resistance is futile, you will be assimilated

[SubtleVirtue]

show me a sample of life based material that is older than 50k years old

The point is that 50k would be the theoretical limit of carbon dating. This is why it isn’t used to date 75 million year old fossils.

On your claim to be a scientist, I’ve gone from skeptical to outright disbelief.

Boru

If life based carbon materials are found in a fossil, you would think that they would carbon date it!!!

as a scientist I have real discoveries, real unique experiments, and real new inventions.

[Silver]

Theists confuse obedience for love. Thus, they don't always love either.

[SubtleVirtue]

Here is a small proof;



"God is love"
the Apostle Paul says in the bible that "God is love", well, to put that to the test I posted an internet survey on Myspace religion and philosophy forum; titled "loveless atheists" and "godless atheists"
In the thread I asked if atheists love everyone; every single atheist posting mentioned that they only loved a few people;
so my argument is that if someone really knows God, then they actually love everyone (as I do), and since atheists don't know God they would only love a few at most; and this demonstrates a material implication that God is love.

update;
I feel sorry for my enemies, and intend good for everyone.
"love" may be a confusing word. Jesus told us to Agape (love) our ememies. I don't really know what agape means, but I do not appreciate, adore, or revere my ememies. so I do not love them.
On the other hand I feel sorry for them... so that is Pathos, not Agape.
But I do intend good for all. So if Agape means or materially implies intention of good then God is Love.

Even God doesn’t love everyone - it says so in the Bible. If there are limits to God’s love, then ‘God is love’ is a nonsensical statement.

Boru

I like that argument.

but, in the bible, who does God not love?


"those loving violence, my soul certainly hates"

can you hate and love at the same time or hate and love the same person for different reasons such that there is still some love?

[SubtleVirtue]

I've known any number of scientists who were also believers. Their religion was never an issue. This one is simply no scientist. Its scientific literacy is on par with that of a moldy potato.

In my life, I’ve know roughly a double dozen actual, working scientist, and not ONE of them was confused about radiometric dating.

Boru

the only radiometric dating I know how to do is carbon dating...

I don't understand how to do the other dating methods... do you???

[SubtleVirtue]

Are you claiming that self-causal is not a synonym of self-deterministic?

I'm arguing that this has not been shown, hence, "not in evidence".

determinism is cause and effect or causation

did that help?

[Nay_Sayer]

In my life, I’ve know roughly a double dozen actual, working scientist, and not ONE of them was confused about radiometric dating.

Boru

the only radiometric dating I know how to do is carbon dating...

I don't understand how to do the other dating methods... do you???

 Then study more.

[Astreja]

so my argument is that if someone really knows God, then they actually love everyone (as I do), and since atheists don't know God they would only love a few at most; and this demonstrates a material implication that God is love.

No; all that proves is that you've bought into Paul's "God is love" myth and are now claiming that you love everyone because you believe that you know God.

I also don't see any value in this universal love that you claim you have.  Five parsecs wide and a nanometer deep.

[Paleophyte]

The material isn't blood, it's some material that might be blood cells, depending on interpretation. You can't carbon date individual cells. Simply not enough material to lift a 14-C date off of. The scientists who maintain that the material has recently been contaminated (not blood cells but rather fungal cells) would love to do exactly that. Finding modern 14-C would demonstrate that the samples have been contaminated.

How do you contaminate the sample if its locked up in solid fossil?

What we should find if 'your' theory is correct, is that there would be zero carbon 14.

We should have the test done either way.

What part of "They want to but don't have anything like enough material" did you miss? If it was possible it would have been done. You can't carbon date individual cells. Nowhere near enough mass.

The fact that you think stuff is locked up in the fossil simply shows that you don't know what you're talking about. They had to dissolve the fossil to release the "blood cells".

[Thumpalumpacus]

I'm arguing that this has not been shown, hence, "not in evidence".

determinism is cause and effect or causation

did that help?

You're ignoring quantum effects that may or may not be known. You need to demonstrate that these cannot effect the results of any particular cause.

Did that help you?

Probably not. You didn't even know about the limits of C-14 dating, Wile E.

[Paleophyte]

Are you claiming that trilobite fossils have carbon such that they have been carbon dated?

Nope, 14-C is useless for anything that old. You asked for "a sample of life based material that is older than 50k years old". For that you'll need a much slower radiometric system. U-Pb is the gold standard, and works to several times the age of the Earth. Ar-Ar, K-Ar, Rb-Sr, and several other can also be used and provide independent cross-checks.

What is the evidence for Lucy? Was it debunked?

They've extracted single crystal Ar-Ar ages from the underlying volcanic ash that date to 3.18 and 3.20 million years. Here's the 1994 paper with the ages.

Not debuked, you must be thinking Piltdown Man or some other foolishness.