Prophecy Coming True? 1/3 of Stars Moving

[andnowweknow]

i don't think anyone is stating it's 100% accurate. anyone who understands it will say that it's accurate enough.

any site that is being dated has many many samples taken from it (or should), the accuracy of the dating is taken from many carbon based objects, not 1 or 2, in order to determine of what age the strata being dated is attributed.

The sketchier finds regarding carbon dating "facts" come from dating things that cannot really be dated, things like stone structures.

 

[Andy Capp]

I'm questioning the accuracy. You said it yourself "a fair degree of uncertainty" .

I'm saying there is absolutely NO WAY you can ever tell anything is more than a few thousands years old for certainty. It's not like we've passed down artifacts from generation to generation with a date of when the object was made. We're just taking it on a whim of faith that this is an accurate form of testing a date of something.

That's all I'm saying. unless there's some dude roaming around who's been alive for a few thousands years and he goes, "ya I made that back when I was a young whippa snappa" there's really know way to know.

That's all I'm saying lol

Ridiculous. By some uncertainty, I mean there's a useful range, e.g. 180-200 thousand years, not 4000-100000.

It's amazing to me that you can accept the scientific validity of determining the original birthplace millions of years ago of 70,000 stars by shining their light through a prism but you can't accept that different rock layers containing different fossils have demonstrably greater ages as you go deeper dating back for millions of years and that we have been able to figure out the timeline of this geology.

 

[andnowweknow]

hahah I know I kind of painted myself into a corner there.

I read that article and was like oh man that's got carbon dating in it...but oh well.

You and Wand have a lot in common it seems.

 

[Kiddo716]

hahah I know I kind of painted myself into a corner there.

I read that article and was like oh man that's got carbon dating in it...but oh well.

I don't think you carefully read the article at all. no where does the person being interviewed say that Noah's flood is true. he just says that there is evidence for a large, local flood, which is what I said.

the article has a click-bate heading to get people like you excited.

 

[Social Distance Warrior]

hahah I know I kind of painted myself into a corner there.

I read that article and was like oh man that's got carbon dating in it...but oh well.

Lmao!!! Keep up the laughs!!

 

[Andy Capp]

Ripskater, where are you today to tell us neither you nor Colby are trolls?

Starts a thread saying a scientific discovery is evidence of prophetic writing in the Bible.
Same thread, argues that a particular scientific tool is inaccurate/unreliable.
Same thread, admits he doesn't actually understand how it works despite being critical of it.
Ignores (my) posts that cannot be refuted.

All signs of a troll, I'm outta here.

 

[KILL KILL]

It's said that stars have moved from the point at which they were created until now. They didn't say it happened overnight. I'm assuming it took billions of years. It's no secret that the universe is expanding. There are gravitational forces pulling shit every which way depending on distance. It shouldn't be a surprise to anyone that stuff moves.

 

[Social Distance Warrior]

Ripskater, where are you today to tell us neither you nor Colby are trolls?

Starts a thread saying a scientific discovery is evidence of prophetic writing in the Bible.
Same thread, argues that a particular scientific tool is inaccurate/unreliable.
Same thread, admits he doesn't actually understand how it works despite being critical of it.
Ignores (my) posts that cannot be refuted.

All signs of a troll, I'm outta here.

Yup....blatant troll jobs.

 

[colby25]

Ridiculous. By some uncertainty, I mean there's a useful range, e.g. 180-200 thousand years, not 4000-100000.

It's amazing to me that you can accept the scientific validity of determining the original birthplace millions of years ago of 70,000 stars by shining their light through a prism but you can't accept that different rock layers containing different fossils have demonstrably greater ages as you go deeper dating back for millions of years and that we have been able to figure out the timeline of this geology.

You and Wand have a lot in common it seems.

I don't think you carefully read the article at all. no where does the person being interviewed say that Noah's flood is true. he just says that there is evidence for a large, local flood, which is what I said.

the article has a click-bate heading to get people like you excited.

Lmao!!! Keep up the laughs!!

lol...alright, alright we got off topic a bit.

I am self admittedly am not a scientist of any sort if you haven't already figured that out...and I imagine neither are any of you guys since the best explanation of carbon dating was given to me via a Wikipedia page. I don't trust it or believe it. May seem ludicrous to some but oh well.

We've gotten off hand though...I originally made this thread correlating prophecy and what scientist found out with the migration of the stars. Though the responses I got from carbon dating discussion was humorous...but those are my beliefs.

Even you guys admit that it's not 100% accurate...so in saying that then you can't say that you KNOW people are 100 to 150k years old, so much like myself using an article that states carbon data was used to discover noah's ark...you guys as well have painted yourself into a corner by agreeing it's not a 100%.

 

[Kiddo716]

lol...alright, alright we got off topic a bit.

I am self admittedly am not a scientist of any sort if you haven't already figured that out...and I imagine neither are any of you guys since the best explanation of carbon dating was given to me via a Wikipedia page. I don't trust it or believe it. May seem ludicrous to some but oh well.

We've gotten off hand though...I originally made this thread correlating prophecy and what scientist found out with the migration of the stars. Though the responses I got from carbon dating discussion was humorous...but those are my beliefs.

Even you guys admit that it's not 100% accurate...so in saying that then you can't say that you KNOW people are 100 to 150k years old, so much like myself using an article that states carbon data was used to discover noah's ark...you guys as well have painted yourself into a corner by agreeing it's not a 100%.

the article you posted said nothing of finding noah's ark. did you even read it?

 

[Social Distance Warrior]

lol...alright, alright we got off topic a bit.

I am self admittedly am not a scientist of any sort if you haven't already figured that out...and I imagine neither are any of you guys since the best explanation of carbon dating was given to me via a Wikipedia page. I don't trust it or believe it. May seem ludicrous to some but oh well.

We've gotten off hand though...I originally made this thread correlating prophecy and what scientist found out with the migration of the stars. Though the responses I got from carbon dating discussion was humorous...but those are my beliefs.

Even you guys admit that it's not 100% accurate...so in saying that then you can't say that you KNOW people are 100 to 150k years old, so much like myself using an article that states carbon data was used to discover noah's ark...you guys as well have painted yourself into a corner by agreeing it's not a 100%.

Lmao....you fucking suck at this.

Ripskater is so much more convincing.

 

[ripskater]

Yup....blatant troll jobs.

Or maybe just Christians?

 

[...El Ray]

3/10 troll job..

 

[Fbed]

lol This is hilarious, even by WR standards.

 

[IDL]

So how long would it take for the stars to disappear from sight? A million years?

 

[colby25]

Lmao....you fucking suck at this.

Ripskater is so much more convincing.

3/10 troll job..

No for real though, I'm not trolling... I just kinda roll with the punches and laugh it off.

I really have no way to prove or disprove carbon data but it doesn't align with scripture so I write it off. You've done the inverse. You see carbon data and trust that, so you write off the word of God. You as well cannot prove or disprove the word of God either.

So we just have two different stances on the subject.

 

[colby25]

So how long would it take for the stars to disappear from sight? A million years?

I'll be honest I don't know. I don't think that article even discusses the possibility of the stars disappearing from sight... I was more or less just connecting the dots. One guy here stated he believes that the scripture I quoted is a metaphor so who knows maybe I'm taking it out of context. But I've always interpreted it as being literal for that specific passage.

 

[Kiddo716]

No for real though, I'm not trolling... I just kinda roll with the punches and laugh it off.

I really have no way to prove or disprove carbon data but it doesn't align with scripture so I write it off. You've done the inverse. You see carbon data and trust that, so you write off the word of God. You as well cannot prove or disprove the word of God either.

So we just have two different stances on the subject.

the difference between you and I (and the rest that you are arguing against) is that if a claim is made, we expect that claim to be backed up with evidence. if there is none, then it's dismissed. you on the other hand, claim bible is true and anything that contradicts it (which is pretty much everything) you dismiss it.

 

[Losfer Words]

Or maybe just Christians?

Christians are huge trolls apparently.

 

[Andy Capp]

No for real though, I'm not trolling... I just kinda roll with the punches and laugh it off.

I really have no way to prove or disprove carbon data but it doesn't align with scripture so I write it off. You've done the inverse. You see carbon data and trust that, so you write off the word of God. You as well cannot prove or disprove the word of God either.

So we just have two different stances on the subject.

No, you have belief based upon indoctrination and I have facts based upon empirical evidence.