Why do Atheists Hate Religion? - page 193.

BADecker

legendary

Activity: 3906

Merit: 1373

Quote from: Moloch on February 24, 2016, 08:56:03 PM

Quote from: craked5 on February 24, 2016, 04:42:36 AM

Quote from: Moloch on February 22, 2016, 01:06:07 PM

Quote from: yugo23 on February 22, 2016, 09:28:33 AM

Quote from: BADecker on February 22, 2016, 08:16:53 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, 08:44:02 PM

Quote from: yugo23 on February 22, 2016, 09:28:33 AM

Quote from: BADecker on February 22, 2016, 08:16:53 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, 04:42:36 AM

Quote from: Moloch on February 22, 2016, 01:06:07 PM

Quote from: yugo23 on February 22, 2016, 09:28:33 AM

Quote from: BADecker on February 22, 2016, 08:16:53 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: 3906

Merit: 1373

Quote from: yugo23 on February 22, 2016, 09:28:33 AM

Quote from: BADecker on February 22, 2016, 08:16:53 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, 01:06:07 PM

Quote from: yugo23 on February 22, 2016, 09:28:33 AM

Quote from: BADecker on February 22, 2016, 08:16:53 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, 01:06:07 PM

Quote from: yugo23 on February 22, 2016, 09:28:33 AM

Quote from: BADecker on February 22, 2016, 08:16:53 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, 09:28:33 AM

Quote from: BADecker on February 22, 2016, 08:16:53 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, 08:16:53 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!

mainpmf

sr. member

Activity: 448

Merit: 250

Quote from: BADecker on February 22, 2016, 08:16:53 AM

Quote from: mainpmf on February 22, 2016, 07:43:26 AM

Quote from: BADecker on February 22, 2016, 07:22:15 AM

Quote from: craked5 on February 21, 2016, 08:53:51 PM

Quote from: BADecker on February 21, 2016, 08:34:44 PM

Quote from: craked5 on February 21, 2016, 08:15:59 PM

Quote from: BADecker on February 21, 2016, 07:27:03 PM

Quote from: mrflibblehat on February 21, 2016, 07:13:27 PM

Quote from: BADecker on February 21, 2016, 07:11:20 PM

Quote from: mrflibblehat on February 21, 2016, 07:06:04 PM

Quote from: BADecker on February 21, 2016, 07:04:47 PM

Quote from: mrflibblehat on February 21, 2016, 07:00:33 PM

Quote from: BADecker on February 21, 2016, 06:50:18 PM

The real reason why atheists hate religion is, the devil has blinded their minds to the truth.

Cool

We don't hate it. We're just not interested in it. We're more interested in things that deal with facts.

No, you hate it. How do we know? You are unwilling to compare the dictionary definition of "religion" to atheism and see that atheism is a religion.

Cool

Jeez, dude! Have it your way. Call it however you want. Still we're not interested in it. That important detail escapes you still.

This doesn't escape me at all. The fact that you would rather live in a science fiction world than in a world of reality doesn't escape me at all.

Cool

Riiiiight. Cause God made cars, computers and everything you use in your house.

Essentially yes. And maybe precisely yes. Cause and effect is in everything, going back to the beginning.

Notice that you are attributing far greater abilities to God than I am. You say that His 14 billion year cause and effect made these things, while I say it was only a little over 6,000 years. You might be able to hit the cue ball and get the sixth ball into the prescribed pocket, but try doing it with more than 10,000,000 balls.

Cool

Still didn't explain why carbon datation isn't reliable.

Funny how you take only what you want?

I just answered this in a different thread. I am not supposed to know the why's of everything just like you aren't. Research it for the data so that you can see the facts that carbon dating is flawed.

Cool

Flawed to the point that it's 50k years false? Same goes for EVERY radioactive element we know and use?

The liter science and physics isn't flawed. It works just like it should. The things that are flawed is how we interpret that data, and how we use the science itself.

Cool

Data is crystal clear. Most radioactive datation gives data proving objects and earths are millions of years old! And you would make us believe it's only 6k years old?
Common what you're saying is plain nonsense! If the physics is correct then we can't be dozens of millions of years wrong EVERY TIME...

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

So for you carbon radioactive activity is few thousands time slower today than 5k years ago? And this regardless of concentrations (as we take same concentrations samples to compare activities) so without any reason the activity decreased by four orders of magnitude without any reason?

blackbird307

full member

Activity: 238

Merit: 100

★YoBit.Net★ 350+ Coins Exchange & Dice

Of course he knows. Except that he just wants to make things a bit interesting before the end.

organofcorti

donator

Activity: 2058

Merit: 1007

Poor impulse control.

Quote from: BADecker on February 21, 2016, 07:49:28 PM

Quote from: organofcorti on February 21, 2016, 07:45:39 PM

Quote from: BADecker on February 21, 2016, 07:03:25 PM

Quote from: organofcorti on February 21, 2016, 06:51:43 PM

Quote from: BADecker on February 21, 2016, 06:50:18 PM

The real reason why atheists hate religion is, the devil has blinded their minds to the truth.

Cool

So, not just atheists then but anyone who has a religion other than one of the Judeochristian ones?

Even so-called Christians will always have an unclear picture of God. The thing that saves them is when they fill themselves on the Word of God, the Bible, so that the Holy Spirit has something to work with in them, to work salvation in them.

Cool

What about buddhists? Are they atheists or do they just hate religion?

http://www.buddhanet.net/e-learning/5minbud.htm Check it out and learn. Cool

I asked for your opinion, not someone else's opinion. You have one, so what is it? out with it man! Don't be shy. Has the devil blinded Buddhist eyes to the Truth?