This post is VERY OT and is one of the prime examples of what is wrong with
this newsgroup. It is totally off-topic and has nothing to do with amateur
astronomy. All that this post accomplishes is to add fuel to the fire that
exists between that Christians and Atheists that read this newsgroup. The
same goes for liberal vs conservative political perspectives. Let's stick to
the topic of amateur astronomy and ignore these trolling posts rather then
replying to them. Also, please thinks before you post to determine if your
post is going to offend anyone's religion or political convictions.




"Chris L Peterson" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 28 Apr 2005 22:27:27 GMT, "Clayton Doyles" wrote:

On the other side of the coin, I don't see any evidence that the universe
is
really billions of years old.

There is overwhelming _scientific_ evidence that the Universe is
billions of years old.

We have two schools of thought here that are
similar in one way: both ages come from man.

Yes, that's exactly it. There are two schools of thought- religious and
scientific. You may consider it an act of faith to accept one or the
other, but once you have done so the evidence that science provides is
internally consistent. Most religions simply provide a mass of facts and
beliefs that don't follow from one another, and are often contradictory.
If you accept religion, you are thinking in a completely different way
than a rationalist.

Are we so
sure that radiocarbon and other methods of dating aren't invalid? Are we
so
sure that The Bible is correct? The point is... no matter how you look at
it, you must pick what you believe is the most correct and depend on man's
correctness (or lack thereof).

There is really just one science. Theories hold together or they don't.
Scientifically, we are very certain about the quality of dating methods.

Why should we believe the Bible? It is simply one of many collections of
stories, one that is accepted as truth by a minority of humans (and an
even smaller minority of all humans who have ever lived). While I'm not
religious, if I were to rationally evaluate my religious options,
Christianity would be about the last of my choices, with Judaism and
Islam right behind. What I find interesting about these discussions is
how rarely anyone offers a straight science versus religion question.
Usually it is science versus the Bible, as if that is the only religious
choice.

I don't believe the Bible is correct because so many of the stories are
just too damned silly, the characters are so unbelievable, and the
morals are reprehensible. I don't believe the New Testament is correct
for the same reasons, and because I consider the fundamental premises of
salvation from sin to be unbelievable and offensive.

IMO, there are far better spiritual choices- and they need not conflict
with science at all.

_________________________________________________

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com