Forums / Miscellaneous Discussions / A big debate, on the chat box!

did jesus say the earth was 3000 years old when i was born?

I would like you to provide fact backing those bold claims mr. Ambrosias. Reading up I notice your claims to being a "real" debator yet I have not seen one single piece of proof that support any of your claims. By proof I mean something a little less esoteric then a reference to god or the bible (as the former is a product of your mind and the latter hardly can be viewed as any shape or form of reliable source).

As far as I am concerned you are merely attempting to impose your twisted view of reality on whoever has time enough to sit and listen. To convert the "unbelievers" so to speak. I´d say that is not only very annoying but also slightly arrogant.

A closed mind can never achieve wisdom and I´m afraid you´r mind is not only closed, but barred and surrounded by a few feet of concrete.

1. you said you had more evidence to show the earth is 5000 years old so where is it annnnd

2.

http://www.extremescience.com/earth.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_Earth
http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/geotime/age.html
http://www.gpc.edu/~pgore/geology/geo102/age.htm

at least 4 links

"To convert the "unbelievers" so to speak. I´d say that is not only very annoying but also slightly arrogant."

I am not trying to convert unbelievers. I am trying to give them a little "push" out of there own arogence and foolishness. They are blind to the word of God, and I am trying to wipe the mud from there eyes, the mud that is hindering there vision from the truth.

You provide web sites, and internet links. But where is there evidenve from Books?

The web sites are made by human without liable historical and scientific fact conferming this area of debate.

I could search with one word and find dosens of sites confirming that the world is 5000 years old, and yet will it saticefy the human mind?

I have participated in quite a few religious discussions, usually with some of those witnesses of Jehova that roam the countryside annoying unsuspecting citizens. Usually those discussions ended with the bleating sheep loosing their temper and aborting (quite funny what happens when people realize they really dont have any form of basis to their claims). Anyway...

Lets leave the science vs god debate for a second and take a look at something else entirely.

You claim the world is but 5000 years old and was created by god. I suppose a few hundred million of people agree with you on that. My question to you is, what about those billions of people of different faiths? Are their creation myths a lie? Are Allah, Brahman or the teachings of Siddhartha Gautama a hoax? What of the countless elder civilisations such as Egypt, the Aztec or Maya? Surely you can not dispute their existence.

Mr. Ambrosias Arilyonis Report 1/13/2008 10:48:47 PM

"To convert the "unbelievers" so to speak. I´d say that is not only very annoying but also slightly arrogant."   I am not trying to convert unbelievers. I am trying to give them a little "push" out of there own arogence and foolishness. They are blind to the word of God, and I am trying to wipe the mud from there eyes, the mud that is hindering there vision from the truth.

Somebody should read the bible and understand the message behind it, instead of repeating church doctrine.

WHERE IS YOUR EVIDANCE?!?! not intil you get your own evidance will i give mine. i want it down on this topic. not in some form of a internet link.

but that could mean hes lying? no wonder your a born again christian :o

As per usual the "faithful" resort to attempting to discredit their oposition due lack of any rational proof supporting their own claims.

Sorry to inform you Ambro, but this discussion just ended. You are clearly unfit to defend your claims in any sensible way and thus waste our time.

P.S. It baffles me how a true christian wears a name refering to pagan gods.

Dreadlord Brent Corrigan Report 1/13/2008 10:08:35 PM

As per usual the "faithful" resort to attempting to discredit their oposition due lack of any rational proof supporting their own claims.   Sorry to inform you Ambro, but this discussion just ended. You are clearly unfit to defend your claims in any sensible way and thus waste our time. P.S. It baffles me how a true christian wears a name refering to pagan gods.

Firstly, you give no rational proof in suporting your claims.

Secondly, this discusion will never end. Wether it is in this topic form or web site.

And thirdly, why in the world would you think im getting this name from pagan gods. It came from a Roman General.

Mostly all of the basses of my theorys come from the bible.

I am not simply qwoteing directly from the bible.

@Arilyonis well then you are a hypocrite no?

Has the veracity of anything in the bible ever been proven? You base your obsessive behavior on a book that, for all we know, could have been a child story or fantasy novel  2000 years ago.

Your single arguement is one of faith. Faith in the bible, faith in what men of the church tell you. By that faith you believe yourself above us "non believers". By that faith you have the nerve to denounce scientific progress. By that faith you dare start a debate you are not fit to handle.

I am sorry, but from where I stand, religious fanatics like you are the sole reason there will always be strife in the world.

Dreadlord Brent Corrigan Report 1/13/2008 10:27:21 PM

Has the veracity of anything in the bible ever been proven? You base your obsessive behavior on a book that, for all we know, could have been a child story or fantasy novel  2000 years ago.

It has infact been proven.

The bible passes test of historical science better than any other of the histories that cover the same time periods covered by the bible. Thus, science tells us that we can believe the accounts given in the bible better than any other accounts given in any other historical documents for the relevant time periods. This means that the overall history of human life on earth is best provided in the bible. As a result, we have solid scientific reasons to believe in the events of the past as related to the bible.

Face it mate, you have no proof except church doctrine and worn out phrases.

I just gave you PROOF!!!!

You might think. Doesn't the bible give accounts of events that are rather hard to believe? What about Noah's Flood, for example? the bible tells us that the entire world was destroyed by a flood cuased by God. The only people who survived the flood were members of a family led by a man named Noah, who had built an ark by the Lord's command. Isn't that a little hard to swallow?

Perhaps, it might be hard to swallow for most, but there is ample reason to believe the most historically valid document of that time period, then it is awfully hard to understand how you can believe any history that we currently know. After all, the same historical tests that are used to evaluate all other works of history tell us that the bible is, by far, the most reliable. If you start deciding to reject parts of biblical history, then you have really departed form the science of history and are more or less making up things as you go.

If you read what I wrote you might notice that I claim the "esoteric" topics have in no way been proven. Sure the bible might describe how people dwelled at the time and there is little reason to dispute that, but in no way does it strengthen your position on the creation theory. Nor have I ever been confronted with anything supporting the veracity of Noah and his arc.

But if you think that by claiming something to be true it will be so, fine. Do not however expect us to be gullible enough to believe you.

Also, there is ample extrabiblical evidance (evidace from sources other than the bible) to beieve that a worldeide flood did, indeed, happen n the past. There is quite a lot of geological evidance fora worldwide flood. History actually gves us other evidence that a worldwide flood did happen somtime in earth's past.

The are many stories of a worldwide flood from many differet cultures. For example, Babylonian tablets that date back to 2000 b.c. (absulute age) contain a story called the "Gilgamesh Epic." This story tells about a ruler who seeks out a wise man. The wise man and his family are described in the story as the sole survivors of a great flood. In greek mythology, the king of Pthia (Deucalion) and his faily ae said to be the sole survivors of a flood that god zues sent to destroy humanity becuase of men's wicked ways. The natives of South Asia, the Cinese, and the Japanese all have similar stories.

Aaah of course, now we get down to that part of the discussion. Whre you claim your sources to be the only logical ones, whereas logic by itself will always be in the eye of the spectator as logic is simply the study of the principles of correct reasoning.

I would dispute how explaining everything we do not understand with some superficial force can be even remotely logical as logic is based on correct assumptions. Correct assumptions would need some form of facts to be based on, yet all we see before us is a book. A book describing the life of people x years ago mixed with a few supernatural events explained with some greater force, yet lacking any sort of fact that would lead us to assume it is true.

One would think a devastating event as that myth circling around noah would leave evidence to this day..yet where is it?

I think I have to accept what Corrigan is saying, that we don't have a proper representative for the side of religion in this discussion. Ambrosia when we "fail to provide evidence" it is because we are referencing things that we take to be common knowledge. It is unreasonable to demand proof that the sky is blue or that the world is round. Secondly, you do not have to experience or education to determine what is a worthwhile citation or not; some evidence was given which is representative of the general thread science is at on the topic. By demanding a book you're just throwing a totally transparent attempt to stall looking at evidence against you.
Just so you can read this without having to click on those tricky little links, here's a piece of evidence for you. Go out somewhere and dig up a piece of petrified wood. We can measure the amount of C14 left in it, apply a formula we have proven which shows how long it takes to lose X amount of C14, and bam, you have proof that there was a tree more than 5000 years ago.
Lastly, just because I can't resist debunking the single piece of statement you gave us that wasn't from church:

The bible passes test of historical science better than any other of the histories that cover the same time periods covered by the bible. Thus, science tells us that we can believe the accounts given in the bible better than any other accounts given in any other historical documents for the relevant time periods.


a: History is not science. b:SCIENCE tells us that we CANNOT believe in the accounts in the bible. c: The way an ancient primary source is deemed as "trustworthy" is far more complicated then you realize. It is taken statement by statement, not by books in their entirety, thus I say that no proper historian would ever say that the bible should be trusted in entirety. d: A given statement is shown as trustworthy when it AGREES WITH OTHER SOURCES and when possible archaeological evidence. That there was a burning bush or angelic miracles are not supported by other sources, only things that are irrelevant to this discussion are supported, like "who was king in such a place at such a time" etc.e: On the rare occurrences when something outrageous is "supported", a closer look tells us that the other sources were speaking of one of the dozens of other man-god's in history, or one of the several flood myths etc. By support they refer to the stories which ancient christians ripped off of other religions and put a christian spin on them. f: None of that matters because your claim was false anyway. History's greatest sources are Thucydides and Herodotus.

i believe the bible could possibly be a guide to some historic facts with stories passed down time through tribes etc but alot of it is more than likely bull
comon the adam and eve story :P

Bayushi Clamps, you just can't accept that you lost the debate. And thus you start throwing random stuff at me. You are obveasly not  learned in the history of Science and the Bible.

We should believe the bible becuase the bible is more historically reliable than any of the other documents, as is demonstrated by the internal, external, and bibliographic tests.

You have no evidence of this and if you read the world's ancient sources all you will find is evidence against it. And before you even say it I'm rapping up my double major, one of them being ancient/classical history, and I have in fact read a veritable buttload of the ancient sources so I'm not blowing hot air =p