A few christians I have known in the past seem to blame evil things in the world including nasty things that have happened to them on this devil and not on mans own actions.
Couldn't agree more. Thats along the lines of what I've been saying that we are all sinners and always will be. However, being a Christian, Satan DOES try to discourage us and separate us from living a Godly life. Its a spiritual battle going on all around us.
I like to think that this could be a past life experience.
Maybe thats just it.
Some of you are saying to me "I like the idea of Karma" or "Yes, I like that idea too".. but its so much more than just what we "like" to worship or what we would like to think will happen when we die.. for instance, everyone likes the idea of heaven.. 'so lets just believe we will get there regardless of actually thinking there is a God..lets leave out all that satan stuff, I dont like that..'
However, theres a lot more evidence that sides with evolution. For example the fossil record of change in earlier species, the geographic distribution of related species, and the recorded genetic changes in living organisms over many generations. Not just human either, as we are not the only species to evolve.
.. and likewise there is evidence that evolution is based on a theory. Do you realise that IF these evolutists are wrong about the amount of time the world has been alive for, the scientific evidence matches the bibles record? So how certain are you that the carbon dating method is accurate? As I said before, its not fact - so how can you be certain?
What is carbon dating?
"Radiocarbon is continuously created in the atmosphere through bombardment of nitrogen-14 (14N) by neutrons created by cosmic radiation. 14C, with a half-life of 5730 years, decays back to 14N . . . As long as the production rate remains constant, the radioactivity of natural carbon remains constant because [the] rate of production balances the rate of decay."
"While an organism is alive and is taking in carbon from the atmosphere, it contains this balanced proportion of 14C. However, at death the balance is upset, because replenishment by life processes such as feeding, breathing and photosynthesis ceases. The 14C in dead tissues continually decreases by radioactive decay" (Brian Skinner and Stephen Porter, 1989, pp. 138-139). By measuring the amount of carbon-14 and comparing that amount to the original, scientists can obtain a date for the death of the organism."
Is it accurate?
"There are many problems with the dates obtained through this method. For example, dating living mollusks by the carbon-14 method often yields clearly errant resultsfor instance, finding the mollusks to be up to 2,300 years old ("Radiocarbon Dating: Fictitious Results With Mollusk Shells," Science, Vol. 141, p. 634). Carbon-14 dating methods are obviously affected by the environment. "
"Archaeologist John McRay notes: "Unfortunately, several recent discoveries combine to indicate that carbon 14 is not as valuable as was once hoped: (1) radioactive carbon atoms may not have existed in the earth's atmosphere before 2000 B.C.; (2) the natural concentration of carbon 14 in the atmosphere has varied in certain periods, and (3) there is a high probability of sample contamination" (Archaeology and the New Testament, 1991, p. 34)."
"Recently a new methodaccelerator mass spectrometryhas been used to date ancient items. This method has given a different date than previously accepted for the earliest Mayan civilization. "
"The oldest known Maya turns out to be younger than archaeologists originally believed. The remains of a woman found below a layered platform at a site called Cuello in northern Belize had been thought to be more than 4,000 years old . . . As a result of new dating methods, about a thousand years have been trimmed from the chronology. Norman Hammond of Boston University, who began digging at Cuello in the 1970s, says the remains now are believed to be from about 1200 B.C., still earlier than any other known Maya settlement. "
"The accelerator mass spectrometer allows scientists to analyze the bones of the ancient Maya without severely damaging them. The new technique can date carbon samples weighing only a few milligrams; a specimen the size of a match head will do" ("Oldest Known Maya: Not Quite So Old," National Geographic, November 1990). Here a new dating method has changed by 1,000 years the earliest accepted date of Mayan civilization. "
"Consider then. Radiometric dating methods (those measuring geologic time by rate of radioactive decay) have been used to date formations that could be associated with Noah's Flood. These dates supposedly prove these formations are millions of years old rather than thousands. Yet we find that different methods can yield radically different results. "
"As The Science of Evolution explains: "Several methods have been devised for estimating the age of the earth and its layers of rocks. These methods rely heavily on the assumption of uniformitarianism, i.e., natural processes have proceeded at relatively constant rates throughout the earth's history . . . It is obvious that radiometric techniques may not be the absolute dating methods that they are claimed to be. Age estimates on a given geological stratum by different radiometric methods are often quite different (sometimes by hundreds of millions of years). There is no absolutely reliable long-term radiological 'clock'" (William Stansfield, 1977, pp. 80, 84). "
"The potassium-argon [K-Ar] dating method, used to date lava flows, also has problemsas shown by studies of Mount St. Helens. "The conventional K-Ar dating method was applied to the 1986 dacite flow from the new lava dome at Mount St. Helens, Washington. Porphyritic dacite which solidified on the surface of the lava dome in 1986 gives a whole rock K-Ar 'age' of 0.35 + OR - 0.05 million years (Ma). Mineral concentrates from this same dacite give K-Ar 'ages' from 0.35 + OR - .06 Ma to 2.8 + OR - 0.6 Ma. These 'ages' are, of course, preposterous [since we know the rock formed recently]. The fundamental dating assumption ('no radiogenic argon was present when the rock formed') is questioned by these data. "
"Instead, data from this Mount St. Helens dacite argue that significant 'excess argon' was present when the lava solidified in 1986 . . . This study of Mount St. Helens dacite causes the more fundamental question to be askedhow accurate are K-Ar 'ages' from the many other phenocryst-containing lava flows worldwide?" (Stephen Austin, "Excess Argon within Mineral Concentrates from the New Dacite Lava Dome at Mount St. Helens Volcano," Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal, Vol. 10, No. 3, 1996, pp. 335-344). "
Conclusion:
"In layman's terms, these volcanic rocks that we know were formed in 1986less than 20 years agowere "scientifically" dated to between 290,000 and 3.4 million years old!"
"Such examples serve to illustrate the fallibility of the dating methods on which many modern scientists rely so heavily."
.. and thats the end of my post.. are you fed up with me yet?
Your saying, that its ridiculous of God to let "bad" people into heaven and let "good" people go to hell.. when God is so loving and so gracious to let EVERYONE into his kingdom!!
)
) theres just this energy in the air that ive never felt before, like we just KNOW something weird and wonderful is going to happen, and it usually does! 
