| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"SmartyPants" |
| Date: |
18 Sep 2006 12:13:22 PM |
| Object: |
TOP TEN SIGNS YOU'RE A CHRISTIAN |
A cool list by Kal Nasser:
TOP TEN SIGNS YOU'RE A CHRISTIAN
10- You vigorously deny the existence of thousands of gods claimed by
other religions, but feel outraged when someone denies the existence of
your god.
9- You feel insulted and "de-humanized" when scientists say that people
evolved from lesser life forms, but you have no problem with the
Biblical claim that we were created from dirt.
8- You laugh at polytheists, but you have no problem believing in a
Trinity god.
7- Your face turns purple when you hear of the "atrocities" attributed
to Allah, but you don't even flinch when hearing about how God
slaughtered all the babies of Egypt in "Exodus", and ordered the
elimination of entire ethnic groups in "Joshua", including women,
children, and trees!
6- You laugh at Hindu beliefs that deify humans, and Greek claims about
gods sleeping with women, but you have no problem believing that the
Holy Spirit impregnated Mary, who then gave birth to a man-god who got
killed and came back to life and ascended into the sky.
5- You are willing to spend your life looking for little loop-holes in
the scientifically established age of the Earth (4.55 billion years),
but you find nothing wrong with believing dates recorded by
pre-historic tribesmen sitting in their tents and guessing that the
Earth is a couple of generations old.
4- You believe that the entire population of this planet, with the
exception of those who share your beliefs, even including large sects
of Christians, will spend Eternity in an infinite Hell of Suffering.
And yet you consider your religion the most "tolerant" and "loving".
3- While modern science, history, geology, biology, and physics have
failed to convince you otherwise, some idiot rolling around on the
floor speaking in "tongues" is all the evidence you need to prove
Christianity.
2- You define 0.01% as a "high success rate" when it comes to answered
prayers. And you consider that to be evidence that prayer works. And
you think that the remaining 99.99% FAILURE was simply the will of God.
(Which begs the question: If it's all the will of God, why the hell
pray in the first place?)
And the Top Sign that you are a Christian:
1- Most Atheists and Agnostics know a hell of a lot more about the
Bible, Christianity, and church history than you do. (Which might be an
indication of the very reason that you are still a Christian).
I love these sorts of things.
.
|
|
| User: "Greywolf" |
|
| Title: Re: TOP TEN SIGNS YOU'RE A CHRISTIAN |
18 Sep 2006 06:20:56 PM |
|
|
"SmartyPants" <joshgoku@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1158599602.505072.9670@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
A cool list by Kal Nasser:
TOP TEN SIGNS YOU'RE A CHRISTIAN
10- You vigorously deny the existence of thousands of gods claimed by
other religions, but feel outraged when someone denies the existence of
your god.
9- You feel insulted and "de-humanized" when scientists say that people
evolved from lesser life forms, but you have no problem with the
Biblical claim that we were created from dirt.
8- You laugh at polytheists, but you have no problem believing in a
Trinity god.
7- Your face turns purple when you hear of the "atrocities" attributed
to Allah, but you don't even flinch when hearing about how God
slaughtered all the babies of Egypt in "Exodus", and ordered the
elimination of entire ethnic groups in "Joshua", including women,
children, and trees!
6- You laugh at Hindu beliefs that deify humans, and Greek claims about
gods sleeping with women, but you have no problem believing that the
Holy Spirit impregnated Mary, who then gave birth to a man-god who got
killed and came back to life and ascended into the sky.
5- You are willing to spend your life looking for little loop-holes in
the scientifically established age of the Earth (4.55 billion years),
but you find nothing wrong with believing dates recorded by
pre-historic tribesmen sitting in their tents and guessing that the
Earth is a couple of generations old.
4- You believe that the entire population of this planet, with the
exception of those who share your beliefs, even including large sects
of Christians, will spend Eternity in an infinite Hell of Suffering.
And yet you consider your religion the most "tolerant" and "loving".
3- While modern science, history, geology, biology, and physics have
failed to convince you otherwise, some idiot rolling around on the
floor speaking in "tongues" is all the evidence you need to prove
Christianity.
2- You define 0.01% as a "high success rate" when it comes to answered
prayers. And you consider that to be evidence that prayer works. And
you think that the remaining 99.99% FAILURE was simply the will of God.
(Which begs the question: If it's all the will of God, why the hell
pray in the first place?)
And the Top Sign that you are a Christian:
1- Most Atheists and Agnostics know a hell of a lot more about the
Bible, Christianity, and church history than you do. (Which might be an
indication of the very reason that you are still a Christian).
I love these sorts of things.
Me too. Posts such as this one only serve to reinforce the fact that
atheists possess the 'truth' and the Christians don't.
Greywolf
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: TOP TEN SIGNS YOU'RE A CHRISTIAN |
19 Sep 2006 04:09:18 AM |
|
|
On 18 Sep 2006 10:13:22 -0700, "SmartyPants" <joshgoku@hotmail.com>
wrote:
- Refer: <1158599602.505072.9670@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
A cool list by Kal Nasser:
TOP TEN SIGNS YOU'RE A CHRISTIAN
:
10) You lie to support your psychopathic fantasies.
9) You kill to support your psychopathic fantasies.
8) You defraud to support your psychopathic fantasies.
7) You indocrinate children to support your psychopathic fantasies.
6) You fabricate "facts" to support your psychopathic fantasies.
5) You commit genocide to support your psychopathic fantasies.
4) You discard learning to support your psychopathic fantasies.
3) You ignore reality to support your psychopathic fantasies.
2) You distort morality to support your psychopathic fantasies.
1) You torture to support your psychopathic fantasies.
0) You steal to support your psychopathic fantasies.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: TOP TEN SIGNS YOU'RE A CHRISTIAN |
30 Sep 2006 02:41:58 AM |
|
|
Michael Gray wrote:
On 18 Sep 2006 10:13:22 -0700, "SmartyPants" <joshgoku@hotmail.com>
wrote:
- Refer: <1158599602.505072.9670@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
A cool list by Kal Nasser:
TOP TEN SIGNS YOU'RE A CHRISTIAN
:
10) You lie to support your psychopathic fantasies.
9) You kill to support your psychopathic fantasies.
8) You defraud to support your psychopathic fantasies.
7) You indocrinate children to support your psychopathic fantasies.
6) You fabricate "facts" to support your psychopathic fantasies.
5) You commit genocide to support your psychopathic fantasies.
4) You discard learning to support your psychopathic fantasies.
3) You ignore reality to support your psychopathic fantasies.
2) You distort morality to support your psychopathic fantasies.
1) You torture to support your psychopathic fantasies.
0) You steal to support your psychopathic fantasies.
great and all that, but there's 11 there (I'm sure I'm not the first to
point that out) and the word you're looking for is "psychotic" not
psychopathic
apart from that, with you all the way
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: TOP TEN SIGNS YOU'RE A CHRISTIAN |
30 Sep 2006 05:24:16 AM |
|
|
On 30 Sep 2006 00:41:58 -0700, wrote:
- Refer: <1159602118.526306.130260@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>
Michael Gray wrote:
On 18 Sep 2006 10:13:22 -0700, "SmartyPants" <joshgoku@hotmail.com>
wrote:
- Refer: <1158599602.505072.9670@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
A cool list by Kal Nasser:
TOP TEN SIGNS YOU'RE A CHRISTIAN
:
10) You lie to support your psychopathic fantasies.
9) You kill to support your psychopathic fantasies.
8) You defraud to support your psychopathic fantasies.
7) You indocrinate children to support your psychopathic fantasies.
6) You fabricate "facts" to support your psychopathic fantasies.
5) You commit genocide to support your psychopathic fantasies.
4) You discard learning to support your psychopathic fantasies.
3) You ignore reality to support your psychopathic fantasies.
2) You distort morality to support your psychopathic fantasies.
1) You torture to support your psychopathic fantasies.
0) You steal to support your psychopathic fantasies.
great and all that, but there's 11 there (I'm sure I'm not the first to
Well spotted!
We have a lucky winner!
You get a boy scout badge for that. ;)
point that out) and the word you're looking for is "psychotic" not
psychopathic
It is both, in fact, but the psychopathic is one behavioral
manifestation of the psychotic, and it is their behaviour to which
sane folk object.
They can be as "psychotic" as the Pope on acid, for all I care, as
long as they don't act on their fantasies.
apart from that, with you all the way
The badge is in the mail!
(How is Emma, by the way?)
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "wcb" |
|
| Title: Re: TOP TEN SIGNS YOU'RE A CHRISTIAN |
18 Sep 2006 05:50:59 PM |
|
|
SmartyPants wrote:
TOP TEN SIGNS YOU'RE A CHRISTIAN
1. You think Mormons are a dangerous cult
and rankly, yiu arent too happy with those
damned Catholoics either.
2. You say grace over every cigarette.
3. Handling snakes at church no longer scares
you, even if it hurts like hell when you get bit.
4. You can spot Satan across the street as he lurks outside
the local liquor store.
5. The vial of holy land olive oil you got from
Reverand Al's mail order ministry does in fact seem
to help keep demons at bay even if your co-workers laugh.
6. You can recite Revelations perfectly word for word.
7. You have considered a career as a street minister.
8. You own more bibles than teeth.
9. You love children and always give them Chick Comics
for their entertainment.
10. You always keep fresh cookies and milk on hand in
case Jesus does return unexpectedly.
--
You are a fluke of the Universe
You have no right to be here,
and whether you can hear it or not,
the Universe is laughing behind your back.
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kevin Anthoney" |
|
| Title: Re: TOP TEN SIGNS YOU'RE A CHRISTIAN |
19 Sep 2006 01:25:54 PM |
|
|
wcb wrote:
SmartyPants wrote:
TOP TEN SIGNS YOU'RE A CHRISTIAN
[...]
10. You always keep fresh cookies and milk on hand in
case Jesus does return unexpectedly.
And a hammer, some rusty nails, and a couple of stout planks of wood.
--
Kevin Anthoney
kanthoney[a]dsl.pipex.com
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Tuco Ramirez" |
|
| Title: Re: TOP TEN SIGNS YOU'RE A CHRISTIAN |
18 Sep 2006 11:49:32 PM |
|
|
SmartyPants wrote:
A cool list by Kal Nasser:
TOP TEN SIGNS YOU'RE A CHRISTIAN
10- You vigorously deny the existence of thousands of gods claimed by
other religions, but feel outraged when someone denies the existence of
your god.
9- You feel insulted and "de-humanized" when scientists say that people
evolved from lesser life forms, but you have no problem with the
Biblical claim that we were created from dirt.
8- You laugh at polytheists, but you have no problem believing in a
Trinity god.
7- Your face turns purple when you hear of the "atrocities" attributed
to Allah, but you don't even flinch when hearing about how God
slaughtered all the babies of Egypt in "Exodus", and ordered the
elimination of entire ethnic groups in "Joshua", including women,
children, and trees!
So then, If women and children, and trees hadn't been included, you
would be allright with it?
6- You laugh at Hindu beliefs that deify humans, and Greek claims about
gods sleeping with women, but you have no problem believing that the
Holy Spirit impregnated Mary, who then gave birth to a man-god who got
killed and came back to life and ascended into the sky.
5- You are willing to spend your life looking for little loop-holes in
the scientifically established age of the Earth (4.55 billion years),
but you find nothing wrong with believing dates recorded by
pre-historic tribesmen sitting in their tents and guessing that the
Earth is a couple of generations old.
Of course, you KNOW that the Earth is 4.55 billion years old. And you
have the nerve of critizicing the other nuts for their fantasies. At
least their fantasies have a promise of a better return for them if
they are right.
Since you know so much, what happened 4.55 billion years ago when
Mother Earth was born? From GrandMother Earth, I suppose?
4- You believe that the entire population of this planet, with the
exception of those who share your beliefs, even including large sects
of Christians, will spend Eternity in an infinite Hell of Suffering.
And yet you consider your religion the most "tolerant" and "loving".
3- While modern science, history, geology, biology, and physics have
failed to convince you otherwise, some idiot rolling around on the
floor speaking in "tongues" is all the evidence you need to prove
Christianity.
2- You define 0.01% as a "high success rate" when it comes to answered
prayers. And you consider that to be evidence that prayer works. And
you think that the remaining 99.99% FAILURE was simply the will of God.
(Which begs the question: If it's all the will of God, why the hell
pray in the first place?)
And the Top Sign that you are a Christian:
1- Most Atheists and Agnostics know a hell of a lot more about the
Bible, Christianity, and church history than you do. (Which might be an
indication of the very reason that you are still a Christian).
I love these sorts of things.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Vic" |
|
| Title: Re: TOP TEN SIGNS YOU'RE A CHRISTIAN |
19 Sep 2006 12:49:09 AM |
|
|
Once upon a time in alt.atheism, dear sweet Tuco Ramirez
(tucodrat@yahoo.com) made the light shine upon us with this:
Of course, you KNOW that the Earth is 4.55 billion years old. And you
have the nerve of critizicing the other nuts for their fantasies. At
least their fantasies have a promise of a better return for them if
they are right.
It's a scientific result from a scientific test that has yielded repeated
results. Therefore it is not a fantasy, it is a fact. But you go on
believing your magicgod stories. Science won't toss you into a lake of
fire (whatever *that* is) for non-belief.
Since you know so much, what happened 4.55 billion years ago when
Mother Earth was born? From GrandMother Earth, I suppose?
We don't know, exactly. But it was probably similar to this.
http://planetquest.jpl.nasa.gov/science/origins.cfm
--
Uncle Vic
aa Atheist #2011
Supervisor, EAC Department of little adhesive-backed "L" shaped
chrome-plastic doo-dads to add feet to Jesus fish department.
Plonked by Kadaitcha Man
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tuco Ramirez" |
|
| Title: Re: TOP TEN SIGNS YOU'RE A CHRISTIAN |
19 Sep 2006 01:36:03 AM |
|
|
Uncle Vic wrote:
Once upon a time in alt.atheism, dear sweet Tuco Ramirez
(tucodrat@yahoo.com) made the light shine upon us with this:
Of course, you KNOW that the Earth is 4.55 billion years old. And you
have the nerve of critizicing the other nuts for their fantasies. At
least their fantasies have a promise of a better return for them if
they are right.
It's a scientific result from a scientific test that has yielded repeated
results. Therefore it is not a fantasy, it is a fact. But you go on
believing your magicgod stories. Science won't toss you into a lake of
fire (whatever *that* is) for non-belief.
And what scientific test are you talking about?
I would like to know how your proof of the 4.55 billion figure
satisfies the requirements of the Scientific Method. Aren't those
suppossed to be the rules scientist-worshiping fools like yourself live
by?
Since you know so much, what happened 4.55 billion years ago when
Mother Earth was born? From GrandMother Earth, I suppose?
We don't know, exactly. But it was probably similar to this.
It's a miracle! Uncle Vic has admitted that he doesn't know!
You know, but you are also not sure. Interesting.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Vic" |
|
| Title: Re: TOP TEN SIGNS YOU'RE A CHRISTIAN |
19 Sep 2006 02:12:21 AM |
|
|
Once upon a time in alt.atheism, dear sweet Tuco Ramirez
(tucodrat@yahoo.com) made the light shine upon us with this:
Uncle Vic wrote:
Once upon a time in alt.atheism, dear sweet Tuco Ramirez
(tucodrat@yahoo.com) made the light shine upon us with this:
Of course, you KNOW that the Earth is 4.55 billion years old. And
you have the nerve of critizicing the other nuts for their
fantasies. At least their fantasies have a promise of a better
return for them if they are right.
It's a scientific result from a scientific test that has yielded
repeated results. Therefore it is not a fantasy, it is a fact. But
you go on believing your magicgod stories. Science won't toss you
into a lake of fire (whatever *that* is) for non-belief.
And what scientific test are you talking about?
Sigh. I forgot, you're an uneducatable Christian.
I would like to know how your proof of the 4.55 billion figure
satisfies the requirements of the Scientific Method. Aren't those
suppossed to be the rules scientist-worshiping fools like yourself
live by?
Do your own homework. Look up "radiometric dating". Or just cry about
it, like Jesus would.
Since you know so much, what happened 4.55 billion years ago when
Mother Earth was born? From GrandMother Earth, I suppose?
We don't know, exactly. But it was probably similar to this.
It's a miracle! Uncle Vic has admitted that he doesn't know!
You know, but you are also not sure. Interesting.
I'm a musician, not a scientist. You, OTOH, are an idiot.
--
Uncle Vic
aa Atheist #2011
Supervisor, EAC Department of little adhesive-backed "L" shaped
chrome-plastic doo-dads to add feet to Jesus fish department.
Plonked by Kadaitcha Man
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tuco Ramirez" |
|
| Title: Re: TOP TEN SIGNS YOU'RE A CHRISTIAN |
19 Sep 2006 09:50:02 PM |
|
|
Uncle Vic wrote:
Once upon a time in alt.atheism, dear sweet Tuco Ramirez
(tucodrat@yahoo.com) made the light shine upon us with this:
Uncle Vic wrote:
Once upon a time in alt.atheism, dear sweet Tuco Ramirez
(tucodrat@yahoo.com) made the light shine upon us with this:
Of course, you KNOW that the Earth is 4.55 billion years old. And
you have the nerve of critizicing the other nuts for their
fantasies. At least their fantasies have a promise of a better
return for them if they are right.
It's a scientific result from a scientific test that has yielded
repeated results. Therefore it is not a fantasy, it is a fact. But
you go on believing your magicgod stories. Science won't toss you
into a lake of fire (whatever *that* is) for non-belief.
And what scientific test are you talking about?
Sigh. I forgot, you're an uneducatable Christian.
Wrong.
I would like to know how your proof of the 4.55 billion figure
satisfies the requirements of the Scientific Method. Aren't those
suppossed to be the rules scientist-worshiping fools like yourself
live by?
Do your own homework. Look up "radiometric dating". Or just cry about
it, like Jesus would.
Impressive word. But does it work? Can it be proven to work? If you
had a brain woth 2 cents, you would know that it is impossible to prove
that something is or isn't 4.55 billion years old.
Just for the sake of argument, let's say it's 4.55 billion years old.
Then according to you, it suddenly appeared out of nowhere.
Interesting, and unprovable. You being a slippery one, will then claim
that it was formed from some other matter 4.55 billion years ago; well,
then it isn't 4.55 billion years old, but older than 4.55 billion years
old given that it is formed from matter that is older than 4.55 billion
years, and you would again be wrong.
Since you know so much, what happened 4.55 billion years ago when
Mother Earth was born? From GrandMother Earth, I suppose?
We don't know, exactly. But it was probably similar to this.
It's a miracle! Uncle Vic has admitted that he doesn't know!
You know, but you are also not sure. Interesting.
I'm a musician, not a scientist. You, OTOH, are an idiot.
No, I am:
Tuco Benedito Pacifico Juan Maria Ramirez
Ying Of The Ping
Yang Of The Bang
Mack Of The Black
Quick Of The Stick
.
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Vic" |
|
| Title: Re: TOP TEN SIGNS YOU'RE A CHRISTIAN |
19 Sep 2006 10:28:51 PM |
|
|
Once upon a time in alt.atheism, dear sweet Tuco Ramirez
(tucodrat@yahoo.com) made the light shine upon us with this:
Just for the sake of argument, let's say it's 4.55 billion years old.
Then according to you, it suddenly appeared out of nowhere.
Nonsense. That's a magicgod argument.
Interesting, and unprovable. You being a slippery one, will then claim
that it was formed from some other matter 4.55 billion years ago; well,
then it isn't 4.55 billion years old, but older than 4.55 billion years
old given that it is formed from matter that is older than 4.55 billion
years, and you would again be wrong.
You deny simple science. You're an uneducatable Christian. You're also
boring as hell.
<plonk>
--
Uncle Vic
aa Atheist #2011
Supervisor, EAC Department of little adhesive-backed "L" shaped
chrome-plastic doo-dads to add feet to Jesus fish department.
Plonked by Kadaitcha Man
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: TOP TEN SIGNS YOU'RE A CHRISTIAN |
20 Sep 2006 02:00:12 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 19 Sep 2006 22:28:51 -0500, Uncle Vic <address@withheld.com>
wrote:
- Refer: <Xns9843D056F39A0vicman@216.196.97.136>
Once upon a time in alt.atheism, dear sweet Tuco Ramirez
(tucodrat@yahoo.com) made the light shine upon us with this:
Just for the sake of argument, let's say it's 4.55 billion years old.
Then according to you, it suddenly appeared out of nowhere.
Nonsense. That's a magicgod argument.
Interesting, and unprovable. You being a slippery one, will then claim
that it was formed from some other matter 4.55 billion years ago; well,
then it isn't 4.55 billion years old, but older than 4.55 billion years
old given that it is formed from matter that is older than 4.55 billion
years, and you would again be wrong.
You deny simple science. You're an uneducatable Christian. You're also
boring as hell.
<plonk>
I'm pretty sure that "Taco" is merely another nym d'Jabbers.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Vic" |
|
| Title: Re: TOP TEN SIGNS YOU'RE A CHRISTIAN |
20 Sep 2006 03:15:02 AM |
|
|
Once upon a time in alt.atheism, dear sweet Michael Gray
(fleetg@newsguy.spam.com) made the light shine upon us with this:
On Tue, 19 Sep 2006 22:28:51 -0500, Uncle Vic <address@withheld.com>
wrote:
- Refer: <Xns9843D056F39A0vicman@216.196.97.136>
Once upon a time in alt.atheism, dear sweet Tuco Ramirez
(tucodrat@yahoo.com) made the light shine upon us with this:
Just for the sake of argument, let's say it's 4.55 billion years
old. Then according to you, it suddenly appeared out of nowhere.
Nonsense. That's a magicgod argument.
Interesting, and unprovable. You being a slippery one, will then
claim that it was formed from some other matter 4.55 billion years
ago; well, then it isn't 4.55 billion years old, but older than 4.55
billion years old given that it is formed from matter that is older
than 4.55 billion years, and you would again be wrong.
You deny simple science. You're an uneducatable Christian. You're
also boring as hell.
<plonk>
I'm pretty sure that "Taco" is merely another nym d'Jabbers.
That's OK. My plonk was the Kadaitchaplonk. :)
--
Uncle Vic
aa Atheist #2011
Supervisor, EAC Department of little adhesive-backed "L" shaped
chrome-plastic doo-dads to add feet to Jesus fish department.
Plonked by Kadaitcha Man
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: TOP TEN SIGNS YOU'RE A CHRISTIAN |
20 Sep 2006 05:47:23 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 20 Sep 2006 03:15:02 -0500, Uncle Vic <address@withheld.com>
wrote:
- Refer: <Xns9844CB7D63B8vicman@216.196.97.136>
Once upon a time in alt.atheism, dear sweet Michael Gray
(fleetg@newsguy.spam.com) made the light shine upon us with this:
On Tue, 19 Sep 2006 22:28:51 -0500, Uncle Vic <address@withheld.com>
wrote:
- Refer: <Xns9843D056F39A0vicman@216.196.97.136>
Once upon a time in alt.atheism, dear sweet Tuco Ramirez
(tucodrat@yahoo.com) made the light shine upon us with this:
Just for the sake of argument, let's say it's 4.55 billion years
old. Then according to you, it suddenly appeared out of nowhere.
Nonsense. That's a magicgod argument.
Interesting, and unprovable. You being a slippery one, will then
claim that it was formed from some other matter 4.55 billion years
ago; well, then it isn't 4.55 billion years old, but older than 4.55
billion years old given that it is formed from matter that is older
than 4.55 billion years, and you would again be wrong.
You deny simple science. You're an uneducatable Christian. You're
also boring as hell.
<plonk>
I'm pretty sure that "Taco" is merely another nym d'Jabbers.
That's OK. My plonk was the Kadaitchaplonk. :)
And to think that a Kadaitcha man is an Australian Aboriginal
equivalent of a Mafia 'hit-man'.
He kills people by pointing his bone at them.
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: TOP TEN SIGNS YOU'RE A CHRISTIAN |
27 Sep 2006 03:29:58 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 20 Sep 2006 20:17:23 +0930, Michael Gray
<fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote in alt.atheism
On Wed, 20 Sep 2006 03:15:02 -0500, Uncle Vic <address@withheld.com>
wrote:
- Refer: <Xns9844CB7D63B8vicman@216.196.97.136>
Once upon a time in alt.atheism, dear sweet Michael Gray
(fleetg@newsguy.spam.com) made the light shine upon us with this:
On Tue, 19 Sep 2006 22:28:51 -0500, Uncle Vic <address@withheld.com>
wrote:
- Refer: <Xns9843D056F39A0vicman@216.196.97.136>
Once upon a time in alt.atheism, dear sweet Tuco Ramirez
(tucodrat@yahoo.com) made the light shine upon us with this:
Just for the sake of argument, let's say it's 4.55 billion years
old. Then according to you, it suddenly appeared out of nowhere.
Nonsense. That's a magicgod argument.
Interesting, and unprovable. You being a slippery one, will then
claim that it was formed from some other matter 4.55 billion years
ago; well, then it isn't 4.55 billion years old, but older than 4.55
billion years old given that it is formed from matter that is older
than 4.55 billion years, and you would again be wrong.
You deny simple science. You're an uneducatable Christian. You're
also boring as hell.
<plonk>
I'm pretty sure that "Taco" is merely another nym d'Jabbers.
That's OK. My plonk was the Kadaitchaplonk. :)
And to think that a Kadaitcha man is an Australian Aboriginal
equivalent of a Mafia 'hit-man'.
He kills people by pointing his bone at them.
And the ladies ask; "Where is it?"
--
Fundies and trolls are cordially invited to
shove a wooden cross up their arses and rotate
at a high rate of speed. I trust you'll
be 'blessed' with a plethora of splinters.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: TOP TEN SIGNS YOU'RE A CHRISTIAN |
27 Sep 2006 06:04:52 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 27 Sep 2006 13:29:58 -0700, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
- Refer: <apnlh25kpbp32off9skuqqe8dilo0gipqq@4ax.com>
On Wed, 20 Sep 2006 20:17:23 +0930, Michael Gray
<fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote in alt.atheism
On Wed, 20 Sep 2006 03:15:02 -0500, Uncle Vic <address@withheld.com>
wrote:
- Refer: <Xns9844CB7D63B8vicman@216.196.97.136>
Once upon a time in alt.atheism, dear sweet Michael Gray
(fleetg@newsguy.spam.com) made the light shine upon us with this:
On Tue, 19 Sep 2006 22:28:51 -0500, Uncle Vic <address@withheld.com>
wrote:
- Refer: <Xns9843D056F39A0vicman@216.196.97.136>
Once upon a time in alt.atheism, dear sweet Tuco Ramirez
(tucodrat@yahoo.com) made the light shine upon us with this:
Just for the sake of argument, let's say it's 4.55 billion years
old. Then according to you, it suddenly appeared out of nowhere.
Nonsense. That's a magicgod argument.
Interesting, and unprovable. You being a slippery one, will then
claim that it was formed from some other matter 4.55 billion years
ago; well, then it isn't 4.55 billion years old, but older than 4.55
billion years old given that it is formed from matter that is older
than 4.55 billion years, and you would again be wrong.
You deny simple science. You're an uneducatable Christian. You're
also boring as hell.
<plonk>
I'm pretty sure that "Taco" is merely another nym d'Jabbers.
That's OK. My plonk was the Kadaitchaplonk. :)
And to think that a Kadaitcha man is an Australian Aboriginal
equivalent of a Mafia 'hit-man'.
He kills people by pointing his bone at them.
And the ladies ask; "Where is it?"
Boom boom!
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Tuco Ramirez" |
|
| Title: Re: TOP TEN SIGNS YOU'RE A CHRISTIAN |
19 Sep 2006 10:41:23 PM |
|
|
Uncle Vic wrote:
Once upon a time in alt.atheism, dear sweet Tuco Ramirez
(tucodrat@yahoo.com) made the light shine upon us with this:
Just for the sake of argument, let's say it's 4.55 billion years old.
Then according to you, it suddenly appeared out of nowhere.
Nonsense. That's a magicgod argument.
It's YOUR argument, fool.
Interesting, and unprovable. You being a slippery one, will then claim
that it was formed from some other matter 4.55 billion years ago; well,
then it isn't 4.55 billion years old, but older than 4.55 billion years
old given that it is formed from matter that is older than 4.55 billion
years, and you would again be wrong.
You deny simple science. You're an uneducatable Christian. You're also
boring as hell.
And how does this refute my statements?
<plonk>
And when proven wrong, Good Old Uncle Vic throws a tamtrum. What a
surprise!
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "magilla" |
|
| Title: Re: TOP TEN SIGNS YOU'RE A CHRISTIAN |
22 Sep 2006 01:35:41 PM |
|
|
Tuco Ramirez wrote:
Uncle Vic wrote:
Once upon a time in alt.atheism, dear sweet Tuco Ramirez
(tucodrat@yahoo.com) made the light shine upon us with this:
Uncle Vic wrote:
Once upon a time in alt.atheism, dear sweet Tuco Ramirez
(tucodrat@yahoo.com) made the light shine upon us with this:
Of course, you KNOW that the Earth is 4.55 billion years old. And
you have the nerve of critizicing the other nuts for their
fantasies. At least their fantasies have a promise of a better
return for them if they are right.
It's a scientific result from a scientific test that has yielded
repeated results. Therefore it is not a fantasy, it is a fact. But
you go on believing your magicgod stories. Science won't toss you
into a lake of fire (whatever *that* is) for non-belief.
And what scientific test are you talking about?
Sigh. I forgot, you're an uneducatable Christian.
Wrong.
On the evidence of your posts, he's a lot more right than wrong.
I would like to know how your proof of the 4.55 billion figure
satisfies the requirements of the Scientific Method. Aren't those
suppossed to be the rules scientist-worshiping fools like yourself
live by?
Do your own homework. Look up "radiometric dating". Or just cry about
it, like Jesus would.
Impressive word. But does it work?
Yes.
Can it be proven to work?
Depends on your standard of proof. I would bet that nothing would
satisfy you, because your mind is closed on the matter. However, just
to make sure, I would say that there are many, many types of
radiometric dating, one of the most reliable being isochron dating. You
might read up on that. Isochron dating can be done with many different
isotopes, and it works independently of the initial concentrations of
the isotopes. Those many different forms of isochron dating yield
remarkably similar results for the age of the planet.
If you
had a brain woth 2 cents, you would know that it is impossible to prove
that something is or isn't 4.55 billion years old.
Well, it isn't about "proof", since geology (and science in general)
don't deal in proof. We deal in evidence, and all the evidence points
to a 4.6 billion year old planet.
Just for the sake of argument, let's say it's 4.55 billion years old.
Then according to you, it suddenly appeared out of nowhere.
Well, no. The planet coalesced from dust and rock in the solar system.
Things don't come from nothing.
Interesting, and unprovable. You being a slippery one, will then claim
that it was formed from some other matter 4.55 billion years ago; well,
then it isn't 4.55 billion years old, but older than 4.55 billion years
old given that it is formed from matter that is older than 4.55 billion
years, and you would again be wrong.
No again. Your arguments are very silly. If you cook a batch of pasta
on Sunday and don't finish it, and on Tuesday someone asks you how old
it is, do you measure the date from the day the wheat seed sprouted?
No, you tell them the pasta is 2 days old.
Chris
Since you know so much, what happened 4.55 billion years ago when
Mother Earth was born? From GrandMother Earth, I suppose?
We don't know, exactly. But it was probably similar to this.
It's a miracle! Uncle Vic has admitted that he doesn't know!
You know, but you are also not sure. Interesting.
I'm a musician, not a scientist. You, OTOH, are an idiot.
No, I am:
Tuco Benedito Pacifico Juan Maria Ramirez
Ying Of The Ping
Yang Of The Bang
Mack Of The Black
Quick Of The Stick
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tuco Ramirez" |
|
| Title: Re: TOP TEN SIGNS YOU'RE A CHRISTIAN |
23 Sep 2006 02:02:29 AM |
|
|
magilla wrote:
Tuco Ramirez wrote:
Uncle Vic wrote:
Once upon a time in alt.atheism, dear sweet Tuco Ramirez
(tucodrat@yahoo.com) made the light shine upon us with this:
Uncle Vic wrote:
Once upon a time in alt.atheism, dear sweet Tuco Ramirez
(tucodrat@yahoo.com) made the light shine upon us with this:
Of course, you KNOW that the Earth is 4.55 billion years old. And
you have the nerve of critizicing the other nuts for their
fantasies. At least their fantasies have a promise of a better
return for them if they are right.
It's a scientific result from a scientific test that has yielded
repeated results. Therefore it is not a fantasy, it is a fact. But
you go on believing your magicgod stories. Science won't toss you
into a lake of fire (whatever *that* is) for non-belief.
And what scientific test are you talking about?
Sigh. I forgot, you're an uneducatable Christian.
Wrong.
On the evidence of your posts, he's a lot more right than wrong.
I would like to know how your proof of the 4.55 billion figure
satisfies the requirements of the Scientific Method. Aren't those
suppossed to be the rules scientist-worshiping fools like yourself
live by?
Do your own homework. Look up "radiometric dating". Or just cry about
it, like Jesus would.
Impressive word. But does it work?
Yes.
Can it be proven to work?
Depends on your standard of proof.
Exactly.
I would bet that nothing would
satisfy you, because your mind is closed on the matter.
On the contrary, nothing would satisfy me because my mind is open. For
the sake of arguement, let's say that Radiometric Dating can be proven
to work for items whose age is known to be 10,000 years.
Just because it works up to 10,000 years, it doesn't mean it will work
to 4.55 billion years. Biiiig difference.
Just to give you an idea, proportionally speaking, the difference
between 4.55 billion years and 10,000 years, is similar to the
difference between being able to see from LA to New York and being able
to see to the tip of your nose.
If I was to travel from LA to New York, I wouldn't reach any
conclussion as to the weather in New York based on what I see at the
tip of my nose, would you?
However, just
to make sure, I would say that there are many, many types of
radiometric dating, one of the most reliable being isochron dating. You
might read up on that. Isochron dating can be done with many different
isotopes, and it works independently of the initial concentrations of
the isotopes. Those many different forms of isochron dating yield
remarkably similar results for the age of the planet.
If you
had a brain woth 2 cents, you would know that it is impossible to prove
that something is or isn't 4.55 billion years old.
Well, it isn't about "proof", since geology (and science in general)
don't deal in proof. We deal in evidence, and all the evidence points
to a 4.6 billion year old planet.
For me to believe something, it has to be proven, otherwise I might
think it's true, but not "beyond reasonable doubt".
Just for the sake of argument, let's say it's 4.55 billion years old.
Then according to you, it suddenly appeared out of nowhere.
Well, no. The planet coalesced from dust and rock in the solar system.
Things don't come from nothing.
And where did all this stuff come from?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Vic" |
|
| Title: Re: TOP TEN SIGNS YOU'RE A CHRISTIAN |
23 Sep 2006 02:19:30 AM |
|
|
Once upon a time in alt.atheism, dear sweet Tuco Ramirez
(tucodrat@yahoo.com) made the light shine upon us with this:
I would bet that nothing would
satisfy you, because your mind is closed on the matter.
On the contrary, nothing would satisfy me because my mind is open.
For the sake of arguement, let's say that Radiometric Dating can be
proven to work for items whose age is known to be 10,000 years.
Just because it works up to 10,000 years, it doesn't mean it will work
to 4.55 billion years. Biiiig difference.
You're thinking of carbon dating, which is good up to 50,000 years.
Radiometric dating makes use of radioactive isotopes, with a halflife of
millions to billions of years.
How open is your mind?
http://www.asa3.org/aSA/resources/Wiens.html
Just to give you an idea, proportionally speaking, the difference
between 4.55 billion years and 10,000 years, is similar to the
difference between being able to see from LA to New York and being
able to see to the tip of your nose.
And insane people tend to think everyone else is insane, too.
If I was to travel from LA to New York, I wouldn't reach any
conclussion as to the weather in New York based on what I see at the
tip of my nose, would you?
I don't think you could see the tip of your ***** through the clouds
inbetween your ears.
However, just
to make sure, I would say that there are many, many types of
radiometric dating, one of the most reliable being isochron dating.
You might read up on that. Isochron dating can be done with many
different isotopes, and it works independently of the initial
concentrations of the isotopes. Those many different forms of
isochron dating yield remarkably similar results for the age of the
planet.
If you
had a brain woth 2 cents, you would know that it is impossible to
prove that something is or isn't 4.55 billion years old.
Well, it isn't about "proof", since geology (and science in general)
don't deal in proof. We deal in evidence, and all the evidence points
to a 4.6 billion year old planet.
For me to believe something, it has to be proven, otherwise I might
think it's true, but not "beyond reasonable doubt".
Just for the sake of argument, let's say it's 4.55 billion years
old. Then according to you, it suddenly appeared out of nowhere.
Well, no. The planet coalesced from dust and rock in the solar
system. Things don't come from nothing.
And where did all this stuff come from?
That class you slept through, dreaming about Jesus.
--
Uncle Vic
aa Atheist #2011
Supervisor, EAC Department of little adhesive-backed "L" shaped
chrome-plastic doo-dads to add feet to Jesus fish department.
Plonked by Kadaitcha Man
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: TOP TEN SIGNS YOU'RE A CHRISTIAN |
23 Sep 2006 05:37:46 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 23 Sep 2006 02:19:30 -0500, Uncle Vic <address@withheld.com>
wrote:
- Refer: <Xns984734C32FC9vicman@216.196.97.136>
Once upon a time in alt.atheism, dear sweet Tuco Ramirez
(tucodrat@yahoo.com) made the light shine upon us with this:
I would bet that nothing would
satisfy you, because your mind is closed on the matter.
On the contrary, nothing would satisfy me because my mind is open.
For the sake of arguement, let's say that Radiometric Dating can be
proven to work for items whose age is known to be 10,000 years.
Just because it works up to 10,000 years, it doesn't mean it will work
to 4.55 billion years. Biiiig difference.
You're thinking of carbon dating, which is good up to 50,000 years.
Radiometric dating makes use of radioactive isotopes, with a halflife of
millions to billions of years.
How open is your mind?
:
So open that his brains fell out decades ago...
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: TOP TEN SIGNS YOU'RE A CHRISTIAN |
28 Sep 2006 05:00:49 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 23 Sep 2006 20:07:46 +0930, Michael Gray
<fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote in alt.atheism
On Sat, 23 Sep 2006 02:19:30 -0500, Uncle Vic <address@withheld.com>
wrote:
- Refer: <Xns984734C32FC9vicman@216.196.97.136>
Once upon a time in alt.atheism, dear sweet Tuco Ramirez
(tucodrat@yahoo.com) made the light shine upon us with this:
I would bet that nothing would
satisfy you, because your mind is closed on the matter.
On the contrary, nothing would satisfy me because my mind is open.
For the sake of arguement, let's say that Radiometric Dating can be
proven to work for items whose age is known to be 10,000 years.
Just because it works up to 10,000 years, it doesn't mean it will work
to 4.55 billion years. Biiiig difference.
You're thinking of carbon dating, which is good up to 50,000 years.
Radiometric dating makes use of radioactive isotopes, with a halflife of
millions to billions of years.
How open is your mind?
:
So open that his brains fell out decades ago...
Can't lose what one never had.
--
Fundies and trolls are cordially invited to
shove a wooden cross up their arses and rotate
at a high rate of speed. I trust you'll
be 'blessed' with a plethora of splinters.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: TOP TEN SIGNS YOU'RE A CHRISTIAN |
29 Sep 2006 01:47:38 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 28 Sep 2006 15:00:49 -0700, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
- Refer: <0ghoh2tjqc0o271gn5iit9u6u8jtdmp6lk@4ax.com>
On Sat, 23 Sep 2006 20:07:46 +0930, Michael Gray
<fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote in alt.atheism
On Sat, 23 Sep 2006 02:19:30 -0500, Uncle Vic <address@withheld.com>
wrote:
- Refer: <Xns984734C32FC9vicman@216.196.97.136>
Once upon a time in alt.atheism, dear sweet Tuco Ramirez
(tucodrat@yahoo.com) made the light shine upon us with this:
I would bet that nothing would
satisfy you, because your mind is closed on the matter.
On the contrary, nothing would satisfy me because my mind is open.
For the sake of arguement, let's say that Radiometric Dating can be
proven to work for items whose age is known to be 10,000 years.
Just because it works up to 10,000 years, it doesn't mean it will work
to 4.55 billion years. Biiiig difference.
You're thinking of carbon dating, which is good up to 50,000 years.
Radiometric dating makes use of radioactive isotopes, with a halflife of
millions to billions of years.
How open is your mind?
:
So open that his brains fell out decades ago...
Can't lose what one never had.
It may have had some as an infant.
The Christian mind-virus that he was innoculated with has eating any
remaining grey matter away, and replaced it with some squishy brown
stuff.
Smells like...?
(And it ain't teen spirit!)
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: TOP TEN SIGNS YOU'RE A CHRISTIAN |
30 Sep 2006 04:53:38 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 29 Sep 2006 16:17:38 +0930, Michael Gray
<fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote in alt.atheism
On Thu, 28 Sep 2006 15:00:49 -0700, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
- Refer: <0ghoh2tjqc0o271gn5iit9u6u8jtdmp6lk@4ax.com>
On Sat, 23 Sep 2006 20:07:46 +0930, Michael Gray
<fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote in alt.atheism
On Sat, 23 Sep 2006 02:19:30 -0500, Uncle Vic <address@withheld.com>
wrote:
- Refer: <Xns984734C32FC9vicman@216.196.97.136>
Once upon a time in alt.atheism, dear sweet Tuco Ramirez
(tucodrat@yahoo.com) made the light shine upon us with this:
I would bet that nothing would
satisfy you, because your mind is closed on the matter.
On the contrary, nothing would satisfy me because my mind is open.
For the sake of arguement, let's say that Radiometric Dating can be
proven to work for items whose age is known to be 10,000 years.
Just because it works up to 10,000 years, it doesn't mean it will work
to 4.55 billion years. Biiiig difference.
You're thinking of carbon dating, which is good up to 50,000 years.
Radiometric dating makes use of radioactive isotopes, with a halflife of
millions to billions of years.
How open is your mind?
:
So open that his brains fell out decades ago...
Can't lose what one never had.
It may have had some as an infant.
{GASP!} You're really stretching here....
The Christian mind-virus that he was innoculated with has eating any
remaining grey matter away, and replaced it with some squishy brown
stuff.
Smells like...?
(And it ain't teen spirit!)
--
Fundies and trolls are cordially invited to
shove a wooden cross up their arses and rotate
at a high rate of speed. I trust you'll
be 'blessed' with a plethora of splinters.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Tuco Ramirez" |
|
| Title: Re: TOP TEN SIGNS YOU'RE A CHRISTIAN |
23 Sep 2006 03:08:55 AM |
|
|
Uncle Vic wrote:
Once upon a time in alt.atheism, dear sweet Tuco Ramirez
(tucodrat@yahoo.com) made the light shine upon us with this:
I would bet that nothing would
satisfy you, because your mind is closed on the matter.
On the contrary, nothing would satisfy me because my mind is open.
For the sake of arguement, let's say that Radiometric Dating can be
proven to work for items whose age is known to be 10,000 years.
Just because it works up to 10,000 years, it doesn't mean it will work
to 4.55 billion years. Biiiig difference.
You're thinking of carbon dating, which is good up to 50,000 years.
Radiometric dating makes use of radioactive isotopes, with a halflife of
millions to billions of years.
Prove it. And back to the beginning we go.
How open is your mind?
http://www.asa3.org/aSA/resources/Wiens.html
Just to give you an idea, proportionally speaking, the difference
between 4.55 billion years and 10,000 years, is similar to the
difference between being able to see from LA to New York and being
able to see to the tip of your nose.
And insane people tend to think everyone else is insane, too.
What? The math is too hard for you? It's simple multiplication! (hint,
to keep things simple I assumed 3,000 miles as the distance between LA
and New York, and 5.000 feet per mile).
If I was to travel from LA to New York, I wouldn't reach any
conclussion as to the weather in New York based on what I see at the
tip of my nose, would you?
I don't think you could see the tip of your ***** through the clouds
inbetween your ears.
That's one of the few accurate statements you have made; it would be
somewhat difficult to see my ***** and between my ears at the same time.
You powers of perception are impressive.
However, just
to make sure, I would say that there are many, many types of
radiometric dating, one of the most reliable being isochron dating.
You might read up on that. Isochron dating can be done with many
different isotopes, and it works independently of the initial
concentrations of the isotopes. Those many different forms of
isochron dating yield remarkably similar results for the age of the
planet.
If you
had a brain woth 2 cents, you would know that it is impossible to
prove that something is or isn't 4.55 billion years old.
Well, it isn't about "proof", since geology (and science in general)
don't deal in proof. We deal in evidence, and all the evidence points
to a 4.6 billion year old planet.
For me to believe something, it has to be proven, otherwise I might
think it's true, but not "beyond reasonable doubt".
Just for the sake of argument, let's say it's 4.55 billion years
old. Then according to you, it suddenly appeared out of nowhere.
Well, no. The planet coalesced from dust and rock in the solar
system. Things don't come from nothing.
And where did all this stuff come from?
That class you slept through, dreaming about Jesus.
What's the matter, did you run out of *****, I mean answers?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Free Lunch" |
|
| Title: Re: TOP TEN SIGNS YOU'RE A CHRISTIAN |
23 Sep 2006 11:32:23 AM |
|
|
On 23 Sep 2006 01:08:55 -0700, in alt.atheism
"Tuco Ramirez" <tucodrat@yahoo.com> wrote in
<1158998935.761148.27950@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>:
Uncle Vic wrote:
Once upon a time in alt.atheism, dear sweet Tuco Ramirez
(tucodrat@yahoo.com) made the light shine upon us with this:
I would bet that nothing would
satisfy you, because your mind is closed on the matter.
On the contrary, nothing would satisfy me because my mind is open.
For the sake of arguement, let's say that Radiometric Dating can be
proven to work for items whose age is known to be 10,000 years.
Just because it works up to 10,000 years, it doesn't mean it will work
to 4.55 billion years. Biiiig difference.
You're thinking of carbon dating, which is good up to 50,000 years.
Radiometric dating makes use of radioactive isotopes, with a halflife of
millions to billions of years.
Prove it. And back to the beginning we go.
Just because you refuse to learn anything about science, that is not
evidence that your ignorant claims are true.
How open is your mind?
http://www.asa3.org/aSA/resources/Wiens.html
Just to give you an idea, proportionally speaking, the difference
between 4.55 billion years and 10,000 years, is similar to the
difference between being able to see from LA to New York and being
able to see to the tip of your nose.
And insane people tend to think everyone else is insane, too.
What? The math is too hard for you? It's simple multiplication! (hint,
to keep things simple I assumed 3,000 miles as the distance between LA
and New York, and 5.000 feet per mile).
But your analogy was completely invalid. You started from a false
assumption, based on your ignorance of radiometric dating.
....
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Vic" |
|
| Title: Re: TOP TEN SIGNS YOU'RE A CHRISTIAN |
23 Sep 2006 03:15:10 AM |
|
|
Once upon a time in alt.atheism, dear sweet Tuco Ramirez
(tucodrat@yahoo.com) made the light shine upon us with this:
Uncle Vic wrote:
Once upon a time in alt.atheism, dear sweet Tuco Ramirez
(tucodrat@yahoo.com) made the light shine upon us with this:
I would bet that nothing would
satisfy you, because your mind is closed on the matter.
On the contrary, nothing would satisfy me because my mind is open.
For the sake of arguement, let's say that Radiometric Dating can be
proven to work for items whose age is known to be 10,000 years.
Just because it works up to 10,000 years, it doesn't mean it will
work to 4.55 billion years. Biiiig difference.
You're thinking of carbon dating, which is good up to 50,000 years.
Radiometric dating makes use of radioactive isotopes, with a halflife
of millions to billions of years.
Prove it. And back to the beginning we go.
Nope, you're the once who refuses to advance.
http://www.asa3.org/aSA/resources/Wiens.html
How open is your mind?
http://www.asa3.org/aSA/resources/Wiens.html
Just to give you an idea, proportionally speaking, the difference
between 4.55 billion years and 10,000 years, is similar to the
difference between being able to see from LA to New York and being
able to see to the tip of your nose.
And insane people tend to think everyone else is insane, too.
What? The math is too hard for you? It's simple multiplication!
(hint, to keep things simple I assumed 3,000 miles as the distance
between LA and New York, and 5.000 feet per mile).
Whoosh.
--
Uncle Vic
aa Atheist #2011
Supervisor, EAC Department of little adhesive-backed "L" shaped
chrome-plastic doo-dads to add feet to Jesus fish department.
Plonked by Kadaitcha Man
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "magilla" |
|
| Title: Re: TOP TEN SIGNS YOU'RE A CHRISTIAN |
24 Sep 2006 02:51:20 PM |
|
|
Tuco Ramirez wrote:
magilla wrote:
Tuco Ramirez wrote:
Uncle Vic wrote:
Once upon a time in alt.atheism, dear sweet Tuco Ramirez
(tucodrat@yahoo.com) made the light shine upon us with this:
Uncle Vic wrote:
Once upon a time in alt.atheism, dear sweet Tuco Ramirez
(tucodrat@yahoo.com) made the light shine upon us with this:
Of course, you KNOW that the Earth is 4.55 billion years old. And
you have the nerve of critizicing the other nuts for their
fantasies. At least their fantasies have a promise of a better
return for them if they are right.
It's a scientific result from a scientific test that has yielded
repeated results. Therefore it is not a fantasy, it is a fact. But
you go on believing your magicgod stories. Science won't toss you
into a lake of fire (whatever *that* is) for non-belief.
And what scientific test are you talking about?
Sigh. I forgot, you're an uneducatable Christian.
Wrong.
On the evidence of your posts, he's a lot more right than wrong.
I would like to know how your proof of the 4.55 billion figure
satisfies the requirements of the Scientific Method. Aren't those
suppossed to be the rules scientist-worshiping fools like yourself
live by?
Do your own homework. Look up "radiometric dating". Or just cry about
it, like Jesus would.
Impressive word. But does it work?
Yes.
Can it be proven to work?
Depends on your standard of proof.
Exactly.
I would bet that nothing would
satisfy you, because your mind is closed on the matter.
On the contrary, nothing would satisfy me because my mind is open. For
the sake of arguement, let's say that Radiometric Dating can be proven
to work for items whose age is known to be 10,000 years.
Just because it works up to 10,000 years, it doesn't mean it will work
to 4.55 billion years. Biiiig difference.
There is ample evidence that these dating systems work. They are
corroborated by things like ice core samples and tree ring data. They
are also internally consistent. If you are testing a method, the first
thing you look for is consistency. If the method is unreliable, it
yields different results for the same sample. Radiometric dating yields
identical answers on the same sample. You also want independent
confirmation of your results. Those, as I mentioned, are provided by
methods having nothing to to with radiometric methods.
To deny the validity of radiometric methods after the thorough testing
they've received is not the mark of an open mind. It is perverse.
Just to give you an idea, proportionally speaking, the difference
between 4.55 billion years and 10,000 years, is similar to the
difference between being able to see from LA to New York and being able
to see to the tip of your nose.
Which has absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand, of course.
If I was to travel from LA to New York, I wouldn't reach any
conclussion as to the weather in New York based on what I see at the
tip of my nose, would you?
Why do you think non sequiturs support your position? Why don't you
present me with particulars concerning radiometric methods. Are rates
of decay changing all of a sudden? Has there been a rash of nuclear
submarines exploding recently? Do you see how stupid your position is?
However, just
to make sure, I would say that there are many, many types of
radiometric dating, one of the most reliable being isochron dating. You
might read up on that. Isochron dating can be done with many different
isotopes, and it works independently of the initial concentrations of
the isotopes. Those many different forms of isochron dating yield
remarkably similar results for the age of the planet.
If you
had a brain woth 2 cents, you would know that it is impossible to prove
that something is or isn't 4.55 billion years old.
Well, it isn't about "proof", since geology (and science in general)
don't deal in proof. We deal in evidence, and all the evidence points
to a 4.6 billion year old planet.
For me to believe something, it has to be proven, otherwise I might
think it's true, but not "beyond reasonable doubt".
Then you must doubt gravity, cell theory, antenna theory, semiconductor
theory....the list goes on.
You obviously know nothing of how science really works. If you want
proof, stick to math.
Just for the sake of argument, let's say it's 4.55 billion years old.
Then according to you, it suddenly appeared out of nowhere.
Well, no. The planet coalesced from dust and rock in the solar system.
Things don't come from nothing.
And where did all this stuff come from?
The hairy butt of a giant space mongoose. We're all made of mongoose
*****.
Chris
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pangur Ban" |
|
| Title: Re: TOP TEN SIGNS YOU'RE A CHRISTIAN |
24 Sep 2006 07:49:14 PM |
|
|
"magilla" <chris.linthompson@gmail.com> wrote in
news:1159127479.588871.315460@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
Tuco Ramirez wrote:
magilla wrote:
Tuco Ramirez wrote:
Uncle Vic wrote:
Once upon a time in alt.atheism, dear sweet Tuco Ramirez
(tucodrat@yahoo.com) made the light shine upon us with this:
Uncle Vic wrote:
Once upon a time in alt.atheism, dear sweet Tuco Ramirez
(tucodrat@yahoo.com) made the light shine upon us with this:
"snip" for bandwidth
I would bet that nothing would
satisfy you, because your mind is closed on the matter.
On the contrary, nothing would satisfy me because my mind is open.
My, are you truly saying that your mind is so open that nothing stays in
it - therefore nothing would satisfy you?
Why didn't you just say you were empty-headed? It would have saved
bandwidth.
Pang
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
