Originally posted by FabianFnasagreed.
What RJHinds doesn't understand is that it is impossible to recruit new members to a church, a congregation, or to the christian beliefs at a whole, if you meet them with insults and über-mensch mentality and give this as a first new impression to the new-comers. Only masochists would return again. Hence bad ambassador-ship for his beliefs in particular a ...[text shortened]... . Let's meet the trolls at Spiritual Forum instead, where religious matters should be discussed.
Originally posted by sonhouseHe has said it before. Further he thinks that non-creationists cannot be christians.
He would just reply 'well then, Catholics are not really Christian'.
And this leaves us that the christian religion is a very small fraction in the world, a very small minority.
Originally posted by RJHindsOil exploration is pretty technological. They don't just drill a hole and hope blind chance does them a favour. As far as the billions of years of our old universe theory are concerned - you have to explain away how we can measure distances to about 10,000 light years using parallax, and the light from those stars has reached us and shouldn't have if the universe only started 6,000 years ago.
People that are not geologists have been finding oil for a long time by accidents even. There are no need to believe in evolution or billions of years to discover anything of importance in the world. Evolution and billions of years are just fairy tale lies meant to tickle the ears of atheists.
Originally posted by DeepThoughtLike I said before, oil was being found before the technoligy of today came along. Evolution never had anything to do with finding oil.
Oil exploration is pretty technological. They don't just drill a hole and hope blind chance does them a favour. As far as the billions of years of our old universe theory are concerned - you have to explain away how we can measure distances to about 10,000 light years using parallax, and the light from those stars has reached us and shouldn't have if the universe only started 6,000 years ago.
Why do I have to explain light travel when there are several theories that explain it already?
Light Speed and Other Puzzling Data That May Support a Recent Creation
Declining speed of Light
Speed of Light and planck's constant inversely related
Atomic clock slowing compared with orbital time
http://www.wnd.com/2004/07/25852/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation
http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0905/0905.3966.pdf
Originally posted by FabianFnasThe mainstream Christian position _is_ creationist in the sense that it maintains that God created the universe, God got life started, and God's hand guided the process of evolution: human's bodies evolved from other forms of life, and at some point in time (the Vatican does not commit itself to thousands or hundreds of thousands or millions of years ago), soul-less beings _like_ ourselves became ensouled--and _that_ is when Biblical history begins. The mainstream position specifically rejects the young earth hypothesis, and asserts that the story in Genesis is figurative, not literal, history; that is, it was written in a language understandable to people who had a much less 'evolved' understanding of natural processes than we have and was/is therefore suitable for the _moral_ purpose at hand. The position is consistent with what we observe of the natural world. You either accept the moral purpose or you don't, but at least it does not obviously fail by requiring belief in utter nonsense.
He has said it before. Further he thinks that non-creationists cannot be christians.
And this leaves us that the christian religion is a very small fraction in the world, a very small minority.
As we have seen at this forum, the attempt to make literal history out of the account in Genesis requires mental contortions on a scale which borders on insanity: the ages of rocks and starlight, for example, can be telescoped into a 6,000 year time frame only if one assumes that God is deceiving us on a cosmic scale. If you accept that rocks and starlight from distant quasars were created only 6,000 years ago, then you might as well claim that God created the universe just this very morning, including fictitious memories of last night.
1 edit
Originally posted by RJHindsGiven things you've posted before, I half-suspected you might say that.
The Pope is a theologian and doesn't understand evolution like I do.
The Pope is infallible (on matters of doctrine) for it is the Holy Ghost who speaks through him. Your claim to know better than the Holy Ghost is so far beyond "ego-mania" that it beggars the imagination. One can only drop off the prefix in your case.
1 edit
Originally posted by moonbusWhen did God say anything about speaking through the Pope? There is nothing about that in the Holy Bible. The Pope is voted into office by the Roman Church and that is how he got his authority. Many Christians, like myself, do not recognize his authority over all Christians, because Christ alone is the head of the church and God is the head of Christ.
Given things you've posted before, I half-suspected you might say that.
The Pope is infallible (on matters of doctrine) for it is the Holy Ghost who speaks through him. Your claim to know better than the Holy Ghost is so far beyond "ego-mania" that it beggars the imagination. One can only drop off the prefix in your case.
This is getting off topic, so why don't we get back to discussing the science that supports the two theories?
Originally posted by RJHindsTwo theories, that's a joke. There is one theory that has held up for 200 years, it's called evolution. That other thing you THINK is a theory is total supposition, totally man made ancient Egyptian mythology cherry picked into Judaism and swallowed hook line and sinker by Christians.
When did God say anything about speaking through the Pope? There is nothing about that in the Holy Bible. The Pope is voted into office by the Roman Church and that is how he got his authority. Many Christians, like myself, do not recognize his authority over all Christians, because Christ alone is the head of the church and God is the head of Christ.
T ...[text shortened]... ng off topic, so why don't we get back to discussing the science that supports the two theories?
Originally posted by RJHindsYou need the speed of light to be infinite outside the solar system. We would notice lensing effects. Simply put your model breaks known laws of physics. It disagrees with basic observations.
Light Speed and Other Puzzling Data That May Support a Recent Creation
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dKgXe72_Kbk
Declining speed of Light
Speed of Light and planck's constant inversely related
Atomic clock slowing compared with orbital time
http://www.wnd.com/2004/07/25852/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation
http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0905/0905.3966.pdf
I looked at your third reference. That paper proves nothing.
5 edits
Originally posted by DeepThoughtHe does say a vast load of crap in his posts. That is why I have long stopped reading any of his vast number of endless constant stream of moronic posts (by blocking them ) . He is just a gigantic tolling condescending moronic arrogant delusional never-ending time waster without a single redeeming quality. You can debunk all his stupid posts until you are blue in the face but it would do no good whatsoever for the moron will just endlessly repeat the same vast load of long-debunked crap again and again. He should be banned from this forum partly because of this but not banned from the Spirituality forum because that is so full of crap anyway that adding more crap there won't make much difference! You cannot reason with a moron. As I say, he is just a massive time waster.
You need the speed of light to be infinite outside the solar system. We would notice lensing effects. Simply put your model breaks known laws of physics. It disagrees with basic observations.
I looked at your third reference. That paper proves nothing.