It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Surely this will silence a lot of you...

page: 9
5
<< 6  7  8   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 22 2008 @ 10:17 AM
link   
I had no idea. Who else did the church persecute?




posted on Sep, 22 2008 @ 01:53 PM
link   
reply to post by sir_chancealot
 


In Bizarro world, sure! Also, in that world Galileo was an 18-foot cat who shot pizzas out of his eyes.

Or, in the real world, it was the church who banned his ideas because they threatened the faith of the ordinary people, as the bible stated that the earth is the centre of the universe and can not be moved. Which is obviously nonsense, but then what did bronze-age farmers know about the universe? They just wrote down what they saw, in ways that attributed it to god. Scientists who disagreed with Galileo resorted to exchanging evidence and discussing the findings, not by censorship.

Deny ignorance.



posted on Sep, 22 2008 @ 02:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by sir_chancealot

Apparently, you don't know history very well. The CHURCH didn't want to prosecute Galileo, IT WAS THE LEADING SCIENTISTS OF HIS TIME WHO PRESSURED THE CHURCH TO PROSECUTE HIM.

People tend to forget that.


got source?

everything i can find says inquisition over sat both trials called on by religeous figures



bizaro bizaro bizaro (gotta love turtle face)



is the 18 foot long pizza firing cat a new species or a subspecies of a known ? just trying to figure out where to make room on the charts to stick it




[edit on 22/9/08 by noobfun]



posted on Sep, 23 2008 @ 01:12 PM
link   
reply to post by noobfun
 


hello there

sorry tree ring counting as been labeled an inaccurate way of dating a tree for some time.

the old fat and thin cannot be taken as accurate for a year as when a tree grows it grows on th outside and this is subject to waether conditions

regarding ice core, sorry just because nasa says so doesnt make it so, just ask the moon and mars buffs on ATS

the words india summer spring to mind regarding ice samples

for instance, here in the uk we generally have four seasons, yet in the middle of autumn we can have quite hot spells. sam old for the old poles

a ring of ice cannot be take as accurate for a year

as for ash etc, what does this tell us? just at that moment ash settled. it has no baring on what happened before or after

Its well known that the size of the volcanic ash particle has a correlation with the time spent in the atmosphere

the smaller the particle and it can be in the atmosphere for years not an exact science, sorry

david



posted on Sep, 23 2008 @ 01:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Good Wolf
Oh come on. We all know that absolute truth is unattainable. If there is one inconvenient truth in geology it's that the exact year of something is harder to know the longer ago it was. That's the point of error bars. We can say that something did happen (that's the fact part) at some time between a. and b. (that's the uncertainty). Where is the circular reasoning?


Thankyou

ok the universe came into existance and it came before the earth did. As we can agree this that this is fact, then i will refer you back to Genesis One of the Bible where that fact is stated.

david

[edit on 23-9-2008 by drevill]



posted on Sep, 23 2008 @ 01:25 PM
link   
reply to post by drevill
 



ok the universe came into existance and it came before the earth did. As we can agree this that this is fact, then i will refer you back to Genesis One of the Bible where that fact is stated.


I made my point. The "heavens and the earth" is not the same thing as 'the universe then ~10billion years later, the earth.'

The statement "Heavens and the earth" just (almost purposefully) leaves far to much information out. The syntax also doesn't suggest an order of events (because there is no time distinction). The "heavens and the earth" suggest that they were made at the same time!

[edit on 9/23/2008 by Good Wolf]



posted on Sep, 23 2008 @ 01:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Good Wolf
 


hello

cores are dated using carbon 14, we are going back to probability again, and estimates only. radio active decay is a random.

The decay of C14 is affected by c14 in the atmosphere around the sample and how much it is triggered to decay. importantly it is the sun that influences both of these and we know how different this can be from one time or another.

david



posted on Sep, 23 2008 @ 01:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Good Wolf
 


but you are going back on to the billions as a fact when we have routed out that this cannot be factual due to the nature of the dating methods

david



posted on Sep, 23 2008 @ 02:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by drevill
cores are dated using carbon 14, we are going back to probability again, and estimates only. radio active decay is a random.

The decay of C14 is affected by c14 in the atmosphere around the sample and how much it is triggered to decay. importantly it is the sun that influences both of these and we know how different this can be from one time or another.


Err. You don't listen much do you? Radio active decay may be random for the individual particles but in large numbers statistics kick in and regularity sets in. And while the rate of carbon14 production in the atmosphere may vary, but it's the rate of absorption which produces regularity.

Like I said before, error bars.


but you are going back on to the billions as a fact when we have routed out that this cannot be factual due to the nature of the dating methods


No. --simply no. Methods of dating don't produce inconsistent results when dating one thing, but it gives us margins with relative approximations.
You're saying that because we can't know the exact year that we can't know anything to any certainty, but we can.

Since you don't like the numbers I gave you I made them more approximated. We know that the earth is billions of years younger than the universe, that is a fact, but we don't know exactly how much younger. My point stands.



posted on Sep, 23 2008 @ 02:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Good Wolf
 


ok

thats enough for me as we seem to be going in circles

so ill agree to disagree with you

cheers though

dAVID



posted on Sep, 23 2008 @ 03:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by drevill

hello there

sorry tree ring counting as been labeled an inaccurate way of dating a tree for some time.
great .. what ? way to shift relavance guess what it works with ice cores ^_^ which is what were talking about silly

but hey you try and show somthing is wrong that has no relavance to discredit this ... like the darwin is racist therfore evolution is wrong junk earlier




as for ash etc, what does this tell us? just at that moment ash settled. it has no baring on what happened before or after

Its well known that the size of the volcanic ash particle has a correlation with the time spent in the atmosphere

the smaller the particle and it can be in the atmosphere for years not an exact science, sorry


lets see you find ash in the ice cores the ash is spread over say 10 rings(years) with the smallest particles at one end and we folow them further back in time they are all big and we go to where they first appear ... does this ring (counted year) corelate to a known volcanic eruption? ... yes ^_^ is the ash the same as from the volcano ...yes ... ooo goodie now we ice age corelated against a known event

as to the NASA i just thought it wa kinda funky didnt realise nasa had an interest in ice cores

so using ash in rings and corelating that known event as shown above WORKS then with carbon dating used as well the accuracy of the ring counting is over 95% accurate

now shall we do some maths? so lets say they got all excited when counting and added on that extra 5%

750,000 - 5% = 712,500 years old thats at 5% not the 2%

even if they were 1% accurate, yes 99% wrong that still gives the ice core and age of 7,500 years old

exact science? count all the rings get 750,000years, then using several methods to confirm your counts over known time periods to get a 2-5% variance is pretty dam acurate wouldnt you say?

5% was thier accpeted level of margin 2% is what they ended up with ...98% accurate good enough

also notice your doing the usual dodge and squirm

no no thats not 100% acurate so therfore totally wrong run ..... away

im sorry you havnt proven anything just tried to show that anything with out exact 99.9% accuracey is useless and proves nothing which is well .. frankly foolish

dont go its gonna get interesting now its your turn

so how old is the earth and bring your proof to the table ..

your attempting to disprove something but your not brining anything to the table so come on the spot lights all yours, becasue right now the only thing going in circles is you and your refusal to accept anything not 99.9% accurate




[edit on 23/9/08 by noobfun]

[edit on 23/9/08 by noobfun]



posted on Sep, 24 2008 @ 11:08 AM
link   
reply to post by noobfun
 


NOOB

whaaaa

[quote
its a simple process really count the ring, and then cross check those rings with known data to check your counting matches known volcanic eruptions etc, also carbon dating on pollen smaples shown and several other dating methods are used which agree that the 1 year 1 ring like a tree is pretty acurate, accurate to less then 5% infact





Best check back over the posts, or carry on being selective

you can cry fowl mate if you wish but you cant do that with your head in the sand

david





[edit on 24-9-2008 by drevill]



posted on Sep, 24 2008 @ 01:42 PM
link   
and still with the bringing nothing to the thread

you can prove i made a suggestion its similar wow

ice rings 1 ring 1 year is still pretty dam accurate, i gave a bad analagy wohoo

doesnt mean all the science is wrong now does it

so how old is the earth and how do YOU prove it?



posted on Sep, 24 2008 @ 02:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Good Wolf
I made my point. The "heavens and the earth" is not the same thing as 'the universe then ~10billion years later, the earth.'

The statement "Heavens and the earth" just (almost purposefully) leaves far to much information out. The syntax also doesn't suggest an order of events (because there is no time distinction). The "heavens and the earth" suggest that they were made at the same time!


I thought that 'heavens' was in reference to the sky, and not the Universe. I could be wrong, but that's what I was tought when I was a Christian. Also, there are many Christians that hold the belief that there was another race on Earth before humans. There's a few verses that alude to that. So even then, a Christian could say that the Earth is millions of years old and that the human race is 6,000 years old.

Meh.
It's like opening a can of worms if you ask me.



posted on Sep, 24 2008 @ 07:42 PM
link   
You caught the tail of a debate that Drevil and I ware having earlier about the vagueness of Genesis 1.


Originally posted by TruthParadox
I thought that 'heavens' was in reference to the sky, and not the Universe. I could be wrong,


Well not really, it's up to your interpretation. Drevil and I went to two different concordances for the meaning of the word 'heavens' and got two different meanings. They both drew heavy on the "Sky, atmosphere and dwelling of God" but drevils reference included the word 'universe'.



posted on Sep, 24 2008 @ 08:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Good Wolf
 


My bad then
. I really should have read the whole 9 pages but I get lazy sometimes.



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 6  7  8   >>

log in

join