|
Question for Christians Carbon Dating
|
 (November 22, 2013 at 11:42 pm)Aractus Wrote: Paul met the risen Christ (refs. Acts 9:4-7, 1 Corinthians 15:8, Galatians 1:11-17. It is my view that Luke is the scribe who wrote 2 Timothy (ref. 2 Tim 4:11). There's hardly a paucity of evidence as you claim, in fact there is more than ample... You're a goddamn fucking dumbass ![[Image: giphy.gif]](https://media.giphy.com/media/FJovzGlbuoEXm/giphy.gif)
LastPoet
 Leader of the gang of jerkoffs(tm)  Religious Views: L'Uomo verrà portato dalla sua creazione
I don't know what worries me the most. People' lack of knowledge in Physics or people taking that 'holy' book as history.
 (November 21, 2013 at 8:09 am)Aractus Wrote: Oh, I forgot to add that the world's leading expert on dark matter is a member of my church. Please ask him to join the forum!!! We would love to talk to him about a few things. I have a very strong feeling that he won't agree with you much, but it would be interesting to find out. Arguments from authority are weak here unless they are vetted and unbiased.
Find the cure for Fundementia!
 (November 22, 2013 at 11:42 pm)Aractus Wrote: Paul met the risen Christ (refs. Acts 9:4-7, 1 Corinthians 15:8, Galatians 1:11-17. It is my view that Luke is the scribe who wrote 2 Timothy (ref. 2 Tim 4:11). There's hardly a paucity of evidence as you claim, in fact there is more than ample... Quote:Acts 9:4-7 How can an otherwise seemingly intelligent human being fall for such absurd shit?  RE: Question for Christians Carbon Dating
November 25, 2013 at 2:47 am
(This post was last modified: November 25, 2013 at 2:49 am by Aractus.)
(November 23, 2013 at 5:15 am)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: Actually, scientists DON'T use carbon dating to determine the age of the Earth.Correct (they use "estimation"), but the point of whether carbon-dating is relevant and reliable still stands and I stand in the positive within certain contexts. Carbon dating cannot be used reliably for all materials, but it can be used for things like ancient manuscripts very reliably. (November 23, 2013 at 12:31 pm)Brakeman Wrote: Please ask him to join the forum!!! We would love to talk to him about a few things. I have a very strong feeling that he won't agree with you much, but it would be interesting to find out.Ha, as if I'd ask him to join an atheist forum!
For Religion & Health see:[/b][/size] Williams & Sternthal. (2007). Spirituality, religion and health: Evidence and research directions. Med. J. Aust., 186(10), S47-S50. -LINK
The WIN/Gallup End of Year Survey 2013 found the US was perceived to be the greatest threat to world peace by a huge margin, with 24% of respondents fearful of the US followed by: 8% for Pakistan, and 6% for China. This was followed by 5% each for: Afghanistan, Iran, Israel, North Korea. -LINK "That's disgusting. There were clean athletes out there that have had their whole careers ruined by people like Lance Armstrong who just bended thoughts to fit their circumstances. He didn't look up cheating because he wanted to stop, he wanted to justify what he was doing and to keep that continuing on." - Nicole Cooke  Quote:Correct (they use "estimation"), but the point of whether carbon-dating is relevant and reliable still stands and I stand in the positive within certain contexts. What I meant was that radiocarbon dating isn't among the dating tools scientists use to even 'estimate' the age of this planet. Quote:Carbon dating cannot be used reliably for all materials, but it can be used for things like ancient manuscripts very reliably. Which has bugger all to do with the age of the Earth. Boru
‘But it does me no injury for my neighbour to say there are twenty gods or no gods. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.’ - Thomas Jefferson
 (November 25, 2013 at 2:47 am)Aractus Wrote: Carbon dating cannot be used reliably for all materials, Correct. Carbon dating is only used to date carbon. Quote: but it can be used for things like ancient manuscripts very reliably. Do you know why carbon dating is so accurate at dating ancient manuscripts? It's a tricky one, so have a little think before you answer. (November 25, 2013 at 2:47 am)Aractus Wrote:(November 23, 2013 at 12:31 pm)Brakeman Wrote: Please ask him to join the forum!!! We would love to talk to him about a few things. I have a very strong feeling that he won't agree with you much, but it would be interesting to find out.Ha, as if I'd ask him to join an atheist forum! Fine, I'll ask him myself. The odds are that he is lurking in the church for social pressure reasons. Probably from his family. He'd likely enjoy the laughs here.
Find the cure for Fundementia!
 (November 25, 2013 at 2:47 am)Aractus Wrote:(November 23, 2013 at 5:15 am)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: Actually, scientists DON'T use carbon dating to determine the age of the Earth.Correct (they use "estimation"), but the point of whether carbon-dating is relevant and reliable still stands and I stand in the positive within certain contexts. Carbon dating cannot be used reliably for all materials, but it can be used for things like ancient manuscripts very reliably. You afraid he might cross to the dark side? ![[Image: mybannerglitter06eee094.gif]](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=i118.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fo112%2Fpussinboots_photos%2FBikes%2Fmybannerglitter06eee094.gif) If you're not supposed to ride faster than your guardian angel can fly then mine had better get a bloody SR-71.  (November 22, 2013 at 11:42 pm)Aractus Wrote: Paul met the risen Christ (refs. Acts 9:4-7, 1 Corinthians 15:8, Galatians 1:11-17. It is my view that Luke is the scribe who wrote 2 Timothy (ref. 2 Tim 4:11). There's hardly a paucity of evidence as you claim, in fact there is more than ample... Compelling. 
|
|
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »
|
