UFO?
- Thread starter dherd
- Start date
Obviously it was doing fine or Xenu would not have dumped all the Thetans in the volcano.
“I spent years on here adamantly arguing something that I was clearly wrong about. But, this time - yes, this time - I’m definitely right even though I’m still wrong.”
"Researchers at UCLA and the University of Wisconsin-Madison have confirmed that microscopic fossils discovered in a nearly 3.5 billion-year-old piece of rock in Western Australia are the oldest fossils ever found and indeed the earliest direct evidence of life on Earth."
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/12/171218151815.htm
I think this is pretty relevant considering how the thread has gone
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/12/171218151815.htm
I think this is pretty relevant considering how the thread has gone
I imagine evidence looks quite different when viewing it through a pill head view.
Ok...ill try again because I'm really not following your point. The 65 million number was how long ago dinosaurs become extinct. I don't think anyone suggested that as the age of the earth. The number that has been universally accepted for the age of the earth is a little over 4.5 billion years. This has been arrived at by many metrics of measurement.
You've said you've come off of the 6000 number because you believe that the biblical lineage laid out in the bible doesn't make it explicit. I'm with you there. But where I'm losing you is why you believe it can't be as old as what scientist say. Your admission that the bible isn't definitive in this area allows you to accept the science without contradiction to your beliefs. But all I'm getting is that you can't imagine it being that old because you can't comprehend a number that big. You even suggest that I can't understand a number that big as well when you say...
"Do you have any concept of just how long that is?"
So I'm missing something here. Are you laying the entire basis of your belief on the fact that you can't imagine it? Or do you have a basis in science or religion that you're relying on?
Just trying to understand where you're coming from.
Don’t your two religions differ greatly on this subject? Do you just pick and choose which elements of each religion you follow/believe?
You’re correct. I’m basing it not on anything religious or scientific, but on the fact that 65 million years or 4.5 billion years is simply unfathomable to me. It’s just an opinion, but I just can’t see earth being that old.
I'm not answering the question any more. I'll just repeat...better 2 religions than none like you.
That says more about you than it does me. I'm not the one constantly claiming moral superiority. and to paraphrase the great bobby Bowden if you have two religions you ain't got one.
Got it. I guess it's a matter of perspective. If you think of it in terms that any period of time...in this instance 4.5 billion years...when sandwiched between eternities on both ends is just a bat of the eye. I think with that perspective it becomes more fathomable.
Scientific as you being a dumb fvck.
Test us what you know about Earth before homo sapiens.
So now your going against the word of god again. What youre saying is that before humans there was no earth. JUST THINK ABOUT THAT
He's a dumb fvck that can't remember which he picked up this morning...The Bible or Dianetics.
Really. This is as far back as I can go in the Bible......
Genesis 1King James Version (KJV)
1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
2 And the earth was without form, and void;
Try to keep up. You were asked what you know about the earth prior to homo sapeins. Your reply was it was without form and void. Thats true for verse 2 of the creation story. You ignore the rest of the verses where god created day and night land and sea, plants and animals. All of that was done BEFORE humans. We all know you will claim that what you said is not wrong blah blah blah and go into your semantic argument because thats all you have but at the end of the day you completely ignore scientific evidence yet take an allegorical, at best, story as fact.
And then there's those other verses where God made a bunch of stuff before us, and after each step he saw it was good. So either way, my science or you with The Bible, Earth was good before we were here. And thus you are a dumb fvck.
Up your peyote. Up your ass, while you are at it...it will probably get you higher that way.
I want to make sure we are on the same page here:
You can't fathom the Earth being millions (or billions) of years old . . . but you find it entirely reasonable and likely that some cosmic Jewish zombie can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him that you accept him as your master, so that he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because some rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree.
I think I understand your point now.
I had no idea you were expecting me to copy and paste the entire chapter, malarkey brain. Of course the earth was here before humans.
There's a difference between scientific evidence and fact.
I certainly don't need for someone like you telling me what parts of the Bible are allegory.
You're a pill headed moron. Everyone here knows you were arguing for the old earth theory.
A. It's not a theory.
B. In this particular post I was arguing you don't even know Genesis 1 very well. Are you still claiming The Bible does not say the Earth was good before humans?
a. ok, belief then
b. i know genesis better than you. i never claimed it to begin with.
Extra I would like you to explain to us morons the difference between scientific proof/evidence and fact
Ah, the semantics game. You disagreed with my statement, but your exact choice of words allows your deluded brain to say you never claimed anything. The same old shit from you. You know what would be different? You telling us exactly which church you attend. I really want to meet this Baptist preacher that accepts Scientology as equal to his beliefs.
