Re: [MMouse]: Re: Digest modestmouse.v001.n588
The problem i was refering to was that i had heard the first time they tested it, somethig was done wrong and showed that it was no where near the time of christ's death, but recently the retested it and found that it fell alot closer to his era. Of course i might have that mixed up! -- Dustin "keep your lamp light trimmed and burning" -- >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: Re: [MMouse]: Re: Digest modestmouse.v001.n588 >Date: Thu, Dec 2, 1999, 10:55 AM > > > Yeah, if I remember correctly, there were some "authenticity issues." I don't > know if it was due to carbon dating, but I do remember church officials > balking at the idea of letting scientists get their mitts all over it. Good > question. > > > > On Wed, 1 Dec 1999, Dustin Summers wrote: > >> wasnt there some problem or screw up when they first ran carbon dating tests >> on the shroud(sp?) of turin i forget i heard or saw something about this >> somewhere. >> >> dustin >> >> ------ >> >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> >Subject: Re: [MMouse]: Re: Digest modestmouse.v001.n588 >> >Date: Wed, Dec 1, 1999, 5:18 PM >> > >> >> > >> > Not that I even want to indulge in this debate while I have essay coming due >> > left & right, but: >> > >> > The funny thing about carbon dating has always been its assumption: That the >> > forces of nature present now have always been the same. It is basing itself >> > on present conditions to explain the past, which isn't (hasn't?) been exactly >> > uniform throught out it's "4+ billion" to "2000 years" (depending on who you >> > ask, I guess!) of existence. >> > >> > >> >> K well, unless you have the scientific prowess to completely disprove carbon >> >> dating, which is something rediculous like 97.9% correct then maybe you have >> >> yourself an arguement. However, considering the oldest Primate/human they >> >> have found to date has been dated past 40,000 years I think there might be >> >> some problems with your theory. Do me a favor, take a few Geology Courses >> >> and then tell me what ya think. Im not sayin youre wrong, well, yes I am, >> >> but regardless, seriously, don't you think the smartest people in the world >> >> would know a little bit more about the Halflife of Carbon molecules then say >> >> you or I? For Christs sake, we actually had to perform carbon dating in my >> >> Geology class, thus making it a bit more of a theory than a hypothesis. >> >> Dont believe everything that you read. >> >> Jonathan >> >> >> > >> > >> > >
RE: [MMouse]: Re: Digest modestmouse.v001.n588
It wasn't that there was a screw up..but if you take a look at the equation for carbon dating..being off by something as tiny even as say.. .001 in your measurements could have a significant effect(100 years..or so..) on the date of an object..carbon dating works to give you a date within about 10,000 years..and that they tried it on the shroud of turin just strikes me as retarted.. Mark http://dugmartsch.tripod.com And your mom would stick a fork right into daddy's shoulder, and dad would throw the garbage all across the floor, as we would lay and learn what each other's bodies were for. And your mom would drink until she was no longer speaking, and dad would dream of all the different ways to die, each one a little more than he could dare to try. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Dustin Summers Sent: Wednesday, December 01, 1999 10:24 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [MMouse]: Re: Digest modestmouse.v001.n588 wasnt there some problem or screw up when they first ran carbon dating tests on the shroud(sp?) of turin i forget i heard or saw something about this somewhere. dustin -- >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: Re: [MMouse]: Re: Digest modestmouse.v001.n588 >Date: Wed, Dec 1, 1999, 5:18 PM > > > Not that I even want to indulge in this debate while I have essay coming due > left & right, but: > > The funny thing about carbon dating has always been its assumption: That the > forces of nature present now have always been the same. It is basing itself > on present conditions to explain the past, which isn't (hasn't?) been exactly > uniform throught out it's "4+ billion" to "2000 years" (depending on who you > ask, I guess!) of existence. > > >> K well, unless you have the scientific prowess to completely disprove carbon >> dating, which is something rediculous like 97.9% correct then maybe you have >> yourself an arguement. However, considering the oldest Primate/human they >> have found to date has been dated past 40,000 years I think there might be >> some problems with your theory. Do me a favor, take a few Geology Courses >> and then tell me what ya think. Im not sayin youre wrong, well, yes I am, >> but regardless, seriously, don't you think the smartest people in the world >> would know a little bit more about the Halflife of Carbon molecules then say >> you or I? For Christs sake, we actually had to perform carbon dating in my >> Geology class, thus making it a bit more of a theory than a hypothesis. >> Dont believe everything that you read. >> Jonathan >> > >
Re: [MMouse]: Re: Digest modestmouse.v001.n588
Yeah, if I remember correctly, there were some "authenticity issues." I don't know if it was due to carbon dating, but I do remember church officials balking at the idea of letting scientists get their mitts all over it. Good question. On Wed, 1 Dec 1999, Dustin Summers wrote: > wasnt there some problem or screw up when they first ran carbon dating tests > on the shroud(sp?) of turin i forget i heard or saw something about this > somewhere. > > dustin > > -- > >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >Subject: Re: [MMouse]: Re: Digest modestmouse.v001.n588 > >Date: Wed, Dec 1, 1999, 5:18 PM > > > > > > > Not that I even want to indulge in this debate while I have essay coming due > > left & right, but: > > > > The funny thing about carbon dating has always been its assumption: That the > > forces of nature present now have always been the same. It is basing itself > > on present conditions to explain the past, which isn't (hasn't?) been exactly > > uniform throught out it's "4+ billion" to "2000 years" (depending on who you > > ask, I guess!) of existence. > > > > > >> K well, unless you have the scientific prowess to completely disprove carbon > >> dating, which is something rediculous like 97.9% correct then maybe you have > >> yourself an arguement. However, considering the oldest Primate/human they > >> have found to date has been dated past 40,000 years I think there might be > >> some problems with your theory. Do me a favor, take a few Geology Courses > >> and then tell me what ya think. Im not sayin youre wrong, well, yes I am, > >> but regardless, seriously, don't you think the smartest people in the world > >> would know a little bit more about the Halflife of Carbon molecules then say > >> you or I? For Christs sake, we actually had to perform carbon dating in my > >> Geology class, thus making it a bit more of a theory than a hypothesis. > >> Dont believe everything that you read. > >> Jonathan > >> > > > > >
Re: [MMouse]: Re: Digest modestmouse.v001.n588
In a message dated 12/1/99 11:00:11 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: << wasnt there some problem or screw up when they first ran carbon dating tests on the shroud(sp?) of turin i forget i heard or saw something about this somewhere. dustin >> Supposedly its a fake -M
Re: [MMouse]: Re: Digest modestmouse.v001.n588
wasnt there some problem or screw up when they first ran carbon dating tests on the shroud(sp?) of turin i forget i heard or saw something about this somewhere. dustin -- >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: Re: [MMouse]: Re: Digest modestmouse.v001.n588 >Date: Wed, Dec 1, 1999, 5:18 PM > > > Not that I even want to indulge in this debate while I have essay coming due > left & right, but: > > The funny thing about carbon dating has always been its assumption: That the > forces of nature present now have always been the same. It is basing itself > on present conditions to explain the past, which isn't (hasn't?) been exactly > uniform throught out it's "4+ billion" to "2000 years" (depending on who you > ask, I guess!) of existence. > > >> K well, unless you have the scientific prowess to completely disprove carbon >> dating, which is something rediculous like 97.9% correct then maybe you have >> yourself an arguement. However, considering the oldest Primate/human they >> have found to date has been dated past 40,000 years I think there might be >> some problems with your theory. Do me a favor, take a few Geology Courses >> and then tell me what ya think. Im not sayin youre wrong, well, yes I am, >> but regardless, seriously, don't you think the smartest people in the world >> would know a little bit more about the Halflife of Carbon molecules then say >> you or I? For Christs sake, we actually had to perform carbon dating in my >> Geology class, thus making it a bit more of a theory than a hypothesis. >> Dont believe everything that you read. >> Jonathan >> > >
Re: [MMouse]: Re: Digest modestmouse.v001.n588
Not that I even want to indulge in this debate while I have essay coming due left & right, but: The funny thing about carbon dating has always been its assumption: That the forces of nature present now have always been the same. It is basing itself on present conditions to explain the past, which isn't (hasn't?) been exactly uniform throught out it's "4+ billion" to "2000 years" (depending on who you ask, I guess!) of existence. > K well, unless you have the scientific prowess to completely disprove carbon > dating, which is something rediculous like 97.9% correct then maybe you have > yourself an arguement. However, considering the oldest Primate/human they > have found to date has been dated past 40,000 years I think there might be > some problems with your theory. Do me a favor, take a few Geology Courses > and then tell me what ya think. Im not sayin youre wrong, well, yes I am, > but regardless, seriously, don't you think the smartest people in the world > would know a little bit more about the Halflife of Carbon molecules then say > you or I? For Christs sake, we actually had to perform carbon dating in my > Geology class, thus making it a bit more of a theory than a hypothesis. > Dont believe everything that you read. > Jonathan >
[MMouse]: Re: Digest modestmouse.v001.n588
In a message dated 12/1/99 3:13:16 AM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: << hey am i out of the loop about this or what? but i just saw a compilation at the store of cool bands covering heavy metal songs..like the get up kids do a motley crue song and reggie and the full effect are on it too..anyway the last songs says its modest mouse featuring some other guy and they do south of heavenwell anyway i didnt have any money so i couldnt buy it but i hope to soon. has anyone else heard it? andrew >> i think its called i love metal. i remember getting a postcard about it or something. the graphics were really ugly if i remember correctly. but i can't find the card so i dont remember exactly who modest mouse were doing it with... i'm so little help. :sara:
[MMouse]: Re: Digest modestmouse.v001.n588
In a message dated 12/1/99 3:13:16 AM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: << hmm. i am a christian. i believe the bible. i also believe in the creation theory. i believe the world is probably around 10,000 years old. it can't be undoubtedly proven that it is older, just like it can't be undoubtedly proven that the evolution theory is correct, just like it can't be undoubtedly proven that the creation theory is correct. ben, i know you're dying. johnny. >> K well, unless you have the scientific prowess to completely disprove carbon dating, which is something rediculous like 97.9% correct then maybe you have yourself an arguement. However, considering the oldest Primate/human they have found to date has been dated past 40,000 years I think there might be some problems with your theory. Do me a favor, take a few Geology Courses and then tell me what ya think. Im not sayin youre wrong, well, yes I am, but regardless, seriously, don't you think the smartest people in the world would know a little bit more about the Halflife of Carbon molecules then say you or I? For Christs sake, we actually had to perform carbon dating in my Geology class, thus making it a bit more of a theory than a hypothesis. Dont believe everything that you read. Jonathan
