SX and Paradise Lost = Satanic ??

[Kenneth R.]

Good reasoning. Even presenting many different dates- that just casts doubt on any particular result. It doesn't prove that A or B is right, it makes choosing one require more evidence. Statler seems to treat everyone like an enemy. I'm on his side (Believer, but not young earth) but his argument is terrible.

 

[C.J.W.Wyatt]

Even old-earth scientists do not believe C14 dating is very reliable and here is an example for you. Fossilized would was found in a Meristone Rock Bed in England in 2000. The layer of strata the wood was found in holds a geologic date (Jurassic) of 142-205.7 million years ago. However when the wood was C14 dated, the C14 date was only 23,000-23,500 years old.

It's well known Carbon-14 dating has a limit of about 60,000 years max. Why would they use it to date fossils (id est: ROCKS) in the first place? Potassium-Argon dating would be much more efficient in getting an age.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/

Take a gander, por favor.

 

[...AndTimeBegan]

You don't even need carbon dating to know that if you believe the Earth is 6,000 years old because a 2,000 year old book written by "God" says so, when so many other cultures since the dawn of humanity have said differently, you're crazy.

NOW if you are Christian, awesome. If you believe that the bible is God's autobiography, you are insane.

 

[...AndTimeBegan]

Once again, I'm not saying you have to believe in anything. Don't confuse me with Statler.
I am saying that most people are influenced by society. They are brought up a certain way and they believe what they are told. This goes for any kind of society, even your cannibal ones. Secondly, society, by its nature, is influenced in turn by the beliefs of the people. Thus the cycle continues and it is difficult to alter the framework of a particular culture's beliefs because they reinforce it themselves. That in mind, the "big 5" account for a lot of believers around the world. Moreso than any cannibal culture. This leads to my comment, which was that since a majority of people are believers, a majority of people influence society, and in turn are influenced by it, and you've got a culture (a different one for each region) that is basically in harmony with the local religions. You can say that religion requires sacrifice, but that's just more evidence that social morality can be influenced by religion.

It was a simple comment that while you may not ascribe your morality to a religous social influence, many people do.

I see where you are getting at. I thought you were assuming that there's a universal moral code that popular modern religion bestowed upon society haha.

 

[DoomsdayZach]

I actually agree with Mr. Began on this matter. I think if you were to isolate humans from any religious or moral teachings as a group, just give them a society where they had jobs, food, etc, i don't think they would go aroudn trying to kill one another just for shits n' giggles. There can still be law saying "hey... don't shoot that dude in the head" without a religious justification why it shouldn't be done.

I don't personally buy that "good" morals and "christian" morals are mutually exclusive to one another. I think most religions took what is common sense and applied it to their belief system because they feel people need to be told what's right and wrong. I mean, hell, we have laws telling people to use that strip of fabric in your car that can save your life (when really it should just be common sense), so why not have the same in religion?

Besides, it gets back to what began this argument with Statler in the first place. I have morals, i had no christian upbringing. i didn't go to church, didn't have christian parents. I still have a sense of what is right and what is wrong. It may not be universal, but i still have morals.

Let me make an example of a real life situation. One of the things i firmly believe is that you just don't go after your friends ex. This is not a biblical moral, nor is it anything that's law. It's not adultry i'm talking about, it's simply this: I broke up with a gal a few years back and a few months later one of my good friends started dating her. The history is unimportant, the fact is that this is something i would never personally do to a friend because i just don't think it's cool to fuck a friend's ex. That's my moral choice, i'm not pressing it upon anyone else, but it is something i feel strongly about. I've had chances to hook up with two of my good friend's hot exes and never have taken them because they're important people to me and there are plenty of other chicks out there. The funny thing is that a lot of people DO share this sentiment even though it's not something that i would call society's morals, religious morals or something with legal implications. It's just a common sense of decency and respect.

 

[...AndTimeBegan]

I also want to add that there is more than LaVeyan Satanism. Not sure if it was mentioned in this thread, but yes there are actual legit Satanic groups like the MLO for example that worship a deity called Lucifer, Satan, the Devil, etc and believe in the concept of "death before dishonor".

 

[...AndTimeBegan]

Mr. Began

 

[Kenneth R.]

I agree Zach, I hope no one thought I was saying that you can't have morals without religion. Instead, I was saying that most people get their morals from religion either directly or indirectly. Not everyone does.

 

[DoomsdayZach]

by the way, in regards to my last paragraph, i have to stress the part of not imposing morals on other people. I still talk to the dude and the ex, there's no friction. Again, it's not something i would personally do because it would make me feel like a shitty person. I've done some stuff that most people would say is wrong regardless of circumstance, but my conscience is clear on because I know where i was at and where my life was at during that time and place. I'll still say that I may not have acted as a noble individual would all my life, but again I have learned from those situations and moved on, not feeling i'm any better or worse of a person because of it.

 

[DoomsdayZach]

I agree Zach, I hope no one thought I was saying that you can't have morals without religion. Instead, I was saying that most people get their morals from religion either directly or indirectly. Not everyone does.

Fair statement. And I will say that religion, for better or for worse, does have a huge impact on society and global culture as a whole. It's everywhere, even on our money. Still, just because it has some influence doesn't mean that this is where I or anyone else gets their moral values from. And just because I don't get my personal morals from any religion (though i do share some morals with other religions, but again to me it is more common sense) doesn't mean no one else does.

 

[...AndTimeBegan]

can't we all just get along?

Meh, fuck that.... DECHRISTIANIZE! ::riff riff riff riff::

just kidding!

 

[DoomsdayZach]

DECHRISTIANIZE! ::riff riff riff riff::

:lays awesome harmonized lead part::

 

[Kenneth R.]

hahah

 

[CantoX]

-shoves 4 cookies into mouth and starts grunting-

Science and religion !!!!

 

[Statler Waldorf]

Have you ever seen a meteor? That material is not from earth and thus is either A.) Older or B.) Newer.

Depending on where it came from. Whoops.

Just because it's not from Earth in no way means it has to be older or newer it could be the same age.

 

[Statler Waldorf]

And actually, to build on Ken's point, all matter is actually the age of the universe, not the earth.

Well yes of course, however young earth theory believes these are the same age.

 

[Statler Waldorf]

Ever seen a frozen mammoth?

The Earth's magnetic field is generated by the rotation of the core with respect to the mantle/crust. It has zero to do with flooding. Have a nice day.



And I know you love credentials, despite how useless they are. So I'll just go ahead and tell you that I majored in Electrical Engineering and nearly double minored in Physics and Mathematics.

Oh, and I'd also like to mention that significant changes to our magnetic field would result in significant changes to the environment as a result of a change to the level of solar radiation that penetrates the stronger/weaker field. There is no evidence that this ever happened in any fossil data, including bones, strata, or petrified trees/animal/plant life.

And for another tidbit for thought: If carbon dating is so unreliable and nobody believes it works, then why, in this digital technology age of 2008, do we still use it so often and with such stunningly accurate results?

Well actually we do not use it as much as you claim, in the year 2008 geological dating is still considered the more valid dating method and it's hundreds of years old. I'll respnd to your other inqueries tonight after my practice and class.

 

[Statler Waldorf]

No, your OPINION is no less valid than his. If I take your argument into consideration, then as you said, dating is difficult, and I believe neither of you. How is picking the youngest date any different than picking the oldest date? You'd both be choosing outliers of the data. Furthermore, you've just admitted that none of this is your own research or belief, but that you're relying heavily on the work of others, who you by appeal to authority automatically believe must be 1. Telling the truth and 2. Correct in their research. You're begging the question again.

So yes, you've shown once again that you can be just as foolish as the kind of people you are trying to debunk. It's he said she said. I wonder when you'll grow out of it and present a real argument instead of "your position is ridiculous. Here's another ridiculous position. So we're both valid". For your future reference, this is a FALLACY. It does not validate either position.



Sorry I forgot the word "modern" and thought it would be obvious. When you look at the percentage of the world's religions, you'll find that nearly a 3rd are Christians (or say they are) and most of the rest fall under Hindu, Muslim, etc. While these religions differ, their basic tenets of good will and virtue strongly influence the societies in the regions where they are prevalent, and we can clearly see that today. I also noted that "most" of society is influenced. I did not say everyone. The social framework of many countries, even secular ones, is largely based on religious morality ascribed to by the people living there. In India for example, there are laws set to protect Cows because they are believed sacred animals. Many American businesses are either closed or open short hours on Sunday.

Yeah, 6000yr old Earth reads insanity to me. The bible was not meant to be interpreted word for word literally.

Are you serious? Of course I have to rely on other people's research, so does everyone else in this debate. None of use have the time or the funding for that matter to date the Earth. Your argument is ridiculous.

 

[Statler Waldorf]

Good reasoning. Even presenting many different dates- that just casts doubt on any particular result. It doesn't prove that A or B is right, it makes choosing one require more evidence. Statler seems to treat everyone like an enemy. I'm on his side (Believer, but not young earth) but his argument is terrible.

In order for a new argument to gain validity, you must first cast doubt on the current accepted theory in order for anyone to take a look at the data supporting the new theory. Pretty simple scientific practice.

 

[...AndTimeBegan]

:lays awesome harmonized lead part::

Seriously, I'm not much for overly angsty stuff but that's got to be one of the most awesome songs of all time.