Magic is an evil game...

[Razvan]

I have no idea if this was posted before... but:

http://logosresourcepages.org/magic-g.html

Yep...

[Jebus]

This is soooooo old.

[Moxlotus]

Pogs=Satan worship  

[OPColby]

Yeah, I've read this once before.

I'm a Christian who plays Magic.  I own probably 500 dollars worth of cards, maybe more.  A beat up Library of Alexandria and 4 Mana Drains are really what I have invested in the game.

That's really my biggest concern:  That I don't overindulge in purchasing worthless cards incomparable to an invaluable salvation from sin.

I know what sin is, I know who saved me from it two years ago.  Yes, Leviticus talks about sinning in ignorance, witchcraft, and all the above.  Magic is none of these things.  Where will it stop?

How about we stop our children from playing video games?  They have all kinds of wizardry in them.  I noticed today when playing Kessen II on the PSX2 that you cast spells like "Meteor Shower" and "Hail."

Does that make me want to run out and practice actual witchcraft or become a wiccan?  Of course not.  Neither does Magic with a little tm beside it.  Dungeons and Dragons doesn't either.

I can say the man who wrote the opinions on this site is a good man looking to protect people from dangers of witchcraft, other temptations, etc, but not only are there better orifices for young men to be made aware of (such as pornography or any other sexual sin,) [as we all know Magic is 85% male if not more,] but I don't see it as a danger at all.

Sure, you have cards like Demonic Tutor.  I play with the card.  It's a good card.  It's not particularly satanic or demonic in other than it's art and it's name.  It doesn't have a special curse on the card.  It doesn't do anything like put an actual hex on your opponent.  Players know this.

As for the addiction argument, everything can become an addiction.

My friend thought Magic was absolutely horrendous and an abomination to God.  I got him playing it today.  His mind is changed that it's just a harmless game.

Anyway, I've gotta go now.  I hope my opinions stirred minds.

[The Grim Reaper]

Yeah, I've read this once before.

I'm a Christian who plays Magic.  I own probably 500 dollars worth of cards, maybe more.  A beat up Library of Alexandria and 4 Mana Drains are really what I have invested in the game.

That's really my biggest concern:  That I don't overindulge in purchasing worthless cards incomparable to an invaluable salvation from sin.

I know what sin is, I know who saved me from it two years ago.  Yes, Leviticus talks about sinning in ignorance, witchcraft, and all the above.  Magic is none of these things.  Where will it stop?

How about we stop our children from playing video games?  They have all kinds of wizardry in them.  I noticed today when playing Kessen II on the PSX2 that you cast spells like "Meteor Shower" and "Hail."

Does that make me want to run out and practice actual witchcraft or become a wiccan?  Of course not.  Neither does Magic with a little tm beside it.  Dungeons and Dragons doesn't either.

I can say the man who wrote the opinions on this site is a good man looking to protect people from dangers of witchcraft, other temptations, etc, but not only are there better orifices for young men to be made aware of (such as pornography or any other sexual sin,) [as we all know Magic is 85% male if not more,] but I don't see it as a danger at all.

Sure, you have cards like Demonic Tutor.  I play with the card.  It's a good card.  It's not particularly satanic or demonic in other than it's art and it's name.  It doesn't have a special curse on the card.  It doesn't do anything like put an actual hex on your opponent.  Players know this.

As for the addiction argument, everything can become an addiction.

My friend thought Magic was absolutely horrendous and an abomination to God.  I got him playing it today.  His mind is changed that it's just a harmless game.

Anyway, I've gotta go now.  I hope my opinions stirred minds.

Pornography is a sin? OH well looks like im going to hell.
I'm pretty sure Christianity forbids you to play Demonic Tutor.
These people have too much time on their hands.
They should be living at church instead of writing webpages about why things are evil. We don't wanna hear about it.

GOD it's annoying.
ANyone agree?

[Kowal]

These people have too much time on their hands.

Yeah.  About 1,973 and a half years or so.

If they want to preach, let em preach.  Nobody said we had to listen or agree.

[OPColby]

The guy who wrote this is just trying to get his opinion heard, just like you.

There's a reason why people are so opposed to anything even semi-Christian, and it's not because Christians are arrogant, ignorant, etc people.  Their God is the true God and currently, you are on the other side.  An enemy of God and all his agents.

This guy is wrong, but he has a good heart.

Anyway, Christianity does not forbid me to play with Demonic Tutor, just as it doesn't forbid me from reading the Satanic Bible or Satanic Cookbook.  Although, I'm not familiar with either.  There is no information cult in Christendom, like you have with Islam or some of the other religions of the world.  Christianity is only found in the bible, and the bible no where explicitly or implicitly (and yes, I've looked at all those verses,) says that people can't play a card game using the words 'spells' 'demonic tutor' 'angelic page' etc.  Demons do exist.  Does that mean I'm conjuring them up with a card?  No.

Furthermore, Grim, they (and I) know you don't want to hear about it.  That's why we talk about it.  We didn't want to hear about it either before we were converted.  We've already looked at it from your point of view.  Our 'point of view' is that if you're not trusting that Jesus Christ lived and died for your sin, then you are on the highway to hell.  We don't want to see that happen to you.  Realize that it's not an attack on you.

[Razvan]

Doesn't the prayer say, "Reject Satan and all his forms?"

Which means that they can designate anything as Satanic, and make it a sin.

Sort of like Bush and his "enemy combatants".

Hm... I wonder...

[nataz]

lol,

my point of veiw is that you chirst types are nutty

buddah allll the way

 

[dicemanx]

Religion inspires most of the hate and intolerance in this world.

Once our world evolves to the point where we eliminate all forms of religion, it will be a much happier place (where we can indulge in stuff like magic and pornography without being made to feel guilty about it ).

[AIcOPed]

I would like to chime in here.

If religion and all of it's forms were destroyed (even ignoring the fact that one of them might be right) how many people would lead worse lives?How many orginizations would not exist today? (boy scouts, salvation army, most homeless shelters) How many people would lead lives as drunks (not drinkers, drunks)? How many people would not be like the "good samaritan"?

I could go on and on, but the real point was stated earlier. most people love mocking christians the moment one of them kills their child in the name of God or goes on a holy war in the name of God or makes a stupid website in the name of God, but then they forget that christians (or most religions for that matter) teach so much good that the people that mess it up are few and far between.

Here is a small example that I hope might show people the difference between "christians" and non-believers. We were going to hold a picnic/ bar-b-q at my work, and were told in order for it to run smoothly each person would sign up for a certain amount of items on a list. The day before the bar-b-q happened the bosses saw that the list ad 2 blank spots out of about 20 and canceled the bar-b-q. At my church this last weekend(or week start really) the pastor announced an impromptu picnic/bar-b-q for memorial day, and told the congregation to bring enough for your family and then a little more. I think you see where this is going. The church picnic was great and we all had a great fellowship. All the non-believers at my work got to do instead of the picnic was say the "f" word every sentence like they always do.

[Kowal]

I wanna say guys, I'm impressed this thread has stayed so civil this whole time.  It's inspiring to see people able to discuss this touchy a topic without it turning in to a h8 fest.

Keep up the good work.  

[AIcOPed]

That is because even non-believers sometimes suffer through bouts of civilty. This is definitely sarcasm(they never do{sarcarsism inside of sarcasm}).

[Razvan]

Religion inspires most of the hate and intolerance in this world.

I disagree. I think a lot of it has been blamed on religion, because it is a popular scapegoat.

The hate and intolerance in the world is there for other reasons, mostly, if not completely, economic.

There's many examples throughout history of this (crusades, ww2)... where everyone kept complaining about hate for only ideological reasons, whereas usually, simple economics answered much better.

Once our world evolves to the point where we eliminate all forms of religion, it will be a much happier place (where we can indulge in stuff like magic and pornography without being made to feel guilty about it

Hehehe. Yep.

[dicemanx]

I disagree. I think a lot of it has been blamed on religion, because it is a popular scapegoat.

Except that arguing that religion is used as a scapegoat happens to be a popular counter-argument in turn .

When a person has a problem with other people's lifestyle choices based on his or her system of beliefs and takes it upon him/herself to try to project those beliefs onto those people, this leads to various degrees of intolerance and conflict.

Here is a small example that I hope might show people the difference between "christians" and non-believers.

Ah, beautiful.

[Razvan]

Except that arguing that religion is used as a scapegoat happens to be a popular counter-argument in turn

I didn't think it was that popular. But it could be, I guess. The only question is, is religion a means, or an end?

When a person has a problem with other people's lifestyle choices based on his or her system of beliefs and takes it upon him/herself to try to project those beliefs onto those people, this leads to various degrees of intolerance and conflict.

This is true, but I don't think religion is to blame on it. It's human nature, mostly. A lot of people would say that you need to interfere if a particular belief is hurting people, but then you get cases like... parents hitting their children. In some cultures, that's acceptable. So, what do you do?

[dicemanx]

This is true, but I don't think religion is to blame on it. It's human nature, mostly.

This comes down to a question of degree, and is dependent on whether you project a system of beliefs that has been indoctrinated in you or if you are using your own reasoning.

[Dr. Sylvan]

Sadly -- as is so often the case when people resort to vicious stereotypes -- both sides in this dispute are 100 percent correct.

[Razvan]

Sadly -- as is so often the case when people resort to vicious stereotypes -- both sides in this dispute are 100 percent correct.

Oh, my, God.
Oh, my, God.
This is the quote of the year.

It's Dave Barry. -Dr. Sylvan

[dicemanx]

Sadly -- as is so often the case when people resort to vicious stereotypes -- both sides in this dispute are 100 percent correct.

The only problem is that there's no stereoetyping.

Here is the simplified version of the argument:

Atheist: I'm opposed to religion because it's another way to segregate people, and can lead to intolerance and hate. Religion presents a danger because it can be used as a tool to indoctrinate individuals and manipulate them by replacing their ability to reason to various degrees.

Religious individual: Stop stereotyping us!! And look at all the good that religion is responsible for!!

Do we not see the straw man? There's no "both sides of the argument" here because both sides are arguing different things. The atheist is talking about the existing potential for harm; he is not striving to generalize.

Furthermore, I don't quite get the connection that many insist on making between religion and both morality and spirituality. You do not need to be religious to have a fulfilling spiritual life or to be a morally just individual. AIcOPed's anecdotal "evidence" is misleading.

[ProZachar]

Here is a small example that I hope might show people the difference between "christians" and non-believers. We were going to hold a picnic/ bar-b-q at my work, and were told in order for it to run smoothly each person would sign up for a certain amount of items on a list. The day before the bar-b-q happened the bosses saw that the list ad 2 blank spots out of about 20 and canceled the bar-b-q. At my church this last weekend(or week start really) the pastor announced an impromptu picnic/bar-b-q for memorial day, and told the congregation to bring enough for your family and then a little more. I think you see where this is going. The church picnic was great and we all had a great fellowship. All the non-believers at my work got to do instead of the picnic was say the "f" word every sentence like they always do.

So we can conclude that the people at your church brought food and your coworkers didn't.

Besides committing the fallacy of personal antecdote, you are comparing coworkers to churchgoers.  You are comparing people's unwilling-ness to bring in potluck on a work day (meaning they'd have to do it the night before, probably) for a work-related event vs people's willingness to bring in potluck on a holiday weekend event that's occuring during their free time.

We also have little reason, outside of your word, to conclude that your coworkers are nonbelievers.

For a more fair comparison, get a group of churchgoers and a group of nonbelievers who normally get together on their own time, have a holiday weekend food bash, and compare the results of the potluck between those groups.

But ultimately, if you judge a group based on the results of a potluck meal, there's nothing I or anyone else can do for you.

[dandan]

For an excellent example of the potential for abuse just about every religion has, try to imagine a religion where people are told a certain patch of turf is promised to them by God. Imagine how they will get along with the inhabitants of that land.

I've even read of attacks by Buddhist militants on Muslims in India. Buddhist militants? WTF? I assume they are the guys who would actually harm a fly.

Having said that:
1. Most religious people are actually pretty decent human beings. I'd even go as far as saying that the religious are better people on average than the non-religious.
2. I am not an Atheist because I dislike religion, I am an Atheist because I do not believe in God, I see no evidence of its existence, no logic to argue for its existence and plenty of evidence to see why some people feel a need to 'invent/imagine' a benevalent higher being especially regarding our mortal status.
3. If someone knocks on my door, trying to convert me, I try to remember that they are using their free time to try to do something that they see as benefitting people like me.
4. I am not very fond of my tax money being used to finance churches and Catholic schools.

[AIcOPed]

You are all correct in my anecdote not being perfect as none are. The point however, imo, is valid that typically christians work for the greater good, regardless of the scale of the matter. Think YMCA (notice there is no YMAA). There are many horrible people in the world regardless of belief or dis-belief in God.

Couple of questions for people that see no evidence for faith in God.

How much faith does it take to believe that life came from non-life via a rock soup thing?

How much faith does it take to believe that the first non-sexual organism to evolve into a sexual organism coincidently had another one evolve near it?

How much faith does it take to believe that the Law of thermodynamics is correct except apparently on Earth?

How much faith does it take to believe in fish turning into humans eventually because a man discovered two different beak sizes on some finch?

Evolution is as much of a religion as christianity.

[PucktheCat]

How much faith does it take to believe that life came from non-life via a rock soup thing?

How much faith does it take to believe that the first non-sexual organism to evolve into a sexual organism coincidently had another one evolve near it?

How much faith does it take to believe that the Law of thermodynamics is correct except apparently on Earth?

How much faith does it take to believe in fish turning into humans eventually because a man discovered two different beak sizes on some finch?

Evolution is as much of a religion as christianity.

Two points:

1. Lack of faith in God does not imply any belief in evolution.  Skepticism needn't be limited to religion.  However, evolution needn't be "believed" in the sense that religion is in order for it to be acted upon.  Einstein was probably wrong, Newton was definitely wrong, but they are still the theories that best predict the consequences of your actions in certain circumstances, so they are still useful.

2. All arguments as to the improbability of sentient life, including those you make above, ignore the fact that probability is meaningless given infinite time.  It may only be on one in a trillion worlds that life appears where the chain of events that leads to sentience occurs, but since only sentient life can wonder about its origins it is inevitable that it is on that trillionth planet that research into the beginnings of life are conducted.  Wondering about the improbability of the circumstances that lead to our existence is like a goldfish wondering how he had the luck to be born in water.  If the water wasn't there, he'd be dead or never exist, so he couldn't wonder about it.

I, for one, don't believe that God doesn't exist or that he does.  I do believe, however, that whether he exists or not has little effect on my actions.  Either way, my task is the same: to try to make correct decisions with the information I am given.  It seems quite possible that if God exists then the established churches are a test of faith - will you confront the world as God has made it or will you shirk your individual responsibility and let your choices be made for you by a 2000+ year old book?

Oh, and:

The point however, imo, is valid that typically christians work for the greater good, regardless of the scale of the matter. Think YMCA (notice there is no YMAA).

Even if this is true, which I don't concede for a moment, it isn't much of an argument that God exists.  Religion could be useful as a tool of social cohesion without any divine influence.  Sports are useful in this way as well (notice: like church potlucks, you rarely have issues getting people to organize super-bowl parties).  In fact, I am inclined to believe that our society is considerably more stable for the influence of religion.  Marx thought so too.

Leo

[dicemanx]

Hoooboy.

How much faith does it take to believe that life came from non-life via a rock soup thing?

This doesn't require faith. It can be demonstrated in the lab. The only problem is that it would require a lot of time to generate the right type of RNA, polypeptides and fatty acid chains from inorganic sources and have them combine into a "proto-cell".

How much faith does it take to believe that the first non-sexual organism to evolve into a sexual organism coincidently had another one evolve near it?

You are posing the wrong question. Sexual reproduction did not evolve by some spontaneous creation of both a female and a male equivalent. At the most fundamental levels, sexual reproduction differs from vegetative or asexual reproduction in that there is the possibility of information exchange between DNA molecules (such as between homologous chromosomes in dipoid organisms during meiosis).

How much faith does it take to believe in fish turning into humans eventually because a man discovered two different beak sizes on some finch?

Wow, you're making some huge leaps here. Darwin's discoveries paved the way towards understanding the process of evolution and the idea that natural selection is one possible evolutionary force which is responsible for change. If we understand the mechanisms responsible for change, and understand the driving forces that selected for such changes, we do not have to rely on any blind faith in tracing the steps involved in the evolution from a "fish" to a "human being".

Evolution is as much of a religion as christianity.

Let me make some changes to this quote: "if a individual is ignorant in a subject area, then that individual has to accept tenets, principles, or conclusions on blind faith".

will you confront the world as God has made it or will you shirk your individual responsibility and let your choices be made for you by a 2000+ year old book?

I want to add one more thing here. The Bible (New Testament) isn't even a "book" in the proper sense. It is obviously a compilation of the works of several authors. The four gospels presented there, however, are hardly the ONLY accounts of Jesus' life in existence. In fact, many more exist, but they were not included because there would be far too many inconsistencies. In fact, it's far more likely that Jesus was simply an influencial jew with some wealth and a family of his own that had political aspirations during Roman occupation. The gospels that were ultimately selected for inclusion in the bible merely romanticised his life through embellishments to improve the story and add an element of divinity. Sorry, Jesus never had a virgin mother, he never performed "true" miracles, and he never rose from the dead. He didn't "die for our sins" either. He was executed because of political reasons by the bemused Romans who attempted to maintain order by appeasing the jewish mob who called for his head.

And yet its so...cute that people take the bible so literally and believe it contains the words from "God", or believe that this mere man, Jesus, was a persona of God himself.

[Razvan]

How much faith does it take to believe that the first non-sexual organism to evolve into a sexual organism coincidently had another one evolve near it?

   
You are posing the wrong question. Sexual reproduction did not evolve by some spontaneous creation of both a female and a male equivalent. Sexual reproduction differs from vegetative or asexual reproduction in that there is the possibility of information exchange between DNA molecules (such as between homologous chromosomes in dipoid organisms during meiosis).

In Ringworld, a book by Nevin yrral (err.... Larry Niven), there's a race of aliens (forgot the name), which were avian in nature, among other things. For them, they had 3 genders. Male 1, Male 2, and female. Females were non-sentient, and in order to reproduce, you need a Male 1 and a Male 2 to deposit some sort of substance.

So now you have asexual, sexual, and trisexual reproduction. Yeah, the whole thing is screwy.

I personally don't think that God envisionned people reproducing, because that means creating life, and only God can do that, no?

I want to add one more thing here. The Bible (New Testament) isn't even a "book" in the proper sense. It is obviously a compilation of the works of several authors. The four gospels presented there, however, are hardly the ONLY ones in existence. In fact, many more exist, but they were not included because there would be far too many inconsistencies. In fact, it's far more likely that Jesus was simply an influencial jew with some wealth and a family of his own that had political aspirations during Roman occupation. The gospels that were ultimately selected for inclusion in the bible merely romanticised his life through embellishments to improve the story and add an element of divinity. Sorry, Jesus never had a virgin mother, he never performed "true" miracles, and he never rose from the dead.

And yet its so...cute that people take the bible so literally and believe it contains the words from "God".

Whenever anyone talkes about the word of God in the bible, I am reminded of two things.

1) History of the world, from Mel Brooks

Moses is walking with 3 tablets of scriptures, each having 5 commandments from God. He then goes on Mount Sinai, and approaches the mob of people at the bottom.

"My friend, God has spoken to me, and he has given me these 15... ", he briefly trips and drops a tablet, "err... 10 commandments".

I think this was one of the more brilliant dialogues ever.

2) Simsons God is talking. Something like the Troy McClure Noah and the Ark episodes. God is talking, and Troy is writing things down:

God (dictating): "I want you to build an ark of 150 feet!"
Troy (writing): "150 feet, more or less..."
God (angrier): "150 feet exactly!"
*thunder strikes*
God: "And take 2 of every animal on it..."
Troy(writing): "And take 2 animals on it..."
God (angrier): "2 of EVERY animal!"
Troy (fearful): "Gasp! Even stink-beetles?"
God: "Especially stink-beetles!"

And the Homer the Thief episode... Etc...

Point of this is: even if God did talk to humans, the margin for mis-interpretation is so gigantic (eg. Oracle at Delphi, and the Lydians) that it's often meaningless.

And if God was aproving of Mtg, I wonder what deck he'd play?

[dicemanx]

And if God was aproving of Mtg, I wonder what deck he'd play?

Dragon.

"WGD has died, WGD has risen, WGD will come again"


God can create, destroy, and revive, so he's a necromancer at heart and dabbles in the black arts. He's also manipulative and has ultimate stopping power, hence he plays blue for FoW and card drawing. Nevertheless, he's ready to manipulate the natural forces to accomplish what he desires, using green for Xantids to force through his agenda or rely on Pernicious Deed to sweep all that stands in his way.

Any questions?

[MarkPharaoh]

lol Peter, what a good answer

[OPColby]

I appreciate the arguments, AIcOPed.

In every age, science has always held the answers to nearly everything, and people in mass have always listened to worldly science.

Of course, science wasn't right before that, and man's flawed reasoning was skewed after they discovered the earth was round as well.  Sir Isaac Newton, one of the race's most brilliant was a devout Christian in spite of science's reasonings.  He is quoted to have saying something along the lines of, "The planets in orbit are only suspended as much as God holds them there.  If God would withdraw his hand, they would all fly out of their orbit, chaotically and unorderly."

The simple fact of the matter is that God uses means to create ends.  God made the earth round not because he needed to do so, but because he chose to do so.  Now before you think I'm turning into a Christian Evolutionist, (and they do exist,) let me assure you that I'm certainly not.

I don't believe in evolution as Darwin posed it, nor any other man with a degree in science.  I believe it's a fallacy, just like the earth being flat was a fallacy.  Sure, they had tons of ways to prove that the earth was flat.  Of course, they were all wrong.  Then came people who started thinking the earth was round.  Despire the allusions in the bible, (of which there are more to the earth being round than being flat,) people were stubborn.

I'm just going to tell a story demonstrating faulty science.

Now, before I begin, I'll reckon myself as an observant man.  Someone who can clearly distinguish between truth and falsehood and who can tell that people who don't add black to U/R Landstill are either misinformed or just stubborn.

A scientist came into my 11th grade class the one day.  He talked about the ozone layer and how it was depleting due to various forms of pollution, etc etc.  Now, I had read up a good bit on the ozone layer.  He started talking about how CFC's and the like create holes in the ozone layer, yadda yadda yadda.

I spoke up, "Mr. Scientist, I don't believe a word you're saying."
"Oh really?  And why not?"
I said, "What creates ozone?"
"Lightning."
"Yes, we all know lightning creates a small bit of ozone, however, what has created the most ozone?"
"Well..."  (At this point he started to look sheepish.)
"It's sunlight, isn't it?"
"Yes, sunlight and lightning both create ozone."
"And where is the ozone layer at on earth?"
"On top of Antartica," was his reply.
"Mr. Scientist, don't you believe it's quite obvious that the ozone layer is over Antartica because they don't have lightning there?  And wouldn't it be even more obvious, if sunlight created a great deal of ozone, that antartica would have a hole of ozone over it?"
"Well, yes, but..."
"Well, hold on now just a second.  When did we discover the ozone layer?"
(he gave a year, I forget the year)
"And when did we discover the hole in the ozone layer?"
(he gave the same year)
"And when did global warming become a 'problem'?"
(he gave a year in the 90's, way after the previous years quoted)

There isn't evidence that CFC's destroy the Ozone Layer, although our government and schools and everyone else on God's Green Earth save anyone who has common sense believes that Aerosol Cans melt the icecaps.

Now, for me to believe that I'm smarter than the thing that created me (i.e., the big bang) is quite an audacious statement to make.  I believe it's common sense that evolution is bunk based on the following reasons:

1)  The missing link.  This should be obvious enough.  Where is it?  It's missing.  Why's it missing?

2)  Fossils made by Mount Saint Helen.  If you don't believe me, look it up.  It's well documented by secular research as well.  They appear to be millions of years old, even by carbon dating, but you guessed it, they were made 30 years ago.

3)  Any dinosaur bone that was proven to be only 2,000 years old.  That's happened too many times to count.  (I'm not saying that the bones are actually 2,000 years old, only that carbon dating is screwed up.)

And actually, I'd like to talk about carbon dating for a little bit too.  Why any type of dating is completely unreasonable.

Let's go with Krypton-Argon, quite possibly the longest bond formed that is datable by modern science.

Science relies upon the following assumptions to prove that something is 'so many' years old:

1)  That the material was 100% Krypton to begin with.  (That's a pretty funny assumption to make, I think.)
2)  That there was no Krypton that leaked out, or Argon that leaked in.  (and you would think after a million years, that would happen some how.)
3)  That their integers are correct and that things don't go in cycles.
4)  That the speed of light is not decreasing in any way.
5)  The poles of the earth switching magentism many MANY times didn't screw around with the contents or integers at all.
6)  That the half-life THEORY is viable for all radioactive materials, and not only carbon (which has the shortest lifespan available to us so that we can actually track it).

Anyway, I'm done talking about science for now... I really hate the obvious fallicies it makes constantly.  Most of the men who create these theories don't follow logic (or the periodic table for that matter) in the slightest bit and works off ways to exile God from creation.  There are, of course, exceptions.

If you think I'm just blowing at you a bunch of bull, then you've bought into the lie of evolution and have never questioned it.  Something that you accuse Christians of doing with their bible all too often.  Don't listen to what people tell you, listen to what makes sense.

For me, a God who created all things and is bringing all things to completion for the sole purpose of His glory makes sense.  It would make sense that the only people who are remembered in history for any great amount of time are religious leaders who follow the true God.

Name one unbiblical person pre-Christ that has come to be known from a source other than the bible.  Furthermore, name works that are written about him.  Name works that he wrote.  If you can do that, (and there actually are some, but very few exceptions,) go with pre-Moses.  I have yet to see someone name an unbiblical _individual_ that lived before Moses's day that is not mentioned in the bible, his works, works about him, or anything else.

My life, and your life will not be remembered.  It's supposed to be that way.  Because God alone withstands time.  In years past, Mohammed will be gone, as will his god, just like baal.  (which many of you have never heard of, nor will you ever)

Look at it this way:  Material things are lost upon death.

As are all those people and things when the world will come to a close, and the evil things are thrown into hell.  They will be forgotten about.

Look at it this way, if you like math:

9th grade Geometry;  The teacher is on the board writing the Pythagorean Theorem.  A squared + B squared = C squared.

The triangle he draws is with chalk, and it's not perfect.  It's squiggly and false and material.  But the thing it represents is perfect.  The thing it represents is a perfect triangle, with perfect lengths of sides and a perfect theory that exists only where?  Only in your mind.  (Spiritual over Physical, once again, rock on Christianity.)

We are the chalk triangle that represents the mind of God.  Everything that goes on, from me typing this letter to you reading this sentence is God's history being worked out - a thing of beauty.

This will all pass away, and we will be left with the true, not the false.  The only window of access to that truth is that triangle on the board.  The only way for us to understand the truth is to view it through a means...

That is the bible, my friends.  And until you read it, you will never understand why Christians are different from everyone else.

That's what I'll leave you with.  Thanks for reading this long post.

[Ephraim]

Sorry, OPColby, I quit reading your post at the point when you suggested there's no evidence that CFC's are depleting the ozone layer - not because I didn't want to read on, but because that requires a response. Although I can't prove to you outright that CFC's are depleting the ozone layer, I can prove that if there are actually CFC's in the upper atmosphere doing what CFC's do in laboratories, then they are, in fact depleting the ozone layer.

Ozone is formed by the following reaction (forgive the poor notation - this isn't exactly a typesetting program):

Oxygen gas is split into two oxygen radicals by radiation from the sun (chain initiating step)
O2 + hv -> O* + O*

Oxygen reacts with oxygen radical to form Ozone. M is any other particle (O2 or N2, for example) that can absorb excess energy that makes the O3 molecule unstable. M leaves the reaction more energetic, but otherwise unchanged. (chain propagating step)
O* + O2 + M -> O3 + M

Ozone absorbs radiation (the very radiation from which ozone protects us) and splits into an oxygen molecule and an oxygen radical. (chain propagating step)
O3 + hv -> O2 + O*

Ozone makes possible the absorption of dangerous radiation and its disipation as kinetic or rotational energy of a third, non-reactive species. This is a chain reaction that terminates under the following conditions:

Two oxygen radicals combine, in the presence of an energy sink to form oxygen gas (chain terminating step)
O* + O* + M -> O2 + M

OR

Oxygen radical reacts with ozone molecule to generate two molecules of oxygen gas (chain terminating step)
O* + O3 -> O2 + O2

***

CFC's interrupt this process as follows:

Chlorotrifluoromethane is split by solar radiation into a trifluorocarbon radical and a chlorine radical (chain initiating step)
CF3Cl + hv -> F3C* + Cl*

Chlorine radical reacts with ozone to form Chloryl Oxide and oxygen gas (chain propagating step)
Cl* + O3 -> ClO + O2

Chloryl Oxide reacts with Oxygen radical to form Chlorine radical and Oxygen gas (chain propagating step)
ClO + O* -> Cl* + O2

As you can see above, O* and O3 are necessary for the propagation of the radiation-absorbing chain. However, Chlorine radical results in the consumption of both of these species, while regenerating itself in the process. The presence of CFC's results in a chain reaction that impedes the radiation absorption reaction (since both of the Cl* propagating steps terminate the O3 reaction).