Are you an atheist? (2 Viewers)

[Bladerunner]

All T-Rex remains have been mineralised. There is no carbon in them.

Will you please stop spouting unsubstantiated rubbish.

That dog won't hunt.

"from Tx to AK to China, Dinosaur bones have been directly dated by c-14 methods and found to be only thousands of years old. So much for the 100 to 150 million year old bones. Thats about 2000 times young than your guys want it to be." Uh-lala

"Another team has c-14 dated an alleged 70 million year old marine reptile in EUrope and found it to be 24,600 years old".

Boy this puts a damper on evolution as a theory of origins. God made all land animals in the 6th day.

Blade

 

[Galaxiom]

"from Tx to AK to China, Dinosaur bones have been directly dated by c-14 methods and found to be only thousands of years old. So much for the 100 to 150 million year old bones. Thats about 2000 times young than your guys want it to be." Uh-lala

"Another team has c-14 dated an alleged 70 million year old marine reptile in EUrope and found it to be 24,600 years old".

Both of those unattributed quotes are complete rubbish. They are from barefaced liars.

Are you really that gullible?

You simply accept anything that backs what you want to believe without regards for its veracity while claiming that any scientific knowledge is built on assumptions.

Like I asked before, please stop posting unsubstantiated rubbish.

 

[Bladerunner]

It is controversial only according to those who seek to discredit the research based on mDNA, usually for religious reasons. It is not controversial in main stream science.

Similarly with Climate Change. The supposed controversy is fabricated by very small number of scientists, mostly with ulterior motives. The evidence is unequivocally in support.

(mDNA) the so called main stream scientist is not so main stream. Out of every 20 secular articles I look at, only five out of 20 specifically from the secular group of scientist declare there is not recombination. However, the rest out of the 20 secular groups declare it is controversial. Don't know what you want me to think here.

Here is one article that tries to toe the line (so to speak) maybe yes it does but so infrequently there is not need to change the evolution thought process. However, I am more interested in the first sentence in the first paragraph."The problem of whether recombinant mtDNAs are created in mammalian cells has been controversial for many years."

Controversial-----throw it out...it is no good. Does not prove nothing.

http://www.pnas.org/content/102/17/6057.full

Isaiah 55:8-9 states: 8. "For My thoughts are not your thoughts, Nor are your ways My ways," declares the LORD. 9."For as the heavens are higher than the earth, So are My ways higher than your ways And My thoughts than your thoughts. "

That should tell you atheist everything,,,,,,Man is NOT a God.

Blade

p.s. I give you all the real stuff for Climate change at one time, will not do it again.

 

[Bladerunner]

What a load of meaningless twaddle.

Granite often contains radioactive isotopes. When they decay they emit alpha particles. Alpha particles are Helium nuclei.

Learned men and women wrote a vast coherent body of science that is consistent at every level. Any observations that reveal inconsistencies found are investigated and the theories refined to restore consistency. It is this process of refinement that makes science so accurate.

The Bible was written by arrogant, ignorant, misogynist men who assumed that their every thought was given to them by a supernatural being. It is littered with inconsistencies that gullible fools go to great lengths try and reconcile with observed fact by inventing a plethora of ridiculous scenarios that conflict with real science.

We are talking specifically about the radioisotope Polonium (radio-halos in granite) and their unique characteristics. Oh, never mind ,,,its ok,,, I understand.

There are many Learned men and women on both sides.

2 Peter 3:8 states: But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

2 Peter written somewhere between 65-68 AD or roughly 3-4000 years after creation. Why would he say this. The were ignorant of the science of the stars,moon and earth back then. I know ,,,, it was just something he threw out there to stumble people on it. He was a devious person, I have been told.

Blade

 

[Bladerunner]

He didn't comment on that piece of text in particular. I'm quite disappointed

Please post it again if you please,,,I can not find it... If you are talking about the Wiki article, I am not reading it. It was you who told me that wiki could not be trusted and Galaxiom tells me it can be trusted only on scientific data. Controversial again. Make up you blooming minds.

Blade

 

[Bladerunner]

I didn't even reply to his comment as I knew it was utter rubbish

Where does he get this stuff from!

yep,,,bet you knew deep down in your bones.

Blade

 

[Bladerunner]

Stormfront, Conservapedia, various ultra-right-wing conspiracy sites, Faux News, extreme-right pundits with agendas such as O'Reilly and Coultier, ignorant and/or disingenious "preachers" with a political agenda, things like that.

I know what you do now for a living>>>>>>Your one of those democratic Liberal advisors. Well, if you are not,,, you should be,,,you are good at throwing it around.........


Blade

 

[Bladerunner]

Both of those unattributed quotes are complete rubbish. They are from barefaced liars.

Are you really that gullible?

You simply accept anything that backs what you want to believe without regards for its veracity while claiming that any scientific knowledge is built on assumptions.

Like I asked before, please stop posting unsubstantiated rubbish.

Back at you!

"Are you really that gullible?

You simply accept anything that backs what you want to believe without regards for its veracity while claiming that any scientific knowledge is built on assumptions.

Like I asked before, please stop posting unsubstantiated rubbish"

Seems you have the same problem. I guess we can agree to disagree. and maybe jump to another subject....We have beat this one until it is like the primordial ooze we are suppose to come from.


Blade

 

[ConnorGiles]

Hey Connor I thought correcting people was wrong, or is that only when I correct you?

Brian

Hey Brian, it appears the internet has changed me. Feel free to correct me when I make a grammatical error I won't bite (much ).

 

[Brianwarnock]

Hey Brian, it appears the internet has changed me. Feel free to correct me when I make a grammatical error I won't bite (much ).

it happens, eventually something gets under your skin and you have to react.
I remember Pat Hartman , number 2 on the all time posters list and all in the techie area although not posted for years, had the patience of a saint when explaining techie things but one day wrote
There is ARAT in SEPARATE ,
many posters spell it seperate.

Brian

 

[ConnorGiles]

It does indeed get under my skin!

At work yesterday, They were building a clock tower and it has Roman numerals on it.

They spelt 4 which is IV as IIII - Think I died a little inside!

 

[Brianwarnock]

I have not contributed to the thread for a while but have followed it, much of it is beyond my sphere of knowledge but I will say that I cannot see how evolution disproves the existence of a god, although it will disprove the stories in the Bible and probably other religious texts.
As an agnostic I do not know whether a god exists but I cannot accept the idea of religion as they seem so flawed.

Brian

 

[Brianwarnock]

It does indeed get under my skin!

At work yesterday, They were building a clock tower and it has Roman numerals on it.

They spelt 4 which is IV as IIII - Think I died a little inside!

And what did they do for 9, although I have a suspicion both were acceptable in Roman times , but school was was more than an L of a long time ago.

Brian

 

[Brianwarnock]

Yep although this is from Wikipedia

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_numerals#Alternative_forms

Brian

Ps gotta go now , the sun is shining and the garden calls

 

[Frothingslosh]

I have not contributed to the thread for a while but have followed it, much of it is beyond my sphere of knowledge but I will say that I cannot see how evolution disproves the existence of a god, although it will disprove the stories in the Bible and probably other religious texts.
As an agnostic I do not know whether a god exists but I cannot accept the idea of religion as they seem so flawed.

Brian

Evolution doesn't disprove God. It simply disproves Genesis.

The catch is that once you accept that the Bible is not 100% literally true, the whole edifice falls apart, as the first half is a collection of tales, laws, and beliefs created by genocidal bronze-age savages, and the second half is wholly inconsistant with itself. Seriously, the only thing of true value I see in it are the majority of the teachings attributed to Jesus directly, and even some of them are suspect. I mean, come on, trashing the moneylenders' tables and whipping every one of them you can reach may be cathartic, but it does clash just a bit with the message of forgiveness, humility, and compassion. And don't get me started on Revelations!

As to the thread itself, I'm just waiting for a pro-religion defender who's not Blade. I've had all of HIS lies, distortions, conspiracy theories, and misrepresentations that I can take.

 

[ConnorGiles]

And what did they do for 9, although I have a suspicion both were acceptable in Roman times , but school was was more than an L of a long time ago.

Brian

They did it correctly IX. Apparently both ways were acceptable. But the widely renowned version of Roman numerals states the number 4 as IV.

 

[Bladerunner]

Evolution doesn't disprove God. It simply disproves Genesis.

The catch is that once you accept that the Bible is not 100% literally true, the whole edifice falls apart, as the first half is a collection of tales, laws, and beliefs created by genocidal bronze-age savages, and the second half is wholly inconsistant with itself. Seriously, the only thing of true value I see in it are the majority of the teachings attributed to Jesus directly, and even some of them are suspect. I mean, come on, trashing the moneylenders' tables and whipping every one of them you can reach may be cathartic, but it does clash just a bit with the message of forgiveness, humility, and compassion. And don't get me started on Revelations!

As to the thread itself, I'm just waiting for a pro-religion defender who's not Blade. I've had all of HIS lies, distortions, conspiracy theories, and misrepresentations that I can take.

sorry Frothy,,,it do not disprove Genesis and What lies Have I Told.

Blade

 

[The_Doc_Man]

Blade: In your response to my attempt to show you the folly of using science to prove that God exists, you made this comment and immediately proved my point - which is NOT a play on words at all.

I guess that would be a question for your atheist. They have to find God to disprove him. There is no other way. Don't worry, there is only one way to find him and the creation scientist know what it is. We had a atheist on another post that declared a God other than. His bad.

My entire point was that using science to try to prove God's existence will take you to a false god, which causes you to turn away from the God you claim to be real. And THAT is what your Satan figure wants. ANYONE who uses junk creation science suffers the same problem.

I was using religious framing to make an argument because you don't seem to want to accept scientific articles. However, it is obvious that the problem isn't my source - it is that I dared to use logic at all. If you attempt to blitz us with small amounts of mistaken ideas and biased sources in order to refute whole bodies of evidence, you are obviously trying to be David against our Goliath. However, there is a catch to it all. You have to hit the mark with your stone, and so far I've not seen evidence of your marksmanship.

I'll also state something that you should claim you already know, given your claim to have studied the sciences so well. If a T-Rex died 65 million years ago (as we claim), the C-14 would have reached a meaningless level. The thing about radiocarbon dating is that after a few hundred thousand years, too many half-lives have passed and the precision of the measurement method is no longer commensurate with the radiation levels being measured. I.e. you are trying to measure the difference between a tank that has 0.001 gallons and 0.002 gallons of gas using a flotation method designed for whole gallons of measurement.

The solution is that after maybe 10-12 half-lives, you pick another pair of elements that exhibit long half-lives. Some are good for literally tens of millions of years and can be used for dinosaurs appropriately. Where I strenuously object is that you should know this if you were well trained and should know that C-14 dating is not the method of choice for dinosaur ages. Using inappropriate methods of measurement is just another way to surreptitiously lie for Jesus. If you REALLY believed in the Divinity of Jesus, you would know that lying in his name is disrespectful.

 

[Frothingslosh]

Doc, you're talking to a guy who insisted that 1200 AD was 3300 years ago.

He's also really keen on reminding us constantly that he once worked in a medical facility, so he obviously knows everything there is to know about medicine and science. Just ask him!

 

[Bladerunner]

Blade: In your response to my attempt to show you the folly of using science to prove that God exists, you made this comment and immediately proved my point - which is NOT a play on words at all.

My entire point was that using science to try to prove God's existence will take you to a false god, which causes you to turn away from the God you claim to be real. And THAT is what your Satan figure wants. ANYONE who uses junk creation science suffers the same problem.

I was using religious framing to make an argument because you don't seem to want to accept scientific articles. However, it is obvious that the problem isn't my source - it is that I dared to use logic at all. If you attempt to blitz us with small amounts of mistaken ideas and biased sources in order to refute whole bodies of evidence, you are obviously trying to be David against our Goliath. However, there is a catch to it all. You have to hit the mark with your stone, and so far I've not seen evidence of your marksmanship.

I'll also state something that you should claim you already know, given your claim to have studied the sciences so well. If a T-Rex died 65 million years ago (as we claim), the C-14 would have reached a meaningless level. The thing about radiocarbon dating is that after a few hundred thousand years, too many half-lives have passed and the precision of the measurement method is no longer commensurate with the radiation levels being measured. I.e. you are trying to measure the difference between a tank that has 0.001 gallons and 0.002 gallons of gas using a flotation method designed for whole gallons of measurement.

The solution is that after maybe 10-12 half-lives, you pick another pair of elements that exhibit long half-lives. Some are good for literally tens of millions of years and can be used for dinosaurs appropriately. Where I strenuously object is that you should know this if you were well trained and should know that C-14 dating is not the method of choice for dinosaur ages. Using inappropriate methods of measurement is just another way to surreptitiously lie for Jesus. If you REALLY believed in the Divinity of Jesus, you would know that lying in his name is disrespectful.

Ah The Doc Man: Sorry to disappoint you but I am not trying to use science to prove God Exist. Rather I am using what creation scientist have found in response to your secular scientist and their use a bunch of assumptions to create results that try to prove 'there is no God.'. If you are referring to the sentence that Creation Scientist are trying to find God is then you are wrong. They already know him and where he is at.

p.s There are a lot of Ph.D.s that form the creation scientific group(s). You could have been in good company. Therefore as far as the junk science statement, well, I would have expected a little better from you, Doc.

IF T-Rex died 65 million years ago, there would be no carbon-14 to be found yet there is. Rem all living things take up Carbon-14 but not dead things or have your scientist changed their minds and resended that law.

What I really think is funny is there are 2.2 billion Christians or roughly 32% of the Worlds pop. with 1.6 billion Islamist (mostly Muslims) for around 21% of the worlds pop. The leaves the atheist to be the third largest faith in the world (and it is a faith).........or about 2.0% in 2010 project to be 1.8% by 2020. Your following is shrinking.


Doc, If you want to get specific, lets do it but otherwise there is no reason we simply banter with each other over the science of both parties. I am not going to change your mind that God truly exist and you are not going to make me believe he does not exist. Stalemate.

p.s. Rabbi: sometime ago you challenged me to prove to you that God exist. All I can do is show that everything in the Bible (God word) comes together even though there are many different authors. You and you alone will have to find God. Hope you do before it is too late. Good Luck!

OK Doc Man,,, are we through going around and around.and solving nothing!

Blade