Reality

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Duhhh indeed.

Any method of aging based on radioactive decay of isotopes will be based on several assumptions:

1. That each isotope will have a constant half-life (equivalent to assuming an exponential rate of decay)
2. That the total rate of creation of radioactive isotopes on Earth has remained constant between the time the fossil was formed ...[text shortened]... , it's very difficult to use carbon dating for objects that are older than 50k-60k years.

LH

Don't forget assumptions 3 and 4!

The original amount of the parent element is assumed

And it is assumed that over the supposed millions of years, no other process has worked to add or subtract either parent or daughter to or from the specimen. Talk about 'bad' science!

Originally posted by dj2becker
My point is that surely there are a lot of things that you believe that cannot be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. My question then is this, why do you expect me to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that my belief is correct?

by trying to make your point, you're really only making mine. my prodding you to provide 'proof' was akin to a hypothetical question -- i thoroughly expect that you will provide none.

if you agree that you cannot prove your beliefs are true, then why do you debate as though your beliefs are undeniable truths (eg, the teachings of the bible)? is there room in your faith for skepticism? if not, then i find that this contradicts your line of reasoning in this thread.

Originally posted by dj2becker
I am afraid carbon dating is as flawed as the theory of evolution. You are right, most of them are guessing methods. The only problem is that the guesses are a few hundred million years out.

Carbon dating can actually work quite well.

But it is never used to date dino bones. They use much less strict methods and without independent alternative methods.

Carbon dating on the other hand is really good for dating things up to several thousand years. But it works best when we can compare and calibrate the carbon dating to independent measure, like historical documents, tree rings, etc.

Originally posted by Coletti
Carbon dating can actually work quite well.

But it is never used to date dino bones. They use much less strict methods and without independent alternative methods.

Carbon dating on the other hand is really good for dating things up to several thousand years. But it works best when we can compare and calibrate the carbon dating to independent measure, like historical documents, tree rings, etc.

Point taken😉

Originally posted by chinking58
Agreed. People do disagree with each other. (I've noticed that somewhere!)

I think our goal has to be to agree with the truth, but so many, when they don't like the truth, veer off toward these silly ideas about having the right to decide their own truths etc. etc.

I think our goal has to be to agree with the truth, but so many, when they don't like the truth, veer off toward these silly ideas about having the right to decide their own truths etc. etc.

As the old saying goes, the truth hurts 🙂

Originally posted by Coletti
Carbon dating can actually work quite well.

But it is never used to date dino bones. They use much less strict methods and without independent alternative methods.

Carbon dating on the other hand is really good for dating things up to several thousand years. But it works best when we can compare and calibrate the carbon dating to independent measure, like historical documents, tree rings, etc.

Here's a few sites on dating fossils

http://www.enchantedlearning.com/subjects/dinosaurs/dinofossils/Fossildating.html

http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/benton.html

http://www.mnsu.edu/emuseum/archaeology/dating/

and the one that is most like carbon-14 dating.
http://www.mnsu.edu/emuseum/archaeology/dating/uranium_dating.html

Originally posted by LemonJello
by trying to make your point, you're really only making mine. my prodding you to provide 'proof' was akin to a hypothetical question -- i thoroughly expect that you will provide none.

if you agree that you cannot prove your beliefs are true, then why do you debate as though your beliefs are undeniable truths (eg, the teachings of the bible)? is ...[text shortened]... or skepticism? if not, then i find that this contradicts your line of reasoning in this thread.

You don't seem to have gotten my point. I am saying that it is almost impossible for me to prove anything beyond a shadow of a doubt to you as there is some faith involved. But the fact is there is ample evidence to suggest that my belief (in the Bible) is the truth.

Everything seems to co-incide with what the Bible teaches. Archeology, history etc. always supports the Bible. Maybe you would like to point out any scientific or archeological evidence that contradicts what the Bible teaches?

And besides do you know of any other book that has been so ferociously attacked as the Bible? Do you know of any other book that has survived such an onslaught? That alone speaks volumes! Man by nature hates the truth. That is why man has so often tried to destroy the Bible. But the Bible is the word of God, and it cannot be chained!

Do you know of any other Book that has changed so many lives for the better?

That strongest evidence of all is that I have experienced its life changing power.

Originally posted by dj2becker
You don't seem to have gotten my point. I am saying that it is almost impossible for me to prove anything beyond a shadow of a doubt to you as there is some faith involved. But the fact is there is ample evidence to suggest that my belief (in the Bible) is the truth.

Everything seems to co-incide with what the Bible teaches. Archeology, history etc. a ...[text shortened]... better?

That strongest evidence of all is that I have experienced its life changing power.

You're a bit confused here . You're mushing together two different things here . If we were sitting across the table from one another , we would both agree about the reality of the table . It's hard , made of wood , and remains a table whether anyone believes it's a table or not . You could be of the opinion that little elves made the table 200 million years ago , and I could be of the opinion that a magician made it appear last week . Those are explainations or theories about the reality which is the physical existance of the table . Right or wrong they would not change the table . But they are not necesarily realities in and of themselves . One theory may have more evidence backing it up than the other by having more physical (real) evidence left behind than the other theory , therefore it becomes a more credible theory explaining the reality of the table .

I disagree with your broad assertion that everything seems to co-incide with the bible . If you believe this then you would find no problem with ideas like evolution , the big bang , and an earth that's billions of years old . There is much in science and history that does not agree with the bible .

Originally posted by Moldy Crow
You're a bit confused here . You're mushing together two different things here . If we were sitting across the table from one another , we would both agree about the reality of the table . It's hard , made of wood , and remains a tabl ...[text shortened]... s much in science and history that does not agree with the bible .

You're a bit confused here . You're mushing together two different things here . If we were sitting across the table from one another , we would both agree about the reality of the table . It's hard , made of wood , and remains a table whether anyone believes it's a table or not .

The point is we are not discussing something with real, physical properties here. Thus your table analogy is not useful.

I disagree with your broad assertion that everything seems to co-incide with the bible . If you believe this then you would find no problem with ideas like evolution , the big bang , and an earth that's billions of years old .

Well these are simply theories that have been concocted to try and shatter the faith of people in the Bible. If you look into these theories you will find that they are based on some very absurd assumptions. None of these theories have any substance to stand on. By the way there is ample evidence to suggest that the earth is not billions of years old! Just do some reading. I suggest you read " Evolution cruncher":http://evolution-facts.org/Cruncher%20TOC.htm

There is much in science and history that does not agree with the bible .

Please specify and don't just make general assertions without backing them up.

Originally posted by dj2becker
[b]You're a bit confused here . You're mushing together two different things here . If we were sitting across the table from one another , we would both agree about the reality of the table . It's hard , made of wood , and remains a table whether anyone believes it's a table or not .

The point is we are not discussing something with real, physi ...[text shortened]... ]

Please specify and don't just make general assertions without backing them up.





[/b]

You get more and more absurd with each passing day.

Another of your junk science sites wont change the twin facts that the big bang and evolution BOTH have a higher degree of certainty than the hypothesis of a creator.

Even though NEITHER actually addresses the main concept, BOTH do a good job of debunking the assertions made in Genesis which probably would be much different if the people that included it in the bible had known it was polytheistic Sumerian mythology.

Originally posted by dj2becker
[b]You're a bit confused here . You're mushing together two different things here . If we were sitting across the table from one another , we would both agree about the reality of the table . It's hard , made of wood , and remains a table whether anyone believes it's a table or not .

The point is we are not discussing something with real, physi ...[text shortened]... ]

Please specify and don't just make general assertions without backing them up.





[/b]

Read your prior posts , you yourself take umbrage with much of science because it contradicts the bible .

BTW Scientists haven't made up theories to contradict the bible . Their theories have nothing to do with proving or disproving the bible , they have to do with supporting or not supporting a question which has been postulated .

Re: Evolution Cruncher . I don't care to read one article by a psydo scientist with an axe to grind . There are hundreds of years of good science about the age of the universe and the development of life which to me carries much greater credibility than anything the religious right can shake out of their pant leg on the internet .

Originally posted by Moldy Crow
Read your prior posts , you yourself take umbrage with much of science because it contradicts the bible .

BTW Scientists haven't made up theories to contradict the bible . Their theories have nothing to do with proving or disproving the bible , they have to do with supporting or not supporting a question which has been postulated .

Re: Evolution C ...[text shortened]... credibility than anything the religious right can shake out of their pant leg on the internet .

Where does science contradict the Bible, pray tell?

I'm back, bi*ches.

Originally posted by Darfius
I'm back, bi*ches.

i hope your god will forgive you for calling us all names (well, sort of).

"Their throat is an open grave;
with their tongue they speak deceit.

Declare them guilty, O God!
Let their intrigues be their downfall.
Banish them for their many sins,
for they have rebelled against you."

--somewhere in psalms, no doubt out of context

Originally posted by dj2becker
As I see it "reality" can be different for each individual person. Reality in my life is different from e.g. the Atheist. God is a reality in my life. For the atheist, God is not a reality. I would say that reality is related to personal experience, which would be different for each individual person. If the "reality" of one person does not contain God, is it reasonable for the person to claim that God is not real?

Any thoughts?

Is it not a fact that the only the only reality that matters is GOD'S reality. There is no human reality/ logic in the doctrine of heaven. The only reality/logic with GOD is the punishment of sin by a Holy GOD. The reality/logic is the separration of sin from a Holy GOD. But in His Great Love THE LORD provided a substitute for sin. That substitute for sin is JESUS CHRIST, is that not the only reality/logic of this life.

Originally posted by blindfaith101
Is it not a fact that the only the only reality that matters is GOD'S reality. There is no human reality/ logic in the doctrine of heaven. The only reality/logic with GOD is the punishment of sin by a Holy GOD. The reality/logic is the separration of sin from a Holy GOD. But in His Great Love THE LORD provided a substitute for sin. That substitute for sin is JESUS CHRIST, is that not the only reality/logic of this life.

Stop insulting God's intelligence.
And stop pretending you're a christian, a Christian would never have used Paul's writings to contradict the words of the Christ like you and your cohorts here have done repeatedly.

Frankly, you are a Pauline, and Paul can't "save" you.