• Forums
  • Best Betting Sites
  • Sportsbook Promos
  • Best Sports Betting Apps
  • NFL Betting Forum
  • NBA Betting Forum
  • MLB Betting Forum
  • NHL Betting Forum
  • NCAAF Betting Forum
  • NCAAB Betting Forum
  • Soccer Betting Forum
  • Tennis Betting Forum
  • General Discussion
  • Help Forum
  • Guidelines
  • FAQ
  • Forum Updates
    Covers Logo
    Covers App
    Faster picks. Smarter bets.
    All in the NEW Covers App
    Download on the App Store Download on the Google Play Store
    • Sports
      • NFL
        • Back
        • NFL
        • NFL Home
        • Scores & Matchups
        • Prop Projections
        • NFL Picks
        • Weather
        • Injuries
      • NCAAF
        • Back
        • NCAAF
        • NCAAF Home
        • Scores & Matchups
        • Prop Projections
        • NCAAF Picks
        • Weather
        • Injuries
      • NBA
        • Back
        • NBA
        • NBA Home
        • Scores & Matchups
        • Prop Projections
        • NBA Picks
        • Injuries
      • NCAAB
        • Back
        • NCAAB
        • NCAAB Home
        • Scores & Matchups
        • NCAAB Picks
        • Injuries
      • MLB
        • Back
        • MLB
        • MLB Home
        • Scores & Matchups
        • Prop Projections
        • MLB Picks
        • Weather
        • Injuries
      • NHL
        • Back
        • NHL
        • NHL Home
        • Scores & Matchups
        • Prop Projections
        • NHL Picks
        • Injuries
      • Soccer
      • UFC
      • WNBA
        • Back
        • WNBA
        • WNBA Home
        • Scores & Matchups
        • WNBA Picks
        • Injuries
      • CFL
        • Back
        • CFL
        • CFL Home
        • Scores & Matchups
        • CFL Picks
      • Golf
        • Back
        • Golf
        • Golf Home
        • Golf Odds
        • Masters Odds
        • PGA Championship Odds
        • US Open Odds
        • British Open Odds
        • Ryder Cup Odds
        • Golf Picks
    • Odds
      • All Odds
      • NFL
      • NCAAF
      • NBA
      • NCAAB
      • MLB
      • NHL
      • Golf
      • Soccer Odds
        • Back
        • Soccer Odds
        • MLS Odds
        • Champions League Odds
        • Premier League Odds
      • UFC
      • WNBA
      • CFL
      • Election Odds
      • Futures
        • Back
        • Futures
        • NFL
        • NBA
        • MLB
        • NHL
        • NCAAB
        • NCAAF
      • Sports Odds History
    • Picks
      • All Picks
      • NFL
      • NBA
      • NHL
      • MLB
      • NCAAF
      • NCAAB
      • Golf
      • WNBA
      • CFL
      • User Picks
      • Team User Picks
      • Consensus Picks
        • Back
        • Consensus Picks
        • All Consensus Picks
        • NFL
        • NBA
        • NHL
        • MLB
        • NCAAF
        • NCAAB
        • CFL
        • WNBA
        • Consensus FAQ
        • Public Money
    • Prop Projections
      • NFL
      • NBA
      • MLB
      • NHL
    • Betting
      • US Betting Sites
      • Canada Betting Sites
      • Sportsbook Reviews
      • States
        • Back
        • States
        • US Legal Tracker
        • Revenue Tracker
        • Arizona
        • Arkansas
        • California
        • Colorado
        • Connecticut
        • DC
        • Florida
        • Georgia
        • Illinois
        • Indiana
        • Iowa
        • Kansas
        • Kentucky
        • Louisiana
        • Maine
        • Maryland
        • Massachusetts
        • Michigan
        • Mississippi
        • Missouri
        • Nevada
        • New Hampshire
        • New Jersey
        • New York
        • North Carolina
        • Ohio
        • Oregon
        • Pennsylvania
        • Tennessee
        • Texas
        • Vermont
        • Virginia
        • West Virginia
        • Wyoming
      • Provinces
        • Back
        • Provinces
        • Alberta
        • British Columbia
        • Manitoba
        • New Brunswick
        • Newfoundland and Labrador
        • Northwest Territories
        • Nova Scotia
        • Nunavut
        • Ontario
        • Prince Edward Island
        • Quebec (English)
        • Quebec (francais)
        • Saskatchewan
        • Yukon
      • By Sport
        • Back
        • By Sport
        • Baseball
        • Basketball
        • Boxing
        • College Football
        • F1
        • Football
        • Super Bowl
        • Golf
        • Hockey
        • Horse Racing
        • March Madness
        • Soccer
        • UFC
        • World Cup
      • Betting Apps
        • Back
        • Betting Apps
        • Best Sports Betting Apps USA
        • Ontario Sports Betting Apps
      • Rest of World
        • Back
        • Rest of World
        • UK Betting Offers
          • Back
          • UK Betting Offers
          • UK Betting Sites
          • bet365 Bonus Code UK
          • 888Sport Promo Code UK
          • William Hill Sign up Offer
          • Betway Sign up Offer
          • BetVictor Bonus Code UK
      • Betting Guides
        • Back
        • Betting Guides
        • All Guides
        • Glossary
        • Betting Calculators
          • Back
          • Betting Calculators
          • Odds Converter
          • Parlay Calculator
        • Futures Betting Guide
        • Moneyline Betting Guide
        • Over/Under Betting Guide
        • Parlay Betting Guide
        • Point Spread Betting Guide
        • Prop Betting Guide
        • Sports Betting Guides
          • Back
          • Sports Betting Guides
          • How To Bet On Sports Guide
          • NFL Betting Guide
          • NHL Betting Guide
          • NBA Betting Guide
          • MLB Betting Guide
          • NCAAB Betting Guide
          • NCAAF Betting Guide
          • Golf Betting Guide
          • Tennis Betting Guide
        • Teaser Betting Guide
      • Betting News
        • Back
        • Betting News
        • All News
        • Industry News
        • Podcasts
        • Covers Videos
        • Covers Writers
        • Offers & Boosts
    • Promos
      • Sportsbook Promos
      • Canada Sportsbook Promos
      • Bonuses By Sportsbook
        • Back
        • Bonuses By Sportsbook
        • bet365 Bonus Code
        • BET99 Promo Code
        • BetMGM Bonus Code
        • BetRivers Bonus Code
        • Caesars Sportsbook Promo
        • DraftKings Promo Code
        • Fanatics Sportsbook Promo
        • FanDuel Promo Code
        • Hard Rock Bet Promo Code
        • Sports Interaction Promo
        • Stake Promo Code
        • theScore Bet Promo Code
        • TonyBet Promo Code
      • Bonuses By Region
        • Back
        • Bonuses By Region
        • Arkansas Promos
        • Arizona Promos
        • Colorado Promos
        • Connecticut Promos
        • DC Promos
        • Illinois Promos
        • Indiana Promos
        • Iowa Promos
        • Kansas Promos
        • Kentucky Promos
        • Louisiana Promos
        • Maine Promos
        • Maryland Promos
        • Massachusetts Promos
        • Michigan Promos
        • Missouri Promos
        • New Jersey Promos
        • New York Promos
        • North Carolina Promos
        • Ohio Promos
        • Pennsylvania Promos
        • Tennessee Promos
        • Vermont Promos
        • Virginia Promos
        • West Virginia Promos
        • Wyoming Promos
    • Forum & Contests
      • All Forums
      • NFL Betting Forum
      • MLB Betting Forum
      • NCAAB Betting Forum
      • NCAAF Betting Forum
      • NBA Betting Forum
      • NHL Betting Forum
      • Soccer Betting Forum
      • Contests
        • Back
        • Contests
        • Contests Home
        • Streak Survivor
        • King of Covers
        • My Contests
    • Casino
      • Sweepstakes Casino
        • Back
        • Sweepstakes Casino
        • Sweepstakes Casino
        • Sweepstakes No-Deposit Bonuses
        • Sweepstakes Promos
          • Back
          • Sweepstakes Promos
          • Card Crush
          • Casino.click
          • Chanced Casino
          • Crown Coins Casino
          • FreeSpin Casino
          • LoneStar
          • McLuck
          • Mega Bonanza Casino
          • PlayFame
          • Pulsz
          • Stake.us
      • US Casinos
        • Back
        • US Casinos
        • US Online Casinos
        • US Online Casino Bonuses
        • Casino Promos
          • Back
          • Casino Promos
          • bet365 Casino Promo Code
          • BetRivers Casino Promo
          • Borgata Casino Bonus Code
          • Caesars Casino Bonus Code
          • DraftKings Casino Promo
          • Fanatics Casino Promo
          • FanDuel Casino Promo Code
          • Golden Nugget Casino Promo
          • Hard Rock Bet Casino Promo
          • Hollywood Casino Promo Code
      • Canada Casinos
        • Back
        • Canada Casinos
        • Canada Online Casinos
        • Provinces
          • Back
          • Provinces
          • Alberta Online Casino
          • BC Online Casino
          • Ontario Online Casinos
        • Casino Promos
          • Back
          • Casino Promos
          • BC.GAME Bonus Code
          • Cloudbet Promo Code
          • RainBet Promo Code
          • Roobet Promo Code
          • Shuffle Promo Code
          • Thrill Promo Code
    • Prediction Markets
      • Prediction Markets
      • Prediction Market Apps
      • Prediction Market Promos
      • Kalshi Promo Code
      • Kalshi Referral Code
      • Polymarket Promo Code
      • Polymarket Referral Code
      • DraftKings Predictions Promo Code
      • Novig Promo Code
      • ProphetX Promo Code
      • Underdog Promo Code
      • Betr Promo Code
      • OG Promo Code
      • Fanatics Markets Promo Code
      • Plus500 Promo Code
      • Gemini Predictions Promo Code
    • NFL Week 6
      NFL Week 6
      • NFL Odds
      • NFL Picks
      • Moneyline Picks
      • NFL ATS Picks
      • Survivor Picks
      • Week 6 Odds
      • NFL Prediction Markets
      • NFL Betting Sites
    Covers Account
    Log in Create account
    Join free Log in
    All Forums | General Discussion

    If Christ died on the cross for all of humanity

    «First Previous 111112113 ... 213214215 Next Last»
    matt4000
    SYSTEM
    KittyKatz286
    offensivestr
    Rostos
    ...
    Participants:
    Search
    Views: 256999
    Posts: 5358
    «First Previous 111112113 ... 213214215 Next Last»
     
    matt4000
    matt4000
    Veteran
    Participation Meter
    Joined: Aug, 2007
    Posts: 1104
    Posted: Dec. 22, 2011 - 2:03 AM ET #2751

    Quote Originally Posted by KittyKatz286:

    If you think the Earth is 6,000 years old, you are the dumbest person alive (or tied with anyone else who thinks that).

    There are many well known scientists and scholars all over the world that believe in the "Young age earth theory". 

    Your argument and the argument for a young earth are both valid. 

    There is no concrete answer for either viewpoint.
    Reply
    Quote Originally Posted by KittyKatz286:

    If you think the Earth is 6,000 years old, you are the dumbest person alive (or tied with anyone else who thinks that).

    There are many well known scientists and scholars all over the world that believe in the "Young age earth theory". 

    Your argument and the argument for a young earth are both valid. 

    There is no concrete answer for either viewpoint.
     
    SYSTEM
    SYSTEM
    Veteran
    Participation Meter
    Joined: Dec, 2004
    Posts: 1702
    Posted: Dec. 22, 2011 - 2:05 AM ET #2752

    Quote Originally Posted by matt4000:


    Yes, I believe this to and with all my heart!!!
    As a matter of fact, we are not the only 2 saying it...

    Statistics say  there is 1.5 billion christians, 1 billion Muslims, 0.8 billion Hindus, 0.5 billion Budahsim so 
    1.5+1+0.8+0.5 = 4.1 billion
    World population almost = 6 billion

    So, about 4.1 billion think this way to.

    That is a heck of a lot of people that you would have to put in a mental hospital...lol


    majority of the people once thought slavery was alright too
    Reply
    Quote Originally Posted by matt4000:


    Yes, I believe this to and with all my heart!!!
    As a matter of fact, we are not the only 2 saying it...

    Statistics say  there is 1.5 billion christians, 1 billion Muslims, 0.8 billion Hindus, 0.5 billion Budahsim so 
    1.5+1+0.8+0.5 = 4.1 billion
    World population almost = 6 billion

    So, about 4.1 billion think this way to.

    That is a heck of a lot of people that you would have to put in a mental hospital...lol


    majority of the people once thought slavery was alright too
     
    matt4000
    matt4000
    Veteran
    Participation Meter
    Joined: Aug, 2007
    Posts: 1104
    Posted: Dec. 22, 2011 - 2:05 AM ET #2753

    Quote Originally Posted by KittyKatz286:


    This is who we're supposed to listen to? Someone who doesn't know the difference between "accept" and "except" lololol 

    C'mon KittyKat, you are better than that. We all make errors when typing or get distracted by family mothers and such, when we are on this forum.
    Reply
    Quote Originally Posted by KittyKatz286:


    This is who we're supposed to listen to? Someone who doesn't know the difference between "accept" and "except" lololol 

    C'mon KittyKat, you are better than that. We all make errors when typing or get distracted by family mothers and such, when we are on this forum.
     
    matt4000
    matt4000
    Veteran
    Participation Meter
    Joined: Aug, 2007
    Posts: 1104
    Posted: Dec. 22, 2011 - 2:09 AM ET #2754

    Quote Originally Posted by Mikniks:


    There is no point in entering into a discussion with a person who thinks the Noah's ark story is true (you) and a person who thinks the earth is 6,000 years old (you)...

    Everybody that you are have these back and forth discussions with within this thread, believes in the account of Noah's ark!!!
    Reply
    Quote Originally Posted by Mikniks:


    There is no point in entering into a discussion with a person who thinks the Noah's ark story is true (you) and a person who thinks the earth is 6,000 years old (you)...

    Everybody that you are have these back and forth discussions with within this thread, believes in the account of Noah's ark!!!
     
    matt4000
    matt4000
    Veteran
    Participation Meter
    Joined: Aug, 2007
    Posts: 1104
    Posted: Dec. 22, 2011 - 2:20 AM ET #2755

    Quote Originally Posted by KittyKatz286:

    But it also tells the story of Noah, which we know is impossible. So why should we rely on a book that is part true and part false? And how do we know which parts to trust?

    It is interesting that the great flood myth/story or whatever you want to call it?

    This story can be found in the literature of most of the world's great religions. Even if we do not consider religions, most ancient civilizations have had the great flood story as a part of its folklore.

    There does not seem to be a geographical focus to the great flood story. Indeed, cutting across geographies, cultures, races, we find this story being a part of the collective consciousness of people.

    You can hear about the great flood myth in Africa, Asia, Europe, North and South America. So, why do we seem to share this flood story across continents, cultures, religions? Could it be that this may in fact not be a story, but historical fact? 

    Certainly, anthropologists argue that myths are often based on historical events. Of course, over the years, the myth may have lost a lot of the original facts surrounding the actual event, having be told and retold and its quite possible that details may have been added on or deleted.

    However, the substance of the story mostly survives, as it seems to have in the great flood story.

    An examination of the great flood stories from across the world reveals that most of them share striking similarities. For example,

    The mention of there being a chosen individual/family.
    The individual/family being forewarned.
    The flood resulting from an increase in evil on Earth.
    The nature of the flood being global.
    The chosen individual/family being the only survivors of the great flood.
    The survival of animals.
    The mention of a mountain where the survivors sought refuge.
    The mention of a boat, as being the vessel which was built and on which the survivors survived.

    With all these similarities, the only plausible conclusion that one can derive is that the flood myth or story is based on an ancient real historical fact.

    It is quite possible that descendants of the original people who survived and subsequently were born after the flood migrated to different parts of the world and carried the story of the great flood with them. 

    They would have passed this flood story to their children and it could have thus carried on to this date.

    The minor differences can be attributed to the geographical, cultural, and linguistic differences of each of these peoples through the ages.

    It is quite possible that the original story would have been told slightly differently, but the essence of it essentially remains unchanged to this date and can be recognized as having probably had a single origin.
    Reply
    Quote Originally Posted by KittyKatz286:

    But it also tells the story of Noah, which we know is impossible. So why should we rely on a book that is part true and part false? And how do we know which parts to trust?

    It is interesting that the great flood myth/story or whatever you want to call it?

    This story can be found in the literature of most of the world's great religions. Even if we do not consider religions, most ancient civilizations have had the great flood story as a part of its folklore.

    There does not seem to be a geographical focus to the great flood story. Indeed, cutting across geographies, cultures, races, we find this story being a part of the collective consciousness of people.

    You can hear about the great flood myth in Africa, Asia, Europe, North and South America. So, why do we seem to share this flood story across continents, cultures, religions? Could it be that this may in fact not be a story, but historical fact? 

    Certainly, anthropologists argue that myths are often based on historical events. Of course, over the years, the myth may have lost a lot of the original facts surrounding the actual event, having be told and retold and its quite possible that details may have been added on or deleted.

    However, the substance of the story mostly survives, as it seems to have in the great flood story.

    An examination of the great flood stories from across the world reveals that most of them share striking similarities. For example,

    The mention of there being a chosen individual/family.
    The individual/family being forewarned.
    The flood resulting from an increase in evil on Earth.
    The nature of the flood being global.
    The chosen individual/family being the only survivors of the great flood.
    The survival of animals.
    The mention of a mountain where the survivors sought refuge.
    The mention of a boat, as being the vessel which was built and on which the survivors survived.

    With all these similarities, the only plausible conclusion that one can derive is that the flood myth or story is based on an ancient real historical fact.

    It is quite possible that descendants of the original people who survived and subsequently were born after the flood migrated to different parts of the world and carried the story of the great flood with them. 

    They would have passed this flood story to their children and it could have thus carried on to this date.

    The minor differences can be attributed to the geographical, cultural, and linguistic differences of each of these peoples through the ages.

    It is quite possible that the original story would have been told slightly differently, but the essence of it essentially remains unchanged to this date and can be recognized as having probably had a single origin.
     
    KittyKatz286
    KittyKatz286
    Veteran
    Participation Meter
    Joined: Feb, 2009
    Posts: 1988
    Posted: Dec. 22, 2011 - 2:24 AM ET #2756

    If you believe that the Earth is 6,000 years old. YOU ARE FUCKING RETARDED AND I WILL DISREGARD EVERYTHING YOU SAY FROM HEREON.
    Reply
    If you believe that the Earth is 6,000 years old. YOU ARE FUCKING RETARDED AND I WILL DISREGARD EVERYTHING YOU SAY FROM HEREON.
     
    matt4000
    matt4000
    Veteran
    Participation Meter
    Joined: Aug, 2007
    Posts: 1104
    Posted: Dec. 22, 2011 - 2:27 AM ET #2757

    Quote Originally Posted by SYSTEM:


    majority of the people once thought slavery was alright too

    LOL. I know. And a lot of people across the globe, still believe in it.

    I was leaning to the current number of 1.5 billion Christians. Although, a lot of the other religions current hold to a "Great Flood" story within their beliefs.
    Reply
    Quote Originally Posted by SYSTEM:


    majority of the people once thought slavery was alright too

    LOL. I know. And a lot of people across the globe, still believe in it.

    I was leaning to the current number of 1.5 billion Christians. Although, a lot of the other religions current hold to a "Great Flood" story within their beliefs.
     
    matt4000
    matt4000
    Veteran
    Participation Meter
    Joined: Aug, 2007
    Posts: 1104
    Posted: Dec. 22, 2011 - 2:31 AM ET #2758

    Quote Originally Posted by KittyKatz286:

    If you believe that the Earth is 6,000 years old. YOU ARE FUCKING RETARDED AND I WILL DISREGARD EVERYTHING YOU SAY FROM HEREON.

    WOW! That is a shame. There are many things that you have stated that myself and many others totally disagree with, but still have and still would continue to have a discussion with you anyway.

    But, truth be told. As I have already stated. Any authentic Christian that you talk to here or anywhere that you go in life, will hold to the Bible timeline, that I mentioned earlier, which teaches that the earth is 6,000 years old.

    I do believe this and can back my arguments up with it, just as I can back up the billions of years argument too. 
    I just think, that the 6,000 years makes more sense.
    Reply
    Quote Originally Posted by KittyKatz286:

    If you believe that the Earth is 6,000 years old. YOU ARE FUCKING RETARDED AND I WILL DISREGARD EVERYTHING YOU SAY FROM HEREON.

    WOW! That is a shame. There are many things that you have stated that myself and many others totally disagree with, but still have and still would continue to have a discussion with you anyway.

    But, truth be told. As I have already stated. Any authentic Christian that you talk to here or anywhere that you go in life, will hold to the Bible timeline, that I mentioned earlier, which teaches that the earth is 6,000 years old.

    I do believe this and can back my arguments up with it, just as I can back up the billions of years argument too. 
    I just think, that the 6,000 years makes more sense.
     
    matt4000
    matt4000
    Veteran
    Participation Meter
    Joined: Aug, 2007
    Posts: 1104
    Posted: Dec. 22, 2011 - 2:36 AM ET #2759

    As I already stated in post #2750.

    Young-earth scientists acknowledge that they are in the minority today but insist that their ranks will swell over time as more and more scientists reexamine the evidence and take a closer look at the currently accepted old-earth paradigm.

    Those who hold to 6000 years trust that the Bible is true and that other factors explain the “apparent” age of the earth, such as the global flood, or God’s creating the universe in a state that “appears” to give it a very long age.

    And since Christians believe the Bible to be true, including myself. They will hold to the 6,000 years theory.

    Reply
    As I already stated in post #2750.

    Young-earth scientists acknowledge that they are in the minority today but insist that their ranks will swell over time as more and more scientists reexamine the evidence and take a closer look at the currently accepted old-earth paradigm.

    Those who hold to 6000 years trust that the Bible is true and that other factors explain the “apparent” age of the earth, such as the global flood, or God’s creating the universe in a state that “appears” to give it a very long age.

    And since Christians believe the Bible to be true, including myself. They will hold to the 6,000 years theory.

     
    KittyKatz286
    KittyKatz286
    Veteran
    Participation Meter
    Joined: Feb, 2009
    Posts: 1988
    Posted: Dec. 22, 2011 - 2:37 AM ET #2760

    We disagree on many things and that is fine. I have no problem with discussions regarding things that aren't FACT. But if you try and tell me 2+2 does NOT equal 4, I'm not going to continue the discussion.
    Reply
    We disagree on many things and that is fine. I have no problem with discussions regarding things that aren't FACT. But if you try and tell me 2+2 does NOT equal 4, I'm not going to continue the discussion.
     
    offensivestr
    offensivestr
    Prospect
    Participation Meter
    Joined: Nov, 2008
    Posts: 285
    Posted: Dec. 22, 2011 - 2:39 AM ET #2761

    KittyKatty

    U are a hypocritical donkey, u are so lost my friend. U contradict yourself over and over. Lol, 

    No where in the Bible does it say the age of the earth so move on idiot


    Reply
    KittyKatty

    U are a hypocritical donkey, u are so lost my friend. U contradict yourself over and over. Lol, 

    No where in the Bible does it say the age of the earth so move on idiot


     
    offensivestr
    offensivestr
    Prospect
    Participation Meter
    Joined: Nov, 2008
    Posts: 285
    Posted: Dec. 22, 2011 - 2:42 AM ET #2762

    Kitty katty

    What about all the archeological finds? Comment idiot, u keep asking for proof and it dick slaps you in the face
    Reply
    Kitty katty

    What about all the archeological finds? Comment idiot, u keep asking for proof and it dick slaps you in the face
     
    matt4000
    matt4000
    Veteran
    Participation Meter
    Joined: Aug, 2007
    Posts: 1104
    Posted: Dec. 22, 2011 - 2:49 AM ET #2763

    Quote Originally Posted by KittyKatz286:

    We disagree on many things and that is fine. I have no problem with discussions regarding things that aren't FACT. But if you try and tell me 2+2 does NOT equal 4, I'm not going to continue the discussion.

    That is fine and of course, you are entitled to that.

    Again, as I have said. You and others have stated what comes across to us Christians as CRAZY and some Christians have even pointed it out to you.

    Yet, myself and all of the other Christians have continued to talk to you, even if we thought you were a 100% false (which we do on most of what you say).

    Lastly, anyone in here that is a true Christian that you talk to WILL BELIEVE IN THE GREAT FLOOD, which is one of many factors that explain the “apparent” age of the earth.

    So, you will have to stop talking to everyone in this thread that is an authentic Christian!!!
    Reply
    Quote Originally Posted by KittyKatz286:

    We disagree on many things and that is fine. I have no problem with discussions regarding things that aren't FACT. But if you try and tell me 2+2 does NOT equal 4, I'm not going to continue the discussion.

    That is fine and of course, you are entitled to that.

    Again, as I have said. You and others have stated what comes across to us Christians as CRAZY and some Christians have even pointed it out to you.

    Yet, myself and all of the other Christians have continued to talk to you, even if we thought you were a 100% false (which we do on most of what you say).

    Lastly, anyone in here that is a true Christian that you talk to WILL BELIEVE IN THE GREAT FLOOD, which is one of many factors that explain the “apparent” age of the earth.

    So, you will have to stop talking to everyone in this thread that is an authentic Christian!!!
     
    KittyKatz286
    KittyKatz286
    Veteran
    Participation Meter
    Joined: Feb, 2009
    Posts: 1988
    Posted: Dec. 22, 2011 - 2:50 AM ET #2764

    There is no proof. You've given me nothing. And offensive, about the age of the Earth, I accept what you say, but it seems your companions do not. I am not responsible for complete stupidity of others who believe 2+2 does not equal 4.
    Reply
    There is no proof. You've given me nothing. And offensive, about the age of the Earth, I accept what you say, but it seems your companions do not. I am not responsible for complete stupidity of others who believe 2+2 does not equal 4.
     
    matt4000
    matt4000
    Veteran
    Participation Meter
    Joined: Aug, 2007
    Posts: 1104
    Posted: Dec. 22, 2011 - 3:12 AM ET #2765

    Quote Originally Posted by KittyKatz286:

    There is no proof. You've given me nothing. And offensive, about the age of the Earth, I accept what you say, but it seems your companions do not. I am not responsible for complete stupidity of others who believe 2+2 does not equal 4.

    If you ask them, they will tell you that this is the Evangelical Christians view of the age earth worldwide.

    Also, the great majority of Christians do not have knowledge about scientific things.(as I am sure that you can see).

    I will give one solid document that i learned from when I was in Bible college, then I am going to bed. I am sorry, but I have to travel tomorrow and will be gone for the holidays.

    I will pick back up next week, when I get back.
    Reply
    Quote Originally Posted by KittyKatz286:

    There is no proof. You've given me nothing. And offensive, about the age of the Earth, I accept what you say, but it seems your companions do not. I am not responsible for complete stupidity of others who believe 2+2 does not equal 4.

    If you ask them, they will tell you that this is the Evangelical Christians view of the age earth worldwide.

    Also, the great majority of Christians do not have knowledge about scientific things.(as I am sure that you can see).

    I will give one solid document that i learned from when I was in Bible college, then I am going to bed. I am sorry, but I have to travel tomorrow and will be gone for the holidays.

    I will pick back up next week, when I get back.
     
    Rostos
    Rostos
    Hall of Fame
    Participation Meter
    Joined: Feb, 2009
    Posts: 27785
    Posted: Dec. 22, 2011 - 3:14 AM ET #2766

    Quote Originally Posted by KittyKatz286:

    There is no proof. You've given me nothing. And offensive, about the age of the Earth, I accept what you say, but it seems your companions do not. I am not responsible for complete stupidity of others who believe 2+2 does not equal 4.

    Says the person who believesin aliens

    Reply

    Quote Originally Posted by KittyKatz286:

    There is no proof. You've given me nothing. And offensive, about the age of the Earth, I accept what you say, but it seems your companions do not. I am not responsible for complete stupidity of others who believe 2+2 does not equal 4.

    Says the person who believesin aliens

     
    matt4000
    matt4000
    Veteran
    Participation Meter
    Joined: Aug, 2007
    Posts: 1104
    Posted: Dec. 22, 2011 - 3:17 AM ET #2767

    There is a profusion of evidence for the Bible’s view of a young earth. 

    However, the old-earth perspective has held a monopoly in the public schools, in the major academic centers, and in the popular media for generations.

    It is no wonder then that most scientists share the old-earth perspective. It’s all they were taught growing up in school. It’s all they learned at the universities where they got their degrees. It’s what most of their colleagues profess.

    But there are dissenters among the scientific community, and their numbers are growing. Why? Because more and more scientists are confronting a growing body of evidence which challenges the old-earth paradigm.

    This is not to say that everyone who examines these evidences will reject the old-earth perspective. Some who have pondered these evidences regard them as anomalous, yet-to-be-explained phenomena. Some believe they don’t stand up under close scrutiny. Some view them as deliberate misrepresentations of the facts by religious zealots.

    There is no doubt that religious zealots have a tendency to distort facts when it suits their purposes.

    Old-earth zealots have the same tendency when their careers and reputations are on the line. It’s human nature. It is also true that some of the young-earth evidences which have been proposed over the years have not withstood close scrutiny. 

    But many others have, and the fact remains that a growing number of professionally trained scientists—experts in their fields—are accepting a young-earth perspective as being at least scientifically plausible, if not compelling.

    Here are a few of the relevant evidences for consideration:

    Continental Erosion and Fossil Remains.
    The continents are eroding at such a rate that, if not for tectonic uplift, meteoric dusting and volcanic influx, they would erode flat (Mt. Everest and all) in less than 25 million years.

    At this rate, high-altitude, million-year-old fossils should have long since eroded away. And yet they remain. The implication is that these fossils are not millions of years old. If this were true, the entire geologic column would need serious revision (see our article on the Geologic Column).

    Subterranean Fluid Pressure. 
    When a drill rig strikes oil, the oil sometimes gushes out in huge fountains. This is because the oil is often under huge amounts of pressure from the sheer weight of the rock sitting on top of it.

    Other subterranean fluids kept under pressure include natural gas and water. 

    The problem is, the rock above many pressurized subterranean fluid deposits is relatively permeable. The pressure should escape in less than 100,000 years. Yet these deposits remain highly pressurized. Once again, because of the supposed antiquity of these deposits and their location throughout the geologic column, this observation calls into question some of the interpretations which have led to the formulation of the column.

    Global Cooling. In the 19th century, the renowned physicist and inventor Lord Kelvin (William Thomson) was the first to point out that if the earth began in a white-hot molten state, it would have cooled to its current temperature billions of years sooner than the 4.6 billion years accepted today.

    Since then, old-earth advocates have pointed out that radioactive decay within the earth would greatly slow down the cooling process. 

    Young-earth advocates respond that, even given liberal assumptions concerning the amount of heat produced by radioactive decay, the earth would still cool to its current temperature much sooner than old-earth advocates allow.
    Reply
    There is a profusion of evidence for the Bible’s view of a young earth. 

    However, the old-earth perspective has held a monopoly in the public schools, in the major academic centers, and in the popular media for generations.

    It is no wonder then that most scientists share the old-earth perspective. It’s all they were taught growing up in school. It’s all they learned at the universities where they got their degrees. It’s what most of their colleagues profess.

    But there are dissenters among the scientific community, and their numbers are growing. Why? Because more and more scientists are confronting a growing body of evidence which challenges the old-earth paradigm.

    This is not to say that everyone who examines these evidences will reject the old-earth perspective. Some who have pondered these evidences regard them as anomalous, yet-to-be-explained phenomena. Some believe they don’t stand up under close scrutiny. Some view them as deliberate misrepresentations of the facts by religious zealots.

    There is no doubt that religious zealots have a tendency to distort facts when it suits their purposes.

    Old-earth zealots have the same tendency when their careers and reputations are on the line. It’s human nature. It is also true that some of the young-earth evidences which have been proposed over the years have not withstood close scrutiny. 

    But many others have, and the fact remains that a growing number of professionally trained scientists—experts in their fields—are accepting a young-earth perspective as being at least scientifically plausible, if not compelling.

    Here are a few of the relevant evidences for consideration:

    Continental Erosion and Fossil Remains.
    The continents are eroding at such a rate that, if not for tectonic uplift, meteoric dusting and volcanic influx, they would erode flat (Mt. Everest and all) in less than 25 million years.

    At this rate, high-altitude, million-year-old fossils should have long since eroded away. And yet they remain. The implication is that these fossils are not millions of years old. If this were true, the entire geologic column would need serious revision (see our article on the Geologic Column).

    Subterranean Fluid Pressure. 
    When a drill rig strikes oil, the oil sometimes gushes out in huge fountains. This is because the oil is often under huge amounts of pressure from the sheer weight of the rock sitting on top of it.

    Other subterranean fluids kept under pressure include natural gas and water. 

    The problem is, the rock above many pressurized subterranean fluid deposits is relatively permeable. The pressure should escape in less than 100,000 years. Yet these deposits remain highly pressurized. Once again, because of the supposed antiquity of these deposits and their location throughout the geologic column, this observation calls into question some of the interpretations which have led to the formulation of the column.

    Global Cooling. In the 19th century, the renowned physicist and inventor Lord Kelvin (William Thomson) was the first to point out that if the earth began in a white-hot molten state, it would have cooled to its current temperature billions of years sooner than the 4.6 billion years accepted today.

    Since then, old-earth advocates have pointed out that radioactive decay within the earth would greatly slow down the cooling process. 

    Young-earth advocates respond that, even given liberal assumptions concerning the amount of heat produced by radioactive decay, the earth would still cool to its current temperature much sooner than old-earth advocates allow.
     
    KittyKatz286
    KittyKatz286
    Veteran
    Participation Meter
    Joined: Feb, 2009
    Posts: 1988
    Posted: Dec. 22, 2011 - 3:19 AM ET #2768

    Quote Originally Posted by Rostos:

    Says the person who believesin aliens


    I don't "believe" in aliens. Any rational human being will agree that there probably are aliens somewhere in the universe. Given its vast size, it is completely irrational to think that out of trillions upon trillions of planets, there is only one with life on it. Proof is not necessary. All we need is to know is the size of the universe, the estimated number of galaxies and stars, and the estimated number of planets. The rest is simple math. Whether there are aliens or not, I don't think that affects the likelihood of a god existing (unless of course the aliens created the universe, but that's another theory).
    Reply
    Quote Originally Posted by Rostos:

    Says the person who believesin aliens


    I don't "believe" in aliens. Any rational human being will agree that there probably are aliens somewhere in the universe. Given its vast size, it is completely irrational to think that out of trillions upon trillions of planets, there is only one with life on it. Proof is not necessary. All we need is to know is the size of the universe, the estimated number of galaxies and stars, and the estimated number of planets. The rest is simple math. Whether there are aliens or not, I don't think that affects the likelihood of a god existing (unless of course the aliens created the universe, but that's another theory).
     
    matt4000
    matt4000
    Veteran
    Participation Meter
    Joined: Aug, 2007
    Posts: 1104
    Posted: Dec. 22, 2011 - 3:21 AM ET #2769

    There is a profusion of evidence for the Bible’s view of a young earth continued...

    Lunar Recession. The moon is slowly moving farther away from the earth. This has to do with the fact that the earth’s spin is slowing down due to tidal friction and other factors.

    Lunar recession was first observed by Edmund Halley in the late 1600s (the same Edmund Halley who is credited with being the first to predict the 76-year orbit of the famous comet which bears his name). 

    Given the rate of lunar recession today, the fact that it has gradually accelerated over time, and several other factors, physicists have determined that the earth-moon system could not have existed beyond 1.2 billion years (you can review the mathematical equations involved at https://www.creationscience.com/).

    This is 3.4billion years less time than old-earth advocates are willing to accept.
    Furthermore, the closer the moon gets to the earth, the greater its influence on our tides. We can’t go too far back in time before we would all drown twice a day.

    Helium diffusion from Precambrian Zircons. 
    Helium is produced within the earth by the radioactive decay of certain unstable elements (uranium and thorium being two such elements).

    Some of this decay takes place inside of crystals known as “zircons.” Helium diffuses from these zircons at known rates depending upon depth and temperature.

    Scientists have discovered that, in zircons where a billion years of uranium decay has allegedly taken place, too much helium remains—way too much helium. It appears as if the helium hasn’t had enough time to diffuse out of the crystals.

    This observation has a couple of implications.

    First, this observation may overturn a key assumption underlying radiometric dating (the most common old-earth dating technique). 

    Scientists believe that a billion years of uranium decay has taken place within these zircons because they make certain assumptions about the unobservable past on Carbon Dating.

    One of these assumptions is that radioactive decay has remained constant throughout the unobservable past. 

    Scientists have been able to vary decay rates in the lab, but most don’t believe that it actually happens in nature.

    However, if billions years of uranium decay has taken place so quickly that the helium produced hasn’t had enough time to escape the zircons, this may be strong evidence that radioactive decay rates were greatly accelerated in the unobservable past.

    Second, because the zircons came from Precambrian rocks below the geologic column, currently accepted old-earth interpretations of the geologic column may need serious revision (once again, see our article on the Geologic Column).

    These and numerous other scientific evidences for a young-earth theory give credence to the Bible’s account of the creation of the earth and universe as found in Genesis.


    Reply
    There is a profusion of evidence for the Bible’s view of a young earth continued...

    Lunar Recession. The moon is slowly moving farther away from the earth. This has to do with the fact that the earth’s spin is slowing down due to tidal friction and other factors.

    Lunar recession was first observed by Edmund Halley in the late 1600s (the same Edmund Halley who is credited with being the first to predict the 76-year orbit of the famous comet which bears his name). 

    Given the rate of lunar recession today, the fact that it has gradually accelerated over time, and several other factors, physicists have determined that the earth-moon system could not have existed beyond 1.2 billion years (you can review the mathematical equations involved at https://www.creationscience.com/).

    This is 3.4billion years less time than old-earth advocates are willing to accept.
    Furthermore, the closer the moon gets to the earth, the greater its influence on our tides. We can’t go too far back in time before we would all drown twice a day.

    Helium diffusion from Precambrian Zircons. 
    Helium is produced within the earth by the radioactive decay of certain unstable elements (uranium and thorium being two such elements).

    Some of this decay takes place inside of crystals known as “zircons.” Helium diffuses from these zircons at known rates depending upon depth and temperature.

    Scientists have discovered that, in zircons where a billion years of uranium decay has allegedly taken place, too much helium remains—way too much helium. It appears as if the helium hasn’t had enough time to diffuse out of the crystals.

    This observation has a couple of implications.

    First, this observation may overturn a key assumption underlying radiometric dating (the most common old-earth dating technique). 

    Scientists believe that a billion years of uranium decay has taken place within these zircons because they make certain assumptions about the unobservable past on Carbon Dating.

    One of these assumptions is that radioactive decay has remained constant throughout the unobservable past. 

    Scientists have been able to vary decay rates in the lab, but most don’t believe that it actually happens in nature.

    However, if billions years of uranium decay has taken place so quickly that the helium produced hasn’t had enough time to escape the zircons, this may be strong evidence that radioactive decay rates were greatly accelerated in the unobservable past.

    Second, because the zircons came from Precambrian rocks below the geologic column, currently accepted old-earth interpretations of the geologic column may need serious revision (once again, see our article on the Geologic Column).

    These and numerous other scientific evidences for a young-earth theory give credence to the Bible’s account of the creation of the earth and universe as found in Genesis.


     
    KittyKatz286
    KittyKatz286
    Veteran
    Participation Meter
    Joined: Feb, 2009
    Posts: 1988
    Posted: Dec. 22, 2011 - 3:22 AM ET #2770

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth_Society

    Should we believe them, too?
    Reply
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth_Society

    Should we believe them, too?
     
    matt4000
    matt4000
    Veteran
    Participation Meter
    Joined: Aug, 2007
    Posts: 1104
    Posted: Dec. 22, 2011 - 3:24 AM ET #2771

    I got tons of material from when I was in college and can access articles from my school's web page.

    That is some of what I still had on my files.

    Anyway, I am off to bed.
    Reply
    I got tons of material from when I was in college and can access articles from my school's web page.

    That is some of what I still had on my files.

    Anyway, I am off to bed.
     
    Rostos
    Rostos
    Hall of Fame
    Participation Meter
    Joined: Feb, 2009
    Posts: 27785
    Posted: Dec. 22, 2011 - 3:30 AM ET #2772

    Quote Originally Posted by KittyKatz286:


    I don't "believe" in aliens. Any rational human being will agree that there probably are aliens somewhere in the universe. Given its vast size, it is completely irrational to think that out of trillions upon trillions of planets, there is only one with life on it. Proof is not necessary. All we need is to know is the size of the universe, the estimated number of galaxies and stars, and the estimated number of planets. The rest is simple math. Whether there are aliens or not, I don't think that affects the likelihood of a god existing (unless of course the aliens created the universe, but that's another theory).

     

    Reply
    Quote Originally Posted by KittyKatz286:


    I don't "believe" in aliens. Any rational human being will agree that there probably are aliens somewhere in the universe. Given its vast size, it is completely irrational to think that out of trillions upon trillions of planets, there is only one with life on it. Proof is not necessary. All we need is to know is the size of the universe, the estimated number of galaxies and stars, and the estimated number of planets. The rest is simple math. Whether there are aliens or not, I don't think that affects the likelihood of a god existing (unless of course the aliens created the universe, but that's another theory).

     

     
    KittyKatz286
    KittyKatz286
    Veteran
    Participation Meter
    Joined: Feb, 2009
    Posts: 1988
    Posted: Dec. 22, 2011 - 3:34 AM ET #2773

    I don't even know what to do with you anymore. Proof of god isn't necessary either. I've said this. But I need circumstantial evidence. Something concrete.

    Let's go over to aliens for a moment. We have the circumstantial evidence as i stated above. What do we have that's concrete? Us. Humans. There is life on at least one planet. Therefore, we KNOW it is possible for life to develop. Therefore, it is possible for life to have developed elsewhere. Using this information, we can calculate the likelihood of there being life on other planets.

    Shifting back to god. We have nothing concrete. There is not definitely at least one god. We don't have the tools to formulate the probability of a god existing. We have nothing more than speculation.

    If you cannot grasp the difference between these two examples, then I cannot help you. An individual's capacity for learning is not the same for everyone. If you are unable to grasp this concept, it's not necessarily your fault and I won't hold it against you. But you cannot laugh at something simply because you don't understand it.
    Reply
    I don't even know what to do with you anymore. Proof of god isn't necessary either. I've said this. But I need circumstantial evidence. Something concrete.

    Let's go over to aliens for a moment. We have the circumstantial evidence as i stated above. What do we have that's concrete? Us. Humans. There is life on at least one planet. Therefore, we KNOW it is possible for life to develop. Therefore, it is possible for life to have developed elsewhere. Using this information, we can calculate the likelihood of there being life on other planets.

    Shifting back to god. We have nothing concrete. There is not definitely at least one god. We don't have the tools to formulate the probability of a god existing. We have nothing more than speculation.

    If you cannot grasp the difference between these two examples, then I cannot help you. An individual's capacity for learning is not the same for everyone. If you are unable to grasp this concept, it's not necessarily your fault and I won't hold it against you. But you cannot laugh at something simply because you don't understand it.
     
    Mikniks
    Mikniks
    Veteran
    Participation Meter
    Joined: Nov, 2010
    Posts: 1384
    Posted: Dec. 22, 2011 - 4:25 AM ET #2774

    The generally accepted age for the Earth and the rest of the solar system is about 4.55 billion years (plus or minus about 1%). This value is derived from several different lines of evidence.

    The oldest rocks which have been found so far (on the Earth) date to about 3.8 to 3.9 billion years ago (by several radiometric dating methods). Some of these rocks are sedimentary, and include minerals which are themselves as old as 4.1 to 4.2 billion years. Rocks of this age are relatively rare, however rocks that are at least 3.5 billion years in age have been found on North America, Greenland, Australia, Africa, and Asia.

    While these values do not compute an age for the Earth, they do establish a lower limit (the Earth must be at least as old as any formation on it). This lower limit is at least concordant with the independently derived figure of 4.55 billion years for the Earth's actual age.


    You guys can not be serious that you think the earth is 6,000 years old?  Did man hang out with dinosaurs then??  How stupid could you be?  Not to mention that Rostos says the bible doesn't mention the age, while matt and offensive do...  Make up your minds guys...

    Anyone who thinks the earth is 6,000 years old and believes that Noah put 10 millions animals on a boat must be, by definition, insane...  No rational human being can believe these things.  At least Rostos acknowledges the earth's actual age.

    Reply
    The generally accepted age for the Earth and the rest of the solar system is about 4.55 billion years (plus or minus about 1%). This value is derived from several different lines of evidence.

    The oldest rocks which have been found so far (on the Earth) date to about 3.8 to 3.9 billion years ago (by several radiometric dating methods). Some of these rocks are sedimentary, and include minerals which are themselves as old as 4.1 to 4.2 billion years. Rocks of this age are relatively rare, however rocks that are at least 3.5 billion years in age have been found on North America, Greenland, Australia, Africa, and Asia.

    While these values do not compute an age for the Earth, they do establish a lower limit (the Earth must be at least as old as any formation on it). This lower limit is at least concordant with the independently derived figure of 4.55 billion years for the Earth's actual age.


    You guys can not be serious that you think the earth is 6,000 years old?  Did man hang out with dinosaurs then??  How stupid could you be?  Not to mention that Rostos says the bible doesn't mention the age, while matt and offensive do...  Make up your minds guys...

    Anyone who thinks the earth is 6,000 years old and believes that Noah put 10 millions animals on a boat must be, by definition, insane...  No rational human being can believe these things.  At least Rostos acknowledges the earth's actual age.

     
     
    Mikniks
    Mikniks
    Veteran
    Participation Meter
    Joined: Nov, 2010
    Posts: 1384
    Posted: Dec. 22, 2011 - 4:33 AM ET #2775

    Quote Originally Posted by matt4000:

    I got tons of material from when I was in college and can access articles from my school's web page.

    That is some of what I still had on my files.

    Anyway, I am off to bed.


    You attended college???
    Reply
    Quote Originally Posted by matt4000:

    I got tons of material from when I was in college and can access articles from my school's web page.

    That is some of what I still had on my files.

    Anyway, I am off to bed.


    You attended college???
    All Forums | General Discussion
    «First Previous 111112113 ... 213214215 Next Last»

    Hot Forums IconHot Forum Topics

    • 🤢🥴💩_ Fubah's risky baseball bets _🥶😲🥵 461,603
    • PART DEUX 239
    • Serious Streak Survivor Strategies 1,918,435
    • Friday 10/16/2026 612
    • 🏈🏈🏈 Fubah2's risky CFB bets 275,738
    • I'm embarrassed for Trump supporters 61,493
    • NCAA FOOTBALL. 151 45,456
    • NCAA WEEK 7 *** Railroad to Paradise *** 10,425
    • Trump's legacy? 34,509
    • Ukraine..What's the Next Step? 8,165

    Warning - External Link

    Report User

    Thank you for reporting
    This content is abusive or harmful
    This post is spam
    An error has occurred
    This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

    Delete Post

    Are you sure you would like to remove this post?

    Remove Thread

    Are you sure you would like to remove this thread?

    Scan Results

    Login/Register

    Happy to have you join the conversation. To do so, please login or create an account.
    Accounts are free and easy to create.

    Search


    Loading…

    Loading…

    About Us
    Contact Us
    Careers
    Our Team
    Brand
    Testimonials
    Betting Guides
    Sportsbook Reviews
    Betting News
    Podcasts
    Responsible Gambling
    Betting Sites
    US Betting Sites
    Canada Betting Sites
    Canada Casinos
    Best Betting Apps
    Contests
    Streak Survivor
    King of Covers
    Ultimate Race
    Office Pools
    The Covers community has
    810,221
    lifetime members worldwide
    Join our community today
    Covers 30 Years Logo Established in 1995,
    Covers is the world
    leader in sports
    betting information.
    21+
    Gambling problem? Call 1-800-GAMBLER
    Help Privacy Privacy Choices Terms of Service Cookies Sitemap Forum
    YouTube logo
    Facebook logo
    Twitter logo
    Instagram logo
    LinkedIn logo
    Google News logo
    Covers is verified safe by:
    Evalon Logo Logo GPWA Logo GDPR logo Logo GeoTrust logo Logo PCI DSS logo Logo
    Covers Logo
    Copyright © 1995 - 2026 Genius Sports. All Rights Reserved.
    If you choose to make use of any information on this website including online sports betting services from any websites that may be featured on this website, we strongly recommend that you carefully check your local laws before doing so.It is your sole responsibility to understand your local laws and observe them strictly.Covers does not provide any advice or guidance as to the legality of online sports betting or other online gambling activities within your jurisdiction and you are responsible for complying with laws that are applicable to you in your relevant locality.Covers disclaims all liability associated with your use of this website and use of any information contained on it.As a condition of using this website, you agree to hold the owner of this website harmless from any claims arising from your use of any services on any third party website that may be featured by Covers.