Conquer Club

Posted: **Sun Aug 10, 2008 11:21 pm**

Juan_Bottom wrote:
Anyway... JAY SERIOUSLY BELIEVES THAT DEMONS HOLD YOUR BODY HERE ON EARTH FROM FLOATING UP TO HEAVAN????
Whoa.

Um, not quite. Maybe lizardmen but demons is a stretch!

Posted: **Sun Aug 10, 2008 11:21 pm**

I knew that's what it was... but the spelling I was really shakey. I did send it to Packrat, and everytime we argue creationism VS Evolution, I bring it up. Alls he ever does is shake his head. And It's time he gets called out on it.

Thank you very much for sharing it again though!!!!!

Posted: **Sun Aug 10, 2008 11:21 pm**

jay_a2j wrote:
Juan_Bottom wrote:How about you prove me wrong in your own words Jay? Not to be mean, ok.... But I don't think you can do it.

Where to begin?

Carbon 14 dating? This is not an accurate way of dating. The process requires measuring the carbon in said item. In order to correctly carbon date, using half-life, you must know what the carbon content was to begin with. Eventually time runs out, and the carbon dating process is no longer effective. (It is only effective for a few thousand years) So much for dino fossils being 23,000,000 years old.

What you call facts are hardly that. There are very few "facts" when it comes to evolution.

I believe we have come full circle, what is this the 2,000th circle. Maybe we can carbon date it!

We don't use carbon dating for dino fossils. We use isotopes with longer half-lives. Carbon dating is great for human bones though.

Posted: **Sun Aug 10, 2008 11:21 pm**

Neoteny wrote:Salmonella, Juan.

Cute!

Posted: **Sun Aug 10, 2008 11:22 pm**

jay_a2j wrote:
Juan_Bottom wrote:How about you prove me wrong in your own words Jay? Not to be mean, ok.... But I don't think you can do it.

Where to begin?

Carbon 14 dating? This is not an accurate way of dating. The process requires measuring the carbon in said item. In order to correctly carbon date, using half-life, you must know what the carbon content was to begin with. Eventually time runs out, and the carbon dating process is no longer effective. (It is only effective for a few thousand years) So much for dino fossils being 23,000,000 years old.

What you call facts are hardly that. There are very few "facts" when it comes to evolution.

Jay, what about the forms of radio dating that we use on fossils and rocks? Carbon-14 is a gimmick.

I believe we have come full circle, what is this the 2,000th circle. Maybe we can carbon date it!

Posted: **Sun Aug 10, 2008 11:28 pm**

Juan_Bottom wrote:
jay_a2j wrote:
Juan_Bottom wrote:How about you prove me wrong in your own words Jay? Not to be mean, ok.... But I don't think you can do it.

Where to begin?

Carbon 14 dating? This is not an accurate way of dating. The process requires measuring the carbon in said item. In order to correctly carbon date, using half-life, you must know what the carbon content was to begin with. Eventually time runs out, and the carbon dating process is no longer effective. (It is only effective for a few thousand years) So much for dino fossils being 23,000,000 years old.

What you call facts are hardly that. There are very few "facts" when it comes to evolution.

Jay, what about the forms of radio dating that we use on fossils and rocks? Carbon-14 is a gimmick.

I believe we have come full circle, what is this the 2,000th circle. Maybe we can carbon date it!

"Radio-carbon dating is a method of obtaining age estimates on organic materials. It has been used to date samples as old as 50,000 years." And I'm not even buying that.

Posted: **Sun Aug 10, 2008 11:29 pm**

MeDeFe wrote:
Neoteny wrote:Salmonella, Juan.

Cute!

I just got the flesh-eating strep for my girl's birthday. We've got a pretty impressive collection. They are crazy-awesome.

Posted: **Sun Aug 10, 2008 11:30 pm**

Jay (and any other creationists who like this argument)
You claim that carbon-dating is faulty. Let's forget for the moment that carbon-dating is not as bg an issue as you imagine.
Explain to me how you thin it works - your last coupla posts seemed a bit shakey on this subject.
Before you can dismiss it, you need to convince us you understand it.

Posted: **Sun Aug 10, 2008 11:31 pm**

What, Neoteny, you got a girlfriend?

Posted: **Sun Aug 10, 2008 11:32 pm**

mpjh wrote:What, you got a girlfriend?

I know, it's pretty hard to believe. She's into leather.

Posted: **Sun Aug 10, 2008 11:34 pm**

I wonder, does THAT prove there is a god.

Posted: **Sun Aug 10, 2008 11:35 pm**

Neoteny wrote:
jay_a2j wrote:
Juan_Bottom wrote:How about you prove me wrong in your own words Jay? Not to be mean, ok.... But I don't think you can do it.

Where to begin?

Carbon 14 dating? This is not an accurate way of dating. The process requires measuring the carbon in said item. In order to correctly carbon date, using half-life, you must know what the carbon content was to begin with. Eventually time runs out, and the carbon dating process is no longer effective. (It is only effective for a few thousand years) So much for dino fossils being 23,000,000 years old.

What you call facts are hardly that. There are very few "facts" when it comes to evolution.

I believe we have come full circle, what is this the 2,000th circle. Maybe we can carbon date it!

We don't use carbon dating for dino fossils. We use isotopes with longer half-lives. Carbon dating is great for human bones though.

We have a problem or 2 Houston!

Posted: **Sun Aug 10, 2008 11:41 pm**

Neoteny, did you seek divine intervention, and was there a specific request for a preference for leather.

Or

Did you use eharmony?

Posted: **Sun Aug 10, 2008 11:44 pm**

To some ppl your asking "when did eternity start" u see some things can't be explained and plz let's just leave it at that

Oh and guns dont kill people, people kill people

Posted: **Sun Aug 10, 2008 11:45 pm**

jay_a2j wrote:
Neoteny wrote:
jay_a2j wrote:
Juan_Bottom wrote:How about you prove me wrong in your own words Jay? Not to be mean, ok.... But I don't think you can do it.

Where to begin?

Carbon 14 dating? This is not an accurate way of dating. The process requires measuring the carbon in said item. In order to correctly carbon date, using half-life, you must know what the carbon content was to begin with. Eventually time runs out, and the carbon dating process is no longer effective. (It is only effective for a few thousand years) So much for dino fossils being 23,000,000 years old.

What you call facts are hardly that. There are very few "facts" when it comes to evolution.

I believe we have come full circle, what is this the 2,000th circle. Maybe we can carbon date it!

We don't use carbon dating for dino fossils. We use isotopes with longer half-lives. Carbon dating is great for human bones though.

We have a problem or 2 Houston!

We don't really. I don't have access to the actual article, but I imagine that someone at Nature would have noticed a statistical anomaly, and AiG is notorious for bending the truth. All scientists are trained in the basics, if not more in-depth, of statistics. An error of the magnitude Williams is suggesting should be caught be even a second or third year student, so I imagine the PhDs were on the ball. Even assuming a statistical error, I would wager that even the younger crystals are significantly older than anything the bible predicts.

Posted: **Sun Aug 10, 2008 11:46 pm**

mpjh wrote:Neoteny, did you seek divine intervention, and was there a specific request for a preference for leather.

Or

Did you use eharmony?

It was an ecology lab. I stole her partner's seat. We went to Starbucks where I rambled for a good hour or so. I suppose that fits into the first category. The leather was just luck.

Posted: **Sun Aug 10, 2008 11:47 pm**

Well, some things do end well, contrary to the experience of this thread.

Posted: **Sun Aug 10, 2008 11:49 pm**

mpjh wrote:Well, some things do end well, contrary to the experience of this thread.

I would be a sad man if this thread ended.

Posted: **Sun Aug 10, 2008 11:49 pm**

Neoteny wrote:
mpjh wrote:Well, some things do end well, contrary to the experience of this thread.

I would be a sad man if this thread ended.

"would be"..."if"...

Posted: **Sun Aug 10, 2008 11:51 pm**

Well, there doesn't seem to be much risk of that. Seems you take pleasure in the simplest of things.

Posted: **Sun Aug 10, 2008 11:54 pm**

mpjh wrote:Well, there doesn't seem to be much risk of that. Seems you take pleasure in the simplest of things.

"All that you need is in your soul."

Honestly, these kinds of things hone my intelligence on a much broader spectrum of things I wouldn't otherwise know about. I try to look on the bright side.

Posted: **Sun Aug 10, 2008 11:56 pm**

OK, whatever gets you through the night.

Say Jones, is that a mirror in front of your face or are you combing your mustache?

Posted: **Sun Aug 10, 2008 11:57 pm**

mpjh wrote:OK, whatever gets you through the night.

Say Jones, is that a mirror in front of your face or are you combing your mustache?

Every time I see it out of the corner of my eye, I think he's drinking out of a mug. Turns out he's an herpetologist.

Posted: **Sun Aug 10, 2008 11:59 pm**

GrimReaper. wrote:To some ppl your asking "when did eternity start" u see some things can't be explained and plz let's just leave it at that

Oh and guns dont kill people, people kill people

My arguement stands

Posted: **Mon Aug 11, 2008 12:00 am**

Herpetologist, I have seen a pill advertised for that, but it doesn't always work so you partner has to be careful.

Conquer Club

Logic dictates that there is a God!

Re: Logic dictates that there is a God!

Re: Logic dictates that there is a God!

Re: Logic dictates that there is a God!

Re: Logic dictates that there is a God!

Re: Logic dictates that there is a God!

Re: Logic dictates that there is a God!

Re: Logic dictates that there is a God!

Re: Logic dictates that there is a God!

Re: Logic dictates that there is a God!

Re: Logic dictates that there is a God!

Re: Logic dictates that there is a God!

Re: Logic dictates that there is a God!

Re: Logic dictates that there is a God!

Re: Logic dictates that there is a God!

Re: Logic dictates that there is a God!

Re: Logic dictates that there is a God!

Re: Logic dictates that there is a God!

Re: Logic dictates that there is a God!

Re: Logic dictates that there is a God!

Re: Logic dictates that there is a God!

Re: Logic dictates that there is a God!

Re: Logic dictates that there is a God!

Re: Logic dictates that there is a God!

Re: Logic dictates that there is a God!

Re: Logic dictates that there is a God!