|
On April 18 2007 15:33 Annor[BbG] wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2007 15:30 bine wrote:On April 18 2007 13:22 XelNaga wrote:On April 18 2007 13:11 TheOvermind77 wrote:
Here is an example of what I mean by not taking the Bible literally...or 'ignoring' some parts.
Leviticus 15: 28-30
"'When she is cleansed from her discharge, she must count off seven days, and after that she will be ceremonially clean. 29 On the eighth day she must take two doves or two young pigeons and bring them to the priest at the entrance to the Tent of Meeting. 30 The priest is to sacrifice one for a sin offering and the other for a burnt offering. In this way he will make atonement for her before the Lord for the uncleanness of her discharge."
Do you practice that? Should we practice that? That's also what you would be calling taking out of context. That was hygiene law for the Hebrews when they were in the desert. There was a lot of sickness and disease concern at the time, and so there you go, this is a solution for it. When you say you're taking the bible literally, there is also the assumption that you know the context of the bible and do we need to apply Hebrew religious laws to our society today? No, because 1) We aren't Hebrew and 2) It's out of context. On April 18 2007 12:45 bine wrote:Radio carbon dating  Tool of the devil No, just inaccurate. You think that the carbon in dinosaur bones somehow tricked scientists into thinking it's millions of years old? What do Scientists have to compare them too? Nothing. Its a guess based off of how carbon works in things that exist Today. How do we know that dinosaurs' carbon works the same as animals today if none are alive to show us.
The laws of chemistry don't just magically change periodically, that's why they are laws.
|
On April 18 2007 17:00 OverTheUnder wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2007 16:28 Annor[BbG] wrote:On April 18 2007 15:46 Never Post wrote:On April 18 2007 15:31 Annor[BbG] wrote:
Many people have managed to disprove parts of the Evolutionary Theory. They have edited parts, added parts, removed parts, have they disproved Evolution as a whole? I have never heard of anything like this. But even if it's true, it just shows that with something like a theory of evolution you can amend, adjust until it's correct. With the Bible, it's there - you either believe it or don't, if you take parts of it you nullify the usefulness of it. It's too much of a rigid, narrow way of thinking and we'll never get anywhere if we're locked in this thought pattern.
Oh? The Bible was proven false? Enlighten us, oh wise one. You know something that no one else does.
The date of the earth, a certain flood, Adam&Eve, the value of pi, etc. Basically, things we can explain with scientific evidence and theories nowadays. The thing about science is it accepts that it can be wrong sometimes, it strives to find evidence and improve. People benefit from this, their understanding of the universe becomes clearer. They don't benefit from a dusty old scripture that talks absurdities. I agree, anyone that takes parts of the Bible to support themselves is wrong. You have to take the Bible as a whole if you want to defend any part of the Bible. I love how through out this entire thread you make sure not to explain things clearly. I asked for examples and you give paraphrases off some website you looked at a few years ago and can't exactly remember everything so you just say it in a few word. Here I'll help your thought train. Date of the Earth?
How so? We know how long the Earth has existed? How can we know how long the Earth has existed if we weren't there when it started? I guess we could make educated guesses based on the things we know, but if we only know scientifically things that are about to 10,000 years old, how do you judge if something is 100,000 or 1 million, or 1 billion? To relate it to Starcraft, that's like watching an 4 second clip, one screen size in the middle of the map, and being able to tell me who won, where their bases were started at, and how many units have already died in the game. Its impossibleA certain flood? Yeah, that deserves an lol. You don't even know what the flood is called off hand (otherwise you would have named it), so that means you don't even know the basics on the subject. Which means you A) have a horrible memory or B) never researched it enough to commit it to long term memory. Better go look it up. Adam and Eve? Not bad, so your denying the existence of the beginning for the human race? We just spontaneously appeared as a civilization or that we always existed. Hypothetically, how would you even begin to physically prove that the there were not two first humans? Yeah, you can't unless you find their bodies and they are wearing name tags saying Jack and Jill on them. The value of pi. If you read the passage in the Bible in never mentions a value of pi, that value is inferred from the passage because they say the diameter and circumference in the passage and the mathematical values don't align with it. An explanation that I favor is it says "Brim to Brim" which is outside to outside and then says "compass it round about" which clearly states contained within. Making the size accurate. It also says a few verses later that there were flowers on the outside, which further supports the dimensions within the Bible. As you say science is always correcting errors. Errors that mislead people from birth until death sometimes. Although you may be living in a time that you consider the 'right' science, so many people historically put their faith in that same science and died without even knowing it was wrong. It takes a lot more faith to believe in something that you know has been proven wrong in the past, then to believe in something that hasn't been proven wrong yet. You have more faith than I ever will. horrible analogy, lol;o We measure time based on the nature of radioactive material. We know the rate at which certain elements decay, and so can reverse the process to find the age. If you really want to make an analogy, it would be this. We know that there were 64 marines at the start of the game. We also know that half of the current marines die roughly every 20 minutes. We look and see there are 4 marines left now. We can now use this to determine how long the game has lasted. In this case, it has lasted for around 80 minutes. As for the last sentence about "you have more faith then I ever will" you KNOW that is wrong. If you didn't know, then you probably shouldn't be arguing here;/ There is not faith in science. We don't believe these things 100%. If new evidence comes along and holds up, it changes our views. To be fair, science the past few thousand years is nothing compared to what it is today. Now there are millions of scientists all around the world critiquing eachothers experiments and making sure they adhere to the scientific method. The things that do get proven wrong (if they do) will most likely be things like the big bang. Stuff that we consider likely theories, but by no means are sure of. Now, if something came along to disprove that the earth was round, or disprove the laws of gravity, then alot of people WOULD be shocked, but they would STILL take the new evidence and add it to give us a more complete understanding.
Granted my analogy isn't perfect, but it is a bit more accurate than yours. Your analogy assumes that 64 marines spontaneously spawned at the start of the game, that the death rate of the 64 marines IS equal to the death rate of another batch of marines that NEVER existed in that game. Your analogy assumed the world is made up of one thing, marines, and that you KNOW the beginning had 64 marines. The whole point of my analogy was that it was NOT the beginning. Your analogy fails because it assumes you know the BEGINNING and the END which can find you what the MIDDLE is. The whole point of my analogy was too demonstrate that we are somewhere in the MIDDLE and therefore can't know anything besides the MIDDLE. Before you accuse someone of having a horrible analogy, why don't you figure out a better one.
And directed towards the science thing, you would have to have some faith in something, otherwise you would believe in nothing. If you have no faith that the current answers in science are right, please stop posting here, your ruining what was a good discussion.
|
On April 18 2007 17:12 Lemonwalrus wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2007 15:33 Annor[BbG] wrote:On April 18 2007 15:30 bine wrote:On April 18 2007 13:22 XelNaga wrote:On April 18 2007 13:11 TheOvermind77 wrote:
Here is an example of what I mean by not taking the Bible literally...or 'ignoring' some parts.
Leviticus 15: 28-30
"'When she is cleansed from her discharge, she must count off seven days, and after that she will be ceremonially clean. 29 On the eighth day she must take two doves or two young pigeons and bring them to the priest at the entrance to the Tent of Meeting. 30 The priest is to sacrifice one for a sin offering and the other for a burnt offering. In this way he will make atonement for her before the Lord for the uncleanness of her discharge."
Do you practice that? Should we practice that? That's also what you would be calling taking out of context. That was hygiene law for the Hebrews when they were in the desert. There was a lot of sickness and disease concern at the time, and so there you go, this is a solution for it. When you say you're taking the bible literally, there is also the assumption that you know the context of the bible and do we need to apply Hebrew religious laws to our society today? No, because 1) We aren't Hebrew and 2) It's out of context. On April 18 2007 12:45 bine wrote:Radio carbon dating Tool of the devil No, just inaccurate. You think that the carbon in dinosaur bones somehow tricked scientists into thinking it's millions of years old? What do Scientists have to compare them too? Nothing. Its a guess based off of how carbon works in things that exist Today. How do we know that dinosaurs' carbon works the same as animals today if none are alive to show us. The laws of chemistry don't just magically change periodically, that's why they are laws.
If the laws don't 'change' periodically, what created your big bang? What makes cancer disappear in patients? What explains the chemical creation of life from non life? Science doesn't have an answer to everything, so if you haven't ruled out the possibilities don't lecture on Iaws. I mean science as we know it is what, a whole 300 years old?
|
On April 18 2007 16:14 OverTheUnder wrote:
ok guys (xel, Rebel)
I just want to make sure you realize something. Today, I'm pretty sure most "Christians" don't take the bible word for word and they have beliefs similar to overmind. ( I guess I don't have statistics on this so I could be wrong, but regadl
I just want you guys to realize that you are part of an elitist group and that there are probably more "Christians" like Overmind then there are "Christians" like you. The difference is they claim the only requirement to be christian is belief that Jesus died for your sins.
I'm not really trying to say anything, just stating the fact that the view you guys hold makes alot of today's Christians "fake."
well i don't know where you get your sample from but i would've thought the majority of Christians realise the Bible tells us not to drink to an excess and that sex is intended for married couples. Jesus also sets a higher standard than simply believing in Him. "What does it profit, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can faith save him? You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone, so also faith without works is dead." (James 2)... anyhow, i was afraid this topic would turn into a debate where people would just try to attack Christianity without having even read the Bible before. i hope you don't mind me showing our conversation Ben but this was more what i had in mind when wanting to discuss the original post...
+ Show Spoiler +
Hey there,
I was just reading your post about Greg Laurie and I wanted to respond to your post, but granted that the thread has already exploded to 8 pages, I thought it might be difficult to just post in the forum. Though, I can’t give you a non-Christian perspective on a 1st hand basis, since I am Christian, I also believe that we should become Christians not only because it is the right thing to do, but also because it is the path of greatest blessing. In that sense, I think it also what is best for us personally—I mean, how dreadful would it be to be Christian and constantly wishing we were getting the short end of the stick! =P I think the Bible talks a lot about the joy that we Christians receive from living in accordance with the spirit, and also salvation, which, while it may seem like a small speck in the distance right now, is something we are always looking forward to, and is our greatest blessing.
Anyway, not to swamp you with too much because I’m not really sure what you were asking about, but if you have any questions/concerns, PM me back and I would love to try to answer them.
Take care,
ben
thanks for your lovely response : D it's good that you feel like Christianity brings joy in your life. the reason i posted it was 'cos i disagree with what Greg says, because from my experience and this isn't because i'm selfish because i see it happening to other Christians i know, but i think Christianity makes life harder (a worthy sacrifice in order to gain a better afterlife) and what Greg was doing is setting an unrealistic expectation for non-Christians who may later become Christians and be like, hey what a liar my life isn't any better so it must not be true. i don't believe Greg would be able to for example say it to my friend with multiple sclerosis and has to eat and shit through a tube with a straight face that Christianity makes you happier, because she knows God is real yet does not accept that a loving God would create humans in the first place knowing it would someday turn to this. but that's not what Christianity is about - it's not about fairness and justice, but rather righteousness in the face of unfairness and injustice
|
On April 18 2007 17:32 Annor[BbG] wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2007 17:12 Lemonwalrus wrote:On April 18 2007 15:33 Annor[BbG] wrote:On April 18 2007 15:30 bine wrote:On April 18 2007 13:22 XelNaga wrote:On April 18 2007 13:11 TheOvermind77 wrote:
Here is an example of what I mean by not taking the Bible literally...or 'ignoring' some parts.
Leviticus 15: 28-30
"'When she is cleansed from her discharge, she must count off seven days, and after that she will be ceremonially clean. 29 On the eighth day she must take two doves or two young pigeons and bring them to the priest at the entrance to the Tent of Meeting. 30 The priest is to sacrifice one for a sin offering and the other for a burnt offering. In this way he will make atonement for her before the Lord for the uncleanness of her discharge."
Do you practice that? Should we practice that? That's also what you would be calling taking out of context. That was hygiene law for the Hebrews when they were in the desert. There was a lot of sickness and disease concern at the time, and so there you go, this is a solution for it. When you say you're taking the bible literally, there is also the assumption that you know the context of the bible and do we need to apply Hebrew religious laws to our society today? No, because 1) We aren't Hebrew and 2) It's out of context. On April 18 2007 12:45 bine wrote:Radio carbon dating Tool of the devil No, just inaccurate. You think that the carbon in dinosaur bones somehow tricked scientists into thinking it's millions of years old? What do Scientists have to compare them too? Nothing. Its a guess based off of how carbon works in things that exist Today. How do we know that dinosaurs' carbon works the same as animals today if none are alive to show us. The laws of chemistry don't just magically change periodically, that's why they are laws. If the laws don't 'change' periodically, what created your big bang? What makes cancer disappear in patients? What explains the chemical creation of life from non life? Science doesn't have an answer to everything, so if you haven't ruled out the possibilities don't lecture on Iaws. I mean science as we know it is what, a whole 300 years old?
You are seriously either very misinformed or just very stubborn. NATURAL LAWS ARE LAWS they don't change. THAT IS WHY THEY ARE LAWS. A radioactive carbon isotope decays at a certain rate. We can measure it. You obviously have no idea how this process even works "What do Scientists have to compare them too? Nothing. Its a guess based off of how carbon works in things that exist Today." Wow, that is some of the most illogical thinking I've ever heard. A natural law doesn't change over the course of millennia. Thus, they are laws. Your argument is just absolutely pathetic in terms of simple scientific reason.
When do you think the dinosaurs existed? When do you think the first humans appeared/ spontaneously generated/evolved whatever. Do you honestly believe that Noah built a giant arc and rebuilt the human race, while saving every animal? I have nothing wrong with faith. Faith is a good thing. But denial of simple fact with ridiculous blabberings compounded with a fundamental lack of knowledge is not.
|
testpat
United States565 Posts
A certain flood?
Yeah, that deserves an lol. You don't even know what the flood is called off hand (otherwise you would have named it), so that means you don't even know the basics on the subject. Which means you A) have a horrible memory or B) never researched it enough to commit it to long term memory. Better go look it up.
You mean the flood that covered the whole earth? I'm pretty sure by dismissing his comment and the fact that he doesn't know the name of it proves that it happened. Of course, his use of question marks after each of his points might make a reasonable person realize that he's sarcastically pointing out that basic beliefs that everyone knows about the bible are idiotic.
See, not many people today believe that one person created a boat that held every creature on earth for 40 days while the earth was covered in water. Most people understand that animals eat and poop - some can only live on eating other animals. Some require heat, some require cold. Most people understand that collection of these animals and fodder for them from the four corners of the earth would be impossible, Most people understand that breeding after the ark from such a small population would not work. Some people understand the geological record shows no evidence of a great flood. Some people understand the amount of water needed, and the energy transfer necessary, rules out flooding the earth in a short period without massive increases in temperature. A few people understand that the ark story is mostly like a retelling flood legend from Babylonian, where a king had a raft and saved a number of his animals and belongings from a 1 in 1000 year flood. A very few delusional people believe that the flood & ark really happened after thinking about the mechanics of it. An amazing number of these delusional people believe it because they only believe in the laws of science when the fit what the bible says.
|
Just want to say, thanks to Xel and Rebel 
On April 18 2007 17:00 OverTheUnder wrote:
We measure time based on the nature of radioactive material. We know the rate at which certain elements decay, and so can reverse the process to find the age. If you really want to make an analogy, it would be this.
By this you assume the radioactive material had the same rate troughout time for millions of years. And you assume the atmosphare on the earth was about the same troughout that time. Well the bible indicates that this might not have been like this, and that before the flood in the days of Noah, the earth was much more perfect and as it should be, compared to what it is today.
The atmosphare was different, an on this basis, it this simply makes it impossible to get carbon dating to work properly. Even with the methods used today, you get so inaccurate values, that i canot belive that they actually use it.
And did it ever occur to ppl that we dont have _ANY_ written history for longer back than around 2300 BC (just around the time of the flood) and alot of anicent mysterys of whole cities and civilizations just disipearing, without any historians having any good explenation. (like atlantis, the most well known)
|
On April 18 2007 17:27 Annor[BbG] wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2007 17:00 OverTheUnder wrote:On April 18 2007 16:28 Annor[BbG] wrote:On April 18 2007 15:46 Never Post wrote:On April 18 2007 15:31 Annor[BbG] wrote:
Many people have managed to disprove parts of the Evolutionary Theory. They have edited parts, added parts, removed parts, have they disproved Evolution as a whole? I have never heard of anything like this. But even if it's true, it just shows that with something like a theory of evolution you can amend, adjust until it's correct. With the Bible, it's there - you either believe it or don't, if you take parts of it you nullify the usefulness of it. It's too much of a rigid, narrow way of thinking and we'll never get anywhere if we're locked in this thought pattern.
Oh? The Bible was proven false? Enlighten us, oh wise one. You know something that no one else does.
The date of the earth, a certain flood, Adam&Eve, the value of pi, etc. Basically, things we can explain with scientific evidence and theories nowadays. The thing about science is it accepts that it can be wrong sometimes, it strives to find evidence and improve. People benefit from this, their understanding of the universe becomes clearer. They don't benefit from a dusty old scripture that talks absurdities. I agree, anyone that takes parts of the Bible to support themselves is wrong. You have to take the Bible as a whole if you want to defend any part of the Bible. I love how through out this entire thread you make sure not to explain things clearly. I asked for examples and you give paraphrases off some website you looked at a few years ago and can't exactly remember everything so you just say it in a few word. Here I'll help your thought train. Date of the Earth?
How so? We know how long the Earth has existed? How can we know how long the Earth has existed if we weren't there when it started? I guess we could make educated guesses based on the things we know, but if we only know scientifically things that are about to 10,000 years old, how do you judge if something is 100,000 or 1 million, or 1 billion? To relate it to Starcraft, that's like watching an 4 second clip, one screen size in the middle of the map, and being able to tell me who won, where their bases were started at, and how many units have already died in the game. Its impossibleA certain flood? Yeah, that deserves an lol. You don't even know what the flood is called off hand (otherwise you would have named it), so that means you don't even know the basics on the subject. Which means you A) have a horrible memory or B) never researched it enough to commit it to long term memory. Better go look it up. Adam and Eve? Not bad, so your denying the existence of the beginning for the human race? We just spontaneously appeared as a civilization or that we always existed. Hypothetically, how would you even begin to physically prove that the there were not two first humans? Yeah, you can't unless you find their bodies and they are wearing name tags saying Jack and Jill on them. The value of pi. If you read the passage in the Bible in never mentions a value of pi, that value is inferred from the passage because they say the diameter and circumference in the passage and the mathematical values don't align with it. An explanation that I favor is it says "Brim to Brim" which is outside to outside and then says "compass it round about" which clearly states contained within. Making the size accurate. It also says a few verses later that there were flowers on the outside, which further supports the dimensions within the Bible. As you say science is always correcting errors. Errors that mislead people from birth until death sometimes. Although you may be living in a time that you consider the 'right' science, so many people historically put their faith in that same science and died without even knowing it was wrong. It takes a lot more faith to believe in something that you know has been proven wrong in the past, then to believe in something that hasn't been proven wrong yet. You have more faith than I ever will. horrible analogy, lol;o We measure time based on the nature of radioactive material. We know the rate at which certain elements decay, and so can reverse the process to find the age. If you really want to make an analogy, it would be this. We know that there were 64 marines at the start of the game. We also know that half of the current marines die roughly every 20 minutes. We look and see there are 4 marines left now. We can now use this to determine how long the game has lasted. In this case, it has lasted for around 80 minutes. As for the last sentence about "you have more faith then I ever will" you KNOW that is wrong. If you didn't know, then you probably shouldn't be arguing here;/ There is not faith in science. We don't believe these things 100%. If new evidence comes along and holds up, it changes our views. To be fair, science the past few thousand years is nothing compared to what it is today. Now there are millions of scientists all around the world critiquing eachothers experiments and making sure they adhere to the scientific method. The things that do get proven wrong (if they do) will most likely be things like the big bang. Stuff that we consider likely theories, but by no means are sure of. Now, if something came along to disprove that the earth was round, or disprove the laws of gravity, then alot of people WOULD be shocked, but they would STILL take the new evidence and add it to give us a more complete understanding. Granted my analogy isn't perfect, but it is a bit more accurate than yours. Your analogy assumes that 64 marines spontaneously spawned at the start of the game, that the death rate of the 64 marines IS equal to the death rate of another batch of marines that NEVER existed in that game. Your analogy assumed the world is made up of one thing, marines, and that you KNOW the beginning had 64 marines. The whole point of my analogy was that it was NOT the beginning. Your analogy fails because it assumes you know the BEGINNING and the END which can find you what the MIDDLE is. The whole point of my analogy was too demonstrate that we are somewhere in the MIDDLE and therefore can't know anything besides the MIDDLE. Before you accuse someone of having a horrible analogy, why don't you figure out a better one. And directed towards the science thing, you would have to have some faith in something, otherwise you would believe in nothing. If you have no faith that the current answers in science are right, please stop posting here, your ruining what was a good discussion.
no, I do not assume to know the end. I said there were 4 marines left, obviously that isn't the end, but the present. The numbers i used are arbitrary. And my analogy was just an example on the process we use to tell the age of things. You are pointing out flaws in my analogy that don't even matter for this particular point.
Read up on radiometric dating please
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiometric_dating
as for the faith thing, I suppose it depends on your definition, but all the ones I have found that seem most commonplace are like these:
-confident belief in the truth of a person, idea, or thing. This belief is not based on logical proof. With Faith, one has hope, Trust, Love, and certainty that God is.
-Aceptance of ideals, beliefs, etc., which are not necessarily demonstrable through experimentation or reason.
-Strong belief in something without proof or evidenc
-Belief without evidence
In those cases, no, I do not have faith. In the much more liberal definition you are using, everything requires faith, but the strips the term down alot from its most common meaning "to believe in something without evidence."
|
On April 18 2007 17:49 ThePhan2m wrote:Just want to say, thanks to Xel and Rebel Show nested quote +On April 18 2007 17:00 OverTheUnder wrote:
We measure time based on the nature of radioactive material. We know the rate at which certain elements decay, and so can reverse the process to find the age. If you really want to make an analogy, it would be this.
By this you assume the radioactive material had the same rate troughout time for millions of years. And you assume the atmosphare on the earth was about the same troughout that time. Well the bible indicates that this might not have been like this, and that before the flood in the days of Noah, the earth was much more perfect and as it should be, compared to what it is today. The atmosphare was different, an on this basis, it this simply makes it impossible to get carbon dating to work properly. Even with the methods used today, you get so inaccurate values, that i canot belive that they actually use it. And did it ever occur to ppl that we dont have _ANY_ written history for longer back than around 2300 BC (just around the time of the flood) and alot of anicent mysterys of whole cities and civilizations just disipearing, without any historians having any good explenation. (like atlantis, the most well known)
Wow. Do you even know that atlantis is just legend described by Plato? "The Lost City of Atlantis" is just as real as El Dorado. No historian has ever even found any concrete record of atlantis in the archaeological record. Again, you have no idea how carbon dating works. How would the atmospheric content change the rate of a highly stable radioactive carbon isotope's decomposition in an inorganic/organic subatance? It wouldn't. You just assume random bullshit.
Did you ever think that people didn't keep records prior to 2300BC? I'm not familiar with the exact dates, but pure logic would lead to that conclusion quite quickly. Also, wouldn't there be massive geological evidence of a worldwide flood "only" 2.3 millennia ago? Of course there would, but there isn't.
|
I was just reading the last few pages and I just wanted to make a quick comment. Some members referred to darwin's evolution as a "theory". That is a common misconception. One of the definitions of "theory" is:
"A proven model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise falsified through empirical observation."
In simplier words, for something to be labelled as a theory, it has to be "seen in action" either partially or completely. For example, nobody has ever seen a monkey being in the process of turning into a man. Therefore evolution is a postulate, or axiom, it indicates a starting assumption from which other statements are logically derived. It does not have to be self-evident (say, constancy of speed of light is not self-evident). Some axioms are experimental facts, but some are just assumptions not based on anything.
|
On April 18 2007 17:41 Myxomatosis wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2007 17:32 Annor[BbG] wrote:On April 18 2007 17:12 Lemonwalrus wrote:On April 18 2007 15:33 Annor[BbG] wrote:On April 18 2007 15:30 bine wrote:On April 18 2007 13:22 XelNaga wrote:On April 18 2007 13:11 TheOvermind77 wrote:
Here is an example of what I mean by not taking the Bible literally...or 'ignoring' some parts.
Leviticus 15: 28-30
"'When she is cleansed from her discharge, she must count off seven days, and after that she will be ceremonially clean. 29 On the eighth day she must take two doves or two young pigeons and bring them to the priest at the entrance to the Tent of Meeting. 30 The priest is to sacrifice one for a sin offering and the other for a burnt offering. In this way he will make atonement for her before the Lord for the uncleanness of her discharge."
Do you practice that? Should we practice that? That's also what you would be calling taking out of context. That was hygiene law for the Hebrews when they were in the desert. There was a lot of sickness and disease concern at the time, and so there you go, this is a solution for it. When you say you're taking the bible literally, there is also the assumption that you know the context of the bible and do we need to apply Hebrew religious laws to our society today? No, because 1) We aren't Hebrew and 2) It's out of context. On April 18 2007 12:45 bine wrote:Radio carbon dating Tool of the devil No, just inaccurate. You think that the carbon in dinosaur bones somehow tricked scientists into thinking it's millions of years old? What do Scientists have to compare them too? Nothing. Its a guess based off of how carbon works in things that exist Today. How do we know that dinosaurs' carbon works the same as animals today if none are alive to show us. The laws of chemistry don't just magically change periodically, that's why they are laws. If the laws don't 'change' periodically, what created your big bang? What makes cancer disappear in patients? What explains the chemical creation of life from non life? Science doesn't have an answer to everything, so if you haven't ruled out the possibilities don't lecture on Iaws. I mean science as we know it is what, a whole 300 years old? You are seriously either very misinformed or just very stubborn. NATURAL LAWS ARE LAWS they don't change. THAT IS WHY THEY ARE LAWS. A radioactive carbon isotope decays at a certain rate. We can measure it. You obviously have no idea how this process even works "What do Scientists have to compare them too? Nothing. Its a guess based off of how carbon works in things that exist Today." Wow, that is some of the most illogical thinking I've ever heard. A natural law doesn't change over the course of millennia. Thus, they are laws. Your argument is just absolutely pathetic in terms of simple scientific reason. When do you think the dinosaurs existed? When do you think the first humans appeared/ spontaneously generated/evolved whatever. Do you honestly believe that Noah built a giant arc and rebuilt the human race, while saving every animal? I have nothing wrong with faith. Faith is a good thing. But denial of simple fact with ridiculous blabberings compounded with a fundamental lack of knowledge is not.
Carbon has been studied for what, just over 100 years? We know how carbon decays in the process of 100 years in living things, the farthest carbon goes back is slightly over 3,000 years. The fact that you think carbon dating is mathematically perfected is alarming. If carbon decays at a certain rate, why is carbon dating wrong? Here I'll even humor you and say why is carbon dating 'sometimes' wrong. Please don't try to pawn carbon dating off as an undeniable fact. Carbon dating is possible, but it has soooo many errors.
|
On April 18 2007 17:44 testpat wrote:Show nested quote +
A certain flood?
Yeah, that deserves an lol. You don't even know what the flood is called off hand (otherwise you would have named it), so that means you don't even know the basics on the subject. Which means you A) have a horrible memory or B) never researched it enough to commit it to long term memory. Better go look it up.
You mean the flood that covered the whole earth? I'm pretty sure by dismissing his comment and the fact that he doesn't know the name of it proves that it happened. Of course, his use of question marks after each of his points might make a reasonable person realize that he's sarcastically pointing out that basic beliefs that everyone knows about the bible are idiotic. See, not many people today believe that one person created a boat that held every creature on earth for 40 days while the earth was covered in water. Most people understand that animals eat and poop - some can only live on eating other animals. Some require heat, some require cold. Most people understand that collection of these animals and fodder for them from the four corners of the earth would be impossible, Most people understand that breeding after the ark from such a small population would not work. Some people understand the geological record shows no evidence of a great flood. Some people understand the amount of water needed, and the energy transfer necessary, rules out flooding the earth in a short period without massive increases in temperature. A few people understand that the ark story is mostly like a retelling flood legend from Babylonian, where a king had a raft and saved a number of his animals and belongings from a 1 in 1000 year flood. A very few delusional people believe that the flood & ark really happened after thinking about the mechanics of it. An amazing number of these delusional people believe it because they only believe in the laws of science when the fit what the bible says.
You know whats really amazing, is that the Bible says Noah's family, sons and daughters, and their marriage relations built the ark. The Bible also says that God brought the animals to Noah. Yeah in 10 years you won't be able to tell that Louisiana was under water. That's only 10 years. Who said there weren't some sort of temperature increases, just because it doesn't happen in your short lifetime doesn't mean its never happened. The Bible also says that only 'clean' animals were taken aboard the ark.
Just because you have a lack of Biblical knowledge, don't make others suffer through it by making me tell you it passage by passage. If you don't know it, look it up.
|
On April 18 2007 18:01 Annor[BbG] wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2007 17:41 Myxomatosis wrote:On April 18 2007 17:32 Annor[BbG] wrote:On April 18 2007 17:12 Lemonwalrus wrote:On April 18 2007 15:33 Annor[BbG] wrote:On April 18 2007 15:30 bine wrote:On April 18 2007 13:22 XelNaga wrote:On April 18 2007 13:11 TheOvermind77 wrote:
Here is an example of what I mean by not taking the Bible literally...or 'ignoring' some parts.
Leviticus 15: 28-30
"'When she is cleansed from her discharge, she must count off seven days, and after that she will be ceremonially clean. 29 On the eighth day she must take two doves or two young pigeons and bring them to the priest at the entrance to the Tent of Meeting. 30 The priest is to sacrifice one for a sin offering and the other for a burnt offering. In this way he will make atonement for her before the Lord for the uncleanness of her discharge."
Do you practice that? Should we practice that? That's also what you would be calling taking out of context. That was hygiene law for the Hebrews when they were in the desert. There was a lot of sickness and disease concern at the time, and so there you go, this is a solution for it. When you say you're taking the bible literally, there is also the assumption that you know the context of the bible and do we need to apply Hebrew religious laws to our society today? No, because 1) We aren't Hebrew and 2) It's out of context. On April 18 2007 12:45 bine wrote:Radio carbon dating Tool of the devil No, just inaccurate. You think that the carbon in dinosaur bones somehow tricked scientists into thinking it's millions of years old? What do Scientists have to compare them too? Nothing. Its a guess based off of how carbon works in things that exist Today. How do we know that dinosaurs' carbon works the same as animals today if none are alive to show us. The laws of chemistry don't just magically change periodically, that's why they are laws. If the laws don't 'change' periodically, what created your big bang? What makes cancer disappear in patients? What explains the chemical creation of life from non life? Science doesn't have an answer to everything, so if you haven't ruled out the possibilities don't lecture on Iaws. I mean science as we know it is what, a whole 300 years old? You are seriously either very misinformed or just very stubborn. NATURAL LAWS ARE LAWS they don't change. THAT IS WHY THEY ARE LAWS. A radioactive carbon isotope decays at a certain rate. We can measure it. You obviously have no idea how this process even works "What do Scientists have to compare them too? Nothing. Its a guess based off of how carbon works in things that exist Today." Wow, that is some of the most illogical thinking I've ever heard. A natural law doesn't change over the course of millennia. Thus, they are laws. Your argument is just absolutely pathetic in terms of simple scientific reason. When do you think the dinosaurs existed? When do you think the first humans appeared/ spontaneously generated/evolved whatever. Do you honestly believe that Noah built a giant arc and rebuilt the human race, while saving every animal? I have nothing wrong with faith. Faith is a good thing. But denial of simple fact with ridiculous blabberings compounded with a fundamental lack of knowledge is not. Carbon has been studied for what, just over 100 years? We know how carbon decays in the process of 100 years in living things, the farthest carbon goes back is slightly over 3,000 years. The fact that you think carbon dating is mathematically perfected is alarming. If carbon decays at a certain rate, why is carbon dating wrong? Here I'll even humor you and say why is carbon dating 'sometimes' wrong. Please don't try to pawn carbon dating off as an undeniable fact. Carbon dating is possible, but it has soooo many errors.
it is just under 6000 years btw;o carbon dating, done correctly on a correct specimen can date up
to at least 45,000 years accuratley. Of course we don't use carbon dating for determining how old
the earth is. We use elements with much longer half-lives.
Also adding to the credibility of radioactive dating methods, is the fact that , if possible, numerous methods have been applied to the same/similar specimens and the results are all around the same time period. (depending on the accuracy of the element of course)
edit: hahaha, ironically, I am off to church band practice right now, so I will be back later;p
|
On April 18 2007 18:07 OverTheUnder wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2007 18:01 Annor[BbG] wrote:On April 18 2007 17:41 Myxomatosis wrote:On April 18 2007 17:32 Annor[BbG] wrote:On April 18 2007 17:12 Lemonwalrus wrote:On April 18 2007 15:33 Annor[BbG] wrote:On April 18 2007 15:30 bine wrote:On April 18 2007 13:22 XelNaga wrote:On April 18 2007 13:11 TheOvermind77 wrote:
Here is an example of what I mean by not taking the Bible literally...or 'ignoring' some parts.
Leviticus 15: 28-30
"'When she is cleansed from her discharge, she must count off seven days, and after that she will be ceremonially clean. 29 On the eighth day she must take two doves or two young pigeons and bring them to the priest at the entrance to the Tent of Meeting. 30 The priest is to sacrifice one for a sin offering and the other for a burnt offering. In this way he will make atonement for her before the Lord for the uncleanness of her discharge."
Do you practice that? Should we practice that? That's also what you would be calling taking out of context. That was hygiene law for the Hebrews when they were in the desert. There was a lot of sickness and disease concern at the time, and so there you go, this is a solution for it. When you say you're taking the bible literally, there is also the assumption that you know the context of the bible and do we need to apply Hebrew religious laws to our society today? No, because 1) We aren't Hebrew and 2) It's out of context. On April 18 2007 12:45 bine wrote:Radio carbon dating Tool of the devil No, just inaccurate. You think that the carbon in dinosaur bones somehow tricked scientists into thinking it's millions of years old? What do Scientists have to compare them too? Nothing. Its a guess based off of how carbon works in things that exist Today. How do we know that dinosaurs' carbon works the same as animals today if none are alive to show us. The laws of chemistry don't just magically change periodically, that's why they are laws. If the laws don't 'change' periodically, what created your big bang? What makes cancer disappear in patients? What explains the chemical creation of life from non life? Science doesn't have an answer to everything, so if you haven't ruled out the possibilities don't lecture on Iaws. I mean science as we know it is what, a whole 300 years old? You are seriously either very misinformed or just very stubborn. NATURAL LAWS ARE LAWS they don't change. THAT IS WHY THEY ARE LAWS. A radioactive carbon isotope decays at a certain rate. We can measure it. You obviously have no idea how this process even works "What do Scientists have to compare them too? Nothing. Its a guess based off of how carbon works in things that exist Today." Wow, that is some of the most illogical thinking I've ever heard. A natural law doesn't change over the course of millennia. Thus, they are laws. Your argument is just absolutely pathetic in terms of simple scientific reason. When do you think the dinosaurs existed? When do you think the first humans appeared/ spontaneously generated/evolved whatever. Do you honestly believe that Noah built a giant arc and rebuilt the human race, while saving every animal? I have nothing wrong with faith. Faith is a good thing. But denial of simple fact with ridiculous blabberings compounded with a fundamental lack of knowledge is not. Carbon has been studied for what, just over 100 years? We know how carbon decays in the process of 100 years in living things, the farthest carbon goes back is slightly over 3,000 years. The fact that you think carbon dating is mathematically perfected is alarming. If carbon decays at a certain rate, why is carbon dating wrong? Here I'll even humor you and say why is carbon dating 'sometimes' wrong. Please don't try to pawn carbon dating off as an undeniable fact. Carbon dating is possible, but it has soooo many errors. it is just under 6000 years btw;o carbon dating, done correctly on a correct specimen can date up to at least 45,000 years accuratley. Of course we don't use carbon dating for determining how old the earth is. We use elements with much longer half-lives. Also adding to the credibility of radioactive dating methods, is the fact that , if possible, numerous methods have been applied to the same/similar specimens and the results are all around the same time period. (depending on the accuracy of the element of course)
6,000? What was proven to be 6,000 years old without the use of carbon dating? I can think of the pyramids of the 1000BCS, but thats about it.
|
On April 18 2007 18:01 Annor[BbG] wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2007 17:41 Myxomatosis wrote:On April 18 2007 17:32 Annor[BbG] wrote:On April 18 2007 17:12 Lemonwalrus wrote:On April 18 2007 15:33 Annor[BbG] wrote:On April 18 2007 15:30 bine wrote:On April 18 2007 13:22 XelNaga wrote:On April 18 2007 13:11 TheOvermind77 wrote:
Here is an example of what I mean by not taking the Bible literally...or 'ignoring' some parts.
Leviticus 15: 28-30
"'When she is cleansed from her discharge, she must count off seven days, and after that she will be ceremonially clean. 29 On the eighth day she must take two doves or two young pigeons and bring them to the priest at the entrance to the Tent of Meeting. 30 The priest is to sacrifice one for a sin offering and the other for a burnt offering. In this way he will make atonement for her before the Lord for the uncleanness of her discharge."
Do you practice that? Should we practice that? That's also what you would be calling taking out of context. That was hygiene law for the Hebrews when they were in the desert. There was a lot of sickness and disease concern at the time, and so there you go, this is a solution for it. When you say you're taking the bible literally, there is also the assumption that you know the context of the bible and do we need to apply Hebrew religious laws to our society today? No, because 1) We aren't Hebrew and 2) It's out of context. On April 18 2007 12:45 bine wrote:Radio carbon dating Tool of the devil No, just inaccurate. You think that the carbon in dinosaur bones somehow tricked scientists into thinking it's millions of years old? What do Scientists have to compare them too? Nothing. Its a guess based off of how carbon works in things that exist Today. How do we know that dinosaurs' carbon works the same as animals today if none are alive to show us. The laws of chemistry don't just magically change periodically, that's why they are laws. If the laws don't 'change' periodically, what created your big bang? What makes cancer disappear in patients? What explains the chemical creation of life from non life? Science doesn't have an answer to everything, so if you haven't ruled out the possibilities don't lecture on Iaws. I mean science as we know it is what, a whole 300 years old? You are seriously either very misinformed or just very stubborn. NATURAL LAWS ARE LAWS they don't change. THAT IS WHY THEY ARE LAWS. A radioactive carbon isotope decays at a certain rate. We can measure it. You obviously have no idea how this process even works "What do Scientists have to compare them too? Nothing. Its a guess based off of how carbon works in things that exist Today." Wow, that is some of the most illogical thinking I've ever heard. A natural law doesn't change over the course of millennia. Thus, they are laws. Your argument is just absolutely pathetic in terms of simple scientific reason. When do you think the dinosaurs existed? When do you think the first humans appeared/ spontaneously generated/evolved whatever. Do you honestly believe that Noah built a giant arc and rebuilt the human race, while saving every animal? I have nothing wrong with faith. Faith is a good thing. But denial of simple fact with ridiculous blabberings compounded with a fundamental lack of knowledge is not. Carbon has been studied for what, just over 100 years? We know how carbon decays in the process of 100 years in living things, the farthest carbon goes back is slightly over 3,000 years. The fact that you think carbon dating is mathematically perfected is alarming. If carbon decays at a certain rate, why is carbon dating wrong? Here I'll even humor you and say why is carbon dating 'sometimes' wrong. Please don't try to pawn carbon dating off as an undeniable fact. Carbon dating is possible, but it has soooo many errors.
Perhaps I shouldn't have just used the words "carbon dating." Radiometric dating is more accurate. There are scores more of radioactive isotopes (uranium hi) that can be used to date far further than carbon14 dating (which btw is applicable for approximately over 10 thousand years). You just have no knowledge of fundamental science. Your analogy of 100 years is like me saying we have only been able to view atoms under an electron microscope for 100 years. How do we know that they weren't different 101 years ago? Are you really narrowing scientific knowledge to what we have been able to observe in a limited time period? That's just plain stupid. Can you tell me some of these "errors" if there are "sooooooo many"
btw. when did the dinosaurs exist? trilobites? when did the P-T extinction happen? how do you explain the Siberian traps? how do you explain all of the bolide impact craters on the earth's surface?
|
On April 18 2007 17:58 Myxomatosis wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2007 17:49 ThePhan2m wrote:Just want to say, thanks to Xel and Rebel On April 18 2007 17:00 OverTheUnder wrote:
We measure time based on the nature of radioactive material. We know the rate at which certain elements decay, and so can reverse the process to find the age. If you really want to make an analogy, it would be this.
By this you assume the radioactive material had the same rate troughout time for millions of years. And you assume the atmosphare on the earth was about the same troughout that time. Well the bible indicates that this might not have been like this, and that before the flood in the days of Noah, the earth was much more perfect and as it should be, compared to what it is today. The atmosphare was different, an on this basis, it this simply makes it impossible to get carbon dating to work properly. Even with the methods used today, you get so inaccurate values, that i canot belive that they actually use it. And did it ever occur to ppl that we dont have _ANY_ written history for longer back than around 2300 BC (just around the time of the flood) and alot of anicent mysterys of whole cities and civilizations just disipearing, without any historians having any good explenation. (like atlantis, the most well known) Wow. Do you even know that atlantis is just legend described by Plato? "The Lost City of Atlantis" is just as real as El Dorado. No historian has ever even found any concrete record of atlantis in the archaeological record. Again, you have no idea how carbon dating works. How would the atmospheric content change the rate of a highly stable radioactive carbon isotope's decomposition in an inorganic/organic subatance? It wouldn't. You just assume random bullshit. Did you ever think that people didn't keep records prior to 2300BC? I'm not familiar with the exact dates, but pure logic would lead to that conclusion quite quickly. Also, wouldn't there be massive geological evidence of a worldwide flood "only" 2.3 millennia ago? Of course there would, but there isn't.
to add on to this, even major changes in the atmosphere don't account for multiple elements dating back millions of years.
edit: it is possible that our date on how old the earth is is slightly off, but you guys have to understand, you are arguing that the earth is 6-10k years old. Even though PILES of evidence point to earth being at least millions. Even before radiometric dating, people could guess that the earth was millions of years old by looking around us. Clues in the landscape show that the shaping is a constantly changing and gradual process.
|
On April 18 2007 18:09 Annor[BbG] wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2007 18:07 OverTheUnder wrote:On April 18 2007 18:01 Annor[BbG] wrote:On April 18 2007 17:41 Myxomatosis wrote:On April 18 2007 17:32 Annor[BbG] wrote:On April 18 2007 17:12 Lemonwalrus wrote:On April 18 2007 15:33 Annor[BbG] wrote:On April 18 2007 15:30 bine wrote:On April 18 2007 13:22 XelNaga wrote:On April 18 2007 13:11 TheOvermind77 wrote:
Here is an example of what I mean by not taking the Bible literally...or 'ignoring' some parts.
Leviticus 15: 28-30
"'When she is cleansed from her discharge, she must count off seven days, and after that she will be ceremonially clean. 29 On the eighth day she must take two doves or two young pigeons and bring them to the priest at the entrance to the Tent of Meeting. 30 The priest is to sacrifice one for a sin offering and the other for a burnt offering. In this way he will make atonement for her before the Lord for the uncleanness of her discharge."
Do you practice that? Should we practice that? That's also what you would be calling taking out of context. That was hygiene law for the Hebrews when they were in the desert. There was a lot of sickness and disease concern at the time, and so there you go, this is a solution for it. When you say you're taking the bible literally, there is also the assumption that you know the context of the bible and do we need to apply Hebrew religious laws to our society today? No, because 1) We aren't Hebrew and 2) It's out of context. On April 18 2007 12:45 bine wrote:Radio carbon dating Tool of the devil No, just inaccurate. You think that the carbon in dinosaur bones somehow tricked scientists into thinking it's millions of years old? What do Scientists have to compare them too? Nothing. Its a guess based off of how carbon works in things that exist Today. How do we know that dinosaurs' carbon works the same as animals today if none are alive to show us. The laws of chemistry don't just magically change periodically, that's why they are laws. If the laws don't 'change' periodically, what created your big bang? What makes cancer disappear in patients? What explains the chemical creation of life from non life? Science doesn't have an answer to everything, so if you haven't ruled out the possibilities don't lecture on Iaws. I mean science as we know it is what, a whole 300 years old? You are seriously either very misinformed or just very stubborn. NATURAL LAWS ARE LAWS they don't change. THAT IS WHY THEY ARE LAWS. A radioactive carbon isotope decays at a certain rate. We can measure it. You obviously have no idea how this process even works "What do Scientists have to compare them too? Nothing. Its a guess based off of how carbon works in things that exist Today." Wow, that is some of the most illogical thinking I've ever heard. A natural law doesn't change over the course of millennia. Thus, they are laws. Your argument is just absolutely pathetic in terms of simple scientific reason. When do you think the dinosaurs existed? When do you think the first humans appeared/ spontaneously generated/evolved whatever. Do you honestly believe that Noah built a giant arc and rebuilt the human race, while saving every animal? I have nothing wrong with faith. Faith is a good thing. But denial of simple fact with ridiculous blabberings compounded with a fundamental lack of knowledge is not. Carbon has been studied for what, just over 100 years? We know how carbon decays in the process of 100 years in living things, the farthest carbon goes back is slightly over 3,000 years. The fact that you think carbon dating is mathematically perfected is alarming. If carbon decays at a certain rate, why is carbon dating wrong? Here I'll even humor you and say why is carbon dating 'sometimes' wrong. Please don't try to pawn carbon dating off as an undeniable fact. Carbon dating is possible, but it has soooo many errors. it is just under 6000 years btw;o carbon dating, done correctly on a correct specimen can date up to at least 45,000 years accuratley. Of course we don't use carbon dating for determining how old the earth is. We use elements with much longer half-lives. Also adding to the credibility of radioactive dating methods, is the fact that , if possible, numerous methods have been applied to the same/similar specimens and the results are all around the same time period. (depending on the accuracy of the element of course) 6,000? What was proven to be 6,000 years old without the use of carbon dating? I can think of the pyramids of the 1000BCS, but thats about it.
I don't understand your question. Are you trying to ask "what has been proven to be older than 6000 years old?" How about the age of the earth for one thing. Can you rephrase please. Also, the egyptians were in no way the first civilization.
|
On April 18 2007 18:09 Annor[BbG] wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2007 18:07 OverTheUnder wrote:On April 18 2007 18:01 Annor[BbG] wrote:On April 18 2007 17:41 Myxomatosis wrote:On April 18 2007 17:32 Annor[BbG] wrote:On April 18 2007 17:12 Lemonwalrus wrote:On April 18 2007 15:33 Annor[BbG] wrote:On April 18 2007 15:30 bine wrote:On April 18 2007 13:22 XelNaga wrote:On April 18 2007 13:11 TheOvermind77 wrote:
Here is an example of what I mean by not taking the Bible literally...or 'ignoring' some parts.
Leviticus 15: 28-30
"'When she is cleansed from her discharge, she must count off seven days, and after that she will be ceremonially clean. 29 On the eighth day she must take two doves or two young pigeons and bring them to the priest at the entrance to the Tent of Meeting. 30 The priest is to sacrifice one for a sin offering and the other for a burnt offering. In this way he will make atonement for her before the Lord for the uncleanness of her discharge."
Do you practice that? Should we practice that? That's also what you would be calling taking out of context. That was hygiene law for the Hebrews when they were in the desert. There was a lot of sickness and disease concern at the time, and so there you go, this is a solution for it. When you say you're taking the bible literally, there is also the assumption that you know the context of the bible and do we need to apply Hebrew religious laws to our society today? No, because 1) We aren't Hebrew and 2) It's out of context. On April 18 2007 12:45 bine wrote:Radio carbon dating Tool of the devil No, just inaccurate. You think that the carbon in dinosaur bones somehow tricked scientists into thinking it's millions of years old? What do Scientists have to compare them too? Nothing. Its a guess based off of how carbon works in things that exist Today. How do we know that dinosaurs' carbon works the same as animals today if none are alive to show us. The laws of chemistry don't just magically change periodically, that's why they are laws. If the laws don't 'change' periodically, what created your big bang? What makes cancer disappear in patients? What explains the chemical creation of life from non life? Science doesn't have an answer to everything, so if you haven't ruled out the possibilities don't lecture on Iaws. I mean science as we know it is what, a whole 300 years old? You are seriously either very misinformed or just very stubborn. NATURAL LAWS ARE LAWS they don't change. THAT IS WHY THEY ARE LAWS. A radioactive carbon isotope decays at a certain rate. We can measure it. You obviously have no idea how this process even works "What do Scientists have to compare them too? Nothing. Its a guess based off of how carbon works in things that exist Today." Wow, that is some of the most illogical thinking I've ever heard. A natural law doesn't change over the course of millennia. Thus, they are laws. Your argument is just absolutely pathetic in terms of simple scientific reason. When do you think the dinosaurs existed? When do you think the first humans appeared/ spontaneously generated/evolved whatever. Do you honestly believe that Noah built a giant arc and rebuilt the human race, while saving every animal? I have nothing wrong with faith. Faith is a good thing. But denial of simple fact with ridiculous blabberings compounded with a fundamental lack of knowledge is not. Carbon has been studied for what, just over 100 years? We know how carbon decays in the process of 100 years in living things, the farthest carbon goes back is slightly over 3,000 years. The fact that you think carbon dating is mathematically perfected is alarming. If carbon decays at a certain rate, why is carbon dating wrong? Here I'll even humor you and say why is carbon dating 'sometimes' wrong. Please don't try to pawn carbon dating off as an undeniable fact. Carbon dating is possible, but it has soooo many errors. it is just under 6000 years btw;o carbon dating, done correctly on a correct specimen can date up to at least 45,000 years accuratley. Of course we don't use carbon dating for determining how old the earth is. We use elements with much longer half-lives. Also adding to the credibility of radioactive dating methods, is the fact that , if possible, numerous methods have been applied to the same/similar specimens and the results are all around the same time period. (depending on the accuracy of the element of course) 6,000? What was proven to be 6,000 years old without the use of carbon dating? I can think of the pyramids of the 1000BCS, but thats about it.
I'm not sure and I have to go for now, but I'm telling you what the half life of it is. So I don't see how your question is relevant. You say the furthest it goes back ( i took that as meaning predictability) is 3k. Well its half-life is just UNDER 6k and it can go back to at least 45k years. There are more accurate alternatives to carbon-14 when it comes to dating that far back or further though.
|
On April 18 2007 17:59 littleboy wrote:
I was just reading the last few pages and I just wanted to make a quick comment. Some members referred to darwin's evolution as a "theory". That is a common misconception. One of the definitions of "theory" is:
"A proven model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise falsified through empirical observation."
In simplier words, for something to be labelled as a theory, it has to be "seen in action" either partially or completely. For example, nobody has ever seen a monkey being in the process of turning into a man. Therefore evolution is a postulate, or axiom, it indicates a starting assumption from which other statements are logically derived. It does not have to be self-evident (say, constancy of speed of light is not self-evident). Some axioms are experimental facts, but some are just assumptions not based on anything.
What are you talking about? I can make up a theory as to why you have no idea what you're talking about, and whether you've seen your bullshit in action or not, it's still a valid theory.
|
On April 18 2007 17:57 OverTheUnder wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2007 17:27 Annor[BbG] wrote:On April 18 2007 17:00 OverTheUnder wrote:On April 18 2007 16:28 Annor[BbG] wrote:On April 18 2007 15:46 Never Post wrote:On April 18 2007 15:31 Annor[BbG] wrote:
Many people have managed to disprove parts of the Evolutionary Theory. They have edited parts, added parts, removed parts, have they disproved Evolution as a whole? I have never heard of anything like this. But even if it's true, it just shows that with something like a theory of evolution you can amend, adjust until it's correct. With the Bible, it's there - you either believe it or don't, if you take parts of it you nullify the usefulness of it. It's too much of a rigid, narrow way of thinking and we'll never get anywhere if we're locked in this thought pattern.
Oh? The Bible was proven false? Enlighten us, oh wise one. You know something that no one else does.
The date of the earth, a certain flood, Adam&Eve, the value of pi, etc. Basically, things we can explain with scientific evidence and theories nowadays. The thing about science is it accepts that it can be wrong sometimes, it strives to find evidence and improve. People benefit from this, their understanding of the universe becomes clearer. They don't benefit from a dusty old scripture that talks absurdities. I agree, anyone that takes parts of the Bible to support themselves is wrong. You have to take the Bible as a whole if you want to defend any part of the Bible. I love how through out this entire thread you make sure not to explain things clearly. I asked for examples and you give paraphrases off some website you looked at a few years ago and can't exactly remember everything so you just say it in a few word. Here I'll help your thought train. Date of the Earth?
How so? We know how long the Earth has existed? How can we know how long the Earth has existed if we weren't there when it started? I guess we could make educated guesses based on the things we know, but if we only know scientifically things that are about to 10,000 years old, how do you judge if something is 100,000 or 1 million, or 1 billion? To relate it to Starcraft, that's like watching an 4 second clip, one screen size in the middle of the map, and being able to tell me who won, where their bases were started at, and how many units have already died in the game. Its impossibleA certain flood? Yeah, that deserves an lol. You don't even know what the flood is called off hand (otherwise you would have named it), so that means you don't even know the basics on the subject. Which means you A) have a horrible memory or B) never researched it enough to commit it to long term memory. Better go look it up. Adam and Eve? Not bad, so your denying the existence of the beginning for the human race? We just spontaneously appeared as a civilization or that we always existed. Hypothetically, how would you even begin to physically prove that the there were not two first humans? Yeah, you can't unless you find their bodies and they are wearing name tags saying Jack and Jill on them. The value of pi. If you read the passage in the Bible in never mentions a value of pi, that value is inferred from the passage because they say the diameter and circumference in the passage and the mathematical values don't align with it. An explanation that I favor is it says "Brim to Brim" which is outside to outside and then says "compass it round about" which clearly states contained within. Making the size accurate. It also says a few verses later that there were flowers on the outside, which further supports the dimensions within the Bible. As you say science is always correcting errors. Errors that mislead people from birth until death sometimes. Although you may be living in a time that you consider the 'right' science, so many people historically put their faith in that same science and died without even knowing it was wrong. It takes a lot more faith to believe in something that you know has been proven wrong in the past, then to believe in something that hasn't been proven wrong yet. You have more faith than I ever will. horrible analogy, lol;o We measure time based on the nature of radioactive material. We know the rate at which certain elements decay, and so can reverse the process to find the age. If you really want to make an analogy, it would be this. We know that there were 64 marines at the start of the game. We also know that half of the current marines die roughly every 20 minutes. We look and see there are 4 marines left now. We can now use this to determine how long the game has lasted. In this case, it has lasted for around 80 minutes. As for the last sentence about "you have more faith then I ever will" you KNOW that is wrong. If you didn't know, then you probably shouldn't be arguing here;/ There is not faith in science. We don't believe these things 100%. If new evidence comes along and holds up, it changes our views. To be fair, science the past few thousand years is nothing compared to what it is today. Now there are millions of scientists all around the world critiquing eachothers experiments and making sure they adhere to the scientific method. The things that do get proven wrong (if they do) will most likely be things like the big bang. Stuff that we consider likely theories, but by no means are sure of. Now, if something came along to disprove that the earth was round, or disprove the laws of gravity, then alot of people WOULD be shocked, but they would STILL take the new evidence and add it to give us a more complete understanding. Granted my analogy isn't perfect, but it is a bit more accurate than yours. Your analogy assumes that 64 marines spontaneously spawned at the start of the game, that the death rate of the 64 marines IS equal to the death rate of another batch of marines that NEVER existed in that game. Your analogy assumed the world is made up of one thing, marines, and that you KNOW the beginning had 64 marines. The whole point of my analogy was that it was NOT the beginning. Your analogy fails because it assumes you know the BEGINNING and the END which can find you what the MIDDLE is. The whole point of my analogy was too demonstrate that we are somewhere in the MIDDLE and therefore can't know anything besides the MIDDLE. Before you accuse someone of having a horrible analogy, why don't you figure out a better one. And directed towards the science thing, you would have to have some faith in something, otherwise you would believe in nothing. If you have no faith that the current answers in science are right, please stop posting here, your ruining what was a good discussion. no, I do not assume to know the end. I said there were 4 marines left, obviously that isn't the end, but the present. The numbers i used are arbitrary. And my analogy was just an example on the process we use to tell the age of things. You are pointing out flaws in my analogy that don't even matter for this particular point. Read up on radiometric dating please http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiometric_datingas for the faith thing, I suppose it depends on your definition, but all the ones I have found that seem most commonplace are like these: -confident belief in the truth of a person, idea, or thing. This belief is not based on logical proof. With Faith, one has hope, Trust, Love, and certainty that God is. -Aceptance of ideals, beliefs, etc., which are not necessarily demonstrable through experimentation or reason. -Strong belief in something without proof or evidenc -Belief without evidence In those cases, no, I do not have faith. In the much more liberal definition you are using, everything requires faith, but the strips the term down alot from its most common meaning "to believe in something without evidence."
Fine Then you know the BEGINNING and the MIDDLE. My analogy was to demonstrate that you only know the MIDDLE, so your analogy still doesn't work. As I said before, before you accuse someone else of having a horrible analogy think of a better one yourself. I'm aware that your analogy was to show how to tell how old something is, that was the whole point someone else and I were talking about, so I'd hope you'd be that capable. The fact remains is that isn't how it works.
Hypothetically if you have a rock that you find at the bottom of the ocean and your bring it up to study it, you don't know when the rock was created (64 marines) you only know what the rock is at the present (4 marines). How you get from the 4 to the 64 is a matter of scientific speculation.
I'm aware what radiometric dating is, so a 'wikipedia' thread is utterly useless, unless you want me to also point out the forgivings that your own link provides. The fact that only materials within a perfect vacuum have even close to accurate dates. We all know that the Earth is a perfect vacuum and that all the items they measure are from that 'perfect' vacuum.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
