WTF is up with GOD

[Buki]

I want to make a stand on this god thing... I think its time we droped the imaginary friends. I'm always shocked and awed when I hear or read something shocking and or awe...ing, that has its roots in religion.

Today for exapmle was in psych class. Prof was tellin a story, about a boy who was abused physically. She said he had the "escaped slave thing going on" this ofcourse meant he had lashings on his back. Turns out the person abusing him mostly was his grandmother an evangelical, or however you spell it. "Sometimes boys need to be whiped."

Saw a thing on T.V. about a fam who resided in a very remote location in Utah. The man was a Mourman (don't know correct spelling) and had 2 wives, 7 kids and no running water or electricity.

Now you're going to tell me, "there are stupid ppl out there who arn't religous." and you would be right. BUT why is it more acceptable that religion becomes an umbrella excuse for dumb shit, its time to move on ppl.

And btw the Kid was almost alowedd to stay with grannys side of the fam, BECAUSE she was a religous woumen.

[Slicks]

It is sad people use religion as an umbrella......yes there are stupid people of every religion which give there religious beliefs a bad name.

Hell even the stupid people who dont believe in religion give true athist(spelling?) a bad name. go figure


As far your misspellings it is Mormon.

[Post]

Faith by definition does not make sense. If your actions make logical sense, then faith is not necessary to do them.

And I'm agnostic, and do believe in a supreme being.

[Allison]

Religion can be a very positive influence for some people. However, because religion can be just about anything anyone wants it to be, it can also be a vehicle for the disturbed to do very bad things and still feel like they're doing very good things.

[]LoL[Harm]

In any and all things, mankind can find ways to warp it to justify their actions. This does not mean you have to remove the things they warp from existing, because mankind is very inventive in finding ways to rationalize actions that are immoral or unethical.

If we did go about removing things that were warped to justify actions we wouldn't have secular laws either, since religion is really just ideological and spiritual laws.

Anyways, who cares about the backwoods hick with 7 kids and 2 wives, as long as he wasn't eating his children or some other action that hurt someone, and was caring for the 2 wives and 7 kids, his "crime" against society or god is paltry compared to other acts done in both the name of religion and in the name of law.

The corporal punishments that the grandmother was using though is something that should be looked at.

But something far more insidious in our society today is that this is the voice of a few million of our citizens:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MIZDnpPafaA

[Hollus]

I'm a Christian. Just putting that out there.

People are faliable and flawed. We've been that way since the original sin. God however is not flawed. People will do wrong things in God's name. Whether misled or out and out wrong, it's the people that do wrong, not God.

Usually, I've noticed that sometime people get Old testament and go by law, not grace.

I would suggest faulting the people and not God.

And to Post, Faith by definition makes as much sense as anything else. Faith is very logical and following the instructions set in the New Testament, makes complete and total logical sense. I can honestly say there is nothing Jesus said in the NT that has ever made me go "Wha...?" It may be hard to do at times, but nobody said it'd be easy.

[Muadi]

Can it also be said, that there are a lot of bad/dumb people out there? Some are religious, some are not.

Now, on Buki's point.... nobody should be allowed to hide from the law because of beliefs (one way or the other). Laws are laws. If they need changing, lobby to do so. Otherwise, abide by them.

[Post]

It can't make sense, though. Otherwise, it's logical. If we were to put all beliefs on a scale of 0 to 10, 10 being the most logical and 0 being the least, a belief that has a logic value of 10 takes 0 faith.

Say that you drop your feet off of your bed in the morning, with the purpose of them getting to the ground. That's what they'll logically do. It takes zero faith (on a real world scale), because it has a high logic value.

For someone to believe in something while being low on the logic scale, that is faith. As I stated, I do believe in a higher power, but know it's not logical. I just have faith.

[Hollus]

Well, to be honest, you can't look at everything logically, because we are not completely logical beings.

If you are going to be logical about everything, you have to throw emotion out the window. Emotions defy logic. People will do things that make no sense what so ever because of love, greed, lust, hate, etc...things that we on the outside would call them morons over, they do due to their emotions.

Faith in God is the same way, but actually makes sense. With emotions, we're given no scripture or instruction manual of how they work. Through the Word of God, we're given direction on how to deal with the emotions.

I'm still confused as where believing in God and having faith in him is illogical. If you could clear that part up, I may be able to explain a bit better.

[MickeyFinn]

for agnostics like myself, religion is more of another way to phrase the argument "do the ends justify the means". Most educated people understand how ridiculous the wacky stories and random rantings of the Bible are, but does it do more harm than good? In many cases yes, and in other cases no. I know a great number of people whose faith is what keeps them an honest person... And I know of a few who have declared mass genocide in "His" name.

[Post]

"Well, to be honest, you can't look at everything logically, because we are not completely logical beings.

If you are going to be logical about everything, you have to throw emotion out the window. Emotions defy logic. People will do things that make no sense what so ever because of love, greed, lust, hate, etc...things that we on the outside would call them morons over, they do due to their emotions."

Logical and illogical are not synonymous with right and wrong. It would be a terrible thing to leave your child behind while being chased by a bear, regardless if it were logical. The fact remains though, faith is the gap in a belief where logic does not reside.

"I'm still confused as where believing in God and having faith in him is illogical. If you could clear that part up, I may be able to explain a bit better."

Like any other conclusion you gather in life - the empirical evidence does not support it. To believe something despite missing the empirical evidence to support it is by definition illogical. And exactly what faith is. Again, it's not about right and wrong; just if there's cold reason to support the theory or not.

With or without it, you'd have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, it takes religion.

[MickeyFinn]

Well, religion loopholes logic in a very sneaky way. Logically, you define something like "all cats are not dogs" to be extrapolated into a universal term such as "if there is such thing as a cat, it is not a dog". Existential definitions are impossible to prove incorrect because we can't say "Jesus is right there, and he is obviously not white". We have no logical proof to say that the statement "Jesus was white" is wrong. (This is just an example of the logical form, not of my own religious beliefs).

We can, however, define rationality. One major flaw I find in economics is the assumption that people behave rationally. That is to say, if something becomes more expensive a person will not typically choose to buy more of that item. they will instead typically buy less of that item (on the average). Time and again though, this hasn't been the case. When real estate or public stock becomes more expensive, people tend to buy that shit up like candy. It's very strange. Buffet has made a fortune by buying when everybody else is selling, and selling when everyone else is buying. He's the only rational real estate investor out there, hehe.

[]LoL[Harm]

Religion for the most part, at least from my experience, basically operates as a support function. It doesn't provide tangible answers as in "Am I a good person?" or "Will the Yankees ever suck?", and reading the Christian bible (I'm referring to the New Testament as the Old Testament is mostly the Torah) alone without proper guidance will not make you a good person. Sure it has good lessons, no more than any other religious text however. There are good lessons in the Torah, Qur'an, the writing of Confucius (where the golden rule originated from, you know, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you"...yeah not Jesus, Confucius, though Confucius said it like so: “Do not impose on others what you do not wish for yourself.” ) and in the writings of multiple Dalai Lama's.

Anyhow, I'm meandering. Back to my original point, the majority of religious people use religion to support their morals, and help them through hardships. They in essence use religion like a never ending parental figure, whereas we eventually grow up and leave the guidance of our parents and they are not usually in our house to help us through our private issues and struggles, religion and whatever god you think is the best, is.

[Hollus]

Mickey, most educated people will read the Bible before making claims of ridiculousness. It would be like not watching a movie and saying it's bad. "most" people that think the Bible is ridiculous and wacky haven't read it.

Post, to keep it short, my "empirical" evidence is the Bible. We study history books and know that things did happen by the documentation. The Bible is the same way. It's a history book God inspired with instructions. It's filled with evidence, thus why it's logical to me.

Mickey - Jesus wasn't white, He was a Jew. That's plainly stated through out the New Testament.

There are no logic loopholes.

The biggest problem man has is trying to relate God like he's a human. We can't apply our logic to God. We're not even close.

I have no Idea why you are bringing economics into this. That has no bearing on what we're even talking about.

[Post]

"Post, to keep it short, my "empirical" evidence is the Bible. We study history books and know that things did happen by the documentation. The Bible is the same way. It's a history book God inspired with instructions. It's filled with evidence, thus why it's logical to me."

That's not empirical evidence. I assume you know that, with putting it in quotations and all, but that also means it's not true logic. Maybe it's logical to some, but that could be anything. I'm sure all of the religions are logical to someone, but logic is a consistent truth, and not different from person to person. Heck, Christianity and most other religions base a lot of their value upon the belief without logic - leaps of faith. If it were logical that Christianity was correct - that is, there was conclusive proof of its belief system - then what would be the value of faith at all?

[Slicks]

log·ic

1.
the science that investigates the principles governing correct or reliable inference.
2. a particular method of reasoning or argumentation: We were unable to follow his logic.

3. the system or principles of reasoning applicable to any branch of knowledge or study.

4. reason or sound judgment, as in utterances or actions: There wasn't much logic in her move.

5. convincing forcefulness; inexorable truth or persuasiveness: the irresistible logic of the facts


faith

1. confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability.
2. belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.

3. belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion: the firm faith of the Pilgrims.

4. belief in anything, as a code of ethics, standards of merit, etc.: to be of the same faith with someone concerning honesty.

5. a system of religious belief: the Christian faith; the Jewish faith.

6. the obligation of loyalty or fidelity to a person, promise, engagement, etc.: Failure to appear would be breaking faith.

7. the observance of this obligation; fidelity to one's promise, oath, allegiance, etc.: He was the only one who proved his faith during our recent troubles.

8. Christian Theology. the trust in God and in His promises as made through Christ and the Scriptures by which humans are justified or saved.




Definitions provided by dictionary.com

[MickeyFinn]

Hollus, I've read the Bible before dismissing it as fiction. There are Jews of all colors, btw. Just don't ask the catholic church about it. My point was that none of us were there when a collaboration of people decided to write a book full of fables to teach you what they considered right from wrong, and there is no direct evidence linking *any* of it to truth.

Why is it that when a homeless person on the street claims they spoke to God, you ignore them- but you follow a book written by people of the same background?


Your argument is "The bible is true because it says it is". That's fallacy. We believe science because its results are repeatable and provable at any moment. Any time we try to prove the Christian Bible we realize that every holiday was based on one from another religion, the "wise men" were magi who believed in astrology, and Jesus was as brown as a fritter.

[]LoL[Harm]

I've read the bible (a few books I haven't read yet, most of those are in the latter half of the old testament), many of the books several times. It was in reading the bible that I began to doubt the concept of organized religion. Using a book that has a vengeful, angry, and unforgiving god in the first half, that then does a 180 and becomes a loving, caring god in the second half was so jarring that I swore I was reading books from two different religions. And then I found out I was. I still to this day have no idea why Christians have the old testament fixed to their religious text, and for that matter constantly point towards the 10 commandments, which are the Jewish commandments, not the Christian ones...but I digress.

The bible is not logical. But neither is religion. And for what religion is good for, it doesn't have to be.

[Hollus]

I will respond when not at work. It's going to be a while.

[MickeyFinn]

There's no reason to, Hollus. There's no legitimate argument to be made for Christianity. Each person has the right to believe whatever they like, but don't dare try to claim it's a book full of true history to an educated person. That book was written over a thousand years before mankind was willing to accept the Earth was round, and provides absolutely no verifiable facts. Look at it similarly to Homer's Odyssey; a fantastic tale, and nothing more.


Edit-

A fantastic tale, might I add, that shows mankind to be ~6000 years old. please explain dinosaur bones to me. Is that another test?

What about the Garden of Eden. Where is that, exactly?

Noah's Ark- did it fit millions of species of animal, or did they all evolve over the course of that whoppin' 6000 years? Where's the remains of the boat, or why can we not trace all animal life back to one spot?

If we all came from Eve, why do we not share the maternal gene that traces our genetic roots back to our ancestors? Geneticists can link all members of your mother's side as far back as you can find DNA for them. Shouldn't we all have that exact gene if we all came from the exact mother?

[Hollus]

...
I've been keeping it civil. But you are not going to tell me there's no reason nor hint that I should keep it to myself. This forum is open to debate and as such, until I cross some boundries, I'll do it.

First, you're going to tell me there's not reason, then ask me to explain things?

Post and Harm are at least allowing the common courtesy to let me share my side without the rudeness and inflated "educated" ego.

You're response lends credence to my belief that you are going to be completely arguementative and keep the blinders on regarldess of facts or proof.

Now decide, are you going to keep it a coherent debate, or are you going to let some anal cranal syndrome direct your posts?

[]LoL[Harm]

Here is a direct case in point, where does this Christian spokes person for the AFA (American Family Association) get off in quoting freaking Exodus for laws...he isn't Jewish.

http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/03/05/kill-tilly-for-the-bible-tells-us-so/


It's pretty clear the two commandments that Jesus states in Matthew 22, which summarized are Love God with all you got, and love everyone else like they were yourself.

Nothing in there about killing an ox if it kills someone.

[Hollus]

Harm,

There was no need for animal sacrifice to atone for sins to God any more since Jesus came to be the sacrifice for past present and future sins.

But agreed, The Original 10 commandments were set for the Jews to keep them safe and separate. They are reference today for guidelines of how to live.

[]LoL[Harm]

That's where things fall apart. The Old Testament was the secular laws of the Hebrew peoples. It is not our secular law and it is most definitely not the Christian set of laws. To just take it and say that its what we use today just ain't true. Otherwise Christians wouldn't eat pork.

Christians taking the pieces from the Torah that happen to fit what they feel is right and ignoring all the rest just doesn't make solid, logical sense.

A Christian is not Jewish. I don't know why they can't get over that fact.

[]LoL[Harm]

In fact I don't know why that Christian from the AFA didn't read a little further down, because see that orca has killed people in the past, it's well documented and can be proven in court, therefore we should follow Exodus 21:29:
But if the ox were wont to push with his horn in time past, and it hath been testified to his owner, and he hath not kept him in, but that he hath killed a man or a woman; the ox shall be stoned, and his owner also shall be put to death.

And of course put to death those who own that orca.

[Hollus]

I view it as the laws were set in place in the old Testament to keep the Jews (The race, not the religion) separate, to keep them disciplined, and to keep them sanitary.

From my limited understanding (by no means am I the most learned person in the world...far from it) Much of the Old testament was the building of Israel and The Jews to be the people of God. The whole reason of the Old testament was to set up for the coming of Jesus. Everything points to it.

God had to set up people to be stout, strong of character (although many of the people royally screwed that up...David, Solomon, Saul, etc..), and wise to create a race of people that would pass on the prophecies and the bloodline.

Again, the laws were put in place by God for the Jews, I won't argue that mainly to keep them in line and safe from themselves.

Hence, that is why the OT and NT Can seem to conflict. You have the set up and the delivery as it were. OT was to create a nation that the messiah could come from, NT was the fruition of that where laws are not a requirement, but more of guidelines that have been replaced by Grace as far as God goes.

That's what I think of it.

[Hollus]

Post Quote: Logical and illogical are not synonymous with right and wrong.

I never said that it was. What I'm merely stating is that emotions, at times, defy logic. Therefore, by the same argument, we should dismiss emotions because they don't always follow logical paths.

Mickey Quote:
A fantastic tale, might I add, that shows mankind to be ~6000 years old. please explain dinosaur bones to me. Is that another test?

What about the Garden of Eden. Where is that, exactly?

Noah's Ark- did it fit millions of species of animal, or did they all evolve over the course of that whoppin' 6000 years? Where's the remains of the boat, or why can we not trace all animal life back to one spot?

If we all came from Eve, why do we not share the maternal gene that traces our genetic roots back to our ancestors? Geneticists can link all members of your mother's side as far back as you can find DNA for them. Shouldn't we all have that exact gene if we all came from the exact mother? __________________

Dinosaurs are mentioned in the bible. Job to be exact. (Which is the oldest written book in the bible)

Job 40:15-19 "Behold now behmoth, which I made with thee; he eateth grass as an ox. Lo now, his strength is in his loins, and his force is in the navel of his bell. He moveth his tail like a cedar: the sinews of his stones are wrapped together. His bones are as strong pieces of brass; his bones are like bars of iron. He is the chief of the ways of God:..."

Skip to verse 23

"Behold, he drinketh up a river..."

Garden of Eden: Nobody knows. After the flood, the topography of the Earth changed and disturbed the river that fed four rivers. A lot of people think it was in the location of modern day Turkey.

The Ark: 300cubitsLx50cubitsWx30cubitsH.
Roughly 450' long
75' wide
45' High

You're looking @ 1,518,750 cubic feet.

There were three levels to it. The only things housed on the ark were land animals. Sea life was omitted as they were in no danger of drowning. According to what I've read by "educated" people that study this stuff, that is enough room to hold 125,000 sheep sized animals. I'll say it again, sheep sized. Now these are land animals. Sheep are pretty hefty and there aren't that many things bigger...Sheep would be the average. Snake, monkeys, dogs, cats , etc would take up much less room.

In case you are wondering, there are around 26,000 species of land animals documented...living or extinct. So 52,000 animals could have fit very well on it.
As far as the remains? Who knows. They could have recycled it for housing, burned it for fuel, tore it apart for party favors. My first vehicle was a chevy s10. It got totaled and sent to salvage. Just because I can't tell you where it is now doesn't mean it didn't exist.

As you put, I'm sure we could trace it all back to one spot, but we're going to have to dig for the dna to do it...didn't you say if you could find the dna, we could trace it?

Which leads me to your next point about Eve.

Geneticists can link all members of your mother's side as far back as you can find DNA for them.

...k. I'm sure if you could find the dna for every single person that has ever lived, you'd get to one woman. There was contradiction in your statement...just throwing that out there. By the same argument of having the same gene? Shouldn't we all have the same blood type? I mean, eventually we'd all have to be the same as we get our blood from our mothers, yes? If that's the case, then a baby wouldn't be born O- while it's Mom and dad are AB +. Genetics isn't a 100% fail safe science.




Harm: I've stated I think some people put way to much of their beliefs in the OT in that they think that it should be done that way or some how is applicable to follow to the letter after Jesus came.

As for you example, heck yeah the thing should be killed. If it's had tendencies in the past and continues, it's not safe. Let it go or blow it apart. Human life comes before animal life...period.

Also, if you read further down, it brings up that verse that you talk about. The man states that the people that own him shouldn't be put to death, but the family of the girl should sue the heck out of them.

As far as taking from the Torah...of course we are. It's referenced numerous times in the New Testament. You can't have a situation where you spout of people's names, their achievements, the prophecies, or importance without referencing it. If we just had the new testament without the old, it's like starting a 12 part series on part number six.

It's important to have the old testament to show what has lead up to Jesus and why we needed him and his sacrifice.

"There was this guy that did good and got nailed up after his 33rd birthday" doesn't show anything or support his claim to deity and salvation.




Buki:

Claims of religion for doing bad aren't acceptable excuses. People are wrong most of the time in their lives. They take things out of context or warp the Bible to justify their sins or transgressions. To blame God when somebody contradicts his Word is unfair.

However, by the same token, there are Christians that do great things and get no limelight at all. People that die for others, people that sacrifice money, time, and comfort for others, and people that do things in God's name that are truly amazing and awe inspiring. They get no fame, no news coverage, no anything...but they're okay with that because they are doing in for somebody more important than Joe Average and the 6:00 news.

If anything, "religious" atrocities are more publicized than the religious mending and love that goes around constantly.

If people stopped getting fish hooked into the negative and abhorrent, and started looking for the positive, you'd be amazed at what Christians and Christianity has done for the world.

Yeah, look for it, cause most of the world isn't going to point it out to you...they'd rather bash it because they don't or don't want to understand it.


*Edit* And Mickey, Jews were Jews. There were not inter-racial couplings. It distills heritage. Case in point: Tiger Woods: 1/2 Asian 1/2 Black. He's neither Black nor Asian as he himself has stated...but he's both. You end the racial restriction when races combine. Lions and Tigers mate but their offspring aren't wholly either species, but have traits of both. Same thing for people. The Jewish nation kept strict bloodlines. Thus there would be no black, white, yellow, brown, fuscia Jews. Now as far as Jewish religion, yes, there are Religious Jews of every color.

[Hollus]

tldr?

[Post]

"I never said that it was. What I'm merely stating is that emotions, at times, defy logic. Therefore, by the same argument, we should dismiss emotions because they don't always follow logical paths."

See, that's why I stated they're not right and wrong. You're contradicting yourself with those two sentences. If you understand they're not right and wrong, and that I made it clear they're not, then I'm not sure why you'd think my argument supports dismissing emotions. An illogical thing may be right, and a logical thing may be wrong. That was the point of my bear example. See how that example goes against dismissing emotions?

That doesn't change the fact that logic relies on empirical evidence, and faith relies on the absence of it.

[Hollus]

The last part of that sentence was structured wrong. By your original statement, because it's not logical, it doesn't exist. By that thinking, emotions don't exist, but they do. I wasn't the one contradicting, from the way I read it (and it could be wrong) you were.

[MickeyFinn]

You're response lends credence to my belief that you are going to be completely arguementative and keep the blinders on regarldess of facts or proof.

What facts? What proof? I would gladly change my opinion if any such thing could be found. I would much rather believe that there is an eternity of happiness waiting for me if I live a good life, but there's absolutely no reason to... Not based on the Christian Bible, anyway.

The dinosaur question wasn't about the bible mentioning them (which it doesn't, it uses the same parlour tricks psychics do by using vague descriptions) pertained to how these massive creatures spread the globe and disappeared somewhere in that six thousand years, despite their bones being MILLIONS OF YEARS OLD... Or is that just another test God gave us? lol. carbon dating works everywhere but on the stuff that contradicts the bible right?

[Hollus]

Post - I admittedly am Probably misunderstanding you completely. So I'll go a different way.

Christianity is perfectly logical to me. People, science, emotions, the stars, everything...they are the evidence that propels my faith.

I do have struggles at time with maintaining it. I'm one of the more logical people I know. I question and delve into things that I shouldn't when it comes to God. I guess it's an inherent curiosity that I have to understand and to humanize things.

I get what you are saying about Faith being illogical. Logically, to put faith into something, you do so without proof or evidence or first hand experience.

Thus, since God hasn't been seen or heard or hasn't stepped down to say hi, we believe in him by faith, not experience.

I see what you are saying from your side.

However, from my side I use the Bible as reference and testament to the facts.

It's akin to being in school and reading history books. We know the revolutionary war, the holocaust, the exploration by Columbus, etc...all happened because it's documented, not because we experience them.

We don't have faith that they happened, we know they did. The Bible is the same for me and other Christians.





Mickey - I don't know what is so vague about His bones are like bars of iron, he can drink up a river, or he has a tail like a cedar.

I'm not sure that you would change your opinion of a fist full of fact cracked you in the forehead.

Carbon dating, just like anything else man is involved with, is faulty. They have tested on living animals and found that the living animal is 2.3 million years old. (A snail to be exact). And what is carbon dating based off of? what reference material do they have as the measure of what the standard of "10 million years old" is?

Besides, I think it's closer to 10,000 years old.

[Post]

"It's akin to being in school and reading history books. We know the revolutionary war, the holocaust, the exploration by Columbus, etc...all happened because it's documented, not because we experience them."

The difference, though, is that the things that are questioned in the Bible are the things that go against testable reason (ie, logic). If a history book stated within the Revolutionary War, they were using nuclear weapons, of course it would be questioned. It wouldn't be considered fact, because it goes against what that would mean today. No nuclear side effects for example.

The same with the Bible. I have no issue with it documenting the actions of Jesus that don't go against the feasible world today, it's just not logic when he did miracles not feasible today, just like it's not logic to think nuclear weapons were used in the Revolutionary War. Even if both were found in books.

"Carbon dating, just like anything else man is involved with, is faulty. They have tested on living animals and found that the living animal is 2.3 million years old. (A snail to be exact)."

Oh, come on. I'd love to see the source of that. I'm willing to bet it was a flaw in that particular time it was applied, and not something that props up when carbon dating is done correctly. The "faulty man" part is that things can be messed up when processing the data, not the process itself. That's like questioning whether or not 2 + 2 = 4 because someone messed up and calculated it to 5.

http://www.howstuffworks.com/carbon-14.htm

It's a sound process. Sure it can be applied wrong in instances. You don't start doubting 2 + 2 is equal to 4 when someone screws up and comes up with 5, though.

[Hollus]

"Carbon-14 dating is a way of determining the age of certain archeological artifacts of a biological origin up to about 50,000 years old"

I read a little about it earlier. However, much of carbon dating is based on theory and not fact. In the case of dinosaur bones that date 1 million years, there is an inherent error of 950,000 years.

http://www.angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs/carbondating.html is the source of animals living and fairly recently dead. It has foot notes and reference.

[Post]

For things older, we use different radioisotopes that have longer half-lifes. They're less accurate because of that, but that also means you can span further. The article names things like rubidium-87 with a half-life of 49 billion years (carbon-14 has a half-life of about 5,700 years). And plenty of radioisotopes in between. They typically try to peak out whichever one, going to its max life without going over so they can get the most accurate. They're all really accurate, though.

Carbon dating is just the common term for doing that with all of them.

[Post]

I think the biggest issue I have with that link you posted is it stated the flaw in carbon dating is that is assumes the rate of decay in radioisotopes (well, he only mentioned carbon-14 which is another flaw since he thinks that it's the only radioisotope being used), isn't provably constant. Yes it is. Radioactive decay has been pretty well documented on how it works and what it means.

[MickeyFinn]

Yeah. Although Angelfire is usually the source of scientific fact (lol), that's way off. That might have been true at the birth of the subject, but they can tell you your own birthday now, and cross-check that with other methods.

You say man is faulty, and what man does is faulty. And yet, you follow a book written by dozens of men to the letter. How interesting.

[Hollus]

I follow a book written by man yet dictated by God, not man himself.

I knew somebody would bring up angelfire. I could list the other 10 websites that I found, but the redundancy would be bothersome. Some of them were Christian based, so they would be shelved before the second paragraph.

The main problem I have with any dating of matter is there is, and this can be understood as I've been told countless times, there there is not hard fact to back up anything related to it. Nobody living, and other than the Bible, nobody has documented when dinosaurs roamed. There isn't a dinosaur bone that is 100% witnessed or accounted for that is viewed by any living person in the past 6000 some odd years.

So what is exhibit A that all this is based on? Where is the bone that we can say we know for a fact is over...say..1 million years that we build this science off of.

It has not been proven, thus it's dating theory...If I'm to follow the concepts thus given to me.

As far as telling me my birthday, there are several methods. However, dating my body will more than likely so that I died sometime 11,000 years ago in a logging town in Munich.

I'm under the assumption that science is the undisputed proof of things and after that, it's accepted as fact. Otherwise it's conjecture and hypothesis.

[MickeyFinn]

You follow a book written by man that was dictated by God *according to its authors*. Joseph Smith said God told him to write the book of Mormon. What about him? Or is he crazy, but all of *your* authors are sane?

[Hollus]

Crazy? I don't think he was crazy. I personally think he was a charlatan and genius for what he did.

[]LoL[Harm]

Hollus, God did not dictate the bible, that's just a fabrication. What I hear most is that it was God inspired. God did not sit down and dictate every word of the bible, if so, it would have been perfect.

Unless you were using dictate in some way that doesn't mean what the word actually means.

But you really didn't address the issue that I brought up, and that is the constant and incessant citation of the old testament laws, that were laid down for use by people many thousand years ago that were the founding fathers of Judaism, as Christian religious doctrine.

So, just to restate my question. Why do Christians constantly refer back to the old testament as if it were doctrine. I fully understand the idea that it is the history behind the making of Jesus, no real issue there and not the problem I pointed out.

If you would like further proof of the duality of doctrine in Christianity, perhaps the ever so often demand by Christians in this country to have the 10 commandments of all things to be placed in court rooms (also I believe they act out if the 10 commandments are removed from court rooms that it is currently already in). As if the 6000 year old laws that the Hebrews (Jewish peoples) followed has anything at all to do with Jesus. Because it doesn't.

Jesus has 2, I can't stress this enough, 2 commandments. Not 10. Because the bible told me so.

[Post]

"So what is exhibit A that all this is based on? Where is the bone that we can say we know for a fact is over...say..1 million years that we build this science off of.

It has not been proven, thus it's dating theory...If I'm to follow the concepts thus given to me."

If the only things we assumed were things witnessed by humans... I honestly don't know what to say. It's like thinking it's perfectly ok to assume gravity doesn't exist when no one's around.

We know how radioactive decay works. We have very accurate formulas as to how they work. We've witnessed them consistently for things we all agree with. Things like stuff that happened 100 years or 500 years ago. To say it's not ok to extrapolate something as basic as that is to, like I said, say it's not ok to assume gravity works when people aren't around to watch it.

Do you at least see the flaw in your linked page, where it doesn't understand that carbon-14 isn't the only element used in carbon dating, and the concept that slower decaying isotopes mean less exact dates, but can be used for things that happened a lot longer than 5,700 years ago? At least in theory?

So what it boils down to, is thinking stuff that can be tested provable over and over again for some reason didn't work that way when people weren't around, over the words written in a book.

That a lot of people have faith in.

[MickeyFinn]

The insanity has been laid before us. Let's take a tally:



-People who speak to God are charlatans...

Except the ones HE believes in



-Dinosaur bones aren't millions of years old...

Science is wrong, somehow. Scientists are liars. No matter that he himself could repeat the process and find the same conclusion, it's science's faulty numbers. Computers are magic boxes, TVs work through hypnotism. The atom bomb was just luck. Physics and Chemistry are only right when it suits Christianity. Just ask Copernicus.



-The bible talks about dinosaurs...

Because it says a beast with a tail. Lions have those too, y'know. If the Bible talked about dinosaur bones, why did the Church reject them as a hoax? Moreover, why are scientists excommunicated at all? The church doesn't want its people to be educated, otherwise they might catch on. It's been true for millenia.



-The Bible is one giant fact book

Noah's ark would be hundreds of times larger than any other sea vessel created by mankind at the time, but somehow Noah knew enough about physics and buoyant forces to design a craft that would sustain OVER A MILLION OF SPECIES OF LAND ANIMAL. Pretty impressive since the mass and volume of those animals is more than any ship made TODAY could hold. The food alone would weight over 50 tons, the fresh water to survive the flood would weight *another* 50 tons. Good thing God gave him instructions, building a battleship by yourself ain't easy.





... Did I miss anything? I know the Bible has hundreds of examples of misinformation, but I meant in regards to what Hollus said.

[Hollus]

Harm - There were several commandments in the old testament. Not saying that you didn't know this. People (Christians included) feel that we are to be strict in adhering to the punishments set within.

We can't adhere to every single one...but I'm straying. To answer your question, why do people refer back to them as if they are still law and we should adhere to them strictly...I honestly can't answer. While the laws were set in place for the Jew, as I've stated before, they should be used as guidelines and what we have to do to win God's favor.

A lot of things were overridden when Jesus came. There are commandments in the old testament that point to Loving God with all of your heart, and your neighbor as yourself. The Pharisees were asking about the 10 commandments, but Jesus points out things higher than the 10 commandments that relate to Jew and Gentile. He pointed out 2 out of about 600 Mosaic laws.

It may surprise you that, Constitutionally, I don't believe the 10 commandments should be posted in or on Courthouse properties. I'm not complaining if they do, but I can see the argument against them being there.

Post-Carbon 14 is the only isotope used in carbon dating. Others are radio dating. The fact remains is that there is no subject A to base it on other than saying "We know it's older than us". I'm not the only one that throws out the misinformation. Science is riddled with "bad or tainted" tests. If scientists don't get the results they want, they continue to do the tests until they do.

And nothing refutes the fact that carbon-14 dating, the one most people opposed to Biblical views bring up, is incredibly inaccurate.

We do know how radioactive decay works...in controlled environments. The surface or strata of the earth is not by any means a controlled environment. You can't take something from one location, make a table and staple, and assuming that any type of decay is the exact same from a different part of the world.

Things will decay faster in hot moist climates than it will in hot dry climates or cold dry climates. To put the exact same method of dating to all of the different climate types...and given the different climes the world has experienced, is ludicrous.

Mickey- People that speak to God aren't charlatans. People that carry on 3 day conversations with God that changes doctrine are...or they are nuts. You asked specifically about one person. Not everybody that is led by God is a charlatan or nuts. You took my response and made a blanket statement.

Much in the same way that if science were to prove to you that God existed, you'd more likely say it was flawed. And I've stated, there are only 26-28k species of land animals, living or dead. You seem to like the term millions as it creeps into everything. And I'm basing the thousands of species on reports from scientists.

Lions, Tigers, Elephants, Hippos don't have a tail like a cedar nor are their bones like iron bars. Now, you can take that this is the only documented reference of humans seeing dinosaurs based on descriptions given, or you can chock it up to they were talking about an alligator. Do with the information what you will.

Scientists excommunicated? Last I checked, most of the world is leaning more and more toward scientists. We are constantly called on to prove things because it can't be seen or it's too "magical" or super human. Again, the problem is man trying to make God a man and afraid to accept that there is something greater than himself.

I gave you the measurements in cubits translated to feet. God told Noah the exact dimensions to build it and with what to seal it with. The dimensions are incredibly bouyant.

Freight ships that cross from Asia to the West coast carry in excess of 100 tons...

"If you consider the "most cargo" to be by weight or volume then the answer would be a Supertanker. VLCC stands for Very Large Crude Carriers. These tankers can carry up to 400,000 tons of crude oil and are over 1,000ft in length. "

The drinking water would have been the rain water. The food would have been stored and stocked from the time the ship was started being built.
As for the time, I'm not 100% sure, but I believe it took Noah and his family (Not just him) about 90 years to build it.

As far as you missing anything, yes. But I'm still praying for you :D

[Hollus]

I will humbly bow out of the remainder of the conversation. I've stated my points, my views, and my beliefs tenfold.

I appreciate the topic and the conversation. If anything I can take out of it, it makes me look deeper into my faith. I have to study more, ask for more understanding, and learn some things about science.

Post - After the almost week of this discussion, I'll concede that faith isn't always logical. If you look at logical, there are things that happen that defy logic. You are correct in that Faith in something that you can't touch or see isn't logical.

However, however strange this may sound to a non-believer, I can feel God with me when I need him for comforting or anything to calm me down. I felt him present on my wedding day and his blessing. I see his works everyday from the way things work, to the life we are given.

That to me is proof enough and thus logical for me to believe that he exists, and by the proof in his word, that he has done all things. I can't take the Bible and say that parts are true and others aren't. It's coherent from the beginning to the end.

I'd suggest if no one is satisfied with anything I've said, or if you have questions regarding issues, go talk to a Pastor. Not a big fancy church with televisions and radio...just a normal church. They will have far better knowledge than I do and are better versed at explaining and answering questions without ego or pride getting in the way as I'm prone to do.

[MickeyFinn]

Absolutely blind.

[Post]

"Post-Carbon 14 is the only isotope used in carbon dating. Others are radio dating."

I know, but the layman's term is carbon dating for all of it. It's like calling all tissues Kleenex.

"The fact remains is that there is no subject A to base it on other than saying "We know it's older than us"."

No. For carbon dating (true carbon-14, not the others), it's down to the year (day?). It's not ever used for stuff greater than 60k years ago, though. After it's broken down to nothing, ie, after 60k years, there's nothing. For others, they use the rocks around it, since the other radioisotopes aren't in the body. They can tell you exactly how old that rock is, so they measure it in the rocks above and below. Then it's a matter of gathering enough data to make a reasonable sample. To break it down:

- radioisotopes break down from molecule A to molecule B. Typically, molecule B does not occur naturally without first being molecule A.
- for rocks, they stay at a constant ratio of A to B while they're being hit by the sun. That is, they're the top layer of soil. For living things, they keep that constant ratio until they die.
- we know the formula of molecule A's rate of decay into molecule B.
- we take a measurement, recording the molecule A:B ratio. We then reverse the formula back to 100%, and voila, that's how old the thing is, either when it died or when it was covered by Earth.

To make it way easy to understand in a formula, let's take out the geometric scale of half-lifes and say molecule A turns into molecule B at 1% per year. It starts at 100% molecule A. If it's a 50% ratio, then it's 50 years old. If it's 1%, then it's 99 years. If it's 0%, it's 100 years or greater (hence why carbon-14 dating can only go back 60k years).

Yes, there are issues with doing it with rocks instead of living things. Rocks can be unearthed and brought to the top again. But these conclusions are over MILLIONS of samples over years and years of taking them. So to deny they're right is to say:

1) something happened different than what happens to radioisotopes now. They decay faster or something. Note that nothing up until nuclear power and weapons affected rate of decay in human history (hence why carbon dating won't work well for things dying post 1940 or so).

2) these MILLIONS of samples are all wrong by the same degree.

3) it's a big hoax by God to test our faith (this is the one my paternal Grandmother believed).

(1) and (3) are actually the same basis. They're stating God manipulated nature so it worked different than it does now. That's a cop-out, though. It can be the universal answer for anything you do or don't want to believe. As far as (2) goes... Exactly how much proof would you need? It's impossible to be 100% (since as you stated, humans are involved), so is it pretty much impossible to prove to you? Something that pretty much everything you do in life, from driving to drinking a glass of water is more of a gamble of death than the sample ratio of radioisotope measuring?

[Buki]

Well jesus christ on crutches this turned out to be exciting.

I didn't get through all of them cause they started to get kind of wordy. But my OG rebutle would have been something like this:

Relgion acts as a set of moral codes for those who by into it. This is good and logical. wether the stories are right or wrong dosn't matter, logical or illogical.

My big issue with Religion is that it is for kids, and this day in age we should be mature enough to admit. "Ok this god guy prolly isn't real, but we can still take those lessons (written by men) and learn from them and be good ppl". This in my opinion is an adult approach to an idea tainted with thousands of years of death and opression (religions).

The big question is do we as a culture NEED an almighty being to believe there is some order to our lives or the world itself. Or to quote a phrase that may be out of date "god-fearing."

I say no, I believe the world has a "heart beat" so to speak, but I sure as shit am not praying to it. And it never caused anyone to right some books that I'm going to kneel down for.

[Buki]

On the flip side it seems like hollus is gettin ganged up on, in want of good sport, the rest of you are heathens and are going to hell.

/fist bump jesus

And Micky I like how you so foolishly hold to your easily tangable claims of "science" and "scientists." Stop me if I'm wrong but from the begining of human history to date, we have consistantly learned new things about ourselfs and our universe. Its just funny to think of the look on your face if tomorrow there was "proof of god," who's banner would you hide behind then to prove your point?

Your blindness is ignorance. Ignorance in the fact that you can't even see that if a person truly has 100% faith, there is nothing that can touch that. I don't care who you are, short of killing that person faith is the ultimate end all be all.

I believe hollus has that faith. He is a better man for it. I just wish more ppl would subsribe to an "updated" version of faith. The bible is archaic.

Now thats not to say religion makes you a better person, we just know hollus isn't a child beating oppressive asshole. Those who use religion in conjunction with the fore mentioned are not better people for it.