I'm trying to work with you here..
what is clearly wrong. It's not so clear that i can even see it.
I'm afraid you'd have to give me a specific.
Dinosaurs existed for several thousand years, maybe as few as a couple thousand. I just don't get what you're saying.
*edit* ok, you changed your post.
Hate to tell ya , but carbon dating becomes highly unreliable after a couple thousand years. there are also many variables which effect carbon dating, and even under the best conditions , carbon dating has been proven to be unreliable enough so as to be nearly useless.
*next Edit*- Sorry bro-- ya said 'discussion' at the front of this thread here.
*yet another edit!* HA! Ok..I read the discussion part and it didn't sink in ya wanted it done by PM.
Gran--the qualifier was stated..."carbon dating becomes highly unreliable after a couple thousand years".My statement is not false at all.

As much as I LOVE a good debate (and I do-I'm so resisting the urge), can we move it do pm's? I really would like to keep this thread open, and that's only going to happen if we can stick to the plan, stan.

Your top 3 spiritual beliefs. Nothing more, nothing less.

Thank you. Drive through.

Cocoa !! LMFAO !!
YOu expect them to be knocking at around bedtime !!

And...I've never seen a female Jehova's WItness.

Just for a rectification in your science knowledge, the theory of using 10% is these days a myth wich is hard to get rid off. We use it a full 100%, but it depends on the moment wich parts we use.

The above comment is false.

I contradict everything marx says Cos I can

I just can't resist any longer. Sorry if I ruin my own thread. My own good judgment tells me I won't convince a single person, but what the heck.



That's only true if the decay of C-14 has been constant, which cannot be proven. Even if we take samples of it from now on and prove that it has been constant since we started taking samples, that doesn't prove that it always has been constant since the beginning of time. Personally, I'm not a scientist (I doubt many of you are either), so these issues do admittedly go over my head. But if you're intested in a comprehensive overview of the scientific Young Earth response to carbon dating, see this article. Plus, there was a HUGE worldwide event that caused all ancient dating methods to be altered big time (Genesis 6-8).

We're side-stepping the real issue though. The Bible isn't a science textbook. There are different ways to understand Genesis 1 (poetic/symbolic) which fully agree with an Old Earth view. So even if the Earth is proven to be billions of years old, this would not disprove Christianity. The main idea to be gained from Gen. 1 is that God created the universe and everything in it.

If you're really serious about this topic, I commend to you a good book titled I Don't Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist. It makes the case that it takes more faith to be an atheist that it does to believe in Jesus Christ.

I agree with you on this point, Bro. If Genesis is taken poetically / metaphorically, it is not in contradiction to Evolutionary theory. I think what most of those of us who accept evolution find frustrating is the literal interpretation simply because it seems to us that people are accepting ancient theory over a modern one. If, of course, you believe in the Bible as the Word of God, then all of the modern science in the world won't convince you, so it really is a no-win argument... but it's fun, isn't it?

I wish we as a species could begin to look for SIMILARITIES between religions instead of focusing so intently on the differences. I mean, instead of saying Jesus is the only way to God, it would be more productive to say Hmm... Jesus would have agreed with Buddha on the following points......

Just a thought....

Finding similarities would be a good task. It would definately be interesting to see what everybody in the world can agree on (I'm thinking the list would actually be quite short). Such a study, though, ultimately misses the point. Eternity is a long time, and if my soul is going to last that long, I want to be sure I've got it right before dying.



I'm only interested in truth. I'm open to hearing other beliefs (which is why I started this thread), because if what I believe is really true, then a careful look at the evidence will line up with what I believe. But if what I believe is not true, then eventually I'll see how my faith does not answer a particular question, and I'll be forced to reevaluate things. Hear me when I say this: if what I believe is not true, I need to know so I'm not wasting my life. So far (and I've looked into it a lot), I believe there is far more evidence for Christianity than against it. But more often than not, it's people's interpretation of the evidence that contradicts Christianity, which is really no proof at all, but merely another opinion.

Well here is another classic example of what I was saying before about some religious interpretations of the Bible being inaccurate or assumptions, which therefore (understandably) lead agnostics and atheists to scorn the whole idea because of what they hear.

There is nothing in the Bible to support the interpretation that the earth itself was created in seven literal days(*), or that the geology is only a few thousand years old - the timescales mentioned earlier as calculated refer to human generations, not the age of the earth or universe, neither of which are specified.

Hence, I get concerned that belief in creation (the principle that an intelligent being actively made the universe) gets confused with "creationism" - specifically, the idea that the earth and/or entire universe is only a few thousand years old and that it was all created in six literal days (24x6 hours).

Often, when you compare what the Bible actually says on certain matters, it contradicts the interpretation imposed on it by orthodox Churches(**), and is far clearer and/or more reasonable than what is taught from the pulpit or claimed by religious people (many of whom, in fairness, have also been taught badly by their own religious leaders).

My general advice to anyone would be: read the Bible for yourself. Even if you only choose to read it as "allegory" or "just a good story", so much of our culture and history (and our laws too) are based on Biblical imagery and concepts (admittedly often distorted too, as mentioned above) so it can only enrich your understanding of life, even if you don't accept it as "gospel" (literally).

It will also better enable you to determine whether the things you are told are in the Bible (whether by atheists criticising, or by religionists attempting to convert/proselytise) really are there or not, or whether they are being made up, misinterpreted or misunderstood.

(*) the word for "day" can refer to an era or general epoch, not only a literal 24 hour period (and even today we use expressions like "in my day" meaning an era, not just 24 hours).

(**)the RC Church's persecution of Galileo is another classic example - the Bible makes no claim that the Earth is the centre of the universe.

I often wonder if Jesus would be annoyed to see his name plastered on the bumper of someones car.