^^ Evolution and the "official" historical narrative are hoaxes and destruction of evidence [of giants] is part of the fraud.
@styca, yes dinosaurs are a hoax.
Topic: Hoax is a hoax - page 4. (Read 2037 times)
Now please answer the same question. How do you know there was less carbon-14 5,000 years ago? Creationist websites aren't valid answers, by the way.
I like how you just glossed over the hard evidence I provided and refused to answer where your "evidence" is coming from. Please address this.destroying archaeological evidence [of giants]
Lol. 
What do the folks who spend most of their time destroying archaeological evidence [of giants] think about carbon, warming balls and radio activity?
Looks like they've thrown radiocarbon dating under the bus for global warming virtue signal points. The so-called experts on this sort of thing claiming this method is flawed when shit burns.
disclaimer:
The globe, global warming, ancient earth [older than 10k years], and "so-called experts" are all hoaxes.
Quote
"Today, the amount of carbon dioxide humans are pumping into Earth’s atmosphere is threatening to skew the accuracy of this technique for future archaeologists looking at our own time. That’s because fossil fuels can shift the radiocarbon age of new organic materials today, making them hard to distinguish from ancient ones."
-
Read more: https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/carbon-dating-crucial-scientific-technique-jeopardy-thanks-our-pollution-heres-easy-way-fix-it-180961345/ | http://archive.ph/KDvVZ
-
Read more: https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/carbon-dating-crucial-scientific-technique-jeopardy-thanks-our-pollution-heres-easy-way-fix-it-180961345/ | http://archive.ph/KDvVZ
Looks like they've thrown radiocarbon dating under the bus for global warming virtue signal points. The so-called experts on this sort of thing claiming this method is flawed when shit burns.
disclaimer:
The globe, global warming, ancient earth [older than 10k years], and "so-called experts" are all hoaxes.
I think we're okay with historic carbon dating. It's not like our distant ancestors burned loads of fossil fuels. Neither did the dinosaurs. Have you seen a T-Rex's arms? No way you can build a coal-fired power station with those things. But then you probably don't believe in dinosaurs. Or arms. Or ancestors. Or fossil fuels. Or the passage of time. Or reality.
What do the folks who spend most of their time destroying archaeological evidence [of giants] think about carbon, warming balls and radio activity?
Looks like they've thrown radiocarbon dating under the bus for global warming virtue signal points. The so-called experts on this sort of thing claiming this method is flawed when shit burns.
disclaimer:
The globe, global warming, ancient earth [older than 10k years], and "so-called experts" are all hoaxes.
Quote
"Today, the amount of carbon dioxide humans are pumping into Earth’s atmosphere is threatening to skew the accuracy of this technique for future archaeologists looking at our own time. That’s because fossil fuels can shift the radiocarbon age of new organic materials today, making them hard to distinguish from ancient ones."
-
Read more: https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/carbon-dating-crucial-scientific-technique-jeopardy-thanks-our-pollution-heres-easy-way-fix-it-180961345/ | http://archive.ph/KDvVZ
-
Read more: https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/carbon-dating-crucial-scientific-technique-jeopardy-thanks-our-pollution-heres-easy-way-fix-it-180961345/ | http://archive.ph/KDvVZ
Looks like they've thrown radiocarbon dating under the bus for global warming virtue signal points. The so-called experts on this sort of thing claiming this method is flawed when shit burns.
disclaimer:
The globe, global warming, ancient earth [older than 10k years], and "so-called experts" are all hoaxes.
If there wasn't any C-14 in the atmosphere back beyond 5,000 years ago
There was.There are indications that there wasn't anything other than a hint of C-14 in the atmosphere back then.
Only if you believe Answers in Genesis or some similar creationist nonsense. All the actual evidence points to carbon 14 production rates being higher 5,000 years ago than they are today.Hey, man. Just got back from shopping. But I can't wait to hear the method you used. What was it? Time machine? Simple time viewer; and how did you take the samples back then? Revived a cave scientists frozen in the ice from 5,000 years ago? Ancient aliens? Bible-like books or clay tablets from back then?
Now don't disapoint me with some hogwash circular evidence that says that because we know that there was C-14 back then, that the reliability of carbon-dating shows us exactly how much C-14 there was.
Are you saying that the chemistry of C-14 was different 5000 years ago? Electrons behaved differently, filled different configurations, beta decay was occurring at different rates, weak forces were different?
If weak forces were not the same, all known chemistry would not work and you would have no life as observed today (or 5000, or 5M years ago).
I suppose that is possible, but I was referring to the idea that we don't know how much if any C-14 was in the atmosphere back 5000 years ago... like I sorta posted, and you sorta quoted.
Isn't carbon dating calibrated using things like tree rings to make sure we start with the correct initial content of C14?
If you want to question carbon dating you have to question the actual decay rates, but that will get you nowhere fast.
If there wasn't any C-14 in the atmosphere back beyond 5,000 years ago
There was.There are indications that there wasn't anything other than a hint of C-14 in the atmosphere back then.
Only if you believe Answers in Genesis or some similar creationist nonsense. All the actual evidence points to carbon 14 production rates being higher 5,000 years ago than they are today.Hey, man. Just got back from shopping. But I can't wait to hear the method you used. What was it? Time machine? Simple time viewer; and how did you take the samples back then? Revived a cave scientists frozen in the ice from 5,000 years ago? Ancient aliens? Bible-like books or clay tablets from back then?
Now don't disapoint me with some hogwash circular evidence that says that because we know that there was C-14 back then, that the reliability of carbon-dating shows us exactly how much C-14 there was.
Are you saying that the chemistry of C-14 was different 5000 years ago? Electrons behaved differently, filled different configurations, beta decay was occurring at different rates, weak forces were different?
If weak forces were not the same, all known chemistry would not work and you would have no life as observed today (or 5000, or 5M years ago).
I suppose that is possible, but I was referring to the idea that we don't know how much if any C-14 was in the atmosphere back 5000 years ago... like I sorta posted, and you sorta quoted.
If there wasn't any C-14 in the atmosphere back beyond 5,000 years ago
There was.There are indications that there wasn't anything other than a hint of C-14 in the atmosphere back then.
Only if you believe Answers in Genesis or some similar creationist nonsense. All the actual evidence points to carbon 14 production rates being higher 5,000 years ago than they are today.Hey, man. Just got back from shopping. But I can't wait to hear the method you used. What was it? Time machine? Simple time viewer; and how did you take the samples back then? Revived a cave scientists frozen in the ice from 5,000 years ago? Ancient aliens? Bible-like books or clay tablets from back then?
Now don't disapoint me with some hogwash circular evidence that says that because we know that there was C-14 back then, that the reliability of carbon-dating shows us exactly how much C-14 there was.
Are you saying that the chemistry of C-14 was different 5000 years ago? Electrons behaved differently, filled different configurations, beta decay was occurring at different rates, weak forces were different?
If weak forces were not the same, all known chemistry would not work and you would have no life as observed today (or 5000, or 5M years ago).
Because we have performed carbon dating on samples taken from trees, and used tree ring dating to independently verify that the carbon dating results are accurate.
We also know thanks to magnetite containing clay artifacts, in which the strength of Earth's magnetic field when the clay was fired is permanently recorded, that the magnetic field was weaker 5,000 years ago, not stronger. The field being weaker means more carbon-14 due to cosmic radiation, not less.
Now please answer the same question. How do you know there was less carbon-14 5,000 years ago? Creationist websites aren't valid answers, by the way.
We also know thanks to magnetite containing clay artifacts, in which the strength of Earth's magnetic field when the clay was fired is permanently recorded, that the magnetic field was weaker 5,000 years ago, not stronger. The field being weaker means more carbon-14 due to cosmic radiation, not less.
Now please answer the same question. How do you know there was less carbon-14 5,000 years ago? Creationist websites aren't valid answers, by the way.
If there wasn't any C-14 in the atmosphere back beyond 5,000 years ago
There was.There are indications that there wasn't anything other than a hint of C-14 in the atmosphere back then.
Only if you believe Answers in Genesis or some similar creationist nonsense. All the actual evidence points to carbon 14 production rates being higher 5,000 years ago than they are today.Hey, man. Just got back from shopping. But I can't wait to hear the method you used. What was it? Time machine? Simple time viewer; and how did you take the samples back then? Revived a cave scientists frozen in the ice from 5,000 years ago? Ancient aliens? Bible-like books or clay tablets from back then?
Now don't disapoint me with some hogwash circular evidence that says that because we know that there was C-14 back then, that the reliability of carbon-dating shows us exactly how much C-14 there was.
^^ You know all those carbon dating, etc.. methods you mentioned give such conflicting results that scientists base the age of fossils on the type of rock instead, they go on how old the geologists says (a variation of "rabbi says") it is.
If there wasn't any C-14 in the atmosphere back beyond 5,000 years ago
There was.There are indications that there wasn't anything other than a hint of C-14 in the atmosphere back then.
Only if you believe Answers in Genesis or some similar creationist nonsense. All the actual evidence points to carbon 14 production rates being higher 5,000 years ago than they are today. -snip-
Have you honestly never heard of radiocarbon dating?Or maybe they used uranium thorium dating. Or uranium lead dating. Or lead lead dating. Or potassium argon dating. Or argon argon dating. Or rubidium strontium dating. Or iodine xenon dating. Or amnio acid dating. Or luminescence dating. Or rehydoxylation dating. Or carbon wiggle matching dating. Or archaeomagnetic dating. Did I miss any out?
But yeah, I'm sure we should be trusting the opinion of someone who doesn't even know these exist, let alone understands them, as to how scientists determine the age of objects.
Have you honestly never heard of the flaws in radiocarbon dating?
If there wasn't any C-14 in the atmosphere back beyond 5,000 years ago, and radiocarbon dating results were still the same as we have today, what would such mean? There are indications that there wasn't anything other than a hint of C-14 in the atmosphere back then.
Radiocarbon dating has the same flaws in it that notbatman is talking about.
-snip-
Have you honestly never heard of radiocarbon dating?Or maybe they used uranium thorium dating. Or uranium lead dating. Or lead lead dating. Or potassium argon dating. Or argon argon dating. Or rubidium strontium dating. Or iodine xenon dating. Or amnio acid dating. Or luminescence dating. Or rehydoxylation dating. Or carbon wiggle matching dating. Or archaeomagnetic dating. Did I miss any out?
But yeah, I'm sure we should be trusting the opinion of someone who doesn't even know these exist, let alone understands them, as to how scientists determine the age of objects.
Time spans of greater than ~10,000 years are a hoax.
Q: How do they know how old a fossil is?
A: They know because of the type of rock it's found in. They pass the buck to another field of science who tells them how old the rocks are.
Q: How do they know how old a rock is?
A: They know because of the fossils found in the rock. They pass the buck to another field of science who tells them how old the fossils are.
This is how modern science works, it shuns the scientific method all-together for an authority driven circular philosophy with cartoon pies and charts, to the face.
Q: How do they know how old a fossil is?
A: They know because of the type of rock it's found in. They pass the buck to another field of science who tells them how old the rocks are.
Q: How do they know how old a rock is?
A: They know because of the fossils found in the rock. They pass the buck to another field of science who tells them how old the fossils are.
This is how modern science works, it shuns the scientific method all-together for an authority driven circular philosophy with cartoon pies and charts, to the face.
So you read all 500+ pages of that thread. So you see that the scientific proof for God exists... or you don't, and really aren't a scientists at all.
I'll admit I've not read the whole thing. Please could you show me the bit where there is scientific proof that God exists?Ah. Thanks, here it is. The thread, I mean. Not the proof. I didn't remember it as proof, because there is no scientific proof that God exists.
there is the proof for God in the fact that when you combine cause-and-effect, entropy and complexity as they are in this universe, there is no other method for the universe to exist other than creation by God.
Agreed we don't know how the universe started (big bang is a theory not proven) or why it exists. We can't probe the very beginning. At least not yet. Science advances though. We know so much now that we didn't know 10 years ago, 100 years ago. Perhaps the origin of the universe will always remain beyond human understanding, perhaps not. That's no reason to say 'God did it'. It's fine that we don't (yet) know. There's no need to invent a deity to hide the uncertainty.Throw handfuls of element dust into the air for a hundred years. Nature will never make anything approaching the complexity of life out of any of it. There has to be design, and nature isn't intelligent, so it can't design things.
Sure. But throw some organic molecules into a pool somewhere, give them nutrients, sunlight, leave it for a billion years... that's 1,000,000,000 years... just maybe... we get the simplest form of single-celled life.Then over (vast) time... multi-cellular life. A billion years wasn't enough in this case, single-celled to multi-celled took 3 billion years. Then after that, over the last 650 million years or so... fish, amphibians... eventually mammals... eventually man.
https://cdn.britannica.com/98/398-050-C8C36AE1/scale-events.jpg
Since you show that you would rather believe the hoax rather than understand the truth, you absolutely show that you are a religions being.
So you read all 500+ pages of that thread. So you see that the scientific proof for God exists... or you don't, and really aren't a scientists at all.
I'll admit I've not read the whole thing. Please could you show me the bit where there is scientific proof that God exists?Ah. Thanks, here it is. The thread, I mean. Not the proof. I didn't remember it as proof, because there is no scientific proof that God exists.
there is the proof for God in the fact that when you combine cause-and-effect, entropy and complexity as they are in this universe, there is no other method for the universe to exist other than creation by God.
Agreed we don't know how the universe started (big bang is a theory not proven) or why it exists. We can't probe the very beginning. At least not yet. Science advances though. We know so much now that we didn't know 10 years ago, 100 years ago. Perhaps the origin of the universe will always remain beyond human understanding, perhaps not. That's no reason to say 'God did it'. It's fine that we don't (yet) know. There's no need to invent a deity to hide the uncertainty.Throw handfuls of element dust into the air for a hundred years. Nature will never make anything approaching the complexity of life out of any of it. There has to be design, and nature isn't intelligent, so it can't design things.
Sure. But throw some organic molecules into a pool somewhere, give them nutrients, sunlight, leave it for a billion years... that's 1,000,000,000 years... just maybe... we get the simplest form of single-celled life.Then over (vast) time... multi-cellular life. A billion years wasn't enough in this case, single-celled to multi-celled took 3 billion years. Then after that, over the last 650 million years or so... fish, amphibians... eventually mammals... eventually man.
What is God and how was 'He' created?
God is love.
As notbatman said, God was never created, but always exists.
First of all, you are confused, you insisted that God is a male. Now it is love. WTF.
More like, God was never created because it never existed until someone called love a God. LOL.
So it is a human emotion, that is what I expected.
If God is love, then it did not exist before human life. It makes sense.
BTW, why do you guys using a new word for love?
If love is love, why do you need to call it a God? To scam poor and uneducated people?
PS. Maybe that is why chimpanzees don't organize themselves into religious groups.
Where did I ever insist God is male? But Jesus is male. God is Creator, and Creator is in the direction of male. So, God is God.
God always was love. People have been given love as they were originally made in God's image. So, it is people learning love from God. When people have love, because their love is imperfect love, such love is a human emotion. Nobody knows what the great love of God is really like.
Since you want to twist God into something that He is not, you simply show that you are trying to hide your own guilt. But you can't. You might be able to cover it somewhat. But it will always poke its way through into your consciousness. As you get older, you will not be able to keep it down so easily. As it comes through more and more, you will become bitter, like Voltaire in his later years. Why was he bitter? Because he was unwilling to accept God's Jesus-forgiveness, so that the bitterness could actually dissipate. But hey. Maybe you enjoy being bitter.
Take a look at your posts. Your bitterness is showing. Even though you are reasonably young, it's poking its way through already.
Here you crossed 'it' and put 'He'. It was you who did that.
What is God and how was
The fact that God was not in the universe before He created it, shows that the essence of God is something that we can't know except that He tells us. Why? Because we, being universe beings, can't think in extra-universal terms necessary for knowing anything about God.
However, you ask this question in the wrong thread. This is the thread where we emphatically prove that evolution is a hoax.
I hate to have to hurt all those evolution religion believers' feelings. But it is better that their feelings are hurt here, so that they find God and get saved.
Evolution is a hoax.
My original post, which you corrected is here:
...
What is God and how was it created?
What is God and how was it created?
BTW, love is a feeling and as such, it cannot physically create anything. Independent thinking agents can. Dig deeper.
God is not male. He is a "He" because He is Creator and Father of life. Jesus is male.
Love is way more than a feeling. But if feeling is all you consider, it explains why you are so shallow at times.
^^^ Stop asking for an explanation of God within a system powered by the Copernican revolution; there is no God on the impossible mad carnival ride spinning in your mind.
Your brain cell is stuck in an infinite loop-de-loop, first take off the blindfold then behold the light!
Your brain cell is stuck in an infinite loop-de-loop, first take off the blindfold then behold the light!
What is God and how was 'He' created?
God is love.
As notbatman said, God was never created, but always exists.
First of all, you are confused, you insisted that God is a male. Now it is love. WTF.
More like, God was never created because it never existed until someone called love a God. LOL.
So it is a human emotion, that is what I expected.
If God is love, then it did not exist before human life. It makes sense.
BTW, why do you guys using a new word for love?
If love is love, why do you need to call it a God? To scam poor and uneducated people?
PS. Maybe that is why chimpanzees don't organize themselves into religious groups.
Where did I ever insist God is male? But Jesus is male. God is Creator, and Creator is in the direction of male. So, God is God.
God always was love. People have been given love as they were originally made in God's image. So, it is people learning love from God. When people have love, because their love is imperfect love, such love is a human emotion. Nobody knows what the great love of God is really like.
Since you want to twist God into something that He is not, you simply show that you are trying to hide your own guilt. But you can't. You might be able to cover it somewhat. But it will always poke its way through into your consciousness. As you get older, you will not be able to keep it down so easily. As it comes through more and more, you will become bitter, like Voltaire in his later years. Why was he bitter? Because he was unwilling to accept God's Jesus-forgiveness, so that the bitterness could actually dissipate. But hey. Maybe you enjoy being bitter.
Take a look at your posts. Your bitterness is showing. Even though you are reasonably young, it's poking its way through already.
Here you crossed 'it' and put 'He'. It was you who did that.
What is God and how was
The fact that God was not in the universe before He created it, shows that the essence of God is something that we can't know except that He tells us. Why? Because we, being universe beings, can't think in extra-universal terms necessary for knowing anything about God.
However, you ask this question in the wrong thread. This is the thread where we emphatically prove that evolution is a hoax.
I hate to have to hurt all those evolution religion believers' feelings. But it is better that their feelings are hurt here, so that they find God and get saved.
Evolution is a hoax.
My original post, which you corrected is here:
...
What is God and how was it created?
What is God and how was it created?
BTW, love is a feeling and as such, it cannot physically create anything. Independent thinking agents can. Dig deeper.
@af_newbie the Copernican system is a filter for your mind.
As long as you're onboard BADecker's mad carnival ride,
he's just going to keep plowing your face with custard pies.
As long as you're onboard BADecker's mad carnival ride,
he's just going to keep plowing your face with custard pies.
Jump to: