Hello, I am new to this forum. I had only discovered it a few days ago. I am interested in the religions people choose and their rationale for doing so. I currently consider myself an atheist. When I was much younger, I did believe in a God and followed the Christian faith because it was bestowed upon me from my parents. But, as I grew more independant and recieved an education in Biology (currently working towards a phD), I began to question what I have learned since the beginning of my life. I have a few questions to theists, Christians in paticular. I wouldn't mind that atheists help me on this matter as well.

1. Why must your religion be correct? This is a concept I couldn't understand from a religious point of view. If God exist, why are their so many different religions to coincide with God? Why isn't their just one set of beliefs to be given to us humans? Scientifically I understand why people clustered in different areas of the world have different religions.

2. What proof do Christians, Buddhists, Jews, Hindus, Muslims etc. have that their religion is the correct one? I personally cannot accept the Bible or a given religions holy text as a primary source due to the lack of credible evidence. Isn't the fact that the sheer number of different religions exists affect or question your belief?

3. Why do Theists try to argue with scientists who know much more about a given topic than they themselves do.(I understand that their are Christian Scientists) When a theist tries to say that only God can create somthing as perfect like DNA or the human eye, they have no idea what they are saying. These two things are not perfect, far from it in fact. If God was really as infinite and flawless as people say he is, why would he create such a flawed system of nature. DNA is not perfect. If someone lives long enough they will get cancer based soley on the fact that DNA polymerase will lay down a wrong nucleotide and cause a genetic mutation leading to cancer and eventual death.

4. Personally, what would you (Theists) believe if life was found on another planet. Everything that was taught in the holy texts of Christianity (correct me if I am wrong) points towards us humans being the children of God and being made in his image. If life was found on another planet, it would seem to me that this would be the biggest blow towards religion. Who are we to think that Humans are the subject of this grand scheme of things?

I hope I didn't come across as a ill-tempered person to you all. I just want these questions answered for the benefit for me and others who may have similar questions. I would just like to get to know why people choose to believe what they do and their rationale for their position. I would also like to say that most of us atheists are not bad people, contrary to the way media and polls choose to spin us.

Thanks in advance,

-Cimber

what i am saying might be different from standard view of christians, since i am more or less liberal in my beliefs:
1. my religion might not be right. it could be wrong. everything could be wrong. even today's science could be wrong in manya things. many theories proved to be wrong, but that doesn't stop todays scientist in believing in them. so i'm going to stivk with this religion, i have nothing to loose.
2. nobody have any real evidence. there are evidence that christ existed, but it can't be proven that he is son of god. but i still believe in him.
3. i don't really understand the question. i accept modern science. i think that only extremists argue with some obvious evidence.
4. it would mean nothing. bible doesn't say that we are only beings in universe. real question would be, could aliens join christian church?

Hey,im only 16,and im by no means an expert of anythng,but im not stupid and im a christian,so I guess i'll try to answer some of these.

1. God gives every one a free will, Im not sure how other religions got started,but people chose to believe them.

2. You alredy said you wouldnt accept the bible or any other holy book,but even more than those we have faith. I have faith in what I believe. What evidence do you have that god doesn't exist,other than we dont have any that he does? We have pfoof on a personal level.

3. Personal opinon. And we belive god does every thing for a reason. An example might be god using cancer caused by a mistake of dna to get them in church,or bring thier family closer to god. It's hard to see at the time, but i believe god has a reason for everything.

4. Well, God made the heavens and the Earth,so if life is found,he made it too. But really Im not sure,ive always wondered how it would affect religion,but Ive always been interested in life on other planets too,soI guess I'd have to tell you after we find it.

I dont know if this helps,sorry if it doesn't. I am friends with some atheists myself,christians aren't as bad as people make us o9ut to be either.

Well, Cimber, let me first of all give ya some good advice: Never write a book here, just ya questions.
Secondly I've gotta go the pub, but I might get back to ya later if I'm not to drunk

Take care

Im no theist but i want to answer your questions because im bored at work.
There is nothing to suggest any particular religion is correct, they are virtually all faith based. Different religions from different cultures..if there was a god you would have to assume that there WOULD be one set of beliefs for us, just another reason why the hypothesis of god is so ludicrous.


They dont, again its a question of faith, they have faith that they are the one true religion. except Buddhism, from what i know its mostly based on philosophies etc.. no spiritual type care taker working behind the scenes.
from what i have seen.. no the fact there are so many other religions does not even come into the equation to someone who is deeply entrenched in their faith.


Theists can NOT argue with science.. thats just crazy, and any biologist knows that "intelligent design" is far far far far far far far FAR from intelligent.
science can not ever have a debate with religion. it doesnt work, its comparing fact with fiction, it does not WORK.


Just like every other time something has happened to completely discredit the bible, they re-intemperate the text to better suit this society.
lol its extremely funny actually.

I think you may get many and varied answers to your overall post. I just wanted to reply to this one. There is no contradiction to life on other planets and biblical principles. When lucifer and the third of the angelswhich followed him in opposing god as ruler fell to earth, they came here, because this was the only planet open to them. The bible indicates that there are many inhabitants of heaven and probably many worlds. Only on earth however was lucifer able to convince the inhabitants to rebel against god. All the rest of heaven has watched and continues to watch as the battle continues. Earth is a moral example; of what can happen if people disobey god, of god's eventual supreme triumph over "evil" and of the loving nature of god in allowing humanity the chance to return to the heavenly city both in a new immortal bodies, and on a new earth restored to eden like quality.
For the time being earth is quarantined from the rest of heaven but eventually we will rejoin it.

Now if we do happen to encounter aliens who see things in a different context/perspective, I stand ready to review my beliefs.

the only thing stopping you questioning your faith is aliens landing?

hej zombie, why did you say it contradicted bible? if you take bible more as philosophical work it doesn't contradict anything.


i wonder why do you apologize because you're christian. although some people in um forums want make christians seem bad, they are forgetting that people kill people. what they are forgetting, is that if all religion/ideologys die, then everyone would join their religion/ideology. then greedy people would use that religion/ideology for their own purposes and kill bunch of people in process.

if atheist think that God, Jesus, the Holy Spirit, and the Christian religion is a myth, incorrect, or unsustainable in light of "facts", then why do they try so hard to destroy it?....i think atheism is wrong but i don't beat atheist over the head, citing numerous stories, scientific facts that go my way, etc, etc....then why as believers in God, and/or Christ, and/or the Holy Spirit do we have to be pounded so much if someone else does not believe it?....if you don't believe it, then fine, don't believe it...why badger the believers?

randomhit10

First and foremost, welcome to the UM. Stick around, you'll enjoy it!

Secondly, I really can't speak to the X-tian fatih as I am not a X-tian. Most of your questions seemed a little geared toiwards christians. I really cant speak for all Jews either. I will, however, answer the questions you posed as best az I can from MY perspective.

1).Why must your religion be correct? I don't know. I think that what probably happened was that at one time G-d was talking to a lot of people. Over time the message was probably corrupted in most places. Judaism is a direct line back to one of the two earliest, and still practiced, faiths. Hence, I figure that it probably stands a better chance of being closer to the truth than the others.

2).What proof do Christians, Buddhists, Jews, Hindus, Muslims etc. have that their religion is the correct one? Somebody has to be right. Why not us!?! On a more serious note, I continue to follow Judaism because it is the oldest of the faiths that make any sence to me. For instance, if X-tianity were correct, then the Jews at the time would have all converted. Since the Jews there at the time who saw Jesus first hand didn't convert, it is logical to assume that he didn't meet their criteria.

3).Why do Theists try to argue with scientists who know much more about a given topic than they themselves do? Because many of the faithful are not convinced that the scientists ARE more knowledgeable than they are. You have to remember, the faithful are going on faith. AS for me, I think that a lot of what is in the Torah is allagory. People livign 900 years and 600 year old man building a boat big enough to hold two of all the animals, eh. I don't know. I guess an all powerful G-d could make it happen but, if so, why isn't he still doing it?

4).Personally, what would you (Theists) believe if life was found on another planet. Everything that was taught in the holy texts of Christianity (correct me if I am wrong) points towards us humans being the children of God and being made in his image. In Judaism, the concept is that the Torah was given to the children of Abraham, not mankind in general. Hence, the laws contained therein are meant for the followers of Judism, not necessarily all mankind any more than a traffic law is not meant for birds or deer. Therefore, it really wouldn't be a factor in determining the relevance of Judaism as far as I'm concerned. It's reasonable to believe that if they believe in a G-d that they may well be Jews who follow a different set of laws and that would be totally in step with my faith.

lolocast-mc-ma-tronics-lolroflmao.

please share these "facts" and i mean real "facts" not the ones which are WITHIN you that only you can conveniently see.
go ahead.

and actually you are not pounded on the head with facts, science discovers truth, it contradicts your faith. plain and simple you can continue to live a delusional life or accept the WHOLE reality, not just bits and pieces that suit you and your faith.

continue

1: If one religion is wrong aren't they all.

2: There is no proof to validate the claims of an afterlife or God(s). No one religion is the path which is why there is more then one religion.

3: They cannot accept natural law as reality (i.e. evolution).

My knowledge is based on personal experience with an entity which certainly resembles the god described in many religious texts; and studying different books of faith, with different experts, over many years.

The background knowledge and learning is not likely to change, therefore the only thing which could logically cause me to alter my present world view, would be further personal experience. So yes, if aliens landed and said they had no religious belief that might cause me to review what I know. Of course I might also chose to question the aliens motivation and philosophical/ethical beliefs as well:)

expert on faith..lol... now there is an oxymoron.


ok so what your saying is that there are lots of things that would make you question your own faith? and aliens happens to be one of those things?

The point about humans being the only creation I can answer only with my opinion. This is also as stated earlier from a liberal Christian point of view. God created man, not humans. I have always thought it was by the meaning that mortals are "man". Therefore any form of intelligent alien life would be in God's definition "man". No matter where they are, or what planet they live on. The made in our image, I admit stumps me for now. The rest I will get back to you when I figure it out, or God tells me which ever comes first!

As for the different religions not just one, I have always thought its like seeing a tree from different angles for a split second, everyone agrees it was there, but each has a different picture in their mind and very few are identical. Give that a few hundred years of people putting their own spin on it in different secluded regions and you get widely varying versions of the same thing.

Now as for the Christian Faith I don't see Christ ever talking about these things just about how god wants us all to do one thing, love each other. Every story he told was the same thing, love each other. If you love each other, because he told you to then you are doing as God wants you to do, and by that you are showing you believe in God if you say you don't.

Question... If you believe there is no God why would you be kind to people, what is your reason to, what is your motivation, what tells you to be kind if there is no God saying to be?

This is not a question posed to incite or ridicule, just a question I have always wondered in the back of my mind when ever Atheism was discussed! Be adult about it please and just answer not attack the statement.

Thanks!

outside of the fact you are calling me an idiot (in so many words), why do you care what i believe?...why does it bother you that i believe in God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit?...is it that you are not sure of your own belief, whether you are really right or not?...i appreciate you trying to be my savior in this matter but i already have one...you can climb down off your own cross before you get sunburned, know you gave it your best, and that in my delusion i will happily dwell...but thank you for your diligent effort....

by the way, i like your rabbit suit...

randomhit10

I am a Pagan, Cinder, so my point of view is very different from that of Abrahamic religions. I am a neo-Celtic Druid and I believe in my religion as much as any other theist does.


It might not be, but from what I have experienced it works for me and is the right religion for me. It is not right for everyone and all must seek their own path.



I have own proof through my own experiences, but I can't prove it to you. I don't really care if can't. If you are meant to find truth in this life you will, but it is something each must find for themselves.


I don't argue with scientists, science is a part of my religion. My love of science is part of what brought me to Paganism.



I would be so happy to find life on another planet. I am a child of the Earth, it would be nice if we could talk to the child of another planet. Hopefully we would have enough
in common to have a discussion. We are not doing so will with whales and dophins.

Welcome to the forum Cinder.

i don't know much about Pagan belief but i want to compliment you on how well you present your belief...you do it without the belittling of others...that in itself adds a lot of credibility to what you say....

randomhit10

Hi everyone, thank you for all your answers

Question... If you believe there is no God why would you be kind to people, what is your reason to, what is your motivation, what tells you to be kind if there is no God saying to be?

I personally don't need God to be there to motivate me to be kind to others. Innate social forces are enough for me to be motivated. If I piss everyone I meet off, I will most likely end up as an outcast. I, as a result, don't want to be an outcast so I choose to treat others with respect and kindness.

the experts were on linguistics and archaeological investigations. I was as interested in verifing the original languages compared with various translations, and the historical basis for different "stories" as I was in any expertise on religious writing.

No! I thought I said very clearly, that on this point, only aliens professing no knowledge of god might cause me to question my present knowledge base, but I would be just as likely to question the aliens on their religious philosophy and expertise. After all they could be wrong or lying.

A. Not all religions are created equal. Most of the monotheistic religions are organized religions, which kowtow to the whims of those who are in power within the church at the time, to wit the pope or other hotshot preacher. One who investigates christian religions will find that this is virtually always the case, and the same goes for islam also. I don't generally capitalize religious sects simply because they are products of men, as can be said of mormons, christian scientists, catholics, lutherans (as I was raised), et cetera. My guess is that if Jesus Christ came back and saw what has happened, he would be thoroughly shaken and in complete disbelief. I suspect the same would be true of Mohammad.

B. Those who speak of such Eastern philosophies as Zen Buddhism as religions know nothing about them, and should learn whereof they speak before commentary. Anyone who has studied these things knows that they treat the world in an entirely different manner than christians. These are not religions, they are philosophies dealing with reality, to wit: mind and form. There is little God in any of it, simply a realization that all is one, or that mind is the definitive part of life, and all else is secondary.

C. It is common in other philosophies that Jesus Christ (proper name) was not the son of God, but instead was a master of his philosophy, which encompassed worldly existance. Biblically, he can be quoted as saying "All these things I have done, you can do, and more", which belies the organized religions calling him the son of God. He was, however, according to certain belief systems, a master at the dream of reality. This is derived from Zen teachings, which were derived from innumerable others in the general area of the far east. There is also a philosophical link to others who practice this general type of belief in other parts of the world; in fact, the general system is more ubiquitous than either of the two organized religions. While an omni God is assumed, the difference between these and the organized religions is that paths to arrive at the realization of what comprises the universe are available and are not in organized religion. [Sin and you go to hell, for instance.] Essentially, then, organized religion is a control mechanism.

D. Science, in its own way, is as much a religion as are christianity and islam. As any true scientist is well aware, in 25 years science will have changed to absorb new and different explanations of everything. The problem is that those who believe in science must accept it wholly and completely, even when it is proved incorrect, or when anomalistic data is presented. The fact of data presented that does not coincide is either dismissed without explanation or it is debunked, mostly incorrectly. This can be said of both classical and particle; it can also be said of mathematics. It was shown, as a for instance, that heavier than air craft could not exist, even when the Wright Bros had been flying for years. It also proved that two stroke engines will not work, bumblebees cannot fly, and all electric motors must work on varying magnetic fields. Anomalous data has been around forever, and mostly it has not been explained. Science does, however, tend to limit the way minds operate, and therefore becomes a control mechanism itself. In other words, if some damfool unproven 'scientific law' says it can't be done, don't bother to try; if the violation of the law is in front of you and is working according to scientific instrumentation, then it must be a trick.

I think the answer to the bolded would be because we are all different and we all interpret things differently. Most religions are compromised of people who believe the same and set standards for their beliefs or religion.


Who is to say we don't question? Many people go based on their personal experiences and what they have seen as a base for their beliefs.



For this I have no answer.



Actually, the Bible NEVER limits anything it discusses about creation to humans alone. Yes, it says man, but who is to say there is no man on other planets. As far as I'm concerned, life on other planets wouldn't change a thing.

1. If 1 religion is wrong aren't they all... Perhaps a god and an afterlife is merely a creation of man to cope with his eventual demise as the concept of simply blinking out for most is inconceivable.

2. They don't have any proof and have been at ends with one another for ages fighting over who is right. I'm glad I am an atheist.

3. They should not argue with scientists as they aren't presenting anything material to debate with as scientists do. Evolution for example has been proven time and time again yet the idea is rejected by many especially in the US.

4. If alien life is found it will shake world religions, this is not really a matter of if it is when which i predict will be withing the next 30 to 50 years. This would answer one of mans most perplexing questions ever 'Are we alone in the universe'. The answer is an inevitability and since we exist therefore another planet must have also developed life else ware.

Thats a terrific question. Any atheists care to answer?

Why are we (Atheists) kind to people despite a lack of faith?

Simple the same reason everyone else is kind "do unto others as you would have them do unto you". Just because I do not share a belief in god doesn't give me an excuse to be not kind. I know people are going to be like 'hey that quote is from the bible...' But isn't it true if your nice to people they will be nice to you. I treat everyone how I would like to be treated which is fairly. If you going to treat people badly you will in turn be treated badly.

I respect my fellow man I expect no less from everyone else.

Never forget religion are like gangs tryna teach spirituality but in order to come up with member they twist it to the crowd liking and theres. All religions can learn from each other since they are working toward the same goal.

Another thing is when it come down to it we are conscious extension of The Creator(intelligent conscious energy i believe) and are created simply for his pleasure. The creator got tired of floating around being a void and decided to create the universe and everything in it thats when the Big Bang happened.

"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." Besides, you get better service when you're "kind to people," especially if you live in America. Plus, it's a sign of a good upbringing. And as you get older, being "kind to people" is the least of your many worries, and by this time, being "kind to people" is really mandatory (with or without God looking down on you), especially if you want to survive in this world. Unless, you have tons of F.U. money to surround yourself with superficial people, "party friends," cold servants, and so on.



Definitely, that's another good reason. And there are quite a number of reasons.


"You know you got to go through 'hell' before you get to 'heaven.'" -- STEVE MILLER BAND

I consider myself Deist rather than Theist, but I will answer your questions the best I can.

1. My religion doesn't have to be right for anyone but me. I believe in non-interference with others in spiritual matters.
2. Major religions tend to cite their Holy Book as an authority. I find all such books are arrogant in their pontificating. Compare this to, for example, the Mandaeans, who are still writing their book.
3. I have found many Theists who think even science should bow to their Holy Book, which was not written to be a historical or scientific manual.
4. All life contains the Divine Spark, whether on this particular planet or on another.

So much for my radical ideas .

Peace,

RadicalGnostic

because its who i am naturally what other reason would i need......there is no seperation between me and anyone else all others are me i treat all others the way i wish to be treated.... I feel the values and morals put forth by religion have to low of a standard to aspire too thus i would not use them as a moral dictum... we are all embued with a internal guide which seeks to be a benefit to ourselves and all others....its integral to all biengs..its not rocket science IMO....

Hello. I am new here as well. I will never claim that I have all the answers but I will try to answer these questions as best as I can in relation to my own experiences. By the way, I am a Christian. Nondenominational.



One religion would exist if it was not for Satan. He has done his best to pull mankind away from the truth and one of his methods of doing this is by creating false beliefs for others to follow. Of course to agree with this viewpoint you would have to believe in the words of the Bible so this arguement doesn't really hold water when speaking to anyone who doesn't believe in the Bible. Regardless, this is my firm belief from my "religious point of view".



The proofs that I have to validate the Bible to others is the many many prophecies contained therein. Not only prophecies pertaining to our time (such as Jews having a home again) but also prophecies that were predicted early in the Bible and then fulfilled later on in the Bible(such as the downfall of Israel and the dead-on predictions of the rise and fall of past world powers). I also point to the various scientific insights offered in the Bible that should not be there without the technology that we have today. One example I will provide is in the book of Job, considered one of (if not the) oldest books of the Bible. In this passage God is speaking to Job and reminding him how inferior man is to God. Job 38:31 states:

"Can you bind the beautiful Pleiades? Can you loose the cords of Orion?" (NIV translation)

Only through modern scientific study have we discovered that the stars that make up Orion's belt are actually heading in three different directions at three different speeds. They will not be in that formation forever. On the other hand the stars that make up Pleiades are all heading in the same direction at the same speed and the formation will be forever. It defies logic that these ancient people would actually know this. This is only on of many different insights presented in the Bible.



I have heard this arguement several times and there a few things that one needs to keep in mind about this topic.
When comparing the human eye to other eyes in nature it is easy to see that eyes of animals such as the octopus have a much better design (seemingly). However, when looking at the organs of another animal, you must also look at the environment that it lives in. If humans had octopus eyes they would fail in a very short time due to the differences in environment.
Beyond this, though, there is something much greater to be taken in to account. We are not observing God's perfect and flawless creation at the present. We are looking at a perfect creation that was altered by sin. When sin entered the world it tainted all of nature. The fact that nature is currently flawed does not go against the Bible and the story of earth's creation, it reinforces it.



If life on other planets was found that would not deter my faith. Nothing in the Bible states that earth is the only place where life exists.

It does not defy logic. The ancient mayans were great astronomers for example, and were here long before the bible was. It is relativley easy to observe stars gaining or losing distance over time. It is as if you think they are totally incapable of logical reasoning.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=furcepFlfZ4
Take a look at this video. Its the best 'readily available' video on the web describing eye evolution. The octopus eye being better than human is debatible. It is true that their night vision is better, but their day vision is inferior.

I do not doubt that ancient people were great astronomers but we are talking about changes in the stars that are beyond perception with the naked eye, even over a great amount of time. If you look at the earliest sketches of Orion, it appears the exact same as it does now. We only know the direction and speed of the stars by using delicate scientific technology. I know that most people think that ancient people were baffoons and we (modern day people) are the most highly developed and evolved humans that have ever existed but my view is the exact opposite of this. When sin entered the world we fell away from God. This fall is a continual process and, as time goes along, we are actually de-evolving from what we once were. I firmly believe that ancient people were capable of logical reasoning and that it was on a much higher level we can achieve now. Taking this into account, however, I don't believe that they would be able to see changes this minute.

The octopus eye statement was just an example (obviously a poor one) from a debate that I've seen in the past. My point about it was that people who argue about poor design don't always take into account other factors. Beyond that, though, my answer to your question was about sin being the reason we have the flaws in nature that exist today, and I still stand firmly by that.

Of course sketches of orion appear the same. No one is going to sketch dots to exact specifications each and every time. There will be many different observers and with each observer comes various lurking variables. That is why we scientists prefer to keep doing things ourselves in the lab instead of passing them on down to the next guy.
When exactly do you believe that sin entered the world? Is it during the story of Adam and Eve? Also I am curious to know what you think the color of their skin was and where exactly on Earth they lived.

Sin entered the world as soon as Eve bit into that apple in direct defiance of God's command. Though sin originates with Satan and his fall happened before the apple incident, sin had not entered our world yet because Satan is not of our world. He had to have a window in which to get sin into creation and corrupting man was the gateway he needed.

I believe that the Garden of Eden was in or around modern day Iraq, as many biblical scholars believe today. This would put it around the middle of Pangea. I am uncertain as to the color of their skin. The earth's features were much different back then so I am not certain what the original level that humanity's melanin was set at. These details do not matter, however. Adam and Eve could have been black, white, red, yellow, purple or pink with turquoise polka dots and it wouldn't effect anything. The area that the Garden of Eden was located is of little consequence as well, the important fact is that it existed somewhere in the world and humanity was expelled from it when we were corrupted. These questions are odd to me, being so superficial. I'm not sure what relevance they hold.

On a side note, I agree that people aren't going to sketch the stars to exact specifications and this is another reason why ancient people could not have known about the characteristics of the stars that make up Orion's belt. The only way they would have known this back then was if they sketched them precisely over the course of thousands of years and then compare all the sketches. I don't think they were capable of this on a level that they could readily see Orion's belt breaking up.

I don't mean to sound harsh Llucid because you seem to be an intelligent individual. But this is the difference between a 'Man of Science' and a 'Man of Faith'. Those questions may sound superficial to you, but to a scientist, they are important questions that need to be answered. Lets analyze this...

You stated that biblical scholars say the garden of eden was in Iraq, middle of Pangea. This indicates that biblical scholars believe humans first settled in Iraq.

First, humans were not around while the supercontinent of Pangea existed. Amphibians and reptiles arise during this time. Mammals and dinosaurs don't arise until the Triassic period.

Second, modern humans originated from southeastern Africa 50,000 years ago and moved to Europe, Asia, and Australia. Though there is also a multi-regional theory, single origin proves to hold more water due to overwhelmingly more evidence.

So Llucid it is important for us to know the answers to these questions. All the depictions of Adam and Eve I have seen, have shown them as caucasian and settled in Iraq (as you have pointed out). In reality they would have had darker skin and settled in Africa.

You're not sounding harsh at all .

You could be right. The Garden of Eden could have been in southeastern Africa. I don't really care for religious depictions because most of them originate from the early Catholics and were made to appeal to white people, such as the pictures of Jesus with baby blue eyes and fair skin, or the pictures of Adam and Eve that you speak of. Like I said, though, it does not matter where the fall of humanity happened. It only matters what happened.

I don't differentiate between people of science and people of faith. If you could scientifically prove the Bible wrong then it wouldn't be God's word. The only difference between a secular scientist and a Christian is what they have decided to put their faith into. There are so many problems with modern day scientific practices and beliefs, such as carbon-14 dating and evolution, that it takes tremendous faith on the secular scientist's part to see past all the flaws.

Please tell me some of the problems with 'scientific practices and beliefs'. I deal with them everyday, and I am interested in what you think they are.

Also, I don't see how you can honestly say that it doesn't matter where the 'fall of humanity happened'. If the bible says one thing and and archealogical evidence says another, science is going to basically disprove the story.

Well, first let me admit that my statement about problems with scientific practices and beliefs was a bit broad. There are many many scientific fields of study and each one uses different methods to do the things they do. I also do not know what field of study you are in so I would know how to debate the information you deal with on a daily basis. To remedy this I will take a 'scientifically factual' quote from one of your previous posts and look at it.



You put forth this statement as if it is well known scientific fact, and indeed it appears to be. They teach it in schools, don't they? They wouldn't print majorly disputed 'facts' in textbooks, would they?

The Triassic period began around 251 million years ago and ended around 199 years ago, followed by the Jurassic period. But how do we know this? Science has determined this through radioactive dating. By using radiometric or radioisotope dating, scientist can test rocks found in a specific layer of strata and determine how old that layer is. In turn that layer now dictates how old the fossils are that are found in said layer. This leads to what are known as index fossils. If an index fossil is found in a specific layer then it dates the whole layer to the fossil. You state that dinosaurs weren't around until the Triassic period because the earliest dinosaur fossils that we have found were found in layers of strata that belong (are radioactively dated) to Triassic times. There are a couple problems with this process.

The first problem is the index fossil dating method. This is an example of circular reasoning. You use the fossils to date the layer and the layer to date the fossils. Supporting a statement with the statement rather than a conclusion is ludicrous. 'This fossil is this old because the layer is this old and this layer is this old because the fossil is this old.'

The second problem is radiometric dating. Radiometric dating is the method of studying the decay of unstable isotopes. You simply take the ratio of the parent (original) element to it's daughter element (what it decays into) and this will tell you how long the object you are testing has been around. In order for this to work, though, you must have a closed system. Radiometric dating systems have been proven not to be closed systems and are affected by outside influences. In order for this dating system to work, one must make these assumptions that I attribute to Dr. Don Patton.

• The rate of decay has to be constant
• You have to correctly guess how much of the daughter element was already in the object before the radioactive decay began
• You must know the conditions that were present when the decay began (certain things can effect the rate of decay)
• No leaching or addition of the parent element has taken place to the object being tested
• No leaching or addition of the daughter element has taken place to the object being tested
• All these assumptions must be valid the entire time the object is in existance

(for a wonderful streaming video by Dr. Don Patton about problems with methods of Geology and Stratigraphy click here)

Minerals and elements go in and out of rocks all the time. There is no way we can determine that an object has been completely untouched over the millions of years it is said to have existed. There are several factors that effect rates of decay and there is no way to categorically decide if something hasn't been influenced for millions of years.

When determining the age of dinosaur fossils, carbon-14 dating cannot be used because the rate of the decay of carbon is too short. Carbon dating only works when dating objects that are no older than 50,000-60,000 years old. A problem with this is most fossils tested still contain carbon but the results aren't accepted by the scientific community because carbon isn't suppose to be there. They attribute the carbon found to outside contamination. In order to 'accurately' date the fossils, one must rely on the above methods- by testing rocks located with the specimen.

One glaring contradiction to modern dating results can be found inside the fossils themselves. Fossils that are suppose to be millions of years old still contain DNA which has scientifically been proven to decay within 10,000 years. If you check out Science (Research News, V.261,9/7/1993) you will see that a dinosaur fossil was found with blood cells still inside! Omni (1/90, p.32) printed that duck-billed dinosaur bones were found that still contain soft tissue in the bones! These findings fly directly in the face of modern day 'scientifically' accepted facts, such as the nice neat chart that marks the beginning and end of ages, periods and times. Not to mention if you believe in a world-wide flood, like I do, this would have jumbled up the sediment anyways and skewed our modern day graphs. This would also leave objects like completely petrified trees running through millions of years of sediment layers (which they have indeed found) and prove it impossible that these layers formed gradually over time.






Archealogical and Biblical evidence are not at odds with each other over the location of the Garden of Eden because the Bible doesn't say specifically where it was. People have theorized and made assumptions but that is all they are. Even Biblical scholars don't agree with each other on where it was located.

There's only one answer RH, they don't like the idea of hell. lol

Here's something for your phd Cimber.
When i was on elementary, Biology is my favorite subject.
I wonder why a small seed would cracked open then sprout something in it.
It begun to grow and formed differently from the rest.
When i was on high school, i dissected a frog.
I removed the heart and expose it to sunlight.
After more than an hour, the heart was still beating.
I wonder why it is beating?

"Here's something for your phd Cimber.
When i was on elementary, Biology is my favorite subject.
I wonder why a small seed would cracked open then sprout something in it.
It begun to grow and formed differently from the rest.
When i was on high school, i dissected a frog.
I removed the heart and expose it to sunlight.
After more than an hour, the heart was still beating.
I wonder why it is beating?"

I don't major in physiology but I have had experiences with Frog hearts. Frog hearts first are 3 chambered opposed to 4 chambers humans have. The frog heart (like ours) has what are called "self-excitatory" muscle fibers which basically means that the heart can contract itself without brain interference. When rinsed in chemicals, the heart will continue to beat outside of the body.

Llucid, I will come back later to answer your question because I don't have enough time right now to do so.

well you know if you actually studied a little bit theres something called the dead sea scrolls which is actually the scrolls that made the bible because someone in the past wrote aactually many people so........................ and anyways what is an athiest

What is this in reference to?

Also I know quite a bit about the dead sea scrolls
Atheists is someone who doesn't believe in the existence of God.

You sound heathy to me. Im a deist and gnostic but was raised catholic and indoctrinated by the pope's dogma, the Catacism through religious education. I never believe half the trash including the pope. Christ has always been my central figure and master.
Mateo 6:24
" No one can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to one and despise the other You cannot serve God and wealth.

That is was what I finally decided. I think many chrsitians or folks of other faiths have it right. It, meaning a faith in Christ that is right for themselves but not for another. I also think the uneducated, including but not limited to; pastors, preacher and other clergy or practicing folks find the need to be right or they fear going to hell for their problems. Folks and their problems normally make me ill with their lack of understanding of their bible idol and Christ. I think those who serve Christ and Jehovah are serving two masters which confuses them. In their confusion, they are taught to serve two masters, and then they must be right or they fear their version of hell or pergatory. Since many of these folks live in adultery or some other nastiness and most take the bible literally, I can understand their fear. Literalism is not educated and since some of them were indoctrinated by their preacher, pastor or other clergy who also take their bible idol literally, they can not accept they are serving two masters, but I think they are. Acts 15 makes clear what Christ was saying all along, that he is the last human sacrifice of Jehovah and we are now free of those bondages of slavery. And there is much slavery, human sacrifice, incest, polygamy, etc. in Jehovah. For example, slave owners in the deep south used the bible to back up their biggotry. Folks in these other out-lawed lifestyles still do this. Gay marrage is a newer target. Christ merely asked for monogamy, not gender in marriage. But men have to **** around and stoke their ego's anyway. As senetor Vitter and others with zipper problems demonstrate. Quite nasty!

Alright I'll take your post point by point

1. '''The Triassic period began around 251 million years ago and ended around 199 years ago'''

I'll assume 199 million years ago

2. """The first problem is the index fossil dating method. This is an example of circular reasoning. You use the fossils to date the layer and the layer to date the fossils. Supporting a statement with the statement rather than a conclusion is ludicrous. 'This fossil is this old because the layer is this old and this layer is this old because the fossil is this old."""

There are many rules index fossils most follow in order to be considered an index fossil.

1. Wide geographic distribution
2. Short geologic time range
3. Common
4. Easy to recognize

A religious person can argue that this is circular reasoning, but saying a 'trilobite came from the cambrian period because they existed during the cambrian period' is hardly circular reasoning in a scientific since. Let me tell you why.
The whole basis of categorizing a period are the fauna and flora that is located in it and the climate that describes it. How else could one describe or divide a geologic period?
You may think that this is similar to saying, todays thursday because its the fifth day of the week (if going by Sunday being the first), but its not. Scientific research is involved.

Religious people do this all the time. I can just as easily accuse you of circular reasoning when someone says, "The Bible is true because God exists, and God exists because the Bible says he does''.
The difference between your statement and mine is that science has at least been attempted (and to a higher degree than you give it credit for).

3. """The second problem is radiometric dating"""
I see you mentioned Dr. Patton in your explanation. I suggest you read this web page in its entirety http://www.ooblick.com/text/patton/

""Minerals and elements go in and out of rocks all the time. There is no way we can determine that an object has been completely untouched over the millions of years it is said to have existed""
This is the reason scientists use many trials in experiments. This is the most fundamental of scientific process, and one I am sure everyone learns in at least middle school science classes. This is the reason for statistics and comparative analysis. One doesn't just take a single sample and claim it as being true. It takes hundreds upon hundreds of samples (if you want good results) and comparing conclusions to get an answer.

4. Red blood cell and dinosaur claim

I suggest you read this pdf. It comes from a Christian by the way.
http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/dinoblood.pdf

You make some strong claims that are supported by many in the scientific community. If I were able to disprove these claims I would be a hero to creationists everywhere. In all actuality, however, I will not be able to do that. I am not the one who will end the 'young earth vs old earth' debate once and for all. This discussion we are having, the way this thread has evolved, is climbing out of my scope of expertise. I am not a scientist. To restate something I said in my first post in this thread- I will never claim that I have all the answers but I will try to answer these questions as best as I can in relation to my own experiences.



An uncanny prediction for what this thread is turning into. The reason people do this is because they know they are right. You are certain that your conclusions are correct, being supported and shared by your peers, and I am certain that mine are too. I could dig up quotes from a hundred scientists that believe in creationism and in turn you would dig up a hundred rebuttal quotes that are just as weighty. The only thing we will prove is that there is no 'Science vs Faith' debate because, just as much of religion doesn't agree with itself, science doesn't agree with itself either. This is what I meant when I spoke about science requiring faith. Every scientist claims to be completely unbiased and that they let the facts speak for themselves but if that was the case then why are there so many opposing scientific views?

The bottom line is that people choose what they want to believe in.

I can certainly agree with you Llucid. There are varying scientific views. There is no doubt about it. Some scientists take longer to convince than others about theories. But most rely on their on research. If I found that humans began from a single origin, while another finds that we came from multiple regions, its human nature to defend your research. The reason there are so many opposing scientific views is because there is not yet enough knowledge on the subject. The 'dark matter' subject is very open right now because its a relatively young field of research. This can be attributed to every theory out there.

I must say though that I enjoyed having this conversation with you

Oh yes, I enjoy reading the theories about dark matter. Some strange stuff, heh. Strange science always catches my eye. My favorite reading at the moment (besides the Bible, of course) is Quantum Theory. You talk about mind boggling! Whew!

I also have enjoyed this conversation and I hope you've learn something from me, as I have from you. If you have any questions about scripture or spiritual matters, please let me know. If I have any about biology or any other related field, I'll most certainly give you a holler