• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Can the Sciences Legitimately Distinguish Between True and False Religious Beliefs?

NewGuyOnTheBlock

NewGuyOnTheBlock

Cult Survivor/Fundamentalist Pentecostal Apostate
Subduction Zone said:
The problem for those on your side is that there is no informed and honest creationists. It is more than easy to repeatedly confirm that claim. You for example are terribly ignorant about all of the sciences and do not seem to want to learn. The work that those who are educated write is so poorly done that it is easy to show that they are "lying for Jesus" To say the least.

I don't think that you are dishonest. You are merely afraid. Nor am I claiming that you are an idiot. You could learn if you wanted to. The sad thing is that your fear will probably keep you form learning.

Are you ready to learn? I am ready to help you to learn.
Click to expand...

I saw this AFTER I made the post above. Apologies.
 
Grandliseur

Grandliseur

Well-Known Member
NewGuyOnTheBlock said:
You do understand that Carbon 14 dating has its limittions; right? That if you attempt to date something much older than 50,000 years, you're going to come up with bad results? You do understand this; Right? That its really no surprise that you get the wrong measurement when you use the wrong tool for the job?
Click to expand...
If c14 is used to date something really old, all of its c14 will have been converted. The result is null. If in dinosaur tissue we find c14 present it tells you something which atheists reject.

I am quite finished talking to atheists on this site. So, even if you respond, I may not.
 
Polymath257

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
Grandliseur said:
If c14 is used to date something really old, all of its c14 will have been converted. The result is null. If in dinosaur tissue we find c14 present it tells you something which atheists reject.
Click to expand...

Yes, it tells us the sample was contaminated. That means the 'scientists' were not careful enough.

I am quite finished talking to atheists on this site. So, even if you respond, I may not.
Click to expand...

Don't like having your beliefs challenged?
 
Subduction Zone

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Grandliseur said:
If c14 is used to date something really old, all of its c14 will have been converted. The result is null. If in dinosaur tissue we find c14 present it tells you something which atheists reject.

I am quite finished talking to atheists on this site. So, even if you respond, I may not.
Click to expand...

You do not understand how C14 dating works so this error is understandable on your part. You forgot the possibility of contamination. The atmosphere is a source of C14, rainwater that has air in solution that carries it into the ground can be a possible source of contamination. That is not every important when relatively young samples are dated. But old samples have only a trace of C14. The least bit of contamination will give one a false young date.

If the dates were due to contamination they would be all over the place, if the dates were from the flood of Noah they would all have the same date. In case you forgot the dates from the creationists were all over the place, indicating that the C14 was from contamination.
 
Subduction Zone

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Polymath257 said:
Yes, it tells us the sample was contaminated. That means the 'scientists' were not careful enough.



Don't like having your beliefs challenged?
Click to expand...


And what is amazing is that the people that got those dates are not following the scientific method. When one gets unexpected results the correct action is to repeat the experiment. That means finding more samples and dating those. Though of course this time they should employ people that know what they are doing and not lie to the testing agency. The fact that they do not repeat their work indicates that even the creationists know that their dates were false.
 
Etritonakin

Etritonakin

Well-Known Member
Subduction Zone said:
It appears that you don't. You earlier said you had never heard of it. And I am discussing. Do you understand how this simple concept negates the flood myth?
Click to expand...
Understanding a principle and having heard the given name for a principle are very different.

Read my posts which were not addressed to you.
 
Subduction Zone

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Etritonakin said:
Understanding a principle and having heard the given name for a principle are very different.

Read my posts which were not addressed to you.
Click to expand...
The problem is if you understood the principle you would then understand how it alone refutes the flood myth. And if one believes that God cannot lie then the flood is refuted by the fact that all of the evidence tells us that there was no flood. That would mean that if there was a flood God lied by planting massive amounts of independent evidence that tells us that it never happened. If your version of God can lie then you can claim that there may have been a flood. Otherwise you are out of luck.

Now if you want to discuss why various observations refute the flood myth I would be happy to help you with that concept. Number one and most obvious is the fact that over five miles of water would leave some sort of mark.
 
Etritonakin

Etritonakin

Well-Known Member
Subduction Zone said:
The problem is if you understood the principle you would then understand how it alone refutes the flood myth. And if one believes that God cannot lie then the flood is refuted by the fact that all of the evidence tells us that there was no flood. That would mean that if there was a flood God lied by planting massive amounts of independent evidence that tells us that it never happened. If your version of God can lie then you can claim that there may have been a flood. Otherwise you are out of luck.

Now if you want to discuss why various observations refute the flood myth I would be happy to help you with that concept. Number one and most obvious is the fact that over five miles of water would leave some sort of mark.
Click to expand...
Nope. Already said I'm not interested.
 
Etritonakin

Etritonakin

Well-Known Member
Subduction Zone said:
Oh my, I won the debate with you. I am merely willing to help you to understand your errors so that you do not repeat your mistakes.
Click to expand...
I wasn't debating you -you just kept posting random information.
You seem to have this "me" in your head that isn't me -that thinks what you think it thinks -whereas I do not -and am not interested.
Have loads of fun with the me that isn't me, dude.
 
Subduction Zone

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Etritonakin said:
I wasn't debating you -you just kept posting random information.
You seem to have this "me" in your head that isn't me -that thinks what you think it thinks -whereas I do not -and am not interested.
Have loads of fun with the me that isn't me, dude.
Click to expand...
Wrong again. Just because you do not understand the posts does not make the information random. And I am only dealing with the "you" that you have presented on this forum. If that is not the real "you" that is not my fault.
 
Etritonakin

Etritonakin

Well-Known Member
Subduction Zone said:
Wrong again. Just because you do not understand the posts does not make the information random. And I am only dealing with the "you" that you have presented on this forum. If that is not the real "you" that is not my fault.
Click to expand...
Work it out amongst yourself.

Since it is your berfday, if you post one more time I will let you have the last word.
 
Last edited:
Grandliseur

Grandliseur

Well-Known Member
NewGuyOnTheBlock said:
Click to expand...
Enjoyed the video. I understand carbon dating, that until its usefulness plays out, because of the total decay of c14, it gives ranges to guide us. As your video also shows, certain conditions cause it to show too old ages. So, common sense should be taken, skepticism should be used in all things.

It would be nice if everyone just was totally honest about things, but there is a lot of dishonesty around.
There is also the assumption that c14 is a constant in our environment down through the ages, and speaking for things thousands of years ago, becomes an exercise in guesswork.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top