Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire You call this science? 2 billion year error?

No I didn't hear of that drivel and neither did any other legitimate scientist. So I googled it. Guess what? It comes from the Creation Science Institute.

The Creation Science Institute is a bunch of loons who say, "I want to believe something so I'll make up some evidence to support it."

Real scientists say, "I have discovered some evidence so I will put forth a theory to explain it and then test the theory by seeing if what it predicst is true."

See the difference?

Why do you think we're so dumb that we would believe stuff from the Creation Science Institute? You must be embarrassed and ashamed of your own beliefs. Otherwise you woud not try to hide the source of your wackdoodle theories.

I gott'a put Ringy on ignore. I actually loose IQ points when I read one of his responses.
(Got precious few to loose so gotta be judicious.)

And the Jews ripped him off from the Zoroastrians.

Contrary to the Biblical claims, Judaism didn't start at the beginning of time. It grew out of the older religions of the region.

In 2002, Hawkins et al. found no evidence for redshift quantization in a sample of 1647 galaxy-quasar pairs from the 2dF Galaxy Redshift Survey:

"Given that there are almost eight times as many data points in this sample as in the previous analysis by Burbidge & Napier (2001), we must conclude that the previous detection of a periodic signal arose from the combination of noise and the effects of the window function."[28]

Seems that many scholars believe that Zoro was born about 650 BC ..... more like likely that Zoro ripped many ideas from Judaism, not the reverse.

Nah....

It only counts when scientists believe something.

Your off about 14 centuries, but that's what I've come to expect from you.

The possibility a Roman soldier knocked-up Mary is too earthly and rational.

how could you get folks who believed in mighty pagan Gods to switch to something as ordinary as that?

Spice it up with mysticism and you just might have some takers.

Nope, you’re way off target. Just what I would expect for you. Take a look at Wikipedia.... Zoroastrianism does not even enter the record until 5 centuries BC.

Secular scholars are trending to the 650 BC date and the notion that he lived in1700 BC is not supported.


Edit.... https://www.britannica.com/biography/Zarathustra

https://www.ancient.eu/zoroaster/

Modern scholars believe that Zoroaster must have lived at some point between c. 1500 and c. 600 BCE.
The 600 BCE limit is based on the fact that the Avesta does not contain a single reference to a ruler of the Achaemenid Empire,
which was the dominant power in Persia beginning in 550 BCE. The Avesta is believed to have been composed in eastern Persia,
which is why one would expect these texts to mention an Achaemenid ruler if its composition was later than 550 BCE. The earlier
date in the range, 1500 BCE, is based on linguistic evidence found in the Avesta. This work is composed of several different texts
and one of these texts, the Yasna, is considered to be the oldest of the Avestan texts. Its language is Old Avestan (sometimes called
Gathic Avestan), which is grammatically comparable to the language of the Indian text known as Rig Veda, since the languages of
Persia and India belong to the same language family (the Indo-European Languages family). It is therefore believed that the Rig Veda
and the Avesta are about the same age, dating to c. 1500 BCE. The range of speculation for Zoroaster’s life is wide. Saying that he
lived in around 1000 BCE, give or take a century or so, is an estimation that would be acceptable to most scholars.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/zoroastrian/history/zoroaster_1.shtml

Zoroastrianism was founded by the Prophet Zoroaster (or Zarathustra) in ancient Iran approximately 3500 years ago.
The precise date of the founding of Zoroastrianism is uncertain. An approximate date of 1200-1500 BCE has been established through
archaeological evidence and linguistic comparisons with the Hindu text, the Rig Veda.

Ya know,

If ya cut out alla the bullshit, that makes a lotta sense.

It's considered the oldest Monotheistic religion, and like Judaism, likely had it's roots in older polytheistic religions of the area.
https://www.history.com/topics/religion/zoroastrianism

As for the legends of Zoroaster himself, considering the range of claims considering when and where he was born, I consider it unlikely he existed as a discrete individual, but Satan was borrowed from the Zoroastrians during the first diaspora in Babylon, we have the evidence of how their text evolved during and after their stay.

There's been many rewrites and evolution during the 2500 years of your religion, and even more if you include the history of it's predecessors that lead up to it.

As long as your feeble mind finds comfort with talkings snakes , virgin births, walking on water and corpses coming to life
and disappeariing into the clouds ...

one night you will see Santa fly across the sky and come down your chimney, you just have to believe it enough.

This thing has a long, long way to go before it catches up with that "Comey" thread.

Never claimed ta believe any a that.

Truth is, if any of the "scientific" bullshit you true believers post actually made any sense, you wouldn't hafta try and discredit theology in support of it.

So you consider christian beliefs wacky?


I prefer to call it scrutinising mythology.

Mom made me a cape so I could play Zorro, that's all I know about it. The other side was red for days I felt like being Superman.

I think if scientologists had any beliefs that didn't rely on faith, they could post em and support em, without havin ta denigrate theology as bein illogical.

Tryin ta argue that somethin else may make less sense, doesn't prove that what you have faith in, makes sense.