Jesus Camp Trailer

[<ankh>]

Fair enough, but imo if your gonna reply to this thread trying to defend somebody - atleast you could check if he needs your help or not instead of assuming that he does. Gandelf is doing his best to answer our questions here (even though he seem to skip some of them) and he is intelligent enough to ignore the personal insults.

And Im sorry if you find it hard to belive, but you don't know me.

Edit: So unless you got something to bring into this discussion I suggest you find another thread. And I didnt mean that as an offensive comment btw.

Edit: Actually, my last edit sounds abit harsh...so nm it.

/Ankh

[<ankh>]

I havent watched this one - so Im not sure what he's got to say. But I might
aswell share it anyway

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3GLtIYSPFLg&NR

/Ankh

[Genedril]

Nib's original post (while somewhat tongue in cheek if you ask me) is that Gandelf's point of view stimulates thought and this is a good thing. Not sure why he thinks Gandelf is innovative as religion can hardly be discribed as such. Anyway, Gandelf has made people think & brought discussion to the boards. Most of it has been civil - I feel a bit sorry for him as he's basically arguing his point single handed against pretty much everyone.

I'm unconvinced that Nibs is supporting Gandelfs point of view, but he does appear to be supporting Gandelfs right to a point of view & that differing points of view increase the likelyhood of discussion & continued exploration of what might be true.

Must say I'm a bit saddened by Nibs perception of judgements. It's not a long leap from such things to prejudice. Maybe people do work like that - I prefer to find out what people are like before I reach an opinion on them (which is generally in flux as they do things that stimulate/surprise etc etc me).

[Gandelf]

Again, you've proved only that you don't understand what you're talking about, carbon dating works based on radioactive decay, so short of everything we know being an illusion (i.e. kinda like the Matrix) then your theory can't compensate for this.

I fully understand the scientific principles behind carbon dating etc, etc, but, you are assuming that the rate of radioactive decay has always been constant. Whilst current rates may tend to cause one to believe that that's how they've always been, it's entirely possible that they haven't been constant. Again, if you say that's nonsense (and I don't deny you that right), then again you're basing that view upon the way things are now.

I did read somewhere incidentally (I can't remember where), that a number of scientists believe they have evidence that the speed of light is actually slowing down. If that is the case, then what would be the impact of that? As a mental exercise for those who are scientifically inclined, let's assume for one moment that light is slowing down. What would be the results, if everything is based on that? What would the reverse conditions have been like, if light was faster in the past than it is today? Supposing the speed of light was decreasing exponentially and if there was a "big bang", would the speed of light have been infinite in the split second of that big-bang? I accept that the measuring of time is an abstract concept, so in this instant I am using the time interval of a "second" just for emphasis.

[<ankh>]

Woot, did you just repost an earlier post Gandelf?

Edit: I better compare the posts

/Ankh

[Cromcruaich]

Aye, gand seems to of stopped responding in any meaningful way.

Maybe he could confirm if he believes that the world was created in 7 days approximately 4000 to 8000 years ago?

[Luz]

http://www.born-again-christian.info/christianity.htm

Dont know since Gand hasnt said outright that this is his belief.
Some intressting reading that I will get back to now.

[<ankh>]

Thanks for that url - reading it now.

/Ankh

[Gandelf]

People often think that their point of view is the correct one and that all others are wrong...

[Heta]

But here you are the one being wrong