Go Back   Computer Forums > Welcome To Computer Forums .org > Social Lounge | Off Topic
Click Here to Login
Join Computer forums Today


Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 04-28-2010, 05:02 PM   #41
Omnipotent One
 
Atomic Rooster's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 11,161
Send a message via AIM to Atomic Rooster Send a message via Yahoo to Atomic Rooster
Default Re: Still don't believe?

Quote:
Originally Posted by foothead View Post
Also, the first carbon dating came back as 4800 years. Every other attempt to verify this has showed more like 1800. This also backs up the shrine theory.
Got links foothead, I'm feeling lazy. . .
__________________

Atomic Rooster is offline  
Old 04-28-2010, 05:09 PM   #42
Omnicide now.
 
foothead's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: My own personal hell
Posts: 10,014
Default Re: Still don't believe?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Atomic Rooster View Post
Got links foothead, I'm feeling lazy. . .
Yikes. Gonna have to search through my history. It seems that all the news stories are going by the AP report, which said 4800 years, but I found one that did a little digging and discovered that nobody else is able to get the result of 4800 years, and they are getting something much more recent.

Found something....

Quote:
Many comments relate to carbon dating: In this case, Kuniholm is not questioning the validity of carbon-dating techniques, but just wondering whether the dating was done correctly. He said he was presented with earlier samples of wood from Ararat that he was told were dated to just 1,400 years ago.
brb with link, my iPhone deletes text I I switch tabs.

Edit: http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/archi...7/2280442.aspx

see the update.
__________________

foothead is offline  
Old 04-28-2010, 05:21 PM   #43
Omnipotent One
 
Atomic Rooster's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 11,161
Send a message via AIM to Atomic Rooster Send a message via Yahoo to Atomic Rooster
Default Re: Still don't believe?

OK, he was commenting on earlier finds only dating back 1400 years. He said this about the new discovery:

Quote:
Also, one of the factors behind the scientists' skepticism is that there has been no published research about these finds. If it could be verified that this wooden structure is indeed 4,800 years ago, that would be notable - whether or not it came from an ark.
Either way it works out, it is an interesting discovery.
Atomic Rooster is offline  
Old 04-28-2010, 05:22 PM   #44
Site Team
 
David Lindon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 15,233
Default Re: Still don't believe?

Quote:
Originally Posted by superman22x View Post
I didn't read the article. Just the title.

Not only that, the Bible has been tailered to many particular writer's fancy. And you have to be off your rocker to take all the stories literally. It's a book of parables.
A parable is a brief, succinct story, in prose or verse, that illustrates a moral or religious lesson.

Come one man, that is even said in the Bible.

According to Bible thumpers, the Earth was made 12,000 years ago. How do they come by this figure? They basically add up the ages of all the people in the Bible and figure it out from there... Dinosaurs were just a joke from God then right? To test our faith?

Here's another Bible story, Cain and Able, Cain kills Able. Cain is forced to walk around the Earth in shame with a mark on his forehead so no one would kill him... Oh wait, Adam and Even are the only people. Except Cain's hundred some brothers and sisters from Eve. That makes sense. Not to mention that a very similar tale is in mythology... So it was used to teach a lesson there as well. It's not meant to be taken literally.
no one knows how long the earth was around for before humans were created, the genesis account of the 7 days (phases) of creation cannot be 7 24 hour periods because if the earth and the sun were not created untill the nth day then there are no night and day nor '24 hour days'
__________________
[url=http://www.LNXPS.NET]LNXPS.NET - The XPS Library]
David Lindon is offline  
Old 04-28-2010, 05:23 PM   #45
Fully Optimized
 
Grantofhell's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 3,762
Default Re: Still don't believe?

In the beginning there was the Word. He made light on the first day?
__________________
RD-PC -//- i7 950 // Evga x58 SLI // 3x2 OCZ PC3-12800 // 2x Evga GTX470 // Corsair HX850 // SilverStone TJ07
Grantofhell is offline  
Old 04-28-2010, 05:38 PM   #46
Omnicide now.
 
foothead's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: My own personal hell
Posts: 10,014
Default Re: Still don't believe?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Atomic Rooster View Post
OK, he was commenting on earlier finds only dating back 1400 years. He said this about the new discovery:



Either way it works out, it is an interesting discovery.
Nope, that was an update after the article was published. Someone who actually had a piece of the wood and carbon tested it sent that in, so he posted it. The only people claiming 4800 years are the ones who discovered it. Note that no experts are makingthis claim, just a religious group that was looking for the ark specifically. Very biased IMO. The person who dated the wood to 1400 years was most likely completely unbiased, so I am gonna trust him before the group that found it.
foothead is offline  
Old 04-28-2010, 05:44 PM   #47
Omnipotent One
 
Atomic Rooster's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 11,161
Send a message via AIM to Atomic Rooster Send a message via Yahoo to Atomic Rooster
Default Re: Still don't believe?

Did you even read the quote I posted from that article foothead?

Here's the previous paragraph:

Quote:
Many comments relate to carbon dating: In this case, Kuniholm is not questioning the validity of carbon-dating techniques, but just wondering whether the dating was done correctly. He said he was presented with earlier samples of wood from Ararat that he was told were dated to just 1,400 years ago
Atomic Rooster is offline  
Old 04-28-2010, 06:01 PM   #48
Omnicide now.
 
foothead's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: My own personal hell
Posts: 10,014
Default Re: Still don't believe?

I interpreted that to mean that they werefrom the same site, but back when they first discovered it. They have waited quite a while before going public with this.

I read another article that said that the rest of the samples were dated to more like 1800 years, I just cannot find that one right now.

I would love for this to be real, I just do not see it. How many times has the ark been discovered before, evidence was shown to cause the public to believe it, then it was revealed to be something else?
foothead is offline  
Old 04-28-2010, 06:03 PM   #49
Fully Optimized
 
Grantofhell's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 3,762
Default Re: Still don't believe?

This was like the Sasquatch "capture" that got big on the media a while back. It was some hairy guy in a furry (!?) suit laying in a cooler of ice.
__________________
RD-PC -//- i7 950 // Evga x58 SLI // 3x2 OCZ PC3-12800 // 2x Evga GTX470 // Corsair HX850 // SilverStone TJ07
Grantofhell is offline  
Old 04-28-2010, 06:34 PM   #50
Site Team
 
root's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 8,006
Default Re: Still don't believe?

Quote:
Originally Posted by vampist View Post
Similar bible, different beliefs. In other words, different religion.
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_are_t...nd_Catholicism
Some of you may know it as "Follower of Christ".
I'm aware that there are differences between the catholic church and the protestant church.

as I said above, the catholic church can trace its roots right back to the big JC...

the protestant church can trace it's roots back to a split in the church caused by the leader of the church in England, (king Henry 8th), who formed the protestant church. and then through the catholic church back to the teachings of Jesus.

The catholic church is therefore supposedly based on the teachings of Jesus. (including all the godly miracles such as wine turning into the blood of Christ, and wafer turning into the bod of Christ during holy communion).

Whilst the Protestant church is much much younger. formed by a king angry that the catholic church wouldn't let him divorce...

i.e he took bits of the religion that he liked, and left bits he didn't and made up a whole bunch of other stuff...

Basically, historically, the teachings of the protestant church must therefore be less accurate than the teachings of the catholic church. they are made up one one and a half thousand years after the fact.

the point also surely still stands that there is the word of god, (the one true unwavering word of god). at least that's what religious leaders tell us...
yet the people of the same position are those same people who have been changing the one true unwavering word of God all the way through the history of the church.

if you're a protestant Christian, you can't distance yourself from the fact that the word of God has changed a lot over the years. yet we're still reading from the same text supposedly?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Grantofhell View Post
Name a few. I'd love to get into the details with you on this, but you need to show your examples and sources. (even if you are your own source!)
priests should be celibate
http://www.libchrist.com/bible/catholiccelibacy.html

I think that we can also conclude that since contraception didn't exist in the year 33AD that Jesus most likely had no strong feelings on contraception either.
-despite the fact that contraception hadn't been invented, and thus teaching that contraception is wrong cannot possibly the word of God as handed down to the prophets at the time of the writing of the bible and other holy texts, it is now taught and taken as gospel that contraception is wrong within the Catholic church. - even to the extent that the pope publicly advises people in Africa not to use contraception, not even to help prevent the spread of AIDS,
__________________

__________________
I didn’t fight my way to the top of the food chain to be a vegetarian…
Im sick of people saying 'dont waste paper'. If trees wanted to live, they'd all carry guns.
"The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; The inherent vice of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries."
root is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:59 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.6.0