BrotherBuz
Active Member
^^^ What you think isn't important to me.
Why Is The Bible So Revered As The "Word of GOD"?
- Thread starter RyanTheRhino
- Start date
- Status
budlover13
King Tut
GOOD! Then you MAY have started on your path of enlightenment. If not, clear your mind of the ego that seems to be so prevalent in there.
BrotherBuz
Active Member
Okay I'll give you 95% of it. I found this:
I understand how radioactive dating works, but something about it concerns me. Let me illustrate. If we have a rock and assume that it was 100% carbon-14 at formation, and we now measure it to be 25% carbon-14 and 75% nitrogen-14 (I know nitrogen is a gas, but bear with me), then we can calculate that the rock has been around long enough to pass through 2 half-lives (2 x 5,730 years = 11,460 years). That makes the rock 11,460 years old.
However...
This measurement seems to hinge on the fact that we <i>know</i> that the rock was originally 100% carbon-14. If, in fact, the rock was 50% carbon-14 and 50% nitrogen-14 at its formation, then it would actually be only 5,730 years old (only half the originally calculated age). It goes without saying that this is a significant deviance.
So then, how do scientists know what the original composition of rocks were?
mindphuk
Well-Known Member
We don't date rocks using radioactive carbon. We only date things of organic origin. When something dies, it stops incorporating carbon into its system. The only source of carbon-14 is from CO2 in the atmosphere. The only assumption that has to be made is that that level of carbon-14 has been relatively stable over the last 60,000 years or so.
One of the ways that carbon dating has been supported is by dating an item of an age that is known from historical documents. This was done by Libby who ended up winning the Nobel Prize. It has been consistent when cross-checked to other samples as well.
With other radiometric dating techniques, the sample selection is important to avoid contaminants to avoid the problem you just outlined. When hot magma is cooled creating igneous rock, both the parent and the daughter isotopes are trapped and neither can leave or enter the material. Only when re-heated is the clock set back to zero.
budlover13
King Tut
Ahhh, Brother. You are seeing my belief! NOTHING is true, unless you believe it is. Both sides have a stake in science/logic. But only because they BELIEVE. In other words, those that are devout Atheists(as an example since I know quite a few. And "devout" infers "faith") STILL have faith in the unknown, therefore their opinion is no more valid than mine.
BrotherBuz
Active Member
This was part of my point you to Mccumcumber!
mindphuk
Well-Known Member
How exactly was that part of your point when the only thing you mentioned was rocks? Rocks are not organic in case you didn't know.
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
There is a fundamental difference in the definitions of faith in science and faith in religion, you must agree with that, right?
The logic presented in the theists position is constructed using blind faith, belief for that with isn't there to test/measure. The only faith ever observed in the scientists position is a natural consequence of the reality we occupy - in other words, there is nothing we can do, as a conscious organism, to be absolutely certain about anything.
Life, in itself, must be taken with some degree of faith (brain in a vat), but there are tools weve invented to overcome the constraints this faith presents to us. This is one of the main reasons the scientific method is so important.
BrotherBuz
Active Member
Read the thread man!!
mindphuk
Well-Known Member
I only have to read your post to know you don't understand what you are talking about. Your typical response seems to be that everything you say is self-evident yet no one actually agrees with you on that. I answered you problems with carbon dating and the only response was more avoidance and deflection. Do you actually know how to have a mature dialogue with another person? So far it appears the answer is "no."
BrotherBuz
Active Member
Leothwyn
Well-Known Member
Does my post to Mccumcumber indicate I don't know about carbon dating?
Yeah, it does. You were talking about carbon dating a rock.
mindphuk
Well-Known Member
Your post indicates that you think that we radiocarbon date rocks. We don't. I was merely trying to be helpful and explain the difference between carbon dating and other forms of radiometric dating that we do use to date rocks. Instead of actually recognizing your error (again) and modifying your position as to why carbon dating is unreliable based on the new information I posted, you merely post your one-liner response that doesn't actually address the points I made. As I said, if you want to disagree, that's fine but at least have the courtesy to dialogue rather than monologue and assume everyone understands everything you say even with the errors (such as citing Job when you meant Isaiah and act as if it should have been obvious to everyone).Does my post to Mccumcumber indicate I don't know about carbon dating?
BrotherBuz
Active Member
Again, this was my point to Mccumcumber, concerning the Venus of Willendorf, which is a piece limestone rock.
BrotherBuz
Active Member
The logic presented here is fixed in bedrock via fossils, which can be measured and tested. What do you have to show? You got nothing-nothing!
KlosetKing
Well-Known Member
You are, and continue to be, the ONLY person here with, as you so eloquently say, 'nothing-nothing!'
Those fossils back up evolution theory FAR more often than they disprove it, on ANY level of bedrock. Just saying 'you got nothing' in a post, then saying 'nailed it' to yourself while walking away from your pc does NOT make you right. And your 141 posts trying to make it so have been fruitless.
KlosetKing
Well-Known Member
Lets call those fossils, say, verses in the bible.
Then, lets say, each of those verses are referencing the Earth.
Now lets say you dumbed it all down to 10 verses. Let us also say that, Creationism, would be one of those verses referencing the earth as a 'sphere', and Evolution would be those verses referring the world as flat and/or 2 dimensional. For every NINE verses you find that calls the Earth 'flat' (fossils that support evolution), you only find ONE that DOESN'T support it.
So again, im led to believe that 'faith' is really only about belief in the impossible/improbable. You say the bible called the Earth a sphere because of ONE verse (though EVERY other verse other than the one you provided contradicts it), and yet you say it makes it fact. You say that Evolution is not possible for the very same reason. Catch my drift?
One level of bedrock has some questions still unanswered, and that's all the doubt you need to shrug off evolution. ONE verse defies ALL others in the bible, and you still reference it as if its the word of god himself.
Your something else man.
Then, lets say, each of those verses are referencing the Earth.
Now lets say you dumbed it all down to 10 verses. Let us also say that, Creationism, would be one of those verses referencing the earth as a 'sphere', and Evolution would be those verses referring the world as flat and/or 2 dimensional. For every NINE verses you find that calls the Earth 'flat' (fossils that support evolution), you only find ONE that DOESN'T support it.
So again, im led to believe that 'faith' is really only about belief in the impossible/improbable. You say the bible called the Earth a sphere because of ONE verse (though EVERY other verse other than the one you provided contradicts it), and yet you say it makes it fact. You say that Evolution is not possible for the very same reason. Catch my drift?
One level of bedrock has some questions still unanswered, and that's all the doubt you need to shrug off evolution. ONE verse defies ALL others in the bible, and you still reference it as if its the word of god himself.
Your something else man.
BrotherBuz
Active Member
^^^ Just running your mouth does not show me nothing. I have physical evidence and you?
BrotherBuz
Active Member
Have you read the entire Scripture? If you did you would know that that its harmonious, with a very big theme-no bullshit talking in circles like you.
KlosetKing
Well-Known Member
Oh im over giving you physical evidence fool. Its like giving a monkey toolset. He'll look it over for a bit, get angry when he realizes he cant figure out how to use them, then start throwing them angrily at other monkeys.
We have provided you links on mulitple occasions, all of which you completely ignore or throw out some wild anecdotal claim with NO link to back it up.
I ran my mouth, and you could only tell me its nothing, AGAIN. Try answering the question? Try actually reading the thread? Other people are reading it, and they are understanding it, and continuing with posts like 'just running your mouth' 'nothing-nothing' 'are you seeing the light' isnt getting you anywhere.
I really cant wait, i say by 400 posts, your reputation will have fallen to nothing, and you will, im sure 'coincidentally' have more people with 1-5 posts popping in to back you up.
Time to make some popcorn.
- Status