Pudd Needs A Crash Course

[blackpudd1n]

I had a conversation with a fundy yesterday that caught me off-guard (mainly because I didn't realise I was talking to a fundy at first). The gist of the conversation is here: http://www.ex-christian.net/topic/50875-blame-it-on-mother-teresa/page__fromsearch__1

 

Now, for starters, I don't like being caught off-guard. But what has really been niggling away at me all night has been the fact that I'm still learning a lot about science, so I didn't have very strong reasons for why I reject christianity. In the past, on this forum, I have been of the opinion that it's not worth the time and effort to get into these conversations with christians. However, after yesterdays experience, when I decided to not just be complacent and as such told this woman that I was proud to be an ex-christian atheist, I have come to the decision overall that whenever someone starts telling me their testimony, or proselytising to me, I am going to give them my extimony and all the reasons I don't believe back.

 

Perhaps I am rather contrary by nature. But I object to having someone try to fill my head with bullshit. On a more personal note, I object to not knowing enough about science for a christian to feel victorious in a discussion on creationism.

 

So help me out here, guys and girls. Let's start with some of the arguments christians use against science, and please bring up any other common ones and thrash them out. Pudd needs to be educated, fast.

 

These are the ones she raised yesterday, that I'd like to start with:

 

-Carbon dating

-The water for the flood coming from the atmosphere (and there being no rain prior to the flood)

 

And please, keep in mind that I'm new to all of this science stuff, so I think a variation of the KISS principle would work well: Keep It Simple (because I'm) Stupid.

[Guest Valk0010]

The bit about rain is a presupposes that god is handling affairs. Carbon dating only iirc works till you get to things older then 50000 years old.

[BrotherJosh]

-Carbon dating

 

What about it? That it's not accurate? There's also... http://en.wikipedia....iometric_dating

 

-The water for the flood coming from the atmosphere (and there being no rain prior to the flood)

 

That's erroneous and not factual, at all. Rain is a natural process and is part of the water cycle. A quick response to those who believe in a literal flood is, why are there freshwater fish? Think about it. I keep a number of aquariums in my house. They can't survive in salt water. Nor, can any salt water fish survive in freshwater. Yet, the entire Earth was flooded with some type of water. Also, the amount of water to cover the entire Earth would throw it off balance. So there's that. Also, given the proliferation of species, in order to believe in a literal world wide flood, most YEC'ers *have* to accept some weird form of hyper evolution to account for the diversity of life on this planet.

 

Also, Noah and his worldwide flood is a stolen concept from Gilgamesh. Of which, there are numerous Babylonian versions of. Hey wait...didn't the early Israelites spend some time in Babylon? Hmmm...

[blackpudd1n]

Also, given the proliferation of species, in order to believe in a literal world wide flood, most YEC'ers *have* to accept some weird form of hyper evolution to account for the diversity of life on this planet.

 

I'm about to read the carbon-dating thing, and will respond to it in a minute, but I just wanted to ask how you would respond when a fundy raised the argument of the Tower of Babel. It was an argument I used to use all the time as a fundy for the difference in language and skin colour and culture.

[blackpudd1n]

-Carbon dating

 

What about it? That it's not accurate? There's also... http://en.wikipedia....iometric_datin

 

Why do they say carbon dating is not accurate? What is carbon dating actually used for? As opposed to radiometric dating? Which one is better, or are they just used for different things?

[marmot]

I can educate you a bit on the actual science, but I don't really know many of the arguments that creationists have against science. It has not been worth my time to try to keep up with their inane ideas so I generally have not tried to follow them.

 

Radiometric Dating:

 

We use carbon-14 dating for young, organic fossils. We can't use it for anything older than about 50K-60K years. The basic premise is that there are several different kinds of carbon out there in the universe, ¹²C, ¹³C and ¹⁴C. These numbers stand for the atomic mass (# of protons+neutrons).

 

The only real difference between these three types is their stability -- ¹²C and ¹³C are stable, and ¹⁴C is unstable (which means it "radioactively decays", or breaks down). Other than that, they all function in the same way. About 99% of all carbon on Earth is ¹²C, 1% is ¹³C and just trace amounts of ¹⁴C are found on Earth.

 

¹⁴C is being constantly produced in the upper atmosphere because of some reactions ultimately caused by high energy rays from the sun. It is also constantly breaking down because it is unstable. You have a relatively constant amount of ¹⁴C in your body because you eat carbon (in the form of sugar) that came from plants. These plants took carbon dioxide and turned it into sugar, and in the process they trapped a trace amount of ¹⁴C (remember, unstable, but has not yet broken down).

 

As you continue to eat plants and animals that have ¹⁴C in them, you will always have a trace amount of ¹⁴C in your flesh and bones. As soon as you die, you are no longer replenishing that level of ¹⁴C. You still have plenty of ¹²C and ¹³C which is stable and will stick around for a very long time, but the ¹⁴C in your body begins to break down at a measurable, predictable rate.

 

We call this rate half life. You can look it up, but what it means is it takes a certain amount of time for half of the radioactive material to decay. In the case of ¹⁴C, it takes 5730 years for half of the ¹⁴C in your body to break down. We can look and see how much ¹⁴C is left in a sample and figure how old it is.

 

As an elementary example, let's say that when you die you have 200 ¹⁴C atoms left in your body (unrealistic, but nice numbers for our example). In 5730 years, you would have 100 atoms remaining (200/2=100). In 11460 years (5730x2) you will have 50 ¹⁴C atoms left. If a scientist examined your remains and found you only had 25 ¹⁴C atoms remaining, s/he would estimate that you were 17190 years old (5730x3).

 

Because there are only trace amounts of ¹⁴C in your body when you die, we can only do this kind of math until we get to about 60K years, and then it is not practical anymore. This means carbon dating is only reliable for dating remains of organic (carbon based) remains that are relatively recent, albeit older than young earth creationists imagine the world is.

 

We use similar methods for dating rocks (uranium isotopes, because they have a much longer half life of 704 million years). An analogy would be to say that you use a ruler to measure things like distances on a piece of paper, and you use a tape measure to measure distances in a house. It wouldn't be practical to use one for the other purpose.

 

Let me know what questions you may have about this -- I am watching basketball right now so I am not completely focused and I am unsure of what kind of background info I should include for you. Hope this helps.

[BrotherJosh]

I'm about to read the carbon-dating thing, and will respond to it in a minute, but I just wanted to ask how you would respond when a fundy raised the argument of the Tower of Babel. It was an argument I used to use all the time as a fundy for the difference in language and skin colour and culture.

 

What Tower of Babel argument? That all of humanity, at one point, all converged to build a giant tower to reach heaven? Sounds mythological, first and foremost. There is a similar myth in Sumerian religions, from which Judaism is derived, hence the continuation of the myth. Language evolved over time, with our social requirements, to meet more and more complicated challenges.

[BrotherJosh]

And Marmot responded about the dating stuff, so I won't reiterate anything there.

[blackpudd1n]

Let me know what questions you may have about this -- I am watching basketball right now so I am not completely focused and I am unsure of what kind of background info I should include for you. Hope this helps.

 

Thanks for that, Marmot.

 

So, just to recap, radiometric dating would be used going back 50-60K years ago, after which they would then use carbon dating. Do you have any idea at all, though, why they think carbon dating is wrong?

[blackpudd1n]

I'm about to read the carbon-dating thing, and will respond to it in a minute, but I just wanted to ask how you would respond when a fundy raised the argument of the Tower of Babel. It was an argument I used to use all the time as a fundy for the difference in language and skin colour and culture.

 

What Tower of Babel argument? That all of humanity, at one point, all converged to build a giant tower to reach heaven? Sounds mythological, first and foremost. There is a similar myth in Sumerian religions, from which Judaism is derived, hence the continuation of the myth. Language evolved over time, with our social requirements, to meet more and more complicated challenges.

 

No, the next part of the story, that god was so unhappy with their desire to build a tower to reach heaven, that he spread all the families of the tribes across the earth and made them unable to understand each other when they talk.

 

In the instance of such an argument in favour of creationism being the reason for diversity of people, would I look at, say, the continents splitting up?

[blackpudd1n]

And Marmot responded about the dating stuff, so I won't reiterate anything there.

 

Yeah, he posted just after I finished, so that's cool

[marmot]

Let me know what questions you may have about this -- I am watching basketball right now so I am not completely focused and I am unsure of what kind of background info I should include for you. Hope this helps.

 

Thanks for that, Marmot.

 

So, just to recap, radiometric dating would be used going back 50-60K years ago, after which they would then use carbon dating. Do you have any idea at all, though, why they think carbon dating is wrong?

 

Sorry for the confusion.

 

Radiometric dating is a larger umbrella term to refer to carbon dating and uranium dating.

 

[radio] implies that energy is being given off because a nucleus of an atom is splitting/breaking down/decaying, and [metric] implies measurement of that breakdown.

 

Carbon dating is used for young, organic remains (60K or less) and uranium is used for old, inorganic rocks (in the billions of years...Earth is 4.55 billion years old).

[blackpudd1n]

And Marmot responded about the dating stuff, so I won't reiterate anything there.

 

Yeah, he posted just after I finished, so that's cool

 

Although, if anyone has an explanation for the "carbon dating is wrong" argument, I'd like to hear it. Just out of personal curiosity. Been hearing that same line my whole life, but never an actual why they think it's wrong.

[blackpudd1n]

Let me know what questions you may have about this -- I am watching basketball right now so I am not completely focused and I am unsure of what kind of background info I should include for you. Hope this helps.

 

Thanks for that, Marmot.

 

So, just to recap, radiometric dating would be used going back 50-60K years ago, after which they would then use carbon dating. Do you have any idea at all, though, why they think carbon dating is wrong?

 

Sorry for the confusion.

 

Radiometric dating is a larger umbrella term to refer to carbon dating and uranium dating.

 

[radio] implies that energy is being given off because a nucleus of an atom is splitting/breaking down/decaying, and [metric] implies measurement of that breakdown.

 

Carbon dating is used for young, organic remains (60K or less) and uranium is used for old, inorganic rocks (in the billions of years...Earth is 4.55 billion years old).

 

Okay, so carbon for younger remains, uranium for older remains. Wouldn't that mean that they'd prefer carbon dating and not uranium? Or are they just lumping the two methods together?

[BrotherJosh]

No, the next part of the story, that god was so unhappy with their desire to build a tower to reach heaven, that he spread all the families of the tribes across the earth and made them unable to understand each other when they talk.

 

In the instance of such an argument in favour of creationism being the reason for diversity of people, would I look at, say, the continents splitting up?

 

So God was unhappy with a tower? You'd figure he would be unhappy with the space program too...Keep in mind, early religions thought, literally that heaven, or the plane of the god's, was in the sky, hence the trying to reach heaven. Which we've peered pretty far in the sky, no heaven. Tectonic and continental drift are easily used to refute any form of humanity being gathered together at once. That and geology and basic anthropology easily account for the origins of the human species.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plate_tectonics

[marmot]

Here is a favorite creationist website, Answers in Genesis, and their section on radioactive dating.

 

http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-answers#/topic/radiometric-dating

 

To be honest, I haven't read through all of their objections and I don't really want to do that because it will be a waste of time. 8 years ago I used to get into this stuff and debate with my Christian friends (I was a science loving Christian then, not yet even a liberal). The arguments sometimes sound good if you don't have any context or education in the matter (which it sounds like is the case for you, no offense intended), but it is striking that there is consensus among the experts in the field that these methods are reliable.

 

Which is more likely -- that a couple of fringe geologists that have preconceived notions about the age of the earth and in the course of their studies arrive at their preconceived notions? Or that the vast, vast majority of geologists come in with a range of preconceived notions (or lack thereof) and end up in arguably the same place as to the age of the earth, using many different methods?

 

The important thing in my opinion is that the view accepted by the scientific community should be the null hypothesis in your argument. If your friend comes up with an example you can't explain because you aren't familiar with it, that does not validate/prove her position. She doesn't have a scientific position. She doesn't have a testable theory that can explain things. We have a testable theory that can explain things, and she should have to come up with testable evidence for why her explanation is better than what virtually all geologists believe.

[blackpudd1n]

No, the next part of the story, that god was so unhappy with their desire to build a tower to reach heaven, that he spread all the families of the tribes across the earth and made them unable to understand each other when they talk.

 

In the instance of such an argument in favour of creationism being the reason for diversity of people, would I look at, say, the continents splitting up?

 

So God was unhappy with a tower? You'd figure he would be unhappy with the space program too...Keep in mind, early religions thought, literally that heaven, or the plane of the god's, was in the sky, hence the trying to reach heaven. Which we've peered pretty far in the sky, no heaven. Tectonic and continental drift are easily used to refute any form of humanity being gathered together at once. That and geology and basic anthropology easily account for the origins of the human species.

 

http://en.wikipedia....Plate_tectonics

 

Thanks Brother Josh, I'll follow up on that and brush up on those areas. Just trying to cover all bases.

[BrotherJosh]

[marmot]

Let me know what questions you may have about this -- I am watching basketball right now so I am not completely focused and I am unsure of what kind of background info I should include for you. Hope this helps.

 

Thanks for that, Marmot.

 

So, just to recap, radiometric dating would be used going back 50-60K years ago, after which they would then use carbon dating. Do you have any idea at all, though, why they think carbon dating is wrong?

 

Sorry for the confusion.

 

Radiometric dating is a larger umbrella term to refer to carbon dating and uranium dating.

 

[radio] implies that energy is being given off because a nucleus of an atom is splitting/breaking down/decaying, and [metric] implies measurement of that breakdown.

 

Carbon dating is used for young, organic remains (60K or less) and uranium is used for old, inorganic rocks (in the billions of years...Earth is 4.55 billion years old).

 

Okay, so carbon for younger remains, uranium for older remains. Wouldn't that mean that they'd prefer carbon dating and not uranium? Or are they just lumping the two methods together?

Let me know what questions you may have about this -- I am watching basketball right now so I am not completely focused and I am unsure of what kind of background info I should include for you. Hope this helps.

 

Thanks for that, Marmot.

 

So, just to recap, radiometric dating would be used going back 50-60K years ago, after which they would then use carbon dating. Do you have any idea at all, though, why they think carbon dating is wrong?

 

Sorry for the confusion.

 

Radiometric dating is a larger umbrella term to refer to carbon dating and uranium dating.

 

[radio] implies that energy is being given off because a nucleus of an atom is splitting/breaking down/decaying, and [metric] implies measurement of that breakdown.

 

Carbon dating is used for young, organic remains (60K or less) and uranium is used for old, inorganic rocks (in the billions of years...Earth is 4.55 billion years old).

 

Okay, so carbon for younger remains, uranium for older remains. Wouldn't that mean that they'd prefer carbon dating and not uranium? Or are they just lumping the two methods together?

 

Well, they don't really like either one. Both can tell us that things are older than 6,000 years old. One can tell us about the ages of things like early hominids/cave paintings/etc. and the other can tell us about much older layers of rock and ultimately the age of the earth.

 

To be honest, I really didn't run into all that many straight up 6,000 year old creationists in my day, though. I don't know all the nuances of their arguments, or what they like/don't like. I was able to convince many of my friends that the earth was old (I believed in theistic evolution for a long time) so I never really debated people over those things. I don't ask any of my colleagues at school right now because I am not supposed to believe in evolution. I don't want to even bring up the topic.

[blackpudd1n]

Here is a favorite creationist website, Answers in Genesis, and their section on radioactive dating.

 

http://www.answersin...iometric-dating

 

To be honest, I haven't read through all of their objections and I don't really want to do that because it will be a waste of time. 8 years ago I used to get into this stuff and debate with my Christian friends (I was a science loving Christian then, not yet even a liberal). The arguments sometimes sound good if you don't have any context or education in the matter (which it sounds like is the case for you, no offense intended), but it is striking that there is consensus among the experts in the field that these methods are reliable.

 

Which is more likely -- that a couple of fringe geologists that have preconceived notions about the age of the earth and in the course of their studies arrive at their preconceived notions? Or that the vast, vast majority of geologists come in with a range of preconceived notions (or lack thereof) and end up in arguably the same place as to the age of the earth, using many different methods?

 

The important thing in my opinion is that the view accepted by the scientific community should be the null hypothesis in your argument. If your friend comes up with an example you can't explain because you aren't familiar with it, that does not validate/prove her position. She doesn't have a scientific position. She doesn't have a testable theory that can explain things. We have a testable theory that can explain things, and she should have to come up with testable evidence for why her explanation is better than what virtually all geologists believe.

 

Thanks marmot, I just found a similar article that I was going to raise with you all ( http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/does-c14-disprove-the-bible ) on the same site. It annoyed the crap out of me, because while I could see some flaws in their reasoning, I got bogged down with all sciencey-sounding stuff, which is what I guess they do to everyone else to make them unable to refute them.

 

But you raised a good point about the fringes who actually believe in this shit. I know it's shit, I just wish I had a better understanding, and hadn't had science so demonised as a child. It sucks, 'cause now I have so much to catch up on.

[LivingLife]

For starters, Genesis says there was no rain and a mist or springs welling up watered everything.

 

The bible itself here contradicts itself wrt the simple water cycle. Mist rising is a state of evaporation and disparate atmospheric and surface temperatures you should find answers at a dummy level by googling these phrases

 

How evaporation works (google this)

 

What causes springs (google this)

 

Is part of the water cycle. There are no waters of the deep. There are perceptions of underground rivers but these are not hollows with virtual rivers.

 

Moistures seeps down with gravity. A well is dug displacing soil and the moisture in the soil now can accumulate as water as the moisture no longer has to displace soil

 

How wells work (google this)

 

This well water can force its way up when sinking a borehole due to pressure until it achieves equilibrium, then a pump is needed to bring it up to the surface. This is called hydrology.

 

The water cycle had to have always existed since water was around in vast quantities.

 

Your friend is right as far as all the water being in the atmosphere as that is how the flat earthers thought shit worked back then, there are illustrations of this.

 

The problem with your friend, she has no scientific acumen and to suggest stuff worked differently 6000 years ago one has to ignore all the geological evidence, see my thread challenging the YEC nonsense. I gave four examples of disparate areas of science which all refute not only a YEC but refutes this claim in Genesis regarding the water.

 

You do not even have to understand Carbon dating but there are oodles of info out there.

 

In simple terms, carbon dating is based on isotopes that have half lives. This is basic physics. Space is full of radiation and elements absorb radiation. We are made up of carbon mostly and all elements have a half life. Think of cutting an orange in half, throw away a half halve the half and continue ad infinitum. Eventually you no longer can halve anything as your knife will be thicker than what you are trying to cut.

 

When a animal dies, it stops absorbing a certain radiation. Thus is a fossil or skeleton is unearthed, measuring a certain carbon isotope in the bones (which are calcium and carbon) based on a standard of known half life, the age can be calculated. There is a cut off point to using C14 dating.

 

Likewise in rocks, there are other elements that absorb radiation and these are dated using other isotopes but the principle is the same. Hence dating dino fossils, they are not dated with C14 as they are so old that the remaining half life isotope cannot be detected/measured. The strata in which the fossil is found is dated and an approximation as far as age is determined for the fossil.

 

Spent nuclear fuels have to be sealed in lead and steel and concrete and then buried to prevent radiation escaping and harming humans. The half lives of these isotopes are thousands if not millions of years and will be many eons till that spent fuel is no longer a threat to life. It is all the same principle.

 

That is dumbed down to the very basics. Read up on it and know a bit more, my dumbed down version should be adequate to explain to scientific illiterate folk. This is HS Physics with Chemistry and if you did not learn that then there is no foundation to teach the complexity. Hell even I battle grasping the complex explanations.

 

Then you can move onto rainbows and how they are formed. It is all there on the web. Then ask why do we get rainbows from crystals and oil slicks. did god embed his promise not to flood the earth again in oil (yet to be discovered) and glass (yet to be discovered or basically silicone) or plexiglass or anything else that renders a rainbow. It is all to do with refraction and dispersion of light.

 

When you see a falls, with light right you will see rainbows but it is not raining, the why is the same as when it rains.

 

The babble comes from the ME. How many waterfalls are there in the ME. I tried searching once and got zero hits (to prove point with a fundy)

 

Physical laws cannot be altered w/o ramifications. Physical laws are fixed.

 

Once a YEC starts to grasp this basic science they then start making shit up and looking for any other possible explanation to keep the YEC claims true. They then make fools of themselves trying to refute science with a junior school science level understanding. They will find one instance where dating was wrong and it is scientists that made the corrections NOT FUCKING RETARD CREATIONISTS.

 

The idea is that if one mistake can be made, how many other mistakes, and then they put their heads up their ass again.

 

In the end they will appeal to majik or make shit up. Just know the bible better than them and hold them to that pathetic fallible standard.

[NeverAgainV]

I'm not the scientist, but I would start first by the absurdities IN the bible itself.....

I went online to get a little help....I know the verses are in there, but I have purposefully tried to forget bible verses. I'm so glad for the internet!

 

GE 1:3-5, 14-19 There was light ("night and day") before there was a sun. (Note: If there were no sun, there would be no night or day. Also, light from the newly created heavenly bodies seems to have reached the earth instantaneously though it now takes thousands or millions of years.)

GE 1:12, 16 Plants began to grow before there was sunlight.

GE 1:29 Every plant and tree which yield seed are given to us by God as good to eat. (Note: This would include poisonous plants such as hemlock, buckeye pod, nightshade, oleander.)

GE 4:15 A mark is placed on Cain as a distinctive identifying symbol when there were only three (known) persons on earth.

GE 4:17 Cain builds and populates a whole city in only two generations

IS 40:22 The earth is a circle. (Note: The earth is really a sphere, not a circle, and this verse does not imply a sphere as some believers like to infer.)

MK 11:12-14, 20-21 Jesus curses a fig tree for not bearing fruit out of season. (Note: Rather than cause the fig tree to wither and to bear fruit never again, he could have performed a miracle and made it bear fruit even out of season.)

 

I cheated & went online to get these! I do remember when Jesus talked about how a seed must "DIE" & then it will bear fruit, but does a seed die when it is planted? NO, it doesn't, it changes, but does NOT die or it would

NOT bring forth. Also, Jesus brought up how the mustard seed is the smallest of seeds, & I *think* it is not the smallest...read that somewhere, but not for sure on it.

 

Jesus cursing the fig tree is pretty insane for "god"...I mean, #1, if he was god, surely he would have known it was NOT in season for that tree to have fruit on it... #2 he gets angry because it doesn't have fruit, but it's not the trees fault...it's like blaming a blind person for bumping into something....then Jesus curses it & it dies/withers... That is NOT any god I want to worship, he seems more like an asshole to me.

Don't know if that will help.....it helped me to know some of the craziness of the bible & how it totally does NOT make any sense.

[blackpudd1n]

Well, they don't really like either one. Both can tell us that things are older than 6,000 years old. One can tell us about the ages of things like early hominids/cave paintings/etc. and the other can tell us about much older layers of rock and ultimately the age of the earth.

 

To be honest, I really didn't run into all that many straight up 6,000 year old creationists in my day, though. I don't know all the nuances of their arguments, or what they like/don't like. I was able to convince many of my friends that the earth was old (I believed in theistic evolution for a long time) so I never really debated people over those things. I don't ask any of my colleagues at school right now because I am not supposed to believe in evolution. I don't want to even bring up the topic.

 

Fair enough. Could you give me a simple explanation though for how scientists view a theory? I'm still trying to head my head around the concept, and I didn't explain the difference too well yesterday in my own words. Would I be right in thinking that a scientific theory is more like a paradigm that has withstood numerous tests?

[BrotherJosh]

Fair enough. Could you give me a simple explanation though for how scientists view a theory? I'm still trying to head my head around the concept, and I didn't explain the difference too well yesterday in my own words. Would I be right in thinking that a scientific theory is more like a paradigm that has withstood numerous tests?

 

I'm sure Marmot will respond, as well. A scientific theory is a set of principles that explain and predict phenomena. Scientists first establish a hypothesis. The hypothesis is tested and experimented with via experiments, observations, measuring etc...once a hypothesis is verified it becomes a theory. Theories are testable and falsifiable, meaning it can be refuted. Well known theories are gravity, evolution, and relativity. The "coolness" of any theory is that it can be refined. Meaning, while it may be "essentially" or basically, true it can still be refined beyond the basic observations. For example, the original Origin of the Species, as written by Darwin, while not perfect or complete, explains a great deal. Evolution has grown leaps and bounds beyond what Darwin could imagine, he would be delighted by our findings today. For example, Darwin didn't have the resource of fossils at the time he wrote his revolutionary book. Today, we have entire fields dedicated towards finding fossils, legitimate scientific fields, something he predicated, and was right about. The essentials is that it is testable and can make observations.

[NeverAgainV]

PS I know I didn't mention the carbon dating or rain/flood stuff because I am not educated on that & haven't bothered with it too much.

It was the little stuff in the bible that was ridiculous enough to convince me...but we know how christians love to argue & try to convince everyone how right they are.

 

Looks like some folks here are good on knowing about the carbon dating & flood. Good luck & I hope you can get the fundies to see how ridiculous the bible is.