Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Firstly no one is actually buried there, its a memorial. Here is a better article about it:

Oh thanks for the clarification. And yes, it seems as a global memorial, the actual symbol of the Marine Corps would be more appropriate. Or maybe the statue of a fallen Marine.
Sergeant Sidonus deserves something.

Testify wrote:

generalgrog wrote:

Manchu wrote:

generalgrog wrote:Hmmm...so it's ok to call a group of Christians that believe in young earth a pejorative insult like "fruitcakes"? on dakka?

It's a bit like calling people who lie liars.

This is exactly the kind of thing that is wrong. You classified a whole group of people that may or may not be wrong.... liars. This would include me. If that isn't a violation of dakka rule #1 I don't know what is.

GG

Feel free to post some Young Earth evidence.

The only 'evidence' that exist's to support the young earth hypothesis began with a guy called Archbishop James Ussher of the Church of Ireland who made a careful study of the Bible and other historical sources and concluded that the Earth had been created at midday on 23 October 4004 BC, an assertion that has amused historians and textbook writers ever since.

No geologist of any nationality whose work is taken seriously by other geologists advocates a timescale confined within the limits of a literalistic exegesis of Genesis.

In short, there is not ONE shred of evidence in existence, beyond a biblical one, that supports the 'theory' that the earth's age is measured in the timescale that the Bible suggests.

If there is anyone out there who really does believe that the Earth is thousands and not billions of years old, I would be interested to know if that belief is based on anything even remotely scientific and not mumbo jumbo that has been extrapolated from adding up the ages of all those people who apparently lived for almost a thousand years (in some cases).

In my opinion this is just one more shining example of how embarrassingly wrong you can get things when you take the Bible literally.

This seems relevant:

Muhr wrote:

Testify wrote:

generalgrog wrote:

Manchu wrote:

generalgrog wrote:Hmmm...so it's ok to call a group of Christians that believe in young earth a pejorative insult like "fruitcakes"? on dakka?

It's a bit like calling people who lie liars.

This is exactly the kind of thing that is wrong. You classified a whole group of people that may or may not be wrong.... liars. This would include me. If that isn't a violation of dakka rule #1 I don't know what is.

GG

Feel free to post some Young Earth evidence.

The only 'evidence' that exist's to support the young earth hypothesis began with a guy called Archbishop James Ussher of the Church of Ireland who made a careful study of the Bible and other historical sources and concluded that the Earth had been created at midday on 23 October 4004 BC, an assertion that has amused historians and textbook writers ever since.

No geologist of any nationality whose work is taken seriously by other geologists advocates a timescale confined within the limits of a literalistic exegesis of Genesis.

In short, there is not ONE shred of evidence in existence, beyond a biblical one, that supports the 'theory' that the earth's age is measured in the timescale that the Bible suggests.

If there is anyone out there who really does believe that the Earth is thousands and not billions of years old, I would be interested to know if that belief is based on anything even remotely scientific and not mumbo jumbo that has been extrapolated from adding up the ages of all those people who apparently lived for almost a thousand years (in some cases).

In my opinion this is just one more shining example of how embarrassingly wrong you can get things when you take the Bible literally.

Since I started to really delve into the issue a few years ago I have become quite disenchanted with the "evidence" that has been presented. A lot of the "evidence" is quite bad and is quite embarrassing. Going beyond the blatant nonsense that I have seen presented as science when it isn't science at all, there are some interesting, what I have begun to call "alternative explanations". I.E. if you don't accept blindly that the speed of light has always been constant, if you can't prove this, than it isn't a good thing to pretend that you can prove it, and come up with some convoluted "scientific"explanation. Just keep it simple and offer an alternate possibility. I think that's much more fundamentally honest.

Using the age of the earth and radio isotope dating for an example. It is assumed that the radioactive decay rates have always been constant. It's fine to keep trying to find a way to prove that this assumption is wrong. But I would like to see the creation scientists actually prove it, and don't make stuff up. In the mean time offer the alternative explanation, and make sure that people are aware that you are offering an alternative explanation, until the proof is found. That is the way I look at things now. I have even softened my stance on old earth creationism. I'm still not convinced that old earth is correct, but I certainly see the attractiveness of the position a lot clearer than I did 3 years ago.

This doesn't make me a fruitcake.

GG


GG

If I were a lesser man, I'd find the idiocy of this thread hilarious.

Oh wait...it IS funny

Seriously, for those who believe in religion, all the variously believed God(s) out there suggest loving your fellow man-not insulting him, not calling him names, not tearing him down, and not starting topics on gaming forums that will piss people off on purpose, thus trolling. God hates trolls. Trolls are designed to offend other people and sew the seeds of hate and human indecency. Pushing for it and then playing victim is against the teaching of God-any God, whether He's the God believed in by Christians, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, or if he's the freaking flying spaghetti monster. I also doubt he cares what he's referred to as-if you believe, you believe. Religious nuttery just drives people apart and further pulls you away from His will. I see too many people stand up for their narrow-minded, bigoted religious beliefs, and God is probably shaking his head at you at this very minute.

Then again, I firmly believe that God is sitting at his laptop, sipping the best Bloody-Mary ever made and slurping it down through a straw while laughing at this thread. He's got a great sense of humor after all.

timetowaste85 wrote:If I were a lesser man, I'd find the idiocy of this thread hilarious.

Oh wait...it IS funny

Seriously, for those who believe in religion, all the variously believed God(s) out there suggest loving your fellow man-not insulting him, not calling him names, not tearing him down, and not starting topics on gaming forums that will piss people off on purpose, thus trolling. God hates trolls. Trolls are designed to offend other people and sew the seeds of hate and human indecency. Pushing for it and then playing victim is against the teaching of God-any God, whether He's the God believed in by Christians, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, or if he's the freaking flying spaghetti monster. I also doubt he cares what he's referred to as-if you believe, you believe. Religious nuttery just drives people apart and further pulls you away from His will. I see too many people stand up for their narrow-minded, bigoted religious beliefs, and God is probably shaking his head at you at this very minute.

Then again, I firmly believe that God is sitting at his laptop, sipping the best Bloody-Mary ever made and slurping it down through a straw while laughing at this thread. He's got a great sense of humor after all.

slurping down a bloody mary, OMG what a pun

sirlynchmob wrote:

timetowaste85 wrote:If I were a lesser man, I'd find the idiocy of this thread hilarious.

Oh wait...it IS funny

Seriously, for those who believe in religion, all the variously believed God(s) out there suggest loving your fellow man-not insulting him, not calling him names, not tearing him down, and not starting topics on gaming forums that will piss people off on purpose, thus trolling. God hates trolls. Trolls are designed to offend other people and sew the seeds of hate and human indecency. Pushing for it and then playing victim is against the teaching of God-any God, whether He's the God believed in by Christians, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, or if he's the freaking flying spaghetti monster. I also doubt he cares what he's referred to as-if you believe, you believe. Religious nuttery just drives people apart and further pulls you away from His will. I see too many people stand up for their narrow-minded, bigoted religious beliefs, and God is probably shaking his head at you at this very minute.

Then again, I firmly believe that God is sitting at his laptop, sipping the best Bloody-Mary ever made and slurping it down through a straw while laughing at this thread. He's got a great sense of humor after all.

slurping down a bloody mary, OMG what a pun

I'll be honest, the pun didn't even cross my mind when I wrote it. Good catch. Hehe.

timetowaste85 wrote:If I were a lesser man, I'd find the idiocy of this thread hilarious.

Oh wait...it IS funny

Seriously, for those who believe in religion, all the variously believed God(s) out there suggest loving your fellow man-not insulting him, not calling him names, not tearing him down, and not starting topics on gaming forums that will piss people off on purpose, thus trolling. God hates trolls. Trolls are designed to offend other people and sew the seeds of hate and human indecency. Pushing for it and then playing victim is against the teaching of God-any God, whether He's the God believed in by Christians, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, or if he's the freaking flying spaghetti monster. I also doubt he cares what he's referred to as-if you believe, you believe. Religious nuttery just drives people apart and further pulls you away from His will. I see too many people stand up for their narrow-minded, bigoted religious beliefs, and God is probably shaking his head at you at this very minute.

Then again, I firmly believe that God is sitting at his laptop, sipping the best Bloody-Mary ever made and slurping it down through a straw while laughing at this thread. He's got a great sense of humor after all.

Maybe thats why the Trolls in the Trollhunter movie had such a hot nut for Christians.

Relapse wrote:
Maybe thats why the Trolls in the Trollhunter movie had such a hot nut for Christians.

See, there's a very good reason to buy the notion that Mormons aren't Christian.

dogma wrote:

Relapse wrote:
Maybe thats why the Trolls in the Trollhunter movie had such a hot nut for Christians.

See, there's a very good reason to buy the notion that Mormons aren't Christian.

Just 'cause we know better than to go to the Norwegian back country looking for the big buggers!

Why would Trolls care if you're a Christian?

You'd think it would be Thor that they had the real problem with.

Monster Rain wrote:Why would Trolls care if you're a Christian?

You'd think it would be Thor that they had the real problem with.

Christians taste better, and don't fight back as much as Vikings.

Laughing Man wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:Why would Trolls care if you're a Christian?

You'd think it would be Thor that they had the real problem with.

Christians taste better, and don't fight back as much as Vikings.

Templars were pretty badass, weren't they?

Palindrome wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:The cross is widely used for war memorials in the UK because our most significant wars occurred during times when the nation was made of an actively Christian majority. It should be remembered too that we have an official state religion, and the government will use that for official memorials, unless there is a drive to make them secular.

Of course but as they are so common this thread is the first time that I have even made the connection between these memorials and the christian religion, I doubt that I am the only one. There are far more urgent areas where church and state need to be detangled,.

I'm guessing you are a traditional English, white Christian-by-family person like me.

If you were Sikh or Jewish you would probably have a much greater degree of awareness that the religious symbology on the war memorial was not of your religion.

That is part of the difference of perception between the majority and minorities.

I don't think the UK is going to disestablish the C of E in a hurry but I think we will see modern memorials created with multi-faith or secular symbology.

Kilkrazy wrote:I think we will see modern memorials created with multi-faith or secular symbology.

And given what we have seen with modern designs such as... well, anything to do with the upcoming London Olympics, it will most likely be some horrific abstract mess that bears no relation what so ever to the thing it is supposed to represent

That would depend on how the selection process goes.

Kilkrazy wrote:That would depend on how the selection process goes.

Such as seeing what different foods for dinner do to next morning's "design processes"?

If you eat a large amount of cheese late at night you will come up with a winning design.

SilverMK2 wrote:
And given what we have seen with modern designs such as... well, anything to do with the upcoming London Olympics, it will most likely be some horrific abstract mess that bears no relation what so ever to the thing it is supposed to represent

Or, as with the London Olympics, it will look like Lisa Simpson giving head.

Kilkrazy wrote:

Palindrome wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:The cross is widely used for war memorials in the UK because our most significant wars occurred during times when the nation was made of an actively Christian majority. It should be remembered too that we have an official state religion, and the government will use that for official memorials, unless there is a drive to make them secular.

Of course but as they are so common this thread is the first time that I have even made the connection between these memorials and the christian religion, I doubt that I am the only one. There are far more urgent areas where church and state need to be detangled,.

I'm guessing you are a traditional English, white Christian-by-family person like me.

If you were Sikh or Jewish you would probably have a much greater degree of awareness that the religious symbology on the war memorial was not of your religion.

That is part of the difference of perception between the majority and minorities.

I don't think the UK is going to disestablish the C of E in a hurry but I think we will see modern memorials created with multi-faith or secular symbology.

I'm a Scot actually and my family were strict presbyterians which have basically no iconography at all so the cross probably means less to me than most people with a Christian upbringing; the war memorial in my home village is in the shape of a cross so I have always been aware of the association. Obviously my personal circumstances are quite rare but given the steep decline in the relevance and prevalence of christianity in the UK I suspect that a lot of people are ambivalent about the cross. I would hope that memorials will simply no longer make a reference to religious iconography at all but I don't think that existing ones need to be changed.

I'm not saying that I don't understand the objections its just that its hardy something critical.

A lot of the "evidence" is quite bad and is quite embarrassing.

More so than totalling the ages of people in the bible and using this highly accurate and reliable figure as the basis of the age of the world? Apparently Archbishop Usher's work was meticulous and very well researched, its a pity that he used such dubious sources.

generalgrog wrote:
Since I started to really delve into the issue a few years ago I have become quite disenchanted with the "evidence" that has been presented. A lot of the "evidence" is quite bad and is quite embarrassing. Going beyond the blatant nonsense that I have seen presented as science when it isn't science at all, there are some interesting, what I have begun to call "alternative explanations". I.E. if you don't accept blindly that the speed of light has always been constant, if you can't prove this, than it isn't a good thing to pretend that you can prove it, and come up with some convoluted "scientific"explanation. Just keep it simple and offer an alternate possibility. I think that's much more fundamentally honest.

Using the age of the earth and radio isotope dating for an example. It is assumed that the radioactive decay rates have always been constant. It's fine to keep trying to find a way to prove that this assumption is wrong. But I would like to see the creation scientists actually prove it, and don't make stuff up. In the mean time offer the alternative explanation, and make sure that people are aware that you are offering an alternative explanation, until the proof is found. That is the way I look at things now. I have even softened my stance on old earth creationism. I'm still not convinced that old earth is correct, but I certainly see the attractiveness of the position a lot clearer than I did 3 years ago.

Fruitcake, no, just very miss guided. The problem is that you are flying in the face of all scince. You are, and admit, to presenting ideas as theorys. All evidence shows that radioactive decay is and has always adheard to fundamental rules. The same with the speed of light. I can prove the speed of light through experimentation. It has been proved through observation of background radiation from the big bang. The only point it falls appart is in the first few nanoseconds after the big bang. Th socalled expansion stage. What happend then is a matter of much theorising on the details, but dose not fundamentaly effect the things you are talking about. If you can find me any propper scince proving your side i will be happy to read it, but as far as i am aware, as both an engineer and a christian, this dose not exist.

Palindrome wrote:Apparently Archbishop Usher's work was meticulous and very well researched, its a pity that he used such dubious sources.

There was no love in his club.