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

Still no evidence that a single one of the countless gods that humans believed in actually exist.

Meanwhile, even now, there is no agreement between Christians, Jews or Muslims on the nature of the God of the bible, supposedly being the same god.

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.
.

This thread was started by a creationist in order to denigrate science.

And rightfully so, cause science is lookin stoopid bein off by whatever billion years.

Assumin the *latest* "scientific" belief is accurate.

But all you got in defense of that stupidity is grade school retorts bout how aspects of theology don't jibe.

And that's no defense of the difference in faith "scientists" may have in the age of the universe.

And rightfully so, cause science is lookin stoopid bein off by whatever billion years.

No. We have various lines of evidence, with beliefs apportioned to the quality of various lines.

scientists can and do admit to being wrong, whilst creationists remain adamant.

but you don't believe all that mumbo jumbo christians stubbornly adhere to.

Ya know,

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

Yet you've spent considerable time in this very thread, not to mention a hundred others, denigrating "various" differing, but similar, theological beliefs.

Which the believers of those various beliefs, have apportioned relative to their assessment of the quality of various lines.

If "they're" less intelligent for those beliefs, as you righteously allege, they're only different in kind, not degree.

Hahaha. TFT and TFF.

Fubi has already told us that he considers your wacky christian belliefs a load of nonsense.

Why do you seek the support of a non-believer?...none other than a mark of desperation.

Ok that is complete BS...not all scientists even study this field. How do you know how many Ph.D scientists switch which side of the argument they are on? Could it also be that creationists might be far more reluctant to change their views do to the threat of their soul burning in hell forever if they dare to question the issue?

I'm not at all sure that man is simply a more highly evolved animal, it seems to me we are too different than any other creature in too many ways for that to be the case, but those differences are not so much physical. I don't care if evolution perfectly describes how our bodies developed, but there is a whole lot more to us than body, and that's where the big differences lie.

well you either believe in talkings snakes , virgin births, walking on water and corpses coming to life
and disappeariing into the clouds....or you don't.

..if you don't believe such , then how can it not be considered nonsense by you?

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.

Simple minds caricature theological parables as a way of compensating for their lack of the capacity to acknowledge the inherent truth contained within the parables.

It interferes with their desperate need to feel superior.

I have the capacity to respect others by not denigrating their particular faith, tho I might not be of the same faith.

Simple minds caricature theological parables as a way of compensating for their lack of the capacity to acknowledge the inherent truth contained within the parables.

It interferes with their desperate need to feel superior.

I have the capacity to respect others by not denigrating their particular faith, tho I might not be of the same faith.

I agree, no need to denigrate anyone for their beliefs. Just out of curiosity, do you consider the stories of Genesis to be fact, as written,or allegorical?