Abra,

There are levels of good and bad. Just because many of us are civilized and won’t intentionally harm others doesn’t mean our work here is done. We are responsible for continued personal growth.

Even many of us who are civilized still hurt others. Sometimes we gossip about others. Sometimes in a thread on the forums we hurt or insult others in the heat of making our point. The greater you are the more responsibilities you have to yourself and to others.

Come on Abra. I consider myself a good and kind person, but I know that I still have much work to do to improve myself. Have we forgiven those that have harmed us? Have we accepted that while they may have been wrong, they were doing the best they can with the tools that they have? That they may have had limited capacity to understand what they were doing or the harm it caused? Have we asked forgiveness from those that are angry with us? Are we sometimes not humble enough? Do we let pride get to us and allow our ego to grow? If you are honest with yourself (another trait that we ALL have to work on) you know that there are areas that you can improve on yourself.

There is no such thing as a person is done and has no more work to do here on earth to improve himself and the world. There is pleeeeeenty to do.

There is no man who is without sin, according to Jesus. Therefore, Jesus taught that the man who sins, but is repentant has a distinct advantage over the man who sins and believes he is sinless. According to the Bible, every thought and action will be judged. One can't hide any sins from the all knowing judge.

That is because you can't hide from yourself.
All are God.

My work here is done.

Jeannie

I agree I and all others have work to do on ourselves, I agree that we judge ourselves and that will be the end judge for us the day we die. We know what we have done and we will then face it with ourselves. There is no third party involved.

I will hold myself to my standards and then if I fail at them I will be the one who suffers the consequences, makes ammends and learns the lesson to be learned by the mistake. There is no third party involved.

I do not need a "big brother" to watch me because I answer to me for what I do, regardless to what it is. This does not refer to the laws of the land which are necessary for control of those who will be lawless and not hold themselves responsible. Every society has those who care not about the consideration of others. Religions spawn these kind just as equally as non religious do.

I’m not sure how this fits in with committing sins. I don’t personally believe that we have any innate responsibly to try to become perfect. This certainly wasn’t commanded anywhere in the Bible. In fact, I’ve always felt that religious ideals of trying to become ‘prefect’ have always been misguided.

The world isn’t perfect, and there is absolutely nothing human beings can do to make it perfect. Even if every human being on earth was capable of living a perfect life, the world still wouldn’t be perfect because nature isn’t perfect.

It’s not human imperfection that causes birth defects for example. In fact, there are many aspects in this world that simply have nothing at all to do with how well-behaved humans might become.

Moreover, who’d to decide what’s ‘perfect’. If, some people believe that being gay is a sin, and other people do not, then how can those two groups of people ever achieve perfection living in the same world together? The people who view being gay is a sin could never accept that the world is perfect while gay people exist. And people who feel that being gay is their natural destiny in life could never view a world where they aren’t able to express their love as being perfect.

This universe wasn’t meant to be perfect. At least not in that kind of ‘absolute’ sense. The only way that perfection can ever be attained is when people can live in perfect harmony with each other without pointing fingers of blame.

Well, clearly we’re never going to reach that level of perfection as long as judgmental religions exist that claim to have the absolute authority of what is right and wrong. They only way that can be achieved would be if the people of those religions kill off everyone who refuses to accept their dogma as the rule of law.

Just assuming for a moment that such a religion might be Christianity. Where would that stop?

Well, first they would have to kill off all non-Christians. Then they would throw a huge party and celebrate that only Christians live in the world and all the sinners are gone!

But how long would that last? Not very long I’m afraid. Almost immediately they would turn on each other, clearly the Protestants and Catholics need to have a war. I’m assuming that the Jews and Muslims have already been done away with.

Just for kicks let’s pretend the Protestants win the Protestant/Catholic war. What happens then? Well, it wouldn’t be long at all before the Baptists, the Amish, the Presbyterians, the Lutherans, etc, etc, etc, all were at each other’s throats battling over how they should live the ‘perfect’ life.

If we’re going to strive for perfection the very first thing we need to do is put religion behind us!

Especially judgmental religions that have laws carved in stone and claim to be the only truth.

Those kinds of religions are proclaiming by their very nature that they refuse to get along with anybody.

The meaning of perfection is to be whole. To be whole everyone would have to become one with God. But then there would only be God. There would be no creation.

Creation has to be "imperfect" in order to grow and expand and in order for new things to arise.

There is no directive that we should want or try to become perfect or even finished. But there is no way we will ever stop growing and expanding.

Growth is the most important thing there is. We have two choices. We grow or we die. We are either living or we are dieing. Growth is forward movement. Anything else is stagnation or even worse, regression.

The only thing that people should be concerned about most is their own personal growth. Not everybody else. The greatest way to help others is to tend to your own personal growth.

Jeannie

You don't trust science because of your personal observations, you trust it because it can be tested repeatedely in a consistent manner.
You believe the bible because you want to, not because it's true, it's called faith.

No "personal observation" can make you "reject science" your question makes no sense at all.

i am sure the earth is flat

i know it is

i just know it

yep flat

absolutely no doubt about it

uh huh flat yep

I don't know what it looks like where you are but where I am it is definitely flat. I live in southeast Colorado, nothing but miles and miles of prairie. Yep its flat alright.

SPQR,

Not all sciences are equal. Many have proven theories like Gravity and Photosynthesis. However other sciences are theory’s based on extrapolation and the notion that it’s the best theory that we currently have. That does not mean it’s proven. All it means that it’s the best current theory according to science.

Most people have no idea about this. They assume that all science is equal. Its not. Honestly, how many people have actually studied the details behind the “proof” of evolution or the age of the universe? Most folks just accept the notion without actually investigating for themselves.

I am impartial, I can reject both science and the Bible, if it doesn't sit well with me... I don't see it as an either or.... all or nothing kind of way of thinking...

Gravity and photosynthesys are not theories are "laws" if you came up with a better "gravity theory" let us all know please. Newton would be proud of you.

Details behind the LAW of evolution are in front of your face everyday, and you can study in a library, millions of volumes on the topic. New links found every month.
On the other side you trust a book written thousands of years ago and based on myths.
And you you mention investigating the truth? Why you ever investigated the bible?
LOL you guys are fun.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dating

"Radiocarbon dating is a radiometric dating method that uses the naturally occurring isotope carbon-14 (14C) to determine the age of carbonaceous materials up to about 60,000 years."

Issue #1 - it only works up to 60,000 years.

"...For approximate analysis it is assumed that the cosmic ray flux is constant over long periods of time; thus carbon-14 is produced at a constant rate and the proportion of radioactive to non-radioactive carbon is constant."

Issue #2 - "it is assumed that the cosmic ray flux is constant over long periods of time" This has not been proven. It is an ASSUMPTION. This materials are very heat and weather sensitive. We have no way of proving it or knowing if some atmospheric event (extreme cold weathers, natural disasters, etc) effected these materials over thousands of years.

To prove my point please read the next paragraph from Wikipedia:

"The need for calibration

A raw BP date cannot be used directly as a calendar date, because the level of atmospheric 14C has not been strictly constant during the span of time that can be radiocarbon dated. The level is affected by variations in the cosmic ray intensity which is affected by variations in the earth's magnetosphere caused by solar storms. In addition there are substantial reservoirs of carbon in organic matter, the ocean, ocean sediments (see methane hydrate), and sedimentary rocks. Changing climate can sometimes disrupt the carbon flow between these reservoirs and the atmosphere. The level has also been affected by human activities—it was almost doubled for a short period due to atomic bomb tests in the 1950s and 1960s and has been lowered by the admixture of large amounts of CO2 from ancient organic sources relatively depleted in 14C —the combustion products of fossil fuels used in industry and transportation, known as the Suess effect."

This paragraph clearly states that cosmic ray intensity, solar storms and changing climate "disrupt the carbon flow". In fact - "it was almost doubled for a short period due to atomic bomb tests in the 1950s and 1960s"

Like I said its all nice theories based on lots of assumptions and unknowns. I don't see how anyone can call this "fact."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dating

"Radiocarbon dating is a radiometric dating method that uses the naturally occurring isotope carbon-14 (14C) to determine the age of carbonaceous materials up to about 60,000 years."

------------


Did you read it all or just the part that you liked better?
Keep it up! The geology and archeology community will be excited to see the results of your "work".

"Meanwhile suggestive evidence was dug out (literally) by the geochemist Wallace Broecker and collaborators. Ancient coral reefs were perched at various elevations above the present sea level on islands that geological forces were gradually uplifting. The fossil reefs gave witness to how sea level had risen and fallen as ice sheets built up on the continents and melted away. The coral could be dated by hacking out samples and measuring their uranium and other radioactive isotopes. These isotopes decayed over millennia on a timescale that had been accurately measured in nuclear laboratories.


Unlike carbon-14, the decay was slow enough so there was still enough left to measure after hundreds of thousands of years.

As a check, the sea level changes could be set alongside the oxygen-isotope temperature changes measured in deep-sea cores. Again the orbital cycles emerged, plainer than ever. At a conference on climate change held in Boulder, Colorado in 1965, Broecker announced that "The Milankovitch hypothesis can no longer be considered just an interesting curiosity."(20) People at the conference began to speculate on how the calculated changes in sunlight, although they seemed insignificantly small, might somehow trigger ice ages. That could happen if the climate system were so delicately balanced that a small push could prompt it to switch between different states.

<=>Chaos theory
<=>The oceans
<=>Rapid change

Emiliani improved his measurements, thanks to a fine set of cores that reached back more than 400,000 years. He announced he could not make the data fit the traditional ice ages timetable at all. He rejected the entire scheme, painstakingly worked out around the end of the 19th century in Europe and accepted by generations of geologists, of a Pleistocene epoch comprising four major glacial advances alternating with long and equable interglacial periods. Emiliani said the interglacials had been briefer, and had been complicated by irregular rises and falls of temperature, making dozens of ice ages.(21) Many other scientists found his chronology dubious, but he defended his position tenaciously. Most significantly, he believed the sequence correlated rather well with the complex Milankovitch curve of summer sunlight at high northern latitude. Calculating how the cycle should continue in the future, in 1966 Emiliani predicted that "a new glaciation will begin within a few thousand years."(22) It was a step toward what would soon become widespread public concern about future cooling.

Well I'm impressed. This thread just went way over my head.

(scientifically anyway)

Don't mind me... talk amongst yourselves.

SPQR,

You wrote:

"Unlike carbon-14, the decay was slow enough so there was still enough left to measure after hundreds of thousands of years. "

Hundreds of thousands of years? I thought you guys like putting earths number in the millions or hundreds of millions of years.

You wrote:

"At a conference on climate change held in Boulder, Colorado in 1965, Broecker announced that "The Milankovitch hypothesis can no longer be considered just an interesting curiosity."(20) People at the conference began to speculate on how the calculated changes in sunlight, although they seemed insignificantly small, might somehow trigger ice ages. That could happen if the climate system were so delicately balanced that a small push could prompt it to switch between different states."

You prove my point. 1. that he says that the HYPOTHESIS is no longer a curiosity. That still doesn't make it more then a HYPOTHESIS which is not the same thing as FACT.

2. Look at that paragraph again and notice how sensitive all the data is to a slight variation in sunlight or other weather phenomenon's. All the HYPOTHESIS are based on all outside factors being completely equal through its entire history. How likely is that????

Your last paragraph completely proves my point. What was "accepted by generations of geologists" this guy is saying is untrue. Would you have considered something that was "accepted by generations of geologists" as FACT? Oops, that would have been a big mistake, wouldn't it?

Then to top it off, even the new guy who feels that NOW he really has it all figured out still has "Many other scientists found his chronology dubious". While I respect scientist and think its great that they are exploring If I were you I really wouldn't be so quick to say that anything is PROVEN FACT. There is lots of speculation, HYPOTHESIS, and theory's - not FACTS.

Arguing about the age of the earth?

Believers are always harping about what can and cannot be proven or what is or is not a FACT.

That is really funny to me.

You can spend your entire life defending your chosen authority and it will have been wasted in the end.

None of that stuff matters really.

None of it matters.

Jeannie

Why doesn't it matter? Of course truth matters.

To a person of faith believing in G-d feels with all his or her senses as true and connects with all of his or her life experiences. (In fact, I have discovered that by far the majority of atheists and agnostics have emotional issues (anger, hurt, negative experiences with people etc.) with religion and G-d - not logical ones.)

That is the reason why a person of faith believes with all his heart and mind. We never said we can prove it scientifically, so we don't have that burden of proof.

However when people start throwing around that the age of the earth has been PROVEN scientifically and that is simply not true, then the burden is on anyone who says it was PROVEN to actually do so and shoe me FACTUAL proof. Again I love and respect science but there is a huge difference between PROOF and theory that keeps on being discarded years later for new theory's. That's fine, because that's the scientific method - but please lets be accurate and not say something is FACTUAL when its not.

Do not get the mistaken impression that I am an atheist.
I am not an agnostic either.
I do not believe in the Christian concepts of God either.

I am a pantheist.
I believe that we and all that exists is the body of God, and that we have direct connection to that higher consciousness.

As far as faith is concerned, I have unshakable faith in what is and in how It all works.

Jeannie

Plife...what is your point? Science is based on theories.
Your mistake is to think that a theory is something "less" it is not. It's called a theory because when there will be a better understanding of it in the future that might change.

But in the details, not in the general guideline.

The "theory" of evolution is still called a theory because we are still learning. That is the difference with religion where the base concept is that "it is" without a need of research of study, like all faiths.

Based on our current knowledge and means of research right now that's the best theory we have, meaning that can be improved,not that is false as you claim

but I know there isn't worst deaf than the one who doesn't want to listen. And people of faith feel threatened by logic and reason..since Galileo...
Nothing new here.