Faith is called that because that's what it is - faith.

I have talked with many scientists who claim that that, with faith, God exists. All of them states that there are too many "coincidences" in science to make it that there is not a guiding force, as Daganev says.

Everybody is religious. Religion defines what you revolve your life around, not if you believe in a god. If your life is constantly acting one way, such as enjoyment, that is your religion.

Atheism is a religion. Although, my point of view is that you have to claim something exists to deny it, by constantly denying the existance of a god, it is a religion.

Some of you claim we are ignorant. As a Christian, I think not. Many people's lives are defined by what they have learnt, or what they have experienced. We, as Christians, are not Christians because we don't know no better, but because we have personally experienced God Himself. I do not think you fear us at all, but I am constantly feeling sorry for those who have not experienced this themselves.

Note that I am concentrating on a very fixed term of Christianity - those who have experienced Christ's salvation. Going to Church every week does not fit into my definition of a Christian.

I am more curious now into wondering why Shiri was turned from Christianity.

I am open to people believing in other things. I know I am right. And that is my belief. However I will not go around saying others are wrong, just because they do not fit my sphere of faith. If God wills it, then it is my task to converse with them and if it is in His Plan, then another will be converted.

Taking a step of Faith is a fundamental motivation for any human being. Any scientists who uses a theory is taking the same step of Faith as any other.

You saying you know YHWH exits and is the only god in existance IS saying that what others belive is wrong. Can't you see that? Your refuting Shiri by using the exact same logic you are defending against.

The only thing people ever truly know is that which they experience with their five senses. Even then it is possible for that to be a simple creation of the mind.

A Huon tree-system in the Tasmanian mountains has a published age of approximately 10,500 years. Estimates based on seismograph scans of the root structure of the system extend the age to over 30,000 years, but that estimate cannot be confirmed without destroying the system itself. Regardless, the 10,000 year age of this tree (which is only one such system, others exist that are nearly as old) refutes such a silly point.

The Namib Desert in Namibia is some 80 million years old, with its Star dunes and Tsauchab River. This only manages to predate the Biblical flood by some 79.996 million years, so I'll give it the benefit of the doubt.

]

How exactly does one laugh his ass off? Please provide scientific studies and evidence.

Big
Irish
Block
of
Latex
Elephants?

"Who am I?"

I am a collection of haphazard elements, created by pure chance out of the void of the universe. My purpose in life is myself, and most specifically, my pleasure.

How do you motivate yourself? I mean when you grow up, you have ambitions. What kind of job you want, what kind of person you wish to be.

I know I have. It just so God is centred around that. I don't think "Where do -I- want to go?" or "What do -I- want to do?", it is "Where does -God- want me to go". This is my motivation. This is my purpose. My meaning of life is to be able to stand before God in heaven and say that as a human, with all my flaws, that I have tried my best.

And I just want to reinforce Guido's point by saying that that doesn't mean he's immoral, because that's essentially what you could argue Christians are out for anyway, to go to heaven. Or, they're not ALL like that, but it's arguable. I just hate this idea my parents seem to have gotten that not believing in heaven means you don't care about getting there by being moral and therefore are totally evil. So I want to nip that in the bud before anyone tries to say it.

As for the age of earth. Adam was kicked out of the garden 5,765 years ago. It just so happens that the earliest writing known to us today, (the indian bibleythingy) is thought to be 6,000 years old. I'm willing to accept that nobody knows exactly when the book was written, and I will forgive them for being off by some 300 years.

As I said before, All living things are born the size of a single cell. Within a certain amount of time, that cell becomes some 50billion times its original size. However, as time goes on, the growth rate of that item slows down to the point that it doesn't grow anymore, and sometimes in the end of its life it starts to shrink.

Jewish texts have been having this debate about the Earth since atleast the year 1100. The debate, boiled down to its most basic least interesting points is as follows. Side A says: "The world was created as it is, the first tree was a full grown tree, and the Diamonds in the Coal was put there, and no matter how much time goes by, new diamonds will not be made" Side B said: "The world grew naturally just as all things do, the first tree was a sapling, however, just like a pregnancy, the early years were accelerated so that by the time Adam was formed the world was as if it was 70 years old" Mind you, this was the debate in the 1100s.

So Dinosaurs are no more than 6, 000 years old?

I motivate myself, believe it or not, by trying to do what makes people happiest. Then I'm happier. Obviously it doesn't apply all the time, such as...well, say, I disagreed with Alyvia and Raan rather than avoid hurting their feelings in even the slightest way by disagreeing with them or what have you, but that's because I have priorities too. What kind of job? Programmer of some description. (Yes, I can't do it now, but I might be able to someday.) I don't do EVERYTHING based on religion or lack of it.

Yes, and the dinosaurs have been dated as millions of years old. I find it interesting that a mammoth that was found in one piece had a leg that was at least 5 millions years older than it's jaw.

Can you seriously say that there isn't a possibility that our science is faulty?

Alright, I'll qualify.

-Every- Creationist argument I have ever heard bases its refutations upon classical Darwinian theory -at best-. Generally it's either Lamarckian, Lyellian, or (laugh) even Ussherian theory that they poke at, placing it all under the guise of modern Darwinism. I'm not sure how they feel justified in doing so, but their methods equate to arguing with General Relativity using a copy of Metaphysics by Aristotle. It just doesn't work out.

Find me a Creationist who even knows of the work of Maniotis, Lieber, of Bischoff, and maybe then I can have a good argument.

I am just the opposite. I think of what I want, not what the magical invisible superbeing wants. If the M.I.S wants me to do something really badly, and it's so integral to his plan, he can fly on down and tell me. I'd be glad to do whatever he wants, then.

I am my goal, I am my end and my means. Humans are not wretched, sinful creatures who can do no good.

And can't your faith be faulty?

Sure, I can say our science is faulty.

I just can't say I can give any merit to Creationism with a straight face.

Generally, however, it's not the science that is faulty. It is the practitioners.

Sure! I can take that.

I think Alyvia just makes a point in saying:

Don't take an ultimatum with science. This is saying it is the -only- way. Your religion of science can say this. Our religion of our faith in Christ is another. I don't believe that Christianity has got it down pat. The faith has made so many mistakes down its path, because of what? Human Flaw.

Science is researched by humans and thus has the same problem as religion. We all have flaws, but it is the root of belief which stands.

They should think that i'm immoral. After all, i'm just a greedy, self-serving egoist whose only concern is myself and my wants.

Everyone is taught to hate that sort of person, aren't they? I consider myself... no, I am a very moral person.

And since I don't want to go back and quote, I'll add that I motivate myself through life on a purely anthropic basis. The happier I am, the happier others around me will be. The better I make my life, the better the life of my children will be, and the better trained they will be to do the same for their children. Happiness can exist without God, as can its pursuit. Meaning may not be derived through the work of a blind clockmaker, but it certainly need not come from the hands of a crippled mason.

Science is researched by practitioners who are flawed. Christianity is practised by the faithful who are flawed. So your point?

The only difference is that Science continues to work on "Theories" - even Theory of Gravity! As if we don't know things fall onto the Earth when dropped. We work on Faith and that is as binding as the truth and as facts.

Dinosaur were big lizards, things, including people grew to be quite large in those days. The Bible itself says, "There were giants in those days."

Why was that? The layer of water above the earth filtered the UV rays. People could live longer, grow larger, so could EVERYTHING.

The neanderthal(sp?) man is nothing more than a man that was able to live the 900 or so years that people could live. Did you know that as you age, your brow becomes more defined? A 900 year old man would have quite the protruding brow ridge, wouldn't you think?

Dinosaurs were called dragons in the Bible, the term dinosaur is actually quite recent. They lived among people, they are a part of the art of early men. Their images have been painted on pottery and walls that have been found among bones of...wow, "modern man." Not, the missing link.