|
|
#21 | |
|
FFR Player
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 159
|
Quote:
Actually most scientists do believe in the great flood just not the biblical side of it. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#22 | |
|
FFR Player
|
Quote:
quote(Science says that carbon dating is relatively accurate, so your religious views must be checked at the door and not stated as fact without any evidence.) who are you going to believe, a book with thousands of witnesses to the events that are written inside, or, some scientists that proposed thier own answer? more quotes(I'd really like to see some sources along with this claim, because I'm finding it pretty hard to believe that a flood cause the decay of all carbon to change (especially 1000 fold?!). Also, why wouldn't science as a whole take this into account? If you somehow know how it was before the "flood" and they don't, then how the heck DO you know? You DO know how bold of a statement that was, right?) my source is my parents sundy school teach, Mr. Robert Ridlon Jr. science does not want to admit that there is a higher power out there that they can't explain. everybody knows that that is the scientist's greatest fear, not being able to explain something. i know because it sure makes more sense than organisms mutating for years and years. oh, and since this is critical thinking, i think that i can give this stuff to you guys to keep something on your mind to think about. ![]() Last edited by CPUGenuis; 02-21-2007 at 11:20 PM.. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#23 | ||
|
MMM WATCHA SAY
|
Quote:
EDIT: Quote:
Last edited by flawofhumanity; 02-21-2007 at 11:31 PM.. Reason: Added respons for CPU |
||
|
|
|
|
|
#24 | |
|
FFR Player
|
Quote:
geological evidence for this is pangea, which prolly did happen considering plate techtonics. (if it rained out all of the clouds, so it seems that water from the earth (geysers) helped too, which could have majorly moved some land masses) some scientists refers to those who arn't chrisians (or religions similar to), and the bible does not say at all that CO2 dating is innacurate (i don't think that it even says CO2...), but as soon as i go to church on sunday i am gonna ask the guy what his references are if you want. considering that he has a couple of books that he has written, you would assume that he has plety of references... when you really think about it though, do you even know how CO2 dating works? it works by radiation, usually from the sun. now, how on earth could UV radiation seem to be decreased, simple, the UV rays wouldn't get to the CO2, how would that happen, mabe thick dense clouds that were there BEFORE they were rained out blocked the rays, causing a big greenhouse effect? probably, unless you have a better excuse? (for what i mean here about CO2 dating also applies to all radiometric dating, and somehow, includes dating in uranium and lead) did i also mension that this teacher has a plenty of degrees and KNOWS what he is talking about (not some freaky senile old guy with rotting teeth and brains) Last edited by CPUGenuis; 02-21-2007 at 11:52 PM.. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#25 | ||||
|
is against custom titles
|
Quote:
In order for the entire scientific community to accept a tool for gathering evidence, it has to be tested and confirmed by more people than are named in the Bible... Also, eyewitness accounts are the best evidence you can have in a court of law, but they're the most useless evidence in scientific study. If we believed everything that people said they saw, aliens would therefore be buzzing around our planet nightly, we would have cold fusion, would have found the alien species that dug the canals on Mars, be studying N-rays, and going to an acupuncturist for pain relief. Thirdly, do you believe everything you read? Millions of people have read the Left Behind series of books; does that make them scientifically accurate? Quote:
Look up even basic definitions of science. NOBODY will tell you that scientists are afraid of the unknown. In fact, science THRIVES on the unknown. The GUT is the pinnacle of physics, and scientists are working every day, around the globe, to find it, even though they can't yet explain it! Religious matters ARE NOT SCIENCE. Period. They cannot be disproven and make no testable predictions. They are based on constructs. As such, the reason that they aren't studied is because they are scientifically worthless. Scientists are HAPPY to believe in God because doing so does not affect their scientific tests in the slightest. Quote:
Quote:
Wait a second, though. What's CO2 dating? You expect us to believe what you have to say when you not only don't understand yourself how radiometric/radiocarbon dating works, but also don't even know enough about what it is to distinguish it from a phantom process that you just made up? Do you even know what CO2 is? --Guido http://andy.mikee385.com
__________________
![]() Last edited by GuidoHunter; 02-22-2007 at 01:48 AM.. |
||||
|
|
|
|
|
#26 | |
|
FFR Player
|
Quote:
i would like to blame scientologists on trying to bring that crap up :P "Thirdly, do you believe everything you read? Millions of people have read the Left Behind series of books; does that make them scientifically accurate?" not entirely, i have my own ways of checking out is something is reasonable or not. teh left behind seires (to you) is a persepective, Right? to me, it isn't all correct, the charachters might not exist, but the whole theme is accurate. "Look up even basic definitions of science. NOBODY will tell you that scientists are afraid of the unknown. In fact, science THRIVES on the unknown. The GUT is the pinnacle of physics, and scientists are working every day, around the globe, to find it, even though they can't yet explain it!" they can't explain it because they REFUSE to accept that a simple book around for thousands of years holds the answers, this area of the unknown is what they fear. "Do YOU even know how CO2 dating works?" yeah, well, mosty. SOME of this guys lesson i couldn't catch bcause i heard it when i was, like, 5 and had the mental capacity of a catapillar. "Do you even know what CO2 is?" carbon dioxide, deet de dee simple, when i go to church on sunday, i will ask this guy what his book is and its sources and tell you guys. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#27 | |
|
is against custom titles
|
Quote:
You clearly didn't understand a word I said. I hereby challenge you to ask ANY particle physicist why there isn't a GUT when the answer is clearly in the Bible. Then quote passages from the Bible where God explains the relationships between the strong, weak, electromagnetic, and gravitational forces. I'm sure he'll accept your views instantaneously. Huge font so that you don't miss it this time: IF WE ACCEPT THE BIBLE AS A SCIENTIFIC SOURCE THEN THERE WILL BE NO USE FOR SCIENCE. If we begin to say that any phenomenon in this world can be explained by a God of whimsy, then every single phenomenon could be explained that way, too. Since there would be an explanation for everything, science and technology would stagnate, and we would no longer progress. Had we adopted this route two hundred years ago, we wouldn't even have widespread electricity, bridges, cars, or anything technological. It is because of a HEALTHY skepticism and a complete disregard of scientific constructs that we are where we are today. EDIT: Also, science only concerns itself with that which can be disproven. This is the very nature of science. God and anything religious cannot be disproven, so science completely ignores it. Note: scientists do not ignore it because they have giant, fragile egos. Many of history's greatest scientists have been devoutly religious. They saw no problem with science and God, so why do you? EDIT2: And please, for Pete's sake, use the [quote]text[/quote] tags so that you're not quoting me twice. --Guido http://andy.mikee385.com
__________________
![]() Last edited by GuidoHunter; 02-22-2007 at 08:39 PM.. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#28 |
|
FFR Player
|
Note: I skipped mosts of the posts, so sorry if this was stated before.
Please tell me if it doesn't make sense....... I think it would actually make sense that the first "flying" mammals came before the birds. But think about it, and understand why I put quotation marks around the word 'flying': These things didn't fly, they would glide. You have to remember, flying and gliding have completely different meanings (Let alone trajectories, which I shouldn't have to explain). Flying is much different. You don't see flying squirrels flapping arms and staying in the air as long as their body can support it. |
|
|
|
|
|
#29 |
|
FFR Player
|
Oh, PLEASE. You have no idea what you're talking about. There is no such thing as "CO2" dating. Carbon dating is based on Carbon only. Carbon is an atom, amongst the periodic table. Oxygen (O), is another atom. If you take two Oxygens and one Carbon, you get.... CO2. It's a much different thing than Carbon.
C =/= CO2 Ok?
__________________
Truth lies in loneliness, When hope is long gone by -Blind Guardian, The Soulforged Image removed for size violation. |
|
|
|
|
|
#30 |
|
FFR Player
|
Also, Bible Boy, can you say that definite humans or human roots with a written language and religion were able to cast off the Ark during PANGEA? I'm reading the WikiPedia article for Earth, and I didn't see much major continental movement in the growth of the "modern" multicellular organisms.
On top of that, you have to remember that much of the New World wasn't discovered - or believed - until men like Columbus and Magellan set sail. This is just a thought, but it was probably the region that Noah lived in that flooded rather than the entire flood. The flood was great, but not that great. |
|
|
|
|
|
#31 |
|
is against custom titles
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#32 | |||||
|
FFR Simfile Author
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I cannot explain many things. Apropos, my friday school teacher Mr. Wingleniff says a magical group of myrmidons once, in 7 billion bc, took seven shats in the corner of a cave and it spawned an invisible nymphomaniac that created Earl, Steve and Beth to go at it in a wild threesome to bring the Homosapien reign. This is entirely true because I trust Mr. Wingleniff.
__________________
Last edited by Reach; 02-22-2007 at 10:05 PM.. |
|||||
|
|
|
|
|
#33 | |
|
FFR Player
|
Quote:
Mybad. = P Must've been the Bible Boy part. Trust me, I believe in God, but I don't think he controls everything we do, so I rarely talk about God or show my belief in him. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#34 | |
|
mike
|
Quote:
In a nutshell, carbon dating isn't reliable, so anything we don't have documented with some sort of dating system, cannot be dated. This squirrel could be 125 million years old or 125 years old for all we know. There are too many variables for us to consider before we get real rock-solid proof. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#35 | |||
|
is against custom titles
|
Quote:
When relativity came around, did that mean classical physics became untrustworthy? No, it became more and more solid. Quote:
Quote:
--Guido http://andy.mikee385.com |
|||
|
|
|
|
|
#36 | ||
|
FFR Simfile Author
|
Quote:
And no, we do know. Where are you getting this information from? It's wrong. Quote:
Updated? There is no updating. Isotopes decay and form something else from a decay constant. The only inaccuracy that can result is from poor method. What you do to get accurate results is cross section the results with other isotopes. Carbon dating isn't used to date really old stuff. We use potassium/argon, rubidium/strontium, thorium/lead isotope series comparisons to get very accurate results, to less than 1% error. This error is negligible when talking about something millions of years old.
__________________
Last edited by Reach; 02-22-2007 at 11:15 PM.. |
||
|
|
|
|
|
#37 |
|
FFR Player
|
I'm pretty sure thousands of well-educated scientists can explain the world a lot better with factual and logical proof than a handful of old guys from 2000+ years ago who theorized some big being up in the clouds when that was the only explanation they had for life.
If you're going to make an extremely bogus (from a scientific POV) claim like claiming carbon dating slowed down a lot, you better have at least one source to back you up, or else this isn't the thread, nor probably the forum, for you. Carbon dating is a very accurate method. I've never heard of "CO2 dating," though. You were correct when you said radiocarbon (that's carbon-14, by the way), now all of a sudden it's CO2?
__________________
last.fm |
|
|
|
|
|
#38 | ||
|
FFR Player
|
Quote:
How the hell does one man make a big enough boat to gather 2 of every animal? And how the hell would he get 2 of every animal? Answer that. ![]()
__________________
![]() ![]() Quote:
Last edited by inflames07; 02-24-2007 at 08:26 AM.. |
||
|
|
|
|
|
#39 | |
|
Admiral in the Red Army
|
Quote:
Why didn't God make this boat himself with his powers over everything? Further more, why did he have to use a "global" flood to punish those that he wished to punish? Very inefficient if you ask me.
__________________
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#40 | |
|
FFR Player
|
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
![]() |
| Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|