Do you overlook his thieving ways just because he's a "good Christian"? I have contempt for him.

Care to quote some true facts that he states?

Carbon Dating - The Controversy
Carbon dating is controversial for a couple of reasons. First of all, it's predicated upon a set of questionable assumptions. We have to assume, for example, that the rate of decay (that is, a 5,730 year half-life) has remained constant throughout the unobservable past. However, there is strong evidence which suggests that radioactive decay may have been greatly accelerated in the unobservable past.1 We must also assume that the ratio of C-12 to C-14 in the atmosphere has remained constant throughout the unobservable past (so we can know what the ratio was at the time of the specimen's death). And yet we know that "radiocarbon is forming 28-37% faster than it is decaying,"2 which means it hasn't yet reached equilibrium, which means the ratio is higher today than it was in the unobservable past. We also know that the ratio decreased during the industrial revolution due to the dramatic increase of CO2 produced by factories. This man-made fluctuation wasn't a natural occurrence, but it demonstrates the fact that fluctuation is possible and that a period of natural upheaval upon the earth could greatly affect the ratio. Volcanoes spew out CO2 which could just as effectively decrease the ratio. Specimens which lived and died during a period of intense volcanism would appear older than they really are if they were dated using this technique. The ratio can further be affected by C-14 production rates in the atmosphere, which in turn is affected by the amount of cosmic rays penetrating the earth's atmosphere. The amount of cosmic rays penetrating the earth's atmosphere is itself affected by things like the earth's magnetic field which deflects cosmic rays. Precise measurements taken over the last 140 years have shown a steady decay in the strength of the earth's magnetic field. This means there's been a steady increase in radiocarbon production (which would increase the ratio).

And finally, this dating scheme is controversial because the dates derived are often wildly inconsistent. For example, "One part of Dima [a famous baby mammoth discovered in 1977] was 40,000 RCY [Radiocarbon Years], another was 26,000 RCY, and 'wood found immediately around the carcass' was 9,000-10,000 RCY." (Walt Brown, In the Beginning, 2001, p. 176)

Carbon Dating - What Do The Experts Think?
Robert Lee summed up the reasons behind the controversy over the Carbon dating method in his article "Radiocarbon, Ages in Error," published in the Anthropological Journal of Canada: "The troubles of the radiocarbon dating method are undeniably deep and serious. Despite 35 years of technical refinement and better understanding, the underlying assumptions have been strongly challenged, and warnings are out that radiocarbon may soon find itself in a crisis situation. Continuing use of the method depends on a 'fix-it-as-we-go' approach, allowing for contamination here, fractionation here, and calibration whenever possible. It should be no surprise, then, that fully half of the dates are rejected. The wonder is, surely, that the remaining half come to be accepted.

That

The Big Bang, that's the biggest juiciest one I can think of and it just happens to be the "current" foundation for evolution.

In the US, the vast majority of children go to federally funded schools. That funding comes with strings, correct that, ropes. The few home schoolers who are out there are constantly under attack and legislation is introduced every year to make them comply with federal standards or to put them out of business. If you don't comply and they find out that you're not the government will take your children and label you as unfit parents.

Steve, What's bogus? And why does evolution need to be anti-christian? Sean said himself that the two can possibly co-exist. I said that too. Is it "anti-christian" because it would show that the bible isn't 100% true

You have not even touched on the points I have raised.

Are you telling me you can't home school or choose the type of education your children get, do you not know where children get their biggest influance from???

I would ask you again, if the world your living in, contributing to, conforming to, on a daily basis, is so bad, what are you doing about it?

Daniel

I would ask you again, if the world your living in, contributing to, conforming to, on a daily basis, is so bad, what are you doing about it?

Daniel

Keeping my head down and my powder dry, so I can start shooting when everybody else does.

You do understand that the US Government just nationalized the mortgage market, is preparing to nationalize healthcare, and are looking hard at nationalizing energy. Not to mention that they have their fingers into absolutely every single thing that happens in the US, right down to the size of the water tank on our toilets. The USA is rapidly turnning into the USSA. And it's doing so quite Democratically.

Got an extra beer?

Myself and two friends are going to Memphis the weekend after this one to take in the NHRA drag races and talk to some old friends. We'll have a few and It will be a good time.

Absolutely!

Now you

Couple of points......

Did the universe begin with a Big Bang? Or was there something before it that it "banged" into. No ones knows for sure but many scientists think that the universe has always been here and always will be. There could be many big bangs occuring elsewhere....who knows. We don't know the origin and may never know.

If God is suppossed to be eternal....why not the universe?

Why not teach the possiblity there was a creator in schools? Because there's no evidence for it. If they found "Made by God" written in our DNA or in the atomic structure of everything then I'm sure you'd see it in class. But as it is, the laws of nature explain most everything we observe....sure there are gaps in our knowledge....details are missing....but the big picture can be somewhat seen.

Take gravity....we have no really idea how it works...yet we can measure it.....and use it to our advantage. That doesn't mean its not there or that we are totally wrong about it. Scientists may even have some hairbrain ideas about what it is which they may be wrong about but we see the big picture.

Evoultion is the same.....it is a fact people.....the evidence is there. We see it with bateria and viruses, we see it in the fossil record. We may be missing pieces and details but we see the big picture. Problem is .....some people of some faiths don't like what they see so they deny it.....some attack it.

Its not theology.....they just make observations on what they see and find through research and logical reasoning. Its not perfect and its often speculation but as we go on...we discover more and more and expand upon it.

The reasoning you used to justify not having to explain how the Big Bang came about is exactly the same reasoning used to explain God. He always was. This is a replacement for God to allow a reason for the Big Bang and therefore “creation” of our life and environment. You may not like to call it theology but it clearly is because there isn’t any difference.
Unless you want to play semantics with the definition of theology.

Gen 1:20 is one example, “And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.”

Water seems to be common theme, doesn’t it? Didn’t we just spend a ton of taxpayer money looking for water and life on Mars?

There is no evidence that this happens across species. The fact that a species adapts or evolves over time to suit its environment is not proof that fish will ever turn into people. It’s just not there.

Sense of humor? Hardly, I would say that’s evidence of a brilliant design. Genius in fact!

You guys are seriously hung up on the Bible as the only source of differing opinions. Probably a good idea to get by that prejudice and remember that the Bible is more of an outline in many regards and does not tell us everything, nor does it claim to.

“The"zoo" hypothesis that states that evolution as proclaimed does not in fact occur, but rather the new species are simply placed on earth, by aliens, who then kill off the species that is being replaced. This theory explains the fossil record much better than the traditional Darwinian theory, (no need for messy "missing links," that refuse to be found), and works well with the DNA, evidence (obviously it would be easier to construct the new creatures out of the older ones blueprints.)"

Faith is not a reason to state that fish turn into people and then teach it as fact. Yet that is exactly what is happening. The congregation has been led astray and thoroughly brain washed.

There is evidence of a Big Bang ....there is not evidence for God.