Oldest religion in the world

[MorriganTait]

The writers are written on different kinds, as very early time is not paper and pen. Like Genisis is written many many years later after the creations. Then how the writer knows? Many ways... Voice of God, Spirit of God, spoken thu visions, and spoken thru prophets. Many ways God does. What God does, is seem impossible man can do.

You're right, many sacred texts were not committed to writing until centuries after they were passed down orally. My point is that the most ancient human beings lacked a method for expressing their specific religious tenets in a way that we would be able to determine the absolute age of the very first religion. I would only have to think that ancient man had some sort of religion - religion seems ubiquitous to human thought. We just don't know exactly what "religion" that is. It's certainly not Judaism though, since it is well documented that man had lived thousands of years and used many polytheistic religions prior to the monothestic concept first introduced by Abraham, which was the spark that created Judaism and later Islam and Christianity.

 

[Rose Immortal]

Problem with Christianity, they believe earth is only few thousand years old not billion years old. So they do not believe in science when they tell world earth is soooo old or human being existed for 30,000 years old. They probably reject hindu as oldest religion in the world.

Jazzy, while some Christians do not accept scientific evidence, others (myself included) do.

As I stated, I don't know that using the first evidence of a religion being written down (or even the first evidence of artifacts used in worship) is the best evidence to figure out which religion is the oldest. We do not know about the beliefs that people held in their hearts, that they expressed only by telling their children, rather than by the creation of images or written words. I think humankind's contact with God goes all the way back to the very first being who became sentient. Doesn't matter to me how many years ago that was, or if that first being had non-sentient ancestors. The theory stands without any need for denial of science.

 

[web730]

Yes there are:

Carbon dating (Accurate to 50,000 years)
Rubidium-strontium dating
Samarium-neodymium dating
Potassium-argon dating (Used for over 100,000 years)

In fact: the light from the beginning of the universe still floats around and we can detect it with a telescope (we call it the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation). This light reaches us from several billion light years away, which means that if we were ever going to use techniques like Potassium-argon dating or Carbon dating, we'd never even remotely come close to the massive age of the universe.

For most recent events in our worldly history, Carbon dating serves us fine. As do the many other methods that, interestingly, independently agree with one another.

Back on point: it's a good thing you have bones. We find them and we apply dating techniques to find out how old ancient humans were.

For a long while I thought I trust the carbon dating.

But guess what? Wrong! I later discovered after reading sources that explained them away. It's NOT revelent in fact. We cannot simply trust the carbon dating. Too long to post here.

I trust God after all, not in man's as the verse in the Bible states in Psalm 118:8:

"It is better to trust in the Lord (God) than to put confidence in man"

 

[Teresh]

But guess what? Wrong! I later discovered after reading sources that explained them away. It's NOT revelent in fact. We cannot simply trust the carbon dating. Too long to post here.

The only people who are saying that are people who do not know what they are talking about. "Christian scientists" aren't scientists in the least, so do not take what they say as anything more than religious dogma. If you can't follow the scientific method, you're not a scientist, period. I'm sorry, but I have trouble believing God would create an elaborate hoax called the fossil record (complete with nuclear decay dating!) to confuse us.

Carbon dating is relevent in fact, and it is, in fact, correct. We can trust carbon dating because we know a tremendous amount about nuclear physics now. You don't have any idea what you're talking about, end of story. Go get educated on the subject, then come back and discuss it.

 

[Endymion]

But guess what? Wrong! I later discovered after reading sources that explained them away. It's NOT revelent in fact. We cannot simply trust the carbon dating. Too long to post here.

Here's a list of people who rely on Carbon dating with confidence (or in essence, what I did here was copy the entire professorship of the Harvard Chemistry & Chemical Biology department):


Professor James Anderson, Harvard, PhD
Professor David Evans, Harvard, PhD
Professor Cynthia Friend, Harvard, PhD
Professor Roy Gordon, Harvard, PhD
Professor Eric J. Heller, Harvard, PhD
Professor Richard Holm, Harvard, PhD
Professor Eric Jacobsen, Harvard, PhD
Professor Daniel Kahne, Harvard, PhD
Professor Jeremy Knowles, Harvard, PhD
Professor Charles Lieber, Harvard, PhD
Professor David Liu, Harvard, PhD
Professor Gavin MacBeath, Harvard, PhD
Professor Andrew Myers, Harvard, PhD
Professor David Nelson, Harvard, PhD
Professor Hongkun Park, Harvard, PhD
Professor Stuart Schreiber, Harvard, PhD
Professor Matthew Shair, Harvard, PhD
Professor Eugene Shakhnovich, Harvard, PhD
Professor George Whitesides, Harvard, PhD
Professor X. Sunney Xie, Harvard, PhD
Professor Xiaowei Zhuang, Harvard, PhD

The fact of the matter is simply this: radiocarbon dating is so effective up to to several ten thousand years that the people who KNOW chemistry unanimously agree with it. In fact, it is so unanimously used in the sciences, that you can actually just randomly pick the names of Chemistry professors at any school (like I just did) and say they say carbon dating is a highly effective tool for its granted timeframe.

If you reject carbon dating, you reject many of the principles of nuclear science, which means, unfortunately, that you have to reject a lot of the technology we Americans currently use. Of course, that'd be illogical, seeing that we already use this technology!

A bit of a stretch: in fact, if you're pretty sure of some carbon dating/nuclear decay scam, why not protest the fact that there is radiation after a nuclear bomb? Maybe the Japanese at Hiroshima and Nagasaki didn't experience the effects of nuclear radiation and were trying to scam Americans and win pity points.

 

[Endymion]

Getting rich is simpler than you think . . .

[d'oh, I keep making wrong posts -- omitted this one]
[mods, please remove]

 

[web730]

Here's a list of people who rely on Carbon dating with confidence (or in essence, what I did here was copy the entire professorship of the Harvard Chemistry & Chemical Biology department):


Professor James Anderson, Harvard, PhD
Professor David Evans, Harvard, PhD
Professor Cynthia Friend, Harvard, PhD
Professor Roy Gordon, Harvard, PhD
Professor Eric J. Heller, Harvard, PhD
Professor Richard Holm, Harvard, PhD
Professor Eric Jacobsen, Harvard, PhD
Professor Daniel Kahne, Harvard, PhD
Professor Jeremy Knowles, Harvard, PhD
Professor Charles Lieber, Harvard, PhD
Professor David Liu, Harvard, PhD
Professor Gavin MacBeath, Harvard, PhD
Professor Andrew Myers, Harvard, PhD
Professor David Nelson, Harvard, PhD
Professor Hongkun Park, Harvard, PhD
Professor Stuart Schreiber, Harvard, PhD
Professor Matthew Shair, Harvard, PhD
Professor Eugene Shakhnovich, Harvard, PhD
Professor George Whitesides, Harvard, PhD
Professor X. Sunney Xie, Harvard, PhD
Professor Xiaowei Zhuang, Harvard, PhD

The fact of the matter is simply this: radiocarbon dating is so effective up to to several ten thousand years that the people who KNOW chemistry unanimously agree with it. In fact, it is so unanimously used in the sciences, that you can actually just randomly pick the names of Chemistry professors at any school (like I just did) and say they say carbon dating is a highly effective tool for its granted timeframe.

If you reject carbon dating, you reject many of the principles of nuclear science, which means, unfortunately, that you have to reject a lot of the technology we Americans currently use. Of course, that'd be illogical, seeing that we already use this technology!

A bit of a stretch: in fact, if you're pretty sure of some carbon dating/nuclear decay scam, why not protest the fact that there is radiation after a nuclear bomb? Maybe the Japanese at Hiroshima and Nagasaki didn't experience the effects of nuclear radiation and were trying to scam Americans and win pity points.

Endymion and Teresh,

Harvard chemicists and biologists' knowledge meant nothing before God's. They bought the carbon dating methods and suddenly smoked their guns saying that it is trusted. It's so fool to trust in men instead of Omniscient God.

By the way there are numbers of scientists also believe in God, not the evolution and carbon dating, too in fact.

You obviously put your confidence in man and machine over God and His creation. Simple.

To save my time to give you excellent points why you and we shouldn't trust carbon dating. Because radiocarbon testing is NOT relevent.

Here is rich and interesting source on the carbon dating from christians' pov. It's too much time and effort to post them here but do your favor to read them then decide yourself first before spouting onto something you really knew too little.

Remember that you weren't alone here ... many thought it so. I did, too before I discovered more and more before. Sorry that the carbon dating isn't 100% "acid test". Find out why at:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/search/default.aspx?qt=carbon%20dating

 

[MorriganTait]

The fact of the matter is simply this: radiocarbon dating is so effective up to to several ten thousand years that the people who KNOW chemistry unanimously agree with it. In fact, it is so unanimously used in the sciences, that you can actually just randomly pick the names of Chemistry professors at any school (like I just did) and say they say carbon dating is a highly effective tool for its granted timeframe.

THANK YOU!

For some reason, people feel that to appreciate the message of the Bible, and follow it's teachings, once must accept it as literal, and therefore reject observable reality.

This simply isn't so.

I prefer to see the Bible, especially the Old Testament, as an attempt by specific people to describe how their relationship with God developed over several centuries. I don't see it as a perfect document, or as a science text, nor would I want to. I prefer to see our knowledge of science as ever developing, and so too, our relationship with God.

Science and the Bible are not opposing philosophies. Rather, I consider them quite complimentary.

 

[Beowulf]

THANK YOU!

For some reason, people feel that to appreciate the message of the Bible, and follow it's teachings, once must accept it as literal, and therefore reject observable reality.

This simply isn't so.

I prefer to see the Bible, especially the Old Testament, as an attempt by specific people to describe how their relationship with God developed over several centuries. I don't see it as a perfect document, or as a science text, nor would I want to. I prefer to see our knowledge of science as ever developing, and so too, our relationship with God.

Science and the Bible are not opposing philosophies. Rather, I consider them quite complimentary.

Agreed. I know a few people who insist that Earth is flat since the Bible says so.
I suppose science isn't relevant if it doesn't fit within their frames of consciousness.
Whatever floats their boat, I say.

 

[hottiedeafboi]

Some do believe that the earth is flat, but bible never said that the earth is flat.

 

[Teresh]

Harvard chemicists and biologists' knowledge meant nothing before God's. They bought the carbon dating methods and suddenly smoked their guns saying that it is trusted. It's so fool to trust in men instead of Omniscient God.

What the hell are you talking about? What does God have to do with carbon dating?

By the way there are numbers of scientists also believe in God, not the evolution and carbon dating, too in fact.

Find me *one* legitimate scientist who does not believe in evolution or carbon dating and I will give you a prize. Note that I define "legitimate scientist" as an individual who follows the scientific method when developing conclusions and applying theory.

You obviously put your confidence in man and machine over God and His creation. Simple.

Bull. I trust God, probably more than you do. God created the world, yes. He also created the physics principles which support nuclear decay (and as a corollary, carbon dating) which until recently we haven't been aware of. The fact that we now understand these principles doesn't change what they are or what they do.

Here is rich and interesting source on the carbon dating from christians' pov. It's too much time and effort to post them here but do your favor to read them then decide yourself first before spouting onto something you really knew too little.

Remember that you weren't alone here ... many thought it so. I did, too before I discovered more and more before. Sorry that the carbon dating isn't 100% "acid test". Find out why at:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/search/default.aspx?qt=carbon%20dating

Ha! Wow, that was a fun read. It's completely ascientific. It does not follow the scientific method, does not use controlled conditions, and makes a lot of huge assumptions which it does not endaevor to provide evidence for.

Examples:
1. The statement that the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is now much higher than it was before the industrial era is incorrect. Factories, until very recently, have produced a tremendous amount of carbon monoxide, not carbon dioxide. The important distinction is that CO2 is harmless whereas CO is highly toxic (and colorless and odorless).

2. The statement that the amount of CO2 in a person's body would be affected to any significant degree by subtle changes in the atmosphere is nothing more than a bold assumption with no basis in fact. Humans need X amount of CO2 to survive, no more, no less. The genetic requirements for life in the human body do not change based on varying atmospheric conditions. There are some species that are more severely affected by changes in the atmosphere. Those species have a nasty habit of becoming extinct.

3. The statement that the flood of Noah would have changed the amount of CO2 in the world is simply incorrect. CO2 is one of the most stable compounds in existence (like H2O). Rain has absolutely no effect on CO2 levels. (If it did, we wouldn't need plants!) Additionally, it makes the assumption that the event even occurred, which is based on nothing other than religious teaching. It assumes that religious teaching is 100% accurate and literal, an assumption that cannot hold up to any scrutiny whatsoever as science by its nature requires implementing controls and doing experiments, something that is not possible with religion (hence why religion is ascientific).

 

[Endymion]

Endymion and Teresh,

Harvard chemicists and biologists' knowledge meant nothing before God's. They bought the carbon dating methods and suddenly smoked their guns saying that it is trusted. It's so fool to trust in men instead of Omniscient God.

By the way there are numbers of scientists also believe in God, not the evolution and carbon dating, too in fact.

You obviously put your confidence in man and machine over God and His creation. Simple.

To save my time to give you excellent points why you and we shouldn't trust carbon dating. Because radiocarbon testing is NOT relevent.

Here is rich and interesting source on the carbon dating from christians' pov. It's too much time and effort to post them here but do your favor to read them then decide yourself first before spouting onto something you really knew too little.

Remember that you weren't alone here ... many thought it so. I did, too before I discovered more and more before. Sorry that the carbon dating isn't 100% "acid test". Find out why at:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/search/default.aspx?qt=carbon%20dating

I do have one question. Aren't you using the arguments of men as well? Does that, by your logic (that God supercedes humans) mean that your sources are not qualified to speak on the subject as much as my sources?

The answer to that, as I understand it, is "No, both of our sources are inferior to God."

Which brings me up to the next question:

Where does God say that radiocarbon dating is invalid for the 0 to 50,000 year timeframe? Does he even say that at all?

 

[Endymion]

THANK YOU!

For some reason, people feel that to appreciate the message of the Bible, and follow it's teachings, once must accept it as literal, and therefore reject observable reality.

This simply isn't so.

I prefer to see the Bible, especially the Old Testament, as an attempt by specific people to describe how their relationship with God developed over several centuries. I don't see it as a perfect document, or as a science text, nor would I want to. I prefer to see our knowledge of science as ever developing, and so too, our relationship with God.

Science and the Bible are not opposing philosophies. Rather, I consider them quite complimentary.

Mori, you're welcome. I find that I opine the whole religion-science dichotomy is a little off and that the two can fit together.

 

[Beowulf]

Some do believe that the earth is flat, but bible never said that the earth is flat.

That's open to interpretation I suppose.
http://www.geocities.com/arikayx/flatearth.html
Sorry for going off-topic by the way.

 

[Rose Immortal]

Mori, you're welcome. I find that I opine the whole religion-science dichotomy is a little off and that the two can fit together.

Exactly--what a succinct way to say what I've been trying to say! Seriously, I was 4 or 5 years old when I figured it out and it's just made more and more sense the more I've learned since then.

BTW, check your PM box.

 

[web730]

I do have one question. Aren't you using the arguments of men as well? Does that, by your logic (that God supercedes humans) mean that your sources are not qualified to speak on the subject as much as my sources?

The answer to that, as I understand it, is "No, both of our sources are inferior to God."

Which brings me up to the next question:

Where does God say that radiocarbon dating is invalid for the 0 to 50,000 year timeframe? Does he even say that at all?

Your questions will be answered by the link I gave in my last post. Do your part to read and decide. Tell me thereafter. I did my part .. lot of reading beforehand.

 

[MorriganTait]

Harvard chemicists and biologists' knowledge meant nothing before God's. They bought the carbon dating methods and suddenly smoked their guns saying that it is trusted. It's so fool to trust in men instead of Omniscient God.

You obviously put your confidence in man and machine over God and His creation. Simple.

Remember that you weren't alone here ... many thought it so. I did, too before I discovered more and more before. Sorry that the carbon dating isn't 100% "acid test". Find out why at:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/sea...carbon dating

I do have one question. Aren't you using the arguments of men as well? Does that, by your logic (that God supercedes humans) mean that your sources are not qualified to speak on the subject as much as my sources?

The answer to that, as I understand it, is "No, both of our sources are inferior to God."

Which brings me up to the next question:

Where does God say that radiocarbon dating is invalid for the 0 to 50,000 year timeframe? Does he even say that at all?

Your questions will be answered by the link I gave in my last post. Do your part to read and decide. Tell me thereafter. I did my part .. lot of reading beforehand.

web730 - he DID read your article, and you entirely missed his point. he is exposing the fallacy of your logic.

YOU said it is foolish to trust men above God, but then you turned right around and quoted an atricle YOU trust that was written by men. Doesn't that make YOU also a fool?

If one man can be trusted and one can't, who gets to "decide" who is a trustworthy source? I'd rather trust impartial researchers who are not trying to to force a specific conclusion or agenda, but rather look at observable, measurable, immutable factors using scientific principles.

People in authority have imposed all manner of ignorant ideas using religious texts as justifications throughout history. Science attempts to take the passionate blindness out of the equasion and look at things for what they are.

Many people of science believe in God, and ALSO recognize the known facts of scientific discovery. It is possible to appreciate the incredible message of the Bible without denying laws of physics which we can see in front of us every day.

It is very easy to deny the science when you don't understand it in the first place. Most of what I have ever heard or read that tries to refute carbon dating and evolution demonstrates a clear misunderstanding of the science to begin with.

Suspend disbelief for a moment and seriously ask yourself a few questions: What if it were proven to you beyond a shadow of a doubt that the Earth is much older than described in the Bible? Would this mean your faith is worthless? Would this mean God is a liar? Or would it mean that you have to adjust your view a little to accept that each day God reveals more to us, and each day we are made a little different because of this ever-unfolding relationship with our creator?

 

[smspell]

When you see C14 carbon testing then c14 is the isotope used. When they say carbon dating, then carbon may not have been used for the datin of the object.
Carbon dating becomes a generic name. all types of isotopes can be used.

However, the principle of carbon-14 dating applies to other isotopes as well. Potassium-40 is another radioactive element naturally found in your body and has a half-life of 1.3 billion years. Other useful radioisotopes for radioactive dating include Uranium -235 (half-life = 704 million years), Uranium -238 (half-life = 4.5 billion years), Thorium-232 (half-life = 14 billion years) and Rubidium-87 (half-life = 49 billion years).

 

[1purple_panda]

earth is 4.5 billion years old

human evolution is 30,000 years old

Got to think about God's timing is way different from ours. . What seems like one day to Him is perhaps a 1,000 years to us. .

Who knows maybe in God's 6 days of creating the world was really much longer but in His time frame it was 6 days. . So on 7th day God rested and enjoyed all that He has made and declared that day Holy for us to worship Him. .

As for what the oldest religion was. . .

You'd see in the Bible wherever the Jews went, there were people who did not follow God and worship false gods & idols. . So false religion was already also in the world created by men who need something physical to see and touch so they will believe. .

God says bless those who have not yet seen but still believe anyway. . Even those who saw Jesus with their own eyes still did not believe. .

We do not need to rely 100% on scientifc evidence if it does not fit with what the Bible teaches & states. .

It'll only make it difficult to act on our faith of believing in something that's real and something that's told in the Bible. If one just decides to spend the rest of their lives and deciding at the end "Ok, I believe in God now," - - high % of their lives will have been missed opportunity to grow more in the Lord and learning through fellowship of knowing Him not just about Him.

Thats why Scriptures also say to be like a child. . You see a child will believe anything and not say "Ok, I have a PHd in Bible teachings, I think you are wrong and this is what I think. . . " That will be silly if we saw a child say that.

So with science, just be careful with what is being said. . Even if many people seem to support it. . check anyway from the Scriptures or a very godly person that you trust. .

Just one thing & one person can make a difference in showing the truth through God's eyes. . One example was Jesus. . So with Jesus in you when you accept Him as your personal Savior, you too can make a difference in the world. .

 

[MorriganTait]

We do not need to rely 100% on scientifc evidence if it does not fit with what the Bible teaches & states. . .

Believing in God and accepting scientific facts are not mutually exclusive. I have always found it better to try to understand something before rejecting it. For a more academic treatise on what evolution is and isn.t try:

http://www.alldeaf.com/showthread.php?t=25668

Though this is evolution specific, it is part and parcel of this same age-old debate (which to me really isn't a debate at all).