Why do Atheists Hate Religion? - page 187.

BADecker

legendary

Activity: 3990

Merit: 1385

Quote from: organofcorti on February 25, 2016, 04:14:06 AM

Quote from: BADecker on February 25, 2016, 03:44:29 AM

Quote from: organofcorti on February 24, 2016, 09:33:46 PM

Quote from: BADecker on February 24, 2016, 08:02:25 PM

Quote from: organofcorti on February 24, 2016, 07:57:02 PM

Quote from: BADecker on February 24, 2016, 07:44:02 PM

Quote from: yugo23 on February 22, 2016, 08:28:33 AM

Quote from: BADecker on February 22, 2016, 07:16:53 AM

Actually, that is man's interpretation of the data. People forget (intentionally) that there is no way to take into account natural C-14 activity in the past, because nobody was there measuring the C-14 data as it happened. In addition, because of the carbon dating that has been proven to be false, the best that carbon dating might be is a better interpretation of things that we know the near date of through other methods.

In other words, carbon dating is all guesswork regarding the dates that are being interpreted from the results evidence.

Cool

It's not guess work! It's statistics! And that's why we do the experiments few dozens of times and we take into account a margin error! But you'd want us to be wrong about millions of years wrong? nonsense!

Statistically guesswork, when you look at how far of it is most of the time. Cool

Do you have examples of statistical analysis that you don't think is guesswork? Or is all statistical analysis guesswork to you?

I checked my pockets, under the bed, in the garage, the attic, and all of a sudden I realized, it is all over the Internet for anybody who wants to research it.

Cool

Is all statistical analysis guesswork to you?

Are you such a child that you constantly have to ask me for my beliefs, my knowledge, and my opinions? Can't you figure anything out on your own?

I'm attempting to get an answer from you. You post opinions masquerading as facts but when someone asks you a relevant question it's back to insults, eh?

Just answer the question: Do you have examples of statistical analysis that you don't think is guesswork?

Now there is a statement! Of course, there might be other reasons why you would ask me a question than because you are trying to get an answer from me.

I suspect that we all post opinions a times. And, like you, I probably dip over the line into opinion in some ways when I am stating facts. However, if I insult anybody intentionally, it's just that I am agreeing with their insults of themselves.

Is it going to bother you a lot if I don't answer your question in the way you want? Ask yourself the question, or go out and research it if you want.

Cool

yugo23

sr. member

Activity: 476

Merit: 252

Quote from: Moloch on February 24, 2016, 08:09:29 PM

Quote from: BADecker on February 24, 2016, 08:08:22 PM

Quote from: Moloch on February 24, 2016, 08:04:54 PM

Quote from: BADecker on February 24, 2016, 07:58:58 PM

Quote from: Moloch on February 24, 2016, 07:56:03 PM

Quote from: craked5 on February 24, 2016, 03:42:36 AM

Quote from: Moloch on February 22, 2016, 12:06:07 PM

Quote from: yugo23 on February 22, 2016, 08:28:33 AM

Quote from: BADecker on February 22, 2016, 07:16:53 AM

Actually, that is man's interpretation of the data. People forget (intentionally) that there is no way to take into account natural C-14 activity in the past, because nobody was there measuring the C-14 data as it happened. In addition, because of the carbon dating that has been proven to be false, the best that carbon dating might be is a better interpretation of things that we know the near date of through other methods.

In other words, carbon dating is all guesswork regarding the dates that are being interpreted from the results evidence.

It's not guess work! It's statistics! And that's why we do the experiments few dozens of times and we take into account a margin error! But you'd want us to be wrong about millions of years wrong? nonsense!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiocarbon_dating#Errors_and_reliability

Sounds quite reliable to me... the example they use to show the possibility of error using only 1 standard deviation, is still only off by like 5% at most... still super accurate

Quote

This was demonstrated in 1970 by an experiment run by the British Museum radiocarbon laboratory, in which weekly measurements were taken on the same sample for six months. The results varied widely (though consistently with a normal distribution of errors in the measurements), and included multiple date ranges (of 1σ confidence) that did not overlap with each other. The extreme measurements included one with a maximum age of under 4,400 years, and another with a minimum age of more than 4,500 years

Problem is not even accuracy!
No matter the accuracy, when you get ONLY results between 5 millions years old and 4 999 500 years old, it's hard to believe that the real result would be 3000...

BADecker thinks God put less Carbon-14 in older objects... just to trick us into thinking he doesn't exist... if that makes sense?
(makes no sense to me... why would God hide any/all evidence of creation?)

Takes someone who doesn't even consider that God might exist, especially in the face of all the cause and effect we see, without anything other than cause and effect being known, to ask why God would do things, when he wouldn't understand the answer if it walked right up and scratched him in the eyeball.

Are you just here to troll and be a douche?

Really poor representative of Christianity

Of course I have considered whether or not God exists... I spent 30 fucking years researching the subject! How about you ya little shit?

Yes, I am just here to act like I'm 12, and makes all Christians look stupid

That's what I thought

Did you actually thought that BD might be an atheist in disguise coming here to discredit religious freaks? Cause that works!

yugo23

sr. member

Activity: 476

Merit: 252

Quote from: Moloch on February 24, 2016, 07:56:03 PM

Quote from: craked5 on February 24, 2016, 03:42:36 AM

Quote from: Moloch on February 22, 2016, 12:06:07 PM

Quote from: yugo23 on February 22, 2016, 08:28:33 AM

Quote from: BADecker on February 22, 2016, 07:16:53 AM

Actually, that is man's interpretation of the data. People forget (intentionally) that there is no way to take into account natural C-14 activity in the past, because nobody was there measuring the C-14 data as it happened. In addition, because of the carbon dating that has been proven to be false, the best that carbon dating might be is a better interpretation of things that we know the near date of through other methods.

In other words, carbon dating is all guesswork regarding the dates that are being interpreted from the results evidence.

It's not guess work! It's statistics! And that's why we do the experiments few dozens of times and we take into account a margin error! But you'd want us to be wrong about millions of years wrong? nonsense!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiocarbon_dating#Errors_and_reliability

Sounds quite reliable to me... the example they use to show the possibility of error using only 1 standard deviation, is still only off by like 5% at most... still super accurate

Quote

This was demonstrated in 1970 by an experiment run by the British Museum radiocarbon laboratory, in which weekly measurements were taken on the same sample for six months. The results varied widely (though consistently with a normal distribution of errors in the measurements), and included multiple date ranges (of 1σ confidence) that did not overlap with each other. The extreme measurements included one with a maximum age of under 4,400 years, and another with a minimum age of more than 4,500 years

Problem is not even accuracy!
No matter the accuracy, when you get ONLY results between 5 millions years old and 4 999 500 years old, it's hard to believe that the real result would be 3000...

BADecker thinks God put less Carbon-14 in older objects... just to trick us into thinking he doesn't exist... if that makes sense?
(makes no sense to me... why would God hide any/all evidence of creation?)

Mouhahahahaha xD

That's actually a good explanation!
But if Gods has nothing better to do he's really a douchebag xD

valta4065

hero member

Activity: 826

Merit: 500

Join @Bountycloud for the best bounties!

Quote from: BADecker on February 25, 2016, 03:44:29 AM

Quote from: organofcorti on February 24, 2016, 09:33:46 PM

Quote from: BADecker on February 24, 2016, 08:02:25 PM

Quote from: organofcorti on February 24, 2016, 07:57:02 PM

Quote from: BADecker on February 24, 2016, 07:44:02 PM

Quote from: yugo23 on February 22, 2016, 08:28:33 AM

Quote from: BADecker on February 22, 2016, 07:16:53 AM

Actually, that is man's interpretation of the data. People forget (intentionally) that there is no way to take into account natural C-14 activity in the past, because nobody was there measuring the C-14 data as it happened. In addition, because of the carbon dating that has been proven to be false, the best that carbon dating might be is a better interpretation of things that we know the near date of through other methods.

In other words, carbon dating is all guesswork regarding the dates that are being interpreted from the results evidence.

Cool

It's not guess work! It's statistics! And that's why we do the experiments few dozens of times and we take into account a margin error! But you'd want us to be wrong about millions of years wrong? nonsense!

Statistically guesswork, when you look at how far of it is most of the time. Cool

Do you have examples of statistical analysis that you don't think is guesswork? Or is all statistical analysis guesswork to you?

I checked my pockets, under the bed, in the garage, the attic, and all of a sudden I realized, it is all over the Internet for anybody who wants to research it.

Cool

Is all statistical analysis guesswork to you?

Are you such a child that you constantly have to ask me for my beliefs, my knowledge, and my opinions? Can't you figure anything out on your own?

We try to understand how flawed your reasonning is. And believe me it's hard to understand how dumb you can be.

You're actually saying that it's not because the same experiment made 1500 times give the same result that this result is correct?

organofcorti

donator

Activity: 2058

Merit: 1007

Poor impulse control.

Quote from: BADecker on February 25, 2016, 03:44:29 AM

Quote from: organofcorti on February 24, 2016, 09:33:46 PM

Quote from: BADecker on February 24, 2016, 08:02:25 PM

Quote from: organofcorti on February 24, 2016, 07:57:02 PM

Quote from: BADecker on February 24, 2016, 07:44:02 PM

Quote from: yugo23 on February 22, 2016, 08:28:33 AM

Quote from: BADecker on February 22, 2016, 07:16:53 AM

Actually, that is man's interpretation of the data. People forget (intentionally) that there is no way to take into account natural C-14 activity in the past, because nobody was there measuring the C-14 data as it happened. In addition, because of the carbon dating that has been proven to be false, the best that carbon dating might be is a better interpretation of things that we know the near date of through other methods.

In other words, carbon dating is all guesswork regarding the dates that are being interpreted from the results evidence.

Cool

It's not guess work! It's statistics! And that's why we do the experiments few dozens of times and we take into account a margin error! But you'd want us to be wrong about millions of years wrong? nonsense!

Statistically guesswork, when you look at how far of it is most of the time. Cool

Do you have examples of statistical analysis that you don't think is guesswork? Or is all statistical analysis guesswork to you?

I checked my pockets, under the bed, in the garage, the attic, and all of a sudden I realized, it is all over the Internet for anybody who wants to research it.

Cool

Is all statistical analysis guesswork to you?

Are you such a child that you constantly have to ask me for my beliefs, my knowledge, and my opinions? Can't you figure anything out on your own?

I'm attempting to get an answer from you. You post opinions masquerading as facts but when someone asks you a relevant question it's back to insults, eh?

Just answer the question: Do you have examples of statistical analysis that you don't think is guesswork?

BADecker

legendary

Activity: 3990

Merit: 1385

Quote from: organofcorti on February 24, 2016, 09:33:46 PM

Quote from: BADecker on February 24, 2016, 08:02:25 PM

Quote from: organofcorti on February 24, 2016, 07:57:02 PM

Quote from: BADecker on February 24, 2016, 07:44:02 PM

Quote from: yugo23 on February 22, 2016, 08:28:33 AM

Quote from: BADecker on February 22, 2016, 07:16:53 AM

Actually, that is man's interpretation of the data. People forget (intentionally) that there is no way to take into account natural C-14 activity in the past, because nobody was there measuring the C-14 data as it happened. In addition, because of the carbon dating that has been proven to be false, the best that carbon dating might be is a better interpretation of things that we know the near date of through other methods.

In other words, carbon dating is all guesswork regarding the dates that are being interpreted from the results evidence.

Cool

It's not guess work! It's statistics! And that's why we do the experiments few dozens of times and we take into account a margin error! But you'd want us to be wrong about millions of years wrong? nonsense!

Statistically guesswork, when you look at how far of it is most of the time. Cool

Do you have examples of statistical analysis that you don't think is guesswork? Or is all statistical analysis guesswork to you?

I checked my pockets, under the bed, in the garage, the attic, and all of a sudden I realized, it is all over the Internet for anybody who wants to research it.

Cool

Is all statistical analysis guesswork to you?

Are you such a child that you constantly have to ask me for my beliefs, my knowledge, and my opinions? Can't you figure anything out on your own?

organofcorti

donator

Activity: 2058

Merit: 1007

Poor impulse control.

Quote from: BADecker on February 24, 2016, 08:02:25 PM

Quote from: organofcorti on February 24, 2016, 07:57:02 PM

Quote from: BADecker on February 24, 2016, 07:44:02 PM

Quote from: yugo23 on February 22, 2016, 08:28:33 AM

Quote from: BADecker on February 22, 2016, 07:16:53 AM

Actually, that is man's interpretation of the data. People forget (intentionally) that there is no way to take into account natural C-14 activity in the past, because nobody was there measuring the C-14 data as it happened. In addition, because of the carbon dating that has been proven to be false, the best that carbon dating might be is a better interpretation of things that we know the near date of through other methods.

In other words, carbon dating is all guesswork regarding the dates that are being interpreted from the results evidence.

Cool

It's not guess work! It's statistics! And that's why we do the experiments few dozens of times and we take into account a margin error! But you'd want us to be wrong about millions of years wrong? nonsense!

Statistically guesswork, when you look at how far of it is most of the time. Cool

Do you have examples of statistical analysis that you don't think is guesswork? Or is all statistical analysis guesswork to you?

I checked my pockets, under the bed, in the garage, the attic, and all of a sudden I realized, it is all over the Internet for anybody who wants to research it.

Cool

Is all statistical analysis guesswork to you?

BADecker

legendary

Activity: 3990

Merit: 1385

Quote from: Moloch on February 24, 2016, 08:09:29 PM

Quote from: BADecker on February 24, 2016, 08:08:22 PM

Quote from: Moloch on February 24, 2016, 08:04:54 PM

Quote from: BADecker on February 24, 2016, 07:58:58 PM

Quote from: Moloch on February 24, 2016, 07:56:03 PM

Quote from: craked5 on February 24, 2016, 03:42:36 AM

Quote from: Moloch on February 22, 2016, 12:06:07 PM

Quote from: yugo23 on February 22, 2016, 08:28:33 AM

Quote from: BADecker on February 22, 2016, 07:16:53 AM

Actually, that is man's interpretation of the data. People forget (intentionally) that there is no way to take into account natural C-14 activity in the past, because nobody was there measuring the C-14 data as it happened. In addition, because of the carbon dating that has been proven to be false, the best that carbon dating might be is a better interpretation of things that we know the near date of through other methods.

In other words, carbon dating is all guesswork regarding the dates that are being interpreted from the results evidence.

It's not guess work! It's statistics! And that's why we do the experiments few dozens of times and we take into account a margin error! But you'd want us to be wrong about millions of years wrong? nonsense!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiocarbon_dating#Errors_and_reliability

Sounds quite reliable to me... the example they use to show the possibility of error using only 1 standard deviation, is still only off by like 5% at most... still super accurate

Quote

This was demonstrated in 1970 by an experiment run by the British Museum radiocarbon laboratory, in which weekly measurements were taken on the same sample for six months. The results varied widely (though consistently with a normal distribution of errors in the measurements), and included multiple date ranges (of 1σ confidence) that did not overlap with each other. The extreme measurements included one with a maximum age of under 4,400 years, and another with a minimum age of more than 4,500 years

Problem is not even accuracy!
No matter the accuracy, when you get ONLY results between 5 millions years old and 4 999 500 years old, it's hard to believe that the real result would be 3000...

BADecker thinks God put less Carbon-14 in older objects... just to trick us into thinking he doesn't exist... if that makes sense?
(makes no sense to me... why would God hide any/all evidence of creation?)

Takes someone who doesn't even consider that God might exist, especially in the face of all the cause and effect we see, without anything other than cause and effect being known, to ask why God would do things, when he wouldn't understand the answer if it walked right up and scratched him in the eyeball.

Are you just here to troll and be a douche?

Really poor representative of Christianity

Of course I have considered whether or not God exists... I spent 30 fucking years researching the subject! How about you ya little shit?

Yes, I am just here to act like I'm 12, and makes all Christians look stupid

That's what I thought

I was wondering how long it would take one of you jokers to get around to that. What are you going to do now? Edit it back? LOL

Cool

Moloch

hero member

Activity: 798

Merit: 722

Quote from: BADecker on February 24, 2016, 08:08:22 PM

Quote from: Moloch on February 24, 2016, 08:04:54 PM

Quote from: BADecker on February 24, 2016, 07:58:58 PM

Quote from: Moloch on February 24, 2016, 07:56:03 PM

Quote from: craked5 on February 24, 2016, 03:42:36 AM

Quote from: Moloch on February 22, 2016, 12:06:07 PM

Quote from: yugo23 on February 22, 2016, 08:28:33 AM

Quote from: BADecker on February 22, 2016, 07:16:53 AM

Actually, that is man's interpretation of the data. People forget (intentionally) that there is no way to take into account natural C-14 activity in the past, because nobody was there measuring the C-14 data as it happened. In addition, because of the carbon dating that has been proven to be false, the best that carbon dating might be is a better interpretation of things that we know the near date of through other methods.

In other words, carbon dating is all guesswork regarding the dates that are being interpreted from the results evidence.

It's not guess work! It's statistics! And that's why we do the experiments few dozens of times and we take into account a margin error! But you'd want us to be wrong about millions of years wrong? nonsense!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiocarbon_dating#Errors_and_reliability

Sounds quite reliable to me... the example they use to show the possibility of error using only 1 standard deviation, is still only off by like 5% at most... still super accurate

Quote

This was demonstrated in 1970 by an experiment run by the British Museum radiocarbon laboratory, in which weekly measurements were taken on the same sample for six months. The results varied widely (though consistently with a normal distribution of errors in the measurements), and included multiple date ranges (of 1σ confidence) that did not overlap with each other. The extreme measurements included one with a maximum age of under 4,400 years, and another with a minimum age of more than 4,500 years

Problem is not even accuracy!
No matter the accuracy, when you get ONLY results between 5 millions years old and 4 999 500 years old, it's hard to believe that the real result would be 3000...

BADecker thinks God put less Carbon-14 in older objects... just to trick us into thinking he doesn't exist... if that makes sense?
(makes no sense to me... why would God hide any/all evidence of creation?)

Takes someone who doesn't even consider that God might exist, especially in the face of all the cause and effect we see, without anything other than cause and effect being known, to ask why God would do things, when he wouldn't understand the answer if it walked right up and scratched him in the eyeball.

Are you just here to troll and be a douche?

Really poor representative of Christianity

Of course I have considered whether or not God exists... I spent 30 fucking years researching the subject! How about you ya little shit?

Yes, I am just here to act like I'm 12, and makes all Christians look stupid

That's what I thought

BADecker

legendary

Activity: 3990

Merit: 1385

Quote from: Moloch on February 24, 2016, 08:04:54 PM

Quote from: BADecker on February 24, 2016, 07:58:58 PM

Quote from: Moloch on February 24, 2016, 07:56:03 PM

Quote from: craked5 on February 24, 2016, 03:42:36 AM

Quote from: Moloch on February 22, 2016, 12:06:07 PM

Quote from: yugo23 on February 22, 2016, 08:28:33 AM

Quote from: BADecker on February 22, 2016, 07:16:53 AM

Actually, that is man's interpretation of the data. People forget (intentionally) that there is no way to take into account natural C-14 activity in the past, because nobody was there measuring the C-14 data as it happened. In addition, because of the carbon dating that has been proven to be false, the best that carbon dating might be is a better interpretation of things that we know the near date of through other methods.

In other words, carbon dating is all guesswork regarding the dates that are being interpreted from the results evidence.

It's not guess work! It's statistics! And that's why we do the experiments few dozens of times and we take into account a margin error! But you'd want us to be wrong about millions of years wrong? nonsense!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiocarbon_dating#Errors_and_reliability

Sounds quite reliable to me... the example they use to show the possibility of error using only 1 standard deviation, is still only off by like 5% at most... still super accurate

Quote

This was demonstrated in 1970 by an experiment run by the British Museum radiocarbon laboratory, in which weekly measurements were taken on the same sample for six months. The results varied widely (though consistently with a normal distribution of errors in the measurements), and included multiple date ranges (of 1σ confidence) that did not overlap with each other. The extreme measurements included one with a maximum age of under 4,400 years, and another with a minimum age of more than 4,500 years

Problem is not even accuracy!
No matter the accuracy, when you get ONLY results between 5 millions years old and 4 999 500 years old, it's hard to believe that the real result would be 3000...

BADecker thinks God put less Carbon-14 in older objects... just to trick us into thinking he doesn't exist... if that makes sense?
(makes no sense to me... why would God hide any/all evidence of creation?)

Takes someone who doesn't even consider that God might exist, especially in the face of all the cause and effect we see, without anything other than cause and effect being known, to ask why God would do things, when he wouldn't understand the answer if it walked right up and scratched him in the eyeball.

Are you just here to troll and be a douche?

Really poor representative of Christianity

Of course I have considered whether or not God exists... I spent 30 fucking years researching the subject! How about you ya little shit?

That's the exact point. I'm simply going along with your self-analysis.

When I agree with you, you call me a poor Christian, douche troll, and if I don't agree with you, you call me the same.

Now you admit that you are of low enough IQ that 30 years wasn't enough. What are you going to call me now that I point THIS out to you?

Cool

Moloch

hero member

Activity: 798

Merit: 722

Quote from: BADecker on February 24, 2016, 07:58:58 PM

Quote from: Moloch on February 24, 2016, 07:56:03 PM

Quote from: craked5 on February 24, 2016, 03:42:36 AM

Quote from: Moloch on February 22, 2016, 12:06:07 PM

Quote from: yugo23 on February 22, 2016, 08:28:33 AM

Quote from: BADecker on February 22, 2016, 07:16:53 AM

Actually, that is man's interpretation of the data. People forget (intentionally) that there is no way to take into account natural C-14 activity in the past, because nobody was there measuring the C-14 data as it happened. In addition, because of the carbon dating that has been proven to be false, the best that carbon dating might be is a better interpretation of things that we know the near date of through other methods.

In other words, carbon dating is all guesswork regarding the dates that are being interpreted from the results evidence.

It's not guess work! It's statistics! And that's why we do the experiments few dozens of times and we take into account a margin error! But you'd want us to be wrong about millions of years wrong? nonsense!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiocarbon_dating#Errors_and_reliability

Sounds quite reliable to me... the example they use to show the possibility of error using only 1 standard deviation, is still only off by like 5% at most... still super accurate

Quote

This was demonstrated in 1970 by an experiment run by the British Museum radiocarbon laboratory, in which weekly measurements were taken on the same sample for six months. The results varied widely (though consistently with a normal distribution of errors in the measurements), and included multiple date ranges (of 1σ confidence) that did not overlap with each other. The extreme measurements included one with a maximum age of under 4,400 years, and another with a minimum age of more than 4,500 years

Problem is not even accuracy!
No matter the accuracy, when you get ONLY results between 5 millions years old and 4 999 500 years old, it's hard to believe that the real result would be 3000...

BADecker thinks God put less Carbon-14 in older objects... just to trick us into thinking he doesn't exist... if that makes sense?
(makes no sense to me... why would God hide any/all evidence of creation?)

Takes someone who doesn't even consider that God might exist, especially in the face of all the cause and effect we see, without anything other than cause and effect being known, to ask why God would do things, when he wouldn't understand the answer if it walked right up and scratched him in the eyeball.

Are you just here to troll and be a douche?

Really poor representative of Christianity

Of course I have considered whether or not God exists... I wasted 30 fucking years researching the subject! How about you ya little shit?

BADecker

legendary

Activity: 3990

Merit: 1385

Quote from: organofcorti on February 24, 2016, 07:57:02 PM

Quote from: BADecker on February 24, 2016, 07:44:02 PM

Quote from: yugo23 on February 22, 2016, 08:28:33 AM

Quote from: BADecker on February 22, 2016, 07:16:53 AM

Actually, that is man's interpretation of the data. People forget (intentionally) that there is no way to take into account natural C-14 activity in the past, because nobody was there measuring the C-14 data as it happened. In addition, because of the carbon dating that has been proven to be false, the best that carbon dating might be is a better interpretation of things that we know the near date of through other methods.

In other words, carbon dating is all guesswork regarding the dates that are being interpreted from the results evidence.

Cool

It's not guess work! It's statistics! And that's why we do the experiments few dozens of times and we take into account a margin error! But you'd want us to be wrong about millions of years wrong? nonsense!

Statistically guesswork, when you look at how far of it is most of the time. Cool

Do you have examples of statistical analysis that you don't think is guesswork? Or is all statistical analysis guesswork to you?

I checked my pockets, under the bed, in the garage, the attic, and all of a sudden I realized, it is all over the Internet for anybody who wants to research it.

Cool

BADecker

legendary

Activity: 3990

Merit: 1385

Quote from: Moloch on February 24, 2016, 07:56:03 PM

Quote from: craked5 on February 24, 2016, 03:42:36 AM

Quote from: Moloch on February 22, 2016, 12:06:07 PM

Quote from: yugo23 on February 22, 2016, 08:28:33 AM

Quote from: BADecker on February 22, 2016, 07:16:53 AM

Actually, that is man's interpretation of the data. People forget (intentionally) that there is no way to take into account natural C-14 activity in the past, because nobody was there measuring the C-14 data as it happened. In addition, because of the carbon dating that has been proven to be false, the best that carbon dating might be is a better interpretation of things that we know the near date of through other methods.

In other words, carbon dating is all guesswork regarding the dates that are being interpreted from the results evidence.

It's not guess work! It's statistics! And that's why we do the experiments few dozens of times and we take into account a margin error! But you'd want us to be wrong about millions of years wrong? nonsense!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiocarbon_dating#Errors_and_reliability

Sounds quite reliable to me... the example they use to show the possibility of error using only 1 standard deviation, is still only off by like 5% at most... still super accurate

Quote

This was demonstrated in 1970 by an experiment run by the British Museum radiocarbon laboratory, in which weekly measurements were taken on the same sample for six months. The results varied widely (though consistently with a normal distribution of errors in the measurements), and included multiple date ranges (of 1σ confidence) that did not overlap with each other. The extreme measurements included one with a maximum age of under 4,400 years, and another with a minimum age of more than 4,500 years

Problem is not even accuracy!
No matter the accuracy, when you get ONLY results between 5 millions years old and 4 999 500 years old, it's hard to believe that the real result would be 3000...

BADecker thinks God put less Carbon-14 in older objects... just to trick us into thinking he doesn't exist... if that makes sense?
(makes no sense to me... why would God hide any/all evidence of creation?)

Takes someone who doesn't even consider that God might exist, especially in the face of all the cause and effect we see, without anything other than cause and effect being known, to ask why God would do things, when he wouldn't understand the answer if it walked right up and scratched him in the eyeball.

Cool

organofcorti

donator

Activity: 2058

Merit: 1007

Poor impulse control.

Quote from: BADecker on February 24, 2016, 07:44:02 PM

Quote from: yugo23 on February 22, 2016, 08:28:33 AM

Quote from: BADecker on February 22, 2016, 07:16:53 AM

Actually, that is man's interpretation of the data. People forget (intentionally) that there is no way to take into account natural C-14 activity in the past, because nobody was there measuring the C-14 data as it happened. In addition, because of the carbon dating that has been proven to be false, the best that carbon dating might be is a better interpretation of things that we know the near date of through other methods.

In other words, carbon dating is all guesswork regarding the dates that are being interpreted from the results evidence.

Cool

It's not guess work! It's statistics! And that's why we do the experiments few dozens of times and we take into account a margin error! But you'd want us to be wrong about millions of years wrong? nonsense!

Statistically guesswork, when you look at how far of it is most of the time. Cool

Do you have examples of statistical analysis that you don't think is guesswork? Or is all statistical analysis guesswork to you?

Moloch

hero member

Activity: 798

Merit: 722

Quote from: craked5 on February 24, 2016, 03:42:36 AM

Quote from: Moloch on February 22, 2016, 12:06:07 PM

Quote from: yugo23 on February 22, 2016, 08:28:33 AM

Quote from: BADecker on February 22, 2016, 07:16:53 AM

Actually, that is man's interpretation of the data. People forget (intentionally) that there is no way to take into account natural C-14 activity in the past, because nobody was there measuring the C-14 data as it happened. In addition, because of the carbon dating that has been proven to be false, the best that carbon dating might be is a better interpretation of things that we know the near date of through other methods.

In other words, carbon dating is all guesswork regarding the dates that are being interpreted from the results evidence.

It's not guess work! It's statistics! And that's why we do the experiments few dozens of times and we take into account a margin error! But you'd want us to be wrong about millions of years wrong? nonsense!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiocarbon_dating#Errors_and_reliability

Sounds quite reliable to me... the example they use to show the possibility of error using only 1 standard deviation, is still only off by like 5% at most... still super accurate

Quote

This was demonstrated in 1970 by an experiment run by the British Museum radiocarbon laboratory, in which weekly measurements were taken on the same sample for six months. The results varied widely (though consistently with a normal distribution of errors in the measurements), and included multiple date ranges (of 1σ confidence) that did not overlap with each other. The extreme measurements included one with a maximum age of under 4,400 years, and another with a minimum age of more than 4,500 years

Problem is not even accuracy!
No matter the accuracy, when you get ONLY results between 5 millions years old and 4 999 500 years old, it's hard to believe that the real result would be 3000...

BADecker thinks God put less Carbon-14 in older objects... just to trick us into thinking he doesn't exist... if that makes sense?
(makes no sense to me... why would God hide any/all evidence of creation?)

BADecker

legendary

Activity: 3990

Merit: 1385

Quote from: yugo23 on February 22, 2016, 08:28:33 AM

Quote from: BADecker on February 22, 2016, 07:16:53 AM

Actually, that is man's interpretation of the data. People forget (intentionally) that there is no way to take into account natural C-14 activity in the past, because nobody was there measuring the C-14 data as it happened. In addition, because of the carbon dating that has been proven to be false, the best that carbon dating might be is a better interpretation of things that we know the near date of through other methods.

In other words, carbon dating is all guesswork regarding the dates that are being interpreted from the results evidence.

Cool

It's not guess work! It's statistics! And that's why we do the experiments few dozens of times and we take into account a margin error! But you'd want us to be wrong about millions of years wrong? nonsense!

Statistically guesswork, when you look at how far of it is most of the time. Cool

craked5

hero member

Activity: 840

Merit: 529

Quote from: Moloch on February 22, 2016, 12:06:07 PM

Quote from: yugo23 on February 22, 2016, 08:28:33 AM

Quote from: BADecker on February 22, 2016, 07:16:53 AM

Actually, that is man's interpretation of the data. People forget (intentionally) that there is no way to take into account natural C-14 activity in the past, because nobody was there measuring the C-14 data as it happened. In addition, because of the carbon dating that has been proven to be false, the best that carbon dating might be is a better interpretation of things that we know the near date of through other methods.

In other words, carbon dating is all guesswork regarding the dates that are being interpreted from the results evidence.

It's not guess work! It's statistics! And that's why we do the experiments few dozens of times and we take into account a margin error! But you'd want us to be wrong about millions of years wrong? nonsense!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiocarbon_dating#Errors_and_reliability

Sounds quite reliable to me... the example they use to show the possibility of error using only 1 standard deviation, is still only off by like 5% at most... still super accurate

Quote

This was demonstrated in 1970 by an experiment run by the British Museum radiocarbon laboratory, in which weekly measurements were taken on the same sample for six months. The results varied widely (though consistently with a normal distribution of errors in the measurements), and included multiple date ranges (of 1σ confidence) that did not overlap with each other. The extreme measurements included one with a maximum age of under 4,400 years, and another with a minimum age of more than 4,500 years

Problem is not even accuracy!
No matter the accuracy, when you get ONLY results between 5 millions years old and 4 999 500 years old, it's hard to believe that the real result would be 3000...

xslugx

sr. member

Activity: 293

Merit: 250

Quote from: Moloch on February 22, 2016, 12:06:07 PM

Quote from: yugo23 on February 22, 2016, 08:28:33 AM

Quote from: BADecker on February 22, 2016, 07:16:53 AM

Actually, that is man's interpretation of the data. People forget (intentionally) that there is no way to take into account natural C-14 activity in the past, because nobody was there measuring the C-14 data as it happened. In addition, because of the carbon dating that has been proven to be false, the best that carbon dating might be is a better interpretation of things that we know the near date of through other methods.

In other words, carbon dating is all guesswork regarding the dates that are being interpreted from the results evidence.

It's not guess work! It's statistics! And that's why we do the experiments few dozens of times and we take into account a margin error! But you'd want us to be wrong about millions of years wrong? nonsense!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiocarbon_dating#Errors_and_reliability

Sounds quite reliable to me... the example they use to show the possibility of error using only 1 standard deviation, is still only off by like 5% at most... still super accurate

Quote

This was demonstrated in 1970 by an experiment run by the British Museum radiocarbon laboratory, in which weekly measurements were taken on the same sample for six months. The results varied widely (though consistently with a normal distribution of errors in the measurements), and included multiple date ranges (of 1σ confidence) that did not overlap with each other. The extreme measurements included one with a maximum age of under 4,400 years, and another with a minimum age of more than 4,500 years

Of course it is reliable!
Usually Carbon 14 datation is wrong about 80 years. 80 years on a datation of dozens of thousands of years! Seems quite reliable to me too!!!

Moloch

hero member

Activity: 798

Merit: 722

Quote from: yugo23 on February 22, 2016, 08:28:33 AM

Quote from: BADecker on February 22, 2016, 07:16:53 AM

Actually, that is man's interpretation of the data. People forget (intentionally) that there is no way to take into account natural C-14 activity in the past, because nobody was there measuring the C-14 data as it happened. In addition, because of the carbon dating that has been proven to be false, the best that carbon dating might be is a better interpretation of things that we know the near date of through other methods.

In other words, carbon dating is all guesswork regarding the dates that are being interpreted from the results evidence.

It's not guess work! It's statistics! And that's why we do the experiments few dozens of times and we take into account a margin error! But you'd want us to be wrong about millions of years wrong? nonsense!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiocarbon_dating#Errors_and_reliability

Sounds quite reliable to me... the example they use to show the possibility of error using only 1 standard deviation, is still only off by like 5% at most... still super accurate

Quote

This was demonstrated in 1970 by an experiment run by the British Museum radiocarbon laboratory, in which weekly measurements were taken on the same sample for six months. The results varied widely (though consistently with a normal distribution of errors in the measurements), and included multiple date ranges (of 1σ confidence) that did not overlap with each other. The extreme measurements included one with a maximum age of under 4,400 years, and another with a minimum age of more than 4,500 years

yugo23

sr. member

Activity: 476

Merit: 252

Quote from: BADecker on February 22, 2016, 07:16:53 AM

Actually, that is man's interpretation of the data. People forget (intentionally) that there is no way to take into account natural C-14 activity in the past, because nobody was there measuring the C-14 data as it happened. In addition, because of the carbon dating that has been proven to be false, the best that carbon dating might be is a better interpretation of things that we know the near date of through other methods.

In other words, carbon dating is all guesswork regarding the dates that are being interpreted from the results evidence.

Cool

It's not guess work! It's statistics! And that's why we do the experiments few dozens of times and we take into account a margin error! But you'd want us to be wrong about millions of years wrong? nonsense!

Topic: Why do Atheists Hate Religion? - page 187. (Read 901515 times)