Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Gossip & Opinions => Topic started by: Method101 on March 21, 2009, 03:09:18 PM
-
If you are then your retarded. 8) :D
-
yes we get it literal interpretation is retarded
-
If you are then your retarded. 8) :D
"you're"
You're clearly a genius though.
-
"you're"
You're clearly a genius though.
Another retard who complains about somone's spelling,punctuation and grammer on an internet forum and attempts to judge their intelligence by it.
-
Another retard who complains about somone's spelling,punctuation and grammer on an internet forum and attempts to judge their intelligence by it.
I'm only mentioning it because it's tough to hold any merit in calling someone retarded when you can't even spell.
-
I really don't have a religion, I practice and I don't give a damn what anybody says. I'm proud to say though, I have faith in God. Even though, I don't always follow his teaching. I think in this world, you can't always be generous and noble. You have to draw your own line to whats good or evil. I think you go by what you heart says and no so much what you brain tells you. Not to much where you turn into a fool, in always caring and all that. You can't always care because you'll just getting taken advantage of. I think you learn this throughout your teenage years and into you young adult life. Some people never learn this and choose the wrong path of life. Thinking that all life is worthless and nothing is to be learned because they think they know everything. Just keep in open mind about life and always have faith in God, no matter how bad life gets. That's what I don't get about people is that when they think there life's over, they wanna give up. Life's never over and you can always bring yourself back up. I can go on but that's it.
-
I really don't have a religion, I practice and I don't give a damn what anybody says. I'm proud to say though, I have faith in God. Even though, I don't always follow his teaching. I think in this world, you can't always be generous and noble. You have to draw your own line to whats good or evil. I think you go by what you heart says and no so much what you brain tells you. Not to much where you turn into a fool, in always caring and all that. You can't always care because you'll just getting taken advantage of. I think you learn this throughout your teenage years and into you young adult life. Some people never learn this and choose the wrong path of life. Thinking that all life is worthless and nothing is to be learned because they think they know everything. Just keep in open mind about life and always have faith in God, no matter how bad life gets. That's what I don't get about people is that when they think there life's over, they wanna give up. Life's never over and you can always bring yourself back up. I can go on but that's it.
I'm sure he's pleased that you don't honor his word but believe you have his blessing.
-
I'm sure he's pleased that you don't honor his word but believe you have his blessing.
I don't care of what God thinks of me. It's my own will to believe in him.
-
I don't care of what God thinks of me. It's my own will to believe in him.
Yeah, I could tell you were too much of a bad ass to care. I bet you punch people and write in a journal, don't you?
-
Yeah, I could tell you were too much of a bad ass to care. I bet you punch people and write in a journal, don't you?
Whatever helps you sleep at night.
-
Whatever helps you sleep at night.
Ambien? What's that got to do with your hypocritical views?
-
Yeah, and this guy believes we came from monkeys?
-
Yeah, and this guy believes we came from monkeys?
kill yourself.
-
Yeah, and this guy believes we came from monkeys?
You've studied evolutionary biology in depth, right?
-
If you are then your retarded. 8) :D
thats the smartest thing I've ever heard someone say about anything
-
Yeah, and this guy believes we came from monkeys?
Oh brother, here comes another one with no understanding of evolution. Next he will say that evolution states that everything came from nothing, or that evolution cant explain the origin of life ::)
-
Deeply non-religious here
"yes we get it literal interpretation is retarded"
but a literal interpretation is the only one that is worth taking seriously. otherwise you can interpret it to mean whatever you want. why worship a god that is only a metaphor and not a reality ...
-
(http://theroosterstrikes.files.wordpress.com/2008/01/beating-a-dead-horse.gif)
-
Deeply non-religious here
"yes we get it literal interpretation is retarded"
but a literal interpretation is the only one that is worth taking seriously. otherwise you can interpret it to mean whatever you want. why worship a god that is only a metaphor and not a reality ...
There is no "literal" interpretation of spiritual scripture, that's the point. Those who claim "literal" interpretation are the most mislead of all.
-
If you are then your retarded. 8) :D
Regardless of anyone's beliefs, you should endeavor to find a more credible spokesman. Most people wouldn't even buy an Orick XL vacuum cleaner from this bozo, much less allow him to shape their opinion on anything.
-
-
Yes, religious people are retarded... not exactly a revelation. ::)
-
-
Religion is for lost souls.
And recovering drug addicts.
And for people in prison.
-
hobby philosophers trying to make theologic arguments with pseudo science
-
Regardless of anyone's beliefs, you should endeavor to find a more credible spokesman. Most people wouldn't even buy an Orick XL vacuum cleaner from this bozo, much less allow him to shape their opinion on anything.
theres plenty of people that look like complete morons but actually have something intelligent to say..ie;Albert Einstein.
-
theres plenty of people that look like complete morons but actually have something intelligent to say..ie;Albert Einstein.
This gentleman is no Albert Einstein. Not even Fat Albert. Or Fatty Arbuckle.
-
This gentleman is no Albert Einstein. Not even Fat Albert. Or Fatty Arbuckle.
qft
-
This gentleman is no Albert Einstein. Not even Fat Albert. Or Fatty Arbuckle.
Post your picture Andy Griffin you must be quite the adonis.
-
damn i remember watching that on tv, what a dumb bitch
-
qft
I cannot respond to your challenge. I lack the ground skills.
-
qft
Get the fuck out of this thread and forum, you are dellusional and you cannot open your mind to new ideas.
Other than that, you have been training for years yet your highest bench press was 225, you basically fail at life.
-
Post your picture Andy Griffin you must be quite the adonis.
I am, in fact, not an Adonis. Unlike the gentleman trying to become famous on YouTube, I know enough to remain anonymous.
-
damn i remember watching that on tv, what a dumb bitch
An hour of my life I will never get back.
-
I cannot respond to your challenge. I lack the ground skills.
no challenge, it means "quoted for truth" :)
-
no challenge, it means "quoted for truth" :)
how cute.
(http://i134.photobucket.com/albums/q83/kittypoe/anime%20originals/anime%20girls/AWWW.jpg)
-
no challenge, it means "quoted for truth" :)
My apologies. I thought it meant quit f.... talking. d'oh!!
-
Get the fuck out of this thread and forum, you are dellusional and you cannot open your mind to new ideas.
Other than that, you have been training for years yet your highest bench press was 225, you basically fail at life.
You think this is a new idea?
-
how cute.
(http://i134.photobucket.com/albums/q83/kittypoe/anime%20originals/anime%20girls/AWWW.jpg)
The only question I have for you is to which image do you beat off first? The anime preemie, or the guy who looks like he can't decide between looking like Kurt Cobain or John Denver?
-
The only question I have for you is to which image do you beat off first? The anime preemie, or the guy who looks like he can't decide between looking like Kurt Cobain or John Denver?
Which image do you beat off to first "Andy Griffin"... Elvis, John Wayne or Frank Sinatra?
-
LOL @ response in Plazmosis thread. :D
Don't know what's your beef with me, I agree that fundis are mislead.
-
Which image do you beat off to first "Andy Griffin"... Elvis, John Wayne or Frank Sinatra?
None of the above, which is one reason I haven't posted their images.
-
None of the above, which is one reason I haven't posted their images.
Whats the deal with your forum avatar?
-
Whats the deal with your forum avatar?
It is a picture of Andy Griffith. I apologize if I have confused you.
-
It is a picture of Andy Griffith. I apologize if I have confused you.
how many times did "andy griffith" fuck your ass.
-
I know several Doctors who are as religious as they come, they are highly intelligent people.
However I wonder if believing that someone else will burn in fire for all eternity because they didnt accept something that cannot be proven, is due to mental illness of some degree?
-
how many times did "andy griffith" fuck your ass.
Clever reply. You should go on YouTube. Now go cry yourself to sleep.
-
If you are then your retarded. 8) :D
I've watched many of his vids he comes across as an asshole but a pretty bright guy
-
If you are then your retarded. 8) :D
I only watched the first few questions and I have a question..... where is he getting "The earth is 6000 years old. The universe is 6000 years old?"
I see he has entitled the video "Are Christians Stupid?" The viewer would infer that he indicates that the bible states that the earth and universe are 6000 years old.
This is nowhere found in the bible that I have read.
Does he give a scripture for this?
-
I only watched the first few questions and I have a question..... where is he getting "The earth is 6000 years old. The universe is 6000 years old?"
I see he has entitled the video "Are Christians Stupid?" The viewer would infer that he indicates that the bible states that the earth and universe are 6000 years old.
This is nowhere found in the bible that I have read.
Does he give a scripture for this?
You have much more patience than me, when I saw this thread it already got me irritated knowing the comments that will be made. I stay out of these now. I only came on here because of your voice of reason.
-
I only watched the first few questions and I have a question..... where is he getting "The earth is 6000 years old. The universe is 6000 years old?"
I see he has entitled the video "Are Christians Stupid?" The viewer would infer that he indicates that the bible states that the earth and universe are 6000 years old.
This is nowhere found in the bible that I have read.
Does he give a scripture for this?
Good call
-
I only watched the first few questions and I have a question..... where is he getting "The earth is 6000 years old. The universe is 6000 years old?"
I see he has entitled the video "Are Christians Stupid?" The viewer would infer that he indicates that the bible states that the earth and universe are 6000 years old.
This is nowhere found in the bible that I have read.
Does he give a scripture for this?
Not scripture per sa young Earth creationist tend to feel that based on genealogies and other dates in the bible the Earth is around 6-10 thousand years old , people actually believe this shit despite all the evidence to the contrary
-
Not scripture per sa young Earth creationist tend to feel that based on genealogies and other dates in the bible the Earth is around 6-10 thousand years old , people actually believe this shit despite all the evidence to the contrary
Good call
-
(http://hugetitslist.com/gals/17/2.jpg)
Obviously this picture proves God does exist. If you dont believe in God you must of course be a swashbuckler!
-
(http://hugetitslist.com/gals/17/2.jpg)
Obviously this picture proves God does exist. If you dont believe in God you must of course be a swashbuckler!
lmfao
-
(http://hugetitslist.com/gals/17/2.jpg)
Obviously this picture proves God does exist. If you dont believe in God you must of course be a swashbuckler!
Good call
-
You have much more patience than me, when I saw this thread it already got me irritated knowing the comments that will be made. I stay out of these now. I only came on here because of your voice of reason.
I read your post and decided I should watch the whole video. This guy also claims that the Pope is "God's butler" or something as though the Pope is some type of representative for God and even indicates that the Pope is a Christian. Neither of these is necessarily established in scripture.
He states that the Pope is against condoms ...ie: birth control...which is also never established in scripture as an all-encompassing desire from God. The 2 times God told people to be fruitful and multiply there were 2 and 8 people on the face of the earth, respectively, right?
If this dude likes to snap his head around and make little air-quotes, it'd be nice is he didn't seem to just regurgitate stuff he thinks is in the bible and scriptural but to research it a little first.
-
I read your post and decided I should watch the whole video. This guy also claims that the Pope is "God's butler" or something as though the Pope is some type of representative for God and even indicates that the Pope is a Christian. Neither of these is necessarily established in scripture.
He states that the Pope is against condoms ...ie: birth control...which is also never established in scripture as an all-encompassing desire from God. The 2 times God told people to be fruitful and multiply there were 2 and 8 people on the face of the earth, respectively, right?
If this dude likes to snap his head around and make little air-quotes, it'd be nice is he didn't seem to just regurgitate stuff he thinks is in the bible and scriptural but to research it a little first.
Good call
-
Not scripture per sa young Earth creationist tend to feel that based on genealogies and other dates in the bible the Earth is around 6-10 thousand years old , people actually believe this shit despite all the evidence to the contrary
Geneologies don't indicate the age of the Earth/universe.....although I def. understand the mistake as I used to subscribe to that.
The bible does not indicate an age for the earth/universe...but imo, it does indicate and age for life...which yes, is young.
And as for "evidence to the contrary," there are flaws in carbon dating and the geological column, etc.
I think I've seen 240 say that diff. people have faith in what they think is right. I agree w/him. It's faith on both sides.
-
I read your post and decided I should watch the whole video. This guy also claims that the Pope is "God's butler" or something as though the Pope is some type of representative for God and even indicates that the Pope is a Christian. Neither of these is necessarily established in scripture.
He states that the Pope is against condoms ...ie: birth control...which is also never established in scripture as an all-encompassing desire from God. The 2 times God told people to be fruitful and multiply there were 2 and 8 people on the face of the earth, respectively, right?
If this dude likes to snap his head around and make little air-quotes, it'd be nice is he didn't seem to just regurgitate stuff he thinks is in the bible and scriptural but to research it a little first.
He's railing against what God's spokes people are saying God wants and what he doesn't want in essence religion , the old adage applies if there really was a God there would be no reason for religion .
-
Good call
LOL I'm liking Drama Queen more w/every post ;D
-
He's railing against what God's spokes people are saying God wants and what he doesn't want in essence religion , the old adage applies if there really was a God there would be no reason for religion .
I think God hates human organized "religion." It can be devisive. And if the guy in the vid is attacking that, then rightly so....but it seems to me the guy in the vid is ALSO attacking Bible scripture and that he doesn't understand it.
The God of the bible is about a RELATIONSHIP with Him...not a RELIGION of certain rituals, works, etc. The bible says we are "Saved by Grace through faith, and NOT OF WORKS, so that NO ONE can boast." Eph 2:8,9.
-
Geneologies don't indicate the age of the Earth/universe.....although I def. understand the mistake as I used to subscribe to that.
The bible does not indicate an age for the earth/universe...but imo, it does indicate and age for life...which yes, is young.
And as for "evidence to the contrary," there are flaws in column dating and the geological column, etc.
I think I've seen 240 say that diff. people have faith in what they think is right. I agree w/him. It's faith on both sides.
The evidence on the secular side isn't flawed nor does it require faith , that's propaganda from the apologists , they deny the age of the universe , evolution , etc , that's their job to create problems they somehow think this helps their case which it doesn't . anyone who thinks the scientific method requires faith needs to learn more on how scientific evidence is established and what it takes to become a theory and survive the scrutiny of a peer review
-
The evidence on the secular side isn't flawed nor does it require faith , that's propaganda from the apologists , they deny the age of the universe , evolution , etc , that's their job to create problems they somehow think this helps their case which it doesn't . anyone who thinks the scientific method requires faith needs to learn more on how scientific evidence is established and what it takes to become a theory and survive the scrutiny of a peer review
Can you tell me why you think carbon dating and the geological column are not flawed?
-
The evidence on the secular side isn't flawed nor does it require faith , that's propaganda from the apologists , they deny the age of the universe , evolution , etc , that's their job to create problems they somehow think this helps their case which it doesn't . anyone who thinks the scientific method requires faith needs to learn more on how scientific evidence is established and what it takes to become a theory and survive the scrutiny of a peer review
qft
-
Can you tell me why you think carbon dating and the geological column are not flawed?
And you think the alternative fairy tales from the Middle East aren't flawed? ::)
-
Can you tell me why you think carbon dating and the geological column are not flawed?
I could tell you but in all honesty I don't have the desire there are more to determining the age of the Earth and the Universe than these methods and it's the convergence of ALL of the evidence that is damning , I mean no faith required
The creationist can't reconcile star light which really damns any claim to a young Earth but then again anything that contradicts the bible is wrong
-
I could tell you but in all honesty I don't have the desire there are more to determining the age of the Earth and the Universe than these methods and it's the convergence of ALL of the evidence that is damning , I mean no faith required
That's fine. Is your evidence mathematical? If so and you have a link, I would like to research it.
The creationist can't reconcile star light which really damns any claim to a young Earth but then again anything that contradicts the bible is wrong
OK, remember that I don't have any problem w/an Old Earth view and neither does the bible?
So you get that not all creationists necessarily believe in a YOUNG EARTH right?
-
Those who claim "literal" interpretation are the most mislead of all.
this is practically all religious people. yes, religious people are mislead. i'm not sure if this includes you as well.
-
That's fine. Is your evidence mathematical? If so and you have a link, I would like to research it.
OK, remember that I don't have any problem w/an Old Earth view and neither does the bible?
So you get that not all creationists necessarily believe in a YOUNG EARTH right?
Most of the evidence I read is in books not online and yes I understand some creationists don't buy a young earth but the majority do hence the title creationist not only do they believe in a young earth most deny outright evolution ???
-
-
Religion is for lost souls.
And recovering drug addicts.
And for people in prison.
FOR THOSE OUT OF CONTROL
-
Yeah, and this guy believes we came from monkeys?
Dumbass.
-
I only watched the first few questions and I have a question..... where is he getting "The earth is 6000 years old. The universe is 6000 years old?"
I see he has entitled the video "Are Christians Stupid?" The viewer would infer that he indicates that the bible states that the earth and universe are 6000 years old.
This is nowhere found in the bible that I have read.
Does he give a scripture for this?
Based on adding up the "Begats" in Genesis.
-
Good call
I think you might be broken.
-
Can you tell me why you think carbon dating and the geological column are not flawed?
Carbon dating is used every day in historical research. It's not flawed because it works.
Why ask questions about dating the earth if you yourself disbelieve that the earth is 6,000 years old? Sounds like you don't know what you believe.
-
If you worship a Jewish Zombie, then you've got a problem.
-
hahahahahahahahaha lmfao!
OH BROTHER!!!
what a fucking retard
maybe she should have given some of those meals that made her weigh 700 pounds to the homeless in the name of jesus? LOL
hahahahahahaha
can someone let her know religion is man made? ...oh the second hand she would meltdown alot worse than a kid finding santa doesn't exist, what a retard, the dark side? wtf? seems like she watches too much star wars LMAO!!!!
-
Carbon dating is used every day in historical research. It's not flawed because it works.
Why ask questions about dating the earth if you yourself disbelieve that the earth is 6,000 years old? Sounds like you don't know what you believe.
Read carefully........
People who ask about carbon-14 (14C) dating usually want to know about the radiometric[1] dating methods that are claimed to give millions and billions of years—carbon dating can only give thousands of years. People wonder how millions of years could be squeezed into the biblical account of history.
Clearly, such huge time periods cannot be fitted into the Bible without compromising what the Bible says about the goodness of God and the origin of sin, death and suffering—the reason Jesus came into the world (See Six Days? Honestly!).
Christians, by definition, take the statements of Jesus Christ seriously. He said,
“But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female” (Mark 10:6).
This only makes sense with a time-line beginning with the creation week thousands of years ago. It makes no sense at all if man appeared at the end of billions of years.
We will deal with carbon dating first and then with the other dating methods.
How the Carbon Clock Works
Carbon has unique properties that are essential for life on earth. Familiar to us as the black substance in charred wood, as diamonds, and the graphite in “lead” pencils, carbon comes in several forms, or isotopes. One rare form has atoms that are 14 times as heavy as hydrogen atoms: carbon-14, or 14C, or radiocarbon.
Carbon-14 is made when cosmic rays knock neutrons out of atomic nuclei in the upper atmosphere. These displaced neutrons, now moving fast, hit ordinary nitrogen (14N) at lower altitudes, converting it into 14C. Unlike common carbon (12C), 14C is unstable and slowly decays, changing it back to nitrogen and releasing energy. This instability makes it radioactive.
Ordinary carbon (12C)is found in the carbon dioxide (CO2) in the air, which is taken up by plants, which in turn are eaten by animals. So a bone, or a leaf or a tree, or even a piece of wooden furniture, contains carbon. When the 14C has been formed, like ordinary carbon (12C), it combines with oxygen to give carbon dioxide (14CO2), and so it also gets cycled through the cells of plants and animals.
We can take a sample of air, count how many 12C atoms there are for every 14C atom, and calculate the 14C/12C ratio. Because 14C is so well mixed up with 12C, we expect to find that this ratio is the same if we sample a leaf from a tree, or a part of your body.
In living things, although 14C atoms are constantly changing back to 14N, they are still exchanging carbon with their surroundings, so the mixture remains about the same as in the atmosphere. However, as soon as a plant or animal dies, the 14C atoms which decay are no longer replaced, so the amount of 14C in that once-living thing decreases as time goes on. In other words, the 14C/12C ratio gets smaller. So, we have a “clock” which starts ticking the moment something dies.
Obviously, this works only for things which were once living. It cannot be used to date volcanic rocks, for example.
The rate of decay of 14C is such that half of an amount will convert back to 14N in 5,730 years (plus or minus 40 years). This is the “half-life.” So, in two half-lives, or 11,460 years, only one-quarter of that in living organisms at present, then it has a theoretical age of 11,460 years. Anything over about 50,000 years old, should theoretically have no detectable 14C left. That is why radiocarbon dating cannot give millions of years. In fact, if a sample contains 14C, it is good evidence that it is not millions of years old.
However, things are not quite so simple. First, plants discriminate against carbon dioxide containing 14C. That is, they take up less than would be expected and so they test older than they really are. Furthermore, different types of plants discriminate differently. This also has to be corrected for.[2]
Second, the ratio of 14C/12C in the atmosphere has not been constant—for example, it was higher before the industrial era when the massive burning of fossil fuels released a lot of carbon dioxide that was depleted in 14C. This would make things which died at that time appear older in terms of carbon dating. Then there was a rise in 14CO2 with the advent of atmospheric testing of atomic bombs in the 1950s.[3] This would make things carbon-dated from that time appear younger than their true age.
Measurement of 14C in historically dated objects (e.g., seeds in the graves of historically dated tombs) enables the level of 14C in the atmosphere at that time to be estimated, and so partial calibration of the “clock” is possible. Accordingly, carbon dating carefully applied to items from historical times can be useful. However, even with such historical calibration, archaeologists do not regard 14C dates as absolute because of frequent anomalies. They rely more on dating methods that link into historical records.
Outside the range of recorded history, calibration of the 14C "clock is not possible.[4]
Other Factors Affecting Carbon Dating
The amount of cosmic rays penetrating the earth's atmosphere affects the amount of 14C produced and therefore dating the system. The amount of cosmic rays reaching the earth varies with the sun's activity, and with the earth's passage through magnetic clouds as the solar system travels around the Milky Way galaxy.
The strength of the earth's magnetic field affects the amount of cosmic rays entering the atmosphere. A stronger magnetic field deflects more cosmic rays away from the earth. Overall, the energy of the earth's magnetic field has been decreasing,[5] so more 14C is being produced now than in the past. This will make old things look older than they really are.
Also, the Genesis flood would have greatly upset the carbon balance. The flood buried a huge amount of carbon, which became coal, oil, etc., lowering the total 12C in the biosphere (including the atmosphere—plants regrowing after the flood absorb CO2, which is not replaced by the decay of the buried vegetation). Total 14C is also proportionately lowered at this time, but whereas no terrestrial process generates any more 12C, 14C is continually being produced, and at a rate which does not depend on carbon levels (it comes from nitrogen). Therefore, the 14C/12C ratio in plants/animals/the atmosphere before the flood had to be lower than what it is now.
Unless this effect (which is additional to the magnetic field issue just discussed) were corrected for, carbon dating of fossils formed in the flood would give ages much older than the true ages.
Creationist researchers have suggested that dates of 35,000 - 45,000 years should be re-calibrated to the biblical date of the flood.[6] Such a re-calibration makes sense of anomalous data from carbon dating—for example, very discordant “dates” for different parts of a frozen musk ox carcass from Alaska and an inordinately slow rate of accumulation of ground sloth dung pellets in the older layers of a cave where the layers were carbon dated.[7]
Also, volcanoes emit much CO2 depleted in 14C. Since the flood was accompanied by much volcanism (see Noah's Flood…, How did animals get from the Ark to isolated places?, and What About Continental Drift?), fossils formed in the early post-flood period would give radiocarbon ages older than they really are.
In summary, the carbon-14 method, when corrected for the effects of the flood, can give useful results, but needs to be applied carefully. It does not give dates of millions of years and when corrected properly fits well with the biblical flood.
Other Radiometric Dating Methods
There are various other radiometric dating methods used today to give ages of millions or billions of years for rocks. These techniques, unlike carbon dating, mostly use the relative concentrations of parent and daughter products in radioactive decay chains. For example, potassium-40 decays to argon-40; uranium-238 decays to lead-206 via other elements like radium; uranium-235 decays to lead-207; rubidium-87 decays to strontium-87; etc. These techniques are applied to igneous rocks, and are normally seen as giving the time since solidification.
The isotope concentrations can be measured very accurately, but isotope concentrations are not dates. To derive ages from such measurements, unprovable assumptions have to be made such as:
The starting conditions are known (for example, that there was no daughter isotope present at the start, or that we know how much was there).
Decay rates have always been constant.
Systems were closed or isolated so that no parent or daughter isotopes were lost or added.
There Are Patterns in the Isotope Data
There is plenty of evidence that the radioisotope dating systems are not the infallible techniques many think, and that they are not measuring millions of years. However, there are still patterns to be explained. For example, deeper rocks often tend to give older “ages.” Creationists agree that the deeper rocks are generally older, but not by millions of years. Geologist John Woodmorappe, in his devastating critique of radioactive dating,[8] points out that there are other large-scale trends in the rocks that have nothing to do with radioactive decay.
“Bad” Dates
When a “date” differs from that expected, researchers readily invent excuses for rejecting the result. The common application of such posterior reasoning shows that radiometric dating has serious problems. Woodmorappe cites hundreds of examples of excuses used to explain “bad” dates.[9]
For example, researchers applied posterior reasoning to the dating of Australopithecus ramidus fossils.[10] Most samples of basalt closest to the fossil-bearing strata give dates of about 23 Ma (Mega annum, million years) by the argon-argon method. The authors decided that was “too old,” according to their beliefs about the place of the fossils in the evolutionary grand scheme of things. So they looked at some basalt further removed from the fossils and selected 17 of 26 samples to get an acceptable maximum age of 4.4 Ma. The other nine samples again gave much older dates but the authors decided they must be contaminated and discarded them. That is how radiometric dating works. It is very much driven by the existing long-age world view that pervades academia today.
A similar story surrounds the dating of the primate skull known as KNM-ER 1470.[11] This started with an initial 212 to 230 Ma, which, according to the fossils, was considered way off the mark (humans “weren't around then"). Various other attempts were made to date the volcanic rocks in the area. Over the years an age of 2.9 Ma was settled upon because of the agreement between several different published studies (although the studies involved selection of “good” from “bad” results, just like Australopithecus ramidus, above).
However, preconceived notions about human evolution could not cope with a skull like 1470 being “that old.” A study of pig fossils in Africa readily convinced most anthropologists that the 1470 skull was much younger. After this was widely accepted, further studies of the rocks brought the radiometric age down to about 1.9 Ma—again several studies “confirmed” this date. Such is the dating game.
Are we suggesting that evolutionists are conspiring to massage the data to get what they want? No, not generally. It is simply that all observations must fit the prevailing paradigm. The paradigm, or belief system, of molecules-to-man evolution over eons of time, is so strongly entrenched it is not questioned—it is a “fact.” So every observation must fit this paradigm. Unconsciously, the researchers, who are supposedly “objective scientists” in the eyes of the public, select the observations to fit the basic belief system.
We must remember that the past is not open to the normal processes of experimental science, that is, repeatable experiments in the present. A scientist cannot do experiments on events that happened in the past. Scientists do not measure the age of rocks, they measure isotope concentrations, and these can be measured extremely accurately. However, the “age” is calculated using assumptions about the past that cannot be proven.
We should remember God's admonition to Job, “Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth?” (Job 38:4).
Those involved with unrecorded history gather information in the present and construct stories about the past. The level of proof demanded for such stories seems to be much less than for studies in the empirical sciences, such as physics, chemistry, molecular biology, physiology, etc.
Williams, an expert in the environmental fate of radioactive elements, identified 17 flaws in the isotope dating reported in just three widely respected seminal papers that supposedly established the age of the earth at 4.6 billion years.[12] John Woodmorappe has produced an incisive critique of these dating methods.[13] He exposes hundreds of myths that have grown up around the techniques. He shows that the few “good” dates left after the “bad” dates are filtered out could easily be explained as fortunate coincidences.
-
Con't........
What Date Would You Like?
The forms issued by radioisotope laboratories for submission with samples to be dated commonly ask how old the sample is expected to be. Why? If the techniques were absolutely objective and reliable, such information would not be necessary. Presumably, the laboratories know that anomalous dates are common, so they need some check on whether they have obtained a “good” date.
Testing Radiometric Dating Methods
If the long-age dating techniques were really objective means of finding the ages of rocks, they should work in situations where we know the age. Furthermore, different techniques should consistently agree with one another.
Methods Should Work Reliably on Things of Known Age
There are many examples where the dating methods give “dates” that are wrong for rocks of known age. One example is K-Ar “dating” of five historical andesite lava flows from Mount Nguaruhoe in New Zealand. Although one lava flow occurred in 1949, three in 1954, and one in 1975, the “dates” range from less than 0.27 to 3.5 Ma.[14]
Again, using hindsight, it is argued that “excess” argon from the magma (molten rock) was retained in the rock when it solidified. The secular scientific literature lists many examples of excess argon causing dates of millions of years in rocks of known historical age.[15] This excess appears to have come from the upper mantle, below the earth's crust. This is consistent with a young world—the argon has had too little time to escape.[16] If excess argon can cause exaggerated dates for rocks of known age, then why should we trust the method for rocks of unknown age?
Other techniques, such as the use of isochrons,[17] make different assumptions about starting conditions, but there is a growing recognition that such “foolproof” techniques can also give “bad” dates. So data are again selected according to what the researcher already believes about the age of the rock.
Geologist Dr. Steve Austin sampled basalt from the base of the Grand Canyon strata and from the lava that spilled over the edge of the canyon. By evolutionary reckoning, the latter should be a billion years younger than the basalt from the bottom. Standard laboratories analyzed the isotopes. The rubidium-strontium isochron technique suggested that the recent lava flow was 270 Ma older than the basalts beneath the Grand Canyon—an impossibility.
Different Dating Techniques Should Consistently Agree
If the dating methods are an objective and reliable means of determining ages, they should agree. If a chemist were measuring the sugar content of blood, all valid methods for the determination would give the same answer (within the limits of experimental error). However, with radiometric dating, the different techniques often give quite different results.
In the study of the Grand Canyon rocks by Austin, different techniques gave different results.[18] Again, all sorts of reasons can be suggested for the “bad” dates, but this is again posterior reasoning. Techniques that give results that can be dismissed just because they don't agree with what we already believe cannot be considered objective.
In Australia, some wood found the Tertiary basalt was clearly buried in the lava flow that formed the basalt, as can be seen from the charring. The wood was “dated” by radiocarbon (14C) analysis at about 45,000 years old, but the basalt was “dated” by potassium-argon method at 45 million years old![19]
Isotope ratios or uraninite crystals from the Koongarra uranium body in the Northern Territory of Australia gave lead-lead isochron ages of 841 Ma, plus or minus 140 Ma.[20] This contrasts with an age of 1550-1650 Ma based on other isotope ratios,[21] and ages of 275, 61, 0,0,and 0 Ma for thorium/lead (232Th/208Pb) ratios in five uraninite grains. The latter figures are significant because thorium-derived dates should be the more reliable, since thorium is less mobile than the uranium minerals that are the parents of the lead isotopes in lead-lead system.[22] The “zero” ages in this case are consistent with the Bible.
More Evidence Something is Wrong—
14C in Fossils Supposedly Millions of Years Old
Carbon Dating in many cases seriously embarrasses evolutionists by giving ages that are much younger than those expected from their model of early history. A specimen older than 50,000 years should have too little 14C to measure.
Laboratories that measure 14C would like a source of organic material with zero 14C to use as a blank to check that their lab procedures do not add 14C. Coal is an obvious candidate because the youngest coal is supposed to be millions of years old, and most of it is supposed to be tens or hundreds of millions of years old. Such old coal should be devoid of 14C. It isn't. No source of coal has been found that completely lacks 14C.
Fossil wood found in “Upper Permian” rock that is supposedly 250 Ma old still contained 14C.[23] Recently, a sample of wood found in rock classified as “middle Triassic,” supposedly some 230 million years old, gave a 14C date of 33,720 years, plus or minus 430 years.[24] The accompanying checks showed that the 14C date was not due to contamination and that the “date” was valid, within the standard (long ages) understanding of this dating system.
It is an unsolved mystery to evolutionists as to why coal has 14C in it,[25], or wood supposedly millions of years old still has 14C present, but it makes perfect sense in a creationist world view.
Many Physical Evidences Contradict the “Billions of Years”
Of the methods that have been used to estimate the age of the earth, 90 percent point to an age far less than the billions of years asserted by evolutionists. A few of them follow.
Evidence for a rapid formation of geological strata, as in the biblical flood. Some of the evidences are: lack of erosion between rock layers supposedly separated in age by many millions of years; lack of disturbance of rock strata by biological activity (worms, roots, etc.); lack of soil layers; polystrate fossils (which traverse several rock layers vertically—these could not have stood vertically for eons of time while they slowly got buried); thick layers of “rock” bent without fracturing, indicating that the rock was all soft when bent; and more. For more, see books by geologists Morris[26] and Austin.[27]
Red blood cells and hemoglobin have been found in some (unfossilized!) dinosaur bone. But these could not last more than a few thousand years—certainly not the 65 Ma since the last dinosaurs lived, according to evolutionists.[28]
The earth's magnetic field has been decaying so fast that it looks like it is less than 10,000 years old. Rapid reversals during the flood year and fluctuations shortly after would have caused the field energy to drop even faster.[29]
Radioactive decay releases helium into the atmosphere, but not much is escaping. The total amount in the atmosphere is 1/2000th of that expected if the universe is really billions of years old. This helium originally escaped from rocks. This happens quite fast, yet so much helium is still in some rocks that it has not had time to escape—certainly not billions of years.[30]
A supernova is an explosion of a massive star—the explosion is so bright that it briefly outshines the rest of the galaxy. The supernova remnants (SNRs) should keep expanding for hundreds of thousands of years, according to physical equations. Yet there are no very old, widely expanded (Stage 3) SNRs, and few moderately old (Stage 1) ones in our galaxy, the Milky Way, or in its satellite galaxies, the Magellanic Clouds. This is just what we would expect for “young” galaxies that have not existed long enough for wide expansion.[31]
The moon is slowly receding for the earth at about 4 centimeters (1.5 inches) per year, and this rate would have been greater in the past. But even if the moon had started receding from being in contact with the earth, it would have taken only 1.37 billion years to reach its present distance from the earth. This gives a maximum age of the moon, not the actual age. This is far too young for evolutionists who claim the moon is 4.6 billion years old. It is also much younger than the radiometric “dates” assigned to moon rocks.[32]
Salt is entering the sea much faster than it is escaping. The sea is not nearly salty enough for this to have been happening for billions of years. Even granting generous assumptions to evolutionists, the sea could not be more than 62 Ma years old—far younger than the billions of years believed by the evolutionists. Again, this indicates a maximum age, not the actual age.[33]
Dr. Russell Humphreys gives other processes inconsistent with billions of years in the pamphlet Evidence for a Young World.[34]
Creationists cannot prove the age of the earth using a particular scientific method, any more than evolutionists can. They realize that all science is tentative because we do not have all the data, especially when dealing with the past. This is true of both creationist and evolutionist scientific arguments—evolutionists have had to abandon many “proofs” for evolution just as creationists have also had to modify their arguments. The atheistic evolutionist W.B. Provine admitted:
"Most of what I learned of the field [evolutionary biology] in graduate (1964-68) school is either wrong or significantly changed."[35]
Creationists understand the limitations of dating methods better than evolutionists who claim that they can use processes observed in the present to “prove” that the earth is billions of years old. In reality, all dating methods, including those that point to a young earth, rely on unprovable assumptions.
Creationists ultimately date the earth historically using the chronology of the Bible. This is because they believe that this is an accurate eyewitness account of world history, which bears the evidence within it that it is the Word of God, and therefore totally reliable and error-free.
-
Con't......
Then What Do the Radiometric “Dates” Mean?
What the do the radiometric dates of millions of years mean, if they are not true ages? To answer this question, it is necessary to scrutinize further the experimental results from the various dating techniques, the interpretations made on the basis of the results and the assumptions underlying those interpretations.
The isochron dating technique was thought to be infallible because it supposedly covered the assumptions about starting conditions and closed systems.
Geologist Dr. Andrew Snelling worked on “dating the Koongarra uranium deposits in the Northern Territory of Australia, primarily using the uranium-thorium-lead (U-Th-Pb) method. He found that even highly weathered soil samples from the area, which are definitely not closed systems, gave apparently valid “isochron” lines with “ages” of up to 1,445 Ma.
Such “false isochrons” are so common that a whole terminology has grown up to describe them, such as apparent isochron, mantle isochron, pseudoisochron, secondary isochron, inherited isochron, erupted isochron, mixing line and mixing isochron. Zheng wrote:
Some of the basic assumptions of the conventional Rb-Sr [rubidium-strontium] isochron method have to be modified and an observed isochron does not certainly define valid age information for a geological system, even if a goodness of fit of the experimental results is obtained in plotting 87Sr/86Sr. This problem cannot be overlooked, especially in evaluating the numerical time scale. Similar questions can also arise in applying Sm-Nd [samarium-neodymium] and U-Pb [uranium-lead] isochron methods.[37]
Clearly, there are factors other than age responsible for the straight lines obtained from graphing isotope ratios. Again, the only way to know if an isochron is “good” is by comparing the result with what is already believed.
Another currently popular dating method is the uranium-lead concordia technique. This effectively combines the two uranium-lead decay series into one diagram. Results that lie on the concordia curve have the same age according to the two lead series and are called “concordant.” However, the results from zircons (a type of gemstone), for example, generally lie off the concordia curve—they are discordant. Numerous models, or stories, have been developed to explain such data.[38] However, such exercises in story-telling can hardly be considered as objective science that proves an old earth. Again, the stories are evaluated according to their own success in agreeing with the existing long ages belief system.
Andrew Snelling has suggested that fractionation (sorting) of elements in the molten state in the earth's mantle could be a significant factor in explaining the ratios of isotope concentrations which are interpreted as ages.
As long ago as 1966, Nobel Prize nominee Melvin Cook, professor of metallurgy at the University of Utah, pointed out evidence that lead isotope ratios, for example, may involve alteration by important factors other than radioactive decay.[39] Cook noted that, in ores from the Katanga mine, for example, there was an abundance of lead-208, a stable isotope, but no Thorium-232 as a source for lead-208. Thorium has a long half-life (decays very slowly) and is not easily moved out of the rock, so if the lead-208 came from thorium decay, some thorium should still be there. The concentrations of lead-206, lead-207, and lead-208 suggest that the lead-208 came about by neutron capture conversion of lead-206 to lead-207 to lead-208. When the isotope concentrations are adjusted for such conversions, the ages calculated are reduced from some 600 Ma to recent. Other ore bodies seemed to show similar evidence. Cook recognized that the current understanding of nuclear physics did not seem to allow for such a conversion under normal conditions, but he presents evidence that such did happen, and even suggests how it could happen.
Anomalies in Deep Rock Crystals
Physicist Dr. Robert Gentry has pointed out that the amount of helium and lead in zircons from deep bores is not consistent with an evolutionary age of 1,500 Ma for the granite rocks in which they are found.[40] The amount of lead may be consistent with current rates of decay over millions of years, but it would have diffused out of the crystals in that time.
Furthermore, the amount of helium in zircons from hot rock is also much more consistent with a young earth (helium derives from the decay of radioactive elements).
The lead and helium results suggest that rates of radioactive decay may have been much higher in the recent past. Humphreys has suggested that this may have occurred during creation week and the flood. This would make things look much older than they really are when current rates of decay are applied to dating. Whatever caused such elevated rates of decay may also have been responsible for the lead isotope conversions claimed by Cook (above).
Orphan Radiohalos
Decaying radioactive particles in solid rock cause spherical zones of damage to the surrounding crystal structure. A speck of radioactive element such as Uranium-238, for example, will leave a sphere of discoloration of characteristically different radius for each element it produces in its decay chain to lead-206.[41] Viewed in cross-section with a microscope, these spheres appear as rings called radiohalos. Dr. Gentry has researched radiohalos for many years, and published his results in leading scientific journals.[42]
Some of the intermediate decay products—such as the polonium isotopes—have very short half-lives (they decay quickly). For example, 218Po has a half-life of just 3 minutes. Curiously, rings formed by polonium decay are often found embedded in crystals without the parent uranium halos. Now the polonium has to get into the rock before the rock solidifies, but it cannot derive a from a uranium speck in the solid rock, otherwise there would be a uranium halo. Either the polonium was created (primordial, not derived from uranium), or there have been radical changes in decay rates in the past.
Gentry has addressed all attempts to criticize his work.[43] There have been many attempts, because the orphan halos speak of conditions in the past, either at creation or after, perhaps even during the flood, which do not fit with the uniformitarian view of the past, which is the basis of the radiometric dating systems. Whatever process was responsible for the halos could be a key also to understanding radiometric dating.[44]
-
Good call,Coach. I'm very impressed with your writing skills and knowledge.
-
Good call,Coach. I'm very impressed with your writing skills and knowledge.
It was easier to cut and paste this. I've gone over this a million times on here over the years.....and yes, in my own words.
-
It was easier to cut and paste this. I've gone over this a million times on here over the years.....and yes, in my own words.
Good call
-
I only watched the first few questions and I have a question..... where is he getting "The earth is 6000 years old. The universe is 6000 years old?"
I see he has entitled the video "Are Christians Stupid?" The viewer would infer that he indicates that the bible states that the earth and universe are 6000 years old.
This is nowhere found in the bible that I have read.
Does he give a scripture for this?
The un-edited bible says the earth is 6000 years old.
-
I read your post and decided I should watch the whole video. This guy also claims that the Pope is "God's butler" or something as though the Pope is some type of representative for God and even indicates that the Pope is a Christian. Neither of these is necessarily established in scripture.
He states that the Pope is against condoms ...ie: birth control...which is also never established in scripture as an all-encompassing desire from God. The 2 times God told people to be fruitful and multiply there were 2 and 8 people on the face of the earth, respectively, right?
If this dude likes to snap his head around and make little air-quotes, it'd be nice is he didn't seem to just regurgitate stuff he thinks is in the bible and scriptural but to research it a little first.
Shut the fuck up you dellusional bitch, i know you want to go to heaven when you die but the reality is, your gonna end up being worm shit.
-
::)
-
i trust in jesus and always will,im far from perfect but i try my best to treat people how i would like to be treated,with respect,kindness,humbleness,honesty,love,sympathy and trust.this world would be a much better place if everyone did that imo.
-
strong arguments in this thread
-
I would have partied with jesus.
The Roach wrote none of that
-
-
spiritual..yes
religious..not so much
you don't have to subscribe to a religion to believe in a higher power, imho
-
whos the roach?
The Coach became The Roach after he made a typo can called himself that.
-
he's on a fast track to HELL :o
-
The Coach became The Roach after he made a typo can called himself that.
hmm.. and he hasn't been exterminated? you need to wipe roaches out fast.. they can be a problem.
-
Dawkins is awesome but Hitchens just destroys everyone
-
If you worship a Jewish Zombie, then you've got a problem.
If your liberal youre probably a fag :D
-
Christians are lunatics, I'm sometimes afraid of them because they don't have any common sense.
-
How you live and behave is more important than why.
Team Love
-
(http://bayd.info/dwn/domatus_pic/data/dirty-priest-costume.jpg)
-
Christians are lunatics, I'm sometimes afraid of them because they don't have any common sense.
that guys a GOOD god fearing christian indeed. ::)
-
that guys a GOOD god fearing christian indeed. ::)
Yeah he's extreme, but that is how many christians really think.
-
Yeah he's extreme, but that is how many christians really think.
I agree...in my experience most are this way...I had a lady who doesn't even know me at all tell me I'd burn in Hell for having sex out of wedlock.
-
my belief is that we all have the devil inside we're just to ashamed to admit it. see ya'all in hell.
-
If you are then your retarded. 8) :D
looking good Method101.
no wonder you're so angry ;D
-
Read carefully........
People who ask about carbon-14 (14C) dating usually want to know about the radiometric[1] dating methods that are claimed to give millions and billions of years—carbon dating can only give thousands of years. People wonder how millions of years could be squeezed into the biblical account of history.
Clearly, such huge time periods cannot be fitted into the Bible without compromising what the Bible says about the goodness of God and the origin of sin, death and suffering—the reason Jesus came into the world (See Six Days? Honestly!).
Christians, by definition, take the statements of Jesus Christ seriously. He said,
“But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female” (Mark 10:6).
This only makes sense with a time-line beginning with the creation week thousands of years ago. It makes no sense at all if man appeared at the end of billions of years.
We will deal with carbon dating first and then with the other dating methods.
How the Carbon Clock Works
Carbon has unique properties that are essential for life on earth. Familiar to us as the black substance in charred wood, as diamonds, and the graphite in “lead” pencils, carbon comes in several forms, or isotopes. One rare form has atoms that are 14 times as heavy as hydrogen atoms: carbon-14, or 14C, or radiocarbon.
Carbon-14 is made when cosmic rays knock neutrons out of atomic nuclei in the upper atmosphere. These displaced neutrons, now moving fast, hit ordinary nitrogen (14N) at lower altitudes, converting it into 14C. Unlike common carbon (12C), 14C is unstable and slowly decays, changing it back to nitrogen and releasing energy. This instability makes it radioactive.
Ordinary carbon (12C)is found in the carbon dioxide (CO2) in the air, which is taken up by plants, which in turn are eaten by animals. So a bone, or a leaf or a tree, or even a piece of wooden furniture, contains carbon. When the 14C has been formed, like ordinary carbon (12C), it combines with oxygen to give carbon dioxide (14CO2), and so it also gets cycled through the cells of plants and animals.
We can take a sample of air, count how many 12C atoms there are for every 14C atom, and calculate the 14C/12C ratio. Because 14C is so well mixed up with 12C, we expect to find that this ratio is the same if we sample a leaf from a tree, or a part of your body.
In living things, although 14C atoms are constantly changing back to 14N, they are still exchanging carbon with their surroundings, so the mixture remains about the same as in the atmosphere. However, as soon as a plant or animal dies, the 14C atoms which decay are no longer replaced, so the amount of 14C in that once-living thing decreases as time goes on. In other words, the 14C/12C ratio gets smaller. So, we have a “clock” which starts ticking the moment something dies.
Obviously, this works only for things which were once living. It cannot be used to date volcanic rocks, for example.
The rate of decay of 14C is such that half of an amount will convert back to 14N in 5,730 years (plus or minus 40 years). This is the “half-life.” So, in two half-lives, or 11,460 years, only one-quarter of that in living organisms at present, then it has a theoretical age of 11,460 years. Anything over about 50,000 years old, should theoretically have no detectable 14C left. That is why radiocarbon dating cannot give millions of years. In fact, if a sample contains 14C, it is good evidence that it is not millions of years old.
However, things are not quite so simple. First, plants discriminate against carbon dioxide containing 14C. That is, they take up less than would be expected and so they test older than they really are. Furthermore, different types of plants discriminate differently. This also has to be corrected for.[2]
Second, the ratio of 14C/12C in the atmosphere has not been constant—for example, it was higher before the industrial era when the massive burning of fossil fuels released a lot of carbon dioxide that was depleted in 14C. This would make things which died at that time appear older in terms of carbon dating. Then there was a rise in 14CO2 with the advent of atmospheric testing of atomic bombs in the 1950s.[3] This would make things carbon-dated from that time appear younger than their true age.
Measurement of 14C in historically dated objects (e.g., seeds in the graves of historically dated tombs) enables the level of 14C in the atmosphere at that time to be estimated, and so partial calibration of the “clock” is possible. Accordingly, carbon dating carefully applied to items from historical times can be useful. However, even with such historical calibration, archaeologists do not regard 14C dates as absolute because of frequent anomalies. They rely more on dating methods that link into historical records.
Outside the range of recorded history, calibration of the 14C "clock is not possible.[4]
Other Factors Affecting Carbon Dating
The amount of cosmic rays penetrating the earth's atmosphere affects the amount of 14C produced and therefore dating the system. The amount of cosmic rays reaching the earth varies with the sun's activity, and with the earth's passage through magnetic clouds as the solar system travels around the Milky Way galaxy.
The strength of the earth's magnetic field affects the amount of cosmic rays entering the atmosphere. A stronger magnetic field deflects more cosmic rays away from the earth. Overall, the energy of the earth's magnetic field has been decreasing,[5] so more 14C is being produced now than in the past. This will make old things look older than they really are.
Also, the Genesis flood would have greatly upset the carbon balance. The flood buried a huge amount of carbon, which became coal, oil, etc., lowering the total 12C in the biosphere (including the atmosphere—plants regrowing after the flood absorb CO2, which is not replaced by the decay of the buried vegetation). Total 14C is also proportionately lowered at this time, but whereas no terrestrial process generates any more 12C, 14C is continually being produced, and at a rate which does not depend on carbon levels (it comes from nitrogen). Therefore, the 14C/12C ratio in plants/animals/the atmosphere before the flood had to be lower than what it is now.
Unless this effect (which is additional to the magnetic field issue just discussed) were corrected for, carbon dating of fossils formed in the flood would give ages much older than the true ages.
Creationist researchers have suggested that dates of 35,000 - 45,000 years should be re-calibrated to the biblical date of the flood.[6] Such a re-calibration makes sense of anomalous data from carbon dating—for example, very discordant “dates” for different parts of a frozen musk ox carcass from Alaska and an inordinately slow rate of accumulation of ground sloth dung pellets in the older layers of a cave where the layers were carbon dated.[7]
Also, volcanoes emit much CO2 depleted in 14C. Since the flood was accompanied by much volcanism (see Noah's Flood…, How did animals get from the Ark to isolated places?, and What About Continental Drift?), fossils formed in the early post-flood period would give radiocarbon ages older than they really are.
In summary, the carbon-14 method, when corrected for the effects of the flood, can give useful results, but needs to be applied carefully. It does not give dates of millions of years and when corrected properly fits well with the biblical flood.
Other Radiometric Dating Methods
There are various other radiometric dating methods used today to give ages of millions or billions of years for rocks. These techniques, unlike carbon dating, mostly use the relative concentrations of parent and daughter products in radioactive decay chains. For example, potassium-40 decays to argon-40; uranium-238 decays to lead-206 via other elements like radium; uranium-235 decays to lead-207; rubidium-87 decays to strontium-87; etc. These techniques are applied to igneous rocks, and are normally seen as giving the time since solidification.
The isotope concentrations can be measured very accurately, but isotope concentrations are not dates. To derive ages from such measurements, unprovable assumptions have to be made such as:
The starting conditions are known (for example, that there was no daughter isotope present at the start, or that we know how much was there).
Decay rates have always been constant.
Systems were closed or isolated so that no parent or daughter isotopes were lost or added.
There Are Patterns in the Isotope Data
There is plenty of evidence that the radioisotope dating systems are not the infallible techniques many think, and that they are not measuring millions of years. However, there are still patterns to be explained. For example, deeper rocks often tend to give older “ages.” Creationists agree that the deeper rocks are generally older, but not by millions of years. Geologist John Woodmorappe, in his devastating critique of radioactive dating,[8] points out that there are other large-scale trends in the rocks that have nothing to do with radioactive decay.
“Bad” Dates
When a “date” differs from that expected, researchers readily invent excuses for rejecting the result. The common application of such posterior reasoning shows that radiometric dating has serious problems. Woodmorappe cites hundreds of examples of excuses used to explain “bad” dates.[9]
For example, researchers applied posterior reasoning to the dating of Australopithecus ramidus fossils.[10] Most samples of basalt closest to the fossil-bearing strata give dates of about 23 Ma (Mega annum, million years) by the argon-argon method. The authors decided that was “too old,” according to their beliefs about the place of the fossils in the evolutionary grand scheme of things. So they looked at some basalt further removed from the fossils and selected 17 of 26 samples to get an acceptable maximum age of 4.4 Ma. The other nine samples again gave much older dates but the authors decided they must be contaminated and discarded them. That is how radiometric dating works. It is very much driven by the existing long-age world view that pervades academia today.
A similar story surrounds the dating of the primate skull known as KNM-ER 1470.[11] This started with an initial 212 to 230 Ma, which, according to the fossils, was considered way off the mark (humans “weren't around then"). Various other attempts were made to date the volcanic rocks in the area. Over the years an age of 2.9 Ma was settled upon because of the agreement between several different published studies (although the studies involved selection of “good” from “bad” results, just like Australopithecus ramidus, above).
However, preconceived notions about human evolution could not cope with a skull like 1470 being “that old.” A study of pig fossils in Africa readily convinced most anthropologists that the 1470 skull was much younger. After this was widely accepted, further studies of the rocks brought the radiometric age down to about 1.9 Ma—again several studies “confirmed” this date. Such is the dating game.
Are we suggesting that evolutionists are conspiring to massage the data to get what they want? No, not generally. It is simply that all observations must fit the prevailing paradigm. The paradigm, or belief system, of molecules-to-man evolution over eons of time, is so strongly entrenched it is not questioned—it is a “fact.” So every observation must fit this paradigm. Unconsciously, the researchers, who are supposedly “objective scientists” in the eyes of the public, select the observations to fit the basic belief system.
We must remember that the past is not open to the normal processes of experimental science, that is, repeatable experiments in the present. A scientist cannot do experiments on events that happened in the past. Scientists do not measure the age of rocks, they measure isotope concentrations, and these can be measured extremely accurately. However, the “age” is calculated using assumptions about the past that cannot be proven.
We should remember God's admonition to Job, “Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth?” (Job 38:4).
Those involved with unrecorded history gather information in the present and construct stories about the past. The level of proof demanded for such stories seems to be much less than for studies in the empirical sciences, such as physics, chemistry, molecular biology, physiology, etc.
Williams, an expert in the environmental fate of radioactive elements, identified 17 flaws in the isotope dating reported in just three widely respected seminal papers that supposedly established the age of the earth at 4.6 billion years.[12] John Woodmorappe has produced an incisive critique of these dating methods.[13] He exposes hundreds of myths that have grown up around the techniques. He shows that the few “good” dates left after the “bad” dates are filtered out could easily be explained as fortunate coincidences.
Sorry, that's all wrong. But if you want me to explain how, then you'll have to explain why you believe all of this, in detail, in your own words. Only referencing peer reviewed scientific studies from journals.
-
If people like Fred Phelps, Pat Robertson, and Coach are in Heaven....I'd much rather be in hell with the likes of Einstein, George Carlin, Carl Sagan and Isaac Asimov.
-
qft
ZFW.
-
"It's all wrong"? Hahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahah......of course it is!
-
If people like Fred Phelps, Pat Robertson, and Coach are in Heaven....I'd much rather be in hell with the likes of Einstein, George Carlin, Carl Sagan and Isaac Asimov.
I agree.If there god does exist (which is highly unlikely).I don't want anything to do with him.the things he does and has people do in the bible are on the level of terrorism....and like I said in an earlier post if simply having sex out of wedlock throws me into hell for eternity then oh fuckin well.meanwhile rapist and child molesters that find god in prison ask for forgiveness and go to heaven.
-
I agree.If there god does exist (which is highly unlikely).I don't want anything to do with him.the things he does and has people do in the bible are on the level of terrorism....and like I said in an earlier post if simply having sex out of wedlock throws me into hell for eternity then oh fuckin well.meanwhile rapist and child molesters that find god in prison ask for forgiveness and go to heaven.
X2
-
Christianity is one of the many ideologies that says something and does exactly the opposite still pretending it does what it says. This is what makes it dangerous.
-
organized religion is the most damaging thing in the history of the world.......people will believe what they want to believe but the idea of a god or supreme being is an antiquated idea , used as a way to control large groups of people and make them act a certain way.....imo its all a scam and in order to believe in it you have to have a lack of intelligence
-
I can almost relate to/understand people that believe in a creator or a prime mover of some sort, but NOT the ridiculous 100% man-made god of the Abrahamic faiths. The fairy tales in the bible and koran are so stupid that even children see through them.
-
In elementery school our teacher fucking tought us about Noah's ark like it was a true story. :D
Talk about sophistication.
-
In elementery school our teacher fucking tought us about Noah's ark like it was a true story. :D
Talk about sophistication.
she should have been fired.
-
she should have been fired.
It was all part of our education. She didn't do anything wrong, those who decided what should be tought did.
(I'm from Finland)
-
I remember from way back in 3rd grade our teachers used to read from the new testament.. I think it is actually against the law here. Unbelievable.
-
"It's all wrong"? Hahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahah......of course it is!
Epic cut and paste from christiananswers.net from an uneducated and delusional man.
http://christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c007.html
-
I'm not a fanatic telling people that they are going to hell for not believing but I'm definitely a Christian and according to GB retarded. :P
-
The un-edited bible says the earth is 6000 years old.
Do you have a link for the un-edited bible?
Shut the fuck up you dellusional bitch, i know you want to go to heaven when you die but the reality is, your gonna end up being worm shit.
Oh dear!
-
If you stick with or persist in one belief, you are religious(of course, it includes atheism...).
-
If you stick with or persist in one belief, you are religious(of course, it includes atheism...).
Being an atheist doesn't require faith, because your world view is based on evidence only. So no it's not a religion, as there is no holy book or rules of conduct associated with being atheist. The word atheist is damaging, it gives the illusion that it is a "group" of people with a common "faith". As we don't have a word for not believing in astrology, the same should be true for not believing in any god or creator.
-
If you stick with or persist in one belief, you are religious(of course, it includes atheism...).
In that case I have many, many, many beliefs. I don't believe in the Easter Bunny, Santa Claus, Tooth Fairy and many more. Oh my I'm religious.
-
Being an atheist doesn't require faith, because your world view is based on evidence only. So no it's not a religion, as there is no holy book or rules of conduct associated with being atheist. The word atheist is damaging, it gives the illusion that it is a a "group" of people with a common "faith". As we don't have a word for not believing in astrology, the same should be true for not believing in any god or creator.
Yes. Atheists are tied up with a concept which is saying there is no god.
And what they do is that they decide God doesnt exist before deceding any defenitions of God.
God exist in a reason and God doesnt exist in another reason.
And Atheists take only one side of this and always tied up with this idea.
Its almost same as having a faith.
-
Yes. Atheists are tied up with a concept which is saying there is no god.
And what they do is that they decide God doesnt exist before deceding any defenitions of God.
God exist in a reason and God doesnt exist in another reason.
And Atheists take only one side of this and always tied up with this idea.
Its almost same as having a faith.
Quit that jibba jabba. God is imaginery as long as there is no proof.
-
Yes. Atheists are tied up with a concept which is saying there is no god.
And what they do is that they decide God doesnt exist before deceding any defenitions of God.
God exist in a reason and God doesnt exist in another reason.
And Atheists take only one side of this and always tied up with this idea.
Its almost same as having a faith.
If we're talking about a supreme being with ability to suspend natural laws, then no atheists do not rely on faith. Just because you can't disprove something does not make it true.
-
Can homosexuals be religious ???
-
Can homosexuals be religious ???
Of course. Flying Spaghetti Monster is also gay. He accepts everyone.
-
Being an atheist doesn't require faith, because your world view is based on evidence only. So no it's not a religion, as there is no holy book or rules of conduct associated with being atheist. The word atheist is damaging, it gives the illusion that it is a a "group" of people with a common "faith". As we don't have a word for not believing in astrology, the same should be true for not believing in any god or creator.
I understand what you're saying, that "atheism" is usually spoken in a negative context. But atheist just means one who doesn't believe in any diety (I get what you mean, though, that "atheists" are listed as a group when they may have nothing else in common with each other). Its original meaning (Greek) was a believer in false gods. It evolved into its current form in the 1800's. More people prefer to use other terms such as non-theists or agnostic. (all this from Wikipedia...I'm not claiming any "inside knowledge" here).
-
I understand what you're saying, that "atheism" is usually spoken in a negative context. But atheist just means one who doesn't believe in any diety (I get what you mean, though, that "atheists" are listed as a group when they may have nothing else in common with each other). Its original meaning (Greek) was a believer in false gods. It evolved into its current form in the 1800's. More people prefer to use other terms such as non-theists or agnostic. (all this from Wikipedia...I'm not claiming any "inside knowledge" here).
Yeah. I would say I'm a anti-theist myself.
-
The opinion of you guys refrect how christians you guys are in deep conciousness even you guys are saying that you guys are atheists.
Many christian believe what they see. And They have a tendency of trying to believe in one thing to calm their fear. Not believing in something cause fear. Some must believe that saying "There is no god. only science there."
haha, first of all, that science itself is very ilusional...Thats all the supreme scientists of now a day are saying. ;)
You guys also.
You guys are believing that our conciousness is so perfect that we can judge anything.
Thats a Isaac Newtons concept. But, Now a day, we have quantum theory which include uncertainty principle.
Plus, what we see is always ilusion. 100% ilusion. There is a concept called "Qualia" and I recommend you guys to see this.
We are blind in one sence.
-
Yeah. I would say I'm a anti-theist myself.
In other words...if you did believe in any god...you'd hate him/her/it ?? :D
-
No time to read this whole goddamned thread, but for you church-going people, do you feel the word 'metrosexual' should be used in a Christian church? (it was used as a pejorative)
-
The opinion of you guys refrect how christians you guys are in deep conciousness even you guys are saying that you guys are atheists.
Many christian believe what they see. And They have a tendency of trying to believe in one thing to calm their fear. Not believing in something cause fear. Some must believe that saying "There is no god. only science there."
haha, first of all, that science itself is very ilusional...Thats all the supreme scientists of now a day are saying. ;)
You guys also.
You guys are believing that our conciousness is so perfect that we can judge anything.
Thats a Isaac Newtons concept. But, Now a day, we have quantum theory which include uncertainty principle.
Plus, what we see is always ilusion. 100% ilusion. There is a concept called "Qualia" and I recommend you guys to see this.
We are blind in one sence.
And the same should be true for you. If our understanding of the universe is an illusion then so is yours.
There is absolutely NO evidence for the existence of "god". Stop acting like you think you know.
EDIT: Oh and on the topic of fear and calming yourself, being an atheist doesn't exactly give you comfort does it? I'm pretty certain that when I'm dead there is no soul of afterlife. I'm just gone. So the argument that becoming an atheist "calms" you is garbage.
-
The opinion of you guys refrect how christians you guys are in deep conciousness even you guys are saying that you guys are atheists.
Many christian believe what they see. And They have a tendency of trying to believe in one thing to calm their fear. Not believing in something cause fear. Some must believe that saying "There is no god. only science there."
haha, first of all, that science itself is very ilusional...Thats all the supreme scientists of now a day are saying. ;)
You guys also.
You guys are believing that our conciousness is so perfect that we can judge anything.
Thats a Isaac Newtons concept. But, Now a day, we have quantum theory which include uncertainty principle.
Plus, what we see is always ilusion. 100% ilusion. There is a concept called "Qualia" and I recommend you guys to see this.
We are blind in one sence.
When all of the quantum physics are explained where will god hide next?
-
No time to read this whole goddamned thread, but for you church-going people, do you feel the word 'metrosexual' should be used in a Christian church? (it was used as a pejorative)
Good question. Most Christians would ideally avoid using any perjorative language in church (or outside of church, for that matter). I'm assuming you are referring to some specific incident here. Can you elaborate?
Before anybody jumps on me with the usual, "The meanest people I ever met claimed to be Christians," etc., please understand I did say "ideally."
-
And the same should be true for you. If our understanding of the universe is an illusion then so is yours.
There is absolutely NO evidence for the existence of "god". Stop acting like you think you know.
Just I say the truth.
First of all, before you deny the existance of God, tell me what the god is?
-
When all of the quantum physics are explained where will god hide next?
I didnt say anything that God exists in quantum theory.
-
I didnt say anything that God exists in quantum theory.
But it sounded like you used the "god of holes" argument or what ever it is called.
-
Just I say the truth.
First of all, before you deny the existance of God, tell me [u]what the god is[/u]?
Here:
If we're talking about a supreme being with ability to suspend natural laws, then no atheists do not rely on faith. Just because you can't disprove something does not make it true.
How hypocritical, how can you claim to know the truth while we others can't? Now if you wanna make a case for yourself, you better give your definition of what "god" is, and then prove its existence.
-
And the same should be true for you. If our understanding of the universe is an illusion then so is yours.
There is absolutely NO evidence for the existence of "god". Stop acting like you think you know.
EDIT: Oh and on the topic of fear and calming yourself, being an atheist doesn't exactly give you comfort does it? I'm pretty certain that when I'm dead there is no soul of afterlife. I'm just gone. So the argument that becoming an atheist "calms" you is garbage.
And if i say that yourself dont exist before going next life or arguing about soul?
-
Here:
How hypocritical, how can you claim to know the truth while we others can't? Now if you wanna make a case for yourself, you better give your definition of what "god" is, and then prove its existence.
:-\
what a christian you are.....
I know the truth that WE CANT KNOW ANYTHING AND I KNOW NOTHING.
-
Here:
How hypocritical, how can you claim to know the truth while we others can't? Now if you wanna make a case for yourself, you better give your definition of what "god" is, and then prove its existence.
Its like, Chicken and egg.
Some people say chicken is the beginning. Other say egg is beginning.
If that god is the sun, God exists. Cus we can consider that we are the expression of solar energy.
Supernatural? If you call,your drinking water is miracle, it is. Its up to you.
-
"ARGUMENT FROM BLINDNESS (II)
(1) God is love.
(2) Love is blind.
(3) Stevie Wonder is blind.
(4) Therefore, Stevie Wonder is God.
(5) Therefore, God exists."
-
:-\
what a christian you are.....
I know the truth that WE CANT KNOW ANYTHING AND I KNOW NOTHING.
LOL my way of thinking has nothing to do with being christian. Don't confuse enlightened western thinking/values with christianity.
I can not say for certain there is no god, if there comes any evidence that proves its existence it wouldn't be a matter of faith anymore and I would be fine with that. But I gotta admit though that the thought of having an almighty supreme ruler doesn't sound too nice.
Do you believe in a god or not?
-
"ARGUMENT FROM BLINDNESS (II)
(1) God is love.
(2) Love is blind.
(3) Stevie Wonder is blind.
(4) Therefore, Stevie Wonder is God.
(5) Therefore, God exists."
Hahahaha! ;D Thats funny.
But, hey, if some nuts believe that defenition deeply, there is god for him. ;)
Maybe when he sees S wonder, he become very happy in that day. ;)
-
Its like, Chicken and egg.
Some people say chicken is the beginning. Other say egg is beginning.
If that god is the sun, God exists. Cus we can consider that we are the expression of solar energy.
Supernatural? If you call,your drinking water is miracle, it is. Its up to you.
Answer this first:
If we're talking about a supreme being with ability to suspend natural laws
If the answer is no, then your definition of God is just metaphors for nature. The same way Einstein said "then we can know the mind of God". He was an atheist but just used the word God as a metaphor to describe the natural order.
-
Answer this first:
If the answer is no, then your definition of God is just metaphors for nature. The same way Einstein said "then we can know the mind of God". He was an atheist but just used the word God as a metaphor to describe the natural order.
The first problem is that your defenition of god is not clear.
Something controle us?
Yes. A lots of thing. If we say the physical phenomenon is god, it exists.
Ying and Yang phenomenon is God also. Our conciousness is also....etc.
They all controle us and tie us up.....Wooops I forgot. An ideology! It ties up also.
We can say that they are god.
There is no fvkin a bit difference with that spreme power you call.
-
We can say that they are god.
God exist ,end of the thread.
-
The first problem is that your defenition of god is not clear.
Something controle us?
Yes. A lots of thing. If we say the physical phenomenon is god, it exists.
Ying and Yang phenomenon is God also. Our conciousness is also....etc.
They all controle us and tie us up.....Wooops I forgot. An ideology! It ties up also.
We can say that they are god.
There is no fvkin a bit difference with that spreme power you call.
Wow what I just wrote flew right over your head didn't it? Not to be mean, but please read it again.
-
God exist ,end of the thread.
I will say him tomorrow that one getbiger calls him a god!! ;D
-
God exist ,end of the thread.
Actually, your Spandex thread did more to prove God's existence than this pic. Just sayin' :D
-
Wow what I just wrote flew right over your head didn't it? Not to be mean, but please read it again.
Hahaha.
I am just teasing.
Cus you think being atheist is the way to be free.
Unfortunately, you are always controled even if that godamn god dont exist.
Its matter of the name. Its like Stanist believe in Satan and they are way different from christian. But just they change the name of Jesus into Satan. Thats it.
-
Hail Satan!!
-
Hail Satan!!
You are religious. Cus you believe in a god called Satan ;D
-
Hahaha.
I am just teasing.
Cus you think being atheist is the way to be free.
Unfortunately, you are always controled even if that godamn god dont exist.
Its matter of the name. Its like Stanist believe in Satan and they are way different from christian. But just they change the name of Jesus into Satan. Thats it.
The term God is made up by humans in order to personify the natural order, don't you see that?
I never claimed to be "free". I'm free from organized religion yes but I'm always controlled by natural laws.
You mentioned ying and yang as well, I think you're just a hopeless case. Always trying to find supernatural explanations for everything when there really is no need for it.
-
You are religious. Cus you believe in a god called Satan ;D
Since it's based on belief....here is a religion for fat chicks...
Ebedding disabled by request, so here is the link :
-
If you stick with or persist in one belief, you are religious(of course, it includes atheism...).
calling atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair color
-
calling atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair color
Never heard that one before. Thanks. ;D
-
The term God is made up by humans in order to personify the natural order, don't you see that?
I never claimed to be "free". I'm free from organized religion yes but I'm always controlled by natural laws.
You mentioned ying and yang as well, I think you're just a hopeless case. Always trying to find supernatural explanations for everything when there really is no need for it.
Hahahahahahh! Study before you talk!!!!!!!!!!!
Ying and Yang is nothing religious. Its a philosophy. The science of now a day has a lot of influence from taoism.
For example, You can explain computer as Ying and Yang =0 and 1. Music, Sound and no sound. Existance No exist and exist. Summer and winter....etc.
-
Hahahahahahh! Study before you talk!!!!!!!!!!!
Ying and Yang is nothing religious. Its a philosophy. The science of now a day has a lot of influence from taoism.
For example, You can explain computer as Ying and Yang =0 and 1. Music, Sound and no sound. Existance No exist and exist. Summer and winter....etc.
Oh well, I see your point. I agree ying yang is not necessarily something supernatural. But if it's not, why even bother with it?
-
Oh well, I see your point. I agree ying yang is not necessarily something supernatural. But if it's not, why even bother with it?
Yes. Agreed. It is a point of view. Even Taoism philosophy is saying that Ying and Yang concept is an ilusion.
So it exists and doesnt exists. No need to mention it and sometime we mention it for our convinience
So, sometime you can create your own god and sometime you dont believe in anything for your convinience.
Thats the real free way of living.
-
Yes. Agreed. It is a point of view. Even Taoism philosophy is saying that Ying and Yang concept is an ilusion.
So it exists and doesnt exists. No need to mention it and sometime we mention it for our convinience
So, sometime you can create your own god and sometime you dont believe in anything for your convinience.
Thats the real free way of living.
lol man the issue of gods existence isn't something I approach with "convenience" . I think it's a pretty important issue and if you set out to find out your own answer you usually learn a whole lot in the process about the universe and natural kingdom.
I didn't just decide one day that I do not believe in god out of convenience?
-
I think it's more about what it means to believe in God.
It's not a decision of the thinking mind, that's just ideology.
-
lol man the issue of gods existence isn't something I approach with "convenience" . I think it's a pretty important issue and if you set out to find out your own answer you usually learn a whole lot in the process about the universe and natural kingdom.
I didn't just decide one day that I do not believe in god out of convenience?
Yes. Convinience.
Sometime I use the god of sintoism concept to achive a goal. Quite useful.
-
calling atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair color
I'd argue that atheists can be every bit as dogmatic and rabid in their beliefs as those who believe in some sort of God.
-
Yes. Convinience.
Sometime I use the god of sintoism concept to achive a goal. Quite useful.
Well that's your opinion and I don't agree. Nothing more I can add.
-
I'd argue that atheists can be every bit as dogmatic and rabid in their beliefs as those who believe in some sort of God.
Only believing what can be proved is close to the exact opposite of dogma.
-
Well that's your opinion and I don't agree. Nothing more I can add.
Of course, you cant agree. Cus you dont know what the sintoism first of all.
Just remeber, there is a varios concept of god exist in the world. God is not always creator and controler like Bible says.
-
Only believing what can be proved is close to the exact opposite of dogma.
Pascal's wager?
-
Only believing what can be proved is close to the exact opposite of dogma.
Still you dont understand.
We havent prove ANYTHING in the history.
-
Only believing what can be proved is close to the exact opposite of dogma.
You can't prove anything.
-
Of course, you cant agree. Cus you dont know what the sintoism first of all.
Just remeber, there is a varios concept of god exist in the world. God is not always creator and controler like Bible says.
Anything but that are just metaphors. God only becomes a word then and do not represent an entity.
-
Anything but that are just metaphors. God only becomes a word then and do not represent an entity.
You are in the western christian world. Thats why you know only one concept like Jesus or Yejobah.
Asian religious concept is quite opposite from you guys.
-
You can't prove anything.
Still you dont understand.
We havent prove ANYTHING in the history.
Proof or evidence has to become absolutes at some point. Just because we are limited to the human perception doesn't mean everything is not real.
-
Mmmm.....ok.......
Its a class for you..
Christian
God=creator, controlar, master.
Human= son of god. controled by god.
Asian
God=everything=Human
-
You are in the western christian world. Thats why you know only one concept like Jesus or Yejobah.
Asian religious concept is quite opposite from you guys.
No man I understand precisely what you're getting at but you don't seem to understand me.
If the word god is used to describe the natural order (as you like to do) then the word is only a metaphor.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphor)
-
Proof or evidence has to become absolutes at some point. Just because we are limited to the human perception doesn't mean everything is not real.
In what reason you decide that it is absolute? Some point? For what?
I didnt say Our perception is not limited but I say WE CANT HAVE PERCEPTION AT ALL when it comes to absolute truth.
-
No man I understand precisely what you're getting at but you don't seem to understand me.
If the word god is used to describe the natural order (as you like to do) then the word is only a metaphor.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphor)
ah i see. then sorry for misunderstang.
-
Mmmm.....ok.......
Its a class for you..
Christian
God=creator, controlar, master.
Human= son of god. controled by god.
Asian
God=everything=Human
When I discuss "God's" existence I mainly refer to some type of creator or prime mover. The abrahamic god is too ridiculous to be taken seriously for such a discussion so stop accusing me of that.
-
Define god.
I think with enough personal garbage interpretations there could be as many religions and gods as there is humans. so why waste your time.
-
Proof or evidence has to become absolutes at some point. Just because we are limited to the human perception doesn't mean everything is not real.
Depends on what kind of "proof" and "evidence" you mean. I agree to the second statement.
-
When I discuss "God's" existence I mainly refer to some type of creator or prime mover. The abrahamic god is too ridiculous to be taken seriously for such a discussion so stop accusing me of that.
I am not accusing you.
Just I say, OF COURSE such GOD doesnt(cant!) exists! And why you give so much fvck to their stupid argument?
I remember Davinch code. We all japanese were wondering why western world were so nervous at this book and movie.
Not a big deal
-
Mmmm.....ok.......
Its a class for you..
Christian
God=creator, controlar, master.
Human= son of god. controled by god.
Asian
God=everything=Human
That's just the surface. The spiritual truth is the same.
-
In what reason you decide that it is absolute? Some point? For what?
I didnt say Our perception is not limited but I say WE CANT HAVE PERCEPTION AT ALL when it comes to absolute truth.
Well, since we are limited to our human minds all the absolutes are interpreted by it. That is something we have to accept. I think we're doing ourselves a big disfavor by not thinking anything is true.
Proof/evidence/human truth has gotten us very far in discoveries and science and seems to work very well. I trust in THAT truth.
-
Define god.
I think with enough personal garbage interpretations there could be as many religions and gods as there is humans. so why waste your time.
Thats what i keep on saying.
-
I am not accusing you.
Just I say, OF COURSE such GOD doesnt(cant!) exists! And why you give so much fvck to their stupid argument?
I remember Davinch code. We all japanese were wondering why western world were so nervous at this book and movie.
Not a big deal
But you insist that I'm thinking from a christian perspective? ???
-
Define god.
I think with enough personal garbage interpretations there could be as many religions and gods as there is humans. so why waste your time.
Or just accept that the term "god" is made up by humans. Why keep on insisting that ANY sort of god exists?
-
Well, since we are limited to our human minds all the absolutes are interpreted by it. That is something we have to accept. I think we're doing ourselves a big disfavor by not thinking anything is true.
Proof/evidence/human truth has gotten us very far in discoveries and science and seems to work very well. I trust in THAT truth.
Why you cant accept?
Thats why you are not real atheist.
I recommend you to read some books of supreme science. You will know that we didnt discover absolutely anything.
-
Or just accept that the term "god" is made up by humans. Why keep on insisting that ANY sort of god exists?
Science is also the god made up by human mind and ilusion. What is the difference between them?
-
Science is also the god made up by human mind and ilusion. What is the difference between them?
Why you cant accept?
Thats why you are not real atheist.
I recommend you to read some books of supreme science. You will know that we didnt discover absolutely anything.
Kyomu, now you're just twisting the definition of the word God.
The word "god" can mean absolutely anything to you?
-
Science is also the god made up by human mind and ilusion. What is the difference between them?
I second this, science is just another religion, only it's unbiased to the best of mankind's ability, while religions in the traditional sense are quite the opposite.
But yes, to be 100% sure of something would be a scientific errant in my book, or close minded, at best.
-
Science is not a religion. Some scientists make it into an ideology though (scientific positivism).
Just like many religious people make religion into an ideology.
-
I second this, science is just another religion, only it's unbiased to the best of mankind's ability, while religions in the traditional sense are quite the opposite.
But yes, to be 100% sure of something would be a scientific errant in my book, or close minded, at best.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion)
-
Kyomu, now you're just twisting the definition of the word God.
The word "god" can mean absolutely anything to you?
Unlike you.
I belong to everything and i dont belong to anything at the same time.
I am not twisting. You are just persisting in one.
-
Or just accept that the term "god" is made up by humans. Why keep on insisting that ANY sort of god exists?
I don't care, let there be gods, fictional or not, do you have something against such existence? are you scared of them being real? why? Seams like Christianity have done a number on you! :D If a god from any religion proved itself to you would you then lay down and kiss it's ass and change your life living for it?
I couldn't care less...
-
Science is not a religion. Some scientists make it into an ideology though (scientific positivism).
Just like many religious people make religion into an ideology.
Supeficialy different.
But when it comes to our psycological work, its same.
Both start from some absolute untochable defenition.
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion)
Do you understand how limited mankind's senses are in understanding reality on a greater scale? Are you saying you know reality and what it is? Like I said, to the best of mankind's ability science is the most likely belief system to be right.
But to me, it is based on the capacity of human interpretation.
-
your all religious because all men
pray in the foxhole. ask anyone who
has been in the service.
which isn't most of you kids
but do carry on
-
Do you understand how limited mankind's senses are in understanding reality on a greater scale? Are you saying you know reality and what it is? Like I said, to the best of mankind's ability science is the most likely belief system to be right.
But to me, it is based on the capacity of human interpretation.
exactly
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualia
-
Supeficialy different.
But when it comes to our psycological work, its same.
Both start from some absolute untochable defenition.
Science (natural science that is) has a very strict and clear definition. It is restricted to describing the scientific aspects of the world. God and spirituality are simply no topics of science. Scientists who think differently are mislead followers of an ideology they only believe to be based in science.
-
Science (natural science that is) has a very strict and clear definition. It is restricted to describing the scientific aspects of the world. God and spirituality are simply no topics of science. Scientists who think differently are mislead followers of an ideology they only believe to be based in science.
Never ever had clear defenition. Always saying " We decide this isXXXXXX, becase its easy to explain the origin of universe...etc".
I and lots of philosopher say WTF!!!?? Where is that XXXXX is coming from? In what condition?
Spiritualy is same as this. Its easy to explain the natural phenomenon for them. Thats why they made it.
There is no fvkin difference between them.
-
Do you understand how limited mankind's senses are in understanding reality on a greater scale? Are you saying you know reality and what it is? Like I said, to the best of mankind's ability science is the most likely belief system to be right.
But to me, it is based on the capacity of human interpretation.
Proof or evidence has to become absolutes at some point. Just because we are limited to the human perception doesn't mean everything is not real.
Well, since we are limited to our human minds all the absolutes are interpreted by it. That is something we have to accept. I think we're doing ourselves a big disfavor by not thinking anything is true.
Proof/evidence/human truth has gotten us very far in discoveries and science and seems to work very well. I trust in THAT truth.
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualia
-
As delusional, crazy, and narrow minded that mankind is, IT has take upon itself to be perfectly capable of describing the BE all END nature of reallity?
Just saying...
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualia
Yes I admit that my way of thinking is a sort of compromise. But I'd rather have a compromise than nothing at all.
Never ever had clear defenition. Always saying " We decide this isXXXXXX, becase its easy to explain the origin of universe...etc".
I and lots of philosopher say WTF!!!?? Where is that XXXXX is coming from? In what condition?
Spiritualy is same as this. Its easy to explain the natural phenomenon for them. Thats why they made it.
There is no fvkin difference between them.
Let me ask you this:
Who do you think have come up with the best results when trying to explain the natural order and gaining knowledge; western scientists or far eastern philosophers?
-
Never ever had clear defenition. Always saying " We decide this isXXXXXX, becase its easy to explain the origin of universe...etc".
I and lots of philosopher say WTF!!!?? Where is that XXXXX is coming from? In what condition?
Spiritualy is same as this. Its easy to explain the natural phenomenon for them. Thats why they made it.
There is no fvkin difference between them.
A pure scientist cannot argue against a philosopher because he is not allowed to talk about things outside the realm of science in the first place (by definition of science). If he does, he turns into a pseudo-philosopher. Just because he was a scientist to begin with doesn't change anything about the restrictions of science. Spirituality does not compete with science at all, it's purpose goes way beyond that of science.
-
A pure scientist cannot argue against a philosopher because he is not allowed to talk about things outside the realm of science in the first place (by definition of science). If he does, he turns into a pseudo-philosopher. Just because he was a scientist to begin with doesn't change anything about the restrictions of science. Spirituality does not compete with science at all, it's purpose goes way beyond that of science.
Regardless of purpose, when it comes to the quest of the truth, science is same fragile as religion.
And remember,Spirituality used to be a science for them. It likes archemy turns into quemical.
-
Regardless of purpose, when it comes to the quest of the truth, science is same fragile as religion.
And remember,Spirituality used to be a science for them. It likes archemy turns into quemical.
Well I was talking about natural science (physics, etc.) as it is defined today. Within it's restrictions, science is not fragile. You won't get any spiritual truth out of science of course, but that's also not its purpose.
-
Well I was talking about natural science (physics, etc.) as it is defined today. Within it's restrictions, science is not fragile. You won't get any spiritual truth out of science of course, but that's also not its purpose.
ah...I got you.
But here, people was asking if you believe in god or existing...etc.
Not natural science itself.
-
Yes I admit that my way of thinking is a sort of compromise. But I'd rather have a compromise than nothing at all.
Let me ask you this:
Who do you think have come up with the best results when trying to explain the natural order and gaining knowledge; western scientists or far eastern philosophers?
Now. All of those famous scientist are mixing up these two things and created the quantum theory.
So, western science based on eastern philosophy.
-
Now. All of those famous scientist are mixing up these two things and created the quantum theory.
So, western science based on eastern philosophy.
LOL quantum theory is only a small part of the scientific knowledge gained over the years. Bad example.
Are you suggesting quantum theory came about because of eastern philosophy?
-
LOL quantum theory is only a small part of the scientific knowledge gained over the years. Bad example.
Are you suggesting quantum theory came about because of eastern philosophy?
Niels Henrik David Bohr(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niels_Bohr) was very known for his influence from Taoism.
Many scientist who studied physics are buddists.
If you study about Taoism and quantum theory,you will surprised how similar they are.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tao_of_Physics
-
LOL quantum theory is only a small part of the scientific knowledge gained over the years. Bad example.
Are you suggesting quantum theory came about because of eastern philosophy?
And you dont know....study again.
Quantum theory is not GAINED from over the year.
The birth of quantum theory destroy Isaac Newtons physic concept absolutely.
The quantum theory dont exist based on Newtons theory.
-
:D
-
Niels Henrik David Bohr(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niels_Bohr) was very known for his influence from Taoism.
Many scientist who studied physics are buddists.
If you study about Taoism and quantum theory,you will surprised how similar they are.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tao_of_Physics
I stand corrected on that. But I still think it's not fair to say that all western science is based on eastern philosophy just because quantum theory might have a connection. You still didn't answer my question btw.
-
And you dont know....study again.
Quantum theory is not GAINED from over the year.
The birth of quantum theory destroy Isaac Newtons physic concept absolutely.
The quantum theory dont exist based on Newtons theory.
Here I think you misunderstood what I wrote. Or did you?
Every knowledge is gained, what's the issue here?
-
-
your all religious because all men
pray in the foxhole. ask anyone who
has been in the service.
which isn't most of you kids
but do carry on
::)
Here comes GB's very own Green Beret to drop in his 2 cents of wisdom that he learned while fighting rebels in Liberia..
-
(http://theroosterstrikes.files.wordpress.com/2008/01/beating-a-dead-horse.gif)
Hey! That horse was knapping, the fucker wasn't dead!
-
Yeah, and this guy believes we came from monkeys?
I hope that was a joke. If it isn't and you actually believe that evolution has anything to do with people coming from monkeys then you really don't know enough to have an opinion. For the record, we share a common ancestor with other primates but that's quite different from saying we came from monkeys.
-
Here I think you misunderstood what I wrote. Or did you?
Every knowledge is gained, what's the issue here?
Thats why you dont know modern science.... :-\
The quantum theory is TOTALY nothing to do with NEWTON theory.
ACTUALY, OPPOSITE CONCEPT.
For the biginner like you.
I explain simply in short word.
Newton= There is an absolute principle and always ver certain...............It s a judeochristian concept.
Quantum= There is no absolute principle and always changing without any rule. Very uncertain........Budism and Taoism concept
If it gains,the quantum theory should stand on the basis of Newton theory.
-
Thats why you dont know modern science.... :-\
The quantum theory is TOTALY nothing to do with NEWTON theory.
ACTUALY, OPPOSITE CONCEPT.
For the biginner like you.
I explain simply in short word.
Newton= There is an absolute principle and always ver certain...............It s a judeochristian concept.
Quantum= There is no absolute principle and always changing without any rule. Very uncertain........Budism and Taoism concept
If it gains,the quantum theory should stand on the basis of Newton theory.
Wow man, go take some english communication classes, because you seem to misunderstand every other thing I write.
What you're referring to is BUILT UP knowledge. It doesn't matter if quantum theory contradicts newtons, that knowledge is still gained.
The quantum theory is TOTALY nothing to do with NEWTON theory.
I never said that.
-
Sorry kyomu, but quantum theory has absolutely nothing to do with any religion. It's a scientific theory with the exact same qualities as Newtonian physics. People try to interpret something spiritual into scientific theories all the time, but that's pseudo science, not real science.
-
Sorry kyomu, but quantum theory has absolutely nothing to do with any religion. It's a scientific theory with the exact same qualities as Newtonian physics. People try to interpret something spiritual into scientific theories all the time, but that's pseudo science, not real science.
Do you believe in god?
-
Sorry kyomu, but quantum theory has absolutely nothing to do with any religion. It's a scientific theory with the exact same qualities as Newtonian physics. People try to interpret something spiritual into scientific theories all the time, but that's pseudo science, not real science.
Nicely put. Like I said before, I think kyomu is a hopeless case, always trying to find some type of supernatural explanation for everything even though it's not warranted or necessary.
-
Do you believe in god?
The answer to that question depends on how "God" and "Belief" is defined. IMO, no "belief" is required to realize that the very fact of formal existence requires a formless precondition out of which such existence can arise.
-
The answer to that question depends on how "God" and "Belief" is defined. IMO, no "belief" is required to realize that the very fact of formal existence requires a formless precondition out of which such existence can arise.
cool
Do you have a degree in some sort of Science? You seem smart.....
-
cool
Do you have a degree in some sort of Science? You seem smart.....
LOL, I have a master in electrical engineering / computer science. Philosophy is just a hobby.
-
LOL, I have a master in electrical engineering / computer science. Philosophy is just a hobby.
Just wondering.....it's just i was discussing this topic with my uncle the other day. He is a Professor of Microbiology and i wanted to hear his opinion on god and relegion and all that. Naturally, his reply was "I don't believe in god.....i believe in Science"
-
Just wondering.....it's just i was discussing this topic with my uncle the other day. He is a Professor of Microbiology and i wanted to hear his opinion on god and relegion and all that. Naturally, his reply was "I don't believe in god.....i believe in Science"
Doesn't make too much sense to me. There is absolutely no room for belief in the realm of science. You can believe that a certain scientific theory will remain valid, but you have to give up that believe anyway as soon as new evidence arises. Otherwise you're not a scientist.
The misconception is that science competes with spirituality in the task of explaining the world. The fact is however, that science only describes the scientific aspects of the world, while spirituality tries to answer the essential questions of mankind in a holistic way, something science is just not able to do, due to it's inherent restrictions.
The dispute your uncle talks about is between scientific positivists (people who mistake science for an ideology) and religious fundamentalists (people who mistake religion for an ideology). It's a made-up conflict between two mislead group of people.
-
Doesn't make too much sense to me. There is absolutely no room for belief in the realm of science. You can believe that a certain scientific theory will remain valid, but you have to give up that believe anyway as soon as new evidence arises. Otherwise you're not a scientist.
The misconception is that science competes with spirituality in the task of explaining the world. The fact is however, that science only describes the scientific aspects of the world, while spirituality tries to answer the essential questions of mankind in a holistic way, something science is just not able to do, due to it's inherent restrictions.
The dispute your uncle talks about is between scientific positivists (people who mistake science for an ideology) and religious fundamentalists (people who mistake religion for an ideology). It's a made-up conflict between two mislead group of people.
Yes i think his comment was in regards to The Theory of Evolution and so forth.
All i know is that My uncle = Professor.....webcke = humble Fitness Specialist. So i think he was trying to explain it in layman terms..... ;D
-
Wow man, go take some english communication classes, because you seem to misunderstand every other thing I write.
What you're referring to is BUILT UP knowledge. It doesn't matter if quantum theory contradicts newtons, that knowledge is still gained.
I never said that.
No, Its sooooo beyond your concept and you dont understand.
Do you think the things "progress" or "evolutionize"?
If you think that YOU ARE REALLY CATHOLIC.
-
Sorry kyomu, but quantum theory has absolutely nothing to do with any religion. It's a scientific theory with the exact same qualities as Newtonian physics. People try to interpret something spiritual into scientific theories all the time, but that's pseudo science, not real science.
Have you ever read any Taoism or Budism concept?
They are philosophy. Not religions.
-
I recommend you guys to read The Emperor's New Mind by Roger Penrose.
How our under conciousness dominate us.
Let alone concept. Even if you think that you are independent from religious concept(social concept),you are sufficiently brainwashed in deep concept level. Thats why you guys dont understand what i am saying and always try to crasify what is religious and what is not.
-
Have you ever read any Taoism or Budism concept?
They are philosophy. Not religions.
I don't know too much about Taoism but I've read a lot about Buddhism. Whether it is a religion or philosophy (you can find arguments for both positions) is irrelevant to the fact that it has nothing to do with quantum physics, which is a natural scientific theory, nothing more, nothing less. Everything that is interpreted into it besides that is pseudo-science resp. pseudo-philosophy. BTW, we have actually discussed this topic in the past and you agreed. :)
-
I don't know too much about Taoism but I've read a lot about Buddhism. Whether it is a religion or philosophy (you can find arguments for both positions) is irrelevant to the fact that it has nothing to do with quantum physics, which is a natural scientific theory, nothing more, nothing less. Everything that is interpreted into it besides that is pseudo-science resp. pseudo-philosophy. BTW, we have actually discussed this topic in the past and you agreed. :)
I recommend you guys to read The Emperor's New Mind by Roger Penrose.
How our under conciousness dominate us.
Let alone concept. Even if you think that you are independent from religious concept(social concept),you are sufficiently brainwashed in deep concept level. Thats why you guys dont understand what i am saying and always try to crasify what is religious and what is not.
Why dontya you two nerdy intellectual smart guys shut up with this high IQ discussion, and start talking about beer, pussy and tits and eating sperm instead? Debussey wants to understand what you two = writing in your posts, and with a 52IQ, Debussey = having issues tagging along >:( You big bad smart nerds. Start writing and thinking with your cocks >:(
-
Why dontya you two nerdy intellectual smart guys shut up with this high IQ discussion, and start talking about beer, pussy and tits and eating sperm instead? Debussey wants to understand what you two = writing in your posts, and with a 52IQ, Debussey = having issues tagging along >:( You big bad smart nerds. Start writing and thinking with your cocks >:(
you're not exactly the high school dropout yourself there stud
-
you're not exactly the high school dropout yourself there stud
Debussey barely knows how to read >:( :'(
Please bring on the sperm eating talk :'( >:(
-
Debussey barely knows how to read >:( :'(
same here after the 4th glass of wine and some whacky tabacky ;D
-
same here after the 4th glass of wine and some whacky tabacky ;D
You like the jazz-tobacco? 8)
Please prepare your bong and bring this discussion down to "barely knows how to read, but obsessed with sperm eating" level :D
-
Science (natural science that is) has a very strict and clear definition. It is restricted to describing the scientific aspects of the world. God and spirituality are simply no topics of science. Scientists who think differently are mislead followers of an ideology they only believe to be based in science.
spirituality and GOD are not topics, you keep missing this point. Theology deserves no attention, no admiration, it has contributed nothing and has not evolved since aquinas's times. Name one relevant philosopher who is a theologian that makes any relevant arguments.
we have to base arguments on axioms, or accepted truths, if we dont make assumptions we cannot move forward.
-
Why dontya you two nerdy intellectual smart guys shut up with this high IQ discussion, and start talking about beer, pussy and tits and eating sperm instead? Debussey wants to understand what you two = writing in your posts, and with a 52IQ, Debussey = having issues tagging along >:( You big bad smart nerds. Start writing and thinking with your cocks >:(
I think we're being a little modest with that number there... Tombo = not under the impression that Debussey = borderline r-tarded!
-
spirituality and GOD are not topics, you keep missing this point. Theology deserves no attention, no admiration, it has contributed nothing and has not evolved since aquinas's times. Name one relevant philosopher who is a theologian that makes any relevant arguments.
we have to base arguments on axioms, or accepted truths, if we dont make assumptions we cannot move forward.
Good explanation. I should have written like this.
-
Thats why you dont know modern science.... :-\
The quantum theory is TOTALY nothing to do with NEWTON theory.
ACTUALY, OPPOSITE CONCEPT.
For the biginner like you.
I explain simply in short word.
Newton= There is an absolute principle and always ver certain...............It s a judeochristian concept.
Quantum= There is no absolute principle and always changing without any rule. Very uncertain........Budism and Taoism concept
If it gains,the quantum theory should stand on the basis of Newton theory.
Newtonian physics works for things of everyday size, even including things like planets. But the smaller you go the less predictive Newtonian physics is and then quantum mechanics is needed.
Quantum mechanics never "replaced" Newtonian physics. Totally different areas we're talking about.
-
Why do discussions on religion always devolve into simplistic "creationism vs evolution" debates? Regardless of your beliefs about the origins of humanity (or the earth or the universe), it should be obvious to anyone more intelligent than a chimp that all religions currently practiced are man-made, pulled wholly from the imaginations of their human authors.
-
you're not exactly the high school dropout yourself there stud
I am.. missed quite a bit of jr high as well.
-
spirituality and GOD are not topics, you keep missing this point. Theology deserves no attention, no admiration, it has contributed nothing and has not evolved since aquinas's times. Name one relevant philosopher who is a theologian that makes any relevant arguments.
we have to base arguments on axioms, or accepted truths, if we dont make assumptions we cannot move forward.
Statements too vague to correlate with the topic at hand IMO. We have gone through all these arguments multiple times anyway.
-
I believe there is a god.. who created everything we see and comprehend.
-
I believe there is a god.. who created everything we see and comprehend.
Would that be Ra, Chronos, Wotan or any of a selection of choice gods?
-
Would that be Ra, Chronos, Wotan or any of a selection of choice gods?
I would say no.
-
I would say no.
Wasn't really a yes/no question, eh...
-
Wasn't really a yes/no question, eh...
what was it?
-
what was it?
When you speak of a god, which one do you mean?
-
When you speak of a god, which one do you mean?
well there can only be one...
-
well there can only be one...
I pray to Arnold.....
-
I pray to Arnold.....
I pray to Basile...
-
I pray to Basile...
For your devoted Basileism, in the event of your death, he will reward you with 40 fat virgins and he will crash your funeral himself!
-
well there can only be one...
Sounds like Highlander...
-
there can only be one...