24 Jul 11
Originally posted by sonhouseTheoretical or speculation is still a good way to describe the dating methods.
Mis-stating the idea that carbon dating is speculation? I am suppose to apologize for questioning that or producing refuting evidence? I doubt he even read my reply or looked at the links I provided. Did you? Did you read my post and then look at the actual links? Do you for instance, believe there are such such things as isotopes, that is to say, various versions of elements with different number of neutrons making one heavier than another?
Neither word means that dating methods are wrong, only that they could be.
Kelly
24 Jul 11
Originally posted by sonhouseI know a little about science. I spent two years in college and received
In other words, any time a scientist makes a mistake, the entire science based on that work is suspect?
Does that mean that Einstein's worse mistake, as he called it, the cosmological constant, meant that the theory of relativity is now worthless?
You take whatever evidence you find, jumped on that part of it like a dog on a bone. So to you the mista ...[text shortened]... or indeed what an ion actually is or what an isotope is or what that means to carbon dating.
an Associate in Arts Degree. I originally wanted to be an Electrical Engineer;
but I could not afford the cost of schooling, so I joined the U.S. Army. But
I did study science along with all the mathematics. I took chemistry and
Physics for students of science and engineering. Is that a little better than
8th or 9th grade science? However, you are right that I am not an expert
in carbon 14 dating. But my experience with it's use as a dating method
makes it suspect since dating seem to vary even when redating the same
thing. And the dating of samples that the age was already know was dated
to a different age. Now, we have this dating error with the shroud that
you referred me to. It may be true that the samples were taken from the
same area that was repaired and not as they had requested from three
different areas. But if so the dating from the three labs should have returned
the exact same date and they did not. So I still doubt C-14 dating is correct
even if it were to date the shroud to the 2000 year age as they say it might
be. How can anybody trust it anymore, when the most important relic of
Christianity is declared to be a fraud on the basis of the C-14 dating alone.
Then we learn twenty years later that the dating is flawed. How can religious
people trust the scientist when they say they just made a stupid mistake.
Scientist are not supposed to make stupid mistakes. They need to get there
heads out of their buttocks.
24 Jul 11
Originally posted by RJHindsAll well and good but that does not invalidate the science of carbon dating. You adamantly defend your religious stance of the earth and/or mankind being something under 10,000 years old and therefore any science that refutes that, wouldn't matter WHAT science it was, you would find reasons to denigrate that science, just like creationists denigrate evolution theory, you love to find holes in both ideas, evolution and carbon dating precisely because it disagrees with the christian notion of how old they think the earth is or how mankind evolved from earlier forms.
I know a little about science. I spent two years in college and received
an Associate in Arts Degree. I originally wanted to be an Electrical Engineer;
but I could not afford the cost of schooling, so I joined the U.S. Army. But
I did study science along with all the mathematics. I took chemistry and
Physics for students of science and engineering. ...[text shortened]... are not supposed to make stupid mistakes. They need to get there
heads out of their buttocks.
If carbon dating had only impact in say, astronomy, and kept itself out of dating human fossils, you would have zero problems with accepting whatever findings such a science offers. But if it collides with your religious dogma, it becomes a target. Tell me I am wrong about that.
You have no problem with say, microbiology, the study of individual cells, or such, except when it involves umbilical cord stem cell research, right? As long as it doesn't collide with your dogma, a science of whatever gives you no problems. A new laser science, fine. That is, up until that laser science can be used to verify carbon dating. Then laser research is all bogus.
That was just an example, as far as I know lasers don't have anything to do with carbon dating, just showing you where you would have problems with any science that refuted your dogma.
I would imagine zoology would never give you theoretical problems up until the point where something would be discovered that confirmed either evolution or carbon dating. All of a sudden, bad science.
Until that happens, zoology is a very respectable science, just like any other science. (except carbon dating and evolution, of course), they can never be accepted by young earthers or creationists.
Mathematics, a fine science, is totally acceptable, until it happens to provide evidence that shows carbon dating is accurate. Why don't you rail against the math of carbon dating too? I don't hear you bitching about the math used in building bridges or computer chips or statistical studies of the spread of diseases.
Only carbon dating and evolution science is bogus because and ONLY because it flies in the face of your preconceived religious programming.
I don't see scientologists or Hindu's or taoists or Jaynes or rastafarians railing against carbon dating or evolution. Funny that hatred of those two sciences are confined only to the abrahamic religions.
25 Jul 11
Originally posted by sonhouseThat is because we believe in the Holy Bible as the Word of Truth.
All well and good but that does not invalidate the science of carbon dating. You adamantly defend your religious stance of the earth and/or mankind being something under 10,000 years old and therefore any science that refutes that, wouldn't matter WHAT science it was, you would find reasons to denigrate that science, just like creationists denigrate evoluti ...[text shortened]... on. Funny that hatred of those two sciences are confined only to the abrahamic religions.
If we think something disagrees with what God says, then it becomes
a suspect for error. So if our understanding of what the Holy Bible
says is correct, then anything that contradicts it must be in error.
But above all we are interested in the truth. We must stand up for
the truth, even against science until it can be proven true.
25 Jul 11
1 edit
The Starlight travel time is the number one issue with young earth. I lean toward old earth older universe.
Theories about C speed having been faster in the past have inherent problems.
Also it would mean that if the universe and earth were only 10K old then that super nova that we see explode at 50K light years out never actually happened so what is the purpose of seeing this at all? Also this would be deceptive of a Creator I think.
Manny
25 Jul 11
Originally posted by menace71And all that young earth crap would be just plain weird when you think about this:
The Starlight travel time is the number one issue with young earth. I lean toward old earth older universe.
Theories about C speed having been faster in the past have inherent problems.
Also it would mean that if the universe and earth were only 10K old then that super nova that we see explode at 50K light years out never actually happened so what i ...[text shortened]... the purpose of seeing this at all? Also this would be deceptive of a Creator I think.
Manny
Regardless of whether people think of the universe as wysiwyg, 14 odd billion years old and maybe 40 or 50 billion light years across (its expanding faster than the speed of light even now) or if the actual 'universe' is an infinite number of universes, it is very hard to escape the conclusion that in just our little universe, with literally trillions of stars, that we are the only one with intelligent life forms?
So this infinitely omniscient god sets up the universe to LOOK like it is billions of years old and is really just fooling us dumb earthers, its magnificence sets things up the same way on ALL the other god fearing planets it would have to have set up this christian style religion there too, made all of it 10,000 years ago and makes it look to every civilization in our universe also THINK it is 14 billion years old.
Just how silly do you think that all sounds?
Isn't there a single person out there who can at present think the Earth and mankind is 10,000 odd years old think about all the other civilizations out there where supposedly your infallible god did the same thing too, HAD to do, since they
also had to be born into sin and therefore will all have some variation of our Jesus, maybe they look like mushrooms with brains but they had their mushroom Jesus too and they don't know either that their whole planet is only 10,000 years old, this immensely wise god put all kinds of confusing fossils in the ground and such just to mess with their minds.
Come on, how deep does the BS factor have to go here before you young Earthers start to use your OWN brain for a change instead of just buying the programming inherent in your religion?
25 Jul 11
Originally posted by menace71Is it deceptive to create mankind fully grown rather than to combine
The Starlight travel time is the number one issue with young earth. I lean toward old earth older universe.
Theories about C speed having been faster in the past have inherent problems.
Also it would mean that if the universe and earth were only 10K old then that super nova that we see explode at 50K light years out never actually happened so what i ...[text shortened]... the purpose of seeing this at all? Also this would be deceptive of a Creator I think.
Manny
the sperm and the egg and then let them grow to maturity? I don't
see anything deceptive about it. Where is the deception? So Adam
and Eve might appear as if they had been living for 20 or 30 years
when they were only created yesterday. So what? God told us He
did it in a day. Also He told us He created the Heavens in an a short
time and then spreaded it out to occupy the space that was already
there. I don't see any deception there. So it now takes a long time
for light from those distant stars that he spread out to reach us. So
that does not mean they were made millions or billions of years ago.
He told what he did, so there is no deception just because you think
they look like they must be older than they really are. It is you that
are deceiving yourself and not God deceiving you. Pay attention and
get your head out of your buttocks.
25 Jul 11
Originally posted by sonhouseWell, I believe what God says, rather than man on these matters, since
And all that young earth crap would be just plain weird when you think about this:
Regardless of whether people think of the universe as wysiwyg, 14 odd billion years old and maybe 40 or 50 billion light years across (its expanding faster than the speed of light even now) or if the actual 'universe' is an infinite number of universes, it is very hard to ...[text shortened]... our OWN brain for a change instead of just buying the programming inherent in your religion?
He is the one that made it all.
25 Jul 11
Originally posted by RJHindsWell one thing for sure, whether you believe or not, the same result will happen. Do you think, for instance, if every single Christian on the planet were to pray for world peace, would that happen?
Well, I believe what God says, rather than man on these matters, since
He is the one that made it all.
25 Jul 11
Originally posted by sonhouseNot immediately, because it is not in God's immediate plan; but it will
Well one thing for sure, whether you believe or not, the same result will happen. Do you think, for instance, if every single Christian on the planet were to pray for world peace, would that happen?
happen eventually.
25 Jul 11
Originally posted by RJHindsWell I do believe in God my friend 🙂 I will however keep my head up my butt if ya don't mind 😉 LOL I will explain later
Is it deceptive to create mankind fully grown rather than to combine
the sperm and the egg and then let them grow to maturity? I don't
see anything deceptive about it. Where is the deception? So Adam
and Eve might appear as if they had been living for 20 or 30 years
when they were only created yesterday. So what? God told us He
did it in a day. Als ...[text shortened]... ng yourself and not God deceiving you. Pay attention and
get your head out of your buttocks.
Manny