There is no god. - Page 136

Yariv · 05-15-2008, 05:16 PM

once again we are diverging from the original question of this thread - does god exist? not religion, not religious freedoms, not jesus, not the bible - GOD. does he exist?

show your work or no credit.

Yariv · 05-15-2008, 06:50 PM

I'll start us off.

God doesn't exist, because
1. We have no logical reason to think he exists.
2. Many people believe he exists based on things we don't agree with.
3. Many people believe in another form of a god or gods, and whose to say our god exists and theirs doesn't.

before you reply, think about these in terms of ancient greek person, or mayan, persian, hindu, etc, explaining to his friends why the god(s) they believe in don't exist. if he's right, then can the same be applied to your god? if he's wrong, his gods DO exist! it's a lose/lose situation.

juropilot · 05-15-2008, 06:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by preludespeeder

Wow, you put a claim out there that carbon dating is wrong yet you have nothing to back up your claim. A link to the scientist that shows how carbon dating methods are wrong. I gave links proving how carbon dating works. If you can not provide proof or a link to show where you get your ideas from I consider that meaningless words that you are babbling.

Here you go: Harold E. Anthony, “Natures
Deep Freeze,” Natural History,
Sept. 1949, p. 300

Also, see: In the Beginning by Walt Brown p. 124

juropilot · 05-15-2008, 06:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by preludespeeder

Wow, you put a claim out there that carbon dating is wrong yet you have nothing to back up your claim. A link to the scientist that shows how carbon dating methods are wrong. I gave links proving how carbon dating works. If you can not provide proof or a link to show where you get your ideas from I consider that meaningless words that you are babbling.

Sorry, here is more:

A few examples of wild dates by radiometric dating:
Shells from living snails were carbon dated as being 27,000 years old. Science vol. 224, 1984, pp.58-61
Living mollusk shells were dated up to 2300 years old. Science vol. 141, 1963, pp.634-637
A freshly killed seal was carbon dated as having died 1300 years ago! Antarctic Journal vol. 6, Sept-Oct. 1971, p211
“One part of the Vollosovitch mammoth carbon dated at 29,500 years and another part at 44,000.” Troy L. Pewe, “Quaternary Strigraphic Nomencature in Uniglaciated Central Alaska,” Geologic Survey Professional Paper 832 (U.S. Gov. Printing Office, 1975) p. 30
“Structure, metamorphism, sedimentary reworking, and other complications have to be considered. Radiometric dating would not have been feasible if the geologic column had not been erected first.” J.E. O’Rourke, “Pragmatism vs. Materialism in Stratigraphy,” American Jouranl of Science, vol. 276 (January, 1976), p. 54

Lenzilla · 05-15-2008, 07:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BrianS

Why is it that people use common sense in reading everything but the Bible?

Sorry for the late response. Been busy worrying about other stuff.

Common sense is what keeps me from believing in god.

Yariv · 05-15-2008, 08:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by juropilot

Sorry, here is more:

A few examples of wild dates by radiometric dating:
Shells from living snails were carbon dated as being 27,000 years old. Science vol. 224, 1984, pp.58-61
Living mollusk shells were dated up to 2300 years old. Science vol. 141, 1963, pp.634-637
A freshly killed seal was carbon dated as having died 1300 years ago! Antarctic Journal vol. 6, Sept-Oct. 1971, p211
“One part of the Vollosovitch mammoth carbon dated at 29,500 years and another part at 44,000.” Troy L. Pewe, “Quaternary Strigraphic Nomencature in Uniglaciated Central Alaska,” Geologic Survey Professional Paper 832 (U.S. Gov. Printing Office, 1975) p. 30
“Structure, metamorphism, sedimentary reworking, and other complications have to be considered. Radiometric dating would not have been feasible if the geologic column had not been erected first.” J.E. O’Rourke, “Pragmatism vs. Materialism in Stratigraphy,” American Jouranl of Science, vol. 276 (January, 1976), p. 54

Here's where all these scientists went wrong in the 1970's:

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheBills

Just to clarify....5,000 years, in the bible, is undefined. So we do not know what 1 year is as the bible explains it. So the way we define a year, we have figured that the earth is 4.5 billion years old. Just like the earth was created in 6 days. What is 6 days? once again it is undefined so we really do not know how long 6 days is. That is a fact.

when scientists make mistakes, which are then corrected by other scientists, you quote them. when the bible is off by a couple of thousand years, it's "undefined"???

Let's agree that science and the bible do not have the same degree of accuracy. out of millions of times the C14 method has been used correctly, a few mistakes were made which were caught. but the bible is poetry, not science, and should not be used a scientific proof for anything. if it's the only proof one has for god's existence, one should reconsider one's opinion about god's existence.

davinci · 05-15-2008, 08:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by juropilot

Sorry, here is more:

A few examples of wild dates by radiometric dating:
Shells from living snails were carbon dated as being 27,000 years old. Science vol. 224, 1984, pp.58-61
Living mollusk shells were dated up to 2300 years old. Science vol. 141, 1963, pp.634-637
A freshly killed seal was carbon dated as having died 1300 years ago! Antarctic Journal vol. 6, Sept-Oct. 1971, p211
“One part of the Vollosovitch mammoth carbon dated at 29,500 years and another part at 44,000.” Troy L. Pewe, “Quaternary Strigraphic Nomencature in Uniglaciated Central Alaska,” Geologic Survey Professional Paper 832 (U.S. Gov. Printing Office, 1975) p. 30
“Structure, metamorphism, sedimentary reworking, and other complications have to be considered. Radiometric dating would not have been feasible if the geologic column had not been erected first.” J.E. O’Rourke, “Pragmatism vs. Materialism in Stratigraphy,” American Jouranl of Science, vol. 276 (January, 1976), p. 54

dude lay off the wacko websites designed by like minded people and welcome to the age of reason. I wasn't even born when some of that crap was written. Is that all you have?

seriously, science is always evolving. Carbon dating has come a long way and is considered generally accurate by the scientific community.

juropilot · 05-15-2008, 09:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by davinci

dude lay off the wacko websites designed by like minded people and welcome to the age of reason. I wasn't even born when some of that crap was written. Is that all you have?

seriously, science is always evolving. Carbon dating has come a long way and is considered generally accurate by the scientific community.

Websites? What websites ?

Can you even read?

juropilot · 05-15-2008, 09:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yariv

Here's where all these scientists went wrong in the 1970's:

when scientists make mistakes, which are then corrected by other scientists, you quote them. when the bible is off by a couple of thousand years, it's "undefined"???

Let's agree that science and the bible do not have the same degree of accuracy. out of millions of times the C14 method has been used correctly, a few mistakes were made which were caught. but the bible is poetry, not science, and should not be used a scientific proof for anything. if it's the only proof one has for god's existence, one should reconsider one's opinion about god's existence.

you're mixing two subjects. Who is talking about Bible? We're talking about carbon dating. Millions of times it has been correct, eh? Like aging rocks to be billions of years old for example?

preludespeeder · 05-16-2008, 03:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by juropilot

Sorry, here is more:

A few examples of wild dates by radiometric dating:
Shells from living snails were carbon dated as being 27,000 years old. Science vol. 224, 1984, pp.58-61
Living mollusk shells were dated up to 2300 years old. Science vol. 141, 1963, pp.634-637
A freshly killed seal was carbon dated as having died 1300 years ago! Antarctic Journal vol. 6, Sept-Oct. 1971, p211
“One part of the Vollosovitch mammoth carbon dated at 29,500 years and another part at 44,000.” Troy L. Pewe, “Quaternary Strigraphic Nomencature in Uniglaciated Central Alaska,” Geologic Survey Professional Paper 832 (U.S. Gov. Printing Office, 1975) p. 30
“Structure, metamorphism, sedimentary reworking, and other complications have to be considered. Radiometric dating would not have been feasible if the geologic column had not been erected first.” J.E. O’Rourke, “Pragmatism vs. Materialism in Stratigraphy,” American Jouranl of Science, vol. 276 (January, 1976), p. 54

CD011.3: C-14 dates of living snails

Vollosovitch Mammoth Carbon Dating

you lose!