• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

  • CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
  • We hope the site problems here are now solved, however, if you still have any issues, please start a ticket in Contact Us

Radioactive dating

Subduction Zone

Regular Member
Dec 17, 2012
32,629
12,069
✟230,471.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Maybe the wizards should go back and check again with their updated myopic equipment, eh?
AV, you should not name call. There are no "wizards" they are not myopic. Maybe if you want to make a positive claim you can do what a real man would do. You would go out and show that you are correct.
 
Upvote 0

dad

Undefeated!
Site Supporter
Jan 17, 2005
44,905
1,259
✟25,524.00
Country
Canada
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Sorry, the worldwide flood was shown to be an incorrect concept over 200 years ago. Until you provide positive evidence for your beliefs you lose. No gongaroo will fix that for you.
Your claims are shown to be false this day by being just claims.
 
Upvote 0

Subduction Zone

Regular Member
Dec 17, 2012
32,629
12,069
✟230,471.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Your claims are shown to be false this day by being just claims.
No, I can show how the mainstream of scientists have accepted my claims. You still can't show any support for your claims. You still lose. The ideas that I accept can be legally taught in public schools. The same does not apply to your ideas.

Unless you can change the status quo you have lost.
 
Upvote 0

dad

Undefeated!
Site Supporter
Jan 17, 2005
44,905
1,259
✟25,524.00
Country
Canada
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
And once again, all evidence supports that radioactivity has existed for billions of years.
Show some. I never saw any yet.
Your side lost this one about 100 years ago. Without strong evidence supporting your claims you lose.
The different nature was never even considered. Nothing they saw or even looked for had value.
 
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Site Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,856,435
52,724
Guam
✟5,182,747.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
AV, you should not name call.
I'm not name-calling.

These guys want to be considered "wise men."

These guys like to go back to the "original tongues."

Fine.

I'll accommodate them.

I'll get my version of Strong's Concordance and ... let's see ... "wizard" ... here it is:

wizard (n.)
early 15c., "philosopher, sage," from Middle English wys "wise" (see wise (adj.)) + -ard. Compare Lithuanian zynyste "magic," zynys "sorcerer," zyne "witch," all from zinoti "to know." The ground sense is perhaps "to know the future." The meaning "one with magical power, one proficient in the occult sciences" did not emerge distinctly until c. 1550, the distinction between philosophy and magic being blurred in the Middle Ages.
Subduction Zone said:
There are no "wizards" they are not myopic.
Sounds almost circular to me.

There are no wizards.
They are not myopic.
They are not myopic because there are no wizards.
 
Upvote 0

dad

Undefeated!
Site Supporter
Jan 17, 2005
44,905
1,259
✟25,524.00
Country
Canada
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
No, I can show how the mainstream of scientists have accepted my claims.
Or you theirs. But neither can support them no matter how hard you hug the claims.
You still can't show any support for your claims. You still lose.
Science the bible and history support me. I can't lose for winning.

The ideas that I accept can be legally taught in public schools.
They should pass out protection from them.

The same does not apply to your ideas.
True. Public schools are sewers.
 
Upvote 0

Subduction Zone

Regular Member
Dec 17, 2012
32,629
12,069
✟230,471.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Show some. I never saw any yet.

That is because you do not understand the nature of scientific evidence.


The different nature was never even considered. Nothing they saw or even looked for had value.

There was no need. No one ever presented any reliable evidence that such a phantasm ever existed. That burden of proof lies upon your side. No evidence has been supplied. Guess what? You still lose. But then you have always lost.
 
Upvote 0

Subduction Zone

Regular Member
Dec 17, 2012
32,629
12,069
✟230,471.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
I'm not name-calling.

Yes, you were.

These guys want to be considered "wise men."

No, they have no such wish.

These guys like to go back to the "original tongues."

Sorry, that is not their desire either.

Fine.

I'll accommodate them.

I'll get my version of Strong's Concordance and ... let's see ... "wizard" ... here it is:

wizard (n.)
early 15c., "philosopher, sage," from Middle English wys "wise" (see wise (adj.)) + -ard. Compare Lithuanian zynyste "magic," zynys "sorcerer," zyne "witch," all from zinoti "to know." The ground sense is perhaps "to know the future." The meaning "one with magical power, one proficient in the occult sciences" did not emerge distinctly until c. 1550, the distinction between philosophy and magic being blurred in the Middle Ages.Sounds almost circular to me.

There are no wizards.
They are not myopic.
They are not myopic because there are no wizards.

Taking quotes out of context is not an honest way to debate. Like it or not your side lost. The burden of proof is now on your side. You know that you have no evidence so you run away from what you are supposed to do. Not very convincing.
 
Upvote 0

dad

Undefeated!
Site Supporter
Jan 17, 2005
44,905
1,259
✟25,524.00
Country
Canada
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
That is because you do not understand the nature of scientific evidence.
Yes..hot air.


There was no need. No one ever presented any reliable evidence that such a phantasm ever existed. That burden of proof lies upon your side. No evidence has been supplied. Guess what? You still lose. But then you have always lost.
I win.
 
Upvote 0

Subduction Zone

Regular Member
Dec 17, 2012
32,629
12,069
✟230,471.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Or you theirs. But neither can support them no matter how hard you hug the claims.
Science the bible and history support me. I can't lose for winning.

They should pass out protection from them.

True. Public schools are sewers.
You know that you are wrong in all of your above claims. Why do you even try dad? What good does your losing debate after debate, your making creationists look as if they are not all their, what good does that do for your side?
 
Upvote 0

Subduction Zone

Regular Member
Dec 17, 2012
32,629
12,069
✟230,471.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Yes..hot air.



I win.
No, I can help you to learn if you want to learn. And you lost. The law still says that in effect your beliefs are wrong. What happens when your grandchildren go to school? Do you seriously think that your kids will humor grandpa?
 
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Site Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,856,435
52,724
Guam
✟5,182,747.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
No, they have no such wish.
Linnaeus says otherwise.
Subduction Zone said:
Sorry, that is not their desire either.
Are you new here or something?

Is "heaven" in Genesis 1:1 singular or plural?

How many times have I had to defend that position against the godless, satanic, Wrong's Concordance?

Christians here quote the Bible.

Scientists quote Strong's Concordance.

Was Mary a virgin when Jesus was born?
 
Upvote 0

dad

Undefeated!
Site Supporter
Jan 17, 2005
44,905
1,259
✟25,524.00
Country
Canada
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
You know that you are wrong in all of your above claims. Why do you even try dad? What good does your losing debate after debate, your making creationists look as if they are not all their, what good does that do for your side?
Prove radioactive decay existed in your own words. Or be shown up.
 
Upvote 0

dad

Undefeated!
Site Supporter
Jan 17, 2005
44,905
1,259
✟25,524.00
Country
Canada
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
No, I can help you to learn if you want to learn.
Excellent. I want to learn if there was radioactive decay in Noah's day. Let's see your teaching skills.
And you lost. The law still says that in effect your beliefs are wrong.
Jesus isn't welcome in there either. I am in good company. You can have the cesschools and I'll take Jesus for mine.

What happens when your grandchildren go to school?
They raise a little heaven.

Do you seriously think that your kids will humor grandpa?

They don't get a vote. The may be taught the way they should go...I hope..the rest is in God's hands.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AV1611VET
Upvote 0

Subduction Zone

Regular Member
Dec 17, 2012
32,629
12,069
✟230,471.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Prove radioactive decay existed in your own words. Or be shown up.
It has already been proven to you many times by Loudmouth. You ignored the evidence then, there is no need for me to repeat his work. I can help you on the concept of scientific evidence.
 
Upvote 0

Subduction Zone

Regular Member
Dec 17, 2012
32,629
12,069
✟230,471.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Excellent. I want to learn if there was radioactive decay in Noah's day. Let's see your teaching skills.

Who? First you must prove that this supposed person ever existed.

Jesus isn't welcome in there either. I am in good company. You can have the cesschools and I'll take Jesus for mine.

Wrong. The law is neutral about Jesus. Please, no name calling. You would not like it if I treated your fellow creationists appropriately.

They raise a little heaven.

I seriously doubt it.

They don't get a vote. The may be taught the way they should go...I hope..the rest is in God's hands.

Really? You would blame God if your children accepted reality? And we all know the way that they should go. It is clearly not your way.

Seriously, if you don't want your beliefs to be laughed at forever the people on your side need to do some serious work.


Don't worry too much. Accepting reality does not refute Jesus, just the first two books of the Bible.
 
Upvote 0

dad

Undefeated!
Site Supporter
Jan 17, 2005
44,905
1,259
✟25,524.00
Country
Canada
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
It has already been proven to you many times by Loudmouth.
He ignores that fact that ratios do not need to represent the religious nonsense he desperately tries to insert into them. Rather than focus, and try to prove there even was decay and a present nature in the past, he ignores it, and tries to boggle the mind with what if situations and invented agreements. 'what if there was a same state past.....would not what we see possibly be plausible..' Well, it is even more plausible that creation and the former nature was what caused the changing ratios. Forget what is can be made to seem like with enough fanaticism the only issue is what do we know?

You ignored the evidence then, there is no need for me to repeat his work.
Agreed, no need at all, he was defeated.
I can help you on the concept of scientific evidence.
This is a tacit admission you cannot teach after all, and that you have no proof at all that there even was decay in the far past.
 
Upvote 0

dad

Undefeated!
Site Supporter
Jan 17, 2005
44,905
1,259
✟25,524.00
Country
Canada
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Who? First you must prove that this supposed person ever existed. Any person from that t
Anyone from that time will do. In YOUR imaginary time that would be something like 70 million years ago (4500 real time)


Wrong. The law is neutral about Jesus.
Wrong. He said preach the gospel, as they treat His people and word, so they treat Him.
Please, no name calling. You would not like it if I treated your fellow creationists appropriately.
The word cesschools is an adjective not name calling.


I seriously doubt it.
I doubt your doubts.


Really? You would blame God if your children accepted reality? And we all know the way that they should go. It is clearly not your way.
His way is what matters.
Seriously, if you don't want your beliefs to be laughed at forever the people on your side need to do some serious work.
God is the One you should worry about laughing. Not man.

Don't worry too much. Accepting reality does not refute Jesus, just the first two books of the Bible.
Your version of reality in your mind might refute God. Good luck with that.
 
Upvote 0

In situ

in vivo veritas
May 20, 2013
1,754
324
Amsterdam
✟30,712.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private
Radioactivity now exists. I have not seen proof it existed in the early history of earth. Has anyone else found proof or evidence for that? As it stands....I doubt it!

The evidence is called "half time". If you dispute the evidence please explain, or point at a source, which outlines why, and what parts of, our basic understanding of physics that is incorrect.
 
Upvote 0

dad

Undefeated!
Site Supporter
Jan 17, 2005
44,905
1,259
✟25,524.00
Country
Canada
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
The evidence is called "half time". If you dispute the evidence please explain, or point at a source, which outlines why, and what parts of, our basic understanding of physics that is incorrect.
Ah..excellent. I agree there is half time. Of course when you arrive at a game at half time you miss the first half of what went on.

Half time is a measure of how isotopes behave IN THIS STATE. Here, they decay, and the rate at which this happens is extrapolated (based on assuming the same laws existed) into the past. End of story. They never went back or were there for one significant half life even for carbon 14. It is 100% belief in a same state past.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mickiio
Upvote 0