NationStates Jolt Archive

My mother just had me read a freaking chain letter.

you know the one. the "atheist proff" gets school by a student because he claims god exists because "darkness is the absence of light". (ie the one that isn't about the chalk not breaking)



anyhow I tried to keep my cool but it is just getting on my nerves. I tried to explain half-lifes and what not, but I can't do it to well. That and her biggest defence is "it is just someone's opinion."

I love my mom but it ticks me off to no end when she trys to convert me.:headbang:

My mother just had me read a freaking chain letter.

you know the one. the "atheist proff" gets school by a student because he claims god exists because "darkness is the absence of light". (ie the one that isn't about the chalk not breaking)



anyhow I tried to keep my cool but it is just getting on my nerves. I tried to explain half-lifes and what not, but I can't do it to well. That and her biggest defence is "it is just someone's opinion."

I love my mom but it ticks me off to no end when she trys to convert me.:headbang:

Pie her. *nod*

My mother just had me read a freaking chain letter.

you know the one. the "atheist proff" gets school by a student because he claims god exists because "darkness is the absence of light". (ie the one that isn't about the chalk not breaking)

anyhow I tried to keep my cool but it is just getting on my nerves. I tried to explain half-lifes and what not, but I can't do it to well. That and her biggest defence is "it is just someone's opinion."

I love my mom but it ticks me off to no end when she trys to convert me.:headbang:

You may want to calm down and inject a little detail into this -- I'm having a hard time following it. Not everyone has seen every chain letter. However, I do recognize the tone of the type of letter you're describing, and yes, they are smug little whiners, aren't they?

Pie her. *nod*

No pie, and the mud has rocks...

I think you need to find yourself a geologist.

No pie, and the mud has rocks...

Ask Jesus to send you a pie to pie her with. :)

Carbon dating, and other radiometric methods.

The oldest known rocks clock in at about 3.9 billion years old.
However, you must assume earth is older, becuase at one time it obviously had a molten surface, wich would have destroyed older ones.
Some of the rocks contain minerals (sedimentary rocks) wich date to 4.1 to 4.2 billion.

Carbon dating, and other radiometric methods.
Nah, not carbon dating. Its half-life is too short.

Nah, not carbon dating. Its half-life is too short.

Its half-life is still long enough to disprove young earth creationism.

For determining the age of the earth, you may want to look for something like that radioactive uranium isotope, with a half-life of 4.5 billion years.

You may want to cam down and inject a little detail into this -- I'm having a hard time following it. Not everyone has seen every chain letter. However, I do recognize the tone of the type of letter you're describing, and yes, they are smug little whiners, aren't they?




I stopped reading when it mentioned evolotion.

"Let me explain the problem science has with Jesus Christ." The atheist
professor of philosophy pauses before his class and then asks one of his
new students to stand.



"You're a Christian, aren't you, son?"



"Yes sir," the student says.



"So you believe in God?"



"Absolutely."



"Is God good?"



"Sure! God's good."



"Is God all-powerful? Can God do anything?"



"Yes."



"Are you good or evil?"



"The Bible says I'm evil."



The professor grins knowingly. "Aha! The Bible!" He considers for a
moment.



"Here's one for you. Let's say there's a sick person over here and you
can cure him. You can do it. Would you help him? Would you try?"



"Yes sir, I would."



"So you're good...!"



"I wouldn't say that."

"But why not say that? You'd help a sick and maimed person if
you could. Most of us would if we could. But God doesn't."

The student does not answer, so the professor continues. "He
doesn't, does he? My brother was a Christian who died of cancer, even
though he prayed to Jesus to heal him How is this Jesus good? Hmmm? Can
you answer that one?"

The student remains silent.

"No, you can't, can you?" the professor says. He takes a sip of
water from a glass on his desk to give the student time to relax.

"Let's start again, young fella Is God good?"

"Er.yes," the student says.

"Is Satan good?"

The student doesn't hesitate on this one. "No."

"Then where does Satan come from?"

The student : "From...God..."

"That's right. God made Satan, didn't he? Tell me, son. Is there
evil in this world?"

"Yes, sir."

"Evil's everywhere, isn't it? And God did make everything,
correct?"

"Yes."

"So who created evil?" The professor continued, "If God created
everything, then God created evil, since evil exists, and according to
the principle that our works define who we are, then God is evil."

Without allowing the student to answer, the professor continues:
"Is there sickness? Immorality? Hatred? Ugliness? All these terrible
things, do they exist in this world?"

The student: "Yes."

"So who created them?"

The student does not answer again, so the professor repeats his
question. "Who created them? There is still no answer. Suddenly the
lecturer breaks away to pace in front of the classroom. The class is
mesmerized.

"Tell me," he continues onto another student. "Do you believe in
Jesus Christ, son?"

The student's voice is confident: "Yes, professor, I do."

The old man stops pacing. "Science says you have five senses you
use to identify and observe the world around you. Have you ever seen
Jesus?"

"No sir. I've never seen Him"

"Then tell us if you've ever heard your Jesus?"

"No, sir, I have not."

"Have you ever actually felt your Jesus, tasted your Jesus or
smelt your Jesus? Have you ever had any sensory perception of Jesus
Christ, or God for that matter?"

"No, sir, I'm afraid I haven't."

"Yet you still believe in him?"

"Yes."

"According to the rules of empirical, testable, demonstrable
protocol, science says your God doesn't exist. What do you say to that,
son?"

"Nothing," the student replies. "I only have my faith."

"Yes, faith," the professor repeats. "And that is the problem
science has with God. There is no evidence, only faith."

The student stands quietly for a moment, before asking a
question of his own. "Professor, is there such thing as heat?"

"Yes," the professor replies. "There's heat."

"And is there such a thing as cold?"

"Yes, son, there's cold too."

"No sir, there isn't."

The professor turns to face the student, obviously interested.
The room suddenly becomes very quiet. The student begins to explain.

"You can have lots of heat, even more heat, super-heat,
mega-heat, unlimited heat, white heat, a little heat or no heat, but we
don't have anything called 'cold'. We can hit up to 458 degrees below
zero, which is no heat, but we can't go any further after that. There is
no such thing as cold; otherwise we would be able to go colder than the
lowest -458 degrees. Every body or object is susceptible to study when
it has or transmits energy, and heat is what makes a body or matter have
or transmit energy. Absolute zero (-458 F) is the total absence of heat.
You see, sir, cold is only a word we use to describe the absence of
heat. We cannot measure cold. Heat we can measure in thermal units
because heat is energy. Cold is not the opposite of heat, sir, just the
absence of it."

Silence across the room. A pen drops somewhere in the classroom,
sounding like a hammer.

"What about darkness, professor. Is there such a thing as
darkness?"

"Yes," the professor replies without hesitation. "What is night
if it isn't darkness?"

"You're wrong again, sir. Darkness is not something; it is the
absence of something. You can have low light, normal light, bright
light,
flashing light, but if you have no light constantly you have
nothing and it's called darkness, isn't it? That's the meaning we use to
define the word. In reality, darkness isn't. If it were, you would be
able to make darkness darker, wouldn't you?"

The professor begins to smile at the student in front of him.
This will be a good semester. "So what point are you making, young man?"

"Yes, professor. My point is, your philosophical premise is
flawed to start with, and so your conclusion must also be flawed."

The professor's face cannot hide his surprise this time.
"Flawed? Can you explain how?"

"You are working on the premise of duality," the student
explains. "You argue that there is life and then there's death; a good
God and a bad God. You are viewing the concept of God as something
finite, something we can measure. Sir, science can't even explain a
thought. It uses electricity and magnetism, but has never seen, much
less fully understood either one. To view death as the opposite of life
is to be ignorant of the fact that death cannot exist as a substantive
thing. Death is not the opposite of life, just the absence of it."

"Now tell me, professor. Do you teach your students that they
evolved from a monkey?"

"If you are referring to the natural evolutionary process, young
man, yes, of course I do"

"Have you ever observed evolution with your own eyes, sir?"

The professor begins to shake his head, still smiling, as he
realizes where the argument is going. A very good semester, indeed.

"Since no one has ever observed the process of evolution at work
and cannot even prove that this process is an on-going endeavor, are you
not teaching your opinion, sir? Are you now not a scientist, but a
preacher?"

The class is in uproar. The student remains silent until the
commotion has subsided.

"To continue the point you were making earlier to the other
student, let me give you an example of what I mean."

The student looks around the room. "Is there anyone in the class
who has ever seen the professor's brain?" The class breaks out into
laughter.

"Is there anyone here who has ever heard the professor's brain,
felt the professor's brain, touched or smelled the professor's brain? No
one appears to have done so. So, according to the established rules of
empirical, stable, demonstrable protocol, science says that you have no
brain, with all due respect, sir. So if science says you have no brain,
how can we trust your lectures, sir?"

Now the room is silent. The professor just stares at the
student, his face unreadable.

Finally, after what seems an eternity, the old man answers. "I
guess you'll have to take them on faith."

"Now, you accept that there is faith, and, in fact, faith exists
with life," the student continues. "Now, sir, is there such a thing as
evil?"

Now uncertain, the professor responds, "Of course, there is. We
see it everyday. It is in the daily example of man's inhumanity to man.
It is in the multitude of crime and violence everywhere in the world.
These manifestations are nothing else but evil."

To this the student replied, "Evil does not exist sir, or at
least it does not exist unto itself. Evil is simply the absence of God.
It is just
like darkness and cold, a word that man has created to describe
the absence of God.

God did not create evil. Evil is the result of what happens when
man does not have God's love present in his heart. It's like the cold
that comes when there is no heat or the darkness that comes when there
is no light."

The professor sat down.

Pass this on if you have faith and love Jesus.

*pies the professor*

*pies the student*

*pies Jesus*

:)

Boooring. Fundamentally flawed at least as far as the evolution part. I skimmed it.

Tell your mother she can see evolution in action - fruit flies. Then tell her to think for herself, not think what the bible tells her to.

*pies Jesus*

This pie shall henceforth be known as the Holy Pastry; and he who partakes of it shall gain wisdom and eternal life.

But Lunatic of Goofballsia took it with him to the fourth corner of the globe, and there he stored it in the Castle Aaaaaaaaagggh; and the knights of NationStates General must set forth to reclaim it for their God! Or something.

Sorry, I get a bit carried away sometimes.

This pie shall henceforth be known as the Holy Pastry; and he who partakes of it shall gain wisdom and eternal life.

But Lunatic of Goofballsia took it with him to the fourth corner of the globe, and there he stored it in the Castle Aaaaaaaaagggh; and the knights of NationStates General must set forth to reclaim it for their God! Or something.

Sorry, I get a bit carried away sometimes.

ANd that is to your credit. :)

Accept the fact that your mother is imperfect in your eyes and love her as she is. If she insists on trying to convert you, let her. But do not try to convert her. If you find a good preacher who can explain to her that Bible is not to be taken literally, word for word, he might be able to help her but otherwise that's the best you can do.
I'm sorry.
Oh, and never listen to the advice of someone who you don't know! :)

Oh, and never listen to the advice of someone who you don't know! :)

that statement cancels itslef out O_o.........




PIME TARADOX!

Ahh, THAT chain letter. At least the people who send it around smartened up slightly and removed the bit that used to be at the end, how the "smart student" was actually a young albert einstein.

I suppose those people that tried to lend credibility to their nonsense by trying to make it sound more impressive realized that any gain by calling it the words of the genius Einstein were lost once folks realized that Einstein would likely not profess a belief in Jesus, as he was jewish.

Rocks and halflife decay alone won't get you the planet's age, 'cause the rocks are younger than the ball of mud we call Earth. Why you ask? Something called the Late Heavy Bombardment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late_heavy_bombardment) that occurred when the planet was about a billion years old.

So this professor is evil. And atheists are the root of all evil, are they? No evil deeds were ever carried out by "good christian folks", were they?

*sigh*

Piece of trash it was. Ask your mom to find a different way to justify why God is all-powerful and good, and allows evil to thrive. This does not give her a good answer.

I'd say it's difficult to explain the earth's age properly. The problem is that you have to start explaining it in a way that's not exactly true. It's like how you first have to explain newtonian physics before you can really explain relativity.
Of course you could start at the ever (im)popular http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_Earth

In any case, it's rather silly for people to claim God couldn't make a planet look 4.54 billion years old. Why they're even bothered by that is beyond me.

I hate that chain letter. I hate it more that those morons find it illogical for science and God to exist together. :(

My mother just had me read a freaking chain letter.

you know the one. the "atheist proff" gets school by a student because he claims god exists because "darkness is the absence of light".

Proper response: "Yes, and religion is the absence of common sense."

I hate that chain letter. I hate it more that those morons find it illogical for science and God to exist together. :(

But, but, didn't you realize that all scientists are trying to disprove god?

:headbang::headbang:

But, but, didn't you realize that all scientists are trying to disprove god?

:headbang::headbang:

no, actually one of my profs is teaching biology but he is still a christian.
That whole argumentation was stupid. Even though the student beat the prof with his own arguments it doesn't mean he's proven god exists.

Personally I dislike atheists as much as intolerant christians.
I rather call myself agnostic and I hope you know the difference.

Why do idiots always pass these chain mails around and then at the end they say "If you love Jesus and aren't afraid of it, pass this on!" What, am I going to Hell just because I don't feel like it's worth my time to pass on worthless chain mail? I love the ones where it talks about people passing around dirty jokes all day, but they never pass around religious spam because they may offend someone.

With that being said, this is Wilgrove's official stance on Spam and Chain mails.

*ahem*

I do not pass on any chain mail, or spam, regardless of the content, and I think that religion is a personal and private matter, the last thing I need is 500 pictures of Jesus crying with sad puppy eyes in my inbox every morning! Yes yes, we know, Ned Flanders is your favorite Simpson character. Guess what, no one gives a rats ass!

/steps off soapbox.

I rather call myself agnostic and I hope you know the difference.

Do you? If you did, you'd know that agnostic requires a qualifier. One can be an agnostic theist. One can be an agnostic atheist. It is impossible for one to be just plain agnostic.

Personally I dislike atheists as much as intolerant christians.

Why? The fact that we don't believe in God through scientific method makes us as bad as those that tell us we're going to hell for it? Most atheists would believe in God if evidence came up to prove his existence.

Why do idiots always pass these chain mails around and then at the end they say "If you love Jesus and aren't afraid of it, pass this on!" What, am I going to Hell just because I don't feel like it's worth my time to pass on worthless chain mail? I love the ones where it talks about people passing around dirty jokes all day, but they never pass around religious spam because they may offend someone.

With that being said, this is Wilgrove's official stance on Spam and Chain mails.

*ahem*

I do not pass on any chain mail, or spam, regardless of the content, and I think that religion is a personal and private matter, the last thing I need is 500 pictures of Jesus crying with sad puppy eyes in my inbox every morning! Yes yes, we know, Ned Flanders is your favorite Simpson character. Guess what, no one gives a rats ass!

/steps off soapbox.



I lul'd :D

Smile, say, "Yes, mom, I saw it, thanks," and go about your business of believing precisely what you would have anyhow. ;)

Why? The fact that we don't believe in God through scientific method makes us as bad as those that tell us we're going to hell for it? Most atheists would believe in God if evidence came up to prove his existence.

Why not look for it then?

If I was the professor, I'd take a hammer to my skull to prove I had a brain.

Then, with my last ounce of strength and/or life, I'd say, "Well we proved I have a brain. What about Jesus?"

Or better...

If God created the Earth in a matter of days, how long did it take him to write the Bible? Did he get writer's block? Did he take a while to think up all the animals that shouldn't be eaten?
I think the Bible was rushed in production. Thats why "stoning to death" was used to fill in all the punishments.

I told my parents a long time ago that I didn't give a SHIT what they thought. I told them I was atheist, they gave me the whole 'Fire, and Brimstone' rant; and I simply responded with a calm: " If I am doomed to Hell, so be it. Grandpa says its nice. " (The last part was an joke, albiet a bad one.)

Anyway, I gave up trying to explain to people why religion is not an adequate substitute for science. I'm content to let the ignorant be ignorant so long as they leave me the fuck alone and they don't tell me I'm gonna burn in hell ever six seconds.

EDIT: I think Christians should add a new commandment: "Thou Shalt Keep Thy Religion To Thy Self."

Why not look for it then?

'Cause I'm busy. I got other science to do, with burning. Much fun.

On a more serious note, I'm sure that a lot of scientists have tried to prove the existence of God. But seeing as he's undetectable and all (so-say), how do we manage that exactly?

Smile, say, "Yes, mom, I saw it, thanks," and go about your business of believing precisely what you would have anyhow. ;)

Or you could just let her know how you really feel and just be direct and to the point with her. :D

Family reunions in my family are always interesting. :D

You really can't. Carbon dating has not been proven,yet it is paraded around as science. But hey, it's kind of like evoloution, some have total faith in it, others are totally aganst it. Over and out.

You really can't. Carbon dating has not been proven,yet it is paraded around as science. But hey, it's kind of like evoloution, some have total faith in it, others are totally aganst it. Over and out.

This is where we point and laugh at your utter ignorance regarding science. And carbon dating. And evolution. And faith. And probably other stuff.

Carbon dating has not been proven

Much like gravity.

By the logic of this chain letter, since you cannot make anything godder, god as such doesn't exist. He's only the absence of evil, which you can always increase, e.g. by torturing puppies. Or something.

My mother just had me read a freaking chain letter.

you know the one. the "atheist proff" gets school by a student because he claims god exists because "darkness is the absence of light". (ie the one that isn't about the chalk not breaking)



anyhow I tried to keep my cool but it is just getting on my nerves. I tried to explain half-lifes and what not, but I can't do it to well. That and her biggest defence is "it is just someone's opinion."

I love my mom but it ticks me off to no end when she trys to convert me.:headbang:

the problem with trying to refute a chain email is that you dont have the writer there to challenge.

the thing goes wrong as soon as he starts into "the whole dark is the absence of light" thing. you need to ask right there "what the fuck is the point of that?" because it HAS no point. evil is far more than "the absence of god's love" and even if it WERE, why does god let people go with out his love?

im not fond of the "bad things are all god's fault" school of theology but its not explained away by god creating people capable of such evil.

You really can't. Carbon dating has not been proven,yet it is paraded around as science. But hey, it's kind of like evoloution, some have total faith in it, others are totally aganst it. Over and out.

are you high?

Since when is carbon dating ever been in question, except when it debunks religious garbage like the Shroud of Turin, or some assinine idea that the earth is 6000 years old?

Here's a start:

"Yes, son, there's cold too."

"No sir, there isn't."

The professor turns to face the student, obviously interested.
The room suddenly becomes very quiet. The student begins to explain.

"You can have lots of heat, even more heat, super-heat,
mega-heat, unlimited heat, white heat, a little heat or no heat, but we
don't have anything called 'cold'. We can hit up to 458 degrees below
zero, which is no heat, but we can't go any further after that. There is
no such thing as cold; otherwise we would be able to go colder than the
lowest -458 degrees. Every body or object is susceptible to study when
it has or transmits energy, and heat is what makes a body or matter have
or transmit energy. Absolute zero (-458 F) is the total absence of heat.
You see, sir, cold is only a word we use to describe the absence of
heat. We cannot measure cold. Heat we can measure in thermal units
because heat is energy. Cold is not the opposite of heat, sir, just the
absence of it."

You've just said there isn't any such thing as cold and then went on to define it as the absence of heat, meaning it does exist. Same for light and dark.

"You are working on the premise of duality," the student
explains. "You argue that there is life and then there's death; a good
God and a bad God.

Is and is not is also a duality...

You are viewing the concept of God as something
finite, something we can measure.

Indeed. And?

Sir, science can't even explain a thought.

Even if this were true, what does it have to do with the price of tea in china?

It uses electricity and magnetism, but has never seen, much
less fully understood either one.

Explains, not uses. As for understanding, that depends. I expect a physicist here can explain how well the current models explain the electro-magnetic weak force.

Ripping this up is pretty easy and actually a bit boring....

I'll leave the rest to someone else...

Easy, just the Earth's rings as it, afterall, just another branch of Yggdrasil so you probably can just get a bore sample and from there count the rings on our specfic branch.:)

Did anyone point out yet that absolute zero is not -458 degrees F?

Proff : "No cold, eh?"

(kicks kid out into the snow.)

Dont worry son, cold is just a myth, and your faith will keep you warm.

Did anyone point out yet that absolute zero is not -458 degrees F?

or that its theoretically impossible to acheive?

Proff : "No cold, eh?"

(kicks kid out into the snow.)

Dont worry son, cold is just a myth, and your faith will keep you warm.

Now now Backwoodsquatches, what did I teach you, you forgot to strip him naked!

You'll learn.

or that its theoretically impossible to acheive?

More or less yes, although we can get pretty close in the lab.
Boomerang Nebula apparently is the closest object discovered in nature. [1 (http://www.esa.int/esaSC/Pr_1_2003_h_en.html)]

And yeah, kick the kid out in the Iowa snowbanks here outside my parents house.

Why did you post this thread? What reason do you have for sharing your personal relationship with your mother with all of these people, most of whom you do not know?

Why did you post this thread? What reason do you have for sharing your personal relationship with your mother with all of these people, most of whom you do not know?

why did you post in this thread?

You really can't. Carbon dating has not been proven,yet it is paraded around as science. But hey, it's kind of like evoloution, some have total faith in it, others are totally aganst it. Over and out.

I hope to god you never ever attempt to major in any science-related field.

I love my mom but it ticks me off to no end when she trys to convert me.:headbang:

The solution is simple. Tell your Mom your Gay. She will be so horrified and subsequently so relieved that you arnt* that she will forget all about the conversion thing. The trick is to keep Mom off balance at all times ;)_ If that doesnt work the next time she hands you something like that, hand her back a Google printout of Israeli kibbutzes. Get creative i say.

*assuming you are not actually gay

Because the title interested me, and then after reading the posts, being as argumentative of a person as I am, I decided to post for the sake of showing the people here who decided to rag on Christian beliefs that their ranting really has no purpose

Because the title interested me, and then after reading the posts, being as argumentative of a person as I am, I decided to post for the sake of showing the people here who decided to rag on Christian beliefs that their ranting really has no purpose

and your ranting has a purpose all of a sudden?

I decided to post for the sake of showing the people here who decided to rag on Christian beliefs that their ranting really has no purpose

yeah, you sure showed us :rolleyes:

Run along now, adults are talking.

i never said that it did. I pointed out my own flaw of being a very confrontational person. i am only here to fulfill my own selfish desire for argument

see, most people who argue, actually have a point to make. An argument has at least 2 sides being discussed.

You, on the other hand, having presented no viewpoint, made no argument, raised no topic, can not be considered arguing. You are, at best, whining.

i never said that it did. I pointed out my own flaw of being a very confrontational person. i am only here to fulfill my own selfish desire for argument

yeah, you sure showed us :rolleyes:

Run along now, adults are talking.

This is exactly what I'm talking about. Petty insults aren't going to do anything.

Why did you post this thread? What reason do you have for sharing your personal relationship with your mother with all of these people, most of whom you do not know?

The same reason any of us post information or arguments or rants? To share, to mull over, to argue and to learn?

i never said that it did. I pointed out my own flaw of being a very confrontational person. i am only here to fulfill my own selfish desire for argument

In wich case, you'll fit right in here.

However, if youre going to argue over christianity, you'd better use whatever actual proof you can dredge up, or you'll get mocked.
A lot.

One good rule to remember, theres arguing about your faith, and then theres witnessing.
If you came here to witness...save your breath and feck off right now.
You wont get far here.

The same reason any of us post information or arguments or rants? To share, to mull over, to argue and to learn?

I do it for the free snacks.

This is exactly what I'm talking about. Petty insults aren't going to do anything.

Yea if you want to actually do something maybe step it up to the non petty insults. Its worth a shot i say.

see, most people who argue, actually have a point to make. An argument has at least 2 sides being discussed.

You, on the other hand, having presented no viewpoint, made no argument, raised no topic, can not be considered arguing. You are, at best, whining.

I came to argue, that doesn't mean that I am arguing. I saw the thread title, and was interested. I didn't make any point apart from my observation of the pointlessness of the thread because i decided that starting an argument wouldn't be worthwhile

I do it for the free snacks.

Yah.
and you better quit hogging all the cheetos, dammit.

Yea if you want to actually do something maybe step it up to the non petty insults. Its worth a shot i say.

Fine then, I didn't come here to witness, nor to tell you why I believe what I do, because I knew when I saw the first post that the only people who would read my comments on such already believe the same thing. Quite frankly, there is something to what that chain-letter says. Most of you here have made rather good arguments and observations concerning its flaws as well. But its main flaw is the fact that it was written. The people who read it will either delete it, read it and smile, or they will sneer at it. In which case, it will accomplish nothing except make those who read it more confident in their standing, apart from those who are terribly insecure.

Fine then, I didn't come here to witness, nor to tell you why I believe what I do, because I knew when I saw the first post that the only people who would read my comments on such already believe the same thing. Quite frankly, there is something to what that chain-letter says. Most of you here have made rather good arguments and observations concerning its flaws as well. But its main flaw is the fact that it was written. The people who read it will either delete it, read it and smile, or they will sneer at it. In which case, it will accomplish nothing except make those who read it more confident in their standing, apart from those who are terribly insecure.

The only thing"to" what the chain letter says is that it is a common and false urban legend with a trumped up false set of circumstances

http://www.snopes.com/religion/einstein.asp (from the sounds of it been posted)

Fine then, I didn't come here to witness, nor to tell you why I believe what I do, because I knew when I saw the first post that the only people who would read my comments on such already believe the same thing.

Oh not true at all.

Many folks here will read what you post concerning a topic like that, if nothing else, and attempt to verbally rip you apart for what you say.

*smiles*

Welcome to NSG.

my fingers are getting cold, and so I'm going to leave now. My point has been made and hopefully you all see why I was here and you are all done criticizing my comments vainly. If you'll be able to see past your own interpretations, you will see that all of your observations of my methods and motivations were wrong and completely irrelevant

my fingers are getting cold, and so I'm going to leave now. My point has been made and hopefully you all see why I was here and you are all done criticizing my comments vainly. If you'll be able to see past your own interpretations, you will see that all of your observations of my methods and motivations were wrong and completely irrelevant

LOL

No, we pretty much watched you fall on your face, in an attempt to further a point that you didnt really get around to making.

Eh, dont worry about it.

Man, reading that whole chain email made my brain hurt from the sheer number of stupid statements it contained. Gotta love criticisms of science written by people with no freaking idea of what science entails...

What annoys me about the whole chain letter featured in this case is that much of what the student says in completely incorrect.

for example, Hot nor cold exist, as both are kinetic energy, not some sort of special heat energy; Hot and Cold are basically the same as saying, high and low energy.

The same with this dark and light nonsense; if you look at a map of the night sky, you'd see it's just full of various EM radiation; just because the human eye is limited to only a narrow band of this spectrum, this doesn't mean that it's 'dark' or what have you. Further more, it is again a matter of high and/or low concentrations of energy.

Both of the students arguments fail to disprove the Problem of Evil, which is what the professor is clearly describing; infact, it only manages to concert the argument's in the PoE, because if Evil really was a lack of God, then God cannot be omnipotent. You cannot be infinite and still be finite at the same time.

While the Student makes a good point about death, he seems to have skipped the part in the textbook that describes inanimate and animate; death is basically the failure of life, and the resulting body is, to be honest, nothing more the trillions of trillions of carbon and various other atoms. A pencil 'lead' is not alive ether, but that same carbon forms the bases of all life on Earth; life isn't the opposite of death, Life is the opposite of not being alive.

And, again with the blasted monkeys! it's APES! APES GODDAMN IT.

As for the argument that evolution has never been observed, this is false. Short term evolution in animals has been observed and documented many, many times over, and larger chains of evolution have been presented in bacteria that have become resistant to various drugs developed. Ether that's evolution or God's a asshole.

Of course, Creationists will always make out the man of science as stupid as they are, that doesn't mean they are :rolleyes:

Then, of course, the student (formally named as McStupid) goes and humiliates the Professor with his idiotic diatribe about the fictionality of the professor's brain. What of this student's own Brain? does it not also lack in existence? Nevermind the this comparison of arguments is faulty in every which way; there has never been shown to be a God, where as it's proven that animals have a centralized processing center.

Honestly, one should have their head examined for a brain if you believe such poorly written and researched nonsense.

*sighs*

anyhow I tried to keep my cool but it is just getting on my nerves. I tried to explain half-lifes and what not, but I can't do it to well. That and her biggest defence is "it is just someone's opinion."The problem is that reality is some gazillion times more complicated and less intuitive than religion. If you want her to actually understand your point of view (which is no guarantee she'll agree, by the way), you need to feed her the turbo version of all the physics/chemistry/geology/astronomy knowledge you've been taught throughout your career as a public school kid, as well as a few things you weren't taught. And when you've done that, you need to verify she actually understood it.

That stuff has isotopes & they can be counted, is no more plausible to someone who doesn't understand what the hell isotopes are, than angels. Less, probably, since nobody claims to be able to count angels. Likewise, saying you can compare isotope counts between elements found in 3.5 billion year old rocks, which proves these are in fact 3.5 billion years old, sounds no less circular than "Bible says God Exist & Bible is true 'coz God says so". And the same is true for pretty much every other bit of scientific evidence about the Earth's age you can throw at her, from meteoric fragments, to solar luminosity, to fucking green Moon cheese. Unless she understands the underlying concepts, she doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of determining the validity of your point of view.

-snipped chain letter-

Neither the "professor" nor the "student" could reason himself out of a wet paper bag if his life depended on it.

Neither the "professor" nor the "student" could reason himself out of a wet paper bag if his life depended on it.

But there's the problem isn't it? Chain letters of this sort don't exist to teach, or discuss, or debate. They exist to make people feel smug and self satisfied with themselves and their believes. That the "smart student" outsmarted the "atheist professor". It's not meant to make sense, it's meant to make people feel better about themselves for believing in the same crap as this letter talks about.

my fingers are getting cold, and so I'm going to leave now. My point has been made and hopefully you all see why I was here and you are all done criticizing my comments vainly. If you'll be able to see past your own interpretations, you will see that all of your observations of my methods and motivations were wrong and completely irrelevant

There is no cold!

But there's the problem isn't it? Chain letters of this sort don't exist to teach, or discuss, or debate. They exist to make people feel smug and self satisfied with themselves and their believes. That the "smart student" outsmarted the "atheist professor". It's not meant to make sense, it's meant to make people feel better about themselves for believing in the same crap as this letter talks about.

Neo Art fades back, shoots the three...and it's GOOD! He WINS the THREAD!

They exist to make people feel smug and self satisfied with themselves and their believes.

I'm would think that most people who pass such chain letters around are more accurately described as victims, rather than the perpetrators of some attempt to be "smug" or "self satisfied." These people spend most of their lives believing that X is true, and thus become highly resistant to new developments that suggest otherwise because the human psyche is a frail and fragile thing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/cognitive dissonance). It is the small minority who understand this and take advantage of it who are the "smug" and "self satisfied."

Those of us who understand the value of science operate from a privileged position. Intentional ignorance should not be tolerated, but we can also understand that making the transition from superstition to reason often isn't just a matter of flicking a switch.

good advice costs nothing and its worth the price.

no one, who believes in, the INHIERENT bennefficence of ANY hierarchy, can ever be logicly trusted.

i believe in a god who gives good hugs, but leaves it up to us to avoid screwing everything up for each other.

as for what it may or may not have created, or anything else about it, the only thing we have other then shere speculation is the channeling of those who claim, every thousand years or so, to have been choosen by it, not themselves, to channel it to us.

the charismatic leader who was wrongfully exicuted by a paranoid government 2000 years ago, was someone who appearantly, honestly and sincerely believed themselves to be one of them. he was neither the first nor the last even of those. every major system of belief began with one. they may have ALL been 'right' in the alagorical spiritual sense in which they spoke, they may even, some or ALL have been honestly and sincerely deluded.

but beliefs and gods or a god, are like apples and oranges; neither depend in any way upon the other, least of all upon the existence of the other.

i believe there is something big, friendly, invisible and self awaire that gives good hugs. i believe this because i have been hugged by it. i don't claim to know anything else about it and i seriously doubt the reliability of any claims of any belief or any one to do so.

i believe there are little, friendly, and invisible somethings that give good hugs too, and i personally have witnessed no conflict between them, nor other then innocent intentions toward ourselves.

i believe demons and devils to be the invention of vested intrests, however ancient those intrests might have been. HUMAN vested intrests, of a somewhat less then entirely spiritual nature. something to terrorize the populas into accepting less then entirely equitable hierarchies and overlooking the risks inhierent in doing so.

none of which takes precidence over what can be objectively observable nor objectivesly infered from what is objectively observable. rocks have less reason to deceive, then any human ink on human paper, however lofty its purported intent.

it IS good that people be motivated to want to avoid causing suffering. it is inhierently not so good, that people be motivated to deceive themselves as to the actual mechanisms by which they do so.

=^^=
.../\...

good advice costs nothing and its worth the price.

no one, who believes in, the INHIERENT bennefficence of ANY hierarchy, can ever be logicly trusted.

i believe in a god who gives good hugs, but leaves it up to us to avoid screwing everything up for each other.

as for what it may or may not have created, or anything else about it, the only thing we have other then shere speculation is the channeling of those who claim, every thousand years or so, to have been choosen by it, not themselves, to channel it to us.

the charismatic leader who was wrongfully exicuted by a paranoid government 2000 years ago, was someone who appearantly, honestly and sincerely believed themselves to be one of them. he was neither the first nor the last even of those. every major system of belief began with one. they may have ALL been 'right' in the alagorical spiritual sense in which they spoke, they may even, some or ALL have been honestly and sincerely deluded.

but beliefs and gods or a god, are like apples and oranges; neither depend in any way upon the other, least of all upon the existence of the other.

i believe there is something big, friendly, invisible and self awaire that gives good hugs. i believe this because i have been hugged by it. i don't claim to know anything else about it and i seriously doubt the reliability of any claims of any belief or any one to do so.

i believe there are little, friendly, and invisible somethings that give good hugs too, and i personally have witnessed no conflict between them, nor other then innocent intentions toward ourselves.

i believe demons and devils to be the invention of vested intrests, however ancient those intrests might have been. HUMAN vested intrests, of a somewhat less then entirely spiritual nature. something to terrorize the populas into accepting less then entirely equitable hierarchies and overlooking the risks inhierent in doing so.

none of which takes precidence over what can be objectively observable nor objectivesly infered from what is objectively observable. rocks have less reason to deceive, then any human ink on human paper, however lofty its purported intent.

it IS good that people be motivated to want to avoid causing suffering. it is inhierently not so good, that people be motivated to deceive themselves as to the actual mechanisms by which they do so.

This post brought to you by UBERNOSTRUM.

Cold excists, in the same way that evil exists; as the vacuum to its polar opposite. When there is no heat, there is cold (−273.15 °C or −459.67 °F), when there is no good, there is evil (The Holocaust).

You really can't. Carbon dating has not been proven,yet it is paraded around as science. But hey, it's kind of like evoloution, some have total faith in it, others are totally aganst it. Over and out.

Certainty is a big word in science, but carbon dating is pretty solid science. *nod*

There is no cold!

There is no spoon http://209.85.12.231/11055/49/emo/sleep.gif

when there is no good, there is evil (The Holocaust).
But even during the Holocaust, good acts happened (folks helping Jews and others escape, etc.). As some good is still present, it follows -- using your schema -- that evil is absent from the Holocaust.

And this is just one of the problems when folks start talking about absolute evil; it just doesn't exist.

It's a fiction.

But even during the Holocaust, good acts happened (folks helping Jews and others escape, etc.). As some good is still present, it follows -- using your schema -- that evil is absent from the Holocaust.

And this is just one of the problems when folks start talking about absolute evil; it just doesn't exist.

It's a fiction.

I don't think I said that at all. In fact, I think you'll find that in day to day life you won't encouter absolute zero, in the same way you won't encouter absolute evil.

Personally, I think Genocide is just about the most evil humanity gets.
If thats not absolutely evil...nothing is.

I don't think I said that at all. In fact, I think you'll find that in day to day life you won't encouter absolute zero, in the same way you won't encouter absolute evil.
It seems to me that talk about evil always refers to it as an absolute. Saying "that's a little bit evil" or "that's half-evil" doesn't sound quite right, while "that's a little bit bad" or "that's half-bad" could pass.

Evil, then, seems to be the complete absence of good; ultimate badness. And, if so, I don't see this present in humanity.

Perhaps I could concede the possibility of evil acts, acts which have no merits to them at all; genocide, perhaps, as Backwoods suggests. But the idea of an evil person, someone 100% devoid of any good, incapable of good acts, seems to be the stuff of myths.

In any case, it's rather silly for people to claim God couldn't make a planet look 4.54 billion years old. Why they're even bothered by that is beyond me.

That sounds suspiciously like deception. Why would God, if we posit a "good" being, need to deceive humans? That's the part I never get, about why it's acceptable for God to lie as a "test", in the fundamentalist's view?

Or you could just let her know how you really feel and just be direct and to the point with her. :D

Family reunions in my family are always interesting. :D

Well, seriously, if you need to have a confrontation that will be ultimately futile because you're not going to change her views, go ahead.

She's not going to change your views, either.

So, "Yeah, I saw it," acknowledges that you recognize she took the time and care to send you something she finds important and feels will be helpful to you. If she pursues it, asking what you think, by all means, tell her.

Nah, not carbon dating. Its half-life is too short.

It's that other kind of dating, right? The kind with the uranium? (man, my chem teacher would strangle me if he ever saw this post.)

It seems to me that talk about evil always refers to it as an absolute. Saying "that's a little bit evil" or "that's half-evil" doesn't sound quite right, while "that's a little bit bad" or "that's half-bad" could pass.

Evil, then, seems to be the complete absence of good; ultimate badness. And, if so, I don't see this present in humanity.

Perhaps I could concede the possibility of evil acts, acts which have no merits to them at all; genocide, perhaps, as Backwoods suggests. But the idea of an evil person, someone 100% devoid of any good, incapable of good acts, seems to be the stuff of myths.

It doesn't need to reach absolute zero to be cold, just as doesn't need to reach absolute evil to be evil. This is the same with any quality. Nothing need be absolutely anything to be anything. Red need not be absolutely red, and so on. Everything exists merely in varying degrees.

Fine then, I didn't come here to witness, nor to tell you why I believe what I do, because I knew when I saw the first post that the only people who would read my comments on such already believe the same thing. Quite frankly, there is something to what that chain-letter says. Most of you here have made rather good arguments and observations concerning its flaws as well. But its main flaw is the fact that it was written. The people who read it will either delete it, read it and smile, or they will sneer at it. In which case, it will accomplish nothing except make those who read it more confident in their standing, apart from those who are terribly insecure.

Au contraire. Those who don't believe are also quite secure in their beliefs, and quite frankly, in the science vs. the-bible-says-science-doesn't-work-like-that, science wins hands down. One might say that those who believe are the ones who are insecure in their beliefs if they need a chain letter to reinforce their belief in God, or feel the need to pass it on to prove their belief in Jesus.

no, actually one of my profs is teaching biology but he is still a christian.
That whole argumentation was stupid. Even though the student beat the prof with his own arguments it doesn't mean he's proven god exists.

Personally I dislike atheists as much as intolerant christians.
I rather call myself agnostic and I hope you know the difference.

I was being sarcastic, there are however christians out there who do believe what I posted.

Au contraire. Those who don't believe are also quite secure in their beliefs, and quite frankly, in the science vs. the-bible-says-science-doesn't-work-like-that, science wins hands down. One might say that those who believe are the ones who are insecure in their beliefs if they need a chain letter to reinforce their belief in God, or feel the need to pass it on to prove their belief in Jesus.

Amen.

That sounds suspiciously like deception. Why would God, if we posit a "good" being, need to deceive humans? That's the part I never get, about why it's acceptable for God to lie as a "test", in the fundamentalist's view?Well, it might be that any world that runs properly (by itself, without continual divine intervention) would need to seem around that old (given the physical laws of this universe). But that's not saying much more than "God works in mysterious ways".

Of course, it would be odd if it's held against us when we assume that the earth is as old as by all rights it seems.
"I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use."

Neo Art fades back, shoots the three...and it's GOOD! He WINS the THREAD!

Congrats Neo, apparently this thread belongs to you now :D

no, actually one of my profs is teaching biology but he is still a christian.
That whole argumentation was stupid. Even though the student beat the prof with his own arguments it doesn't mean he's proven god exists.

Personally I dislike atheists as much as intolerant christians.
I rather call myself agnostic and I hope you know the difference.So... Are you religious?

Well, it might be that any world that runs properly (by itself, without continual divine intervention) would need to seem around that old (given the physical laws of this universe). But that's not saying much more than "God works in mysterious ways".

Of course, it would be odd if it's held against us when we assume that the earth is as old as by all rights it seems.

Well, that again begs the question, "Why, if there is a God, do we need to believe that the world is older and that he did not create it?"

If I bake cookies, and someone asks, "Hey, who baked these delicious cookies?" am I seriously going to say, "I dunno, they've been here 4.5 billion years?" ;)

It doesn't make sense.

If I bake cookies, and someone asks, "Hey, who baked these delicious cookies?" am I seriously going to say, "I dunno, they've been here 4.5 billion years?" ;)
Nah, 'cause who's gonna eat cookies that are that old? ;)

I think the bible would be less debated if it was made up entirly of metaphores.

I think the bible would be less debated if it was made up entirly of metaphores.

Or if people refused to take it as a scientific textbook.

So yah, I actually read the whole thing. That's why my replies are gonna be sort of all over the place. Forgive me.

Why? The fact that we don't believe in God through scientific method makes us as bad as those that tell us we're going to hell for it? Most atheists would believe in God if evidence came up to prove his existence.

I don't know how to evaluate the percentage that would or wouldn't but I do know a few who absolutely would not.

There are two kinds of Atheists: Ones who don't believe because they honestly do require proof, and those who profess not to believe because they've got a chip on their shoulder. They ALL profess to be of the former type, but most tend to be of the latter.

You really can't. Carbon dating has not been proven,yet it is paraded around as science. But hey, it's kind of like evoloution, some have total faith in it, others are totally aganst it. Over and out.

Much like gravity.

Gawd, you really love that tack, don't you? Radiocarbon dating isn't even in the same league as the Law of Gravity.

the problem with trying to refute a chain email is that you dont have the writer there to challenge.

the thing goes wrong as soon as he starts into "the whole dark is the absence of light" thing. you need to ask right there "what the fuck is the point of that?" because it HAS no point. evil is far more than "the absence of god's love" and even if it WERE, why does god let people go with out his love?

im not fond of the "bad things are all god's fault" school of theology but its not explained away by god creating people capable of such evil.

Yah there are flawed premises all over that letter. On both sides. For example, I don't agree with the concession that people are somehow inherently evil.

are you high?

Since when is carbon dating ever been in question, except when it debunks religious garbage like the Shroud of Turin, or some assinine idea that the earth is 6000 years old?

Just for the sake of my own curiosity, how does carbon dating account for contamination of the sample by microorganisms and dead matter?

This is exactly what I'm talking about. Petty insults aren't going to do anything.

But it is some people's specialty, especially N.A.'s

Neither the "professor" nor the "student" could reason himself out of a wet paper bag if his life depended on it.

QFT

But there's the problem isn't it? Chain letters of this sort don't exist to teach, or discuss, or debate. They exist to make people feel smug and self satisfied with themselves and their believes. That the "smart student" outsmarted the "atheist professor". It's not meant to make sense, it's meant to make people feel better about themselves for believing in the same crap as this letter talks about.

Agreed, with the caveat that you get this kind of nonsense from all sides.

Cold excists, in the same way that evil exists; as the vacuum to its polar opposite. When there is no heat, there is cold (−273.15 °C or −459.67 °F), when there is no good, there is evil (The Holocaust).

Cold is a concept. What you actually measure is heat or energy. Thus, cold in and of itself isn't a measurable entity.

Au contraire. Those who don't believe are also quite secure in their beliefs, and quite frankly, in the science vs. the-bible-says-science-doesn't-work-like-that, science wins hands down. One might say that those who believe are the ones who are insecure in their beliefs if they need a chain letter to reinforce their belief in God, or feel the need to pass it on to prove their belief in Jesus.

Which is also the reason why people attack each ot her's beliefs. Self-validation. It comes in all flavors.

Yea. Im christian but I do think like the whole first testiment is a cluster of metaphors. Im a christian because it teaches good values and I figure somthing had to create the universe. Some people dont need to be taut good values but Im not a good person :( is the whole big bang theory just that everything exploded into existance?

<SNIP>
Some people dont need to be taut good values but Im not a good person :(
You might want to work on that then ;)
is the whole big bang theory just that everything exploded into existance?
A short summation of the Big Bang theory
The Big Bang is the cosmological model of the universe whose primary assertion is that the universe has expanded into its current state from a primordial condition of enormous density and temperature. The term is also used in a narrower sense to describe the fundamental "fireball" that erupted at or close to an initial time-point in the history of our observed spacetime.[1]

Theoretical support for the Big Bang comes from mathematical models, called Friedmann models. These models show that a Big Bang is consistent with general relativity and with the cosmological principle, which states that the properties of the universe should be independent of position or orientation.

Observational evidence for the Big Bang includes the analysis of the spectrum of light from galaxies, which reveal a shift towards longer wavelengths proportional to each galaxy's distance in a relationship described by Hubble's law. Combined with the evidence that observers located anywhere in the universe make similar observations (the Copernican principle), this suggests that space itself is expanding. The next most important observational evidence was the discovery of cosmic microwave background radiation in 1964. This had been predicted as a relic from when hot ionized plasma of the early universe first cooled sufficiently to form neutral hydrogen and allow space to become transparent to light, and its discovery led to general acceptance among physicists that the Big Bang is the best model for the origin and evolution of the universe. A third important line of evidence is the relative proportion of light elements in the universe, which is a close match to predictions for the formation of light elements in the first minutes of the universe, according to Big Bang nucleosynthesis.

<SNIP>
Err, basically, yes. It's like Genesis, but with "somehow" instead of "God", and with "matter and anti-matter", and sometimes "evolution" also instead of God, sometimes.

Which is why I think that The Creation of the Universe (tm) is something that's a bit of a waste of time to go into. But there we go.
Fail

Yea. Im christian but I do think like the whole first testiment is a cluster of metaphors. Im a christian because it teaches good values and I figure somthing had to create the universe. Some people dont need to be taut good values but Im not a good person :(
Hey, good for you if you're into that kind of thing, I guess.
is the whole big bang theory just that everything exploded into existance?
Err, basically, yes. It's like Genesis, but with "somehow" instead of "God", and with "matter and anti-matter", and sometimes "evolution" also instead of God, sometimes.

Which is why I think that The Creation of the Universe (tm) is something that's a bit of a waste of time to go into. But there we go.

So esentialy the choise is just a 50-50 between antimatter/matter and god as far as creation goes. This sucks. I want some of that holy pastry.

It doesn't need to reach absolute zero to be cold, just as doesn't need to reach absolute evil to be evil.
If you take this route, then there is no difference between 'evil' and 'bad', which seems to fly in the face of how folks use the word 'evil'.

'Evil', I think we can safely say, is taken to be worse than 'bad'. I posit that 'evil' is absolute badness; the absence of good. I also think that the two terms, 'evil' and 'bad' are in no way synonyms (which you seem to be suggesting). If they were, then we could happily describe a small boy who steals his sister's cookie as 'evil'. That's a bad description; the child may have acted badly, but he in no way acts in an evil fashion.

(Perhaps you could describe an action that was a little bit evil?)

Thus, I don't think your analogy holds; it's true that it doesn't need to reach absolute zero to be cold, but I think it does need to be absolute badness to be evil.

This is the same with any quality.
Not any quality.

Well, that again begs the question, "Why, if there is a God, do we need to believe that the world is older and that he did not create it?"I'm not sure I understand the question.
It's not a matter of what we ought to believe. It would simply be a result of the physics chosen for the universe that the characteristics of the earth can (only) be interpreted to point to an age of 4.5 billion years old. I suppose you could ask why god didn't choose a different set of physical laws that would show the "actual" age; but at the risk of eroding god's supposed omnipotence, there might not be such a set of laws (I'm not inclined to think omnipotence stretches to the logically impossible, like making round squares).
Of course with this metaphysics, the universe might still as well have been created last Thursday; but that's where revelation comes in to impart "knowledge of the true nature of the universe" to us.
I've seen worse ways to fill plot-holes, in any case..

If I bake cookies, and someone asks, "Hey, who baked these delicious cookies?" am I seriously going to say, "I dunno, they've been here 4.5 billion years?" ;)

It doesn't make sense.It might be amusing though ;)

The earth on it's 6000 year old birthday:

http://www.solarvoyager.com/uploads/jenny/181_earth_large.jpg

Give or take a millenia or several.

I'm not sure I understand the question.
It's not a matter of what we ought to believe. It would simply be a result of the physics chosen for the universe that the characteristics of the earth can (only) be interpreted to point to an age of 4.5 billion years old. I suppose you could ask why god didn't choose a different set of physical laws that would show the "actual" age; but at the risk of eroding god's supposed omnipotence, there might not be such a set of laws (I'm not inclined to think omnipotence stretches to the logically impossible, like making round squares).
Of course with this metaphysics, the universe might still as well have been created last Thursday; but that's where revelation comes in to impart "knowledge of the true nature of the universe" to us.
I've seen worse ways to fill plot-holes, in any case..
I had a creationist tell me once that God created an "old Earth" so it's only been here literally for 6K years but it looks older, kinda like he created Adam as a man and not a baby, so he would appear to be 25 but had only been alive for a day or two......:confused:

I had a creationist tell me once that God created an "old Earth" so it's only been here literally for 6K years but it looks older, kinda like he created Adam as a man and not a baby, so he would appear to be 25 but had only been alive for a day or two......:confused:Isn't it sort of heretical to suggest that particular deity is a trickster god?

I had a creationist tell me once that God created an "old Earth" so it's only been here literally for 6K years but it looks older, kinda like he created Adam as a man and not a baby, so he would appear to be 25 but had only been alive for a day or two......:confused:

I thought the devil made the world look older so that later, scientists would become confused and go to hell and then during the apocolypse, Satan would have all these people for Research and Development and God would have all these people that send cheesy e-mails back and forth. A good plan but God is all powerful and could take out hell with one hand tied behind His back but God just doesn't feel like it. God feels like maybe sending us another one of his kids to piss us all off until we can think of a real ultra nasty way to kill him. God is such a punk.

If I bake cookies, and someone asks, "Hey, who baked these delicious cookies?" am I seriously going to say, "I dunno, they've been here 4.5 billion years?" ;)


I have a carbon dater in my stomach. Hand the cookies over and ill tell you how old they are.

God is such a punk.

jesus, like sheena, is a punk rocker


or at least heavily into body mod.

*pies the professor*

*pies the student*

*pies Jesus*

:)

Well, you have to have some sympathy for the professor compelled to engage in eternal dickery lacking the capacity of free will existing solely within the mind of a Christian persecutionist.

I was tempted to write a corresponding letter mocking the Creationist view, but half way through typing it I felt like a complete ass. There just isn't a sensible way to write this sort of thing without being a douchebag. Except possibly as a ventriloquist sketch.

to the op - how old do you need the earth to be? is your mom a young earther? because we can talk her down from that ledge using principles she most likely already accepts and understands. once you break the young earther retardicity, then the fact that she doesn't know how other dating methods really work poses less of a problem, as she won't really have any reason to doubt them anyways.

Well, that again begs the question, "Why, if there is a God, do we need to believe that the world is older and that he did not create it?"

If I bake cookies, and someone asks, "Hey, who baked these delicious cookies?" am I seriously going to say, "I dunno, they've been here 4.5 billion years?" ;)

It doesn't make sense.

Because a certain kind of Christian isn't comfortable with metaphorical thought. They fear that if Genesis is a metaphor, then perhaps heaven is a metaphor, and when you die you really are just worm meat. Accepting that a day means anything other than the time it takes for the Sun to go around the Earth (not a typo) is the first step towards admitting that there is no God, merely the internalized lessons of sociability and good behavior taught to us by our parents and internalized in our adulthood. But of course, you can't take it to mean a literal day when the Sun and the Earth were not established in their patterns yet.

And if you take the Bible literally, and the Bible contains a complete genealogy from the birth of Adam to the birth of Jesus and you take each generation to be about 50-70 years then the world can't be much older than 5-6,000 years old (3-4 thousand, plus the 2,000 since Jesus.)

All this despite the fact that Cain, though only the 3rd human on the face of the Earth, went to a city to find a wife. Huh?

If I'm just trying to get Creationists to acknowledge that the world is more than 6,000 years old I just point out that if Methuselah lived to be 900 then 3 or 4 generations could be 2 or 3 thousand years. This leaves room for many millennia between the birth of Adam and the birth of Christ, even if you take the Bible literally.

Because a certain kind of Christian isn't comfortable with metaphorical thought. They fear that if Genesis is a metaphor, then perhaps heaven is a metaphor, and when you die you really are just worm meat. Accepting that a day means anything other than the time it takes for the Sun to go around the Earth (not a typo) is the first step towards admitting that there is no God, merely the internalized lessons of sociability and good behavior taught to us by our parents and internalized in our adulthood. But of course, you can't take it to mean a literal day when the Sun and the Earth were not established in their patterns yet.

And if you take the Bible literally, and the Bible contains a complete genealogy from the birth of Adam to the birth of Jesus and you take each generation to be about 50-70 years then the world can't be much older than 5-6,000 years old (3-4 thousand, plus the 2,000 since Jesus.)

All this despite the fact that Cain, though only the 3rd human on the face of the Earth, went to a city to find a wife. Huh?

If I'm just trying to get Creationists to acknowledge that the world is more than 6,000 years old I just point out that if Methuselah lived to be 900 then 3 or 4 generations could be 2 or 3 thousand years. This leaves room for many millennia between the birth of Adam and the birth of Christ, even if you take the Bible literally.
there are Bible prophecies given in Daniel that are down to the day pointing to Jesus being the messiah, if the calendering is off or the Earth is older or anything it throws it all out the window. Most of the 6K year people are unaware of this and are like you said "it has to be literal to be true" but the people who are actually steeped in doctrine and prophecy know that if the world is 4.5 Billion years old, then the Jesus stuff pretty much goes out the window, and since he didn't line up with a lot of the other prophecy, they are out of luck and out of a messiah.

Fail
Not really.

The scientific version is basically "and then the universe was created in a massive explosion of matter and anti-matter, and then we evolved and things".

The original cause of both the Biblical and standard take on it is "something magically appeared from nothing".

Not really.

The scientific version is basically "and then the universe was created in a massive explosion of matter and anti-matter, and then we evolved and things".

The original cause of both the Biblical and standard take on it is "something magically appeared from nothing".

Yes, Fail because the big bang theory says absolutely nothing about evolution; and vice versa

Yes, Fail because the big bang theory says absolutely nothing about evolution; and vice versa
...

Yes, I know that, however Genesis does ;)

...

Yes, I know that, however Genesis does ;)

point to Yootopia

The problem with telling your mom that the "young earth" theory is faulty is that, if she is a true Christian, it won't matter to her. The problem many people have when it comes to debating with Christians is that they take the parts of the Bible that aren't central to their beliefs. Many people have asked "Do you really believe that a man survived in the belly of a huge fish for three days?" I say, "Yes, I do," But seeing as the story of Jonah isn't one that is crucial to core Christian beliefs, someone asking a Christian that question really wouldn't be doing anything to get the Christian person to see anything their way. The same is true when it comes to the age of the earth- it really doesn't matter to a Christian.

Carbon dating, and other radiometric methods.lol, my parents raised me to believe carbon dating was a pseudo-science. I didn't realize until later that was because it conflicted with biblical literalism. there is no force on earth capable of pulling some ostriches' heads out of the sand, guys, don't bother. social sciences like sociology and psychology (we're scientists too, dangit) have long made it quite clear that deep held beliefs (including those in science to a great degree) have much less to do with rationality and intelligence than with social conditioning and emotional coping mechanisms...(and it's not as simple as "religion is the denial of death", because many of them are not)

lol, my parents raised me to believe carbon dating was a pseudo-science. I didn't realize until later that was because it conflicted with biblical literalism. there is no force on earth capable of pulling some ostriches' heads out of the sand, guys, don't bother. social sciences like sociology and psychology (we're scientists too, dangit) have long made it quite clear that deep held beliefs (including those in science to a great degree) have much less to do with rationality and intelligence than with social conditioning and emotional coping mechanisms...(and it's not as simple as "religion is the denial of death", because many of them are not)
On a scale of one to pseudo-science, carbon dating is about -3.

Oh, also, sociology is hardly real science. Psychology maybe :p

The problem with telling your mom that the "young earth" theory is faulty is that, if she is a true Christian, it won't matter to her. The problem many people have when it comes to debating with Christians is that they take the parts of the Bible that aren't central to their beliefs. Many people have asked "Do you really believe that a man survived in the belly of a huge fish for three days?" I say, "Yes, I do," But seeing as the story of Jonah isn't one that is crucial to core Christian beliefs, someone asking a Christian that question really wouldn't be doing anything to get the Christian person to see anything their way. The same is true when it comes to the age of the earth- it really doesn't matter to a Christian.

scotsmen!

I stopped reading when it mentioned evolotion.

me too. up till then the point was valid (god not evil, but rather an abscence of god is evil)... still didn't care though as that does not prove god exists ;)

but evolution has been witnessed (fast reproducing organisms) and its 'path' through time traced. irritating.

up till then the point was valid (god not evil, but rather an abscence of god is evil)Wait, isn't god omnipresent? So then there is no evil!

I stopped reading when it mentioned evolotion.

I would expect that sort of a reaction from an atheistic evolutionist. You don't want to accept anything that proves evolution false, or that goes against what you want to believe. You don't want to read anything that might lead you to change your mind and reject evolution. You don't want both sides of the story. You only want the side in favor of what you want to believe. You want to believe evolution is true, and that there is no God, because you don't want to deal with God holding you personally accountable for your deeds.

You reaction to disproof of evolution is nothing but politically correct bigotry. You reject scientific facts (i.e. that GOD created the universe, and that it didn't evolve or create itself), and in the NAME of "science" at that, preferring to cling to Darwin's fairy tale of evolution.

Unscientific bigotry.

*pies the professor*

*pies the student*

*pies Jesus*

:)

*pies Lunatic Goofballs*

:)

Boooring. Fundamentally flawed at least as far as the evolution part. I skimmed it.

Tell your mother she can see evolution in action - fruit flies. Then tell her to think for herself, not think what the bible tells her to.

Ditto here my reply to Melphi.

Accept the fact that your mother is imperfect in your eyes and love her as she is. If she insists on trying to convert you, let her. But do not try to convert her. If you find a good preacher who can explain to her that Bible is not to be taken literally, word for word, he might be able to help her but otherwise that's the best you can do.
I'm sorry.
Oh, and never listen to the advice of someone who you don't know! :)

A "good" preacher who claims the Bible is not to be taken literally is NOT a good preacher.

I would expect that sort of a reaction from an atheistic evolutionist. You don't want to accept anything that proves evolution false, or that goes against what you want to believe. You don't want to read anything that might lead you to change your mind and reject evolution. You don't want both sides of the story. You only want the side in favor of what you want to believe. You want to believe evolution is true, and that there is no God, because you don't want to deal with God holding you personally accountable for your deeds.

You reaction to disproof of evolution is nothing but politically correct bigotry. You reject scientific facts (i.e. that GOD created the universe, and that it didn't evolve or create itself), and in the NAME of "science" at that, preferring to cling to Darwin's fairy tale of evolution.

Unscientific bigotry.



*pies Lunatic Goofballs*

:)



Ditto here my reply to Melphi.



A "good" preacher who claims the Bible is not to be taken literally is NOT a good preacher.

When somebody actually "disproves" the TOE, then come talk.

And as for the question that is the title of this thread ("how the hell do you explain the earth's age?"), I explain it like this:

1. God created things to have a look of age on them. He created Adam and Eve as full-grown adults, not as newborn babies, and the rest of Earth life, and the earth itself, were the same way.

2. In Genesis 1:1 God created the universe. In Genesis 1:2 we are told that "the earth was without form, and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep." God didn't create it that way, so there was an indefinite time period between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2, which accounts for the earth's age or appearance thereof.

When somebody actually "disproves" the TOE, then come talk.

The theory of evolution is illogical. Read Melphi's post on page 1 of this thread, where he posted the chain letter.

If you're not a bigoted atheist, you will read ALL of it, not just up to the part about evolution.

The theory of evolution is illogical. Read Melphi's post on page 1 of this thread, where he posted the chain letter.

If you're not a bigoted atheist, you will read ALL of it, not just up to the part about evolution.

I did. It was a piece of crap chain letter.

Once again, when someone can disprove the TOE, then come talk.

I'm also not an atheist so you can take your little ad hominem insults and stuff them in the appropriate orifice.

And as for the question that is the title of this thread ("how the hell do you explain the earth's age?"), I explain it like this:

1. God created things to have a look of age on them. He created Adam and Eve as full-grown adults, not as newborn babies, and the rest of Earth life, and the earth itself, were the same way.

2. In Genesis 1:1 God created the universe. In Genesis 1:2 we are told that "the earth was without form, and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep." God didn't create it that way, so there was an indefinite time period between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2, which accounts for the earth's age or appearance thereof.

And why does this have any more credibility than other creation beliefs?

Can you show evidence it wasn't the Hindus or Pastafarians that are correct?

And as for the question that is the title of this thread ("how the hell do you explain the earth's age?"), I explain it like this:

1. God created things to have a look of age on them. He created Adam and Eve as full-grown adults, not as newborn babies, and the rest of Earth life, and the earth itself, were the same way.

your contention is that a 'full-grown' earth ought to look about 4.54 billion years old and inhabit a 13.7 billion year old looking universe? why? why wouldn't the earth look 'full-grown' if it was 7000 years old looking?

2. In Genesis 1:1 God created the universe. In Genesis 1:2 we are told that "the earth was without form, and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep." God didn't create it that way, so there was an indefinite time period between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2, which accounts for the earth's age or appearance thereof.

i'm pretty sure that even making up an indefinite amount of time without a real justification for doing so (your biblical reading leaves something to be desired) you don't actually address the problem. after all, there are billions of years that occur after the earth has form...

I would expect that sort of a reaction from an atheistic evolutionist. You don't want to accept anything that proves evolution false

and what precisely was this proof of falsity? i must have missed it. would you care to repost it in your own words?

A "good" preacher who claims the Bible is not to be taken literally is NOT a good preacher.
A preacher who claims the Bible is to be taken literally is NOT a good preacher.

Mt 23-24
Then Jesus said to his disciples, "Amen, I say to you, it will be hard for one who is rich to enter the kingdom of heaven.
Again I say to you, it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for one who is rich to enter the kingdom of God."

Two statements that contradict each other. Either it is possible but hard (23) or impossible, barring miracle (24).

and what precisely was this proof of falsity? i must have missed it. would you care to repost it in your own words?

I personally would like to see this research that has proven god created the universe.

I personally would like to see this research that has proven god created the universe.

Hypothesis: God created the universe.
Materials: Bible, PCP
Procedure: Take PCP. Read Genesis.
Result: Genesis mentions God and creation and shit.
Conclusion: God created the universe. Hypothesis confirmed.

Hypothesis: God created the universe.
Materials: Bible, PCP
Procedure: Take PCP. Read Genesis.
Result: Genesis mentions God and creation and shit.
Conclusion: God created the universe. Hypothesis confirmed.

I am convinced. Pass the KoolAid.