BADecker would argue that DNA proof and radio carbon dating is a lie like all science.
The joke is that U. S. Christians feel superior. That type of superiority causes some of the worst hatred and crimes against humanity imaginable. Years ago when I was a kid, my mother knew a sweet little old white woman that looked like a TV representation of the perfect grandmother. I actually overheard her tell my mother that lynching black people shouldn't be a crime because god said all the animals on the earth are for man to use any way he wants to. That scared the crap out of me. I really think she would believe eating black people is perfectly fine because they're just animals.
I don't believe BADecker would argue this.
The radio carbon dating process is extremely accurate. The thing that is foolish is thinking that C-14 was always in abundance throughout the world as it is now.
Imagine that there was no C-14 being created prior to 5,000 years ago. Why imagine this? Because nobody knows whether or not C-14 was being created 5,000 years ago.
Since nobody knows, and nobody knows whether or not C-14 was being created in the same quantities, down through the ages, as it is now, there is no way to determine through the C-14 "count" how old anything is.
Carbon dating is 100% guess beyond 2 or 3 thousand years ago. The process is flawless. What we base the process on is unknown.
That's what I mean. There's always some bullshit argument why the earth is only 5000 years old, dinosaurs never existed, a boat built of wood with hand tools could support two of every creature on earth, evoulation is wrong and the whole list of
Christian circular arguments and assumptions.
Read this:
http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/DebunkingChristians/Contents.htmYou won't read it because the truth scares Christians like nothing else in the world.
What? Now you think the Earth is 5,000 years old? Come on. We have pottery and writings on clay that we can date back 4,500 years without carbon dating.
Stick to the carbon dating point. Nobody knows the amounts of C-14, the ingredient used in carbon dating, that was in existence beyond 5,000 years ago. And even the amounts that existed 2500 years ago are almost complete guestimations. Without knowing these things, there is absolutely no way to use carbon dating to date anything accurately.
What you are doing is trying to hide the fact that this is so, by clouding the carbon dating issue with the idea of religion. Therefore, thank you for helping to prove and advance the point that carbon dating tells us nothing about the age of the Earth.
Christian circular arguments and assumptions.
Atheism ignorance of the facts of science.
Technically correct. Atheism is the lack of belief of a god. Just like theists claim they know for certain there is a god, atheists claim they know for certain there is no god, they're on exact opposites of the spectrum,
but they are on the same spectrum of "beliefs" or "viewpoints". Being an
atheist is just as illogical as being a
theist. The only viewpoint I can see as logical is agnosticism, the
absolute fact that humanity has never and currently does not know whether or not some form of higher being or "god" exists. I think a lot of atheists would label themselves as agnostics, they just don't for whatever reason.
There is strong evidence that God did not create the universe in 6 days, and that Earth is not 6000 years old, and that God did not create man from dirt and a woman from men's rib bone.
Not sure why would you think that a person who does not believe in any of the above, based on evidence, is acting illogically.
Someone who believes in the above nonsense, is, well, not well.
Every time I comment on this thread the first person to respond to me thinks that I'm talking about Christianity and the god that they recognize, and it pisses me off.
I'm not talking about Christianity, Islam, or fucking Hinduism. I'm talking about
the idea of some sort of
higher power/being or "god", and the
absolute fact that you
cannot say for certain as you proclaim there is a god or there is no god.
Please, please, please read this. Stop right now and take away all of your preconceptions about me, religion and agnosticism. Please just read this devoid of emotion and tell me if it doesn't make sense.
Agnosticism, in fact, is not a creed, but a method, the essence of which lies in the rigorous application of a single principle. That principle is of great antiquity; it is as old as Socrates; as old as the writer who said, 'Try all things, hold fast by that which is good'; it is the foundation of the Reformation, which simply illustrated the axiom that every man should be able to give a reason for the faith that is in him, it is the great principle of Descartes; it is the fundamental axiom of modern science. Positively the principle may be expressed: In matters of the intellect, follow your reason as far as it will take you, without regard to any other consideration. And negatively: In matters of the intellect, do not pretend that conclusions are certain which are not demonstrated or demonstrable. That I take to be the agnostic position, which if a man keep whole and undefiled, he shall not be ashamed to look the universe in the face, whatever the future may have in store for him.
The results of the working out of the agnostic principle will vary according to individual knowledge and capacity, and according to the general condition of science. That which is unproved today may be proved, by the help of new discoveries, tomorrow. The only negative fixed points will be those negations which flow from the demonstrable limitation of our faculties. And the only obligation accepted is to have the mind always open to conviction.
That it is wrong for a man to say he is certain of the objective truth of a proposition unless he can provide evidence which logically justifies that certainty. This is what agnosticism asserts and in my opinion, is all that is essential to agnosticism.”
― Thomas Henry Huxley
My beliefs are solely based off the logic that is explained in this quote. Please don't call yourself an atheist (as I'm assuming you do) and instead take to the agnostic position, as any logical person would have to do.
It's a beautiful philosophy to live by:
In matters of the intellect, do not pretend that conclusions are certain which are not demonstrated or demonstrable. That I take to be the agnostic position, which if a man keep whole and undefiled, he shall not be ashamed to look the universe in the face, whatever the future may have in store for him.
