Carbon dating...and religious nutcakes

[Beev]

As for religious nuts, whatever, they're not hurting anyone except their children I guess, and we can always hope their kids will come to their senses and learn to differentiate religion from science.

If the kids are smart they'll grow out of it, and if they aren't then they'll probably always believe. Either way nothing of value is lost.

 

[classy]

A persons belief in God or any religion is only one aspect of that person. It doesn't define whether a person is crazy or not. As for carbon dating it is fairly accurate, but clearly is not fool proof.

 

[ch33zw1z]

A persons belief in God or any religion is only one aspect of that person. It doesn't define whether a person is crazy or not.

Agree and disagree. A persons belief in God often DEFINES who they are, it's a lifestyle. It doesn't define if they're crazy or not, though, that much is true. When they believe it so intensely that any other explanation is just wrong no matter what, that just means they're slow in the head.

 

[Aikouka]

Yeah he claims it has "evidence" to support it which is why it is an "equal alternative theory."

How often does he use the words "irreducible complexity" when discussing Intelligent Design?

 

[William Gaatjes]

It's like Ptolemy's model for the solar system. As more detailed observations were made of planetary movements, his model became more and more complex in order to explain everything without "demoting" the earth from the center of the universe to just one of many planets.

It is even happening today with a by the roman catholic church supported model. The more new discoveries are made, the more exotic theories rise...

 

[DominionSeraph]

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

 

[Pray To Jesus]

im religioud n im smarter than 99% of u atheist so suck it

 

[AstroManLuca]

im religioud n im smarter than 99% of u atheist so suck it

umad?

 

[Pray To Jesus]

umad?

ggbtoutoogoodimaybmdnbutnoinomadokbroilughoutloud

 

[lupi]

So, what we have here is OP being found to be the one in error with no further post and another example that making comments about (most) race(s) is bad, but long live religious persecution in atland.

 

[AstroManLuca]

So, what we have here is OP being found to be the one in error with no further post and another example that making comments about (most) race(s) is bad, but long live religious persecution in atland.

umad?

 

[Kadarin]

I'm having a debate with a cousin of mine on Facebook about this. She thinks carbon dating is not an accurate way of determining the age of something that has been dead a long time and she's saying that some other noodle head took a living animal and tried to carbon date it as evidence of this.

Anyone else have any completely insane family members?

And yet she's willing to take the Bible as factual "truth" without any evidence whatsoever, right?

 

[CZroe]

Most believe that all forms of testing are still "measuring with your own yard-stick."

 

[Pray To Jesus]

umad?

uidiat?

 

[FeuerFrei]

So anyone that loves truth is insane? I can smell your fear. Your house of cards has no foundation.

 

[ch33zw1z]

So anyone that loves to believe they're right is insane? I can smell your fear. Your house of cards looks just like mine.

fixed for you.

 

[AstroManLuca]

So anyone that loves truth is insane? I can smell your fear. Your house of cards has no foundation.

How can anyone reject science and then turn around and try to use (pseudo)scientific methods to prove their own beliefs? It might not be insane but it is hypocritical.

I won't disparage people for believing in the Bible, but it's not a scientific document. Just as scientific papers do not address issues of morality. They are two completely separate realms and there's no reason to think they contradict each other.

Hell, if you want to believe the earth is 7,000 years old, be my guest. I'll think you're wrong, but as long as that belief is based on faith, who cares. It's just weird when someone tries to come up with a convoluted "scientific" explanation for such a belief while ignoring real science.

 

[Pray To Jesus]

How can anyone reject science and then turn around and try to use (pseudo)scientific methods to prove their own beliefs? It might not be insane but it is hypocritical.

I won't disparage people for believing in the Bible, but it's not a scientific document. Just as scientific papers do not address issues of morality. They are two completely separate realms and there's no reason to think they contradict each other.

Hell, if you want to believe the earth is 7,000 years old, be my guest. I'll think you're wrong, but as long as that belief is based on faith, who cares. It's just weird when someone tries to come up with a convoluted "scientific" explanation for such a belief while ignoring real science.

umad?

 

[MetalMat]

Anytime I deal with someone who thinks the earth is really 5000 years old I use the speed of light argument. They never have a straight answer for that

 

[AstroManLuca]

umad?

 

[AstroManLuca]

Anytime I deal with someone who thinks the earth is really 5000 years old I use the speed of light argument. They never have a straight answer for that

God created the light from distant galaxies and placed it near the Earth. There are no actual distant galaxies.

 

[Pray To Jesus]

 

[MetalMat]

God created the light from distant galaxies and placed it near the Earth. There are no actual distant galaxies.

And that's about the only thing they can say

 

[Scarpozzi]

I think you're off by a factor of about a thousand.

As for religious nuts, whatever, they're not hurting anyone except their children I guess, and we can always hope their kids will come to their senses and learn to differentiate religion from science.

What really confuses me are the ones who dismiss well-supported scientific theories that contradict the Bible, and then jump through all sorts of hoops to come up with new scientific theories that support the Bible. Of course the new theories are not well supported at all, but I just don't understand how someone can dismiss certain scientific findings but then try to use science to their benefit. It doesn't work both ways.

It's like Ptolemy's model for the solar system. As more detailed observations were made of planetary movements, his model became more and more complex in order to explain everything without "demoting" the earth from the center of the universe to just one of many planets.

You're correct. I meant billion....I just have trouble trying to fathom that figure. (meaning the mere 30 years I've lived seems like a very long time) The coolest thing about that theory is that it embraces the ooze and bacteria growth that all life supposedly came from.

On the other hand, if you think about the "chicken & egg" side of things...the religious nuts have a lot to lean on too. I think when it comes down to it...no one's been alive long enough to really know and it's easier to claim ignorance and point at a book that was written before scientific theory was invented.

 

[moshquerade]

i love having insane familiy members. it makes gatherings so much more interesting for me.

You have a point.

Also, EVERYONE has a least one insane family member, and it they don't... well... think about it...