Jump to bottom

Closed Thread Icon

Topic awaiting preservation: Carbon Dating (Page 1 of 2) Pages that link to <a href="http://ozoneasylum.com/backlink?for=23332" title="Pages that link to Topic awaiting preservation: Carbon Dating (Page 1 of 2)" rel="nofollow" >Topic awaiting preservation: Carbon Dating <span class="small">(Page 1 of 2)</span>\

 
vomithorder
Bipolar (III) Inmate

From: The Hole
Insane since: Nov 2002

posted posted 09-16-2004 21:54

http://www.creationevidence.org/scientific_evid/carbon/se_carbon.html



(Edited by vomithorder on 09-16-2004 21:56)

(Edited by vomithorder on 09-16-2004 21:58)

cfb
Bipolar (III) Inmate

From:
Insane since: Nov 2003

posted posted 09-18-2004 10:46

I've seen this argument countless times, mostly purveyed by wizened old ladies who read a "creation science book" at church. The problem with their argument begins after they assert fact - the carbon dating method, and how it works - and begin to form their argument around that - a non sequitor argument. They state several possibilities, or means that may result in a flawed end; result. Secondly, none of their arguments are quantified, and their conclusion is, therefore, based upon speculation. You cannot say that carbon-14 dating is inaccurate merely because the carbon levels in the atmosphere have changed slightly. And when they give nothing but brief argument, almost begging the question, then their conclusion should be given no thought whatsoever.

That said - most people realize that Carbon-14 Dating won't proved completely accurate dating. It's meant to approximate. The same arguments are used to disprove the fact that the universe was created over billions of years, not seven days: to assert speculation as fact.

“Why?” exactly, is the question. It's probably off topic, but I, as a Christian, couldn't be more embarrassed by the level of ignorance displayed in this argument, and it makes one stop and wonder: why, exactly? It's almost as if the modern church is attempting to re-embrace Middle Age scholasticism.

Scary. But just my 2 cents.

DL-44
Maniac (V) Inmate

From: under the bed
Insane since: Feb 2000

posted posted 09-18-2004 18:37

The name of the domain should tell you all you need to know. Many such sites have been posted around here, and all of them have been entirely full of shit on just about every level, as well as heatedly argumentative, ignoring simple logic and established fact for the sake of prooving their bible.

You simply can't form science to fit your pre-existing beliefs.

White Hawk
Paranoid (IV) Inmate

From: out of nowhere...
Insane since: May 2004

posted posted 09-18-2004 18:43

Yet another case of, "Here are a couple of facts, a brief supposition, and voila! We have a conclusion!"

Thank you ladies and gentlemen, now if you'll please look this way, I shall show you how it is possible to change lead to gold!

==I don't believe it! Somebody stole my sig!!==

cfb
Bipolar (III) Inmate

From:
Insane since: Nov 2003

posted posted 09-18-2004 21:17

But Dl: they aren't proving the Bible. If they payed any attention to what they're reading, they'd realize that scientific advances and knowledge - evolution (not intelligent design, which is merely an attempt to interject the Bible into science, and not vice versa), the history of the universe, etcetera - compliment, not contradict, the Bible.

This one was fairly nonsensical as well. From the same page.

I could bring this page into my AP language class, since we're going over argumentative fallacies right now. I've picked out just about every single one so far.

quote:
Tell me, Matt. If you put a bomb in your room, do you think setting it off would make it clean or dirty?



That's easy. A bomb would cause a huge mess. I would have clothes and toys all over the place. Mom wouldn't be happy about that at all.


Well, you can think of the Big Bang kind of like a big bomb. Evolutionists think that when this explosion happened things got more organized or straightened up instead of getting more disorganized or messy.



(Edited by cfb on 09-18-2004 21:25)

InSiDeR
Maniac (V) Inmate

From: Elizabethtown, KY
Insane since: Sep 2001

posted posted 09-19-2004 00:53

I really liked Bill Hicks' interpretation of fundamental creationism.

White Hawk
Paranoid (IV) Inmate

From: out of nowhere...
Insane since: May 2004

posted posted 09-19-2004 03:18

cfb - that's hilarious!

==I don't believe it! Somebody stole my sig!!==

Gideon
Bipolar (III) Inmate

From: rooted on planet Mars, *I mean Earth*
Insane since: May 2004

posted posted 09-19-2004 23:55

What many people don't know is that researchers don't base their finds in carbon dating. What scientists use carbon dating for is pin pointing a closer date to what they thought it was. They first look at rock layers to see in about what "50th millenia" the ones closer to us are, then use carbon dating to find a more exact date. I don't really agree with carbon dating. Sure, it can be a good guess, but when it comes between guessing and hard facts, I'm sorry, but it doesn't stand a chance.
Another thing about carbon dating is that there are so many things that can go wrong. I don't know if any of you are familiar with the Shroud of Turin, the supposed burial cloth of Jesus, or not, but back in the 1980s the cloth was carbon tested and was shown to have been made between 1450-1550. The thing is that there were many things wrong with the test:
1. It was made on a piece of the cloth that was repeatedly handled since that time period.
2. When pictures were taken of the corner, it was shown to have been resown by the French in the 1400s
3. A lady who is the leading historian on fabrics and restoring them, the one person allowed to touch the shroud, was restoring it. While she was doing that she found the weaving pattern to be that of the 1st century AD. She said that was the only place and time that that pattern could have appeared.
So, just because something is carbon dated, doesn't prove or disprove anything, it only mounts a little bit of evidence that could or could not be true.
Another thing is that the only thing that theoretically has 0 carbon-14 in it is coal. And, to this day, no one has been able to find even one peice of coal that doesn't have carbon-14 in it. That means that there is no way to accurately guage the dating machines.

quote:
DL-44 said:

You simply can't form science to fit your pre-existing beliefs.


I would like to disagree. You can't say that science is just finding data and leaving it for the interpretation of the world. That isn't what scientists do. You make a hypothesis based on what your prior beliefs are, then prove or disprove that hypothises. That is the base unit of an experiment. Without prior beliefs, there is no hypothesis. With no hypothesis, there is no need for an experiment. Without an experiment, no data is found.

Do not rebuke a mocker or he will hate you, rebuke a wise man and he will love you.

InSiDeR
Maniac (V) Inmate

From: Elizabethtown, KY
Insane since: Sep 2001

posted posted 09-20-2004 21:22
quote:
I would like to disagree. You can't say that science is just finding data and leaving it for the interpretation of the world. That isn't what scientists do. You make a hypothesis based on what your prior beliefs are, then prove or disprove that hypothises. That is the base unit of an experiment. Without prior beliefs, there is no hypothesis. With no hypothesis, there is no need for an experiment. Without an experiment, no data is found.

Do not rebuke a mocker or he will hate you, rebuke a wise man and he will love you.



I think what DL was getting at when he said you can't form science to fit your beliefs was: That you can't (or shouldn't) look for answers to support your beliefs, just to support your beliefs. It's like never having any interest in Science prior to discovering that in fact Science could prove or disprove something you believe. I don't know, it's hard to explain and perhaps he can do it better.

DL-44
Maniac (V) Inmate

From: under the bed
Insane since: Feb 2000

posted posted 09-20-2004 21:48

Gideon - you are either misunderstanding what I am saying, or you are way off the mark here.

What I said was that you cannot form science to fit your pre-existing beliefs.

Formulating a hypothesis is something that you do as a result of preliminary scientific research and/or experimentation.

You then set out to determine whether or not that hypothesis is accurate.

What I refer to are people, such as these creation-pseudo-scientists who take biblical information and grab bits and pieces of science while ignoring others to "prove" that the bible is 100% true. By and large, they pay no heed to reality, and judge the scientific accuracy of things against biblical information rather than what we can see and feel right in front of us.

To do so is completely absurd, and is not verifiable in any way, becasue any time anything doesn't jive with their pre-existing view, they simply say it's not true.

That's not science. Period.

InSiDeR
Maniac (V) Inmate

From: Elizabethtown, KY
Insane since: Sep 2001

posted posted 09-20-2004 22:33

Amen.

WebShaman
Maniac (V) Mad Scientist

From: Happy Hunting Grounds...
Insane since: Mar 2001

posted posted 09-22-2004 13:05
quote:
I would like to disagree. You can't say that science is just finding data and leaving it for the interpretation of the world. That isn't what scientists do. You make a hypothesis based on what your prior beliefs are, then prove or disprove that hypothises. That is the base unit of an experiment. Without prior beliefs, there is no hypothesis. With no hypothesis, there is no need for an experiment. Without an experiment, no data is found.



All Science is, is a method for revealing factual data around us. The data already exits, in one form or another. The method of Science, is that which allows us humans, to make sense of it, to understand it.
One could think of it, as a method to convert the already existant data, into a form, that we humans can then comprehend.


This method is vastly superior to the older model, that of Religion, or the Word of the God(s). Science is a method, where results can be reliably repeated.

This is not so, with Religion. With Religion, one either believes it, or doesn't.

WebShaman | Asylum D & D | D & D Min Page

bodhi23
Paranoid (IV) Inmate

From: Greensboro, NC USA
Insane since: Jun 2002

posted posted 09-22-2004 17:42

Just to weigh in on the Scientific Method...

An hypothesis is only considered a Theory when the results can be reliably duplicated. The scientific community, in direct contrast to the fundamentalist religious community from which Creation Science comes, allows for new findings, revision of theories, and incorporation of new data. Meaning that the scientific knowledge base grows as we discover new things.

Not only that, but one of the requirements for publishing actual scientific data is peer-review. That means that once you've decided that your hypothesis is now a theory, you have to present your findings to a group of your peers and have the information verified and validated before it is made public. The sciendtific method is full of checks and balances for itself.

Religion, on the other hand, is dictated to the masses by the folks who feel they know it best. The Bible is a guide, but there is very little contained in it that could at this point be considered completely factual.

Carbon Dating, as has been said above, is not the only way that scientists date things - there are a variety of methods that must be found to agree before they can reliably state when they think something occurred or was created. When considering civilizations, layers are dated using the pottery contained therein, (which can generally be verified based on known information from earlier or later eras), commodities of trade found in the layers can also be used to date, types of construction, level of agriculture, all of these things must coincide before dating can be in any way accurate. To assume that Carbon-14 dating is the only method scientists use to get their information is narrow-minded to say the least.

And it should be noted that it is extremely rare that a specific date is given to anything - all dating methods currently in use provide only date ranges.

Let's not be thicker than we must.

mobrul
Bipolar (III) Inmate

From:
Insane since: Aug 2000

posted posted 09-22-2004 20:36

One other thing...
Gideon wrote

quote:
You make a hypothesis based on what your prior beliefs are, then prove or disprove that hypothises. That is the base unit of an experiment.


This simply is not true. You will never find a real scientist who says s/he is proving anything. Experiments do not prove anything. They can't. Experiments can do only one of two things.
-Experiments can disprove a theory/hypothesis.
-Experiments can fail to disprove a theory/hypothesis.

Anyone who tells you otherwise is a crackpot.

Imagine this. You come up with a theory or a hypothesis that all birds are black. How do you test that theory? You go out and collect birds and record their colors.
So, you go out and collect a bird. It is black.
Does this "prove" your theory? No. It simply fails to disprove that theory. So, if a 1 bird sample can't prove your theory, how many does it take? It takes an infinate number of birds...and, frankly, none of us has that kind of time. =)
With each bird you collect, the theory can be disproven (if your new bird is not black) or not disproven (if your new bird is black.)
The theory can never be proven.
This same idea applies to any hypothesis or theory.

jade
Bipolar (III) Inmate

From: houston, tx usa
Insane since: Mar 2003

posted posted 09-23-2004 05:32

Another thought to consider is this. If your trying to prove or disprove the bible by scientific means, you have to consider what the authors who wrote Genesis and the rest of scripture really mean in their verses. Biblical scholars will tell you that 7 represents fullness throughout scripture. 7 days of creation story is how man explains God. 7 days could be 7 trillion plus years. Can any living man say with total assurity that the creation of the world took 7 days? And you have to include the 7th day as creation as work too. Even though we know God rested on the 7th day, he still created it. The 7th day refers to the complete day for believers, because if you rest/worship the week is complete. This is refering to the soul of man also. Man is complete if he observes the 7th day.

IMO the evolution of man from dust could be a possible true theory. As man evolved, he is made perfect by the infusion of the soul. This would refer to Adam/Eve story. That for me is the real essence of the biblical story. We are one with the soil of which we came and where we will end up and decay into. You have to wonder why God didn't create man thur seeds grown in soil. Just throw human seeds in the dirt, use fertilizer, water them, feed them, then pluck them out of the dirt when they are done. Even the Noah flood story could only be a story used to make a point. Or maybe just could of really happened. So the carbon dating procedure would be used to test a time period area for Noah's flooding that could of never really happened there in the first place. Again here, there is a deeper meaning.


This is so very interesting too. I wonder how athiest can explain this? Could the complicated brain have come together by chance thru evolution?

10. Design in the Human Brain...The human brain is the most complicated structure in the known universe.18 It contains over 100 billion cells, each with over 50,000 neuron connections to other brain cells.19 This structure receives over 100 million separate signals from the total human body every second. If we learned something new every second of our lives, it would take three million years to exhaust the capacity of the human brain. 20 In addition to conscious thought, people can actually reason, anticipate consequences, and devise plans - all without knowing they are doing so.

(Edited by jade on 09-23-2004 05:34)

DL-44
Maniac (V) Inmate

From: under the bed
Insane since: Feb 2000

posted posted 09-23-2004 06:30
quote:
Could the complicated brain have come together by chance thru evolution?



That is the main failing of most opponents of evolution - to reduce it's beauty and it's strict pattern to the silly notion of "chance".

There's is very little in the way of "chance" to such a process as evolution.

jade
Bipolar (III) Inmate

From: houston, tx usa
Insane since: Mar 2003

posted posted 09-23-2004 13:35

DL

Well, from Morbul's referenced site explaining the complicated and very structured brain, if not by chance or created by God, what is your theory
on it? Did Aliens come down and structure it? And would that be more believable to you?

Another point on the Noah story, from what I have read. It also refers to a new creation and its prophecy of Jesus Christ saving thru the cross. It's really about man's turn away from God. A thought here is that the writers are trying to convey how thru the water (baptism) and boat (wood of the cross) you can start new. In the dove flying away and coming back with a twig after 40 days we find the symbol of peace because if you trust in God you will be at peace. Just like the crossing of the desert which took the Israelites 40 years in the book of Exodus. Same concept. Both are stories of being in the bondage of sin and seeking salvation and peace by trust in God. You become new again. The Ark itself contained new life, man, animals, food. When I hear of scientist tying to seek if this story is literally true or not, to me it really doesn't matter. I think God wants us to focus on the essence of the story, not find the missing Ark or carbon date the area where man thinks the flood took place. Yes. Sure it would be great to find the missing Ark of the Covenant or Noahs ark, but Christians will believe in the God by faith without proof of these things.

(Edited by jade on 09-23-2004 13:38)

bodhi23
Paranoid (IV) Inmate

From: Greensboro, NC USA
Insane since: Jun 2002

posted posted 09-23-2004 14:06

Jade - just so, the Bible is an inspirational guide to human interaction with themselves, with others, and with the higher power, who in the Christian case happens to be God. There is some historical basis involved, as it was ultimately written by men, however inspired they were. But it is full of euphamisms as well, and we should not be deceived by that.

Why is it so difficult to consider the idea that evolution is also something created by God? Is it not in God's infinite power to create something that would continue to recreate itself? Is He not omnipotent? Why can it not be considered that if God could create something as beautiful and complex as the world we live in, that he could not also create the means for us to improve ourselves and to learn about ourselves? Could he not have created us so that we would be able to make the choice to believe or not? (These are mostly rhetorical questions, not really directed at anyone...)

Not being Christian myself, I still believe in a creative force, but I also firmly believe in the knowledge that Science provides us about the physical workings of this Universe. Some people choose to believe that God did it, but if so, I believe there was a physical catalyst for it all. Something caused us to be here, we simply have yet to discover the physical explanation for it...

mobrul
Bipolar (III) Inmate

From:
Insane since: Aug 2000

posted posted 09-23-2004 15:32

Evolution != Chance
It's not that simple. Sure, there are elements of chance in evolution, but that is not the whole story.

Evolution (as we understand it today):
*genes exist for current creature
*creature reproduces
*in reproduction, genes mutate
(as far as we can tell, that mutation is both very small and random)
*new creature is formed from new genes
*one of two things can happen:
1) creature matures
mature creature reproduces
gene mutation is passed on

2) creature dies before successfully reproducing
gene mutation is not passed on
*Repeat process for billions of years

Now on some level, there is some chance involved. That is, as far as we can tell, the gene mutations at reproduction are random. But, in the larger picture view of things, those gene mutations that allow a creature some measure of protection from death before successful reproduction are going to be passed along at a higher frequency than those that tend to inhibit reproduction.

That's a simplified version of how it we understand evolution to happen. Every one of the above mentioned steps is scientifically observable. We can see it, quantify it, record it, and compare it. To say it does not happen, with out offering up some significant evidence, is deliberately obscuring the facts.

If you want to go calling that random factor "God", be my guest. I have no problem with that at all. I have no evidence to support your claim, but I also don't have any that disproves it. But to deny this happens at all, without some facts, is just plain silly.

bodhi23
Paranoid (IV) Inmate

From: Greensboro, NC USA
Insane since: Jun 2002

posted posted 09-23-2004 15:42

Mobrul - exactly.

jade
Bipolar (III) Inmate

From: houston, tx usa
Insane since: Mar 2003

posted posted 09-23-2004 16:14

Bdi

I never posted I did not believe in the theory of evolution. If it indeed is true I am in total agreement that God worked and is still working on perfecting earth and its inhabitants in the spiritual sense. The divine mind of God created man/earth in its perfection. But we must agree that God/or your higher power is not confined by time. For Christians, time is what we are trapped in or confined to until we pass into the next world. Eternity is already out there and has happend because the alpha/omega exist in the "I am" Is and Always was state. That being said, a billion trillion years of Gods handiwork here could be an instant of God's handiwork there, where ever eternity is.

WebShaman
Maniac (V) Mad Scientist

From: Happy Hunting Grounds...
Insane since: Mar 2001

posted posted 09-23-2004 16:39
quote:
The 7th day refers to the complete day for believers, because if you rest/worship the week is complete. This is refering to the soul of man also. Man is complete if he observes the 7th day.



Heh. A week has no basis in Nature. It is an arbitrary length of time, created soley by Man. What does that have to do with the Scientific method, or with Carbon dating, for that matter?

quote:
IMO the evolution of man from dust could be a possible true theory. As man evolved, he is made perfect by the infusion of the soul. This would refer to Adam/Eve story. That for me is the real essence of the biblical story. We are one with the soil of which we came and where we will end up and decay into.



Well, that is only superficially so...we are all descendent, from Star-matter, actually. Why isn't this mentioned in the Bible? I mean specifically so "And God spoketh unto him, 'Man cometh from the lights in the sky, of which the Sun is but one.'"? I think something along these lines, would go very far, to providing scientific evidence, that those in the Bible were really receiving information from a higher power. Instead, the creaton Myth says, that Adam came from dust. Which we know, he didn't, and couldn't have. Thus, one has to look at this Myth as a sort of story. Like "How the Leopard got its spots" type of thing.

WebShaman | Asylum D & D | D & D Min Page

DL-44
Maniac (V) Inmate

From: under the bed
Insane since: Feb 2000

posted posted 09-23-2004 17:48

Jade - Mobrul's post sums up a lot in response to your question for me.

Alien's 'structuring' our brains? No...

It's a matter of patterned selection. Over time, through consistent series of growths where the best options work out and are passed on, and the ones that don't work die off, a superior organism evolves.

Survival of the fittest; natural selection, etc...

It's all about successive patterns.

bodhi23
Paranoid (IV) Inmate

From: Greensboro, NC USA
Insane since: Jun 2002

posted posted 09-23-2004 20:23

Jade, did you not notice that I was actually agreeing with you on that one? Go back and read that post again...

jade
Bipolar (III) Inmate

From: houston, tx usa
Insane since: Mar 2003

posted posted 09-23-2004 20:37

Bdi.

I did. I see now. Thanks.

Gideon
Bipolar (III) Inmate

From: rooted on planet Mars, *I mean Earth*
Insane since: May 2004

posted posted 10-03-2004 23:07

You are right DL, I was getting the wrong message, and interpreting it wrong. I see your point that the method of gathering facts and data is unbiased. I do agree that gathing the data is unbiased, but the interpretation of that data is biased on all parties. When scientists find some data, they interpret it to see what it means. Like with carbon dating. When you date something you don't just get one set of data, you do many experiments and get many sets. the set chosen for publication is the one that fits closest with your prior belief.

quote:
DL-44 said:

What I said was that you cannot form science to fit your pre-existing beliefs.


About forming science to preexisting veiws, many people do it. Creation scientists, secular scientists, many. I even did it last week in Physics. The data wasn't forming into what it should have, so we did an extra couple of test and got rid of the outliers. You see, that was just a simple class experiment, but it does show that if some students can do it, why can't some scientists do it? I do realize that not all scientists are bad like that. Some may just get confused about their data and interpret it wrongly like with the Shroud of Turin. But, their prior beliefs are still a factor in what they presented.

quote:
WebShaman said:

This method is vastly superior to the older model, that of Religion, or the Word
of the God(s). Science is a method, where results can be reliably
repeated. This is not so, with Religion. With Religion, one either
believes it, or doesn't.


Well, when you light a match, can you relight that match again? Or when you open a peanut, can you reopen that same peanut at a latter date and consume it again for accuracy on its taste? I don't think so. Some events in history happen, and then cannot happen again by human standards. So, science, in that regard, has its flaws as well.
Bohdi, I have a question for you. How do they know how old the pottery is? How do they know how old the costruction style is (if it supposedly over 8 thousand years old)?
Thanks Mobrul, I forgot about that...

quote:
jade said:

Can any living man say with total assurity that the creation of the world took 7
days?


Nope, not unless that person was around when it happens or trusts in the Lord, but that is something many people refuse to do. I want to propose a question: Why are the seven days of Creation always disputed? Why not any other day in the Bible? I mean, they are all days, why dispute those seven, and not the rest? (Maybe Jesus rose in 3 billion years...)
(By the way, the Hebrew word used in those passages for day can mean a 24 hr day, a week, or an age. The way you know it is an ordinary 24 hr day is if it has morning, number, evening, or night attached to it. In Genesis it has morning, number, evening, and night attached to it. So, why the dispute?) (Oh, here is another thing for non believers to fuss about: God created the Earth, light, and vegitation before the sun. Have fun with that one.)
Jade, do you really not believe in the literal Genesis? There was plenty of water there for a flood.

quote:
Genesis 6-8
6 Then God said, "Let there be an expanse in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters." 7 God made the expanse, and separated the waters which were below the expanse from the waters which were above the expanse; and it was so. 8 God called the expanse heaven. And there was evening and there was morning, a second day.


So, up in Heaven, or the sky, there was alot of water. Not just clouds, but water. Enough that if it capsized, it could flood the entire Earth.

quote:
jade said:

but Christians will believe in the God by faith without proof of these
things.


Yes Jade, Christians like you and me will believe in it beyond a shadow of a doubt. But, if you say that those stories don't need to be trusted, then that shows those who aren't saved that the rest of the Bible (like the message of Jesus for example) doesn't need to be trusted either. So, one day when we are up in Heaven, we will look down and see that some people went to Hell, just because someone (not necessarily you, because I have been guilty of the same thing before too) didn't tell them to trust the whole Bible. I know that those stories, that history, isn't neccessary to your salvation, but it might be to someone else's. Do you see my point?
Okay Bohdi, I will admit that God did use evolution to form us, but not the kind you are thinking about. I'm talking about macro-evolution where certain dogs turn into other groups to survive better in their place of refuge. I can not and will not say that dinos turned into birds, or that fish turned into cows (or visa-versa I can't remember which).
Mobrul, one thing about the mutation thing is that in mutation genes are generally lost, not gained. That would mean people like us degenerating into the small single celled organisms, not the other way around.
Natural selection yes, but that doesn't constitute a changing in species, only the bettering of it. It only gains certain advantages in the environment they are in, not making a new species.

Do not rebuke a mocker or he will hate you, rebuke a wise man and he will love you.

jade
Bipolar (III) Inmate

From: houston, tx usa
Insane since: Mar 2003

posted posted 10-04-2004 05:13
quote:
Yes Jade, Christians like you and me will believe in it beyond a shadow of a doubt. But, if you say that those stories don't need to be trusted, then that shows those who aren't saved that the rest of the Bible (like the message of Jesus for example) doesn't need to be trusted either. So, one day when we are up in Heaven, we will look down and see that some people went to Hell, just because someone (not necessarily you, because I have been guilty of the same thing before too) didn't tell them to trust the whole Bible. I know that those stories, that history, isn't neccessary to your salvation, but it might be to someone else's. Do you see my point?




Well, Gideon. I am a follower of scripture, but I believe scripture is not the only way to christ. ITs a holy book for sure and we are to use it as a tool. It should be read. It contains great treasures and wisdom for the soul. But what about people who never read the bible? Are they saved when they die or are they going to hell? And where does it say in the bible we are going to be able to see people in hell from heaven, expecially if they are family members. That would be no heaven for me. Christ comes to everyone, even if they don't read the bible. Because according to Christianity we cannot judge who goes in or doesn't. Only God does. I have not made the bible my complete religion. Just a part that seals it.

Gideon
Bipolar (III) Inmate

From: rooted on planet Mars, *I mean Earth*
Insane since: May 2004

posted posted 10-07-2004 23:51
quote:
jade said:

Are they saved when they die or are they going to hell?


Going to Hell.

quote:
jade said:

where does it say in the bible we are going to be able to see people in hell
from heaven


quote:
Luke 16:22-26
22 "Now the poor man died and was carried away by the angels to Abraham's bosom; and the rich man also died and was buried. 23 "In Hades he lifted up his eyes, being in torment, and saw Abraham far away and Lazarus in his bosom. 24 "And he cried out and said, `Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus so that he may dip the tip of his finger in water and cool off my tongue, for I am in agony in this flame.' 25 "But Abraham said, `Child, remember that during your life you received your good things, and likewise Lazarus bad things; but now he is being comforted here, and you are in agony. 26 `And besides all this, between us and you there is a great chasm fixed, so that those who wish to come over from here to you will not be able, and that none may cross over from there to us.'


quote:
jade said:

That would be no heaven for me


Me neither, that is why I want to help save all of my family members and friends and if I can, some people that aren't even connected to me, so that we can all be rejoiceing in Heaven. (besides it was not intended to mean that, more to explain my point.)

quote:
jade said:

Christ comes to everyone, even if they don't read the bible.


True.

quote:
jade said:

Because according to Christianity we cannot judge who goes in or doesn't. Only
God does.


Also true.

quote:
jade said:

I have not made the bible my complete religion. Just a part that seals it.


Well, that is good for you. I am glad (this is not sarcastic by the way) that you can believe in Jesus and accept Him as your savior without knowing why you need him. I know that every person has that yearning for Him, they just fill it in different ways. Some with Him (who fits the hole perfectly), some with drugs, sex, violence, etc., but they fill it none the less.
I want to ask you, how often do you read the Bible? The Bible is God's own Holy Word. In that book is the entire basis of Christianity. How often do you even open its cover? You and I, we may be smart, we may know alot, but we weren't there at the beginning of the Earth. We weren't there when Jesus was crucified. We weren't there when Adam sinned, creating the need for Jesus Christ. We weren't there when He made the oceans and the seas. We don't know how it happened, but He does. That is why the Bible is so important. It is God's Holy Words that He wants us to know. He wants us to know how the Earth was formed, that is why he gave Moses the play by play in the desert. He wants us to know and tell others.
Let me ask you one more question if I may: How do you know Jesus is the Christ, died on the Christ for your sins, and saved you from eternal tormentation?

Do not rebuke a mocker or he will hate you, rebuke a wise man and he will love you.

WebShaman
Maniac (V) Mad Scientist

From: Happy Hunting Grounds...
Insane since: Mar 2001

posted posted 10-08-2004 13:27
quote:
Well, when you light a match, can you relight that match again? Or when you open a peanut, can you reopen that same peanut at a latter date and consume it again for accuracy on its taste? I don't think so. Some events in history happen, and then cannot happen again by human standards. So, science, in that regard, has its flaws as well.



What the hell are you talking about? The process behind the match lighting can be reliably repeated. As for accuracy of the taste of a peanut...uhhh...I'm sure that no two peanuts are exactly alike...but the chemical composition of the peanuts, that determine their taste, can be measured reliably. The fact remains, that I can, with the Scientific Method, make a prediction and then prove that the prediction is true or not, and that it can be reliably repeated. Thus, your match and peanut theory is flawed from the start.

Then you say

quote:
Some events in history happen, and then cannot happen again by human standards. So, science, in that regard, has its flaws as well.



??

What does that have to do with Carbon Dating, or the Scientific Method? There are no "flaws" inherent in the Scientific Method, in that sense. There are flaws in Human perception (if you wish to see it that way), and there are flaws and limitations in Technology (if you choose to see it that way).

Nothing you have said, or presented, has shown that the Scientific Method is inferior to the Religous Method.

WebShaman | Asylum D & D | D & D Min Page

Gideon
Bipolar (III) Inmate

From: rooted on planet Mars, *I mean Earth*
Insane since: May 2004

posted posted 10-09-2004 04:44
quote:
WebShaman said:

Thus, your match and peanut theory is flawed from the start.


If you say so...
First off:

quote:
WebShaman said:

Nothing you have said, or presented, has shown that the Scientific Method is
inferior to the Religous Method.


There are religious scientists. I am not bashing science. I am meerly trying to convey that science has its flaws, and cannot reasonably explain everything (though some people seem to think so).

Ah, I remeber now what I was trying to say. I was trying to say that some historic events cannot happen again, which means that there is no concrete proof that they did or did not happen (besides those embedded in the rocks). It is also up to people to decide what the little dried up bone in the rock means (and we all know how fallible people are). But back on topic (I'm doing a politician dance ) I don't think that that relates to carbon dating, but trying to prove anything in the past.

So, here is my real statement about Carbon Dating. You ready?

quote:
Gideon:
Carbon Dating must be calibrated to give a justifiable answer, and I read somewhere that there is no known dates before 2 or 3 thousand years BC that can be used to calibrate the carbon dating process, so things that far back are hard to date.


Is that more solid? I hope I answered your question. If not feel free to post a frustrated post: I will understand.

Do not rebuke a mocker or he will hate you, rebuke a wise man and he will love you.

WebShaman
Maniac (V) Mad Scientist

From: Happy Hunting Grounds...
Insane since: Mar 2001

posted posted 10-10-2004 16:29
quote:
I am meerly trying to convey that science has its flaws, and cannot reasonably explain everything



Demonstrate the flaws, and what can it not explain? Just saying such, is irrelevant.

quote:
and I read somewhere that there is no known dates before 2 or 3 thousand years BC



Oh that is evidence enough...*sigh* Please post your references.

All I am asking from you, is for you to clearly support your position, without resorting to belief.


As for Carbon14 dating - see Radiocarbon WEBinfo. As for the ages of things dated, here is an interesting one

quote:
The Iceman is a very famous frozen body found in northern Italy in 1991. Samples of his bones, grass boot, leather and hair were dated, the results showed that he lived almost 5500 years ago (3300-3100 BC), during the age when people first began using copper in Europe. Radiocarbon dating was tremendously important in dating the precise age of the Iceman.



The limits of Carbon dating?

quote:
Anything that is less than about 50 or 60 000 years can be radiocarbon dated. Beyond 60 000 years there is hardly any radiocarbon left in a sample that is original.



(Edited by WebShaman on 10-10-2004 22:32)

Arthemis
Paranoid (IV) Inmate

From: Milky Way
Insane since: Nov 2001

posted posted 10-13-2004 16:02

=) =) =) Hello, everyone. here am i, sweet arthemis, the chemical engineer telling you all how fallible carbon dating is:



It is.

DL-44
Maniac (V) Inmate

From: under the bed
Insane since: Feb 2000

posted posted 10-13-2004 17:42

ah.........that explains it now.

Arthemis
Paranoid (IV) Inmate

From: Milky Way
Insane since: Nov 2001

posted posted 10-14-2004 13:04

knowledge is valuable. that's why study books are so expensive.

DL-44
Maniac (V) Inmate

From: under the bed
Insane since: Feb 2000

posted posted 10-14-2004 17:51

I sure have missed your priceless contributions arthemis.

WebShaman
Maniac (V) Mad Scientist

From: Happy Hunting Grounds...
Insane since: Mar 2001

posted posted 10-14-2004 18:35

^ROTFLMAO!!!!

WebShaman | Asylum D & D | D & D Min Page

Gideon
Bipolar (III) Inmate

From: rooted on planet Mars, *I mean Earth*
Insane since: May 2004

posted posted 10-17-2004 05:25

Sorry about not having too many references, I remember things, but not were they came from usually. That quote about the 50-60,000 year thing might be what I was remembering...

quote:
WebShaman said:

Demonstrate the flaws, and what can it not explain


Okay, first off, I used a no-no word in the English language that can either be completly true or false. I said "everything." Everything can either be completly true or completely false, there is no middle ground. Science doesn't have all the answers, and it shouldn't either. Science is just a way for us to explain some things that we are interested in (or medicine, or aviation, etc. that are essential to life), but it is not able to reasonably explain all things. I will take a change in topic since I have been using religion a lot, but lets look at a different kind of supernatural: ghosts. They are there, but science doesn't know what they are exactly (there are conjectures), or where they came from, but they are there none the less. The ancient divination methods of crystal spinning is just as good as the the electronic devices used by ghost hunters today. My point is that science is a good tool to use to get information to help people and satisfy our interests, but it is not a totally sound area.

Do not rebuke a mocker or he will hate you, rebuke a wise man and he will love you.

Arthurio
Bipolar (III) Inmate

From:
Insane since: Jul 2003

posted posted 10-23-2004 22:24

ok i like to be straight forward about those things so here goes:
(no offence but for once think about my words and then argue)
(i won't sweaten up anything)

there is no god
there are no souls
there are no ghosts
ghostbusters are not scientists
people who throw stuff on the tv are not poltergeists
jesus might have existed but if he did then he was a normal human being like all of us ... maybe a bit smarter than the crowd tho...
bible is a good fantasy/science fiction bestseller - it had it's purposes (to tame the barbarians) .. it's still good for that in some cases
catholism, lutherism (sp?)... whatever they're all the same belief ... ffs
human like all the flora and fauna is a machine ... a quite complex one but still ... accept it ... you are not going to heaven ... you are going to cease functioning (someday)
there are tons of solid proof that the bible lies ... however none that god exists

i'm an atheist and proud of it ... i don't take shit from pathetic losers ... whatever other ...ist they like to call themselves...

in comic book pictures water can circle flow forever... you can't possibly understand anything if you refure to try
if earth was 4 times younger than scientist believe ... would it really make a difference?

(Edited by Arthurio on 10-23-2004 22:43)

Bugimus
Maniac (V) Mad Scientist

From: New California
Insane since: Mar 2000

posted posted 10-23-2004 22:56

Why are you proud to be an atheist, Arthurio?

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

outcydr
Paranoid (IV) Inmate

From: out there
Insane since: Oct 2001

posted posted 10-23-2004 23:44
quote:
there are tons of solid proof that the bible lies ... however none that god exists

that's a very subjective statement. from out here, it appears that you need to expand your horizons.

[1] 2Next Page »

« BackwardsOnwards »

Show Forum Drop Down Menu