Why do christians believe this stuff...?

Question

I went to church with a friend of mine because she wanted me to go and I had nothing else to do. This priest was trying to tell everyone that evolution was a fairy tale. He claimed that dinosaurs and humans roamed the Earth together. Carbon dating clearly shows that humans and dinosaurs did not roam the Earth together and I raised my hand and told him this. He claimed that carbon dating is something scientists made up because he says that "scientists are conspiring to destroy Christianity." I don't think there are words in the English language to describe this kind of stupidity.

Answer 1

I know its insane, thats why i go to church because its so insanely hilarious. Its almost surreal to hear what comes out of those priests' mouths. They make me feel smart.

Answer 2

So now you know to keep away from Church and stick on to Science..Yes?
Don't you know that some scientists believe that man and Dinosaurs roamed the earth at the same time? The goodly priest must have read this from a science book.

Answer 3

you really need to see things in a better light. Dinosaurs, the leviathan and behemoth, anre mentioned in the book of Job, which was written even before the penteteuch, Moses' 5 books, Genesis - Deuteronomy, and the penteteuch was written about 1450 BC, so the dinosaurs would have died out sometime relative to Job's existance.

why did the priest claim carbon dating is a conspiracy? likely he feels that since the Bible says men will always make excuses and try to prove God false, he sees this as yet another. you'll notice that there are hundreds of websites to try to get you to disbelieve the Bible. and of course, people will try to associtae godliness with stupidity.

Answer 4

okay....i am a Christian...and ur priest was wrong. I will agree with you....there were dinosaurs...but humans were not with them....because if there were...there is no trace.....because they would have been all dead I am guessing form the dinosaurs....but there is no trace of ancient humans roaming the earth with dinosaurs. I do not believe that science is out to destroy Christianity....but i believe that people may USE science to destroy Christianity. There are some Christian scientists you know....science isn't out to destroy Christianity....only people who hate it are out to do that. Science may be one of their weapons.


Okay, you got my point right?


God bless, =]

Answer 5

There *are* a few words to describe the manners of someone who would interrupt a priest during a sermon: rude and obnoxious.

Next time, if you have a problem with something that's said during church, wait until afterwards and then discuss it with the priest. You don't have to agree with him, but to make a comment during the church service (especially a church in which you are a guest) is about as ill-mannered as it gets.

Answer 6

People who ask about carbon dating are usually thinking about the radiometric dating methods that are claimed to give millions and billions of years; carbon dating can only give thousands of years (anything over about 50,000 years old, should theoretically have no detectable carbon-14 left).

With the exception of carbon dating, radiometric dating can only be used on igneous rocks, not sedimentary rocks or the actual fossils. Because fossils are found in sedimentary rock, paleontologists try to use radiometric dating information on igneous rocks found below and above the fossils in order to try and determine an age range for the sedimentary rocks.

The isotope concentrations can be measured very accurately, but isotope concentrations are not dates. To derive ages from such measurements, unprovable assumptions have to be made such as:
-The starting conditions are known (for example, that there was no daughter isotope present at the start, or that we know how much was there).
-Decay rates have always been constant.
-Systems were closed or isolated so that no parent or daughter isotopes were lost or added.

These dating methods are far from infallible—they are indirect methods based on these big assumptions, and evolutionary geologists themselves will often not accept a radiometric date unless they think it’s correct (i.e. it matches what they already believe). There are plenty of scientists who question their accuracy. For instance, the “RATE” project has discovered several striking examples of contradictions in these dating methods. If you want, you can get their book or movie called "Thousands...Not Billions" and learn about some of their remarkable results. If you do a bit of research, you will find that there is a lot of proof of radiometric dating not being accurate. The radioactive dating methods are often a classic example of self-deception and circular reasoning.

OK, since you mention dinosaurs, is there evidence of younger dates for dinosaur fossils?

In 1990 a sample of various dinosaur bones were sent to the University of Arizona for a “blind” Carbon-14 dating procedure. “Blind” in the sense that they didn’t tell them what the bones were. The oldest date they got was 16 thousand years; that’s a far cry from the millions of years evolutionists suggest. If dinosaurs became extinct more than 65 million years ago, there should be no carbon-14 left in their bones. Evolutionist of course say the samples must have been contaminated.

In 1981, scientists identified unfossilized dinosaur bones which had been found in Alaska 20 years earlier. Philip J. Currie (an evolutionist) wrote about this and some similar finds, “An even more spectacular example was found on the North Shore of Alaska, where many thousands of bones lack any significant degree of permineralization. The bones look and feel like old cow bones, and the discoverers of the site did not report it for twenty years because they assumed they were bison, not dinosaur, bones.” As Dr. Margaret Helder has said, “How these bones could have remained in fresh condition for 70 million years is a perplexing question. One thing is certain: they were not preserved by cold. Everyone recognizes that the climate in these regions was much warmer during the time when the dinosaurs lived.”

In 1990, Scientists from the University of Montana found T. rex bones that were not totally fossilized and even found what appeared to be blood cells in them. Dr. Mary Schweitzer said, “It was exactly like looking at a slice of modern bone. But, of course, I couldn’t believe it. … The bones, after all, are 65 million years old. How could blood cells survive that long?” How indeed?

And then in 2005, they found an even greater discovery. Science Daily website said (March 25, 2005): “Dr. Mary Schweitzer . . . has succeeded in isolating soft tissue from the femur of a 68-million-year-old dinosaur. Not only is the tissue largely intact, it’s still transparent and pliable, and microscopic interior structures resembling blood vessels and even cells are still present.” As Dr. David Menton said, “It certainly taxes one’s imagination to believe that soft tissue and cells could remain so relatively fresh in appearance for the tens of millions of years of supposed evolutionary history.” Wouldn’t that be a hit for the meat industry if we could figure out how to preserve meat for so long?

Answer 7

And you're sure this was a priest and not a Fundamentalist pastor telling you this? Most Episcopalian and Catholic priests wouldn't ever give a homily like that (I know several who were scientists before going into the priesthood). But I'll take your word for it. It's his right to express his opinion, and many people do believe in things like that (I don't). You were on his turf, so to speak, and you heard his viewpoint. How or why he believes these things, I don't know, but he has a right to state his opinions, and his parishioners also have a right to choose to believe or disbelieve his statements. You have chosen to disbelieve. Time to move on.

Answer 8

An intelligent man would know the difference between Christians and loonie-fringe fundies. Obviously you did not go to a Catholic church,a Lutheran church,an Episcopalian church,a Unitarian church,a Presbyterian church,etc. Could you look up "Christian" in a dictionary instead of making absurd genralizations?

Answer 9

"He claimed that dinosaurs and humans roamed the Earth together."

That's blatant misinformation. It's not even CLOSE to being true. Sad.

Answer 10

Well to be fair carbon dating is kinda off. There was a live turtle they did it on, and it says he was thousands of years old. Its not entirely accurate, and it doesnt take into account that there was a flood that put the whole earth underwater, so that could mess up alot of results aswell.

Answer 11

friend, the results of carbon dating can be seriously misleading. A quick reading of the subject will tell you that scientists disagree as to its effectiveness.

god bless