Evolution vs. Intelligent Design

500 on this thread. Celebrate!

I was too lazy to read the article but even if Carbon dating doesn't give the exact date, it is still an accepted science so therefore there is no way that it could be off by millions upon millions of years

Just Because wrote:I was too lazy to read the article but even if Carbon dating doesn't give the exact date, it is still an accepted science so therefore there is no way that it could be off by millions upon millions of years

ARE YOU FUCKING SERIOUS.
You didnt read the article, so you obviously cant comment anyway because the entire article was about how YES, CARBON DATING CAN AND MOST LIKELAY IS OFF BY MILLIONS UPON MILLIONS OF YEARS. IN FACT, THE ONE ARTICLE SHOWS HOW CARBON DATING ACTUALLY POINTS TO THE OPPOSITE, SUGGESTING THAT THE EARTH IS ACTUALLY VERY YOUNG.

FAIL. FAIL. FAIL. EPIC FAIL.

...it is still an accepted science so therefore there is no way...

What kind of stupid bullshit logic is that? If unicorns were an accepted science, would they be real? no. Carbon Dating is an innacurate, faulty system that is not an "accepted science" because not only does it lack accuracy but its an ongoing debate over whether Carbon Dating should be used at all given the fact its so innacurate! How the hell is that an accepted science?

Carbon Dating is by no means factual or accurate. I can pull up hundreds of articles and references. Just BEcause, do us a favor and dont speak out of your ass, know what your talking about before you say something really fucking stupid.

Trackaholic wrote:

Just Because wrote:I was too lazy to read the article but even if Carbon dating doesn't give the exact date, it is still an accepted science so therefore there is no way that it could be off by millions upon millions of years

ARE YOU FUCKING SERIOUS.
You didnt read the article, so you obviously cant comment anyway because the entire article was about how YES, CARBON DATING CAN AND MOST LIKELAY IS OFF BY MILLIONS UPON MILLIONS OF YEARS. IN FACT, THE ONE ARTICLE SHOWS HOW CARBON DATING ACTUALLY POINTS TO THE OPPOSITE, SUGGESTING THAT THE EARTH IS ACTUALLY VERY YOUNG.

FAIL. FAIL. FAIL. EPIC FAIL.

...it is still an accepted science so therefore there is no way...

What kind of stupid bullshit logic is that? If unicorns were an accepted science, would they be real? no. Carbon Dating is an innacurate, faulty system that is not an "accepted science" because not only does it lack accuracy but its an ongoing debate over whether Carbon Dating should be used at all given the fact its so innacurate! How the hell is that an accepted science?

Carbon Dating is by no means factual or accurate. I can pull up hundreds of articles and references. Just BEcause, do us a favor and dont speak out of your ass, know what your talking about before you say something really fucking stupid.

I didn't read the article..give me a break. Tracko, look are where your sources are coming from: People put twists on info based on their own personal agenda. Just look at Fox News: They "stretch" the truth all the time.

SourWorms wrote:To the big quote up there:

That article cannot be called credible. It says the Earth is only 50,000 years old. Are you serious? There is no possible way that the earth is that young. My mom was a geologist for many years and personally studied fossils that were millions of years old. Are you going to tell me that everything she studied is wrong?

YES, YES, YES, YES, and YES.

Maybe you heard this example before, its very popular amongst christians who are into apologetics. Its a true story, however, I forgot a lot of the specifics, so I will tell it in story format:

A man is in a musuem where a tour guide is giving a speech about how the fossil on display is some millions of years old.
The man promptly raises his hand.
"Yes, do you have a question? the tour guide asks
"Yes," the man says, "How do you know that that fossil is a hundred million years old?"
The tour guide smiles and says "Good question! You see, in order to determine how old the fossil is, scientists find the age of the rock layer that is surrounding the fossil. THe age of that rock layer is the same age as the fossil!"
"Ok," says the man, "But how do you know how old the rock layer is?"
The tour guide replies:


"Oh! Thats easy, we just find out the age of the fossils inside the rock layer! The age of the fossils is the same age of the fossils."

....

Do you know what that is sourworms? Circular reasoning. You DO NOT KNOW whether or not earth is 50,000 years old, 100 billion years old, or fucking 20,000 years old! Not only do geologists like your mother rely on the carbon dating that IS FAULTY AND INNACURATE, they use circular reasoning to classify the ages of the sedimentary layers and fossils.

The truth is, for all you know sourworms, the earth could VERY POSSIBLY BE 50,000 years old.

FK wrote:

SourWorms wrote:

FK wrote:

AudienceOfOne wrote:

FK wrote:

mae2937 wrote:
except for the fact that you are telling them about the gospel which if you accept it will give you eternal life in heaven

Yeah. (insert Bible quote that refers to that but I can't remember the exact words here)

somethig along the lines of: What is the point of gaining the whole world and then losing your soul?

It's like "those who are hungry will be fed."

In heaven, but what does that do for those kids who are dying terrible deaths on earth

A life on earth is temporary, a life in heaven is forever.

How do you know what heaven is like or that it even exists, no one can come back from the dead and tell us all.....oh nevermind, i forgot, god will tell you what it's like and that it's real right?

Just Because wrote:

Trackaholic wrote:

Just Because wrote:I was too lazy to read the article but even if Carbon dating doesn't give the exact date, it is still an accepted science so therefore there is no way that it could be off by millions upon millions of years

ARE YOU FUCKING SERIOUS.
You didnt read the article, so you obviously cant comment anyway because the entire article was about how YES, CARBON DATING CAN AND MOST LIKELAY IS OFF BY MILLIONS UPON MILLIONS OF YEARS. IN FACT, THE ONE ARTICLE SHOWS HOW CARBON DATING ACTUALLY POINTS TO THE OPPOSITE, SUGGESTING THAT THE EARTH IS ACTUALLY VERY YOUNG.

FAIL. FAIL. FAIL. EPIC FAIL.

...it is still an accepted science so therefore there is no way...

What kind of stupid bullshit logic is that? If unicorns were an accepted science, would they be real? no. Carbon Dating is an innacurate, faulty system that is not an "accepted science" because not only does it lack accuracy but its an ongoing debate over whether Carbon Dating should be used at all given the fact its so innacurate! How the hell is that an accepted science?

Carbon Dating is by no means factual or accurate. I can pull up hundreds of articles and references. Just BEcause, do us a favor and dont speak out of your ass, know what your talking about before you say something really fucking stupid.

I didn't read the article..give me a break. Tracko, look are where your sources are coming from: People put twists on info based on their own personal agenda. Just look at Fox News: They "stretch" the truth all the time.

So your saying that if I pull up 100,000 articles on the internet about how carbon dating is faulty and innacurate, all of them are void, no matter what? Thats bullshit. Your saying my articles are false simply because humans have the capacity to lie? What kind of stupid logic is that? Correct me if I am wrong, but your scientists are humans as well, and they have the capacity to lie. So given your logic, I should declare all scientists who support carbon dating as being accurate null and void based on the premise that they have the capacity to lie and therefore MUST be lying?

TnF_T wrote:

FK wrote:

SourWorms wrote:

FK wrote:

AudienceOfOne wrote:

FK wrote:

mae2937 wrote:
except for the fact that you are telling them about the gospel which if you accept it will give you eternal life in heaven

Yeah. (insert Bible quote that refers to that but I can't remember the exact words here)

somethig along the lines of: What is the point of gaining the whole world and then losing your soul?

It's like "those who are hungry will be fed."

In heaven, but what does that do for those kids who are dying terrible deaths on earth

A life on earth is temporary, a life in heaven is forever.

How do you know what heaven is like, no one can come back from the dead and tell us all.....oh nevermind, i forgot, god will tell you

and if there is no heaven?? you wasted your entire life learning about make-believe ,
But there is absolutley noo way you could be wrong

sorry if that sounded harsh

TnF_T wrote:

FK wrote:

SourWorms wrote:

FK wrote:

AudienceOfOne wrote:

FK wrote:

mae2937 wrote:
except for the fact that you are telling them about the gospel which if you accept it will give you eternal life in heaven

Yeah. (insert Bible quote that refers to that but I can't remember the exact words here)

somethig along the lines of: What is the point of gaining the whole world and then losing your soul?

It's like "those who are hungry will be fed."

In heaven, but what does that do for those kids who are dying terrible deaths on earth

A life on earth is temporary, a life in heaven is forever.

How do you know what heaven is like or that it even exists, no one can come back from the dead and tell us all.....oh nevermind, i forgot, god will tell you what it's like and that it's real right?

TnF_t, I am curious, what kind of christians do you run into. Your pre-suppositions about what my answers will be to your questions are always way off and sound like they would come from some kinda evangilistic novus orda pansy.

I don't know what heaven is like, who does? You could look in the bible and jesus talks about it a great deal. But still, its impossible to know exactly what heaven is like. Based on what the church teaches and what jesus said in the bible, all we can know is that it is a place that is completely devoid of sin and suffering or strife or grief of any kind.

And what do you mean, god will tell me? are you talking about what jesus said in the bible, or do you think all christians are under the belief that god talks to them? cause your wrong. God has never spoken to me, I have never sensed god, I have never felt god in any way. But I still believe he is there, thats what faith is.

Trackaholic wrote:

Just Because wrote:

Trackaholic wrote:

Just Because wrote:I was too lazy to read the article but even if Carbon dating doesn't give the exact date, it is still an accepted science so therefore there is no way that it could be off by millions upon millions of years

ARE YOU FUCKING SERIOUS.
You didnt read the article, so you obviously cant comment anyway because the entire article was about how YES, CARBON DATING CAN AND MOST LIKELAY IS OFF BY MILLIONS UPON MILLIONS OF YEARS. IN FACT, THE ONE ARTICLE SHOWS HOW CARBON DATING ACTUALLY POINTS TO THE OPPOSITE, SUGGESTING THAT THE EARTH IS ACTUALLY VERY YOUNG.

FAIL. FAIL. FAIL. EPIC FAIL.

...it is still an accepted science so therefore there is no way...

What kind of stupid bullshit logic is that? If unicorns were an accepted science, would they be real? no. Carbon Dating is an innacurate, faulty system that is not an "accepted science" because not only does it lack accuracy but its an ongoing debate over whether Carbon Dating should be used at all given the fact its so innacurate! How the hell is that an accepted science?

Carbon Dating is by no means factual or accurate. I can pull up hundreds of articles and references. Just BEcause, do us a favor and dont speak out of your ass, know what your talking about before you say something really fucking stupid.

I didn't read the article..give me a break. Tracko, look are where your sources are coming from: People put twists on info based on their own personal agenda. Just look at Fox News: They "stretch" the truth all the time.

So your saying that if I pull up 100,000 articles on the internet about how carbon dating is faulty and innacurate, all of them are void, no matter what? Thats bullshit. Your saying my articles are false simply because humans have the capacity to lie? What kind of stupid logic is that? Correct me if I am wrong, but your scientists are humans as well, and they have the capacity to lie. So given your logic, I should declare all scientists who support carbon dating as being accurate null and void based on the premise that they have the capacity to lie and therefore MUST be lying?

You are the one with bad logic. I could pull up the same number of articles that prove my point.

Pinthin wrote:

TnF_T wrote:

FK wrote:

SourWorms wrote:

FK wrote:

AudienceOfOne wrote:

FK wrote:

mae2937 wrote:
except for the fact that you are telling them about the gospel which if you accept it will give you eternal life in heaven

Yeah. (insert Bible quote that refers to that but I can't remember the exact words here)

somethig along the lines of: What is the point of gaining the whole world and then losing your soul?

It's like "those who are hungry will be fed."

In heaven, but what does that do for those kids who are dying terrible deaths on earth

A life on earth is temporary, a life in heaven is forever.

How do you know what heaven is like, no one can come back from the dead and tell us all.....oh nevermind, i forgot, god will tell you

and if there is no heaven?? you wasted your entire life learning about make-believe ,
But there is absolutley noo way you could be wrong

sorry if that sounded harsh

If there is no heaven, then there is no hell! If I die and there is no god, no hell, no heaven, no angels....well, whats so bad about that? I will simply die, and my life will be over. end of story. How can I regret there not being a heaven if I am dead?

I will tell you one thing though, if I die a sinner who denies the existance of heaven and hell, and I turn out to be wrong and I go to hell...I am going to be in suffering and regret for ALL eternity.

Seems to me the odds are better on my side pinthin, I have a lot less at stake than you do.

Just Because wrote:

Trackaholic wrote:

Just Because wrote:

Trackaholic wrote:

Just Because wrote:I was too lazy to read the article but even if Carbon dating doesn't give the exact date, it is still an accepted science so therefore there is no way that it could be off by millions upon millions of years

ARE YOU FUCKING SERIOUS.
You didnt read the article, so you obviously cant comment anyway because the entire article was about how YES, CARBON DATING CAN AND MOST LIKELAY IS OFF BY MILLIONS UPON MILLIONS OF YEARS. IN FACT, THE ONE ARTICLE SHOWS HOW CARBON DATING ACTUALLY POINTS TO THE OPPOSITE, SUGGESTING THAT THE EARTH IS ACTUALLY VERY YOUNG.

FAIL. FAIL. FAIL. EPIC FAIL.

...it is still an accepted science so therefore there is no way...

What kind of stupid bullshit logic is that? If unicorns were an accepted science, would they be real? no. Carbon Dating is an innacurate, faulty system that is not an "accepted science" because not only does it lack accuracy but its an ongoing debate over whether Carbon Dating should be used at all given the fact its so innacurate! How the hell is that an accepted science?

Carbon Dating is by no means factual or accurate. I can pull up hundreds of articles and references. Just BEcause, do us a favor and dont speak out of your ass, know what your talking about before you say something really fucking stupid.

I didn't read the article..give me a break. Tracko, look are where your sources are coming from: People put twists on info based on their own personal agenda. Just look at Fox News: They "stretch" the truth all the time.

So your saying that if I pull up 100,000 articles on the internet about how carbon dating is faulty and innacurate, all of them are void, no matter what? Thats bullshit. Your saying my articles are false simply because humans have the capacity to lie? What kind of stupid logic is that? Correct me if I am wrong, but your scientists are humans as well, and they have the capacity to lie. So given your logic, I should declare all scientists who support carbon dating as being accurate null and void based on the premise that they have the capacity to lie and therefore MUST be lying?

You are the one with bad logic. I could pull up the same number of articles that prove my point.

For every article you pull up, I can find one that explains why your article is either a theory not proven/ a blatant lie/or a "stretch-of-the-truth.

try me, just because.

I haven't really met any diehard christians personally, i am just responding to miler about heaven. But in my experience, everyone talks about heaven as some amazing place that they will one day go to. But how do they really know? You can't come back from the dead and tell people about heaven's attributes and how "out of this earth" it is. I know, I know, it's their beliefs and such and i shouldn't question other people's beliefs, but it just bothers me for some reason. I am just being sarcastic now in this thread in terms of rsponses because this thread is quite farfetched and out of control because it will never get settled. Every single one of my responses have not really been serious.

Trackaholic wrote:

Pinthin wrote:

TnF_T wrote:

FK wrote:

SourWorms wrote:

FK wrote:

AudienceOfOne wrote:

FK wrote:

mae2937 wrote:
except for the fact that you are telling them about the gospel which if you accept it will give you eternal life in heaven

Yeah. (insert Bible quote that refers to that but I can't remember the exact words here)

somethig along the lines of: What is the point of gaining the whole world and then losing your soul?

It's like "those who are hungry will be fed."

In heaven, but what does that do for those kids who are dying terrible deaths on earth

A life on earth is temporary, a life in heaven is forever.

How do you know what heaven is like, no one can come back from the dead and tell us all.....oh nevermind, i forgot, god will tell you

and if there is no heaven?? you wasted your entire life learning about make-believe ,
But there is absolutley noo way you could be wrong

sorry if that sounded harsh

If there is no heaven, then there is no hell! If I die and there is no god, no hell, no heaven, no angels....well, whats so bad about that? I will simply die, and my life will be over. end of story. How can I regret there not being a heaven if I am dead?

I will tell you one thing though, if I die a sinner who denies the existance of heaven and hell, and I turn out to be wrong and I go to hell...I am going to be in suffering and regret for ALL eternity.

Seems to me the odds are better on my side pinthin, I have a lot less at stake than you do.

I'm not too worried
besides who knows that I wont be reincarnated? I wont become a part of jiva and have another earth life?

http://www.angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs/carbondating.html

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2676

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1312877/Carbon-dating-'might-be-wrong-by-10,000-years'.html

http://www.varchive.org/ce/c14.htm

http://www.foolishfaith.com/book_chap3_radio.asp
quote from above link:
To illustrate, suppose there is a burning candle sitting on the table. How long has that candle been burning? This can be calculated if the candle’s burn rate and original length is known. However, if the original length is not known, or if it cannot be verified that the burning rate has been constant, it is impossible to tell for sure how long the candle was burning. A similar problem occurs with radiometric dating of rocks. Since the initial physical state of the rock is unknowable, the age can only be estimated according to certain assumptions.

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c007.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD011.html
the above link explains why carbon dating is slightly accurate for 50,000 years, beyond that it is useless.

http://technorati.com/videos/youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DPgx9IqBIWMM

Above link is a video

http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/feb/08020507.html

http://www.shroudofturin4journalists.com/Details/clues.htm

TnF_T wrote:I haven't really met any diehard christians personally, i am just responding to miler about heaven. But in my experience, everyone talks about heaven as some amazing place that they will one day go to. But how do they really know? You can't come back from the dead and tell people about heaven's attributes and how "out of this earth" it is. I know, I know, it's their beliefs and such and i shouldn't question other people's beliefs, but it just bothers me for some reason. I am just being sarcastic now in this thread in terms of rsponses because this thread is quite farfetched and out of control because it will never get settled. Every single one of my responses have not really been serious.

yeah I guess I believe in science too much, to actually believe its possible your "soul" goes to a cloudy place when you die..with a man and pearly gate. haha yeah.

I think this should just stop, its making all hate each other.

TnF_T wrote:I haven't really met any diehard christians personally, i am just responding to miler about heaven. But in my experience, everyone talks about heaven as some amazing place that they will one day go to. But how do they really know? You can't come back from the dead and tell people about heaven's attributes and how "out of this earth" it is. I know, I know, it's their beliefs and such and i shouldn't question other people's beliefs, but it just bothers me for some reason. I am just being sarcastic now in this thread in terms of rsponses because this thread is quite farfetched and out of control because it will never get settled. Every single one of my responses have not really been serious.

Seeing as those who believe in the concepts of a christian heaven also believe in jesus, we know what heaven is like because of what jesus said.

And if you say "well what if jesus was lying"

well then you might aswell just skip to the point that you think christian religon is wrong and save us alot of time.

but wait, we already know that.

Trackaholic wrote:

Just Because wrote:

Trackaholic wrote:

Just Because wrote:

Trackaholic wrote:

Just Because wrote:I was too lazy to read the article but even if Carbon dating doesn't give the exact date, it is still an accepted science so therefore there is no way that it could be off by millions upon millions of years

ARE YOU FUCKING SERIOUS.
You didnt read the article, so you obviously cant comment anyway because the entire article was about how YES, CARBON DATING CAN AND MOST LIKELAY IS OFF BY MILLIONS UPON MILLIONS OF YEARS. IN FACT, THE ONE ARTICLE SHOWS HOW CARBON DATING ACTUALLY POINTS TO THE OPPOSITE, SUGGESTING THAT THE EARTH IS ACTUALLY VERY YOUNG.

FAIL. FAIL. FAIL. EPIC FAIL.

...it is still an accepted science so therefore there is no way...

What kind of stupid bullshit logic is that? If unicorns were an accepted science, would they be real? no. Carbon Dating is an innacurate, faulty system that is not an "accepted science" because not only does it lack accuracy but its an ongoing debate over whether Carbon Dating should be used at all given the fact its so innacurate! How the hell is that an accepted science?

Carbon Dating is by no means factual or accurate. I can pull up hundreds of articles and references. Just BEcause, do us a favor and dont speak out of your ass, know what your talking about before you say something really fucking stupid.

I didn't read the article..give me a break. Tracko, look are where your sources are coming from: People put twists on info based on their own personal agenda. Just look at Fox News: They "stretch" the truth all the time.

So your saying that if I pull up 100,000 articles on the internet about how carbon dating is faulty and innacurate, all of them are void, no matter what? Thats bullshit. Your saying my articles are false simply because humans have the capacity to lie? What kind of stupid logic is that? Correct me if I am wrong, but your scientists are humans as well, and they have the capacity to lie. So given your logic, I should declare all scientists who support carbon dating as being accurate null and void based on the premise that they have the capacity to lie and therefore MUST be lying?

You are the one with bad logic. I could pull up the same number of articles that prove my point.

For every article you pull up, I can find one that explains why your article is either a theory not proven/ a blatant lie/or a "stretch-of-the-truth.

try me, just because.

http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/benton.html
I didn't feel like looking past page one. There are problems with Carbon Dating but I am more inclined to believe it over some assumption that the world was created 10,000 years ago.

Trackaholic wrote:http://www.angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs/carbondating.html

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2676

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1312877/Carbon-dating-'might-be-wrong-by-10,000-years'.html

http://www.varchive.org/ce/c14.htm

http://www.foolishfaith.com/book_chap3_radio.asp
quote from above link:
To illustrate, suppose there is a burning candle sitting on the table. How long has that candle been burning? This can be calculated if the candle’s burn rate and original length is known. However, if the original length is not known, or if it cannot be verified that the burning rate has been constant, it is impossible to tell for sure how long the candle was burning. A similar problem occurs with radiometric dating of rocks. Since the initial physical state of the rock is unknowable, the age can only be estimated according to certain assumptions.

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c007.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD011.html
the above link explains why carbon dating is slightly accurate for 50,000 years, beyond that it is useless.

http://technorati.com/videos/youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DPgx9IqBIWMM

Above link is a video

http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/feb/08020507.html

http://www.shroudofturin4journalists.com/Details/clues.htm

Just a flip threw a few of them but it is not said that CD is completely wrong, just that it COULD be inaccurate

Pinthin wrote:

TnF_T wrote:I haven't really met any diehard christians personally, i am just responding to miler about heaven. But in my experience, everyone talks about heaven as some amazing place that they will one day go to. But how do they really know? You can't come back from the dead and tell people about heaven's attributes and how "out of this earth" it is. I know, I know, it's their beliefs and such and i shouldn't question other people's beliefs, but it just bothers me for some reason. I am just being sarcastic now in this thread in terms of rsponses because this thread is quite farfetched and out of control because it will never get settled. Every single one of my responses have not really been serious.

yeah I guess I believe in science too much, to actually believe its possible your "soul" goes to a cloudy place when you die..with a man and pearly gate. haha yeah.

I think this should just stop, its making all hate each other.

Pinthin science does not disprove god, science and the catholic religon coexist in harmony, they do not conflict with each other. If you think christians dont "believe" in science, you are wrong.

And I dont hate any of you. I love debating, even though I start swearing at people on occasion, its not because I hate the person, its because I am frustrated by how the fail again and again to understand what I am trying to say and it frustrates me. My points have been botched up several times already simply because a person must have skimmed what I said instead of readin the whole thing.

You would have to be immature to take this debate personally.

Trackaholic wrote:

TnF_T wrote:

FK wrote:

SourWorms wrote:

FK wrote:

AudienceOfOne wrote:

FK wrote:

mae2937 wrote:
except for the fact that you are telling them about the gospel which if you accept it will give you eternal life in heaven

Yeah. (insert Bible quote that refers to that but I can't remember the exact words here)

somethig along the lines of: What is the point of gaining the whole world and then losing your soul?

It's like "those who are hungry will be fed."

In heaven, but what does that do for those kids who are dying terrible deaths on earth

A life on earth is temporary, a life in heaven is forever.

How do you know what heaven is like or that it even exists, no one can come back from the dead and tell us all.....oh nevermind, i forgot, god will tell you what it's like and that it's real right?

TnF_t, I am curious, what kind of christians do you run into. Your pre-suppositions about what my answers will be to your questions are always way off and sound like they would come from some kinda evangilistic novus orda pansy.

I don't know what heaven is like, who does? You could look in the bible and jesus talks about it a great deal. But still, its impossible to know exactly what heaven is like. Based on what the church teaches and what jesus said in the bible, all we can know is that it is a place that is completely devoid of sin and suffering or strife or grief of any kind.

And what do you mean, god will tell me? are you talking about what jesus said in the bible, or do you think all christians are under the belief that god talks to them? cause your wrong. God has never spoken to me, I have never sensed god, I have never felt god in any way. But I still believe he is there, thats what faith is.

yea all we know for sure about heaven is that there is no pain or tears, and that God is there.

Just Because wrote:

Trackaholic wrote:http://www.angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs/carbondating.html

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2676

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1312877/Carbon-dating-'might-be-wrong-by-10,000-years'.html

http://www.varchive.org/ce/c14.htm

http://www.foolishfaith.com/book_chap3_radio.asp
quote from above link:
To illustrate, suppose there is a burning candle sitting on the table. How long has that candle been burning? This can be calculated if the candle’s burn rate and original length is known. However, if the original length is not known, or if it cannot be verified that the burning rate has been constant, it is impossible to tell for sure how long the candle was burning. A similar problem occurs with radiometric dating of rocks. Since the initial physical state of the rock is unknowable, the age can only be estimated according to certain assumptions.

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c007.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD011.html
the above link explains why carbon dating is slightly accurate for 50,000 years, beyond that it is useless.

http://technorati.com/videos/youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DPgx9IqBIWMM

Above link is a video

http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/feb/08020507.html

http://www.shroudofturin4journalists.com/Details/clues.htm

Just a flip threw a few of them but it is not said that CD is completely wrong, just that it COULD be inaccurate

WRONG, one again EPIC fail on your part Just because, here we go, since your too lazy I went through them for you.

"This raises questions about the accuracy of carbon dating for very old objects.(fossils)"
-----


"But as the method was refined, it started to show rather regular anomalies. First, it was noticed that, when radiocarbon dated, wood grown in the 20th century appears more ancient than wood grown in the 19th century. Suess explained the phenomenon by the fact that the increased industrial use of fossil carbon in coal and in oil changed the ratio between the dead carbon C12 and the C14 (radiocarbon) in the atmosphere and therefore also in the biosphere. In centuries to come a body of a man or animal who lived and died in the 20th century would appear paradoxically of greater age since death than the body of a man or animal of the 19th century, and if the process of industrial use of fossil, therefore dead, carbon continues to increase, as it is expected will be the case, the paradox will continue into the forthcoming centuries."

----

"The radiocarbon dates diverge from the historical dates by several hundred years (often 500 to 700), and, interestingly, in the Egyptian samples more so than in samples from most other ancient civilizations. This led Libby to write in 1963: “The data [in the Table] are separated into two groups—Egyptian and non-Egyptian. This separation was made because the whole Egyptian chronology is interlocking and subject to possible systematic errors . . .” Also, “Egyptian historical dates beyond 4000 years ago may be somewhat too old, perhaps 5 centuries too old at 5000 years ago. . .” (Science, 140, 278)."

----

"Bursts of cosmic rays and of electrical discharges on an interplanetary scale would make organic-life surviving the catastrophes much richer in radiocarbon and therefore, when carbon dated, that organic matter would appear much closer to our time than actually true. But if the invasion of the terrestrial atmosphere by “dead” (non-radioactive) carbon from volcanic eruptions, from meteoric dust, from burning oil and coal and centuries-old forests, predominated the picture, then the changed balance of radioactive and of radio-inert carbon would make everything in the decades following the event appear much older."

------
"The accuracy of these dating methods depends “critically” on several assumptions.[69] To date a rock by radiometric means, one must first assume:


What the initial amount of the parent atoms was at the time that the rock formed.
That the original composition of the rock contained no daughter atoms.[70]
That neither parent nor daughter atoms have ever been added or removed from the rock.
That the decay rate of parent atom to daughter atom has always remained constant.


If these assumptions are correct, then the radiometric dates are correct. However, there is no way to independently test these assumptions. If they are wrong, the method could yield faulty dates that might be far too old."
-----


"When dating a rock, the geochronologist (scientist who performs the dating procedure) must first assume the rock’s age before it is dated. For example, if a scientist believes a piece of rock is 4.5 billion years old, he or she may then use the uranium-lead dating method because it has a half-life of about 4.5 billion years. This involves circular reasoning, as is clearly evident in the article on dating in the Encyclopedia Britannica: “Most geologists must rely on geochronologists for their results. In turn, the geochronologist relies on the geologist for relative ages.”

MORE CIRCULAR REASONING^^^^^
------

"No one knows for sure if any of the assumptions of radiometric dating are correct"...
-----

"Creationist scientists distrust the radiometric method of dating, reasoning that 90 percent of the methods that have been used to estimate the age of the earth give far younger ages than those of radiometric dating."

Dont take the above out of context, they are saying that 90% of alternative methods to radiometric dating give far younger ages for relics and such. So only 10% of alternative methods actually support radiometric dating.
-------
How the Carbon Clock Works
Carbon has unique properties that are essential for life on earth. Familiar to us as the black substance in charred wood, as diamonds, and the graphite in “lead” pencils, carbon comes in several forms, or isotopes. One rare form has atoms that are 14 times as heavy as hydrogen atoms: carbon-14, or 14C, or radiocarbon.

Carbon-14 is made when cosmic rays knock neutrons out of atomic nuclei in the upper atmosphere. These displaced neutrons, now moving fast, hit ordinary nitrogen (14N) at lower altitudes, converting it into 14C. Unlike common carbon (12C), 14C is unstable and slowly decays, changing it back to nitrogen and releasing energy. This instability makes it radioactive.

Ordinary carbon (12C)is found in the carbon dioxide (CO2) in the air, which is taken up by plants, which in turn are eaten by animals. So a bone, or a leaf or a tree, or even a piece of wooden furniture, contains carbon. When the 14C has been formed, like ordinary carbon (12C), it combines with oxygen to give carbon dioxide (14CO2), and so it also gets cycled through the cells of plants and animals.

We can take a sample of air, count how many 12C atoms there are for every 14C atom, and calculate the 14C/12C ratio. Because 14C is so well mixed up with 12C, we expect to find that this ratio is the same if we sample a leaf from a tree, or a part of your body.

In living things, although 14C atoms are constantly changing back to 14N, they are still exchanging carbon with their surroundings, so the mixture remains about the same as in the atmosphere. However, as soon as a plant or animal dies, the 14C atoms which decay are no longer replaced, so the amount of 14C in that once-living thing decreases as time goes on. In other words, the 14C/12C ratio gets smaller. So, we have a “clock” which starts ticking the moment something dies.

Obviously, this works only for things which were once living. It cannot be used to date volcanic rocks, for example.

The rate of decay of 14C is such that half of an amount will convert back to 14N in 5,730 years (plus or minus 40 years). This is the “half-life.” So, in two half-lives, or 11,460 years, only one-quarter of that in living organisms at present, then it has a theoretical age of 11,460 years. Anything over about 50,000 years old, should theoretically have no detectable 14C left. That is why radiocarbon dating cannot give millions of years. In fact, if a sample contains 14C, it is good evidence that it is not millions of years old.

However, things are not quite so simple. First, plants discriminate against carbon dioxide containing 14C. That is, they take up less than would be expected and so they test older than they really are. Furthermore, different types of plants discriminate differently. This also has to be corrected for.[2]

Second, the ratio of 14C/12C in the atmosphere has not been constant—for example, it was higher before the industrial era when the massive burning of fossil fuels released a lot of carbon dioxide that was depleted in 14C. This would make things which died at that time appear older in terms of carbon dating. Then there was a rise in 14CO2 with the advent of atmospheric testing of atomic bombs in the 1950s.[3] This would make things carbon-dated from that time appear younger than their true age.

Measurement of 14C in historically dated objects (e.g., seeds in the graves of historically dated tombs) enables the level of 14C in the atmosphere at that time to be estimated, and so partial calibration of the “clock” is possible. Accordingly, carbon dating carefully applied to items from historical times can be useful. However, even with such historical calibration, archaeologists do not regard 14C dates as absolute because of frequent anomalies. They rely more on dating methods that link into historical records.

Outside the range of recorded history, calibration of the 14C "clock is not possible.

-------

"The amount of cosmic rays penetrating the earth's atmosphere affects the amount of 14C produced and therefore dating the system. The amount of cosmic rays reaching the earth varies with the sun's activity, and with the earth's passage through magnetic clouds as the solar system travels around the Milky Way galaxy.
The strength of the earth's magnetic field affects the amount of cosmic rays entering the atmosphere. A stronger magnetic field deflects more cosmic rays away from the earth. Overall, the energy of the earth's magnetic field has been decreasing,[5] so more 14C is being produced now than in the past. This will make old things look older than they really are."


Just Because, carbon dating is completely useless, there are so many variables and factors, its about as trustworthy as a newspaper horoscope.

TnF_T wrote:I haven't really met any diehard christians personally, i am just responding to miler about heaven. But in my experience, everyone talks about heaven as some amazing place that they will one day go to. But how do they really know? You can't come back from the dead and tell people about heaven's attributes and how "out of this earth" it is. I know, I know, it's their beliefs and such and i shouldn't question other people's beliefs, but it just bothers me for some reason. I am just being sarcastic now in this thread in terms of rsponses because this thread is quite farfetched and out of control because it will never get settled. Every single one of my responses have not really been serious.

we really know because we trust God with everything, and we trust what He says. there's really nothing to it other than that.

Trackaholic wrote:

Pinthin wrote:

TnF_T wrote:I haven't really met any diehard christians personally, i am just responding to miler about heaven. But in my experience, everyone talks about heaven as some amazing place that they will one day go to. But how do they really know? You can't come back from the dead and tell people about heaven's attributes and how "out of this earth" it is. I know, I know, it's their beliefs and such and i shouldn't question other people's beliefs, but it just bothers me for some reason. I am just being sarcastic now in this thread in terms of rsponses because this thread is quite farfetched and out of control because it will never get settled. Every single one of my responses have not really been serious.

yeah I guess I believe in science too much, to actually believe its possible your "soul" goes to a cloudy place when you die..with a man and pearly gate. haha yeah.

I think this should just stop, its making all hate each other.

Pinthin science does not disprove god, science and the catholic religon coexist in harmony, they do not conflict with each other. If you think christians dont "believe" in science, you are wrong.

And I dont hate any of you. I love debating, even though I start swearing at people on occasion, its not because I hate the person, its because I am frustrated by how the fail again and again to understand what I am trying to say and it frustrates me. My points have been botched up several times already simply because a person must have skimmed what I said instead of readin the whole thing.

You would have to be immature to take this debate personally.

+1, and it's good to get people thinking.

Do we all at least agree that Jesus was a real person that walked on the earth?