katraan

Thus, carbon dating is not used to date the age of fossils of dinosaurs. There are a variety of other isotopes and methods used to determine the age of dinosaur bones. Though carbon dating is widely used, it is not the sole method of measuring the age of fossils. I seek merely to correct flawed interpretations of factual information. Good luck with this discussion! However, carbon dating is good science. And, by the science of carbon dating, the earth is less than 30,000 years old. Radio Halos...Physicist Robert Gentry has reported isolated radio halos of polonuim-214 in crystalline granite. The half-life of this element is 0.000164 seconds! To record the existence of this element in such short time span, the granite must be in crystalline state instantaneously. This runs counter to evolutionary estimates of 300 million years for granite to form. 6. Human Artifacts throughout the Geologic Column...Man-made artifacts - such as the hammer in Cretaceous rock, a human sandal print with trilobite in Cambrian rock, human footprints and a handprint in Cretaceous rock

Thus, carbon dating is not used to date the age of fossils of dinosaurs. There are a variety of other isotopes and methods used to determine the age of dinosaur bones. Though carbon dating is widely used, it is not the sole method of measuring the age of fossils. I seek merely to correct flawed interpretations of factual information. Good luck with this discussion! However, carbon dating is good science. And, by the science of carbon dating, the earth is less than 30,000 years old. Radio Halos...Physicist Robert Gentry has reported isolated radio halos of polonuim-214 in crystalline granite. The half-life of this element is 0.000164 seconds! To record the existence of this element in such short time span, the granite must be in crystalline state instantaneously. This runs counter to evolutionary estimates of 300 million years for granite to form. 6. Human Artifacts throughout the Geologic Column...Man-made artifacts - such as the hammer in Cretaceous rock, a human sandal print with trilobite in Cambrian rock, human footprints and a handprint in Cretaceous rock

Thus, carbon dating is not used to date the age of fossils of dinosaurs. There are a variety of other isotopes and methods used to determine the age of dinosaur bones. Though carbon dating is widely used, it is not the sole method of measuring the age of fossils. I seek merely to correct flawed interpretations of factual information. Good luck with this discussion!

I believe that we are all entitled to our interpretations of the Bible, but I will oppose what people have said against people for abortions in this forum. Consider the following scenario: A mother is going to have a baby born. However, the baby suffers from various birth defects (it can only breathe through one nostril, it's lungs are relatively weak, it suffers from Down Syndrome, it's a hemophiliac, etc.). The mother is faced with a choice would she want the baby to suffer pain when he or she grows up, or end the baby's life so that it wouldn't have to suffer in the future. I know how some of you are going to answer (opposing what I have just said. "It's the baby's choice, not the mother's" or "The mother's being selfish and not taking the baby into account," and etc.), but I what I am trying to say is that some of these people do have reasons for supporting abortion, and that abortion is undertaken for various reasons. Some of the views stated are extreme. For example, "The thief comes to kill and destroy..." I respect the freedom of speech, but the interpretation that abortions glorify Satan is extreme. Do you know what that's implying? I could take any verse from the Bible, relate it to any event that opposes my interpretation of a certain quote in the Bible, and say that it glorifies Satan because it goes against it. The thief is Satan? It could just be an ordinary thief, in another perspective, who came to rob, but is soon to be redeemed. Please understand what I am trying to say, my brothers, and God bless you all.

I just like to add that some atheists and agnostics were once Christian. Perhaps if you spoke to them, maybe they would give out reasons why they turned away from the Bible and God. I just want an evenhanded approach towards things. It would contribute to this discussion greatly if we got their (Christians turned atheist/agnostic/another religion not having to do with a Christian sect) points of views on things.

Correction: "...thus some parts of the translated and edited version of the Bible are inconsistent at times."

Sidenote: Though this may or may not contribute to discussion, I will also add that the wording of the Bible has been changed from time to time. King James edited the Bible at sometime in order to make it more poetic and easier to memorize. He, unfortunately, also took the liberty of crossing out parts that he didn't like and thus, some parts of the Bible are inconsistent at times (as some skeptics and Christian historians will point out). Also, know that the Bible was not originally written in English and may suffer some mistranslations. If you wish to read the Bible in its unaltered form, I would suggest you read the Bible in one of its most original formats, Hebrew (not Latin). Do understand that you would have to know how to read Hebrew to make the interpretation (yourself) to not suffer from any translation or bias (from the translator).

Let's look at the word 'theory' a little closer. As described by Oxford...