actually the earth was only created 6000 years ago, as for the age of the universe, who knows?
Printable View
actually the earth was only created 6000 years ago, as for the age of the universe, who knows?
I do...about 17.234556 days before the Earth was created.
your poof for the 6000 years is wherE?
even my ancestors go back more than 6000 years
your just shooting yourself in the foot
:confused: :DCode:Dim AgeOfUniverse As Single
AgeOfUniverse = Int(Rnd() * 100) + Rnd()
MsgBox "The number of days the universe existed before earth was created: " & AgeOfUniverse
hmm its kinda cool your actually trying to cover it up with humor
always a good thing
two thousand years from creation to the flood, two thousand years from the flood to Jesus' birth which is 1AD, or somewhere close to there, and then 2000 years to now, that all adds up to 6000, do i have to find all the texts to prove it??
how do you explain that history of my people go back 12000 years?
i guess it was all made up
since its not in the bible
they were survivors, I guess.
first explain what your "history" is, do you have records of all those people's existances?
historians
artifacts
well unless you have a direct lineage...historians and artifacts can have the wrong dates, your "artifacts" are only 4000 years old (anything before that was destroyed in the flood), and your ancestors are only as old as 6000 years.
this is according to the bible
by the way
bible said it was a world flood, meaning the WHOLE earth was flooded.. if i am correct on that
"artifacts" dont even have records a world wide flood
so thats just jumbo wombo
kovan, do you have a PhD in archaeology? Then shut the hell up unless you can base what you say on tangible, scientific evidence. :p :D
yes, because they were all buried, burned, and broken.
there is evidence that there was a lot of water beneath earths surface before the flood, and then it all broke free and thats where the flood came from.
so using that, if a lot of water gets together, it can do alot of powerful stuff, like move soil to bury things, break things in to tiny peices, and if it came from below the ground, then there might have been lava mixed in, and the "artifacts" could have been burned
no scientific proof on that last paragraph, just my thoughts, except for water being powerful, but that also an opinion
yes i do as a matter of factQuote:
Originally posted by filburt1
kovan, do you have a PhD in archaeology? Then shut the hell up unless you can base what you say on tangible, scientific evidence. :p :D
just one i made though :)
i.e., water pressure :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally posted by DNA7433
...if a lot of water gets together, it can do alot of powerful stuff, like move soil to bury things, break things in to tiny peices...
hahaha
hey, while everyone is talking on this thread, is there any website that lists every single windows message there is?
like WM_PAINT and stuff and EM_UNDO
What about the API text viewer. It can list constants too.
Seeing as how we've found fossils of things that lived millions upon millions of years ago, and have proof that the earth was created billions of years ago, I'd tend to dispute the 6000 year figure. I'd also like to add that most ofwhat the Bible says is a filthy lie anyway.
agreed
no you don't have proof
no im not gonna argue the carbon dating method because...
no i don't have a degree in chemistry
NO!
dna
shouldnt you be researching?
You couldn't prove something if God came down here and told you himself.Quote:
no you don't have proof
no im not gonna argue the carbon dating method because...
no i don't have a degree in chemistry
NO!
Hey, what a nice idea! God, come down and tell me I'm going to hell. Tell it right to my face. I dare you. Step up!!
i am not gonna be swayed from my faith, but i would like someone to provide proof of all these issues you talk about
it does seem like christians are only interested in faith, "you must have faith", and they can't explain anything. i would like to know the explainations of all these things, but since im only 16 years old, my knowledge only goes so far, and there isn't much i can do to dig up answers except bug other people to find them out for me
bugs in you religion
sounds like ms product to me
yeah...
Bill Gates created the Bible...
then when the world is involved in religous disputes he quietly takes over with his other company Microsoft.
You mean MSDN?
Ok, I'm coming into this very late. I want to coment on the discussion between kovan and DNA7433.
First off, DNA7433, you asked for this. you have to be very careful about what you say and do as much research as you can before you say anything. If you can't do research and support your claims, then how to you expect to convince anybody of anything? People will basically look down on you unless you can support your claims. Learn about carbon dating and chemistry and all that. If you're young, learning should be easier.
Now, kovan, can you prove to me that people existed 6000 years ago or more? I'm not looking for proof that animals or plants existed then. I'm asking about real people. I'm going to have to do some research to confirm DNA7433's claim about when people were created, but I'd like to know why you're so sure that people existed so long ago?
DNA7433
By the way, if you really think you know the bible, I'd like to talk to you about the bible's standpoint on heaven and hell. Specifically, we don't go to either when we die and hell doesn't exist.
As a matter of fact, the existence of a hell is contrary to our view of God. How can a loving God make us go through eternal torment? It just doesn't fit.
Every written record in existence is going to contain the bias of the author - the bible is one such document - the "facts" are going to be biased. The flood is claimed to have covered the earth - is it not simply possible that it covered the known world, and not the entire world? the language to differentiate the two is very similar, but both have very different meaning.
I'm not especially faithful - hell, im agnostic, but I'm prepared to accept the bible as a fairly interesting piece of work, and not slag it off as untrustworthy.
Kovan - no offence, and I've not read the Qu'ran, so I don't know, but can you vouch for every single word written therein? I know I wouldn't be able to with yesterdays newspaper!
Behemoth
Don't you mean authors? The bible had many authors, it is a collection of many different letters and books by different people. Some of which are anonymous such as the first five books of the bible (including Genesis) which funnilly enough, Christianity, Jewdaism and Islam all share.Quote:
Every written record in existence is going to contain the bias of the author - the bible is one such document - the "facts" are going to be biased.
Funny how so much stock is placed in something when nobody even knows who wrote it.
but, in my mind, a book who's author is anomymous is untrustworthy.Quote:
I'm not especially faithful - hell, im agnostic, but I'm prepared to accept the bible as a fairly interesting piece of work, and not slag it off as untrustworthy.
I suppose untrustworthy was the wrong word - after all I have no reason to place trust in it. I really don't care how many horses Solomon had or what %age of land was covered during the flood.
However, the identity of the author is not an issue - otherwise people wouldnt use noms-de-plume.
The above statement is lost on me. What do you mean by "noms-de-plume"?Quote:
However, the identity of the author is not an issue - otherwise people wouldnt use noms-de-plume.
By noms-de-plume I mean pen names, or any other method of obscuring an authors identity.
To some degree that can even include usernames in here - for all intents and purposes, I am anonymous, but you hold some value in my comments (I hope :D)
Behemoth
Yes, I do hold value in yours (and everone elses) comments in here although I do take everything with a pinch of salt. But if you are passing on what you claim to be the word of God, your true identity would be important.Quote:
To some degree that can even include usernames in here - for all intents and purposes, I am anonymous, but you hold some value in my comments (I hope )
you're right Tygur, we don't go to either heaven or Hell when we die, we just sit there in the ground.
now about the loving God sending us to Hell:
God shows us His love through free will, He gives us the ability to chose on our own, if we want to chose God then we can have enternal life, but if we reject Him then we have automatically chosen Satan, thus Hell.
So, when Jesus comes to earth for the second time, and don't be fooled by false christs, one of the major differences, at least i think so, is that He will not touch the ground because it is full of sin, in other words i guess that means He's gonna be floating,
anyways the dead will be brought to judgement, then the living. And it really doesn't matter what you have done in life, as long as you "accept Jesus as your savior". See, christians have that different lifestyle because it is displeasing to God to live in a sinful manner, but it is not what saves us in the end.
Also a side note, Hell is not eternal, its finite as is everything else in this world.
And we do know who wrote the first 5 books of the Bible, Moses.
I have already taken chemistry in school, i know about alpha and beta decay, i know about carbon dating, but im not gonna argue it with the same christian viewpoint that it is inaccurate and i don't have a chemistry degree to come up with another answer, so im gonna stay away from that and argue the other points
DNA7433
This is a typical attempt to polerise the issue of chistianity. They don't like people saying they don't believe in God or Satan so they say we have to choose. Why should we choose?Quote:
God shows us His love through free will, He gives us the ability to chose on our own, if we want to chose God then we can have enternal life, but if we reject Him then we have automatically chosen Satan, thus Hell.
Saying that we must be satanists if we do not choose God is just as wrong as a satanist saying we must be christians if we do not choose satan.
You assume it must have been written by Moses since it doesn't actually say who wrote them in the bible.Quote:
And we do know who wrote the first 5 books of the Bible, Moses.
But, I consider it highly unlikely that Moses did write these books as, not only does he talk about himself in the third person, he goes on to brag about his own modesty: "Moses was the meekest of all men"! If Moses wrote this sentance (taken from one of the first five books), he certainly wasn't the meekest of men was he? :p
I think people should look beyond contradictions in the bible. I mean ya the horses and the flood are curious things but arent you ignoring the true meaning behind the bible? The teachings that the Bible offers that tell us how we should live our life and how we should treat others are much more important than some dead guys horses. Would the world not be a better place if people would "Love thy neighbour"??
The Bible teaches that people can walk on water. The Bible teaches that the sun stops in its orbital path periodically. The Bible teaches that there is this "God" character, about whom you know nothing and the consequences of denying whom are horrendous.Quote:
The teachings that the Bible offers that tell us how we should live our life and how we should treat others are much more important than some dead guys horses. Would the world not be a better place if people would "Love thy neighbour"??
DNA, if God created fool-minded people like you, I reject him with all my might.
nishantp
You are right, in a sense, but many people would have you believe that everything in the Bible is the word of God and take passages from it to support their beliefs.Quote:
I think people should look beyond contradictions in the bible. I mean ya the horses and the flood are curious things but arent you ignoring the true meaning behind the bible?
The point is, if you find one single contradiction int the bible (however small), it means that the whole thing can be questioned. You can't just take any part of it and claim that it must be true because it's the word of God.
See thats the thing. I dont feel that it needs to be the word of god to be right. If aknisely's comments about that stuff in the bible is true...then i dont beleive it either (i cant verify or refute them). If there is a god then when i am judged(if it happens) i would rather that he see that i always tried to do the right thing, that i tried to be the best person that i could be. I dont think he'll ask me if i beleive that people can walk on water.
BTW, i beleive that the Bible is not presented as the word of god either. I thought it was man's interpretation of it. I thought christians thought that God inspired the Bible (he didnt write it). And since everyone has there opinion, there are discrepancies. Someone might like to clear that up).
Since there are many authors of the bible it seems evident to me that it is not the word of god, but rather man's interpretation of it...is that not reasonable?Quote:
Originally posted by simonm
nishantp
You are right, in a sense, but many people would have you believe that everything in the Bible is the word of God and take passages from it to support their beliefs.
The point is, if you find one single contradiction int the bible (however small), it means that the whole thing can be questioned. You can't just take any part of it and claim that it must be true because it's the word of God.
Well, as you said earlier, there are differeing opinions on how literally one should take the bible.Quote:
Since there are many authors of the bible it seems evident to me that it is not the word of god, but rather man's interpretation of it...is that not reasonable?
I have met many Christians who insist that you can take everything you read there at face value and take it literally. If it says something in the bible, that should be treated as the word of God.
I think such a rigid interpretation is what gets them into trouble sometimes.
"Man's interpretation of the word of God"?
What kind of horse jack is that? How is one supposed to know what the word of God is, if he has any words for men at all, or in what fashion is a person supposed to interpret it?
Lemme give you an example of something that happens everyday. I go into a meeting (pretend I represent God here). I talk to my other developers. How are they supposed to interpret what I'm saying, other than precisely how I'm saying it?
does your mind speak directly to the mind of those developers?
no, you have to use spoken and written language, which are not as precise as thoughts.
which is why the authors of the Bible most likely wrote these things with good intentions, but couldn't put them totally into perfect words. However since it was inspired by God, there is a meaning for these descrepancies in the scriptures, its not human error
"does your mind speak directly to the mind of those developers"
Yes. Winsock actually does have hidden, practical uses.
"no, you have to use spoken and written language, which are not as precise as thoughts."
The Bible is precise? It gets the age of the earth wrong by several billion years. That's nowhere near precise
"which is why the authors of the Bible most likely wrote these things with good intentions but couldn't put them totally into perfect words."
Good intentions?? I'm going to hell because I don't buy your biblical whoop-di-do was created by GOOD intentions? I think the people that wrote this bible were very spiteful and arrogant.
"However since it was inspired by God, there is a meaning for these descrepancies in the scriptures, its not human error"
Oh yes, everything done in the name of god has meaning and purpose. What a lame excuse, give me a bloody break.
If, and it is a big IF, a revelation was made to certain people in history, it was a revelation unto them alone and the moment they tell someone else it just becomes word of mouth.Quote:
which is why the authors of the Bible most likely wrote these things with good intentions, but couldn't put them totally into perfect words. However since it was inspired by God, there is a meaning for these descrepancies in the scriptures, its not human error.
If God had truly meant it as a revelation to all mankind, he would have comunicated directly to every person in existance. That would be the only way to garruntee no misinterpretation and ambiguity.
the Bible is correct, and your age of 16 billion is wrong
your arguement doens't even make sense, you've taken "good intentions" out of context, just as you do with Bible texts, and...well no i won't call you arrogent, even though i want to
I don't know you guys think, some think the Bible is all fact and some people think none of it can be taken literally. The truth is its in between, most of it is fact, but some of it is symbolism, like the book of Revalation where it talks about beasts. those beasts represent different powers that exist on earth. and also in Daniel, when he has the dream about the statue, the different parts of the statue represent different nations.
"the Bible is correct, and your age of 16 billion is wrong "
The Bible is fictional nonsense, and so is 16 billion years. The earth is somewhere between 4.5 and 5.0 billion years of age, to the best of our knowledge.
"your arguement doens't even make sense"
I wasn't making an argument. There is nothing in the Bible that could be sensibly debated. Of course, we could try to properly debate the Bible, if you wish. But whatever the resolution, you will sorrowfully, pittifully, and shamefully lose.
"The truth is its in between, most of it is fact, but some of it is symbolism"
Yeah, well, I'm talkin' about facts. Real facts. Symbolism is whatever you want it to be, leave that for the poets.
allright, let's properly debate the Bible
its wrong... I WIN I WIN!!!!
monkey nuts, that was so funny for once in my life i forgot to laugh
he who laughs last thinks the slowest
i don't understand :confused:
never mind
My 2 Bits..
Well I saw a program the other day, (not space on BB1). These clever bods managed to use a special telescope with and resoultion software to acuaratly pick up a binary star going super nova. Not once but many times, the first such incident happened accedently back in 1985, very lucky.
Anyway with around 45 markers (picutures of the super novas) they could calulated the speed of the unvisers, and the maths shows us that the univers is still expanding or exellating. From this data they were able to extrapolate that the whole universe is around 20 billion years old.
What I want to know is what was there 21 billion years ago??
God?
G
:D
Well, it's possible that the big bang was preceeded by a "big crunch" and that the universe is just in a perpetual and eternal cycle of expansion and contraction.Quote:
What I want to know is what was there 21 billion years ago??
I think the universe must have always been here or else where else why would the universe exist attall?
Either something external to the universe created it (like God) or it could be the nature of reality that things can spontaneously pop into existance for no reason attall.
Both really boil down to the second option as if you believe that the universe was created by an external force, your definition of "universe" is incorrect. "Universe" means "everything that exists".
Religous minded people would have us believe that God was not created, he has simply always existed. If you can believe that, why can you not believe that the universe itself has always existed?
If you believe that God popped into existance, again if he can do it, why not the universe?
I think the concept of God is superflous when looking for an explanation to the creation of the universe. People need God, however, to give meaning to existance rather than an explanation.