Conspiracy theories

TriggerHappy said:
The full quote, as you well know, is:

Depicting much more an image of a flat circle, with the skies as canopy over the top, rather than the Earth as a sphere.
Click to expand...

Sorry but I don't see the complete verse or even chapter for that matter (not truncated for any bad reason by me, other than brevity) as changing anything.

TriggerHappy said:
Not to mention the multitude of quotes suggesting geocentrism - that the Earth is the centre of everything and that the Earth is static, and all other celestial objects such as the sun move around us.
Click to expand...

The bible speaks of the earth and mankind as being the 'focus' as it is to mankind on the earth that it is addressed, it is hardly surprising therefore. However just examine the book of Job where God speaks to Job and shows him how insignificant he is in comparison to God's heavens.

TriggerHappy said:
I could go on with quotes of the sun/moon being commanded to rise and set, to hover in the sky etc. as though it were them that were moving and not us.
Click to expand...

The bible uses illustrative language to demonstrate that the planets, including the sun and moon are under God's control.

TriggerHappy said:
All this highlights my point exactly. The bible is massively convoluted, often hypocritical, and open to such a range of interpretation that it has exceptionally limited valid application to any more substantive analysis of life, the universe and everything.
Click to expand...

Hardly, all life is in the bible, the universe is discussed, the movement of the planets, the water cycle etc, etc.
The bible also uses illustrations and pictorial language to convey it's message in places ... take these literally and you will come to the wrong conclusions.



joescrivens said:
Is it thought by people who believe in the bible that it was written by Jesus or god themselves or do people believe that humans wrote the bible? Like who actually put pen to paper in your belief?
Click to expand...

Humans put pen to paper, some 40 writers ... the author of the bible is God who inspired these men to write.

AndyB1976 said:
Based on evidence you have examined, how old do you believe the Earth to be?
Click to expand...

It is impossible to say ... from a bible point of view it doesn't discuss the origin of the earth, only how it was prepared to support life and how that life came about ... it could be billions of years old.
 
gramps said:
It is impossible to say ... from a bible point of view it doesn't discuss the origin of the earth, only how it was prepared to support life and how that life came about ... it could be billions of years old.
Click to expand...

But......according to a christian site I am looking at, the 6k years old figure is very realistic.

"Of course, the Bible doesn’t say explicitly anywhere, “The earth is 6,000 years old.” Good thing it doesn’t; otherwise it would be out of date the following year. But we wouldn’t expect an all-knowing God to make that kind of a mistake.

God gave us something better. In essence, He gave us a “birth certificate.” For example, using a personal birth certificate, a person can calculate how old he is at any point. It is similar with the earth. Genesis 1 says that the earth was created on the first day of creation (Genesis 1:1–5). From there, we can begin to calculate the age of the earth.

Let’s do a rough calculation to show how this works. The age of the earth can be estimated by taking the first five days of creation (from earth’s creation to Adam), then following the genealogies from Adam to Abraham in Genesis 5 and 11, then adding in the time from Abraham to today.

Adam was created on day 6, so there were five days before him. If we add up the dates from Adam to Abraham, we get about 2,000 years, using the Masoretic Hebrew text of Genesis 5 and 11.3 Whether Christian or secular, most scholars would agree that Abraham lived about 2,000 B.C. (4,000 years ago).

So a simple calculation is:

5 days
+ ~2,000 years
+ ~4,000 years

~6,000 years"
 
And from creation.com

"If we accept that the Bible is reliable, an age of about 6,000 years is unavoidable."
 
Ricardodaforce said:
But......according to a christian site I am looking at, the 6k years old figure is very realistic.

"Of course, the Bible doesn’t say explicitly anywhere, “The earth is 6,000 years old.” Good thing it doesn’t; otherwise it would be out of date the following year. But we wouldn’t expect an all-knowing God to make that kind of a mistake.

God gave us something better. In essence, He gave us a “birth certificate.” For example, using a personal birth certificate, a person can calculate how old he is at any point. It is similar with the earth. Genesis 1 says that the earth was created on the first day of creation (Genesis 1:1–5). From there, we can begin to calculate the age of the earth.

Let’s do a rough calculation to show how this works. The age of the earth can be estimated by taking the first five days of creation (from earth’s creation to Adam), then following the genealogies from Adam to Abraham in Genesis 5 and 11, then adding in the time from Abraham to today.

Adam was created on day 6, so there were five days before him. If we add up the dates from Adam to Abraham, we get about 2,000 years, using the Masoretic Hebrew text of Genesis 5 and 11.3 Whether Christian or secular, most scholars would agree that Abraham lived about 2,000 B.C. (4,000 years ago).

So a simple calculation is:

5 days
+ ~2,000 years
+ ~4,000 years

~6,000 years"
Click to expand...

"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" ... Genesis 1:1 ... that is all the bible has to say on the origin of the earth, nowhere does it provide any information that expands on that.
Then at Genesis 1:3 the record says that God introduced light to the earth and associates that with a 1st creative 'day' - further creative days are associated with the completion of other acts of God (dry land, fish, animals etc) but none are directly linked to the origin of the earth itself.
 
gramps said:
"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" ... Genesis 1:1 ... that is all the bible has to say on the origin of the earth, nowhere does it provide any information that expands on that.
Then at Genesis 1:3 the record says that God introduced light to the earth and associates that with a 1st creative 'day' - further creative days are associated with the completion of other acts of God (dry land, fish, animals etc) but none are directly linked to the origin of the earth itself.
Click to expand...

Gramps, a very quick search will lead you to many christian sites that assert the age of the Earth is around 6k years old. Some of those are there to assist bible class teachers "prove" it. No, the bible doesn't specifically say so, but as pointed out above, using the chronology it provides, the age can be worked out at around 6k years. Yet, for some strange reason you don't agree with the apparent christian community at large.
 
joescrivens said:
Is this topic even allowed here? It's less about religion and more about creationism itself which cobra said was ok
Click to expand...

I must admit the the subject fascinates me and so far I was happy to let it run
as a (semi) serious discussion.
However the thread is starting to get bias towards religion and the bible...
Just a warning guys, I'm not going to shut you down but.....
 
gramps said:
Humans put pen to paper, some 40 writers ... the author of the bible is God who inspired these men to write.
Click to expand...

But how do you know that is fact. They could be lying. You are just taking their word for it. Do you always believe everything just because someone says it to be true? Where is the actual evidence that anything described in the bible actually existed? Other than words written down by people you blindly trust without evidence?
 
Cobra said:
I must admit the the subject fascinates me and so far I was happy to let it run
as a (semi) serious discussion.
However the thread is starting to get bias towards religion and the bible...
Just a warning guys, I'm not going to shut you down but.....
Click to expand...

Point taken (y)
 
Ricardodaforce said:
Yet, for some strange reason you don't agree with the apparent christian community at large.
Click to expand...

The 'christian community' has many misguided views, Ricardo and whilst I am a Christian I do not link myself with what is perceived by many as 'christian', i.e. Church of England, Catholic, Methodist etc.
There are many teachings of the church and 'christian community' that are not supported by bible teaching, the belief that the earth is only 6,000 years old is one such.
As soon as we go beyond bible teaching and start to assert things about it for ourselves then we may as well throw the bible away! If we decide for ourselves what we will believe from it and what we won't, where is the benefit of it to us at all?
 
PMK said:
Yeah, not heard many Christians plausible explanation of dinosaurs either...
Click to expand...

Yeah what do believers say about dinosaurs gramps? Trying to keep this about conspiracy and creationism.

How does god and the writers explain dinosaurs? Are they in the bible?
 
gramps said:
The 'christian community' has many misguided views, Ricardo and whilst I am a Christian I do not link myself with what is perceived by many as 'christian', i.e. Church of England, Catholic, Methodist etc.
There are many teachings of the church and 'christian community' that are not supported by bible teaching, the belief that the earth is only 6,000 years old is one such.
As soon as we go beyond bible teaching and start to assert things about it for ourselves then we may as well throw the bible away! If we decide for ourselves what we will believe from it and what we won't, where is the benefit of it to us at all?
Click to expand...

Not going to answer your points Gramps, only because I don't want to fall foul of the rules. I'm hoping we can turn it back to conspiracy theories in general (y)
 
Cobra said:
I must admit the the subject fascinates me and so far I was happy to let it run
as a (semi) serious discussion.
However the thread is starting to get bias towards religion and the bible...
Just a warning guys, I'm not going to shut you down but.....
Click to expand...

But the bible is an acknowledged 'work' and certainly one that is no stranger to controversy (which is what the thread is all about) how can it be right to allow an argument against it without allowing one in favour of it.
 
Gramps, how do you take the bible as the word of god when it has been edited so many times? You can't seriously suggest that the council of Nicaea were receiving gods word?
 
gramps said:
But the bible is an acknowledged 'work' and certainly one that is no stranger to controversy (which is what the thread is all about) how can it be right to allow an argument against it without allowing one in favour of it.
Click to expand...

All I am saying is Gramps that this thread is getting heavily biased towards
religion and the bible and the fact that I won't shut it down, in response to
Joe's question.
Howevever, that's not to say that another mod or admin, may take
a different view, espeicially as there are now quotes from said bible
being banded about too ;)
So take that as a heads up post, and proceed as however you see fit (y)


Ricardodaforce said:
Not going to answer your points Gramps, only because I don't want to fall foul of the rules. I'm hoping we can turn it back to conspiracy theories in general (y)
Click to expand...
And that is probably a sensible way to go ;)
 
joescrivens said:
Yeah what do believers say about dinosaurs gramps? Trying to keep this about conspiracy and creationism.

How does god and the writers explain dinosaurs? Are they in the bible?
Click to expand...

Not specifically dinosaurs but it does speak of the creation of 'sea monsters' ... nowhere does it exclude the possibility of dinosaurs.
 
Not all Christians are creationists, many don't believe in intelligent design. Gramps clearly does, I don't agree with him, but I do respect his beliefs.
 
The23rdman said:
Gramps, how do you take the bible as the word of god when it has been edited so many times? You can't seriously suggest that the council of Nicaea were receiving gods word?
Click to expand...

God has the ability and desire to retain His Word accurately, I do not believe that it has been or will be edited sufficiently to alter that fact.
The Council of Nicea has no bearing on true Christianity, as historian Will Durrant observed, "“Christianity did not destroy paganism; it adopted it"!
From there came all sorts of deviations from bible truth, most of which are still erroneously followed today.

However as the bible is seen as inappropriate here I will refrain from any further discussion and leave the thread.
 
gramps said:
Not specifically dinosaurs but it does speak of the creation of 'sea monsters' ... nowhere does it exclude the possibility of dinosaurs.
Click to expand...

Ok, but were these sea monsters it speaks of created at the same time? Like what I mean is do believers in creationism believe that dinosaurs lived for millions of years before humans? Or do they believe humans were there from the start?
 
gramps said:
Sorry but I don't see the complete verse or even chapter for that matter (not truncated for any bad reason by me, other than brevity) as changing anything.

The bible speaks of the earth and mankind as being the 'focus' as it is to mankind on the earth that it is addressed, it is hardly surprising therefore. However just examine the book of Job where God speaks to Job and shows him how insignificant he is in comparison to God's heavens.

The bible uses illustrative language to demonstrate that the planets, including the sun and moon are under God's control.

Hardly, all life is in the bible, the universe is discussed, the movement of the planets, the water cycle etc, etc.
The bible also uses illustrations and pictorial language to convey it's message in places ... take these literally and you will come to the wrong conclusions.
Click to expand...

And therein lies another problem for me. In instances that appear to me as no more than happy coincidences, where the Bible describes something that we know to be true, it is used as evidence of His omniscience. Where the Bible says things we know to be wrong, it's dismissed as being merely illustrative or figurative, and not to be taken literally.

Whenever something occurs to challenge the plausibility of God, a counter argument exists that just puts it down to his omnipotence overriding known laws of physics, or his benevolence guiding things in ways we can't comprehend, or man's free will being the root of the problem.

From a sceptics point of view, it becomes a frustratingly infallible belief because of how effortless it is to dismiss legitimate challenges with blanket get out clauses such as those listed above.

Edit: but on that note I will leave it there too, so this thread can get back on track before it gets pulled.
 
Last edited:
In response to the OP, and a vain attempt to get the thread back on track before it gets closed....

1:Man on the moon....good points raised by the conspiracy theorists, and i'm no idiot, but i'm kind of on the fence on this one...
2:Highly unlikely
3:Wouldn't surprise me at all.

The other good one that I would like to have seen included would have been JFK...
 
And if anyone can show me just one example in the history of the world of a single
Spiritual or religious person who has been able to prove either logically or empirically the existence of a higher power that has any consciousness or interest in the human race or ability to punish or reward humans for there moral choices or that there is any reason - other than fear - to believe in any version of an afterlife

I'll give you my piano, one of my legs, and my wife

"Not my quote....but perfect".
 
I blame the Internet, there's a conspiracy theory for everything.


It's the 9/11 one that bakes my noodle. I think if you accept that's a us government conspiracy then there is zero hope for humanity.
 
antihero said:
1:Man on the moon....good points raised by the conspiracy theorists, and i'm no idiot, but i'm kind of on the fence on this one...
Click to expand...

Couple of points.
Do you believe men orbited the Earth prior to the moon landings?
Do you believe robotic craft were landed on the moon prior to the moon landings?
Do you believe men orbited the moon prior to the moon landings?
Do you believe the Saturn V launches actually took place or that they were faked?
Do you think the USSR was taken in by this conspiracy too, or were they party to it?
Do you believe some of the moon landings were real, and some were faked, or that all were faked?
 
Ricardodaforce said:
Couple of points.
Do you believe men orbited the Earth prior to the moon landings?
Do you believe robotic craft were landed on the moon prior to the moon landings?
Do you believe men orbited the moon prior to the moon landings?
Do you believe the Saturn V launches actually took place or that they were faked?
Do you think the USSR was taken in by this conspiracy too, or were they party to it?
Do you believe some of the moon landings were real, and some were faked, or that all were faked?
Click to expand...

main point being I don't know enough of the facts to know whether I believe or not.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I don't think that there's anything wrong with having conspiracy theories as I posted one earlier which was proven true, so there certainly is a place for them. However, I think when conspiracy theories turn into paranoia, then perhaps you have a problem! lol
 
Yv said:
Seriously though, I haven't yet come across a conspiracy theory that I actually think might be true... :LOL:
Click to expand...

how about there was this dark lord

he made 3 rings for elves
5 for dwarfs
9 for men

but one more ring was forged in secret ,one ring to rule them all, one ring to bind them

you must believe in that :LOL:
 
PatrickO said:
In science nothing is ever finally and completely proven. The Theory of Evolution is just that: a theory which gives the best explanation we have at present taking into account all the available evidence. It's a pretty good theory and is supported by a mountain of evidence from many different fields of study (genetics, paleontology, geology etc). But it is just a theory and may well need to be changed.
Click to expand...

There are a lot of auxiliary theories in the theory of evolution, which Popper argued is symptomatic of pseudo-science. I don't think the theory is, as yet, robust in a scientific sense but I think it's the best we have so far. What is definitely at issue is the illusion that it is robust in its current state, but I think this is symptomatic of the confrontational nature of the theory, directly in competition with religion for acceptance.

PatrickO said:
That's the difference between scientific method and religious belief. Science is about evidence and when new evidence is found then scientific theories change/develop. Religion is based on faith and will not change when the evidence changes.
Click to expand...

There's danger, too, in trusting that science is fluid, ready and willing to accept change. It's not as fluid as scientists might have you believe. The theory of tectonic plates took 70 years to gain acceptance in its field, and this all happened in the 20th century. For something that's now so obvious, that's an appalling matter of record. Science suffers from groupthink and confirmation bias as much as any bible study group. Peer review is unequal to the task of ensuring that the Scientific Method is strictly adhered to. Science today is under attack from "Post Normal Science", which is a direct threat to centuries of advancement via evidence-based science.
 
Steelmagnet said:
The photographs of all six lunar landing stages, plus those of astronaut and lunar rover tracks are pretty convincing proof of the moon landings. Of course a conspiracy theorist would brand the photos as fakes.

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/LRO/multimedia/lroimages/apollosites.html
Click to expand...

I found the moon landing conspiracy quite convincing, however, didn't that tv show then set about proving the conspiracy wrong and they way they did it was very good as well! lol

One conspiracy I always wondered about was AOL being developed or run or have something to do with the CIA?
 
The thing that always gets me with the Moon landing is that there seem to be people involved in the project speaking out against it happening. What's there problem?
 
new2me said:
The thing that always gets me with the Moon landing is that there seem to be people involved in the project speaking out against it happening. What's there problem?
Click to expand...

Such as? Btw, it's not moon landing, it's moon LANDINGS. It happened 6 times.
 
Oh I dont know who they were exactly, but there were guys on a documentary the other night saying that the astronauts wouldn't have survived the effects of the Van Allen belt. They were also blabbing about the photos too, but i've seen how they can be explained.
 
new2me said:
Oh I dont know who they were exactly, but there were guys on a documentary the other night saying that the astronauts wouldn't have survived the effects of the Van Allen belt. They were also blabbing about the photos too, but i've seen how they can be explained.
Click to expand...

Clavius.org will clear that little chestnut up for you.
 
Cheers Ricardo (y)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top