If you're going to be self-assuming then so will I.

We are currently 5 thousand years into the Age of Kali. There are four Yuga's - 1.Satya yuga, 2.Treta Yuga, 3. Dvapara Yuga 4. Kali yuga. As you can see, we are in the 4th age. The duration of the four ages are as follows:

Satya: 1.728 million years

Treta: 1.32 million years

Dvapara: 864 000 years

Kali: 432 000 years

This adds up to 4.32  million years and make up one cycle. At the end of Kali Yuga (a time charactarised by misfortune), Satya Yuga will begin again and so forth - Satya yuga being the golden-age or 'beginning time. With the flow of the cycle, species evolve based on the characteristics of the cycles, and human lifespan follows the following curve;

Satya:  100 000 years

Treta: 10 000 years

Dvapara: 1000 years

Kali: 100 years

Now I could bore you with a few more of these cyclical levels, but I'll just skip to the end: The Universe is born, grows, sustains itselfs, dwindles and dies in 311.04 trillion human years. That '0.4' in there is an order of magnitude longer than how long scientists speculates the universe has existed.

Ok, I got the long living humans covered, I'm cool with science that the earth is old.

There are 8.4 million species of life (unfortunately I'm not sure how they are classified, but there are many different human and humanoid species listed, as well as some rather evolved ape-men). As the cycle progresses, the species start to change. 5000 Years ago, when Kali began, species were to lose there size. The largest would be no more, and the rest would get smaller as the age progresses. Incidentally, the largest of the Great Redwood's is 5000 years old. Big sharks, big trees, big elephants, big humans - simple isn't it. So we just about halved in size since Kali began, but some of the lost dynasties of kings were apparantly around 12 meters high I believe.

Giants check, prehistoric giant peciess check, weird old relics that pop up and mysteriously vanish check. 

In these vast expanses of time, human population may dwindle over the universe due to whatever reason, and then a progenitor comes. Each is called a Manu, and one of them was involved in a flood. Astonishingly, he pops up in most ancient cultures, and a simple cross study (google it) will reveal they are exactly the same person. A mythological person this Manu? Once again I won't be so presumptious.

Oh and these floods happen in cycles too, so whatever 'flood' means in this context, it'll happen again. Now I know there's the promise in the Bible that it wouldn't happen again, but there are too many definitions outstanding by me at this point, and whatever argument will come from whereever that I'll back away sloooowly from this one before anyone has a right to damn me.

Flood tentatively checked.

For anyone that knows anything about carbon dating, that should probably throw away any doubts about the big timescales we should be thinking in as a species. Science is a strange thing, and Physics especially seems to tease us with its insights. The word atom comes from the Greeks, and meens indivisible. There, the academics teach, the quest for understanding the fundamentals of our Universe began. I could branch out now and mention all about Vaisheshika philosophy which is much older but rather not. At this point we know a lot about these atoms. You see, we can even look at the millions of times smaller core, or nucleus if we want. So we know about these things. We know how radioactive particles behave (more or less). Now I'm not a fan of carbon dating whatsover, but I am a fan of determining the age of our very earth through some simple tests on its uranium ratios. It's really so easy to do. It turns out science says our solar system is 4.5 billion years old. Turns out science isn't far off the mark. The last manifestation of the Universe was roughly 4 billion years ago. These happen in cycles too, but I forgot how long they are - something like 8 billion years. Mini creations if you will.

I'm bored of this now. Anyways, I'm just a little tired of people posting such serious things in a VG website and then they don't even care to be slightly responsible about it. People thinking your a PS3 fanboy is a little funny, but being the ''I'm here to convert you guy'' is just really sad. And aggravating. And - wouldn't you know it - completely counter-productive to whatever they believe will come of it.

If I were to convert people to my beliefs or *ahem* save them, I'd present things in a helluva lot better way then all this crap I'm seeing here. No wonder the Western intelligentsia is migrating towards atheism - the followers are just as crazy as console fanboys on the web. 

I owe you an apology as I misread the last part of your post. I thought you said science takes theories as fact while most theories about the earth's past cannot be proven. Blame my hasty nature of reading internet posts combined with the fact most people on this forum are idiots which causes me to fall back on heuristics. In short: I agree with you.

the press lol! are you saying the media are the one doing science lol if it wasn't from CNN the theorie of evolution would have never catch on lol
it's true for many theories and laws out there you can find one that said the complete oposite but scientist don't pick up theorie because it's in vogue, they pick it up because it's explain the most what they are studying and 99% of the times thoses theories are back up by phenomene or experience you can chek for yourself, there's faith in science but if that faith is not back up buy some hard data at some point that theorie will just crumble and die for exemple when it was first stated that light wasn't just a wave length but was also made of matter the scientific community accept it but they didn't just stop there they try to find a way to test that theorie and it was later proven during an eclipse of the sun a few years later.

There is a argument to be made that the Bible does contain literally true things. Such as events, places, customs, or even personages. Most Biblical scholars would discount your argument as complete crap, and those who would not would be considered disreputable at the very least. All of your arguments are terribly flawed. You presented no real evidence. Just a lot of ignorant commentary. Due not only to your ignorance in regards to just exactly what Science says, but your apparent blind ignorance of your own holy book.

In other words I find your faith lacking. Blind faith is no faith at all. You are not a believer in the book, or what it actually says. Were that the case you would know more then you do. You just think you found a prize, and a way to not actually bother thinking for yourself. Ironic I suppose, because Christianity is a faith built upon questioning the text, and not glancing over everything once.

Were you actually faithful. You would know that Moses crossed the Sea of Reeds, and not the Red Sea. They are in different places, and only one of them fits the account. You would also know that the text does not bare out a specific location for Mt Sinai. There is no mountain that is definitively that mountain. You probably even think that the Hebrews were slaves. They weren't be the way the text doesn't even refer to them as slaves.

You do not understand this, because you do not want to understand this. Just in the same way that you do not in truth understand what Science says. I thought about highlighting the dozens of logical errors in your diatribe, but what would be the point. Everyone here knows they are wrong. Made by someone who doesn't feel compelled to even make a good argument. I am not even a Christian, and I know what you posted was just shameful.

troll account, dude. Makes decent enough topics as a starting point, but you shouldn't waste too much energy on refuting his claims

All right, the OP smelled to me like a person who didn't know what he was talking about doing a lot of copypasta of "evidence" he got in email spam that is usually bullshit. So I just grabbed the first thing I saw that stood out to me and that seemed specific and likely to be already disproven and easily researched.

I chose the Giant:
"An article from Strand magazine (December,1895) reprinted in "Traces of the Elder Faiths of Ireland" by W.G. Wood-Martin mentions this fossilized giant discovered during mining operations in County Antrim, Ireland..."

Two minutes of Google later, I found this:
http://uctaa.net/articles/meds2/med28/med553.html

My expectations were certainly exceeded; not only is it a fake, it's a fake of a fake OF A FAKE!

It seems to me that -- for a lot of people, at least -- when it comes to religion, their bullshit filters just turn off; if someone can sneak something into the "my religion" part of their thoughts, it gets accepted no matter how fishy it is.

Thus, a tabloid news story about a plaster copy of an amateurish statue pretending to be a fossil gets brought up as evidence against evolution over 100 years after it was debunked. And people think grilled cheese sandwiches are inhabited by the Virgin Mary because of funny looking burn marks.

I could examine the rest of the claims, with similar results I'm sure for 90% of it at the very least, but I really don't feel like spending the time.

Even the most basic fictional stories that take place in a historical time period (even if it is only a handful of years ago) are full of significant historical and cultural references in order to increase the credibility and believability of the story.

A viable explanation for the significant number of historical facts included in religious documents (including the Torah, Bible and Quran) that doesn’t require them to be entirely true is that new religions would be based on well-known historical events in order to increase their credibility.

Even the most outrageous religious stories could be based on thousands of year old stories that had been maintained through an oral history and, while oral histories have been known to be very accurate over centuries, over thousands of years minor distortions introduced by storytellers could have led to tales which were heavily distorted.

god these threads are hilarious. I'm abstaining from even the simplest response as the OT doesn't really deserve it but I do enjoy the lols these topics generate.

Man that was well said. And one of the very few reasonable responses in this thread.