World's oldest rock found in W. Australia; 4.374 billion years
- Thread starter Julius Skrrvin
- Start date
lmao, do you understand how rocks this old are dated? You keep trying to simplify this finding by saying "just because a scientist said so" to try to make it fit into your allegory about religion/atheism. A scientist didn't just look at a rock under a magnifying glass and say "well this rock is looks to be 4 billion years old" they used uranium lead dating http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium-lead_dating which is a scientific method that gives pretty good proof of the age of material like this.Why dont you answer my question if you want me to answer yours? What evidence did you see that makes this conclusion fact? The fact that a scientist said it?
what is your point? that other rocks may be older? or that science is used to prove/disprove science?
I agree with the bolded. And yes I dont not have knowledge of every subject that there is so there are a variety of other subjects that Im ignorant of just LIKE YOU.What does that have to do with people accepting anything a scientist or someone with a degree from Harvard says as gospel?
When brehs act like they dont believe anything without proof, I like to sometimes inquire about the proof they saw about a particular subject.
I know that as you said, we're not going to be able to explain and understand everything in our lifetimes. What Im wondering is what leads YOU to believe this is true? The simple fact that a scientist said it? If so, as I said, you're no different from the religious people that accept whatever their religion tells them because its their religion.
so your point that we are no different than religious people that accept whatever scripture tells them isnt even valid, it is an apples to oranges comparison at best and a failure to understand the difference between science and scripture at worst.
your explanation of psychiatry kinda shows me that you dont really understand what it is about.
you brought up an example of people with PTSD which is a newer medical condition that science doesnt fully understand yet.
you never know what scientists might find out by studying these rocks, you shouldnt write off geology just because it sounds good to do it in your head.
Mr. Somebody
Friend Of A Friend
Science has been coopted by demons. Because of gay psychiatrists, and satanists, homosexuality was taken off the mental disorder list. I mean this is a science where they say a man wearing a dress and carrying on like he is a woman is ok but a man that clucks like a chicken needs medication.
Its so demonic, friend. I mean really think about that.
science doesnt make morality calls, friend. that would be society.
ill
Superstar
@King-Over-Kingz Hold this neg that I just gave you.
Stop asking people if they have personal evidence of materials being 4.3 billion years old. I know what you are trying to do and its not a valid comparison. You are trying to compare people that believe blindly in science versus people that believe blindly in religion. They are not the same. No matter how hard you try, the foundation of your argument will always be wrong. Science can be proven and disproven. People can blindly follow science because it has a system of checks and balances built into its foundation. Science will always prove itself one way or the other. The same cannot be said about religion. You cannot prove or disprove it. It has no checks and balances. You can make logical and intelligent assumptions about it, but that is it. God cannot be replicated. He cannot be proven. Anything that follows, also follows this predicament. Give it up already. You lost. Blindly following religion is a sign of ignorance. Blindly following science is not.
Stop asking people if they have personal evidence of materials being 4.3 billion years old. I know what you are trying to do and its not a valid comparison. You are trying to compare people that believe blindly in science versus people that believe blindly in religion. They are not the same. No matter how hard you try, the foundation of your argument will always be wrong. Science can be proven and disproven. People can blindly follow science because it has a system of checks and balances built into its foundation. Science will always prove itself one way or the other. The same cannot be said about religion. You cannot prove or disprove it. It has no checks and balances. You can make logical and intelligent assumptions about it, but that is it. God cannot be replicated. He cannot be proven. Anything that follows, also follows this predicament. Give it up already. You lost. Blindly following religion is a sign of ignorance. Blindly following science is not.
you wrote a really well thought out post but the people that need to read this arent gonna get anything out of it because they are just gonna get defensive/angry when you call them names and tell them they lost. yeah they are ignorant but likely it isnt their fault, people that grow up with religion have it so deeply ingrained in them that even those who decide to become atheists have trouble shaking the god complex they grew up in.
Everythingg
King-Over-Kingz
How do you know its accurate?
Theres no difference brethren. Both sides are blindly accepting what they've been told when both sides have been proven to be wrong time and time again.
Everythingg
King-Over-Kingz
Believe anything a scientist says like the religious believe their religion brehs
i trust the scientists and geologists that have spent their entire lives studying and mastering these dating techniques. These experiments and findings can be retested by other people in the field and replicated so thats pretty good proof.How do you know its accurate?
Theres no difference brethren. Both sides are blindly accepting what they've been told when both sides have been proven to be wrong time and time again.
so is the point you are now trying to make is the 4.374 billion year old piece of organic material might not be 100% correct? they might be a couple years off? yeah when you are dealing with estimating in the billions you might be off by a little bit. also you can't/won't post what you would actually need to see to believe these experts.
you keep insisting that there isnt a difference between the scientific process and religious scripture, but there clearly is, if you can't understand that i dont know if this debate can continue. can you please provide some proof to your side of the argument?
damn breh, what the fukk
theres processes built on math and evidence for dating rocks. as opposed to some dusty ass novel that hasnt progressed in 2 thousand years
fukk outta here with this poor mans devils advocate bullshyt
Mr. Somebody
Friend Of A Friend
But atheists get alot of their morals from science and use science to make justification for their morality calls. An atheist will say
*but but science says* when debating morality.
Everythingg
King-Over-Kingz
So you trust scientists and geologists that even themselves would admit that they've had to rework previous incorrect methods/theories they thought were correct? Fair enough. I believe thats what I said in the beginning though. That people follow science like others follow religion. You do know you're making my point friend?
No. The point I've been making is that people BLINDLY follow science like people BLINDLY follow religion. Both can lead you to the pit if you're not careful friend
I dont recall saying their isnt a difference between the scientific process and scripture. Can you point to where I made that conclusion?
Proof of my side of the argument? Havent you and III been doing that for me?
Everythingg
King-Over-Kingz
And you never answered my question Mr. Sam. How do you know they're correct in their dating?
Everythingg
King-Over-Kingz
damn breh, what the fukk
theres processes built on math and evidence for dating rocks. as opposed to some dusty ass novel that hasnt progressed in 2 thousand years
fukk outta here with this poor mans devils advocate bullshyt
I'll ask you my brethren. How do YOU know that the method they use for dating is correct?