https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZhQOjNIqtpw

gosh get it together, phallus

Thermoluminescence dating

Dendrochronology

Widmanstatten patterns

Oxidizable carbon ratio dating

Ice layering

Fission track dating

@Klone Kommander Kekistan noble

<@320281143763271710> @Darth Dawkins universal morality cannot be observed in nature. Therefore all Abrahamic philosophy and religions are wrong

<:Ban:356316530859966475>

<:gas:364969474232680448>

<:DabBoi:363745494255665153>

can we get @🐧🐧 Pingu 🐧🐧 in here?

@WingALingDragon lol fag

@eltaco he has you muted

@trent thanks, I know. I was making a point. sorry it was a bit loud

he mutes people who disagree with him or anyone who can counter his arguments

calls them trolls eventually.

whenever @Darth Dawkins tries to guide the conversation to his point you just think it is some sort of points game to prove you wrong @eltaco

then you refuse to answer the question

@Zephial I know. I win every time he can't pull this shit

LOL

yes most of darth's arguments are based around the fact that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence

one of his last arguments is that science doesn't exist.

(condensed)

A creator exist the problem is the abrahamic god doesn't

yes, thank you, white sharia.

Science agrees with a creator. It doesn't agree with Abraham

I did this shit in high scvhool. you can't prove nor disprove god.

cool

the line of Abraham was rescinded as the lineage of "God's Chosen People" in the New Testament

best philospohical minds have tried

revised by God himself to anyone who accepts him

@Darth Dawkins These limits usually take the form: "Because we observe [X], which occurs at rate [Y], the universe must be at least [Z] years old". There are three standard creationist responses: First, creationists assert that current rates (Y) are different than past rates. It is possible that these rates changed — but under uniformitarianism, which is necessary for science to function, we must assume that rates did not change unless there is evidence for this change. Second, creationists appeal to the Omphalos hypothesis and argue that God deceptively created the world to appear old. This is an unfalsifiable hypothesis, and is unscientific. Third, creationists ignore the evidence and deny that [X] exists altogether or assert that belief in a Young Earth is based on faith, not science. All of these answers are critically flawed.

By studying nature you can get to know the creator. The fact is science doesn't agree with Abraham. Therefore the Bible and its teachings is wrong.