Kickwhit Posted February 11, 2003 Share Posted February 11, 2003 oaky, mr Supreme Ignoramus, what did i tell you about being a part of the argument? i told you to watch and comment, but DO NOT ARGUE! Even the kids know Carbon dating is only accurate to around 5000 years, more specific dates are impossible... ...and a half life is the amount of time it takes for half of a radioactive isotope to degenerate, you moron. Bet you just learned that, didnt you? its still not a hoax. First strike. Stop with the flaming - C'jais Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kickwhit Posted February 11, 2003 Share Posted February 11, 2003 The shroud samples each dated with a 95% confidence level, that the flax plants used to create the Shroud of Turin had only come in to existence between AD1260 and AD1390. heh, thats pretty funny, because the blood and plant DNA found on the shroud dates back almsot 2000 years -_-stop going to the National Enquirer for your info. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
munik Posted February 11, 2003 Share Posted February 11, 2003 Originally posted by Kickwhit ...and a half life is the amount of time it takes for half of a radioactive isotope to degenerate, you moron. Bet you just learned that, didnt you? Half life is half the time it takes for the entire isotope to degenerate, not half of it. edit--isotopes cannot degenerete half at a time, but after re-reading your post I think that maybe that's what you meant. At least be correct before insulting someone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinWalker Posted February 11, 2003 Share Posted February 11, 2003 Originally posted by Kickwhit oaky, mr Supreme Ignoramus, How rude! Originally posted by Kickwhit what did i tell you about being a part of the argument? i told you to watch and comment, but DO NOT ARGUE! Where's the fun in that? :-) Originally posted by Kickwhit Even the kids know Carbon dating is only accurate to around 5000 years, more specific dates are impossible... I know kids that think having a "baby's moma" is like having a pit bull... it gives them status. Carbon dating is accurate to +/- 500 years at samples nearly depleted of carbon. It's accurate to +/- 150 years or so to samples in the last couple of millenia. The more carbon isotopes left to test increases the accuracy. Samples are usually made by multiple, independent labs to eliminate anomalies such as equipment calibration error. That is fact. Established and accepted by everyone except those that refuse to hear it. Originally posted by Kickwhit ...and a half life is the amount of time it takes for half of a radioactive isotope to degenerate, you moron. Bet you just learned that, didnt you? The half life of 14C is still 5730 years. What's your point, Sir? Originally posted by Kickwhit its still not a hoax. Is too. Disregarding the radiocarbon dating (which I maintain is valid), microscopic spectrometry results indicated that the image of the shroud (isn't faking a religious artifact blasphemous in the eyes of those who are religious? ...hmmm) is comprised of ochra and vermillion pigments of paint. No evidence of DNA, body fluids, etc was detected as has been in other ancient textiles recovered from graves, etc. But J.C. might have arose a little later than the story was told, covered his face in paint, then wore the shroud.... Originally posted by Kickwhit First strike. Stop with the flaming - C'jais Aww... keep him around 'jais. I'm studying rude behavior as a Anth project. ;-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinWalker Posted February 11, 2003 Share Posted February 11, 2003 Originally posted by Kickwhit heh, thats pretty funny, because the blood and plant DNA found on the shroud dates back almsot 2000 years -_-stop going to the National Enquirer for your info. My sources were the following primary literature: Sources mentioned. Microscope 1980, 28, 105, 115; 1981, 29, 19 Wiener Berichte uber Naturwissenschaft in der Kunst 1987/1988, 4/5, 50 Accounts of Chemical Research 1990, 23, 77-83. McCrone Research Institute What are your sources? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mandalorian54 Posted February 11, 2003 Share Posted February 11, 2003 Um... guys, I don't know where youve been all these years but Carbon dating was tested. They took a bunch of rocks that they knew were 128 years old, and tested carbon dating on them, carbon dating said that some of those rocks were 32 million years old and others were 100,000 years old. but they were all 128 years old. how is a system that says a 128 year old rock is millions of years old accurate? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kickwhit Posted February 11, 2003 Share Posted February 11, 2003 Books by Dr. Debra Ann Booton, Michael A Cucchiara and Dr. Walt Brown... and about twenty specialists from MST. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mandalorian54 Posted February 11, 2003 Share Posted February 11, 2003 Books by Dr. Debra Ann Booton, Michael A Cucchiara and Dr. Walt Brown... and about twenty specialists from MST. does this refere to my post? mabee you should have quoted who you were refering to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinWalker Posted February 11, 2003 Share Posted February 11, 2003 Originally posted by Mandolorian54 Um... guys, I don't know where youve been all these years but Carbon dating was tested. They took a bunch of rocks that they knew were 128 years old, and tested carbon dating on them, carbon dating said that some of those rocks were 32 million years old and others were 100,000 years old. but they were all 128 years old. how is a system that says a 128 year old rock is millions of years old accurate? You can't do radiocarbon dating on rocks. They don't have organic carbon isotopes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinWalker Posted February 11, 2003 Share Posted February 11, 2003 Originally posted by Kickwhit Books by Dr. Debra Ann Booton, Michael A Cucchiara and Dr. Walt Brown... and about twenty specialists from MST. Titles will be helpful, since Google and Amazon searches returned zilch for the first two. Google did find "Dr." Walt Brown at CreationScience.com. Creation cannot be considered science since it does not follow scientific method. Another hoax. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reborn Outcast Posted February 12, 2003 Share Posted February 12, 2003 Originally posted by Mandolorian54 Um... guys, I don't know where youve been all these years but Carbon dating was tested. They took a bunch of rocks that they knew were 128 years old, and tested carbon dating on them, carbon dating said that some of those rocks were 32 million years old and others were 100,000 years old. but they were all 128 years old. how is a system that says a 128 year old rock is millions of years old accurate? Hey I'm a Christian but sorry to burst your bubble but Carbon dating can only be used to date things up until around 60,000 years old. Then it can't be used because around 60,000 years is when the half-life of all parent isotopes is finished. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lime-Light Posted February 12, 2003 Share Posted February 12, 2003 Originally posted by Reborn Outcast Carbon dating can only be used to date things up until around 60,000 years old. Then it can't be used because around 60,000 years is when the half-life of all parent isotopes is finished. That's still older than creation, isnt it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reborn Outcast Posted February 12, 2003 Share Posted February 12, 2003 Originally posted by Lime-Light That's still older than creation, isnt it. I was proving Mandolorian wrong. Ok here we go. You have this set idea that ALL Christians believe that the world is 5,000 years old. They don't. I don't. AND ITS OK. God doesn't care whether you think he created the universe in 7 days or in 7 billion years. All He wants you to do is put your faith in Him. When you do that and you have been saved, things like that are irrelevant. Does it really make a difference in whether I get to Heaven or not because I believe that we live on a old earth as opposed to a young one? No. Thats what you need to get into your mind. Get out of this concept that ALL Christians believe in word for word, what some silly website is telling you that they do because its trying to prove Christianity wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pnut_Man Posted February 12, 2003 Share Posted February 12, 2003 *applaude* Good Listen to Outcast, he speaks the truth... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BCanr2d2 Posted February 12, 2003 Share Posted February 12, 2003 Reborn, Thankyou for that post, it is a rational approach to what is written in the Bible, and it's description of Creation via Genesis. Getting back to the original question from C'jais, we have never ruled out that God may have existed. He may have started the Big Bang, and let his science experiment take off for a few billion years (being God, he would have no sense of time - to him we may have but appeared in a twinkling of an eye). Your post, also gives credence to the Bible not being a literal interpreted text as well. This is where people have based their Creation theory upon. So, to us who believe wholly in evolution, it also gives us a reason not to believe the only text that all Creation theories must base themselves upon. You can believe that the Big Bang occured, and that Genesis is true, contrary to most people in here - THEY ARE NOT MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE. We are comparing a 2000 year old dogma, compared to a 100 year maximum properly researched theory. The internet is a hive of information, and misinformation as well.... For every one of your links I can find 7 of mine is how it can turn out to be. Do not put all of us Evolutionists in the same basket either, since in the beginning of this thread, Cjais actually stated that it is plausible that God exists, that he started it all, but not necessarily using the literal Genesis interpretation of Creation... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mandalorian54 Posted February 12, 2003 Share Posted February 12, 2003 I don't believe the bible means 7 literal days either seeings how day and night werent created until the fourth day. edit: if carbon dating can't be done on rocks than what are they supposed to test it on that can prove the world is millions of years old. And I hear from a reliable source that they in fact can. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reborn Outcast Posted February 12, 2003 Share Posted February 12, 2003 Originally posted by Mandolorian54 edit: if carbon dating can't be done on rocks than what are they supposed to test it on that can prove the world is millions of years old. And I hear from a reliable source that they in fact can. They have about 10 different dating methods... Carbon is only for more recent things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reborn Outcast Posted February 12, 2003 Share Posted February 12, 2003 In answer to the "day and night" question, here is a passage from the Bible... 2 Peter 3:8 - "But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShadowTemplar Posted February 13, 2003 Share Posted February 13, 2003 Originally posted by Reborn Outcast They have about 10 different dating methods... Carbon is only for more recent things. Carbon dating can only be done on organic material. See above. It's already been explained. Other methods include tektonic plate movements, other means of radioactive dating, ect. It's beutifully explained by Skinwalker above (or was that in another thread?). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShadowTemplar Posted February 13, 2003 Share Posted February 13, 2003 Originally posted by Lime-Light I'll go into the logic, or illogic, of "god". [...] Religion can easily be explained as a human condition. The lack of knowledge breeds myth. Aah, you've been to [no, I probably shouldn't post a link to that site, someone might drag my butt to the MODs, but if you want I can PM the url to you (but then you have to promise not to call in the MODs, because it can be veiwed as slightly offensive)]. Personally I don't like that site. I find it to be too zealous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShadowTemplar Posted February 13, 2003 Share Posted February 13, 2003 Originally posted by SkinWalker Not having any ability to observe creation, it is impossible for any one person to say, unequivicably that they know how it occured. And even if it could then we would still have no accurate evidence: Humans are bad witnesses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
griff38 Posted February 13, 2003 Share Posted February 13, 2003 True, but we can use the existing information to form a GENERAL idea of how the begining happened. But as Hawkins says time and again we can not and should not attempt to discern any event or condition prior to the begining. We have NO evidence that the laws of the universe existed prior to the start. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinWalker Posted February 13, 2003 Share Posted February 13, 2003 Originally posted by griff38 But as Hawkins says time and again we can not and should not attempt to discern any event or condition prior to the begining. We have NO evidence that the laws of the universe existed prior to the start. That, and it makes you brain hurt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mandalorian54 Posted February 13, 2003 Share Posted February 13, 2003 what do you mean carbon dating can only be done on organic matter, yah they tested oil and proved that the oil was from million year old animals. mabee they test it on organic fossils, like frozen crap!?! yes well, some scientists say evolution some say creation, both propose reasonable arguments, but evolution is so bogus it's just not possible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reborn Outcast Posted February 13, 2003 Share Posted February 13, 2003 Originally posted by Mandolorian54 what do you mean carbon dating can only be done on organic matter, yah they tested oil and proved that the oil was from million year old animals. Carbon dating can only be used to date things from 5,00 to ~70,000 years old. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.