Religion

[Timber Loftis]

Carbon dating is debunked by increased carbon in the air. ROFL. Many Ha-ha's. No, I'm not laughing near you, I'm laughing AT you.

I bet the same Repugs that argue there is no impact from this carbon also came up with this absolutely STOOPID concept.

Even if this were plausible, look at the percentage change. Even if carbon dating is wrong by 2-3% or even 12-13%, there is still obvious proof debunking any notion that the Earth is 6000 or so years old. Lucy is over 20K years - period. You can have a margin of error created by this industrial explosion of carbon in the air of nearly 50% before you would even begin to debunk the age-date of Lucy. And, we've found things much older. With dinosaur bones, your margin of error for Carbon dating would need to be 99% before it placed the age of dinosaurs within the last 1 million years or so.

God, people - get a clue.

[Madriver]

Here's an interesting article...can any "creationists" refute the arguments against their science?

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?art...49809EC588EEDF

[img]smile.gif[/img]

[Madriver]

And another link to the controversy of the age of the Earth:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html

This site also details the different arguments for and against evolution, and talks about the different theories of evolution (there are more than one).

[img]smile.gif[/img]

[Madriver]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: Carbon dating is debunked by increased carbon in the air. ROFL. Many Ha-ha's. No, I'm not laughing near you, I'm laughing AT you. I bet the same Repugs that argue there is no impact from this carbon also came up with this absolutely STOOPID concept. Even if this were plausible, look at the percentage change. Even if carbon dating is wrong by 2-3% or even 12-13%, there is still obvious proof debunking any notion that the Earth is 6000 or so years old. Lucy is over 20K years - period. You can have a margin of error created by this industrial explosion of carbon in the air of nearly 50% before you would even begin to debunk the age-date of Lucy. And, we've found things much older. With dinosaur bones, your margin of error for Carbon dating would need to be 99% before it placed the age of dinosaurs within the last 1 million years or so. God, people - get a clue.

There are many different types of "age" dating besides carbon-14, ranging from radiometric to geological to luminecence. Carbon-14 has just been the preferred one (and most popular) for trying to date once living material, and there are other ones that can confirm the C-14 test.

[img]smile.gif[/img]

[Talthyr Malkaviel]

Umm, Madriver, I think Timber Loftis is agreeing with you.
Unless I'm just too tired and I read it completely the wrong way, he's saying that carbon dating would have to be grossly inaccurate to accomodate creationism thoughts.

EDIT: If you did get that and you were just supporting his claims, again, just ignore me. [img]tongue.gif[/img]

[ 12-04-2002, 12:13 PM: Message edited by: Talthyr Malkaviel ]

[Madriver]

Originally posted by Talthyr Malkaviel: Umm, Madriver, I think Timber Loftis is agreeing with you..

Yes.

Unless I'm just too tired and I read it completely the wrong way, he's saying that carbon dating would have to be grossly inaccurate to accomodate creationism thoughts.

Yes.

EDIT: If you did get that and you were just supporting his claims, again, just ignore me. [img]tongue.gif[/img]

Yes again. This is getting freaky, too much agreement on a message board...this must be a bizarro message board!!! [img]tongue.gif[/img]

[Talthyr Malkaviel]

Lies! I disagree with your whole last statement! Lies and slander!!
Better? [img]tongue.gif[/img]

[Djinn Raffo]

Originally posted by Cerek the Barbaric: DINOSAURS IN THE BIBLE Dinosaur-like creatures are mentioned in the Bible. The Bible uses ancient names like "behemoth" (beh-HEE-moth) and "tannin." Behemoth means kingly, gigantic beasts. Tannin is a term which includes dragon-like animals and the great sea creatures such as whales, giant squids, and marine reptiles like the plesiosaurs (PLEE-see-oh-sors) that may have become extinct (died out). The Bible's best description of a dinosaur-like animal is in Job chapter 40... Job 40:15-19(NIV) -"Look at the behemoth, which I made along with you and which feed on grass like an ox. What strength he has in his loins, what power in the muscles of his belly! His tail sways like a cedar; the sinews of his thighs are close-knit. His bones are tubes of bronze, his limbs like rods of iron. He ranks first among the works of God..." The book of Job is very old, written after the worldwide flood of Noah's time and probably about 2,000 years before Jesus was born. Here God describes a great king of the land animals like some of the biggest dinosaurs, the Diplodocus and Apatosaurus. It was a gigantic plant-eater with great muscles and very strong bones. The long Diplodocus had leg bones so strong that he could have held three others on his back. The behemoth were not afraid. They did not need to be; they were huge. Behemoth tails were so long and strong that God compared them to cedars--one of the largest and most spectacular trees of the ancient world. After all the behemoth had died out, many people forgot about them. Dinosaurs were extinct and the fossil skeletons that are in museums today did not begin to be put together until about 150 years ago. Today, some people have mistakenly guessed that the behemoth mentioned in the Bible might be an elephant or a hippopotamus. But those animals do not have tails like the thick, tall trunks of cedar trees!

But in that excerpt you quoted Cerek it does not mention the TRUNK of a cedar. It just says sways like a cedar. First of all were their cedars in that part of the world at that time? I don't know? Is that how it has been translated?

Secondly do the trunks of any tree sway? It was you that compared tails to tree trunks, not Job. I've never seen a tree trunk sway unless they are extremely young and small. Perhaps the tips of the trees sway yes.. but that is not very trunk like.. Elephants tails sway back and forth. Sorry but when i read that passage you quoted it screams Elephant to me.

Regardless both of our arguments on this are totally unfounded and we are both seeing what we want to see in that passage.

[ 12-04-2002, 01:19 PM: Message edited by: Djinn Raffo ]

[Cerek the Barbaric]

Djinn Raffo -

That entire passage was "clipped" from the Christian Answers website. Since the Biblical passage mentions cedar trees, I can only assume that there WERE cedar trees in that part of the world at that time.

As for the interpretation that the tail is the size of a cedar trunk, that is the interpretation decided upon by the researches at Christian Answers. That post contained none of my own personal interpretations, but I do agree with the interpretations presented there.

The existence of dinosaurs in the Bible is always a good argument FOR the atheist side....because (AFAIK) this is the only passage that even mentions them and the terminology is very generic (to say the least). It leaves a LOT open to interpretation. You and I interpret it in different ways. Nothing wrong with that.

I stated at the very beginning of this debate that I do not expect my interpretations, analysis, or personal testimony to count as "proof" to anybody other than myself. I will explain my beliefs and ideals to the best of my ability and let each person decide for themselves whether it gives them sufficient cause to consider them true or not. I will also ask probing questions of others just as I expect them to ask of me so that they examine their own belief systems as closely as I do mine. But when the debate is over, I expect all of us to be able to "shake hands" and remain friends, whether we agree on certain issues or not.

[Shaide]

Religion...
The religion kills more people than it save them.
Christian, Arabic, Judish... continuos strike between both when the three religions is the same... Judish, the first, the most old... Christian is an evolution of Judish... Arabic is an evolution of Christian...
The people must know it... I dont understand how the judish kill a lot of muslim in Palestian only for the religion, they are nazis.
I dont know how the muslim kill a lot of christian and judish only in the Name of Allah, they are assesins.
I dont know how the Christians kill a lot of judish and arabic in the past, they are inquisitors.
'Cause it's just one idea with different views............
kill the religion else the religion will kill us