"I’m saying GOD doesn’t exist!"

NDanger

“Third Eye”

Since: Nov 10

You can't get there from here.

#1690 Apr 20, 2013
_-Alice-_ wrote:
<quoted text>
You turn blue when you masturbate?
That Smurfette is HAWT, ain't she?
Never looked...

NDanger

“Third Eye”

Since: Nov 10

You can't get there from here.

#1691 Apr 20, 2013
Jammercolo wrote:
<quoted text>
YES,Earth's carbon cycle is well understood.
http://oceanworld.tamu.edu/resources/oceanogr...
But, the carbon cycle is different every year...

Does this mean the oceans are responsible for global warming?

NDanger

“Third Eye”

Since: Nov 10

You can't get there from here.

#1692 Apr 20, 2013
StaccatS wrote:
<quoted text>
Isotopes are atoms with the same number of protons but different numbers of neutrons. Carbon-14 is a radioactive isotope of carbon with a proven "half-life" of 5,730 (+/-40) yrs;
Radiocarbon Dating: Carbon-14 decays into nitrogen-14 through beta decay. The amount of environmental carbon-14 is almost constant. Any variation over time necessarily had to be a tiny fraction of a percent, else most all life forms could not have developed.
All Living things ingest materials that contain carbon, so the percentage of carbon-14 within living things is the same as the percentage of carbon-14 in the environment.
Once an organism dies, it no longer ingests anything. The carbon-14 within that organism is no longer replaced and the percentage of carbon-14 begins to decrease as it decays. By measuring the percentage of C-14 in the remains of organisms scientists can tell when any organism died.
For example, if the concentration of carbon-14 in the remains of an organism is half of the natural concentration of carbon-14, a scientist would estimate that the organism died about 5,730 years ago, the half-life of carbon-14.
http://www4.nau.edu/cpsil/isotopes.htm
An Honest ID-er's Confession:
"There is evidence that points to a recent origin for the earth, as well as evidence that points to an ancient origin. For each class of evidence, there are alternate explanations that interpret it in terms of the alternate view. We do not know for certain which view is correct. I cannot prove the young earth theory; I can only show that it is consistent with the evidence." - Bob Bales, Scientific Creation Advocate
Many species (including humans) have had their populations measured over time. The folks that propose Biblical and other metaphysical "creation by design",(like the above "Bob Bales") have proposed an annual human population growth factor of "0.36%".
Let;s Check out the implications of the Biblical ID-ers' 6000 years @ 0.36% growth:
The Bible Genesis starts off with 2 people, and if we use the famed fundie chronology of "Bishop Usher", which says that Adam and Eve were created on October 1, 4004 BCE, at precisely 9:00-am, then it's a simple matter to mathematically calculate the following:
> By 2500 BC, the human population is 440 people. If half of them (220) lived in Egypt, and we discount the feeble elderly and sick and women, and children, then that means the "Great Pyramid" must have been built by 40 men. AMAZINGLY, 40 primeval engineers would have had to quarry and move 2,300,000 granite and stone blocks (many weighing some 50 tons) and, with amazing precision, shaped and carved each stone, and somehow assembled them into a nearly perfect 440+-ft tall pyramid; all in under 40 years' time. Let's see, hmm,... that works out to 4-blocks-per-man-per-day (200 tons = a day's work).
Did I mention that, 20 men must have built those many pre-"Great Pyramid" pyramids some centuries earlier! Also, the other 20 able-bodied men on Earth were constructing fortified cities in Mesopotamia. In 3700 BC, both groups of able-bodied men on Earth must have been quite busy constructing impressive civilizations in Crete, Mesopotamia, the Indus River valley, and other sites.
Obviously, the ID's population-growth formula fails totally against the shocks of reality. When adding it into the mountain of other conclusive proofs, any reasonable mind would relegate the quaint Biblical creation tale to its rightful fictional place alongside all the other primitive religious myths that believed in and preached their unique versions (visions; apparitions) of "Last Wednesday-type Creationism".
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/debate-age-of...
StaccatS
The assumption is that the amount of carbon 14 in the atmosphere has always been constant and that its rate of decay has always been constant. Neither of these assumptions is provable or reasonable.

_-Alice-_

Since: Apr 13

Location hidden

#1693 Apr 20, 2013
NDanger wrote:
<quoted text>
Never looked...
I know.

NDanger

“Third Eye”

Since: Nov 10

You can't get there from here.

#1694 Apr 20, 2013
_-Alice-_ wrote:
<quoted text>
I know.
2 women were having dinner when one asks the other,'Do you smoke after sex?' The other replies,'I don't know, I never looked'...

_-Alice-_

Since: Apr 13

Location hidden

#1695 Apr 20, 2013
NDanger wrote:
<quoted text>
2 women were having dinner when one asks the other,'Do you smoke after sex?' The other replies,'I don't know, I never looked'...
http://cdn.edu-search.com/uploads/dumb_steam....
FSM

Bunyip, Australia

#1696 Apr 20, 2013
Me Myself and I wrote:
If God had willed that man to pass away, then you are right. No amount of prayer would help him. But, you really didn't know that. That was only your disbelieving carnal mind rejecting God.
And it says the fervent, effectual prayer of a righteous man availeth much. You just admitted you were not a believer so your prayers didn't reach the ceiling.
You're only reiterating my point there. I don't think any of us know how much we really believe what we profess until we're put in difficult scenarios that bring out the truth. I thought I had strong faith until I was forced into a situation that showed up my doubts.

If anyone wants to use that against me, as you've just done, I'd challenge them to visit a cemetery and raise some folks from the dead. If I'm feeling really generous, I'll accept a regrown limb on an amputee as proof of your faith instead. Yeah, I thought not, you hypocrite. Lol

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I have the impression that you're Wayne. I could just as easily say to you that you don't really believe until you get up from your wheelchair and walk again. But I wouldn't do that because I'm a realist. Look within yourself for a change and you'll see that you're no better than me.
FSM

Bunyip, Australia

#1697 Apr 21, 2013

_-Alice-_

Since: Apr 13

Location hidden

#1698 Apr 21, 2013
FSM wrote:
I do, I do, I do, I do believe in spooks.

_-Alice-_

Since: Apr 13

Location hidden

#1700 Apr 21, 2013
NorCal Rose wrote:
<quoted text>derp.
Excellent come back.

Do you have more?

LOL

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#1701 Apr 21, 2013
NDanger wrote:
<quoted text>
Either way, if the person perishes, they're not out anything...
And it's illegal. So, there's that.

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#1702 Apr 21, 2013
NDanger wrote:
<quoted text>
The assumption is that the amount of carbon 14 in the atmosphere has always been constant and that its rate of decay has always been constant. Neither of these assumptions is provable or reasonable.
The amount of C14 in the atmosphere over time is demonstrable using dendrochronology and other techniques, which allows for calibration of dating results. See, they KNOW the levels have varied over time, and have ways to account for such fluctuations in the results of C14 dating.
But, I'm sure you were already aware of that. Which would mean you're a liar. Or, you weren't already aware of that, and you were declaring the invalidity of a scientific tool due to your own ignorance. Which is it? Ignorance or dishonesty? Your pick.

“Invisible Pink Unicorn”

Since: May 08

Location hidden

#1703 Apr 21, 2013
NDanger wrote:
<quoted text>
But, the carbon cycle is different every year...
Does this mean the oceans are responsible for global warming?
NO, it means you don't know much about the planet you call home. As the oceans are turning to acid trying to balance carbon cycle and is losing.Pretty soon all the sea life that takes calcium carbonate from seawater to make shells won't be able to and will go extinct.The food chain will fail and billions will starve to death.

“Invisible Pink Unicorn”

Since: May 08

Location hidden

#1705 Apr 21, 2013
NDanger wrote:
<quoted text>
The assumption is that the amount of carbon 14 in the atmosphere has always been constant and that its rate of decay has always been constant. Neither of these assumptions is provable or reasonable.
WOW, you really need to learn something about the planet you live on.

Since the tree ring counts have reliably dated some specimens of wood all the way back to 6200 BC, one can check out the C-14 dates against the tree-ring-count dates. Admittedly, this old wood comes from trees that have been dead for hundreds of years, but you don't have to have an 8,200-year-old bristlecone pine tree alive today to validly determine that sort of date. It is easy to correlate the inner rings of a younger living tree with the outer rings of an older dead tree. The correlation is possible because, in the Southwest region of the United States, the widths of tree rings vary from year to year with the rainfall, and trees all over the Southwest have the same pattern of variations.

NDanger

“Third Eye”

Since: Nov 10

You can't get there from here.

#1706 Apr 21, 2013
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
The amount of C14 in the atmosphere over time is demonstrable using dendrochronology and other techniques, which allows for calibration of dating results. See, they KNOW the levels have varied over time, and have ways to account for such fluctuations in the results of C14 dating.
But, I'm sure you were already aware of that. Which would mean you're a liar. Or, you weren't already aware of that, and you were declaring the invalidity of a scientific tool due to your own ignorance. Which is it? Ignorance or dishonesty? Your pick.
Taking into account is one thing, but that is more like guessing, isn't it?

With .0000765% carbon in the atmosphere and the half life being in the neighborhood of 5,730, how would one account for accuracy beyond 40k yrs?

“No stalking allowed.”

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#1707 Apr 21, 2013
StaccatS wrote:
<quoted text>
Friend Laci,
You know that I am impelled to agree with all you say,...
to my own peril!
Else, I would fail at being your true friend!
Your True Friend,
StaccatS
lol! I am your friend as well Stac......I just like the real thing, don't you my friend?

“No stalking allowed.”

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#1708 Apr 21, 2013
NDanger wrote:
<quoted text>
Thx Laci...
you are most welcome.....

“Invisible Pink Unicorn”

Since: May 08

Location hidden

#1709 Apr 21, 2013
NDanger wrote:
<quoted text>
Taking into account is one thing, but that is more like guessing, isn't it?
With .0000765% carbon in the atmosphere and the half life being in the neighborhood of 5,730, how would one account for accuracy beyond 40k yrs?
simple you look at other elements with longer half life.

half life of:
Caesium-135 - 2.3 million years
Iodine-129 - 15.7 million years

tellurium has the longest half life of 790 quintillion years.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_radioact...
downhill246

Pompano Beach, FL

#1711 Apr 21, 2013
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, because to test it, they'd either need to deliberately drive the man into a health hazard or death.
If I claim I have the supernatural ability to stop speeding bullets with my face and live, should the JREF bother testing my claim? My claim is inherently lethal and you're saying they should test my lethal claim? Likewise for this German shmuck?


If you did it would b amazing and you deserve to win, if you did not you would be one of the top three contenders for the yearly Darwin Awards.

“No stalking allowed.”

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#1712 Apr 21, 2013
StaccatS wrote:
<quoted text>
Hi again, My Dear Friend Laci,...
'tis funny, but I was about to post just about the same thing to you about "being real";
... BUT, then I remembered our pact about avoiding all controversy!
Your Friendly StaccatS
I am real Stac......I can be your friend on topic, a real one....can you really be mine? You can understand my concerns right? I don't like fake and there is so much fake on here. Not accusing you of that, just asking a honest question.

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.

Christian Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
If you see demons or angels you have schizophre... (Nov '09) Fri Katelynn 116
Some Kinda Preacher (Tribute to Billy Graham) b... Feb 21 bruce 1
Bible says Satan will be Destroyed, Not Live Fo... (Apr '10) Feb 21 Rand M Sutor 815
The Baptist Church (Jan '08) Feb 21 Rand M Sutor 46
Don't Blame God! Feb 20 dollarsbill 7
Hellmouth: Capitalism Deities Feb 19 Abishai100 1
What Does God Hate? Feb 19 True or False 1
More from around the web