9/9/2013 10:21 PM
Posted by DougOut on 9/9/2013 5:15:00 PM (view original):
Posted by jm1618 on 9/8/2013 8:49:00 PM (view original):
Let's brush up on our Roman history.

The Roman Republic was created centuries before Cicero was born.  While it was an admirable effort at representative government, it was also severely flawed, votes by the poor hardly counted, people in conquered provinces didn't vote at all, and corruption there was as bad as it is in any modern country.

The Roman Senate was basically an aristocracy: you gained entry by birth and remained a member for life.  Julius Caesar did not destroy the Senate.  The Senate continued to have significant political influence for 17 years after Caesar's death, and persisted in name only for several hundred more years.

Cicero was assassinated in 43 B.C.  Saying that he lived in the time of Christ is equivalent to saying that FDR lived in the time of Justin Bieber.

I don't know how relevant this will end up to Doug's eventual argument, but I wanted to point this out before we hear more historical inaccuracies.
Let's see. Where did I go wrong?

Ummmm......I never implied the Roman Senate was the US Senate. As far as I know, it was the first one. That's all. I'm not comparing it to our modern Senate, although they're beginning to look a lot alike. 

It continued as a partially viable institution for another 17 years.  In a civilization that lasted 1000 years.     Shoot me.

By "in the time of Christ " I was simply implying era. As in ancient. Not a contemporary.  Should I have to explain? 

This is a tough crowd.

I'm relating some thoughts of a book once read. I'm not writing the damned thing. It's a dialog, not a whipping post. 

Go back to whatever it was you thought you were doing. 

If anyone has an interest I suggest you go to the local library. Should this particular tome not have been hidden, lost, stolen or burned; you will find it there. Possibly in audio. 

It is THE 5000 YEAR LEAP by W. Cleon Skoussen. My work here is done. Before it even started. Thanks! You saved me a lot of time and effort.

buzzkill
Good, I wanted to clear that up.  It seemed to me that you were implying some different things.
9/9/2013 10:52 PM
Posted by bad_luck on 9/9/2013 5:35:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bistiza on 9/9/2013 2:25:00 PM (view original):
So you're saying there's no evidence either way? What about radiometric dated rocks?

No, that's not what I said at all. Stop trying to twist things (then again, if you did that, you'd never be able to argue anything).

There is not sufficient evidence to make a conclusion that could be considered reasonably accurate as regards the age of the earth.

As for radiocarbon dating, it relies upon several assumptions and can therefore be accurate but lead us to incorrect conclusions. This site explains in simply and scientifically why this is the case.

tec, I'm just having fun with BL, the same as I always do. I may be making a mistake by actually trying to show him the error of his ways - he'll just plow ahead as stubbornly as ever, I'm sure - but I can't help myself.
I'm not going to go read some creation propaganda site. If you have an argument, make it. If not, shut up.
I agree with BL here.  Using a creationists website as proof that carbon dating might not be terribly accurate is like using Fox news to prove that the dem party is good for America.  Fair and balanced indeed.
9/9/2013 11:48 PM
Carbon testing was done on the volcanic rocks that came from Mt. St. Helens in 1997 and the rocks came back as dated at 20,000 years old (if I remember right).  Kinda off by somewhere close to 120000%.

I am not a scientist, but that sounds like a lot. 
9/10/2013 8:22 AM
I'm not going to go read some creation propaganda site. If you have an argument, make it. If not, shut up.
You've got two MAJOR problems here, BL.

First, ignoring the information that proves you wrong doesn't make it disappear. The site I linked absolutely shows how your idea of radiocarbon dating is wrong; just because you supposedly refuse to read it doesn't change that fact.

Second, you not only buy into but also try to promote the propaganda of the homosexual agenda. That prevents you from having the credibility to call anything else propaganda.

The site I linked to makes my argument successfully. I've once again shown you to be the fool you are, and as usual, you are ignoring it and carrying on in your stubbornness.
I agree with BL here.  Using a creationists website as proof that carbon dating might not be terribly accurate is like using Fox news to prove that the dem party is good for America.  Fair and balanced indeed.

I'm merely providing the information that shows while carbon dating IS accurate, it is incorrect because of the assumptions being made.

I'm not "using" any website to do that. I'm merely providing a link to a site that gives the information; what you personally think of the site is completely irrelevant to the actual information.

After all, I could argue against any website you link to, but that doesn't mean anything either.
9/10/2013 9:32 AM
So now that you've promoted propaganda, have you lost all credibility? I think so.
9/10/2013 9:35 AM
And, since I didn't read your propaganda site, what exactly is *your* argument against radiometric dating?
9/10/2013 10:36 AM
badluck your the idiot who keeps this **** going bc I am sure bis would just stop if you weren't always droning on with your annoying BS. no one else gives a flying **** waht you or bis think the age of the earth is, moron.
9/10/2013 11:37 AM
So now that you've promoted propaganda, have you lost all credibility? I think so.

I'm not promoting propaganda. I'm using facts to back up what I'm saying.

There is a huge difference, but you've demonstrated on multiple occasions that you have no idea how to tell what that difference is, and I'm tired of trying to educate you on it.
And, since I didn't read your propaganda site, what exactly is *your* argument against radiometric dating?
As I already said earlier:

As for radiocarbon dating, it relies upon several assumptions and can therefore be accurate but lead us to incorrect conclusions.

I backed up that statement with facts as detailed on the website I linked to, which is so much to your chagrin that you claim you won't even read it. Too bad it proves you wrong whether you read it or not.




9/10/2013 11:44 AM
What assumptions, exactly?
9/10/2013 11:47 AM
It's all detailed on the website.

You want to play games and refuse to read the information, that's your problem, not mine.
9/10/2013 11:55 AM
I'll take that as a concession that you don't understand your own link. I'm not going to bother reading it if you won't.
9/10/2013 11:58 AM
Hey look, this website refutes every argument from your link. So consider your stance ridiculous and defeated.

Easy peasy lemon squeezy
9/10/2013 11:59 AM
I have read my own link, and I understand it perfectly well. I'm just not going to rewrite it here for you because you won't read it where it is. I'm not playing your games.

You've been proven wrong unless you can come up with an effective counter argument. I don't think you could do that even if you read the information on the site, and without it you are hopeless, so just admit as much and move on.

But you won't do that. You are refusing to read the website because you know you have lost and just don't want to admit it. Same ole, same ole for you.

9/10/2013 12:02 PM
Hey look, this website refutes every argument from your link. So consider your stance ridiculous and defeated.

LOL that website doesn't refute anything said on the site I linked.

Plus, leave it to you to use a link from perhaps the biggest single source of propaganda on the internet, once again showing how you fail to grasp the difference between facts and the purported "facts" of those with an agenda.

I'm bored with you now, BL. Maybe if I get bored with other things later I'll come back and see if you've got anything new to say. I doubt it. More denial and more refusal to admit when you're wrong is all you'll ever say, I'm sure.
9/10/2013 12:04 PM
Posted by bistiza on 9/10/2013 11:59:00 AM (view original):
I have read my own link, and I understand it perfectly well. I'm just not going to rewrite it here for you because you won't read it where it is. I'm not playing your games.

You've been proven wrong unless you can come up with an effective counter argument. I don't think you could do that even if you read the information on the site, and without it you are hopeless, so just admit as much and move on.

But you won't do that. You are refusing to read the website because you know you have lost and just don't want to admit it. Same ole, same ole for you.

Nice try. Linking someone else's website isn't an argument. It's just saying, "hey look, internet."
of 358

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

Popular on WhatIfSports site: Baseball Simulation | College Basketball Game | College Football Game | Online Baseball Game | Hockey Simulation | NFL Picks | College Football Picks | Sports Games

© 1999-2014 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.