Ask an atheist (the second coming)

[timtofly]

Is it possible for a dinosaur bone to be correctly dated less than 10,000 years old?

If not why?

 

[cardgame]

No, because they all died out circa 65 mya.

 

[civ2]

I know I'll get attacked (at least mildly) for saying this, but:
Like I said recently in my thread and have mentioned quite a few times before - there is one thing that people take for granted, whereas if not taken so, it would change a lot.
What I'm talking about is the greatest cataclysm ever - the Flood.
It is quite clearly stated about it that during/after/because of it, the NATURE itself underwent a change.
That's my point ever to say when I talk about object age measurements.
If we do take this in consideration - then all those millions of dino-years have no sense, simply cause they are being predicted from our natural point, which isn't the same as before the Flood.
Meaning, there's no way to calculate real age of objects and/or events of pre-Flood age.
You can argue on that until that dino bone talks - but won't change the fact that scientists are basing their calculations on modern assumptions that might as well be irrelevant to such long ages.

 

[Smellincoffee]

I know I'll get attacked (at least mildly) for saying this, but:
Like I said recently in my thread and have mentioned quite a few times before - there is one thing that people take for granted, whereas if not taken so, it would change a lot.
What I'm talking about is the greatest cataclysm ever - the Flood.
It is quite clearly stated about it that during/after/because of it, the NATURE itself underwent a change.
That's my point ever to say when I talk about object age measurements.
If we do take this in consideration - then all those millions of dino-years have no sense, simply cause they are being predicted from our natural point, which isn't the same as before the Flood.
Meaning, there's no way to calculate real age of objects and/or events of pre-Flood age.
You can argue on that until that dino bone talks - but won't change the fact that scientists are basing their calculations on modern assumptions that might as well be irrelevant to such long ages.

What kind of dating meters are you thinking of that would be affected by rising water?

 

[civ2]

SC
Exactly my point:
For you, it's just "rising water", you don't regard it as really cataclismic.
But according to some commentaries, there were drastic changes in the entire nature of the Earth.
Like, for that entire year, there was no change of days/nights, whatever that means practically.
Actually, what I say is, WE don't know WHAT exactly the world BEFORE looked like, but we DO know that it WAS different.
That's all.

 

[cardgame]

SC
But according to some commentaries, there were drastic changes in the entire nature of the Earth.

And do they provide any evidence to back these 'comments'?

Like, for that entire year, there was no change of days/nights, whatever that means practically.

That's flat-out impossible.

 

[Smellincoffee]

SC
Exactly my point:
For you, it's just "rising water", you don't regard it as really cataclismic.
But according to some commentaries, there were drastic changes in the entire nature of the Earth.
Like, for that entire year, there was no change of days/nights, whatever that means practically.
Actually, what I say is, WE don't know WHAT exactly the world BEFORE looked like, but we DO know that it WAS different.
That's all.

Well, according to some commentaries, mythological literature has nothing to do with science. G'day.

 

[civ2]

Whatever.
I never hoped to prove anything to those who take bone puzzles for granted.
I'm just disappointed, not surprised.

 

[Defiant47]

Like, for that entire year, there was no change of days/nights, whatever that means practically.

It means that the Earth stopped spinning. The consequences of such an event would be greater than simply "nature gets rearranged". Life would never exist again on the Earth due to a variety of reasons, including the lack of magnetic protection from solar winds - Earth would become like Mars.

So, I'm sorry to say, such an occurrence is impossible.

 

[Ayatollah So]

In fact, the matter-energy duality of particles in quantum physics seens to indicate that there is no "Laplace's supermind", that the universe isn't, in it's most fundamental level, the deterministic place described by newtonian ideas, what makes the concept of a single "truth" to be little more than an intellectual excercize.

The best interpretation of current science favors indeterminism, I agree - but truth (small t!) is still with us. Many things may be possible, but only a few things actually happen.

A deterministic universe makes free will impossible

Disagree, because prediction =/= control. A friend who knows me well can predict some of my decisions. That doesn't make those decisions unfree.

 

[cardgame]

Disagree, because prediction =/= control. A friend who knows me well can predict some of my decisions. That doesn't make those decisions unfree.

DA: Your friend isn't going to be 100% correct all of the time, making him quite different from whatever actual determining force(s) may be present.

 

[Crezth]

SC
Exactly my point:
For you, it's just "rising water", you don't regard it as really cataclismic.
But according to some commentaries, there were drastic changes in the entire nature of the Earth.
Like, for that entire year, there was no change of days/nights, whatever that means practically.
Actually, what I say is, WE don't know WHAT exactly the world BEFORE looked like, but we DO know that it WAS different.
That's all.

This wouldn't affect carbon-dating in the slightest.

A lot of theories on early Earth are speculative, but I don't think any one of them proposes that the laws of physics were different at any point in time.

 

[civ2]

Crezth
You still think in the "scientific" way - nothing is changing.
But there are 2 possibilities considering the Flood that would make such approach erroneous:
1. It definitely WAS a miracle to begin with - and miracles are meant to defy physics.
2. Even if not so "miraculous" as to change the physics itself, still, it could had altered the environment to such an extent that it would alter all these calculations WITHIN our current laws of physics.
Either way, there is no way to be SURE about it.
And neither are scientific THEORIES.
So it's just a matter of CHOICE, which "theory" to believe in - "scientific" or "religious".
(And it's so funny, how people claim that "science knows all" in such topics, where it is IMPOSSIBLE to KNOW, rather than SPECULATE.)

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

The difference in all this civ2 is evidence. You have: None. Nothing. Zilch. Zip. Nada. Ef all.

Where science needs it to even form a hypothesis. And the theory you so easily dismiss has more to it than just evidence. It has been tested and passed those test. Whereas your claims have been tested and found wanting.

Another difference is:

Like, for that entire year, there was no change of days/nights, whatever that means practically

You brush this off as: "whatever that means practically". I take it you know what makes a day and a night. So you are very aware of what that means practically. And you need to brush is aside as an "whatever" since it is evidence, there's that nasty word again, against no change of day and night for a year.

You provide evidence, I (we) will listen and consider it. If you go: check this out, no evidence whatsoever to back it up, but you must consider it, you will be pointed and laughed at and you will be asked to take it elsewhere.

And again, for the zillionth time, Science does all but claim it knows all. No one in this thread claims it knows all. You continue to spout this nonsense while having been shown and explained time and time again it's not the case, which leads me to conclude you're either not listening/reading the replies or you're being dishonest. Either way you can take that strawman and shove it up your arse.

It's great to sneer at people who judge real evidence and who test that evidence against reality while satisfying yourself with: "But according to some commentaries". Why don't you do a little of introspection and see that you are way worse than the thing you are ridiculing. You settle for "according to some commentaries", so here goes. According to some commentaries you haven't got the foggiest what Science is and haven't got the willingness to find out or to listen when it's explained to you. According to some commentaries you need to embrace this wilful ignorance or you would have to accept that your incredibly inane notions about science are completely missing the point, the definition and the purpose. According to some commentaries you cannot afford the kind of scepticism science provides because turning that scepticism towards your world view would destroy it.

According to some commentaries. Not mine of course. No, no, no.

1. It definitely WAS a miracle to begin with - and miracles are meant to defy physics.
2. Even if not so "miraculous" as to change the physics itself, still, it could had altered the environment to such an extent that it would alter all these calculations WITHIN our current laws of physics.

3. It never happened. Which is the best conclusion until provided with ... *drumroll* ... evidence!

 

[El_Machinae]

Man, I know radiodating is controversial, but you should know that tree-ring dating disproves the Flood. And there's more than just tree-rings as biological indicators.

 

[erez87]

Man, I know radiodating is controversial, but you should know that tree-ring dating disproves the Flood. And there's more than just tree-rings as biological indicators.

Radio dating is not controversial at all. It is a well developed and deeply researched dating technique based on a stronger based physical phenomena (half life). Among the scientists there is no controversy on the subject. Only among those of faith.

 

[El_Machinae]

Yeah, we're agreeing. The concept of radiodating has been poisoned, and the flocks deceived. That's what I meant by 'controversial'. Churches have speakers come in, just to obfuscate the science. But "tree rings" is simple, intuitive, and well-known to all. And they disprove the Flood.

 

[ArneHD]

Man, I know radiodating is controversial, but you should know that tree-ring dating disproves the Flood. And there's more than just tree-rings as biological indicators.

Actually, carbon dating is based on tree ring dating, as C14 years are based on carbon collected from tree rings.

I'm not sure how well known the term C14 years is, but in essence, C14 ratios varies throughout the 60 000 year period when C14 dating is useful, so geologists came up with a chart, tying the carbon ratios in tree rings to specific years. Also of interest is the fact that all C14 years are defined as being BP or before present, the present being defined as 1950. This is because nuclear testing released radiation that caused the formation of C14 and generally messed up the dating system for things that are preserved during this time.

 

[erez87]

The calibration. It's pretty cool. They used trees to calibrate the carbon dating and than carbon dating to date trees to calibrate more carbon dating........

There are more radiometeic techniques...

Besides C14 isn't used to date dinosaurs anyway...

 

[ArneHD]

The calibration. It's pretty cool. They used trees to calibrate the carbon dating and than carbon dating to date trees to calibrate more carbon dating........

There are more radiometeic techniques...

Besides C14 isn't used to date dinosaurs anyway...

Not trying to argue anything, just thought that I would point it out.

Also, which method is used for dating dinosaur fossils anyway? I thought it was Argon-Argon, or Potassium-Argon, but both of those are for mineral dating. Maybe they just date the sediment the fossil is found in.