How Much of a Theist or Atheist are You?

[sealybobo]

I know right? Let's humor him

>>I know right? Let's humor him<<

Ha ha, but my retort is the one who laughs last, laughs best. You'll hear my Joker laugh after seeing who was right in the end. OTOH, if the atheist belief is right, then neither us will know or care. There will be no consciousness.

I looked up radocarbon dating. Lots of flaws with that method. Ironically nuclear testing and coal/oil have ruined the results. Very unreliable. Yet that's what you use.

More recently, accelerator mass spectrometry has become the method of choice

Any addition of carbon to a sample of a different age will cause the measured date to be inaccurate. Contamination with modern carbon causes a sample to appear to be younger than it really is

What???? So you are using a bad method buddy.

Radiocarbon dating is generally limited to dating samples no more than 50,000 years old, as samples older than that have insufficient 14
C to be measurable.

Do you understand what that means? That means your method is only good for measuring a young earth. It's completely ineffective measuring things older than 50,000 years. Did you know that? Of course you did not.

Radiocarbon dating works, but you have to be very careful. It also only works for a few thousand years for dating actual history of man. The error rate is too large for older samples. The half-life of carbon 14 is only 6k years

Do you think James looked into it that deep? I doubt it. I think his preacher told him what to say and he said it.

I actually went to the link he posted. I laughed! LOL

One of his pieces of evidence was that there isn't a lot of sand on the ocean floor. Gimme a break!!!

 

[MarkDuffy]

>>I know right? Let's humor him<<

Ha ha, but my retort is the one who laughs last, laughs best. You'll hear my Joker laugh after seeing who was right in the end. OTOH, if the atheist belief is right, then neither us will know or care. There will be no consciousness.

I looked up radocarbon dating. Lots of flaws with that method. Ironically nuclear testing and coal/oil have ruined the results. Very unreliable. Yet that's what you use.

More recently, accelerator mass spectrometry has become the method of choice

Any addition of carbon to a sample of a different age will cause the measured date to be inaccurate. Contamination with modern carbon causes a sample to appear to be younger than it really is

What???? So you are using a bad method buddy.

Radiocarbon dating is generally limited to dating samples no more than 50,000 years old, as samples older than that have insufficient 14
C to be measurable.

Do you understand what that means? That means your method is only good for measuring a young earth. It's completely ineffective measuring things older than 50,000 years. Did you know that? Of course you did not.

Radiocarbon dating works, but you have to be very careful. It also only works for a few thousand years for dating actual history of man. The error rate is too large for older samples. The half-life of carbon 14 is only 6k years

Do you think James looked into it that deep? I doubt it. I think his preacher told him what to say and he said it.

I actually went to the link he posted. I laughed! LOL

One of his pieces of evidence was that there isn't a lot of sand on the ocean floor. Gimme a break!!!

The Age of the Earth - Ocean Floor Sediment as a Creationist Clock: Jason Tentinger

CD220: Amount of sediments in the ocean

Questioning Answers In Genesis: "Best evidences for a young Earth": Snelling and the ocean-sediment flux

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I was never strong theist. I was weak theist then agnostic then atheist now agnostic atheist

>>I was never strong theist. I was weak theist then agnostic then atheist now agnostic atheist<<

No one would mistake you for a strong theist which would put you in the liar category if you claimed that. Instead, I'll give you the benefit of a doubt as being a weak theist since you attended church a few times. I would guess your beliefs are based on someone or something providing the evidence of the existence of God. However, there is no evidence good enough to convince one who states that except for pain and suffering. If the believers are the ones being truthful, then this becomes another Biblical prophecy fulfilled.

If the churches I attend hooked me up to a lie detector I would have to admit I'm not buying it.

But could there be a creator? Sure. People contemplated that long before Moses claimed he spoke to him. So just like people back then agreed there might be a creator I agree now. But everything beyond that is man made. Virgin births, Mohammad, Joseph Smith, talking snakes, lazarith, Noah, parables, allegories, ramblings, Revelations, covenants, Adam, Jonah, Luke, old and new testament.

Do you see that I am right? I may have said that you were a weak theist, but that was in your past. I thought you were more agnostic before or having an open mind and suddenly you're more well, show me the evidence. That path will not lead you to God or truth. For example, the earth and universe is young in the 6K - 10K years old range and they're the same age, but you think I'm the one gravely mistaken.

"For example, the earth and universe is young in the 6K - 10K years old range and they're the same age, but you think I'm the one gravely mistaken.""


haha, good one. Yes, folks, evidence will not lead us to truth. Water is not wet, and down is up. we're ALL mad, here. You, sir, are a master of witty sarcasm.

Yes, I'm witty and can do sarcasm but unfortunately we will not know the answer to this question. The age of the earth will not be revealed as God has stated in the Bible. Thus, we can only argue the method of how one comes up with their answer. I would use radiocarbon dating or other estimates which YEC scientists have put forth* while atheist scientists will use radiometric dating.

* - The 10 Best Evidences from Science that Confirm a Young Earth

That's a lie. Scientists use all forms of dating, depending on what they are dating.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

>>I was never strong theist. I was weak theist then agnostic then atheist now agnostic atheist<<

No one would mistake you for a strong theist which would put you in the liar category if you claimed that. Instead, I'll give you the benefit of a doubt as being a weak theist since you attended church a few times. I would guess your beliefs are based on someone or something providing the evidence of the existence of God. However, there is no evidence good enough to convince one who states that except for pain and suffering. If the believers are the ones being truthful, then this becomes another Biblical prophecy fulfilled.

If the churches I attend hooked me up to a lie detector I would have to admit I'm not buying it.

But could there be a creator? Sure. People contemplated that long before Moses claimed he spoke to him. So just like people back then agreed there might be a creator I agree now. But everything beyond that is man made. Virgin births, Mohammad, Joseph Smith, talking snakes, lazarith, Noah, parables, allegories, ramblings, Revelations, covenants, Adam, Jonah, Luke, old and new testament.

Do you see that I am right? I may have said that you were a weak theist, but that was in your past. I thought you were more agnostic before or having an open mind and suddenly you're more well, show me the evidence. That path will not lead you to God or truth. For example, the earth and universe is young in the 6K - 10K years old range and they're the same age, but you think I'm the one gravely mistaken.

"For example, the earth and universe is young in the 6K - 10K years old range and they're the same age, but you think I'm the one gravely mistaken.""


haha, good one. Yes, folks, evidence will not lead us to truth. Water is not wet, and down is up. we're ALL mad, here. You, sir, are a master of witty sarcasm.

I know right? Let's humor him

>>I know right? Let's humor him<<

Ha ha, but my retort is the one who laughs last, laughs best. You'll hear my Joker laugh after seeing who was right in the end. OTOH, if the atheist belief is right, then neither us will know or care. There will be no consciousness.

"OTOH, if the atheist belief is right, then neither us will know or care. "

You should care now. You have a limited time here, and you are wasting it on magical nonsense and looking ahead to an afterlife that does not exist. You should care about that possibility.

 

[BreezeWood]

.
bond has no burden and uses their fraudulent religion to insure that weight of life's perils is maintained on the less fortunate remains as they have for centuries, relentlessly to curry for themselves their lives of leisure.

accusing (all) those not willing to bend to their dogma as atheist in hopes forever to silence their greatest fear, the Free Spirit.

 

[sealybobo]

If the churches I attend hooked me up to a lie detector I would have to admit I'm not buying it.

But could there be a creator? Sure. People contemplated that long before Moses claimed he spoke to him. So just like people back then agreed there might be a creator I agree now. But everything beyond that is man made. Virgin births, Mohammad, Joseph Smith, talking snakes, lazarith, Noah, parables, allegories, ramblings, Revelations, covenants, Adam, Jonah, Luke, old and new testament.

Do you see that I am right? I may have said that you were a weak theist, but that was in your past. I thought you were more agnostic before or having an open mind and suddenly you're more well, show me the evidence. That path will not lead you to God or truth. For example, the earth and universe is young in the 6K - 10K years old range and they're the same age, but you think I'm the one gravely mistaken.

"For example, the earth and universe is young in the 6K - 10K years old range and they're the same age, but you think I'm the one gravely mistaken.""


haha, good one. Yes, folks, evidence will not lead us to truth. Water is not wet, and down is up. we're ALL mad, here. You, sir, are a master of witty sarcasm.

I know right? Let's humor him

>>I know right? Let's humor him<<

Ha ha, but my retort is the one who laughs last, laughs best. You'll hear my Joker laugh after seeing who was right in the end. OTOH, if the atheist belief is right, then neither us will know or care. There will be no consciousness.

"OTOH, if the atheist belief is right, then neither us will know or care. "

You should care now. You have a limited time here, and you are wasting it on magical nonsense and looking ahead to an afterlife that does not exist. You should care about that possibility.

I love it when they ask what if we are wrong. What if they're wrong? Maybe Mormons or jehovas are right

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Do you see that I am right? I may have said that you were a weak theist, but that was in your past. I thought you were more agnostic before or having an open mind and suddenly you're more well, show me the evidence. That path will not lead you to God or truth. For example, the earth and universe is young in the 6K - 10K years old range and they're the same age, but you think I'm the one gravely mistaken.

"For example, the earth and universe is young in the 6K - 10K years old range and they're the same age, but you think I'm the one gravely mistaken.""


haha, good one. Yes, folks, evidence will not lead us to truth. Water is not wet, and down is up. we're ALL mad, here. You, sir, are a master of witty sarcasm.

I know right? Let's humor him

>>I know right? Let's humor him<<

Ha ha, but my retort is the one who laughs last, laughs best. You'll hear my Joker laugh after seeing who was right in the end. OTOH, if the atheist belief is right, then neither us will know or care. There will be no consciousness.

"OTOH, if the atheist belief is right, then neither us will know or care. "

You should care now. You have a limited time here, and you are wasting it on magical nonsense and looking ahead to an afterlife that does not exist. You should care about that possibility.

I love it when they ask what if we are wrong. What if they're wrong? Maybe Mormons or jehovas are right

Apparently, if they find out they are wrong while still in this life, they will all degenerate into immoral savages, pillaging and raping. Just ask 'em. They'll tell you that there is no morality without gods. Many will say this is why atheists can't and don't have "true morality". Maybe we should all just nod and agree with their gods -- all of them! -- to save ourselves from the potential genocidal marauding of wayward, godless religious people......

 

[sealybobo]

"For example, the earth and universe is young in the 6K - 10K years old range and they're the same age, but you think I'm the one gravely mistaken.""


haha, good one. Yes, folks, evidence will not lead us to truth. Water is not wet, and down is up. we're ALL mad, here. You, sir, are a master of witty sarcasm.

I know right? Let's humor him

>>I know right? Let's humor him<<

Ha ha, but my retort is the one who laughs last, laughs best. You'll hear my Joker laugh after seeing who was right in the end. OTOH, if the atheist belief is right, then neither us will know or care. There will be no consciousness.

"OTOH, if the atheist belief is right, then neither us will know or care. "

You should care now. You have a limited time here, and you are wasting it on magical nonsense and looking ahead to an afterlife that does not exist. You should care about that possibility.

I love it when they ask what if we are wrong. What if they're wrong? Maybe Mormons or jehovas are right

Apparently, if they find out they are wrong while still in this life, they will all degenerate into immoral savages, pillaging and raping. Just ask 'em. They'll tell you that there is no morality without gods. Many will say this is why atheists can't and don't have "true morality". Maybe we should all just nod and agree with their gods -- all of them! -- to save ourselves from the potential genocidal marauding of wayward, godless religious people......

You know who bug me? Big game hunters who claim to be moral or religious. How do you kill a lion for sport and think you are a moral person? That's something I'd never do and I don't think a god is watching me.

 

[james bond]

If the churches I attend hooked me up to a lie detector I would have to admit I'm not buying it.

But could there be a creator? Sure. People contemplated that long before Moses claimed he spoke to him. So just like people back then agreed there might be a creator I agree now. But everything beyond that is man made. Virgin births, Mohammad, Joseph Smith, talking snakes, lazarith, Noah, parables, allegories, ramblings, Revelations, covenants, Adam, Jonah, Luke, old and new testament.

Do you see that I am right? I may have said that you were a weak theist, but that was in your past. I thought you were more agnostic before or having an open mind and suddenly you're more well, show me the evidence. That path will not lead you to God or truth. For example, the earth and universe is young in the 6K - 10K years old range and they're the same age, but you think I'm the one gravely mistaken.

"For example, the earth and universe is young in the 6K - 10K years old range and they're the same age, but you think I'm the one gravely mistaken.""


haha, good one. Yes, folks, evidence will not lead us to truth. Water is not wet, and down is up. we're ALL mad, here. You, sir, are a master of witty sarcasm.

I know right? Let's humor him

>>I know right? Let's humor him<<

Ha ha, but my retort is the one who laughs last, laughs best. You'll hear my Joker laugh after seeing who was right in the end. OTOH, if the atheist belief is right, then neither us will know or care. There will be no consciousness.

I looked up radocarbon dating. Lots of flaws with that method. Ironically nuclear testing and coal/oil have ruined the results. Very unreliable. Yet that's what you use.

More recently, accelerator mass spectrometry has become the method of choice

Any addition of carbon to a sample of a different age will cause the measured date to be inaccurate. Contamination with modern carbon causes a sample to appear to be younger than it really is

What???? So you are using a bad method buddy.

Radiocarbon dating is generally limited to dating samples no more than 50,000 years old, as samples older than that have insufficient 14
C to be measurable.

Do you understand what that means? That means your method is only good for measuring a young earth. It's completely ineffective measuring things older than 50,000 years. Did you know that? Of course you did not.

Radiocarbon dating is fine for living matter that died. It is a trusted, quite adequate and scientifically acceptable. The founder received a Nobel Prize in Chemistry. What awards did yours receive?

If the earth and universe is young as per the Bible, then it would be an scientifically acceptable method to date all the carbon-based life forms such as dinosaurs. We know that dinosaurs are young because they still have their soft tissue.

>>It's completely ineffective measuring things older than 50,000 years. Did you know that? Of course you did not.<<

Of course, with a scientific brain like mine, I knew that, but before we go any further with the science, this could be my iconic role in the next life.

If I was the JB in the movies, then the last thing you see in life will be as follows...



Yet, we do not know what will happen after we die and in the next life. The period before the transition is one of great mystery and could be quite a scary ride for the atheists. Those that you believed and got your information from will the ones who guide you. Right before you go past the point of no return, I'll be the guy who says, "Hey mister, you're on fire."

 

[james bond]

Do you see that I am right? I may have said that you were a weak theist, but that was in your past. I thought you were more agnostic before or having an open mind and suddenly you're more well, show me the evidence. That path will not lead you to God or truth. For example, the earth and universe is young in the 6K - 10K years old range and they're the same age, but you think I'm the one gravely mistaken.

"For example, the earth and universe is young in the 6K - 10K years old range and they're the same age, but you think I'm the one gravely mistaken.""


haha, good one. Yes, folks, evidence will not lead us to truth. Water is not wet, and down is up. we're ALL mad, here. You, sir, are a master of witty sarcasm.

I know right? Let's humor him

>>I know right? Let's humor him<<

Ha ha, but my retort is the one who laughs last, laughs best. You'll hear my Joker laugh after seeing who was right in the end. OTOH, if the atheist belief is right, then neither us will know or care. There will be no consciousness.

I looked up radocarbon dating. Lots of flaws with that method. Ironically nuclear testing and coal/oil have ruined the results. Very unreliable. Yet that's what you use.

More recently, accelerator mass spectrometry has become the method of choice

Any addition of carbon to a sample of a different age will cause the measured date to be inaccurate. Contamination with modern carbon causes a sample to appear to be younger than it really is

What???? So you are using a bad method buddy.

Radiocarbon dating is generally limited to dating samples no more than 50,000 years old, as samples older than that have insufficient 14
C to be measurable.

Do you understand what that means? That means your method is only good for measuring a young earth. It's completely ineffective measuring things older than 50,000 years. Did you know that? Of course you did not.

Radiocarbon dating works, but you have to be very careful. It also only works for a few thousand years for dating actual history of man. The error rate is too large for older samples. The half-life of carbon 14 is only 6k years

It works for all living matter for a young earth.

What about radiometric dating? Don't you think the atheist scientists who swear by this method should be careful, too. They could be off by as 4.5 billion years.

 

[james bond]

>>I was never strong theist. I was weak theist then agnostic then atheist now agnostic atheist<<

No one would mistake you for a strong theist which would put you in the liar category if you claimed that. Instead, I'll give you the benefit of a doubt as being a weak theist since you attended church a few times. I would guess your beliefs are based on someone or something providing the evidence of the existence of God. However, there is no evidence good enough to convince one who states that except for pain and suffering. If the believers are the ones being truthful, then this becomes another Biblical prophecy fulfilled.

If the churches I attend hooked me up to a lie detector I would have to admit I'm not buying it.

But could there be a creator? Sure. People contemplated that long before Moses claimed he spoke to him. So just like people back then agreed there might be a creator I agree now. But everything beyond that is man made. Virgin births, Mohammad, Joseph Smith, talking snakes, lazarith, Noah, parables, allegories, ramblings, Revelations, covenants, Adam, Jonah, Luke, old and new testament.

Do you see that I am right? I may have said that you were a weak theist, but that was in your past. I thought you were more agnostic before or having an open mind and suddenly you're more well, show me the evidence. That path will not lead you to God or truth. For example, the earth and universe is young in the 6K - 10K years old range and they're the same age, but you think I'm the one gravely mistaken.

"For example, the earth and universe is young in the 6K - 10K years old range and they're the same age, but you think I'm the one gravely mistaken.""


haha, good one. Yes, folks, evidence will not lead us to truth. Water is not wet, and down is up. we're ALL mad, here. You, sir, are a master of witty sarcasm.

Yes, I'm witty and can do sarcasm but unfortunately we will not know the answer to this question. The age of the earth will not be revealed as God has stated in the Bible. Thus, we can only argue the method of how one comes up with their answer. I would use radiocarbon dating or other estimates which YEC scientists have put forth* while atheist scientists will use radiometric dating.

* - The 10 Best Evidences from Science that Confirm a Young Earth

Sorry but those are 10 very bad/weak arguments.

They're based on science. Real science. Christians created modern science to pay homage to God, so why they have to make up a fake science?

I realize science isn't your bag, but now you've been led to believe in a fake science and regurgitate the words of the wrong atheist scientists.

 

[MarkDuffy]

"For example, the earth and universe is young in the 6K - 10K years old range and they're the same age, but you think I'm the one gravely mistaken.""


haha, good one. Yes, folks, evidence will not lead us to truth. Water is not wet, and down is up. we're ALL mad, here. You, sir, are a master of witty sarcasm.

I know right? Let's humor him

>>I know right? Let's humor him<<

Ha ha, but my retort is the one who laughs last, laughs best. You'll hear my Joker laugh after seeing who was right in the end. OTOH, if the atheist belief is right, then neither us will know or care. There will be no consciousness.

I looked up radocarbon dating. Lots of flaws with that method. Ironically nuclear testing and coal/oil have ruined the results. Very unreliable. Yet that's what you use.

More recently, accelerator mass spectrometry has become the method of choice

Any addition of carbon to a sample of a different age will cause the measured date to be inaccurate. Contamination with modern carbon causes a sample to appear to be younger than it really is

What???? So you are using a bad method buddy.

Radiocarbon dating is generally limited to dating samples no more than 50,000 years old, as samples older than that have insufficient 14
C to be measurable.

Do you understand what that means? That means your method is only good for measuring a young earth. It's completely ineffective measuring things older than 50,000 years. Did you know that? Of course you did not.

Radiocarbon dating works, but you have to be very careful. It also only works for a few thousand years for dating actual history of man. The error rate is too large for older samples. The half-life of carbon 14 is only 6k years

It works for all living matter for a young earth.

What about radiometric dating? Don't you think the atheist scientists who swear by this method should be careful, too. They could be off by as 4.5 billion years.

We use the radiometric technique that is most accurate for the assumed time span. That is determined by the half-life of the isotope. We might start with one method and then go WTF, we were not even close with our original guess. Then we use a different isotope.

We also use other methods ~ Dating | The Smithsonian Institution's Human Origins Program

The best ages use more than one technique and they need to agree.

 

[james bond]

I know right? Let's humor him

>>I know right? Let's humor him<<

Ha ha, but my retort is the one who laughs last, laughs best. You'll hear my Joker laugh after seeing who was right in the end. OTOH, if the atheist belief is right, then neither us will know or care. There will be no consciousness.

I looked up radocarbon dating. Lots of flaws with that method. Ironically nuclear testing and coal/oil have ruined the results. Very unreliable. Yet that's what you use.

More recently, accelerator mass spectrometry has become the method of choice

Any addition of carbon to a sample of a different age will cause the measured date to be inaccurate. Contamination with modern carbon causes a sample to appear to be younger than it really is

What???? So you are using a bad method buddy.

Radiocarbon dating is generally limited to dating samples no more than 50,000 years old, as samples older than that have insufficient 14
C to be measurable.

Do you understand what that means? That means your method is only good for measuring a young earth. It's completely ineffective measuring things older than 50,000 years. Did you know that? Of course you did not.

Radiocarbon dating works, but you have to be very careful. It also only works for a few thousand years for dating actual history of man. The error rate is too large for older samples. The half-life of carbon 14 is only 6k years

Do you think James looked into it that deep? I doubt it. I think his preacher told him what to say and he said it.

I actually went to the link he posted. I laughed! LOL

If you went to my link, then you would know that soft tissue in fossilized dinosaur bones would and should not exist. The soft tissue would have dried up if they were billions of years old. Yet, they're still soft. See for yourself in the vid below.

 

[james bond]

I know right? Let's humor him

>>I know right? Let's humor him<<

Ha ha, but my retort is the one who laughs last, laughs best. You'll hear my Joker laugh after seeing who was right in the end. OTOH, if the atheist belief is right, then neither us will know or care. There will be no consciousness.

I looked up radocarbon dating. Lots of flaws with that method. Ironically nuclear testing and coal/oil have ruined the results. Very unreliable. Yet that's what you use.

More recently, accelerator mass spectrometry has become the method of choice

Any addition of carbon to a sample of a different age will cause the measured date to be inaccurate. Contamination with modern carbon causes a sample to appear to be younger than it really is

What???? So you are using a bad method buddy.

Radiocarbon dating is generally limited to dating samples no more than 50,000 years old, as samples older than that have insufficient 14
C to be measurable.

Do you understand what that means? That means your method is only good for measuring a young earth. It's completely ineffective measuring things older than 50,000 years. Did you know that? Of course you did not.

Radiocarbon dating works, but you have to be very careful. It also only works for a few thousand years for dating actual history of man. The error rate is too large for older samples. The half-life of carbon 14 is only 6k years

It works for all living matter for a young earth.

What about radiometric dating? Don't you think the atheist scientists who swear by this method should be careful, too. They could be off by as 4.5 billion years.

We use the radiometric technique that is most accurate for the assumed time span. That is determined by the half-life of the isotope. We might start with one method and then go WTF, we were not even close with our original guess. Then we use a different isotope.

We also use other methods ~ Dating | The Smithsonian Institution's Human Origins Program

No one is questioning the decay and half-life of the isotope. What is being challenged using radiometric dating are the assumptions made of the earth and universe during the beginning of time.

The various isotope dating methods rely upon several assumptions. They are:

1. Known amounts of daughter isotope (usually zero) at start.
2. No gain or loss of parent or daughter isotopes by any means other than radioactive decay (closed system).
3. A constant decay rate.[3]

People like Clair Patterson and Neil DeGrasse Tyson are basing the findings the earth is billions of years old on wrong assumptions. Atheists and their scientists are usually wrong. The Smithsonian is an institution that has been taken over by these atheist scientists.

 

[MarkDuffy]

>>I know right? Let's humor him<<

Ha ha, but my retort is the one who laughs last, laughs best. You'll hear my Joker laugh after seeing who was right in the end. OTOH, if the atheist belief is right, then neither us will know or care. There will be no consciousness.

I looked up radocarbon dating. Lots of flaws with that method. Ironically nuclear testing and coal/oil have ruined the results. Very unreliable. Yet that's what you use.

More recently, accelerator mass spectrometry has become the method of choice

Any addition of carbon to a sample of a different age will cause the measured date to be inaccurate. Contamination with modern carbon causes a sample to appear to be younger than it really is

What???? So you are using a bad method buddy.

Radiocarbon dating is generally limited to dating samples no more than 50,000 years old, as samples older than that have insufficient 14
C to be measurable.

Do you understand what that means? That means your method is only good for measuring a young earth. It's completely ineffective measuring things older than 50,000 years. Did you know that? Of course you did not.

Radiocarbon dating works, but you have to be very careful. It also only works for a few thousand years for dating actual history of man. The error rate is too large for older samples. The half-life of carbon 14 is only 6k years

Do you think James looked into it that deep? I doubt it. I think his preacher told him what to say and he said it.

I actually went to the link he posted. I laughed! LOL

If you went to my link, then you would know that soft tissue in fossilized dinosaur bones would and should not exist. The soft tissue would have dried up if they were billions of years old. Yet, they're still soft. See for yourself in the vid below.

Dinosaur Shocker | Science | Smithsonian

Controversial T. Rex Soft Tissue Find Finally Explained

One very rare fossil mechanism

<yawn>

 

[MarkDuffy]

>>I know right? Let's humor him<<

Ha ha, but my retort is the one who laughs last, laughs best. You'll hear my Joker laugh after seeing who was right in the end. OTOH, if the atheist belief is right, then neither us will know or care. There will be no consciousness.

I looked up radocarbon dating. Lots of flaws with that method. Ironically nuclear testing and coal/oil have ruined the results. Very unreliable. Yet that's what you use.

More recently, accelerator mass spectrometry has become the method of choice

Any addition of carbon to a sample of a different age will cause the measured date to be inaccurate. Contamination with modern carbon causes a sample to appear to be younger than it really is

What???? So you are using a bad method buddy.

Radiocarbon dating is generally limited to dating samples no more than 50,000 years old, as samples older than that have insufficient 14
C to be measurable.

Do you understand what that means? That means your method is only good for measuring a young earth. It's completely ineffective measuring things older than 50,000 years. Did you know that? Of course you did not.

Radiocarbon dating works, but you have to be very careful. It also only works for a few thousand years for dating actual history of man. The error rate is too large for older samples. The half-life of carbon 14 is only 6k years

It works for all living matter for a young earth.

What about radiometric dating? Don't you think the atheist scientists who swear by this method should be careful, too. They could be off by as 4.5 billion years.

We use the radiometric technique that is most accurate for the assumed time span. That is determined by the half-life of the isotope. We might start with one method and then go WTF, we were not even close with our original guess. Then we use a different isotope.

We also use other methods ~ Dating | The Smithsonian Institution's Human Origins Program

No one is questioning the decay and half-life of the isotope. What is being challenged using radiometric dating are the assumptions made of the earth and universe during the beginning of time.

The various isotope dating methods rely upon several assumptions. They are:

1. Known amounts of daughter isotope (usually zero) at start.
2. No gain or loss of parent or daughter isotopes by any means other than radioactive decay (closed system).
3. A constant decay rate.[3]

People like Clair Patterson and Neil DeGrasse Tyson are basing the findings the earth is billions of years old on wrong assumptions. Atheists and their scientists are usually wrong. The Smithsonian is an institution that has been taken over by these atheist scientists.

LOL, yes science has basic assumptions that are taken to be true on faith until they no longer explain the observations. Then we invent a new faith.

 

[sealybobo]

>>I know right? Let's humor him<<

Ha ha, but my retort is the one who laughs last, laughs best. You'll hear my Joker laugh after seeing who was right in the end. OTOH, if the atheist belief is right, then neither us will know or care. There will be no consciousness.

I looked up radocarbon dating. Lots of flaws with that method. Ironically nuclear testing and coal/oil have ruined the results. Very unreliable. Yet that's what you use.

More recently, accelerator mass spectrometry has become the method of choice

Any addition of carbon to a sample of a different age will cause the measured date to be inaccurate. Contamination with modern carbon causes a sample to appear to be younger than it really is

What???? So you are using a bad method buddy.

Radiocarbon dating is generally limited to dating samples no more than 50,000 years old, as samples older than that have insufficient 14
C to be measurable.

Do you understand what that means? That means your method is only good for measuring a young earth. It's completely ineffective measuring things older than 50,000 years. Did you know that? Of course you did not.

Radiocarbon dating works, but you have to be very careful. It also only works for a few thousand years for dating actual history of man. The error rate is too large for older samples. The half-life of carbon 14 is only 6k years

Do you think James looked into it that deep? I doubt it. I think his preacher told him what to say and he said it.

I actually went to the link he posted. I laughed! LOL

If you went to my link, then you would know that soft tissue in fossilized dinosaur bones would and should not exist. The soft tissue would have dried up if they were billions of years old. Yet, they're still soft. See for yourself in the vid below.

You gullible innocent schmucks.

Fossils can be so much more than dried out, mineralized bones. Researchers have found entire creatures exquisitely preserved in amber, dinosaur eggshells, and even the fossilized structure of a 515-million-year-old animal's nervous system.

But soft tissue has largely eluded scientists. Research over the last decade has suggested that proteins may be preserved in some fossils, which could revolutionize paleontology. But the only candidates came from the very end of the age of the dinosaurs, about 70 million years ago.

Paleontologists say they've found collagen, a protein found throughout all animal bodies,

"It wouldn't surprise me if this type of preservation is much more common than we might think," Stephen Brusatte, a paleontologist at the University of Edinburgh who was not involved in the research, writes in an email to the Monitor. "This realization could be a game-changer for paleontologists and will give us new ways to study dinosaurs that we never before imagined."

"Jurassic Park" fans shouldn't get too excited, though, Reisz says. Preserved organic material doesn't mean there is DNA in dinosaur bones that scientists could use to clone the beasts like they do in the fictive tale. DNA has a half-life of about 521 years, according to previous research, which means that an organism's DNA would be completely destroyed within 7 million years after its death.

How a 195-million-year-old dinosaur bone could still have soft tissue in it

 

[sealybobo]

>>I know right? Let's humor him<<

Ha ha, but my retort is the one who laughs last, laughs best. You'll hear my Joker laugh after seeing who was right in the end. OTOH, if the atheist belief is right, then neither us will know or care. There will be no consciousness.

I looked up radocarbon dating. Lots of flaws with that method. Ironically nuclear testing and coal/oil have ruined the results. Very unreliable. Yet that's what you use.

More recently, accelerator mass spectrometry has become the method of choice

Any addition of carbon to a sample of a different age will cause the measured date to be inaccurate. Contamination with modern carbon causes a sample to appear to be younger than it really is

What???? So you are using a bad method buddy.

Radiocarbon dating is generally limited to dating samples no more than 50,000 years old, as samples older than that have insufficient 14
C to be measurable.

Do you understand what that means? That means your method is only good for measuring a young earth. It's completely ineffective measuring things older than 50,000 years. Did you know that? Of course you did not.

Radiocarbon dating works, but you have to be very careful. It also only works for a few thousand years for dating actual history of man. The error rate is too large for older samples. The half-life of carbon 14 is only 6k years

It works for all living matter for a young earth.

What about radiometric dating? Don't you think the atheist scientists who swear by this method should be careful, too. They could be off by as 4.5 billion years.

We use the radiometric technique that is most accurate for the assumed time span. That is determined by the half-life of the isotope. We might start with one method and then go WTF, we were not even close with our original guess. Then we use a different isotope.

We also use other methods ~ Dating | The Smithsonian Institution's Human Origins Program

No one is questioning the decay and half-life of the isotope. What is being challenged using radiometric dating are the assumptions made of the earth and universe during the beginning of time.

The various isotope dating methods rely upon several assumptions. They are:

1. Known amounts of daughter isotope (usually zero) at start.
2. No gain or loss of parent or daughter isotopes by any means other than radioactive decay (closed system).
3. A constant decay rate.[3]

People like Clair Patterson and Neil DeGrasse Tyson are basing the findings the earth is billions of years old on wrong assumptions. Atheists and their scientists are usually wrong. The Smithsonian is an institution that has been taken over by these atheist scientists.

You know Tyson really pisses you guys off you bring him up as much as Republicans bring up Soros.

 

[james bond]

I looked up radocarbon dating. Lots of flaws with that method. Ironically nuclear testing and coal/oil have ruined the results. Very unreliable. Yet that's what you use.

More recently, accelerator mass spectrometry has become the method of choice

Any addition of carbon to a sample of a different age will cause the measured date to be inaccurate. Contamination with modern carbon causes a sample to appear to be younger than it really is

What???? So you are using a bad method buddy.

Radiocarbon dating is generally limited to dating samples no more than 50,000 years old, as samples older than that have insufficient 14
C to be measurable.

Do you understand what that means? That means your method is only good for measuring a young earth. It's completely ineffective measuring things older than 50,000 years. Did you know that? Of course you did not.

Radiocarbon dating works, but you have to be very careful. It also only works for a few thousand years for dating actual history of man. The error rate is too large for older samples. The half-life of carbon 14 is only 6k years

Do you think James looked into it that deep? I doubt it. I think his preacher told him what to say and he said it.

I actually went to the link he posted. I laughed! LOL

If you went to my link, then you would know that soft tissue in fossilized dinosaur bones would and should not exist. The soft tissue would have dried up if they were billions of years old. Yet, they're still soft. See for yourself in the vid below.

Dinosaur Shocker | Science | Smithsonian

Controversial T. Rex Soft Tissue Find Finally Explained

One very rare fossil mechanism

<yawn>

The woman in your article, Mary Schweitzer, is on our side ha ha. Basically, the soft tissue shows that the earth is young. But what really bothers the atheist scientists is that this shows evolution isn't true. The evolutionists need billions of years for their mythical magic to happen, so it's why they and you believe it so hard.

More evidence is bent rock layers. In many mountainous areas, rock layers thousands of feet thick have been bent and folded without fracturing. How can that happen if they were laid down separately over hundreds of millions of years and already hardened? Check out Grand Canyon and you will see that the layers of rock are bent. The answer is they were laid down very quickly and while soft they were bent into their present shape. More evidence that the earth formed via catastrophism and not over time as claimed.

 

[james bond]

I looked up radocarbon dating. Lots of flaws with that method. Ironically nuclear testing and coal/oil have ruined the results. Very unreliable. Yet that's what you use.

More recently, accelerator mass spectrometry has become the method of choice

Any addition of carbon to a sample of a different age will cause the measured date to be inaccurate. Contamination with modern carbon causes a sample to appear to be younger than it really is

What???? So you are using a bad method buddy.

Radiocarbon dating is generally limited to dating samples no more than 50,000 years old, as samples older than that have insufficient 14
C to be measurable.

Do you understand what that means? That means your method is only good for measuring a young earth. It's completely ineffective measuring things older than 50,000 years. Did you know that? Of course you did not.

Radiocarbon dating works, but you have to be very careful. It also only works for a few thousand years for dating actual history of man. The error rate is too large for older samples. The half-life of carbon 14 is only 6k years

It works for all living matter for a young earth.

What about radiometric dating? Don't you think the atheist scientists who swear by this method should be careful, too. They could be off by as 4.5 billion years.

We use the radiometric technique that is most accurate for the assumed time span. That is determined by the half-life of the isotope. We might start with one method and then go WTF, we were not even close with our original guess. Then we use a different isotope.

We also use other methods ~ Dating | The Smithsonian Institution's Human Origins Program

No one is questioning the decay and half-life of the isotope. What is being challenged using radiometric dating are the assumptions made of the earth and universe during the beginning of time.

The various isotope dating methods rely upon several assumptions. They are:

1. Known amounts of daughter isotope (usually zero) at start.
2. No gain or loss of parent or daughter isotopes by any means other than radioactive decay (closed system).
3. A constant decay rate.[3]

People like Clair Patterson and Neil DeGrasse Tyson are basing the findings the earth is billions of years old on wrong assumptions. Atheists and their scientists are usually wrong. The Smithsonian is an institution that has been taken over by these atheist scientists.

LOL, yes science has basic assumptions that are taken to be true on faith until they no longer explain the observations. Then we invent a new faith.

Yeah, such as the age or the earth and universe keeps going up. Or today, we have the wrong theory that birds evolved from dinosaurs. This is ridiculous ha ha.