1.) Virgin humans don't give birth.

 

Ok... functional appendix or not... Why the heck do men have nipples!? Was god just being funny?

 

The atmosphere wasn't "created." What do you mean by this? A flood wouldn't make carbon dating inaccurate. It doesn't speed up or slow the radioactive decay of C14.

 

the bible's great flood.

If you melted all the world's water frozen in ice, or found anywhere else, the world's sea level would raise a mere 215 feet. So instead of everyone in the entire world dying from the mighty flood, the most that anyone would have to do is run up a hill to escape god's wraith.

the bible specifiy says the waters covered hills, and then mountains. mount ararat is 16,854 ft tall. 215 feet up it, would cover squat.

and there is no way to scientifically come up with such a huge amount of water and then have it vanish. And the only explanation done by christian scientists, is this water vapor canopy theory which would require our surface temperature to be hotter than venus.

 

Haha. Actually it is because our basis for gender is the X chromosome. The Y chromosome is merely a modification of the X chromosome. As fetuses, we are all basically female. The Y chromosome eventually kicks in and modifies the clitoris to enlarge into a *****, the ovaries into ********* and I believe the vagina into the prostate (but I could be wrong. I'll have to double check. It's been a while since I researched embryology). The nipples are a default structure. The extra X chromosome allows for greater levels of estrogen and other female hormones to stimulate mammary growth. Our Y chromosome lacks that section so we just have the structure from our one X chromosome. When we breast feed the hormones in our mother's milk stimulates our breasts to swell slightly. Thats why babies have those little fat pecs.

 

Although the theory of radiocarbon dating is interesting, there are several inherent problems with the process. The first of these problems is the fact that the original ratio of carbon and radioactive carbon is unknown. The second problem is that the possibility of contamination of the sample over time is quite high. The older the sample the higher the probability of contamination, in fact! What this means is that using carbon dating to date very old samples is really quite impractical given our current level of knowledge and technological capabilities.

While carbon dating continues to be considered by many as a viable way of obtaining authoritative dates for a wide range of artifacts and remains, there is much room for error in the process. Even the use of accelerator mass spectrometry to analyze the relative levels of carbon and radioactive carbon has resulted in flawed determinations. It is not uncommon for different laboratories to determine quite different ages for the same artifact! While some of this deviation could possibly be explained by contamination or erred methodology in the labs themselves, it is apparent that the problems with carbon dating are much more complex than that.

Very simply put, too many things are unknown to allow the carbon dating process to be as accurate as many proclaim it to be. Factors as diverse as changes in the earth’s magnetic field and changes in the amount of carbon available to organisms in times past could translate into perceivable differences in the carbon ratios in artifacts and remains from ancient times. Even changes in the atmosphere itself could impact this carbon ratio. We know that changes such as these have occurred over time. They are still occurring today in fact.

The fact that carbon and radioactive carbon are independently formed means that their ratios to one another could have changed substantially from ancient times to today. To base our knowledge on the age of the earth and its various constituents on information gleaned from a technique that depends on carbon and radioactive carbon ratios is very simply unrealistic.

http://www.essortment.com/hobbies/ca...ingac_szhq.htm

 

Whatever. When the earth decided that it should make a atmosphere, however you want to say it. If the atmosphere was different, had different concentrations of gases, that WOULD make a impact on carbon dating.

If Virgin Humans cant give birth, why can asexual sharks have a baby?

 

I found a much better suited site for this type of discussion...
http://www.iidb.org/vbb/index.php
Or
http://groups.msn.com/AtheistVSGod
I think it is geared better then SL, that was created to be a Car chat site.
Hope you find what you are looking for.

 

Thats kinda not the point. This is the Off-topic cafe.

 

I guess it is all about what you are trying to accomplish. Are you trying to enlighten yourself and others, or trying to create drama and attack other people to fulfill your ego. I'm sure your Mom taught you to play nice with others so I'm sure it's not the second.

Just trying to be helpful.

 

This is a way to pass the time with people who share at least one of our commmon interests. I have made many friends and have noted on many occasions that I have no desire to enlighten anybody as I myself know very little.

Seriously... give it up.

 

the ego one.

 

That is why I provided the links above. I thought you would find more people with your "commmon Interests"

 

Sadly, I'm sure that's true for some.

 

Anyways... As I mentioned earlier I am not well learned on carbon dating. It seems odd that the large majority of scientists would consider something viable if it was not but it has happened before and carbon dating is, to the best of my knowledge, a relatively new science.

But as krusty mentioned can't we at the very least assume that the earth is 2,000,000 years old based on the distance of stars that are visible to us. That still means that the bible has to be "interpreted" to keep up with today's modern science.

 

We do this because most of us are bored at work (I know I am), and want something to pass the time.

How about a new debate/topic? Any ideas?

 

DUDE! You are the only one creating "drama" on this thread. Please let it go.

 

If you won a 2008 xB and $7000, how would you mod it?
or
How little would you sell the side of your scion for? You don't know what they are going to put on it. could say anything or be a pic of anything. What would be the lowest amount of cash would you take and still drive it?

 

I'm sorry I made you feel that way. At no point did I feel that I was. I apologize.

 

Thanks frosty.

I think If I one the new xb I would try to trade it for the old one. I hope nobody with the new xb posts here yet.