>> ^shinyblurry:

Yes, 6000 years. Don't take my word for it..look up the artifacts he mentions. The bible says that before the flood humans were quite advanced..and this is evidence for it. Can our understanding of history account for ancient batteries that generate electricity? How about a computer that can do addition subtraction multiplication and division? Models of modern airplanes? Heiroglyphics of helicopters? Obviously we have it wrong if any of those things existed. Wake up, you're being lied to.
>> ^kulpims:
shiny, you christians are total idiots. you advocate that the Earth, universe, everything is like, what - 6000 years old? and now you come up with this bullshit ...



The age of the Earth is 4.54 billion years (4.54 × 109 years ± 1%).[1][2][3] This age is based on evidence from radiometric age dating of meteorite material and is consistent with the ages of the oldest-known terrestrial and lunar samples.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_Earth

Can you show me scientific , peer reviewed paper or study that invalidates all the methods used that currently point to the age of the earth being well over 6k years old ?

Don't u think that the whole universe is under 6 k years old as well ?

Also there is no way to know that the bible is the word of god or not just something made up by man. So you are basing your whole motivation and argument of a book that contains fictional stories , incosistancies , has been edited over the years , no real direction as to what is Allegory or what is meant to be read as factual / literal.

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jim_meritt/bible-contradictions.html

Just in case you don't know , you realize there is nothing stopping creationists gathering actual evidence and putting together scientific theories that are better than the current ones and as a result proving that the earth is 6k years old if it in fact was ?

Shiny, I noticed in your last comment that you frame the issue as being evolution vs you, by which I assume you mean your belief in the Bible.

Now, I also noticed your comment earlier where you said that the earth was literally created in seven days. I just have to know, do you really believe that everything in the bible is literal? Or is Genesis one of those things that isn't allegory and some parts of the Bible might be?

I'm only asking in order to better understand your position.

You have a schitzophrenic faith, my friend. I would call you my brother but it doesn't appear that you know our Lord. It appears that in your picture you are ashamed of your Lord. So allow me to enlighten you for your edification:

The six day creation is literal, it is not allegory. You can tell this simply by the grammar and syntax used. The word for day used is "yom", which appears over 400 times in the bible and only ever refers to a day as a 24 hour period. You may recognize this from "Yom Kippur". Do jews celebrate the day of atonement for millions of years?

The literal account of the 6 day creation also is integral to the ten commandments. We have the Sabbath day as a day of rest because God rested on the 7th day. Do we rest for millions of years on the Sabbath? So already you've called God a liar, you've made the commandments to no effect, which undermines the messiah prophecies..and the entire thing is turned on its head.

We have confirmation from Jesus Christ Himself, that the account is literal. He refers to a literal creation, adam as the first man, the flood and many other OT accounts as fact. You reject that and you reject the testimony of our Lord. If you don't believe in a literal 6 day creation then you should throw your bible in the garbage because that is what the theory of evolution has filled your head with.

You have the gall to impringe on my witness and imply im crazy..hey, at least im internally consistant. You've had to twist your mind into a pretzal to believe what you do. You've fallen into apostacy because of your lack of faith. Evolution is a stumbling block for you, and will remain so until you trust in the Word of God. Here's my Word for you:

21 Not everyone who says to Me, "Lord, Lord," shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven.
22 Many will say to Me in that day, "Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?"
23 And then I will declare to them, "I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness."






>> ^burdturgler:
It's only writing God out of your picture, not mine. The bible is a lot of things, but one thing it was not meant to be was a scientific accounting of anything. I am still perfectly able to love and worship God and yet still understand and accept evolution, so .. you're wrong.
I made my post under the assumption that you were capable of rational thought, but you've proven that that's not the case. I never said anything happened without God, I said understanding what DID happen gives me greater appreciation for God.
Well .. that's two posts now, see you in 2013.

ive been searching for online sources myself. theres a few places you can find excerpts in pdf format but his full essays are hard to find online. but, his books are pretty inexpensive and you can find em at any bookstore, and if you can afford a lil extra there is a collection of his thats around 60 bucks i think that has all of his theological books and another collection that has most of his essays thats around 30 bucks

@shinyblurry, the great divorce is a poignant look at the relationship between the "saved" and "unsaved" in the afterlife. He tells an allegory of a bus ride the residents of hell get to take to heaven where they get to hang out for the day. At the end of the day they can stay if they want but all of em choose to get back on the bus. An interesting look into that choice and what makes them choose instead of just retelling the eternal punishment of a jerkoff god motif

--> @kceaton1
--> @peggedbea

The only reason I upvote these is that I think it's good for discourse. It's more useful for the lurkers on this site than really the involved members. I knew I would be bringing up a very neutral standpoint as I am on the fence; especially, recently as more biological evidence has direct implications on who you may be later in life. That is VERY important to remember for everyone reading. You have to remember that your brain collects and stores information and then processes it through "filters" before it is distilled into what you would say. Biologically you may be far more likely to be an atheist than a believer (the study makes no distinction religion wise; so they are talking about Islam, Christianity, Norse, Greek, Roman, Buddhist, Hinduism, etc...).

We need a table that we can (we, as in, the religious versus non-theist) talk at. More importantly logical minds and compassion MUST prevail for society to remain intact. If Richard Dawkins (maybe I'm thinking of Hitchens) really can't talk with creationists then he is as much a problem as the creationists themselves (of course one of these parties ARE correct, but the lack of civility is extremely annoying--from both sides).

If you want others to learn sometimes you need to act just like Mormon, Catholic, Evangelical, missionaries. You must expect the vitriol and swearing that usually comes out as highly defensive "maneuvering" or hate; the same that the missionaries get day in and day out. Sorry, "my brethren", but answering the door to purposefully create an unnecessary rude or hateful situation comes off as hate/bigotry speech or dismissive attitudes which is just as bad. This is morally corrupt behavior in my eyes. I suggest answering the door and being able to identify to them issues you have strongly opposed views of and why compared to what they do and about what they say. You have to hope, in this day of the Internet, that people will take ONE aspect of what you said and learn more about it.

I had Mormon seminary teachers that taught creationism, but creationism is extremely limited in acceptance within the Mormon church. For crying out loud BYU (Mormon based university for those that don't know; just south of Salt Lake City) accepts evolution WITHOUT ANY hesitation. They are very active in the sciences as well which is why they do believe; furthermore they are huge researchers when it comes to genealogy which eventually loops into evolution. In many situations the Bible is a work of allegory and followers that take it literal are the uneducated Mormons; even unto their own religion.

So when I have these seminary teachers it truly makes me wonder how they got to their position as they seem to follow their own set of tenets which ends up creating Mormons like Glenn Beck who literally don't stand for church beliefs as I knew them (and again why hasn't he been excommunicated--this actually bothers me a lot as he only hurts the churches standing; which is poor to begin with and is nothing like the Mormons I know). Science was always taught to be incredibly important; if not the most important as it was a way to "uncover even more of Gods truths"; plus it is the applicable "science". That is that it gives us our modern day of living and quality of life (like airplanes, microwaves, TV, energy, etc...). I may not believe in any religion now. But, I appreciate that sentiment; as I think it's a very healthy objectivity to have if in a religion: adaptability.

/ I have to agree somewhat with @gwiz665 as religion (like all things) from an atheists vantage point looks a lot like fear manipulation. I love the Golden Rule as it truly does incorporate perhaps the easiest summary of what it is to be good. But, I know religious people use this to their own ends, including what we see in Libya or on Fox News. To them, people and their beliefs are a joke and they abuse it. It often makes me wonder if these CEOs are truly religious (the ones that say they are) or just using it as a gateway--who knows. Which goes back to my first point. It's entirely possible that we as a species have a tendency to vote "sociopathic" or likewise people into office as they themselves, much like drug seeking personalities (like bi-polar) seek out these positions. The abuse of these positions are partially hard wired into their makeup. All this means is that we must be more diligent. We've come too far as atheists and the religious to let this civilization slip away out of our hands.

//If this is tl;dr, to you, go watch a monkey flinging poop on youtube.

She isn't quoting the Christian Bible... at least not the Protestant Bible, and I am fairly sure she isn't quoting the Catholic one either (they have 7 extra books in the old testament that isn't in the the Authorized King James and variations or modern translations thereof, as those 7 were not in the original Hebrew bible, but were in a later version that Hebrew schoolers added to it when translating the Hebrew bible to Greek). I would guess she isn't quoting any of the Gnostic texts either, but more likely either making it up or quoting some version made by man... well.. another one made by man... She could also be quoting a section from Shepard Book's version of the bible since we don't know if his faith follows the bible we know of in our 'verse.
BUT... that doesn't mean the Bible that we typically think of doesn't have some very racy sections. Song of Songs has zero religious content and has some racy verses. Biblical apologists normally explain its presence by saying it is an allegory of God's love for the church. I am not sure if you made that book into a movie if it would be hard PG-13 or an R rated movie... And that is just Song of Songs (some bible translations call it Song of Solomon), there are other sections that are borderline as well. None as interesting as what she is quoting though.

>> ^Fusionaut:

Sooooo, the bible has porn in it, but porn is still evil?

I would really like to see a movie where aliens invade that don't have awesome, hugely advanced technology, and every facet of their war was in line with real weapons and real consequences.

Say, they get here not by FTL travel, but generation ships or cryonics, or a physiology that allows them to hibernate for years, like some earth organisms do. When they land, they have guns. Not lasers, or plasma rifles, or antigrav gunships, or weird fucked-up magic death rays that suck you up into the sky through your eyeballs (Skyline was teh suck). It could be an allegory of Iraq or Afghanistan. First would be an alien Shock and Awe, as they use EMP to knock out infrastructure and technology and drop asteroids on cities and installations. Superior firepower only due to them having the "high ground", and a ground occupation more like WW2 or WW1 as all our fancy shit was toast and we EMP'd the crap out of their tech too...

Shit... I should copyright this post.

Generally it is taught that God brought all the animals to Noah. Noah didn't have to go and find them all.
The author of the book seems to have it wrong from what I recall of the story. I don't remember the rainbow being around before the flood, but was a new sign after the flood only...
Ricky probably should have pointed out that the bible says that some were more than just a pair of each, so we end up with far more than 10 million animals on it. He started to touch on some of it, the food issue. You now need enough food for those animals and the people for 1 year... of course this is normally passed on using magic, much like the space issue... I liked mgittle's point of plants as well.
Also, that 5 million figure can't include all the insects now can it? I would think if we toss in all the insects we would have to have far more, there are more than 450,000 species of beetles alone before we toss in the 4,000 termite species, 22,000 species of ants, 40,000 spiders...
I wonder how Christians pick and choose which stories to pass of as parables or morality tales and which to take as full of truth? Why believe Noah's flood and the Earth was made 6,000 years ago but not, with a few notable exceptions, believe the Earth is the center of the universe though the Bible says it is, but they pass that off an allegory or something like that.

>> ^mgittle:

I'd like to see the explanation of how species made it to other continents if Noah let all the animals off the ark in the same place.
Also, there is no mention of plants. I guess they can't drown.

Ahhh, very clever...I did not catch it, thanks!>> ^ponceleon:
It is not as wtf as you might think: this is actually an allegory for taking a shit at work. Watch it again and you'll see.

It is not as wtf as you might think: this is actually an allegory for taking a shit at work. Watch it again and you'll see.

This incident is like some sort of allegory for the USA. Giant military hardware full of military guys hurts people while being filmed and others cheer. IT'S LIKE REAL LIFE.

>> ^Opus_Moderandi:

Random House College Dictionary: myth (mith), n. 1. a traditional or legendary story, usually concerned with deities or demigods and the creation of the world and its inhabitants. 2. a story or belief that attempts to express or explain a basic truth; an allegory or parable. 3. a belief or a subject of belief whose truth or reality is accepted uncritically. 4. such stories or beliefs collectively.
why is this offensive to religion?


Probably because of other interpretations of it, and other definitions, such as this one from www.dictionary.com

1.a traditional or legendary story, usually concerning some being or hero or event, with or without a determinable basis of fact or a natural explanation, esp. one that is concerned with deities or demigods and explains some practice, rite, or phenomenon of nature.
2.
stories or matter of this kind: realm of myth.
3.
any invented story, idea, or concept: His account of the event is pure myth.
4.
an imaginary or fictitious thing or person.
5.
an unproved or false collective belief that is used to justify a social institution.

These are quite inflammatory...

Random House College Dictionary: myth (mith), n. 1. a traditional or legendary story, usually concerned with deities or demigods and the creation of the world and its inhabitants. 2. a story or belief that attempts to express or explain a basic truth; an allegory or parable. 3. a belief or a subject of belief whose truth or reality is accepted uncritically. 4. such stories or beliefs collectively.

why is this offensive to religion?

>> ^dannym3141:
I thought this trailer (when i saw it a few days ago) was confusing and did little to spark my desire:
I don't know why they're being morphed into draenei characters
I don't know why they're suddenly in a jungle
I don't know why they're suddenly fighting people
I don't know who's in the right/wrong regarding this fight
BEFORE i saw the trailer, i was hyped to shit about this film. Having seen it, i'm left feeling apathetic. Having said that, it's james cameron. True lies, terminator 2, terminator, aliens, abyss.... these are some of the most legendary films of our time.
Though i will say that getting sigourney weaver in the film doesn't do much for me - people were telling me it was an aliens reunion with beihn rumoured as well, but if it's just their voice, who cares, ya know?
Rather hear joe dimaggio.


Just by watching the trailer:
-They don't get "morphed", their consciousness is transfered or possibly they are running a waldo. Which actually would be more in tune with the movie's title.
-They always were in a jungle, the human base was a foothold.
-If you were being invaded by aliens (in this case, humans) you'd fight too. As for the human operatives, they probably "went native".
-Knowing Cameron's works and ideals, they are probably both "right". The humans probably have some dire reason to be there, and the aboriginals have every right to defend there homes.

Me, I think this is probably an Iraq/Afghanistan allegory.

This has already been said before but part of what made The Matrix so good was that it took place almost entirely within "our" world. We only saw snippets of what the real world was like, outside of the Matrix. Reloaded tried to incorporate more of the real world while balancing out scenes within the Matrix, but by Revolutions, it almost entirely took place in the real world. Add to that the heavy philosophical allegories, the fact that it took Trinity a full 10 minutes to die after being impaled on 35 pieces of rebar, and any other number of problems that plagued the last 2 movies.

I still think the way that Reloaded should have happened was Neo somehow "reboots" (Reloads) the Matrix causing everyone to wake up for a moment inside the real world. Then, after they fall back into the Matrix, they begin to talk with one another about the "dream" everyone had, with Neo acting as a Messiah-like figurehead. Revolutions would have shown the world-wide fight within the Matrix against the agents/Matrix/whatever, with humanity eventually winning and waking up for good. This sillyness of computer programs, Trainmen in the Limbo world and iterations of Neo splitting off and re-absorbing back into the system was just that....silly.