• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

12,000 years ago in CHINA vs. 6000 years ago Garden of Eden?

Already discussed this, so I assume you're just trolling with here. Oh dear, I'm so triggered, whatever will I do. :roll:


Next.

The key is givin' it right back to 'em...he'll get tired and go away...;)
 
The key is givin' it right back to 'em...he'll get tired and go away...;)

Meh...he can stay or he can go. We all know our friend David by now. Any shock value he may have had as been worn away by ceaseless repetition. It's all good, he can be fun to talk to sometimes... :)
 
Meh...he can stay or he can go. We all know our friend David by now. Any shock value he may have had as been worn away by ceaseless repetition. It's all good, he can be fun to talk to sometimes... :)

On rare occasions, he makes some valid points...
 
Already discussed this, so I assume you're just trolling with here. Oh dear, I'm so triggered, whatever will I do. :roll:


Next.

No, just stating a fact that for some reason you deny.
 
No...not really. Different denominations chuckle at each other from time to time...but you typically don't see anyone get very ugly about it, because it's only really a big deal to folks who don't understand what the religion is about, or only do from the perspective of someone wishing to discredit it. :shrug:

Hate to say this, but I'm not sure it's all that controversial: you just wouldn't understand. :)

Religious differences are a big deal. We have examples of it in this forum. Apparently all religious don't understand what the religion is about. Maybe you don't understand. Religious differences in religions that are ostensibly the same have been and continue to be controversial and contentious. It's only when confronting nonbelievers that the religious pretend to be in agreement.
 
Ya know what's about 6,000 years old?

The wheel.

Wheel - Wikipedia


Hmm...I see a connection.
 
Religious differences are a big deal. We have examples of it in this forum. Apparently all religious don't understand what the religion is about. Maybe you don't understand. Religious differences in religions that are ostensibly the same have been and continue to be controversial and contentious. It's only when confronting nonbelievers that the religious pretend to be in agreement.

That is not true...I find myself agreeing with non believers about some things and then, with other believers about other things...it's not an all or nothing thing, as you make it out to be...
 
That is not true...I find myself agreeing with non believers about some things and then, with other believers about other things...it's not an all or nothing thing, as you make it out to be...

My point is that believers have serious disagreements.
 
Do unbelievers agree on everything? I think not...

Of course not. But then again unbeleivers are not saying that 'God said so' to the disagreements.
 
Search for "Is radiocarbon dating accurate?" and enter the great and controversial world of carbon 14 dating. :coffeepap

There is precisely zero controversy surrounding the accuracy of carbon dating. Radioactive decay is one of the single most reliable physical processes in the universe.
 
Do unbelievers agree on everything? I think not...

You accused DD (in another thread) of playing games. Perhaps you should stop doing the exact same thing.

You of all people should know exactly what's being referred to here.

You're a JW.
The entire JW organization is considered a CULT by most Christians.
Vast swathes of your belief system are widely criticized and condemned by most Christians.
In return of course your entire organization condemns and criticizes most other Christian denominations as being "false".

The term "serious disagreements" is something you're conveniently omitting.

You try to dodge and deflect and "play games" at some truly odd times.

Trouble is, it doesn't work for you.
You're part of the leading-edge of "disagreement" among "christians".

There's the commonly stated meme-like phrase that says something like:
"I might start listening to what christians have to say, once all the christians can actually agree on what to say."

It holds water.
 
Religious differences are a big deal. We have examples of it in this forum. Apparently all religious don't understand what the religion is about. Maybe you don't understand. Religious differences in religions that are ostensibly the same have been and continue to be controversial and contentious. It's only when confronting nonbelievers that the religious pretend to be in agreement.

Some religious differences are, for sure...but age of earth stuff isn't all that fundamental to faith, which is what I am talking about. It's not a hotly debated topic. It just isn't, no matter how much you really really want it to be... :lol:

As for changing our tune when "confronting nonbelievers"... lol … I mean, I do this debate thing for entertainment purposes, I'm on this forum anyway, and happen to be interested in religion. But don't inflate your own importance. Nobody cares enough about atheists think of us to pretend for them. Why bother, you make it clear enough on a very very very regular basis...hehe... There's literally nothing we could do to earn your respect and tolerance, so why change our stance on what we feel is important for your benefit? lol...good grief. (Bunch of universal you's in there, not calling you out specifically, though sometimes you certainly fit the bill).

Nah, bud...hehe...it is what it is. Some things get debated vigorously, I've seen churches rip themselves apart over differences of opinion or theology. But the age of the earth isn't one of those things in any circle I've been in. If it happens, it's an outlier, and not one I'm aware of.
 
No, just stating a fact that for some reason you deny.

Grow up, this is a silly look on you. I've already addressed this. I sometimes "mock" people, and sometimes they turn out to be Christians. I do not mock all Christians because they are Christians...don't worry, your schtick is safe.
 
Search for "Is radiocarbon dating accurate?" and enter the great and controversial world of carbon 14 dating. :coffeepap

While you're searching, do a search for "Is bible dating accurate".
 
There is precisely zero controversy surrounding the accuracy of carbon dating.
Ipse dixit.

Radioactive decay is one of the single most reliable physical processes in the universe.
...whose modeling is beholden to numerous critical variables, not all of which are known a priori and many of which are the subject of considerable disagreement, especially for longer-term dating where the concentrations of carbon 14 are much smaller and may or may not be overwhelmed by isotopic flux from other radiological processes.

I'm no expert on the subject, but I have read enough to know that the experts--both supporting and disputing the long-term accuracy of carbon dating--conduct lengthy debates on the aforementioned 'numerous critical variables', because both groups work with the same physical models and these variables matter.

So don't gaslight me with "There is precisely zero controversy surrounding the accuracy of carbon dating." It's possible you have precisely zero knowledge of the controversy, or precisely zero understanding of the variables potentially confounding the science, but these are your shortcomings. All the more reason for you to research the subject if it interests you.
 
Ipse dixit.

Wrong. :) Can you prove the existence of a controversy on the reliability of radioactive dating? ')

...whose modeling is beholden to numerous critical variables, not all of which are known a priori and many of which are the subject of considerable disagreement, especially for longer-term dating where the concentrations of carbon 14 are much smaller and may or may not be overwhelmed by isotopic flux from other radiological processes.

Let's put that to the test. We'll start simple and work our way up. Your first question is: Explain the Law of Large Numbers.

I'm no expert on the subject, but I have read enough to know that the experts--both supporting and disputing the long-term accuracy of carbon dating--conduct lengthy debates on the aforementioned 'numerous critical variables', because both groups work with the same physical models and these variables matter.

So don't gaslight me
:lamo

Stopped reading right there.

Let me help you with something: Never try to throw around big words like "gaslight" with someone such as myself who actually knows what they mean. It won't work out for you, now, will it? :)
 
Sir, even if I had the time and inclination to prove the existence of controversy--which I don't--proving something to a contemptuous skeptic on a public forum is a fool's errand. If the reality is as you claim and no controversy exists, then any member independently researching carbon 14 dating (which is the sum of my suggestion) will discover this, hence the suggestion itself shouldn't offend you.

I'm not going to indulge your Socratic journey to nowhere on statistical mechanics. The fundamental process of radioactive decay isn't in dispute and isn't the source of the aforementioned controversy.

Finally, "gaslight" isn't a 'big word'. I indeed expect that most everybody on a political debate forum knows what it means; for those who don't, I expect they can look it up in seconds. Its use here is legitimate and intended, and I can think of no better alternative.

Thank you all the same for the discussion.
 
You accused DD (in another thread) of playing games. Perhaps you should stop doing the exact same thing.

You of all people should know exactly what's being referred to here.

You're a JW.
The entire JW organization is considered a CULT by most Christians.
Vast swathes of your belief system are widely criticized and condemned by most Christians.
In return of course your entire organization condemns and criticizes most other Christian denominations as being "false".

The term "serious disagreements" is something you're conveniently omitting.

You try to dodge and deflect and "play games" at some truly odd times.

Trouble is, it doesn't work for you.
You're part of the leading-edge of "disagreement" among "christians".

There's the commonly stated meme-like phrase that says something like:
"I might start listening to what christians have to say, once all the christians can actually agree on what to say."

It holds water.

That's a poor excuse for not searching for the truth...don't think Jehovah will accept it, either...
 
That's a poor excuse for not searching for the truth...don't think Jehovah will accept it, either...

You are making the unproven assumption that you know the truth. IN fact, there is strong evidence you don't.
 
You are making the unproven assumption that you know the truth. IN fact, there is strong evidence you don't.

I am making the assumption that there has to be truth, it's just a matter of finding it...I don't have to convince anyone but myself of what is true and what is false...no one else can serve God on our behalf...

"each of us will render an account for himself to God." Romans 14:12
 
Christians can't agree on what the "truth" is.
That's the point.

I don't have to agree with anyone or anything but the Bible/Jehovah God/Jesus Christ...
 
I am making the assumption that there has to be truth, it's just a matter of finding it...I don't have to convince anyone but myself of what is true and what is false...no one else can serve God on our behalf...

"each of us will render an account for himself to God." Romans 14:12

That passage (and the ensuing verses) was directed at Gentile Christians from Rome, and was instructing them to tolerate Jewish Christians who still maintained strict obedience to Jewish religious ritualistic concerns such as dietary laws. Contextually-speaking, those verses have nothing to do with “finding the truth”, but rather simply to tolerate Jewish Christians. Sure, it’s a feel-good verse which one can isolate and apply however they feel, but it had a specific context which bears acknowledging.


OM
 
Back
Top Bottom