quote:

Originally posted by RedJooles:

quote:

Originally posted by blast99:

Well actually, Jesus never did demonstrate that, because the story about the adulterous woman was inserted by scribes during the middle ages and was never in the original <ahem> divinely inspired text. You see, not only does science show how silly and absurd your religion is, it can even be used to show where your religion has been forged.

So you're quoting something false. Again.

Oh no, oh no no no.... where is your evidence for this statement... oh dear this looks to undermine everything... n't, what am I going to do... n't!!

p.s. I see that they're reviewing the evidence surrounding the Turin Shroud again as, although Carbon Dating put it at 1325, new evidence is revealling a much MUCH earlier date... they are suggesting contamination in the sample submitted! Not my words, but of those researching the Shroud!

Interesting, no?

I'm afraid RedJooles that you cannot believe in carbon dating...your religion doesn't allow it. If you accept carbon dating then you have to accept that the world is at least 4 billion years old because the age of the earth is calculated using the same process but using a different elemental isotope. Sorry old chap!

Wrong again!
Evolutionists err in their assumption that the relative environmental levels of the various isotopes of carbon are and have been unchanging over millennia.
They fail to take into account the overwhelming introduction of vast quantities of carbon during the cataclysm which has become known as "the flood".

quote:

Originally posted by Mr Woolf:

It's like I never went away.

BTW Mr Woolf, I'm still an atheist. Maybe you haven't been praying hard enough?

quote:

Originally posted by Heselbine:

quote:

Originally posted by Mr Woolf:

It's like I never went away.

BTW Mr Woolf, I'm still an atheist. Maybe you haven't been praying hard enough?

No, Hes: One day, you will turn again.
You're an intelligent guy, see.

quote:

Originally posted by RedJooles:
Oh no, oh no no no.... where is your evidence for this statement... oh dear this looks to undermine everything... n't, what am I going to do... n't!!

It comes from finding that older texts do not contain the story, and later ones do.
Another thought prompted by one of Bart Ehrmann's excellent books, is this: if the gospels were divinely inspired, how come we don't have the original copies? How come the earliest copies we have are in some cases hundreds of years later and probably contain all manner of errors (as evidenced by those documents for which earlier copies do exist and whose later copies show copious errors)?

Didn't god think it would be important for us to be able to read his actual original words and not stuff just made up, inserted and deleted down the centuries?

And another thing, how come god decided to rely on the incompetent hand-copying by barely-literate, drunken monks, rather than wait 1500 years for the invention of the printing press? Would have got the job done much better, huh? Better still, have Jesus invent the printing press. Now *that* would have anchored his place in history, if nothing else...

All these things that don't seem to have occurred to the big man... It's almost as if the whole thing was made up by some iron-age goat-herders... For a bet, probably.

quote:

Originally posted by Mr Woolf:

quote:

Originally posted by Heselbine:

quote:

Originally posted by Mr Woolf:

It's like I never went away.

BTW Mr Woolf, I'm still an atheist. Maybe you haven't been praying hard enough?

No, Hes: One day, you will turn again.
You're an intelligent guy, see.

Perhaps your idea of "intelligent" is ever so slightly peculiar.

quote:
Originally posted by RedJooles:
Oh no, oh no no no.... where is your evidence for this statement... oh dear this looks to undermine everything... n't, what am I going to do... n't!!

There are plenty of resources available that will provide information relating to the origins of Holy Books and how and why they might be put together.

quote:

Originally posted by CDarwin:

I'm afraid RedJooles that you cannot believe in carbon dating...your religion doesn't allow it. If you accept carbon dating then you have to accept that the world is at least 4 billion years old because the age of the earth is calculated using the same process but using a different elemental isotope. Sorry old chap!

But here's the thing... if the world really is that old, there should be no Carbon left in the rocks etc that they are trying to date!

I gave an example, a while back, of rock samples taken from Mt St Helen's that were dated between 350,000 years old and couple of million years old! They were only 10 years old!

Possible contamination of the Shroud - well it was caught in a fire in the past, allegedly!!??

quote:

Originally posted by RedJooles:
But here's the thing... if the world really is that old, there should be no Carbon left in the rocks etc that they are trying to date!

I gave an example, a while back, of rock samples taken from Mt St Helen's that were dated between 350,000 years old and couple of million years old! They were only 10 years old!

Yet more non-sense from someone who is terminally addicted to his delusion.

Since I've already taken this argument apart, I'm not going to do so again, this link (scroll down to post dated 19-09-07 20:10) (scroll down a bit further & you'll find that RJ even acknowledged the post) clearly illustrates the flaw in RJ brain (i.e. the inability to absorb any information that doesn't fit into his pre-ordained version of reality. - You happy little addict you. )

quote:

Originally posted by TheCarpenter:

Yet more non-sense from someone who is terminally addicted to his delusion.

Since I've already taken this argument apart, I'm not going to do so again, this link (scroll down to post dated 19-09-07 20:10) (scroll down a bit further & you'll find that RJ even acknowledged the post) clearly illustrates the flaw in RJ brain (i.e. the inability to absorb any information that doesn't fit into his pre-ordained version of reality. - You happy little addict you. )

Ah, now then Carpenter, let's not quote me incorrectly.

From the link you provided in the 19.09.07:

Radiocarbon dating is a radiometric dating method that uses the naturally occurring radioisotope carbon-14 (14C) to determine the age of carbonaceous materials up to about 60,000 years.[1] Raw, i.e. uncalibrated, radiocarbon ages are usually reported in radiocarbon years "Before Present" (BP), "Present" being defined as AD 1950. Such raw ages can be calibrated to give calendar dates.

"The technique of radiocarbon dating was discovered by Willard Libby and his colleagues in 1949[2] during his tenure as a professor at the University of Chicago. Libby estimated that the steady state radioactivity concentration of exchangeable carbon-14 would be about 14 disintegrations per minute (dpm) per gram. In 1960, he was awarded the Nobel Prize in chemistry for this work. He first demonstrated the accuracy of radiocarbon dating by accurately measuring the age of wood from an ancient Egyptian royal barge whose age was known from historical documents."

and

"Carbon has two stable, nonradioactive isotopes: carbon-12 (12C), and carbon-13 (13C). In addition, there are trace amounts of the unstable isotope carbon-14 (14C) on Earth. Carbon-14 has a half-life of 5730 years and would have long ago vanished from Earth were it not for the unremitting cosmic ray impacts on nitrogen in the Earth's atmosphere, which create more of the isotope."

So Carbon dating is accepted because it agrees with dating of Egyptian artifacts (which is good, no problem there as it falls well within 5,700 years)

then we have: "and would have long ago vanished from Earth were it not for the unremitting cosmic ray impacts on nitrogen in the Earth's atmosphere, which create more of the isotope." So we trust these 'cosmic ray's' as getting us more of those isotopes... hummmmmm, distortionme thinks!

And then there's comets that should not be around if the Universe were as old as you say - except for that unobserved, shadowy, mysterious Oort Cloud that remains unseen, but pops a new comet into our Solar System every now and then... but it must be out there, right??

quote:

Originally posted by RedJooles:
Ah, now then Carpenter, let's not quote me incorrectly.

I didn't misquote you on anything, I stated that you acknowledged the post. It's gone in one eye and out the other, but you have at some point read that the radioactive dating technique used on the Mt St Helen rocks was wrong and alway going to be wrong for well know reasons.

quote:

So Carbon dating is accepted because it agrees with dating of Egyptian artifacts (which is good, no problem there as it falls well within 5,700 years)

So you don't have a problem with this particular artifact then do you? You acknowledge that it was a genuine egyptian artifact...? Care to tell me whether the earth is 6,000 or 6,500 years old?

quote:

then we have: "and would have long ago vanished from Earth were it not for the unremitting cosmic ray impacts on nitrogen in the Earth's atmosphere, which create more of the isotope." So we trust these 'cosmic ray's' as getting us more of those isotopes... hummmmmm, distortionme thinks!

No, try this link, a real teacher would know that learning doesn't hurt.

quote:

And then there's comets ...

... and exactly what do comets have to do with carbon dating? Or are you just changing the subject (again)?

quote:

Originally posted by TheCarpenter:


And then there's comets ...

... and exactly what do comets have to do with carbon dating? Or are you just changing the subject (again)?[/QUOTE]

RJ gets his education from the back of cereal boxes. Leave him be.

quote:

Originally posted by RedJooles:

quote:

Originally posted by CDarwin:

I'm afraid RedJooles that you cannot believe in carbon dating...your religion doesn't allow it. If you accept carbon dating then you have to accept that the world is at least 4 billion years old because the age of the earth is calculated using the same process but using a different elemental isotope. Sorry old chap!

But here's the thing... if the world really is that old, there should be no Carbon left in the rocks etc that they are trying to date!

I gave an example, a while back, of rock samples taken from Mt St Helen's that were dated between 350,000 years old and couple of million years old! They were only 10 years old!

Possible contamination of the Shroud - well it was caught in a fire in the past, allegedly!!??

The age of the earth is not calculated using carbon dating numpty! It uses other elemental isotopes with much longer half lifes!! How do you think nuclear power works? Your ignorance and grasp of science is genuinely poor. You can only see the world through the bible and everything is simply made to fit...even if it means being less than honest.

quote:

Originally posted by CDarwin:

quote:

Originally posted by RedJooles:

quote:

Originally posted by CDarwin:

I'm afraid RedJooles that you cannot believe in carbon dating...your religion doesn't allow it. If you accept carbon dating then you have to accept that the world is at least 4 billion years old because the age of the earth is calculated using the same process but using a different elemental isotope. Sorry old chap!

But here's the thing... if the world really is that old, there should be no Carbon left in the rocks etc that they are trying to date!

I gave an example, a while back, of rock samples taken from Mt St Helen's that were dated between 350,000 years old and couple of million years old! They were only 10 years old!

Possible contamination of the Shroud - well it was caught in a fire in the past, allegedly!!??

The age of the earth is not calculated using carbon dating numpty! It uses other elemental isotopes with much longer half lifes!! How do you think nuclear power works? Your ignorance and grasp of science is genuinely poor. You can only see the world through the bible and everything is simply made to fit...even if it means being less than honest.

But surely, ALL radiometric dating methods suffer from the same fundamental flaw? Don't they?
That was rhetoric, incidentally: They do.

quote:

Originally posted by Mr Woolf:
But surely, ALL radiometric dating methods suffer from the same fundamental flaw? Don't they?
That was rhetoric, incidentally: They do.

Yes, that's right, they all suffer from the flaw of showing that the world is much older than 6,000 years, and the the universe is even more than 6,000years and 6days old.

Exactly what flaw does the speed of light suffer from then?

quote:

Originally posted by Milan K:
RJ gets his education from the back of cereal boxes. Leave him be.

Okay, I'll leave him be, if he can answer either of these questions (but there are bonus points for both!)
1 - What is a half-life?
2 - If had 2kg of carbon-14 (with a half life of 5,730years (see above)), how much would I have left after
a- 5,730years?
b- 11,460years?

quote:

Originally posted by TheCarpenter:

quote:

Originally posted by Mr Woolf:
But surely, ALL radiometric dating methods suffer from the same fundamental flaw? Don't they?
That was rhetoric, incidentally: They do.

Yes, that's right, they all suffer from the flaw of showing that the world is much older than 6,000 years, and the the universe is even more than 6,000years and 6days old.

Exactly what flaw does the speed of light suffer from then?

But don't you see, Crapenter, that if these methods *show* that the world is more than 6,000 years old, they must necessarily be in error?

quote:

Originally posted by RedJooles:

quote:

Originally posted by smokeAndMirrors:

is exactly the sort of nonsense that you'd expect from someone who not only isn't educated in the matter, but rejects the education.

Oh, stop toying with me you big tease; puuurrrrlllleeeaaaaase give me some more evidence for ToE... I am waiting with baited breath!

Already explained away the fossil records, ring species and nested hierarchies as STRAWMEN... that's right STRAWMEN... always love hearing that phrase!!

Do you really believe you 'explained away' fosil records etc? It looks to me that you simply stated that something that just showed your lack of knowledge on the subject.
I posted a reply to you post and it was deleted.

Forget nested hierarchies for the moment, do you even know what 'straw man' means? Your post suggests you don't.
For the record, and repeating the post that was deleted, nested hierarchies has nothing to do with similarities within a species as you said. You really need to educate yourself about a subject before you just dismiss it.

I have no expectation of an answer given your prior record but, what evidence for ToE would you accept?
What exactly do you think would 'prove' it to be true?

quote:

Originally posted by Mr Woolf:
But don't you see, Crapenter, that if these methods *show* that the world is more than 6,000 years old, they must necessarily be in error?

Yeh right, so a book that is internally inconsistent, clearly in error and written by bronze-age goat herds has to be right whatever evidence, however obvious correct it is says to the contrary.
And yet the bits where it says slavery is OK and you should kill people for wearing mixed fabric clothes or turning the lights on on a Sunday we can safely disregard.

btw, most of us stopped thinking it was funny or clever to make fun of people's names when our age had two digits.

quote:

Originally posted by TheCarpenter:
I didn't misquote you on anything, I stated that you acknowledged the post. It's gone in one eye and out the other, but you have at some point read that the radioactive dating technique used on the Mt St Helen rocks was wrong and alway going to be wrong for well know reasons.

quote:

Ok, humble apologies for misunderstanding you! Always find it interesting how science finds a back-door when something doesn't concur with what they want to see!

[QUOTE]So you don't have a problem with this particular artifact then do you? You acknowledge that it was a genuine egyptian artifact...? Care to tell me whether the earth is 6,000 or 6,500 years old?

Yep - it agrees with our historical lineage that is testable and verifiable, based on many sources!

6,000, 6,500 or up to 60,000, maybe... but nowhere near the figures you believe in!

Will do! As I say, I'm no expert, but willing to assess the crumbs that you have!

quote:

And then there's comets ...

... and exactly what do comets have to do with carbon dating? Or are you just changing the subject (again)?

Nope! Just throwing something else into the equation; but I know you only like to deal with one small thing at a time, jumping on it, taking it apart, explaining it away and not stepping back and looking at the big picture - i.e. how totally amazing/incredible our world etc is and improbabale as happening all by itself (a good old climb of that Mt Improbable, that Dawkins has slid down...)!

quote:

Originally posted by RedJooles:
Nope! Just throwing something else into the equation; but I know you only like to deal with one small thing at a time, jumping on it, taking it apart, explaining it away and not stepping back and looking at the big picture - i.e. how totally amazing/incredible our world etc is and improbabale as happening all by itself (a good old climb of that Mt Improbable, that Dawkins has slid down...)!

Isn't it amazing that the global commercial system works. Everything seems to be in the right place at more or less the right time. There's food in the shops when you need it, or any number of consumer goods. You get up in the morning and decide to go and buy a computer (say), and when you get to the shop, lo and behold, there's a bunch of computers to choose from that arrived in the shop from the other side of the world, shortly before you got there. They had to travel through all sorts of customs posts, get transported by rail, road and sea. They are composed of hundreds of different parts that have all had to be brought together at the right place and time. All of this goes on all of the time all over the world for all products and services. No-one is in overall charge. Yet this giant global machine just seems to work. Just stop and consider the trillions of different pathways and interconnections that have to exist for it to all work.

It's not something that was created from the top down, rather it has emerged from the bottom up as local circles of commerce have grown and become mixed up with other circles until eventually the whole word is a giant interacting mesh of commerce. Creationists have no trouble accepting that this system exists and has grown from earlier, simpler beginnings, despite its fantastic complexity nowadays. I wonder why they don't insist that God must have made it?