KJV

United States

#2231 Jan 12, 2013
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>First, your opinion on the matter of dating is irrelevant, since you don't know the first thing about it works.

Second, it never ceases to amaze me that someone so uninformed about everything science believes they can authoritatively know when science is incorrect.

Third, seriously, just learn more about this stuff. You don't seem to know anything about geology, astronomy, basic physics and the history of these sciences for the last 200 years. If you did, you'd realize how silly your point of view is.

In brief: Various Catholics speculated that the Earth was between 5000 and 7000 years old, based on their reading of the Bible. About 200 years ago, non-Bible ways of investigating the age of the Earth were undertaken.

By 160 years ago Catastrophism was the last scientific argument that relied upon a young earth. It was disproved by Uniformitarianism in geology, evolution in biology (then natural science), and physics.

Physics developed better and better ways to measure absolute dates and geological sciences produced maps of the ages of the rock layers. These are very well coordinated all over the world. Geological companies rely upon them - in America and Canada, for example, when you drill, you know roughly how old any rock layer is because of the extensive knowledge base that now exists. Most of the rock layers have names.

Fossils reinforce the data geology provides - index fossils are only found at certain dates and in certain layers. So when you find an index fossil in some sample you've pulled up, because of the massive amount of data and previous studies, you immediately have a time stamp for that rock.

It's not a circular argument. It's an immensely well studied, well known body of knowledge put together over the decades from a variety of scientific disciplines that fully and completely back each other up.

To sum: you, ignorantly, rely upon a false interpretation of a mythological book given by ignorant Catholic Bishops several hundred years before scientific investigation began. And you, hilariously, believe you know something about how nature works.

Nothing could be further from the truth and few things approach this level of irony. Thanks :)

This is not to say that you are stupid. You could learn how geology works. But you won't because you are scared to step out of your comfortable zone. If you live and die this way, it will be fair to call you stupid at that point - because you would have never made the effort. Until then, you are merely ignorant.

I wish you luck on your journey.
First, your opinion on the matter of dating is irrelevant, since you don't know the first thing about it works.

My opinion?

Those were quotes!
Seems there are quite a few out there that don't buy into to the whole dating thing of billion and billions of years.
KJV

United States

#2232 Jan 12, 2013
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>You didn't really read that paper...did you?

He ends by claiming that the rock ages he is disputing are 55 million years old. That's substantially older than 6000 years old, if you aren't aware of that.

From your paper:

"Overall, the apparent age from sample 2
must represent the maximum possible time of
pseudotachylyte formation, and the most probable
true age for the pseudotachylyte (55 Ma,
Magloughlin et al., 2001) suggests scenario (c) is
the most likely"

Last, your odd attempt at diversion did not argue with Polymath one bit. He told you that Carbon dating cannot go further back that 100 000 years. He's a bit off, unless there's new techniques I'm unfamiliar with - the maximum useful time period for Carbon dating is 55 000 years, but some studies push it up to 74 000 years.

In either case, the study you quoted quite clearly isn't using carbon dating. At 55 million years ago, that's not possible.
Oh but I did read it.
And yes carbon dating is used for 50,000 years or less not that it works just that's its limited lie range.

"suggests scenario (c) is
the most likely"

Ya that's a solid dating method I'd put my money on. LOL
KJV

United States

#2233 Jan 12, 2013
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>False. Read the wikipedia article to get your basic knowledge up a bit:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium-lead_dat...
Your wrong!

This coming straight from your science web pages.

"However, since in the uranium-lead process there is no way of precisely determining the original amount of primordial lead (the best we can do is use an estimate based on the average concentration of lead-204 found today), some error is introduced in this part of the calculation (most radio-dates using the uranium-lead techniques vary by a few percent plus or minus). Therefore the uranium-lead dating technique tends to give a wider range of dates than other methods, and it is generally considered to be the least precise of the radio-dating methods. As a result, it has largely been abandoned"

" It has been found that the radii of pleochroic haloes due to the uranium and thorium radioactive decays do in fact vary in size in the same minerals. This was first shown by Joly and Henderson who conducted most of the early studies on pleochroic haloes. This proves that the half-lives of the uranium and thorium radioactive decays vary. Now since the uranium-thorium-lead method of dating depends for its accuracy on the assumption that the half-lives for the radioactive decays are constant, any age determination using this method of dating will be inaccurate because it is based on an invalid assumption. "

Since: Apr 08

Nottingham, UK

#2234 Jan 12, 2013
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes they did.
There are two things in the flood that could have killed them off.
1) fountains of the deep opening up
That's HOT water shooting up that
Could and did kill of Diatoms and
Whales as well as Dinosaurs.
2) the added water changed the salinity of the water. This could has been their demise as well.
Yet the dinosaurs of our oceans were big and small.

And we're not just talking dinosaurs, we're also talking about millions (maybe billions) of species that are now extinct including a variety of fauna.

All because your god decided that they (but not other species) had to die in a flood.

Since: Apr 08

Nottingham, UK

#2235 Jan 12, 2013
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
"‘We knew it was a great find,’ said paleontologist Leonard Brand about the fossil whales he saw in Peru in 1999, 350 km (200 miles) south of Lima, the capital. Eagerly he organized a team of creationist research scientists. They recently published their findings in the secular journal Geology.1,2,3
Overall, they found 346 whales within a 1.5-km2 (370-acre) area, buried in an 80-m (260-ft) thick layer of sedimentary rock called diatomite. This layer is part of the Pisco Formation, which varies in thickness from 200–1,000 m (650–3,300 ft).
Diatomite is sedimentary rock containing a high percentage of fossil diatoms—small single-celled algae, which commonly live near the ocean surface. The layer of diatomite in Peru has 5 to 10% clay and abundant volcanic ash.
Today, when diatoms die, their silica skeletons accumulate on the ocean floor. One gram (0.035 oz.) of diatomite may contain up to 400 million skeletons.4 Diatomite sediment normally accumulates slowly—only a few centimetres per thousand years.1Even where the rate is higher, such as in some shallow-water areas, accumulation is still slow. For example, in the fjords of British Columbia, diatoms and clay accumulate at 2.5–5.0 mm (0.1–0.2 inches) per year.2
Also today, when a whale carcass sinks to the bottom of the ocean, many kinds of scavengers quickly attack and colonize it. And in their quest for food, some scavengers churn up the adjacent sediments.5
However, in Peru, the fossilized whales and diatoms were well preserved and the whale skeletons were mostly intact. There was no evidence of normal decay, such as wormholes, barnacle encrustations or general degradation. Neither was there any sign that organisms had churned up the adjacent sediment."
http://creation.mo bi/dead-whales-telling-tales
Here's a report on that....

http://resweb.llu.edu/lbrand/pdf/taphonomy_of...

It's an interesting read but I couldn't see anything about an angry god deciding to kill them because "sons of God" had visited our world and impregnated our women with evil DNA resulting in the birth of vile and depraved people.

“Why does my ignorance”

Since: Mar 11

justify your deity?

#2236 Jan 13, 2013
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
First, your opinion on the matter of dating is irrelevant, since you don't know the first thing about it works.
My opinion?
Those were quotes!
Seems there are quite a few out there that don't buy into to the whole dating thing of billion and billions of years.
Quotes from some creationist website? Yeah, sure they also don't know the first thing about radioactive dating.

If that's where you get your science "knowledge" from, no wonder you don't understand!

KJV, you're not a stupid man. Why don't you just pick up any introductory text on geology, biology or physics?

“Why does my ignorance”

Since: Mar 11

justify your deity?

#2237 Jan 13, 2013
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh but I did read it.
And yes carbon dating is used for 50,000 years or less not that it works just that's its limited lie range.
"suggests scenario (c) is
the most likely"
Ya that's a solid dating method I'd put my money on. LOL
First, you were the one who presented that paper as if it supported creationism. It quite obviously does not, since they're dealing with millions of years.

Second, that's the language of science. Nothing is proved by science, knowledge is only disproved. So the strongest language you can use is "most likely" and "strongly supports" etc.

Science is not dogmatic like religion is.

“Why does my ignorance”

Since: Mar 11

justify your deity?

#2238 Jan 13, 2013
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
Your wrong!
This coming straight from your science web pages.
"However, since in the uranium-lead process there is no way of precisely determining the original amount of primordial lead (the best we can do is use an estimate based on the average concentration of lead-204 found today), some error is introduced in this part of the calculation (most radio-dates using the uranium-lead techniques vary by a few percent plus or minus). Therefore the uranium-lead dating technique tends to give a wider range of dates than other methods, and it is generally considered to be the least precise of the radio-dating methods. As a result, it has largely been abandoned"
" It has been found that the radii of pleochroic haloes due to the uranium and thorium radioactive decays do in fact vary in size in the same minerals. This was first shown by Joly and Henderson who conducted most of the early studies on pleochroic haloes. This proves that the half-lives of the uranium and thorium radioactive decays vary. Now since the uranium-thorium-lead method of dating depends for its accuracy on the assumption that the half-lives for the radioactive decays are constant, any age determination using this method of dating will be inaccurate because it is based on an invalid assumption. "
hahaha, no, sorry, creationism that pretends to be science is not science, no matter how hard you'd like it to be.

http://www.huecotanks.com/debunk/radiodte.htm

The above link has a nice little explanation for you.

Again, go pick up any introductory text book in geology. It will solve some of your problems with knowledge.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#2239 Jan 13, 2013
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
Such a joy seeing you again Septic!
Creationist liar with no proof of god, continuing to lie to intelligent atheists, converting nobody...

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

In the macro world.

#2240 Jan 13, 2013
KJV wrote:
"The evidence for the flood is so overwhelming that I can’t possibly scratch the surface in this study. Instead of going through a long explanation of the flood, I am going to address 5 commonly asked skeptical questions and then conclude with what we observe scientifically and follow up with a possible scenario. We can never go back and see what actually happened, we can only piece together bits of this puzzle and conclude what we believe is the most plausible explanation. Both the biblical account and the evolutionary account take faith to believe. My hope is that when you look at the obvious evidence, you will conclude that it takes more faith to hold on to skeptical beliefs than it does to believe the Bible. With this in mind, let’s look at 5 common flood questions."

http://www.exchangedlife.com/2012/10/19/the-f...
You're out of your mind.

Seriously.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#2241 Jan 13, 2013
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
Your wrong!
This coming straight from your science web pages.
"However, since in the uranium-lead process there is no way of precisely determining the original amount of primordial lead (the best we can do is use an estimate based on the average concentration of lead-204 found today), some error is introduced in this part of the calculation (most radio-dates using the uranium-lead techniques vary by a few percent plus or minus). Therefore the uranium-lead dating technique tends to give a wider range of dates than other methods, and it is generally considered to be the least precise of the radio-dating methods. As a result, it has largely been abandoned"
" It has been found that the radii of pleochroic haloes due to the uranium and thorium radioactive decays do in fact vary in size in the same minerals. This was first shown by Joly and Henderson who conducted most of the early studies on pleochroic haloes. This proves that the half-lives of the uranium and thorium radioactive decays vary. Now since the uranium-thorium-lead method of dating depends for its accuracy on the assumption that the half-lives for the radioactive decays are constant, any age determination using this method of dating will be inaccurate because it is based on an invalid assumption. "
Prove your god before you open your stupid f*cking mouth again you lying piece of sh*t creationist troll with no morals.

“I am but a humble duck.”

Since: Dec 12

Location hidden

#2242 Jan 13, 2013
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
I do see your problem.
You're a sheep.
You follow and don't lead
You accept BS and don't question it
Your myths have more hurdles to jump then my believes.
Your blind acceptance of the following
Unprovable items.
No such thing as a God
The Big Bang
Spontaneities Life
Evolution
Age of the Universe 13.7 billion years old
Age of the earth 4.6 billion years old
First life 3.6 billion years ago.
All plant and animal life evolved from a spontaneous single cell life form.
All matter in the universe was once small then a pin head.
Not to mention failed theory's
The theory of Relativity
The theory of Quantum Mechanics
String Theory.
To list a few.
Wikipedia:
If anyone finds a case where all or part of a scientific theory is false, then that theory is either changed or thrown out.
A scientific theory in one branch of science must hold true in all of the other branches of science.
BRIAN GREENE: It's a little known secret but for more than half a century a dark cloud has been looming over modern science. Here's the problem: our understanding of the universe is based on two separate theories. One is Einstein's general theory of relativity—that's a way of understanding the biggest things in the universe, things like stars and galaxies. But the littlest things in the universe, atoms and subatomic particles, play by an entirely different set of rules called, "quantum Mechanics"
These two sets of rules are each incredibly accurate in their own domain but whenever we try to combine them, to solve some of the deepest mysteries in the universe, disaster strikes.
Take the beginning of the universe, the "big bang." At that instant a tiny nugget erupted violently. Over the next 14 billion years the universe expanded and cooled into the stars, galaxies and planets we see today. But if we run the cosmic film in reverse, everything that's now rushing apart comes back together, so the universe gets smaller, hotter and denser as we head back to the beginning of time.
As we reach the big bang, when the universe was both enormously heavy and incredibly tiny, our projector jams. Our two laws of physics, when combined, break down.
The person you quote is an idiot who shows a complete misunderstanding of even what the big bang is, nor does he understand the complex concept of relativity or quantum mechanics.

You yourself are borderline conspiracy theorist, and you openly reject accepted scientific theory without even bring up evidence whatsoever to the contrary, and instead, bring in quotes made by imbeciles such as yourself to try to back up your rejections. I hear creatards say that many things have been 'disproven' time and time again - yet not a single one has shown how (and their attempts are absolutely pathetic).

You erroneously tell me what -I- believe in, claiming there is no evidence, when in reality many of these things DO have an OVERWHELMING amount of evidence, which you dismiss by putting your fingers in your ears and say, "LA LA LA! I can't hear you!" like a child.

I'm completely open to there being a God. However, unlike you, I'm not going to believe it with absolutely no evidence (because that would be downright asinine) which ironically, is EXACTLY what your religion says I should do - but I digress - so, if there is evidence of this particular God, I'll say it again: YOU HAVE EVERY CHANCE TO PROVE IT TO ME RIGHT NOW. Surely, if you are 'backed' by who you say you are, this should be easy.

Oh, and even if you COULD disprove every single one of the things you said have no evidence whatsoever (which I would recommend you do - you'll quite probably be hailed as the smartest person to ever live), it STILL would not mean that there is a God. So stop wasting your time, and tell me why I should believe in the asshole the Bible is written about.

PS: Please continue to be condescending. Makes it that much easier to believe your God doesn't exist when his most devout followers don't even listen to him.
KJV

United States

#2243 Jan 13, 2013
-Skeptic- wrote:
<quoted text>Prove your god before you open your stupid f*cking mouth again you lying piece of sh*t creationist troll with no morals.
Prove the God of the Bible doesn't exist.
KJV

United States

#2244 Jan 13, 2013
WesTheDuck wrote:
<quoted text>The person you quote is an idiot who shows a complete misunderstanding of even what the big bang is, nor does he understand the complex concept of relativity or quantum mechanics.

You yourself are borderline conspiracy theorist, and you openly reject accepted scientific theory without even bring up evidence whatsoever to the contrary, and instead, bring in quotes made by imbeciles such as yourself to try to back up your rejections. I hear creatards say that many things have been 'disproven' time and time again - yet not a single one has shown how (and their attempts are absolutely pathetic).

You erroneously tell me what -I- believe in, claiming there is no evidence, when in reality many of these things DO have an OVERWHELMING amount of evidence, which you dismiss by putting your fingers in your ears and say, "LA LA LA! I can't hear you!" like a child.

I'm completely open to there being a God. However, unlike you, I'm not going to believe it with absolutely no evidence (because that would be downright asinine) which ironically, is EXACTLY what your religion says I should do - but I digress - so, if there is evidence of this particular God, I'll say it again: YOU HAVE EVERY CHANCE TO PROVE IT TO ME RIGHT NOW. Surely, if you are 'backed' by who you say you are, this should be easy.

Oh, and even if you COULD disprove every single one of the things you said have no evidence whatsoever (which I would recommend you do - you'll quite probably be hailed as the smartest person to ever live), it STILL would not mean that there is a God. So stop wasting your time, and tell me why I should believe in the asshole the Bible is written about.

PS: Please continue to be condescending. Makes it that much easier to believe your God doesn't exist when his most devout followers don't even listen to him.
"The person you quote is an idiot who shows a complete misunderstanding of even what the big bang is, nor does he understand the complex concept of relativity or quantum mechanics. "

LMAO!!

You don't know who BRIAN GREENE is?

Oh and please don't believe in the Bible
We have no need to see your puss for eternity.

no evidence? You look with closed eyes.

While there is no proof there is indeed evidence.

"Please continue to be condescending"

It's hard not to be, when the atheist on these threads believe in so many myths but condemn the Theist for their believe.
KJV

United States

#2245 Jan 13, 2013
Khatru wrote:
<quoted text>Yet the dinosaurs of our oceans were big and small.

And we're not just talking dinosaurs, we're also talking about millions (maybe billions) of species that are now extinct including a variety of fauna.

All because your god decided that they (but not other species) had to die in a flood.
It's his call. It's his rules on his creation.
Anonymous

Decatur, GA

#2246 Jan 13, 2013
The serpent was right wrote:
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! !!!!!
AND YOU CREATIONISTS WONDER WHY PEOPLE LAUGH AT YOU???? ROTFLMAO!!!!!!!!! LOL times a billion!!!!!
That has to be one of the most pathetic, illogical, uneducated, unscientific, jokes I have ever seen. A seventh grader could take that apart and not break a sweat!!!
Are you really stupid enough to believe that crap?!?!?!?!
You were homeschooled weren't you?
Another arrogant atheist. This video show evidence such as standing trees in petrified rock, you should watch it. It's called 100 Reasons Why Evolution Is Stupid. This guy is one of the most prominent Christian Apologists today.:

KJV

United States

#2247 Jan 13, 2013
"Let's Look at the Evidence:
The following are Evidences of either massive flooding and erosion, extremely rapid layering of strata, or direct evidence of a Worldwide Flood. Such evidences are found in numerous places on virtually every Continent.

Polystrate Fossils:
One of the strongest pieces of evidence for a worldwide flood is the existence of what Rupke termed "polystrate fossils." Such fossils are found all over the world. They usually consist of fossil trees that were buried upright, and which often traverse multiple layers of strata such as sandstone, limestone, shale, and even coal beds. They range in size from small rootlets to trees over 80 feet long. Sometimes they are oblique in relation to the surrounding strata, but more often they are perpendicular to it. For example, at Joggins, Nova Scotia, polystrate tree (and root) fossils are found at various intervals throughout roughly 2,500 feet of strata. Many of these are from 10-20 feet long, and, at least one was 40 feet long.

Very few of these upright fossil trees have attached roots, and only about 1 in 50 have both roots and rootlets attached. Such trees, and their -- more often than not -- missing roots, are discussed in much more detail in The "Fossil Forests" of Nova Scotia. Likewise, many (if not most) of the large, fragmented, and broken-off Stigmaria roots are also missing their rootlets.

Many of these roots and rootlets, are also buried individually. This strongly suggests that these trees did not grow in the same places where they were buried, but rather were uprooted and re-deposited there.

Similar circumstances occur at various other places in Nova Scotia, as well as in the United States, England, Germany, and France. Another place where large tree stumps are preserved without their roots attached is Axel Heiberg Island in Northern Canada.

And although there is much data on buried trees in the geological literature, most of it is over 100 years old, and difficult to access. One of the few articles on this subject was by Rupke, and in it he comments that:

With regard to Rupke's observation, I suspect the reason why such is (still) the case has more to do with one's personal bias against the concept of a Creator / God to whom we might very well have to give account than to the ever-mounting evidence against the theory of evolution and the millions of years old Earth that it requires (to appear plausible). However, T-I-M-E is simply not enough: not even BILLIONS of years of it.

The Fossils Themselves:
Fossils don't form on lake bottoms today, nor are they found forming on the bottom of the sea. Instead, they normally only form when a plant or animal is buried soon after it dies. Therefore, the fossils themselves are evidence of a catastrophe such as a flood or volcanic eruption that took place in the past. See also Rapid Petrification of Wood, by Andrew Snelling.

Clastic Dikes: According to Austin, a clastic dike is "a cross cutting body of sedimentary material which has been intruded into a foreign rock mass."

"These dikes...(may) penetrate horizontal sedimentary strata (or) they may occur... in igneous and metamorphic rocks. The process of formation of a clastic dike is analogous to wet sand oozing up between ones toes, but on a much larger scale."
Clastic dikes present a problem to the "mythions of years" mindset of evolution in that massive "older" sediments are found intruding up into overlying younger strata. This must have occurred while the "older" sediments were still in a plastic state. "

http://www.earthage.org/EarthOldorYoung/scien...

Since: Dec 12

Location hidden

#2248 Jan 13, 2013
Thinking wrote:
As did jesus.
<quoted text>
Haha no i have fake nails like a pedi and medicure

I doubt jesus had long nails lol

Since: Dec 12

Location hidden

#2249 Jan 13, 2013
-Skeptic- wrote:
<quoted text>
Prove any of this regigious horsesh*t there's a good lying theist.
Genesis 10
Records the first city of mesopatania which is translated the land between two rivers.

If you read mathews 24 Jesus s deciples asked him when will be the sign of his presence which starts the last days because satan and his demons were abyssed tonthe earth..

Whiich is why when he prayed he said let your kingdom come let your will take place in heaven and on earth ....

He also notes that last days will be marked by food shortages great earthquakes one after another

If you look at human society as a whole humans are a taught a more selfish me first attitude , the institution of marriage has fallen due to unscriptual divorce or mistreatment of women.

Jesus said in mathew 24 that nation will rise against nation kingdom against kingdom that prohecy was fullfilled .
Also food shortages, atbthe time of war war 1 their was food shortage in russia and other countries.

Today its a major food shortage so bad the nations have to make artificial clouds made from harmful chemicals.

which is why aritificial food is being made because in reality their is not enough food tonfeed the masses.

The earth can produce food but because of the greed of humans that will never be .

If you look at past centuries, humans in 20 , 21 century have manage to damage the earth in a very short period of time

Satan knows he very short period time and he and his demons are ruining the earth

Look at grigoru rasputin he had mysterious healing powers.. He prophecied the exact end of the russian monarchy if they killed him and he prophecied the events of war world 1 before it happened

They poison with cyanide a large amount,he didnt die, he was shot in the skull he still wasnt dead.. Then he shout multiple times. He still wasnt
Dead.
Theybtossed his body in river
He only expired because he was frozen .he was being controlled by a demon.

Read about him grigori rasputin
the only person who healed and proohecied future events was jesus and he was Gods son.

If someone else is doing that then theynare being inspired by wicked angels or demons.

As

Since: Mar 11

United States

#2250 Jan 13, 2013
Why should anyone care about what the bible says?

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Atheism Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Atheism to Defeat Religion by 2038 (Apr '12) 14 min MUQ1 22,364
Can atheists pray? Gretta Vosper on Andrew W.K.... 14 min Reason Personified 2
Our world came from nothing? 46 min Reason Personified 484
Science Disproves Evolution (Aug '12) 1 hr NightSerf 932
Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 3 hr Aura Mytha 227,740
Another week, another atheist demands we call h... 4 hr P_Smith 1
The problem of evil and hate (Oct '13) 4 hr wondering 338
•••

Atheism People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••