- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Archaeologist Carbon-Date Camel Bones, Discover Major Discrepancy In Bible Story
Posted on 2/7/14 at 10:13 am to OMLandshark
Posted on 2/7/14 at 10:13 am to OMLandshark
BCE
one of my first threads was about this.
If BCE and BC are interchangeable, then they would have to have the same "genisis" point, the event that divides "before the common era" and the "common era"
what is it? Oh yeah, the relative "birth of christ"
shite, this is like not using the Gregorian calendar because a pope made it.
one of my first threads was about this.
If BCE and BC are interchangeable, then they would have to have the same "genisis" point, the event that divides "before the common era" and the "common era"
what is it? Oh yeah, the relative "birth of christ"
shite, this is like not using the Gregorian calendar because a pope made it.
0
Posted on 2/7/14 at 10:14 am to JOJO Hammer
Ken Ham says we can't trust such dating methods. "We weren't there"
Posted on 2/7/14 at 10:15 am to JakeTheDog
Ok, so you mean radioactive dating, not carbon dating. Carbon dating can only be used to date things up to around 60,000 years ago. Carbon-14 has a half life of 5730 years...so after 10 half lives or 5730 years, .00195 of the original carbon-14 remains..in millions of years, there would be undetectable amounts.
About the article.. that was from answeringgenesis.org. An obvious creation site. I can't even tell if they are taking data from an actual article or not (are they?). I'm curious myself, but I was expecting a link to a website like that. Where did they get the data from, and was it from legitimate scientists?
About the article.. that was from answeringgenesis.org. An obvious creation site. I can't even tell if they are taking data from an actual article or not (are they?). I'm curious myself, but I was expecting a link to a website like that. Where did they get the data from, and was it from legitimate scientists?
Posted on 2/7/14 at 10:19 am to TheIndulger
As much as I appreciate yet another bit of research to question biblical narratives I have to say you can't debate a Christian on the bible and win.
The bible means whatever the believer thinks it means. I've witnessed believers turning the murder by she bears into "God's mercy" or the immorality of noah's ark into "God's plan".
So note to other atheists, don't get caught in that.
The bible means whatever the believer thinks it means. I've witnessed believers turning the murder by she bears into "God's mercy" or the immorality of noah's ark into "God's plan".
So note to other atheists, don't get caught in that.
This post was edited on 2/7/14 at 10:20 am
Posted on 2/7/14 at 10:21 am to JOJO Hammer
quote:
“While these findings may have been published recently, those of us on the inside have known the essential facts for a generation now," Harris conveyed to HuffPost Religion through associates at JTS. "This is just one of many anachronisms in the Bible, but these do not detract from its sanctity, because it is a spiritual source, not a historical one.”
This guy gets it
Posted on 2/7/14 at 10:25 am to Tigris
quote:
The ark held two of every animal.
For some reason I find the idea of two kangaroos on the arc to be one of the funniest things I've ever considered
Two of every KIND not two of every ANIMAL.
This is yet another area where people are misinformed and misrepresent biblical history.
meh, it's been that way since the beginning.
Posted on 2/7/14 at 10:29 am to TheIndulger
quote:
Ok, so you mean radioactive dating, not carbon dating. Carbon dating can only be used to date things up to around 60,000 years ago. Carbon-14 has a half life of 5730 years...so after 10 half lives or 5730 years, .00195 of the original carbon-14 remains..in millions of years, there would be undetectable amounts.
I used the wrong verbiage,. I apologize.
quote:
About the article.. that was from answeringgenesis.org. An obvious creation site. I can't even tell if they are taking data from an actual article or not (are they?). I'm curious myself, but I was expecting a link to a website like that. Where did they get the data from, and was it from legitimate scientists?
well that's why I gave two links that discuss the matter. As I stated the subject is so politicized by people on both sides that's impossible to find an un-slanted version of what happened. The only thing that both the creationist and anti-creationist links I gave agree on is that radioactive dating did indeed incorrectly age the Mt. St. Helens rocks. Neither side of the debate denies that the rocks were incorrectly identified as thousands or millions of years old. Instead the debate rages over what that misidentification means. Creationists claim it proves science is wrong and the earth is like 6,000 years old. Anti-creationists state that the finding were taken out of context and are meaningless. Who's right? I don't know. Settling who is or is not right on that matter was never my intention.
Posted on 2/7/14 at 10:30 am to JakeTheDog
Because HuffPo is where I go for non-biased religious news.
Posted on 2/7/14 at 10:32 am to JOJO Hammer
Posted on 2/7/14 at 10:40 am to TheIndulger
quote:
Where did they get the data from, and was it from legitimate scientists?
The same scientists that came up with global warming. Their work was finished there so they moved on to this project.
Posted on 2/7/14 at 10:41 am to JOJO Hammer
What's the point of this? It's not hard to tell that most of the bible is a lie or just a metaphor. If any Christians take the bible literally, their too dumb to be fixed
Posted on 2/7/14 at 10:42 am to Geaux9
quote:
Their to dumb to be fixed
This post was edited on 2/7/14 at 10:43 am
Posted on 2/7/14 at 10:42 am to Geaux9
quote:You tell em!
their too dumb to be fixed
Posted on 2/7/14 at 10:43 am to Redbone
quote:
The same scientists that came up with global warming.
Using the same scientific method that gave us modern technology and made our dominance as a species possible. But yeah, frick those guys. Tell me, what great accomplishments were brought about by studying your ancient story book? None really? Just a bunch of wars, you say? Yeah, I think I'll stick with the scientists on this one.
Redbone
Posted on 2/7/14 at 10:45 am to Ryne Sandberg
This topic should have brought out all the crazies. I didn't read all the pages. Did criketycrickit provide us with his normal single highly intellectually significant post yet???
Posted on 2/7/14 at 10:45 am to WDE24
Not even going to edit that. Fml
Posted on 2/7/14 at 10:47 am to The First Cut
quote:
Pissed?
He loves us so much he came to earth to experience life like one of us and die for us. But, he'll be pissed if we don't capitalize God? You really don't understand Christianity.
You forgot to capitalize two Hs when referring to God/Jesus.
Posted on 2/7/14 at 10:47 am to Geaux9
quote:
...their too dumb to be fixed
"their" should be soooo insulted.
Posted on 2/7/14 at 10:50 am to JOJO Hammer
im not saying that this is necessarily true, but theologians have a mature earth theory which is Christians' rebuttal against carbon dating that disproves the bible's chronology. Its worth taking a look at.
Posted on 2/7/14 at 10:50 am to Geaux9
quote:
Not even going to edit that.
You can't edit/hide/fix stupid.
Page 4 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News