the earth

DarthDapor said:
Yeah definitly that second one!:D By the way, why is it wrong to assume. Also like to point out that there is freedom of speech in america, and I figure that this place is in america. So I hov a right to spell words the way I want, when I want, where I want, and you con't stop me!
Click to expand...

I would explain the assume thing, but it would only get me banned :)

Somehow I doubt the First Amendment has anything to do with intentionally mispelling your speech.

As I said before, it doesn't make what you say look cool, it just makes you look like a poster child for our public school system.
 
(BTW, misspelling words on purpose is not kewl or 1337)
Click to expand...

Do you even know what 1337 is? Argh. I just can't deal with non-1337ists... :p

These techniques are as good as we can get at this present time.
Click to expand...

And somehow that makes them right? I will never accept a dating technique until it is 100% accurate. So what if they are the only thing we have-does that mean we should accept false claims?

Without using these flawed dating techniques, how will we ever learn new ones?
Click to expand...

By researching and not accepting false results.

all the time I see stuff that says "billions of years ago", and they talk as if they are positive that they are right-EVEN when they use a flawed system

I've asked, but you've refused to answer a very important question: if you disagree with these dating methods, what do you suggest we do? Guess? Ignore dating whatsoever? Without using these flawed dating techniques, how will we ever learn new ones?
Click to expand...

Guessing wouldn't be much less accurate than the dating methods used today. Ignoring the *FLAWED* system that doesn't seem to work right seems pretty logical. I suggest that we find a system that works before we start calling off dates that we think are right
 
Off topic

Yeah definitly that second one! By the way, why is it wrong to assume. Also like to point out that there is freedom of speech in america, and I figure that this place is in america. So I hov a right to spell words the way I want, when I want, where I want, and you con't stop me!
Click to expand...

This is not true. Tek has never promised free speech on CGA. Technically, I could edit everything out and spell it properly, but given time constraints and my deficits in spelling....

Gen
 
Dark Virtue said:
YES!

How else would we learn? How else would we become more accurate?

Would you mind giving me a scientific alternative that somehow doesn't build upon errors and mistakes?
Click to expand...

So, scientists are using a method with a high level of scientific improbability, and religious folks are using a method with a high level of scientific improbability.

Would you mind explaining why some atheists so adamantly defend their belief in an old earth (billions of years old) when the foundation for their belief is no more solid than that of the religious?

(Hey, if you're going to hold all Christians accountable for the actions of any, I'm holding you accountable for the actions of all atheists, weak or strong. ;))

As far as a scientific method that doesn't build upon errors? Doesn't exist. Science was built upon a mountain of errors before we've gotten to the few truths we do know. Science is, by nature, trial and error.
 
ChickenSoup said:
Do you even know what 1337 is? Argh. I just can't deal with non-1337ists... :p

And somehow that makes them right? I will never accept a dating technique until it is 100% accurate. So what if they are the only thing we have-does that mean we should accept false claims?

By researching and not accepting false results.

all the time I see stuff that says "billions of years ago", and they talk as if they are positive that they are right-EVEN when they use a flawed system

Guessing wouldn't be much less accurate than the dating methods used today. Ignoring the *FLAWED* system that doesn't seem to work right seems pretty logical. I suggest that we find a system that works before we start calling off dates that we think are right
Click to expand...

My kung fu is better than yours :cool:

Judging by your post, you have NO idea how science works...or you are being intentionally stubborn.

Look at every other aspect of science and tell me that our current level of understanding wasn't based upon flawed theories? Where the heck do you think our space shuttles came from? They were built upon the back of as many mistakes as successes.

I'm sorry, but this is a horrible statement: "I will never accept a dating technique until it is 100% accurate. " How, pray tell, will you know when it's 100% accurate? There will ALWAYS be something better down the road, that's how science and technology works. Nothing, NOTHING is 100% accurate. Yet that doesn't stop you from using technology does it? How many surgical procedures are done every day? You think those are 100% guaranteed not to fail?
 
[toj.cc]WildBillKickoff said:
So, scientists are using a method with a high level of scientific improbability, and religious folks are using a method with a high level of scientific improbability.
Click to expand...

EH? Sorry, but your terminology is way off here.

A better way to term it would be thusly: Scientists are using a logical dating method that has a degree of error involved in it. Theists are using an illogical method of determining the age of the earth. Probabilities don't factor into your statement.

Note that there are various dating methods that you are lumping together. Some have a higher degree of error than others. Some are better suited at dating certain chemicals than others. They are different. They are all, however, based on science. That is, they depend on logic, reason, evidence and proof.

Theists use...what?

Would you mind explaining why some atheists so adamantly defend their belief in an old earth (billions of years old) when the foundation for their belief is no more solid than that of the religious?

(Hey, if you're going to hold all Christians accountable for the actions of any, I'm holding you accountable for the actions of all atheists, weak or strong. ;))
Click to expand...

Certainly...because atheists are using SCIENCE...factual evidence, which means that they actually have a foundation to build on, whereas the theists do not. Faith, remember?

As far as a scientific method that doesn't build upon errors? Doesn't exist. Science was built upon a mountain of errors before we've gotten to the few truths we do know. Science is, by nature, trial and error.
Click to expand...

Exactly! Now why is that a bad thing? If you can think of a better way, let's hear it.
 
A better way to term it would be thusly: Scientists are using a logical dating method that has a degree of error involved in it. Theists are using an illogical method of determining the age of the earth. Probabilities don't factor into your statement.
Click to expand...

That comment is hilarious. It is neither logical nor right.

Certainly...because atheists are using SCIENCE...factual evidence, which means that they actually have a foundation to build on, whereas the theists do not. Faith, remember?
Click to expand...

Contrary to popular belief evolultionists have a lot of faith too. Otherwise they couldn't believe an infinitely improbable theory.

IF the Big Bang happened, why did it go "bang?"

And where DID those atoms come from?

And where did its predecessors come from?

Etc. etc. etc.
 
ChickenSoup said:
That comment is hilarious. It is neither logical nor right.
Click to expand...

Yet you fail to explain why.

Go on, I'll wait.

Contrary to popular belief evolultionists have a lot of faith too. Otherwise they couldn't believe an infinitely improbable theory.

IF the Big Bang happened, why did it go "bang?"

And where DID those atoms come from?

And where did its predecessors come from?

Etc. etc. etc.
Click to expand...

You are confusing Faith and faith. They are not synonymous.

If anything, evolutionists have faith in the scientific method, which is still very different from having faith in a supernatural being. Just check the dictionary for the differences.
 
A better way to term it would be thusly: Scientists are using a logical dating method that has a degree of error involved in it. Theists are using an illogical method of determining the age of the earth. Probabilities don't factor into your statement.
Click to expand...
So you're saying that it's not /probable/ that the earth could have been created 10,000 years ago (or w/e), instead of 100 billion years ago? And your logical statement about scientists is rational. I believe their dating methods and statements about other things, to be illogical - but that's just me.

I think you yourself are bias. I think that the christian religion left a bad taste in your mouth and you're more towards disproving God more than proving Him. Let me know your thoughts on this.
 
Goose62 said:
So you're saying that it's not /probable/ that the earth could have been created 10,000 years ago (or w/e), instead of 100 billion years ago? And your logical statement about scientists is rational. I believe their dating methods and statements about other things, to be illogical - but that's just me.
Click to expand...

Please read what you quoted. Logical vs illogical. Is it possible that the earth is 10,000 years old. Sure. Is it probable? NO. Not according to logic, science, reason and evidence.

You still haven't done anything to explain why my statement is wrong, all you are doing is creating strawman arguments.

I think you yourself are bias. I think that the christian religion left a bad taste in your mouth and you're more towards disproving God more than proving Him. Let me know your thoughts on this.
Click to expand...

Yeah, yeah, I get this all the time. The reason why is because I am objective, you are not. You are not willing to admit that you could be wrong about your beliefs and faith...If I'm wrong about this, please let me know.

Being objective means that I am forced to strike a balance with Christians, which almost entirely view their beliefs in a very slanted light. So in order to balance that out, I very often have to play devil's advocate. That's why it looks like I'm always negative. Are there positives about the Christian church? Absolutely! Do I really need to point them out to you? Of course, not, you know them intimately. What I have found though, is many, many Christians ONLY look at the positive and either sweep everything else under the rug or outright refuse to admit there is anything negative about Christianity.

There is an excellent example of this one this forum...I'm not sure if it exists, you may have to do a search for it. I started a thread and asked for people to give me a complete picture of God. The posts that I received all pointed out the good traits of God. But that wasn't the complete picture I was looking for, it was a very biased outlook that serves as a prime example to the one-sidedness of many Christians.

I honestly wouldn't say that Christianity left a bad taste in my mouth. I have fond memories of my time as a Christian. If I'm jaded by anything, it's religion in general.

Hope that helps to dispel your outlook of me.
 
I'm sorry, for some reason I thought probable/possible were synonyms - DOH!

Curious, what denomination were you as a christian? The denomination/church could have a huge impact on your walk with Christ - both positive AND negative.
 
DarthDapor said:
I say again, I hov freedom of speech!
Click to expand...

Ahh, the repetition makes right argument again? Saying it doesn't make it so - I suggest you dig out some law and some case precedence on this one.

Besides, nobody's telling you that you can't do it. We're just telling you that it makes you look illiterate.
 
Goose62 said:
I'm sorry, for some reason I thought probable/possible were synonyms - DOH!

Curious, what denomination were you as a christian? The denomination/church could have a huge impact on your walk with Christ - both positive AND negative.
Click to expand...

I was nondenominational.

What are the negatives? Are you going down the "true/false" Christian road again?
 
I had an epiphany today...of my "check and mate" variety.

AHEM

If you have a problem with dating techniques and wish to throw them ALL out because they're not perfect, then I suppose you will also have to throw out all the dates prescribed to your holy texts and writings. How, exactly do you think they were dated? What techniques do you believe were used? The very same ones that you claim are worthless.

Check and mate.
 
I was nondenominational.

What are the negatives? Are you going down the "true/false" Christian road again?
Click to expand...
I was just wondering. I've heard some horror stories of some churches that would drive a christian toward how you've become. Nondenominational ... I've never visted one, but I heard all they do is play the "feel good" game, preach a "feel good" message, tell you everything is "good", etc. - nothing that will really challenge you in your walk with Christ.

OT: A good book (that I haven't read all the way through yet) is call "The case for Christ" by Lee Strobel - check it out if you get a chance.
 
Goose62 said:
I was just wondering. I've heard some horror stories of some churches that would drive a christian toward how you've become. Nondenominational ... I've never visted one, but I heard all they do is play the "feel good" game, preach a "feel good" message, tell you everything is "good", etc. - nothing that will really challenge you in your walk with Christ.
Click to expand...

Funny you should mention that :)

That's EXACTLY the criticism I've read of Lakewood church.

OT: A good book (that I haven't read all the way through yet) is call "The case for Christ" by Lee Strobel - check it out if you get a chance.
Click to expand...

I've read most of Strobel's books. There are MANY problems with them. I'll give you some critiques if you're interested, but they're on an atheist web site, just so you know :)
 
Dark Virtue said:
If you have a problem with dating techniques and wish to throw them ALL out because they're not perfect, then I suppose you will also have to throw out all the dates prescribed to your holy texts and writings. How, exactly do you think they were dated? What techniques do you believe were used? The very same ones that you claim are worthless.
Click to expand...
Actually a written acount of people who were there, compared to a test of salt in the sea seems a lot more believable to me!
 
Only if you take their word for it that they were there.

And it's not written by people who were there, it's written by people who supposedly studied with people who were there. The Apostles were mostly illiterate - how could they have written?

Saul, of course, is the exception, having been a Pharisee.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top