FreeHovind - Why Not Trust History?

Why Not Trust History?

20 Comments - 1841 Views

Submitted By bigdog on 09/03/03

FreeHovind, bigdog, Discussions

We have seen the mistakes that radio-metric dating can make when compared to actual historical dates, and we know that columns can form with in a matter of years so why trust the geologic column and RMD? Why not trust history. The Jewish year is 5767. This goes back to the year of creation. It may not be the exact year, but it may be close. Cave writings have no date on them and are only ASSUMED to be 20,000 years or older. C-14 dating is easily contaminated so even when it gives older dates than historical records we can't really test it to make sure. So

To see stars millions of years later has been proven to be false.
http://www.icr.org/article/3472/

So why not trust history?

» Reply to Discussion Threaded Hybrid Flat 20 Replies

Isabella (WWDD)

12 hours - 1,085v

Posted 2009/03/03 - 1:11 GMT

What have the creationist scientists invented that allows them to obtain more accurate results than C-14 dating? Hmmm let me think... oh that’s right, nothing!

bigdog

4 days - 5,621v

Posted 2009/03/03 - 3:19 GMT

Don't get mad. Just accept the facts.

Isabella (WWDD)

12 hours - 1,085v

Posted 2009/03/03 - 4:22 GMT

I am accepting the facts, and your side doesn’t have any. I wouldn’t call Microsoft or Apple and say, “Hey guys, you’re making computers wrong.” The only way I could justify doing that would be if I worked at another, superior computer company. You say C-14 dating produces inaccurate results, but your so-called science produces NO results whatsoever. Inaccurate is better than nothing. What scientific method of age-determination do creationists have?

bigdog

4 days - 5,621v

Posted 2009/03/03 - 4:31 GMT

Check out ICR. They're are a lot of scientists that believe in a young earth and the Bible. Evolution is a hinderance to science. We've made progress, but we'd make more if we stopped teaching kids that we came from animals.

Isabella (WWDD)

12 hours - 1,085v

Posted 2009/03/03 - 4:35 GMT

You didn't answer my question.

bigdog

4 days - 5,621v

Posted 2009/03/03 - 4:45 GMT

Well I guess the theory of relativity. Einstien believed GOD created the world. I guess that makes him a creationist. Some believe in creation via evolution and some don't.

QUOTE; "I want to know how God CREATED the world. I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know his thoughts. The rest are just details. Albert Einstein (cite- the expanded quotable Einstein, Princeton University Press, pg. 202)"

Isabella (WWDD)

12 hours - 1,085v

Posted 2009/03/03 - 4:47 GMT

Ok what I’m asking is how creationists empirically test the age of the earth.

bigdog

4 days - 5,621v

Posted 2009/03/03 - 5:00 GMT

They observe the facts and flaws of the man made dating tecniques. Radio metric dating has too many flaws. K-Ar dating, a radio-metric dating tecnique, has dated many many lava flows (of a known historical date) to be millions of years old when they're only about 50 to 200 years old. (http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/does-radiometric-dating-prove)

So we test these experiments next to history. Which one would you trust? The experiments have to line up to the facts of history.

Isabella (WWDD)

12 hours - 1,085v

Posted 2009/03/03 - 5:04 GMT

So you really don’t test things empirically at all, you just point out all the flaws of those who do. That’s not science. History could be science, but you would need several sources to verify the events. And you don’t have several sources, you have one source: the bible. One book does not count as history.

thebiblewascompiledin325AD

5 days - 8,032v

Posted 2009/03/03 - 8:26 GMT

they were never dating the lava....you have been misled by what hovind said. they were datign a tiny fossil INSIDE the lava, not the lava itself.

(hovind's lava example)

oh and about carbon dating.

- you don't use carbon dating difinitively on marine organisms, due to the reservoir effect. (Hovind's snail example)

- dating is only accurate untill 50 000 years back.

- dating two different organism of the same type doesn't have to say that both organism are the same age. ( hovind's mammot example)

- you can't date fossilized bones, BECAUSE THERE'S NO F*$#@ING CARBON IN IT! (hovind's datign of 65 mil yea rold dino bones with carbon dating.

ok...no which other hovind examples do i have to debunk?

thebiblewascompiledin325AD

5 days - 8,032v

Posted 2009/03/03 - 8:21 GMT

HAHAHA you just shot yourself in the foot big time!

Einstien might have believed that god created the earth, but he didn't believe it was created by him directly and certainly not in 6 days 6000 years ago. so there you have it, no young earth support from einstein.

oh and btw, quit quotemining, you pulled that right out of context.

how about you read these...

Albert Einstein: Theology, Philosophy of Religion Quotations A knowledge of the existence of something we cannot penetrate, of the manifestations of the profoundest reason and the most radiant beauty - it is this knowledge and this emotion that constitute the truly religious attitude; in this sense, and in this alone, I am a deeply religious man. (Albert Einstein)

I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it. (Albert Einstein, 1954)

I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings. (Albert Einstein)

http://www.spaceandmotion.com/albert-einstein-god-religion-theology.htm

Sci Borg (doctorofscience)

3 days - 4,501v

Posted 2009/03/03 - 21:14 GMT

Well I guess the theory of relativity. Einstien believed GOD created the world. I guess that makes him a creationist.

REALLY bad example - there is no evidence that Einstein was a Young-Earth Creationist, and plenty of evidence to the contrary.

For one, Einstein frequently stated that he did not believe in a "personal" God - From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein#Religious_views:

Einstein clarified his religious views in a letter he wrote in response to those who claimed that he worshipped a Judeo-Christian god: "It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal god and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."[57

Also from the same page:

In a 1930 New York Times article,[59] Einstein distinguished three styles which are usually intermixed in actual religion. The first is motivated by fear and poor understanding of causality, and hence invents supernatural beings. The second is social and moral, motivated by desire for love and support. Einstein noted that both have an anthropomorphic concept of God. The third style, which Einstein deemed most mature, is motivated by a deep sense of awe and mystery. He said, "The individual feels ... the sublimity and marvelous order which reveal themselves in nature ... and he wants to experience the universe as a single significant whole." Einstein saw science as an antagonist of the first two styles of religion, but as a partner of the third style.

Since he's no longer alive, we'll never know for certain - but it's highly likely that he would have placed creationist beliefs under the first category (in other words, beliefs resulting from fear and a poor understanding of causality).

9tails

2 days - 3,026v

Posted 2009/03/03 - 16:13 GMT

According to history, often majorities have been proven wrong.

Majority scientists used to believe the sun revolved around the earth.

Majority scientists used to believe bigger things fell faster than smaller things.

Evolution is one of those dead beliefs that just won't go away even though it is regularly proven wrong.

History is filled with wrong beliefs and false practices that give false impressions. Sometimes they learn from history, sometimes they do not. Sometimes they accept the truth, sometimes they do not.

thebiblewascompiledin325AD

5 days - 8,032v

Posted 2009/03/03 - 20:51 GMT

w8...

"According to history, often majorities have been proven wrong.

Majority scientists used to believe the sun revolved around the earth.

Majority scientists used to believe bigger things fell faster than smaller things.

History is filled with wrong beliefs and false practices that give false impressions. Sometimes they learn from history, sometimes they do not. Sometimes they accept the truth, sometimes they do not."

you do realize that that was when the Church had a firm grip on the most of society. So.....i was Christianity that kept those old theories alive, because the new correct one's didn't agree with the Churches teachings.

i think you just selfpwned ....

Sci Borg (doctorofscience)

3 days - 4,501v

Posted 2009/03/03 - 21:40 GMT

According to history, often majorities have been proven wrong.

Majority scientists used to believe the sun revolved around the earth.

Majority scientists used to believe bigger things fell faster than smaller things.

And why did they become disabused of those notions? Because someone discovered irreconcilable flaws in those theories and/or put forth a more robust theory.

Note the contrast with evolution: the only serious opposition has come from creationists - people who have the stated agenda of pushing their religious beliefs, and who have consistently failed to provide any more robust theory ("God did it" is not even a theory, let alone a robust one).

Evolution is one of those dead beliefs that just won't go away even though it is regularly proven wrong.

Sorry, but repeating an assertion over and over again doesn't make it true.

Sci Borg (doctorofscience)

3 days - 4,501v

Posted 2009/03/03 - 20:26 GMT

Why not trust history.

An interesting question, given that even basic tenets of Christianity (such as the historicity of Jesus) are still considered debatable among historians.

Although I'm guessing by "history" that you don't mean the actual scholarly study of history - but rather a presupposition that the Bible is historicaly-accurate in its entirety.

To see stars millions of years later has been proven to be false.

Calling that claim an exageration would be an act of severe understatement. I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that you've never heard of the Hubble "deep field" images, to pick one random example of evidence to the contrary.

http://www.icr.org/article/3472/

That article could be a textbook example of "God of the gaps" reasoning - the author takes a phenomena that is not perfectly understood/explained by science, and leaps to the assumption that there is a (self-serving) supernatural explanation. And beyond that, it doesn't actually support the claim that you've made.

And what is his explanation? An ice shell surrounding the entire universe - which apparently happens to be *just* beyond the farthest stars we can observe (how convenient).

It also raises some serious red flags when the author references himself as proof of his conclusions - and can't even meet the "Neutral POV" objectivity standards of a typical Wikipedia article.

Speaking of which, here's an example of an article on the topic, which actually displays some measure of objectivity:

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

bigdog

4 days - 5,621v

Posted 2009/03/12 - 6:11 GMT

So if the sun burnt out today we wouldn't know it for millions of years?

thebiblewascompiledin325AD

5 days - 8,032v

Posted 2009/03/12 - 9:46 GMT

if that would happen we would have alread been incinerated when it went trouh its giant phase (when it runs out of hydrogen to fuse). but lets ignora that fact

we wouldnt know for a few minutes, as it takes few minutes for light to travel from the sun to us.

'but i don't see how that has anything to do with the previous posts? may you could copy-paste quote what you are responding to next time?

Kent Clark (Brothertrucker)

1 day - 1,411v

Posted 2009/03/16 - 4:44 GMT

Before you guys beat up on the church too bad it might do you well to remember that some of the founding ideals of our theory came from clergy and Charlie was a theology major. Both Einstein and Darwin had a lot more then that to say about God and creation Big Dog, If I find that reference I'LL post it.

Joe (epiclolguy)

1 day - 1,984v

Posted 2009/03/16 - 20:34 GMT

It would take 8 minutes for us to notice. It takes 8 minutes for the sun's light to reach us. In the words of simple english wiki the sun is "really really far away"

» Reply to Discussion Threaded Hybrid Flat 20 Replies