Just for the sake of organization, I'll reply to all your recent posts here to save time.
You contradict yourself by saying that by punishing criminals, it gives then a deterence, but yet a deterence is what tells criminals that if they do something wrong, they will be punished, but what you are forgetting is that that itself is a choice the crimnal must face.
Not neccesarily. The fact that you will be punished is another factor the brain takes into account before coming to a decision. Take away that negative factor, and it will be that much easier for the brain to decide to perform a criminal act. I'm saying that you don't really have a choice in what that final choice is.
Think about it. Your entire brain, every thing about it, every action you take, is decided by neurons. Each individual neuron recieves a stimulation, and if the stimulation is high enough, the neuron fires. Every thought you have is caused by this process. Where is the free will here? Even if you say that free will is caused by a certain group of neurons, what triggers THOSE neurons to fire? The brain is fundamentally a decision making machine, and if you give the brain a certain input, you can invariably, given enough information, predict the output. Do you really have any arguments for the existence of free will besides it feels like it?
Have you seen the show jackass on MTV? Those jackasses are great examples of free-will. They know they can get hurt, they don't "Have" to do it. But yet they do it. Or are you saying there brain is circuited so they'll put their body at harm? By they way, if you say that people who knowinly put their body of risk to danger is already set in their brain and have no choice about putting their life at risk, you are also contradicting the Theory of evolution, since according to the Theory of evolution, the body is constanly fighting for survival (survival of the fittest), so it cannot be putting it self in danger, and at the same time trying to survive.
In this situation, the desire to impress people is greater than the desire to avoid danger (and do you really think that the people on the show think they'll be leaving with 8 broken bones and a concussion?) In more severe situations, like suicide, eventually the pain of existence overrides the urge to continue existence. It's still circuitry, just more complex.
The Age of the Earth
Earth could of rotated once around the sun, when it is now measured at 10 years. Or, it could have been that 1 day was what is know around 1000 earth years.
You must realise that when a planet is made, it doesn't have day or night since all it is is dust particles forming into a mass. How can you say when it's day or when it's night on a cloud of dust which isn't even rotaing around the sun yet?
Don't you see that you're grasping at straws? You're trying to fit an anachronism into a modern picture. Before recently, people believed that the Earth WAS created in six Earth-days. Science proved them wrong, so now people say the Earth was created in six God-Days. Seriously, if every passage in the Bible, once proven wrong, is applied to something else, how reliable is it?
Of course I realize that there is no day or night on a cloud of dust. That just helps to prove my point: the writers of the Old Testament were wrong.
I have stated several times that it is possible that the universe had a sentient creator. I accept that. But dogmatic belief is flawed. Your entire belief system is based on a book's say so. Not to mention how much is lost from translation to translation, or how subjective the writing is to begin with. The majority of the Old Testament was at one point a collection of verbal folklore among the Jews. VERBAL folklore. It wasn't written down until it had been passed down for many generations. How reliable is that? Ever play telephone before? Ever notice how fast the message gets distorted? Ever notice how quickly a rumor spins out of control and by the time it gets back to you it has changed entirely? Why do you deny that the Bible can be any different? Even assuming that it had divine inspiration in the beginning, (which is a huge jump in logic in itself) you honestly don't think that the message was distorted throughout time and translation?
The New Testament doesn't fare much better. First of all, it was written several decades after the crucifixion. Certain details were sure to have been embellished. If you don't accept that, you're naive. Secondly, we're talking about a minor cult, being persecuted left and right, eager to start a genuine movement. You don't think the Gospel authors would have added anything to spice it up? Give the followers a little hope? Embellish a detail or two, make Jesus' miracles more miraculous? And I'm even arguing from the assumption that Jesus was the son of God here. Even if he was, you really don't think that there were any embellished details? Even totally made-up details? If you don't accept that, you're naive.
What seperates your religious beliefs from anyone else's? Why are you a Christian as opposed to a Muslim. Islam was founded after Christianity, wouldn't it be less prone to error? I think you'd agree that the Greek Pantheon doesn't exist, no Zeus, no Apollo racing across the sky, no Hera seducing mortal men. Why do you claim these beliefs are false? Is it by the same logic that you claim your beliefs are true? What seperates your faith from their's? I take it you were raised Christian. Couldn't you say that they only reason you are Christian now is because you were raised that way? If your parents were fundamentalist Muslims, don't you think that you'd be arguing from the Muslim standpoint right now? If you accept this subjectivity of religious faith, why claim that yours is true? You are a master of doublethink, friend.
If I live my life to the best of my ability, helping others, and still don't believe in God, and I go to Hell for it, then yes, I would rather go to Hell than put up with such an unthinking tyrant in Heaven.
I'll get to evolution tomorrow.