There Is No Devil.

[anhedonia]

your an idiot LOL maybe you dont know any christians

this statement "If you truly look at yourself and empty out everything you know to be true and all the stuff that was told to you that you believe in, theres no way you could hold on to christianity." can be said about anything.
I am not so sure christians are right but one this is for sure, your an idiot.

can i get an amen

Wow. An idiot? I was raised christian, and went to a baptist school so its not like Im suprised from that comment. I realize that you are fondly attached to your beliefs, but why not give them up? Try it. Open your mind to reality. That is the true test.
One of my favorite Buddhist quotes, "with the abandonment of all attachment the self dissappears, for the self is the illusion generated by attachment."

 

[zorkan]

Wow. An idiot? I was raised christian, and went to a baptist school so its not like Im suprised from that comment. I realize that you are fondly attached to your beliefs, but why not give them up? Try it. Open your mind to reality. That is the true test.
One of my favorite Buddhist quotes, "with the abandonment of all attachment the self dissappears, for the self is the illusion generated by attachment."

dude who said i was a christian???????

you to far gone for anyone to help

 

[anhedonia]

Well you said quite clearly that "Maby I dont know any christians." I'll add you to my ignore list. Its for the best.

 

[PadawanBater]

ROTFLMAO!!!!
The freaking half life of Carbon 14 is 6000 years.

Also, we don't KNOW what the cosmic ray flux was thousands of years ago. We don't KNOW the nitrogen content of our atmosphere that long ago either.
And that is just the beginning of all the flaws of radiocarbon dating.

I hope you clarify things when you get back from work.

Accurate to a few million years???
Are you really high right now??
Error bars of a few million years are not good: "yeah, we dated this as being 1 million years old +- 3 million years."

Oh God, that hurt me to read man seriously, the ignorance is disgustingly strong in this post!

Will you please tell me your age and education level before you reply again? I like to know these things about a person, it tells me a few things.

OK, carbon 14 dating...

half-life - 5,730 years (constant)

We DO know the levels of nitrogen, we gather that through geology. The trace elements in the atmosphere get trapped inside the rock, over millions of years, dozens of layers build up, we can then take samples of each layer, analyze it's composition... then from there, determine what was in the atmosphere at the time... it's pretty simple and very accurate.

From Wiki;

An organism acquires carbon during its lifetime. Plants acquire it through photosynthesis, and animals acquire it from consumption of plants and other animals. When an organism dies, it ceases to take in new carbon-14, and the existing isotope decays with a characteristic half-life (5,730 years). The proportion of carbon-14 left when the remains of the organism are examined provides an indication of the time elapsed since its death. The carbon-14 dating limit lies around 58,000 - 62,000 years.

There are no flaws with carbon dating, that is a lie spread through the religious community from lying preachers who don't know a goddamn thing about science and believe if things like carbon-14 dating were actually true it would destroy a big part of the reason people feel they need to believe, exact same with the theory of evolution, abiogenesis, big bang... anything that openly contradicts what their religion has already determined to be fact gets thrown out the window, true or not.

I challenge you to find me one source openly criticising the validity of carbon dating.

Radiometric dating is used to date things like rocks and the age of the earth, which is accurate to a few million years, which I was talking about in the previous post... and yeah, the earth being 4.5 Billion years old, 4,500,000,000 years --- 1,000,000 +/- ... you do the math, let me know when you get that percentage. That's very accurate buddy.

Well, there you go for now... I hope you consider this.

They know they are wrong ""First, for carbon-14 dating to be accurate, one must assume the rate of decay of carbon-14 has remained constant over the years. However, evidence indicates that the opposite is true. Experiments have been performed using the radioactive isotopes of uranium-238 and iron-57, and have shown that rates can and do vary. In fact, changing the environments surrounding the samples can alter decay rates.""

science is science right?

The half-life and decay rate of carbon-14 is constant. So a few samples dated using the method came out wrong because of the materials they were next to contaminated them... so that makes all the other accurate measurements already established void? WTF kind of reasoning is that?

Science is science because it can be corroborated by other people, and guess what, other people use these dating methods every single day and get the exact same measurements. It can be done over and over again with the exact same results, it can predict the outcome of future experiments, that is science.

Most scientists aren't scientists. They are priests of a religion.
A true scientist doesn't rule out conclusions that are uncomfortable or verboten.

You are dilusional. Keep telling yourself that.

 

[g00sEgg]

Oh God, that hurt me to read man seriously, the ignorance is disgustingly strong in this post!

Will you please tell me your age and education level before you reply again? I like to know these things about a person, it tells me a few things.

OK, carbon 14 dating...

half-life - 5,730 years (constant)

We DO know the levels of nitrogen, we gather that through geology. The trace elements in the atmosphere get trapped inside the rock, over millions of years, dozens of layers build up, we can then take samples of each layer, analyze it's composition... then from there, determine what was in the atmosphere at the time... it's pretty simple and very accurate.

From Wiki;



There are no flaws with carbon dating, that is a lie spread through the religious community from lying preachers who don't know a goddamn thing about science and believe if things like carbon-14 dating were actually true it would destroy a big part of the reason people feel they need to believe, exact same with the theory of evolution, abiogenesis, big bang... anything that openly contradicts what their religion has already determined to be fact gets thrown out the window, true or not.

I challenge you to find me one source openly criticising the validity of carbon dating.

Radiometric dating is used to date things like rocks and the age of the earth, which is accurate to a few million years, which I was talking about in the previous post... and yeah, the earth being 4.5 Billion years old, 4,500,000,000 years --- 1,000,000 +/- ... you do the math, let me know when you get that percentage. That's very accurate buddy.

Well, there you go for now... I hope you consider this.



The half-life and decay rate of carbon-14 is constant. So a few samples dated using the method came out wrong because of the materials they were next to contaminated them... so that makes all the other accurate measurements already established void? WTF kind of reasoning is that?

Science is science because it can be corroborated by other people, and guess what, other people use these dating methods every single day and get the exact same measurements. It can be done over and over again with the exact same results, it can predict the outcome of future experiments, that is science.



You are dilusional. Keep telling yourself that.

Could you refer some good literature please?

You seem very intelligent...and i'd like to read into a lot of these topics.

Thanks in advance! =D

 

[PadawanBater]

Could you refer some good literature please?

You seem very intelligent...and i'd like to read into a lot of these topics.

Thanks in advance! =D

Absolutely! And thanks for the compliment!

The one that really got me deep into science was Billions and Billions by Carl Sagan, the guy was a genius, I felt privileged to read it I thought it was that good! He's great at explaining complicated theories for the layman. I'd definitely suggest reading it. (it's a pretty popular book, I'm sure you can find it online and download it for free, if not, send me a PM and I'll try to find it for you)

Another good one is A Short History of Nearly Everything by Bill Bryson. This book has all the nitty gritty scientific stuff included and it's insanely interesting to read, I couldn't put it down!

A good author that I've been following for a while is Sam Harris, he writes mainly about religion, but he also touches on ethics and politics too, great stuff from this guy, FILLED with logical points that make believers scratch their heads.

Richard Dawkins is one of the best at explaining the theory of evolution, he's got 5 or 6 best sellers out there, The Blind Watchmaker, Climbing Mount Improbable, and most recently The God Delusion, I'd definitely check out his material. He's also pretty up to date with current technology, he's got his own youtube channel and he does a lot of public appearances, so if you don't want to spend a lot of time reading you can find plenty of clips of him speaking.

Not to mention there are a ton of TOP QUALITY channels on youtube already, just as good as Dawkins, if not better! Seriously check these out if you've got the time!

AronRa - great at explaining anything related to the theory of evolution

AndromedasWake - amazing videos related to astonomy! He's got a subchannel also - beautyintheuniverse

cdk007 - anything evolution

Danmill23 - logical points about the universe and tons of stuff to think on, more on the philosophy side of things

DonExodus2 - one of the best evolutionary bilogists (student in NC) on the internet!

KingHeathen - always puts out great arguments, also more on the philosophy side of things

patcondell - mainly criticizes religion, lots of logical points

PaulsEgo - he's not as active as the rest, but his vids are brilliant

philhellenes - one of the smartest guys out there, he knows a ton about a ton, from anything science to anything religious and anything in between, this is the guy to go to

ProfMTH - brilliant guy, criticizes religion

shanedk - top quality vids, from economics to math to science to religion

TEDtalksDirector - this channel is GREAT! The best and brightest showing inventions and explaining the newest in technology and research in all fields of science, you could spend weeks on this one channel!

TheAtheistExperience - this channel is really entertaining, they talk about religion and have callers from all over the world call in and discuss things

Thunderf00t (that's with zero's) - this guy is great at explaining most scientific topics, he specializes in evolution, electronics, mechanics, astronomy, and a ton of other things..

TheBadAstronomer - Phil Pliatts channel, he's an engineer whose worked for NASA, his vids are about space and cool things that they're up to, new missions and such

Veritas48 - a Christian who brings a lot of logic to the table, this is the perfect example of how a believer should debate, this guy is brilliant

TheoreticalBullshit - smart? Holy fuck! This guy is a straight up genius! Seeminly educated from MIT, Harvard and Yale, this guy brings stacks and stacks of logic to the party. I aspire to be this awesome at logical pwnage.


That should get you started, I can probably suggest some more stuff if you find any of this interesting!

Good for you for taking that step man, I commend you!

 

[DrZ]

If you believe in God there is a Devil He made him Duh ..

 

[g00sEgg]

Thanks Padawan, much appreciated bro!
Honestly, I can't ever sit through lectures...usually am better with the reading.
I'll def. look into em all...I'm sure I can find torrents for em'.

Again, thanks!

 

[shroomer33]

CapK, an omnipotent being is immune to being offended.





You sir, have no idea what your talking about. Every single dating method we have that's used is accurate to a few million years, and thats just the dating methods dealing with the dead stuff.... I'll get back to this later, gotta go to work...

Gee. Radiocarbon dating is one of the methods we use. Hence, one of the "every single dating method"s you speak of.
Which is accurate to a few million years????

 

[zorkan]

Well you said quite clearly that "Maby I dont know any christians." I'll add you to my ignore list. Its for the best.

i dun even no wut ur talkn bout

 

[what... huh?]

Carbon dating is only accurate to about 50,000 years. That isn't propaganda. This is why they primarily use Argon dating for very old material. The problem with Argon is that it is a relative dating method, so you have to have a sample with a known lifespan in order to test against something else of the same material.

It is also a known issue IN carbon dating that materials are tested again and again with differing results, so they take an average mean. The problem there is that many bad scientists tweak the averages in order to achieve the result desired... like a cop making you blow into a breathalizer over and over again to try and get a reading over .08.

The exact science just isn't that exact.



HOWEVER... the inaccuracy is not able to be willfully manipulated to come up with 66 million years when the true age is 10,000. Again... carbon dating is extremely accurate to well beyond that date on its own... which is why I assume it was brought up... haven't done my back reading just yet. Wanted to address the accuracy of padawans statement... who's side I am on btw.

 

[shroomer33]

Will you please tell me your age and education level before you reply again? I like to know these things about a person, it tells me a few things.

This just shows how totally illogical you are. It doesn't matter how old I am or my education level. Such things have nothing to do with what I present.
Lets just say that I am more educated than you will ever be.
Or maybe I am not.
It doesn't matter. You are trying to set up an ad hominem fallacy.
The bottom line is whether or not what I say is true. I could be in 3rd grade and still speak the truth.
Get it?

OK, carbon 14 dating...

half-life - 5,730 years (constant)

I was rounding up to 6000. Duh.

There are no flaws with carbon dating, that is a lie spread through the religious community from lying preachers who don't know a goddamn thing about science and believe if things like carbon-14 dating were actually true it would destroy a big part of the reason people feel they need to believe, exact same with the theory of evolution, abiogenesis, big bang... anything that openly contradicts what their religion has already determined to be fact gets thrown out the window, true or not.

These are your axioms. You base all your logic on these assumptions. Open your mind and forget these axioms, just for the sake of argument. See what the evidence truly is. That is what good scientists do.

I am first and foremost a scientist. I try not to bring my beliefs into the lab, so to speak. I look at the evidence and the facts without having preconceived notions of what is true.
When I look at the facts surrounding the method of radiocarbon dating, there are way too many facts and observations against it to trust it. That is how I see it, as a scientist, not a Christian.
Religious beliefs have nothing to do with this conclusion.

I challenge you to find me one source openly criticising the validity of carbon dating.

Radiometric dating is used to date things like rocks and the age of the earth, which is accurate to a few million years, which I was talking about in the previous post... and yeah, the earth being 4.5 Billion years old, 4,500,000,000 years --- 1,000,000 +/- ... you do the math, let me know when you get that percentage. That's very accurate buddy.

You said ANY kind of dating is accurate to 10^6 years. Carbon is one of them.

The half-life and decay rate of carbon-14 is constant.

Not necessarily. As a particle physicist, I have a hard time believing that the weak coupling constant has been constant over the history of the Earth.
Einstein had a hard time with it too. He doubted that anything was really constant in nature. So do I.
If the weak coupling constant changes with time, all nuclear decay rates will change.
We have the same sort of issue with the speed of light, and there is evidence that the speed of light is NOT constant.

So a few samples dated using the method came out wrong because of the materials they were next to contaminated them... so that makes all the other accurate measurements already established void? WTF kind of reasoning is that?

Nothing in nature can contaminate the sample with more daughter nuclei??

Science is science because it can be corroborated by other people, and guess what, other people use these dating methods every single day and get the exact same measurements. It can be done over and over again with the exact same results, it can predict the outcome of future experiments, that is science.



You are dilusional. Keep telling yourself that.

The word is delusional. And you telling me that I am delusional keeps me aware that I am on the right path.

 

[shroomer33]

The problem there is that many bad scientists tweak the averages in order to achieve the result desired... like a cop making you blow into a breathalizer over and over again to try and get a reading over .08.

No way! You mean a 'scientist' would cook the books????

It just so happens that the history of evolutionary theory is replete with such examples of chicanery.

 

[shroomer33]

Oh God, that hurt me to read man seriously, the ignorance is disgustingly strong in this post!

Most importantly, do you know the cosmic ray flux at all times in the past?

 

[what... huh?]

So shroomer... whaddaya say about K-Ar dating?

 

[fish601]

So shroomer... whaddaya say about K-Ar dating?

In some cases, the whole rock age is greater than the age of the minerals, and for others, the reverse occurs. The potassium-argon mineral results vary between 1,520 and 2,620 million years (a difference of 1,100 million years). All of this argon is being produced and entering the air and water in between the rocks, and gradually filtering up to the atmosphere. But we know that rocks absorb argon, because correction factors are applied for this when using K-Ar dating. So this argon that is being produced will leave some rocks and enter others. The partial pressure of argon should be largest deepest in the earth, and decrease towards the surface. This would result in larger K-Ar ages lower down, but lower ages nearer the surface.

What most people don't realize, or at least don't discuss, is that Ar/Ar method is not an absolute dating method. Let me emphasize again that this dating method is a relative dating method. In other words, it must be calibrated relative to a different dating method before it can be used to date materials relative to that other dating method.

"Because this (primary) standard ultimately cannot be determined by 40Ar/39Ar, it must be first determined by another isotopic dating method. The method most commonly used to date the primary standard is the conventional K/Ar technique. . . Once an accurate and precise age is determined for the primary standard, other minerals can be dated relative to it by the 40Ar/39Ar method. These secondary minerals are often more convenient to date by the 40Ar/39Ar technique (e.g. sanidine). However, while it is often easy to determine the age of the primary standard by the K/Ar method, it is difficult for different dating laboratories to agree on the final age. Likewise . . . the K/Ar ages are not always reproducible. This imprecision (and inaccuracy) is transferred to the secondary minerals used daily by the 40Ar/39Ar technique." 49

Step heating does not overcome this inherent reliance of Ar/Ar dating on calibration with K/Ar or other dating methods. So, whatever problems exist in the method used for calibration will be passed on to the Ar/Ar dating method as well. This same problem exists for all other relative radiometric dating techniques. In addition, there are other problems with Ar/Ar dating such as the uncertainty of the decay constants for 40K and 39Ar recoil.

For a further discussion of these inherent problems with Ar/Ar dating see the following link to The New Mexico Bureau of Geology & Mineral Resources (http://geoinfo.nmt.edu/labs/ argon/methods/home.html)
​

 

[CrackerJax]

In some cases, the whole rock age is greater than the age of the minerals, and for others, the reverse occurs. The potassium-argon mineral results vary between 1,520 and 2,620 million years (a difference of 1,100 million years). All of this argon is being produced and entering the air and water in between the rocks, and gradually filtering up to the atmosphere. But we know that rocks absorb argon, because correction factors are applied for this when using K-Ar dating. So this argon that is being produced will leave some rocks and enter others. The partial pressure of argon should be largest deepest in the earth, and decrease towards the surface. This would result in larger K-Ar ages lower down, but lower ages nearer the surface.

What most people don't realize, or at least don't discuss, is that Ar/Ar method is not an absolute dating method. Let me emphasize again that this dating method is a relative dating method. In other words, it must be calibrated relative to a different dating method before it can be used to date materials relative to that other dating method.

"Because this (primary) standard ultimately cannot be determined by 40Ar/39Ar, it must be first determined by another isotopic dating method. The method most commonly used to date the primary standard is the conventional K/Ar technique. . . Once an accurate and precise age is determined for the primary standard, other minerals can be dated relative to it by the 40Ar/39Ar method. These secondary minerals are often more convenient to date by the 40Ar/39Ar technique (e.g. sanidine). However, while it is often easy to determine the age of the primary standard by the K/Ar method, it is difficult for different dating laboratories to agree on the final age. Likewise . . . the K/Ar ages are not always reproducible. This imprecision (and inaccuracy) is transferred to the secondary minerals used daily by the 40Ar/39Ar technique." 49

Step heating does not overcome this inherent reliance of Ar/Ar dating on calibration with K/Ar or other dating methods. So, whatever problems exist in the method used for calibration will be passed on to the Ar/Ar dating method as well. This same problem exists for all other relative radiometric dating techniques. In addition, there are other problems with Ar/Ar dating such as the uncertainty of the decay constants for 40K and 39Ar recoil.

For a further discussion of these inherent problems with Ar/Ar dating see the following link to The New Mexico Bureau of Geology & Mineral Resources (http://geoinfo.nmt.edu/labs/ argon/methods/home.html)
​

I'm glad to see that you have given up on the 6000 year old earth. slow progress.... but progress none the less.

 

[fish601]

6000 to 10000 6000 is just a close figure it could be 6001

 

[PadawanBater]

6000 to 10000 6000 is just a close figure it could be 6001

fish, are you saying that there is no method of dating that is accurate? Not one?


Are you then saying that you believe the earth is between 6K - 10K years old?


I'd just like clarification.

 

[fish601]

fish, are you saying that there is no method of dating that is accurate? Not one?


Are you then saying that you believe the earth is between 6K - 10K years old?


I'd just like clarification.

No method of dating is accurate that i know of, reason why is because the The starting conditions are unknown, and we dont know if the decay rates have always been constant. Now if we use dating methods for only a few thousand years yeah we can get pretty close

The bible doesnt say how old the earth is so we can only guess. If it was proven
to be umteen billion years old that would not hurt my faith. One thing for sure is God created it