0
   

Does Religion Cause More World Problems?

 
 
Eorl
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 May, 2005 06:23 am
HA! to quote a phrase oft used by my little 2 year old daughter.....

" I don't BINK so !!!!! "
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 May, 2005 07:10 am
thunder_runner32 wrote:
O.k, I'll bet you 200 posts that future scientific discoveries will show that the universe having an age of billions of years, is a completely ridiculous notion...how about it?
Yeah, but thunder: Genesis 1:1 alows for a huge time span. Are you sure you want to risk that many posts? I mean; it could keep you up all night.
0 Replies
 
thunder runner32
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 May, 2005 10:57 am
I'm confident it's not in the billions, there are too many problems with that story, the sun's brightness, the magnetism of the earth, the position of the earth in relation to the sun, there are many things that are blown out of proportion when you apply these astronomical numbers.
0 Replies
 
headofthefield
 
  1  
Reply Tue 31 May, 2005 11:04 am
Once again I will side with thunder. The billions and/or millions of years that scientists throw around are never completely backed up. Besides they change the numbers way to often.
0 Replies
 
real life
 
  1  
Reply Tue 31 May, 2005 02:21 pm
brahmin wrote:
does religion cause problems?

no - religious intolerance does.

if the uno could ban all attempts of religions conversion/preaching/propagating, whether by force or by tact - then there would be no religious problem ever.


the 11th commandment - should be adapted as the one common rule that all religions should have to abide by -

11th commandment for the uninitiated -

"thou shall keep your frigging religion to thy frigging self, and not try to shove it down thy neighbour's throat, no matter how wrong his faith seems from your frame of reference or no matter on how bad times thy neighbour falls upon, thou shalt never try to offer to bail him/her out of his/her misery on condition that he converts to thy religion. "

new updated version 2.01 of the 11th commandment includes the following addenda -

"thou shalt always remember that thy faith seems equally goggledegook from thy neighbour's frame of reference - and that, my lobotomised son, is called the theory of relativity - and no one, including the lawd thy god and all holy and not-so-holy ghosts, is above it".
If you really believed in your 11th commandment, you wouldn't have issued an 11th commandment. Seems kinda self evident that it's a walking contradiction.
0 Replies
 
hingehead
 
  1  
Reply Tue 31 May, 2005 08:28 pm
thunder_runner32 wrote:
I'm confident it's not in the billions, there are too many problems with that story, the sun's brightness, the magnetism of the earth, the position of the earth in relation to the sun, there are many things that are blown out of proportion when you apply these astronomical numbers.


S'kinda funny to see you use science to disprove science - exactly what I like about science. Truth outs, nothing's sacred, there is no certainty.

I'll help you with those posts Eorl.
0 Replies
 
Eorl
 
  1  
Reply Tue 31 May, 2005 10:12 pm
Thanks hinghead ! Smile

Looks like I have only you (and the last 2000 years of history) on my side!

I'm happy to give you some reaaaally long odds there Thunder. I imagine the betting agencies would do the same.

One thing you gotta say for betting agencies (and insurance brokers - same thing)...they don't let any beliefs get in the way of facts and figures.
0 Replies
 
thunder runner32
 
  1  
Reply Wed 1 Jun, 2005 08:31 am
O.K, my first point, the moon is constantly, slowly, moving away from the Earth, if billions of years are applied to the age of the universe, the moon would either be literally touching the Earth.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Wed 1 Jun, 2005 08:33 am
Sentence fragment there, Boss . . . either be touching the earth, or what? Actually, the orbital relationship of the Moon to the Earth is one of oscillation.
0 Replies
 
thunder runner32
 
  1  
Reply Wed 1 Jun, 2005 08:39 am
The distance is constantly growing, even if they are oscilating, that does not mean that their distance isn't.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Wed 1 Jun, 2005 08:40 am
I cannot too highly recommend to you a thorough perusal of the definitions available for the word "coherent."
0 Replies
 
thunder runner32
 
  1  
Reply Wed 1 Jun, 2005 10:02 am
What don't you get about my statement, the moon is slowly moving away from the Earth, ergo the more time you apply, the closer the moon was compared to the Earth?
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Wed 1 Jun, 2005 10:16 am
Closer to what compared to the earth? Once again, you need to put some coherence into your statement.
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Wed 1 Jun, 2005 10:19 am
Of course, the moon has been moving with consistently measurable speed, right?
0 Replies
 
thunder runner32
 
  1  
Reply Wed 1 Jun, 2005 10:25 am
Setanta wrote:
Closer to what compared to the earth? Once again, you need to put some coherence into your statement.


The moon is moving away from the Earth
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Wed 1 Jun, 2005 11:13 am
Yes, TR, that part is coherent, and understood. It's when you write something such as: "the closer the moon was compared to the Earth?"--that the coherence breaks down.
0 Replies
 
Mills75
 
  1  
Reply Wed 1 Jun, 2005 05:34 pm
TR: You assume that the rate at which the moon has been moving away from the earth has been constant; it hasn't. The closer the moon was to the earth, the more slowly it moved away; as it's distance from the earth increases, the gravitational forces become ever weaker, thus the rate at which it's pulling away from the earth is gradually increasing. It's entirely possible, and plausible, that the moon has been in earth's orbit for a few billion years.

You also seem to assume that the age of the universe is the age of the solar system; it isn't. The universe is substantially older than the solar system, as the earth is older than the moon (the moon most likely resulted from a massive object--perhaps another planet--colliding with the earth two or three billion years ago).

The reason the numbers regarding the universe's age, size, etc. continually change is because the data from which scientists extrapolate these is growing and becoming more sophisticated.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

700 Inconsistencies in the Bible - Discussion by onevoice
Why do we deliberately fool ourselves? - Discussion by coincidence
Spirituality - Question by Miller
Oneness vs. Trinity - Discussion by Arella Mae
give you chills - Discussion by Bartikus
Evidence for Evolution! - Discussion by Bartikus
Evidence of God! - Discussion by Bartikus
One World Order?! - Discussion by Bartikus
God loves us all....!? - Discussion by Bartikus
The Preambles to Our States - Discussion by Charli
 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 08/19/2022 at 01:29:31