Ok, although I respect all religions, (Including the Creationist ones), I believe in evolution.

Creationist.

I have a christian background but I definately believe in evolution.

If you actually put this into a religious aspect, you have to ask yourself about these two philosophies: Western Thought (Christianity, Judaism, and Islam) and Eastern Thought (Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism, and Sikhism).

Do you believe in a beginning and an end (Western), or do you believe in a recycled time line (Eastern)?

hmmmm well i guess i believe in the Eastern Recycled timeline seeming as i came up with an idea where its all just an experiment and that Blackholes are a resetting mechinism for the universe...

which also stems from my ideas that the Big bang wasnt actually like its always depicted in western sociaty (like a massive planet spontaniously exploding) but actually a massive all comsuming blackhole which is large enough thats its mass and concentration of gravity which allows it to split Gravitrons, thus releasing vast amounts of energy and then that is what the big bang is.

i could go into more detail and probably will at some point but atm im sleepy :)

^Big words for somebody who's sleepy.

not really, i just think alot which causes me not to sleep and thus why i am infact sleepy most the time XD

altho you have to admit it makes more sense than a randomly massive planet randomly exploding.....

Latest reply to Titan

Behemoth - I will still say it is not a dino. The tail hanging like a cedar or hardening like a cedar or being carrier like a cedar could well refer to the leafy branches rather than the trunk. Look at the cedar tree and it resembles an animal's tail - particularly a large cattle type animal. Also, given that your version of the bible contains metaphors (and admittedly without knowing the surrounding context of the surrounding verses in Job) I still think it could be an imagery thing. Either way, as much as you will never agree/believe that it is anything other than a dino; I do not think that such a description could only apply to a dino nor do I think that it is a dino they are referring to. If it was intended to represent a triceratops or an ankylosaurus (which would actually be more likely to account for sinewy legs and bronze ribs than a sauropod taking the truck tail out of the equation) then they would mention other characteristics that stand out way more than sinewy legs.


On the carbon dating thing. I have only managed to find one reported case of a crystal from Mt St Helens being questioned. The sample was taken by a creationist and was analysed by a creationist. According to the information I can find, his methods were very sloppy and there is a high chance the samples were contaminated. The only pages I can find that agree with his findings are creationist sites. Any actual scientific site points out the errors in his methodology.

My take on that issue - Scientists are not looking to prove or disprove anything when they try and date things. All they want to know is how old it is and how accurately they can guage it based on the most current methods. Creationists have a reason to find evidence that may support their opinions whereas a scientist is merely after the facts.

I know that some scientists in the past have lied about test results (pharmecutical companies for example) to make gains and I admit that. Do you think there is any chance that some creationists would have chosen to hide information in the same way?

Also, does your version of the bible have the apocrapha as a standard section? No C of E version ever had up until the time I saw my last bible anyway.

Atheist evolutionist of course.

Yeah...but faith explains all that stuff. Faith covers what science can't. Remeber that, people.