I'm fully aware of the mechanics of radioisotopic dating. I didn't understand what he meant by this:
Originally posted by One Free Man
What's hilarious is when fellow creationists shun the inaccuracy of carbon-dating then use it to prove they found an artifact from the bible... IDIOTS. KEEP YOUR STORY STRAIGHT. 😠
Originally posted by Autokratway too long, didn't read. I know how C14 dating works, I'm not here to get into a debate.
"Fellow" Creationists?I really hope you mean Old Earth Creationism.
In fact since I know you will demand I explain:
Radioisotopic dating works like this.
Atoms [...] whatever.
The thing is, young earth creationists really have ALOT of rebuttals against carbon dating, and it's all well and good, until someone does this:
The group claims that carbon dating proves the relics are 4,800 years old, meaning they date to around the same time the ark was said to be afloat. Mt. Ararat has long been suspected as the final resting place of the craft by evangelicals and literalists hoping to validate biblical stories.
It's essentially defeating your argument with an attempt to validate it.
young earth creationists really have ALOT of rebuttals against carbon dating
Saying the same thing over and over doesn't translate to A LOT of rebuttals.
A LOT of rebuttals that fail is the same thing as no rebuttals at all.
(If the fundamental forces of the universe changed at some point then the curves of the various isotopes would have shifted in varying amounts. C14 would provide a different "incorrect" age than would Argon or Uranium. That these curves always yield consistent answers (within the margin of error) that coincide with both the sedimentary ages and the growth patterns of ancient coral patterns (which provide a contiguous record for many many many many many years) suggests very strongly that no fatal error has been found by graduates of Diploma Mills with a vendetta.)
And I'm just saying that they never had any argument at all.
So we're reaching the same place: Creationist phucktards are phucktards. Creationists that aren't phucktards are only phucktards when being phucktards.
(This is true even if you replace "creationist" with any word that is not "phucktard." When "creationist" equals "phucktard" the equation is undefined.)
I prefer to think that neither of us really knows what happened at the beginning of all time, nor has a valid way of dating the beginning of the universe, nor of knowing how it happened.
We're here, stuck in this god forsaken rock, traveling through space around a sun, etc, with no way off. Believing that you're slime descended from slime vs believing that you're a piece of art made in the image of the highest life form imaginable, that's your choice. Doesn't really matter in the long run.
Edit: Except you're going to hell and I'm not.
Also, ad hominem, you son of a *****.
Luckily, the way one blob of carbon combines its blobs of carbon doesn't make a great deal of difference about the actual mechanisms of the universe.
So I don't really care about what you believe (until you start contaminating other blobs of carbon, or make mine get blowd up because you insist on making fun of -BLEEEEP).
I was attempting to clarify RN's joke because you appeared not to understand it. As far as I can tell, he was referring to the actions and/or beliefs of human beings (blobs of carbon) and how in the long run, the universe doesn't care about them (I.E he is giving the bird to William James and Peirce... maybe.)