Bible to be taught in school, in Texas.
08-20-2009, 12:05 PM
#271
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: San Jose, CA
Posts: 1,808
Car Info: 2015 WRX
Again, a poor understanding of the scientific method. The second that something is disproved once, it is then confirmed through peer review and cast aside as flawed. So if the scientific community found such a huge discrepancy with carbon dating, it would not be used at all.
Carbon dating isn't exact, but its inaccuracy doesn't manifest as mistaking something that's 16,000 years old as being 145 million years old. The older the object, the wider the range of age. So if you were to test something from the 14th century, your results would pin it down to being from 1305 to 1310 AD, a range of ten years. If you were to test something from 4000 BC, it would return a test result range of 4,000 BC to 3,500 BC, a range of 500 years. And if you were to test something from 65 million years ago, it would come back as between 65 and 64 million years old, a range of 1 million years. What you've described doesn't actually happen.
Carbon dating isn't exact, but its inaccuracy doesn't manifest as mistaking something that's 16,000 years old as being 145 million years old. The older the object, the wider the range of age. So if you were to test something from the 14th century, your results would pin it down to being from 1305 to 1310 AD, a range of ten years. If you were to test something from 4000 BC, it would return a test result range of 4,000 BC to 3,500 BC, a range of 500 years. And if you were to test something from 65 million years ago, it would come back as between 65 and 64 million years old, a range of 1 million years. What you've described doesn't actually happen.
08-20-2009, 12:10 PM
#272
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: 925+415
Posts: 1,347
Car Info: 05 CGM STi to be converted to RS
Sorry, I'm getting ready for school while reading and posting.
Just because something works one way doesn't mean it works another.
I will find the website where this group sent in an Allosaurus Rex bone and had it carbon dated without telling the lab it was a dinosaur bone.. the lab returned that with results of it being something like 16,000 years old. When we believed the Allosaurus to have lived about 145 million years ago.
that's what makes me skeptical of a lot of testing. Tons of testing happens that I have no clue what it is, so I don't form an opinion of trust/distrust on it.
but for example something like carbon dating, I call BS on. Not saying it doesn't work but I refuse to accept it to work all the time making its results skeptical.
Just because something works one way doesn't mean it works another.
I will find the website where this group sent in an Allosaurus Rex bone and had it carbon dated without telling the lab it was a dinosaur bone.. the lab returned that with results of it being something like 16,000 years old. When we believed the Allosaurus to have lived about 145 million years ago.
that's what makes me skeptical of a lot of testing. Tons of testing happens that I have no clue what it is, so I don't form an opinion of trust/distrust on it.
but for example something like carbon dating, I call BS on. Not saying it doesn't work but I refuse to accept it to work all the time making its results skeptical.
i've said it before, theories are their to be disproven, not proven...unlike ID which tries so hard to prove itself.
carbon dating and what not, they're all there because its the best we have. its accurate in some areas and not so accurate in other areas, that doesnt mean its putting out random numbers.
its actually shameful that creationists use similar carbon dating method and they stick to numbers that best fits their argument...as for plain science, there is no model that we try to stick to, every new information can support or not support the previous information.
08-20-2009, 12:16 PM
#273
VIP Member
iTrader: (4)
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Yokosuka, Japan
Posts: 3,632
Car Info: 2008 EVO X/1991 Nissan Skyline GT-R32
Neither side has it 100% right or wrong. The sad thing is that we dont have a true way to test either theory as God is real or we were created by the big bang.
One day we will die, and then maybe find out, or maybe it will be blank, or maybe we will become another being, or maybe, or maybe, or maybe.
As long as our imaginations can conjure up thoughts and we can find a sliver of proof, there will always be a different thought on where we came from, why we are here, and where we are going.
Its funny to me that no one has brought up that maybe Aliens created us, and dropped us off here to be a test. Who knows right?
One day we will die, and then maybe find out, or maybe it will be blank, or maybe we will become another being, or maybe, or maybe, or maybe.
As long as our imaginations can conjure up thoughts and we can find a sliver of proof, there will always be a different thought on where we came from, why we are here, and where we are going.
Its funny to me that no one has brought up that maybe Aliens created us, and dropped us off here to be a test. Who knows right?
08-20-2009, 12:25 PM
#274
VIP Member
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Santa Rosa
Posts: 5,588
Car Info: 2005 Unicorn
Neither side has it 100% right or wrong. The sad thing is that we dont have a true way to test either theory as God is real or we were created by the big bang.
One day we will die, and then maybe find out, or maybe it will be blank, or maybe we will become another being, or maybe, or maybe, or maybe.
As long as our imaginations can conjure up thoughts and we can find a sliver of proof, there will always be a different thought on where we came from, why we are here, and where we are going.
Its funny to me that no one has brought up that maybe Aliens created us, and dropped us off here to be a test. Who knows right?
One day we will die, and then maybe find out, or maybe it will be blank, or maybe we will become another being, or maybe, or maybe, or maybe.
As long as our imaginations can conjure up thoughts and we can find a sliver of proof, there will always be a different thought on where we came from, why we are here, and where we are going.
Its funny to me that no one has brought up that maybe Aliens created us, and dropped us off here to be a test. Who knows right?
08-20-2009, 12:29 PM
#275
It isn't about what feels right. The difference is the coping mechanisms and how people understand something.
I got hurt, god punished me.
I got hurt, I made a mistake.
I am happy, I got married.
I am happy, God blessed me with this beautiful woman.
I just like to use coping mechanisms with reality, not some punishment or karma from some other guy. But whatever makes you a more calm and stable person best fits.
I got hurt, god punished me.
I got hurt, I made a mistake.
I am happy, I got married.
I am happy, God blessed me with this beautiful woman.
I just like to use coping mechanisms with reality, not some punishment or karma from some other guy. But whatever makes you a more calm and stable person best fits.
08-20-2009, 12:39 PM
#276
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: San Leandro, CA
Posts: 3,856
Car Info: Forester XTi
Already done, please go back and read posts on LHC, and Hawkins theory. Still waiting on your acceptance of the fact you were wrong, or your proof evolution does not exist.
08-20-2009, 01:12 PM
#277
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: San Jose, CA
Posts: 1,808
Car Info: 2015 WRX
08-20-2009, 01:19 PM
#278
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: San Jose, CA
Posts: 1,808
Car Info: 2015 WRX
I hate it when theists or agnostics refer to acceptance of science as a "belief."
Science is based on evidence, religion is based on faith. One requires belief, the other demands proof.
Science is based on evidence, religion is based on faith. One requires belief, the other demands proof.
Last edited by saqwarrior; 08-20-2009 at 01:21 PM.
08-20-2009, 01:28 PM
#279
exactly. and like i said before there is no point in arguing with people about what feels right to them. some people need the facts/proof or attempts to get them, some people have faith and believe in a God. Everyone is different and requires different things to be convinced.
You can't have your cake and eat it too. Either you dismiss rational, scientific proof all together on Faith or you undermine yourself by trying to prove it. The very fact you are trying to PROVE something based on FAITH, invalidates that very notion of faith.
Pick one an stick to it please.
08-20-2009, 01:36 PM
#280
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: 925+415
Posts: 1,347
Car Info: 05 CGM STi to be converted to RS
I find this funny because if it is a matter of FAITH, why do you want to prove you are right? (using science, no less) Wouldn't that no longer require FAITH? It would just be fact.
You can't have your cake and eat it too. Either you dismiss rational, scientific proof all together on Faith or you undermine yourself by trying to prove it. The very fact you are trying to PROVE something based on FAITH, invalidates that very notion of faith.
Pick one an stick to it please.
You can't have your cake and eat it too. Either you dismiss rational, scientific proof all together on Faith or you undermine yourself by trying to prove it. The very fact you are trying to PROVE something based on FAITH, invalidates that very notion of faith.
Pick one an stick to it please.
08-20-2009, 01:41 PM
#281
I find this funny because if it is a matter of FAITH, why do you want to prove you are right? (using science, no less) Wouldn't that no longer require FAITH? It would just be fact.
You can't have your cake and eat it too. Either you dismiss rational, scientific proof all together on Faith or you undermine yourself by trying to prove it. The very fact you are trying to PROVE something based on FAITH, invalidates that very notion of faith.
Pick one an stick to it please.
You can't have your cake and eat it too. Either you dismiss rational, scientific proof all together on Faith or you undermine yourself by trying to prove it. The very fact you are trying to PROVE something based on FAITH, invalidates that very notion of faith.
Pick one an stick to it please.
08-20-2009, 03:43 PM
#282
VIP Member
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Santa Rosa
Posts: 5,588
Car Info: 2005 Unicorn
I find this funny because if it is a matter of FAITH, why do you want to prove you are right? (using science, no less) Wouldn't that no longer require FAITH? It would just be fact.
You can't have your cake and eat it too. Either you dismiss rational, scientific proof all together on Faith or you undermine yourself by trying to prove it. The very fact you are trying to PROVE something based on FAITH, invalidates that very notion of faith.
Pick one an stick to it please.
You can't have your cake and eat it too. Either you dismiss rational, scientific proof all together on Faith or you undermine yourself by trying to prove it. The very fact you are trying to PROVE something based on FAITH, invalidates that very notion of faith.
Pick one an stick to it please.
and i say belief because it's YOUR belief as to how this universe works. the term belief is relative to the person. belief for me is faith in a higher being, belief to you is science fact. i "believe" God is the truth. you "believe" science holds the answers or will attempt to find the answers.
just because i say belief does not mean i am referring to your "faith".
also show me how science has disproven God? it's not irrational to believe in God until you can disprove his existence.
08-20-2009, 03:54 PM
#283
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: 925+415
Posts: 1,347
Car Info: 05 CGM STi to be converted to RS
my goal is not to prove one wrong but explain why something doesn't work for me.
and i say belief because it's YOUR belief as to how this universe works. the term belief is relative to the person. belief for me is faith in a higher being, belief to you is science fact. i "believe" God is the truth. you "believe" science holds the answers or will attempt to find the answers.
just because i say belief does not mean i am referring to your "faith".
also show me how science has disproven God? it's not irrational to believe in God until you can disprove his existence.
and i say belief because it's YOUR belief as to how this universe works. the term belief is relative to the person. belief for me is faith in a higher being, belief to you is science fact. i "believe" God is the truth. you "believe" science holds the answers or will attempt to find the answers.
just because i say belief does not mean i am referring to your "faith".
also show me how science has disproven God? it's not irrational to believe in God until you can disprove his existence.
Last edited by Jin; 08-20-2009 at 04:03 PM.
08-20-2009, 03:56 PM
#284
Registered User
Join Date: May 2006
Location: I was up above it, now I'm down in it
Posts: 5,686
Car Info: New Government Motors SUV!
This bears repeating.
Can't we just let people believe what they believe as long as it doesn't harm anyone else?
My point was futile. It was like trying to tell the tree people not to eat monkey heads! -Lothar of the Hill People