http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/04/2...ey-ararat/

Since when to religous fanatics believe in using carbon dating for proof of age? I guess only when it fits their beliefs.

oh c'mon Robert. Those who believe didn't need it. This was for those that didn't believe, like you. What exactly would you have them do?

Do you NOT find it interesting that a large wooden structure that appears to be 5,000 years old is found at 13,000 feet up a mountain? Maybe it was the ark, maybe it wasn't. Maybe it was the strange structure that started the initial story. i mean, some of the stories humans have come up with over just the past few centuries to explain things we couldn't otherwise explain are no more or less unbelievable than this. how were the Pyramids built to such specifications? How were such large objects moved? Sea Monsters, the Bermuda Triangle. The earth is flat and the sun rotates around it.

People's belief or disbelief in the story of Noah is really immaterial to a discussion of religion. The only thing that matters is whether or not you believe there is some entity capable of such an event. You apparently don't, and try and pick apart every detail of a 2,000+ yr old story to "prove" that it is wrong... but you can't. If this is a simple wooden structure built up a mountainside with wood hauled up from far below... it is no less miraculous than the Pyramids... and still unexplained as to "why".

your insulting manners don't serve you well.

Screw the ark. I found the body of Jesus and I don't even need carbon dating because he had a note from his dad in his pocket.

(05-02-2010 03:21 PM)Paul of Troy Wrote:  Screw the ark. I found the body of Jesus and I don't even need carbon dating because he had a note from his dad in his pocket.

Was it in bill or was it a coin form?

(05-02-2010 02:57 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  oh c'mon Robert. Those who believe didn't need it. This was for those that didn't believe, like you. What exactly would you have them do?

Do you NOT find it interesting that a large wooden structure that appears to be 5,000 years old is found at 13,000 feet up a mountain? Maybe it was the ark, maybe it wasn't. Maybe it was the strange structure that started the initial story. i mean, some of the stories humans have come up with over just the past few centuries to explain things we couldn't otherwise explain are no more or less unbelievable than this. how were the Pyramids built to such specifications? How were such large objects moved? Sea Monsters, the Bermuda Triangle. The earth is flat and the sun rotates around it.

People's belief or disbelief in the story of Noah is really immaterial to a discussion of religion. The only thing that matters is whether or not you believe there is some entity capable of such an event. You apparently don't, and try and pick apart every detail of a 2,000+ yr old story to "prove" that it is wrong... but you can't. If this is a simple wooden structure built up a mountainside with wood hauled up from far below... it is no less miraculous than the Pyramids... and still unexplained as to "why".

your insulting manners don't serve you well.

Like I care what Torchy or any fundamentally religous nut from any religion thinks of me.

You think they care what you think of THEM??

Well, I'm not a fundamentalist by ANY means, and I don't think it makes you look very good. I think it makes you look petty. They found SOMETHING. They MAY have the wrong explanation for it, but it is interesting nonetheless. Surely you admit that the stories in the bible were told by people and eventually written down. Surely you admit that people's explanations for events or sightings could be faulty for reasons other than trying to prove a preconcieved notion... I mean, global cooling theorists had it wrong in the 70's, but I don't think it was simply because they were trying to prove something and looked for data to support their conclusion.

Many of the events of the bible are documented. Many are supported by science in addition to evidence (actual writings/eye witnesses). Others are consistent with practices of the time to which they are attributed. Are they 100% factual? Who knows. People can experience identical things differently. The important thing is what you think it means.

You think this is meaningless. Ok, so what? Others think it is significant. Ok, so what? Why do you feel compelled to insult those whose belief in God has absolutely ZERO impact on your life?

As for Paul of Troy... if you did, I doubt you'd believe anyway

Your theoretical and practical views of the world are continually at odds with each other, aren't they Robert? On your theoretical deterministic Darwinian side, you know that human behavior is a by-product of both genetic and environmental factors, of which one has no control. But you still can't resist the temptation of taking the Christian to task for his religious beliefs. This "secular leap of faith" was brilliantly described in a book written by Francis Schaeffer. Its title? Escape From Reason.

(05-02-2010 04:27 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  You think they care what you think of THEM??

Well, I'm not a fundamentalist by ANY means, and I don't think it makes you look very good. I think it makes you look petty. They found SOMETHING. They MAY have the wrong explanation for it, but it is interesting nonetheless. Surely you admit that the stories in the bible were told by people and eventually written down. Surely you admit that people's explanations for events or sightings could be faulty for reasons other than trying to prove a preconcieved notion... I mean, global cooling theorists had it wrong in the 70's, but I don't think it was simply because they were trying to prove something and looked for data to support their conclusion.

Many of the events of the bible are documented. Many are supported by science in addition to evidence (actual writings/eye witnesses). Others are consistent with practices of the time to which they are attributed. Are they 100% factual? Who knows. People can experience identical things differently. The important thing is what you think it means.

You think this is meaningless. Ok, so what? Others think it is significant. Ok, so what? Why do you feel compelled to insult those whose belief in God has absolutely ZERO impact on your life?

As for Paul of Troy... if you did, I doubt you'd believe anyway

I think they look foolish. Using carbon dating to determine/prove the age of the wood while saying carbon dating is inaccurate because it shows the world to be to old for their religious beliefs. I guess they think it makes perfect sense though.

(05-02-2010 06:21 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(05-02-2010 04:27 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  You think they care what you think of THEM??

Well, I'm not a fundamentalist by ANY means, and I don't think it makes you look very good. I think it makes you look petty. They found SOMETHING. They MAY have the wrong explanation for it, but it is interesting nonetheless. Surely you admit that the stories in the bible were told by people and eventually written down. Surely you admit that people's explanations for events or sightings could be faulty for reasons other than trying to prove a preconcieved notion... I mean, global cooling theorists had it wrong in the 70's, but I don't think it was simply because they were trying to prove something and looked for data to support their conclusion.

Many of the events of the bible are documented. Many are supported by science in addition to evidence (actual writings/eye witnesses). Others are consistent with practices of the time to which they are attributed. Are they 100% factual? Who knows. People can experience identical things differently. The important thing is what you think it means.

You think this is meaningless. Ok, so what? Others think it is significant. Ok, so what? Why do you feel compelled to insult those whose belief in God has absolutely ZERO impact on your life?

As for Paul of Troy... if you did, I doubt you'd believe anyway

I think they look foolish. Using carbon dating to determine/prove the age of the wood while saying carbon dating is inaccurate because it shows the world to be to old for their religious beliefs. I guess they think it makes perfect sense though.

So you know how old these people think the world is?? Did I miss somewhere in here where it said carbon dating is innaccurate? Do YOU believe in carbon dating or not? If so, it's awfully compelling that it matches the reported time frame, isn't it?

also, as I said.... I'm pretty certain that these people would have believed this was the ark if carbon dating told them it was anything other than a few hundred years old. The "proof" was provided for non-believers. Believers don't require this as "proof". Non-believers do.

Your opinion that people who believe in the bible don't think the world can be a billion years old (or whatever you wish to say the consensus says it is) is an awfully narrow interpretation of what most religious people think. It makes you appear to be as small minded as those you wish to belittle.

Here we have an event that supposedly took place 5,000 years ago (according to documents that are more than 2,000 years old) depositing a wooden ark on a mountain most scientists believe to be Mt Ararat... ON Mt Ararat... made of wood 5,000 years old... and all you can do is try and pigeon-hole people who believe in God as not believing in science?

What does that have to do with the evidence before you?

(05-01-2010 05:17 PM)RobertN Wrote:  http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/04/2...ey-ararat/

Since when to religous fanatics believe in using carbon dating for proof of age? I guess only when it fits their beliefs.

Believing in God and science aren't mutually exclusive, numbnuts. Research Isaac Newton. Hell, research many of our inventors and scientists throughout human history.

(05-02-2010 08:54 PM)Rebel Wrote:  

(05-01-2010 05:17 PM)RobertN Wrote:  http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/04/2...ey-ararat/

Since when to religous fanatics believe in using carbon dating for proof of age? I guess only when it fits their beliefs.

Believing in God and science aren't mutually exclusive, numbnuts. Research Isaac Newton. Hell, research many of our inventors and scientists throughout human history.

Uh, I think I know that Rebs. I am talking about Creationism and their belief that the world has been around a lot shorter of a time than carbon dating shows. They don't believe in carbon dating but suddenly, in this case, it is really accurate since it seems to support their claim.

(05-02-2010 10:42 PM)RobertN Wrote:  Uh, I think I know that Rebs. I am talking about Creationism and their belief that the world has been around a lot shorter of a time than carbon dating shows. They don't believe in carbon dating but suddenly, in this case, it is really accurate since it seems to support their claim.

...and one more time, I know of NO one that thinks the Earth is only 4,5, or 6K years old. I think I'm pretty knowledgeable of the Bible Belt, don't you think? I'm in Augusta, Georgia. I'm from the suburbs of Jackson, Ms. ...and I know no one that thinks that. To deny one science, or theory, isn't to deny all. I don't believe in Global Warming either. You don't think I understand and believe in Physics?

(05-02-2010 10:42 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(05-02-2010 08:54 PM)Rebel Wrote:  

(05-01-2010 05:17 PM)RobertN Wrote:  http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/04/2...ey-ararat/

Since when to religous fanatics believe in using carbon dating for proof of age? I guess only when it fits their beliefs.

Believing in God and science aren't mutually exclusive, numbnuts. Research Isaac Newton. Hell, research many of our inventors and scientists throughout human history.

Uh, I think I know that Rebs. I am talking about Creationism and their belief that the world has been around a lot shorter of a time than carbon dating shows. They don't believe in carbon dating but suddenly, in this case, it is really accurate since it seems to support their claim.

Is there something I missed where these people said they didn't believe in carbon dating because the world isn't as old as the bible says it is?

FTR, most theologans attribute the discrepency to things like...
a) much like carbon dating a tree... that tells you how old the tree is, not how old the structure is... the pieces of the earth could be MUCH older than the earth as a coherent mass
b) the definition of earth as far as humans are concerned really doesn't impact the mass of stuff known as earth which could be much older... best example, America is 250 yrs old... This continent much older.
c) and sort of tying up the above comments... What is written in Genesis is the word of God as man understands Him. It is entirely possible that man's ability to comprehend "creation" at the time required God to "dumb down" the explanation. To us, a day is the time it takes for the earth to orbit the sun. What is a day to an entity that is everywhere in the universe at all times?

Bible doesn't say the Earth is 6000 years old either.

I know I've seen comments on here about radiocarbon dating being inaccurate, the implication being that the Earth could be much younger than radiocarbon dating indicates. Because, after all, even if the dating is off by 10%, so what? I believe Torch was the one that said radiocarbon dating was inaccurate, though I'm not sure.

(05-04-2010 10:56 AM)NIU007 Wrote:  I know I've seen comments on here about radiocarbon dating being inaccurate, the implication being that the Earth could be much younger than radiocarbon dating indicates. Because, after all, even if the dating is off by 10%, so what? I believe Torch was the one that said radiocarbon dating was inaccurate, though I'm not sure.

That is VERY likely. He also believes in Creationism.

(05-04-2010 10:56 AM)NIU007 Wrote:  I know I've seen comments on here about radiocarbon dating being inaccurate, the implication being that the Earth could be much younger than radiocarbon dating indicates. Because, after all, even if the dating is off by 10%, so what? I believe Torch was the one that said radiocarbon dating was inaccurate, though I'm not sure.

Radiometric dating could definitely be 99.9999% inaccurate. You bet!

Nerd alert: Stop calling it carbon/radiocarbon dating. That's for organic stuff and only works up to about 60,000 years old.

"ACCURATE" is also a relative term. If you're describing something tens of millions of years old and are off by 100,000 years... it's probably not a big deal. People can feel that carbon/radiometric/radiocarbon dating is inaccurate and still not disagree that the earth is hundreds of thousands if not millions of years old... as opposed to 6,000.

In my history, the only people who claim the bible says the earth is 6,000 years old are religious loons (like cultists) and athiests. Both have an incredibly inflexible view of the bible. One must remember that the first stories of the bible aren't historical documents, but stories "as told by" men many thousands if not millions of years later. Adam and Eve didn't leave a diary.

I suspect it would have been difficult for someone in 50BC or whenever to imagine 60 million years.

You know virtually every ancient culture had a flood story and an Ark Story. It wasn't limited to the Jewish Bible. So, in all likelihood there was a flood and there may have been a man with an ark to save the animals. You can yell and scream at fundamentalists all you want, but the fact remains that they found something ancient that looks like the ark and is old enough to be the ark. Whether its the ark or not, will require more study and exploration. Now if they find 5000 year old elephant poo in it with male and female DNA, you'll really have to start tap dancing with that one.

(05-04-2010 07:13 AM)Rebel Wrote:  Bible doesn't say the Earth is 6000 years old either.

I think that comes from non-believers who try and follow the family trees and reports of people's ages. It is highly likely that family trees as reported by the Bible are incomplete or completely wrong. Again... context of the ability for the people to understand at the time. Relatively minor European Kings often claimed to be direct descendents of people they couldn't possibly be direct descendents of... who was there (left alive) to question them?