Author Topic: 6000 years old?  (Read 4835 times)

Joel_A

  • Getbig III
  • ***
  • Posts: 357
6000 years old?
« on: July 15, 2009, 06:08:56 AM »
An actual state elected senator actually believes the Earth is 6000 yrs old. WTF?

Government_Controlled

  • Getbig III
  • ***
  • Posts: 319
  • I love my country
Re: 6000 years old?
« Reply #1 on: July 22, 2009, 12:37:32 PM »
Allot of "Christians" believe this do to common misunderstanding of what Genesis teaches. By no means does the Bible profess that the earth is only 6000 years old.



GC/DEA_AGENT

haider

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 11978
  • Team Batman Squats
Re: 6000 years old?
« Reply #2 on: July 22, 2009, 08:00:07 PM »
just unbelievable ignorance. A damn shame that people still believe this, and even mroe so for people in positions of leadership who do. Unbelievable.. the worlds gonna come to a fuckign end soon at this rate.
follow the arrows

big L dawg

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 5729
  • i always tell the truth even when i lie...
Re: 6000 years old?
« Reply #3 on: July 22, 2009, 10:39:42 PM »
this is why atheist care.
DAWG

Parker

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 53475
  • He Sees The Stormy Anger Of The World
Re: 6000 years old?
« Reply #4 on: July 23, 2009, 01:20:31 AM »
An actual state elected senator actually believes the Earth is 6000 yrs old. WTF?


So, Egypt existed before the Earth? Damn ignoramuses. 

#1 Klaus fan

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 9203
Re: 6000 years old?
« Reply #5 on: July 24, 2009, 06:21:05 AM »
Allot of "Christians" believe this do to common misunderstanding of what Genesis teaches. By no means does the Bible profess that the earth is only 6000 years old.



GC/DEA_AGENT

Of course it doesn't because we know Earth isn't 6000 years old. If we didn't know that christians would be saying a different thing...

Government_Controlled

  • Getbig III
  • ***
  • Posts: 319
  • I love my country
Re: 6000 years old?
« Reply #6 on: July 24, 2009, 09:01:58 AM »
Of course it doesn't because we know Earth isn't 6000 years old. If we didn't know that christians would be saying a different thing...


Only the one's who haven't studied the Bible in depth would. The Christians I know, have always concurred with what the Bible teaches.


GC/DEA_AGENT

Beefjake

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 1115
  • Oh fuck it.
Re: 6000 years old?
« Reply #7 on: July 24, 2009, 01:03:18 PM »
An actual state elected senator actually believes the Earth is 6000 yrs old. WTF?


Only in a America...

Doesn't the Chinese have recorded history that predates that?

#1 Klaus fan

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 9203
Re: 6000 years old?
« Reply #8 on: July 24, 2009, 01:39:14 PM »
Only in a America...

Doesn't the Chinese have recorded history that predates that?

Satan's work...

MCWAY

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 19256
  • Getbig!
Re: 6000 years old?
« Reply #9 on: August 08, 2009, 01:19:07 PM »
this is why atheist care.

And exactly what does a belief in a 6000-year-old Earth do to an atheist?

just unbelievable ignorance. A damn shame that people still believe this, and even mroe so for people in positions of leadership who do. Unbelievable.. the worlds gonna come to a fuckign end soon at this rate.

I must have missed the memo where belief in a young Earth disqualifies someone from being a STATE SENATOR.


haider

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 11978
  • Team Batman Squats
Re: 6000 years old?
« Reply #10 on: August 08, 2009, 02:44:03 PM »
And exactly what does a belief in a 6000-year-old Earth do to an atheist?

I must have missed the memo where belief in a young Earth disqualifies someone from being a STATE SENATOR.


Yes, me too. Which is exactly my greivance  ;)

 :(
follow the arrows

MCWAY

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 19256
  • Getbig!
Re: 6000 years old?
« Reply #11 on: August 08, 2009, 06:58:08 PM »
Yes, me too. Which is exactly my greivance  ;)

 :(

Classic case of missing the forest for the trees. Isn't this woman talking about obtaining uranium for her state, for the presumed use of making a nuclear power plant?

Yet, you guys are bent out of shape about her statement about the Earth being 6000 years old!!! That's rich!!

Of course, for all the griping about that blurb, if you believe the Earth is far older, her POINT (which some seems to have missed by a country mile) is made even further. She's taking a stand against the tree-hugging contingent who are against nuclear power.


ToxicAvenger

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 26516
  • I thawt I taw a twat!
Re: 6000 years old?
« Reply #12 on: August 08, 2009, 07:12:10 PM »


I must have missed the memo where belief in a young Earth disqualifies someone from being a STATE SENATOR.



it should...stupid people should be (in her case) spayed
carpe` vaginum!

MCWAY

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 19256
  • Getbig!
Re: 6000 years old?
« Reply #13 on: August 08, 2009, 07:21:11 PM »
it should...stupid people should be (in her case) spayed

If that's the case, you'd better post a guard on your family jewels.

The idea that someone's ability to be an effective state senator is based on he/she believes the age of the earth to be is downright ridiculous.

mitchyboy

  • Getbig III
  • ***
  • Posts: 633
Re: 6000 years old?
« Reply #14 on: August 08, 2009, 08:52:12 PM »
I don't think there judging her on her belief per se. Its more the closing her eyes and refusing to see the truth part.

ToxicAvenger

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 26516
  • I thawt I taw a twat!
Re: 6000 years old?
« Reply #15 on: August 08, 2009, 10:07:10 PM »
If that's the case, you'd better post a guard on your family jewels.

The idea that someone's ability to be an effective state senator is based on he/she believes the age of the earth to be is downright ridiculous.

no..the knowlodge of the age of the earth has a direct correlation  with education level which has a direct correlation with intelligence...

when A = B = C    then A = C  :-\

kapees..
she is plain ole stupid and better suited to be an ingredient in dog food  ;)
carpe` vaginum!

haider

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 11978
  • Team Batman Squats
Re: 6000 years old?
« Reply #16 on: August 09, 2009, 10:51:16 AM »
Classic case of missing the forest for the trees. Isn't this woman talking about obtaining uranium for her state, for the presumed use of making a nuclear power plant?

Yet, you guys are bent out of shape about her statement about the Earth being 6000 years old!!! That's rich!!

Of course, for all the griping about that blurb, if you believe the Earth is far older, her POINT (which some seems to have missed by a country mile) is made even further. She's taking a stand against the tree-hugging contingent who are against nuclear power.


Who the fuck is "you guys"  ??? Dude, chill out.

 It just disturbs me that some one in her position is so uneducated about the world. Now you wouldn't want someone in a leadership position who thought the earth was flat, now would you? There is a serious need for education for survivability in the modern world, especially if we care about future generations like she mentions...so the least that is required for our leaders is to be properly educated.

Now pointing to her case specifically, I think it matters EVEN MORE! She says "we've been living here for 6000 yrs old before there were any environmental laws... and yet the eart hasn't been done away with" LMAO! Is she really comparing the abilities of humans to change their environments 6000 years ago to modern day humans? It doesn't seem like she has any idea history, geology, or environmental science to make an educated decision on such an issue. It's very fucking ironic that she talks about the standard of living of future generations when she's proposing digging the earth for our natural 'capital' (unrenewable resource) without knowing its environmental consequences.

now I'm not very educated on the issue myself, but I'm not in a position to make the sorts of decisions that affect us all and future generations! And I have a right to complain!  :)
follow the arrows

Necrosis

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 9899
Re: 6000 years old?
« Reply #17 on: August 09, 2009, 11:12:58 AM »
If that's the case, you'd better post a guard on your family jewels.

The idea that someone's ability to be an effective state senator is based on he/she believes the age of the earth to be is downright ridiculous.

it is you who is missing the point, you cherry pick so fucking much and make strawmen like it is your job.

someone in her position should not be making such ridiculous statements that go against all of science and knowledge. The fact that she is so ignorant about this subject would leave you to either conclude, it is an isolated case, or she is stupid. I would assume she is stupid as it is pretty much general knowledge and that number 6000 is cited by creationists. So it is not a random geuss, she concurs with creationists who denounce science, hence she is dangerous and not someone who should be in power. If she allows her beliefs to shape reality or faith better yet then she is close minded.

MCWAY

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 19256
  • Getbig!
Re: 6000 years old?
« Reply #18 on: August 10, 2009, 08:12:44 AM »
Who the fuck is "you guys"  ??? Dude, chill out.

 It just disturbs me that some one in her position is so uneducated about the world. Now you wouldn't want someone in a leadership position who thought the earth was flat, now would you? There is a serious need for education for survivability in the modern world, especially if we care about future generations like she mentions...so the least that is required for our leaders is to be properly educated.

It depends on what the leadership position is. In this case, hers is that of a STATE SENATOR, the responsibilities and duties of such are UNAFFECTED by the believed age or shape of the planet.




Now pointing to her case specifically, I think it matters EVEN MORE! She says "we've been living here for 6000 yrs old before there were any environmental laws... and yet the eart hasn't been done away with" LMAO! Is she really comparing the abilities of humans to change their environments 6000 years ago to modern day humans? It doesn't seem like she has any idea history, geology, or environmental science to make an educated decision on such an issue. It's very fucking ironic that she talks about the standard of living of future generations when she's proposing digging the earth for our natural 'capital' (unrenewable resource) without knowing its environmental consequences.

now I'm not very educated on the issue myself, but I'm not in a position to make the sorts of decisions that affect us all and future generations! And I have a right to complain!  :)

You are making a grandiose amount of assumptions, based on a 45-second sound byte, which makes absolutely no sense and is even sillier than your dismissing her ability to perform her job, simply because of how old she believe the planet to be.

By that logic, people with major health problems should be going (or have gone) to Dr. Ben Carson, one of the best neurosurgeons on the planet (the first ever, I believe, to successfully separate twins conjoined at the head). He happens to believe in a young Earth as well. Are you now going to cry for his practice to be shut down?

it is you who is missing the point, you cherry pick so fucking much and make strawmen like it is your job.

There is nothing to cherry pick, O whiny one. You (and a couple of other posters) are getting all hot under the collar about a sub-minute sound byte, which is hardly indicative of this woman's job qualifications.


someone in her position should not be making such ridiculous statements that go against all of science and knowledge. The fact that she is so ignorant about this subject would leave you to either conclude, it is an isolated case, or she is stupid. I would assume she is stupid as it is pretty much general knowledge and that number 6000 is cited by creationists. So it is not a random geuss, she concurs with creationists who denounce science, hence she is dangerous and not someone who should be in power. If she allows her beliefs to shape reality or faith better yet then she is close minded.

Creationists don't denounce science, blathering one. Again, I make the reference to Dr. Ben Carson, the director of neurosurgery at John Hopkins Hospital, who happens to believe in Creation.

I suppose he's "dangerous" and should get canned from his job, too. ::) .

The "close-minded" hat fall squarely on your cracked skull, the fracture on which appears to increase in size, with every buffoonery-loaded post.

Necrosis

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 9899
Re: 6000 years old?
« Reply #19 on: August 10, 2009, 10:46:13 AM »
It depends on what the leadership position is. In this case, hers is that of a STATE SENATOR, the responsibilities and duties of such are UNAFFECTED by the believed age or shape of the planet.



You are making a grandiose amount of assumptions, based on a 45-second sound byte, which makes absolutely no sense and is even sillier than your dismissing her ability to perform her job, simply because of how old she believe the planet to be.

By that logic, people with major health problems should be going (or have gone) to Dr. Ben Carson, one of the best neurosurgeons on the planet (the first ever, I believe, to successfully separate twins conjoined at the head). He happens to believe in a young Earth as well. Are you now going to cry for his practice to be shut down?

There is nothing to cherry pick, O whiny one. You (and a couple of other posters) are getting all hot under the collar about a sub-minute sound byte, which is hardly indicative of this woman's job qualifications.

Creationists don't denounce science, blathering one. Again, I make the reference to Dr. Ben Carson, the director of neurosurgery at John Hopkins Hospital, who happens to believe in Creation.

I suppose he's "dangerous" and should get canned from his job, too. ::) .

The "close-minded" hat fall squarely on your cracked skull, the fracture on which appears to increase in size, with every buffoonery-loaded post.

im not sure you have any idea what you are talking about. To believe in a young earth you have to denounce facts. IE carbon dating, radiometric dating rather, the geometric column, evolution, cosmology, all of science is against a young earth.

Therefore doctor ben carlson is either lying, or will not accept anything that goes against his faith.

Ill research ben carlson.

creationism is anti science.

Necrosis

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 9899
Re: 6000 years old?
« Reply #20 on: August 10, 2009, 10:51:07 AM »
OMG this dude is a tart

"Back to Benjamin Carson–I’m more than pleased to know that this distinguished man speaks openly and honestly about his faith in God and belief in a Creator and Designer. He looks to the facts and wonders at Darwin’s own assertion that within fifty to 100 years of his lifetime fossil remains would be found of the entire evolutionary tree, displaying an indisputable step-by-step evolution of life from amoeba to human. As Carson points out, this does not exist:

It’s just not there. But when you bring that up to the proponents of Darwinism, the best explanation they can come up with is “Well…uh…it’s lost!”…I find it requires too much faith for me to believe that explanation given all the fossils we have found without any fossilized evidence of the direct, step-by-step evolutionary progression from simple to complex organisms or from one species to another species. Shrugging and saying, “Well, it was mysteriously lost, and we’ll probably never find it,” doesn’t seem like a particularly satisfying, objective, or scientific response"

ya real scientific ben, does he even realize that even without the fossil record evolution is fact and demonstratable? does he realize that medicine relies on evolutionary findings.

"Dr. Carson’s basic message was that “evolution and creationism both require faith. It’s just a matter of where you choose to place that faith.”

WOW, its obvious he has comparmentalized his brain, evolution has nothign to do with god, it requires no faith as it is from peer reviewed journals.

Im speachless that a man in his position and obvious intelligence could say such stupid things, but this is what faith does, it errodes the mind.

MCWAY

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 19256
  • Getbig!
Re: 6000 years old?
« Reply #21 on: August 10, 2009, 08:00:00 PM »
OMG this dude is a tart

"Back to Benjamin Carson–I’m more than pleased to know that this distinguished man speaks openly and honestly about his faith in God and belief in a Creator and Designer. He looks to the facts and wonders at Darwin’s own assertion that within fifty to 100 years of his lifetime fossil remains would be found of the entire evolutionary tree, displaying an indisputable step-by-step evolution of life from amoeba to human. As Carson points out, this does not exist:

It’s just not there. But when you bring that up to the proponents of Darwinism, the best explanation they can come up with is “Well…uh…it’s lost!”…I find it requires too much faith for me to believe that explanation given all the fossils we have found without any fossilized evidence of the direct, step-by-step evolutionary progression from simple to complex organisms or from one species to another species. Shrugging and saying, “Well, it was mysteriously lost, and we’ll probably never find it,” doesn’t seem like a particularly satisfying, objective, or scientific response"

ya real scientific ben, does he even realize that even without the fossil record evolution is fact and demonstratable? does he realize that medicine relies on evolutionary findings.

No, it doesn't. Medicine has been practiced for centuries, with succesful results LONG before the theory of evolution even surfaced. In fact, one such practitioner of medicine ripped apart one of evolution's tenets, spontaneous generation.

That, of course, would be one Louis Pasteur, who came up with vaccines to cure some of the deadliest diseases, known to man during his time. And, "evolutionary findings" had JACK to do with his discoveries.


"Dr. Carson’s basic message was that “evolution and creationism both require faith. It’s just a matter of where you choose to place that faith.”

WOW, its obvious he has comparmentalized his brain, evolution has nothign to do with god, it requires no faith as it is from peer reviewed journals.

Im speachless that a man in his position and obvious intelligence could say such stupid things, but this is what faith does, it errodes the mind.

   

Evolution has nothing to do with God, which is EXACTLY why the theory was touted, in the first place and why so many atheists bow before the shrine of Darwin, as it were.

Faith has hardly erroded Carson's mind, as he is the first to successfully separate twins conjoined at the head. And, his list of accomplishments are as long as a Monday morning.

Once again, you managed to dine on your own toes, in your silly attempts to paint anyone who doesn't adhere to your godless philosophies and tenets as being unable to be successful scientists (or politicians, or any other esteeem position of prominence or leadership).

Necrosis

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 9899
Re: 6000 years old?
« Reply #22 on: August 11, 2009, 07:58:00 AM »
No, it doesn't. Medicine has been practiced for centuries, with succesful results LONG before the theory of evolution even surfaced. In fact, one such practitioner of medicine ripped apart one of evolution's tenets, spontaneous generation.

That, of course, would be one Louis Pasteur, who came up with vaccines to cure some of the deadliest diseases, known to man during his time. And, "evolutionary findings" had JACK to do with his discoveries.
   

Evolution has nothing to do with God, which is EXACTLY why the theory was touted, in the first place and why so many atheists bow before the shrine of Darwin, as it were.

Faith has hardly erroded Carson's mind, as he is the first to successfully separate twins conjoined at the head. And, his list of accomplishments are as long as a Monday morning.

Once again, you managed to dine on your own toes, in your silly attempts to paint anyone who doesn't adhere to your godless philosophies and tenets as being unable to be successful scientists (or politicians, or any other esteeem position of prominence or leadership).

you know nothing of vaccines so stop making yourself look like a fool, most the the new vaccines take advantage of evolutionary principles.I didnt say you could not be both, i cited dyson and others long ago. However, if you let it affect scientific findings and approach, then yes you are a bad scholar in that respect.

evolution looks nothing like what darwin proposed. Sure his basic ideas were right, but many of them wrong. Genetics, molecular biology, cell biology etc etc.... have added enourmous evidence to evolution something darwin could never envision.

"Faith has hardly erroded Carson's mind, as he is the first to successfully separate twins conjoined at the head. And, his list of accomplishments are as long as a Monday morning"

non sequitor, he is unable to view evolution without bias, thus he is not thinking rationaly about this topic. His argument against evolution is ridiculous and any biology student could answer it. What he is proposing as proof is impossible to supply, making his position fallacious.

try again ::)

the fact that you argue evolution is not fact and have admitted that you are closed minded should be enough to assume you will never accept proof no matter how obvious.

Government_Controlled

  • Getbig III
  • ***
  • Posts: 319
  • I love my country
Re: 6000 years old?
« Reply #23 on: August 11, 2009, 11:26:40 AM »
most the the new vaccines take advantage of evolutionary principles.I didnt say you could not be both, i cited dyson and others long ago. However, if you let it affect scientific findings and approach, then yes you are a bad scholar in that respect.

[/quote]

This is one little thing that validates the Bible as being Authored by God. The Jews while under the Mosaic law (Old Testament),they were way ahead of the medical professionals in that day. Where did they get that info?



GC/DEA_AGENT

Necrosis

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 9899
Re: 6000 years old?
« Reply #24 on: August 11, 2009, 11:32:38 AM »
most the the new vaccines take advantage of evolutionary principles.I didnt say you could not be both, i cited dyson and others long ago. However, if you let it affect scientific findings and approach, then yes you are a bad scholar in that respect.



This is one little thing that validates the Bible as being Authored by God. The Jews while under the Mosaic law (Old Testament),they were way ahead of the medical professionals in that day. Where did they get that info?



GC/DEA_AGENT

if that is your argument then why didnt god give us some real useful info? if he will conceed simple things like wash your hands, then why not explain genetics, why not even talk about bacteria.
poor argument.

makes no sense, and what medical info is in the bible that is beyond comprehension of man at that time?