warri0r45

Dude, are you gonna see them when they swing by Sydney around April/May this year? I'm seeing them here in Brissy for the 2nd time, first time was killer. I'd definately reccomend seeing them live.

Although the only thing Hip-Hop about them is the lyrics (and they are about polotics, which is odd for hip-hop I suppose) I'd definately have to say Rage Against the Machine.

The Beastie Boys.

Heavy metal, some hardcore, {alternative, progressive, melodic and oldschool} rock/heavy rock/metal. Hmm. Try and make some sense out of that, as I can't. :? :P

I don't think it is supposed to be understood. Its point is not to advise. Quoting other peoples thoughts is all I can do to help the discussion; I don't think advice helps people who are depressed. Loving life comes from living life, not understanding it. I didn't give credit to the author for the second Koan, as I don't really know who wrote it. It was compiled by Mumon in the Mumonkan or The Gateless Gate. Does it help? No. Does anything? Not really. Do you know any good sites with killer koans?

yup, sure did, I clicked my Religion folder on my desktop, clicked Christianity, then Bible, then great flood myth, selected 2 paragraphs from the third page of my 37 page document I typed from research conducted 4 years ago, and pasted it into this thread....and your point? Stupidity called religion is one of my favorite debates, I love taking the bible apart piece by piece and shoving it back down the throats of the deranged fanatics who wave it in the air. heres the deal, if you want to pick apart the bible, fine. be my guest. i will still believe it no matter what you say. but if your gonna pick on a religoun, try islam, then maybe you might get a real fight. or get blown up by a suicide bomber. why does it matter what we believe? we dont kill millions in the name of jesus. back on topic, this is the theory i believe is right, dont refute it UNTIL YOU READ THE WHOLE THING then be my guest. http://personals.galaxyinternet.net/tunga/Flood.htm Just to save me some time, do you believe in the biblical account of the flood? A supplimentary question would be do you believe science can explain this biblical account because, judging by this site you gave, it seems to try and explain the flood scientifically. i think some of the stuf in the site can be explained by god doing it, but this is the best site i could get. yes, i believe the biblical account, but since you probably dont, i thought science was a better answer than "god did it!" Well, to be honest, I, personally, would rather you just said 'god did it' as using science to try and prove an obviously supernatural account (admittedly so, according to the bible) is kind of mocking science to me. Sorry if you think I'm attcking you here, but it could not happen without supernatural intervention because there is simply not enough water on the planet. As a sidenote, if the flood was true to the Christian story, there would kind of be no such thing as freshwater lakes.

For all intents and purposes, no. I believe the creation account is symbolic, or, God created an aged universe. To take that even farther, it's becoming widely accepted that the Creation happened, but the 7 days were symbolic of ages of prehistory. I know the world is billions if not trillions of years old. We are also measuring years for the genealogies in roman years, whereas they could have been entirely different forms of measurement. Not quite trillions (the universe is said to be no more than 20 billion), but it's refreshing to see a less fundamentalist view. :) ...? I am a fundamentalist. I also do research into theology before I say things. My father teaches multiple Bible classes and I have many friends and family that went to Perkins (the Oxford of theological schools). Very few fundamentalist theologians believe that the world is 6000 years old. Yet we still believe fully in the Creation, Birth, and Resurrection. Too many people on this forum see Christians as Black and White, but there are hundreds of different flavors of Christian out there. Not just Ultra-Conservative, Moderate, and Liberal. Sorry, I wasn't specific. I was referring to the general group of young-earthers when I said fundamentalists.

yup, sure did, I clicked my Religion folder on my desktop, clicked Christianity, then Bible, then great flood myth, selected 2 paragraphs from the third page of my 37 page document I typed from research conducted 4 years ago, and pasted it into this thread....and your point? Stupidity called religion is one of my favorite debates, I love taking the bible apart piece by piece and shoving it back down the throats of the deranged fanatics who wave it in the air. heres the deal, if you want to pick apart the bible, fine. be my guest. i will still believe it no matter what you say. but if your gonna pick on a religoun, try islam, then maybe you might get a real fight. or get blown up by a suicide bomber. why does it matter what we believe? we dont kill millions in the name of jesus. back on topic, this is the theory i believe is right, dont refute it UNTIL YOU READ THE WHOLE THING then be my guest. http://personals.galaxyinternet.net/tunga/Flood.htm Just to save me some time, do you believe in the biblical account of the flood? A supplimentary question would be do you believe science can explain this biblical account because, judging by this site you gave, it seems to try and explain the flood scientifically.

Ironically I'm listening to a song called 'weak and powerless' by A Perfect Circle while reading this. How depressing. -Bill Hicks. Plug him into youtube. He makes serious things funny.

For all intents and purposes, no. I believe the creation account is symbolic, or, God created an aged universe. To take that even farther, it's becoming widely accepted that the Creation happened, but the 7 days were symbolic of ages of prehistory. I know the world is billions if not trillions of years old. We are also measuring years for the genealogies in roman years, whereas they could have been entirely different forms of measurement. Not quite trillions (the universe is said to be no more than 20 billion), but it's refreshing to see a less fundamentalist view. :)

For all intents and purposes, no. I believe the creation account is symbolic, or, God created an aged universe. Goodo. Sorry, I'm just a tad critical of anyone who tries to use science to prove a young earth when scientists and the scientific community conclusively states otherwise. Just one of those personal blood-boilers. :x :lol: :P

Yep, still an assumption on science's part though. That's all I was saying. My bad. Didn't know it was 60,000. Just out of curiosity, do you think the earth is 6000 years old? Edit: Ahh, I see where I went wrong; the half-life of carbon-14 is around 5700 years. #-o :oops:

Your right, but our forces are stretched in Iraq, Afganistan and I'm pretty sure we still have forces in Timor and the Soloman Islands. Don't take my word for the last two though. The point is we can't contribute as much as the poms or the yanks ever could, which I'm sure you're aware of. The full list is: Bosnia & Kosovo, Iraq, Canada, Germany, Falkands, Sierra Leone, Cyprus, Kenya, Nepal, Australia, New Zealand, Brunei, Belize, Congo, Afganistan, Czech Republic and the USA. :D You forgot about those. I'm confused, I stated that Australia's forces were stretched and you listed these countries which include places like the U.S, Canada and ourselves (Australia). I'm assuming your listing what countries are participating in Iraq and or Afghanistan, but what does that have to do with what I posted? :-k Sorry if I've misinterpreted something, I'm just confused right now. #-o

You said that his "proof" for young Earth was based on the assumption that the sun decays constantly? Carbon dating is a simple tool people use to proof a not-young earth. However, carbon dating is based on the belief that carbon decays at a constant rate. You can call it a "non-belief", but you and I both know that we haven't observed carbon's decay for 60000 years, we just assume that it's constant for 60000 years. Firstly, carbon dating isn't used (or can't be used reliably) for dating things over around 5600 years (from memory :? ). Secondly, people can make logical assumptions about what happened in the past which are the best thing we have. I know we can't make a time machine and go back to actually observe these things happening, but calculations of the past are far from a belief in something such as a religion. To even mention them in the same breath is odd. Science can change if it is wrong and uses high scrutiny, accountability and logic to formulate the best possible hypotheses and theories for what happened in the past. You can go on about belief in science and scrutinise it with philosophy, but science is the best thing we have, seriously.

There's only an argument because it conflicts with theists opinions. It's not even disputed in the scientific community, therefore, you are wrong. Scientists have proven, beyond reasonable doubt, that fossils are a fair bit more than 6000 years old. Read my topic the challenge. It alludes to the fact that the only people who dispute that the earth is 4.5 billion years old and evolution is true are theists that want to protect thier own agenda. Seriously, give it a go. This goes for TheLastTemplar too, as you seem to think the sun decays at a constant rate. not disputed in the scientific community? are you sure about that? a lot of times if there are discoveries inside carbon dating that show that the scientists are wrong (and there are A LOT)...typically this research is thrown away and thought of as just that, a mistake. i find it funny how there have been mollusks that are still alive to be dated a few thousand years old... I'm certain it isn't disputed. The only people who dispute it are theists with an adjenda. Lucky for you, you have a chance to prove me wrong. I invite you and anyone else to try. And don't just narrow yourself to carbon dating. Any mistake or slip up and it's a sure bet creationists will keep slamming the fact, exaggerating and taking out of context for the next 50 years. Try researching radiometric dating and other isotope daughter-parent relations. Many times over, these techniques have proven the earth is not 6000 years old; not even close. The decay of radioactive materials is like clockwork and can be pumped into mathematical equations which are yet to slip up basically. But hey, at least I acknowlege that you (and indeed anyone) has the chance to prove me wrong. So give it a go.

Doesn't belief in Carbon dating imply an assumption that carbon's half-life is constant? Firstly, there's no belief in science. Isn't it ironic how the only science creationists disagree with is that which rubs them the wrong way. Secondly, we have found some things in nature to be constant and others not to be. I don't understand how you could compare carbon dating and the decay of the sun.

True..but if the earth where truely that old...would that not make the Sun too close to the earth for sustainable life? You see the sun shrinks every day..good couple of tons a day. Add all 4.5 billion years to that and it comes out as a massive star. And the Earth was a molten hunk of rock 4 billion years ago for a reason... Get over it, dude. The Earth isn't 6,000 years old, and it isn't 10,000 years old, or 20,000, or 40,000. It just isn't. Acctually...the earth wouldn'y be here. even if it was..how could life just "start"? You're assuming that the sun has decayed at a constant rate. That's some of the reasoning that creationists use to support thier conclusion of a young earth and it is scientifically flawed and found to be wrong. Have a look at my topic 'the challenge,' seriously.

There's only an argument because it conflicts with theists opinions. It's not even disputed in the scientific community, therefore, you are wrong. Scientists have proven, beyond reasonable doubt, that fossils are a fair bit more than 6000 years old. Read my topic the challenge. It alludes to the fact that the only people who dispute that the earth is 4.5 billion years old and evolution is true are theists that want to protect thier own agenda. Seriously, give it a go. This goes for TheLastTemplar too, as you seem to think the sun decays at a constant rate.

Beacause some theists try to prove it with science which is basicaly making a mockery of science.

*Sigh* Prove the book of Revalation is true. But do it in a different topic, because this has nothing to do with religion. And FYI, the Bible says nothing about the "Earth" ending. It'll still be here. I meant that in a differant context m8. In other words The world...or the evilness will be cleansed..but..,of course, you wouldn't know. When's he comin' back? According to the bible of course.

Well supposedly dinosaurs would of had to be created before the first humans i.e. adam and eve, from the Christian account. Moses came after the creation account.

Lol, dude... you don't think Bush is stupid, do you? Oh wait he is stupid... Anyways, I think it's a good decision. Let the USA clean up the mess they created. Send Bush over there with a rifle to lead attacks on Baghdad hideouts. You make the mess, you clean it up. :P

Im thinking that it's not supposed to have a scientific explanation i.e. it was totally supernatural. Well unless a Christain knows otherwise.

Noahs ark and that whole deal. I'd like to ask some of the theists out there a few questions, as my knowlege on the issue is severely lacking. Note that I want answers based on what the Christain religion and the Bible says. 1. Did it cover the entire earth? 2. Obviously it was a supernatural occurance, correct (in other words, did god make the rain and recession happen)? I'm just curious because, as I've seen on the net, there are some who try to prove that it happened scientifically, which is odd because everything about it seems supernatural and science only deals with the natural. Anyway to avoid this turning into another 20-pager, I'd like to make the mods aware that I'll ask to lock it after I get some answers.

To make sure the place dosen't fall apart. Would it be in our, indeed anyones interests to see further unrest in the middle east, particularly an all out civil war in Iraq? It's a hairy issue, but if we all just pulled out today, there would be little security in Iraq and the relations between the different groups would likely dissolve. Does Iraq have any government or laws? Surely something can be done there without our help. We can't keep supporting Iraq. It takes a long time to establish a democracy after decades of dictatorship. They are a country in ruin and leaving them now would see them collapse. They are getting better, but as the pollies say (and I actually agree with them on this point :shock: ) withdrawl of troops should be conditions based, not set on a date.