Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 20, 2017 16:07:22 GMT
|
|
|
Post by general313 on Dec 20, 2017 16:17:37 GMT
After. Satan doctored the evidence to make the fossils appear old and cause mankind to doubt God's creation.
|
|
|
Post by Vegas on Dec 20, 2017 17:17:49 GMT
Just for the record... The Bible states that life existed before Man walked the Earth. This doesn't really contradict that statement. jus' sayin'
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Dec 20, 2017 17:45:14 GMT
Just for the record... The Bible states that life existed before Man walked the Earth. This doesn't really contradict that statement. jus' sayin' They keep trying to teach me my own beliefs by saying life existed about 24-48 hours earlier. I'll eventually become as indoctrinated as a religious babe in a manger, but it hasn't stuck yet.
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Dec 20, 2017 23:03:33 GMT
Just for the record... The Bible states that life existed before Man walked the Earth. This doesn't really contradict that statement. jus' sayin' 42% of Americans believe in creationism instead of evolution, and roughly the same percentage believes that the earth was created less than 10,000 years ago (as widely taught in traditional Christianity).
|
|
|
Post by goz on Dec 20, 2017 23:10:49 GMT
Just for the record... The Bible states that life existed before Man walked the Earth. This doesn't really contradict that statement. jus' sayin' 42% of Americans believe in creationism instead of evolution, and roughly the same percentage believes that the earth was created less than 10,000 years ago (as widely taught in traditional Christianity). ...and the same mentality elected Trump.
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Dec 20, 2017 23:13:56 GMT
42% of Americans believe in creationism instead of evolution, and roughly the same percentage believes that the earth was created less than 10,000 years ago (as widely taught in traditional Christianity). ...and the same mentality elected Trump. How is that relevant?
|
|
|
Post by goz on Dec 20, 2017 23:21:47 GMT
'The same mentlity'
Ignorant and stupid.
I wonder how they fill American universities!
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Dec 20, 2017 23:32:20 GMT
'The same mentlity' Ignorant and stupid. I wonder how they fill American universities! Because Americans are not all one, monolithic, like minded drone society that you apparently view us as. The fact of the matter is, MOST Americans did not vote for Trump.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Dec 20, 2017 23:49:43 GMT
'The same mentlity' Ignorant and stupid. I wonder how they fill American universities! Because Americans are not all one, monolithic, like minded drone society that you apparently view us as. The fact of the matter is, MOST Americans did not vote for Trump. Like this group you referred to? Monolothic and like minded drones? YOUR reference. IMHO it is a cause of shame that the lunatic Trump was elected by a minority of Americans as you claim.
|
|
|
Post by theoncomingstorm on Dec 20, 2017 23:53:08 GMT
Because Americans are not all one, monolithic, like minded drone society that you apparently view us as. The fact of the matter is, MOST Americans did not vote for Trump. Like this group you referred to? Monolothic and like minded drones? YOUR reference. IMHO it is a cause of shame that the lunatic Trump was elected by a minority of Americans as you claim. What do you mean by as he claims? It's a verifiable fact that fewer than 50% of the voters voted for Trump. It's also a verifiable fact that fewer than 50% of the voters voted for Hillary but that's a slightly different issue.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Dec 21, 2017 0:43:39 GMT
As usual your "science" depends on assumptions that it fails to recognize in its reports. The report does not show how they arrived at their figures. One assumption in all carbon dating methods is that cosmic bombardment of the Earth's atmosphere has been constant throughout time. A single sample, especially such a small one, might have material from an extraordinary bombardment event or other anomalous condition. Assuming nothing like that happened then you might have something. Even if highly accurate what would the information be worth? Does this mean cancer is cured? Of course not. I suspect you've fallen into yet another trap for people who believe science is "better" than religion or scientists are "smarter" then people who find value in the Bible. No, the Bible is not a source of information of a scientific nature. It does not describe how to make a composite bow for example, although that probably did figure in the history of the region. Religion especially and the Bible by extension have value where science has none. Science is not solving any political problem because it can only solve problems where everyone agrees what the problem is. Issues in politics occur because of a disagreement what the problem is. Jules Verne wrote some interesting science fiction about a Captain Nemo who opposed war. In one book Nemo discovers how to make fantastic amounts of food. His hope being to eliminate wars by eliminating the need to fight over limited supplies of food. It's just science fiction, and very old science fiction.
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Dec 21, 2017 0:57:47 GMT
Because Americans are not all one, monolithic, like minded drone society that you apparently view us as. The fact of the matter is, MOST Americans did not vote for Trump. Like this group you referred to? Monolothic and like minded drones? YOUR reference. Yes. And if your follow the math through to its logical conclusion, you’ll find that 42% while significant hardly represents a “majority” of Americans. You’re entitled to that belief of course. Nobody ever claimed it was a perfect system (frankly, there is no such thing). It is what it is, but that doesn’t mean we are all the same, or that most of us support President Trump. I believe his approval rating is hovering around the low 30s.
|
|
|
Post by yougotastewgoinbaby on Dec 21, 2017 1:38:38 GMT
As usual your "science" depends on assumptions that it fails to recognize in its reports. The report does not show how they arrived at their figures. One assumption in all carbon dating methods is that cosmic bombardment of the Earth's atmosphere has been constant throughout time. A single sample, especially such a small one, might have material from an extraordinary bombardment event or other anomalous condition. Assuming nothing like that happened then you might have something. Even if highly accurate what would the information be worth? Does this mean cancer is cured? Of course not. I suspect you've fallen into yet another trap for people who believe science is "better" than religion or scientists are "smarter" then people who find value in the Bible. No, the Bible is not a source of information of a scientific nature. It does not describe how to make a composite bow for example, although that probably did figure in the history of the region. Religion especially and the Bible by extension have value where science has none. Science is not solving any political problem because it can only solve problems where everyone agrees what the problem is. Issues in politics occur because of a disagreement what the problem is. Jules Verne wrote some interesting science fiction about a Captain Nemo who opposed war. In one book Nemo discovers how to make fantastic amounts of food. His hope being to eliminate wars by eliminating the need to fight over limited supplies of food. It's just science fiction, and very old science fiction. Why would you use radiocarbon dating methods to age date this chert?
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Dec 21, 2017 1:52:58 GMT
As usual your "science" depends on assumptions that it fails to recognize in its reports. The report does not show how they arrived at their figures. One assumption in all carbon dating methods is that cosmic bombardment of the Earth's atmosphere has been constant throughout time. A single sample, especially such a small one, might have material from an extraordinary bombardment event or other anomalous condition. Assuming nothing like that happened then you might have something. Even if highly accurate what would the information be worth? Does this mean cancer is cured? Of course not. I suspect you've fallen into yet another trap for people who believe science is "better" than religion or scientists are "smarter" then people who find value in the Bible. No, the Bible is not a source of information of a scientific nature. It does not describe how to make a composite bow for example, although that probably did figure in the history of the region. Religion especially and the Bible by extension have value where science has none. Science is not solving any political problem because it can only solve problems where everyone agrees what the problem is. Issues in politics occur because of a disagreement what the problem is. Jules Verne wrote some interesting science fiction about a Captain Nemo who opposed war. In one book Nemo discovers how to make fantastic amounts of food. His hope being to eliminate wars by eliminating the need to fight over limited supplies of food. It's just science fiction, and very old science fiction. Why would you use radiocarbon dating methods to age date this chert? Because he’s an idiot, and all young earth creationists assume that radiocarbon dating must be the method used to date any fossils, no matter how old, because it’s the only form of radiometric dating whose limitations they half ass understand.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Dec 21, 2017 1:54:09 GMT
Like this group you referred to? Monolothic and like minded drones? YOUR reference. IMHO it is a cause of shame that the lunatic Trump was elected by a minority of Americans as you claim. What do you mean by as he claims? It's a verifiable fact that fewer than 50% of the voters voted for Trump. It's also a verifiable fact that fewer than 50% of the voters voted for Hillary but that's a slightly different issue. I mean exactly that. He claimed it on this thread. I never said it was incorrect.
|
|
|
Post by theoncomingstorm on Dec 21, 2017 1:55:16 GMT
LOL, another thread where Arlon tries to think.
|
|
|
Post by yougotastewgoinbaby on Dec 21, 2017 1:56:45 GMT
Why would you use radiocarbon dating methods to age date this chert? Because he’s an idiot, and all young earth creationists assume that radiocarbon dating must be the method used to date any fossils, no matter how old, because it’s the only form of radiometric dating whose limitations they half ass understand. Aw, come on. Give him a chance. I think he might be on to something.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Dec 21, 2017 9:49:38 GMT
Why would you use radiocarbon dating methods to age date this chert? Because he’s an idiot, and all young earth creationists assume that radiocarbon dating must be the method used to date any fossils, no matter how old, because it’s the only form of radiometric dating whose limitations they half ass understand. I merely pointed out the fact that whatever method was used it was not established in the report how accurate it is. By the way, neither have you established anything. There are assumptions involved in any dating method, including whichever you believe was used here. Most of the assumptions are the same whatever the dating method. You are welcome to believe things you cannot prove. You are not welcome to claim as fact things you cannot prove. I already made total fools of you on the age of the Earth showing you don't know either the original ratio of radioactive elements to their byproducts nor the provenance of any sample you have. So give up already. That one had nothing to do with carbon 14 either. Don't try to blame me for your lack of complete argument. If I have to guess what led to your beliefs, I might guess wrong. That's not my fault.
|
|
|
Post by hi224 on Dec 21, 2017 10:00:07 GMT
wow 0.0
|
|