Are you an atheist?

[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

 

[Rabbie]

Blade, please show me the respect of spelling my name correctly.

As regards C14 dating. You are correct in saying that only living things take up C14. When they die it decays to Nitrogen so the C12 C14 ratio alters in a known way so the date can be calculated. I have seen no evidence that dinosaur fossils contain measurable amounts of C14. Can you provide this please.

 

[Frothingslosh]

Rabbie, it occurs to me that he may be confusing C14 dating with radiometric dating.

 

[Bladerunner]

Blade, please show me the respect of spelling my name correctly.

As regards C14 dating. You are correct in saying that only living things take up C14. When they die it decays to Nitrogen so the C12 C14 ratio alters in a known way so the date can be calculated. I have seen no evidence that dinosaur fossils contain measurable amounts of C14. Can you provide this please.

My apology, I did not mean to disrespect you, in fact, you have been at the top of my list among those whom deserve respect on this forum.

Here is one site by just putting in 'dinosaurs and carbon dating'. However, I am really expecting you to dis the site as others do, sorry but its the atheist, liberal way.

I think you will agree from this simmple article it is evident that the secular scientist will do anything to preserve their authority.

http://newgeology.us/presentation48.html
Blade

 

[Galaxiom]

For the remarkably late carbon dating to make any sense they would have to explain how the bones were found in Jurassic strata.

Science relies on coherent results. Where there is no coherence the only conclusion that can be reached is the data is faulty. The strata is obviously considerably more reliable than the carbon dating.

The sensible conclusion is that the sample has been contaminated with much younger carbon.

Funny how only theistic scientists ever come up with such implausible results.

 

[Rabbie]

My apology, I did not mean to disrespect you, in fact, you have been at the top of my list among those whom deserve respect on this forum.

Here is one site by just putting in 'dinosaurs and carbon dating'. However, I am really expecting you to dis the site as others do, sorry but its the atheist, liberal way.

I think you will agree from this simmple article it is evident that the secular scientist will do anything to preserve their authority.

http://newgeology.us/presentation48.html
Blade

In looked at the site and my first conclusion was that if these figures are correct then this in direct contradiction to the book of Genesis which you say dates the earth at under 10000 years old. So where did these dinosaurs live 30-49 thousand years ago.

My second conclusion was that there may have been contamination of the samples but until these results are duplicated we will never know

 

[The_Doc_Man]

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.

And there you go, using creation science - which is instantly proven to be biased - to try to refute the literally tens of thousands of articles on evolution, planetary accretion, age measurements based on multiple decay cycles, and (I might add) scholarly papers from people of religion.

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.

I would have been in terrible company. Linus Pauling was noted to have made some absolutely stupid remarks that smacked of racism because his own biases were stronger than his ability to do logic. Even Einstein had the problem (in his discussions with Oppenheimer) that he "could not believe that God played at dice." Yet quantum mechanics, which is strongly supported by many experiments, clearly shows that in fact there are random processes at work in the universe.

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.

No, there would be carbon-14 in T-Rex - but not enough to use for any kind of radiometric dating. By the way, the word you want is "rescinded" and no, we have not rescinded that belief. I don't know that it is strong enough to be called a Law (big-L).

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.

Actually, Blade, I don't care if you believe that God exists. My purpose in this discussion is to refute false statements on your part. I'm serious in this statement: You ABSOLUTELY have the right to believe what you wish. It is not my desire to infringe on that right. But I in turn ABSOLUTELY have the right to advise you when your "evidence" is false. Of course, that is the nature of faith. (Evidence is secondary to belief.)

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!

That is interesting. When you make that statement about things coming together, do you include the books of the Apocrypha in the Bible? Some religions do, some don't. If you look into the book of Esdras, for example, you find that "praying for someone to " {do something or not do something}, you are ignoring a prophet who CLEARLY pointed out that prayers of intercession have no meaning. But then, the question is whether the ones who omitted the Apocrypha from the Bible had the authority to do so. And therein lies the greatest problem you have... (in which Bible do you believe?) - because given the number of books removed, there is a serious question as to just what you are reading. Is it a book tailored by men (at the council of Nicea, e.g.) to fit THEIR beliefs? And in that case, can you be sure whether the book of Mormon does or doesn't belong with the rest of the Bible? It's a very serious question that deeply impinges on your "things coming together" statement.

 

[Bladerunner]

For the remarkably late carbon dating to make any sense they would have to explain how the bones were found in Jurassic strata.

Science relies on coherent results. Where there is no coherence the only conclusion that can be reached is the data is faulty. The strata is obviously considerably more reliable than the carbon dating.

The sensible conclusion is that the sample has been contaminated with much younger carbon.

Funny how only theistic scientists ever come up with such implausible results.

And who did the dating for the Jurassic Strada??????
Coherent results....sorry that does not rime with atheistic and naturalistic world views. Man is God right? not hardly.

Blade

 

[Bladerunner]

Rabbie: You say the article is still a direct contridiction of Genesis but your missing the point.

This is one article of many that have shown the dinosaur bones are only a few thousand years old where millions of years have been the standard for many years. This but the tip of the iceburg.

Many of the secular scientific methods and results have been made to fit the ideology of the scientist themselves and even take steps to protect the results they have from others that would dispute them using the very same radioCarbon laboratory(see below). As to what some say about the Bible if one piece falls from the so-call evolution ladder, these whole thing falls apart.

(i.e a part of the article I submitted....From 2007 through 2011 the Paleochronology group had 11 dinosaur bone samples carbon dated by the Center for Applied Isotope Studies at the University of Georgia, and for good reason. Senior research scientist Alexander Cherkinsky specializes in the preparation of samples for Carbon-14 testing. He directed the pretreatment and processing of the dinosaur bone samples with the Accelerator Mass Spectrometer, though he did not know the bones were from dinosaurs, and he signed the reports. Carbon dating at this facility is certainly the very best.

But in 2014, someone told the director of the facility, Jeff Speakman, that the Paleochronology group was showing the Carbon-14 reports on a website and YouTube and drawing the obvious conclusions. So when he received another bone sample from the Paleochronology group, he returned it to sender and sent an email saying: "I have recently become aware of the work that you and your team have been conducting with respect to radiocarbon dating of bone. The scientists at CAIS and I are dismayed by the claims that you and your team have made with respect to the age of the Earth and the validity of biological evolution. Consequently, we are no longer able to provide radiocarbon services in support of your anti-scientific agenda. I have instructed the Radiocarbon Laboratory to return your recent samples to you and to not accept any future samples for analysis.")

I don't need doubt to know God exist but there are those out there that have doubts themselves and are tittering on the fence. You atheist must prove that the Earth and the Heavens were not made by God beyond a shaddow of a doubt (Evolution). With all your secular scientific methods, results, theories and Laws either under controversial or have been proven wrong, You Have Failed!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! and so has Darwins Theory of Evolution

Blade