(16:48:49) (Murd0c) Let's take measurement of age, first of all (16:49:17) (Murd0c) We can tell how old something is by observing the particle activity of an atom based on it's half life (16:49:18) (ctrl_freak|inebriated) Ok (16:49:19) (Murd0c) Right? (16:50:07) (ctrl_freak|inebriated) No (16:50:24) (Murd0c) And this is because (16:50:29) (Murd0c) ? (16:50:31) (ctrl_freak|inebriated) That is based on the fact that you must assume that the particles were at a certain point in time for the values to degrade (16:50:44) (ctrl_freak|inebriated) It would take time to prove that point (16:50:53) (ctrl_freak|inebriated) And time isn't on the carbon dating side (16:51:08) (ctrl_freak|inebriated) Carbon dating cannot be fact until it is proved (16:51:25) (ctrl_freak|inebriated) It is only claimed as fact because of the scientists that claim it is right with no basis (16:51:28) (Murd0c) Carbon isn't the only element used for this process (16:51:34) (Murd0c) Also (16:51:49) (Murd0c) We can tell that an atom degrades over time (16:52:13) (Murd0c) We can observe this is many elements with a high particle economy (16:52:17) (ctrl_freak|inebriated) True (16:52:19) (Murd0c) Such as, I dunno, Einstinium (16:52:27) (Murd0c) This happens very fast (16:52:33) (ctrl_freak|inebriated) I am no geophysicist (16:52:58) (Murd0c) From an element like Einstinium (16:53:03) (Murd0c) It degrades very fast (16:53:09) (ctrl_freak|inebriated) Before you start basing ideas on fallible carbon dating: http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/396 (16:53:19) (Murd0c) As we move down the periodic table (16:53:29) (Murd0c) We can see the same degradation (16:53:33) (Murd0c) But slower (16:54:12) (Murd0c) Give it a sec, I'm using slow internets (16:54:24) (ctrl_freak|inebriated) np (16:56:07) (Murd0c) Hm (16:56:45) (Murd0c) It seems to me the basic argument of that is "We cannot tell where the rock is from, so dating cannot work" (16:57:22) (ctrl_freak|inebriated) There is none who can prove without a doubt that carbon dating is fact, non that can prove that a rock is from that time period (16:57:58) (Murd0c) You forget something very important (16:58:10) (Murd0c) Carbon dating is not an exact science, far from it (16:58:32) (Murd0c) Randomisation is a very important part of it (16:58:37) (Murd0c) Where are the repeated tests? (16:59:00) (Murd0c) Did "creationontheweb" BOTHER to check this "carbon dating killer" a second time? OH MY THIS IS WORST THAN EVERYTHING (17:04:22) (ctrl_freak|inebriated) Oh sorry (17:04:27) (ctrl_freak|inebriated) Was caught up in chan (17:04:31) (Murd0c) mk (17:05:03) (ctrl_freak|inebriated) The thing is, with a single test, that dates were thrown into extremeties (17:05:19) (Murd0c) But it's still a single test (17:05:36) (Murd0c) There's always the chance of variations and human error (17:05:44) (ctrl_freak|inebriated) Most people take the idea that carbon dating can be relied on, and thus is must be strongly disproved to prove is validity (17:05:56) (Murd0c) That is why science is based on repeated testing (17:06:04) (ctrl_freak|inebriated) But they don't take into the fact that the amount of evidence to prove it's right is nil (17:06:21) (ctrl_freak|inebriated) The testing can only be proved by time (17:06:41) (ctrl_freak|inebriated) None can assert that the rock came from 1 million years ago (17:06:58) (ctrl_freak|inebriated) And thus, we must "assume" that carbon dating is corrent (17:07:11) (ctrl_freak|inebriated) Which takes more faith that to believe the earth is 6000 years old (17:07:53) (Murd0c) Alright, let's take a look at the circumstances behind religion (17:08:14) (ctrl_freak|inebriated) Seriously, the chances that both conditions and survival of the fittest can result in and entitity with both morals and the capability of communicatinfg over IRC can reults in a human is factually unbeleviable (17:08:24) (ctrl_freak|inebriated) an* (17:08:31) (ctrl_freak|inebriated) communicating* (17:08:36) (ctrl_freak|inebriated) result* (17:08:40) (Murd0c) Actually (17:08:44) (ctrl_freak|inebriated) unbelievable* (17:08:45) (ctrl_freak|inebriated) lol (17:08:53) (Murd0c) Survival of the fittest would practically ensure it (17:08:55) (Murd0c) But you're right (17:09:06) (Murd0c) The conditions behind intelligent life are staggering (17:09:18) (ctrl_freak|inebriated) True, survival of the fittest, over time would result in a species being stronger (17:09:44) (Murd0c) But ultimatly, a very small chance is still a chance (17:09:57) (ctrl_freak|inebriated) It is (17:10:19) (Murd0c) The only thing that can slow the universe's expansion is the force of gravity, making an infinite universe a possibility (17:10:32) (Murd0c) We could never possibly come into contact with outside life (17:10:52) (Murd0c) Well, based on what we know (17:11:16) (ctrl_freak|inebriated) I will state that hte universe is infinite (17:11:25) (ctrl_freak|inebriated) There's nothing ot prove contrary (17:11:38) (ctrl_freak|inebriated) Why shouldn't the universe be infinite if God exists (17:11:58) (Murd0c) Therefore, if evolution is correct (17:12:06) (Murd0c) There is other life out there (17:12:08) (Murd0c) Or will be (17:12:16) (ctrl_freak|inebriated) Outside life is based on (my personal views) that evolution is truth (17:12:16) (Murd0c) Assuming that time is also infinite (17:12:26) (ctrl_freak|inebriated) I would definitely accept that (17:12:27) (Murd0c) Of course, of course (17:12:39) (ctrl_freak|inebriated) But I don't accept evolution, therefore I don't accept outside life Oh wow Christians never cease to amaze me. Never. He legitimately believes the world is 6,000 years old. (17:13:04) (Murd0c) Ah, this is pointless (17:13:13) (Murd0c) I'm not gonna convince you, you're not gonna convince me (17:13:26) (Murd0c) To be honest, I just came here to troll on a friend's behalf (17:13:41) (Murd0c) But TV is distracting me to the point I can't be interested in IRC (17:14:21) (ctrl_freak|inebriated) Haha (17:14:32) (ctrl_freak|inebriated) The debate cannot be resolved by IRC FUCK (17:14:57) (ctrl_freak|inebriated) To argue the point to people strong enough in their ideals to argue the point is pointless I CAN'T BELIEVE I JUST DID THAT (17:15:35) (Murd0c) Ultimatly, you cannot argue against an ideal that has been rooted in people's heads long enough (17:15:48) (Murd0c) But scientology is another matter <3 (17:15:52) (ctrl_freak|inebriated) Exactly (17:16:05) (ctrl_freak|inebriated) I'm with you there my brother (17:16:08) (ctrl_freak|inebriated) <3 (17:16:40) (ctrl_freak|inebriated) Thankyou for the shortish, yet intelligent and clear debate (17:17:04) (ctrl_freak|inebriated) I need to get to bed before I fall out of my chair ARGUMENT FROM ARGUMENTATION (1) God exists. (2) [Atheist's counterargument] (3) Yes he does. (4) [Atheist's counterargument] (5) Yes he does! (6) [Atheist's counterargument] (7) YES HE DOES!!! (8) [Atheist gives up and goes home.] (9) Therefore, God exists. We lost the game. You can't troll Christians by attacking their beliefs unless they're neaturally offendable *naturally FUCK HE PLAYS WoW I have met this guy IRL he lives a few hours drive from me we met at a lan recently i didnt know he was a "Born again" then though in hindsight