The dates given by AOS for past events may actually disprove evolution entirely

[SavedByGraceThruFaith]

The theory of relativity holds, but there are different possibilities depending on initial conditions.

You are assuming the shape of space over large distances and the speed of light over large distances.

Those assumptions are based on the already proven false assumption of "no God"

Well I am sure we are all glad that relativity holds- phew, what a relief.

As to the rest:

We are not talking about large distances 2.5 million light years is nothing in terms of the vastness of space - where we can "see" about 13.5 billion light years.

The issue of the shape of space doesn't come into it on such a small scale.

I know you didn't mean to refer to the speed of light over large distances as being a problem - you already accepted Einstein, remember?

So between us we have PROVEN that the universe is at least 2.5 million years old - good for us.

There's a long way to go, of course, as we have to get to 13.72 billion years but its a start and hey, Rome wasn't built in a day.

In the meantime I am going to ask you a question that a fellow theist of yours on the forum brought up a while ago.

How long were Adam and Eve in the Garden?

You don't know. It could have been a week, it could have been a year, it could have been 13.72 billion years - something your 6,000 year time-line doesn't help with....does it?

Now don't go quoting Adam's age at me from Genesis 6(?). That was from the day he left the garden. It had to be because there were no calendars in the garden.

You have assumed no God, so you conclusion based on your false assumption is false.

You have no proof of anything older than 6000 years old, which is not based on the already proven false assumption of "no God."

As to Adam ans Eve we do know how long Adam lived and the genealogies start there. He was created on day 6.

---

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.

She should join the Religioustastic Originationatory Faith League (ROFL).

---

Here is a link to the article

http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/virtualmuseum...07_1.shtml

There are many more on the Internet.

You need to be specific about your supposed tree ring proof.

1. you have not proven the "no God" assumption true. It is impossible.
2. The topics I have posted prove the "no God" assumption false.
3. The "no God" assumption cannot be used beyond recorded history

"long-term reconstructions of atmospheric CO2 levels going back in time show that 500 million years ago atmospheric CO2 was some 20 times higher than present values."

500 million years ago, sweetie. The useful range of carbon dating is 40,000 years. Can you even read?

You have no reconstructions of carbon going back beyond about 4000 years. That is just a false conclusion based on a false assumption of no God.

Carbon dating does not work without knowing the initial value.

Again just an assumption, and a already proven false assumption at that.

---

Fixed that for you.

Much obliged.

Here is your logic:

Assume there is no God.
Since it is assumed that there is no God, the universe and life must have come without God
Therefore there is no God.

No logic at all just circular reasoning.

Here is my logic ( 2 proofs):
Proof by contraction.
Assume there is no God
Leads to countless contradictions
Therefore the assumption of no God is false.
Therefore there must be God.

Proof by Modus Ponens.
if the universe and life has vast interrelated complexity then an intelligent Almighty being made it.
the universe and life has vast interrelated complexity
therefore an intelligent Almighty being made it.

[Jackalope]

Gracie, no answer as to why the observable universe is so big?

That will not help you on the age question though.

Remember, you cannot use the "no God" assumption for dating the age of things.

Three things -

Dendrochronology
Varves
Loess deposits

All three of these phenomena demonstrate that the earth is older than 6,000 years ( much older) by using the scientific technique of.... Wait for it.... Counting.

No assumptions of the nonexistence of gods required.

You may return to wallowing in your ignorance now.

[Jackalope]

Good o, now get those conditions to produce a figure of 6000 years

I think that you do not understand that with God all things are possible.

So, magic?

[Esquilax]

You have assumed no God, so you conclusion based on your false assumption is false.

Not if there isn't a god, which is a claim you have only asserted is false, not demonstrated. Besides, there's a thing called "evidence" for claims, and it's a required standard before we go about operating with a claim in mind. Since you've provided no evidence for god beyond poking (misguided and incorrect) holes in scientific theories, there is no reason to operate under the belief that there is one.

Or are you actually saying that conclusive evidence for god is out there, and scientists just won't see it because... they don't like nobel prizes and tons of money from religious organizations for revolutionizing the field of science? Somehow?

Let me put it another way; transcendent magical space pixies created the universe. Do you believe me? No? Why's that? No proof? Shit, that's what I thought.

And if I presented, as proof of my pixies, a problem with the bible, would you accept that? Exactly.

Here is your logic:

Assume there is no God.
Since it is assumed that there is no God, the universe and life must have come without God
Therefore there is no God.

So, first of all, fuck off, and don't tell me how I think.

Second of all, go back and look at the first quote I have of you this post. You claim that we atheists are operating off of an assumption, but the fact is, you've discarded everything we've said out of hand because we aren't assuming your conclusion to do it. It's you with the unjustified assumption here, not us.

No logic at all just circular reasoning.

I've never seen someone sum up their own posting record here so succinctly before.

Here is my logic ( 2 proofs):
Proof by contraction.
Assume there is no God
Leads to countless contradictions

You've yet to name any that actually trace back to reality, rather than your vast ignorance when it comes to scientific claims and processes.

Therefore the assumption of no God is false.
Therefore there must be God.

Argument from ignorance.

By the way, are you saying that if I were to find contradictions in the bible, the bible would be false? Because I can do that, you know.

Ah, what the hell: I'll do it anyway!

Each and every arc on that chart is a contradiction in the bible: you can highlight them and learn specifics, if you want. Given that there's so many of them, under your own logic the bible must be false, right?

Proof by Modus Ponens.
if the universe and life has vast interrelated complexity then an intelligent Almighty being made it.
the universe and life has vast interrelated complexity
therefore an intelligent Almighty being made it.

And the moment you prove the first premise, you'd have a point. So far, you haven't.

Not that it matters: the bible is full of contradictions and therefore false anyway, isn't it?

[max-greece]

Gracie,

Why are you unable to tell the difference between age and God?

Many people assume God and accept the age of the universe. This can be done as the calculations of time based on distance are the same whether or not God exists.

In other words assuming God, light still took 2.5 million light years to get here from Andromeda. There is simply no getting around that.

All it means is YOUR chronology is wrong. You can still believe in God - its just your clock stopped at 6,000 years.

[Doubting Thomas]

So let me get this straight... Science is only good when it assumes that there is a god and biblical creationism is true? So all scientific evidence of an old earth is bunk because it doesn't assume a 6,000 year old universe created by God?

Yeah, you're gonna have trouble with that when if you finally graduate high school and go to college.

[Angrboda]

There's no need to provide more proof, Max. I have already proved Grace wrong: her god does not exist. It has been proven false forever.

Here is a link to the article

http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/virtualmuseum...07_1.shtml

There are many more on the Internet.

This is an article about the amount of carbon in the atmosphere, which has indeed fluctuated significantly. However, radiocarbon dating is based on the ratio between two specific types of atmospheric carbon, not the total level of all carbon. That ratio has only varied slightly, and the amount it has varied is known by calibration with tree ring data. Dates given may be given as calibrated or uncalibrated, with uncalibrated dates running from 10-20% under the actual age of the specimen according to Wikipedia (Wikipedia: ). Moreover, the article you have cited refers to changes over 500 million years, which is five orders of magnitude larger than the range of ages over which radiocarbon dating is useful, making it doubly irrelevant.

So the "evidence" you link to is no such thing. Denied!

I doubt you would recognize actual evidence if it bit you in the ass.

[Fidel_Castronaut]

Grace. I believe you may have sand in your vagina.

In fact, I have faith that it is so.

[Doubting Thomas]

You're going to have to explain to her what sand and vaginas are.

[pocaracas]

Something like this?