Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

It's a plot by those evil Jew scientists to disrupt our pure Christian morals!

Life may be older than that.
http://neo.jpl.nasa.gov/neo/life.html

BTW, Kritish, very cool sig.

Originally posted by Mindship
Life may be older than that.
http://neo.jpl.nasa.gov/neo/life.html

BTW, Kritish, very cool sig.

I was noticing that too. I thought maybe you had a sock.

Originally posted by Mindship
Life may be older than that.
http://neo.jpl.nasa.gov/neo/life.html

BTW, Kritish, very cool sig.

Oops, I didn't know this sig was taken.

*the distant thumping of a bible grows increasingly louder*

Originally posted by Kritish
Oops, I didn't know this sig was taken.

It's a plot by those evil Jew scientists to disrupt our pure Christian morals!

A bit off topic, but I've always wondered how scientists are able to determine something as being "billions" of years old. Are there any substantiated and widely accepted methods used to gauge the age of something over several thousand years?

From what I've read on the subject, most dates given above several thousand years are just speculation and conjecture.

If anyone chooses to answer this question, please give answers that are unrelated to "carbon" or "radiometric" dating. Neither technique is widely accepted as accurately determining the age of something over several thousand years.

Originally posted by Normal Guy
Neither technique is widely accepted

Neither technique is religiously accepted.

Originally posted by Normal Guy
A bit off topic, but I've always wondered how scientists are able to determine something as being "billions" of years old. Are there any substantiated and widely accepted methods used to gauge the age of something over several thousand years?

From what I've read on the subject, most dates given above several thousand years are just speculation and conjecture.

If anyone chooses to answer this question, please give answers that are unrelated to "carbon" or "radiometric" dating. Neither technique is widely accepted as accurately determining the age of something over several thousand years.

Those methods are not excepted by the religious movement who believe life and the earth itself is only around 6 thousand years old even when there's proof that one could see, touch and taste if necessary that human's have been around for way over 6 thousand years.

The science community by and large accepts those methods, they're not 100% accurate since we're dealing with millions sometimes billions of years, but they work nonetheless.

Originally posted by Normal Guy

If anyone chooses to answer this question, please give answers that are unrelated to "carbon" or "radiometric" dating. Neither technique is widely accepted as accurately determining the age of something over several thousand years.

anyone, please give whobdamandog a scientific answer without any scientific evidence or formulas, which are accepted by the entire community, but not in the vatacan.

Originally posted by PVS
anyone, please give whobdamandog a scientific answer without any scientific evidence or formulas, which are accepted by the entire community, but not in the vatacan.

Jesus was a woman.

I see. Well, I've read many articles in science journals which have also questioned the accuracy of both techniques. Many of which were very reputable.

Back on topic. How on earth does one make a direct correlation between a mound of dirt, a few microbes, and outer space? Does anyone else besides me see any faulty logic with this assumption?

I don't mean to play the part of the sceptic, but it does seem as though many scientists have been grasping at straws trying to substantively prove evolutionary theory as of late.

Why don't you explain it for us Whob. Or better yet, why don't you bury your head and in 6000 years we'll see if it's fossilized.

Originally posted by PVS
*the distant thumping of a bible grows increasingly louder* Not all people that believe in the bible believe everything in it.

Originally posted by NineCoronas
Not all people that believe in the bible believe everything in it.

Then you wouldn't be a bible thumper.

Originally posted by Normal Guy
If anyone chooses to answer this question, please give answers that are unrelated to "carbon" or "radiometric" dating. Neither technique is widely accepted as accurately determining the age of something over several thousand years.

As far as I know, there are no other methods. So seems to me, to request that one "give answers that are unrelated to 'carbon' or 'radiometric' dating," is kind of like asking, "Let's talk about God's plan for humanity, but please give answers that are unrelated to the Bible."

In any event: any single radiometric method, by itself, might be questionable. As such, scientists will often use several independent radiometric dating methods to minimize error. This multiple approach has shown high correlation and is widely accepted.

Is it perfect? Heck, what is? Like Science itself, it is the best "as if" we currently have.

Oldest known signs of life are 3,8 billion years old. This was published years ago...

Originally posted by Normal Guy
I see. Well, I've read many articles in science journals which have also questioned the accuracy of both techniques. Many of which were very reputable.

Back on topic. How on earth does one make a direct correlation between a mound of dirt, a few microbes, and outer space? Does anyone else besides me see any faulty logic with this assumption?

I don't mean to play the part of the sceptic, but it does seem as though many scientists have been grasping at straws trying to substantively prove evolutionary theory as of late.

Even though this is unrelated to what you asked, look into Creation; especially the revamped version of it going around called 'Intelligent Design', you'll see some solid straw grasping there. So given the choices before us, evolutionist aren't really grasping at straws.

Here's one argument from 'Intelligent Design' / anti-science people:

'The eye is so complex that God must have had a hand in creating it. ..'

Gee, that has to be it, there can't be any other logical reason. It's a wonder we ever advanced past the Dark Ages with people of this mindset around.

Originally posted by Mindship
As far as I know, there are no other methods.


My point exactly.

note: Someone missed the sarcasm in the original question posed.

Originally posted by Mindship
In any event: any single radiometric method, by itself, might be questionable. As such, scientists will often use several independent radiometric dating methods to minimize error. This multiple approach has shown high correlation and is widely accepted.

Is it perfect? Heck, what is? Like Science itself, it is the best "as if" we currently have.


So basically what you mean is..



Still, I do appreciate you putting it in more detailed wording.

Originally posted by PVS
*the distant thumping of a bible grows increasingly louder*

Not sure why, but when I read that, I pictured the scene from King Kong (either one) when the islanders where beating their drums and dancing around except Kong had the face of Jesus when he came bursting through the jungle canopy... Weird.

Originally posted by Normal Guy
From what I've read on the subject, most dates given above several thousand years are just speculation and conjecture.

So is everything in science. There is no such thing as scientific fact. Does that mean it doesn't work? No, it's still the best method we have for explaining natural phenomena. All it means is that you can never completely prove anything. Gravity exists everywhere we've looked, but how do we know that there isn't some point in the Universe, or some point in time, in which it doesn't/didn't?

You can't disprove something in science by saying, "Well, that's just conjecture", because if you're going to be anal about it, everything is that way.

Originally posted by Darth Revan
You can't disprove something in science by saying, "Well, that's just conjecture", because if you're going to be anal about it, everything is that way.

Sure you can. It says so in the Bible.

But, then again, it also says that you have to give your first born child to god...so that may not be a legitimate source.

Originally posted by Normal Guy
So basically what you mean is..



You missed the element of degree.

Intelligent Design, for example, is also speculation and conjecture. But unlike Science, it does not make successful predictions about the physical universe. It does not fit with the data as collected by Science, data which has proven far more reliable when applied to the world around us.

Originally posted by Mindship
You missed the element of degree.

No, he missed the element of enlightenment. But, what can we expect from Whob? Not only did the original 3 billion years occur, but neither did the last 2000.

Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
Sure you can. It says so in the Bible.

But, then again, it also says that you have to give your first born child to god...so that may not be a legitimate source.

Though I do agree with you, that's a slippery slop you play on. Because, anything in the bible can be taken many ways, it all about how one interprets it. I.E., what did God really mean when said 'give your first born'... I've debated with pig-headed religious types many times, the intrepret part is their easy access backdoor exit.

Originally posted by Robtard
Though I do agree with you, that's a slippery slop you play on. Because, anything in the bible can be taken many ways, it all about how one interprets it. I.E., what did God really mean when said 'give your first born'... I've debated with pig-headed religious types many times, the intrepret part is their easy access backdoor exit.

Some one has misunderstood the meaning of sarcasm. Unless that too needs the approval of baby Jesus?

Try debating a moron fother-son team in the parking lot outside your best friends chosen club. Then, you get to see people wriggle.

I've never seen two people wriggle so much, as I have two mormons presented with fact.

Logic was given to us by God, only to test our faith...


*runs away*

Originally posted by Great Vengeance
Logic was given to us by God, only to test our faith...


*runs away*

Logic is a personal belief, just like morals.

Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
Logic is a personal belief, just like morals.

Aye.

Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
Some one has misunderstood the meaning of sarcasm. Unless that too needs the approval of baby Jesus?

Try debating a moron fother-son team in the parking lot outside your best friends chosen club. Then, you get to see people wriggle.

I've never seen two people wriggle so much, as I have two mormons presented with fact.


Lol, Mormoms are a special breed onto themselves. I always invite them in and lets the questions fly. It's great fun.

Facts are a point of view.

Originally posted by Robtard
Not sure why, but when I read that, I pictured the scene from King Kong (either one) when the islanders where beating their drums and dancing around except Kong had the face of Jesus when he came bursting through the jungle canopy... Weird.

Really , I thought of Lord of the rings...

Except replacing Goblins with Christians and the Balrog with a giant Jesus.....

Originally posted by Great Vengeance
Facts are a point of view.



Did I not just say that?

When did facts become a point of view... ?
(Or am I missing something here?)

Originally posted by The Omega
When did facts become a point of view... ?
(Or am I missing something here?)

When the person intrepreting them does so to support their own perspective. Kinda like the glass is half full or half empty.