[steingar]

The whole man/god thing was from the story of krishna, which was well known in the Roman Empire of the time.

[pladecalvo]

More likely Mithra but no matter. Our point of course is that all religions plagiarise the preceding religion.

[Surffrog]

Originally Posted by pladecalvo

More likely Mithra but no matter. Our point of course is that all religions plagiarise the preceding religion.

[cherd]

So, not to get off-topic, err, rather, to get back on topic: the earth, along with the rest of our solar system, is approximately 4.5 billion years old (and at the very minimum 3.9 billion). These estimations are based on many types of radioisotope dating techniques, most importantly Uranium-Lead isotope analysis. The decay rates of radioisotopes can be accurately measured and they remain constant through time. If you doubt the validity of these techniques, then you can learn about the process and conduct the experiments yourself. Please do not claim that the techniques are inaccurate without doing so.

According to the bible, the earth is extreeeeemely young when compared to estimates made based on the evidence that we have around us. This situation leaves us with a few explanations:

1. God created the earth in an aged state, and then created man to live there and worship him.
-This suggests that an all knowing, all loving God, created us within an environment full of evidence that points away from his existence, and contains NO evidence that points towards his existence. This may seem like a "test of faith" type of action. But if the penalty for not believing is an eternity in hell, then he has purposefully condemned reasonable people to suffering. I do not think that an all loving God would do this.

2. The "time" described as a day during creation is not actually a "day" as we understand it, but is much longer (billion years?).
- This is an example of "fill in the blank" manipulation of biblical text. Creationists use this approach to make their beliefs fit when faced with contradictory irrefutable evidence. If you would have asked any believer 200 years ago about the definition of a day in Genesis, they would have told you that it was a day (24 hours), why else would it be different? However, now that we "know" that the earth is very old, modern believers re-create the story in a way that fits. If the story has to be re-created to fit, then it was most likely completely false to begin with.

3. The Bible stories were written by people that lived during a time when information on the actual age of the earth was not available. They got it wrong.
-Ahaa! Now, this makes sense. The earth is old, the Bible says that it is young. The Bible is wrong, period!!

[lanbrown]

Originally Posted by pladecalvo

Christianity, until recent times, had always claimed the Bible as the inerrant word of God. Particularly the gospels. Yet lately we see it backing away from that and saying that it contains allegory and metaphor. We are seeing more and more cherry-picking where believers are saying 'Oh, that part is true because it supports what I believe but that part isn't because it brings up questions that I can't answer'.

The reason is simple; bad for business. 50 years ago, what would happen if someone got divorced? They most likely would not be allowed to attend church. These days, they don't care at all. It is not that it is socially accepted, but the church has accepted it mainly because they want the money. Over half of their followers would no longer be able to attend church. As such, the kids wouldn't attend and it would be dwindling numbers for the church.

To expand what Plad said in the other thread.

Do believers practice adultery?
Do believers practice sex outside of marriage?
Do believers practice incest?

This is exactly what Adam, Eve and their kids did. If Adam and Eve were not married, then they had children out of wedlock. If they were married, then the children and parents possible had incest or adultery. Are all of this not sins?

[pladecalvo]

Ah! But Christians will tell you..... "it was OK in them there days" 'cause their God needed to populate the world. Once he'd done that...it became taboo. If you ask them why an omnimax deity couldn't just created enough people to populate the world in the first place they'll just parrot...."the Lord has his reasons."

[lanbrown]

The rebuttal is why did he not create more people? Even then though, they all had the same father; so incest anyway you put it. Then again, the same would apply today. If Adam and Eve were the most perfect humans ever created, then why were they flawed? They also lived much longer, so “god” decided to alter their design and add more sins to their behavior. If he could alter the design, why not just fix the flaws?

Where are the believers?

[pladecalvo]

Originally Posted by lanbrown

If they were married, then the children and parents possible had incest or adultery.

There is no other possibility other than incest amongst the Adam and Eve family. Same after the "flood" with Noah et all.....incest must have occurred. I tell you dude, if a book came out today with all the incest, murder, human sacrifice, rape, sodomy, genocide and slavery that we find in the Bible, it would be banned!

[lanbrown]

Maybe Adam married some of his daughters? D'oh, then they would be Mormon’s.

[pladecalvo]

Originally Posted by lanbrown

If Adam and Eve were the most perfect humans ever created, then why were they flawed?

This is a question that I have asked a number of times in these threads. If they were perfect, how could they possibly become imperfect? The "free-will" argument is nonsense because if something 'perfect' is capable of becoming 'imperfect'...then it wasn't perfect to begin with....free-will or not!

Where are the believers?

On their knees in church worshipping non-evidenced deities??

[pladecalvo]

Originally Posted by lanbrown

Maybe Adam married some of his daughters?

I don't think they had 'marriage' in those days mate. It was more a case of 'Yo bitch! ....get yer laughing gear around this'.

[lanbrown]

Another "sin" on their part.

[pladecalvo]

As "sin" is a transgression against the laws of a god, it means that we atheists, having no belief in gods.... are 'sin free'.

[lanbrown]

So we are perfect then.

[pladecalvo]

No....just "sinless."

[lanbrown]

According to the bible, sin is what made them less than perfect. Now if we could just get the walking on water part down. Then again, maybe jc was just a good magician as that trick can be done.

[pladecalvo]

Originally Posted by lanbrown

According to the bible, sin is what made them less than perfect.

Can't happen! Perfect can't become imperfect. The perfect car would never have a mechanical breakdown because if it did it wouldn't be perfect.

[jasonlakewhitne]

I find you 'atheists' funny.

How many of you go into other religious forums also to debate(bash) Christians?

Why don't you include the deity of Islam in your questions and attacks?

Your dissimulation of the Bible to advance your beliefs, is interesting none the least.

Where are the believers?

Maybe the 'atheists' should stop 'parroting' the same trash over and over.

In a standard debate between an atheists and a theists, the atheists almost always begins to use harsh language. Moving the debate into a one-sided argument.

[lanbrown]

Originally Posted by jasonlakewhitne

Maybe the 'atheists' should stop 'parroting' the same trash over and over.

Isn't that what the christian missionaries do?

[WyoJames]

with a ton of research, i've come to the conclusion that the Earth is EXACTLY 493.3494 years old.

[dicknose]

Originally Posted by cherd

The decay rates of radioisotopes can be accurately measured and they remain constant through time.

Actually thats an assumption - one we cant prove.

Now its a pretty good assumption - that the laws of physics (or the constants in them) dont vary over time.
But some theories say that this may not be true.

Its also possible that initial assumptions about the ratio of isotopes is wrong.

What does help is when several methods for dating seem to have a close agreement.
This wasnt always the case - there were times when the best scientific estimates put the age of the Earth as older than the Universe!

[jasonlakewhitne]

Originally Posted by WyoJames

with a ton of research, i've come to the conclusion that the Earth is EXACTLY 493.3494 years old.

[jasonlakewhitne]

[Sorry, I posted to the last one to soon and didn't add this to it.]

Originally Posted by dicknose

Actually thats an assumption - one we cant prove.

True that it is an assumption, saying that the decay rate is, for the most part, constant throughout.

Has anyone observed the full life of carbon-14, much less the half-life 5,730±40 years?

Does the human body decay at a constant rate or increase in speed as the body grows older?

[dicknose]

Originally Posted by jasonlakewhitne

Has anyone observed the full life of carbon-14, much less the half-life 5,730±40 years?

Um - do you know what half life is?
The full life isnt twice the half life - that would be the 1/4 life and twice as long again would be the 1/8th life!!

And you dont need to even wait for the half life.
Get accurate equipment and you can measure the decay rate and extrapolate.

Does the human body decay at a constant rate or increase in speed as the body grows older?

Has nothing to do with nuclear decay.
Nuclear decay is something quite specific, its not like other types of decay. At the level of an individual atom its random, as in when we dont know when it will decay.
But statistically its quite good - the half life says that on average half the atoms will decay in this period of time.

[cherd]

Originally Posted by jasonlakewhitne

I find you 'atheists' funny.

Is it funny to question belief systems that are based on superstition? If so, then I agree, we are hilarious!

Originally Posted by jasonlakewhitne

How many of you go into other religious forums also to debate(bash) Christians?

Since when did debating and bashing become synonymous? I do not think that any of us has said anything particularly insulting here. Maybe you just feel insulted because we pose questions to which there are no reasonable answers!

Originally Posted by jasonlakewhitne

Why don't you include the deity of Islam in your questions and attacks?

Well, first of all, most of the "believers" in this forum are Christians. Therefore, the discussion is naturally going to tend toward Christian based topics. Secondly, many people in this forum probably do not have a knowledge base that would allow them to discuss other religions. For instance, you do not know that the Jewish, Christian, and Islam (muslim) Gods are actually one in the same diety (all three religions are Abrahamic), which basically makes this point for me.

Originally Posted by jasonlakewhitne

Your dissimulation of the Bible to advance your beliefs, is interesting none the least.

Advance our beliefs? Are the beliefs that your referring to the ones that are based on logic and testable hypotheses? What we are doing to the Bible is not dissimulation (a form of deception in which one conceals the truth). We simply point out the flaws, inaccuracies, and contradictions and ask for an explanation. I would call it a "critical review".

Originally Posted by jasonlakewhitne

Maybe the 'atheists' should stop 'parroting' the same trash over and over.

What "trash"? If someone has said something here that is untrue or misleading then, please, point it out.

Originally Posted by jasonlakewhitne

In a standard debate between an atheists and a theists, the atheists almost always begins to use harsh language. Moving the debate into a one-sided argument.

Again, who is using harsh language? The debate (not argument) becomes one-sided because it not possible for theists to logically defend their beliefs.

[jasonlakewhitne]

Let me clarify some points I was talking about and I know that you will probably see what I was getting at. Although, you may not agree.

Is it funny to question belief systems

I was referring to the way atheist mock those things they do not understand nor even want to understand.

Since when did debating and bashing become synonymous? I do not think that any of us has said anything particularly insulting here. Maybe you just feel insulted because we pose questions to which there are no reasonable answers!

With bashing, I mean comments like the following:

Maybe Adam married some of his daughters? D'oh, then they would be Mormon’s.

It's, It's.....It's a COOKBOOK!!!!!!

No, no... it's...it's an owners hand manual

For instance, you do not know that the Jewish, Christian, and Islam (muslim) Gods are actually one in the same diety (all three religions are Abrahamic), which basically makes this point for me.

I am sorry cherd, but you just showed you ignorance on the Judaeo-Christian God and the god of Islam. It is commonly agreed that the bloodline father of Jews and Arabs is Abraham. It is not agreed that Yahweh and Allah are the same god. Please don't make assumptions about me, I do not make assumptions about you or anyone else that I do not know well.

Advance our beliefs? Are the beliefs that your referring to the ones that are based on logic and testable hypotheses? What we are doing to the Bible is not dissimulation (a form of deception in which one conceals the truth). We simply point out the flaws, inaccuracies, and contradictions and ask for an explanation. I would call it a "critical review".

Your beliefs in Atheism. Also, your dissimulation of the Bible by quoting passages out of context or trying to imply that a passage means one thing when clearly (if read) it means another. Furthermore, creating your on contradictions to try to further your point.

As an example the following two quotes come from the same person on different threads.

Jerusalem was far from a "backwater" area,

True enough! It makes you wonder why this Christian god chose a bunch of desert goatherds in such a remote backwater to 'spread his word'. You'd think he would have chosen the Egyptians or some other great civilisation.

Christian god chose a bunch of desert goatherds in such a remote backwater to 'spread his word'.

What is wrong with the above statement? (Read carefully, if you don't know the Bible you would think this statement is true.)

Also see here for what I consider to be dissimulation.

What "trash"? If someone has said something here that is untrue or misleading then, please, point it out.

Again, who is using harsh language? The debate (not argument) becomes one-sided because it not possible for theists to logically defend their beliefs.

The trash and harsh language I was referring to was mocking the Bible and those who believe in it. It is one thing to have questions and comments but when you mock the Bible then you lose the respect of those who believe in the Bible. From what I have read of your post cherd, you don't tend to bash or use harsh language, except for a little sacarism about Kylie Minogue.

[jasonlakewhitne]

Originally Posted by dicknose

Um - do you know what half life is?
The full life isnt twice the half life - that would be the 1/4 life and twice as long again would be the 1/8th life!!

So you didn't catch the sarcasm. I was making a point about the decay constant of C14.

Quote: