Jump to content

Recommended Posts


  • Replies 387
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

The king James is  written in Old English the newer versions are wrote in current English,if you put each bible side by side an checked each verse they'd be the same only in different English's,iv no

I think it’s worth saying that (imho) there is a massive difference between a belief/faith in something more & organised religion (a club). Let’s not forget that long before the written word

The Bible is basically all common sense, don’t kill people, don’t be a f***ing arsehole in word, deed, thought. Give a small (small !!) proportion of what you are lucky enough to have to help out

Posted Images

1 hour ago, mr moocher said:

The evidence says between 2to3 and a half billion years ago

Think about that for a second 2 to 3 BILLION years ago lol how do they gauge that many years,no scientist on the planet can accurately say billions of years because there's nothing to back it up with,carbon dating an the other chemical dating has been proven time an time again to be very inaccurate,not trustworthy at all,it's all based on assumptions.

 

1 hour ago, mr moocher said:

Modern religion is full of peverts who hide behind god yy

Yes I agree,but not all are perverts

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Francie, said:

Think about that for a second 2 to 3 BILLION years ago lol how do they gauge that many years,no scientist on the planet can accurately say billions of years because there's nothing to back it up with,carbon dating an the other chemical dating has been proven time an time again to be very inaccurate,not trustworthy at all,it's all based on assumptions.

 

Yes I agree,but not all are perverts

 

Sorry francii i should of said not all

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Francie, said:

Think about that for a second 2 to 3 BILLION years ago lol how do they gauge that many years,no scientist on the planet can accurately say billions of years because there's nothing to back it up with,carbon dating an the other chemical dating has been proven time an time again to be very inaccurate,not trustworthy at all,it's all based on assumptions.

 

Yes I agree,but not all are perverts

 

Carbon dating is accurate much further back than the beginning of the earth according to the bible ya gret perv.. lol

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Goly said:

Carbon dating is accurate much further back than the beginning of the earth according to the bible ya gret perv.. lol

Here's one of thousands of times that show radiometric dating is all assumptions an guess work.

Mount St Helens volcano erupted in the 1980s,an scientists used radiometric dating an said the volcanic rock that cooled down was firstly 350,000 years old,next try 1.2 million they done it 4 more times an got dates of millions,buy we knew the rocks were only thirty years old at the time,it is utterly inaccurate.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Francie, said:

Here's one of thousands of times that show radiometric dating is all assumptions an guess work.

Mount St Helens volcano erupted in the 1980s,an scientists used radiometric dating an said the volcanic rock that cooled down was firstly 350,000 years old,next try 1.2 million they done it 4 more times an got dates of millions,buy we knew the rocks were only thirty years old at the time,it is utterly inaccurate.

Carbon dating is accurate to about 50,000-60,000 years, it has been measured & tested thoroughly. You're up to your old tricks again moving the goalposts. Radiometric dating methods used in your example is not carbon dating, it uses potassium-argon dating, close mate but no cigar.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Goly said:

Carbon dating is accurate to about 50,000-60,000 years, it has been measured & tested thoroughly. You're up to your old tricks again moving the goalposts. Radiometric dating methods used in your example is not carbon dating, it uses potassium-argon dating, close mate but no cigar.

Yes that was my point, that's why I said radiometric dating an not carbon,I know they say carbon dating for upto 50 or 60,000 years,but that's far from accurate also,how come there's carbon found in diamonds supposed to be millions of years old,I could get lists of f**k ups from both dating systems

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...