much more sense it would have made if NOTHING (and I mean truly nothing, like space itself (emptiness) not even to exist).
|
In fact, I'm currently stopping to think how much less sense this sentence of yours makes.
|
Think about it a bit more, it might be beyond you at first.
|
Easy tiger, no need to be condescending. I was simply pointing out that the sentence does not make linguistic sense. Maybe "think about it a bit more" is a euphemism for "add in your own words to fill in the gaps".
| Jerad Gray wrote on Thu, 05 March 2009 23:52 |
| Spoony wrote |
| Jerad Gray wrote |
Now, science states that matter cannot be created or destroyed, and yet we do exist, which means at SOME POINT in time matter was created. Science claims that the big bang is where all the matter in the universe was at one point in time, and prior to that... maybe the last universe that collapsed? And what about prior to that... my point is that at some point in time, this was all created, and whether it was in a compact ball of matter, or by a god, a bunch of gods, ect. , I can't tell you.
|
So far so good, especially the last four words.
|
Glad you liked them, can you tell us, Spooner the all knowing?
|
I think you've missed the point again; the point is the last four words could have done the job on their own.
| Jerad Gray wrote on Thu, 05 March 2009 23:52 |
Yes Science is made by the understanding of UN PERFECT AND FAR FROM ALL KNOWING HUMANS.
|
Yes, we don't know everything, which is why we are constantly trying to find out what we currently don't know, by looking at the facts and testing our theories. That's what science is, and it's a bit strange to dismiss the whole thing by pointing out it isn't finished yet.
| Jerad Gray wrote on Thu, 05 March 2009 23:52 |
| Spoony wrote |
You're confusing truth for comfort; it comforts you that God is in charge of everything. I must disagree. Going by the depiction of Yahweh in the Bible, I am comforted by the likelihood of his non-existence. As for when it's all going to be taken away... well, incidentally there are two imminent events on the horizon. Firstly our sun has a limited lifespan. It's probably got a few million years in it left, but it eventually will die, first becoming a red giant. Secondly the universe is expanding faster and faster (a fascinating scientific study in itself) and the Andromeda galaxy is headed directly on a collision course towards ours. Either of these events will spell doom for this planet and everything on it. Finding another planet a fucking long way away seems the only feasible way of preserving anything we know.
So, how much help do you think religion is in this matter? If God put us in this situation, surely he's either appallingly cruel or appallingly incompetent? (Of course, one could easily think the answer is "both" after reading the Bible, but that still doesn't indicate that he exists at all, let alone is responsible for creating anything.)
|
I'm not going into a belief war...
|
Well, I didn't particularly want to point out that the idea of a god creating everything is not comforting to me, mainly because it sheds absolutely no light whatsoever on the actual question at hand, but I did at least do you the courtesy of replying to what you said.
| Jerad Gray wrote on Thu, 05 March 2009 23:52 |
| Spoony wrote |
| Jerad Gray wrote |
Was that completely off topic? Possibly... Just Remember the scientific standards...
4.5 Billion - Estimate
|
...supported by a great deal of evidence
|
By us all knowing humans once again.
|
No serious scientist said we are "all-knowing". The fact we don't know everything yet is not in itself a dismissal of anything we think we do know.
| Jerad Gray wrote on Thu, 05 March 2009 23:52 |
| Spoony wrote |
| Jerad Gray wrote |
Matter cannot be Created or Destroyed - Law
|
Whoah, hold on there buddy. Matter can't be created, so that proves matter was created, therefore proving God exists?
|
No it proves that a law is wrong at some point in time, you should have kept reading.
|
Why do you think matter was "created" out of nothing?
| Jerad Gray wrote on Thu, 05 March 2009 23:52 |
| Spoony wrote on Thu, 05 March 2009 22:23 |
| Jerad Gray wrote |
I think one living cell magically appearing, multiplying into a multi cell organism after 4.5 billion years is just as likely as god creating a lot of cells in the form of a human....
|
How can you possibly assess the likelihood of 'god' creating something if you don't know anything about that 'god'?
|
Attacking me personally now are we, thats pretty immature...
|
No, not at all, just pointing out that you offer absolutely no details about this god you're talking about. And yet you seem to think you don't need to in order to claim it's "just as likely" as the more commonly accepted scientific explanations of the origins of life on this planet.
| Jerad Gray wrote on Thu, 05 March 2009 23:52 |
Your thinking too hard and not having nearly enough fun.
|
At the risk of sounding nearly as condescending as you do, it doesn't require a great deal of mental exertion to refute your arguments. As for not having enough fun, I do quite enjoy these debates, even when they're really easy.
| Jerad Gray wrote on Thu, 05 March 2009 23:52 |
| Spoony wrote on Thu, 05 March 2009 22:23 |
| Jerad Gray probably should have wrote |
I think the building blocks of organic life forming from inorganic components, which has been conclusively demonstrated in a laboratory, is just as likely as the creation of an enormously powerful entity, that we might call a 'god', capable of making planets and humans.
|
Just as likely, eh?
|
Read more of what I've been saying please.
|
I did read what you said; that's what allowed me to write a reply proving you were talking complete bollocks.
| Jerad Gray wrote on Thu, 05 March 2009 23:52 |
| Spoony wrote on Thu, 05 March 2009 22:23 |
| Jerad Gray wrote |
If I was god, I'd be a dick and purposely create it too look like someone else did it, that way I could later punish people for fun for not taking a hint from the book I left them
|
And yet you find it comforting!
|
Yep, because it'd be like me, anyways, where do I say I believe in either theory spooner?
|
You said they're "just as likely" as each other, and I argued otherwise.
| Jerad Gray wrote on Thu, 05 March 2009 23:52 |
| Spoony wrote on Thu, 05 March 2009 22:23 |
| Jerad Gray wrote |
And beings neither can LOGICALLY be, they are both EQUALLY possible.
|
See above.
|
Maybe I missed a part of this one...
|
Presumably yes, namely the bit where I argue that they are not equally likely at all.
| Jerad Gray wrote |
Settle down spoony, no reason to start flipping out
|
Uh, posting calm and civilised remarks in a debate counts as "flipping out" in your eyes?
| Jerad Gray wrote |
its just renegade forums
|
Yes, the heated debates section... what are you trying to achieve by pointing out such an obvious fact?
| Jerad Gray wrote |
what you say here will NEVER make a difference no matter what side your on.
|
Again, why are you saying this?
| Jerad Gray wrote |
But its good to know your extremely qualified about both of these topics, I'll make sure to look you up next time I have a report to do.
|
I didn't say that. I didn't claim to be highly knowledgeable about either the origins of the cosmos or of evolution. What I did say was that you, almost by your own admission, seem unqualified to take part in any debate at all. This has nothing to do with the big bang or evolution, and simply your bizarre statements as to which posts of yours I am allowed to respond to.
| Jerad Gray wrote |
Also I consider it extremely old when its 4 of my posts ago
|
Ah. We're back in biblical 'metaphor' time again, are we?
| Jerad Gray wrote |
and we have already moved past it.
|
Sorry, who's "we"?
|
Reply that doesn't matter
Thats just a mess too look at.
I think killing a person for what you've been thought to believe is slightly above eating bugs yes.
Maybe you didn't notice, but I dropped that a while ago.
Its made sense to everyone I've asked on IM, your the only one SO FAR having issues with it.
I can't tell you what to believe.
Trying defiantly not always succeeding, or going the correct way.
Yeah must have missed that one, sorry.
Yep
Everything comes from somewhere at some point in time, as I previously said, if you look back far enough, it comes from someplace at some time...
You teach kids a belief when they are in grade school and its likely to be commonly accepted...
You posted almost an hour after my last one, and edited my quote times, your thinking to hard...
Should have read it all first and made just one reply instead a bunch of blocks that are hard to read.
Thats what you have come to believe now isn't it.
Whats your point, looks like you agreed to me there.
I was talking about all the ad hominem.
I was pointing out that nothing we said here would make a difference to anyone else, it would be obvious if you hadn't separated that from the rest of my text.
Look above...
I didn't say a lot of this but by breaking it into little blocks you destroyed the entire concept and twisted my original point.
Didn't know I was, you must know more about the bible then I do, good for you!
Obviously it ended up being no one, give it some thought and you'll realize why (or you might have to reread everything without all these breaks in it). Also, don't bother typing a response to any of this, I don't want you to waist your time, I'm not going to be open minded to your points beings your not about mine.
[Updated on: Fri, 06 March 2009 00:29] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
| Re: How old is our planet, and the effect this question has on the Bible. [message #375103 is a reply to message #375101] |
Fri, 06 March 2009 00:27 |
|
Jerad2142
Messages: 3805
Registered: July 2006
Location: USA
Karma: 6
|
General (3 Stars) |
|
|
| Karandras wrote on Fri, 06 March 2009 00:11 |
This topic is getting a little out of hand with the way you two are getting a bit off-track in some bits. I suggest we just get back on topic. Not saying that you were ignoring the topic, I know you were debating in most parts, but part of your replies were getting out of context.
I'm finding this topic very interesting and I don't really wanna waste time reading things like that. If it could be cut down, thanks.
This sorta thing I'm not really enthusiastic about reading:
Toggle Spoiler| Spoony wrote on Fri, 06 March 2009 17:48 |
| Jerad Gray wrote |
Settle down spoony, no reason to start flipping out
|
Uh, posting calm and civilised remarks in a debate counts as "flipping out" in your eyes?
| Jerad Gray wrote |
its just renegade forums
|
Yes, the heated debates section... what are you trying to achieve by pointing out such an obvious fact?
| Jerad Gray wrote |
But its good to know your extremely qualified about both of these topics, I'll make sure to look you up next time I have a report to do.
|
I didn't say that. I didn't claim to be highly knowledgeable about either the origins of the cosmos or of evolution. What I did say was that you, almost by your own admission, seem unqualified to take part in any debate at all. This has nothing to do with the big bang or evolution, and simply your bizarre statements as to which posts of yours I am allowed to respond to.
| Jerad Gray wrote |
Also I consider it extremely old when its 4 of my posts ago
|
Ah. We're back in biblical 'metaphor' time again, are we?
| Jerad Gray wrote |
and we have already moved past it.
|
Sorry, who's "we"?
|
|
Agreed
Max Earth Age, GO!
[Updated on: Fri, 06 March 2009 00:29] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
| Re: How old is our planet, and the effect this question has on the Bible. [message #375104 is a reply to message #375087] |
Fri, 06 March 2009 00:44 |
 |
jnz
Messages: 3396
Registered: July 2006
Location: 30th century
Karma: 0
|
General (3 Stars) |
|
|
| Karandras wrote on Fri, 06 March 2009 04:59 |
| RoShamBo wrote on Fri, 06 March 2009 07:12 |
| Jerad Gray wrote on Thu, 05 March 2009 19:26 |
| reborn wrote on Thu, 05 March 2009 08:31 |
| Jerad Gray wrote on Tue, 03 March 2009 16:31 |
| Spoony wrote on Mon, 02 March 2009 11:35 |
| Muad Dib15 wrote on Sun, 01 March 2009 14:53 |
Genisis 5:3-5 When Adam had lived 130 years, he had a son in his own likeness, in his own image; and he named him Seth. After Seth was born, Adam lived 800 years and had other sons and daughters. Altogether, Adam lived 930 years, and then he died. Everyone before Noah lived very long lives before they died. Take that into consideration before you say that we believe that people have only been here 6,000 years.
|
| Spoony wrote |
fobby, it's basically done by counting the number of generations in the bible. unfortunately the people who do so don't seem to mind that people attend impossibly old ages
|
|
Soooo.... anyone have a Bible on them, I'm at school and don't have one on me, someone should count up how many generations there were between Adam and Noah, Noah lived to be extremely old as well if I remember correctly, we should average Noah and Adam together and get a ROUGH estimate of how long people were actually living. Because I seriously doubt that there were only 4 or 5 people born before Noah.
|
Even if you said they was working on the idea that the average person only lived 30 years, we can work out how many generations they had it out by doing 6000/30 = 200.
So even if we said there was 200 generations, and each of them lived for 1000 years, that 200*1000 = 200,000.
Although 200,000 years is allot more then 6000 years, it's still nowhere near 4.5 billion years. Even if you said they lived 10,000 years, and only reproduced at the end of there life, then that's still only 200*10,000 = 2 million years.
Whether the bible points towards an age of 6000 years or 2 million years, it's way off 4.5 billion years. My question remains, do you shrug it off and accept that science is right, and try not to think about this, or do you simply tell yourself that science always gets it wrong, hey, it wasn't that long ago they thought the Earth was flat.
|
I refuse to believe that one set of apes evolved to have great intelligence and morals, while the vast majority of apes are still picking each other's butts.
|
Other apes are the same as they were 1000s of years ago because they don't all evolve in one great change.
Only a handful will have mutations, and some of those mutants will survive and some will not. That doesn't mean the whole ape population is now mutant. Just 1 in 10,000.
The normal apes will continue to live and reproduce exactly as they do now.
| Jerad Gray wrote on Thu, 05 March 2009 19:26 |
I think if 4.5 million years was correct our planet would have screwed itself over thousands of years ago without our help. It seems to be in too good of condition to be 4.5 million years old, so whether god is real or not, I doubt earth is 4.5 million years old
|
Science has already proven they early has already "screwed itself over" many times already. Anything that has happened to the earth has been "fixed" through climate change and the effects that the change caused in the first place.
A good example is the many ice ages that have happened. The earth is only warmed by inferred radiation from the sun. So there has to be a surface that will absorb the radiation. We all know that black is better than white at absorbing this heat. The ice age causes a lot of snow to fall, and thus, the earth slowly cools again because it is no longer absorbing as much heat. Which restores the ice caps, which desalinize the sea and the north Atlantic current will start up again bringing heat to Europe from the equator.
|
I just want to bring this argument forward again.
Perhaps we were a mistake or something bad that happened to the Earth, and thus the whole global warming thing, along with all the other things, aren't our own fault at all, just something that happens. Maybe the Earth simply wipes the world clear of life every few millenia and starts again. This brings forth a possibility that the Earth could be untold billions of years old, so old that Science nor God's existence could begin to explain it. It could be a possibility that we will be wiped off the face of this planet, with all our technology, all our science, all our religion, everything, by the same planet that gave birth to and/or nurtured our race, depending on your belief. If this is true, then how will we ever be able to know how old the Earth is if it continues to start anew?
|
The earth doesn't "destroy itself" and start from scratch. You can see hard evidence of climate change in ice cores.
| Karandras wrote on Fri, 06 March 2009 04:59 |
If God travels 'out of time', shall we say, and exists in an alternate universe or dimension, that would give a valid reason as to how he can be everywhere at once. However it would also give the question of how he could possibly create anything in our universe if he existed in an alternate? I don't think it would be possible for any being, by themselves, to jump through dimensions and universes like that. Scientifically, it's not possible. But in regards to magic and unknown, it is. The arguments put forth are simply the unknown.
|
This exact theory also fits quite nicely for the big bang, too.
| Karandras wrote on Fri, 06 March 2009 04:59 |
So I'm gonna go visit my friends and enjoy my life while I can instead of staying up all night wondering how old the planet is.
|
Nice, I don't need to stay up all night because science has already given me an answer backed up by facts.
|
|
|
|
| Re: How old is our planet, and the effect this question has on the Bible. [message #375105 is a reply to message #375104] |
Fri, 06 March 2009 00:58 |
|
Jerad2142
Messages: 3805
Registered: July 2006
Location: USA
Karma: 6
|
General (3 Stars) |
|
|
| RoShamBo wrote on Fri, 06 March 2009 00:44 |
| Karandras wrote on Fri, 06 March 2009 04:59 |
| RoShamBo wrote on Fri, 06 March 2009 07:12 |
| Jerad Gray wrote on Thu, 05 March 2009 19:26 |
| reborn wrote on Thu, 05 March 2009 08:31 |
| Jerad Gray wrote on Tue, 03 March 2009 16:31 |
| Spoony wrote on Mon, 02 March 2009 11:35 |
| Muad Dib15 wrote on Sun, 01 March 2009 14:53 |
Genisis 5:3-5 When Adam had lived 130 years, he had a son in his own likeness, in his own image; and he named him Seth. After Seth was born, Adam lived 800 years and had other sons and daughters. Altogether, Adam lived 930 years, and then he died. Everyone before Noah lived very long lives before they died. Take that into consideration before you say that we believe that people have only been here 6,000 years.
|
| Spoony wrote |
fobby, it's basically done by counting the number of generations in the bible. unfortunately the people who do so don't seem to mind that people attend impossibly old ages
|
|
Soooo.... anyone have a Bible on them, I'm at school and don't have one on me, someone should count up how many generations there were between Adam and Noah, Noah lived to be extremely old as well if I remember correctly, we should average Noah and Adam together and get a ROUGH estimate of how long people were actually living. Because I seriously doubt that there were only 4 or 5 people born before Noah.
|
Even if you said they was working on the idea that the average person only lived 30 years, we can work out how many generations they had it out by doing 6000/30 = 200.
So even if we said there was 200 generations, and each of them lived for 1000 years, that 200*1000 = 200,000.
Although 200,000 years is allot more then 6000 years, it's still nowhere near 4.5 billion years. Even if you said they lived 10,000 years, and only reproduced at the end of there life, then that's still only 200*10,000 = 2 million years.
Whether the bible points towards an age of 6000 years or 2 million years, it's way off 4.5 billion years. My question remains, do you shrug it off and accept that science is right, and try not to think about this, or do you simply tell yourself that science always gets it wrong, hey, it wasn't that long ago they thought the Earth was flat.
|
I refuse to believe that one set of apes evolved to have great intelligence and morals, while the vast majority of apes are still picking each other's butts.
|
Other apes are the same as they were 1000s of years ago because they don't all evolve in one great change.
Only a handful will have mutations, and some of those mutants will survive and some will not. That doesn't mean the whole ape population is now mutant. Just 1 in 10,000.
The normal apes will continue to live and reproduce exactly as they do now.
| Jerad Gray wrote on Thu, 05 March 2009 19:26 |
I think if 4.5 million years was correct our planet would have screwed itself over thousands of years ago without our help. It seems to be in too good of condition to be 4.5 million years old, so whether god is real or not, I doubt earth is 4.5 million years old
|
Science has already proven they early has already "screwed itself over" many times already. Anything that has happened to the earth has been "fixed" through climate change and the effects that the change caused in the first place.
A good example is the many ice ages that have happened. The earth is only warmed by inferred radiation from the sun. So there has to be a surface that will absorb the radiation. We all know that black is better than white at absorbing this heat. The ice age causes a lot of snow to fall, and thus, the earth slowly cools again because it is no longer absorbing as much heat. Which restores the ice caps, which desalinize the sea and the north Atlantic current will start up again bringing heat to Europe from the equator.
|
I just want to bring this argument forward again.
Perhaps we were a mistake or something bad that happened to the Earth, and thus the whole global warming thing, along with all the other things, aren't our own fault at all, just something that happens. Maybe the Earth simply wipes the world clear of life every few millenia and starts again. This brings forth a possibility that the Earth could be untold billions of years old, so old that Science nor God's existence could begin to explain it. It could be a possibility that we will be wiped off the face of this planet, with all our technology, all our science, all our religion, everything, by the same planet that gave birth to and/or nurtured our race, depending on your belief. If this is true, then how will we ever be able to know how old the Earth is if it continues to start anew?
|
The earth doesn't "destroy itself" and start from scratch. You can see hard evidence of climate change in ice cores.
| Karandras wrote on Fri, 06 March 2009 04:59 |
If God travels 'out of time', shall we say, and exists in an alternate universe or dimension, that would give a valid reason as to how he can be everywhere at once. However it would also give the question of how he could possibly create anything in our universe if he existed in an alternate? I don't think it would be possible for any being, by themselves, to jump through dimensions and universes like that. Scientifically, it's not possible. But in regards to magic and unknown, it is. The arguments put forth are simply the unknown.
|
This exact theory also fits quite nicely for the big bang, too.
| Karandras wrote on Fri, 06 March 2009 04:59 |
So I'm gonna go visit my friends and enjoy my life while I can instead of staying up all night wondering how old the planet is.
|
Nice, I don't need to stay up all night because science has already given me an answer backed up by facts.
|
God created everything yesterday and just made everything look like its been here for a while, he also made us thing that we had lives prior to that moment
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: How old is our planet, and the effect this question has on the Bible. [message #375109 is a reply to message #375107] |
Fri, 06 March 2009 02:15 |
|
Spoony
Messages: 3915
Registered: January 2006
Karma: 0
|
General (3 Stars)
Tactics & Strategies Moderator |
|
|
Spoony: But would you not agree that de-lousing a friend or family member is a bit higher, morally speaking, than killing someone for the sole reason of being the wrong religion? After all, you said we are so much higher, morally and intellectually speaking, than apes, and the one example you chose to support the statement was the whole 'picking' business. Two can play that game.
JG: I think killing a person for what you've been thought to believe is slightly above eating bugs yes.
Sorry, can you clarify this? I asked which of these two is morally superior, i.e. more commendable in terms of 'rightness'.
1. an ape performing a hygienic service on another (apparently consenting) ape
2. a human killing another human due to nothing more than a disagreement
Your reply doesn't make it clear to me.
Spoony: It does very much seem as though you're overlooking the major point made in the paragraph you're quoting, namely a pretty effective rebuttal to your "I doubt the earth is that old because it's in too good a condition". Don't you think over 90% of species that have ever existed going extinct is noteworthy?
JG: Maybe you didn't notice, but I dropped that a while ago.
Indeed I didn't notice, since the post was very recent and since you said absolutely nothing indicating you had dropped it, like admitting you were wrong.
Spoony: Easy tiger, no need to be condescending. I was simply pointing out that the sentence does not make linguistic sense. Maybe "think about it a bit more" is a euphemism for "add in your own words to fill in the gaps".
JG: Its made sense to everyone I've asked on IM, your the only one SO FAR having issues with it.
Like I said, no need to be condescending. If you actually read what you typed, you will see that the sentence simply does not make sense. It is apparently incomplete.
Spoony: I think you've missed the point again; the point is the last four words could have done the job on their own.
JG: I can't tell you what to believe.
...babbling again.
Spoony: Yes, we don't know everything, which is why we are constantly trying to find out what we currently don't know, by looking at the facts and testing our theories. That's what science is, and it's a bit strange to dismiss the whole thing by pointing out it isn't finished yet.
JG: Trying defiantly not always succeeding, or going the correct way.
Of course not always succeeding, that's why we're still trying. As for "going the correct way", would you care to fill us in on what "the correct way" is?
Spoony: Well, I didn't particularly want to point out that the idea of a god creating everything is not comforting to me, mainly because it sheds absolutely no light whatsoever on the actual question at hand, but I did at least do you the courtesy of replying to what you said.
JG: Yeah must have missed that one, sorry.
Apology accepted.
Spoony: No serious scientist said we are "all-knowing". The fact we don't know everything yet is not in itself a dismissal of anything we think we do know.
JG: Yep
Are you actually agreeing with me here, it's hard to tell.
Spoony: Why do you think matter was "created" out of nothing?
JG: Everything comes from somewhere at some point in time, as I previously said, if you look back far enough, it comes from someplace at some time...
If this is your way of thinking, then how can a god possibly be the answer?
Spoony: No, not at all, just pointing out that you offer absolutely no details about this god you're talking about. And yet you seem to think you don't need to in order to claim it's "just as likely" as the more commonly accepted scientific explanations of the origins of life on this planet.
JG: You teach kids a belief when they are in grade school and its likely to be commonly accepted...
Except there is a great deal of evidence supporting the scientific claims. Your statement would be accurate if applied to religion, however.
Spoony: At the risk of sounding nearly as condescending as you do, it doesn't require a great deal of mental exertion to refute your arguments. As for not having enough fun, I do quite enjoy these debates, even when they're really easy.
JG: You posted almost an hour after my last one, and edited my quote times, your thinking to hard...
"You posted almost an hour after my last one"... um, listen to what you're saying. I wasn't necessarily reading your post from the very second you posted it. As for editing your quote times, I simply copy+pasted the quote marks when replying. I'm not aware of the times being mixed up, and so what if they were?
Spoony: I did read what you said; that's what allowed me to write a reply proving you were talking complete bollocks.
JG: Should have read it all first and made just one reply instead a bunch of blocks that are hard to read.
On the contrary, my style of reply makes it very clear which statements respond to which. Yours makes it very difficult. That is besides the point, though.
Spoony: You said they're "just as likely" as each other, and I argued otherwise.
JG: Thats what you have come to believe now isn't it.
Yes, that's why I said so and explained why; which you've utterly failed to refute.
Spoony: Presumably yes, namely the bit where I argue that they are not equally likely at all.
JG: Whats your point, looks like you agreed to me there.
I do agree with your statement that you "missed a bit". If you think you deserve points for that, then... well, help yourself.
Spoony: Uh, posting calm and civilised remarks in a debate counts as "flipping out" in your eyes?
JG: I was talking about all the ad hominem.
Specifically?
Spoony: Yes, the heated debates section... what are you trying to achieve by pointing out such an obvious fact?
JG: I was pointing out that nothing we said here would make a difference to anyone else, it would be obvious if you hadn't separated that from the rest of my text.
And why do you feel you need the say so?
Spoony: I didn't say that. I didn't claim to be highly knowledgeable about either the origins of the cosmos or of evolution. What I did say was that you, almost by your own admission, seem unqualified to take part in any debate at all. This has nothing to do with the big bang or evolution, and simply your bizarre statements as to which posts of yours I am allowed to respond to.
JG: I didn't say a lot of this but by breaking it into little blocks you destroyed the entire concept and twisted my original point.
It's true that I destroyed your entire concept, but you're a little confused about why. I destroyed your concept by reading what you said, and replying telling you why you were wrong about a great many things. It has nothing to do with the quote structure.
Spoony: Ah. We're back in biblical 'metaphor' time again, are we?
JG: Didn't know I was, you must know more about the bible then I do, good for you!
I was simply referring to the earlier statements about time in a biblical sense. Your own statements were quite similar, e.g. a post that's barely been there a day is "extremely old".
Spoony: Sorry, who's "we"?
JG: Obviously it ended up being no one, give it some thought and you'll realize why
...and we're back to condescending.
JG:I'm not going to be open minded to your points beings your not about mine.
I've actually been very open-minded to your points. That is clearly evidenced by the fact I've read everything you've said and responded to it all. You, on the other hand, have ALREADY demonstrated your closed-mindedness by ignoring most of what I've said, and telling me certain posts of yours are off-limits to discussion. You don't need to tell us "I'm not going to be open minded" when it's clear you never were in the first place.
Unleash the Renerageâ„¢
Renedrama [ren-i-drah-muh]
- noun
1. the inevitable criticism one receives after doing something awful
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: How old is our planet, and the effect this question has on the Bible. [message #375133 is a reply to message #375103] |
Fri, 06 March 2009 07:20 |
|
Spoony
Messages: 3915
Registered: January 2006
Karma: 0
|
General (3 Stars)
Tactics & Strategies Moderator |
|
|
| Jerad Gray wrote on Fri, 06 March 2009 01:27 |
| Karandras wrote on Fri, 06 March 2009 00:11 |
This topic is getting a little out of hand with the way you two are getting a bit off-track in some bits. I suggest we just get back on topic. Not saying that you were ignoring the topic, I know you were debating in most parts, but part of your replies were getting out of context.
I'm finding this topic very interesting and I don't really wanna waste time reading things like that. If it could be cut down, thanks.
This sorta thing I'm not really enthusiastic about reading:
Toggle Spoiler| Spoony wrote on Fri, 06 March 2009 17:48 |
| Jerad Gray wrote |
Settle down spoony, no reason to start flipping out
|
Uh, posting calm and civilised remarks in a debate counts as "flipping out" in your eyes?
| Jerad Gray wrote |
its just renegade forums
|
Yes, the heated debates section... what are you trying to achieve by pointing out such an obvious fact?
| Jerad Gray wrote |
But its good to know your extremely qualified about both of these topics, I'll make sure to look you up next time I have a report to do.
|
I didn't say that. I didn't claim to be highly knowledgeable about either the origins of the cosmos or of evolution. What I did say was that you, almost by your own admission, seem unqualified to take part in any debate at all. This has nothing to do with the big bang or evolution, and simply your bizarre statements as to which posts of yours I am allowed to respond to.
| Jerad Gray wrote |
Also I consider it extremely old when its 4 of my posts ago
|
Ah. We're back in biblical 'metaphor' time again, are we?
| Jerad Gray wrote |
and we have already moved past it.
|
Sorry, who's "we"?
|
|
Agreed
|
Of course you agree, since he made the bizarre assertion that we're both responsible for those specific points being 'off-topic', when a quick read of each one will see the blame lies solely on you, since you have you saying something either factually wrong, wildly irrelevant, or plain incoherent, and me just asking you what the hell you're talking about. Of course you aren't enthusiastic to hear my replies; can't have people asking you "what are you talking about?" when you say something really dense. You might actually have to answer!
Unleash the Renerageâ„¢
Renedrama [ren-i-drah-muh]
- noun
1. the inevitable criticism one receives after doing something awful
|
|
|
|
| Re: How old is our planet, and the effect this question has on the Bible. [message #375137 is a reply to message #375133] |
Fri, 06 March 2009 07:43 |
|
Jerad2142
Messages: 3805
Registered: July 2006
Location: USA
Karma: 6
|
General (3 Stars) |
|
|
| Spoony wrote on Fri, 06 March 2009 07:20 |
| Jerad Gray wrote on Fri, 06 March 2009 01:27 |
| Karandras wrote on Fri, 06 March 2009 00:11 |
This topic is getting a little out of hand with the way you two are getting a bit off-track in some bits. I suggest we just get back on topic. Not saying that you were ignoring the topic, I know you were debating in most parts, but part of your replies were getting out of context.
I'm finding this topic very interesting and I don't really wanna waste time reading things like that. If it could be cut down, thanks.
This sorta thing I'm not really enthusiastic about reading:
Toggle Spoiler| Spoony wrote on Fri, 06 March 2009 17:48 |
| Jerad Gray wrote |
Settle down spoony, no reason to start flipping out
|
Uh, posting calm and civilised remarks in a debate counts as "flipping out" in your eyes?
| Jerad Gray wrote |
its just renegade forums
|
Yes, the heated debates section... what are you trying to achieve by pointing out such an obvious fact?
| Jerad Gray wrote |
But its good to know your extremely qualified about both of these topics, I'll make sure to look you up next time I have a report to do.
|
I didn't say that. I didn't claim to be highly knowledgeable about either the origins of the cosmos or of evolution. What I did say was that you, almost by your own admission, seem unqualified to take part in any debate at all. This has nothing to do with the big bang or evolution, and simply your bizarre statements as to which posts of yours I am allowed to respond to.
| Jerad Gray wrote |
Also I consider it extremely old when its 4 of my posts ago
|
Ah. We're back in biblical 'metaphor' time again, are we?
| Jerad Gray wrote |
and we have already moved past it.
|
Sorry, who's "we"?
|
|
Agreed
|
Of course you agree, since he made the bizarre assertion that we're both responsible for those specific points being 'off-topic', when a quick read of each one will see the blame lies solely on you, since you have you saying something either factually wrong, wildly irrelevant, or plain incoherent, and me just asking you what the hell you're talking about. Of course you aren't enthusiastic to hear my replies; can't have people asking you "what are you talking about?" when you say something really dense. You might actually have to answer!
|
Okay 3 things, 1. This is Renforums, no one has to answer anything if they don't want to. 2. The topic was "How old is our planet, and the effect this question has on the Bible." so we were off topic the whole time as neither of us were discussing an actual age of the planet. 3. This reply is just off topic as the one your replying too, as your lecturing me, unless that somehow is going to allow you to know the age of this planet, I suggest you avoid it.
[Updated on: Fri, 06 March 2009 07:45] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
| Re: How old is our planet, and the effect this question has on the Bible. [message #375144 is a reply to message #375137] |
Fri, 06 March 2009 08:09 |
|
Spoony
Messages: 3915
Registered: January 2006
Karma: 0
|
General (3 Stars)
Tactics & Strategies Moderator |
|
|
| Jerad Gray wrote on Fri, 06 March 2009 15:43 |
Okay 3 things, 1. This is Renforums, no one has to answer anything if they don't want to.
|
I was speaking figuratively if it wasn't obvious; you certainly can refuse to respond to almost anything I've said (as you have done so often already) without any punishment except perhaps looking stupid and ignorant.
| Jerad Gray wrote on Fri, 06 March 2009 15:43 |
2. The topic was "How old is our planet, and the effect this question has on the Bible." so we were off topic the whole time as neither of us were discussing an actual age of the planet.
|
Indeed, all you were doing was telling me certain posts of yours are off-topic, and making absurd statements like "we have moved on" (who's "we"?). All I did was ask you what the bloody hell you're talking about; if you can't handle that, try to make more sense in the first place.
| Jerad Gray wrote on Fri, 06 March 2009 15:43 |
3. This reply is just off topic as the one your replying too, as your lecturing me, unless that somehow is going to allow you to know the age of this planet, I suggest you avoid it.
|
I just pointed out that the only person Karandras ought to whinge at for "going off-topic" is you rather than both of us, and also pointed out the absurdity of you agreeing with him. But then, it's hardly the most bizarre thing you've said so far.
Unleash the Renerageâ„¢
Renedrama [ren-i-drah-muh]
- noun
1. the inevitable criticism one receives after doing something awful
[Updated on: Fri, 06 March 2009 08:11] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
| Re: How old is our planet, and the effect this question has on the Bible. [message #375154 is a reply to message #375144] |
Fri, 06 March 2009 08:28 |
|
Jerad2142
Messages: 3805
Registered: July 2006
Location: USA
Karma: 6
|
General (3 Stars) |
|
|
| Spoony wrote on Fri, 06 March 2009 08:09 |
| Jerad Gray wrote on Fri, 06 March 2009 15:43 |
Okay 3 things, 1. This is Renforums, no one has to answer anything if they don't want to.
|
I was speaking figuratively if it wasn't obvious; you certainly can refuse to respond to almost anything I've said (as you have done so often already) without any punishment except perhaps looking stupid and ignorant.
|
Don't know, right now its starting to seem pretty stupid to keep waisting my time replying back to you.
| Spoony wrote on Fri, 06 March 2009 08:09 |
| Jerad Gray wrote on Fri, 06 March 2009 15:43 |
2. The topic was "How old is our planet, and the effect this question has on the Bible." so we were off topic the whole time as neither of us were discussing an actual age of the planet.
|
Indeed, all you were doing was telling me certain posts of yours are off-topic, and making absurd statements like "we have moved on" (who's "we"?). All I did was ask you what the bloody hell you're talking about; if you can't handle that, try to make more sense in the first place.
|
Basic understanding of the English language is nice, but your going into over kill, don't be too much of a grammar queen or else you may fail to realize that when I'm saying we in this case, it would be me and the person that seems to feel that he must keep replying to my posts, even though he has admitted he doesn't understand what I was going at in the first place, at which point I'd just drop the whole thing, because I definitely understood what I was talking about...
| Spoony wrote on Fri, 06 March 2009 08:09 |
| Jerad Gray wrote on Fri, 06 March 2009 15:43 |
3. This reply is just off topic as the one your replying too, as your lecturing me, unless that somehow is going to allow you to know the age of this planet, I suggest you avoid it.
|
I just pointed out that the only person Karandras ought to whinge at for "going off-topic" is you rather than both of us, and also pointed out the absurdity of you agreeing with him. But then, it's hardly the most bizarre thing you've said so far.
|
Do believe that I posted first, then you replied to me, so if I was off topic you definitely were.
|
|
|
|
| Re: How old is our planet, and the effect this question has on the Bible. [message #375160 is a reply to message #375154] |
Fri, 06 March 2009 08:43 |
|
Spoony
Messages: 3915
Registered: January 2006
Karma: 0
|
General (3 Stars)
Tactics & Strategies Moderator |
|
|
| Jerad Gray wrote on Fri, 06 March 2009 09:28 |
Don't know, right now its starting to seem pretty stupid to keep waisting my time replying back to you.
|
It seems stupid to me too, given that you kept refusing to respond to those points I made which were, by anybody's book, on-topic. Y'know, creationism and such.
| Jerad Gray wrote on Fri, 06 March 2009 09:28 |
Basic understanding of the English language is nice, but your going into over kill, don't be too much of a grammar queen
|
My original point was about this 'sentence':
But thats besides the point, has anyone here ever stopped to think how much more sense it would have made if NOTHING (and I mean truly nothing, like space itself (emptiness) not even to exist).
I simply pointed out that this does not make sense. It's not a complete sentence, there are obviously words missing. I just asked you what you're actually trying to say here, and all you've done is insult me for asking so much. I fail to see why I'm a 'grammar queen' for pointing out that what you're saying simply does not make sense unless the reader has to add in his own words to fill in the gaps.
| Jerad Gray wrote on Fri, 06 March 2009 09:28 |
or else you may fail to realize that when I'm saying we in this case, it would be me and the person that seems to feel that he must keep replying to my posts, even though he has admitted he doesn't understand what I was going at in the first place, at which point I'd just drop the whole thing, because I definitely understood what I was talking about...
|
I think you're even more confused than usual here.
You refused to respond to anything I said (about creationism) on the grounds that "it's extremely old" and "we've moved on". So who is "we"? It can't be me because you seemed to think I was not allowed to join in the debate, thereby contradicting everything you've just said. As for "seems to feel he must keep replying to my posts", that doesn't make sense either since, again, you are too closed-minded to actually read and reply to anything I've said (couple this with the bizarre assertion that I'm the one being closed-minded, this entire thread proving the exact opposite). And the fact you definitely understood what you were talking about is not really a bragging right; it's easy for you to add your own words to fill in the gaps in incomplete sentences so they aren't so garbled, but of course it would be easier for the author than the reader, wouldn't it?
It's a little pitiful that you're so eager to spout this condescending nonsense just to make yourself feel better about the fact you couldn't refute a single thing I said about the actual topic.
| Jerad Gray wrote on Fri, 06 March 2009 09:28 |
Do believe that I posted first, then you replied to me, so if I was off topic you definitely were.
|
I didn't say I wasn't off topic, it wasn't me whingeing about that, it was you and karandras. I was merely pointing out the stupidity of claiming that we shared equal blame for it, coupled with your own refusal to respond to anything I say that undeniably is on-topic.
Unleash the Renerageâ„¢
Renedrama [ren-i-drah-muh]
- noun
1. the inevitable criticism one receives after doing something awful
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Sun Jun 09 19:12:22 MST 2024
Total time taken to generate the page: 0.01336 seconds
|
Search
Help
Members
Register
Login
Home
