New Dinosaur Discovered

[Parshias]

And I overreacted because I am getting really tired of unfounded bullshit coming up in these religious debates, specifically when talking about Catholicism. If you're going to make a statement that the Catholic Church (or all Christians, lolgeneralization) are anti-dinosaurs, maybe you should bother looking up what the Church actually accepts and teaches. Which, for the record, is not anti-dinosaur, and depending on who you talk to, can even be theistic evolution.

Then please, Don't fucking generalize an entire countries citizens whether or not they know the difference between the terms Anglican, Christian, and Catholic. You don't like when bullshit and unfounded random retardation comes out of peoples mouths on the forums, then don't add to it yourself.

I didn't post the "Americans don't know the difference between Christianity and Cahtolicism." I did quote that post, but I was referring to his statement that an Anglican started (only not really) the whole belief.

[Kaylia]

For calendric purposes, Bede made a new calculation of the age of the world since the Creation. Due to his innovations in computing the age of the world, he was accused of heresy at the table of Bishop Wilfred, his chronology being contrary to accepted calculations. Once informed of the accusations of these "lewd rustics," Bede refuted them in his Letter to Plegwin

And you're missing my point as well Priran. You're comparing an event that happened in 1700AD after the scientific revolution to another event in 600AD where people had literally nothing other than culture to understand their world. Trying to find the origin of the world is a progress, going against sciences and what was established is not.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with what he did in the context, and people like him are the one who made science progress over time. I'm not trying to justify Charla's comment, because what people used to believe is irrelevant, but not taking the context into consideration and posting it as a valid counter example is retarded.


And since you want to play cat and mouse game, I will quote what you said right before

Young Earth creationism is a Christian concept. I can't tell if you're stupid or playing coy, but you're equally annoying either way. Shut up.

Earth creationism is a concept introduced by every fucking religion before and after christianism. "Young" creationism is irrelevant because there was no calendar before, and the result was based on the only historical document they had. So no, creationism isn't a christian or anglican concept.


Date of creation for several religion

Maya civilization - August 11 or August 13, 3114 BCE
Judaism - September 22 or March 29 3760 BCE[1]
James Ussher (1654) - 23 October 4004 BCE[2]
Maria de Agreda - 5199 BCE.
Big Bang theory - age of the Universe between 11-20 billion years, with the most widely quoted figure being 13.7 ± 0.2 billion years.
Radiometric dating - the world (planet Earth) 4.55 (± 1%) billion years ago.
Puranic Hinduism, 77.76 trillion years ago (50 "years of Brahma")

[Khamsin]

Most of us are surrounded by or interact with a society that harbors mostly Judeo-Christian type beliefs. As such, we argue with each other about topics related to that set of religions (Judaism, Islam, Christianity and denominations like Catholocism and Mormonism).

People tear each other apart for beliefs that that religion holds or may have held at some point in time.

What I'm wondering, is what people talk about who are in a part of the world dominated by other religions. What do people who deal mainly with Hindus argue about? Do they bring up that the Hindu church believed the world was on the back of an elephant who was on the back of a turtle? Do people criticize the Japanese for the Shinto church having thought the story of Susanoo and Orochi was real?

[Blarg]

If you're going to make a statement that the Catholic Church (or all Christians, lolgeneralization) are anti-dinosaurs, maybe you should bother looking up what the Church actually accepts and teaches.

The most recent polls show that between 40-50% of america believes in young earth creationism, the largest percent being in the South probably. I'm not sure what % of americans are catholic but I'm sure a decent % are YEC's even though the Pope beleives in evolution, its never been hard to not believe in what the church teaches if you don't agree with it. So, pretty much half of christians are anti dinosaur.

[Priran]

And you're missing my point as well Priran. You're comparing an event that happened in 1700AD after the scientific revolution to another event in 600AD where people had literally nothing other than culture to understand their world. Trying to find the origin of the world is a progress, going against sciences and what was established is not.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with what he did in the context, and people like him are the one who made science progress over time. I'm not trying to justify Charla's comment, because what people used to believe is irrelevant, but not taking the context into consideration and posting it as a valid counter example is retarded.

I don't give a shit. Seriously. I'm not sure how to make it any clearer that I don't intend to participate in this argument.

And since you want to play cat and mouse game, I will quote what you said right before

Young Earth creationism is a Christian concept. I can't tell if you're stupid or playing coy, but you're equally annoying either way. Shut up.

Earth creationism is a concept introduced by every fucking religion before and after christianism. "Young" creationism is irrelevant because there was no calendar before, and the result was based on the only historical document they had. So no, creationism isn't a christian or anglican concept.

you've got to be fucking kidding me

[Kaylia]

I don't give a shit. Seriously. I'm not sure how to make it any clearer that I don't intend to participate in this argument.

Of course, making one liner attack and joke post is a lot easier. Don't give up, you're good at it. Next time, you should stick to that instead of introducing half assed fact to support your post.

What I'm wondering, is what people talk about who are in a part of the world dominated by other religions. What do people who deal mainly with Hindus argue about? Do they bring up that the Hindu church believed the world was on the back of an elephant who was on the back of a turtle? Do people criticize the Japanese for the Shinto church having thought the story of Susanoo and Orochi was real?

2/3 of the population is too busy trying to find something to eat, or they are struggling to get 4$ a month. I doubt they care much about those religion debate, assuming they don't have one.

In japan, religion pretty much disapeared when they got ride of the emperor iirc. There is no institution like christian, so it's hard to actually blame someone when there is no one around

[Parshias]

Most of us are surrounded by or interact with a society that harbors mostly Judeo-Christian type beliefs. As such, we argue with each other about topics related to that set of religions (Judaism, Islam, Christianity and denominations like Catholocism and Mormonism).

People tear each other apart for beliefs that that religion holds or may have held at some point in time.

What I'm wondering, is what people talk about who are in a part of the world dominated by other religions. What do people who deal mainly with Hindus argue about? Do they bring up that the Hindu church believed the world was on the back of an elephant who was on the back of a turtle? Do people criticize the Japanese for the Shinto church having thought the story of Susanoo and Orochi was real?

They probably talk about who would win in a fight: Ganesh or Buddha? (my money's on the elephant)

If you're going to make a statement that the Catholic Church (or all Christians, lolgeneralization) are anti-dinosaurs, maybe you should bother looking up what the Church actually accepts and teaches.

The most recent polls show that between 40-50% of america believes in young earth creationism, the largest percent being in the South probably. I'm not sure what % of americans are catholic but I'm sure a decent % are YEC's even though the Pope beleives in evolution, its never been hard to not believe in what the church teaches if you don't agree with it. So, pretty much half of christians are anti dinosaur.

I honestly have no idea how many Catholics there are in the United States. We certainly don't seem to be one of the more outspoken religions, at least not in politics. And I've heard of that poll, and I find it fairly disheartening. Although I would like to know how it was compiled. 50% of America believing in Young Earth Creationism seems REALLY high to me, or maybe I just happen to live with the other 50%. The point I was trying to make is that the Catholic Church does not teach or support Young Earth Creationism. Sure, people of any faith can believe anything they want, but their views are not reflected on the entirety of their faith. If 5% of Catholics choose to believe in YEC (made up statistic) that has no bearing about the teachings or theology of the Catholic Church.

[Blarg]

I honestly have no idea how many Catholics there are in the United States. We certainly don't seem to be one of the more outspoken religions, at least not in politics. And I've heard of that poll, and I find it fairly disheartening. Although I would like to know how it was compiled. 50% of America believing in Young Earth Creationism seems REALLY high to me, or maybe I just happen to live with the other 50%. The point I was trying to make is that the Catholic Church does not teach or support Young Earth Creationism. Sure, people of any faith can believe anything they want, but their views are not reflected on the entirety of their faith. If 5% of Catholics choose to believe in YEC (made up statistic) that has no bearing about the teachings or theology of the Catholic Church.

I think there have been more than one of those such polls which gave similar results. One of them was a Gallup poll so if you went to their site and searched for it, it may have some background info on the questions asked to give those results.

[Priran]

I don't give a shit. Seriously. I'm not sure how to make it any clearer that I don't intend to participate in this argument.

Of course, making one liner attack and joke post is a lot easier. Don't give up, you're good at it. Next time, you should stick to that instead of introducing half assed fact to support your post.

You're arguing some retarded shit, and I honestly have no idea where the fuck you pulled it from. I'm not humoring your ridiculous argument. It's fucking pointless talking to someone who thinks Young Earth Creationism isn't a Christian concept because every religion has creation myths, it's a waste of my time.

[Charla]

As someone has since mentioned, lumping together all denominations of Christianity is a relatively common generalization. That was the main point that I was trying to make. I did so by way of paraphrasing H.L. mencken's famous quote "Nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public". Also, I didn't say "the first guy". I was referring to the most recent and therefore most well-known person to make the calcuclations in question, although I had not actually heard of Bede until now. Thanks for letting me know.

Just for the sake of accuracy, let's say that the idea of Creationism by way of a creation myth is very old and present in most religions, and that the term Young Earth Creationism currently refers to a specific interpretation of a single creation story (whether myth or dogma is immaterial), and therefore to a specific belief, which is distinct from the more general concept of Creationism. Neither is the same as Flintstoneism.

edit: Is it can be intellectual tiem now plaez?

[Kaylia]

I don't give a shit. Seriously. I'm not sure how to make it any clearer that I don't intend to participate in this argument.

Of course, making one liner attack and joke post is a lot easier. Don't give up, you're good at it. Next time, you should stick to that instead of introducing half assed fact to support your post.

You're arguing some retarded shit, and I honestly have no idea where the fuck you pulled it from. I'm not humoring your ridiculous argument. It's fucking pointless talking to someone who thinks Young Earth Creationism isn't a Christian concept because every religion has creation myths, it's a waste of my time.

Why do you think we call them "Young Earth creationist" and "Old Earth creationist"? They were popularized by christian, but they arent indissociable. I will admit they are more linked to christian religion than I thought tho, however, it still doesn't justify the way you used your example.

[Priran]

As someone has since mentioned, lumping together all denominations of Christianity is a relatively common generalization. That was the main point that I was trying to make. I did so by way of paraphrasing H.L. mencken's famous quote "Nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public". Also, I didn't say "the first guy". I was referring to the most recent and therefore most well-known person to make the calcuclations in question, although I had not actually heard of Bede until now. Thanks for letting me know.

No, you quoted the persistent I.R. Internet mentality of "because I am an American who insults the intelligence of Americans and watches Democratic debates, I am an intellectual".

And no where in "the 'Earth is 2000 years old cause I did some math!' thing was done by an Anglican priest, not a Catholic" do you mention anything about recent, well known, or calcuclations. You stated it as a fact, didn't check it as a fact, and got called out on it, stop trying to safe face.

Just for the sake of accuracy, let's say that the idea of Creationism by way of a creation myth is very old and present in most religions, and that the term Young Earth Creationism currently refers to a specific interpretation of a single creation story (whether myth or dogma is immaterial), and therefore to a specific belief, which is distinct from the more general concept of Creationism. Neither is the same as Flintstoneism.

Young Earth creationism is a type of creationism that teaches that the Earth and life on Earth were created by a direct action of God relatively recently (about 6,000-10,000 years ago). This form of creationism is held by those Christians who believe that the Hebrew text of Genesis is a literal account of Earth's creation in six 24-hour days, or that evidence for a strict interpretation of scripture as historical fact is present in the world today, or that scientific evidence supporting Darwinian evolution, geological uniformitarianism - in addition to any other theory at odds with a literal interpretation of the Genesis creation account - is either flawed or misinterpreted.

Thanks, Wiki!

Creationism refers to any one of a number of religious beliefs. Young Earth creationism does not.

[Charla]

James Ussher (sometimes spelled Usher) (4 January 1581–21 March 1656) was Anglican Archbishop of Armagh and Primate of All Ireland between 1625–1656. He was a prolific scholar, who most famously published a chronology that purported to time and date Creation to the night preceding October 23, 4004 BC.

Wow, I'm almost surprised that he really was an Anglican. All I really remembered was that he was somewhere in or around England. As I said, I did not know that others had done the same thing centuries earlier, and I certainly didn't remember his name or anything. In any case, I was not mistaken that at least one person who "did the math" by adding up the ages of a number of Biblical people in order to obtain a date for the time of Creation was Anglican. I did not actually consider remembering this bit of trivia to be evidence of my own intellectuality, nor did I mention the Democratic debates (which I have never intentionally watched). I insulted the "intelligence" of Americans (actually our collective ignorance) by pointing out the common confusion of Christianity with Catholicism.

If that Wikipedia article is accurate, the fact that I stated as a fact is in fact a fact, although it is true that I trusted my memory and did not check it at the time. I have just safed face. Note that I did not intend to directly associate what I remembered regarding Ussher's Chronology with Young Earth Creationism, as I had not actually heard that term until later in this thread.

[Zalius]

i wish they would have found the stfuasaurus

[Priran]

Wow, I'm almost surprised that he really was an Anglican. All I really remembered was that he was somewhere in or around England. As I said, I did not know that others had done the same thing centuries earlier, and I certainly didn't remember his name or anything. In any case, I was not mistaken that at least one person who "did the math" by adding up the ages of a number of Biblical people in order to obtain a date for the time of Creation was Anglican. I did not actually consider remembering this bit of trivia to be evidence of my own intellectuality, nor did I mention the Democratic debates (which I have never intentionally watched). I insulted the "intelligence" of Americans (actually our collective ignorance) by pointing out the common confusion of Christianity with Catholicism.

If that Wikipedia article is accurate, the fact that I stated as a fact is in fact a fact, although it is true that I trusted my memory and did not check it at the time. I have just safed face. Note that I did not intend to directly associate what I remembered regarding Ussher's Chronology with Young Earth Creationism, as I had not actually heard that term until later in this thread.

You're so full of your own ego it's almost funny.

You said it yourself. You didn't check your own facts. There could have been a Catholic who did the math, the guy who did it could not have been Anglican, and a bunch of other circumstantial bullshit that sounds like you just made it up to sound cool like "oh I didn't even know I just remembered from my travels lol".

You accused me of ignorance of the facts that you yourself were ignorant of. Cry moar.

[Boyiee]

When ever priran posts twice or more on the same page of any thread, I completely lose interest in that thread. It's not him necessarily, but it's usually an argument with someone attempting to make them look like a fool in some way shape or form. I rather read about dinosaurs, that's what I came here for.

Plus his sigs are Huge and annoying to see more than once a page. Not that they are bad sigs... just huge... which becomes annoying. And its always some anime/manga/cartoon chick lol. It's like when you see Gulk post you expect to see a mithra, same thing.

[Charla]

Um, I really do remember having heard about him at some time. And I wasn't wrong either. What, did I just randomly guess that an Anglican did that? I didn't check the facts because I trusted my memory. Which wasn't wrong in the first place. This isn't a history report, it's a discussion/argument/debate. Fact checking is optional. Cry moar.

[Zalius]

dont you dog my prirans or theres gonna be problems