Religion

[Garnet FalconDance]

Originally posted by 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.

Of course, compared to the rest of the galaxy, by your own words, the earth is young and fresh and new by comparison!

So.........we're all right and no one is wrong. We simply look at things in a different light and interpretation. If some attribute creation to a divine being, that's right. If some attribute the same to a cosmic kaboom and potluck, that's right also. Seems to me there's plenty of room for everyone's beliefs here....

As for evolution, I am more likely to go with Nachtrafe and the generational evolution theory. On the other hand, I am not willing to totally discount the evolution theory in general as I was not (contrary to my children's beliefs) around at 'the beginning of time' to see the start of species. And what I do not know, I do not summarily sweep out of the realm of possibility. Nor do I simply kowtow to the 'other side' and say that it is something that must be taken on faith that a deity is the only personage with enough power to do such a thing and we are simply the result of a fine-tuning process. Now, since I have agreed with the gen-evolution theory, I obviously believe in the fine-tuning idea. But whether my millions-times-removed ancestor crawled out of the oceans way back when..............::shrugs:: Apparently that knowledge is not given for me to know. Kind of like the "eyes only" in the military. And that's ok with me. I have enough to know and worry about and ponder already.

[Cloudbringer]

Originally posted by Callum Kerr: Well well well... a simple homework request??? Ah! Such is life... I personally DO believe only what I consider proven. That is, I think that God does not even remotely exist by current scientific rules. I also do not consider the dates of this happening and so forth billions of years ago very conclusive proof. (hell! i don't even pay attention to 'em) Of course, it is the NATURE of scientists to be totally stubborn about their current theories. All through history, today's laws of science have been rejected for years. I was once told by my English teacher that I have a scientific mind - which is why I wanted help on that debate - so I am JUST as stubborn as the best of 'em. So faith does not work for me...

LOL, well I don't believe you exist. You can't prove it to me. I think Callum is just a computer program.

You don't have any faith in anything? Hmmm.. interesting... ok, so have you seen an atom? Have you seen one split? You don't have faith in it's existence then, I imagine... so can someone drop an atom bomb on your house? It can't hurt you, right? You don't have faith in things you can't prove for yourself.

Ok, I'm being a bit over the top with that example, but one I've used before may help, Callum. Centuries ago, my ancestors and most likely your own, thought diseases were caused by evil spirits and 'vapors' in the body of the sick person. They cut people or used leeches and other methods of 'draining the evil spirits' out of the blood and body. They never heard of viruses and bacteria. Had never seen them nor believed in them. Did viruses not exist then? Of course not. If you'd told them a tiny 'bug' was causing the illness, our ancestors would have accused you of brain fever or insanity and could not comprehend or believe in what you'd said.

But as time went on, we learned...the human race grew and searched for answers to questions and problems....people became able to contemplate a bacteria causing a cold or flu.... we created instruments to SEE and measure such things....and we realized we had NOT known all there was to know back then. Today we admit there's so much MORE we still don't know and understand. So many new discoveries come out every day and still we have questions and still we don't know everything there is to know. New concepts and discoveries replace old theories and beliefs on a regular basis. The world isn't flat anymore and The sun surely doesn't revolve around the Earth. [img]smile.gif[/img]

My point is simple. You may not be able to 'prove' God exists. But then over the centuries, we've always had things we didn't know, couldn't have proven and yet learned about later when we had the means to see or measure or understand them. I think God is right there in the list of things we can't quantify, but He is most certainly there. I have faith in that much. [img]smile.gif[/img]

[Timber Loftis]

I just dropped back in to check on this thread, which is a recurring discussion here.

I didn't get very far until I noticed some people, educated ones even, doubting carbon dating which is based on very known science and very well understood logarithmic math. Half-life is half-life, folks.

C'mon, how can you even get to the relevant points and have an intelligent discussion if you can't even admit well-known ground rules. Sheesh. The Earth is round, the Nag Hamadi texts DO exist, the moon is not made of green cheese, and carbon atoms decompose at a fixed and known rate.

I didn't read enough to be trolling, and I doubt I'll even check back, so don't bother flaming me.

[Cloudbringer]

Originally posted by Yorick: Actually I would say the winner of an argument is the one that grows the most as a result. If you remain the same after an argument, it was either a waste of time, or you had your mind shut. The person that learns the most from an argument gets the most 'bang for their buck' as it were. Thus, many percieved 'losers' are actually the winners who gain the most.[/QB]

Now that's a pearl of wisdom! I have recently found that when I have an argument with my fiance, I DO learn things. About him, about me and about how we are relating to one another. I often learn how NOT to present things or how I don't like them presented to me...and you know what? He and I then TALK about the argument and we work on our relationship a little more.

Sometimes there just is no winner, btw. Sometimes people agree to disagree or work out a compromise solution. [img]smile.gif[/img]

[Cloudbringer]

TL, no flaming should ensue. A lively debate, mayhap, but not flaming.

I think what's been disputed about carbon dating is it's accuracy. I've read articles by various scientists that do call it into question when discussing shorter terms but find it more accurate over very long stretches.

[Cerek the Barbaric]

For Grungi and Hunter.

This information was gathered from a site called Christian Answers {http://christiananswers.net/dinosaurs/j-where2.html}. Here is the explanation they give regarding dinosaurs being mentioned in the Bible.

DINOSAURS IN THE BIBLE

Dinosaur-like creatures are mentioned in the Bible. The Bible uses ancient names like "behemoth" (beh-HEE-moth) and "tannin." Behemoth means kingly, gigantic beasts. Tannin is a term which includes dragon-like animals and the great sea creatures such as whales, giant squids, and marine reptiles like the plesiosaurs (PLEE-see-oh-sors) that may have become extinct (died out).
The Bible's best description of a dinosaur-like animal is in Job chapter 40...

Job 40:15-19(NIV) -"Look at the behemoth, which I made along with you and which feed on grass like an ox. What strength he has in his loins, what power in the muscles of his belly! His tail sways like a cedar; the sinews of his thighs are close-knit. His bones are tubes of bronze, his limbs like rods of iron. He ranks first among the works of God..."

The book of Job is very old, written after the worldwide flood of Noah's time and probably about 2,000 years before Jesus was born. Here God describes a great king of the land animals like some of the biggest dinosaurs, the Diplodocus and Apatosaurus. It was a gigantic plant-eater with great muscles and very strong bones. The long Diplodocus had leg bones so strong that he could have held three others on his back.
The behemoth were not afraid. They did not need to be; they were huge. Behemoth tails were so long and strong that God compared them to cedars--one of the largest and most spectacular trees of the ancient world.

After all the behemoth had died out, many people forgot about them. Dinosaurs were extinct and the fossil skeletons that are in museums today did not begin to be put together until about 150 years ago. Today, some people have mistakenly guessed that the behemoth mentioned in the Bible might be an elephant or a hippopotamus. But those animals do not have tails like the thick, tall trunks of cedar trees!

[Rokenn]

Originally posted by Yorick: So has anyone here conducted a carbon dating experiement themselves? If not then you are a person of faith relying on human testimony, no differently than a person who accepts a human testimony regarding God healing them, or Christ rising from the dead.[/QB]

So by this same arguement since none of us have ever been in earth orbit we are 'taking it on faith' that the Earth is round? I know all those NASA photos were fake! Have to run I am late for my Flat Earth Society meeting!

[Cerek the Barbaric]

Originally posted by Ar-Cunin: They are using a flawed hypothesis from the outset - the bible. They are trying to fit their finding into that narrow mould - regardless of the data. If that is science, it is bad science. Like when the Catholic church tried continuesly to modify the view of the universe, so the Earth was at the center, despite observations which showed that Earth circled around the Sun. And I don't doubt that there are 'bad apples' in the scientific comunity (cold fusion and the creation of heavy natural elements are two cases) - but I think that the majority of the scientist are honest - especially since their data will have to be repetable.

The only point I would disagree with here is your assertion that the Bible is a "flawed hypothesis from the outset". I thought the general purpose of the scientific method was to develop a hypothesis and then try to prove or disprove whether it is correct. As long as the researchers are objective about the data collection, testing, and recording...I don't see how any hypothesis could be inherently flawed (although I'm sure you could provide other examples).

On the other hand, if the researchers are starting with the pre-determined conclusion that the Bible is correct and they ignore, discard, or manipulate any data that does not support that conclusion - then I would agree that their methodology IS flawed from the outset.

Good answers to my questions, Ar-Cunin. I hope you're enjoying this as much as I am.

Heirophant - Another very good and informative post.

[Morgeruat]

Originally posted by 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]

as far as carbon dating goes it does not work for anything since the industrial revolution, the amount of carbon in the air has made everything appear much older than it truly is (it was this point in my earth science class where I ascertained for myself that science cannot be correct about the age of the world as who is to say that something similar hadn't happened much earlier, causing all things to appear older than they really are, and there are numerous places where the fossil layers are all turned upside down and inside out, making it nearly impossible to accurately gauge where one is supposed to be, except by examining pieces on the other side of the planet.

also from a further point of view there was more siesmic activity between 1AD and 33AD than at any point before or since in the history of the earth (scientifically proven) (I think there is an increase in current activity but I doubt it's on teh same scale)

Sorry if someone has already covered these points but I felt it worth pointing out before I move too far and forgot about them

[Rokenn]

Originally posted by Morgeruat: also from a further point of view there was more siesmic activity between 1AD and 33AD than at any point before or since in the history of the earth (scientifically proven) (I think there is an increase in current activity but I doubt it's on teh same scale)

Scientifically proven where? Do you have links or citations to provide to back this up? So far in this thread I have not seen a single reputable citation to any study or proof of anything being claimed here regarding the 'fallibility' of carbon dating or alternatives to generally accepted scientific ideas (ie the age of the Earth and Universe).

Also there seems to be an undercurrent here in many posts that there is some sort of grand conspiracy by scientists world-wide to fudge the results of all their carbon dating tests to prove some pet theory. That is something I find very hard to believe.