Are you an atheist? (4 Viewers)

[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

 

[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.

OH, Another controversial area. Here is a creation scientific site article written by another Doc Man (PhD.), Steven A. Austin, Ph.D.

http://www.icr.org/article/ten-misconceptions-about-geologic-column/


I know, I know it is junk Science,,,,,,just like the secular science is.........
Simply weight the facts, they are layed out by Dr. Austin???? Another Choice for you......



Blade

 

[Rabbie]

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

Blade why can't you understand that there is no problem in accepting both God and Evolution for many Christians. The main stream Christian churches here in the UK believes that evolution is part of God's plan and so reject your theory that it is an atheist conspiracy. You really need to look at all the evidence not just the pieces that suit your somewhat restricted view.

I agree with The Doc Man that you have a perfect right to believe what you want even if those beliefs are contrary to all the evidence available

 

[Bladerunner]

Blade why can't you understand that there is no problem in accepting both God and Evolution for many Christians. The main stream Christian churches here in the UK believes that evolution is part of God's plan and so reject your theory that it is an atheist conspiracy. You really need to look at all the evidence not just the pieces that suit your somewhat restricted view.

I agree with The Doc Man that you have a perfect right to believe what you want even if those beliefs are contrary to all the evidence available

While evolution process are your talking about Rabbie: The one that we evolved from the sea or the one that we do change according to our environment in very small increments. We also evolve via procreation. Two parents of differing genetics. (i.e. My grandfather was 6.6 and that was many years ago during lean times--Great depression)....My father 5.7 mother 5.2. Me about 6.0 and my son is 6.4 during better times than I had. My grandfathers genetics is coming thru after all those years. So if you are talking about the genetics evolution and some small changes caused by the environment then Yes, I agree but we did not come from the sea. Besides it would take millions of years if the first evolution I spoke of had any kind of chance of working. We now know that those millions of years did not happen because of faulty assumptions. At least not by the evidence those of this thread have offered.

If the Canteberry Archbishop believes in the 1st part of evolution he is not much of a Christian now is he, because GOD said he created Adam from the dust during the 6th day.

Yeah I read what DocMan stated. I will and do have a belief but like you I try to punch holes in your so-call science and all that junk evidence you tout as the end it all tale.. That is the secular science that is trying its best to prove there is no GOD. They have pretty much have had their way until recent years.

I believe that is the same as you are doing just from the other side. So, I , You , DocMan and others agree to disagree. Just don't change the subject to that "You can believe what you want to crap" You have the same option,,, Its called a "CHOICE". But that lets your science off the hook does it not?


Blade

 

[AnthonyGerrard]

The good news of this thread is we will all find out if God exists before its finished.

Either the second coming will occur - or we will all have died and burned for eternity or not.

Life's short - why waste it here? Especially those who think this is the only life they are getting.

Atheism hasn't afforded much meaning or direction to life seemingly!

 

[The_Doc_Man]

Anthony - Atheism (and, for that matter, religion) cannot offer meaning or direction to life - though for different reasons.

Religion, because it is a choice and because it is possible to change religions, cannot offer you meaning or direction until you have chosen your religion - and you have several vastly different religions from which to choose. First, you have Judaism, Christianity (a few hundred sects/denominations thereof), and Islam are based on the Abrahamic God. Each of them has some differences. Then you have Hinduism, Buddhism, Shinto, and many other religions. Each of them offers different directions.

Atheism cannot offer you meaning or direction because we generally do not believe that there is a general and uniform purpose to life. Purpose is a matter of our individual choice. I.e. WE choose, define, and develop our purpose. We don't wait for some mystical being to direct us, particularly since it is our belief that no such being exists.

We believe that the religious people among us define their purpose in the act of choosing their religion. Of course, some children don't even have that right since their parents apply all sorts of pressure to force children into some religious belief. I must admit that it took me a long time to overcome the religious indoctrination (akin to brainwashing or operant conditioning) imposed on me by my parents. After that, I had to learn one of the few lessons in the Bible that is actually worth anything - forgiveness. I had to learn how to forgive them for passing along unsubstantiated lies as though it were truth.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

Blade -

Besides it would take millions of years if the first evolution I spoke of had any kind of chance of working. We now know that those millions of years did not happen because of faulty assumptions. At least not by the evidence those of this thread have offered.

Peer-reviewed articles in reputable journals have shown that the millions of required years did, indeed, exist. If you cannot provide peer-reviewed scholarly articles proving the short life span of the Earth then you have nothing.

You talk a lot about how you feel that the pieces-parts of your Bible come together. But as it happens, the pieces-parts of peer-reviewed articles in geology, biology, astronomy, paleontology, archaeology, etc. DO come together to paint a much older picture of the Earth than your feeble myopic viewpoint produces. The 4.3 billion years that is the current estimated age of the Earth is well-accepted among scientific communities. You complain because there wasn't enough time for the species evolution to occur. But if you figure that mutation, adaptation, and other processes had literally hundreds of millions of years to occur, the odds tip in our favor.

Science follows a method of observation and experiment to explain something based on new data or new theories. Creation science follows a method of attempting to tear down established scientific facts and principles. If you read an article that tries to tear down some law or principle and does not offer an equally good alternative that fits the facts, then the article is often a pile of junk. Let me also point out that a "peer reviewed" article usually does not mean that some bishop somewhere thinks the article is right - unless the bishop ALSO has a degree in some useful field.

Take, for example, Fr. Lemaitre, the college mathematician and Jesuit priest who devised the basics of the first viewpoint on the Big Bang theory. He was well aware of the Biblical admonitions to STUDY that which God had created. He studied them. Came up with the BB theory.

OK, so we study the stars, because Genesis says God created them. We have a name for the study - astronomy - but we are still studying the things your Bible tells us God has made. Then there are the animals and plants (Zoology and Botany). Again, you are admonished to study that which God has made. We have names for the study, but does that invalidate the results of the study? God supposedly made the Earth, so when we study its structure, does it matter that we call that study Geology?

According to your Bible, we were given dominion over the Earth, its plants, and its animals, and were told to study them. So WHY should we ignore what we find when we were told to look in the first place? That is one of many questions that religious folks cannot answer adequately for me.

Now, when we study those topics and develop a method of rigorously validating those results, and we then find a way to disseminate the results via technical journals, tell me where we have gone wrong. WHY do you not accept that the tech journals are merely a formalized way of studying and disseminating that which we have learned? And why do you not realize that religious journals have a hidden (but not very well hidden) agenda?

 

[Frothingslosh]

Wait, now Blade is quoting from the Young-Earth Creationist playbook? Around a year ago, he said he accepted that the Earth is billions of years old. I wonder WTF happened to make him change his mind and go COMPLETELY Pre-millenial Dispensationalist on us.

 

[Bladerunner]

Wait, now Blade is quoting from the Young-Earth Creationist playbook? Around a year ago, he said he accepted that the Earth is billions of years old. I wonder WTF happened to make him change his mind and go COMPLETELY Pre-millenial Dispensationalist on us.

I believe I also stated that a time distortion (warp) also happened. I believe those little radio-halos help show this is what happened. But then that is junk science.

Hey Frothy;;;;;;;; long time not speak?

Blade

 

[AnthonyGerrard]

I believe I also stated that a time distortion (warp) also happened. I believe those little radio-halos help show this is what happened. But then that is junk science.

Hey Frothy;;;;;;;; long time not speak?

Blade

I think he said he's blocked you - so can only see it when others quote you!

When Blade continues to argue that the Bible is fact and that scientests are religious fanatics who worship science and are too closed-minded to accept facts, did you honestly expect people to just let him slide? I can't even see his posts and was rolling my eyes just at the things that are showing in the quotes.

I doubt he'll like me saying so. But hopefully I have interpreted what he has already stated correctly.

 

[Vassago]

Civil discussion please! I know we keep a pretty slack environment and welcome heated debates, but personal attacks are not welcome, especially at certain levels.

It's just the internet. There's no reason to get angry because someone doesn't agree with your point of view. This is especially true with religious topics as it's almost impossible to change someone's mind, especially on a forum. If you feel yourself getting angry, take a break, go for a walk, stretch and try to calm down before making another post. You'd be surprised how silly you realize it really is to get mad at a screen.

We're all adults here, I think...

 

[Vassago]

Civil discussion please! I know we keep a pretty slack environment and welcome heated debates, but personal attacks are not welcome, especially at certain levels.

It's just the internet. There's no reason to get angry because someone doesn't agree with your point of view. This is especially true with religious topics as it's almost impossible to change someone's mind, especially on a forum. If you feel yourself getting angry, take a break, go for a walk, stretch and try to calm down before making another post. You'd be surprised how silly you realize it really is to get mad at a screen.

We're all adults here, I think...

 

[Brianwarnock]

Ditto
Brian