(June 12, 2013 at 11:14 pm)Godschild Wrote: That ain't bone.

So the stones just magically formed into a collection of specimens that look shockingly like a skeleton?

THIS IS WHY I RARELY ARGUE WITH THEISTS ANYMORE!

(June 12, 2013 at 6:26 pm)Faith No More Wrote: Based on how you personally perceive the bible, you saw that her beliefs and actions did not fit, so you judged that her worship was incorrect. The problem here is you believe your interpretation to be the absolutely correct one, and have used your opinion as an objective standard.

ah, no. Again we are working of the person in questions own assessment. In that this person said they were not worshiping the God of the Bible, but they still classified themselves as Christian. Which Jesus spoke to very directly. No interpretation needed. As Christ Himself addresses this very issue in that chapter.

Not every thing in the bible has to be interpreted. Some thing you simply read off of the page and apply. To know which one must look to the Greek, but it does not change the fact that this passage in mat 7 goes unchallenged in the rest of scripture and the Greek completely agrees with the English translation.

I know your trying to muddy the waters with the olde standby atheist argument that my interpretation of the bible bla bla bla... But it does not apply here. Try something else.]

(June 12, 2013 at 11:27 pm)Drich Wrote:

(June 12, 2013 at 6:26 pm)Faith No More Wrote: Based on how you personally perceive the bible, you saw that her beliefs and actions did not fit, so you judged that her worship was incorrect. The problem here is you believe your interpretation to be the absolutely correct one, and have used your opinion as an objective standard.

ah, no. Again we are working of the person in questions own assessment. In that this person said they were not worshiping the God of the Bible, but they still classified themselves as Christian. Which Jesus spoke to very directly. No interpretation needed. As Christ Himself addresses this very issue in that chapter.

Not every thing in the bible has to be interpreted. Some thing you simply read off of the page and apply. To know which one must look to the Greek, but it does not change the fact that this passage in mat 7 goes unchallenged in the rest of scripture and the Greek completely agrees with the English translation.

I know your trying to muddy the waters with the olde standby atheist argument that my interpretation of the bible bla bla bla... But it does not apply here. Try something else.]

There are some 35 million books in the Library of Congress. Do you ever read any of those?

(June 12, 2013 at 11:22 pm)Rahul Wrote:

(June 12, 2013 at 10:28 pm)Godschild Wrote: You can't date rock.

No, you can't. Very true.

Interesting thing though. As the centuries roll by layer after layer of sediment pile up. Occasionally there is a volcanic eruption or forest fire leaving charred remains in a thin layer sandwhiched between these sediments.

You can date that. Quite easily.

So let's say there was a lava flow and it's dated at 135 million years. Then you have some dirt and what not with a fossilized skeleton of some animal. Then right above that layer is a layer containing charcoal from a forest fire and it's dated at 130 million years.

You can say that this animal probably existed between 135 and 130 million years ago.

And the funny thing is other scientists are doing the same thing all over the world.

And it all seems to be in agreement with each other.

Hrm. What can we deduce from this?

If just one group finds a rabbit or chicken dated to within the Cambrian geological period, well that fucks up everything.

Funny it never happens.

How can you possibly know when a volcano erupted, you can't date rock and carbon dating is not accurate past 50,000 years.

(June 12, 2013 at 10:41 pm)Rahul Wrote:

(June 12, 2013 at 10:24 pm)Godschild Wrote: I think fossils are stone.

This is just a fucking stone?

Ever been to the smithsonian in DC? They must have one of the best collections of fossilized remains on the planet. When I went through the tour there i was struck by what they said and were actively doing there. The guid told us that 2/3's of what we saw on display was reproduction. They were taken from partial casts and artist renditions to create what was missing, damage or simply too fragile to display. They said only a hand ful of real complete skeletons exist in the world and they are composits compiled from various sites from around the world. They went on to say that even when they find a "complete" skeleton only about 75 to 80 percent of it is usable for cast making. Most of what they find are fragments that have to be pieced back together.

This is the crap they find:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Lucy_blackbg.jpg

This is what they sell you people:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:LucySmithsonian.JPG

And you gobble it up... Yet it is the Christian who has a relationship with the Living God who is blindly believing everything He hears.

---

(June 12, 2013 at 11:14 pm)Godschild Wrote:

(June 12, 2013 at 10:54 pm)orogenicman Wrote: Indeed, I prefer to date women. But I can also use the same mathematics that is used to operate nuclear reactors to determine the absolute date of igneous rocks. And relative dating is a very straight forward enough thing to perform. But none of this addresses the real issue. And that is that you appear to have no education or experience whatsoever to come to the conclusion that rocks can't be dated or that evolution is not real science. I am offering you the chance to turn that around by taking you into the field and showing you how it is done. So what do you say, grasshopper? Want put your money where your mouth is? Take me up on my challenge? Or are you just blowing more creationist smoke?

I'll check you out on that and get back with you, I have a friend at Oak Ridge National Labs, he and his father are both nuclear engineers.

---

(June 12, 2013 at 10:41 pm)Rahul Wrote:

This is just a fucking stone?

That ain't bone.

It's most likely plaster and paint.

(June 12, 2013 at 11:40 pm)Godschild Wrote:

(June 12, 2013 at 11:22 pm)Rahul Wrote: No, you can't. Very true.

Interesting thing though. As the centuries roll by layer after layer of sediment pile up. Occasionally there is a volcanic eruption or forest fire leaving charred remains in a thin layer sandwhiched between these sediments.

You can date that. Quite easily.

So let's say there was a lava flow and it's dated at 135 million years. Then you have some dirt and what not with a fossilized skeleton of some animal. Then right above that layer is a layer containing charcoal from a forest fire and it's dated at 130 million years.

You can say that this animal probably existed between 135 and 130 million years ago.

And the funny thing is other scientists are doing the same thing all over the world.

And it all seems to be in agreement with each other.

Hrm. What can we deduce from this?

If just one group finds a rabbit or chicken dated to within the Cambrian geological period, well that fucks up everything.

Funny it never happens.

How can you possibly know when a volcano erupted, you can't date rock and carbon dating is not accurate past 50,000 years.

You certainly can date rock. Volcanic rock is easily datable. Even sedimentary rock that contains radioisotopes can be dated, such as black shale that contains uranium. You are right that carbon dating is not accurate past 50,000 years, but there are other methods that can be used for material older than 50,000 years.

---

(June 12, 2013 at 11:43 pm)Drich Wrote:

(June 12, 2013 at 10:41 pm)Rahul Wrote:

This is just a fucking stone?

Ever been to the smithsonian in DC? They must have one of the best collections of fossilized remains on the planet. When I went through the tour there i was struck by what they said and were actively doing there. The guid told us that 2/3's of what we saw on display was reproduction. They were taken from partial casts and artist renditions to create what was missing, damage or simply too fragile to display. They said only a hand ful of real complete skeletons exist in the world and they are composits compiled from various sites from around the world. They went on to say that even when they find a "complete" skeleton only about 75 to 80 percent of it is usable for cast making. Most of what they find are fragments that have to be pieced back together.

This is the crap they find:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Lucy_blackbg.jpg

This is what they sell you people:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:LucySmithsonian.JPG

And you gobble it up... Yet it is the Christian who has a relationship with the Living God who is blindly believing everything He hears.

---

(June 12, 2013 at 11:14 pm)Godschild Wrote: I'll check you out on that and get back with you, I have a friend at Oak Ridge National Labs, he and his father are both nuclear engineers.

---

That ain't bone.

It's most likely plaster and paint.

Looks like you need to take a field trip with me as well. You and godschild really need to get out more often. I've offered to take him into the field and show him why you guys are wrong. You should go as well. What say you?

(June 12, 2013 at 11:37 pm)orogenicman Wrote:

(June 12, 2013 at 11:27 pm)Drich Wrote: ah, no. Again we are working of the person in questions own assessment. In that this person said they were not worshiping the God of the Bible, but they still classified themselves as Christian. Which Jesus spoke to very directly. No interpretation needed. As Christ Himself addresses this very issue in that chapter.

Not every thing in the bible has to be interpreted. Some thing you simply read off of the page and apply. To know which one must look to the Greek, but it does not change the fact that this passage in mat 7 goes unchallenged in the rest of scripture and the Greek completely agrees with the English translation.

I know your trying to muddy the waters with the olde standby atheist argument that my interpretation of the bible bla bla bla... But it does not apply here. Try something else.]

There are some 35 million books in the Library of Congress. Do you ever read any of those?

What are we talking about again? Was the God of 35 million books in the library of congress or the God of the bible? If it is In deed the God of the bible then what does your 35 million other books have to do with anything other than a vain attempt to distract me from the subject at hand?

If you can't argue without appeals to misdirection and trickery then maybe you should be arguing your point.

(June 12, 2013 at 11:40 pm)Godschild Wrote: How can you possibly know when a volcano erupted, you can't date rock and carbon dating is not accurate past 50,000 years.

Quote:The half-life of carbon-14 is only 5,730 years, so carbon-14 dating is only effective on samples that are less than 50,000 years old. Dinosaur bones, on the other hand, are millions of years old -- some fossils are billions of years old. To determine the ages of these specimens, scientists need an isotope with a very long half-life. Some of the isotopes used for this purpose are uranium-238, uranium-235 and potassium-40, each of which has a half-life of more than a million years.

Unfortunately, these elements don't exist in dinosaur fossils themselves. Each of them typically exists in igneous rock, or rock made from cooled magma.

http://science.howstuffworks.com/environ...e-age1.htm

It's called fucking GOOGLE. Why do you insist everyone has to spoon feed you?

You are hoping for us to just give up in disgust because you're being a major pain?

Most effective theist tactic ever devised.

You have a better place to go other than the smithsonian in DC?

---

And for the record I do not completely disagree with evolution. I just disagree with how 'science' has identified it and how it currently represents the fossil record.

(June 12, 2013 at 11:56 pm)Drich Wrote:

(June 12, 2013 at 11:37 pm)orogenicman Wrote: There are some 35 million books in the Library of Congress. Do you ever read any of those?

What are we talking about again? Was the God of 35 million books in the library of congress or the God of the bible? If it is In deed the God of the bible then what does your 35 million other books have to do with anything other than a vain attempt to distract me from the subject at hand?

If you can't argue without appeals to misdirection and trickery then maybe you should be arguing your point.

It was a simple question. You appear to be infatuated with one book. I just wasn't sure if you realized that there are millions of books.

---

(June 12, 2013 at 11:58 pm)Drich Wrote: You have a better place to go other than the smithsonian in DC?

---

And for the record I do not completely disagree with evolution. I just disagree with how 'science' has identified it and how it currently represents the fossil record.

That's only because you have no education and experience to guide you on the subject. I'm a published professional geologist, and have offered to take you on a field trip to show you why you are wrong. Ignore my offer if you must, but don't come here making claims you cannot support and expect to be taken seriously.