So if there was one Atheist that negates it being found by christians? What's your point?

My point is that we weren't found only by Christians. There were agnostic, atheist, Deists, and Christians founding this country. They wanted freedom of religion from the Church of England.

My point is that we weren't found only by Christians. There were agnostic, atheist, Deists, and Christians founding this country. They wanted freedom of religion from the Church of England.

Winx said:





Eljay, for goodness sake, Winx is a Christian and she understands this concept. The reason the Founding Fathers wanted to get away from Christianity and not have it entwined in government was because they were in the process of establishing a brand new nation and governing body and they did not want to go down the same road from which they had just come. England had a monarchy as you know and they adhered to a concept known as "Divine Authoritarian Rule". Jefferson and the rest of them were not having it. In a way you have to ask yourself why would we have even wanted to rebel against England to begin with? It was in large part due to her monarchy.

That is the truth Eljay.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but if you actually did some research you would have found out that Carbon dating is far more accurate today then it was ten years ago. Might i suggest some reading to illustrate the point.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiocarbon_dating
[edit] Radiocarbon half-life

[edit] Libby vs Cambridge values
Carbon dating was developed by a team led by Willard Libby. He worked out a carbon-14 half-life of 5568±30 years, the Libby half-life. Later a more accurate figure of 5730±40 years was determined, which is known as the Cambridge half-life. This is, however, not relevant for radiocarbon dating. If calibration is applied, the half-life cancels out, as long as the same value is used throughout the calculations. Laboratories continue to use the Libby figure to avoid inconsistencies with previous publications.


[edit] Carbon exchange reservoir
Libby's original exchange reservoir hypothesis assumes that the exchange reservoir is constant all over the world. The calibration method also assumes that the temporal variation in 14C level is global, such that a small number of samples from a specific year are sufficient for calibration.[12] However, since Libby's early work was published (1950 to 1958), latitudinal and continental variations in the carbon exchange reservoir have been observed by Hessel de Vries (1958; as reviewed by Lerman et al., 1959, 1960). Subsequently, methods have been developed that allow the correction of these so-called reservoir effects, including:

When CO2 is transferred from the atmosphere to the oceans, it initially shares the 14C concentration of the atmosphere. However, turnaround times of CO2 in the ocean are similar to the half-life of 14C (making 14C also a dating tool for ocean water[13]. Marine organisms feed on this "old" carbon, and thus their radiocarbon age reflects the time of CO2 uptake by the ocean rather than the time of death of the organism. This marine reservoir effect is partly handled by a special marine calibration curve [14], but local deviation of several 100 years exist.
Erosion and immersion of carbonate rocks (which are generally older than 80,000 years and so shouldn't contain measurable 14C) causes an increase in 12C and 13C in the exchange reservoir, which depends on local weather conditions and can vary the ratio of carbon that living organisms incorporate. This is believed negligible for the atmosphere and atmosphere-derived carbon since most erosion will flow into the sea.[15] The atmospheric 14C concentration may differ substantially from the concentration in local water reservoirs. Eroded from CaCO3 or organic deposits, old carbon may be assimilated easily and provide diluted 14C carbon into trophic chains. So the method is less reliable for such materials as well as for samples derived from animals with such plants in their food chain.
Volcanic eruptions eject large amount of carbonate into the air, causing an increase in 12C and 13C in the exchange reservoir and can vary the exchange ratio locally. This explains the often irregular dating achieved in volcanic areas.[15]
The earth is not affected evenly by cosmic radiation, the magnitude of the radiation depends on land altitude and earth's magnetic field strength at any given location, causing minor variation in the local 14C production. This is accounted for by having calibration curves for different locations of the globe. However this could not always be performed, as tree rings for calibration were only recoverable from certain locations in 1958.[16] The rebuttals by Münnich et al.[17] and by Barker[18] both maintain that while variations of carbon-14 exist, they are about an order of magnitude smaller than those implied by Crowe's calculations.
These effects were first confirmed when samples of wood from around the world, which all had the same age (based on tree ring analysis), showed deviations from the dendrochronological age. Calibration techniques based on tree-ring samples have contributed to increase the accuracy since 1962, when they were accurate to 700 years at worst.[19]


[edit] Speleothem studies extend 14C calibration
Relatively recent (2001) evidence has allowed scientists to refine the knowledge of one of the underlying assumptions. A peak in the amount of carbon-14 was discovered by scientists studying speleothems in caves in the Bahamas. Stalagmites are calcium carbonate deposits left behind when seepage water, containing dissolved carbon dioxide, evaporates. Carbon-14 levels were found to be twice as high as modern levels.[20] These discoveries improved the calibration for the radiocarbon technique and extended its usefulness to 45,000 years into the past.[21]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_Earth
Modern geologists and geophysicists consider the age of the Earth to be around 4.5 billion years (4.5 × 109 years).[1] This age has been determined by radiometric age dating of meteorite material[2] and is consistent with the ages of the oldest-known terrestrial and lunar samples.

Following the scientific revolution and the development of radiometric age dating, measurements of lead in uranium-rich minerals showed that some were in excess of a billion years old.[3] The oldest such minerals analysed to date – small crystals of zircon from the Jack Hills of Western Australia – are at least 4.404 billion years old.[4] Comparing the mass and luminosity of the Sun to the multitudes of other stars, it appears that the solar system cannot be much older than those rocks. Ca-Al-rich inclusions (inclusions rich in calcium and aluminium) – the oldest known solid constituents within meteorites that are formed within the solar system – are 4.567 billion years old,[5] giving an age for the solar system and an upper limit for the age of Earth. It is hypothesised that the accretion of Earth began soon after the formation of the Ca-Al-rich inclusions and the meteorites. Because the exact accretion time of Earth is not yet known, and the predictions from different accretion models range from a few millions up to about 100 million years, the exact age of Earth is difficult to determine. It is also difficult to determine the exact age of the oldest rocks on Earth, exposed at the surface, as they are aggregates of minerals of possibly different ages.

So sorry Earth not six thousand year old....lol

The real question should be why continue to believe this despite scientific evidence.
Here's a article that address that.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/c14datc.htm

CARBON-14 DATING (C-14)
BELIEFS OF NEW-EARTH CREATIONISTS


Sponsored link.






Quotations:
"There are many lines of evidence that the radiometric dates are not the objective evidence for an old earth that many claim, and that the world is really only thousands of years old. We don't have all the answers, but we do have the sure testimony of the Word of God to the true history of the world." Christian Answers web site, referring to the book of Genesis in the Bible. 1
"The radiocarbon dating method remains arguably the most dependable and widely applied dating technique for the late Pleistocene and Holocene periods." Radiocarbon Web-info web site. 2



Beliefs of new-earth creationists about origins:
Most individual creation scientists and creation science organizations are called new-earth creationists. They believe in a literal interpretation of the creation story/stories in Genesis which is the first book in the Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament). From internal biblical information, they have concluded that the earth, its life forms, and the rest of the universe were created by God, less than 10,000 years ago; i.e. sometime after 8000 BCE. Many believe in the creation estimate of 4004 BCE by Bishop James Ussher, a 17th century Irish archbishop from Armagh, Ireland. They further believe that only very minor changes within various biological species have happened since creation. No new species have evolved or been created since. Another of their important beliefs is that the flood of Noah happened circa 2349 BCE as described in the Bible. 3 It covered the entire earth and created many of the geological features that we see today. The new-earth creation belief system is mainly promoted by people who believe that the Bible authors were inspired by God to write text that is inerrant -- free of error. Most of them believe that creation took only six days or 144 hours.



Rejection of the C-14 dating method:
New-earth creationists obviously cannot accept the accuracy of the C-14 dating method. For example:

Scientists have dated a female figurine commonly called the Venus of Willendorf or the Woman of Willendorf to 24,000 to 22,000 BCE. They were unable to date the object directly since it is made from oolitic limestone. However, they were able to date many objects found with the object in the same archaeological layer of the Willendorf deposit. 4
They have dated wooden residue from the remains of bonfires at up to the limit of the C-14 dating method, which is about 50,000 BCE.

Creation scientists cannot accept these dates as accurate since they believe that the world was created sometime between 4000 and 8000 BCE. Since the accuracy of the Bible cannot be questioned, C-14 dating must contain massive errors -- by as much as a factor of five. Similarly, other radiometric measurements which do not use carbon, have dated rocks in northern Quebec, Canada, at almost four billion years old. 5 They must be in error by a factor of at least 400,000 times. More details.



Reasons for rejection of C-14 dating, with rebuttals:
It is our policy to accurately portray both (or all) sides to each belief whenever multiple viewpoints exist. If you feel that we are not fairly describing one side, please use the "Send an E-mail" button at the bottom of this page to send us a complaint. Please be sure to include the name of this file (c14datc.htm)

Some direct criticisms of the C-14 dating technique are:
ChristianAnswers.net states: "Outside the range of recorded history, calibration of the 14C clock is not possible."

This was true back in the 1950s. A team of researchers, headed by Willard F. Libby calibrated the C-14 measuring technique by comparing the measured age of samples from ancient Egypt with their known date. For example, they tested a piece of wood from Pharaoh Zoser's tomb with the known tomb date, which was known to be circa 2700 to 2600 BCE. The agreement was excellent. Since then, extended calibration checks have been made using U.S. bristlecone pine, German and Irish oak, and other species of trees. That work pushed the calibration back well beyond recorded history to 10,000 BP (years before the present.) Other correlations have extended that to 26,000 years BP. It may eventually go back as far as 45,000 years. 6
The Earth's magnetic field has been decreasing. This will increase the level of cosmic rays in the upper atmosphere, generate more C-14, and upset the C-14 dating process.

The earths magnetic field is cyclical in nature. Any affect on the C-14 dating method is corrected by the calibration procedure.
The flood of Noah, as described in Genesis, Chapter 6 to 8, would have upset the carbon balance on earth by burying large amounts of carbon containing plants which became coal, and gas. This would lower the total C-12 in the atmosphere at that time and upset the C-14 dating process.

The Genesis flood is described in Genesis as occurring circa 2349 BCE. Samples from before, during and after the flood whose dates are known through archaeology have been C-14 tested without any difficulty. Either the worldwide flood of Noah did not happen, or it did not create any significant disturbance in the C-12/C-14 balance at the time.
Volcanoes emit a great deal of carbon dioxide which contains very little C-14. Since a massive degree of volcanism occurred during the the flood of Noah, objects which died shortly after the flood would give inaccurate C-14 dating results.

Again, C-14 dating results on objects before, during and after the flood were found to be accurate when the data was compared with dates derived from archaeological evidence. If there was a great deal of volcanism in the 23rd century BCE, it does not show up in the C-14 data.
Radiocarbon dating laboratories often ask what is the expected age of the samples submitted to them. If C-14 dating is really precise, such information would not be needed. ChristianAnswers.net comments: "Presumably, the laboratories know that anomalous dates are common, so they need some check on whether they have obtained a "good" date."

Lab personnel often ask for the approximate age of a specimen in advance of testing, so they can tune their instruments in order to increase the accuracy of the results. They do not ask in order to "cook" the results.

Now lets be serious here. If you are one who totes the creationist banner, that's fine i have no problem with your personal beliefs, again they are your choice, remeber choices are not always fact though. Therefore i can not stand for something which as no scientific basis or support being taught as a fact to students in a science class. Like it or not evolution is still a theory,not a law and therefore a part of science. A science which is still developing i'll give you but that is why when they teach about evolution, it is taught with this emphasis that it is just a theory. Intelligent Design is a religous ideology with no scientific basis or emphasis. Choosing to ignore the fact that we have written records from as far back as 10,000 B.C. and choosing to believe that the earth is only 6 thousand years old is your choice. Granted not a very wise one imo but it is still your choice and nothing you had to learn at school. Please don't cuss or use fowl language, it is unbecoming of your faith and i will have to report you.

There were 6 Deists that we know of. Probably more. Whats your point Eljay?

DEISM VS. REVEALED RELIGION

Revelation, or revealed religion, is defined in Webster's New World Dictionary as: "God's disclosure to man of Himself." This should read, "God's alleged disclosure to man of himself." For unless God reveals to each of us individually that a particular religion is truly His disclosure to us of Himself, then, by believing that religion, we are not taking His word for it, but we are instead putting our belief in the person or institution telling us it is so. This is what we are doing when we believe in any revealed religion, and that's all Christianity is. It's a revealed religion like many others such as Islam and Judaism. Revealed religion gets dangerous however, when it crosses over the line into politics. This is the admitted goal of the Christian Coalition. God allegedly revealed to Pat Robertson and his Coalition, that He wants them to take over America and eventually the world with "His Word," so the laws of the nations will mirror the laws in the Bible, which, if you know what's in the Bible, is terrifying. This, too, is what the Ayatollah's goal was, only his "revealed word of God" was the Koran, an other revelation. Are we to believe Pat when he says the Bible is revelation of God's Word?

There were 6 Deists that we know of. Probably more. Whats your point Eljay?

DEISM VS. REVEALED RELIGION

Revelation, or revealed religion, is defined in Webster's New World Dictionary as: "God's disclosure to man of Himself." This should read, "God's alleged disclosure to man of himself." For unless God reveals to each of us individually that a particular religion is truly His disclosure to us of Himself, then, by believing that religion, we are not taking His word for it, but we are instead putting our belief in the person or institution telling us it is so. This is what we are doing when we believe in any revealed religion, and that's all Christianity is. It's a revealed religion like many others such as Islam and Judaism. Revealed religion gets dangerous however, when it crosses over the line into politics. This is the admitted goal of the Christian Coalition. God allegedly revealed to Pat Robertson and his Coalition, that He wants them to take over America and eventually the world with "His Word," so the laws of the nations will mirror the laws in the Bible, which, if you know what's in the Bible, is terrifying. This, too, is what the Ayatollah's goal was, only his "revealed word of God" was the Koran, an other revelation. Are we to believe Pat when he says the Bible is revelation of God's Word?

My point is that we weren't found only by Christians. There were agnostic, atheist, Deists, and Christians founding this country. They wanted freedom of religion from the Church of England.

Eljay prove you sir are intelligent please? I want empirical evidence you are intelligent, however it must be by my criteria. BTW until you are proven intelligent then you cannot know the criteria by which you are judged.

This is what eljay does when he wants you to prove something to him.

Winx said:





Eljay, for goodness sake, Winx is a Christian and she understands this concept. The reason the Founding Fathers wanted to get away from Christianity and not have it entwined in government was because they were in the process of establishing a brand new nation and governing body and they did not want to go down the same road from which they had just come. England had a monarchy as you know and they adhered to a concept known as "Divine Authoritarian Rule". Jefferson and the rest of them were not having it. In a way you have to ask yourself why would we have even wanted to rebel against England to begin with? It was in large part due to her monarchy.

That is the truth Eljay.

Those are the people who settled the continent - which was a British settlement. By the time the unrest in Boston and the issue over taxation without representation came about - which necessitated the forming of a new nation - the majority of those people who gathered in Philadelphia (and a rather large majority) were christians. There were numerous objections to a number of things Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of independence - but there was not one objection in the entire gathering over his inclusion of the "Creator" or "divine Providence" in the Declaration of Independence. Where were the Agnostics, Atheists, or Deists then? Surely - at least one of them would have spoken up. However there is not one documented incidence of this, and we know for a fact what was questioned and what was not during the whole ratification process and signing of the declaration.

Good video by three people who have produced real science and know what they are talking about.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P6_KtvBFOAg


_____

another good one.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g7Ctl9nzEqs&NR=1

One does not have to be a Christian to believe in a creator or divine providence.

True - but if one is an Atheist or a Deist, they do not. An agnostic could go either way - but they would be unsure of whatever opinion they might formulate.

If you think intelligent design should be taught in schools.