Posts: 3817
Threads: 5
Joined: November 19, 2012
Reputation:
54
RE: Is Hell Really a Bad Place?
August 20, 2013 at 1:45 pm
(August 20, 2013 at 12:08 am)Godschild Wrote: (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
Your statement that is is not reliable carries no weight. Dating methods using radioactive decay are reliable, the science is sound.
And carbon dating doesn't "fall apart" after 50,00 years - it has a measurable range. If you actually understood the physics, you would know this. But no, you spout AIG crapola.
Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
Posts: 2082
Threads: 72
Joined: March 12, 2013
Reputation:
44
RE: Is Hell Really a Bad Place?
August 20, 2013 at 1:55 pm
(August 20, 2013 at 9:37 am)Faith No More Wrote: (August 20, 2013 at 8:42 am)Texas Sailor Wrote: I'm over it. I'm ready for some new God claims that haven't been--- > ! I wish William Lane Craig would get himself an account here! Imagine the fun! 
What makes you think he would bring anything new to the table?
Wishful thinking I suppose.
Posts: 8781
Threads: 26
Joined: March 15, 2010
Reputation:
29
RE: Is Hell Really a Bad Place?
August 20, 2013 at 2:39 pm
(This post was last modified: August 20, 2013 at 2:47 pm by Godscreated.)
(August 20, 2013 at 1:45 pm)Chas Wrote: (August 20, 2013 at 12:08 am)Godschild Wrote: That is supposed, it's not reliable.
GC
Your statement that is is not reliable carries no weight. Dating methods using radioactive decay are reliable, the science is sound.
And carbon dating doesn't "fall apart" after 50,00 years - it has a measurable range. If you actually understood the physics, you would know this. But no, you spout AIG crapola.
No I sight reputable nuclear engineers and scientist, some who are known around the country and scientific community.
GC
(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.
Listen, I'm not stupid, I know it pleases you to believe that but, like the stupid girlfriends you date your stupid in believing I'm stupid, so just back off. I have owned fossils, I understand fully what they are and how they were formed.
God loves those who believe and those who do not and the same goes for me, you have no choice in this matter. That puts the matter of total free will to rest.
Posts: 18503
Threads: 79
Joined: May 29, 2010
Reputation:
125
RE: Is Hell Really a Bad Place?
August 20, 2013 at 2:53 pm
You know that is possible to date higher ranges with other elements right? Carbon dating fits the range very well to falsify religious 'artifacts' like the shroud that they claimed it was from jeebus. To things of higher ages like the age of the earth, other elements are used. Do yourself a favour and grab a science book, in this case, a good physics one.
But please cite those scientists and their credentials.
Posts: 2921
Threads: 26
Joined: June 25, 2013
Reputation:
41
RE: Is Hell Really a Bad Place?
August 20, 2013 at 3:01 pm
(This post was last modified: August 20, 2013 at 3:02 pm by Bad Writer.)
(August 20, 2013 at 2:39 pm)Godschild Wrote: No I sight reputable nuclear engineers and scientist, some who are known around the country and scientific community.
Sources please.
GC Wrote: (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.
Listen, I'm not stupid, I know it pleases you to believe that but, like the stupid girlfriends you date your stupid in believing I'm stupid, so just back off. I have owned fossils, I understand fully what they are and how they were formed.
You're stupid for bringing it up because you got railed on for throwing an obvious red herring out there.
Now that you've admitted to the existence of fossils, explain how they're not older than 6000 years.
Posts: 31845
Threads: 205
Joined: July 19, 2011
Reputation:
141
RE: Is Hell Really a Bad Place?
August 20, 2013 at 3:08 pm
(August 20, 2013 at 12:08 am)Godschild Wrote: (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.
What's the basis for your claim of unreliability?
What about samarium-neodymium?
Potassium-argon?
Rubidium-strontium?
Uranium-thorium?
Argon-argon?
Iodine-xenon?
Lanthanum-barium?
Lead-lead?
Lutetium-hafnium?
Neon-neon?
Rhenium-osmium?
Uranium-lead-helium?
Uranium-uranium?
All unreliable, yes?
What about fission track? Luminescence?
How about Isochron dating?
They're all unreliable because... because Godschild says so?
Posts: 3817
Threads: 5
Joined: November 19, 2012
Reputation:
54
RE: Is Hell Really a Bad Place?
August 20, 2013 at 4:28 pm
(August 20, 2013 at 2:39 pm)Godschild Wrote: (August 20, 2013 at 1:45 pm)Chas Wrote: Your statement that is is not reliable carries no weight. Dating methods using radioactive decay are reliable, the science is sound.
And carbon dating doesn't "fall apart" after 50,00 years - it has a measurable range. If you actually understood the physics, you would know this. But no, you spout AIG crapola.
No I sight reputable nuclear engineers and scientist, some who are known around the country and scientific community.
Then please cite a couple. Otherwise, your statement is without merit.
Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
Posts: 31845
Threads: 205
Joined: July 19, 2011
Reputation:
141
RE: Is Hell Really a Bad Place?
August 20, 2013 at 4:45 pm
(August 20, 2013 at 4:28 pm)Chas Wrote: (August 20, 2013 at 2:39 pm)Godschild Wrote: No I sight reputable nuclear engineers and scientist, some who are known around the country and scientific community.
Then please cite a couple. Otherwise, your statement is without merit.
Yes, please - cite a few, including their specific claims and reasoning. Otherwise, it's nothing but an appeal to some anonymous authority.
Every time I've examined a creationist claim about radiometric dating, the claims were without merit.
Posts: 2921
Threads: 26
Joined: June 25, 2013
Reputation:
41
RE: Is Hell Really a Bad Place?
August 20, 2013 at 5:02 pm
Every response to Godschild this time so far has been a request to cite sources...is he going to think we're all just ganging up on him, or is he actually going to realize that we are merely submitting the required response to a claim?
...
Naaaahhhh....he's going to think we're ganging up on him.
Posts: 8781
Threads: 26
Joined: March 15, 2010
Reputation:
29
RE: Is Hell Really a Bad Place?
August 21, 2013 at 1:30 am
(August 20, 2013 at 5:02 pm)BadWriterSparty Wrote: Every response to Godschild this time so far has been a request to cite sources...is he going to think we're all just ganging up on him, or is he actually going to realize that we are merely submitting the required response to a claim?
...
Naaaahhhh....he's going to think we're ganging up on him.
You bet I do, why, because it is one of your strategies in debating Christians, do you think we are to dumb to see through your childish ways. I will not put their names on this or any open forum, that would be unethical and you know it, disclaim what I say if you desire it want change the truth. This is my answer to one and all.
GC
God loves those who believe and those who do not and the same goes for me, you have no choice in this matter. That puts the matter of total free will to rest.
|
![[Image: 10314461_875206779161622_3907189760171701548_n.jpg]](https://scontent-a-dfw.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xfp1/t1.0-9/10314461_875206779161622_3907189760171701548_n.jpg)
