Religion Debates and Discussions

stop using that ****ing ****ty source holy ****. its bias is through the roof and is just a way for christians to try and convince themselves that god is real

of course it cant prove anything, science is always changing and accepting new theories. they collect evidence then find conclusions, while the religious make conclusions then find evidence

 

I am here for a debate. I debated your points to the best of my ability. I did not come here for you to scream and swear at me because you don't have an adequate answer. Was the source biased, definitely. But there are literally dozens of other articles that are not biassed, which also say that Radiometric Dating is inaccurate. Even @Gohabsgo doesn't believe it is very accurate, and we know he isn't a biassed source.

 

so link me them

The basic equation of radiometric dating requires that neither the parent nuclide nor the daughter product can enter or leave the material after its formation. The possible confounding effects of contamination of parent and daughter isotopes have to be considered, as do the effects of any loss or gain of such isotopes since the sample was created. It is therefore essential to have as much information as possible about the material being dated and to check for possible signs of alteration.[8] Precision is enhanced if measurements are taken on multiple samples from different locations of the rock body. Alternatively, if several different minerals can be dated from the same sample and are assumed to be formed by the same event and were in equilibrium with the reservoir when they formed, they should form an isochron. This can reduce the problem of contamination. In uranium-lead dating, the concordia diagram is used which also decreases the problem of nuclide loss. Finally, correlation between different isotopic dating methods may be required to confirm the age of a sample. For example, the age of the Amitsoq gneisses from western Greenland was determined to be 3.6 ± 0.05 million years ago (MA) using uranium-lead dating and 3.56 ± 0.10 Ma using lead-lead dating, results that are consistent with each other.[9]:142–143

the above is how we eliminate possibilities of inaccuracy

 

Enderdragon I don't think your sarcasm detector is working right today!

 

Haha I totally missed that! XD

Now, explain this in English, instead of just copying and pasting from Wikipedia. Anyone can use high tech terms to get there way by sounding scientific, but unless you can provide anaologies/examples/ or really anything to help a person who does have a degree in Biology to understand what you are saying, then your answer is lost to me.

 

you take samples from different parts of the rock and use different methods on the same rock to determine if its accurate. not rocket science.

 

Ah, but what you say and what the Wiki article says are different! The Wiki article overcomplicates it by using words and scientific terms that the average person would not understand. On the other hand, you oversimplify it so to make it seem like it is the only logical answer. I disagree still, especially since I have not been given proof that it is in fact reliable. Also after a brief search, I have provided 4 links to websites that doubt the accuracy of Radiometric Dating that does not use religious grounds to dispute it.

http://www.sciencemeetsreligion.org/evolution/reliability.php
http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/dating2.html
https://ncse.com/library-resource/radiometric-dating-does-work
http://anthropology.msu.edu/anp264-...arbon-dating-a-closer-look-at-its-main-flaws/

 

what are you saying..... do you know why they use complicated words? BECAUSE THERE ARE A LOT OF WORDS THAT ARE USED WITH SCIENCE AND YOU NEED TO BE SPECIFIC. my response was what the wikipedia article said just in simpler terms so that you can get the gist of it. you asked for a simple response and i gave you it.

the sources you quoted do not answer my question. they are referring to radiocarbon dating, which is only 1 of the various methods used to date rocks we find (carbon is in all living things, therefore radiocarbon dating is used to identify relatively recent living beings that are now dead). the university of north carolina article brings up a valid point, but by using different parts of the same rock and rocks that are in a similar spot on the earth (they tend to be very similar in composition) to eliminate many of the inaccuracies that scientists are concerned with. the other source clearly have an an agenda (to prove creationism).

funny enough, one of your articles actually proves my point. "The use of different dating methods on the same rock is an excellent way to check the accuracy of age results. If two or more radiometric clocks based on different elements and running at different rates give the same age, that's powerful evidence that the ages are probably correct."

 

Actually, I asked you to give an adequate answer, which meant for you to explain how you are certain that Radiometric Dating is accurate, and was not an invitation to rattle off a bunch of terms that neither you nor I could explain without googling.

Now if you had read my entire post that was formed to counter your other arguments you would have known that the Catholic Church does not discount the possibility of Evolution or Radiometric Dating for that matter. Instead, you got hung up on the first point and didn't seem to continue reading. Btw, I did know that my articles did support Radiometric Dating to some extent, and no they didn't fully focus on Radiocarbon Dating, there was a lot to read.

I was kinda hoping that it wouldn't just be the two of us debating and that some more people would give there opinion XD

 

i cant be certain about anything, but i trust that radiometric dating is accurate by reading into it on studies done by people much more intelligent than me who have much more money than me and much more equipment than me.

ok...? just because the catholic church says that it could be aligned with christianity doesnt mean that the bible isnt FULL of unreliable and incorrect information that is now being twisted in an attempt to be relevant in a world in which sciences have advanced to the point where we dont need to make up a god in order to comprehend things we cant

holy runon, batman

 

Thinking that there is no God is very ridiculously sad to me. There are many proofs of God, people just don't think hard enough about it.
People say they can not see, touch, feel, and so on and so forth of God. Well if you believe in that, you must not have great great grandparents- oh wait, you did. I didn't see my great great grandparents, but I believe they they once existed.
Another reason is people don't understand God, which is why they don't believe in them. But like the cell, we do not know everything about it, like how do cells position proteins, or how do cells know it's size, we don't understand the cell, but we know it existed.
Now, the monkey from human idea is such a stupid idea. It's funny to me just thinking about it. Scientist have not found the body of a monkey and human yet, and if we did come from monkeys, why do monkeys not turn into humans today? And for some stupid reasons, scientist keep looking in Africa.
Now, where did we come from, there is no possible way we just appeared here. NOTHING CANNOT MAKE SOMETHING remember that. We had to had have a creator, someone to make us. You have 2 choices:
1) We all appeared of of NOTHING, which is impossible.
2) Something created us and everything else.
Although we don't understand we're God came from, it seems more logical to choice number 2.
The cosmos are beautiful, aren't they? Well, the universe is huge, and getting bigger, who is doing that? God. How can we look into the sky at night time and think it just appeared.
When there is a CREATION there HAS to be a CREATOR remember that. A table can't appear out of nowhere can it, no. A creator has too create it. A table has too be made by a creator, not just appear out of nowhere.
The cell is so advanced, there are microscopic things in there, how did that just appear? God made it.

 

1. Evolution:

2. What about other species humans long ago?

 

I understand that you think the cells made present day animals, i agree, but not humans. I will say again, we did not come from monkeys. Cells can made types of breed of animals, yes like dogs, but those cells cannot make humans. Although human cells (not from animal cells) also give types (black, white, birth marks, etc) to other humans, not animals. Yet again scientist have not found a body which is monkey and human, making both of you videos up there wrong.

 

Well there's more proof for this then for your story with the only proof being that it's impossible to not have been created without a god or something simular. (Which is an opinion) And for the other human species, there's solid proof for that.

 

It's not possible to prove or disprove the existence of God since 1) none of us have ever 'seen' God (physically, in the real world that is) and anyone who has claimed to have seen God is either lying or on drugs, 2) God exists in a dimension outside our own which we, presumably, reach after we die, and 3) one can't point to any particular thing and say "well God did that" or "God didn't do that" because there's no actual evidence to suggest that God did or did not create the air we breathe, the water in the ocean, or the earth we inhabit. Yes you can say that such things were due to geological or volcanic activity or whatever but how do you know God hadn't intended that to happen? Or that God didn't create the very things that caused new things to form?

You can prove that parts of the Bible are wrong. Genesis is wrong because humans evolved from apes in Africa and didn't just magically appear in a mythical garden in an unknown place in the Middle East. Noah and the Ark is a questionable story as there's no record of the flood as the Bible tells in recorded or geological history. And even parts of Jesus' story, especially the miracles (i.e. walking on water & healing through faith) are up for debate. But you cannot prove that God does or does not exist.

There is a very interesting book out there called "Ninety Minutes in Heaven" where a Southern pastor was hit by a semi while driving home. He dies of his injuries - it's true he was dead for some time as paramedics couldn't find any signs of life on him - but is revived. During that time he claims to have entered Heaven and describes what took place there before returning to the living. Good stuff

 

no, but i can be pretty sure YOUR god doesnt exist, not that there isnt a higher power