Don't believe in God? Why not? - Page 7

Neo · 02-06-2002, 04:42 PM

Keep in mind that there are other elements besides Carbon that scientists use to date fossils. Carbon is just the most commonly used.

BigJustinW · 02-06-2002, 04:50 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Xantar
Do you even know how carbon dating works? Do you understand the science behind it? Do you understand how the method was developed?

Because if you did and you still thought it was BS, I would have to conclude that you are willfully blind. I'm sorry if that sounds offensive, but that's what I think. You are perfectly welcome to believe what you will about God, but I still want to hear your reasons for not believing the results of carbon dating. You're right in that it produces estimates, but no carbon dating I've ever heard of has stated that dinosaurs and humans existed at the same time.

Theorys aren't facts, period.

Estimations aren't facts, period.

call me willfully blind all you want, NOBODY knows what the earth was like Pre-Humans, and it's impossible to know unless you have been there.... until this science is studied for a million years, and the bones follow the exact same system, you can't make a valid estimation.

The science is good enough now, in 1-10 million years study time, they can find an extremely accurate system, but finding the solution to this will take more time. I simply don't believe that it is even close to being accurate in it's current form.

gekko · 02-06-2002, 04:52 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by BigJustinW

Theorys aren't facts, period.

Estimations aren't facts, period.

But God is?

BigJustinW · 02-06-2002, 04:56 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by gekko

But God is?

In my eyes, yes... from experience I have been through, and things I have seen, my explination is god.

I can't change your personal views, because you have a different life from mine, if you lived in my brain, and knew every thought, maybe you would see things the same as me.

I'm not forcing my opinion on anybody, if you don't believe, oh well, the point of the thread is a question "why don't you belive?"

sdtPikachu · 02-06-2002, 05:09 PM

"No... you constantly assume that I assume that everybody who isn't thinking the same as me will go to hell."

Well I'm sorry if you think I've misinterpreted you, but time and time again you seem to state as a fact that what you believe is the only possible truth. And because of the nature of what this is related to, I consider it to be somewhat offensive.

"I said IF (keyword: IF) you go to hell, you know who to blame."

But there are plenty of other occasions where the word "if" or "IMO" was absent. hence I could only assume that you were stating what you thought was a fact.
Even with the word "if" it can still be seen as offensive in some lights. What if I said if YOU go to hell you'll know who to blame? It still doesn't sound very nice.

"The fact is, a scientist 120million years ago would have to be studying it the WHOLE time to make an exact system on dating things."

You're right, and we are never going to know exactly down to the last electron and subatomic particle what happened 120 million years ago. But we know that some laws never change; we can infer. Obviously there is margin for error, and that is why we have to study as much as we can in order to formulate the best possible hypothesis/theory.

"I think carbon dating is BS, they are making estimates, and they don't have an exact system to it..."

Have you made an in-depth study into the processes behind carbon dating? If you did, you would know that C14 dating is one of our more imprecise methods of dating, due to the nature of C14 radioactivity, which only has a half life of about 5500 years. Hence dates can only go back about 30,000 years before the noise in the system becomes so dense that the margin for error exceeds the time period we are trying to date (basically, it will come up with a date like "this is 60,000 years old, plus or minus 100,000 years). But I assure you, C14 will date any organic remnant up to 15,000 years old very well indeed, with errors of only +/- 2000 years for an imprecise test... precise tests can give accuracies of +/- 500 years, or even less as techniques become more refined.
To say that just because in a few cases it has produced inconclusive results that the whole thing is crap is rather arrogant, no?

"If you take the fossil to 3 different carbon dating places, you will get three totally different answers."

Firstly, hardly any fossils are dated by carbon dating due to their a) being no carbon in them due to fossilisation and b) being far too old for carbon dating to take place anyway. Most fossils are dated by dating the rocks they lie in using one of the several other radiometric dating techniques we use.
And the answers are not totally different. Modern dating methods along with stratigraphical and morphological analysis typically provide dates of +/- 1 million years, with really good stratigraphical sequences getting +/- half a million years. You might think that this is a huge margin of error, but you'd be wrong: in geological time, a million years is nothing.

"What solid proof is there that dinosaurs came before humans."

Sigh... where do I begin?
1) Radiometric dating shows the rocks the fossils lie in were formed at least 65 millino years ago
2) Dinosaur and human remains have never been found together
3) In fact, they have been found to be separated by several kilometres of rock containing no dinosaur or human remains which ranges from 65 to 2 million years old
4) There are no human records of dinosaurs co-existing with humans (cave paintings and the like do not depict them at all; they depict the woolly mammoth and other fauna of the Holocene)

Is this not proof enough?

BigJustinW · 02-06-2002, 05:24 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by sdtPikachu

"What solid proof is there that dinosaurs came before humans."

Sigh... where do I begin?
1) Radiometric dating shows the rocks the fossils lie in were formed at least 65 millino years ago
2) Dinosaur and human remains have never been found together
3) In fact, they have been found to be separated by several kilometres of rock containing no dinosaur or human remains which ranges from 65 to 2 million years old
4) There are no human records of dinosaurs co-existing with humans (cave paintings and the like do not depict them at all; they depict the woolly mammoth and other fauna of the Holocene)

Is this not proof enough?

No, it isn't

1) Raidiometric dating is an estimate
2) Humans are smart enough to know not to be anywhere near dinosaurs
3) Raidiometric dating is an estimate
4) This is a different level of brain power. Humans may know that fire hurts, hell, a 4 month old baby could figure that out if it touched it, but can he figure out how to paint on cave walls eaisilly?

nothing is full proof

sdtPikachu · 02-06-2002, 05:38 PM

"Keep in mind that there are other elements besides Carbon that scientists use to date fossils. Carbon is just the most commonly used."

Well actually no... carbon 14 is hardly ever used to date fossils. They are just too old - carbon 14 only works well up to about 15 to 20,000 years, and most fossils are several million years old at the very least... I have on in frony of me from the Devonian period... that's at least 365 million years old.

"Theorys aren't facts, period.
Estimations aren't facts, period."

Who said they were? A theory is not a fact. A scientific example:

The law of gravity shows that objects move toward objects of greater mass (this is a gross simplification, but it would take ages to explain).
The theory of gravitation says that this is due to mass exerting a force called gravity. This theory does not work for very small or very large masses (or very small distances); this is why quantum physics was developed: to explain the holes in the theory of gravitation.

We have no proof that gravitation actually exists. We just have a theory (or rather, a group of theories) which explain the whole thing perfectly on everything of a normal scale (they still haven't quantified all of quantum mechanics yet).

Yet you seem to think that just because there is the slightest bit of doubt that a theory which has managed to satisfactorily explain more than half the universe is not true, then it MUST be due to a god. Fine, you're entitled to believe this; personally, I just can't accept that kind of a lapse of logical thinking.

"call me willfully blind all you want, NOBODY knows what the earth was like Pre-Humans"

So I suppose that we can't infer anything at all from the rocks then? Like the presence of fish meaning that water existed? Like the presence of cyanobacteria in the Archean began to convert our methane/ammonia atmosphere into the one we have today? Why can't we say that the geological and palaeomagnetioc record shows that America was once part of a huge mega-continent at a different latitude and longitude than it is today? Why can't we then say that any fossils found at particular times must have lived in a prticular latitude and longitude x numbers of kilometres from the sea? Why can't we say that because its cold at the poles now it was cold at the poles then, and from that deduce exactly what kind of climate these fossils lived in?

So it's not the same as being there, but again you are making the same illogical assumption that because no-one living today has actually seen it, a completely different theory that it all just hapened cos some dude with a beard said it did MUST be true? How the heck does that happen?! Just because something isn't 100% explicable or demonstratable doesn't mean we have to go off and find a totally different explanation.

Besides, everything we know about the early earth fits together. We can see how the continents were joined, how they moved, where animals originated from... it's quite balletic really.

"until this science is studied for a million years, and the bones follow the exact same system, you can't make a valid estimation."

Then surely religion should follow the same rules, if you're going to be fair about it? We have been studying it for oooh lets be generous and say 150 years. Plate tectonics has only been around for 50. And we have already calculated the age of the earth and how it's continents and animals evolved, and have made several estimations which hey all fit together very nicely indeed. But you're saying these won't become valid in any way shape or form for another 999,800 years? Why is this?

Surely then you should only start believing in this christ dude in 998000 years? You know, when it becomes a valid estimate?

"The science is good enough now, in 1-10 million years study time, they can find an extremely accurate system, but finding the solution to this will take more time. I simply don't believe that it is even close to being accurate in it's current form."

So you say that because it's inaccurate by your seemingly ignorant standards now, it's going to take 10 million years? An entire civilisation can evolve from a single family of worms in that time. Why do you think science is only valid after hundreds of millenia of study? I'm not saying it won't all be proved wrong tomorrow, but it explains it all to me very nicely indeed.

"I can't change your personal views, because you have a different life from mine, if you lived in my brain, and knew every thought, maybe you would see things the same as me."

And if you had lived my life through my eyes is my brain, you would probably think the same as me. But you asked us to explain why various people like myself didn't believe in god... do you have your answer yet?

I for one just can't believe god exists because I see no evidence at all of him ever having had a hand in anything. Why worship something I can't see or feel or believe will ever give me any benefit whatsoever? There is no point for me. I have more useful things to do.

Neo · 02-06-2002, 05:42 PM

Sorry, I meant commonly used in the sense that that's what the general public usually hears about.

BigJustinW · 02-06-2002, 05:44 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by sdtPikachu
But you asked us to explain why various people like myself didn't believe in god... do you have your answer yet?

That's what the last topic was about... I did my explaining

Quote:

I for one just can't believe god exists because I see no evidence at all of him ever having had a hand in anything. Why worship something I can't see or feel or believe will ever give me any benefit whatsoever? There is no point for me. I have more useful things to do.

I will not argue with that, because you claimed to have given religion a chance. Everything is a choice, your path is different from mine, can't do anything about it.

sdtPikachu · 02-06-2002, 05:49 PM

"Raidiometric dating is an estimate"

No it isn't. It is a perfectly scalable, reliable and accurate method of determining age. Exaplin to me everything you know about radiometric dating and why it is an estimate, and I will explain to you why it is not.

"Humans are smart enough to know not to be anywhere near dinosaurs"

60 km of horizontally deposited rock apart? Wow, that's very smart; the humans must have either lived floating 60km in the air, or they must have forced the dinosours to live 60km beneath the surface of the earth... in the upper mantle, at about 1500 degress celsius. That is indeed pretty clever. Or total nonsense, depending on how you look at it.

"This is a different level of brain power. Humans may know that fire hurts, hell, a 4 month old baby could figure that out if it touched it, but can he figure out how to paint on cave walls eaisilly?"

So... how does this prove that dinosurs co-existed with humans? How come they managed to paint pics of themselves and mammoths and sabre-toothed tigers and yet totally forgot about those huge lumbering reptiles which would have provided an excellent source of food?

Oh yeah, I was forgetting... the dinosuars are busy combusting at the base of the lithopshere at this point. Silly me.

"nothing is full proof"

You are right; nothing can ever be proven. I cannot say "I think therefore I am"; this only proves that I believe myself to be thinking, and philosophers aren't even sure about that.

But don't you find it mre likely that theories that actually make scientific sense are true, rather than some deity who can also never be proved (not to the extent you demand of science anyway)? It is all a matter of perspective.

sdtPikachu · 02-06-2002, 05:55 PM

"Sorry, I meant commonly used in the sense that that's what the general public usually hears about."

Yep... this is true. Carbon dating affects more recent (and to most people, more interesting) events than uranium, thorium, strontium helium etc. dating does... hence you hear about it more in the press.

"That's what the last topic was about... I did my explaining"

You may well have done your explaining; that's fine. But I am asking: do you understand why people like myself do not believe in god? Can you see our reasoning and our logic?

I think it's been explained clearly enough several times.

"I will not argue with that, because you claimed to have given religion a chance. Everything is a choice, your path is different from mine, can't do anything about it."

True enough... but I just wanted you to understand my POV, since (as you started this thread), I imagined you must have been confused on my/our perspective and were seeking some answers as to what and why we think the way we do. So my question is: can you understand our viewpoint?

BigJustinW · 02-06-2002, 05:56 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by sdtPikachu
But don't you find it mre likely that theories that actually make scientific sense are true, rather than some deity who can also never be proved (not to the extent you demand of science anyway)? It is all a matter of perspective.

God can only be proven when he comes back, and even if that happens, I'm sure people still won't belive it. They will have to find some scienific evidence that the disappearances were acctually caused by god.

So, in conclusion, I doubt this arguement will go anywhere, it was fun while it lasted

BigJustinW · 02-06-2002, 06:04 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by sdtPikachu
""That's what the last topic was about... I did my explaining"

You may well have done your explaining; that's fine. But I am asking: do you understand why people like myself do not believe in god? Can you see our reasoning and our logic?

I think it's been explained clearly enough several times.

From my perspective, your reasoning is:

"Nothing I have seen or experienced in my liife proves to me that there can possibly be a God"

Quote:

"I will not argue with that, because you claimed to have given religion a chance. Everything is a choice, your path is different from mine, can't do anything about it."

True enough... but I just wanted you to understand my POV, since (as you started this thread), I imagined you must have been confused on my/our perspective and were seeking some answers as to what and why we think the way we do. So my question is: can you understand our viewpoint?

We both live our lives through our own eyes, and in our own mind. We can look at the same thing, and our minds can tell us two different things.

It's like the question: "Is the glass half empty, or is it half full"

Science couldn't prove it one way to you, and it couldn't prove it the other way to me.

So I understand (I think)

sdtPikachu · 02-06-2002, 06:07 PM

"God can only be proven when he comes back"

Well if we are to use your rather stringent definitions of what constitutes proof or evidence on a scientific basis, even god coming back wouldn't prove he existed.
Is it really a supernatural force?
Is it not just a guy from the future having fun with a randiom planet, using all kinds of futurisitc machines to make us think he's a god?
Could it be aliens maybe, doing the same type of thing?
Could it all just be a figment of my imagination?

All of these are possible, and by the standards you apply to sceintific regimes just as provable as god is. Hence:

"... and even if that happens, I'm sure people still won't belive it"

"They will have to find some scienific evidence that the disappearances were acctually caused by god."

And what's wrong with that? What is wrong with questioning everything? Knowledge can't kill anything apart from igonorance and misunderstanding. There is nothing wrong with wanting to figure out how the universe works. IMO, god is the overly simple and wrong explanation for everything I have ever seen in my life.

"So, in conclusion, I doubt this arguement will go anywhere, it was fun while it lasted"

Well in that case, I hope you've come to some understanding of how my/our mind(s) work(s)... otherwise, this carpal tunnel syndrome was all for nothing...

sdtPikachu · 02-06-2002, 06:14 PM

""Nothing I have seen or experienced in my liife proves to me that there can possibly be a God""

Well, I would go further than that myself: I would say that nothing I have seen or experienced in my life has ever suggested to me the slightest possibility that there can be a god. I guess I am as unshakeable in my faiths as you are... for the time being.

"Science couldn't prove it one way to you, and it couldn't prove it the other way to me."

Well, that's your choice... but from the little I know of science, the world can be more than adequately explained by natural processes than by the influence of a divine being. That is my belief, and there's not much I can see that is likely to change it... but obviously if someone came up with a theory more plausible than science involving a god, then I would have to accept it.

"So I understand (I think)"

Good! I've almost worn out this keyboard...