Announcement

Join us on Discord: https://discord.gg/nf43FxS
Discuss.
nukchebi0
Пушкин, наше всё
+387|3996|New Haven, CT
It is precedes, not preceeds, just for future reference.

At any rate, despite its lucidity, your argument still appears flawed.
jsnipy
...
+3,272|4195|...

xBlackPantherx wrote:

[68 Mil - 30 Mil Granted Error - Time that Christianity Says the World Was Created (6,000 years ago [4,000 BC]) = ~37.6 Million years before 4,000 BC]
This is not the belief of every Christian
AussieReaper
( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
+5,760|3825|what

Ilocano wrote:

Carbon-14 dating is only accurate to less that 100,000 years.
Duh, carbon dating is not the only evidence, when you compare it to the fossil record and the depth of the find, (you know, because the deeper you dig, the further back in time you go?).

You can see what else was buried at that same depths and date it. You can see wounds on the fossil bones to work out which teeth marks they came from and compare the carbon-14 dating of that species.

Carbon-14 is one process in a large line of evidence and it is never treated as 100% proof. It is considered contributing evidence supported by other physical evidence.

Last edited by AussieReaper (2009-05-19 21:12:25)

https://i.imgur.com/maVpUMN.png

"coz you a far cry from acclaim nigga ubisoft"
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|4273|132 and Bush

jsnipy wrote:

xBlackPantherx wrote:

[68 Mil - 30 Mil Granted Error - Time that Christianity Says the World Was Created (6,000 years ago [4,000 BC]) = ~37.6 Million years before 4,000 BC]
This is not the belief of every Christian
I'll say... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lema%C3%AEtre
Xbone Stormsurgezz
13rin
Member
+977|4151

Kmarion wrote:

jsnipy wrote:

xBlackPantherx wrote:

[68 Mil - 30 Mil Granted Error - Time that Christianity Says the World Was Created (6,000 years ago [4,000 BC]) = ~37.6 Million years before 4,000 BC]
This is not the belief of every Christian
I'll say... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lema%C3%AEtre
Too bad more don't reference him as quickly as you do.
I stood in line for four hours. They better give me a Wal-Mart gift card, or something.  - Rodney Booker, Job Fair attendee.
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|4273|132 and Bush

DBBrinson1 wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

jsnipy wrote:

This is not the belief of every Christian
I'll say... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lema%C3%AEtre
Too bad more don't reference him as quickly as you do.
People are quick to reference Galileo, but religion (not just Christianity) has done much for science. I do not believe faith should require ignoring scientific evidence. But yea, too many people are willing to do just that.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
AussieReaper
( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
+5,760|3825|what

And Darwin didn't consider himself Atheist, "an Agnostic would be the more correct description of my state of mind. The whole subject [of God] is beyond the scope of man's intellect."
https://i.imgur.com/maVpUMN.png

"coz you a far cry from acclaim nigga ubisoft"
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|4273|132 and Bush

Xbone Stormsurgezz
xBlackPantherx
Grow up, or die
+142|4015|California

AussieReaper wrote:

And Darwin didn't consider himself Atheist, "an Agnostic would be the more correct description of my state of mind. The whole subject [of God] is beyond the scope of man's intellect."
Which is what I've said a million times. No man could understand anything about a god if one existed. This applies to atheists as well. No one can know whether or not a higher being exists. All we do know is the hard proof we have.

nukchebi0 wrote:

It is precedes, not preceeds, just for future reference.

At any rate, despite its lucidity, your argument still appears flawed.
How so?
nickb64
formerly from OC (it's EXACTLY like on tv)[truth]
+77|3283|Greatest Nation on Earth(USA)

jsnipy wrote:

xBlackPantherx wrote:

[68 Mil - 30 Mil Granted Error - Time that Christianity Says the World Was Created (6,000 years ago [4,000 BC]) = ~37.6 Million years before 4,000 BC]
This is not the belief of every Christian
I do not even hold the belief that the Earth was created  6,000 years ago, I do not know when exactly the Earth was created, I just believe that God created the Earth. For all I know, God could have created evolution, but I believe that the Bible is true and that God created everything and created all things in 7 days(though this could be interpreted as 7 periods of time due to the Hebrew term used in the original Hebrew texts).

I also believe that all things could have lived at one time, but I do not reject that it is possible that they lived at different times. I was merely stating an opinion that it may be possible, and citing a source that my Honors Biology teacher Freshman year showed us a video version of to show us both points of view. I also was showing the view of skepticism that some have because Science does change relatively frequently.
BVC
Member
+323|4368

nickb64 wrote:

How can we be sure carbon dating is accurate???

Do you know for a fact that science cannot be disproved in any way, Scientific "fact" changes all the time, how can we be sure we are correct, we are all human and make mistakes.
Carbon dating is accurate enough.  I won't say it is perfect - no technique for anything ever is - but it is accurate enough and has been repeated enough times to form reliable dating mechanisms.



re:Scientific fact changing - Strawman.  Despite your rather obvious misrepresentation of my position, I shall indulge you.  (Its often fun to feed the troll )

Of course "facts" can change; that is the whole point of science, to test established knowledge and fact.  If knowledge is found to be wrong, then it is no longer knowledge, and the facts change.

Last edited by Pubic (2009-05-19 23:12:05)

Spark
liquid fluoride thorium reactor
+874|4347|Canberra, AUS
ALL LIES IT WAS PLACED THERE AS A TEST.

As welcome as this discovery in, it won't shut anyone up
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
Zefar
Member
+116|4321|Sweden
I read that Carbon dating was accurate to like 50 000 years. I also remember hearing that Carbon dating have problem with marine animals due to the high levels of water around them. But this was found out by a scientist and he noticefied people about it. Religious people took this way out of context and thought they crushed them. Didn't even bother to read the article to the end.


Btw for those who say, we are humans and we can be wrong. With the odds that like 500 000 scientist are wrong on every single thing they have said is just straight out mad. No way in hell.

Also dating methods work by checking the halftime of various atoms. They don't really change except on certain circumstances but those are rare but it's also most likely easy to notice this now for scientist.


Oh btw, scientist love to be proven wrong because that mean there's more to it. What I have heard at least.
PureFodder
Member
+225|3958
My understanding is that C-14 dating isn't typically used for fossils, the large times involved means that a range of atoms with longer half lives have to be used to get a good date. Plus other evidence such as when a fossil is found in a rock, simply date the rock, formation as it'll be approximately as old as the fossil.
Catbox
forgiveness
+505|4388
God loves all of you....
Love is the answer
Balok77
Member
+28|3820
Just because they proved that the earth was round didn't stop religion being in existence, and in this exact same respect another piece in the evolutionary time line doesn't prove that God necessarily isn't real. As i said before this does discount fundamentalist Christan's who say that the earth is 6000 years old, but lets be realistic guys how many of these does anyone actually know? Instead of celebrating the discovery of something which helps to explain our past most people would rather instantly mock those who do not fully accept their beliefs. And your better then than these extremist religious people how exactly?

I'm in no way arguing that this evidence is not real, nor that evolution didn't occur. I am merely saying that peoples belief systems no matter how different they are to you shouldn't be completely discredited just because you see the world in a different light. The fact is to many this evidence disproves the existence of God but to another large majority it just further cements the idea of intelligent design.
Finray
Hup! Dos, Tres, Cuatro
+2,613|3460|Catherine Black

nickb64 wrote:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/article … -the-bible

Please do not flame me for this, but I think this makes sense.


Also:  http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-ans … /dinosaurs
In fact, if you go into any museum you will see fossils of dinosaurs that are 100% dinosaur, not something in between. There are no 25%, 50%, 75%, or even 99% dinosaurs—they are all 100% dinosaur!
That's because they have evolved sufficiently to fill their ecological neich and thus have stopped evolving.
https://i.imgur.com/qwWEP9F.png
Mekstizzle
WALKER
+3,609|4293|London, England

Finray wrote:

nickb64 wrote:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/article … -the-bible

Please do not flame me for this, but I think this makes sense.


Also:  http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-ans … /dinosaurs
In fact, if you go into any museum you will see fossils of dinosaurs that are 100% dinosaur, not something in between. There are no 25%, 50%, 75%, or even 99% dinosaurs—they are all 100% dinosaur!
That's because they have evolved sufficiently to fill their ecological neich and thus have stopped evolving.
Actually that's wrong http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tr … s_to_birds

Secondly is because the Dinosaurs suffered mass extinction more or less

Thirdly, it's something so stupid I don't even know why I'm bothering to address it. I mean seriously, what the hell is 100% Dinosaur even supposed to fucking mean

Last edited by Mekstizzle (2009-05-20 03:49:23)

https://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y285/iMech/annoying_banner.png
https://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y285/iMech/im_emo.gif
Finray
Hup! Dos, Tres, Cuatro
+2,613|3460|Catherine Black

Mekstizzle wrote:

Actually that's wrong http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tr … s_to_birds
Sorry what are you pointing to in that link?

Or am I being silly..

EDIT:

Ioan wrote:

COL.BLIDARIU.I / [CSF]: if i were a mod
COL.BLIDARIU.I / [CSF]: i'd issue the religous extremists a 3 day ban and lock the thread.
Do it fgts.

Last edited by Finray (2009-05-20 03:53:46)

https://i.imgur.com/qwWEP9F.png
Spark
liquid fluoride thorium reactor
+874|4347|Canberra, AUS

Zefar wrote:

I read that Carbon dating was accurate to like 50 000 years. I also remember hearing that Carbon dating have problem with marine animals due to the high levels of water around them. But this was found out by a scientist and he noticefied people about it. Religious people took this way out of context and thought they crushed them. Didn't even bother to read the article to the end.


Btw for those who say, we are humans and we can be wrong. With the odds that like 500 000 scientist are wrong on every single thing they have said is just straight out mad. No way in hell.

Also dating methods work by checking the halftime of various atoms. They don't really change except on certain circumstances but those are rare but it's also most likely easy to notice this now for scientist.


Oh btw, scientist love to be proven wrong because that mean there's more to it. What I have heard at least.
A general rule is that after 10 half-lifes, it becomes pretty well impossible to draw any conclusions of reasonable accuracy from radioisotope dating (well, maybe not so general, but it's certainly a reasonable assumption - we're talking less than 0.1% of the original amount of whatever you are trying to measure), so a figure of 50 000 years seems pretty fair.

nick, that site is notorious for very, very poor logic and highly flawed argument and this is no exception. That's like saying we are not 100% humans because some of our genome is shared. No. They are called dinosaurs because they are the samples we define dinosaurs by. If there is only one complete skeleton of a paticular species, then that sample is used to define that species - of course it is 100% that species, because that's how we call the species! Taxonomy is very arbitrary in matters like this. Bear in mind also that dinosaurs had about a hundred million years on the earth. That's plenty of time to evolve into whatever they need to be.

Last edited by Spark (2009-05-20 03:55:41)

The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
Uzique
dasein.
+2,865|4143
This thread is dumby...

Intelligent design wasn't born with any nuts. For a theory as absurd as 'intelligent design' to have nuts in the first place would imply that it somehow at some point carried some scientific credibility and proof. It never did; it's a pseudo-scientific hypothesis that preys upon the dumbassery of religious morons to try and rationally explain the hocus-pocus bullshit they follow by pulling the wool over their eyes with a few graphs and pie charts. Grade A Bullshittery.
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
Finray
Hup! Dos, Tres, Cuatro
+2,613|3460|Catherine Black
lolololol

https://i198.photobucket.com/albums/aa178/Funky_Finny/Capture-2.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/qwWEP9F.png
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,594|3778|eXtreme to the maX
There is no God.
If people choose to believe then let them, it entertaining to hear them talk.
Your virus system is infected with windows. Please to be giving me your credit card details urgently
Flecco
iPod is broken.
+1,048|4337|NT, like Mick Dundee

Dilbert_X wrote:

There is no God.
If people choose to believe then let them, it entertaining to hear them talk.
Prove that there is no deity.


What came before the 'Big Bang'? What was the, to use Aquinas' term for it, 'prime-mover' then?
Australian culture is about two things, football and racism.

I never know what to kick.
Ioan92
Member
+337|3395

Flecco wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

There is no God.
If people choose to believe then let them, it entertaining to hear them talk.
Prove that there is no deity.


What came before the 'Big Bang'? What was the, to use Aquinas' term for it, 'prime-mover' then?
Prove me that you exist.

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2017 Jeff Minard