Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Earth is older than 6000 years

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    agreed

    Originally posted by Le Type Français
    gpbullock,

    Awesome summary, but I must interject and say that the verse comparing a day to a thousand years to God is purely proverbial in nature and not literal. A day could easily be as a century to God as well. It's a verse merely expressing God's being beyond the boundary of time.
    But I was just kicking around theory, so we could just as easily say that a day in God's life was 700 million years. giving us the 4.3 billion year current estimates. It's Leif's fault..

    Comment


      Originally posted by hardluckhitshome
      Heh, sorry, it just takes a few non-religious acts of violence to dispel this myth. Even in Wise Young's post, he points out that in China it's the non-religious committing acts of evil against the religious. Although if your first statement is true, you may thank religion for teaching us that murder, stealing, lying, etc are evil. If 'inate knowledge' wasn't sufficient on these terms, the world would be even worse off now if religion had never come about.

      You would have to argue that all individual acts of violence are all inherently wrong for your statement to be true. This is obviously not the case. I would also like to point out there are many cases of societies isolated from religious indoctrination that have practised strong ethical and moral codes without the need for religion to tell them so. One thing most of these soceties have in common is that they self destruct upon contact with outside cultural and religous influences. Please also tell of one major conflict occurring in the world today where religion is not the motivating factor.

      Comment


        Critical Thinking and Disintermediation

        Wherever you see email, read post and you sorta get the same effect.
        Critical Thinking and Disintermediation [1]

        by M. E. Kabay, PhD, CISSP-ISSMP
        Program Director, MSIA & CTO, School of Graduate Studies

        Norwich University, Northfield VT

        Disintermediation in general is defined in dictionaries as “Removal of intermediaries: the elimination of intermediaries such as wholesalers or retailers in business transactions between producers and consumers.” [2]

        Disintermediation in the distribution of news is the phenomenon of reducing gate-keepers in the flow of information from provider to user. [3] For example, Matt Drudge is free to spread unsubstantiated rumors to a huge audience without having to bother with the fact-checking that is customary in responsible news media such as reputable newspapers or magazines and some television or radio programs. Mind you, sometimes even the mainstream news media get sucked into the rumor mill. [4]

        Critical thinking is the ability to analyze information skeptically rather than gullibly. For example, people who open unexpected attachments in e-mail from friends are failing to distinguish among different targets of trust:

        * Trust in the authenticity of the FROM line of an e-mail message (which may not, in fact, correctly identify the source);

        * Trust in the technical competence of the sender to evaluate the quality of the attachment (which may not, in fact, correlate with how loveable and friendly Aunt Gladys is);

        * Trust in the authenticity of the labeling of the attachment (which may not, in fact, really be a document at all but may be an executable);

        * Trust in the description and safety of an attachment (which may not, in fact, be a screen saver with frogs).

        Now couple disintermediation with a lack of critical thinking. Consider the likely effects of a concerted campaign to, say, spread a number of rumors about major publicly-traded companies. We know that pump ‘n’ dump schemes have successfully manipulated stock values to the benefit of criminals; why not expect terrorists to apply the same techniques to manipulating the entire stock market? If people are willing to believe and act upon stock tips e-mailed to them by total strangers using spam (even though tiny print clearly states that the junk mailer has been paid to distribute the information), why wouldn’t uncritical thinkers cheerfully act on “advice” spread by enemies of the nation?

        The spread of useless or frankly erroneous information through e-mail chain letters is another egregious example of lack of critical thinking. For example, consider the chain mail that warns people about a tourist’s being found in an ice bath with a painful incision after an illegal removal of his kidney: why would criminals leave the victim alive? And even a cursory check of an urban-myths site such as snopes.com will debunk almost all chain letters. The credulity of people who forward such junk not only astounds me, it worries me. I think that the same credulity infects politics when such uncritical minds listen to biased news outlets that are blatant propaganda mills spewing distortion into the sphere of public discourse.
        ...
        ...
        ...
        Source: http://www2.norwich.edu/mkabay/opini...l_thinking.htm
        ..
        Han Tacoma

        ~ Artificial Intelligence is better than none! ~

        Comment


          The Bristlecone Pine Trees...

          Originally posted by gpbullock
          But I was just kicking around theory, so we could just as easily say that a day in God's life was 700 million years. giving us the 4.3 billion year current estimates. It's Leif's fault..
          Haha no problem gpbullock, I can take the blame, I have a strong back to carry it (well used to have ), but how about;

          Bristlecone Pine Trees - The annual growth rings of trees are among the most reliable measures of time. Some Bristlecone pine trees in the White-Inyo mountain range of California date back beyond 6000 BC.

          Moon Dust - Measurements by sensors attached to satellites show that space dust accumulates on the moon at the rate of about 2 nanograms per square centimeter each year. (A nanogram is one thousandth of a millionth of a gram.) This rate would require 4.5 billion years to reach a depth of 1.5 inches, which is approximately the depth experienced by the astronauts who walked on the moon.

          Radioactive Decay -The "nuclide" argument is one of the best proofs of an old earth. Nuclides are forms of matter that are radioactive. Each nuclide decays into another form of matter at a certain rate. After an interval of time equal to its half-life, only half of the original material is left. Scientists have found that every nuclide with a half-life of over 80 million years can be found naturally occurring on earth. All nuclides with a half-life under 80 million years do not exist naturally at detectable levels.

          The Bible is not a book of science. It's obvious from scripture that God seems totally disinterested in explaining how He performs supernatural feats. The great creator occasionally provides us with a few minor insights into His handiwork that predate modern scientific discoveries. For example, in the Book of Job, the Bible tells us, "He stretches out the north over empty space, and hangs the earth upon nothing" (Job 26.7).

          Comment


            Originally posted by hardluckhitshome
            I guess I don't see the humor in making fun of some very desperate people.

            Heh, sorry, it just takes a few non-religious acts of violence to dispel this myth. Even in Wise Young's post, he points out that in China it's the non-religious committing acts of evil against the religious. Although if your first statement is true, you may thank religion for teaching us that murder, stealing, lying, etc are evil. If 'inate knowledge' wasn't sufficient on these terms, the world would be even worse off now if religion had never come about.

            Thank you for this information. I learned a lot about China and its stance toward religion.

            Glad we are able to keep the traffic down on Shabbat for you guys haha.
            Hard,

            Several of the top neurosurgeons in Israel trained with me at NYU. So, when I went to Israel for the first time in 1996, I was really looking forward to seeing friends and a country that I had heard about my whole life. I found a wonderful country that was deeply split by what it was doing to the Palestinians and what they were doing to themselves. It was the year after Rabin's assassination and tears still flowed when people spoke about him. Israel was filled with the most beautiful and intelligent people, living amongst the most difficult ethical decisions ever imposed on a people. My heart went out to the people and continue. By the way, I have to say that the doctors there saw the consequences of the policies, because they took care of casualties from both sides.

            In many ways, China reminds me of what was happening in Israel but on a much vaster scale, involving hundreds of millions of people. The feeling was the same, however. Change was in the air. Difficult economic and moral choices lay in every direction. The tension between doing what was best for oneself and one's family conflicted with what was best for the country. In the 1990's, China made the painful change from state-supported socialism to a totally capitalistic economy. When I arrived in 1999, I saw a country that was in the midst of end of that painful transition. All the safety nets had been removed. If people fell from the precarious perches, they died. There were still vestiges of socialism. Doctors were being paid $60/month and all their disposable incomes came from patients who paid them cash under the table.

            By 2002, the hospitals were demanding cash from all the patients before they would admit them. Only 10% of the people had health care insurance of any kind. By 2006, however, 90% of the people in the cities had health care insurance. But it is very different from the U.S. The insurance has a 50% co-pay. Therefore, people still had to pay but not as much as before. In China, market and capitalism has a much greater role in medical care than in the United States. I think that most people in the United States don't understand this and it is one of the reasons why I think that news coverage of the medical care situation in China is misleading. In some ways, it is better than the the United States. Anyway, it gives you an idea of the turmoil and rapid pace of change.

            Anyway, thanks for the discussion.

            Wise.

            Comment


              Originally posted by IanTPoulter
              You would have to argue that all individual acts of violence are all inherently wrong for your statement to be true. This is obviously not the case.
              According to your philosophy, yes. Others like Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr would disagree with you.

              I would also like to point out there are many cases of societies isolated from religious indoctrination that have practised strong ethical and moral codes without the need for religion to tell them so. One thing most of these soceties have in common is that they self destruct upon contact with outside cultural and religous influences.
              This is actually in direct opposition to your original post about "right and wrong" not being "innate". It appears that you now think humans know right from wrong without religion and thus when they perform acts of evil, it's not as a result of religion. I agree with your new position as opposed to your original.

              Please also tell of one major conflict occurring in the world today where religion is not the motivating factor.
              The US invasion of Iraq.

              Comment


                Originally posted by hardluckhitshome
                According to your philosophy, yes. Others like Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr would disagree with you.



                This is actually in direct opposition to your original post about "right and wrong" not being "innate". It appears that you now think humans know right from wrong without religion and thus when they perform acts of evil, it's not as a result of religion. I agree with your new position as opposed to your original.
                I have no new position, although humans may know right from wrong as an instinct that does not stop many from being corrupted by organised religion or political forces based on religion. The individual acts differently to the group, Hitler knew and used this fact very well.

                The US invasion of Iraq.
                So the invasion of Iraq which GW Bush admitted he was told by God to do and in which his actions were almost totally supported by fundamentalist evangilists and Israel was not based on religion? And the current civil war raging in Iraq has nothing to do with religion? Are you sure about this?

                Comment


                  Originally posted by IanTPoulter
                  I have no new position, although humans may know right from wrong as an instinct that does not stop many from being corrupted by organised religion or political forces based on religion. The individual acts differently to the group, Hitler knew and used this fact very well.
                  No argument here. Some religions motivate to evil. Some non-religious are motivated to evil. We're in agreement.

                  So the invasion of Iraq which GW Bush admitted he was told by God to do and in which his actions were almost totally supported by fundamentalist evangilists and Israel was not based on religion? And the current civil war raging in Iraq has nothing to do with religion? Are you sure about this?
                  Certainly you are not so naive as to think that politicians say what they really believe. Bush went to war for oil and to finish what his father had started.

                  As for the current civil war - I made no comment on that specifically. Islam is definitely a religion that likes war.

                  Comment


                    Originally posted by hardluckhitshome
                    Certainly you are not so naive as to think that politicians say what they really believe. Bush went to war for oil and to finish what his father had started.

                    As for the current civil war - I made no comment on that specifically. Islam is definitely a religion that likes war.
                    are you saying Bush is lying when he talks about his strong religious beliefs? I dont think so, in fact these strong beliefs are what make him so dangerous imo.
                    The evangelists supported the Iraqi war from the beginning, dont forget 2 things. The first is that their belief is that the US needs a strong military presence in the middle east to protect Israel and the second is that they have an extremely strong influence in the Bush administration, Bush would not have made it to power without them. securing oil supplies in the middle east is part of the strategy to secure a power base in the middle east and not the strategy.

                    Comment


                      Sean,

                      Keep in mind that many Evangelicals believe further turmoil in the Middle East and in Israel will make Christ come again. This is why they're so comfortable with the idea of the world ending.

                      Comment


                        Originally posted by IanTPoulter
                        are you saying Bush is lying when he talks about his strong religious beliefs?
                        Bush has lied about other stuff so why not his religious beliefs. I do think he is a Christian (at least in word not in deed). He would have a reason to play up his religious beliefs too since evangelicals have huge political clout as a single group in the US. Which do you think would appeal to evangelicals more: "G-d told me to go to war" ...or..."Let's take over their country for their oil and to exact revenge on my father's humiliating legacy in Iraq".

                        I dont think so, in fact these strong beliefs are what make him so dangerous imo.
                        Opinion duly noted.

                        The evangelists supported the Iraqi war from the beginning, dont forget 2 things. The first is that their belief is that the US needs a strong military presence in the middle east to protect Israel and the second is that they have an extremely strong influence in the Bush administration, Bush would not have made it to power without them. securing oil supplies in the middle east is part of the strategy to secure a power base in the middle east and not the strategy.
                        This ties into my first point that numero uno on Bush's mind is oil, not Israel. This is not something he can come out and say, so he has to find reasons that appeal to his supporters.

                        Comment


                          Originally posted by hardluckhitshome
                          Bush has lied about other stuff so why not his religious beliefs. I do think he is a Christian (at least in word not in deed). He would have a reason to play up his religious beliefs too since evangelicals have huge political clout as a single group in the US. Which do you think would appeal to evangelicals more: "G-d told me to go to war" ...or..."Let's take over their country for their oil and to exact revenge on my father's humiliating legacy in Iraq".



                          Opinion duly noted.



                          This ties into my first point that numero uno on Bush's mind is oil, not Israel. This is not something he can come out and say, so he has to find reasons that appeal to his supporters.
                          Heres an article on the religous views of Bush and how they relate to his policies. Bush has and is too consistent in his references to God and religion in regards to his actions to be just using it for political gain imo.
                          http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinio...cusbush22.html
                          Bush is the most publicly religious president since at least Woodrow Wilson. Ronald Reagan had great appeal to religious conservatives, but he was far less outspoken about religion -- a point noted in a June eulogy of the late president by Ron Reagan, who said his father did not "(wear) his faith on his sleeve to gain political advantage," a comment many interpreted as a critique of the current president. Indeed, Bush speaks often about his "born-again" faith and regularly references a divine power in public statements, a practice that religion scholar Martin E. Marty has termed "God talk."
                          That the president -- any president -- is a person of religious faith is generally viewed by the U.S. public in favorable terms, the better to be grounded when facing momentous decisions. I share this view because I know how central the Christian faith is to my life and to many others I know and respect. Invocations of a higher power, when emphasizing inclusive and transcendent principles, seem to me to be legitimate and adroit rhetoric for a leader of 290 million people, the overwhelming majority of whom believe in God in some form. What is deeply troubling about Bush's religiosity, however, is that he consistently evinces a certainty that he knows God's will -- and he then acts upon this certainty in ways that affect billions of humans.
                          For example, in his address before Congress and a national television audience nine days after the terrorist attacks, Bush declared: "The course of this conflict is not known, yet its outcome is certain. Freedom and fear, justice and cruelty have always been at war, and we know that God is not neutral between them." Similarly, in the 2003 State of the Union address, with the conflict in Iraq imminent, he declared: "Americans are a free people, who know that freedom is the right of every person and the future of every nation. The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world, it is God's gift to humanity." These are not requests for divine favor; they are declarations of divine wishes.
                          From this position, only short theological and rhetorical steps are required to justify U.S. actions. For instance, at a December 2003 news conference, Bush said: "I believe, firmly believe -- and you've heard me say this a lot, and I say it a lot because I truly believe it -- that freedom is the Almighty God's gift to every person, every man and woman who lives in this world. That's what I believe. And the arrest of Saddam Hussein changed the equation in Iraq. Justice was being delivered to a man who defied that gift from the Almighty to the people of Iraq."
                          Further, this view of divinely ordained policy infuses the public discourse of several administration leaders, irrespective of their particular religious outlook. I systematically examined hundreds of administration public communications -- by the president, John Ashcroft, Colin Powell and Donald Rumsfeld -- about the "war on terrorism" in the 20 months between Sept. 11, 2001, and the end of "major combat" in Iraq in spring 2003. This research showed that the administration's public communications contained four characteristics simultaneously rooted in religious fundamentalism while offering political capital:

                          Simplistic, black-and-white conceptions of the political landscape, most notably good vs. evil and security vs. peril.

                          Calls for immediate action on administration policies as a necessary part of the nation's "calling" and "mission" against terrorism.

                          Declarations about the will of God for America and for the spread of U.S. conceptions of freedom and liberty.

                          Claims that dissent from the administration is unpatriotic and a threat to the nation and globe.
                          In combination, these characteristics have transformed Bush's "Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists" policy to "Either you are with us, or you are against God." To the great misfortune of American democracy and the global public, such a view looks, sounds and feels remarkably similar to that of the terrorists it is fighting.

                          Comment


                            Originally posted by hardluckhitshome
                            Islam is definitely a religion that likes war.
                            I thought it was humanity? When I made the same observation about religion in general, you considered it unreasonable.

                            Comment


                              Originally posted by Le Type Français
                              I thought it was humanity? When I made the same observation about religion in general, you considered it unreasonable.
                              The only thing that I have been saying on this thread is that human nature is the cause of evil in the world - and that is a group to which both the religious and the non-religious belong. Sometimes you've agreed with that position, sometimes you have not.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X