T1B

Tom In VA wrote:I can say this without pretense. Goobs, you're right. I was blinded by trying to understand where the bible would have gotten that figure and thrown off by the Ice Man.

Perhaps you were blinded by science?

Jesus fucking Christ, Marty!

Van wrote:Jesus fucking Christ, Marty!

I'm Picasso with the crayons, Van.

BSmack wrote: Perhaps you were blinded by science?

RACK and RACK Marty - always.

Martyred wrote:

Van wrote:Jesus fucking Christ, Marty!

I'm Picasso with the crayons, Van.

Hey, I normally hate the crayons, but every so often Marty comes up with a gem, and that was one.

Tom In VA wrote:I can say this without pretense. Goobs, you're right. I was blinded by trying to understand where the bible would have gotten that figure and thrown off by the Ice Man.

Well, Tom, 1,000 years are as a day in God’s sight. That’s going to fuck with your sense of time.

Van wrote:Hey, I normally hate the crayons

Well, of course you do.

KC Scott wrote:Welcome to anonimity of the internet Bri.
Wanna see real trolling? look at the comments section of any youtube video or anyplace else a tard can drop !111 or "your a fag"

Been there, done that.

That said - I'll also refer to 88's point about the people that remain here, with the exception of a few, are for the most part entertaining within their means and at least somewhat familiar. It sure as hell is preferable to post with names I recognize and have some past connection with than to be one of the random masses commenting on whatever URL happens to be on screen.

I'm not giving up on this place. I enjoy posting about sports, the JAFFL and yanking some chains every once in a while.

I just thought it might be interesting to see what the reaction to Mike's comments would be. So far, my favorite aspect of this thread is that we've devolved into yet another "is God real" subthread.

BTW - Wags is a douchtard IRL also

Poor guy can't catch a break can he?

Mike was an awesome read. No doubt. So are a lot of other people that still post here.

I'm just curious if he gave up on his practice of "The Craft", being an atheist now.

BSmack wrote:
I just thought it might be interesting to see what the reaction to Mike's comments would be. So far, my favorite aspect of this thread is that we've devolved into yet another "is God real" subthread.

Give me a break. You have been one of the bigger douche's on this board. Don't know where you got the holier than thou attitude. Oh, I know, you're a douche, that's why.

This thread is hilarious, by the way. You are getting owned.

trev wrote:
This thread is hilarious, by the way. You are getting owned.

trev, you are a very sweet lady and a valuable asset to this forum.
This place is better for having you around.

OOOPS! Wrong smiley...



I meant this...


:D

Does this mean I can take him off "ignore" now?

While all of us become arrogant pricks when we log onto this cesspool, he was the one guy that stood head and shoulders above the rest of the rabble here who came across as actually being that much of a pretensious, arrogant prick, rather than just playing one on the internet.

My scroll wheel has appreciated the absence of one of the truly unreadable fuckers here.

MtLR = UUU

Goobs, why yes, that would be just one example of why I usually hate the crayons.

Dinsdale wrote:Does this mean I can take him off "ignore" now?

I'd play it safe.

BSmack wrote:

BTW - Wags is a douchtard IRL also

Poor guy can't catch a break can he?

ahhh.... it's good to be home.

Van wrote:Goobs, why yes, that would be just one example of why I usually hate the crayons.

As opposed to this...



VIVA LA SCRIBBLEY REVOLUCION!

First, RACK Marty!


Jsc, short answer here ... and Tom helped some.

If we take the creation account of Genesis at it's literal meaning regarding the ... days ... we can move forward from that and determine, based on the genealogies given later, that man is around 6,000 years old.

And if we likewise want to take the days as literal, we can have the view that ALL life is about 6,000 years old.

We might also view the WORLD as 6,000 years old, if we assume there are no ... gaps of time ... from Genesis 1:1 forward through the creation account.

I suspect a gap of time (and it could be a LONG gap of time) between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2 - but that is speculation on my part.

So the earth might be very old.

And maybe the days of the Genesis 1 creation account are not literal days, in which case life on earth may be a LOT older than 6,000 years.

My tendency in reading the creation account of Genesis is to take it as a literal reading, because THAT IS THE WAY IT WAS WRITTEN, but I'm open to the possibility that they are not literal days.


This is a summary of what I think:

- man is about 6,000 years old
- all life is ??
- earth is much older than 6,000 years - but don't know how much older


None of this is at all central to the fundamental message of the Bible, which is -- Jesus is the Christ.

It's a complete side issue and there is no reason to care much about the age of man, all life, or the earth.
The Bible does not make it an important issue in any way.

Of course not. Imagine that.

poptart wrote:This is a summary of what I think:

- man is about 6,000 years old

Then you are an ignorant, pinheaded fucktard. We have found constructed human settlements which are half again as old as that and irrefutable physical evidence that the species is more than ten times that age.

Crack a book some day other than the bible, idiot.

lol

Ok, I'll hit the books this weekend, dad.

Good idea. Better late than never.

poptart wrote:This is a summary of what I think:

- man is about 6,000 years old
- all life is ??

Uhhh, wow. A summary of your intelligence has got you ranked somewhere between Ralph Wiggum and a retarded Derron offspring. If the Bible literally translated that God rose from the earth in the form of a robot building, would you believe that?

retarded Derron offspring

yes, I realize that's redundant

MgoBlue-LightSpecial wrote: Uhhh, wow. A summary of your intelligence has got you ranked somewhere between Ralph Wiggum and a retarded Derron offspring.

Hyperbole much?



At least Ralph Wiggum was smart enough to know his cat's breath smells like cat food.

Jsc, pop's brain is like Belushi's good and evil angels in Animal House. 5% of his "good" gray matter thinks and reasons; the other 95%, the "bad" angel, it pisses all over the other side, opting to let children's fables and Al Davis guide its every molasses-slow synapse.

Remember, this is the guy who earlier in this thread said that life on Earth began 6,000 years ago; not human life, but life, period. Then, when pressed about those pesky dinosaurs, he backpedaled, immediately amending his statement to say that Earth began "a long time ago" and "mankind began 6,000 years ago."

He knew that the issue of other life on Earth wasn't going to fly, not even by his 5% side, so he simply brushed it aside.

And yes, to answer Mgo's question, if the Bible said that God started off as a robot building and Carrot Top was "the Christ", pop would buy it hook, line and sinker, and he'd tell you that everyone who doesn't share his beliefs is going to that fiery place where the mean demon lives.

88 wrote:I asked him about the discovery of dinosaur bones and he said that they never lived, and that the Devil must have put the stone bones in the ground to sew the seeds of doubt in persons having weak faith.

lol

Just for the record, I don't believe that.

I could say a lot more, but it's not important and I'll leave it at that.

Scott wrote:Kinda blows that whole "6 days to build all this shit" passage straight to hell doesn't it?

It doesn't.

Genesis 1:1
In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth

We are not told when the beginning was, and it is possible (and even logical to assume, based on the Scripture - but I won't go into why) that there was a gap of time from when God created the heaven and the earth ----> to when He began the 6 days of creation.

So I suspect the earth quite possibly is very old.
Or not ... I don't know, and it's not important to know, at least to me.


Van, I didn't backpeddle on the age of life and I sure didn't do so because the dino's were brought up.
lol

I said ... I think ... such and such.

I don't KNOW and neither do you.

I'm certainly not here to tell you you that you should believe that life is 6,000 yrs old ... or that it is ANY particular age.
It just doesn't matter to me.
The only reason I'm speaking to it is because I was asked.

Based on a LITERAL reading of the Genesis creation account, it seems as if all life is around 6,000 yrs old.
I view Genesis as written to be taken literally, so that is what I think.
But I am open to the possibility that the "days" of Gensis 1 are not literal days, and that life on earth is much older than that.
That is why I put the ???s for overall life age.

I am a bit more "dogmatic" about man being about 6,000 yrs old, though, because we can see that info given if we trace things from the time of Adam forward - assuming that there are no "gaps," and I don't see that there are.


Jsc, the Bible is not a science text and it is not intended to be such.

If you're sold that science has proven to you that man is over 6,000 yrs old, that's just fine.
I'm not sold, but it just frankly doesn't matter to me what age the scientists tell me man is.
I don't believe or disbelieve them.

This would be an endless discussion and there is no reason for it, but among MANY things to question is population growth rates and current earth population.

If man is ... REALLY ... old, and based on even very LOW rates of population increase through the hundreds of thousands .. or millions of years, it seems our planet would be MUCH MUCH more highly populated than it is.

Food for thought.
Or not.

Take what you want.

Too bad Mike the Lab Rat doesn't post here any more. He usually had great things to say about these matters.

Once, a man of faith, now an atheist. His point of view would be highly considered moreso than anyone else.

Especially interesting would be whether or not he still practices the Craft - as an atheist.

BSmack, you knew him. Why don't you ask him if he'll come back.

pop, you most certainly did backpedal...

pop wrote:I do think life on earth is around 6,000 yrs old.
The Bible gives us that timeline.

It doesn't tell us about the age of the earth, though.

Then, after the question of the dinosaurs was brought up, you changed "life on earth" - which would obviously include dinosaurs as well as all flora and fauna - to the age of man, without answering the dinosaur question.

God supposedly knocked out Earth - including the plants, animals and man - in those first six days. So, since the Bible has man being invented only a day after the animals, yeah, let's go ahead and assume that those "days" represent millions of years, and your 4,000 B.C. B-Day for man is every bit as ridiculous as we're telling you it is.

Tom wrote:Too bad Mike the Lab Rat doesn't post here any more. He usually had great things to say about these matters.

Once, a man of faith, now an atheist. His point of view would be highly considered moreso than anyone else.

No, it wouldn't. He went from having faith in one unknowable thing to another, and along the way nobody's minds here were ever changed in the least.

Mike knows no more about this than you or anyone else. At best, he knows more than pop does about the findings of the scientific world, but pop's mind isn't about to be changed by any amount of scientific fact or opinion.

I was trying my hand at pretense and humour. :| See, it was a post more or less along those lines in the tome about God and Church that the longing for MtLR was expressed, then BSmack ....


Yeah ... it was a stretch.

Pretense is the new forty.

How about..

Oh men: A man. Amen. Oh man!



You stagger about the deck of your sinking ship ranting..what? "Jesus is Lord"? :doh:

Tom wrote:Once, a man of faith, now an atheist. His point of view would be highly considered moreso than anyone else.

It was mildly poetic, so props, but I do hope it was sarcasm.



Van, these were my two statements:

But for your information, I do think life on earth is around 6,000 yrs old.
The Bible gives us that timeline.

This is a summary of what I think:
- man is about 6,000 years old
- all life is ??
- earth is much older than 6,000 years - but don't know how much older

I told you that I am more "dogmatic" that man is 6,000 yrs old than I am that life is 6,000 yrs old.
That is why I put *??* by life.

Do I think that overall life is 6,000 yrs old?
Yes, because the Genesis account reads as a literal 6 days to me.
But I am open to the possibility that the days are something other than 24 hrs.

It just doesn't matter, anyway.


As for the dino's, trust me, they don't concern me in the least.

Nobody asked me about them, and I don't consider them an issue at all, so I didn't comment on them.


Ask and ye shall receive? :wink:

Van wrote:but pop's mind isn't about to be changed by any amount of scientific fact or opinion

This is funny and ironic on many levels.

I've said repeatedly now that I don't know the ages of life or the earth.
I could be moved to believe something - if I was compelled.

For the age of man - it strongly appears to me that we are about 6,000 yrs old.
I consider myself more dogmatic on that point.
But even on that, yes, I could be moved - if I was compelled.


Mike the Rat knows very well that I once debated him on the issue of creation and evolution and that I was in the 6 literal days camp.

Since that time, my stance has softened and I HAVE moved to consider that the 6 creation days are perhaps not literal.
But ironically, I was moved to soften my stance not so much because of science, but because of more understanding of Scripture.
My belief is that the creation was a literal 6 days, but I am not "sure" of it.

It can all be interesting, but it's just not very important at all.

[img]http://www.picturesof.net/_images_300/A_Clown_Holding_Balloons_Royalty_Free_Clipart_Picture_100410-008147-057053.jpg[/img] wrote:As for the dino's, trust me, they don't concern me in the least.

Yeah, I can see how they wouldn't.

[img]http://www.aboutfacesentertainers.com/images/clowns/pauli_m/pauli_m4_sm.jpg[/img] wrote:Nobody asked me about them, and I don't consider them an issue at all, so I didn't comment on them.

Really, pop? Nobody asked you about them?

Terry in Crapchester wrote:

[img]http://www.aboutfacesentertainers.com/images/clowns/jojo/jojo.jpg[/img] wrote:But for your information, I do think life on earth is around 6,000 yrs old.
The Bible gives us that timeline.

Care to explain the dinosaurs, in that case?

[img]http://warmtinny.com/gallery3/var/albums/Friends/Turvey/album135/Smilies/backpedal.gif[/img] wrote:This is a summary of what I think:
- man is about 6,000 years old
- all life is ??
- earth is much older than 6,000 years - but don't know how much older

My mistake there, Van.

As I read through the thread (a little quickly) earlier I saw questions from you and Jsc, who had both been active in the thread.
I sought to answer those questions, and Terry, who gave a quick drive-by retort didn't register to me.

Sorry, Terry. haha


The dinosaurs.

What about them?

They lived and they died out - due to enviornment, I assume.
I think they may have lived along with man.
It's possible that as of recent times there may still have been (or is even now) a "handful" of them around.

Understand, I am not selling that to you.
I'm just telling you what I ... think (not know), because Terry asked me.


Note: You can do a search of dinosaur cave drawings and artifacts - or some such variation - and find interesting info about man/dino living together - if you want to open your mind.

If your indoctination has taught you that such a concept is rubbish, it's no skin off my nose.
It's interesting to look at, though - unless you're scared of seeing something.


Note, I say it's possible that dinos lived a long time ago.
I'm not harshly opposed to that.
I just happen to ... think ... dinos lived within 6,000 ago, and as I read the Genesis creation account, I take it as a straightforward and literal account.



Van, Jsc, 88, or anyone - let me ask you to think about something(s).

I posted to Jsc that population growth stats indicate to me that, even assuming an extremely LOW population projection through many 10's of thousands of years of said human existence, the planet would be MUCH greater populated than it currently is.

The relatively "low" earth population (in accordance with the said number of years of man's existence) has me believe that man has been around a LOT less years than we are routinely told.


But what I'd ask you to step out of your box and think about is this --

The neolithic revolution (first agricultural revolution) took place about 10,000 yrs ago, we are told.
And the industrial revolution took place beginning in the 1800's.
Man (homo sapien) is said to be around 200,000 yrs old.

So man sat around with his thumb up his @ss, slopping around in the mud and living in a cave for ------> 190,000 years before he began to start agriculture?

Really now? LOL

Step out of your indocrination and give that some thought.

You think he did jack squat for 190,000 years?

I don't.

Man, if anything, is ambitious, curious, exploratory, creative, and one to CONQUER and ADVANCE, by nature.

He didn't sit around and do ... DICK ... for almost 200,000 years.


Think about the explosion of technology just in YOUR lifetime.
Think of how fast culture and society has advanced since the industrial revolution began "just" a couple hundred years ago.

Man gets things DONE.


He didn't slop in the mud and eat his own shit for 200,000 years.

At least I don't "think" so.



:wink:

Homo Sapien hasn't been around for 200 000 years, 'tart.

Wikipedia says so.

Other sources give varying numbers - but in the same "general" range.

Don't quibble over a couple/few 10,000 yrs.

And also, "minor league" humans are said to have been around for a LOT longer than that.

Humans sat around doing ... NOTHING ... for a REAL long time. lol


My point stands - and you can think it over honestly - and answer.

Or not.