Author Topic: Would You Ever Torture Your Children With Fire In in the Basement?  (Read 12687 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Angus and Alexis

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1487
  • Darwins +71/-24
  • Gender: Male
  • Residential Tulpamancer.
Rule 1: No pooftas. Rule 2: No maltreating the theists, IF, anyone is watching. Rule 3: No pooftas. Rule 4: I do not want to see anyone NOT drinking after light out. Rule 5: No pooftas. Rule 6: There is NO...rule 6.

Offline Nam

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 11680
  • Darwins +290/-80
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm on the road less traveled...
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
This is my signature "Nam", don't I have nice typing skills?

Offline Angus and Alexis

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1487
  • Darwins +71/-24
  • Gender: Male
  • Residential Tulpamancer.
Re: Would You Ever Torture Your Children With Fire In in the Basement?
« Reply #611 on: December 11, 2013, 07:32:26 AM »
You have a pony brain?

;)

-Nam



To make matters worse, my eyes actually look like this.
Rule 1: No pooftas. Rule 2: No maltreating the theists, IF, anyone is watching. Rule 3: No pooftas. Rule 4: I do not want to see anyone NOT drinking after light out. Rule 5: No pooftas. Rule 6: There is NO...rule 6.

Offline Hatter23

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3880
  • Darwins +257/-7
  • Gender: Male
  • Doesn't believe in one more god than you
Re: Would You Ever Torture Your Children With Fire In in the Basement?
« Reply #612 on: December 11, 2013, 08:33:54 AM »
There is no evidence of anything older than 6,000-10,000 years old.
.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2012/06/120614-neanderthal-cave-paintings-spain-science-pike/

It didn't take more than 90 seconds or research to prove you wrong.
An Omnipowerful God needed to sacrifice himself to himself (but only for a long weekend) in order to avert his own wrath against his own creations who he made in a manner knowing that they weren't going to live up to his standards.

And you should feel guilty for this. Give me money.

Offline Hatter23

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3880
  • Darwins +257/-7
  • Gender: Male
  • Doesn't believe in one more god than you
Re: Would You Ever Torture Your Children With Fire In in the Basement?
« Reply #613 on: December 11, 2013, 09:11:40 AM »
Don't tell me my theory is religious and yours is scientific.
They are both religious.

That's one of the problems I have with atheists. They tell us not to listen to apologetic websites for our science information, but then they use secular websites for their religious information.

It's a dishonest double standard.

Another sign that we have skeptic54768 backed up against the wall.  When in doubt, just claim the other side follow a religion too!

Saying "I see religions everywhere" gets old pretty fast.

No, it is honest.

The atheist is afraid of saying it is a religion, not me.

Are you afraid of saying you are completely wrong and there is no god ?
An Omnipowerful God needed to sacrifice himself to himself (but only for a long weekend) in order to avert his own wrath against his own creations who he made in a manner knowing that they weren't going to live up to his standards.

And you should feel guilty for this. Give me money.

Online 12 Monkeys

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4408
  • Darwins +97/-11
  • Gender: Male
  • Dii hau dang ijii
Re: Would You Ever Torture Your Children With Fire In in the Basement?
« Reply #614 on: December 11, 2013, 10:23:05 AM »
Why would they need to?

They already had a language and were nomads.

When your food goes around and is not common, you chase after it, or starve.

You do not farm it, because the resources to do so would starve you.

Also, Australia does not have corn.

So you are saying that one day they had no need to farm, and another day they magically had a need to farm?

And you want us to swallow that whole?
WE lived on the edge of the ocean where there is more protein per square meter on the ocean floor than anywhere else in the entire world,could you consider that farming? or did we just stay in the area where there was food. My cousins to the east were nomads following the migration of the Buffalo. You see here where your ignorance blinds you?
There's no right there's no wrong,there's just popular opinion (Brad Pitt as Jeffery Goines in 12 monkeys)

Offline Hatter23

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3880
  • Darwins +257/-7
  • Gender: Male
  • Doesn't believe in one more god than you
Re: Would You Ever Torture Your Children With Fire In in the Basement?
« Reply #615 on: December 11, 2013, 10:33:55 AM »
Why would they need to?

They already had a language and were nomads.

When your food goes around and is not common, you chase after it, or starve.

You do not farm it, because the resources to do so would starve you.

Also, Australia does not have corn.

Yes it does. 'Corn' means the most easily obtained grain in a region...It doesn't not always mean "Maize." "Corn" in China is rice.
An Omnipowerful God needed to sacrifice himself to himself (but only for a long weekend) in order to avert his own wrath against his own creations who he made in a manner knowing that they weren't going to live up to his standards.

And you should feel guilty for this. Give me money.

Offline RED_ApeTHEIST

  • Student
  • **
  • Posts: 77
  • Darwins +16/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Hyperintelligent Orangutan
Re: Would You Ever Torture Your Children With Fire In in the Basement?
« Reply #616 on: December 11, 2013, 11:01:49 AM »
Yes it does. 'Corn' means the most easily obtained grain in a region...It doesn't not always mean "Maize." "Corn" in China is rice.

Only in British English, in American English "corn" means maize. In China "corn" is a weird foreign word to most folks, and to the English speakers it would depend entirely on who taught them. I have no idea how the Aussies use the word, but for ease of communication I would suggest the use of the term "Grain" or "cereal crop" when referring to  something other than maize.

I love pedantry so much. ;)
The relevant equation is: Knowledge = power = energy = matter = mass; a good bookshop is just a genteel Black Hole that knows how to read." - Terry Pratchet

Offline Astreja

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2933
  • Darwins +237/-1
  • Gender: Female
  • Agnostic goddess with Clue-by-Four™
    • The Springy Goddess
Re: Would You Ever Torture Your Children With Fire In in the Basement?
« Reply #617 on: December 11, 2013, 11:15:25 AM »
While I see what you are trying to say, is there evidence for it?

Evidence that we accept?  Yes.

Evidence that you would accept?  That remains to be seen.  Could you give us an example or two of something we've said here on WWGHA that has changed the way you see things?
Reality Checkroom — Not Responsible for Lost Articles

Offline Hatter23

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3880
  • Darwins +257/-7
  • Gender: Male
  • Doesn't believe in one more god than you
Re: Would You Ever Torture Your Children With Fire In in the Basement?
« Reply #618 on: December 11, 2013, 11:30:51 AM »
Yes it does. 'Corn' means the most easily obtained grain in a region...It doesn't not always mean "Maize." "Corn" in China is rice.

Only in British English, in American English "corn" means maize. In China "corn" is a weird foreign word to most folks, and to the English speakers it would depend entirely on who taught them. I have no idea how the Aussies use the word, but for ease of communication I would suggest the use of the term "Grain" or "cereal crop" when referring to  something other than maize.

I love pedantry so much. ;)

True, however when people talk about corn as mentioned in an archaic British document like the KJV Bible or in old drinking songs, the distinction is needed.

Otherwise, it is just pedantry.

An Omnipowerful God needed to sacrifice himself to himself (but only for a long weekend) in order to avert his own wrath against his own creations who he made in a manner knowing that they weren't going to live up to his standards.

And you should feel guilty for this. Give me money.

Offline ParkingPlaces

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6128
  • Darwins +690/-3
  • Gender: Male
  • Hide and Seek World Champion since 1958!
Re: Would You Ever Torture Your Children With Fire In in the Basement?
« Reply #619 on: December 11, 2013, 12:00:48 PM »
There is no evidence of anything older than 6,000-10,000 years old.

Agriculture started right around the time God was said to have created the world because God told man to "til the ground."
Writing started right around the time God was said to have created the world.

Agriculture and writing should be tens of thousands of years old in the "billions of years" model. Do you guys think it's a huge coincidence that all this stuff started right around the time God was said to have created the universe?

You guys expect us to think modern man was around for 190,000 years without thinking of agriculture and writing? if you believe that, you'll fall for anything. It's no wonder atheists unquestioningly accept scientists words.

Well, Skeptic. You're right. There is no evidence.

If you are willing to ignore evidence, if you can dismiss evidence, if you succeed in avoiding evidence, then sure enough, there is none at all.

What are your standards for evidence? Surely you have some, because you accept the bible story lock, stock and barrel. What does it have to be besides self contained, neat, tidy, simple and beside the point? Or is that more than enough?

And what exactly constitutes evidence for you? Must it always be self-referential? Do you ever let facts creep in?

Evidence is useless if you are not willing to let it take you wherever it goes. Evidence is useless if you redefine it to mean lies. And I apologize for writing that because if you read it you now have to go to all the trouble of tossing it out the window. You sure must have a mess outside your house.

Oh, and a quick question about a later post, where you asked how Angus knew that they had oral traditions? They told us. Cultural groups all over the world had oral traditions and no writing whatsoever. Prior to Columbus, only the Aztecs, Mayans and Ojibwa had writing in the Americas. But they had rich and extensive oral histories. Every group was able to tell you their history going back many thousands of years. The same was true until Europeans showed up in Africa. There was more writing there, but it was not universal on that continent either. But again, every group was able to tell of their long history.

Of course, as with written histories as well, there is no way to know how accurate they were. You assume that all native Americans were direct descendants of the Ark crowd, yet not a single one of them had a religion that mentioned your god. They all had brand new ones. You would think that one of those thousands of different groups would have remembered, but hey, folks can forget a lot in the nine or ten weeks it took for them to get from Babel to South Dakota. So I don't fault them for that.

Oh, I'm sorry. I almost gave you some "evidence" to back that up, but I certainly don't want to inconvenience you by giving you even more to deny. Forgive me for almost informing you about something. My bad. I keep forgetting that this discussion is supposed to remain one sided.

By the way, in your short little response to my long post (again, I apologize for trying to inform you) I did not rely on Talk Orgins. I relied on common knowledge, but since you have no evidence that such a thing exists, I can understand how you so carefully crafted that assumption.

And you didn't need to quote my whole screed if you weren't going to respond to anything in particular. While wasting bandwidth is certainly not one of your biggest concerns, that was a case where, with your blanket dismissal being so final, quoting me was unnecessary. That's just a little forum courtesy.

I do have a quick question. How do you guys do it? How, when you like it, do you know that our science works, while when you don't, you know that it doesn't. We find it uncanny. We've got this huge conspiracy going on, and you guys just casually accept your GPS devices because you like them, and dismiss our geologic dating systems (that we worked so hard to make realistic) just as casually, because you don't. Do you guys ever wonder how we actually do science when most of our efforts are so obviously on creating smokescreens and outright lies?

Hint: It isn't discussed in Talk Origins.

But I should leave at least one link for you. If anything I've said confused you in any way, go here: http://goo.gl/VH1Eby

Edit: Fixed the worst of the oopsies.
Edit: No I didn't. I just clobbered a couple more.
« Last Edit: December 11, 2013, 12:08:23 PM by ParkingPlaces »
Not everyone is entitled to their opinion. They're all entitled to mine though.

Online jaimehlers

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4628
  • Darwins +511/-12
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Would You Ever Torture Your Children With Fire In in the Basement?
« Reply #620 on: December 11, 2013, 06:07:53 PM »
There is no evidence of anything older than 6,000-10,000 years old.
Actually, there is.  Here's just one example, found easily via Google:  http://www.livescience.com/31974-earliest-human-hunters-found.html

They found crude stone implements and animal remains (primarily bones) which had marks on them from being cut by the stone tools.  While they haven't found any traces of the humans who used these tools, they are reasonably certain of the age (roughly 2 million years old).  It is certainly a lot older than 10,000 years old.

Quote from: skeptic54768
Agriculture started right around the time God was said to have created the world because God told man to "til the ground."
Writing started right around the time God was said to have created the world.
Except that we have evidence - and lots of it - which shows the world is much older than agriculture and writing.  There just isn't any credence to your statement that there's nothing older than about 10,000 years.

Quote from: skeptic54768
Agriculture and writing should be tens of thousands of years old in the "billions of years" model. Do you guys think it's a huge coincidence that all this stuff started right around the time God was said to have created the universe?
No, they shouldn't be "tens of thousands of years old".  You know why?  Because we've proven beyond any reasonable doubt that Earth's climate for at least several hundred thousand years has shifted between lengthy glacial periods (around 100,000 years long) and short interglacial periods (10,000 years or less).  The most recent interglacial period started about 10,000 years ago - about the same time agriculture and writing started.  Indeed, there's an increasing amount of evidence which shows that human agriculture is what's kept the current interglacial period going.

In short, it's not particularly coincidental.  Agriculture came about after the planet warmed from the previous glacial period, since crops couldn't have grown in frozen soil, and by keeping agriculture going, the actions of humans kept the planet from cooling back down again.

Quote from: skeptic54768
You guys expect us to think modern man was around for 190,000 years without thinking of agriculture and writing? if you believe that, you'll fall for anything. It's no wonder atheists unquestioningly accept scientists words.
Without agriculture, there was no possibility of a steady source of food (that is to say, food that would stay in one place rather than migrating somewhere else, and that could be reliably counted on year after year).  Without a steady source of food, there would have been no point in coming up with writing - because nobody would have had the leisure time to develop a system of writing, let alone getting other people to use it.  Merely surviving during a glacial period would have been too difficult to justify spending the time and effort developing a written language.

In short, agriculture enabled writing.  And agriculture wouldn't have really been possible until the planet warmed enough to make planting crops feasible.  The plants we use as staple crops do not grow in frozen or near-frozen soil.  And while some plants can grow in cold temperatures, they generally do not have enough nutrition to be worth growing as a staple.

Offline nogodsforme

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6223
  • Darwins +783/-4
  • Gender: Female
  • Jehovah's Witness Protection Program
Re: Would You Ever Torture Your Children With Fire In in the Basement?
« Reply #621 on: December 11, 2013, 06:27:09 PM »
Sometimes..... &)

Okay skeptic. We have gone over this before, but you won't directly address it.

You realize that the same exact scientific method underlies all scientific investigation, don't you?  It does not change from one field to another, with a lax and silly set of standards for the fields you disagree with (astronomy, geology, archaeology and evolutionary biology) and a really strict set of rules for the fields you agree with (forensics, engineering, physics and chemistry).

Besides, these fields are not all separate-- they use info from each other to cross-check their results. If a palentologist says a fossil is this old, a geologist will check the age of the surrounding rock to see if that age makes sense. And a climate scientist will bring in ice core data to see if both of the other two ages make sense. So, it is not just one person looking at a rock and making a wild guess that then gets published without verification. (That sometimes happens, and when it does the people who try that get caught--but not by religious skeptics. The are caught by the other scientists who did the cross checking!)

You think that the scientists are wrong when they say humans did rock paintings 40,000 years ago. But you believe the the scientists are correct when they say agriculture and writing systems began around 10,000 years ago. I also assume that you trust scientists to design phones, microwaves, computers and cars not to routinely blow up in your face and kill you.

Why trust science completely every single day when it is literally life and death, but have all this skepticism and angst over things that are pretty abstract to daily life, like how old prehistoric Australian cave paintings are, or whether there was a flood in the Middle East 4000 years ago?

The scientists are not just giving their opinions, they are telling us what the evidence shows. I went to a presentation where a geologist went, step by step, through all the different dating systems and tests of how old things are. He talked about how some methods like carbon-14 work only for organic materials that were once alive, like wood or wool cloth (or charcoal cave drawings), and other methods work only for minerals and rocks.

I can't remember every single thing he said-- I could look it up--but his main point was that we know, within a range, of course, how old things are and we know, within an even tighter range, how accurate our measures are.
Extraordinary claims of the bible don't even have ordinary evidence.

Kids aren't paying attention most of the time in science classes so it seems silly to get worked up over ID being taught in schools.

Offline Angus and Alexis

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1487
  • Darwins +71/-24
  • Gender: Male
  • Residential Tulpamancer.
Re: Would You Ever Torture Your Children With Fire In in the Basement?
« Reply #622 on: December 11, 2013, 06:48:17 PM »
Yes it does. 'Corn' means the most easily obtained grain in a region...It doesn't not always mean "Maize." "Corn" in China is rice.

We never use that definition here...

Anyway, in that case, we have "corn" but unless you want to grow trees that take several years to mature, you aren't getting any...
Rule 1: No pooftas. Rule 2: No maltreating the theists, IF, anyone is watching. Rule 3: No pooftas. Rule 4: I do not want to see anyone NOT drinking after light out. Rule 5: No pooftas. Rule 6: There is NO...rule 6.

Offline Foxy Freedom

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1169
  • Darwins +81/-11
  • Gods become obsolete all the time.
    • Foxy Freedom on Doctor Who
Re: Would You Ever Torture Your Children With Fire In in the Basement?
« Reply #623 on: December 11, 2013, 10:13:20 PM »
There is no evidence of anything older than 6,000-10,000 years old.

Apart from moving your goalposts from 6000 years to 10,000 years when archaeology proves the biblical dated creation wrong, you also have this little problem.



You can see this with your own eyes. Light takes 2.5 million years to reach your eyes from the andromeda galaxy. No doubt you agree with that other guy that your god is a liar and light has not taken so long to reach your eyes.
Neither Foxy Freedom nor any associates can be reached via WWGHA. Their official antitheist website is http://the6antitheist6guide6.blogspot.co.uk

The 2nd edition of the free ebook Devil or Delusion ? The danger of Christianity to Democracy Freedom and Science.       http://t.co/2d1KcJ9V

Offline skeptic54768

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2405
  • Darwins +43/-406
  • Gender: Male
  • Christianity is the most beautiful religion.
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Would You Ever Torture Your Children With Fire In in the Basement?
« Reply #624 on: December 12, 2013, 01:02:47 AM »
There is no evidence of anything older than 6,000-10,000 years old.

Apart from moving your goalposts from 6000 years to 10,000 years when archaeology proves the biblical dated creation wrong, you also have this little problem.



You can see this with your own eyes. Light takes 2.5 million years to reach your eyes from the andromeda galaxy. No doubt you agree with that other guy that your god is a liar and light has not taken so long to reach your eyes.

No, that isn't evidence. Ever heard of in situ? That's how God created the light. It's the exact same thing as God creating Adam and he looks 25 years old even though he is 0 years old.

God makes it so simple for us to comprehend.
Matthew 10:22 "and you will be hated by all for my name’s sake. But the one who endures to the end will be saved." - Jesus (said 2,000 years ago and still true today.)

Offline skeptic54768

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2405
  • Darwins +43/-406
  • Gender: Male
  • Christianity is the most beautiful religion.
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Would You Ever Torture Your Children With Fire In in the Basement?
« Reply #625 on: December 12, 2013, 01:05:30 AM »
Sometimes..... &)

Okay skeptic. We have gone over this before, but you won't directly address it.

You realize that the same exact scientific method underlies all scientific investigation, don't you?  It does not change from one field to another, with a lax and silly set of standards for the fields you disagree with (astronomy, geology, archaeology and evolutionary biology) and a really strict set of rules for the fields you agree with (forensics, engineering, physics and chemistry).

Besides, these fields are not all separate-- they use info from each other to cross-check their results. If a palentologist says a fossil is this old, a geologist will check the age of the surrounding rock to see if that age makes sense. And a climate scientist will bring in ice core data to see if both of the other two ages make sense. So, it is not just one person looking at a rock and making a wild guess that then gets published without verification. (That sometimes happens, and when it does the people who try that get caught--but not by religious skeptics. The are caught by the other scientists who did the cross checking!)

You think that the scientists are wrong when they say humans did rock paintings 40,000 years ago. But you believe the the scientists are correct when they say agriculture and writing systems began around 10,000 years ago. I also assume that you trust scientists to design phones, microwaves, computers and cars not to routinely blow up in your face and kill you.

Why trust science completely every single day when it is literally life and death, but have all this skepticism and angst over things that are pretty abstract to daily life, like how old prehistoric Australian cave paintings are, or whether there was a flood in the Middle East 4000 years ago?

The scientists are not just giving their opinions, they are telling us what the evidence shows. I went to a presentation where a geologist went, step by step, through all the different dating systems and tests of how old things are. He talked about how some methods like carbon-14 work only for organic materials that were once alive, like wood or wool cloth (or charcoal cave drawings), and other methods work only for minerals and rocks.

I can't remember every single thing he said-- I could look it up--but his main point was that we know, within a range, of course, how old things are and we know, within an even tighter range, how accurate our measures are.

I have already explained the difference between direct science and indirect science. I certainly trust direct science because the evidence is there in front of our faces.

But indirect science is a whole different ballgame. It would be like asking, "Why did that football team lose by scoring 6 points? In baseball we scored 6 runs and blew out the other team."
Matthew 10:22 "and you will be hated by all for my name’s sake. But the one who endures to the end will be saved." - Jesus (said 2,000 years ago and still true today.)

Offline skeptic54768

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2405
  • Darwins +43/-406
  • Gender: Male
  • Christianity is the most beautiful religion.
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Would You Ever Torture Your Children With Fire In in the Basement?
« Reply #626 on: December 12, 2013, 01:11:35 AM »
While I see what you are trying to say, is there evidence for it?

Evidence that we accept?  Yes.

Evidence that you would accept?  That remains to be seen.
  Could you give us an example or two of something we've said here on WWGHA that has changed the way you see things?

Welcome to my world!

I have evidence of God that I accept. But you atheists won't accept it.

Now, I'm not gonna cry about it, but hopefully you can see things from my side of the fence.
Matthew 10:22 "and you will be hated by all for my name’s sake. But the one who endures to the end will be saved." - Jesus (said 2,000 years ago and still true today.)

Offline skeptic54768

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2405
  • Darwins +43/-406
  • Gender: Male
  • Christianity is the most beautiful religion.
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Would You Ever Torture Your Children With Fire In in the Basement?
« Reply #627 on: December 12, 2013, 01:23:20 AM »
Are you afraid of saying you are completely wrong and there is no god ?

Absolutely not.

I walked on that path for many years of my life. I am not afraid of being wrong. I admitted many times that I could be wrong and you atheists could be right. I just don't believe atheism is right anymore.

What's there to be scared of?
Matthew 10:22 "and you will be hated by all for my name’s sake. But the one who endures to the end will be saved." - Jesus (said 2,000 years ago and still true today.)

Offline skeptic54768

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2405
  • Darwins +43/-406
  • Gender: Male
  • Christianity is the most beautiful religion.
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Would You Ever Torture Your Children With Fire In in the Basement?
« Reply #628 on: December 12, 2013, 01:31:27 AM »
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2012/06/120614-neanderthal-cave-paintings-spain-science-pike/

It didn't take more than 90 seconds or research to prove you wrong.

From your link:

"Pike's team teased out the new dates using a method that relies on known rates of decay in uranium—specifically uranium in calcium deposits that had formed over the paint. The mineral-based paint itself couldn't be dated, because it contains neither uranium nor the carbon needed for radiocarbon dating."

How do they know what the rates are?
Do they stay constant over time?
Are the rates only based on how the mind perceives it?

There is no purely objective way to conclusively show this for sure. It's all based on minds assuming the reality.
Matthew 10:22 "and you will be hated by all for my name’s sake. But the one who endures to the end will be saved." - Jesus (said 2,000 years ago and still true today.)

Online jaimehlers

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4628
  • Darwins +511/-12
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Would You Ever Torture Your Children With Fire In in the Basement?
« Reply #629 on: December 12, 2013, 01:51:30 AM »
The problem with your statements that things like that are only the mind assuming reality is, even if you were actually correct, it wouldn't give your position any additional basis in fact.  For that matter, you aren't actually disproving the position that those are accurate to begin with - merely casting doubt on it based on your lack of knowledge one way or the other.  It's skepticism, taken to an excess which is almost absurd - akin to claiming that we don't really know for sure if the sun will actually rise tomorrow, even though it's risen every day in every living human's memory.

That's why your argument isn't working, skeptic.  Because you're arguing in favor of a position that you can't support or prove.

Offline Angus and Alexis

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1487
  • Darwins +71/-24
  • Gender: Male
  • Residential Tulpamancer.
Re: Would You Ever Torture Your Children With Fire In in the Basement?
« Reply #630 on: December 12, 2013, 01:53:36 AM »
How do they know what the rates are?

Mathematical calculations.

Do they stay constant over time?

Yes, give or take a minute amount of difference.

Are the rates only based on how the mind perceives it?

Are you joking?
Atoms don't just change rates of decay depending on some guys mind perceiving it.
Rule 1: No pooftas. Rule 2: No maltreating the theists, IF, anyone is watching. Rule 3: No pooftas. Rule 4: I do not want to see anyone NOT drinking after light out. Rule 5: No pooftas. Rule 6: There is NO...rule 6.

Offline Astreja

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2933
  • Darwins +237/-1
  • Gender: Female
  • Agnostic goddess with Clue-by-Four™
    • The Springy Goddess
Re: Would You Ever Torture Your Children With Fire In in the Basement?
« Reply #631 on: December 12, 2013, 02:04:12 AM »
I have evidence of God that I accept. But you atheists won't accept it.

That's because it's far too weak to meet our standards.
  • We have no way of analyzing any spiritual experiences you may have experienced.
  • We can't find any physical traces of your god.
  • Those of us who used to be Christian often tried to communicate with your god but got no response.
  • We can't quantify and standardize god-belief, nor can we harness it for anything useful.
And I, for one, have completely given up on human middlemen as sources for information on the divine.  I don't want testimonies or holy books.  I want to speak to a god in person, and simply nothing else will do.
Reality Checkroom — Not Responsible for Lost Articles

Offline Foxy Freedom

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1169
  • Darwins +81/-11
  • Gods become obsolete all the time.
    • Foxy Freedom on Doctor Who
Re: Would You Ever Torture Your Children With Fire In in the Basement?
« Reply #632 on: December 12, 2013, 02:09:47 AM »
No, that isn't evidence. Ever heard of in situ? That's how God created the light. It's the exact same thing as God creating Adam and he looks 25 years old even though he is 0 years old.

God makes it so simple for us to comprehend.

I know the argument of apparent age, but it makes your god a liar. It is exactly the liar god of that other guy.
Neither Foxy Freedom nor any associates can be reached via WWGHA. Their official antitheist website is http://the6antitheist6guide6.blogspot.co.uk

The 2nd edition of the free ebook Devil or Delusion ? The danger of Christianity to Democracy Freedom and Science.       http://t.co/2d1KcJ9V

Offline Astreja

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2933
  • Darwins +237/-1
  • Gender: Female
  • Agnostic goddess with Clue-by-Four™
    • The Springy Goddess
Re: Would You Ever Torture Your Children With Fire In in the Basement?
« Reply #633 on: December 12, 2013, 02:10:50 AM »
No, {Andromeda Galaxy} isn't evidence. Ever heard of in situ? That's how God created the light. It's the exact same thing as God creating Adam and he looks 25 years old even though he is 0 years old.

God makes it so simple for us to comprehend.

Ridiculous.  Absolutely ridiculous.

I am now convinced beyond any reasonable doubt that you never had any intention of taking our scientific information seriously.
Reality Checkroom — Not Responsible for Lost Articles

Offline Angus and Alexis

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1487
  • Darwins +71/-24
  • Gender: Male
  • Residential Tulpamancer.
Re: Would You Ever Torture Your Children With Fire In in the Basement?
« Reply #634 on: December 12, 2013, 02:16:39 AM »
Okay...
I am just going to watch for now.

I am not going to bother with someone who handwaves the speed of light away.
Rule 1: No pooftas. Rule 2: No maltreating the theists, IF, anyone is watching. Rule 3: No pooftas. Rule 4: I do not want to see anyone NOT drinking after light out. Rule 5: No pooftas. Rule 6: There is NO...rule 6.

Offline ParkingPlaces

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6128
  • Darwins +690/-3
  • Gender: Male
  • Hide and Seek World Champion since 1958!
Re: Would You Ever Torture Your Children With Fire In in the Basement?
« Reply #635 on: December 12, 2013, 02:29:10 AM »

From your link:

"Pike's team teased out the new dates using a method that relies on known rates of decay in uranium—specifically uranium in calcium deposits that had formed over the paint. The mineral-based paint itself couldn't be dated, because it contains neither uranium nor the carbon needed for radiocarbon dating."

How do they know what the rates are?
Do they stay constant over time?
Are the rates only based on how the mind perceives it?

There is no purely objective way to conclusively show this for sure. It's all based on minds assuming the reality.

Darn. Here I come, which means you're gonna have to figure out what else to type in bold. Because we do have pigments from cave paintings that we could directly date via carbon dating, and darn it, they all show (depending on which cave they were from) ages of 30-40,000 years.

And while I know it is important for you to cast doubt when you've got nothing else, you're going to have to do better than that if you want to wow us with your brilliance. Science, you know, the real world kind that knew how to blow up Japan, also knows a lot about other atoms. And if they knew enough to use them to make things go boom in the night, I can assure you that they also know enough about how other atoms work to come up with dating methods using known decay rates.

And of course, you're right, we don't know if decay rates are static. But we can find no reason to think that they are not (other than your personal appeal to scientists everywhere to just STOP!). So they keep coming up with these big numbers that just break your heart.

Of course your smart science guys should be able to figure out an easy way to prove that the rates change and stuff. Because you guys are smart too. I just hope, for your sake, that they change in the right direction. Otherwise the cave painting might turn out to be, oh, you know, 2,000,000 years old or something. Ouch, that would hurt.

And this mind perceives thing. How do you know when you've stubbed your toe? Are you sure it isn't just your mind perceiving?

When someone needs something carbon dated, they don't pull out their handy-dandy carbon dating kit, from Radio Shack, and whip out a figure in ten minutes or less. Instead they whip out their wallet and put a thousand dollars or more in an envelope and send it along with the carbon to a lab that specializes in such things, and they don't tell the lab how old they think he material is, they let the lab figure that out all by their little old lonesome. So I could write a check for two grand and send some carbon out of my still warm wood stove in one sample and carbon from something I didn't know the age of but that I had dug out of the ground, three feet deep, and the lab would test each and tell me what it came up with. They would have no preconceived notions about anything to do with the age. They would have my check and the samples and I would get numbers back. The minds in the lab would perceive that they'd been paid and they would come up with numbers based on current science and poof, I'd have what I wanted.

Could I trust the numbers? Well, I'd be well served if I could find other evidence regarding the age of the carbon out of the hole. But the very first carbon test was done on samples from Ancient Egypt. The archaeologists had already determined, using written Egyptian history and other information from the excavation, that the sample they were sending off to be tested was somewhere around 2625 BC. The carbon dating came back saying it was from 2800 BC, give or take 250 years. Not exact, but also not so far off as to be totally useless. And the process has improved since then.

WAIT A MINUTE! Did I say 2625 BC. That was three hundred years before the flood! And this stuff hadn't gotten wet. Nor had any of the cave paintings. Something is suspicious here.

Sorry, I was having doubts for a second. That won't happen again.

Anyway, complain all you want about carbon and other radiometric dating methods (you know, the ones where, using different dating methods they come up with similar dates, even on stuff hundreds of thousands or millions or billions of years old. But ignore those. They are soooo hard on the brain. I don't see any need for you to make your complaints about those known in bold until tomorrow.)

But do keep this in mind. If they are accurate, then your story is in trouble. To the tune of many orders of magnitude.

If our numbers are wrong, then you guys, using good solid direct science that you can trust and back up with experiments and data some spiffy YouTube videos, should be able to prove it by mid January, at the latest. Because if we're that wrong about everything, your brilliance should overwhelm us with ease.

We'll be in the labs and stuff. Let us know what you find.
Not everyone is entitled to their opinion. They're all entitled to mine though.

Offline Foxy Freedom

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1169
  • Darwins +81/-11
  • Gods become obsolete all the time.
    • Foxy Freedom on Doctor Who
Re: Would You Ever Torture Your Children With Fire In in the Basement?
« Reply #636 on: December 12, 2013, 02:58:04 AM »
How do they know what the rates are?
Do they stay constant over time?
Are the rates only based on how the mind perceives it?

There is no purely objective way to conclusively show this for sure. It's all based on minds assuming the reality.

The idea which you have stated before that everything needs an observer to exist, started with theories of physics from the 1920s and was developed by Wheeler and Feynman from the end of the 1930s when it was called absorber theory. Feynman discovered problems with it and moved on. Your ideas are directly based on a philosophical misunderstanding of the theory.

1) the observer does not have to be animate (it can be an electron). It makes no difference to the theory.

2) the theory does not apply to non quantum phenomena so it does not apply to a tree falling when no one is watching.

3) the observer does not have to exist at the same time as the event. The observer can exist later.

So your idea that the universe has to be observed by an animate being, inside the universe, in order to exist is false. An internal animate observer is irrelevant to the existence of the universe. The rate of half lives is constant and objectively demonstrated by experiment.
« Last Edit: December 12, 2013, 03:21:00 AM by Foxy Freedom »
Neither Foxy Freedom nor any associates can be reached via WWGHA. Their official antitheist website is http://the6antitheist6guide6.blogspot.co.uk

The 2nd edition of the free ebook Devil or Delusion ? The danger of Christianity to Democracy Freedom and Science.       http://t.co/2d1KcJ9V

Offline Foxy Freedom

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1169
  • Darwins +81/-11
  • Gods become obsolete all the time.
    • Foxy Freedom on Doctor Who
Re: Would You Ever Torture Your Children With Fire In in the Basement?
« Reply #637 on: December 12, 2013, 06:41:45 AM »
"Pike's team teased out the new dates using a method that relies on known rates of decay in uranium—specifically uranium in calcium deposits that had formed over the paint. The mineral-based paint itself couldn't be dated, because it contains neither uranium nor the carbon needed for radiocarbon dating."

How do they know what the rates are?
Do they stay constant over time?
Are the rates only based on how the mind perceives it?

There is no purely objective way to conclusively show this for sure. It's all based on minds assuming the reality.

If you really don't believe in those half life calculations, you should live in a nuclear shelter. Nuclear weapons and nuclear power plants use the same calculations. If the laws of physics were not reliable those nuclear warheads and power plants would be exploding at random.
Neither Foxy Freedom nor any associates can be reached via WWGHA. Their official antitheist website is http://the6antitheist6guide6.blogspot.co.uk

The 2nd edition of the free ebook Devil or Delusion ? The danger of Christianity to Democracy Freedom and Science.       http://t.co/2d1KcJ9V