A "gotcha" argument for Satan
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
18-05-2015, 09:50 AM
RE: A "gotcha" argument for Satan
(15-05-2015 04:21 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(15-05-2015 01:14 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  Off the top of my head, I can cite some of the issues, I'm not sure you really want to sit through my attempts to "explain" them to you if don't already know them:

* C14 dating is presumed accurate to circa 50,000 BP (we don't know because before circa 5,000 BP we're in pre-history and there are no documents to correlate our date findings with C14). And no, you can't tell me certain documents exist before that time without using carbon dating itself or other non-documentary methods, so please don't make a circular argument.

* C14 dating fluctuates with changes in the atmosphere. Nuclear testing is known to have affected C14 dating. Assumptions must be made regarding pre-history such as levels of volcanism, ozone changes, magnetic field and solar changes. All present assumptions are -- sorry to drag this out again -- uniform views to make the dating "work".

* Fossils including dinosaur fossils are too old to be subject to C14 dating because there should be zero C14 present in fossils formed from organic life older than 100,000 years. Many samples have been done on dinosaur and other ancient fossils, however, using C14 tests and discovering C14 present, challenging classic perceptions of the ancient world. Your only out is to say that the sampling in all such cases was contaminated or the scientists made mistakes or even falsified the results, etc.

If you researched this on actual scientific sites instead of creationist ones, you'd know how the calibrations and corrections are made.

As I mentioned elsewhere, Chas, I looked on both types of sites again recently. Perhaps you can tell me the corrections for finding C14 dozens of times in fossilized dinosaur remains?

I'm told atheists on forums like TTA are bitter and angry. If you are not, your posts to me will be respectful, insightful and thoughtful. Prove me wrong by your adherence to decent behavior.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-05-2015, 09:51 AM
RE: A "gotcha" argument for Satan
(16-05-2015 03:49 AM)Fodder_From_The_Truth Wrote:  The tower myth might be more ridiculous than the flood myth. To argue for either is the act of a fool.

A Christians best and only argument left is God's non-falsifiability. They put him in that realm. It's all that's left. So God got butthurt about a tower but had no problem with us leaving our atmosphere. Well of course not because at this point God had moved from the clouds to somewhere we couldn't look.

I'm mean seriously people! Q and his ilk are cowards and in need of a large dose of "grow the fuck up". Go hold hands with your fellow mental midgets and let the adults alone. And yes that was Santa who drank half the glass of milk and took bites off the cookies you fucking dope.

Are you saying it's foolish to point out that God recognized man is evolving/adapting and capable of great achievement before the languages were scattered? Or are you saying that you believe scientists believe languages formed from multiple roots?

I'm told atheists on forums like TTA are bitter and angry. If you are not, your posts to me will be respectful, insightful and thoughtful. Prove me wrong by your adherence to decent behavior.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-05-2015, 09:56 AM
RE: A "gotcha" argument for Satan
(16-05-2015 06:16 AM)unfogged Wrote:  
(16-05-2015 03:49 AM)Fodder_From_The_Truth Wrote:  The tower myth might be more ridiculous than the flood myth.

If god deliberately created multiple languages in order to prevent people from cooperating, why isn't it a sin for a Christian to learn a second language? He's acting against god's explicit plan, isn't he? Or is that covered by the "that's the OLD testament" dodge and does that mean that god changed his plan?

1. Sin is imperfection. It's quite the opposite of sin to pursue learning, unless one's learning is not tempered by love.

2. Have you read the Babel account? It says "Indeed the people are one and they all have one language, and this is what they begin to do; now nothing that they propose to do will be withheld from them." The Babel language scattering worked as God planned, didn't it, despite people learning multiple languages then and now?

3. I wish all of us at TTA, skeptics and believers, knew Hebrew, Chaldean and Greek. It would save a lot of silly questions against the Bible.

4. Addressing what you asked, yes, the NT sort of shows an opposition/chiastic completion to Babel, when people hear their own languages spoken at Pentecost. Pentecost is a reaping of "first fruits" in the OT, and of people in the NT, showing we will all be one in the world to come.

I'm told atheists on forums like TTA are bitter and angry. If you are not, your posts to me will be respectful, insightful and thoughtful. Prove me wrong by your adherence to decent behavior.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-05-2015, 10:13 AM
RE: A "gotcha" argument for Satan
(18-05-2015 09:50 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
(15-05-2015 04:21 PM)Chas Wrote:  If you researched this on actual scientific sites instead of creationist ones, you'd know how the calibrations and corrections are made.

As I mentioned elsewhere, Chas, I looked on both types of sites again recently. Perhaps you can tell me the corrections for finding C14 dozens of times in fossilized dinosaur remains?

¹⁴C can be created by radiation.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-05-2015, 12:23 PM
RE: A "gotcha" argument for Satan
(18-05-2015 09:51 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  Are you saying it's foolish to point out that God recognized man is evolving/adapting and capable of great achievement before the languages were scattered? Or are you saying that you believe scientists believe languages formed from multiple roots?

You make it sound like that was something god wasn't expecting.

Q, did god know before flipping the 'let there be light switch' that it would need to deal with its creations becoming intelligent?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-05-2015, 10:28 AM
RE: A "gotcha" argument for Satan
(18-05-2015 10:13 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(18-05-2015 09:50 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  As I mentioned elsewhere, Chas, I looked on both types of sites again recently. Perhaps you can tell me the corrections for finding C14 dozens of times in fossilized dinosaur remains?

¹⁴C can be created by radiation.

I appreciate that fact. Thanks for sharing it. Mass spectrometry accounts for such things (mostly) and C14 assessment is not easy work to do.

The fossils I'm thinking of would have been buried to begin to become fossils, and were later unearthed by paleontologists. Radiation would have to penetrate their surround, and not already be accounted for in the mass spectrometry calculations.

Fluctuating solar radiation may also account for issues with C14 dating in general.

I'm told atheists on forums like TTA are bitter and angry. If you are not, your posts to me will be respectful, insightful and thoughtful. Prove me wrong by your adherence to decent behavior.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-05-2015, 10:29 AM
RE: A "gotcha" argument for Satan
(18-05-2015 12:23 PM)H4ym4n Wrote:  
(18-05-2015 09:51 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  Are you saying it's foolish to point out that God recognized man is evolving/adapting and capable of great achievement before the languages were scattered? Or are you saying that you believe scientists believe languages formed from multiple roots?

You make it sound like that was something god wasn't expecting.

Q, did god know before flipping the 'let there be light switch' that it would need to deal with its creations becoming intelligent?

I agree. God knew. However, the Garden of Eden, and since then, doesn't seem to be a problem of knowledge but obedience. We assume the knowledge was bad and ignorance bliss in the Bible, but it was Satan who was offering knowledge without obedience, knowledge without love.

I'm told atheists on forums like TTA are bitter and angry. If you are not, your posts to me will be respectful, insightful and thoughtful. Prove me wrong by your adherence to decent behavior.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-05-2015, 11:00 AM
RE: A "gotcha" argument for Satan
(19-05-2015 10:29 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
(18-05-2015 12:23 PM)H4ym4n Wrote:  You make it sound like that was something god wasn't expecting.

Q, did god know before flipping the 'let there be light switch' that it would need to deal with its creations becoming intelligent?

I agree. God knew. However, the Garden of Eden, and since then, doesn't seem to be a problem of knowledge but obedience. We assume the knowledge was bad and ignorance bliss in the Bible, but it was Satan who was offering knowledge without obedience, knowledge without love.

Again you make it sound like lack of obedience was a shock to god.

God knew its creations will have an obedience problem, no?

God knew satan was going to temp eve, no?

Do you think god ran several different creation scenarios?

One where neither consumed the fruit?

One where eve dropped over dead after eating and before getting to Adam?

Adam eating only?

Well it is omniscienct, of corse it knows exactly happens in every scenario out to the end of time.

And it chose this one.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-05-2015, 11:24 AM
RE: A "gotcha" argument for Satan
(19-05-2015 10:28 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
(18-05-2015 10:13 AM)Chas Wrote:  ¹⁴C can be created by radiation.

I appreciate that fact. Thanks for sharing it. Mass spectrometry accounts for such things (mostly) and C14 assessment is not easy work to do.

The fossils I'm thinking of would have been buried to begin to become fossils, and were later unearthed by paleontologists. Radiation would have to penetrate their surround, and not already be accounted for in the mass spectrometry calculations.

Fluctuating solar radiation may also account for issues with C14 dating in general.

There are many radioactive minerals. They are underground, you know.

Your lack of real knowledge about radiometric dating makes these discussions with you tedious in the extreme.

Go to real scientific sources and just stop with the pseudo-science.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
20-05-2015, 08:28 AM
RE: A "gotcha" argument for Satan
(19-05-2015 11:24 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(19-05-2015 10:28 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  I appreciate that fact. Thanks for sharing it. Mass spectrometry accounts for such things (mostly) and C14 assessment is not easy work to do.

The fossils I'm thinking of would have been buried to begin to become fossils, and were later unearthed by paleontologists. Radiation would have to penetrate their surround, and not already be accounted for in the mass spectrometry calculations.

Fluctuating solar radiation may also account for issues with C14 dating in general.

There are many radioactive minerals. They are underground, you know.

Your lack of real knowledge about radiometric dating makes these discussions with you tedious in the extreme.

Go to real scientific sources and just stop with the pseudo-science.

I understand perfectly well, and we both know that the mass spectrometry calculations would be tempered by the minerals in the fossil. Are you saying the hundred times or so this has occurred, no one checked the mineral content present in the fossil?

PS. We're discussing C14, not radiometric dating.

I'm told atheists on forums like TTA are bitter and angry. If you are not, your posts to me will be respectful, insightful and thoughtful. Prove me wrong by your adherence to decent behavior.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: