Members ben_allison Posted May 20, 2009 Members Share Posted May 20, 2009 THE MISSING LINK! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members dgc480 Posted May 20, 2009 Members Share Posted May 20, 2009 thankyou sonic you're absolutely right. Carbon dating would not work for something that old, it may well have been K-Ar. For anyone who still thinks the Earth is 6,000 years old, here's a fact to disprove that. Certain radioactive elements have VERY long half-lifes. That means the time it takes for half of the orginal mass to decay. Well, we have found rocks with these elements in them, and based on the amount decayed vs. the amount remaining, we can figure out how many halflifes that element has undergone. Then, we can multiply this by the known halflife of that element, and get the age of that rock, some older than 4 billion years! For the stromatolites in strelly pool, a similar dating process was done, and the age of the rock was found to be 3.5 billion years. Thus, life existed 3.5 billion years ago .As for the fish turning into fish comment. The point made is that they evolved. Not how much they evolved. Think about this. If life had 3.5 billion years to evolve, don't you think we'd see some more drastic changes than what happened after 50 years? Do you know how long a billion years is? You cannot grasp, I cannot grasp, that length of time. Certainly if life could evolve in some minute way over 50 years, then it could evolve in a very drastic way over 3.5 billion years. And I don't think evolving from a monkey to a human is very drastic when you consider the morphological and genetic similarities. To really be crazy, we could actually trace our evolution back to that cyanobacteria I was talking about . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members SonicVI Posted May 20, 2009 Members Share Posted May 20, 2009 but what did the beachplanetball evolve from? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members goodhonk Posted May 20, 2009 Members Share Posted May 20, 2009 thankyou sonic you're absolutely right. Carbon dating would not work for something that old, it may well have been K-Ar. For anyone who still thinks the Earth is 6,000 years old, here's a fact to disprove that. Certain radioactive elements have VERY long half-lifes. That means the time it takes for half of the orginal mass to decay. Well, we have found rocks with these elements in them, and based on the amount decayed vs. the amount remaining, we can figure out how many halflifes that element has undergone. Then, we can multiply this by the known halflife of that element, and get the age of that rock, some older than 4 billion years! For the stromatolites in strelly pool, a similar dating process was done, and the age of the rock was found to be 3.5 billion years. Thus, life existed 3.5 billion years ago . As for the fish turning into fish comment. The point made is that they evolved. Not how much they evolved. Think about this. If life had 3.5 billion years to evolve, don't you think we'd see some more drastic changes than what happened after 50 years? Do you know how long a billion years is? You cannot grasp, I cannot grasp, that length of time. Certainly if life could evolve in some minute way over 50 years, then it could evolve in a very drastic way over 3.5 billion years. And I don't think evolving from a monkey to a human is very drastic when you consider the morphological and genetic similarities. To really be crazy, we could actually trace our evolution back to that cyanobacteria I was talking about . you have more faith than i do. when did breeding and evolving become synonyms? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members SonicVI Posted May 20, 2009 Members Share Posted May 20, 2009 you have more faith than i do. when did breeding and evolving become synonyms?when planets and beachballs did Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members rushfan Posted May 20, 2009 Members Share Posted May 20, 2009 The point is foundational: the certainty of science stands upon uncertainty. It's simply the way things are.Seriously. Someone defending religion is going to talk about something standing upon uncertainty??? So faith is suddenly more certain than the laws of nature?Cmon dude. You're digging deeper and deeper. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members rushfan Posted May 20, 2009 Members Share Posted May 20, 2009 I love science too, we just need to be careful what we hold dearly... new information could mean your world view becomes outdated... and then what do you have?Yeah, you're right. We're much better off believing something that is based on faith and no actual proof. /sarcasm off Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Rogueweez Posted May 20, 2009 Members Share Posted May 20, 2009 I feel like I'm reading an Landover Baptist thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members SonicVI Posted May 20, 2009 Members Share Posted May 20, 2009 Yeah, you're right. We're much better off believing something that is based on faith and no actual proof. /sarcasm off we're much better off being open to posibilities, which is why we should all be agnostics."The only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing." - Socrates (he was a smart dude, for someone who knew nothing anyway) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members ben_allison Posted May 20, 2009 Members Share Posted May 20, 2009 Seriously. Someone defending religion is going to talk about something standing upon uncertainty??? So faith is suddenly more certain than the laws of nature? I didn't say it was more certain. My point is that we're not so different. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members ben_allison Posted May 20, 2009 Members Share Posted May 20, 2009 Yeah, you're right. We're much better off believing something that is based on faith and no actual proof. The point being made was that the proof is transient. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Bobby D Posted May 20, 2009 Members Share Posted May 20, 2009 [YOUTUBE][/YOUTUBE] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members woolyh Posted May 20, 2009 Members Share Posted May 20, 2009 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members SonicVI Posted May 20, 2009 Members Share Posted May 20, 2009 The point being made was that the proof is transient. Because I have never met any of you I cannot prove that any of you exist, therefore you do not, but someday I might meet you and then you will, unless you can prove that I don't exist in which case nobody exists because I won't be there to prove that you exist which means you can't prove that I do or do not exist... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members iamthearm Posted May 20, 2009 Members Share Posted May 20, 2009 religious hcaf'er: YOU'RE SUCH A DICK YOU'LL NEVER DISPROVE BELIEFS THAT I HAVE CREATED LOGICAL LOOPHOLES TO PROTECT! athiest hcaf'er: YOU'RE CLEARLY DUMB AND DON'T UNDERSTAND EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE religious hcaf'er: OH NO I'M SUPER INTELLIGENT LOOK AT ALL OF THESE FACTOIDS I'VE ALIGNED MY BELIEFS WITH BECAUSE IT MAKES ME LOOK SMART ON THE INTERNET! athiest hcaf'er: NO YOU'RE DUMB AND I'M SMART BECAUSE I HAVE A SIMILARLY CLOSED MINDED VIEW OF SPIRITUALITY! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Bobby D Posted May 20, 2009 Members Share Posted May 20, 2009 "good heavens miss sakamoto, you're BEAUTIFUL" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members rushfan Posted May 20, 2009 Members Share Posted May 20, 2009 "good heavens miss sakamoto, you're BEAUTIFUL"omfg a Thomas Dolby quote!!! :thu: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Jules-RM Posted May 20, 2009 Members Share Posted May 20, 2009 I'm not a Christian either, but you are a dick. /ignore'ed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members SonicVI Posted May 20, 2009 Members Share Posted May 20, 2009 I don't believe in God. I believe in science. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members ben_allison Posted May 20, 2009 Members Share Posted May 20, 2009 Because I have never met any of you I cannot prove that any of you exist, therefore you do not, but someday I might meet you and then you will, unless you can prove that I don't exist in which case nobody exists because I won't be there to prove that you exist which means you can't prove that I do or do not exist... LOL! Yes. In the strictest sense; but that doesn't work practically. So we choose to accept what seems reasonable. Science is based on reasonable assumptions. This is not a problem. My only point has ever really been that this is in fact the case, and is Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Naterel Posted May 20, 2009 Members Share Posted May 20, 2009 Jesusaurus Rex Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members six acre lake Posted May 20, 2009 Members Share Posted May 20, 2009 can you atheists explain something to me?why is it so hard for you to find the Political forum and post your "everyone who believes something different from me is an idiot" attack threads there? Can all of you god boy nut bags cut out all the what did you play at church, christian crap that constantly infects this forum. It's always the religious freaks who cry about the ability to express their beliefs but the moment an atheist or the like expresses a challenging view the zealots get their undies in a bundle and cry fowl. As long as your free to post your Jesus crap I'm free to knock it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members SonicVI Posted May 20, 2009 Members Share Posted May 20, 2009 LOL! Yes. In the strictest sense; but that doesn't work practically. So we choose to accept what seems reasonable. Science is based on reasonable assumptions. This is not a problem. My only point has ever really been that this is in fact the case, and is Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members rushfan Posted May 20, 2009 Members Share Posted May 20, 2009 I don't believe in God. I believe in science. Sorry dude, the Missing Link has already been found: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members goodhonk Posted May 20, 2009 Members Share Posted May 20, 2009 Can all of you god boy nut bags cut out all the what did you play at church, christian crap that constantly infects this forum. It's always the religious freaks who cry about the ability to express their beliefs but the moment an atheist or the like expresses a challenging view the zealots get their undies in a bundle and cry fowl. As long as your free to post your Jesus crap I'm free to knock it. do you have any more insults to back up your point? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.