greenpartyman- That's essentially part of my rough idea of what might be true. God set the rules and created, then it took off by itself. He may give the universe a nudge once in a while, or maybe quite frequently. This latter stage leads to the Bible discussion that occured below.

I just don't see it myself, there is clear evidence that the world is a cetain number of years old, I happen to be Christian and I have absolutely no problem believing that "he" cose to create the world using the big bang and then later evolution, I just don't see the problem that anyone could have with that, if your agnostic or watever, then just believe in the evolution with no god factor

What I mean by geological dating the combined results of various methods geological and radiological observations. These include continental drift rates, the growth of sedimentrary deposits, erosion, half-life of various radioactive elements, I'll try and give a breif and very rough description.

We've observed that rocks move at certain rates and erode at certain rates when certain forces are applied to them. That means we can say that Rock X has been around for Y years because it is in Sedimentrary/bedrock strata Z which shows no signs of being disturbed or affected by a catostophic event.
It takes a certain amount of time for various types of rock to form under pressure and time. We know this through test and observation. If it was speeded up, we would see that, if it was changed dramatically, we would see that. This is why we use geological "depth" to date fossils, and not raidiocarbon dating. Carbon dating is used only on objects between 50k-50 years of age, and may be spotty. However we can use Uranium as at least a rough gauge for age because it has a VERY long decay rate as do it's byproducts. Therefore we can mesure the amount of Uranium, and the amount of it's half-life byproducts, and THIER half-life byproducts, and get a general idea about how long that uranium has been around in it's current place.

Those are a few concepts, the reason I say they back themselves up is because it's based on several theories that are based on proven physics (ie, this rock can move this fast without breaking). What i posted is EXTREMELY rough, and it would take me a long time to really post the whole theories and such, and i really don't want to do that.

And about my antics in the other thread (Jesus), I was mearly trying to throw off an argument that i saw turing to a "I don't believe in God because he allowed a bad thing to happen". Sorry if i offended you with the blunt stuff. It really wasn't calcualted and isn't accurate to what I think.

Please tell me more about this geological dating. I'm curious, especially about how it backs itself up. That doesn't make too much sense to me. I mean, something that backs itself up doesn't say much. It's like I say, "This is true. Why? Because it is." Truth needs to be backed up by other truth. I could be misunderstanding what you mean. I look forward to your response.

Watchman
Eze 33

Truthfully, I'd have to read the Bible again before going further into whether the Bible has contratictions or mistakes. Sorry

I wouldn't call myself agnostic, because I am 99.998% positive on the existance of God and that He created the universe. However I have no answer to why, how, and what our purpose is. Still can't find a system of belief for that, I guess I'll have to make one up myself, called Complete Confusionism.

And on those other two points:

Our brain has not really evolved, just our knowladge.

There are many other methods of dating objects, mainly geologic methods. This is extremely hard to argue against because it basically backs itself up. It's a bit long to describe so i'll refrain for the moment.

DrStrangelove- If the Bible has been proven accurate time and time again, why should we assume that it would be different with the spiritual world?? I really think you have to look at the Bible in one of two ways:

a) It's the inspired Word of God, written by men, and completely true in every way, and useful for how to live.

or

b) It's just a book, written down by some people for history and their theories about the afterlife. Just because it's right sometimes, doesn't mean there are mistakes in other places.

The thing about these is that the Bible has NEVER been proven wrong, EVER! (Like I said earlier, it's usually been more reliable than most other ancient historical documents.) Also, there has NEVER been a contradiction in the Bible. These two things would be all but impossible if the Bible were just written by men without any divine influence. Think about it. Let me know what you come up with.

My real question is, Is there something specific that you don't believe about the Bible, or does it just strike you as a little bit too weird that God talks to people through his book?

PrizonBreakHorizon: Not only do scientist assume that the world is super-old, but there's a flaw with all kinds of decay-dating. Decay dating ( Carbon Dating, Radioactive decay, etc.) doesn't take into account that no one knows how much substance there was to start with. To help explain what I mean, I'll use an example: When a ancient hammer was first made, it had 18,957 grams of carbon-14 in it. When it's found by archaelogists, it's decayed to only 340 grams of carbon-14. Scientists then go and figure out the rate of decay and start to figure out how old it is from how much carbon-14 it's lost. The problem is that they don't know how much carbon-14 there was to begin with. If they thought there was only 750 grams, they'd say that say that it's not as old as it really is; or if they thought there were 5,000 grams, they'd think it was WAY older than it really is. Does that make sense?

Rckstr: I disagree with you. To say that our mental abilities have been "evolving" means that our brains were formed really primitive, and through "beneficial mutations" we've become more enlightened and intellegent. Couldn't it just be that we've just discovered science over time, and now we're able to explain it? Why should ancient man have a "less evolved" brain?

DrStrangelove: In regards to Deism, I've always been taught that Deism is the belief that God created the universe, and then left it alone. If I had to label you, I'd guess that you sound more like you're agnostic (unbelieving) than deistic. But I could be wrong.

Watchman
Eze 33

take a moment and think of it this way . . .
if whoever wrote the bible tried to explain their version of "evolution", the people of their day and age would not understand the concept of "thousands of years of evolution". it was most likely narrowed down to six days(God rested on the seventh). who knows how long ONE day for God is. just one day could be thousands of years for human beings. the bible is obviously explained in his point of view in the first place. and there's always the issue "if there were evolution, why don't we see it happening around us?" it IS!!!!! in animals, plants and humans. and for humans, maybe not always physical . . .our mental intelligence/psyche has developed MASSIVELY since the beginning of time.

With your mention of mutation vs. evolution it should be said that many evolutionists use that phenominon to explain that the mutations that are benifitial go on and reproduce, thus passing on the new trait. However, there is also the possiblity that mutation is the method God chose to manipulate the genetic code and push it in certain directions. You could look at it this way: God set the rules for his game (ie. physics, chemistry, atomic structure) and operates within those means for whatever reasons.

As for Diesm, I find that one of the beleifs that is closer to my own ideas than most other religions (if you classify diesm as a religion, which it really isn't). I'm not locking myself into anything, I still think that God very well could be influencing our universe.

The Bible: In phisical events, the Bible has been very accurate. Again, however, we really can't say what was what when it comes to spiritual events. That is the sticking point for me.

I've found it interesting if you compare modern science's theories about the creation of the universe and the Bible's description.
For example: The Bible speaks of God creating light, then separating light and darkness.

Science explains it through the Big Bang theory. The wierd part is, the Big Bang probably would have looked like light being instantly created in a huge and spontaneous burst. Then for 300,000 years the Universe was COMPLETELY iluuminated because of the sheer heat. That means there WAS no such thing as darkness. After that, in a reletively short period of time, this super hot ball of gases and proto-particles congealed into galxies and stars. Or... Light separating from the Darkness.

Just a thought...

Papa....check this out:

the carbon dating method uses the quadratic formula to get an answer, a "conclusive" date, about the age of something. what's interesting about the quadratic formula is that it has two possible answers, one of which would be a very large number, the other which would be rather small.

now, all the answers of everything ever dated taken on a corresponding scale (large answers on a large scale, small answers on a small scale) are proportionally/chronologically related to each other, but its just that the larger scale matches the larger numbers, and the smaller scale is in keeping with the smaller numbers. in geometry, this is called "congruence." similar, but of different size.

thus, evolutionary scientists publish the larger of the two numbers for the simple reason that evolution requires "a long period of time" to "work." a larger scale timeline. every evolutionist knows that you don't go from fish to lizard in a week, or even a couple hundred years....so they theorize that over millions of years the change is possible. (but its never been conclusively proven to happen). and therefore, they publish the quadratic answer in keeping with the "extreme time" requirement of evolution.

also, evolution flies in the face of thermo-dynamics which states that something left to itself does not improve, but decays. that's why you have to wash your car on a regular basis...i know, you'd think that by now the metal and paint would have come up with a way to keep the dirt off. maybe it just needs more time.

I just want to start out and say thank you for actually being able to hold a calm and civil religious conversation, DrStrangelove. The last message board I was on, EVERYONE got into this HUGE fight because of their beliefs. The funny thing is that they were adults! Scary times, when us kids act more mature than the adults. Kids forever!!!

As for the Evolution argument: It's a good point about the bacteria stuff. I'll check it out (hopefully this weekend and get back to you.) About the insects though, I'd like to point out that there is a difference between "evolution" and plain old "mutation." As an example, evolution involves progress, improvement. Mutation is just bizarre, weird changes that don't really seem to have a purpose. Evolution: bacteria (maybe). Mutation: Cancer, "Godzilla", etc. There is this whole argument about these fruit flies whose eyes, after a few generations, turned from black to purplish red. EVERYONE was all like "Proof for evolution" and stuff like that. The thing about it was that the flies with the funky eyes were BLIND!!!! That is not evolution, that's mutation. With the exception of the bacteria you talked about, I have not seen ANY conclusive evidence in support of Evolution. Maybe I've just been looking in the wrong places.

As for the Bible, I understand how you feel, not wanting to trust something you don't know is true. I mean hey, no one wants to be lied to, right? I hear lots of stories of people trying to prove that the Bible's not true. I heard one about how the Bible talks about the city of Nineveh (Jonah and the Whale story). The city was supposedly SO BIG that it took 3 days to walk from one side to another. Back in the early 1900's, there was this big thing about the Bible not being real because archaelogists never found the city of Nineveh. 2 years later, they found it. Another story about how there was this debate whether or not Pontius Pilate (Big Roman Governor of Israel during Jesus's crucifixion) ever existed. There were apparently no Roman or Israli documents about him. Shortly after than, a man in Israel was digging a hole to plant a bananna tree, and he hit what he thought was a rock. It turned out to be one of two statues of Pilate. I don't know how true these stories are, but I encourage you to look into them. To my knowledge, nothing (science, history, etc.) has EVER proven the Bible wrong. The Bible is usually more reliable that most other ancient documents.

As for the Bible being corrupted by people. As far as I know, none of the books (or even verses) of the Bible were passed down through oral history. I'm pretty sure (about 85%) that the authors of the Bible wrote what God inspired them to write, and people would PAINSTAKINGLY copy it after that. An interesting thing to notice is that in the roughly 4,000 years that existed between the first book of the Bible and the last (in regards to when they were written), and out of about 30-40 differnt authors, the Bible does not contradict itself even once! That is something impossible ourside of God, I believe.

As of the Miracles of Jesus: I know how you feel. I mean I don't really know of too manysources that talk about the life of Jesus. If you want to check it out, there's a book written by this man Josephus who lived at the same time as Jesus. You don't need to worry that this book has a Christian bias, because Josephus was a JEW!! He didn't believe in Jesus, and he talks about the miracles Jesus did. Please check it out. If you want me to find more sources for you, just let me know.

On a side note: If stories like the Mass. farmers and the parting of the Red Sea are true, wouldn't that make it just a little bit difficult to be a Deist? I mean, I know you have the CHOICE to believe them or not, but I encourage you to think about it. Science is showing these miracles to be more and more possible, but I don't think that makes them any less miraculous. With increasing evidence that these actually happened, it would seem to me that God is actually involved with his world. Just think about it...remember, you can be a theist, but don't have to be a Christian.

Watchman
Eze 33

Very good points.

As for evolution, we have seen evidence of it in bacteria (who have multiple generations pass every DAY). We've seen that new, never before seen variations (read: breeds) have developed. Some of them inconveinently resistent to modern antibiotics
There's a large body of text (see the irony?) that describes the various methods and evidence of the probablility of evolution. These include baterial and insect genetic changes. Even our very method of reprodution seems to support evolution. Every generation changes and the most favorable traits go on.

And on to the Bible:
I will conceed that no major and undiscovered corruption has changed the Bible in recent history. However, it was still written down in it's origonal form by humans. It was passed down by humans before that, and is interpreted by humans. In my honest opinion, I don't think it is prudent to choose your method of worship on something written by human hands without backing of the miracles. Granted, key events may be true, and others not.
For example, we have come up with many good and sound scenerios the allowed for the parting of the Red sea (actually "reed" sea if you want to go by the origonal scripts). And I will say that this event, if it occured as it did in the Bible, was a little bit of a coincidence, too much of a coincidence. However if you take Jesus turning water into wine, we really can't find evidence of that, in fact we can't really find evidence for any of his miracles (please correct me if I'm wrong). Therefore I'm unconfortable putting stock in his being our savior.

I try and look at things with as little bias as possible. I mearly base my beleifs on things that we KNOW happend, and then use the Bible to offer one explanation as to the "why" of things.

Well, everyone is raising very good issues. I know exactly how you feel, not wanting to accept something just because someone told you about it. Before I go any farther, I recommend that you guys get a Bible and start reading it. I mean, if we're gonna talk about something, we might as well be on the same page. You know, talking about something we all read, and not what someone said bashing the Bible.

As for the issues of hypocrisy and biblical corruption, let me give you guys an example of what I think we're talking about: Our English class read [u]Lord of the Flies[/u]. It's a classic, known for it's message on society, and its evils. If someone were to read the book, and to them, the book was talking about how aliens are going to be destroying the world in the year 2384, would they be right? What if they start sharing this opinion with other people, getting other people to believe the same thing? Would their opinion destroy the believability of the book, or would they be wrong? I'm hoping that you guys agree with me that this person would be WRONG. Why should the Bible be any different? Would the Bible be "fragile" if someone reads something into it that's not there?

As for how the Bible's been changed over history. First off, I already told you how the Jews would copy m****cripts of scripture. It was done so carefully that it would become VERY difficult to make a mistake. As for modern translations, there are m****cripts that are hundreds, if not thousands of years old, that are, if not original, very close to the original texts. The only real way that the Bible has been changed is through all the different translations of the Bible (King James, New International, New American Standard, Contemporary English.) These different versions still say the same thing, but they just say it in different terms so that people can understand it better. Even if the translators made a mistake, we still have the ancient m****cripts to look back to. The Bible can't really have been changed by the Romans, British and the Protestants, because anything that they write is compared to the m****cripts. For someone who wants to study the Bible, there is so much information available out there: Different comentaries on what verses mean, study notes, linguistic notes, etc. Feel free to check what I'm saying out. Please don't believe it (or not believe it, just because I said so).

On a side note: DrStrangelove: You had a good point about hearing about bacteria and actually seeing them for yourself. My only question is where would the theory of Evolution fall? I mean, have YOU actually seen a new species evolve? If you're gonna say that it takes millions of years for evolution to work, why do you still believe it? It's not something you can see, touch, measure, or quantify. In contrast, there are some things that happen that can't really be seen as anything more than an act of God. As an example: one of the original american colonies (Mass. I think) had a insect problem. The insects were so bad that they would destroy almost all the crops. This particular year, the colonists saw that the insects would destroy SO MUCH FOOD that they would not have enough, and lots of people would starve to death. There wasn't really much they could do to stop the insects. They didn't have pesticide or anything like that. The only thing they could really do was pray. After a little bit of praying, the next three days were extremely hot (I mean like super hot summer in very early spring). During this time, all the new insect eggs hatched. The colonists couldn't understand it. It didn't seem to be solving their problems very much. The next day, the temperatures returned to normal (much colder.) It was so cold, that all the insects died because they couldn't survive in temperatures that low. Now, this story is something that they could see, and feel, and measure. The only reason that I point these two examples out, is that it's really a matter of perspective. If you CHOOSE to see that science is something you can ALWAYS see, and that you can NEVER see anything that has to do with God, does that mean that it doesn't happen, or that you just don't see it.

I'm not trying to start an argument with anyone, but just throw a different light on the situation. "I'm trying to free your mind" -Morpheus (The Matrix)

Watchman
Eze 33

I acknowladge that certain aspects of the Bible are being confirmed by science, and if we find the ark of the covenent, or the ten comandments, or Babylon, then i'll give the Bible more credit acordingly. However it is still a work by man. Who wrote the origonal texts? How did the Romans, British, and various protestant sects change it?
The phrase "I beleive in what i see and feel" is cliched and over simplistic. I trust science over the Bible because sceince is quantified, organized, and spans the entire world using very sophistcated methods to answer a question. Whereas the Bible provides the answer from a book written by man thousands of years ago and passed down by who knows what methods until it was finalized in text.

Either could be right, however today, we have looked at something logically through information we have gathered ourselves with instruments we designed and tested ourselves. Therefore we have witnessed it first hand and without doubt.
Would you be more likely to beleive, for example, that bacteria existed if someone told you, or if you saw them through a microscope?

As for the contridictions, the misledyouth touched on some. I wasn't so much saying there are direct contridiction as that the Bible is a heavily philosophical work and therefore can be molded (to an extent) to fit the beleifs of a certain group or person.

well i don't know much about bible and i probably shouldn't say this, but after what has happened for the past 17 years of my life in this world, there are some... well, i wouldn't really call it contradictions, rather a bit of hypocricy. one, "thou shall not kill" that one verse of the 10 commandments are in every books, but you are allowed to kill for god??? correct me if i'm wrong. second, in the middle age, priests everywhere believed that earth was NOT round and it was the CENTER of the unverse and they acknowledged bible for that, then somehow it's been proven that they were wrong. people said that it was the priests mistake and that bible didn't say that, but ya see... doesn't bible sound a bit "fragile" (i don't know any other word to choose)now? If bible is truly God's words, then i believe it should be so sacred and miraculous that nothing would happen to make people wonder that "bible's been changed."

what do you think? this is actually a good thread, we need more of this kind (where people don't put down other)!!!

I'll give you some websites you can check out on creationism if you want. But I'm not going to waste my time if you aren't going to check them out. So it you want to, I'll send them to you.

DrStrangeLove

Let me see if I am understanding you correctly. You believe that the world is older because "it's what I can see and feel." Is that correct? This is because science is more reliable than the Bible? What I find ironic about that belief is that in several ways, the Bible has been ahead of science for centuries. The Bible says that the earth is round, and that it floats in space. It also talks about the connection betweem blood and life. I think there's even a verse that talks about atoms. (I admit I don't know where these verses are, but if you want me to find them for you, I can.) As far as I know, the Bible has NEVER been proven wrong, (but this is as far as I know.) The Bible and science are not in competition; they were created by the same God, and reflect the Truth in one another.

As for the Bible being corrupted by man. I can understand that belief. It makes perfect sense to me. What's interestng is when the Jewish scribes would be copying the scriptures, they would PAINSTAKINGLY write each word on the page, and then go back and count the nunber of words, and the number of letters on each page to make SURE that they were copied correctly. Despite all of that, TINY inconsistancies were created in the different m****cripts. But the funny thing about them was the fact that they were really over stuff that wasn't all that important. As far as I know, the Bible does not have any contradictions. You mentioned that it does. Do you know where? I'm not being hostile or antagonistic, but I just want to know.

Write back soon

Watchman
Eze 33

Papasmurf- created age

watchman-
1.) Quite frankly, it's what I can see and feel. What is apparent to our dicoveries. I know this is a common answer, but i feel it is apropriate here. I trust science over the Bible when it comes to things.

2.)I am familiar with the major parts of the bible, not to the point that I can quote it, but I could give a brief synapsis. The reason I don't trust it is because it was made by human hands. It was passed on by word of mouth for years, changed by hundreds of different people, written by individual scribes before the printing press. I simply think that if it actually was the word of God in the begining, it long since has been corrupted by man. There are contridictions which I can tolerate, seeing as much of it is philosophy. The nature of it is to be vauge but still get the message across. This causes some contratictions.
Bu there are many things that seem to make no sense in the long run, things that read like a human crafted tool for control. Not the simple mandate from God. Again, I'm not discounting it, The Bible is credible on many acounts, and more a being found, but I don't want to use it as a reason to beleive simply because (in my veiw) I very well could be worshiping a human corruption.
I don't think badly of people for beleiving in it.

There are erie coincidences between Judeo-Cristian history/belief and some scientific discoveries being made. Free masonsry and a new feild of physics, erie, strange things. I think something big may be ready to happen. Good or bad, I don't know, but big.

If what is said in the bible is true and the Earth is ten thousand years old, then how would explain fossils carbon dating to before that? Also it says god made man and animals and such, but what about the dinosaur bones that are older than the earliest human remains? How also would you explain fossils of man's ancesstors slowly looking more and more like us?

I know the "created with age" thing is a little shakey, but I just wanted to point out that a God who can create the world must be powerful enough to create it with age.

As a response to your post, I have a few questions that I hope will clear up any misconceptions between us, and help us to more clearly address each other.

1)Why do you think the world is older than 10k yrs? What do you point to for this belief?

2) Why don't you believe the Bible is a reliable source? Is it just because it's a book, or is it something more than that?

As for Dinosaurs devolving into alligators, to be honest, that is a new one to me. I have not heard that one before. I would have said that the dinosaurs were probably killed in the Flood (are y