Posts: 352
Threads: 8
Joined: September 29, 2013
Reputation:
1
RE: The dates given by AOS for past events may actually disprove evolution entirely
October 8, 2013 at 6:43 am
(October 8, 2013 at 12:19 am)Esquilax Wrote: (October 7, 2013 at 8:15 pm)SavedByGraceThruFaith Wrote: 1. Genetics is true. Atoms to mankind has been disproven entirely.
You're wrong. I already proved this. It's been proved.
Quote:2. If you think that simple genetics is proof of atoms to mankind theory of evolution, you are blind. The fact that this is being used as the "proof" of the atoms to man theory of evolution, proves beyond all doubt that there is NO proof whatsoever. That is a desperate attempt that has failed.
The fact that all you can do is baselessly deny the reality proves beyond all doubt that there is NO proof whatsoever. That is a desperate attempt that has failed. God is no more.
Quote:4. You have absolutely not a single fact, not based on an assumption, of anything older than 6000 years ago. The "facts" you referred to are based on assumptions.
I wonder if the people worshiping at this eleven thousand year old temple had trouble with the fact that the universe hadn't been created around them yet? And it's weird how the earth was created six thousand years ago, but we knew how to brew alcohol nine thousand years ago, isn't it?
You just have assumptions and live in denial.
Does the temple have a date on it? Like 11000 BC.
Prove it is 11,000 years old.
Posts: 2171
Threads: 4
Joined: July 24, 2013
Reputation:
33
RE: The dates given by AOS for past events may actually disprove evolution entirely
October 8, 2013 at 6:52 am
Would you believe it does? Yup. Says in english 'This structure predates Jesus by 9000 years'.
Somebody smack this bitch.
Posts: 2281
Threads: 16
Joined: January 17, 2010
Reputation:
69
RE: The dates given by AOS for past events may actually disprove evolution entirely
October 8, 2013 at 6:59 am
(October 5, 2013 at 4:04 pm)SavedByGraceThruFaith Wrote:
Another false assertion.
Error ranges are always quoted for any radiometrically calculated dates whenever published in official papers/sources. If a reporter subsequently chooses not to report those ranges, for whatever reason, that's the choice of the reporter; it does not mean the margins of error weren't calculated or that those who calculated were falsifying any data. If there were no margins of error calculated, the results would not get published in any worthwhile journal because they wouldn't get past peer review.
Additionally, your suggestion that temporal causality would not be taken into consideration when interpreting the results of radiometric dating is simply laughable.
Once again, you demonstrate a complete lack of understanding of the subject matter and a desire only to spout 'anti-atheist refutations' that you've been fed, presumably, by your religious leadership.
Sum ergo sum
Posts: 11260
Threads: 61
Joined: January 5, 2013
Reputation:
123
RE: The dates given by AOS for past events may actually disprove evolution entirely
October 8, 2013 at 6:59 am
(This post was last modified: October 8, 2013 at 7:01 am by Esquilax.)
(October 8, 2013 at 6:43 am)SavedByGraceThruFaith Wrote: You just have assumptions and live in denial.
No, I don't have, nor do I need, assumptions, because what I have is actual evidence that doesn't rely on an argument from (unparalleled) ignorance in order to function. Did you even read the articles?
Quote:Does the temple have a date on it? Like 11000 BC.
Just now, I wrote "Created 8-10-11000 BC" on a piece of paper; does that make the paper eleven thousand years old, you moron?
Quote:Prove it is 11,000 years old.
So you didn't read the article at all, hmm? For starters, radiocarbon dating (I'm awaiting your idiotic "there's no error bars" type response there) of surrounding civilizations place them at around the same time. In fact, there's this line from the article itself:
Quote:at a prehistoric village just 20 miles away, geneticists found evidence of the world's oldest domesticated strains of wheat; radiocarbon dating indicates agriculture developed there around 10,500 years ago, or just five centuries after Gobekli Tepe's construction.
Do you think that maybe these sheep herding, field tending people, with their own holy sites, were surprised when god started constructing the universe around them? How does the fact that there was life before god started doing that impact your religion's claims that he is the alpha and the omega? Or your claims that complex life needs a creator?
Perhaps the creator of these civilizations also created your god, and he was just copying the trend! 
(October 8, 2013 at 6:59 am)Ben Davis Wrote: Error ranges are always quoted for any radiometrically calculated dates whenever published in official papers/sources. If a reporter subsequently chooses not to report those ranges, for whatever reason, that's the choice of the reporter; it does not mean the margins of error weren't calculated or that those who calculated were falsifying any data. If there were no margins of error calculated, the results would not get published in any worthwhile journal because they wouldn't get past peer review.
You're right, of course, but it doesn't matter: Grace didn't provide any sources for the dates she showed, so it just seems like she picked some numbers out of thin air, did the same with her error bars, and bullshitted her way to her conclusion.
"YOU take the hard look in the mirror. You are everything that is wrong with this world. The only thing important to you, is you." - ronedee
Want to see more of my writing? Check out my (safe for work!) site, Unprotected Sects!
Posts: 352
Threads: 8
Joined: September 29, 2013
Reputation:
1
RE: The dates given by AOS for past events may actually disprove evolution entirely
October 8, 2013 at 7:05 am
(October 8, 2013 at 6:59 am)Esquilax Wrote: (October 8, 2013 at 6:43 am)SavedByGraceThruFaith Wrote: You just have assumptions and live in denial.
No, I don't have, nor do I need, assumptions, because what I have is actual evidence that doesn't rely on an argument from (unparalleled) ignorance in order to function. Did you even read the articles?
Quote:Does the temple have a date on it? Like 11000 BC.
Just now, I wrote "Created 8-10-11000 BC" on a piece of paper; does that make the paper eleven thousand years old, you moron?
Quote:Prove it is 11,000 years old.
So you didn't read the article at all, hmm? For starters, radiocarbon dating (I'm awaiting your idiotic "there's no error bars" type response there) of surrounding civilizations place them at around the same time. In fact, there's this line from the article itself:
Quote:at a prehistoric village just 20 miles away, geneticists found evidence of the world's oldest domesticated strains of wheat; radiocarbon dating indicates agriculture developed there around 10,500 years ago, or just five centuries after Gobekli Tepe's construction.
Do you think that maybe these sheep herding, field tending people, with their own holy sites, were surprised when god started constructing the universe around them? How does the fact that there was life before god started doing that impact your religion's claims that he is the alpha and the omega? Or your claims that complex life needs a creator?
Perhaps the creator of these civilizations also created your god, and he was just copying the trend!
(October 8, 2013 at 6:59 am)Ben Davis Wrote: Error ranges are always quoted for any radiometrically calculated dates whenever published in official papers/sources. If a reporter subsequently chooses not to report those ranges, for whatever reason, that's the choice of the reporter; it does not mean the margins of error weren't calculated or that those who calculated were falsifying any data. If there were no margins of error calculated, the results would not get published in any worthwhile journal because they wouldn't get past peer review.
You're right, of course, but it doesn't matter: Grace didn't provide any sources for the dates she showed, so it just seems like she picked some numbers out of thin air, did the same with her error bars, and bullshitted her way to her conclusion.
1. I have already proved that atheistic origin science is false.
Therefore "the God did nothing" assumption has already been proven false forever.
You cannot use dating beyond recorded history because you do not know what God did.
You have an assumption of no God that is already been proven false.
2. Radio carbon dating is inaccurate beyond several thousand years.
The reason is that the CO2 levels were much higher in the past (before the flood) so the technique is useless for dating back beyond the flood.
Posts: 18503
Threads: 79
Joined: May 29, 2010
Reputation:
125
RE: The dates given by AOS for past events may actually disprove evolution entirely
October 8, 2013 at 7:10 am
Posts: 2171
Threads: 4
Joined: July 24, 2013
Reputation:
33
RE: The dates given by AOS for past events may actually disprove evolution entirely
October 8, 2013 at 7:10 am
Is so.
Is so.
Is so.
Is so.
Is so.
Is so.
Is so.
Is so.
Posts: 2177
Threads: 45
Joined: June 5, 2013
Reputation:
39
RE: The dates given by AOS for past events may actually disprove evolution entirely
October 8, 2013 at 7:10 am
(This post was last modified: October 8, 2013 at 7:11 am by max-greece.)
"1. I have already proved that atheistic origin science is false.
Therefore "the God did nothing" assumption has already been proven false forever.
You cannot use dating beyond recorded history because you do not know what God did.
You have an assumption of no God that is already been proven false.
2. Radio carbon dating is inaccurate beyond several thousand years.
The reason is that the CO2 levels were much higher in the past (before the flood) so the technique is useless for dating back beyond the flood."
Could you point out those proofs - I appear to have missed them, silly me.
BTW - there was no flood.
Posts: 11260
Threads: 61
Joined: January 5, 2013
Reputation:
123
RE: The dates given by AOS for past events may actually disprove evolution entirely
October 8, 2013 at 7:15 am
(October 8, 2013 at 7:05 am)SavedByGraceThruFaith Wrote: 1. I have already proved that atheistic origin science is false.
Therefore "the God did nothing" assumption has already been proven false forever.
I assure you, you have not. You are simply too blinded by your faith in Religioustastic Originationatory Faithism. Your assumptions lead you away from the truth, which is that I have proved you wrong on every point you have ever made, now and in future.
I proved conclusively that your god cannot exist, and created nothing. Because he doesn't exist. I proved it. It has been proven. And if you do not see that, you are blind. Blinded by your faith.
Quote:You cannot use dating beyond recorded history because you do not know what God did.
God did nothing, blind person. I have proved it to be false forever.
Quote:You have an assumption of no God that is already been proven false.
No. It is you that is false. There is no excuse for not understanding this.
Quote:2. Radio carbon dating is inaccurate beyond several thousand years.
Radio carbon dating is so accurate it proves you wrong before you even respond to this.
Quote:The reason is that the CO2 levels were much higher in the past (before the flood) so the technique is useless for dating back beyond the flood.
There was no flood. I have proved it.
"YOU take the hard look in the mirror. You are everything that is wrong with this world. The only thing important to you, is you." - ronedee
Want to see more of my writing? Check out my (safe for work!) site, Unprotected Sects!
Posts: 352
Threads: 8
Joined: September 29, 2013
Reputation:
1
RE: The dates given by AOS for past events may actually disprove evolution entirely
October 8, 2013 at 7:17 am
(October 8, 2013 at 7:10 am)max-greece Wrote: "1. I have already proved that atheistic origin science is false.
Therefore "the God did nothing" assumption has already been proven false forever.
You cannot use dating beyond recorded history because you do not know what God did.
You have an assumption of no God that is already been proven false.
2. Radio carbon dating is inaccurate beyond several thousand years.
The reason is that the CO2 levels were much higher in the past (before the flood) so the technique is useless for dating back beyond the flood."
Could you point out those proofs - I appear to have missed them, silly me.
BTW - there was no flood.
Here is an article stating that CO2 levels were 20 times present levels in the past.
The article is incorrect about when that happened of course. But the evidence for much higher CO2 levels in the past is true. So if about 5000 years ago, CO2 levels were 20x todays levels, something would be measured as mush older.
The no God assumption has been proven false by this topic and the other topics I have posted.
You cannot use it for dating beyond recorded history.
|
