|
testpat
United States565 Posts
On April 18 2007 18:07 Annor[BbG] wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2007 17:44 testpat wrote:
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.
So all the unclean animals died - great. So all animals now are clean animals, or did god decide to s spare the unclean animals, and recreate them after the flood? And after the flood, god told all the creatures to walk back to their natural habitat, teaching them to swim across the ocean when necessary.
In 10 years Louisiana will be underwater? Is this is Revelations? Or is this some bizarre straw man argument of the type "If Louisiana was underwater 10 years ago, there's no way i could think of proving it. Therefore, no one could prove it."
If you lack any understanding of science, don't make others suffer through your quoting the bible verse by verse. If you don't know why the ark is a fairy tale, reason it out. Honestly, describe how the ark happened, think it out.
There is no geological record of the flood, its physically impossible to feed the animals, its physically impossible to disperse the animals afterwards, its physically impossible to gather the animals in the first place. Most species do not have the ability to travel thousands of miles, outside their natural habitat, over oceans. To flood the earth in the short time would raise surface temperatures to over 100 degrees. The water has to come from somewhere, and go somewhere. All plant life would have to be salt tolerant, have seeds able to survive submerged for months, and be able to exist without topsoil - they don't.
|
On April 18 2007 18:18 OverTheUnder wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2007 18:09 Annor[BbG] wrote: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:
[quote]
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.
[quote]
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.
By 3,000, I meant a material that we know the exact date of its existence determined by maybe written record rather than using carbon's half-life to prove its own half-life.
|
On April 18 2007 18:33 Annor[BbG] wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2007 18:18 OverTheUnder wrote:On April 18 2007 18:09 Annor[BbG] wrote: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:
[quote]
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. By 3,000, I meant a material that we know the exact date of its existence determined by maybe written record rather than using carbon's half-life to prove its own half-life.
lol.. if im understanding correctly, you want written proof of the existence of a substance that prehistoric people would not have been able to recognize/comprehend the significance of. but no, there is no record of carbon-14 or uranium in the written records of ancient peoples.
|
MyLostTemple
United States2921 Posts
|
On April 18 2007 18:32 testpat wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2007 18:07 Annor[BbG] wrote:On April 18 2007 17:44 testpat wrote:
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. So all the unclean animals died - great. So all animals now are clean animals, or did god decide to s spare the unclean animals, and recreate them after the flood? And after the flood, god told all the creatures to walk back to their natural habitat, teaching them to swim across the ocean when necessary. In 10 years Louisiana will be underwater? Is this is Revelations? Or is this some bizarre straw man argument of the type "If Louisiana was underwater 10 years ago, there's no way i could think of proving it. Therefore, no one could prove it." If you lack any understanding of science, don't make others suffer through your quoting the bible verse by verse. If you don't know why the ark is a fairy tale, reason it out. Honestly, describe how the ark happened, think it out. There is no geological record of the flood, its physically impossible to feed the animals, its physically impossible to disperse the animals afterwards, its physically impossible to gather the animals in the first place. Most species do not have the ability to travel thousands of miles, outside their natural habitat, over oceans. To flood the earth in the short time would raise surface temperatures to over 100 degrees. The water has to come from somewhere, and go somewhere. All plant life would have to be salt tolerant, have seeds able to survive submerged for months, and be able to exist without topsoil - they don't.
How do you know what the creatures natural habitat looked like before the flood? Yeah.
Maybe you should learn your English better. My statement was in PAST tense. That means it already happened. I saw you were from the USA, so I thought you'd at least have an inkling of what happens in your own country. Guess not. Since you obviously don't know where Louisiana is, I'll take the time to point out that New Orleans, Louisiana was underwater after hurricane Katrina. My statement (if you learned to read correctly) said that in 10 years, you won't be able to tell that the city was flooded. That is assuming they get some money to rebuild it.
I haven't quoted but one Bible verse? Is the best you can do to mock me is take my own words and pray that they work for your own argument? How is the Ark not logical. God tells man how to build boat, man builds boat, God sends animals to boat, boat floats (go figure), no more water, people leave boat. Yep, the Bible's answer looks logically acceptable to me, although there are other possibilities.
If God made the Earth flood, and God made the water go away, and God created water in the first place, don't you think its possible that God could make water come and go? Yes. It is possible. As for the feeding, housing, and dispersing of the animals, the Ark was plenty large enough to accomadate all. For HUMANS to flood the Earth, it would require them to raise the temperature. Plus, who said when God made it flood that God made it rain saltwater? Just because oceans are all salt water now, doesn't mean that when everything flooded over that the rain itself was salt.
|
On April 18 2007 18:35 Myxomatosis wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2007 18:33 Annor[BbG] wrote:On April 18 2007 18:18 OverTheUnder wrote:On April 18 2007 18:09 Annor[BbG] wrote: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:
[quote]
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. By 3,000, I meant a material that we know the exact date of its existence determined by maybe written record rather than using carbon's half-life to prove its own half-life. lol.. if im understanding correctly, you want written proof of the existence of a substance that prehistoric people would not have been able to recognize/comprehend the significance of. but no, there is no record of carbon-14 or uranium in the written records of ancient peoples.
Nah I mean written proof of something containing the chemical. For example, if someone wanted to test the USA Declaration of Independence, written really close to 1775 or 1776, they'd be able to confirm the written life span with the carbon life span and be able to validify carbon dating up to 230 years old.
|
On April 18 2007 18:48 Annor[BbG] wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2007 18:35 Myxomatosis wrote:On April 18 2007 18:33 Annor[BbG] wrote:On April 18 2007 18:18 OverTheUnder wrote:On April 18 2007 18:09 Annor[BbG] wrote: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:
[quote]
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. By 3,000, I meant a material that we know the exact date of its existence determined by maybe written record rather than using carbon's half-life to prove its own half-life. lol.. if im understanding correctly, you want written proof of the existence of a substance that prehistoric people would not have been able to recognize/comprehend the significance of. but no, there is no record of carbon-14 or uranium in the written records of ancient peoples. Nah I mean written proof of something containing the chemical. For example, if someone wanted to test the USA Declaration of Independence, written really close to 1775 or 1776, they'd be able to confirm the written life span with the carbon life span and be able to validify carbon dating up to 230 years old.
radiometric dating isn't some slipshod process... i don't know how effective the dating is to the nearest year, but seeing as it is a widely practiced tool, i'm sure that it has been tested repeatedly.
|
16968 Posts
On April 18 2007 18:48 Annor[BbG] wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2007 18:35 Myxomatosis wrote:On April 18 2007 18:33 Annor[BbG] wrote:On April 18 2007 18:18 OverTheUnder wrote:On April 18 2007 18:09 Annor[BbG] wrote: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:
[quote]
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. By 3,000, I meant a material that we know the exact date of its existence determined by maybe written record rather than using carbon's half-life to prove its own half-life. lol.. if im understanding correctly, you want written proof of the existence of a substance that prehistoric people would not have been able to recognize/comprehend the significance of. but no, there is no record of carbon-14 or uranium in the written records of ancient peoples. Nah I mean written proof of something containing the chemical. For example, if someone wanted to test the USA Declaration of Independence, written really close to 1775 or 1776, they'd be able to confirm the written life span with the carbon life span and be able to validify carbon dating up to 230 years old.
Exactly, the range of carbon dating can only be compared to known values based on written records. Since there are no written records, say, 5000 years ago, carbon dating is inaccurate in that time frame. 
|
On April 18 2007 18:45 Annor[BbG] wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2007 18:32 testpat wrote:On April 18 2007 18:07 Annor[BbG] wrote:On April 18 2007 17:44 testpat wrote:
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. So all the unclean animals died - great. So all animals now are clean animals, or did god decide to s spare the unclean animals, and recreate them after the flood? And after the flood, god told all the creatures to walk back to their natural habitat, teaching them to swim across the ocean when necessary. In 10 years Louisiana will be underwater? Is this is Revelations? Or is this some bizarre straw man argument of the type "If Louisiana was underwater 10 years ago, there's no way i could think of proving it. Therefore, no one could prove it." If you lack any understanding of science, don't make others suffer through your quoting the bible verse by verse. If you don't know why the ark is a fairy tale, reason it out. Honestly, describe how the ark happened, think it out. There is no geological record of the flood, its physically impossible to feed the animals, its physically impossible to disperse the animals afterwards, its physically impossible to gather the animals in the first place. Most species do not have the ability to travel thousands of miles, outside their natural habitat, over oceans. To flood the earth in the short time would raise surface temperatures to over 100 degrees. The water has to come from somewhere, and go somewhere. All plant life would have to be salt tolerant, have seeds able to survive submerged for months, and be able to exist without topsoil - they don't. How do you know what the creatures natural habitat looked like before the flood? Yeah. Maybe you should learn your English better. My statement was in PAST tense. That means it already happened. I saw you were from the USA, so I thought you'd at least have an inkling of what happens in your own country. Guess not. Since you obviously don't know where Louisiana is, I'll take the time to point out that New Orleans, Louisiana was underwater after hurricane Katrina. My statement (if you learned to read correctly) said that in 10 years, you won't be able to tell that the city was flooded. That is assuming they get some money to rebuild it. I haven't quoted but one Bible verse? Is the best you can do to mock me is take my own words and pray that they work for your own argument? How is the Ark not logical. God tells man how to build boat, man builds boat, God sends animals to boat, boat floats (go figure), no more water, people leave boat. Yep, the Bible's answer looks logically acceptable to me, although there are other possibilities. If God made the Earth flood, and God made the water go away, and God created water in the first place, don't you think its possible that God could make water come and go? Yes. It is possible. As for the feeding, housing, and dispersing of the animals, the Ark was plenty large enough to accomadate all. For HUMANS to flood the Earth, it would require them to raise the temperature. Plus, who said when God made it flood that God made it rain saltwater? Just because oceans are all salt water now, doesn't mean that when everything flooded over that the rain itself was salt.
Do you know how impossible improbably it would be to keep every animal from every part of the world in a small boat for a 40 days? aaaand your statement about we won't be able to tell katrina ever happened in 10 years is misleading. a gulf hurricane is far different than the worldwide flood described in the bible. also, do you believe that god is some kind of a magician who can just evaporate water out of nowhere, put it back, and then allow a population of 20 or so individuals + noah and his wife or whatever small nuumber it was populate the world to a number of 7 billion in a span of 2.3k years?could you also please answer some of the questions i posted on the prior page.
|
On April 18 2007 18:50 Myxomatosis wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2007 18:48 Annor[BbG] wrote:On April 18 2007 18:35 Myxomatosis wrote:On April 18 2007 18:33 Annor[BbG] wrote:On April 18 2007 18:18 OverTheUnder wrote:On April 18 2007 18:09 Annor[BbG] wrote: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:
[quote]
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. By 3,000, I meant a material that we know the exact date of its existence determined by maybe written record rather than using carbon's half-life to prove its own half-life. lol.. if im understanding correctly, you want written proof of the existence of a substance that prehistoric people would not have been able to recognize/comprehend the significance of. but no, there is no record of carbon-14 or uranium in the written records of ancient peoples. Nah I mean written proof of something containing the chemical. For example, if someone wanted to test the USA Declaration of Independence, written really close to 1775 or 1776, they'd be able to confirm the written life span with the carbon life span and be able to validify carbon dating up to 230 years old. radiometric dating isn't some slipshod process... i don't know how effective the dating is to the nearest year, but seeing as it is a widely practiced tool, i'm sure that it has been tested repeatedly.
Yeah, "I'm sure that it has been tested repeatedly". I hope you aren't the person that was going on about not having to use faith. Your taking a huge step right there, believing in something that someone said, that you've never met personally or ever seen before. Weird... That sounds like the same thing your criticizing me on about the Bible...
On April 18 2007 18:50 Empyrean wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2007 18:48 Annor[BbG] wrote:On April 18 2007 18:35 Myxomatosis wrote:On April 18 2007 18:33 Annor[BbG] wrote:On April 18 2007 18:18 OverTheUnder wrote:On April 18 2007 18:09 Annor[BbG] wrote: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:
[quote]
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. By 3,000, I meant a material that we know the exact date of its existence determined by maybe written record rather than using carbon's half-life to prove its own half-life. lol.. if im understanding correctly, you want written proof of the existence of a substance that prehistoric people would not have been able to recognize/comprehend the significance of. but no, there is no record of carbon-14 or uranium in the written records of ancient peoples. Nah I mean written proof of something containing the chemical. For example, if someone wanted to test the USA Declaration of Independence, written really close to 1775 or 1776, they'd be able to confirm the written life span with the carbon life span and be able to validify carbon dating up to 230 years old. Exactly, the range of carbon dating can only be compared to known values based on written records. Since there are no written records, say, 5000 years ago, carbon dating is inaccurate in that time frame.
Yep that's exactly my point.
|
On April 18 2007 18:54 Myxomatosis wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2007 18:45 Annor[BbG] wrote:On April 18 2007 18:32 testpat wrote:On April 18 2007 18:07 Annor[BbG] wrote:On April 18 2007 17:44 testpat wrote:
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. So all the unclean animals died - great. So all animals now are clean animals, or did god decide to s spare the unclean animals, and recreate them after the flood? And after the flood, god told all the creatures to walk back to their natural habitat, teaching them to swim across the ocean when necessary. In 10 years Louisiana will be underwater? Is this is Revelations? Or is this some bizarre straw man argument of the type "If Louisiana was underwater 10 years ago, there's no way i could think of proving it. Therefore, no one could prove it." If you lack any understanding of science, don't make others suffer through your quoting the bible verse by verse. If you don't know why the ark is a fairy tale, reason it out. Honestly, describe how the ark happened, think it out. There is no geological record of the flood, its physically impossible to feed the animals, its physically impossible to disperse the animals afterwards, its physically impossible to gather the animals in the first place. Most species do not have the ability to travel thousands of miles, outside their natural habitat, over oceans. To flood the earth in the short time would raise surface temperatures to over 100 degrees. The water has to come from somewhere, and go somewhere. All plant life would have to be salt tolerant, have seeds able to survive submerged for months, and be able to exist without topsoil - they don't. How do you know what the creatures natural habitat looked like before the flood? Yeah. Maybe you should learn your English better. My statement was in PAST tense. That means it already happened. I saw you were from the USA, so I thought you'd at least have an inkling of what happens in your own country. Guess not. Since you obviously don't know where Louisiana is, I'll take the time to point out that New Orleans, Louisiana was underwater after hurricane Katrina. My statement (if you learned to read correctly) said that in 10 years, you won't be able to tell that the city was flooded. That is assuming they get some money to rebuild it. I haven't quoted but one Bible verse? Is the best you can do to mock me is take my own words and pray that they work for your own argument? How is the Ark not logical. God tells man how to build boat, man builds boat, God sends animals to boat, boat floats (go figure), no more water, people leave boat. Yep, the Bible's answer looks logically acceptable to me, although there are other possibilities. If God made the Earth flood, and God made the water go away, and God created water in the first place, don't you think its possible that God could make water come and go? Yes. It is possible. As for the feeding, housing, and dispersing of the animals, the Ark was plenty large enough to accomadate all. For HUMANS to flood the Earth, it would require them to raise the temperature. Plus, who said when God made it flood that God made it rain saltwater? Just because oceans are all salt water now, doesn't mean that when everything flooded over that the rain itself was salt. Do you know how impossible improbably it would be to keep every animal from every part of the world in a small boat for a 40 days? aaaand your statement about we won't be able to tell katrina ever happened in 10 years is misleading. a gulf hurricane is far different than the worldwide flood described in the bible. also, do you believe that god is some kind of a magician who can just evaporate water out of nowhere, put it back, and then allow a population of 20 or so individuals + noah and his wife or whatever small nuumber it was populate the world to a number of 7 billion in a span of 2.3k years?could you also please answer some of the questions i posted on the prior page.
I picked a small disaster that would disappear in a short time to compare it to a large disaster that would disappear in a larger time. Weird that's exactly what your dating system does... So I thought you'd take mine for fact if I laid it out exactly the same.
Yes I believe that God can add/remove anything he wanted whenever he wanted. 2.3k years? When do you think this Noah flood happened lol? 2.3k Would still be during the Roman Empire haha
|
On April 18 2007 18:54 Annor[BbG] wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2007 18:50 Myxomatosis wrote:On April 18 2007 18:48 Annor[BbG] wrote:On April 18 2007 18:35 Myxomatosis wrote:On April 18 2007 18:33 Annor[BbG] wrote:On April 18 2007 18:18 OverTheUnder wrote:On April 18 2007 18:09 Annor[BbG] wrote: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:
[quote]
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. By 3,000, I meant a material that we know the exact date of its existence determined by maybe written record rather than using carbon's half-life to prove its own half-life. lol.. if im understanding correctly, you want written proof of the existence of a substance that prehistoric people would not have been able to recognize/comprehend the significance of. but no, there is no record of carbon-14 or uranium in the written records of ancient peoples. Nah I mean written proof of something containing the chemical. For example, if someone wanted to test the USA Declaration of Independence, written really close to 1775 or 1776, they'd be able to confirm the written life span with the carbon life span and be able to validify carbon dating up to 230 years old. radiometric dating isn't some slipshod process... i don't know how effective the dating is to the nearest year, but seeing as it is a widely practiced tool, i'm sure that it has been tested repeatedly. Yeah, "I'm sure that it has been tested repeatedly". I hope you aren't the person that was going on about not having to use faith. Your taking a huge step right there, believing in something that someone said, that you've never met personally or ever seen before. Weird... That sounds like the same thing your criticizing me on about the Bible... Show nested quote +On April 18 2007 18:50 Empyrean wrote:On April 18 2007 18:48 Annor[BbG] wrote:On April 18 2007 18:35 Myxomatosis wrote:On April 18 2007 18:33 Annor[BbG] wrote:On April 18 2007 18:18 OverTheUnder wrote:On April 18 2007 18:09 Annor[BbG] wrote: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:
[quote]
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. By 3,000, I meant a material that we know the exact date of its existence determined by maybe written record rather than using carbon's half-life to prove its own half-life. lol.. if im understanding correctly, you want written proof of the existence of a substance that prehistoric people would not have been able to recognize/comprehend the significance of. but no, there is no record of carbon-14 or uranium in the written records of ancient peoples. Nah I mean written proof of something containing the chemical. For example, if someone wanted to test the USA Declaration of Independence, written really close to 1775 or 1776, they'd be able to confirm the written life span with the carbon life span and be able to validify carbon dating up to 230 years old. Exactly, the range of carbon dating can only be compared to known values based on written records. Since there are no written records, say, 5000 years ago, carbon dating is inaccurate in that time frame. Yep that's exactly my point.
lol. since when is it faith to assume that a widely accepted scientific process hasn't been tested repeatedly? and one can extrapolate a constant half-life to thousands of thousands of years. etc.
you still haven't answered my questions of how old you believe the earth is, when the dinosaurs existed, how is it physically possible for any of the things you said to be true etc. you're just hung up on carbon dating, because if you could accept even one of its measurements to be true, none of your hogwash about earth being a mere thousand or so years would be true. so please, answer my questions on the previous page.
|
On April 18 2007 18:58 Annor[BbG] wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2007 18:54 Myxomatosis wrote:On April 18 2007 18:45 Annor[BbG] wrote:On April 18 2007 18:32 testpat wrote:On April 18 2007 18:07 Annor[BbG] wrote:On April 18 2007 17:44 testpat wrote:
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. So all the unclean animals died - great. So all animals now are clean animals, or did god decide to s spare the unclean animals, and recreate them after the flood? And after the flood, god told all the creatures to walk back to their natural habitat, teaching them to swim across the ocean when necessary. In 10 years Louisiana will be underwater? Is this is Revelations? Or is this some bizarre straw man argument of the type "If Louisiana was underwater 10 years ago, there's no way i could think of proving it. Therefore, no one could prove it." If you lack any understanding of science, don't make others suffer through your quoting the bible verse by verse. If you don't know why the ark is a fairy tale, reason it out. Honestly, describe how the ark happened, think it out. There is no geological record of the flood, its physically impossible to feed the animals, its physically impossible to disperse the animals afterwards, its physically impossible to gather the animals in the first place. Most species do not have the ability to travel thousands of miles, outside their natural habitat, over oceans. To flood the earth in the short time would raise surface temperatures to over 100 degrees. The water has to come from somewhere, and go somewhere. All plant life would have to be salt tolerant, have seeds able to survive submerged for months, and be able to exist without topsoil - they don't. How do you know what the creatures natural habitat looked like before the flood? Yeah. Maybe you should learn your English better. My statement was in PAST tense. That means it already happened. I saw you were from the USA, so I thought you'd at least have an inkling of what happens in your own country. Guess not. Since you obviously don't know where Louisiana is, I'll take the time to point out that New Orleans, Louisiana was underwater after hurricane Katrina. My statement (if you learned to read correctly) said that in 10 years, you won't be able to tell that the city was flooded. That is assuming they get some money to rebuild it. I haven't quoted but one Bible verse? Is the best you can do to mock me is take my own words and pray that they work for your own argument? How is the Ark not logical. God tells man how to build boat, man builds boat, God sends animals to boat, boat floats (go figure), no more water, people leave boat. Yep, the Bible's answer looks logically acceptable to me, although there are other possibilities. If God made the Earth flood, and God made the water go away, and God created water in the first place, don't you think its possible that God could make water come and go? Yes. It is possible. As for the feeding, housing, and dispersing of the animals, the Ark was plenty large enough to accomadate all. For HUMANS to flood the Earth, it would require them to raise the temperature. Plus, who said when God made it flood that God made it rain saltwater? Just because oceans are all salt water now, doesn't mean that when everything flooded over that the rain itself was salt. Do you know how impossible improbably it would be to keep every animal from every part of the world in a small boat for a 40 days? aaaand your statement about we won't be able to tell katrina ever happened in 10 years is misleading. a gulf hurricane is far different than the worldwide flood described in the bible. also, do you believe that god is some kind of a magician who can just evaporate water out of nowhere, put it back, and then allow a population of 20 or so individuals + noah and his wife or whatever small nuumber it was populate the world to a number of 7 billion in a span of 2.3k years?could you also please answer some of the questions i posted on the prior page. I picked a small disaster that would disappear in a short time to compare it to a large disaster that would disappear in a larger time. Weird that's exactly what your dating system does... So I thought you'd take mine for fact if I laid it out exactly the same. Yes I believe that God can add/remove anything he wanted whenever he wanted. 2.3k years? When do you think this Noah flood happened lol? 2.3k Would still be during the Roman Empire haha
oh, the other guy said something about 2300 years ago in one of his posts. i confused him with you. lol, so honestly if you believe that god is some kind of magician there is no point in this conversation at all. in fact, i could be in hell right now doomed to an eternity of starcraft. but i wouldn't know it b/c god can do anything, even if it defies the very fabric of space-time/natural law.
oh, and i don't tihnk noah's flood happened.
|
On April 18 2007 18:54 Myxomatosis wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2007 18:45 Annor[BbG] wrote:On April 18 2007 18:32 testpat wrote:On April 18 2007 18:07 Annor[BbG] wrote:On April 18 2007 17:44 testpat wrote:
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. So all the unclean animals died - great. So all animals now are clean animals, or did god decide to s spare the unclean animals, and recreate them after the flood? And after the flood, god told all the creatures to walk back to their natural habitat, teaching them to swim across the ocean when necessary. In 10 years Louisiana will be underwater? Is this is Revelations? Or is this some bizarre straw man argument of the type "If Louisiana was underwater 10 years ago, there's no way i could think of proving it. Therefore, no one could prove it." If you lack any understanding of science, don't make others suffer through your quoting the bible verse by verse. If you don't know why the ark is a fairy tale, reason it out. Honestly, describe how the ark happened, think it out. There is no geological record of the flood, its physically impossible to feed the animals, its physically impossible to disperse the animals afterwards, its physically impossible to gather the animals in the first place. Most species do not have the ability to travel thousands of miles, outside their natural habitat, over oceans. To flood the earth in the short time would raise surface temperatures to over 100 degrees. The water has to come from somewhere, and go somewhere. All plant life would have to be salt tolerant, have seeds able to survive submerged for months, and be able to exist without topsoil - they don't. How do you know what the creatures natural habitat looked like before the flood? Yeah. Maybe you should learn your English better. My statement was in PAST tense. That means it already happened. I saw you were from the USA, so I thought you'd at least have an inkling of what happens in your own country. Guess not. Since you obviously don't know where Louisiana is, I'll take the time to point out that New Orleans, Louisiana was underwater after hurricane Katrina. My statement (if you learned to read correctly) said that in 10 years, you won't be able to tell that the city was flooded. That is assuming they get some money to rebuild it. I haven't quoted but one Bible verse? Is the best you can do to mock me is take my own words and pray that they work for your own argument? How is the Ark not logical. God tells man how to build boat, man builds boat, God sends animals to boat, boat floats (go figure), no more water, people leave boat. Yep, the Bible's answer looks logically acceptable to me, although there are other possibilities. If God made the Earth flood, and God made the water go away, and God created water in the first place, don't you think its possible that God could make water come and go? Yes. It is possible. As for the feeding, housing, and dispersing of the animals, the Ark was plenty large enough to accomadate all. For HUMANS to flood the Earth, it would require them to raise the temperature. Plus, who said when God made it flood that God made it rain saltwater? Just because oceans are all salt water now, doesn't mean that when everything flooded over that the rain itself was salt. Do you know how impossible improbably it would be to keep every animal from every part of the world in a small boat for a 40 days? aaaand your statement about we won't be able to tell katrina ever happened in 10 years is misleading. a gulf hurricane is far different than the worldwide flood described in the bible. also, do you believe that god is some kind of a magician who can just evaporate water out of nowhere, put it back, and then allow a population of 20 or so individuals + noah and his wife or whatever small nuumber it was populate the world to a number of 7 billion in a span of 2.3k years?could you also please answer some of the questions i posted on the prior page.
Lets imagine that you played a game on Xbox, say some really cool game. You and your friends played this game for years and knew everything about it, but you couldn't understand how to beat the last level, it seemed impossible from your point of view. Strangely enough you have no trouble believing that the programmer who made the game could pass that same final level and get the the end credits. How can he do it, maybe he can do stuff you can't?
|
When do you think the dinosaurs existed?
The way people previously thought they existed and some still do. Sorta like the time of the cavemen, but dinosaurs died out during Noah's flood. This is just a theory that makes rational sense, a flood wiping them out since that is one of the primary theories other than a comet for the extinction of the dinosaurs. I'm open to them existing before mankind if I thought it was proven that they did.
When do you think the first humans appeared/ spontaneously generated/evolved whatever?
I'd say about 12,000BC give or take about 2,000 years.
Do you honestly believe that Noah built a giant arc and rebuilt the human race, while saving every animal?
No. I believe that Noah's family built the ark, saved the animals that God wanted them to save, boarded the Ark and floated away. I believe that after this point the human race wasn't effected by Godly events and was allowed to populate freely. Definitely not every animal, I can't stress that enough.
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.
Faith without reason is useless. Blind faith is far too much faith for me to be able to handle. I was presented everything and logically came to my own conclusion.
|
On April 18 2007 18:54 Myxomatosis wrote:
Do you know how impossible improbably it would be to keep every animal from every part of the world in a small boat for a 40 days? aaaand your statement about we won't be able to tell katrina ever happened in 10 years is misleading. a gulf hurricane is far different than the worldwide flood described in the bible. also, do you believe that god is some kind of a magician who can just evaporate water out of nowhere, put it back, and then allow a population of 20 or so individuals + noah and his wife or whatever small nuumber it was populate the world to a number of 7 billion in a span of 2.3k years?could you also please answer some of the questions i posted on the prior page.
Well, this has gone so far off topic it's no point arguing it anymore in this thread. Imagine that a "religious" post who knows when enough is enough for the time being... That being said, I'm not going to read back through the past three or four pages, there is no point because the arguments back and forth aren't one of intelligence, but ones of bigotry and hate. Neither person is going to listen to the other, so why are we each trying to convince each other? Beats me? I guess when people think they have the truth they want to share that with the world.
Just replying to this one little post. You realize that to believe Christianity, you have to have faith right? In fact, pretty much everything you believe has to have faith, religion, science, opinions whatever... All faith based. For Noah's ark to work, yeah, you need a God to do the impossible. And yes, if you were to do the equations (Ken Ham has done this) Noahs family would populate the earth to about 8 billion in however many years from the flood.
|
On April 18 2007 19:03 XelNaga wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2007 18:54 Myxomatosis wrote:
Do you know how impossible improbably it would be to keep every animal from every part of the world in a small boat for a 40 days? aaaand your statement about we won't be able to tell katrina ever happened in 10 years is misleading. a gulf hurricane is far different than the worldwide flood described in the bible. also, do you believe that god is some kind of a magician who can just evaporate water out of nowhere, put it back, and then allow a population of 20 or so individuals + noah and his wife or whatever small nuumber it was populate the world to a number of 7 billion in a span of 2.3k years?could you also please answer some of the questions i posted on the prior page. Well, this has gone so far off topic it's no point arguing it anymore in this thread. Imagine that a "religious" post who knows when enough is enough for the time being... That being said, I'm not going to read back through the past three or four pages, there is no point because the arguments back and forth aren't one of intelligence, but ones of bigotry and hate. Neither person is going to listen to the other, so why are we each trying to convince each other? Beats me? I guess when people think they have the truth they want to share that with the world. Just replying to this one little post. You realize that to believe Christianity, you have to have faith right? In fact, pretty much everything you believe has to have faith, religion, science, opinions whatever... All faith based. For Noah's ark to work, yeah, you need a God to do the impossible. And yes, if you were to do the equations (Ken Ham has done this) Noahs family would populate the earth to about 8 billion in however many years from the flood.
whatever. like you said, there is no point to this. i'm going to go do work. enjoy living in ignorance.
|
On April 18 2007 18:50 Empyrean wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2007 18:48 Annor[BbG] wrote:On April 18 2007 18:35 Myxomatosis wrote:On April 18 2007 18:33 Annor[BbG] wrote:On April 18 2007 18:18 OverTheUnder wrote:On April 18 2007 18:09 Annor[BbG] wrote: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:
[quote]
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. By 3,000, I meant a material that we know the exact date of its existence determined by maybe written record rather than using carbon's half-life to prove its own half-life. lol.. if im understanding correctly, you want written proof of the existence of a substance that prehistoric people would not have been able to recognize/comprehend the significance of. but no, there is no record of carbon-14 or uranium in the written records of ancient peoples. Nah I mean written proof of something containing the chemical. For example, if someone wanted to test the USA Declaration of Independence, written really close to 1775 or 1776, they'd be able to confirm the written life span with the carbon life span and be able to validify carbon dating up to 230 years old. Exactly, the range of carbon dating can only be compared to known values based on written records. Since there are no written records, say, 5000 years ago, carbon dating is inaccurate in that time frame.
I've posted in this thread before, but I really want to clarify something. I am going for my masters in Biomedical Engineering, and trust me, Carbon-14 dating is pretty damn accurate. Additionally, the half life of radioactive isotopes doesn't change...
Carbon-14 emits a beta particle and turns into Nitrogen 14...you have probably all already read about it on wikipedia. I assure you that it is IMPOSSIBLE for the half life of 5720 years to change. Chemistry is based on elements that do not change...the building blocks of matter. If these things changed every few hundred years, then I'm pretty sure that all of science and everything we know is wrong.
Half lives are VERY reliable...and, if you don't want to use Carbon-14 for dating, you can always use other isotopes Polonium or higher. All of those decay with some specified half-life.
As I've said before, I am not a Biblical literalist, so I am staying out of the actual debate over the life of the Earth, etc. I ASSURE YOU, chemistry HAS NOT CHANGED. The fact that we have only known it for 100 years makes no difference. The elements and their elementary particles DO NOT change. That is why atmospheres, planets, stars, life, etc can exist...because the way these chemicals work is UNCHANGING. If you don't believe this for whatever reason, then I'm REALLY sorry, because that is expressing extreme ignorance. Please, stop arguing over this carbon dating and the functioning of chemicals. Only try to argue me if you have taken a chemistry class at the 400 level or higher.
Ok I'm ducking out...it is about to get violent in here ><
|
On April 18 2007 19:02 Myxomatosis wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2007 18:58 Annor[BbG] wrote:On April 18 2007 18:54 Myxomatosis wrote:On April 18 2007 18:45 Annor[BbG] wrote:On April 18 2007 18:32 testpat wrote:On April 18 2007 18:07 Annor[BbG] wrote:On April 18 2007 17:44 testpat wrote:
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. So all the unclean animals died - great. So all animals now are clean animals, or did god decide to s spare the unclean animals, and recreate them after the flood? And after the flood, god told all the creatures to walk back to their natural habitat, teaching them to swim across the ocean when necessary. In 10 years Louisiana will be underwater? Is this is Revelations? Or is this some bizarre straw man argument of the type "If Louisiana was underwater 10 years ago, there's no way i could think of proving it. Therefore, no one could prove it." If you lack any understanding of science, don't make others suffer through your quoting the bible verse by verse. If you don't know why the ark is a fairy tale, reason it out. Honestly, describe how the ark happened, think it out. There is no geological record of the flood, its physically impossible to feed the animals, its physically impossible to disperse the animals afterwards, its physically impossible to gather the animals in the first place. Most species do not have the ability to travel thousands of miles, outside their natural habitat, over oceans. To flood the earth in the short time would raise surface temperatures to over 100 degrees. The water has to come from somewhere, and go somewhere. All plant life would have to be salt tolerant, have seeds able to survive submerged for months, and be able to exist without topsoil - they don't. How do you know what the creatures natural habitat looked like before the flood? Yeah. Maybe you should learn your English better. My statement was in PAST tense. That means it already happened. I saw you were from the USA, so I thought you'd at least have an inkling of what happens in your own country. Guess not. Since you obviously don't know where Louisiana is, I'll take the time to point out that New Orleans, Louisiana was underwater after hurricane Katrina. My statement (if you learned to read correctly) said that in 10 years, you won't be able to tell that the city was flooded. That is assuming they get some money to rebuild it. I haven't quoted but one Bible verse? Is the best you can do to mock me is take my own words and pray that they work for your own argument? How is the Ark not logical. God tells man how to build boat, man builds boat, God sends animals to boat, boat floats (go figure), no more water, people leave boat. Yep, the Bible's answer looks logically acceptable to me, although there are other possibilities. If God made the Earth flood, and God made the water go away, and God created water in the first place, don't you think its possible that God could make water come and go? Yes. It is possible. As for the feeding, housing, and dispersing of the animals, the Ark was plenty large enough to accomadate all. For HUMANS to flood the Earth, it would require them to raise the temperature. Plus, who said when God made it flood that God made it rain saltwater? Just because oceans are all salt water now, doesn't mean that when everything flooded over that the rain itself was salt. Do you know how impossible improbably it would be to keep every animal from every part of the world in a small boat for a 40 days? aaaand your statement about we won't be able to tell katrina ever happened in 10 years is misleading. a gulf hurricane is far different than the worldwide flood described in the bible. also, do you believe that god is some kind of a magician who can just evaporate water out of nowhere, put it back, and then allow a population of 20 or so individuals + noah and his wife or whatever small nuumber it was populate the world to a number of 7 billion in a span of 2.3k years?could you also please answer some of the questions i posted on the prior page. I picked a small disaster that would disappear in a short time to compare it to a large disaster that would disappear in a larger time. Weird that's exactly what your dating system does... So I thought you'd take mine for fact if I laid it out exactly the same. Yes I believe that God can add/remove anything he wanted whenever he wanted. 2.3k years? When do you think this Noah flood happened lol? 2.3k Would still be during the Roman Empire haha oh, the other guy said something about 2300 years ago in one of his posts. i confused him with you. lol, so honestly if you believe that god is some kind of magician there is no point in this conversation at all. in fact, i could be in hell right now doomed to an eternity of starcraft. but i wouldn't know it b/c god can do anything, even if it defies the very fabric of space-time/natural law. oh, and i don't tihnk noah's flood happened.
What did you expect when you got involved in this conversation? That you'd find someone that believes God isn't all powerful, all knowing and all that other stuff? The whole purpose of God is to be those things, you aren't God if you can't do those things.
|
On April 18 2007 19:02 Myxomatosis wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2007 18:58 Annor[BbG] wrote:On April 18 2007 18:54 Myxomatosis wrote:On April 18 2007 18:45 Annor[BbG] wrote:On April 18 2007 18:32 testpat wrote:On April 18 2007 18:07 Annor[BbG] wrote:On April 18 2007 17:44 testpat wrote:
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. So all the unclean animals died - great. So all animals now are clean animals, or did god decide to s spare the unclean animals, and recreate them after the flood? And after the flood, god told all the creatures to walk back to their natural habitat, teaching them to swim across the ocean when necessary. In 10 years Louisiana will be underwater? Is this is Revelations? Or is this some bizarre straw man argument of the type "If Louisiana was underwater 10 years ago, there's no way i could think of proving it. Therefore, no one could prove it." If you lack any understanding of science, don't make others suffer through your quoting the bible verse by verse. If you don't know why the ark is a fairy tale, reason it out. Honestly, describe how the ark happened, think it out. There is no geological record of the flood, its physically impossible to feed the animals, its physically impossible to disperse the animals afterwards, its physically impossible to gather the animals in the first place. Most species do not have the ability to travel thousands of miles, outside their natural habitat, over oceans. To flood the earth in the short time would raise surface temperatures to over 100 degrees. The water has to come from somewhere, and go somewhere. All plant life would have to be salt tolerant, have seeds able to survive submerged for months, and be able to exist without topsoil - they don't. How do you know what the creatures natural habitat looked like before the flood? Yeah. Maybe you should learn your English better. My statement was in PAST tense. That means it already happened. I saw you were from the USA, so I thought you'd at least have an inkling of what happens in your own country. Guess not. Since you obviously don't know where Louisiana is, I'll take the time to point out that New Orleans, Louisiana was underwater after hurricane Katrina. My statement (if you learned to read correctly) said that in 10 years, you won't be able to tell that the city was flooded. That is assuming they get some money to rebuild it. I haven't quoted but one Bible verse? Is the best you can do to mock me is take my own words and pray that they work for your own argument? How is the Ark not logical. God tells man how to build boat, man builds boat, God sends animals to boat, boat floats (go figure), no more water, people leave boat. Yep, the Bible's answer looks logically acceptable to me, although there are other possibilities. If God made the Earth flood, and God made the water go away, and God created water in the first place, don't you think its possible that God could make water come and go? Yes. It is possible. As for the feeding, housing, and dispersing of the animals, the Ark was plenty large enough to accomadate all. For HUMANS to flood the Earth, it would require them to raise the temperature. Plus, who said when God made it flood that God made it rain saltwater? Just because oceans are all salt water now, doesn't mean that when everything flooded over that the rain itself was salt. Do you know how impossible improbably it would be to keep every animal from every part of the world in a small boat for a 40 days? aaaand your statement about we won't be able to tell katrina ever happened in 10 years is misleading. a gulf hurricane is far different than the worldwide flood described in the bible. also, do you believe that god is some kind of a magician who can just evaporate water out of nowhere, put it back, and then allow a population of 20 or so individuals + noah and his wife or whatever small nuumber it was populate the world to a number of 7 billion in a span of 2.3k years?could you also please answer some of the questions i posted on the prior page. I picked a small disaster that would disappear in a short time to compare it to a large disaster that would disappear in a larger time. Weird that's exactly what your dating system does... So I thought you'd take mine for fact if I laid it out exactly the same. Yes I believe that God can add/remove anything he wanted whenever he wanted. 2.3k years? When do you think this Noah flood happened lol? 2.3k Would still be during the Roman Empire haha oh, the other guy said something about 2300 years ago in one of his posts. i confused him with you. lol, so honestly if you believe that god is some kind of magician there is no point in this conversation at all. in fact, i could be in hell right now doomed to an eternity of starcraft. but i wouldn't know it b/c god can do anything, even if it defies the very fabric of space-time/natural law. oh, and i don't tihnk noah's flood happened.
Oh don't be such a poor sport, just because we suggested God may not play by all the same rules as you doesn't mean you need to reject him. Personally I, like Einstein beleive there is a God, who does play by the rules. And yes the flood is possible.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
