|
||||||
| FAQ | Members List | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
Topic Review (Newest First)
|
| Apr 24th, 2003 08:47 AM | |||
| Brandon |
That's really the creationist mentality, isn't it? "SINCE CARBON DATING ISN'T 100% ACCURATE (even though it's improbable the discrepancy is billions of years), and you don't have EVERY SINGLE BIT OF PROOF YOU NEED, the book of Genesis is correct." That's what we called an appeal to ignorance in my logic class. |
||
| Apr 24th, 2003 02:10 AM | |||
| WorthlessLiar |
radiometric dating I'm sorry I haven't taken the time to read the whole thread since it is 5 pages huge and I should be writing a paper. I noticed people debating the innaccuracies of Carbon dating. While its true that Carbon 14 does have such a short half life that it cannot be used to measure the age of the earth, other radioactive isotopes can. Scietists DO NOT use carbon 14 to measure the age of rocks. They use other isotopes that have longer half lives such as Potasium 40 (that may be the wrong number). Radiometric dating has been conisitent in measuring the age of the earth. Of the thousands of samples taken from rocks nearly all indicate that the earth is roughly 4.6 billion years old. I find many creationist arguments frustratingly uninformed. If anyone cares I'd describe myself as a non-spiritual agnostic. I'm inclined to think there is no God and I'm absolutley certain that if he exists he has minimal interaction with this world. |
||
| Apr 23rd, 2003 02:56 PM | |||
| Bennett | He has Vikings and Ice Pirates confused | ||
| Apr 23rd, 2003 07:07 AM | |||
| FS |
 Protoclown
|
||
| Apr 23rd, 2003 02:13 AM | |||
| James |
THEY WERE LOST 
|
||
| Apr 23rd, 2003 02:01 AM | |||
| Protoclown |
Quote:
|
||
| Apr 22nd, 2003 11:43 PM | |||
| Skulhedface |
That's a bit childish, but well... "The person is smart, but the people are stupid." |
||
| Apr 22nd, 2003 11:33 PM | |||
| ziggytrix |
Protestants are a whole nother story. It is futile to argue with anyone who uses a source which they believe is infallible. Because God said so = I win, kThxBye
|
||
| Apr 22nd, 2003 11:30 PM | |||
| Skulhedface |
Quote:
Vince, post a link. I want to know what dumbass carbon dates something to 2130 and actually believes it. Unless you meant BC, but then you didn't really specify, and in context it looks like it could mean AD, because in context you're trying to make carbon dating look ludicrous, and futuristic carbon dates are just that. Make me learn something. |
||
| Apr 22nd, 2003 11:27 PM | |||
| Skulhedface |
Quote:
My point is, short of God himself unmistakably showing up and saying "YES THIS IS RIGHT!" then how do we know? |
||
| Apr 22nd, 2003 10:25 PM | |||
| Sethomas | Well, it's not like you can get away with saying "the devil put the dinosaurs on Earth to tempt us to not believe the bible." The Church doesn't endorse that bullshit. Unless you have well thought-out ideas that uphold Creationism, and believe me, I've seen them all, you're just over-extending your faith where it doesn't need to go. You follow a religion that allows for the liberty of scientific reason. Don't be a jackass and throw that away. | ||
| Apr 22nd, 2003 09:14 PM | |||
| VinceZeb | I believe in Micro, not Macro when it comes to evolution. | ||
| Apr 22nd, 2003 02:11 PM | |||
| Sethomas |
Carbon dating works on the simple assumption that the carbon 14 level in the atmosphere has remained unchanged in the past 50,000 years, and the rest is very basic math. There are ways for the data to be skewed, yes, but a good lab will know how to account for these factors. Because things like the Shroud were exposed to fire, certain things can be understood to fail by this method. That doesn't ruin its concrete logic for all instances. Vince, I take it you don't believe in evolution. Did you know that we, as Catholics, are allowed to? Did you know that we're allowed to believe that Eden is a fable used just to convey the theology of original sin? |
||
| Apr 22nd, 2003 12:46 PM | |||
| kellychaos |
Quote:
|
||
| Apr 22nd, 2003 11:02 AM | |||
| Vibecrewangel |
Carbon Dating Religion uses circular logic as well. And some claim to be just as factual as science. |
||
| Apr 22nd, 2003 10:51 AM | |||
| waterwitch | pub and seth....he has a point... | ||
| Apr 22nd, 2003 10:49 AM | |||
| VinceZeb | I'm sorry, but when carbon dating says some Viking artifacts are from the years 2130 and beyond, you know something is up. | ||
| Apr 22nd, 2003 10:46 AM | |||
| Pub Lover |
Quote:
I wish I wasn't so aged & could remember the details. Quote:
|
||
| Apr 22nd, 2003 10:15 AM | |||
| waterwitch | Pan rocks...one of the things he stand for is "sex"..now, any God that can be worshipped through sex doesn't sound too bad to me... | ||
| Apr 22nd, 2003 09:40 AM | |||
| VinceZeb | Carbon dating has proved to be innaccurate in many occasions. Now, would you like to try again? | ||
| Apr 22nd, 2003 03:37 AM | |||
| James | I worship Pan; the goat God! | ||
| Apr 22nd, 2003 02:06 AM | |||
| Sethomas | Your ideas are flawed, and I've addressed them as such. For reasons beyond the discussion at hand, I find you painfully two dimensional. Thus arises my mild impatience your futile attempts to levy an argument. Forgive my transparency, then get interesting or fuck off. | ||
| Apr 22nd, 2003 01:52 AM | |||
| waterwitch | you're just trying to prove me wrong here, aren't you? | ||
| Apr 22nd, 2003 01:49 AM | |||
| Sethomas | Religion isn't supposed to be a history or science lecture. Any that try to appear as such will fail, and thus can be said to be wrong. | ||
| Apr 22nd, 2003 01:25 AM | |||
| waterwitch | all religions have a creation story...AL religions have some way of explaining things that we can't....that's what they're there for...to answer those questions that we can't answer ourselves... | ||
| This thread has more than 25 replies. Click here to review the whole thread. | |||
