Modern humans have existed for 300,000 years but Abrahamic religions are only 3500 years old

[BigTyme Records]

I think We all know deep down religion is BS


It literally makes no Sense when you ask even simple questions

 

[Maximus Rex]

just because it says it can be "extrapolated" doesnt mean i agree with it

so for instance: most people believe temperature can be measured from 0 K up to 10000000+ K (arguably infinity)

but the measurement device for a household thermomenter is usually good for 0 C up to 100 C

does that now mean that measurements above 100 dont exist? Would you take the measurement in your thermometer and extrapolate it to estimate higher temperatures? This is ultimately what is done with dating methods. The method is extremely accurate in the short range (100s of years) but loses accuracy afterwards

if you understood halflives this would be obvious why this is an erroneous belief.

If I'm a goddamn archaeologist I'm measuring ages in the range of hundreds of thousands if not millions of years and in your analogy temperatures that might be half of what the sun is, the hell would a household need with a thermometer of range over 100 C

Do you even think about the shyt you say

 

[BaldingSoHard]

just because it says it can be "extrapolated" doesnt mean i agree with it

so for instance: most people believe temperature can be measured from 0 K up to 10000000+ K (arguably infinity)

but the measurement device for a household thermomenter is usually good for 0 C up to 100 C

does that now mean that measurements above 100 dont exist? Would you take the measurement in your thermometer and extrapolate it to estimate higher temperatures? This is ultimately what is done with dating methods. The method is extremely accurate in the short range (100s of years) but loses accuracy afterwards

if you understood halflives this would be obvious why this is an erroneous belief.

Bruh if you understood half-lives, it would be obvious why these dating methods are used .

 

[MMS]

I don't remember that, no. Can you link me to the scientific journals of the day where the scientists use observational evidence and experimentation to foundationally disprove what went on to become the Big Bang Theory? (The answer is no, you can't, because it hasn't been disproven).

how can you say the "big bang" is proven?

when its just the limit of old telescopes

new telescopes have estimated galaxies far older than what previously predicted and many have wholesale said the big bang IS debunked

the idea that everything came into being without direction is silly

if you believe in entropy and thermodynamics then if there were no creative force in the world everything would and should return to inert nothingness

in fact, the energy required to hold molecules together should in theory fail. So the fact that there are complex lattices at almost every level speaks to a force at work beyond our physical measurement devices

 

[Obreh Winfrey]

I've lost more brain cells going through this thread than I have in a decade plus of drinking

 

[BaldingSoHard]

how can you say the "big bang" is proven?

when its just the limit of old telescopes

new telescopes have estimated galaxies far older than what previously predicted and many have wholesale said the big bang IS debunked

the idea that everything came into being without direction is silly

if you believe in entropy and thermodynamics then if there were no creative force in the world everything would and should return to inert nothingness

in fact, the energy required to hold molecules together should in theory fail. So the fact that there are complex lattices at almost every level speaks to a force at work beyond our physical measurement devices

Okay, so... I need you to read more carefully.

I never said the Big Bang has been proven. I've asked you to show me where it's been disproven, as falsifiability is a key component of a scientific claim.

So let's start there then address the rest.

I have not claimed the big bang to be "proven".
I have claimed the big bang has not been "disproven".

Do you agree or disagree with these claims.

 

[MMS]

If I'm a goddamn archaeologist I'm measuring ages in the range of hundreds of thousands if not millions of years and in your analogy temperatures that might be half of what the sun is, the hell would a household need with a thermometer of range over 100 C

Do you even think about the shyt you say

if you were an archaelogist you would be indoctrinated into believing those things, and if you dissented you wouldnt be given a degree

the reason for the analogy is that the measurement device is something highly accurate...within a specific range. And that range has to do with generally the physical properties of mercury under the effect of heat sources.

Carbon dating is a system where they make an assumption of the current state of C14 in a body, and compare it to how much should have been detected while it was alive

when used for non-cadavers they have to make more outlandish assumptions that stretch the original purpose of the system developed.

 

[Ineedmoney504]

Let’s extend it 400 years….

So humans existed for 300,000+ years but until the last 400 is when they finally became smart enough to use technology? 299,600 years of no tech then all of a sudden a boom? You’d think it would be a slow creep of increasing but no. It’s no tech, then hundred years later we have iPhones.. Something’s not adding up

A lot of theories and evidence to support that the earth has had many resets from disasters.

Lord of evidence of it.

We get to a certain point and something happens that sends us back to the Stone Age unfortunately. And the people who survive are usually the people in remote villages who was already living off the grid with no tech.

 

[MMS]

Okay, so... I need you to read more carefully.

I never said the Big Bang has been proven. I've asked you to show me where it's been disproven, as falsifiability is a key component of a scientific claim.

So let's start there then address the rest.

I have not claimed the big bang to be "proven".
I have claimed the big bang has not been "disproven".

Do you agree or disagree with these claims.

ok, how can you falsify a claim about the universe that was NEVER proven in the first place?

saying whether you believe its proven or disproven is silly as there are no experiments that can be made to PROVE it in the first place

Dont assume im attacking you, just the ideas in this thread

thats another thing, people take the things they learned in HS/College and put their person on it without realizing they are not the sum of their knowledge

if you really believe in science you would be joyful in this statement as science has been changing for years every year for as long as people have began studying. As I said before treating knowledge/science as a religion is a sickness

 

[Ineedmoney504]

I think We all know deep down religion is BS


It literally makes no Sense when you ask even simple questions

You have to turn off your brain for it to work

 

[Maximus Rex]

how can you say the "big bang" is proven?

when its just the limit of old telescopes

new telescopes have estimated galaxies far older than what previously predicted and many have wholesale said the big bang IS debunked

the idea that everything came into being without direction is silly

if you believe in entropy and thermodynamics then if there were no creative force in the world everything would and should return to inert nothingness

in fact, the energy required to hold molecules together should in theory fail. So the fact that there are complex lattices at almost every level speaks to a force at work beyond our physical measurement devices

Universe expanding from a central point (explosion)

Cosmic Microwave Background

telescopes than can look millions of years into the past (James Webb being 250 million years)

FAQ Lite Webb Telescope/NASA.

Now tell me what evidence does that 2000 year old book have for the creation of the universe?

 

[Won Won]

Would you take the measurement in your thermometer and extrapolate it to estimate higher temperatures? This is ultimately what is done with dating methods. The method is extremely accurate in the short range (100s of years) but loses accuracy afterwards

if you understood halflives this would be obvious why this is an erroneous belief.

You need to take this knowledge to the appropriate people and help update the science in this field. Local university could be a start

 

[Ghost Utmost]

So humans existed for that long yet technology only came in the last 200 years?

Some theories say that there was advanced technology in the past. So long ago that we have no evidence.

 

[Maximus Rex]

if you were an archaelogist you would be indoctrinated into believing those things, and if you dissented you wouldnt be given a degree

the reason for the analogy is that the measurement device is something highly accurate...within a specific range. And that range has to do with generally the physical properties of mercury under the effect of heat sources.

Carbon dating is a system where they make an assumption of the current state of C14 in a body, and compare it to how much should have been detected while it was alive

when used for non-cadavers they have to make more outlandish assumptions that stretch the original purpose of the system developed.

The scientific community isn't some MAGA shxt where people just say BS and hope people go along with it, a person wouldn't be indoctrinated because you would have evidence to back up your beliefs, which has happened countless times in science, where something that was thought to be true was disproven and a new idea taken place.

Jebel Irhoud wasn't dated using carbon dating so I don't even know why you are still even bringing it up

 

[MMS]

You need to take this knowledge to the appropriate people and help update the science in this field. Local university could be a start

i think you are the appropriate person on this message board