Religion/Bible/Theology Topic - Beware All Ye That Enter Here

#26
#26
ridethelightening said:
I actually never said it was inaccurate. I said in 10000 years when it has been indeed proven accurate, then we could continue the discussion
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

we don't need 1,000 years. we have at least 50 where we have witnessed these elements decaying at a constant rate. it's not logical that that rate would change in year 51 or year 9,999.
 
#27
#27
J-P said:
I think I expounded several months ago about what convinced me that God existed and that the Bible was his Word, so yes, my thinking now always begins from there. I would be a fool not to.
Click to expand...

So I was thinking, you are assuming what the guests at the wedding called the "best wine" was because it was well-aged. Middle Eastern culture at the time didn't judge wine by being well-aged, but rather by being "fresh"- or, not very fermented and more juicy and sweet. While this doesn't really affect your bottom-line thought on a magical creator being able to *poof* anything in any condition into existence, there-by negating age as a useful metric, it is still an interesting tidbit.
 
#28
#28
droski said:
we don't need 1,000 years. we have at least 50 where we have witnessed these elements decaying at a constant rate. it's not logical that that rate would change in year 51 or year 9,999.
Click to expand...

The science behind isotopic decay is pretty solid, because there are elements with half-lives that are measurable in human lifetimes. But these threads and conversations don't ever want to accept things like that.
 
#29
#29
IPorange said:
So I was thinking, you are assuming what the guests at the wedding called the "best wine" was because it was well-aged. Middle Eastern culture at the time didn't judge wine by being well-aged, but rather by being "fresh"- or, not very fermented and more juicy and sweet. While this doesn't really affect your bottom-line thought on a magical creator being able to *poof* anything in any condition into existence, there-by negating age as a useful metric, it is still an interesting tidbit.
Click to expand...

my guess in the time of jesus that the lack of proper bottling techniques unquestionably made the fresher wine taste better.
 
#30
#30
droski said:
we don't need 1,000 years. we have at least 50 where we have witnessed these elements decaying at a constant rate. it's not logical that that rate would change in year 51 or year 9,999.
Click to expand...

You are still putting your faith into something somebody is telling you, aren't you?
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#31
#31
That's what I understand, and that is why wine became "vinegar" and spoiled, rather than aged like we age wine today, or how it was aged in the middle ages onward.
 
#32
#32
droski said:
it's an interesting theory, but why woudl god bother to create foscils and the like? does god want us to doubt him because there is evidence of evolution?
Click to expand...

My answer probably won't satisfy you, but day in and day out God tests me. In situations all day long I have a choice: to do it the way God wants me to do it and trust Him for the results, or to do it my way. He tests me because in the long run, the testing makes me better able to trust Him from past experience.

Did he put the fossils there as a "booby trap"? I don't know. The Bible does speak of Him making fools out of those who think themselves wise, or something along those lines. I do know that He gives me the free choice to choose to believe in His way or my own, to accept or reject, understanding that He is God; at best my knowledge and understanding can't encompass His, or even stack up to His. He gives me evidences of His existence and of His plans for me. And once I've decided to become His, then the testing begins in even more earnest.
 
#34
#34
It seems to me James that you want to extrapulate a philosophical (perhaps far fetched) answer from observations theological/religious tradition.

Perhaps the relative validity of nihilism?

Interesting question, there is the theory that civilization is retarded and set back, even destroyed when the governing portion of any particular civilization grows too powerful.

There is much to be said for that theory, particlarly in this day and age when nothing happens in isolation from the rest the world.

Then too there is the attempt at world governance that cannot go unnoticed.

Another problem also is that there is one 'religion' that combines religious dogma with politics and with the stated goal of ruling all the peoples on Earth.
 
#35
#35
ridethelightening said:
You are still putting your faith into something somebody is telling you, aren't you?
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

no. i can witness this myself if i chose to. or do you believe that there are thousands of scientists who are conducting an ongoing conspiracy by lying to all of us?
 
#36
#36
IPorange said:
That's what I understand, and that is why wine became "vinegar" and spoiled, rather than aged like we age wine today, or how it was aged in the middle ages onward.
Click to expand...

That is my understanding, as well. And that would be how people in my Church would explain to people about consuming alcohol
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#37
#37
ridethelightening said:
You are still putting your faith into something somebody is telling you, aren't you?
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

For the record, I work with a few dating techniques and in a lab that does a lot of isotope work. It makes more sense to me than immaculate conception.
 
#39
#39
droski said:
no. i can witness this myself if i chose to. or do you believe that there are thousands of scientists who are conducting an ongoing conspiracy by lying to all of us?
Click to expand...

I am part of that conspiracy. Sorry about that, droski. The prank got a little out of hand so I thought I would come clean.
 
#41
#41
droski said:
we don't need 1,000 years. we have at least 50 where we have witnessed these elements decaying at a constant rate. it's not logical that that rate would change in year 51 or year 9,999.
Click to expand...

While I agree for the most part we have also witnessed many variables that can throw the number (date)around wildly (for some forms of dating at least). I realize that the numbers are averaged using a formula to account for some of this but they are at best fairly accurate and dating only really works when they correlate it with known events and civilizations from documented excavations and history/geology, etc.
 
#42
#42
IPorange said:
For the record, I work with a few dating techniques and in a lab that does a lot of isotope work. It makes more sense to me than immaculate conception.
Click to expand...

I never said it was inaccurate. That's 3 times

I don't care if it is or isn't. Can you tell me that those scientists know for a FACT that it is accurate? That nothing else came into play that might have altered their data?
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#43
#43
Might as well face it, IP is christian hater!

You now that is his primary goal of being a scientist.
 
#44
#44
KB5252 said:
While I agree for the most part we have also witnessed many variables that can throw the number (date)around wildly (for some forms of dating at least). I realize that the numbers are averaged using a formula to account for some of this but they are at best fairly accurate and dating only really works when they correlate it with known events and civilizations from documented excavations and history/geology, etc.
Click to expand...

Sure, they are approximations, but we are talking about +- a few hundred years at most, when dating things back thousands of years. That's not really consequential when you are working in time frames like that. And one always considers the geology when dating anything. Depending on the type of dating, such as C-14, you have to be aware of possible contamination with other biological material that may be of a different age and throw off the analysis.
 
#45
#45
KB5252 said:
While I agree for the most part we have also witnessed many variables that can throw the number (date)around wildly (for some forms of dating at least). I realize that the numbers are averaged using a formula to account for some of this but they are at best fairly accurate and dating only really works when they correlate it with known events and civilizations from documented excavations and history/geology, etc.
Click to expand...

sure. there are potential factors that in extreme cases can switch it from 1,000,000 years ago to even 1,200,000 years ago, but not from 1,000,000 years ago to 10,000 years ago.
 
#46
#46
OrangeEmpire said:
Might as well face it, IP is christian hater!

You now that is his primary goal of being a scientist.
Click to expand...

We get together and have meetings, with cool black robes. It's always fun to kick things off with a customary "hail Satan" and a good ole fashioned orgy.
 
#47
#47
ridethelightening said:
I never said it was inaccurate. That's 3 times

I don't care if it is or isn't. Can you tell me that those scientists know for a FACT that it is accurate? That nothing else came into play that might have altered their data?
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

if you were to put a gun to my head and i had to say "yes this rock is 2 mil years old give or take 1,000 years" i would obviously not be comfortable. if you said are you sure it's not from 10,000 years ago i could feel pretty darn comfortable.
 
#50
#50
ridethelightening said:
I never said it was inaccurate. That's 3 times

I don't care if it is or isn't. Can you tell me that those scientists know for a FACT that it is accurate? That nothing else came into play that might have altered their data?
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

No worries man, I wasn't trying to say you did say that. I was corrected the first time.

As far as inaccuracies, it is something one has to always look out for and account for. Even still, contamination almost always makes things look younger, not the other way around. Things like roots, peat that leached down or bioturbation, or just any piece of charcoal or ash that works it's way down in the soil and contaminated a sample would make it look much younger. There isn't much that can happen to make something look older, because it is the newer stuff that is more likely to be mobile.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top