Comments
660,821 - 660,840 of 733,003 Comments Last updated 12 min ago

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Since: Jun 11

Tenerife

#697681 Feb 28, 2014
Susie D wrote:
<quoted text>Actually I think you witches cannot do a darn thing; the problem lies within you. You actually think you can control things, change things and so forth. What I do happen to know is carbon dating and fossil dating has flaws and is very inaccurate; by millions of years. Why don't you put down that book of spells and actually educate yourself a little about the half life of carbon :0
You don't know what you are talking about concerning dating. Most dating techniques now give dates within 1 to 2 percent accuracy.

Given new dating methodology some earlier artifacts have been re-analyzed and most all have been found to be older then previously thought

There are over 40 different methods of dating various materials and artifacts

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Since: Jun 11

Tenerife

#697682 Feb 28, 2014
Sorry admin, I seem to have double posted again

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#697683 Feb 28, 2014
BenAdam wrote:
Than you
You're welcome.

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#697684 Feb 28, 2014
macumazahn wrote:
<quoted text>No.
But it's been widely criticized by Biblical scholars for pushing the Protestant view, and for its interpolations of words and ideas not found in the documents the multiple commitees were supposed to be translating.
What Biblical scholars argue that?

“I love Jesus”

Since: Dec 08

Heaven, but Earthbound for now

#697685 Feb 28, 2014
thewordofme wrote:
<quoted text>
You don't know what you are talking about concerning dating. Most dating techniques now give dates within 1 to 2 percent accuracy.
Given new dating methodology some earlier artifacts have been re-analyzed and most all have been found to be older then previously thought
There are over 40 different methods of dating various materials and artifacts
1-2% really. Have you read about the carbon dating of rocks from a one year old volcano being aged more than a million years? Explain this please....
Dating Subject to Error
But scientists have long recognized that carbon dating is subject to error because of a variety of factors, including contamination by outside sources of carbon. Therefore they have sought ways to calibrate and correct the carbon dating method. The best gauge they have found is dendrochronology: the measurement of age by tree rings.
Accurate tree ring records of age are available for a period extending 9,000 years into the past. But the tree ring record goes no further, so scientists have sought other indicators of age against which carbon dates can be compared. One such indicator is the uranium-thorium dating method used by the Lamont-Doherty group.
Uranium 234, a radioactive element present in the environment, slowly decays to form thorium 230. Using a mass spectrometer, an instrument that accelerates streams of atoms and uses magnets to sort them out according to mass and electric charge, the group has learned to measure the ratio of uranium to thorium very precisely.
The Lamont-Doherty scientists conducted their analyses on samples of coral drilled from a reef off the island of Barbados. The samples represented animals that lived at various times during the last 30,000 years.
Uranium-Thorium Dating
Dr. Alan Zindler, a professor of geology at Columbia University who is a member of the Lamont-Doherty research group, said age estimates using the carbon dating and uranium-thorium dating differed only slightly for the period from 9,000 years ago to the present.''But at earlier times, the carbon dates were substantially younger than the dates we estimated by uranium-thorium analysis,'' he said.''The largest deviation, 3,500 years, was obtained for samples that are about 20,000 years old.''
One reason the group believes the uranium-thorium estimates to be more accurate than carbon dating is that they produce better matches between known changes in the Earth's orbit and changes in global glaciation.
According to carbon dating of fossil animals and plants, the spreading and receding of great ice sheets lagged behind orbital changes by several thousand years, a delay that scientists found hard to explain. But Dr. Richard G. Fairbanks, a member of the Lamont-Doherty group, said that if the dates of glaciation were determined using the uranium-thorium method, the delay - and the puzzle - disappeared.
The group theorizes that large errors in carbon dating result from fluctuations in the amount of carbon 14 in the air. Changes in the Earth's magnetic field would change the deflection of cosmic-ray particles streaming toward the Earth from the Sun. Carbon 14 is thought to be mainly a product of bombardment of the atmosphere by cosmic rays, so cosmic ray intensity would affect the amount of carbon 14 in the environment at any given time.#30,000-Year Limit

Since: Apr 09

Location hidden

#697686 Feb 28, 2014
waaasssuuup wrote:
<quoted text>
righteousness is always "mean" to unrighteousness, good is mean to evil, the law is mean to criminals...etc
word to the wise - DON'T CHOOSE TO BE GOD'S ENEMY (this is NOT rocket science people:-)
There is not now, nor has there ever been, any proof that any of the thousands of gods ever worshipped actually existed.

I can't be an "enemy" to an imaginary being.

Since: Apr 09

Location hidden

#697687 Feb 28, 2014
waaasssuuup wrote:
<quoted text>
i discern a sincere desire in you for the truth, my friend. please forgive me for not being a more patient and more informed person to deal with. i've found life and forgiveness in Christ, but i'm still human and the jerk i was before meeting Christ doesn't want to die so easily:-)
Such an ego.

If you go back a few pages, it should be rather obvious I wasn't talking about you.

“The eye has it...”

Since: May 09

Russell's Teapot

#697688 Feb 28, 2014
tricki wrote:
Dorothy, you were told in no uncertain terms, knock off the pro-christian rhetoric.
DAVE?
Tommy

London, KY

#697689 Feb 28, 2014
Still giving Sin City them BJ's God?, I bet you are!!!, sending Sin City (Las Vegas) good warm weather while at the same time freezing the rest of us to death!!!. Take your Sin City to Hell God!!!

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Since: Jun 11

Tenerife

#697690 Feb 28, 2014
Susie D wrote:
<quoted text> I do not believe that God burns anyone for all eternity and there are many Christians who believe this as well. I have done vast studies on this subject and it seems this "burn in hell" belief came around the time of translation for Hebrew to English.
The New Testament was written in Greek originally.

Since: Feb 14

Location hidden

#697691 Feb 28, 2014
Scrooge wrote:
<quoted text>
Obviously, you're either not open-minded or lack the intelligence to study science. I just explained to you the difference between science and pseudoscience. You don't live in an alternate reality where pseudoscience is legitimate.
Scientific hypotheses are educated guesses based on observations. Scientific theories are proven scientific hypotheses which have been verified by multiple teams of independent researchers and used to make predictions on future events. Some scientific hypotheses will become scientific theories while others will be abandoned.
Yeah, I understand what you're saying scrooge but like I said earlier, science wasn't really my thing. I do thank you for explaining it to me. I am open minded, that's why I try to understand and look at both sides of the coin and not just heads I win, tails you lose!
Tommy

London, KY

#697692 Feb 28, 2014
What's Sin City doing that you like God?. Giving them good weather and immense wealth!!!. Love Sin now don't you God, bless Sin City you and your Stupid Spirit!!!. You're a Sinner yourself God doing this!!!.

Since: Feb 14

Location hidden

#697693 Feb 28, 2014
Scrooge wrote:
<quoted text>
Christian pseudo scientists are liars that rely on the stupidity of Christians. Do you know the significance of atmospheric oxygen increasing at the start of the Cambrian?
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC300.h...
"There are transitional fossils within the Cambrian explosion fossils. For example, there are lobopods (basically worms with legs) which are intermediate between arthropods and worms."
Interesting read, thank you for that..
Xavier Breath

Brooklyn, NY

#697694 Feb 28, 2014
tricki wrote:
Watching your child be buried alive would be enough to drop most parents to their knees. Real fast. Boom!
In Casino, Joe is held still by several big men. He got caught with the boss's wife. Other big dudes bring his younger brother right in front of him. He's innocent. Doesn't have a clue. They tAke baseball bats and beat him to death in froNT of Joe and throw him in a shallow grave. They beat Joe to death and throw him in on top of his brother.
Joe's the tough punk. Invincible. Macho max man. To make sure he suffers plenty for doing the boss's wife, they destroy, in graphic detail, slowly, right in his face, his brother. God Knows how to get our attention and he's in no hurry.
Did god tell you that, or are you just being stupid?

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Since: Jun 11

Tenerife

#697695 Feb 28, 2014
Sorry Susie I had to cut some of your dialog so there would be room for my long reply.
Susie D wrote:
<quoted text>1-2% really. Have you read about the carbon dating of rocks from a one year old volcano being aged more than a million years?
Dating Subject to Error
But scientists have long recognized that carbon dating is subject to error because of a variety of factors, including contamination by outside sources of carbon. Therefore they have sought ways to calibrate and correct the carbon dating method. The best gauge they have found is dendrochronology: the measurement of age by tree rings.
Accurate tree ring records of age are available for a period extending 9,000 years into the past. But the tree ring record goes no further, so scientists have sought other indicators of age against which carbon dates can be compared. One such indicator is the uranium-thorium dating method used by the Lamont-Doherty group.......
Below is the prelude to a paper by Dr. Roger Wiens called “Radiometric Dating, A Christian perspective”

Dr. Wiens is a church going Christian and his CV can be found on the internet.

“Arguments over the age of the Earth have sometimes been divisive for people who regard the Bible as God's word. Even though the Earth's age is never mentioned in the Bible, it is an issue because those who take a strictly literal view of the early chapters of Genesis can calculate an approximate date for the cre Roger ation by adding up the life-spans of the people mentioned in the genealogies.

Assuming a strictly literal interpretation of the week of creation, even if some of the generations were left out of the genealogies, the Earth would be less than ten thousand years old. Radiometric dating techniques indicate that the Earth is thousands of times older than that--approximately four and a half billion years old.

Many Christians accept this and interpret the Genesis account in less scientifically literal ways. However, some Christians suggest that the geologic dating techniques are unreliable, that they are wrongly interpreted, or that they are confusing at best. Unfortunately, much of the literature available to Christians has been either inaccurate or difficult to understand, so that confusion over dating techniques continues.”
Dr. Roger C. Wiens—
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/wiens.html

Below is an excerpt from the paper:

“There are well over forty different radiometric dating methods, and scores of other methods such as tree rings and ice cores.

All of the different dating methods agree--they agree a great majority of the time over millions of years of time. Some Christians make it sound like there is a lot of disagreement, but this is not the case. The disagreement in values needed to support the position of young-Earth proponents would require differences in age measured by orders of magnitude (e.g., factors of 10,000, 100,000, a million, or more). The differences actually found in the scientific literature are usually close to the margin of error, usually a few percent, not orders of magnitude!

Vast amounts of data overwhelmingly favor an old Earth. Several hundred laboratories around the world are active in radiometric dating. Their results consistently agree with an old Earth. Over a thousand papers on radiometric dating were published in scientifically recognized journals in the last year, and hundreds of thousands of dates have been published in the last 50 years. Essentially all of these strongly favor an old Earth.

Radioactive decay rates have been measured for over sixty years now for many of the decay clocks without any observed changes. And it has been close to a hundred years since the uranium-238 decay rate was first determined.

Both long-range and short-range dating methods have been successfully verified by dating lavas of historically known ages over a range of several thousand years.

The mathematics for determining the ages from the observations is relatively simple.

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#697696 Feb 28, 2014
thewordofme wrote:
Sorry Susie I had to cut some of your dialog so there would be room for my long reply.
<quoted text>
Below is the prelude to a paper by Dr. Roger Wiens called “Radiometric Dating, A Christian perspective”
Dr. Wiens is a church going Christian and his CV can be found on the internet.
“Arguments over the age of the Earth have sometimes been divisive for people who regard the Bible as God's word. Even though the Earth's age is never mentioned in the Bible, it is an issue because those who take a strictly literal view of the early chapters of Genesis can calculate an approximate date for the cre Roger ation by adding up the life-spans of the people mentioned in the genealogies.
Assuming a strictly literal interpretation of the week of creation, even if some of the generations were left out of the genealogies, the Earth would be less than ten thousand years old. Radiometric dating techniques indicate that the Earth is thousands of times older than that--approximately four and a half billion years old.
Many Christians accept this and interpret the Genesis account in less scientifically literal ways. However, some Christians suggest that the geologic dating techniques are unreliable, that they are wrongly interpreted, or that they are confusing at best. Unfortunately, much of the literature available to Christians has been either inaccurate or difficult to understand, so that confusion over dating techniques continues.”
Dr. Roger C. Wiens—
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/wiens.html
Below is an excerpt from the paper:
“There are well over forty different radiometric dating methods, and scores of other methods such as tree rings and ice cores.
All of the different dating methods agree--they agree a great majority of the time over millions of years of time. Some Christians make it sound like there is a lot of disagreement, but this is not the case. The disagreement in values needed to support the position of young-Earth proponents would require differences in age measured by orders of magnitude (e.g., factors of 10,000, 100,000, a million, or more). The differences actually found in the scientific literature are usually close to the margin of error, usually a few percent, not orders of magnitude!
Vast amounts of data overwhelmingly favor an old Earth. Several hundred laboratories around the world are active in radiometric dating. Their results consistently agree with an old Earth. Over a thousand papers on radiometric dating were published in scientifically recognized journals in the last year, and hundreds of thousands of dates have been published in the last 50 years. Essentially all of these strongly favor an old Earth.
Radioactive decay rates have been measured for over sixty years now for many of the decay clocks without any observed changes. And it has been close to a hundred years since the uranium-238 decay rate was first determined.
Both long-range and short-range dating methods have been successfully verified by dating lavas of historically known ages over a range of several thousand years.
The mathematics for determining the ages from the observations is relatively simple.
So simple that you couldn't answer yourself?

So simple that you had to google, then copy/paste the words of other people?

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#697697 Feb 28, 2014
Scrooge wrote:
<quoted text>
Christian pseudo scientists are liars that rely on the stupidity of Christians. Do you know the significance of atmospheric oxygen increasing at the start of the Cambrian?
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC300.h...
"There are transitional fossils within the Cambrian explosion fossils. For example, there are lobopods (basically worms with legs) which are intermediate between arthropods and worms."
Yes basically the microbial mat organisms oxygenated the sea and the atmosphere, it appears most of the Ediacaran life could not survive this, but a few did to fuel the Cambrian explosion.

http://www.wisegeek.com/what-types-of-modern-...

clever guy

Coalville, UK

#697698 Feb 28, 2014
It depends on ur clever or not to see God really
If u believe him u see him, if not u cant
But first u need to believe him but not fake believe, is truely believe from ur heart
The brain

Sylacauga, AL

#697699 Feb 28, 2014
Scrooge wrote:
<quoted text>
Obviously, you're either not open-minded or lack the intelligence to study science. I just explained to you the difference between science and pseudoscience. You don't live in an alternate reality where pseudoscience is legitimate.
Scientific hypotheses are educated guesses based on observations. Scientific theories are proven scientific hypotheses which have been verified by multiple teams of independent researchers and used to make predictions on future events. Some scientific hypotheses will become scientific theories while others will be abandoned.
Yawn
Enlightened

Gallatin, TN

#697700 Feb 28, 2014
Scrooge wrote:
<quoted text>
We already knew you were a Christian and complete idiot.
Still not ready to talk about it, eh Scrooge? The longer you hold it inside, the longer you will continue to be an easily-ignored potty-mouth poofter. Just let it out! Did you like it? Because that's okay - in fact it's the #1 reason for non-reporting.
You were young. It wasn't your fault. But now, let me guess, you can only get it up when the guy dresses like a priest. Not uncommon at all, Scrooge, you are not alone. Reach out, CLEANSE YOURSELF right here in this very forum. Become whole again!
I'm here for you.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

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.

Top Stories Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Last Word + 2 9 min Bev Jamison 512
Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 9 min June VanDerMark 538,984
Gleep 10 min Bev Jamison 64
Last Post Wins !!! [ game time :) ] (Jan '11) 12 min Bev Jamison 2,408
Why Should Jesus Love Me? (Feb '08) 14 min Fiu Bzdziu 599,927
Jehovah's Witnesses are true disciple of Jesus ... (Mar '07) 18 min Crack Kills 38,624
Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 41 min atheism is destru... 226,344
Was 9/11 a conspiracy?? (Oct '07) 3 hr Dr_Zorderz 257,997
Sims 4 Key Generator (Oct '13) 4 hr Figaro 105
•••
Enter and win $5000

Top Stories People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••