GC, when did we start debating the composition of fossils, and how is it relevant to the argument at hand?

(August 19, 2013 at 2:40 pm)Godschild Wrote: I know highly regarded scientists and nuclear engineers, and all agree that carbon dating falls apart after 50,000 years and other nonbelievers on here have agreed. These people are honest enough not to lie about the reality of the limits science has, unlike you.

The Strawman Fallacy. I know very well that no one knows everything about anything. I also know that transitional fossils are numerous in paleontologists' research.

Religious people, however, like Ray Comfort and Ken Ham, claim to have absolute knowledge of life, and they are benighted.

And yes, carbon dating is not the only method of studying fossils. Do you ever take a medicine for a headache or anything else? If so, thank an evolutionary scientist.

(August 19, 2013 at 5:43 pm)Michael Schubert Wrote:

(August 19, 2013 at 2:40 pm)Godschild Wrote: I know highly regarded scientists and nuclear engineers, and all agree that carbon dating falls apart after 50,000 years and other nonbelievers on here have agreed. These people are honest enough not to lie about the reality of the limits science has, unlike you.

The Strawman Fallacy. I know very well that no one knows everything about anything. I also know that transitional fossils are numerous in paleontologists' research.

Religious people, however, like Ray Comfort and Ken Ham, claim to have absolute knowledge of life, and they are benighted.

And yes, carbon dating is not the only method of studying fossils. Do you ever take a medicine for a headache or anything else? If so, thank an evolutionary scientist.

Some one please bang on the record player, it's stuck in a groove.

---

(August 19, 2013 at 4:37 pm)BadWriterSparty Wrote: GC, when did we start debating the composition of fossils, and how is it relevant to the argument at hand?

Don't ask me ask MS.

GC

---

(August 19, 2013 at 2:55 pm)Psykhronic Wrote: There are other kinds of dating besides carbon dating. All have different timespans where they are useful. Example - Uranium-lead dating has a range of 1 million to about 4.5 billion years ago.

That is supposed, it's not reliable.

GC

GC, you were the one to bring fossil composition into this. What point exactly were you trying to make with that?

(August 20, 2013 at 12:17 am)BadWriterSparty Wrote: GC, you were the one to bring fossil composition into this. What point exactly were you trying to make with that?

Go to MS's post #142. Then go ask him.

GC

I'm asking you though. You need to realize that fossil composition has nothing to do with the fact they exist.

(August 20, 2013 at 12:37 am)BadWriterSparty Wrote: I'm asking you though. You need to realize that fossil composition has nothing to do with the fact they exist.

Unless he's saying that fossils don't exist, and those minerals just happened to align themselves into the shape of long dead animals. Which, given his incredulity so far, would be pretty rich.

I've heard of fossils being one of God's practical jokes. I wonder where the biblical evidence for that piece of shit is. (I had a girlfriend years back that told me this, I kid you not)

(August 20, 2013 at 7:56 am)BadWriterSparty Wrote: I've heard of fossils being one of God's practical jokes. I wonder where the biblical evidence for that piece of shit is. (I had a girlfriend years back that told me this, I kid you not)

Oh, I was expecting that from GC too: my response would be that I've been told that dishonesty- a sin- is impossible for god. I expected the next thing to be a recourse to satan, to which I would ask why god would not just eliminate the false fossils before we ever found them, thus allowing him to do good without the usual violation of free will claptrap.

Is it sad that theistic arguments tend to run on a script like this?

I heard that because of all the atheistic scientists there it is now air-conditioned and Satan is having a great time and can't be bothered with the whole "gnawing and gnashing of teeth" shit anymore.