Religion

Don't hold back Nacht , tell us how you really feel .

I do disagree with you on your positions though. Mental health scientists are not all quacks, There are legitimate studies being done on the mental processes and chemistry of the human brain.

Evolution is somewhat more scientific than Darwins fudges. Evolution while not a complete explanation is pretty much accepted by the majority of scientists as the best theory going.

The trees in the lake near St. Helens....somehow I don't think the end result is the same as the more traditional petrification process, but will have to look it up.

Carbon dating has proven to be quite accurate when talking millions or hundreds of thousands of years, but is not really good for fine tuned down to the year dating. I wouldn't scrap the usefulness of carbon dating just based on small time frame errors. Radioactive decay rates are a well proven physics fact.

Just my opinon on those issues [img]smile.gif[/img]

[Nachtrafe]

Originally posted by Moiraine: quote: Originally posted by MagiK: Grunji, I think the young lad brought the esteemed Yorick's comments on him self. He could have worded his ... observation about the GD in a less errr "High Handed" sort of way too ya know.

Wow love DOES mellow you allright ! [/QUOTE]ROFL!!! Yep, it does. I can almost see the twinkle in the ol' Magik Man's eye too.

Hiya Moraine. *HUGS*

[Nachtrafe]

Gonna honk off a few people, I'm sure, but since I prefer to respond to people's posts on a point by point basis... [img]tongue.gif[/img] [img]tongue.gif[/img] [img]tongue.gif[/img]

Originally posted by MagiK: Don't hold back Nacht , tell us how you really feel .

I usually do Magik Man, I usually do.

I do disagree with you on your positions though. Mental health scientists are not all quacks, There are legitimate studies being done on the mental processes and chemistry of the human brain.

I'm not talking about actual doctors. I have a deep and abiding respect for doctors. I'm talking about those touchy feely quacks who think that by 'getting in touch with their feelings' we can seek to understand criminals and terrorists. The people that have crippled our national mental proceses with their 'work'.

And, re-reading my last post, I realize I should have said "Psychologists" and not "Psychiatrists". Mea Culpa.

Evolution is somewhat more scientific than Darwins fudges. Evolution while not a complete explanation is pretty much accepted by the majority of scientists as the best theory going.

Sorry Magik, I have to disagree. Evolution is bunk. Fish do not evolve into monkeys, trees do not evolve into eagles, and people do not evolve from apes. Now, if we're talking about generational evolution i.e. Giraffe's getting longer and longer necks as successive generations need to reach higher and higher to eat), then I agree...that is a completely viable, and proven theory. But the general theory of Evolution is bunk.

The trees in the lake near St. Helens....somehow I don't think the end result is the same as the more traditional petrification process, but will have to look it up.

I have some sources. I'll look them up and post them. [img]smile.gif[/img]

Carbon dating has proven to be quite accurate when talking millions or hundreds of thousands of years, but is not really good for fine tuned down to the year dating. I wouldn't scrap the usefulness of carbon dating just based on small time frame errors. Radioactive decay rates are a well proven physics fact.

Sorry Magik, but carbon dating is also bunk. I've read a great many studies wherein real scientists did literally *thousands* of blind tests on objects that were anywhere from a few months to a few years old and got results dating the objects at anywhere from 1 to 1000 Million years old. Again, I have several sources, and I'll post them. Although, you're a good enough Google Hound to find several before tomorrow, I'm sure. [img]smile.gif[/img]

Just my opinon on those issues [img]smile.gif[/img]

Yep...mine too. [img]smile.gif[/img]

[ 12-03-2002, 04:00 PM: Message edited by: Nachtrafe ]

[Garnet FalconDance]

warily peeps around the corner to see if the way is clear......

Hi to you, too, Cerek and everyone else. Yeah, I know the discussion is open to all and has settled to primarily Christians. Have I ever been too shy about jumping in?

Evolution? I agree with Nacht and the generational idea. Makes sense to me. Carbon dating being bunk, tho. Hmmmm. There are problems which result in the process and certainly it is not the most reliable of methods. And quite frankly I don't undestand why we have to *know* everything about e verything anyhow. The world will not cease to exist if we don't know exactly when a certain item was manufactured/used/grew. But to call the entire shebang a load of dung.....seems a bit strong of a statement and a little blind-sided. (*NO* offense meant!)

Originally posted by Nachtrafe: ::::SNIP lots of good stuff from Nacht::::

Wish I could respond tomorrow guy, gave me lot to think about, however, Colleen comes back from Nebraska tonight and I will be taking tomorrow off to, errrr... catch up with her

As for honking people off, for some reason I had no problem understanding your post, or following the flow of thought.

[ 12-03-2002, 05:03 PM: Message edited by: MagiK ]

[Cerek the Barbaric]

One question I have about Carbon Dating is this....

How do you PROVE something is one million years old????

The machine may estimate it's age to be that, but what other evidence is there to back up the claim?? Can the results be compared to textbooks or scientific documents from one million years ago? Can mankind "travel back" to confirm that this tree was indeed growing one million years ago? NO - it can't. There is absolutely no way to verify the accuracy of a carbon-dated estimate of one million years.

I have read in other sources that the ONLY reason for claiming the Earth is actually several million years old is because it is necessary to support the Theory of Evolution. If the Earth truly is only a few thousand years old, then the Theory of Evolution completely collapses because the time frame is not adequate to explain the various life forms found on the planet today.

Now, even though I believe the Bible on a literal basis (as opposed to a metaphorical one), I do NOT completely believe the Earth is only 6,000 years old. That just seems to be far too short a time for the world to develop as it has. But I also don't believe it is millions of years old either. I think the actual existence of the Earth is somewhere in between (but far closer to the 6,000 end of the spectrum). I also believe - like Garnet - that it doesn't really matter one way or the other.

I believe that God created the Heavens and Earth and everything within them. When He did it and how long it took are really irrelevant to me. All that matters to me is my relationship with God through Jesus Christ. Everything else is a distant second-place to that.

[Lady Blue03]

I really don't want to get my head bitten off here, but if there is no proof of the Evolution theory, what proof is there of the Creation Theory? I myself am an Athiest, quite strongly, and I think there is a reason humans resemble apes so closley. You may find it hard to believe that a fish crawled out of the water and learned to walk and evolve, but i similarly find it hard to believe some being just created the earth in 7 days *frowns*

[Bardan the Slayer]

I'm stunned that we can live in a Universe that breathes on a scale of billions of years, seeing stars that were born or died millions and billions of years ago, and yet some people still believe that the Earth is young and fresh and new. Is 1 million years too old for the earth? Get real - 1 million years is *nothing*. The galaxy works on a scale of time that is incomprehensible to us. We see first generation stars out there that formed when the galaxy was young, billions of years ago, yet the Earth is less than a few million years old? I think not.

[Ar-Cunin]

[img]graemlins/director.gif[/img] A few FACTS

the Earth isn't 6000 or a few millions years old - it's ca. 4,5 billion years old. It's was created out of the 'left-over' materials from the creation of the Sun (ca. 5 billion years ago) - as indeed was all the other planets as well.

Carbon-dating is based on the FACT that every living organism contain Carcon-atoms. The majority of those are C-12. But some of them are C-14. When the organism dies these C-14 begins to decay - at a fixed rate. Therefore scientists are able to determine approximately how long an organism have been dead. It is also great for exposing fakes such as the Turin Shroud.

----------

Some people may think that evolution it just a 'theory' - I look on it as facts that some (religious) people are too afraid to accept. We do decent from apes/monkeys/mammels/etc. - feel free to incert any 'missing links'

Hmmm.... I think I'll stop now, before I get too [img]graemlins/5bloodymurder.gif[/img]

Originally posted by Cerek the Barbaric: One question I have about Carbon Dating is this.... How do you PROVE something is one million years old???? Pretty much the same way you can prove what the temperature of the sun is, or what the speed of light is, or how you can prove proxima centauri is about 4 light years away from us, or that the earth is roundish and not rectangular. You use the best scientific principles available, USUALLY this give you the ability to be right more often than you are wrong. I do have to say, that altho I am a christian do not buy the idea that the Bible should always be intepreted literally and do not for a second believe genesis was a literal acount of the creation and/or that the earth is only something like 7000 years old. I believe that God created a set of natuarl laws and worked his will through them, not around or in spite of them. I believe that parts of the Bible may be literal but not all by any means. Err I knwo this is in the middle of your post..but Im rushed for time, hope you don't mind Cheers! The machine may estimate it's age to be that, but what other evidence is there to back up the claim?? Can the results be compared to textbooks or scientific documents from one million years ago? Can mankind "travel back" to confirm that this tree was indeed growing one million years ago? NO - it can't. There is absolutely no way to verify the accuracy of a carbon-dated estimate of one million years. I have read in other sources that the ONLY reason for claiming the Earth is actually several million years old is because it is necessary to support the Theory of Evolution. If the Earth truly is only a few thousand years old, then the Theory of Evolution completely collapses because the time frame is not adequate to explain the various life forms found on the planet today. Now, even though I believe the Bible on a literal basis (as opposed to a metaphorical one), I do NOT completely believe the Earth is only 6,000 years old. That just seems to be far too short a time for the world to develop as it has. But I also don't believe it is millions of years old either. I think the actual existence of the Earth is somewhere in between (but far closer to the 6,000 end of the spectrum). I also believe - like Garnet - that it doesn't really matter one way or the other. I believe that God created the Heavens and Earth and everything within them. When He did it and how long it took are really irrelevant to me. All that matters to me is my relationship with God through Jesus Christ. Everything else is a distant second-place to that.