Atheism is a religion

[Burlyman]

Everybody knows that it's statistically impossible and a ridiculous notion for the universe to make itself. There is no evidence of intelligence ever coming into existence without intelligence, and Charles Darwin needed the "slow moving" nonsense just because evilution by definition is unobservable and therefore not science. haha!

Multiverse hypothesis isn't even an hypothesis because it isn't even anything that could be observed! It's just a ridiculous mathematical trick meant to avoid the idea of the Deity without seeming biased, unprofessional, or stupid. Same thing for the latest "answer" to the "where did the singularity come from?" question. "Scientists" (spin doctors) use the same tactics that they accuse Christians of doing (let's face it, "religion," is just a euphemism for Christianity because they hate the biblical Lord of lords). That tactic is circular reasoning (and sometimes ad hominem stupidity). Stupid people have varying belief systems just like smart people, so the "religion is stupid" implication is a ridiculously arrogant and childish evasion of the problem, which is the ignorance of these so-called scientists (they lost that title with me because they don't care about truth) and the flaws within the currently accepted theories.

The reason I say atheism is a religion is because the mainstream scientific community has their celebrity physicists push the mainstream view so they can control every good idea with a hastily concocted mathematical theory and pass it off as physics, and because anyone who publishes experimental results or an article or even advocates a viewpoint that doesn't perpetuate the established belief system or economic model gets ridiculed, violently opposed, suppressed, and discredited. String "Theory" is unprovable by definition and merely postpones the problem between quantum mechanics and general relativity and multiplies the problem by a factor of 10. Why are there topics that are off-limits in a "noble search for truth?"

Einstein was right: quantum mechanics is at best an incomplete theory, and Relativity is, as Albert Michelson once said, "a monster." When questioned, the "scientific" priesthood's fans will answer "because Einstein/Max Born said so" in a variety of ways. That's why I posted that question about the speed of light; nobody used his own logic or any for that matter.

Discuss.

[vision]

Lots of semantics here.

[Foil]

So, to summarize, you're suggesting that:

• Atheists believe the universe created itself
• Darwin's theory is nonsense and unobservable
• Theories about a multiverse are mathematical deceptions
• Scientists hate Christians and don't accept the truth
• The scientific community has celebrities pushing mathematically unsound ideas and discrediting other ideas in order to control minds
• Quantum mechanics and relativity aren't what they are cracked up to be
• Nobody answered your question (?) about the speed of light because they didn't use their own logic

Okay, let's see. No, no, no, no, ha, no, and... what question are you referring to?

[Burlyman]

This whole board has been semantics since D4 was cancelled. LOL What a silly thing to say.

Foil, it's an old (Socratic ) post I made last year. Most mainstream scientists hate the Christian God. I didn't say all scientists hate Christians. I didn't say the math didn't work, I said the theory is incomplete as is the philosophy since the latter is almost nonexistent since it's not universally agreed upon. Science isn't "open to interpretation."

Foolish mortals ^_^

[Tunnelcat]

Even the very existence of a God must mean there are other dimensions or universes. God certainly doesn't live on Earth as a physical being and if God is omnipotent, that God is using powers that don't follow the natural laws that we see in our universe. God is an anomaly whose very presence can't be explained by observation either.

[Burlyman]

Of course there are other dimensions, that's why the aforementioned priesthood needs to control that idea so people don't gain too much technical creativity (not that the majority of the public understands enough about science anyway). God isn't unobserved, otherwise people wouldn't believe in Him. To believe something means something happened that convinced the observer. The Lord of the Hebrews and the gentiles doesn't like being put to the test. Even if I'm wrong about the Lord being the Creator, you have to admit that abiogenesis is just silly. I mean let's be honest, folks. It represents a fundamental breakdown of human logic and emotional maturity.

My point was that some sort of divine and powerful intellect created reality, and let's face it, physics is based on job competition with authority figures who are comfortable with a belief system but too cowardly and irresponsible to admit it (or just willingly ignorant).

[Jeff250]

I'm going to respond to a couple of these because I've heard them brought up on the DBB before, and I don't think I've ever satisfactorily responded to them.

Everybody knows that it's statistically impossible for the universe to make itself.

How can you say that our universe is unlikely without knowing what distribution we drew the universe from?

Multiverse hypothesis isn't even an hypothesis because it isn't even anything that could be observed!

The impetus of the multiverse hypothesis is to reduce the initial information complexity of the "verse" (if you will). In science, there's been a trend of showing how complex things, whether that be humans from single-celled organisms or planets from molecular clouds, can arise much simpler initial conditions, ultimately from up to the surprisingly simple initial conditions of the universe itself. The multiverse hypothesis proposes that this trend goes back even further than the universe's initial conditions and that even those conditions themselves can be explained by something even simpler yet.

Since you seem opposed to the idea that complex things could have always existed or come out of no where, I'm surprised that you would appeal to the existence of God to solve the problem, who surely has more information complexity than the initial conditions of the universe, and certainly much more than any proposed multiverse. The complexity of God's personality alone must be enormous, and to think that something like that could have just existed but not something as simple as the initial conditions of the universe is surprising to me.

[Spidey]

The battle between on and off is eternal, we exist in the maelstrom at the boundary of these two states.

You are raising the age old question…how could something come from nothing, but the problem is the exact same logic can be applied to a god…like as in…where did it come from…if a god could have existed forever…then why not existence itself. (which is what I believe)

[Nightshade]

So, to summarize, you're suggesting that:

• Atheists believe the universe created itself
• Darwin's theory is nonsense and unobservable
• Theories about a multiverse are mathematical deceptions
• Scientists hate Christians and don't accept the truth
• The scientific community has celebrities pushing mathematically unsound ideas and discrediting other ideas in order to control minds
• Quantum mechanics and relativity aren't what they are cracked up to be
• Nobody answered your question (?) about the speed of light because they didn't use their own logic

Okay, let's see. No, no, no, no, ha, no, and... what question are you referring to?

I'm still wondering Foil. You an atheist yet?

[sigma]

Trying priests to present atheism as a religion, that is, that disbelief in God is belief in the absence of God, like the fact that people can neither believe in nothing, it may look convincing argument is only for people who are prone to religiosity. Disbelief in God can not be a matter of faith, because atheism is devoid of all common to all religions features and attributes, such as deities, community, saints, priests, afterlife, temples, mosques, synagogues, religious rites, sacrifices, etc.
While I can understand from a scientific point of view, that religion, as religious belief of people in the real existence of supernatural beings, special properties of individual objects, special psychological state, it is a kind of simulation or Interpretation science for people, who can not or do not want to understand the structure of the world through science. I know exactly that there are strange supernatural phenomena, which nevertheless sooner or later will be understood and used by science.
Again, I can understand why even the atheists and skeptics call on God's help in cases of danger to life, severe stress, terrible diagnosis, etc. Perhaps this psychological feature of the brain is akin to the instinct of self-preservation and is one way of mobilizing the reserve capacity of the organism to combat the threat to him.
Although from a social point of view, belief in God is undoubtedly a good way to adapt in society for most people, as well as for understanding the moral values ​​of society for antisocial individuals. But that's another topic.

[Tunnelcat]

Of course there are other dimensions, that's why the aforementioned priesthood needs to control that idea so people don't gain too much technical creativity (not that the majority of the public understands enough about science anyway). God isn't unobserved, otherwise people wouldn't believe in Him. To believe something means something happened that convinced the observer. The Lord of the Hebrews and the gentiles doesn't like being put to the test. Even if I'm wrong about the Lord being the Creator, you have to admit that abiogenesis is just silly. I mean let's be honest, folks. It represents a fundamental breakdown of human logic and emotional maturity.

Well, ALL life does consist of minerals and compounds readily found on this planet. It's just a question of what process or conditions, or as many believe, some entity, caused those compounds to combine in the right forms creating the living organisms that reside on this planet. Is there some supernatural force or energy that resides in these life forms that makes them alive and not just a chemical soup, or can life spontaneously form with the right chemical and environmental conditions? What if we find out there is life on other planets, and that it looks radically different from life here? Would that cause an issue with many people's beliefs about life and it's origins?

My point was that some sort of divine and powerful intellect created reality, and let's face it, physics is based on job competition with authority figures who are comfortable with a belief system but too cowardly and irresponsible to admit it (or just willingly ignorant).

That begs this chicken and egg question, did something else create this divine intellect who created us? And if so, why? Then why would this entity go on to create such a complicated and varied organic ecosystem in the first place? If life was created to serve this entity, what does this entity get out of creating, watching and manipulating common organic life? Ego? Entertainment? Experimentation? The existence of a God seems almost as far fetched of a concept as does evolution and spontaneous life.

[sigma]

I'm almost certain that the creation of various forms of life is just entertainment for more perfect beings who created us. For example, as people create virtual worlds of computer games. In any other way I can not explain that people can not find a common language with each other and are constantly in a state of war and confrontation permanetnoy with each other. If there is a paradise on Earth, it would be just plain boring. Our Creator gives us as much knowledge as it is profitable. Our Creator regularly modifies the code matrix of life on Earth, to improve themselves. But, of course, the Creator gives the time that we have gained strength for the next global war and to humanity as slowly as possible could come close to the knowledge of technology of our Creator. Not need to be clairvoyant to understand it. And while this system is so perfect that the Creator does not even need too often amend its creation Natural activity of the Sun and its influence on the Earth are already regenerating mechanism of life. While on the other hand, wars is an incentive for progress... In short, only God knows how it actually works It is necessary to learn and know at least what we can know today.

[woodchip]

What if we find out there is life on other planets, and that it looks radically different from life here? Would that cause an issue with many people's beliefs about life and it's origins?

"Pope Francis Talks About Aliens; Says He Would Welcome Martians to Receive Baptism"

[sigma]

Is there some supernatural force or energy that resides in these life forms that makes them alive and not just a chemical soup, or can life spontaneously form with the right chemical and environmental conditions?

I can quite safely assume that the energy field of every living creature is varied for different species and large enough. This can be seen in the behavior of animals. For example, I can understand that sharks can smell blood a kilometer away because of their highly sensitive receptors. But the fact that my dog​​, which is located on the seventeenth floor, ran to the door and starts to whine when someone known to her only by car pulls up to the house, I can only explain the existence of a large energy field of living organisms. It just can not be used in these conditions, even the most sensitive their hearing and smell receptors. By the way that's why I think there is such a thing as energy vampires. And that's why a person is experiencing a lot of stress, or a burst of energy, being in large crowds, such as in the city. Just some people eat other people's energy fields, and some give. That's why extroverts feel comfortable in a large society, while introverts are returning home from the office in such a state that they were all day unloading wagons with coal. But it's not a soul in the religious sense, it's just an physical energy field that have many physical objects, in my opinion. Robots can be so similar to human by copying their behavior, emotions, and even smell that can suspect the existence of the soul in them

[Tunnelcat]

I'm almost certain that the creation of various forms of life is just entertainment for more perfect beings who created us. For example, as people create virtual worlds of computer games. In any other way I can not explain that people can not find a common language with each other and are constantly in a state of war and confrontation permanetnoy with each other. If there is a paradise on Earth, it would be just plain boring. Our Creator gives us as much knowledge as it is profitable. Our Creator regularly modifies the code matrix of life on Earth, to improve themselves. But, of course, the Creator gives the time that we have gained strength for the next global war and to humanity as slowly as possible could come close to the knowledge of technology of our Creator. Not need to be clairvoyant to understand it. And while this system is so perfect that the Creator does not even need too often amend its creation Natural activity of the Sun and its influence on the Earth are already regenerating mechanism of life. While on the other hand, wars is an incentive for progress... In short, only God knows how it actually works It is necessary to learn and know at least what we can know today.

That is one of my theories, that humans, and earth, are just a gaint lab experiment by some other being, or beings, in the universe and that being has become bored with the whole mess experiment and has now decided to let that experiment run down it's clock to either eventual self-destruction, or evolution into something else unexpected.

I can quite safely assume that the energy field of every living creature is varied for different species and large enough. This can be seen in the behavior of animals. For example, I can understand that sharks can smell blood a kilometer away because of their highly sensitive receptors. But the fact that my dog​​, which is located on the seventeenth floor, ran to the door and starts to whine when someone known to her only by car pulls up to the house, I can only explain the existence of a large energy field of living organisms. It just can not be used in these conditions, even the most sensitive their hearing and smell receptors. By the way that's why I think there is such a thing as energy vampires. And that's why a person is experiencing a lot of stress, or a burst of energy, being in large crowds, such as in the city. Just some people eat other people's energy fields, and some give. That's why extroverts feel comfortable in a large society, while introverts are returning home from the office in such a state that they were all day unloading wagons with coal. But it's not a soul in the religious sense, it's just an physical energy field that have many physical objects, in my opinion. Robots can be so similar to human by copying their behavior, emotions, and even smell that can suspect the existence of the soul in them

Now you're getting into telepathy, OBE's and morphogenetic fields and the question of the existence of a soul. Do organisms have these things? Most times, I'm usually laughed at for even thinking such concepts exist. But if all humans have a soul that's made up of some form of energy, what's so strange about telepathy and other morphogenetic fields while alive? There's also the OBE's, or "out of body experiences", both in sleep and when someone has technically "died" but has been resuscitated back to life. The "High shelf OBE experiment".

"Pope Francis Talks About Aliens; Says He Would Welcome Martians to Receive Baptism"

What if they landed and said that we have to convert to their "religion" because it was the "correct" religion, or else die as galactic blasphemers instead?

[woodchip]

"Pope Francis Talks About Aliens; Says He Would Welcome Martians to Receive Baptism"

What if they landed and said that we have to convert to their "religion" because it was the "correct" religion, or else die as galactic blasphemers instead?

Good question.

[Burlyman]

I'm going to respond to a couple of these because I've heard them brought up on the DBB before, and I don't think I've ever satisfactorily responded to them.

Everybody knows that it's statistically impossible for the universe to make itself.

How can you say that our universe is unlikely without knowing what distribution we drew the universe from?

Who says I don't know what the distribution is?

Multiverse hypothesis isn't even an hypothesis because it isn't even anything that could be observed!

The impetus of the multiverse hypothesis is to reduce the initial information complexity of the "verse" (if you will). In science, there's been a trend of showing how complex things, whether that be humans from single-celled organisms or planets from molecular clouds, can arise much simpler initial conditions, ultimately from up to the surprisingly simple initial conditions of the universe itself.

Obviously there has never been a "planet" observed to be forming from nebulae. Like I already stated there haven't been millions of years of observations so it can't be science. People just believe whatever they were told in school without being research scientists or astronomers themselves just because they might not lie if they were scientists... authority as truth instead of truth as authority, and now atheism is the new trendy religion. Christianity was co-opted by Catholicism and Martin Luther's fake reformation, and now atheism is the cool thing with the kiddies of yesteryear, and "new age" cults for anyone who doesn't like any of the conventional religions.

...you seem opposed to the idea that complex things could have always existed or come out of nowhere...

Says who?

You guys are being slowly conditioned to believe that "aliens" can come from outer space from other planets just so the religions can be fake brought down by people who have no idea what atheism or science-fiction has to do with anything in the first place, why they should care, or how to find answers to such questions and what one should do with such knowledge. These people make up the vast majority of "planet" earth and they just buy into every news story hook line and sinker and they never question anything about what it's leading up to or what happens to their comfortable little bubble at the end.

Be your own scientist... it makes more sense than blindly believing whatever the textbooks say. Just because you can build a few cool toys with it doesn't mean it's "our" best guess. I'm just saying.

[Jeff250]

How can you say that our universe is unlikely without knowing what distribution we drew the universe from?

Who says I don't know what the distribution is?

If you know it, then tell us--from what distribution was the universe sampled?

Obviously there has never been a "planet" observed to be forming from nebulae. Like I already stated there haven't been millions of years of observations so it can't be science.

Science is coming up with hypotheses and then testing those hypotheses' predictions. Nothing in the scientific method requires direct observation.

...you seem opposed to the idea that complex things could have always existed or come out of nowhere...

Says who?

If you don't, then why do you have difficulty with the idea that the universe could have always existed?

[Burlyman]

If you know it, then tell us--from what distribution was the universe sampled?

Think about how complex all the organisms are... they have to be built exactly to function properly... and all the problems with fine tuning... one can't just say parallel "universes" have less gravity or more whatever just to fit one's disdain for theism. No alternate universe or timeline has ever been observed so you can't just say "well hmm these other universes must have different physical qualities!"

Nobody finds a book and then says "hmm! There must've been a billion monkeys with a billion typewriters and just by chance a novel came out of them." Obviously theism is the best guess, even if you think He isn't a Deity.

If you don't, then why do you have difficulty with the idea that the universe could have always existed?

I don't.

[Jeff250]

You can take one of two paths. You can explain how complex organisms came from something even more complex, making the original problem even worse, or you can explain how complex organisms came from something much simpler, making the original problem better.

[sigma]

...Obviously there has never been a "planet" observed to be forming from nebulae. Like I already stated there haven't been millions of years of observations so it can't be science.

Absolute nonsense. Scientists do not need millions of years of observing the Universe. Starry sky that we see today, is already past. And depending on the distance to the object space, we can observe the different stages of their development. Conclusions drawn on the basis of differences in the radiation and spectrum of objects in the universe, are sufficiently reliable. Including by studying the CMB proto universe, as a source of understanding of the processes occurring in more than 14 billion years ago. Astronomy is not a science, where it is profitable to lie, for example, to prove that the universe is evident when scaling is clearly visible cellular structure, where clusters of galaxies are the walls of the cells, between which a void. Because it is easy to check from various independent sources. Unlike most religious postulates and assertions. Some people simply want to know, and some people want to believe. That's the whole difference between them. Religion pacifies the human psyche, like a drug, while people with a scientific mind is always doomed to look painfully real truth.

[sigma]

Well, I can only assume that telepathy as unpromising way of transmitting information in organisms that have other organs and means of communication over long distances. I think you do not want to use the capabilities of the brain to develop telepathy price deprivation other usual organs of perception and interaction with the environment. Though of course, related interaction and hostile energy fields in the period of their strong emotional outburst has been observed for a long time. It is still poorly understood. I'm sure you have had in life occasions when you had a strong unaccountable anxiety before unpleasant events. I suspect that it was the interaction of wave energy fields that sent you the information about the dangers. If this feature of the brain can be enough to learn and use that you people are not looked upon as crazy, and they could be taken seriously keen reluctance of some sensitive people to sit in a particular plane or ship, I think you would find a way to save a lot of lives and avoid a lot of man-made disasters.

[sigma]

Parallel worlds precisely is, though, if only because we can perceive the space surrounding us only within the capabilities of our body and instruments invented by us to access the knowledge of parallel worlds. But it's still appliances with disabilities that we have laid them in our understanding of the universe. Without a doubt, this is not enough. Several times I witnessed the events that can not be explained by any of eminent atmospheric phenomena, physical laws and hardly can be recorded on audio and video. Are yet any strange ***** things that can not be explained and of even fairly educated person.
Ahahaha although I've been recently saw a man on the street who, judging by his behavior, clearly saw someone who was not in the reality. He talked with them and even waved his hands about these creatures, trying to defend against them. But I think we shall not consider cases that relate to psychiatry.

[Tunnelcat]

"Pope Francis Talks About Aliens; Says He Would Welcome Martians to Receive Baptism"

What if they landed and said that we have to convert to their "religion" because it was the "correct" religion, or else die as galactic blasphemers instead?

Good question.

Even I would tell them to go f**k off. Of course, that would mean intergalactic war if everyone on earth with an ounce of principle did that, and you can be damn tootin' that's what people on earth would do too.

Well, I can only assume that telepathy as unpromising way of transmitting information in organisms that have other organs and means of communication over long distances. I think you do not want to use the capabilities of the brain to develop telepathy price deprivation other usual organs of perception and interaction with the environment. Though of course, related interaction and hostile energy fields in the period of their strong emotional outburst has been observed for a long time. It is still poorly understood. I'm sure you have had in life occasions when you had a strong unaccountable anxiety before unpleasant events. I suspect that it was the interaction of wave energy fields that sent you the information about the dangers. If this feature of the brain can be enough to learn and use that you people are not looked upon as crazy, and they could be taken seriously keen reluctance of some sensitive people to sit in a particular plane or ship, I think you would find a way to save a lot of lives and avoid a lot of man-made disasters.

You should be married to someone for a long time. There have been times that I swear my husband and I could read each others thoughts before we speak. But then again, it could be that we just know each other too well.

[Burlyman]

Anyway it's a pointless debate. LOL People will come up with all kinds of nonsensical reasons to try to justify the "simplicity" of swiss cheese theories just because they don't want to believe in a God whom they don't like. I like my theory better.

[callmeslick]

Anyway it's a pointless debate. LOL People will come up with all kinds of nonsensical reasons to try to justify the "simplicity" of swiss cheese theories just because they don't want to believe in a God whom they don't like. I like my theory better.

lessee....you spend excessive verbiage pooh-poohing a lot of stuff that is at least partially proven, simply because it doesn't agree with your God fairy-tale, and then denigrate Scientists? Yeesh.
And, to boot, when the heat starts getting put to your ludicrous assumptions, you call it a 'pointless debate'. Indeed.

[Tunnelcat]

You realize slick, that we can't prove the existence of God, nor can we prove what process created the universe and the life on this planet. Everything is either faith, supposition or theory. The only concrete thing we know by observation is that the earth is far older than what the Bible claims and that organisms have been evolving on this planet for millennia. The Bible does not explain that omission. Since I'm older and closer to death, I'll probably find out before you. But then, I won't be able to tell you about it once I get there either, if a "there" exists.

[sigma]

Since I'm older and closer to death, I'll probably find out before you. But then, I won't be able to tell you about it once I get there either, if a "there" exists.

I'm not old, but I know very well how change the human consciousness, which is on the verge of death. Because I experienced it. If very briefly say, you begin to realize the true value of life. Actually, I'm sure that ordinary people need to listen to the people who are on the verge of death. This experience really could help avoid a lot of nonsense and conflicts for people.
This is just a guess, but I think that because you're already a man today, that is, you already belong to a clearly defined group of physical energy, most likely in your past life you were a man, and most likely in your future life you will become a man again. Just on the basis of specific energy conservation. That would be stupid to turn you into a tree or a fish, for example This goes against the law of the observed periodicity. Most likely, some time after your death, the world will be born a new little tunnelcat (however, I'm not sure which sex).The same thing will happen to all of us

[CUDA]

the earth is far older than what the Bible claims

How old does the Bible claim the earth is?

[Tunnelcat]

the earth is far older than what the Bible claims

How old does the Bible claim the earth is?

According to Creation Wiki and the Bible, around 6,422 old, give or take. Not even near the ballpark.

sigma, I'm almost 60 years old. I'm closer to death than life and my body is giving out slowly. I'll know soon enough.

[Top Gun]

"Pope Francis Talks About Aliens; Says He Would Welcome Martians to Receive Baptism"

What if they landed and said that we have to convert to their "religion" because it was the "correct" religion, or else die as galactic blasphemers instead?

Good question.

I feel like the entire planet would implode in a sudden wave of irony.

[sigma]

standard life expectancy of modern man about 82-85 years. Moreover, women live longer than men, as a rule. So you still too early to write his will By the way, here's my neighbor recently died during a game of football with the young guys. And two days later he could celebrate his 83 birthday...

[CUDA]

the earth is far older than what the Bible claims

How old does the Bible claim the earth is?

According to Creation Wiki and the Bible, around 6,422 old, give or take.

please show me in the Bible where it says that.

and fyi 6422 years (give or take) is how long man has been on the earth. NOT how old the earth is.

[Ferno]

oh my god, why did I click this thread?

oh wait I know. I was bored.

[Sergeant Thorne]

Yes, the earth is a lot older than the Bible says it is.

[Tunnelcat]

the earth is far older than what the Bible claims

How old does the Bible claim the earth is?

According to Creation Wiki and the Bible, around 6,422 old, give or take.

please show me in the Bible where it says that.

and fyi 6422 years (give or take) is how long man has been on the earth. NOT how old the earth is.

Well, you got me there. The Bible has no actual timeline with any actual data. Too bad the writers were a little sloppy their record keeping on what happened when, but hey, they were a pretty superstitious and scientifically uninformed group back in the old Biblical days. Plus, you'd better go tell those idiots that run the creation wiki page and that creation theme park that the earth is NOT 6000 years old and that humans didn't run around with dinosaurs in the distant past. Kinda makes all you smart Christians look ignorant and uninformed.

BUT, humanoids and humans have been around far longer than the Bible seems to indicate, and the Bible makes absolutely no mention of ancient humanoids and humans that predate modern man. Some of these humanoids even date back millions of years in age. Humans certainly weren't around at the time of the dinosaurs either. If they were, the fossil record would show it. Besides, we'd have been eaten for lunch in an instant. Maybe dinosaurs were God's first experiment with life on earth before He thought of humans? Big and dumb must have gotten boring after all those millennia, so He wiped all that out and started a clean slate with small and smart for his next rev.

http://www.livescience.com/22529-oldest ... -asia.html

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news ... midus.html

[Sergeant Thorne]

It is possible to trace the timeline from Biblical genealogies to the time of Jesus Christ, then from Christ to the present using our timelines. My brother graphed it out once. Then you add 5 days for creation, and you have the age of the earth/universe. Like it or don't--it's certainly in there.

[CUDA]

"If" you believe in the literal 6 days of creation.

[Sergeant Thorne]

"If" you believe in the literal 6 days of creation.

And "if" you don't you still have a problem, because the scientific community says man has been around longer than the Bible does last I checked.

[CUDA]

"IF" You believe what the scientific community say