The bible

[warri0r45]

 

 

 

 

My bad. Didn't know it was 60,000. Just out of curiosity, do you think the earth is 6000 years old?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

For all intents and purposes, no. I believe the creation account is symbolic, or, God created an aged universe.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

To take that even farther, it's becoming widely accepted that the Creation happened, but the 7 days were symbolic of ages of prehistory.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I know the world is billions if not trillions of years old.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

We are also measuring years for the genealogies in roman years, whereas they could have been entirely different forms of measurement.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Not quite trillions (the universe is said to be no more than 20 billion), but it's refreshing to see a less fundamentalist view. :)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

...?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I am a fundamentalist. I also do research into theology before I say things. My father teaches multiple Bible classes and I have many friends and family that went to Perkins (the Oxford of theological schools).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Very few fundamentalist theologians believe that the world is 6000 years old. Yet we still believe fully in the Creation, Birth, and Resurrection.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Too many people on this forum see Christians as Black and White, but there are hundreds of different flavors of Christian out there. Not just Ultra-Conservative, Moderate, and Liberal.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sorry, I wasn't specific. I was referring to the general group of young-earthers when I said fundamentalists.

[Barihawk]

I am glad that your wife is a teacher. I am also a teacher.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

But you still can not compare all human IQ together or even races of different ages because the average IQ is always 100. That's why the government is researching new ways of measuring possible intelligence. The IQ system is outdated and flawed beyond belief.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It's also unfair to compare children of different races, as they will be experiencing different schooling and parental backgrounds. I can reccomend you a good textbook that gives a whole chapter on why IQ tests are useless and horrible for modern gaging of intelligence.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

But the fact of the matter is, we are arguing opinions. You may think religion is a bunch of hoo-hah. For me, it's the foundation of my life.

[Ambassadar]

lordkrohn1626, I would also like a response to my post concerning your statements instead of cherry picking what you want to respond to and what you don't wish to respond to.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Here you go to save you the effort of scrolling up two posts...

 

 

 

Do you also realize how arrogant you sound in it? You have built yourself up in your mind to think if someone believes something different than you they must automatically be an idiot. I'm just going off what you said in your post. Feel free to correct the perception you gave me.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I would also like to ask what is your purpose for posting this? It is utterly pointless unless you just like discriminating against large segments of the population because you merely disagree with them. Is that the type person you are?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In your original post I responded to you didn't make a single point except to throw out your opinions and contempt on a certain group of people. What about using some hard data or facts to make a point instead of using mere opinion.

[lordkrohn1626]

I am glad that your wife is a teacher. I am also a teacher.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

But you still can not compare all human IQ together or even races of different ages because the average IQ is always 100. That's why the government is researching new ways of measuring possible intelligence. The IQ system is outdated and flawed beyond belief.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It's also unfair to compare children of different races, as they will be experiencing different schooling and parental backgrounds. I can reccomend you a good textbook that gives a whole chapter on why IQ tests are useless and horrible for modern gaging of intelligence.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

But the fact of the matter is, we are arguing opinions. You may think religion is a bunch of hoo-hah. For me, it's the foundation of my life.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Exactly Sir, I was making a short reply to the subject which is near and dear to my heart. IQ is also a socio-economic phenomenon. Absolutely. As a teacher you know about the different IQ requirements for being considered "exceptional" or "special"...rather a weird subject, to be considered exceptional as a caucasian you have to have 110, to be considered exceptional as a african american you have to only be 100....and of course this is taboo to talk about to students or parents...how do you explain to a demographic group that they consistently test lower...year after year...it would be considered a racist statement, of which it is not....but you are correct their are many factors to take into consideration. Many intelligent people are heavy into their religious beliefs. The point I was making was that the Masses are very susceptible to religion, and because of the mass average intelligence level...seems understandable to me. I spent 6 months studying Muslim, and I am in Iraq right now....you talk about sick, brain washed people.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'll pass on the text book for now, and you are somewhat incorrect. I deeply believe that you have the right to practice and worship as you see fit, as long as it doesn't harm someone else, or inconvenience me. You can prance around in a hula skirt and shake dead chickens in the air if it makes you feel closer to God, I might giggle if I see you, but I will defend your right to do so.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Both of my parents are religious fanatcis...love them both, respect their beliefs and pity them for them.

[lordkrohn1626]

lordkrohn1626, I would also like a response to my post concerning your statements instead of cherry picking what you want to respond to and what you don't wish to respond to.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Here you go to save you the effort of scrolling up two posts...

 

 

 

Do you also realize how arrogant you sound in it? You have built yourself up in your mind to think if someone believes something different than you they must automatically be an idiot. I'm just going off what you said in your post. Feel free to correct the perception you gave me.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I would also like to ask what is your purpose for posting this? It is utterly pointless unless you just like discriminating against large segments of the population because you merely disagree with them. Is that the type person you are?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In your original post I responded to you didn't make a single point except to throw out your opinions and contempt on a certain group of people. What about using some hard data or facts to make a point instead of using mere opinion.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I responded, scroll up and look, it's in my the same box as my reply to another person. I am a bit handicapped at the moment due to connectivity. I am on an US Navy Super Carrier in a particularly unpopular part of the world, where I am utilizing a satellite connection that is shared by thousands of people on the same ship....click, wait 5 minutes, page loads..click...loss connection, so give me a little patience on my reply time.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

here, i copied what I replied, so you don't have to scroll up :)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Offensive? religion itself offends me, but the masses who blindly believe don't care. Arrogant? yes Sir, you are correct, not the first time I have heard that. When you have a Bachelor's Degree in Criminal Justice with a 4.0 GPA, and are a registered member of MENSA, you tend to think you are a bit intelligent, which I am, arrogant? absolutely. I didn't say anyone was a idiot, just gullible. You are gullible to believe a book, written by man, with laughable stories in it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Purpose to posting? isn't it obvious? I have studied religion for over 25 years, I have purposely exposed myself to many different versions of it, throughout the world..and have come to the conclusion that they are just sad. Thay all have positive and negative factors, but in the end, it is a unprovable belief in something inobtainable that makes the gullible feel better. I wasn't being discrimanatory when I said the average person reads and thinks at the 8th grade level..that is a FACT. remember the key word here again is AVERAGE.

[Barihawk]

I still have to disagree with the comment "To be exceptional, an African American must have an IQ of 100."

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You could take a average child of 8 who could be dumb as a rock. Being the average he is 100 IQ. Take a Mensa whiz like yourself. If you were the average of adults your age, your IQ would still only be 100.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The flaw between races and socio-economic groups is that all IQ tests are counted together. Therefore, a child with less schooling is going to score lower on testing, even if they are the same intelligence quota as the others. I literally offer to type and cite a few paragraphs from the textbook if you would like tomorrow. It really blew away everything I thought I knew about IQ ratings.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

EDIT: You on the Enterprise? I won't give his name, but my brother-in-law is stationed on her. Yes, I hear the internet does suck majorly out there. Save up some creds for a good domestic beer and live with it :P.

[lordkrohn1626]

I still have to disagree with the comment "To be exceptional, an African American must have an IQ of 100."

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You could take a average child of 8 who could be dumb as a rock. Being the average he is 100 IQ. Take a Mensa whiz like yourself. If you were the average of adults your age, your IQ would still only be 100.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The flaw between races and socio-economic groups is that all IQ tests are counted together. Therefore, a child with less schooling is going to score lower on testing, even if they are the same intelligence quota as the others. I literally offer to type and cite a few paragraphs from the textbook if you would like tomorrow. It really blew away everything I thought I knew about IQ ratings.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

EDIT: You on the Enterprise? I won't give his name, but my brother-in-law is stationed on her. Yes, I hear the internet does suck majorly out there. Save up some creds for a good domestic beer and live with it :P.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

IQ is a very debatable and convulated issue, my pet subject is criminology, I could bore you to tears on the sad statistics that go along with that....and it kind of matches the demographic groups for IQ, and for probably the same reasons...lack of parenting, socio-economic issues, schooling and quality of schooling, culture etc etc.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

wasn't trying to make this a race thing, because it isn't. Please god don't think I am a racist, because there isn't a single bone in my body wired that way. I hate ignorance, and unfortunately that comes in all "colors".

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The point I was trying to make, and it seems I did so in my typical "arrogant" manner, which is hard lined and I don't waste a lot of time sugar coating things, was that my belief is that so many people unquestioning accept their religious views because (here I go again) simple folk are easy to persuade. I spent a lot of my child hood at southern churchs, baptist and the like, watched the crying and the wringing of the hands, the froth mouthed ranting screaming preachers...and was awed by the stupidity of the whole scene...grown folks acting like complete idiots...as I grew up, I wanted to understand why...and as my parents tried to shovel it down my throat, I resisted, and questioned..and researched....when my two terminally ill daughters were close to passing, every denomination you can think of came and prayed over them, I would have sold my soul to Satan himself if it would have saved my little girls....but it was all for naught. One preacher (my moms pastor) actually had the audacity to wiggle and cry over them, and then tell me that "Jesus Christ, through me has saved and healed your children, you have only to give of yourself to him completely, believe in him with the depths of your heart, and they will stay healthy"......sick ..they died in my arms 3 days later...guess I didnt believe hard enough huh? BS. At that moment I would have been his greatest crusader if my daughters would have lived...but nope. What kind of sick person tells a young couple that? anyway, I digress.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No I am not on the Enterprise, my ship relieved them.

[insane]

When you have a Bachelor's Degree in Criminal Justice with a 4.0 GPA, and are a registered member of MENSA, you tend to think you are a bit intelligent, which I am, arrogant? absolutely.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Congratulations, nobody cares. Your argument seems to be as follows:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1. I am so smart, be in awe!

 

 

 

2. I say religion is laughable.

 

 

 

3. Therefore I'm right and you are an idiot. Whoops, I mean gullible.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Why not explain your views instead of puffing yourself up as some sort of god and then giving completely unintelligible reasons behind your views?

[lordkrohn1626]

 

When you have a Bachelor's Degree in Criminal Justice with a 4.0 GPA, and are a registered member of MENSA, you tend to think you are a bit intelligent, which I am, arrogant? absolutely.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Congratulations, nobody cares. Your argument seems to be as follows:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1. I am so smart, be in awe!

 

 

 

2. I say religion is laughable.

 

 

 

3. Therefore I'm right and you are an idiot. Whoops, I mean gullible.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Why not explain your views instead of puffing yourself up as some sort of god and then giving completely unintelligible reasons behind your views?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

hehe, a god I am not, there are many more intelligent and higher educated, being in the top 1% of the world's IQ just makes one more analytical on issues, not better or worse then anyone else. The point I was making there was that I am informed on how IQ testing works, and how it applies to the various demographic groups throughout the world. I know it came across arrogant, and could care less, I have worked hard to get where I am at, and apologize to no one for it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

....now what "view" did you want me to expound upon? the sad state of the religious fanatics? the ease in which one can disprove a lot of the Bible? the pros and cons of each religion? this could be quite a lengthy debate, and one in which I am well equipped to talk about, although connectivity can be a bit of a pain.....I am going to bed now that I have spent my normal 20 hour shift working and multi tasking on the computer...4 hour power nap and ready to go again, so I will check in later, if we have connectivity. :ohnoes:

[Demonic_Bunny]

 

When you have a Bachelor's Degree in Criminal Justice with a 4.0 GPA, and are a registered member of MENSA, you tend to think you are a bit intelligent, which I am, arrogant? absolutely.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Congratulations, nobody cares. Your argument seems to be as follows:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1. I am so smart, be in awe!

 

 

 

2. I say religion is laughable.

 

 

 

3. Therefore I'm right and you are an idiot. Whoops, I mean gullible.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Why not explain your views instead of puffing yourself up as some sort of god and then giving completely unintelligible reasons behind your views?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Is this any diferent to:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1. I believe in the bible.

 

 

 

2. Other people do.

 

 

 

3. Some of these people are intellegent.

 

 

 

4. Therefore the bible is right, because intellegent people agree with it?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Religion is a belief based on faith.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Faith is a blind belief in something, without evidence to back it up.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I could blindly believe that the sky was Fluro-pink with polka dots.

 

 

 

Merely because I believe this does not make it correct.

 

 

 

If everyone in the world believe 2 + 2 = 5, they would still be wrong.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I

[Death_By_Pod]

 

 

 

i posted it because he said it's proven that fossils are 6 billion or w/e years old...when they are not proven to be that old...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

they use uranium and carbon dating that is all based on theory...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

and in order for carbon dating to be accurate the atmosphere and climates must not change...but be constant...and sample bones that are dated can range from different dates. there are dinosaur bones dated to be only a few thousand years old.

Ok but it doesn't explain why radiometric dating is consistent with independent dating methods such as tree rings, ice cores, optical dating, Milankovitch cycles, relative dating (deeper is older), Hawaiian archipelago (older islands dated as older) and dating objects with known dates (dead sea scrolls, wood from Egyptian burials).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

not disputed in the scientific community? are you sure about that? a lot of times if there are discoveries inside carbon dating that show that the scientists are wrong (and there are A LOT)...typically this research is thrown away and thought of as just that, a mistake.

 

 

 

It's certainly not disputed among physicists, radioactivity is core concept of Quantum Mechanics.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

i find it funny how there have been mollusks that are still alive to be dated a few thousand years old...

If I told you to measure the width of my hair with a ruler, could you be accurate to within the nearest hundredth of a micrometre? You need a statistically useful proportion of parent-daughter atoms. There has also been disproportionately high levels of carbon in the past 200 years due to the industrial revolution and atmospheric nuclear testing screwing up the dating of young things.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

there are more things that point to a creator than not.

Keep filling those gaps with God...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

True..but if the earth where truely that old...would that not make the Sun too close to the earth for sustainable life? You see the sun shrinks every day..good couple of tons a day. Add all 4.5 billion years to that and it comes out as a massive star.

The sun hasn't been shrinking at the same rate for 4.5 billion years. The sun shrinks and expands according to hydrostatic equilibrium which is determined by a number of different variables. In a few billion years the sun is going to expand past the Earth's orbit to form a Red Giant, so does that mean the Sun should be expanding now instead of shrinking? It's not that simple.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Doesn't belief in Carbon dating imply an assumption that carbon's half-life is constant?

You can verify that Carbon's half-life is constant, much in the same way you can verify that a stars radius is not inversely proportional to its age.

[fat_hobbit22]

Exactly Sir, I was making a short reply to the subject which is near and dear to my heart. IQ is also a socio-economic phenomenon. Absolutely. As a teacher you know about the different IQ requirements for being considered "exceptional" or "special"...rather a weird subject, to be considered exceptional as a caucasian you have to have 110, to be considered exceptional as a african american you have to only be 100....and of course this is taboo to talk about to students or parents...how do you explain to a demographic group that they consistently test lower...year after year...it would be considered a racist statement, of which it is not....but you are correct their are many factors to take into consideration. Many intelligent people are heavy into their religious beliefs. The point I was making was that the Masses are very susceptible to religion, and because of the mass average intelligence level...seems understandable to me. I spent 6 months studying Muslim, and I am in Iraq right now....you talk about sick, brain washed people.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'll pass on the text book for now, and you are somewhat incorrect. I deeply believe that you have the right to practice and worship as you see fit, as long as it doesn't harm someone else, or inconvenience me. You can prance around in a hula skirt and shake dead chickens in the air if it makes you feel closer to God, I might giggle if I see you, but I will defend your right to do so.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Both of my parents are religious fanatcis...love them both, respect their beliefs and pity them for them.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

wow its like im looking in the mirror. You have exactly the same view point as me in every way. So just a question here, i know its going to piss everyone off here though.

 

 

 

Christianity has big impact on the law in Birtian, and America. If i am a satinist how am I going to feel? Why should an athiest have to put up with christian views. Afetrall there is no fact in the bible, no evidence to prive one story in there, and yet they can influence the most powerful people in the world and have control over evryone. And that is not inconvinencing me?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

side note:

 

 

 

relegion tells you to worship God, he has complete control over you, something that is not a physical thing, and yet he has complete control over you, there are a small group of people that interpret what this fictional thing says. They tell you that you should not fear death.

 

 

 

They have created mindless zombies that are not afraid of death, they have created an army. They have control over everyone and they will dop whatever you tell them to so they can go to heven which is not even a provable thing. Prehaps you can see why i hate relegion. I do not hate God, just relegion that uses God as a tool.

[magekillr]

 

 

 

 

i posted it because he said it's proven that fossils are 6 billion or w/e years old...when they are not proven to be that old...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

they use uranium and carbon dating that is all based on theory...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

and in order for carbon dating to be accurate the atmosphere and climates must not change...but be constant...and sample bones that are dated can range from different dates. there are dinosaur bones dated to be only a few thousand years old.

Ok but it doesn't explain why radiometric dating is consistent with independent dating methods such as tree rings, ice cores, optical dating, Milankovitch cycles, relative dating (deeper is older), Hawaiian archipelago (older islands dated as older) and dating objects with known dates (dead sea scrolls, wood from Egyptian burials).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Notice how all of those things you described are only thousands of years old..trees, and the dead sea scrolls. Milankovitch cycles i do not know much about...and i don't know if this is yet another dating method based on the theory that things must be constant (the earth's shift in orbit and tilt etc..)...but i don't know much about it. Relative dating is extremely inaccurate because the earth shifts..plates interact and shove older things up or newer things down. of course this isn't always the case..but it happens very often. Hawaiinan islands..i don't know much about this either. Optical dating...well this uses physics to figure out the dating, but i don't know much about this. What i do know about optical dating is that it is not accurate whatsoever outside of 100,000 years. Ice cores are inaccurate imo because why at certain layers the ice is aged at let's say..3000 years, then when you go deeper down the ice is "aged" at 1000 years? i am not a geologist, nor am i an expert in chemistry..but some of these dating methods are extremely inaccurate, yet people accept them as fact because there are not better methods available in our present time. all theoretical...quantum theory..it has the word theory contained.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

not disputed in the scientific community? are you sure about that? a lot of times if there are discoveries inside carbon dating that show that the scientists are wrong (and there are A LOT)...typically this research is thrown away and thought of as just that, a mistake.

 

 

 

It's certainly not disputed among physicists, radioactivity is core concept of Quantum Mechanics.

 

 

 

I am not a physicist, but a freshmen aerospace engineer with a poor Polish Physics teacher who mumbles when he speaks...but i still know quantum mechanics is all theoretical physics..not solid facts. if you want to use quantum mechanics, quantum theory, more dating theories as fact, then i feel that the Bible holds JUST as much leverage as any of these. that is my point. i do not understand how people can call what they have fact when it is a theory. until it is a law it cannot be used in an argument anymore than the bible can.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

i find it funny how there have been mollusks that are still alive to be dated a few thousand years old...

If I told you to measure the width of my hair with a ruler, could you be accurate to within the nearest hundredth of a micrometre? You need a statistically useful proportion of parent-daughter atoms. There has also been disproportionately high levels of carbon in the past 200 years due to the industrial revolution and atmospheric nuclear testing screwing up the dating of young things.

 

 

 

well then how do you know there wern't the same occurrences thousands of years ago to make everything else just as disproportional? there could have been natural occurrences to skew anything like that...we all know nature > man. also i don't know how you can use that as an argument when just above you stated that radiation methods are in sync with measuring things such as the dead sea scrolls and trees, things microscopic in the scope of time.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

there are more things that point to a creator than not.

Keep filling those gaps with God...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

i'm not quite sure what you meant about that.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

maybe the 7 days were periods of time. i honestly do not know for sure. i do know that the original language can be translated into a day, so i personally believe it was a literal "day"

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

all in all...i know you are much more knowledgeable than i am about certain things...even if you only know the basic concepts. you can debate me all day, but there is one thing i do know, and that is what JC has done for me in my personal life and no one can debate me about that.

[insane]

You can verify that Carbon's half-life is constant, much in the same way you can verify that a stars radius is not inversely proportional to its age.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

How could you do this, other than observing Carbon for the 60000 years it is apparently accurate to?

[SLOWSTORM]

 

 

 

hehe, a god I am not, there are many more intelligent and higher educated, being in the top 1% of the world's IQ just makes one more analytical on issues, not better or worse then anyone else. The point I was making there was that I am informed on how IQ testing works, and how it applies to the various demographic groups throughout the world. I know it came across arrogant, and could care less, I have worked hard to get where I am at, and apologize to no one for it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

....now what "view" did you want me to expound upon? the sad state of the religious fanatics? the ease in which one can disprove a lot of the Bible? the pros and cons of each religion? this could be quite a lengthy debate, and one in which I am well equipped to talk about, although connectivity can be a bit of a pain.....I am going to bed now that I have spent my normal 20 hour shift working and multi tasking on the computer...4 hour power nap and ready to go again, so I will check in later, if we have connectivity. :ohnoes:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Instead of "expounding" upon a "view," the correct actions in a forum would be reading the thread and making a contribution (preferrably useful) to the discussion at hand. Since the discussion at hand is "The Bible,"

 

 

 

use your theoretically uber-elite intellect to figure out what people expect you to post. :P

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

On topic, though, doesn't a volcano spew more carbon in a day than all our factories do in one hour? Carbon dating only works if one is a Uniformitarianist.

[lordkrohn1626]

 

 

 

 

hehe, a god I am not, there are many more intelligent and higher educated, being in the top 1% of the world's IQ just makes one more analytical on issues, not better or worse then anyone else. The point I was making there was that I am informed on how IQ testing works, and how it applies to the various demographic groups throughout the world. I know it came across arrogant, and could care less, I have worked hard to get where I am at, and apologize to no one for it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

....now what "view" did you want me to expound upon? the sad state of the religious fanatics? the ease in which one can disprove a lot of the Bible? the pros and cons of each religion? this could be quite a lengthy debate, and one in which I am well equipped to talk about, although connectivity can be a bit of a pain.....I am going to bed now that I have spent my normal 20 hour shift working and multi tasking on the computer...4 hour power nap and ready to go again, so I will check in later, if we have connectivity. :ohnoes:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Instead of "expounding" upon a "view," the correct actions in a forum would be reading the thread and making a contribution (preferrably useful) to the discussion at hand. Since the discussion at hand is "The Bible,"

 

 

 

use your theoretically uber-elite intellect to figure out what people expect you to post. :P

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

On topic, though, doesn't a volcano spew more carbon in a day than all our factories do in one hour? Carbon dating only works if one is a Uniformitarianist.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

*scratches head* #-o what in the world are you babbling about? Thanks for pointing out to me how an effective forum works...glad to see you are engaged Mr 200 posts. Hey bright one, how about you actually read through the thread, I have and I have made multiple replies to this and the other thread in this forum about the Flood, how about you actually read them? Glad you figured out the subject is about the bible, I replied in length several times about the fallacy of the bible...not just made a flame remark or two and run off....enter the conversation/debate or shut it.

[Death_By_Pod]

 

 

 

i am not a geologist, nor am i an expert in chemistry..but some of these dating methods are extremely inaccurate, yet people accept them as fact because there are not better methods available in our present time. all theoretical...quantum theory..it has the word theory contained.

 

 

 

 

 

 

If your not an expert and confess that you don't understand the dating methods, why do you still think they are wrong? Your accepting that the dating methods are inaccurate as fact without a shred of evidence for why.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Even if you think they are inaccurate, you still accept that they are accurate beyond the ages described by young Earth creationism. You said "What i do know about optical dating is that it is not accurate whatsoever outside of 100,000 years.", however young earth creationism believes Earth is 6000 years old, not 100,000.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I am not a physicist, but a freshmen aerospace engineer with a poor Polish Physics teacher who mumbles when he speaks...but i still know quantum mechanics is all theoretical physics..not solid facts. if you want to use quantum mechanics, quantum theory, more dating theories as fact, then i feel that the Bible holds JUST as much leverage as any of these. that is my point. i do not understand how people can call what they have fact when it is a theory. until it is a law it cannot be used in an argument anymore than the bible can.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Quantum mechanics is as theoretical as gravity. All scientific laws are apart of theories, that's the definition of a theory. Here is a link to a definition of the word theory http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/theory if you still don't get it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

well then how do you know there wern't the same occurrences thousands of years ago to make everything else just as disproportional? there could have been natural occurrences to skew anything like that...we all know nature > man.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

We don't date old things by using Carbon dating, we use:

 

 

 

* argon-argon (Ar-Ar)

 

 

 

* helium (He-He)

 

 

 

* iodine-xenon (I-Xe)

 

 

 

* lanthanum-barium (La-Ba)

 

 

 

* lead-lead (Pb-Pb)

 

 

 

* lutetium-hafnium (Lu-Hf)

 

 

 

* neon-neon (Ne-Ne)

 

 

 

* potassium-argon (K-Ar)

 

 

 

* rhenium-osmium (Re-Os)

 

 

 

* rubidium-strontium (Rb-Sr)

 

 

 

* samarium-neodymium (Sm-Nd)

 

 

 

* uranium-lead (U-Pb)

 

 

 

* uranium-lead-helium (U-Pb-He)

 

 

 

* uranium-thorium (U-Th)

 

 

 

* uranium-uranium (U-U)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

also i don't know how you can use that as an argument when just above you stated that radiation methods are in sync with measuring things such as the dead sea scrolls and trees, things microscopic in the scope of time.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Carbon dating is only for dating really young things, so it doesn't matter if we only have carbon records for the past thousands of years because that's all we use it for.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If Carbon dating is wrong, then how come it got the dates for things like the dead sea scrolls, wood from Egyptian tombs and other things correct? We can account for discrepancies in things like living animals, however we can't just discount it's accuracy in thousands of year old things.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

i'm not quite sure what you meant about that.

 

 

 

If you don't understand something, it doesn't automatically mean God done it. If you try to understand why something is so, perhaps you will find a reason beyond "God done it."

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

all in all...i know you are much more knowledgeable than i am about certain things...even if you only know the basic concepts. you can debate me all day, but there is one thing i do know, and that is what JC has done for me in my personal life and no one can debate me about that.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Jesus didn't say the Earth is 6000 years old. It was just some religious scholar who made the number up based on his personal findings. The bible doesn't state anywhere the actual age of the Earth or the universe, so I don't see why people go around claiming as if it did.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Why bother bring up the point that fossils aren't as old as people say if it doesn't actually conflict the bible?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

How could you do this, other than observing Carbon for the 60000 years it is apparently accurate to?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The 60,000 years thing isn't a theoretical limit, it's an technological one (inaccurate measurement). One way you can do this is by calculating the half life on a sample of rocks of different ages. I guess it's the equivalent of finding fossils of animals, except it's fossils of Carbon-14.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

There isn't any fundamental difference why the the decay constant should change since Carbon-14 is made up of the same protons, neutrons and electrons as ever other atom. Since protons, neutron and electron properties don't change, neither should the decay such constituents.

[magekillr]

i never admitted to knowing nothing about the basic mechanics about certain dating methods...i admitted to not being an expert.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

and the reason it's debated about the age of the earth is because we have lineages in the Bible...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

i do not know for a fact if by "day" the bible meant "period"...but when looking from the original language of the Torah it means a literal "day"..

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Your accepting that the dating methods are inaccurate as fact without a shred of evidence for why.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

?? i mentioned the shells being dated at a few thousand years old even though the mollusks were still alive. you then said that a few thousand years in the scope of time is not that big of a deal..

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

but then you said this:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Carbon dating is only for dating really young things, so it doesn't matter if we only have carbon records for the past thousands of years because that's all we use it for.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

did i miss something? you said that the carbon dating is supposed to be accurate for young things...yet it says that a still living mollusk is thousands of years old. if it measures young things...then shouldn't it be more precise? why are there discrepensies for living things? because they don't decay at the same rate as things that have already died? does that really make an exponential difference? there are also errors found when dating older things as well...that are dead

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If you don't understand something, it doesn't automatically mean God done it. If you try to understand why something is so, perhaps you will find a reason beyond "God done it."

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

i was referring to complex things such as DNA and the fact that everything was in a way designed perfect. please don't take the word perfect out of context...because you know i don't mean that the world is "perfect".

[warri0r45]

if you want to use quantum mechanics, quantum theory, more dating theories as fact, then i feel that the Bible holds JUST as much leverage as any of these. that is my point. i do not understand how people can call what they have fact when it is a theory. until it is a law it cannot be used in an argument anymore than the bible can.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

There's a reason why people such as yourself will never accept science and an old earth or evolution. "It's just a theory." If you go by that implication (that science just uses guesswork) then you are wrong, and, somewhat hypocritically, you cling to your beliefs when they are no more credible than science.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

But what you believe is up to you. If you want to keep on assuming (and wrongly implying) that these things are "just a theory" then go ahead, thats your perogative.

[SLOWSTORM]

 

 

 

 

Instead of "expounding" upon a "view," the correct actions in a forum would be reading the thread and making a contribution (preferrably useful) to the discussion at hand. Since the discussion at hand is "The Bible,"

 

 

 

use your theoretically uber-elite intellect to figure out what people expect you to post. :P

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

On topic, though, doesn't a volcano spew more carbon in a day than all our factories do in one hour? Carbon dating only works if one is a Uniformitarianist.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

*scratches head* #-o what in the world are you babbling about? Thanks for pointing out to me how an effective forum works...glad to see you are engaged Mr 200 posts. Hey bright one, how about you actually read through the thread, I have and I have made multiple replies to this and the other thread in this forum about the Flood, how about you actually read them? Glad you figured out the subject is about the bible, I replied in length several times about the fallacy of the bible...not just made a flame remark or two and run off....enter the conversation/debate or shut it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hmm... :-k Good point. I was a bit too flamey. My apologies. That "I am great, all men come sit at my feet while expound" post was just flame bait, though. =P~ I should have resisted the urge. :oops: I have been keeping up with this thread; I just don't post often.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

There's a reason why people such as yourself will never accept science and an old earth or evolution. "It's just a theory." If you go by that implication (that science just uses guesswork) then you are wrong, and, somewhat hypocritically, you cling to your beliefs when they are no more credible than science.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

But what you believe is up to you. If you want to keep on assuming (and wrongly implying) that these things are "just a theory" then go ahead, thats your perogative.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A theory is not yet proven using the scientific method. The Big Bang CAN not be proven using the Scientific Method, while Macroevolution HAS not been proven using the Scientific Method. They are both cut off at the first step, as neither has been observed.

[Celt23]

 

 

 

 

 

Instead of "expounding" upon a "view," the correct actions in a forum would be reading the thread and making a contribution (preferrably useful) to the discussion at hand. Since the discussion at hand is "The Bible,"

 

 

 

use your theoretically uber-elite intellect to figure out what people expect you to post. :P

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

On topic, though, doesn't a volcano spew more carbon in a day than all our factories do in one hour? Carbon dating only works if one is a Uniformitarianist.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

*scratches head* #-o what in the world are you babbling about? Thanks for pointing out to me how an effective forum works...glad to see you are engaged Mr 200 posts. Hey bright one, how about you actually read through the thread, I have and I have made multiple replies to this and the other thread in this forum about the Flood, how about you actually read them? Glad you figured out the subject is about the bible, I replied in length several times about the fallacy of the bible...not just made a flame remark or two and run off....enter the conversation/debate or shut it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hmm... :-k Good point. I was a bit too flamey. My apologies. That "I am great, all men come sit at my feet while expound" post was just flame bait, though. =P~ I should have resisted the urge. :oops: I have been keeping up with this thread; I just don't post often.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

There's a reason why people such as yourself will never accept science and an old earth or evolution. "It's just a theory." If you go by that implication (that science just uses guesswork) then you are wrong, and, somewhat hypocritically, you cling to your beliefs when they are no more credible than science.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

But what you believe is up to you. If you want to keep on assuming (and wrongly implying) that these things are "just a theory" then go ahead, thats your perogative.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A theory is not yet proven using the scientific method. The Big Bang CAN not be proven using the Scientific Method, while Macroevolution HAS not been proven using the Scientific Method. They are both cut off at the first step, as neither has been observed.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

We have good evidence for the big bang:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Big Bang theory predicted the existence of the cosmic microwave background radiation, or CMB, which is composed of photons first emitted during baryogenesis. Because the early universe was in thermal equilibrium, the temperature of the radiation and the plasma were equal until the plasma recombined. Before atoms formed, radiation was constantly absorbed and re-emitted in a process called Compton scattering: the early universe was opaque to light. However, cooling due to the expansion of the universe allowed the temperature to eventually fall below 3,000 K, at which point electrons and nuclei combined to form atoms and the primordial plasma turned into a neutral gas in a process called photon decoupling. A universe with only neutral atoms allows radiation to travel largely unimpeded.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Because the early universe was in thermal equilibrium, the radiation from this time had a blackbody spectrum and freely streamed through space until today, becoming redshifted because of the Hubble expansion, reducing the high temperature of the blackbody spectrum. The radiation is thought to be observable at every point in the universe as coming from all directions.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In 1964, Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson accidentally discovered the cosmic background radiation while conducting diagnostic observations using a new microwave receiver owned by Bell Laboratories.[3] Their discovery provided substantial confirmation of the general CMB predictionsÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Ã

[Tigra00]

Macroevolution has never been "proved" because you can't really make an experiment of it. It takes more time than we have.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

However, MICROevolution has been proven over and over and over, and even religious fundamentalists say "Yes, it does happen, it is a fact."...What gets me is that they WILL believe in microevolution because the proof is there and it's documented to happen in nature all the time, but they won't believe in macroevolution because we haven't seen it in nature in recorded scientific history. They will, however, believe in an invisible deity without any proof whatsoever.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

*Boggle*

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edit: Oh, and why argue against the Big Bang? The Big Bang, weither religious people will ever wake up and realize or not, actually SUPPORTS the theory that God created the Universe. How else does one snap something into existence? Just say "Huzzah!" and it's there? Well we know that didn't happen, because the Universe is on the move; galaxies are on the move. Everything is on the move. However, God could have just snapped his fingers and made "nothing" (as religious people like to call it, mocking scientists) explode into the Universe.

[Celt23]

Macroevolution has never been "proved" because you can't really make an experiment of it. It takes more time than we have.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

However, MICROevolution has been proven over and over and over, and even religious fundamentalists say "Yes, it does happen, it is a fact."...What gets me is that they WILL believe in microevolution because the proof is there and it's documented to happen in nature all the time, but they won't believe in macroevolution because we haven't seen it in nature in recorded scientific history. They will, however, believe in an invisible deity without any proof whatsoever.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

*Boggle*

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edit: Oh, and why argue against the Big Bang? The Big Bang, weither religious people will ever wake up and realize or not, actually SUPPORTS the theory that God created the Universe. How else does one snap something into existence? Just say "Huzzah!" and it's there? Well we know that didn't happen, because the Universe is on the move; galaxies are on the move. Everything is on the move. However, God could have just snapped his fingers and made "nothing" (as religious people like to call it, mocking scientists) explode into the Universe.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Looks like I confused the two.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And did you know some BLACK HOLES are on the move too? Might screw the solar system one day.

[Tigra00]

Yea, it's all a bunch of chaos. Religious people like to argue, too, that explosions cannot create order (perhaps why they say the Big Bang is BS) but even the "order" in the Universe isn't orderly. It just happens to be that gravity pulled things into a little system. It's still goin' all over hell with no control.

[Celt23]

Yea, it's all a bunch of chaos. Religious people like to argue, too, that explosions cannot create order (perhaps why they say the Big Bang is BS) but even the "order" in the Universe isn't orderly. It just happens to be that gravity pulled things into a little system. It's still goin' all over hell with no control.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This little bubble of order in the middle of chaos probably gives people a false sense that there's order in the universe.