American Christians, do you feel persecuted?

[[m'kay]]

It's getting kinda annoying seeing Pascal's Wager everywhere to be honest

[(=DK=)Samonuh]

TIL no one here can science.

[Yanoda]

I've heard the Earth called that young too by Biblical Scholars, and as much as 100s of Millions by Scientist trying to date the Dinosaurs. But I don't believe carbon testing is accurate out beyond , maybe, 10,000 years. I mean, seriously, how can it be believable to accurately date something 100 million or even only 10 million years ago? Heck, they can't even date the Shroud of Turin accurately.

Radiometric dating is quite accurate WD-40. Many scientists implement multiple forms of radiometric dating, this revolves on the half life of many isotopes like Carbon-14. The use of carbon-14 (aka carbon dating is accurate up to 50,000 years). Examples of isotopes used for radiometric dating on dinosaurs are: uranium-238, uranium-235 and potassium-40.

The actual process in determining the age of the dinosaurs are used to date the surrounding sedimentary rocks. They implement several different isotopes and compare them on what they indicate the age of the sediment layer. That way, they can have a focused range on the age of the rock and can accurately estimate the age of the dinosaur bone. Error bars range only around 1%. So it is safe to say, we do know the age of dinosaur bones with great confidence.

Based on the Shroud of Turin, carbon dating showed that the material come from the 14th Century. Unfortunately, there are those that say the sample that was used was not sufficient. Note that they do not dispute the method of the dating, only the sample that was used. Based on such an 'artifact', it is no question that there will be many disputes on the age of it. Unless we can properly analyse it (take multiple samples mostly from the center of it), there will be disputes. Using this as an argument against dating is lacking at most.

What killed the Dinosaurs? No one can agree. If it was weather, then when? What kind? Sure, we can assume cold. If a meteor, where's the impact site? If located, how long till the after effects were gone did it take to support life? What survived the blast or weather, if anything? How did Humans evolve in this time? Where's this so-called missing link? I've met a few people, who I'd swear ARE the missing link, but they exist today, not 10,000 years ago.

You're quite misinformed WD-40.
What killed the Dinosaurs were several events that stressed them too much that were either from multiple meteor impacts or volcanic activity or both. Note that meteor impact can affect volcanic activity in large parts of the world. Both these effects had a large impact on the climate. There are multiple impact sites that are very likely those that caused the events of the extinction of the dinosaurs. Chicxulub impact crater is the major contender for the meteor impact since it occurred at the time of the dinosaur extinction. Furthermore, the Deccan Traps were found to have also developed at the time. Having both events close together can have detrimental effects on the climate and populations. So, in the end, it were several events one after another that caused the extinction of the non-avian dinosaurs.
It's not how long till the after effects subsided, but which organisms were best able to adapt to the situation. Several organisms survived the K-T event, mammals being the winners in such an event.
Humans did not develop in that time frame. It is estimated that Modern human first occurred around 200,000 years ago.
Here's an image of the lineage from how we arose:

The missing link argument/fallacy is getting quite cumbersome now. I will not go into it further since it'll just be another Xeno's Paradox.

You can claim evolution, but it's only a 'theory', whereas Creation is claimed as a 'Belief'. I feel, neither will actually ever be proven, until death. If nothingness, Evolutionarys are right...but were's the 'Victory' party going to be? The Celebration? If 'Creationists' are right, well, party's in Heaven, but only Wine will be served. May have to go to Hell for the 'Hard stuff'.

A Scientific Theory still is based on more facts and evidence, than a belief, so stating it is "only a theory" is a misunderstanding on the definition of it.
Pascal's Wager is also getting annoying and has no basis for any argument. If you really want to be sure, you'll have to worship all the known Gods in human history. Of course you wouldn't do that since you do not 'believe' in them. You know that the monotheistic God you worship/believe in was not the first God to be conceived. Many religious scholars, archaeologists and anthropologists agree that the origin of the monotheistic God Christians, Jews and Muslims worship originated from the Babylonians, which had a polytheistic religion. The Enuma Elish is a document that very closely resembles the creation story, or in this case, the precursor of the creation story of the Bible.
Just like the Evolutionary Theory of Life, religion has also undergone changes throughout history. A proper term would be - Religion has evolved throughout history.
So I recommend doing a bit more research before making arguments.

Cheers

Yanoda

[Hobo]

You now that the monotheistic God you worship/believe in was not the first God to be conceived. Many religious scholars, archaeologists and anthropologists agree that the origin of the monotheistic God Christians, Jews and Muslims worship originated from the Babylonians, which had a polytheistic religion. The Enuma Elish is a document that very closely resembles the creation story, or in this case, the precursor of the creation story of the Bible.

Cheers

Yanoda

No it doesn't.

[Darth Crater]

Also, the age of the Earth isn't determined by dating dinosaur fossils. It's determined by radiometric dating of both terrestrial rocks and meteorites left over from planet formation, as well as observations of the sun. The planet is about 4.5 billion years old.

By contrast, the age cited by biblical scholars is found by looking at the genealogy listed in the old testament (the one which lists humans living for many hundreds of years).

[WD-40]

I read about 3 sentences of Yanoda's 'Higher than thou' proclamations and just started laughing! Calling me 'Misinformed'? heh heh! Sorry Yan...I just can't take your conclusions seriously. I like the 'Hommo Eretus' line in your graph. cant imagine why that caught my attention. Nothing you said is fact or proven...just Theories. 'Define' whatever or however you want. It doesn't change or prove anything. Oh we'll..I check the forums for a good laugh now and then so, mission accomplished.

[(SWGO)SirPepsi]

As Yanoda has stated, Radiometric dating is quite accurate. I find this university explains it beautifully!.

Concerning Pascal's Wager, yo estoy de acuerdo con Yanoda otra vez. According to [the majority of] Christian's beliefs, one can only attain favourable afterlife if one worships "the one true God" and adheres to stipulations made throughout the Bible. Many other major religions are in accordance, except with their own deities - meaning there are an infinite number of possibilities (if, of course, you choose to believe each faith has the equal opportunity of "being right" as it were). Hindu reincarnation, Buddhist and Jain Nirvana, African and Native American rituals and "Ghost Lands," etc. Meaning, to summarise, that each faith believes it is infallibly correct (other than Eastern religions) and if any of them other than yours is, you're in the same boat as you proclaim Atheists are in.

[CommanderOtto]

I read about 3 sentences of Yanoda's 'Higher than thou' proclamations and just started laughing! Calling me 'Misinformed'? heh heh! Sorry Yan...I just can't take your conclusions seriously. I like the 'Hommo Eretus' line in your graph. cant imagine why that caught my attention. Nothing you said is fact or proven...just Theories. 'Define' whatever or however you want. It doesn't change or prove anything. Oh we'll..I check the forums for a good laugh now and then so, mission accomplished.

I told you man. You say you don't believe in evolution and you are called ignorant. There is no escape even though we both know how some people are wrong. I am a master when it comes to the subject of the Bible, and if I could make a presentation, I could easily destroy any attempt to call a Christian an ignorant person. I am sure that if someone here went to Harvard, Yale, Oxford and MIT... I am sure you will find plenty of Christians there. If the Theory of Evolution was proven, nobody would believe in religion.

Regarding the "time subject"....WD, you were right for the most part. However, the earth is probably way older than 6,000-10,000 years. Remember, WD, that this estimate is only for the history of mankind. When it comes to the age of earth, I think you will find interesting what I will say next. It is important to note that the word "days" or "years" does not represent an exact day or year in our terms. In some cases in the Bible, a "day" could actually mean a much longer period (like thousands of years for example). Therefore, when the Bible says "7 days" for the creation of earth, it actually means "7 periods of time" and does not necessary mean 7 days had passed. I just thought it was an interesting fact about the Bible that sometimes helps me when I use Time as a defense against some silly comments against Christianity.

and wow, I can't wait untill someone creates a thread where we can all talk about another subject. This subject is boring already and it has become a debate, not a conversation. I can't understand why we can't just talk like Crater and me the other day. When it becomes a debate, it is just annoying. I could make a flawless essay and then some jerk comes in and makes a stupid comment with no facts or sign of intelligence. It is therefore a waste of time.

[Darth Crater]

Evolution happens (Homestar, there's your evidence - see particularly Reference 2). Thus, it is valid to call someone who does not believe that ignorant. Not necessarily nice, and I apologize if it seemed like an attack, but valid. That does not translate to calling Christians ignorant. Evolution is not fighting Christianity - plenty of Christians believe it happened. Only biblical literalists (which Homestar claims to be, but you, Otto, apparently are not) have to be opposed to evolution.

EDIT: ran across this just now, thought I'd throw it in as an example of Christians looking at evidence. http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2012/11/2 ... ?hpt=hp_c2

[Col. Hstar]

Had to step in briefly because Crater posted information about me with out checking his facts.

Only biblical literalists (which Homestar claims to be, but you, Otto, apparently are not) have to be opposed to evolution

I never called myself a "bible literalists" as you call it. I feel the bible is 100% accurate but not all parts are to be taken literally. If you want clarification about certain scriptures feel free to PM me. For instance I never stated the earth was created in 7 literal days. If you want clarification about certain scriptures feel free to PM me.
Goes to show how many of my posts you actually read.

And your "proof" is about a strain of bacteria adapting. Adaptation is not evolution. The bacteria is still E Coli. A test which by the way was conducted in controlled environments that never would have existed at the beginning of time.
Quote from you reference "A citrate-using (Cit+) variant finally evolved in one population by 31,500 generations, causing an increase in population size and diversity." A variant but not an entirely new bacteria. Nice try though.