To me it doesn't matter what one calls himself/herself. It is not about religion but about one's relationship with Jesus Christ.

 

I do agree with that.

As Paul states we do not work for our salvation, but we must work out our salvation. Because we have Jesus in our heart, we should want to live a life pleasing to Him. If we think we can get to Heaven by what we do here on earth we will fall short. God says no sin can enter Heaven. If we don't sin then we will be in Heaven. Since we can't then Jesus is the Only Way. Each person has a main purpose here on earth-to glorify God.

To me it doesn't matter what one calls himself/herself. It is not about religion but about one's relationship with Jesus Christ.

Definitely! :thumb:

I don't know how many years ago God created the earth, but I know he did because of his word. I also believe science can not tell us how old the earth is. If God can create a rock, why can't he create a 1,000,000 year old rock?

The bible tells us God created man "In Our image, after Our likeness" Does this mean God also evolved from an ape?

 

I also believe that God created the Earth.

 

I also believe that there are things that science can't tell us...but there are things that it can.

 

I am an interpretationalist on the "in our own image" thing.

Yes it would, or it could be creating a church that would like to literally follow the bible and its rules more closely. I don't think that the split from the Catholic church was a decision based on its stringent rules.

Didn't Henry VII break away from the Catholic church to form the Church of England because the Pope wouldn't grant him a divorce from Catherine of Arogon?

To me it doesn't matter what one calls himself/herself. It is not about religion but about one's relationship with Jesus Christ.

Very well said.

Didn't Henry VII break away from the Catholic church to form the Church of England because the Pope wouldn't grant him a divorce from Catherine of Arogon?

It was Henry VIII and he wanted his marriage to Catherine of Argon annulled because she turned out to be inert. Ok, it was Aragon, and yes thats why they split.

It was Henry VIII and he wanted his marriage to Catherine of Argon annulled because she turned out to be inert. Ok, it was Aragon, and yes thats why they split.

 

The chemistry teacher in me LOVES this! :thumb:

I was reading about the opening in the newspaper today and came across this picture with this caption "Cindy Sullivan of Colerain Township, who said she was representing Jesus Christ, walked from the museum over to protester Frank Zindler of Columbus, Ohio, the editor of the American Athiest Press, to share with him her views."

 

I felt the appropriate caption should read "World's dumbest conversation."

I'm having trouble with this model from the museum...

It was Henry VIII and he wanted his marriage to Catherine of Argon annulled because she turned out to be inert. Ok, it was Aragon, and yes thats why they split.

Just a typo, I meant VIII

Carbon-14 dating is not accurate? Could someone be more specific?

It's about time.

 

Sorry, Ace, I was kind of busy. I am glad to join in now.

Carbon-14 dating is not accurate? Could someone be more specific?

Carbon-14 and radiometric dating suffers from assumptions. It's a good mechanism for dating organic material in historical times, but when you move into prehistoric dating, the assumptions become more tenuous. For example, to use Carbon-14 dating, you must assume that:

*Carbon 14 is in equilibrium - Nitrogen has been converted into C14 through neutron bombardment in the upper atmosphere at the same rate over thousands of years

 

*It assumes no change in the geomagnetic field intensity

 

*It ignores the possibility of sedimentary carbonates once being a part of the world atmospheric carbon inventory.

 

*It assumes no contamination from other natural sources.

 

*Tree-ring calibration has proved to be unreliable.

 

"The troubles of the radiocarbon dating method are undeniably deep and serious. Despite 35 years of technological refinement and better understanding, the underlying assumptions have been strongly challenged.... It should be no surprise, then, that fully half of the dates are rejected. The wonder is, surely, that the remaining half comes out to be accepted. There are gross discrepancies, the chronology is uneven and relative, and the accepted dates are actually selected dates." (Robert E. Lee, Anthropological Journal of Canada, Vol. 19, no. 3, 1981, p.9)

 

“Throughout the conference emphasis was placed on the fact that laboratories do not measure ages, they measure sample activities. The connection between activity and age is made through a set of assumptions... one of the main assumptions of C14 dating is that the atmospheric radiocarbon level has held steady over the age range to which the method applies.” (Report on 14th Conference, 145 International Scientists, Science, Vol. 150, p. 1490.)

The sources I refered to list carbon-14 dating as accurate up to approx. 7000 years and an estimate up to 30,000 years.