Christianity and the 10 Commandments

[Zen Badger]

(23rd February 2012 14:13)chipan Wrote:  

(23rd February 2012 14:11)Zen Badger Wrote:  

(23rd February 2012 14:07)chipan Wrote:  

(23rd February 2012 14:01)Zen Badger Wrote:  

(23rd February 2012 13:54)chipan Wrote:  Did you even listen to the precious statement? Yes they were created 6,000 years ago relative to the earth. The rest of the universe however aged millions of years in a second because of the rapid expansion process. That's the theory I'm proposing. It explains your question and is biblical.

---

And do you have any evidence that this has in fact happened?

Because this isn't evidence, it is just some farfetched rubbish that one of your cretinist buddies has come up with to try and make reality conform with your fairy tale.

Still waiting for some actual evidence.

Yes you're right. Expansion is a very Fartetched idea.

---

Still waiting for evidence for a young universe

Oh so you agree expansion is ridiculous? It's the same that the big bang theory uses. Glad you agree.

Do you or do you not have evidence that the universe is only 6000 years old?

Because it is apparent to me that you have fuck all.

[Phil]

(23rd February 2012 12:02)chipan Wrote:  Your mind is closed. He may have started with faith, but that doesn't mean there is no evedince the other way.

You really are an ignoranus. Did you see where Kurt Wise said NOTHING can change his mind? That is faith and not evidence by any means. He even said he believes it cause Scripture says it. You go right on ignoring reality, the world is better off without you anyway.

[chi pan]

(23rd February 2012 14:17)Zen Badger Wrote:  

(23rd February 2012 14:13)chipan Wrote:  

(23rd February 2012 14:11)Zen Badger Wrote:  

(23rd February 2012 14:07)chipan Wrote:  

(23rd February 2012 14:01)Zen Badger Wrote:  And do you have any evidence that this has in fact happened?

Because this isn't evidence, it is just some farfetched rubbish that one of your cretinist buddies has come up with to try and make reality conform with your fairy tale.

Still waiting for some actual evidence.

Yes you're right. Expansion is a very Fartetched idea.

---

Still waiting for evidence for a young universe

Oh so you agree expansion is ridiculous? It's the same that the big bang theory uses. Glad you agree.

Do you or do you not have evidence that the universe is only 6000 years old?

Because it is apparent to me that you have fuck all.

You already discredited the big bang theory. What else is there?

[KichigaiNeko]

Really gentlemen, all chippy has is his "belief" nothing more. As has been put forward as evidence ..Creationist "scientists" will put their "faith" before evidence and can therefore be safely occluded from the statistical data. Current science has posited that the 'Universe' is much older than 5 billion years ...maybe. We are still discovering new and interesting data that may push that figure higher of make it contract..the jury is still out and there is no definitive answer as yet but it can be safely concluded that the 'Universe' and hence the Earth is much much older than the creationists think or want to accept.

Chippy needs to understand that this is 'Round World' NOT Discworld and he can believe all he wants it won't change one fact at all

[chi pan]

(23rd February 2012 14:25)KichigaiNeko Wrote:  Really gentlemen, all chippy has is his "belief" nothing more. As has been put forward as evidence ..Creationist "scientists" will put their "faith" before evidence and can therefore be safely occluded from the statistical data. Current science has posited that the 'Universe' is much older than 5 billion years ...maybe. We are still discovering new and interesting data that may push that figure higher of make it contract..the jury is still out and there is no definitive answer as yet but it can be safely concluded that the 'Universe' and hence the Earth is much much older than the creationists think or want to accept.

Chippy needs to understand that this is 'Round World' NOT Discworld and he can believe all he wants it won't change one fact at all

Ok I'm done with my fooling around. If you want me to present evidence I want you first to define the terms of what counts as evidence.

[Phil]

(23rd February 2012 12:22)Zen Badger Wrote:  As I said before your real task is not to disprove Evolution but to prove that the universe is only 6000 years old.

Do that and Evolution automatically falls.

That might be a really hard task considering 7500 light years away from us is the star HE 1523 and it is 13.2 billion years old. To make it even harder for our christoholic friend, HE 1523 is a second generation star which means the universe must be older by a long enough time for a few first generation stars to form and go kablooy (supernova) since HE 1523 contains radioactive elements. It might take chiapet a really long time but I expect the universe to cold, dark and dead well before that happens and the universe will not be cold, dark and dead for at least 1092 years give or take a few millenia.

[5thHorseman]

'You already discredited the big bang theory. What else is there?' - Not read it, but if Zen's discrediting it, i'll take it with a pinch of salt, the concensus in the physics community, you know, those guys who have Phd's in Physics, and actually do scientific modelling and testing, and understand the workings of the universe, is that the big bang happened 13.7 billion years ago. 6000yrs, hahahaha, good one.

The big bang is supported by a boat load of evidence, as is expansion, but not just expansion, it's getting faster. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-15165371

[KichigaiNeko]

(23rd February 2012 14:28)chipan Wrote:  Ok I'm done with my fooling around. If you want me to present evidence I want you first to define the terms of what counts as evidence.

Why?? Evidence is cold hard falsifiable evidence ..don't you know anything chippy?? How long have YOU been on this forum??

Now BRING IT or take your pathetic belief system and world view and STFU

[5thHorseman]

(23rd February 2012 14:28)chipan Wrote:  

(23rd February 2012 14:25)KichigaiNeko Wrote:  Really gentlemen, all chippy has is his "belief" nothing more. As has been put forward as evidence ..Creationist "scientists" will put their "faith" before evidence and can therefore be safely occluded from the statistical data. Current science has posited that the 'Universe' is much older than 5 billion years ...maybe. We are still discovering new and interesting data that may push that figure higher of make it contract..the jury is still out and there is no definitive answer as yet but it can be safely concluded that the 'Universe' and hence the Earth is much much older than the creationists think or want to accept.

Chippy needs to understand that this is 'Round World' NOT Discworld and he can believe all he wants it won't change one fact at all

Ok I'm done with my fooling around. If you want me to present evidence I want you first to define the terms of what counts as evidence.

Whatever you have.

[chi pan]

(23rd February 2012 14:32)5thHorseman Wrote:  

(23rd February 2012 14:28)chipan Wrote:  

(23rd February 2012 14:25)KichigaiNeko Wrote:  Really gentlemen, all chippy has is his "belief" nothing more. As has been put forward as evidence ..Creationist "scientists" will put their "faith" before evidence and can therefore be safely occluded from the statistical data. Current science has posited that the 'Universe' is much older than 5 billion years ...maybe. We are still discovering new and interesting data that may push that figure higher of make it contract..the jury is still out and there is no definitive answer as yet but it can be safely concluded that the 'Universe' and hence the Earth is much much older than the creationists think or want to accept.

Chippy needs to understand that this is 'Round World' NOT Discworld and he can believe all he wants it won't change one fact at all

Ok I'm done with my fooling around. If you want me to present evidence I want you first to define the terms of what counts as evidence.

Whatever you have.

Not good enough. I want a clearly defined term of what qualifies as evidence so no one can say "that doesn't count"